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 special relativity 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 speed of light.” 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 principle of relativity, 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.