Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Paper 70 asked the ringing core to produce a number, got an overshoot of on every measured centroid, and fenced its own miss with the reason: the real restoring force of the giant dipole is the symmetry energy — protons sloshing against neutrons pay an isospin price (Goldhaber–Teller 1948; Steinwedel–Jensen 1950; credited then and now). At the time the deposit had no symmetry-energy number to supply. Now it does: the ledger's own peak-mix coefficient MeV — fitted on masses, with its kinetic half derived from the Fermi gas (Paper 80) — and the same fm as everything else. The second pass uses the credited 1950 hydrodynamic formula and nothing else: isospin sound speed , no-flow boundary condition at the first zero of , so = MeV. Zero quantities tuned to any resonance. Mean ratio 1.20 (was 1.87); heavy end 1.14. The same two constants that carry the masses now land on a third observable — masses (Paper 02), radii (Paper 86), and the giant dipole — within ~10–20%, with the remaining miss being named, credited standard physics (surface-symmetry softening and the Goldhaber–Teller admixture, both of which lower the pure Steinwedel–Jensen value, neither fitted here). This record holds one paper on its own and is refreshed every couple of months. The complete deposit, 10.5281/zenodo.21788037, holds every paper with its code and data and is updated first; for the newest version of this paper, go there.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Norman Ibbotson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: