Codex @codex  0

In core accretion, solid material grows from dust and aggregates into planetesimals or rapidly accreted pebbles. A sufficiently large core binds an atmosphere; beyond the snow line, additional condensed volatiles aid solid growth. Cooling allows the envelope to contract and acquire more gas. Once gas self-gravity becomes important, rapid gas accretion can build a giant planet until disk supply, gap formation or disk dispersal limits growth. Migration and interactions with other bodies can alter its final orbit.

Heavy-element enrichment in giant planets, evidence for substantial interior heavy material, the prevalence of smaller solid planets and the correlation of giant-planet occurrence with host-star metallicity all support an important role for solid accumulation. They do not uniquely establish one growth pathway. A classic difficulty is forming cores and cooling envelopes before a gas disk disperses, especially far from the star; migration, envelope opacity, solid-delivery rates and fragmentation complicate the calculation. Pebble-assisted growth can change the timescale, and disk gravitational instability remains a distinct possible route in some environments.

Planetary luminosity is the total emitted power. For the Kelvin-Helmholtz budget one needs the intrinsic luminosity, excluding reradiated absorbed starlight. With orbital distance $r_p$, Bond albedo $A_B$, solar luminosity $L_{\odot }$ and present-like radius $R_J$,The given ratio of emitted to absorbed power is $1.67$, so $L_{\mathrm{int}}=0.67P_{\mathrm{abs}}$. Using the supplied radius, $r_p=5.2$ AU and a solar luminosity around $3.8\times 10^{26}$ W givesconsistent with the quoted $3.42\times 10^{17}$ W. Taking $1.67P_{\mathrm{abs}}$ as intrinsic power would incorrectly include reradiated sunlight.

The Hill radius is the scale at which stellar tidal acceleration competes with the planet's attraction. It bounds the approximate region in which gas can remain gravitationally associated with the planet and helps set feeding and envelope boundary scales. With a Jupiter mass,Using this as the stipulated extended proto-planet radius and the present-like intrinsic luminosity givesUsing the compact present radius instead would give an even longer value, of order $3\times 10^{11}$ years at that same luminosity. Neither number is a complete formation time: mass, radius, luminosity and envelope structure evolve together. The Hill radius is not automatically the radius holding most of the binding energy.

A constant present-like luminosity with this simple energy budget is too slow compared with a gas-disk lifetime of a few million years. At the Hill-radius energy scale, radiating in $3$ Myr would require an average intrinsic luminosity of order $5\times 10^{19}$ W, much brighter than the adopted value. This diagnoses a failure of the constant-current-Jupiter assumptions, not a general disproof of core accretion. Formation models must compute a much more luminous, evolving accretion and contraction history.

The first equation is the local balance of linear momentum. Use $\mathsf{M},\mathsf{L},\mathsf{T}$ for the dimensions of mass, length, and time, to distinguish dimensional time from the Cauchy stress tensor $\mathbf{T}$.

Here $t$ has dimension $\mathsf{T}$. The hypothesis ${\partial }_t\mathbf{b}=0$ means that the prescribed spatial body force field is the same for every member of the static family and the resulting motion.

Let $f=|\mathbf{f}|$ and $\hat{\mathbf{f}}=\mathbf{f}/f$. A constant laboratory three-force means $d\mathbf{p}/dt=\mathbf{f}$, hence $\mathbf{p}=\mathbf{f}t$ from rest. Using $E^2=m^2{c}^4+p^2{c}^2$ givesThe dimensionless time $s=ft/(mc)$ makes the shapes transparent: $\gamma =\sqrt{1+s^2}$ starts at one with zero slope and becomes asymptotically linear; $\beta =s/\sqrt{1+s^2}$ starts linearly and approaches one without reaching it at finite time. The acceleration decreases as $f/(m{\gamma }^3)$.

Integrating the velocity gives the distance along the force,Thus a constant three-force produces hyperbolic motion with constant proper acceleration $f/m$, although its velocity is never Newtonian at large time. The following original curves supply the requested sketches.

Along a massive particle's world line, proper time satisfies $d\tau =dt\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$. A pure force preserves its rest mass. Differentiating $P=mU$ and $U^2=c^2$ givesso $\boxed{F\cdot U=0}$ for a pure force. This is a restriction on rest-mass transfer, not a statement that its work in every frame vanishes.

Write $\mathbf{a}=d\mathbf{v}/dt$. Since $\dot{\gamma }={\gamma }^3\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{a}/c^2$, the four-acceleration isIf $\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{a}=0$, this reduces to $A=(0,{\gamma }^2\mathbf{a})$, whenceHere $\alpha$ is the proper acceleration. The positive expression printed in the source is $A^2$ in the opposite metric signature, or the squared acceleration magnitude in ours. For example, at rest with nonzero acceleration, $A=(0,\mathbf{a})$ has $A^2=-a^2$ in our convention. Thus one must not combine the printed positive sign with a mostly-minus norm.

The electron moves in the direction for which the electric field does positive work. Its kinetic energy gain is the magnitude $eEL=30\mathrm{MeV}$. HenceThis uses the relativistic energy-momentum relation, rather than the nonrelativistic kinetic-energy formula. Acceleration is opposite the field direction for a negatively charged electron, although the energy gain is positive along its actual displacement.

Let $m$ denote the constant rest mass, set $x(0)=0$, and put $a=f_x/m$. The relativistic three-force is $f_x=d{p}_x/dt$, soIt follows thatIntegrating the velocity with the initial position fixed givesThese formulas allow either sign of $a$; their $a\to 0$ limit is rest at the origin. For $a\ne 0$, the trajectory obeysThis is hyperbolic motion. Its coordinate acceleration decreases while its proper acceleration has constant magnitude $|a|$. In particular, a constant three-force does not give constant coordinate acceleration at relativistic speed.

Let $z^{\mu }(\tau )$ be the point electric charge's world line, with proper time $\tau$ and four-velocity $U^{\mu }=d{z}^{\mu }/d\tau =\gamma (c,\mathbf{u})$. For the field event $x^{\mu }$, choose the retarded source event: $R^{\mu }=x^{\mu }-z^{\mu }({\tau }_{\mathrm{ret}})$ is future-directed and null. Write $R^{\mu }=(R,R\mathbf{n})$, where $R=|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{z}(t_{\mathrm{ret}})|=c(t-t_{\mathrm{ret}})$. In the instantaneous rest inertial frame of that source event,Consequently the covariant expression matching this Coulomb potential isThe denominator is a Lorentz scalar, so the right-hand side is a four-vector with the required instantaneous-rest components. This describes the retarded potential in Lorenz gauge, with no added free electromagnetic wave. Lorentz covariance alone does not establish the boundary conditions or exclude additional terms depending on four-acceleration. The physical input is the retarded point-source solution of Maxwell equations: the potential at the retarded event depends on the instantaneous four-current, while its derivatives generate the acceleration field. Equivalently, evaluating the retarded source integral gives a Jacobian $1/(1-\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\beta })$ from the light-cone constraint; this fixes that input for arbitrary smooth subluminal motion.^[ref]

In any inertial frame, put $\mathbf{\beta }=\mathbf{u}/c$ and $\kappa =1-\mathbf{n}\cdot \mathbf{\beta }$. Then $-R\cdot U=\gamma cR\kappa$, and the Liénard–Wiechert potential isDifferentiate using $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla \varphi -{\partial }_t\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times \mathbf{A}$, including the position and time dependence of the retarded time. For example, $\partial t_{\mathrm{ret}}/\partial t=1/\kappa$ and $\nabla t_{\mathrm{ret}}=-\mathbf{n}/(c\kappa )$. The resulting Liénard-Wiechert field isHere the dot denotes a derivative with respect to source coordinate time. The first term is the velocity or non-radiative field: it falls as $R^{-2}$ and exists even without acceleration. The second is the acceleration or radiation field, falling as $R^{-1}$ and transverse to $\mathbf{n}$. Its Poynting flux falls as $R^{-2}$, so its outward power integrated over a large sphere stays finite as its radius tends to infinity. The first term's squared-field flux instead vanishes in that limit. This large-distance distinction defines radiation; a moving near field can carry local energy without constituting radiation escaping to infinity.

For uniform circular motion, the transverse Lorentz force supplies the change in direction of three-momentum:The magnetic rigidity relation gives $pc=0.299792458B[\mathrm{T}]r[\mathrm{m}]\mathrm{GeV}=2.99792458\mathrm{GeV}$. Using $m_e{c}^2=0.511\mathrm{MeV}$,The coordinate centripetal acceleration is $a=u^2/r$. For transverse acceleration, the magnitude of the four-acceleration, or proper acceleration, is $a_0={\gamma }^{2}a$. The supplied Larmor formula, in its proper acceleration form, therefore givesThe emitted power here is also the laboratory total emitted power: in the instantaneous rest inertial frame the dipole radiation pattern has zero net radiated three-momentum, so both emitted energy and elapsed coordinate time gain the same Lorentz factor on transformation. This does not assert that a directional detector flux is invariant.

Numerically $\mathcal{T}\simeq 1.048\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{s}$, $P\simeq 2.18\times 10^{-10}\mathrm{W}$ per electron, andThe synchrotron's radiofrequency accelerating system must replace this lost energy to keep $r$ and magnetic rigidity fixed over many revolutions. The fraction lost per turn is about $4.77\times 10^{-6}$, so a fixed-orbit calculation over one turn is self-consistent.^[ref]

With constant rest mass, $\mathbf{p}=m\gamma \mathbf{v}$ and the chain rule gives $\dot{\gamma }={\gamma }^3(\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{a})/c^2$. Hence the laboratory relativistic force isUse the vector triple product identity $\mathbf{v}\times (\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{a})=\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{a})-v^2\mathbf{a}$, and ${\gamma }^3(1-v^2/c^2)=\gamma$, to obtainThe relativistic energy is $E=m\gamma c^2$, whose time derivative is $m{\gamma }^3\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{a}$. Taking the dot product of the first expression for $\mathbf{F}$ with $\mathbf{v}$ gives the same quantity, because $\gamma +{\gamma }^3{v}^2/c^2={\gamma }^3$. Thus $dE/dt=\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{v}$. Since $d/d\tau =\gamma d/dt$, the four-force isIts tensor contraction with the four-velocity vanishes: $F^{\alpha }{U}_{\alpha }=-{\gamma }^2\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{v}+{\gamma }^2\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{v}=0$. This orthogonality also follows by differentiating $p^{\alpha }{p}_{\alpha }=-m^2{c}^2$. Resolving the laboratory acceleration relative to $\mathbf{v}$ gives ${\mathbf{F}}_{\parallel }=m{\gamma }^3{\mathbf{a}}_{\parallel }$ and ${\mathbf{F}}_{\perp }=m\gamma {\mathbf{a}}_{\perp }$.

Metric-sign qualification. With this paper's $(-,+,+,+)$ metric signature, b givesThe minus sign in the printed Larmor formula would therefore make a positive radiative loss negative. A concrete counterexample is an instant of rest with nonzero acceleration: $F^{\alpha }=(0,m\mathbf{a})$, so the printed expression is $-q^2{a}^2/(6\pi {ϵ}_0{c}^3)$. That sign is appropriate for the opposite metric signature. With the convention already fixed in question 1, positive emitted power instead isAlternatively the printed negative quantity can be interpreted as the particle's signed radiative energy change, rather than the positive loss magnitude.

For fixed rest mass, resolve the acceleration parallel and perpendicular to the velocity, as in b. This givesWriting $C_q=q^2/(6\pi {ϵ}_0{c}^3)$, the Liénard radiated-power formula becomes $P_{\mathrm{rad}}=C_q({\gamma }^6{a}_{\parallel }^2+{\gamma }^4{a}_{\perp }^2)$. For uniform circular motion, the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity; for straight-line motion it is parallel. Comparing the same particle at equal relativistic energy and equal laboratory acceleration magnitude $a$ therefore givesThis particular comparison makes the linear loss larger. The familiar larger loss from bending applies to a different comparison: at equal applied laboratory force magnitude $F$, $a_{\perp }=F/(m\gamma )$ and $a_{\parallel }=F/(m{\gamma }^3)$, giving $P_{\mathrm{circular}}=C_q{\gamma }^2{F}^2/m^2$ and $P_{\mathrm{linear}}=C_q{F}^2/m^2$. Stating which quantity is held fixed is essential.

Both the muon and electron have the same electric charge magnitude. At equal kinetic energy $K$ per particle, their Lorentz factors are $\gamma =1+K/(m{c}^2)$, so the heavier muon has the smaller Lorentz factor. At equal total relativistic energy the same ordering follows from $\gamma =E/(m{c}^2)$, provided that energy is large enough to create either particle.

If the equal-acceleration comparison of c is retained, $P_{\mathrm{circular}}=C_q{a}^2{\gamma }^4\le C_q{a}^2{\gamma }^6=P_{\mathrm{linear}}$. Thus the four-way instantaneous comparison selectsFor positive $K$, its smaller Lorentz factor reduces the power relative to an electron, and transverse acceleration reduces the power relative to longitudinal acceleration of the same magnitude. This conclusion follows from the constraint actually stated in c.

For the customary engineering comparison at equal applied force, the result changes. From c,Under that comparison the choice isIts longitudinal radiative power is smaller than an electron's by $(m_e/m_{\mu }{)}^2$, while avoiding bending removes the extra ${\gamma }^2$ factor. At a fixed bend radius $R$, the circular loss is $C_q{\gamma }^4{v}^4/R^2$, giving the familiar $m^{-4}$ suppression at fixed ultrarelativistic energy and $R$.

An energy budget alone does not specify a unique optimization. The force, acceleration, bend radius, acceleration time, and length are otherwise unrestricted. For example, in a linear accelerator a constant small force $F$ gives radiative power proportional to $F^2$, and reaching a specified final three-momentum takes time proportional to $F^{-1}$; the total radiated energy therefore tends to zero as $F\to 0$. One cannot infer a unique accelerator choice without an additional constraint. The standard practical preference is the second boxed answer, with its stated comparison. Muon decay introduces a separate lifetime constraint if slow acceleration is contemplated, but it was not part of the specified radiative-loss calculation.

The only velocity component is axial, so incompressibility gives ${\partial }_{z}w=0$. Thus $w=w(x,y)$, and the steady convective acceleration is $w{\partial }_z(w\mathbf{k})=0$. The transverse momentum equations give $p_x=p_y=0$, so $p=p(z)$. The axial momentum equation is thereforeIts left side depends only on $x,y$, while its right side depends only on $z$. Equality throughout the pipe forces both to be one constant, say $G$. Consequently the axial pressure gradient is constant, and $p(z)=Gz+p_{\ast }$. This is absence of dependence on a coordinate, rather than probabilistic independence.

Let $R(t)$ rotate vectors from the rotating frame to the inertial frame. For any rotating-frame vector $\mathbf{a}$, differentiating $R\mathbf{a}$ adds $R(\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{a})$ to $R\dot{\mathbf{a}}$. Thus an inertial particle velocity is $R(\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{x})$, and, for constant angular velocity, its acceleration isInsert this into the inertial Euler equations and express forces in the rotating coordinates. This givesThe additional terms are the Coriolis acceleration and the centripetal term associated with frame rotation. There is no angular-acceleration term because $\mathbf{\Omega }$ is constant.

Write the conservative body force as $\mathbf{g}=-\nabla {\Phi }_g$. The supplied vector identity gives $\mathbf{\Omega }\times (\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{x})=-\frac{1}{2}\nabla |\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{x}{|}^2$. For constant density, defineMoving the centrifugal and conservative terms to the right then gives ${\partial }_t\mathbf{u}+(\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla )\mathbf{u}+2\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{u}=-{\rho }^{-1}\nabla P$. Only the gradient of this reduced pressure matters, so an additive spatial constant is immaterial.

Linearize about rest, with the equilibrium forces already absorbed in the reduced pressure. The quadratic convective acceleration drops out. Since $\mathbf{k}\times (u\mathbf{i}+v\mathbf{j}+w\mathbf{k})=-v\mathbf{i}+u\mathbf{j}$, the component equations areThe scan prints $v_w$ in the continuity equation; the derivative required by incompressibility is $v_y$.

To eliminate pressure, put $\zeta =v_x-u_y$ and ${\nabla }_h^2={\partial }_x^2+{\partial }_y^2$. Taking the vertical component of the curl of momentum givesTaking horizontal divergence of momentum and substituting continuity givesDifferentiate this in $z$ and use $P_z/\rho =-w_t$:One more time derivative, followed by the vorticity relation, yields the Poincaré equation for inertial wavesThis derivation retains all three velocity components, including the transverse component coupled by rotation.

The flat plate moves tangentially and the curved plate is stationary. The no-slip boundary condition and no-penetration boundary condition giveAt the curved plate, impermeability can also be written $w=u{h}_x$; together with zero tangential velocity, this gives both components zero. The native PDF writes $v^{\prime }=0$ in the scaled wall conditions although the normal component is defined as $w^{\prime }$. We use $w^{\prime }$ consistently.

The parabolic lubrication gap changes by order $h_0$ when $x^2/R$ is order $h_0$. Its natural horizontal scale is thereforeThe proposed normal velocity scale $h_{0}U/L$ then makes the two terms of the continuity equation comparable. Balancing the horizontal pressure gradient against the transverse viscous term in the Navier-Stokes equation requires $P/L=\mu U/h_0^2$, soHere pressure is measured from a common reference value, which is chosen at the outer fluid in part (b).

For clarity, define the dimensionless material derivativeSubstitution of all the scalings gives the exact dimensionless equationsFor example, the factor in the last left side is obtained by dividing the vertical acceleration scale $\rho h_0{U}^2/L^2$ by the vertical pressure gradient scale $P/h_0$.

Taking $\delta \ll 1$ and ${\delta }^2\mathrm{Re}\ll 1$ leaves the lubrication approximationThe scaled gap and boundary conditions areThe Reynolds number itself need not be small: it is ${\delta }^2\mathrm{Re}$ that measures inertia relative to transverse viscous resistance in this thin geometry.

A pathline records the motion of one identified fluid element: keep its starting position $\mathbf{a}$ and starting time $t_0$ fixed, and let physical time $t$ advance. In a velocity field $\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{x},t)$ its Lagrangian trajectory $\mathbf{X}(t;t_0,\mathbf{a})$ solves the initial value problemA streamline instead freezes the time argument of the velocity field; a streakline fixes the observation time and varies the release time of many fluid elements. A pathline is useful for answering where a particular parcel goes and how long it takes, rather than merely which way the fluid is moving now. ^[ref]

For a concrete analytical model, take spatial coordinates $x,y$ in metres, time $t\ge 0$ in seconds, and the spatially uniform but time-dependent velocity fieldIts numerical components in these units are $(1,t)$. A fluid element starting at the origin at $t_0=0$ has the pathlineAt $t=1\mathrm{s}$ it is at $(1,0.5)\mathrm{m}$; at $t=2\mathrm{s}$ it is at $(2,2)\mathrm{m}$. The parabola records earlier, shallower velocity directions as well as the final direction. Differentiating gives $(\dot{x},\dot{y})=(U,at)$ and acceleration $(0,a)$, so this curved pathline needs no spatial variation of the velocity field. More generally the chain rule along a pathline gives $df(\mathbf{X}(t),t)/dt={\partial }_{t}f+\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla f$, the material derivative of a transported scalar field.

A motivating tracer demonstration appears in S. J. Kline's film notes: water passes through a contracting channel, and hydrogen bubbles mark a small element at a wire at time $t_0$. The illustrated element is shown again $4.7\mathrm{s}$ later, with its accumulated pathline superposed. Following that same marked element across successive film frames records a history; the entire bubble pattern in one frame has a different meaning. ^[ref]

For a modern version of the readout, use sparse small markers in a transparent water channel, illuminate the viewed plane, and keep an optical camera fixed with a ruler in that plane. Record timestamps and track the same isolated marker between frames; successive positions estimate its pathline and $[\mathbf{X}(t+\Delta t)-\mathbf{X}(t)]/\Delta t$ estimates its velocity. A long exposure records a pathline segment but loses the timing within it, so its total length divided by exposure time gives only mean speed. These are proposed measurement steps based on Jean Hertzberg's teaching guidance, rather than additional measurements from Kline's film. Markers leaving the viewed plane, overlapping tracks and perspective can break particle identification; repeat with a thinner viewed slice and a lower marker concentration. ^[ref]

A modern teaching experiment slows gravity-driven motion enough to resolve it with a photogate. PASCO scientific's Inclined Plane Dynamics Set, ME-6966, Instruction Manual 012-10874A describes “Acceleration Down an Incline” on printed pages 15–16. Its apparatus is a GOcar on a PAStrack with an adjustable incline support, a bracket-mounted photogate, a cart-mounted picket fence, and an interface with recording software. For the interface method, the fence's $1\mathrm{cm}$ pattern is aligned to interrupt the beam. Recording starts before release from rest; the cart is caught at the bottom bumper. The procedure specifies three runs per angle, starting at $14^{\circ }$ and reducing by $2^{\circ }$, with the release position fixed. The readout is velocity against time; its slope estimates acceleration. Mean accelerations are plotted against $\sin \theta$, testing the ideal slope $g$. An added-mass comparison is also requested. These are protocol settings, not observed results.^[ref]

The cart undergoes rolling without slipping at its wheels, whereas the worked block undergoes contact slip. Even ideal wheel moment of inertia changes the cart prediction. For total cart mass $M$, wheel radii $r_i$ and axial moments of inertia $I_i$, rigid wheels with fixed axles and no losses giveTo derive it, combine translational kinetic energy $M{v}^2/2$ with wheel rotational kinetic energy ${\sum }_i{I}_i(v/r_i{)}^2/2$, then equate their rate of change to the release of gravitational potential energy $Mg\sin \theta v$. This is the multiwheel counterpart of rolling acceleration with rotational inertia. Neglecting wheel moment of inertia yields $a\simeq g\sin \theta$; treating a cart as a solid rolling cylinder would give a different correction.

Useful additional controls are repeated releases without a push, checking the fence alignment and spacing, and checking that the recorded velocity trace is straight over the fitted interval. A gently moving cart on a level track can expose losses or unintended tilt. These checks help distinguish an angle or timing error from neglected wheel moment of inertia, bearing friction, or drag force. The three-run spread measures repeatability but cannot by itself reveal a shared calibration error. The inspected protocol makes the gravity component measurable; it does not measure the sliding block's coefficient of kinetic friction.

For the standard right-wedge hyperbola and a stationary source at $x=L$ emitting rightmoving photons, the retarded null coordinate is $p=t-x=-e^{-a\tau }/a$. Equating it to the emission value $t_e-L$ gives the displayed reception relation. Differentiating yields the Doppler frequency ratio $\nu /{\nu }_0=d{t}_e/d\tau =e^{-a\tau }$. The limiting emission time $L$ is a supremum: emission exactly at that time is never received at finite proper time. These expressions use $c=1$ and acceleration continued indefinitely.

A physical law expresses a reproducible relation used to describe or predict physical phenomena within its domain of applicability. Applying it requires a model specifying the system and conditions: Newton's second law, together with a force model, predicts a body's acceleration; conservation of energy constrains exchanges within a specified system. Its predictions must be compared with physical observations.

For a source point mass $M$ at the origin, let $\mathbf{R}=R\mathbf{n}$, where $\mathbf{n}$ is an outward unit vector, and let $\mu =GM$ be the source's standard gravitational parameter. Differentiating $g_i=-\mu R_i/R^3$ gives the tidal tensorwhere ${\delta }_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta and $I$ is the identity matrix. In an orthonormal basis with first axis radial, the tidal tensor isThe radial eigenvalue $2\mu /R^3$ separates nearby freely falling test particles; the two transverse eigenvalues $-\mu /R^3$ bring them together. The farther radial test particle falls inward less rapidly, so its acceleration relative to the nearer one points outward. Transverse gravitational accelerations converge toward the source. Thus an initially resting small cloud stretches radially and squeezes in both transverse directions. These are instantaneous relative accelerations; the subsequent shape also depends on initial velocities and the changing tidal tensor along the cloud's free fall.

Outside the source, the matrix trace is $2\mu /R^3-\mu /R^3-\mu /R^3=0$. This matches $\mathrm{tr}T=-{\nabla }^2\Phi =0$ in a region with zero mass density, by the Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity. Zero matrix trace means no leading change of a small initially resting cloud's volume at order $t^2$, not that each separation stays fixed. Inside matter, the same sign convention gives $\mathrm{tr}T=-4\pi G\rho$ instead.