Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AF-6's symmetric grain dress killed the Abraham–Lorentz runaway and rented the cure with pre-acceleration compressed to τ_cell/2 = 1.108394×10⁻²⁴ s — half a grain. This paper prices that residue as a frame object. It is not one: the anticipation window of the symmetric dress is exactly g/2 for any grain g, an invariant ratio, so the residue carries no scale of its own — it is denominated in whichever grain is chosen, and it equals no owned time of the frame (τ_b, τ_cell, Δt_sep, τ₀) nor any simple multiple of one. Nor is it a smaller grain: a smaller grain would move the spectrum, and §2 shows what actually happens when the grain is moved to the frame's second owned time, τ_b = 2.8630×10⁻²⁵ s — the one-sided dresses still run away, the symmetric dress still kills the runaway, the neutral pair tightens to a period of 1.04583 grains, and the anticipation shrinks in absolute terms to τ_b/2 while remaining exactly half a grain. The residue is therefore graded a standing cost: half a grain of anticipation is the price of a runaway-free grained electron, at any grain the frame owns, and it does not go away by refining the grain — it scales with it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: