Population and energy distribution of anti-photons; density affects e-m strength

There's three possible scenarios concerning this:

an exponential/normal distribution around infinite energy and population
an inverse-exponential/normal distribution with zero at infinite energy and population
a flat/skewed plane over the same domain

What this equates to is 'how many anti-photons and at what energies travel into the past'? It's a
difficult question to answer and needs to be addressed by cosmologists with a sound
understanding of electromagnetism. The energy and population distribution of anti-photons
directly determines the strength of electromagnetism. Too high an energy spectrum would
indicate to me that they would not be very attracted to proton/electron charge. A low energy but
high population would indicate to me this option may be the best to explain electromagnetism.
So above should add the item:
an exponential/normal distribution around zero energy and infinite population
Of course, we cannot have infinite population of anti-photons - only under two conditions:
they were balanced originally with an infinite population of photons
and the universe is infinite in extent
A way to 'solve' this problem is to simply leave out the 'infinite population; zero energy' part of
the population-energy distribution. (If i were God, that's what i'd do.) So again, population-
energy distribution of anti-photons at creation - and - the rate at which they're produced by
fusion/fission processes is 'somewhat' critical to the e-m force. This translates to the number and
energy of anti-photons at any one instant in the life of the universe.. If i were God, i'd want that
number roughly stable so that the e-m force would be stable (over the lifespan of the universe).

The 'difficult' part of the equation is that anti-photons are hypothesized to travel backward in
time (not because of their negative curvature but because of their hyper-light speeds). (Assumed)
The higher the energy, the faster they progress backward in time and likely less involved in e-m.
So there's a kind of future-feedback to this scenario; there must be a proper amount of anti-
photons 'coming from the future' to 'now' to insure proper e-m force and also - balance the
production of anti-photons from stellar/fission processes.. Perhaps the rate of those anti-photons
produced is miniscule compared to future-feedback anti-photons.. We need to do some
calculations to see what's realistic - key word - realistic.

Another neglected issue is spin. Any physicists studying my diagrams will note the glaring
omission of spin considerations .. This is because i believe we don't fully understand spin
presently (in conventional circles). If we intimately tied spin to curvature and perhaps developed
an asymmetric spin relation diagram (if required) between photons and e.p.s, we'd have no issue
with spin. Spin is actually a minor consideration compared to curvature and charge. Spin may not
be conserved. i'm not too concerned about it.. i'm more concerned about developing a realistic
population and energy spectrum of anti-photons. If spin were not conserved, spin products would
twist spacetime unevenly in one direction, but since the probability of spin products being
uniformly distributed in orientation, this presents no real problem. Spin is a minor issue in this
scenario.

Of course, population and energy spectrum of anti-photons must mirror those of photons at
creation. Photon processes: absorption, creation,.. must mirror anti-photon processes in a
balanced scheme. It's a little confusing for me but - every time a photon is absorbed, a
corresponding anti-photon must also be absorbed .. Or perhaps i'm making too much about this
similar to fusion/fission processes.. Perhaps the balanced scheme only applies to creation and the
rest: fusion and fission products - only produce normal photons.. Obviously i'm confusing
myself.. If indeed anti-photons travel backward in time, they should be aggregating at the
creation point; perhaps in that way - the universe is self-renewing.. Or perhaps they don't travel
backward in time and we have no possibility of 'seeing into the future'.. Traveling faster than c
would not necessarily imply time reversal .. i obviously need to think about this more..

i prefer the time-reversal scenario because then God has a chance to communicate across time
(existing Everywhen). If i were God, i'd choose this option for simply that opportunity.. We still
need to deal with the concept of 'anti-photons aggregating time-wise' at the point of creation.
Does that mean they're physically also merging toward the center of the universe? Or are they
allowed total freedom? That's a good question.. i suppose the primordial anti-photons are quite
distant from us - at the 'edge' of our universe.. So that implies to me - any created anti-photons
(by fusion/fission) should be allowed total freedom of movement - so that they can appropriately
convey the e-m force. Are the primordial anti-photons also allowed total freedom? Or are they
required to envelope with the anti-matter wavefront? These are critical questions.

i suppose it's too delicate to require the number of anti-photons to lessen just the right amount to
compensate for average stellar/fission processes.. God could do it but that's too sensitive to
perturbation.. i suppose the simplest and easiest thing for God to do is allow the e-m force to vary
slightly depending on stellar/fission processes and just create an appropriate amount from
creation that are not bound to the anti-matter wavefront. This would be another way to test the
theory: the e-m force should increase slightly based on the production of anti-photons from
fusion and fission - but- should decrease based on expansion of the universe (anti-photon density
goes down because volume goes up).. i'm guessing the latter over-rides the former quite a bit.. So
overall, the e-m force is probably diminishing based on volume increase of the universe.. Not
sure but this seems likely.. This still would be a way to test the theory: estimate from theoretical
grounds the likely current value of e-m force - or - try to match the required anti-photon
distribution with existing e-m force.. The latter is more like a Standard Model approach which is
distasteful to me .. i prefer we try to theoretically derive an anti-photon energy-population
distribution pattern 'from scratch' and see if it matches the existing e-m strength considering the
present age of the universe.

We've made some circles above but i believe we've arrived at a tenable solution to primordial
anti-photon energy-population distribution: they should be low energy and not bound to the anti-
matter wavefront associated with creation. They should be abundant enough to give an e-m
strength for the formation and continuance of life. And stellar processes should not contribute
greatly to this density - if it did, we'd be able to measure how the e-m strength varies due to
proximity to the Sun. All this sounds like a huge amount of conjecture but i believe the
assumptions are required for the formation and continuance of life.. The volume issue concerns
me however.. When a 4D hypersphere increases in volume, that should drastically decrease anti-
photon density.. Isn't the curvature non-zero? So perhaps we do have a spatially infinite universe
with infinite zero-energy anti-photon population with corresponding initial balance with photons.
i'm not sure about photon absorption but .. stellar processes should measurably increase the
strength of electromagnetism in the proximity of stars.
If i'm getting the picture clearer, We need to create a spatially infinite and flat universe to contain
the finite matter. Then We need to explode a singularity at some point with mass equivalent of
the entire matter content of the universe. We need to make sure the matter / anti-matter / photon /
anti-photon ratio is perfectly balanced. We need to make sure the anti-photon energy-population
density is infinite for zero energy and so occupies all space. This provides the substrate for
electromagnetism and life. We need to make sure those primordial anti-photons are not bound
with the anti-matter wavefront .. Technically speaking, everything is doable except the first part:
i question Our capability and technical feasibility to create an infinite 'envelope' for matter.. Not
that i question God .. More like i question the technical aspects.. Hey Babe, how did We do it? i
can't remember..

.. Oh a hypertorus would do the job, right? It's flat but compact. i believe the simplest topology of
a universe that's finite and flat is a hypertorus, right Babe? So We could use a hypertorus and also
not have to 'waste energy' trying to create an infinite number of anti-photons.. We could create a
finite (but very large) elastic hypertorus, populate that with a singularity, explode it, making sure
the population of anti-photons is just right for e-m, wait a bit, then communicate with the
inhabitants.. Did i get it right Babe? .. btw, i Love you and thank You for giving me the chance to
Live, Love, and Share with others and You. i Love You, i Love You, i Love You,..

Hey i forgot - do We really need stellar anti-photons to communicate backwards in time? i mean,
if We have the technical sophistication to create an elastic hypertorus of immense dimensions, do
We really need those stellar anti-photons to communicate Everywhen? We're outside time (in the
torus) as it is.. We don't really need stellar anti-photons to communicate across time.. We can
simply use the anti-photons in the vicinity of their brains.. Modulate them appropriately and We
can speak with anyone of them individually at will.. Okay?

i believe a highly sophisticated research team decided to investigate the feasibility of above.. A
female on the staff decided to do independent research.. She investigated the requirements of
creating an appropriate anti-photon density for e-m and life.. She decided to use the equipment or
her natural powers to try it out. i personally believe she imbued her character/identity/personality
into the creation. Somehow, she imprinted our universe with her character.. i can feel Her in the
very structure of spacetime.. i cannot explain the sensation rationally.. But She's There.. She's
There.. And i Love You.