Slashdot Mirror


Experts Suggest Replacing Definition of Kilogram

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."

8 of 844 comments (clear)

  1. Redundant definition? by Resound · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought one cc of water weighs one gram. Thus one litre of water weighs one kg. Am I wrong? This would certainly satisfy the criteria of natural phenomena vs. artifact, although I suppose that definition gets a trifle fuzzy when we start talking about measurements like picograms.

  2. Pressure by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That would work fine, and I believe was the original definition. Unfortunately, pressure has a mass component, so your definition is circular.

  3. Nope, sorry by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You'd lose mass instead.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    1. Re:Nope, sorry by MagicDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Presuming that he's never going to leave the surface of the earth, the two can be pretty much interchangable, hence the commonplace conversion of 2.2 pounds to a kilogram.

  4. Re:Nice but... by piquadratCH · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This kind of idea pops up every so often, usually doesn't pan out since it's too hard to get everyone to change.
    They only want to change the definition. One kilogram will still be one kilogram, no matter how exactly it is defined.
  5. Re:I suggest by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To a scientist or engineer it is trivial, however to a (European) cop, or to someone buying butter it is not so trivial.
    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.

  6. Re:I suggest by sholden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.


    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"?

  7. Re:It's all about the Bases by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So why do you call your superior system "base-12" as in "base-(1*10^1+2*10^0)"? Here's why: Because base-12 masochists enjoy mixing base-10 numbers with base-12 units.