How can energy&matter be different than space&time if they cannot be described to exist independently?

Question

Does the description of space&time become irrelevant without the description of energy&matter and vice versa? If they can't exist independently from each other then I'm finding it hard to understand the definition of space&time not being the definition of what energy&matter is and does?

Is energy&matter the space&time it occupies? I understand that an area of space cannot have an ambient energy = 0 or the complete absence of all energy&matter due to its need for both a barrier and shape. So is space&time just a conceptually moving grid to understand and describe energy&matter?

What form does space&time take without the form of energy&matter.....I've just never heard of being able independently examine and dissect space&time away from the relevant energy&matter therefore causing this little essay.

These could be the dumbest questions in the world but i really hope for a couple of serious answers. Thanks.

P

Answer 1

Here is how www.dictionary.com defines those four words:

Energy: The capacity for work or vigorous activity; vigor; power.

Matter: Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical substance, or the universe as a whole.

Time: A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.

Space: (b) The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists

Im not sure if youre pushing some type of yin yang thing but it sounds like you are.

Heres the practical realistic intelligent not making something of something that is not answer.

matter cannot exist without space and time. but space and time can exist without matter.

energy cannot exist without space, time, and matter. but space, time, and matter can exist without energy.

Answer 2

The answer to "So is space&time just a conceptually moving grid to understand and describe energy&matter?" is, more or less, yes. It depends on your interpretation, which has little to do with physics, per se. For example, if you only had a sense of hearing (no touch, sight, etc.), one could think of a bell as a conceptual abstraction constructed to understand the nuances of the sound you've been hearing lately. More generally, what's normally refered to as "physical reality" itself may be interpreted as an abstract construct to explain our observations. It depends on what you want to consider "real". This sort of reasoning is called metaphysics, and is the study of philosophers. Physics does not address these issues. That said, mass-energy is an excited state (harmonic, so to speak) perturbing the particular vacuum solution to our particular universe. There may be others, just as there may be other bells. Spacetime/bells can exist without matter/ringing, except for the lowest energy state you pointed out (bells have a minimum phonon occupancy too). But, not visa versa; there is no ringing without the bell.

Answer 3

you at the prompt are not expertise the Bible. In Gen. it tells us that Jesus were given to be the Christ because he replaced into the purely angel that had by no skill sinned! I have lengthy gone via my New testomony and counted over 550 places that state that Jesus isn't God! Like the position Jesus suggested: Why do you call me "sturdy"? i'm not sturdy. purely God is sturdy.". "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and ability, and how he went round doing sturdy and therapeutic all who were lower than the flexibility of the devil, because God replaced into WITH him." "...you've by no skill heard his voice nor considered his style,...". "For the very artwork that the daddy has given me to end, and which i'm doing, testifies that the daddy has despatched me." it really is great to obey the Bible, not lazy people own needs and desires.