PDA

View Full Version : What does neutronium look like?


psychonaut
06-08-2006, 03:00 PM
Say we were able to produce a macroscopic quantity of neutronium (i.e., free neutrons) and keep it around long enough to observe it. (That should be possible as the half-life is 15 minutes.) What physical properties would this substance have? What would be its melting and boiling points? What would it look and feel like? What colour would it be?

ASAKMOTSD
06-08-2006, 04:12 PM
There are good questions and then there are great questions. Great questions are the one's for which I have an answer. Therefore, your's is a good question.

AndrewL
06-08-2006, 04:37 PM
Say we were able to produce a macroscopic quantity of neutronium (i.e., free neutrons) and keep it around long enough to observe it. (That should be possible as the half-life is 15 minutes.) What physical properties would this substance have? What would be its melting and boiling points? What would it look and feel like? What colour would it be?
The half-life of free neutrons is 15 minutes. That doesn't mean the half-life of neutronium is 15 minutes - it's not just free neutrons, essentially a single gigantic atomic nucleus. I have read that neutronium may well be violently unstable outside of the conditions which create it.

psychonaut
06-08-2006, 05:07 PM
The half-life of free neutrons is 15 minutes. That doesn't mean the half-life of neutronium is 15 minutes - it's not just free neutrons, essentially a single gigantic atomic nucleus. I have read that neutronium may well be violently unstable outside of the conditions which create it.Atomic nuclei are tightly bound. Is there any reason that a bunch of free neutrons would aggregate into a nucleus rather than remaining separate?

cmkeller
06-08-2006, 05:09 PM
Well, at the very least, I imagine it wouldn't have any color. Color is caused by how light excites the electrons around an atom, isn't it? So a structure of only neutrons should be pure black.

Qadgop the Mercotan
06-08-2006, 06:37 PM
I'd advise against having neutronium around you. It takes enormous pressure to keep it stable. In fact, nothing short of the intense graviational force of a neutron star can keep it stable. If you somehow produced one cubic centimeter of neutronium, not only would it weigh 165 tons, it would quickly turn into 165 tons of rapidly expanding gas and plasma.
from: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=47860

AndrewL
06-08-2006, 06:42 PM
Atomic nuclei are tightly bound. Is there any reason that a bunch of free neutrons would aggregate into a nucleus rather than remaining separate?
No. Which is why neutronium is unstable - the neutrons don't want to be together in that configuration. Atomic nuclei get more unstable the larger thay get, and a piece of neutronium is effectively an atomic nucleus with a very, very large number of neutrons.

Finagle
06-08-2006, 06:44 PM
Well, at the very least, I imagine it wouldn't have any color. Color is caused by how light excites the electrons around an atom, isn't it? So a structure of only neutrons should be pure black.


I dunno, you could probably make an equivalently good argument that neutronium would be a (near) perfect reflector.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if the surface of a chunk of neutronium wasn't particularly stable on a quantum level, so it might be radiating.

Not sure the normal physical properties like melting and boiling points make any sense under the conditions in which neutronium forms (inside massive stars). Those terms usually refer to breaking molecular bounds. From my non-extensive knowledge (the odd science fiction book), neutronium is just a neutron soup, essentially a fluid and not stable except under vast pressures. So it doesn't have a melting point, and if you can add enough energy to make it change state, the end result is probably less "boiling" and more "kaboom!" on a solar scale.

For pretty much the same reason, talking about what neutronium "feels" like probably doesn't make sense, I'd guess it would be completely smooth, but anyone trying to verify that guess would probably end up composing an infinitely thin slick on top of the neutronium.

Lumpy
06-08-2006, 06:55 PM
Or neutronium might be completely clear since it wouldn't react with visible light at all.

Neutronium might be a fluid (a more generic term than "liquid"), but possibly under some conditions it might have a solid phase (I define solid here to mean "resists shearing").

bonzer
06-08-2006, 08:21 PM
What would it look and feel like? What colour would it be?

Glossing over the misconception that neutronium = free neutrons, a previous thread on the subject (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=370046).

Mathochist
06-08-2006, 09:18 PM
Say we were able to produce a macroscopic quantity of neutronium (i.e., free neutrons) and keep it around long enough to observe it. (That should be possible as the half-life is 15 minutes.) What physical properties would this substance have? What would be its melting and boiling points? What would it look and feel like? What colour would it be?

