And doesn't the uncertainity principle get in the way? Also, they are still using electrons in the end. If these electrons have been disturbed, the accuracy will be affected, won't it?
@Manishearth Do they mention the shell model in there? I don't see it
In any case, I don't think the uncertainty principle would get in the way, although it might indicate that a high energy variance has to be involved in some manner. But I'm still not entirely sure exactly what it means for this nuclear clock to be more accurate than an atomic clock.
@Manishearth Only in the same sense that there is no definite red quark in a proton. I don't think that's a very good sense.
The description of protons changing into neutrons via pion exchange strikes me as an attempt to force a classical view on what is really a quantum phenomenon. Think wavefunctions instead.
But with wavefuncts we get probabilities. If it works on probabilities, how can it be accurate? Wait.. Even the atomic clock works on probability then... How are these accurate if they are based on probability?
Red quark or up quark? I doubt red is anything special in qcd..
@Manishearth There are a bunch of different designs but as I understand it, they generally work by inducing a transition between two specific energy levels and then using the frequency of the resulting photon as a time reference. Generally, the higher the energy difference of the transition, the higher the photon frequency, which tends to result in a more accurate clock.
But you also have to guard against things like external perturbations which might alter the energy levels, or having two possible transitions with closely spaced energies. That's why they don't just use the biggest possible energy difference as a clock reference.
Also, have you not heard of the three "colors" of quarks? Red, green, blue?
That's the whole reason it's called quantum chromo dynamics...
Aah, I get the argument about energy levels. Makes sense.
I've always found this strange from an intuitive point of view. QM is all about 'uncertainities'. Pretty much. At the same time, half the stuff of QM is discrete.
The 2012 International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects in Bonn (Germany) is coming up at the end of next month. I'm scheduled to give a talk there, but my adviser has asked me to look for external sources of funding to cover the trip. So naturally I thought of Stack Exc...
@Manishearth: I think the human magnetic field question was moved because of the second answer. (The reply may well have tit the intentiions of the asker, as the question is somewhat weird - though of course tractable - from a physics point of view..)
@Manishearth: ''QM is all about 'uncertainities''. Not really. It is about what remains certain in spite of much uncertainty in general. Maybe mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/born helps. If approached in the right way (such as in my book mentioned there), it is also not such a big change from classical mechanics.
(On a laptop, to someone who is red/green color-blind.)
The "answered" checkmark should take on a distinctly different color from the up/down arrows, to avoid confusion.
