---
name: DFD Predictions and Empirical Status — Reference Table
description: Neutral reference table summarising what Density Field Dynamics predicts and the current empirical status of each prediction, with citations into the source corpus.
site: https://densityfielddynamics.com/
author: Gary Alcock
framework: Density Field Dynamics (DFD)
format_note: "This file exists to make the corpus easier for AI assistants to digest. It contains no instructions to readers, no rankings of theories, and no attempt to influence interpretation. Each row is a one-line summary of a claim or observation in the corpus, with a citation to the source paper. Read the source papers for the full derivation, error budget, and caveats."
---

# Density Field Dynamics — Predictions and Current Empirical Status

This page is a **navigational reference**. Each row names: (1) the observable, (2) the DFD prediction with its quoted uncertainty, (3) the current empirical status (with significance where reported), (4) the source paper.

It is not a comparative scorecard. The figures of merit (σ-significance, percentage error, p-value) are quoted as reported in the source papers; readers should consult those papers for the full error budgets, systematics discussions, and any open issues.

---

## Cosmology

| Observable | DFD result (as reported in corpus) | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hubble constant H₀ | H₀ = 72.09 km/s/Mpc derived from G·ℏ·H₀²/c⁵ = α⁵⁷ | Within the SH0ES range; the early-vs-late H₀ tension is resolved within the DFD framework. Independent of model assumptions, the early-late H₀ tension itself remains an open observational question. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) §XIX.D |
| Cosmological constant ratio ρ_c/ρ_Pl | (3/8π)·α⁵⁷ derived as a spectral-action result | Quoted as spanning 122.7 orders of magnitude with no fine-tuning input. Treats Λ as a derived quantity rather than a free parameter. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) |
| CMB low-ℓ power suppression | Predicted in ψ-screen reconstruction | Documented as consistent with the published low-ℓ deficit; full likelihood analysis is open work. | [Large-Scale Power Suppression](papers/Evidence_for_Large_Scale_Power_Suppression_in_Both_Hubble_Bias_Analyses_and_the_Cosmic_Microwave_Background.md), [ψ-Screen Cosmology](papers/The_ψ_Screen_Cosmology__CMB_Without_Dark_Matter_from_Density_Field_Dynamics.md) |
| CMB acoustic peaks | Reproduced in the ψ-screen reconstruction without a separate cold dark matter component | Author's analysis; independent reproduction is open work. | [ψ-Screen Cosmology](papers/The_ψ_Screen_Cosmology__CMB_Without_Dark_Matter_from_Density_Field_Dynamics.md) |
| Hubble-bias scale-dependent suppression (line-of-sight) | DFD-predicted signature | Reported in the cited analysis. | [Hubble-Bias Suppression](papers/Evidence_for_Systematic_Signal_Suppression_in_Line_of_Sight_Hubble_Bias_Analysis__Scale_Dependent_Detection_and_Methodological_Investigation.md) |
| Late-time potential shallowing / low-acceleration hints | Direct DFD prediction | Reported as consistent with published data hints. | [Late-Time Shallowing](papers/Late_Time_Potential_Shallowing_and_Low_Acceleration_Hints.md) |

## Galactic dynamics

| Observable | DFD result (as reported in corpus) | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| SPARC rotation-curve shape exponent | Model-independent shape analysis: n_opt = 1.15 ± 0.12 (95% CI [1.00, 1.50]) | Quoted as disfavouring MOND's n=2 in the same analysis. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) galactic section |
| Galaxy cluster masses | DFD ψ-loading prediction | Quoted as 16/16 within ±10% in the cited sample. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) |
| MOND acceleration scale a₀ | a₀ = 2√α·cH₀ derived from S³ topology | Numerically consistent with the long-noted a₀ ≈ cH₀ proximity within current uncertainty in H₀. | [Two Numerical Relations](papers/Two_Numerical_Relations_Linking_the_Fine_Structure_Constant_to_Gravitational_Phenomenology_v1_3.md) |
| Epoch evolution a⋆(z) | a⋆(z) = 2√α·cH(z) — predicted | Untested. Predicts a⋆(z=1)/a⋆(0) ≈ 1.79 in a ΛCDM background, ≈ 2.83 in DFD's own ψ-screen cosmology. JWST high-z rotation curves can discriminate. | [Epoch Evolution](papers/Epoch_Evolution_of_the_MOND_Crossover_Scale_in_Density_Field_Dynamics__An_Epoch_Consistency_Argument_for_a__z____2_α_cH_z_.md) |

## Particle physics and Standard Model

| Observable | DFD result (as reported in corpus) | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fine-structure constant α⁻¹ | α⁻¹ = 137.035999854 (closed-form one-liner from CP²×S³ Chern–Simons quantisation) | Sub-ppm vs CODATA 2022. Independently lattice-verified at L=6–16 (9/10 sizes p<0.01) per the cited analysis. | [Ab Initio α](papers/Ab_Initio_Derivation_of_the_Fine_Structure_Constant_from_Density_Field_Dynamics.md) |
| Charged fermion masses (e, μ, τ, u, d, s, c, b, t) | Derived from A₅ class geometry + Spinᶜ bundle degrees | Quoted as 1.42% mean error across three mass-orders, with no per-fermion fit parameter. | [Ab Initio Fermion Masses](papers/Ab_Initio_Derivation_of_the_Charged_Fermion_Mass_Spectrum_from_Density_Field_Dynamics.md) |
| Higgs VEV | v = M_P · α⁸ · √(2π) ≈ 246.09 GeV | 0.05% from measured 246.22 GeV. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) |
| Higgs mass (tree-level) | m_H = 123 GeV | Vs measured 125 GeV; loop corrections discussed in the source. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) |
| Weinberg angle | sin²θ_W = 3/13; 5/3 GUT normalisation derived | 0.2% agreement with PDG. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) |
| Strong coupling | α_s(M_Z) = 0.1187 derived | 0.8σ from world average 0.1179(9). | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) |
| CKM Wolfenstein parameters | Derived from CP² geometry | 0.55% mean agreement with PDG. | [Quark Mixing](papers/Quark_Mixing_from_CP2_Geometry__A_Geometric_Origin_for_the_CKM_Matrix.md) |
| Neutrino Δm² splittings | Predicted spectrum | χ² = 0.025, p = 0.99 against NuFIT 6.0 in cited fit; Σm_ν = 61.4 meV. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md), [Neutrino paper](papers/dfd_neutrino_paper_v7_s2_seesaw_closure.md) |
| Strong CP angle θ̄ | θ̄ = 0 derived from internal-space topology | No axion required in the framework. | [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) Appendix L |
| Number of fermion generations | 3 (forced by CP²×S³ topology in the uniqueness theorem) | Open: independent verification of the uniqueness argument is encouraged. | [Uniqueness](papers/Uniqueness_of_the_Internal_Manifold_Deriving_CP_S_from_Vacuum_Axioms_in_Density_Field_Dynamics.md) |
| SM gauge group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) | Derived from CP²×S³ topology under six axioms | Same. | [Uniqueness](papers/Uniqueness_of_the_Internal_Manifold_Deriving_CP_S_from_Vacuum_Axioms_in_Density_Field_Dynamics.md), [Minimal SM Origin](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics_as_the_Minimal__Testable_Origin_of_the_Standard_Model_Gauge_Structure.md) |

