Talk:Atomic clock

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Organization

I want to index the article like this:

1. Definition of second

1. History and development and how Caesium clocks work including normal caesium clocks and primary standard caesium clocks such as NIST-F2

1. History and Development and how Optical Clocks Work

1. Ways to Redefine the second with sections on the Rydberg constant, Optical clocks

Applications like How Atomic Clocks keep International Time and work with GPS and timestamp financial transactions ScientistBuilder (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: This is a proposed outline of the whole article? If so, it seems to me some essential topics are left out. Where are hydrogen and rubidium clocks described? Also, as mentioned before, I think the "Ways to redefine the second" section is off-topic in this article.

Some technical notes:

• Unless they have proper nouns, only the first letter of section titles should be capitalized (MOS:SECTIONHEAD)
• In the above list, the reason the numbering operator, #, didn't work right is due to the spaces between the lines.

--Chetvorno^TALK 06:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Split

I think the article should be split because the article is 131843 bytes or 131.843 kilobytes as of the time this post was made.

Wikipedia:SIZERULE states

article size> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided

I propose making optical atomic clock a separate article. ScientistBuilder (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

My edit 2022-09-06 08:17

I replaced 'frequency of radiation of atoms' by 'resonant frequency of atoms' because, AFAIK, rubidium frequency references (and hence rubidium atomic clocks) work by finding an absorption-maximum frequency (6834682610.904 Hz). The term 'resonant frequency of atoms' is intended to cover both emission and absorption phenomena.

Dulciana (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My edit 2022-09-06 13:12

The BIPM Time Department Database https://webtai.bipm.org/database/showlab.html lists more than 80 laboratories whose atomic clocks contribute to UTC. I would hesitate to call this a 'small number'.

Dulciana (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My edit 2022-09-07 06:33

Without corroborating information, citations etc., this section was imprecise. For example, it is implied that hydrogen maser clocks are less expensive than caesium clocks. The Wikipedia page 'Hydrogen maser' quotes a price 'as much as 235,000 USD'; AFAIK commercial caesium clocks are much cheaper. The statement 'The power consumption of atomic clocks varies with their size' also requires examples, citations etc.

Dulciana (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and clarification

There are several unsourced paragraphs that contain content requiring sourcing. Paragraphs in the "International timekeeping" subsection are somewhat technical and unsourced. The same with the "Clock mechanism" subsection especially the last paragraph. The "Redefining the second" section has unsourced sentences and paragraphs.

The "External links" section has 14 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --

The B-class criteria states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. None of them met WP guidelines and have been removed. Constant314 (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cloned section

See Talk:Second so as to not clone a discussion in addition to the section. Nerdwizard (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

AddedHomeMappedDatas

TalkingsACPhonedDatasAdded@133CaesiumLnkedDatasPublishmentSubmitter ShaileshPrasad AutoRog5sPhonesDatas@7/4/2023ISTC 2405:201:A409:DBB6:29A0:AD22:5C6D:4A9 (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

This looks like code. What's it doing in Talk? What is it supposed to mean?

MrDemeanour (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving optical clock to its own section

I'm moving the 'optical clock' section to its own wikipedia page. This article has become very long, and 'optical clock' could easily be as long as the entire 'atomic clock' page as is. More organization is needed to make this section comprehensible, which can be remedied with a new page.

'Gas giant' for example is not a subsection of the 'planet' page. 'Gas giant' is it's own page. Gas giants are a subsection of planets, and optical clocks are a subsection of atomic clocks. When a page grows very large, and a certain subsection still has ample potential to grow, that subsection should be made into it's own page. If there's any argument for keeping it as is, let me know. Rat eating man (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. My first impression is to support this but allow about a week so that all can be heard. You may want to investigate Template:Split. Constant314 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I also think this needs its own page so the Atomic clock page is not overly long Fletchhoppe (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I already see that the article has been boldly split so I'm going to leave it as is. I have basically fixed some formatting on it and moved the redirect to the correctly splitted article. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Support split - The considerably different technology of optical clocks vs ordinary atomic clocks merit a separate article. This article's prose size, 43kb, 6800 words, is not at the recommended splitting threshold, but if it had to cover the rapidly expanding field of optical clocks I think it would quickly reach that size. I think this article should be expanded to discuss many points about atomic clocks the current text leaves out: Why is caesium still used after 70 years? What are the advantages of rubidium? Why do hydrogen masers have superior short term stability? What was the Ramsey interferometry breakthrough by Norman Ramsey that made practical atomic clocks possible? Why is a long drift period, as in atomic fountains, important for accuracy? What is laser cooling? If optical clocks are not split off this article will reach excessive lengths. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The section, Optical clocks, can be split into Optical clock. The article is too long and this subsection has potential for growth. According to @Rat Eating Man:, leaving this in its current page would lead to a very large article with its potential for growth. The redirect, Optical Clock would redirect to this splitted article. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 00:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)