@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 9 months agoScientists are hoping to redefine the second – here's whytheconversation.comexternal-linkmessage-square61arrow-up1265arrow-down113
arrow-up1252arrow-down1external-linkScientists are hoping to redefine the second – here's whytheconversation.com@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 9 months agomessage-square61
minus-squaresnooggumslinkfedilink32•9 months agoMost likely indirectly, like how GPS has to account for satellites not matching the passage of time on earth due to relatively.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish14•9 months agoYou can now be more accurately late for work. Or your coffee is more accurately taking a long time to come out.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish10•edit-29 months agoIf they can predict earthquakes and eruptions more accurately, as suggested in the article, then yes for all the people who don’t die.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish5•9 months agoI better not have to buy a new watch because of this.
Would this affect our lives on Earth?
Most likely indirectly, like how GPS has to account for satellites not matching the passage of time on earth due to relatively.
You can now be more accurately late for work. Or your coffee is more accurately taking a long time to come out.
If they can predict earthquakes and eruptions more accurately, as suggested in the article, then yes for all the people who don’t die.
Relativistically.
I better not have to buy a new watch because of this.