Research derives axial shell-kernel coefficients in latency-erasure theory, implying new insights into reflectivity.
We derive the axial shell-kernel coefficients of the finite-capacity latency–erasure theory directly from the linearized metric–latency action and thereby remove the last benchmark closure from the minimal strong-field reflectivity sector. Earlier FCLET work established the shell background, fixed the shell-onset threshold , derived the shell location and echo-delay scale, and then obtained the first action-based odd-parity thin-shell reflectivity law, That result closed the shell-response problem at formal level, but its numerical realization still depended on the composite shell-strength parameter which had not yet been derived from the action itself. The present paper closes that gap. Starting from the FCLET strong-field action, we expand the coupled metric–latency system to quadratic order around a static spherically symmetric shell background and perform the odd-parity reduction of the perturbation action. Because the background latency field is scalar, the odd-parity sector contains no independent propagating axial scalar harmonic. Nevertheless, the shell profile modifies the axial master operator through background dressing, shell-gradient energy, and shell-support stress. We isolate the shell-supported terms of the quadratic action, reduce them to the minimal local operator basis, and derive the coefficients , , and explicitly. This yields the first first-principles reconstruction of the axial shell kernel, and therefore the first action-level determination of the shell coupling The strong-field significance is immediate. The shell reflectivity sector is no longer controlled by a benchmark normalization convention. It is fixed by the quadratic perturbation structure of the FCLET action itself. The compact-object branch therefore advances from benchmark shell spectroscopy to derived shell spectroscopy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ali Caner Yücel (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: