Dear Julie and David
I would like to let you know that I have read your essay which I enjoyed very much and found it very interesting. I hope you have read my previous essay where I discuss about the principle of causality and the fundamental notions of space and time. As you notice in your essay, the principle sufficient reason may lead to an infinite regression if one does not set a minimum limit. In this respect I agree with your view. As I understood the introduction of the energeum is aim at trying to explain dark energy and the apparently violation to the energy conservation principle. My proposal assumes however that the vacuum is some sort of material fluid and this simple postulate suffices (as the theory of C. Christov shows, see below) to explain most physical phenomena without the need of introducing a new concept. In order to introduce you into my context, I shall mention the following:
Physicists have some problems that demand a solution. These problems are understood within the context of the prevailing theoretical framework (TF) which is founded on a certain number of assumptions. If one replaces the fundamental assumptions, one is replacing, partially or totally, the TF. When this occurs we have another TF in which the physical phenomena may acquire a completely different physical meaning. An example that comes to my mind is the explanation of gravity: first, a la Newton as a force and then, a la Einstein, as the curvature of space-time. So if I chose a radical TF, current problems may look radically different. After analyzing the history of the foundations of physics I found that there is one consideration that was pivotal in leading physics to its present state: the rejection of the luminiferous aether. Evidently by doing this, we are depriving any future theory of the conception that space is a material medium and that, for instance, an EM field or a particle (actually a soliton) is a state and manifestation of this medium. The notion of aether was replaced by geometry (Minkowski or Riemann space-time). So according to relativity, space is modeled as a geometrical vessel filled with ordinary matter and fields (gauge, EM, etc.). This view, although very productive in its time, has led physics to the present state: Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, horizon and flatness problems, CMBR, wave-particle duality, etc. All these issues are the result of modeling space as a manifold, as a totally empty background.
After several attempts to unify GR and QM many people wonder which of these theories is fundamentally incorrect. If we reconsider the assumption that space is a massive fluid with an internal structure (viscosity, elasticity, etc.), the medium for EM fields (that is, the opposite view to relativity) we have a radical and different TF in which the problems of the prevailing TF look completely different. In some cases (such as dark energy, dark matter, expansion of the universe) the problems do not even exist.
There is a well developed theory that I am supporting [C.I. Christov, Nonlinear Analysis 71 (2009) e2028e2044 and C. I. Christov, Math. Comput. Simul. 80 91101 (2009)] in alignment with the assumption that space is a material fluid (liquid or solid). This simple assumption suffices to explain most physical phenomena (IMO, this is the right theory). This theory is in need of further improvements and experimental verification. But, as I explained above, this view is radical and in opposition to the customary view. Despite this, I found it consistent and in agreement not only with the body of evidence but with intuition too. So, since I have found a consistent TF, for the future my task, as a physicists, is to show that this is the right approach.
The theory of a fluid space (actually is a four-dimensional space) has some drastic consequences. It implies, for instance, that there is no Big Bang, no expansion of the universe, no dark matter and no dark energy. From this TF these phenomena are fictitious.
Finally, I want to thank you for supporting my work and for your interest in continuing the discussion beyond this forum. I would be happy to discuss any topic you may be interested in. Surely, your work is worth of consideration and deserves a good score.
I wish you good luck in the contest!
Israel