Explainer: Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

It’s the year 2100. You wake up alone in a small, windowless room. The only other thing in the room is a small ball. Maybe the room is located in your city, but maybe it’s inside that new spaceship everyone’s talking about. How can you tell?

Here’s a mind-bending look at Relativity courtesy of Jonathan Carroll and Lewis Tunstall from the Centre for the Subatomic Structure of Matter at the University of Adelaide.

The GPS on your phone couldn’t work without General Relativity. Photo: Jym Dyer

You pick up the ball and drop it. It falls vertically to your feet. You time the fall and calculate that the ball accelerates at 9.8 metres per second per second, exactly the acceleration of gravity at the surface of the Earth.

But a spaceship in the middle of deep space can also accelerate by that much, producing the exact same results. So where are you?

In 1911, Einstein formally proposed that gravitational mass (that which produces a gravitational field) and inertial mass (that which resists acceleration) were one in the same, and this became known as the “equivalence principle”. According to this principle, you can’t tell whether you’re in a gravitational field (such as on the surface of the Earth) or experiencing constant acceleration (a spaceship speeding up, pushing you to the floor, like the g-force of a roller-coaster).

Another example is the infamous “Vomit Comet”, officially the Weightless Wonder (see video below), used by NASA for training, and occasionally by Hollywood for filming. Just as with our example with the ball, there’s no way to tell the difference between free fall, and being in the absence of a gravitational field, say in deep space.

This principle led Einstein to consider incorporating gravity into the framework of his special theory of relativity, culminating in his General Theory of Relativity.

At face value, that doesn’t appear such a difficult thing to do. Until this point, the properties of objects in isolation could be described by equations with great accuracy. But what to do about gravity? How does one calculate the properties of a system in which acceleration can be due to either gravity or changes in velocity? It seems to depend on how you are looking at it.

That led to the idea of a “reference frame” – the stage on which the objects you are looking at play out their roles. There may of course be other frames in which the objects appear to behave differently, so we need a description of all the frames, and the way to relate them.

The trick was to consider space and time as a four-dimensional object in itself – not a fixed stage on which the objects are defined, but something that itself can change.

Space Time

Let’s say you and I are going to meet for coffee. How do you describe this “event”? One option is to look at a map – “I’ll meet you at the cafe on level two of the building that’s at G5 on the map”. We have described three coordinates: G, 5, and level two. This is another way of saying a set of x, y, and z coordinates. So that we both actually meet for coffee, we’ll also need to add a fourth coordinate: time – say 2:00pm. These four points are what we call a space-time event.

General Relativity says the map can be distorted; and our coordinates will depend on how that happens. If I were to bend the map a little, the distance between two locations changes.

If you measure and add the angles of a triangle on the flat map you would get 180 degrees. If you do this on the curved map, you get a little more or a little less (depending on which way it’s curved). In the same way, the universe itself can have areas of different curvature.

Now For the Mind Bending Part…

You might know that, in the absence of any forces, things like to travel in straight lines (thank you, Newton). What about when the space is curved? We can still talk about straight lines, but now the lines follow the curvature. Think about drawing a small, straight line on a basketball. You can draw a line all the way around the ball and arrive back at the starting point. It’s straight, but also curved.

Odd things happen in “curved space” that contradict what we expect from “flat space”. If you walk north ten kilometres, west ten kilometres then south ten kilometres, you would expect to end up ten kilometres east of where you started. Do that at the North Pole and you end up where you started!

Now we can expand our definition and say objects not influenced by a force travel along straight lines in curved space. In particular, things with mass (or energy, thanks to E = mc²) follow these straight paths in curved space.

The experimental proof of this occurred during a solar eclipse in 1919 where starlight was observed to be bent by the sun. The amount of bending was predicted by Einstein, and not by the standard “Newtonian” theory.

So matter follows the curvature of space, but we know matter is the source of gravity, so the curvature responds to matter as well. In the words of American theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler, “Matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move.”

What if we have lots of matter in one place? Imagine you are driving up a steep hill. There is some steepness that is too much for your car to manage, even at its fastest. In the same way, if we have a very large amount of matter in a very small area, the curvature becomes so strong that not even light (perhaps the fastest thing in the universe) is fast enough to get out. This is a black hole.

Beautiful Curves

Starlight and black holes are fun, but what does this have to do with day-to-day life on Earth? Have you ever used the Global Positioning System (GPS)? It’s a common feature of mobile phones today, but it relies entirely on General Relativity to work.

We said our map could be curved so that the points in the space dimensions were closer together. Since space and time behave together as space-time, the same trick happens for time. If we have some large mass, the curvature in the time dimension means that the more curved the space-time is, the slower a clock ticks there (or appears to for someone in a less curved region).

There is a measurable difference between the rate at which your atomic clock ticks on the surface of the Earth, and that at which one in orbit ticks.

Without this correction, GPS satellites would not be able to tell you where you are with such accuracy.

General relativity has seen so many experimental achievements with astounding precision (explaining the anomalous orbit of Mercury, orbital decay of binary stars, and the gravitational redshift of light) that it’s hard to believe it might not be the complete theory of gravity.

Some speculation recently arose because NASA’s Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft (currently around 15,400,000,000 and 12,400,000,000 kilometres from Earth, respectively) appeared to be slowing down almost imperceptibly more-so than would be expected, even taking into account General Relativity effects.

But it appears the answer is that thermal radiation from the crafts is slowing them down slightly, and General Relativity remains intact.

General Relativity is possibly one of the most comprehensive theories ever formulated, and certainly involves many more facets than can be covered here. Gravity waves, gravitational lensing, dark energy, and the fact it cannot be combined with the standard model of particle physics are all thoroughly interesting topics.

To have the time to describe them all, we would need to be accelerating near the speed of light … or in a strong gravitational field.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Discuss

(19 Comments)
  • [–]

    Will

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM

    “If you walk north ten kilometres, west ten kilometres then south ten kilometres, you would expect to end up ten kilometres east of where you started. Do that at the North Pole and you end up where you started!”

    Shouldn’t that be at the South Pole?

    • [–]

      Random

      Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 4:01 PM

      Drawing on a piece of paper (and imagination)tells me that you will end up 10 KMs East of where you started. i.e. you are drawing a square if you complete another 10 KMs to the East.

      But I believe, because the poles are flat (and its curved elsewhere) you are actually drawing a triangle and not a square :)

      I believe this is the answer.

    • [–]

      Random

      Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM

      oh and yes… “10″ KMs from North Pole is North Pole :P

    • [–]

      poedgirl

      Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 6:44 PM

      I went down to the comments to point this out also. You can’t go north from the North Pole as there is no more north. Also, every direction from the North Pole is south. Therefore, you can’t go west. You would just arrive 10km south of where you started.

      It does, however, make sense at the South Pole as stated (go north from the South Pole, then west and you’re still the same distance from the South Pole).

      • [–]

        Steve

        Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 11:30 PM

        I’m also wondering about this. You’d think that if someone wrote a published article to teach readers and engaged in a bit of intellectual auto-fellatio, they’d get basic shit like this right.

        The metaphors are rather poorly chosen. Comes off like they’re trying to sound like Carl Sagan but are really coming off like the Mythbusters in their simplicity. And not Savage/Hyneman either, the younger crew whose casual dialogue is awkward and obviously scripted.

  • [–]

    Random

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM

    Hmm.. I would use a magnet suspended from a string or better a Mariner’s Compass.

    Wonder what they would tell us..

  • [–]

    Craig

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 4:01 PM

    If you walk north 10km, west 10km then south 10 km at the north pole you’ll end up 10km south of the north pole, not where you started since you can’t actually walk north or west from the north pole. If you walked those same measurements from the south pole, then yes, you would end up back where you started.

    • [–]

      Random

      Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 4:05 PM

      Whoa… that’s interesting and why is that?

  • [–]

    huu

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 4:06 PM

    Dont really know the answer but if that ball toward an ugly puppet on a tricycle, you are are pretty much f’ked.

  • [–]

    Stew

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 5:03 PM

    This is amazing, fascinating, mind-blowing stuff. So too is Special Relativity and the field of Astrophysics in genreal. Too many times have I lost hours on a Wikipedia binge jumping from one theory to another (to get an idea of, not understanding the mathematics behind it all). It makes me want to look outwards to the universe, not inwards to our own species’ petty bickering & squabbles.

    It’s because I’m aware of ideas like these that I fail to understand how people can be so interested in celebrity gossip, and explains why I only really have a passing interest in the news. I understand (but don’t completely agree with) what Eleanor Roosevelt meant when she said “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson – are all brilliant, influential scientists who make these mind-opening ideas accessible to the general public. There is so much out there to explore & learn about.

    • [–]

      Stew

      Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM

      “To have the time to describe them all, we would need to be accelerating near the speed of light … or in a strong gravitational field.”

      Relative to you & I, time would still be ticking away at its normal pace, but going by quickly outside our frame of reference. To an outside observer, we’d appear to slow down. After the lesson was complete, I’d go to tell someone what you’d taught me – only to find they’d been dead for a few millennia.

  • [–]

    Nat

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 5:30 PM

    I’m now waiting to see the if the recent experiment that resulted in some neutrinos travelling faster than light is either validated or debunked.

    If it is validated, Einstein’s theory of special relativity will have to be amended.

  • [–]

    Geoff

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 7:12 PM

    Dammit! We didn’t get out of the spaceship! That’s why I kept reading the article! I found this to be a little too simplistic, and the metaphors somewhat flawed. The basketball one was weak. You draw a line on it and you are following the curve of it’s surface, the force being your hand. Try to travel north from the south pole. Pick a direction! That’s merely the poles affecting the compass. No trickery there. Is north from the north pole straight up??

    • [–]

      Stuart

      Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 8:45 PM

      I think that North from the North pole is essentially a meaningless statement. It certainly isn’t straight up, because that would probably lead you to conclude that South from the ‘south pole is straight down’. And if you mean ‘down’ as in toward your feet, that’s the same direction as “North- straight up”! Or if you mean up and down in regard to the solar elliptical plane, then as a Southern hemisphere resident I strongly object to be labelled as ‘down’!

  • [–]

    Jonathan Carroll

    Wednesday, October 12, 2011 at 9:31 PM

    Original author here. Wow. I’ve been reading Gizmodo for a while now – imagine my surprise reading it tonight.

    Thanks to everyone for the comments. Sorry about the North/South thing – yes, I meant starting from the South pole.

    The concept was supposed to be parallel transport [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_transport] and perhaps this wasn’t the best analogy. The point is that on a flat (say, street directory) map, the turns (N,W,S) by 90degrees don’t bring you back to the starting point. At the poles (where the curvature is most apparent, on some non-cylindrical projection – it’s curved similarly everywhere) following the longitudes and latitudes doesn’t do this. Pointing an arrow in one direction while travelling this route, it doesn’t point in the original direction in curved space.

    @Nat – since you mentioned it… http://theconversation.edu.au/neutrinos-and-the-speed-of-light-not-so-fast-3513

    @Geoff – obligatory XKCD for you… http://xkcd.com/895/

    Cheers everyone!

  • [–]

    Lewis

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 12:20 AM

    Hi and thanks for the comments. We did indeed make an error with the North/South pole, so well spotted (here’s a visual of what we were hoping to convey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomy). Regarding the basketball, we were trying to highlight that most of us have an intuition of what’s known as Euclidean geometry (i.e. the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, parallel lines never meet, angles on a triangle sum to 180 degrees etc), but for curved surfaces this intuition needs revising. Another way to understand straight lines on curved surfaces is to grab a piece of paper, draw a straight line with a ruler, then join two of the edges to make a cylinder. You now have a straight line which looks curved simply due to the fact that you’ve gone from a flat geometry to a curved one. Now you can generalise this idea to higher dimensions, and Einstein’s remarkable insight was to note that the motion of macroscopic objects should be viewed as motion along straight lines in curved space. Hope that helps; in the meantime I will work on producing flawless metaphors ;-)

  • [–]

    curious

    Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 2:56 AM

    “If you walk north ten kilometres, west ten kilometres then south ten kilometres, you would expect to end up ten kilometres east of where you started.”

    Wouldn’t you end up 10km WEST of where you started?

    • [–]

      Jonathan Carroll

      Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 9:29 AM

      *throws compass out window*

      At this point it may be easier for me to just define periodic boundary conditions on a 10×10 km area of my map and claim that everything’s correct as is.

      Good to see people are reading carefully. If that’s the only error we’ve made I’m pretty happy :)

      • [–]

        curious

        Friday, October 14, 2011 at 2:28 PM

        Yeah I had to runs those directions in my head about 3 times before i posted in case I had misunderstood the article or some fundamental flaw in physics. I didn’t want to look like one of those tools that correct articles for the sake big-noting.

Join The Discussion