Slashdot Mirror
New Atomic Clock Pushes Boundaries of Accuracy
Neophytus writes "An interesting story on the BBC reports on how a new type of atomic clock is near completion that would only loose about a second in every 100 million years. Within ten years they hope to have a clock with billion year accuracy which would potentially bring advances in disease research by watching timing genes. More reports from this year's AAAS Annual meeting can be found on the BBC, and information about the event on the AAAS Annual Meeting website."
New Atomic Clock Pushes Boundaries of Accuracy
Uhm, "accuracy" *is* the boundary. You can't be more accurate than 100% accurate, so how can you "push" this boundary?
ahh well, don't mind me, I'm highly constipated this a.m.
"...that would only loose about a second in every 100 million years"
G GGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
How can people continue to do this? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG
When I started to read the article, I was thinking to my self
"Who cares?!?!?!"
But as I continued, this article kind of answered my questioning for having a clock that acurate, besides the "No, it really is 12:43.35PM coolness factor"
Does anyone know any other good uses for such and exact timing system?
Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking - H.L. Mencken
However I must say that I am puzzled how any new higher precision timing source will directly help biological research in the area of genes. I did follow the recent reports of a genetic timing mechanisms being discovered but how does adding another step of resolution to the best available time source have anything to do with this research? Likely this the new clock will be far removed from any lab doing work with the genetic material in many ways -- geographic, propagation and subject matter. The currently available clocks are certainly no slouches. Are they not sufficient for biological work? How is an improved one going to help?
In part, I ask about this particular point because, while somewhat weakly addressed in the article, it was repeated on /. I am seriously hoping a little light could be shed -- preferably based on knowledge not speculation.
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
Scientists have now discoverd that it's more accurate to count "1 Alabama, 2 Alabama" instead of "1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi". Scientists predict quartback sacks during backyard football games will increase 27% over the next four years.
It appears that these clocks are still in the early conceptual stages but they sound a helluva accurate (doubt they'll need more accuracy but u don't know).
Why does that require 1 second in billions of years accuracy?Also, shouldnt these clocks use the measurement system detailed in the official CGPM SI defintion of the second to be used as scientific master clocks.
Can they be sure that what they are measuring does not change (especially if it involves light - although I think scientists have now decided to just assume c is constant now even if it is not and now base other measures (e.g.: the metre) on the value of c)?
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
am I mistaken, or will this clock (or the technology therin) help nasa and the relativity theorists? The already have "precise" clocks according to this
It was my understanding that the more precise the clock the easier it would be to test the speed of light.
You can read a little more about the background of this new clock at NIST's archive of a paper in IEEE T. Instrum. Meas., for those of us who foolishly let our subscription lapse...
It would appear the chief technological development that made this clock possible was the femtosecond laser. The paper also suggests that the average error could be reduced even further than the article suggests (down to attoseconds, perhaps) if higher-order Stark and Zeeman shifts are properly treated. As for practical uses, I personally can't think of any, except to finally answer the question "Does anybody really know what time it is?" But elimination of uncertainties is laudable anyway.
Experiments suggest this clock may lose only one second in 100 million years.
And the power will never go out, not in 100 million years.
loose = lose;
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
..that mysterious extra "o" in "loose"...
Liberty uber alles.
Could you be more corny?
"LOSE" not "LOOSE". What, did you go to school in Canada or something?
The offshoots of this technology will eventually allow us to more accurately measure signal timing in PC's and other electronic equipment. Currently it is very expensive to get accurate time measurements with electronic systems. Optical systems are already used in the lab for femtosecond measurements. In commercial applications, we must be satisfied with a $20-30K system to measure path lengths in time with sub 100ps accuracy. If you have a PC with > 2Ghz internal CPU clock frequency you are looking at internal signals that switch every 500ps. What I want is to see more optical stuff become cheap enough for mass useage... this was another brick in the wall. -- Ross
Ross Youngblood
what about relativistic effects? At that level of accuracy, wouldn't small peturbations in the earth's rotation and disturbances affect the clock? Also, does anyone know the quantum limit of time measurement? Is it around 10^-24 s or what?