Talk:Ytterbium
Add topic | Ytterbium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Relevance to quantum computing
[edit]Two companies have stated publicly that ions of ytterbium form the active elements of the qubits in their quantum computer designs. This style of a qubit is called a trapped ion qubit, and quantum computers based on this design are commonly referred to as trapped ion quantum computers. This contrasts with the superconducting qubit designs contemplated by most other companies that are doing work in this area.
The two companies are Honeywell (e.g. this Honeywell press release) and IonQ (e.g. this IonQ press release).
It's worth mentioning because of the significant popular interest in quantum computing. I have always failed to live up to Wikipedia's quality standards when I make edits myself, though, so I've decided I have to leave the edit itself to others.
"Ytterbium dodecaboride" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ytterbium dodecaboride and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 21#Ytterbium dodecaboride until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Isnt this the "wrong" way around?
[edit]"In 2013, ytterbium clocks held the record for stability with ticks stable to within less than two parts in 1 quintillion (2×10−18)"
Uhhh, shouldn't the exponent be +18 rather than -18? When you talk about stability of "within x parts in y", isnt x the small one, and y the big one? Wouldnt 10^-18 be a quintillionth rather than quintillion? 2001:8003:E46B:3E01:9585:270F:4188:FE74 (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- It is correct, just like 2 parts in a thousand would be 2×10−3 = 0.002. Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Uhhh, no, you are mixing up phrases, incorrectly. Using your example, "2 thousandths" would indeed be 2x10^-3 == 0.002. But "2 parts in a thousand" (and yes, that is the same thing) is 2 in 10^+3. The key word there is "thousand" not "thousandth". 2001:8003:E46B:3E01:50EB:1D5D:55B5:4BBD (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- 2 parts in a thousand means: out of a thousand parts, you take 2. So it is 2⁄1000 of the whole. Just like 2 parts in a hundred is 2 percent: out of a hundred parts, you take 2. 2% = 2⁄100 = 0.02 = 2×0.01 = 2×10−2. Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. The exact wording matters. But life is too short. Get some other opinions. 2001:8003:E46B:3E01:799F:CF2C:7D15:7DF8 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- I reworded this section based on the source. A bigger problem with the stability description is the meaning of "tick". Each tick appears to be a trillionth of a second. And the clock is stable to within a second over the age of the universe. Lots of very large / small numbers: the content is muddy. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- No. The exact wording matters. But life is too short. Get some other opinions. 2001:8003:E46B:3E01:799F:CF2C:7D15:7DF8 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- 2 parts in a thousand means: out of a thousand parts, you take 2. So it is 2⁄1000 of the whole. Just like 2 parts in a hundred is 2 percent: out of a hundred parts, you take 2. 2% = 2⁄100 = 0.02 = 2×0.01 = 2×10−2. Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Uhhh, no, you are mixing up phrases, incorrectly. Using your example, "2 thousandths" would indeed be 2x10^-3 == 0.002. But "2 parts in a thousand" (and yes, that is the same thing) is 2 in 10^+3. The key word there is "thousand" not "thousandth". 2001:8003:E46B:3E01:50EB:1D5D:55B5:4BBD (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Unsourced content
[edit]This edit adds unsourced claims. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability this content must be sourced. I ask @Burzuchius to undo the revert, add a source, or build consensus that this content does not need to be sourced. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- It appears that they added a source in the revert. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)