2

I do not know much beyond high school Physics. Thus, I am asking this question from almost layman's perspective:

What, as per the best of our existing knowledge and widely accepted among the scientific community, are the models of creation of the universe, and what is their core argument?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
check123
  • 129

4 Answers4

3

If you mean by world the earth, you can find a fairly good discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

If you mean by world the universe:

The big bang is a singularity, and we can study scientifically only what came out of it. See, e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Thus there is no model of creation of the universe widely accepted among the scientific community.

However, there are various scientific speculations based on physical reasoning, e.g.,
Eternal inflation, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
Extra dimensions, http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html
Big crunch, http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0108187
Cyclic universe, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111098
Big bang particle lattice, http://www.awesomeanimator.com/bigbangstatevector.pdf

Now or in former times widely accepted models for the creation of the universe can be found not in science but in theology, e.g.,
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis
http://www.talkorigins.org
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic%20Editorials/2007/October/Creation%20and%20Evolution%20in%20the%20Holy%20Qur%27an%20By%20Hassan%20El-Najjar.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/creationdays.htm
or mythology, e.g.,
http://dept.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths.html
http://www.desy.de/gna/interpedia/greek_myth/creation.html
http://www.egyptartsite.com/crea.html

Arnold Neumaier
  • 44,880
  • Why should theology and mythology by a better tool to address the question about the very beginning of the universe, than not (yet..!) experimentally verified theoretical ideas or models are? Nobody has proofed that theoretical physicists trying to attack this topic are wrong by default nor is it a sure thing that their ideas definitely can never be shown right some time in the future. If they are allowed to continue their work ... :-/. – Dilaton Oct 25 '12 at 18:21
  • 4
    They are knowledge, according to those who hold or held this view, though not scientific knowledge. As I said, there is no scientific knowledge about the creation of the universe. I had already given a Wikipedia link to the scientific speculations. These might be better or worse than the nonscientific ones, who knows? – Arnold Neumaier Oct 25 '12 at 18:26
  • Also, for the modern nonscientific views, I tried to provide references that, taken together, show the different sides of the debate, so that everyone can make their own judgment. – Arnold Neumaier Oct 25 '12 at 18:30
  • Still, this answer seems to completely refute and condemn what physicists who try to attack such and similar fundamental questions work on (if not fundamental physics as a whole). To me it seems unfair and way too pessimistic. The boundery of what can be addressed by fundamental physics has continuously moved in the past and I expect this process to continue in the future, if it is not prohibited by too short sighted people – Dilaton Oct 25 '12 at 18:33
  • I'll revise my answer once (should I still live then and be active here) some origin theory becomes scientific knowledge rather than scientific speculation. I think it is important to know the dividing line. – Arnold Neumaier Oct 25 '12 at 18:37
  • 2
    Ok, if this answer will look less confrontational and dismissive of fundamental physics and physicists then, I'll remove the downvote I've left as a sign of my strong disagreement too :-) – Dilaton Oct 25 '12 at 18:43
  • 1
    It seems you are projecting your dismissiveness of theology on my writing. My answer doesn't have any taint of dismissiveness. I value theology and believe that God created the world, including the physical laws that govern it. This is why they are intelligible and general - which for me would otherwise be too much of a coincidence in view of all the randomness that is also in the world. – Arnold Neumaier Oct 25 '12 at 19:05
  • 7
    Theology is not something to "turn" to, it's something to "resort" to with embarrassment. Theology doesn't carry any explanatory power. Suppose I asked you how a microwave oven works, and you say "It's magic". You've given me an "answer", but it explains nothing. All the Bronze-age creation stories that we still believe in are the same way: they don't explain anything, and only serve to confuse people and discourage them from seeking a true explanation. – Dmitry Brant Oct 25 '12 at 19:10
  • 2
    I dont dismiss anything, but this answer seems very unbalanced since it characterizes the work of fundamental physicists as garbage compared to mythological or theological approaches. If you could give equally many and serious links to quantum cosmological models who try to address the question, as you have cited for each of the other two approaches this would be fair and balanced. At present, what one can learn from this post is just that you completely reject fundamental physics. – Dilaton Oct 25 '12 at 19:14
  • 3
    And note that the links to the other two approaches are off topic to the question (and to this site too) since the OP explicitely asks about scientific models that deal with this question ... – Dilaton Oct 25 '12 at 19:19
  • @DmitryBrant you sounds offended – SnoopyKid Apr 12 '23 at 03:38
2

The most widely supported theory for the creation of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. It states that the universe was created about 13.7 billion years ago from a singularity (a very, very hot point with an infinitely small volume and infinitely large density) and it has been expanding ever since (so getting less dense and less hot). Click here for a timeline since the Big Bang.

The 4 main arguments supporting this theory are sometimes called the 4 pillars of the Big Bang Theory, click here for an article regarding those core arguments. Also, this video regarding 'Olbers' Paradox' might be of interest to you too, it's actually one of the most blatantly obvious arguments for the Big Bang Theory.

Of course, there are alternate theories, but at the moment this is the most widely supported one.

OmnipresentAbsence
  • 1,311
1

The book about the first three minutes of the universe from Steven Weinberg mentioned in Jerry's comment, I've not yet read but it looks good from afar.

In his inflationary universe Alan Guth explains in a very accessible way the formarly unsolved problems in cosmology and how thinking about them lead him to the idea of inflation. The many personal notes and experiences Alan Guth has included in his book make it a lot of fun to read.

The above two books due not directly explain the absolut beginning of the universe which would probably involve some kind of something-out-of-nothing process. To explain the very beginning of the universe some kind of quantum gravity is certainly needed, as for example explained by Stephen Hawking here (this book is admittedly written in a very cheerful, and some would say over optimistic, tone) or by Martin Bojowald here (these are "lecture notes" but I could not find a popular book about this).

Dilaton
  • 9,503
  • I know this is not a stellar post, but I just felt the need to leave something that sounds more constructive (than what Arnold said, even though I removed my downvote) about the work of physicists that try to tackle such fundamental questions ... – Dilaton Oct 26 '12 at 04:35
-3

There are over 50 billion universes. Our universe has over 50 billion galaxies. In our universe there are hundreds of millions intelligent civilizations. Simply proven by math, and our unique knowledge of existence.

Fuortene
  • 1