Submitted:
14 April 2026
Posted:
15 April 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- Dimensional rigor: Complete unit analysis with proper handling of ℏ and c
- Hierarchical validation: Three levels of testing show theory’s predictive power: Level 3 (zero parameters): (65.7%); Level 2 (estimated): (93.6%); Level 1 (fitted): (100%)
- Empirical success: Mean on 171 SPARC galaxies with universal parameters
- Parameter unification: All five field parameters unify into a single fundamental acceleration scale m/s²
- Characteristic scales: , pc, pc
- Dynamical Families: Cluster analysis uncovers three distinct galaxy populations
- Coefficient independence: Kinetic coefficients are not critical ( variation changes by )
- Theoretical economy: Six dimensionless parameters for all galaxy types, unified into one fundamental scale
- Solar System compatibility: Natural explanation from galactic field gradient satisfies all local tests, with FST acceleration at Earth more than 100,000 times below current observational bounds
- Computational transparency: Open-source implementation with unit verification
2. Dimensional Framework and Fundamental Constants
2.1. System of Units and Constants
2.2. Characteristic Scales of FST
2.2.1. Characteristic Length Scale
2.2.2. Characteristic Mass Scale
2.2.3. Dimensionless Field Definition
2.3. Dimensional Analysis Table
| Quantity | Symbol | SI Units |
|---|---|---|
| Length | L | m |
| Mass | M | kg |
| Time | T | s |
| Action | S | J·s |
| Lagrangian Density | J/m³ | |
| Vector Field | kg | |
| Dimensionless Field | 1 | |
| Characteristic Mass | kg | |
| Characteristic Length | m | |
| FST Acceleration | m/s² |
3. Theoretical Framework
3.1. Action Principle
3.2. Dimensionally Consistent Lagrangian
3.3. Field Equations
3.3.1. Energy-Momentum Tensor
3.3.2. Einstein Equations
3.3.3. Vector Field Equation
4. Spherical Symmetry and Galactic Dynamics
4.1. Static Spherically Symmetric Ansatz
4.2. Weak-Field Approximation
4.3. Reduced Field Equation
4.4. Dimensionless Formulation
4.5. Note on the Sign Convention and Stability
4.6. Effective Galactic Equation
5. Parameter Set and Physical Interpretation
5.1. Fundamental Constants and Characteristic Scales
5.2. Kinetic Coefficients
- The sum from fitting rotation curves (Section 8)
- The ratio from polarization constraints
- from cosmological stability
5.3. Self-Coupling Constant and Asymptotic Field Value
5.4. Stellar Mass-to-Light Ratio
5.5. Summary Table of Universal Parameters
6. Galactic Rotation Curves
6.1. Modified Geodesic Equation
6.2. FST Acceleration
6.3. Circular Velocity
6.4. Analytical Approximation
7. Numerical Implementation
7.1. Dimensionless Equation Solver
7.2. Velocity Calculation
8. Empirical Validation
8.1. SPARC Galaxy Sample
- Radial range: kpc
- Velocity range: km/s
- Minimum data points: 5 per galaxy
- Total: 171 galaxies, 2668 data points
8.2. Fitting Procedure
8.3. Goodness of Fit
8.4. Hierarchical Validation: From Universal Constants to Galaxy-Specific Parameters
8.4.1. Level 3: Universal Constants Only (Zero Free Parameters)
- Universal constants: , , ,
- Fixed galaxy parameters: , kpc (same for all 175 galaxies)
- No galaxy-specific tuning whatsoever
8.4.2. Level 2: Estimated Parameters (from Data)
| UGC01281 (14.81) | DDO064 (12.53) |
| UGC05750 (8.24) | F583-1 (5.10) |
| F563-V2 (5.08) | UGCA444 (4.94) |
| UGC04278 (4.02) | UGC05829 (3.80) |
| KK98-251 (3.50) | UGC00731 (3.29) |
| DDO154 (3.17) |
8.4.3. Level 1: Full Fitting (Galaxy-Specific Parameters)
- All 171 galaxies (after excluding 4 with insufficient data) are successfully fitted
- Mean
- of galaxies achieve excellent fits ()
- No galaxies have
8.4.4. Interpretation and Significance
- 1.
- Intrinsic predictive power: Even with zero free parameters (Level 3), FST correctly describes of galaxies with typical parameters, proving that the theory captures the fundamental physics.
- 2.
- Robustness: The smooth progression from Level 3 () to Level 2 () to Level 1 () shows that the model is not fragile—it performs well even with crude approximations and improves gracefully as more information is added.
- 3.
- Minimal parameter requirements: The dramatic improvement from Level 3 to Level 2 (using only simple estimates) shows that most of the galaxy-to-galaxy variation can be captured by basic scaling relations, with only of galaxies requiring special attention.
8.5. Full Results with Fitted Parameters
8.6. Parameter Uncertainties and Error Analysis
- Measurement errors in SPARC rotation curves (typically )
- Degeneracies between M and in the baryonic model
- Approximations in the analytical solution (Eq. (29))
- Finite sample size (171 galaxies)
8.7. Analysis of Outlier Galaxies
8.7.1. UGCA444
8.7.2. UGC01281
8.7.3. UGC00731
8.8. Comparison with Numerical Solution
- Successfully fitted all 171 galaxies ()
- Achieved superior fit quality ( vs 0.256)
- Required negligible computation time (0.17 seconds)
- Exhibited no numerical instabilities
8.9. Cluster Analysis
- Cluster 1 (48 galaxies): Intermediate-mass galaxies with mean
- Cluster 2 (116 galaxies): Normal disk galaxies comprising the majority of the sample, with excellent fit quality ()
- Cluster 3 (7 galaxies): Massive galaxies with remarkably precise fits ()
8.10. Bayesian Analysis
8.11. Global Parameter Sensitivity
8.12. Coefficient Sensitivity Analysis
8.13. Parameter Unification and the Fundamental Scale
8.13.1. Derivation from First Principles
8.13.2. Dimensional Verification
8.13.3. Numerical Value
8.13.4. Complete Verification on All SPARC Galaxies
- 1.
- Using the original FST with all 5 parameters (as in Section 8)
- 2.
- Using the unified FST with the single parameter m/s²
| Metric | Original FST (5 parameters) | Unified FST ( only) |
|---|---|---|
| Galaxies fitted | 171/171 (100%) | 171/171 (100%) |
| Mean | 0.1699 | 0.1699 |
| Median | 0.0563 | 0.0563 |
| Standard deviation | 0.3079 | 0.3079 |
| Minimum | 0.0011 | 0.0011 |
| Maximum | 2.4401 | 2.4401 |
| Quality Distribution | ||
| Excellent () | 156 (91.2%) | 156 (91.2%) |
| Good () | 12 (7.0%) | 12 (7.0%) |
| Acceptable () | 3 (1.8%) | 3 (1.8%) |
| Poor () | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
8.13.5. Relation to MOND
8.13.6. Summary of the Unification
- Replaces the five original parameters ()
- Produces identical results for all 171 SPARC galaxies
- Achieves 91.2% excellent fits with mean
- Has clear physical interpretation as a fundamental acceleration scale
- Relates simply to the MOND acceleration constant ()
8.14. Comparison with Alternative Models
- FST Level 3 achieves with zero free parameters, outperforming Newtonian gravity () and demonstrating that the theory captures essential physics without any tuning.
- FST Level 2 achieves with only estimated parameters, already outperforming CDM (1.32) and MOND (1.19-1.24) when considering only the 160 galaxies with .
- FST Level 1 achieves the lowest mean (0.170) among all models with only 2 free parameters per galaxy.
- FST Level 4 and Level 5 achieve identical results to Level 1, demonstrating that the kinetic coefficients are irrelevant and that the theory unifies into a single parameter .
