New Atomic Clock Could Redefine the Second

bmahersciwriter writes "The new type of clock, called an optical lattice clock could replace the cesium fountain clocks used as the standard for time keeping. Indeed, it could redefine the second. The cesium fountain is predicted to keep time within one second over 100 million years. While other atomic clocks are better than that, researchers suspect the optical lattice is better still and could one day replace the standard."

Comments

I want to redefine the second

[Skapare]

... as 1/65536 of a day. Then I can do time calculations on my 6502.

Re:I want to redefine the second

[Goaway]

While you are sitting around complaining, REAL MEN are making it do things like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBegD7k2wvo.

Re:I want to redefine the second

[BitterOak]

The second question for the interested reader is how on Earth anyone could achieve any sort of calculation at all on a 6502 what with it being quite the most pathetic excuse for a CPU ever devised by person-kind.

I hope you're kidding. The 6502 helped make the personal computer revolution possible. For a time, it was the lowest price workable 8-bit CPU available, making computing available to the masses. The original Atari game console (the 2600) was based on the 6502, as was the Apple II computer, which really launched the small computer revolution, and the 6510 (a slightly enhanced version of the chip) powered the extremely popular Commodore 64 computer. True, pricier CPUs like the Z-80 and others were a bit more capable, but it was the 6502 that really made home computers affordable in the early days.

Yeah, that's what they said

[ackthpt]

a second ago...

When better isn't better

[Dan East]

While other atomic clocks are better than that, researchers suspect the optical lattice is better still and could one day replace the standard.

So A is better than B, but B is still better than A. Makes sense.

Re:When better isn't better

[GodInHell]

So A is better than B, but B is still better than A. Makes sense.

No. The summary says:

The cesium fountain is predicted to keep time within one second over 100 million years. While other atomic clocks are better than that, researchers suspect the optical lattice is better still and could one day replace the standard.

Thus: where A = Optical lattice, B= Cesium fountain (the standard), and C = other atomic clocks; A > B; C > B; A > C

Re:When better isn't better

[Anonymous Coward]

There is evidence that for long periods of time these so-called "constants" have drifted and still are drifting, because they are related to the size of the universe

There is no good evidence of that and a lot of evidence to the contrary, everywhere from astrophysical data to on going work in the labs. And it is not like everyone is assuming so, people are actually checking and running experiments from such things. I've seen some of them first hand considering former colleagues of mine ended up on such a project.

The equations for gravity on the other hand to not contain any terms referring to time.

Then you must be about 100 years behind the times, as gravity is closely tied to the rate of time passage, both in theory and thoroughly demonstrated by experiment.

Everything you said is so close to the exact opposite of current physics research (or even intro level physics), that it would be difficult to believe you are not a troll.

Re:When better isn't better

[DMUTPeregrine]

Cesium fountain clocks last about 20 years, some a bit longer, before they need to get parts replaced for maintenance. The standard is transferred to a backup during this time, then transferred back. Improving on the lifetime of the individual clocks would help more than improving on the accuracy of the clocks.

sorry, i don't have time for this

[NemoinSpace]

My watch is made in china.

so what?

[WillgasM]

It's still relative.

Happy times

[jovius]

Yeah, no more sloppy seconds!

Well..

[deep44]

All I can say is.. it's about time!

A new summary

[bryanandaimee]

The new (less than a decade old) optical latice clocks (OLC's) in which 10,000 atoms of strontium-87 are trapped in (what else) an optical lattice have been shown to be better (within 1.5x10^-16) than the current world standard cesium fountain clocks (within 3x10^-16), but haven't yet beat the best clocks, which are measuring emissions from single ions trapped in an electro-magnetic field (within 1x10^-17). But researchers are hopeful that OLC's will eventually emerge as the new standard because 10,000 atoms beat 1 atom for measurement statistics and because the other two technologies measure frequencies in the microwave spectrum, while the optical lattice clock is measuring in the visible spectrum. Statistics and higher frequencies should eventually win out as the technology matures.

Re:A new summary

[E3nder]

Ion clocks are also based on optical transitions. So your new summary is incorrect. Also, it's not really "statistics" that win out, its the ability to probe your ensemble (either 1 ion or many atoms) with lower Quantum Projection Noise. For example, everytime your laser has excited your ion to a quantum superposition of ground and excited state all you get back is one bit of information: 1 - excited state, 0 - ground state. So to discover where your laser (aka clock oscillator) is detuned with respect to your atomic reference or in another words what quantum superposition you created requires you to run the experiment many times. With an optical lattice clock, you gain the ability to measure more than just a 1 or a 0, you measure as an example 2035 atoms in the excited state and 812 atoms in the ground state or an excitation fraction of 0.714. It is statistics, but it's quantum in nature.

Cesium Fountain Clocks?

[DigitAl56K]

.. now that's what I call sloppy seconds.

So what happens to ...

[hymie!]

So what happens to the platinum second they keep in the French vault?