About me
Archive
About me

When is a kilogram not a kilogram?

close

Warning: This post was published more than 10 years ago.

I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!

But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:

  • My views might have changed in the 10 years since I wrote this post.
  • This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
  • Factual information might be outdated.
  • Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.

Many thanks for your understanding.

A kilogram

A kilogram © Robert Rathe - www.robertrathe.com

The lump of metal by which we define a kilogram has lost weight: It’s now 50μg lighter than it was when it was created, 118 years ago. We know this because other cylinders created at the same time are now heavier than it – but they are not the designated ‘official’ kilograms, so I guess, in a round about way, it’s now them that’s wrong.

This is one of those delicious stories which messes with my brain. It’s scientific, philosophical, and incredibly accessible. ‘Cool!’

So, if the official measure of a kilogram is now lighter, is it lighter, or is everything else heavier? And how heavy is it? Despite having lost 50μg, its mass must surely still be 1kg, as it is by definition 1kg. Indeed, if it had lost half it’s weight, or gained ten stone, it would still weigh 1kg.

And, even more intriguingly, this is a kilogram that’s been kept in a triple-locked safe – so how can it possibly have lost weight?

Richard Davis, who’s the bloke in charge of the lump of metal, says that nothing will change: A kilogram will still be a kilogram. But what does that mean? A kilogram is the mass of this lump of metal, which has changed, so how can the kilogram philosophically stay the same? Scientifically, we can say that a kilogram is the weight of the lump of metal plus 50μg, but that’s not very satisfying, because if the lump has fluctuated already, who’s to say it won’t again?

The sensible solution is to define a kilogram using some more scientific measure – a popular option is to define it by a number of atoms of a particular type, which would never fluctuate. Except that it might, as our understanding of physics increases.

It’s all a bit reminiscent of the problem of the 2p coin from last May, but maybe that’s just because I like this kind of story.

Anyway, I hope it makes you think.

Originally posted on Gazette Live

This 1,214th post was filed under: News and Comment, Writing Elsewhere.






More posts worth reading

What I’ve been reading this month (published 6th November 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 5th October 2017)

What I’ve been reading this month (published 3rd September 2017)

British donations top £32m mark (published 31st December 2004)

Defacement of Conservative Posters (published 19th April 2005)

The Sky News Fight Club (published 22nd September 2003)

Google’s truth (published 18th June 2005)


Comments and responses

Comment from Mort Karman


by Mort Karman

Comment posted at 12:55 on 25th September 2007.

At least it is closer then the foot. which was King John’s shoe size. Or the head, which could also mean a potty or a sex act.
I like exact when it comes to time, so I got a so called “atomic clock”.
The problem is it uses an AM radio control from the US time signal in Boulder, Colorado.
As you know when we have electrical storms we have static on the AM radio. This screws up the “atomic clock” and I have to use the old clock to reset it.
So, really, who cares if our measurements are a little off. Most of us are also a little off.


Comment from sjhoward (author of the post)


by sjhoward

Comment posted at 18:09 on 26th September 2007.

Indeed, we are all a little off. My left foot is a size 8, my right a size 10, so I guess it’s a good job that measurements weren’t based on my feet. Thought I thought the myth was that the foot was based on the foot of King Henry I, not King John?


Comment from Mort Karman


by Mort Karman

Comment posted at 22:16 on 27th September 2007.

You are right, it was King Henry. King John had a toilet named in his honour. (I think)


Compose a new comment



Comment

You may use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong> .

If you would like to display a profile picture beside your comment, sign up for Gravatar, and enter your email address above.

By submitting your comment, you confirm that it conforms to the site's comment policy. Comments are subject to both automatic and human moderation, and may take some time to appear.



The content of this site is copyright protected by a Creative Commons License, with some rights reserved. All trademarks, images and logos remain the property of their respective owners. The accuracy of information on this site is in no way guaranteed. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author. No responsibility can be accepted for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information provided by this site. This site uses cookies - click here for more information.