- FST has the highest success rate () at Level 1, compared to for other models.
9. Solar System Constraints and Screening
9.1. Linearized Field Equation and Screening
9.2. The FST Acceleration at Earth’s Orbit
9.3. Comparison with Newtonian Gravity and Observational Constraints
| Location | Newtonian acceleration | FST acceleration | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earth orbit (1 AU) | |||
| Pioneer anomaly scale (10 AU) | |||
| Outer Solar System (100 AU) |
9.4. Note on an Alternative Estimate
9.5. Prediction for the Outer Solar System
10. Testable Predictions of FST
10.1. Universal Shape of Rotation Curves
10.2. Dynamical Families and Galaxy Evolution
- Cluster 1 (Intermediate-mass): Galaxies with ongoing star formation and complex dynamics
- Cluster 2 (Normal disks): Well-relaxed systems in equilibrium
- Cluster 3 (Massive galaxies): Early-type galaxies with simple dynamics
11. Software Implementation and Reproducibility
11.1. Requirements and Execution
- 1.
- Download the SPARC database from http://astroweb.cwru.edu/SPARC/
- 2.
- Upload the SPARC data files to your cloud storage
- 3.
- Copy and paste the FST code into a Python notebook or script
- 4.
- Update the file path to point to your SPARC data directory
- 5.
- Execute the code - it will automatically install any missing dependencies
11.2. Code Structure
- fst_solver.py Solves the dimensionless FST equation (Eq. 18) using a shooting method with adaptive step size.
- velocity_calculator.py Computes rotation curves from baryonic profiles and FST solutions.
- fitting_pipeline.pyPerforms hierarchical validation at all three levels.
- bayesian_analysis.py Runs MCMC sampling for parameter estimation.
- cluster_analysis.py Implements K-means clustering to identify dynamical families.
- validation_tests.py Includes dimensional verification for all equations.
11.3. Reproducing the Results
- 1.
- Reads the SPARC database from the specified path
- 2.
- Runs Level 3, 2, and 1 validations
- 3.
- Generates rotation curve fits for all galaxies
- 4.
- Performs cluster analysis
- 5.
11.4. Dimensional Verification
12. Conclusion
- 1.
- Hierarchical validation: Even with zero free parameters, FST correctly describes of galaxies. With only estimated parameters, of galaxies are successfully fitted with mean (excluding 11 outliers). With full fitting, of galaxies are successfully fitted with mean .
- 2.
-
Parameter unification: The original formulation used six universal parameters. However, through extensive testing we have discovered that all five field parameters () unify into a single fundamental acceleration scale:This unified parameter produces identical results to the full 5-parameter theory for all 171 galaxies, demonstrating that FST is fundamentally a one-parameter theory.
- 3.
- Coefficient independence: Sensitivity analysis shows that varying by changes by only , and even completely removing the kinetic coefficients (setting ) produces identical results. This proves that the kinetic coefficients are not essential for galactic dynamics.
- 4.
- Characteristic scales: The theory predicts a fundamental transition scale pc and a screening length pc. The observed galactic transition at kpc emerges from the convolution of with the baryonic mass distribution.
- 5.
- Dynamical families: Cluster analysis reveals three distinct families of galaxies, providing a new phenomenological framework for understanding galaxy formation.
- 6.
- Solar System consistency: The FST force on Solar System scales arises from the galactic field gradient and is of Newtonian gravity at Earth—more than 100,000 times below current observational bounds. The screening mechanism with pc ensures that local sources do not produce detectable anomalies.
- 7.
- Testable predictions: The theory makes concrete predictions for the universal shape of rotation curves and for the dynamical classification of galaxies, which can be tested with upcoming surveys such as JWST and Euclid.
- 8.
- Reproducibility: Complete open-source code with dimensional verification ensures full transparency and allows anyone to verify the results.
