BE alert and alarmed - history is in the making. Blink and you'll miss it. At exactly 56 seconds past 12.34pm today, the digital time will be 12:34:56-7/8/9.

Miss the numerical nuance and it won't come again for another 81 years, the Herald Sun reports.
But while setting an alarm for 12:34 might appeal, not everyone thinks this time's worth the effort.
Numerologists say it's no big deal and our official time lords, the National Measurement Institute, will barely give it a second's thought.

The Watch and Clockmakers of Australia (incorporating the Horological Guild), though, doesn't need any winding up.
Its state secretary, John Mohan, said the special second was quite fascinating."It's quite unique. I'll definitely be watching it," Mr Mohan said.

"We've got our AGM coming up next week and they'll all be talking about it, for sure. "It's those sort of things myself and other members are quite interested with. "Maybe they'll have it up on the big screen at Federation Square?"

In the US, where they write months and days the wrong way around, the magic moment came on July 8. A YouTube video of it happening drew almost 1200 comments. Some were already looking forward to the next, even better one, in 2090, when a final zero will follow the nine. Dr Bruce Warrington, the scientist in charge of Australia's best and official clock, isn't too fussed about today's moment in time.

His caesium atom-based atomic clock at the institute is a $100,000 job accurate to one second in 30,000 years.

Dr Warrington's magic moment comes every 18 months or so when a leap second is added to reconcile its accurate clock with the earth's haphazard rotation. He says he won't be wasting time clock-watching at 12:34. "It's not particularly special for us because every time, for us, is special," he said.Melanie Evans from Visionary - the Spiritual Institute of Australia - said from a numerologist's perspective, it was a second-rate second.

"It is quirky, it is different, it is unusual," she said. "But from a numerological point of view, er, no."