Chum

Anomalously Originated Material/”Capestuff”

Introduction

Anomalously Originated Materials (AOM), commonly referred to in popular parlance as “Exotic Matter” or “Capestuff,” delineate a specific subset of materials generated ex nihilo by metahumans with particular abilities. These materials have baffled both the scientific community and the general populace alike since their first recorded appearance in the early 1980s. Initially regarded as anomalies or curiosities, the classification and rigorous study of these materials were scattered and disorganized for many years. However, the early to mid-2000s marked a seminal period in AOM research when a comprehensive theoretical framework was developed to cohesively categorize and evaluate these perplexing substances.

History

The academic interest in AOM was sporadic and fragmented during its early years. Researchers from various disciplines, including biology, chemistry, and physics, approached the phenomenon from disparate angles. Early investigations often occurred in silos, with isolated focus on the bizarre properties of specific AOM examples. The subject was intriguing but lacked a centralizing doctrine that could bind these peculiar occurrences into a cohesive area of study.

The landscape of AOM research underwent a transformational change after Dr. Abraham Clarke published his groundbreaking paper in 2002, titled “Anomalously Originated Materials: Bridging Physics-Defying Manifestations and Exo-Biological Generation.” Clarke’s research was revolutionary in its interdisciplinary approach. For the first time, scholars had a unified terminology and conceptual framework to discuss the different types of AOM, whether they were ephemeral constructs like pillars of stone, biologically-generated extra limbs, or substances displaying exotic physical properties, such as anti-gravitational fields.

Clarke’s paper had a rippling effect across multiple scientific fields. Researchers, armed with a newly-established vocabulary and a set of organizing principles, began to build upon Clarke’s initial foundation. Interdisciplinary collaborations became more common, and subsequent studies aimed to identify the underlying mechanisms governing AOM creation and degradation. Furthermore, Clarke’s conceptualization provided a way to classify AOM based on their properties, origins, and interactions with their environment, creating subdivisions and specialization within the AOM research community.

Properties of AOM

Temporality Constraints:
Among the most striking and universal aspects of Anomalously Originated Materials (AOM) is their transient existence. While the duration of stability varies considerably among different forms of AOM, empirical research indicates that the median duration peaks around two hours. This duration is not arbitrary but seems to be governed by what physicists have termed “LeBlanc Constants,” (after researcher Jacques LeBlanc) a set of factors that include molecular complexity and energy state of the AOM, which are currently the focus of extensive research. It’s crucial to note that there are outliers – AOM that persist for mere milliseconds, and rare instances that remain stable for years, although these are highly exceptional cases.

Once the time limit or another disassociation trigger is activated, AOM undergoes an extraordinarily rapid process of degradation known as “Disassociation” that propagates across the AOM nigh-instantaneously. Advanced spectroscopic studies have revealed that this process might involve what appears to be a non-entropic decline of internal bonds within the AOM, which contrasts sharply with typical physical processes like decay or dissolution that increase overall entropy. Further research is underway to understand why this defies conventional thermodynamics.

Disassociation yields various byproducts, the most common of which is a whitish-grey ash-like substance that typically appears in large flakes. While ash is the most common, other byproducts have been observed, such as suspensions, oils, water-like liquids, gaseous emanations, cubes of smaller material, powders, and more. Universally, these byproducts continue to decay into smaller and smaller pieces, until they become unobservable, whereupon they are theorized to simply wink out of existence in defiance of physical laws. These products, despite mimicking conventional matter, possess unusually short half-lives—often vanishing in less than a minute. Strikingly, the disassociation process defies typical matter degradation pathways like radioactive decay. Radiation levels during and after the disassociation process are negligible, leading researchers to hypothesize that the matter is not transforming but rather “exiting” our physical reality in a way that is yet to be fully understood.

Locality Constraints:
AOM exhibits a robust locality feature, wherein its stability is closely tied to its proximity to the metahuman who generated it. Disassociation often commences if the originator moves beyond a specific, often quite restricted, radius. In many cases, this radius is remarkably small and may be confined to the visual radius of the metahuman. Some researchers have suggested that the locality constraints might also be influenced by psychological factors such as attention or intent. In many instances, merely losing visual contact with the AOM is enough to trigger disassociation. 

Recent experiments have attempted to quantify this phenomenon using precise measurement tools like laser interferometers and real-time GPS tracking of both the AOM and its creator. Although no instances of AOM have been observed to persist beyond a 20-kilometer range, most tend to degrade far sooner, often within a matter of meters or even centimeters from the originator.

Materiality Constraints:
It is crucial to distinguish AOM from other phenomena such as energy or fire creation. AOM pertains strictly to matter that is spontaneously generated. For example, while pyrokinetics may appear to create “new matter,” they are usually manipulating existing matter via phase changes or chemical reactions, thereby placing them outside the purview of AOM, unless their ‘generated fire’ is created in the form of a substance that flash-ignites, an important distinction.

It is imperative to differentiate between exotic matter and exotic energy in metahuman studies. For instance, electrokinetics who generate electricity are not producing AOM but are instead catalyzing exotic forms of energy. The distinction is significant for researchers, policy-makers, and emergency responders, as the methods for containing or mitigating the effects of exotic matter and exotic energy differ substantially.

Taxonomy of AOM

The initial definition of AOM taxonomy by Dr. Abraham Clarke included “Standard Constructs” and “Physics-Defying Constructs”, while “Unmeasurable Constructs” were added as a categorization two years later by colleague Dr. Ivana Price.

