rpgamer Posted November 17, 2018 Posted November 17, 2018 Article Linkage From what I've read, it sounds like they've had to round off or fudge a couple other numbers to do so. (the Planck constant, elementary charge, Boltzmann constant, and the Avogadro constant). Which, while those were all known to a pretty high decimal count, hadn't previously been strictly defined as constant. And, it hurts my soul a little that they've had to settle on redefining them for the sake of nailing down the kilogram. Seems kinda like scientists just got fed up with the whole problem and said fuck it, we'll settle. Not that I could really blame them, I suppose. I'm sure there aren't many here that will find this very fascinating. The only real reason it piqued my interest was that I had peeked in on the kilogram conundrum once or twice in the past. Congrats, Science, for finally figuring out how much a kilogram is. 1
TrigunBebop Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 On 11/17/2018 at 2:29 AM, Nabloom said: I hate kilograms Metric system is best system.
Doom Metal Alchemist Posted November 19, 2018 Posted November 19, 2018 That makes my head hurt. In high school chemistry class I learned that the values of the kilogram, liter, and meter were all based on a box of water.
rpgamer Posted November 20, 2018 Author Posted November 20, 2018 Lol, nah. Those can all be vaguely related, to some approximate degree. But for the level of precision some of the latest science expects, you need some proper constants. Used to be a collection of objects, all kept in France, that defined various units, with some sister prototypes scattered around the world, which would all have to be checked and rechecked periodically to see if they're changing at all (they did), and recalibrate things based on that. It was a simpler time.
Recommended Posts