Timeline for What's the densest known material that has been made in macroscopic quantities?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jun 28, 2023 at 21:01 | history | suggested | Stephane Bersier | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
small grammar improvments
|
| Jun 28, 2023 at 19:08 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 28, 2023 at 21:01 | |||||
| Nov 18, 2019 at 9:03 | comment | added | probably_someone | @Shufflepants Ah, sorry, didn't see the pressure requirement. | |
| Nov 18, 2019 at 8:10 | comment | added | Shufflepants | @probably_someone I meant to imply either found or produced here on earth. But your suggestion of neutron star material would be ruled about by the stipulation I gave about remaining so at 1 atm of external pressure. Neutron star matter would explode at 1 atm. After all, neutron star material is what you get if you take any element and compress it sufficiently. I used "material" rather than "element" so as not to exclude the possibility that there is an alloy that is denser than osmium on its own. | |
| Nov 17, 2019 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1196080663310548993 | ||
| Nov 17, 2019 at 11:10 | comment | added | probably_someone | What do you mean when you specify "has been produced"? Does natural production by astrophysical sources count? In that case, you probably can't get much more dense than the matter at the core of a neutron star. There's definitely a macroscopic amount of that kind of matter, given that neutron stars are certainly macroscopic objects and there are a large number of them in the universe. | |
| Nov 17, 2019 at 11:02 | history | edited | Jens | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improve markup.
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 16, 2017 at 23:19 | answer | added | Al gor | timeline score: -5 | |
| Feb 16, 2017 at 21:41 | history | edited | Shufflepants | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
grammar
|
| Feb 16, 2017 at 21:25 | history | edited | Shufflepants | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarification on why this isn't a duplicate question
|
| Feb 16, 2017 at 20:25 | comment | added | Shufflepants | I suppose that question mentions the possibility of alloys heavier than osmium, but that was not really key to his question. And the accepted answer does not answer my question. | |
| Feb 16, 2017 at 20:24 | comment | added | Shufflepants | @dmckee Maybe in question title alone. That question was specifically asking the cheapest way to actually get his hands on a material more dense than mercury. And the only answers talk about pure elements and their prices. I'm specifically asking about alloys and compounds that are denser than the densest thing mentioned in that question and it's answers. It's not a duplicate. | |
| Feb 16, 2017 at 20:19 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | Seems to be a duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/q/60022 | |
| Feb 16, 2017 at 20:10 | history | asked | Shufflepants | CC BY-SA 3.0 |