<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Systematic evaluation of an atomic clock at 2e-18 total uncertainty · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1412.8261/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1412.8261/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Systematic evaluation of an atomic clock at 2e-18 total uncertainty — mentioned by rubidium</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11088545</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1412.8261:11088545</guid><pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:54:19 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Journal article (paywall): http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116... There&amp;#x27;s a team working at JILA in colorado who&amp;#x27;ve achieved something similar with Strontium: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.8261 Edit: One of the reasons to build these clocks is to find out if the fundamental constants really are unchanging. So they build two clocks that rely on different relations of fundamental constants, and see if the &amp;quot;ticking&amp;quot; of the clocks changes with respect to each other. See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.4408.pdf for info on that.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1412.8261/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.atom-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
