Who's afraid of a big bad rock?

[Admiral Piett]

It isn't gravity that holds neutronium together; it's the nuclear binding force; the same thing that holds atomic nuclei together despite electromagnetic repulsion.

So basically gravity creates it but once it is created it is not more necessary to keep neutronium together.

Well, if there is not a physicist around I think that we can end here the debate on this subject.

[His Divine Shadow]

Darth Wong, I believe that here you have some very good material and points for a new essay or some such for your page, perhaps something to add to your brainbugs page or a new page educating people about neutronium?

[Patrick Ogaard]

Darth Wong, I believe that here you have some very good material and points for a new essay or some such for your page, perhaps something to add to your brainbugs page or a new page educating people about neutronium?

Motion seconded.

Of course, you may want to get that drywall up first.

[SPOOFE]

Spoofe and Luke Hares, You guys are ignoring the nuclear binding force, which I mentioned earlier, and repeating earlier assumptions about how gravity is the only thing which holds neutronium together.

I'm ignoring nothing. I would like to see a cite for this "It's just a giant nucleus" idea, since I haven't seen it described that way anywhere. For one thing, nuclei usually don't have surface temperatures of millions of degrees.

Just about every site I checked comments on how it's this degenerate pressure that manages to counter-balance gravity. In short, two forces pushing against each other, maintaining an equilibrium. What happens when one of those forces is suddenly removed? Does the other one magically disappear, also?

Note: This information is being applied only to neutron stars, not necessarily neutronium. Admit it, Mr. Wong... we haven't the foggiest idea how neutronium will react outside its native environment. Nevertheless, I am genuinely curious if you have a citation that postulates as such... and I will have no qualms about retracting if presented with such material.

[Darth Wong]

I'm ignoring nothing. I would like to see a cite for this "It's just a giant nucleus" idea, since I haven't seen it described that way anywhere. For one thing, nuclei usually don't have surface temperatures of millions of degrees.

Yes they do. Helium and heavier nuclei inside aging stars have temperatures of millions of degrees.

Just about every site I checked comments on how it's this degenerate pressure that manages to counter-balance gravity. In short, two forces pushing against each other, maintaining an equilibrium. What happens when one of those forces is suddenly removed? Does the other one magically disappear, also?

Why, yes. The second force is a reaction to the first force, so yes, it does go away when the first force goes away. If you squeeze a piece of iron, it exerts tremendous electromagnetic forces to keep its atomic radii from being squashed. If you remove the external pressure, the reaction forces go away too. It is precisely analogous. I made this point before, with the exact same analogy; perhaps you didn't take the time to consider it?

Note: This information is being applied only to neutron stars, not necessarily neutronium. Admit it, Mr. Wong... we haven't the foggiest idea how neutronium will react outside its native environment.

No, but we can rule out certain ideas based on clear misconceptions.

Nevertheless, I am genuinely curious if you have a citation that postulates as such... and I will have no qualms about retracting if presented with such material.

You want a citation to disprove your unwarranted assumption that degenerate pressure acts to overcome nuclear binding force except in the presence of enormous gravity? Think about it; your theory predicts the spontaneous disintegration of all atomic nuclei in all matter in the universe!

No, I'm afraid the burden of proof falls on you, since you are obviously leaping to the conclusion that degenerate pressure is just some intrinsic repulsion between neutrons, instead of bothering to find out what it really is. Since this conclusion leads to predictions which are clearly inconsistent with observation (ie- we are all still here, and our nuclei have not exploded), you must produce a citation to support your interpretation of degenerate pressure.

Consider: the classical radius approximation for a neutron is roughly 1.1E-15m, while the mass is roughly 1.0087u, or 1.675E-27 kg. With some simple math, you will discover that the resulting density is roughly 3E17 kg/m^3, which just happens to be similar to the projected density of a neutron star.

This is not a coincidence; a neutron star is a giant nucleus. At the density of neutronium, the neutrons are close enough for the nuclear binding force to become active. The only force resisting further collapse is from the size of the nucleons themselves.

[SPOOFE]

The second force is a reaction to the first force, so yes, it does go away when the first force goes away.

Yes, after the degenerate pressure causes the matter to decompress to the point where it is no longer degenerate matter.

If you squeeze a piece of iron, it exerts tremendous electromagnetic forces to keep its atomic radii from being squashed. If you remove the external pressure, the reaction forces go away too.

Bad analogy, as iron is clearly not degenerate matter.

No, but we can rule out certain ideas based on clear misconceptions.

Indeed.

You want a citation to disprove your unwarranted assumption that degenerate pressure acts to overcome nuclear binding force except in the presence of enormous gravity? Think about it; your theory predicts the spontaneous disintegration of all atomic nuclei in all matter in the universe!

Wrong-O. There is a clear distinction between normal matter and degenerate matter. Please note that the cite I provided above (in point 3, at the bottom of the page) describes the difference between regular matter and degenerate matter.

You are applying the laws of regular matter to degenerate matter.

And, yes, I'd like you to provide a citation. Or would you prefer that I simply "took your word for it"...?

No, I'm afraid the burden of proof falls on you, since you are obviously leaping to the conclusion that degenerate pressure is just some intrinsic repulsion between neutrons, instead of bothering to find out what it really is.

I provided the evidence, Mr. Wong. For your convenience, I'll cite it again. http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm

[Darth Wong]

Yes, after the degenerate pressure causes the matter to decompress to the point where it is no longer degenerate matter.

Precisely, ie- at the density of normal atomic nuclei, which is in the range of 1E17 kg/m^3. Was there something in my last message which went completely over your head?

Wrong-O. There is a clear distinction between normal matter and degenerate matter. Please note that the cite I provided above (in point 3, at the bottom of the page) describes the difference between regular matter and degenerate matter.

And if you had actually read it, you would see that it is precisely what I described; matter which behaves like that inside an atomic nucleus (see "liquid drop" model of atomic nuclei)

You are applying the laws of regular matter to degenerate matter.

The laws of physics apply to both. You are acting as though the state of degeneracy is some kind of "escape clause" where normal physics no longer apply. We are operating at quantum scales, but that only means the matter is akin to that of an atomic nucleus; it does not gain any magical new characteristics that an atomic nucleus does not have.

And, yes, I'd like you to provide a citation. Or would you prefer that I simply "took your word for it"...?

Quite simply, I find your demand asinine, since any elementary physics text can be used as a reference for the nature of the nuclear binding force which I am describing. If you do not have an elementary physics text, that is quite frankly your problem.

I provided the evidence, Mr. Wong. For your convenience, I'll cite it again. http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s10.htm

You think that is a scientific citation? It is actually a page which is clearly written for schoolchildren, with nothing resembling an equation in sight.

Quite simply, your entire argument is based on the assumption that gravity is the only force which acts to compress neutronium. That is true before it enters a degenerate state. However, after it has been sufficiently compressed, the nuclear binding force takes over (see any goddamned physics text for a citation on the nature of the nuclear binding force; if you want me to randomly name one in order to satisfy your demand for a "citation", I suppose I can do so). Degenerate pressure in an atomic nucleus keeps it from becoming even denser than it already is, but it reaches equilibrium with the atomic binding force at the density of atomic nuclei, which just happens to be in the same order of magnitude as the density of neutronium.

[Isolder74]

how did a discussion about the lethalities of a 20 ton asteroid degenerate into a discusion about neutronium which is only theoretical and therefore truely impossible to debate!

BTW KE still = 1/2mv^2

[SPOOFE]

Precisely, ie- at the density of normal atomic nuclei, which is in the range of 1E17 kg/m^3. Was there something in my last message which went completely over your head?

I don't know what you're talking about. Normal atomic nuclei are not degenerate matter. The material inside a neutron star - neutronium - is. For some reason, you're choosing not to grasp this.

And if you had actually read it, you would see that it is precisely what I described; matter which behaves like that inside an atomic nucleus

Except that with an atomic nucleus, if you add more matter, the thing gets bigger. Not so with a neutron star.

The laws of physics apply to both. You are acting as though the state of degeneracy is some kind of "escape clause" where normal physics no longer apply.

Untrue. I'm simply providing evidence that states that degenerate matter, in large amounts, will act differently than normal matter in large amounts. I am making no claims, Mr. Wong. I provided you with the evidence I needed to make my conclusions... namely, if a mass of degenerate matter decreases in size when mass is added to it, then it will then increase in size when matter is taken away (or the gravitational pull decreases). In other words, it will "expand", as I said earlier.

You, conversely, have provided no evidence, and have simply repeated your assertions. Again... why should I simply take your word for it?

Quite simply, I find your demand asinine, since any elementary physics text can be used as a reference for the nature of the nuclear binding force which I am describing.

Then find one and cite one. If you make a claim, back it up. You've demanded as such from Trekkies and Creationists alike.

You think that is a scientific citation? It is actually a page which is clearly written for schoolchildren, with nothing resembling an equation in sight.

Nice ad hominem. You'd think that you of all people would learn not to use them. If the information on the page is incorrect, provide a cite that refutes it. Just because the page was designed to explain the information in the easiest possible manner doesn't mean it's wrong.

Furthermore, you're incorrect about the nuclear binding force. According to this explanation, the strong force is rather short-ranged... 1-2 femtometers. However, it also mentions that if the particles become TOO close - if they are compressed (like in a neutron star) - they are repelled due to the Pauli exclusion principle.

This works with my preferred theory... a repulsion force in the matter in a neutron star that is counter-balanced only by gravity.

Quite simply, your entire argument is based on the assumption that gravity is the only force which acts to compress neutronium.

And your argument is based on the assumption that a neutron star is nothing more than a giant nucleus, and you haven't provided any evidence - aside from your own assertion - that it is. Furthermore, you failed to take into account the fact that atomic nuclei with a neutron count greater than a certain number (126, according to this site) are inherently unstable. Unless you're willing to claim that a neutron star contains only 126 neutrons.

see any goddamned physics text for a citation on the nature of the nuclear binding force; if you want me to randomly name one in order to satisfy your demand for a "citation", I suppose I can do so

Sorry, Mr. Wong, that's not how it works and you know it. In a debate, you can't simply make a claim and then say "YOU go prove it". You make a claim, you provide a cite to prove it. That's how debates work, sir. I'm surprised you don't know this.

[Darth Wong]

I don't know what you're talking about. Normal atomic nuclei are not degenerate matter. The material inside a neutron star - neutronium - is. For some reason, you're choosing not to grasp this.

No, you're still missing the point. The fact that they are not identical does not mean that universal forces such as the nuclear binding force which apply to one will not apply to the other.

Except that with an atomic nucleus, if you add more matter, the thing gets bigger. Not so with a neutron star.

You notice things like that, but you make up a completely ludicrous interpretation for them (the great danger of trying to make science accessible to the masses). Yes, the degenerate matter in stars becomes denser as you add mass. But that is because gravitational attraction increases, not because degenerate matter is some kind of bizarre material which ignores the laws of physics! The nuclear binding force is a universal force, like gravity. It will apply to baryon degenerate matter.

Obviously, what you need is more information, since you have tried to "fill in the gaps" of that webpage's superficial discussion on your own. There are two types of degeneracy: electron degeneracy and baryon degeneracy. As you add mass to a dying star beyond a certain mass, its gravitational attraction increases to the point that its matter collapses into first-stage degenracy, ie- electron degeneracy. See the accompanying image, from http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/aD_ub.html



If a piece of white dwarf star is removed from its gravity well, it will promptly expand. The degenerate pressure will cause it to return to normal matter, and there is no nuclear binding force to counteract it because the particles never reached the necessar proximity. However, if you add more mass, the star's core will collapse further, until you reach second-stage degeneracy, ie- baryon degeneracy. In this state, the density is identical to that of atomic nuclei because the protons and electrons have merged to become neutrons, and the neutrons are jammed so close together that they come within the range of the strong force.

You seem to believe that there is some contradiction between the page you cited and what I have said, when there is none. The only problem was that I apparently did not explain the situation in enough detail, presuming (perhaps foolishly) that no further explanation was necessary.

Untrue. I'm simply providing evidence that states that degenerate matter, in large amounts, will act differently than normal matter in large amounts. I am making no claims, Mr. Wong. I provided you with the evidence I needed to make my conclusions... namely, if a mass of degenerate matter decreases in size when mass is added to it, then it will then increase in size when matter is taken away (or the gravitational pull decreases). In other words, it will "expand", as I said earlier.

You are over-generalizing. Degenerate matter becomes denser when matter is added because the extra matter increases gravitational attraction, which is insignificant in a normal atomic nucleus. However, you are assuming that once this gravitational attraction is removed, there will be nothing left to hold it together at all, and it will explode. This may be true of electron degenerate matter, but not of baryon degenerate matter, where the particles have been squashed so close together that the nuclear binding force is in effect, and will continue to provide an attractive force after gravity is removed. I have made this point repeatedly, and you simply ignore it by saying that degenerate matter is different from atomic nuclei and therefore you don't have to deal with the nuclear binding force.

Consider the logic of what you are saying. You are arguing that since B is different from A, universal forces which apply to everything (including A) do not apply to B unless we can prove that they do. This is silly; is there some magical property of neutronium which will make the nuclear force binding force not apply?

Your conjecture that "you will very rapidly end up with about a gigton of iron - probably in the form of plasma" would be correct if we were talking about a white dwarf star, because it is electron degenerate matter. The atomic nuclei are still segregated from one another (see the diagram above), so it is essentially ultra-compressed iron plasma, with electron degenerate pressure pushing against gravity. But at baryon degeneracy, the nuclei have all merged together (again, see the diagram above), with neutron degenerate pressure pushing against gravity. Take away gravity, and the nuclear binding force will apply. How do we know this? From the simple fact that the nuclear binding force is an attractive force between neutrons and protons when they are in very close proximity, and they are in very close proximity. Since all of the requirements for the nuclear binding force have been satisfied, there is no rational reason to assume that the nuclear binding force will not act to hold neutronium together once gravity is removed. As I said before, the onus is on you to support your speculation; the page you cited does not say anything to support your speculation. In fact, it does not say anything to contradict anything I've been saying in any way.

You, conversely, have provided no evidence, and have simply repeated your assertions. Again... why should I simply take your word for it?

I have provided hard numbers, taken from my physics textbook. If you disagree (or you want me to name my physics textbook for some reason), you can always contest them, but it is a lie to say that I have provided no evidence. Or do you consider a weblink the only form of acceptable "evidence"?

Then find one and cite one. If you make a claim, back it up. You've demanded as such from Trekkies and Creationists alike.

I've backed it up with hard numbers. So far, you have provided not a single number to justify anything you've said.

You said "I would like to see a cite for this "It's just a giant nucleus" idea". I showed that its density was that of atomic nuclei, and so the nuclear binding force will obviously apply, and you acted as though I did not meet the challenge because numbers taken from physics texts are apparently not a valid "cite" (at least, not compared to your idea of a citation, which is apparently a webpage written for laypeople in qualitative language). You asked mockingly: "What happens when one of those forces is suddenly removed? Does the other one magically disappear, also?" I pointed out that since it is a reaction to compression, it would. I gave an example of this happening in mundane terms, and you attacked the example without addressing the point, which was simply that it is not ridiculous for one force to disappear along with its opposite counterpart, and that you were obviously wrong in thinking it was.

You then said "Admit it, Mr. Wong. We haven't the foggiest idea how neutronium will react outside its native environment" even though you had previously said that it would be iron plasma (obviously, you thought you did have an idea how it would react outside its native environment). Worse yet, you acted as though I had been claiming certainty, when my post railed against presumptions of false certainty (such as yours). Do you recall that I asked pointedly: "Will neutronium evapourate from beta decay in milliseconds? Or millenia?" Do you recall me saying that "We know precious little about neutronium, but the small amount that we do know has been ignored repeatedly in this thread"? At what point did I claim knowledge of how neutronium would react outside its native environment? The only one who has made a concrete claim about neutronium's behaviour outside its native environment is you. I chastised both sides for inventing false certainty, and you reacted by projecting your false certainty onto me and then attacking what you presumed to be my position (while quietly doing an about-face on your own earlier statements of certainty; what do you believe about this issue?)

Do you see where you've gone wrong here? Or is this a matter of pride for you now?

Furthermore, you're incorrect about the nuclear binding force. According to this explanation, the strong force is rather short-ranged... 1-2 femtometers.

Precisely, which is why you only see it in ultra-dense materials like atomic nuclei and baryon degenerate matter. This number merely helps confirm that baryon degenerate matter satisfies the proximity requirement for the nuclear binding force.

However, it also mentions that if the particles become TOO close - if they are compressed (like in a neutron star) - they are repelled due to the Pauli exclusion principle.

Well, of course they can't get closer! The Pauli exclusion principle simply states that two particles cannot occupy the same quantum state, which is analogous to the theorem that two pieces of matter can't occupy the same space in classical physics! This is the same thing which keeps neutronium from getting denser! This does not change the fact that the nuclear binding force acts to attract neutrons when they are in the proximities found in atomic nuclei ... or neutronium.

