informationweek.com— An experimental clock based on a mercury ion won't gain or lose a second in 400 years, researchers say.
Jul 31, 2006View in Crawl 4
sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm) n.A cutting, often ironic remark intended to woundThat was about as cutting or ironic as having 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
Bah all they need to do is whack Mickey Mouse in there and make his arms move. Who cares if the timelords miss the first 1 second of Top Gear 3089 recorded on their atomic video recorder?
> 7.9e-17 seconds per second rather than 4.5e-16?That actually *is* what the original paper about the clock says; physics papers don't talk about so-many-million years, they talk about how small the errors are.
desoliteAug 1, 2006
Fry from Futurama coulda used one.
desoliteAug 1, 2006
so basically, the materials that the watch is made of will deteriorate way before it ever screws up the time... unless of course the battery dies.
Closed AccountAug 1, 2006
Yup... that would suck compared to the 70 million years that cesium can pull off...
ragipyAug 1, 2006
This is terrible news for me, I can no longer blame inaccuracy of the atomic clock when I am late to work.
rm999Aug 1, 2006
sar·casm (sär'kăz'əm) n.A cutting, often ironic remark intended to woundThat was about as cutting or ironic as having 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
joeydeaconAug 1, 2006
Bah all they need to do is whack Mickey Mouse in there and make his arms move. Who cares if the timelords miss the first 1 second of Top Gear 3089 recorded on their atomic video recorder?
oskayAug 1, 2006
> 7.9e-17 seconds per second rather than 4.5e-16?That actually *is* what the original paper about the clock says; physics papers don't talk about so-many-million years, they talk about how small the errors are.