% Options for packages loaded elsewhere
% Options for packages loaded elsewhere
\PassOptionsToPackage{unicode}{hyperref}
\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\PassOptionsToPackage{dvipsnames,svgnames,x11names}{xcolor}
%
\documentclass[
  11pt,
  letterpaper,
]{article}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-\maxdimen} % remove section numbering
\usepackage{iftex}
\ifPDFTeX
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
  \usepackage{textcomp} % provide euro and other symbols
\else % if luatex or xetex
  \usepackage{unicode-math} % this also loads fontspec
  \defaultfontfeatures{Scale=MatchLowercase}
  \defaultfontfeatures[\rmfamily]{Ligatures=TeX,Scale=1}
\fi
\usepackage{lmodern}
\ifPDFTeX\else
  % xetex/luatex font selection
\fi
% Use upquote if available, for straight quotes in verbatim environments
\IfFileExists{upquote.sty}{\usepackage{upquote}}{}
\IfFileExists{microtype.sty}{% use microtype if available
  \usepackage[]{microtype}
  \UseMicrotypeSet[protrusion]{basicmath} % disable protrusion for tt fonts
}{}
\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{KOMAClassName}{% if non-KOMA class
  \IfFileExists{parskip.sty}{%
    \usepackage{parskip}
  }{% else
    \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
    \setlength{\parskip}{6pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}}
}{% if KOMA class
  \KOMAoptions{parskip=half}}
\makeatother
% Make \paragraph and \subparagraph free-standing
\makeatletter
\ifx\paragraph\undefined\else
  \let\oldparagraph\paragraph
  \renewcommand{\paragraph}{
    \@ifstar
      \xxxParagraphStar
      \xxxParagraphNoStar
  }
  \newcommand{\xxxParagraphStar}[1]{\oldparagraph*{#1}\mbox{}}
  \newcommand{\xxxParagraphNoStar}[1]{\oldparagraph{#1}\mbox{}}
\fi
\ifx\subparagraph\undefined\else
  \let\oldsubparagraph\subparagraph
  \renewcommand{\subparagraph}{
    \@ifstar
      \xxxSubParagraphStar
      \xxxSubParagraphNoStar
  }
  \newcommand{\xxxSubParagraphStar}[1]{\oldsubparagraph*{#1}\mbox{}}
  \newcommand{\xxxSubParagraphNoStar}[1]{\oldsubparagraph{#1}\mbox{}}
\fi
\makeatother


\usepackage{longtable,booktabs,array}
\newcounter{none} % for unnumbered tables
\usepackage{calc} % for calculating minipage widths
% Correct order of tables after \paragraph or \subparagraph
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\longtable{\par}{\if@noskipsec\mbox{}\fi\par}{}{}
\makeatother
% Allow footnotes in longtable head/foot
\IfFileExists{footnotehyper.sty}{\usepackage{footnotehyper}}{\usepackage{footnote}}
\makesavenoteenv{longtable}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\makeatletter
\newsavebox\pandoc@box
\newcommand*\pandocbounded[1]{% scales image to fit in text height/width
  \sbox\pandoc@box{#1}%
  \Gscale@div\@tempa{\textheight}{\dimexpr\ht\pandoc@box+\dp\pandoc@box\relax}%
  \Gscale@div\@tempb{\linewidth}{\wd\pandoc@box}%
  \ifdim\@tempb\p@<\@tempa\p@\let\@tempa\@tempb\fi% select the smaller of both
  \ifdim\@tempa\p@<\p@\scalebox{\@tempa}{\usebox\pandoc@box}%
  \else\usebox{\pandoc@box}%
  \fi%
}
% Set default figure placement to htbp
\def\fps@figure{htbp}
\makeatother


% definitions for citeproc citations
\NewDocumentCommand\citeproctext{}{}
\NewDocumentCommand\citeproc{mm}{%
  \begingroup\def\citeproctext{#2}\cite{#1}\endgroup}
\makeatletter
 % allow citations to break across lines
 \let\@cite@ofmt\@firstofone
 % avoid brackets around text for \cite:
 \def\@biblabel#1{}
 \def\@cite#1#2{{#1\if@tempswa , #2\fi}}
\makeatother
\newlength{\cslhangindent}
\setlength{\cslhangindent}{1.5em}
\newlength{\csllabelwidth}
\setlength{\csllabelwidth}{3em}
\newenvironment{CSLReferences}[2] % #1 hanging-indent, #2 entry-spacing
 {\begin{list}{}{%
  \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}
  \setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}
  \setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
  % turn on hanging indent if param 1 is 1
  \ifodd #1
   \setlength{\leftmargin}{\cslhangindent}
   \setlength{\itemindent}{-1\cslhangindent}
  \fi
  % set entry spacing
  \setlength{\itemsep}{#2\baselineskip}}}
 {\end{list}}
\usepackage{calc}
\newcommand{\CSLBlock}[1]{\hfill\break\parbox[t]{\linewidth}{\strut\ignorespaces#1\strut}}
\newcommand{\CSLLeftMargin}[1]{\parbox[t]{\csllabelwidth}{\strut#1\strut}}
\newcommand{\CSLRightInline}[1]{\parbox[t]{\linewidth - \csllabelwidth}{\strut#1\strut}}
\newcommand{\CSLIndent}[1]{\hspace{\cslhangindent}#1}



\setlength{\emergencystretch}{3em} % prevent overfull lines

\providecommand{\tightlist}{%
  \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}



 


\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\makeatletter
\@ifpackageloaded{tcolorbox}{}{\usepackage[skins,breakable]{tcolorbox}}
\@ifpackageloaded{fontawesome5}{}{\usepackage{fontawesome5}}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-color}{HTML}{909090}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-note-color}{HTML}{0758E5}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-important-color}{HTML}{CC1914}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-warning-color}{HTML}{EB9113}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-tip-color}{HTML}{00A047}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-caution-color}{HTML}{FC5300}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-color-frame}{HTML}{acacac}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-note-color-frame}{HTML}{4582ec}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-important-color-frame}{HTML}{d9534f}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-warning-color-frame}{HTML}{f0ad4e}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-tip-color-frame}{HTML}{02b875}
\definecolor{quarto-callout-caution-color-frame}{HTML}{fd7e14}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\@ifpackageloaded{caption}{}{\usepackage{caption}}
\AtBeginDocument{%
\ifdefined\contentsname
  \renewcommand*\contentsname{Table of contents}
\else
  \newcommand\contentsname{Table of contents}
\fi
\ifdefined\listfigurename
  \renewcommand*\listfigurename{List of Figures}
\else
  \newcommand\listfigurename{List of Figures}
\fi
\ifdefined\listtablename
  \renewcommand*\listtablename{List of Tables}
\else
  \newcommand\listtablename{List of Tables}
\fi
\ifdefined\figurename
  \renewcommand*\figurename{Figure}
\else
  \newcommand\figurename{Figure}
\fi
\ifdefined\tablename
  \renewcommand*\tablename{Table}
\else
  \newcommand\tablename{Table}
\fi
}
\@ifpackageloaded{float}{}{\usepackage{float}}
\floatstyle{ruled}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newfloat{codelisting}{h}{lop}}{\newfloat{codelisting}{h}{lop}[chapter]}
\floatname{codelisting}{Listing}
\newcommand*\listoflistings{\listof{codelisting}{List of Listings}}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\@ifpackageloaded{caption}{}{\usepackage{caption}}
\@ifpackageloaded{subcaption}{}{\usepackage{subcaption}}
\makeatother
\usepackage{bookmark}
\IfFileExists{xurl.sty}{\usepackage{xurl}}{} % add URL line breaks if available
\urlstyle{same}
\hypersetup{
  pdftitle={The Vacuum's Superfluid Lattice},
  pdfauthor={Jeff Vroom},
  colorlinks=true,
  linkcolor={blue},
  filecolor={Maroon},
  citecolor={Blue},
  urlcolor={Blue},
  pdfcreator={LaTeX via pandoc}}


\title{The Vacuum's Superfluid Lattice}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\providecommand{\subtitle}[1]{% add subtitle to \maketitle
  \apptocmd{\@title}{\par {\large #1 \par}}{}{}
}
\makeatother
\subtitle{When the photon is modeled as a vortex dipole in a superfluid
substrate, the vacuum's ≈100 μm lattice size follows from the
dark-matter density that matches the dark-energy scale, and Higgs VEV.}
\author{Jeff Vroom}
\date{2026-07-01}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
This paper proposes that the universe is filled with a substrate: the
self-binding superfluid modeled by Zloshchastiev, and that the photon is
a \emph{modon} (a self-propelled counter-rotating vortex dipole).
Simeonov's two-fluid stochastic theory supplies the quantum potential as
the reaction force of a counter-rotating boundary layer. The
Larichev--Reznik modon's minimum energy, taken with Planck's constant
--- the smallest packet of light --- sets the substrate's lattice cell
size from cosmology (\(\rho_\mathrm{DM},\hbar,c\)):
\(\xi\approx112\,\mu\)m. The electroweak scale
(\(\sin^2\theta_W,m_e,\hbar,c\) and a Bessel zero) reproduces the same
size by adding a tuned dimensionless \emph{condensation number}
\(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\) --- the count of dc1 quanta in one effective
quantum. As a dimensionless packing fraction of the superfluid's vortex
cores, the two sectors agree to within the \(\sim1\%\) uncertainty on
\(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\), their central values coinciding to \(0.20\%\):
\(f=\rho_\mathrm{DM}\,c\,\xi^4/\hbar=0.5655\) against the parameter-free
geometric value \(f=4\pi/(K\sqrt2)=0.5666\), with \(K=j_{11}^2+1\). The
substrate leaks through counter-rotating boundaries and falls in
between, felt as gravity. Using Barceló--Liberati--Visser analog gravity
with the hydrodynamic substrate equations reproduces the
Painlevé--Gullstrand (Schwarzschild) metric, with Volovik's self-tuning
vacuum supplying a naturally tiny cosmological constant, the MOND
acceleration scale \(a_0=c\sqrt{G\rho_\mathrm{DM}}\) to \(\sim3\%\), the
Higgs vacuum expectation value to \(0.06\%\), the charged-lepton Koide
relation to \(9\) ppm, the fine structure constant to \(1.45\%\), and
many other predictions.
\end{abstract}


\section*{Introduction}\label{sec-intro}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Introduction}

This result appears to bridge quantum field theory and general
relativity while removing complexity and adding intuition. Equations
that span the two domains fall out of hydrodynamics with only two key
adjustments to existing research.

Volovik laid the groundwork in \emph{The Universe in a Helium Droplet}
{[}@volovik2003{]}, showing how Weyl fermions, gauge fields, an emergent
metric, and even a self-tuning cosmological constant arise as low-energy
phenomena in superfluid \(^3\)He; Zloshchastiev and collaborators
developed the superfluid-vacuum model, where self-binding energy creates
a logarithmic equation of state that leads to Lorentz invariance
{[}@zloshchastiev2020; @avdeenkov2011{]}. Independently, Bush, Oza and
collaborators have shown experimentally that a droplet bouncing on a
vibrating bath --- a particle in self-generated resonance with a
responsive substrate --- reproduces quantized orbits, tunneling, and
single-particle diffraction {[}@bush2020{]}. Simeonov shows that the
Madelung/Bohm quantum potential follows from the material derivative of
the osmotic velocity in a two-fluid model {[}@simeonov2025{]}. And
Khoury and Berezhiani have shown that if dark matter is a superfluid,
its phonons mediate a MOND-like force on galactic scales, with a sharp
transition to ordinary cold-dark-matter behavior at the Landau critical
velocity {[}@khoury2015; @berezhiani2015{]}.

The first adjustment uses Simeonov's equations where the two fluids are
the components of a superfluid: the co-rotating bulk is the condensate,
and his counter-flowing second fluid is the counter-rotating component
of the Hall--Vinen--Bekarevich--Khalatnikov (HVBK) mutual-friction
force.

The second adds the conjecture that \textbf{the photon is a modon}
(Figure~\ref{fig-modon}) --- a counter-rotating vortex dipole. A modon
is the self-propelled dipole behind Gulf Stream rings and the
Madden--Julian oscillation {[}@larichev1976; @saffman1992{]}. It carries
energy and momentum but transports no net mass, because the momenta of
its two counter-rotating cores cancel; it propagates at the speed
related to its medium and the rotational velocity. If light is a modon
in the superfluid substrate, then the substrate's rotational velocity is
proportional to the speed of light, and the size of the smallest modon
the substrate can support is the fundamental length of the superfluid
lattice.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=0.96\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Two counter-rotating vortex cores stacked vertically inside one dashed closed envelope; the upper core is +omega counter-clockwise, the lower is -omega clockwise. A bold horizontal arrow to the right marks self-propulsion at speed c, and exterior streamlines loop from front to back, illustrating zero net mass transport.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/modon-dipole.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-modon}\textbf{The photon as a modon.} A modon is a
bound pair of counter-rotating vortex cores --- here \(+\omega\)
(counter-clockwise) above \(-\omega\) (clockwise) --- sharing a single
closed envelope of streamlines of scale \(\xi\). Each core sits in the
velocity field of the other, so the pair advects itself forward (the
induced jet between the cores) and travels through the substrate at the
signal speed \(c\) without the substrate doing net work. Because the two
spins are equal and opposite, the substrate mass each core would carry
cancels exactly (\(\int\psi\,\mathrm{d}A=0\)): the modon transports
\textbf{no net mass} and is therefore massless, even though the pattern
propagates at \(c\) carrying energy \(E=h\nu\) and momentum \(p=E/c\)
--- exactly the properties a photon must have.}

\end{figure}%

From cosmology, it falls out from only the measured dark-matter density
and the constants \(\hbar\) and \(c\) --- this alone sets the cell size.
Particle physics does not set it independently: the electroweak scale
reaches only the electron's Compton length, and closing the nine-decade
gap from there to the cell takes one dimensionless number --- the
\textbf{condensation number}, how many dc1 quanta make up one effective
quantum (a ratio of two masses). Given that number, the electroweak
scale becomes a \emph{scaffold} that reproduces the same cell size. Two
independent checks then confirm the picture: the cell's scale also
matches the dark-energy density, and the same condensation number
predicts the Higgs VEV to \(0.06\%\).

Although the lattice's cell size, \(\xi \approx 100\;\mu\)m, feels at
first glance too large, picture it as the perturbation envelope of a
stiff superfluid spinning at a rotational speed of
\(\approx 0.776\)c.~It mimics a vacuum but is nothing like one. It is an
energetic, closely packed superfluid --- balanced vortices breathing in
anti-phase, tied together by topologically protected vortex lines. The
particles move too fast and sit too close to be seen as individuals;
instead they form lines that bend and twist in quantized ways and are
very hard to break. That stiffness is also what lets them bend quickly
enough to transmit modons --- radiation without energy loss.
Counter-spinning boundary layers form around the electron's orbit and
keep it from collapsing. Those same stiff layers limit the leak we feel
as gravity, and between them the stream falls.

Photons are self-advecting modons; neutrinos are bare vortices wrapped
in a modon dressing. Everything else that moves pushes a bow wave and
trails a balancing stern wave --- at steady speed the two cancel and it
coasts without drag. Only near the signal speed, \(c\), does the bow
wave stiffen into ram pressure.

The substrate does have two limits. When an electron nears the inner one
--- the rotational speed of the substrate, \(\approx 0.776\)c --- its
boundary tears and spits out a gamma modon near \(300\) keV, seen as a
lightning bolt, a solar flare, or a tokamak disruption.

When an organized current like the Sun's polar wind hits the outer-rim
limit of \(750\) km/s, it spills vortices carrying the excess energy. A
galaxy's slow swirl, well below \(750\) km/s, stays coherent ---
modified gravity, MOND's extra grip. But two clusters slammed together
above that speed create shear, and the substrate acts like an ordinary
collisionless gas, streaming through itself --- seen as dark matter.

The large lattice size creates a blurry window for experiments, letting
an energetic superfluid lattice hide in plain sight. And its energy
nests inside stable, balanced layers, concealing an underlying order.

\subsection*{The substrate overview}\label{the-substrate-overview}
\addcontentsline{toc}{subsection}{The substrate overview}

The framework posits a single particle, nicknamed \textbf{dc1}, of mass
\(m_1\approx2\;\mathrm{meV}/c^2\). It condenses into a Bose--Einstein
condensate and forms the quantized vortices that carry the substrate's
internal weather; because its self-interaction is logarithmic it also
\emph{self-binds} into a lattice of cell size \(\xi\).

These identifications follow:

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  \textbf{The vacuum} is the dc1 condensate. Its rest-frame density is
  the cosmological dark-matter density, \(n_1 m_1 = \rho_\mathrm{DM}\).
\item
  \textbf{Mass} is leaking rotational kinetic energy.
\item
  \textbf{A fermion} (electron, quark) is a persistent dc1 vortex, a
  topologically protected excitation, with an odd number of
  counter-rotating boundary layers separating its co-rotating interior
  from the surrounding substrate. The boundary count is what makes it a
  fermion.
\item
  \textbf{A boson} (photon, \(W\), \(Z\)) is a balanced,
  counter-rotating pair --- a modon for the photon --- with even
  boundary parity and zero net forward momentum, hence massless or
  massive only through its internal binding.
\item
  \textbf{A proton} is a Borromean ring, three locked vortices --- two
  up quarks and one down. Colors come from topological interlocking
  phases, and flavors from braids of the knot.
\item
  \textbf{Spin statistics} --- counter-rotating boundary-layer angular
  momentum, with a two-layer, double-cover topology, gives the 720°
  return.
\end{itemize}

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/substrate-ontology.pdf}
\end{center}

From there, the bridge equation fixes the hydrodynamic model of the
lattice, which then yields a number of predictions --- close fits to
several observations, and added clarity for many others.

The argument runs in four steps:

\begin{enumerate}
\def\labelenumi{\arabic{enumi}.}
\tightlist
\item
  Shows the quantum potential as the reaction force of the
  counter-rotating boundary layer.
\item
  Uses the photon's minimum energy as a modon to fix the bridge
  equation.
\item
  Extends that picture to gravity, as a slow leak of substrate through
  the same boundary.
\item
  Works out the lattice's vertical geometry --- the Feynman vortex
  density and Saffman cutoff set the sheet spacing, the
  Gross--Pitaevskii balance shows the lattice breathing with dc1 vortex
  pairs in opposite phase, and the substrate ladder, the feedback loop,
  and the balanced modon topology emerge as an energetic scaffolding
  across domains and scales.
\end{enumerate}

A closing section gathers the framework's predictions and its open
problems.

\section{Counter-rotating layers and the quantum
potential}\label{sec-qp}

Start with the substrate at rest and ask what happens around an
organized disturbance --- a vortex, or an orbiting structure. A
co-rotating region of dc1 flow has, at its edge, a shear zone; in a
low-dissipation superfluid the lowest energy path to absorb that shear
is a thin \textbf{counter-rotating boundary layer} of eddies
(Figure~\ref{fig-shear}). This decomposition --- a co-rotating bulk and
a counter-rotating boundary --- is the two-fluid structure of HVBK
superfluid hydrodynamics, and it is the structure Simeonov's model
needs.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=0.92\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Three parts on a white background. Left, a cross-section: a blue co-rotating vortex core marked plus omega counter-clockwise, sitting inside a faint dashed circle of resting substrate; at the core\textquotesingle s rim a translucent red annulus holds six small clockwise minus-omega rollers, labelled the counter-rotating skin or shield (fluid 2) around the co-rotating core (fluid 1), captioned a shielded vortex with net circulation zero. Centre, a magnifier lens zooms into one point on the rim: the seam is drawn as a horizontal dashed line with a grey still region above and a blue bulk-flow arrow pointing left below, and a single red minus-omega roller straddling the seam, captioned two speeds, one seam makes a roller spun the opposite way to the bulk. Right, a graph of azimuthal speed v-theta against distance from center: a blue straight line rises through the core to a peak at the rim (vorticity omega equals plus two Omega), then a red curve falls back toward zero faster than a dashed slate 1/r reference curve labelled the unshielded tail with omega equals zero; an annotation notes that where v-theta drops faster than 1/r the vorticity flips sign to omega less than zero, the skin, and the net circulation returns to zero.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/shear-zone.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-shear}\textbf{The shear zone: where counter-rotation
comes from.} \emph{Left:} a single co-rotating dc1 core (\(+\omega\),
blue) sits in the resting substrate; at its rim the flow must fall back
to the still fluid, and the cheapest way to close that velocity jump is
a thin \textbf{counter-rotating skin} (\(-\omega\), red) --- a
\emph{shielded vortex} whose total circulation cancels to zero
(\(\int\psi\,\mathrm dA=0\)). \emph{Centre:} zoom into the seam --- two
regions in relative motion put a single roller between them, spun the
opposite way to the bulk; that is the whole mechanism. \emph{Right:} the
velocity profile makes it inevitable. The azimuthal speed \(v_\theta\)
rises through the core (solid-body rotation, \(\omega=+2\Omega\)) to a
peak at the rim, then drops back toward zero \emph{faster} than the
\(1/r\) tail an unshielded vortex would keep; wherever \(v_\theta\)
falls faster than \(1/r\) the vorticity flips sign (\(\omega<0\)) ---
that is the skin --- and the net circulation returns to zero. This one
primitive recurs throughout: wrapped on an orbital it becomes the
quantum potential (Figure~\ref{fig-qpotential}); set core-to-core it is
the photon (Figure~\ref{fig-modon}).}

\end{figure}%

Let fluid 1 (co-rotating, the ``particle'') have density \(\rho_1\) and
velocity \(\mathbf v_1\), and let fluid 2 (counter-rotating boundary)
respond to gradients in fluid 1 with an osmotic velocity

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-osmotic}{
\mathbf v_2 = -D\,\nabla \ln\rho_1, \qquad D = \frac{\hbar}{2m},
}\end{equation}

where \(D\) is the diffusion constant of the counter-rotating layer.
Simeonov {[}@simeonov2025{]} shows that the reaction force of fluid 2
back on fluid 1 is, with \(R=\sqrt{\rho_1}\),

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-Q}{
\mathbf F_\mathrm{reaction} = -\nabla Q, \qquad
Q = -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\,\frac{\nabla^2 R}{R},
}\end{equation}

which is the Bohm quantum potential.\footnote{Simeonov's derivation
  {[}@simeonov2025{]} takes a single fluid of density \(\rho\) obeying
  the diffusion law \(\mathbf J=-D\nabla\rho\); its velocity is the
  osmotic velocity \(\mathbf u=\mathbf J/\rho=-D\nabla\ln\rho\). Form
  its material (convective) derivative --- the osmotic acceleration
  \(\mathrm d\mathbf u/\mathrm dt=\partial_t\mathbf u+(\mathbf u\cdot\nabla)\mathbf u\)
  --- and substitute the continuity equation
  \(\partial_t\rho=-\nabla\!\cdot\mathbf J=D\nabla^2\rho\) for the time
  part. The time and convective pieces collapse into a single gradient,
  \(\mathrm d\mathbf u/\mathrm dt=\nabla\!\left(-2D^2\,\nabla^2\!\sqrt{\rho}/\sqrt{\rho}\right)\),
  whose bracket is the Bohm quantum potential per unit mass, \(Q/m\),
  the instant one sets \(D=\hbar/2m\) (then \(2D^2=\hbar^2/2m^2\) and
  \(Q=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\,\nabla^2\!\sqrt{\rho}/\sqrt{\rho}\)). So
  \(Q\) is the inertia of the osmotic flow, and the convective term
  \((\mathbf u\cdot\nabla)\mathbf u\) is what produces it. To turn this
  identity into a force on a physical density, Simeonov uses
  \textbf{two} fluids: fluid 2 mutually diffuses down fluid 1's
  gradient, \(\mathbf J_2=-D\nabla\rho_1\), and is re-equalised to it on
  a fast timescale, so its osmotic acceleration is the expression above
  with \(\rho\to\rho_1\); by Newton's third law its reaction on fluid 1
  is exactly \(\mathbf F_\mathrm{reaction}=-\nabla Q\)
  (Equation~\ref{eq-Q}). Fed into fluid 1's Euler equation beside an
  ordinary potential \(U\), this returns the full Madelung system ---
  hence, through \(\Psi=\sqrt{\rho_1}\,e^{iS/\hbar}\), the Schrödinger
  equation; a relativistic diffusion law \(J^\mu=D\,\partial^\mu\rho\)
  runs the identical steps to Klein--Gordon. For Step 1 the framework
  reads fluid 1 as the co-rotating dc1 bulk and fluid 2 as a
  counter-rotating HVBK boundary layer, so that his diffusion constant
  becomes the circulation-set diffusivity
  \(D_{sf}=\kappa_q/(4\pi\alpha_{mf})\) of §\ref{sec-hbar} and
  Simeonov's fast density-equalising ``jumps'' become the boundary layer
  continuously re-tracking the bulk gradient. The quantum potential and
  \(\hbar=2mD\) are then a single statement read at two levels:
  Simeonov's kinematics, and the substrate's hydrodynamics.} It is the
back-pressure of that same skin on the curvature of the co-rotating
density --- applied to the hydrogen orbital
(Figure~\ref{fig-qpotential}). The three behaviors follow: near a
density maximum \(\nabla^2 R<0\) so \(Q>0\) --- a repulsive ``quantum
pressure'' that keeps the electron from spiralling in; near a node \(Q\)
dips sharply negative and its gradient pushes flow away from the node,
maintaining it; in a uniform region \(\nabla^2R=0\) and \(Q=0\), no
boundaries, no quantum effects. This is the substrate content of Bush's
hydrodynamic analogy: the electron is a real structure resonating with a
real responsive substrate, and the ``pilot wave'' is the dc1 flow that
the counter-rotating layer organizes around it.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=0.96\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Left: a hydrogen 1s electron as a co-rotating blue vortex core (+omega) with the proton at center and density peaking there, ringed by a thin layer of small counter-rotating red eddies (-omega) that absorb the edge shear, labelled with the osmotic law v2 = -D grad ln rho1, D = hbar/2m. An arrow labelled \textquotesingle reaction force F = -grad Q\textquotesingle{} connects to a graph on the right of energy versus radius: the quantum potential Q (red) rises steeply and is positive near the center, the Coulomb potential V = -e\^{}2/r (slate) dives down, and their sum V+Q=E is a flat constant line, showing the outward quantum pressure exactly cancelling the inward Coulomb pull.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/quantum-potential.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-qpotential}\textbf{The quantum potential as a
boundary-layer back-pressure.} \emph{Left:} a hydrogen \(1s\) electron
is a co-rotating dc1 vortex (\(+\omega\), blue) whose density \(\rho_1\)
peaks at the proton and falls off outward --- a slice of the \(n=1\)
orbital. Where the co-rotating flow shears against the resting
substrate, the cheapest response is a thin \textbf{counter-rotating
boundary layer} of eddies (\(-\omega\), red --- fluid 2), which tracks
gradients in \(\rho_1\) with the osmotic velocity
\(\mathbf v_2=-D\,\nabla\ln\rho_1\), \(D=\hbar/2m\). \emph{Right:} the
reaction force of that layer back on the bulk is exactly the Bohm
quantum potential \(Q=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2R/R\) (with
\(R=\sqrt{\rho_1}\)). Near the density peak \(\nabla^2R<0\), so \(Q>0\):
an outward ``quantum pressure.'' For the ground state it exactly cancels
the inward Coulomb potential \(V=-e^2/r\), leaving the sum \(V+Q=E\)
constant --- the substrate reason the electron neither spirals in nor
radiates.}

\end{figure}%

\subsection{\texorpdfstring{Where \(\hbar\) comes
from}{Where \textbackslash hbar comes from}}\label{sec-hbar}

In Equation~\ref{eq-osmotic} the diffusion constant \(D=\hbar/(2m)\)
used Planck's constant. Here it is seen again this time in an equation
built from vortex mechanics. The HVBK mutual-friction force is built
with a dimensionless coupling \(\alpha_{mf}\) --- the fraction of each
boundary interaction that dissipates energy rather than deflecting the
flow. For a superfluid with quantized circulation
\(\kappa_q = h/m_\mathrm{eff}\), the effective diffusivity of
vortex-mediated transport is \(D_{sf} =
\kappa_q/(4\pi\,\alpha_{mf})\).\footnote{Here \(\kappa_q/4\pi\) is the
  standard local-induction self-velocity coefficient of a quantized
  vortex filament {[}@saffman1992; @donnelly1991{]},
  \(\kappa_q = h/m_\mathrm{eff}\) the Onsager--Feynman circulation
  quantum, and \(\alpha_{mf}\) the HVBK mutual-friction coupling
  {[}@hallvinen1956; @bekarevich1961{]}. The expression is a dimensional
  identification of the friction-limited transport scale --- its content
  is the scaling \(D_{sf}\propto\kappa_q/\alpha_{mf}\) with the \(4\pi\)
  local-induction prefactor --- not a quoted closed-form coefficient.
  (The distinct \emph{thermal} vortex-diffusion coefficient has the
  Einstein form \(D\propto\alpha_{mf}\,k_BT\) {[}@mehdi2023{]}; what
  enters here is the athermal, circulation-set transport scale.)}
Setting this equal to the quantum diffusion constant \(D=\hbar/(2m)\) of
Equation~\ref{eq-osmotic} --- where \(m\) is the mass of the particle
the orbital builds (the electron, for hydrogen) --- and substituting
\(\kappa_q =
2\pi\hbar/m_\mathrm{eff}\) gives the central mass relation

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-mass}{
\boxed{\;m_\mathrm{eff}\,\alpha_{mf} = m\;}
}\end{equation}

and, equivalently, \(\hbar = 2mD\). Planck's constant comes from the
action of the counter-rotating boundary layer. It is the discrete
minimum vortex circulation, the circulation quantum of the substrate,
\(m_\mathrm{eff}\kappa_q\), where \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) is the mass of one
effective quantum of dc1 circulation and \(\alpha_{mf}\) is the
mutual-friction coupling for the relevant scale. With the electroweak
value \(\alpha_{mf} =
\tan^2\theta_W = \sin^2\theta_W/(1-\sin^2\theta_W) = 0.3008\)\footnote{The
  value \(\alpha_{mf}=0.3008\) comes from the Weinberg angle using a
  friction ratio equation. The HVBK mutual-friction force has two
  pieces: a reactive part (deflection that turns the flow's chirality
  without transferring energy) and a dissipative part (drag that carries
  energy across the boundary). Identifying the reactive channel with the
  \(SU(2)_L\) weak coupling \(g\) and the dissipative channel with the
  \(U(1)_Y\) hypercharge coupling \(g'\) makes the friction ratio the
  coupling ratio,
  \[\alpha_{mf}=\frac{g'^2}{g^2}=\tan^2\theta_W,\qquad\text{equivalently}\qquad
  \sin^2\theta_W=\frac{\alpha_{mf}}{1+\alpha_{mf}},\] so the measured
  \(\sin^2\theta_W=0.2312\) fixes \(\alpha_{mf}=0.2312/0.7688=0.3008\).
  This sits squarely in the range real two-fluid superfluids show in
  their active regime (He-II passes \(\alpha\approx0.3\) near
  \(T/T_\lambda\approx0.6\)): \(\approx30\%\) of each boundary
  interaction dissipates, \(\approx70\%\) deflects. The same parameter
  also represents a vortex-scattering phase,
  \(\alpha_{mf}=\tfrac12\sin2\delta_0\) with \(\delta_0=18.48^\circ\)
  (the weak-scattering branch, selected by \(\alpha\ll1\)) --- the
  geometric input behind the fine-structure-constant and magnetic-moment
  predictions of §\ref{sec-predictions}. Currently \(\alpha_{mf}\) comes
  from a measured input. It might be possible to compute it from the
  equilibrium spin rate of the counter-rotating boundary.} and
\(m=m_e\), the electron mass, the effective quantum is
\(m_\mathrm{eff} = m_e/\alpha_{mf} =
1.70\;\mathrm{MeV}/c^2\), heavier than the electron by
\(1/\alpha_{mf}\approx3.3\). The same relation applied to the proton
(mass \(m_p\)) returns
\(\alpha_{mf}^{(N)}/\alpha_{mf}^{(e)} = m_p/m_e \approx 1836\) --- the
proton-to-electron mass ratio as a ratio of boundary
couplings.\footnote{\(m_\mathrm{eff}\) is a property of the
  \emph{substrate}, not of the particle it builds --- one quantum of dc1
  circulation, the same in the electronic and nuclear sectors. Quoting
  \(m_e = 0.511\;\mathrm{MeV}/c^2\), Equation~\ref{eq-mass} fixes it
  once and for all: \(m_\mathrm{eff} = m_e/\alpha_{mf} = 0.511/0.3008 =
  1.70\;\mathrm{MeV}/c^2\). Because that one quantum is \emph{shared},
  writing Equation~\ref{eq-mass} in each sector ---
  \(m_\mathrm{eff}\,\alpha_{mf}^{(e)} = m_e\) and
  \(m_\mathrm{eff}\,\alpha_{mf}^{(N)} = m_p\) --- and dividing cancels
  \(m_\mathrm{eff}\), leaving
  \(\alpha_{mf}^{(N)}/\alpha_{mf}^{(e)} = m_p/m_e \approx 1836\). So the
  proton's coupling is
  \(\alpha_{mf}^{(N)} = 1836\times0.3008 \approx 552\): the proton packs
  \(\sim552\) effective quanta (\(552\times1.70\;\mathrm{MeV} \approx
  938\;\mathrm{MeV} = m_p c^2\)), while the electron is only a
  \(0.3008\) fraction of a single quantum. The proton-to-electron mass
  ratio is thus not an input but the ratio of the two sectors' boundary
  couplings at one shared circulation quantum.}

This fundamental ratio is found from the substrate's hydrodynamic model.
It will matter in Step 2, because the same circulation quantum
\(\kappa_q\) sets the speed of light and the modon's action.

\section{The photon as a modon, and the bridge
equation}\label{sec-bridge}

\subsection{The modon and the emergent speed of light}\label{sec-modon}

A modon is a steadily propagating dipole of two counter-rotating vortex
cores that advect each other forward: each core sits in the velocity
field of the other, and their mutual induction drives the pair through
the substrate without the substrate doing net work {[}@larichev1976;
@saffman1992{]}. Its energy is entirely internal, its net mass transport
is zero, and it is destroyed only by meeting an anti-modon. These are
exactly the properties a photon must have: massless, self-propelled,
energy \(E=h\nu\), annihilated by its antiparticle.

Those same counter-rotating layers from the previous section show why
the photon is a modon and how the atom emits one
(Figure~\ref{fig-modon-birth}). A bound orbital is built from the
standing wave's counter-spinning shells. When the electron drops from
\(n\to n'\), the released energy \(\Delta E=E_n-E_{n'}\) has to go
somewhere: it thins the seam between two shells, that sheared layer
rolls up into a counter-rotating pair, and the pair pinches off as a
free modon carrying \(\Delta E=h\nu\). The photon is born massless and
moving at \(c\) based on the orbital's own rotation speed --- each
direction rotating at \(0.776\)c.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Four panels left to right. I: a hydrogen orbital drawn as two concentric counter-spinning shells, inner +omega blue counter-clockwise and outer -omega red clockwise, proton at center. II: the atom drops from level n to a lower n-prime, releasing energy Delta-E, and the seam between the two shells thins at one spot where the shear concentrates. III: that sheared layer rolls up into a small counter-rotating blue-and-red vortex pair at the rim. IV: the pair detaches as a free modon with a blue +omega core above a red -omega core, an induced jet between them, propelling itself rightward at v=c and carrying Delta-E = h-nu, while the atom relaxes into a smaller n-prime orbital.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/modon-birth.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-modon-birth}\textbf{How an atom emits a photon: a
modon pinches off.} \emph{(I)} A bound orbital is built of the standing
wave's counter-spinning shells --- an inner co-rotating shell
(\(+\omega\), blue) and an outer counter-rotating shell (\(-\omega\),
red), the same two-fluid pairing that supplies the quantum potential
(Figure~\ref{fig-qpotential}). \emph{(II)} When the electron drops
\(n\to n'\), the released energy \(\Delta E=E_n-E_{n'}\) has nowhere to
hide: the seam between the two shells thins where their shear
concentrates. \emph{(III)} That sheared layer rolls up,
Kelvin--Helmholtz fashion, into an embryonic counter-rotating vortex
pair. \emph{(IV)} The pair pinches off as a free \textbf{modon} and
self-advects at the substrate speed \(c\), carrying \(\Delta E=h\nu\)
away while the atom settles into the smaller \(n'\) orbital. The freed
pair \emph{is} the orbital's own two counter-spinning shells, now
detached --- \(+\omega\) above, \(-\omega\) below --- which is why a
photon is born already massless (\(\int\psi\,\mathrm{d}A=0\)) and
already moving at \(c\).}

\end{figure}%

In the strong-coupling BEC regime the dc1 quasiparticle spectrum is
Dirac-like,

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-c}{
E^2 = \mu^2 + c^2 p^2, \qquad c = \frac{\hbar}{m_1\,\xi}
}\end{equation}

with a single isotropic speed set by the dc1 mass and the coherence
length \(\xi\) {[}@volovik2003{]}.\footnote{The observation about the
  spectrum comes from Volovik, \emph{The Universe in a Helium Droplet}
  (2003), §7.4.3--7.4.4. The Bogoliubov quasiparticle energy of a
  pair-correlated fermionic vacuum is \(E^2 = M^2(\mathbf p) + c^2 p^2\)
  with \(c=\Delta_0/p_F\) (his eqn 7.49); in the strong-coupling
  deep-BEC limit \(mc^2\gg|\mu|\) this deforms \emph{continuously} into
  the relativistic Dirac form \(E^2=\mu^2+c^2p^2\) (eqn 7.51), with the
  chemical potential \(\mu\) playing the role of the rest mass. The
  framework's one added identification is that the dc1 coherence length
  is the dc1 Compton wavelength, \(\xi=\hbar/(m_1 c)\) --- equivalently
  \(\Delta_0\simeq\mu=m_1c^2\) and \(p_F\simeq\hbar/\xi\), so
  \(c=\Delta_0/p_F=\hbar/(m_1\xi)\). This same \(\xi=\hbar/(m_1c)\) is
  the close-packing input of Route 1 (Equation~\ref{eq-route1}). Strong
  coupling is also what makes the cone isotropic: the spectrum depends
  on \(|\mathbf p|\) alone, so \(c_\parallel=c_\perp\) --- unlike
  weak-coupling \(^3\)He-A, whose point-node spectrum is strongly
  anisotropic (\(c_\perp/c_\parallel\sim10^{-5}\); Volovik §7.4.6). A
  single isotropic cone shared by every sector is the origin of
  \(c_\mathrm{GW}=c\).} Every low-energy excitation --- phonon, modon,
and the tensor metric perturbation of Step 3 --- inherits this one
speed, so the framework predicts \(c_\mathrm{GW}=c\) exactly; gravity
should travel at the speed of light. And this matches the result from
the gravitational wave measured by LIGO, GW170817:
\(|c_\mathrm{GW}/c-1| <
6\times10^{-15}\). The speed of light is the maximum group velocity of
organized disturbances in a superfluid of \(2\;\mathrm{meV}\) particles
with a hundred-micron coherence length.

The modon adheres to the Larichev--Reznik solution: oscillatory inside
the perturbation envelope (\(\psi\sim J_1(pr)\) for \(r<\xi\)),
exponentially decaying outside (\(\psi\sim K_1(qr)\) for \(r>\xi\)),
matched smoothly at the separatrix \(r=\xi\). The matching involves
\(j_{11}=3.8317\), the first zero of \(J_1\), and produces the structure
constant\footnote{The modon is the Larichev--Reznik two-dimensional
  Rossby soliton {[}@larichev1976{]}; its explicit interior/exterior
  construction and matching are eqns (1.25)--(1.26) of Reznik's review
  {[}@reznik2010{]}. With the dipole streamfunction
  \(\psi=\sin\theta\,J_1(pr)\) inside and \(\psi=\sin\theta\,K_1(qr)\)
  outside, continuity of \(\psi\) and of the normal and tangential
  velocity at the separatrix \(r=\xi\) gives the transcendental matching
  \(\dfrac{J_2(p\xi)}{p\,J_1(p\xi)}=-\dfrac{K_2(q\xi)}{q\,K_1(q\xi)}\)
  (Reznik eqn 1.26, here in our convention: interior wavenumber \(p\),
  exterior decay \(q\)). The lowest mode lays the first \(J_1\) lobe
  exactly across one cell, \(p\xi=j_{11}=3.8317\) (the first zero of
  \(J_1\)), with the exterior decaying over one coherence length,
  \(q\xi=1\); the L--R speed denominator is then
  \(p^2+q^2=(j_{11}^2+1)/\xi^2\equiv K/\xi^2\), which \emph{defines}
  \(K=j_{11}^2+1=15.68\). Setting the resulting modon speed equal to
  \(c\) collapses back to the Volovik relation \(c=\hbar/(m_1\xi)\) ---
  so modon matching is not a second independent condition but the
  statement of \emph{why} a counter-rotating dipole riding the dc1
  circulation gradient \(\kappa_1=2\pi\hbar/m_1\) propagates at exactly
  \(c\). The pair's vanishing net mass transport --- the hydrodynamic
  content of ``massless'' --- is Reznik's Property 8,
  \(\int\psi\,dx\,dy=0\) (eqn 1.18).}

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-K}{
K = j_{11}^2 + 1 = 15.68 .
}\end{equation}

Two existence conditions follow. First, the matching has no solution
below scale \(\xi\): the smallest modon is exactly one lattice cell
wide. Second, that smallest modon has wavelength \(\lambda=\xi\); since
a modon carries energy \(E=hc/\lambda\), this fixes a minimum energy

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-emin}{
E_\mathrm{min} = \frac{hc}{\xi} = 2\pi\,m_1 c^2 \approx 12.6\;\mathrm{meV},
}\end{equation}

the minimum energy of a \emph{single localized} modon --- one whose
whole dipole fits in one cell --- at \(\lambda\sim100\,\mu\)m,
\(\nu\sim3\) THz. This is a floor on one elementary modon, \emph{not} a
cutoff on the spectrum: lower-frequency light propagates as a coherent
superposition of many cells, the collective limit of the same modon
field (§\ref{sec-tier1}).\footnote{Two steps. \textbf{(i)} Existence
  condition 1 fixes the threshold wavelength at one cell,
  \(\lambda_\mathrm{min}=\xi\) (the perturbation envelope has no smooth
  \(J_1\)--\(K_1\) match below \(\xi\)). A modon carries photon energy
  \(E=h\nu=hc/\lambda\), so the one-cell modon has
  \(E_\mathrm{min}=hc/\xi\). \textbf{(ii)} Substituting
  \(\hbar/\xi=m_1c\) (the Volovik relation, Equation~\ref{eq-c}) gives
  the clean identity
  \(E_\mathrm{min}=hc/\xi=2\pi(\hbar/\xi)c=2\pi\,m_1c^2\): exactly
  \(2\pi\) times the dc1 rest energy \(m_1c^2\) --- the \(2\pi\) is one
  full circulation loop of the cell (the dc1 circulation quantum being
  \(\kappa_1=2\pi\hbar/m_1\)), \(m_1c^2\) the rest energy of the single
  dc1 wavefunction per cell. Numerically \(m_1=2\) meV gives
  \(E_\mathrm{min}=12.6\) meV, \(\lambda\approx99\,\mu\)m,
  \(\nu=c/\xi\approx3.0\) THz. This is a floor on a \emph{single
  localized} modon --- one whose whole counter-rotating dipole fits
  inside one cell --- not a cutoff on the electromagnetic spectrum.
  Ordinary high-frequency light sits far above threshold
  (\(\lambda\ll\xi\) --- visible light is \(\sim2\) eV): it keeps the
  \(\xi\)-scale envelope while concentrating its energy in a compact
  sub-cell dipole core (the ``boat in a harbor,'' a compact hull with a
  basin-wide wake), and at threshold core and envelope coincide at
  \(\xi\). \emph{Below} threshold (\(\lambda>\xi\)) the dipole can no
  longer localize inside one cell, and the excitation becomes a
  \textbf{delocalized collective modon mode} --- a coherent, in-phase
  superposition of the field across many cells, its energy \(h\nu\)
  spread over a region \(\sim\lambda\gg\xi\). This is how light below
  the floor exists: as the many-cell collective limit of the same modon
  field, exactly as a long-wavelength acoustic phonon is a single
  quantum of collective motion whose energy lies far below any one
  atom's vibrational quantum. Radio, microwave, and the CMB (peak
  \(\sim0.7\) meV, a factor \(\sim20\) below threshold) are this
  collective regime; a single circuit-QED microwave photon (\(\sim5\)
  GHz, \(\sim20\,\mu\)eV) is one such collective quantum, its \(6\)-cm
  wavelength spanning hundreds of cells end to end. So \(12.6\) meV is a
  \textbf{crossover} (\(\lambda=\xi\)) between a compact single-cell
  core and a many-cell collective mode, not a spectral edge; any
  observable would be a change in modon \emph{structure and dispersion}
  near \(3\) THz, not an absence of radiation (§\ref{sec-tier1}).}

\subsection{The bridge equation}\label{sec-bridge-eq}

The previous results let us pin the lattice size \(\xi\). One route ---
cosmology --- fixes it outright, from the dark-matter density and
\(\hbar,c\) alone. A second --- the electroweak scale --- reproduces the
\emph{same} size, but not on its own: it fixes everything about the cell
except one pure number, so it is a \textbf{scaffold}, not a second
independent measurement. We take them in turn, then show where they
meet.

