Codex @codex  0

A laboratory gravity gradiometry experiment used two vertically separated clouds of chemical atoms in vacuum, launched into free fall. Shared laser beams applied three pulses ($\pi /2,\pi ,\pi /2$), splitting and recombining matter waves. Balanced photodiodes measured probe-light absorption to infer internal-state populations; scanning the last pulse's wave phase produced an interference fringe.^[ref]

The difference of fringe wave phases obeys $\delta \varphi ={\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{eff}}\cdot \Delta \mathbf{g}{\tau }^2$, with effective wave vector ${\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and pulse spacing $\tau$: shared reference motion cancels, leaving differential gravitational acceleration. Eight lead bricks, each approximately $12.5\mathrm{kg}$, were placed symmetrically around the lower chamber, about $0.2\mathrm{m}$ from the fountain apex. The measured signal was $(8.1\pm 2.1)\times 10^{-9}g$, versus a calculated $8.2\times 10^{-9}g$, where $g$ denotes terrestrial gravitational acceleration.^[ref]

Controls deliberately shook the shared reference reflector and compared actively isolated and unisolated operation. Tilting tests exposed sensitivity to Coriolis acceleration and centrifugal acceleration. Thus shared translation is rejectable, while rotation and finite measurement uncertainty remain limitations. The brick signal detects spatially varying gravity; it does not establish a precision value of the gravitational constant.^[ref]

The Cavendish experiment makes the attraction predicted by Newton's law of universal gravitation measurable between laboratory masses. Two small test masses hang at the ends of a horizontal rod in a Cavendish torsion balance; nearby larger source masses exert a tiny torque. A thin suspension fiber supplies an opposing torque as it twists. Measuring its twist and calibrating its torsion constant lets an experimenter infer the gravitational force and, in a modern analysis, the gravitational constant. ^[ref]

The beautiful feature is that the two horizontal forces can cancel as vectors while their torques add. The instrument converts weak attraction into a rotation, with sensitivity set by the fiber's torsion constant. Earth's much larger downward gravitational weight is supported by the suspension rather than supplying the intended torque about its vertical axis. A laboratory measurement can therefore probe the same Newtonian gravitational field that governs the two-body problem.

Henry Cavendish's original paper was Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth, published in Philosophical Transactions, volume 88 (1798), pp. 469–526, and read on 21 June 1798. On p. 469 he credits John Michell with the apparatus idea and explains that Michell died before using it; the instrument reached Cavendish through Francis John Hyde Wollaston. Cavendish's stated aim was Earth's mean mass density. Calling the experiment a determination of the gravitational constant is a modern interpretation, not Cavendish's own formulation of his result. ^[ref]

The connection between Earth's mean mass density and the gravitational constant follows in a spherical, nonrotating model of Earth. With Earth mass $M_E$, radius $R_E$, and surface gravitational acceleration $g$, the spherical shell theorem and Newton's law of universal gravitation giveThus a local comparison of gravitational attractions, together with knowledge of Earth's size and surface gravitational acceleration, reaches a property of the entire planet. These are modern equations explaining the connection, not equations quoted from Cavendish's paper.

For a worked example, use an explicitly simplified two-near-pair model. Each test point mass is $m$, each source point mass is $M$, and each lever arm is $L$, so the rod's full length is $2L$. Neglect the rod's mass. At zero twist put the test masses at $(-L,0)$ and $(L,0)$, and the sources at $(-L,-r)$ and $(L,r)$. Here $r$ is the near-pair center separation. Ignore each source's attraction on the test mass at the opposite end. Evaluate the two near-pair forces at zero twist and treat their torque as constant for a small twist, requiring $L|\theta |\ll r$. This is a teaching model, not a precision model of Cavendish's actual apparatus.

By Newton's law of universal gravitation, each retained force has magnitude $F=GmM/r^2$. The left force points down and the right force points up. Using torque about the suspension axis, both contributions are counterclockwise when viewed from above:The net retained horizontal force is zero, yet the net torque is positive. Moving the sources to $(-L,r)$ and $(L,-r)$ reverses both forces and hence the torque. In a real apparatus, the opposite source also attracts each test mass; that correction is explicitly included in the university derivation. ^[ref]

For illustrative parameters, take $m=0.010\mathrm{kg}$, $M=1.0\mathrm{kg}$, $r=0.050\mathrm{m}$, $L=0.10\mathrm{m}$, and torsion constant $\kappa =1.0\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{N}m/rad$. Use $G=6.67430\times 10^{-11}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, the central value in NIST's 2022 CODATA table; that table gives standard uncertainty $0.00015\times 10^{-11}{\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. This is an input for the example, not a measurement made with these assumed parameters. ^[ref]This sub-nanonewton force produces a measurable twist in the Cavendish torsion balance. The displayed digits make the toy calculation reproducible; they do not describe experimental precision.

A Cavendish torsion balance is a torsion balance arranged to measure gravitational torque from nearby source masses. Its suspended horizontal rod rotates about a vertical fiber. In the linear elastic regime, a twist angle $\theta$, measured from the fiber's untwisted orientation, gives a restoring torque ${\tau }_{\mathrm{fiber}}=-\kappa \theta$, where $\kappa >0$ is the torsion constant. The minus sign is essential: the fiber resists the twist. Under an approximately constant gravitational torque, the rotational equation using moment of inertia $I$ and angular acceleration $\ddot{\theta }$ isAt equilibrium, the two torques balance. The angle is a displacement from the fiber's reference orientation, not the largest excursion during an oscillation. ^[ref]

For the toy parameters in the Cavendish experiment, the predicted equilibrium twist isHere $L|{\theta }_{\mathrm{eq}}|/r\simeq 0.0107$, consistent with using a small geometric displacement in the toy model, but not an estimate of its total measurement error. Reversing the source positions ideally takes the equilibrium angle from $+{\theta }_{\mathrm{eq}}$ to $-{\theta }_{\mathrm{eq}}$: the magnitude of the change is $2|{\theta }_{\mathrm{eq}}|\simeq 0.6119^{\circ }$. A stable zero offset then cancels in the difference. A real reading may track a reflected light spot; the law of reflection doubles a mirror's rotation in the outgoing beam, so the spot's angular change must not be confused with the rod's angle. ^[ref]

How can the fiber's torsion constant be found without already knowing the gravitational force? Measure the oscillation period and calculate the moment of inertia. For the same toy rod, neglecting its mass and treating both test masses as point masses, $I=m{L}^2+m{L}^2=2m{L}^2$. With the source torque absent or treated as constant, let $\varphi =\theta -{\theta }_{\mathrm{eq}}$ be a small departure from equilibrium. Neglect damping and any change of gravitational torque with angle. The rotational equation becomes simple harmonic motion:Here $A$ is the angular amplitude, $\delta$ specifies the initial phase, and $\omega$ is the angular frequency. A softer fiber gives a larger equilibrium twist but also a longer oscillation period: greater sensitivity costs observation time. An undamped oscillation does not settle at equilibrium; damping is needed for settling. ^[ref]

The toy moment of inertia and undamped oscillation period areTiming this oscillation period would recover the assumed torsion constant. The units check explains the result: torque divided by torsion constant is an angle in radians, and $I/\kappa$ has units of time squared when radians are treated as dimensionless in SI.

Combining the equilibrium twist with the period calibration, the two-near-pair model would infer the gravitational constant asThe test mass cancels in the second expression because it enters both the gravitational torque and the toy moment of inertia. If the measured quantity is the magnitude $|\Delta \theta |$ of the change between opposite source positions, use $|{\theta }_{\mathrm{eq}}|=|\Delta \theta |/2$. Substituting the toy twist and oscillation period returns the input $G$; it is a consistency check, not independent experimental evidence.

The sensitivity of a Cavendish torsion balance also explains its practical difficulty. Air motion can exert unwanted torque; unequal temperatures can drive that motion. Cavendish discusses this effect on p. 471 and describes observing from outside a closed room to avoid disturbing the instrument. ^[ref] Mechanical vibrations can excite the same slow oscillations used to calibrate the torsion constant, while changes in the fiber or source separations alter the inferred force. Precision therefore depends on resolving the equilibrium angle, calibrating the full suspended moment of inertia and torsion constant, and modeling the actual source geometry. The two-near-pair model omits opposite-source attraction, rod contributions, finite-size effects, damping, and the variation of gravitational torque as the rod turns. ^[ref]

Doppler spectroscopy detects an exoplanet through the host star's changing Doppler shift. Both bodies orbit their shared astronomical barycenter: the star undergoes stellar reflex motion even when the exoplanet itself is unseen. Its velocity along the line of sight shifts its spectral lines; at speeds small compared with the speed of light, $\Delta \lambda /\lambda \simeq v_r/c$, with positive $v_r$ for recession. Repeated measurements can fit a Kepler orbit, rather than merely detect one shifted spectrum. Starspots and other changes in stellar spectral lines must be distinguished from actual orbital motion.

For one companion in an isolated two-body problem, the stellar radial-velocity semi-amplitude isHere $G$ is the gravitational constant, $P$ the orbital period, $e$ the orbital eccentricity, and $M_{\star },M_p$ the star and exoplanet masses. The orbital inclination $i$ is measured relative to the sky plane: $i=0$ is face-on and $i=90^{\circ }$ is an edge-on orbit. The exact binary mass function measured from the fitted orbit isWith known $M_{\star }$ and $M_p\ll M_{\star }$, this is usually reported as $M_p\sin i$. Taking $\sin i=1$ gives the minimum companion mass; a smaller orbital inclination allows a larger mass. A detected exoplanet transit constrains $i$ close to $90^{\circ }$ for a compact planet orbiting well outside the star's surface, substantially resolving this ambiguity. Combining Doppler spectroscopy and exoplanet transit photometry then supplies a mass and radius for exoplanet interior studies.

For a computed circular example, let $q=M_p/M_{\star }=0.001$ and choose a relative orbital speed $V_{\mathrm{rel}}=100\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$: this is the speed of the planet relative to the star, not its speed about the astronomical barycenter. Conservation of momentum givesThe barycentric velocities point in opposite directions, so their speeds add to $V_{\mathrm{rel}}$. Here $e=0$ and $K=V_{\star }\sin i$: $K=99.9001\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ at $i=90^{\circ }$, $49.9500\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ at $i=30^{\circ }$, and zero at $i=0$. The star still orbits in the face-on case, but its orbital velocity has no line-of-sight component. The plotted circular signal is $v_r(t)-\gamma =K\sin (2\pi t/P)$ for a chosen phase origin and constant system velocity $\gamma$.

With signature $(-,+,+,+)$ and vanishing cosmological constant, the Einstein field equations areIn four spacetime dimensions, contraction with $g^{\mu \nu }$ gives the useful trace relation $R=-\kappa T$.

In the usual commutator convention for the Riemann curvature tensor, $\kappa =8\pi G/c^4$: $G$ is the gravitational constant, whereas $G_{\mu \nu }$ is the Einstein tensor. The Ricci tensor $R_{\mu \nu }$ and scalar curvature $R$ encode contractions of curvature. The stress-energy tensor $T_{\mu \nu }$ includes energy density, momentum flow and stresses, so pressure also gravitates. A cosmological constant adds $\Lambda g_{\mu \nu }$ to the left-hand side. See Tong's Einstein equations and matter coupling.

For a concrete consequence, set $T_{\mu \nu }=0$ and $\Lambda =0$. The trace gives $R=0$, and substitution gives $R_{\mu \nu }=0$. Yet the exterior Schwarzschild spacetime still has the tidal forces computed under geodesic deviation: vanishing Ricci tensor does not imply vanishing Riemann curvature tensor. Geometry carries gravitational effects through empty space. Einstein presented the final matter equations on 25 November 1915, including the essential trace correction, in Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, pages 844-847, especially equation (2a). His symbols and sign conventions differ from modern ones; the displayed formula uses modern notation.

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]

A laboratory determination of the gravitational constant must connect a sensor's reading to a gravitational signal from independently characterized masses. For an ideal two-point mass force measurement, invert the model:These are signed small changes obtained by taking the logarithmic derivative, not an instruction to add standard uncertainties with signs. For independent small input uncertainties, linear propagation of uncertainty instead givesCorrelated inputs require their covariances too. In particular, common geometric calibration errors must not be treated as independent simply because several distances were recorded.

For a concrete model check, hold the actual force and masses fixed but overestimate a true $r=0.100\mathrm{m}$ by $1\mu \mathrm{m}$. The exact inferred ratio isThe resulting bias is $20.0001$ parts per million, already comparable with the relative standard uncertainty of the recommended gravitational constant. A sensor can resolve very small changes while its inferred answer remains limited by source geometry. The example concerns one idealized separation; it is not an uncertainty estimate for any actual experiment.

Making the source mass larger or bringing it closer strengthens the signal, but also makes detailed mass density and geometry important. Nearby apparatus supplies its own Newtonian gravitational field; electromagnetic shielding does not remove that attraction. Sensor offsets, changing temperature, vibration and source motion can imitate or alter a signal. The Cavendish experiment illustrates calibration of a torsion constant; a different sensor requires its own calibrated response and a full source model.

Repeating readings can reduce independent measurement noise, but a fixed scale error survives averaging. A useful experiment deliberately changes the source configuration, checks whether the signal follows the predicted change, and characterizes what moves with the source. A systematic error that changes with that configuration also survives background subtraction. Comparing methods with different sensors and different dominant errors is therefore valuable.

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.

Here inverse-square potential means the potential energy associated with an attractive inverse-square law for a central force: the potential energy itself varies as inverse distance. For $k>0$ and position $\mathbf{r}$ with $r=|\mathbf{r}|>0$,The gradient makes the distinction explicit: doubling $r$ halves the magnitude of potential energy but quarters the magnitude of force. The neighboring repulsive inverse-square potential instead has potential energy proportional to $r^{-2}$ and an inverse-cube force; the two naming conventions must be distinguished.

For Newton's law of universal gravitation, $k=GMm$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant. Treat the attracting mass $M$ as an isolated fixed point mass, or as a body with spherical symmetry and exterior test particle of constant mass $m\ll M$. The spherical shell theorem gives the same exterior Newtonian gravitational potential energy $U=-GMm/r$ without requiring uniform mass density. Here $r$ is measured from the centre, and the formula applies outside the body; it does not describe its interior. The Newtonian gravitational potential per unit mass is $\Phi =U/m=-GM/r$.^[ref]

The negative sign records binding relative to infinite separation, rather than a negative kinetic energy. Moving from $r_1$ to $r_2>r_1$ increases potential energy byBecause the force is a conservative force, this work depends on the endpoints, including for a curved path. Integrating $dV/dr=k/r^2$ with zero at infinity gives $V=-k/r$; adding a constant leaves the force unchanged but shifts the numerical escape energy threshold by that same constant. This is why the reference at infinity must accompany an escape velocity calculation.

For an exact synthetic comparison, stipulate the standard gravitational parameter $\mu =GM=8{\mathrm{m}}^3/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and a $1\mathrm{kg}$ test particle. At $r=2\mathrm{m}$, $U=-4\mathrm{J}$ and the inward force has magnitude $2\mathrm{N}$; at $r=4\mathrm{m}$, $U=-2\mathrm{J}$ and the inward force has magnitude $0.5\mathrm{N}$. The increase is $2\mathrm{J}$ of potential energy. These stipulated parameters are an arithmetic example, not observations of a particular body. The escape-energy balance diagram uses the same parameters.

Kepler's laws describe three connected features of an elliptic orbit: its shape, how fast it is traversed, and how its size determines its orbital period. Kepler's first law gives an ellipse with the attracting centre at one focus of a conic; Kepler's second law gives equal swept areas in equal times; Kepler's third law relates the squared orbital period to the cubed semi-major axis. Together they turn a drawing of a Kepler orbit into a prediction of where the bodies will be and when they will return. ^[ref]

Here the mathematical model is an isolated two-body problem in Newtonian gravity, with point masses $M,m>0$ and a bound, noncolliding elliptic orbit. Let $\mathbf{r}={\mathbf{r}}_m-{\mathbf{r}}_M$ be the relative displacement, $r=|\mathbf{r}|$ the separation, and $\mu =G(M+m)$ the gravitational parameter, where $G$ is the gravitational constant. Newton's law of universal gravitation then givesThe relative Kepler orbit has semi-major axis $a$ and orbital eccentricity $0\le e<1$. Both bodies move around their shared astronomical barycenter, the system's centre of mass. In its rest frame their displacements are ${\mathbf{r}}_m=M\mathbf{r}/(M+m)$ and ${\mathbf{r}}_M=-m\mathbf{r}/(M+m)$. Their individual semi-major axes therefore add to $a$; the relative ellipse's attracting focus of a conic represents zero separation, rather than a body fixed in space.

One example will connect all three laws. After nondimensionalization, choose $a=1$, $e=0.6$ and $\mu =1$. The semi-minor axis is $b=a\sqrt{1-e^2}=0.8$, while the periapsis distance and apoapsis distance areThus $a=(0.4+1.6)/2=1$ measures the ellipse's size even though the separation changes fourfold. The specific angular momentum will be $0.8$, the two endpoint speeds $2$ and $0.5$, and the orbital period $2\pi$. These are values in the chosen scaled units, not measurements of a particular planet.

Johannes Kepler published Kepler's first law and Kepler's second law in Astronomia Nova in 1609 and Kepler's third law in Harmonices Mundi in 1619. These publication dates are documented by ^[ref]. Their appeal is that three short statements organize both geometry and timing; Newtonian gravity supplies a common dynamical explanation.

Newton's law of universal gravitation gives the attractive force between two point masses. With source mass $M$ at the origin and relative position $\mathbf{r}$ of mass $m$, write $r=|\mathbf{r}|>0$:Here $G$ is the gravitational constant. The minus sign points toward $M$; the magnitude follows an inverse-square law, so doubling the separation quarters the force. The opposite force on $M$ satisfies Newton's third law. ^[ref]

Both masses accelerate. Applying Newton's second law to each in the isolated two-body problem givesThe relative standard gravitational parameter includes both masses; replacing it by $GM$ requires the test particle approximation $m\ll M$.

Historically, Newton's Book III, Proposition VII argues that gravitational attraction applies to all bodies and scales with their masses; its second corollary states the inverse-square law for individual particles. ^[ref]

The exact conversion factor $1.3271244\times 10^{20}{\mathrm{m}}^3{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. Dividing a measured gravitational parameter by this factor expresses a mass in nominal solar units, avoiding a separate conversion through the measured gravitational constant.^[ref]

Write the initial mass density as $\rho =mn$. The ideal gas law gives pressure $p=n{k}_{B}T$, and the sphere has $M=4\pi \rho R^3/3$. Here $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $G$ is the gravitational constant. First obtain the gravitational potential energy by adding concentric shells. The mass inside radius $r$ is $M(r)=M{r}^3/R^3$, soIn a small contraction $dR<0$ at fixed total mass, the gravitational energy released is $-dW=3G{M}^2|dR|/(5R^2)$. The positive work required against the gas pressure is $-pdV=4\pi R^{2}p|dR|$. Equating these givesUse $R=(3M/(4\pi mn){)}^{1/3}$ to eliminate the radius. The uniform-sphere pressure-work collapse criterion isThe units are kilograms: $(k_{B}T/(Gm){)}^{3/2}$ has units $\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{3/2}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3/2}$, and ${\rho }^{-1/2}$ supplies $\mathrm{k}{\mathrm{g}}^{-1/2}{\mathrm{m}}^{3/2}$. At fixed initial $n$ and $T$, $M>M_{\mathrm{crit}}$ makes gravity stronger than the pressure-work requirement in this model, allowing contraction.

This is a Jeans mass estimate for homologous contraction of an initially uniform sphere. It is not an exact stability limit for a hydrostatic gas sphere: uniform mass density and uniform temperature would give uniform pressure, rather than the gradient required by hydrostatic equilibrium. The numerical coefficient therefore differs from conventions based on a Jeans instability wavelength or a pressure-confined isothermal sphere. Subsequent contraction also depends on heat exchange; isothermal pressure support during gravitational collapse weakens relative to gravity as the radius decreases.

The Friedmann acceleration equation gives the gravitational deceleration from a uniform pressureless matter density, plus the acceleration from a cosmological constant. Here $\rho$ is the matter mass density, $G$ is the gravitational constant, $H=\dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble parameter, and $k$ is the constant spatial-curvature coefficient in the chosen normalization of $a$. The Friedmann equation is the first integral relating expansion to density, curvature and vacuum energy. With $c=1$, the matter, curvature and cosmological-constant contributions to $H^2$ are $8\pi G\rho /3$, $-k/a^2$ and $\Lambda /3$. The cosmological constant has effective density $\Lambda /(8\pi G)$ and equation-of-state parameter $w=-1$; its negative pressure explains its positive acceleration contribution when $\Lambda >0$.

For the Newtonian derivation with $\Lambda =0$, follow a test mass on the edge of a uniform sphere of physical radius $R=a\chi$. Conservation of the enclosed matter gives $M=4\pi \rho R^3/3$ constant. The shell theorem removes the force of external spherical shells and givesIntegrating the force equation once gives the conserved specific mechanical energyDivide by $R^2/2=a^2{\chi }^2/2$ to obtainHomologous motion makes $\epsilon /{\chi }^2$ constant between shells. Newtonian mechanics supplies this energy integration constant; its interpretation as intrinsic spatial curvature belongs to the relativistic FRW metric.

An outward acceleration $\Lambda \mathbf{r}/3$ comes from the Newtonian potential per unit masssince $-\nabla {\Phi }_{\Lambda }=\Lambda \mathbf{r}/3$. With conventional dimensional $\Lambda$, restore $c^2$ in this potential and the corresponding acceleration and Friedmann terms.