Einstein just said ‘No’

Einstein just said ‘No’

Astronaut Mark C. Lee floating 130 miles above the Earth • NASA

Originally published 10 December 1990

Most of us have seen tele­vi­sion images of astro­nauts float­ing in space.

The astro­naut’s hand lets go of a tool and the tool floats, it does­n’t fall. Weight­less­ness, we call it. Up and down are all the same.

There’s no grav­i­ty in space, right?

Wrong! Near a plan­et there is cer­tain­ly grav­i­ty. The astro­nauts float­ing in the cab­ins of their space­craft are just a few hun­dred miles above the sur­face of the Earth. They are pulled down­ward with almost as much force as they expe­ri­ence on the ground.

Then why do they float? Why are they weightless?

For the same rea­son that we feel light on our feet when the ele­va­tor starts its descent. The astro­nauts are falling, as we are falling in the ele­va­tor. But they are also mov­ing for­ward, par­al­lel to the ground, at a con­sid­er­able speed. As they fall, the sur­face of the Earth curves with them. They are falling in a big long cir­cle that takes them right around the Earth.

But they don’t feel it. Inside their closed space­craft they don’t per­ceive that they are falling. They might as well be in a place where grav­i­ty does not exist. The tool floats mag­i­cal­ly with­in the opened hand. The cup hov­ers above the table. Water poured from the cup drifts as weight­less­ly as thistledown.

Einstein’s answer

Albert Ein­stein died before the space age began, but he imag­ined what things might be like in a freely-falling space­craft. He asked him­self if there was any­thing that a res­i­dent of the closed cab­in might do to decide if he were falling near the Earth or at rest in a place with­out grav­i­ty. And he decid­ed that the answer was — or should be — an emphat­ic No.

No” is a sim­pler answer than “yes,” thought Ein­stein. Things that seem the same might, at a deep­er lev­el of under­stand­ing, be the same.

In the ear­ly win­ter of 1915, Ein­stein pub­lished four papers in the pro­ceed­ings of the Pruss­ian Acad­e­my of Sci­ences explor­ing the impli­ca­tions of the “no.” In effect, he asked, “What must be the laws of nature if astro­nauts in a closed space­craft are unable to decide, by any con­ceiv­able exper­i­ment, if they are falling near the Earth or at rest with­out grav­i­ty.” He came up with ele­gant new equa­tions describ­ing grav­i­ty and the fab­ric of space-time, called gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty.

Curved space, the Big Bang, black holes, Ein­stein rings, grav­i­ta­tion­al lens­es, a finite uni­verse with­out bound­aries, “Warp fac­tor Five, Mis­ter Sulu.” These are only a few of the dozens of ways gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty has found its way into the pop­u­lar imagination.

Some­times new the­o­ries are forced upon us: Things hap­pen that the old the­o­ries can’t explain, so we are forced to invent or amend. But that’s not what hap­pened with Ein­stein. No unex­plained obser­va­tion required his inven­tion. He sim­ply want­ed to make what we already knew more ele­gant, more simple.

Of course, Ein­stein knew that his the­o­ry must agree with expe­ri­ence. Even the most beau­ti­ful the­o­ry must be aban­doned if it does­n’t account for what we observe. But gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty is so remark­ably beau­ti­ful that he — and almost all physi­cists — were con­vinced of its truth, though at the time of its inven­tion and for a long time there­after it could only be test­ed by a few tiny observ­able effects.

Testing the theory

In a [Novem­ber 1990] issue of Sci­ence, Clif­ford Will, of the McDon­nell Cen­ter for the Space Sci­ences at Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in St. Louis, sum­ma­rizes 75 years of the test­ing of Ein­stein’s the­o­ry. It is an extra­or­di­nary record of human curios­i­ty and tech­ni­cal inge­nu­ity pushed to the limit.

The gold­en age for gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty exper­i­ments did not begin until 1960, after Ein­stein’s death, main­ly because the tech­nol­o­gy for mea­sur­ing tiny spa­tial and tem­po­ral effects did not exist before that time. For exam­ple, Ein­stein’s the­o­ry pre­dicts that clocks run at dif­fer­ent rates on the top floor of a build­ing and in the base­ment, because the flow of time is affect­ed by grav­i­ty. But the dif­fer­ence is extreme­ly slight and could unde­tectable until the advent of ultra-pre­cise timekeepers.

Gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty has now been test­ed by many ter­res­tri­al exper­i­ments, by instru­ments aboard space­craft, and by obser­va­tions of dis­tant pul­sars and galax­ies. The range and sub­tle­ty of the exper­i­ments is daz­zling. All sup­port Ein­stein’s the­o­ry and rule out most alter­na­tive theories.

It is unfor­tu­nate that Ein­stein did not live to see his the­o­ry so con­sis­tent­ly con­firmed, but he would not have been sur­prised. In 1930 he wrote: “I do not con­sid­er the main sig­nif­i­cance of the gen­er­al the­o­ry of rel­a­tiv­i­ty to be the pre­dic­tion of some tiny observ­able effects, but rather the sim­plic­i­ty of its foun­da­tion and its consistency.”

Gen­er­al rel­a­tiv­i­ty had its ori­gin in pure thought, but has now been sup­port­ed by a wide range of obser­va­tions and exper­i­ments. It is the 20th cen­tu­ry’s supreme exam­ple of the pow­er of the human mind to make sense of the world.

Share this Musing: