I think the universe never had a beginning. could this be right?

Mayumi,

Your belief is expressed by the steady state theory (Supported by Hoyle) that the universe was eternal and unending. That supposition was discredited in 1968. When the beginning was proven to have existed by the discovery of microwave background radiation (Big Bang). Science now believes that there was a beginning. This discovery of a beginning to the Universe has stood test after test for the over 40 years so it's not likely to go away.

You are entitled to your belief but it does go against prevailing scientific thought.

It COULD be possible. A monkey cannot comprehend what our sun is, the fuel of it, etc... Likewise, we don't know if "your" theory is fact. Some things humans CANT comprehend I guess.

There was a theory a long time ago that was very welcomed into the science community, where the universe never had a beginning, nor an end. It was just infinite. Although hardly anybody accepts that fact nowadays.

There is also another theory where the same singularity of a black hole in a parallel universe, could have somehow slipped into another parallel universe(In this case, our universe) and caused a big bang (Not sure if i worded that right, but this is a part of string theory I think)

You're on a good start, someday you may become a theoretical physicist. (:

Just improve on your Grammar, and Spelling. It doesn't make you look that intelligent "Wen u r typing lik this." Not being offensive though of course.

It is possible that the universe never had a beginning. However, the expansion pattern of the universe does suggest everything we are able to observe was once much closer together. Much closer could have been pinpoint (or smaller), the size of a grapefruit or maybe much larger but still fairly small by cosmic standards. The total amount of background radiation (and even disbursal thereof) combined with observable ongoing expansion suggest there was an enormous amount of energy present when the expansion began.

One problem with the the big bang theory is the question of what came 'before" or what caused the big bang? Creationists like to pose these questions but are unable to suggest who/what created the creator. The idea of something from nothing is very counter intuitive but MAY be the case. Brane (membrane) theory offers a possible explanation but does not leave much (if any) room for study beyond mathematical models. Even if we accumulate irrefutable evidence of a big bang (or alternate beginning/lack of beginning) we may be prevented from further study, restricted by the nature of matter and energy.

If the universe never had a beginning, then consider this:

From Earth, we humans can only see so far in space. We see no light coming from several billion light years away. Many scientists think that the universe is much larger that what we see, so this suggests that the light for sources several billion light years away has not had time to reach earth. If the light has not had time to reach earth, then all that light must have not existed several billion years ago.

If the universe never had a beginning, but has always existed then we would be able to see light from every corner of the cosmos. The night sky would outshine everything but the sun itself. But that is not the case, so many scientists assume that our universe had a beginning. Big bang supporters often use this as evidence.

Other evidence: our universe is in fact expanding. Many subatomic particles and known facts about the universe provide strong evidence for the Big Bang, and for a finite universe with a beginning.

M-theory is highly conceptual, humans probably won't prove it for quite awhile. There are many other theories, many suggest that there are other parallel universes existing in other dimensions, and that these universes ocasionally interact. Some visons of the many universes are in the form of bubbles floating around, others resemble a massive sandwich. Anyway, these are all far from being proven.

Unfortunately, the Hoyle/Bondi/Gold model of a steady state universe has no evidence to back it up, whereas the so-called Big Bang Theory (a phrase coined by Hoyle himself, in derision) has ample evidence to suggest it is at least pointing in the right direction. However, if you extend the steady state model to a Multiverse of many universes, it may have some validity. If M Theory is correct, and I suspect it is pointing in the right direction, our Universe began when two 'branes collided in the Multiverse, and unleashed vast energies which we now call the Big Bang. I doubt we will ever prove it experimentally, as this would entail the production of energy on a universal scale, and the idea may only ever be mathematical. However, the maths for the idea are beautifully fitted together, along with those for an 11 dimension M Theory, and may bear out the old adage that the more beautiful and elegant the maths are, the more likely they have some truth in them. As someone said, the truth is out there, and it is the job of people like me to attempt to find it! Incidentally, the Multiverse theory also solves two problems in physics. One is the "something from nothing" problem, and the other is an explanation for the comparative weakness of gravity. If gravity is a force of the Multiverse, and is "shared out" between the various universes, it's total strength may be more comparable with other three forces with which we are familiar

Could be. Prevailing theory has time beginning at the Big Bang, but this is only true if there was neither matter, energy, nor space in the universe prior to the Big Bang. Time, being dependent on the entropy of these things, could not exist without their presence.

Personally I think that there is a limit on the age of the universe. It could be there is a recurring cycle of Big Bang followed by big Crunch.

Well this is one of those questions that no one will really know the answer. Like what came first the chicken or the egg. Depending on the version of the big bang theory is dependent on the begining or not. One theory says that the big bang created the universe and it is ever expanding and will continue to expand for infinite time. But another theory states that the big bang created the universe to grow until a set point then collapse upon itself until another big bang will be created... hope that helped.

You may be right. In fact, scientists have been debating this whole thing for years.

But observations that have been made in the last few decades don't support a universe that has always existed. Cosmic microwave background radiation, studies of the motion of distant galaxies, and all kinds of observations seem to support the Big Bang theory more and more.

But a new theory (M-theory or "membrane" theory) suggests that our universe is just one in a multiverse. The Big Bang was just what created our little universe while the multiverse we are in has always existed.

There are lots of sources to read more about it. Try here:

http://www.weirdwarp.com/2009/06/are-the...

This is frustrating question, because indeed, no one knows for sure. Most people don't like the 2 options currently available: 1. created by the Big Bang and 2. Created by God. Both options are not easy to understand. But since space is expanding (yes, space seems to expand) there had to be a beginning. But the next frustrating thing is, even if the universe would collapse/explode/collapse/explode etc etc, you still keep wondering what ever started this 'thing'. Maybe did space always existed, and only the matter in it is pulsing. Space itself goes along with the matter, but if space has enough of it, the matter has no choice to go with the space. Most people think space is empty. And it is. There might be just one single atom there. But space itself is also an entity. Just as stones are in the pavement, each stone is a peace of space.

In a manner of speaking, I think you're right. BUT, it isn't infinite in age. These sound like a contradiction, but the Universe as a whole is impossible to conceive. When we talk about its limits, I believe they are incomprehensible and anything *but* what we would call rational.

My feeling on the matter really isn't so much whether or not it had a beginning or what that was like, but more that the very concept of a "beginning" may not be applicable at all. Whatever it was, we are as capable of grasping it as an ant is capable of grasping long division.