Re: [asa] Loop Gravity

Briefly -

1) The idea of space-time atoms is has to be understood, I think, a bit loosely. For that matter, calling the smallest bit of a chemical element an "atom" is of course somewhat inaccurate since we've known for well over a century that such entities aren't a-tomos, indivisible.

2) Loop quantum gravity is certainly science. Whether or not it's viable time should tell. AFIK no distinctive predictions of the theory have been confirmed observationally.

3) In scripture there are elements of both continuity and discontinuity between the present creation and the new heavens and earth. Whether or not the continuity is bounce-like is of course another matter. The present state of the universe, with accelerating expansion, doesn't make it look as if we're headed toward a bounce.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: ASA
  Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:32 PM
  Subject: [asa] Loop Gravity

  Scientific American has an interesting article this month on loop gravity (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce). I hadn't heard of "space-time atoms" before.

  Physicists: is this really a viable theory? is it really "science?" The guy who wrote the SciAm article certainly seems to have lots of faith in his theory.
   
  Theology: if something like loop gravity is correct, the universe, at least our universe, did not have an ex nihlo beginning; it was a "bounce" of some sort. What does theology say to that? Will the "new heavens and new earth" be another bounce?

  --
  David W. Opderbeck
  Associate Professor of Law
  Seton Hall University Law School
  Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 19 11:26:07 2008