A Synthesis of Einstein's 'Relativity: The

Special and General Theory' summarised by ; ARUSH TRIPATHI

Section 1: The Special Theory of Relativity: A New

Framework for Space and Time

The Special Theory of Relativity, introduced by Albert Einstein in 1905, represents a

fundamental reconstruction of the classical understanding of space, time, and motion. It is not
a theory born from a vacuum but rather the logical culmination of a deep-seated conflict that
emerged between two pillars of nineteenth-century physics: the mechanics of Galileo and
Newton, and the theory of electromagnetism developed by Maxwell. The entire theoretical
edifice of Special Relativity can be understood as a chain of inexorable deductions stemming
from the resolution of a single, profound paradox. The theory's true genesis lies not in its
postulates alone, but in the irreconcilable contradiction between them when viewed through
the lens of classical physics. The resolution demanded a radical departure from the
unexamined, "common-sense" assumptions about the absolute nature of time and space.1

1.1 The Two Foundational Postulates

At the heart of the Special Theory of Relativity lie two fundamental principles, or postulates,
which provide the axiomatic foundation from which all its consequences are derived. These
postulates are generalizations of empirical observations and theoretical insights that, when
taken together, force a complete revision of kinematics.1

The Principle of Relativity (in the Restricted Sense)

This principle is an extension of an idea familiar from classical mechanics. It asserts that the
laws of nature are identical for all observers in uniform, non-rotational motion. Such frames of
reference, where the law of inertia holds, are known as Galileian systems.1 In more formal
terms, if a coordinate system

K1 is in a state of uniform translatory motion with respect to another Galileian system K, then
all natural phenomena unfold according to the same general laws in both K and K1.1

This is a powerful statement of equivalence. It denies the existence of any physically

privileged or "absolutely at rest" frame of reference. For instance, an observer in a smoothly
moving railway carriage is justified in considering the carriage to be at rest and the
embankment to be in motion; from the perspective of physical laws, both viewpoints are
equally valid.1 This principle is strongly supported by a wealth of empirical evidence, most
notably the failure of numerous highly sensitive experiments, such as the famous
Michelson-Morley experiment, to detect any "æther-drift" or variation in physical laws due to
the Earth's motion through space. The consistent negative results of these experiments
provide a compelling argument that no particular state of uniform motion can be
distinguished from any other.1

The Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light

The second postulate, derived directly from Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, states that
the speed of light in a vacuum, denoted by the constant c (approximately 300,000 km/s), is
independent of the motion of its source.1 This means that whether a light source is moving
towards an observer, away from them, or is stationary, the light it emits will always be
measured to travel at the same speed,

c. This principle has been confirmed by numerous astronomical observations, such as those
of double stars, which show that the light from the approaching and receding members of the
pair arrives in a way that is consistent with a constant light speed.1

It is the juxtaposition of these two principles that creates the central paradox. According to
classical mechanics and the intuitive theorem of velocity addition, if a person walks at velocity
w inside a train moving at velocity v, their velocity relative to the embankment is simply
W=v+w.1 Applying this same logic, if a ray of light is sent from the moving train in the direction
of travel, an observer on the embankment should measure its speed as

c+v. This, however, directly contradicts the second postulate, which demands that the speed
be measured as c. Furthermore, if the speed of light were different for the observer on the
embankment than for the observer on the train, it would violate the first postulate, as the law
of light propagation would not be the same in both reference frames. This inescapable
conflict signals that the underlying assumptions of classical kinematics—specifically, the
nature of space and time themselves—must be flawed.1

1.2 The Relativity of Simultaneity and Distance

Einstein's crucial insight was to recognize that the contradiction between the two postulates
was rooted in the tacit and unexamined assumption of absolute time. The classical notion that
time flows uniformly for all observers, regardless of their state of motion, underpins the
Galileian transformation. To resolve the paradox, Einstein first had to deconstruct the very
concept of "simultaneity".1

Deconstructing "Simultaneity"

The concept of two events happening "at the same time" seems intuitively obvious. However,
a physicist must define a concept by the method used to verify it. Einstein proposes a precise
operational definition of simultaneity using a thought experiment. Imagine a railway
embankment with two points, A and B, struck by lightning. To determine if these strikes were
simultaneous, an observer is placed at the exact midpoint, M, of the segment AB. This
observer is equipped with mirrors that allow them to see both A and B at once. If the observer
perceives the light flashes from A and B at the exact same instant, the events are defined as
simultaneous with respect to the embankment.1 This definition relies on the stipulation that
light takes the same amount of time to travel the equal distances AM and BM.1

Now, consider this scenario from the perspective of a very long train moving with a constant
velocity v along the embankment. Let M' be the point on the train that is precisely opposite M
at the moment the lightning strikes occur (as judged from the embankment). An observer at
M' on the train will also attempt to judge the simultaneity of the events. However, in the time it
takes for the light from A and B to reach M', the train has moved. The observer at M' is moving
towards the light coming from B and away from the light coming from A. Consequently, the
light from B will reach the observer at M' before the light from A does. The observer on the
train must therefore conclude that the lightning strike at B occurred earlier than the strike at
A.1

This leads to a revolutionary conclusion: "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the
embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa".1 Simultaneity is
not an absolute property of events but is relative to the observer's frame of reference.
The Consequence for Time and Distance

The relativity of simultaneity shatters the foundation of absolute time. If observers in different
states of motion cannot agree on whether two events happen at the same time, they also
cannot agree on the duration of time intervals. This implies that every reference body must
have its own particular time; a statement about the time of an event is meaningless without
specifying the reference frame.1

This has a direct consequence for the measurement of distance as well. To measure the
length of a moving object, such as the train, an observer on the embankment must determine
the positions of its front and back ends at a particular time t (i.e., simultaneously) in the
embankment's frame. But since simultaneity is relative, an observer on the train, who has a
different standard of what is simultaneous, will not agree with this measurement. Thus, the
length of an object, like the duration of a time interval, is also a relative concept, dependent
on the state of motion of the observer.1 By demonstrating the relativity of these fundamental
concepts, Einstein invalidates the classical velocity addition theorem and clears the path for a
new kinematics consistent with his two postulates.1

1.3 The Lorentz Transformation

To create a new kinematics that reconciles the two postulates, the classical Galileian
transformations, which are mathematically expressed as x′=x−vt and t′=t, must be replaced.
The new set of equations must have the property that the speed of light remains c for all
observers in uniform motion. This physical requirement leads to a unique mathematical
solution known as the Lorentz transformation.1

The New Kinematics

The Lorentz transformation provides the mathematical rules for translating the space and
time coordinates of an event from one inertial frame, K, to another, K', which is moving with a
constant velocity v relative to K along their common x-axis. The equations are as follows 1:

$$x^{\prime} = \frac{x - vt}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$$$y^{\prime} = y$$$$z^{\prime} = z$$

t′=1−c2v2​​t−c2v​x​
Unlike the Galileian transformation, the Lorentz transformation shows that the time coordinate
t′ in the moving frame depends on both the time t and the spatial position x in the stationary
frame. This mathematical entanglement of space and time is the formal expression of the
relativity of simultaneity. If the relative velocity v is much smaller than the speed of light c, the
term v2/c2 becomes negligible, and the Lorentz transformation equations approximate to the
familiar Galileian ones. This shows why classical mechanics works so well for the everyday
velocities we experience.1

The structure of these equations is precisely what is needed to ensure the constancy of the
speed of light. If a light pulse travels along the x-axis in frame K, its position is described by
x=ct. Substituting this into the Lorentz equations yields, after simplification, the relation x′=ct′.
This demonstrates that the light pulse is also measured to be moving at speed c in the K'
frame, in full agreement with the second postulate.1 The mathematical quantity that remains
invariant (unchanged) between the two frames is not time or distance separately, but the
combined "spacetime interval" defined by

ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2−c2dt2. The constancy of this interval is the mathematical heart of the

theory.1

1.4 Consequences for a Moving Observer

The Lorentz transformation equations are not mere mathematical formalisms; they lead to
concrete physical predictions about how moving bodies and processes are observed. These
consequences, while seeming counter-intuitive from a classical perspective, are the
necessary and unavoidable results of a universe in which the speed of light is constant for
everyone.

Length Contraction

Consider a rigid metre-rod at rest in the moving frame K', aligned with its x'-axis, with its ends
at x′=0 and x′=1. To measure its length from the stationary frame K, we must determine the
positions of its two ends at the same instant of time t in frame K. Using the first Lorentz
equation, we find that the measured distance between the ends of the rod in frame K is not 1
metre, but 1−v2/c2​metres.1

This phenomenon is known as length contraction or Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. A moving

object is measured to be shorter in its direction of motion than when it is at rest. This is not a
physical compression of the object but a consequence of the relativity of space and time. The
effect is reciprocal: an observer in frame K' would measure a metre-rod at rest in K to be
similarly contracted. As an object's velocity v approaches the speed of light c, its measured
length in the direction of motion approaches zero. This provides one indication that c is a
cosmic speed limit, as velocities greater than c would lead to imaginary lengths.1

Time Dilation

A similar effect occurs for the measurement of time. Let us place a clock at the origin (x′=0) of
the moving frame K'. Consider two successive ticks of this clock, occurring at times t′=0 and
t′=1 second. Using the fourth Lorentz equation to find the corresponding times in the
stationary frame K, we find that the time interval between these two ticks as measured by
clocks in K is not 1 second, but 1−v2/c2​1​seconds.1

This is the phenomenon of time dilation. A moving clock is observed to run more slowly than
an identical clock at rest. Like length contraction, this effect is reciprocal and becomes more
pronounced as the velocity v approaches c. At the speed of light, time would appear to stand
still. This effect has been experimentally verified with remarkable precision, for instance, by
observing the decay rates of fast-moving subatomic particles, which live longer than their
stationary counterparts, exactly as predicted by the theory.

The Relativistic Theorem of Velocity Addition

The Lorentz transformations also yield a new law for the composition of velocities, which
replaces the simple additive rule of classical mechanics. If an object moves with velocity w
relative to the frame K', and K' moves with velocity v relative to K (both in the x-direction), the
velocity W of the object relative to K is not v+w. Instead, it is given by the formula 1:

W=1+c2vw​v+w​
This formula has a crucial feature: no matter how close v and w are to the speed of light, the
resulting velocity W will always be less than c. For example, if a spaceship moving at 0.9c fires
a projectile at 0.9c relative to itself, the projectile's speed relative to a stationary observer will
not be 1.8c, but approximately 0.994c. This reinforces the status of c as an absolute,
unattainable speed limit. This relativistic velocity addition law was elegantly confirmed by an
experiment performed by H. Fizeau in the mid-nineteenth century, which measured the speed
of light in moving water. The results were in excellent agreement with the relativistic formula
and inconsistent with the classical one.1

1.5 The Unification of Mass and Energy

Perhaps the most profound and far-reaching consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity
is its revelation of a deep and fundamental connection between mass and energy. Before
relativity, physics was governed by two separate and seemingly independent conservation
laws: the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy. Relativity unites them into a
single, more fundamental principle.1

Relativistic Kinetic Energy

The theory demands a modification of the classical expression for the kinetic energy of a
moving body, m2v2​. The new, relativistic expression for the kinetic energy of a body of mass m
moving with velocity v is 1:

Ek​=1−c2v2​​mc2​−mc2
The first term, 1−c2v2​​mc2​, represents the total energy of the moving body. As the velocity v
approaches the speed of light c, this term approaches infinity. This implies that an infinite
amount of energy would be required to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light,
providing another powerful argument for why c is an ultimate speed limit.1

Mass-Energy Equivalence (E=mc2)

By analyzing the conservation of energy and momentum in relativistic interactions, Einstein

arrived at a startling conclusion. If a body absorbs an amount of energy E0​(for example, in
the form of radiation), its inertial mass—its resistance to acceleration—increases by an
amount Δm=E0​/c2. Conversely, if a body emits energy E0​, its mass decreases by the same
amount.1

