There is a Preferred frame in Einstein’s Relativity; whether Einstein knew it or not Roger J Anderton [email protected]

When presented with Einstein’s we have something that is ambiguous on many issues. But now I shall seek to attempt to deal with the ambiguity of Preferred frame in relativity; and show most relativists have misunderstood relativity; whether Einstein understood what he was talking about or not.

A major problem with Einstein’s relativity is that it is ambiguous. Einstein started changing the meaning of words and he left many things unclear. Trying to overcome that issue aside, I shall try to make sense of the issue of “Preferred Frame”.

Going by OMIC International [1]: “Although there is no preferred inertial frame under Newtonian mechanics or special relativity, the set of all inertial frames as a group may still be said to be "preferred" over non-inertial frames in these theories, since the laws of physics derived for inertial motion only work exactly in this special category of frames.”

There is a lot of variation in what is said about “preferred frame”; sometimes “privileged frame” is used instead etc. [2]

Relativity suffers from terms not be precisely defined, and people using different variations of meaning. But in the context of the quote above it is saying inertial frames are preferred over non- inertial frames; so when some texts say there is no preferred frame they don’t seem to be taking this into account.

Of course this statement might not be true representation of relativity, but we have nothing better in the mess presented to us in relativity texts, so for sake of argument let us assume for now it is true representation of Einstein’s relativity in regard to how Preferred frame is to be treated.

It presents to us that in one sense there is a preferred frame and in another sense there isn’t. Let’s clarify:

Given an inertial frame [if1] and a non-inertial frame [nf1], then [if1] is preferred frame over [nf1].

Given an inertial frame [if1] and inertial frame [if2] , then [if1] not preferred over [if2] and [if2] not preferred over [if1].

Apologises for notation, clarification is:

[if1] = [inertial frame1] [if2] = [inertial frame2]

[nf1] = [noninertial frame1]

So, consider the twin paradox, one twin stays unmoving*, and other twin travels off in spaceship and is either deemed to accelerate or change between inertial frames.

To accelerate means twin2 is in non-inertial frame [nf1] while unmoving* twin1 is in [if1] therefore twin1 is in a preferred frame but twin2 is not.

(* Of course, the term “unmoving” is now problematic; twin1 is not moving relative to his frame [if1], and is not changing inertial frames.)

In case of twin2 changing inertial frames say change from [if1] to [if2] while twin1 stays in same frame

[if1], means that twin2 is not in “a” (as in meaning “single”) preferred frame and is switching between preferred frames; and since not staying in same frame is not in “a” preferred frame, is instead in several preferred frames. Thus, twin1 is in “a” (i.e. one) preferred frame, while twin2 is not in “a” preferred frame but instead switching between several.

Thus, for the twin paradox, twin1 is in “a” preferred frame but twin2 isn’t; and those relativists who say there is no preferred frame for the twin paradox have got relativity wrong and not understood the subtlety of how the term “preferred frame” is used. Whether Einstein understood his relativity (or not) is not known **, but given the quote [1] what is now being presented as Einstein’s relativity (regardless of anything Einstein said) now has a preferred frame in its treatment of twin paradox.

**- based on my study of his writings where he has kept changing his mind, which leaves things vague and ambiguous as to what he meant. n.b. acceleration is absolute even in Einstein’s relativity. But even that is problematic with some relativists getting confused over that. Twin2 experiences acceleration effects when changing inertial frames, while although from twin2 perspective it might seem that twin1 is changing inertial frames, twin1 is not experiencing effects of acceleration; acceleration is an absolute property, that not both twins experience it; only one twin experiences it.

Have time now as local to each observer, but still have absolute time, so observer in inertial frame says he has correct time and the person in non-inertial frame has wrong time; that person then needs to correct his clock and then finds lightspeed not constant (i.e. lightspeed in vacuum free of influence such as fields).

Now let’s look at an example of how messed up a physicist can get in talking above twin paradox in relation to a preferred frame:

From Fermilab Today [3] : Let’s look at Don Lincoln’s account of the twin paradox. He points out Einstein’s relativity has been confirmed by experiment, but that is meaningless because Einstein’s relativity is never clearly explained and those who believe in it contradict themselves when talking about it, i.e. a theory that is ambiguous fails to be testable, thus claims of testing it are meaningless.

He says: “However, one must be very careful. The "relativity" in the theory's name comes from the absolute core premise of Einstein's idea, which is that nothing is absolute.”

Which contradicts what other relativists say, such as Einstein online [4] says: “Ordinarily, we think of velocities as relative, but one of them turns out to be absolute: the .” n.b. usual proviso is having to think in terms of light speed in vacuum free of influences on it from things like fields; but writers on relativity are often lazy in omitting to mention this proviso.

So his claim that nothing is absolute is contradicted by relativists who say lightspeed is absolute. This is just typical mess that they make. For now, let us excuse that contradiction, else we cannot proceed any further, and we will have to take him as meaning something like “nothing is absolute” barring lightspeed, and as he carries on.

He says: “If you are standing on a train platform and a train whizzes by, you would say that a person on the train is moving. On the other hand, a person sitting on the train would say that he is stationary and that you are moving. Relativity says that both of you are right. Who is moving and who is stationary is just a matter of perspective, and the laws of physics must work equally well for both people.”

This is basically the , Einstein online [5] describes it:

“In the real world, there exists no such state of absolute rest. That's the content of the so-called principle of relativity, which is one of the basic postulates of the special theory of relativity. According to this principle, the following holds: Whenever an inertial observer in his space station performs an experiment, any other inertial observer who has constructed exactly the same experimental setup in his own space station will get the same result. If observer A measures a certain wavelength for a specific atomic transition, so will observer B. If observer A measures a certain boiling point for a specific fluid under specific pressure conditions, observer B will measure the same. (Strictly speaking, this is only true for experiments that do give definite, repeatable results. When observer A measures a specific type of radioactive decay and notes down exactly how many atoms of an unstable element have decayed in a given time, observer B is likely to get somewhat different results - but so will observer A if he repeats his own experiment, as there is a random component involved.)”

A bit more detailed than him, but let’s carry on.

He says: “But this raises a conundrum when applied to the question of moving clocks. How can moving clocks tick more slowly than stationary ones if the question of who is moving is a matter of opinion? If I can say you are moving and your clock is slow, and if you can say I am moving and my clock is slow, something is inconsistent.”

He admits the problem in the twin paradox, if one person says that the other person’s clock is slower, then by the relativity principle that means the other person has to say the same of the first person’s clock. i.e. each says the other person’s clock is slower, and as he admits that is as he says “inconsistent.”

This is the basis of a great deal of the criticism of Einstein’s relativity by those who think it is wrong.

His response to that is of course to start making a mess.

He says:

“This longstanding question about special relativity is called the twin paradox. Suppose one in a set of twins sets off in a spaceship, travels to a distant star and then returns. On both legs of the trip, he accelerates to high velocity and then coasts for most of the journey….” Note he is now bringing in acceleration, sometimes relativists try to avoid that when talking about the twin paradox, and that is an area which causes a lot of confusion. But let us just accept the acceleration for the sake of argument and proceed.

He says:

“According to the "moving clocks tick slower" premise, the twin who stays on Earth will have experienced one duration, while the traveling twin will have experienced another, slower duration. The spacefaring twin will return to Earth younger than his homebody brother.”

That’s just taking things from the perspective of the idealised stay-at-home twin, and assuming acceleration is absolute, and that the only one who has experienced motion is the other twin.

Next, he brings up the problem of what the travelling twin might claim that from his perspective he was not moving, and it was the stay-at-home twin that moved.

He says: “"But wait," says the traveling twin, "according to my definition, I was just sitting there on my stationary spaceship while the Earth zoomed away from me and then zoomed back. By all rights, Earth twin should be younger!"”

Which is then the inconsistency pointed out earlier that each will claim the other clock slower, but now sneaks in the ageing process. Each twin claims the other clock slower, and now he wants ageing process tied to these messed up clocks, so each claims the other “younger”. He messes up the reading of clocks and assigns ageing process to this mess, making the mess bigger!

Now he supposedly offers the solution!

He says: “The solution to this seeming paradox has to do with the idea of a reference frame, which is central to special relativity.”

Then he has to explain what reference frame means in the mess he is making: “"Reference frame" is just a fancy term that means "the world according to me," putting each person at the center of his or her universe. All "inertial" observers — those who don't experience any acceleration — will agree that the homebody never changed his reference frame.”

So, he has brought acceleration back into the discussion, once again that relies on the homebody having not moved, and the travelling twin having moved in the absolute sense. And note at the start he said “nothing is absolute.” – when he seems to be treating the homebody as in an absolute frame that isn’t moving, and the other twin moving in absolute sense; but using “absolute” while also denying “absolute”. That’s how messed up some of these relativists are – they deny “absolute” and use an “absolute frame” but do not want to use the term “absolute frame” or use the other term “preferred frame”.

There is no point proceeding any further, as the language he uses just gets messed up more and more as he proceeds.

That is how we end up with a theory that is ambiguous or messed up; the terms haven’t been properly clarified for everyone, and the relativists all start using the terms to mean different things. It seems to be Einstein that initiated the change in meaning of terms from how they were being used in Newtonian physics; then everyone else following his lead went their own separate ways making other changes in meaning of terms and hence contributing more to the mess.

Historically : we had Newtonian physics, then Einstein turned up on the scene and started changing the meaning of terms, but he left it a mess as to precisely what he had changed the meanings to. Then if staying within the context of that mess and trying to sort out that mess. But suppose we were to agree on the usage quoted above [1] then it means many relativists have not used the term “preferred frame” properly, and we could then say: There is a Preferred frame in Einstein’s Relativity whether Einstein knew that or not. (Of course, trying to amend Einstein’s relativity and clear up its confusions is equivalent to replacing it, and amending it in the way I do it starts looking more and more like Newtonian physics again.)

References

[1] http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Preferred_frame 26 Nov 2016

[2] Others: Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preferred_frame&diff=463671664&oldid=463670406 26 Nov 2016 says: “Although all inertial frames are equivalent under and special relativity, the set of all inertial frames is privileged over non-inertial frames in these theories.” i.e. using term “privileged” instead of “preferred” http://www.schoolebooklibrary.com/articles/eng/Preferred_frame School ebook library 26 Nov 2016 says: “Although there is no preferred inertial frame under Newtonian mechanics or special relativity, the set of all inertial frames as a group may still be said to be "preferred" over noninertial frames in these theories, since the laws of physics derived for inertial motion only work exactly in this special category of frames.”

[3] Fermilab Today Friday, May 2, 2014, Physics in a Nutshell, The twin paradox http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html 13 nov 2016

[4] http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light

[5] http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/RelativityPrinciple

c.RJAnderton25Nov2016