Submitted:
21 December 2025
Posted:
22 December 2025
Read the latest preprint version here
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Unified Quantum Gravity Theoretical Framework
2.1. Core Physical Assumptions
- 1.
-
Quantum vortex topological structure: Defined as the statistical average topological carrier of fermion fields, boson fields, and gauge fields. Its operator form (an effective composite operator, characterized by the amplitude + phase of its expectation value on the strong coupling/CFT boundary) is:Quantum vortex field:
- : Fermion field, with dimension
- : Boson field, with dimension
- : Unified field strength tensor (macro-photon field), with dimension
- : Vortex phase, connecting non-local entanglement (quantum entanglement)
- : Central charge (topological charge number)
- : Topological phase
- : Minimum characteristic length (Planck length)
- 2.
2.2. Key Formula Derivations
2.2.1. Modified Poisson Equation
2.2.2. Modified Gravitational Potential with Logarithmic Term
- Classical gravitational term : Dominates conventional gravitational effects, consistent with Newtonian gravity and the weak-field approximation of general relativity.
- Quantum gravitational logarithmic term : The core cross-scale correction term, whose effect depends on the magnitude of distance —it is repulsive at short distances (black hole “singularity” scale) and exhibits a gravity-enhancing effect at long distances (galactic scale), essentially representing the macroscopic manifestation of non-local entanglement of quantum vortices (the argument of the logarithmic term is dimensionless; the theoretical minimum characteristic length (Planck length) is normalized to 1 m, i.e., , naturally eliminating the dimension of the argument. Thus, the argument in the logarithmic term of this theory is implicitly normalized).
2.3. Cross-Scale Physical Nature of the Logarithmic Term
- When (black hole core region): tends to negative infinity, and the quantum gravitational term transforms into a strong repulsive potential. When , in the total potential, dynamically preventing matter from collapsing into a singularity.
- When is sufficiently large (galactic peripheral region): is a positive finite value, and the quantum gravitational term provides additional gravity logarithmically dependent on distance, compensating for the insufficient gravity of visible matter and maintaining the stable rotational velocity of stars.
3. Black Hole Scale Application: Singularity Resolution and Shadow Prediction
3.1. Singularity Resolution and Information Conservation
- Suppression of curvature divergence: The repulsive potential prevents matter from reaching , avoiding the divergent behavior of the Riemann tensor component , and realizing the physical resolution of the singularity without renormalization.
- Resolution of the information paradox: The repulsive potential excites virtual particles from vacuum fluctuations into real particles, which tunnel and escape the black hole horizon through nested AdS/CFT duality (). The particles carry information away from the black hole, and the black hole loses mass synchronously, satisfying the unitarity of quantum mechanics (information conservation) and resolving the “black hole evaporation” information paradox under “Hawking radiation”.
3.2. Huang’s Metric and Black Hole Shadow Prediction
Observational Verification Results [5,6]
| Black Hole | Mass () | -factor | Theoretical Shadow Angular Diameter () | EHT Measured Value () | Consistency |
| Sgr A* | 1 | 53.3 | Within observational range | ||
| M87* | 46.2 | (reasonable error) |
Predicted Observed Shadow Angular Diameters of EHT Candidate Black Holes
| Black Hole | Mass () | Distance Range (Mpc) | Shadow Radius from Huang’s Metric (m) | Shadow Angular Diameter Range (μas) |
| Centaurus A* | 3.4~4.2 | 1.4~1.8 | ||
| NGC 315 | 65~72 | 4.9~5.4 | ||
| NGC 4261 | 30~32 | 5.9~6.3 | ||
| M84 | 16~17.5 | 9.8~10.7 | ||
| NGC 4594 | 9.0~10.0 | 11.6~12.6 | ||
| IC 1459 | 21~30 | 8.0~11.4 |
4. Galactic Scale Application: Explanation of Flat Rotation Curves
4.1. Galactic Scale Adaptation Corrections
- Dynamic mass distribution:where is the piecewise topological baryonic mass (valued separately for the bulge, middle disk, and outer disk), and is the characteristic scale (controlling the mass growth rate).
- Dynamic entanglement factor:where is the benchmark entanglement strength (inferred from the velocity at the velocity peak of the galactic rotation curve), and is the decay exponent, adapting to the outer disk decay characteristics of different galaxies (the power law originates from the scaling transformation of AdS/CFT, and the entanglement strength decay at the galactic scale naturally exhibits power-law behavior).
