World's Most Accurate Atomic Clock

                The atomic clock is the most ‘accurate’ time keeper known to man. It is measured by the electronic transition in the electromagnetic spectrum of the atoms (Wikipedia). The millions of caesium atoms are placed through a cavity and exposed to electromagnetic waves. Recently, the UK has proposed that their atomic clock is ‘the world’s most accurate’ (BBC). The studies showed that the new time is actually twice more accurate than they had originally thought. It had gone from being one part in 2,500,000,000,000,000 to one part in 4,300,000,000,000,000. In previous measurements, there have been errors but the newest one addressed these errors and improved upon them. This type of achievement is beneficial to because “better standards lead to better technology.”           

With this newfound accuracy, many other aspects of technology can be improved upon such as: the GPS, radio transmission and the Internet. Similar tools are used to measure the UV, optical and microwaves. If necessary,people could precisely locate almost anything/anything to the utmost precision.  To reach this kind of precision is a scientific breakthrough. Knowing that we have such advanced technological capabilities leads us to believe that there will be more discoveries in the future. To think that in the past, our time was only measured with extreme approximation is inconceivable to us because we have always had a reliable measurement tools. Although devices we have now seem sufficient, science is making new discoveries to improve them. We have gone from using maps with questionable accuracy to GPS systems directing us at every turn. However these advances happen to be a doubled edged sword.  For instance, if one country has made a scientific discovery, other countries will subsequently discover something even ‘better’. This scientific race will inevitably be never-ending.

Even though the atomic clock was able to be measured to an even more precise degree, it may not necessary be the most accurate. Language is called into question in this article. The dictionary states that: to be accurate is to measure something to the closest degree of the actual value. However the article clearly states that there have been errors in their previous measurements, but the scientists were still able to claim that it was ‘accurate’. The statement that the UK made was that their clock was the most accurate. In general with each discovery, the measurements become more accurate but will not be the ‘most’ accurate. The bigger question is: what is the perfect number? The definition no matter how strict is arbitrary; when will we have reached the the accurate time? The flaw with numbers is that it is infinite. The measurement can be 1 part to 9,999,999,999,999,999 but still not any closer. In relation to previous measurements, it is “more accurate” but not necessarily the most. It was stated, though, "[in many cases [they] can't remove these perturbations; but [they] introduce corrections for them" and accurate data can’t be collected in a laboratory setting. The science department is trying to reach the ‘absolute’ and the only place to measure anything is IN the lab. In addition, the tools are imperfect by default, and will affect the ‘accuracy’ of the measurement. If the UK and other countries had to “address the inaccuracies”. How do we know that after fixing the problem, the measurement is any more accurate? Since science is constantly trying to reach absolute accuracy, this new ‘perfect measurement’ is only temporary. If that is so, how can we trust any of the measurements? Even if we have reached absolute accuracy how is that better than what we have now?  Are we not already able to reach different cities with our current GPS and tell the time with our clocks?

People often buy into the idea of “new and improved products”. An instance in the past led to advertisements saying “99.9%” effective instead of “100%”. Any one time that shows that the product is not as effective as advertised, will show that the claim is completely false. For instance, basketball shoes have been put on the market and it was stated that the shoe was 99.9% effective against protecting ankle sprains. The spokesperson of the show John Starks says: "Once I put the shoe on and strapped it in, immediately [I felt] secure in the shoe and [I felt] like this is the shoe that's going to protect [my] foot”. How can anyone measure the word “immediate”, and in this context he had to put on two shoes that isn’t immediate contact. To strap on a pair of sneakers takes a bit of time, now the accuracy of his recount is called into question. Also another article reported about how there are 20 scientifically “proven” signs that you’re smarter than average. Science shows and supports but it can never really prove or state anything “matter-of-factly”.