<p>Our (roughly) 13.6 billion light year view to the point of origin (big bang) is just along a radial axis. Assuming most matter ejected in a (roughly) spherical pattern, the diameter of the universe is about 27.2BLY across.</p>
<p>If matter ejected for some period of time at near light speed, our ability to see anything on the other side is impeded by the concept that &quot;most&quot; light from the other side will never reach us, because we have moved away from that event at the same speed, and light from the other side can simply never catch up to us.</p>
<p>That statement is significantly flawed, but I'm not sure where.<br />
At some point I believe mass from the origin slows down through conservation of momentum. If that's the case then as we slow down, the light from the other side should catch up.<br />
But if in an expanding universe, mass/galaxies seem to accelerate away, relative to one another, then the light will never catch up. (Picture the light come here)</p>
<p>So far I've just been discussing stars along a radial axis, from us, across the 13.6BLY expanse, and somewhere off to the other side. But again, expansion was (probably?) (roughly) spherical. So the light I'm talking about can be from some point perpendicular to the origin from our perspective, or any other angle.</p>
<p>To the point: When JWST sees galaxies of unexpected sizes, are we sure we're seeing galaxies that are along our radial axis and between three origin and us?</p>
<p>I know others ask about gravitational lensing. With the above in mind, I'm wondering if we are seeing light that has come from more mature galaxies, light that has gone back to the origin and lensed, and then we're seeing it after, essentially, twice as long as a direct observation.</p>
<p>Let's toss in another concept: multiple lensing. Think of billiard balls that are all extremely reflective - in this case super massive black holes that lense light in different directions of of one another - a cosmological funhouse of mirrors that are relatively close to one another during the first few billion years.</p>
<p>Might we be seeing the light from galaxies that had a fair time to mature, and the light we see from them now has bounced a few billion years from one shiny black holes to another until now that light happens to bed pointing radially in our direction?</p>
<p>Would red shifting occur in that scenario?</p>
<p>EDIT: Related to?
<a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/53761/is-webb-or-any-near-future-telescopes-like-elt-capable-of-observing-redshift-cha">Is Webb or any near-future telescopes like ELT capable of observing redshift changes to confirm General Relativity?</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-23T21:41:18.333Z
This seems to be based on the "expansion of matter from a point in space" misconception.  The language of "ejected in a spherical pattern" seems to indicate that you think it was ejected from somewhere (a "centre" to the universe)   No such centre exists.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-23T21:42:30.710Z
see https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/669/what-is-in-the-center-of-the-universe
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-23T21:56:52.020Z
I've voted to close, as I don't think this is directly answerable.  It isn't a direct duplicate of the linked question, but it assumes something that isn't true: that "radial", "perpendicular" "origin" "spherical pattern" and  "other side"  have any kind of meaning when applied to the expansion of the universe and the big bang. They don't, which makes the question un-answerable.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-24T01:03:23.417Z
I'm using simple terms for visualization. The "origin" is the point of emanation, the singularity. "Sphere" is not intended to mean an actual shape, but whatever odd shape the universe had as it began to expand and continued. The universe didn't expand in one direction. Like a balloon, it expanded in all directions - we have no idea how uniform that shape might have been, but for this discussion, we can visualize it as "spherical". "Perpendicular" was simply an example of an angle relative to our point of reference. Any angle is valid. "Radial" just means the direction we're looking.
TonyG
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-24T01:47:10.247Z
Please see https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/136860/123208 BTW, the observable universe currently has a diameter of ~93.2 billion lightyears, see https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/13752/16685 & links therein, especially https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/63780/123208
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-24T02:46:54.903Z
@Tony.  exactly!  There is no point of emanation. The singularity is not a point in space. And so the entire framing of the question points to a fundamental misconception. The links that PM2ring posted may address this.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-26T21:18:57.543Z
While I do have some formal education in the topic, I lack the ability and desire to debate terms with esteemed authorities - and I say that honestly with no sarcasm. So I have withdrawn the inquiry but leave it and the answers here for others with a similar thought process.
TonyG
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-26T21:21:42.237Z
My fundamental point was that our observations of any object, even local, might be influenced by lensing, where objects that are further away, larger, and more mature, may have their light lensed in such a way that it appears to us to be concurrent with others in the same field of view. Picture a billiard ball (light) on the near side of the table (some vector away) that is hit (lensed) and bounced off the far side (gravitational mass) and then comes back to us - simultaneous with another ball that has not travelled as far. Honestly, I've thought about that and can't justify the theory myself.
TonyG
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-30T00:07:32.533Z
I tried to flag this question as "withdrawn", in respect for the responses received so far. A mod removed my "withdrawn" note. I don't want to delete this question because I think people should be encouraged to asked questions, and to think through concepts with others, because that's what leads to real answers and innovation. Deleting questions related to science suppresses curiosity and the will to speak up to ask questions and propose ideas. If we leave this here as being unanswered, it falls into a category that doesn't accurately reflect what's happening here. I'm at a loss on this one.
TonyG
<general-relativity><big-bang-theory><gravitational-lensing><james-webb-space-telescope>
Does the other side of the Big Bang factor into JWST observations?
TonyG
# Does the other side of the Big Bang factor into JWST observations?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-23)

Our (roughly) 13.6 billion light year view to the point of origin (big bang) is just along a radial axis. Assuming most matter ejected in a (roughly) spherical pattern, the diameter of the universe is about 27.2BLY across.

If matter ejected for some period of time at near light speed, our ability to see anything on the other side is impeded by the concept that "most" light from the other side will never reach us, because we have moved away from that event at the same speed, and light from the other side can simply never catch up to us.

That statement is significantly flawed, but I'm not sure where.  
At some point I believe mass from the origin slows down through conservation of momentum. If that's the case then as we slow down, the light from the other side should catch up.  
But if in an expanding universe, mass/galaxies seem to accelerate away, relative to one another, then the light will never catch up. (Picture the light come here)

So far I've just been discussing stars along a radial axis, from us, across the 13.6BLY expanse, and somewhere off to the other side. But again, expansion was (probably?) (roughly) spherical. So the light I'm talking about can be from some point perpendicular to the origin from our perspective, or any other angle.

To the point: When JWST sees galaxies of unexpected sizes, are we sure we're seeing galaxies that are along our radial axis and between three origin and us?

I know others ask about gravitational lensing. With the above in mind, I'm wondering if we are seeing light that has come from more mature galaxies, light that has gone back to the origin and lensed, and then we're seeing it after, essentially, twice as long as a direct observation.

Let's toss in another concept: multiple lensing. Think of billiard balls that are all extremely reflective - in this case super massive black holes that lense light in different directions of of one another - a cosmological funhouse of mirrors that are relatively close to one another during the first few billion years.

Might we be seeing the light from galaxies that had a fair time to mature, and the light we see from them now has bounced a few billion years from one shiny black holes to another until now that light happens to bed pointing radially in our direction?

Would red shifting occur in that scenario?

EDIT: Related to?
[Is Webb or any near-future telescopes like ELT capable of observing redshift changes to confirm General Relativity?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/53761/is-webb-or-any-near-future-telescopes-like-elt-capable-of-observing-redshift-cha)

**Tags:** general-relativity, big-bang-theory, gravitational-lensing, james-webb-space-telescope

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This seems to be based on the "expansion of matter from a point in space" misconception.  The language of "ejected in a spherical pattern" seems to indicate that you think it was ejected from somewhere (a "centre" to the universe)   No such centre exists.  
> **username_1**: see https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/669/what-is-in-the-center-of-the-universe  
> **username_1**: I've voted to close, as I don't think this is directly answerable.  It isn't a direct duplicate of the linked question, but it assumes something that isn't true: that "radial", "perpendicular" "origin" "spherical pattern" and  "other side"  have any kind of meaning when applied to the expansion of the universe and the big bang. They don't, which makes the question un-answerable.  
> **username_0**: I'm using simple terms for visualization. The "origin" is the point of emanation, the singularity. "Sphere" is not intended to mean an actual shape, but whatever odd shape the universe had as it began to expand and continued. The universe didn't expand in one direction. Like a balloon, it expanded in all directions - we have no idea how uniform that shape might have been, but for this discussion, we can visualize it as "spherical". "Perpendicular" was simply an example of an angle relative to our point of reference. Any angle is valid. "Radial" just means the direction we're looking.  
> **username_2**: Please see https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/136860/123208 BTW, the observable universe currently has a diameter of ~93.2 billion lightyears, see https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/13752/16685 & links therein, especially https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/63780/123208  
> **username_1**: @Tony.  exactly!  There is no point of emanation. The singularity is not a point in space. And so the entire framing of the question points to a fundamental misconception. The links that PM2ring posted may address this.  
> **username_0**: While I do have some formal education in the topic, I lack the ability and desire to debate terms with esteemed authorities - and I say that honestly with no sarcasm. So I have withdrawn the inquiry but leave it and the answers here for others with a similar thought process.  
> **username_0**: My fundamental point was that our observations of any object, even local, might be influenced by lensing, where objects that are further away, larger, and more mature, may have their light lensed in such a way that it appears to us to be concurrent with others in the same field of view. Picture a billiard ball (light) on the near side of the table (some vector away) that is hit (lensed) and bounced off the far side (gravitational mass) and then comes back to us - simultaneous with another ball that has not travelled as far. Honestly, I've thought about that and can't justify the theory myself.  
> **username_0**: I tried to flag this question as "withdrawn", in respect for the responses received so far. A mod removed my "withdrawn" note. I don't want to delete this question because I think people should be encouraged to asked questions, and to think through concepts with others, because that's what leads to real answers and innovation. Deleting questions related to science suppresses curiosity and the will to speak up to ask questions and propose ideas. If we leave this here as being unanswered, it falls into a category that doesn't accurately reflect what's happening here. I'm at a loss on this one.  

---

## 0 answers

