Roundest Object In the World Created 509
holy_calamity writes "An international research group has created the most perfect spheres ever made, in a bid to pin down a definition of the kilogram. It should be possible to count exactly the number of atoms in one of the roughly 9cm silicon spheres to define the unit. Currently the kilogram is defined only by a 120-year-old lump of platinum in Paris, but its mass is changing relative to copies held elsewhere. Other SI units have more systematic definitions."
anyone (Score:3, Insightful)
gravity? (Score:1, Insightful)
Doesn't gravity's effect imply that a perfectly round object could only exists in "gravity-free" (outer) space?
Re:Wishing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what kind of ero-manga you've been reading (Ok, perhaps I do...), but real boobs aren't spherical. Especially not ones that would be anywhere near being considered 'perfect'.
Cleanroom? (Score:5, Insightful)
The picture in the article shows the sphere being handled in what obviously isn't a cleanroom. Won't that mess up its surface?
Re:Wishing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do however, wish to go on the record that I fully support scientific efforts to find/create the perfect breasts
If all women had scientifically 'perfect' breasts then those perfect breasts would get pretty boring, unless the scientific process took into account many different factors and created different breasts for each person. I think 'perfect' is all down to personal preference.
There is beauty in many different breast shapes, though everyone will have their preferences. I think any slashdotter with access to any kind of breasts would be pretty happy. Apart from the female ones, they probably aren't too fussed.
Re:pi (Score:4, Insightful)
Pi describes an idealized construction. Physical manifestations are imperfect to the extent that they don't match pi, not the other way around.
Re:Is crystal growth really the reason why? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the mass of a sphere containing (x) atoms of silicon-28 isn't the same as the mass of (insert favorite shape here) containing (x) atoms of silicon-28, we've got problems...
Re:Wishing... (Score:0, Insightful)
Only on Slashdot would some pathetic explaination - off topic at that - of the nuances of Japanese porn get a +5 informative mod. Please folks, you can jack off to Japanese porn comics all you want, but don't try to make it seem sophisticated.
Re:Cleanroom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wipe it off with some kleenex.
Different kind of "balls", so what works for you won't work for them.
And you call yourself a man! (Score:3, Insightful)
If all women had scientifically 'perfect' breasts then those perfect breasts would get pretty boring
Where has your penis gone? Breasts getting boring? What kind of silly, nonsensical, jibber-jabber is that?
Breasts NEVER get boring! I love my wife's breasts as much today as the day I married here!
Actually, come to think of it, it'd be pretty awesome for all women to have the same sized breasts. That's a whole level of insecurity that men wouldn't have to deal with any longer.
Re:manufacturing problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, well, if I remember physics at all, gravity would be an even bigger bitch to measure. Really, it's a very weak force. It only does anything measurable for _huge_ masses. You know, stars, planets, etc. The space curvature is observed around stars and the like. Measuring it around a 1 kilo sphere, well, you're probably worse off than counting atoms.
Plus, if you think about it, it also doesn't help that we're already in a huge gravity well. So it's a bit like measuring the brightness of a lightbulb, near the Sun. At the very least, the measurement would be pretty darn anisotropic, so to speak.
Plus, I'm guessing that even if you had the accuracy to measure the deviation around a 1 kilo sphere and somehow compensated for the Earth's gravity well, the table you're measuring it on weighs more. The building you're in weighs hundreds of tons. And depending on where you measure it, you might have a mountain nearby.
Not saying it wouldn't be theoretically possible. Just pretty impractical at our tech level.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is exactly precisely what they are trying to do.
They are not making a physical standard. They are attempting to get away from one. The desire is to specify a kilogram as a specific number of a specific type of atoms, but what is that number? In order to do that, they need to create something that both:
1. has a measureable mass that is equivalant to the current kilogram to the _greatest_ precision it is possible to measure with todays equipment. (with a fair amount of leeway)
2. has the property that you can accurately determine the number of atoms in it to the limits of the above precision.
if _either_ of those is off then you could end up with the situation that the 'new' kilogram and the 'old' kilogram are actually different values! Even though you might think the differences are to such a small degree it doesn't matter. Imagine something like using that one famous equation E = mc^2. suddenly those minor differences turn into kilotons of yield of error :)