Excuse the basic question, but why do Atoms need to be stable? And why don't they decay at the same rate?

>>15377855 (OP)

No one knows. The nuclear force is poorly understood and its nearly impossible today to simulate something like a heavy nucleus

>>15377855 (OP)

if you have 2 harmonic oscillations of the same kind they repel each other.

it is about mirror symmetry, if 2 oscillations of the same mirror symmetry meat each other on one plane they repel each other its simple geometry.

do i now get money for my phase bomb?

>No one knows

Pretty much every time someone says this on this forum they really should have said "I don't know." Speak for yourself.

Tell us then



What does this mean in lamens terms?

>>15377855 (OP)

>why do Atoms need to be stable?

they don't



>And why don't they decay at the same rate?

When you have an unstable nucleus it is always the case that the decay products have less energy than the original nucleus, but there is some potential barrier that keeps you from decaying immediately. If there is a lot of energy released through decay, and a small potential barrier, that translates to a small decay time, and vice versa.

okey but why is the nucleus unstable?

Thanks. They never want to stay at certain atomic numbers though, say element like Uranium, what's the problem with it staying as it is? Why is it so volatile?

>Tell us then

https://structuredatom.org/

>I don't know.

I dont know but no one else does

>>15377855 (OP)

this building is so fucking ugly.

The packing structure is unstable. See >>15378037

Look up the "valley of stability" on wikipedia. A nucleus doesn't want to have too many protons because then the electrostatic repulsion gets higher. But it also doesn't want to have all neutrons because of degeneracy pressure due to Pauli exclusion. The compromise is to have just slightly more neutrons than protons and that's what the stable atoms are (more or less).

>A nucleus doesn't want to have too many protons because then the electrostatic repulsion gets higher. But it also doesn't want to have all neutrons because of degeneracy pressure due to Pauli exclusion. The compromise is to have just slightly more neutrons than protons and that's what the stable atoms are (more or less).

This is just a tale, not scientific knowledge

>This is just a tale, not scientific knowledge

Strange how that tale produced a useful quantitative formula.

Erika, this is a start. Glad you commented



Will look this up.

Eureka*

In nuclear science there are no formulas beyond polynomial fitting of experimental data

>>15377855 (OP)

>natural wonder

>a building

?

>In nuclear science, which I am not an expert on, I am not aware of any formulas beyond polynomial fitting of experimental data

ftfy

It's just Stalctites.