This leads to the famous equation E=mc2. This equation does not merely state that mass can
be converted into energy, but that mass is a form of energy. The inertial mass of a body is a
direct measure of its total energy content. The term mc2 represents the "rest energy" of the
body, an enormous reservoir of energy locked within its mass even when it is stationary. The
separate laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy are subsumed into a single,
unified law: the conservation of mass-energy. A system's total mass-energy is conserved,
though mass can be converted into other forms of energy (like kinetic energy or radiation) and
vice-versa.1 This principle is the foundation of nuclear physics, explaining the immense energy
released in nuclear fission and fusion, where a small fraction of the mass of atomic nuclei is
converted into energy. At the time of the book's writing, direct experimental confirmation was
not yet possible, but a later note confirms that the equation has since been "thoroughly
proved time and again".1

1.6 The Four-Dimensional Spacetime Continuum

The mathematical structure of the Lorentz transformation, with its intermingling of space and
time coordinates, pointed towards a new and deeper geometric reality. It was the
mathematician Hermann Minkowski who, in 1908, provided a profound and elegant geometric
interpretation of Special Relativity, a formulation that would prove indispensable for the later
development of General Relativity.1

Minkowski's "World"

Minkowski recognized that the physical world is not a three-dimensional space that evolves
through a separate, independent time. Instead, it is a four-dimensional continuum, which he
called "spacetime" or the "world." An "event"—a specific point in space at a specific instant in
time—is represented as a single point in this four-dimensional continuum, described by four
coordinates: three for space (x, y, z) and one for time (t).1

In this framework, the history of a particle is not a trajectory through space, but a static
line—a "world-line"—in the four-dimensional spacetime. The Lorentz transformations, which
relate the observations of two observers in uniform motion, can be understood geometrically
as a "rotation" of the coordinate axes within this four-dimensional world.1

A Geometric Foundation
The key insight of Minkowski's formulation is the concept of the invariant spacetime interval.
While different observers will measure different spatial distances and time intervals between
two events, they will all agree on the value of the spacetime interval, ds2, defined as:

ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2−c2dt2
This is analogous to how, in three-dimensional Euclidean geometry, different observers using
rotated coordinate systems will agree on the distance between two points, even if they
disagree on the individual x, y, and z components. By treating time as a fourth dimension
(formally, by using the imaginary coordinate ict), Minkowski showed that the spacetime of
Special Relativity could be regarded as a four-dimensional Euclidean space.1 This geometric
perspective was more than a mathematical convenience; it revealed the underlying structure
of reality that the theory described. It provided the essential language and conceptual tools
that Einstein would later use to generalize his theory to include gravity.1

Section 2: The General Theory of Relativity: Gravity as

Geometry

The Special Theory of Relativity, for all its revolutionary insights, was incomplete. Its principles
were restricted to a "special" case: observers in uniform, non-accelerated motion. This
preferential treatment of inertial frames was intellectually unsatisfying, suggesting the
existence of an "absolute motion" in the form of acceleration, a notion that relativity was
supposed to have abolished. The intellectual journey from this special case to a general
theory applicable to any state of motion led Einstein to a new and radical understanding of
gravity, not as a force acting between objects, but as the intrinsic geometry of the spacetime
continuum itself.1

2.1 The Principle of Equivalence

The conceptual leap from Special to General Relativity began with Einstein's contemplation of
a well-known but deeply mysterious fact of classical physics: the precise equality of a body's
inertial mass and its gravitational mass.

The Limitation of Special Relativity and the Clue of Mass

Inertial mass is the property of a body that measures its resistance to a change in its state of
motion (acceleration), as described by Newton's second law, F=mi​a. Gravitational mass is the
property that determines the strength of the gravitational force acting on a body, as in
Newton's law of gravitation, F=Gr2Mmg​​. Empirically, it is found that for any object, mi​=mg​.
This is the reason why, in a vacuum, a feather and a lead ball fall with the same acceleration;
the greater gravitational force on the lead ball is perfectly cancelled by its greater inertia.1 In
Newtonian physics, this equality is a remarkable coincidence with no fundamental
explanation. For Einstein, this coincidence was a profound clue to the true nature of gravity.1

The Accelerating Chest and the Principle of Equivalence

To explore the meaning of this equality, Einstein devised a powerful thought experiment.
Imagine an observer inside a large, windowless chest floating in a region of empty space far
from any gravitational influence. If an external agent begins to pull the chest "upwards" with a
constant force, the chest will undergo a uniformly accelerated motion. The observer inside will
feel their feet pressed against the floor. If they release an object from their hand, the object,
no longer accelerated by the floor, will appear to "fall" towards the floor with a constant
acceleration relative to the chest. The observer could perform experiments with various
objects and would find that they all "fall" with the same acceleration, regardless of their mass
or composition.1

From the perspective of the observer inside the chest, this situation is completely and utterly
indistinguishable from being at rest in a uniform gravitational field. There is no experiment
they could perform within the confines of the chest that could tell them whether they are
accelerating in empty space or resting on the surface of a planet. This led Einstein to
formulate the Principle of Equivalence: a uniform gravitational field is locally equivalent to a
uniformly accelerated frame of reference.1 This principle is a Trojan horse, allowing the
overthrow of the Newtonian concept of gravity from within. By establishing this
indistinguishability, it forces a unification of kinematics (the study of motion) and gravitation.
Gravity ceases to be a unique, mysterious force and instead becomes a manifestation of
motion itself.

2.2 The Curvature of Spacetime

The Principle of Equivalence is the bridge that leads directly to a geometric theory of gravity.
If a gravitational field is equivalent to an accelerated frame, then whatever is true in an
accelerated frame must also be true in a gravitational field.

Gravity's Effect on Light

Consider again the accelerating chest. If a beam of light is sent horizontally across the chest
from one wall to the other, in the time it takes the light to travel, the chest will have
accelerated "upwards." To an observer inside the chest, the light ray will appear to follow a
curved, parabolic path, bending downwards towards the floor.1 By the Principle of
Equivalence, if light follows a curved path in an accelerated frame, it must also follow a curved
path in a gravitational field. Gravity bends light.1

This conclusion has momentous implications. The path of a light ray is the definition of a
"straight line" in spacetime. If light rays can be curved, then the very geometry of spacetime
must be curved. The presence of gravity distorts the fabric of spacetime, making it
non-Euclidean.

The Failure of Euclidean Geometry in a Gravitational Field

To make this concept more concrete, Einstein employed another thought experiment: a
rotating disc. An observer on the disc experiences a centrifugal force pushing them outwards,
which, according to the general principle of relativity, they are justified in interpreting as a
gravitational field that increases in strength with distance from the center.1

Now, this observer attempts to perform a geometric measurement. They take a standard
measuring-rod and measure the circumference and the diameter of the disc. According to
Euclidean geometry, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter should be the constant π.
However, the observer on the disc will find a different result. When the measuring-rod is laid
along the circumference, it is moving with respect to the non-rotating (Galileian) frame
outside the disc. According to Special Relativity, it will therefore undergo a Lorentz
contraction and appear shorter to an external observer. More rods will be needed to cover the
circumference. When the rod is laid along a radius, however, its motion is perpendicular to its
length, so no Lorentz contraction occurs. As a result, when the observer on the disc divides
their measured circumference by their measured diameter, they will get a value greater than
π.1

This proves that the geometry on the rotating disc—and therefore, by the Principle of
Equivalence, in a gravitational field—is not Euclidean. The familiar rules of geometry taught in
school do not apply. This reframes the problem of gravity entirely. Instead of asking "What
force causes gravity?", Einstein asks "What is the geometry of spacetime in the presence of
mass?". The answer to the second question is the theory of gravity.

