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 ;)
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
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.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
What is the most dense material that can exist on Earth?
#2 13 February 2009 - 04:39 PM
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 ;)
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.
"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
- Posts: 9,978 | Joined: 27-May 05
Reply
#4 13 February 2009 - 06:30 PM
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.
"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
- Posts: 9,978 | Joined: 27-May 05
Reply
#5 13 February 2009 - 06:52 PM
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.
The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
- Posts: 131 | Joined: 08-December 08
Reply
#6 13 February 2009 - 07:47 PM
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 ;)
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
- Posts: 71 | Joined: 13-December 08
Reply
#7 13 February 2009 - 08:21 PM
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.
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.
- Posts: 728 | Joined: 03-April 08
Reply
#8 13 February 2009 - 08:38 PM
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
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
To release the hounds, click the [+] sign ->
Stop failing the Turing test!
My SFN blog: Swans on Tea
To release the hounds, click the [+] sign ->
- Posts: 18,956 | Joined: 04-October 03
Reply
#9 15 February 2009 - 04:54 AM
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.
- Posts: 8,309 | Joined: 15-September 07
Reply
#11 18 February 2009 - 04:07 PM
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.
The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
- Posts: 131 | Joined: 08-December 08
Reply
#13 18 February 2009 - 05:10 PM
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:
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.
"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
- Posts: 9,978 | Joined: 27-May 05
Reply
#14 18 February 2009 - 05:42 PM
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.
- Posts: 8,309 | Joined: 15-September 07
Reply
#15 19 February 2009 - 06:02 PM
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.
The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
- Posts: 131 | Joined: 08-December 08
Reply
#16 19 February 2009 - 06:27 PM
Its an element, naturally occuring and metal.
google or wikipedia could have told you this.
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.
"Special" Relativity, stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast.
- Posts: 9,978 | Joined: 27-May 05
Reply
#17 20 February 2009 - 08:10 AM
Organic osmium, that sounds cool :)
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.
- "Cryptographically secure linear feedback shift register based stream ciphers" -- a phrase that'll get any party started.
- Posts: 593 | Joined: 03-October 07
Reply
#18 20 February 2009 - 02:42 PM
insane_alien said:
Its an element, naturally occuring and metal.
google or wikipedia could have told you this.
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.
The probability of error is directly proportional to the degree of accuracy with which you are working.
- Posts: 131 | Joined: 08-December 08
Reply
#19 21 February 2009 - 08:07 PM
Lan(r)12 said:
im currently boycotting all search engines lol
why exert unnecessary energy when you all can just tell me?
;)
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
my blog
- Posts: 1,084 | Joined: 06-September 08
Reply
#20 21 February 2009 - 09:23 PM
Lan(r)12 said:
im currently boycotting all search engines lol
why exert unnecessary energy when you all can just tell me?
;)
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.
- Posts: 550 | Joined: 22-December 08
Reply

Help
Sign In »
Register Now!


















