New Atomic Clock Could Redefine the Second 76
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."
Re:When better isn't better (Score:5, Informative)
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
A new summary (Score:5, Informative)
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:When better isn't better (Score:2, Informative)
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.