This works with my preferred theory... a repulsion force in the matter in a neutron star that is counter-balanced only by gravity.

Except that you didn't bother looking up what the Pauli exclusion principle is, because you're treating science like some kind of farmer's field through which you dance your way, cherry-picking bits and pieces which will suit you. That's not the right way to approach it; you are supposed to try and gain an understanding of what's going on, rather than simply looking for random cites and snippets you can interpret in the most superficial manner possible. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is not the simplistic repulsive force that you think it is; it only keeps two particles from occupying the same space (or quantum state, if you want to be picky about terminology).

And your argument is based on the assumption that a neutron star is nothing more than a giant nucleus, and you haven't provided any evidence - aside from your own assertion - that it is. Furthermore, you failed to take into account the fact that atomic nuclei with a neutron count greater than a certain number (126, according to this site) are inherently unstable. Unless you're willing to claim that a neutron star contains only 126 neutrons.

Again, you cherry-pick bits and pieces of science for your convenience rather than for enlightenment. Do you know or care why high atomic-number elements are unstable? It's because mutual electromagnetic repulsion between protons rises more quickly than the nuclear binding force for large nuclei. However, neutronium does not have any protons, and hence, no mutual electromagnetic repulsion.

Moreover, you seem to ignore the part of my earlier post where I mentioned beta decay (obviously, I have been aware of the fact that the neutronium is unstable and will suffer nuclear decay over time) and asked what the decay rate would be. To the best of my knowledge, no one knows, but you have tried your damndest to claim that you know, and worse yet, you have distorted my position to make it seem as if I have claimed that I know. Everything rests on the rate of beta decay, and we simply don't know what it is.

Sorry, Mr. Wong, that's not how it works and you know it. In a debate, you can't simply make a claim and then say "YOU go prove it". You make a claim, you provide a cite to prove it. That's how debates work, sir. I'm surprised you don't know this.

I know it completely. However, you claim that one of the fundamental forces (the strong nuclear force) does not apply to neutronium. I only claim that it does apply, since it meets all the requirements (and I demonstrated this with numbers). It is not necessary to produce "cites" to support the use of accepted laws of phyiscs when base criteria have been met, any more than one normally asks for a "cite" for the speed of light or the fact that atomic nuclei have neutrons and protons in them.

[Master of Ossus]

Game, set and match: Mike Wong.

Don't try that again, SPOOFE, unless you really DO know what you're talking about.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Darth Wong despite the risk of the Imperial Smack Down (TM) estimated by your avoidance of my threads/posts I'm going to ask you to clear up some questions about neutronium.

1. You claim that neutronium density is the same as that found in an atomic nucleus. However, I don't believe you contested that a neutron star can be compressed until it reaches the Pauli exclusion limit. In other words, it seems to me the strong nulcear force is not sufficient to maximally compress neutronium. If this is case then once you remove the massive gravity from the neutronium will it expand? If so will the resulting expansion tear the neutronium apart?

2. It is my understanding that heavy nuclei are unstable due to charged protons. If a smaller peice of neutronium isn't too hot will it decay at all since there are no protons?

[Darth Wong]

--Darth Wong despite the risk of the Imperial Smack Down (TM) estimated by your avoidance of my threads/posts I'm going to ask you to clear up some questions about neutronium.

Don't worry; I like to think I'm capable of disagreeing with people without necessarily flaming them six ways from Sunday (unless they ask for it ).

You claim that neutronium density is the same as that found in an atomic nucleus. However, I don't believe you contested that a neutron star can be compressed until it reaches the Pauli exclusion limit. In other words, it seems to me the strong nulcear force is not sufficient to maximally compress neutronium. If this is case then once you remove the massive gravity from the neutronium will it expand?

I know that neutronium density and atomic nuclear density are roughly the same, but I wouldn't contest the possibility that neutronium would expand slightly once removed from the gravity well of the neutron star. As I said before, we know only a few things about it in the first place. My problem was with the assumption that it would behave in a manner precisely identical to that predicted for the electron-degenerate matter in a white dwarf star.

If so will the resulting expansion tear the neutronium apart?

If it expands slightly, why should it explode, instead of simply finding a new equilibrium point now that the compression force has changed? The nuclear binding force acts to hold it together, and the Pauli exclusion principle merely keeps particles from "overlapping", so to speak. It acts against the nuclear binding force in atomic nuclei just as it acts against gravity + nuclear binding force in a neutron star.

