Theoretical Concepts and Empirical Equivalence: Will the Real Concept Please Stand Up

[Jim]

@T_aquaticus

So how do you think velocity would change the physical constants that govern muon decay? What is the mechanism? Einstein’s equations accurately predict observations, so why do you reject the theory?

I don’t reject the mechanics that are verified. But I do reject certain inferences made about unverifiable reality from concepts employed by successful theories, which in the case of this particular discussion is concerning time. My hole point is that concepts employed by successful theories do not entail that they are representative of actual realities that are beyond verification. At best they are only evidence of such and need to be judged along side all the other relevant evidence.

@T_aquaticus

Why would velocity change the stability of muons?

That’s not what’s being discussed at present. We’re talking about what inference makes the most sense of relevant evidence for the unverifiable reality of whether time can slow down or not.

@dga471

Similarly with air pressure, sound, etc. - you try as best as you can to take into account all the possible spurious effects and make their effect smaller than the proposed main effect that you’re trying to measure (muon lifetime). This is something that all scientists doing precision measurement regularly do.
And I believe that this has been done for the case of the muon lifetime experiment, as well as all the other reputable experiments that claim to verify the claims of SR.

Is that actually the case with the muon experiment? First, I’m not sure this experiment addresses the question of what is the lifetime of a muon which you seem to suggest. It seems to me to be addressing the question of which mechanical theory captures what’s observed of muon flux at different levels.

Seems to me all they’ve done is measure the flux of muons at 10 km altitude and at ground level, and then used relativistic and non-relativistic theories to see which matches up with the measurements. And the answer seems to be the relativistic theory.

So now we’re left to deal with the question of whether the concept of time slowing down employed by the theory is what best explains the unverifiable reality it conceptualizes. To do so we have to look at all the relevant evidence.

And the only evidence that can be provided that I’m aware of for time slowing down is the success of the theory that employs that concept. However, universal perception and objective observation relevant to the question would suggest otherwise.

Also experiments have been done where atomic clocks were put on airplanes and flown around the earth slowed down compared to atomic clocks left on the ground suggesting that it’s about the instruments slowing down, not actual time itself since, other than the success of relativity as a theory, there is no evidence to suggest that time itself has any causal powers.

@dga471

I’m asking because it seems you have a peculiar definition of physical theory if it can only involve time and space. It might somewhat illuminate our disagreement(s).

Sorry, I was a little mixed up there with terminology. Thanks for pointing that out. What I’m referring to are physical theories of mechanics in particular. If I’m not mistaken they deal for the most part, if not exclusively, with the motion of matter through space. So I should have qualified what I said to say physical theory of mechanics.