  • Standard Constructs
    • Natural Mimicry
      • Geo-Constructs
        • Examples: Materials resembling granite, basalt, sandstone, or other stones.
        • Characteristics: These AOM typically exhibit properties akin to natural rocks and minerals, displaying hardness and durability. Tests often reveal them to be indistinguishable from their naturally occurring counterparts on a molecular level.
      • Bio-Constructs
        • Examples: Extra limbs, spider silk, quill-like structures, or other biological structures.
        • Characteristics: These materials often mimic biological structures and may even display cellular complexity. They are especially prevalent among metahumans with morphological abilities, offering enhanced flexibility or strength.
      • Metallo-Constructs
        • Examples: Constructs resembling gold, iron, copper, or other metals.
        • Characteristics: These AOM possess metallic attributes, including electrical conductivity and malleability. X-ray diffraction studies show crystalline structures that parallel those of actual metals.
    • Chemically Reactive Constructs
      • Combustibles
        • Examples: Materials that combust upon exposure to air, flash paper-like substances.
        • Characteristics: They adhere to standard chemical combustion principles, often requiring an oxidizer to initiate the reaction. Despite their anomalous origin, they typically produce predictable amounts of heat and light.
      • Inert Constructs
        • Examples: Materials mimicking noble gases or other non-reactive substances like graphite.
        • Characteristics: Generally stable and non-reactive, these constructs pose fewer immediate risks but are still subject to AOM degradation timelines.
    • Aggregate State Constructs
      • Solid Constructs
        • Examples: Constructs mimicking hardwoods, plastics, concrete, paper, etc.
        • Characteristics: These are often used in barrier creation or material support and share mechanical properties with their real-world equivalents, such as tensile strength and compression resistance.
      • Liquid Constructs
        • Examples: Materials resembling water, oil, or even liquid metals like mercury.
        • Characteristics: Usually taking the form of barriers or traps, these constructs display viscosity and surface tension much like naturally occurring liquids.
      • Gaseous Constructs
        • Examples: Constructs resembling air, chlorine gas, or even exotic vapors like ozone.
        • Characteristics: These are often used for area denial or concealment and display properties like density and compressibility akin to their natural counterparts.
  • Physics-Defying Constructs
    • Self-Motile Constructs
      • Examples: Self-moving tendrils, floating orbs.
      • Characteristics: These constructs defy expectations by displaying self-propelled movement without an external force.
    • Inertia-Defying Constructs
      • Examples: Floating cubes, levitating platforms.
      • Characteristics: These violate Newton’s First Law by maintaining a static or uniform motion state without any apparent force application.
    • Force-Balancing Constructs
      • Examples: Self-stabilizing platforms, hovering constructs.
      • Characteristics: These constructs seem to defy Newton’s Second Law (F=ma) by maintaining equilibrium despite imbalanced external forces.
    • Unresponsive Constructs
      • Examples: Unyielding barriers, immovable objects.
      • Characteristics: These AOM defy Newton’s Third Law by not exerting an equal and opposite reaction when interacted with, rendering them impervious to conventional mechanical stress.
    • Momentum-Defying Constructs
      • Examples: Projectiles that stop mid-air, spinning tops that never slow.
      • Characteristics: These constructs defy the Conservation of Momentum, often coming to sudden stops or maintaining constant speeds despite friction.
    • Angular-Defying Constructs
      • Examples: Rotating constructs that change direction without an apparent force.
      • Characteristics: These constructs violate the Conservation of Angular Momentum, making abrupt changes in rotational velocity or direction without external torque.
    • Buoyancy-Defying Constructs
      • Examples: Floating stones, sinking balloons.
      • Characteristics: These constructs violate Archimedes’ Principle by exhibiting behaviors inconsistent with their density and the fluid medium they are in. For instance, a “stone” that floats on water or a “balloon” that sinks in air.
    • Thermal Anomalies
      • Examples: Perpetually hot objects, constructs that absorb heat with no upper limit.
      • Characteristics: These constructs defy the First Law of Thermodynamics by generating or absorbing heat without an apparent source, maintaining temperature imbalances that should be impossible in a closed system.
    • Order-Inducing Constructs
      • Examples: Self-repairing materials, constructs that clean or order their surroundings.
      • Characteristics: These violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics by spontaneously increasing order—essentially decreasing entropy—in a closed system, such as a torn piece of material that “repairs” itself.
    • Field-Altering Constructs
      • Examples: Constructs that create magnetic fields, objects that disrupt electrical fields.
      • Characteristics: These constructs violate Maxwell’s Equations, Coulomb’s Law, or Ampère’s Law by altering electric or magnetic fields in ways not accounted for by known equations. Some have been observed to nullify electrical currents or induce magnetism where none should exist.
    • Relativistic Anomalies
      • Examples: Constructs that appear to warp spacetime, gravity-defying objects.
      • Characteristics: These constructs challenge our understanding of Special or General Relativity, often displaying gravity-defying properties or appearing to warp spacetime in their immediate vicinity.
    • Mass-Shifting Constructs
      • Examples: Objects that change weight but not size, constructs that appear heavier/lighter than they should be.
      • Characteristics: These violate the principle of Conservation of Mass-Energy by altering their mass or converting mass to energy (or vice versa) in a manner not currently understood by conventional physics.
    • Superluminal Constructs
      • Examples: N/A (Theoretical, no observed examples)
      • Characteristics: While no concrete examples exist, theoretically these constructs would defy the cosmic speed limit set by the speed of light, causing innumerable problems with causality and the fabric of spacetime itself.
  • Immeasurable Constructs
    • Instant Reactives
      • Examples: Flash fireballs, instant ice formations.
      • Characteristics: These constructs ignite, freeze, or otherwise react nearly instantaneously, making them difficult to analyze for chemical properties.
    • High Entropy Constructs
      • Examples: Rapidly degrading structures, ephemeral energy forms.
      • Characteristics: These constructs disintegrate so quickly that their transient nature makes meaningful analysis virtually impossible.
    • Vanishing Constructs
      • Examples: Walls that disappear upon touch, objects that vanish when looked at.
      • Characteristics: These constructs defy measurement or capture for analysis, as they tend to vanish or significantly alter their form upon any form of interaction.
  • Taxonomy of Anomalously Originated Materials (AOM)

