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

=== - The QAT geometric story is conceptually compatible with lots of canonical physics: spinors/topology for spin-½, vector/tangential fields for photons, and the double-copy evidence that gauge→gravity is plausible. The greatest work needed is careful derivation: show the boundary Lagrangian produces spinors, show the EM bilinear produces a spin-2 effective propagator that couples correctly, and demonstrate energy/entropy bookkeeping so classic objections (Le Sage etc.) are avoided. Rochester School of Arts & Sciences<ref>{{cite web|title=Rochester School of Arts & Sciences|url=https://www.sas.rochester.edu/pas/assets/pdf/undergraduate/su-2s_double_covering_of_so-3.pdf|publisher=Rochester School of Arts & Sciences|access-date=2025-12-16}}</ref>Physical Review Links<ref>{{cite web|title=Physical Review Links|url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.061602|publisher=Physical Review Links|access-date=2025-12-16}}</ref> ===
* If you want, I can now: 1. Sketch a short non-rigorous cartoon derivation (words + tiny equations) of an antiperiodic boundary → spinor (the Dirac-belt style picture mapped to a spherical shell), or 2. Draft a short plan (steps and estimates) for a mathematician / physicist to try the composite spin-2 derivation (what integrals to compute, what Lagrangians to write), or 3. Prepare a concise “one-page” post you can share (human-origin + AI-assisted math) to invite critiques/peer checks (you mentioned Copitor etc.).

Which of those would be most useful next?