What SVT addresses

Each card below starts with a plain-language summary, then shows what observers measure, how the standard model responds, and what SVT predicts. Simulation links at the bottom open the full numerical results.

How to read a card: start with the gray summary box, then drill into the technical sections. Status badges mean: tension (data disagrees with standard model), open (still being tested), null (SVT matches a resolved null), confirmed/predicted (specific forecast checked against data).

Documentation vs physics: some criticisms target missing derivations (SM gauge group, full cosmological closure of G(z), etc.). Those are listed on future work and open issues.

JWST too-early massive galaxies

Observational tension

The James Webb Space Telescope keeps finding huge galaxies when the universe was very young. In the standard model, they should not have had time to grow that large. That mismatch is one of the biggest post-2023 cosmology puzzles.

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

Data source: JADES + CEERS stellar-mass function (2024–26); Labbé 2023; Boylan-Kolchin 2024

Standard model

Requires a

\sim 5\times

stellar-mass boost over a Salpeter IMF in

\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}

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

z=12

, inside the observed

3\!-\!10\times

JWST excess band;

\chi^{2}

improves

6\times

over

\Lambda

CDM.

Simulationssim_05 sim_11 sim_38

Dark-energy equation of state

Observational tension

Dark energy is what makes the universe expand faster over time. The standard picture treats it as a fixed constant (often written $w=-1$ , Einstein's cosmological constant). DESI's 2024-25 galaxy map now favors a value of $w$ that changes with cosmic time: slightly less repulsive today than in the past. That is a direct challenge to 'dark energy never changes.'

Technical hook: DESI DR2 BAO + supernova fit prefers dynamical $w(z)$ over fixed $w=-1$ at $3.1\sigma$ .

Data source: DESI DR2 BAO + SN joint posterior (Adame et al. 2024/25)

Standard model

Pure

\Lambda\mathrm{CDM}

with

w=-1

is disfavoured at

3.1\sigma

; DR2 prefers the quadrant

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

(today's push weaker than it used to be).

SVT mechanism

Tangled vortex lines in the vacuum fluid carry tension. That tension slowly weakens the effective dark-energy push as the universe expands, giving

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

with

\varepsilon\sim 0.15

, i.e.

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

SVT prediction

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

lies inside the DESI DR2

2\sigma

contour;

\Lambda

CDM is rejected at

3.1\sigma

Simulationssim_24 sim_39

Hubble tension

Observational tension

Two independent ways of measuring how fast the universe expands today disagree by about 6 standard deviations. Nearby stars (Cepheids, JWST) give ~73 km/s per megaparsec; the early-universe CMB gives ~67. The standard model has no widely accepted fix.

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

Data source: SH0ES + JWST 2025 vs Planck 2018 CMB

Standard model

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.

Simulationssim_05 sim_43 sim_72

Muon $g-2$ anomaly

Null result, consistent

For years the muon's magnetic moment looked slightly off from theory. In 2025, Fermilab's final measurement and independent lattice-QCD calculations converged. The 'anomaly' largely vanished. SVT never needed a large correction here.

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

Data source: Fermilab Run-4/5 final

a_{\mu}

(2025); BMW lattice HVP

Standard model

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.

Simulationssim_20 sim_22 sim_41

Yang-Mills mass gap & $X(2370)$

Prediction confirmed

Quantum chromodynamics predicts a lightest bound state made purely of gluons (a glueball). BESIII may have seen it as the $X(2370)$ resonance. SVT ties glueball mass to the same vortex-ring picture used for hadrons.

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

Data source: BESIII

X(2370)

(Ablikim et al. 2024); lattice-QCD glueball band

Standard model

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.

Simulationssim_10 sim_31 sim_42

Black-hole information paradox

Open problem

If black holes evaporate by Hawking radiation, quantum mechanics says information should be preserved. Semi-classical gravity says it is lost. SVT tests whether topological charge in the fluid can carry information through the horizon.

Technical hook: Semiclassical GR says Hawking radiation is thermal; quantum unitarity says that is impossible.

Data source: Hawking 1974–76; Page 1993; firewall / ER=EPR debate 2012–present

Standard model

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.

Simulationssim_03 sim_04 sim_36 sim_74

Dark matter without particles

Open problem

Galaxy rotation curves stay flat far from visible stars, but decades of WIMP searches found nothing. SVT replaces a particle halo with a lattice of quantized vortex filaments locked to the disk.

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

Data source: Galaxy rotation curves (SPARC); XENONnT / LZ null results

Standard model

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.

Simulationssim_06 sim_35 sim_45

Galactic-Center GeV excess vs dSph null

Pre-registered prediction

Fermi sees extra gamma rays from the Milky Way center but not from dwarf galaxies where dark matter should cluster. Particle dark matter struggles to explain both at once. SVT predicts zero annihilation flux and attributes the glow to millisecond pulsars.

Technical hook: Fermi-LAT sees a GeV glow at the Milky Way center but nothing in DM-rich dwarf galaxies.

Data source: Fermi-LAT GCE (Di Mauro 2021); stacked dSph UL (Ackermann+ 2015, Hoof+ 2020); Berlin et al., JCAP 04 (2026) 017

Standard model

Single-species WIMPs over-predict the stacked dSph

\gamma

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

SVT mechanism

No DM particle exists in SVT, so the annihilation

\gamma

-flux is identically zero. The GCE must be astrophysical, dominated by millisecond pulsars in the stellar bulge (NPTF, Macias+, Calore+).

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}}

Simulationssim_06 sim_35 sim_45

Great Disconnect: cosmology vs Solar System

Pre-registered prediction

Many modified-gravity ideas change cosmic expansion but get ruled out in our solar system by precision spacecraft and lunar-laser tests. SVT claims a single parameter can match JWST and DESI while passing Cassini, lunar ranging, and MICROSCOPE today.

Technical hook: Modified gravity must hide from Cassini, lunar laser ranging, and MICROSCOPE, or be ruled out.

Data source: Cassini

\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 model

Chameleon and Vainshtein mechanisms pass Solar-System bounds only by adding new fields and couplings engineered to hide the cosmological signal. Screening is density-dependent and not anchored to the high-

z

data that motivated the modification.

SVT mechanism

SVT 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

G\equiv G_0

and

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

exactly.

\lambda

is pinned by JWST, DESI,

H_0

, and lensing, so the Solar-System prediction is a postdiction.

SVT prediction

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

\eta=0

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

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

z_{\mathrm{IR}}

the signal rises to

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

, testable with next-gen lunar ranging.

Simulationssim_05 sim_46 sim_47 sim_48 sim_49 sim_50

EDIBLES diffuse interstellar bands

Pre-registered prediction

Starlight passing through interstellar gas shows hundreds of unexplained absorption lines (DIBs). Only one carrier is known ( $C_{60}^+$ ). SVT predicts a spacing pattern from vortex-phonon resonances that matches a 2025 EDIBLES side-band detection.

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

Data source: EDIBLES X side-DIBs at 6440 / 6623 Å (2025); Campbell

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

2015

Standard model

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.

Simulationssim_30 sim_43