Live data from Hacker News

International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

npl.co.uk

111–120 of 589 posts

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#111

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll type on HN. In university I just gave up trying to understand why we even needed the Avogadro constant / mole as a fundamental constant. It still confuses me. Why have a difference between molar mass and mass? Why couldn't it just be "1" and everything else change around it?

In my opinion it is because a mole is a numerical amount of atoms vs the mass of the substance, so it makes reactions, formulas, and measurements easier to determine. Avogadro's number is useful just as a baseline to use (number of carbon-12 atoms in 12 grams of carbon-12), like there are 12 inches in a foot or 100 centimeters in a meter...

... except if you take 6 two-inches you'll see something different than 12 one-inches. Our universe is weird. Defect of mass and stuff

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#112
post #83

How would you use the new definition to calibrate instruments? My current understanding is that there is a lineage of artifacts calibrated against another artifact until one of those was calibrated against the one true artifact. So how would NIST or another certifying source say that my 1kg standard is 1kg +/- tolerance? Is it anyone with a kibble balance can now certify calibrations? How do you know your kibble bala…

Don't miss the video for the DIY Lego watt balance.

https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/nist-do-it-yourself-kib...

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#113
post #96
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, a week can roughly be approximated as 10k minutes (with an error of less than 1%).

And a year is PI * 10^7 seconds (within 0.5%).

That's because the Earth's orbit is within 0.5% of a perfect circle.

(Just kidding.)

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#114

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll type on HN. In university I just gave up trying to understand why we even needed the Avogadro constant / mole as a fundamental constant. It still confuses me. Why have a difference between molar mass and mass? Why couldn't it just be "1" and everything else change around it?

Understanding mass in molar terms is necessary to do a lot of chemistry correctly. The mole is effectively a count of the number of molecules kicking about, although the count is large enough that terms like "quadrillion" don't cut it. (One mole is about 600 sextillion molecules). Knowing how many molecules are around lets you actually compute how much stuff can react in a given chemical environment, and other aspects of chemistry end up being pretty related to molecule counts. Vanilla mass doesn't cut it since an atom of iodine weighs about 6.6 times that of fluorine but can still only react with one other molecule.

The flip side is that the molecular count is less useful to us in the everyday world. We can gauge the weight of a kilogram much more than we can gauge a septillion molecules. And if we're trying to figure out how much stuff a shelf can hold before it collapses, it's the weight that matters, not the actual molecular count. (Note for pedants: in the familiar environment of Earth's surface, mass and weight can be treated as the same quantity in most cases.)

So mass and molecular count are both very important quantities that have importance in different fields of science, and they don't have a trivial relationship to each other. Avogadro's constant and molar mass is a way to express their relationship.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#115
post #83

How would you use the new definition to calibrate instruments? My current understanding is that there is a lineage of artifacts calibrated against another artifact until one of those was calibrated against the one true artifact. So how would NIST or another certifying source say that my 1kg standard is 1kg +/- tolerance? Is it anyone with a kibble balance can now certify calibrations? How do you know your kibble bala…

Essentially this brings it one more step away from using another artifact for calibrating things. Instead this lets us define the kilogram against what we believe are universal constants, in this case properties about the electromagnetic force.

It's much simpler to understand looking at it with a watt balance, even though it's not going to be as precise or accurate as a kibble balance [1]. Basically now anyone with access to a kibble balance and the right set of numbers/information can make an exact 1kg object.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQkE8t0xgQ

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#116

This is probably the dumbest thing I'll type on HN. In university I just gave up trying to understand why we even needed the Avogadro constant / mole as a fundamental constant. It still confuses me. Why have a difference between molar mass and mass? Why couldn't it just be "1" and everything else change around it?

The one that made it click for me as incredibly useful was Avogrado's Law (now part of the Ideal Gas Law):

> Equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules.

This law, for example, explains why hot air rises. Take two equal quanties of the same gas at the same pressure. They will have the same volume. Now, heat one quantity of gas. By this law, that gas will have a larger volume at the same pressure. Because it has the same amount of mass distributed over a larger volume, it must be less dense. Therefore, it rises.

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#118

So...How many Planck's is one Kilogram then? >The mass of the international prototype of the kilogram m(K) is equal to 1 kg within a relative standard uncertainty equal to that of the recommended value of h at the time this Resolution was adopted, namely 1.0 × 10-8 and that in the future its value will be determined experimentally, Is the Planck simply the most standard deviation the kilogram can stray from now?

This wikipedia section breaks down the new definition nicely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redefinition_of_SI_base_units#...

It is still not apparent to me. Is a kilogram of something now it's joules x seconds or something? Does the kilogram now vary depending on what the kilogram is of? Like, is a kilogram of Iron a different mass from a kilogram of Aluminum?

>The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.62607015×10−34 when expressed in the unit J⋅s, which is equal to kg⋅m2⋅s−1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and ΔνCs.

So mass is now some sort of length times a given elapsed time?

Re: International System of Units overhauled in historic vote

#120
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They really should cut the middle man. What surprised me reading that wiki page is that apparently the metric system was opposed in the US based on religious reasons . That is mind-boggling.

Is there any compelling reason why the US should switch to the metric system for daily use? Metric is already used universally in science and engineering, which seem to be the main fields in which consistency across countries matters. I completely agree that in physics, chemistry, engineering, medicine, etc., it is important to use standard units. But what harm is it doing in practice if in everyday life, Americans s…

Why should there be any separation between science and daily life?

Think about it not for the benefit of the current generation who would be forced to burden the switch, but for the next generation who could reap the benefits.

I think one issue is that by growing up with US units and then using a second system for science and engineering, it can make American students studying those topics feel like they are in an unfamiliar territory and interfere with their intuition. Most will eventually overcome this through practice and become fluent in both systems, but it's still a barrier. Science becomes a Special Discipline requiring Special Language different than what your family uses at home. Like if all science were still done in French or Latin, and you needed to study those to read a paper.

Until you have met people who grew up abroad measuring their height in cm and their weight in kg, preparing food from recipes listing ingredients in grams and mL, to whom those units are completely natural for daily life and are also the same ones they use at work when designing machines and filling test tubes, it's easy to feel that US units simply "are" the units suitable for daily life, as though that were a universal truth and not just a local cultural oddity.

Not to mention the massive net costs of having suppliers worldwide making extra sets of almost identically sized components that nonetheless aren't interoperable. Screws with 3 mm and 3.175 mm diameter, etc.

Post reply on HN