New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

New Results Reveal How to Build a Nuclear Clock

Nuclear clocks could shatter timekeeping records. Now physicists are learning how to build one

Illustration of a blue physics clock against a yellow background.

Thomas Fuchs

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

From satellite navigation to GPS, the world runs on ultraprecise timekeeping, usually based on atomic clocks. These devices use energy sources, such as lasers tuned to specific frequencies, to excite electrons orbiting atomic nuclei. The electrons jump or “transition” to a higher energy level before falling back down to a lower one at rapid, regular time intervals—an atomic clock's “tick.”

But even atomic clocks aren't perfect, because environmental factors can affect how electrons bounce. As our technological tools require ever more precision, physicists are devising a possible solution: move timekeeping inside the nucleus, which is insulated from such interference, by exciting protons and neutrons instead of electrons. Because protons and neutrons are relatively dense, a “nuclear clock” would require far more powerful tuned lasers—and a very particular kind of atom. Now breakthrough measurements of the isotope thorium 229, published recently in Nature, suggest that a practical nuclear clock may finally be within reach.

Whereas today's best atomic clocks lose one second every 100 million years, nuclear clocks would lose one second every 31.7 billion years (which is more than twice the age of the universe), explains the study's lead author, Sandro Kraemer. This enhanced precision could lead to advances in timekeeping, nuclear physics, and the quantum sensor technology used for satellite navigation and telecommunications. “It will instantly improve nuclear physics measurements by a [factor of a] trillion to a quadrillion,” says José R. Crespo López-Urrutia, a scientist at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, who was not involved with the new measurements.


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.


In 2003 physicists first suggested that a synthetic isotope called thorium 229 could be the key to nuclear timekeeping. Theoretically, thorium 229's nuclear particles could transition into an excited state with a uniquely low amount of energy, making it the only isotope that current laser technology could feasibly excite for a nuclear clock. “Most [elements'] nuclear transitions have very large energies in the range of thousands or millions of electron volts,” which is beyond the capabilities of even state-of-the-art lasers, says Adriana Palffy, a physicist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, who also was not involved in the new work.

In the study, a team of physicists at CERN's nuclear physics facility, ISOLDE, spotted and measured thorium 229's nuclear transition for the first time. At 8.3 electron volts, the transition would be small enough to be triggered by a specially tuned laser. Physicists are now developing lasers to make the thorium clock tick, says Piet Van Duppen, the ISOLDE team's spokesperson and a professor at the Institute for Nuclear and Radiation Physics at KU Leuven in Belgium. “Once the resonance [between thorium 229 and these new lasers] is observed,” Van Duppen says, “we will make a major leap forward.”

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