[time-nuts] The forbidden question

[Bill Beam]

You will have an answer if you can answer the question:
"Why is an optical microscope needed when unaided vision is good enough?"
My PhD is in high energy particle physics ca 1966.
This is not intended to be 'Dismissive and/or snarky'.
Your statement "Dismissive and/or snarky replies will be deleted unread." has a logic issue....
Regards (73)

On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 12:43:04 -0400, William H. Fite wrote:

>Warning: Potentially heretical material below

>Let me begin by saying I am neither an engineer nor a time expert. My PhD
>is in statistics and my spouse's PhD is in theoretical computer science,
>working on quantum computer algorithms. Neither of us claims any special
>expertise when it comes to time and frequency measurement. I am a radio
>amateur and I came to this group following a recommendation from John
>Ackermann, who very kindly answered some questions for me regarding the
>amateur radio frequency measurement test. I thoroughly enjoy the dialogue
>here and I think that I have learned a bit about the subject though, by any
>standard of this group, I am the rankest newbie.

>My question is a serious one. I am not trolling, nor am I trying to begin
>an argument, nor am I implying criticism of anyone or any endeavor, here or
>elsewhere.

>What useful purpose, if any, is served by the continuing evolution of
>clocks like NIST-F2 that now achieve accuracy along the lines of one second
>per many billions of years? Are there tangible benefits to be had? I
>consulted an astronomer friend who advised that the current generation of
>clocks would allow a suitable space vehicle to plant a probe squarely in
>the middle of Alpha Centauri, if rocket technology existed to do so. We
>have many friends in the academic computer science community who say that
>neither conventional nor quantum computers that exist at present or in the
>projectable future require anything like this kind of accuracy.

>By no means am I questioning the value of new knowledge qua knowledge. For
>theoreticians like the one to whom I am wedded, no justification is needed
>beyond the words of mountaineer George Mallory: "Because it's there." I'm
>sure that engineers and scientists in the field of time and frequency
>measurement feel the same. From that perspective, there need be no
>rationalization beyond the desire to do it just a little better than it has
>been done.

>Please don't lecture me about the value of science for its own sake. My
>career has largely been built on that principle. I'd like to be informed as
>to present or anticipated applications that require such accuracy. Are we
>developing these incredible devices just to push boundaries? Or do they
>have some practical purpose?

>I'll appreciate thoughtful answers. Dismissive and/or snarky replies will
>be deleted unread.

>Thanks for your help.


>-- 
>Homo sum humani a me nihil alienum puto.
>_______________________________________________
>time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at lists.febo.com
>To unsubscribe, go to http://lists.febo.com/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts_lists.febo.com
>and follow the instructions there.


Bill Beam
NL7F