How much is a kilogram? Depends on your 'Planck constant'

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-science-kilogram/how-much-does-a-kilogram-weigh-depends-on-your-planck-constant-idUKKCN1NL272
archive.fo/gcTFt


This is a huge advancement in the accuracy of physical measurements. The International Prototype Kilogram has been diverging from it's original mass since it was set as a standard 1875.

Moar sores
time.com/5457165/kilogram-definition-history/
archive.fo/FOsBJ

Attached: s4.reutersmedia.net.jpeg (640x427, 25.6K)

a kilo is defined by how much weed I buy in a yr

Three grams per day? You're a fucking savage.

proof that imperial measurements are the only ones worth having

Imperial units are defined in term of metric units. That's right, burgers are so backwards, they adopted metric, and then added their retarded measurement system of sticks and stones back on top of it.

and metrics are defined by imperial

In what way are metric units defined by imperial?

America doesn't use imperial. Even if it did, what you said would still be incorrect. Where do you hear this stupid shit?

You silly git.

Attached: europoor space program.jpg (480x360, 29.18K)

Ah dun get it, wha is mo? a kilogramme a steel a fethas?

you're an idiot.


so are you.

>>>/reddit/

bitch ass imperial measurements are beyond autistic ameribro

Bumping real news.

k

Too bad it cant can't change our utilization of fiat that's purchasing power has nothing to do with a correlative quantification of products. I reckon them scientists and big wigs got us covered though.

Can we have a non-base-10 system sometime?

Do you have 12 fingers or what?

...

What you just implied is that you're incapable of short term memory involving numbers, and thinking in abstractions, which means you are unintelligent.

In all seriousness, instead of getting into the traditional, "HURDUR, AMERICANS ARE SO DUMB, IMPERIAL SYSTEM," how about suggesting ways that they can easily change their system?

You know, constructive criticism.

…how much more accurate is this system compared to the older one? As in, if I do laser interferometry now with this system, how much will my error bars be reduced?

Changing systems was pointless to begin with. And the more computation is done by actual computers, the more pointless it becomes.

I smoked a kilo at burning man 2016.

Degenerate.

Mass =/= weight.

/thread


*sip*

...

I got mad thrussy too, you mad poorfag?

They say "weigh" because :
1) Shitty popsci journalism never gets their terms right
2) The only way for us to measure the mass of the prototype is to measure the force earth's gravitational field exerts on it. From that we can use a known value of Earth's gravitational field at that point to find a true value for mass. Said mass has been diverging for years due to atomic decay among other factors.
This divergence in mass causes the prototype to not "weigh" the same every time it's measured.

Accuracy is not the issue, it's reproducibility. You know how when you read up some monetary amount like 100$ from 30 years ago you first have to run that value through an inflation calculator to know how much that is in current-year dollars? This is the same problem the old kilogram was facing.

The kilogram was defined in terms of the mass of a physical object. Whatever the mass of that object is, that's one kilogram. If you build a new measuring device you have to get out the object and use it to tune your measuring device. But if the true mass of a kilogram is changing, then you can no longer assume that a value you measured thirty years ago carries the same mass as an identical value you measure today.

Due to this reason the kilogram has now been re-defined in terms of a physical constant. The new value is so close to the original that there is practically no difference for most applications. The re-definition was needed to make sure the values stop diverging even further in the future.

Just standardise it to the atomic mass of the bar and measure it as if it were in a vacuum. Mass of a non-isotopic object doesn't change just because dust fell on it or the temperature changed slightly, that's fucking retarded. Why would you ever remeasure a model or gauge that's supposed to remain constant? It's a constant. All that's going to do is open the door for measuring errors that change your model randomly, and then what? Are you going to go back and revise all the numbers for everything you've ever measured, change your math, rewrite everything over this .00000001% of difference from fucking dust? No, you won't, so this changes nothing. You idiot.

You're trying to act intelligent but all this does is make you look like an unscientific moron, no different than the people acting like this article says anything of substance or like it will make any meaningful difference in the future of science. This is a non-problem being vaguely reported as a big deal to stroke the egos of normalfags who don't actually understand the subject and have never had to do anything in STEM fields themselves. Nothing more, nothing less. Even needing a physical model of a measurement is anachronistic and senseless given our modern understandings of what mass actually is, we can set those amounts without having to rely on other measurements for arbitrary comparison.

But you wouldn't comprehend that, would you?