Talk:Neutronium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics
Portal:Physics
 Physics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Delete, fictional, not real

Yes, please remove this entry. Please read the last post, by our supernova remnant guest. It's NOT even certain that neutrons exist in the interior of a neutron star. It is almost offensive to my doctorate, which is on, specifically, the interior of neutron stars and equation of state. This entry is degrading my science. Neutron stars should not be the work of Science Fiction novels! Check my IP if you must...

There are plenty of articles in Wikipedia on science fiction concepts, many of which have even less connection to real physics than neutronium does. The article makes the uncertainties and the non-technical usage of this term clear, IMO. Bryan 08:37, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Sure, Bryan, SF topics are great, I see your point, it needs to be in the wikipedia, but I hope you can see my original statement is still somewhat valid. To clear things up *I* think it might be better to clearly state this is an EXCLUSIVELY FICTIONAL term, reference some SF entries on 'neutronium' and then LINK IT to the already existing and sufficient FACTUAL entry on neutron stars, because this entry predominantly, though vaguely, contains factual astrophysics, whereas the fictional term, neutronium, has no basis in neutron star astrophysics whatsoever.
There are only two small lines referring to it as Science Fiction. The last line is particularly irritating, as I am not aware of any accepted astrophysical "theories" that place any limits on a "state of matter" called neutronium, let alone a "state of matter" called neutronium even existing.
I like it, neutronium, it's a cool term in itself, and I wish it could be out there for public consumption, but as the definition here stands it is inextricably linked to the term neutronium, possibly misleading and ultimately disrespectful. To utilise many areas of hard earn astrophysics knowledge in any definition *should* evoke respect of the topics, people and work within... (April 1st 2004)
The first line referring to it as science fiction is the second line of the article, and both lines in the introductory paragraph make it very clear that neutronium is not a technical term. They say this explicitly and specifically, and are the very first lines that anyone reading this article will encounter, so I really don't see how this is inadequate. I can't find the second mention of science fiction you refer to, do you perhaps mean the last paragraph in the article? If so, then it seems to me that there are clearly limits to how much pressure neutron star material can support, since the existance of black holes is widely accepted.
I also can't figure out what you find disrespectful in the current article. Inaccurate perhaps but I don't see why that would evoke such a vehement reaction. At the bottom of this talk page is a comment by someone who did a doctoral thesis on supernovas, presumably someone who's highly educated in astrophisics too, and he seemed pretty sanguine about it. I'll try rewording the last line, let me know if that helps. Bryan 08:42, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Neutron star sizes

Article says:

The mass of any neutronium body can be no more than 1.4 times the mass of the Sun

I've noticed thats the same as the Chandrasekhar limit. But the Chandrasekhar limit works on the mass of the star pre-collapse, not post-collapse (like a neutron star). Is this a conincedence, has someone got things confused, or is there something deep and meaningful going on here? -- SJK

  • To the point, I believe the original posting you were refering to is now defunct, however it is true that the Chandrasekhar limit governs electron degeneracy pressure AND many recent observational upper limits on neutron star masses are also not much higher than 1.4 solar masses, so yes, it is rather confusing, but all the more interesting at the same time. It must be noted that equation of state estimates that are stiffer can still theoretically have neutron stars well above these limits, and there is some, though currently little observational evidence to support such. (April 1st 2004)


[edit] Neutronium in science

Somebody has thing confused. Actually, I had never heard a reference to neutronium, though is true that neutron stars are supported by neutron degeneracy pressure. But the mass it can suppot is about 3 M_sun (depends on the equation of state, that is not completely certain). I'll try to review it later. AN

thanks. The reference I was working from appeared to have been babelfished at some point, it was a little hard to follow some of it. :)

I made a search and only found the term "neutronium" in a novel "The neutronium alchemist", and sci-fi related pages. The physics of the interior of the core of a neutron star is not well undertood. There is a structure, going from well known iron to unknown superdense matter at the center. Apparently the term "neutronium is used by non experts and sci-fi people to refer to all the unknown physics inside a neutron star. AN

Go to Google and make sure you enter "star" as well as "neutronium", else you get the new-age book "The Neutronium Alchemist". Also try this link from a university physics department: [1]
There's an awful lot of crap on the Web about neutronium, which is one of the main reasons I wanted an entry on it in Wikipedia. :) - BD
If you could be so kind to point me to a single peer reviewed journal reference of "neutronium", i'd be glad. Searchs in the web site of the astrophysical jounal gives 0. Search of the NASA ADS abstract service gives one: an unrefereed paper about the capabilities of a

telescope. The name of your cosmology book would also be appreciated. AN

I found lecture notes from Penn State's astronomy department [2]. I'm posting to the reputable USEnet groups to try and get some references. MMGB
It's not a peer-reviewed journal, but the book "Cosmic Wormholes" by Paul Halpern discusses neutron stars in chapter 3 and it uses that term. I also found a couple of references to it on some of John Baez's web pages, and he appears to be a researcher in the field [3]. But ultimately, why does the term need to be used in a peer-reviewed journal before it's legitimate to write an encyclopedia article about it? The word "neutronium" is very widely used, people are going to do searches for neutronium and this article is what they'll be looking for.
I'm not telling that there can not be an article about it. The term exist. The peer reviewed journal thing is to see if reputable researchers use the term, or if is it a sci-fi or fringe-science or popular simplification term. The fact that no

a single astrophysical paper refers to that term, means it is not widely used in the field.

  • As I read the UQ reference MB gave it seems to imply a neutron star can be no more massive than 2.6 M_sun.


[edit] Larry Niven

Neutronium is also used in many Of Larry Niven's earlier stories. Which is actually why I am researching it. He describes it is being mirror-like. However aren't electrons responsible for the optical properties of a material? Then wouldn't a materail w/o electrons be optically inactive and effectivelt the blackest black you eyes never set upon? -- If you have a convincing answer to this contact me @ http://pthbb.org

You're confusing science with science fiction. Neutronium is a popular term for science fiction writers, often describing an extremely strong, extremely stable form of matter. This usage really has very little to do with the scientific usage.
In actual fact, Niven always refers to neutronium in his stories as the material from pulsars and neutron stars. It's never something extremely strong, just extremely dense. Niven's stories normally have very, very good physics. In the only reference I know where he refers to it as "mirror-like", it is roughly basketball size, and orbiting a roughly earth-sized planet as a moon. It was covered by a shell of degenerate matter and a thinner shell of normal matter, and had a surface gravity of roughly 1 million g. The intense local gravity warps it into a mirror-surface sphere, but there's a thin layer of normal matter on the surface that could reflect light. -garglfluz

Agreed. Whenever Neutronium is encountered in Niven's stories, it's wrapped in a sci-fi stasis field, which, in his Known Space books, produces the mirror effect.

In "There is a Tide" the neutronium blob does not have a slaver stasis feild on it, although they *think* it does. -garglfluz

[edit] Neutronium in peer reviewed material

As someone who wrote a doctoral dissertation on supernova...

I think I've seen the term neutronium used in peer reviewed papers, but it's rare. The reason for this is that it's not known whether or not neutron stars are actually made of pure neutrons. The behavior of matter at these high densities is very poorly understood, and so its perfectly possible that the matter is in some weird form like quark soup or such. Fortunately, you can parameterize your ignorance. The only thing that matters in supernova calculations and the like is equation of state which is

pressure = function (density, temperature)

and you can place limits as to what this function can be.

It's also currently believed that neutron degeneracy limit isn't that much more than the chandesekar limit.

[edit] neutronium vs. Neutron star

I don't get it. Both the discussion and the article claim that the term "neutronium" is not used in science because it's not clear whether neutron stars really consist of neutrons. But apparently this doesn't prevent scientists from using the term "neutron star", which would be equally suspect by the same reasoning. Obviously science fiction writers need a word for the material; they can't keep writing "a gadget made of the stuff that neutron stars are made of". I guess scientists don't have as much need for such a word, since they're dealing mostly with the neutron stars themselves. I don't see any difference in misleading implications of neutron content between the two terms. Joriki 09:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: This is not to say that "neutronium" should be considered a scientific term. One might argue that it carries undue implications of the possibility of this "material" existing in "normal" conditions outside of stars, which is currently entirely fictional. My point was only that the reason for its non-scientificity cannot be that it implies neutron content. Joriki 10:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have heard it referred to as "Neutron star material" which seems to work.

[edit] Disputed: Periodic table

0 electron ← neutronium → -
-
↑
Nu
↓
He
General
Name, Symbol, Number neutronium, Nu, 0
Chemical series none
Group, Period, Block 18, 0, s
Appearance unknown
Image:.jpg
Standard atomic weight  ?  g·mol−1
Electron configuration none
Electrons per shell 0
Physical properties
Phase unknown
Miscellaneous
Selected isotopes
Main article: Isotopes of neutronium
iso NA half-life DM DE (MeV) DP
1n#  ? n# is unstable with 1 neutrons
2nx  ? nx is unstable with 2 neutrons
4n×  ? n× is unstable with 4 neutrons
?n*  ? n* is unstable with ? neutrons
#free neutron   xdineutron   ×tetraneutron   *neutron star
References

I realy dont think that the periodic table and associated elements should be shown on this page, anyoone agree?

  • According to this article and this site apparently there is an alternate periodic table of the elements, created by an Oxford prof (!) of ecology (?) featuring neutronium. That's actually what brought me to this page, because I had no idea what that word meant. I'm no expert on the topic, but to me that implies that at least some people are starting to interpret neutronium as "element zero", and this is not just a science fiction concept. --Arcadian 18:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It does appear on some periodic tables, liek the above mentioned chemical galaxy periodic table. 132.205.44.43 18:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Regardless of whether there are alternative tables in use, this article certainly shouldn't show the periodic table position of Nitrogen - that's just wrong. I'm not very familiar with how these boxes work - can the picture be removed, but the other info left in? MyNameIsClare talk 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, I think I understand the issue now. Here's what's going on (I think). Someone created all the graphics needed, and there is a template used to create the links to those images. For example, on the Oxygen Wikipedia page, there is a link to Image:O-TableImage.png. So, the format for these appears to be: use the element name, and then add "-TableImage.png". So, what's the element name for Neutronium, assuming it is an element? The infobox implies that it is "n", lowercase. However, Wikipedia always capitalizes the first character of a link. In the template linking to the table of the elements, there is a "symbol=n". But when the template combines this with the path, it ends up linking to the Nitrogen page, because the "n" becomes a "N". I still don't know what the answer is to fix the problem, but it would probably be a good start to find out what the real abbreviation for neutronium is. It can't really be a lowercase n, can it? No other element starts with a lowercase letter. --Arcadian 15:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, in the spirit of Be bold, for now I've renamed the abbreviation to "Nt", along with a disclaimer on the page that this is not an actual consensus abbrevation, but just for consistency. Now there's a missing graphic, but I feel that's better than a misleading graphic. But this is just my two cents, and if anybody has a better idea I wouldn't object. --Arcadian 15:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is a chemical element. For instance, the ratio of electron–positive barion pairs to neutrons depends on the temperature and pressure. Assuming we are talking about something physical, and not a simplified model without electons.--David R. Ingham 22:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The periodic table shows the proper place, and the valence shell of Nitrogen.
Good luck to physicists in fixing this one... this article is pretty FUBAR.
    • I've replaced Element Header with Element Header 2, it'll now show a generic periodic table.
  • I've revised the table from Nt to Nnn, as it's element 0, it's also element 000, and using IUPAC naming for trans-uranics, this gives Nilnilnilium, or Nnn. 132.205.45.110 19:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone actually use that term anywhere other than here? IMO Wikipedia:No original research would come into play on this if there are no references to back this up, I somehow doubt IUPAC had this in mind. Bryan 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a close call, but I like the Nnn solution, at least until/unless something better is provided. It is arguably not original research. It is compliant with the IUPAC standard for atoms explained Systematic element name. By analogy, the IUPAC standard for molecules explained at Systematic name can lead to names of molecules that are not currently referenced in the literature, but that does not mean that the names themselves are original research. --Arcadian 21:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I still don't like it, myself. The IUPAC system is for naming elements, but I doubt IUPAC recognizes neutronium to be an element at all. It's a little different, then, from using IUPAC molecule-naming standards to name molecules that haven't been referenced in literature. It's more like using IUPAC molecule-naming standards to name new types of footwear. Bryan 15:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am outraged at the fact that someone is trying to fit it in with the periodic table of elements, or the same table template! Where it says "Neutronium is considered element zero," is completely false, and unjustifiable. I'm wondering what crackpot or science fiction author made that up. Anyways, to be an element on the periodic table, it must have electrons orbiting the atom. Neutronium is not an atom, and has no orbiting electrons. -Mac Davis 07:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
0 - ← neutronium → H
He
↑
Nnn
↓
H
General
Name, Symbol, Number neutronium, Nnn, 0
References
  • However, neutronium appears in the Chemical Galaxy periodic table, so I think the table is appropriate. 132.205.45.110 21:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see some real journal articles or papers that mention the "Chemical Galaxy" periodic table
That's not a "Chemical Galaxy" periodic table template, though. It's a Mendeleevian periodic table, on which neutronium doesn't appear. Perhaps you could come up with a diagram depicting neutronium's place on the Chemical Galaxy chart instead? I suspect the Chemical Galaxy approach is not widely used enough that you'd be able to get consensus to add it to all the other existing element articles, so amending the template itself is unlikely to be a solution. Bryan 00:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Chemicals have chemical properties, which are created by a nucleus' orbiting electrons. Neutronium is not a chemical. Neutronium should not be on the "Chemical Galaxy" periodic table. --Mac Davis 11:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


    • Chemical Galaxy modified header: Template:Elementbox_headerCGS

[edit] neutron matter

  • Before reading much here, the science fiction story I read when I was a kid called it neutron matter.
  • I heard four of these from UCLA professor Steven Moszkowski in a seminar he gave in Jülich in the early 1970s, but I can't remember all.

The first is that the first four pulsars or neutron stars are called LGM 1–4, for "little green man". (You see, they give off regular radio signals like we do.)

He considered adding the Science fiction story I described above with "little sliver men". He was working on the stability of neutron matter. For there to be "little silver men" their would have to be a phase transition. For them to have space travel, it would have to be stable without gravity.

[edit] Condensed rewrite

I've rewritten the article into a more condensed form that attempts to take into account the comments on this page, as well as providing links to relevant articles rather than duplicating their contents. The old version of the article is preserved at Talk:Neutronium/OldPage2005Nov for comparison and in case anyone feels there is more information in it that should be salvaged for the new page.

A few more references at the bottom would be nice, too.

--Christopher Thomas 20:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] not necessary...

no deletion is necessary, But if it wants to be in the same place it was in, the title of the article should be changed. But if it wants to retain it name, then All we have to do is not to place it under the physics section. 69.22.224.249 22:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nnneologism?

Re-raising a question I raised back when element templates were being considered for this article, does anyone know if the "nilnilnilium" or "Nnn" IUPACish names are actually used anywhere except here? A Google search produces only Wikipedia itself and one Wikipedia mirror. If no references exist then I think coming up with this application of IUPAC rules is well over into the field of original research and should be removed. Bryan 07:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed all references to nilnilnilium, including two redirects, a copy of the same paragraph at systematic element name, and a disambiguation at NNN. Bryan 02:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subject Matter

The article features more on sci fi and postulates and very little scientific matter. This should be reconsidered as this article is supposedly scientific. For this I'm seeking expert guidance. --Soumyasch 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As is spelled out in the article's introduction, "neutronium" is not a scientific term. It's a popular-literature term for what scientists would refer to as neutron-degenerate matter. There isn't any significant scientific information to _add_; that would be at degenerate matter and neutron star. --Christopher Thomas 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In that case, should it not be deleted from the "Phases of Matter" template? --Soumyasch 06:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
That depends on whether you think readers will look for information about it there. I'd lean towards keeping it, as I'd think a layman would consider it a phase of matter, but I don't feel strongly either way. My main concern was about the "expert attention" template that got added, as I don't think there's much in the topic to be an expert on. --Christopher Thomas 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I do feel that its inclusion in the template confuses users. And as for the expert attention template, I also feel it is not necessary. --Soumyasch 05:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Done and done. I've also added the "fictional material" categorization. --Christopher Thomas 06:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schlock Mercenary

My point about notability isn't whether neutronium is featured prominently in Schlock Mercenary - it's about whether the Schlock Mercenary webcomic is well-known enough to be an example listed in this article. The list of examples here should be the handful that are most important; an exhaustive list would be at something like "list of occurrences of neutronium in fiction". --Christopher Thomas 07:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Schlock Mercenary is one of the "top" webcomics out there as far as I'm aware. It's been running daily for five and a half years now (over 2000 strips) and is being published in book form, the author quit his reasonably lucrative day job at Novell to work on it full-time. Some of the other "in fiction" sources are far more trivial, IMO - that VGA Planets reference for example. Fortunately there aren't a lot of them, maybe once the list grows longer it might be worth splitting off but right now it's only half a page (on my monitor). Bryan 18:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I am very familiar with Schlock Mercenary (I've been reading it for years). I just don't think that the average Wikipedia reader will be familiar with it, while they'll likely at least have heard of Star Trek, Dr. Who, and Stargate, with Civ and MOO being borderline cases. I think that many of the other references should also be moved to a separate list page, but I'm willing to wait until the list becomes long enough to be a problem (see Time travel for an example of what an out of control list looks like; that article badly needs an overhaul on several fronts, but I'm not in a position to do it until summer). --Christopher Thomas 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I would think that if the average Wikipedia reader isn't familiar with it then that's all the more reason to include it here. The point of an encyclopedia article is to inform and it wouldn't do much of that if everything in it was already stuff the reader was familiar with. :) Bryan 06:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a great argument for including it in list of occurrences of neutronium in fiction, but not a good argument for including it in neutronium, as content in neutronium should mostly be aimed at telling the reader what neutronium is. Without a (fairly high) notability threshold for examples cited _in the neutronium article_, you end up with a list a mile long that detracts from the article's usefulness (as with time travel). --Christopher Thomas 07:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
However, I maintain that there isn't sufficient material to warrant a separate article for that list. The list isn't a mile long. So it's currently a moot point. Bryan 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There aren't enough in the neutronium article, yet, but give it 6 months and there will be. I'll probably end up doing the move myself when it gets to that point. Alternatively, I'm sure either of us is capable of starting a half-decent stub list in its own article right now, though it isn't a terribly urgent matter. --Christopher Thomas 18:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/u/Talk%7ENeutronium_ad90.html"