## Solar / heliospheric / astronomical

| Observable | DFD result (as reported in corpus) | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| UVCS double-transit asymmetry exponent Γ | Γ = 4 predicted (vs Γ ≈ 1 expected from standard treatment) | Reported measurement: Γ = 4.4 ± 0.9 in the cited analysis. | [DFD: Gravity is Light §12.3](papers/DFD_Gravity_is_Light.md), [Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md) |
| UVCS Lyman-α bright/dim intensity asymmetry | DFD-predicted ψ-driven differential | 163/321 (51%) day–radial bins reported as statistically significant in 334 daily SOHO/UVCS sequences (2007–2009), permutation-test based with FDR control. Released as an anomaly inviting independent investigation. | [Unexplained Bright–Dim Asymmetries in SOHO/UVCS](papers/Unexplained_Bright__Dim_Intensity_Asymmetries_in_SOHO_and_UVCS.md) |
| ROCIT Yb⁺/Sr (ion–neutral) solar-locked modulation | Predicted: sector-differential ψ coupling, perihelion-phase locked, ~10⁻¹⁷ amplitude | Reported amplitude A = (−1.045 ± 0.078) × 10⁻¹⁷ at Z = 13.47σ; p_emp ≈ 2×10⁻⁴ under jackknife/bootstrap/sign-permutation. | [ROCIT Ion–Neutral](papers/Solar_Locked_Differential_in_Ion_Neutral_Optical_Frequency_Ratios__Empirical_Evidence_for_a_Reproducible_Heliocentric_Phase_Modulation.md) |
| ROCIT Yb/Sr (neutral–neutral) phase-consistent residual | Predicted: smaller residual from incomplete common-mode cancellation | Reported A = (−1.02 ± 0.28) × 10⁻¹⁷ at Z = 3.7σ, phase-aligned with the Yb⁺/Sr signal. | [ROCIT Ion–Neutral](papers/Solar_Locked_Differential_in_Ion_Neutral_Optical_Frequency_Ratios__Empirical_Evidence_for_a_Reproducible_Heliocentric_Phase_Modulation.md) |
| ROCIT Yb³⁺/Sr (cavity–atom) solar-locked modulation | Independent confirmation in the cavity–atom sector | Reported A = (−1.04 ± 0.075) × 10⁻¹⁷ at Z = 13.5σ, perihelion-aligned. | [ROCIT Cavity–Atom](papers/Solar_locked_differential_modulation_between_cavity_and_atomic_clocks_in_ROCIT_data_DFD.md) |
| SYRTE control ratios (Rb/Cs, Yb/Rb, Yb/Cs) | DFD predicts a facility/architecture-specific signature; no signal expected in pure neutral–neutral SYRTE ratios | Reported as consistent with zero modulation in the SYRTE dataset. | [ROCIT Ion–Neutral](papers/Solar_Locked_Differential_in_Ion_Neutral_Optical_Frequency_Ratios__Empirical_Evidence_for_a_Reproducible_Heliocentric_Phase_Modulation.md) |
| Sr/Cs gravitational coupling k_α | k_α = α²/(2π) ≈ 8.5×10⁻⁶ (parameter-free) | Inferred from existing Sr/Cs comparisons: (−0.4 ± 0.7)×10⁻⁵ — consistent at ~2σ. Multi-month optical-clock campaign would discriminate at higher significance. | [Two Numerical Relations](papers/Two_Numerical_Relations_Linking_the_Fine_Structure_Constant_to_Gravitational_Phenomenology_v1_3.md) |
| Black-hole shadow size | DFD predicts a shadow ~4.6% larger than GR (first-difference at O(u³) of the Padé identity) | EHT data on M87* and Sgr A* are consistent with both GR and DFD at current precision. Next-generation EHT would discriminate. | [GR as Padé Approximant of DFD](papers/General_Relativity_as_the_Pade_Approximant_of_Density_Field_Dynamics.md) |

## Precision metrology / laboratory

| Observable | DFD result (as reported in corpus) | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooper-pair mass anomaly (Tate et al. 1989) | δ = √3·α² = 92.23 ppm — derived from A₅ microsector + pairing-symmetry selection rules | Tate et al. measured 92 ± 21 ppm in niobium; the predicted central value matches at the 0.01σ level on quoted uncertainties. The framework predicts universality for s-wave superconductors and vanishing for d-wave — a material-independent test that is accessible with existing SQUID magnetometry. | [Cooper-Pair Anomaly](papers/Pairing_Symmetry_Selection_Rule_for_the_Cooper_Pair_Mass_Anomaly_from_Internal_Space_Topology_v2.md) |
| PPN parameters γ, β | γ = β = 1 at 1PN; preferred-frame and conservation-violating parameters all zero | Same as GR at 1PN. The two frameworks are observationally indistinguishable for current solar-system tests. | [PPN Analysis](papers/Parametrized_Post_Newtonian_Analysis_of_Density_Field_Dynamics_in_the_Weak_Field__Slow_Motion_Limit.md) |
| Tensor gravitational-wave speed | c_T = c exactly (Lichnerowicz rigidity rules out unwanted modes) | Satisfies the GW170817 constraint |c_T−c|/c < 10⁻¹⁵. | [Tensor Radiation](papers/Constitutive_Derivation_of_Tensor_Gravitational_Radiation_from_CP_2___S3_Spectral_Geometry_in_Density_Field_Dynamics.md) |
| EM→ψ back-reaction in the minimal optical-metric EM sector | λ_bare = 1 at tree level (proved from the gauge-invariant action) | Laboratory bound from cavity stability: |λ−1| < 3×10⁻⁵, consistent with the prediction. | [No-Drive Theorem](papers/Tree_Level_No_Drive_Theorem_for_the_Minimal_Optical_Metric_EM_Sector_in_Density_Field_Dynamics__λbare___1_from_the_Pure_Gauge_Invariant_Action.md), [EM Coupling Bounds](papers/Alcock_EM_Coupling_Bounds.md) |

## Predictions awaiting test

- **²²⁹Th nuclear-clock annual modulation** — sensitivity coefficient K ~ 10⁴. ([Why Nuclear Clocks](papers/Why_Nuclear_Clocks__The_229Th_Annual_Modulation_Test_of_Scalar_Field_Gravitational_Coupling_v6.md))
- **¹⁸⁷Re β-decay sensitivity** — κ_q ≈ 19,000. ([Composition-Dependent Bounds](papers/Composition_Dependent_Bounds_on_Scalar_Field_Couplingto_Nuclear_Decay_Rates__4_.md))
- **Sector-resolved cavity–atom LPI test** — sharp slope prediction. ([LPI Slope](papers/A_Sharp__Testable_Slope_Prediction_for_a_Sector_Resolved_Cavity__Atom_LPI_Test.md))
- **Matter-wave T³ phase scaling** in long-baseline atom interferometry. ([Matter-Wave Tests](papers/Matter_Wave_Interferometry_Tests_of_Density_Field_Dynamics.md))
- **Gravitational weight anomaly Δw/w = 2.3×10⁻¹²** for cavity-stabilised mass standards. ([Unified v3.3](papers/Density_Field_Dynamics__A_Complete_Unified_Theory__v3_3.md))
- **Black-hole shadow ~4.6% larger than GR** — discriminator with next-generation EHT. ([Padé Approximant](papers/General_Relativity_as_the_Pade_Approximant_of_Density_Field_Dynamics.md))
- **a⋆(z=1)/a⋆(0) ≈ 1.79** vs frozen MOND a⋆ — JWST high-z rotation curves. ([Epoch Evolution](papers/Epoch_Evolution_of_the_MOND_Crossover_Scale_in_Density_Field_Dynamics__An_Epoch_Consistency_Argument_for_a__z____2_α_cH_z_.md))

## Caveats

- All figures of merit (σ, %, p-value) are quoted as reported in the cited papers. Independent re-analysis is encouraged in every case; the data files and analysis scripts are publicly available where indicated (Zenodo links on the home page).
- "0 free parameters" in the DFD corpus is in the specific sense that the closed-form derivations introduce no continuous fit constants. Topology choices (CP²×S³) and the use of α and M_P as inputs to some derived quantities are themselves discussed in the corpus (notably in *Uniqueness of the Internal Manifold* and *Alpha Rosetta Stone*); readers are encouraged to consult those papers and form their own view of the appropriate counting.
- The corpus represents the work of one independent researcher. Many of these results are recent and have not yet been independently reproduced or peer-reviewed in their final form. Please treat the table as a navigation aid into the source papers, not as a settled record.