ALMA sees old galaxies before they merged. two ways to look back into the past?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by nebel, Dec 8, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    To requote the National Geographic headline.
    This simple declaration is revealing;
    a) If time can end, it is by definition not infinite in scope.
    b) The "end of time" is connected with the end of the existence of the universe.

    According to your argument, if time is infinite regardless of the existence of the universe, the highlighted headine a) would be a misinterpretation, nay, a colossal scientific blunder in cosmology.

    The stated association of time with the existence of the universe suggests that time is only a local phenomenon and directly connected to the existence and duration of a dynamical something, but not of an infinite non-dynamical state of nothingness.

    Which to me sounds entirely reasonable and in accordance of the current definition of time. Form Webster,
    It is clear that the concept of time is extremely flexible and variable, but it is alway connected with an activity of sorts.

    A state of nothingness has no implication of any measurable activity, it is an indeterministic concept, which is beyond our ability to assign any properties and therefore no time of duration of something.

    * This would seem the closest to your perspective, but note that it still addresses a sequence of events.

    In a condition of nothingness there are no events of any kind.
    Simply put, there exists nothing at all which can be identified as creative of time of duration.

    Only if there is a beginning and an end, does time play a role for humans. It allows us to measure things.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel Valued Senior Member

    even if we humans are the universe's way of knowing itself, we are newcomers. If time depended on us perceiving it, we would have missed all the preparations it took to get us here.
    So all the headlines notwithstanding, consider Prof. Dirac's model of an infinite sea. post 520 please.
    In other words, time, timespace even, has just done fine for a long time without us, thnak you very much.
    Time can do without us, but we ( or anything else) not without time.
    Time is billed as the 4st dimension , really though, it has to be the first.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Note that the Dirac Hole is a physical thing or a physical action, a Something which creates it's own time frame.

    There are no Dirac Holes when there is Nothing. I am not discounting the possibility that a Dirac Hole can form when there is a prior Nothingness. But time itself almost certainly would not be causal to the formation of a Dirac Hole. It would not make any difference if nothingness consisted of infinite time devoid of change or an instantaneous change, resulting in a secondary dimension of associated time.

    The definition of "nothing" includes the absence of time. The term "timespace" cannot be applied to "nothing". No space, no time, IMO.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. nebel Valued Senior Member

    so, how do you relate the "unknown somethingness" to the infinite Dirac Sea?
    is there a hole in the infinite Dirac Sea?
    an infinite Dirac Sea without an infinite time to exist in?
  8. nebel Valued Senior Member

    The point in time ( on a membrane of paper) analogy was used in this discussion before. posta 154-158.

    Before you have a hole, you have to have a medium to have it in. In this case the infinite Dirac sea.

    To have the Dirac sea, even in a model, you have to have time to accommodate it. in reality or in the equations. so,

    Infinite time before and still outside the Universe, the ESM model is not unsupported by mainstream scientists.

    The Dirac hole is an elegant picture, of the Big Start, It is not a mountain, having to be build, but the result of an pre-existing infinite, time-dependant condition .
    Long live infinite time, it always has, will. perhaps timespace evn.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  9. nebel Valued Senior Member

    from Webster: Definition of time (write4you posted).
    :"- a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future*

    thank you!

    Events of the past?
    By defining the past to be infinite, the questions --of origin of time, what caused time, was there a proto / urtime (not Uhrtime) events.- -are removed, pushed beyond the horizon from the picture that has to be visualized in the model. A vision, that we humans perhaps are unable to form.
    A "continuum", that has an infinite past, and still exists beyond, indefinitely into the future, but that, at the moment is measured as time in space by being fleetingly present in the membrane.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    The past starting at the BB.
    If we cannot form a vision or a model of something abstract, then how can we even speculate about its duration?
    If there were events before the creation of the universe then the term "nothingness" (the absence of everything) would be false, no?

    In the abstract, "nothingness" has no "duration" or properties of any kind. Note that the quote identifies a "non-spatial continuum" . If I had written the definition, I would have stated " a "timeless non-spatial continuum".

    Moreover, infinity has no beginning nor an end. But then how can we speak of Time coming to an end?
    What infinite comes after timespace, when time has come to an end?

    My perspective is that the concept of time is only useful to humans as a mathematical tool, a part of the mathematical model of the universe which we are trying to construct. Just like mathematics, the concept of time is a human invention, and a very useful one at that.

    IMO, as far as the universe is concerned (which it isn't), it is just a dynamical probabilistic but mathematically functioning construct. To the universe, time has no meaning as far as function is concerned. Time is created during a mathematical chronology of change, a result of duration of something, not duration of nothing,
  11. nebel Valued Senior Member

    The model has no phrase " time coming to an end.", that was a quotation from the sensationalist headlines.
    time is fundamental. it appears as an afterthought for us " oh, what time is it?", but
    time is fundamental, for any, even a hole from Dirac, time is required above, before all. imho.

    PS NG headline: "time will end in 5 billion years." That allegation is really alarmist. The physicist might be talking of humantime, solar systemtime, but
    not of spacetime, certainly not of timespace.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  12. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Insert "timeless" , ha ha. many of us would like to use the erase mouse click to get rid of time. For example infinite time. but mickey mouse manipulation might not work.

    You are right of course, for our day to day functioning, the question, --- whether the universe stems from an infinite Dirac Sea, existing in infinite time, exiting through a hole rather than a point in time, or --whether time was perceived only because things started happening, --- is of no consequence, but then , where should we put the limit of our outlook?
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Allow me an abstract example. The idea is to focus on the black dot in the center.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Question: For how long does each pink dot exist? For how long does a green dot exist? And when do all pink dots disappear from vision altogether?

    It won't be difficult to measure the time of these apparent chronologies. But except for the timed sequence of blinking "off" and "on", mathematically there is no change in the picture and the chronology of time is only associated with the existence of the pink dots and the black center point.

    In reality, there are no green dots at all, they are created by our mental process, and even when all but one apparently circling green dot seem to disappear, they still exist in reality with an associated timeframe.

    But all time frames we could associate with the results of the optical illusion are false, except in our minds.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  14. nebel Valued Senior Member

    thank you, V.I. good example, reminds me of the black gorilla that exists unseen in a ball game. That is why eyewitness accounts are so unreliable , relying on them exposes you to the likelihood of being wrong.
    for this reason I am leery of concepts of time that limit themselves to the local 'humans only count' landscape.
    The expanding sphere time condition ignores these perception problems. geometry only. flight without the formulae.
    Write4U likes this.
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I've just started to read the theoretical Dirac Sea model and will need time to digest it all. But I did come across this apparent critique of it's complexity.

    This is actually too complicated for me to process with some clarity. Can you shed some light on this?

    One additional question comes to mind;
    Can an infinite field of negative energy itself be causal? Something like an instantaneous collapse into itself, resulting in the formation of a singularity with infinite negative energy.

    Perhaps somewhat like a Black Hole, a negatively charged (gravitationally attractive) singularity?
    I realize speculative nature of this posit (ignorance). Does a Black Hole even have a connection to the domain of EM ?
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  16. nebel Valued Senior Member

    I have introduced Dirac's idea only to show that the concept of an inevitable infinite time is not absent in serious mainstream science, as also shown of course the work of other Professors' works I have alluded to here on this thread.

    I found the Dirac picture fascinating. An infinite longtime, widespread buildup , then a discharge through a point in time, - to have the universe develop out of it. fascinating. Is it a valid model? has probably some gems of truth to it.
    Where I am at. is not so much the beginning, but
    the advancing front of the outer membrane surface, as I move into future time. Is the infinite "Dirac Sea" still out there?, the accelerating expanding universe still somehow fed from the timespace it is moving through? as it was during the key "hole" event?

    The membrane of the ESM model shares one feature with a BH singularity, in that it has also zero spatial extent, at least in the radial direction, so,
    the membrane universe should be gravitationally attractive. have a magnetic field [if any] too, but only into the future ( as discussed in the Shell theorem and Faraday. Gauss posts.
  17. nebel Valued Senior Member

    thank you all, I had to go through 27 pages, 10 000+ views, constructing a model to get the answer this morning:

    While these galaxies were already ~13 billion light years away when they send the light that ALMA detected last year, They have not come closer to us like an approaching truck on a highway since, no, they have moved even further away, another ~13 billion years, They have moved beyond the present horizon, would be now 2/3 around the universe membrane had it not continued expanding.
    no nebel, we could never see them there old galaxies looking the opposite way, that opposing direction has expanded too,

    well not any more, and learning is never a waste of time imho. even if we had to recall Dirac. to possibly establish infinite time and timespace
    The universe as an Expanding Sphere Membrane model, moving through infinite time. mmm.
  18. nebel Valued Senior Member

    origin said:
    In my opinion you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Yes you are right, of course, admittedly , and no offence noted. -- , because there is so much to these questions in the Expanding Sphere Membrane model. so : here is some more naive questions based on it:

    If the timespace idea has merit, like the Dirac Sea*** comprising infinitely extending "negatively particles" (we must have modern expressions for those 1930 terms), then surely not all that equivalent energy/mass can be in the universe now, because it is not infinite, had a beginning. accordingly,
    the rest of the infinite conditions existing in infinite timespace must still be out there, surrounding the expanding membrane universe, as it moves Orthogonally through time into the future. then:
    If the Shell Theorem holds true for the model, there must be an interaction between the force fields of the membrane shell, and the constituents of the Dirac Sea or timespace that the universe is moving toward, into.

    Could the universe be also pulled into the future. rather then just being pushed by the energy imparted at the Big Beginning?.

    Origin is right, I had no idea it would come to this, starting with "ALMA" , not my non- Alma Mater bsw.

    *** When I think of that "Sea" , I do not see the Sun setting on the surface of an ocean, but being at the bottom , surrounded water, pressing in from all directions. The Sea, timespace is infinite in all aspects.
  19. nebel Valued Senior Member

    Yes, as answered before, radius of ~13.8 billion light years but
    Here is another interesting analogy.
    All points on the latitude line of this "borrowed" illustrations, would be the Lagrangian points 4 & 5 on a great circle slice of observation location.
    Lagrangian points have an interesting property in that they mimic the zero gravity condition of the center of their parent bodies. Like seen in the Trojan asteroid accumulation spaced 60 degrees away from Jupiter. So in the model when we look at the CBMR, we see something similar, in some way, not understood by me*,-- to the future near us.
    Another trojan horse, by nebel horsing around.
    *All observers in the membrane should be equal, so, what could there be special about the horizon, where another observer might be located?
    Trojans looking at each other or even at L3, halfway in the universe, on the membrane?
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2018
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Don't forget the manifolds.
  21. nebel Valued Senior Member

    please explain that to us again, if possible with an image.
    man-I- fold s.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  23. nebel Valued Senior Member

    That is a gorgeous image, worthy of the universe, thank you, but
    it does not fit the model of the expanding sphere membrane, This would be a fitting picture of an exploding membrane at the moment of disintegration instead. . ( reminiscent of the ball that expanded from the first Trinity nuclear test). The radii at all these points curving out would not be ~isotemporal.
    There are of course finer details to the membrane at the local level, due to relativistic effects, and space is mostly empty.
    This great linked image is a flight of fancy, and the ESM model was meant to be a flight without formulae.

Share This Page