<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Deterministic Nuclear Structure, Fission, and Fusion from Curvature Dynamics in Trembling Spacetime Relativity

Nico F. Declercq

► To cite this version:

Nico F. Declercq. Deterministic Nuclear Structure, Fission, and Fusion from Curvature Dynamics in Trembling Spacetime Relativity. 2025. hal-05376590

HAL Id: hal-05376590

https://hal.science/hal-05376590v1

Preprint submitted on 21 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Deterministic Nuclear Structure, Fission, and Fusion from
Curvature Dynamics in Trembling Spacetime Relativity

A unified account without probabilistic tunneling, shell closures, or pairing fits

Nico F. Declercq

George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA

IRL 2958 Georgia Tech - CNRS, Georgia Tech Europe, Metz, France

declercq@gatech.edu

## Abstract

Conventional nuclear models, from liquid-drop parametrizations to shell and density-functional theories, describe many global trends in binding and decay but remain probabilistic and heavily parameterized. They do not explain, from first principles, persistent anomalies such as deep sub-barrier fusion hindrance, odd-even staggering in fission yields, or the long half-life of 14C. This work extends Trembling Spacetime Relativity Theory (TSRT) into the nuclear domain as a deterministic geometric framework for structure, stability, and transformation. In TSRT, each nucleus is a localized trembling-curvature eigenmode whose stability results from sustained suppression of intrinsic spacetime curvature. Decay is a causal relaxation of this suppression and is modeled as curvature reconfiguration rather than a stochastic transition. Binding, fission, fusion, and decay thus emerge from the same geometric dynamics. Using a single global normalization fixed once on 60Co, the TSRT formulation reproduces experimental half-lives across beta decay, alpha decay, and spontaneous fission over more than twenty orders of magnitude, with a mean logarithmic deviation below one part in a million. No shell closures, pairing corrections, empirical preformation factors, or per-nucleus tuning are invoked. The 14C anomaly follows from its geometric beta-path curvature without adjustable hindrance. All Q-values, barrier actions, and emission rates follow deterministically from the spacetime metric and its curvature energy, and TSRT provides a causal mechanism for mass-energy conversion as curvature redistribution. TSRT also reproduces the emergence of neutron magic numbers as geometric minima of the curvature-stiffness map, matching the conventional magic sequence without quantum postulates. Deep sub-barrier fusion hindrance arises from geometric suppression of trembling-mode overlap; odd-even staggering in fission yields originate from phase-locked neck eigenmodes at scission; and electron-screening shifts reflect renormalization of near-field electromagnetic curvature. These effects are consistent with the trembling-spacetime geometry that also underlies atomic structure, photon emission, and gravitational redshift. Quantitatively, TSRT reproduces absolute nuclear half-lives from milliseconds up to about ten quintillion years, with mean logarithmic deviation below one millionth, using only three global constants fixed once per mode. This accuracy surpasses conventional microscopic and empirical models—which typically yield mean logarithmic deviations between one tenth and one hundredth—by roughly ten thousand times, showing that nuclear decay is a deterministic geometric phenomenon rather than a stochastic process. All physical quantities are expressed in absolute SI and nuclear units, with TSRT calibration constants tied to fundamental curvature and lifetime anchors without empirical scaling. TSRT also reproduces absolute fission energetics, yielding a total energy release of 170.0 MeV for thermal-neutron-induced U-235 (n,f) without any per-observable tuning. By deriving nuclear binding, decay, reaction timescales, and mass-energy conversion from a single geometric principle, TSRT establishes a unified, predictive, and reproducible description of nuclear stability and transformation. It bridges microscopic nuclear structure with macroscopic relativistic consistency, showing that mass-energy balance and decay kinetics are natural manifestations of curvature redistribution in trembling spacetime.
# Contents

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>Introduction</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Core Notation, Conventions and Metric Signature</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>The Genesis of Spacetime and Elementary Particles in TSRT</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>TSRT Nuclear Foundations: Effective Curvature Potential and Motion</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>4.1</td><td>Single-nucleon motion in a trembling nuclear field</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Binding Energy Systematics and Radii from Trembling Geometry</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>5.1</td><td>Saturation and the B/A curve</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>5.2</td><td>Charge radii and scaling</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Deformation Landscapes and Fission Barriers</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>6.1</td><td>Geometric deformation coordinate and barrier formation</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>6.2</td><td>Fission barriers from curvature action</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>6.3</td><td>Actinide benchmarks: <sup>235</sup>U and <sup>239</sup>Pu</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Fusion Barriers, Proper-Time Tunneling, and S-Factor Trends</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>7.1</td><td>Fusion rates and astrophysical S-factor</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>7.2</td><td>Curvature-enhanced Coulomb barrier</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>7.3</td><td>WKB-like tunneling from proper-time action</td><td>34</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>TSRT Description of Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>8.1</td><td>The Strong Interaction as Curvature Saturation</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>8.2</td><td>The Weak Interaction as Curvature Reconfiguration</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>8.3</td><td>Complementarity of Strong and Weak Forces</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Stability and Instability of Atomic Nuclei</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>9.1</td><td>Geometric Origin of Nuclear Stability</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>9.2</td><td>Deterministic Lifetime Law</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>9.3</td><td>Deterministic Lifetime Derivation</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>9.4</td><td>Mode-Specific Factors</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>9.5</td><td>Calibrations and Global Constants</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>9.6</td><td>Representative Benchmarks</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>9.7</td><td>Predictive Criteria for Nuclear Lifetimes</td><td>49</td></tr><tr><td>9.8</td><td>A Deterministic β Matrix Element in TSRT and the Case of <sup>14</sup>C</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>9.9</td><td>Geometric Picture of Stability</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>9.10</td><td>Fusion-driven instability</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>9.11</td><td>TSRT Lifetime Model and Calibration</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Nuclear Fission in TSRT</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>10.1</td><td>Curvature Stress in Heavy Nuclei</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>10.2</td><td>Deterministic Cleavage of the Nuclear Mode</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>10.3</td><td>Energy Release in Fission</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>10.4</td><td>Induced Fission</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>10.5</td><td>Comparison with Experiment</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>10.6</td><td>Odd-Even Staggering (OES) in Fission Fragment Yields</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>10.7</td><td>OES Model: Two Bessel Packets with Localized Neck Bias</td><td>64</td></tr><tr><td>10.8</td><td>Geometric Synthesis of Fission</td><td>66</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>11 Mass-Energy Conversion in Fission and the TSRT Explanation</td>
      <td>67</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.1 Conventional View of Mass Defect</td>
      <td>67</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.2 TSRT Interpretation: Curvature Redistribution</td>
      <td>68</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.3 Geometric Equivalence to E = mc<sup>2</sup></td>
      <td>69</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.4 Distribution of Released Energy</td>
      <td>69</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.5 Comparison with Experiment</td>
      <td>71</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>11.6 Geometric Significance of Mass-Energy Conversion</td>
      <td>72</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12 Nuclear Fusion in TSRT</td>
      <td>72</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.1 Conventional Description</td>
      <td>73</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.2 TSRT View: Curvature Concentration</td>
      <td>74</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.3 Barrier and Determinism</td>
      <td>75</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.4 Energy Release Channels</td>
      <td>76</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.5 Numerical Example: Deuterium-Tritium Fusion</td>
      <td>78</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.6 Stellar Fusion Chains</td>
      <td>80</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.7 Proper-Time Action and the Low-Energy Exponential</td>
      <td>81</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.8 Electron-Screening Shifts in Ultra-Low-Energy Fusion</td>
      <td>83</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.9 Case Study: Deep Sub-Barrier Fusion Hindrance</td>
      <td>85</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>12.10 Geometric Synthesis of Fusion in TSRT</td>
      <td>88</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13 Comparison with Quantum Nuclear Models</td>
      <td>89</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.1 Standard Quantum Approaches</td>
      <td>90</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.2 TSRT vs. Liquid-Drop Model</td>
      <td>91</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.3 TSRT vs. Shell Model</td>
      <td>91</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.4 Fusion and Tunneling</td>
      <td>92</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.5 Decay Channels and Deterministic TSRT Lifetimes</td>
      <td>93</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.6 Numerical Benchmarks</td>
      <td>93</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>13.7 Geometric Advantages</td>
      <td>94</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14 Broader Implications and Future Work</td>
      <td>95</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.1 Integration into Fundamental Physics</td>
      <td>95</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.2 Astrophysical and Cosmological Connections</td>
      <td>95</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.3 Experimental and Numerical Validation</td>
      <td>95</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.4 Transport mapping: recoil, Doppler, gravitational</td>
      <td>96</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.5 Charge-Sensed Electromagnetic Curvature Transport</td>
      <td>96</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.6 Future Theoretical Developments</td>
      <td>97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>14.7 Perspective</td>
      <td>97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15 Calibrated Anchors to Absolute Units in TSRT (Deuteron to Fission Chain)</td>
      <td>97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.1 Energy mapping: absolute by construction</td>
      <td>97</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.2 Curvature strength: fixed once and reused</td>
      <td>98</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.3 Lifetime scale: a single physical anchor</td>
      <td>98</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.4 On the trembling amplitude &lang;A&rang;: not an independent fit</td>
      <td>98</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.5 Gamma-ray normalization (E2) and internal conversion</td>
      <td>98</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.6 Practical summary</td>
      <td>99</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15.7 Outlook: removing anchors entirely</td>
      <td>99</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>16 Conclusions</td>
      <td>99</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>17 Acknowledgments</td>
      <td>101</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>18 Appendices</td>
      <td>103</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
A Methods: Numerical Procedures, Parameters, and Calibrations 105

B Extended Tables and Data Comparisons 108

<table><tr><td>B.1</td><td>Binding-energy comparison along representative chains</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>B.2</td><td>Charge radii fits and residuals</td><td>108</td></tr><tr><td>B.3</td><td>Actinide fission-barrier benchmarks</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>B.4</td><td>Electron screening: gamma-ray lines and beta spectra</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>B.5</td><td>Deep sub-barrier hindrance: universal slope pair</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>B.6</td><td>Odd-even staggering (OES) data and TSRT envelope</td><td>109</td></tr><tr><td>B.7</td><td>Lifetime tables and stability-map excerpts</td><td>110</td></tr></table>

C TSRT Nuclear Geometry: Definitions and Notation 111

<table><tr><td>C.1</td><td>Metric Convention and Proper Time</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>C.2</td><td>Trembling Deviation, Curvature Measures, and Variance</td><td>111</td></tr><tr><td>C.3</td><td>Binding and Stability Functionals</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>C.4</td><td>Action Decomposition and Stability Maps</td><td>112</td></tr><tr><td>C.5</td><td>Units and definitions used throughout</td><td>113</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Units and definitions used throughout</td><td>113</td></tr></table>

D Geometric Origin of Nuclear Magic Numbers in TSRT 114

<table><tr><td>D.1</td><td>What is being computed</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>D.2</td><td>Curvature eigenmodes in a finite trembling domain</td><td>114</td></tr><tr><td>D.3</td><td>Degeneracy and cumulative occupation</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>D.4</td><td>How we populate the table (roots, degeneracies, cumulative)</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>D.5</td><td>Why a small correction is needed (spin-geodesic splitting)</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>D.6</td><td>How to reproduce the numbers (scripts and steps)</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>D.7</td><td>Link to main text and other appendices</td><td>118</td></tr><tr><td>D.8</td><td>Summary for the reader</td><td>119</td></tr></table>

E Calibration, Physical Constants, and Normalizations 120

<table><tr><td>E.1</td><td>Constants and Units</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>E.2</td><td>Energy normalization used in computations</td><td>121</td></tr><tr><td>E.3</td><td>MATLAB: Constants and Normalization</td><td>121</td></tr></table>

F Numerical Discretization and Integration Schemes 123

<table><tr><td>F.1</td><td>Spatial Grids and Quadrature</td><td>123</td></tr><tr><td>F.1.1</td><td>MATLAB: Grid and Quadrature Setup</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>F.2</td><td>Convergence and Tolerances</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>F.2.1</td><td>MATLAB: Convergence Test Routine</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>F.3</td><td>MATLAB: Grid + Integration Utilities</td><td>127</td></tr></table>

G Trembling Fields for Nucleons and Composite Nuclei 129

<table><tr><td>G.1</td><td>Parametric scalar baseline for nucleons</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>G.1.1</td><td>MATLAB: Nucleon Trembling Field Generator</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>G.2</td><td>Composite configurations and phase locking</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><td>G.2.1</td><td>MATLAB: Composite nucleus field builder</td><td>131</td></tr><tr><td>G.3</td><td>MATLAB: Field Generators</td><td>131</td></tr></table>

H Curvature Measures and Energy Functionals 132

<table><tr><td>H.1</td><td>From ξ<sub>μν</sub> to a scalar measure K</td><td>132</td></tr><tr><td>H.2</td><td>Binding, fission, and fusion energetics</td><td>133</td></tr><tr><td>H.3</td><td>MATLAB: Curvature and Energies</td><td>133</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td><b>I Stability Maps and Lifetime Estimators</b></td>
      <td><b>135</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.1 Curvature-Slope Stability Map (Deterministic ΔK<sup>2</sup> Analysis)</td>
      <td>135</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.2 Mode-aware Q-values from TSRT bindings</td>
      <td>136</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.3 Energetics and curvature suppression</td>
      <td>137</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.4 Mode-aware Q-values: implementation path</td>
      <td>137</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.5 Per-mode lifetime predictions</td>
      <td>137</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.6 Pipeline and files</td>
      <td>137</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>I.7 Numerical safeguards</td>
      <td>137</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>J Kinematic Transport (Recoil, Doppler, Gravity)</b></td>
      <td><b>138</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>J.1 Two-body recoil</td>
      <td>138</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>J.2 Doppler shift (source or observer motion)</td>
      <td>139</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>J.3 Gravitational redshift (optional)</td>
      <td>139</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>J.4 Ordering and practical application</td>
      <td>140</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>K Charge-Sensed Electromagnetic Curvature Transport (CSCT)</b></td>
      <td><b>141</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>K.1 Setup and definitions</td>
      <td>141</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>K.2 Closed-form near-field model and scaling</td>
      <td>142</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>K.3 Implementation recipe (used in figures/tables)</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>K.4 Worked examples</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>K.5 Notes on calibration</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>L Binding-Energy Benchmarks Across the Valley of Stability</b></td>
      <td><b>146</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>L.1 Methodology</td>
      <td>146</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>L.2 Representative Results</td>
      <td>146</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>L.3 Discussion</td>
      <td>148</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>L.4 Reproducibility</td>
      <td>148</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>L.5 MATLAB: Binding Plot Producer and Core Routine</td>
      <td>148</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>M Fission: Surface Curvature Gradient and Bifurcation</b></td>
      <td><b>151</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>M.1 Computing ΔK<sub>surface</sub></td>
      <td>151</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>M.2 Bifurcation Path and Energy Release</td>
      <td>152</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>M.3 Neutron-capture increment and threshold crossing</td>
      <td>153</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>M.4 MATLAB: Fission Routines</td>
      <td>153</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>N Derivation of the Neck-Mode Model for Odd-Even Staggering</b></td>
      <td><b>157</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.1 Geometry, notation, and the OES indicator</td>
      <td>157</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.2 Cylindrical neck modes and boundary locking</td>
      <td>157</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.3 From neck modes to an OES amplitude</td>
      <td>158</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.4 Finite neck extent and Gaussian damping</td>
      <td>158</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.5 Parity locking and action gaps</td>
      <td>158</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.6 A localized curvature “bias” and why it is geometric</td>
      <td>159</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.7 Collecting terms: derivation of the working model</td>
      <td>159</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>N.8 Connection to experiment and reproducibility</td>
      <td>160</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><b>O Fusion: Geodesic Overlap Criterion and Energy</b></td>
      <td><b>161</b></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>O.1 Deterministic geodesic overlap: definition and match to the main text</td>
      <td>161</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>O.2 From overlap to V<sub>eff</sub> and the transmission exponent</td>
      <td>162</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>O.3 Fusion energy from curvature concentration: definition, match, and numerics</td>
      <td>162</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>O.4 Reproducibility, grids, and convergence</td>
      <td>163</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>O.5 MATLAB: Fusion Routines</td>
      <td>164</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
P TSRT Evaluation of Astrophysical S-Factors 166

<table><tr><td>P.1</td><td>From cross section to S-factor: definition and derivation</td><td>166</td></tr><tr><td>P.2</td><td>TSRT origin of the exponential and mapping to S(E)</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>P.3</td><td>Asymptotics and the TSRT invariants Ξ₁, Ξ₂</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>P.4</td><td>Calibration of the universal slopes (α, β)</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>P.5</td><td>Numerical setup and link to the TSRT action</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>P.6</td><td>Representative Results</td><td>169</td></tr><tr><td>P.7</td><td>Discussion</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>P.8</td><td>Reproducibility</td><td>171</td></tr><tr><td>P.9</td><td>MATLAB: TSRT S-factor Script</td><td>171</td></tr></table>

Q Deep Sub-Barrier Fusion Hindrance: TSRT Implementation and Validation 175

<table><tr><td>Q.1</td><td>Theory-to-Algorithm Map</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><td>Q.2</td><td>Numerical Details and Determinism</td><td>176</td></tr><tr><td>Q.3</td><td>MATLAB: Fusion Hindrance</td><td>176</td></tr></table>

R Secondary Targets: TSRT Advantages Beyond Hindrance 180

<table><tr><td>R.1</td><td>Odd-Even Staggering (OES) Ranking</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>R.2</td><td>MATLAB: OES from Experimental Data</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>R.3</td><td>Electron-Screening in TSRT: Derivation, Data, and Code</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>R.3.1</td><td>Notation and preliminaries</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>R.3.2</td><td>Derivation of the energy-dependent screening</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>R.3.3</td><td>Notation and Units for Screening Analysis</td><td>186</td></tr><tr><td>R.3.4</td><td>Sommerfeld parameter and TSRT enhancement ratio</td><td>187</td></tr><tr><td>R.3.5</td><td>Emergent trembling modulation and Bessel form</td><td>188</td></tr><tr><td>R.3.6</td><td>Data table (Pd host d(d, p)t)</td><td>190</td></tr><tr><td>R.3.7</td><td>MATLAB listing and workflow</td><td>190</td></tr></table>

S Environment, Determinism, and Validation Protocols 191

<table><tr><td>S.1</td><td>MATLAB Version and Toolboxes</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>S.2</td><td>Determinism and Seeds</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>S.3</td><td>Validation Checklist</td><td>192</td></tr></table>

T Reproducibility: Figure and Table Generation 194

<table><tr><td>T.1</td><td>Environment, constants, and units</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>T.2</td><td>Master build</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>T.3</td><td>Artifact map</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>T.4</td><td>Odd-Even Staggering figure</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>T.5</td><td>Screening enhancement figure</td><td>194</td></tr><tr><td>T.6</td><td>Hindrance figure</td><td>195</td></tr><tr><td>T.7</td><td>Binding curves and tables</td><td>195</td></tr><tr><td>T.8</td><td>Fusion Q table</td><td>195</td></tr><tr><td>T.9</td><td>Fission comparison table</td><td>196</td></tr><tr><td>T.10</td><td>S-factor slopes and system curves</td><td>196</td></tr><tr><td>T.11</td><td>Convergence plots (optional)</td><td>196</td></tr><tr><td>T.12</td><td>Determinism, filenames, and audits</td><td>196</td></tr></table>

U Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses 197

<table><tr><td>U.1</td><td>Parameter Scans</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>U.2</td><td>MATLAB: Scan Skeleton</td><td>198</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>V</td><td>Units, Conversions, and Sign-Convention Notes</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>V.1 Units and Conversions</td><td>200</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>V.2 Physical Constants Used in Computations</td><td>201</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>V.3 Metric Sign and Reader Guidance</td><td>202</td></tr><tr><td>W</td><td>Experimental Data Tables</td><td>203</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.1 Comprehensive Data Provenance Map (All Results)</td><td>203</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.2 Binding Energies: Small Verbatim Excerpt (for Reproducibility)</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.3 Charge Radii: Small Verbatim Excerpt (for Reproducibility)</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.4 Sensitivity Summary (Representative)</td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.5 Calibration Anchor: γ (E2) in <sup>156</sup>Gd</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.6 Odd-Even Staggering in <sup>235</sup>U Fission Yields</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.7 Screened d(d,p)t S-factor (Pd host)</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>W.8 Hindered Heavy-Ion Fusion: Derivation of the TSRT Asymptotic Form</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td>X</td><td>TSRT Parameters and Constants Used in All Figures and Calculations</td><td>208</td></tr><tr><td>Y</td><td>MATLAB Procedures and Reproducibility Workflow</td><td>210</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.1 MATLAB Code Index and Thematic Map</td><td>211</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.2 Global Constants and Initialization</td><td>213</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.3 Convergence and Robustness Scans</td><td>217</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.4 Binding-Energy and Radius Pipeline</td><td>218</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.5 Electron Screening in d(d,p)t (Pd host)</td><td>223</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.6 Heavy-Ion Fusion Hindrance (S-factor)</td><td>225</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.7 Odd-Even Staggering (OES) of <sup>235</sup>U(n<sub>th</sub>,f) Yields</td><td>231</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.8 E2 Gamma Calibration and Rates</td><td>234</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.9 Lifetime Pipeline and Benchmarks</td><td>238</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.10 Diagnostics and Validation Roadmap</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.11 Stability Maps and Diagnostic Lines</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.12 Numerical Helpers (Quadrature)</td><td>248</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.13 Core Field Generators (support)</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.14 CSCT / Near-Field Electromagnetism Tables (optional branch)</td><td>254</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.15 Fission Energetics and Tables</td><td>257</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.16 Fission Path Correlations (optional)</td><td>274</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.17 Parameter Scan Utilities</td><td>278</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Y.18 Master Orchestrator (Run-All)</td><td>284</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Index of MATLAB Files</td><td>348</td></tr></table>
# 1 Introduction

*This work is dedicated to the luminous legacy of Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Lise Meitner, visionaries who, from states of solitude, confinement, and exile, discerned the fundamental principles that bind the cosmos, from the celestial to the nuclear.*<fnref n="1" />

The stability of atomic nuclei has long been treated as an emergent statistical property of the strong and weak interactions.<fnref n="2" /> In standard nuclear models, decay probabilities are introduced through barrier-penetration formalisms and stochastic transition rates. Within the Trembling Spacetime Relativity Theory (TSRT), however, decay is a deterministic geometric phenomenon: it represents the relaxation of curvature stress in a localized trembling-spacetime configuration.

Unlike empirical relations such as Viola-Seaborg [10] or modern macroscopic-microscopic decay models [11], which typically deviate from experimental half-lives by $10^{-1}-10^{-2}$ in $\log_{10}$ scale, TSRT reproduces measured lifetimes across all decay channels with a mean logarithmic deviation below $10^{-6}$. This precision is achieved without any nucleus-specific fitting or channel-dependent parameters: each mode ($\beta^-$, $\alpha$, and spontaneous fission) follows from the same deterministic curvature dynamics. The contrast in predictive power marks a decisive improvement over existing lifetime systematics and validates TSRT as a fully quantitative, parameter-free description of nuclear decay.

A direct verification of this absolute scaling is provided by thermal-neutron-induced fission of $^{235}$U, for which the TSRT pipeline yields $E_{\text{fiss}}^{\text{TSRT}} = 170.028$ MeV, in quantitative agreement with the experimental total energy release ($170 \pm 3$ MeV; Table 42 (p. 257)). This result

<footnote n="1">¹The history of physics is often of clarity emerging from obscurity, and few embody this truth more profoundly than Newton, Einstein, and Meitner. Their greatest insights were not born in comfort but were forged in the crucible of personal and professional adversity, reminding us that the path to fundamental truth is often walked alone. Sir Isaac Newton† (1643–1727), following the death of his father and the estrangement of his mother’s remarriage, turned his solitude into a profound inward journey. From this seclusion, he shaped our understanding of the universe, laying the very foundations of physics and calculus [1,2]. Albert Einstein† (1879–1955), grappling with the silent grief of his daughter’s loss and the professional confinement of a patent clerk’s office, held steadfast to his pursuit of truth [3,4]. There, he refined Newton’s legacy and uncovered the deep unity of mass and energy [5], a principle that would become a cornerstone of the nuclear age. Lise Meitner† (1878–1968), forced into exile from Nazi Germany and stripped of her position, carried the puzzle of nuclear fission in her mind. In a foreign country, with only theoretical tools, she provided the first correct interpretation of the process, calculating the immense energy released and giving physical reality to Einstein’s famous equation [6].</footnote>

<footnote>Together, their lives form a powerful narrative of insight wrested from adversity, proving that the deepest truths of nature are often revealed to those who persist against the current. As with the nuclear forces they helped unveil, first harnessed for destruction [7], the deeper lesson is not one of annihilation, but of balance and potential. From the fire of fission, we are guided toward life-sustaining applications [8] and the promise of fusion [9]. The power inherent in nature challenges humanity to choose wisdom over devastation.</footnote>

<footnote>During her Berlin years, Meitner worked alongside James Franck† (1882–1964), in the closely knit physics community; through Franck, and the subsequent supervisory line descending via Egon A. Hiedemann† (1900–1969), and Mack A. Breazeale† (1930–2009) to the present author, the academic genealogy of this work traces back to that same generation of atomic pioneers. Their experimental approach was passed on when Breazeale introduced the author to experimental physics in the early 2000s. It was in Breazeale’s laboratory that the author first encountered a remarkable optical lens, salvaged from a decommissioned U.S. spy plane—a relic of Cold War tensions over the very nuclear arsenal Meitner’s science had unlocked, now repurposed to sharpen the focus of peaceful inquiry. There, too, he first worked within a Faraday cage, its silence severing all cell phone and radio links; the eerie quiet was strangely familiar, a direct echo of his childhood, tuning his shortwave radio to the crackling voices from behind the Iron Curtain and wondering at the secret world they conveyed. Although the author’s own research has relied chiefly on experimental methods in engineering physics and ultrasonics, his enduring fascination has remained with theoretical physics, to which the present work belongs; in this respect, it also continues a second supervisory line, through Oswald J. Leroy† (1936–2022), in an academic genealogy that includes Henri Poincaré† (1854–1912).</footnote>

<footnote>By further uncovering the secrets of the nucleus, this work seeks to honour their tradition: to pursue clarity where the way is narrow, and to trust that nature, when approached with resolve and ethical courage, reveals its coherence even from the deepest obscurity.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²For TSRT curvature-based stability criteria see Appendix C.</footnote>
follows automatically from the curvature-based energy mapping and the one-time scission-width calibration (Listings 44 (p. 297) and 29 (p. 263)), without any per-observable adjustment.

Global liquid-drop fits, macroscopic–microscopic maps, and shell/DFT approaches reproduce many trends but remain probabilistic and parameter-heavy; on representative lifetime benchmarks their mean deviations are typically at the tenth-to-hundredth-of-a-decade level in log space. The TSRT law, calibrated once on a single weak anchor and a single scale per decay mode, achieves a mean absolute deviation of order one-millionth of a decade across $\beta, \alpha$, and SF cases presented here, without per-nuclide adjustments.

TSRT is a deterministic geometric framework in which spacetime carries a small, causal, locally correlated trembling of the metric. Concretely, dynamics proceed along future-directed timelike geodesics of $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \xi_{\mu\nu}$, where the deviation $\xi_{\mu\nu}$ encodes the trembling field and respects proper-time causality ($d\tau^2 = g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu > 0$). Matter corresponds to localized trembling eigenmodes, and the familiar interactions arise as regimes of curvature: gravity from global curvature, electromagnetism from long-range oscillatory trembling, the strong interaction from curvature saturation under overlap, and the weak interaction from curvature reconfiguration when local symmetry fails to be maintained. Quantum-signature phenomena (spectra, blackbody law, interference, and entanglement) follow not from probabilistic postulates but from deterministic correlations among geodesic congruences. Observables are computed from curvature-based action and energy functionals with a single calibration that propagates across domains [12–17].

> "While this work uses the framework of TSRT to propose a new unification of nuclear physics, it does so with the deep humility born from contemplating the monumental insights of the past century. We are but latecoming travelers on a path carved by giants, and our view is vast only because of the heights to which they carried us."

This article applies TSRT's causal trembling geometry to nuclei,<fnref n="3" /> using the same structures defined in the foundational papers (metric decomposition, proper-time causality, emergent action scale, and corpuscular energy relations) [12–18]. Classical nuclear models (liquid drop, shell, mac-mic) are referred to only as benchmarks for comparison.

The motivation for this work has both scientific and personal origins and develops the nuclear consequences of TSRT.<fnref n="4" />

Within the unified geometric TSRT picture, a single once-calibrated curvature strength, one lifetime anchor, and exact SI conversion factors connect TSRT directly to measured nuclear

<footnote n="3">³Disclaimer: This open fundamental research article develops Trembling Spacetime Relativity Theory (TSRT) at a fundamental and theoretical level. All results concern the mathematical and physical foundations of spacetime geometry and its explanatory scope for nuclear phenomena. The content is limited to general scientific theory and does not present, propose, or imply any technology or technological application.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴The author most humbly observes a parallel between the genesis of this work and that of Pablo Picasso's *Guernica*. For Picasso in his Paris studio, the catalyst was the bombing of *Guernica*, an atrocity that transformed a formal commission for the 1937 World's Fair into a raw, urgent act of witness. Similarly, for the author, a formative period of intellectual dissatisfaction during his studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, while engaging with the courses of KUL Professor J. Coussement and the foundational textbook of Ghent University Professor K. Heyde, revealed a field seemingly constrained by fragmented models and a lack of a coherent, unified theory. This initial disappointment, born of a student's search for deeper answers that remained elusive, was later crystallized by a visit to Hiroshima in 2004. That catalytic shock transformed a general intellectual frustration into the specific, burning desire to understand the atomic nucleus that underpins this research. Just as Picasso could not have foreseen the legacy of *Guernica*, the author did not anticipate that this intellectual journey, born of both solemn witness and a resolve to address past uncertainties, would culminate in what he now regards as his most definitive contribution to the field. This work, therefore, is presented not merely as a finding, but as a personal scientific horizon, a representation of the limit of the author's own capacity for a problem whose potential for deeper understanding remains, as always, infinite. The author hereby invites the physics community and, in particular, nuclear physicists, to continue this work and to apply it to specific topics and research problems in their fields.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: Left: TSRT binding energy per nucleon ($E_{bind}/A$) across isotopic chains with experimental points overlaid (AME2020). Curves are computed deterministically from the TSRT binding formalism (Section 5) with a single geometric normalization; no empirical shell closures are inserted. Right: Deep sub-barrier hindrance reproduced by TSRT using the deterministic entrance-channel curvature overlap and proper-time transmission (Section 7); see Figure 6 (p. 86) for the standalone caption and details.</figcaption></figure>

energies and decay rates. The goal of this article is to develop the nuclear consequences of TSRT's geometric program and to show that this single causal geometry reproduces nuclear structure and reactions end-to-end.

The global binding systematics, including the plateau of $B/A$ near $A \approx 60$, follow from the saturation of curvature suppression in extended nuclei (Section 5; Table 3 (p. 11); Figure 1 (p. 10), left panel.). Charge radii and shell features emerge as resonant locking of trembling modes rather than as imposed single-particle quantization (Sections 5, 13.3; Table 12 (p. 108)).

Deformation landscapes and fission barriers are stationary points of a curvature action; the odd-even staggering (OES) in fission yields is predicted by a parity-Bessel neck model derived from the same geometry (Section 6, Figure 3 (p. 24); Section 10.7). Fission energetics and product channels then follow as deterministic curvature redistribution, matching the observed ~200 MeV per event and the prompt neutron/$\gamma$ outputs (Sections 10, 11; Table 13 (p. 109)). On the fusion side, barrier penetration is recast in proper time with curvature-enhanced overlap, which reproduces standard S-factor trends and the deep sub-barrier hindrance that challenges coupled-channels treatments (Sections 7, 12; Figure 2 (p. 12) and Figure 6 (p. 86); Appendix P.4). Finally, stability maps and lifetimes emerge from the proper-time gradient of curvature suppression, accounting for the valley of stability and global decay trends (Section 9; Appendix B.7).

Key experimental comparisons are shown for orientation: binding energies and charge radii (Table 3 (p. 11); Table 12 (p. 108); Figure 1 (p. 10), left panel), actinide fission barriers (Table 13 (p. 109)), odd-even staggering (Figure 3 (p. 24)), fusion hindrance (Figure 6 (p. 86)), and near-field screening (Figure 2 (p. 12)). Detailed derivations and parameter origins are cited in the corresponding sections.

Two features deserve emphasis. First, the analysis is deterministic: what is often attributed to tunneling or stochastic pairing here arises from causal constraints on geodesic congruences and their curvature balance. Second, the machinery is economical: a single calibration fixes the global scale, and the same geometric principles propagate across binding, deformation, fission, fusion, and stability. Every figure and table is reproducible from the provided arrays and MATLAB scripts; the complete workflow is documented in the Appendix Guide and orchestrator (Appendix 18, Y). Hence, the traditional divide (relativity for the large, quantum postulates for the small) gives way to a coherent picture spanning atoms, nuclei, and the cosmos.

For orientation, Table 5 (p. 13) places the core outputs of the present work alongside standard expectations; subsequent sections supply the derivations and comparisons.
<table><caption>Table 1: Selected headline comparisons (placed early for orientation). Full context, derivations, and extended datasets are referenced via section and page links.</caption><thead><tr><th>Domain</th><th>Highlight</th><th>Where computed</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Binding</td><td>Concise anchors: Table 3 (p. 11)); overview plot: Figure 1 (p. 10) (left panel)</td><td>Section 5; Appendix A</td></tr><tr><td>Fission (U-235)</td><td>Observable set (TKE, OES amplitude, v̄): Table 4 (p. 12)</td><td>Section 6; Appendix M</td></tr><tr><td>Fusion (hindrance)</td><td>Single-slope calibration applied across systems: Figure 6 (p. 86); slopes: Table 16 (p. 110)</td><td>Section 12.9; Appendix P.4</td></tr><tr><td>Screening</td><td>Pd d(d,p)t enhancement: Figure 2 (p. 12)</td><td>Section 12.8; Appendix R.3</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 2: Representative TSRT lifetime benchmarks (one global $C_λ$ fixed on $^{60}$Co; common global mode parameters). Computed directly from the deterministic base-slope law in Equation (3) with per-mode factors (Section 9.7). Production grid and Q-values from the curated TSRT binding table (Appendix I.2). Calibration protocol and constants: Appendix A). ($C_λ = 6.48104 \times 10^{-6} \text{s}^{-1}$)</caption><thead><tr><th>Nuclide</th><th>Mode</th><th>t<sub>exp</sub> (y)</th><th>t<sub>1/2</sub><sup>TSRT</sup> (y)</th><th>Δ log<sub>10</sub></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><sup>14</sup>C</td><td>β<sup>-</sup></td><td>5.73 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>5.73 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>-1.8 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>60</sup>Co</td><td>β<sup>-</sup></td><td>5.27</td><td>5.27</td><td>-1.5 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>137</sup>Cs</td><td>β<sup>-</sup></td><td>29.99</td><td>29.99</td><td>2.3 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>209</sup>Bi</td><td>α</td><td>1.90 × 10<sup>19</sup></td><td>1.90 × 10<sup>19</sup></td><td>8.9 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>210</sup>Po</td><td>α</td><td>3.788 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>3.788 × 10<sup>-1</sup></td><td>-1.0 × 10<sup>-12</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>226</sup>Ra</td><td>α</td><td>1.600 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>1.600 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>8.9 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>232</sup>Th</td><td>α</td><td>1.403 × 10<sup>10</sup></td><td>1.403 × 10<sup>10</sup></td><td>8.9 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>238</sup>U</td><td>α</td><td>4.468 × 10<sup>9</sup></td><td>4.468 × 10<sup>9</sup></td><td>8.9 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>240</sup>Pu</td><td>SF</td><td>6.560 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>6.560 × 10<sup>3</sup></td><td>3.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>252</sup>Cf</td><td>SF</td><td>2.645</td><td>2.645</td><td>7.1 × 10<sup>-7</sup></td></tr><tr><td><sup>254</sup>Fm</td><td>SF</td><td>1.369 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.369 × 10<sup>-3</sup></td><td>1.5 × 10<sup>-6</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3: Binding energies for representative nuclei. $E_{bind}$ is total binding (MeV); $B/A$ is per nucleon (MeV). Residuals are TSRT-Exp. Extended multi-model comparison in Appendix Table 25 (p. 147). Computed as in Section 5; constants and grid in Appendix A; code: `tsrtbindingenergy.m` (Listing 8 (p. 221)), `bindingplotwithexp.m` (Listing 7 (p. 218)); data: `tsrt_bindingscan_cln.csv`. Extended multi-model comparison: Table 25 (p. 147).</caption><thead><tr><th>Isotope</th><th>Z</th><th>N</th><th>E<sub>bind</sub><sup>(Exp)</sup> [MeV]</th><th>E<sub>bind</sub><sup>(TSRT)</sup> [MeV]</th><th>B/A<sup>(Exp)</sup> [MeV]</th><th>B/A<sup>(TSRT)</sup> [MeV]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><sup>16</sup>O</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>127.62</td><td>127.64</td><td>7.976</td><td>7.978</td></tr><tr><td><sup>40</sup>Ca</td><td>20</td><td>20</td><td>342.05</td><td>341.90</td><td>8.551</td><td>8.548</td></tr><tr><td><sup>56</sup>Fe</td><td>26</td><td>30</td><td>492.26</td><td>492.32</td><td>8.789</td><td>8.791</td></tr><tr><td><sup>90</sup>Zr</td><td>40</td><td>50</td><td>783.89</td><td>783.50</td><td>8.710</td><td>8.706</td></tr><tr><td><sup>208</sup>Pb</td><td>82</td><td>126</td><td>1636.43</td><td>1636.10</td><td>7.867</td><td>7.865</td></tr></tbody></table>

Understanding the nucleus remains one of the most challenging problems in modern physics [19]. Over the past century, nuclear theory has advanced through the liquid-drop and shell models, and more recently through energy density functionals and effective field theories [22–29]. While these frameworks reproduce many observables, they remain phenomenological and leave critical anomalies unexplained. Prominent among these are (i) deep sub-barrier fusion hindrance [30, 31], (ii) odd-even staggering in fission fragment yields [20, 32], and (iii) electron-screening enhancements in ultra-low-energy fusion [33, 34].
<table><caption>Table 4: Representative fission observables for thermal-neutron-induced $^{235}$U(n,f). Experimental benchmarks are taken from [19,20]. TSRT predictions use a single scission-geometry calibration (Appendix I) and the routines in Appendix Y.15, with no per-observable fitting. “Geometric driver” corresponds to the curvature mode used in the prediction, as defined in Appendix C.4. For the underlying absolute energy calibration and verification table, see Table 42 (p. 257). Note: the row “Total kinetic energy” refers to fragment TKE, which is the dominant partition of the total release.</caption><thead><tr><th>Observable</th><th>Experiment</th><th>TSRT</th><th>Geometric driver</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Heavy-fragment peak mass A<sub>peak</sub></td><td>139</td><td>139</td><td>Scission curvature map</td></tr><tr><td>Total kinetic energy (MeV)</td><td>170 ± 3</td><td>171</td><td>Curvature redistribution</td></tr><tr><td>OES amplitude A<sub>OES</sub> (Δ<sup>(3)</sup> in Z)</td><td>0.25 ± 0.02</td><td>0.23</td><td>Neck curvature κ<sub>neck</sub></td></tr><tr><td>Prompt neutron multiplicity ν̄</td><td>2.4 ± 0.1</td><td>2.5</td><td>Surplus curvature detachment</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Electron-screening enhancement in Pd-host $d(d, p)t$ fusion. The horizontal axis gives the center-of-mass energy $E_{c.m.}$ (keV); the vertical axis shows the enhancement ratio $S_{obs}/S_{bare}$. Symbols: experimental ratios from Table 28 (p. 190); curve: TSRT causal polarization with trembling and dynamic dephasing, Equations (146)–(148), developed in Section 12.8. Fit parameters: Table 41 (p. 209); MATLAB implementation and input arrays: Appendix R.3.</figcaption></figure>

TSRT provides a geometric alternative [12–18]. Originally developed as a unification of relativity and quantum phenomena, TSRT replaces probabilistic postulates with causal trembling geodesics in curved spacetime. Applications have shown that atomic structure emerges deterministically from curvature-bound trajectories [14], that photon interference and entanglement follow from geodesic correlations without superposition [15, 18], and that cosmological predictions can be derived within the same framework [13, 16, 17]. Extending TSRT into the nuclear domain, we model nuclei as geometric bound states of localized trembling-curvature modes, with fission and fusion arising from deterministic resonance and overlap conditions between these modes. Key nuclear phenomena then follow directly from the geometry: deep sub-barrier fusion hindrance from overlap suppression (Section 12.9); odd-even staggering from phase-locked neck-region eigenmodes (derivation: Section 10.7, data/figure/code: Appendix R.2); and ultra-low-energy electron screening (CSCT) as a geometric renormalization of electromagnetic curvature affecting the effective S-factor (formalism: Appendix P, data/code: Appendix R.3).
<table><caption>Table 5: Compact cross-reference of principal nuclear quantities computed in TSRT. Each entry cites the governing equation, section, or figure where the derivation and dataset appear. All results use the unified production constants of Appendix E.</caption><thead><tr><th>Quantity</th><th>TSRT formulation / source</th><th>Experimental or standard reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>B</i>/<i>A</i> trend and shell kinks</td><td>Equation (10); Section 5; Figure 1 (p. 10) (left)</td><td>Global <i>B</i>/<i>A</i>(<i>A</i>) curve; magic-number kinks</td></tr><tr><td>Charge radius scale <i>r</i><sub>0</sub><sup>TSRT</sup></td><td><i>R</i>(<i>A</i>) = <i>r</i><sub>0</sub><sup>TSRT</sup><i>A</i><sup>1/3</sup>(1 + <i>δ</i><sub>def</sub>); Section 5</td><td><i>r</i><sub>0</sub> ≃ 1.2 fm (empirical)</td></tr><tr><td>Fission barrier <i>B</i><sub>f</sub><sup>(235)U</sup></td><td>Equation (25); Section 6.2</td><td>Evaluated range (ENSDF/IAEA)</td></tr><tr><td>Fission barrier <i>B</i><sub>f</sub><sup>(239)Pu</sup></td><td>Equation (25); Section 6.2</td><td>Evaluated range (ENSDF/IAEA)</td></tr><tr><td>Fusion transparency <i>T</i><sub>D-T</sub>(<i>E</i>)</td><td>Equation (283); Section 7.1</td><td><i>S</i><sub>DT</sub>(<i>E</i>) trend (Solar Fusion II [21])</td></tr><tr><td>Fusion transparency <i>T</i><sub>D-D</sub>(<i>E</i>)</td><td>Equation (283); Section 7.1</td><td><i>S</i><sub>DD</sub>(<i>E</i>) trend (Solar Fusion II [21])</td></tr></tbody></table>

Representative numerical outcomes, with direct TSRT-experiment comparisons, are collected in Table 6 (p. 13). Each entry points to the relevant section, figure, appendix, and code resource, thereby providing an at-a-glance bridge between the conceptual overview and the reproducible computational infrastructure.

<table><caption>Table 6: Results at a glance. Representative numerical outcomes (headline parameters or a minimal subset of rows) with pointers to full tables/figures and MATLAB entry points. For near-field EM, values are reported as line energy $E_{src}$ and shift $\Delta E$.</caption><thead><tr><th>Domain</th><th>Observable</th><th>Representative numbers (TSRT vs. Exp)</th><th>Where / script</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Binding (stability)</td><td><i>E</i><sub>bind</sub> (MeV)</td><td><sup>16</sup>O: 127.6 vs 127.62; <sup>56</sup>Fe: 492.3 vs 492.26; <sup>208</sup>Pb: 1636.1 vs 1636.4</td><td>Table 3 (p. 11); tsrtbindingenergy.m, bindingplotwithexp.m; data: tsrt_bindingscan_cln.csv</td></tr><tr><td>Hindrance (fusion)</td><td>Univ. slopes</td><td>α = 2.815 × 10<sup>-2</sup>, β = -1.148 × 10<sup>-5</sup> (calibrated once on <sup>64</sup>Ni+<sup>64</sup>Ni upper third)</td><td>Table 16 (p. 110); Figure 6 (p. 86); tsrtsfactor.m</td></tr><tr><td>Near-field EM (screening/CSCT)</td><td>Line shifts</td><td><sup>57</sup>Fe line (<i>E</i><sub>src</sub> = 14.4 keV): Δ<i>E</i> = 2.00 eV (anchor); <sup>137</sup>Ba line (<i>E</i><sub>src</sub> = 661.7 keV): Δ<i>E</i> = 197.94 eV</td><td>Tables 22 (p. 144), 15 (p. 109) (plus residuals: 14 (p. 109), 23 (p. 144)); Figure 2 (p. 12); screeningmakefig.m</td></tr><tr><td>Fission OES</td><td>Δ<sup>(3)</sup>ln <i>Y</i>(<i>Z</i>)</td><td>Parity-locked two-packet (Bessel) model with localized neck bias reproduces envelope and local depression near <i>Z</i> ~ 40–45</td><td>Figure 3 (p. 24); derivation: Section 10.7; oesmakefig.m</td></tr></tbody></table>

TSRT provides a deterministic view of nuclear stability and decay. Traditional nuclear theory treats these processes as fundamentally stochastic, governed by transition probabilities between quantized states. In contrast, the TSRT framework derives both persistence and decay deterministically from the curvature geometry of trembling spacetime. A nucleus is stable when its local curvature suppression,

$$ \Delta K^2 = \langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{iso}} - \langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{bound}}, \qquad (1) $$

remains stationary in proper time. Instability arises when $\partial_{\tau}\Delta K^2$ becomes finite, signalling a causal release of curvature stress along geodesics. The geometric emission rate $\lambda$ follows directly
from this proper-time derivative:

$$ \lambda_0(Z, A) = C_{\lambda} \left| \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \Delta K^2(\tau) \right|_{\tau=\tau^*}, \qquad (2) $$

(see also Equation (66) in Section 15.3), and the full per-mode rate is

$$ \lambda_{\text{mode}}(Z, A) = \lambda_0(Z, A) F_{\text{mode}}(Z, A), \quad t_{1/2} = \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda_{\text{mode}}}, \qquad (3) $$

(see also Equation (67) in Section 15.3). Here $C_{\lambda}$ is a single global constant fixed on $^{60}$Co, with the calibrated value $C_{\lambda} = 6.48104 \times 10^{-6} \text{ s}^{-1}$ (see also Equation (162) and Table 2 (p. 11) in Section 15.3). All Q-values, barriers, and geometric slopes are computed from TSRT-derived bindings without any empirical mass input (see also Equation (9) in Section 4). This single calibration reproduces experimental half-lives across nine benchmark nuclei ($^{14}$C, $^{60}$Co, $^{137}$Cs, $^{210}$Po, $^{226}$Ra, $^{232}$Th, $^{238}$U, $^{252}$Cf, and $^{254}$Fm) with a mean relative logarithmic deviation below one part in a million, demonstrating that nuclear decay can be described purely geometrically (see also Table 2 (p. 11)).

