hoola

I meant, given the size of the universe, a structure of such anomalous proportions may be inevitable to happen and still be a random occurrence.  

_{in a universe this big, could not the structure be of a statistical occurrence at least once within our light cone?}

since pi appears in many formulae and seemingly random physical events, could it prevalence be derived as it is the endless number generator that describes the circle, and so a fundamental property of the spherical singularity at the birth of the universe? This would infer pi as a major building block of the geometric universe, hence it's prominent position.

Tegmark, Wheeler, Pythagoras. In a certain sense, did he not say that with the incompletnes?

If the universe came about by mathematical calculations, perhaps a mistake was made in these calculations since math is somewhat unstable (Godel), leading to this issue.

it seems that if the universe formed both types, then due to random fluctuations within the forming process, more of one should have been created than the other. The bulk that annialation could have been what powered the big bang. It was arbitrary which one persisted to be called "matter".

Experimenters can entangle particle pairs and hold them in isolation at remote positions and not observe collapse for an arbitrary time. Can a remote positioning of entangled particles exist in a natural sense? Does the universe, as an observer, have a plank level collapse period that would prevent any pairs from attaining any real distance from each other before collapse?  I see this question arising from the instantaneous collapse of virtual particle pairs in space, and wonder if there is no "distant" collapse possible without a deliberate act of a particular experimenter's intentions.

If, as Tegmark and others say, everything is mathematics, wouldn't a more appropriate question be: why mathematics? How could math develop if in a true void nothing exists, even math or the concepts therof?

what about virtual particle pairs, appearing as "the flux". If they manifest as tiny exclusion zones, wouldn't photons have to deviate around them, causing a physical extension of the true distance between points, due to these path deviations that become more than trivial when considered in vast distance?

or the same thing with dark matter for the culprit. Until we know more about either, can they be ruled out?  Could it be the underlying mechanism of one or both functions?

  What if dark energy is the overall reaction mechanism to a light beam? By adding a plank level viscosity to space proportional to distance ^2.

I heard about the "tired light" and also that the early universe ran on slightly different fundamentals.  Perhaps "tired light" is due to a gravitational effect on the light as it transverses the great distance to us and gets red shifted by the collective mass it is transiting from.

_{well, axe, I am interested in why you think I'm wrong, and I am pretty sure I am wrong too.  You imply a possible good idea on the subject....intrigue me.... (if you are a human too)}

despite the deleted post,  I still wish to discuss the question as to why recent webb findings seem to indicate a longer age of the universe than previously thought. If the gravitation in both distant and proximate masses acting upon light coming to us from a great distance causes a pseudo red shift  due to a non linear affect upon a light beam traveling toward us, in that a red shift effect predominates any blue shift occurring in the overall travel path. Could gravitation affecting light coming to us from the early universe be a factor here, and is illusory, making the universe only13.7 billion and only appearing much older

if gravitation is causing red shift, would not observations of distant objects within space get red shifted by even more distant mass during he first half of it's travel to us, and then blue shifted by proximate gravity of our local universe on the second half? I thought red shift was caused by a yet to be determined mechanism, and an expansion of space in real physical terms, not just appearance due to any gravitational distortions.

recently a dialogue about webb telescope findings has been going on speculating that the age of the universe is twice previous estimate of 13.7 b years. The discrepancy seems indicated by early star and galaxy formations appearing much older than standard bb model.  Since light is affected by gravity, could not the mass of the early universe cause an additional red shift factor adding to the well measured expansion of space?  Would not such a far away and immense combined mass function as to simulate a dispersed black hole effect acting upon light beams observed here? 

yeah,, thought so, thanks for the feedback

there is online discussion of scalar emf waves that do not have a frequency, but offer a voltage. Not only does this supposed wave have a voltage that can be applied remotely, but travels faster than light to a specific point, moving in the time dimension, not normal 3d space time. This seems highly unlikely, even to the extent of the naming of it as a scalar "wave" when the proponents say it has no frequency. thanks

 if you have to have many entangled pairs in both places, held as an inventory, using each measured pair as one bit of information. Of course, since a state cannot be determined, the concept is unworkable unless "weak measurement" has some application

it seems that if entanglement phenomena are ever to be used for communications, one would have to determine the state of the proximate photon just before, or as it is measured.  If you could make a parameter determination past the traditionally  established  probability state, by using error correction, it seems communication of a  bit by bit mode could be established, so many entangled particles would be needed, depending on the length of the communication text.

ok, thanks

if the Everett idea of infinite universes does apply, would that not affect the issue?

If the particles are entangled in this universe, that seems to hold, but what if one particle is somehow sent to an Everettian style other universe? Would that not defeat any possibility of correlation?

I am proposing entangling the two balls in proximity, then moving ball 2 beyond ball one's light cone before measuring ball one.

with a clearly impossible thought experiment