I have issues with your claim that atomic nuclei get more stable if you keep piling up neutrons (in the nuclear energy part of everyday physics). Given the theoretical model of atomic nuclei that you present there, it might make it seem logical, but it's still false. As is quite evident from tables like this one: table of nuclides, nuclei tend to be most stable with approximately the same number of neutrons and protons.
Using simplified models of nuclei is fine, but you shouldn't make false claims based on it. Either just omit the question of which amount of neutrons maximizes stability, or admit that your model is simplified and doesn't always give correct answers. Brilliant.org is said to teach people to think like scientists. Stubbornly believing a theory even when it disagrees with hard facts of reality, is hardly to think like a scientist.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
@Erik Edelmann, from the wiki you linked to, let's look at the plot of isotope half-life in the Z−N plane.
Starting near the origin, the line of stability (T21>1014 yr) veers above the Z=N line. I don't know what you mean by "nuclei tend to be most stable with approximately the same number of neutrons and protons".
Above Z=20 protons, there isn't a single atom that's stable with N≤Z, they all have N>Z.