As soon as we start to state energy has mass I think we are heading down the wrong path. Mass has the potential to create energy but as CERN and the others will soon prove Energy doesn’t create mass. Energy is the measurable change of mass either through heat or motion. Thermodynamics shows that mass can be converted to energy. But nothing has shown us the opposite. This seems like a much more realistic postulate than nothing can move faster than the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass I like to see that others have seen this to be wrong. I would really like to see if the idea for the Boson particle comes from an offshoot of the theory of relativistic mass. I read a great post by Licoln on http://www.sciencechatforum.com I really like the way he describes relativistic mass as inertia. He was nice enough to try to explain to me why the Lorentz Transformation is not an optical illusion. I am very happy he took the time. I still think there is room for debate but since he took the time I will stop with that until after there is proof.
This is a very interesting read http://www.higgs-boson.org/ I believe that Energy is an attribute of Mass. To even measure it we need mass. So instead of trying to imagine the universe coming from nothing it is more realistic to believe that the singularity started with Mass exploding into what we now see as our universe instead of the other way around. I need to read more about Hawking and Black Holes. Are black holes the ultimate conversion of mass to energy or are they places mass is traveling faster than the speed of light? A sort of sonic boom for light?