• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 742 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:59 am

Thanks, Science!

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
The clock, described this week in the journal Nature, is so precise that it would neither lose nor gain one second in about 5 billion years of continuous operation.
This is ridiculous. What omniscient standard of time do these scientists have that they could use to compare such a clock to? Is there a mathematical formula that takes the precise length of a day and chops it up? How do we know with that level of precision what a 'second' is? I would think that if we made a clock as accurate as the one described above, then that clock itself should serve as the new standard.

How dare you question the omniscience of science.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

The team already has upgrades in mind to improve this clock's performance. Ye says maybe they'll be able to build a clock that is accurate to one second in 50 billion years — or even much better than that.
Interbane, why don't you email the lead investigator Jun Ye, tell him you read a news article about the clock, that in your expert opinion he's full of crap, and see what he says? Isn't that how science is done? :P
[email protected]

On edit: Well, sorry for the snarkiness, but it is cool that we could send him a message and potentially get an answer, perhaps a link that addresses your concern. Measuring at 430 trillion times per second sounds bloody accurate to me. :hmm:
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

Measuring at 430 trillion times per second sounds bloody accurate to me.
I want to know what the objective standard is. Why 430,000,000,000,000 and not 430,000,000,000,001? I'm sure the 430 trillion was only approximate to what they actually used, but my point is till the same.

So to answer my question I looked it up.

"the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. In 1997, the CIPM affirmed that the preceding definition "refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K."


It makes me wonder what it is about the Caesium atom that's so perfectly punctual. A vibrating supersymmetric string?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

i think what you are looking at here is a quantum of energy emitted by this particular atom at this particular energy level.

You could do the same by monitoring the emitted wavelength and frequency of plutonium or carbon etc...

I like that they are trying to tie our measurements to physical things that are as basic as can be. Inches and feet were tied to physical things, but rather arbitrarily sized things which could vary from example to example.

Tying the duration of a second to a wavelength is good, but of course precisely which wavelength we choose is arbitrary.

Personally, i would prefer to define time and distance on the light-second.

I like the idea of measuring the duration of a second on the frequency of some particular emission of light. I would try to find one with a nice round number so that it is easy for everyone, including children to remember.

divide the distance light can travel in a second by 100,000,000. That is our new meter, which is approximately three current meters. Divide that into ten for the decimeter, which is about 98% the length of a foot. (back into sizes we are comfortable working with). Centimeters are a little bigger than an inch in this setup.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

The U.S. will adopt those standards just as quickly as we did the metric system. :omfg:
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

oh, yeah!

THere's nobody trying to make that happen.

It's just my take on what would be a good measurement system. We take a cosmological constant and break it down to distances that we are both familiar with (decimeter being almost exactly a foot) and manageable.

That's just my idea. It won't happen in this universe!
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

Solar roadways!

Yay! I first heard about this a long time ago, good to hear they are still going.

http://www.wimp.com/everythingsolar/

There is a link at the end of the video if you want to help them get off the ground.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

Looks like somewhat of a rough ride. I like the future story it tells though. Level and uphill roadways would absorb sun power and deliver it to the vehicles that travel upon it. Downhilll roadways would use inverse inductive charging to increase the power output. Or piezoelectric charging. Or both.

I still think that future travel will include air motion somehow. Either by creating a vacuum, or moving the air with the vehicle. Too much energy is lost to air friction for us not to tackle that at some point. It will eventually become the lowest hanging fruit for increased efficiency.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

SUPERfluid helium!




wow! Never heard of this helium until I read about it in The Island of Knowledge - M Gleiser
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Thanks, Science!

Unread post

This definitely belongs in this thread. I want to build one of these in our yard.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YhMiuzyU1ag
-Geo
Question everything
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”