Whether the term “molecule” technically includes or excludes a piece of metal is a bit more tricky. I lean towards “no” more than “yes” because there are some important differences between what we generally call a “molecule” and how we think about a glassy or a crystalline solid. But I think both positions are arguable. If we are not being pedantic, then essentially yeah.
Kind of. Metallic bonding is a bit different from covalent bonding in that the electrons are delocalized over the entire material rather than trapped between specific atoms. The atoms are still stuck to each other by overlapping electron clouds though, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Isn’t HgU also pretty toxic though?
I don’t think that’s a possible compound. My chemistry knowledge is very rusty but I can recall ever hearing about a chemical bond between two metals.
Edit: I’m happy to have been corrected.
https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.L060412
Let it never be said that I don’t back up my silly Internet comments with sufficient research.
Fascinating.
That’s what alloys are. Brass, bronze, pewter, etc. Alloys containing mercury get the special name “amalgam”, for some reason.
Does that mean that a piece of metal is essentially one giant molecule?
Essentially, yes.
Whether the term “molecule” technically includes or excludes a piece of metal is a bit more tricky. I lean towards “no” more than “yes” because there are some important differences between what we generally call a “molecule” and how we think about a glassy or a crystalline solid. But I think both positions are arguable. If we are not being pedantic, then essentially yeah.
Kind of. Metallic bonding is a bit different from covalent bonding in that the electrons are delocalized over the entire material rather than trapped between specific atoms. The atoms are still stuck to each other by overlapping electron clouds though, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.