This question is non-sensical. "Strong" is not a word used to describe any type of atom. Making "a speed warm" is not a meaningful sequence of words, in the context of colliding atoms or otherwise. While wormholes are solutions which are allowed (note - not required, guaranteed, etc.) by the theory of general relativity, none have been observed, though some have postulated that black holes may be able to form wormholes. The (non)existence of the multiverse has not been decided. The equation is ambiguous: without definition of the variables, it looks like the relationship distance = rate x time (with the rate being c, the speed of light in vacuum), which does not calculate mass, energy, or this claimed quantity "mass of the energy".

Your question does not make sense in the context of physics. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a "strong" atom. On the other hand speeds do not warm, and wormholes do not exist, as far as we know.

Although the existence of a multiverse is theorized, at this time there is no evidence that it exists.

The equation "d = c x t" is not something that is normally used in physics, unless it's the equation for the distance d traveled by light in the time t (where c is the speed of light). That equation has nothing to do with either mass or energy.

Maybe you mean 'high energy atoms' when you say 'strong atoms.'

Here is a nice answer. The first 2 answers are good science, and the third answer is a joke about 'Canadian' atoms that say "I'm sorry" when they collide and 'American' atoms that ionize and cause all kinds of havoc when they collide.