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

=== ## ===

Let the local “clock” be the event rate on the electron’s spherical shell:

R  =  ∫Ω ⁣ ⁣∫0∞σ(ω,Ω) I(ω,Ω)h ω  dω dΩR \;=\; \int_{\Omega}\!\!\int_{0}^{\infty} 
\frac{\sigma(\omega,\Omega)\,I(\omega,\Omega)}{h\,\omega}\; d\omega\, d\OmegaR=∫Ω∫0∞hωσ(ω,Ω)I(ω,Ω)dωdΩ
* I(ω,Ω)I(\omega,\Omega)I(ω,Ω): incident spectral irradiance (W·m−2^{-2}−2·sr−1^{-1}−1·Hz−1^{-1}−1)
* σ(ω,Ω)\sigma(\omega,\Omega)σ(ω,Ω): (effective) absorption cross-section on the shell
* Each event carries action hhh (we keep h/2πh/2\pih/2π explicit when angular phases are needed).

QAT postulate (operational time): proper time increments are proportional to event counts,

dτ  ∝  R dt,d\tau \;\propto\; R\, dt,dτ∝Rdt,
so any environment that changes RRR changes the local rate of time.

This is pure bookkeeping of energy quanta and leaves EM equations unchanged.

==== A lump of matter at distance rrr “sinks” a fraction of ambient EM rays by absorption/scattering. To first order this produces: ====
* a tiny solid-angle deficit (“shadow cone”) δΩ∼πa2/r2\delta\Omega \sim \pi a^2/r^2δΩ∼πa2/r2 for a lump with effective area a2a^2a2,
* a small dipole anisotropy in the incident intensity at the test shell,
* and a net increase in local event rate if the re-emission is phase-lagged/decohered (more events counted locally per unit lab time).

Linearizing,

δR  ≈  1h∫ ⁣ ⁣∫∂∂I ⁣(σIω) δI(ω,Ω)  dω dΩ  ∝  1r2.\delta R \;\approx\; \frac{1}{h}\int\!\!\int 
\frac{\partial}{\partial I}\!\left(\frac{\sigma I}{\omega}\right)\,
\delta I(\omega,\Omega)\; d\omega\, d\Omega
\;\propto\; \frac{1}{r^{2}}.δR≈h1∫∫∂I∂(ωσI)δI(ω,Ω)dωdΩ∝r21.
Because RRR is a surface integral over the 2-D sphere, the 1/r21/r^{2}1/r2 geometry appears naturally (Gauss-style). No new fields are introduced.

==== Define the QAT time-dilation factor by comparing two locations 1 and 2: ====

dτ2dτ1  =  R2R1  ≈  1+δRR1.\frac{d\tau_2}{d\tau_1}
\;=\;
\frac{R_2}{R_1}
\;\approx\;
1+\frac{\delta R}{R_1}.dτ1dτ2=R1R2≈1+R1δR.
For small effects, identify a potential-like quantity

ΦQAT  ≡  − c2 δRR0 ,⇒dτdt  ≈  1+ΦQATc2.\Phi_{\rm QAT} \;\equiv\; -\,c^{2}\,\frac{\delta R}{R_0}\,,
\qquad
\Rightarrow\qquad
\frac{d\tau}{dt}\;\approx\;1+\frac{\Phi_{\rm QAT}}{c^{2}}.ΦQAT≡−c2R0δR,⇒dtdτ≈1+c2ΦQAT.
This has the same form as gravitational redshift/time dilation (weak field g00≈1+2Φ/c2g_{00}\approx 1+2\Phi/c^{2}g00≈1+2Φ/c2). In QAT, ΦQAT\Phi_{\rm QAT}ΦQAT is not inserted by hand: it emerges from how nearby matter changes the local photon event rate on the boundary.
* If the environment is colder/more absorbing (more events registered locally due to in-scatter and phase-lag), RRR rises, dτ/dtd\tau/dtdτ/dt shifts accordingly → a redshift relative to a reference location.
* This links relativistic clock behavior directly to local EM exchange.

==== Use the Maxwell stress tensor to compute the net momentum flux F\mathbf{F}F on the shell: ====

F  =  ∮shell ⁣ ⁣TEM⋅n^ dA  =  1c∮ ⁣ ⁣S cos⁡θ dA\mathbf{F} \;=\; \oint_{\text{shell}} \!\! \mathbf{T}_{\rm EM}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}}\, dA
\;=\; \frac{1}{c}\oint \!\! \mathbf{S}\,\cos\theta\, dAF=∮shellTEM⋅n^dA=c1∮ScosθdA
with Poynting vector S=E×B/μ0 \mathbf{S} = \mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}/\mu_0S=E×B/μ0.

Two key QAT ingredients:
# Acceleration of the shell (or equivalently, changing its state in time) introduces a phase lag between incident and re-emitted fields (the action quantum h/2πh/2\pih/2π sets the minimal lag scale).
# That lag yields a radiation-reaction-like term—but now geometrically averaged on the 2-D shell—producing a force proportional to the acceleration:

Freact  =  − meff a,meff  =  1c2 (bound EM energy on the shell  +  phase-lag dissipation).\mathbf{F}_{\rm react} \;=\; -\,m_{\rm eff}\,\mathbf{a}, 
\qquad
m_{\rm eff} \;=\; \frac{1}{c^{2}}\,\Big(\text{bound EM energy on the shell} \;+\; \text{phase-lag dissipation}\Big).Freact=−meffa,meff=c21(bound EM energy on the shell+phase-lag dissipation).
Thus the effective inertial mass meffm_{\rm eff}meff is literally energy per c2c^{2}c2 stored+cycled by photon–electron exchanges on the spherical boundary (plus ordinary rest mass). This uses only standard EM momentum flux and the geometry of the shell.

Why the familiar Ek=12mv2E_k=\tfrac{1}{2}mv^{2}Ek=21mv2?
Expanding total energy E ⁣= ⁣γmeffc2E \!=\! \gamma m_{\rm eff} c^{2}E=γmeffc2 at small vvv gives Ek ⁣≈ ⁣12meffv2E_k\!\approx\!\tfrac12 m_{\rm eff} v^{2}Ek≈21meffv2. The ½ has a clean geometric role in QAT: radius = half the diameter sets the fundamental half-turn/half-spin action increment (visible as h/2πh/2\pih/2π in angular phases), mirroring how angular quantization on the shell works.

==== - Clock behavior (redshift/time dilation): falls out of how the local event rate RRR shifts with environment (near masses act as EM sinks/scatterers → tiny 1/r² modulation → ΦQAT\Phi_{\rm QAT}ΦQAT). ====
* Inertia: follows from momentum flux (Maxwell stress) on the 2-D boundary with a phase-lag set by the quantum of action h/2πh/2\pih/2π. Inertia is thus emergent EM bookkeeping of energy/momentum on the shell.
* Toward gravity: if (and only if) the spatial pattern of RRR shifts produced by realistic matter distributions matches ∇2ΦQAT=4πGρ\nabla^{2}\Phi_{\rm QAT} = 4\pi G\rho∇2ΦQAT=4πGρ, then free motion guided by local event-time (maximize proper time) will reproduce geodesic behavior. That becomes a falsifiable target.

We haven’t assumed GR; we’ve engineered a measurable proxy ΦQAT\Phi_{\rm QAT}ΦQAT from EM exchange rates, with the same low-velocity clock signature as GR. The hard test is matching its magnitude and scaling.

==== Test A — Time-rate shift near a cold, high-Q cavity (local environment change). ====
Put an ultra-stable optical clock in (i) ambient lab, (ii) inside a deep, cold, highly absorptive cavity (same location otherwise). QAT predicts a tiny shift in RRR due purely to changed photon exchange with the environment; any measured Δf/f\Delta f/fΔf/f beyond known cavity pulling/noise would be a QAT-style “EM-time” signature.

Test B — Inertial response vs EM binding energy (material dependence).
Compare effective inertial response of otherwise identical micro-objects with different bound EM energy fractions (e.g., different polarizability/absorption spectra) while controlling for mass. QAT expects a small correlation: more EM-stored energy on the boundary → slightly larger meffm_{\rm eff}meff. (This is subtle and hard, but conceptually crisp.)

==== Path 1 — Put numbers on time dilation: ====
Pick a simple, realistic spectrum (e.g., room-temperature blackbody ± narrow lines), choose a simple σ(ω)\sigma(\omega)σ(ω) model for an atomic shell, compute RRR, then compute δR\delta RδR from a nearby absorbing sphere (geometric 1/r² “shadow”) and get ΦQAT\Phi_{\rm QAT}ΦQAT → Δf/f\Delta f/fΔf/f. This gives an order-of-magnitude prediction to compare with known gravitational redshift scales.

Path 2 — Do the inertia derivation cleanly:
Start from the Maxwell stress tensor on a thin spherical shell with a simple harmonic drive (absorb/re-emit with phase lag set by h/2πh/2\pih/2π and a linewidth). Compute the cycle-averaged reactive force and extract meffm_{\rm eff}meff explicitly. Show how the familiar radiation reaction is reshaped by the spherical boundary and how the ½ (half-radius/half-spin) appears in the angular decomposition.

If you want me to decide, I’d start with Path 1 (numbers for time dilation via δR\delta RδR), because it connects straight to the “gravity-like” signature (clock rate) and is easier to bound with real constants. Then we’ll circle back and do Path 2 for inertia in the same surface-geometry language.