View Full Version : Most Accurate Clock Ever


Knight-Dragon
Feb 18, 2008, 08:24 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144459.htm

Most Accurate Clock Ever: 'Crystal Of Light' Clock Surpasses Accuracy Of NIST-F1 Fountain Clock

ScienceDaily (Feb. 18, 2008) — A next-generation atomic clock that tops previous records for accuracy in clocks based on neutral atoms has been demonstrated by physicists at JILA, a joint institute of the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Colorado at Boulder. The new clock, based on thousands of strontium atoms trapped in grids of laser light, surpasses the accuracy of the current U.S. time standard based on a "fountain" of cesium atoms.

JILA's experimental strontium clock, described in Science Express,* is now the world's most accurate atomic clock based on neutral atoms, more than twice as accurate as the NIST-F1 standard cesium clock located just down the road at the NIST campus in Boulder.

The JILA strontium clock would neither gain nor lose a second in more than 200 million years, compared to NIST F-1's current accuracy of over 80 million years.

The advance was made possible by Boulder's critical mass of state-of-the-art timekeeping equipment and expertise. The JILA strontium clock was evaluated by remotely comparing it to a third NIST atomic clock, an experimental model based on neutral calcium atoms. The best clocks can be precisely evaluated by comparing them to other nearby clocks with similar performance; very long-distance signal transfer, such as by satellite, is too unstable for practical, reliable comparisons of the new generation of clocks. In the latest experiment, signals from the two clocks were compared via a 3.5-kilometer underground fiber-optic cable.

The strontium and calcium clocks rely on the use of optical light, which has higher frequencies than the microwaves used in NIST-F1. Because the frequencies are higher, the clocks divide time into smaller units, offering record precision. Laboratories around the world are developing optical clocks based on a variety of different designs and atoms; it is not yet clear which design will emerge as the best and be chosen as the next international standard. The work reported in Science Express is the first optical atomic clock comparison over kilometer-scale urban distances, an important step for worldwide development of future standards.

"This is our first comparison to another optical atomic clock," says NIST/JILA Fellow Jun Ye, who leads the strontium project. "As of now, Boulder is in a very unique position. We have all the ingredients, including multiple optical clocks and the fiber-optic link, working so well. Without a single one of these components, these measurements would not be possible. It's all coming together at this moment in time."

NIST and JILA are home to optical clocks based on a variety of atoms, including strontium, calcium, mercury, aluminum, and ytterbium, each offering different advantages. Ye now plans to compare strontium to the world's most accurate clock, NIST's experimental design based on a single mercury ion (charged atom). The mercury ion clock was accurate to about 1 second in 400 million years in 2006 and performs even better today, according to Jim Bergquist, the NIST physicist who built the clock. The "best" status in atomic clocks is a moving target.

The development and testing of a new generation of optical atomic clocks is important because highly precise clocks are used to synchronize telecom networks and deep-space communications, as well as for navigation and positioning. The race to build even better clocks is expected to lead to new types of gravity sensors, as well as new tests of fundamental physical laws to increase understanding of the universe.

Because Ye's group is able to measure and control interactions among so many atoms with such exquisite precision, the JILA work also is expected to lead to new scientific tools for quantum simulations that will help scientists better understand how matter and light behave under the strange rules governing the nanoworld.

In the JILA clock, a few thousand atoms of the alkaline-earth metal strontium are held in a column of about 100 pancake-shaped traps called an "optical lattice." The lattice is formed by standing waves of intense near-infrared laser light. Forming a sort of artificial crystal of light, the lattice constrains atom motion and reduces systematic errors that occur in clocks that use moving balls of atoms, such as NIST-F1. Using thousands of atoms at once also produces stronger signals and eventually may yield more precise results than clocks relying on a single ion, such as mercury.

JILA scientists detect strontium's "ticks" (430 trillion per second) by bathing the atoms in very stable red laser light at the exact frequency that prompts jumps between two electronic energy levels. The JILA team recently improved the clock by achieving much better control of the atoms. For example, they can now cancel out the atoms' internal sensitivity to external magnetic fields, which otherwise degrade clock accuracy. They also characterized more precisely the effects of confining atoms in the lattice.

The NIST calcium clock, which was used to evaluate the performance of the new strontium clock, relies on the ticking of clouds of millions of calcium atoms. This clock offers high stability for short times, relatively compact size and simplicity of operation. NIST scientists believe it could be made portable and perhaps transported to other institutions for evaluations of other optical atomic clocks. JILA scientists were able to take advantage of the calcium clock's good short-term stability by making fast measurements of one property in the strontium clock and then quickly switching to a different property to start the comparison over again.

The JILA-NIST collaborations benefit both institutions by enabling scientists not only to compare and measure clock performance, but also to share tools and expertise. Another key element to the latest comparison was the use of two custom-made frequency combs, the most accurate tool for measuring optical frequencies, which helped to maintain stability during signal transfer between the two institutions.

* Journal reference: A.D. Ludlow, T. Zelevinsky, G.K. Campbell, S. Blatt, M.M. Boyd, M.H.G. de Miranda, M.J. Martin, S.M. Foreman, J. Ye, T.M. Fortier, J.E. Stalnaker, S.A. Diddams, Y. Le Coq, Z.W. Barber, N. Poli, N.D. Lemke, K.M. Beck, & C. Oates. 2008. Sr lattice clock at 1x10-16 fractional uncertainty by remote optical evaluation with a Ca clock. Science Express. Posted online Feb. 14.

Adapted from materials provided by National Institute of Standards and Technology.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2008/02/080214144459.jpg
JILA's strontium atomic clock is now the world's most accurate clock based on neutral atoms. (Credit: Greg Kuebler/JILA)

CivGeneral
Feb 18, 2008, 10:23 PM
Would we be able to synch our clocks with this device, including our computers?

Riffraff
Feb 19, 2008, 03:19 AM
Would we be able to synch our clocks with this device, including our computers?

I'm sure you can at some point. I know for fact that my cousin used to synch his system time with the atomic-clock in Braunschweig some years ago, when that was the most precise clock around. It obviously has no practical prupose though, as the levels of precision are absolutely irrelevant when not measuring something in the order of nano/pico/whatever seconds..

aaglo
Feb 19, 2008, 03:50 AM
The JILA strontium clock would neither gain nor lose a second in more than 200 million years, compared to NIST F-1's current accuracy of over 80 million years.
Huh?
Deviation compared to what? Time is not absolute, so how can a certain time said to be correct?

dutchfire
Feb 19, 2008, 08:46 AM
A second is absolute though:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.[1] This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field.[1] The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second, which was based on astronomical measurements. (See Historical origin below.) The international standard symbol for a second is s (see ISO 31-1)

Fifty
Feb 19, 2008, 12:18 PM
I'm extremely upset that NIST is wasting their time with this when they still haven't fixed their tables.

Zhuge_Liang
Feb 19, 2008, 12:57 PM
If we SYNCRONIZE our times with the watch, we'll be confused! You know why?

An average clock finishes the whole day exactly 24 hours, but the rotation of the earth is approximately 23 hours:54 minutes:34 seconds. So that's 5 mins. early is we follow the accurate clock.

After a month times would be like 150 mins. advance.

aaglo
Feb 19, 2008, 03:59 PM
A second is absolute though:
Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.[1] This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field.[1] The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second, which was based on astronomical measurements. (See Historical origin below.) The international standard symbol for a second is s (see ISO 31-1)

I wonder if that definition of a second works on high speeds too :crazyeye: :p

An average clock finishes the whole day exactly 24 hours, but the rotation of the earth is approximately 23 hours:54 minutes:34 seconds. So that's 5 mins. early is we follow the accurate clock.


Well, that's the time earth takes to rotate a full 360-degrees. But luckily, earth moves around an ellipsoid path around the sun - each time the earth has to make slightly more than a 360-degree rotation (which takes about 5 mins), so the overall day's lenght is 24 h. So our clock's really wouldn't go ahead of their times.
But if earth stopped revolving around the sun, then we should re-determine the lenght of a second...

dutchfire
Feb 20, 2008, 09:48 AM
But if earth stopped revolving around the sun, then we should re-determine the lenght of a second...

We'd have bigger problems.

Zhuge_Liang
Feb 20, 2008, 11:44 AM
Yeah, much BIGGER problems...

aaglo
Feb 20, 2008, 03:37 PM
Yeah, but I bet none of those bigger problems would have anything to do with the most accurate time piece :)

IamJohn
Feb 21, 2008, 12:37 AM
If we SYNCRONIZE our times with the watch, we'll be confused! You know why?

An average clock finishes the whole day exactly 24 hours, but the rotation of the earth is approximately 23 hours:54 minutes:34 seconds. So that's 5 mins. early is we follow the accurate clock.

After a month times would be like 150 mins. advance.
That's why we have leap year.

aaglo
Feb 21, 2008, 01:33 AM
No, that's not the reason. The leap year comes because of the lenght of the year is something like 365.2422 days. A leap day (is the 29th of feb called that?) in every fourth year - and left out every 400th year. Thus we get an average length of the year to be 365.2425 days. Which is pretty close I think :)

Adamb0mb
Feb 21, 2008, 02:33 AM
A next-generation atomic clock that tops previous records for accuracy in clocks based on neutral atoms

So is this the most accuracte clock ever, or the most accurace clock based on neutral atoms ever? Is there some other clock that uses another mechanism to tell time that is more accurate?

If we SYNCRONIZE our times with the watch, we'll be confused! You know why?

An average clock finishes the whole day exactly 24 hours, but the rotation of the earth is approximately 23 hours:54 minutes:34 seconds. So that's 5 mins. early is we follow the accurate clock.

After a month times would be like 150 mins. advance.

The clock just counts seconds, all other quantities are derived from seconds. Translating to dates and times is easy.

Falcon02
Feb 21, 2008, 06:52 AM
I wonder if that definition of a second works on high speeds too :crazyeye: :p

Well, I was gonna say it does work at high speeds because you time works the same within a constant local frame, regardless of speed. (It's the comparison of different frames of references at different times where you see the deviation)

But the definition Dutchfire quoted defines a second when the Cesium is "At Rest"

So it makes me wonder, what their definition of "At Rest" actually is and how relativistic effects are taken into account.

do the number of seconds you "experience" actually vary depending on speed if you use that definition?

ie. 1 second at high speeds could actually be several seconds since the definition point assumes a reference at rest.

But if earth stopped revolving around the sun, then we should re-determine the lenght of a second...

Well, based on the definition given I'd have to say... probobly not, if what I said is true, and what dutchfire said is true the length of a second appears to be is mathematically derived. our perception of the said defined second though may change though.

ie. my clock's second hand would have to be changed to remain accurate with the definition of a second.

brennan
Feb 21, 2008, 08:04 AM
But the definition Dutchfire quoted defines a second when the Cesium is "At Rest"

So it makes me wonder, what their definition of "At Rest" actually is and how relativistic effects are taken into account.Use the reference frame of the Caesium.

Falcon02
Feb 21, 2008, 09:19 AM
Use the reference frame of the Caesium.
If you "use the referance frame of the Cesium" "At rest" can = Cesium going near the speed of light because in the referance from of the Cesium the Cesium is stationary while the rest of the universe moves around it.

More distinctly my point... does Cesium on the surface of the Earth not moving (relative to the surface of the Earth) fit the definition of that "At Rest"

Or does it have to be "At Rest" relative to the overall Universe/the speed of light or what not?

dutchfire
Feb 21, 2008, 10:09 AM
As long as the observer is travelling at the same speed as the Cesium, there shouldn't be a problem, right? (Relativity)

About redefining our second, that'd mean redefining a lot of other natural constants, like the speed of light.