Skip to content

The Size of the Falling Box in Which Gravity Cannot Be Told Is Set Not by Physics but by the Precision of the Instrument ── the difference in gravity between the top and bottom of the box is the tidal gradient 2GM/r³ times the height, and the height at which the box gives gravity away is precision divided by gradient: at the Earth's surface 3.243790 mm for a precision of 10⁻⁸ m/s² and 3.243790 μm for 10⁻¹¹, at the horizon of a solar-mass black hole 9.709164×10⁻¹⁹ m, and at the horizon of a billion solar masses 0.9709164 m ── the separator is whether what shrinks the box is precision or gradient ── [Paper 1029]

Sep 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Relativity and Gravitational Theory

Abstract

Einstein called the idea that gravity vanishes inside a falling box the happiest thought of his life. But gravity differs between the top and bottom of the box, by the tidal gradient times the height, and with a fine enough instrument gravity can be told in any box. This paper counts that difference and the box height set by the instrument’s precision at the surfaces of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun, at the surface of a neutron star, and at the horizons of black holes. No new theorem or law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new theorem or law is claimed──that the equivalence principle holds only locally, the tidal gradient 2GM/r³, the thought experiment of the falling box (Einstein 1907), and that the tide at a black-hole horizon goes as the inverse square of the mass are all known. Newton’s gradient is used──the tidal tensor of general relativity is not used; the value at the horizon is an estimate from 2GM/r³ with r = 2GM/c² and depends on the choice of coordinates. Instrument precisions are representative──10⁻⁶, 10⁻⁸, 10⁻⁹ and 10⁻¹¹ m/s² are values for comparison; no performance of any particular gravimeter is claimed. The three equivalence principles are not distinguished──the weak, Einstein and strong principles belong to Paper 165; only the size of the box is seen here. Astronomical values are representative──the mass and radius of the neutron star and the radii of the Earth, Moon and Sun are representative. Relation to earlier papers: Paper 165 showed that there are three equivalence principles and that no precision reaches the third──here it is counted, as a ratio with the gradient, that raising the precision shrinks the box in which the principle holds. Paper 485 showed that Michell’s radius agrees with the Schwarzschild radius but not for the reason given──here it is counted that the tidal gradient at that radius goes as the inverse square of the mass. Paper 1006 showed that the throat of the Einstein-Rosen bridge closes within 2πGM/c³ and that not even light crosses──here it is counted, mass by mass, whether gravity can be told inside a box the size of that same horizon. What is added is giving the box height as precision over gradient at six places, checking with two masses that the horizon gradient goes as the inverse square of the mass, and giving the separation accumulated during a fall. First, and this is the core. What sets the size of the box is precision divided by gradient──the tidal gradient 2GM/R³ at the Earth’s surface is 3.082813x10^-6 per second squared, agreeing with a finite difference and within 1 percent of 2g/R = 3.078528x10^-6. Over a 1 m box the difference is 3.143595x10^-7 of g, and an instrument of precision 10⁻⁸ m/s² tells gravity in a box of height 3.243790x10^-3 m, one of 10⁻¹¹ in a box of 3.243790x10^-6 m (Sections 2 and 3). Second, at the same precision the box moves through 20 orders of magnitude with place──at precision 10⁻⁸ the box is 5.351177x10^-3 m at the Moon’s surface, 1.268274x10^-2 m at the Sun’s, 4.649033x10^-17 m at the surface of a neutron star (1.4 solar masses, radius 12 km), 9.709164x10^-19 m at the horizon of a solar-mass black hole and 0.9709164 m at the horizon of a billion solar masses (Section 3). Third, the gradient at the horizon goes as the inverse square of the mass──at radius 2GM/c² the gradient is c⁶/(4G²M²): 1.029955x10^10 per second squared for a solar mass and 1.029955x10^-8 for a billion, a ratio equal to the square of the mass ratio, 10¹⁸. The heavier the black hole, the larger the box at its horizon (Section 3). Fourth, the box height is proportional