Who's afraid of a big bad rock?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Not by all that much. If a pure AM warhead hit neutronium hull, and we don't take into account inefficiencies, then the same amount of matter will react, producing the same amount of energy. In practicality, it might be a little more efficient because of the greater density of neutronium (but that's because more matter is in the same location and easier and quicker to access, not because it reacts with more matter), but not by too much. It ain't like a 10MT explosion will turn to 10GT unless the ordinary reaction is greatly inefficient.

[Devils Advocate]

You obviously subscribe to the common (and scientifically ignorant) notion that the gravity produced by superdense matter is somehow irresistible. It is not.

Nice ad hominem.

I don't think the gravitational force is 'irresisitable' only that it is extremely difficult to overcome.

I also do not believe based upon it being 'mined' from a planet that it is true neutronium.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

You obviously subscribe to the common (and scientifically ignorant) notion that the gravity produced by superdense matter is somehow irresistible. It is not.

Nice ad hominem.

That's not an ad hominem. It be one if he said "Devils Advocate obviously is scientifically ignorant and therefore any and all arguments made by him must be wrong"

[Admiral Piett]

Ok let us clear it once for all.
Isn't neutronium a degenerate state of the matter,which happens when atoms are compressed so much that the electrons are pushed in the nucleus of the atom?Isn't the gravity of the neutron star which accomplishes this?
So is there anyone here who can say me if a fragment of neutronium extracted from a neutron star would remain stable or the cores of the atoms would expel the electrons to their normal positions,resulting in the expansion of the matter degenerated into neutronium to its normal dimensions(blowing up incidentally the hull of the unlucky star destroyer which lost the neutronium containment field)?

[Patrick Ogaard]

Here comes an exotic little question:

Assuming average density, what size and mass of spheroid of superdense mattter would be large enough that its own gravity could maintain sufficient strength to keep the superdense matter (AKA neutronium) from breaking apart? Would a microgram of superdense matter be enough? A milligram? A gram? A kilogram? A ton? A kiloton? A megaton? A gigaton? A teraton? (Incidentally, this is a serious question on my part, one I hope someone will be able to provide an answer to.)

Compressing regular matter into superdense matter is obviously tough, seeing as how natural processes seem to require masses rather larger than that of our own sun. Keeping the matter in that shape, however, may not be ultimately all that difficult (or just possibly impossible).

A mass of superdense matter the size of a regular atom is going to be literally packed to capacity with electrons, neutrons and may apparently include a number of other odd particles. At those tiny physical dimensions, the effects of gravity should be rather extreme, with so little distance for the strength of the gravitational field to drop. I could also be dead wrong, of course.

Neutronium is supposed to be superconductive and a veritable bottomless pit for energy. If the masses affected are suitably manageable, the superconductive and energy sponge nature of superdense matter could well make it practical to actually use neutronium embedded in a matrix of something like conventional steel along the lines of what the good Darth Wong implied. The latest ICS edition seems to imply that something like that superdense/steel mix is used in the AT-TE's outer layer of armor.

It might even be practical under the circumstances to produce something like neutronium wire using the ever-popular pop science carbon nanotubes. Basically, the idea would be for the strings of the superdense micropellets to essentially float inside a magnetic cocoon inside the carbon nanotube. String the stuff together in a matrix of advanced composites and perhaps a bit of ceramic material and you've got stormtrooper armor. Or, alternatively, you have an utterly laughable idea that is the height of implausiblity.

Answers, comments, criticisms?

[SPOOFE]

By the way, neutronium is spherical. It will always be spherical.

I hate to pick nits, but that's not entirely correct. If neutronium is free of the vast gravitational pressures of neutron stars, it'll just expand (and violently, t'boot). A teaspoon of neutronium, if suddenly freed of some sort of means of compression, will expand out to create a mound of plasma several hundred meters wide and tall.

For your "pellet-doped" theory to work (and not that I'm disagreeing with it, it works as well - or better- than most others I've heard), we still need to assume some sort of exotic stabilization process (granted, we need to assume that with my earlier theory, too). Perhaps there is some sort of "always-on" energy field to contain it, or perhaps SW scientists have managed to find a way to permanently stablize neutronium in such a way that such compression techniques aren't necessary.

[SPOOFE]

Note: After a small piece of neutronium expands into its plasma-like state, it'll probably settle down in the form of more mundane elements, like simple iron. Another theory I have is that the "neutronium mining" on certain planets is simply where they've found massive deposits of such - leftover from the wreckage of a crashed ship - and they simply re-compress the stuff to form neutronium. Voila.

[Master of Ossus]

That's interesting about the pellets used to soak up energy. The hull must be reasonably conductive, then. I wonder why they couldn't use a more mundane material to soak up energy. Can it really be that hard to find something with a very high specific heat?

Well, the thermal conductivity of neutronium would be many orders of magnitude above any electromagnetically coupled material, so if the pellets are closely spaced in a surface layer, you end up with a thermally superconductive surface coating with very high volume-specific heat, which would be ideal for warding off thermonuclear explosions at close range.

Cool.

[Master of Ossus]

Maybe they only want neutronium that is made out of a particular type of element or combination of elements for use in SD's (I have no idea why that would be the case, but it is a possibility). In that case, they might be mining for ELEMENTS to make up neutronium. I don't know about that quote, though. It doesn't seem to make any immediate sense.

[Admiral Piett]

If the neutronium require a stabilization forcefield to avoid to explode this would mean that a star destroyer would be forced to keep the forcefield always activated,even when it is in construction or in maintenance.This is going to be a problem.
On the earth we have,or better had, a good example of a similar thing:the Alpha class submarine.
The Alpha class submarine was a type of fast (more than 40 knots per hour) attack boat in service in the soviet navy.Its had an high density reactor cooled by a lead bismuth alloy kept liquid by the heat.The problem was that the coolant would have solidified if the temperature had gone below a certain limit and it could not have been liquefied again.In order to avoid that they had to keep the reactor always active,even when the boat was docked for maintenance(although in that case they could sometimes use an external source of steam to keep the coolant hot).
Guess what happened to all those submarines.
Small hint,in some warehouse there is a nice collection of nuclear reactors with the solidified coolant.Go to fas.org for more details.
A star destroyer with a neutronium reinforced hull would have a similar problem:it would risk to explode in its drydock if someone screwed up something.I would risk to explode during the construction phase.It would be in danger of exploding in any situation in which there would be little energy available.
To put in simple words it is too risky.

[SPOOFE]

If the neutronium require a stabilization forcefield to avoid to explode this would mean that a star destroyer would be forced to keep the forcefield always activated,even when it is in construction or in maintenance.This is going to be a problem.

Indeed. The only alternative theory that I can think of is the advent of some weird physical-stabilizing thingamajig to keep the neutronium from explosively expanding.

For the curious, there was an excellent discussion about the nature of neutronium over at another message board, here.

[His Divine Shadow]

By the way, neutronium is spherical. It will always be spherical. It will not form strands or beams or blocks (or cylinders, ie- TOS Doomsday Machine). If you doubt this, ask yourself why atomic nuclei are never pyramidal or cubical. Therefore, the neutronium-impregnated hull cladding is some kind of metallic matrix in which spherical neutronium pellets are placed. The pellets are not there to increase hardness or tensile strength, but to soak up heat energy.

*shrug*
I got the strand idea from Saxton when I spoke to him, I guess that really really realllllyyyy small pellets next to each other to form strands in a mesh like formation inside the armor of the ship would work...

[Master of Ossus]

Maybe an ISD doesn't require an active system to stabilize neutronium. Maybe they have some kind of passive one for doing so? Maybe something in the metal? In any case, I don't think we have any way of knowing, it just strikes me as being inconsistent that they need active systems for stabilizing neutronium, considering that we have official evidence of wrecked ISD's being salvaged, and of lots of other ship types being captured or salvaged, even if they have been completely disabled, or even destroyed. Their hulls should have broken down, if they need active forcefields to stabilize them.

[SPOOFE]

I dunno, MoO. Either way, we have to make some assumptions about the neutronium doping... either it's "not REAL neutronium" (which I dismiss because, so far, all information about neutronium is theoretical), or they've developed some method for keeping it contained. A passive method seems like the most likely conclusion, and would jibe with the majority of evidence, I think.

[Master of Ossus]

Assuming that it is neutronium, then they would have to have a passive system for stabilizing it, I just don't see how that would be possible from our technological standpoint. Nevertheless, we are agreed. It IS the most likely explanation, even if it doesn't seem to make sense to us, now.

