SI Revolution in 2019 - New model of Kilogram, and revision of other units

[Anonymous No.9679685]

Recently, a Nobel Prize Laureate, prof. Klaus von Klitzing (Physics, 1985), had visited my university, and gave quite lenghty lecture on the upcoming changes to the SI system. It was all centered about changing the base of unit of mass from prototype object (the Big K, which is platinum-iridium alloy cylinder - basically every country has to make copies of it to calibrate their precise instruments) to the formula which is based on the Planck's constant and few other principles (other one being the prof. Nobel Prize thesis - the Quantum Hall effect).

It was first "grand" lecture that I attended. And by grand, I mean that on huge lecture hall, out of around 200-300 attendees, there were more of doctors and other professors than students, so I was pretty excited. And my predictions were right - it was overally the best lecture that I've attended so far, vastly different from standard, course lectures. The scale of difference between sharpness of mind of noblist's and the rest of scientific world is just astounding. Not to mention that after a lecture, there were many questions asked (I too managed to sneak in one), and he managed to answer every single one without stumbling even once.

So, to prepare for future changes in the most fundamental part of science world, let's make a quality thread for once, devoid of foolish "IQ" pandering, brainlet posting and other dumb shit. Post your thoughts about current units, universal constatns, your own encounter with Noblists or famed professors, or other related stuff. Also, if you have any questions about the afromentioned lecture, feel free to ask.

[Anonymous No.9679688]

>>9679685
That's the best picture you got?

[Anonymous No.9679705]

How does it feel to know that all this fuss is so that we can fix a shitty system so we can immediately trash it in favor of the Planck unit system?

[Anonymous No.9679710]

>>9679688
I was more focused on listening and making notes, than making dumb photos. I have one more, pic related.

Basically, the revolution will be the fruits of two independent projects - Kibble balance project, which will use the von Klitzing and Josephson constant to create a system, which will generate a force of pull equal to the one kilogram (taking into consideration the local value of g), and Avogadro project, that is trying to create a perfect sphere made out of countable number of silicone crystals. Both of those methods will be used to approximate the Planck constant up to around 10^-9 uncertainity.

[Anonymous No.9679718]

>>9679705
Until at least a part of intelectual work will be done by living human beings, we will not simply adapt pure Planck unit system. I mean, it will be vastly more precise, and anchored in the very fabric of the universe, but the numbers involved will be too micro or macroscopical, to be used on daily basis.

[Anonymous No.9679738]

>>9679685
You aren't going to notice anything at the grocery.
It's just a matter of defining the Primary Standards in terms of the mass of some atom or its vibrational frequency or the distance light travels in so-and-so many vibrations.

As you said, the idea is that anybody can make the measurements and don't have to try to match an object which is probably gaining fingerprints or flaking off a few atoms even as I write.

It's all to the good. The only reason they've waited this long is for the apparatus to be perfected to the point where the measurements can be made repeatedly and reliably.


However, I've already seen tin-foil hat posts on /sci/ claiming the re-definitions are part of an international plot to conceal something. The speed of light or the gravitational constant or whatever is changing and this will allow the Rosecrucians or the Jews to hide The Truth.
I'm not endorsing any of this brainletism -- just warning you what to expect.

Lecture sounded cool. What Univ?

[Anonymous No.9679767]

>>9679738
Wroclaw University of Technology (Poland).
We have this program, called "Visiting Professors", and from time to time some big fish is coming for a week or so, and giving out series of lectures in their field of study. It's also arranged in that way, that after every lecture there is about 30 minutes for asking public questions, and another 30 minutes to talk to the lecturer in private (yes, even as engineer course student, I was able to reach him and engage in 5 minute conversation, of course after waiting for every fanboy to make a photo with him and his nobel medal).

As for your post, this picture sums up the changes they are going to make. You are right, the orginal model of Kilogram, over the time of ~130 years, lost around few hundreds of miligrams, caused by radiation, cleaning, flawed methods of storage in early XX century and so on.

They've waited this long for two reasons:
1) They wanted for every major country, to have the apparatus that would be able to recreate every defining experiment with sufficient uncertainity
2) USA is as always, holding things up, by not adapting SI system by law (almost whole hall bursted out in laugh when this was mentioned).

As for tinfoil posting, I've learned to ignore it. These changes are made in such way, that you can recreate them on almost every university. And universal constants are able to be measured (well, to some extent) in very basic environments, so there is no place to argue.

[Anonymous No.9680545]

>>9679767
Actually, the US is metric.
Pounds and such are legally defined in terms of kilos.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States

If you want to make the argument that Americans Are Stupid, you don't need to introduce metrification. Our newspapers and social media demonstrate this daily.

[Anonymous No.9680549]

>>9680545
Hey now, the news and social media are used as weapons against us. That's like saying propaganda and gas chambers demonstrate jews are evil.

[Anonymous No.9680568]

>>9680549
Just saying that we have enough gullible people to swing an election.

I don't understand your analogy. Unless you're demonstrating a non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.9680589]

>>9680568
Nuh-uh, you're a non sequitur.

[Anonymous No.9680601]

>>9680545
Since I have the opportunity, tell me please, just how widely are imperial units used in education world in US? At which moment you decide to ditch imperial totally, and switch to calculations in SI units? I'm especially curious about learning physics and chemistry, since unit conversions are most common in those fields.

Also, I sincerely hope that thread won't derail into throwing shit at burgerbros. Let's keep /pol/ to /pol/.

[Anonymous No.9680893]

>>9680545
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States
this is a joke

[Anonymous No.9681099]

>>9680601
physics and chemistry are taught in SI units, medicine uses some SI units except for body weight is still in pounds and temperature in Fahrenheit (maybe others?) The real monster is engineering. Engineers need the Imperial system to work with existing systems, and that's led to unit conservatism. There's no end in sight.
There was an effort to convert to metric system started under the Ford administration, but Ronnie Reagan defunded it. There's a weird conservatism about it here and groups pop out from the woodwork to fight it -- for instance some asshole calculated the cost of switching all the road signs in the US at $420 million in the 90s. But all the STEM students want to switch.

[Anonymous No.9681108]

>grug change unit of measurement
>grug feel proud

[Anonymous No.9681127]

>>9681099
My Thermo teacher has 3 exams. First one is in metric, second in English units, third has both.

The Norwegian kid studying at my Uni was fucking pissed after the first one, he had lost tons of points on units. He said "I already know metric, so I thought I wouldn't have to study it." But Thermo was filled with weird manipulations constants that everyone seemed to fuck up. Norwegian kid got fucked up because he didn't recognize m^2/s^2 as loss of energy due to friction, AKA J/kg.

[Anonymous No.9681147]

>>9681127
yikes. we'd be so much better if we didn't subject people to this bullshit. you'd have had a lot more time to figure out what a joule is without all the BTU wank.
>>9681099
also I forgot, some old school synthetic chemists think in kilocalories. they don't push it too hard though

[Anonymous No.9681151]

>>9680601
I think it'll happen within our lifetime.
Boomers just have to die off.

[Anonymous No.9681159]

>>9680893
Of course it's a joke.
The law defining English units in terms of metric is more than a century old. More recently, product labels have had to include metric. (There's also a law that shelf tags have to give unit prices as well as individual prices. Manufacturers would sell packages as "2 pounds, 14.35 ozs" to deliberately obfuscate which brand cost the most.)

My groceries all have metric units as well as imperial. And our engineering drawings have to be done both ways. Plus two sets of fasteners and wrenches, etc.

John Q. Public, the consumer, ignores it. It's about as well enforced as Prohibition.

[Anonymous No.9681164]

>>9681147
Food calories are ALWAYS kilocalories.
People would be scared if they knew diet soda contained 1000 calories. By using Kcals (but not saying so or writing "calories" with an initial capital letter) they can advertise "Contains just one calorie!"

[Anonymous No.9681190]

>>9681147
BTU was actually a genius invention for the English system because it links so many things together, but the English system is still shit. Once the professor started putting slugs and furlongs on exams kids freaked out. I think he enjoyed fucking with us because our final, closed book, had Shaftment's, Dram's, and Carucate's. Which yes, are all actual English units and he expected us to fucking use them.

[Anonymous No.9681529]

>>9680601
Science education is completely done in SI, some minor engineering stuff has a few odd units although this is shared with England so not quite our fault.

[Anonymous No.9681536]

>>9681099
>temperature in Fahrenheit
It’s not like Celsius is SI either

[Anonymous No.9681559]

>>9681536
It's an SI derived unit.
>>9681190
anon, I'm so sorry.

[Anonymous No.9681586]

non-natural units are fucking stupid and poinless

[Anonymous No.9682282]

>>9681586
Enjoy calculating simple thermodynamical reactions with Planck Temperature. Until we somehow incorporate neural implants into our brains, crunching such a large quanitity of numbers will be out of reach.

[Anonymous No.9682344]

SO units are a fucking joke. The second is defined by hertz, and hertz are defined by frequency per second, so the second is literally "9 billion times per second"

human existence is a cruel retarded joke.

[Anonymous No.9682372]

>>9682344
Don't think that's correct. The second is defined in terms of a specific number of vibrations of a particular atom in a specific setting. Cesium perhaps?

[Anonymous No.9682380]

>>9680601

Hi, I am an American and I have studied STEM my entire life. I, and most others like me, know a metric system far better than imperial. The average person definitely doesn't know metric though. It is pretty common to tell someone a distance in km or m and them to totally blank.

[Anonymous No.9682382]

>>9682344
This pretty much demonstrates a total lack of understanding of fundamental physics

[Anonymous No.9682395]

>>9679685

Good thread OP.

I think the SI system is really nice, and all-in-all I don't really have many complaints about it. The few I do will be solved in the upcoming November redefinition.

I think we should give formal names to more quantities. For example, I think it is wise to give a formal name to the unit for the [math]\mathbf{H}[/math]-field, like the Gaussian unit system does. I also think that the [math]\mathbf{E}[/math]- and [math]\mathbf{D}[/math]-fields should be gives names for their units as well.

On one hand though sometimes it is good not to have names for quantities. Sometimes the name hides the funamental nature of the quantity. I guess it doesn't really matter though, because any trained person doesn't need to consciously think about the fact that 1 A e.g. is 1 C.s-1.

[Anonymous No.9682408]

>>9682372
Like i said, your human existence is a cruel and retarded joke.

[Anonymous No.9682409]

My main complaint about SI is that it is base 10 instead of the superior base 12.

[Anonymous No.9682426]

I don't wish to sound like a retard, but I'm worried that these constants aren't actually constant, and will change depending upon how old our universe is.

Better than using the chunk of matter that'll flake though.

[Anonymous No.9682428]

>>9682372
1 hertz = 1 frq. Per second
9Ghz = 9,000,000,000 frq. Per second
1 second = oscillation caesium-133 = 9Ghz
1 second = 9 billion oscillations per second

>1 second = 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per 9 billion oscillations per...

Not even a joke, SI system is fundamentally retarded.

[Anonymous No.9682438]

>>9682428
I just kinda assumed the measure for a second was completely arbitrary. Glad to know there's underlying order to it.

[Anonymous No.9682444]

>>9682428
Yo looking it up, looks like this caesium atom is at 0 K. Why are they allowed to pick that if they can't measure it?

[Anonymous No.9682456]

>>9682428

You're an imbecile. We have defined the fundamental ground-state hyper-fine transition frequency of the Cs-133 atom as 9 192 631 770 s-1. The second is then defined as the inverse of this.

[Anonymous No.9682475]

>>9682456
You are a psychotic retard. That 9 billion number is oscillations, as in hertz, and hertz are based on the second. It's literally self referential, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9682478]

>>9682475
>not knowing what a definition is

[Anonymous No.9682484]

>>9682475
My god I hope this is bait

[Anonymous No.9682491]

>>9682484
More likely it's a brainlet who made a mistake but now is too emotionally involved to admit his error.

[Anonymous No.9682549]

>>9682484
>>9682491
Do you understand that the second is defined by caesium-133's 9 billion oscilllations. A second is the amount of time it takes for caesium-133's hyperfine period to occur 9 billion whatever times, measured as hertz, 9 gigahertz.

Hertz require the second already be predefined. The second is defined by the amount of hertz related to caesium-133, ergo the second is defined by the time it takes for 9 billion oscillations per second.

Its literally not okay to be as stupid as you. Its not okay.

[Anonymous No.9682550]

>>9682549
>9 billion oscillations = 1 second
is that really so difficult?

[Anonymous No.9682551]

>>9682550
Hertz are arbitrary. You can have 100ghz, which is 100 billion oscillations per second. 9 billion oscillations per second is as meaningful as 1 oscillation per second. SI is literally for retarded niggers and dirty retarded foreigners.

[Anonymous No.9682565]

>>9682550
Put it this way, sound is a frequency. You may as well say 1 second is the amount of time it takes for the C note on a piano to play. Or how about light. You may as well say that 1 second is the amount of time it takes for green light.

This doesn't make sense and rightfully so. SI is for retards by retards. Theres a good reason america is the best country on earth and it's not because we use SI.

[Anonymous No.9682569]

>>9681164
I think Calories = kcal, while calories = calories.

[Anonymous No.9682576]

>>9682565
The definition of frequency is drived from the definition of second, not the other way around you silly billy.

[Anonymous No.9682676]

>>9682576
Thats the point though. Hertz is a measurement of frequency of occurrence over a timeframe, and that timeframe is a second. A monitor or display running 60hz means it refreshes 60 times a second. The second already has to be predefined to derive sense from a measurement of frequency via how much movement over how much time.
The SI Second is defined by the oscillation frequency of a hyperfine structure in the element caesium-133, being 9,192,631,770 Hz or roughly 9GHz, while the SI Hertz is defined by the SI Second.

This is senseless self referential donkeyshit. The length of time of a second being defined by how many oscillations occur per second is not useful information. This would otherwise mean that a frequency of 90GHz is equivalent to what, 1/10th of a second? 10 seconds? This shit doesn't make sense. Frequency and Hertz are arbitrary measurements of actions over an amount of time with no constants involved. Whether something is running 100GHz or 9GHz or 60Hz, they all complete in a measurement over the duration of time we call a second, be that doing 100 billion actions in a second, 9 billion actions in a second, or 60 actions in a second respectively. It is wholly as valid to claim that the SI second is equal to how long it takes a 60Hz display monitor to refresh 60 times.
There needed to be an already established underlying definition for the length of time that is the Second in order to have acquired that 9GHz value derived from caesium-133, and in truth that definition of the second is what the actual second is, not this faćade caesium horsecrap.

[Anonymous No.9682741]

>>9681190
probably did it to fuck with kids that have the mentality of "imperial is easier and more intuitive than SI"

[Anonymous No.9682753]

>>9682676
definitions are self referential but the basis is still tied to cesium. those 9 billion oscillations are still 9 billion oscillations regardless of the amount of arbitrary divisions you place on an arbitrary time frame

[Anonymous No.9682758]

>>9682676
>>9682753
brainlet here, how is it self referential?
Isn't it just defined as the amount of time it takes that particular cesium isotope to oscillate 9 fugtillion times in absolute zero?
I'm not understanding where the alleged recursion is.

