Concept

Null experiment — where it appears

An experiment arranged so that the effect sought appears as a departure from exactly zero, rather than as a size to be compared with a prediction. Because nothing large has to be calibrated away, null experiments such as torsion balances and lunar laser ranging reach the finest limits in physics.

Named by 5 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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

Two pulls that should be equal and opposite. Two bodies of equal passive mass, one of an ordinary material and one of a material whose active mass is 30 per cent larger than its passive mass (the difference exaggerated to be seen). Each pulls the other with its active mass and is pulled on its passive mass. The pull the unusual body exerts is therefore larger than the pull it receives, the two arrows are not equal and opposite, and the pair, with nothing outside it, accelerates towards the ordinary body. Newton's third law and the conservation of momentum both require the ratio of active to passive mass to be the same for every material, and that is a separate claim from the one torsion balances test, that passive and inertial mass agree.

The pull that has to equal the pull back

Every test of the equivalence principle drops two things and asks whether gravity pulls them equally. None of them asks whether they pull equally. A body's mass enters gravity twice — once as what is pulled and once as what does the pulling — and if the two ratios differed from one material to another, Newton's third law would fail and a lopsided body could push itself through space. The first test of this used a plastic cylinder floating in a liquid. The best uses the Moon, whose light crust is thicker on the side that never faces the Earth.

astrophysics · Equivalence principle $Two ways to be wrong, and the apparatus that sees each. The fractional sag of the potential at the centre of a charged spherical shell below the shell's own, on a logarithmic axis, against the shell's radius in metres, also logarithmic, for two different departures from Coulomb's law. If the force fell as 1/r^(2+ε) with ε = 10⁻¹⁶, the sag is 3.07·10⁻¹⁷ whatever the shell's size (dashed): the law has no length in it, so neither does its failure. If the photon had a mass of 10⁻¹⁴ eV, the sag is (μR)²/6 (solid): 4.3·10⁻²⁰ for a centimetre shell and 4.3·10⁻¹⁶ for a metre. A mass introduces a length, and the signal grows as the square of the apparatus compared with it — so the strongest bounds on a photon mass come from the largest fields, not the most sensitive laboratories.$

The mass that would make Gauss's law leak

Gauss's law says the flux out of any closed surface counts the charge inside, whatever the surface's size. If the photon had even a tiny mass, that would stop being true: the field of a charge would die off exponentially beyond a length ħ/mc, the flux through a large sphere would fall short of the charge, and the inside of a charged shell would no longer be field-free. There are two different ways Coulomb's law could fail, and they are caught by opposite strategies. A wrong exponent has no length in it and shows equally in any apparatus; a mass has a length, and shows as the square of the apparatus's size. That is why the tightest limit on the photon's mass comes not from a laboratory but from the magnetic field the solar wind carries past Pluto.

electromagnetism · Gauss's law $The orbit an observer would reconstruct. The star's velocity along the line of sight, measured from the Doppler shift of its spectrum, as a fraction of its true orbital speed, plotted against the time the light arrives, in orbital periods, if light left the star at c plus the star's velocity. With light at c (dotted) the curve is the sine wave of a circular orbit. At 0.6 times the critical distance (solid) the same circular orbit arrives as a lopsided curve — a slow rise and a steep fall — that an astronomer would fit with a highly eccentric orbit that is not there. At twice the critical distance (dashed) the curve doubles back on itself: at some moments the spectrum would show two or three velocities at once, as if the star were in several places. Willem de Sitter pointed out in 1913 that spectroscopic binaries show nothing of the kind.$

The binary star that would be seen twice

If light thrown forward by a moving source travelled faster, the way a ball thrown from a moving train does, then light from a star swinging towards the Earth in a binary orbit would catch up with light it had sent out earlier. From far enough away the two would arrive together, and the star would be seen in two places at once. Willem de Sitter pointed out in 1913 that nothing of the kind is seen, and that this settles whether the speed of light depends on its source. The argument had a loophole that took half a century to notice — interstellar gas re-emits light at its own speed — and closing it needed X-ray stars.

relativity · Velocity-addition

Named alongside it

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

Equivalence principle Gravitational mass Inertial mass Lunar laser ranging Torsion balance Active gravitational mass Binary star Binding energy Centrifugal force Emission theory Extinction theorem Falloff exponent

All concepts