Science & Education

, Volume 27, Issue 7–8, pp 593–623 | Cite as

Understanding Curved Spacetime

The Role of the Rubber Sheet Analogy in Learning General Relativity
  • Magdalena KerstingEmail author
  • Rolf Steier


According to general relativity (GR), we live in a four-dimensional curved universe. Since the human mind cannot visualize those four dimensions, a popular analogy compares the universe to a two-dimensional rubber sheet distorted by massive objects. This analogy is often used when teaching GR to upper secondary and undergraduate physics students. However, physicists and physics educators criticize the analogy for being inaccurate and for introducing conceptual conflicts. Addressing these criticisms, we analyze the rubber sheet analogy through systematic metaphor analysis of textbooks and research literature, and present an empirical analysis of upper secondary school students’ use and understanding of the analogy. Taking a theoretical perspective of embodied cognition allows us to account for the relationship between the experiential and sensory aspects of the metaphor in relation to the abstract nature of spacetime. We employ methods of metaphor and thematic analysis to study written accounts of small groups of 97 students (18–19 years old) who worked with a collaborative online learning environment as part of their regular physics lessons in five classes in Norway. Students generated conceptual metaphors found in the literature as well as novel ones that led to different conceptions of gravity than those held by experts in the field. Even though most students showed awareness of some limitations of the analogy, we observed a conflict between students’ embodied understanding of gravity and the abstract description of GR. This conflict might add to the common perception of GR being counterintuitive. In making explicit strengths and weaknesses of the rubber sheet analogy and learners’ conceptual difficulties, our results offer guidance for teaching GR. More generally, these findings contribute to the epistemological implications of employing specific scientific metaphors in classrooms.



This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway (ProjectNo. 246723) and the Olav Thon Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abernathy, M. R., Acernese, F., Ackley, K., et al. (2016). Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Physical Review Letters, 116(6), 061102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin, T. G., Jeppsson, F., & Haglund, J. (2015). Conceptual metaphor and embodied cognition in science learning: introduction to special issue. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5–6), 745–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy in science education (Vol. 30). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldy, E. (2007). A new educational perspective for teaching gravity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1767–1788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandyopadhyay, A., & Kumar, A. (2010a). Probing students’ ideas of the principle of equivalence. European Journal of Physics, 32(1), 139–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandyopadhyay, A., & Kumar, A. (2010b). Probing students’ understanding of some conceptual themes in general relativity. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callin, N. P., Pålsgård, J., Stadsnes, R., & Tellefsen, C. W. (2012). ERGO Fysikk 2. Oslo: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
  9. Casey, E. S. (1979). Imagining. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler, M. (1994). Philosophy of gravity: intuitions of four-dimensional curved spacetime. Science & Education, 3(2), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, Y.-C., Park S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dimitriadi, K., & Halkia, K. (2012). Secondary students’ understanding of basic ideas of special relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 34(16), 2565–2582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. diSessa, A. A. (1981). An elementary formalism for general relativity. American Journal of Physics, 49(1981), 401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Einstein, A. (1915). Grundgedanken der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie und Anwendung dieser Theorie in der Astronomie [Fundamental Ideas of the General Theory of Relativity and the Application of this Theory in Astronomy]. Preussische Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Satzungsberichte, 1(1), 315.Google Scholar
  15. Einstein, A. (1917). Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie [Relativity: the special and general theory]. Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  16. Farr, B., Schelbert, G., & Trouille, L. (2012). Gravitational wave science in the high school classroom. American Journal of Physics, 80(10), 898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gentner, D., Bowdle, B., Wolff, P., & Boronat, C. (2001). Metaphor is like analogy. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 199–253). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert, J. (2004). Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilbert, J. (Ed.). (2005). Visualization in science education. Visualization in science education Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Gould, R. R. (2016). Why does a ball fall?: A new visualization for Einstein’s model of gravity. American Journal of Physics, 84(5), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greene, B. (2010). The elegant universe. New York: W W Norton & Co Inc..Google Scholar
  22. Haglund, J. (2017). Good use of a ‘bad’ metaphor—entropy as disorder. Science & Education, 26(3–4), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies: friend or foe. In A. G. Harrison & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor & analogy in science education (pp. 11–24). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hartle, J. B. (2005). General relativity in the undergraduate physics curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 14(2006), 9.Google Scholar
  25. Henriksen, E. K., Bungum, B., Angell, C., Tellefsen, C. W., Frågåt, T., & Vetleseter Bøe, M. (2014). Relativity, quantum physics and philosophy in the upper secondary curriculum: challenges, opportunities and proposed approaches. Physics Education, 49(6), 678–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hentschel, K. (Ed.). (1998). The collected papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8 (English) The Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914–1918. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hesse, M. (1952). Operational definition and analogy in physical theories. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2(8), 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hesse, M. (1953). Models in physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 4, 98–214.Google Scholar
  29. Jerstad, P., Sletbak, B., Grimenes, A. A., Renstrøm, R., Holm, O. B., & Nymo, M. (2014). RomStoffTid Fysikk 2. Oslo: Cappelen Damm.Google Scholar
  30. Kampourakis, K. (2016). The bad use of metaphors and the use of bad metaphors. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 947–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kapon, S., & DiSessa, A. A. (2012). Reasoning through instructional analogies. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 261–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaur, T., Blair, D., Moschilla, J., Stannard, W., & Zadnik, M. (2017a). Teaching Einsteinian physics at schools: models and analogies—Part 1 (Manuscript draft). Retrieved from
  33. Kaur, T., Blair, D., Moschilla, J., Stannard, W., & Zadnik, M. (2017b). Teaching Einsteinian physics at schools: Part 3, review of research outcomes. Physics Education, 52(6). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kersting, M., Henriksen, E. K., Bøe, M. V., & Angell, C. (2018). General relativity in upper secondary school: design and evaluation of an online learning environment using the model of educational reconstruction. Physsical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010130–1–010130-18. Scholar
  35. Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., Pol, H. J., Brinkman, A., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2017). Insights into teaching quantum mechanics in secondary and lower undergraduate education: a literature review. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), 010109-21. Scholar
  37. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lancor, R. (2014a). Using metaphor theory to examine conceptions of energy in biology, chemistry, and physics. Science & Education, 23(6), 1245–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lancor, R. (2014b). Using student-generated analogies to investigate conceptions of energy: a multidisciplinary study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: language, learning, and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  41. Levrini, O. (2014). The role of history and philosophy in research on teaching and learning of relativity. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 157–181). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Levrini, O., & DiSessa, A. A. (2008). How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: proper time as a coordination class. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 4(1), 1–18..Google Scholar
  43. Mach, E. (1893). In T. J. McCormack (Ed.), The science of mechanics. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  44. Middleton, C. A., & Weller, D. (2016). Elliptical-like orbits on a warped spandex fabric: a theoretical/experimental undergraduate research project. American Journal of Physics, 84(4), 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Rhodehamel, B. (2012). Gesture and imagination on the constitution and uses of phantasms. Gesture, 12(2), 130–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Niebert, K., & Gropengießer, H. (2014). Understanding the greenhouse effect by embodiment—analysing and using students’ and scientists’ conceptual resources. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Niebert, K., Marsch, S., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Understanding needs embodiment: a theory-guided reanalysis of the role of metaphors and analogies in understanding science. Science Education, 96(1), 849–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pitts, M., Venville, G., Blair, D., & Zadnik, M. (2014). An exploratory study to investigate the impact of an enrichment program on aspects of Einsteinian physics on year 6 students. Research in Science Education, 44(3), 363–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poincaré, H. (1898). La mesure du temps [The measure of time]. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 6(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  50. Price, R. H. (2016). Spatial curvature, spacetime curvature, and gravity. American Journal of Physics, 84(8), 588–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rasmussen, I., & Ludvigsen, S. (2010). Learning with computer tools and environments: a sociocultural perspective. In C. W & J. K. S. K. Littleton (Eds.), International handbook of psychology in education (pp. 399–435). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
  52. Reichenbach, H. (1928). Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre [The philosophy of space and time]. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Roth, W. M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86(3), 368–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Russell, B. (1925). In K.-P. Trench & Trubner (Eds.), ABC of relativity. London: The ABC of Relativity.Google Scholar
  55. Sartre, J.-P. (2004). The imaginary. A phenomenological psychology of the imagination. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Schmitt, R. (2005). Systematic metaphor analysis as a method of qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 10(2), 358–394.Google Scholar
  57. Schön, D. A. (1979). Generative metaphor: a perspective problem-setting in social policy. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 254–283). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (2005). Meaning making in high school science classrooms: a framework for analysing meaning making interactions. Research and the Quality of Science Education, 7, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silva, C. C. (2007). The role of models and analogies in the electromagnetic theory: a historical case study. Science & Education, 16, 835–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stadermann, H. K. E., & Goedhart, M. J. (2017). Comparison and analysis of quantum physics in secondary school curricula of 13 different countries. Presentation at GIREP 2017, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  61. Stannard, W., Blair, D., Zadnik, M., & Kaur, T. (2017). Why did the apple fall? A new model to explain Einstein’s gravity. European Journal of Physics, 38(1), 015603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Steier, R., & Kersting, M. (n.d.). Metaimagining and embodied conceptions of spacetime (Manuscript under Review).Google Scholar
  63. Stinner, A. (2003). Scientific method, imagination and the teaching of physics. Physics World, 59(6), 335–346.Google Scholar
  64. The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2006). Physics—programme subject in programmes for specialization in general studies. Retrieved from
  65. Thorne, K. (2009). Warping spacetime. In G. W. Gibbons, E. P. S. Shellard, & S. J. Rankin (Eds.), The future of theoretical physics and cosmology: celebrating Stephen Hawking’s contributions to physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2015). On the significance of conceptual metaphors in teaching and learning science: Commentary on Lancor; Niebert and Gropengiesser; and Fuchs. International Journal of Science Education, 37(5–6), 958–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vailati, E. (1997). Leibniz and Clarke: a study of their correspondence. In Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2013). The use of thought experiments in teaching physics to upper secondary-level students: two examples from the theory of relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3026–3049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Viereck, G. S. (1929). What life means to Einstein. The Saturday Evening Post.
  70. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Watkins, T. R. (2014). Gravity & Einstein: assessing the rubber sheet analogy in undergraduate conceptual physics (Master Thesis). Boise State University.Google Scholar
  72. Zahn, C., & Kraus, U. (2014). Sector models—a toolkit for teaching general relativity. Part 1: curved spaces and spacetimes. European Journal of Physics, 35, 055020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations