arxiv: 2512.08703 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-09 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc

The frame-dragging vector potential on galaxy scales from Dark-Matter-only Newtonian N-body simulations

William Beordo , Marco Bruni , Cristian Barrera-Hinojosa , Mariateresa Crosta This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qc

keywords frame-draggingvector potentialpost-FriedmannN-body simulationsgalactic scalesgravitomagnetic effectsIllustrisTNGcosmology

0 comments

The pith

The gravito-magnetic vector potential reaches 0.1 to 1 percent of the Newtonian scalar potential on galaxy scales and exceeds perturbation theory by two orders of magnitude.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that a frame-dragging vector potential can be extracted after the fact from ordinary Newtonian N-body simulations of cosmic structure formation. This potential arises from momentum currents in the matter distribution and enters the metric at leading weak-field order, yet it leaves the particle trajectories unchanged because it does not appear in the Euler equation. When computed on the IllustrisTNG dark-matter runs with a tessellation estimator, the vector potential grows with the development of non-linear structures and ends up two orders of magnitude stronger than linear perturbation theory predicts. Although the effect remains subdominant to the scalar gravitational potential across the redshifts examined, the result indicates that Newtonian simulations still suffice for predicting matter clustering while leaving open the possibility of measurable relativistic signatures in lensing.

Core claim

Within the post-Friedmann expansion the leading relativistic correction to the metric is a gravito-magnetic vector potential whose source is the momentum density of the matter. Because this term does not appear in the Euler equation at the same order, the vector potential can be reconstructed directly from the velocity and density fields produced by a standard Newtonian N-body simulation. Applied to the IllustrisTNG dark-matter-only runs, this procedure yields a vector-potential power spectrum that exceeds linear perturbation theory by approximately two orders of magnitude and that constitutes between one and one-tenth of a percent of the corresponding scalar gravitational potential across a

What carries the argument

The post-Friedmann gravito-magnetic vector potential, the vector component of the metric perturbation sourced by the momentum current at leading weak-field order.

If this is right

The vector potential is available from any existing Newtonian simulation without additional computational cost.
It grows steadily as structures become more non-linear toward the present epoch.
Within the standard model the effect does not alter the trajectories of massive particles.
Observational consequences may appear in precision lensing measurements rather than in the dynamics of structure growth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Extending the extraction technique to hydrodynamical simulations would reveal whether gas physics changes the vector potential at the percent level.
Direct comparison with full general-relativistic simulations on the same initial conditions would test the accuracy of the post-Friedmann approximation on galactic scales.
Future surveys sensitive to frame-dragging could use this signal as an independent check on the momentum content of dark-matter halos.

Load-bearing premise

The weak-field post-Friedmann approximation continues to hold on galactic scales and the vector potential exerts no back-reaction on the matter dynamics.

What would settle it

A measurement of the vector potential through its effect on light deflection or galaxy peculiar velocities that deviates significantly from the amplitude extracted from the simulations would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.08703 by Cristian Barrera-Hinojosa, Marco Bruni, Mariateresa Crosta, William Beordo.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Matter power spectra for the TNG300-2-Dark (red), TNG100-2- Dark (blue), and TNG50-2-Dark (green) simulations. The linear matter power spectrum is plotted as reference (grey solid line), together with the non-linear HaloFit prediction (grey dashed line). the small size of the box is such that there is not enough time for structures with the size close to the simulations box to evolve and reach the full non… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Power spectra of the main sources of momentum vorticity, i.e. 𝛿∇ × v (dotted lines) and ∇𝛿 × v (dashed lines), for the TNG300-2-Dark (red), TNG100-2-Dark (blue), and TNG50-2-Dark (green) simulations. However, in 𝑁-body simulations, as structures grow and gravitational collapse becomes non-linear, the single-stream approximation breaks down due to orbit crossing. In this multi-stream regime, particles wit… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Power spectra of the gradients of the velocity and momentum density fields for the TNG300-2-Dark (red), TNG100-2-Dark (blue), and TNG50- 2-Dark (green) simulations. The divergence and vorticity of the velocity are represented as solid and dashed lines, respectively, while the divergence and vorticity of the momentum are shown with dotted and dash-dotted lines. The linear matter power spectrum is plotted a… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The ratio between the power spectra of the fully non-linear scalar and vector potentials, both derived from the simulation, for TNG300-2-Dark (red), TNG100-2-Dark (blue), and TNG50-2-Dark (green). The grey solid line represents the ratio between the second-order perturbation theory Δ PT B and the linear theory for the scalar potential Δ lin 𝜙 , while the grey dashed line stands for the ratio between the no… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Top: power spectra of the vector potential for the TNG300-2- Dark (red), TNG100-2-Dark (blue), and TNG50-2-Dark (green) simulations. The power spectrum of the vector potential predicted with the second-order perturbation theory from Equation (17) is shown as reference (grey solid line), along with the non-linear prediction computed from the same equation with the non-linear matter power spectrum of HaloFit… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Power spectra of the gravito-magnetic potential measured from the simulations (dotted lines), missing power computed from Equation (17) with the non-linear matter power spectrum (dashed lines) and their sum (solid lines) for the TNG300-2-Dark (red), TNG100-2-Dark (blue), and TNG50-2- Dark (green) simulations. The 𝑦-axis is scaled by 𝑘 4 to facilitate visualization. Top: relative to redshift 𝑧 = 20, adopted… view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Representation of the fields evaluated across a section of the simulation box for the snapshot at redshift 𝑧 = 0 of the simulation TNG300-2-Dark. Respectively, the density contrast (top left), velocity (top right), velocity divergence (middle left), velocity vorticity (middle right), scalar potential (bottom left), and vector potential (bottom right). Divergence and vorticity are normalized by the factor … view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Representation of the stream lines of the vector potential, on top of the scalar potential distribution (bottom left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Time evolution of the vector potential power spectrum for TNG300-2-Dark, plotted for different redshifts. Left: same as the top panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Evolution of the non-linear prediction for the dimensionless power spectrum of B. In the left panel, this quantity is normalised by the analytic growth factor from perturbation theory, given by Equation (29). The black dashed line represents Δ PT B / 𝑓 PT B , which is only function of 𝑘. In the right panel, the ratio Δ n.l. B /Δ PT B is shown to highlight the amplitude gain in the non-linear scenario. 0 1… view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Left panel: ratio of the non-linear approximation with respect to PT for the dimensionless power spectrum of B, as a function of the redshift and for different scales. The black dashed line represents the second-order PT. Right panel: ratio between the non-linear approximation Δ n.l. B and the non-linear power spectrum of the scalar potential Δ n.l. 𝜙 , as a function of the redshift and for different scal… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Effects of General Relativity are usually neglected in the non-linear evolution of structures, where Newtonian $N$-body simulations are traditionally employed. In the post-Friedmann expansion framework, a weak-field relativistic approximation purpose-built for cosmology, a frame-dragging gravito-magnetic vector potential arises at leading order, sourced by momentum currents. At this order, the vector potential contributes to the metric while leaving the dynamics of the matter fields unaffected, as it does not appear in the Euler equation. It can therefore be extracted a posteriori from standard N-body simulations, where the dynamics is purely Newtonian. Using the Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator code on the IllustrisTNG simulations, here we extend previous work in order to compute the power spectrum of this vector potential down to galactic scales. The magnitude of the vector potential is two orders of magnitude larger than predicted by perturbation theory, and is a $1\% \sim 0.1\%$ effect compared to the non-linear Newtonian scalar gravitational potential. In the redshift range considered here, the gravito-magnetic effect remains subdominant, without showing any enhancement during a particular phase in the evolution of structures, aside from the continuous growth of non-linearity at low redshift. Although this seems to suggest that, within the $\Lambda$CDM model, no significant gravito-magnetic effects contribute to the non-linear evolution of cosmic structures, i.e. to the dynamics of massive particles, possible observational consequences, e.g. in lensing, deserve further exploration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper measures the vector potential power spectrum from IllustrisTNG down to galactic scales and finds it subdominant but two orders above linear theory.

read the letter

The main point is that this work extracts the power spectrum of the gravito-magnetic vector potential on galactic scales from standard Newtonian N-body runs and shows it sits at 0.1-1% of the scalar potential while exceeding linear perturbation theory by roughly two orders of magnitude. The amplitude grows steadily with nonlinearity at low redshift but shows no special spikes or enhancements. This is the first such measurement at these scales using public data. The computation itself is clean. They apply the Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator directly to the momentum field of IllustrisTNG snapshots, solving the momentum-sourced equation for the vector potential after the fact. Within the post-Friedmann framework this is allowed because the vector term does not enter the Euler equation at leading order, so the Newtonian dynamics remain unaffected. The numbers line up with expectations for how nonlinearity boosts small-scale power, and the comparison to the scalar potential is presented quantitatively. The soft spot is the dependence on the weak-field approximation holding without back-reaction. The paper does not run or compare against a relativistic simulation, so the result stays inside the stated post-Friedmann setup. That is a reasonable boundary, but it means the claim would be stronger with an external cross-check. No other red flags appear in the methods or the reported growth behavior. This is useful for people working on precision weak lensing or small relativistic corrections in large-scale structure. It does not alter the Newtonian picture of structure formation but supplies a concrete benchmark. I would send it to peer review. The data source is public, the extraction is reproducible, and the result fills a specific gap without overclaiming.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that within the post-Friedmann weak-field framework, the gravito-magnetic vector potential sourced by momentum currents can be extracted a posteriori from purely Newtonian N-body simulations (IllustrisTNG) because it does not enter the Euler equation at leading order. Using the Delaunay Tessellation Field Estimator (DTFE), the authors compute its power spectrum down to galactic scales, finding an amplitude two orders of magnitude above linear perturbation theory yet only 0.1–1% of the non-linear scalar gravitational potential, with steady growth driven by increasing non-linearity at low redshift and no anomalous enhancement.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work supplies concrete numerical evidence that frame-dragging remains subdominant for the dynamics of massive particles throughout non-linear structure formation in ΛCDM, thereby supporting the continued use of Newtonian simulations for most cosmological applications while flagging possible subtle signatures in lensing observables. The direct extraction from high-resolution simulation outputs and the quantitative comparison to both linear theory and the scalar potential constitute clear strengths.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'the redshift range considered here' should be replaced by the explicit interval (e.g., 0 < z < 1) to allow readers to assess the applicability immediately.
[Methods] Methods/Results: the manuscript would benefit from a short paragraph or table entry stating the effective resolution limit of the IllustrisTNG boxes at galactic scales and any smoothing scale applied before the DTFE reconstruction.
[Discussion] Discussion: while the subdominance conclusion is clear, a brief quantitative estimate of the possible lensing convergence correction (even order-of-magnitude) would make the suggested observational implications more concrete.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment and recommendation for minor revision. The report accurately summarizes our central result that the gravito-magnetic vector potential remains subdominant (0.1-1% of the scalar potential) down to galactic scales with no anomalous enhancement. Since the report lists no specific major comments under the MAJOR COMMENTS section, we have no points requiring detailed rebuttal or clarification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation extracts the frame-dragging vector potential directly from the momentum density field of standard Newtonian N-body outputs (IllustrisTNG) by solving the post-Friedmann momentum-sourced equation for the vector potential. This step is a linear post-processing operation that does not feed back into the simulation dynamics, introduce fitted parameters, or reduce the reported power spectrum to the input data by construction. Comparisons to linear perturbation theory are external benchmarks rather than internal fits, and the post-Friedmann framework is invoked as an established approximation whose validity is independent of the present numerical results. No self-definitional loops, renamed empirical patterns, or load-bearing self-citations that force the central amplitude claim are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the post-Friedmann framework allowing a posteriori extraction and on Newtonian simulations capturing the relevant momentum currents without relativistic back-reaction.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Post-Friedmann expansion framework for weak-field relativistic approximation in cosmology
Invoked to justify that the vector potential can be computed from Newtonian momentum fields without affecting dynamics.
domain assumption Newtonian N-body simulations accurately capture matter dynamics at the scales considered
Basis for using IllustrisTNG output as source for the vector potential.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5593 in / 1425 out tokens · 31262 ms · 2026-05-16T23:22:36.670848+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Generic Peculiar Motions in FLRW spacetimes
gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

Boosted cosmic test masses in FLRW spacetimes produce Fermi metrics containing a circular gravitomagnetic field around their direction of motion.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

3 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Quantum Grav., 31, 234006 Adamek J., Daverio D., Durrer R., Kunz M., 2016, Nature Phys, 12, 346 Aghanim N., et al., 2020, Astron

Abel T., Hahn O., Kaehler R., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 61 Adamek J., Durrer R., Kunz M., 2014, Class. Quantum Grav., 31, 234006 Adamek J., Daverio D., Durrer R., Kunz M., 2016, Nature Phys, 12, 346 Aghanim N., et al., 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A5 Bagla J. S., Prasad J., Khandai N., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 918 Barrera-Hinojosa C., Bruni M.et al., 2026,in preparati...

work page 2012
[2]

Elsevier, pp 273–348,https://inspirehep.net/ literature/456341 BruniM.,CrittendenR.,KoyamaK.,MaartensR.,PitrouC.,WandsD.,2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 041301 Bruni M., Thomas D. B., Wands D., 2014a, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 044010 Bruni M., Hidalgo J. C., Meures N., Wands D., 2014b, The Astrophysical Journal, 785, 2 Cautun M. C., van de Weygaert R., 2019, The DTFE Pub...

work page arXiv 2012
[3]

The effect due to the limited size of the simulation box is not re- portedhere,asitisanintegralpartofthediscussionaddressedinthe aforementioned section. A1 Dependence on the DTFE grid resolution Here, the power spectra of the source terms of the gravito-magnetic potential are checked to have achieved convergence while varying the grid resolution of the DT...

work page 2025