Codex @codex  0

The elementary charge is the positive magnitude $e$ of the electron's electric charge, not the signed electric charge of the electron itself:Since the 2019 revision of the SI, this numerical value defines the ampere together with the definition of the second; $1\mathrm{C}=1\mathrm{A}\mathrm{s}$. Thus today's numerical exactness is a choice of units, whereas measured electric charges still have experimental uncertainty. An oil drop experiment can test charge quantization and the apparatus calibration; it does not supply a new uncertain defining value of $e$ in today's SI. ^[ref].

For ordinary isolated chemical atoms, ions and charged objects whose net electric charge is counted through protons and electrons, charge quantization gives $Q=ne$ with signed integer $n$. A neutral chemical atom that loses two electrons becomes an ion of electric charge $+2e$. A toy object with $10^9$ excess electrons has $Q=-0.1602176634\mathrm{nC}$. Conversely, the scale $1\mathrm{nC}/e\simeq 6.24\times 10^9$ explains why laboratory electric charge often looks continuous: billions of microscopic increments fit into a small macroscopic amount. Averaged charge density is a continuum description, not a claim that each particle has an arbitrarily divisible electric charge.

The ordinary-matter qualifier matters. In the Standard Model, quarks have electric charges $+2e/3$ or $-e/3$, and antiquarks have the opposite signs. Confinement means these are constituents of hadrons, not isolated fractionally charged particles collected by an oil drop experiment. The usual valence quark sums give $2(2e/3)-e/3=e$ for a proton and $2e/3-2(e/3)=0$ for a neutron. Thus elementary charge should not be defined as the smallest nonzero electric charge of every constituent in particle theory. ^[ref].

The beautiful experimental idea behind the oil drop experiment is to determine a microscopic electric charge by watching a visible carrier move. In his 1913 paper, Millikan timed the descent and electrically driven ascent of individual oil drops, repeatedly changing a drop's electric charge through capture of air ions. His apparatus used parallel plates separated by $16\mathrm{mm}$, a roughly $5300\mathrm{V}$ source, and an optical scale to measure travel distances. He reported multiple relationships among a given drop's inferred electric charges. He also found that uncorrected Stokes's law gave a size-dependent inferred elementary unit, and introduced a pressure-dependent slip correction. These were measured relationships with calibration and model uncertainties, not exact readings of today's defined $e$. ^[ref].

A modern instructional implementation sprays low-volatility oil of known density through a plate aperture, illuminates the drops, and follows one through a calibrated optical scale. Measure the plate spacing $d$, electric potential difference $V$, air temperature and pressure. Time a fixed distance $L$ with the electric field off to get a terminal falling speed $v_f=L/t_f$. Then choose the field polarity to drive the same drop upward and measure $v_r=L/t_r$. Repeat timings at a fixed electric charge, and compare before and after an ion-capture event. The same drop is especially useful because its radius and mass need not be inferred anew for each charge state. ^[ref].

Here is the leading continuum model, retaining buoyancy. Assume a drop shaped as a sphere of radius $a$, oil and air densities ${\rho }_o$ and ${\rho }_a$, air dynamic viscosity $\eta$, and gravitational acceleration $g$. Define the downward effective weight $W$ and positive linear drag coefficient $k$ byAt terminal velocity, the net force vanishes. Falling with no electric field, the upward drag force balances weight minus buoyancy. Rising with the electric force upward, the drag force reverses and joins the downward effective weight:Consequently the uncorrected estimates areThe observed direction of response, with known field polarity, supplies the sign of $q$. A suspended drop gives the alternative balance $|q|E=W$, but it still requires a determination of $W$: balancing a drop alone does not determine its electric charge.

For an explicitly invented continuum example, stipulate $a=1\mu \mathrm{m}$, ${\rho }_o=900\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, ${\rho }_a=1.2\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $\eta =1.8\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$, $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, $q=-5e$ and a downward $E=10^5\mathrm{V}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The balances predict $W\simeq 3.69\times 10^{-14}\mathrm{N}$, $v_f\simeq 0.109\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $v_r\simeq 0.127\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Substituting those speeds recovers $|q|=5e$ within rounding. This checks the algebra; it is not a precision prediction for real micrometre drops, which need a slip correction.

The inference has two distinct parts. Compare inferred electric charges or charge changes with a common unit, seeking $q_i\simeq n_{i}e$ within uncertainty, rather than demanding exact ratios of rounded measurements. Then establish the absolute scale through electric field, density, dynamic viscosity and distance/time calibration. If the observed steps are all even multiples, their common spacing alone cannot exclude an unobserved smaller unit. Air motion, evaporation and mistimed crossings can alter inferred electric charge without an ion-capture event. Small Reynolds number supports Stokes's law, but does not by itself justify its no-slip continuum coefficient: a significant ratio of air mean free path to drop radius requires a slip correction. Millikan's comparison of different drop sizes and pressures addressed that systematic limitation; the modern PASCO manual also includes the correction. Agreement supports charge quantization for the observed carriers within experimental resolution, rather than proving a universal statement about every possible particle.

Multiplying $e$ by the Avogadro constant gives the Faraday constant, $F=N_{A}e$, the electric charge per mole of singly charged carriers. This connects counting individual electric charges with bulk electrochemistry. ^[ref].

A body released from rest relative to Earth at the equator has unperturbed downward velocity $v_U=-gt$. The Coriolis acceleration in local Earth coordinates gives eastward acceleration $a_E=-2{\Omega }_E{v}_U=2{\Omega }_{E}gt$. Integration gives $x_E={\Omega }_{E}g{t}^3/3$ and impact time $t_f=\sqrt{2h/g}$, proving the title formula. This is first order in Earth's rotation, neglecting air resistance and the height dependence of the effective local gravitational acceleration. For a short fall at latitude $\phi$, its leading eastward term is multiplied by $\cos \phi$.

Stipulate a fixed source point mass $M=10^{12}\mathrm{kg}$, two equal test particles of mass $m=1\mathrm{kg}$, and $G=6.67430\times 10^{-11}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. This is a chosen model, not a measurement of a particular object. Place the test particles on the outward radial axis at $R-L/2$ and $R+L/2$, with midpoint distance $R=100\mathrm{m}$ and separation $L=2\mathrm{m}$. Neglect their mutual attraction, other sources and all supporting forces.

Each signed radial gravitational acceleration is inward:Their separation has outward relative accelerationThe exact value is $2.6702540\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. The midpoint tidal tensor predicts $2\mu L/R^3=2.6697200\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, an underestimate of $0.019999\%$ relative to the exact value. For these equal $1\mathrm{kg}$ masses, the difference of external forces has the same numerical value in the SI unit of force, the newton. It is not an additional mutual force between the test particles.

The exact formula requires $L<2R$ and describes the instantaneous relative acceleration. Because the two sample positions are symmetric about the midpoint, the Taylor expansion error relative to the linear result starts at order $(L/R{)}^2$; a one-sided comparison with a reference point generally has relative error of order $L/R$. If either test particle enters an extended source, use that source's interior Newtonian gravitational field instead of extrapolating the singular point mass model.

One motivating laboratory demonstration compares two balls initially at the same height. A switch releases one vertically when the other leaves a horizontal track; arranging their paths to meet gives a collision as the readout of equal downward displacement over equal time. Equal initial height and synchronized release control the comparison. This tests the local independence of horizontal motion and free fall, under nearly constant gravitational acceleration; it does not measure an inverse-square law.^[ref]

A complementary astronomical comparison uses the Moon's distance and orbital period to infer inward centripetal acceleration, $a=4{\pi }^{2}r/T^2$, and compares it with surface gravitational acceleration scaled by $(R/r{)}^2$. The approximately sixtyfold distance ratio gives the approximately $1/3600$ prediction. The inference links terrestrial free fall to a lunar orbit. Distance calibration matters; the circular orbit approximation and the Sun's tidal force limit this elementary comparison.^[ref]

The Louisiana Tech LAB 8 - Velocity Profile above a Flat Plate describes a 14-inch plate in a wind tunnel. A Pitot-static tube of 0.10-inch outside diameter traverses normally about 12 inches downstream; its screw scale has 0.001-inch increments. A water-column manometer reads the difference between stagnation pressure and static pressure. The procedure establishes a wall position, zeros the tunnel indicator, sets fan speed, and records at least ten positions inside the boundary layer, together with room temperature and barometric pressure. The instrument list includes a flow-stream thermometer implemented with a temperature-sensitive resistor. The manual requests comparison of outer velocity with the tunnel indicator and of the recovered velocity profile with laminar or turbulent predictions; it provides no observed dataset. These are apparatus specifications and instructions, not a reported confirmation of laminar flow.

Under incompressible flow conditions, an ideal aligned Pitot tube gives $q(y)=p_0(y)-p(y)=\rho u(y{)}^2/2$. Convert the manometer head $h$ to $q=({\rho }_{\mathrm{water}}-\rho )gh$, then infer $u=\sqrt{2q/\rho }$. Here $g$ is gravitational acceleration; mass density $\rho$ can be estimated from temperature and absolute pressure using the ideal gas law. A normalized velocity profile rises from the unresolved near-wall region to a plateau, whose value defines $U$; downstream profiles should broaden and collapse when plotted against $\eta$ if the Blasius boundary layer assumptions hold. Integrating a recovered velocity profile gives displacement thickness and momentum thickness.

Additional controls for interpreting this experiment follow from the measurement model: check differential-pressure calibration with equal port pressures and known liquid heads; leak-check tubing; align the Pitot tube with the incoming velocity; convert wall contact to the inlet-centre coordinate rather than treating outside contact as $y=0$; repeat traverses and outer velocity readings to detect drift. Keep the plate smooth and aligned, and check outer static pressure at multiple downstream stations before assuming zero pressure gradient. Repeating at another station or outer velocity tests the predicted boundary-layer scaling more directly than fitting one curve. These controls are proposed checks, not actions documented as completed in the manual.

Finite probe size, wall interference, flow fluctuations, and weak near-wall dynamic pressure limit inference. Even the manual's probe-based Reynolds number criterion, ${\mathrm{Re}}_d=ud/\nu >1000$ for its ideal Bernoulli equation conversion, must be checked with local $u$, not just $U$. In the illustrative model at $x=0.3048\mathrm{m}$, ${\delta }_{99}\simeq 3.32\mathrm{mm}$; the quoted outside diameter is $2.54\mathrm{mm}$, a substantial fraction of that thickness. A real inlet's sensing footprint and correction cannot be deduced from outside diameter alone. For an ideal footprint that averages dynamic pressure, the inferred velocity is $\sqrt{⟨u^2⟩}$ rather than $⟨u⟩$. Differentiating such sparse readings to obtain wall shear stress magnifies measurement error; the momentum thickness route is less sensitive to this differentiation but still needs the unresolved near-wall contribution. The no-slip boundary condition is a model constraint here, not a direct reading from a probe centred on the wall.

A flexural-gravity wave bends a floating elastic plate while displacing the underlying water. For a uniform plate with areal mass $m$ and bending stiffness $D$ above inviscid deep water of mass density ${\rho }_w$, put $\alpha =m/{\rho }_w$ and $\beta =D/{\rho }_w$. Combining the plate equation with the water's kinematic boundary condition gives the displayed dispersion relation. Both gravitational acceleration and plate bending restore displacement; water and plate inertia resist acceleration. It assumes small amplitude, no prestress and negligible shear deformation of the plate.

A freely floating body at rest has no supporting contact or applied holding force. Neglecting surface tension and the buoyancy of air, its upward buoyancy balances its downward force from gravity:For a body of uniform mass density ${\rho }_{\mathrm{body}}$ and total volume $V_{\mathrm{body}}$, its mass is $m={\rho }_{\mathrm{body}}{V}_{\mathrm{body}}$. Substitution into Archimedes' principle givesPartial immersion is possible when ${\rho }_{\mathrm{body}}<{\rho }_f$. A nonuniform body uses its mean mass density $m/V_{\mathrm{body}}$ instead; for a hollow body this volume must count the enclosed space that excludes water. This explains how the amount of displaced water can support a vessel whose walls alone are denser than water. ^[ref]

For the $600\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ cube in water of mass density $1000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, the displaced fraction is $600/1000=0.60$: sixty percent of its volume lies below the surface. With a horizontal top and bottom, the immersed depth $d$ satisfies $V_{\mathrm{displaced}}=Ad$, soIts remaining height is $0.040\mathrm{m}$, and the buoyancy is $1000\times 9.81\times 0.000600=5.886\mathrm{N}$, exactly balancing its downward force from gravity.

Free fall is motion under gravity alone: there is no supporting normal force, engine thrust or appreciable drag force. In the Newtonian mechanics model, a test particle of mass $m$ obeys $m\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=m\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{r})$, hence $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{r})$. The mass cancels. Bodies released at the same position with the same velocity follow the same path in this model, even if their gravitational weights differ. ^[ref]

A dropped stone is one example; a coasting satellite is another. Free fall does not require motion straight down or decreasing distance to the attracting body. An ideal circular orbit has constant radius while its velocity continually turns under centripetal acceleration. The circular orbit as continuous free fall connects the familiar drop with orbital motion.

Near a surface, treating the gravitational acceleration as constant gives a useful first prediction. Over larger heights, the inverse-square law changes the acceleration during the fall. Radial free fall from rest uses conservation of mechanical energy to account for that change exactly, within the specified Newtonian gravitational field. The contrast matters: the simplest formula is an approximation to a physical model, rather than a law with the same numerical $g$ everywhere.

History also makes the idealization tangible. Galileo's Two New Sciences (1638), Third Day, Theorem II, derives distance proportional to the square of time for uniformly accelerated motion from rest; its first corollary gives successive distances in the ratios $1,3,5,7,\dots$ over equal time intervals. This is a kinematic statement, predating the gravitational inverse-square law. ^[ref]

On Apollo 15's final lunar surface excursion, David Scott released a hammer and a feather together. The near-vacuum removed the large difference in drag force familiar on Earth. NASA's report describes their arrival together within the accuracy of the release; this demonstration illustrates the free fall prediction without establishing infinite experimental precision. ^[ref]

Take downward displacement $s$ as positive, assume a constant gravitational acceleration $g>0$, and release a point mass from rest at $s=0$. Integrating $\ddot{s}=g$ twice givesFor a downward distance $h>0$, the arrival time and speed areFor the model values $h=20\mathrm{m}$ and $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, these are approximately $2.0193\mathrm{s}$ and $19.8091\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Doubling the height multiplies both quantities by $\sqrt{2}$; it does not double them. The same speed follows from the work-energy theorem, $mgh=m{v}^2/2$.

For intervals of length $\Delta t$, the successive downward displacements areThus equal spacing in time produces increasingly separated positions. This is the odd-number pattern in Galileo's result. It assumes constant acceleration and release from rest; a nonzero initial velocity adds a linear term to $s(t)$.

The approximation can be estimated for a spherical source of radius $R$ and standard gravitational parameter $\mu$. Writing $g_0=\mu /R^2$, the gravitational magnitude at height $h$ isFor $h/R\ll 1$, a Taylor expansion gives $g(R+h)/g_0=1-2h/R+O((h/R{)}^2)$. Small height relative to the source's radius makes nearly constant gravity plausible; negligible drag force remains a separate requirement.

For a family of affinely parametrized geodesics with tangent $U$ and connecting field $J$, the Jacobi equation in the convention used here isIt describes the relative acceleration produced by spacetime curvature.

Here $J$ describes an infinitesimal separation and the covariant derivatives compare it in a frame transported along the reference geodesic. The Riemann curvature tensor thus becomes something measured with neighboring trajectories. The Newtonian version follows by differentiating gravitational acceleration with respect to position. In the exterior of a spherical mass, let ${\xi }_r$ be radial separation and ${\xi }_{\perp }$ separation in either transverse direction. Newton's law of universal gravitation givesThe upper particle falls less strongly than the lower one, stretching their radial separation; side-by-side particles accelerate toward converging radial directions, compressing their transverse separation. See Oregon State's derivation of tidal acceleration.

For a spherical Earth model with $r=R_{\oplus }=6.371\times 10^6\mathrm{m}$, $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ and $GM=g{R}_{\oplus }^2$, a one-metre radial separation gives ${\ddot{\xi }}_r=2g/R_{\oplus }=3.07958\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$; a one-metre transverse separation gives $-1.53979\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. Initially comoving particles therefore change separation after one second by approximately $\frac{1}{2}\ddot{\xi }{t}^2$: $+1.54$ micrometres radially or $-0.770$ micrometres transversely. This short-time calculation holds the reference radius fixed to leading order. Its beauty is that common falling motion drops out, leaving a measurable stretching pattern that reveals curvature.

The gravitational potential energy per unit mass, including the centrifugal contribution when using the effective gravity of a rotating planet. In a local atmosphere with approximately constant effective gravitational acceleration, $\Phi =gz$ up to a constant. Its horizontal gradient on an isobaric surface drives the balanced wind.

A Gouy balance detects the force exerted by a nonuniform magnetic field on a sample of uniform cross-section extending between high- and low-field regions. TeachSpin's implementation reverses the usual arrangement: a rare-earth permanent-magnet assembly sits on a one-pan electronic balance, while a separate holder brings the sample into the field. The magnet's apparent mass change measures the opposite of the sample's vertical force, by Newton's third law. The described pole faces have diameter $25\mathrm{mm}$ and separation $15\mathrm{mm}$; samples occupy cuvettes of cross-section $(10\mathrm{mm}{)}^2$ and height about $32\mathrm{mm}$. ^[ref]

The same balance calibrates magnetic flux density by measuring the reaction force on the magnet when a wire of known horizontal length $L$ carries known electric current $i$ perpendicular to the field: $|F_z|=iL{B}_0$. The manufacturer describes water being repelled by the high-field region, identifying negative magnetic susceptibility. This observed sign supplies a qualitative test, not a measured Curie's law curve. ^[ref]

For weak reversible linear response, a uniform sample displacing a weakly magnetic surrounding medium has, to leading order, downward forceThis follows by integrating the induced-dipole force density $({\chi }_v-{\chi }_{\mathrm{medium}}){\partial }_z(B_0^2)/(2{\mu }_0)$ along a downward coordinate. $A$ is the cross-sectional area, and the two $B_0$ values are applied magnetic flux densities. The force depends on the endpoint fields; the entire field-gradient profile need not be measured under these assumptions. In the reversed apparatus, $F_{\downarrow }=-g\Delta m_{\mathrm{magnet}}$ after subtracting the holder background, where $g$ is gravitational acceleration. This sign must be reversed before inferring volume magnetic susceptibility.

Useful controls are an empty-holder reading at the same position, a distant-sample baseline, repeated wire-current reversals during field calibration, and stable temperature. They separate holder response, balance drift, force offsets, and thermal changes; these are proposed checks for the stated inference. Finite endpoint fields, nonuniform cross-section, uneven powder packing, stray forces and a demagnetizing field limit the simple formula. If magnetization is nonlinear, the weak-response force involves $A{\int }_{B_{0,\mathrm{top}}}^{B_{0,\mathrm{bottom}}}M(B_0)d{B}_0$ instead of a constant-${\chi }_v$ endpoint square. A balance reading then measures an integrated response, not directly the local differential magnetic susceptibility.

Gravitational acceleration is the acceleration of a test particle in free fall in a Newtonian gravitational field. It is a vector pointing along that field; $g$ commonly denotes its positive magnitude. Near Earth's surface, the magnitude is approximately constant over shallow vertical scales. For a fixed spherical source it instead varies as $g(r)=\mu /r^2$, where $\mu$ is the standard gravitational parameter.

This is distinct from gravitational weight, the force $m\mathbf{g}$, and from apparent weight, the support force a scale measures. An orbiting body can have substantial gravitational acceleration while its apparent weight is zero.

The gravitational constant $G$ sets the strength of Newton's law of universal gravitation. Two point masses $M$ and $m$ a center-to-center distance $r$ apart attract with force magnitudeFor fixed masses and separation, doubling $G$ would double the force. For bodies with spherical symmetry, the same exterior formula follows from the spherical shell theorem; for arbitrary extended bodies, add the attractions of their mass density elements instead. The gravitational constant connects a laboratory attraction to the Newtonian gravitational field controlling a Kepler orbit.

The gravitational constant $G$ and local gravitational acceleration $g$ are different quantities. Applying Newton's second law to a test particle gives $g=F/m=GM/r^2$ for one spherical source. The source's mass and the observer's position change $g$; $G$ remains the same parameter of the law. A local falling-body experiment therefore measures a field, not $G$ alone. On rotating Earth, an instrument fixed to the surface also responds to centrifugal acceleration, while surrounding mass density and altitude change the gravitational contribution.

Dimensional analysis explains the units. Denote the base physical dimensions of length, mass and time by $\mathsf{L},\mathsf{M},\mathsf{T}$. Since force has dimension $\mathsf{ML}{\mathsf{T}}^{-2}$,By contrast, $[g]=\mathsf{L}{\mathsf{T}}^{-2}$ and the standard gravitational parameter $\mu =GM$ has dimension ${\mathsf{L}}^3{\mathsf{T}}^{-2}$. A small numerical value of a dimensional constant depends on the units chosen: it is the resulting force for specified physical masses and separation that conveys the laboratory scale.

NIST's current complete listing givesfor the 2022 CODATA adjustment, the latest adjustment listed when checked on 14 October 2026. Parentheses indicate a standard uncertainty $u(G)=0.00015\times 10^{-11}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, approximately $22$ parts per million relative to $G$. The adjustment year is 2022; NIST's May 2024 data update is a different date.^{[ref] [ref]}

For an original scale calculation, stipulate two $1\mathrm{kg}$ point masses separated by $1\mathrm{m}$ and insert this recommended $G$: $F=6.67430\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{N}$. The corresponding acceleration of either mass is $6.67430\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ at that instant. Reducing the separation to $0.10\mathrm{m}$ multiplies both by $100$. These are ideal model predictions, not observations; their tiny scale explains why stray forces matter.

Being a constant of a physical law does not make the numerical value exact. The SI fixes the numerical values of seven defining constants, including the speed of light and Planck constant; $G$ is determined experimentally. Exact unit definitions still require physical realizations with measurement uncertainty: calibrating a length or a mass does not become error-free.^[ref]

An orbit around an isolated source constrains its standard gravitational parameter $\mu =GM$ rather than independently measuring the source's mass and the gravitational constant. In the test particle approximation, a circular orbit of radius $a$ and orbital period $T$ satisfiesThe left equation equates the required centripetal acceleration to the gravitational acceleration. More generally, a Kepler orbit depends on the same $\mu$. In the exact relative two-body problem, replace $GM$ by $G(M+m)$.

For any positive dimensionless number $q$, replacing $G$ by $qG$ and $M$ by $M/q$ leaves $GM$ and every predicted test particle trajectory unchanged. This is the gravitational mass degeneracy: more observations of the same orbit can refine $GM$ without separating its factors. A laboratory source whose mass is calibrated independently supplies the missing information.

Consequently an astronomical mass expressed in kilograms as $M=\mu /G$ inherits measurement uncertainty from $G$, even if $\mu$ is known much more precisely. To first order,When the relative standard uncertainty of $\mu$ is negligible, that of $M$ is approximately $u(G)/G$. Conversely, the ratio of two source masses inferred using the same $G$ is $M_1/M_2={\mu }_1/{\mu }_2$, so this common factor cancels. That distinction explains how excellent orbit determination can coexist with less precise absolute astronomical masses.

For equal-speed nonrelativistic matter waves in an interferometer with signed enclosed vertical area $A$, a uniform gravitational acceleration gives the displayed leading-order phase difference. In a rectangular device, the horizontal paths differ in gravitational potential energy by $mgh$ for a time $\ell /v$, so their phase difference has magnitude $mgh\ell /(\hslash v)$. Assumptions include negligible fractional changes of speed, matched unperturbed optical paths and a consistent treatment of the beam splitters. The Colella–Overhauser–Werner experiment uses neutron interference to test this gravitational phase.

For uniform linear mass density $\mu$, a chain minimizing $\mu \int \Phi (z)ds$ at fixed length has Beltrami identity $(\mu \Phi -\lambda )/\sqrt{1+z^{\prime 2}}=C$. In the domain $z<h$, the displayed potential has downward gravitational acceleration $-{\Phi }^{\prime }(z)=-\kappa /(h-z{)}^2$. A circular arc $z=h-\sqrt{a^2-x^2}$ satisfies the identity because $\sqrt{1+z^{\prime 2}}=a/(h-z)$.

This arc is a global minimum among admissible competitors of the same length with the same endpoints in $z<h$. Set $w=h-z>0$. The variable part of the energy is $\mu \kappa \int ds/w$, a hyperbolic length in the Poincaré half-plane model. The calibration for semicircular hyperbolic geodesics $S=\mathrm{arsinh}(x/w)$ has $|\nabla S|=1/w$. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $\int ds/w\ge S(B)-S(A)$, with equality along the circle traversed with increasing $x$. The constant-potential part is unchanged by the fixed-length constraint.

In a static spacetime, a clock held at a fixed position records proper time $d\tau =Ndt$ for metric time component $-N^2{c}^{2}d{t}^2$. Two clocks compared over the same coordinate interval have rate ratio $N_{\mathrm{upper}}/N_{\mathrm{lower}}$. Each clock ticks normally in its own laboratory; the difference appears when their readings or transmitted frequencies are compared. For a weak Newtonian gravitational potential, $N\simeq 1+\Phi /c^2$, so the fractional excess of the upper rate is $\delta \simeq ({\Phi }_{\mathrm{upper}}-{\Phi }_{\mathrm{lower}})/c^2$.

Take two clocks maintained at rest above Earth, separated vertically by $h=1000\mathrm{m}$. Approximate the local gravitational acceleration as constant, $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, neglect rotation, and use the exact speed of light $c=299792458\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ from NIST's constants database. Then $\Delta \Phi \simeq gh=9810{\mathrm{m}}^2{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ andThe upper clock gains about $9.4$ nanoseconds during one $86400$-second interval on the lower clock. This is a leading weak-field estimate with $h\ll R_{\oplus }$, not a precision prediction for a particular mountain: Earth's rotation and actual gravitational potential matter in accurate comparisons. The effect is experimentally accessible. Chou, Hume, Rosenband and Wineland raised an optical clock by $0.33\mathrm{m}$ and measured a fractional rate change $(4.1\pm 1.6)\times 10^{-17}$; the same formula with $g=9.80\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ predicts $3.60\times 10^{-17}$. See their ^[ref]. Such comparisons make clocks probes of gravitational potential as well as instruments for timekeeping.

For the ideal spherical, nonrotating Schwarzschild spacetime, the exact static-clock factor relative to time at infinity is $N(r)=\sqrt{1-r_s/r}$, where $r_s=2GM/c^2$ is the Schwarzschild radius. Its weak-field expansion is $1-r_s/(2r)$. The figure compares these factors only in a vacuum exterior with $r>r_s$; for a material body, the radius must also exceed its surface radius. It does not extend the exterior formula through the body's interior. See Tong's lecture notes, section 6.1 on Schwarzschild exterior geometry.

Immanuel Estermann, O. C. Simpson and Otto Stern used gravitational deflection to measure atomic speeds. Stern describes scanning a hot-wire surface ionization detector through a cesium beam and recording ion electric current.^[ref] Their 1947 paper reports potassium and cesium beams; a deficit of slow arrivals increased with oven pressure, supporting a source-slit collision explanation.^[ref]

First consider an original point-launch model, with horizontal speed $v>0$, zero initial vertical velocity, flight distance $L$, and uniform gravitational acceleration $g$. Downward displacement $y$ follows from flight time $t=L/v$:Slow particles fall farther. However, a detector scan counts arrivals per interval of height, not per interval of speed. Change of variables for probability densities supplies the Jacobian determinant:Here $g(v)$ denotes the effusive beam speed distribution; the unadorned constant $g$ in $C$ denotes gravitational acceleration. The integral of $p_y$ is one: substituting $u=b/y$ reduces it to ${\int }_0^{\infty }u{e}^{-u}du=1$. Its mode is $y=b/3$. Simply mapping the most probable arrival speed into a fall distance instead gives $2b/3$. The peaks differ because equal height bins cover unequal speed intervals.

For those chosen parameters, $b\simeq 176.54\mu \mathrm{m}$, so the detector-height probability density peaks near $58.85\mu \mathrm{m}$. A detector covering only $0<y<Y$ accepts the fractionAt $Y=0.80\mathrm{mm}$ this is about $97.9\%$, even before allowing for imperfect detection. Discarding the remainder changes the observed normalization.

Real slits transmit a range of launch heights and vertical velocities. Their geometrical response must be combined with the gravitational deflection and detector width; the point-launch formula is not an exact reduction of the historical apparatus. In the point-launch model, an initial vertical velocity $w$ would add $wL/v$ to $y$. Source collisions, detector efficiency and alignment can also distort a profile. Varying oven pressure helps distinguish such source losses from an incorrect thermal distribution; inferring a source temperature from the peak alone ignores both selection and the detector's coordinate transformation.

Gravity gradiometry measures spatial differences of gravitational acceleration. Two simultaneous measurements along a unit vector $\mathbf{e}$, separated by $L\mathbf{e}$, giveThis measures one directional component of the tidal tensor, not its whole matrix. Any identical platform acceleration cancels in the difference. Unequal instrument responses, changing geometry and rotating reference frames can spoil that cancellation. For a large baseline, the quotient is an average of the directional tidal tensor along the baseline, rather than its exact value at one point.