To guarantee full reproducibility and independent verification, all numerical and experimental resources are embedded in the appendices. Experimental datasets appear verbatim in Appendix W; parameter sets used for all figures are listed in Appendix X.

MATLAB codes that generate the principal figures are included as:

* Screening (Figure 2 (p. 12)): Appendix R.3
  (Electron-Screening in TSRT: Derivation, Data, and Code);

* Odd-even staggering (Figure 3 (p. 24)): Appendix R.2
  (MATLAB: OES from Experimental Data);

* Hindrance trends (Figure 6 (p. 86)): Appendix Q.3 (MATLAB: Fusion Hindrance).

All scripts export figures automatically in both .pdf and .eps formats to maintain platform-independent consistency. Calibration details, sensitivity scans, and error analyses are referenced at the end of each relevant subsection and elaborated in the appendices.

Beyond figure-specific resources, the appendices form the complete reproducibility infrastructure of this work:

* Appendix I: nuclear stability maps and lifetime estimators;

* Appendices M and O: deterministic energetics of fission and fusion;

* Appendix Q: deep sub-barrier fusion hindrance analysis;

* Appendix U: systematic sensitivity and robustness scans;

* Appendix V: units, conversions, and metric-sign guidance.

Together, these materials ensure that every numerical table and figure in the main article can be exactly reproduced.

This paper is structured as follows.<fnref n="5" /> Section 2 defines notation and the (+, -, -, -) metric signature used throughout. Section 3 summarizes the TSRT genesis of four-dimensional

<footnote n="5">⁵Roadmap: Section 2 fixes notation and conventions; Section 3 summarizes particle genesis in TSRT; Section 4 develops the nuclear foundations; Section 5 treats binding and radii; Section 6 covers deformation and fission barriers; Section 7 derives fusion barriers, proper-time tunneling, and S-factors; Section 8 details strong/weak descriptions; Sections 10 and 12 apply the framework to fission and fusion; Section 13 compares with quantum nuclear models; Section 15 reports calibrated absolute anchors; Section 16 concludes. Supporting appendices are mapped in Appendix 18.</footnote>
spacetime and the emergence of elementary particles as trembling curvature modes. Section 4 formulates the geometric foundations of nuclear curvature potentials and calibration links. Section 5 develops binding-energy systematics and charge-radius scaling. Section 6 introduces deformation coordinates and fission-barrier topology. Section 7 provides the fusion backbone, curvature-modified Coulomb barriers and proper-time WKB-like tunneling, and compares theory with data in Figure 6 (p. 86) and Figure 2 (p. 12). Section 8 gives the TSRT interpretation of the strong (curvature saturation) and weak (curvature reconfiguration) interactions. Section 9 establishes deterministic lifetime and stability criteria. Section 10 and Section 11 treat fission dynamics and mass-energy conversion. Section 12 builds deterministic fusion phenomenology atop the tunneling analysis. Section 13 contrasts TSRT with conventional quantum nuclear models, Section 14 discusses astrophysical and experimental implications, and Section 15 reports calibrated absolute anchors. Finally, Section 16 summarizes conclusions and outlook.

The Appendix begins with a *Guide and Cross-Reference Map* linking every resource back to the main text. Appendix A documents numerical methods, calibration, and run instructions (entry points summarized in Table 6 (p. 13)); Appendix B contains full tables underlying Tables 5 (p. 13) and 6 (p. 13); Appendix C collects all nuclear curvature definitions. Key specialized materials include:

* Magic-number closures: Appendix D, used in Sections 5 and 13.3;

* Odd-even staggering: Appendix R.2, with derivation in Section 10.7;

* Screening: Appendix R.3, Listings 9 (p. 223) and 27 (p. 254);

* Hindrance: Appendix Q, Listings 10 (p. 225) and 11 (p. 229).

Together these form a fully cross-linked computational and conceptual foundation for nuclear physics in trembling spacetime.

For full computational reproducibility and to regenerate all figures and tables, see Appendix Y.

## Data Availability

All numerical data used in this work—including binding energies, benchmark lifetime inputs, stability-map curvature grids, and calibrated TSRT constants—are fully reproducible from the algorithms and appendices contained in this paper. For convenience, the minimal input set required to run all MATLAB workflows has been deposited on Zenodo and is publicly available at [35]:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17637889

The archive contains six data files in .csv and .mat format, plus a README.txt with usage instructions. No external databases are required, and all figures and tables can be regenerated directly from the provided files and the MATLAB codes listed in Appendix Y.

## 2 Core Notation, Conventions and Metric Signature

To prevent ambiguity in symbols and conventions, the master notation used throughout this manuscript is collected in Table 7 (p. 16).<fnref n="6" /> This table serves as the global reference for all derivations; parameters specific to stability analyses (e.g. deformation measures, isotopic-line coordinates) are listed separately in Table 19 (p. 113).

<footnote n="6">⁶For the explicit construction of $K_{\mu\nu}$ from $\xi_{\mu\nu}$ and the coarse-graining used to compute $\langle K^2 \rangle$, see Appendix C.</footnote>
We adopt the (+, -, -, -) metric signature throughout.<fnref n="7" /> Proper time and the trembling metric decomposition are given by

$$d\tau^2 = g_{\mu\nu} dx^\mu dx^\nu, \quad g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \xi_{\mu\nu}, \quad d\tau^2 > 0 \text{ (timelike).} \qquad (4)$$

All global normalization and calibration constants appear once in Appendix A. These include the curvature-energy conversion constant $C_E$ (Equation (6)), the TSRT radius scale $r_0^{\text{TSRT}}$ (Equation (14)), and the global lifetime scale $C_\lambda$ (Equation (2)). No constant is introduced locally in any section without cross-reference to this master list.

Unless stated otherwise, the speed of light $c$ is retained explicitly to maintain dimensional transparency. Numerical work follows a consistent unit system based on MeV and MeV/$c^2$ (1 u $c^2$ = 931.49410242 MeV). For compactness, accompanying expressions in natural units ($c = 1$) may be shown alongside full SI/relativistic forms; these are provided purely for algebraic clarity and are never used for numerical substitution.

<table><caption>Table 7: Master notation employed throughout the manuscript. Topic-specific refinements appear in Table 19 (p. 113). All expressions use the metric signature (+, -, -, -). Complete unit definitions: Appendix V.</caption><thead><tr><th>Symbol</th><th>Meaning</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Z, N, A</td><td>Proton number, neutron number, mass number (A = Z + N)</td></tr><tr><td>τ</td><td>Proper time (monotonic in TSRT once causal orientation is fixed)</td></tr><tr><td>u<sup>μ</sup></td><td>Four-velocity along a (future-directed) geodesic</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>μν</sub></td><td>Trembling-curvature (curvature-stress) tensor used in TSRT energy/action functionals</td></tr><tr><td>⟨K<sup>2</sup>⟩</td><td>Local curvature variance (TSRT)</td></tr><tr><td>ΔK<sup>2</sup>(Z, N)</td><td>Curvature-suppression measure (stability diagnostic)</td></tr><tr><td>S<sub>i</sub></td><td>Trembling action of an isolated nucleon eigenmode</td></tr><tr><td>S<sub>int</sub></td><td>Leading overlap (curvature-saturation) contribution to the action</td></tr><tr><td>δS<sub>corr</sub></td><td>Higher-order interference corrections (multipole/phase)</td></tr><tr><td>R<sub>c</sub></td><td>Curvature/overlap (locking) scale; effective strong-range indicator</td></tr><tr><td>A<sub>sat</sub></td><td>Saturation amplitude of trembling modes at stability threshold</td></tr><tr><td>ℓ<sub>EM</sub>, ℓ<sub>C</sub></td><td>Electromagnetic / color trembling coherence lengths</td></tr><tr><td>λ<sub>B</sub></td><td>Relative de Broglie scale recovered by TSRT action thresholds</td></tr><tr><td>κ<sub>neck</sub></td><td>Local scission-neck curvature (controls OES amplitude)</td></tr><tr><td>Δ<sup>(3)</sup>(Z)</td><td>Three-point odd-even staggering indicator on charge yields</td></tr><tr><td>ΔS<sub>even-odd</sub></td><td>Proper-time action gap between neighboring even/odd fragment geodesics</td></tr><tr><td>O[Ξ<sub>A</sub>, Ξ<sub>B</sub>]</td><td>Overlap functional between trembling configurations Ξ<sub>A</sub>, Ξ<sub>B</sub></td></tr><tr><td>O<sub>crit</sub></td><td>Critical overlap threshold for fusion onset</td></tr><tr><td>R<sup>*</sup></td><td>Separation at which O = O<sub>crit</sub></td></tr><tr><td>ΔU<sub>e</sub></td><td>TSRT geometric screening shift (deterministic EM trembling polarization)</td></tr><tr><td>η</td><td>Sommerfeld parameter Z<sub>1</sub>Z<sub>2</sub>e<sup>2</sup>/(ħv)</td></tr><tr><td>ħ<sub>TSRT</sub></td><td>TSRT action unit (equals ħ in the low-curvature coarse-grained limit)</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 3 The Genesis of Spacetime and Elementary Particles in TSRT

TSRT advances a single, deterministic geometric framework from which spacetime, particles, and interactions emerge coherently [12–18]. The starting point is a causally oriented metric with a small, local, deterministic “trembling”: once a time orientation is fixed, proper time $\tau$ increases monotonically along future-directed timelike geodesics. On cosmological scales, the coarse-grained imprint of these local correlations yields an effective global flow that looks like Hubble expansion; the same mechanism that stabilizes microscopic modes thus sets the large-scale structure of the observed 4D spacetime [16]. In this view, “dark” phenomenology reflects geometric bookkeeping of trembling curvature rather than additional matter sectors.

<footnote n="7">⁷When comparing with sources using (-, +, +, +), adjust signs in line elements, curvature scalars, and action densities accordingly. TSRT’s use of proper-time causality follows [12].</footnote>
Elementary particles are modeled not as point objects but as localized eigenmodes of trembling curvature. Their mass, spin, and charges are geometric invariants of the mode's structure; families arise from a finite catalog of admissible topologies and symmetries [12, 17]. Composite systems (atoms and nuclei) are bound configurations of such modes whose stability is diagnosed by reductions in appropriate curvature measures (see Section 4). Photons correspond to propagating electromagnetic trembling modes [13, 18]; neutrinos appear as neutral geodesic fragments permitted by curvature reconfiguration constraints [12, 15].

Within this geometric picture the four interactions are not postulates but regimes of the same trembling curvature. Gravitation is global curvature accumulation (long-range coherence); electromagnetism is long-range oscillatory correlation carried by curvature waves (photons) [13]; the strong interaction is curvature saturation, where local overlap of nucleonic modes suppresses curvature variance and locks a tightly bound configuration; and the weak interaction is reconfiguration, where locking symmetries fail and the system relaxes deterministically along causal geodesics, exporting charge and lepton number via escaping fragments. Phenomena often split between “quantum” and “relativistic” domains are thereby unified: superposition and tunneling postulates are replaced by causal geodesic correlations and action-minimizing reconfigurations [12, 15, 18].

Mass-energy and binding follow from the same curvature accounting. The effective inertial mass of a mode is a functional of its trembling curvature, and the binding energy of a composite is the reduction of that measure when isolated modes lock coherently. For nuclei, the empirical mass-energy defect is recovered as the difference between the sum of isolated nucleon eigenmasses and the mass of the bound configuration (Equation (9) in Section 4). The global systematics of nuclear binding used later are summarized by

$$B(A, Z) = B_{\text{geom}}(A, Z) + \Delta B_{\text{shell}}(A, Z) + \Delta B_{\text{pair}}(A, Z), \quad (5)$$

introduced formally in Section 5 (Equation (10)). Here $B_{\text{geom}}$ captures saturation from curvature locking, while shell<fnref n="8" /> and pairing<fnref n="9" /> terms arise from symmetry/phase corrections to the underlying trembling modes.

For orientation, we write $A$ for mass number and $B$ for total nuclear binding energy; $B/A$ is the binding per nucleon. In both data and TSRT, $B/A$ peaks in the iron region, $A \simeq 56-62$ (Section 5).<fnref n="10" /> Geometrically, this maximum is the balance point where short-range curvature saturation is strongest while long-range Coulomb curvature remains modest; below it the assembly is under-saturated, and above it surface and Coulomb costs erode the gain.

<footnote n="8">⁸In conventional nuclear structure, a “shell” denotes a set of single-particle orbitals in a mean-field potential, grouped by quantum numbers (e.g. $n\ell j$) and separated by energy gaps. Magic numbers arise where large gaps yield enhanced stability. In TSRT, a “shell” corresponds instead to a family of localized trembling eigenmodes whose curvature patterns maintain coherence under saturation. The TSRT analogue of a shell gap is a geometric gap: a discrete jump in the curvature-locking pattern that locally suppresses mode rearrangement. Both viewpoints identify special nucleon numbers with enhanced stability, but TSRT attributes the effect to curvature topology rather than quantized orbitals. The numerical shell corrections in Equation (5) therefore map directly onto geometric coherence thresholds rather than quantum level spacings.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹In conventional theories, “Pairing” refers to the empirical tendency of like nucleons (pp or nn) to form correlated $J=0$ spin-singlet pairs, lowering the energy of even-even nuclei and producing odd-even staggering in masses and yields. In TSRT, pairing reflects a curvature-coherence effect: when two like trembling modes overlap with opposite spatial/phase orientation, their local curvature stresses partially cancel, reducing the effective action. Even-even nuclei minimize curvature stress geometrically; odd-A and odd-odd systems retain uncompensated curvature. The phenomenology (enhanced stability of even-even nuclei, staggering with parity of Z and N) is shared in both views, but TSRT explains it as a deterministic geometric cancellation rather than a quantum-correlation energy. Thus $\Delta B_{\text{pair}}$ in Equation (5) plays the same role numerically while having a curvature-based origin.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰When the text mentions “$B/A$ @ $A \approx 60$” or colloquially “$B/A = 60$,” it is shorthand for the peak of $B/A$ occurs near mass number $A \approx 60$ (iron group). Numerically, $B/A$ at the peak is ~8-9 MeV per nucleon in conventional units. If TSRT normalized units are used elsewhere, the conversion is given in Appendix A together with the normalization constant.</footnote>
The channels most relevant for this paper follow immediately. Protons and neutrons are the nucleonic trembling eigenmodes whose overlap builds nuclei; photons encode released electro-magnetic curvature in radiative relaxations; and electrons with (anti)neutrinos are the geodesic fragments produced in weak reconfigurations during $\beta$ processes. In what follows we use this dictionary consistently: strong saturation and the effective curvature potential (Section 4); deformation, barriers, and fission (Section 6 and Section 10); and the fusion program, barriers, proper-time transmission, and near-field screening (Section 7 and Section 12). This brief recap provides the conceptual bridge from first principles to the nuclear results developed in the remainder of the paper.

# 4 TSRT Nuclear Foundations: Effective Curvature Potential and Motion

*Consistency with implementation:* The effective curvature energy and locking constructions described here are implemented by `tsrtnucleonfield.m`, `tsrtcompositefield.m`, `tsrtcurvaturetensor.m`, and `tsrtenergyfromcurvature.m`. No fitted, per-nucleus potential is introduced in code; all terms originate from the TSRT functionals summarized in Appendix H and constants in Appendix E.

*Supporting appendices:* Appendix C (definitions and locking), Appendix H (energy functionals), Appendix F (schemes), and Appendix E (calibrations).

*Core MATLAB:* `tsrtnucleonfield.m`, `tsrtcompositefield.m`, `tsrtcurvaturetensor.m`, `tsrtenergyfromcurvature.m`.

In TSRT,<fnref n="11" /> every fundamental particle is described as a localized trembling eigenmode of spacetime curvature<fnref n="12" /> [12, 17].

Within this framework, trembling spacetime enforces causality by prohibiting backward evolution of $\tau$.<fnref n="13" /> The four fundamental interactions then emerge not as external postulates but as distinct geometric constraints of trembling curvature: electromagnetism as long-range oscillatory correlation, gravitation as global curvature accumulation, and the strong and weak interactions as short-range curvature-binding and curvature-reconfiguration mechanisms [12].

From this perspective, an atomic nucleus is not a collection of independent nucleons bound by an externally defined potential.<fnref n="14" /> Instead, it is a self-consistent geometric configuration of trembling modes in which the local curvature fields of protons and neutrons interlock to form a stable causal structure. The strong interaction emerges as a direct consequence of curvature

<footnote n="11">¹¹In TSRT: (1) Particles are localized trembling eigenmodes of spacetime curvature, respecting the (+, -, -, -) metric and causal orientation fixed throughout; (2) nuclear binding emerges when curvature-overlap saturates a TSRT locking criterion (Appendix C, X); (3) weak processes are deterministic curvature reconfigurations along proper time, not stochastic transitions; (4) a single calibration constant (Appendix A) sets absolute scales and is never re-fit per nucleus or channel. All derivations follow these assumptions and are cross-referenced to the appendices for full reproducibility.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Throughout this work we adopt the (+, -, -, -) metric signature. This choice is purely conventional: one could equally well use (-, +, +, +), provided all definitions are adjusted consistently. The two signatures yield identical physical predictions, differing only in the sign patterns that appear in the mathematical expressions. In either convention, proper time $\tau$ advances monotonically along future-directed timelike geodesics once a causal orientation is fixed. What the (+, -, -, -) convention makes explicit is that $\tau$ remains positive along causal evolution, while in the opposite convention the same physical behavior appears with inverted algebraic signs. Thus the metric choice does not alter the underlying physics, but only the symbolic form by which we represent it.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Regardless of signature in Equation (4).</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴The locking criterion and curvature-overlap mechanics are reviewed in Appendix C and Appendix X.</footnote>
saturation:<fnref n="15" /> when two or more nucleonic trembling modes are brought within a critical proximity, their local oscillatory geometries overlap, leading to a collective minimum in the effective trembling action. This geometric resonance enforces a tightly bound configuration analogous to a potential well, but fundamentally deterministic and metric-based.

The weak interaction, in turn, arises from permissible reconfigurations of trembling geodesics when curvature symmetry conditions are not perfectly met.<fnref n="16" /> For example, beta decay corresponds in TSRT to a local trembling instability in which a nucleonic mode relaxes by emitting a causal geodesic fragment, identified at macroscopic scales as an electron or neutrino [15]. Thus, nuclear stability is regulated not by probabilistic tunneling, but by the deterministic geometry of curvature-bounded trembling paths.

We will repeatedly use the curvature-energy functional

$$ \mathcal{E}[\Xi] = C_E \int_V K_{\mu\nu}(\Xi) u^\mu u^\nu dV, \qquad (6) $$

with $C_E$ fixed by the calibration protocol in Appendix A. The mass-energy link we employ later (e.g., in Equation (108)) is given in Section 11.2, Equation (119). The tensor $K_{\mu\nu}$ and its scalar norm are defined in Appendix C (Units and definitions).

## 4.1 Single-nucleon motion in a trembling nuclear field

We model single-nucleon dynamics by the trembling-deformed geodesic equation

$$ \frac{d^2 x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}[\eta + \xi_{\text{nucl}}] \frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau} \frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0, \qquad (7) $$

where $x^\mu(\tau)$ denotes the spacetime worldline of the nucleon parameterized by its proper time $\tau$, and $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}[\eta + \xi_{\text{nucl}}]$ are the connection coefficients associated with the local metric $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \xi_{\text{nucl},\mu\nu}$.<fnref n="17" /> Here, $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ represents the background Minkowski metric and $\xi_{\text{nucl},\mu\nu}$ the trembling deviation field generated by the collective nuclear curvature. The field $\xi_{\text{nucl}}$ is constrained by proper-time causality and energy-momentum conservation, following the same geometric postulates as in References [12, 14].

Equation (7) expresses the causal motion of a nucleon as a free geodesic in a locally deformed spacetime whose curvature oscillates at the trembling frequency determined by the nuclear configuration. Physically, the term $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}[\eta + \xi_{\text{nucl}}]$ acts as an effective internal force describing how the nucleon's worldline responds to local curvature oscillations rather than to external potentials. The resulting effective potential $V_{\text{eff}}$ therefore emerges geometrically from the averaged curvature field and naturally incorporates both bulk curvature (governing binding) and local shell-curvature corrections (governing level structure). These contributions are derived explicitly in Appendix A.

Conceptually, Equation (7) extends the standard geodesic equation of General Relativity by replacing the purely gravitational metric perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}$ with a deterministic, multiscale trem-

$$ \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}[\eta + \xi_{\text{nucl}}] = \frac{1}{2} g^{\mu\lambda} (\partial_\alpha g_{\beta\lambda} + \partial_\beta g_{\alpha\lambda} - \partial_\lambda g_{\alpha\beta}), \quad g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \xi_{\text{nucl},\mu\nu}. \qquad (8) $$

The only implied summations are the standard Einstein sums over repeated upper/lower indices (e.g. over $\lambda$ above). Thus the bracket is simply a functional argument—"the connection built from this metric"—and introduces no additional summation or contraction beyond the usual GR notation.

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Quantitative expressions and parameter definitions appear in Appendix X.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶The geometric decay-rate diagnostic is derived in Appendix A.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷The bracket $[\eta + \xi_{\text{nucl}}]$ does not denote an index contraction or summation. It indicates that the Christoffel symbols $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}$ are computed from the metric $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \xi_{\text{nucl},\mu\nu}$. In fully explicit form,</footnote>
bling field $\xi_{\text{nucl},\mu\nu}$ that couples to all forms of energy, not only mass-energy.<fnref n="18" /> This trembling-deformed form first appeared in its covariant form in Reference [12], where it described elementary corpuscle motion in vacuum curvature, and was later adapted to atomic curvature potentials in Reference [14]. In the nuclear context, the same geometric principle yields the internal binding mechanism, allowing nucleon motion, stability, and decay processes to be derived from curvature dynamics rather than from phenomenological nuclear forces.

In this geometric picture, nuclei are bound states of curvature. Each proton and neutron is a localized trembling eigenmode of the spacetime metric with a characteristic amplitude and phase structure. A nucleus is a stationary, causally locked arrangement of such modes: the near-field curvature patterns interlock by resonance so that phase mismatches are minimized and the total trembling action is reduced. Binding energy is not an externally imposed potential, but the decrease in local curvature variance when isolated modes reorganize into a joint configuration (formalized later in Equation (59)).

This connects directly to the mass-energy defect observed [36] experimentally:

$$ \Delta E = \left( Zm_p + Nm_n - M_{\text{nucleus}} \right) c^2, \qquad (9) $$

where Z and N are the numbers of protons and neutrons, $m_p$ and $m_n$ their individual trembling eigenmasses, and $M_{\text{nucleus}}$ the collective bound-state mass.<fnref n="19" /> In TSRT, $\Delta E$ is precisely the curvature-suppressed trembling energy released when free nucleonic eigenmodes are fused into a causal nuclear geometry.

This interpretation provides a natural resolution to the duality of stability and instability in nuclei. Stable nuclei correspond to configurations where trembling resonance yields a local minimum in the geometric action, preventing any further reconfiguration without external perturbation. Unstable nuclei correspond to curvature arrangements where additional trembling modes can be shed or rearranged to lower the total action, producing fission or decay pathways.

Thus, the nucleus is not an exception to atomic determinism but an extension of it: just as electron orbits in TSRT arise from curvature-guided trembling geodesics [14], nuclear configurations arise from curvature-bound assemblies of nucleonic trembling modes. This geometric interpretation prepares the groundwork for a causal and quantitative analysis of nuclear stability, fission, and fusion in the following sections.

The same trembling-spacetime formalism that governs atomic emission and blackbody radiation also determines nuclear decay. Once the local curvature derivatives $\Delta K^2$ are known, they fix the emission rate $\lambda$ without additional postulates. This confirms that TSRT provides a unified geometric foundation for both atomic and nuclear temporal behavior.

For practical calculations, curvature measures must be converted into physical energies. The calibration procedure, including the definition of the normalization constant $C_{\text{norm}}$ and its fixing relative to a reference nucleus ($^{56}$Fe), is described in Appendix A. The resulting constants and parameter values are summarized in Appendix E, and the full numerical tables used in the comparisons are collected in Appendix B.

<footnote n="18">¹⁸In General Relativity, motion is governed by $\frac{d^2x^\mu}{d\tau^2} + \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}[g]\frac{dx^\alpha}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\beta}{d\tau} = 0$ with $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}$, where $h_{\mu\nu}$ represents a weak gravitational perturbation. In TSRT, the analogous perturbation $\xi_{\mu\nu}$ originates from causal trembling of spacetime itself, as developed in Section III of Reference [12] and extended to atomic bound states in Section II of Reference [14]. The present nuclear form $\xi_{\text{nucl}}$ follows the same principle but with curvature amplitudes enhanced by the collective mass density and short-range correlation of nucleons.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹In TSRT, “mass” denotes the effective inertial mass obtained from the curvature-energy functional, $m_{\text{eff}} \propto \int_V K_{\mu\nu}u^\mu u^\nu dV$ (Equation (119); see Section 11.2 and [12, 13]). For an isolated proton or neutron, $m_p$ or $m_n$ is the value of the same functional on the single trembling eigenmode with the appropriate asymptotic boundary conditions. For the assembled nucleus, the collective bound-state mass $M_{\text{nucleus}}$ is the value of the same functional on the causally locked multi-mode configuration, including both strong-mode saturation and electromagnetic contributions. Because curvature saturation suppresses the local variance $\langle K^2 \rangle$ in the bound geometry, one has $M_{\text{nucleus}} < Zm_p + Nm_n$; the corresponding energy difference $\Delta E$ in Equation (9) is the measured mass defect [36].</footnote>
# 5 Binding Energy Systematics and Radii from Trembling Geometry

*Consistency with implementation:* Binding energies and radii follow from the curvature energy functional (Appendix H), evaluated on fields built by `tsrtnucleonfield.m/tsrtcompositefield.m`; the numerical assembly and outputs are produced by `tsrtenergyfromcurvature.m` and compared to evaluated data via Appendix B.

*Supporting appendices:* Appendix L (benchmarks), Appendix H (binding functional), Appendix B (tables).

*Core MATLAB:* `tsrtenergyfromcurvature.m`, `tsrt_stability_lines.m`, `tsrt_get_exphalf_life.m`.

A concise set of anchor binding comparisons is presented early in Table 3 (p. 11); the corresponding AME overlay and isotopic trends are shown in the left panel of Figure 1 (p. 10).

This section develops the TSRT analogue of the semi-empirical mass formula, where binding is not postulated but derived from curvature-saturation and interference. The total binding energy (Equation (10)) splits naturally into a geometric bulk term, shell contributions, and pairing interference. We show that this geometric law reproduces the global B/A saturation curve and the local shell-driven kinks, in parallel to what liquid-drop+shell models achieve phenomenologically.

## 5.1 Saturation and the B/A curve

One of the earliest empirical discoveries in nuclear physics is that the binding energy per nucleon, B/A, rises rapidly with mass number A up to the iron region and then saturates near ~8 MeV.<fnref n="20" /> Traditional liquid-drop models reproduce this behavior through volume and surface terms, supplemented by phenomenological shell and pairing corrections.<fnref n="21" /> Within TSRT, the same pattern follows directly from the geometry of trembling curvature fields.

When nucleonic trembling eigenmodes overlap, their local curvature fields interlock into a joint configuration. The reduction in curvature variance per added nucleon diminishes once a critical density is reached, leading to saturation without the need for external parametrization. The master relation is written compactly as:

$$B(A, Z) = B_{\text{geom}}(A, Z) + \Delta B_{\text{shell}}(A, Z) + \Delta B_{\text{pair}}(A, Z), \quad (10)$$

<footnote n="20">²⁰Here B is the total nuclear binding energy and A = Z + N is the mass number; B/A measures binding per nucleon, a standard indicator of average nuclear stability.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹The traditional liquid-drop model treats the nucleus as an incompressible charged fluid droplet, assuming that each nucleon interacts predominantly with its nearest neighbors. Its binding energy is expressed as a semi-empirical mass formula $B(A, Z) = a_V A - a_S A^{2/3} - a_C Z(Z-1)A^{-1/3} - a_A(A - 2Z)^2/A + \delta(A, Z)$, where each coefficient $a_i$ is adjusted phenomenologically to fit data rather than derived from first principles. Key assumptions include: (1) nucleons are homogeneously distributed within a spherical volume of constant density; (2) nuclear forces are short-ranged and saturating, mimicking molecular cohesion; (3) surface energy reduces binding near the nuclear boundary analogously to classical surface tension; (4) electrostatic repulsion is described by a uniformly charged sphere; (5) asymmetry energy penalizes proton-neutron imbalance according to Fermi-gas statistics; and (6) pairing terms account empirically for even-even, odd-odd, and odd-even differences. Although this model captures gross binding-energy trends, it lacks a geometric or dynamical foundation: each correction term represents a separate empirical adjustment rather than a consequence of a unified principle. Consequently, its descriptive success comes at the cost of theoretical fragmentation, underscoring the need for a single causal framework capable of explaining both large-scale and small-scale structure formation without resorting to ad-hoc parametrization.</footnote>
where $\mathcal{B}_{\text{geom}}$ represents the curvature-driven bulk binding, $\Delta B_{\text{shell}}$ encodes corrections from geometric resonance at closed trembling shells, and $\Delta B_{\text{pair}}$ reflects the enhanced stability of curvature-symmetric even-even systems.

The geometric term $\mathcal{B}_{\text{geom}}$ saturates for a simple reason rooted in TSRT's finite curvature-overlap range. Let $R$ be the nuclear radius (Section 5.2) and $R_c$ the curvature-overlap (locking) scale from Section 4. In the bulk ($r \ll R$) each nucleonic trembling mode finds essentially the same number of neighbors within $R_c$, so the curvature-suppression gained by adding one more nucleon is approximately constant. Near the surface, however, a fraction of would-be neighbors lies outside the nucleus; those “missing neighbors” reduce the incremental suppression. This yields the volume-minus-surface structure for the geometric binding:

$$ \mathcal{B}_{\text{geom}}(A, Z) \approx C_{\text{norm}}[\alpha_{\text{vol}} A - \alpha_{\text{surf}} A^{2/3}] - C_{\text{EM}} \frac{Z^2}{R}, \quad (11) $$

with $R = r_0^{\text{TSRT}} A^{1/3}$ from Equation (14) (see further). Dividing by $A$ gives the leading TSRT envelope for the binding per nucleon:

$$ \frac{B}{A}(A, Z) \approx a_0 - a_s A^{-1/3} - a_c \frac{Z^2}{A^{4/3}} + \frac{\Delta B_{\text{shell}}}{A} + \frac{\Delta B_{\text{pair}}}{A}, \quad (12) $$

where $a_0 = C_{\text{norm}}\alpha_{\text{vol}}$, $a_s = C_{\text{norm}}\alpha_{\text{surf}}$, and $a_c = C_{\text{EM}}/r_0^{\text{TSRT}}$. The shell and pairing terms in Equation (10) ride on this envelope: $\Delta B_{\text{shell}}$ produces magic-number kinks, and $\Delta B_{\text{pair}}$ gives odd-even staggering (cf. Figure 3 (p. 24) in Section 6).

To see why the maximum of $B/A$ occurs near iron, set $\kappa \equiv Z/A$ along the valley of stability<fnref n="22" /> (nearly constant in medium-mass nuclei) and maximize the smooth envelope of Equation (12) with respect to $A$ at fixed $\kappa$. Ignoring the small $A$-dependence of the asymmetry term in this narrow region, one finds

$$ \left. \frac{d}{dA} \frac{B}{A} \right|_{\kappa} = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad A_{\star} \approx \frac{a_s}{2 a_c \kappa^2}. \quad (13) $$

With the single calibration on ⁵⁶Fe in Appendix A fixing the ratio $a_s/a_c$ (and with $\kappa \approx Z/A \approx 0.46-0.50$ along the stability valley), Equation (13) yields $A_{\star} \approx 56-60$. Thus, in TSRT the peak near $A \sim 60$ is a direct geometric consequence of (i) bulk curvature locking (volume term), (ii) missing-neighbor penalty (surface term), and (iii) the long-range electromagnetic curvature cost which grows with $Z^2/R$.

$B$ is the total binding energy $B(A, Z)$; $A = Z + N$ is the mass number; the envelope $a_0 - a_s A^{-1/3} - a_c Z^2/A^{4/3}$ encodes the deterministic curvature balance. Shell and pairing corrections then produce the observed local structure on top of this global trend.

The experimental signatures of this structure are well known: local kinks at magic numbers<fnref n="23" /> and odd-odd-even staggering.<fnref n="24" /> Within the liquid-drop framework, these features are accommodated not by the base volume/surface terms but by empirically fitted add-ons, i.e., shell corrections for magic-number kinks and a pairing term for odd-even staggering, whose roles (and TSRT reinterpretation) are detailed in Section 6 (Equation (10)). In TSRT these are not ad hoc add-ons but follow from the deterministic geodesic-correlation rules. A detailed benchmark appears in Section 6, Figure 3 (p. 24), where the parity-Bessel two-packet model derived from trembling geometry quantitatively reproduces the staggering observed in ²³⁵U fission yields. For representative numbers and how the global trend compares to data, see Table 3 (p. 11) (with the full, table in Appendix B, Table 25 (p. 147)).

<footnote n="22">²²The valley of stability is the locus of nuclides stable (or longest-lived) against radioactive decay in the $N-Z$ plane. Away from this valley, isotopes tend to undergo $\beta^{\pm}$ decay (or other modes) to reduce their energy.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³Magic numbers are specific proton or neutron counts (2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, 126, ...) at which large shell gaps yield extra stability. They produce visible “kinks” in separation energies, radii, and other systematics.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴Odd-even staggering (OES) is the alternating pattern in nuclear observables (masses, fragment yields) where even-$Z$/even-$N$ nuclei are favored over odd neighbors, commonly attributed to nucleon pairing correlations.</footnote>
The liquid-drop model (LDM) [23,37] famously fits B(A, Z) with a volume–surface Coulomb –asymmetry pairing decomposition. TSRT obtains a closely related structure from first principles: the volume term arises from bulk curvature locking (coherent overlap of trembling modes); the surface term from missing neighbors within the finite overlap radius $R_c$; and the Coulomb cost from long-range electromagnetic curvature scaling like $Z^2/R$ with $R = r_0^{\text{TSRT}}A^{1/3}$ (Section 5.2). These ingredients produce the TSRT envelope in Equation (12), which explains, without phenomenological saturation constants, why $B/A$ peaks near $A \simeq 60$ (Equation (13)) and then levels off.

LDM gets the right shape because its fitted terms mimic the same geometric scalings that TSRT derives deterministically from curvature integrals. But LDM needs distinct fitted coefficients and additional patches (e.g., shell and pairing terms) to capture kinks and odd–even effects, whereas in TSRT: (i) magic-number kinks arise from discrete changes in geodesic resonance structure (the shell–curvature corrections $\Delta B_{\text{shell}}$ in Equation (10)), and (ii) odd–even staggering follows from causal phase-matching of trembling modes (Section 6, Figure 3 (p. 24)), not from a purely statistical pairing ansatz. Likewise, phenomena that strain LDM’s barrier-tunneling picture, such as deep sub-barrier fusion hindrance, are naturally accommodated by TSRT’s curvature-based barrier and proper-time transmission (Section 7, Figure 6 (p. 86)).

In short, LDM’s successes are explained in TSRT as consequences of finite-range curvature locking plus long-range Coulomb curvature, while TSRT additionally provides the causal mechanism and predictive corrections that LDM must fit separately.

## 5.2 Charge radii and scaling

Charge radii provide an independent probe of nuclear structure by quantifying the spatial extent of the nuclear charge distribution. Operationally, the (root-mean-square) charge radius $r_{ch}$ is defined from the second moment of the charge density $\rho_{ch}(\mathbf{r})$ as $r_{ch} = \sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle}$ and is extracted from elastic electron scattering, isotope-shift spectroscopy, and muonic-atom spectroscopy.<fnref n="25" /> Empirically, radii follow an approximate saturation law $R \simeq r_0 A^{1/3}$ (with mild departures near shell closures,<fnref n="26" /> along deformation chains, and across isotopic skins). In TSRT, this $A^{1/3}$ scaling is not imposed but emerges from the causal packing of trembling eigenmodes in a finite curvature domain: the leading volume contribution fixes the $A^{1/3}$ trend, while subleading shell–curvature and deformation terms account for systematic deviations (derived in Appendix A).

The TSRT prediction for charge radii at leading order is the TSRT radius law

$$R(A) = r_0^{\text{TSRT}} A^{1/3} [1 + \delta_{\text{def}}(A)], \quad (14)$$

where this form is derived (not assumed) by minimizing the trembling action for a finite curvature domain containing A nucleons; the $A^{1/3}$ scaling follows from the volume part of the curvature integral, while subleading surface/shell effects appear as multiplicative corrections (see Appendix A). The constant $r_0^{\text{TSRT}}$ is the fundamental length scale fixed by the normalization of nuclear curvature and therefore determined once the TSRT constants are specified (Appendix E); it is not an adjustable LDM-style fit parameter. The factor $\delta_{\text{def}}(A)$ encodes small, nucleus-dependent departures from sphericity and local shell–curvature effects, vanishing near spherical closed shells, changing sign with prolate/oblate deformation, and scaling like a surface correction at large A. In what follows we use Equation (14) as the working form, with

<footnote n="25">²⁵For clarity: the charge radius differs from the matter radius (which weights all nucleons) and from the point-proton radius $r_{pp}$ (the proton centers-of-mass distribution). Standard extractions relate these via $r_{ch}^2 = r_{pp}^2 + r_p^2 + (N/Z) r_n^2 + r_{\text{DF}}^2 + r_{\text{so}}^2 + \dots$, where $r_p^2$ and $r_n^2$ account for intrinsic nucleon charge structure, and $r_{\text{DF}}$, $r_{\text{so}}$ denote small Darwin-Foldy and spin-orbit corrections, respectively. We keep the presentation in terms of $r_{ch}$ to align with experimental systematics; details of how these corrections enter TSRT fits are deferred to Appendix A.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶Shell closure denotes a filled major shell for protons or neutrons (at a magic number), typically producing reduced collectivity, smaller radii changes, and enhanced stability.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Figure 3: Odd-even staggering in $^{235}$U(n$_{th}$,f). The vertical axis shows the third finite difference $\Delta^{(3)}\ln Y(Z) = \ln Y(Z+1) - 2\ln Y(Z) + \ln Y(Z-1)$, quantifying the alternating pattern of logarithmic fission yields $Y(Z)$ as a function of fragment charge $Z$ (horizontal axis). Points denote experimental values from Table 17 (p. 110); the solid curve represents the TSRT parity-Bessel two-packet model with localized neck bias [Equation (315)], as discussed in Section 10.7. All arrays and MATLAB code used to generate the figure are provided in Appendix R.2. Model derivation: Section 10.7; parameter values in Table 41 (p. 209); numerical workflow in Appendix R.2.

explicit expressions for $\delta_{\text{def}}(A)$ and the determination of $r_0^{\text{TSRT}}$ provided in Appendix A and Appendix E, respectively.

Unlike traditional models that assign $r_0$ empirically, TSRT relates $r_0^{\text{TSRT}}$ directly to the curvature amplitude of a single nucleon eigenmode and calibrates it deterministically against a reference nucleus such as $^{56}$Fe. This establishes the nuclear length scale as a measurable manifestation of spacetime curvature rather than an adjustable geometric constant, thereby grounding the radius law in first principles of the theory.

Furthermore, the same trembling-induced polarization mechanism that modifies charge radii also governs electron screening in low-energy nuclear fusion. In TSRT, polarization denotes the causal displacement of local curvature modes relative to their mean geodesic position due to the presence of neighboring mass-energy oscillations. This produces an induced curvature dipole field that shifts charge distributions and effective potentials, in exact analogy to how electric polarization arises from charge displacement in a dielectric medium, but here the effect acts on the spacetime metric itself rather than on an external field. In nuclei, such curvature polarization leads to minute radius modifications; in condensed matter environments, it governs the enhancement of tunneling probabilities by reducing the effective Coulomb barrier. This causal connection is demonstrated in Section 7, Figure 2 (p. 12), where TSRT polarization with trembling and dynamic dephasing successfully reproduces experimental screening enhancements
in Pd-host d(d,p)t reactions.<fnref n="27" />

In summary, both binding-energy saturation and charge-radius scaling emerge in TSRT as direct consequences of causal trembling geometry. What appear in phenomenological models as separate empirical terms (volume, surface, asymmetry, pairing, $r_0$ constants) are here unified as manifestations of a single geometric principle: the deterministic organization of nucleonic trembling modes in curved spacetime.

Full numerical tables supporting this section are provided in Appendix B, with calibration settings and code entry points documented in Appendix A. Representative charge radii and binding residuals are summarized in Table 12 (p. 108) (Appendix B), and polarization/electron-screening comparisons are shown in Figure 2 (p. 12) (with code listings in Appendix R.3).

# 6 Deformation Landscapes and Fission Barriers

*Consistency with implementation:* Barrier curves and deformation energetics are computed by `tsrtfissionenergy.m` (energy surfaces) and `tsrtfissionactionfull.m` (action evaluation), with OES neck-mode details in Appendix N. Parent/fragment geometry assembly uses `tsrt_buildVO235.m`, and `tsrt_build_daughters_scission.m`.

*Supporting appendices:* Appendix M (surface curvature and bifurcation), Appendix N (OES neck mode), Appendix F (discretization).

*Core MATLAB:* `tsrtfissionenergy.m`, `tsrtfissionactionfull.m`.

The consolidated U-235(n,f) observables table is placed early as Table 4 (p. 12) for quick reference; the OES figure appears in Figure 3 (p. 24).

## 6.1 Geometric deformation coordinate and barrier formation

In conventional nuclear models, deformation is introduced phenomenologically by parameterizing the nuclear surface $R(\theta, \phi)$ with multipole expansions, most commonly using the parameterization developed by Bohr and Mottelson [38]:

$$R(\theta, \phi) = R_0 \left[ 1 + \sum_{\lambda=0}^{\infty} \sum_{\mu=-\lambda}^{+\lambda} \alpha_{\lambda\mu} Y_{\lambda\mu}(\theta, \phi) \right], \quad (15)$$

where $R_0$ is the radius of the spherical nucleus, $\alpha_{\lambda\mu}$ are the deformation parameters,<fnref n="28" /> and $Y_{\lambda\mu}$ are spherical harmonics. The quadrupole deformation parameters<fnref n="29" /> ($\alpha_{2\mu}$), which describe ellipsoidal shapes, are of paramount importance for describing nuclear ground states and fission pathways.

<footnote n="27">²⁷The notation “Pd-host d(d,p)t” refers to deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions occurring within a palladium host lattice, where two deuterons (d) fuse to form a triton (t) and a proton (p). Such reactions are studied in low-energy condensed-matter fusion experiments to investigate screening effects: the surrounding electron cloud and lattice potential effectively lower the Coulomb barrier between the reacting nuclei. In the present paper, the TSRT-based treatment of this system appears in Section 7, where the same trembling-induced curvature polarization mechanism that governs charge-radius corrections is applied to quantify the observed enhancement in reaction rates.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸Deformation parameters $\alpha_{\lambda\mu}$ quantify deviations from a sphere via spherical harmonics $Y_{\lambda\mu}$: $\lambda = 2$ (quadrupole) controls elongation/flattening, $\lambda = 3$ (octupole) pear-shapes, $\lambda = 4$ hexadecapole, etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹Quadrupole deformation (often summarized by $\beta_2$) describes ellipsoidal shapes: prolate (rugby-ball, $\beta_2 > 0$) or oblate (disk-like, $\beta_2 < 0$). It dominantly controls low-lying collective spectra and fission pathways.</footnote>
The potential-energy surface (PES)<fnref n="30" /> is then constructed as a function of these deformation parameters. This PES is typically composed of macroscopic and microscopic terms, a foundational approach of the Strutinsky macro-micro method [39, 40]<fnref n="31" />. The macroscopic term, often calculated using the liquid-drop model (LDM) [23, 46], provides a smooth background energy that describes the average trends of nuclear binding. The microscopic term, comprising shell and pairing corrections calculated from a single-particle model like the Woods-Saxon<fnref n="32" /> [47] or modified harmonic oscillator potential, accounts for the quantum effects that cause deviations from this smooth trend. It is these shell corrections that are responsible for the stabilization of deformed ground states and the emergence of a double-humped fission barrier<fnref n="33" /> in actinide<fnref n="34" /> nuclei [48].

The topology of this potential-energy surface (its minima, saddle points, and valleys) dictates fundamental nuclear properties, including equilibrium deformation, the likelihood of spontaneous fission, and the spectrum of low-lying collective excitations [49].

In TSRT, by contrast, deformation emerges directly from the causal geometry of trembling eigenmodes. The nucleus is described as a collective curvature configuration of Z protons and N neutrons, each corresponding to a localized spacetime mode of trembling curvature. When this configuration is perturbed away from spherical symmetry, the geodesic congruence of these modes must readjust to preserve causal consistency of the local metric field. The extra curvature action required for this readjustment defines the deformation energy functional,

$$E_{\text{def}}(\beta) = \int_{\tau_i}^{\tau_f} \mathcal{R}[\xi_{\text{nucl}}(\beta)] d\tau, \quad (16)$$

where $\beta$ is a (dimensionless) collective deformation coordinate and $\mathcal{R}[\xi_{\text{nucl}}(\beta)]$ is the scalar curvature density associated with the deformed nuclear trembling field $\xi_{\text{nucl}}$.<fnref n="35" />

<footnote n="30">³⁰A potential-energy surface (PES) maps the total energy of a nucleus as a function of collective shape (deformation) coordinates; its minima, saddles, and valleys govern equilibrium shapes, barrier heights, and fission paths.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹Strutinsky macro-micro method: The total binding (or deformation) energy is written as $E_{\text{tot}}(\beta) = E_{\text{mac}}(\beta) + \delta E_{\text{shell}}(\beta) + \delta E_{\text{pair}}(\beta)$, where $\beta$ denotes a set of shape parameters (e.g., $\beta_2, \beta_3, \beta_4$, triaxiality $\gamma$, elongation, necking). The macroscopic term $E_{\text{mac}}$ is a liquid-drop-type energy (volume, surface, Coulomb, asymmetry, etc.) that varies smoothly with deformation. The microscopic shell correction $\delta E_{\text{shell}}$ is obtained by the Strutinsky smoothing procedure: one computes single-particle levels from a chosen phenomenological mean field (e.g., Woods-Saxon or Nilsson) at fixed deformation; the sum over occupied single-particle energies is compared to a smoothed reference built from an averaged level density; the difference yields $\delta E_{\text{shell}}$, capturing quantal shell effects (including magic-number gaps) on top of the smooth background. Pairing is added as $\delta E_{\text{pair}}$ using the BCS (Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer) formalism [41-43], which introduces correlated nucleon pairs through the variational ansatz $\langle \text{BCS} \rangle = \prod_k (u_k + v_k a_k^\dagger a_k^\dagger)|0\rangle$ and leads to the gap equation $\Delta_k = \sum_{k'} V_{kk'} u_{k'} v_{k'}$, with phenomenological pairing matrix elements $V_{kk'}$. In practical nuclear-structure calculations, number non-conservation in BCS is corrected by the Lipkin-Nogami (LN) method [44, 45], which adds a second-order particle-number-fluctuation term to the energy functional. Both BCS and LN are implemented with phenomenological pairing strengths that are tuned to reproduce odd-even mass differences. In practice, the method requires choices of mean-field parametrization, smoothing width and order, and pairing strengths, which are tuned to reproduce data. The approach is widely used to map PESs, predict fission barriers and isomeric minima, and study shape coexistence; it is, by construction, a phenomenological decomposition (smooth macroscopic energy plus fitted microscopic corrections) rather than a single-principle, causal geometric derivation.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³²The Woods-Saxon potential is a standard mean-field for nuclei, $V(r) = -V_0[1 + \exp((r-R)/a)]^{-1}$, with spin-orbit term added. It approximates the finite, diffuse nuclear well used to compute single-particle levels.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³The fission barrier is the energy (or action) ridge separating the ground-state shape from scission configurations. In actinides it often has two saddles ("double-humped"): an inner barrier near modest deformation and an outer barrier closer to elongation/neck formation.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴Defined in Section 6.3.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵Equation (16) generalizes the action integral $S = \int \mathcal{R}[\xi] d\tau$ introduced in Reference [12] for isolated trembling corpuscles and later applied to atomic bound states in Reference [14]. In the nuclear context, the same principle is applied collectively: $\mathcal{R}[\xi_{\text{nucl}}]$ represents the curvature density of the entire multi-nucleon trembling field, and its proper-time integral defines the energetic cost of maintaining causal geodesic coherence under deformation.</footnote>
The stationarity conditions

$$ \left. \frac{\partial E_{\text{def}}}{\partial \beta} \right|_{\beta=\beta_0} = 0, \quad \left. \frac{\partial E_{\text{def}}}{\partial \beta} \right|_{\beta=\beta^\ddagger} = 0 \qquad (17) $$

express the requirement that the total curvature action be extremal with respect to variations in the deformation coordinate. The first condition fixes the equilibrium (ground-state) shape $\beta_0$, where the nuclear curvature configuration is locally stable, and the second identifies the saddle configuration $\beta^\ddagger$ corresponding to the fission barrier or transition path. These are therefore the TSRT analogues of the potential-minimum and barrier-top conditions in macroscopic-microscopic and energy-density functional (EDF) methods, but here they arise directly from the causal curvature variational principle rather than from fitted potential surfaces.

To make the correspondence with conventional terminology transparent, and to enable quantitative comparison with macroscopic-microscopic and EDF approaches [19, 26], the TSRT deformation functional can be reorganized into distinct geometric channels:

$$ E_{\text{def}}(\beta) = E_{\text{lock}}(\beta; A) + E_{\text{surf}}(\beta; R_c) + E_{\text{Coul}}(\beta; Z) + \Delta E_{\text{shell}}(\beta; Z, N). \quad (18) $$

Here, $E_{\text{lock}}$ represents bulk curvature locking, the saturation of trembling modes in the interior volume; $E_{\text{surf}}$ accounts for the finite-range deficit of curvature locking near the surface (governed by the overlap length $R_c$); $E_{\text{Coul}}$ captures the long-range electromagnetic curvature, scaling roughly as $Z^2/R$ with $R = r_0^{\text{TSRT}} A^{1/3}$; and $\Delta E_{\text{shell}}$ encodes the shell-curvature corrections that produce magic-number structure and odd-even staggering. Equation (18) thus provides the bridge between the fundamental curvature-action integral of Equation (16) and the phenomenological energy decompositions of conventional models: the familiar volume, surface, Coulomb, and shell terms now appear as deterministic curvature integrals rather than as empirically fitted components.

Near a stationary point, the deformation functional admits a harmonic expansion,

$$ E_{\text{def}}(\beta) \approx E_{\text{def}}(\beta_*) + \frac{1}{2} C_{\beta}(\beta_*) (\beta - \beta_*)^2 + \dots, \qquad (19) $$

where $\beta_* \in \{\beta_0, \beta^\ddagger\}$ and $C_{\beta}(\beta_*) = \partial^2 E_{\text{def}}/\partial\beta^2|_{\beta_*}$ is the local stiffness (the curvature of the potential-energy surface around equilibrium or barrier configurations).$^{36}$

Introducing the collective inertia (curvature inertia)

$$ M_{\beta} \equiv \left. \frac{\partial^2 S_{\text{tremble}}}{\partial \dot{\beta}^2} \right|_{\beta=\beta_0}, \qquad (20) $$

we linearize the reduced proper-time dynamics in the neighborhood of a stationary point $\beta = \beta_0$, where $\partial \mathcal{L}_{\text{tremble}}/\partial \beta|_{\beta_0} = 0$. Writing a quadratic expansion of the proper-time Lagrangian (per unit proper time) about $\beta_0$,

$$ \mathcal{L}_{\text{tremble}}(\beta, \dot{\beta}) \approx \mathcal{L}_0 + \frac{1}{2} M_{\beta} \dot{\beta}^2 - \frac{1}{2} C_{\beta} (\beta - \beta_0)^2, \qquad (21) $$

with

$$ C_{\beta} \equiv \left. \frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{L}_{\text{tremble}}}{\partial \beta^2} \right|_{\beta=\beta_0} \left( \text{equivalently} \quad \left. \frac{\partial^2 S_{\text{tremble}}}{\partial \beta^2} \right|_{\beta_0} \text{ per unit proper time} \right), \qquad (22) $$

<footnote>$^{36}$A stationary point is a value of the deformation coordinate $\beta$ at which the first derivative $\partial E_{\text{def}}/\partial \beta$ vanishes, meaning that the system experiences no net restoring or driving force with respect to small shape changes. In nuclear structure, $\beta_0$ corresponds to a local minimum (stable equilibrium), and $\beta^\ddagger$ to a saddle point (the top of the fission barrier). Expanding $E_{\text{def}}(\beta)$ near such a point gives a parabolic approximation whose curvature $C_\beta$ determines the stiffness or softness of the nucleus against deformation.</footnote>
the Euler–Lagrange equation yields the small–amplitude equation of motion

$$M_{\beta} \ddot{\beta} + C_{\beta} (\beta - \beta_0) = 0. \qquad (23)$$

Hence the local proper-time oscillation frequency satisfies $\omega_{\beta}^2 = C_{\beta}/M_{\beta}$ for a minimum ($C_{\beta} > 0$), while at a saddle ($C_{\beta} < 0$) the frequency is imaginary and the growth rate is $|\omega_{\beta}| = \sqrt{|C_{\beta}|/M_{\beta}}$. In either case, the characteristic proper-time scale is

$$\tau_{\text{loc}} \sim 2\pi \sqrt{\frac{M_{\beta}}{|C_{\beta}|}}. \qquad (24)$$

The term $M_{\beta}$ represents the effective inertia of collective deformation motion.<fnref n="37" />

The expression for $\tau_{\text{loc}}$ in Equation (24) therefore estimates the proper-time period of small oscillations (or the instability timescale) near equilibrium or saddle configurations.<fnref n="38" />

For post-saddle evolution,<fnref n="39" /> where $C_{\beta} < 0$, $\tau_{\text{loc}}$ sets the strong-interaction<fnref n="40" /> timescale for prompt dynamics<fnref n="41" /> (used later when discussing prompt neutrons and prompt $\gamma$'s).

Experts may identify $\beta$ locally with the dominant quadrupole coordinate (often denoted $\beta_2$) in the surface parametrization $R(\theta) = R_0[1 + \beta_2Y_{20}(\theta) + \dots]$. We keep a single symbol $\beta$ for the leading collective degree of freedom; higher multipoles or neck coordinates are included as needed in the dedicated neck/OES treatment (see Figure 3 (p. 24) and Section 10.7).

Section 6.2 translates this geometric deformation framework into explicit barrier heights for actinides.

## 6.2 Fission barriers from curvature action

We define the fission barrier in TSRT as the proper deformation–action difference between the saddle configuration and the ground-state configuration along the minimal deterministic path in deformation space,

$$B_f(Z, N) = E_{\text{def}}(\beta^{\ddagger}; Z, N) - E_{\text{def}}(\beta_0; Z, N), \qquad (25)$$

where $\beta_0$ denotes the equilibrium deformation and $\beta^{\ddagger}$ the first saddle along the causal deformation trajectory; $E_{\text{def}}(\beta)$ is the curvature-derived deformation action/energy introduced in Section 6 and implemented numerically in Appendix M.

The fission barrier, or fission barrier height, is therefore the action (energy) difference between saddle and ground configurations, as provided in Equation (25), and in practice inherits contributions from the geometric channels of Equation (18). The surface curvature imbalance

<footnote n="37">³⁷In traditional nuclear dynamics, collective inertia quantifies how much kinetic energy is associated with a rate of change of the deformation coordinate, usually derived from cranking or hydrodynamic models of nuclear flow. In TSRT, $M_{\beta}$ is instead defined geometrically as the second derivative of the trembling action $S_{\text{tremble}}$ with respect to the deformation rate $\dot{\beta}$, measuring the curvature resistance of the spacetime field itself against time-dependent shape distortions. It thereby encodes both the mechanical inertia of the nucleonic distribution and the geometric inertia of the underlying spacetime curvature.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸Here, $\tau_{\text{loc}}$ is the proper-time interval for one full oscillation of the deformation coordinate $\beta$ around a stationary configuration. For $\beta_0$, it corresponds to the intrinsic vibrational period of the nucleus in its equilibrium shape. For $\beta^{\ddagger}$, where $C_{\beta} < 0$, it defines the characteristic timescale over which the system departs from the barrier configuration toward scission.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹Post-saddle evolution refers to the stage after the nucleus has crossed the fission barrier ($\beta > \beta^{\ddagger}$) and begins its irreversible descent toward scission. At this point, collective motion is dominated by the strong nuclear interaction rather than by electromagnetic or weak effects.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰The strong-interaction timescale is the characteristic duration (typically $10^{-21}-10^{-22}$ s) associated with the reconfiguration of nuclear matter through strong-force-mediated processes such as shape relaxation or particle emission. It defines the regime in which curvature locking dominates causal dynamics.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹Prompt dynamics denotes immediate processes occurring within the strong-interaction timescale, such as prompt neutron emission or prompt $\gamma$-ray de-excitation following fission, as opposed to delayed processes (e.g., beta decay) governed by much longer weak-interaction timescales.</footnote>
$\Delta K_{\text{surface}}$ that drives scission is defined and quantified in Section 10.1, Equation (99), and used consistently throughout the fission analysis.

All quantities are computed using Listing 33 (p. 270) and are tabulated via Listing 34 (p. 271).

## 6.3 Actinide benchmarks: $^{235}$U and $^{239}$Pu

Actinides$^{42}$ provide stringent benchmarks because their deformation landscapes are known experimentally to exhibit pronounced inner and outer saddles. TSRT predicts both saddles directly from the stationarity condition applied to the TSRT deformation energy

$$E_{\text{def}}(\beta), \qquad (26)$$

introduced in Equation (16). The two saddle points obtained numerically are denoted $\beta_I^\ddagger$ (inner) and $\beta_{II}^\ddagger$ (outer), and the corresponding barrier heights follow from

$$B_f^{(I)} = E_{\text{def}}(\beta_I^\ddagger) - E_{\text{def}}(\beta_0), \qquad (27)$$

$$B_f^{(II)} = E_{\text{def}}(\beta_{II}^\ddagger) - E_{\text{def}}(\beta_0), \qquad (28)$$

where $\beta_0$ is the TSRT equilibrium deformation.

**What TSRT achieves.** The full numerical TSRT barriers for $^{235}$U and $^{239}$Pu—including inner and outer saddle energies, equilibrium deformations, and uncertainties—are listed explicitly in Appendix B, Table 13 (p. 109). These values include shell corrections $\Delta E_{\text{shell}}$ (Appendix B) and agree with evaluated systematics, demonstrating that TSRT reproduces the actinide double-humped structure without fitted macroscopic–microscopic parameterizations.

To streamline notation in the main article, we also write

$$B_f(^{235}\text{U}) = E_{\text{def}}(\beta^\ddagger) - E_{\text{def}}(\beta_0), \qquad (29)$$

$$B_f(^{239}\text{Pu}) = E_{\text{def}}(\beta^\ddagger) - E_{\text{def}}(\beta_0), \qquad (30)$$

with the convention that the corresponding saddle (inner or outer) is specified in all tables and figures where necessary.

**Uncertainties and convergence.** Numerical uncertainties on $B_f^{(I)}$ and $B_f^{(II)}$ are computed by linearized propagation of curvature-surface uncertainties through $E_{\text{def}}(\beta)$, with grid and quadrature robustness documented in Appendix Y.3. Aggregation of uncertainties for all actinide benchmarks is presented in Appendix B.7. These propagated uncertainties accompany every barrier value in Table 13 (p. 109).

**Odd–even staggering (OES) as a geometric effect.** A key observational feature of actinide fission is the parity-dependent staggering of fragment yields. In traditional phenomenological models this effect is inserted through explicit pairing energies; in TSRT it emerges causally as a geometric interference mechanism. Phase coherence or mismatch among neck-localized trembling modes modifies the local curvature around the saddle region, thereby altering the yield distribution. The resulting OES pattern—including the $^{235}$U(n$_{th}$,f) $\Delta^{(3)}\ln Y$ systematics— is reproduced quantitatively by the parity–Bessel two-packet model shown in Figure 3 (p. 24). Its derivation is provided in Section 10.7, and all numerical scripts used to generate the figure appear in Appendix R.2.

**Post-saddle evolution and prompt timescales.** After the system crosses $\beta^\ddagger$, the descent toward scission is governed by the local proper-time scale $\tau_{\text{loc}}$ derived in Equation (24). Because

<footnote>$^{42}$Actinides are the elements with $Z \approx 89–103$ (classically A$_{C}$ through L$_{R}$), including the canonical fissioning isotopes $^{235}$U and $^{239}$Pu. They exhibit large deformations, double-humped barriers, and pronounced odd–even effects, making them a stringent test for any theory of deformation and fission.</footnote>
this timescale lies in the range $10^{-21}-10^{-22}$ s, the subsequent neutron and $\gamma$ emissions occur on a strong-interaction timescale, accounting for the empirical prompt nature of these processes discussed in Section 10. The geometric origin of this rapid post-saddle motion (the curvature-stress imbalance described in Section 10.1) is visible directly in the TSRT curvature plots of Appendix M.1.

*Reproducibility.* The numerical construction of $E_{\text{def}}(\beta)$ (channel by channel), the extraction of $\beta_0$ and both saddles $\beta_I^\dagger, \beta_{II}^\dagger$, the computation of double-humped barriers, and their evaluated comparisons are fully documented in Appendix M (Appendices M.1–M.2). Actinide benchmarks appear in Appendix B, Table 13 (p. 109). The neck-mode/OES geometric derivation and all MATLAB scripts for Figure 3 (p. 24) are given in Section 10.7 and Appendix R.2.

# 7 Fusion Barriers, Proper-Time Tunneling, and S-Factor Trends

*Consistency with implementation:* The entrance-channel $V_{\text{eff}}(r)$ used in Figures and Tables is assembled exactly as in tsrfusionenergy.m: curvature-overlap at short range (locking), Coulomb + screening tail (Appendix O), with turning points $r_{1,2}(E)$ used directly in Equation (50). The S-factor evaluation is performed in tsrtsfactor.m.

*Supporting appendices:* Appendix O (overlap criterion), Appendix P (S-factor evaluation), Appendix Q (deep sub-barrier hindrance).

*Core MATLAB:* tsrfusionenergy.m, tsrtsfactor.m, reproducehindranceTSRT.m.

This section develops the microphysical ingredients of fusion in TSRT: the curvature-enhanced barrier (Section 7.2), the proper-time WKB-like transmission$^{43}$, channel-specific expressions (Equations (52)–(53)), near-field polarization and screening (Figure 2 (p. 12)), and deep sub-barrier hindrance (Figure 6 (p. 86), Section 12.9). Broader fusion phenomenology, systematics across isotopic chains, and astrophysical implications are synthesized later in Section 12.

The corresponding MATLAB implementations are provided in Listings 10 (p. 225) and 11 (p. 229).

$$ \mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}} = \frac{1}{2} \mu \dot{r}^2 - V_{\text{eff}}(r), \qquad (31) $$

$$ T_{\text{TSRT}} = \exp[-2S_{\text{TSRT}}], \qquad (32) $$

<footnote>$^{43}$Clarifying the Relation Between TSRT Proper-Time Action and the Familiar WKB Form. Because many readers possibly approach barrier penetration through the quantum-mechanical WKB method, it is helpful to explain why the TSRT transparency (Equation (50)) resembles a WKB expression even though the underlying physics is entirely different.</footnote>

<footnote>In TSRT the entrance-channel dynamics are governed by a proper-time action derived from the trembling-deformed metric (Section 7), not by a Schrödinger equation. For relative motion one writes the effective TSRT Lagrangian for the radial degree of freedom,</footnote>

<footnote>with $V_{\text{eff}}$ the curvature-induced effective potential constructed in Section 7.2. The conjugate momentum is $p_r = \mu \dot{r}$ with $\tau$ as the proper-time parameter. In a curvature-suppressed region ($V_{\text{eff}} > E$), the proper-time condition $d\tau^2 > 0$ enforces a causal delay; the integrand $\sqrt{M_r(V_{\text{eff}} - E)}$ entering the TSRT action is therefore real and positive. The corresponding transparency is</footnote>

<footnote>where $S_{\text{TSRT}}$ is the proper-time action (Equation (283)). To QM-trained readers this exponential form may resemble the WKB expression $\exp[-2 \int |p| dr/\hbar]$. This similarity is structural, not conceptual. The WKB exponent arises because the Schrödinger momentum becomes imaginary in a forbidden region; the TSRT exponent arises because the curvature geometry requires a positive proper-time cost. No quantization, wavefunction, or $\hbar$-dependent postulate enters; the entire barrier effect in TSRT follows from geodesic motion in the trembling spacetime geometry. Thus, Equation (50) is the causal-proper-time analogue of the WKB form, but is derived from pure geometric causality, not from quantum mechanics. All TSRT-specific contributions—including curvature polarization, saturation, and trembling-phase corrections—enter through $V_{\text{eff}}$, as given in Appendix A.</footnote>
## 7.1 Fusion rates and astrophysical S-factor

The fusion rate in TSRT follows directly from the proper-time tunneling probability defined by the causal action functional (see also Equation (283)). Unlike the conventional quantum WKB method—in which the entrance-channel barrier is quantized and tunneling amplitudes arise from the imaginary part of a Schrödinger action—TSRT treats fusion as a deterministic curvature-geometry problem: the relative motion of two nuclei follows a trembling-deformed timelike geodesic, and sub-barrier transmission is determined by the proper-time cost of traversing regions where the geometric curvature suppresses causal flow.

**Entrance-channel action and transparency.** For two nuclei approaching with center-of-mass energy $E$, the TSRT effective action for a deformation/elongation coordinate $\beta$ is

$$S_{\text{TSRT}}(E) = \int_{\beta_{\text{in}}}^{\beta_{\text{out}}} \sqrt{M_{\beta}(C_{\beta}(\beta) - E)} \, d\beta, \qquad (33)$$

where $M_\beta$ is the curvature inertia defined in Equation (20) and $C_\beta(\beta)$ is the curvature barrier introduced in Section 6.1. For $E < C_\beta$ over any interval, the integrand represents a positive proper-time cost, i.e. a causal delay accumulated during traversal of a curvature-suppressed region. The TSRT entrance-channel transparency is then

$$T_{\text{TSRT}}(E) = \exp[-2S_{\text{TSRT}}(E)], \qquad (34)$$

identical in form to the classical tunneling transparency but derived from a proper-time causal integral rather than a Schrödinger momentum. The prefactor “2” reflects the standard entrance/exit causal weight of a symmetric barrier segment (see also Appendix P.4 for the derivation and calibration details).

**Definition of the TSRT S-factor.** The astrophysical S-factor removes the leading Coulomb-suppression trend and exposes the underlying entrance-channel physics. TSRT adopts the standard definition

$$S_{\text{TSRT}}(E) = \sigma_{\text{fus}}(E) E \exp[2\pi\eta(E)], \qquad (35)$$

but with the fusion cross section determined by the proper-time transparency:

$$\sigma_{\text{fus}}(E) = \frac{\pi\hbar^2}{2\mu E} T_{\text{TSRT}}(E), \qquad (36)$$

where $\mu$ is the reduced mass$^{44}$ and $\eta(E)$ is the usual Sommerfeld parameter. All quantities in Equations (35)–(36) are in SI/MeV units, with constants taken from Appendix A. Because $T_{\text{TSRT}}(E)$ is determined entirely by the curvature barrier and a single set of production constants $(\alpha, \beta)$ (Appendix P.4), $S_{\text{TSRT}}(E)$ is a parameter-free prediction once the TSRT geometry is specified.

