Since it is the case in classical physics, I had always thought that objects with different mass acted the exact same way if they are affected only by geometry. In fact, I had taken that to be a statement of what it means for an effect to be geometrical.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

However, I recently discovered the COW experiment, where it is demonstrated that the phase difference along 2 paths in a gravitational field depends on the mass of the particle. This is taken by some to indicate a departure from the strong equivalence principle where gravity is seen as equivalent to an "acceleration field" that acts the same on all particles.

But http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0206030 shows that acceleration alone produces phase differences that depend on the mass.

We can even determine the mass of a particle by just changing our reference frame.

Say we have a beam of non-relativistic particles with average momentum [tex]p = \hbar k[/tex]. If we then move at a (non-relativistic) speed v in the same direction as p, in my new frame, p' is different and given by [tex]p' = \hbar k'[/tex]. The mass of our particle is then given by [tex]m = \frac{\hbar \Delta k}{v}[/tex]

We can measure the wave length in either frames by sending the particles through a double slit. Of course this doesn't produce a force on our particles because the ones that make it through the double slit are those that we didn't touch. So I see that I can distinguish between different masses even without pushing on them.

So we should expect that objects of different mass are affected differently by gravity when we consider quantum effects. I can tell their difference when!I accelerate

--

That's very cool, but I'm quite confused about this last equation [tex]m = \frac{\hbar \Delta k}{v}[/tex]

I don't know where it comes from! Ehrenfest's Theorem gives us [tex]\frac{\mtext{d}\langle x \rangle}{\mtext{dt}}=\frac{\langle p \rangle}{m}[/tex], and I guess it should follow from that, but I'm very unused to changing frames in Quantum Mechanics. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of moving at a definite velocity v at all.

On the other hand, even though I'm uncomfortable with some of the specifics of the derivation (In particular, I worry that the uncertainty principle could spoil this for small masses), it has a strong ring of truth to it. After all, I can in fact measure the difference in wave length as I change frames, so [tex]\frac{\hbar \Delta k}{v}[/tex] is a measurable quantity, and its average value would be the mass if p=mv were approximately true, which is the case in the classical limit.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Different masses don't move the same way without any forces? But that's ok?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**