Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Equivalence principle — where it appears

The statement that no local experiment can distinguish standing in a gravitational field from accelerating through empty space. The word local is load-bearing: over a large enough region the tides give it away, and how large that region may be is set by the curvature and the instrument.

Named by 20 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Light crossing an accelerating box. A pulse crosses a box 6 m wide while the box accelerates at 9.81 m/s². The crossing takes 2·10⁻⁸ s, in which the far wall gains 1.96·10⁻⁷ m/s, so the pulse lands 1.96·10⁻¹⁵ m below the height it left at — and the path is a parabola. An observer sealed inside cannot tell that from a beam of light bending in a gravitational field, and the equivalence principle says there is nothing to tell. The sag is drawn 5.6·10¹⁴ times its true size.

The floor that cannot be told from gravity

Seal a laboratory, take away the windows, and no experiment inside it can distinguish standing in a gravitational field from accelerating through empty space. That is not a philosophical remark — it forces light to bend, forces clocks to disagree, and has a size at which it stops being true.

astrophysics · Equivalence principle Where a clock gains, and where it loses. The rate of a clock in a circular orbit against one on the ground, in microseconds per day, plotted against altitude. Height makes it gain and speed makes it lose, and the two cancel exactly at 3186 km — where a satellite keeps the same time as the ground for two reasons that have nothing to do with each other. At 20200 km the total is 38.5 µs a day, which is about ten kilometres of position error if it is ignored.

The clock that runs slow lower down

Two identical clocks, one on the floor and one on a shelf, do not keep the same time — and the difference is large enough that a satellite navigation system which ignored it would be useless within a morning. The derivation needs nothing but a photon and a conservation law.

astrophysics · Gravitational redshift Two predictions, a factor of two apart. The deflection of light passing a mass, against impact parameter, on logarithmic axes. The lower line is what a Newtonian photon does — it falls while it crosses, and comes out bent by 2GM/bc². The upper line is what a geodesic does in curved spacetime, which is exactly twice that. At the surface of a body of 1.99·10³⁰ kg the two are 0.88″ and 1.75″. Both are straight lines of slope minus one, so the ratio is two everywhere and the measurement is a choice between two theories rather than a fit.

The bend Newton got half right

A photon treated as a falling body passes a mass and comes out deflected. So does a photon treated as a straight line in curved spacetime — by exactly twice as much. The factor of two is not a refinement; it is the sharpest available statement that gravity is geometry.

astrophysics · Light deflection Two corrections, opposite in sign and different in size. How fast a clock in a circular orbit runs compared with one on the ground, in microseconds a day, against the height of the orbit — with the two effects drawn apart rather than added. Being high speeds a clock up, by an amount that saturates: the potential term is bounded because there is only so much potential to climb out of. Moving slows it down, and a higher orbit is a slower one, so that term shrinks toward zero. They cancel at 3186 km — a radius of exactly 1.5 Earth radii, which follows from setting the sum to zero and contains neither G, nor the Earth's mass, nor the speed of light. At 20200 km the gravitational term is 45.7 µs a day and the speed term −7.2, leaving 38.5. Left uncorrected, that is 11.5 km of position error a day, growing without limit, from a clock that is working perfectly.

The clock that is wrong in two directions

A satellite clock loses 7.2 microseconds a day to its speed and gains 45.9 to its height. The two effects have opposite signs, different sizes and different dependence on the orbit, so there is exactly one altitude where they cancel — and 38.6 microseconds a day, left alone, is eleven and a half kilometres of position error.

relativity · Time dilation How large a box may be before gravity shows in it. The largest freely falling laboratory in which nothing can be detected, against how long the experiment runs, for an instrument resolving 10⁻⁹ m. Free fall removes the field and leaves the gradient: two masses released a distance apart converge across the fall and separate along it, by (GM/r³)Lt²/2, so the box that stays undetectably flat shrinks as the square of the time. At one second the limits are 1.30 mm at the Earth's surface, 5.07 mm at the Sun's surface, 8.61 nm at a white dwarf, 1.86·10⁻¹⁷ m at a neutron star, 3.88·10⁻¹⁷ m at a stellar black hole, 388 mm at a giant black hole. Two things are worth reading off it. The equivalence principle is local in time as much as in space, on the same footing and with a worse exponent — patience is more expensive than room. And the tidal parameter GM/r³ falls with mass at a horizon, so a large enough black hole is one an experimenter could fall through with a metre-sized laboratory and a very good interferometer and detect nothing at all: the curve for the giant lies above the Earth's, not below it.

The term free fall cannot remove

Fall freely and gravity disappears. It disappears only to the extent that the falling laboratory is small — what survives is the gradient, which pulls two released masses together across the fall and apart along it. Given an instrument, the size of the box in which nothing is detectable is computable, and that number is the whole content of the word "locally".

astrophysics · Equivalence principle The bigger the hole, the gentler the horizon. The difference in gravitational pull between the two ends of a 1.8 metre body, at the moment it crosses the horizon, against the mass of the hole. Both axes are logarithmic and the line is straight, of slope -2.00: the tidal acceleration at a horizon falls as the square of the mass, because the tide goes as the mass over the cube of the radius and the radius itself is proportional to the mass. At the low end — a hole of a few solar masses — the stretch is 1.9e+7 times Earth's gravity across a person, which pulls them apart long before they arrive. At the high end it is 1.9e-11, which is nothing at all: crossing the horizon of a large enough hole is locally unremarkable, and an observer would notice no boundary being passed. The two meet at 1.0e+4 solar masses, above which the horizon can be crossed intact. That is the sharpest available statement of what a horizon is and is not. It is not a surface, nothing is there, and nothing local marks it — it is the place from which no future path leads out, which is a statement about the whole of the future rather than about anything present.

The horizon that nothing marks

A falling body is torn apart by the difference in gravity between its ends. At the horizon of a black hole that difference goes as the inverse square of the mass, so a large enough hole can be entered intact — and nothing local happens at the crossing to say it has occurred.

astrophysics · Horizons The mass of two things that have none. The invariant mass of a pair of photons of equal energy, in units of E/c², against the angle between them. It is computed from the total energy and the vector sum of the two momenta, and agrees with 2E·sin(θ/2) to 1.0e-14. at 0° the pair weighs 0.000 E/c²; at 30° the pair weighs 0.518 E/c²; at 60° the pair weighs 1.000 E/c²; at 90° the pair weighs 1.414 E/c²; at 120° the pair weighs 1.732 E/c²; at 180° the pair weighs 2.000 E/c². Two photons flying in the same direction have no mass between them at all, because their momenta add to exactly the energy over c; anything else and they do. Nothing has been added: the constituents are massless at every angle, and the mass of the system is a property of the arrangement. At 180° the pair weighs 2E/c², which is every joule it contains — the case of a sealed box of light, where the two beams cancel in momentum and the whole energy shows up on the scales.

The box of light that weighs something

Two photons flying apart have a mass between them, though neither has one. Seal them in a mirrored box and the box is heavier than it was empty, by exactly the energy inside divided by c². Mass is not a property of stuff and it does not add up — it is a property of a system, and 99 per cent of the mass of everything anybody has ever weighed is of this kind.

relativity · Mass-energy The figure a static field is not allowed to close. A spacetime diagram of two clocks held at fixed heights 22.5 metres apart, drawn as though spacetime were flat: time upward, height to the right, light at forty-five degrees. The lower clock sends two pulses; the upper clock receives them. Because the field does not change with time, nothing about the second pulse's journey differs from the first's, so the two null lines are congruent and the four worldlines bound a parallelogram. Opposite sides of a parallelogram in flat spacetime have equal length, so the proper time between emissions must equal the proper time between receptions, and the two clocks must agree. They do not: the measured fractional difference across a tower this tall is 2.455e-15, which Pound and Rebka established in 1960 and Pound and Snider confirmed to one per cent in 1964. Every step above is either a definition, an assumption of staticity, or a theorem of flat geometry — so the measurement refutes the flatness. No field equation has been written down, and none is needed: a laboratory result twenty-two metres tall is already incompatible with a flat spacetime.

The parallelogram that will not close

Two clocks twenty-two metres apart in a lift shaft run at different rates, by two parts in a thousand million million. That measurement, on its own, is enough to prove that spacetime cannot be flat — and the proof needs no field equation, no curvature tensor and no astronomy. It needs one drawing and the fact that opposite sides of a parallelogram are the same length.

astrophysics · Gravitational redshift A horizon 0.97 light years behind, made by nothing but the motion. Position across and time up, in units where light travels at 45°, for a rocket holding a constant proper acceleration of 1 gravity. The worldline is the hyperbola x² − c²t² = (c²/a)², asymptotic to the light line it never crosses. Three light signals are drawn: one released at x = 0.55 catches up at t = 0.63, one released at x = 0 never arrives, one released at x = -0.6 never arrives. The dividing line is the asymptote itself. Everything at or behind it is permanently out of reach, and for one gravity that boundary sits 0.97 light years behind the rocket's starting point. Nothing is there — no mass, no field, no surface. The horizon is a consequence of never stopping.

The wall of silence behind a rocket that never stops

Hold a constant acceleration and the worldline is a hyperbola asymptotic to a light ray — so there is a light ray that never catches it. An observer who never stops accelerating has a horizon a distance c²/a behind, made by nothing but the motion, and at one gravity it sits 0.97 light years back. Nothing is there. No mass, no surface, no field.

relativity · Accelerated frames The clock that gains going one way and loses going the other. The rate at which a flown clock gains on a clock left at 30° latitude, in nanoseconds per hour, against the aeroplane's ground speed, with east taken as positive. Two terms are drawn and then their sum. Height alone gives 3.5 nanoseconds an hour at 9 km and does not care which way the aircraft is pointed. Motion costs time, and because the ground is already moving eastward at 402 metres a second, flying east adds to that speed and flying west subtracts from it — so the kinematic term is much larger going east and can change sign going west. The sum crosses zero at 180 metres a second eastward, which is the ground speed at which an aeroplane's clock keeps the time of the airfield it left. Over the two flights Hafele and Keating actually made, this simple model gives -61 nanoseconds eastward and +304 westward, against their own predictions of -40 and +275 and their measurements of -59 and +273. The model here uses one average altitude, one average speed and one latitude, where the real prediction integrated the flight logs; getting the signs and the rough sizes out of three lines of arithmetic is the point, and the last twenty per cent is what the logs are for. What no amount of arithmetic supplies is the thing the experiment settled: that the effect is real, that it acts on a caesium clock in a passenger seat, and that a difference of a few hundred nanoseconds after two days is measurable.

The two clocks that flew in opposite directions

Two caesium clocks were flown round the world in 1971, one each way, and came back disagreeing with the clock left behind — one having lost 59 nanoseconds and the other gained 273. Height alone would have made both gain. The sign flip comes from the ground already moving eastward at 400 metres a second before the aircraft took off.

relativity · Time dilation The temperature of an acceleration. The Unruh temperature against proper acceleration, both axes logarithmic. An observer accelerating through empty space finds it is not empty: the state that an inertial observer calls the vacuum, an accelerated one finds populated, with a thermal spectrum at T = ħa/2πck — which is 4.06e-21 kelvin for every metre per second squared. The line is straight because the relation is exactly proportional, and the numbers on it are what make the effect so hard to see: one gravity gives 3.98·10⁻²⁰ K, a centrifuge at 10⁵ g gives 3.97·10⁻¹⁵ K, an electron in a strong laser gives 40.6 K, the surface of a solar-mass hole gives 6.17·10⁻⁸ K. Reaching one kelvin requires 2.5·10²⁰ m/s², which is 2.5·10¹⁹ gravities and beyond anything that can be sustained. What makes the effect worth taking seriously despite that is not its size but its structure: it says the number of particles present is not a property of the field alone but of the observer as well, and the same expression with a black hole's surface gravity in place of the acceleration is the Hawking temperature exactly, checked here to a part in 10¹².

The temperature of an acceleration

Empty space is empty for an observer who is not accelerating. For one who is, the same state of the same field is a thermal bath at a temperature proportional to the acceleration — and the constant of proportionality is 4 × 10⁻²¹ kelvin for every metre per second squared, which is why nobody has felt it. What the effect changes is not what can be measured but what a particle is.

relativity · Accelerated frames A circumference that is more than 2π times the radius. The ratio of a rotating disc's measured circumference to 2π times its measured radius, against the speed of the rim, together with the rate of a clock carried on the rim. Rulers laid round the rim lie along their own direction of motion and are contracted; rulers laid along a radius lie across it and are not. So the circumference takes more of them than a stationary observer counts and the radius takes the same number, and the ratio is γ: 1.091 at β = 0.4, 1.400 at β = 0.7, 2.294 at β = 0.9. The geometry a rotating observer measures is therefore not Euclidean, and it is not Euclidean by an amount that depends on where on the disc the measurement is made. That is the observation Einstein said set him on the road to describing gravity with curved geometry: here is an accelerated frame, and here is a geometry in it that no choice of Cartesian coordinates can flatten. The rim's clock runs slow by the same factor, so a rotating frame has neither a common time nor a flat space.

