Skip to Content

Gravity, Quantum Objects, and Violations of the Equivalence Principle

Electrons in a conductor seem to behave differently under gravitational and inertial accelerations, threatening to tear down one of the cornerstones of modern physics.

How do quantum objects respond to gravity? It seems a simple enough question and yet one that leaves theorists scratching their heads. And so it should. The analysis to date implies that quantum objects violate the fundamental idea that gravitational and inertial mass are the same thing, an idea known as the equivalence principle.

Here’s the thinking as laid out today by Timir Datta at the University of South Carolina and buddy Ming Yin: In the second decade of the 20th century, a group at Caltech began to puzzle over the inertial properties of electrons in conductors. They argued that the trailing end of an accelerating metal rod would be negatively charged because the electrons would lag behind the conducting lattice as it sped up. Likewise, they surmised that the circumference of a rotating disk would also be negatively charged with electrons flung into the periphery.

By this analysis, the effect of a linear or radial acceleration on a quantum fluid is the same as it is on a Newtonian fluid, like water in a spinning bucket. Richard Tolman and others even claimed to have measured this buildup of charge.

But according to the equivalence principle, if an acceleration can have this effect on electrons, so too can a gravitational field.

Here things get a little more complex. Calculating the equilibrium that occurs when gravity acts on a solid crystal filled with conducting electrons is no easy task.

It turns out that if the crystal is rigid, then gravity pulls the electrons downward, creating a tiny buildup of negative charge at the bottom of the crystal and a small electric field that points down. That’s exactly as the equivalence principle implies.

If the crystal is deformable, however, gravity has a larger effect on the lattice than it does on the electrons. In this case, gravity compresses the lattice, creating a positive charge density toward the bottom of the conductor. Now the electric field is several orders of magnitude bigger and points in the opposite direction.

That’s a troubling result because it means that it ought to be possible to tell the difference between an inertial acceleration and a gravitational one by measuring the direction of the electric field that builds up. And according to general relativity, that ain’t possible. Surely general relativity, one of the cornerstones of modern physics cannot be wrong on this point. So what’s gone wrong?

One obvious question that is unanswered (at least by Datta and Yin) is why an inertial acceleration does not compress the crystal lattice in the same way as a gravitational field, creating the same kind of positive charge density.

The measurements made by Tolman and others suggest that this kind of compression does not occur.

Unless the measurements are wrong. Could it be that this conundrum arises only because of a few erroneous measurements?

If so, perhaps it’s time for somebody to try them again.

Ref: Do Quantum Systems Break The Equivalence Principle?

Keep Reading

Most Popular

Europe's AI Act concept
Europe's AI Act concept

A quick guide to the most important AI law you’ve never heard of

The European Union is planning new legislation aimed at curbing the worst harms associated with artificial intelligence.

Uber Autonomous Vehicles parked in a lot
Uber Autonomous Vehicles parked in a lot

It will soon be easy for self-driving cars to hide in plain sight. We shouldn’t let them.

If they ever hit our roads for real, other drivers need to know exactly what they are.

supermassive black hole at center of Milky Way
supermassive black hole at center of Milky Way

This is the first image of the black hole at the center of our galaxy

The stunning image was made possible by linking eight existing radio observatories across the globe.

transplant surgery
transplant surgery

The gene-edited pig heart given to a dying patient was infected with a pig virus

The first transplant of a genetically-modified pig heart into a human may have ended prematurely because of a well-known—and avoidable—risk.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose WongIllustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.