• DOI:10.1098/rsta.2011.0237
• Corpus ID: 6896025

When should we change the definition of the second?

@article{Gill2011WhenSW,
  title={When should we change the definition of the second?},
  author={Patrick Gill},
  journal={Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences},
  year={2011},
  volume={369},
  pages={4109 - 4130}
}

• P. Gill
• Published 28 October 2011
• Physics
• Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

The microwave caesium (Cs) atomic clock has formed an enduring basis for the second in the International System of Units (SI) over the last few decades. The advent of laser cooling has underpinned the development of cold Cs fountain clocks, which now achieve frequency uncertainties of approximately 5×10−16. Since 2000, optical atomic clock research has quickened considerably, and now challenges Cs fountain clock performance. This has been suitably shown by recent results for the aluminium Al+ quantum logic clock, where a fractional frequency inaccuracy below 10−17 has been reported. A number of optical clock systems now achieve or exceed the performance of the Cs fountain primary standards used to realize the SI second, raising the issues of whether, how and when to redefine it. Optical clocks comprise frequency-stabilized lasers probing very weak absorptions either in a single cold ion confined in an electromagnetic trap or in an ensemble of cold atoms trapped within an optical lattice. In both cases, different species are under consideration as possible redefinition candidates. In this paper, I consider options for redefinition, contrast the performance of various trapped ion and optical lattice systems, and point to potential limiting environmental factors, such as magnetic, electric and light fields, collisions and gravity, together with the challenge of making remote comparisons of optical frequencies between standards laboratories worldwide.