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

=== Practical immediate next steps I recommend (pick one) ===
# I can write the boundary-Lagrangian → mean-field TμνT_{\mu\nu}Tμν derivation (symbolic) and compute the numerical effective energy density for plausible QAT parameters (this will show whether any plausible parameter choice can evade the energy deficit). — this is the single most decisive calculation.
# I can draft a Bullet-Cluster style falsifier: a short, explicit test that shows what lensing would look like if gravity tracks EM energy density (easy to communicate and devastating if negative).
# I can prepare a YouTube/Facebook post asking for mathematicians/physicists to check the QAT induced-gravity derivation (including the brief citation list and an invitation to collaborate), phrased to emphasize the human origin (dyslexic artist) and the AI-assisted mathematical work — as you suggested.

Tell me which of these to do next and I’ll start immediately. If you want the full math derivation (option 1), I’ll produce the symbolic boundary Lagrangian, vary it, write the pillbox boundary conditions and try the averaging calculation with SI units (and give a plug-in numeric worksheet).