[Darth Wong]

(sigh) this "stabilization forcefield", "neutronium exploding into plasma" nonsense is starting to get on my nerves. Let me make a few things clear to everybody here:

• The electrons are not "pulled in" by the intense gravity of a neutron star, only to pop back out when the gravity is released. The electrons merge with protons to become neutrons.
• Neutronium is a giant nucleus. It is held together by the nuclear binding force, which is far stronger than gravity or electromagnetism. If neutronium is somehow removed from a neutron star, it will remain neutronium. It will not instantly transform into plasma. Moreover, it will be sperical, just as atomic nuclei are always spherical. Fluidity (not solidity) is the natural state of most of the universe's matter, including atomic nuclei.
• A nucleus with an extremely high neutron count will suffer spontaneous beta decay, in which neutrons convert into protons and electrons. The electrons will move away from the nucleus, while the protons will stay in.
• The rate of this decay is unknown. Will neutronium evapourate from beta decay in milliseconds? Or millenia? There may be theories out there (this is pretty exotic theoretical physics that you guys are mucking around with), but AFAIK, we have nothing remotely approximating experimental or even observational evidence to back anything up.

As you can see, everything depends on the rate of beta decay. If someone knows of research in this area, he is welcome to bring it up. Otherwise, please stop wasting time and space with this "explode into plasma" and "stabilization forcefield" speculation. You guys are making bold statements of fact about highly theoretical physics without performing the appropriate research, even at the most superficial level, and that's simply reckless.

Sorry if that sounds harsh (to both sides), but I felt I had to say it sooner or later. The boldness started with the Trekkies (who had to invent certainty about neutronium's properties in order to claim that they were contradictory to Star Wars) and the SW side followed suit, which is not a healthy response. We know precious little about neutronium, but the small amount that we do know has been ignored repeatedly in this thread.

[SirNitram]

Hrm... Somehow, after everything else they've accomplished, slowing Beta decay seems downright trivial for the Empire.

[Master of Ossus]

Not at all, Mike. We were all wrong. My understanding of neutronium was incomplete, at best. You DID have to say something, or we would have debated in endless cycles without any appreciable gain. Thanks for clearing it up, for us.

[Singular Quartet]

(sigh) this "stabilization forcefield", "neutronium exploding into plasma" nonsense is starting to get on my nerves. Let me make a few things clear to everybody here:

• The electrons are not "pulled in" by the intense gravity of a neutron star, only to pop back out when the gravity is released. The electrons merge with protons to become neutrons.
• Neutronium is a giant nucleus. It is held together by the nuclear binding force, which is far stronger than gravity or electromagnetism. If neutronium is somehow removed from a neutron star, it will remain neutronium. It will not instantly transform into plasma. Moreover, it will be sperical, just as atomic nuclei are always spherical. Fluidity (not solidity) is the natural state of most of the universe's matter, including atomic nuclei.
• A nucleus with an extremely high neutron count will suffer spontaneous beta decay, in which neutrons convert into protons and electrons. The electrons will move away from the nucleus, while the protons will stay in.
• The rate of this decay is unknown. Will neutronium evapourate from beta decay in milliseconds? Or millenia? There may be theories out there (this is pretty exotic theoretical physics that you guys are mucking around with), but AFAIK, we have nothing remotely approximating experimental or even observational evidence to back anything up.

As you can see, everything depends on the rate of beta decay. If someone knows of research in this area, he is welcome to bring it up. Otherwise, please stop wasting time and space with this "explode into plasma" and "stabilization forcefield" speculation. You guys are making bold statements of fact about highly theoretical physics without performing the appropriate research, even at the most superficial level, and that's simply reckless.

Sorry if that sounds harsh (to both sides), but I felt I had to say it sooner or later. The boldness started with the Trekkies (who had to invent certainty about neutronium's properties in order to claim that they were contradictory to Star Wars) and the SW side followed suit, which is not a healthy response. We know precious little about neutronium, but the small amount that we do know has been ignored repeatedly in this thread.

So, I would have to deal with that for a neutronium hulled ship.... hmmm.... back to the drawing board

[Admiral Piett]

[*]The electrons are not "pulled in" by the intense gravity of a neutron star, only to pop back out when the gravity is released. The electrons merge with protons to become neutrons.
[*]Neutronium is a giant nucleus. It is held together by the nuclear binding force, which is far stronger than gravity or electromagnetism. If neutronium is somehow removed from a neutron star, it will remain neutronium. It will not instantly transform into plasma. Moreover, it will be sperical, just as atomic nuclei are always spherical. Fluidity (not solidity) is the natural state of most of the universe's matter, including atomic nuclei.
[*]A nucleus with an extremely high neutron count will suffer spontaneous beta decay, in which neutrons convert into protons and electrons. The electrons will move away from the nucleus, while the protons will stay in.
[*]The rate of this decay is unknown. Will neutronium evapourate from beta decay in milliseconds? Or millenia? There may be theories out there (this is pretty exotic theoretical physics that you guys are mucking around with), but AFAIK, we have nothing remotely approximating experimental or even observational evidence to back anything up.
[/list]
Sorry if that sounds harsh (to both sides), but I felt I had to say it sooner or later. The boldness started with the Trekkies (who had to invent certainty about neutronium's properties in order to claim that they were contradictory to Star Wars) and the SW side followed suit, which is not a healthy response. We know precious little about neutronium, but the small amount that we do know has been ignored repeatedly in this thread.[/quote]

