Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
At beta/H = 100 the amplitude rises from 3.95e-12 at alpha = 0.01 through 2.84e-09 at alpha = 0.1, where the efficiency is 0.117, to 3.76e-07 at alpha = 1. The steep rise is mostly the efficiency and the kinetic-energy fraction at work: weak transitions put a small share of a small latent heat into fluid motion, and the amplitude pays for both factors. Shorter transitions at beta/H = 20 are louder by the expected factor of five. Every strength tabulated lies far below the ceiling maximum at this temperature, so the amplitude table is internally consistent with the density bound without adjustment. The detectable corner of the table, by the usual millihertz sensitivity benchmarks, is the strong-and-slow region; weak fast transitions fall below foreseeable instruments in this sound-wave estimate. This study is simulated and computed from stated assumptions; it is not a measurement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: