Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-cp4x8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T12:04:29.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Accurate Is the Standard Second?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Eran Tal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrary to the claim that measurement standards are absolutely accurate by definition, I argue that unit definitions do not completely fix the referents of unit terms. Instead, idealized models play a crucial semantic role in coordinating the theoretical definition of a unit with its multiple concrete realizations. The accuracy of realizations is evaluated by comparing them to each other in light of their respective models. The epistemic credentials of this method are examined and illustrated through an analysis of the contemporary standardization of time. I distinguish among five senses of “measurement accuracy” and clarify how idealizations enable the assessment of accuracy in each sense.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 5 , December 2011 , pp. 1082 - 1096
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I am indebted to Judah Levine, David Wineland, Till Rosenband, and their colleagues at the Time and Frequency Division at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for valuable discussions. My visit to NIST in summer 2009 was made possible with kind help from Ian Hacking and Allan Franklin as well as a travel grant from the University of Toronto. I am also grateful to Margaret Morrison, Ian Hacking, Anjan Chakravartty, Marcel Boumans, Stephan Hartmann, Carlo Martini, Isaac Record, Paul Teller, Jonathan Weisberg, and several members of the audience at the Philosophy of Science Association meeting for helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article.

References

BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Measures). 2006. The International System of Units (SI). 8th ed. Sèvres: BIPM, http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/.Google Scholar
Boumans, Marcel. 2007. “Introduction.” In Measurement in Economics: A Handbook, ed. Boumans, Marcel, 3–18. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
CGPM (Conférence Général des Poids et Measures). 1961. Proceedings of the 11th CGPM. Sèvres: CGPM, http://www.bipm.org/en/CGPM/db/11/6/.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, Peter. 2003. Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's Maps: Empires of Time. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gerginov, Vladislav, Nemitz, N., Weyers, S., Schröder, R., Griebsch, D., and Wynands, R.. 2010. “Uncertainty Evaluation of the Caesium Fountain Clock PTB-CSF2.” Metrologia 47:65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, G. 1994. “The Third Periodic Verification of National Prototypes of the Kilogram (1988–1992).” Metrologia 31:317–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, Graeme J. N. 2004. The Morals of Measurement: Accuracy, Irony, and Trust in Late Victorian Electrical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JCGM (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology). 2008a. Evaluation of Measurement Data—Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. Sèvres: JCGM, http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html.Google Scholar
JCGM (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology). 2008b. International Vocabulary of Metrology. 3rd ed. Sèvres: JCGM, http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html.Google Scholar
Jefferts, Steven R., et al. 2002. “Accuracy Evaluation of NIST-F1.” Metrologia 39:321–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferts, Steven R.. 2007. “NIST Cesium Fountains—Current Status and Future Prospects.” Acta Physica Polonica A 112 (5): 759–67.Google Scholar
Krantz, David H., Luce, Duncan R., Suppes, Patrick, and Tversky, Amos. 1971. Foundations of Measurement. vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul A. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Tianchu, et al. 2004. “NIM4 Cesium Fountain Primary Frequency Standard: Performance and Evaluation.” In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 702–5. Piscatawny, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
Lombardi, Michael A., Heavner, Thomas P., and Jefferts, Steven R.. 2007. “NIST Primary Frequency Standards and the Realization of the SI Second.” Measure: Journal of Measurement Science 2 (4):74–89.Google Scholar
Michell, Joel. 1994. “Numbers as Quantitative Relations and the Traditional Theory of Measurement.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45:389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, Thomas, et al. 2001. “First Comparison of Remote Cesium Fountains.” In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium, 63–68. Piscatawny, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
Rosenband, Till, et al. 2008. “Frequency Ratio of Al+ and Hg+ Single-Ion Optical Clocks: Metrology at the 17th Decimal Place.” Science 319:1808–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Simon. 1992. “Late Victorian Metrology and Its Instrumentation: A Manufactory of Ohms.” In Invisible Connections: Instruments, Institutions and Science, ed. Bud, Robert and Cozzens, Susan, 23–56. Cardiff: SPIE Optical Engineering.Google Scholar
Swoyer, Chris. 1987. “The Metaphysics of Measurement.” In Measurement, Realism and Objectivity: Essays on Measurement in the Social and Physical Sciences, ed. Forge, John, 235–90. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Woodward, Jim. 2006. “Some Varieties of Robustness.” Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (2): 219–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar