Space vs Energy: Can Volume Exist Without Energy?

[Chronos]

I have to say it. that is one helluva profound question. space may itself require some kind of energy in order to exist.
there may be no such thing as an absolute, inert, space which can exist in a purely static way

and if space arises dynamically---that means it involves energy

this question you asked is confusing to think about----maybe I am going about it wrong----maybe you meant to ask something very simple


However I think the question has to be addressed in the context of some theoretical framework that gives a little bit more definition to the ideas of energy and volume.

In Gen Rel, space is the gravitational field and the gravitational field is what gives meaning to things like areas and volumes.
if the field is zero in some region, then that region could not have any volume

You may find these interesting
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405012
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0312040

 

[force5]

I think you get my meaning

I have to say it. that is one helluva profound question. space may itself require some kind of energy in order to exist.
there may be no such thing as an absolute, inert, space which can exist in a purely static way

and if space arises dynamically---that means it involves energy

this question you asked is confusing to think about----maybe I am going about it wrong----maybe you meant to ask something very simple


However I think the question has to be addressed in the context of some theoretical framework that gives a little bit more definition to the ideas of energy and volume.

In Gen Rel, space is the gravitational field and the gravitational field is what gives meaning to things like areas and volumes.
if the field is zero in some region, then that region could not have any volume

I have noticed many contradictions in a lot of material I've read over the years and I have not found a consensus that supports a particular position. It seems to me that conceptual thinking would require a definite position on this matter. Personally, I've had problems dating back to the early 60's in viewing vacuum space as a volume of "nothing" as was the mainstream thinking at that time and may still be today? Which was my reason for asking the question here.

In any case, I believe one may view everything as matter or everything as a wave function and complications only arise when you try to formulate one general description using both.

Thanks for the help guys(gals).