Good clocks are of importance both to fundamental physics and for applications in astronomy, metrology and global positioning systems. In a recent technological breakthrough, researchers at NIST have been able to achieve a stability of 1 part in $10^
{18}$ using an Ytterbium clock. This naturally raises the question of whether there are fundamental limits to the stability of clocks. In this paper we point out that gravity and quantum mechanics set a fundamental limit on the stability of clocks. This limit comes from a combination of the uncertainty relation, the gravitational redshift and the relativistic time dilation effect. For example, a single ion hydrogen maser clock in a terrestrial gravitational field cannot achieve a stability better than one part in $10^{22}$. This observation has implications for laboratory experiments involving both gravity and quantum theory.
From the principle of equivalence, Einstein predicted that clocks slow down in a gravitational field. Since the general theory of relativity is based on the principle of equivalence, it is essential to test this prediction accurately. Muller, Peters
and Chu claim that a reinterpretation of decade old experiments with atom interferometers leads to a sensitive test of this gravitational redshift effect at the Compton frequency. Wolf et al dispute this claim and adduce arguments against it. In this article, we distill these arguments to a single fundamental objection: an atom is NOT a clock ticking at the Compton frequency. We conclude that atom interferometry experiments conducted to date do not yield such sensitive tests of the gravitational redshift. Finally, we suggest a new interferometric experiment to measure the gravitational redshift, which realises a quantum version of the classical clock paradox.
