^Except most of the references to neutronium, especially its use in DS9, make no sense. Neutronium is the stuff neutron stars are (partly) made of. It's so dense that a spoonful would have the mass of a mountain. Its own gravity would pull it into a sphere, so it couldn't have the shape of the Doomsday Machine. And if you made a door out of the stuff, like the door to the Dominion stronghold in "What You Leave Behind," it would instantly plummet through the planet's crust and sink to the center. That is, if such a small amount of neutronium could stably survive at all, which it couldn't, because its own internal degeneracy pressure would cause it to explode back into normal matter.
Which is why, in The Buried Age, I explained the references to "neutronium" as actually being "hyponeutronium" (a term I cribbed from Diane Duane), a nickname for an alloy of dense, stable transuranic elements with nuclei made mostly of neutrons.
Is it necessary to retcon away the various parts of previous episodes in the name of more made up science?
Should Spock now be written as a full blooded Vulcan who was simply raised by a human mother in the name of more realistic biology? Would he be as interesting a character if his background was simply "Nature vs nurture" as opposed to being a Human/Vulcan hybrid?
What's wrong with Michael Okuda, explaining how the Heisenberg Compensators work, simply saying "Very well, thank you"?
If you're going to get ride of the ludicrous science in the name of reality then we can say goodbye to warp drive, phasers, McCoy's magic healing rays transporters, subspace radio....
If you want to add your own threads to the tapestry that is Trek and make it based on real world science then feel free but I don't see the need to overwrite what has come before. I'm smart enough to recognize when Trek is handing me a beaker full of Bolognium.