Table 3 Comparing special relativity with quantum mechanics according to no preferred reference frame (NPRF). Because Alice and Bob both measure the same speed of light c, regardless of their motion relative to the source per NPRF, Alice(Bob) may claim that Bob’s(Alice’s) length and time measurements are erroneous and need to be corrected (length contraction and time dilation). Likewise, because Alice and Bob both measure the same values for spin angular momentum \(\pm 1\)\(\left( \frac{\hbar }{2}\right)\), regardless of their SG magnet orientation relative to the source per NPRF, Alice(Bob) may claim that Bob’s(Alice’s) individual \(\pm 1\) values are erroneous and need to be corrected (averaged, Figs. 6, 8, 9). In both cases, NPRF resolves the “mystery” it creates. In special relativity, the apparently inconsistent results can be reconciled via the relativity of simultaneity. That is, Alice and Bob each partition spacetime per their own equivalence relations (per their own reference frames), so that equivalence classes are their own surfaces of simultaneity and these partitions are equally valid per NPRF. This is completely analogous to quantum mechanics, where the apparently inconsistent results per the Bell spin states arising because of NPRF can be reconciled by NPRF via the “relativity of data partition.” That is, Alice and Bob each partition the data per their own equivalence relations (per their own reference frames), so that equivalence classes are their own \(+1\) and \(-1\) data events and these partitions are equally valid.

From: Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame