Why it's easier to be a creationist than an atheist

[exchemist]

I'm really not sure. I've not found a satisfying definition of the terms 'cause' and 'effect'. Especially when quantum events are around. I might say the photon caused the change in probabilities, but I'm not sure whether I would say it caused the transition. It *influenced* the transition, for sure. Cause seems much more, well, determined. Are all influences causes?

So what if there is a probability originally, but the photon increased it? Would you say the photon caused the transition still?

In such a hypothetical case I would say it was a "contributory cause", I think, just as we do in daily life.

But in this case I don't think that applies. My (admittedly dim) recollection is that eigenvalues of Schrödinger's equation are orthogonal, with the physical significance (I think) that an electron in one state does not spend any time in another and won't spontaneously go from one to another.

I suppose at this point I should 'fess up to a bit of an agenda here. I have always disliked the tendency of some science journalists and communicators to talk up ideas of "quantum weirdness", making the whole subject as strange, obscure and counterintuitive as possible to lay people. This, in my opinion, has helped give rise to the modern disease of "quantum woo". My own instinct has always been the contrary and to try to find analogies that help it "make sense" to the outsider. (Somewhat influenced by my tutor who, as an amateur radio enthusiast, used to tell us that a lot QM behaviour is easy for any radio engineer to grasp, the uncertainty principle being a case in point.)

This is why I don't like the idea that QM somehow negates "cause and effect", which on the face of it would seem to destroy all ability to predict anything, if what is really meant is simply the use of probability (the wave function being a kind of square root of a probability density) and quantum indeterminacy. QM is brilliant at predicting behaviour, so cause and effect must be alive and well, it seems to me.

 

[Polymath257]

In such a hypothetical case I would say it was a "contributory cause", I think, just as we do in daily life.

But in this case I don't think that applies. My (admittedly dim) recollection is that eigenvalues of Schrödinger's equation are orthogonal, with the physical significance (I think) that an electron in one state does not spend any time in another and won't spontaneously go from one to another.

Yes, you are right in this particular case. Eigenstates for different eigenvalues are orthogonal. And, ultimately, the Schrodinger equation is an equation for the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (with eigenvalues the energies). But we might be in a situation where there is already a photon flux, say in a magnetic field and we are adding another photon source, say a laser. If we describe the system as approximately in the states of the original atom, the new wave functions will be interpreted as probabilities of being in original states and we will have transition probabilities changing.

I suppose at this point I should 'fess up to a bit of an agenda here. I have always disliked the tendency of some science journalists and communicators to talk up ideas of "quantum weirdness", making the whole subject as strange, obscure and counterintuitive as possible to lay people. This, in my opinion, has helped give rise to the modern disease of "quantum woo". My own instinct has always been the contrary and to try to find analogies that help it "make sense" to the outsider. (Somewhat influenced by my tutor who, as an amateur radio enthusiast, used to tell us that a lot QM behaviour is easy for any radio engineer to grasp, the uncertainty principle being a case in point.)

I agree with your agenda, but with a slight twist. First, there *is* a 'weirdness' in quantum mechanics: the fact that the waves are probability waves for detection of particles. That ultimately means that many classical notions of how particles work simply fail. And yes, most of the 'weirdness' is ultimately just different types of wave interference, badly interpreted. It annoys me when quantum systems are analyzed with classical reasoning: we should analyze the classical in terms of the quantum, not the other way around since QM is the more accurate theory.

This is why I don't like the idea that QM somehow negates "cause and effect", which on the face of it would seem to destroy all ability to predict anything, if what is really meant is simply the use of probability (the wave function being a kind of square root of a probability density) and quantum indeterminacy. QM is brilliant at predicting behavior, so cause and effect must be alive and well, it seems to me.

And I see your point. But it is certainly true that many aspects of classical notions of cause and effect have to be thrown out. The deterministic idea that initial states determine final states in a one-to-one way has to go. The idea of an immediate cause has to be massaged, at least (what is the cause of a decay of a radioactive atom?).

So, I do agree *some* amount of cause and effect remains, but I'm also convinced the whole concept of cause and effect needs to be rethought.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, you are right in this particular case. Eigenstates for different eigenvalues are orthogonal. And, ultimately, the Schrodinger equation is an equation for the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (with eigenvalues the energies). But we might be in a situation where there is already a photon flux, say in a magnetic field and we are adding another photon source, say a laser. If we describe the system as approximately in the states of the original atom, the new wave functions will be interpreted as probabilities of being in original states and we will have transition probabilities changing.



I agree with your agenda, but with a slight twist. First, there *is* a 'weirdness' in quantum mechanics: the fact that the waves are probability waves for detection of particles. That ultimately means that many classical notions of how particles work simply fail. And yes, most of the 'weirdness' is ultimately just different types of wave interference, badly interpreted. It annoys me when quantum systems are analyzed with classical reasoning: we should analyze the classical in terms of the quantum, not the other way around since QM is the more accurate theory.



And I see your point. But it is certainly true that many aspects of classical notions of cause and effect have to be thrown out. The deterministic idea that initial states determine final states in a one-to-one way has to go. The idea of an immediate cause has to be massaged, at least (what is the cause of a decay of a radioactive atom?).

So, I do agree *some* amount of cause and effect remains, but I'm also convinced the whole concept of cause and effect needs to be rethought.

Yes sorry for garbling my eigenvalues and eigenstates and thanks for straightening them out.

I don't think we're really disagreeing. The classical, i.e. Newtonian-mechanical, ability to determine exactly a final state from an initial state is certainly shown to be impossible at the atomic scale. We can still predict outcomes, but only as the expectation value of a probability distribution in many cases.

In fact I have always found it a strangely comforting feature of the theory that it tells us we cannot know everything exactly. I don't know why, but it appeals to me, aesthetically. (Einstein,famously, hated it! )

 

[Polymath257]

Yes sorry for garbling my eigenvalues and eigenstates and thanks for straightening them out.

I don't think we're really disagreeing. The classical, i.e. Newtonian-mechanical, ability to determine exactly a final state from an initial state is certainly shown to be impossible at the atomic scale. We can still predict outcomes, but only as the expectation value of a probability distribution in many cases.

In fact I have always found it a strangely comforting feature of the theory that it tells us we cannot know everything exactly. I don't know why, but it appeals to me, aesthetically. (Einstein,famously, hated it! )

Well, it *does* go a bit farther. Classically, objects had definite properties at all times: even if we couldn't measure them, they had a definite momentum, for example.

In QM, though, that is no longer the case. it isn't just that we can't know the momentum, but that the momentum doesn't have a definite value. Instead, it is probabilistic. Inherently so. That is the impact the violations of Bell's inequalities: that there are no 'hidden variables' going on (unless you allow for faster than light travel, in which case your relativistic theory will have problems).

There is a very good short article by Mermin that is a fun, quick, read:

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin longer.pdf

Yes, this is the same Mermin as the one that wrote the book on Solid State Theory (if you know of it).

 

[exchemist]

Well, it *does* go a bit farther. Classically, objects had definite properties at all times: even if we couldn't measure them, they had a definite momentum, for example.

In QM, though, that is no longer the case. it isn't just that we can't know the momentum, but that the momentum doesn't have a definite value. Instead, it is probabilistic. Inherently so. That is the impact the violations of Bell's inequalities: that there are no 'hidden variables' going on (unless you allow for faster than light travel, in which case your relativistic theory will have problems).

There is a very good short article by Mermin that is a fun, quick, read:

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin longer.pdf

Yes, this is the same Mermin as the one that wrote the book on Solid State Theory (if you know of it).

Yes the vagueness is intrinsic. But curiously, it is only manifest if another property is simultaneously well-defined. I can think of 3 pairs of non-commuting observable operators offhand: momentum/position; energy/lifetime*; angular momentum along one axis/ditto on the other two. I expect there are more.

*I recall the energy/lifetime one is a cheat, though, as there is no time operator, I remember. But it works, as we use it in predicting the width of spectral lines.

I don't know Mermin. We didn't do much on solid state QM, sadly. It was mostly spectroscopy, bonding and molecular properties. I only learnt what a phonon was from colleagues reading physics.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes the vagueness is intrinsic. But curiously, it is only manifest if another property is simultaneously well-defined. I can think of 3 pairs of non-commuting observable operators offhand: momentum/position; energy/lifetime*; angular momentum along one axis/ditto on the other two. I expect there are more.

Another: angular momentum/angle. Also, notice that the *three* angular momentum directions are not a pair .