to the precision──at precisions 10⁻⁶, 10⁻⁸, 10⁻⁹ and 10⁻¹¹ the box at the Earth’s surface is 3.243790x10^-1, 3.243790x10^-3, 3.243790x10^-4 and 3.243790x10^-6 m; an instrument a thousand times finer shrinks the box a thousandfold (Section 3). Fifth, the difference accumulates during the fall──in a 1 m box the top and bottom points separate by 1.541407x10^-6 m during one second of free fall, and if the box were as tall as the Earth’s radius the difference would be twice g (Section 3). Sixth, the separator is whether what shrinks the box is precision or gradient──raising the precision shrinks the box, and a place of larger gradient shrinks it too. The size of the "local" in "locally" is set by the ratio of these two and comes from no physical constant (Section 4). The size of the falling box in which gravity cannot be told is set not by physics but by the precision of the instrument. The difference between top and bottom is the tidal gradient 2GM/r³ times the height, 3.082813×10⁻⁶ m/s² per metre at the Earth’s surface, and the box height at which gravity is told is precision over gradient: at precision 10⁻⁸, 3.243790 mm at the Earth’s surface, 9.709164×10⁻¹⁹ m at the horizon of a solar-mass black hole and 0.9709164 m at the horizon of a billion solar masses──the horizon gradient goes as the inverse square of the mass, so the heavier the hole the larger the box. The separator is whether what shrinks the box is precision or gradient. Placed among the earlier papers──Paper 165 showed that there are three equivalence principles, Paper 485 why Michell’s radius was right, and Paper 1006 when the throat of the bridge closes. Here it was counted that the size of the "local" is set by the ratio of precision to gradient. To be honest──no box has been measured with a real instrument. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. Keywords: equivalence principle, tidal force, falling box, gravity gradient, instrument precision, event horizon. ----- アインシュタインは、落ちる箱の中では重力が消える、という着想を「生涯最良の名案」と呼んだ。だが箱の上と下では重力が違い、差は潮汐の勾配と箱の高さの積で、計器が細かければどんな箱でも重力は見分けられる。本稿は、その差の大きさと、計器の精度で決まる箱の高さを、地球・月・太陽の表面、中性子星の表面、ブラックホールの地平線で数える。新しい定理も法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい定理も法則も主張しない──等価原理が局所的にしか成り立たないこと、潮汐の勾配 2GM/r³、落ちる箱の思考実験(アインシュタイン 1907)、ブラックホールの地平線での潮汐が質量の二乗の逆数で効くことは、いずれも既知である。ニュートンの勾配で数える──一般相対論の潮汐テンソルは使わず、地平線での値は 2GM/r³ に r=2GM/c² を入れた目安で、座標の取り方に依る。計器の精度は代表値である──10⁻⁶・10⁻⁸・10⁻⁹・10⁻¹¹ m/s² は比べるための値で、特定の重力計の性能を主張しない。等価原理の三つの区別に入らない──弱い・アインシュタイン・強いの区別は論文165 の側である。本稿は箱の大きさだけを見る。天体の値は代表値である──中性子星の質量と半径、地球・月・太陽の半径は代表値である。既刊との関係:論文165 は、等価原理が三つあり、精度をいくら上げても三つ目には届かないことを示した──ここでは、精度を上げると成り立つ箱が小さくなることを、勾配との比で数える。論文485 は、ミッチェルの半径がシュヴァルツシルト半径と一致するのに理由が違うことを示した──ここでは、その半径での潮汐の勾配が質量の二乗の逆数になることを数える。論文1006 は、アインシュタイン=ローゼン橋の喉が 2πGM/c³ で閉じて光も渡れないことを示した──ここでは、同じ地平線の大きさの箱の中で重力が見分けられるかを、質量ごとに数える。加えたのは、箱の高さを精度÷勾配として六つの場所で出したこと、地平線の勾配が質量の二乗の逆数で効くことを二つの質量で確かめたこと、落ちるあいだに積もる差を出したことである。 第一に、これが本稿の芯である。箱の大きさを決めるのは精度÷勾配である──地表の潮汐の勾配 2GM/R³ は 3.082813x10^-6 毎秒毎秒で、有限差分と一致し、2g/R=3.078528x10^-6 と 1 パーセント以内で一致する。1 m の箱の上下の差は g の 3.143595x10^-7 倍で、精度 10⁻⁸ m/s² の計器なら高さ 3.243790x10^-3 m、10⁻¹¹ なら 3.243790x10^-6 m の箱で見分けがつく(第2節・第3節)。 第二に、同じ精度でも、場所で箱の大きさは 20 桁動く──精度 10⁻⁸ で、月の表面では 5.351177x10^-3 m、太陽の表面では 1.268274x10^-2 m、中性子星の表面(1.4 太陽質量・半径 12 km)では 4.649033x10^-17 m、太陽質量のブラックホールの地平線では 9.709164x10^-19 m、10 億太陽質量の地平線では 0.9709164 m である(第3節)。 第三に、地平線の勾配は質量の二乗の逆数で効く──半径 2GM/c² での勾配は c⁶/(4G²M²) で、太陽質量で 1.029955x10^10 毎秒毎秒、10 億太陽質量で 1.029955x10^-8、比は質量の比の二乗 10¹⁸ に一致する。重いブラックホールほど、地平線の箱は大きい(第3節)。 第四に、箱の高さは精度に比例する──精度を 10⁻⁶・10⁻⁸・10⁻⁹・10⁻¹¹ にすると地表の箱は 3.243790x10^-1・3.243790x10^-3・3.243790x10^-4・3.243790x10^-6 m で、1000 倍細かい計器は箱を 1000 分の 1 にする(第3節)。 第五に、落ちるあいだに差は積もる──1 m の箱で自由落下 1 秒のあいだに上下の二点が離れる距離は 1.541407x10^-6 m で、箱の高さを地球の半径にすれば差は g の 2 倍になる(第3節)。 第六に、分離子は、箱を小さくしているのが精度か、勾配か──精度を上げれば箱は小さくなり、勾配の大きい場所でも箱は小さくなる。「局所的に」の局所の大きさは、この二つの比で決まり、物理の定数からは出ない(第4節)。 落ちる箱の中で重力が見分けられない大きさは、物理ではなく計器の精度が決める。箱の上下の差は潮汐の勾配 2GM/r³ に高さを掛けた値で、地表では 1 m あたり 3.082813×10⁻⁶ m/s²、見分けがつく箱の高さは精度÷勾配である。精度 10⁻⁸ で地表 3.243790 mm、太陽質量のブラックホールの地平線 9.709164×10⁻¹⁹ m、10 億太陽質量の地平線 0.9709164 m──地平線の勾配は質量の二乗の逆数で、重いほど箱は大きい。分離子は、箱を小さくしているのが精度か、勾配かである。既刊との位置──論文165 は等価原理が三つあることを、論文485 はミッチェルの半径が当たっていた理由を、論文1006 は橋の喉が閉じる時間を示した。ここでは、「局所」の大きさが精度と勾配の比で決まることを数えた。正直に言えば──どの箱も、実在の計器で測ってはいない。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。 キーワード:等価原理、潮汐力、落ちる箱、重力の勾配、計器の精度、事象の地平線。

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Open access Jun 2016

Software Development in Startup Companies: The Greenfield Startup Model

The results are packaged in the Greenfield Startup Model (GSM), which explains the priority of startups to release the product as quickly as possible, and the need to shorten time-to-market, by speeding up the development through low-precision engineering activities.

Carmine Giardino, Nicolò Paternoster, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 178 citations · ⚡14
#computer vision Open access Oct 2016

Software Startups - A Research Agenda

Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models.

M. Unterkalmsteiner, P. Abrahamsson, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 157 citations · ⚡17
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2016

“Failures” to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups

This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.

Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al. · 127 citations · ⚡15
#computer vision Review Open access May 2015

A survey study on major technical barriers affecting the decision to adopt cloud services

The comparison of adopter and non-adopter sample reveals three potential adoption inhibitor, security, data privacy, and portability, which underlines the importance of the technical and security perspectives for research investigating the adoption of technology.

Nattakarn Phaphoom, Xiaofeng Wang, S. Samuel et al. · 111 citations · ⚡8
#computer vision Conference Open access Dec 2013

Affordable and Energy-Efficient Cloud Computing Clusters: The Bolzano Raspberry Pi Cloud Cluster Experiment

The ongoing work building a Raspberry Pi cluster consisting of 300 nodes is presented, with potential use cases being an inexpensive and green test bed for cloud computing research and a robust and mobile data center for operating in adverse environments.

P. Abrahamsson, S. Helmer, Nattakarn Phaphoom et al. · 110 citations · ⚡7
#computer vision Book Open access Mar 2017

On the Unhappiness of Software Developers

The results indicate that software developers are a slightly happy population, but the need for limiting the unhappiness of developers remains, and 219 factors representing causes of unhappiness while developing software are identified.

D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 84 citations · ⚡6

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 12, 2026

Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring

StudentSim is a research system for evaluating and improving AI tutoring tools before they are tested with learners. It models how individuals may engage with tutors, giving feedback to improve tutor performance across subjects like chess, writing, and mathematics. The post Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring appeared first on Microsoft Research.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.