We construct and analyze a superfluid defect toy model that reproduces both Newtonian (0PN) gravity and the leading post-Newtonian (1PN) perihelion precession of a test body in a central field. The model consists of a homogeneous superfluid background and sink-like defects whose effective gravitational potential splits into two scalar pieces: an instantaneous Poisson sector ΦP and a finite-speed “lag” sector ΦL governed by a wave equation with propagation speed cs. For a static central defect in the test-mass limit we show that the retarded scalar solution collapses exactly to the Poisson solution, so that ΦL vanishes and the near-zone potential is strictly Newtonian, Φtot(r) = −μ/r with no 1/cs2 corrections. As a result the scalar sector generates no 1PN perihelion precession: the entire 1PN correction is encoded kinematically in a position-dependent effective mass meff(r) = m1 + σ(r) with σ(r) = β μ/(cs2 r). Matching the Schwarzschild 1PN precession for cs = c and μ = GM requires β = 3. We interpret this coefficient as a sum of three hydrodynamic contributions, β = κρ + κadd + κPV, coming respectively from density depletion in the cavitation region, classical added mass of entrained fluid, and internal pressure–volume inertia of a compressible throat. The first two pieces are derived quantitatively from the toy model and the associated Mathematica calculations, yielding κρ = 1 and κadd = ½. The remaining piece is fixed by the 1PN matching condition to be κPV = 3/2, which we view as an effective field theory constraint on the bulk equation of state and throat compressibility. This provides a concrete hydrodynamic target for future microphysical derivations.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Trevor Norris
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Trevor Norris (Tue,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d893eb6c1944d70ce04e45 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19449058
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: