This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neutronium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Neutrium page were merged into Neutronium. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
From the content of articles on Neutronium (with many SF references), Neutrium (Nt) a similar but specifically scientific hypothisis, and TetraNeutrons,
...it is clear these serve different communities of interest. Folks following up on Star Treck, Larry Niven's work, etc will find this page useful. Those curious about the concept of neutron-isotopes (polyneutrons, tetraneutrons, etc) as possible (but unconfirmed) particles, the other pages are useful.
I would like to see more well considered discussion on the Neutrium and related pages about the implications of the neutron-isotope hypothosis. This can yeild some good insight on the nature of matter, even if the particles do not exist. Is this a candidate for Dark Matter? etc.
From a standpoint of the Periodic Table -- should Neutrium be given a seat -- it would seem it must appear above Helium as a noble gas -- with all (zero) electron orbitals filled. 69.131.97.109 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Jim
Neutronium should have a symbol n (lowercase), as that is the symbol for the neutron. It should have an atomic number of 0, hence 0n. The mononeutron would have mass number 1, 1n. The dineutron would have mass number 2, 2n. And the same goes for tetraneutron and other neutron clusters, if there are x neutrons in the neutron clusters, then the symbol should be xn. Neutronium should have an relative atomic mass of 4.000 temporarily because of the tetraneutron polyneutron cluster. I would say it was a nonmetal. Its group should be 18, appearence unknown, electron configuration none, electrons per shell none, electronegativity undefined as it has no electrons and ionization energy 0. Its place in the table would be above helium as it would most likely be a noble gas with all electron orbitals completely filled up. This seems to show that if a macroscopic quantity of neutronium were ever prepared synthetically, it would be in the gaseous state. I hope given this information you can go ahead and fill in the infobox for neutronium. Oh, and don't forget to ask mav to make a new table image for the element with atomic number zero -- neutronium. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
On account of WP:BB, I will reinsert the infobox. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You could originally argue that the neutron is not an element, because it's unstable by itself, and it gets to be part of the atom by virtue of its ability to add to the atoms force of attraction as well as its physical rest mass. But now with the standard model, it comes across more as a maverick proton that has lost its positive electrostatic charge, due to an internal change, and which can be changed back under certain circumstances. And the standard model's subdivision if the electrostatic charge unit hasn't helped in determining what an electrostatic charge really is, and sounds more like an accounting gimmick. And since the addition of neutrons to the nucleus winds up adding a variable amount of mass value to the atom, including values of less than 1 Amu, it would be nice to know what the rest mass of the basic particle really is. WFPM ( talk) 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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...
Article says:
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
{{Elementbox_header2 | number=0 | symbol=Nu | name=neutronium | left=[[electron]] | right=- | above=- | below=[[helium|He]] | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_series | none }} {{Elementbox_groupperiodblock | group=18 | period=0 | block=s }} {{Elementbox_appearance_img | | unknown }} {{Elementbox_atomicmass_gpm | ? }} {{Elementbox_econfig | ''none'' }} {{Elementbox_epershell | 0 }} {{Elementbox_section_physicalprop | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_phase | unknown }} |- | {{Elementbox_section_miscellaneous | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_begin | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=1 | sym=n<sup>#</sup> | na=? | n=1 }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=2 | sym=n<sup>x</sup> | na=? | n=2 }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=4 | sym=n<sup>×</sup> | na=? | n=4 }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=? | sym=n<sup>*</sup> | na=? | n=? }} |- | colspan="6" align="center" | #<small>[[free neutron]] x</small>[[dineutron]] ×<small>[[tetraneutron]]</small> *<small>[[neutron star]]</small> {{Elementbox_isotopes_end}} {{Elementbox_footer | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }}
I realy dont think that the periodic table and associated elements should be shown on this page, anyoone agree?
| ||||||
General | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name, Symbol, Number | neutronium, Nnn, 0 |
{{Elementbox_footer | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }}
Why not just use the symbol n as that's the symbol for the neutron (as a subatomic particle), as I mentioned earlier. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 05:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
When it appears in a college text book for Chemistry 101 I say it should be on a periodic chart. Until then, keep it off. Manticore55 ( talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Symbol for Neutronium
Okay, now. It should be a little clean-up for the symbol of neutronium (element zero; a bare neutron). I have noticed some of you said it was n. I understand that commotion. I noticed nitrogen had a capital N, so it might be kind of confusing.
One person commented that the symbol should be Nnn. I noticed that only when you reach the Unun- elements that three letters are in the symbol. It seems kind of weird to me having a three-letter symbol followed by around a hundred one/two-lettered symbols in a row, then having some three-letter symbols. So, that idea does not seem so good.
Other people decided that neutronium’s symbol should be Nu. I totally agree with this. I think that it makes sense, it seems to fit, hey… speaking of fit… where should it be on the periodic table?
The Space of Neutronium
I know that the element of neutronium is already in the newer version of the periodic table (which I will refer to as the Chemical Galaxy). In the older version (that shall be referred as the Block Elements), neutronium does not have a place in the periodic table. Now, here are some things about it I have to say.
I think I understand the problem. Some of you are putting neutronium on a big bar on top of the Block Elements. I understand you do not see its place, but it seems, hmmm… how should I put it----unfair. It seems unfair that one element has this big bar floating above the others and the others have small blocks.
I have decided a reasonable solution. I think that on top of the block for hydrogen, there should be the neutronium block. It will be arranged like the other elements. If anybody decides to create a periodic table showing what it should look like, just send a periodic table showing only the area around neutronium They can be sent to 313 Karas Road.
I couldn't of done this presentation without the help of the other comments about neutronium. Please post your own comments on this discussion page. And thank you for taking your time reading this.
Don't forget Vacuum, which is the no-neutron isotope of Nilium. I'd agree with the other author who noted that N was nitrogen, and n is not capitalised so cannot be a proper element acronym. Two-letter acronyms are reserved for permanently named elements, so we can only consider Nilnilnilium, Nnn. Neuralwarp ( talk) 18:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are some legitimate polyneutron [4] refs in case anyone wants to work them into the article.
-- Kkmurray ( talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone put the neutrality tag on the article. ? I think the article is doubly neutral :) ... and enlighting ... and valuable ... and valid. It should remain intact. But it seems that it is original research, since (seemingly) the article states that the various polyneutrons are to be regarded as isotopes of Neutronium, a conclusion that by my mind is an obvious and uncontroversial conclusion. I say this because I think there should be some precise criteria in WP:OR that allows obvious and uncontroversial conclusions, and that the text in WP:OR is too social science oriented. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
An erroneously-place note in the main article brought something to my attention: citations or links to releveant articles are required in the Neutronium in Fiction section. Namely, the role it plays in the Mass Effect universe. Perhaps a quote from offical game text? 3Juno3 ( talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Terry Pratchett's "Strata" contains references to "neutronium" as a material you could coat the underside of a planet-sized disc with in order to get "artificial" gravity.
Pratchett is certainly pretty notable, but "Strata" may not be (it's not part of the Discworld series, but it does feature a disc world - whether it is coated with neutronium is not firmly established).
-- 195.56.53.118 ( talk) 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
FIX THE INFOBOX! -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 06:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've fixed it myself because of WP:BB. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 09:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There's not enough to be set about the resonance 2Nt or the hypothetical quasi-nucleus 4Nt to be worthy of separate articles, and most of what there is to say in those articles doesn't have tracable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to check the three following articles for neutronium und Andreas von Antropoff
-- Stone ( talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
At least, for the past few months, the infobox had been stable, except for occasional periods when Plasmic Physics ( talk · contribs) removed it. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The information on the hypothetical states 2Nt and 4Nt used to be in the infobox. It's in the "isotopes" section now, and probably should be in the infoxbox. As for "standard state"...., well, perhaps, the infobox, along with references to 2n and 4n, should be in neutron , rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing the infobox seems to be slightly favored, so I have gone ahead and removed it. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Lone neutrons (not found in close proximity to a proton in a nucleus) decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes. Has anyone proposed a mechanism by which a neutron star's strong gravity might overcome this instability? If not, the whole concept of neutron stars -- as widespread as it is -- is on shaky ground. 199.46.199.232 ( talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Neutronium is listed in the navbox Template:States of matter. Additions of that template to this page have been (re-)reverted a few times. However no corresponding edit has been made to the navbox. As I see it, that navbox is a broad collection of articles related to states of matter, and the hypothetical nature of neutronium should not necessarily be an impediment to its inclusion. There are other types of "exotic" matter in the navbox as well. David Hollman ( Talk) 10:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(I see the navbox is edited now too; they should, at least, be consistent. David Hollman ( Talk) 10:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC))
Element Zero or eezo atomic number 0 chemical symbol Ez fits the description of Neutronium, just with a different name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.74.157 ( talk) 05:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The following text was recently removed ( see here) with the mention of original research ( WP:NOR), but it seems this is perhaps not an appropriate argument and that part of this text was useful:
If one accepts neutronium to be an element, the above mentioned neutron clusters would be the isotopes of that element,{{Tl:Whom?|date=}} if their existence can be confirmed. Also, if neutronium is accepted to be an element, it would not be a noble gas,{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}} for it would have no electrons, in fact, it would have no electron shells. All electron shells and their electrons have been squeezed out of the material by pressure.{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}} The material would, thus, like noble gasses be unreactive{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}}, but for different reasons. Neutronium would not fit anywhere in the periodic table.{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}}
Any comment or argument to reinsert it at least partly? Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
First of all, liquid neutronium (at least 1
n
) does not exist under the normal pressure. It is possible that it is a superfluid under very high pressures, but the substantiation “due to its incredible density and its inability to form rigid structure” is a complete rubbish. Second, neutronuim-1 interacts with
electromagnetic field if only because it has a magnetic dipole. It is likely that its
even isotopes have not, but 2
n
is extremely unstable and 4
n
is hypothetical (and also, unlikely is stable enough under reasonable pressures). Hence, it is plausible that neutronium, even in the gaseous phase, would have a noticeable
refractive index comparable with one of “ordinary” gases. Hence, “completely clear” is an baseless speculation.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 13:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest a new name for neutronium for the purposes of this discussion, to distinguish the element from the degenerate matter: nihilogen, with symbol Nh. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, a symbol Nn for neutronium has been used... Double sharp ( talk) 02:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think, that a reference to "Wookiepedia" is what should be used. Could we get it from a more reliable source?-- Mr.23 ( talk) 19:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the two neutrons in the dineutron are not bound but are nearly bound. OBVIOUSLY, the definition of "bound" (along with an explanation, if necessary) is needed. They either do exist as a bound system (state) or do not. If they are not bound, isn't the quantum mechanics very different? They aren't free, so the artificial dichotomy between bound and unbound that this article suggests is IMHO incorrect. I guess that the author confuses stability with "bondedness". Can someone please fix? 173.189.79.117 ( talk) 14:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
If we are to have a complete listing of all uses of the word "neutronium" in this article, we'd need mention of the use of the term in the Mass effect series. Per WP:TRIVIA we shouldn't include the list at all, let alone this marginal component of the list. At this edit I have removed the list. Please don't reinsert trivia without policy-backed consensus. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
How many neutrons do you have to pack together for the strong nuclear force to take over and finally hold the neutrons together? Six? Ten? One hundred? One billion? Is it not possible? 02:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)02:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)~~ 32ieww ( talk) 02:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Neutronium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Neutrium page were merged into Neutronium. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
From the content of articles on Neutronium (with many SF references), Neutrium (Nt) a similar but specifically scientific hypothisis, and TetraNeutrons,
...it is clear these serve different communities of interest. Folks following up on Star Treck, Larry Niven's work, etc will find this page useful. Those curious about the concept of neutron-isotopes (polyneutrons, tetraneutrons, etc) as possible (but unconfirmed) particles, the other pages are useful.
I would like to see more well considered discussion on the Neutrium and related pages about the implications of the neutron-isotope hypothosis. This can yeild some good insight on the nature of matter, even if the particles do not exist. Is this a candidate for Dark Matter? etc.
From a standpoint of the Periodic Table -- should Neutrium be given a seat -- it would seem it must appear above Helium as a noble gas -- with all (zero) electron orbitals filled. 69.131.97.109 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Jim
Neutronium should have a symbol n (lowercase), as that is the symbol for the neutron. It should have an atomic number of 0, hence 0n. The mononeutron would have mass number 1, 1n. The dineutron would have mass number 2, 2n. And the same goes for tetraneutron and other neutron clusters, if there are x neutrons in the neutron clusters, then the symbol should be xn. Neutronium should have an relative atomic mass of 4.000 temporarily because of the tetraneutron polyneutron cluster. I would say it was a nonmetal. Its group should be 18, appearence unknown, electron configuration none, electrons per shell none, electronegativity undefined as it has no electrons and ionization energy 0. Its place in the table would be above helium as it would most likely be a noble gas with all electron orbitals completely filled up. This seems to show that if a macroscopic quantity of neutronium were ever prepared synthetically, it would be in the gaseous state. I hope given this information you can go ahead and fill in the infobox for neutronium. Oh, and don't forget to ask mav to make a new table image for the element with atomic number zero -- neutronium. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
On account of WP:BB, I will reinsert the infobox. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You could originally argue that the neutron is not an element, because it's unstable by itself, and it gets to be part of the atom by virtue of its ability to add to the atoms force of attraction as well as its physical rest mass. But now with the standard model, it comes across more as a maverick proton that has lost its positive electrostatic charge, due to an internal change, and which can be changed back under certain circumstances. And the standard model's subdivision if the electrostatic charge unit hasn't helped in determining what an electrostatic charge really is, and sounds more like an accounting gimmick. And since the addition of neutrons to the nucleus winds up adding a variable amount of mass value to the atom, including values of less than 1 Amu, it would be nice to know what the rest mass of the basic particle really is. WFPM ( talk) 22:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
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...
Article says:
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
{{Elementbox_header2 | number=0 | symbol=Nu | name=neutronium | left=[[electron]] | right=- | above=- | below=[[helium|He]] | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_series | none }} {{Elementbox_groupperiodblock | group=18 | period=0 | block=s }} {{Elementbox_appearance_img | | unknown }} {{Elementbox_atomicmass_gpm | ? }} {{Elementbox_econfig | ''none'' }} {{Elementbox_epershell | 0 }} {{Elementbox_section_physicalprop | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_phase | unknown }} |- | {{Elementbox_section_miscellaneous | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_begin | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=1 | sym=n<sup>#</sup> | na=? | n=1 }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=2 | sym=n<sup>x</sup> | na=? | n=2 }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=4 | sym=n<sup>×</sup> | na=? | n=4 }} {{Elementbox_isotopes_unstable | mn=? | sym=n<sup>*</sup> | na=? | n=? }} |- | colspan="6" align="center" | #<small>[[free neutron]] x</small>[[dineutron]] ×<small>[[tetraneutron]]</small> *<small>[[neutron star]]</small> {{Elementbox_isotopes_end}} {{Elementbox_footer | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }}
I realy dont think that the periodic table and associated elements should be shown on this page, anyoone agree?
| ||||||
General | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name, Symbol, Number | neutronium, Nnn, 0 |
{{Elementbox_footer | color1=#c0ffff | color2=green }}
Why not just use the symbol n as that's the symbol for the neutron (as a subatomic particle), as I mentioned earlier. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 05:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
When it appears in a college text book for Chemistry 101 I say it should be on a periodic chart. Until then, keep it off. Manticore55 ( talk) 22:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The Symbol for Neutronium
Okay, now. It should be a little clean-up for the symbol of neutronium (element zero; a bare neutron). I have noticed some of you said it was n. I understand that commotion. I noticed nitrogen had a capital N, so it might be kind of confusing.
One person commented that the symbol should be Nnn. I noticed that only when you reach the Unun- elements that three letters are in the symbol. It seems kind of weird to me having a three-letter symbol followed by around a hundred one/two-lettered symbols in a row, then having some three-letter symbols. So, that idea does not seem so good.
Other people decided that neutronium’s symbol should be Nu. I totally agree with this. I think that it makes sense, it seems to fit, hey… speaking of fit… where should it be on the periodic table?
The Space of Neutronium
I know that the element of neutronium is already in the newer version of the periodic table (which I will refer to as the Chemical Galaxy). In the older version (that shall be referred as the Block Elements), neutronium does not have a place in the periodic table. Now, here are some things about it I have to say.
I think I understand the problem. Some of you are putting neutronium on a big bar on top of the Block Elements. I understand you do not see its place, but it seems, hmmm… how should I put it----unfair. It seems unfair that one element has this big bar floating above the others and the others have small blocks.
I have decided a reasonable solution. I think that on top of the block for hydrogen, there should be the neutronium block. It will be arranged like the other elements. If anybody decides to create a periodic table showing what it should look like, just send a periodic table showing only the area around neutronium They can be sent to 313 Karas Road.
I couldn't of done this presentation without the help of the other comments about neutronium. Please post your own comments on this discussion page. And thank you for taking your time reading this.
Don't forget Vacuum, which is the no-neutron isotope of Nilium. I'd agree with the other author who noted that N was nitrogen, and n is not capitalised so cannot be a proper element acronym. Two-letter acronyms are reserved for permanently named elements, so we can only consider Nilnilnilium, Nnn. Neuralwarp ( talk) 18:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Here are some legitimate polyneutron [4] refs in case anyone wants to work them into the article.
-- Kkmurray ( talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone put the neutrality tag on the article. ? I think the article is doubly neutral :) ... and enlighting ... and valuable ... and valid. It should remain intact. But it seems that it is original research, since (seemingly) the article states that the various polyneutrons are to be regarded as isotopes of Neutronium, a conclusion that by my mind is an obvious and uncontroversial conclusion. I say this because I think there should be some precise criteria in WP:OR that allows obvious and uncontroversial conclusions, and that the text in WP:OR is too social science oriented. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
An erroneously-place note in the main article brought something to my attention: citations or links to releveant articles are required in the Neutronium in Fiction section. Namely, the role it plays in the Mass Effect universe. Perhaps a quote from offical game text? 3Juno3 ( talk) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Terry Pratchett's "Strata" contains references to "neutronium" as a material you could coat the underside of a planet-sized disc with in order to get "artificial" gravity.
Pratchett is certainly pretty notable, but "Strata" may not be (it's not part of the Discworld series, but it does feature a disc world - whether it is coated with neutronium is not firmly established).
-- 195.56.53.118 ( talk) 23:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
FIX THE INFOBOX! -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 06:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've fixed it myself because of WP:BB. -- 116.14.27.127 ( talk) 09:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There's not enough to be set about the resonance 2Nt or the hypothetical quasi-nucleus 4Nt to be worthy of separate articles, and most of what there is to say in those articles doesn't have tracable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to check the three following articles for neutronium und Andreas von Antropoff
-- Stone ( talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
At least, for the past few months, the infobox had been stable, except for occasional periods when Plasmic Physics ( talk · contribs) removed it. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The information on the hypothetical states 2Nt and 4Nt used to be in the infobox. It's in the "isotopes" section now, and probably should be in the infoxbox. As for "standard state"...., well, perhaps, the infobox, along with references to 2n and 4n, should be in neutron , rather than here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing the infobox seems to be slightly favored, so I have gone ahead and removed it. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Lone neutrons (not found in close proximity to a proton in a nucleus) decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes. Has anyone proposed a mechanism by which a neutron star's strong gravity might overcome this instability? If not, the whole concept of neutron stars -- as widespread as it is -- is on shaky ground. 199.46.199.232 ( talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Neutronium is listed in the navbox Template:States of matter. Additions of that template to this page have been (re-)reverted a few times. However no corresponding edit has been made to the navbox. As I see it, that navbox is a broad collection of articles related to states of matter, and the hypothetical nature of neutronium should not necessarily be an impediment to its inclusion. There are other types of "exotic" matter in the navbox as well. David Hollman ( Talk) 10:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(I see the navbox is edited now too; they should, at least, be consistent. David Hollman ( Talk) 10:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC))
Element Zero or eezo atomic number 0 chemical symbol Ez fits the description of Neutronium, just with a different name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.74.157 ( talk) 05:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The following text was recently removed ( see here) with the mention of original research ( WP:NOR), but it seems this is perhaps not an appropriate argument and that part of this text was useful:
If one accepts neutronium to be an element, the above mentioned neutron clusters would be the isotopes of that element,{{Tl:Whom?|date=}} if their existence can be confirmed. Also, if neutronium is accepted to be an element, it would not be a noble gas,{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}} for it would have no electrons, in fact, it would have no electron shells. All electron shells and their electrons have been squeezed out of the material by pressure.{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}} The material would, thus, like noble gasses be unreactive{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}}, but for different reasons. Neutronium would not fit anywhere in the periodic table.{{Tl:Citation needed|date=}}
Any comment or argument to reinsert it at least partly? Best regards, Shinkolobwe ( talk) 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
First of all, liquid neutronium (at least 1
n
) does not exist under the normal pressure. It is possible that it is a superfluid under very high pressures, but the substantiation “due to its incredible density and its inability to form rigid structure” is a complete rubbish. Second, neutronuim-1 interacts with
electromagnetic field if only because it has a magnetic dipole. It is likely that its
even isotopes have not, but 2
n
is extremely unstable and 4
n
is hypothetical (and also, unlikely is stable enough under reasonable pressures). Hence, it is plausible that neutronium, even in the gaseous phase, would have a noticeable
refractive index comparable with one of “ordinary” gases. Hence, “completely clear” is an baseless speculation.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 13:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest a new name for neutronium for the purposes of this discussion, to distinguish the element from the degenerate matter: nihilogen, with symbol Nh. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 09:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, a symbol Nn for neutronium has been used... Double sharp ( talk) 02:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think, that a reference to "Wookiepedia" is what should be used. Could we get it from a more reliable source?-- Mr.23 ( talk) 19:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The article states that the two neutrons in the dineutron are not bound but are nearly bound. OBVIOUSLY, the definition of "bound" (along with an explanation, if necessary) is needed. They either do exist as a bound system (state) or do not. If they are not bound, isn't the quantum mechanics very different? They aren't free, so the artificial dichotomy between bound and unbound that this article suggests is IMHO incorrect. I guess that the author confuses stability with "bondedness". Can someone please fix? 173.189.79.117 ( talk) 14:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
If we are to have a complete listing of all uses of the word "neutronium" in this article, we'd need mention of the use of the term in the Mass effect series. Per WP:TRIVIA we shouldn't include the list at all, let alone this marginal component of the list. At this edit I have removed the list. Please don't reinsert trivia without policy-backed consensus. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
How many neutrons do you have to pack together for the strong nuclear force to take over and finally hold the neutrons together? Six? Ten? One hundred? One billion? Is it not possible? 02:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)02:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)~~ 32ieww ( talk) 02:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)