Space vs Energy: Can Volume Exist Without Energy?

[Nereid]

GR rules, OK?

The inspiring (depressing?) thing about good ol' Uncle Al is that the ever-growing body of experimental results continues to be consistent with GR! Or, saying the same thing in another way, the domain in which GR and QM will clearly show their mutual inconsistency remains beyond that which we can (and are likely to be able to) probe.

 

[Chronos]

The inspiring (depressing?) thing about good ol' Uncle Al is that the ever-growing body of experimental results continues to be consistent with GR! Or, saying the same thing in another way, the domain in which GR and QM will clearly show their mutual inconsistency remains beyond that which we can (and are likely to be able to) probe.

Frustrating, is it not? I often wonder how big the mountain must be before even the Sherpa's question the possibility of conquering a new peak.

 

[Chronos]

That last paper may be "a bit off subject" but it is apropriate. Pseudo-scientists like William Dembski love manipulating information theory to "prove" Creationism - leave it to Davies to provide a cogent retort.

Appropriate to what? Mike2 asked for some information relevant to his questions. I missed the part where anyone brought up 'creationism' as an issue.

 

[turbo]

Appropriate to what? Mike2 asked for some information relevant to his questions. I missed the part where anyone brought up 'creationism' as an issue.

Appropriate in the sense that information theory (which was being discussed) is used to "prove" lif is emergent. Information theory is the tool of choice for Dembski, and to make it work for him, he puts some interesting constrants on what can be construed as information. Davies used the same tool with entirely different results, to "prove" life is emergent. If you Google "conservation of information" you will see some interesting links, and you will see why I emphasized the importance of defining "information".

 

[Chronos]

I assume that every physical structure can be described mathematically with equations. And it would seem that there is a procedure for extracting the information in a function. Normally, information is calculated for probability distributions with an integral functional. So I suppose that the same technique could be used on any function as long as it were possible to normalize it by dividing it by the average. This means that the functions involved would have to be well behaved, not going to infinity, or at least integrable if they do. And I think this is true for any formulas of physics. Is this right?

What is remarkable about this hypothesis is that it may predict the "existence" of quantum mechanical alternatives so that the choice of some structure would equal the inherent information of that structure. Could it be any other way? Can you say that some structure has inherent information value without also saying that this mean that there must have been alternatives somewhere to chose it from? Is this a kind of extrinsic information equals intrinsic information law? Isn't information equal to information no matter how you look at it?

Do you know if there is any book about all this?

Use of information theory in quantum physics is surprisingly sophisticated. There are, of course, some inherent difficulties, but, less so than you might imagine. I don't know of any books, offhand, but there sure are some good papers. I have a couple more links that might be closer to the heart of your questions. Here is a old one.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610075
Here is a more recent submission
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306081
Here is one I am particularly fond of
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160

 

[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).