The disc that cannot be spun

Set a disc turning and measure its circumference with rulers carried on the rim. They lie along their own direction of motion and are contracted, so more of them fit; rulers along a radius lie across the motion and are not. The ratio of circumference to radius is therefore not two pi, in a frame where nothing is happening but rotation — and Einstein said that was what set him looking for gravity in geometry.

relativity · Length contraction Every detour costs time. 4 routes between the same two events, 10 seconds apart in the frame drawn, each swinging out and back 1 time on the way. The proper time each carries is the integral of the square root of one minus the speed squared, computed by Simpson's rule along each curve: the straight route, 10.0000 s; wandering 1 light-seconds, 9.7485 s; wandering 2 light-seconds, 8.9245 s; wandering 3 light-seconds, 7.0935 s. The straight one carries the most, and every other one carries less — checked, on each drawn route. That is the opposite of what a length behaves like on paper, where the straight line is the shortest, and the whole difference is the minus sign in front of the space term.

The longest way round is the shortest clock

Of all the routes between two events, the one with no acceleration in it carries the most time on its own clock. That is the opposite of the Euclidean statement about straight lines, it comes entirely from one minus sign, and in a gravitational field it is why a thrown ball follows the path it does.

relativity · Time dilation The power at stake, which is none. The power an electron radiates by Larmor's formula, against its acceleration, with 5 cases marked. a charge on a table: 9.8e+0 m/s², 5.49e-52 W; a laboratory centrifuge: 1.0e+6 m/s², 5.71e-42 W; a proton at the LHC: 1.9e+16 m/s², 2.06e-21 W; an electron in a linac: 2.0e+19 m/s², 2.28e-15 W; an electron in a hydrogen atom: 9.0e+22 m/s², 4.62e-8 W. The slope is two, measured on the drawn line. A charge held at one gravity radiates 5.49e-52 watts, which over the whole age of the universe comes to 2.39e-34 joules — far less than one photon of any kind. So the question of whether it radiates is not an experimental question about a charge on a table, and never has been. Every number here is a straight line on logarithmic axes with an exponent the figure measures.

Whether a charge on a table glows

The equivalence principle says a charge at rest in a gravitational field is a charge accelerating in empty space, and an accelerating charge radiates. Nothing is supplying the energy. The argument has run for eighty years, and its resolution is that radiation is not something a single observer can define.

astrophysics · Radiating charge The height a clock can see. The fractional difference in rate between two clocks against how far apart in height they are, on logarithmic axes — a straight line of slope one, since the shift is gh/c² and comes to 1.09e-16 per metre near the ground. a caesium fountain, good to 1e-16, resolves 91.6 cm; an optical lattice clock, good to 1e-18, resolves 0.9 cm; the best clocks built, good to 8e-19, resolves 0.7 cm. The caesium fountains that define the second reach about a metre. The optical clocks that will replace them reach a centimetre, and the best of them a few millimetres. That is the whole of why this has stopped being a test of relativity and become a way of measuring the ground. A shift once so small that it took a Mössbauer experiment in a tower to see at all is now large enough to be a nuisance: two clocks in the same building disagree, and the disagreement has to be corrected for before either can be used to keep time.

The clock that measures a height

A clock a metre higher runs faster by a part in ten thousand million million million. That was once so small it took a tower and a Mössbauer source to see; the best clocks now resolve a centimetre of height, at any distance, without a line of sight. What began as a test of general relativity has become a surveying instrument that measures the quantity surveying actually wants.

astrophysics · Gravitational redshift Three centuries of finding nothing. The upper limit on η against the year it was set, on a logarithmic scale. Newton (1687) reached 1e-3; Bessel (1832) reached 2e-5; Eötvös (1922) reached 5e-9; Dicke (1964) reached 1e-11; Braginsky (1972) reached 1e-12; Eöt-Wash (2008) reached 2e-13; MICROSCOPE (2022) reached 1e-15. That is 12 orders of magnitude in 335 years, and every one of those measurements returned zero. A sequence of null results is not a sequence of failures. Each one is a statement that a principle assumed by every theory of gravity holds to a new level, and each new level excludes a class of theories that would have shown a departure there — a long-range force coupling to something other than mass-energy, a scalar partner to the graviton, a violation arising at some energy scale. The measurement is worth making again precisely because it has always come out the same way, which is what makes any departure decisive.

The fall that does not depend on what is falling

Everything falls at the same rate, and the statement has been tested for three hundred years by people looking for the exception. Twelve orders of magnitude have been added to the limit and every measurement has returned zero. The last three orders came not from a better instrument but from finding something bigger to fall towards.

astrophysics · Equivalence principle The month a binding energy would bend. The Moon's orbit seen with the Sun held off to the right, drawn as it would be if the Earth's binding energy fell towards the Sun more weakly than the rest of it. The Earth is bound by 4.5 × 10⁻¹⁰ of its mass-energy and the Moon by 1.9 × 10⁻¹¹, so with the Sun pulling at 5.93 mm/s² the Moon is pushed sunward relative to the Earth by 2.6 × 10⁻¹² m/s² for every unit of η. That push turns once a synodic month relative to the orbit, 29.53 days, and Hill's equations about a circular orbit — integrated from the forced solution and held on it to 4 × 10⁻¹¹ over twelve months — give a radial displacement of 8.0 m times η times the cosine of the lunar phase: outward at new moon, inward at full. The complete lunar theory, with the Sun's tide on the orbit included, gives 13.1 m. The displacement is drawn about 7 × 10⁶ times larger than it would be at η = 1.

The binding energy that has to fall too

Every laboratory test of the equivalence principle compares bodies whose own gravity is a part in 10²⁵ of their mass, so none of them can ask whether gravitational binding energy falls like everything else. The Earth is bound by five parts in ten billion and the Moon by twenty times less, and if that difference fell differently the Moon's orbit would lean towards the Sun once a month — by a distance lasers have been measuring since 1969.

astrophysics · Equivalence principle How large now is, on this planet. By how much a synchronisation carried around a region of the rotating Earth fails to come back to itself, against the size of that region — from a metre to the whole planet, both axes logarithmic. The three horizontal lines are what three kinds of clock can resolve, and where each crosses the curve is where that clock can detect that 'now' is not a global notion: a good wristwatch at 785 thousand km, a quartz oscillator at 25 thousand km, a caesium clock at 785 km. Carried the whole way round the equator the defect is 207 nanoseconds, which is sixty metres of light travel and is the correction every satellite-navigation system applies. The effect is not small and not exotic; it is a routine engineering term, and the reason it was not an engineering term before 1955 is that nothing could measure it. A wristwatch's now is global out past the Moon; a caesium clock's reaches about the width of a large country.

How big now is

Three earlier arguments have established that a global now is a choice, that part of the choice is convention, and that for a rotating observer no consistent global choice exists at all. What survives is a size. Every observer has a local now, and how local is computable: on the rotating Earth it is 785 kilometres to the nanosecond, and a freely falling frame is inertial over the tolerance times the distance to the centre, divided by two.

relativity · Simultaneity Two paths through a neutron interferometer at two heights. A neutron interferometer cut from one silicon crystal, tilted by 30 degrees about its incoming beam so that one path runs higher than the other. Left: the two paths, split at the first slab, turned at the second and recombined at the third, enclosing 10.1 square centimetres; the heights are drawn exaggerated. Taken as a rectangle of the same area, the upper path runs 15.8 mm higher for 3.2 cm. There a neutron of wavelength 1.445 Å, moving at 2738 m/s, is slower by 56.5 micrometres per second, so its wavelength is longer by 20.6 parts per thousand million. Over 3.2 cm that accumulates 28.7 radians less phase than the lower leg — 4.6 whole fringes — computed by integrating the local wavenumber along both legs and checked against 2πm²gλA sin α / h².

The fall that leaves the mass in the phase

Every body falls the same way whatever its mass, and a neutron is no exception. But a neutron is also a wave, and the phase that wave accumulates while falling depends on the mass — as its square, at a fixed wavelength. Tilt a neutron interferometer so that one path runs a centimetre higher than the other and the neutrons swing between its two detectors, which in 1975 was the first measurement in which gravity and quantum mechanics both had to be right at once.

quantum · Matter waves Both clocks move, and their ratio does not. Two years of a clock's fractional frequency against a distant clock (upper panel), and of the ratio of two unlike clocks kept side by side (lower panel). Above, both clocks slow as the Earth nears the Sun, with an amplitude of 1.65·10⁻¹⁰, and if the redshift is universal the two curves are one curve. Below, the ratio: the flat line is what universality predicts, and the sinusoid is what a clock responding to the potential 10⁻⁶ more strongly than the other would produce — an annual term of 1.65·10⁻¹⁶, a million times smaller than the shift both clocks share and within reach of clocks that compare to parts in 10¹⁷.

The clocks that must all slow together

Every clock on the Earth runs slower in January than in July, by three parts in ten thousand million, because the orbit carries the planet deeper into the Sun's potential at perihelion. No clock on the Earth can see this, and that invisibility is the claim worth testing. If the redshift is a property of time rather than of clocks, two clocks built on different physics must slow by exactly the same fraction, and their ratio must not move with the seasons. A ratio that did move would mean the constants of nature depend on where they are measured.

astrophysics · Gravitational redshift

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Gravitational redshiftProper timeFree fallTime dilationSpacetime curvatureGravitational massMeasurementReference frameReference framesSimultaneityCoordinate timeGeneral relativity

All concepts