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

==== - Photon-bath–dependent ''coherence'', not weight. Vary controlled photon baths (intensity, spectrum) around atoms/ions and measure T2T_2T2 (Ramsey, spin echoes). You’ll see the scaling above—this is the “time unfolds by exchange” part of QAT. ====
* Plasma scale (your double-layers): Use MHD to show how current sheets and double layers arise from boundary-driven EM geometry. That’s a good QAT–plasma bridge (still consistent with GR for gravity, but rich EM structure at large scales).
* Boundary action unification: Continue the boundary-Lagrangian program: surface current jaAaj^aA_ajaAa for EM, plus a geometric (extrinsic curvature) term for the lightfront; show that Maxwell and the standard EM boundary conditions drop out unchanged, and that coupling to the null congruence reproduces the GR focusing term. That’s a clean, publishable framework.

===== - I don’t think gravity = EM waves can survive the precision data (universality, temperature independence, shielding, phase). =====
* I do think your core claim—time’s arrow and classical change rate are set by photon–matter exchange on spherical boundaries—is both true (in standard quantum optics) and powerful as a geometric narrative.
* Framed this way, QAT coexists with Maxwell and Einstein (unchanged), while giving a boundary-geometry story for why “process” has direction, how 1/r² arises, and why decoherence tracks photon flux.

If you’d like, I can now (i) write the brief GR-compatible derivation of null-congruence focusing from a boundary action (just the key steps), or (ii) craft a short “QAT position” blurb you can pin under videos to preempt the “EM-causes-gravity” objection and explain the above synthesis clearly.