Interesting. But then we would see effect of dark matter correlate with the distance of stars. Right?

I think observations do not show such correlation between spacetime location of galaxies and dark matter/energy presence.

Yes, that would be a way of falsifying the theory. No idea what the data says.

Dark matter effects should be less or not existing in the early universe.

It would be awesome to be able to find people like you in the grocery shopping queue to chat with about topics like this!

Sadly, chances are we would talk about the weather instead. I bet that none of us want to look crazy.

If/when AR becomes commonplace, with an app that figures out interests based on public data, it could happen

This seems sort of like saying a house in California should be more entropic than a house in Rhode Island because California's bigger than Rhode Island. But the laws of physics don't care where we've drawn arbitrary lines on our maps, whether they be geographic or galactic.

But California is more entropic than Rhode Island, because, being bigger, California can be in more states than Rhode Island. In the center of the galaxy a star can be in N positions, in the periphery can be in f(N) positions. The further from the center the more possible positions (maybe the number of positions is related to Newton square law?).

Anyway, as I said, just idle speculation for fun.

But California ≠ a house in California, which was my point.

How does the universe know it’s supposed to consider the positions on the entire circumference of a galaxy, and not just the “left” edge, or the left edge plus the center, or the right edge plus one quarter of another galaxy’s pinky finger, when deciding how strong gravity should be in the left edge? Only local information should be relevant, otherwise you’re back to assuming the universe respects our arbitrary boundaries.

This is just speculation for fun, but OK, I will bite.

You have a compressed gas, so, low entropy, then it starts expanding. The area where it started expanding has less possible states that the area around, but just because the area around is bigger, nothing to do with the relative position itself.

If the number of states are associated to gravity somehow, then gravity will be bigger the further you go from the center.

Because we are brainstorming in creative mode, I will add a bonus: if the number of possible states increase gravity, maybe, the older the universe gets, the bigger is that influence all around, accelerating its expansion.

I suppose that I will get my Nobel any day now ;-)

On the other hand, the center of a star is much hotter than the periphery, so there are potentially more accessible states in phase space for the particles in the former location (it's "can be in N positions in phase space", which depends on the available physical space and the possible velocities).

Not that this would affect California vs Rhode Island analogies, unless you could demonstrate that things in Rhode Island were a lot hotter...

Have you read Neal Stephenson's "Anathem"? I'm not exactly sure what to say about it in context of your comment for fear of spoilers, but it sounds like you would like it.

I have read 'Snow Crash', 'The diamond age' and 'Cryptonomicon', but not that one. Thanks for the recommendation.

Wait, what sort of grocery store queues have that conversation?

Bars near universities are where you find this kind of conversation.

The one's on Titan.

This really is a really good idea (or a start of) for sci-fi.