\textbf{Route 1 --- from cosmology.} Three relations that describe the
nature of the dc1 superfluid: the Volovik speed Equation~\ref{eq-c}, the
composition \(n_1 m_1 = \rho_\mathrm{DM}\), and close-packing \(n_1\xi^3
\approx 1\) (one condensate wavefunction per cell, the Bose-condensation
degeneracy condition \(n\lambda_{dB}^3\sim1\)).\footnote{The elimination
  proceeds with three steps. Volovik's speed (Equation~\ref{eq-c}) gives
  \(m_1=\hbar/(c\xi)\); the composition \(n_1m_1=\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) then
  gives \(n_1=\rho_\mathrm{DM}\,c\,\xi/\hbar\); and close-packing
  \(n_1\xi^3=1\) gives \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\,c\,\xi^4/\hbar=1\),
  i.e.~\(\xi=(\hbar/\rho_\mathrm{DM}c)^{1/4}\). The only physical
  content beyond \(\hbar,c,\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) is the quantum-degeneracy
  condition \(n\lambda_{dB}^3\sim1\) that defines Bose condensation ---
  one coherent wavefunction per de Broglie volume --- read here at the
  lattice cell, \(\lambda_{dB}\to\xi\). Numerically
  \(\hbar/(\rho_\mathrm{DM}c) =
  1.055\times10^{-34}/(2.254\times10^{-27}\cdot2.998\times10^8) =
  1.561\times10^{-16}\,\mathrm{m}^4\), whose fourth root is
  \(111.8\,\mu\)m. The ``\(\approx1\)'' is exact only for one
  wavefunction per cell; the true occupancy is the packing fraction
  \(f\) (Equation~\ref{eq-f}), so Route 1 is the \(f\!=\!1\)
  idealization and the real cell is smaller by \(f^{1/4}\).} Eliminating
\(n_1\) and \(m_1\) leaves a single equation,

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-route1}{
\xi_\mathrm{CP} = \left(\frac{\hbar}{\rho_\mathrm{DM}\,c}\right)^{1/4}
\approx 111.8\;\mu\mathrm{m},
}\end{equation}

with inputs \(\hbar\), \(c\), and the dark-matter density
\(\rho_\mathrm{DM}=2.254\times10^{-27}\;\mathrm{kg/m}^3\) (Planck 2018
{[}@planck2018{]}).\footnote{Planck reports the dimensionless
  cold-dark-matter density \(\Omega_c h^2 = 0.1200 \pm 0.0012\)
  {[}@planck2018{]}; the mass density follows from the critical density,
  \(\rho_\mathrm{DM} = \Omega_c h^2 \cdot \rho_\mathrm{crit}/h^2
  = 0.1200 \times 1.878\times10^{-26}\;\mathrm{kg/m}^3 = 2.254\times10^{-27}\;\mathrm{kg/m}^3\),
  with
  \(\rho_\mathrm{crit}/h^2 = 3H_0^2/(8\pi G h^2) = 1.878\times10^{-26}\;\mathrm{kg/m}^3\).
  The \(\pm1\%\) uncertainty on \(\Omega_c h^2\) carries directly to
  \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\).} (Equivalently \(n_1\xi^3=1\) and
Equation~\ref{eq-c} reduce, with no numbers, to
\(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\xi^3=m_1\) --- close-packing is the same statement as
emergent light.)

\textbf{Route 2 --- the electroweak scaffold.} This route uses two
conditions on the vortex lattice --- the modon-matching condition
Equation~\ref{eq-K} and a gravitational self-consistency condition
called SC2 --- together with the Gross--Pitaevskii core balance shared
with Route 1. SC2 is

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-sc2}{
\kappa_q\,\Omega_v = 4\pi c^2, \qquad \Omega_v = \frac{2m_\mathrm{eff}c^2}{\hbar},
}\end{equation}

which is the requirement (Step 3) that the lattice's induced gravity
reproduce the Newtonian limit \(\nabla^2\Phi = 4\pi G\rho\).\footnote{\(\Omega_v=2m_\mathrm{eff}c^2/\hbar\)
  is the Compton (zitterbewegung) frequency of one effective circulation
  quantum --- twice its rest energy over \(\hbar\) --- and
  \(\kappa_q=2\pi\hbar/m_\mathrm{eff}\) is that quantum's circulation
  (§\ref{sec-hbar}). Their product is
  \(\kappa_q\Omega_v=(2\pi\hbar/m_\mathrm{eff})(2m_\mathrm{eff}c^2/\hbar)=4\pi c^2\)
  identically --- \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) cancels. So SC2 adds no new
  dynamics, only a normalization: the \(4\pi\) is the Gauss's-law solid
  angle that makes the lattice's induced gravity reproduce the Newtonian
  source \(\nabla^2\Phi=4\pi G\rho\) (Step 3), and it is the same
  \(4\pi\) that heads the packing fraction (Equation~\ref{eq-bridge},
  §\ref{sec-four-factors}).}

The third ingredient is the \textbf{Gross--Pitaevskii core balance}. At
a vortex core the condensate's kinetic energy \(\hbar^2/(2m_1\xi^2)\)
balances its interaction energy \(m_1c^2\); equating the two fixes the
healing length \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}=\hbar/(\sqrt2\,m_1c)=\xi/\sqrt2\)
{[}@fetter2009{]}. The \(\sqrt2\) is nothing but the \(2\) in the
kinetic operator \(\hbar^2/2m\) --- the most elementary fact of
non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

Combining the three is then bookkeeping. Modon matching
(Equation~\ref{eq-K}) supplies the structure constant \(K=j_{11}^2+1\)
and the Volovik mass \(m_1=\hbar/(c\xi)\); SC2 supplies the effective
quantum \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) through its Compton clock
\(\Omega_v=2m_\mathrm{eff}c^2/\hbar\); and the factor \(2\) in the
denominator is SC2's \(4\pi/2\pi\) --- numerically the same \(2\) the
core balance carries. The three collapse to a single line,

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-route2-sub}{
\xi_\mathrm{SC2}^3 = \frac{K}{2}\,\frac{\hbar}{m_\mathrm{eff}\,c},
}\end{equation}

--- the cell scale cubed is half of \(K\) times the effective quantum's
reduced Compton length \(\hbar/(m_\mathrm{eff}c)\). Trading the
substrate mass \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) for the measured electron mass through
the mass relation \(m_\mathrm{eff}\alpha_{mf}=m_e\)
(Equation~\ref{eq-mass}) puts it in electroweak inputs alone,

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-route2}{
\xi_\mathrm{SC2} = \left(\frac{K\,\hbar\,\alpha_{mf}}{2\,m_e\,c}\right)^{1/3}
= 96.9\;\mu\mathrm{m},
}\end{equation}

with inputs \(\sin^2\theta_W\) (through \(\alpha_{mf}\)), \(m_e\),
\(\hbar\), \(c\), and the Bessel zero \(j_{11}\).\footnote{The
  combination uses three conditions: modon matching
  (Equation~\ref{eq-K}, contributing \(K=j_{11}^2+1\) and the Volovik
  mass \(m_1=\hbar/(c\xi)\)), SC2 (Equation~\ref{eq-sc2}, contributing
  the effective quantum \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) through the Compton clock
  \(\Omega_v=2m_\mathrm{eff}c^2/\hbar\)), and the Gross--Pitaevskii core
  balance --- the healing length \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}=\xi/\sqrt2\)
  {[}@fetter2009{]}. These assemble to Equation~\ref{eq-route2-sub},
  \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}^3=K\hbar/(2m_\mathrm{eff}c)\); the factor \(2\) in
  the denominator is SC2's \(4\pi/2\pi\), numerically the same \(2\) the
  core balance carries --- the elasticity variant built on Baym's
  lattice \(8\pi\) instead of the gravitational \(4\pi\) would give
  \(4\), i.e.~\(\xi_\mathrm{Baym}=(\hbar K/4m_\mathrm{eff}c)^{1/3}\).
  Substituting the mass relation \(m_\mathrm{eff}\alpha_{mf}=m_e\)
  (Equation~\ref{eq-mass}) trades \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) for the measured
  electron mass and gives the measured-input form
  Equation~\ref{eq-route2},
  \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}^3=K\hbar\,\alpha_{mf}/(2m_ec)\); numerically
  \(K\hbar\alpha_{mf}/(2m_ec)=15.68\cdot1.055\times10^{-34}\cdot0.3008/
  (2\cdot9.109\times10^{-31}\cdot2.998\times10^8)=9.11\times10^{-13}\,\mathrm{m}^3\),
  whose cube root is \(96.9\,\mu\)m. As written this is a numerical
  recipe, not a dimensionally balanced equation (see the callout below):
  substituting modon matching \(\xi=\hbar/(m_1c)\) as well collapses it
  to the lower-order statement \(\nu\,\xi_\mathrm{SC2}^2=K/2\) with
  \(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\) --- one order lower than the cubic looks.}

The electroweak side shares no parameter with cosmology beyond \(\hbar\)
and \(c\), and as a raw length recipe it lands within \(13\%\) of
\(\xi\) --- but it cannot \emph{build} that length on its own. Its
inputs \(\{\sin^2\theta_W, m_e, \hbar, c\}\) reach only the electron's
Compton scale, and the nine-decade lift to the cell is not a length this
sector can supply (the dimensional gap flagged in the callout below).
What it honestly fixes is everything about the cell \emph{except} one
pure number --- the \textbf{condensation number}

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-nu}{
\nu \equiv \frac{m_\mathrm{eff}}{m_1} \approx 8.3\times10^8 ,
}\end{equation}

the count of dc1 quanta (\(m_1\approx2\) meV) in one effective
quantum.\footnote{\(\nu\) is two-valued because \(m_1=\hbar/(c\xi)\)
  depends on which cell size is used, while
  \(m_\mathrm{eff}=m_e/\alpha_{mf}\) is fixed. The value quoted here
  reads \(m_1\) from the electroweak \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}\); reading it
  from the cosmology \(\xi_\mathrm{CP}\) instead gives the clean anchor
  \(\nu\approx9.6\times10^8\) (\(\ln\nu=20.68\)). The two differ by the
  same \(\sim13\%\) that separates the two lengths --- the spread
  \emph{is} the bridge equation's own closure (Equation~\ref{eq-f}), not
  extra slack. Which value an observable takes is set by the observable:
  the Higgs VEV, an electroweak quantity, takes the \(8.3\times10^8\)
  reading (§\ref{sec-predictions}). Predicting \(\nu\) from first
  principles is the single open number of the electroweak side
  (§\ref{sec-open-problems}).} Being a ratio of two masses, \(\nu\) is
\emph{manifestly} unit-invariant --- it cannot be a units artifact the
way a length recipe can. So the electroweak side is a \textbf{scaffold},
not a second independent measurement of the length: the honest structure
is \emph{one length} (cosmology), \emph{one scaffold} (electroweak +
geometry), and \emph{one open number} (\(\nu\),
§\ref{sec-open-problems}). The measured cosmological density
\(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) is thereby tied to particle-physics quantities
(\(\sin^2\theta_W\) through \(\alpha_{mf}\), and \(m_e\)) through that
single number. The comparison is not circular: \(K\) and \(\sqrt2\)
enter both the electroweak recipe and the geometric target but do not
cancel between them.

When combined into a dimensionless measure of vortex core density, the
\textbf{packing fraction} of a superfluid

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-f}{
f \equiv \frac{\rho_\mathrm{DM}\,c\,\xi_\mathrm{SC2}^4}{\hbar}
= \left(\frac{\xi_\mathrm{SC2}}{\xi_\mathrm{CP}}\right)^4 = 0.5655 ,
}\end{equation}

is the number of dc1 wavefunctions in one SC2 cell.\footnote{With
  \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}=96.9\,\mu\)m the occupancy is
  \(f=\rho_\mathrm{DM}\,c\,\xi_\mathrm{SC2}^4/\hbar=(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}/\xi_\mathrm{CP})^4=0.5655\),
  using the Planck density
  \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}=2.254\times10^{-27}\,\mathrm{kg/m}^3\) (Route 1).
  This single dimensionless ratio is the \emph{only} place the two
  routes are compared, which is why the comparison stays clean even
  though Equation~\ref{eq-route2} has mismatching dimensions for \(m\).
  Route 1's close-packing ``\(\approx1\)'' was the \(f=1\) idealization;
  the data prefer \(f\approx0.566\) --- a lattice looser than
  one-wavefunction-per-cell by exactly the geometric factor of
  Equation~\ref{eq-bridge}.} It matches the parameter-free geometric
value

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-bridge}{
\boxed{\;f = \frac{4\pi}{K\sqrt2} = 0.5666\;}
}\end{equation}

to within the \(\sim1\%\) Planck uncertainty on \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) ---
the central values coinciding to \textbf{0.20\%}.\footnote{\(4\pi/(K\sqrt2)=12.566/(15.68\cdot1.41421)=12.566/22.18=0.5666\),
  against the measured \(f=0.5655\) (Equation~\ref{eq-f}): a ratio of
  \(0.998\), i.e.~\(0.20\%\). The three pieces are exactly the three
  Route 2 conditions --- \(K=j_{11}^2+1\) the modon match
  (Equation~\ref{eq-K}), \(\sqrt2\) the GP healing-length factor
  (Equation~\ref{eq-route2}), \(4\pi\) the SC2 Gauss's-law solid angle
  (Equation~\ref{eq-sc2}) --- and their physical reading, together with
  the fourth factor \(\eta=1\), is §\ref{sec-four-factors}.}
Equation~\ref{eq-bridge} is the bridge equation. It constrains one
cosmological parameter (\(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\)) in terms of two
particle-physics parameters (\(\sin^2\theta_W\), \(m_e\)) plus a
geometric calculation.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={A three-band figure. Top: cosmology fixes the cell size xi. A blue box \textquotesingle from cosmology (fixes the length)\textquotesingle{} with inputs rho\_DM, hbar, c and formula xi\_CP lands the length at 111.8 micrometres; a red box \textquotesingle from the electroweak scale (scaffold, length recipe)\textquotesingle{} with inputs sin-squared theta-W, m\_e, hbar, c, j\_11 and formula xi\_SC2 runs only as a raw length recipe to 96.9 micrometres, the 13\% gap between the two marked \textquotesingle a mnemonic, not a second length\textquotesingle. The electroweak side fixes everything about the cell except one pure number, the condensation number nu = m\_eff / m\_1. Middle: the measured packing fraction f = rho\_DM c xi\_SC2\^{}4 / hbar = (xi\_SC2/xi\_CP)\^{}4 = 0.5655 set against the boxed parameter-free geometric value f = 4 pi /(K root 2) = 0.5666, agreeing to 0.20 percent. Bottom: the decomposition f = 4pi times 1/K times 1/root2 times eta, each factor color-coded and captioned with its physical requirement.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/bridge-equation.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-bridge}\textbf{The bridge equation: one cell size
from cosmology, tied to the electroweak scale by one dimensionless
number.} \emph{Top:} the cosmology route (\(\rho_\mathrm{DM},\hbar,c\))
sets the lattice cell size \(\xi_\mathrm{CP}=111.8\,\mu\)m; the
electroweak scale (\(\sin^2\theta_W,m_e,\hbar,c\), and the Bessel zero
\(j_{11}\)) --- sharing nothing but \(\hbar\) and \(c\) --- runs as a
length recipe to \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}=96.9\,\mu\)m, agreeing only to
\(\sim13\%\) as raw lengths (a mnemonic; it cannot build the length
independently). \emph{Middle:} the physical claim is dimensionless ---
the occupancy of one cell,
\(f=\rho_\mathrm{DM}\,c\,\xi_\mathrm{SC2}^4/\hbar=(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}/\xi_\mathrm{CP})^4=0.5655\),
matches the parameter-free geometric value \(f=4\pi/(K\sqrt2)=0.5666\)
to within Planck's \(\sim1\%\) uncertainty on \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\),
their central values coinciding to \textbf{0.20\%}. \emph{Bottom:} that
value decomposes into four factors, each a separate physical requirement
on one substrate --- \(4\pi\) (stiff enough to gravitate: the
Gauss's-law solid angle of SC2), \(1/K\) (structured enough to carry
photons: the Larichev--Reznik modon match, \(K=j_{11}^2+1\)),
\(1/\sqrt2\) (a genuine condensate: the Gross--Pitaevskii healing
length), and \(\eta=1\) (parallel filaments).}

\end{figure}%

\begin{tcolorbox}[enhanced jigsaw, arc=.35mm, bottomrule=.15mm, bottomtitle=1mm, breakable, colback=white, colbacktitle=quarto-callout-note-color!10!white, colframe=quarto-callout-note-color-frame, coltitle=black, left=2mm, leftrule=.75mm, opacityback=0, opacitybacktitle=0.6, rightrule=.15mm, title=\textcolor{quarto-callout-note-color}{\faInfo}\hspace{0.5em}{On the dimensional mismatch in Equation~\ref{eq-route2}}, titlerule=0mm, toprule=.15mm, toptitle=1mm]

This cube-root is a \emph{numerical recipe}: plug in SI values and it
returns the right length (\(\xi_\text{SC2} = 96.9\;\mu\)m), but it does
not balance as a dimensional equation --- the left side is a volume
\([\text{m}^3]\), the right side a length \([\text{m}]\).

That mismatch rides on a \emph{density}, not on the masses --- it is an
artifact, not a missing physical factor. Each of the two conditions is a
clean dimensionless statement carrying its own mass: the
modon/close-packing count uses the dc1 mass \(m_1\), the SC2 Compton
clock uses the effective quantum \(m_\text{eff}\). Those two masses
combine \emph{cleanly} into the honest length \(\hbar/(m_\text{eff}c)\)
of Equation~\ref{eq-route2-sub} --- the masses are never the problem.
What is left stranded is the shared vortex number density
\(n_1\sim1/\xi^3\): the modon condition is written in a \emph{3D
vortex-density} form in which a \(\xi^3\) appears only as the partner of
\(n_1\) in the dimensionless close-packing \(n_1\xi^3=1\). When that
shared \(n_1\) cancels between the two conditions, its partner \(\xi^3\)
is left behind as a bare volume against the length on the other side. So
the stray cube is a canceled density's leftover geometry, not a missing
physical term.

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  \textbf{Modon matching} is the Volovik speed, \(\xi = \hbar/(m_1 c)\)
  --- \([\text{m}]=[\text{m}]\).
\item
  \textbf{SC2} is the effective-quantum Compton clock,
  \(\Omega_v\,\xi/c = 2\nu\) with \(\nu = m_\text{eff}/m_1\) ---
  \([1]=[1]\), satisfied automatically once
  \(\kappa_q = 2\pi\hbar/m_\text{eff}\) (the mass cancels).
\end{itemize}

Substituting the first into the cube-root collapses it to
\(\nu\,\xi_\text{SC2}^2 = K/2\): the cubic is \textbf{secretly linear in
\(\xi\)}, which is exactly why it cannot balance against \(\xi^3\).

More evidence of the balanced statement is the dimensionless
\textbf{packing fraction},
\(f = \rho_\text{DM}\,c\,\xi^4/\hbar = 4\pi/(K\sqrt{2})\) --- manifestly
\([1]=[1]\), and where the entire \(0.20\%\) match lives. The physical
reason there is no genuine cube to balance: the cell scale is the
\textbf{gausson's self-binding width}, a coupling-energy balance
(\(\beta^{-1}=m_1c^2\)) yielding a single length \(\xi=\hbar/(m_1c)\)
--- no rotation, no volume.

\end{tcolorbox}

\subsection{Four factors, one substrate}\label{sec-four-factors}

The packing fraction decomposes as
\(f = 4\pi\cdot(1/K)\cdot(1/\sqrt2)\cdot\eta\), each factor a separate
physical requirement on one substrate:

{\def\LTcaptype{none} % do not increment counter
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}@{}}
\toprule\noalign{}
\begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Factor
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Requirement
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Origin
\end{minipage} \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
\(4\pi\) & stiff enough to produce gravity & Gauss's-law solid angle in
SC2 (Step 3) \\
\(1/K\) & structured enough to carry photons & Bessel modon matching,
Equation~\ref{eq-K} \\
\(1/\sqrt2\) & a genuine quantum condensate & GP healing length
\(\xi_\mathrm{GP}=\xi/\sqrt2\) \\
\(\eta=1\) & parallel vortex filaments & helicity + Onsager + Tkachenko
stability \\
\end{longtable}
}

The first two come from Step 2 --- the \(4\pi\) as the Gauss's-law
normalization of SC2 (Equation~\ref{eq-sc2}),\footnote{That \(4\pi\) is
  the Gauss's law solid-angle factor. It's is the 3D geometry, the
  surface area of a unit sphere through which gravitational flux
  escapes. The Seeley--DeWitt expansion fixes the form (an
  Einstein--Hilbert term \(\int\sqrt{-g}\,R\)) and the value of the
  induced \(G\); the \(4\pi\) relates \(G_{\mu\nu}=8\pi G\,T_{\mu\nu}\)
  to \(\nabla^2\Phi=4\pi G\rho\). It requires that the substrate's
  emergent Lorentz invariance is exact, the same assumption that gives
  \(c_\mathrm{GW}=c\). The full derivation is open
  (§\ref{sec-open-problems}, Step A). Two independent constructions land
  the same \(4\pi\) --- one-loop induced gravity (Seeley--DeWitt), and
  Jacobson's horizon thermodynamics, where the \(4\pi\) is automatic for
  any induced \(G\) through the entropy--area law. And the same \(4\pi\)
  reappears, doubled, as the Higgs VEV's prefactor \(8\pi=2\times4\pi\)
  (the extra \(2\) the radiation-equation-of-state weight of the
  massless chirality Goldstones), so the bridge equation's \(4\pi\) and
  the electroweak VEV --- found to \(0.06\%\) from the same Weinberg
  angle (§\ref{sec-predictions}) --- are not two results but one
  condition seen twice.} the \(1/K\) as the Larichev--Reznik modon match
(Equation~\ref{eq-K}).

The \(1/\sqrt2\) has two readings that meet on the same number.
Kinematically it is the \(\sqrt2\) of the Gross--Pitaevskii healing
length \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}=\hbar/(\sqrt2\,m_1 c)\) {[}@fetter2009{]} ---
the bare factor of two in the kinetic operator \(\hbar^2/2m\). This
healing length is the gausson's self-binding width: the cell is set by
the log coupling energy \(\beta^{-1}=m_1c^2\), which is why it is a
single length and not a rotating volume. Structurally,
\(\xi^2 = 2\,\xi_\mathrm{GP}^2\) says the close-packed lattice of vortex
cores is exactly twice as dense as the lattice of fermions: there are
two cores per fermion, a vortex and its anti-phase Cooper partner. The
same factor of two appears in BCS pairing, in the type-I/II
superconductor threshold \(\kappa=1/\sqrt2\), and (Step 4) as the rung
of the substrate's scale ladder. That a quantum-mechanical convention
and a pairing count return the same number is further confirmation of
the lattice's structure. It is also the one factor that distinguishes
the two routes' physics: of the pieces of \(f\), only the \(\sqrt2\)
comes from an energy balance. Route 2 reaches \(\xi\) through the GP
healing length and so carries it; Route 1, built on the Volovik
dispersion \(c=\hbar/(m_1\xi)\) alone, does not. In that light, the
\(\sqrt2\) is a seam where a cosmological packing count meets an
electroweak energy condition.

The \(\eta=1\) factor --- no three-dimensional geometric correction ---
rests on classical vortex dynamics: among 2D arrays only the triangular
lattice is stable (Tkachenko 1966 {[}@tkachenko1966{]}); parallel
filaments are the self-induction equilibrium and are stable in 3D
(Jiménez 1975 {[}@jimenez1975{]}); helicity conservation forbids 3D
networks (\(\mathbf u\perp\boldsymbol\omega\Rightarrow J=0\), Moffatt
1969 {[}@moffatt1969{]}); and Onsager clustering drives like-signed
vortices together. The lattice is a fiber bundle of straight parallel
filaments in triangular domains, so 2D bookkeeping applies in 3D and no
\(\eta\neq1\) correction enters. Rotating-BEC experiments show exactly
such triangular (Abrikosov) lattices --- large, highly regular arrays
that remain ordered over many rotation periods {[}@aboshaeer2001{]}.

The framework also predicts a small, structural gap as a convincing
check: had SC2 used the lattice-elastic \(8\pi\) (Baym's Tkachenko-wave
coefficient {[}@baym2003{]}) instead of the gravitational \(4\pi\), the
coherence length would be \(76.9\,\mu\)m versus the GP value
\(79.0\,\mu\)m --- a \(2.7\%\) difference that the bridge equation
predicts to \(0.04\%\) as \(2^{1/24}(4\pi/K)^{1/4}\).\footnote{Baym's
  \(8\pi\) is the coefficient of the Tkachenko \emph{shear} wave,
  \(c_T^2=\kappa_q\Omega/(8\pi)\) {[}@baym2003{]} --- an elastic
  vibration of the vortex lattice, a different excitation from the
  gravitational mode SC2 governs. Using the gravitational \(4\pi\)
  rather than the elastic \(8\pi\) is therefore a physical claim, and
  the gap is its fingerprint. Both lengths are \emph{core}
  (healing-length) scale, not cell scale: \(79.0\,\mu\)m is Route 1's
  \(\xi_\mathrm{CP}/\sqrt2\), while
  \(76.9\,\mu\mathrm{m}=(\hbar K/4m_\mathrm{eff}c)^{1/3}\) is the core
  an \(8\pi\) SC2 would give. Their ratio is fixed at
  \(2^{1/24}(4\pi/K)^{1/4}=0.9739\) --- the GR factor \(2^{1/3}\)
  lifting the gravitational core above the elastic one --- and it holds
  to \(0.05\%\), one-fourth of the \(0.20\%\) packing-fraction residual
  because the ratio scales as \(f^{1/4}\).}

\section{Gravity as a leak, and the acoustic metric}\label{sec-gravity}

\subsection{The waterfall and the Schwarzschild metric}\label{sec-pg}

The substrate leaks through stiff counter-rotating boundary layers ---
an ebbing flow that only rarely breaks through a boundary's rapids, but
once through falls freely as a gravitational waterfall until it reaches
the next boundary. Together the stream exerts a force: gravity. The rare
boundary crossing is felt as weight, while the free-falling waterfall
between boundaries is the velocity field that shapes the metric, giving
the illusion of curved spacetime.

Unruh, Visser, and Volovik showed that sound in a flowing fluid obeys an
effective Lorentzian (acoustic) metric {[}@unruh1981; @blv2005;
@volovik2003{]}.\footnote{The acoustic metric is Unruh's
  {[}@unruh1981{]}: linearizing the Euler + continuity equations of a
  barotropic fluid about a background flow \(\mathbf v\) shows that
  sound --- here the modon --- obeys a Lorentzian metric whose null
  cones are tilted and dragged by the flow; Barceló--Liberati--Visser
  made it general and rigorous {[}@blv2005{]} and Volovik identified it
  with superfluid quasiparticles {[}@volovik2003{]}. We have dropped the
  overall conformal factor \(\rho/c_s\) that multiplies the bracket in
  the general expression: it rescales \(ds^2\) but leaves the null cones
  --- hence every light path and the entire causal structure ---
  unchanged, and it divides out exactly when the metric is read in the
  rain-frame form Equation~\ref{eq-schwarzschild}. The substrate
  identifications are \(c_s\to c\) (the modon speed Equation~\ref{eq-c})
  and \(\mathbf v\to v_\mathrm{ebb}(r)\,\hat r\) (the radial dc1
  inflow). This is the \emph{kinematic} half --- the metric \emph{given}
  the flow; the \emph{dynamical} half, that the substrate's own
  equations produce exactly this flow, is carried by
  Equation~\ref{eq-schwarzschild} below.} For a steady radial inflow
\(v_\mathrm{ebb}(r)\) the acoustic line element is

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-acoustic}{
ds^2 = -\!\left(c^2 - v_\mathrm{ebb}^2\right)dt^2
- 2\,v_\mathrm{ebb}\,dr\,dt + dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2 .
}\end{equation}

A dc1 particle falling from rest at infinity reaches radius \(r\) with
\(v_\mathrm{ebb}(r) = \sqrt{2GM/r}\) from the substrate's Euler +
continuity equations (the convective acceleration \(v\,dv/dr = -GM/r^2\)
is the free-fall law, with zero pressure gradient, as the equivalence
principle requires). Substituting into Equation~\ref{eq-acoustic} gives

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-schwarzschild}{
ds^2 = -\!\left(1 - \frac{2GM}{rc^2}\right)c^2 dt^2
- 2\sqrt{\tfrac{2GM}{r}}\,dr\,dt + dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2 ,
}\end{equation}

which is the Painlevé--Gullstrand form of the Schwarzschild metric ---
the ``river model'' of a black hole {[}@hamilton2008{]}. Here the river
is the substrate waterfall.\footnote{Two independent statements agree.
  \textbf{Kinematics:} substituting the free-fall profile
  \(v_\mathrm{ebb}=\sqrt{2GM/r}\) into Equation~\ref{eq-acoustic}
  returns \emph{exactly} the Painlevé--Gullstrand ``rain'' form of the
  Schwarzschild line element --- the 1921--22 coordinates of Painlevé
  and Gullstrand, related to the textbook Schwarzschild coordinates by a
  redefinition of \(t\) alone (no curvature invariant is changed), read
  physically as Hamilton \& Lisle's river model {[}@hamilton2008{]}.
  \textbf{Dynamics:} that profile is not an assumed force law but the
  steady state of the substrate's own equations. For
  \(v_\mathrm{ebb}=\sqrt{2GM/r}\) the convective acceleration is
  \(v_\mathrm{ebb}\,dv_\mathrm{ebb}/dr=-GM/r^2\) with \(dP/dr=0\) ---
  free fall with no pressure gradient, exactly as the equivalence
  principle requires of a comoving frame. The two halves close a fixed
  point: the flow that \emph{sets} the metric (kinematics,
  Equation~\ref{eq-acoustic}) is the flow the substrate dynamics
  \emph{produce}, so the identification is self-consistent rather than
  circular.}

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Two panels. Left, the mechanism: three stiff red counter-rotating -omega boundary bands stacked toward a mass below, each with a narrow central gap; a blue substrate-ebb arrow descends, squeezing through each gap (the leak, felt as weight) and lengthening as it free-falls in the open space between bands (the waterfall, which shapes the metric), with the reading \textquotesingle through a boundary, the rare leak felt as weight; between boundaries, free fall which shapes the metric.\textquotesingle{} Right, the consequence: a central mass M ringed by a bold horizon circle where v\_ebb = c at r = 2GM/c squared; blue arrows converge inward from all sides as the river v\_ebb(r) = root(2GM/r); along a ray to the right, black outgoing-light arrows grow with distance (net speed c minus v\_ebb), shrink to near-zero just outside the horizon (marked frozen), and reverse to point inward just inside it (v\_ebb greater than c); a boxed line element ds squared = minus (c squared minus v\_ebb squared) dt squared minus 2 v\_ebb dr dt plus dr squared plus r squared d-Omega squared is labelled the Painleve-Gullstrand form of Schwarzschild, the river taken literally.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/gravity-river.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-gravity}\textbf{Gravity as a leak, and the
Painlevé--Gullstrand river.} \emph{Left --- the mechanism:} the
substrate ebb falls toward a mass through a stack of stiff
counter-rotating \(-\omega\) boundary layers; it can only rarely transit
a boundary --- that \textbf{leak} is the force we feel as weight ---
while between boundaries it \textbf{free-falls}, the waterfall whose
velocity field shapes the metric. \emph{Right --- the consequence:}
coarse-grained, the inflow is a smooth radial river
\(v_\mathrm{ebb}(r)=\sqrt{2GM/r}\) --- free fall from rest at infinity,
fixed by the substrate's own Euler + continuity equations with no
pressure gradient (the equivalence principle). Put into the acoustic
metric it is exactly the Painlevé--Gullstrand form of the Schwarzschild
line element, the river taken literally. The horizon is simply where the
river reaches \(c\): outgoing light, of net speed \(c-v_\mathrm{ebb}\),
slows to zero there and is swept inward beyond it.}

\end{figure}%

These classical tests follow: the full nonlinear redshift
\(\nu(r)/\nu_0 = \sqrt{1-2GM/rc^2}\), light deflection \(\Delta\theta =
4GM/(bc^2)\), the Shapiro delay, and perihelion precession
\(6\pi GM/(ac^2(1-e^2))\).\footnote{Each is a geodesic of
  Equation~\ref{eq-schwarzschild}, hence exact rather than first-order.
  Redshift is the \(g_{00}\) of a static clock,
  \(\nu/\nu_0=\sqrt{1-2GM/rc^2}\). The deflection
  \(\Delta\theta=4GM/(bc^2)\) carries the GR factor of two over the
  Newtonian-corpuscular \(2GM/(bc^2)\) because the modon is \emph{both}
  refracted by the gravitationally-graded signal speed
  \(c(r)=c\,(1-2GM/rc^2)\) and \emph{dragged} by the inflow
  \(v_\mathrm{ebb}\) --- two equal contributions, where the corpuscular
  estimate counts only the first. The Shapiro delay
  \(\Delta t=(2GM/c^3)\ln(4r_1r_2/b^2)\) is the same reduced signal
  speed integrated along the path; the perihelion precession
  \(6\pi GM/(ac^2(1-e^2))\) is the non-closure of bound geodesics. The
  combined moving-clock shift \(\nu/\nu_0\simeq1-GM/rc^2-v^2/2c^2\) ---
  the GPS correction --- is the gravitational and kinematic
  boundary-pressure terms simply adding.} The effect on atomic clocks,
both gravitational and kinematic, is one mechanism --- the energy cost
of maintaining a boundary layer against substrate pressure or ram flow
diverts energy from the internal oscillation a clock measures.

At the dynamical level the linearized substrate equations reproduce the
linearized Einstein equations, with the GR factor of 4 (the difference
between \(4\pi G\) and \(16\pi G\)) supplied automatically because
\textbf{pressure gravitates}: the stiff equation of state \(P=\rho c^2\)
gives an effective source \(\rho_\mathrm{eff}=\rho+3P/c^2 = 4\rho\), and
the substrate's pressure is the rotational kinetic energy of its
vortices, so this is mechanical rather than postulated.\footnote{The
  linearized substrate equations give
  \(\Box\,\bar h_{00}=-(16\pi G/c^2)\,\rho_\mathrm{matter}\) --- the
  \(00\) component of the linearized Einstein equations --- where the
  naïve fluid-Poisson route would give only \(4\pi G\). The factor of
  four is that pressure gravitates: the standard general-relativistic
  source is the Tolman combination \(\rho_\mathrm{eff}=\rho+3P/c^2\),
  and the substrate's stiff equation of state \(P=\rho c^2\) (sound
  speed \(c_s=c\)) makes \(\rho_\mathrm{eff}=\rho+3\rho=4\rho\), so
  \(4\rho\times4\pi G=16\pi G\). It is mechanical, not postulated,
  because the substrate's pressure is the rotational kinetic energy of
  its vortices. The weight is equation-of-state specific and applies to
  the substrate's own self-gravitation; matter embedded in it sources
  gravity through its own \(\rho_\mathrm{eff}\) --- radiation \(2\rho\)
  (\(P=\rho c^2/3\)), dust \(\rho\) (\(P\simeq0\)) --- the standard
  kinematics/dynamics split of analog gravity {[}@blv2005{]}. The
  \(4\pi\) here is the same Gauss's-law solid angle that normalizes SC2
  (Equation~\ref{eq-sc2}) and heads the packing fraction
  (Equation~\ref{eq-bridge}); seeing it arrive twice, once in the
  gravitational source and once in the bridge equation, is part of why
  the \(4\pi\) is read as physical and not a fitting choice.} The full
nonlinear completion proceeds order by order with coefficients fixed by
the fluid equations; a formal all-orders proof is an open problem
(§\ref{sec-open-problems}).

\subsection{The small cosmological constant}\label{sec-lambda}

On cosmological scales the same fluid gives the Friedmann equations.
From Volovik's self-tuning {[}@volovik2003{]} the equilibrium superfluid
vacuum obeys the Gibbs--Duhem identity \(\varepsilon + P = 0\), and in
full equilibrium \(\varepsilon\) and \(P\) each relax to zero --- the
vacuum is gravitationally inert, contributing nothing to the
acceleration equation, with no fine-tuning. The observed cosmological
constant is then a small residual disequilibrium, the vacuum prevented
from fully relaxing by the ongoing expansion. The dark-energy scale is
the substrate scale,
\(\rho_\Lambda^{1/4}\approx m_1 c^2\approx2\;\mathrm{meV}\), which
dissolves the ``why is \(\rho_\Lambda\sim\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) today''
coincidence into a single number. The confounding mismatch with
\(10^{120}\) becomes an order-unity disequilibrium times the same
weak-gravity hierarchy \((m_1/M_\mathrm{Pl})^2\) that makes \(G\) small
--- reframing the cosmological-constant problem and Newton's \(G\) as
one problem rather than two.\footnote{In a superfluid at \(T=0\) in full
  equilibrium the Gibbs--Duhem relation forces \(\varepsilon+P=0\), and
  the vacuum self-tunes both \(\varepsilon\) and \(P\) to exactly zero
  --- any added vacuum energy shifts the density, hence the chemical
  potential, driving a flow that relaxes it away; this is Volovik's
  reason the bare \(10^{120}\) does not gravitate {[}@volovik2003{]}.
  The observed \(\Lambda\) is the small residual the expansion leaves
  un-relaxed, and its apparent size depends entirely on the reference
  density. Against the substrate's own density \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) the
  disequilibrium is order unity,
  \(\delta T/T_c=\sqrt{\rho_\Lambda/\rho_\mathrm{DM}}\approx1.6\) ---
  there is no tuning of the substrate's state. The notorious
  \(10^{-61.5}\) appears only against the gravitational Planck density
  \(\rho_\mathrm{Pl}=c^5/\hbar G^2\):
  \(\delta T/T_c=\sqrt{\rho_\Lambda/\rho_\mathrm{Pl}}=3.4\times10^{-62}\),
  and the two readings differ by exactly
  \(\sqrt{\rho_\mathrm{DM}/\rho_\mathrm{Pl}}=(m_1/M_\mathrm{Pl})^2\) ---
  the same hierarchy (\(M_\mathrm{Pl}^2=\hbar c/G\)) that makes \(G\)
  weak, so small \(\Lambda\) and weak gravity are one number, not two.
  Independently, the close-packing relation
  \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}c^2=(m_1c^2)^4/(\hbar c)^3\) fixes the dark-energy
  scale with no new input,
  \(\rho_\Lambda^{1/4}=2.24\;\mathrm{meV}\approx
  m_1c^2\), so \(\rho_\Lambda\sim\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) is the same
  substrate scale.} (The value of \(\Lambda\) remains an inherited
initial condition.)

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Two panels. Left, the mechanism: a wide red bar at the top marks the naive quantum-field-theory vacuum energy, rho\_vac approximately ten to the 120 times rho\_Lambda, the catastrophe. A bold blue arrow drains straight down, labelled epsilon plus P equals zero --- the Gibbs--Duhem self-tuning that relaxes both epsilon and P to zero, so the ten-to-the-120 does not gravitate. The arrow drains into a tiny blue residual nub sitting on a baseline marked epsilon equals P equals zero, gravitationally inert; an arrow from the right notes that the ongoing expansion leaves this small residual rho\_Lambda un-relaxed, and a box gives its scale, rho\_Lambda to the one-quarter approximately m1 c squared approximately 2 millielectronvolts, the substrate scale itself. Right, why it looks tiny: a central pill holds the single residual disequilibrium delta-T over T-c and branches to two boxes. The blue box reads it against the substrate density rho\_DM as the square root of rho\_Lambda over rho\_DM, about 1.6 --- order unity, nothing tuned. The slate box reads the same residual against the Planck density rho\_Pl as the square root of rho\_Lambda over rho\_Pl, equal to 3.4 times ten to the minus 62 --- the notorious tiny Lambda. A gold bar beneath both states that the two readings differ by exactly the ruler ratio, the square root of rho\_DM over rho\_Pl, equal to m1 over M-Planck squared --- the same hierarchy that makes G weak, so small Lambda and weak gravity are one number, not two.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/cosmological-constant.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-lambda}\textbf{A small cosmological constant}
\emph{Left --- the mechanism:} in full equilibrium a superfluid vacuum
obeys the Gibbs--Duhem identity \(\varepsilon+P=0\) and self-tunes
\emph{both} to exactly zero (Volovik {[}@volovik2003{]}), so the naive
\(10^{120}\) zero-point energy does not gravitate; the observed
\(\Lambda\) is only the small residual the ongoing expansion leaves
un-relaxed, and its scale is the substrate's own,
\(\rho_\Lambda^{1/4}\approx m_1c^2\approx2\,\)meV. \emph{Right --- why
it looks tiny:} that one residual disequilibrium \(\delta T/T_c\) is
order-unity (\(\approx1.6\)) read against the substrate's own density
\(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) --- nothing tuned --- and is the notorious
\(3.4\times10^{-62}\) only against gravity's Planck density
\(\rho_\mathrm{Pl}\). The two rulers differ by exactly
\((m_1/M_\mathrm{Pl})^2\), the \emph{same} hierarchy
\((M_\mathrm{Pl}^2=\hbar c/G)\) that makes \(G\) weak --- so a small
\(\Lambda\) and weak gravity are one number, not two.}

\end{figure}%

\subsection{MOND from the superfluid}\label{sec-mond}

Because the substrate is dark matter, the anomalous observations around
galaxies are explained by a collective response of the substrate, not by
the gravity of an unseen halo. Following Khoury and Berezhiani
{[}@khoury2015; @berezhiani2015{]}, the substrate behaves as a coherent
superfluid below the Landau critical velocity and as a collisionless gas
above it. That critical velocity, \(v_L\sim10^{-3}c\approx750\) km/s,
falls between galactic and cluster velocity scales, which is why
rotation curves go MOND-like while clusters stay CDM-like.\footnote{The
  Landau critical velocity is the substrate's outer-scale lattice
  rotation \(v_L=\omega_0\xi\approx0.0025\,c\approx750\;\mathrm{km/s}\)
  --- the threshold above which flow through a boundary excites vortices
  and dissipates. It gates the phase by velocity, not by position: dwarf
  galaxies (30--80 km/s) and the Milky Way (\(\lesssim200\) km/s) sit
  below it and stay coherently superfluid (deep MOND), while galaxy
  clusters (800--1500 km/s) sit above and revert to collisionless CDM
  --- the same substance in two regimes, which is why MOND phenomenology
  appears in galaxies but not clusters, with no spatial boundary
  invoked. It is the substrate-ladder sign rule read gravitationally: a
  system's speed relative to \(v_L\) fixes its phase before it is
  measured.} That MOND behavior is a property of the substrate: the
counter-rotating boundary is parity-even --- it holds \(+\omega_0\) and
\(-\omega_0\) equally, the anti-phase breath of §\ref{sec-sheets} --- so
its response has no linear term and is quadratic at leading order, which
coarse-grained is exactly the Bekenstein--Milgrom deep-MOND field
equation, the Newtonian limit appearing only once the Hubble flow's DC
bias breaks that parity. This reaches Khoury and Berezhiani's superfluid
dark matter from boundary symmetry rather than from a chosen
\(P(X)\propto X^{3/2}\).

One cosmological number falls out of the bridge equation directly: with
\(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) fixed by Equation~\ref{eq-bridge}, the MOND
acceleration scale is

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-a0}{
a_0 = c\sqrt{G\rho_\mathrm{DM}} = 1.16\times10^{-10}\;\mathrm{m/s^2},
}\end{equation}

matching the measured
\(g_\dagger = (1.20\pm0.02_\mathrm{stat}\pm0.24_\mathrm{sys})\times10^{-10}\;\mathrm{m/s^2}\)
{[}@mcgaugh2016{]} to \(\sim3\%\) --- well inside its systematic ---
with no free parameter.\footnote{In the boundary's own variables the
  parity-even current--phase relation has no linear term,
  \(J\propto|\nabla\Phi|\,\nabla\Phi\), and coarse-grained over the
  \(N=r/\xi\) boundaries between source and test point it is exactly the
  Bekenstein--Milgrom field equation
  \(\nabla\!\cdot(|\nabla\Phi|\,\nabla\Phi)\propto4\pi G\rho_b\); the
  Newtonian linear term is \emph{induced} only once the Hubble flow's DC
  bias breaks the parity. So \(a_0\) is derived, not fitted: every
  factor is a substrate parameter --- \(c=\hbar/(m_1\xi)\)
  (Equation~\ref{eq-c}), \(G\) from the boundary ebbing current,
  \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}=n_1m_1\). Equivalently \(a_0=c/t_\mathrm{ff}\) with
  \(t_\mathrm{ff}=1/\sqrt{G\rho_\mathrm{DM}}\) the substrate's
  gravitational free-fall time, and the long-standing ``cosmic
  coincidence'' \(a_0\approx cH_0/6\) becomes the exact
  \(a_0/cH_0=\sqrt{3\Omega_\mathrm{DM}/8\pi}=0.178\) (against a measured
  \(0.179\)) once the Friedmann relation is applied --- the \(1/6\) is
  Gauss's \(8\pi\), geometry's \(3\), and \(\Omega_\mathrm{DM}\),
  nothing tuned. That \(\sim20\%\) systematic on \(g_\dagger\)
  comfortably covers the \(\sim3\%\) shortfall; separately, \(a_0\)
  would prefer \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) about \(6\%\) above the Planck
  central value while the bridge equation matches the central value ---
  a \(\sim3\%\) tension. The quantitative step from the Hubble DC bias
  to the \emph{coefficient} of \(a_0\) is still open
  (§\ref{sec-open-problems}).} The same \(v_L\approx750\) km/s is the
terminal speed of the Sun's fast polar wind --- the polar jet of the
Sun's own loop (§\ref{sec-feedback}) saturating at that Landau velocity,
a cross-scale match to better than \(1\%\) (Ulysses mean \(751.5\) km/s)
--- one velocity read at two scales.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Two panels. Left, a vertical speed axis in kilometres per second crossed by a single horizontal gold threshold at the Landau critical velocity v\_L equals omega-zero times xi, about 750 kilometres per second, which is also the Sun\textquotesingle s fast polar-wind speed (Ulysses 751.5), marked by a gold dot riding the line. Below the threshold the band is shaded blue and labelled coherent superfluid leading to deep MOND; the Milky Way at less than about 200 kilometres per second and dwarf galaxies at 30 to 80 kilometres per second sit there as blue bars. Above the threshold the band is shaded red and labelled collisionless gas leading to CDM; galaxy clusters at 800 to 1500 kilometres per second sit there as a red bar. The caption reads: one substance, gated by velocity not position. Right, the radial-acceleration relation, a log-log plot of observed acceleration g\_obs against the Newtonian acceleration g\_bar from visible matter. A dashed grey one-to-one line is the Newtonian regime g\_obs equals g\_bar at high acceleration; the blue curve follows it at the top right but bends above it at low acceleration toward the deep-MOND form g\_obs equals the square root of g\_bar times a-zero. The transition scale a-zero is marked by gold dashed guide lines on both axes meeting at a gold knee dot. A boxed result in the empty upper-left states a-zero equals c times the square root of G times rho\_DM equals 1.16 times ten to the minus 10 metres per second squared, against the measured g-dagger equals 1.20 plus or minus 0.02 times ten to the minus 10, agreeing to about 3 percent with no free parameter.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/mond-superfluid.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-mond}\textbf{MOND from the superfluid.} \emph{Left
--- one speed sorts the phases:} the substrate stays a coherent
superfluid below the Landau critical velocity
\(v_L=\omega_0\xi\approx750\) km/s and becomes a collisionless gas above
it, so dwarf galaxies (30--80 km/s) and the Milky Way (\(\lesssim200\)
km/s) sit below it and go deep-MOND, while galaxy clusters (800--1500
km/s) sit above it and stay CDM --- one substance, gated by velocity,
not position; the same \(v_L\) is, strikingly, the Sun's fast polar-wind
speed (Ulysses mean 751.5 km/s). \emph{Right --- the scale falls out:}
with \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) fixed by the bridge equation, the
radial-acceleration relation bends from the Newtonian
\(g_\mathrm{obs}=g_\mathrm{bar}\) to the deep-MOND
\(g_\mathrm{obs}=\sqrt{g_\mathrm{bar}\,a_0}\) at the scale
\(a_0=c\sqrt{G\rho_\mathrm{DM}}=1.16\times10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m/s^2}\) ---
within \(\sim3\%\) of the measured
\(g_\dagger=(1.20\pm0.02)\times10^{-10}\) {[}@mcgaugh2016{]}, with no
free parameter.}

\end{figure}%

Through the lens of the substrate framework, the universe makes more
sense as Our Big Bubble --- a nucleation event in a substrate that
boils. To ease the tension between expansion and clumpiness, the
framework models the dark-energy density fluctuations as the wake of Our
Big Bubble striking the remnant ``moraine'' of a previous expansion
(§\ref{sec-predictions}).

\section{The shape of the lattice}\label{sec-lattice}

The bridge equation fixes one length, the in-plane cell width \(\xi\).
The lattice has a second, vertical geometry, and it is this structure
that gives the substrate its richest organizing behavior.

\subsection{Sheets, layers, and the anti-phase breath}\label{sec-sheets}

The dc1 vortices organize into coherent sheets --- triangular arrays of
aligned co-rotating vortices, spinning the same way, woven by
counter-rotating intermediate vortices in the sheet's plane, and stacked
with a counter-rotating intermediate layer between each pair of
like-handed sheets. Some vortex lines run perpendicular to the sheets.
The vertical period comes from the Glaberson--Johnson--Ostermeier
instability wavelength of the vortex lines {[}@gjo1974{]}:

\begin{equation}\protect\phantomsection\label{eq-dgjo}{
d_\mathrm{GJO} = \xi\sqrt{\frac{\ln(\xi/\xi_\mathrm{GP})}{4\pi}}
\approx 0.166\,\xi \approx 16\;\mu\mathrm{m},
}\end{equation}

with \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}=\xi/\sqrt2\).\footnote{The vertical period is
  derived from the wavelength of the Glaberson--Johnson--Ostermeier
  instability {[}@gjo1974{]} of the vortex lines that thread the stack.
  Axial flow along a rotating vortex array destabilises its Kelvin
  (vortex-wave) modes once it exceeds the slowest wave speed; the GJO
  dispersion \(\omega=2\Omega+\nu_s k^2\) has its phase-velocity minimum
  at \(k_c=\sqrt{2\Omega/\nu_s}\), so the unstable mode selects a single
  wavelength \(d=1/k_c=\sqrt{\nu_s/(2\Omega_\mathrm{sheet})}\). Two
  standard classical-fluid inputs close it with no new coefficient:
  Feynman's relation at one vortex per cell,
  \(\Omega_\mathrm{sheet}=\kappa_q/(2\xi^2)\) {[}@donnelly1991{]}, and
  Saffman's vortex-line tension
  \(\nu_s=(\kappa_q/4\pi)\ln(\xi/\xi_\mathrm{GP})\) {[}@saffman1992{]}.
  The circulation quantum \(\kappa_q\) cancels, leaving the pure
  geometric ratio of Equation~\ref{eq-dgjo}. The short-distance cut-off
  is the close-packing length \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}=\xi/\sqrt2\) --- cores
  touching, the same pairing-two as the ladder below and the bridge
  equation's \(1/\sqrt2\) --- so \(\ln(\xi/\xi_\mathrm{GP})
  =\tfrac12\ln2\) and
  \(d_\mathrm{GJO}=\xi\sqrt{\ln2/(8\pi)}=0.166\,\xi\). The two
  independent cell sizes give \(d_\mathrm{GJO}\approx16\,\mu\)m
  (electroweak \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}=96.9\,\mu\)m) and \(\approx19\,\mu\)m
  (cosmological \(\xi_\mathrm{CP}=112\,\mu\)m).} Because the stack
alternates handedness, like-handed sheets repeat at \(\approx16\,\mu\)m
but a counter-rotating \emph{boundary} falls every half-period, at
\(\approx8\,\mu\)m --- the spacing for the boundary-locked structure. So
those two values, \(8\) and \(16\,\mu\)m, form the substrate's octave.

The counter-rotating intermediate layer holds the anti-phase partner to
the previous one. Together they bind like a Cooper pair in a
superconductor --- expansion and contraction in opposite phase, tied by
a counter-spinning vortex in the middle. This anti-phase breathing
trades energy across the shared seam without loss, and cancels outside
the cell. The vacuum hums everywhere at
\(\omega_1 = m_1c^2/\hbar\approx3\times10^{12}\;\mathrm{rad/s}\), but
the hum is silent at every scale we can directly observe.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Three panels. Left, in-plane: a triangular array of blue +omega vortex cores, each with a faint central density peak and a small open core ring, with the nearest-neighbour spacing marked xi approximately 100 micrometres on the edge of a highlighted triangular cell; a small Gaussian density-profile inset and a legend note that each cell is a self-bound gausson with no pinning species (held by dc1\textquotesingle s logarithmic equation of state, width xi\_GP = xi over root 2), all one handedness, a chirality-coherent sheet. Middle, vertical side view: blue +omega sheets and red -omega intermediate layers alternating along a vertical axis, threaded by vertical vortex-line filaments, with the like-handed period marked 16 micrometres (d\_GJO) and the half-period 8 micrometres, the substrate\textquotesingle s octave. Right, the seam: a large blue +omega core with outward arrows labelled \textquotesingle expands\textquotesingle{} above a small red -omega core with inward arrows labelled \textquotesingle contracts\textquotesingle, separated by a dashed seam, with text explaining the anti-phase breath at omega\_1 = m\_1 c\^{}2 / hbar, that the hum cancels above one cell leaving the infrared floor, and that the pair is a Cooper pair at rest and a photon in flight.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/lattice-geometry.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-lattice}\textbf{The shape of the substrate lattice.}
\emph{Left (in-plane):} the dc1 vortices form a triangular (Abrikosov)
array of a single handedness --- a chirality-coherent sheet --- each a
co-rotating \(+\omega\) vortex, one per cell, with nearest-neighbour
spacing equal to the bridge-equation cell size \(\xi\approx100\,\mu\)m;
each cell is a self-bound gausson (width \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}=\xi/\sqrt2\))
--- held by dc1's logarithmic equation of state, with no pinning
species. \emph{Middle (vertical):} these sheets stack along a
perpendicular axis; like-handed \(+\omega\) sheets (blue) repeat at the
Glaberson--Johnson--Ostermeier period \(d_\mathrm{GJO}\approx16\,\mu\)m,
with a counter-rotating \(-\omega\) intermediate layer (red) at the
half-period, so a boundary falls every \(\approx8\,\mu\)m --- the
substrate's own octave --- while the vortex lines thread the stack
perpendicular to the sheets. \emph{Right (the seam):} each \(+\omega\)
vortex and its \(-\omega\) partner \textbf{breathe in anti-phase} ---
one expanding as the other contracts, trading energy across their shared
seam without loss, at the dc1 hum frequency
\(\omega_1=m_1c^2/\hbar\approx3\times10^{12}\,\)rad/s; because the pair
is anti-phase the hum cancels above one cell. Held standing, the pair is
a Cooper pair; set propagating, it is the photon
(Figure~\ref{fig-modon}).}

\end{figure}%

\subsection{The ladder: a √2 lock and a φ anti-lock}\label{sec-ladder}

At boundaries on every scale, two patches of the lattice meet across a
seam --- two of the chirality-coherent sheets of §\ref{sec-sheets}, or a
structure's ordered interior meeting the resting substrate outside it.
Each side is held by its own chemistry. In ordinary fluid mechanics the
seam between two flows is a featureless shear layer that smears together
by diffusion, with no length or shape to organize it. But the
substrate's seam is a counter-rotating boundary layer between stacked
lattice sheets, with a definite spacing. How those sheets line up
defines a ratio --- something the next layer can either match or avoid.

When the boundary layers of two sheets meet, they choose lock or
anti-lock as organized by the surrounding chemistry. The next layers
above and below can follow, and tile like a crystal to lock or anti-lock
in cascades in whatever pattern the chemistry chooses. The lattice is
otherwise scale-free, emitting light at one speed, no other break. It
only has this ratio that repeats: a boundary at one scale seeds a like
boundary at the ratio times that scale, and that one seeds the next, up
and down. The pattern propagates the way a crystal grows --- start from
a single rung and it tiles outward in both directions, start from a
handful and they tile together. What is copied from rung to rung is not
a length but a ratio as in discrete scale invariance, the mechanism
behind the Efimov effect's universal \(22.7\) tower {[}@braaten2006{]}
and Sornette's log-periodic precursors to rupture.\footnote{Discrete
  scale invariance is what a \emph{scale-free} system shows once it is
  handed a short-distance cutoff: the continuous rescaling symmetry
  breaks to a discrete subgroup, and a geometric tower of states spaced
  by a fixed ratio appears. The textbook instance is the Efimov effect
  --- three particles at the unitary limit feel the unique scale-free
  \(1/r^2\) potential and would carry a continuum of bound states; a
  three-body cutoff discretises it into a tower with the
  \emph{universal} ratio \(\lambda_0=e^{\pi/s_0}\approx22.7\), set by a
  renormalisation-group limit cycle {[}@braaten2006{]}. Sornette finds
  the same log-periodic signature in classical rupture and earthquakes
  {[}@sornette1998{]}. The substrate is built to sit at such a point ---
  the gapless, isotropic \(\mu\to0\) end of its Bogoliubov spectrum, the
  same condition under which it emits light at one speed --- cut off
  below by the core \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}\). The complete derivation behind
  the tower effect is not complete. The substrate's ratio is found from
  the pairing geometry rather than computed from a limit cycle as
  Efimov's \(22.7\) is. If we assume the tower exists: the fundamental
  rung \(\xi_\mathrm{GP}\to\xi\) sits on the marginal dispersion's
  \(E\sim1/r^2\) branch, so rescaling length by \(\sqrt2\) rescales
  energy by \(2\) --- the pairing/breathing octave --- and the
  log-period is \(\ln\sqrt2=\tfrac12\ln2\), the same \(\tfrac12\ln2\)
  the packing factor carries. What is \emph{owed} is that the marginal
  point is a genuine limit cycle at all (the anti-phase pairing driving
  the effective coupling past the ``fall-to-the-center'' threshold) ---
  the same marginal-point Bogoliubov problem that gates Step A
  (§\ref{sec-open-problems}).} The boundary interaction is
scale-invariant for the plainest possible reason: the thing that recurs
is a ratio, so it looks the same at every rung.

So when a structure locks on a rung, it can sit in register on a tooth,
an integer ratio or the bare rung. This is how parts bind, nest and hand
energy back and forth. Examples include the cochlea's octave layout, the
entorhinal grid modules' measured \(\sim1.4\) spacing, vesicle-coat and
microtubule nesting.

On the other hand, when it anti-locks, it sits as far from every tooth
as a ratio can, refusing to resonate. This is how parts stay independent
and avoid overlapping: when chemistry chooses the gap, they repel
through the dissonance.

The teeth (\(\sqrt2\), the octave) allow binding and the gap
(\(\varphi\)) keeps the boundary separate. These come from the
substrate's pairing factor: \(\xi^2 = 2\,\xi_\mathrm{GP}^2\).

Chemistry chooses the moves and how they roll up across the boundary. Do
the locks tile evenly or are they interleaved with anti-locks at
intervals? The pure anti-lock pattern spirals up the scale ladder.

The substrate's tower is formed from \textbf{half-octaves of
\(\sqrt2\)}; the octave takes two rungs --- the \(8\to16\,\mu\)m
vertical span between sheets. The gap is the one number that refuses
every tooth at once, the most-irrational \(\varphi=1.618\) --- the
ladder's shadow. \footnote{The ``most irrational'' status of
  \(\varphi=(1+\sqrt5)/2\) is precise: its continued-fraction expansion
  is all \(1\)s, so its rational convergents approach it more slowly
  than for any other number --- it is the value hardest to approximate
  by a ratio, hence the orientation a structure adopts to \emph{avoid}
  every rung at once. Levitov derived exactly this for a lattice of
  magnetic flux tubes with a competing length scale: the energetically
  stable configuration locks onto the golden mean {[}@levitov1991{]} ---
  the same anti-resonance selection the framework reads into
  phyllotaxis's golden angle and the resting cortex's band spacing. The
  gap appears \emph{as} \(\varphi\) only on a circle (angles mod
  \(2\pi\)); the identical avoid-overlap principle takes a different
  arithmetic in a different space --- disordered-hyperuniform ``blue
  noise'' for points on a plane (the retinal cone mosaic), and
  mutually-prime periods for cycles in time, which is why \(13\)- and
  \(17\)-year cicadas minimise predator co-emergence {[}@goles2001{]}.
  One principle (maximal incommensurability), three geometries set by
  what the variable lives in.} The same gap takes a different arithmetic
in each space it lives in: \(\varphi\) on a circle (phyllotaxis's golden
angle), disordered hyperuniform ``blue noise'' on a plane (the retinal
cone mosaic), and mutually-prime periods in time (the \(13\)- and
\(17\)-year periodical cicada) --- one principle, \emph{maximal
incommensurability}, three geometries.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={A two-part schematic. Top: a three-by-three grid; columns are three zoom levels (times one, times ten, times one hundred) and rows are three handshakes between two counter-rotating boundary layers drawn as a blue row of rolls over a red row --- lock (in register, the octave), the root-two hinge (half registered, the bare rung), and anti-lock (the golden gap, the red rolls drifting so they never align). Each row looks identical across all three columns, illustrating discrete scale invariance: zooming changes only how many rolls are resolved and their size, never the pattern. Bottom: a repertoire panel showing a golden Fibonacci spiral labelled anti-lock phi 137.5 degrees, a 120-degree three-fold Y-junction inside a faint hexagon labelled lock, and a fan of divergence rays from 120 to 180 degrees with the golden 137.5-degree ray highlighted, above a one-line list of further patterns: even nesting, intermediate spacings, golden spirals, hexagonal sheets, branching networks, blue-noise mosaics, prime cycles.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/substrate-ladder.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-ladder}\textbf{One ratio, three handshakes, every
scale.} \emph{Top:} the same pair of counter-rotating boundary layers
--- a blue layer over its red counter-rotating partner --- drawn at
three zooms (columns \(\times1\), \(\times10\), \(\times100\)) and in
the three ways the two can register across their shared seam (rows).
\textbf{Lock} holds them in register on the octave; the
\textbf{\(\sqrt2\) hinge} half-registers them on the bare rung;
\textbf{anti-lock} lets them drift to the golden gap and never align.
Read \emph{across} any row, the handshake is identical --- only the
number of rolls resolved and their apparent size change with the zoom,
which is exactly what discrete scale invariance means; read \emph{down},
it is chemistry's rung-by-rung choice of which handshake to strike.
\emph{Bottom --- the repertoire:} a few of the patterns that choice can
compose --- the golden (Fibonacci) spiral of pure anti-lock, the
\(120^\circ\) three-fold of clean lock (hexagonal sheets, the cell's
membrane junctions), and the fan of divergence angles from \(120^\circ\)
to \(180^\circ\) in which the golden \(137.5^\circ\) is the one that
never repeats --- with a list of further forms the same two moves
build.}

\end{figure}%

The boundary can thus organize, not merely diffuse. When two lattices
meet, their energy and chemistry set up a lock/anti-lock potential at
every scale, with a variety of subtle effects.

It helps flows persist far past what viscosity should allow --- a
coherent ocean current, a vortex cell, a cell's membrane network sit on
rungs and are held there, trading energy along the lossless seam instead
of dissipating it. The ladder is a hidden potential surface lying under
structure at every scale.

The same boundary dynamics also set angles. When the tiling wraps a
plane or a center, the lock/anti-lock choice becomes an angle. The
cleanest lock is three-fold, \(120^\circ\) --- the lowest-frustration
closed cycle, the angle of the hexagonal sheet and of the cell's
three-way membrane junctions. The cleanest anti-lock is the golden
angle, \(137.5^\circ = 360^\circ/\varphi^2\), whose rational near-misses
(\(1/3\to120^\circ\), \(3/8\to135^\circ\), \ldots) are the Fibonacci
spiral arms a growing front slips through on its way to never locking at
all. One ladder, two ends: the angle that nests and the angle that
refuses.

Locked boundaries are stiff and only crossed by a punch-through. It's
more expensive to cross the locked boundary, so flow will be direct, not
at an angle --- like subducting slabs that punch through the mantle's
\(660\)-km discontinuity or stall against it, or flux lines threading a
type-II superconductor one quantum at a time.

The substrate energy likely activates living dynamical systems like the
endoplasmic reticulum: one membrane network that grows and re-knits
itself like a crystal in real time, its three-way junctions sitting at
\(120^\circ\), its tubule lengths clustering on the ladder's rungs
rather than spreading smoothly, its junctions migrating continuously to
find the substrate-energy minimum. It is the ladder made dynamical ---
lock-pole geometry running a live search for its rungs across the inside
of a cell.

\subsection{The same loop at every scale}\label{sec-feedback}

With mass as leaking rotational energy, a vortex, a vortex knot, an
orbiting pair, a whole complex of orbiting structures --- anything
carrying more rotational energy than its counter-rotating layers can
cancel --- has a net spin it cannot hide, and that uncancelled remainder
is felt as mass: a fermion with odd-parity is unbalanced, a persistent
vortex with one rotational layer too many. Wrapping boundary layers must
contain that energy, and the way they do forms a common feedback
topology.

Unbalanced systems at all scales show the same pattern: a co-rotating
equatorial disk, two opposing polar jets along the spin axis, and an
enclosing counter-rotating boundary layer. The disk shape has the lowest
energy --- least moment of inertia per unit boundary. At the same time,
the lowest energy exit for the excess momentum is straight up or down
the axis --- the jet. The cheapest return is a counter-rotating sheath
wrapping the disk's rim, conveying flow back inward while matching the
substrate's own boundary. Disk, jets, counterflow, and a thin remainder
radiated outward as waves. It is boundary-minimization made dynamical:
the reason a closed torus is the cheapest envelope for a \emph{standing}
loop becomes, for a system that must \emph{shed}, this
disk-jet-counterflow loop.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Twelve small line-drawings on a white background, the same canonical loop redrawn in its own form at each scale and arranged in two rows of six, from the electron at 10 to the minus 12 metres up to the cosmic bubble at 10 to the 26 metres: electron, hydrogen atom, codon, DNA, mitochondrion, neuron, cortical column, human being, Earth, Sun, galaxy, and bubble, color-banded blue for the quantum scales, teal for the biological scales, and amber for the cosmic scales. A key at lower left reads the loop three ways --- a blue polar jet labelled the signal it radiates outward, a red counter-rotating layer labelled the hidden balance that wraps it, and a slate spinning mass labelled the feedback loop at the core --- beside a blue-and-red yin-yang emblem and the closing line \textquotesingle the shape of the unbalanced: what a leaking spinner does with the energy it cannot keep.\textquotesingle{}}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/feedback-loop-scales.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-feedback-loop}\textbf{The same loop at every scale.}
A net-spinning mass dropped into the stiff, low-dissipation substrate
organizes the lattice around it identically at every scale: a
co-rotating equatorial \textbf{disk} (slate), an enclosing
\textbf{counter-rotating boundary layer} (red), and two \textbf{polar
jets} along the spin axis (blue), with a thin remainder radiated outward
as waves. The geometry is forced, not fitted --- least moment of inertia
per unit boundary for the disk, the cheapest exit straight up the axis
for the jet, the cheapest return a counter-rotating sheath. Because the
substrate is near-lossless the loop \emph{persists}, so the same
three-part machine recurs across \textasciitilde25 orders of magnitude:
the electron, a hydrogen atom, a codon, DNA, a mitochondrion, a neuron,
a cortical column, a human being, the Earth (geodynamo with auroral
funnels), the Sun (convective disk and polar wind), a galaxy (galactic
disk with AGN jets), and the cosmic bubble. This is the shape of the
\emph{unbalanced} --- what a leaking spinner does with the rotational
energy it cannot keep --- and the complement of the balanced modon
(Figure~\ref{fig-modon-scales}).}

\end{figure}%

The excess energy in the substrate balances two ways at once. The jets
offload angular momentum up the axis; the disk weaves it outward into
the lattice's repeating fabric, where it is stored, twisted, and fed
back. Any disturbance to a lattice sheet pushes energy into the axis or
pulls it away from it --- modulating the jets. The jets' pull controls
the rotational speed of the vortex. A leaking spinning mass creates a
\emph{feedback loop}, not a simple leak: in through the disk, out
through the jets, traded along the lossless counter-rotating seam, a
fraction radiated --- two coupled loops in one lattice containment
field.

The loop has no viscosity and no measurable decay; it cycles the energy
along topologically protected vortex lines. This three-part machine
recurs across all scales: the substrate vortex cell at
\(\xi\approx100\,\mu\)m, an accretion disk with its relativistic jets,
the geodynamo with its auroral funnels for jets, a galactic disk, the
sheets of the cosmic web --- and, turned inward, the nested loops that
run a living cell.

Because the substrate prefers locally oriented planar order, its
vortices lying in chirality-coherent sheets (§\ref{sec-sheets}), the
disk plane \emph{is} the substrate's plane: orbital lobes, planetary
rings, the ecliptic, accretion and galactic disks, and cosmic-web
filaments are one geometry expressed in whatever local material is doing
the rotating.

Frame-dragging observations are explained as the loop's azimuthal
component: a rotating mass entrains the azimuthal part of the
gravitational inflow (§\ref{sec-pg}) through the same mutual friction
that couples the components of rotating superfluid helium, reproducing
the Lense--Thirring rate exactly for a slow rotator --- Gravity Probe B
measured Earth's at the predicted \(\sim37\) mas/yr.\footnote{A mass
  with angular momentum \(J\) makes a gyroscope at radius \(r\) precess
  at the Lense--Thirring rate \(\omega_\mathrm{fd}=2GJ/(c^2r^3)\). In
  the substrate this is the azimuthal part of the gravitational inflow
  (Step 3) entrained by the rotating boundary layer, through the same
  mutual friction that couples the normal and superfluid components of
  rotating helium {[}@hallvinen1956{]}. The mechanism is microscopic,
  not a numerical correction, so for slow rotators it reproduces GR
  exactly --- Gravity Probe B measured Earth's frame-dragging at the
  predicted \(\sim37\) mas/yr. The framework departs from GR only where
  the substrate's own critical (Landau) velocity bites: the azimuthal
  entrainment cannot exceed \(v_L\approx750\) km/s, so the inferred
  frame-dragging frequency should \emph{plateau} rather than diverge as
  \(J/M\) approaches the maximal-spin regime --- testable in the inner
  accretion flow of high-spin AGN via iron-line spectroscopy.}

Now let's move to the massless topology, where the spinning energy is
not leaking but balanced and self-sustaining.

