# If Einstein got it all wrong - expert opinions needed **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 11, 2010, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026 "2010-05-11T08:53:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DHMO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecc23a/32.png) [@DHMO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DHMO)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/41 "2010-05-12T07:29:34Z")
General Relativity posits that a gravitational field is virtually indistinguishable from a smoothly accelerating frame of reference. That is, if you found yourself in a laboratory aboard a rocket accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, you would be hard-pressed to determine, without looking out a window, by experiment alone, whether you were on the surface of a planet or in a rocket. If a beam of light were aimed horizontally across the lab, the path it traced would curve in such a way that the observer would be unable to determine whether he was accelerating or in a gravitational field. Even though photons are massless, they respond to a gravitational field, albeit very slightly. This has been explained as a consequence of the mass-equivalence of their energy, by E=mc^2. This thought experiment requires no optical apparatus to observe the gravitational lensing effect of a light beam being bent by either a gravitational or pseudo-gravitational (accelerating frame) field. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/42 "2010-05-12T16:04:49Z")
> [@](#): > > This thought experiment requires no optical apparatus to observe the gravitational lensing effect of a light beam being bent by either a gravitational or pseudo-gravitational (accelerating frame) field. So how do you detect the light beam, then? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/43 "2010-05-12T16:51:43Z")
[Gravity obeys General Relativity on scales of at least 130 million light years.](http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/objects/heapow/) ---
**Author:** ![DHMO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecc23a/32.png) [@DHMO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DHMO)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/44 "2010-05-12T18:36:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > So how do you detect the light beam, then? Well, obviously, to _ **observe anything** _, you have to percieve it, in some way, either with your eyes or some instrument or detector.:dubious: I was attempting to address the OP’s “optical error” caveat: > [@katunari](#): > > is the speed of light measured by the long way or is it just an optical error? If a laser is shined through a dusty or smoky chamber, the beam is quite visible with the _unaided eye_, without any optical device or lens to introduce “optical errors”. Particle accelerators use _beam detectors_ to trace the path of speeding particles and gamma rays resulting from high-speed collisions between subatomic particles, which produce a shower of debris including quarks, gluons, mesons and various forms of matter and energy. These detectors may, but usually do not, use optical elements, such as glass lenses or mirrors to plot the path of the detected elements. There are many ways to percieve the natural world, without actually _seeing_ it. Many of our most cherished scientific advances have come about from processes which we know exist, but cannot percieve with our unaided senses. “Gravitational Lensing” is not strictly an optical phenomenon, and the curvature of space-time in higher dimensions is an accepted proposition by most in the scientific community. To address the comment in the OP: > [@katunari](#): > > Are there any other means to test the bending of light near massive objects than optical and mathematical? I attempted to propose a visualization which would obviate the complicating distraction of a stricly “optical” detector. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/45 "2010-05-12T18:57:54Z")
> [@DHMO](#): > > the curvature of space-time in higher dimensions is an accepted proposition by most in the scientific community. Which part of the scientific community doesn’t accept this? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/46 "2010-05-12T19:23:21Z")
Most notably, Steven Weinberg describes curvature of spacetime as a mathematical shortcut that should not be construed as what’s actually happening in his classic GR textbook. I’ve heard, though, that he’s since changed his view on it. ---
**Author:** ![Hassler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ee7513/32.png) [@Hassler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hassler)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/47 "2010-05-12T22:59:00Z")
Wasn’t he referring to Lord Eddington, the astronomer that validated his theory? Meaning Lord Eddington would have been wrong. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/48 "2010-05-12T23:29:12Z")
> [@katunari](#): > > Even though Einstein was a genius, let the Lord be wiser. There is no letting about it. Einstein did not imagine cosmic aether might be fluent flowing in through earth mass. I serve ItS r~ ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/49 "2010-05-12T23:31:31Z")
Eddington subsequently (and rightly) was awarded a knighthood and the Order of Merit (the biggie). But he was never a peer, so he never became Lord Eddington. Einstein, jokingly or not, was clearly referring to the Almightly. Who, much as some of them may believe so, is not the Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/50 "2010-05-12T23:47:17Z")
> [@bonzer](#): > > …Einstein, jokingly or not, was clearly referring to the Almightly… I agree. Einstein tried the rest of his life trying to better understand the one force that is good and all existence. rwjefferson ---
