Science Forums: What is the most dense material that can exist on Earth? - Science Forums

Jump to content

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!

Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions!

After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Create a ScienceForums.Net Blog!
Guest Message © 2010 DevFuse
  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

What is the most dense material that can exist on Earth? Rate Topic: -----

#1 Posted 13 February 2009 - 04:29 PM User is offline   Lan(r)12  (Meson)


Ive read that even a little thimble-full of matter from objects like nuetron stars weigh an ungodly amount on Earth. My question is, can this matter even exist on Earth? Is there a limit to how dense an object can be on this Earth?

Thanks for any info ;)
When there's nothing left to burn you have to set yourself on fire >|< :cool:

The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
0

#2 Posted 13 February 2009 - 04:39 PM User is offline   insane_alien  (Genius)


Lan(r)12 said:

Ive read that even a little thimble-full of matter from objects like nuetron stars weigh an ungodly amount on Earth. My question is, can this matter even exist on Earth? Is there a limit to how dense an object can be on this Earth?

Thanks for any info ;)


short answer: we don't have a clue.

medium answer: we don't have a clue, but its not likely.

long answer: we aren't entirely sure why it is stable on an neutron star never mind earth. the matierial is pretty much entirely neutrons as the gravitational pressures have caused the electrons to react with the protons.

now, from out experiences in nuclear technology, we know that neutrons aren't stable outside of atoms, the undergo radioacitive decay fairly quickly.

so, this leads us to to a few possible scenarios for making neutronium(the name for neutron star stuff) on earth.

1/ it is stable, but so dense it sinks through the earth like a brick through air and ends up at the core of the planet.

2/ its unstable, would be the most radioactive substance ever to arrive on earth. everything for miles around would likely die within a very short time and secondary radioactivity would also be severe.

all the evidence points to 2 so far as we don't see small neutrons stars or anything.
Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
1

#3 Posted 13 February 2009 - 06:27 PM User is offline   Sisyphus  (Trickster Archetype)


Icon
I thought neutronium, assuming it exists, is dependent on the ridiculously strong gravity found in neutron stars.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
0

#4 Posted 13 February 2009 - 06:30 PM User is offline   insane_alien  (Genius)


yep, it is which is why we think that it couldn't exist on earth without first turning the earth into a neutron star.
Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
0

#5 Posted 13 February 2009 - 06:52 PM User is offline   Lan(r)12  (Meson)


insane_alien said:

yep, it is which is why we think that it couldn't exist on earth without first turning the earth into a neutron star.


that does make sense...i couldnt possibly see how something tht heavy could exist here. Thanks for your help ;)
When there's nothing left to burn you have to set yourself on fire >|< :cool:

The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
0

#6 Posted 13 February 2009 - 07:47 PM User is offline   timetes  (Meson)


Lan(r)12 said:

Ive read that even a little thimble-full of matter from objects like nuetron stars weigh an ungodly amount on Earth. My question is, can this matter even exist on Earth? Is there a limit to how dense an object can be on this Earth?

Thanks for any info ;)


So, what I just read on your question......the answers all seem to be no .....

But not one answered if there is a limit to how dense and object can be on earth? Why would it have to be radio active or like nuetron star? or dangerous?
:doh: maybe Im not paying attention to the question or answers
0

#7 Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:21 PM User is offline   SH3RL0CK  (Molecule)


Since Neutronium can't exist on earth, the densest matter would then be the densest normal matter. This would be Osmium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmium

If an atom smasher were able to generate some kind of strange matter, perhaps that would be denser. Of course, this strange matter would have to be stable enough for scientists to determine its density.
0

#8 Posted 13 February 2009 - 08:38 PM User is offline   swansont  (Shaken, not Stirred)


Icon
The neutron star material has to have a gravitational attraction sufficient to overcome the degeneracy pressure of the electrons, and force them into the nucleus to combine with the protons and form the neutrons. This keeps the neutrons from decaying, as well.

http://en.wikipedia....neracy_pressure

The limit where this occurs sets the density of normal matter, and yields a value (according to the white dwarf Wikipedia page) of about a metric ton per cm^3

http://en.wikipedia....drasekhar_Limit
http://en.wikipedia....n_and_structure

But all of these conditions are due to intense gravity, and not the chemical properties of the material
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum

Stop failing the Turing test!

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea

Text like this means I'm wearing my moderator hat
0

#9 Posted 15 February 2009 - 04:54 AM User is offline   Mr Skeptic  (iDon't-Believe-You)


Icon
Might the densest matter on earth be the iron core? I know iron is less dense than osmium, but the iron core is under extreme pressure.
Our voting system is broken! It nearly guarantees that we will have only two political parties that have any chance of winning, and that they will be very similar.
0

#10 Posted 16 February 2009 - 10:24 PM User is offline   GDG  (Molecule)


The densest material found on Earth is found in every atomic nucleus. OK, so it comes in very small packages, not thimblefuls: it's still the same stuff ;)
============================
Grant D. Green
www.contrabass.com
0

#11 Posted 18 February 2009 - 04:07 PM User is offline   Lan(r)12  (Meson)


Mr Skeptic said:

Might the densest matter on earth be the iron core? I know iron is less dense than osmium, but the iron core is under extreme pressure.


Yeah, what about that?
You make a good point...
When there's nothing left to burn you have to set yourself on fire >|< :cool:

The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
0

#12 Posted 18 February 2009 - 05:00 PM User is offline   falcon9393  (Meson)


I am not sure but i will take a wack at it
My guess is carbon based structures such as Fullerenes: Graphite and Diamonds:confused:
"Dymaxion future"
0

#13 Posted 18 February 2009 - 05:10 PM User is offline   insane_alien  (Genius)


falcon9393 said:

I am not sure but i will take a wack at it
My guess is carbon based structures such as Fullerenes: Graphite and Diamonds:confused:


they aren't all that dense at all. lead is denser.

a quick google reveals estimates of the cores density to be somewhere about 13000kg/m3 http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/
Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
0

#14 Posted 18 February 2009 - 05:42 PM User is offline   Mr Skeptic  (iDon't-Believe-You)


Icon

insane_alien said:

a quick google reveals estimates of the cores density to be somewhere about 13000kg/m3 http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/interior/


Ah, so the earth's core is about half as dense as osmium (13000 kg/m3 vs 22610 kg/m3).
Our voting system is broken! It nearly guarantees that we will have only two political parties that have any chance of winning, and that they will be very similar.
0

#15 Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:02 PM User is offline   Lan(r)12  (Meson)


Mr Skeptic said:

Ah, so the earth's core is about half as dense as osmium (13000 kg/m3 vs 22610 kg/m3).


What is osmium? Is it synthetic? A naturally ocurring substance? Organic or inorganic?
When there's nothing left to burn you have to set yourself on fire >|< :cool:

The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
0

#16 Posted 19 February 2009 - 06:27 PM User is offline   insane_alien  (Genius)


Its an element, naturally occuring and metal.

google or wikipedia could have told you this.
Tired of waiting around for a reply on the forums? Use IRC, 'I don't know how' is no longer an excuse.

"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
0

#17 Posted 20 February 2009 - 08:10 AM User is offline   Shadow  (Atom)


Organic osmium, that sounds cool :)
-"Hey guys, I'm awesome. Trust me."

This applies to the above post and any new ideas or media presented in it.

- "Cryptographically secure linear feedback shift register based stream ciphers" -- a phrase that'll get any party started.
0

#18 Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:42 PM User is offline   Lan(r)12  (Meson)


insane_alien said:

Its an element, naturally occuring and metal.

google or wikipedia could have told you this.


im currently boycotting all search engines lol
why exert unnecessary energy when you all can just tell me?
;)
When there's nothing left to burn you have to set yourself on fire >|< :cool:

The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
0

#19 Posted 21 February 2009 - 08:07 PM User is offline   npts2020  (Protist)


Lan(r)12 said:

im currently boycotting all search engines lol
why exert unnecessary energy when you all can just tell me?
;)


You don't need a search engine to find wikipedia.:doh:
"Embrace those who seek truth. Run from those who claim to have found it." Vaclav Havel's advice for children.

my blog
0

#20 Posted 21 February 2009 - 09:23 PM User is offline   UC  (ydoaPs just lost the game)


Lan(r)12 said:

im currently boycotting all search engines lol
why exert unnecessary energy when you all can just tell me?
;)


That's the single most annoying thing I've heard in a while. A forum is generally where to ask stuff that you can't figure out elsewhere or need better insight that the internet fails to provide. You're wasting everyone's time.

Also, you could have typed in everything you need to get to that wikipedia article in less words than it took to make that post.
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users