Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

Even if the universe requires a cause, so what? Why can't that cause be natural?

I have posted this before on this board, but, I suppose that it deserves repeating:



A similar proof seems to be in Griffiths (although, Professor Griffiths would likely not approve of this!):

Yes, in QM, we usually allow t to go from -infty to +infty.  There are several issues with that, though.

1. It is typical in physics to have both space and time infinite to simplify the calculations. It is recognized that this is an approximation that needs to be addressed at the appropriate (usually in cosmology). Since most quantum processes are very fast, even a second can often be modeled as an infinite amount of time.

2. The second panel says NOTHING about time going from -infty to +infty. The limits on the integrals are over an infinite *space* not an infinite time. I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with 'eternal time'.

3. We *know* that general relativity needs to be addressed at some point. And GR predicts a *finite* time duration. The problem is that GR is a classical theory, so what we *really* need is a theory of quantum gravity. Neither of your panels contain anything close to such. At best they are an approximation for flat spacetime.

General recommendation: don't post stuff that you don't understand as part of an argument you are trying to make.

---

Does that physics stuff violate "Feynman's law" ("if you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM") in your opinion, Jehanne? I'm crap at physics so can't make head nor tail of it...

Both are pretty standard QM. Griffiths is an *undergraduate* book. It's at the level of 'shut up and calculate'.