Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The author asked the exact next question: did we find why more of the ejection happens, and is there maths to get the MeV closer? The why has an answer, and it converges. The wall is not a fixed object the wave hits — the wall IS the neighbours. Where the wave leaks out, the density drops; where the density drops, the wall thins; where the wall thins, more leaks. The ejection feeds itself. The mathematics of that sentence is a self-consistent loop — solve the wave in the wall, read the density, rebuild the wall from the density, repeat until they agree — and this paper runs it: the loop converges, and the wall it settles on is diffuse, ~3 fm thick, against the measured nuclear surface thickness of 2.4 fm — the right object at the right scale, grown from nothing but the credited depth (50 MeV), the credited force range (1.4 fm, the pion reach), and the ledger's own . The MeV question gets the honest answer the deposit's rules demand: a one-line wall cannot deliver the last ~2.6 MeV, and this paper measures exactly why. 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: