Nuclear Physics: Hydrogen3 (Tritium) vs Helium3, a paradox?

In the context of the remarks which led to my question (see the arguments given with the question at the top of the page) of the url: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Nuclear_Physics_Why_are_there_no_nuclei_formed_only_of_neutrons

Another contradiction appears in the following case: Hydrogen 3 (H3 or Tritium) has 2 neutrons and 1 proton while Helium 3 has 1 neutron and 2 protons. We would tend to think that since the nuclear force (which is independent of the charge) is the same in both cases and since Tritium has only one proton, the Coulomb force will further destabilize Helium 3 ( Coulomb interaction is zero for Tritium). Well no! in reality, it is hydrogen 3 which is unstable (beta-radioactivity with a period of 12.3 years) and which decays into Helium 3 which is stable.

Hydrogen3(Z=1,N=2)--------> Helium3(Z=2,N=1) +electron+antineutrino

(beta (-) decay corresponds to the transformation of neutron into a proton)

Note that the binding energy of H3 (tritium) is 8.48 MeV while that of He3 is 7.72 MeV. So the radioactive transformation from H3 to He3 "evolves" towards a lower binding energy. However, because the neutron loses mass as it becomes a proton, the final mass of He3 is slightly smaller than that of H3 (3.016029 u for He3 vs 3.016049 u for H3). But since according to Einstein, the mass is energy, the system goes in the "good direction" (it is towards less energy).

But all the same there is a paradox:

In effect, the system in this case evolves towards more stable but less bound nucleus!

More B. Mohammed-Azizi's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions