Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 OK, so in that limited sense it "is" what you measure it to be, is that what you mean? yes, physics will never agree on anything it speculates on in toy models etc until it can confirm under measurement. It does attempt to predict what we haven't measured or what cannot possibly be measured but in those cases its always simply one of many possibilities. Physics always allows for the possibility of measurement error and even errors in any understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) 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. In regards to measurements of the constancy of c not necessarily the speed of light will you accept a series of tests if I gather them for you? Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) OK, so in that limited sense it "is" what you measure it to be, is that what you mean? yes, If two people measure an object to be 12" long, does that make the measurement "real" (using your husband's definition of real)? How about if three others measure the same object to be 11" long? Would that be "real," too? Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) real enough its never exclusive as simply real. He never states facts or this is the way it is. Its always to the best of our current understandings or measurement Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) real enough its never exclusive as simply real. OK. Fair enough, so both 11" and 12" would be "real enough," I take it. Let me know if I have misunderstood you on this point. Another question: Do you think it's possible for a theory of relative motion which does NOT postulate the same starting points as SR to be "viable?" By "viable" I just mean consistent with all known empirical evidence, and contradicted by none. For example, a theory that postulates that the "laws of physics" (without attempting to define just what that means at this point) are NOT the same in all inertial frames and/or that c is not constant in all inertial frames? Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Hrrm bad example, under SR the laws of physics is defined as all the known processes and formulas under physics apply equally in all inertial frames. This encompasses the thermodynamic laws, Newton laws, Galilean laws etc. (keep in mind no law is set in stone under physics either. evidence can overthrow any law) Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) Hrrm bad example, under SR the laws of physics is defined as all the known processes and formulas under physics apply equally in all inertial frames. This encompasses the thermodynamic laws, Newton laws, Galilean laws etc. Why is it a 'bad example?" I just asked a question, and specifically said I wasn't trying to define "laws of physics" at this point. To repeat, the question is: is it "possible" that the laws of physics are not the same in all inertial frames? Or is that an impossibility? Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) For example, a theory that postulates that the "laws of physics" (without attempting to define just what that means at this point) are NOT the same in all inertial frames and/or that c is not constant in all inertial frames? bad example in the way you worded this, SR postulates the laws of physics is identical in all inertial frames and does define that by including all laws of physics, which I named a few. You included NOT which isn't SR. C under SR is constant so a theory would have to show enough evidence to counter SR. The laws of physics is identical to all inertial frames under SR. ( as well as GR/QFT/String theory etc for that matter). Its commonly known definition is the descriptive I gave above. (laws of physics=all known physics laws) Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) bad example in the way you worded this, SR postulates the laws of physics is identical in all inertial frames and does define that by including all laws of physics, which I named a few. You included NOT which isn't SR. C under SR is constant so a theory would have to show enough evidence to counter SR. Well, you seem to be misinterpreting the question now. I've already stipulated that such a theory would NOT be SR. And I'm not talking about evidence at this point either. I'm just asking about a theoretical possibility (or lack thereof). Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) there is always the theoretical possibilty that the laws of physics or c isn't as described by SR. Nothing is ever truly proven in physics Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) LOL my husband even spent a few years back in the late 80's trying to prove that our fundamental constants of physics changed over the universe history. He concluded insufficient supportive evidence. Edited July 22, 2018 by Shustaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) there is always the theoretical possibilty that the laws of physics or c isn't as described by SR. Nothing is ever truly proven in physics I agree with that, but I'm still not sure if that really answers my question. Forget what the laws of physics are, or are not. That's irrelevant to my question, which was: Is it possible for the laws of physics to not be THE SAME in all inertial frames? Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 LOL my husband even spent a few years back in the late 80's trying to prove that our fundamental constants of physics changed over the universe history. He concluded insufficient supportive evidence. I thought that proposition was readily accepted by a great number of physicists--i.e., that it is a "mainstream" view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 No there were studies into the possibility but it never got much further than that. One of the better known tests deals with half life of radioactive materials which would change rates if the fine structure constant varied. It was shown inconclusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) No there were studies into the possibility but it never got much further than that. One of the better known tests deals with half life of radioactive materials which would change rates if the fine structure constant varied. It was shown inconclusive Well, whatever. Let's get off of that tangent, which is an entirely different issue. Have you seen my post 194? Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shustaire Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moronium Posted July 22, 2018 Report Share Posted July 22, 2018 (edited) I have to go now. Perhaps you can answer the question I asked in post 194 in the meantime. From what you've said so far, I think you and I do have some very fundamental differences in viewpoints. They are not "mathematical" differences, of even "scientific" differences. They are metaphysical or, more broadly, philosophical differences, which we can discuss more later if you want. Edited July 22, 2018 by Moronium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts