Big Bang

[Jehanne]

Hi Polymath,

We've been through this before:

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...-equation/

QFT did not "replace" QM.

But, as your link shows, the Schrodinger equation needed to go beyond the single particle non-relativistic equation is different than the one in Griffiths. In fact, the appropriate equation is usually derived from the Lagrangian formulation and can be put into the Schrodinger form, but the standard Schrodinger equation is the non-relativistic version of things (although it can be multi-particle---which the one in Griffiths is not).

Is not this the Quantum Eternity Theorem that Professor Sean Carroll is speaking of, or, at least a simplified version of it?  I admit that I am no expert, but as I read Professor Griffiths, the central concept is one of renormalization, which, as you seem to acknowledge, implies that the Cosmos is eternal, that is, without beginning or end.

In any case, even if I am reading things wrong here, there are still eternal models of cosmology (infinite universes, in space and time), in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

---

That the Earth is curved is an absolute fact.  Ditto for the expansion of the Universe.

Quantify “absolute”.

A foundational fact of reality; if not true, then Last Thursdayism is a viable hypothesis.