Gravity as Geometry

The ultimate conclusion of this line of reasoning is that gravity is not a force that propagates
through a passive spacetime background. Gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of the
spacetime continuum itself. Massive objects warp the geometry of spacetime around them.
Other objects, and even light rays, then move along the straightest possible paths available in
this curved spacetime. These paths are called "geodesics." A planet orbiting the sun is not
being pulled by a force; it is simply following its natural, "straight" path (a geodesic) through
the spacetime that has been curved by the sun's mass.1 The force of gravity is revealed to be
an illusion, an artifact of our attempt to describe motion in a curved geometry using the
concepts of a flat one.

2.3 The Mathematics of Curved Spacetime

To describe the physics of a curved, non-Euclidean spacetime, the simple Cartesian

coordinates of classical and special relativistic physics are no longer sufficient. A more
general mathematical framework is required, one that can handle arbitrary curvatures and
coordinate systems.

Gaussian Co-ordinates

The necessary mathematical tools had been developed in the nineteenth century by Carl
Friedrich Gauss for the study of curved surfaces, and later generalized to higher dimensions
by Bernhard Riemann. This framework uses what are known as Gaussian co-ordinates. In this
system, the points of the spacetime continuum are labeled with four numbers (x1​,x2​,x3​,x4​) in
an arbitrary way. These coordinate values have no direct physical meaning in themselves; they
are merely labels.1

Physical reality is not found in the coordinate values, but in the relationships between events.
For example, the only physically real statements are about the "coincidences" or "encounters"
of objects—that is, the intersection of their world-lines at a single spacetime point, which is
characterized by the agreement of their four coordinate values.1 The geometry of the
spacetime is encoded in a set of quantities called the metric tensor (

gμν​), which determines the spacetime interval ds2 between infinitesimally close points
according to the formula:

ds2=μ,ν=1∑4​gμν​dxμ​dxν​
In a flat, Euclidean spacetime, this reduces to the simple form from Special Relativity, but in a
curved spacetime, the gμν​components vary from point to point, describing the local
curvature.1

The Field Equations

The culmination of the General Theory of Relativity is a set of ten coupled, non-linear partial
differential equations known as the Einstein Field Equations. These equations form the core of
the theory and provide the precise mathematical relationship between the geometry of
spacetime and the distribution of matter and energy within it. In a compact form, they state
that the curvature of spacetime (represented by the Einstein tensor, Gμν​) is directly
proportional to the density and flux of energy and momentum in that spacetime (represented
by the stress-energy tensor, Tμν​). Essentially, the equations can be summarized as: "Matter
tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".1

2.4 Predictions and Empirical Confirmation

A scientific theory must do more than provide a beautiful and consistent new worldview; it
must make testable predictions that can be confirmed or falsified by experiment and
observation. The General Theory of Relativity made several such predictions, which differed
from those of Newtonian physics. Their subsequent confirmation provided powerful evidence
for the theory's validity.

The Precession of the Perihelion of Mercury

Newton's theory of gravity predicted that a planet should orbit the sun in a perfect ellipse that
remains fixed in space (ignoring the small perturbations from other planets). However, for
over half a century, astronomers had known that the orbit of Mercury, the innermost planet,
did not behave this way. After all known perturbations were accounted for, its elliptical orbit
was observed to be slowly rotating, or precessing, by a tiny but measurable amount:
approximately 43 seconds of arc per century.1 This anomaly was a persistent puzzle for
classical mechanics.

General Relativity provided a natural and elegant explanation. The theory predicted that the
sun's warping of spacetime would cause the orbits of all planets to precess. For most planets,
the effect is too small to be observed, but for Mercury, which is close to the sun and moves in
a relatively strong gravitational field, the theory calculated a precession of exactly 43
seconds of arc per century, in stunning agreement with the observed value. This was the
theory's first great triumph.1

The Deflection of Starlight by the Sun

As established by the Principle of Equivalence, the theory predicted that light rays should be
bent as they pass through a gravitational field. Specifically, it predicted that a ray of starlight
grazing the edge of the sun should be deflected by an angle of 1.75 arcseconds.1 This
prediction could be tested by photographing the stars around the sun during a total solar
eclipse (when they become visible) and comparing their positions to photographs of the same
star field taken at a different time of year.