It is just all that I wanted to know from several days.Now I understand the point.Forgive me if I have committed a sort of sacrilege but the little material(a paragraph of a schoolbook on the neutron stars) I had available was not very clear.I knew that electrons merged with the protons forming neutrons but apart from that not much else.
If there is the possibility of neutronium being stable then a neutronium reinforced hull would become practical,using the method(small particles englobed in a matrix) you have described.
Thank you for the information.

[SPOOFE]

The electrons are not "pulled in" by the intense gravity of a neutron star, only to pop back out when the gravity is released. The electrons merge with protons to become neutrons.

Indeed, and the neutrons themselves are then packed in as far as they can get. This site provides a nice explanation on how degenerate matter acts. Essentially, particles don't like being forced so close together, as there is literally no room to move. Since neutrons are constantly moving - and since there's a good chunk of energy in such a tight environment - if the gravitational pressure were removed, the movement of these neutrons would cause each other to push each other away.

Basically, the only reason neutron stars don't become black holes is due to this degenerate pressure... it's pushing back against gravity, resisting any further compression (although it can be overcome, eventually). If you were to suddenly remove the gravitational pressure, you'll still have this degenerate pressure pushing back... and with nothing to balance it, well... it'll expand (granted, I have no idea if it'll expand to form a plasma or a giant chocolate cupcake).

[Luke Hares]

At the risk of restarting the debate...

Piles of neutrons (or quark matter or whatever) aren't stable, above a certain mass gravity will hold them together, below it it won't.. Hence neutron stars get smaller as they get heavier.

But a cc of the stuff won't hold together...

Indeed, given:
Density of neutronium (RL, theoretical) is about 10E15 g/cc...
you will very rapidly end up with about a gigton of iron - probably in the form of plasma

A gigaton of iron in solid form (7600 kg/m3) is a cube with sides of 508m
As hot plasma it will be rather harder to confine and take up considerably more space...

So the idea of fragments of the stuff floating about (of significantly less than stellar mass) is pretty silly. If you did find a chunk large enough to hold together it would have a surface gravity of about 10E11 G, so don't try to land, or mine, or anything else...

So if you do postulate building hulls out of the stuff you've got to have some sort of containment system and given that you may as well postulate it in threads, rods or whatever shape you want it in. However, since it is intriniscally a massive store of energy I've no idea why you want it there.

More likely its a trade name - ie Neutronium(tm)... Tougher hulls for all the family

However.. a powerplant based around the controlled expansion of neutronium would be interesting, if rather heavy.

Good site
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html#basics

[DarkStar]

"Lone neutrons decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes. And in addition, atomlike collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously. "
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm
(The site itself is arguing a strange point, but I have not seen contrary data)


"A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes..."
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:mL ... n&ie=UTF-8

But, when decay happens, it is quick:
http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/npe.html

"The density of nuclei is limited by the short range repulsion. The maximum size of nuclei is limited by the fact that the attractive force dies away extremely quickly (exponentially) when nucleons are more than a few fm apart."
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/Nuclear/whatis/forces.html

[Darth Wong]

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. Gravity made it that way in the first place, but once it achieves that state, other forces take effect.

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.

Degenerate pressure keeps it from becoming a black hole, but that only means it won't allow gravity push the neutrons closer together than their sizes will allow. Think of the analogy of iron; you can barely compress iron with any reasonable pressure because the atoms are a certain size, and they will exert electromagnetic force to counterbalance your compression pressure. But this doesn't mean that iron expands noticeably once you take the pressure away.

Take away the pressure, and neutronium will still have the density of atomic nuclei. Please try to read more carefully.

[Darth Wong]

Darkstar, free neutrons are irrelevant. We are talking about neutrons bound up in neutronium, not free neutrons. Need I remind you that neutrons which are bound up in large nuclei such as uranium can remain intact for billions of years?