Are these cis/trans isomers? Why or why

Thread starter Westlund2
Start date Sep 30, 2010
Tags

Isomers

AI Thread Summary

Cis/trans isomers are determined by the spatial arrangement of substituents around a double bond or ring structure. For a molecule to be classified as a cis/trans isomer, it must have restricted rotation, typically due to a double bond or a cyclic structure. The discussion highlights that the presence of different substituents, such as O and OH, can influence isomer classification. The inability to change the ring structure is also a critical factor in defining these isomers. Understanding these principles is essential for accurately identifying cis/trans isomers in organic chemistry.

Sep 30, 2010

Westlund2

Are these cis/trans isomers? Why or why not?

Physics news on Phys.org

Sep 30, 2010

espen180

Let's hear your take on it first.

Sep 30, 2010

Westlund2

Yes, because the O and the OH can be switched. Because the ring structure can not be changed?

espen180 said:

Let's hear your take on it first.

Oct 1, 2010

espen180

Given two molecules, what is needed for them to be called cis/trans-isomers?

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

View full post »