• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Scientists vote on new way to measure a kilogram

Now to the mole. I don't have in mind a small burrowing animal or metaphorical extensions like a tunneling machine and a spy who hides in an organization for a long time. Or a dark spot on one's skin. Or a wall in a body of water for protecting a harbor. I mean a gram molecular weight.

Take how many atomic mass units a material's molecules weigh and use that as its number of grams. Chemists like that quantity, because substances react molecule by molecule.

To get from atomic mass units to grams, one uses Avogadro's number, about 6.02*1023, also called Avogadro's constant. One gram = (Avogadro's number) * (one atomic mass unit). It was named after a certain Amedeo Avogadro, because in 1811, he proposed that every gas at some pressure, volume, and temperature has the same number of component parts (atoms or molecules).


The story starts with the discovery of the law of definite proportions. It states that some mixtures of elements occur in well-defined proportions, while others do not. Though noted by Joseph Priestley and Antoine Lavoisier before him, Joseph Proust stated it explicitly in 1794, noting experiments on rusting metals. Oxygen will dissolve in water in varying proportions, but it makes iron rust in constant proportions.

John Dalton expanded on this distinction, coming up with the first rigorous atomic theory in 1804. He proposed that compounds of elements consist of a small number of atoms of each element, and he proposed a table of relative atom masses, atomic weights. In his honor, the atomic mass unit is sometimes called the dalton, especially by biochemists. Hemoglobin, for instance, has four parts that each weigh 16,000 daltons, to make a total of 64,000 daltons.

In his table, hydrogen was 1 and the others were integer multiples. But his table contained some mistakes, like saying that oxygen is 8 rather than 16, because he believed that water is HO rather than H2O. This led to Prout's hypothesis, proposed by William Prout in 1815 and 1816, that hydrogen atoms are a fundamental constituent of matter. But some atomic weights turned out to be rather far from integers, like chlorine's at 35.45, and hydrogen itself made elements like carbon and oxygen seem a bit lighter than integer values.

In 1903, Wilhelm Ostwald proposed setting oxygen = 16. Hydrogen was 1.008 and carbon very close to 12. But in 1932, oxygen was discovered to be composed of isotopes, leading to a split between the physical standard of oxygen-16 = 16 and the slightly heavier chemical standard of (natural mix of oxygen isotopes) = 16. This discrepancy was officially resolved in 1961, by making carbon-12 exactly equal 12.

Prout's hypothesis itself was half-vindicated by the discovery of electrons, nuclei, protons, and neutrons, and discrepancies in measured masses were successfully explained by isotopic composition, binding energies of nuclei, and the nucleons themselves having slightly unequal masses.

As I write this, Avogadro's number was officially fixed today, making the mass of the carbon-12 atom in amu's a measured quantity again.
 
So all the SI units are now either dimensionless or defined in terms of other SI quantities, with one exception: time. That quantity has been the most precisely-measured physical quantity for all of humanity's history, and I'm sure, prehistory, and the present day is no different.

The day, month, and year were all defined using the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. The hour was originally defined as 1/12 of daytime and 1/12 of nighttime, but the development of mechanical clocks in the late European Middle Ages forced the redefinition of the hour as 1/24 of an entire daytime-nighttime cycle. Such clocks also led to the marking out of smaller units of time, the pars minuta prima (first small part or minute), 1/60 of an hour, and the pars minuta secunda (second small part or second), 1/60 of a minute. The second turned out to be close to the limit of human time perception, which is why no pars minuta tertia was then defined.

Away from the equator, because of the Earth's axial tilt, daytime and nighttime vary in length over the seasons, becoming a half-year daytime and a half-year nighttime at the poles. The total daytime-nighttime cycle or plain day varies much less in length. But that axial tilt makes the Sun alternately fast and slow over the year by a few minutes, as does the Earth's orbit eccentricity. That led to the definition of a "mean solar day" that is some 365.25 of the year. It is actually 365.242197 relative to the equinoxes, the "tropical year" and 365.256360 relative to the stars, the "sidereal year". The difference is because of the Earth's spin precession.

By the first half of the twentieth century, it became evident that the Earth's rotation has tiny irregularities. This could be shown by looking at the (apparent) motions of the Moon and the Sun and the other planets. They seemed to be fast and slow by the same amounts at the same times. So in 1952, the International Astronomical Union agreed to use the Earth's motion around the Sun as a time reference, giving "Ephemeris Time". The Earth's rotation continued to be used for "Universal Time", and that rotation's irregularities are taken into account with leap seconds.

A decade later, for the first time in human history, clocks were successfully made more precise than astronomical measurements. Though clocks had been made better and better, astronomical measurements were also done better and better, and in the 1960's, clocks finally won. So in 1967, the second was redefined in terms of the frequency of the hyperfine transition of cesium-133, and "atomic clocks" using those Cs-133 spin flips are nowadays used as the primary time standard, International Atomic Time (TAI, from French temps atomique international). Atomic clocks are so good that the clocks used as time standards can measure the effects of elevation -- about one part in a trillion. So since 1977, TAI is referred to the Earth's mean sea level, or geoid.

Super precise clocks have a practical application: satellite navigation, like with GPS satellites. These satellites broadcast precisely-timed signals, and their receivers compare the signals that they receive to work out the receivers' positions. They are so precise that they must be run a tiny bit slow to compensate for relativistic effects (GPS and Relativity). The satellites' motions slow them down by 7 microseconds per day, and their being in a higher gravitational potential speeds them up by 45 microseconds per day, giving a net speedup of 38 microseconds per day -- all relative to Earth-surface observers.

The next step may be to related time to visible-light frequencies, but I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.
 
I don't think you know what science is.

Actually, I'm starting to think YOU don't know what science is.

If there is a more scientifically accurate (empirical) way to determine/define a mass called "The Kilogram" you don't vote on the validity of using that method. It either IS or it is not.

I accept that politicians (or church officials) might want to put it to the vote after a lengthy debate. But surely 100% of scientists looking at the same repeatable, empirical data should laugh out loud if asked - do you think we should decide this by secret ballot.

It is more about repeatability of a base unit than accuracy. A lilogram is an arbitray stansard that at one point there was a consensus on the standard. A chucnk of metal in Paris. The American standard was compared to the paris standard. As Ipetrch sad the Paris standard is corrupted by contamination.

Now a mass standard exists that is not subject to change, It will be same wherever it is set up.

Same with length, the meter. It is no longer a physical solid object that is referenced as a standard.

All standards are arbitrary. The issue is when the standard is created in a lab anywhere what is the variation from system to system, such as the second and the meter.

When I worked in a RADAR lab we had a portable secondary atomic time standard. It generated a 10 megahertz signal that could be divided down to a second or smaller. Its accuracy was traceable to the national time standard.

It is all arbitrary. The length of your erect penis in principle could be made a length standard. The International Lion Penis. It would mean people from around the world would came to create their own standard penis from your penis by physical comparison. Get the picture?
 
"Friday's vote has permanently redefined the kilogram..."

This is plainly false.
You cannot "vote" for some definition to be permanent unless there is a corresponding option to vote that it NOT be permanent. (In which case the first vote was just that - a vote, which can be later rescinded.)

You keep on talking about arbitrary/subjective definitions but there is nothing arbitrary about accuracy.
 
"Friday's vote has permanently redefined the kilogram..."

This is plainly false.
You cannot "vote" for some definition to be permanent unless there is a corresponding option to vote that it NOT be permanent. (In which case the first vote was just that - a vote, which can be later rescinded.)

You keep on talking about arbitrary/subjective definitions but there is nothing arbitrary about accuracy.

You seem awfully confused over what this is about. The Kilogram is an arbitrarily selected reference standard for measuring the mass of anything being studied. The Kilogram can be defined as anything as long as those who use it agree on what it is. The Kilogram is NOT a natural phenomena that is what it is regardless of how it is defined or measured.
 
