But won't the doppler effect change as the Cs atoms fall down the gravity well? :)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Attila Kinali <att...@kinali.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:54:41 -0800 > Peter Monta <pmo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sorry if this is a bit off-topic. I'd like a simple, clear explanation > for > > the layman that drills down on exactly how the current definitional > scheme > > can be realized to arbitrary precision. For example, assume that we must > > go off-earth at some point to get a better timescale. How fuzzy is the > > solar potential ("soloid")? > > It will be done as usual: As soon as they can reliably measure an > systematic > effect that is impossible to cancel out, they will redefine or ammend the > definition of the second to account for this issue. > > And going by the presentations given at EFTF this year, there is quite > some interest in precision gravity measurements in the time/frequency > community. And yes, they use the same basic phyiscs as their atomic clocks > :-) > (one apporach is to let Cs atoms fall down a tube and measure their > acceleration using doppler shift of the hyperfine transitions line) > > Attila Kinali > > -- > I pity people who can't find laughter or at least some bit of amusement in > the little doings of the day. I believe I could find something ridiculous > even in the saddest moment, if necessary. It has nothing to do with being > superficial. It's a matter of joy in life. > -- Sophie Scholl > _______________________________________________ > 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.