Data and Code Availability
Appendix A. Derivation of Kinetic Coefficient Constraints
Appendix B. Complete Dimensional Analysis of FST Quantities
| Quantity | Symbol | Dimensions (SI) |
|---|---|---|
| Speed of light | c | |
| Reduced Planck constant | ℏ | |
| Newton’s constant | G | |
| Characteristic length | ||
| Characteristic mass | ||
| Dimensionless field | 1 | |
| Physical vector field | ||
| Kinetic coefficients | 1 | |
| Self-coupling constant | 1 | |
| Asymptotic field value | 1 | |
| Stellar mass-to-light ratio | 1 | |
| Effective coupling | 1 | |
| Dimensionless radius | 1 | |
| Scaled field | 1 | |
| FST acceleration | ||
| Velocity squared (FST term) | ||
| Newtonian velocity squared | ||
| Dimensionless transition scale | 1 | |
| Screening length |
Appendix C. Derivation of the Modified Geodesic Equation
Appendix C.1. The Correct Approach
- 1.
- Solve the coupled Einstein-vector field equations for a point source to find the metric perturbation
- 2.
- Extract the effective potential from
- 3.
- Use the geodesic equation to obtain the force law
Appendix C.2. Linearized Field Equations Around a Point Source
Appendix C.2.1. Linearized Energy-Momentum Tensor
Appendix C.2.2. Einstein Equations
Appendix C.2.3. Vector Field Equation
Appendix C.2.4. Scale Analysis and Screening
Appendix C.2.5. Solution on Small Scales (r≪λ screen )
Appendix C.2.6. Determining the Constant A
Appendix C.2.7. Metric Perturbation
Appendix C.2.8. Effective Potential and Force
Appendix C.3. Connection to ν∇ν Form
Appendix C.4. The Force Law Without Direct Coupling
Appendix C.5. Weak-Field, Slow-Motion Limit
Appendix C.6. Dimensional Verification
Appendix C.7. Discussion
- 1.
- The vector field does not couple directly to matter. Its effects on test particles arise solely through its contribution to the metric.
- 2.
- Screening emerges naturally. The vector field equation (C6) with leads to exponential suppression on scales larger than pc, as given by Eq. (C10).
- 3.
- The coupling constant in the force law, , is determined by matching the asymptotic behavior of the full nonlinear solution.
- 4.
- The force law (C19) is valid for the full nonlinear solution on galactic scales, where is given by Eq. (29).
- 5.
- The screening length pc is consistent with the fundamental scale pc from Eq. (20), confirming the internal consistency of the theory.
Appendix C.8. Consistency of the Sign Convention
References
- Lelli, F.; McGaugh, S. S.; Schombert, J. M. SPARC: Mass Models for 175 Disk Galaxies with Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves. AJ 2016, 152, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Planck Collaboration 2020, Planck 2018 results. In Cosmological parameters, A&A; Volume 641, p. A6. [CrossRef]
- Bertone, G.; Hooper, D.; Silk, J. Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints. Phys. Rep. 2005, 405, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milgrom, M. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. ApJ 1983, 270, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiesinga, E.; Mohr, P. J.; Newell, D. B.; Taylor, B. N. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2022. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2025, 97, 025002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Will, C. M. The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Rev. Rel 2014, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Will, C. M. Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics; Cambridge University Press, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Schombert, J.; McGaugh, S. 2014, Stellar Populations and the Star Formation Histories of LSB Galaxies: III. Stellar Population Models, PASA 31, e036. [CrossRef]
- Li, P.; Lelli, F.; McGaugh, S.; Schombert, J. 2020, A Comprehensive Catalog of Baryonic Mass Models for SPARC Galaxies. ApJS 247, 31. [CrossRef]
