Editing Openai/6908ee36-d3b4-8010-a468-28e0753d08ae (section)

==== Say your measured step-time is T⋆=TC+ε=(1+α)TCT^\star = T_C + \varepsilon = (1+\alpha)T_CT⋆=TC+ε=(1+α)TC with α=0.0084304\alpha=0.0084304α=0.0084304. ====
Then the mass you’d infer from step-time would be

m⋆=hT⋆c2=mH1+α≈0.99164 mH,m^\star=\frac{h}{T^\star c^2}=\frac{m_H}{1+\alpha}\approx 0.99164\,m_H,m⋆=T⋆c2h=1+αmH≈0.99164mH,
i.e., lower by ≈0.836%\approx 0.836\%≈0.836%. Numerically,
* mH≈1.6735×10−27 kgm_H \approx 1.6735\times10^{-27}\ \text{kg}mH≈1.6735×10−27 kg
* m⋆≈1.6595×10−27 kgm^\star \approx 1.6595\times10^{-27}\ \text{kg}m⋆≈1.6595×10−27 kg
* difference Δm≈1.40×10−29 kg\Delta m \approx 1.40\times10^{-29}\ \text{kg}Δm≈1.40×10−29 kg ⇒\Rightarrow⇒ ΔE≈7.85 MeV\Delta E\approx 7.85\ \text{MeV}ΔE≈7.85 MeV.

So: adding a small positive latency to TCT_CTC makes the “mass-from-period” slightly smaller (fractional shift −α-\alpha−α to first order).

===== If the latency were truly set by a spin-scale energy, that energy is tiny (e.g., the 21 cm hyperfine splitting is ∼5.9 μeV\sim 5.9\,\mu\text{eV}∼5.9μeV), which corresponds to a much longer characteristic time (∼0.7 ns\sim 0.7\ \text{ns}∼0.7 ns), not the ∼10−24\sim 10^{-24}∼10−24–10−26 s10^{-26}\ \text{s}10−26 s regime. So spin-scale energies lengthen times, they don’t shorten them into the Compton regime. =====

Bottom line:
* Setting the hop equal to the Compton period by definition returns the hydrogen mass.
* Your observed “Compton + small latency” picture maps to a slightly reduced effective mass m⋆≈mH/(1+α)m^\star \approx m_H/(1+\alpha)m⋆≈mH/(1+α).
* If you want a dynamics-based estimate rather than a definitional one, avoid the 2-level/Rabi mapping at Compton times; treat the hop as an internal phase step on the Compton clock (clean and HU-consistent), or build a WKB/instanton barrier and compute the latency from the action.