B In theory, could any element become unstable?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Trooper149
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Theory
Trooper149
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Problem Statement: NA
Relevant Equations: NA

So just smashing through some info on particles and I have come across the term "decay" which seems to be used quite ambiguously.

Decay is the process where a nucleus expells radiation as a means to redress the imbalance of forces occurring within, as I understand it. Quite a few sources say "that decay is caused by the nucleus". This seems flawed, because if we were to treat the nucleus as a closed system, and there is an imbalance of energy between the outside and inside of the nucleus in the form of the 4 forces, then theoretically this imbalance can be caused by any injection of energy into the nucleus of the particle?

With this said, could you make any particle unstable?

Also would this make all isotopes unstable?

Appreciate any info.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anything will break if we hit it hard enough with a big enough hammer, so in that sense everything is unstable. But because that’s an unhelpful way of defining stability, we instead consider a system to be unstable only if there’s a way for it to break apart without adding energy.

Thus, we consider a boulder at the foot of a mountain to be a stable configuration, but the same boulder on top of the mountain to be an unstable configuration: at any moment the boulder might roll downhill, releasing energy as it goes.

You are asking whether we should consider the situation with the boulder at the bottom just as unstable because we could add external energy by using a bulldozer to push the rock back uphill again.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Astronuc and Drakkith
From the BCS theory of superconductivity is well known that the superfluid density smoothly decreases with increasing temperature. Annihilated superfluid carriers become normal and lose their momenta on lattice atoms. So if we induce a persistent supercurrent in a ring below Tc and after that slowly increase the temperature, we must observe a decrease in the actual supercurrent, because the density of electron pairs and total supercurrent momentum decrease. However, this supercurrent...
Hi. I have got question as in title. How can idea of instantaneous dipole moment for atoms like, for example hydrogen be consistent with idea of orbitals? At my level of knowledge London dispersion forces are derived taking into account Bohr model of atom. But we know today that this model is not correct. If it would be correct I understand that at each time electron is at some point at radius at some angle and there is dipole moment at this time from nucleus to electron at orbit. But how...

Similar threads

Back
Top