Well before I leave this forum I will have to disagree with you . All matter does not have chemical properties and not all things are made of atoms .
Nice strawman. Borek did not claim that all things (matter) are made from atoms or that all matter has chemical properties. In fact he clarified that in the sentence right after the one you quoted without context. Beyond that, a nuanced discussion among the well-informed would have to be preceded by placing boundaries around what we mean by "chemical properties" and "matter". But given that you are only at the point of studying the basics of chemistry, I think elementary definitions would suffice.
As with other subjects , I can see that Chemistry has also added a complete garbage to extend the subject educationally .
Don't even know what that means.
My house is made of bricks , the bricks of my house do not have a chemical reaction . House bricks don't transition like two chemicals mixing , having a reaction .
This is a perplexing line of argument.
It is true that brick houses don't spontaneously burst into flames or dissolve to nothing right before your eyes, at least on Earth. From that, you fallaciously conclude that bricks aren't subject to chemistry or don't have chemical properties? Interesting chain of logic.
How do you think the rocks and other components in those bricks were formed, or the bricks themselves? It wasn't through magic. Also, the fact that bricks appear chemically stable under the usual (Earth-based) atmospheric conditions does not mean they can't exhibit chemical changes under more extreme conditions.
Bricks are mostly composed of clays and various other metal oxides and metalloid oxides that have had the water baked out of them. Clays are predominantly aluminosilicates with traces of other elements; at the molecular scale they usually have platelike structures. We have a lot of different techniques at our disposal to measure how the atoms in clay particles are arranged, and how those arrangements affect their chemical properties. A lot of chemistry happens when wet, raw clay bricks are fired in a kiln, which causes bound and unbound water (a chemist would use terms like chemisorbed and physisorbed) to dissociate from the clay and individual clay platelets fuse together and harden. The changes are far more complex than just "water leaves", because water molecules have strong chemical interactions with the Si-O and Al-O bonds on the clay particle surfaces. This process requires a lot of energy. "Energy causing a change in molecular structure" could be a basic definition of a chemical process, and it is clearly evident here in the process of changing raw clay into a clay brick.
Anyway, the "molecules" (I use the term loosely here) that make up clays (raw or baked) are already oxidized (products of reactions with oxygen), so they are chemically stable under normal, Earthlike atmosphere - meaning that the metal/metalloid oxide structures do not easily change. Metal oxides are NOT stable in the presence of strong bases or (for example) hydrofluoric acid. I am fairly certain if you took a whole clay brick and left it submerged in a strong KOH solution, or in a strong HF solution, you would find it (very) slowly dissolves. Probably more effective if you ground the brick up first, but the point remains.
It is difficult to simply rehydrate a fired clay brick because the individual clay platelets that they are made of now have such strong CHEMICAL interactions with each other. This is one of the reasons that bricks are so stable. They do not react with oxygen and the molecules are so strongly bound to each other that water has a hard time getting back in between them. There's an important distinction here that you need to understand. Water will likely interact with the individual clay molecules in a fired clay brick. The chemical stability of a fired clay brick is not so much due to low thermodynamic/chemical reactivity. I suspect it is due to high kinetic stability caused by a diffusion bottleneck. I.e., water has to get to the clay platelets to react with/bind to them, but there are no spaces between the clay molecules any more. The clay brick is, quite literally, as hard and dense as a rock.
(To be up front about it - I am not a mineralogist, much less a clay scientist, so I am probably only scratching the surface here about the chemistry and structure of kiln-fired clays. I would certainly defer to one of them if they swung by and offered a more detailed and informed account of what's actually going on. Nevertheless, general chemical principles certainly apply as a rough guide.)
It is worth noting that, before it is fired and its individual clay molecules get squished together by the mass exodus of bound water, clay actually exhibits a rich chemistry. The surfaces of clay particles can be modified with organic substances that allow precise control over their interlayer spacings. You can also swap out metal ions in the clay (using, you got it, chemicals) to give the clays different properties. You can incorporate clays into organic polymers and other materials to form composites that are more than the sum of their parts. You can bind enzymes and nanoparticles and organic surfactants to them. They can be made into catalysts. I know a lot of this first hand, having done some of this clay manipulation and analysis in my lab.
Clay bricks have no chemistry? An ignorant statement. Clay was turned into bricks using chemistry. Clay bricks can be destroyed using (dangerous) chemistry. The properties of pre-fired clays can be manipulated with chemistry. There is even a whole
scientific journal dedicated to the rich chemistry of clays.
Sorry my awkward question make you feel inadequate to answer .
Your "awkward questions" really don't make a whole lot of sense. Take this word salad in your first post: "Meaning some elements have no chemical properties ?" It belies such a poor foundation in basic chemistry concepts (and, frankly, concepts from your self-claimed area of expertise, physics) that it is hard to even know how to try to educate you. Particularly when you react with haughtiness and hostility to our good-faith attempts. Take some time to learn the terms you are using instead of just throwing out non sequiturs like
chemistry is garbage because bricks don't react with each other.
To learn you have to be willing to admit the limits of your knowledge. You came here acknowledging that you are studying "basic chemistry". Your questions are evidence that indeed you do not understand basic chemistry. Borek - a guy with decades of experience chemistry - tries to help you and you instantly turn combative. You arrogantly disagree with his well-reasoned and factually correct answers, despite having no foundation in chemistry. I don't really understand the attitude, tbh.
We can only help those who are really interested in learning.
ChemBuddy | 
Chem Reddit | 
Topic: Composition and Properties of Matter ? Physics/Chemistry (Read 667 times)