\subsection{The modon topology}\label{sec-modon-topology}

When there is a balanced pair in the substrate --- or a larger group
organized as nested balanced loops, like a cell with its mitochondria
--- it behaves in many ways like the modon. The energy balances and
effectively hides it from observation. In motion, the substrate energy
appears massless like the photon, its momenta offsetting. At rest, the
pair becomes counter-spinning layers of coherent energy circulation,
obeying the same Bessel boundary-matching as the modon but held in
place.

These are the coherence layers, the standing fabric the leaking loops
weave into. The benzene ring forms a toroidal vortex to share electrons
--- a modon in the substrate. Aromatic stacks of vortices are composite
modons of coherent energy.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={A white-background figure with two rows of six small line-drawings, each a counter-rotating dipole with a blue positive-vorticity core and a red negative-vorticity core. The top row, labelled MOBILE, shows the self-advecting modons: the photon, a Gulf Stream ring, the MJO twin cyclones, a Neptune storm pair, the counter-rotating galaxy NGC 4550, and a binary black hole. The bottom row, labelled STATIONARY and NESTED, shows the held-in-place modons: a Cooper pair with anti-phase breath arrows, a benzene ring with two counter-spinning faces, the DNA double helix with one strand blue and one red, a cell nested with a red mitochondrion, the brain\textquotesingle s blue and red hemispheres joined by the corpus callosum, and Jason and Tuzo --- Earth\textquotesingle s two antipodal mantle superplumes drawn as a cutaway of the planet with two opposite-spinning blue and red feet standing on the core--mantle boundary. A key at lower left draws one dipole --- equal and opposite cores, one Bessel match, net spin zero, net mass zero, radiates nothing --- beside a blue-and-red yin-yang emblem and the closing line \textquotesingle the shape of the balanced: energy with nothing to shed.\textquotesingle{}}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/modon-topology-scales.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-modon-scales}\textbf{The modon topology, at every
scale.} Replace the one net spinner with two counter-rotating cores ---
\(+\omega\) (blue) over \(-\omega\) (red), sharing one envelope across a
clean counter-rotating seam --- and the bookkeeping inverts: equal and
opposite spins, net angular momentum and net mass transport both zero
(\(\int\psi\,\mathrm dA=0\)), nothing uncancelled, nothing to shed. The
pair is held by the same Larichev--Reznik Bessel match at every scale
(\(J_1\) inside the envelope, \(K_1\) outside), in two forms. \emph{Top
--- \textbf{mobile}, when the pair advects itself:} the photon at the
substrate scale, and the identical solution in seawater, planetary air,
and spacetime scaled up by \textasciitilde{}\(10^{13}\) --- a Gulf
Stream ring, the Madden--Julian oscillation's twin cyclones, Neptune's
dark-spot pair, NGC 4550's counter-rotating disks, a binary black hole.
\emph{Bottom --- \textbf{stationary / nested}, when the dipole is held
in place:} a Cooper pair breathing anti-phase, a benzene ring's two
counter-spinning faces, DNA's two counter-wound strands, a eukaryotic
cell nested with its mitochondrion, the brain's two hemispheres across
the corpus callosum, and --- one rung up in scale, to the whole planet
--- \emph{Jason} and \emph{Tuzo}, Earth's two antipodal mantle
superplumes (the LLSVPs), opposite-spinning feet standing on the
core--mantle boundary, the slowest stationary modon the planet supports,
held antipodal across Wilson cycles for \(\gtrsim 300\) Myr. This is the
shape of the \emph{balanced}: the standing fabric the unbalanced loops
(Figure~\ref{fig-feedback-loop}) weave into.}

\end{figure}%

Coherence scales by nesting topological modon layers. Each passes its
boundary to the next by boundary matching, and the number and smoothness
of those matches set the structure's coherence --- its stability and
longevity.

Each modon holds a coherent, stable pattern --- the modon's coin. A
photon is the simplest modon --- a single frequency stored as persistent
energy. But the topology also allows a structured or composite modon ---
an aromatic stack, or a nested cell --- to hold and transmit a long
vector of information, using the layered lock/anti-lock pattern along a
stack of lattice sheets. This offers a new lens on cellular dynamics:
organized by substrate energy, not by diffusion alone.

Notice that a eukaryotic cell typically fits into one lattice cell, and
appears to be driven by a many-layered nested topological modon
including the plasma membrane, cortex, nuclear double-wrap,
mitochondrial double-membrane. Mitosis uses the substrate energy to
divide the cell when it grows past the lattice cell size.

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={Three cards in a left-to-right spectrum. Left card, ONE RUNG, the photon: one counter-rotating blue-over-red dipole with a c arrow, and beneath it a single blue bar labelled psi equals a-one, captioned one frequency, one number, E equals h nu. Centre card, A FEW RUNGS, an aromatic stack or chord: a vertical stack of three counter-rotating rings, and beneath it three teal bars, psi equals a-one a-two a-three. Right card, MANY RUNGS, a brain modon: a composite of four counter-rotating cores in one envelope with a faint motion arrow, and beneath it eight teal bars of varying length, psi equals a-one a-two up to a-N, captioned the full comb aboard, a long vector sent whole. A spectrum arrow beneath reads one object, more rungs to the right, basis log-spaced by root-two not harmonic. A closing gold band shows a blue-red modon yin-yang labelled THE MODON COIN beside the equality energy equals pattern, and the line: the modon\textquotesingle s energy is its long vector, one packet carries power and meaning, passed boundary to boundary by the coherence-match, at c, without loss.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/modon-long-vector.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-modon-long-vector}\textbf{The modon carries the long
vector.} A modon's complexity is the dimension of the long vector it
carries. \emph{Left:} the photon is the one-rung special case --- a
single counter-rotating dipole carrying one number, its energy
\(E=h\nu\) but no pattern. \emph{Center:} a modon with structure --- an
aromatic stack, a chord --- binds multiple rungs into one travelling
object, a short long vector. \emph{Right:} a composite modon --- like a
brain --- has a full comb, a long vector \(\psi=(a_1,\dots,a_N)\)
log-spaced by \(\sqrt2\) (the ladder of §\ref{sec-ladder}).
\emph{Bottom:} the modon's energy is a long vector, so a single
substrate packet transmits energy and information together, passed
boundary to boundary by the coherence match \(\langle a|b\rangle\) at
\(c\) without loss.}

\end{figure}%

A speculative exploration that explores these ideas in more depth is
available at \url{https://lightfluid.org}.

\section{What the framework predicts}\label{sec-predictions}

\textbf{Free parameters.} The Standard Model \(+\,\Lambda\)CDM needs
\(\sim25\). The framework has three genuinely free (\(\delta\), \(B\),
\(z_s\)): the universe-decay constant \(\delta\), which enters no
current prediction, and the crust parameters \(B\), \(z_s\), which
describe a previous cycle's remnant.

Using only measured inputs: the Weinberg angle \(\sin^2\theta_W=0.2312\)
measured in particle accelerators, Planck's constant \(\hbar\), the
speed of light \(c\), the gravitational constant \(G\), the dark matter
density \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\), one geometric backbone
(\(f=4\pi/(K\sqrt2)\)), and one dynamical thread
(\(\alpha_{mf} = \tan^2\theta_W =
\sin^2\theta_W/(1-\sin^2\theta_W) = 0.3008\), the mutual-friction
coupling of §\ref{sec-hbar}).

\subsection{Tier 1 --- numerical predictions}\label{sec-tier1}

{\def\LTcaptype{none} % do not increment counter
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 8\tabcolsep) * \real{0.2000}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 8\tabcolsep) * \real{0.2000}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 8\tabcolsep) * \real{0.2000}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 8\tabcolsep) * \real{0.2000}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 8\tabcolsep) * \real{0.2000}}@{}}
\toprule\noalign{}
\begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Quantity
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Expression
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Predicted
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Observed
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Discrepancy
\end{minipage} \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
Vortex packing fraction & \(4\pi/(K\sqrt2)\) & \(0.5666\) & \(0.5655\) &
\(0.20\%\) \\
Higgs VEV \(v\) & \(\sqrt{8\pi\,m_\mathrm{eff}^2 c^4\nu}\)\footnote{Physically
  the Higgs VEV (\(v\)) is the baseline strength of the Higgs field that
  permeates all space. It's the amplitude of the aligned ground state,
  \(v=\sqrt{8\pi}\,m_\mathrm{eff}c^2\sqrt{\nu}\), built from the
  effective quantum \(m_\mathrm{eff}=m_e/\alpha_{mf}=1.70\) MeV and the
  condensation number \(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\approx8.3\times10^8\) ---
  the count of dc1 quanta (\(m_1\approx2\) meV) in one effective quantum
  (the same \(\nu\) in SC2). The \(\sqrt\nu\) is the relativistic
  Bose-field amplitude law: a complex field's amplitude-squared counts
  quanta linearly (\(|\phi|^2=n/2\omega\), so \(v^2=n_\chi/\omega_\chi\)
  is the in-quadrature sum of \(\nu\) chirality fluctuations), the same
  reason every condensate order parameter scales as
  \(\sqrt{\text{density}}\). The prefactor is not a new constant but
  gravitational: \(8\pi=2\times4\pi_\mathrm{SC2}\) --- the Gauss
  \(4\pi\) behind \(\nabla^2\Phi=4\pi G\rho\) (the Einstein--Hilbert
  normalization, with emergent Lorentz invariance) times the
  radiation-equation-of-state weight
  \(\rho_\mathrm{eff}=\rho+3P/c^2=2\rho\) of the massless chirality
  Goldstones. The chain \(m_\mathrm{eff}\!\leftarrow\!\sin^2\theta_W\)
  and \(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\) never references \(v\). Crucially,
  \(v\) is built from \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) and the \emph{mass ratio}
  \(\nu\) (Equation~\ref{eq-nu}) --- not from the dimension-mismatched
  length recipe \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}\) --- so it is manifestly
  unit-invariant and carries none of that recipe's baggage. It does ride
  the same single open number \(\nu\) as the bridge equation
  (§\ref{sec-bridge-eq}): on the electroweak side
  (\(\nu\approx8.3\times10^8\), i.e.~\(m_1\) read from
  \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}\)) it gives \(246\) GeV; on the cosmological side
  (\(\nu\approx9.6\times10^8\), \(m_1\) from \(\xi_\mathrm{CP}\)) it
  gives \(264\) GeV --- the electroweak value being the one an
  electroweak observable must take. At that value the prediction is off
  by only \(0.06\%\).} & \(246.1\) GeV & \(246.22\) GeV & \(-0.06\%\) \\
Fine-structure \(\alpha\) &
\(\sin^2\!\delta_0\sin^2\theta_W/\pi\)\footnote{\(\delta_0=18.48^\circ\)
  is the s-wave scattering phase of a dc1 quasiparticle off the
  quantized vortex boundary --- the same boundary that supplies
  \(\hbar\) (§\ref{sec-hbar}) --- fixed by the Weinberg angle through
  \(\alpha_{mf}=\tfrac12\sin2\delta_0\), with the weak-scattering branch
  selected by the requirement \(\alpha\ll1\). The same phase sets the
  \(SU(2)\) coupling (\(g^2=4\sin^2\delta_0\)) and the anomalous moment
  \((g-2)/2\), so \(\alpha\), the magnetic moment, and
  \(\sin^2\theta_W\) share one geometric parameter. The residual
  \(+1.45\%\) is a tree-level number awaiting the modon self-energy
  (vacuum polarization), UV-finite because the healing length is a
  natural cutoff.} & \(1/135.1\) & \(1/137.04\) & \(+1.45\%\) \\
Koide lepton relation \(Q\) & \(\tfrac13+(\sqrt2)^2/6\)\footnote{Koide's
  1981 relation folds the three charged-lepton masses into
  \(Q=(m_e+m_\mu+m_\tau)/(\sqrt{m_e}+\sqrt{m_\mu}+\sqrt{m_\tau})^2\),
  measured \(0.666660\). A generation is read as which of the three
  branches of one three-fold (Y-junction) vortex node a knot threads ---
  the same \(\mathbb{Z}_3\) that gives color and the \(\pm\tfrac23\)
  quark charges (§\ref{sec-tier2}) --- so the three \(\sqrt{m_k}\) sit
  at a common mean times \((1+A\cos\theta_k)\) with
  \(\theta_k=\delta+\tfrac{2\pi}{3}k\). Three unit vectors \(120^\circ\)
  apart give \(\sum\cos\theta_k=0\) and \(\sum\cos^2\theta_k=\tfrac32\),
  so the phase cancels and \(Q=\tfrac13+A^2/6\) for \emph{any}
  \(\delta\). The lattice's pairing-\(\sqrt2\) --- the same factor in
  \(\xi^2=2\xi_\mathrm{GP}^2\) (§\ref{sec-four-factors}) --- quantizes
  the deviation amplitude at \(A=\sqrt2\), giving
  \(Q=\tfrac13+(\sqrt2)^2/6=\tfrac23\) exactly, \(9\) ppm from data with
  no free parameter. Equivalently the triad tilts \(45^\circ\)
  (\(\cos45^\circ=1/\sqrt2\)) from the democratic axis \((1,1,1)\) ---
  the exact midpoint between mass degeneracy (\(Q=\tfrac13\)) and full
  hierarchy (\(Q=1\)) --- and of \(N\) equal phases only \(N=3\) lands
  the balanced \(Q_N=2/N\) on \(\tfrac23\), which is also \emph{why
  three} generations.} & \(2/3\) & \(0.666660\) & \(9\) ppm \\
Muon/electron ratio \(m_\mu/m_e\) † & three-phase clock, \(\delta=2/9\)
rad\footnote{Fixing \(A=\sqrt2\) (hence \(Q=2/3\)) and the electron
  scale \(m_e=\alpha_{mf}m_\mathrm{eff}\) leaves exactly one
  undetermined number: the phase \(\delta\) where the rigid triad sits
  on its circle. Each lepton's \(\sqrt{m}\) is then
  \(1+\sqrt2\cos\theta_k\), so \emph{all} charged-lepton ratios ride on
  that single angle. The data pick \(\delta=0.222222\,\)rad \(=2/9\) rad
  to six figures (pairing-two over three-fold-squared), and that one
  rational lands two independent ratios at once: \(m_\mu/m_e=206.77\)
  (observed \(206.768\), \(+0.001\%\)) and \(m_\tau/m_e=3477.5\)
  (observed \(3477.23\), \(+0.007\%\)). In the tripled phase the
  identity is clean, \(3\delta=\tfrac23=Q\), so
  \(\delta=Q/3=\tfrac19+A^2/18=\tfrac29\). What is \emph{derived} (zero
  parameters) is \(Q=2/3\), ``why three,'' and the massless edge
  \(\delta_\mathrm{edge}=\pi/12\) forced by \(A=\sqrt2\); what remains a
  \textbf{bet} is that the residual phase is \emph{exactly} \(2/9\) rad
  --- read off the data, not yet derived from a boundary calculation. A
  sharpened \(m_\tau\) pulling the best-fit phase off \(2/9\) would
  break the bet while leaving \(Q=2/3\) intact.} & \(206.77\) &
\(206.768\) & \(+0.001\%\) \\
MOND scale \(a_0\) & \(c\sqrt{G\rho_\mathrm{DM}}\) &
\(1.16\times10^{-10}\) & \((1.20\pm0.02)\times10^{-10}\) &
\(\sim3\%\) \\
Cosmic coincidence & \(\sqrt{3\Omega_\mathrm{DM}/8\pi}\) & \(0.178\) &
\(0.179\) & \(0.7\%\) \\
Transient dark energy & Volovik self-tuning & \(C=1\) & DESI DR2
\(C\approx1.0\) & confirmed \\
B-DNA bp/turn & \(2\pi r f/h\)\footnote{The packing fraction locks the
  pitch angle of the counter-rotating duplex to itself,
  \(\tan\alpha_\text{pitch}=f\) --- the strand splits its motion into
  \(\sin\alpha\) across substrate sheets and \(\cos\alpha\) within them,
  and equilibrium sits where that ratio matches the substrate's own
  chiral/boundary ratio \(f\). With the chemistry-fixed backbone radius
  \(r\approx10.0\) Å and base rise \(h=3.4\) Å, the turns-per-pitch
  ratio is \(N=2\pi r f/h=10.47\) bp/turn with no fitted parameter,
  versus the canonical \(10.5\pm0.1\) measured in solution. Equivalently
  the pitch angle itself: \(f=0.5666\) against the observed
  \(\tan\alpha_\text{pitch}=35.7/(2\pi
  r)=0.5681\), a \(0.26\%\) match. The numerical agreement is
  parameter-free; what remains conjectural is the functional form
  \(\tan\alpha_\text{pitch}=f\) (motivated by the chiral/boundary
  projection but not yet derived from the substrate Lagrangian) and
  deriving \(r\) itself from substrate constants.} & \(10.47\) &
\(10.5\pm0.1\) & \(0.3\%\) \\
Microtubule wall & \(3/(2f)\)\footnote{The closed-cylinder counterpart
  of the DNA pitch, using the same tangent definition --- axial rise per
  cycle over perimeter per cycle. The 13-protofilament wall's 3-start
  lateral helix advances three monomer rises \(h_\text{mon}\) axially
  per full azimuthal turn \(2\pi R\), so
  \(\tan\alpha_\text{3start}=3h_\text{mon}/(2\pi R)\). The substrate
  locks this to \(f/\pi\) --- one Gauss factor of \(\pi\) absorbed by
  the cylinder's closed topology, the perimeter-to-diameter ratio
  between the open helix and the closed wall --- giving
  \(R/h_\text{mon}=3/(2f)=2.648\). Observed:
  \(R/h_\text{mon}=10.6/4.087=2.594\) from cryo-EM, a \(2.0\%\) match
  well inside the scatter on the wall radius \(R\) across structures.
  The same open derivation as the DNA case applies, though the
  substrate-Lagrangian backing (the cylindrical reduction \(4\pi\to4\)
  of the bridge equation's Gauss factor) is sharper here.} & \(2.648\) &
\(2.594\) & \(2.0\%\) \\
Min localized-modon energy & \(hc/\xi = 2\pi m_1c^2\)\footnote{Derived
  at Equation~\ref{eq-emin}: the modon matching condition
  (Equation~\ref{eq-K}) has no interior/exterior solution below one
  cell, so the smallest \emph{localized} modon is exactly \(\xi\) wide
  and carries a floor energy \(E_\mathrm{min}=hc/\xi\); the Volovik
  relation \(\hbar/\xi=m_1c\) (Equation~\ref{eq-c}) collapses this to
  the parameter-free \(2\pi
  m_1c^2\), with the \(2\pi\) one full cell circulation
  (\(\kappa_1=2\pi\hbar/m_1\)) and \(m_1c^2\) the rest energy of the
  single dc1 quantum per cell (\(m_1\approx2\) meV \(\Rightarrow12.6\)
  meV, \(\nu_\mathrm{floor}=c/\xi\approx3\) THz,
  \(\lambda\approx100\,\mu\)m). The floor is grounded by \(m_1\) as the
  frequency of a crossover, not a spectral edge. The speed of light
  stays at \(c\) while the quantization flips from an ordinary modon
  above to a delocalized collective winding spread over
  \(\lambda\gg\xi\) below, a photon stretched across many cells.} &
\(12.6\) meV & --- & crossover at \(\lambda=\xi\) \\
\end{longtable}
}

† Only the Koide \(Q=2/3\) row is parameter-free. The \(m_\mu/m_e\) row
additionally uses the residual phase \(\delta=2/9\) rad, which is
\emph{read off the data} --- a single clean rational that happens to
land two independent ratios (\(m_\mu/m_e\) and \(m_\tau/m_e\)) at once
--- not yet derived from the junction. It is listed for visibility, as
the chapter's ``bet'' (hence the dagger), not as a zero-parameter
result; if the bet fails, the \(Q=2/3\) row stands.

The packing fraction (\(0.20\%\)) is the paper's central claim that
finds the measured cosmological density \(\rho_\mathrm{DM}\) from
particle-physics constants. The Higgs VEV to \(0.06\%\) finds the
electroweak scale from the same Weinberg angle \footnote{Physically the
  Higgs VEV (\(v\)) is the baseline strength of the Higgs field that
  permeates all space. It's the amplitude of the aligned ground state,
  \(v=\sqrt{8\pi}\,m_\mathrm{eff}c^2\sqrt{\nu}\), built from the
  effective quantum \(m_\mathrm{eff}=m_e/\alpha_{mf}=1.70\) MeV and the
  condensation number \(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\approx8.3\times10^8\) ---
  the count of dc1 quanta (\(m_1\approx2\) meV) in one effective quantum
  (the same \(\nu\) in SC2). The \(\sqrt\nu\) is the relativistic
  Bose-field amplitude law: a complex field's amplitude-squared counts
  quanta linearly (\(|\phi|^2=n/2\omega\), so \(v^2=n_\chi/\omega_\chi\)
  is the in-quadrature sum of \(\nu\) chirality fluctuations), the same
  reason every condensate order parameter scales as
  \(\sqrt{\text{density}}\). The prefactor is not a new constant but
  gravitational: \(8\pi=2\times4\pi_\mathrm{SC2}\) --- the Gauss
  \(4\pi\) behind \(\nabla^2\Phi=4\pi G\rho\) (the Einstein--Hilbert
  normalization, with emergent Lorentz invariance) times the
  radiation-equation-of-state weight
  \(\rho_\mathrm{eff}=\rho+3P/c^2=2\rho\) of the massless chirality
  Goldstones. The chain \(m_\mathrm{eff}\!\leftarrow\!\sin^2\theta_W\)
  and \(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\) never references \(v\). Crucially,
  \(v\) is built from \(m_\mathrm{eff}\) and the \emph{mass ratio}
  \(\nu\) (Equation~\ref{eq-nu}) --- not from the dimension-mismatched
  length recipe \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}\) --- so it is manifestly
  unit-invariant and carries none of that recipe's baggage. It does ride
  the same single open number \(\nu\) as the bridge equation
  (§\ref{sec-bridge-eq}): on the electroweak side
  (\(\nu\approx8.3\times10^8\), i.e.~\(m_1\) read from
  \(\xi_\mathrm{SC2}\)) it gives \(246\) GeV; on the cosmological side
  (\(\nu\approx9.6\times10^8\), \(m_1\) from \(\xi_\mathrm{CP}\)) it
  gives \(264\) GeV --- the electroweak value being the one an
  electroweak observable must take. At that value the prediction is off
  by only \(0.06\%\).}. And the fine-structure constant --- which
measures how charged particles interact with light --- follows too. All
three come directly from the same equations. The Koide lepton relation
joins them as a fourth parameter-free hit: the three generations are the
three branches of one three-fold junction (the \(\mathbb{Z}_3\) behind
color and the \(\pm\tfrac23\) quark charges), and the lattice's
pairing-\(\sqrt2\) fixes the deviation amplitude, so
\(Q=\tfrac13+(\sqrt2)^2/6=\tfrac23\) identically --- \(9\) ppm from the
measured \(0.666660\), and an answer to \emph{why three} generations.

\subsection{The hidden lattice}\label{sec-seeing}

One of the reasons a one hundred-micron superfluid filling space can be
so stealthy is how it actively transmits radiation. Photons move through
the free substrate with the least energy path --- Lorentz invariance ---
a property that emerges because every vortex, every excitation of the
substrate shares the same cone \(c=\hbar/m_1\xi\) and the same timing.

The photon stays coherent, meaning the lattice must have a structure
factor that prevents spatial scattering: \(S(\mathbf q)\) is the overlap
of its density with the probe wave. The function might predict diffuse
or even sharp scattering, but the photon keeps its shape, revealing a
property of the lattice. The texture must be a domain glass of randomly
oriented triangular Abrikosov crystallites, the same assumption made
with the bridge equation's \(\eta=1\). It's a disordered hyperuniform
solid: \(S(\mathbf q\to0)\to0\). There's no comb, no dispersion. Instead
the model predicts a single diffuse ring at the cell scale
\(|\mathbf q|\simeq2\pi/\xi\), a powder ring with an edge that coincides
with the modon-localization crossover \(E_\mathrm{min}=2\pi m_1c^2\).
This is essentially the lattice size reached a third way.

\href{stealth-vacuum-3d.svg}{\pandocbounded{\includegraphics[keepaspectratio]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/stealth-vacuum-3d.pdf}}}

And the data shows that the far-IR sky is transparent until
\(\lambda>2\xi\approx200\,\mu\)m, then begins a faint scattering edge
that rises to the ring at \(\lambda=\xi\) (\(\sim3\) THz), matching the
domain-glass texture. This is one subtle observation that points to the
scale of the lattice.

\subsection{Two cosmic tensions find a fit}\label{sec-tensions}

The Hubble and \(S_8\) tensions are both reduced here by the model of
the previous cycle's moraine crust. Fit to the combined DESI BAO and Jia
et al.~\(H_0(z)\) measurements, the substrate's density profile reaches
a \(\chi^2\approx10.2\), against \(\Lambda\)CDM's \(\approx821\). The
same profile suppresses growth to \(S_8=0.805\) (compared with Planck
2018's \(0.832\)) --- closer, but still just outside the lensing
measurements of \(0.76\)--\(0.79\). Once dark-energy density is allowed
to fluctuate, either tension can be reduced by various moraine-crust
models; the one that reduces both is the predicted chirping undular bore
with a transcritical point at \(z=1.588\).

\begin{figure}

\centering{

\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio,alt={A four-part diagnostic. Top: three scorecards giving combined chi-squared of 10.2 for the Moraine Crust Spline, 42.2 for the Shockwave Envelope, and 821 for Lambda CDM, each broken into BAO, Jia H0(z), and S8 values. A horizontal S8 number line shows the spline at 0.805 and the shockwave envelope at 0.816, both just above a green weak-lensing band (0.76-0.79), with Lambda CDM at 0.831 next to Planck at 0.832. Bottom left: inferred H0(z) versus redshift, with Jia data points and error bars descending from 72 to 67; the two substrate curves track the data while Lambda CDM stays flat at the Planck value. Bottom right: the growth profile f(z), a smooth declining amber envelope and a wiggly magenta spline, both below the Lambda CDM line of one, with a vertical marker at z=1.588.}]{bridge-paper_files/mediabag/two-tensions.pdf}

}

\caption{\label{fig-tensions}One moraine-crust profile reduces both
tensions. The same density profile fits the joint DESI DR2 BAO + Jia et
al.~\(H_0(z)\) observations, and also reduces the tension with structure
growth. Scorecard: \(\chi^2\) for the freeform 14-knot spline, the
one-parameter physical shockwave envelope, and the standard model
\(\Lambda\)CDM. Both substrate fits land just above the weak-lensing
window --- the freeform spline at \(S_8\approx0.805\) and the shockwave
envelope at \(S_8\approx0.816\) --- closer than \(\Lambda\)CDM's
\(0.831\)}

\end{figure}%

\subsection{Tier 2 --- physics re-derived}\label{sec-tier2}

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  The Bohm quantum potential (§\ref{sec-qp});
\item
  The hydrogen Rydberg spectrum from pilot-wave standing-wave
  matching\footnote{The electron's internal structure oscillates at the
    Compton frequency \(\omega_c=m_ec^2/\hbar\), pumping pressure
    ripples of wavelength \(\lambda_c=h/(m_ec)\) into the substrate; the
    electron's motion Doppler-compresses them into a pilot-wave envelope
    of de Broglie wavelength \(\lambda_B=h/(m_ev)\). Levels are
    quantized by requiring the envelope to close on itself
    constructively around the orbit, \(2\pi r=n\lambda_B\) --- the same
    standing-wave matching that fixes the Larichev--Reznik modon. With
    Coulomb force balance this gives \(r_n=n^2a_0\) and
    \(E_n=-13.6/n^2\) eV; the ground state locks with no free parameter,
    since at \(v=\alpha c\) the de Broglie wavelength \(137\,\lambda_c\)
    equals the Bohr circumference \(2\pi a_0\).}
\item
  Entanglement and Bell's \(E(\theta)=-\cos\theta\), CHSH \(2\sqrt2\)
  --- from a twist wave on the vortex channel joining the split
  pair\footnote{The split pair stays joined by a half-quantum vortex
    channel in the substrate's \(SU(2)\to U(1)\) order parameter --- a
    topologically protected line, like those seen in superfluid
    \(^3\)He-A, whose half-integer (\(\pi\)) winding encodes the singlet
    constraint \(J_A+J_B=0\) and cannot be undone by any local
    fluctuation. As the two particles separate they sweep the bulk's
    counter-rotating layers aside, so the channel \emph{interior} is a
    \textbf{laminar corridor}, not the obstacle course that holds modons
    to \(c\). A torsional Kelvin (twist) wave on that corridor is
    sub-emergent structure and runs at
    \(v_\mathrm{ch}\sim(m_e/m_s)\,c\gg c\) --- with \(m_s\) the mass of
    the substrate's order-parameter carriers --- exactly as Kelvin waves
    on a helium vortex outrun its own first sound. Measuring \(A\) along
    \(\hat{\mathbf a}\) snaps its axis and launches that twist wave
    carrying the rotation to \(B\); the geometric identity
    \(R_A(-\hat{\mathbf s}_0)=-\hat{\mathbf a}\) erases the hidden axis
    \(\hat{\mathbf s}_0\) from \(B\)'s outcome, leaving
    \(E(\theta\mid\hat{\mathbf s}_0)=\sin^2(\theta/2)-\cos^2(\theta/2)=-\cos\theta\)
    for \emph{every} \(\hat{\mathbf s}_0\), not just on average --- the
    local-hidden-variable \(\tfrac13\) dilution is gone --- and CHSH
    then reaches the Tsirelson bound \(|S|=4/\sqrt2=2\sqrt2\). Because
    \(A\)'s outcome is random, \(B\)'s marginal averages to \(50/50\):
    nonlocal but non-signaling, the locality violation sealed inside the
    sub-emergent channel while everything observable stays at \(c\). The
    finite \(v_\mathrm{ch}\) is the falsifiable edge --- Bell
    correlations should relax from \(-\cos\theta\) toward the classical
    \(-\tfrac13\cos\theta\) beyond a maximum separation
    \(L_\mathrm{max}=v_\mathrm{ch}\,\tau_\mathrm{meas}\), and
    consistency out to Micius's \(1200\) km already requires
    \(m_e/m_s\gtrsim10^8\). Full derivation at lightfluid.org.}
\item
  The electron \(g=2\) and the anomalous moment\footnote{The electron is
    a dual-spin gyroscope: a co-rotating core and a counter-rotating
    boundary shell of nearly equal moment of inertia, whose net angular
    momentum \(L_\mathrm{core}-L_\mathrm{boundary}=\hbar/2\) is the
    residual. An external field couples to both with opposite sign, so
    the net coupling is proportional to \(2L_\mathrm{spin}\) --- hence
    \(g=2\) at leading order. A small inertial asymmetry
    \(\eta=(I_1-I_2)/(I_1+I_2)\) shifts this to
    \(g_e=2/(1-\eta^2)\approx2(1+\eta^2)\), supplying the anomalous
    moment.}
\item
  \((g-2)/2=\alpha/2\pi\); quark charges \(+\tfrac23,-\tfrac13\) from
  junction solid angle and \(\sim99\%\) of the proton mass from
  boundary-layer energy (matching lattice QCD)\footnote{The fractional
    charges follow from the solid-angle geometry of the co-rotating flow
    at the three-fold Y-junction: the up- and down-quark orbital
    orientations couple to the confinement boundary with monopole
    strengths \(+\tfrac23\) and \(-\tfrac13\), a count reproduced
    independently by ribbon-twist counting in the preon-braid picture.
    The Schwinger term is the \(g=2\) asymmetry made quantitative: the
    electron's own electromagnetic self-energy perturbs the
    core/boundary mass split at order \(\alpha\), with a \(1/2\pi\)
    shell-averaging factor (\(l=1\) Fourier component over the spherical
    shell), so \(\eta^2=\alpha/2\pi\) and \((g-2)/2=\alpha/2\pi\).}
\item
  The Schwarzschild metric and classical GR tests (§\ref{sec-pg})
\item
  Gravity waves travel at the speed of light: \(c_\mathrm{GW}=c\)
\item
  The baryonic Tully--Fisher law \(M_b\propto v^4\)\footnote{The
    counter-rotating boundary has even parity (equal \(+\omega_0\) and
    \(-\omega_0\) content), which forces a \emph{quadratic}
    current--phase response, \(J\propto|\delta\phi|\,\delta\phi\). In
    the continuum gravitational limit this is the deep-MOND field
    equation \(\nabla\!\cdot[|\nabla\Phi|\,\nabla\Phi]\propto4\pi
    G\rho_b\), whose spherically symmetric solution gives flat rotation
    curves with \(v^4=a_0GM_b\) --- the baryonic Tully--Fisher law. The
    acceleration scale \(a_0=c\sqrt{G\rho_\mathrm{DM}}\) is fixed by
    substrate parameters, not fitted to the relation.}
\item
  Kleiber's metabolic law \(B\propto M^{3/4}\) from the same
  boundary-leakage theorem read on a branching vascular
  network\footnote{Minimizing a coherent pulse's reflection at each
    vascular junction derives the area-preserving branching rule that
    West, Brown \& Enquist had to assume, and carrying it through the
    tree returns Kleiber's \(3/4\) --- one instance of the same
    boundary-leakage theorem that also fixes the lattice's geometric
    ladder.}
\item
  The inflationary spectral index \(n_s\approx0.968\) from a sound-speed
  phase transition\footnote{Inflation here is driven by latent-heat
    release during a first-order superfluid transition: compression
    nucleates more superfluid, suppressing the sound speed
    (\(c_s^2=\varepsilon_sc^2\), \(\varepsilon_s\ll1\)) and acting as
    negative pressure. The tilt then follows the generic
    slow-roll/\(k\)-inflation form \(n_s\approx1-2/N_*-s\), but the
    framework makes the e-fold count natural ---
    \(N_*\approx\ln(c/H_0\xi)\approx60\) from the coherence length and
    Hubble scale, no potential tuning --- giving
    \(n_s\approx1-2/60-1/120\approx0.968\), within \(1\sigma\) of
    \(0.965\pm0.004\).}
\item
  The cosmological constant (§\ref{sec-lambda})
\item
  The nuclear binding curve showing iron as the peak.\footnote{Binding
    is a ``residual seam'': when nucleon confinement boundaries overlap,
    their tails fuse into a shared counter-rotating seam, a saturating
    contact interaction (\textasciitilde8 MeV/nucleon) that is the
    strong force rather than an exchanged particle. The curve's shape is
    the competition of volume (seam saturation), surface (missing edge
    contacts), and Coulomb (co-rotating boundary repulsion) terms;
    setting \(\mathrm d(B/A)/\mathrm dA=0\) gives a peak at
    \(A_\mathrm{peak}\approx2a_S/a_C\), i.e.~the iron/nickel region ---
    the largest nucleus where surface-seam binding still outpaces
    accumulated Coulomb repulsion.}
\item
  The Hawking temperature \(T_H=\hbar c^3/8\pi GM\), exact --- the sonic
  horizon of the same Painlevé--Gullstrand inflow (§\ref{sec-pg}), with
  \(8\pi=2\times4\pi_\mathrm{SC2}\) the gravitational normalization
  shared with the Higgs VEV\footnote{A mass draws a steady inward
    substrate current with the free-fall profile
    \(v_\mathrm{ebb}(r)=\sqrt{2GM/r}\) of §\ref{sec-pg}; fed into the
    acoustic metric (Equation~\ref{eq-acoustic}) it is \emph{exactly}
    the Painlevé--Gullstrand Schwarzschild line element, so the horizon
    is the physical surface where the inflow reaches the signal speed,
    \(v_\mathrm{ebb}=c\Rightarrow r_s=2GM/c^2\). Because the metric is
    exact, Unruh's 1981 result follows exactly rather than by analogy:
    the surface gravity is
    \(\kappa=\tfrac12|\mathrm dv_\mathrm{ebb}^2/\mathrm dr|_{r_s}=c^4/4GM\),
    and \(k_BT_H=\hbar\kappa/2\pi c=\hbar c^3/8\pi GM\) (for a solar
    mass, \(\sim6\times10^{-8}\) K). The radiated quanta are modons shed
    by the failing horizon boundary skin --- the same pinch-off as
    atomic emission (Figure~\ref{fig-modon-birth}), driven by a flow
    gradient instead of an orbital drop. The prefactor
    \(8\pi=2\times4\pi_\mathrm{SC2}\) is the framework's gravitational
    normalization once more: the Gauss \(4\pi\) of
    \(\nabla^2\Phi=4\pi G\rho\) times the radiation-EOS weight \(2\),
    the \emph{same} \(8\pi\) as the Higgs VEV (§\ref{sec-predictions})
    and the Friedmann \(H^2=\tfrac{8\pi G}{3}\rho\). A re-derivation of
    a known result, exact because the metric is.}
\item
  The black-hole entropy area law
  \(S_\mathrm{BH}=A/4\ell_\mathrm{Pl}^2\) --- entropy as
  boundary-crossing leak counted on the one-way horizon seam, hence area
  not volume\footnote{In this framework entropy is lost pairing
    coherence counted in boundary crossings: the dissipative fraction
    \(\alpha_{mf}\) of each coherent ``breath'' handed across a
    counter-rotating seam disperses incoherently among the lattice cells
    and cannot be re-gathered. A horizon is the ultimate one-way
    boundary --- everything crossing it takes the dissipative channel to
    completion (nothing can be re-collected from outside,
    \(1-\alpha_{mf}\to0\)), so the irreversibly lost information is
    registered on the seam it had to cross, the horizon \emph{area}, not
    the interior volume. That is the substrate reason the law is area,
    not volume. The coefficient \(S_\mathrm{BH}=A/4\ell_\mathrm{Pl}^2\)
    (\(\ell_\mathrm{Pl}^2=\hbar G/c^3\)) is the same \(1/4\) the de
    Sitter horizon carries --- the cosmological and black-hole horizons
    being one kind of surface seen from its two sides, so the two are
    locked, and it ties to the \(\Lambda\) accounting of
    §\ref{sec-lambda}. What the framework adds is the \emph{reason}
    there is an area law; the value \(1/4\) is shared, not yet counted
    independently from substrate cells (the same open calculation as
    \(\Lambda\)'s value).}
\item
  The baryon asymmetry
  \(\eta_B\approx\varepsilon_\mathrm{chirality}^9=5.8\times10^{-10}\)
  --- all three Sakharov conditions native to the boil, the
  chiral-vacuum bias frozen across nine junction interfaces\footnote{The
    three Sakharov conditions are native. (i) \emph{Baryon-number
    violation:} knots are minted wholesale only at the boil --- the
    first-order transition where normal substrate orders into the
    superfluid --- and are topologically locked (unbreakable three-quark
    knots, hence also proton stability) ever after. (ii) \emph{C/CP
    violation:} an antiparticle is a knot with every rotation reversed,
    and the vacuum condensed into a single chirality (the same fact that
    makes the weak force left-handed), so swapping co- for
    counter-rotating changes the knot's relation to the handed
    background --- CP is broken by a definite \emph{amount},
    \(\varepsilon_\mathrm{chirality}=\sqrt{\pi\ln2}/K=0.0942\), fixed by
    the same modon factor \(K=j_{11}^2+1\) that sets the packing
    fraction (Equation~\ref{eq-bridge}), the \(\sqrt{\pi\ln2}\) the
    entropy of the one fillable Majorana zero mode per paired vortex.
    (iii) \emph{Departure from equilibrium:} the boil proceeds by bubble
    nucleation, and a wall sweeping outward is equilibrium-breaking by
    definition. A baryon is a bound three-quark knot, each quark a
    three-armed Y-junction, so freezing a net handedness is a choice
    repeated across \(3\times3=9\) chirality-bearing interfaces, one
    factor of \(\varepsilon_\mathrm{chirality}\) each:
    \(\eta_B\approx\varepsilon_\mathrm{chirality}^9=(0.0942)^9=5.8\times10^{-10}\)
    versus the observed \((6.1\pm0.04)\times10^{-10}\) (\(5\%\), zero
    tunable parameters). The mechanism is solid; the \emph{number} is a
    bet --- that the per-interface bias is exactly one factor and the
    count exactly \(9\) is a motivated conjecture, not a stress-tensor
    calculation, and the exponent is sharply diagnostic (\(n=8\) would
    overshoot tenfold), which makes it falsifiable rather than fitted.}
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Live predictions --- testable now}\label{sec-live}

Between the re-derivations above and the wider net below sit a few
concrete numbers (or sharp qualitative breaks) the framework forecasts
that have \emph{not} yet been measured. These are among its best chances
to be falsified.

{\def\LTcaptype{none} % do not increment counter
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}@{}}
\toprule\noalign{}
\begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Prediction
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Value
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Test / instrument
\end{minipage} \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
Lightest neutrino mass & \(m_{\nu,1}\approx m_1\approx2\) meV;
\textbf{normal ordering}; \(\Sigma m_\nu\approx61\) meV\footnote{Every
  fermion mass is the dissipative fraction of its frozen rotational
  energy that the substrate reads,
  \(m=\alpha_{mf}^\mathrm{eff}\,m_\mathrm{eff}\) on one visibility line
  (§\ref{sec-hbar}, \(m_\mathrm{eff}=m_e/\alpha_{mf}=1.70\) MeV); for
  every fermion \emph{but} the neutrino that fraction is read back from
  the measured mass. The neutrino is the barest knot --- no twist, no
  junction, zero charge and color --- so it sits at the floor of the
  ladder, \(\alpha_{mf}^\mathrm{eff}=1/\nu\) with
  \(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\approx8.3\times
  10^8\) the condensation number (the same \(\nu\) in SC2 and the VEV),
  forcing \(m_{\nu,1}=m_\mathrm{eff}/\nu=m_1\approx2\) meV --- the one
  fermion mass placed with no new parameter. Reading each heavier
  eigenstate as a knot threading one more chirality sheet and folding in
  the measured splittings (\(\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}}\approx8.7\),
  \(\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{31}}\approx50\) meV) gives
  \(m_\nu\approx\{2,\,8.9,\,50\}\) meV and \(\Sigma m_\nu\approx61\)
  meV; inverted ordering would give \(\sim102\) meV, already above the
  DESI+CMB ceiling, so normal ordering is forced. The splittings are
  borrowed from experiment, and the exact floor \(1/\nu\) (rather than a
  small integer multiple) is motivated by the knot being the barest
  CPT-stable excitation, not computed from a boundary stress tensor.} &
DESI+CMB \(\Sigma m_\nu\) (\(\lesssim70\) meV), JUNO/DUNE ordering,
KATRIN \\
Gravitational-wave echoes & post-ringdown echoes spaced
\(\sim(r_s/c)\ln(\cdot)\) from a physical stiff near-horizon
shell\footnote{Everything stable is held by a counter-rotating boundary
  skin that can only close a velocity jump while it keeps pace with the
  bulk it wraps. Where the inflow first reaches \(c\) (the horizon
  \(r_s=2GM/c^2\)) no skin can track it, so the horizon is not an ideal
  one-way membrane but a thin, stiff, physical transition region where
  the skin begins to fail. A perturbed merger remnant therefore leaks a
  train of post-ringdown echoes --- delayed repetitions spaced by
  roughly the wave-crossing time of the near-horizon cavity,
  \(\Delta t\sim(r_s/c)\ln(\cdot)\), the generic signature of any
  horizon with structure. This is a live, contested search in
  LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA ringdowns and a target for the Einstein Telescope and
  LISA; clean, high-SNR ringdowns with no echoes down to the instrument
  floor falsify the stiffened-shell picture and push the substrate
  horizon back toward an ideal one.} & LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA ringdowns,
Einstein Telescope, LISA \\
Coherence-lifetime ladder & persistence climbs by
\(1/\alpha_{mf}\approx3.32\) per balanced wrapping shell; log-lifetime
rungs spaced \(\ln(1/\alpha_{mf})\approx1.20\)\footnote{A balanced
  wrapping shell is a nested counter-rotating seam that re-catches all
  but the dissipative fraction \(\alpha_{mf}=\tan^2\theta_W=0.3008\)
  (§\ref{sec-hbar}) of whatever leaks through it. For a unit of
  coherence to escape a structure wrapped in \(N\) such shells it must
  leak through \emph{every} one, so the coherence lifetime climbs
  geometrically, \(\tau_N/\tau_0=(1/\alpha_{mf})^N=(3.32)^N\) ---
  log-lifetime rungs spaced by \(\ln(1/\alpha_{mf})\approx1.20\). This
  is the substrate ladder's \(\sqrt2\) size-comb (§\ref{sec-ladder}) run
  on the time axis instead: structures \emph{space} by \(\sqrt2\) and
  \emph{endure} by \(1/\alpha_{mf}\), two orthogonal constants. A
  log-lifetime histogram of any one well-resolved nested-boundary
  hierarchy should show rungs evenly spaced by \(\approx1.20\); rungs at
  any other fixed ratio, or none, falsify it. The per-shell factor
  assumes each shell catches the coherent leak with the bulk reactive
  efficiency \(1-\alpha_{mf}\) --- the framework's nesting hypothesis,
  not a shell-by-shell proof.} & qubit \(T_2\) catalogues, mark-erasure
timescales, stamp ring-down \\
\end{longtable}
}

The neutrino row is the framework's one fermion mass that is predicted
rather than fit: every other particle's visibility is read back from its
measured mass, but the neutrino is the barest knot the substrate holds,
so it sits at the floor of the visibility ladder and its mass is forced
to the bare quantum \(m_1\approx2\) meV. That locks three of the lowest
scales in physics --- dark matter's constituent \(m_1\), the dark-energy
scale \(\rho_\Lambda^{1/4}=2.24\) meV (§\ref{sec-lambda}), and the
lightest neutrino --- as \emph{one} substrate constant, and forces
normal ordering, landing \(\Sigma m_\nu\) in the last few meV beneath
the current cosmological bound.

\subsection{Tier 3 --- the wider net}\label{sec-tier3}

\begin{itemize}
\tightlist
\item
  Grid cells step by \(\sim1.4\approx\sqrt2\) --- the bare ladder rung
  --- across species.
\item
  Phyllotaxis sets each leaf at the golden angle \(137.5^\circ\)
  (\(\varphi\) on a circle), realized by the same flux-lattice physics
  the substrate is built from {[}@levitov1991{]}, magnet-free.
\item
  The retinal cone mosaic tiles as disordered hyperuniform blue noise
  --- the planar face of choosing anti-lock in the substrate ladder.
  This avoids image aliasing.
\item
  The outer rim onset speed \(v_L=\omega_0\xi \approx750\) km/s surfaces
  as a boundary gating the galactic MOND→CDM transition and near the
  peak of the Sun's fast polar wind (Ulysses mean \(751.5\) km/s).
\item
  The inner-rim \(\gamma\) shoulder shows that an electron driven to the
  substrate's own rotation speed (\(0.776\,c\)) tears its boundary and
  sheds a \(\sim300\) keV gamma modon; the electron--electron
  bremsstrahlung shoulder at \(T_e\approx300\) keV --- a
  \(200\)--\(500\) keV excess over combined bremsstrahlung, with a
  fatter angular distribution --- in terrestrial \(\gamma\)-ray flashes
  (TGF/ALOFT), solar flares (RHESSI/STIX/NuSTAR), and tokamak hard-X-ray
  disruptions.
\item
  Cell sorting is boundary-energy minimization one rung up: an embryonic
  tissue behaves as an immiscible liquid whose measured \emph{surface
  tension} is the same counter-rotating-layer energy
  \(\tfrac12\rho_\text{cr}(\Delta v)^2\) read at the cell cortex, with
  cadherins setting the velocity match --- and the sorting topology is a
  dressing-cancelled tension \emph{ratio} the data already bear out
  (transitive hierarchies, an E-cadherin phase reversal, a vanishing
  adhesion-bond term), the same knob whose pathological failure is
  metastasis.\footnote{Dissociated embryonic cells of two types re-sort,
    every time, into one population wrapped completely inside the other
    --- Steinberg's differential adhesion read as a liquid minimizing
    interfacial energy. Foty and Steinberg measured that interfacial
    energy directly as a genuine tissue \emph{surface tension} (tens of
    dyn/cm, parallel-plate compression) that scales with cadherin
    expression, and the framework reads it as the same
    counter-rotating-layer energy \(\tfrac12\rho_\text{cr}(\Delta v)^2\)
    that stores the electron's mass and confines a quark, now evaluated
    at the cell cortex: cadherins set how nearly two apposed cortices
    move together (the velocity match \(\Delta v\)), the boundary energy
    of the residual contrast is the tension, and a tissue lays out by
    minimizing the sum. The \emph{absolute} tension in dyn/cm is deep
    --- dressed by every chemical layer between substrate and cortex,
    and not computed here --- but the sorting \emph{outcome} runs on
    tension ratios in which that dressing cancels, so it is the clean,
    middle-band part (the biological twin of the quark mass ratio, not
    the string tension). Three datasets already bear the ratio tier out:
    Foty's five chick tissues form a single transitive hierarchy (ten
    consistent engulfments --- exactly what one scalar per tissue
    forces); depleting E-cadherin from zebrafish ectoderm drops its
    tension below its neighbour's and \emph{reverses} which engulfs
    which (a within-type ratio \(0.33/0.77\approx0.43=(\Delta v)^2\));
    and Maître's progenitor doublets order by the dimensionless
    cortical-tension ratio \(\gamma_{cc}/\gamma_{cm}\) while the
    adhesion-bond term measures \(\omega\approx0\) --- the sorting
    energy is the cortical shear, not the bond count. The same knob
    turned the wrong way --- E-cadherin lost in the
    epithelial--mesenchymal transition --- is a cell climbing off the
    matched floor and un-sorting out of its tissue, i.e.~metastasis.}
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Molecular recognition --- one stamp metric, many
reads}\label{sec-recognition}

The framework's cellular-scale is not as clear, as it's visible only
through many nested layers. But the patterns hold together, and the
numbers converge when solid matches line up at each major system where
you'd expect to find them.

An aromatic ring shows clearly as a toroidal vortex --- the closed
surface that earns benzene its \({\sim}36\) kcal/mol of aromatic
stabilization, a closed-loop flow with no ribbon end to
terminate.\footnote{Kekulé bond bookkeeping predicts a benzene heat of
  hydrogenation near \(86\) kcal/mol --- three times cyclohexene's
  single double bond (\({\sim}28.6\)) --- yet the measured value is
  \(49\) kcal/mol, so the ring is \({\sim}36\) kcal/mol \emph{more}
  stable than localized bonds allow. The framework reads a \(4n+2\) π
  system as a single closed toroidal raceway, the lowest-energy
  enclosure of a closed-loop co-rotating flow; unlike an open conjugated
  chain it has no ribbon ends, so it pays none of the
  boundary-termination energy a finite π ribbon owes at each end, and
  the \(36\) kcal/mol is exactly that saved cost. This toroidal-vortex
  reading of the aromatic ring is the per-base building block for every
  stamp in the table.} Each nucleobase is then a stack of one or two
such tori, and a codon, a base pair, or a binding pocket is a
three-dimensional \emph{stamp}: the superposition of those per-base
vortex profiles on the substrate's flow geometry. One set of per-base
profiles, one overall scale, no per-observable tuning, feeds an \(L^2\)
overlap metric that reads out across three independent classes of
molecular recognition. No single row below is a paper-central number ---
but as a group they put numeric weight under the cellular-dynamics
chapters: the same metric that places every cognate anticodon first also
tracks drug-binding affinity across four orders of magnitude and beats
additive hydrogen-bond counting on base-pair stability.

{\def\LTcaptype{none} % do not increment counter
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}
  >{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{(\linewidth - 4\tabcolsep) * \real{0.3333}}@{}}
\toprule\noalign{}
\begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Observable
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Substrate reading
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}\raggedright
Result
\end{minipage} \\
\midrule\noalign{}
\endhead
\bottomrule\noalign{}
\endlastfoot
Benzene aromatic stabilization & closed-torus π flow, no edge to
terminate\footnote{Kekulé bond bookkeeping predicts a benzene heat of
  hydrogenation near \(86\) kcal/mol --- three times cyclohexene's
  single double bond (\({\sim}28.6\)) --- yet the measured value is
  \(49\) kcal/mol, so the ring is \({\sim}36\) kcal/mol \emph{more}
  stable than localized bonds allow. The framework reads a \(4n+2\) π
  system as a single closed toroidal raceway, the lowest-energy
  enclosure of a closed-loop co-rotating flow; unlike an open conjugated
  chain it has no ribbon ends, so it pays none of the
  boundary-termination energy a finite π ribbon owes at each end, and
  the \(36\) kcal/mol is exactly that saved cost. This toroidal-vortex
  reading of the aromatic ring is the per-base building block for every
  stamp in the table.} & \({\sim}36\) kcal/mol --- matches \\
G:C / A:T pair stability & per-lobe vortex overlap,
non-additive\footnote{Each nucleobase is one (pyrimidine) or two
  (purine) toroidal vortices, and a base pair binds by lobe-to-lobe
  overlap of the two faces across the Watson--Crick bridge. Counting
  hydrogen bonds additively gives a G:C/A:T stability ratio of
  \(3/2=1.5\); the substrate overlap is \emph{non-additive} --- the
  three G:C lobes share merged boundary sheets, so the bound
  configuration exceeds the sum of its bonds --- and returns \(1.69\),
  inside the measured \(1.8\)--\(2.0\) range and closer to it than the
  additive count. One overall scale, no per-pair tuning.} & ratio
\(1.69\) (measured \(1.8\)--\(2.0\); additive H-bonds give \(1.5\)) \\
Codon--anticodon cognate recognition & \(64\times64\) stamp-overlap
matrix\footnote{Stacking three per-base profiles along the helical axis
  (rise \(h\approx3.4\) Å, twist \(\Delta\theta\approx34.3°\)) gives
  each codon a three-dimensional stamp; an \(L^2\) metric on stamp space
  builds the \(64\times64\) codon--anticodon binding matrix. Reordered
  onto the cognate (Watson--Crick complementary) diagonal, every one of
  the \(64\) diagonal cells is the most attractive partner for its codon
  --- cognate rank \#1 for \(64\) of \(64\) --- with a mean attraction
  gap of \(+42.5\) (arb. units) between the cognate diagonal (\(-9.9\))
  and the off-diagonal field (\(+32.5\)): structural discrimination, not
  a thermal margin. The \emph{same} metric separates synonymous from
  non-synonymous codon pairs by a stamp-distance ratio of \(1.75\) and
  reproduces the wobble tolerance (G:U retains \(73\%\) of canonical
  binding), all from the one set of per-base inputs with no
  per-observable tuning.} & cognate ranks \#1 for \textbf{64 of 64} \\
Synonymous vs non-synonymous spread & same metric, no
retuning\footnote{Stacking three per-base profiles along the helical
  axis (rise \(h\approx3.4\) Å, twist \(\Delta\theta\approx34.3°\))
  gives each codon a three-dimensional stamp; an \(L^2\) metric on stamp
  space builds the \(64\times64\) codon--anticodon binding matrix.
  Reordered onto the cognate (Watson--Crick complementary) diagonal,
  every one of the \(64\) diagonal cells is the most attractive partner
  for its codon --- cognate rank \#1 for \(64\) of \(64\) --- with a
  mean attraction gap of \(+42.5\) (arb. units) between the cognate
  diagonal (\(-9.9\)) and the off-diagonal field (\(+32.5\)): structural
  discrimination, not a thermal margin. The \emph{same} metric separates
  synonymous from non-synonymous codon pairs by a stamp-distance ratio
  of \(1.75\) and reproduces the wobble tolerance (G:U retains \(73\%\)
  of canonical binding), all from the one set of per-base inputs with no
  per-observable tuning.} & stamp-distance ratio \(1.75\) \\
nAChR agonist affinity & aromatic-pocket stamp distance\footnote{The
  nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist site is a textbook aromatic
  cage of five Trp/Tyr residues; reading each ligand and the cage as
  overlapping vortex stamps gives a cosine distance \(d_\mathrm{cos}\)
  whose ranking is predicted to track measured affinity once gross
  steric and charge effects are controlled. Across eight ligands
  spanning four orders of magnitude in \(K_i\), the Spearman correlation
  is \(\rho=+0.905\), reproduced identically at all five interfaces of
  the homopentamer, with one tunable parameter --- a ring-competition
  weight \(\beta=0.80\) penalizing two ligand rings that claim one cage
  residue (the destructive, co-rotating analog of the constructive
  opposite-phase cation-π lock). This is the binding-pocket counterpart
  of the codon ``\(64\) of \(64\)'': the same opposites-attract overlap
  read \emph{transversely} across a pocket instead of \emph{axially}
  along a base stack.} & Spearman \(\rho=+0.905\) vs measured \(K_i\) \\
5mC reader split & major-groove stamp-edit, WC face intact\footnote{5-methylcytosine
  adds a feature to DNA's major-groove channel while leaving the
  Watson--Crick edge that fixes the genetic letter intact --- a groove
  stamp-edit, not a C→T nudge (the 5mC stamp sits \(\sim0.14\)--\(0.51\)
  of \(d(\mathrm{C,T})\) off C, and \emph{farther} from T than C is).
  The geometric prediction is then sharp: a reader that contacts the
  major groove has a direct handle on the edit and must react, while a
  reader specified only by the Watson--Crick edge is blind to it. It
  holds --- the dedicated methyl readers (MeCP2, MBD1/2) grip the
  5-methyl in the major groove through a conserved arginine, and Yin
  \emph{et al.}'s methyl-SELEX of \(542\) human transcription factors
  sorts them into methyl-\emph{plus} (the extended homeodomain family,
  making direct hydrophobic contact to the methyl) and
  methyl-\emph{minus} (CTCF, position-specifically inhibited where an
  aspartate reads the unmodified cytosine). Sensitivity is set by groove
  geometry, sign by the local contact --- exactly a stamp-edit into the
  channel, response without a letter change.} & groove readers respond,
WC-edge readers blind (retrodiction, holds) \\
Olfactory OR repertoire & anti-lock pole in stamp space & hyperuniform,
not Poisson (\({\sim}400\) pockets, untested) \\
\end{longtable}
}

Each row helps prove the overall point of the way in which substrate
energy influences and organizes cellular dynamics, offering a hidden
information channel mediated by chemistry.

See more at \url{https://lightfluid.org/predictions.html}.

\section{Open problems}\label{sec-open-problems}

\begin{itemize}
\item
  The \(4\pi\) in SC2 and in the bridge equation's geometric value and
  the following results rely on the substrate's emergent Lorentz
  invariance being exact. The induced (Einstein--Hilbert) action gives
  the equation the \(4\pi\) automatically once that is shown. It is
  supported by Michelson--Morley and GW170817 but needs a formal
  derivation.
\item
  The nonlinear completion of the Einstein equations requires a formal
  proof.
\item
  For dark matter, the quantitative step from the Hubble flow's DC
  parity-bias to the \emph{coefficient} of
  \(a_0=c\sqrt{G\rho_\mathrm{DM}}\) (§\ref{sec-mond}) --- equivalently,
  a phonon-mediated force profile reproducing the full
  radial-acceleration relation at galactic scales --- is still open.
\item
  Finding the nuclear surface scale profile \(a_S\). Only the iron-peak
  has been predicted so far.
\item
  Derive the condensation number
  \(\nu=m_\mathrm{eff}/m_1\approx8.3\times10^8\) (Equation~\ref{eq-nu})
  --- the one open number of the bridge equation (§\ref{sec-bridge-eq})
  and the Higgs VEV (§\ref{sec-predictions}). Everything else on the
  electroweak side is fixed; \(\nu\) is the nine-decade lift from the
  electroweak Compton scale to the cell. Because it is dimensionless,
  generating it from an \(O(1)\) coupling is \emph{dimensional
  transmutation} --- the legal mechanism behind \(\Lambda_\mathrm{QCD}\)
  and the BCS gap --- and its natural home is the substrate ladder's
  discrete-scale-invariance tower (\(\nu=(\sqrt2)^N\) with
  \(N\approx60\), next item).
\item
  Prove the substrate ladder forms a tower. Need to show that the
  marginal point is a genuine limit cycle with period exactly \(\sqrt2\)
  (the ladder of §\ref{sec-ladder});
\item
  Formal proof of the lattice spacing from the logarithmic equation of
  state's maximum packing result.
\end{itemize}

\section*{Conclusion}\label{conclusion}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Conclusion}

I am not an expert in any of the domains this paper covers but have been
avidly reading science papers for a long time. You may see something I
missed, but to me, this feels like a worthy direction to pursue, and I
welcome any help to improve it.

In 1861 Maxwell built his theory of electromagnetism on molecular
vortices, and six years later Thomson proposed the vortex atom. Neither
had the superfluid model needed to account for inertia or the electron's
orbit, and they moved on.

Volovik found key properties of the universe in a supercooled droplet of
He-3, the one atom that stays fluid cold enough to tune into the
anti-phase breathing of the substrate, and so essentially a mirror of
the substrate itself. Bush, Zloshchastiev, Khoury, and others supplied
more pieces of the puzzle.

Treating Madelung/Bohm and Simeonov's fluid as a superfluid, the quantum
potential becomes the reaction force of the boundary layer. The photon
makes perfect sense as a modon --- wrapping up these counter-spinning
layers and using the substrate's energy to launch itself. Once Planck's
constant, light's minimum packet size, is used as the modon's minimum
size, the lattice size is fixed and these predictions follow. And if you
spend time looking at superfluid images, they may give you the intuition
to see how this unifies science behind one physics --- without strange
assumptions, and just making more sense.

The stealthy superfluid turns Quantum Uncertainty into a measurement
artifact. Entanglement dissolves into the split pair's topologically
protected vortex lines, which still join them across long distances.
When you measure one end, a twist wave runs back down that cleared,
laminar channel faster than the speed of light, reproducing the Bell
correlations (§\ref{sec-tier2}). With gravitational lensing and time
dilation as pressure effects, let's blissfully forgo the absurd
speculation that space and time are warped and that the universe arose
from a singularity.

To me, Our Big Bubble and Our Fluid Universe make more sense. When
reading Bush's paper, I had the realization that the photon is a modon.
It did not take long to find the math, but it took time to accept the
large size of the lattice, and to see how the energy flows create a
common topology --- the orbital plane, the polar jets, the modon
topology that holds the energy. Given the sheet spacing, that leads to
the ladder influencing boundary effects, and to chemistry creating long
vectors by organizing against the lock/anti-lock pattern, storing them
as coherent substrate layers and transmitting them as complex modons.
With hidden organization, information, and energy, the substrate drives
cellular dynamics --- replacing the hard-to-accept notion that cells run
on chaos alone. The Earth evolved by nesting folding substrate layers to
trap substrate energy into persistent modons, and life evolved by
folding and trapping more.

The substrate framework offers a new lens to help uncover the nature of
the superfluid that underlies everything, and its hidden lattice.

Find a deeper investigation at \url{https://lightfluid.org}.

\section*{Acknowledgements}\label{acknowledgements}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Acknowledgements}

This paper was made possible by the work of many scientists included in
the references.

In particular, Volovik, Bush, Oza, Simeonov, Zloshchastiev, Khoury,
Larichev and Reznik provided the foundational math and inspiration.

I'm also grateful to my amazing employer Posit PBC, supporters of open
source software for data science. This is an unaffiliated side project,
and naturally open source.

\section*{References}\label{references}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}

\protect\phantomsection\label{refs}
\begin{CSLReferences}{0}{1}
\textbf{Abo-Shaeer, J. R., Raman, C., Vogels, J. M. \& Ketterle, W.}
(2001). Observation of vortex lattices in Bose--Einstein condensates.
\emph{Science} \textbf{292}, 476--479.

\textbf{Avdeenkov, A. V. \& Zloshchastiev, K. G.} (2011). Quantum Bose
liquids with logarithmic nonlinearity: self-sustainability and emergence
of spatial extent. \emph{Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and
Optical Physics} \textbf{44}, 195303. arXiv:1108.0847. (The logarithmic
BEC self-binds into a ``gausson'' of width equal to the GP healing
length; cubic GP is the second-order expansion of the logarithm about
close-packing; the Bogoliubov spectrum is massless only at the marginal
density.)

\textbf{Barceló, C., Liberati, S. \& Visser, M.} (2005). Analogue
gravity. \emph{Living Reviews in Relativity} \textbf{8}, 12.

\textbf{Baym, G.} (2003). Tkachenko modes of vortex lattices in rapidly
rotating Bose--Einstein condensates. arXiv:cond-mat/0305294.

\textbf{Bekarevich, I. L. \& Khalatnikov, I. M.} (1961).
Phenomenological derivation of the equations of vortex motion in He II.
\emph{Soviet Physics JETP} \textbf{13}, 643--646.

\textbf{Berezhiani, L. \& Khoury, J.} (2015). Theory of dark matter
superfluidity. \emph{Physical Review D} \textbf{92}, 103510.

\textbf{Bialynicki-Birula, I. \& Mycielski, J.} (1976). Nonlinear wave
mechanics. \emph{Annals of Physics} \textbf{100}, 62--93. (The
logarithmic term is the unique local nonlinearity for which a composite
system's wavefunction stays separable.)

\textbf{Braaten, E. \& Hammer, H.-W.} (2006). Universality in few-body
systems with large scattering length. \emph{Physics Reports}
\textbf{428}, 259--390.

\textbf{Bush, J. W. M. \& Oza, A. U.} (2020). Hydrodynamic quantum
analogs. \emph{Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics} \textbf{52}, 235--280.

\textbf{Donnelly, R. J.} (1991). \emph{Quantized Vortices in Helium II.}
Cambridge University Press.

\textbf{Fetter, A. L.} (2009). Rotating trapped Bose--Einstein
condensates. \emph{Reviews of Modern Physics} \textbf{81}, 647.

\textbf{Glaberson, W. I., Johnson, W. W. \& Ostermeier, R. M.} (1974).
Instability of a vortex array in He II. \emph{Physical Review Letters}
\textbf{33}, 1197.

\textbf{Goles, E., Schulz, O. \& Markus, M.} (2001). Prime number
selection of cycles in a predator--prey model. \emph{Complexity}
\textbf{6}(4), 33--38.

\textbf{Hall, H. E. \& Vinen, W. F.} (1956). The rotation of liquid
helium II. II. The theory of mutual friction in uniformly rotating
helium II. \emph{Proceedings of the Royal Society A} \textbf{238},
215--234.

\textbf{Hamilton, A. J. S. \& Lisle, J. P.} (2008). The river model of
black holes. \emph{American Journal of Physics} \textbf{76}, 519.

\textbf{Jiménez, J.} (1975). Stability of a pair of co-rotating
vortices. \emph{Physics of Fluids} \textbf{18}, 1580--1581.

\textbf{Khoury, J.} (2015). A dark matter superfluid. arXiv:1507.03013.

\textbf{Larichev, V. D. \& Reznik, G. M.} (1976). Two-dimensional
solitary Rossby waves. \emph{Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR} \textbf{231},
1077--1079.

\textbf{Levitov, L. S.} (1991). Phyllotaxis of flux lattices in layered
superconductors. \emph{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{66}, 224.

\textbf{McGaugh, S. S., Lelli, F. \& Schombert, J. M.} (2016). Radial
acceleration relation in rotationally supported galaxies. \emph{Physical
Review Letters} \textbf{117}, 201101.

\textbf{Mehdi, Z., Hope, J. J., Szigeti, S. S. \& Bradley, A. S.}
(2023). Mutual friction and diffusion of two-dimensional quantum
vortices. \emph{Physical Review Research} \textbf{5}, 013184.
arXiv:2205.04065.

\textbf{Moffatt, H. K.} (1969). The degree of knottedness of tangled
vortex lines. \emph{Journal of Fluid Mechanics} \textbf{35}, 117--129.

\textbf{Planck Collaboration} (Aghanim, N. et al.) (2020). Planck 2018
results. VI. Cosmological parameters. \emph{Astronomy \& Astrophysics}
\textbf{641}, A6. arXiv:1807.06209. (Erratum: \emph{A\&A} \textbf{652},
C4, 2021.)

\textbf{Reznik, G. M.} (2010). Dynamics of localized vortices on the
beta plane. \emph{Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics}
\textbf{46}(6), 784--797. doi:10.1134/S0001433810060095. (Review giving
the explicit Larichev--Reznik modon matching, eqns 1.25--1.26.)

\textbf{Rosen, N.} (1968). Dynamics of a particle as a solution of a
nonlinear field theory. \emph{Journal of Mathematical Physics}
\textbf{9}, 996. (The self-bound ``gausson'' ground state of the
logarithmic nonlinear Schrödinger equation.)

\textbf{Saffman, P. G.} (1992). \emph{Vortex Dynamics.} Cambridge
University Press.

\textbf{Sakharov, A. D.} (1967). Vacuum quantum fluctuations in curved
space and the theory of gravitation. \emph{Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR}
\textbf{177}, 70--71.

\textbf{Simeonov, L.} (2025). Quantum potential from the material
derivative of the osmotic velocity: a two-fluid Madelung framework.
arXiv:2509.02868.

\textbf{Sornette, D.} (1998). Discrete scale invariance and complex
dimensions. \emph{Physics Reports} \textbf{297}, 239--270.

\textbf{Stensola, H., Stensola, T., Solstad, T., Frøland, K., Moser,
M.-B. \& Moser, E. I.} (2012). The entorhinal grid map is discretized.
\emph{Nature} \textbf{492}, 72--78.

\textbf{Tkachenko, V. K.} (1966). On vortex lattices. \emph{Soviet
Physics JETP} \textbf{22}, 1282.

\textbf{Unruh, W. G.} (1981). Experimental black-hole evaporation?
\emph{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{46}, 1351.

\textbf{Volovik, G. E.} (2003). \emph{The Universe in a Helium Droplet.}
Oxford University Press.

\textbf{Zloshchastiev, K. G.} (2020). Superfluid vacuum theory and
deformed dispersion relations. \emph{International Journal of Modern
Physics A} \textbf{35}, 2040032. (The logarithmic equation of state, its
marginal-density massless point, and the roton--maxon dispersion whose
only Lorentz-violating scale is the \(\sim\)meV cell.)

\end{CSLReferences}




\end{document}
