3 ms·
It’s an historical artifact, as it was easier to manufacture a reference kilogram than a reference gram. Considering today we set the kilogram by fixing the Pl
by selkin 1y ago
It’s an historical artifact, as it was easier to manufacture a reference kilogram than a reference gram.
Considering today we set the kilogram by fixing the Planck constant and deriving it from there, we can just divide each side of the definition by 1000 and use that as a base unit. Using kg as the base unit is completely arbitrary, as we can derive each unit of weight directly from the meter and the second, not from the base unit.
- mmooss 1y agoWhy not call the thing that weighs ~2.2 pounds a 'gram'?
- selkin 1y agoFor the same reason it was not renamed "Wug".
- mmooss 1y agoIt's not the same reason. Gram is already part of the nomenclature, wug is not. The change I asked about would shift the relation of the prefixes to the masses: kilogram would represent a mass 1,000 times larger than it does now.
- selkin 1y agoIt's exactly the same reason: gram referenced a known quantity. Changing it by a few insignificant digits because of the kilogram update wouldn't force people to realign their perception of it. Changing it to ~1,000 times what it used to be, or giving it a new name, would force people to realign. There's reason many people still prefer customary and imperial units, and it's not just bigotry and nationalism (even if they play a part in that preference).