**Author:** ![TurboNuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f19dbf/32.png) [@TurboNuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TurboNuke)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/51 "2010-05-12T23:59:26Z")
I like this APOD as proof of gravitational lensing: > **[APOD: 2009 August 23 - Giant Cluster Bends, Breaks Images](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090823.html)** > > A different astronomy and space science > related image is featured each day, along with a brief explanation. ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/52 "2010-05-13T00:11:56Z")
> [@TurboNuke](#): > > I like this APOD as proof of gravitational lensing: > [APOD: 2009 August 23 - Giant Cluster Bends, Breaks Images](http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090823.html) What might happen as a wave of sound energy encounters the event horizon of a hypersonic tornado? rwj ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/53 "2010-05-13T00:49:07Z")
First of all, tornadoes don’t get hypersonic. Second, even if they did, they wouldn’t develop event horizons. Third, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/54 "2010-05-13T01:08:42Z")
It doesn’t have to: Hypersonic Event Horizon is a good band name, and that’s all that matters! ---
**Author:** ![rwjefferson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@rwjefferson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rwjefferson)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/55 "2010-05-13T01:27:44Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > First of all, tornadoes don’t get hypersonic. Second, even if they did, they wouldn’t develop event horizons. Third, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? First of all, I agree not on earth. Second, it is not beyond my imagination that a wind might exceed the relative speed of sound energy. Third, there is no need for letting. The god I trust does not need let. ItS peace rwjefferson ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/56 "2010-05-13T10:06:05Z")
If a duck quacked inside a hypersonic tornado, would it echo? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/57 "2010-05-13T12:42:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > First of all, tornadoes don’t get hypersonic. Second, even if they did, they wouldn’t develop event horizons. Third, what does that have to do with anything in this thread? Not commonly at least. But I certainly recall some actual scientists claiming that it appeared to be possible that wind in the right kind of tornado under the right kind of conditions could exceed the speed of sound. If I had to guess, I’d say I read it in a National Geo Mag within the past few years that had a big spread on tornados. And if a tornado had hypersonic winds, it would certainly have a horizon that would be eventful to cross 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![komolono](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/komolono/32/532_2.png) [@komolono](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/komolono)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/58 "2010-05-13T13:15:20Z")
> [@DHMO](#): > > A ray of light moves in a path known as a “geodesic”, which is analagous to a straight line in curved space-time. It is like a path drawn on a map versus a path connecting the same points on a globe—the “Great Circle” path on a globe looks “curved” on the flat map, but is really the shortest distance between the two points. Only little is known about light and gravity and this sounds like “university book stuff” - though I never read one:dubious:. Can you use ie. Jupiter (mass one-thousandth of the Sun) to get real-time readings every night? Instead of parabolic lenses, could you use carefully placed tubes to get the light’s intensity (which should be much less, because of the grown distance). I still think that it is more of light’s properties than gravity envolved here. I quess, you will disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Angua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8baadc/32.png) [@Angua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angua)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/59 "2010-05-13T13:23:41Z")
> [@katunari](#): > > Only little is known about light and gravity and this sounds like “university book stuff” - though I never read one:dubious:. Can you use ie. Jupiter (mass one-thousandth of the Sun) to get real-time readings every night? Instead of parabolic lenses, could you use carefully placed tubes to get the light’s intensity (which should be much less, because of the grown distance). I still think that it is more of light’s properties than gravity envolved here. I quess, you will disagree. Yes we will. Because gravitational lensing is an observed phenomenon seen at different wavelengths using different detection techniques. The cites that both I and **Bytegeist** linked you to show the same phenomenon, at the same point in space, happening at the same time. The optical image uses traditional lenses and mirrors, the radio image uses a technique called “synthesis imaging” – two very different detection techniques. And yet we see the same thing. We see examples of “micro-lensing” where small, compact bodies bend the light of distant stars and quasars. Why do you have the big beef with gravity bending light? Why is it so hard for you to accept that light can be bent by gravity? ---
**Author:** ![komolono](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/komolono/32/532_2.png) [@komolono](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/komolono)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2010, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026/60 "2010-05-13T13:38:21Z")
> [@Angua](#): > > Why do you have the big beef with gravity bending light? Why is it so hard for you to accept that light can be bent by gravity? My mind is set to a simpler reality, where both light and sound are waves (nothing but waves). Space-time curvation was only an idea and became manifested because nobody came up with something else. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-einstein-got-it-all-wrong-expert-opinions-needed/539026.md?page=4)