Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Thursday October 15 2015, @09:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the about-the-same-as-a-bag-of-sugar dept.

For decades, metrologists have strived to retire ‘Le Grand K’ — the platinum and iridium cylinder that for 126 years has defined the kilogram from a high-security vault outside Paris. Now it looks as if they at last have the data needed to replace the cylinder with a definition based on mathematical constants.

The breakthrough comes in time for the kilo­gram to be included in a broader redefinition of units — including the ampere, mole and kelvin — scheduled for 2018. And this week, the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) will meet in Paris to thrash out the next steps.

“It is an exciting time,” says David Newell, a physicist at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland. “It is the culmination of intense, prolonged efforts worldwide.”

[...] In 2011, the CIPM formally agreed to express the kilogram in terms of Planck’s constant, which relates a particle’s energy to its frequency, and, through E = mc2, to its mass. This means first setting the Planck value using experiments based on the current reference kilogram, and then using that value to define the kilogram. The CIPM’s committee on mass recommends that three independent measurements of Planck’s constant agree, and that two of them use different methods.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday October 16 2015, @06:46PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 16 2015, @06:46PM (#250750) Journal

    No, the definition was not acceptable, as the density of water changes with temperature. Now I guess "mass of 1000 cm^3 of water at a temperature of 4°C" would have been acceptable but impractical, as back then you couldn't produce water at a temperature of 4°C whenever you want, as the refrigerator had not yet been invented.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2