How Does Inorganic Chemistry Explain Chemical Phenomena?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ashu2912
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chemistry Works
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of theories in inorganic chemistry and their role in explaining chemical phenomena, particularly regarding bonding and the synthesis of new compounds. Participants explore whether theories are primarily designed to explain existing observations or if they also facilitate the prediction of new compounds based on theoretical frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether theories in inorganic chemistry are solely for explaining existing chemical phenomena or if they also allow for the creation of new compounds based on theoretical possibilities.
  • Another participant asserts that the usual scientific approach is to develop theories that explain known phenomena and then test their predictive power for new observations.
  • A participant suggests that the inquiry should focus on understanding why certain phenomena occur rather than why they do not, implying a distinction in the approach to theory development.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the clarity of the initial question, indicating that it may be repetitive or ambiguous.
  • It is proposed that not all theories are exclusively aimed at explaining phenomena, and some may indeed suggest the potential for creating new compounds from existing elements.
  • A participant emphasizes that both occurrences and non-occurrences of reactions are phenomena that should be explained by a robust theory, citing examples of sodium and gold in water to illustrate this point.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the purpose of theories in inorganic chemistry, with some arguing for a focus on existing phenomena and others suggesting a broader role that includes prediction and synthesis. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the primary intent behind the formulation of these theories.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the clarity of the initial question and the definitions of phenomena may not be fully articulated, leading to potential misunderstandings among participants.

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

Physics of a chemical reaction: looking for textbook recs
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Most dangerous chemicals?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
What are some helpful resources for understanding inorganic chemistry concepts?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Courses How much maths in my chemistry course?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Chemically regenerating my auto's catalytic converter?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
Chemistry Introductory textbook on Chemistry
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
An easier Alternative to Clayden organic chemistry?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Quantum Workforce Elements, Toolbox for QIS Programs at Universities
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate What does gauge theory explain?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Undergrad What Are the Key Concepts and Misconceptions in Thermodynamics?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K