Talk:Neutronium

message: From the content of articles on Neutronium (with many SF references), Neutrium (Nt) a similar but specifically scientific hypothisis, and TetraNeutrons, 
* Disagree.  There is nothing scientific about Neutrium.  As pointed out below, there isn't even a proposal for what force holds the neutrons together.  It's wishful thinking through and through, and wishful thinking is anti-science.JohnAspinall 01:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't delete, fictional is useful

message: 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)
replies: text: A hypothetical "neutronium" would be composed of neutrons-only bound by the strong force, to be considered an element, while "neutron stars" are believed to be composed of neutrons-mostly bound by gravitation. Scientists don't doubt the existence of "neutrons" but of "neutronium". ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutronium vs. Neutron star 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Condensed rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  not necessary... 

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

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

message: * Opposer. I don't think there's enough in the neutrium article to merit a merge. In my opinion, it would be better off to redirect that article to polyneutron, which itself could use more references establishing notability (it appears to be the work of a single scientist, on a subject that's controversial). --Christopher Thomas 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Merge or Not to Merge (Neutronium and Neutrium) 

message: 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.
:I agree and think that Neutronium is a noble gas above Helium in the periodic table, but the outside sources listing neutrons alongside charged nuclide use n or 0n. We can hint IUPAC of this. Otherwise we are bound to refer to what outside sources say preferrably primary outside sources. Said: Rursus ☻ 07:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be odd having neutronium in group 1, as it doesn't have any electrons so it can't form positive ions. If the neutron dipole moment is non-0, I think that that would make an n- ion possible at extremely low temperatures, but this would be highly unstable, sort of like ions of noble gases, so I agree that it would make more sense to put it above He.109.150.105.252 (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I think that any decision made here is pointless, as it is unencyclopedic information, and thereby is not addable to Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I think that neutronium, hydrogen and helium, each deserve their very own column, just like the transition metals. That is each column would have one member. I like the cylindrical table, I will contruct one today just for fun. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutronium: The Uncommon Element 

message: Here are some legitimate polyneutron refs in case anyone wants to work them into the article.
# Band, W., Origin of the lighter elements. Physical Review 1950, 80, 813-18.
# Peierls, R. E.; Singwi, K. S.; Wroe, D., The polyneutron theory of the origin of the elements. Physical Review 1952, 87, 46-50.
# Turkevich, A.; Cadieux, J. R.; Warren, J.; Economou, T.; La Rosa, J.; Heydegger, H. R., Search for particle-bound polyneutron systems. Physical Review Letters 1977, 38, 1129-31.
# Nayak, R.; Satpathy, L., Existence of bound neutral nuclei. Proceedings of the Nuclear Physics and Solid State Physics Symposium 1978, 21B, 54.
# Satpathy, L.; Nayak, R., On the existence of bound neutral nuclei. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear Physics 1978, 4, L161-L164.
# Baba, C. V. K.; Datar, V. M.; Bhargava, V. K.; Rao, V. K.; Marathe, S. G.; Iyer, R. H. Search for bound polyneutron nuclei in the fission of uranium-236; Bhabha At. Res. Cent.,Bombay,India.: 1979; pp 73-5.
# Rao, V. K.; Bhargava, V. K.; Marathe, S. G.; Iyer, R. H.; Datar, V. M.; Baba, C. V. K., A radiochemical investigation on the existence of polyneutron nuclei in the thermal neutron fission of uranium-235. Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry 1981, 43, 1-3.
# Zaitseva, N. G.; Kuznetsova, M. Y.; Knotek, O.; Kovalev, A.; Novikov, S. A.; Khalkin, V. A., A radiochemical search for polyneutron nuclei in the interaction of 10 GeV protons with sodium iodide. Radiochimica Acta 1983, 34, 159-61.
--Kkmurray (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyneutron References 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm going to have to second your feelings. There was no reason given for adding the neutrality tag, and I don't see any significant (or insignificant) issues as far as neutrality goes. Would the editor who did add the neutrality tag please explain to us why? 3Juno3 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag was added in this edit, without any explanation, in violation of the NPOV dispute guidelines. Since that editor has only made a total of three edits (with the two others on entirely unrelated topics), and the last was one more than two months ago, it's unlikely that an explanation is forthcoming in the foreseeable future. I'm going to remove the  tag; if anyone disagrees, feel free to put it back with a proper justification. Hqb (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality issue? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Citation(s) needed in "Neutronium in Fiction"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terry Pratchett 

message: FIX THE INFOBOX! --116.14.27.127 (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal 

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps for tetraneutrons, but I'm pretty sure dineutrons are noteworthy enough to have a standalone article. I'll investigate.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Upon reading the references in both articles, I would be against such a merge. The physics involved in both cases are different enough, these articles should be expanded not merged.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cluster merge 

message: I have to check the three following articles for neutronium und Andreas von Antropoff
*
*
*
--Stone (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: Try Neutron-degenerate matter#Neutron degeneracy. Here neutrons do actually decay into protons, but due to the enormous gravitational pressure, the produced electron is crushed right back into the proton it came from within an unimaginably short space of time. This length of time is so short that the persistence of a single neutron can be considered as continuous.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that isn't quite correct. What happens is that the neutron star is dense enough that any electrons produced by decaying neutrons would have to be at extremely high energy (due to electron degeneracy). This makes the decay energetically unfavourable, so it doesn't happen. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm pretty sure that quantumn statistics come into play - even though it is energetically unfavourable, there is a non-zero statistical probability of decay occuring. If aslo take into consideration the sheer size of the statistical population in a neutron star, then even a relatively tiny propability should show up.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stability of lone neutrons?

message: 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)
replies: text: Neutronium was erroneously added to the navbox template. As stated in this article, Neutronium has many definitions, one of which defines it under degenerate matter. Degenerate matter is already in the navbox. The notion that neutronium is a state of matter, is not verifiable in any reputable sources.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying that and updating it in both places. David Hollman (Talk) 11:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that helps either way, since as a form of degenerate matter, it's appropo to have the template here, as it is a form of degenerate matter, it need not occur on the template itself. This doesn't show why or why not the template should or should not appear on the article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is not verifiable that it is a state of matter, it seemed prudent to leave off the navbox, as its presence might imply otherwise.  However there is a (just added) link to states of matter (as well as degenerate matter) in the article, and that seems to provide a good balance. (If there were some good sources which suggest that it really is a state of matter, then that would be a different story). David Hollman (Talk) 07:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Degenerate matter is not the only definition for neutronium, neutronium is an ambiguous term.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Neutron-degenerate matter is already covered by the template.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim that "the notion that neutronium is a state of matter, is not verifiable in any reputable sources" is just plain nonsense.  Neutron stars are, by definition, composed of neutronium.  Neutrons stars exist.  Therefore, neutronium exists.  Azidothymizeal (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't make "neutronium" a state of matter, it makes "neutron-degenerate matter" a "state of matter".  Although I don't agree with much of Plasmic Physics's editing of the article, he's absolutely correct about the template.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm intrigued, what does much of my editing of the article include? As far as I'm aware, I was only involved with the removal of the element infobox.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  States of matter navbox 

message: 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)
replies: text: It may fit the description of neutronium, but it is not called neutronium. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should we add Eezo from Mass Effect to the use in fiction section. 

message: 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)
replies: text: First of all, the new name is redundant: you ever can speak specifically about degenerate neutronium (vs ordinary matter), just like one speaks about other cases of degenerate matter. I do not see that a clear-cut distinction between the two meanings can be established. Degenerate or not, but neutrons have a magnetic dipole and will interact with an EM field. All of them in an ordinary gas, or only some of them near the Fermi level in a degenerate , but they will. Transition from one to another will change the strength of interaction, but not its mechanism. But if a portion of neutronium converted to  (I expect that it will convert under an elevated pressure), then its EM interaction (for reasonable energies) will almost disappear together with spin. Probably, it is the reason why (degenerate) neutronium is a preferred term over (degenerate) neutrons – electrons do not form bound pairs, at least under conditions of a high-pressure electronic degenerate matter, for a comparison. So, isotopic consideration are relevant both for degenerate and non-degenerate case, and you can’t forget about isotopes until neutronium’s density reaches values comparable to the density of atomic nuclei. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbol Nh is now used for nihonium (element 113), though Nl would still be possible for "nihilogen". This is of course just OR and shouldn't be in the article. Double sharp (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Element 0 vs degenerate matter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irrelevant reference 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do not search for contradiction where it does not exist. In some systems where an actual energy level (i.e. a point spectrum element a.k.a. eigenvalue) does not exist, but the Hamiltonian is so close to having it that the difference can be, in short time intervals, neglected. It is called a (narrow) resonance (particle physics) – unfortunately, this important article is underdeveloped. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I had the same concern as the above poster.  The article is not clear.  If this is in fact a resonance (seems quite reasonable), the article should do a better job pointing this out.  I'll see if I can help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that with trineutrons and beyond, one shouldn't be talking about bound states but possible short-lived resonances.  The phrase, "even for a short time", suggests that what's discussed is the possible existence or nonexistence of resonances.Johnm307 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bound neutrons 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not possible according to references cited in this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bound neutronium