What is going on here is that there are symmetries in the fundamental laws. A symmetry group has certain 'infinitesimal generators' that act like momenta for the appropriate symmetry.

So, for example, translation along the x-axis doesn't change the basic laws. The infinitesimal generator for this symmetry is momentum along the x-axis. Similarly, in a spherically symmetric situation, rotations do not affect the underlying equations. The infinitesimal generator of a rotation around an axis is the angular momentum around that same axis.

Now, in the case of translations, two translations along different axes commute: translate 1 along x and then 2 along y and you get the same result as doing 2 along y first, then 1 along x. So, it turns out that their infinitesimal generators *also* commute.

But rotations do NOT commute in general: if you rotate 90 degrees around the x axis, then 90 degrees around the y axis, the result is different than if you do the y rotation first and then the x. So, the corresponding generators do *not* commute, i.e, angular momenta around different axes.

Now, the collection of isometries of three dimensional Euclidean space are generated by these translations and rotations, so momenta and angular momenta are natural observables from those symmetries.

But, if you go (special) relativistic, time translation is another symmetry with energy as the infinitesimal generator (as described by Schrodinger's equation). But there are also 'boost' symmetries produced by symmetries involving motion. And these have their own infinitesimal generators. These operators are for spin. Since the boosts do not commute, neither do spins.

Finally, when doing particle physics, there are internal symmetries that have their own generators related to isospin symmetry or color symmetry, etc.

*I recall the energy/lifetime one is a cheat, though, as there is no time operator, I remember. But it works, as we use it in predicting the width of spectral lines.

Not true when you go relativistic. Energy is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector. So it is reasonable that the commutativity of energy with time is the same as that for momentum and position along the same axis.

I don't know Mermin. We didn't do much on solid state QM, sadly. It was mostly spectroscopy, bonding and molecular properties. I only learnt what a phonon was from colleagues reading physics.

Lots and lots of cool concepts in Solid State!

 

[exchemist]

Another: angular momentum/angle. Also, notice that the *three* angular momentum directions are not a pair .

What is going on here is that there are symmetries in the fundamental laws. A symmetry group has certain 'infinitesimal generators' that act like momenta for the appropriate symmetry.

So, for example, translation along the x-axis doesn't change the basic laws. The infinitesimal generator for this symmetry is momentum along the x-axis. Similarly, in a spherically symmetric situation, rotations do not affect the underlying equations. The infinitesimal generator of a rotation around an axis is the angular momentum around that same axis.

Now, in the case of translations, two translations along different axes commute: translate 1 along x and then 2 along y and you get the same result as doing 2 along y first, then 1 along x. So, it turns out that their infinitesimal generators *also* commute.

But rotations do NOT commute in general: if you rotate 90 degrees around the x axis, then 90 degrees around the y axis, the result is different than if you do the y rotation first and then the x. So, the corresponding generators do *not* commute, i.e, angular momenta around different axes.

Now, the collection of isometries of three dimensional Euclidean space are generated by these translations and rotations, so momenta and angular momenta are natural observables from those symmetries.

But, if you go (special) relativistic, time translation is another symmetry with energy as the infinitesimal generator (as described by Schrodinger's equation). But there are also 'boost' symmetries produced by symmetries involving motion. And these have their own infinitesimal generators. These operators are for spin. Since the boosts do not commute, neither do spins.

Finally, when doing particle physics, there are internal symmetries that have their own generators related to isospin symmetry or color symmetry, etc.



Not true when you go relativistic. Energy is the time component of the energy-momentum 4-vector. So it is reasonable that the commutativity of energy with time is the same as that for momentum and position along the same axis.



Lots and lots of cool concepts in Solid State!

Yes the angular momentum ones are 3 pairs, aren't they: x:y, y:z, x:z? I like your observation about the infinitesimal generators a lot, esp. the non-commutativity of sequential rotations. Also the remarks about time having an operator in the full relativistic treatment.

At the risk of digressing now quite severely from the thread subject (will the mods punish us? ) a couple of queries arise in my mind:

1) considering momentum along x as the infinitesimal generators of translation along x, how do you derive from this that momentum and position do not commute? I assume this is analogous to non-commutation of angular momentum and angle, but unlike successive rotations, neither seems obvious as they are not successive operations of the same kind.

2) the "time" in the energy/time uncertainty relation is not a time coordinate like position, a single point on a coordinate axis in space but lifetime, i.e. duration, effectively the interval between two points along the time axis, effectively (hence its utility in uncertainty spectral broadening for example). So it does not feel quite like a parallel situation to the position one. Or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes the angular momentum ones are 3 pairs, aren't they: x:y, y:z, x:z? I like your observation about the infinitesimal generators a lot, esp. the non-commutativity of sequential rotations. Also the remarks about time having an operator in the full relativistic treatment.

At the risk of digressing now quite severely from the thread subject (will the mods punish us? ) a couple of queries arise in my mind:

1) considering momentum along x as the infinitesimal generators of translation along x, how do you derive from this that momentum and position do not commute? I assume this is analogous to non-commutation of angular momentum and angle, but unlike successive rotations, neither seems obvious as they are not successive operations of the same kind.

2) the "time" in the energy/time uncertainty relation is not a time coordinate like position, a single point on a coordinate axis in space but lifetime, i.e. duration, effectively the interval between two points along the time axis, effectively (hence its utility in uncertainty spectral broadening for example). So it does not feel quite like a parallel situation to the position one. Or am I misunderstanding?

Maybe we should start a new thread....but here's some quick answers:

1. One common way to get a quantum theory going is to have a 'Lagrangian'. Such Lagrangians usually have symmetries. The way to promote from a classical theory to a quantum theory is to insist that the commutation formula for variables and 'momenta' associated with those variables is like that for position and momentum.

2. A spatial coordinate is actually a measure between two points also: the origin and the point in question.

 

[Polymath257]

We can take the discussion here: Quantum Mechanics

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Actually, the theories on radioactivity are pretty good now. For many decays, we can predict half life, etc.

Yes, I'm aware of that-- but do we understand the deep reasons for why some atoms are radioactive, where others are not?

I know that nearly all atoms across the Periodic Table, can have radioactive isotopes, and the principle differences between the radioactive isotopes and their stable brethren, seem to be how many neutrons and protons they have at their core.


Even the venerable Hydrogen, has a pair of radioactive isotopes: deuterium and tritium. (I had to check if Helium 3 was radioactive, and it's not--which surprised me a bit. )

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are not neutrons so unstable, that they do not last very long, before breaking down or turning into something else? A quick google, says the half life of neutrons is only about 12 minutes.

I wonder if that isn't what's happening in radioactive atoms-- that protons somehow stabilize neutrons, but only have so much "stabilizing mojo" to go around-- discrete quantum packets of "stability" if you will. Or it could simply be the geometry of how the atomic center is put together.

And if you don't match this as yet unknown value, with neutrons, then some neutrons are unstable, and come apart eventually. And the missing neutron causes the atomic nucleus to then break into two or more pieces. Or perhaps the shape is wrong, allowing it to break apart?

I dunno-- I'm just speculating from stuff I've read recently on the subject.

EDIT: I made an error, and I'm going to correct it here.

ALL isotopes, stable or not, have the exact same number of **protons** -- to change that number, is to change it into a different element. Silly me! I knew that, but wasn't thinking it through.

So the single difference as far as we can tell, is the number of neutrons. It could also be the 3-D structure, which would be affected by the number of neutrons (naturally).

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I'm aware of that-- but do we understand the deep reasons for why some atoms are radioactive, where others are not?

Well enough to calculate the decay rates, at least. The problem is the complexities of the strong nuclear force.

I know that nearly all atoms across the Periodic Table, can have radioactive isotopes, and the principle differences between the radioactive isotopes and their stable brethren, seem to be how many neutrons and protons they have at their core.


Even the venerable Hydrogen, has a pair of radioactive isotopes: deuterium and tritium. (I had to check if Helium 3 was radioactive, and it's not--which surprised me a bit. )

Check your sources again. H3 (tritium) is radioactive with a half-life of 12.32 years.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are not neutrons so unstable, that they do not last very long, before breaking down or turning into something else? A quick google, says the half life of neutrons is only about 12 minutes.

There is a LONG story concerning the half-life of the neutron. But yes, it is 'unstable'. But, on the time scales of the strong nuclear force (10^(-23) seconds) it is very stable. It decays through the weak nuclear force into a proton, and electron and an electron anti-neutrino.

