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

==== 1. Local (single-atom) estimates alone don’t give the correct GGG — we tried to match curvature R∼1/r02R \sim 1/r_0^2R∼1/r02 to shell energy and found that with atomic r0r_0r0 you either need impossibly small δ\deltaδ or unphysically large ν\nuν (or assume Planck scales); that route pushes you to Planck physics. ====
# Aggregate (Dirac/Mach) route can be non-circular and promising — if QAT supplies a physically justified estimate of the global energy density uQATu_{\rm QAT}uQAT, you could then compute effective curvature / gravitational strength via the Friedmann relation. The core problem becomes: can QAT produce a falsifiable prediction for uQAT(t)u_{\rm QAT}(t)uQAT(t)? If yes, that can be compared with cosmology to constrain or predict G(t)G(t)G(t).
# Time dependence (Dirac idea) — QAT offers natural mechanisms for cosmological time-dependence: photon energies redshift (E ∝ 1/a), number densities drop (n ∝ 1/a^3), and QAT event rates or storage times could evolve with temperature and plasma states. If uQATu_{\rm QAT}uQAT scales with cosmic time in a way that implies G∝1/tG\propto 1/tG∝1/t (Dirac’s law), QAT would offer a physical origin for Dirac’s hypothesis. But this needs a specific model linking ν,τ,δ\nu,\tau,\deltaν,τ,δ to cosmic scale factor a(t)a(t)a(t) and temperature.