Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2209.13781

Einstein's Happiest Moment: The Equivalence Principle

Abstract

Einstein's happiest thought was his leap from the observation that a falling person feels no gravity to the realization that gravity might be equivalent to acceleration. It affects all bodies in the same way because it is a property of spacetime -- its curvature -- not a force propagating through spacetime (like electromagnetic or nuclear forces). When expressed in a way that is manifestly independent of the choice of coordinates, this idea became General Relativity. But the ground for what is now known as the "equivalence principle" was laid long before Einstein, affording a fascinating example of the growth of a scientific idea through the continuous interplay between theory and experiment. That story continues through the present era, with improved techniques and measurements, and in the new environment of space. Theoretically, equivalence is now understood to rank with Lorentz invariance as one of nature's most fundamental principles. Violations of equivalence are generically predicted by attempts to unify gravity with "non-geometrical" fundamental interactions, but there is no consensus on the form that these violations will take. Experimental tests of equivalence thus face the challenge of striving simultaneously for the highest possible sensitivity and diversity in test materials.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Paul Worden, James Overduin. 2024-10-16. Einstein's Happiest Moment: The Equivalence Principle. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13781

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Lorenz vs Lorentz. The controversy examined from the original texts

The attribution of the condition div A + (1/c^2) dPhi/dt = 0 has been under discussion since 1938 as a question of priority between Ludvig Lorenz and Hendrik Lorentz. This work argues that the problem is of a different nature, and that the discussion does not close because it has never been specified what is being attributed. Drawing on the three versions of the 1867 paper and on six further primary sources, it is documented that three separable acts have been designated under a single name: the obtaining of the relation between potentials, its imposition as a restriction on the admissible potentials, and its denomination as a gauge. It is further documented that in none of the three versions of the 1867 paper does the word potential appear, that the magnetic field does not figure in it as a quantity of the theory, and that the vocabulary in which that paper is described today enters the literature after it was written. It is concluded that the disjunction between the two denominations, posed without specifying which of the three acts is being attributed, is ill formed.

physics.hist-ph

Scientific Promise

Scientists constantly face decisions about what lines of research to pursue. This Element introduces the philosophical debate about scientific pursuitworthiness. It explains how it can be rational to pursue a theory even if the theory is less well supported than its rivals, and it discusses existing philosophical frameworks for guiding pursuit decisions. The Element also develops a new perspective. Existing accounts focus predominantly on theories, while experiments are largely neglected. This is an important shortcoming. Theoretical promise depends on experimental promise, and experimental promise raises questions of its own. Drawing on the epistemology of experimentation, the Element advances an account of experimental pursuitworthiness. It is argued that such pursuitworthiness depends on experimental virtues like a clear signal and simplicity of design. Moreover, the kinds of uncertainty that constrain the assessment of scientific pursuits are examined. Finally, the Element highlights open questions in the philosophy of scientific pursuitworthiness.

physics.hist-ph

Does DESI Provide Evidence for Dynamical Dark Energy?

Recent results from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) have suggested that dark energy, long considered to be a cosmological constant, may actually be \lq{}dynamical\rq{}. To clarify what follows from these results, we distinguish three claims: (D1) the data disfavour the \LCDM expansion history; (D2) within the phenomenological Chevallier--Polarski--Linder (CPL) parametrisation, the data prefer $(w_0,w_a)\neq(-1,0)$; and (D3) there exist one or more genuine dynamical dark-energy degrees of freedom in the matter-sector, within GR and coupled to the standard sectors only gravitationally, whose dynamics account for the departure from the \LCDM expansion history. We demonstrate that DESI establishes D2, which supports D1, but does not establish D3. The \lq{}designer\rq{} construction in $f(R)$ gravity provides a gravitational realisation of the same background history, so that no observable determined solely by that history can discriminate, even in principle, between its \lq{}matter\rq{} and \lq{}gravitational\rq{} readings. Furthermore, non-minimally coupled models admit regular effective phantom-crossing realisations of the relevant phenomenology, while the selected crossing places additional pressure on a single-component, minimally coupled realisation of the matter-sector reading. We characterise the resulting underdetermination between matter and gravitational interpretations---exact at the level of background history, but breakable beyond it---and draw the corresponding norm for survey reporting.

physics.hist-ph