I wonder if that isn't what's happening in radioactive atoms-- that protons somehow stabilize neutrons, but only have so much "stabilizing mojo" to go around-- discrete quantum packets of "stability" if you will. Or it could simply be the geometry of how the atomic center is put together.

An elaboration of this idea leads to the 'liquid drop' model for the nucleus.

And if you don't match this as yet unknown value, with neutrons, then some neutrons are unstable, and come apart eventually. And the missing neutron causes the atomic nucleus to then break into two or more pieces. Or perhaps the shape is wrong, allowing it to break apart?

There are a few difficulties with this model:
1. The neutron decays through beta decay (as mentioned above, through the weak force). Not all nuclei decay in that mode.
2. In fact, for some nuclei, it is the *proton* that will change into a *neutron*, releasing a positron and an electron neutrino.
3. There are 'magic numbers' where the nucleus is more stable than would be thought using this model and 'anti-magic' numbers where it is less so.
4. Neutrons and protons are almost identical in regards to the strong nuclear force and so they bind together equally well in that way. It is the balance between this attraction (which is universal for both protons and neutrons) and the repulsion from the electric force (protons are all positive) that is *part* of what makes a nucleus stable or unstable.
5. The spin state of a nucleus has a bearing on its stability, not just the composition.
6. This doesn't deal with strong decay modes (alpha decay) or gamma ray emission.

I dunno-- I'm just speculating from stuff I've read recently on the subject.

EDIT: I made an error, and I'm going to correct it here.

ALL isotopes, stable or not, have the exact same number of **protons** -- to change that number, is to change it into a different element. Silly me! I knew that, but wasn't thinking it through.

So the single difference as far as we can tell, is the number of neutrons. It could also be the 3-D structure, which would be affected by the number of neutrons (naturally).

Well, you can regard it both ways. If you have a stable nucleus and remove neutrons, it will eventually go unstable in that direction also.

You might have fun with this site:
Interactive Chart of Nuclides

 

[ecco]

I'm just saying it's easier to believe that a creator, some higher power working with the mechanisms of science, created it.... it's a lot more difficult to discover a scientific explanation.)

You are correct, it is easier to believe GodDidIt than to learn about the universe and develop an understanding of reality.

That's the problem with religion. It breeds simplisticans. You grow up believing in simplicity instead of understanding that life is really complex.

Belief in simplicity leads people to believe that Trump can/will build a wall and bring back coal mine and steel plant jobs.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well enough to calculate the decay rates, at least. The problem is the complexities of the strong nuclear force.



Check your sources again. H3 (tritium) is radioactive with a half-life of 12.32 years.



There is a LONG story concerning the half-life of the neutron. But yes, it is 'unstable'. But, on the time scales of the strong nuclear force (10^(-23) seconds) it is very stable. It decays through the weak nuclear force into a proton, and electron and an electron anti-neutrino.


An elaboration of this idea leads to the 'liquid drop' model for the nucleus.



There are a few difficulties with this model:
1. The neutron decays through beta decay (as mentioned above, through the weak force). Not all nuclei decay in that mode.
2. In fact, for some nuclei, it is the *proton* that will change into a *neutron*, releasing a positron and an electron neutrino.
3. There are 'magic numbers' where the nucleus is more stable than would be thought using this model and 'anti-magic' numbers where it is less so.
4. Neutrons and protons are almost identical in regards to the strong nuclear force and so they bind together equally well in that way. It is the balance between this attraction (which is universal for both protons and neutrons) and the repulsion from the electric force (protons are all positive) that is *part* of what makes a nucleus stable or unstable.
5. The spin state of a nucleus has a bearing on its stability, not just the composition.
6. This doesn't deal with strong decay modes (alpha decay) or gamma ray emission.



Well, you can regard it both ways. If you have a stable nucleus and remove neutrons, it will eventually go unstable in that direction also.

You might have fun with this site:
Interactive Chart of Nuclides

"they said it would be easy...."

Thanks! It's fascinating, is it not? Obviously, the situation is far more complex than my cute little description would have implied.

And I strongly suspect, it's even more complex than your more through description implies as well.

Cool information, though.

 

[Polymath257]

"they said it would be easy...."

Thanks! It's fascinating, is it not? Obviously, the situation is far more complex than my cute little description would have implied.

And I strongly suspect, it's even more complex than your more through description implies as well.

Cool information, though.

Oh yes. Mine is a simplified version.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You might have fun with this site:
Interactive Chart of Nuclides

*BUMP* That. Is. The COOLEST thing EVER!

I am totally geeking out here.... you should post a link for this all by itself.

 

[SomeRandom]

Whoa. Okay random side note. Is anyone else here going through the back and forth between @Bob the Unbeliever @exchemist and @Polymath257 and just feeling unbelievably dumb? No? Just me then? Okay

No but seriously that was like hella education right there, damn.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Whoa. Okay random side note. Is anyone else here going through the back and forth between @Bob the Unbeliever @exchemist and @Polymath257 and just feeling unbelievably dumb? No? Just me then? Okay

No but seriously that was like hella education right there, damn.

Don't feel too bad-- I had to read Poly's posts multiple times, and there were parts I still didn't grasp. Google didn't help all that much, either.

It's kind of like the time I read Dr Hawking's A Brief History of Time. It was very slow going for me, and I had to re-read major parts of it, multiple times before I could hold it in my head long enough to understand it.

Alas, that only lasted about as long as it took to get into the next chapter, and the previous one? I lost my hold on the concepts.

Physics is hard. But it makes me think, and it makes me stretch my brain. Which is a good thing, IMO.

 

[Polymath257]

Even the venerable Hydrogen, has a pair of radioactive isotopes: deuterium and tritium. (I had to check if Helium 3 was radioactive, and it's not--which surprised me a bit. )

Sorry, I misread that the first time. Hydrogen-3 (tritium) is radioactive and Helium-3 is NOT. You are correct in what you said.

One way to think about it for Helium-3: There aren't many choices for a nucleus with only 3 nucleons (protons or neutrons): either have 3 neutrons (which would not be stable), 2 neutrons and 1 proton (a hydrogen-3 nucleus), 1 neutron and 2 protons (a helium-3 nucleus) or 3 protons (which would not be stable).

So, the only possible stable nuclei here are hydrogen-3 and helium-3. Now, potentially, both *could* be stable or both could be unstable. But of the two the hydrogen-3 would, for the reasons you stated, be the more likely to be unstable. So, helium-3 would be the most likely to be stable.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Sorry, I misread that the first time. Hydrogen-3 (tritium) is radioactive and Helium-3 is NOT. You are correct in what you said.

One way to think about it for Helium-3: There aren't many choices for a nucleus with only 3 nucleons (protons or neutrons): either have 3 neutrons (which would not be stable), 2 neutrons and 1 proton (a hydrogen-3 nucleus), 1 neutron and 2 protons (a helium-3 nucleus) or 3 protons (which would not be stable).

So, the only possible stable nuclei here are hydrogen-3 and helium-3. Now, potentially, both *could* be stable or both could be unstable. But of the two the hydrogen-3 would, for the reasons you stated, be the more likely to be unstable. So, helium-3 would be the most likely to be stable.

The only reason I focused on helium-3 is due to reading several science fiction stories, and the idea of nuclear fusion using one H and one He-3, which would be easier to get than H-2 or H-3. I'm not good enough with the maths to know if the author is correct or no, but I seem to recall that He-3 is more common than either H-2 or H-3 (deuterium or tritium), thus helium-3 would be a better fuel for their reactors.

Of course, the author did not explain storage of either, but I seem to recall that liquid hydrogen is much warmer than liquid helium.

But now that I think about it, I'm not sure how that would work: What would it look like, if you fused a single proton (hydrogen) with two protons but only one neutron? Surely that's not stable? Would one of the protons switch to another neutron, giving you stable helium-4? Or would you get lithium? But then you'd be very short of neutrons. Maybe the author meant fusing he-3 and he-3, for 4 protons and 2 neutrons? He-3 and he-4, for 4 protons and 3 neutrons? Is tha a thing? Hmmmm.... Oh well, it was a fun read, even if his physics was off.

Looking at the Dynamic Periodic Table, I see that 4 protons but 3 neutrons is an isotope of Beryllium, but is the most rare (and is also radioactive).

 

[Spiderman]

Whoa. Okay random side note. Is anyone else here going through the back and forth between @Bob the Unbeliever @exchemist and @Polymath257 and just feeling unbelievably dumb? No? Just me then? Okay

No but seriously that was like hella education right there, damn.

I am pleased with what this thread has produced. I think this thread has a soul/spirit of its own!