252
Scientists are hoping to redefine the second – here's why
(theconversation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
252 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
59414 readers
1231 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is this like when they made the kilogram some function of the speed of light instead of the weight of a metal ball in a French museum?
They linked the kilogram to the gravitational force.
It's part of an effort to clarify how we define things. We're now trying to link our recorded units to the basic forces they are related to. So now, the kilogram is defined by the gravitational force, the meter by how fast light travels, etc etc
The kilogram is defined as the mass equivalent of a photon of a specific energy via the Planck constant h thus linking the speed of light and the frequency of the hyperfine level of caesium-133. The relative uncertainty of the measured value of the gravitational constant G is 10^-5 which would lead to a definition of the kilogram that has a worse relative uncertainty than using the former definition defined via an international prototype. The Wikipedka article is more detailed than this short summary.
So yes?
TiL
I knew about redifining the kilogram as it's related to gravity beforehand
But not the next part about kg and photons and planck etc etc. I learned all that just now by reading a response to my comment
I genuinely did not know about the relationship to light until just now.
So, yes. But again, your comment alone didn't help me understand about the relationship beforehand. I wasn't sure what you meant at all, so just responded with my understanding of it
I misread that as "meat ball", and now I'm kind of disappointed that we don't use meatballs as a standard unit. "I'm 6 meatball subs and 3 balls high", "The yacht is about 18 giant party subs long", etc.
Unfortunately this is a bit like the imperial system where you get multiple units of measurement. There is the standard foot-long, which is twelve inches, and there is the $5 foot-long™, which is only 11 inches
Which is also further befuddled by bragging teenage boy foot long which is around 5"
Not exactly. The kilogram was redefined in a fundamentally different way, moving from an artifact, which will change with time, to a fundamental property of nature, that as far as anyone knows, will be the same at all times. The second was already defined in such a way. Any such definition still requires some sort of measurement though to get something usable. Different ways of measuring the same type of definition can be more precise, and in this redefinition they think they've found a more precise method that works in the same fundamental manner. Both measure the oscillation rate of atoms, but the proposed element is thought to give better precision.