Professor Sean Carroll on Why there is Something...

[polymath257]

As far as I can tell, the "Quantum Eternity Theorem" that Dr. Carroll references is found in David Griffith's Quantum Mechanics:

Some care is needed here. For example, the Schrodinger equation is not a relativistic equation and we know relativity has to be taken into account at some point.

And, in fact, the Dirac equation, which is the relativistic analogy of the Schrodinger equation is *much* more subtle to work with an interthis is the essence of quantum electrodynamics). In particular, the 'conservation of probability' as stated above is simply false for the simple reason that particle/anti-particle pairs can and do spontaneously form.

Another wrinkle is that even the Dirac equation isn't the full answer because it doesn't take *general* relativity into account. And even in classical GR, there are issues even *defining* things like conservation of energy.

Don't expect a book at the level of Griffith's to be able to handle the question of why something exists rather than nothing.

---

Ooooh...he even has a paper!

Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?

And the answer: it's just a 'brute fact'.

[Jehanne]

As far as I can tell, the "Quantum Eternity Theorem" that Dr. Carroll references is found in David Griffith's Quantum Mechanics:

Some care is needed here. For example, the Schrodinger equation is not a relativistic equation and we know relativity has to be taken into account at some point.

And, in fact, the Dirac equation, which is the relativistic analogy of the Schrodinger equation is *much* more subtle to work with an interthis is the essence of quantum electrodynamics). In particular, the 'conservation of probability' as stated above is simply false for the simple reason that particle/anti-particle pairs can and do spontaneously form.

Another wrinkle is that even the Dirac equation isn't the full answer because it doesn't take *general* relativity into account. And even in classical GR, there are issues even *defining* things like conservation of energy.

Don't expect a book at the level of Griffith's to be able to handle the question of why something exists rather than nothing.

---

Ooooh...he even has a paper!

Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing?

And the answer: it's just a 'brute fact'.

Dr. Carroll is, of course, a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology.  Email him and tell him to start using the Dirac equation instead of Schrodinger's.  I believe that he, in his podcast, does state his reasons for that, though!

[LadyForCamus]

....rather than Nothing:

Professor Sean Carroll -- Episode 9: Solo — Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing?


It's a good podcast, although, Dr. Carroll asks for money up front; kind of tacky in my opinion, but after that, very informative.  He considers "God" as a cause of the Universe to be "reasonable"; but, I suppose that some God perhaps, but not necessarily the Judaeo-Christian one.

Listening to this now. Thanks for sharing!

[Jehanne]

And, some more from Dr. Carroll on the Schrödinger equation:

I blame society. Or, more accurately, I blame how we teach quantum mechanics. Not that the standard treatment of the Schrödinger equation is fundamentally wrong (as other aspects of how we teach QM are), but that it’s incomplete. And sometimes people get brief introductions to things like the Dirac equation or the Klein-Gordon equation, and come away with the impression that they are somehow relativistic replacements for the Schrödinger equation, which they certainly are not. Dirac et al. may have originally wondered whether they were, but these days we certainly know better.

You Should Love (or at least respect) the Schrödinger Equation