this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
1037 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

14352 readers
4482 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TanteRegenbogen@feddit.org 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

He said "physically" which is wrong because Neutronium. What he possibly meant was "practically" in which Osmium would be the only element you can practically fit in the box since it isn't possible to synthesize neutronium at that amount or handle that much safely.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org 3 points 16 hours ago

I guarantee that it is physically impossible to fill a cardboard box with pure neutronium. Is it physically possible to get over 70 lbs of the stuff in there in a stable, shippable manner? I don't know, and neither do you. It's certainly far, FAR beyond the capability of any technology on Earth, but I guess it might maybe possibly not break the laws of physics. I can't prove that though, and neither can you, so neither of us can actually prove the statement wrong.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If mailing 70 lbs of unstable particles that can't exist outside of a lab is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

[–] TanteRegenbogen@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It would be interesting transporting a microscopic object weighing 70lbs.

[–] Blooper@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago

Something something my penis

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No you mean theoretical. As neutronium is a theoretical substance. To our knowledge there's no way to find it outside of neuron stars. It is therefore physically impossible, within our current state of knowledge.

It's highly unlikely, bordering on theoretically impossible to assume that mankind will be able to synthesize enough to fill a cardboard box with. Then the practical side says even if that was possible, there would probably no way a cardboard box could contain that (and a plethora of other practical impossibilities).

[–] Gtoasted@feddit.org 1 points 13 hours ago

Well, you wouldn't actually need to fill the box, just exceed the weight limit. And since neuronium weighing just 70 Pounds would have negligible volume, the problem becomes on of making a containment chamber that would fit inside the box.

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That and the neutrons would rapidly undergo beta decay producing a LOT of free energy and other particles.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 2 points 23 hours ago

Yeah there physical and practical reasons intermixed!

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

it isn't possible to synthesize neutronium at that amount or handle that much safely.

To be clear, the neutronium you're talking about here is the one that is theorized to exist at the core of neutron stars? Could you elaborate on how much has been synthesized and could be handled safely?

[–] TanteRegenbogen@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Wasn't neutronium practically synthesized in miniscule amounts in the Large Hydron Collider? Also I am not a quantum physicist, so I am not sure if any neutronium is currently safe to handle beyond a miniscule amount considering a sugar cube sized amount of neutronium is theoretically the weight of a large freight ship.

[–] coffeejunky@beehaw.org 7 points 1 day ago

I always fill them up with that stuff black holes are made of, it's pretty dense.