How Einstein's general theory of relativity killed off common-sense physics

November 25, 2015 by David Lyth, The Conversation
How Einstein's general theory of relativity killed off common-sense physics
Curved space-time. Credit: Mopic

Gravity ties our bodies to planet Earth but it does not define the limits of the soaring human mind. In November 1915 – exactly one century ago – this was proven to be true when Albert Einstein, in a series of lectures at the Prussian Academy of Sciences, presented a theory that would revolutionise how we view gravity – and physics itself.

For two centuries, Newton's remarkably simple and elegant theory of universal gravitation had seemed to explain the matter well. But, as is increasingly true for physics, simple just doesn't cut it anymore.

Einstein's starting point for general relativity was his theory of special relativity, published in 1905. This explained how to formulate the laws of physics in the absence of . At the centre of both theories is a description of space and time that is different from the one that common sense would suggest.

The theories explain how to interpret motion between different places that are moving at constant speeds relative to each other – rather than relative to some sort of absolute ether (as Newton had assumed). While the laws of physics are universal, it says, different viewers will see the timing of events differently depending on how fast they are travelling. An event that would seem to take 1000 years when viewed from Earth may seem to take just a second for someone in a spacecraft travelling at great speed.

At the centre of Einstein's theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a clear indication that something is wrong with common sense.

The implication of this theory is that we need to give up the idea that there is a universal time, and accept that the time registered by a clock depends on its trajectory as it moves through the universe. This also means that time passes more slowly when you're going fast, meaning a twin going to space will age more slowly than their sibling back on Earth. This "twin paradox" may seem like a mathematical quirk but it was actually experimentally verified in 1971 in an experiment taking atomic clocks on commercial flights.

The video will load shortly

Special relativity works only for inertial frames moving relative to one another if they are moving at constant speed – it cannot describe what happens if they are accelerating. Einstein wondered how to expand it to include such acceleration and allow for gravity, which causes acceleration and is, after all, everywhere.

He realised that the effect of gravity disappears if one doesn't try to overcome it. He imagined people in an elevator whose cable had broken in free fall and worked out that since the objects would either float motionless or at constant speed, the people wouldn't feel gravity. But nowadays we know this is true as we have seen it ourselves in people at the . In both cases there are no forces counteracting the effect of gravity and the people experience no gravity.

Einstein also realised that the effect of gravity is the same as the effect of acceleration; driving off at high speed pushes us backward, just as if gravity were pulling us. These two clues led Einstein to general relativity. Whereas Newton had seen gravity as a force propagated between bodies, Einstein described is as pseudo force experienced because the entire interwoven fabric of space and time bends around a massive object.

Einstein himself said his path was far from easy. He wrote that "in all my life I have not laboured nearly so hard, and I have become imbued with great respect for mathematics, the subtler part of which I had in my simple-mindedness regarded as pure luxury until now."

The video will load shortly

The evidence

As soon as Einstein discovered general relativity, he realised that it explains the failure of Newton's theory to account for the orbit of Mercury. The orbit is not quite circular which means that there is a point at which it is closest to the sun. Newton's theory predicts that this point is fixed, but observation shows that it slowly rotates around the sun and Einstein found that general relativity correctly describes the rotation.

"I was beside myself with joyous excitement," he wrote a few months later. Since then, general relativity has passed many observational tests with flying colours.

You are using general relativity whenever you invoke the GPS system to find out your position on the Earth's surface. That system emits radio signals from 24 satellites and the GPS receiver in your phone or car analyses three or more of these signals to figure out your position using general relativity. If you had used Newton's theory, the GPS system would have given the wrong position.

But while works well to describe the physical world on large scales, quantum mechanics has emerged as the most successful for tiny particles such as those making up an atom. Just like the theories of relativity, is counter intuitive. Whether it is possible to unite the two remains to be seen but it is unlikely to reintroduce common sense into physics.

Explore further: Why Einstein will never be wrong

Related Stories

Why Einstein will never be wrong

January 14, 2014

One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or ...

After 100 years, Einstein's theory stands test of time

October 20, 2015

Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, and his revolutionary hypothesis has withstood the test of time, despite numerous expert attempts to find flaws.

Recommended for you

'Quantum' bounds not so quantum after all

July 1, 2016

(Phys.org)—Quantum bounds are numbers (such as 4, 6, and 2√2) that naturally appear in quantum experiments, similar to how the number π emerges in circles. But just as how π pops up in a wide variety of areas beyond ...

Imaging at the speed of light

July 1, 2016

Researchers have improved upon a new camera technology that can image at speeds about 100 times faster than today's commercial cameras while also capturing more image frames. The new technology opens a host of new possibilities ...

3 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

flag
not rated yet Nov 26, 2015
This paper explains the Special and General Relativity from the observed effects of the accelerating electrons, causing naturally the experienced changes of the electric field potential along the moving electric charges. The accelerating electrons explain not only the Maxwell Equations and the Special Relativity, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation, the wave particle duality and the electron's spin also, building the bridge between the Classical and Relativistic Quantum Theories. The changing acceleration of the electrons explains the created negative electric field of the magnetic induction, the electromagnetic inertia, the changing relativistic mass and the Gravitational Force, giving a Unified Theory of the physical forces. Taking into account the Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators also, we can explain the electron/proton mass rate and the Weak and Strong Interactions.
https://www.acade...lativity
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2015
Actually, it only adds nonsense, not a reasonable explanation. The discovery of the "+" and "-" entities within matter is the "Aha" moment. The field about any stationary particle is explained within Maxwell's equations. This field moves with the velocity vector of the charge and obeys the same inertia within an accelerating frame. Poor Dr. E got it all wrong with an attempt to change space and time while not defining the Poynting vector correctly. The speed of the wave-front is obviously defined from the initial conditions of the wavelet. The wave-length divided by the the time to pass is obvious, i.e. 1/frequency. Therefore the speed of the wave-front is not a constant. Dr. E misinterpreted mass. Mass is completely not reconciled once we discovered these particles. Try superposition of these fields; call it gravity if you will. The neutron is only a state of the hydrogen atom. The wave exist due to change, else static. Real physics.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2015
First define all possibilities with just the two particles, "+" and "-"! I have no problem defining "all" and do not see all these "particles" defined by wishful theoreticians for a Nobel or via the use of QM, a non causal tool. The egos that define the birth of the universe miss one single point, realizable events from "nothing"! The background radiation is obvious when one can see all the plasma that exist, duh! Best if we stop patting ourselves on the back and do some real work.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.