http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/ Engadget Comments for New atomic clock claims title of world's most accurate http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
thats if you use 1 whole second as the smallest margin of error. In 150 million years itll be off by half a second, etc etc. until you can say in an hour itll be off my some infinitely small number. What I wonder is the level of physics needed for clocks this accurate.

Secret government time machines!]]>Apr 17th 2009 1:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
They're saying, ever 300,000,000 years, it will need to be adjusted up a second. To remain accurate.]]>Apr 16th 2009 10:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
3.333333 * 10^-9 seconds/year]]>Apr 16th 2009 10:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Same thing with the clock. Its always accurate. But I wonder how long will it last till its replaced by something "even better"...]]>Apr 16th 2009 10:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 11:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 12:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/one Second?!?!?
thats too inaccurate!
/sarcasm]]>Apr 17th 2009 12:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
:)]]>Apr 17th 2009 1:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 3:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Can't they just adjust the clock with the appropriate amount whenever they wan't to know the exact time?
If I understand it correctly, if you know exactly how many seconds you are off in 300 million years, you can adjust for this so you have the EXACT time.
Or I must be missing something.
]]>Apr 17th 2009 5:50AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/The error isn't so steady and predictable, the error is random and unpredictable and that leaves the average inaccuracy mentioned.



]]>Apr 17th 2009 6:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 6:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 11:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
My question is? Who cares about about a second gained or lost in a human lifetime.]]>Apr 17th 2009 11:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 1:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 18th 2009 7:23AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 1:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Oh and india has a radio station and a satellite service that broadcasts their IST
And then there's something called TAI (from the French name Temps Atomique International) :
I quote wiipedia "TAI as a frequency standard is a weighted average of the time kept by about 300 atomic clocks in over 50 national laboratories worldwide. The clocks are compared using satellites (see BIPM clock comparisons). Many of these are caesium atomic clocks, which are the standard by which the SI second is defined. Due to the averaging it is far more stable than any clock would be alone.

The participating institutions each broadcast, in real time (in the present), a frequency signal with time codes, which is their estimate of TAI."
]]>Apr 17th 2009 7:12AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Also the brits have a time broadcasting station too, mention it to not feel them left out :)
]]>Apr 17th 2009 7:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
I wasn't implying that NIST is the only place that sends the radio signal out. I was saying that they are the US organization which does it.]]>Apr 17th 2009 11:39AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 20th 2009 2:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 4:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 11:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 11:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
Yes, but the article implys thatthe perfection they want to achieve is dependant on the temperature of the atom...which can never go to absolute zero.]]>Apr 16th 2009 11:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
yeah... they had to explain that -273ºC = "the temperature at which all matter stops resonating"... I hope they actually knew that it = 0K... it's not that clear without the term "absolute 0" as some people will always think they can freeze their coffee to -500ºC.]]>Apr 17th 2009 3:29AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 8:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
"Time for YOU to get a strontium atomic clock! BAHAHAHAHAHA!"]]>Apr 16th 2009 10:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 2:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/that cant be riiight!]]>Apr 17th 2009 12:08AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 10:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
More accurate computers, star charts, quantum mechanics, etc...]]>Apr 16th 2009 10:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 16th 2009 11:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 12:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
Actually 1 second in 300m years is probably already precise enough for relativity to affect it..]]>Apr 17th 2009 8:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
Besides, none of these devices will still be in active service in 200 years, so any measurements required here and now would surely have such minimal drift as to be irrelevant?

And don't they already know that time isn't constant, like the rotation of the earth or the orbit of the moon? Seems to be a case of my cLock is bigger and better than yours.


]]>Apr 17th 2009 8:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
And they're much less precise than this thing.

http://leapsecond.com/great2005/index.htm]]>Apr 20th 2009 9:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/hehe, no. Each clock, regardless of its position has its own Eigenzeit. So you can't calibrate them for a different spots since time passes by differently in all of them ]]>Jul 11th 2010 10:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/
When sending objects into the deep solar system, you need hyper accurate navigation. ]]>Apr 16th 2009 11:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/16/new-atomic-clock-claims-title-of-worlds-most-accurate/Apr 17th 2009 1:07AM