>>14397636Predictions for their half-lives (if they exist) vary wildly, but even assuming they lasted for practical length of time rather than seconds, there aren't any known processes by which we could obtain large quantities, so it would be a microscopic paperweight, not even a useful one. As for chemical properties, I haven't seen anything that suggests they would be more interesting that any other elements, though being significantly more dense than lead would be interesting in itself. For the most part the only significant is testing the physical models.
>>14397650Our current understanding of nuclear decay is that it is caused by quantum tunneling, meaning that if stars had a way of affecting decay rates then our understanding of quantum physics is flawed. Muons aren't particularly exotic and were discovered before we ha particle accelerators, so I'm not sure what abundance you are referring to. Not that we particularly understand what goes on in stars, but there's no indication that they have enough energy to do anything strange. The heavy isotopes being discussed are mostly expected to have come from neutron star collisions and other rare events, since regular stars are nowhere near enough.
>>14397667This is true, I actually made everything else up.
