4 ms·
I remember that there is a problem with a better definition of a kilogram: unlike metre and second that are defined through measurable physical constants, we us
by mynegation 13y ago
I remember that there is a problem with a better definition of a kilogram: unlike metre and second that are defined through measurable physical constants, we use metallic prototype for kg. There were some attempts to define it as the mass of the precisely cut silicon sphere, but we still use the prototype.
Now the question to someone more knowledgeable in physics than me: if the described effort pans out, does that mean we can define kilogram as the mass that would accelerate at 1 m/s^2 if we apply the same force that affects two infinite wires one meter apart, with 1 ampere flowing through them?
- k33l0r 13y agoThere are efforts underway to redefine the kilogram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Proposed_future_definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram#Proposed_future_defini...
- rprospero 13y agoTo clarify slightly, the proposal wasn't to switch from defining the kilogram as the mass of one particular lump of platinum to one particular lump of silicon. Instead, the idea was to define the kilogram as the mass of a certain number of Silicon 28 atoms and use the silicon sphere to get that number as close as possible to our old kilogram. This would then allow independent scientists to make their own spheres, calculate the number of silicon atoms in the sphere, and have their own reference benchmarks for the kilo without needing to check in with Paris.
- sanoli 13y agoCan you calculate a force applied to something that's infinite? I mean, if the wire is infinite, what's it's mass? Doesn't seem plausible to me, but I'm not a physicist, so I could be talking crap here.