- McGaugh, S. S.; Lelli, F.; Schombert, J. M. The Radial Acceleration Relation in Rotationally Supported Galaxies. PRL 2016, 117, 201101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Banik, I.; et al. 2020, The Global Stability of M33 in MOND. ApJ 905, 135. [CrossRef]
- Lelli, F.; McGaugh, S. S.; Schombert, J. M. Testing Verlinde’s emergent gravity with the radial acceleration relation. MNRAS 2017, 468, L68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hees, A.; et al. Testing Gravitation in the Solar System with Radio Science Experiments. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 102, 024062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoury, J.; Weltman, A. Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space. Phys. Rev. D 2004, 69, 044026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, C. R.; et al. 2020, Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585, 357. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Virtanen, P.; et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods 2020, 17, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Computing in Science & Engineering 2007, 9, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foreman-Mackey, D.; Hogg, D. W.; Lang, D.; Goodman, J. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer. PASP 125, 306. [CrossRef]
- Foreman-Mackey, D. corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in Python. JOSS 2016, 1, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Parameter | Symbol | Value | Dimensions (SI) | Physical Role |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kinetic coefficient 1 | 0.51 | 1 | Transverse mode normalization | |
| Kinetic coefficient 2 | -0.07 | 1 | Longitudinal mode contribution | |
| Kinetic coefficient 3 | 0.32 | 1 | Mixed derivative coupling | |
| Self-coupling constant | 1 | Field self-interaction strength (negative) | ||
| Asymptotic field value | 1 | Galactic acceleration scale | ||
| Stellar mass-to-light | 1.0 | 1 | Baryonic normalization | |
| Characteristic length | m | Galactic scale normalization | ||
| Characteristic mass | kg | Mass scale from | ||
| Effective coupling | 1 | Galactic dynamics strength () | ||
| Dimensionless transition scale | 1 | Fundamental nonlinear scale | ||
| Screening length | 1.65 pc | Local source suppression scale |
| Validation Level | Free Parameters | Sample Size | Mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 3: Universal Constants Only | 0 | 115 | 0.809 |
| (, kpc fixed for all) | |||
| Level 2: Estimated Parameters | 0 (estimated) | 160 | 0.347 |
| ( estimated from data, excluding 11 outliers) | |||
| Level 1: Full Fitting | 2 () | 171 | 0.170 |
| ( fitted per galaxy) |
| Quality | Range | Number of Galaxies (Percentage) |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 156 (91.2%) | |
| Good | 12 (7.0%) | |
| Acceptable | 3 (1.8%) | |
| Poor | 0 (0%) |
| Parameter | Value | 68% Confidence Interval |
|---|---|---|
| 0.51 | ||
| -0.07 | ||
| 0.32 | ||
| 0.83 | ||
| 1.65 pc | pc |
| Mean | Change from baseline | |
|---|---|---|
| 0.500 | 0.2378 | -0.1% |
| 0.664 | 0.2380 | -0.0% |
| 0.830 (baseline) | 0.2381 | 0.0% |
| 0.996 | 0.2382 | +0.0% |
| 1.200 | 0.2383 | +0.1% |
| Model | Study | Galaxy Sample | Sample Size | Mean | Free Parameters/Galaxy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FST Level 3 (Universal) | This work | SPARC | 115 | 0.809 | 0 |
| FST Level 2 (Estimated) | This work | SPARC | 160 | 0.347 | 0a |
| FST Level 1 (Full) | This work | SPARC | 171 | 0.170 | 2 |
| FST Level 4 (Coefficient-Free) | This work | SPARC | 171 | 0.170 | 2 |
| FST Level 5 (Unified ) | This work | SPARC | 171 | 0.170 | 2 |
| CDM (NFW) | Li et al. (2020) [9] | SPARC | 175 | 1.32 | 2-3 |
| MOND (standard) | McGaugh et al. (2016) [10] | SPARC | 153 | 1.24 | 1 |
| MOND (QUMOND) | Banik et al. (2020) [11] | SPARC | 169 | 1.19 | 1 |
| Newtonian Only | (baseline) [1] | SPARC | 175 | 0 |
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. |
© 2026 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/).