New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

How does one arrive at the exact number of cycles of radiation a cesium-133 atom makes in order to define one second?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Donald B. Sullivan, a physicist and chief of the time and frequency division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, explains.

When the cesium second was defined in 1967, it was based on a measurement of the number of cycles of the radiation from a particular cesium-133 transition with reference to the second commonly used in civilian timekeeping, which at that time was based on astronomical observations. The objective was to improve the stability of timekeeping in a manner that would be invisible to the general population. The decision to redefine the second was ultimately that of the International Committee of Weights and Measures, an organization that works to standardize and coordinate measurements. At its 13th official meeting in 1967, the committee adopted the following definition: "The second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom."

In making this decision, the committee relied primarily on a measurement first reported in 1958 that compared the cesium transition frequency to the second of ephemeris time, which is defined by the orbital motion of the earth about the sun. A collaboration between the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in England and the United States Naval Observatory (USNO) produced the measurement. Louis Essen of NPL had just developed the world¿s first reliable cesium-beam atomic clock, and William Markowitz of USNO had developed a moon-position camera that provided a way to easily access ephemeris time, something that had been previously very difficult to do.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For years prior to this measurement people had recognized that the earth¿s motions were not sufficiently predictable for highly accurate timekeeping, and alternatives based on atomic clocks were under study. Harold Lyons and his collaborators at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) (now renamed the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)) made one of the first accurate assessments of the cesium frequency relative to earth-based time in 1952. The cesium-beam standard used for this measurement could be operated for only short periods, so the uncertainty of Lyon¿s measurement was too large for it to serve as the basis for a new definition.

NPL holds the distinction of developing the first operational cesium-beam atomic clock. Essen received funding for his clock project in 1953 and had a very reliable version running within two years. In a collaboration between Essen and Markowitz, the relative durations of the astronomical and atomic (cesium) seconds were measured over an averaging time of 2.75 years with a final determination that the cesium frequency was 9,192,631,770 ¿ 20 Hz. The definition of the second accepted internationally uses the exact number produced by this measurement. It is interesting to note that the timing comparison across the Atlantic Ocean was made using a method based on simultaneous reception of the shortwave time signals broadcast by the NBS radio station WWV, which was then located on the east coast of the United States.

The story of these measurements is nicely detailed in Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time, by Tony Jones (Institute of Physics, 2000). The report on the measurement of the cesium frequency appeared in Physical Review Letters, vol. 1, p. 105, 1958.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe