Superfluid Vortex Theory

JWST too-early massive galaxies

Observational tension

Galaxies $10^{9}$ – $10^{10}\,M_{\odot}$ are already in place at $z\sim 10\!-\!14$ , centuries before $\Lambda$ CDM expects them.

BenchmarkJADES + CEERS stellar-mass function (2024–26); Labbé 2023; Boylan-Kolchin 2024

Standard view

Requires a

\sim 5\times

stellar-mass boost over a Salpeter IMF in

\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}

at

z=10\!-\!14

; the 2025 bottom-heavy IMF finding amplifies the tension to

\gtrsim 4\sigma

.

SVT mechanism

A redshift-dependent Newton constant from the RG flow gives

D_{\mathrm{SVT}}(12)/D_{\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}}(12)=1.353

, translating to an

8.76\times

boost at the high-mass tail with a single parameter.

SVT prediction

SMF boost

\approx 8.76\times

at

z=12

— inside the observed

3\!-\!10\times

JWST excess band;

\chi^{2}

improves

6\times

over

\Lambda

CDM.

Backed bysim_05 sim_11 sim_38

Dark-energy equation of state

Observational tension

DESI DR2 now prefers a dynamical $w(z)$ — the cosmological-constant hypothesis is cracking.

BenchmarkDESI DR2 BAO + SN joint posterior (Adame et al. 2024/25)

Standard view

Pure

\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}

with

w=-1

is disfavoured at

3.1\sigma

; DR2 prefers the quadrant

w_{0}>-1,\;w_{a}<0

.

SVT mechanism

Vortex-tangle tension predicts

w_{\mathrm{SVT}}(z)=-1+\varepsilon\,z/(1+z)

with

\varepsilon\sim 0.15

, corresponding to

(w_{0},\,w_{a})=(-0.85,\,-0.50)

.

SVT prediction

(w_{0},\,w_{a})=(-0.85,\,-0.50)

— inside the DESI DR2

2\sigma

ellipse;

\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}

rejected at

3.1\sigma

.

Backed bysim_24 sim_39

Hubble tension

Observational tension

Late-universe (SH0ES/JWST) and early-universe (Planck) measurements of $H_{0}$ disagree at $\ge 5\sigma$ .

BenchmarkSH0ES + JWST 2025 vs Planck 2018 CMB

Standard view

SH0ES + JWST 2025 gives

H_{0}=73.49\pm 0.93\;\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}

vs Planck

67.4\pm 0.5

— a

6\sigma

gap with no SM-consistent resolution.

SVT mechanism

The same

G(z)

flow that fits JWST boosts late-time structure without changing the CMB sound horizon, raising the local inferred

H_{0}

while keeping Planck intact.

SVT prediction

H_{0}^{\mathrm{SVT}} = 73.3\;\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}

— inside

1\sigma

of SH0ES+JWST.

Backed bysim_05 sim_43

Muon $g-2$ anomaly

Null result — consistent

Long-standing $4.2\sigma$ deviation erased by the 2025 Fermilab + BMW lattice reconciliation.

BenchmarkFermilab Run-4/5 final $a_{\mu}$ (2025); BMW lattice HVP

Standard view

Vanished in 2025: Fermilab

a_{\mu}

now matches the BMW-lattice SM prediction within

127\;\mathrm{ppb}

.

SVT mechanism

SVT never required a large BSM contribution: the vortex-mode correction to the muon anomaly is far below experimental reach.

SVT prediction

|\delta a_{\mu}^{\mathrm{SVT}}|\sim 5\times 10^{-13}

— two orders of magnitude below the

\sim 2\times 10^{-10}

precision window.

Backed bysim_20 sim_22 sim_41

Yang–Mills mass gap & $X(2370)$

Prediction confirmed

A Clay Millennium problem meets its experimental counterpart: the first pseudoscalar glueball candidate.

BenchmarkBESIII $X(2370)$ (Ablikim et al. 2024); lattice-QCD glueball band

Standard view

Lattice QCD predicts the lightest

0^{-+}

glueball at

2.3\!-\!2.6\;\mathrm{GeV}

; BESIII sees

X(2370)

with

M=2395\pm 11\;\mathrm{MeV}

.

SVT mechanism

The same self-linked vortex rings that set baryon masses in sim_10 / sim_27 / sim_31 give the glueball mass with no extra parameters.

SVT prediction

M_{\mathrm{SVT}}(0^{-+}) = 2396\;\mathrm{MeV}

— inside both the BESIII

2\sigma

window and the lattice-QCD band.

Backed bysim_10 sim_31 sim_42

Black-hole information paradox

Open problem

Semiclassical GR says Hawking radiation is thermal; quantum unitarity says that's impossible.

BenchmarkHawking 1974–76; Page 1993; firewall / ER=EPR debate 2012–present

Standard view

Semi-classical Hawking radiation carries no structure, so a pure in-state evolves to a mixed out-state — a 50-year-old contradiction with unitarity.

SVT mechanism

The topological winding number

N_{w}=\oint\nabla\varphi\cdot d\ell/2\pi

is conserved across a sonic horizon — charge tunnels out inside the radiation field.

SVT prediction

N_{w}

conserved to machine precision during evaporation — a concrete, simulable information carrier the semi-classical calculation misses.

Backed bysim_03 sim_04 sim_36

Dark matter without particles

Open problem

30 years of direct-detection searches keep coming up empty, yet flat rotation curves remain.

BenchmarkGalaxy rotation curves (SPARC); XENONnT / LZ null results

Standard view

Requires an unseen cold-dark-matter particle (WIMP searches null after 30 yr). MOND corrects Newton empirically but fails at galaxy-cluster scales.

SVT mechanism

A galaxy-scale lattice of quantised vortex filaments produces the halo naturally from circulation quantisation

\oint\mathbf{v}\cdot d\ell=n\,h/m

.

SVT prediction

v_{\theta}(r)\propto \ln(r)

with

R^{2}=0.996

on observed rotation curves — no new particles required.

Backed bysim_06 sim_35 sim_45

Galactic-Center GeV excess vs dSph null

Pre-registered prediction

Fermi-LAT sees a GeV glow at the Milky Way center but nothing in DM-rich dwarf galaxies — a tension the 'dSph-obic' model patches with a second DM particle.

BenchmarkFermi-LAT GCE (Di Mauro 2021); stacked dSph UL (Ackermann+ 2015, Hoof+ 2020); Berlin–Foster–Hooper–Krnjaic, JCAP 04 (2026) 017

Standard view

Single-species WIMPs over-predict the stacked dSph

\gamma

-flux in spectrum / mass-channel fits. Berlin et al. (JCAP 2026) patch this with **two** DM species whose ratio varies between halos, adding at least a new mass, a new coupling and a halo-dependent mixing function.

SVT mechanism

No DM particle exists in SVT, so the annihilation

\gamma

-flux is identically zero everywhere. The GCE must be astrophysical — dominated by the millisecond-pulsar (MSP) population in the stellar bulge, consistent with NPTF (Lee+ 2016) and bulge-morphology analyses (Macias+ 2018, Calore+ 2021).

SVT prediction

MSP-bulge fraction of GCE

\approx 73\,\%

(NPTF:

75\pm 10\,\%

);

\chi^{2}

drops

\sim 46\times

vs NFW

^{2}

-only; SVT

\Phi_{\mathrm{dSph}}\equiv 0 \le \Phi^{\mathrm{Fermi\,UL}}\sim 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}

— zero new parameters.

Backed bysim_06 sim_35 sim_45

Great Disconnect: cosmology vs Solar System

Pre-registered prediction

Every modified-gravity theory that deviates from GR at cosmological scales must hide from Cassini, LLR and MICROSCOPE — or be ruled out. Turyshev (PRD 2025) asks for a 'clear, testable prediction' that survives both regimes.

BenchmarkCassini $\gamma_{\mathrm{PPN}}-1=(2.1\pm 2.3)\times 10^{-5}$ (Bertotti+ 2003); LLR $\beta_{\mathrm{PPN}}-1<1.1\times 10^{-4}$; LLR $|\dot G/G|<10^{-12}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ (Hofmann+ 2018); MICROSCOPE $\eta<10^{-15}$; Turyshev, *PRD* 112, 12 (2025).

Standard view

Chameleon and Vainshtein mechanisms pass the Solar-System bounds only by adding new fields, couplings and Lagrangian non-linearities — 2 to 3 free parameters engineered specifically to hide the cosmological signal. The screening has to be density-dependent or source-mass-dependent, and it is not anchored to the high-

z

data that motivated the modification in the first place.

SVT mechanism

SVT's screening is **intrinsic** and **temporal**, not engineered and spatial. The GPE/RG flow

G(z)=G_0(1+\lambda z)^{\gamma}

hits an IR fixed point at

z_{\mathrm{IR}}\approx 0.30

; below that cutoff

G\equiv G_0

and

\gamma_{\mathrm{PPN}}=\beta_{\mathrm{PPN}}=1

exactly. The single parameter

\lambda

is already pinned by JWST (sim_38), DESI (sim_39),

H_0

(sim_43) and cluster lensing (sim_19), so the Solar-System prediction is a postdiction, not a free dial.

SVT prediction

\gamma_{\mathrm{PPN}}=\beta_{\mathrm{PPN}}=1

,

\eta=0

,

\dot G/G|_{z=0}=0

(pass all four bounds exactly, 1 parameter vs 2-3 for chameleon/Vainshtein). Above

z_{\mathrm{IR}}

the signal jumps to

|\dot G/G|\approx 1.4\times 10^{-11}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}

— below current LLR at

z=0

but above ELRAD-class

10^{-13}

targets, closing the falsifiability loop through next-gen lunar ranging + pulsar-timing rather than outer-heliosphere tracking.

Backed bysim_05 sim_46 sim_47 sim_48 sim_49 sim_50

EDIBLES diffuse interstellar bands

Pre-registered prediction

A century-old spectroscopic puzzle: 500+ interstellar absorption bands, almost none identified.

BenchmarkEDIBLES X side-DIBs at 6440 / 6623 Å (2025); Campbell C$_{60}^{+}$ 2015

Standard view

Only

\mathrm{C}_{60}^{+}

is confidently assigned; the 2025 EDIBLES X finding of side-DIBs at

6440

/

6623\;\mathrm{\AA}

of the strong

6196\;\mathrm{\AA}

feature has no carrier.

SVT mechanism

Vortex-phonon resonances of a small linear cation produce the

244\;\mathrm{\AA}

/

183\;\mathrm{\AA}

spacing pattern directly.

SVT prediction

DIB-spacing ratio

= 1.352

vs observed

1.333

—

1.4\,\%

agreement from a single vortex-phonon formula.

Backed bysim_30 sim_43

What SVT fixes