Wouldn't this be essentially a neutron star? What does that look like?

xash
06-09-2006, 12:12 AM
There are good questions and then there are great questions. Great questions are the one's for which I have an answer. Therefore, your's is a good question.ASAKMOTSD, if you cannot address the question in the OP, please do not post to the thread.

Since you are new around here, this is just a note. If you repeat it, you will be warned.

-xash
General Questions Moderator

psychonaut
06-09-2006, 03:47 PM
Glossing over the misconception that neutronium = free neutrons, a previous thread on the subject (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=370046).This is not a misconception. Thet term "neutronium" was coined in 1926 by Andreas von Antropoff to mean a conjectured form of matter made up of neutrons with no protons—that is, free neutrons. This is the sense in which I am using the term.

psychonaut
06-09-2006, 03:48 PM
Wouldn't this be essentially a neutron star?No. While the word "neutronium" is sometimes used in science fiction and popular literature to refer to the substance of neutron stars, scientists do not really know what this substance is (and therefore avoid using the term themselves). It could be free neutrons, but it could just as easily be something else.

Finagle
06-09-2006, 03:56 PM
No. While the word "neutronium" is sometimes used in science fiction and popular literature to refer to the substance of neutron stars, scientists do not really know what this substance is (and therefore avoid using the term themselves). It could be free neutrons, but it could just as easily be something else.

Well, if you're going to define postulate a "neutronium" isotype that consists only of free neutrons that can exist in a macroscopic form and NOT as the result of a hellacious gravity field, then you're probably going to have to be explicit about the conditions under which it exists before your questions can be answered.

psychonaut
06-09-2006, 03:58 PM
No. Which is why neutronium is unstable - the neutrons don't want to be together in that configuration. Atomic nuclei get more unstable the larger thay get, and a piece of neutronium is effectively an atomic nucleus with a very, very large number of neutrons.You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say that the neutrons would be a giant nucleus, then you agree with me that there is no reason that they would be a giant nucleus, and then two sentences later you go back to saying that they would form a giant nucleus. In any case, calling a collection of free neutrons an atomic nucleus is a contradiction in terms, since "free neutron" means "a neutron existing outside an atomic nucleus".

It is true that free neutrons are unstable, but the half life (886 seconds) is long enough that observation should not be a problem. Producing them is also not a problem, as they're deliberately produced all the time by nuclear reactors. I expect the only problems would be collecting a macroscopic quantity for study.

Chronos
06-09-2006, 04:32 PM
No. While the word "neutronium" is sometimes used in science fiction and popular literature to refer to the substance of neutron stars, scientists do not really know what this substance is (and therefore avoid using the term themselves). It could be free neutrons, but it could just as easily be something else.News to me... We don't know all of the properties of neutronium, but it is by definition the substance of which neutron stars are made. And I've heard plenty of physicists use the term.

To address the original questions, neutrons are electrically neutral, but that doesn't mean they can't interact with light. They do have an electric quadrupole moment and a magnetic dipole moment, and so can interact with electromagnetic fields (i.e., light) in those ways. Contrary to the popular conception, neutronium also contains a fair number of protons and electrons (the estimates I've seen put protons at about 10% of the mass, with an equal number of electrons to balance the charge), and they can also interact electromagnetically. In fact, the pressure which supports a neutron star is actually provided mostly by the electrons, not the neutrons. It wouldn't be a bad guess to suppose that a neutron star's surface would be mirrorlike (it's certainly smooth enough), but that guess would seem to be incorrect: We've seen neutron stars radiating, and they appear to be very black.

For its other physical properties, neutronium is a superfluid, meaning that it can't support any shear forces or viscosity at all. So it's definitely not a solid. Of the three familiar phases of matter, it's probably most like a liquid, but this is only an approximation, since a true liquid has a constant density, while the density of neutronium is believed to vary significantly with pressure. Exactly how it varies with pressure would be expressed in something called the equation of state, but the precise equation of state of a neutron star is one of the things which is currently unknown about them (though there's plenty of theories). Temperature is essentially irrelevant to a neutron star: Although they can have a temperature of millions of degrees at the surface, and possibly much higher yet in their interiors, they can be excellently approximated as having zero temperature: The quantum mechanical processes that lead to degeneracy are much more significant in a neutron star than even those high temperatures.

psychonaut
06-09-2006, 04:53 PM
News to me... We don't know all of the properties of neutronium, but it is by definition the substance of which neutron stars are made. And I've heard plenty of physicists use the term.Yes, but the term can mean different things in different contexts. It can refer either to a substance composed solely of free neutrons, or it can refer to the substance of a neutron star. The two are not necessarily the same, though. In fact, according to your use of the term, they are certainly not the same, since your definition supposes that neutronium contains a significant number of protons.

To address the original questions,Unfortunately, your answer did not address the original question, as you were speaking about the second definition of neutronium, whereas my question was about the first. That's why I referred to free neutrons in the question.

Crescend
06-09-2006, 05:05 PM
News to me... We don't know all of the properties of neutronium, but it is by definition the substance of which neutron stars are made. And I've heard plenty of physicists use the term.

I did a search on every APS journal for 'neutronium' in full text from 1893 to 2006 and got no hits. On the other hand there were 628 hits for 'neutron matter'. Dunno what the significance of this is - maybe 'neutronium' is a handy shorthand in conversation, but currently lacks a firm scientific definition? Besides, neutron stars aren't made of just one type of neutronium. The material of the outer shell and the material of the interior are quite different, but both are 'neutronium'. Kinda. Sorta. That's the problem - if you refer to something as 'positronium' (1933 hits on APS), you know exactly what you're talking about. When you're talking about neutronium, it's more along the lines of "this stuff is made of mostly neutrons", rather than a hard definition of their interrelationships and their gross properties.

AndrewL
06-09-2006, 06:23 PM
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say that the neutrons would be a giant nucleus, then you agree with me that there is no reason that they would be a giant nucleus, and then two sentences later you go back to saying that they would form a giant nucleus. In any case, calling a collection of free neutrons an atomic nucleus is a contradiction in terms, since "free neutron" means "a neutron existing outside an atomic nucleus".

It is true that free neutrons are unstable, but the half life (886 seconds) is long enough that observation should not be a problem. Producing them is also not a problem, as they're deliberately produced all the time by nuclear reactors. I expect the only problems would be collecting a macroscopic quantity for study.

A handful of free neutrons are not neutronium.

Neutronium isn't so much a substance as a phenomena; what happens to normal matter when it's compressed not quite enough to become a singularity. The electrons and protons collapse into neutrons, and you're left with a mass of nothing but neutrons held together under tremendous pressure. These are not free neutrons; they're close enough to each other for the nuclear forces to affect their behavior.

If you release the pressure holding it, the neutronium ceases to be neutronium with remarkable violence. So you can't so much synthesize neutronium; even if you gather a lot of free neutrons and put them near each other they won't congeal into neutronium. If you could somehow make a container strong enough you could put matter in it and it would become neutronium when enough pressure was applied, but as soon as you released it that matter would cease to be neutronium.

Chronos
06-09-2006, 06:32 PM
Unfortunately, your answer did not address the original question, as you were speaking about the second definition of neutronium, whereas my question was about the first. That's why I referred to free neutrons in the question.In that case, there is no answer to your question. Individual neutrons may have a half-life of minutes, but any sort of macroscopic object or substance made up solely of many neutrons would last for a far shorter time, short enough that questions like "what does it look like" would be meaningless.

Mathochist
06-09-2006, 09:43 PM
Well, if you're going to define postulate a "neutronium" isotype that consists only of free neutrons that can exist in a macroscopic form and NOT as the result of a hellacious gravity field, then you're probably going to have to be explicit about the conditions under which it exists before your questions can be answered.

Indeed. The conditions everyone else seems to be using ("Take large amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Crush until protons and electrons collapse into neutrons. Crush further. Serve with lemon wedges") is pretty much exactly what's going on with a neutron star. The pressure is being provided by the gravitational field of the matter itself.

flex727
06-11-2006, 12:12 PM
Atomic nuclei are tightly bound. Is there any reason that a bunch of free neutrons would aggregate into a nucleus rather than remaining separate?and
No. Which is why neutronium is unstable - the neutrons don't want to be together in that configuration. Atomic nuclei get more unstable the larger thay get, and a piece of neutronium is effectively an atomic nucleus with a very, very large number of neutrons.
Hmm, no mention in this thread of the Strong Nuclear Force, which without the opposing electromagnetic repulsion of Protons in close proximity, should be very capable of holding a bunch of Neutrons together. Why do we think Neutronium should be so unstable again?

