0

I am designing a game for students which has a sandbox for atoms to create molecules like building blocks. I have the valance of each atom mapped and they can bond with other atoms based on their valency. My question is, is it possible for an atom to bond with another atom just because they can technically form an ionic or covalent bond? Researching about this matter made me believe energy levels contribute to forming of molecules in a reaction but taking out temperature, pressure and energy from the equation, is it valid to say an atom can bond with another if there are free valence electrons?

If you would like to try out the game (this is not an advertisement, the app is still in testing) check ChemistryCat on Google Play Store.

Abishek Stephen
  • 139
  • 1
  • 8
    Well, if you don’t care about whether the resulting compound is stable or not, then yes, everything can bond with everything. – orthocresol Nov 30 '21 at 14:03
  • @orthocresol thank you for the reply. I see the question is downvoted a lot. I guess I cannot ask a question without someone downvoting it. Defiles the purpose of this platform I guess. – Abishek Stephen Nov 30 '21 at 15:02
  • 4
    Well, the real question is do you care whether the molecules you make by this method are realistic or not? Making molecules by randomly connecting atoms together according to their valencies is quite trivial. On the other hand, making molecules that stand a chance of existing in the real world is quite non-trivial. Learning what's realistic and what isn't realistic is why people study chemistry for years. If you don't care (as in if that's not the aim of your game), then you can do whatever you want. – orthocresol Nov 30 '21 at 15:05
  • The main motive is to make chemistry interesting. Of course there will not be molecules in existence that could be created by simulation. My real question is in reality, atoms do not combine with other atoms just because there is an electron to bond with. But is it possible for such atoms to bond in different physical conditions such as temperature or pressure? I mean there is no known upper limit to temperature right? – Abishek Stephen Nov 30 '21 at 15:20
  • 6
    As I mentioned, everything can bond with everything. The real question is not whether atoms can bond or not; the question is whether the resulting compound is stable or not. Stability is most certainly affected by temperature. However, I would not consider an "upper bound" of temperature to be useful, because stability usually decreases with temperature. Going into any more detail as to what is stable and what isn't would be way too long, I'm afraid. That would basically be explaining the entirety of chemistry as a science. – orthocresol Nov 30 '21 at 15:29
  • The key word is stability. I understood your gist with that word. Thank you very much. As for the temperature, you are right. I was just making a suggestion like there is a possibility so it might occur in some condition we don't know yet. Like I heard about scientists creating metallic hydrogen so it got me interested in molecules we don't know yet that only exist in such conditions. – Abishek Stephen Nov 30 '21 at 16:19
  • In simplified chemistry (high school level or general public knowledge) temperature limits would usually be from 123K to 3000K, exclude the cryogenic and super heated. Above 3000K there is a lot that can happen, but if you don't include pressures you're going to start dealing with plasmas and those lack the valence electrons you are using. Actual max temperatures that we can describe is the Planck temperature at 1.417×10^32 K. – David S Nov 30 '21 at 18:46
  • Rare gases can make molecules with a lot of atoms, but not with all the $91$ other atoms of the periodic table. – Maurice Nov 30 '21 at 19:48
  • 2
    Valence is not always a good criteria to decide whether a compound is possible. For example, iron and carbon make a compound $\ce{Fe3C}$ which is impossible to reprenset with the possible valencies of these atoms. The same is valid for alloys. – Maurice Nov 30 '21 at 19:55
  • @Maurice you are correct. I would like to focus on feasible and simple molecules like H2O, NaCl, etc. Alloys, polymers, lattice structure would get more complicated but will take time to implement. Most of the complex molecules cannot be expressed in two dimensions. – Abishek Stephen Dec 01 '21 at 08:56
  • Good intent and probably a fun game that has nothing to do with the reality. On the screenshot from the Google Play only ammonia and benzene look OKish. Either the geometry is flawed (water, acetic acid), or connectivity is wrong (triangular ozone), or the compounds that are not molecular in nature at all (ionic solids) are depicted as molecules. – andselisk Dec 01 '21 at 09:02
  • 2
    Since you are using real elements, this actually makes the game counter-educational as it simply teaches wrong things. Other games such as SpaceChem also do this, and it's evil from a chemistry teacher's perspective. Knocking out of the head the colorful nonsense that kids saw on their screens takes time. I suggest to either go full Imaginationland with simplified made-up chemical elements and rules for a dopamine kick for toddlers, or invest some time (or a lot, in fact) in studying simulation of bonding and molecular structures used in real life. – andselisk Dec 01 '21 at 09:08
  • @andselisk thank you for the feedback. I must say a few things. I have mentioned that atoms do not look like this irl in the app itself. You can assume that this is an "abstract" representation of an atom or something. Secondly, the game area has only 2 dimensional fidelity and so it throws out "realistic" molecular structure out the window (not intended to show real molecules anyway). You can use this app as a visual motivator for students and others wanting to know what atoms are. I think the app at this state provides a way for such idea. – Abishek Stephen Dec 01 '21 at 14:00
  • @andselisk the molecules in the screenshot are created by me (you can create whatever structure you want, the app only marks "recognized" molecules. So of course it requires a bit of chemistry knowledge to play with. For toddlers it will be just a ping pong colorful circles game. – Abishek Stephen Dec 01 '21 at 14:01
  • 1
    Valence in itself is a terribly simplified and often useless concept. You might have gotten that many downvotes for this question because it tries to take out the chemistry out of what you claim is educational. I absolutely agree with @andselisk, this will teach wrong things and if your intention really is to get students interested in chemistry, this is the completely wrong approach. Visual stimulators might be nice, but there is nothing gained when what they stimulate is wrong. – Martin - マーチン Dec 11 '21 at 00:47
  • I am thinking if one could simplify the task and make an educational game. I am afraid that one would be required to know chemistry before playing even if the above could be accomplished. – Alchimista Dec 12 '21 at 13:16

0 Answers0