In 1919, two British expeditions, organized by Sir Arthur Eddington, traveled to Sobral, Brazil,
and the island of Principe, off the coast of Africa, to observe a solar eclipse. Despite immense
technical challenges, they successfully photographed the stars near the eclipsed sun. The
measurements of the photographic plates showed a displacement of the stars away from the
sun's limb, consistent with the bending of light. The results confirmed Einstein's prediction and
catapulted him and his theory to worldwide fame.1

The table below presents the quantitative results from the 1919 expedition, showing the
measured and calculated deviations of the stars in rectangular coordinates. The close
agreement between the observed and calculated values provided strong support for the
theory.

Star Number Observed Calculated Observed Calculated

Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation
(x-component) (x-component) (y-component) (y-component)
 11 -0.19 seconds -0.22 seconds +0.16 seconds +0.02 seconds
of arc of arc of arc of arc

5 +0.29 seconds +0.33 seconds -0.46 seconds -0.43 seconds

of arc of arc of arc of arc

4 +0.11 seconds +0.10 seconds +0.83 seconds +0.74 seconds

of arc of arc of arc of arc

3 +0.20 seconds +0.12 seconds +1.00 seconds +0.87 seconds

of arc of arc of arc of arc

6 +0.10 seconds +0.04 seconds +0.57 seconds +0.53 seconds

of arc of arc of arc of arc

10 -0.08 seconds -0.09 seconds +0.35 seconds +0.20 seconds

of arc of arc of arc of arc

2 +0.95 seconds +0.85 seconds -0.27 seconds -0.09 seconds

of arc of arc of arc of arc

Source: Data derived from the appendix of "Relativity: The Special and General Theory".1

Gravitational Redshift

A third prediction of the theory is the phenomenon of gravitational time dilation. Clocks in a
stronger gravitational field (i.e., at a lower gravitational potential) should run more slowly than
clocks in a weaker field. Since the emission of light by an atom can be considered a kind of
clock, the theory predicts that light emitted from the surface of a massive star should have a
lower frequency and a longer wavelength than light from an identical atom on Earth. This shift
of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum is known as gravitational redshift.1

For the sun, the predicted effect is very small, about two parts in a million, and difficult to
disentangle from other effects that can shift spectral lines. At the time of the book's writing
(1920), the observational evidence was inconclusive.1 However, a later note added to the text
confirms that the effect was definitively established in 1924 by observations of the dense
companion star to Sirius, where the gravitational field is much stronger and the effect is more
pronounced.1

Section 3: Cosmological Implications: The Universe as

a Whole

The application of the General Theory of Relativity to the universe on the largest possible
scale—the domain of cosmology—represents its ultimate extension. The theory provided, for
the first time, a mathematically rigorous framework for studying the structure and evolution of
the cosmos as a single physical system. This transformed cosmology from a field of
philosophical speculation into a quantitative, predictive science, demonstrating that the
overall structure of the universe is not a pre-ordained, static backdrop, but is itself a dynamic
entity governed by the laws of physics.

3.1 Beyond Newton: The Inadequacies of a Static, Infinite Universe

When applied to the universe as a whole, Newton's theory of gravity leads to profound and
unresolved paradoxes. The most natural assumption within a Newtonian framework is that the
universe is infinite in extent and, on average, contains a uniform distribution of stars.1

The Newtonian Dilemma

This seemingly simple picture is fraught with difficulties. As the astronomer Heinrich Seeliger
pointed out, in an infinite universe with a uniform distribution of matter, the gravitational force
at any given point would be the sum of an infinite number of contributions, leading to an
infinitely large and undefined gravitational field.1 To avoid this, one might imagine that the
stellar universe is a finite "island" of matter situated in an infinite ocean of empty space. This
model, however, is also unsatisfactory. Such a finite system would be gravitationally unstable
and should collapse towards its center. Furthermore, it would constantly be losing energy and
matter, as the light from its stars and the stars themselves would perpetually escape into the
infinite void, leading to a universe that would become systematically impoverished over time.1

Attempts to resolve these paradoxes by making ad hoc modifications to Newton's law—for

instance, by proposing that the force of gravity weakens faster than the inverse square of the
distance at very large scales—are theoretically unsatisfying. Such modifications are arbitrary,
lack any empirical or theoretical foundation, and are devised solely to fix the problem at
hand.1

3.2 The Geometry of the Cosmos

General Relativity offers a radical and elegant solution to these cosmological difficulties by
linking the geometry of space directly to the matter and energy it contains. The structure of
the universe is not an assumption one must make, but a solution that emerges from the
physical laws themselves.

