Few regular mortals may have heard, but the world community of time
measurement specialists will arrive today for the World Radio Conference in
Dubai. The agenda calls for discussions about the leap second, but
American time scientists are not optimistic that the conversation will yield a
result. Any proposed change would require consensus among all the attending
nations, including Russia. In other words, agreement on how to measure time at
the micro-level is no ‘slam dunk’.
Back in November, 2016, I wrote a fairly detailed blog post, i.e.
On how astronomical time is defined and how it is inextricably bound to our daily lives. However, I also pointed out by way of caution:
"In truth, the Earth's rotation rate is not stable over time, hence the lengths of time - especially the second- will be affected. "
Which leads to the development of atomic time, which I then clarified as not being subject to the variations in Earth's rotational motion. In this sense, the "leap second" has had to be added (as it turns out 27 times in the last 50 years), to compensate for the changes in Earth's rotation. Can we then say - yes we can - that many of the world's timekeepers are getting tired of it?
The introduction of the leap second in 1972 codified that a second would be introduced each time the two clocks (astronomical and atomic-cesium) diverged by more than 0.9 seconds. This had at least three aims: i) to keep time connected to the natural world and the tradition of astronomy;ii) to suit digital technology; and (ii) to reconcile and synchronize the two clocks.
This was ok, sort of, until the turn of the century when new problems arose. To wit, big technology companies (like Google, Amazon, Meta-Facebook) developed their own methods for reconciling astronomical and atomic time, essentially bypassing the leap second. Meta, for instance, “smears” the leap second in millisecond increments across a 17-hour period, rather than leaping abruptly.
Alas, this has led to a literal timekeeping free-for-all and threatening uniformity. In addition, we have the Brits still adamant that losing the leap second would disconnect official time from the ancient traditions of astronomy and eventually lead to the pre-eminence of lab-created atomic clocks. After all, Britain controls Greenwich Mean Time (what is now Coordinated Universal Time), an astronomical clock that is determined by averaging the position of the Sun over the year. (See the photo of me at top of post standing on the Greenwich Meridian).
Over the last decade, a major reality check has entered. Namely that the growing challenges of implementing the
leap second have prompted a willingness to change the current system. A sea change occurred last November when the
member states of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures declared it
was ready to explore alternatives to the leap second. No proposal was adopted,
but the ground was laid for considering options, like scrapping the leap second
or relaxing the relationship between astronomical and atomic time.
His concern is that “eliminating the idea could create some uneasiness, as humans feel connected and want to remain connected to the natural world.” Also: “Men look to the sky and count days; this is something ‘unspoken’ but deep in the heart of men.”
Rev. Paul Gabor's opinion is valid and is supported by Dr.
“The public has this great distrust of scientists as people who propose something that seems to go against common sense,”.
In the case of this Dubai conference we will have to wait and see what the final consensus is, and hope that it conforms to common sense and doesn't violate it. At least not beyond the breaking point!
See Also:
Tackling Simple Astronomy Problems (5): Astronomical TimeKeeping
No comments:
Post a Comment