"Do you have a minute?" That's what we used to say when the person we were accosting was in a rush.
That notion of a very short time was reduced, not long ago, to the split second, which was defined by New York Traffic Commissioner T.T. Wiley in 1950 as "the time between the light turning green and the guy behind you honking."
Of late, the word used to denote an extremely short time -- something that takes place quick as a flash, faster than a speeding bullet, with greater alacrity than greased lightning and far faster than the old, slow blink of an eye -- is a "nanosecond." With its prefix rooted in the Greek nanos, "dwarf," that word zipped past "millimicrosecond" in 1958 as the metric system became dominant, to become the word that filled the desperate need for "billionth of a second."
Scientists often wrote it as one over 10 to the ninth power, and in 1965, W.H. Auden seized "nanosecond" from the scientific world and juxtaposed its tininess with another word in a poem: "Translated in a nano-second/To a c.c. of poisonous nothing/In a giga-death." That was quite a poetic stretch: from "nano-," very small, to "giga-" (from the Greek for "giant"), which has ballooned past "super-" and "mega-" on up to what dress manufacturers call "plus size."
That was the state of play in the size game until the numeral "billion" lost its zing. To federal budgeters and to media-merger moguls, a billion dollars ceased to be a big deal (which sapped all the irony out of Senator Everett Dirksen's "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.") In the same way, a "billionth" ceased to be so infinitesimal to squinting scientists. In both directions, up and down, prefixes for 10 to the ninth power didn't quite do it.
Which brings us to this item from a press release put out by Nature magazine, which some of us read avidly to elevate our metaphoria. (That word, coined just now, means "extremely high euphoria," but falls well short of "gigaphoria.")
"Scientists have measured the shortest time interval ever," the magazine reported that researchers had reported. "Ferenc Krausz and colleagues used short pulses of laser light to watch an electron moving around inside an atom, and were able to distinguish events to within 100 attoseconds -- that's a 10-million-billionth of a second." For those of us unable to grasp hairsplitting that thin, Nature explained: "Imagine stretching 100 attoseconds until they lasted for one second -- on the same scale, one second would last for about 300 million years."
Do we really need this measurement? You bet we do. "It takes an electron about 150 attoseconds to `orbit' around the proton at the center of a hydrogen atom," noted Nature. "Opening up the attosecond timescale could therefore provide new insights into the incredibly fast processes of the atomic world."
The greatest geniuses on earth apparently inundated the Nature boys with a collective "Hunh?"
Soon after that, there came this clarification: "In the press release sent out by Nature on Thursday entitled `How Long Is an Instant?' there was some ambiguity concerning the wording re: the length of 100 attoseconds. To clarify: `100 attoseconds' is equivalent to a 10-million-billionth of a second."
I can't hang around counting up to 100 of those lethargic little dinguses, but I take my hat off to the magazine's editors for moving briskly to prevent the extrapolation of error. (Only last month, I attributed a quotation to Vermont Royster that belonged to Bernard Kilgore: "If I see `upcoming` in the paper again, I'll be downcoming and someone will be outgoing."
I got a lot of incoming from Wall Street Journal friends about that, which forces me to be so forthcoming.)
But here we are down to the very instant of instantaneous. To nuclear scientists, the language must be tasked to keep pace with their progress: "Itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny" doesn't cut it anymore.
When you hear someone say, "Not in a nanosecond," you are now equipped to respond, "In an attosecond." But you might be interested in something slower. Other prefixes are at hand: "tera-," from the Greek for "monster"; "peta-," 10 to the 15th power; "zetta-," from the Latin for "seven" (standing for the seventh power of 10 to the third, or a sextillion, a rather large zettabyte) -- I could go on.
And will. Perhaps you recall TV's Jerry Seinfeld saying, "Yotta, yotta, yotta," rooted in Lenny Bruce's "yadda-yadda-yadda" in the '60s, to indicate an interminable continuation of blather. This could be influenced by the Greek "okto," "eight," and the eighth power of 10 to the third equals 10 to the 24th, or one septillion -- leading to "yottabyte" or "yottasecond."
What large point am I making in this measurement of the infinitely small or incomprehensibly huge? It is that the language is ready for anything.
No breakthrough in genetics or astronomy or math or physics is too big or small or complex to resist nomenclature. You find it or invent it or measure it, we'll name it. With Walt Whitman, the language sings, "I am large -- I contain multitudes."
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under