Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Shustaire]

In direct reply to the question on postulates yes.  SR though being a math model applies direct mathematical meaning to those postulates. Thus context includes the SR mathematics.

 

edit: I should add that at no point does SR attempt to define what is real....its only intention is to describe measurable events.

 

However its never the purpose of physics to define real. It function is to describe physical change or physical properties. Not define real which physics recognizes as impossible. No one can define true reality, we can only describe at best an interpretation

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

A little side note my husband was once asked who does one define real under physics. I will quote his response.

 

"if more than one observer can observe the same event/ object/interaction/property etc its real enough for physics"

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

In direct reply to the question on postulates yes.  SR though being a math model applies direct mathematical meaning to those postulates. Thus context includes the SR mathematics.

 

edit: I should add that at no point does SR attempt to define what is real....its only intention is to describe measurable events.

 

However its never the purpose of physics to define real. It function is to describe physical change or physical properties. Not define real which physics recognizes as impossible. No one can define true reality, we can only describe at best an interpretation

 

Hmmm.  There's more than one thing you're saying here.  But, I would agree that believing the postulates to be "true" would entail accepting the logical implications of the postulates to be "true" also.  Unless you discover that the implications lead you to reject the postulates.  Of course, at that point, you no longer accept the postulates, so....

 

For clarification:  You said this in a prior post:

 

the speed of light (more accurately) the constant c is the same for all inertial observers ...

 

When you say "is" here do you mean actually "is," as an ontological matter, or do you mean "is measured to be?"  Or do you even make any distinction between the two?

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

A little side note my husband was once asked who does one define real under physics. I will quote his response.

 

"if more than one observer can observe the same event/ object/interaction/property etc its real enough for physics"

 

Do you agree with his response?

[Shustaire]

Light is rarely measured to be c precisely, there is always some interference in nature. However c doesn't represent just the speed of light. It also represents all known physical interactions including GW waves. One can show the value of c being the speed limit without even involving light. One such test was done on orbits and rates of changes in planetary bodies.

 

The speed limit c has been tested by numerous means that doesn't involve light.  so the distinction is to recognize it as a constant of nature not the speed of light itself.

[Shustaire]

Do you agree with his response?

 

more or less, I have yet to study any physics topic that states something as fundamental reality. Though I have seen attempts by PH.D's and posters that try and enforce a fundamental real. Fundamentally the goal of physics is to describe what we can observe or potentially measure.

[Moronium]

more or less, I have yet to study any physics topic that states something as fundamental reality. Though I have seen attempts by PH.D's and posters that try and enforce a fundamental real. Fundamentally the goal of physics is to describe what we can observe or potentially measure.

 

OK.  Did you also see the question I asked before that?

[Shustaire]

yes the one on ontology of is with regards to c see post 1170

[Moronium]

yes the one on ontology of is with regards to c see post 1170

 

Well, I saw that, but that wasn't really what I was trying to ask you. Let me phrase the question in another way.

 

As I explained, Lorentz made a distinction between what our instruments "tell" us the speed of light is, and the "truth" or "fact" about the speed of light.  Do you reject his distinction?

[Shustaire]

I woud reject any statement of truth or fact in any physics model. I only accept to the best of our understanding.

 

If the model still has accuracy I would stick to what it can accurately describe.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire

[Moronium]

I woud reject any statement of truth or fact in any physics model. I only accept to the best of our understanding

 

Forget the words truth and fact then (which I put in scare quotes to begin with).  Is it possible to mismeasure something, or does what I measure something to be make it what it "is?"

 

For example: If I measure something to be 12" long, then it necessarily 'is" 12 inches long?  Is that your position?

Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium

[Shustaire]

NO you can only assertain what you measure to be an approximation at best. The only "is" is the value you measured within a uncertainty error bar.

[Moronium]

I have to go elsewhere in a few minutes, but maybe we can continue this later.

[Shustaire]

lets try this, I can measure field strengths does this make fields real?

[Moronium]

..the only "is" is the value you measured within a uncertainty error bar.

 

OK, so in that limited sense it "is" what you measure it to be, is that what you mean?

[Shustaire]

I have to go elsewhere in a few minutes, but maybe we can continue this later.

 

have fun, but it seems we both agree physics isn't about describing or defining real but only to the best of our understanding.

[Moronium]

lets try this, I can measure field strengths does this make fields real?

 

Well, let's just stick with measurements of time and distance, the type of measurements we have to rely on to determine the speed of light (which the postulate of SR are concerned with), OK?  Let's leave "fields" out of it.