# Metallicity of Celestial Objects: Why “Metal = Non-metal”?

Metallicity of objects refers to the amount of chemical elements present in it other than Hydrogen and Helium.

Note: The other elements may or may not be actual metals in the true sense of their defintion.

But why did astronomers use such a term as metallicity? What is the history and cause behind coining such a term that may be (or rather actually is being) confused with metal-content of that celestial object ?

Is there any scientific objective or explanation to this? I do not believe it is just a random acceptance, but perhaps there is a not-so-solid motive behind doing this. If there is, what is it?

-

There is no 'history' behind it. Stellar physics is less than a 100 years old. Thus, it is not a terminology that came to be due to some anecdotal reason. This is the way it has been since the start. Why?

Because we don't care. Why, really?

Hydrogen and Helium are more important and abundant, so we need something to measure the others, which can be grouped under one name due to their low significance to us. One fine day, one fine astronomer was sitting in his balcony, drinking coffee, and he thought, "What do I call a group of elements most of which are metals?" Surprise surprise, He decided to call them metals.

I am not kidding with you, although it may have sounded like that. But that is how it is with astronomical terminologies. I am assuming you are new to the field, because this is not the only crazy thing we've done to express how much crap we give in for terms and notations and units.

-
ya. I understand you. I just hoped that imagination that an astronomer didn't just think-let me call the rest elements as metals-that randomly. I hoped there might be a good story behind it. Something happens and it leads to another and that leads to another. It always is a chain reaction. My high hopes led to this question. Anyway, thank you for your inputs. :) –  MycrofD May 23 '14 at 5:40
Actually we do give a lot of 'crap' about those other elements and metals. Even in those days when solar physics was born, there was quite some interest in the chemical composition of stars. I'd still think the naming came for rather simplifying reasons. –  AtmosphericPrisonEscape May 24 '14 at 10:34
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape Yeah, that's what I said. The naming 'came' for simplifying reasons. 'Now' we don't give a crap. –  Cheeku May 24 '14 at 11:38
@Cheeku: I wasn't hitting on that, I was hitting on the myth that we don't care about metals in astrophysics&astronomy. –  AtmosphericPrisonEscape May 24 '14 at 12:31

In 1812 Fraunhofer measured a set of absorption lines in the sun. It wasn't until later that Kirchoff and Bunsen figured out that these absorption lines matched emission features from metals they were burning in the lab. (http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Kirchhoff-Bunsen-1860.html)

In chemistry, most things in the periodic table are known as "metals"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_%28metals_and_nonmetals%29), so given the small fraction that "metals" make up of the overall star, it may not be that far off to call them metals.

Astronomy does tend to keep historical conventions around (see magnitudes), but using the name metallicity does have some use. In many cases objects, like stars, can be classified into "metal rich" or "metal poor" to describe differing behavior; the specific elemental abundances aren't necessarily important for some of these studies. Using a blanket name like "metals" makes categorization much simpler.

-