02 / Numerical results · 05 September 2026

The quantum response,
resolved in space.

Eight self-consistent interface equilibria now have numerical solutions. They show a response that depends on spatial period, source strength, and background. Here are the calculations and their limits.

The new constrained solar candidate has a separate 65³ static benchmark and metric-constraint checks. This page retains the microscopic interface results underlying the research programme.

A controlled comparison

Apply a source. Let the profile settle.

We apply Jj = J cos(2πj/L) to a periodic interface while keeping its mean x̄ fixed. The local calculation uses the uniform energy at each site. The full calculation allows the quantum states to extend across the whole cell.

The plot shows the resulting displacement from the mean. The percentage compares the first cosine component of the two profiles; it is not their point-by-point ratio.

22.85%full-band / local
fundamental amplitude

The same source, with and without spatial coupling

L = 16 · mean x = 0 · J = 0.002

Local and full-band equilibrium profilesDeviation from the mean across one periodic cell. L = 16, mean = 0, J = 0.002. The full-band fundamental is 22.85% of the local value. Lines join computed lattice sites.-0.12-0.060.000.060.1200.250.50.751x − meanPosition within one period (j / L)
Full quantum bands Local approximation
Dimensionless lattice units. Lines join computed sites; the final point repeats the first to close the periodic cell. The vertical scale adapts to the chosen case.

Fundamental amplitude: 0.0263809 (full bands), 0.115434 (local). Stationarity residual: 4.27 × 10−16. The vertical scale adapts to each case.

How to read the result

At J = 0.002 and zero mean, the full-band fundamental rises from 8.84% of the local value for L = 8 to 52.27% for L = 32. Longer periods bring the response closer to the local approximation in this tested family.

The complete benchmark

No universal suppression factor.

The effect changes with both the source and the background. At L = 16, J = 0.02, raising the mean from 0 to 1 brings the amplitude ratio from 65.74% to 95.54%. These values cannot be carried over directly to a solar gravitational field.

M = 1, Ω = 20, rW = 0.45, a2 = 0.07225561942 throughout. A1 = 2⟨(x − x̄) cos(2πj/L)⟩.
Period LMean x̄Source JLocal A1Full A1Full / local
1600.00010.02728470.00132264.85%
800.0020.1137580.01005628.84%
1600.0020.1154340.026380922.85%
3200.0020.1157250.060490652.27%
800.020.337580.1004229.75%
1600.020.3426130.22524165.74%
3200.020.3435040.30647889.22%
1610.020.1191110.11379895.54%
Download the numerical table

What was verified

Convergence is a result to check.

The solver varies all L − 1 mean-preserving degrees of freedom. It uses the exact Hellmann–Feynman gradient followed by a spectral-Hessian Newton refinement. The Hessian retains the contact term as well as occupied-to-empty transitions.

9.61 × 10−10largest stationary force residual
0.03306smallest constrained curvature
4.47 × 10−6largest relative profile change under quadrature refinement

Every reported constrained Hessian is positive. This establishes static local stability against perturbations within each tested period and fixed mean. It does not establish a global minimum, stability to every possible wavelength, or gravitational dynamical stability.

Derivative, symmetry, integration, and filling controls
ControlObserved result
Directional energy derivative4.72 × 10−11 absolute error at step 10−4
Hessian-vector product2.32 × 10−10 maximum error at step 10−4
Translation symmetry5.34 × 10−16 across energy, gradient, and Hessian
Uniform-response agreement2.85 × 10−15 at zero and finite momentum
Integration refinement4 × 24 → 8 × 40 nodes; both signs of Bloch momentum κ
Additional filling audit392 momenta; no sampled occupation crossing
Weak-source linear limit1.14 × 10−5 relative profile agreement at J = 0.0001
Alternative initial profile6.79 × 10−9 maximum difference for L = 8, J = 0.002

The smallest sampled filled/empty margin in the extra audit is 1.78511 × 10−7. Filling between sampled momenta remains unproved. Quadrature refinement measures the change between two tested grids; a zero change at the solver threshold does not imply exact integration.

Seven direct uniform-energy integrations check the interpolated local force, with maximum absolute error 1.14 × 10−8 at the selected x values. The complete numerical records are in the equilibrium JSON and audit JSON.

An independent calculation of the limit

A spatial stiffness proportional to |Q|.

For an infinitesimal perturbation of the critical uniform background, the spatial susceptibility gives ΔK(Q) = χ(0) − χ(Q). Direct integration of the full eight bands approaches the predicted coefficient as Q becomes small.

ΔK(Q) = (v0M²/8)|Q| + subleading termsv0M²/8 = 0.124379648776
Spatial infrared coefficient approaching its analytic limitThe ratio Delta K over Q decreases from 0.14204494 at Q=0.1 to 0.12439732 at Q=0.0001. The analytic limit is 0.12437965. The horizontal momentum axis is logarithmic.0.1200.1250.1300.1350.1400.14510⁻⁴10⁻³10⁻²10⁻¹ΔK(Q) / QMomentum Q (log scale)
Full-band values of ΔK(Q)/Q on a logarithmic momentum axis. The dashed line is the analytic limit. Data: spatial susceptibility calculation.

At Q = 10−4, the computed coefficient is 0.124397318206, a relative difference of 1.42 × 10−4 from the limiting value. The tested quadrature change is below 2.94 × 10−7, consistent with finite-Q corrections dominating this difference.

How the infrared integral is resolved

The susceptibility is evaluated at centered momenta p ± Q/2. Geometric radial subdivisions resolve the low-energy cones. The integrand uses the physical source vertex and spin overlaps. No expected infrared coefficient is subtracted from the integrand or fitted to the numerical values.

The momentum-independent contact term cancels in χ(0) − χ(Q) at this fixed background. A reflection check supports the quadrant integration. Radial/angular quadrature orders are increased from 16 × 24 to 24 × 40.

The scientific scope

An interface result, with a clear next question.

The calculations establish a spatially coupled response in the chosen Hamiltonian and eight stationary profiles under specified forcing. They provide ingredients for a gravitational model.

They do not supply a three-dimensional solution for Φ, a new value of the solar quadrupole Q2, or observational confirmation. In particular, adding the uniform |x|³ energy to the infinitesimal |Q| kernel is not a controlled approximation for arbitrary x/Q. A common nonlinear functional is required.

The sky sets the harder test.

Compare the model with galaxies, Cassini, and physical length scales.

Observational tests