Cited by 57Advanced Frequency and Time StandardsScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationRelativity and Gravitational Theory

The relativistic redshift with 3 10 17uncertainty at NIST, Boulder, Colorado, USA

Open access
Pavlis, Nikolaos K, Weiss, Marc A·2003·Metrologia

Abstract

We have estimated the relativistic redshift correction due to gravity, necessary to reference to the geoid the measurements of the new frequency standards at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, USA, using a new local survey and various methods and models. We referenced the frequency offsets computed from different methods to the same geoid surface, one defined with respect to the current best estimate of an ideal mean-Earth ellipsoid. The new fractional frequency results are (1) −1797.61 × 10 −16 , based on the global gravitational model EGM96; (2a) −1798.72 × 10 −16 , based on the regional, high-resolution geoid model G96SSS; (2b) −1798.49 × 10 −16 , based on the regional, high-resolution geoid model G99SSS; and (3) −1798.91 × 10 −16 , based on the value for the geopotential number provided in the National Geodetic Survey's data sheet for the NIST reference marker. The minus sign implies that clocks run faster in the laboratory in Boulder than a standard clock located on the geoid. The values from (2b) and (3) are expected to be the most accurate and are also independent. Based on these results, we estimate the frequency shift at the reference point at NIST to be −1798.7 × 10 −16 , with an estimated standard uncertainty of ±0.3 × 10 −16 .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0026-1394/40/2/311

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pavlis, N. K., & Weiss, M. A.
Affiliations
  • Raytheon (United States) (US)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Venue
Metrologia
Published
2003-04
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
66-73
ISSN
  • 0026-1394 (ISSN-L)
  • 1681-7575
OpenAlex
W2170877339
Cited by
57
References
16
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Metrologia (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Frequency and Time Standards
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Relativity and Gravitational Theory
Keywords
relativistic redshift, gravitational frequency shift, geoid, frequency standards, atomic clocks, geopotential, geoid model, EGM96

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review