Experts Suggest Replacing Definition of Kilogram 844
fenimor writes "The kilogram is the only one of the seven basic units of the international measurement system defined by a physical artifact rather than a natural phenomenon. International team of scientists suggest replacing the kilogram artifact -- a cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy about the size of a plum --with a definition based on one of two unchanging natural phenomena, either a quantity of light or the mass of a fixed number of atoms. They propose to adopt either one of two definitions for the kilogram by selecting a specific value for either the Planck constant or the Avogadro number."
News Why? (Score:0, Insightful)
Redundant definition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pressure (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm not really math is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
"or the mass of a fixed number of atoms" (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the motivation for the change? The mass of subatomic particles have been given in kg for over a century. What exactly needs a more precisely reference of measurement? Physicists use their own units when it's convenient anyway. . . .
Re:Redundant definition? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anyone Else? (Score:1, Insightful)
I was going to be nice to you up until this sentence - if you want to suggest that someone is stupid, can you at least be sure that you're not wrong? Many posts have replied with the appropriate info (not to mention that you *did* pass grade school, did you not - if so, how can you *not* know that the gram is defined in terms of the kilogram?)
In any case, is this just typical Wes Janson stupidity?
Re:That'll really help... (Score:2, Insightful)
So a change in the kilogram automatically affects the pound.
However, when they do make this change, it will not be a "modded" kilogram. It will be the same mass as before; it's just that it will be possible (ultimately) to measure it much more precisly and time-invariantly (as the standard is losing mass over time).
Re:Nice but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just wait. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pressure (Score:2, Insightful)
Still Kg? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nope, sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there actually a method of directly using these definitions?
My thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
But I thought (Score:2, Insightful)
You'd certainly think that reading all the hype on this bbs.
Remeber this article the next time a English/metric debate comes about. There is nothing inherently better about either system. That argument being nullified, should we switch based on the rest of the world? That is the only valid argument.
Don't start your argument, thought process, or comment with the mistaken common wisdom of "Everyone knows metric is better...."
And while I am ranting, but not quite as obvious, I don't want to hear 'I know what a kilometer is, I don't know what a mile is...' If you can pace off one, you can pace off the other. You certainly don't have an inborn sense of what a kilometer is anymore than you have an inborn sense of the mass of a plum sized chunk of some alloy.
Neither system is anymore natural than the other, get off your high horse and make a rational comment (unlike this rant
Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I suggest (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:"or the mass of a fixed number of atoms" (Score:3, Insightful)
Why use its known mass, of course! Then divide by 0.198078 (if it were pure platinum)/6.022E23 and take the nearest integer.
It doesn't really matter that there might plausibly be more or less atoms. Just find a number, suitably truncate it, and declare all subsequent decimal places to be zeros.
Isn't this exactly what happened with regards to the meter? "Hmm... speed of light is about 299,792,458 meters per second... well, instead of measuring this funky rod anymore, let's just say that it's 1 second of light movement long."
I'm proposing we do the same thing with this block that we did with the rod.
Lets say someone disputes the mass of a kilogram at the 10^-8 digit:
I presume you mean decimal place. Well, that's easy. A kilogram weighs 1.00000000kg. There you go, 1kg to the eight decimal place.
Not only is this inconvenient, but if someone has polished it or even 1 pg of dust has fallen on it, the precise weight is no longer repeatable, and is a ludicrous basis for measuring the mass of subatomic particles.
That's just silly. We've never weighed out the block to the precision of picograms. Yet, somehow we still relate measurements on the picogram scale, don't we? The weight of the actual block is only definite to about 2 micrograms.
All that's really important is to have a defined conversion from whatever more useful units you're using.
In the same way, I can give you an accurate description of the length of a cesium nucleus in furlongs. Furlongs, obviously, were not in their origination a very precise unit of length at all. But since there is a standard conversion (1 furlong = 201.168 meters) any measurement I give you in furlongs is as good as a measurement given in meters--as long as we agree on the conversion factor.
Here's the crux of it all: pretty much all measurements of particle mass are computed in energy (electric volts), chemistry is done in atomic mass units, and there are various other specialized units that are always cropping up. When you see a particle mass or some such given in kg, it is infallibly a conversion from these other units. As long as we agree on the conversion factor we are going to use between kg and some mass unit dependent on c, it is as good as defining kg on c in the first place.
I might go so far as to say that, even if we don't agree, it doesn't particularly matter. Honestly, the only reason we ever give the mass of an electron in kilos is because Joe Schmoe wants to know how much an electron weighs compared with how much he weighs.
Re:I suggest (Score:1, Insightful)
There are two common systems of units, mks ... and cgs ... . The mks system is now more often referred to as the SI. ... In any case, what you're referring to is utterly trivial and/or irrelevant ...
To a scientist or engineer it is trivial, however to a (European) cop, or to someone buying butter it is not so trivial. Reporting the perp's weight in grams would not be sound practice. For everyday use the base unit needs to be visualisable/imaginable on a human scale.
Half a kilo of butter, or a pound of butter is a reasonable purchase. Grams just don't cut it. What am I getting if I ask for 80 grams of salami? Well I guess I can visualize it and some Europeans buy it that way, but the average everyday user of a measuring system is nearly innumerate. They want to buy one or two or maybe a half of something.
One of the nice things about the British system of measurement (which pretty nearly only the Americans use officially, though with a few changes) is that the units are exactly the sort of thing you often want about one of. A pint of beer, a gallon of kerosene, a bale of hay, a pint of milk if you live alone or a quart or a gallon depending on the size of your family, half an acre of land, etc. (yes, yes, I don't think a bale is an Imperial measurement).
The metric equivalents never seem to be just right, but we'll just have to live with them
Re:I suggest (Score:3, Insightful)
The topic of the article is only relevant to scientists -- to a very, very small set of scientists who do certain types of high-precision work. The redefinition of the kilogram they're talking about would be utterly inconsequential to everybody else.
Re:I suggest (Score:2, Insightful)
You can still use kilos... using grams as the base unit does not completely eliminate kilos from the face of the earth.
What am I getting if I ask for 80 grams of salami? Well I guess I can visualize it and some Europeans buy it that way, but the average everyday user of a measuring system is nearly innumerate. They want to buy one or two or maybe a half of something.
Uh... if you need to buy eighty grams, then you'd have to say something like 2/25ths of a kilo. It's actually easier to use grams in that example. Also, if you ever need eighty grams of salami, you could just ask for one medium-thickness slice. Thus, we should use the slice of salami as a SI unit rather than the gram or the kilo. Wait, that wouldn't work...
'The moon wieghs the same as thirty-two billion slices of salami...'
Well, whatever. I say we just use them interchangeably.
Re:I suggest (Score:5, Insightful)
Half a kilo of butter, or a pound of butter is a reasonable purchase. Grams just don't cut it. What am I getting if I ask for 80 grams of salami? Well I guess I can visualize it and some Europeans buy it that way, but the average everyday user of a measuring system is nearly innumerate. They want to buy one or two or maybe a half of something.
Do you think European cops say "I'm in pursuit, west bound on Main, at 33m/s"? Or do you think they might stuff using base units and say 120km/h?
Do you really say things like "It's a 100000m drive" and "I'll meet you there in 2700 seconds"?
Re:How about ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyways, it's one thing for a watch manufacturer to achieve a certain accuracy. It's another thing when you are trying to transfer a satellite from high earth orbit into an elliptical sun orbit to intersect neptune or a KBO. The accuracy requirements for making certain burns to change trajectory, or making a control movement of the momentum wheels is another thing. Or in a particle accelerator, when to activate certain portions of the cyclotron, etc.
These definitions are for the purposes of science and technology. A company can offer a service where they dumb down the definition for the public.
Re:I suggest (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole reason we (countries that use rational measurement systems)have standard prefixes is that we can use appropriate units and avoud huge integers or fractions in common usage. I don't know why you think this is difficult. Would you prefer to be using pounds, shillings and pennies instead of dollars and cents -- that was one reform the US did before most other countries. So do you say "80 cents" or "eight-tenths of a dollar" (or 16 shillings)? And unless you're buying in bulk, most food is bought in quantites (or units) less than a pound, let alone a kilo. That's why you use ounces, by the way. Three ounces is about 80 gm. At the deli, most food here is labelled as price/100gm (cheese, ham, etc); a the butcher and green grocer it's mostly by the kilo. It makes things a lot simpler to just multiply weight in kilos by price in dollars/kilo.
The metric equivalents never seem to be just right, but we'll just have to live with them
After a few months you adjust. Australia went metric when I was at primary school.
Re:I suggest (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the fact that you are in bound by the laws of physics which state that on a certain (very low) level you have a certain uncertainty (sic) when you reach into "quantum level", one could argue that, in fact, 0.1111111...1111[something] for as many times you can until you hit that treshold times 9 does indeed NOT equal 1.
Re:I suggest (Score:2, Insightful)
=Smidge=
Re:It's all about the Bases (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A kilogram is not abitrary. (Score:3, Insightful)
The definition was originally that a kilogram was the mass of one litre of pure water at 4 degrees Celsius and standard athmospheric pressure, but that is a circular definition, as the definitions of the SI units for pressure depends on mass.
As a result a kilogram is now the mass of the kilogram artefact - if the artefacts changes mass, it still remains 1 kilogram
You're from the west, aren't you? (Score:2, Insightful)