Scientists vote on new way to measure a kilogram

[Jokodo]

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.


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.

And no one in the sciences is using "horsepower" anymore, at least not in the original sense of "the work that can be done by one horse". Among other things, because horses come in all sorts of sizes and strengths, so, other than giving a rough order-of-magnitude estimation, it's pretty useless.

Where it is still used, it's defined - arbitrarily - as a specific fraction of a kW; the kW in turn is derived from meter, second, and kilogram, but those again are arbitrarily defined, and always have been.

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

'We' do (or did decades ago); you and I didn't get a vote, but that does nothing to remove the arbitrariness. Unless you think the people sitting on the standards committees back then are gods.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"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 (In which case the first vote was just that - a vote, which can be later rescinded.)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.

Lol. Sometimes when people use long words they don't know what they mean

 

[lpetrich]

Now to mass. The most common premodern "natural" unit seems to have been the grain, the mass of a seed of wheat or barley or carob, with other units being multiples of it. Some early-modern rationalized systems featured some specified volume of water as their mass standards, and that is what got into the metric system.

1795: 1 gram = mass of 1 cubic centimeter of water at 0 C
1799: temperature reference changed to 4 C, where water has its maximum density
1799: 1 kilogram = mass of platinum cylinder
1889: platinum-iridium cylinder
A few days ago: in terms of length and time by fixing Planck's constant -- h

 Kilogram has a graph of how the secondary standards' masses have changed over time, relative to the primary standard's mass. Most of them have changed approximately linearly, with a range of -5 micrograms to +75 micrograms, with one of them going up to 132 micrograms -- 1.32*10^-7 of the total mass.


While the most redefinition of the meter used relativity, the most recent redefinition of the (kilo)gram used quantum mechanics, both of those early-20th-cy. revolutions in physics. They both turned Newtonian mechanics into a limiting case, and they in turn are limiting cases of relativistic quantum field theory, the paradigm that the Standard Model of particle physics is constructed in.

Newtonian mechanics has some counterintuitive features, features contrary to "intuitive physics". Features like different masses of object falling at the same rate. It's actually easy to do experiments to test that. Try dropping a book and a pen from the same height, releasing them at the same time. They will hit the floor at the same time. More massive objects are pulled down more, but they are harder to accelerate, and the two effects exactly cancel out.

Relativity has some more counterintuitive features, like the twin paradox. It has been verified with elementary particles decaying as they travel close to c, and it is also evident in the timing of GPS satellites.

Quantum mechanics has even more, like wave-particle duality and one of its consequences, the uncertainty principle. I remember a physics professor calling a photon a "blob of light" -- that's how difficult it is to picture.

 

[Speakpigeon]

AV is going to love this.

Friday's vote at the General Conference on Weights and Measures in Versailles -- which is widely expected to be approved -- is set to permanently redefine the kilogram and send the IPK into retirement.
The new definition being proposed is based on the Planck constant -- a constant observed in the natural world, which is inherently stable, according to the NPL.

Full story here -->

No, scientists are definitely not voting on a "new way to measure a kilogram".
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The Kilogram is NOT a natural phenomena that is what it is regardless of how it is defined or measured.

(...)

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.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Skepticalbip didn't say "mass isn't a natural phenomena", as you claim here.

He said the Kilogram is not a natural phenomena, and that's true. The metre, the second etc. are not natural phenomena. Like the kilogramme, they are just conventional units of measure, i.e. conventions between consenting adults.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You've gone past you sell-by date, it seems to me. Just register into a home for old folks as fast as you can.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Nah, come on, he just admitted to you he said something stupid, perhaps in a somewhat devious way, but can't you understand devious English properly? Do I have to explain everything devious to you?
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Before SI became common in magnetics different manufacturers used different systems. It was messy and error prone.

Ergs and dynes. Multiple units of force.

SI accomplished a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force)
https://www.qdusa.com/sitedocs/UnitsChart.pdf
https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy326/Units.pdf

 

[steve_bank]

Mass is a definition. Subjective qualifiers have no meaning, like the word natural.

500 years ago a king put his daughter on one side of a scale and found a rock that balanced her weight. The rock became yhe mass standard of the kingdom.

Divide the rock into sub weights. A binary weight system of weights goes back far in history. Mass standards are old in many forms.

1,2,4,6,16....for 1kg resolution.

 

[lpetrich]

The Watt balance is nowadays known as the  Kibble balance, because "In June 2016, two months after the death of the inventor of the balance, Bryan Kibble, metrologists of the Consultative Committee for Units of the International Committee for Weights and Measures agreed to rename the device in his honor."

There are two main variants of the metric system that have been used in technical work, distinguished by what units that other units are referred to. They are the centimeter-grand-second (CGS) system and the meter-kilogram-second (MKS) system. The SI (Système international: International System) is a version of MKS.

These mechanical units have CGS and MKS versions:

• Force: 1 newton (MKS) = 10⁵ dyne (CGS)
• Energy: 1 joule (MKS) = 10⁷ erg (CGS)

Others seem to have stayed CGS. Acceleration: gal, dynamic viscoscity: poise, kinematic viscosity: stokes, wavenumber: kayser. For instance, a kayser is 1/cm. However, MKS has a unit of power (energy per unit time): the watt.

Electromagnetic units are a nightmare. There have been at least four CGS-based unit systems that have been used, though only one MKS one. The three most common CGS systems have been the electrostatic, the electromagnetic, and the Gaussian, a mixture of the first two. A fourth system, Lorentz-Heaviside, is a tweak of the Gaussian one. Electrostatic units' names are the MKS ones with stat- prefixed, and electromagnetic units have ab- prefixed. However, several units have special names:

Statcoulomb = franklin, abampere = biot (electric current) = gilbert (magnetic potential), abampere/cm = oersted, abweber = maxwell, abtesla = gauss, abhenry/cm = darcy.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Kilogram is NOT a natural phenomena that is what it is regardless of how it is defined or measured.

(...)

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.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Skepticalbip didn't say "mass isn't a natural phenomena", as you claim here.

He said the Kilogram is not a natural phenomena, and that's true. The metre, the second etc. are not natural phenomena. Like the kilogramme, they are just conventional units of measure, i.e. conventions between consenting adults.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You've gone past you sell-by date, it seems to me. Just register into a home for old folks as fast as you can.
EB

I was wondering when you would show up. You are the forum expert on pedantically insisting that words must never be confused with their meaning.

The kilogram is a unit of mass. If you take "mass" out of the definition of a kilogram you render the word meaningless.

BTW - don't preach to me about quoting people correctly - you hypocrite - you added quote marks which I never used.

 

[steve_bank]

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Skepticalbip didn't say "mass isn't a natural phenomena", as you claim here.

He said the Kilogram is not a natural phenomena, and that's true. The metre, the second etc. are not natural phenomena. Like the kilogramme, they are just conventional units of measure, i.e. conventions between consenting adults.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You've gone past you sell-by date, it seems to me. Just register into a home for old folks as fast as you can.
EB

I was wondering when you would show up. You are the forum expert on pedantically insisting that words must never be confused with their meaning.

The kilogram is a unit of mass. If you take "mass" out of the definition of a kilogram you render the word meaningless.

BTW - don't preach to me about quoting people correctly - you hypocrite - you added quote marks which I never used.

Hmmm.. you buy a kilogram of potatoes are you buying mass kilograms, or matter? Can you get a bucket of kilograms or mass?

 

[bilby]

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Skepticalbip didn't say "mass isn't a natural phenomena", as you claim here.

He said the Kilogram is not a natural phenomena, and that's true. The metre, the second etc. are not natural phenomena. Like the kilogramme, they are just conventional units of measure, i.e. conventions between consenting adults.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You've gone past you sell-by date, it seems to me. Just register into a home for old folks as fast as you can.
EB

I was wondering when you would show up. You are the forum expert on pedantically insisting that words must never be confused with their meaning.

The kilogram is a unit of mass. If you take "mass" out of the definition of a kilogram you render the word meaningless are left with "The kilogram is a unit".

FTFY.

Units are arbitrary. Length can come in metres; But it can also come in light years, centimetres, inches, feet, miles, or furlongs - or any of an infinite number of other arbitrary references.

Mass can come in kilograms, grams, ounces, hundredweight, grains, daltons, or any of an infinite number of arbitrary references.

Each arbitrary reference has an equally arbitrary definition. The only important thing about such definitions is that they are agreed upon by everyone who uses that unit. Voting on which definition everybody will use is perfectly reasonable and sensible.

 

[Lion IRC]

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Skepticalbip didn't say "mass isn't a natural phenomena", as you claim here.

He said the Kilogram is not a natural phenomena, and that's true. The metre, the second etc. are not natural phenomena. Like the kilogramme, they are just conventional units of measure, i.e. conventions between consenting adults.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You've gone past you sell-by date, it seems to me. Just register into a home for old folks as fast as you can.
EB

I was wondering when you would show up. You are the forum expert on pedantically insisting that words must never be confused with their meaning.

The kilogram is a unit of mass. If you take "mass" out of the definition of a kilogram you render the word meaningless.

BTW - don't preach to me about quoting people correctly - you hypocrite - you added quote marks which I never used.

Hmmm.. you buy a kilogram of potatoes are you buying mass kilograms, or matter? Can you get a bucket of kilograms or mass?

Is a potato a physical phenomenon?

One of the most obvious ways of answering that question would be to consider if it has mass.

Folks who want to dissociate mass/weight from the inherent meaning of the word gram, are engaging in the same gobbledygook as speakpigeon's obsession over the definitional existence of infinity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Skepticalbip didn't say "mass isn't a natural phenomena", as you claim here.

He said the Kilogram is not a natural phenomena, and that's true. The metre, the second etc. are not natural phenomena. Like the kilogramme, they are just conventional units of measure, i.e. conventions between consenting adults.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

You've gone past you sell-by date, it seems to me. Just register into a home for old folks as fast as you can.
EB

I was wondering when you would show up. You are the forum expert on pedantically insisting that words must never be confused with their meaning.

Nothing pedantic in trying to teach you good English.

Confusing words with their meanings seems to me a very minor offense if it is even one.

I've never insisted on that and you sure didn't provide any quote showing that I did so you're just lying some more, which is the usual evading action taken by liars caught in the act.

What you have been guilty of here was just a pathetically careless falsehood. Skepticalbip didn't say "mass isn't a natural phenomena", as you claimed, and that's all there is to it.

It was a factual mistake, nothing like confusing words and their meanings, but apparently you're unable to understand this simple distinction. You can't even get basic facts right.

The kilogram is a unit of mass. If you take "mass" out of the definition of a kilogram you render the word meaningless.

OK, so now try to explain what that has to do with anything. You can't even think straight. There's not one line in your post which makes sense in the context. And, of course, I didn't take the meaning of the word kilogramme out of the equation. Your suggesting otherwise is just another lie by implication.

BTW - don't preach to me about quoting people correctly - you hypocrite - you added quote marks which I never used.

I was quoting you... Are you so terminally ignorant that you wouldn't know that adding quote marks is the standard way to quote people?!

I guess this only shows how urgent it is now that you should register yourself into a home for old folks. You are posting meaningless comments here and people are tempted to take them as meaning something so they take the time to reply. It's just a waste of time. Make sure you don't have any access to the Internet in your new adobe.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Hmmm.. you buy a kilogram of potatoes are you buying mass kilograms, or matter? Can you get a bucket of kilograms or mass?

Is a potato a physical phenomenon?

One of the most obvious ways of answering that question would be to consider if it has mass.

When you use complicated words such as "phenomenon" rolleyes, make sure to look it up in the dictionary because, here, you've just made an ass of yourself.

Phenomenon
1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

So, yes, a potato is a physical phenomenon and this merely by virtue of being "perceptible by the senses", which may or may not have something to do with it's having mass but which sure has nothing to do with whether we would "consider if it has mass".

Folks who want to dissociate mass/weight from the inherent meaning of the word gram, are engaging in the same gobbledygook as speakpigeon's obsession over the definitional existence of infinity.

Please quote me doing what you claim I did here, both for the word "kilogram" and the word "infinity". You seem to be unable to say anything true.

And I'm not obsessing over infinity. I'm replying to the endless stupid claims made by untermensche on infinity and on the concept of infinity.

Have you registered yourself yet?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The only important thing about such definitions is that they are agreed upon by everyone who uses that unit. Voting on which definition everybody will use is perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Personally, I use these units all the time (I weigh myself every day in kilogrammes, I measure the distance between my washing machine and the wall in centimetres and I measure my jogging performance in hours, minutes and seconds) but I don't remember ever getting to vote on anything like a SI unit. And I'm sure I would remember doing that if I had.
EB

 

[lpetrich]

 Metrication describes the history of the adoption of the metric system. It was initially pushed by the French revolutionaries, but it did not catch on very fast. Napoleon ridiculed it, but he recognized the usefulness of a well-defined system of units. He also pushed a compromise, mesures usuelles (commonly-used measures), which featured French traditional units approximated by simple multiples and fractions of metric units. Thus the toise or fathom became 2 meters and the livre or pound become 500 grams.

