Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atomic Clocks!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    I don't understand this. Reference, please.
    I guess the only thing certain is that there is resonance and vibration in the radioisotopes. Do you know any physics?

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    The isotope is hit by a laser. The element becomes more radioactive at a certain clock frequency?
    I don't understand this. Reference, please.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    I absolutely marvel at just how utterly lost you are, Santa.

    But please, do carry on ... I'm entertained by your display of arrogant cluelessness.

    Jorge
    Was there any particular item in my post that points to arrogant cluelessness? Did I not capture accurately your opinion of radioisotope decay rates and radiometric dating?

    Please clarify.

    Thank you!

    Santa

    P.S. Here is the post in question:


    Originally posted by Santa Klaus54
    Correct. Jorge does not object to atomic clocks, but he definitely does object to the notion that radioactivity (sic) decay can tell us the approximate age of igneous rocks that cooled a billion years ago.

    The reason? In his particular Genesis interpretation the Cosmos is no more than 10,000 years old. The Bible sez it, he believes it, end of story. So the very notion of a billion years is laughable to him. That time is undefined. It has to be.

    If you remind him of the precise timing of radioactive decay, he will say -- yes -- it's been precise since some indeterminable point in the past 6000 years, and that you are brainwashed by the materialist/naturalist notion of uniformitarianism.

    Hammer/nail/Jello/wall

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Huh??? Translation and reference, please.

    K54
    The isotope is hit by a laser. The element becomes more radioactive at a certain clock frequency?

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    My only objection is that the nuclear magnetic resonance shows a lack of isotope change. But the same does not preclude them from working. It would seem that this clock concept went into radiometric dating.
    Huh??? Translation and reference, please.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    replied
    My only objection is that the nuclear magnetic resonance shows a lack of isotope change. But the same does not preclude them from working. It would seem that this clock concept went into radiometric dating.

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
    I absolutely marvel at just how utterly lost you are, Santa.

    But please, do carry on ... I'm entertained by your display of arrogant cluelessness.

    Jorge
    An informed correction would be much more helpful than a drive-by insult. DO you object to atomic clocks? What is your position, and why?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Correct. Jorge does not object to atomic clocks, but he definitely does object to the notion that radioactivity decay can tell us the approximate age of igneous rocks that cooled a billion years ago.

    The reason? In his particular Genesis interpretation the Cosmos is no more than 10,000 years old. The Bible sez it, he believes it, end of story. So the very notion of a billion years is laughable to him. That time is undefined. It has to be.

    If you remind him of the precise timing of radioactive decay, he will say -- yes -- it's been precise since some indeterminable point in the past 6000 years, and that you are brainwashed by the materialist/naturalist notion of uniformitarianism.

    Hammer/nail/Jello/wall

    K54
    I absolutely marvel at just how utterly lost you are, Santa.

    But please, do carry on ... I'm entertained by your display of arrogant cluelessness.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by phank View Post
    It's not obvious that Jorge is objecting to atomic clocks, and his response is correct. Interestingly, that "less than one second over the lifetime of the universe" is a sort of middle ground! Quartz crystal clocks (which would be off a few thousand years by now) are about as much less accurate than that ytterbium clock, as THAT clock is to the latest iteration. I think just this year they got the error down to nanoseconds over the lifetime of the universe. These are the (still experimental) quantum-ion clocks, which can be used to measure relativistic time-shifts on earth, frame-dragging, etc. Fascinating stuff.
    Correct. Jorge does not object to atomic clocks, but he definitely does object to the notion that radioactivity decay can tell us the approximate age of igneous rocks that cooled a billion years ago.

    The reason? In his particular Genesis interpretation the Cosmos is no more than 10,000 years old. The Bible sez it, he believes it, end of story. So the very notion of a billion years is laughable to him. That time is undefined. It has to be.

    If you remind him of the precise timing of radioactive decay, he will say -- yes -- it's been precise since some indeterminable point in the past 6000 years, and that you are brainwashed by the materialist/naturalist notion of uniformitarianism.

    Hammer/nail/Jello/wall

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • phank
    replied
    It's not obvious that Jorge is objecting to atomic clocks, and his response is correct. Interestingly, that "less than one second over the lifetime of the universe" is a sort of middle ground! Quartz crystal clocks (which would be off a few thousand years by now) are about as much less accurate than that ytterbium clock, as THAT clock is to the latest iteration. I think just this year they got the error down to nanoseconds over the lifetime of the universe. These are the (still experimental) quantum-ion clocks, which can be used to measure relativistic time-shifts on earth, frame-dragging, etc. Fascinating stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Jorge apparently doesn't believe in atomic clocks either, probably since according to him they somehow support an evolutionary religion.

    Ya see, in order to dismiss radiometric dating, Jorgian YECs have to believe that fundamental physical constants have changed in the past 6000 years so that 5,999 year old rocks just appear to be a billion years old due the unfounded assumption and YEC cuss word Uniformitarianism. (~shudder~)

    Isn't this the shtick from Bizarro World, Jorge?

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    There's this wonderful new Internet site called "Google". You should try it sometime. It's really groovy!

    Originally posted by Wikipedia on Atomic Clock
    The rare-earth element ytterbium (Yb) is valued not so much for its mechanical properties but for its complement of internal energy levels. "A particular transition in Yb atoms, at a wavelength of 578 nm, currently provides one of the world's most accurate optical atomic frequency standards," said Marianna Safronova.[20] The estimated amount of uncertainty achieved corresponds to a Yb clock uncertainty of about one second over the lifetime of the universe so far, 15 billion years, according to scientists at the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI) and the University of Delaware in December 2012.
    From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

    Leave a comment:


  • Jorge
    replied
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    What was the first element used in atomic clocks? I post this question because I am interested the history and discovery of radioactive isotopes.
    The first element: Darwinium.
    .
    .
    "The first atomic clock was an ammonia maser device built in 1949 at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now NIST). It was less accurate than existing quartz clocks, but served to demonstrate the concept. The first accurate atomic clock, a caesium standard based on a certain transition of the caesium-133 atom, was built by Louis Essen in 1955 at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK." Just look in Wiki under atomic clocks.

    Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Omniskeptical
    started a topic Atomic Clocks!

    Atomic Clocks!

    What was the first element used in atomic clocks? I post this question because I am interested the history and discovery of radioactive isotopes.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 10:31 AM
3 responses
31 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 10-12-2021, 07:46 AM
0 responses
11 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by TheLurch, 10-01-2021, 10:26 AM
56 responses
302 views
1 like
Last Post lee_merrill  
Started by oxmixmudd, 10-01-2021, 09:43 AM
37 responses
199 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by rogue06, 09-28-2021, 08:23 AM
1 response
21 views
1 like
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X