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

==== You picked the “local first” option — here’s what I recommend next to keep things non-circular and informative: ====
# Try non-Planck microphysics: pick plausible non-Planck choices for ν and δ that come from QAT geometry (e.g., ν = c/(2πr0) or ν linked to photon flux from sunlight for a material, and δ chosen as a QAT fraction of r0 like r0/10⁶ or something derived from α or ϕ). We already did that — numbers were far off. That suggests local atomic events alone aren't enough.
# Aggregate to cosmic scale (Dirac/Mach route) (my strong suggestion now): compute the global QAT energy density by multiplying: - per-atom power (E₀×ν) × number density of atoms in the universe × fraction of matter in relevant states, - plus photon background contributions (CMB, starlight). Then insert that cosmic uQATu_{\rm QAT}uQAT into the Friedmann/Einstein relation and see whether a consistent GGG emerges or whether the result implies a time-varying GGG. This avoids Planck circularity and is physically motivated by your earlier Dirac/Mach thinking.
# Alternative: allow r0r_0r0 to be not atomic but a fundamental QAT radius derived from geometry (if QAT can produce a preferred microscopic length), and try the same computations — that is a tougher, deeper theoretical task.
# Compute observational signatures: independent of G, the shell model predicts multipole radiation patterns, mode frequencies ωℓ\omega_\ellωℓ, and coupling strengths. We can compute a predicted spectral shift or decay rate (dipole ℓ=1) and compare to atomic spectroscopy; that would be a direct, testable signature.