[Anonymous No.9682775]

>>9682758
he's referring to the fact that frequency is defined as the inverse of time and vice versa. The problem is, he can't wrap his head around the fact that the amount of pscillations that happen within an arbitrary time frame is fully independent from the arbitrary time frame. Basically, he thinks that if we define the second to be a little bit slower, cesium will also slow down along with it.

[Anonymous No.9682790]

>>9682569
yes this is it

[Anonymous No.9682822]

>>9682753
>>9682758
Its an arbitrary measurement as evidenced by the value 9,192,631,770Hz
Meaning the definition of the SI second could very well be any arbitrary oscillation period of any element. Its not specifically tied to caesium-133 and this caesium second is merely based on the highest measureable frequency in the 60's by 60's era technology, which has long been surpassed. The point being though that in order to have first made that arbitrary frequency measurement based on Hertz, the length of time in a Second had to already be predefined, which is the prior Second definition before the caesium second, which was the ephemeris second
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris_time

So for :
S1 = Ephemeris Second
S2 = Caesium Second
S2 = 9 billion oscillations per S1
Which really just means the caesium second does not exist and ephemeris time remains.

If you want to measure the frequency of something, you need a time interval, where frequency is really just equivalent to speed. Doing something 9 billion times per second is faster than doing something 60 times per second, but both cases require the Second already be defined as a length/distance/amount of time in constant. If you feel a second should last longer than I feel a second should last, from my point of view you'd measure more oscillations over your extended timeframe versus my shorter timeframe, so you might measure a frequency of 5ghz but i would measure 4.5ghz. We both recorded the same objective object, but to arrive at a frequency value we have to end our measurements after a certain amount of time, and your feeling of a second had more measurements than mine, so you come out with a higher and different frequency than me despite the constant of the object we were measuring.

Going back to the distance idea, its like measuring distance by how long it takes you to walk it, such that a gas station 1 mile away is 20 minutes away, regardless if you're driving or riding a bike or crawling.

retarded.

[Anonymous No.9682841]

>>9682775
Retard.
If the second lasted longer, the oscillation period of Caesium-133 might be 10GHz flat, which would ironically be more a sensible metric constant than the arbitrary measurement value based on the previous ephemeris second, and probably barely noticeable if it were redefined as such given 9.19GHz per ephemeris second is just 8% slower than a second where caesium's frequency was 10GHz flat, but that would throw all timekeeping out of whack and a day would instead be about 22 hours and 57 minutes.

So no you dongus, frequency really does rely on length of the time frame.

[Anonymous No.9682842]

>>9682822
But isn't that more a historical footnote on why they chose to cut it specifically at that number of oscillations, and not an actual unit of the definition?
Like, a meter was first defined as the length of a pendulum with a period of exactly 2 seconds, but seconds were never integrated into the meter as a unit. It's just an etiology.

Also, for an SI thread there sure are a whole lot of people forgetting to put spaces between the number and the unit. I thought this was where the SI Handbook police would converge.

[Anonymous No.9682870]

>>9682842
They cut it there cause thats the best they could do in the 60's. Historical whatever, it still remains unintelligible towards measuring how long a second lasts. Its like saying the length or amount of time in an hour is 60 miles per hour. If you're travelling 30 miles per hour, then an hour hasn't passed unless you travel 60 miles. I leave at 10:00AM and drive on the highway 60 miles and get to my destination at 11:00AM; you leave at 10:00AM and take detour backroads and get to the destination an hour after me, and I ask if you're ready for lunch but you say its only 11:00AM, cause 60 miles is what an hour is and you just drove 60 miles. Thats what this self referential problem in the caesium second is doing by relying on hertz, when hertz relies on the second.

This ultimately means atomic clocks aren't real and are instead snake oil.

[Anonymous No.9682879]

>>9682870
Wait, but it doesn't rely on Hz at all. It never did, except as a means to find their new paradigm without fucking the world's timekeeping.
The second is based on that fixed number of oscillations. Just that number, not that number over time.
A second will always last as long as it takes a cesium-whatever isotope to do its thing 9 brazilian times in absolute 0.

A second isn't defined in Hz at all. Just like a meter isn't defined by the time it takes a pendulum to swing. The whole frerquency business is just the historical reason they chose 9 brazilian, it would work the same if they just picked that number out of a hat without looking at frequency.

[Anonymous No.9682898]

>>9682879
You're arguing that caesium's 9 billion oscillations are what define the second... This isn't the case.

They're not recording 9 billion unique sequential events specifically in Cs-133, then deciding that after 9 billion unique events in Cs-133 have been measured, a second has passed. They're instead doing math expanded on frequency calculation, which implements Hertz, which implements the ephemeris second.

9 billion oscillations per ephemeris second just means why the fuck are you talking about caesium and oscillations at all when we're using the ephemeris second as the base.
1 second isn't 9 billion bullshits in Cs-133. 1 second is just the ET ephemeris second, and this is where SI fucks up cause the definition is "9 billion cycles per second" implying self reference, instead of "9 billion cycles per ephemeris second" which cross-references.

The fact of the matter was the ephemeris second was well defined enough such that they would use it's length as a frequency timeframe to acquire the 9 gigahertz Cs-133 value, and if it was well defined enough to use as a base for measuring somethin else, its obviously well defined enough to not need redefining.

Atomic clocks are literal bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9682919]

>>9682841
you can't seem to grasp the concept that things happen regardless of the time frame you assign to it. The principle behind using cesium, is counting how many oscillations happen and then defining a unit of time based on that. the time between oscillations ie going to be the same regardless of how you define the length of time.

[Anonymous No.9682980]

>>9682898
consider for a moment that ephemeris time did not exist but a second is still defined by cesium and let's get back to the original argument. How is the definition recursive? 9 billion things happen and that would constitute a second. In fact, Ephemeris is just as arbitrary. What's stopping me from choosing mars as the heavenly body and dividing that into arbitrary fractions to measure a second? what's stopping you from counting 10 billion cycles instead of 9?
You also seem to misunderstand the choice of 9 billion cycles. The figure was chosen because it was very close to the measurement of the ephemeris time. Regardless of that, it's still an independent definition which counts 9 billion cycles and uses that measurement as a second. Only difference between the two is that cesium clocks have drift. They're essentially like two instruments having different prcisions measuring the same thing. Any other measurements of time are essentially comparisons against either the revolution of the earth or the oscillations of cesium between two atomic states, whichever you prefer. I'd like to see where you get that "expanded math" that somehow gives a solid relation between cesium and ephemeris from.

[Anonymous No.9683019]

>>9682919
Graduate 4th grade before posting next time.

[Anonymous No.9683023]

>>9682980
60Hz = 1 second
9GHz = 1 second
420THz = 1 second
frequency is not a measure of length of time. Frequency is a measure of iterations of occurrence. Every frequency is equal to 1 second.

Attend kindergarten senpai.

[Anonymous No.9683137]

>>9682409
I challenge you to tell me at least one advantage of base 12, which isn't "m-muh division by 3", fucker.

[Anonymous No.9683146]

>>9682426
Professor got asked this question during the lecture. His answer was that, even if those constants will somehow change, the dependencies between units will remain the same. (which isn't a really plausible scenario - think of it, the prognosed age of the universe is something like 14,7 billion years - do you think that during a century or so, there will be any significant change to the constant, that is the same no matter the place in the universe?).

Also, the only change that is possibly forseeable is that we will invent ways to define those constants in more accurate way, with even lesser uncertainity.

Besides, in forseeable future, we will move to Planck-based units, as other anons said.

[Anonymous No.9683164]

>>9682444
But they can. Even at absolute zero, there are still oscillatory vibrations within the atom (harmonic oscillator). This kind of movement however does not exchange any energy with surroundings. Meaning that this is the lowest frequency possible. Now, if you observe, how much does the frequency change with the delta of temperature, you can count the base value even without physically going down to that temperature.

[Anonymous No.9683190]

>>9682676
I can see where you are coming from, but think for a moment - how else are you going to anchor the notion of time? No matter how you look at it, or which universal constant will you choose, at least one will have to be arbitral. We have chosen second, because it is believed, that time can only go in one direction, and no matter what, we have absolutely no control over it. No matter the cirsumstances and environment, time will always flow in the same manner, with the same speed. That's why you need to choose a way, to somehow be able to count consecutive periods of time, and in order to do that, you need to chose some arbitrary, human developed method. Look a little bit into history, and find how the phenomenon of "second" got concieved. We took some approximate biological way to count time (heartbeats in resting position), and compared it to another, enviromental cycle - the cycle of day. Millenia ago it got estabilished, that we split day into 86400 equal parts - current SI theory is only trying to bind that 1/86400, which isn't precise, to something with vastly greater precision - which is oscilations of caesium in 0K, since those will stay constant no matter what. That 9GHz number is only what seemed to be close to what we always precieved as a second, and everyone agreed on that. Because this is what all of the units are - agreement, that all of us are measuring various quantities based on the same standard.

Want to be more precise? You're welcome. You can always count time in planck units. I somehow want to see a typical smartass saying "this reaction will finish in 10^47 planck units", or "I'll meet you in 10^49 planck units".

[Anonymous No.9683206]

>>9683023
>60Hz = 1 second
>9GHz = 1 second
>420THz = 1 second
>frequency is not a measure of length of time. Frequency is a measure of iterations of occurrence. Every frequency is equal to 1 second.
This isn't even wrong.
Frequency is the inverse of time; the rate at which an iteration occurs. The unit is t^(-1). You cannot just equate two different units. 60Hz can just as easily be measured over 0.5s and still be 60Hz. The time taken to measure the response is irrelevant, and so cannot say 60Hz = 1 second.
You can say that 60Hz = 60 / 1 second. This, however, is just as correct as 60Hz = 30/ 0.5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.9683342]

>>9683137
Division by four

[Anonymous No.9683826]

>>9683342
Yeah but Grimsby
Five fingers.

[Anonymous No.9683833]

>>9682409
>not using base e
plébe

[Anonymous No.9683838]

>>9679685
Who gives a fuck if kilogram gets even more arbitary definition that will not affect anyones life ever in any meaningful way.

[Anonymous No.9684503]

>>9681099
Speaking as an aeronautical engineer, who are the most stubborn about conserving imperial units. We prefer imperial because being able to divide by 3 and 4 evenly is far more important than divisibility by 10. Frankly the old Babylonian base 60 system is ideal for engineering. Base 10 is only good for making mental math easier for tards, aka the bean counter non-stem bureaucrats who developed metric.

[Anonymous No.9684607]

>>9682822
Imagine putting this much time into baiting. No way anyone could possibly be this retarded after all.

[Anonymous No.9685010]

>>9683206
Too fucking retarded to live, bro. Consider ending it.

[Anonymous No.9685371]

>>9684607
>SI smart and me am start to

[Anonymous No.9685721]

>>9679688
incredibly fast laureate lecturing at incredibly hihg speed

[Anonymous No.9685748]

>>9683023
seconds are not anchored to hertz, you fucking brainlet
the second is tied to the cycles in cesium and hertz is then tied to that
any measure of frequency is basically just a comparison to how many 9 billions switches between the two atomic states of a cesium atom
Ephemeris is exactly the same but instead of counting multiple switchings between two atomic states, you're counting one revolution of a planet.

[Anonymous No.9685749]

>>9684503
Don't be willfully ignorant. You know very well that the problem of the imperial system doesn't come from divisibility

[Anonymous No.9686909]

>>9685721
Von Klitzing is sitting, in the bottom left of the picture

[Anonymous No.9687153]

>>9685748
Hertz is oscillations per second.
Caesium-133 oscillating 9 gorillion times per second does nothing to define how long the second is unless each individual oscillation is counted. This is not how the oscillations are analyzed though. You need a computing device running 9GHZ to do this. These dont exist. These didn't exist in the 1960's. A 1GHz computer could count 1 in 9 oscillations and simply increment by 9. However a 1GHz computer oscillates on quartz, not caesium. Quartz is the important material here. 1GHz computers didn't exist in the 1960's. In 1984, an 8.3MHz processor cost over $400. This could count 1 in 1084 oscillations, margin of error equivalent to a microsecond per second.
This was a decade after claiming atomic clocks had nanosecond accuracy.

Everything about this is retarded. The caesium standard is retarded. Atomic clocks dont exist. SI is managed by brainlets. Its all retarded.

[Anonymous No.9687233]

>>9681108
kek basically this.

[Anonymous No.9687235]

Why is current a base unit and not charge? The current is defined based on the charge so why is charge not more fundamental than current

[Anonymous No.9687470]

>>9679688
I've found somewhat better (but smaller) photo on my uni website.

[Anonymous No.9687682]

>>9687153
>Hertz is oscillations per second.
Hertz are defined in terms of seconds. Seconds are NOT defined in terms of Hertz.
See: https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/second.html
>The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
>This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.

>Caesium-133 oscillating 9 gorillion times per second does nothing to define how long the second is unless each individual oscillation is counted.
The second is defined by the behaviour of caesium-133, not in terms of any particular measurement.

>This is not how the oscillations are analyzed though.
That's irrelevant. You can analyse the oscillations any way you like.

>You need a computing device running 9GHZ to do this.
No you don't. There are better methods than counting individual oscillations.

>However a 1GHz computer oscillates on quartz, not caesium.
That's both completely irrelevant and incorrect.

>Everything about this is retarded. The caesium standard is retarded.
No, you just don't understand it.

>Atomic clocks dont exist.
???????

[Anonymous No.9687737]

>>9679685
Really? You've never been to a conference or symposium? How fucking brainlet are you?

[Anonymous No.9687745]

>>9681151
You are living in an academic bubble. As a teacher, I can tell you that kids at dumb as bricks. Most of them can't even into basic money like change at a deli. Much less any sort of units beyond inches and feet.

[Anonymous No.9687791]

>>9682551
Dude, it's not a comparison, yes, a fan that's perpetually turned on and the earth around the sun are both going to do 9 billion oscillations sometime, but we don't care about it, we are taking a specific example, the inverse of the frequency of the Cs-133 atom. This and only this. Time happening does not need "second" to be already defined.

[Anonymous No.9687925]

>>9682551
It's the time between those oscillations that aren't arbitrary. The problem is, an entire revolution of a planet is too long to be of practical use so we divide it into fractions (hence, the ephemeris second) and the time to oscillate between two atomic states is too short so we count billions of those oscillations (hence, the atomic second). The time between those oscillations are not arbitrary. What is arbitrary is the selection of the object or events that produce those oscillations.

[Anonymous No.9687932]

>>9679718
Can't they just be scaled?

[Anonymous No.9687934]

>>9687153
How many times does this have to be repeated. 1 second isn't defined by how many times cesium switches in 1 second. 1 second is defined by 9 billion switches of cesium atom. You don't need to define a second before counting those 9 billion switches. Any method of measurement is irrelevant. What matters is that the time it takes to go from state A to state B and back does not change, regardless of how you measure it.

[Anonymous No.9687935]

>>9687932
The new system already references h-bar, c, e and k, so we're like 80% there already.
The one remaining obstacle is that we can't measure the gravitational constant G with sufficient precision to use it as a standard, though I'm not a metrologist so I don't really understand why that should be an issue.

[Anonymous No.9689708]

>>9687932
They could, as any unit, but it wouldn't be as practical as scaling of SI units.

[Anonymous No.9691012]

>>9687745
If at least only one kid per school per year will made it into PhD, it'll be a huge success already. You don't need your whole nation to become smarter - small portion of ruling group will suffice.