Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth

 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181128141833.htm

Summary:
 Experimental atomic clocks have now achieved three new performance records,
 now ticking precisely enough to not only improve timekeeping and navigation,
 but also detect faint signals from gravity,
 the early universe and perhaps even dark matter.  

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth

Quoted text here. Click to load it



What I find very interesting is that this universe has a physically process  
that can actually be stable to 1 part in 10^18. Why should such a physical  
fact,  actually exist?

Despite the the usual nonsense waffle attached to the existence of  
"geometrical" "space-time", time is a a physical process. It is real. It is  
a result of real physical objects changing their position. Thus, their needs  
to be an object changing its position, very regular to actually create a  
real physical time reference.

1 sec in the age of the universe is around 0.5 10^18, so, if atoms were not  
stable to this level, its certain that we could not exist to observe it

My take is, that this is just one of the, possibly, 10^500 (string theory)  
random multiverse universes, all with different laws of physics.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:57:27 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If a region of space could be at absolute zero, within that region
of space would there be time?  Granted an external observer would
continue to experience/measure time but within that region how would  
you measure time?  The same question applies to absolute hot.

The universe would continue to expand within the region
so I guess if you could measure the expansion of space its  
self you would have movement.  The expansion is causing one  
point in space to move relative to another point.


--  
Chisolm
Republic of Texas


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
"Joe Chisolm"  wrote in message  

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:57:27 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it



How do you know what "space" is? What defines it?

This is actually, pretty trivial to understand, why the majors don't, is a  
mystery to me.

Simply consider a true, empty universe, and reject magic. So....

There is no such thing as "Space" and "Time" on their todd.  Everything is  
about *relations* between real, physical objects.  End of.

Space is recognition that objects don't all sit on top of each other.
Time is recognition that objects change their position.

That's truly it. This is the real universe. It operates only by real  
physical objects. Everything is defined with reference to what real physical  
objects are and do. "Space-time" is simply a mathematical behavioural model  
for descriptive purposes. It doesn't say anything about the underlying  
physical mechanisms as to what is.


No objects to define space, no space. Period. Space is marks between  
objects.
No change of objects position, no time. Period. Time is objects moving.

Just imagine everything, all objects, all of them, stopped. Time would stop,  
because....that's how time is created. without moving objects, time is  
meaningless.

Special Relativity discovered that the clock of time motion depends on C,  
the speed of light. It doesn't know why.

I have mussed one or two meanderings on this :-)

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/universal_existence.html


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On 1/12/18 6:36 am, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Quoted text here. Click to load it
What makes the objects "real, physical"? Is it space, the space between  
them? Is it possible that each defines the other?

Clifford Heath.

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth

On 1/12/18 6:36 am, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it



Ahmmmm......

A "physical" object, is something that has to be accepted as an axiom.

"space" is what keeps physical objects separate from each other. Its where  
objects are not.

A collection of objects, separated from each other, marks out a grid, which  
which to locate other physical objects. Its all relational.

It is physical objects that define and create space. "Space" is completely  
meaningless without objects. "Time" is is completely meaningless without  
objects changing position.

Again, this is really so blinding obvious. Its stunning that so much  
metaphysical waffle abounds about space and time. How we, as conscious  
beings experience "time" is another entirely.

What is key though, is that the objects that create space, and time when  
they move, require a stunningly stable definer of space and time. If not,  
atoms and so forth would dismantle themselves over the billions of years it  
took for as to evolve, in which case, we could not be here to observe it  
all.  In my view, this leads directly to Special Relativity and Quantum  
mechanics.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/anthropic_physics.html


-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On 1/12/18 8:49 pm, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Quoted text here. Click to load it

An axiom, is something that *does not have to* be accepted. They are not  
intrinsically necessary. But if you do, other consequences may flow.  
Those consequences are completely contingent, because they depend on a  
deliberate choice to accept something that was not intrinsically  
necessary; but we might accept them because the consequences match  
observation.

However, you can start with different axioms, and get different (or the  
same) consequences. If those consequences also match observations, there  
is *nothing* to choose between the axioms.

I happen to like your metaphysics, but it is a *choice* you made.

Clifford Heath.

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth

On 1/12/18 8:49 pm, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Sure, but that is not actually what I meant. My statement was about what  
must be assumed to give any meaning to any discussion at all.

A "physical" object,  itself must be taken as fact as a fundamental starting  
point. If we don't, we might as well all just stay in the bedroom amusing  
ourselves with our left hand.

A physical object is whatever it needs to be. Its circular, but there is no  
other choice when one gets to any of the fundamentals.  Absolute definitions  
are impossible.

For example, what is a 1kg mass? It has to be compared to another mass.  
Which makes it a circular definition. In fact, this is part of the route of  
the problem in understanding Quantum Mechanics. For example, an object is  
never in actuallly two positions, but the modelling number that is assigned  
to it is not unique. Objects can not be defined to have say, position,  
without defining its position in relation to other objects. Essentially,  
like, what is the velocity of the moon? Depends on the velocity of the  
person measuring it. Several unique numbers, for the same physical  
condition. It don't mean that they are two moons!

Or...In a discussion of consciousness, it must be taken as an axiom that  
consciousness exists. If you disagree, stand with your legs apart, whilst I  
give you a firm kicking in the balls to convince you....

and... sure... differing axioms can lead to different models which the same  
results. Special Relativity & Lorentz Ether Theory is an example. Another  
example is the "curved-space-time" model of Gravitation under General  
Relativity, i.e. an assumption of no real physical force of gravity as in  
mass curves space and space tells mass how to move. However,  one gets,  
essentially, identical equations to that model by an exchange of momentum  
particle force field from spin 2 gravitons.  Most popular accounts of  
General Relativity usually ignore that fact that the ball rolling around  
curved space is not actually fact, but only a non unique model of gravity.

All of physics is based on behavioural models of "objects", of which deeper  
meanings, are essentially, meaningless. An electron is something that has  
mass, momentum, position, energy, charge, spin etc. There are numbers  
invented by Physicists, not nature. Nature has no such numbers.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:47:39 AM UTC-8, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, the basis of physics is observations, not models; the models are superstructures
atop those observations, and can be demolished or amended... but the observations cannot.

Physicists measure and express those measurements in numeric form.   Nature is
all the articles being measured, and certainly DOES have a lot of (pure ratio) numbers,
as well as physical quantities which are not unitless (and which
can be almost ANY number, if you decide to pick an oddball set of units to
express the measurement in).    

As an exercise, tell us your weight is 6 and 7/8, and in what units of (force or mass)
that is true.

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
Quoted text here. Click to load it




Now your just pissing about with words on a one-upmanship play.

A list of a millions of  observations don't make much useful physics. That's  
just a bunch of unconnected facts. The key bits about *Physics* is  
connecting the observations.   The connections are made by behavioural  
models. What an "electron" actually is, is meaningless. That's the point  
that was being made. Many don't understand that point. "Physics" means  
diddly squat without putting numbers to the observations.

I was specifically addressing the common confusion about what physical  
objects are. It is trivially obvious that one makes "observations" for  
models to make any sense at all. The models are, dah...., trying to connect  
the observations.

I already made the point that the models are not unique, by pointing out two  
examples. So, your point about models "can be demolished", was thus, er....  
pointless.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 7:37:08 AM UTC+11, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's what Ernst Mach tried to argue, about a century ago. It isn't a productive point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But it make sense to tie the numbers to concepts.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

But you can't build models without concepts
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As a philosopher of science, Keven Aylward is less than impressive. Popper might be his role model, but Polanyi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

has my vote.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
Quoted text here. Click to load it




Einstein would disagree. To wit:

Einstein specifically stated:

"The theory of relativity belongs to a class of "principle-theories...As  
such, it employs an analytic method, which means that the elements of this  
theory are not based on hypothesis but on empirical discovery."

That is, physical hypothesis (mechanisms) are ignored from the outset, so  
clearly makes no statement as to what those processes might be. Einstein is  
directly declaring here explicitly, that he not not going to offer an  
explanation, for example,  a hypothesis as to why "sources could immediately  
find a common speed". However,  there is no suggestion or implication that  
such a physical process does not exist. Undelaying mechanisms are just  
ignored.

The reality is, modern physics, simply assigns parameters to objects (mass,  
charge, spin) and tries to come up with a mathematically description that  
takes these parameters as is. Any explanation, just puts the unknown one  
stage further up the backs of the turtles.

Feynman also address this point as to what does an explanation actually  
mean.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM



Quoted text here. Click to load it




What's your point?


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Some of us actually keep to technical points when discussing technical  
issues.

Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 6:11:19 AM UTC+11, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

But Einstein also wrote the photo-electron paper and the Brownian motion paper, which respectively made photons and atoms discrete entities.

Relativity is problematic for modern physics precisely because it's not quantised, and Einstein spent the later part of his career looking for a theory of everything which would do better.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not necessarily.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There's a limit to what you can explain to an English-language science reporter in a finite time, and a much lower limit on what it's worth explaining.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The concepts are an essential step on the road to building a useful mathematical model. Observations are fine - as far as they go - but you have to have some idea about what you are observing, and what you want to measure.

My joke, when I was doing the experimental part of the my Ph.D. was that I ought to have been writing down the phase of the moon for each of the strings of observations that I recorded.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You probably mean " the models are superstructures atop those observations, and can be demolished or amended... but the observations cannot. "

This wasn't something I wrote - it comes from whit3rd. I'm conscious of the fact that demolishing the model could well imply that observations would become incomplete, because the next model could require that you measured more variables.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

But you are discussing philosophical issues, albeit somewhat inexpertly. And your capacity to keep track of who said what isn't great either.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:18:19 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
eper  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
as  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
rstructures
rvations cannot.

Not really correct I think.  There are many, many observations that form sc
ientific theory and later are found to be inaccurate or in some cases just  
wrong.  With the advance of technology it is not uncommon to find the lack  
of rigor in measurements resulted in bad theory.  One example is the lack o
f time keeping precision that when improved displayed the irregularities of
 the rotation of the earth.  


Quoted text here. Click to load it
re is
atio) numbers,
Quoted text here. Click to load it
o

Not sure what your point is.  


Quoted text here. Click to load it
orce or mass)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Again...  

  Rick C.  

  Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
Quoted text here. Click to load it

My experience of time is a bit different.
In my experience, we live in a cross field of past and future we call 'now'.
And our senses are normally limited to just that now.
In reality both past and future is known, or can be known.
No I am not religious, just talk about my own experience.
But religions also point to this.

Today I designed an build an other fascinating experiment that I expect to give a null result
in my margin of accuracy but would change things forever if it does not.
With some luck and time I will run it this weekend.
It is related to time deletion...

Physics is fun, more fun than fishicks, concepts.. hammered into kids heads.

No, multiverses does not do it for me, and even the term 'universe' is misleading,
you probably mean 'observed universe'
Some have pointed out there are other bangs before the big one everybody is on about,
for example Sir Roger Penrose, type his name in youtube and many interesting lectures and interviews pop up,
I have viewed many of those.
Some of his 'there were other big bang' ideas seem to have been confirmed by observations he predicted.

And why not? Just like we have many stars exploding  on an even finer level than nuclear physics
why not? Singularities make no sense, divide by zero is math with incomplete equations
equations that are incomplete, do not see a reality we have not discovered yet.
Just like or 'trickety simulations are incomplete.
Now I am looking forward to my new experiment....

If it works I will give it to the Russians, there is some Russian experiment inspiration in it...
:-)
If you say:
 >What I find very interesting is that this universe has a physically process
 >that can actually be stable to 1 part in 10^18.  

then remember, all is relative, you are like a piece of rubber band measuring a / on a piece of rubber band
and move with it, and say: 'Why does it always measure the same?'
Your yard stick moves /  stretches / crimps with the thing you test!!!

  
  

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth

Quoted text here. Click to load it


What experience would that be, and why would it matter?

Time is something that is measured, by a clock usually. How one perceives  
time is metaphysics, and not something I really care to address.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ahmmm...... Quantum Mechanics says otherwise.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Religions say, essentially, nothing of relevance to how/why the universe  
works.

Quoted text here. Click to load it




The multiverse is the notion that this big bang is one of many. This is  
actually trivially obvious after the fact. Just as the Earth is not in the  
centre of the universe, surprize, surprize.

If their is physics that generate a big bang, why er.. on earth... would  
that physics only generate the one?

The notion is that there are uncountable numbers of big bangs, all with  
different laws of physics. Most could not even interact with this one. They  
could have elctgibs and nuetronphips or whatever, which mean nothing to  
electrons in this universe if they happened to meet them.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Divide by zero is exactly what is required. It allows an infinite of  
solutions to the same equation.

Either there is a reason for it all or there is not. If there is a reason,  
what is the reason for that reason?

The only reason that does not require another reason (i.e. who created god),  
is if that reason is random.

No reason means its random. Given enough lottery tickets, everyone wins  
sooner or later.

For me, its the only rational explanation. I don't believe in magic.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/sfn.html

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 11:57:41 AM UTC-5, Kevin Aylward wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Yeah amazing!  I thought they did 10^15 but I'm obviously way out of date.

So this mostly says there are 10^4 (100x100) atoms in an optical  
lattice with transitions good* to 10^16, so you get a 100 times averaging advantage.
(but there's tons more to make it work... I've only read about optical combs.)

George H.  
*I assume good means a long lifetime.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On Friday, November 30, 2018 at 7:31:03 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Oops forget the link,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock#Optical_clocks
GH
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
On 01/12/2018 00:30, George Herold wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is a carefully chosen transition with an astonishingly high Q factor  
and the atoms are trapped in a lattice more or less forced to remain  
stationary in optical tweezers. Its a very ingenious setup. Might even  
be able to independently detect larger gravitational waves.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is effectively a way of trapping the atoms in a vapour phase but  
ultra cold state so that their emission frequency is almost untainted by  
Doppler shift. I presume they pick the transitions extremely carefully  
to find the ones with the most enormous natural Q factor and no nearby  
transitions that might get in the way.

Back in the day we used H-masers short term during observations on VLBI  
nodes and rubidium/cesium clocks for the longer term. For reasons that  
escape me now the more precise short term time on the H-maser tended to  
occassionally skip a beat from time to time making life more difficult  
looking for fringes. I think they have overcome this problem now.

This is a modern report on VLBI timekeeping from Haystack:

https://www.haystack.mit.edu/workshop/TOW2017/files/Seminars/tow-time2017.pdf

This is an article from the 1990's by the Royal Belgium Observatory  
detailing their experiences with H-maser clocks on US navy.mil who seem  
to have let their site security certificate lapse (hardly a good omen).

https://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2005papers/paper26.pdf
(despite the possible hostile site warning it seems harmless)

Military intelligence = oxymoron.


--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: Atomic clocks now keep time well enough to improve models of Earth
Am 01.12.18 um 10:29 schrieb Martin Brown:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This dual H/Cesium thing is still done; the Cesium is the law, but the
H has the better short time performance. I have made the analog parts of
a Dual Mixer Time Difference system to compare / regulate such a pair.
I'm not aware of skipping beats. We store our few atoms in micro gravity
on the ISS; that allows for even less motion than at the culmination
point of a fountain.

cheers,
Gerhard

Site Timeline