gay

It's orbitals and valence electrons, I ain't gotta explain shit.

>>16963296
>>16963308
>if we just define metals using this very specific and arbitrary set of criteria you can see that 2 metals don’t make a new metal in this single exceptional case

To be fair, it is the biggest electron whore mixed with the biggest electron prude.

>>16963356
>using the rigorous definition is actually arbitrary, you should rely on ill-defined "know it when i see it" concepts.

>>16963356
>and arbitrary
tell me why you think it's arbitrary, anon.

>>16963356
Just because you were too stupid for the quantum chemistry course doesn't mean the LCAO isn't a valid explanation

>>16963305
there's literally nothing gay about two hard Ms rubbing together and melting down to form a juicy mixture

>>16963296
It's just a thing to do with the orbitals involved in the reaction and how the electrons are shared, it can be coaxed into occurring with a bunch of the rest of the transition series as well:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8688059/
The reason caesium and gold do it so easily is because gold's d orbitals and caesium's s orbital are "soft" Lewis acids/bases, but the alkali metals get "harder" as they get smaller, so it occurs less easily.