Slashdot Mirror


Kilogram Reference Losing Weight

doubleacr writes "Ran across a story on CNN that says the "118-year-old cylinder that is the international prototype for the metric mass, kept tightly under lock and key outside Paris, is mysteriously losing weight — if ever so slightly. Physicist Richard Davis of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres, southwest of Paris, says the reference kilo appears to have lost 50 micrograms compared with the average of dozens of copies.""

8 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. Sublimation? by Eustace+Tilley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Could it be a few atoms drifting off in the vapor? Well, why wouldn't the copies' atoms be drifting off as well?

  2. Possible reason? by robably · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe it's because of where they weighed it - the strength of gravity is not the same all over the planet, and I'm guessing it can change in one place over time due to the movement of the Earth's outer core and give a different result.

  3. The Faster We Go, The Rounder We Get by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By Relativity, we must all be accelerating. How much more energy in the universe does 1:1E9 extra mass represent? Since that's probably more than in the equivalent 50ug, there's probably mass missing from all over the place.

    Who's converting our extra mass to energy? This great criminal must be found before we all blueshift past the event horizon!

    Or, this is just the greatest museum heist Paris has ever seen.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  4. Re:The metre must be shrinking then... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, that might be possible.
    Light speed is not constant in a gravitational field, if some of the other posters are correct and the kilogram has changed because of a localised gravitational shift, then its possible that the definition of a metre could also have changed..

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  5. Re:They should redefine a kilogram by Falladir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure that the reason this hasn't been done is that G is not known precisely enough. It's an ironic state of affairs: of all the universal constants, G was the first to be identified (by which I mean that its significance was understood) and measured, and remains the least precisely known.

  6. Re:Inertia by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting
  7. Re:The Kilogram is not losing weight by FrangoAssado · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not an issue, as the average rates of naturally occurring isotopes in the universe is already known (hence the non-integer masses in periodic tables).

    Just a small nitpick: that's not the only reason for non-integer masses in periodic tables. When neutrons and protons come together in an atom nucleus, their mass change, and a corresponding amount of energy (E=m*c^2) is released or absorbed. For example, while the atomic mass of Carbon-12 is 12, the atomic mass of Hydrogen-1 (only one proton) is a little over 1.

    In effect, that's how nuclear bombs work: when the nucleus of an atom of plutonium breaks up, the mass of the resulting pieces is less than the mass of the original nucleus; the difference is released as radiation and heat.

  8. The funniest part by aepervius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is that the pouind is defined as 1/2.2 Kg. In other word the two last country of earth resisting the introduction of SI, are using SI as reference.... It might be old news for many here, but I can't stop laughing at the irony.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org