Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

To Be Announced February 14
February 28, 2023 - April 19, 2023 open to submissions
Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
The Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and John Templeton Foundation Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
The Gruber Foundation, John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 4:12am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Vijay Gupta: on 10/2/12 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote Dear Edward Hoerdt As normal, interpretation of experimental can vary...

Hoang Hai: on 9/26/12 at 21:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Edward Hoerdt I also have the same outcome as you when study the...

Edward Hoerdt: on 9/25/12 at 9:37am UTC, wrote Peter, thank you for your kind message. Unfortunately I have not been able...

Peter Jackson: on 9/17/12 at 21:21pm UTC, wrote Edward Congratulations on a professional analysis and clearly written...

Jayakar Joseph: on 9/15/12 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Dear Edward Hoerdt, Continuum of matters described in Coherently-cyclic...

Edward Hoerdt: on 9/11/12 at 6:52am UTC, wrote Hello Pentcho! Thank you for referring me to Hoffman's article. I was not...

Edward Hoerdt: on 9/11/12 at 3:35am UTC, wrote Dear Gurcharn, Thank you for your message. Yes, I can only conclude from...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

David Vognar: "Completeness theorem: If a system’s components can transduce, that system..." in The Entropic Price of...

Georgina Woodward: "On obtaining the singular, relative, measurement product it replaces the..." in The Present State of...

Steve Dufourny: "The paper of Wilczek of course is very relevant considering the idea about..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Georgina Woodward: "Material neuronal structure in which memory is encoded, physical records..." in Quantum Physics and the...

Steve Dufourny: "It is really how we consider the structure of the spacetime, and also how..." in The Noise of Gravitons

Aleksandr Maltsev: "Hi Georgina, Write a letter to mltsv126@maul.ru" in Quantum Physics and the...

Georgina Woodward: "In quantum experiments using particles, there won't be swapping with a..." in The Present State of...

Aleksandr Maltsev: "I shortened the phrase Zeeya Merali  «Why does time flow….?    How..." in Time's Arrow, Black Holes...

RECENT ARTICLES

The Entropic Price of Building the Perfect Clock: Q&A with Natalia Ares
Experiments investigating the thermodynamics of clocks can teach us about the origin of time's arrow.

Schrödinger’s A.I. Could Test the Foundations of Reality
Physicists lay out blueprints for running a 'Wigner's Friend' experiment using an artificial intelligence, built on a quantum computer, as an 'observer.'

Expanding the Mind (Literally): Q&A with Karim Jerbi and Jordan O'Byrne
Using a brain-computer interface to create a consciousness 'add-on' to help test Integrated Information Theory.

Quanthoven's Fifth
A quantum computer composes chart-topping music, programmed by physicists striving to understand consciousness.

The Math of Consciousness: Q&A with Kobi Kremnitzer
A meditating mathematician is developing a theory of conscious experience to help understand the boundary between the quantum and classical world.

FQXi FORUM
February 7, 2023

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt [refresh]

Author Edward Hoerdt wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 15:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

The following is a personal assessment of a personal question the author has had of Einstein’s Relativity Theory, particularly the foundation on which it was based, namely the Michelson/Morley Experiment of 1887 that tried to detect the effect of Ether on the speed of light. The author tries to point out that there was a basic flaw in their calculations that led them to conclude that the speed of light is constant no matter what the conditions. The paper was actually written in 1996 but lay dormant until now when opportunity arose with FQXI to make public, if possible. The original paper also touches on General Relativity, but it is here omitted due to space limitations.

Author Bio

Edward Hoerdt is an architect by profession, having studied at Harvard for his Master of Architecture in Urban Design degree. While at Harvard he worked for the office of Buckminster Fuller (and Sadao) who encouraged him to doubt his elders and the status quo.

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Hi Edward,

Many of us do agree with you that SR may not be the ultimate and correct theory.

The Michelson-Morley experiment  never has been analysed in full, for the good reason that it actually raises a paradox. If the number of crests, of the light wave, are counted between the mirrors then these are different to observers in different reference frames.   As this number is a physical state, then the first axiom of SR is contradicted.

The full analysis you can find in my essay.

Regards

Anton  @ (  ../topic/1458  )

report post as inappropriate
Edward Hoerdt replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 07:07 GMT
Hello Anton!

Not trained in the language you speak as a scientist, I must admit I could not follow your relatively complicated equations towards the end, such that I am not in a position to comment on your essay.

I hope this would be the beginning of a friendly relationship in physics.

Edward

report post as inappropriate

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Edward,

Interesting essay. I agree with you that the relativity of simultaneity is not interpreted in the right way; usually it is viewed as a "transformation of the Lorentz group," but I tend to think it has to do with different possible orderings of events than don't causally influence each other. I discuss this in my essay On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics. Don't get me wrong; I have a lot of admiration for Einstein in general, but Einstein himself would have gotten nowhere if he hadn't questioned those before him, so we should do the same today!

Also, could you say a few words about your view of general relativity, since space considerations prevented you from including that part of your paper? Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate
Edward Hoerdt replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:50 GMT
Hello Ben!

I am now in the process of editing my paper including General Relativity to be presentable. I will forward you it as soon as it is finished.

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 07:06 GMT
Hi Edward,

Since the number of essays is approaching 300, you will perhaps not expect compelling support with Fig. 5 of an essay devoted to even more basic questions .

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
Dear Edward,

I appreciate your concerns with Relativity and I liked the detailed analysis presented in your essay. But finally, do you conclude that the two founding postulates of Relativity are wrong?

All authors in this contest have presented their viewpoints in different styles. In the grand maze of the unknown it is important to consider all possible alternatives and different viewpoints for building a consolidated common approach.

Kindly read my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space". Do let me know if you don't get convinced about the invalidity of the founding assumptions of Relativity or regarding the efficacy of the proposed simple experiments for detection of absolute motion.

Best Wishes

G S Sandhu

report post as inappropriate
Edward Hoerdt replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 03:35 GMT
Dear Gurcharn,

Thank you for your message. Yes, I can only conclude from my essay that the 2 postulates of Relativity must be wrong, especially in consideration of the "nonlocality" phenomenon.

I have read your essay with much interest. Congratulations! Although we differ somewhat in our approach, we stand together in our results.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:15 GMT
Edward,

You resurrect Newton's emission theory of light when you write: "What the Michelson*Morley Experiment demonstrated was the fact that the Principle of Relativity applies to the electromagnetic phenomenon of light just as well as it applies to particles with mass... (...) lf indeed light velocity does not depend on the velocity of its source or of it's receiving end, then the Principle of Relativity does not apply to light, just as it does not apply to sound. However, the Michelson*Morley Experiment clearly and only indicates that the Principle of Relativity does apply to light, and hence the velocity of light must be dependent on the velocity of it's source, or receiver, or both, and hence not absolute but relative."

See this:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffm
ann/dp/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate
Eckard replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 12:06 GMT
Pentcho,

Did you refute my explanation of Feist's result?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Author Edward Hoerdt replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 06:52 GMT
Hello Pentcho!

Thank you for referring me to Hoffman's article. I was not aware of it. It is reassuring to know that I am not alone in my thinking.

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 08:39 GMT
Dear Edward

Congratulations for publishing your study at fqxi. This is a good place to get a lot of opinions from readers of different backgrounds ranging from the interested layman to the university physics professor. I have not read Michelson Morley's original paper, and wonder how they presented their experimental results and analysis. Did they actually go through the path calculations or merely show that the interference pattern does not change?

Another point that has been discussed and debated is whether Einstein wrote Special Relativity in order to explain the MM experiments and its "no ether" results, or just to answer puzzling questions about electromagnetic dynamics?.

It is important to check and re-analyze these pivotal experiments and theories (as you did) because they were made with definite assumptions about matter and the vacuum, light and motion. Do these assumptions still apply? If there is an ether, is matter opaque to it, like a stone in water, or, as I have treated it in my Beautiful Universe Theory, matter and space and radiation are all made of the same thing?

Fascinating questions that will keep us all busy.

I hope you will inform readers here about your fascinating work on modelling atomic structure where your architectural instincts and Bucky's ideas are allowed to develop in full play. Have fun.

With best wishes,

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 17:43 GMT
Dear Edward Hoerdt,

Continuum of matters described in Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, expresses the Luminiferous aether as an unstructured grid of tetrahedra, in that the wave mechanics differs.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 17, 2012 @ 21:21 GMT
Edward

Congratulations on a professional analysis and clearly written essay, from an optical physicist/astronomer whose also a fellow Architect. However. I've also been working on a solution to the SR paradoxes, and found a full ontology offering a more simple and consistent solution to your D23 (train, light flash) case.

First I must express agreement with your hypotenuse case,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Edward Hoerdt replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 09:37 GMT
Peter, thank you for your kind message. Unfortunately I have not been able to read your essay/s yet due to a number of "deadlines" I must meet for my architectural work. I hope to read them sometime soon.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 21:45 GMT
Dear Edward Hoerdt

I also have the same outcome as you when study the nature of light.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Vijay Mohan Gupta wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 19:34 GMT
Dear Edward Hoerdt

As normal, interpretation of experimental can vary depending on orientation of group analysing the result. In this case (Michelson/Morley Experiment), it was simple that the expected effect of drag was not noticed. The interference patterns were missing. There was no change in interference pattern on rotation etc. as well. The mathematical/geometrical representation of finding is different matter.

The first conclusion by Lorentz was the Lorentz transformations. Einstein read it to mean as invariance of speed of light. Further he raised the invariance of speed of light as invariance of laws of universe relative to observers. (This can be said to be birth place of thoughts on symmetry - from geometry to invariance with transformation). This raised speed of light to be universal truth statement.

As a PicoPhysicist, I agree with Einstein's interpretation of invariance of speed of light as universal truth. PicoPhysicist job is not only to understand but also absorb the same into Unary law 'Space Contains Knergy'. This integration of SR with PicoPhysics is brought out in my essay on 5-Dimensional universe in mapping time dimension of Knergy onto one of Euclidean dimensions of space.

If we try to measure time and distance independent of each other, we will find answer as negative. That is what PicoPhysics mapping of Chronological dimension of Knergy onto Euclidean dimension (direction of displacement) results to - dependence of measurements of time and distance. Further PicoPhysics differ from SR in definition of simultaneity. While SR deals with measurements PicoPhysics defines simultaneity in relation on Konservation of Knergy of identity of photon.

Thus in PicoPhysics Plank's constant, Speed of Light and Hubble's constant are three fundamental constants of nature.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Proponent - Unary Law Space Contains Knergy

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:12 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate