Well it's been a long weight, but on balance the results should measure up perfectly.
Weight, what? The perfect kilogram is nearly in Planck's grasp
One of the standards world's toughest nuts, how to redefine the kilogram in terms of universal constants, is close to being resolved – unless a Russian experiment in 2017 throws a spanner in the works. That's exciting for standards boffins, since it means anyone can have an accurate kilogram without having to trek to Paris for …
-
-
-
Thursday 15th October 2015 09:01 GMT Mage
Re: Heavy science
We do know the length of a Planck.
Could we thus call the Planck Interval, the thickness?
They do claim: "there is no reason to believe that exactly one unit of Planck time has any special physical significance"
and
"There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length; it is, however, a topic of theoretical research. Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is no way of examining it directly."
Possibly nothing smaller can be measured, no matter how good instruments get, unless someone invents an Heisenberg Compensator.
-
Thursday 15th October 2015 11:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Heavy science
"At least it will be a weight off everyone's mind when they have finished"
Lucky my old physics teacher is unlikely to be reading this ... as otherwise he'd be shouting "Unit! Unit! You nit!" at you while probably dispatching a well aimed piece of chalk in your direction. The kilogram measures mass and not weight!
-
Thursday 15th October 2015 14:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Heavy science
"Lucky my old physics teacher is unlikely to be reading this ... as otherwise he'd be shouting "Unit! Unit! You nit!" at you while probably dispatching a well aimed piece of chalk in your direction. The kilogram measures mass and not weight!"
...yet is presently defined by a weight.
I fancy your old master would thoroughly approve of OP and his chalk would be flying towards gay Paris.
-
Thursday 15th October 2015 14:52 GMT Patrick Moody
Re: Heavy science
The kilogram(kg) is not a measure of weight. The Newton(N) is.
"...yet is presently defined by a weight."
The weight (object) you refer to has a mass of exactly one kilogram, since it is the reference for that. It will still have that same mass, wherever it happens to be.
On Earth's surface, the weight (force of gravity) of a weight (object) with a mass of 1kg will be approximately 9.81N give-or-take depending where and when you measure it.
-
-
-
Thursday 15th October 2015 07:36 GMT Anonymous Coward
Sorry, but Russia is going to define kilogram in reference to Putin mass
Rumors says that the Russian Academy of Science will soon be asked to redefine all standards in terms of Putin dimensions. Thereby the meter will shrink to ensure Putin is 4.5 metres tall, while the kilogram will be larger to ensure he's light as a butterfly. Time will also be redefines so he's still in his twenties.
-
-
-
Thursday 15th October 2015 10:51 GMT PNGuinn
Re: What does this mean for the "Olympic Swimming Pool/Double Decker bus" standards?
"As the pool is filled with essentially water it could be defined in moles"
As opposed to non essentially water??
Why moles? are they aquatic?
How about kippers??
And BACON.
Thanks - the one with a map of Friday in the pocket.
NURSE!
-
-
Thursday 15th October 2015 13:32 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: What does this mean for the "Olympic Swimming Pool/Double Decker bus" standards?
> moles ARE aquatic, my wife has fished two out of the swimming pool! I was amazed,
> but they CAN swim.
The ones I generally see can't. Probably because they are missing major body parts (like the body) with delicate cat-gnasher marks on the remains..
-
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
Biting the hand that feeds IT
