Talk:Quantum logic clock

Untitled comment

The latest aluminum-based quantum clock substituted the beryllium atom for a magnesium atom. It did not eliminate the 'interface' atom altogether. This second atom is needed to sense the state of the aluminum atom after each laser burst. Magnesium proved to be a better choice for this role than beryllium. Also, by my calculations, this latest clock is about 46 times more accurate than the cesium fountain atomic clocks which are currently the international standard.Cumbre (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quantum clock

I undid your edit in the Quantum clock wiki page. In the case of the article, 37 is just an arbitrary number and it doesn't actually hold any significant meaning other than showing the power (magnitude) of this clock. Thank you for all of your hard work that you have put into Wikipedia. :) --Triesault (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary numbers and numerological explanations rationales

Hallo there Mr. Triesault,

I thought that someone sooner or later would have undid that edit.

But I can give a rationale for that edit: I have been fascinated by Arthur Eddington (1882-1994) conjectures to considere the fine structure constant (at the time "considered related to the integer 137") as "it could be obtained by pure deduction".

He seems also to have used it in order to calculate the number of protons in the universe through the Eddington number.

We now know today that the fine structure constant

A Ulam spiral in a 200×200 pixels picture. Please note the spiraling pattern.

$\alpha ={\frac {1}{137.035\,999\,679(94)}}$

and that it hasn't got an integer at the denominator of the fraction that defines it.

But still... until we don't have any physical interpretations as we had for the fine structure constant I don't think we can dismiss any theories that attempt to give an explanation to this number... in the case of the quantum clock the fact that it seems to be 37 times more precise than the atomic clock.

So I guess our conversation should be moved to the quantum clock discussion page if this is okay for you.

Please consider that 37 and 137 are both prime numbers (so there are not just "ordinary numbers"... and prime numbers show really odd and bizarre behaviours as, for example, in the Ulam Spiral.

Thanks for your time and interest in the topic, and for your contribution in wikipedia.

Yours faithfully.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Quantum Logic Clock

"Quantum Clock" is not the correct term, since all atomic clocks can be called quantum clocks. "Quantum Logic Clock" might be a better term since the current realizations of this atomic clock use a form of quantum logic to enable Al+ spectroscopy, however this is also not a great term because the accuracy of the clock is mainly related to properties of the Al+ atomic system and are independent of how the clock state is detected. In fact, future versions of the Al+ optical clock will likely use techniques other than quantum logic spectroscopy that avoid their experimental complexity. I would prefer to title this article "Al+ optical clock". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.37.26.54 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the article name from "Quantum Clock" to "Quantum Logic Clock" seems feasable. What I honestly don't fully understand is what "Al" stands for in this context. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe "Al+" in this context is referring to the use of aluminum ions in the quantum clock. --Triesault (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Triesault (talk) for clarifying that "Al+" stands for aluminium cations in these clocks. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank 96.37.26.54 (talk) for suggesting the change and I hope you create an account with Wikipedia. I have revisited the sources of the wiki page and would have to agree with 96.37.26.54 (talk) suggestion of changing the title to "Quantum Logic Clock". I follow your logic in that all atomic clocks are also quantum clocks and we should be more specific by saying this is a quantum logic clock. I would disagree with the suggestion of changing the name to "Al+ optical clock". To my understanding, the current Al+ optical clocks are still considered quantum logic clocks. If we do change the name I would suggest clarifying the difference between a quantum clock and a quantum logic clock at some point in the article. --Triesault (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A single aluminium atom should be a common type I monatomic ion and therefore be written in the form Al³⁺. I am not a specialist, but I guess it makes some difference... duh? Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The aluminum ion used in an quantum logic clock should be written in the form Al⁺. Al⁺ has two valence electrons and therefore have the clock electronic states ¹S₀ and ³P₀. I agree with @Triesault that the page should be renamed to "Quantum logic clock". The sections that are not relevant to the quantum logic clocks in the current page (optical lattice clocks) should probably be merged into the Atomic clock page. Fanmingyu212 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Quantum clock → Quantum logic clock – Quantum clock is not the correct term for the Al⁺ quantum logic clock that is discussed in this article. "Quantum clock" either refers to all atomic clocks that are based on quantized energy levels or is related to theoretical formulation of the time concept in quantum mechanics. Either of these definitions is not the Al⁺ quantum logic clock discussed here. Fanmingyu212 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Backed up by the name in WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.