With due respect, Randy ... depending on your definition of the concept of "space" ... the thought experiment has logical as well and physical inconsistencies. The explanations can be very complicated and technical so bear with me as I attempt a perhaps over simplified response.

First, if space is the absence of anything ... truly "nothing" is the most devoid sense of the concept ... how does one remove it except semantically? There is nothing (literally) to remove. It's an illogical premise.

Second, if one is to imagine the structure of atoms recognizing that they are mostly "space" defined by protons, neutrons and particles of energy spinning around them (I'm keeping it simple here,) then the removal of such "space" would result in a kind of dense matter approaching a "black hole" wouldn't it? ... Your box would not only collapse, it would disappear, and likely create a kind of black hole gravity that would absorb all forms of matter into it from long distances ... Practically speaking, this kind of "Thought experiment" is physically impossible, except as a semantical exercise.

As far as the Big Bang that never happened ... well, therein lies a debate far beyond what we can do here, the theories for which are controversial on whatever side.

I understand that there are likely problems with my experiment, which is one of the reasons I posted it here. I'd be interested in hearing good arguments as to why it is faulty.

As for space being the absence of anything, it seems to me that that may go against current theory, since the Big Bang proposes not that the Universe is expanding into empty space, but that space itself was created by the Big Bang and, is in fact the very thing which is expanding.

I could be completely off base here, of course.

I guess the most accurate thing one could say here is, "I don't know." No one "knows." But there are hypotheses ... the testing of which is problematic ... so what we have are theories and theories are not "truth claims" ... So, I guess, the question is, "what is convincing?" One can only be convinced by the credibility of ones data, if in fact data actually exists. If one has theories in the absence of data ... therein lies the problem ... what you have is opinion. Opinions are like navels; we all have one.

what you are describing is what existed before the big band. a writer for the new york times described it very well. there was no "then" then

The perfect vacuum can not exist according to quantum physics.

The uncertainty principle says the walls of the vacuum will have atoms which are here - or there - or over there. And each possible there included the possibility of being in the vacuum.

Perhaps more direct, there is the vacuum fluctuation. Virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. There is good evidence for this in the Casimir effect.

There are two wide open questions about the energy from this so-called zero point energy. Can it be captured and how much energy is there.

You seem to have a talent for saying things, without actually contributing anything to the discussion. This question is all about opinion and amateur hypothesizing. Do you have an opinion? Or do you just want to continue to be difficult?

Thank you, Randy. I prefer to simply learn from you.