It is my understanding that heavy nuclei are unstable due to charged protons. If a smaller peice of neutronium isn't too hot will it decay at all since there are no protons?

You need protons to cause violent fission or alpha decay (where a positively charged ion is ejected from the nucleus), but you don't need protons for beta decay (where a neutron turns into a proton + electron, and the electron is ejected from the nucleus).

Therefore, beta decay is possible and presumably likely for neutronium. The more interesting question is how quickly this occurs, which is why I asked if anyone knew of any research in this area. I asked Curtis Saxton about it a couple of years ago, and he said it wasn't his area of specialization so he didn't know either (and he has demands on his time; I won't pester him to research it for me).

[Nova Andromeda]

--"I like to think I'm capable of disagreeing with people ..."
--IMO disagreement is either due to irrationality, conflicting goals, or a lack of the resources necessary for the exchange and verification of each sides information. Any disagreement we may have probably falls into the last catagory which is why I like feedback.

--"If it expands slightly, why should it explode ..."
--I was thinking that if the expansion occurs rapidly enough conservation of momentum would tear the neutronium apart. However, I would have to "do the math" to figure this out and I'm not knowledgable enough to do so. I figured I just ask.

--"... beta decay is possible and presumably likely for neutronium."
--I'm guessing it would be pretty fast if the following links are correct:

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theor ... ility.html
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/quest ... decay.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... unfor.html

They suggest that mass can be reduced by filling the lowest quanta in a nucleas. This also releases energy. A solid nuetron particle would leave all the proton quanta open. Since these quanta are open and there is a LOT of energy to be gained / mass to be lost decay would be VERY favorable. Nevertheless, I'm not a physicist and don't fully understand either the strong or weak forces let alone all the fundumental particles.

[Typhonis 1]

Man if an asteroid can do that to a Star Destroyers conning tower imagine what a solid impact would to to your average paper mache Feddy starship

[DarkStar]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... op.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... op.html#c2
(Same page, actually)

For the most stable form of iron (26 protons, 30 neutrons) you get a binding energy of 490.55 MeV. (The binding energy, of course, is understood as a negative value... you would have to input 490.55 MeV of energy to overcome the binding energy).

If you try to replicate neutronium using this calculation (26 protons, 99999974 neutrons), you arrive at a binding energy of -798,832,429 MeV, and it isn't much better no matter what you do. In other words, the binding energy of such a nucleus requires an extraordinary influx of energy to remain stable.

This, of course, ignores the degeneracy pressure involved, which would have been in a state of constant rebound against the gravitational energy to begin with.

[Master of Ossus]

What the hell is this, DarkStar? You tell us (in an incredibly convoluted and thoroughly BIZARRE manner) that a stable form of iron (Fe) has a binding of -490.55 MeV. You then tell us that the binding energy for neutronium is an astonishing -798,832,429 MeV, and you conclude by saying that it takes continuous energy for Neutronium to remain stable? DarkStar, you told us IN YOUR POST that a negative binding energy makes something stable ("The binding energy, of course, is understood as a negative value... you would have to input 490.55 MeV of energy to overcome the binding energy.")

DarkStar, by your own statements your conclusion that it requires an enormous amount of energy to keep neutronium bound appears to make no sense. I don't follow how you reached your conclusions from your evidence.

[DarkStar]

(sigh)

Dumbass. Two negatives make a positive.

[Master of Ossus]

Do you even know which sign in energy translations indicates that energy is going into a system?

Your own calculations should help prove to you that Neutronium is very stable. Iron's binding energy is a small negative number. You stated that. You then stated that Neutronium's binding energy was a very large negative number. Then you concluded that this evidence shows how unstable neutronium is? How did you come to that conclusion?

[DarkStar]

Do you even know which sign in energy translations indicates that energy is going into a system?

Your own calculations should help prove to you that Neutronium is very stable. Iron's binding energy is a small negative number. You stated that. You then stated that Neutronium's binding energy was a very large negative number. Then you concluded that this evidence shows how unstable neutronium is? How did you come to that conclusion?

You're so stupid you make my head hurt.

Iron's binding energy is a "small" positive number. Neutronium (in this example) would have an extremely high negative number.

Binding energy is understood as a negative value... you would have to input the "small" amount of positive energy to break up Iron-56. You would have to input an extremely high amount of positive energy just to keep this neutronium together.

If you still don't understand, I'm sorry... there's nothing I can do for someone so stupid.

[Nova Andromeda]

--Using Darkstar's link to the binding energy calculator one can determine the stability of neutronium outside of a neutron star. It is clear from these calculations that neutronium would disintigrate via fission and beta decay. In a neutron star gravity prevents at least the fission decay process and probably the beta decay process as well. The following link backs up this claim:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... yn.html#c1

--The disintigration would be quite fast if disintigration half life is coorelated to the binding energy.

--On a different note, how did I end up on the village idiot's side? I hope this isn't a sign of anything...

[Nova Andromeda]

--Once beta decay occured twice, leaving two protons, fission would be possible, (according to Darth Wong), and more likely with every new beta decay.

[Darth Wong]

It is clear from these calculations that neutronium would disintigrate via fission and beta decay. In a neutron star gravity prevents at least the fission decay process and probably the beta decay process as well.

As well as alpha decay (protons or helium nuclei ejected from the nucleus).

The disintigration would be quite fast if disintigration half life is coorelated to the binding energy.

Could be. Does anyone know if decay rates are theorized to be correlated to overall binding energy for ultra-large nuclei? The binding energy for neutronium will undoubtedly be large, but it is also cumulative, so that's not surprising. It doesn't mean that the energy state change from the decay of any single neutron will be that large. Is there any conjecture for another "island of stability" at such extreme sizes, as there has been for certain (admittedly much smaller) atoms in research labs?

On a different note, how did I end up on the village idiot's side? I hope this isn't a sign of anything...

The village idiot wants neutronium to evapourate quickly because it serves his purposes (except when he talks about Star Trek neutronium, of course). That's why he started by talking about free neutrons (irrelevant) and then turned to this calculator. However, if it turns out that this is, in fact, true, it would be silly to deny it just because the village idiot wants it. We can't be the sort of irrational types who adjust facts just to deny other peoples' arguments; then we'd be as bad as him.

I have never claimed to know what the decay rate is. I still don't see that any of the information put forward is sufficient to determine that decay rate. But if someone should produce something, I would welcome it. Depending on the answer, we might be able to prove one of three possible things:

1. Neutronium is not real neutronium in either SW or ST (not to mention having interesting consequences on "The Masterpiece Society" from TNG)
2. SW and/or ST possesses some kind of stasis-field technology for slowing the rate of decay
3. Neutronium is as stable as a rock, and can be easily used as a simple densification/superconduction coating.

Either way, I'm not sure it has much impact on SW vs ST, because it knocks down or elevates both of them simultaneously. It's more of a general-interest science-geek thing.

[DarkStar]

The village idiot wants neutronium to evapourate quickly because it serves his purposes (except when he talks about Star Trek neutronium, of course). That's why he started by talking about free neutrons (irrelevant) and then turned to this calculator. However, if it turns out that this is, in fact, true, it would be silly to deny it just because the village idiot wants it. We can't be the sort of irrational types who adjust facts just to deny other peoples' arguments; then we'd be as bad as him.

I don't want anything. I had simply done a lot of research on neutron star material previously, and saw fit to interject when I noticed that the thread was being led astray from actual science knowledge and theory.

((I have no need to prove anything about neutron-star neutronium, since the issue was settled long ago that SW neutronium is a "heavy metallic element", as per the SW Encyclopedia (referencing the Star Wars Sourcebook and Rebel Dawn, IIRC).))

Can we go back to talking about worthwhile "science-geek" subjects and learning things, or you would like to derail the thread with more insults?

[Nova Andromeda]

--Well as far as I can tell the analysis comes down to this: What are the "next door" transitions available to the neutrons in neutronium. One transition is found here:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ec.html#c1

If I understand qauntum physics well enough (questionable) this transition would be even more favorable in neutronium than for a lone neutron (10.3m). The reason for this is that there is a very low energy state for the proton to occupy. The same is true for the electron. In a normal atom those energy states are occupied. For a lone neutron the neutron does not occupy the higher energy states occupied in neutronium. Unfortunately, I was not able to find anything describing nuclear energy levels so this must remain speculation for now.

--"The village idiot wants neutronium to evapourate quickly because it serves his purposes..."
--I was wondering if I had missed something rather obvious. I was not questioning Darkstar's title.
--Speaking of titles, I don't susposed someone would be kind enough to change my current title of newbie to something else. Perferably not youngling, village idiot, or forum bitch...