On: Faster Than Light in Our Model of Physics: Some Preliminary Thoughts

[BadThink6655321]

What do we do with a theory that conforms to every measurement ever made, but whose predictions aren’t testable? After all, we’re already there. We’ll never measure the interior of a black hole, for example. I think our theory selection criteria needs work.

[outworlder → BadThink6655321]

> We’ll never measure the interior of a black hole, for example

Don't say 'never'. You can say we are pretty confident that the interior of black holes can't be measured now or in the future, given our current understanding. But science is not made of absolutes.

> What do we do with a theory that conforms to every measurement ever made, but whose predictions aren’t testable

Then it's kinda worthless, at last for physics. If two explanations agree with all observations (so far) that means they are completely interchangeable. You might as well use Occam's Razor and pick the simplest one. Until such time we find experimental differences, then we can compare again.

[marcus_holmes → BadThink6655321]

well, the next step in the mathematics -> physics chain is either Chemistry or Engineering.

If your theory allows an engineer to build a warp drive, your theory is sound.

If not, not.

[rbanffy → BadThink6655321]

> but whose predictions aren’t testable?

Until we can test it, we should avoid calling it a theory.

In the meantime develop it until we can test it. We continue observing until we find something that isn't quite right.