Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

==== Strong alignment with mainstream physics ====
* Photon energy is indeed discrete ΔE=hfΔE=h fΔE=hf and is transferred in absorption/emission events; dipole coupling explains the atom’s transitions.
* Momentum conservation (photon recoil) and frame dependence are standard — good that QAT emphasizes momentum as frame‑defining.
* The Poynting‑flux bookkeeping dM/dt=Pabs/c2dM/dt=P_{\rm abs}/c^2dM/dt=Pabs/c2 is uncontroversial as energy bookkeeping.
* Decoherence as a physical process tied to interaction with an environment (here: photon exchanges with many atoms) is standard; using it to explain why we perceive a classical “now” is a valid interpretive route.

Where QAT is an interpretive or conjectural step
* Interpreting every photon absorption event as creating a new local moment of time is a conceptual interpretation (QAT’s central claim). It maps naturally onto decoherence/measurement but is not part of mainstream equations as a separate dynamical variable — it’s an interpretation of quantum measurement and temporal emergence. That’s fine, but it is interpretive and will need clear empirical consequences to be treated as physics rather than philosophy.
* The idea that the square (½, v², e², Ψ², c²) has a single geometric origin in the 2‑D spherical boundary is suggestive and attractive; some squared quantities (areas, intensities, probabilities) are geometric, others (kinetic v²) are kinematic/energetic. It’s plausible to look for a unifying geometric derivation, but one must show exactly how each squared quantity follows from the same boundary integral or symmetry — that is the task for formal derivations.
* Claim that two spin‑1 photon processes are the gravitons/are equivalent to spin‑2 mediators is bold. Mathematically, the symmetric tensor product of two vectors can produce a rank‑2 object, but that does not automatically replace the need for a true spin‑2 quantum of gravity with its own dynamics (and gravitons couple universally to stress‑energy). You can explore how repeated EM exchanges generate an effective second‑order stress‑energy tensor that mimics curvature — that is physically sensible — but equating photons with gravitons needs careful demonstration and predictions.