Indestructible material.

I don't know where else to put this, it seems like a sci fi topic.

I came up with a theory to how an indestructible material would have to work, and want to know what you people think.

Pretty much I thought of 2 major requirements for this to work.
1. It couldn't be made up of atoms, or quarts or anything smaller than the actual material, because if there are "moving" parts, those parts could move and so it could break, bend, ware, and so on.
2. It would have to be in a constant state of absolute zero, if it could be heated, then it could be bent....etc. Also, the absolute zero kinda results from the first rule, because if there aren't any atoms or anything to excite, how would it heat up.

That is what I think, what do you think?

It would be made from women's beliefs that they are always right.

Completely indestructible.

Ba-zing.

Originally posted by menokokoro

That is what I think, what do you think?

If it's not made of of atoms, then what?

Originally posted by jaden101
It would be made from women's beliefs that they are always right.

Completely indestructible.

😂

Originally posted by menokokoro
I don't know where else to put this, it seems like a sci fi topic.

I came up with a theory to how an indestructible material would have to work, and want to know what you people think.

Pretty much I thought of 2 major requirements for this to work.
1. It couldn't be made up of atoms, or quarts or anything smaller than the actual material, because if there are "moving" parts, those parts could move and so it could break, bend, ware, and so on.
2. It would have to be in a constant state of absolute zero, if it could be heated, then it could be bent....etc. Also, the absolute zero kinda results from the first rule, because if there aren't any atoms or anything to excite, how would it heat up.

That is what I think, what do you think?

I believe what you propose is impossible with current materials and understanding of thermodynamics.

The crystalline structures formed during state changes (from a liquid to a solid) become frozen in imperfect structures due to the lack of perfect heat homogeneity: thermodynamic systems are very varied. If you could create a 0 entropy system for your state changes, you could create perfectly arranged crystalline structures provided you place each atom/molecule, individually.

However, that still does not guarantee an indestructible material, even at absolute zero. There are limits to how much "strength" each crystalline structure provides and there is a limit to the amount of "cohesion" the bonds have (two faucets of the same weakness.)

However, there are some amazing structures and really strong bonds created such as those in graphene. Still, it is not even remotely strong enough to be indestructible.

There's also the problem of using an indestructible material in a high entropy system such as ...reality. As soon as you tried to apply the absolute zero material to any functional form, you'd cease to have the object at absolute zero as that "system" would experience energy transference in the form of heat (That's just one of a plethora of energy transferences). Additionally, there's the problem of the material sublimating. Even if you create a virtually indestructible material, like adamantium, simply heating it up would cause it to sublimate at a higher rate, those proving that it is not indestructible. Simply exposing the material to attempt to use it would cause these.

I don’t want to make a sweeping statement, but we’ve pretty much maximized crystalline structures based on arrangement that focuses on maximum strength. We could make a minor improvement with our arrangements, but I do not think we will make any sort of geometric strength increases above and beyond what we have now.

Best possible way to make something indestructible? Make it made out of some sort of exotic stuff that is not subject to our universe’s laws of physics. Manipulating the entropy of an isolated system is not it.

Honestly, Jaden could do a better job at explaining these things as he knows waaaaaaay more about this stuff than I do.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Honestly, Jaden could do a better job at explaining these things as he knows waaaaaaay more about this stuff than I do.

Nah...I've ravaged my brain with drink and drugs since graduating and being made redundant from my research job...I now work back in retail and look to be stuff their until after the recession.

Doesn't help that my main area of study was forensic focussed and the current UK government has seen fit to scrap the Forensic Science Service which is THE main employer in that field.

1500 forensic scientists on the scrap heap....Thatcher's Britain.

Anyway....Back to the subject.

I'm sorry, I may be thick here, but who does all that crime scene work if they have scrapped Forensic Science Service...

Originally posted by MildPossession
I'm sorry, I may be thick here, but who does all that crime scene work if they have scrapped Forensic Science Service...

Scenes of Crime Officers only collect the evidence. They don't do the "science" bit. They generally are employed by the police forces directly in civilian roles. It's the lab scientists that are taking the brunt of the cuts.

There will no doubt be a string of small private companies start popping up all over the country that will bid, perhaps even on an individual case by case basis. Loads will start up...Loads will collapse within the 1st year...Some will succeed and take over other forensic companies and eventually things will stabilize into a fully privatised sector that works by contracts and sub-contracts.

The problem is that the FSS conducts the vast majority of research into new forensic techniques and there will be virtually no funding available for that....Meaning that we will be stuck at the current limits of forensic science that there is now for years to come.

Originally posted by jaden101
Scenes of Crime Officers only collect the evidence. They don't do the "science" bit. They generally are employed by the police forces directly in civilian roles. It's the lab scientists that are taking the brunt of the cuts.

There will no doubt be a string of small private companies start popping up all over the country that will bid, perhaps even on an individual case by case basis. Loads will start up...Loads will collapse within the 1st year...Some will succeed and take over other forensic companies and eventually things will stabilize into a fully privatised sector that works by contracts and sub-contracts.

The problem is that the FSS conducts the vast majority of research into new forensic techniques and there will be virtually no funding available for that....Meaning that we will be stuck at the current limits of forensic science that there is now for years to come.

There's always the work of the American and Japanese forensic specailists which seem to always be driving the standards and research.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED125028&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED125028

My degree is Information System Assurance and Forensics, so I'm not too far away from your area: I'm just waaaaaay less focused on chemical testing in a lab, like you are. IMO, chemists and astro/quantumphysicists are much more suited for "absolute-zero" discussions than most.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe what you propose is impossible with current materials and understanding of thermodynamics.

I was just thinking of if it were to exist, what would be required for it to exist

edit: oh yeah, just read the rest of your post.

I was a little unclear, I meant that both of those are required for it to be indestructible. Being made from solid matter, AND the perpetual absolute zero (which is impossible, which you pointed out). But if the object was not made of atoms, or any smaller particles, wouldn't the object be in a constant state of absolute zero (theoretically, since it is not possible, with our current knowledge anyway), since there would be no particles to excite, thus nothing to heat up?

Originally posted by menokokoro
Oh, yeah, I didn't mean that it would be possible, neither of those things are. Having material not made of smaller particles just being pure matter (which my friend pointed out to me, is pretty much just a black hole), and absolute zero.

I was just thinking of if it were to exist, what would be required for it to exist

edit: oh yeah, just read the rest of your post.

I was a little unclear, I meant that both of those are required for it to be indestructible. Being made from solid matter, AND the perpetual absolute zero (which is impossible, which you pointed out). But if the object was not made of atoms, or any smaller particles, wouldn't the object be in a constant state of absolute zero (theoretically, since it is not possible, with our current knowledge anyway), since there would be no particles to excite, thus nothing to heat up?

The most fundemental form of matter are quarks.

Not-matter is either photons or antiparticles.

So the answer to you question is no.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The most fundemental form of matter are quarks.

Not-matter is either photons or antiparticles.

So the answer to you question is no.

And I know it does not exist, I know it is impossible, the point I'm trying to make is that IF it were possible, this is how I think it would have to be.

Originally posted by menokokoro
The most fundamental form of matter that we know of, are quarks.

And I know it does not exist, I know it is impossible, the point I'm trying to make is that IF it were possible, this is how I think it would have to be.

Theorizing on something that does not exist by inventing something fictional?

If that's your question, then, sure. You could invent anything you wanted and pretend it has x and y properties. The limit would only be your imagination.

.....ok, whatever.