>>11206117It'd be strange living in a universe like ours but with any stable particles beyond the lightest family.
Especially the quarks; anything that isn't dark red in this picture is totally irrelevant to chemistry, and the differences between stable isotopes of an element are too small to be significant to chemistry. But stable heavy quarks would mean hadrons could exist that are vastly more massive than ours, with protons and neutrons each having 27 configurations.
This would mean there's a fuckload of possible subisotopes, and these isotopes would vary in more than just stability. It'd actually be a serious problem for technology and biology; the basic rules for atomic bonding should be more or less the same, but behaviour would be very different, as a single heavier quark would make an atom significantly more massive. Greatly or vastly more massive, when dealing with the light elements of organic chemistry. Plus, the top quark is capable of interacting with nonvirtual W and Z bosons, which I imagine would make things very strange.
