> As to your analogy, it is valid only if and to the extent that NIST-F2 has > practical applications. That is what I am asking about.
The important thing about devices like NIST-F2 is not that they are better than any other clocks, it's that they are still imperfect. The researchers are studying the physical principles and interactions that limit the accuracy of their clocks. Historically, this type of research has helped with discovering new physics fundamentals as well as refining our knowledge of old ones. Also, since time and frequency underlie most other measurements, that's the last field where you want "knowledge bottlenecks" to exist. Anything that advances the science of timekeeping can potentially benefit lots of other research areas. Want to build a better clock? Find better ways to preserve and probe quantum states. Oh, by the way, the free donuts and coffee are courtesy of the lab down the hall where they're working on quantum computers. Some people build giant laser interferometers, other people build large-scale particle accelerators, still other people build elaborate clocks. They are all looking for the same thing: a conversation with Mother Nature that begins with, "Hmm, that's funny," and ends in a Nobel acceptance speech. What time it is, is largely beside the point. -- john, KE5FX _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com and follow the instructions there.
