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. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    River, as you most referring to the sausage/slice model of the universe of write4, page#1:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    it is definitely not 0ne dimensional.What this model teaches is the left to right, one directional MOVEMENT * through time.
    One could imagine another such universe, or this one perched at a different orientation, going off into infinite time at a different angle,
    universes arranged like petals on a flower, even.
    A feature of time though, that Write4U, and his is illustrator, have in common with the expanding sphere model is :

    time itself is non-directional ------------- timespace
    can be traversed in any direction
    is fundamental. the 1st dimension
    shares uncreated infinity with energy. --energytime

    *
    as contrasted with the expanding sphere model, which, starting form a central point in time in all directions (as it appears in our sky) has all matter expand, move in all directions into the future. Thus arriving at the conclusion that 4/5 of the universe is now beyond our 13.8 billion years horizon in the sky.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    river, here is a snippet from a New Scientist article, July 17, 2019, on the fate of the Universe, Dark Energy, that the here proposed " expanding through time models" have existing prior to the Big Bang, and in the future #1 :

    "--The cold, lonely immortality of this “big freeze” is a direct consequence of the standard model of cosmology, our best description of the universe. It depends on all manner of assumptions, not least that dark energy, the mysterious force thought to be causing the expansion of the cosmos to accelerate, will always have the same unvarying strength.--" bold added.

    "always" is a long time. longer than the universe's age, fitting term for uncreated energy.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    13,335
    To your second last statement , what about the standard model of cosmology , produces this " big freeze " ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    13,335
    This " big freeze " . Is solid .
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,776
    No, not true, the singularity from whence the universe arose, was not any physical point singularity....It is rather a singularity defined by where our laws of physics and GR break down and don't appear to be applicable. This is at the quantum/Planck level or about t+10-43 seconds.
    It also was not an expansion of matter, rather an evolution of space and time [as we know them] Matter came a short time later, around 10-35 seconds? and the first atomic nuclei at 3 minutes.
    The observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter, and much much more obviously exists beyond that observable horizon.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    13,335
    Indeed , well beyond


    That Nebel is the logic which we all must deal with . ( high lighted ) Which is totally illogical .
     
  10. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    paddoboy, please note I did not say "singularity". I leave the fine details entirely, with implicit trust, in the amazing minds, hands of those capable to reconstruct the remarkable series of steps that went from energy the to today's universe we live in.
    Surely in this model, that addresses the movement through time only, the whole shebang started in one point, not 2? 1 point in vast the time dimension?
    bold added.
    really? and I thought we can not see anything that is older than 13.8 billion years. How can it be observable? ah, perhaps yes, but by whom, from where? On the expanding sphere, it would take 4 0r 5 observers stationed equidistantly around the universe to see it all.
    In the model, our horizon is not more than the radius of 13.8 bullion years, projected onto the sphere #3. The total size of the universe predicted in time is ~ 88 billion years. The size physical of 96 billion light years distance, you mention, must mean there was expansion of space at hyper luminal (greater than c) speed. possible,
    The model indicates we can not see more than 1/4, looking back in time, seeing photons that left as soon as they were allowed after the Big Bang's point in time.
    River, it might be too simple, but logically i try to just concentrate on on item at a time, and in the "ALMA" model, let us just examine the expansion through, into time. Could it be logical to do so?
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,776
    Good question with an even better answer. The observable universe is certainly 13.8 billion years old, but what you are forgetting is in that time the observable universe/space/time has been expanding which gives us the approximate diameter of 96 billion L/years in diameter.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019
  12. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    W4U, In the expanding sphere model, seen by a local, the expansion is unidirectional, always along the radius, occurring from the BB into the future. At a right angle to the tangent, which is the momentary horizontal in the sphere #3.
    For the total universe it means though, that the expansion is occurring in opposite directions as in points #5 and #10 for example. and
    In the real word, if movement through time is at right angles to the velocity, (like in our graphs), movement through time is multi-, all directional too. so:
    Time is everywhere, ready to be moved into, always was.
     
  13. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    paddoby, In the simple model, to picture our matter in the sphere#3, it is assumed it did not exceed the speed limit of 300 000 km/s on its way into the future. The expansion of the 3 space dimension may have exceeded that, somehow dragging /energy and matter with it. Time though, was unmoved by that. Space might have moved faster through than "c".
    Points #5 and #10 are now on the model diameter 2 x 13.8 = 27.6 billion years apart, not 96 billion years. but possibly
    As you said, 96 light years, the spatial distance light travels in that time, also called ~ 30 parsecs.
    The closest the expanding model comes to that, is the ~88 billion [light] year circumference from point #5 back to the point#5.
    recommend reading: the twin paradox in post #890 in reply to W4U.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,776
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
    According to calculations, the current comoving distance—proper distance, which takes into account that the universe has expanded since the light was emitted—to particles from which the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was emitted, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs(about 45.7 billion light-years), while the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light-years),[10] about 2% larger. The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years[11][12] and its diameter about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8×1023 kilometres or 5.5×1023miles).[13]
     
  15. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    paddoboy, let me make a contrast between your link and the expanding through time sphere model.
    quoting from Wiki:
    "-Every location in the universe has its own observable universe, which may or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth.-".

    well, agreed, in this model too. But that is a very ego centred view of "universe" It is pre-Galilean***, thinking of the observer as definer of what constitutes the universe, there is only one that bears the name "universe, the All. . The "visible Universe" of your link would show on the expanding sphere sketch as a radius 13,8 billion years projected on the membrane #3 from any observation point. Its one 1/4 of the total in each case. You cant call that a "universe".imho. *** of course, we all were in one form or another in the Big Bang, so yes that was the center of the universe, and we are still it.

    Wiki: "-(CMBR) was emitted, which represent the radius of the visible universe, is about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light-years)-"

    In the expanding sphere model, which in membrane #3 contains all matter that is equidistant in time, (not space) from the beginning, that radius must be ,~ 14 billion years. Wiki states ~46, therefore asserts hat the universe expanded 3.26 times faster than the speed of light. well, why not? the two models differ because the sphere deals only in the time dimension.

    Wiki: "- the comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light-years)-"


    If by observable universe we take to mean that what can be seen by anyone anywhere in the total universe ( the sphere through time model requires ~ 4 observers), the furthest distance would be the half circumference, from point#5 to #10, ~ 44 billion years, measured inside, along the membrane #3. so,
    here we have a near agreement between the 2 models. out by 6%, so: to get to the OP question:
    If we could receive photons from that far away, we could see the edge of the universe looking either way. from #5 to the midpoint #10. but
    the visible part of the universe is within our horizon, less then 13.8 billion year old photons. The time horizon is that figure.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2019
  16. river

    Messages:
    13,335
    What does " Time Horizon "mean Nebel ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,776
    ?That appears entirely muddled, at least to me. It certainly is not an ego centered view of the universe, to recognise the common sense phrase, that we are all the center of our universe. That does not mean that the Sun shines out of my arse, just that the observable horizon is equidistant away in all directions.
    And just as logically, the BB did not occur in a specific realm of space and time [as we know them] it was the evolution of all space and time [as we know them] and happened everywhere at the same instant, because that everywhere [the observable universe] was packed to within a volume smaller then an atomic nucleus.
    The BB obviously falls short of describing the actual "t" event at the quantum/Planck level, because it is not a quantum model of gravity, rather a classical model.
    https://www.researchgate.net/post/I...e_predict_to_happen_if_we_go_back_in_the_time

    "If we extrapolate backwards using the best available theories, we find that the universe gets hotter and denser as we go back. According to the extrapolation, after a finite amount of this running backwards, the energy density and temperature diverge: this is often oversimplified to the claim that at this finite amount of time ago, the universe began in a state of infinite energy density and temperature.
    This oversimplification is, of course, incorrect. All we can really say is that if we extrapolate backwards we find that there comes a time at which our current physics simply is not adequate to describe what is happening: we can regard the time just after that as the beginning of the universe as we are currently equipped to think about it, and that beginning was a state of extremely high energy density and temperature. There is plenty of good evidence supporting the hypothesis that the universe was, indeed in a very hot, dense state about 15,000,000,000 years ago and has been evolving in a way well approximated by a Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker space-time since then.

    But the actual "t=0 singularity" is not so much a prediction of the theory, as the theory forcefully warning us that its domain of applicability is limited."
     
  18. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    sorry, that term appeared, a Freudian slip, out of how I understand the model, as it has emerged since the ALMA question.
    "Time horizon " means it is the edge of the section of the spherical membrane #3 that is 13.8 billion years distant. we can not see anything older than that. It is the age limit of the photons we receive.The model tells us that there are things happening beyond that reach, but these messages, structures are invisible to us, although observable by more distant observers, like at #10, beyond our age/time "horizon". Because
    The model deals with the universe moving through time., These terms have emerged to reflect that:
    energytime = the time that existed before there was matter.
    timespace = the all-pervasive, non-directional domaine that time exists in before & outside spacetime, also: urspace
    mattertime = same "time" as spacetime, emphazising the presence of the novel form of energy. aka matter. since the Big Beginning. and
    timehorizon = periphery formed by distances through time that radiation has travelled since it's liberation after the BB, beyond which no messages arrive, but things exist > up to 3 times farther away. pun intended.
     
  19. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    sir, I was referring to the fact that in the link, wiki shows

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    us looking out toward the distance, from the center. capturing photons, the oldest from far away, from the periphery, a huge sphere, a view we see, but in contrast from the other fact, that the universe was not huge but smaller and smaller in the beginning.
    the alternative theory, and associated images here show the universe centred in time, surrounding the beginning, not us, or the other 4 observers elsewhere in the universe it would take to see it all now.
    another image of that alternative version here: where we are not central to the universe, but tucked somewhere to the right, tucked in the last slice of the sausage.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    so,
    while your contribution is great when it comes to the physics of it, the model of the sphere expanding through time agrees with all that, but shows a different perspective.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2019
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,776
    I don't need to be called Sir, Sir...paddo will do.
    Again, your perception as shown in the diagrams is wrong. The BB was not any evolution in anything...it was the evolution of all there is, starting with space and time [as we know them] much as an ant crawling on the surface of a balloon, will have no center other then his observable center, which any ant on that surface will have.
     
  21. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    paddoboy, the diagram directly above is not the expanding sphere model perspective, but from your wiki link. The Big bang, as a generic term created in jest, covers a slew of events, in the present model a transition from the pre=Big Bang enerytime, timespace to spacetime and mattertime. There has to be a starting point #4 in time #1, for that,-- no matter how good &fine details you contribute to the whole beginning process. For the relevant features of the present model please refer to the previous page post #890.
    Yes and you are right,
    timespace and energytime are not condition existing now, as we know them, in what we can see happening since the Big Beginning. They are modelled to have existed before, and still exist in the future time surrounding the universe #3

    The model is trying to get away from the local ant perspective in points #5 or farthest away #10. Of course the model agrees. the ant can not see the center. The center is empty now. Flatlander ants only sees the panorama that is coming from all sides, but it can see that the space it lives in is curved (in time), The curvature has a center #4, and the radius #4-#5 is both the age (radius) and time horizon of it's world.
    A visible world which is only 1/4 what is out there, observable, all in membrane/universe#3, but
    which is preceded and surrounded by infinite time#1 and uncreated energy.
     
  22. nebel

    Messages:
    2,037
    bold added.
    Paddo, This is the alternative theory section, so we are entitled to be wrong.
    There are serious thinkers better than nebel that have put forth work, postulating, that the beginning of our universe was preceded by - at the minimum -other conditions, ( Sir R. Penrose comes to mind., for one).
    The existence of infinite energytime and timespace into which the universe expands, is based on the assumption of uncreated energy.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,776
    And you are entitled to be corrected and shortcomings in whatever proposal that you have submitted. The problem is that while you are in the alternative sections, some still put their alternative scenarios as fact.
    I have my own speculative scenarios of the how and why of the BB, but I will always put it as just speculative...not pretend as some do that they are somehow privileged to some underlying truth, that mainstream science is not....particularly of course on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry...or river for that matter.
    Yes, according to the most accepted and likely valid model of the universe, the evolution of space and time [as we know them] did not occur in anything...It was everything.
    Perhaps, a big perhaps, one day a verifiable QGT may shed some light on the nature of space and time before 10-43 seconds, and may tell us the how and the why.....until then, all we have is speculative scenarios.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2019

Share This Page