The idea that galaxy groups are separating because they are being carried along by expanding space allows for a horizon beyond which we would never be able to see, because light from beyond it will never reach us. Would the same thing happen if the galaxy groups were moving through space, or would no such permanent horizon be able to arise, because relative speeds through space can never reach "c"?
I don’t really know. This isn’t something that I am even close to reconciling.
For instance, when we adjust our telescope magnification to see near the horizon regardless of the direction that we choose, we see a lot of quasars. The problem isn’t that we “see” a horizon; it’s what we see near the horizon. If you apply a lot of common sense, it’s easy to think of quasars as the birth of galaxies. However, to me, quasars also look a lot like what I would envision the “death” of galaxies to be like and I don’t think that this possibility can be ruled out 100%. Like everyone else, I have no choice but to lean towards birth mainly because of the homogeneity (consistency) that existed billions of years ago.
I would like to run a mind experiment: Let’s take the current viewpoint (consensus) of the universe’s evolution except; let’s keep track of one elemental particle… an electron. And out of all the electrons in the universe, I choose the one that is orbiting within a carbon atom at the tip of your nose.
~13.7 billion years ago the Big Bang is initiated and our electron doesn’t exist. Sometime between 1 millionth of a second later and 1 second later our electron comes into being, congealed out of pure energy.
Sometime between 3 seconds and 300,000 years later, our electron is captured by a proton/neutron combination’s strong force and is now part of a stable hydrogen atom. This atom is a part of hydrogen plasma soup.
Sometime between 300,000 years and 300,000,000 years this atom finds itself as a constituent of a star. The star resides in a proto-galaxy which will congeal into a quasar and then into a distinct galaxy that will later be known as the Milky Way. Sometime within this time frame the universe begins to glow with visible light. Later on, I will be referring to this time frame and the visible light.
Sometime between 300M years and 5B years the star is ready to go supernova and our electron finds itself fusing into a heavier carbon atom. The star goes supernova and spews mostly light elements and a tiny portion of heavier elements (including our electron).
~9B years after the Big Bang our solar system begins to congeal; the sun reaches critical mass and flashes on. Our electron is a part of a carbon atom that will later congeal into the Earth.
~13.7B after the Big Bang our electron finds itself orbiting within a carbon atom that resides on the tip of Bill S.’ nose.
Now, Bill S., the nose and the electron find themselves behind a rather large telescope and he focuses the telescope so that it can see 13.4B light years distant. He is also looking back 13.4B years ago. This is the point where the universe first became visible. 13.4B years ago a photon began its journey through the universe at the speed of light. 13.4B years later it reflects off of the telescope’s objective and lands on your retina.
I have one simple question: How did the electron beat the photon to this vantage point? How could the electron win the race against an entity that is traveling at 1c? Supposedly, 13.4B years ago the photon and electron were both in the same general locale. Now the electron is behind a telescope receiving photons from the universe’s flash on point. This seems paradoxical to me.
I think that the point I am trying to make is that there is much for me understand before I can hazard a guess about the universe’s horizon.
BTW; I just recieved Stannard's book in the mail.
