84

Chapter Eight: Einstein

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) revolutionized the human understanding of the
universe and of our place in it with his two daring assumptions, viz., the special (or restricted)
theory of relativity (1905) and the general theory of relativity (1915).

8.1 Special Theory of Relativity

In order to grasp Einstein’s revolutionary approach one ought to realize the basic
problem that confronted the scientific community at the end of the 19th century: the
incompatibility of the newly discovered laws of the electromagnetic field and classical
Newtonian mechanics. In the mid 19th century, considerable research had been done in the
domain of magnetic and electric fields by Michael Faraday (1791-1867) and James Maxwell
(1831-1879). The results of their research no longer fit into the general framework of
Newtonian physics. Newton had focused his attention exclusively on the motions of mass
particles within the unchangeable coordinates of space and time. Yet, the electromagnetic
fields behaved differently from mass particles in that they propagate themselves through
undulations with a speed that equals the speed of light (300,000 km a second); moreover they
carry a determinate amount of energy with them. The precise connection Maxwell established
in 1865 between electromagnetic fields and light waves was one of the great accomplishments
of 19th century mathematical physics, although it was already discovered earlier that light
travelled at the constant speed of 300,000 km /sec, no matter the speed of its source.1
The phenomenon of electricity not only left its imprint on the scientific community, it
also stimulated business activities. Electricity changed the way people lived. Generators were
invented, dynamos suddenly became available in the market, and incandescent bulbs lighted
the houses, streets, docks and railways of the cities, whereas the telegraph connected London
and Berlin. No wonder that the young Einstein, whose father was engaged, as a businessman,
in the manufacture of electronic equipment, was fascinated by the properties of light waves.
At age sixteen “he asked himself what would be the consequences of his being able to move
with the speed of light. This question, innocent as it appears, brought him into conflicts and
contradictions of enormous depth within the foundations of physics.”2 As a teenager he had
already been engaged in a private study of the classics of physics, dissatisfied as he was with
the rote learning at the Luitpold high school in Munich. The grades he received in high
school were mediocre. He hated high school so much that, in his last year, he took an early
entrance examination for the Swiss Polytechnic Institute in Zürich, but failed. Yet, after one
year of intensive study in Aarau, Switzerland, he was able to successfully complete the same
examination. It is at this Polytechnic Institute that he had the privilege of having the renowned
mathematician Hermann Minkowski as his teacher. Once he graduated, Einstein took a menial
job as a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. This was enough for him to earn his living so
that he could devote his spare time to the cherished thought-experiments that eventually
would revolutionize the Newtonian notions of space and time.
The constancy of the speed of light would reveal a major problem to Einstein, for it
basically exploded the framework of Newtonian physics. Indeed, within that framework the
speed of light varied, depending on whether one measured it from a stationary or a moving
platform. If assessed from a stationary frame of reference, the speed of light is measured at
1
See the discoveries by the astronomers 0. Roemer (1676) and J.Bradley, (1727) and the physicists A. Fizeau
(1849) and J. Foucault (1850).
2
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein (Glasgow: Fontana,1976), 39.
 85

300,000 km/sec, whereas assessed from a moving frame of reference (in the direction of the
light source) it is measured at less than 300,000 km/sec: “Common sense would seem to tell
us that if we were to travel very rapidly in some direction, then the speed of light in that
direction ought to appear to us to be reduced to below c (because we are moving towards
‘catching the light up’ in that direction).”3 The speed (v) with which we, when sitting in a
space craft, rush towards the beam of light ought, in this logic, to be subtracted from the speed
of that beam of light ( c ): the resulting velocity W should be: “W = c – v.”4
We have seen this procedure of subtraction and addition at work in Newton’s
description of the sailor walking on the deck with a mixture of absolute and relative motion.
The sailor moves at a velocity of 10,001 units eastward: namely the velocity of walking on the
deck (+1) added to the velocity of the rotating Earth, which also goes east (+10,010), minus the
velocity of the ship sailing west (-10). Yet, such computations militate against the constant value
of the speed of light in Maxwell’s field equations. These field equations give the same results
whether they are applied to a stationary frame of reference or to a frame of reference moving
uniformly in a straight line. “It was through worrying about such matters that Einstein was led
in 1905 […] to the special theory of relativity.”5 He was not willing to give up the elegance of
what is technically called the ‘equivalence principle’, according to which “the physical laws
[…] remain totally unchanged if we pass from a stationary to a moving frame of reference,”6
an insight Galileo gained with his experiments.

8.1.1 Relativity of Time and Space

The speed of light remains invariant if one passes from one frame of reference to
another frame of reference. Based on this insight, Einstein will challenge Newton’s notions of
absolute space and time. In his popular exposition of the theory of relativity, he gives the
following examples to illustrate the non-absolute character of time and space.
In a first move, Einstein dismantles the classic notion of simultaneity. He begins
with constructing two different frames of reference: a stationary “railway embankment” and a
“very long train travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in the direction
indicated in the figure below.” He then asks the question as to whether two strokes of
lightning, A and B, that from point M on the embankment are registered as simultaneous, will
also appear as simultaneous for an observer in the train who finds himself at point M’:

Figure 14 - Einstein's 'railway embankment'. Credit: Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Relativity,
trans. Robert W. Lawson (London: Methuen and Co Ltd, 1918)

The answer to this question is in the negative. It is indeed obvious that given the
speed of the train the observer sitting at M’ will hear the thunderbolt coming from B earlier
than that coming from A, in contrast to the stationary observer at M (on the embankment)

3
Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind . Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990), 191.
4
Albert Einstein, Relativity. The Special and the General Relativity. A Popular Exposition, trans. Robert Lawson
(New York: Bonanza Books, 1961), 18.
5
Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 191-192.
6
Ibid.,191.
 86

who hears them simultaneously. Similarly, the strokes of lightning will not be seen
simultaneously by the observer sitting at M’; yet, the time interval between both will be
perceived as much shorter than the time interval of the thunderbolts, since light waves
propagate themselves so much faster than sound waves. “Observers who take the railway train
as their reference-body must come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place
earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result: Events which are
simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train,
and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (coordinate-system) has its
own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time
refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event”. This insight revolutionizes
the classic notion of time: “Before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly
been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is
independent of the state of motion of the body of reference.”7 Yet, the above experiment has
shown that time depends on the velocity of the body/frame of reference.
The same is true for the measurement of space. Take again a train traveling along
the embankment with a velocity v. If one would measure in the train the distance between the
middle of the first and of the twentieth carriage then it would turn out that the measurement of
that same distance conducted on the embankment would be slightly different: “A priori it is by
no means certain that this last measurement would supply us with the same measurement as
the first. Thus the length of the train as measured from the embankment may be different from
that obtained by measuring in the train itself.”8 Measured from within the train, the length of
the train turns out to be shorter.
For Einstein, the specific values one gets for time and distance are clearly
dependent on the condition of motion (that is: on the speed) of the frame of reference. Yet, in
spite of that fact, the speed of light is always perceived as travelling at 300,000 km/sec: in all
frames of reference with their varying speeds. The speed of light is constant and is not in the
least affected by either the speed of the object emitting the light, or by the speed of the
observer perceiving it. Let us note in passing that, strictly speaking, the embankment on
which the measurements are made is also ‘in motion’ due to the rotation of the Earth.

8.1.2 Length Contraction and Time Dilatation

In order to corroborate the above insights Einstein has recourse to the Lorentz-
transformations,9 which describe how measurements of space and time by two observers
moving at different velocities are related. On the basis of the Lorentz-transformations it can
be demonstrated that rods in motion, which measure length, contract, and that clocks in
motion, which measure time, go slower: “the rigid rod is shorter when in motion than when at
rest, and the more quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod.” Similarly it must be said that
“as a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than at rest.” For Einstein, the
length contraction and time dilatation are the result of the fact that the speed of light is “a
limiting velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body.”10 It looks as
if the speed of light were really preventing measure-rods and clocks from coming up with
results that would exceed the speed of light: so rods must be shortened and clocks slowed
down the more they approach the speed of light.

7
Albert Einstein, Relativity, 26-27.
8
Ibid., 29.
9
The Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz examined the conditions under which Maxwell’s equations were invariant
when transformed from the ether (the stationary medium in which the electromagnetic waves were believed to
propagate) to a moving frame (the Earth).
10
Albert Einstein, Relativity, 35-37.
 87

A great many of the effects of relativity are counter-intuitive. No wonder that the
observers within a particular frame of reference are unaware of the changes in their own
measuring instruments. Take two spacecrafts, each with an observer (a pilot) in them. The
spacecrafts fly parallel to each other, each with a relative uniform motion and in the same
direction. The point of view of each will be that the other's (moving) clock is ticking at a
slower rate than their local clock and that the other’s (moving) measure rod is shorter than
their local measure rod. In other words, when looking into each other’s cabin, the pilots will
perceive that—in their neighbor’s cabin—time is running slower and, what is still more
remarkable, that their neighbor’s spacecraft (at a great speed approaching the speed of light) is
much shorter than it was on the ground. A spacecraft of 60 meters length at rest, e.g., shrinks
to 59 meters when reaching 10 % of the speed of light and to 30 meters at 86.5 % of the speed
of light. What it really means to say that time is running slower in comparable circumstances
is, in turn, not easy to imagine. It is illustrated, however, by the ‘twin paradox’ of relativity:
“one twin brother remains on the earth, while the other makes a journey to a nearby star,
travelling there and back at a great speed, approaching that of light. Upon his return, it is
found that the two twins aged differently, the traveler finding himself still youthful, while the
stay-at-home brother is an old man.”11

8.1.3 Equivalence of Mass and Energy

Einstein regards the equivalence of mass and energy as one of the most important
results of the special theory of relativity: a body’s mass can be converted into energy, and
likewise energy can be converted into mass. This convertibility presupposes that mass is not
constant: A body’s mass depends on the speed of its frame of reference, in the same manner
as duration and length depend on the speed of their frame of reference. “A moving electron,
or any massive object, becomes more massive when it is in motion with respect to an observer
than when it is at rest with respect to the same observer. In particular, as the speed of the
object approaches the speed of light its mass becomes infinite.”12 Here again, the speed of
light is a limit concept. It can never be reached by a material object, for “as an object
approaches the speed of light, its mass rises ever more quickly, so it takes more and more
energy to speed it up further. It can in fact never reach the speed of light, because by then its
mass would have become infinite, and by the equivalence of mass and energy, it would have
taken an infinite amount of energy to get it there."13
For Einstein, there exists a strong interrelation between mass and energy. To
express this interrelation mathematically, Einstein elaborated the simple and by now famous
equation: E = mc², where E denotes the energy of the object, m the mass, and c the speed of
light. Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light.
This equation also suggests the possibility of transforming mass into energy and
vice versa. Its most spectacular effect is the transformation of mass into energy which
Einstein brought up in one of his 1905 papers entitled ‘Does the Inertia of a Body Depend
upon Its Energy Content?: “If a body gives off the energy E in the form of radiation its mass
diminishes by E/c².”14 Conversely, the radiation that is set free has the power of the
diminished mass – a power that, as we now know, may cause a massive nuclear explosion, as
this happened with the dropping of two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with an
estimated death toll of 300,000 people. "The fact that mass is equivalent to energy means that,
in a sense, matter is `locked up' energy. If some way can be found to unlock it, matter will
11
Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 197.
12
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein,80.
13
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam Books, 1989), 21.
14
Quoted in Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein,84.
 88

disappear amid a burst of energy. Conversely, if enough energy is somehow concentrated,

matter will appear.”15

8.1.4 Four-Dimensional Space-Time

Einstein’s picture of the universe presupposes a special geometry that departs

from Euclidean geometry. This special geometry was developed by Hermann Minkowski,
three years after Einstein launched his special theory of relativity: “Minkowski had been one
of Einstein’s teachers at the Zürich Polytechnic Institute. His fundamental new idea was that
space and time had to be considered together as a single entity: a four-dimensional space-
time. In 1908, Minkowski announced, in a famous lecture at the university of Göttingen:
Henceforth space by itself and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”16

Figure 15 - Light cone. Credit: Wikipedia

The best way to get an idea of Minkowski’s geometry is to examine what he

reveals about the light cone. This light-cone is, in fact, a double-cone, centered at each event
in space-time. The upper-cone (the future light cone) represents the history of a light-flash
emitted at that event. The lower cone (past light cone) represents all directions from which
light flashes can be received at that event. Future and past light cones move outward at the
speed of light.
Let us for purposes of explanation focus on the future light cone. This will allow
us to grasp what Minkowski has in mind: to give a geometrical presentation of the basics of
special relativity. That which was called ‘the event’ at which the future light cone is centered
can also be termed a point of “space-time origin.”17 In this scenario it would look as if a
portion of space-time pops up and, as in an explosion, gives rise to particles and to the future
light cone that moves outward at the speed of light. The future light cone is the area in which
particles enact their history. Since the particles persist in time they are represented as lines:
the “world-lines”. It is these world-lines that are going to travel within the light cone. The
world-lines of particles that move uniformly are straight, whereas those of accelerating
15
Paul Davis, God and the New Physics (London: Penguin Books, 1983), 26.
16
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein,191.
17
Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 193.
 89

particles are curved. “Now, one of the features of relativity theory is that it is impossible for a
material particle to travel faster than light. All the material particles coming from the
explosion must lag behind the light. This means, in space-time terms, that the world-lines of
all the material particles emitted in the explosion must lie inside the light cone. ”18 For
photons, which are massless particles, this is different. Photons travel at the speed of light. So
it is quite natural that the world-line of a photon is “always along the light cone at each point,
whereas the history [the world-line] of any material particle must always be inside the light
cone at each point.”19
A further characteristic of special relativity is that the more the material particles’
world-lines dash further into the future swelling light cone – which moves outward at the
speed of light – the more the clocks attached to them go slower. This again indicates that no
material particle can travel faster than light.
The geometry of the light cones with growing circle makes it clear that (a) no
signal of a cosmic event can reach us that would be traveling faster than light, and (b) that
only in places that lie within this growing light cone the emitted signal can be registered.
"For example, if the sun were to cease to shine at this very moment, it would not affect things
on Earth at the present time because they would be in the elsewhere of the event when the sun
went out. We would know about it only after eight minutes, the time it takes light to reach us
from the sun. Only then would events on Earth lie in the light cone of the event at which the
sun went out. Similarly, we do not know what is happening at the moment farther away in the
universe: the light that we see from distant galaxies left them millions of years ago, and in the
case of the most distant object that we have seen, the light left some eight thousand million
years ago. Thus, when we look at the universe, we are seeing it as it was in the past."20
For Einstein, the four-dimensional space-time revolutionizes our notion of time.
In space-time there is no longer an independent, absolute notion of time with universal value:
“‘now’ loses for the spatially extended world its objective meaning.”21 It would be
nonsensical to regard our ‘now moment’ of observation as coinciding with the proper time
sequence of far away events in the universe. If one looks, e.g., at light emitted by a star, one
can be sure that its very source is no longer at the place where one perceives it to be now.
There are perhaps several (million) light-years between the light emission and our observation
of it, and during that interval, the star changed its position.

8.2 General Theory of Relativity

The special theory of relativity is restricted to the study of uniform straight line
motions. General relativity, however, includes the study of non-uniform motions, such as
acceleration, retardation and rotation. Yet, such an extension is not simple; it will necessitate,
as we will see, the elaboration of a geometrical theory in which space is curved, an approach
that definitely goes beyond Minkowski’s geometry of four-dimensional space-time.
Reduced to its essence, special relativity maintains that the same physical laws
(including the propagation of light) hold with reference to a framework when at rest (the
embankment) or in uniform motion (the railway-carriage, to use again this illustration). Now,
one’s instinct for generalization would be tempted to extend this equivalence to all sorts of
motions. But, at a first glance, there is little hope of the success of such an attempt.
To give us an idea of the fact that such a generalization is not immediately
plausible, Einstein constructs a scenario in which it becomes evident that a ‘retardation’

18
Ibid., 194.
19
Ibid., 195.
20
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 30.
21
Albert Einstein, Relativity, 149.
 90

disrupts the equivalence of a state of rest and a state of uniform straight line motion: “(a) Let
us imagine ourselves transferred to our old friend the railway carriage, which is travelling at a
uniform rate. As long as it is moving uniformly, the occupant of the carriage is not aware of
its motion, and it is for this reason that he can without reluctance interpret the facts of the case
as indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion. […] (b) If, however,
the constant motion of the carriage is interrupted, or changed into a non-uniform motion, as
for instance by a powerful application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage
experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded motion is manifested in
the mechanical behavior of bodies relative to the person in the railway carriage. The
mechanical behavior is different from that of the case previously considered, and for this
reason it would appear to be impossible that the same mechanical laws hold relatively to the
non-uniformly moving carriage, as hold with reference to a carriage when at rest or in
uniform motion.”22 Indeed, because of the change into a non-uniform motion, the occupant of
the carriage no longer feels at rest. The fact that he experiences a powerful jerk forward
suddenly interrupts his state of rest, and so the ‘equivalence’ between a state of rest and a
uniform straight line motion no longer holds. As we will see in more detail below, the trouble
maker is apparently gravity, which was not included in the special theory of relativity. Yet, if
one takes gravity as a new absolute, then equivalence between a state of rest and a state of
non-uniform motion (acceleration, retardation) can be established. That is what Einstein
undertakes in his general theory of relativity.

8.2.1 Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Mass

In order to make plausible the new equivalence, Einstein shows, in a first move,
that “the gravitational mass is equal to its inertial mass.”23 The two sorts of mass already
figured in Newton’s theory of motion: Inertial mass m measures the body’s acceleration as a
response to a given force F –see Newton’s second law of motion F = ma –, whereas
gravitational mass measures the gravitational attraction two bodies exert on each other.
Einstein, first of all, points to an inconsistency in Newton’s theory of gravity.
According to this theory gravity works at a distance through the void, and its effect is
instantaneously felt: for Newton, the gravitational attraction of the Sun is immediately felt by
the Earth. For Einstein, this is improbable for two reasons. It would, first of all, presuppose a
communication faster than the speed of light. And second, it ignores the fact that gravity is
propagated by gravitational fields.
When reflecting on gravity, Einstein from the outset links it to gravitational fields.
For him, the answer to the question ‘If we pick up a stone and then let it go, why does it fall to
the ground?’ is simply: ‘because it is attracted by the gravitational field of the earth.’ The
procedure is similar to a magnetic field that attracts a piece of iron. Yet, “in contrast to
electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which
is of fundamental importance for what follows. Bodies which are moving under the sole
influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend
either on the material or on the physical state of the body. For instance, a piece of lead and a
piece of wood fall in exactly the same manner in a gravitational field (in vacuo), when they
start off from rest or with the same initial velocity,”24 a phenomenon Galileo had already
discovered with his experiment of bodies rolling down a smooth slope.
It is because this acceleration happens at the same rate for all falling bodies, no matter
what their weight, that an equality of gravitational and inertial mass can be postulated: “If, as

22
Ibid., 61-62 (translation slightly modified).
23
Ibid., 65.
24
Ibid., 64.
 91

we find from experience, the acceleration is to be independent of the nature and the condition
of the body and always the same for a given gravitational field, then the ratio of the
gravitational and the inertial mass must likewise be the same for all bodies.”25 This insight
will lead Einstein to the elaboration of the equivalence of ‘acceleration due to gravity’ and a
‘state of rest’.

8.2.2 Equivalence of ‘Acceleration Due to Gravity’ and ‘State of Rest’

“Einstein’s first paper on this subject was published in 1907. 13 years later he
commented that while writing it a thought came to his mind, which he called ‘the happiest
thought of my life’ : ‘The gravitational field has only a relative existence…because for an
observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings –
there exists no gravitational field.’”26 For somebody finding himself in a free fall movement,
this fall is experienced as a state of rest as long as he shuts his eyes (or confines his
observations to his immediate vicinity). This implies that a state of rest is indistinguishable
from acceleration due to gravity.
In his popular exposition of relativity, Einstein brings this insight home to his
readers with the help of what has come to be known as the ‘Einstein elevator’. “This is a
closed box sitting in space somewhere which can be tugged , say, ‘up’ by someone outside
pulling on a rope attached to the roof, with a constant force,” 27 so that the box is constantly
being pulled upward. In the first moments the occupants of the elevator will feel pressed
‘down’ toward the floor, but after a while they are unable to distinguish whether they are in a
state of acceleration or at rest. Einstein uses this example to demonstrate the equivalence of
acceleration due to gravity and a state of rest as experienced by the occupants of the elevator.
He does this in various steps. (a) One of the occupants drops a ball and sees that it goes right
down to the floor of the elevator in an accelerated relative motion; the same is true for objects
of different weight. Relying on his knowledge of gravitational fields, he infers from it that the
box must feel the effect of a gravitational field, (b) Realizing this, he begins to be puzzled as
to why the box does not fall into the gravitational field. At that moment and just by chance, he
looks up at the ceiling of the box and perceives there a hook on which the rope is attached that
pulls the box upward, and comes to the conclusion that the box must be suspended at rest in a
gravitational field. “Ought we to smile at the man”, Einstein asks, “and say that he errs in his
conclusion? I do not believe we ought to if we wish to remain consistent; we must rather
admit that his mode of grasping the situation violates neither reason nor known mechanical
laws. Even though it is being accelerated […] we can nevertheless regard the box as being ‘at
rest’.”28
Einstein calls attention to the fact that this double interpretation – being in a state
of accelerated motion and being at rest – is only possible because of the special property of
the gravitational field of giving all the bodies, whatever their mass, the same rate of
acceleration. If this property did not exist, the man in the accelerated box “would not be able
to interpret the behavior of the bodies around him [ i.e. of the objects he dropped] on the
supposition of a gravitational field, and he would not be justified on the grounds of experience
in supposing his reference-body to be at rest.”29
The equivalence of ‘acceleration’ and ‘state of rest’ resolves also the problem that
Einstein initially brought up, namely that ‘being at rest’ would be incompatible with an

25
Ibid., 65.
26
Joseph Wudka, Space-Time, Relativity, and Cosmology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 200.
27
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein, 101.
28
Albert Einstein, Relativity, 67-68.
29
Ibid., 68.
 92

accelerated motion. He comes back to the story of the observer in the railway carriage who
experienced a jerk forwards as a result of the application of the brakes, and concluded from
this that the carriage was suddenly accelerated or retarded. Yet, Einstein writes, “the observer
is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a ‘real’ acceleration (retardation) of the carriage.
He might also interpret his experience thus: ‘My body of reference (the carriage) remains
permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of
application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards […]. Under the
influence of this field, the embankment together with the earth moves non-uniformly,”30 and
this accelerated motion of the earth (and of the embankment) causes the jerk that was felt in
‘the carriage at rest’.
With these illustrations Einstein made it clear that in the general theory of
relativity, with its focus on acceleration, the basic equivalence principle established by
Galileo also holds, “namely that the physical laws remain unchanged if we pass from a
stationary to a moving frame of reference.”31 This means in the concrete that “the effects of a
uniform constant acceleration on an observer or on his measuring instruments are
indistinguishable from – that is, equivalent to –the observer’s being at rest but acted on by a
uniform field of gravitation.”32 Yet, whereas in special relativity such an equivalence was
reached on the basis of the constancy of the speed of light ( which ‘relativizes’ any other
gradation of regular motion), in the case of general relativity this equivalence obtains on the
basis of the constant effect of the gravitational field. This difference in background
explanation will create a new problem, as will become evident in the ‘bending of light’.

8.2.3 Special Relativity as a Limiting Case of General Relativity: the Bending of Light

The special theory of relativity started from the assumption that light – the new
absolute standard –is rectilinearly propagated. This assumption can no longer be upheld in the
context of general relativity, for in it the power of the gravitational field is such that it makes
the straight rays of light curve. This phenomenon is known as the ‘bending of light’. This is
illustrated as follows: “Let us imagine the following situation: an elevator is attached to its
rope and being pulled upward with a constant force and hence a uniform acceleration. We are
stationed outside the elevator in the ‘rest frame’ with respect to which the elevator is
accelerating. We now fire a beam of light from our rest frame in such a way that the light
enters the elevator – by a small window, if you will –on a trajectory that is initially parallel to
the elevator floor. What we will observe happening is the floor of the elevator accelerating
upward toward the light beam. To us in our rest frame the light ray follows a straight line,
while to the people in the elevator the light beam will appear to have been bent down toward
the floor in an arc. If they do not ‘know’ that they are being pulled up, they can, according to
the principle of equivalence, conclude that there is a uniform gravitational field in their region
of space which is bending the light downward in a curved path.”33
This bending of light is, again, very strange, since according to Newtonian
physics, gravity only acts on material objects with mass, whereas light is apparently massless.
If one knows, however, about the formula E= mc², which posits the equivalence of energy and
mass, then this strangeness recedes. A beam of light transports energy; on this basis it can be
bent down by a gravitational field: “Rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in
gravitational fields.”34

30
Ibid., 70.
31
Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 191.
32
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein, 100.
33
Ibid., 101.
34
Albert Einstein, Relativity, 75.
 93

This finding, however, leads to an apparent conflict with the special theory of
relativity which rests on the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet, “a
curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies
with position” The more a ray of light curves, the slower it goes, which means that it will
travel slower than 300,000 km/sec. So, “the special theory of relativity cannot claim an
unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).”35 On the other hand, what
the special theory of relativity tells us about the constancy of the speed of light has a
tremendous research value: it allows us to realize the dramatic changes brought about by the
presence of gravitational fields (such as the bending of light, and the slowing down of its
velocity of propagation). “In the example of the transmission of light just dealt with, we have
seen that the general theory of relativity enables us to derive theoretically the influence of a
gravitational field on the course of natural processes, the laws of which are already known
when a gravitational field is absent.” It is thanks to the insights gained from the special theory
of relativity that the general theory of relativity could develop. The general theory of relativity
is a comprehensive theory, in which the special theory of relativity “lives on as a limiting
case.” 36
The bending of light has been experimentally tested. According to Einstein’s
calculations a light ray passing closely by the Sun’s surface would undergo a deflection of 1.7
seconds of arc under the influence of the Sun’s gravitational field. Such a deflection,
however, can only be observed during a solar eclipse. In 1919 two expeditions equipped by
the Joint Committee of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society in London, one
in Sobral in northern Brazil, and the other on the Isle of Principe in the gulf of Guinea off
West Africa, succeeded in making photographs of the solar eclipse on May 29. The results of
their measurements confirmed Einstein’s prediction of the light ray’s deflection.

8.2.4 Warping of Space and Slowing Down of Time

Given the special role played by gravitational fields in the general theory of
relativity, Einstein needed to elaborate a new concept of geometry: one that, more drastically
than Minkowski’s geometry of four-dimensional space-time, departs from Euclidean
geometry. The system of straight lines and coordinate time used in Euclidean geometry is no
longer workable for accelerating or rotating frames of reference.
In a first move Einstein shows that Euclidean geometry no longer holds in the case of
a rotating disc. (a) If one measures the circumference of a rotating disc and divides it by the
diameter of the disc one no longer gets the celebrated number known as ‘pi’ (3. 1415927…),
as to be expected in the Euclidean universe, but a number larger than ‘pi’: “This proves,”
Einstein remarks, “that the propositions of Euclidean geometry cannot hold exactly on the
rotating disc, nor in general in a gravitational field. [… ] Hence the idea of a straight line also
loses its meaning.”37 (b) If one places two identical clocks, one on the circumference of a
rotating disc and one close to the rotating disc’s center, and compares the registered times, it
turns out that the clock on the circumference runs slower than the central clock. From this
state of affairs Einstein concludes that “it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of
time[…]. On our circular disc, or to make the case more general, in every gravitational field, a
clock will go more quickly or less quickly, according to the position in which the clock is
situated (at rest).”38

35
Ibid., 76.
36
Ibid., 77 (italics mine).
37
Ibid., 82.
38
Ibid., 81.
 94

When both the idea of a straight line and of coordinate time become meaningless
in the context of accelerated motions, then a new non-Euclidean geometry will be required in
which space curves and time slows down with increasing acceleration, or what boils down to
the same: with the growing effect of a gravitational field. Such geometry had already been
developed in the 19th century by Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855), and Bernhard Riemann
(1826-1866). Following the lead of Gauss, Einstein set out to construct a non-Euclidean
continuum in which Gaussian coordinates play an important role. Euclidean continuum is a
space in which one can reach any point by first reaching a nearer point, and in which it is
taken for granted that the points are linked to each other by straight lines from which adjacent
squares can be formed. A non-Euclidean continuum, on the contrary, will be formed by
curved, arbitrarily chosen intersecting lines, termed Gaussian coordinates, and such a system
can be extended to a number of dimensions.

Figure 16- Gaussian coordinates. Credit: Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, trans.
Robert W. Lawson (London: Methuen and Co Ltd, 1918)

When working with Gaussian coordinates one no longer assumes that distances can be
measured with rigid rods and time sequences with regular clocks. Such measurements only
hold for Euclidean, ‘flat’ geometry; it is only in this ‘flat’ geometry that the angle sum of a
triangle is 180 degrees. Besides this, there are geometries for curved surfaces. In the geometry
developed by Riemann, e.g. all triangles have angle sums greater than 180 degrees. One can
visualize this as the geometry with ‘positive’ curvature, like a sphere. In the ‘hyperbolic’
geometry of Gauss, on the contrary, “all triangles have angle sums less than 180 degrees. One
can visualize this as the geometry of ‘negative’ curvature shaped something like a funnel,”39
or a saddle.
It is the geometry of ‘negative curvature’ that challenged Einstein to reformulate
his equivalence principle. This principle now reads as follows: “All Gaussian coordinate
systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of nature,”40 i.e.
they are all equivalent for the formulation of the effect of gravitational fields on the warping
of space-time. The Gaussian coordinate systems are very flexible: they move in any way
whatsoever and may suffer all possible alterations during their motion. Nonetheless, all these
flexible coordinate systems “can be used as reference-bodies with equal right and equal
success in the formulation of the general laws of nature.”41

8.2.5 Einstein’s Post-Newtonian Cosmology

39
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein, 122.
40
Albert Einstein, Relativity, 97.
41
Ibid., 99.
 95

Einstein goes beyond Newton mainly in three areas: his new interpretation of
gravitation; his accurate calculation of the recession of the orbit of Mercury; and his
prediction of a non-static universe.

1.The concept of gravitation. Newton avowed that he did not exactly know what
gravitation was, but that, in spite of this, he was able to formulate the equation that ruled its
effects: F = Mm/ r²: the force that attracts two bodies to each other equals the product of their
respective masses (Mm), whereas the pull of this force diminishes with the square of the
distance (r). Based on this equation, he could predict e.g. the velocity with which each of the
planets orbit the Sun on their elliptical trajectory. Newton’s equations are still essentially
valid and continue to be used for rough calculations, but Einstein’s approach is more refined.
“In Einstein’s new approach the equations of Newtonian gravitation are replaced by a new set
of equations that retain their form in all possible coordinate systems, both accelerated and
uniformly moving.”42
The fact that they retain this form in all possible coordinate systems is intrinsically
connected with the phenomenon of gravitational fields. “Einstein made the revolutionary
suggestion that gravity is not a force like other forces, but is a consequence of the fact that
space-time is not flat, as had been previously assumed, but curved, or `warped,' by the
distribution of mass and energy in it."43 Wherever in the universe there is a significant
amassment of mass and energy, gravitational fields make their appearance, and this leads to a
‘warping’ of space (and a ‘slowing down’ of time). If one takes our Sun, for example, then it
is evident that its mass and energy make the surrounding space adopt a hollow curvature.

Figure 17 - Einstein's warped space. Credit: NASA Science (http://science1.gov)

This concept of ‘warped’ space would have been completely incomprehensible to

Newton. For him, the force of gravity pierced through the void and used its power to maintain
the planets in their orbits. Not so, for Einstein, for whom the planets do not be follow circular
or elliptical paths on a flat plane, but rather follow a straight line within a curved region of

42
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein, 113.
43
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 32.
 96

space. "Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity;
instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a curved space, which is called a
geodesic. […] This is rather like watching an airplane flying over hilly ground. Although it
follows a straight line in three-dimensional space, its shadow follows a curved path on the
two-dimensional ground."44 The curvature of space caused by the gravitational field generated
by the Sun’s mass/energy is to speak, the natural milieu in which the planets move in quasi-
straight lines: the nearer they are to the Sun the faster will they complete their journey through
that part of curved space-time.

2. The recession of the orbit of Mercury. In Newton’s universe each planet orbits
the Sun along an elliptic path; the Sun is not located in the center of the ellipse but slightly
off-center, so that two areas can be distinguished: the perihelion or that part of the ellipse that
is closest to the Sun, and the aphelion or that part that is farthest away from the Sun. Newton
had already observed that after one orbit the planet did not return exactly to the same place:
after each journey around the Sun the planet’s aphelion slightly receded from its previous
position. Newton realized that this recession was due, not only to the Sun’s attraction, but also
to the attraction that the other planets exerted on the planet in question.
This recession was the most visible in the case of Mercury, the planet closest to
the Sun: “Each time the planet went once around the Sun it returned to a different point in
space, so that the orbit, if viewed long enough, would look something like the petals of a
flower.”45 This was an occasion for Newton to calculate the recession of that planet. He
ascertained that it would take Mercury 64 years and 286 days to return to its original position.
With the help of his field equations, Einstein made the same calculations and discovered that
Mercury’s return to the original position would take 182 days less. This data was confirmed
by subsequent astronomical observations.

3. Prediction of a non-static universe. Whereas Newton still retained a picture of

the world in which the solar system was in the center of the universe, Einstein laid down the
foundation for a universe that has no proper center. When elaborating in 1917 the equations
representing the whole of the universe he started from the assumptions that at large scales the
universe is homogenous (uniform in composition throughout) and isotropic (uniform when
measured from different directions). These assumptions had far reaching consequences; they,
in fact, annulled the central position previously ascribed to our solar system. In Stephen
Hawking’s words: "Now at first, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever
direction we look in might seem to suggest that there is something special about our place in
the universe […] There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the
same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.[...] It would be most remarkable if
the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the
universe!"46
But there is more to it. Einstein’s equations predicted a universe that was not
static, but caught up in a process of continuous formation: his equations represented universes
that were either expanding or contracting; there were no solutions representing a static
universe.”47 In 1917, when Einstein was elaborating his equations, the telescopes were not yet
strong enough to explore parts of the universe outside our own galaxy. So, since the predicted
expansion was not observable within our galaxy, Einstein felt compelled to “modify his
equations in such a way as to allow solutions describing a static universe, while still

44
Ibid., 32-33.
45
Jeremy Bernstein, Einstein, 126.
46
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 45.
47
Joseph Wudka, Space-Time, Relativity and Cosmology, 230.
 97

preserving the geometrical character of the theory.”48 The next generation of scientists would
demonstrate that such a modification was not necessary and that what Einstein’s original
equations predicted –an expanding universe – was the true picture of the world.

48
Ibid., 232.