A Finite, Yet Unbounded Universe

The development of non-Euclidean geometry in the nineteenth century by mathematicians

like Riemann had shown that it is logically possible for space to be finite in volume without
having any boundaries or edges. Einstein uses the analogy of two-dimensional beings living
on the surface of a sphere to illustrate this concept.1 For these beings, their "universe" is the
two-dimensional surface of the sphere. They could travel in any direction and would never
encounter a boundary, yet their world has a finite, measurable area. They could even deduce
the curved nature and finite size of their universe without circumnavigating it, simply by
performing geometric measurements. For example, they would find that the ratio of the
circumference of a large circle to its diameter is always less than the Euclidean value of

π.1

General Relativity suggests that our three-dimensional space may be analogous to this
spherical surface. It could be a three-dimensional "hypersphere"—a space that is finite in
volume but has no bounds. In such a universe, if one were to travel in a "straight line" (a
geodesic), one would eventually return to the starting point.1

Matter Dictates Geometry

Crucially, the field equations of General Relativity dictate that the geometry of the universe is
determined by its average density of matter and energy. The calculations show that a universe
with a non-zero average density of matter, as we observe, cannot be the infinite, flat
Euclidean space of classical physics. Instead, if matter is distributed uniformly on the largest
scales, the universe must have a positive curvature, resulting in a closed, "quasi-spherical"
geometry. It is necessarily finite.1 This conception resolves the Newtonian paradoxes in a
natural way. In a finite, unbounded universe, there is no center for matter to collapse towards
and no infinite void for energy to be lost into. The gravitational field is everywhere finite and
well-defined.

3.3 The Dynamic Universe: From a Static to an Expanding Spacetime

The dynamic nature of the field equations implies that the relationship between matter and
geometry evolves over time. This led to the final revolutionary insight of modern cosmology:
the universe is not a static entity but a dynamic object undergoing expansion.

The Static vs. Dynamic Models

When Einstein first applied his equations to cosmology in 1917, he, like all physicists of his
time, held a strong prejudice for a static, unchanging universe. He found that his equations
predicted a dynamic universe that would either collapse under its own gravity or expand. To
force a static solution, he reluctantly introduced a new term into his equations, the
"cosmological constant," which acted as a kind of repulsive force to counteract gravity on
cosmic scales.1

However, in the 1920s, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann explored solutions to
Einstein's original field equations without the cosmological constant. He discovered that the
equations naturally admitted dynamic solutions, describing a universe whose overall size, or
"world radius," changes with time. These solutions predicted either an expanding or a
contracting universe.1

Hubble's Confirmation of an Expanding Universe

This theoretical possibility was transformed into an observed reality in 1929 by the work of the
American astronomer Edwin Hubble. By observing the light from distant galaxies (then called
extra-galactic nebulae), Hubble discovered that their spectral lines were systematically
shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. This redshift increased in direct proportion to
the distance of the galaxy. The most natural interpretation of this phenomenon was the
Doppler effect, indicating that the galaxies are receding from us, and the farther away they
are, the faster they are receding.1

Hubble's discovery provided stunning empirical confirmation of the expanding universe

predicted by the Friedmann solutions to Einstein's equations. The universe is not a static
container but a dynamic fabric of spacetime that is itself expanding, carrying the galaxies
along with it. This discovery laid the foundation for the modern Big Bang theory of cosmology.
While this picture raised new questions, such as an apparent discrepancy between the age of
the universe implied by the expansion and the estimated age of stars, it marked the point
where the history and ultimate fate of the cosmos became subjects of empirical, predictive
science, governed by the laws of General Relativity.1

Works cited

1.​ relativity.pdf