Mass Effect Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Mass Effect Wiki

This is the talk page for Element Zero.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Just a thought, in Mass Effect 2 has anyone noticed that most if not all planets that have eezo deposits have supported life at some time. Anything that shows signs of habitation by current or extinct races seems to carry eezo, life an eezo seem to be related somehow. I'm curious whether this is coincidental or intended, and it might be that the reapers reveal another interesting secret in their involvement in sapient evolution. If my theory is valid, I believe that this will be another little fun fact presented to shepard much like sovereign revealing the original builders of the relays. --FLaSHBaCK HaSH 03:24, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

The connection is the Reapers, of course. Those planets were the homeworlds of all the races they've exterminated over the aeons. They were all spacefaring civilizations based on the mass effect, and thus had stockpiles of refined eezo. The stuff apparently doesn't degrade, so it's still there. 195.113.6.105 18:30, December 5, 2011 (UTC)


pure supposition on my part based on the element information we have here and the detection ranges of the mineral scanner in ME2, but eezo was possibly a pure platinum group metal or a natural alloy that had its protons/electrons stripped away by massive supernova radiation. Ez is possibly liquid at room temperatures/pressures. 82.30.172.173 12:40, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


Is it necessary to include systems with no eezo-bearing bodies, just because they contain the local Mass Relay? It kind of over-inflates the page a little. ComaDivine 06:35, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Relays?[]

Why are systems with only Mass Relays included on this list. While Mass Relays do contain eezo, listing them for that reason would also force us to list every ship, vehicle, person with shields, etc. I'm going to remove them, since no one has replied to the last person to comment on this and thus a suitable waiting period has passed. If you wish to object after the fact I'm more than willing to discuss it. Bastian964 23:39, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Added Trivia Section[]

I've taken the liberty of adding an extra bit of information regarding Eezo. Thought it might be interesting. Lu Ming 17:46, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the biggest problem I have with that is it is never called Neutronium in any canon information. Also Neutronium is composed entirely of neutrons, while "[e]ezo is generated when solid matter, such as a planet, is affected by the energy of a star going supernova." As such I can't see the similarities between a hypothetical element, who's name doesn't even have recognition in the scientific community. Also it is something that is postulated to exist, and element zero is something that actually exists in this universe. As such I have removed it based on the above information. Actually I could have just removed it based on the fact that eezo is never called Neutronium in universe. It is called that only outside canon information, and canon trumps all. Lancer1289 17:53, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
Is the name 'neutronium' important? To my surprise, there's a Wikipedia entry. But Element zero is how it's referred to in-game and element zero is what it is. Neutrons, I mean, not neutronium - which I was taught (years ago) referred to the degenerate matter at the core of neutron stars.
Yesterday I tried to add a note to the reference by Storm L'Etoile at the bottom of the page which was a throwaway remark in a forum. Elseweyr nonetheless deleted it as 'irrelevant'. I respectfully disagree.
Lancer wrote in reponse to Mr Lu Ming; "Also [neutronium] is something that is postulated to exist, and element zero is something that actually exists in this universe. As such I have removed it based on the above information." That's a bit of a non-sequitur. I mean, I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say here. It's certainly true that element-zero type matter exists in the real world. Dineutrons are not merely 'postulated to exist'. Their existence as clumps orbiting other nuclei has been long established by scattering experiments - and in 2012 a free-space dineutron resonance was found. This was new, but no physicist was surprised.
The point of the "Element Zero" entry on the wiki is surely to explain what's happening in-game. But (pace Lancer) canon does not trump all. The real world trumps all, and where you have something like L'Etoile's claim to have researched the 'tech base' (and to be the primary codex entry writer for ME1), you really need a great big 'caution' sign.
This is especially true given evidence that the developers had good technical reasons for having Eezo be something more than a Macguffin; L'Etoile's assertion that element zero is 'BS' doesn't hold up either in-game or in the real world, for;

- Element zero has no IUPAC-issued name because the chemists aren't interested in it. However, at least one form of it has a name: neutrons.

- Many early versions of the periodic table included neutrons, complete with the symbol 'n', and the most authoritative ones for the use of Physicists still do, cf. that of the National Nuclear Data Center, viewable at NNDC.
- Hydrogen (element one) similarly is often referred to by the name physicists gave it, 'protons', when its nature became clear. The IUPAC name notwithstanding.
- Free neutrons are unstable, with a fifteen minute half-life before beta decay into protons. But that's a lot longer half-life than some other elements listed in the period table.
- The existence of polyneutrons (such as dineutrons) clumping together to form a tangible mass is still an open question. The preferred name may well be irrelevant, but such a mass is not inconsistent with the codex description as being formed in solid matter affected by a supernova. Neutron-rich outflows from supernovae are well-known candidates for new element formation.
- Many years ago (1975) in my "Gravitation" text I found discussions of how exotic matter (sometimes called 'strange' matter following quark theory) could be used to open a wormhole between distant points of the universe. Such wormholes are consistent with the point-to-point nature of Mass Relays as defined in-game. Of course the conditions are fairly extreme but wormholes weren't outright forbidden by the rules of relativistic physics, then or now. Kip Thorne, a co-author of that big black book, recently extended these ideas as a consultant to the movie "Interstellar".
- Similar remarks apply to the other form of FTL used in-game. The developers seem to have appropriated the controversial but still intellectually respectable "Alcubierre drive", debated since the 1990s.
- There was some serious expertise available to the developers, reflected not so much in the ME1 codex but in the later ones - for example the hints about a level of physics below what's visible in the Standard Model, as with the Susskind supercollider.
I'll leave the question of the irrelevance or otherwise of L'Etoile's citation, in the light of the above, to the wiki admins. But my personal view is that leaving it as it stands does a disservice to your readers. --SDoradus (talk)

Question[]

Question, regarding element zero, where is the Atomic Number and Chemical Symbol listed in any ME universe material? So far it is referenced simply as a rare material with no greater detail. Element Zero is likely to be composed of exotic materials and should not have, at least, an Atomic Number listed. I also could not find if that information is referenced elsewhere in the ME universe. Thanks in advance. Praetor Shepard, 15:49 January 3rd, 2011

Except I believe that eezo is called an element somewhere in supporting material. I wish I could remember where right now, but I can't. Because it is an element it would be subject the standard naming practaces of elements with the number and symbol. Material =/= substance or combination of elements. Material can just mean an element, compound, mixture, or substance it really isn't set. Lancer1289 22:52, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, so I think the wiki page should eventually have the source of the supporting material listed, to clarify that in the page. I can try to help with that later, as well.
Partly why this is of interest to me is that having an atomic number of zero means no proton in the nucleus. So an electric current should not then be able to affect eezo. But an electromagnetic field from an electric current (positive or negative) might be able to act on it magnetically at least.
Which is why I theorize that Element Zero is likely a more complex compound made of exotic material then an element with no protons in the nucleus, I can provide more later on what I am referencing.
Off-hand I remember reading that biotics have build up of static electricity, which could point to eezo being some type of exotic and metallic compound also.
Respectably, --Praetor Shepard 23:21, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
I also reacted when I read the part about the electric current. Element zero should not be able to react with other elements or some other material, because it's just a neutron. That's what element zero is, a neutron. Nothing exciting about it, and it certainly wouldn't act like it does in ME. Oh well, you'll just have to accept that the creators of this universe doesn't have the faintest idea of what they're talking about. --Buddy Dacote 19:09, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
Or apply suspension of disbelief and accept that the creators of this universe do know what they are talking about, and that it is we the fans who don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about. It is a fictitious element, and it is the future. This opens up two possibilities: One is that Eezo is just plain that unique and extraordinary. The other is that maybe, just maybe, science is a bit more advanced nearly two centuries from now. Word on the street is that science tends to change over the course of two hundred years. Anywho, it's sci-fi, so suspension of disbelief applies, meaning if it's seen to happen in the game, then it happens. SpartHawg948 19:49, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
I would just like the Atomic Number and Chemical Symbol information go in a Trivia section, instead of being at the top of the page, since it is not known what those values would be from in game information, like the Codex. So, I at least think that it is speculation to have an Atomic Number of Zero listed without knowing more about Element Zero. Sincerely, Praetor Shepard 23:57, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
But it is in actual game material. It's right there in the article, in this image, which is direct from ME2. Atomic # and symbol are right there. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:07, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Bless you Commdor! As always, you are a Godsend. I was scrambling looking for the source to no avail (because simply looking at the entire article made too much sense. I actually scrolled past that image at least once while looking for the source). I'd thought it was in the GC:E E2183, but then I looked, and nada. Nothing in Revelation either, so I was beginning to doubt myself, and then lo and behold! Commdor saves the day once again! You, sir, are awesome. Have I mentioned that lately? SpartHawg948 00:09, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Nice find Commdor. I had been also looking for that as well. Lancer1289 00:46, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Kudos, I'll drop it. Praetor Shepard 00:17, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Quote: "Except I believe that eezo is called an element somewhere in supporting material. I wish I could remember where right now, but I can't."

Eezo is called an element whenever you say "element zero" instead of "eezo". It's an element, that much is set. I don't think we have to source that. As for the atomic number zero, that's the only thing that's dubious from a physics viewpoint: for something to be called an element, it should have some protons in it. If it were only neutrons, then it's neutron-degenerate matter ("neutronium"). That's not only not an element, but it's an actual, more or less proven substance, for example it's the stuff that neutron stars are made of. It's *extremely* dense (a teaspoon of it weighs about a thousand tons), and it would be quite improbable if it had eezo's properties. It does not, as far as we know, glow, and you certainly couldn't have it in your body in any quantity. Hence, eezo is probably not meant to be neutronium. (I could argument this at greater length if you're interested.)

So, what eezo is supposed to be is the "fi" in "sci-fi" here (as the "sci" is not up to snuff in this instance) :-). My personal take is that it's some kind of exotic form of matter that is for convenience called an element, perhaps because of some fundamental similarities to "actual" elements. However, since it's not actually made of protons (and maybe electrons and neutrons, either), it has to be denoted as a "zero" element. As to what kind of exotic matter would be stable and manipulate dark energy what subjected to current, well, if we knew that, we could get off our backsides and go to space, since we'd have mass effect.

195.113.6.105 09:33, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Comments like this belong in a forum or a blog post not here. Talk pages are not substitute forums and this isn't the point of talk pages. "[P]ersonal takes" have no place here. Lancer1289 13:52, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup the list of planets?[]

It looks kind of messy - I was thinking indent the System, then indent again and new line for each planet. Thought I'd ask first. --175.38.242.213 11:59, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see a need to change it as the formatting is fine as it is. However, if you feel there is a need, work something up first in a sandbox, then present it and the community will have their say on it. Changing the article without discussion is not a good idea. Lancer1289 17:16, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Positive and negative current[]

Does anyone have an idea what 'positive' and 'negative' current is? IRL positive and negative directions of the electric current are introduced just for convenience. Seems like designers screwed this up.

BTW eezo should not consist of typical matter, e.g. of strange matter or anything else ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_matter ). That's why it has number 0.

Please take things like this to a forum or a blog post as this isn't what talk pages are for. Lancer1289 02:21, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

The post above should also be moved to a blog then.

And that is your job, not mine as I cannot remove your comments from this page. And you cannot remove mine. Lancer1289 16:14, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

I can, in fact. So can you. It's a wikia.

Re: positive/negative current: Positive current is the regular kind, like 1A. Negative "goes the other way", although that is more or less metaphorical. But you can have e.g. -1A. I don't know if it has any practical application, since all I've ever seen are positive currents. That, or there is no difference and no one bothers to denote it, but I rather think that's not the case. But I don't think the authors would just babble when the rest of the physics in ME is so (relatively speaking) well-researched.

RE: positivity and negativity indeed is only a matter of choosing a direction, it's like saying there's a line, AB, and walking towards B is positive walking, while walking towards A is negative walking. So yeah, atomically there is no distinction, and YES, they did screw the pooch on this why and it's why I pretend this doesn't exist as generally the science in ME is pretty amazing.

195.113.6.105 08:23, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Not very encouraging[]

21:54, December 3, 2011 Lancer1289 (Talk | contribs) (5,262 bytes) (Many issues. Much speculation, some opinions, no discussion, some interpertation)

And I thought people here would actually welcome edits. I get all of your arguments, Lancer, except "no discussion". What do you mean by that?

195.113.6.105 08:07, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I usually write here on the IP 89.102.231.206. I also have an account, but wikia seems unable to keep me logged in over extended periods, and I'm lazy to go through the process every time I want to write something.

Also, do you always write the way Mordin talks? :-)

The amount of information added to the article was to the level that discussion about the content, nature, and location of the information would be required. The biggest issue with adding that amount of content without the release of some form of media, is that while some of it is good, the vast majority of the time, there are many other issues that come up. The biggest being intersection of speculation, personal opinions, and interpretation of the facts at hand. Therefore, with large edits, we like to see some form of discussion, with the inclusion of a sandbox for the added/modified content, before it is added.
Also, just to correct a major fallacy in the previous comment, we do welcome edits, but when they are large edits with no discussion, then that is a problem. Large edits generally need discussion because of the size of them, and the things that come with them. Large edits, especially ones to include a lot of content, we like to see discussion beforehand so editors can critique the content, make suggestions, and generally agree before it is added. Lancer1289 14:01, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

I was an ass[]

Ok. Sorry I was so grumpy before, Lancer. I guess nobody likes being deleted, but I get a little self-righteous at times. And I do see your points. I probably would make them myself if I were the one administrating. Re: discussion: yeah... um... see, the reason I didn't know about that is that I virtually don't know the sandbox exists. Oh, sure, I do know it's there, it's just that I've always mostly ignored it. Kind of makes me an ass, doesn't it?

And while I'm sucking up shamelessly, I also have to say the wiki's standards are better than I thought they were. That is, I never thought they were bad, but I didn't know you people do so much cooperation and finishing work that you obviously do. I mean, I knew this was the case on major wikipedia articles, but this is, after all, a wiki with "only" 1900 pages. --No, seriously, the sucking-up was a joke, I mean the compliment.

Misacek01 20:16, December 5, 2011 (UTC) (AKA the random IP spammer :-) )

First, we do have a language policy and crude/inappropriate language isn't tolerated. Second, I'm not even sure what this is about, let alone why it is here. But I will not continue this conversation here, as this will be my last post in this topic. There are more appropriate venues for this, like a user talk page, not some random talk page. This talk page is supposed to be about the Element Zero article, not about whatever this is which has no relevance to the article. Lancer1289 21:12, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

actomic wieght[]

what is the atomic weight of eezo, i want to know GODKING OF ICE CERBERUS WERE-GARURUMON 23:52, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

We have no information on that. Lancer1289 16:33, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Eezo as an actual Element[]

I think these comments[1] made by Chris L'Etoile are pertinent.

I realise an image was provided, above, but I'd be much more inclined to think that (i.e. an artist) was in error than the guy who authored the codex in both ME1 and 2.

Uli Talk 19:09, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think commentary by the person who actually wrote the codex entry trumps the image, which is the only source we have for it being an element. There is precedent for images contradicting official information. It could possibly be a metaphor anyway, drawn like a periodic table cell, considering the image wasn't shown in the periodic table and lacks an atomic weight and other information present in real periodic table cells. - Sikon (talk) 06:02, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
Advertisement