On 7 Feb 2010 at 18:31, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message , Tony
> F
> inch writes:
>
> >There are some other misleading statements in that article.
>
> When I read it, I got the feeling of a scientist trying to squeeze a
> two-feet subject through a three-inch hole...
The Language Log, a
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/quantum-logic-atomic-clock
...
There are some other misleading statements in that article.
There's no need to change the definition of the second because the latest
frequency standard is based on a different quantum transition. Magnesium,
mercury, and y
In message , Tony F
inch writes:
>There are some other misleading statements in that article.
When I read it, I got the feeling of a scientist trying to squeeze a
two-feet subject through a three-inch hole...
Poul-Henning
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/quantum-logic-atomic-clock
The article is misleading in several ways, most particularly about it
being "100 000 times more precise". What they mean is that the frequency
standard (a 1.1PHz UV laser) that is steered by the paired aluminium and
magnesium ion
