How Does Inorganic Chemistry Explain Chemical Phenomena?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ashu2912
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chemistry Works
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of theories in inorganic chemistry and their role in explaining chemical phenomena, such as bonding and the creation of new compounds. It highlights that while many theories are developed to explain known phenomena, they also have the potential to predict new compounds based on theoretical frameworks, provided these compounds are thermodynamically and energetically feasible. The conversation emphasizes the importance of asking why certain reactions occur or do not occur, suggesting that both outcomes are significant phenomena that theories should address. The activity series is cited as an example of a theory that effectively explains different behaviors of elements, such as sodium reacting with water while gold does not. Overall, the dialogue reflects on the dual purpose of scientific theories in both explaining existing observations and guiding the synthesis of new materials.
Ashu2912
Messages
106
Reaction score
1
How Chemistry Works?

Hey friends, I was just giving it a thought about how the science of (inorganic) chemistry works. Are all the theories formulated just in order to explain the chemical phenomena, such as bonding? Do these theories hold place for creation of new compounds based on the possible permutations satisfying the theory (that is if they are feasible thermodynamically, energetically and so on...). Or we only build theories to account for what already occurs in nature? Pls. give your opinions. Thank You!
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org


Usual way is to build a theory explaining known phenomena and then check if it can be used to predict something new. That's not just in inorganic chemistry, that's how the science works.
 


You mean to say, we should ask "Why this happens" and not "why this does not happen". Not to synthesize something new based on the theory?
 


Ashu2912 said:
Hey friends, I was just giving it a thought about how the science of (inorganic) chemistry works. Are all the theories formulated just in order to explain the chemical phenomena, such as bonding? Do these theories hold place for creation of new compounds based on the possible permutations satisfying the theory (that is if they are feasible thermodynamically, energetically and so on...). Or we only build theories to account for what already occurs in nature? Pls. give your opinions. Thank You!
Then question seems unclear. I wonder if I understand because it seems like the last question might be the same as the first.
It would probably be wrong to say all the theories are intended to explain phenomena.
I would say that some of the theories do suggest that new compounds of the same elements can be created.
It would probably be wrong to say that we ONLY build theories to account for naturally occurring phenomena.
 


Ashu2912 said:
You mean to say, we should ask "Why this happens" and not "why this does not happen". Not to synthesize something new based on the theory?

"It doesn't happen" is a phenomena just like "it happens".

I have a piece of sodium metal that fizzles when put in water, I have a piece of gold that doesn't change when put in water. Good theory should be able to explain both cases. And such theory exists and explains both cases in terms of activity series.
 

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
9K
Back
Top