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

The BB isn't the "center". The universe is the universe. It is all expanding , not expanding from a center outward.

There is no "half-way" point as you are describing. As was pointed out above in another post, there is the concept of the visible universe and what's beyond that. The visible universe is just the portion of the universe that light can get to from here in 14 billion years so it's twice 14 billion plus expansion. Any expansion beyond the speed of light will never be accessible from here.

Even if we see the universe/membrane expanding at luminal speed, because of the geometry, we could only see 1/4 of the universe from any given) point. it is the question of the ratios. In the time sliced sausage model, the ratios are not right. Should not the ratio of distance from the BB and the radius of each space slice be equal? Time goes on the x axis that is right, the slice (space) has expanded, that is right, but the expansion of slice should equal the movement through time, so should the radius of the slab not be equal to the distance from the beginning, particularly if the expansion of space is independent, even beyond the speed limit of c, the max movement of any energy, matter in it?
In the Expanding Sphere Membrane model, even 3/4 of the universe that would have expanded at less than the speed of light would not be accessible. (for somebody fixed in one position in the universe, membrane). travel to see more.
If time is infinite, but space is not, are we paying enough attention to it?
should we look seriously at models that picture time more prominently ?

Why the big bang was not the beginning
title of feature article in New Scientist magazine. so:
For this to happen,
There must have been time before the Big Beginning, and if that is so, using the ESM model, it must be still out there, lots of it, beyond our current expansion, future timespace for us to move into. S.H. rip.
P.S. since during our start in that point in time and following expansion, there is still a future left, all timespace is not occupied by the ESM membrane yet, and why would that future timespace not have the same potential that it had before our start? Surely an infinite time + gooddies would not have been seriously affected, drained of all there is , by just one big happy happening in one point?

Last edited:
While the OP question was related to look back time, using the model of an expanding sphere, moving through time, that original question leads us now to a previous related topic in cosmology/ astrophysics, namely:
Is there more Gravity Inside or Outside an Entity? and of course
how would such a field interact with timespace?

Why the big bang was not the beginning
First hints are emerging of a universe that existed before our own: an alien world of chaos where time, space and geometry were yet to form-- NS. magazine March 14, 2018
how could anything, even theoretically exist without time, timespace? perhaps spacetime did not exist, but timespace must have. before the universe started to expand like the membrane model.

Last edited:

I copied this image from the thread on gravity in and out form Janus58 post # 96 page 5. Here is depicted Sirius' mass gravity well in red as a star or neutron star in black. This would correspond to what the ES membrane could look like if the expansion of the universe were subject to relativistic effects, that is, movement through time reduced by increased gravity.
A spherical expanding membrane with laggards like this and black holes sticking into the empty past. dimples in the curvature.
credit to Janus58

Which is unrealistic as it implies some kind of 'dark energy' filling the shell interior, voiding the initial assumption of an empty interior. Realistically, there will be decelerated expansion owing to mutual gravitational attraction between all parts of the shell. Then interior redshift steadily decreases with time

these related posts are of interest to be checked out in the main astronomy forum, under gravity inside and out.

The diverging big addition in the proposed expanding sphere membrane model here is that

The original timespace condition, existing prior to the Big Beginning still exists in the future of the universe, and is acquired by it through the ongoing expansion. There is a truly empty interior, a void of the past time seen in the model. Energy for expansion is only coming from inside the membrane of the sphere from the initial impetus, proper motions, and possibly newly acquired, as a consequence of movement into the timespace of the future.

Last edited:
For the viewers not willing to read 33 pages: a brief history of this thread, How did a question about the work of the well chilled radio telescopes in Chile, ALMA, lead to the mater, Mother of all questions, eternity?
The OP was about look back time to the earliest galaxies. Could they be seen in two directions looking back into elapsed time in space?
Two models were proposed, a) the sausage model of the universe, starting at one point in time and growing in size, space, as it moves right on the x, or time axis, in one direction.
nebel preferred b) the expanding sphere membrane model, defined by all matter that moved the same length out from a point in time in all directions, moving through timespace. The question then arose,
Since the universe is still moving through time, outwardly into the future, with no end in sight,
1) How old is this time, or timespace that exists now, and must have existed before the Big Beginning? If
Time is infinite into the future, was it also into the past? and:
Since we all travelled out from the Big Beginning an more or less equal amounts of time, in the radius, how far could we see sideways to see those galaxies? not more than the radius. 13.8 BLYs. so,
2) We can only see 1/4 of the total universe, never the same galaxies from the other way around. and
3) Since in an empty sphere, the inside, (containing the past), is without gravity, without forces, all forces act toward the outside, the future to infinity, The forces reach infinitely into timespace, so also must time. therefore : time is infinite. and
4) The universe is possibly pulled into the future, not just having been given a push. hush

hush this if you can.

Last edited:
form Nebel, the time warner*:
There is more time in the future of the universe than it's past, because past time is enclosed by the membrane of the ESM model, centered around the Big Beginning point in timespace. Whereas infinite timespace exists around it in all directions, past and future.
* not to be confused with Time Warner Inc. , a US media corporation.

Copied from the main cosmology section:*

"pipe" (tm) Possible Infinite Primordial Energy that was always in the pipeline so to speak, to eventually cause our universe.
Not just a permittive condition, so: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The Pipe in Timespace. ---courtesy of Nebel.

All this, assuming that Dirac and others were right, and energy and therefore time are infinites, their non-existing origin beyond our realm and need for understanding .-- beyond period.

Post Script: relevance to the merging galaxy question?
If the old picture that is reaching us now is receding at an accelerating pace, No way to come around the other way. It is a once in a life time chance to see it this way. The event is only 1/6 or ~16% away of the whole universe and moving away faster. ( 5/6 or ~83% the other way in the model, where our horizon is 13.8 [light] years in time. )

Last edited:
The visible universe is just the portion of the universe that light can get to from here in 14 billion years so it's twice 14 billion plus expansion. Any expansion beyond the speed of light will never be accessible from here.

It is not that that light can get from here back to the Big Beginning, but the other way around, we can see light that came our way from there, from a source ~ 14 billion years ago, which means that space must have been existing and expanding that long too. space expanding through time that long. Seattle is correct though, in the Expanding Sphere model too, the diameter is Seattle's 14 Billion light years, but the horizon, the reach of our vision, his ~ 14 blys, is reaching only ~1/4 of the total.

someone said here: "The big bang happened everywhere" . If that is so, space must have already existed then, certainly time, therefore timespace, infinite.
or?

"pipe" (tm) Possible Infinite Primordial Energy that was always in the pipeline so to speak, to eventually cause our universe.
Perhaps a result of the geometrics of a bounded permittive condition?

someone said here: "The big bang happened everywhere" . If that is so, space must have already existed then, certainly time, therefore timespace, infinite.
or?
Near infinitely small singularity being the whole of the universe at that stage. Everything happenening at the same place at the same time as a single mega-quantum event.

Near infinitely small singularity being the whole of the universe at that stage. Everything happenening at the same place at the same time as a single mega-quantum event.

yes, I thought of that too when I related the "everywhere" comment. The original writer too might have had in mind, that with expansion the original closeness disappears, but the everywhere lasts, All that energy/matter was so so close everywhere, now so far, but everywhere an equal distance from the Big Beginning .

Perhaps a result of the geometrics of a bounded permittive condition?

the bpc aka pipe?
The possible infinite energy might be called primordial, pre-mondial, but in the ESM model it is still in front, around us, to move into and to use. bon voyage into the future of timespace, all.

All that energy/matter was so so close everywhere, now so far, but everywhere an equal distance from the Big Beginning
Not necessarily equidistant from the beginning (a perfect circle), but pockets of densities emerging from the original chaotic expansion, which was causal to symmetry breaking.
In physics, symmetry breaking is a phenomenon in which (infinitesimally) small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide the system's fate, by determining which branch of a bifurcation is taken. To an outside observer unaware of the fluctuations (or "noise"), the choice will appear arbitrary. This process is called symmetry "breaking", because such transitions usually bring the system from a symmetric but disorderly state into one or more definite states. Symmetry breaking is thought to play a major role in pattern formation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking

Not necessarily equidistant from the beginning (a perfect circle), but pockets of densities emerging from the original chaotic expansion, which was causal to symmetry breaking.

True, Equidistant in time, equidistant in all directions of timespace, If the the movement of an entity is affected by time dilation, of course the mass would not be in that perfect sphere. Post 644, others before, are examples of that, dense objects stuck in time, on the radius, laggards, not keeping up with the norm of the normal membrane. All points having moved as far as they could in their circumstance through time.
concepts that I need help and time with.

Perhaps a result of the geometrics of a bounded permittive condition?

The term permittive condition seems to be your favoured description of the pre-Big Beginning situation. here you attribute a "geometry" with it.
In the Expanding sphere model, expanding through time, and timespace, I see no defined geometry, (it is Geo=earth after all), but an all pervasive undefined presence of the time dimension in timespace. but
Since the BB required energy, and energy or matter, it's alter ego, is supposed to be indestructible, energy too must be fundamental and have existed possibly infinitely.
At least a condition and a possible geometric would need time to exist, so in that sense the expanding sphere of the model universe can expand and move into that future timespace.
Dirac, Penrose and Write4U,others require in their theories a pre- BB condition of the past.
Nebel proposes that this condition, timespace or energytime to exist even now outside the universe, into the infinite future.
The future time we are moving into is possibly still as energetic as the past time we came from. so:
et or energytime always before spacetime.

The term permittive condition seems to be your favoured description of the pre-Big Beginning situation. here you attribute a "geometry" with it.
If the universe is finite, it must have an associated geometry.
Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: γεωμετρία; geo- "earth", -metron"measurement") is a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space. A mathematician who works in the field of geometry is called a geometer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry
In the Expanding sphere model, expanding through time, and timespace, I see no defined geometry, (it is Geo=earth after all), but an all pervasive undefined presence of the time dimension in timespace. but
Since the BB required energy, and energy or matter, it's alter ego, is supposed to be indestructible, energy too must be fundamental and have existed possibly infinitely.
Does it need to be defined and not a variable geometry"
At least a condition and a possible geometric would need time to exist, so in that sense the expanding sphere of the model universe can expand and move into that future timespace.
Or into a as yet non-existing "permittive condition."
Dirac, Penrose and Write4U,others require in their theories a pre- BB condition of the past.
Nebel proposes that this condition, timespace or energytime to exist even now outside the universe, into the infinite future.
Well, it's either the Wholeness is finite or infinite.
[qute]The future time we are moving into is possibly still as energetic as the past time we came from. so:
et or energytime always before spacetime.[/QUOTE] Time does not exist in the future except as a potential of a Permittive condtion, IMO.

Time does not exist in the future except as a potential of a Permittive condtion, IMO.

Your position is well stated, and there is where we have parted ways.
In the illustration of your' in post# 3, we have the time x axis accommodating the expanding universe, moving to the right in time[space]. I am suggesting that there is not only this short axis, but that the universe, (in #3's case a sausage) is embedded totally in the first dimension, infinite time, the dark room in that picture; the x axis potentially reaching to infinity, left and right, past and future, even top to bottom, left and right.
If the viewers care to read Dirac, Penrose, The New Scientist article above, they would realise that mainstream science never totally ruled out the existence of some form of zero-sum energy, and therefore time content of the past, the pre BB realm.
An infinite Cosmos could not have been drained of that potential by concentrating just part of that pipe* energy into the BB point in timespace to get our spacetime ball rolling and expanding, --or the sausage model growing to the right for that matter, writing history.
Once you accept the possibility, inevitability even,-- of infinite energytime or timespace, all is clear to deal with the local issues. spacetime, teatime..... imho. or?
*possible infinite primordial energy or pre-mondial, french for before the world (monde)

Last edited:
Or into a as yet non-existing "permittive condition."

I suggest that the condition was not non existent before the BB, and is existing still, even into infinity right now, as we move into more time[space]
The appearance of our expanding spacetime universe has not changed the overall cosmic timespace, energytime picture. imho. or?

If the universe is finite, it must have an associated geometry.

in the models, sausage and sphere, we are not considering the geometry of the casing/membrane only , but the realm of the permittive condition, the alleged energytime and timespace, pipe . so:
The esoteric geometrics, the dark room of Post#3, I leave to better, more fertile minds.

I suggest that the condition was not non existent before the BB, and is existing still, even into infinity right now, as we move into more time[space]
The appearance of our expanding spacetime universe has not changed the overall cosmic timespace, energytime picture. imho. or?
a non-existent purely permittive condition with no intrinsic spatial or temporal existence.
Just permittive, i.e. non-restrictive to expansion of our universe, creating space and time.

a non-existent purely permittive condition with no intrinsic spatial or temporal existence.
Just permittive, i.e. non-restrictive to expansion of our universe, creating space and time.

I agree, the space in which we live needed to come into existence, and it has a duration., not so for time.
The time has come to recognize that time is fundamental. even a condition, a potential, a possibility to be valid needs time to exist in or?