Solar System
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 20:43, 17 April 2012 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 20:44, 17 April 2012 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | |||
| - | '''Cosmogony''', or '''cosmogeny''', is any [[theory]] concerning the coming into [[existence]] or origin of the [[universe]], or about how [[reality]] came to be. The word comes from the Greek ''κοσμογονία'' (or ''κοσμογενία''), from ''κόσμος'' "cosmos, the world", and the root of ''γί(γ)νομαι / γέγονα'' "to be born, come about". In the specialized context of [[space science]] and [[astronomy]], the term refers to theories of creation of (and study of) the [[Solar System]]. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Cosmogony can be distinguished from [[cosmology]], which studies the universe at large and throughout its existence, and which technically does not inquire directly into the source of its origins. There is some ambiguity between the two terms, for example, the [[cosmological argument]] from [[theology]] regarding the existence of [[God]] is technically an appeal to cosmogonical rather than cosmological ideas. In practice, there is a [[science|scientific]] distinction between cosmological and cosmogonical ideas. [[Physical cosmology]] is the science that attempts to explain all [[observation]]s relevant to the development and characteristics of the universe as a whole. Questions regarding why the universe behaves in such a way have been described by physicists and cosmologists as being extra-[[Scientific method|scientific]], though [[speculation]]s are made from a variety of perspectives which include [[extrapolation]] of scientific theories to untested regimes and [[philosophical]] or [[religious]] ideas. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Attempts to create a [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] cosmogony are subject to two separate limitations. One is based in the [[philosophy of science]] and the [[epistemology|epistemological]] constraints of science itself, especially with regards to whether [[scientific method|scientific inquiry]] can ask questions of "why" the universe exists. Another more [[pragmatism|pragmatic]] problem is that there is [[unsolved problems in physics|no physical model]] which can explain the earliest moments of the universe's existence ([[Planck time]]) because of a lack of a consistent theory of [[quantum gravity]]. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==Epistemological limitations to cosmogony== | ||
| - | The assumptions of [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalism]] that underlie the [[scientific method]] have led some scientists, especially [[observation|observationalist]]s, to question whether the ultimate reason or source for the universe to exist can be answered in a scientific fashion. In particular, the [[principle of sufficient reason]] seems to indicate that there should be such an explanation, but whether a satisfactory explanation can be obtained through scientific inquiry is debatable. A scientific examination of cosmogony using existing physical models would face many challenges. For example, equations used to develop models of the origin do not in themselves explain how the conditions of the universe that the equations model came to be in the first place. | ||
| - | |||
| - | [[Theism|Theistic]] explanations for origins indicate one or more [[deity|supernatural beings]] as the [[first cause|explanation]], though [[atheism|atheist]] commentators often point to this as an [[argument from ignorance]] or a [[God of the gaps]] fallacy, and that such an assumption provides no explanation for existence of the deity. [[Nondual]] explanations by contrast state that the very question is misleading, since it contains erroneous assumptions of beginnings, endings and the nature of existence itself, and consider the visible universe as [[phenomenology]]. | ||
| - | |||
| - | As a result of this, scientific cosmogonies are sometimes supplemented by reference to [[metaphysics|metaphysical]] and [[theism|theistic]] belief systems. The problem can be summarized as three classical [[paradox]]es. These paradoxes (discussed by both [[Kierkegaard]] and [[Leibniz]]) are: | ||
| - | |||
| - | #reconciling a doctrine of [[Causality|causation]] (similar to the 13th century proof of God posed by [[Thomas Aquinas]]); | ||
| - | #reconciling the [[conservation law]] ("something from nothing"); | ||
| - | #reconciling issues of [[temporal regression|temporal]] (as in [[Zeno's paradoxes]]) and [[logical regression]]. | ||
| - | |||
| - | However, some of the metaphysical principles used to formulate these classical paradoxes no longer enjoy an unchallenged status as laws of thought. For instance, [[quantum mechanics]] gives an independent motivation to challenge the [[principle of sufficient reason]]. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==Planck time limitations to cosmogony== | ||
| - | {{off-topic-other|Quantum cosmology}} | ||
| - | |||
| - | [[Planck time]] (10<sup>-43</sup>s) is the time it would take a [[photon]] travelling at the speed of [[light]] to cross a distance equal to the [[Planck length]]. It has been proposed that this may be the hypothetical "[[quantum]] of time", the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, although in current physics theory time is not quantized. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Although the laws of physics lose experimental support at the Planck time, modern [[Scientific method|science]] has sought to clarify the nature of these paradoxes, so far with only limited success. For example, one can apply the current understanding of [[grand unified theories]] (GUTs){{ndash}} both quasi-classical (such as [[general relativity]]) and modern (such as [[quantum gravity]], [[superstring]], and [[M-theories]]){{ndash}} to these three primary cosmogonic paradoxes in [[thought experiment]]s. While these result in some contradictions and lack completeness in a mathematical sense (being based on axioms that are 'merely' self-evident, but not robust under the stresses of radical scepticism) these paradoxes can nonetheless be analyzed rationally using the subatomic applications of [[quantum cosmology]], particularly through the employment of the [[Schrödinger]] [[wave equation]]s. | ||
| - | |||
| - | In each case, where [[general relativity]] fails as the curvature of space-time invokes singularities from its equations at t=0, the statistically "grey" nature of [[quantum cosmology]] tends to allow a scientific rationale to account for each paradox, and in so doing allows for a scientific perspective on previously theistic terrain. For example, application of quantum "fuzziness" (per the Wheeler-DeWitt application of subatomic position and momentum equations to universal radius and expansion) avoids boundary issues, as developed in the [[Hawking-Hartle Wave Function]]. | ||
| - | |||
| - | All such equations are based on [[differential]]s, which assume a [[continuum]], where in our universe, affected by the Planck length and other [[discrete mathematics|minimum scales]], this continuum has only limited meaning, about which philosophy remains in a state of semantic flux. | ||
| - | |||
| - | ==The become-into-being of the universe in science fiction== | ||
| - | |||
| - | ===Books=== | ||
| - | |||
| - | * In [[David Brin]]'s book "[[Earth (novel)|Earth]]" it is suggested by a scientist, that in the moment of the collapse of an experimentally created [[black hole]], it separates itself from this universe (like the separation of a child from its mother) taking with it all consumed energy which lies behind the event horizon. In his speculation the implosion of a [[Gravitational singularity|singularity]] in this universe is followed by an explosion/expansion of a singularity in the child-universe, which then became independent of ours. Of course this causes an energetic underpressure with every collapse of a [[black hole]], finally making this universe disappear when the last singularity implodes. It can be interpreted as a variant of the [[oscillatory universe]] theory. | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| - | * [[Cosmology]] | + | * [[Astronomical symbols]] |
| - | * [[Emanationism]] | + | * [[List of geological features of the Solar System]] |
| - | * [[Esoteric cosmology]] | + | * [[Numerical model of the Solar System]] |
| - | * [[Eschatology]] | + | * [[Orrery]], mechanical models of Solar System |
| - | * [[Existence]] | + | * [[Planetary mnemonic]] |
| - | * [[cosmology (metaphysics)|Metaphysical cosmology]] | + | * [[Solar System in fiction]] |
| - | * [[Religious cosmology]] | + | * [[Solar System model]] |
| - | * [[Ultimate fate of the Universe]] | + | |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Revision as of 20:44, 17 April 2012
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
See also
- Astronomical symbols
- List of geological features of the Solar System
- Numerical model of the Solar System
- Orrery, mechanical models of Solar System
- Planetary mnemonic
- Solar System in fiction
- Solar System model
Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Solar System" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.
