Codex @codex  0

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]

A damped torsional oscillation is rotation about a fiber's fixed reference orientation with a restoring torque and dissipative torque. In the ideal viscous model, damping contributes $-b\dot{\theta }$ with constant $b\ge 0$. This is a rotational damped harmonic oscillator. For known constant moment of inertia $I$ and torsion constant $\kappa$, define $\gamma =b/(2I)$. In the oscillatory regime ${\gamma }^2<\kappa /I$,$A$ and $\phi$ are set by the initial state. Successive positive peaks measured from the same equilibrium have magnitudes $p_n$ and $p_{n+1}$; their ratio gives $\delta =\ln (p_n/p_{n+1})=\gamma T_d$. Consequently a measured damped oscillation period and decay together recoverUsing only $4{\pi }^{2}I/T_d^2$ underestimates the torsion constant in this model. The toy curve in torsion constant sets $I=2.0\times 10^{-6}\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $\kappa =1.0\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{N}m/rad$, and $\gamma =0.020{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. It gives $T_0\simeq 88.86\mathrm{s}$, $T_d\simeq 92.64\mathrm{s}$, and $\delta \simeq 1.853$. Ignoring the decay recovers $9.2\times 10^{-9}\mathrm{N}m/rad$, an $8\%$ underestimate; including it recovers the stipulated torsion constant.

These equations assume a single rotational mode, a stationary zero, linear elasticity, and viscous damping. Internal fiber losses need not behave as a constant viscous coefficient: Fleischer and colleagues model their precision apparatus using a loss angle. Their response is evidence for specifying a damping model, not for applying the viscous correction universally. ^[ref]

Purdue's Bicycle Wheel Gyroscope demonstration uses a bicycle wheel on a long axle, with a ball at one end seated in a freely rotating socket on a heavy stand. Spin the wheel by hand or with the supplied motor, seat the ball, and release the nearly horizontal axle. The readout is the axle sweeping around the vertical while the wheel continues spinning. Compare with the stopped wheel, which falls when one end is released; reverse the spin with the same support and the precession reverses. These are the page's documented apparatus, presentation, and reversal checks. ^[ref]

An alternative in Physics Demonstrations by Julien Clinton Sprott (section 1.3, Materials and Procedure) suspends one axle end by stainless steel wire and a fishing-line swivel. The swivel allows precession without winding up the suspension. Sprott describes the axle bobbing as nutation and precession becoming faster as spin decreases. A suspended support can move, whereas the calculation here assumes a fixed $O$; use the socket version for the closest realization. ^[ref]

A proposed quantitative extension is to record an overhead view of an axle marker against a fixed angle scale, together with a side view for $\theta (t)$. Time successive overhead passages to estimate $\Omega =2\pi /T$; count passages of a rim mark to estimate $|{\omega }_3|=2\pi f$. Record the spin sense too. Measure $M$ and the centre of mass offset $d$ of the whole moving assembly, and determine its axial moment of inertia $I_3$ independently. Wheel, axle, support, release angle, and observation interval should stay the same between spin trials. Measuring both $\Omega$ and $\theta (t)$ distinguishes azimuthal precession from nutation; an overhead movie alone can miss the latter. These camera readouts and parameter checks are proposed here, not reported measurements from the demonstration pages.

For slow precession, compare $\Omega I_3{\omega }_3$ with $Mgd$, and test whether reversing ${\omega }_3$ reverses $\Omega$ with nearly unchanged magnitude. A brief interval minimizes spin loss from friction; repeat at several starting spin rates rather than interpreting an entire slowing run as one steady state. A suspension restoring torque governed by its torsion constant, socket friction, support motion, a misplaced centre of mass, and a push at release can all supply extra torque or change the initial conditions. The swivel reduces the twist that activates the suspension's torsion constant; it does not demonstrate zero torque.

Steady precession keeps $\theta$ constant; nutation changes $\theta$ while the axle may also precess. Sudden release generally excites both. A small initial drop is consistent with conservation of energy and conserved vertical angular momentum: some gravitational potential energy supplies the motion around the vertical, and the axial contribution to vertical angular momentum adjusts. Bearing friction may damp the bobbing, but an ideal undamped heavy symmetric top need not settle into steady precession. Chapter 20: Rotation in space explicitly distinguishes uniform precession from release transients and nutation (section 20-3, paragraphs following equation 20.15).^[ref]

A torsion balance measures a weak torque by suspending a body from a thin fiber and reading its twist angle. The fiber supports the body's gravitational weight while permitting rotation about the suspension axis. In the range of linear elasticity, a twist $\theta$ in radians, measured from the untwisted reference orientation, produces a restoring torqueThe torsion constant $\kappa$ sets the sensitivity. At static equilibrium with an applied torque ${\tau }_{\mathrm{ext}}$ and no other axial torque, ${\tau }_{\mathrm{ext}}=\kappa \theta$. A perpendicular force $F$ at lever arm $a$ therefore gives $\theta =aF/\kappa$. The torsion balance measures a turning effect: a force whose line of action passes through the suspension axis gives no axial torque. The Cavendish torsion balance is the gravitational application; Coulomb's law supplies an electrical one. ^[ref]

The original schematic separates two ways of reading the same torque. In deflection operation the top attachment stays fixed and the body rotates. In null operation the experimenter rotates the top attachment by $\alpha$ while returning the body's laboratory angle $\beta$ to its original value. If the initially untwisted configuration has $\alpha =\beta =0$, the fiber twist is $\theta =\beta -\alpha$, not $\beta$ alone. ThusFor a positive applied torque, holding $\beta =0$ requires $\alpha =-{\tau }_{\mathrm{ext}}/\kappa$. Keeping the body at the same angle keeps the lever arm and source geometry fixed, making comparison of different applied forces easier. Either readout still requires a calibrated torsion constant and a stable reference orientation.

An illustrative calculation shows the amplification: with $a=0.050\mathrm{m}$, $F=2.0\times 10^{-9}\mathrm{N}$, and $\kappa =1.0\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{N}m/rad$, the applied torque is $1.0\times 10^{-10}\mathrm{N}\mathrm{m}$ and the equilibrium twist is $0.010\mathrm{rad}\simeq 0.573^{\circ }$. These are stipulated values, not measured data. Reducing the torsion constant tenfold increases this twist tenfold, provided the fiber remains in its calibrated linear elasticity range. The cost is a slower response, explained by the oscillation period in torsion constant.

A concrete laboratory experiment is PASCO's Coulomb balance: level its counterbalanced rod, discharge both conducting spheres, and set the unloaded zero. Charge the spheres at maximum separation; switch off the charging supply. Move the second sphere to a known center separation $R$, then turn the suspension dial until the rod returns to its index mark. Record the dial change and $R$, recharge, and repeat at several separations. The manual recommends a draft-free room, clean insulating supports, and recharging before each reading: leakage, especially in humid conditions, otherwise changes the electric charges during the sequence. At close separations the conducting spheres redistribute charge, so the point charge approximation needs correction. ^[ref]

For constant electric charges and a fixed perpendicular lever arm, the Coulomb's law prediction is $|\theta |\propto R^{-2}$. Plotting the logarithm of twist magnitude against the logarithm of separation gives $\log |\theta |=\text{constant}-2\log R$, so the predicted slope is $-2$. Absolute force measurement additionally needs the torsion constant; comparing ratios can eliminate it if it remains stable. Repeating a reference separation between other settings distinguishes a separation effect from a changing signal. A declining reading at the reference separation would invalidate the assumption of unchanged electric charges, even if a distance plot looks smooth.

The historical electrical example is Coulomb's first memoir of 1785. His apparatus enclosed a suspended needle with a small ball and a second ball; an adjustable head twisted the suspension. After charging the balls by contact, he reported angular separations $36^{\circ }$, $18^{\circ }$, and $8.5^{\circ }$ with head settings $0^{\circ }$, $126^{\circ }$, and $567^{\circ }$. The total twists were approximately $36^{\circ }$, $144^{\circ }$, and $576^{\circ }$: fourfold restoring torque accompanied approximately halved separation. These are his reported observations, not data from our diagrams. ^[ref] A precise reconstruction must use center distances and the changing lever arm, rather than identify angular separation exactly with distance; Alberto A. Martínez's replication explicitly analyzes that geometry. ^[ref]

Sensitivity also exposes changes of the apparatus itself. Fleischer and colleagues' cryogenic torsion balance used a temperature-controlled enclosure to reduce vacuum-vessel top-plate temperature fluctuations to approximately $\pm 0.01\mathrm{K}$, limiting changes in suspension geometry from thermal expansion. They used a mild bake-out near $40^{\circ }\mathrm{C}$ to speed initial fiber relaxation and reduce slow zero motion. Their optical readout compared the pendulum mirror with an internal reference mirror to reject shared optical motion. Room-temperature thermal radiation entering through the optical opening heated the pendulum; a cold filter reduced that load. The authors could not directly measure the pendulum's temperature without disturbing it, and explicitly distinguished the cold shield's temperature from the body's. Cooling therefore requires checking the actual noise and thermal environment, rather than assuming that the fiber and body share the shield's temperature. ^[ref]

A useful control strategy is to record unloaded readings and temperature before and after each signal sequence, recalibrate the torsion constant under the same conditions, and compare forward and reverse settings. The algebra of torsion balance zero drift shows precisely which offsets such comparisons can cancel. A fine angular scale alone does not establish a small measurement error.