Talk:Cosmogony

Reference to Zeus and Jupiter appropriate?

This comment is in the mythology section of the article: "For instance, the ruler of the gods in Greek mythology, Zeus, is similar to the ruler of the gods in Roman mythology, Jupiter."

While it may be accurate, I think it should be asked if it is appropriate for an example as it may lead the reader to think Zeus and Jupiter had more of a role in their respective cosmogonies then was actually believed or taught. In other words, it may perpetuate the trope that the ruler-god was also the creator when that wasn't necessarly the case in these mythologies.( I think). Did Zeus have any role in Greek cosmogony? 68.114.225.218 (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Definition of article topic

Seem like this article is about two different things.

• cosmogony The study of the origin and development of particular objects and systems in the Universe. It is sometimes used for the formation of galaxies and stars, but is more usually taken to refer specifically to the origin of the Solar System.
  • Ridpath, Ian (2012). A Dictionary of Astronomy. Oxford University Press.
• Cosmogony is a term which admits some ambiguity or, at least, flexibility. One dictionary definition states 'a theory of the creation of the Universe' while another, more parochially, says 'a theory of the world's origin and growth'. A large collection of definitions fall between these two extremes but the most common feature they possess is the phrase 'the origin of the solar system'. Here we shall be concerned with the origin of planetary systems ...
  • Woolfson, Michael Mark (1979). "Cosmogony Today". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 20 (2): 97–114. Bibcode:1979QJRAS..20...97W.

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The Google ngram viewer shows cosmogony being widely used in the 1800s before modern cosmology existed and cosmogenesis appears after 1950. "Cosmogeny" is rare according to this service. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I added a section called "Types" to discuss these different meanings. A different approach would be to assert that this article would only be about modern (speculative) scientific models and use hatnotes to direct readers to the other types.

@ReyHahn Thoughts? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I have always had a problem with this article. For me it is clear, cosmogony is a term used in mythology and art, while cosmogenesis is modern term for scientific theories. If this is about scientific study, cosmogenesis is better; if the article is about any kind of origin of the universe, cosmogony still fits. If this is about both, then maybe origin of the universe may work better.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, we agree on this point of view. I propose:

1. convert the redirect Cosmogenesis into an article on the modern ideas derived from cosmology,
2. convert this cosmogony article in to an overview that summarizes the various Types, leaving the details to the leaves.
3. don't change origin of the universe, still points to the overview.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I think I missed this comment. We may need to move this article the current article to origin of the universe. If you have time and effort to spare make an article on cosmogenesis.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hah, I was hoping you would be interested ;-)

I believe that both cosmogenesis and early cosmological particle physics has been somewhat sidelined by the success of inflation and no follow up to LHC. The topics seem to have a lot of unresolvable conjecture and few good reviews. I'll try to add a bit to this article and maybe come back at a later date. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

If you work out the new article I might help a bit.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this Origins of the Universe section by Christopher Smeenk and George Ellis is compact overview that gives a good starting point for a section (or later article). While its viewpoint is philosophy of science, it is set in the context of standard cosmological models nicely frames the initial state, singularity theorems, and inflation. A summary would connect the dots and provide for future build out. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I added a first self-contained section based on this proposal. Still need something about fine tuning and eternal inflation/multiverse. Also a couple of refs for sentence that were not part of Smeenk are missing. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You can see that the article was thought more in the cosmogony direction when it compares humanistic cosmogony with cosmology.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

At some point before time zero, the density exceeds the validity of general relativity.

In "Initial singularity" heading, a sentence is ambiguous. Perhaps better wording would be "At some point between now and time zero", because "before time zero" could also refer to time when universe had negative age, i.e. before the big bang. ~2025-35101-29 (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Johnjbarton (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)