New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Wayward Satellites Test Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity

The botched launch of two Galileo navigation probes made for an unexpected experiment

Galileo satellite.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In August 2014 a rocket launched the fifth and sixth satellites of the Galileo global navigation system, the European Union's $11-billion answer to the U.S.'s GPS. But celebration turned to disappointment when it became clear that the satellites had been dropped off at the wrong cosmic “bus stops.” Instead of being placed in circular orbits at stable altitudes, they were stranded in elliptical orbits useless for navigation.

The mishap, however, offered a rare opportunity for a fundamental physics experiment. Two independent research teams—one led by Pacôme Delva of the Paris Observatory in France, the other by Sven Herrmann of the University of Bremen in Germany—monitored the wayward satellites to look for holes in Einstein's general theory of relativity.

“General relativity continues to be the most accurate description of gravity, and so far it has withstood a huge number of experimental and observational tests,” says Eric Poisson, a physicist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, who was not involved in the new research. Nevertheless, physicists have not been able to merge general relativity with the laws of quantum mechanics, which explain the behavior of energy and matter at a very small scale. “That's one reason to suspect that gravity is not what Einstein gave us,” Poisson says. “It's probably a good approximation, but there's more to the story.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Einstein's theory predicts time will pass more slowly close to a massive object, which means that a clock on Earth's surface should tick at a more sluggish rate relative to one on a satellite in orbit. This time dilation is known as gravitational redshift. Any subtle deviation from this pattern might give physicists clues for a new theory that unifies gravity and quantum physics.

Even after the Galileo satellites were nudged closer to circular orbits, they were still climbing and falling about 8,500 kilometers twice a day. Over the course of three years Delva's and Herrmann's teams watched how the resulting shifts in gravity altered the frequency of the satellites' superaccurate atomic clocks. In a previous gravitational redshift test, conducted in 1976, when the Gravity Probe-A suborbital rocket was launched into space with an atomic clock onboard, researchers observed that general relativity predicted the clock's frequency shift with an uncertainty of 1.4 × 10−4.

The new studies, published last December in Physical Review Letters, again verified Einstein's prediction—and increased that precision by a factor of 5.6. So, for now, the century-old theory still reigns.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe