The Kilogram Has Excess Mass, Could Cause Scientific Havok
There is concern that the original kilogram does not represent the mass of the original kilogram anymore.
The kilogram is one of seven International System of Units (SI) of measure and is defined by the International Prototype kilogram (IPK) which is a right-circular cylinder made of 90 percent platinum and 10 percent iridium that is stored at the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures in Sèvres, France.
40 replicas were made in 1884 and sent around the world in an effort to standardize the measure of mass. Scientists at Newcastle University in the UK now said that UK's replica number 18, which is stored at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) has changed its mass since 1884 by "tens of micrograms" due to the accumulation of hydrocarbons.
Research lead Peter Cumpson, professor of Micro Electro Mechanical Systems at Newcastle University, said that "mass is such a fundamental unit that even this very small change is significant and the impact of a slight variation on a global scale is absolutely huge." He noted that "there are cases of international trade in high-value materials - or waste - where every last microgram must be accounted for."
Cumpson said he used an x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy machine (XPS) to analyze the IPK's surface and found that a "suntan" could remove the excess weight again. According to the scientist, the "carbonaceous contamination" could be correct by exposing the surface to "a mixture of UV and ozone", which would not damage the platinum surface of the cylinder.
Newcastle University said that "work is underway internationally in several National Measurement Institutes to find an alternative to the IPK – a standardised value for the kilogram that is not based on a matchbox- sized piece of metal." However, until such a replacement is found, scientists have to make sure that the kilogram remains a kilogram: "If the kilogram does put on weight then it's imperative that we understand exactly how the IPK is changing," Cumpson said.
If the calibration is performed with more accurate standard, why not we switch to the better one?
And really, do they even use that thing?
Its a funny trivia no doubt, but science news?
Why do we keep seeing old news?
I suppose Xenu will have a faultless unit of mass waiting when we arrive?
The near-universal unit of Mass is slightly off, that cant be good. Dont suppose it could as simple a fix of making a set of scales accurate enough to record exactly 1kg, then just using that as a template to make more of these?
If the calibration is performed with more accurate standard, why not we switch to the better one?
yeungl : They didn't weight it, they look at it with a microscope and found new hydrocarbon depot which certainly effect it's original mass.
lol
They quantified the change is "tens of micrograms" , also, the standard mass is stored in a double vacuum . Where is the contamination come from?
Although using UV and ozone may correct the hydrocarbon problem, will it introduce oxidation?
Nope, Platinum is too noble a metal to get oxidised under room temperature.. Exactlly the reason why they were made of this alloy in the first place.. But the ozone and UV will oxidise the hydrocarbons, and you will in principle get CO2 out of it..
you probably wouldnt notice the missing micrograms
If you don't think it's important remember this, radioactivity was discovered when a photographic film left under a lump of uranium was exposed, a mundane observation most would have discounted, not a scientist.
the FEET didn`t change it`s length?
Seems to me too many people are discredited and laughed at for merely even posing the question: 'what if its wrong?'
This kind of approach to life is dogmatic.
Science was founded on the notion that anything and everything should be subject to change at any given time (therefore notions such as 'belief', 'faith', 'truth', 'facts' etc. in whatever form are non-applicable to science).
We may have temporary explanations that can explain certain things at any given time, but that doesn't mean those things are 'facts' or not subject to change.
People in general should be actively questioning all theories and laws presented for the purpose of actively disproving it, but not in a negative sense, rather for the purpose of scientific advancement and expansion of our knowledge - same goes for scientists.
I haven't read this yet. Why do you think we all go to the same news sites you do? Keep your mouth shut and let us that haven't read the story yet read it.