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

==== - Using a plausible QAT assumption (energy per photon-electron event E0∼ℏc/r0E_0\sim\hbar c/r_0E0∼ℏc/r0 concentrated over a shell volume) leads to a formula G∼(4π/3) c3r02/ℏG\sim (4\pi/3)\,c^3 r_0^2/\hbarG∼(4π/3)c3r02/ℏ. ====
* With the electron shell at atomic size, that formula predicts an astronomically huge GGG — wrong by ~105010^{50}1050.
* To match the measured GGG with this simple model you need the fundamental radius r0r_0r0 to be of order the Planck length (∼10−3510^{-35}10−35 m). That suggests GGG is linked to Planck-scale physics (as in standard understanding), unless QAT provides a novel, robust way to produce the Planck scale from its geometry.

If you like, I can now:
* (A) Repeat the same estimate but include an event rate (how many photon–electron events per second per atom), which may give a route from atomic activity to a macroscopic uuu.
* (B) Do the cosmological aggregation (assume average QAT energy density across the universe and match to GGG — Dirac/Mach route).
* (C) Investigate whether a purely geometric argument inside QAT can produce a Planck-scale r₀ (harder — would need a specific mechanism inside the theory).

Which of these would you like next?