Chronos
06-11-2006, 01:33 PM
The Strong Force is a lot more complicated than just "neutrons and protons stick together". It's fairly easy to see why nuclei with not enough neutrons would be unstable, but nuclei with too many neutrons are also unstable. Two neutrons and a proton, for instance, will only last about 20 years or so, and I don't think that you can get three neutrons and a single proton to stick together at all for any measureable length of time.

bonzer
06-11-2006, 08:26 PM
This is not a misconception. Thet term "neutronium" was coined in 1926 by Andreas von Antropoff to mean a conjectured form of matter made up of neutrons with no protons—that is, free neutrons. This is the sense in which I am using the term.

I'm in agreement with Chronos about how physicists use the term amongst themselves and - more importantly - the actual physics, so I'll just comment on the historical anachronism here.
Antropoff (1878 - 1956 ) is a little remembered German chemist whose ideas had little, if any, influence on the nuclear physicists of the 1920s or later. His "neutronium" does indeed seem to have been a form of matter with Z=0 that he proposed placing at the start of the periodic table. (Pauling's version of the table on this page (http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt.html) is apparently based on Antropoff's 1926 version; while Pauling evidently dropped "neutronium", it's obvious where it presumably went.) Without seeing the exact details of what Antropoff was suggesting, there seem only two possibilities:
Antropoff had something closely akin to Rutherford's previously proposed "neutron" in mind. To be precise, in 1920 Rutherford had proposed a tightly bound electron-proton pairing that would behave as a neutral particle. Such ideas were then pretty common in the 1920s, though with no great stability over names for them. (For example, long after Rutherford used the term, Pauli tried to nick the name "neutron" for the rather different particle we now call the neutrino.)
He was proposing something more exotic. Given that the periodic table was still only a largely empirical ordering of chemical and atomic properties, it wouldn't surprise me if he was proposing something that would seem truly strange once quantum mechanics had acted as a brake on such speculations.
If it's the latter case, then his "neutronium" is probably an entirely meaningless concept outside of the context he proposed it in in the 1920s.
If it's the former, then his terminology was overtaken by events. What he would call "neutronium" now maps to what physicists unambiguously call neutrons. Calling these "neutronium" because Antropoff did is just falling into the trap of using a (very) archaic name. Which is slightly bizarre, given how universal the current usage is.
It is plausible that his suggestion did influence the SF usage of the term and hence, indirectly, the usage that "neutronium" is a large bunch of neutrons in the form of a neutron star. But that history has been forgotten in the current usage.

Now certain people have periodically (pun intended) re-proposed the notion that, as a Z=0 particle, the neutron is the first entry in the Periodic Table. But that's never ever quite caught on. It may in future, but it hasn't to date. The most recent high-publicity example of this has been the Chemical Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Galaxy). It's proposer does want to use "neutronium" in connection with Z=0 (http://www.chemicalgalaxy.co.uk/technicalnotes.htm) (since that site doesn't quite seem to be working, here's the Google cache (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1jQsH76wHUgJ:www.chemicalgalaxy.co.uk/technicalnotes.htm+%22Chemical+Galaxy%22+neutronium&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a)). But he's recognising that the only place where one might get the stuff in any collective sense of the term is in a neutron star.

AndrewL
06-11-2006, 10:58 PM
Why do we think Neutronium should be so unstable again?
From what I understand of the physics involved -

Neutrons tend to spontaneously break down into protons-electron pairs. In atomic nuclei this doesn't happen, IIRC because of strong force interactions, unless the ratio of neutron to protons is too high. In neutron-star conditions, the tremendous pressure forces the electrons and protons to combine into neutrons, and then forces them to stay that way. When you release that pressure, the neutrons will start to decay back into protons via beta emission The half-life of an individual neutron may be 15 minutes, but you only need a tiny fraction of the neutrons to become protons for the mass to tear itself apart from electrostatic forces (for the same reason that nuclei with too many protons are unstable, the electrostatic repulsion overwhelms the strong nuclear force.). This will continue until the entire mass is normal matter, rapidly expanding and at very high temperature. You don't want to be standing nearby.

I don't know of any form of neutron-only matter other than what forms in neutron-star gravity conditions.

Alex_Dubinsky
06-11-2006, 11:19 PM
Well, neutronium is not entirely unknown to physicsts. They use it all the time in the form of neutron beams. Now I'm not the one to know much about them, but maybe if we ask "what are the properties of neutron beams," we'll get our answers. Also, please let us not mention neutron stars any longer. Their whole point is that their gravity is so massive that once a neutron decays, its byproducts can't leave far enough and end up turning back into a neutron. Certainly that's not what is going to be happening for our neutronium. Someone said that it would exist only very briefly before the radioactive byproducts pollute it beyond recognition. I agree.

Now the biggest problem with neutronium (neutron beams) is that it'd be very hard to contain them. You can't use electromagnetic traps, obviously, and the neutrons would tend to just either pass through or bond with any vessel made of matter (since the thing that's keeping my ass from going through my seat is the electromagnetic force).

I don't know what color it would be, or how neutrons interact with light. Them being neutral also obviously makes them a bit weak when interacting with the EM force. Don't know if they do not interact at all. At room temperature, they would certainly be a gas. There might be a temperature low enough that the weak nuclear force will get them to stick to one another. They would then presumably turn into one superdense nucleus, resembling a superfluid (or rather a bose-einstein condensate), but they would also probably decay much faster in that state.

Chronos
06-12-2006, 02:56 PM
They would then presumably turn into one superdense nucleus, resembling a superfluid (or rather a bose-einstein condensate), but they would also probably decay much faster in that state.That's a bit tricky. Bose-Einstein condensates apply only to bosons, particles with an integer spin, while neutrons are fermions, particles with half-integer spins. The famous Pauli Exlusion Principle applies to fermions, but not to bosons (or, strictly speaking, it also applies to bosons, but in a more subtle way). Fermions cannot exist in the same quantum state as each other, but bosons can, and in fact that's exactly what a Bose-Einstein condensate is.

It is possible, in some cases, for fermions to pair up into what are called Cooper pairs, with each Cooper pair acting like a single particle, and the Cooper pairs (which are bosons) can then form into a Bose-Einstein condensate. I don't think, though, that this can occur with neutrons, since there's no stable binding of two neutrons.

Will Repair
06-13-2006, 06:51 PM
Androgynous

ZenBeam
06-14-2006, 01:47 PM
To maybe help put into perspective how unstable neutronium (meaning a substance made up of only neutrons) would be outside of a neutron star, people have been searching for tetraneutrons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraneutron), a state analogous to a helium nucleus, but with four neutrons instead of two protons and two neutrons. Just four neutrons can't hold together long enough to be easily enough detectable so that it's unambiguous whether they even exist. With a macroscopic amount of neutrons, it would seem hopeless.

Four separate neutrons ought to exist with a half-life of about 3 or 4 minutes, before they became three neutrons and a proton. Putting them into a tetraneutron, I'd expect the strong force to help bind them together, making its half-life be, well, over 3 or 4 minutes, anyway. Since they're not able to easily and unambiguously detect them, apparently this isn't the case. Why the hell not?

Pleonast
06-14-2006, 02:30 PM
It is possible, in some cases, for fermions to pair up into what are called Cooper pairs, with each Cooper pair acting like a single particle, and the Cooper pairs (which are bosons) can then form into a Bose-Einstein condensate. I don't think, though, that this can occur with neutrons, since there's no stable binding of two neutrons.I apologize for picking this nit. And I'm not picking on Chronos, just using his statement as a starting point.

The binding holding a Cooper pair together is not stable. A Cooper pair is composed of two charge carriers (typically electrons) in a crystal lattice (not free electrons) held together by phonon (quantized lattice vibrations) interactions. That interaction is small compared to the repulsive force between the charge carriers. While a Cooper pair is a stable entity, the particles it's composed of are not fixed. It's meaningless to speak of the a particular pair of electrons forming a Cooper pair.

Neutronic matter is outside my speciality, but a knowledgeable guess is that neutrons do form superpairs akin to Cooper pairs. Superfluidity and superconductivity is a bulk property of bosonic matter. A weak, attractive force between two neutrons in the bulk matter (probably supplied by phonons) could be sufficient to create superpairs. The superpairs would form a superfluid. (Keep in mind that only a fraction of neutrons would form superpairs, the rest staying in a fermionic state.)

Excalibre
06-14-2006, 02:32 PM
I apologize for picking this nit. And I'm not picking on Chronos, just using his statement as a starting point.

The binding holding a Cooper pair together is not stable. A Cooper pair is composed of two charge carriers (typically electrons) in a crystal lattice (not free electrons) held together by phonon (quantized lattice vibrations) interactions. That interaction is small compared to the repulsive force between the charge carriers. While a Cooper pair is a stable entity, the particles it's composed of are not fixed. It's meaningless to speak of the a particular pair of electrons forming a Cooper pair.

Neutronic matter is outside my speciality, but a knowledgeable guess is that neutrons do form superpairs akin to Cooper pairs. Superfluidity and superconductivity is a bulk property of bosonic matter. A weak, attractive force between two neutrons in the bulk matter (probably supplied by phonons) could be sufficient to create superpairs. The superpairs would form a superfluid. (Keep in mind that only a fraction of neutrons would form superpairs, the rest staying in a fermionic state.)
Which means it would look like kittens?

Bryan Ekers
06-14-2006, 02:52 PM
Which means it would look like kittens?

Yes, but half the time, one of them's dead.

Chronos
06-14-2006, 03:49 PM
On thinking about this some more, it seems to me that there might be something approximating an answer to the OP's question. You can't have a "lump" of free neutrons, or in fact of free anything, because if they're bound into a lump, they're by definition not free (and you'd have to specify what's binding them, which is rather tricky to do with neutrons). But you could have a free-neutron gas. I'm not sure how you could confine it, if at all, but that's OK, we can just allow it to dissipate freely. It would remain a gas no matter how much you cooled it (even to absolute zero), because the degeneracy pressure would be enough to prevent it from changing state, even if the ideal gas pressure went to zero. You could force it into a non-gas state with extreme pressure, but the pressure needed would be that of a neutron star, which the OP is apparently not interested in. It would interact with light, but it would be essentially completely transparent to anything below the hard gamma range. Neutrons are fairly penetrating, so it'd be tough to get something you could "feel" this gas with, but a lead slab or the like might do the trick: It'd feel much like moving a sheet of material through any other gas, with a drag force proportional to the square of the speed at which you're moving the sheet.

BrainGlutton
06-14-2006, 04:45 PM
This is not a misconception. Thet term "neutronium" was coined in 1926 by Andreas von Antropoff to mean a conjectured form of matter made up of neutrons with no protons—that is, free neutrons. This is the sense in which I am using the term.

Is it still "conjectured," or has real-life neutronium ever been identified/observed?



[ralph wiggum, ph.d.]

Neutronium looks like neutrons.

[/rwphd]

Bryan Ekers
06-14-2006, 05:35 PM
At what point does Mel get mad enough to chew it?


(pop culture trivia challenge)

Quercus
06-14-2006, 10:02 PM
Forget what it looks like, when is Qadgop going to tell us what it tastes like? (And "You know, impervious." is not an acceptable answer.)

Qadgop the Mercotan
06-16-2006, 09:26 AM
Forget what it looks like, when is Qadgop going to tell us what it tastes like? (And "You know, impervious." is not an acceptable answer.)
"Qadgop the Mercotan slithered flatly around the after-bulge of the tranship. One claw dug into the meters-thick armor of pure neutronium, then another. Its terrible xmex-like snout locked on. Its zymolosely polydactile tongue crunched out, crashed down, rasped across. *Slurp!* *Slurp!*"


Sorta like vegemite, but fizzy. With a hint of habanero pepper.

Pleonast
06-16-2006, 10:31 AM
Sorta like vegemite, but fizzy. With a hint of habanero pepper.What are the contra-indications for ingesting neutronium? Just in case I come across some.

Chronos
06-16-2006, 05:18 PM
What are the contra-indications for ingesting neutronium? Just in case I come across some.I believe that not being a Mercotan is one of the standard contra-indications. I could be mistaken, though :P.