Clock Based On Atoms Loses Less Than A Second Over Lifetime Of The Universe
Nick Gilbert
at 04:12 PM 08 Mar 2012
Comments 2
Sorry Big Ben, you're just not good enough anymore
Sorry Big Ben, you're just not good enough anymore

Australian researchers, in collaboration with international scientists, have come up with an idea for a clock that would lose less than a second over the entire length of time the universe has existed to this point. That's a lot of non-lost seconds, right there.

Keeping a timepiece ticking pricisely over 14 billion years is no mean feat, but when you go about setting it up the way that University of New South Wales Professor Victor Flambaum and his colleagues are planning, you'd expect some precision.

The clock will keep timing by measuring the orbit of a neutron around a nucleus, making it accurate to 19 decimal places, according to an article written on the potential device and accepted by the journal Physical Review Letters.

The time piece will be 100 times more accurate than our best current atomic clocks, according to the Professor, who is Head of Theoretical Physics at UNSW.

“With these clocks currently pushing up against significant accuracy limitations, a next-generation system is desired to explore the realms of extreme measurement precision and further diversified applications unreachable by atomic clocks,” said Professor Flambaum in a press release.

“Atomic clocks use the orbiting electrons of an atom as the clock pendulum. But we have shown that by using lasers to orient the electrons in a very specific way, one can use the orbiting neutron of an atomic nucleus as the clock pendulum, making a so-called nuclear clock with unparalleled accuracy.”

One cannot help but think that such a clock would have helped resolve the superluminal neutrino controversy much sooner. I guess we can't have everything.

[UNSW]

RELATED
Aussie Researchers Grab A Snapshot of A Single Atom's Shadow
There's no way to take a direct picture of something as small and fleeting as a Higgs boson. But physicists can photograph its relatives, directly imaging atomic structures and imp... more >
Fed Up With Sluggish Neutrinos, Scientists Force Light To Move Faster Than Its Own Speed Limit
America's official keepers of time and other standards are breaking one of the cardinal rules: They have figured out how to make superluminal light pulses. This paradoxical sentenc... more >
For the First Time, a Message Sent With Neutrinos
In a major step for truly wireless communications, scientists have figured out how to send a message with neutrinos, transmitting a single word through 780 feet of bedrock and tran... more >
Bummer: Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Weren't.
Apparently neutrinos are not moving faster than light after all - some of the brightest minds in modern physics were bamboozled by a loose wire. more >
Video: International Cell Race Clocks Cells Speeding Along Microscopic Race Tracks, For Science
A clump of bone marrow cells are the fastest cells in the world, moving at a glacial pace of 5.2 microns per minute across a petri dish. They beat a line of breast cells by a hair'... more >
Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Might Be Explained By GPS Failing to Account For Special Relativity
So it turns out that Einstein may not have been wrong about the universal speed limit. Not only is special relativity safe, it provides an explanation for those faster-than-light n... more >
 
2 COMMENTS
AAron
12 March, 2012, 01:32 PM
I wasn't aware Neutrons orbited nuclei
Nick Gilbert
12 March, 2012, 03:29 PM
Yeah, we flipped out a little first. But while neutrons are a part of the nucleus of an atom, they also move and orbit around that nucleus as well. As Professor Flambaum told us in an email: "The atomic nucleus is somewhat similar to an atom. Protons and neutrons move inside the nucleus similar to electrons moving inside an atom." an atom." So orbit is correct, but we agree that 'orbiting around' is a little ambiguous. We'll fix the copy to reflect this, and add the Professor's comment.

Leave a comment

Please provide your details to leave a comment.

The fields marked with (*) are required.


Display Name: *
Email *:
Comments *:
(Max 750 characters)
Characters remaining:
*

(letters are not case-sensitive)
Captcha

Enter the text in the image above
 
Editor's Picks
BY Dan Nosowitz POSTED 14.05.2013 | 0 COMMENTS
BY Martha Harbison POSTED 26.04.2013 | 0 COMMENTS