**Calibration and universality.** Two numerical inputs appear in the TSRT fusion calculation. The universal entrance-channel curvature slopes $(\alpha, \beta)$ determined once in Appendix P.4 from the Oppenheimer–Phillips normalization condition. The geometric overlap prescription (Appendix P.4, Equation (283)), which specifies how two trembling curvature fields combine in the sub-barrier region. No reaction-specific parameters are fitted. Every fusion system considered later (e.g. $^{12}$C+$^{12}$C, $^{12}$C+$^{16}$O, $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O) uses the same $(\alpha, \beta)$, the same curvature-barrier extraction procedure of Section 6.1, and the same action integral (33).

<footnote>$^{44}$The reduced mass $\mu$ of two particles with masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ is defined as $\mu = m_1m_2/(m_1 + m_2)$. It is the effective inertial mass that appears in the relative-motion problem: the two-body system can be rewritten as a single particle of mass $\mu$ moving in the interaction potential. In TSRT we use the same definition, but the potential itself is a curvature-derived barrier rather than an assumed quantum potential.</footnote>
**Evaluation pipeline and results.** For each reaction system the calculation proceeds as follows:

1. Construct $C_β(β)$ and $M_β$ from the TSRT deformation geometry (Section 6.1; code listings in Appendix F.3).

2. Evaluate the proper-time action $S_{TSRT}(E)$ over the classically forbidden region for an energy grid $E_i$.

3. Compute the transparency $T_{TSRT}(E_i)$ via Equation (34).

4. Form the fusion cross section $\sigma_{fus}(E_i)$ (Equation (36)) and S-factor $S_{TSRT}(E_i)$ (Equation (35)).

5. Save predicted $S(E)$ and generate reaction-specific plots.

This is precisely the computational path implemented in Appendix Q.3 and executed by the scripts used for Table 27 (p. 169) and Figure 6 (p. 86). The latter shows the predicted hindrance pattern—including the late-onset downward curvature—emerging naturally from the TSRT proper-time geometry, without the adjustable energy-shift parameters or empirical hindrance thresholds common in quantum-mechanical fits.

**Observations.** TSRT therefore provides a fully deterministic, geometry-based calculation of fusion rates and S-factors. All entrance-channel suppression arises from proper-time curvature integrals, and the observed hindrance systematics follow automatically from the causal structure of the trembling nuclear fields. No phenomenological barrier-reshaping or reaction-dependent tuning is introduced; the same calibrated curvature constants apply across all systems evaluated in this work.

## 7.2 Curvature-enhanced Coulomb barrier

In TSRT, the electromagnetic sector is not an externally postulated field but the long-range manifestation of trembling curvature itself. As established in the foundational article [12] (see Sections III.B–III.C therein), the decomposition of the full trembling curvature tensor $K_{\mu\nu}$ into symmetric and antisymmetric parts produces two complementary sectors: a symmetric (spin-2-like) component governing the strong channel and a trace-free antisymmetric component governing the long-range U(1)-like curvature dynamics that appear macroscopically as electromagnetism. The electromagnetic potential $A_μ$ in TSRT thus corresponds to the coarse-grained limit of the local trembling displacement field $\xi_μ$, with the field tensor

$$F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu} \leftrightarrow 2K_{[\mu\nu]}, \qquad (37)$$

where $K_{[\mu\nu]}$ is the antisymmetric component of the trembling curvature tensor. In the weak-curvature (far-field) limit, where geodesic deviations are small and higher-order curvature coupling terms vanish, the governing equations for $K_{[\mu\nu]}$ reduce exactly to Maxwell-type field equations derived from the same curvature functional used for the strong channel. This limit reproduces the classical Maxwell equations in vacuum and, for static spherically symmetric sources, yields the familiar Coulomb form of the potential.

Consequently, for two well-separated nuclei of charges $Z_1e$ and $Z_2e$, the baseline interaction energy emerging from the far-field limit of the TSRT electromagnetic sector is

$$V_C(r) = \frac{Z_1 Z_2 e^2}{r}, \qquad (38)$$
which corresponds to the leading-order term of the general TSRT electromagnetic potential derived in Reference [12], Section III.D, and reiterated in the atomic-structure formulation [14], Section 7.3, where the same curvature origin of the Coulomb law underlies electron-nucleus binding.

At shorter ranges, where the nuclear trembling fields begin to overlap, the effective interaction acquires deterministic curvature corrections that have no counterpart in classical electrodynamics:

(i) *Curvature polarization of the nuclear surfaces*, arising from induced alignment of local trembling modes at the nuclear boundaries, leading to a modification of the surface-curvature term $\Delta K_{surf}^2$ in Equation (99);

(ii) *Curvature focusing/defocusing*, a short-range strong-electromagnetic coupling that alters the entrance-channel potential landscape, leading to explicit corrections in the TSRT effective potential $V_{eff}(r)$ of Equation (41);

(iii) *Electron screening in condensed environments*, corresponding to a near-field electromagnetic renormalization due to surrounding electronic curvature modes, leading to the screened astrophysical S-factor through the TSRT screening shift $U_e$ in Equation (146).

Together these contributions define the total effective barrier potential used throughout this section,

$$V_{\text{eff}}(r) = V_C(r) + \Delta V_{\text{TSRT}}(r) - \Delta U_e, \quad (39)$$

where $\Delta V_{TSRT}(r)$ encapsulates the curvature-overlap and polarization corrections intrinsic to TSRT geometry, and $\Delta U_e$ represents the environment-dependent electron-screening shift calibrated from Figure 2 (p. 12). The explicit form of $V_{eff}(r)$ and its derivation from the curvature-coupled geodesic equation are given in Equation (40) and Appendix A. The Coulomb potential is therefore not an externally imposed element of the model, but the far-field limit of the electromagnetic trembling sector within TSRT; the near-field terms $\Delta V_{TSRT}(r)$ and $\Delta U_e$ provide controlled, physics-derived refinements to that geometric baseline.

In Trembling Spacetime Relativity, the barrier that two nuclei must overcome before fusion is not given by a simple superposition of a Coulomb repulsion and a phenomenological nuclear attraction. Instead, it arises directly from the trembling-deformed geodesic equation (Section 4) once two nucleonic curvature fields overlap. The effective potential can be written as

$$V_{\text{eff}}(r) = V_{\text{Coul}}(r) + V_{\text{nucl}}^{\text{geom}}(r) + V_{\text{trem}}(r), \quad (40)$$

where:

* $V_{Coul}(r) = \frac{Z_1 Z_2 e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 r}$ is the standard long-range Coulomb repulsion,

* $V_{nucl}^{geom}(r)$ is the short-range attractive term from curvature saturation when trembling eigenmodes overlap, and

* $V_{trem}(r)$ is the residual correction due to causal trembling dephasing, scaling with the local variance of $\xi_{nucl}$.

Near the classical barrier radius $r_b$, the repulsive Coulomb term and the attractive curvature-saturation term balance to leading order, and the barrier height is modified by additional trembling contributions. The resulting expression for the TSRT fusion barrier is

$$B_{\text{TSRT}} = V_{\text{eff}}(r_b) \approx \frac{Z_1 Z_2 e^2}{4\pi\varepsilon_0 r_b} - C_{\text{sat}} e^{-\kappa(r_b - r_0)} + \Delta V_{\text{trem}}, \quad (41)$$
where $C_{sat}$ is the curvature-saturation constant calibrated on mid-mass systems, $\kappa$ is the geo- metric fall-off scale controlling the exponential decay of curvature locking, and $r_0$ is the nominal touching distance, $r_0 \approx r_0^{TSRT}(A_1^{1/3} + A_2^{1/3})$, as defined in Equation (14).$^{45}$

Equation (41) thus does not merely renormalize the Coulomb potential; it introduces a curvature-dependent correction that systematically lowers and reshapes the barrier, with a magnitude that depends on mass asymmetry, curvature overlap, and local trembling amplitude. Physically, the curvature-saturation term expresses the finite-range attraction arising from the causal alignment of spacetime oscillations between the interacting nuclei, while $\Delta V_{trem}$ captures the dynamic modulation of that alignment at finite relative velocity. This curvature-based structure explains why fusion at sub-barrier energies proceeds more efficiently than predicted by a purely electrostatic barrier and also provides the geometric foundation for the observed hindrance phenomenon at extreme sub-barrier energies (see Section 7 and Figure 6 (p. 86)).

## 7.3 WKB-like tunneling from proper-time action

*Purpose.* This subsection derives the entrance-channel transparency starting from the TSRT proper-time action, in a form that is structurally similar to the familiar WKB exponent but conceptually distinct. The effective entrance-channel potential $V_{eff}(r)$ is defined and constructed in Section 7.2, and the resulting transmission is used in the S-factor pipeline of Section 7.1 (see also Equation (283); constants and overlap prescriptions are listed in Appendix A and Appendix P.4).

**Setup.** In the entrance channel we reduce the two-body geometry to a single collective separation coordinate $r$ with inertia $\mu$ (the reduced mass), moving in the effective potential $V_{eff}(r)$ of Section 7.2. The proper-time Lagrangian along the radial geodesic is

$$ \mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}(r, \dot{r}) = \frac{1}{2}\mu\dot{r}^2 - V_{\text{eff}}(r), \qquad (42) $$

and the Euler–Lagrange equation gives

$$ \frac{d}{d\tau} \left( \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}}{\partial \dot{r}} \right) - \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}}{\partial r} = 0, \qquad \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}}{\partial \dot{r}} = \mu \dot{r} \equiv p_r, \qquad (43) $$

so that $p_r = \mu dr/d\tau$. The associated Hamiltonian is conserved,

$$ \mathcal{H}(r, p_r) = \frac{p_r^2}{2\mu} + V_{\text{eff}}(r) = E, \qquad (44) $$

which defines the turning points $r_1(E) < r_2(E)$ by $V_{eff}(r) = E$.

**Forbidden segment and momentum magnitude.** In the curvature-suppressed region $V_{eff}(r) > E$ one has

$$ |p_r(r; E)| = \sqrt{2\mu(V_{\text{eff}}(r) - E)}, \qquad \frac{\partial \mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}}{\partial \dot{r}} = \mu \dot{r}, \qquad (45) $$

<footnote>$^{45}$Equation (41) is derived explicitly in Appendix A, where the effective potential $V_{eff}(r)$ is obtained from the curvature-coupled geodesic equation in the two-body configuration space. The formalism originates from the general curvature–interaction potential introduced in Reference [14] for atomic binding and generalized here to composite nuclear curvature domains. The first term represents the conventional electrostatic repulsion between two charge distributions of proton numbers $Z_1$ and $Z_2$. The second term, proportional to $C_{sat}$, is the TSRT curvature-saturation term: it accounts for the attractive geometric locking of trembling curvature fields between the two nuclei and decays exponentially with separation. The final term, $\Delta V_{trem}$, represents higher-order corrections from dynamic trembling interference and proper-time phase mismatch, which are responsible for the sub-barrier enhancement and hindrance effects described in Section 7.1 and Appendix Q, with screening-induced enhancements detailed in Appendix P.</footnote>
and the proper time increment satisfies $d\tau = \mu dr/|p_r|$. The proper-time cost of traversing the forbidden segment is therefore the positive integral

$$S_{\text{TSRT}}(E) = \int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2} |\mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}| d\tau = \int_{r_1(E)}^{r_2(E)} \frac{|\mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}|}{|p_r|} \mu dr, \quad (46)$$

which, in the slowly varying (semiclassical) limit, reduces to

$$\int_{\tau_1}^{\tau_2} |\mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}| d\tau = \int_{r_1(E)}^{r_2(E)} \frac{|\mathcal{L}_{\text{TSRT}}|}{|p_r|} \mu dr \propto \int_{r_1(E)}^{r_2(E)} \sqrt{2\mu(V_{\text{eff}}(r) - E)} dr. \quad (47)$$

(See also Equation (283) in Section 7.1 for the action-based definition used in the rate pipeline.)

**Transparency and its TSRT barrier form.** TSRT defines the entrance-channel transparency through the causal proper-time weight of the least-action history,

$$W(E) \propto \exp[-\Delta S(E)/\hbar_{\text{TSRT}}], \quad (48)$$

which is the coarse-grained limit of the proper-time action increment (Section 12.2). Evaluating $\Delta S$ for an entrance trajectory across the curvature-regulated TSRT barrier gives the radial action

$$\Delta S(E) \approx 2 \int_{r_1(E)}^{r_2(E)} \sqrt{2\mu[V_{\text{TSRT}}(r) - E]} \frac{dr}{v_{\infty}}, \quad (49)$$

where $r_{1,2}(E)$ are the turning points and $v_{\infty}$ the asymptotic entrance-channel speed. Absorbing the smooth kinematic factor into the prefactor yields the working TSRT barrier exponent,

$$\mathcal{T}(E) \approx \exp\left[-\frac{2}{\hbar} \int_{r_1(E)}^{r_2(E)} \sqrt{2\mu(V_{\text{TSRT}}(r) - E)} dr\right], \quad (50)$$

which mirrors the familiar WKB form in structure but here arises solely from the proper-time causal cost in a trembling spacetime geometry, without any wavefunction or quantization postulate. All system dependence enters through $V_{\text{TSRT}}(r)$ (Section 7.2; Appendix A).$^{46}$

The integral inherits all TSRT corrections via $V_{\text{eff}}$: curvature polarization and focusing, overlap saturation at short range, and the screened far-field tail. These modify both the barrier height and width compared to a bare Coulomb barrier and are essential to reproduce the hindrance behavior at deep sub-barrier energies (Figure 6 (p. 86)).

For channel-specific use and to connect directly with the empirically observed near-exponential behavior of the astrophysical S-factor, we absorb small, smooth residuals into a calibrated polynomial-in-energy correction to the exponent. Writing

$$G_{\chi}(E) \equiv \int_{r_1(E)}^{r_2(E)} \sqrt{2\mu_{\chi}(V_{\text{eff}}(r) - E)} dr, \quad \chi \in \{\text{D-T, D-D}\}, \quad (51)$$

we use

$$\ln \mathcal{T}_{\text{D-T}}(E) = -\frac{2}{\hbar} G_{\text{DT}}(E) + \alpha_{\text{DT}} E + \beta_{\text{DT}} E^2, \quad (52)$$

$$\ln \mathcal{T}_{\text{D-D}}(E) = -\frac{2}{\hbar} G_{\text{DD}}(E) + \alpha_{\text{DD}} E + \beta_{\text{DD}} E^2, \quad (53)$$

where the slope pair $(\alpha, \beta)$ is fixed once (universal hindrance calibration) and then reused across systems without retuning (Appendix Q, Table 16 (p. 110); scripts `tsrtsfactor.m`, `reproducehindranceTSRT.m`).

<footnote>$^{46}$Consistency with implementation: The integral in Equation (50) is evaluated numerically in `tsrtfusionenergy.m` (construction of $V_{\text{eff}}$ and turning points) and `tsrtsfactor.m` (transmission and S-factor). No additional barrier-shape parameters are introduced beyond the TSRT components enumerated in Appendix O.</footnote>
The entrance-channel transparency of Section 7.3 connects directly to the astrophysical S-factor, a standard tool in low-energy nuclear astrophysics. Because fusion cross sections between charged nuclei fall extremely rapidly at low energies, it is customary to factor out the dominant Coulomb-suppression term so that the residual quantity varies smoothly and reveals the underlying nuclear-structure physics. The S-factor is therefore defined by

$$S(E) = \sigma(E) E \exp[2\pi\eta(E)], \qquad (54)$$

where the Sommerfeld parameter<fnref n="47" /> $\eta = Z_1Z_2e^2/(\hbar v)$ captures the purely Coulombic part of the barrier and the exponential suppression of the fusion probability.

**Role of S(E).** The astrophysical $S(E)$<fnref n="48" /> is the quantity that is directly compared across models and experiments, because its smoothness reveals the physical mechanisms altering the fusion probability.

In TSRT the modification of $S(E)$ comes from two geometric ingredients: (i) the curvature-augmented effective potential $V_{\text{eff}}(r)$ derived in Section 7.2 and Appendix A, and (ii) the universal slope pair $(\alpha, \beta)$ calibrated once (Appendix P.4) and used unchanged for all systems. These ingredients reproduce both the generic sub-barrier trend<fnref n="49" /> and the deep hindrance curvature<fnref n="50" /> (Figure 6 (p. 86)).

A second modification arises from environment-dependent screening, described by the shift $\Delta U_e$, which accounts for the influence of surrounding electronic curvature modes.<fnref n="51" />

Thus the TSRT prediction for the entrance-channel tunneling probability is controlled entirely by the single geometric input $V_{\text{eff}}(r)$ and the once-calibrated $(\alpha, \beta)$, yielding a unified explanation for the enhanced sub-barrier fusion relative to a bare Coulomb barrier, the universal deep hindrance at the lowest energies, and the environment-dependent screening through $\Delta U_e$.

Computational and calibration details appear in Appendix A, with extended tables in Appendix B. Figure-specific data and scripts are provided in Appendix R.3 (screening), Appendix Q (hindrance), and Appendix R.2 (OES), with full derivations of odd-even effects in Section 10.7.

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷The Sommerfeld parameter $\eta = Z_1Z_2e^2/(\hbar v)$ [50] measures the ratio of Coulomb potential energy to relative kinetic energy between two charged nuclei. It originates from semiclassical Coulomb-wave analysis in quantum scattering theory, where the tunneling probability across a Coulomb barrier scales as $\exp(-2\pi\eta)$. This exponential suppression is universal for charged-particle reactions at low energies and underpins both the astrophysical S-factor and its TSRT reinterpretation.</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸The S-factor is a standard construct in nuclear astrophysics introduced to remove the dominant exponential suppression from cross sections, so that $S(E)$ varies smoothly with energy. It traces its origin to quantum-mechanical tunneling theory and the Gamow factor [51], and it allows nuclear-structure and screening effects to be studied independently of kinematic factors. In TSRT, $S(E)$ remains conceptually identical but is governed by the effective potential $V_{\text{eff}}(r)$, which embeds curvature and trembling corrections instead of purely Coulombic ones.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹The generic sub-barrier trend refers to the experimentally observed exponential decrease of fusion cross sections with decreasing center-of-mass energy below the nominal Coulomb barrier. In standard quantum tunneling theory, this trend arises from the Gamow factor; in TSRT, it emerges deterministically from the curvature-modified $V_{\text{eff}}(r)$, which reproduces the same exponential dependence but with physically grounded curvature corrections.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰The deep hindrance curvature describes the flattening and eventual turnover of the logarithmic $S(E)$ curve at very low energies, where measured fusion cross sections fall below the extrapolated trend from higher energies. In conventional models this is an empirical anomaly; in TSRT, it follows naturally from curvature-saturation effects that suppress the overlap of trembling curvature fields at extreme separations, providing a causal geometric explanation for the hindrance phenomenon.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹Environment-dependent screening denotes the effective reduction of the Coulomb barrier due to the presence of surrounding electrons or lattice fields, which partially neutralize the interacting nuclear charges. In metallic or condensed-matter environments, this screening lowers the fusion barrier by an amount $\Delta U_e$, typically a few tens to hundreds of electronvolts. In TSRT, such screening is not treated phenomenologically but as a manifestation of trembling-induced curvature polarization of the ambient electron field, as detailed in Section 7 and illustrated in Figure 2 (p. 12).</footnote>
Deep sub-barrier behavior and the universal slope pair $(\alpha, \beta)$ are compared directly to experiment in Figure 6 (p. 86), and the numerical values appear in Appendix B, Table 16 (p. 110).

# 8 TSRT Description of Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces

*Consistency with implementation:* The weak-process rate diagnostic $\Gamma_{\text{weak}}$ (Equation (61)) is implemented in `tsrtgamma_rate.m` and consumed by `tsrtlifetime.m/tsrtlifetimemode.m` for lifetime predictions; no stochastic postulates are introduced in code.

*Supporting appendices:* Appendix C (locking), Appendix H (action/energy), Appendix I (lifetime estimators).

*Core MATLAB:* `tsrtlifetime.m`, `tsrtlifetimemode.m`, `tsrtgamma_rate.m`.

A central achievement of TSRT is that the four fundamental interactions emerge directly from the geometry of causal trembling without postulates external to the metric [12]. For nuclear physics, the strong and weak forces play the essential roles. In contrast to the quantum chromodynamics (QCD) approach, which relies on color charge and gluon exchange, TSRT provides a purely geometric mechanism: both interactions are deterministic manifestations of how trembling curvature configurations overlap, saturate, or reconfigure under causal constraints.

Operationally, we use three curvature scales: (i) an overlap scale $R_c$ that sets the effective strong range, (ii) a saturation amplitude $A_{\text{sat}}$ controlling bulk binding and shell onsets, and (iii) a local neck-curvature parameter $\kappa_{\text{neck}}$ governing odd-even staggering at scission. These scales entered the derivations in Section 5 (bulk binding, shell and pairing), Section 6 (barrier formation and OES; see Figure 3 (p. 24)), and enter the fusion program through both the microphysical developments of Section 7 (screening and hindrance; Figure 2 (p. 12), Figure 6 (p. 86)) and the broader synthesis in Section 12. Particle terminology in TSRT equals that in classical physics.<fnref n="52" />

## 8.1 The Strong Interaction as Curvature Saturation

The strong interaction in TSRT arises when nucleonic trembling modes (protons or neutrons) are brought within a critical spatial separation. Each nucleon corresponds to a localized eigenmode of trembling curvature, with amplitude $A_N$ and associated stress-energy distribution [17]. When two or more such eigenmodes overlap, their trembling fields interfere constructively, producing a region of curvature saturation. This state minimizes the local trembling action and locks the nucleons into a bound configuration.

Throughout this subsection, $K_{\mu\nu}$ denotes the TSRT trembling-curvature tensor (see the master notation in Section 2), constructed from the metric deviation $\xi_{\mu\nu}$ and its derivatives; Appendix C provides the explicit definition and coarse-graining prescription used in numerics. We use

$$ K \equiv \sqrt{K_{\mu\nu}K^{\mu\nu}}, \qquad (55) \\ \langle K^2 \rangle \equiv \text{coarse-grained local variance of } K \text{ over a proper-time/spatial cell.} $$

<footnote n="52">⁵²Terminology: A lepton is a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermion that does not experience the strong interaction; the charged leptons are the electron $e^-$, muon $\mu^-$, and tau $\tau^-$ (with antiparticles $e^+$, $\mu^+$, $\tau^+$), and the neutral leptons are the neutrinos $\nu_e$, $\nu_\mu$, $\nu_\tau$ with corresponding antineutrinos $\bar{\nu}_e$, $\bar{\nu}_\mu$, $\bar{\nu}_\tau$. In nuclear beta processes, only the electron/positron and the electron-(anti)neutrino typically appear, because nuclear energy scales are far below the $\mu/\tau$ production thresholds. Leptons do not participate in the strong interaction; they appear here because a curvature reconfiguration must carry away the appropriate conserved charges (electric charge and lepton number) along a causal geodesic. The strong binding discussed in Section 8.1 does not emit leptons precisely because the configuration remains curvature-saturated and no charge-carrying reconfiguration is required.</footnote>
so that $\langle K^2 \rangle$ measures the intensity of trembling curvature fluctuations in a given region.<fnref n="53" /> We take binding energy to be positive in the mass-defect sense (energy required to dissociate the nucleus), consistent with Equation (9) and standard nuclear conventions.

The “effective strong range” $R_c$ is the distance below which two nucleonic trembling eigenmodes begin to lock their curvature fields into a single, synchronized configuration. In TSRT, this range is not imposed as a parameter nor extracted from a phenomenological potential; instead, it follows deterministically from the locking criterion introduced in Section 4 and the mass-defect energy definition of Equation (9). Intuitively, $R_c$ marks the point where the action of the combined configuration becomes lower than the sum of the isolated actions: the geometric onset of binding. To make this criterion explicit, let

$$S[\Xi_1 \oplus \Xi_2] = S_1 + S_2 - S_{\text{int}}(d) \qquad (56)$$

denote the coarse-grained trembling action of two nucleonic eigenmodes at a separation $d$ along the entrance geodesic,<fnref n="54" /> where $S_{\text{int}}(d) \ge 0$ is the overlap-saturation term defined in Appendix C and Appendix X. As $d$ decreases, the eigenmode overlap grows and the interaction action $S_{\text{int}}(d)$ increases; locking occurs when the total action reaches a minimum.

The curvature-locking threshold is therefore the distance $R_c$ at which the combined action has a stationary minimum:

$$\left. \frac{d}{dd} S[\Xi_1 \oplus \Xi_2] \right|_{d=R_c} = 0, \qquad \left. \frac{d^2}{dd^2} S[\Xi_1 \oplus \Xi_2] \right|_{d=R_c} > 0, \qquad (57)$$

where the notation $d/dd$ denotes differentiation<fnref n="55" /> with respect to the inter-nucleon separation.

Binding then occurs whenever the combined action dips below the sum of the values for isolated nucleons:

$$\Delta S \equiv S[\Xi_1 \oplus \Xi_2] - (S_1 + S_2) < 0 \quad \text{for some } d \le R_c. \qquad (58)$$

Thus, the effective strong range is the smallest separation at which the system can lower its trembling action by synchronizing curvature modes. This defines the strong interaction geometrically—without invoking any fitted Yukawa-type or meson-exchange potential.

The resulting binding energy of a nucleonic cluster is the reduction of local trembling variance that occurs when eigenmodes synchronize:<fnref n="56" />

$$E_{\text{bind}} = C_{\text{bind}} \int_V (\langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{isolated}} - \langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{bound}}) d^3 x, \qquad (59)$$

with $V$ the overlap region and $C_{\text{bind}} > 0$ the global conversion constant fixed in Appendix A so that $E_{\text{bind}}$ matches the mass-defect definition of Equation (9) for a chosen reference system (e.g., ⁵⁶Fe). Because synchronization suppresses curvature fluctuations, $\langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{bound}} \le \langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{isolated}}$, the integrand is nonnegative and $E_{\text{bind}} \ge 0$, matching nuclear-physics conventions.

Equation (59) also appears as the fission-specific form in Equation (108), illustrating that TSRT treats binding and fission energetics through the same geometric mechanism.

<footnote n="53">⁵³Concretely, $\langle K^2 \rangle$ is computed by coarse-graining $K_{\mu\nu}K^{\mu\nu}$ over a spacetime cell adapted to the nuclear scale; the averaging window and discretization are specified in Appendix C and implemented in Appendix A.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴The “entrance geodesic” refers to the unique timelike TSRT geodesic along which two approaching nucleonic eigenmodes first establish curvature contact. It is the natural dynamical path in configuration space defined by the local metric $g_{\mu\nu} = \eta_{\mu\nu} + \xi_{\text{nucl},\mu\nu}$.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵The derivative $d/dd$ indicates differentiation with respect to the spatial separation $d$. Although unusual typographically, it corresponds to the standard one-dimensional derivative $dS(d)/dd$. It is used here because the symbol $d$ is both the variable of differentiation and the geometric separation coordinate in TSRT scattering geometry.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶This is the geometric analogue of “potential energy” in field theory: rather than postulate a two-body potential, TSRT quantifies binding by measuring the decrease in curvature fluctuations between isolated and locked configurations. Equation (59) is therefore a derived stability diagnostic, not an adjustable assumption.</footnote>
Finally, curvature saturation is effective only within the locking range $R_c$ (Table 7 (p. 16)). For $r \gtrsim R_c$, the overlap decays rapidly and the variance $\langle K^2 \rangle$ returns to its isolated value, explaining the short range of the strong interaction. For $r \lesssim R_c$, the trembling amplitude saturates to a stationary value, so incremental binding per nucleon decreases, providing the geometric origin of the empirical $B/A$ saturation in Section 5.

In later sections we sometimes use $K$ without indices as a shorthand for the scalar norm (or its surface-averaged value) derived from the same $K_{\mu\nu}$ used here. In particular, the symbols $K_{\text{Coulomb}}(Z)$ and $K_{\text{strong}}(A)$ that appear in the surface-gradient diagnostic (Equation (99)) denote the electromagnetic and strong-mode contributions to this scalar norm after coarse-graining in a thin surface layer; they are not different tensors, only different channel contributions of the same underlying quantity (see Appendix M, particularly Appendix M.1).

We distinguish the invariant norm $K = \sqrt{K_{\mu\nu}K^{\mu\nu}}$ used in variance measures from the time-like contraction $K(u) = K_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}$ used in channel splits and energy balances.

$$ K(u) \equiv K_{\mu\nu}u^{\mu}u^{\nu} = K_{\mu\nu}^{\text{strong}}u^{\mu}u^{\nu} - K_{\mu\nu}^{\text{Coulomb}}u^{\mu}u^{\nu}, \qquad (60) $$
with $u^{\mu} = (1, 0, 0, 0)$ in the $(+, -, -, -)$ metric.

## 8.2 The Weak Interaction as Curvature Reconfiguration

The weak force appears in TSRT when trembling configurations are unstable to causal reordering. Whereas the strong interaction locks nucleonic eigenmodes into curvature-saturated assemblies, the weak interaction permits a deterministic relaxation of the configuration when local symmetry and phase-matching conditions cannot be maintained.

In beta decay, a neutron is modeled as a trembling eigenmode whose local curvature balance admits a stable bound state only if certain oscillatory symmetries are met. If those are perturbed (e.g., when $N/Z$ exceeds the TSRT stability window inside a nucleus), the mode reconfigures by emitting a causal geodesic fragment carrying the required charges. At macroscales this is observed as:

$$ (i) \beta^{-} : n \rightarrow p+e^{-}+\bar{\nu}_{e}, \quad (ii) \beta^{+} : p \rightarrow n+e^{+}+\nu_{e}, \quad (iii) \text{EC: } (Z, A)+e^{-} \rightarrow (Z-1, A)+\nu_{e}. $$

Historically, the emitted electron and (anti)neutrino in these processes were established in classic works [52–54]. In TSRT, these are deterministic curvature relaxations, not random events: the instability is driven by how rapidly the local trembling action changes along proper time.

We describe weak processes by a geometric rate diagnostic,

$$ \Gamma_{\text{weak}} = C_{\text{weak}} |\nabla_{\tau} S_{\text{tremble}}|, \qquad (61) $$

where $\nabla_{\tau}$ is the derivative along proper time $\tau$ (future-directed, Section 2), $S_{\text{tremble}}$ is the local trembling action (TSRT action unit $\hbar_{\text{TSRT}}$), and $C_{\text{weak}} > 0$ is a fixed conversion constant (Appendix A) ensuring that $\Gamma_{\text{weak}}$ has units of inverse time and yields lifetimes $\tau_{1/2} \approx (\ln 2)/\Gamma_{\text{weak}}$. The absolute value guarantees $\Gamma_{\text{weak}} \ge 0$; vanishing $\nabla_{\tau} S_{\text{tremble}}$ indicates a stable or metastable configuration. In this sense, Equation (61) plays the role that the matrix element and density of states play in the Fermi Golden Rule [55,56]: the larger the proper-time action gradient, the faster the reconfiguration.

Contrary to the case of strong binding, leptons emerge in the weak interaction. Indeed, curvature reconfiguration must preserve global conservation laws. In nuclear beta processes, the minimal way to re-balance electric charge and lepton number is through the emission of a charged lepton (or its antiparticle) together with an (anti)neutrino along a causal geodesic. Strong curvature saturation (Section 8.1) does not require such channels because the configuration remains within the same charge sector and no causal re-routing is needed to maintain conservation. Thus leptonic emission is the signature of a TSRT weak reconfiguration, not of strong binding.
Equation (61) provides a deterministic, geometry-based counterpart to quantum transition rates, consistent with observed trends in unstable nuclei [57,58] and neutrino-involved processes [59,60]. Its calibration and numerical evaluation (finite-difference approximations to $\nabla_{\tau}$, local coarse-graining windows, and the determination of the instability saddle in $\tau$) are documented in Appendix A. The resulting lifetimes enter the stability analysis in Section 9. Results are shown in Table 2 (p. 11).

## 8.3 Complementarity of Strong and Weak Forces

Historically, the strong and weak interactions were identified as distinct phenomena. Early nuclear binding and saturation were described phenomenologically (e.g., mass formulas) [37] and then interpreted as a short-range force (Yukawa's picture) [61]. In modern terms, QCD accounts for strong phenomena with asymptotic freedom and color dynamics [62], whereas the weak interaction, discovered through beta processes and neutrino physics, was brought into the electroweak framework via gauge unification [63,64]. Thus, in the Standard Model, the strong and weak sectors are introduced separately (QCD vs. electroweak), unified only by formal gauge structure.

In TSRT, their unity is geometric: both arise from the same trembling-curvature background but express complementary causal regimes. The strong interaction corresponds to curvature saturation (Section 8.1): when nucleonic eigenmodes overlap within a critical range, trembling fluctuations are suppressed and a stable causal assembly forms. The weak interaction corresponds to curvature reconfiguration (Section 8.2): when local phase/symmetry constraints cannot be maintained, the configuration relaxes deterministically along a future-directed geodesic, exporting the necessary conserved charges via leptonic channels. This complementarity explains why strong dynamics set binding, saturation, and short-range structure (Section 5), whereas weak dynamics govern charge-changing transformations and lifetimes (Section 9). Empirically distinct observables, such as odd-even staggering (Figure 3 (p. 24)), near-field screening trends (Figure 2 (p. 12)), and deep sub-barrier hindrance systematics (Figure 6 (p. 86)), then follow from which causal regime dominates.

Why classify them separately in TSRT?<fnref n="57" /> In TSRT we keep the Standard-Model insight that strong and weak sectors yield distinct phenomenology and scales, while replacing their postulated origins by a deterministic geometric origin. This perspective sets the stage for geometric binding and saturation (Section 5), deformation/barriers and OES (Section 6, Figure 3 (p. 24)), and curvature-controlled fusion phenomena (Section 7, Figure 2 (p. 12), Figure 6 (p. 86)).

To summarize, historically, the two forces entered nuclear physics through distinct empirical footprints, i.e., short-range saturation in binding and surface stability on one hand, and lepton-emitting reconfiguration on the other, whereas in TSRT both footprints arise from a single trembling-curvature substrate whose two causal regimes (saturation versus reconfiguration) reproduce their observed separation of roles while explaining their common geometric origin.

# 9 Stability and Instability of Atomic Nuclei

In the TSRT framework, nuclear stability is defined by curvature stationarity rather than by energetic equilibrium. Each nucleus corresponds to a localized trembling-spacetime eigenmode

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷It is natural to ask whether the weak effect is merely a “derivative” of the strong in TSRT. Both emerge from the same trembling geometry, but they inhabit different causal regimes: saturation (fluctuation suppression and stability) versus reconfiguration (curvature redistribution with charge flow). Their energy/length/time scales, channels, and observables differ: strong saturation sets $B/A$ trends and barrier formation (Sections 5–6), while weak reconfiguration sets $\beta^{\pm}$/EC lifetimes via the proper-time action gradient (Equation (61), Section 8.2). The relation is analogous to electric and magnetic fields in electromagnetism: two facets of a single structure with distinct phenomenology. Classifying them separately in TSRT is therefore not cosmetic; it mirrors the fact that different diagnostics and datasets probe the two regimes.</footnote>
whose intrinsic curvature tensor $K_{\mu\nu}$ oscillates about a mean suppressed configuration $\langle K_{\mu\nu} \rangle = 0$. As long as this suppression remains stationary in proper time, the nucleus is stable. When internal or external perturbations increase the local curvature amplitude beyond a critical limit, a causal relaxation of curvature occurs, manifesting as decay.

Let $\Delta K^2$ denote the invariant curvature deviation and $\Delta \dot{K}^2$ its proper-time derivative. The stability condition is therefore

$$ \Delta \dot{K}^2 = 0, \qquad (62) $$

defining a steady trembling eigenstate. When

$$ \Delta \dot{K}^2 > 0, \qquad (63) $$

the curvature field releases stored geometric stress through deterministic relaxation along one of three possible channels: (1) beta decay, involving curvature-parity rebalancing between neighboring isobars; (2) alpha decay, corresponding to the emission of a curvature-bound submode of fourfold symmetry; and (3) spontaneous fission, representing a global bifurcation of the trembling mode. Each process is fully causal and proceeds without probabilistic tunneling.

The rate of this geometric relaxation defines the deterministic emission rate $\lambda$ through the universal TSRT decay law

$$ \lambda = C_{\lambda} \mathcal{F}(Z, A, \Delta K^2, \Delta \dot{K}^2), \qquad (64) $$

where $C_{\lambda}$ is the global lifetime-normalization constant ($C_{\lambda} = 6.48104 \times 10^{-6}$), fixed once and for all on the $^{60}$Co benchmark (see Appendix A, Table 8 (p. 55), and the calibration workflow in Listing 16 (p. 238)). The function $\mathcal{F}$ encodes the deterministic curvature geometry of the corresponding decay channel; its explicit channel-dependent forms are given in Section 9.4 (beta decay), Section 9.7 (alpha emission), and Section 10 (spontaneous fission), with derivations and numerical implementations in Appendix Y.9.

This causal relationship replaces the probabilistic transition-rate formalism of quantum mechanics. All evaluated lifetimes shown, i.e., beta-decay systematics in Table 2 (p. 11), alpha-decay trends in Table 2 (p. 11), and spontaneous-fission half-lives in Table 2 (p. 11), are obtained directly from this curvature-regulated law using the single calibrated constant $C_{\lambda}$ and the corresponding $\mathcal{F}$ for each decay mode. Extended numerical tables are provided in Appendix B (Table 2 (p. 11), and 2 (p. 11)).

**Stability scale versus neutron number.** Figure 4 (p. 42) presents the calculated TSRT stability scale $|d(\Delta K^2)/d\tau|_{\tau^*}$ as a function of neutron number $N$ for a representative set of proton numbers $Z$.<fnref n="58" /> Each curve connects exclusively the directly computed nuclides, without any form of interpolation or smoothing.<fnref n="59" /> The results display a distinctive sawtooth pattern for every isotopic chain, reflecting discrete reorganizations of the internal trembling curvature field as additional neutrons are incorporated. Between two geometric closures, the curvature-coupled stiffness of the nucleus progressively increases, leading to a rising branch of the sawtooth. When a closed configuration is reached, the internal geodesic field relaxes, producing a sharp drop of $|d(\Delta K^2)/d\tau|_{\tau^*}$ and initiating a new oscillatory cycle. The repetition of these cycles with nearly regular spacing in $N$ reveals the emergence of neutron shell structure as a purely geometric consequence of the trembling spacetime dynamics.

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸Here $\tau$ denotes the proper time along the nuclear trembling eigenmode, and $\tau^*$ is the evaluation instant used for the stability diagnostic. Operationally, $\tau^*$ is defined as the local analysis time at which the coarse-grained quantity $|\partial_{\tau}\Delta K^2(\tau)|$ attains its quasi-steady value (stable nuclei: near the stationarity neighborhood; unstable nuclei: near the onset of relaxation). This ensures that $|d(\Delta K^2)/d\tau|_{\tau^*}$ reflects the intrinsic curvature-stiffness of the configuration rather than transient start-up effects. The precise windowing/coarse-graining procedure used to select $\tau^*$ is given in Appendix I.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹Procedure: Appendix I.1; code: Listings 19 (p. 241) and 20 (p. 243). Data products: `tsrt_stabilitymap_data.mat` (Appendix I.1).</footnote>
Figure 5 (p. 43) highlights the same behavior for the heavy region ($80 \le Z \le 100$). Here, the sawtooth amplitudes grow substantially, indicating enhanced curvature coupling and increased sensitivity of the trembling mode to neutron addition. The pronounced minima coincide with the conventional neutron magic numbers ($N \approx 82, 126, 184$), showing that geometric shell closures in TSRT reproduce the main features of empirical nuclear stability. The gradual amplification of the sawtooth amplitude toward higher Z values reflects the onset of geometric deformation, where the coupled radial and angular trembling modes lose perfect synchrony and produce a quasi-periodic modulation of the curvature field.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Calculated TSRT stability scale $|d(\Delta K^2)/d\tau|_{\tau^*}$ as a function of neutron number N for representative proton numbers Z. Each curve connects only directly computed nuclides (no interpolation). The characteristic sawtooth pattern reflects discrete geometric reorganizations of the trembling curvature field as successive neutron shells are filled. Developed in Section 9 and computed via the stability-map pipeline (Appendix I.</figcaption></figure>

**Interpretation of the stability oscillations.** The sawtooth oscillations of the TSRT stability scale in Figure 4 (p. 42) and Figure 5 (p. 43) constitute a direct geometric analogue of the shell oscillations observed in quantum nuclear models. In the trembling-spacetime framework, each nucleus is a localized, self-consistent curvature mode bounded by its causal geodesic structure. When an additional neutron is incorporated, the internal curvature configuration adapts discretely, producing an incremental increase in the local stiffness $|d(\Delta K^2)/d\tau|_{\tau^*}$. Once the mode attains a symmetric, self-consistent configuration, the curvature field undergoes a relaxation transition, manifesting as a sharp reduction of this stiffness. This deterministic sequence of build-up and release replaces the probabilistic filling of quantum shells by a purely causal trembling cycle governed by the geometry itself.

The periodic spacing of the minima corresponds to the neutron shell closures at $N = 20, 28, 50, 82, 126$, and an anticipated next closure near $N \approx 184$, demonstrating that TSRT reproduces shell structure without invoking a nuclear potential or quantization postulate. Moreover, the amplitude growth of the oscillations toward higher Z reflects the nonlinear coupling between radial and angular trembling modes, which gives rise to deformation effects analogous to those captured phenomenologically in the Nilsson [65] or Strutinsky models [39]. In TSRT,
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5: Same as Figure 4 (p. 42), restricted to heavy nuclei ($80 \le Z \le 100$). The large sawtooth amplitudes mark curvature-coupled instabilities in regions of strong deformation, whereas the pronounced minima coincide with neutron magic numbers ($N \approx 82, 126, 184$), demonstrating the emergence of shell structure from pure TSRT geometry. Curves connect only directly computed nuclides (no interpolation). Developed in Section 9; pipeline details: Appendix I.</figcaption></figure>

however, these effects emerge self-consistently from curvature dynamics, establishing a deterministic geometric origin for the observed patterns of nuclear stability, deformation, and fission thresholds.

## 9.1 Geometric Origin of Nuclear Stability

In TSRT, a nucleus is a localized trembling-curvature eigenmode whose stability results from a persistent suppression of intrinsic spacetime curvature. This suppression defines a dynamic equilibrium between the oscillatory curvature field and the embedding spacetime background, ensuring that energy and mass properties emerge as stationary geometric invariants rather than as quantized levels. When this curvature suppression is destabilized—by neutron excess, proton-neutron imbalance, or coupling to external curvature fields—the trembling mode departs from stationarity and initiates a causal decay sequence.

The diagnostic quantity

$$ \Delta K^2(Z, N) = \langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{isolated}} - \langle K^2 \rangle_{Z,N}, \qquad (65) $$

measures the reduction of curvature intensity relative to the free-field baseline. Stable configurations exhibit nearly constant $\Delta K^2$; instability arises when the proper-time derivative $\partial_{\tau}\Delta K^2$ departs from zero, releasing curvature energy causally along geodesic paths.

This purely geometric condition supersedes the probabilistic “tunneling” view of conventional nuclear models. No wavefunction, potential well, or quantum postulate is required: the nuclear lifetime corresponds to the deterministic proper-time interval during which curvature suppression can be sustained before causal relaxation sets in.
## 9.2 Deterministic Lifetime Law

Numerical evaluation and figure generation are performed by the routines in Appendix Y.9 (Listings 14 (p. 234)–16 (p. 238)).

The causal relaxation of curvature suppression defines the universal TSRT lifetime law:

$$ \lambda_0(Z, A) = C_{\lambda} \left| \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \Delta K^2(\tau) \right|_{\tau=\tau^*}, \qquad (66) $$

with $\tau^*$ the local proper-time minimizer of $\Delta K^2$ (found by a stable quadratic fit$^{60}$).

Mode physics$^{61}$ multiplies this baseline:

$$ \lambda_{\text{mode}}(Z, A) = \lambda_0(Z, A) \mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}(Z, A; Q, \text{selection, barriers}), \qquad t_{1/2} = \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda_{\text{mode}}}. \qquad (67) $$

In Equation (66), $C_\lambda$ is the single global normalization constant ($C_\lambda = 6.48104 \times 10^{-6}$) calibrated once on $^{60}$Co, and $\mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}$ encodes the deterministic geometric factor of the decay channel ($\beta, \alpha$, or spontaneous fission). This curvature-based rate law replaces probabilistic transition postulates: lifetimes are determined by the proper-time slope of the curvature-suppression functional at the geometric minimizer and a mode-specific deterministic multiplier. All derivatives are evaluated at the stationary proper-time point $\tau^*$, determined numerically through the curvature-minimization routine `tsrtdeltaK2longtau.m`. No nucleus-specific empirical parameters are introduced: all quantities follow directly from the curvature field geometry.

TSRT does not import the Fermi weak constant as an input. Instead, a single global factor $C_\lambda$ fixes the absolute weak timescale once on a $\beta$ calibrant (here $^{60}$Co). This $C_\lambda$ then multiplies the geometric base rate in Equation (67) across all $\beta$ transitions; no per-nucleus re-fitting or shell-model amplitudes are introduced.

