[ntp:questions] National time standard differences

Richard B. Gilbert rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Wed Feb 10 17:10:20 UTC 2010


unruh wrote:
> On 2010-02-10, David J Taylor <david-taylor at blueyonder.delete-this-bit.and-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> "David Woolley" <david at ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:hksmaf$1cm$2 at news.eternal-september.org...
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember the flying of caesium or other atomic clocks round the 
>>>> world, and that folks had to invoke relativistic corrections.  Were 
>>>> these better than microseconds as well?
>>> That's called Navstar (GPS) and GPS position solutions do have to 
>>> include a general relativity correction to the satellite clocks.
>> Not today's GPS, but some forty or more years ago:
>>
>>   http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/abouthp/histnfacts/timeline/hist_60s.html
>>
>> 1964:
>>
>> "The highly accurate HP 5060A cesium-beam atomic clocks gain worldwide 
>> recognition as the "flying clocks" when they are flown from Palo Alto to 
>> Switzerland to compare time as maintained by the U.S. Naval Observatory in 
>> Washington, D.C. to time at the Swiss Observatory in Neuchatel. The atomic 
>> clock was designed to maintain accuracy for 3000 years with only one 
>> second of error. The cesium-beam standard becomes the standard for 
>> international time."
>>
>> I had wondered what accuracy was obtained - i.e. how far was each nation 
>> out - and whether relativistic corrections had been needed for these 
>> "flying clock" tests.
> 
> 1 sec/3000years is 1 part in 10^-11. The gravitational redshift is
> gh/c^2 (g is gravity acceln on earth, h the height of the flight, and c
> vel of light) which is 10^-12 -- ie below ( but not by much) the
> accuracy of the clock. The velocity correction is 1/2 v^2/c^2 which is
> again about 1 part in 10^12. Ie, both corrections are smaller (but not
> much)  than the uncertainty in the clock rate. If the plane flew at Mach
> 2, rather than well below Mach 1, you could get that velocity correction
> up the accuracy and one would have to take special relativity into
> account. 
>  
> 
> Since the flight probably lasted say 10 hr, which is 100000 sec, th

BUZZ!!!!!!!!

Ten hours is HOW MANY seconds?

I make that as 10*60*60 which is 36,000!

<snip>




More information about the questions mailing list