A nucleus is stable if the electrostatic and strong nuclear forces balance out.
everything
You can not predict whether an isotope nucleus is likely to be stable. There is a lack of electrons in the nucleus creating a chemical change in the atom becoming stable.
No. In fact the largest stable nucleus of any atom in it's non isotope form is Lead at 82 protons
An isolated neutron is unstable, so an isolated antineutron is also unstable. A neutron inside a nucleus is stable, so a antineutron inside an antinucleus is also stable.
When atoms have a balanced number of protons and neutrons, they are more likely to be stable. The nucleus of the atom is more stable when it has a balanced ratio of protons to neutrons, as this allows for a stronger nuclear force and reduces the likelihood of decay or instability.
There is a greater binding energy per nucleon. Greater binding energy signifies a more stable nucleus due to stronger bonds; in fission, the amount of electrons is irrelevant to stability.
The greater the nuclear binding energy, the more stable the nucleus. Even numbers of nucleons also make the nucleus more stable.
It becomes most stable when its nucleus is filled, not when it is filling it.
You can not predict whether an isotope nucleus is likely to be stable. There is a lack of electrons in the nucleus creating a chemical change in the atom becoming stable.
A stable nucleus is one which will not decay, whereas an unstable nucleus will decay at some point, which cannot be predicted as decay is a random process, by alpha or beta decay.
The atoms having 2 protons only in nucleus is not stable but 2 protons with 2 neutron in Helium nucleus are very stable.
By definition. If it were stable, then it would not be radioactive.
Being radioactive, uranium is not a stable element.
No. In fact the largest stable nucleus of any atom in it's non isotope form is Lead at 82 protons
strong force
Not very stable, that's for sure.
Change from unstable to stable nucleus.
ionization!