"Friday's vote has permanently redefined the kilogram..."

This is plainly false.
You are right - a better word might be 'indefinitely'. There's no intention nor reasonable expectation that the change will be reverted. But the only constraint against doing so is that the new definition is more convenient than the old.

It's a permanent change, in the same sense that my change in transportation was permanent when I sold my old car - technically it's possible that one day I will track down that exact vehicle and buy it back from its then owner, but that's so implausible that the use of the word 'permanent' is justified, if not completely precise.

But thank you for that incredibly pedantic nitpick. It does nicely illustrate that you have no substantive arguments to put forward.
You cannot "vote" for some definition to be permanent unless there is a corresponding option to vote that it NOT be permanent. (In which case the first vote was just that - a vote, which can be later rescinded.)

You keep on talking about arbitrary/subjective definitions but there is nothing arbitrary about accuracy.

That's plainly false. Accuracy implies conformity to a standard. By setting a standard that defines (arbitrarily) the exact value of a physical constant, accuracy can be made easier to assure.

The speed of propagation of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum (aka 'speed of light') is a good example. it's exactly:
299 792 458 m.s-1
No matter what observations or measurements anyone makes, by (arbitrary) definition, a photon in a vacuum travels that many metres in the time taken by:
9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom at 0K.

These arbitrary but perfectly precise numbers are now able to be used with absolute understanding by any scientific researcher. Nobody reads a paper that discusses the relationship of some observation to the 'speed of light' and has to wonder how fast that actually is - it's defined to perfect accuracy.

The exact length of the metre is not known - but these definitions allow us to measure it to an arbitrary degree of precision - no matter how good our measuring instruments become, there will be no confusion about the length of the metre due to the possibility of a variation in the speed of light, or of the duration of a second.
 
"Friday's vote has permanently redefined the kilogram..."

This is plainly false.
You cannot "vote" for some definition to be permanent unless there is a corresponding option to vote that it NOT be permanent. (In which case the first vote was just that - a vote, which can be later rescinded.)

You keep on talking about arbitrary/subjective definitions but there is nothing arbitrary about accuracy.

You seem awfully confused over what this is about. The Kilogram is an arbitrarily selected reference standard for measuring the mass of anything being studied. The Kilogram can be defined as anything as long as those who use it agree on what it is. The Kilogram is NOT a natural phenomena that is what it is regardless of how it is defined or measured.

Kilo - 1000
That sure sounds empirical. Do we vote on whether 1000>999?
Are you one of those 2+2=5 for extremely high values of 2 type people?

Gram - are seriously claiming that mass and gravity are not physical phenomena?
 
You seem awfully confused over what this is about. The Kilogram is an arbitrarily selected reference standard for measuring the mass of anything being studied. The Kilogram can be defined as anything as long as those who use it agree on what it is. The Kilogram is NOT a natural phenomena that is what it is regardless of how it is defined or measured.

Kilo - 1000
That sure sounds empirical. Do we vote on whether 1000>999?
Are you one of those 2+2=5 for extremely high values of 2 type people?

Gram - are seriously claiming that mass and gravity are not physical phenomena?

So it is more than "seem awfully confused". You demonstrate that you don't have a clue what this is about.

Try to think a bit... What is a gram? Where did the definition of "gram" originate? What would it mean if those who originally defined "gram" had defined it otherwise or even if they had chosen a different mass to call a gram?

There is no such physical thing thing as a gram. It is only a unit of measurement. There is only physical things that we use the unit of measurement, gram, to describe. Mass is a property of matter but the gram is not. Grams are just standard units we use to describe the mass. A gram is not influenced by gravity any more than an inch is but some physical object that has a mass of a gram or is an inch long would be.
 
Last edited:
You seem awfully confused over what this is about. The Kilogram is an arbitrarily selected reference standard for measuring the mass of anything being studied. The Kilogram can be defined as anything as long as those who use it agree on what it is. The Kilogram is NOT a natural phenomena that is what it is regardless of how it is defined or measured.

Kilo - 1000
That sure sounds empirical. Do we vote on whether 1000>999?
Are you one of those 2+2=5 for extremely high values of 2 type people?

Gram - are seriously claiming that mass and gravity are not physical phenomena?

Kudos. Your steadfast stubbornness in being wrong and refusing to ever learn anything is a sight to behold.
 
You seem awfully confused over what this is about. The Kilogram is an arbitrarily selected reference standard for measuring the mass of anything being studied. The Kilogram can be defined as anything as long as those who use it agree on what it is. The Kilogram is NOT a natural phenomena that is what it is regardless of how it is defined or measured.

Kilo - 1000
That sure sounds empirical. Do we vote on whether 1000>999?
Are you one of those 2+2=5 for extremely high values of 2 type people?

Gram - are seriously claiming that mass and gravity are not physical phenomena?

Kudos. Your steadfast stubbornness in being wrong and refusing to ever learn anything is a sight to behold.

What?

skepticalbip said imagine would it mean if those who originally defined "gram" had defined it otherwise. Zhe said it (mass) isn't a physical phenomena.
:eek:

Since when is physics not about natural physical phenomena?

When James Watt used the relative term horsepower as a common denominator to help people grasp the comparison between how much work a steam engine could do, he didn't ask people to vote on his experimental data.

We don't vote on how many foot/pounds of work per hour equal 1 kW
 
Kudos. Your steadfast stubbornness in being wrong and refusing to ever learn anything is a sight to behold.

What?

skepticalbip said imagine would it mean if those who originally defined "gram" had defined it otherwise. Zhe said it (mass) isn't a physical phenomena.
:eek:

Since when is physics not about natural physical phenomena?

You are still continuing to ignorantly confuse physical mass with the non-physical units (grams) we use to describe that mass
 
Kudos. Your steadfast stubbornness in being wrong and refusing to ever learn anything is a sight to behold.

What?

skepticalbip said imagine would it mean if those who originally defined "gram" had defined it otherwise. Zhe said it (mass) isn't a physical phenomena.
:eek:

Since when is physics not about natural physical phenomena?

You are still continuing to ignorantly confuse physical mass with the non-physical units (grams) we use to describe that mass
You are still continuing to ignorantly confuse words with their actual meaning.

Fixed
 
You are still continuing to ignorantly confuse words with their actual meaning.

Such as? Teach me.

I have tried unsuccessfully to explain to you the difference between the physical mass of an object and the units we use to describe that mass. I promise to be a better student than you and try to learn the meaning of words you think that I am confused about.
 
Last edited:
Turning to length, numerous units of length have been used over the millennia, many of them derived from human body parts. Finger, inch (thumb), palm, hand, foot, cubit (elbow to outstretched middle finger), fathom (span of outstretched arms), pace (length of a walking step). The mile got its name from an ancient Roman unit of distance, mille passuum (thousand paces), defining a pace as two steps instead of one.

The first known standardized length unit was the Pharaonic Egyptian royal cubit, and several standard cubit rods have survived. Over the centuries, people in different places developed numerous local and regional standards. Seemingly universal units like the foot or the cubit got lots of local and regional values. In early modern Europe, that became rather annoying, and various people proposed various rationalized systems. The French revolutionaries supported a rationalized-units effort that became the metric system. The meter (or metre) has gone those these definitions:

1798: 1/10,000,000 of the distance between a pole and the equator of the Earth
1799: a platinum bar
1889: a platinum-iridium bar at 0 C
1927: clarified: on two rollers, at 1 atm
1960: a multiple of the wavelength of a certain electronic transition of krypton-86
1983: in terms of time by fixing the speed of light in a vacuum -- c

Fixing c is justified because it is related to the geometry of space-time, and because time is the most accurately measured quantity.
 
Kudos. Your steadfast stubbornness in being wrong and refusing to ever learn anything is a sight to behold.

What?

skepticalbip said imagine would it mean if those who originally defined "gram" had defined it otherwise. Zhe said it (mass) isn't a physical phenomena.
:eek:

Since when is physics not about natural physical phenomena?

When James Watt used the relative term horsepower as a common denominator to help people grasp the comparison between how much work a steam engine could do, he didn't ask people to vote on his experimental data.

We don't vote on how many foot/pounds of work per hour equal 1 kW

Physics 101. Work, energy, and heat all have the same unit, the Joule in Systems International. Power in watts, another SI unit, is Joules/Second. Power is rate of change of energy.

Work in Joules = force x distance = Newton x Meters.
(Newton x Meters)/seconds = watts.

Normalize to kwh.

The SI definitions are used to answer the question you ask. Google NIST SI Units and navigate to the complete list of units.

foot pounds is largely obsolete. Newton Meters. Until SI became adopted as a standard there was ponds force and pounds mass which was dimensionally confusing.

1 horsepower = 746 watts. A messy conversion when dealing with American engines and electric motors. In Europe engines are rated in watts.
 
"Friday's vote has permanently redefined the kilogram..."

This is plainly false.
You cannot "vote" for some definition to be permanent unless there is a corresponding option to vote that it NOT be permanent. (In which case the first vote was just that - a vote, which can be later rescinded.)

You keep on talking about arbitrary/subjective definitions but there is nothing arbitrary about accuracy.

Accuracy in measurement or metrology relates to say how close your meter stick is the standard meter.
The meter standard is a definition which when measured as a primary standards has an uncertainty inherent to the standard's lab set up.

To the unitiated accuracy, resolution, and uncertainty may seem comnfusing.

You can stretch out ypor arms and declared that a length standard. Or you can use number of wavelngths of a frequency of light.

Both are arbitrary. Using light is easier to reproduce.
 
You are right - a better word might be 'indefinitely'.
No, i think 'permanently' makes perfect sense.
I mean, as opposed to a trial basis, say for a year, but not to be updated in textbooks until a permanent change is implemented,
or a local change, maybe only in America with the permanent change delayed until the trial results are reviewed,
or a change only for a particular field, like geology, space fuel calculations, medical treatments, or the sale of brown-sugar-based confections in street cafes on East-West thoroughfares, with everyone else sticking to previous standards until a permanent change to the standard is approved.

Of course, that would be weird, like the way gold ingots are measured by different ounces than lead ingots.
So everyone, all at one time, shifts entirely to the new standard, so no one has to submit a term paper or a survey with an appendix breaking down academic vs. radioactive source grams, or if the grams of the medicine are different from the grams of the applicator...
 
All this redefinition is all very precise and informative.

Yet with all this redefinitions I will still weigh too much. :(

What i need is a redefinition that will make me weigh less. :dancing:
 
Kudos. Your steadfast stubbornness in being wrong and refusing to ever learn anything is a sight to behold.

What?

skepticalbip said imagine would it mean if those who originally defined "gram" had defined it otherwise. Zhe said it (mass) isn't a physical phenomena.
:eek:
Sure, mass is a physical phenomenon.

It just doesn't come in kilograms. Nor for that matter in pounds.

There may or may not be a smallest possible unit of mass, of which all masses are an integer multiple (at least in a resting reference frame - due to relativistic mass gain, this would lead to contradictions when applied without exception), but that, if it exists, is so small as to be useless for all practical purposes.

Just like we use 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom at 0K for the second as the base unit of time (rather than 1 such period, as that would be a rather unhandy unit due to its shortness), and just like we use 1/299 792 458 of the distance a photon travels in vacuum in that time for the meter (rather than the distance it travels in one second, unhandy for most uses by non-astronomers due to being so big, this time), we arbitrarily have to pick a value for the unit of mass.

Whether that unit is 1294877664558412565414785244774587521 or 1294877664558412565414785244774592147 of those hypothetical smallest-mass-units makes no difference, as long as everyone is talking about the same kilogram.
 
Back
Top Bottom