Why Are These Ring Structures Considered Diastereomers?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of certain ring structures as diastereomers despite the presence of a plane of symmetry and the absence of chiral centers. Participants clarify that diastereomers can exist without chiral atoms, as geometrical isomers, such as cis-trans forms, fall under this category. The distinction between diastereomers and other isomers is emphasized, highlighting that geometrical isomers are indeed considered a subset of diastereomers. The conversation underscores the complexity of stereochemistry and the criteria for diastereomer classification. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the nuances of molecular structures.
NY152
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Please post this type of questions in HW section using the template.
Could someone explain to me why the ring structures in this photo are diastereomers? From looking at them, I see a plane of symmetry, and no chiral centers so I'm unsure how they're diastereomers without have R/S characteristics
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 1.10.51 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-03-14 at 1.10.51 PM.png
    11.2 KB · Views: 538
Physics news on Phys.org
They are cis-trans or geometrical isomers. I believe these days geometrical isomers are classified as a subset of diastereomers. Chiral atoms are not necessary for diastereoisomerism.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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 »

Similar threads

Chirality Questions - Need Answers Checked
Replies
1
Views
5K
What will be the product of this organic reaction?
Replies
28
Views
5K
A Few Organic Chem Questions (Stereochemistry)
Replies
3
Views
4K
I can't figure out why isomers change their structure...
Replies
4
Views
2K
Why are enantiomers commonly used in organic chemistry and biochemistry?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Having trouble deducing 4 organic structures (High school exam qn)
Replies
5
Views
2K
Studying Advice for success in organic chemistry ....
Replies
3
Views
1K
Chemistry Chirality: why these molecules are not chiral?
Replies
2
Views
2K
Lewis Dot Structures: Understanding Mistakes for Chemistry Tests
Replies
2
Views
3K
Rotating ring on a rough surface- but with a twist
4
Replies
151
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top