Hi There are a number of papers on pulsars as time standards. The gotcha in the observed data (that has been measured over long time periods) has been random frequency jumps. Put another way, 10 million seconds and beyond *is* the problem. It’s going to take a *lot* of monitoring for a very long time to convince people that a specific pulsar is a good idea.
Bob > On Nov 17, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote: > > > Context is the what-next portion of a recent LIGO talk. For those of you > that missed it (or didn't pay enough attention), on Aug 17th, they got good > data from a pair of neutron stars. 1.7 seconds later, the Fermi satellite > got a gamma ray burst. Within a day, the optical guys had found a new spot. > Over the next days and weeks, they got data over the whole spectrum, radio to > X-rays. (There were 70 observatories lined up to pounce. Everybody wanted > in on the action.) > > LIGO only works for roughly the audio spectrum. At the low and high ends, > the noise goes up. Lots of people are working on how to build gear that will > work at other wavelengths. > > One proposal is to monitor pulsars. There might be stuff leftover from the > big bang with a period of a year or so. If you can get good timing from a > pulsar, you might be able to see it. I suspect that will take "good" timing > to a scale that would astonish most time-nuts. > > > > -- > These are my opinions. I hate spam. > > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
