![openplex vs seas0npass openplex vs seas0npass](https://www.azom.com/images/equipments/EquipmentThumbImage_6334_15795257149246277.png)
One of the main challenges with very heavy particles such as heavy quarks/leptons, however, is that the energy gap is pretty gigantic, and there aren't many extra conservation laws that can prevent decay for the combined system.
![openplex vs seas0npass openplex vs seas0npass](https://neoventures.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/aptamer-ngs-analysis-neoventures-biotechnology-230x163.png)
So, if you're looking to make a particle that is unstable last longer via bonding, then you need to bond it with something such that the combined system cannot access a lower-energy state without violating conservation laws. Bonds exist because separating the bonded particles requires more energy than the bonded particles have when they are together (which is why to break bonds you must add energy). This is true for all particles, nuclei, atoms, molecules, and systems in general. That doesn't mean all such systems can be made stable through bonding, though.Īs a general principle, if there is a lower-energy state available that can be reached without violating any relevant conservation laws, then a system will be unstable and has some probability in a given timeframe to decay to the lower-energy state. Surely though there are many similar examples - stable isotopes are all examples when unstable isotopes exist. Well, one of the first examples that comes to mind is the example you mentioned: neutrons. (Sorry in advance for being long-winded.) In any case, this too would probably not be helpful to us even if true, since you would need to keep it under unreasonably extreme densities to prevent it from decaying back into ordinary matter. However, not only is there no substantial evidence to support this hypothesis, but the limited evidence that has been collected has generally been consistent with it being false. The second possible exception would be keeping matter at extremely high densities (comparable to that of a neutron star), where Pauli exclusion is significant and might make it energetically favorable for matter to exist in a mix of up, down, and strange quarks (the last of which is unstable otherwise), resulting in the hypothetical formation of so-called strange matter in a strange star. Certainly it does not seem like it could be useful from a "nuclear chemistry" perspective since that involves things like forming bonds between quarks to create hadrons, and allowing interactions between those hadrons, i.e. And in any case, since the consequence of these measurements is to lock the system into a specific state, I have a hard time imagining how this could be useful from a technology perspective. However, I do know that it is also only a probabilistic effect there is still some small probability for the state to decay between measurements and consequently decay will still eventually occur - that probability can be made arbitrarily small with measurements that are sufficiently rapid, but of course there is an engineering difficulty in actually making such rapid measurements, especially for systems which would naturally decay extremely quickly. However, as far as I am aware it has only ever been demonstrated for optical decay (preventing an excited atom from emitting a photon and returning to its ground state), and not also for radioactive decay I am not sure it could even prevent radioactive decay, though perhaps it could - I am certainly not an expert on this effect.
![openplex vs seas0npass openplex vs seas0npass](https://img.directindustry.com/pdf/repository_di/25366/emia-v2-527161_1mg.jpg)
The first is the quantum Zeno effect, wherein decay may be suppressed by making extremely rapid, successive, nearly-constant measurements to essentially lock a quantum system into an eigenstate with high probability. There are only two possible exceptions I am aware of.
![openplex vs seas0npass openplex vs seas0npass](https://img.directindustry.es/pdf/repository_di/25366/emga-921-527169_1mg.jpg)
So, to answer your question, no - there is pretty clear and convincing evidence that each of the heavier quarks and all of the exotic hadrons that they form are very unstable and decay very quickly, and there isn't really any technology that can somehow stabilize radioactive particles against decay. The situation with exotic quarks/hadrons is an entirely different one, since they all decay radioactively with very short timescales, and have nothing similar to an isotope that is stable. As far as I am aware, none of those elements actually decay once isolated in their pure form (discounting radioactive isotopes, since each of these elements have fully stable isotopes and those are the ones typically found in nature). I'm honestly not familiar with the situations involving fluorine/caesium/aluminium, but correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like the difficulty with each of those elements was with simply isolating them in their elemental form and keeping them from reacting with other molecules to form compounds again.