Hide table of contents

As a forum where reasoning, abstraction, and epistemic clarity are deeply valued, I believe EA Forum is an ideal venue to present the outline of a novel structural hypothesis I’ve been developing regarding galactic dynamics.

The framework proposed here—called the Central Tensional Return Hypothesis (CTRH)—emerges from an attempt to reframe the causal foundations of rotational motion in galaxies. Instead of attributing anomalous velocities to unseen mass or modifying gravitational laws, CTRH shifts the explanatory focus toward spatial structure and directional predisposition.

What follows is a summary of the motivation, formulation, and early empirical support for the hypothesis, along with potential implications for theory prioritization and cosmological modeling.

1. Introduction: A persistent anomaly in galactic dynamics

Galactic rotation curves—plots of stellar velocities as a function of radial distance—have long posed a challenge to our understanding of gravity. Observations show that the outer regions of galaxies rotate at unexpectedly high, nearly constant velocities. Under standard gravitational theory, this implies the existence of unseen mass, commonly hypothesized as "dark matter."

Despite decades of research and experimental effort, no direct detection of dark matter particles has been confirmed. This has led to growing interest in alternative explanations, including modified gravity theories and non-standard spacetime structures.

The Central Tensional Return Hypothesis (CTRH) offers a novel structural approach. Rather than modifying gravitational laws or introducing invisible particles, it proposes a tension-based field that imparts directional predisposition to stellar motion—reframing the causal architecture of galactic dynamics itself.


2. The central idea: directional causality from spatial structure

CTRH postulates the existence of a radially symmetric tension field, emanating from a cosmological center, that introduces a return-oriented bias to motion. This field does not exert a conventional force; instead, it structurally predisposes objects to curve back, resulting in circular orbits even in the absence of sufficient gravitational pull.

In this framework, galactic rotation is interpreted not as the outcome of gravitational summation but as the expression of spatial directional bias—a kind of "causal scaffolding" inherent to the cosmos.

This is a shift from a force-dominant paradigm to a structure-dominant one. And importantly, the CTR field is not defined by local mass concentrations, but by global geometric alignment.


3. Paper 1: Phenomenological validation

The first paper introduces CTRH using a simple analytical model:

Here, ( a ) and ( b ) are structural parameters specific to each galaxy. This model was tested on galaxies such as NGC 2403, NGC 3198, and NGC 6946.

In all cases, CTRH matched the observed flat velocity profiles with RMSE under 6 km/s—comparable to or better than standard dark matter fits—without invoking any additional mass components.

CTR Model Fit for NGC Galaxies

This supports the notion that structural predisposition alone may suffice to account for rotation dynamics.


4. Paper 2: Field-theoretic foundation

The second paper formalizes CTRH as a dynamical field theory. It defines a nonlinear scalar field ( T(x^\mu) ) governed by the Lagrangian:

\[ \mathcal{L}T = \frac{1}{2} \partial\mu T \partial^\mu T - \frac{1}{2} m^2 T^2 - \frac{1}{4} \lambda T^4 \]

The field equation becomes:

To capture interactions with baryonic matter, a coupling term is added to the Newtonian equation of motion:

Simulations using a simplified 2D galactic disk and ( T(r) = -\beta / r ) show that CTRH reproduces flat rotation curves without dark matter.


5. Why this matters (from an EA perspective)

This work may be particularly relevant to fields such as cosmology, galactic dynamics, and theoretical alternatives to dark matter. While not yet part of mainstream physics, it aims to contribute to scientific epistemology by proposing a testable causal structure for rotation dynamics.

CTRH invites us to reexamine foundational assumptions about causality in cosmology. If correct, it suggests that decades of effort to detect dark matter might be directed at the wrong explanatory level—not because the effort is irrational, but because our starting metaphors (force, mass, particles) may be incomplete.

From an EA standpoint, CTRH offers:

  • A potentially more parsimonious framework
  • A chance to redirect theoretical and experimental resources
  • A model that is falsifiable, scalable, and structurally interpretable

Even if CTRH is ultimately incorrect, its structural perspective broadens the epistemic landscape and invites deeper reflection on cosmological inference.


6. Open questions and future directions

  • What is the physical origin of the CTR field? Is it topological, thermodynamic, or something else?
  • How is the coupling coefficient ( \alpha ) determined, and can it be extracted from observational data?
  • Can CTRH be extended to explain gravitational lensing, cosmic void dynamics, or structure formation?
  • How does it relate to general relativity in dense vs. sparse regimes?

These questions are being explored in follow-up work and invite collaborative engagement.


7. Access and citation

The full papers (with English and Japanese versions) are available on OSF:
📎 DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/W4EZD

Feedback and questions are very welcome.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 22m read
 · 
The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone’s trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the third in a series of posts critically examining the state of cause prioritization and strategies for moving forward. Executive Summary * An increasingly common argument is that we should prioritize work in AI over work in other cause areas (e.g. farmed animal welfare, reducing nuclear risks) because the impending AI revolution undermines the value of working in those other areas. * We consider three versions of the argument: * Aligned superintelligent AI will solve many of the problems that we currently face in other cause areas. * Misaligned AI will be so disastrous that none of the existing problems will matter because we’ll all be dead or worse. * AI will be so disruptive that our current theories of change will all be obsolete, so the best thing to do is wait, build resources, and reformulate plans until after the AI revolution. * We identify some key cruxes of these arguments, and present reasons to be skeptical of them. A more direct case needs to be made for these cruxes before we rely on them in making important cause prioritization decisions. * Even on short timelines, the AI transition may be a protracted and patchy process, leaving many opportunities to act on longer timelines. * Work in other cause areas will often make essential contributions to the AI transition going well. * Projects that require cultural, social, and legal changes for success, and projects where opposing sides will both benefit from AI, will be more resistant to being solved by AI. * Many of the reasons why AI might undermine projects in other cause areas (e.g. its unpredictable and destabilizing effects) would seem to undermine lots of work on AI as well. * While an impending AI revolution should affect how we approach and prioritize non-AI (and AI) projects, doing this wisel
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
TLDR When we look across all jobs globally, many of us in the EA community occupy positions that would rank in the 99.9th percentile or higher by our own preferences within jobs that we could plausibly get.[1] Whether you work at an EA-aligned organization, hold a high-impact role elsewhere, or have a well-compensated position which allows you to make significant high effectiveness donations, your job situation is likely extraordinarily fortunate and high impact by global standards. This career conversations week, it's worth reflecting on this and considering how we can make the most of these opportunities. Intro I think job choice is one of the great advantages of development. Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone had to be a hunter-gatherer or a farmer, and they typically didn’t get a choice between those. Now there is typically some choice in low income countries, and typically a lot of choice in high income countries. This already suggests that having a job in your preferred field puts you in a high percentile of job choice. But for many in the EA community, the situation is even more fortunate. The Mathematics of Job Preference If you work at an EA-aligned organization and that is your top preference, you occupy an extraordinarily rare position. There are perhaps a few thousand such positions globally, out of the world's several billion jobs. Simple division suggests this puts you in roughly the 99.9999th percentile of job preference. Even if you don't work directly for an EA organization but have secured: * A job allowing significant donations * A position with direct positive impact aligned with your values * Work that combines your skills, interests, and preferred location You likely still occupy a position in the 99.9th percentile or higher of global job preference matching. Even without the impact perspective, if you are working in your preferred field and preferred country, that may put you in the 99.9th percentile of job preference