Big Bang

[polymath257]

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.

---

Well, even the derivation given only shows that the probability is constant through time. If time itself is finite, then the proof just applies when there is time.
But yes, there are models where time is not finite.
Which is why we just don't know which option is correct. At this point there simply isn't the data to choose between theories with finite time and those with infinite time.