digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Precision clock traps atoms in light to keep time

reuters.com — U.S. physicists have made a clock so accurate it will neither gain nor lose even a second in more than 200 million years, a finding sure to please even the most punctually minded.

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 17, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

87 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 02/17/2008, -2/+45If they can make a watch that can LAST 200 million years, then i'll be impressed
  • Bviper, on 02/17/2008, -2/+38I've got a clock that will accurately tell time for another 4 billion years, its called a sun dial. The night feature could use some work however.
  • Craga89, on 02/17/2008, -1/+36If they create a way for a person to stay alive long enough to use this watch for 200 million years, then I'll be impressed.
  • inactive, on 02/17/2008, -1/+32If the humans are still alive in 200 million years, I'll be impressed.
  • debuggercll, on 02/17/2008, -0/+28If someone even counts to 200 million, I'll be impressed.
  • canthraxp, on 02/17/2008, -0/+26Achievement Unlocked:
    Einstein bitchslap.
  • inactive, on 02/17/2008, -1/+21damn... i can only read digital....
  • stklaw, on 02/17/2008, -1/+19How will we know if it gains or loses a second?
    Timing it with another clock?
  • PhantomPhoenix, on 02/17/2008, -0/+17There is no 'absolute time' since time is relative.
  • MrJavodotCom, on 02/17/2008, -1/+15oh my god, what awesome clock, I need to live 200 million years more to see if it gain/lose a sec ^^
  • inactive, on 02/17/2008, -0/+13sounds a lot better than my rolex that when I set it down for a day and don't put it in a winder the think is like 6 hours off
  • thebellmaster1x, on 02/17/2008, -2/+15Not to be anal, but the rotation and revolution speeds of Earth can vary. So, yes, I suppose, for Earth-apparent time, but it won't work for absolute time.
  • geobay, on 02/17/2008, -2/+11I'm impressed
  • Layne, on 02/17/2008, -2/+10That's all fine and dandy, but does it know when it's PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!?
  • t2t2, on 02/17/2008, -0/+8Buried and... err where can i bury a podcast?
  • DevilsLeftHand, on 02/17/2008, -0/+8No matter how accurate these clocks get, the cable guy still won't show up on time.
  • capiCrimm, on 02/17/2008, -0/+8really, my $10 armatron watch has kept time perfectly for the past 3 years.
  • vroom101, on 02/17/2008, -2/+10article on one page...
    http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUS ...
    ( reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1559361620080215?sp=true )

    from the article...
    It also can be used to synchronize telecommunications networks and might some day lead to things like hands-free driving in satellite-guided cars. "If we can navigate a vehicle on Mars and ask it to settle down on a particular runway, I'm sure we can navigate all the cars on Earth with satellites," [Jun] Ye said.
  • PhantomPhoenix, on 02/17/2008, -3/+10It's good to see the headline "United States Scientists..." anything. With the world speeding to surpass us (and, in many instances, succeeding) and a Creationist getting a substantial number of the votes in many states, I fear for my country's intellectual future.
  • CrazedLeper, on 02/17/2008, -0/+7A second will hit the floor and roll under the table.
  • reckless8594, on 02/17/2008, -0/+6Here you go:
    http://www.leapsecond.com/pages/atomic-bill/
  • Judasmac, on 02/17/2008, -0/+6Any physicists out there? No answer to the question above, which seems to me an obvious one that the article didn't address. How can you tell if a clock is accurate? What do you measure it against? What else could it be besides some other measure, i.e. clock? Apparently there's some way, but I can't make sense of it.
  • TruckStuff, on 02/17/2008, -1/+6...said Tom 0'Brian, head of the Time and Frequency Division at NIST.

    Boy, I bet that's one hell of an office Christmas party.
  • inactive, on 02/17/2008, -1/+6Anyone noticed it's over 9000?
  • kss42, on 02/17/2008, -1/+6Nothing will ever impress me.
  • BaoUnit, on 02/17/2008, -0/+5Time, itself, does not exist!
  • explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+5No way the people who design it will think of that...
  • MasterThief117, on 02/17/2008, -0/+4It's about time.
  • solarwind24, on 02/17/2008, -3/+6He means absolute as in the time doesn't change relative to itself, fool...
  • ithejosh, on 02/17/2008, -0/+3Oh no.
  • inactive, on 02/17/2008, -0/+3Sorry to sound like a prick, but 200 million years is just not accurate enough for me.
  • explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+3I don't want it to still be here then, at that point it would be wrong.
  • Claverhouse, on 02/17/2008, -0/+3There might be some slight difference in magnitude between guiding one, or several, vehicles, and guiding 1000,000,000 vehicles simultaneously.
  • willh, on 02/17/2008, -0/+3I think you mean "moo point" -- you know, like a cow's opinion... it doesn't matter.
  • Distortions, on 02/17/2008, -0/+3You may think this is useless... but it is crucial for scientific research.

  • capiCrimm, on 02/17/2008, -0/+2all tunnels will be renamed "Holes of Doom"?
  • inactive, on 02/17/2008, -0/+2Maybe if you make it glow in the dark?

    /s
  • almightyzam, on 02/17/2008, -0/+2***** that! the meeting starts when I GET THERE!!!
  • DrGFreeman, on 02/17/2008, -0/+2Hey, you paid to have a battery free watch.
  • cygnus2112, on 02/17/2008, -1/+3"Damnit, we had a clock that could tell the precise time for 200 million years and some idiot forgot to replace the 2 AA batteries yesterday?"
  • tnatharik, on 02/17/2008, -1/+3"finding sure to please even the most punctually minded."
  • ryan83189, on 02/17/2008, -1/+3At this precision wouldn't relativity have an effect on the accuracy, thus making it a mute point?
  • fr34k5h0w, on 02/17/2008, -0/+2He's talking about the watch itself not dying.
  • jebudas, on 02/17/2008, -0/+2I was just about to ask that! This quote from the article means nada to me:
    "To test his clock's accuracy, Ye and colleagues compared it with another optical atomic clock"
    I think in a thousand years they'll make fun of our concepts of time...
  • spudnic, on 02/17/2008, -1/+3'Moot' point.
    I know you were probably joking, but I just hate seeing that guy go uncorrected.
  • almightyzam, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1kss42-

    Chuck Norris saluted me....

    ....be impressed!
  • Zincyams, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1It takes a lickin and just keeps on tickin'

    WHY WON'T IT STOP TICKING?
  • ArmedRebel, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1*****, I was so scared we'd never develop a clock with accuracy extending millions of years after the human race is gone.
  • PhantomPhoenix, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1But he is a US Citizen now so he is contributing to the our collective knowledge -- especially if at some point he lectures in our colleges.
  • MoneyShot, on 02/17/2008, -0/+1Uh.. the guy behind the research is a Chinese immigrant. Not advocating xenophobia or anything, but he is a product of the Chinese educational system (until grad school), not the American one.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.