This compromise eventually fell out of official use, though many traditional units have survived in similar fashion. The pfund or German pound survives as 500 grams, the Scandinavian mile as 10 kilometers, etc.

The only exception is English or Imperial units. This system's inch is 2.54 centimeters, and its pound is 453.59237 grams.

That is the ordinary or avoirdupois pound. The troy pound, for precious metals and gemstones, is 373.2417216 g.

The ordinary ounce is 1/16 of an ordinary pound, or 28.349523125 g. The troy ounce is 1/12 of a troy pound, or 31.1034768 g.

For volume measure, there are three English-unit gallons. The Imperial gallon is 4.54609 liters, the US liquid gallon is 231 cubic inches or 3.785411784 liters, and the US dry gallon is 268.8025 cubic inches, around 4.405 liters.


If you want to see what the state of measurement units was like a little over 200 years ago, check out the book "The New Complete System of Arithmetic: Composed for the Use of the Citizens of the United States." by Nicolas Pike.

 

[bilby]

The only important thing about such definitions is that they are agreed upon by everyone who uses that unit. Voting on which definition everybody will use is perfectly reasonable and sensible.

Personally, I use these units all the time (I weigh myself every day in kilogrammes, I measure the distance between my washing machine and the wall in centimetres and I measure my jogging performance in hours, minutes and seconds) but I don't remember ever getting to vote on anything like a SI unit. And I'm sure I would remember doing that if I had.
EB

It's an oligarchical meritocracy, not a democracy. Only the people who use the units most often and most precisely are invited to have a say - if you write to the ICWM, I am sure they will send you a nice rejection letter

The existence of a vote does not imply the existence of universal (or even widespread) suffrage, nor of any kind of egalitarianism. The ICWM votes, and the result of that vote tells everyone else who uses the units which definition to use. It's more politburo than parliament.

I guess that if you really wanted to stand up for your democratic rights, you could come up with your own definition and use it, in place of the ICWM definition - much as the Rugby football union and Rugby football league split on the question of how the game of Rugby was defined. You can have a Speakpigeon kilogram, and use it as you please. But no matter what you do, it won't change the SI kilogram. Just as the Rugby league can declare that each team must field no more than 13 players at any time, but this has no effect on the rules of Rugby union at all.

Arbitrary is as arbitrary does.

 

[bilby]

https://www.xkcd.com/2073/

 

[lpetrich]

Why Doesn't the United States Use the Metric System? - The Atlantic

To find out, I turned to Stephen Mihm, an associate professor of history at the University of Georgia, and author of the forthcoming book, Mastering Modernity: Weights, Measures, and the Standardization of American Life.

...

Appelbaum: Much of the world started moving to the metric system in the late nineteenth century. You've written that the United States didn't follow, because of “the humble screw thread.” For want of a screw, the metric system was lost?

Mihm: Many factors played a role in frustrating the adoption of the metric system in the United States. But much of the opposition from the 1870s onward came from the manufacturers of high-end machine tools. They had based their entire system—which encompassed everything from lathe machines to devices for cutting screw threads—on the inch. Retooling, they argued, was prohibitively expensive. They successfully blocked the adoption of the metric system in Congress on a number of occasions in the late 19th and 20th century.

But given how the rest of the world has industrialized, that argument has likely become very weak. I looked for stuff on English-unit vs. metric-unit fasteners in the US, but I couldn't find any numbers for their market shares.

Why Won’t America Go Metric? - TIME Magazine

The United States is metric, or at least more metric than most of us realize. American manufacturers have put out all-metric cars, and the wine and spirits industry abandoned fifths for 75-milliliter bottles. The metric system is, quietly and behind the scenes, now the standard in most industries, with a few notable exceptions like construction. Its use in public life is also on the uptick, as anyone who has run a “5K” can tell you.

Why hasn't the U.S. adopted the metric system? | Popular Science

Even metric fans see the hassle. “Like all educated people, I just assumed it made perfect sense to go metric,” says Donald Hillger, president of the U.S. Metric Association, which was founded a century ago to promote conversion. “Now I look at it and think: ‘Exactly what am I personally going to get from this? I’m going to get annoyed.’”

Still, metric creep is already here. We buy soda by liters, machine car parts in milli*meters, and measure medicine in milligrams. “It’s going to happen,” Hillger says, “but at the rate we’re going, it will take a while.”