Cosmogony
Cosmogony is not merely the study of the origins of celestial objects (and is not at all about solar system creation), but the branch of astrophysics that studies the origins and structure of the universe at large.
It is not commonly used to refer to the study of the origin of the solar system, but, similar to Cosmology, studies the origins of the grand universe itself, on both a microscopic (quantum cosmological) and macroscopic (relativistic) scale, but at the beginning of time (usually denoted t=0) (cosmology studies the Universe at large, throughout its existence). It only peripherally addresses development of the Universe through the Planck era (t=10^-43 sec), and sticks to the Beginning itself, hence where one finds it bucking up against philosophy and theistic belief systems, causing paradoxes (three main ones), for which science may still hold some answers.
One can apply the current understanding of grand unified theories (GUTs) -- both quasi-classical (such as general relativity) and modern (such as quantum, superstring, and M- theories) – in thought experiments to these three primary cosmogonic paradoxes. While the resultant inconsistencies may obfuscate mankind’s ability to classically reason out the conditions found at t=0 without theistic intervention, these paradoxes can nonetheless be rationally metted out utilizing the subatomic applications of quantum cosmology, particularly through the employment of the Schroedinger wave equations.
Current GUTs (Grand Unified Theories), in the light of their application are beginning to resolve inconsistencies in some cases. The Paradoxes themselves (aesthetically best defined by the likes of Kierkegard, Wilde, and Liebnitz) which befuddle classical cosmogonies are (1) reconciling a doctrine of causation (similar to the 13th century proof of God posed by Thomas Aquinas); (2) reconciling the law of conservation (“something for nothing”); and (3) reconciling issues of temporal (as in Zeno’s paradox) and logical regression. 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 turf – in many ways planting seeds for harmonizing a holistic system of science and belief. This reconciliation can go a step further and apply quantum “fuzziness” to describe quantum application to cosmology (per the Wheeler-DeWitt application of subatomic position and momentum equations to universal radius and expansion), and thereafter avoid incalculable issues such as boundary issues, as surmounted with the Hawking-Hartle Wave Function. We will also see the compatibility with superstrings and M-/Brane Theories owing to their quantum-like effects. We will find that the most challenging paradox will be to atone for is logical regression, and whether the current “design” of the universe is a matter of phase transitions, chance (statistics), or another underlying, unknown system of logic. Even superstrings and M-Brane Theories are not “special” in that we may still ask the question, “but why was that particular geometry chosen?”
Irrespective of the ability to achieve an understanding of t=0, scientific advance will move onward to seek understanding of increasingly higher states, and in so doing approach the theistic territory of belief systems.