4.2. Fitting Verification of Rotation Curves for Multiple Galaxies
4.2.1. Milky Way (Spiral Galaxy)
- Bulge (): ():
- Middle disk (): ():
- Outer disk (): ():
- (inferred from at ), :
| (kpc) | (km/s) | Observed Value (km/s) | Region |
| 2 | 236.9 | 200–220 | Inner disk |
| 4 | 211.0 | 210–230 | Inner disk |
| 5 | 248.1 | 215–235 | Middle disk |
| 6 | 237.8 | 220–240 | Middle disk |
| 8 | 225.2 | 220 | Middle disk |
| 10 | 250.0 | 225–250 | Outer disk |
| 15 | 231.5 | 210–230 | Outer disk |
| 20 | 212.4 | 200–220 | Outer disk |
4.2.2. Andromeda Galaxy (Spiral Galaxy)
- Bulge (): ():
- Middle disk (): ():
- Outer disk (): ():
- (inferred from at ), (reflecting the rapid decay of the Andromeda outer disk):
| (kpc) | (km/s) | Observed Value (km/s) | Region | Error Analysis |
| 2 | 248.8 | 200–250 | Inner disk | Error ~1.2% |
| 10 | 261.0 | 225–250 | Middle disk | ~9.8–34.8 km/s higher (4%–15%) |
| 15 | 250.0 | 250 | Peak | Perfect consistency (inferred ) |
| 20 | 234.8 | 200–225 | Outer disk | ~9.8–34.8 km/s higher (4%–15%) |
4.2.3. NGC 2974 (Elliptical Galaxy)
- Bulge (): ():
- Middle disk (): ():
- Outer disk (): ():
- (inferred from at ), (reflecting the approximately flat, slow decay characteristics of elliptical galaxies, similar to the Milky Way):
| (kpc) | (km/s) | Observed Value (km/s) | Region |
| 1 | 318.7 | Ionized gas + drift correction ≈ 320 ± 20 | Inner disk |
| 2 | 300.6 | — | Inner disk |
| 4 | 283.8 | Inner region decline ≈ 310 ± 20 | Middle disk |
| 5 | 300.0 | HⅠ + gas combination, start of flat curve ≈ 300 ± 10 | Outer disk |
| 6 | 294.4 | HⅠ flat segment extension ≈ 300 ± 10 | Outer disk |
| 8 | 281.4 | Middle of HⅠ flat segment ≈ 300 ± 10 | Outer disk |
| 10 | 267.5 | Outer edge of HⅠ flat segment ≈ 300 ± 10 | Outer disk |
| 20 | 208.9 | — | Outer disk |
4.3. Role of the Logarithmic Term at the Galactic Scale
- Physical nature: The statistical average effect of non-local entanglement of quantum vortices at the galactic scale, transmitted as macroscopic gravity enhancement through AdS/CFT duality.
- Advantage: All parameters are correlatable with observations (e.g., corresponds to stellar luminosity and gas distribution), avoiding the theoretical flaw of dark matter being “undetectable”.
4.4. Universal Logarithmic Asymptotics of Dark-Matter Halo Models
4.4.1. General Condition for Flat Rotation Curves
4.4.2. Cuspy Halo Models: NFW and Einasto
4.4.2.1. NFW Profile
4.4.2.2. Einasto Profile
4.4.3. Cored Halo Models: Burkert and Pseudo-Isothermal
4.4.4. Self-Interacting and Wave Dark Matter
4.4.5. Universality of the Logarithmic Potential
4.4.6. Comparison with the Logarithmic Term in the Present Model
5. Cross-Scale Consistency and Theoretical Advantages
5.1. Consistency of Dual-Scale Mechanisms
- Scale correlation: Both the repulsive potential at the black hole scale and the additional gravity at the galactic scale are macroscopic manifestations of the topological structure and non-local entanglement of quantum vortices, with only changes in the sign and magnitude of caused by distance .
- Parameter unification: Core parameters such as the -factor and have consistent definitions across dual scales; only dynamic adjustments of and are made to adapt to scale differences, with no additional hypotheses.
5.2. Comparative Advantages over Traditional Theories
| Comparison Dimension | This Theory (Quantum Gravitational Correction with Logarithmic Term) | Traditional Theories (Kerr Black Hole + Dark Matter) |
| Singularity problem | Physically resolved, satisfying information conservation | Unresolved, with curvature divergence |
| Free parameters | None (black holes) / 4 physical parameters (galaxies) | Black holes require fitting of spin and inclination; galaxies rely on dark matter distribution hypotheses |
| Cross-scale unification | Covers microscopic to macroscopic scales under a single framework | Black hole and galactic dynamics are fragmented |
| Observational verification | Double verification via black hole shadows and galactic rotation curves | Dark matter particles not directly detected; black hole spin lacks independent verification |
| Physical picture | Clear image of quantum vortices + AdS/CFT duality | Dark matter nature unknown; Kerr black hole lacks microscopic physical support |
6. Conclusions and Outlook
Competing Interests
Author Contributions
References
- Hall, D. S.; Kohel, J. M.; Heo, M.-S.; et al. Engineered vortex arrays in a Bose–Einstein condensate. Nature 2016, 539, 74–77. [Google Scholar]
- Skenderis, K.; Taylor, M. The fuzzball proposal for black holes. Phys. Rep. 2008, 467, 117–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aharony, O.; Bergman, O.; Jafferis, D. L.; Maldacena, J. N=6 superconformal Chern–Simons–matter theory and its gravity dual. JHEP 2008, 10, 091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, D. S.; et al. Tying quantum knots. Nat. Phys. 2016, 12, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett 2019, 875, L1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way. Astrophys. J. Lett 2022, 930, L12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerr, RP. Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics. Phys. Rev. Lett 1963, 11, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sofue, Y. Rotation Curve and Mass Distribution in the Galactic Disk. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 2012, 64, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chemin, L.; Carignan, C.; Foster, T. HI Kinematics and Dynamics of Messier 31. Astrophys. J. 2009, 705, 1395–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noordermeer, E.; van der Hulst, J. M. The rotation curves of early-type disk galaxies. Astron. Astrophys. 2007, 471, 433–447. [Google Scholar]
- Navarro, J. F.; Frenk, C. S.; White, S. D. M. A Universal Density Profile from Hierarchical Clustering. Astrophys. J. 1997, 490, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkert, A. The Structure of Dark Matter Halos in Dwarf Galaxies. Astrophys. J. Lett. 1995, 447, L25–L28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGaugh, S. S. The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation of Galaxies. Astrophys. J. 2005, 632, 859–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).