Medical Research

The medical recognition of the phenomena associated with Anomalously Originated Materials (AOM) has undergone significant developments since the early 2000s. Before the consolidation of the AOM theory, medical professionals often classified the symptoms and health consequences experienced by metahumans in disjointed medical categories, ranging from idiopathic conditions to poorly understood autoimmune responses. The seminal work that finally unified these observations into the realm of AOM was Dr. Marina Stellman’s 2004 paper, “Metahuman Biology and the Genesis of Anomalous Matter.”

General Health Concerns:
One of the initial medical concerns raised was the potential for autoimmune reactions in metahumans generating AOM. Initially, it was hypothesized that the rapid materialization and disintegration of foreign matter might trigger immune responses from the body. However, this theory has been largely dismissed through empirical research, which found no significant increase in autoimmune conditions among metahumans capable of generating AOM. Medical experts have also studied the impact of AOM degradation products on the environment and public health. To date, no harmful residues have been observed, but monitoring continues, particularly as new forms of AOM are discovered.

Medical Risks and Precautions:
Exertion and Physical Strain:
The generation of AOM can be physiologically and psychologically taxing, leading to symptoms that range from exhaustion and muscle cramps to more serious cardiovascular issues. Much like athletes, metahumans producing AOM are advised to undergo regular health screenings and engage in physical conditioning to minimize health risks.

Toxicity and Allergic Reactions:
Although rare, there have been instances where the AOM generated has displayed toxic properties, leading to acute or chronic health issues for the metahuman or those in their immediate vicinity. Ongoing research is focused on understanding the factors that contribute to such toxic manifestations and how they can be predicted or mitigated.

Nutritional Demands:
The act of generating AOM appears to demand an exceptional caloric and nutritional intake, akin to heightened metabolic rates observed in certain high-performance athletes or animals with rapid regenerative capabilities. Metahumans known for generating significant amounts of AOM often have specialized dietary requirements to sustain their abilities without detrimental health effects.

The Vermiform Appendage:
First identified in the early 1990s during autopsy examinations of deceased metahumans, the Vermiform Appendage was initially met with skepticism due to its seemingly benign structure. As its name suggests, it resembles a small, earthworm-like organ, often attached to the liver or the appendix. Advances in medical imaging and biopsies eventually confirmed its role as a unique, specialized organ, most commonly present in individuals with the capability to generate AOM.

Some instances show that the Vermiform Appendage can be malformed, leading to erratic or even uncontrollable AOM output. A well-documented case is that of a civilian superhuman constantly generating and shedding quills, much like a porcupine, due to a malformed appendage. Remarkably, these organs are incredibly robust and display extraordinary regenerative capabilities, often regrowing within days or weeks after damage. However, it’s worth noting that if they initially form in a malformed state, they tend to regrow in the same defective configuration.

The robust regenerative abilities of the Vermiform Appendage make surgical removal a highly discouraged option. Removed appendages almost invariably grow back, often within days or weeks. Moreover, removal does not suppress the production of AOM but rather makes it uncontrollable, leading to significant risks for the individual and their surroundings.

As of 2023, some progress has been made in developing experimental pharmacological agents aimed at ‘dampening’ problematic AOM output. These medications work by inhibiting blood flow and nutrient supply to the Vermiform Appendage. In essence, the approach involves the administration of vasoconstrictive agents and metabolic inhibitors targeted specifically at the blood vessels supplying the Vermiform Appendage, causing it to ‘starve’ without removing it entirely, reducing AOM output without producing uncontrolled emanations. These drugs are used cautiously, given their potential side effects on other organs and systems, and are typically reserved for severe cases where the risks of uncontrolled AOM production outweigh potential drawbacks.

bstdev

,

Leave a comment