Acceleration and Special Relativity

Henok Tadesse, Electrical Engineer, BSc

Email: entkidmt@yahoo.com wchmar@gmail.com

03 June 2022

Abstract

The accepted view that special relativity applies only to inertial observers and not to accelerating
observers is misleading. In this paper we show that acceleration in fact disproves special relativity theory
(SRT). We show how special relativity strictly applied to accelerated systems will lead to a disagreement
between two inertial observers /reference frames on an observable (an interference fringe shift, for
example). We consider a hypothetical light speed experiment involving an accelerating observer/detector.
We analyze the fringe shift observed by the detector/observer in two relatively moving inertial frames,
one of which is the lab frame. But it turns out that the disagreement does not disappear even when the
acceleration is set to zero! This led to the accidental discovery of a fundamental flaw/contradiction in the
special relativity theory that has been hidden for more than a century.

Introduction

The application of special relativity to rotating/accelerating systems, such as the Sagnac effect,
has been one of the unresolved problems in relativity theory. The usual answer one gets from
proponents of relativity is that special relativity does not apply to accelerating systems. In this
paper, we will show that acceleration in fact disproves special relativity, and therefore the view
that special relativity doesn’t apply to accelerating systems is misleading, giving the impression
that special relativity is correct otherwise.

Special relativity and an accelerating observer/detector

Consider the experimental set up shown below. A single light beam from a source is directed in
opposite direction, by using a beam splitter and a mirror (not shown). The light beams reflected
from mirrors create an interference pattern at point O. S is the lab inertial frame, with origin O
fixed in the lab. S’ is an inertial reference frame with origin O’, moving with velocity v relative
to S, in the + x direction.

At time instant t = t’ = 0, the origins of S and S’ coincide. Also at t = 0 , an accelerating observer

A is just passing through point O moving with initial velocity v0 and acceleration a in the +x
direction. Next we analyze this experiment in frame S and frame S’ to determine and compare
the fringe shifts predicted in the two frames.
Electrical engineer, BSc, Debrezeit, Ethiopia Mobile: +251 910 751339
or +251 912 228639 Alternate email: wchmar@gmail.com
1
We have three events, Event 1, Event 2, Event 3, with coordinates:

(x1,y1,t1), (x2,y2,t2), (x3,y3,t3), respectively, in frame S, and

(x1’,y1’,t1’ ), (x2’,y2’,t2’ ), (x3’,y3’,t3’ ), respectively, in frame S’

Event 1 is the emission of light from point E

Event 2 is the detection of the clockwise propagating light beam at point P
Event 3 is the detection of the counterclockwise propagating light beam at point Q

In frame S

Event 1: Emission of light pulse at point E.

Event 2: Detection of clockwise (cw) propagating light beam at point Q

Let the observer A detect the clockwise (cw) propagating light at point Q , at x = x2 and t = t2 .

Also,

From (1),

Equating the two expressions for t2 ,

2
 √

Let

Squaring both sides,

( )

( )

Let

( )

√ ( )

3
 √ ( )

t2 is obtained by substituting the above value for x2 in equation (3).

Event 3: Detection of counter-clockwise (ccw) propagating light beam at point P

Let the observer A detect the counter-clockwise (ccw) propagating light at point P , at x = x3 and
t = t3 .

Also,

From (3),

Equating the two expressions for t3 ,

4
 √

Let

Squaring both sides,

( )

( )

Let

( )

√ ( )

5
 √ ( )

t3 is obtained by substituting the above value for x3 in equation (5).

We have obtained the coordinates of the two events (x2, t2) and (x3, t3 ) , i.e. coordinates of Event
2 and Event 3, respectively, in frame S.

Now we can determine the space and time intervals of the events in frame S, i.e. ∆x and ∆t.

From which the space and time intervals of the two events in frame S’ can be obtained.

where

where v the velocity of frame S’ relative to frame S.

6
Fringe shift in frame S and frame S’

Using Excel I found the following.

For :

l = 2m , h = 1m , acceleration (a) = 1015 m/s2 , v0 = 0 , v = 3 x 107 m/s

γ = 1.005037815259210000000000000000E+00

k1= 3.333333333333330000000000000000E+07

k2 = -8.444444444444440000000000000000E+15

k3 = 1.111111111111110000000000000000E+15

k4 = 3.333333333333330000000000000000E+07

k5 = -7.555555555555560000000000000000E+15

k6 = 1.111111111111110000000000000000E+15

From which,

x2 = 1.316701949486180000000000000000E-01

t2 = 1.622776601683780000000000000000E-08

x3 = 1.471862576143010000000000000000E-01

t3 = 1.715728752538120000000000000000E-08

∆x = x3 – x2 = 1.551606266568370000000000000000E-02

∆t = t3 – t2 = 9.295215085434560000000000000000E-10

∆t’ = 9.290061896086470000000000000000E-10

7
For λ = 600 nm

l l
E

y
S P Q
O
x

y'
S’ v
O’
x'

For zero acceleration

I wanted to check if the contradiction disappears for zero acceleration, not because I doubted it,
just for the sake of completeness. As it turned out, the contradiction did not disappear when the
acceleration of the observer (the fringe detector) is set to zero!

In frame S

Event 1: Emission of light pulse at point E.

Event 2: Detection of clockwise (cw) propagating light beam at point Q

Let the observer A detect the clockwise (cw) propagating light at point Q , at x = x2 and t = t2 .

8
Also,

Therefore,

Event 3: Detection of counter-clockwise (ccw) propagating light beam at point P

Let the observer A detect the counter-clockwise (ccw) propagating light at point P , at x = x3 and
t = t3 .

Also,

Therefore,

We have obtained the coordinates of the two events (x2, t2) and (x3, t3 ) , i.e. coordinates of Event
2 and Event 3, respectively, in frame S.

Now we can determine the space and time intervals of the events in frame S, i.e. ∆x and ∆t.

9
 ( ) ( )

( )

( )

( )

Fringe shift in frame S

( )

Fringe shift in frame S’

The space and time intervals of the two events in frame S’ is obtained from

where

where v the velocity of frame S’ relative to frame S.

10
 ( ( ) ( ) )

( )

And,

( ) ( ( ) ( ))

( )( )

( )( )

( )( )

( )
( )

We have already obtained,

( )

11
Therefore,

We can see that

This is a contradiction in special relativity theory because the person looking at the fringes
cannot observe two values of fringe shift at the same time.

We can see that the two fringe shifts agree only when v0 = 0 , that is when the observer looking
at the fringe shifts is at rest relative to S. this is the case of the Michelson-Morley and similar
experiments. In the case of v0 ≠ 0 , which is the case of Sagnac effect, special relativity leads to a
contradiction.

Fundamental contradiction in special relativity theory ?

I wondered if this contradiction in special relativity is universal and in fact discovered that this is
the case, as shown below.

We know that,

But, because of time dilation :

or

Therefore,

12
Galilean relativity at least does not lead to such contradiction, as shown below.

Therefore,

Conclusion

We set out to show that special relativity leads to a disagreement between two inertial
reference frames on the fringe shift observed by an accelerating observer, by using a
hypothetical experiment, and proved this. One would then expect that this disagreement
disappears when the acceleration is set to zero, i.e. when the observer/detector looking at
the interference fringes is moving with constant velocity. Unexpectedly, it turned out that
the disagreement on the fringe shift did not disappear for zero acceleration! This led to
the discovery of the fundamental contradiction in special relativity theory that has been
hidden for more than a century. This is a result of consistent, rigorous application of
special relativity and Lorentz transformations, which has been lacking in most or all of
the analyses made by physicists so far. Physicists have been applying a mixture of length
contraction, time dilation and classical views, instead of rigorous application of Lorentz
transformations (LT ). Length contraction and time dilation are only consequences of LT.
It is because of this inconsistent application of special relativity theory that the physics
community has failed to notice the fundamental contradiction in the theory.

Thanks to Almighty God Jesus Christ and His Mother Our Lady Saint Virgin Mary

13
References

14