The target (raised by J. Duda, Models-of-Particles, 2026-06)
From the preferred boosts of the M5 defect, derive the gravitational mass of the electron. In M5, gravity enters via the boost tilt of the 4×4 time axis (GEM ∝ (b·g)², the negative "clock-fuel" block); the de Broglie clock's energy minimum is reached by minimizing over exactly this boost dressing (the negative boost-sector kinetic term that makes E(ω) have a minimum). So the boost/GEM sector is the natural place a gravitational-mass prediction would come from.
Why it's timely
The electron's gravitational mass is not experimentally well-established: the classic free-fall measurement (Witteborn & Fairbank, PRL 19, 1049 (1967)) returned ~zero, later attributed to a screening artifact. A modern measurement may now be in reach, so a concrete model prediction (even a m_grav / m_inertial ratio) would be valuable and falsifiable.
Current status
Partially validated: the boost-tilt coupling is measured (GEM ∝ (b·g)², exactly zero at zero boost; m5_8_2q_delta_scaling.py); the dynamical metric is not implemented. See the Gravity row of MODELS.md.
Definition of done
- A derivation of the electron gravitational mass (or the
m_grav / m_inertial ratio) from the boost/GEM sector.
- A clear statement of the resulting prediction and how it could be tested (e.g. against a modern free-fall / interferometric measurement).
- Honest scope: what the absence of a dynamical metric does and does not allow at this stage.
Model: M5 Liquid Crystal. Gated in practice on the absolute-scale calibration (the units → physical-scale issue) for a physical-number prediction.
DUDA INPUT + REFERENCES (2026-06-17)
Context (Duda's "4 types of mass" framing): gravitational mass is experimentally confirmed only for nucleons. For the electron the classic 1967 Witteborn-Fairbank free-fall reading was ~zero (later attributed to a shielding/screening artifact); "generally we don't know much about gravitational and de Broglie mass." So a model prediction here is genuinely open territory, a place the model can predict where experiment cannot yet measure.
The target (raised by J. Duda, Models-of-Particles, 2026-06)
From the preferred boosts of the M5 defect, derive the gravitational mass of the electron. In M5, gravity enters via the boost tilt of the 4×4 time axis (GEM ∝ (b·g)², the negative "clock-fuel" block); the de Broglie clock's energy minimum is reached by minimizing over exactly this boost dressing (the negative boost-sector kinetic term that makes E(ω) have a minimum). So the boost/GEM sector is the natural place a gravitational-mass prediction would come from.
Why it's timely
The electron's gravitational mass is not experimentally well-established: the classic free-fall measurement (Witteborn & Fairbank, PRL 19, 1049 (1967)) returned ~zero, later attributed to a screening artifact. A modern measurement may now be in reach, so a concrete model prediction (even a
m_grav / m_inertialratio) would be valuable and falsifiable.Current status
Partially validated: the boost-tilt coupling is measured (GEM ∝ (b·g)², exactly zero at zero boost;
m5_8_2q_delta_scaling.py); the dynamical metric is not implemented. See the Gravity row ofMODELS.md.Definition of done
m_grav / m_inertialratio) from the boost/GEM sector.Model: M5 Liquid Crystal. Gated in practice on the absolute-scale calibration (the units → physical-scale issue) for a physical-number prediction.
DUDA INPUT + REFERENCES (2026-06-17)
Context (Duda's "4 types of mass" framing): gravitational mass is experimentally confirmed only for nucleons. For the electron the classic 1967 Witteborn-Fairbank free-fall reading was ~zero (later attributed to a shielding/screening artifact); "generally we don't know much about gravitational and de Broglie mass." So a model prediction here is genuinely open territory, a place the model can predict where experiment cannot yet measure.