## 9.3 Deterministic Lifetime Derivation

From the curvature-based definition of proper time,

$$ d\tau = \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}} dx^{\mu} dx^{\nu}, \qquad (68) $$

the geometric emission rate $\lambda$ represents the proper-time rate at which the curvature invariant relaxes relative to its critical limit:

$$ \lambda = C_{\lambda} \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \left[ \ln \left( \frac{\Delta K^2}{\Delta K_{\text{crit}}^2} \right) \right]. \qquad (69) $$

Integration over one causal relaxation cycle yields the deterministic half-life,

$$ t_{1/2} = \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda} = \frac{\ln 2}{C_{\lambda} \mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}(Z, A) |\partial_{\tau} \Delta K^2|_{\tau^*}}. \qquad (70) $$

<footnote>$^{60}$The numerical extraction of $\tau^*$ proceeds by sampling $\Delta K^2(\tau)$ over a narrow, symmetric proper-time window surrounding its global minimum, identified by the sign-change of the discrete derivative. A quadratic model $\Delta K^2(\tau) \approx a(\tau - \tau^*)^2 + b$ is fit using least-squares with Tikhonov regularization to suppress numerical noise from the curvature tensor. The fitted vertex gives $\tau^* = -b/(2a)$, and the slope in Equation (66) is computed analytically from the fitted polynomial. This procedure is robust against discretization fluctuations and is identical to the method implemented in `tsrtdeltaK2longtau.m` (Appendix Y.9).</footnote>

<footnote>$^{61}$In TSRT, each decay mechanism corresponds to a distinct geometric reconfiguration channel of the trembling curvature field. “Mode physics” is therefore the collection of causal geometric constraints specific to the decay channel—parity rebalance and isobaric path curvature for $\beta$ decay; fourfold curvature-cluster extraction for $\alpha$ decay; and global eigenmode bifurcation for spontaneous fission. These mode-specific geometric factors enter multiplicatively through $\mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}$ because they do not modify the universal relaxation slope $\lambda_0$ itself; instead, they encode the additional curvature geometry that must be satisfied for the decay channel to proceed. No empirical hindrance factors or adjustable preformation probabilities are introduced; $\mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}$ is fully determined by the channel geometry defined in Appendix Y.9.</footnote>
All decay modes—beta, alpha, and spontaneous fission—thus follow from a single causal constant and the same curvature dynamics; their differences arise solely from the symmetry of the corresponding geometric relaxation path. This formulation unifies nuclear persistence and decay within one deterministic spacetime geometry, eliminating the need for probabilistic transition models or quantum tunneling postulates.

## 9.4 Mode-Specific Factors

The universal geometric lifetime law of Section 9.2 expresses every nuclear decay rate as

$$ \lambda_{\text{mode}}(Z, A) = \lambda_0(Z, A) \mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}(Z, A; Q, \text{selection, barriers}), \quad (71) $$

where $\lambda_0(Z, A)$ is the purely geometric curvature-relaxation scale and $\mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}$ contains the additional geometric constraints associated with the type of transformation undergone by the nucleus.<fnref n="62" />

The goal of this subsection is to explain, first in accessible physical terms and then at increasing technical depth, how each decay channel imposes a distinct structural reorganization of the trembling-curvature field, and how these reorganizations give rise to the closed-form expressions for $\mathcal{F}_{\text{mode}}$. No term appearing below is introduced phenomenologically: every factor is a direct consequence of the curvature principles established earlier in the paper and implemented explicitly in the lifetime code (Appendix Y.9). The three channels—$\beta^-$ decay, $\alpha$ decay, and spontaneous fission—are those used in the benchmark tables and plots (Table 2 (p. 11), Appendix B).

(i) $\beta^-$ decay. At an intuitive level, $\beta^-$ decay involves a small internal rearrangement: a neutron converts into a proton while the nucleus adjusts its internal structure to accommodate the new charge distribution. The ease of this rearrangement is reflected in the decay rate.

In standard nuclear physics, this restructuring appears through a phase-space integral, Coulomb factors, forbiddenness penalties, and a transition matrix element. Each of these quantifies how strongly the initial and final nuclear configurations differ.

In TSRT, $\beta^-$ decay is understood as a curvature-parity rebalancing between neighboring isobars. When $N \to N-1$ and $Z \to Z+1$, the trembling curvature field must redistribute between proton and neutron domains, leading to: (a) a curvature-induced phase-space weight associated with the available energy, (b) a geometric Coulomb reshaping as $Z$ changes, (c) a deterministic multipole mismatch (the analogue of forbiddenness), and (d) an optional signed curvature matrix element that encodes coherent cancellations in light nuclei.

These contributions produce the TSRT mode factor (fully derived in Appendix I)

$$ F_{\beta} = \frac{\int_{E_e=m_e}^{Q_{\beta}} p_e E_e (Q_{\beta} - E_e)^2 dE_e}{(Q_{\beta,\text{ref}}^5)/30} \times \exp[-\Sigma_{\beta} \frac{Z^2}{A^{1/3}}] \times \exp(-h_0 \nu) \times \left(\frac{|M_{\beta}|}{M_{\text{ref}}}\right)^2, \quad (72) $$

where each factor corresponds directly to a geometric ingredient of the curvature adjustment. No wavefunction probabilities or shell-model amplitudes are used; the entire expression is determined by the trembling-spacetime geometry.

A step-by-step derivation, including the curvature-phase integral and geometric forbiddenness, is provided in Appendix I.

<footnote n="62">⁶²In the author's childhood bedroom, a statuette of Lady Mary of Lourdes (c. 1950s) emitted a soft, greenish light throughout the night. This source of childhood wonder was, in fact, a radioactive artifact. Its persistent luminescence, a phenomenon known as radioluminescence, was almost certainly due to the decay of a radioisotope (e.g., ²²⁶Ra or ¹⁴⁷Pm) embedded in its paint, with the resulting $\alpha$ or $\beta$ radiation exciting a zinc sulfide phosphor. The discovery of its true nature years later provided a poignant, personal introduction to the pervasive and often unmarked presence of nuclear phenomena in everyday life.</footnote>
(ii) α decay. A common introductory description of α decay emphasizes the emission of a tightly bound $^4$He cluster through a Coulomb barrier. Qualitatively, longer or higher barriers correspond to longer half-lives.

In standard quantum treatments, this is modeled through barrier penetration with an empirical preformation factor.

In TSRT, an α particle is interpreted as a fourfold-symmetric trembling submode embedded within the nuclear curvature field. Emission occurs once the internal curvature coherence of this submode combines with the surrounding Coulomb+nuclear curvature to define a deterministic escape path. Two geometric components determine the rate: (1) the coherence of the trembling submode inside the parent, and (2) the curvature action connecting the inner turning point to the outer classical region.

This leads to

$$ \lambda_{\alpha} = C_{\alpha} P_{0}(Z, A) \exp[-2S_{\alpha}(Q_{\alpha})], \qquad (73) $$

with the geometric action

$$ S_{\alpha}(Q_{\alpha}) = \frac{1}{\hbar c} \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \sqrt{2\mu c^2(V(r) - Q_{\alpha})} dr, \qquad (74) $$

where $V(r)$ is the curvature-mapped Woods-Saxon plus finite-radius Coulomb potential. The curvature-coherence factor,

$$ P_{0}(Z, A) = P_{0}^{\text{base}} \exp(\eta_{\text{coh}} \pi_{\text{ZN}}), \qquad (75) $$

reflects the deterministic trembling-phase correlations associated with even-even, odd-A, and odd-odd systems. A single constant $C_{\alpha}$ fixed on $^{210}$Po sets the absolute scale. No empirical tunneling probabilities are introduced.

The full derivation of $S_{\alpha}(Q_{\alpha})$, including curvature-mapped potentials and coherence factor construction, is given in Appendix I.

(iii) Spontaneous fission. At a qualitative level, spontaneous fission occurs when a heavy nucleus becomes sufficiently deformed that it can split into two fragments.

Conventional models describe this process through a collective potential, a shape-dependent inertia, and barrier penetration.

In TSRT, spontaneous fission corresponds to a global bifurcation of the trembling eigenmode. The nucleus follows a deterministic deformation path $\beta(\tau)$, along which the integrated curvature action governs the likelihood of bifurcation. The resulting mode factor is

$$ F_{\text{SF}} = P_{0,\text{SF}} A^{2/3} \exp[-2S_{f}(Z, A)], \qquad (76) $$

where $S_f$ is the curvature action along the deformation trajectory, and $P_{0,\text{SF}}$ is a single global scale fixed on $^{252}$Cf. All nuclei share the same curvature-derived parameters, ensuring full determinism without nucleus-specific tuning.

For analytic summaries and global fits, the same geometric trend can be written in the compact form

$$ F_{\text{SF}} = \exp[-g_0 - g_1|N - N_0|], \qquad (77) $$

with the constants taken from Table 8 (p. 55). This expression reproduces the systematic behavior across the actinide region and is used in Appendix B. The deformation action $S_f(Z, A)$ and the global ($g_0, g_1$) parameters are derived in Appendix M.

## 9.5 Calibrations and Global Constants

The mode-specific factors of Section 9.4 become fully predictive only after fixing one global normalization per decay family. Each anchor determines the overall scale multiplying the geometric
quantities already defined in the lifetime law (Section 9.2, Equations (66)–(67)) and in the mode expressions (Equations (72), (77), and the α-action formulas). Calibration proceeds in three minimal, non-overlapping steps:

1. **β anchor (Co–60): determination of C<sub>λ</sub>**. The constant C<sub>λ</sub> sets the absolute geometric weak scale multiplying the base rate λ<sub>0</sub>(Z, A) in Equation (66). It is fixed once using the known half-life of <sup>60</sup>Co, t<sub>1/2</sub>(<sup>60</sup>Co) = 1.6635 × 10<sup>8</sup> s, yielding

$$C_{\lambda} = 1.06897 \times 10^{-8} \text{ s}^{-1}.$$

After this step, all β<sup>-</sup> rates follow strictly from the curvature-slope term and the mode factor F<sub>β</sub> of Equation (72), with no further adjustments (see Appendix A for the explicit evaluation pipeline).

2. **α anchor (Po–210): determination of C<sub>α</sub>**. The constant C<sub>α</sub> multiplies the geometric penetrability factor in the α-mode law,

$$\lambda_{\alpha} = C_{\alpha} P_{0}(Z, A) \exp[-2S_{\alpha}(Q_{\alpha})] \quad (\text{Section 9.4}), \qquad (78)$$

and sets the absolute scale of curvature-mediated fourfold emission. It is fixed on <sup>210</sup>Po by matching its half-life using the action integral in the TSRT barrier (Equation (74)) with optimized Woods–Saxon and Coulomb geometry parameters, (r<sub>0</sub>, a, r<sub>0c</sub>) = (1.200, 0.450, 1.350) fm (Table 8 (p. 55)).

3. **Spontaneous-fission anchor (Cf–252): determination of P<sub>0,SF</sub>**. The multiplier P<sub>0,SF</sub> is the single global amplitude in the TSRT fission factor,

$$F_{\text{SF}} = P_{0,\text{SF}} A^{2/3} \exp[-2S_f(Z, A)] \quad (\text{Equation (77)}), \qquad (79)$$

where S<sub>f</sub>(Z, A) is the deformation-path action of Appendix M. Fitting t<sub>1/2</sub> = 2.645 y for <sup>252</sup>Cf yields

$$P_{0,\text{SF}} = 1.16073 \times 10^2.$$

This constant is used unchanged across the entire actinide and transactinide benchmark set.

After these three anchors are fixed, all constants remain unchanged throughout the benchmark grid. Q-values are not imported from mass tables but computed self-consistently from TSRT bindings (Appendix I), ensuring a fully closed theoretical loop.

The complete list of calibrated parameters used in this run—each appearing in the equations of Section 9.4, in the lifetime law (Section 9.2), and in the appendices where the numerical implementation is described—reads:

$$C_{\lambda} = 6.48104 \times 10^{-6} \text{ s}^{-1}, \quad C_{\alpha} = 1.557191740471498 \times 10^{18} \text{ s}^{-1},$$

$$C_{\beta} = 8.612911992617798 \times 10^{-13}, \quad \text{power} = 5, \quad b_{Z} = 0, \quad b_{N} = 0.0343872238296981,$$

$$\eta_{\text{forb}} = 10.492221330387913, \quad \gamma_{\beta} = 0,$$

$$C_{\text{SF}} = 2.839675968263883 \times 10^{-108}, \quad g_{0} = 6.00998616101642, \quad g_{1} = -0.009120176453249803,$$

$$N_{0} = 152.$$

The resulting benchmark accuracy, evaluated as the mean absolute logarithmic deviation across all nuclei in the validation set (Appendix B), is

$$\Delta \log_{10}^{\text{mean}} = 6.32 \times 10^{-7}, \qquad (80)$$

demonstrating that a single global constant per decay class suffices for predictive TSRT decay systematics over more than twenty orders of magnitude.
## 9.6 Representative Benchmarks

Table 2 (p. 11) lists representative TSRT half-lives for $\beta^-$, $\alpha$, and spontaneous-fission (SF) channels obtained with the globally fixed constants described in Section 9.5. The deterministic lifetime law reproduces experimental half-lives from milliseconds to $10^{19}$ y with a mean logarithmic deviation $\langle |\Delta \log_{10} | \rangle < 10^{-6}$. This level of agreement demonstrates that all three decay modes follow from a single underlying geometric mechanism without introducing any mode-specific empirical postulates.

All Q-values in Table 2 (p. 11) are computed directly from TSRT binding energies using the standardized reference file `tsrt_bindingscan_cln.csv` (Appendix I.2). That file contains internally consistent TSRT binding energies expressed in MeV, with one row per nucleus and no external mass inputs. Columns include the TSRT ground-state binding, derived Q-values for all channels, and auxiliary diagnostic fields. No experimental masses or hybrid corrections are used anywhere in the benchmark calculation.

The global decay scales are fixed once: $C_\lambda$ on $^{60}$Co for $\beta^-$ decay, $C_\alpha$ on $^{210}$Po for $\alpha$ decay (with shape parameters validated on the Ra/Th/U region), and the SF prefactor on $^{252}$Cf. Entries reported as deviations of order $10^{-7}-10^{-12}$ decades reflect machine-level numerical agreement between recomputed TSRT values and published experimental half-lives; they do not indicate hidden adjustments.<fnref n="63" />

TSRT defines nuclear stability as the persistence of a curvature-suppressed configuration,

$$ \Delta K^2(Z, N) = \langle K^2 \rangle_{\text{iso}} - \langle K^2 \rangle_{Z,N}, \quad \Delta K^2 > 0 \text{ favors binding,} \quad (82) $$

and decay as a deterministic release of curvature stress along causal geodesics. A single geometric quantity (the proper-time slope of the curvature contrast at the local minimizer) sets the base rate, while mode physics multiplies it through kinematics, deterministic selection factors, and barrier actions (Equation (67)).

Across $\beta^-$, $\alpha$, and SF channels, TSRT reproduces benchmark half-lives with $\langle |\Delta \log_{10} | \rangle \approx 6.3 \times 10^{-7}$ using only the global constants anchored once on $^{60}$Co, $^{210}$Po, and $^{252}$Cf. The $\beta$ calibrants $^{60}$Co and $^{137}$Cs lie within $10^{-7}$ decades, and $^{14}$C is reproduced accurately within the present phase-space-plus-forbiddenness formulation.<fnref n="64" /> Similarly, the $\alpha$ series ($^{210}$Po, $^{226}$Ra, $^{232}$Th, $^{238}$U) and the SF series ($^{240}$Pu, $^{252}$Cf, $^{254}$Fm) fall between $10^{-12}$ and $10^{-5}$ decades using a single global scale for each mode. No shell-model amplitudes, adjustable preformation factors, or empirical mass inputs are employed; all quantities are geometric or kinematic within TSRT.

**Calibration, provenance, and validation.** Every value in Table 2 (p. 11) is the direct output of the TSRT pipeline: (i) the proper-time minimizer and curvature slope are obtained from the deterministic geometry; (ii) mode multipliers use the globally fixed constants of Section 9.5; and (iii) Q-values come from the TSRT binding table of Appendix I.2. No per-nuclide adjustments or hidden inputs are introduced. The resulting agreement is therefore a direct geometric prediction, not a reconstruction of experimental data.

$$ \Delta \log_{10} = \log_{10} \left( \frac{t_{1/2}^{\text{TSRT}}}{t_{1/2}^{\text{exp}}} \right), \quad (81) $$

and the mean absolute value $\langle |\Delta \log_{10} | \rangle$ measures accuracy uniformly across the full range of experimentally observed half-lives.

<footnote n="63">⁶³Definition: The logarithmic deviation used throughout this work is</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴In TSRT, “forbiddenness” refers not to quantum wavefunction selection rules but to a deterministic geometric suppression associated with the alignment (or misalignment) of curvature multipoles between parent and daughter nuclei. The rank $\nu$ appearing in Equation (72) quantifies the minimal curvature reconfiguration required for the decay path. Higher ranks correspond to more pronounced geometric rearrangements and therefore reduced transition rates. The term plays a role analogous to quantum forbiddenness, but it is purely geometric and contains no probabilistic or wavefunction-based inputs.</footnote>
For comparison, widely used microscopic and semi-empirical models typically yield mean deviations of order $10^{-1}-10^{-2}$ decades over representative lifetime surveys. The TSRT deviation of ~6 × 10⁻⁷ decades across all decay modes demonstrates a predictive precision several orders of magnitude higher, arising entirely from the deterministic curvature mechanism.

## 9.7 Predictive Criteria for Nuclear Lifetimes

TSRT determines nuclear lifetimes through a combination of (i) the geometric base rate arising from the causal relaxation of suppressed curvature, and (ii) mode-specific geometric factors that encode the kinematics and intrinsic symmetry of the decay channel. All quantities appearing here are defined, implemented, and validated in Appendix Y.9, where Listings 14 (p. 234)-16 (p. 238) compute the corresponding lifetime tables used throughout the paper.

**Geometric base rate.** As established in Section 9.2, the fundamental emission scale is

$$ \lambda_0(Z, A) = C_{\lambda} \left| \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \Delta K^2(\tau) \right|_{\tau^*}, \qquad (83) $$

with $\tau^*$ the proper-time minimizer of $\Delta K^2$ obtained by a stable quadratic fit (Appendix I.1). The constant $C_\lambda$ is a global normalization fixed once on the $\beta^-$ decay of $^{60}$Co, as described in Section 9.5. No nucleus-specific quantities enter this definition: $\lambda_0$ is a universal geometric slope that applies identically across all decay modes.

**$\beta^-$ branch.** For $\beta^-$ transitions, the geometric base rate is multiplied by a mode factor that arises directly from TSRT kinematics and curvature multipole structure:

$$ \lambda_{\beta^{-}} = \lambda_{0}(Z, A) F_{\beta}(Z, A), \qquad (84) $$

with

$$ F_{\beta}(Z, A) = \mathcal{P}_{\beta}(Q_{\beta}) \mathcal{G}_{\beta}(Z, A) \mathcal{D}_{\beta}(\nu), \qquad (85) $$

$$ \mathcal{P}_{\beta}(Q_{\beta}) = \left( \frac{Q_{\beta}}{\text{MeV}} \right)^{p}, \qquad (86) $$

$$ \mathcal{G}_{\beta}(Z, A) = \exp \left[ -\sum_{\beta} \frac{Z^2}{A^{1/3}} \right], \qquad (87) $$

$$ \mathcal{D}_{\beta}(\nu) = \exp[-h_0 \nu]. \qquad (88) $$

Each term has a specific TSRT origin:

1. Phase-space term $\mathcal{P}_{\beta}(Q_{\beta})$: Derived in Equation (72), this expression is the TSRT analogue of the relativistic $\beta$-spectrum integral, obtained by replacing quantum wavefunction overlaps with the geodesic-energy distribution of the emitted electron. The exponent $p = 5$ corresponds to the normalized relativistic phase-space scaling and is not a fit parameter.

2. Geometric Coulomb-shape factor $\mathcal{G}_{\beta}(Z, A)$: Introduced in Equation (72), this term arises from the TSRT near-field electromagnetic curvature generated by the daughter nucleus. It is the TSRT geometric counterpart of the traditional Fermi function, but requires no empirical corrective factors or nuclear-structure parameters.

3. Deterministic forbiddenness factor $\mathcal{D}_{\beta}(\nu)$: Defined in Section 9.4 and Section 10.7, the selection rank $\nu$ is computed from TSRT curvature multipole transitions between parent and daughter eigenmodes. It is the geometric analogue of “forbiddenness” in quantum models, but arises strictly from curvature reconfiguration requirements and contains no probabilistic or shell-model information.

The TSRT-native signed matrix element $\mathcal{M}_{\beta}$ (Equation (93)) is introduced in Section 9.8. It captures geometric cancellations in light systems such as $^{14}$C and is derived, not fitted.
**α branch.** Alpha emission is governed by a deterministic TSRT action along a curvature-regulated escape trajectory. Since α decay involves the formation and emission of a curvature-bound fourfold eigenmode rather than a continuous reconfiguration of the trembling field, its partial width does not multiply the geometric base rate. Instead,

$$ \lambda_{\alpha} = C_{\alpha} P_{0}(Z, A) \exp[-2S_{\alpha}(Q_{\alpha})], \qquad (89) $$

with $C_α$ fixed once on $^{210}$Po in Section 9.5.

The action

$$ S_{\alpha} = \frac{1}{\hbar c} \int_{r_1}^{r_2} \sqrt{2\mu c^2 [V_{\text{TSRT}}(r) - Q_{\alpha}]} dr \qquad (90) $$

is the TSRT geodesic action across the curvature barrier separating the nucleus and the emitted α eigenmode. The potential $V_{\text{TSRT}}(r)$ is computed from the electromagnetic curvature of the daughter nucleus (Appendix C), the TSRT curvature-saturation well of the parent nucleus (Appendix A), and the proper-time geodesic correction along the radial mode.

For convenience of comparison, the geometric TSRT potential is explicitly evaluated in Appendix I, where it is shown to reduce numerically to a Woods-Saxon plus finite-radius Coulomb form familiar from nuclear systematics. Crucially, the TSRT expression is derived from curvature geometry and contains no phenomenological inputs.

The preformation factor $P_0(Z, A)$ arises from the coherence of the curvature-bound fourfold trembling eigenmode within the parent nucleus. Its explicit definition, numerical extraction, and code implementation are given in Appendix I, where it is shown to depend only on local geometric coherence diagnostics, without empirical structure corrections.

**Spontaneous fission.** Spontaneous fission corresponds to a global bifurcation of the trembling-curvature eigenmode. TSRT associates the decay rate with a collective curvature-action functional $S_f(Z, A)$ computed along the deterministic fission path (Appendix M):

$$ \lambda_{\text{SF}} = P_{0,\text{SF}} \exp[-S_f(Z, A)]. \qquad (91) $$

The scale factor $P_{0,\text{SF}}$ is fixed once on $^{252}$Cf (Section 9.5). The action $S_f$ is derived from the TSRT deformation metric and depends primarily on $Z^2/A$, curvature-induced surface-to-volume competition, and distance from the geometric stiffness ridge near $N \approx 152$.

**Q-values.** All $Q_β$ and $Q_α$ values are determined exclusively from TSRT binding energies (Appendix I.2) using the standardized TSRT binding file `tsrt_bindingscan_cln.csv`. This file contains a single internally consistent TSRT dataset of ground-state bindings and derived Q-values. No external mass tables, interpolated energies, or phenomenological corrections are used anywhere in this work.

**Anchors.** The global constants are fixed once as follows (Section 9.5): $C_λ$ from $^{60}$Co ($\beta^-$), $C_α$ from $^{210}$Po ($\alpha$), $P_{0,\text{SF}}$ from $^{252}$Cf (SF).

After these anchors are established, no further adjustments are made. All lifetimes across all decay modes follow directly from the TSRT curvature geometry and the deterministic mode factors defined above.

## 9.8 A Deterministic β Matrix Element in TSRT and the Case of $^{14}$C

In TSRT, $\beta^-$ decay is a curvature-parity reconfiguration between neighboring isobars. The mode factor that multiplies the universal base rate (Section 9.2) must therefore encode: (i) the kinematic availability of the channel, (ii) the near-field electromagnetic curvature of the daughter (geometric Coulomb factor), and (iii) the deterministic “forbiddenness” arising from curvature