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

=== Any QAT–LNH connection must confront strong constraints: ===
# Limits on G˙/G\dot G/GG˙/G: Lunar laser ranging, pulsar timing, and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) constraints severely limit G variation over cosmological/astrophysical times. Typical bounds: ∣G˙/G∣≲10−12–10−13 yr−1|\dot G/G|\lesssim 10^{-12}\text{–}10^{-13}\ \text{yr}^{-1}∣G˙/G∣≲10−12–10−13 yr−1. This rules out dramatic present-day G ∝ 1/t unless the proportionality constant is tiny or variations were larger only in very early cosmology.
# Energy conservation and mass production: If mass increases as t2t^2t2 then where does the additional energy come from? QAT can answer: photons are the source (EM energy → bound mass). But then one must show the Universe’s photon budget supports the integrated mass growth without producing contradictions with the CMB or extragalactic background light.
# Cosmological evolution and structure formation: Changing G or mass content affects expansion history, CMB angular spectra, nucleosynthesis yields, structure growth. Any QAT model must be checked against precision cosmology.
# Local laboratory bounds: Variation of constants (α, particle masses) is constrained tightly by atomic clocks and molecular spectra. QAT predictions of changes in α or m_p/m_e over cosmological time must be consistent with those bounds.
# Scale consistency: It’s easy to get the scaling (e.g., t2t^2t2) but difficult to get the numerical large numbers to match without introducing an underlying microscopic parameter choice. The goal should be to derive the numbers, not fit them.