Slashdot Mirror


Single-Ion Clock 100 Times More Accurate Than Atomic Clock

New submitter labnet writes with this excerpt from news.com.au: "University of New South Wales School of Physics professor Victor Flambaum has found a method of timekeeping nearly 100 times more accurate than the best atomic clocks. By using the orbit of a neutron around an atomic nucleus he says the system stays accurate to within 1/20th of a second over billions of years. Although perhaps not for daily use, the technology could prove valuable in science experiments where chronological accuracy is paramount, Prof Flambaum said."

16 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    until it comes with indiglo i don't want it

  2. Eventually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Eventually you'll be so accurate that walking by the thing will cause enough relativistic distortions that you can no longer claim to have any accuracy at all.

    1. Re:Eventually... by Bowdie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Grr! You changed the clock by observing it!

      Damm kids!

      --
      yes, www.dotcomforwardslash.com is my real URL.
    2. Re:Eventually... by gomiam · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's even worse. IIRC, current atomic clocks are now so precise that stacking one on top of the other (say 20cm distance) is enough to make them start drifting due to the different gravitational field strength.

    3. Re:Eventually... by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So what you're saying is that by stacking a few dozen alarm clocks on top of each other, I can get one more hour of sleep?

      Cool!

    4. Re:Eventually... by huge · · Score: 5, Informative

      As the old saying goes: "A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two clocks is never sure."

      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
    5. Re:Eventually... by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 4, Funny

      The only flaw in this plan is, that you would need to sleep through all alarms but the last one.
      Other than that it's perfect.
      Yes.

    6. Re:Eventually... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny
      The summary is misleading at best anyway:

      Although perhaps not for daily use, the technology could prove valuable in science experiments where chronological accuracy is paramount, Prof Flambaum said.

      As the different series of Star Trek have already shown us, the words "chronological accuracy" and "Paramount" do not belong to the same sentence, much less do they deserve to be joined by the copula.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Just scientific experiments? by gcnaddict · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although perhaps not for daily use, the technology could prove valuable in science experiments

    You kidding me? The prospect of GPS-guided bullets accurate to the millimeter will have the US military pursuing this in next-gen GPS satellites as soon as the technology is viable. Hell, this'll be the most valuable update to military hardware in decades.

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Just scientific experiments? by gcnaddict · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's precisely what hyper-accurate atomic clocks allow you to correct. The distortions manifest in less accurate clocks. The more accurate your time, the better your algorithmic corrections between the ground and the satellites.

      --
      Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
  4. Link to actual paper by foo1752 · · Score: 5, Informative
  5. Orbit of neutron around the nucleus? by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And here I was, thinking that neutrons were inside the nucleus and electrons were orbiting around it. What's going on here? How can a neutron orbit a nucleus? It's an actual question, I know the atomic models I was once taught are way out of date (by a couple of centuries, probably), but I never heard of neutrons orbiting nuclei.

    1. Re:Orbit of neutron around the nucleus? by CaptainJeff · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here you go. Nuclear Shell Model

  6. If You Need That Much Accuracy by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's very easy to fuck it up, as we saw with the FTL neutreno experiment a few months ago. I've seen a lot of business requirements specify that level of precision because they think it would be cool and it just turns into a nightmare later. Hell, you're lucky to agree within tens of seconds. Take POSIX (PLEASE! Heh.) POSIX specifies that time measured in seconds from midnight, Jan 1, 1970 UTC. Seams easy enough right? Well it turns out UTC specifies accounting for leap seconds, so you should subtract 33 seconds (IIRC) over the course of those 42 years. POSIX also specifies that leap seconds not be accounted for. Brilliant! Then it's not UTC! Now here's where it gets fun! The Linux kernel may or may not actually handle leap seconds, depending on how you configure it. And what happens if you're syncing off NTP? Or GPS? It's a problem if you need to convert to TAI or TDT. If you adjust for leap seconds and your system doesn't measure them, you could end up being over 60 seconds wrong versus what time it "really" is. When you're trying to communicate with a satellite going 2000 miles a second, that's a problem. Because you'll be pointing you're antenna over there, and the satellite's really over here!

    It'd be nice if some physics professor *cough* could solve those problems before making some shit that can be accurate for a billion years! See what I did there? That was just passive aggressive right there, wasn't it? Too much Portal, lately...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  7. Preprint on arXiv by eis2718bob · · Score: 4, Informative

    A preprint is available on arXiv at http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2490

    A nuclear transition in triply-ionized 229Th has been found which is particularly insensitive to external magnetic fields and electron configuration, which gives the potential for a very stable clock,several orders of magnitude better than current clocks if phase comparisons can be made across a scale of days or weeks. The transition energy is at 163nm (in the ultraviolet). To take advantage of this clock an extremely stable laser at this wavelength (using current best clocks) will need to be created.

  8. Re:atomic clock accuracy by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, because being off by 2 seconds every billion years is something to worry about. I am sick of having to adjust my watch for the inaccuracy of atomic clocks.

    a OC-192 fiber line transmits 10 gigs/sec, roughly.

    If you stuck one of those "2 secs/gigayear" clocks on each end, instead of regenerating the clock off the line, I think the circuit would lose line sync and drop every:

    365*24*60*60 /10 /2 / 6/60/60/24 = every 18.2 days. Bummer.

    Lets check. 10 gigabits/sec at 18.2 days is 18.2*24*60*60*10*1e9 is 1.57e16 bits. 2 secs/gigayear is an error rate of 1e9*365*24*60*60/2 is 1.57e16 bits per clock framing failure. Seems likely.

    That is why now a days you get your clock off the line instead of internal clocking at each site. In ye olden T-1 era, a clock that good at each CO would mean you'd probably never experience a clock slip between COs in the lifetime of the equipment... Even in ye olden days we internal timed quite a bit (and some of our DEXCS only could do internal, so we had to)

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger