• Contramuffin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    That’s blatantly incorrect. The properties of metals is an emergent property that arises from how atoms interact with each other.

    Dense network of bonds with a lot of electrons -> higher chance of absorbing incoming light of a particular wavelength -> electron gets excited to the precise energy level of the incoming light due to the dense network of molecular orbitals -> electrons releases the exact amount of energy absorbed when it falls back to ground level -> a photon with equal wavelength to the light that was absorbed is emitted -> we observe that as something being shiny.

    There’s nothing fundamental about why metals are metallic - inorganic chemists don’t just spend their entire day looking at elements and categorizing them as metals or not. Their entire job is figuring out why metals are the way they are. If you want to debate about why quantum mechanics (which is what ultimately causes atoms to interact in a particular way) is the way it is, then sure, we don’t know that yet. But then you’d be talking about an entirely different topic than the one that was asked

    • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I think either you’re misunderstanding me or you have a different philosophy about the kinds of questions science can answer than I do - which is fine, that’s my whole point.

      You tried here to provide a kind of explanation, but I personally don’t see that as an answer to “why”. I mean you say it is because of a dense network of bonds with a lot of electrons. But I could just ask “okay, but why is there this dense network of bonds?”.

      Then you could give me some additional “explanation” and I could again just ask “okay, but why is it like that?”. And I could keep asking why.

      My point is that any explanation you give ultimately will boil down to something you observed to just be like that. At some point I’ll ask “okay but why” and you’ll have to just say “it just is like that” - science cannot give you an answer for “why” something is.

      This isn’t a matter of just studying the laws of physics further. Even if you studied something more and got another explanation to something more fundamental, I could just ask “okay but why is it like that?” again.

      Again, you may disagree that science can’t answer “why” - but that kinda just proves my point that the answer depends on your philosophy and conceptions around what science can and cannot answer.

      • Contramuffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I address this in the last sentence of my previous post.

        To reiterate, your argument does not matter because if you keep asking why, you are no longer answering the question that is being asked, but an entirely different question altogether. You can answer why there are so many metals. We might not figure out why the laws of physics are the way they are, but if you’ve gotten to that point where you’re trying to answer that question, then you’ve deviated so far from the original question that you weren’t even trying to respond to it to begin with.

        • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          You can answer why there are so many metals.

          Well, again, I don’t agree that you can. I wouldn’t call that an answer to “why”. That’s okay, we can disagree. That doesn’t make my original answer wrong - just a different perspective.

          • Icalasari@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            You can answer why there are so many metals though. You’re conflating a different question

            It’s like saying we can’t answer why something is flammable. Yes we can, you need a FAIR few more why’s to get to the philosophy part