Robbo, as far as this stuff goes I'm just an informed amateur, like you. My background is electrical; I work in the Distribution industry as a high voltage electrical engineer.
From an early age I was fascinated with maths, science and space though. From the age I could send a letter I was conversing with Patrick Moore and writing to Jodrell Bank and the Science Museum for information on all kinds of things.
As I grew older I retain the fascination and read all manner of stuff on cosmology, biology, physics and chemistry.
Regarding the photon, you are correct in that it's intinsic mass is zero. Energy has mass and hence at the high velocity that photon's travel, as electromagnetic radiation, they carry mass as a result of this. That is why it is possible to build such things as solar sails, since light does exert a small force as a result of the mass energy.
The photon is another of those strange things in physics as it only exists at speed. Einstein's insight came from imagining what it would be like to ride a light beam, where he discovered that the speed of light is a constant for EVERY observer, no matter how they are moving. Two observers travelling towards each other at close to c don't see light travelling between them at almost 2c, they see it travelling at c, which means that their measurement of time and space are different to an outside observer; moving clocks run slow and space contracts. This is all handled by Lorenz transformations, which allows one observers measurement of space and time to be converted into another observers frame of reference, making both equally valid.
I've seen your posts on the religious aspect before and they are always well formed and presented. I personally can't subscribe to the notion of an omniscient omnipresent god that exists outside of time and space and is responsible for everything. That brings with it more questions than answers for me.
As far as infinite regression goes, I do see the logic as I see it being a valid question 'if god created everything then who or what created god'. A statement of existing outside of time and space or always having existed just seems a cop out to me.
It comes down to your own internal belief and faith. If someone believes something strongly then it is difficult to impossible to convince them otherwise. Also, who gets to say which is right? We don't have the answer to it either way, only more and more evidence that convinces me of the weirdness of nature and the fact we may never understand how or why we exist at all.
Quantum physics presents many strange things that we simply aren't equipped to understand and visualise intuitively. Wave/Particle duality that interfere with themselves and 'know' whether they've been observed, the creation of particles from nothing, instantaneous transfer of information across distance. It's all fascinating and just goes to show me that the cosmos is not only weirder than we imagine, it is weirder than we CAN EVER imagine.
The only way we come any way to understanding any of it is due to our ability to apply the scientific method to theories. Make predictions and test them. If the prediction holds true then the theory survives. If the prediction fails then the theory needs either amending or discarding. The creation and discovery of high level mathematics provides the only tool for us to probe these strange spaces as we simply can't visualise or understand what happens in the context of our usual everyday experience.
That, to me, is the difference between scientific methods and religious faith. Religious faith does not need any kind of proof, it's all philosophy and arguments of words. Science is confirmed through prediction, experiment and observation. Arguments and statements of words are more down to individual opinion and can bring into play classic paradoxes; i.e 'I am Lying'
As far as creation goes, we simply do not know and it's the search for understanding that makes us human.
The quantum world has shown us that things can come from nothing. Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations show the emergence of particle/antiparticle pairs coming into existence for the smallest units of time. The resultant net energy is zero so conservation doesn't appear to be violated.
However, the Casimir Effect shows that a force can be exerted from this and the question is then whether this can be harnessed to produce any real power. If it can then it would appear to violate conservation. If that does become possible it also opens up the question of whether our universe came from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that was then blown up to macroscopic size.
Then you have the Multiverse option, which can incorporate a mix of other theories.
Another theory is that 'baby universes' are formed when a singularity occurs, such as at the heart of a black hole. Black holes are now known to be common objects in the universe so who knows what that means.
Newer theories put forward that we only perceive 4 of 11 or more dimensions, somewhat akin to being 4 dimensional shadows on walls, or holographic projections, in a higher dimensional reality. The way we now understand the way space and time are interchangeable at high speeds gives some credence to this notion. If high velocity (and hence ) energy can unify what we perceive separately as space and time into a single spacetime entity, and predicted unification of separate forces into different aspects of a single superforce (supersymmetry), then maybe our brains will never be equipped to understand 'reality'.
In the great scheme of things, we are small creatures living in a very narrow spectrum of conditions, at the bottom of a very modest gravity well and at slow speeds and energies. The cosmos is inconceivably huge, with most (interesting) things happening at high velocities and energies, either in the absence of gravity or under high gravity and pressure. I simply don't think we will ever have the raw mental ability to visualise and understand the true underlying reality. Attributing a deity to this doesn't provide a valid answer to me.
With so many theories abounding, maybe one will be true, maybe we'll never know.
Is it any more likely that there is an eternal 'god' over an eternal indifferent inanimate upper dimensional reality, or something that just happened to come into existence from nothing? Who knows?
The fun is in discovery and improvement of what knowledge we do have.
From an early age I was fascinated with maths, science and space though. From the age I could send a letter I was conversing with Patrick Moore and writing to Jodrell Bank and the Science Museum for information on all kinds of things.
As I grew older I retain the fascination and read all manner of stuff on cosmology, biology, physics and chemistry.
Regarding the photon, you are correct in that it's intinsic mass is zero. Energy has mass and hence at the high velocity that photon's travel, as electromagnetic radiation, they carry mass as a result of this. That is why it is possible to build such things as solar sails, since light does exert a small force as a result of the mass energy.
The photon is another of those strange things in physics as it only exists at speed. Einstein's insight came from imagining what it would be like to ride a light beam, where he discovered that the speed of light is a constant for EVERY observer, no matter how they are moving. Two observers travelling towards each other at close to c don't see light travelling between them at almost 2c, they see it travelling at c, which means that their measurement of time and space are different to an outside observer; moving clocks run slow and space contracts. This is all handled by Lorenz transformations, which allows one observers measurement of space and time to be converted into another observers frame of reference, making both equally valid.
I've seen your posts on the religious aspect before and they are always well formed and presented. I personally can't subscribe to the notion of an omniscient omnipresent god that exists outside of time and space and is responsible for everything. That brings with it more questions than answers for me.
As far as infinite regression goes, I do see the logic as I see it being a valid question 'if god created everything then who or what created god'. A statement of existing outside of time and space or always having existed just seems a cop out to me.
It comes down to your own internal belief and faith. If someone believes something strongly then it is difficult to impossible to convince them otherwise. Also, who gets to say which is right? We don't have the answer to it either way, only more and more evidence that convinces me of the weirdness of nature and the fact we may never understand how or why we exist at all.
Quantum physics presents many strange things that we simply aren't equipped to understand and visualise intuitively. Wave/Particle duality that interfere with themselves and 'know' whether they've been observed, the creation of particles from nothing, instantaneous transfer of information across distance. It's all fascinating and just goes to show me that the cosmos is not only weirder than we imagine, it is weirder than we CAN EVER imagine.
The only way we come any way to understanding any of it is due to our ability to apply the scientific method to theories. Make predictions and test them. If the prediction holds true then the theory survives. If the prediction fails then the theory needs either amending or discarding. The creation and discovery of high level mathematics provides the only tool for us to probe these strange spaces as we simply can't visualise or understand what happens in the context of our usual everyday experience.
That, to me, is the difference between scientific methods and religious faith. Religious faith does not need any kind of proof, it's all philosophy and arguments of words. Science is confirmed through prediction, experiment and observation. Arguments and statements of words are more down to individual opinion and can bring into play classic paradoxes; i.e 'I am Lying'
As far as creation goes, we simply do not know and it's the search for understanding that makes us human.
The quantum world has shown us that things can come from nothing. Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations show the emergence of particle/antiparticle pairs coming into existence for the smallest units of time. The resultant net energy is zero so conservation doesn't appear to be violated.
However, the Casimir Effect shows that a force can be exerted from this and the question is then whether this can be harnessed to produce any real power. If it can then it would appear to violate conservation. If that does become possible it also opens up the question of whether our universe came from a quantum vacuum fluctuation that was then blown up to macroscopic size.
Then you have the Multiverse option, which can incorporate a mix of other theories.
Another theory is that 'baby universes' are formed when a singularity occurs, such as at the heart of a black hole. Black holes are now known to be common objects in the universe so who knows what that means.
Newer theories put forward that we only perceive 4 of 11 or more dimensions, somewhat akin to being 4 dimensional shadows on walls, or holographic projections, in a higher dimensional reality. The way we now understand the way space and time are interchangeable at high speeds gives some credence to this notion. If high velocity (and hence ) energy can unify what we perceive separately as space and time into a single spacetime entity, and predicted unification of separate forces into different aspects of a single superforce (supersymmetry), then maybe our brains will never be equipped to understand 'reality'.
In the great scheme of things, we are small creatures living in a very narrow spectrum of conditions, at the bottom of a very modest gravity well and at slow speeds and energies. The cosmos is inconceivably huge, with most (interesting) things happening at high velocities and energies, either in the absence of gravity or under high gravity and pressure. I simply don't think we will ever have the raw mental ability to visualise and understand the true underlying reality. Attributing a deity to this doesn't provide a valid answer to me.
With so many theories abounding, maybe one will be true, maybe we'll never know.
Is it any more likely that there is an eternal 'god' over an eternal indifferent inanimate upper dimensional reality, or something that just happened to come into existence from nothing? Who knows?
The fun is in discovery and improvement of what knowledge we do have.
