Metric System Rewrite

[Duxwing]

I propose the following changes to the metric system:

-The base unit of mass should be the gram because base units should lack prefixes

-Remove the liter because it is redundant

-1 gram should be 1 cubic meter of water for the sake of simplicity

-Replace all dates and times with seconds since the epoch, which is the moment at which these changes are effected

-If the meter is so long as to make the metric system impractical, then so shorten it as to make it practical.

Any ideas, comments, criticisms?

-Duxwing

[Nibb31]

-The base unit already is the gram.

-It's quite practical to have the liter as a base unit of measure for everyday use.

-How is it simpler than 1 ton = 1 cubic meter of water and 1 liter = 1 kg ? If 1 gram = 1 ton, then your average groceries will be measured in milligrams and nanograms. Medicine would have to use scientific notation.

-The French tried that in 1793, but it didn't catch on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar

-Who says the meter is too long?

It's a silly idea. The current system works well.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Nibb31

[ZetaX]

-The base unit already is the gram.

Actually, the SI-units list the kilogram, not the gram, and derives the gram from that.

[stupid_chris]

However, SI units != base unit. SI used the kilogram because it relates to the other constants in a much nicer way.

Honestly I'm not seeing any motives behind those changes.

[ZetaX]

"Base unit" is not that well-defined, so don't throw that around without proper definition.

[sjwt]

-The base unit of mass should be the gram because base units should lack prefixes

It is already, well done!

-Remove the liter because it is redundant

Umm what?

-1 gram should be 1 cubic meter of water for the sake of simplicity

Its currently a cubic cm of water, as a base unit measuring in a tonn range is a massive overkill.

-Replace all dates and times with seconds since the epoch, which is the moment at which these changes are effected

Best of luck on that one, still too much interference with day to day life on that one.

-If the meter is so long as to make the metric system impractical, then so shorten it as to make it practical.

Its not, problem solved!

[Kryten]

I'd say the major thing that does need changing is the definition of the kilogram; right now it's simply the mass of a specific lump of metal in a basement in France. If anything happens to that lump of metal, then the mass of everything in the universe changes; it's already changed by a few micrograms since being created.

[Seret]

-Remove the liter because it is redundant

I agree, more than a pint at a time is just greedy.

[ZedNova]

If the metric system had something close to the US Imperial foot, that'd make me really happy.

[ZetaX]

I'd say the major thing that does need changing is the definition of the kilogram; right now it's simply the mass of a specific lump of metal in a basement in France. If anything happens to that lump of metal, then the mass of everything in the universe changes; it's already changed by a few micrograms since being created.

a) Not that easy to do (but some suggestions have been made)

there are several copies.

[Kerbart]

If the metric system had something close to the US Imperial foot, that'd make me really happy.

You're in luck! It does! It's called thirty point fourty-eight centimeters. And guess what, that is the actual definition of the imperial foot!

[ZedNova]

You're in luck! It does! It's called thirty point fourty-eight centimeters. And guess what, that is the actual definition of the imperial foot!

Haha, i think you misunderstood me. I meant something Similar to a foot in terms of size. Larger than a centimeter but smaller than a meter. maybe a Manometer?

[Kerbart]

-Remove the liter because it is redundant

The liter is not part of the SI system. It's a derived unit, and a fairly convenient one for fluids. What do you suggest, listing gasoline prices per cubic meter?

If the meter is so long as to make the metric system impractical, then so shorten it as to make it practical.

Enlighten me, what is impractical about the length of a meter?

[Kerbart]

Haha, i think you misunderstood me. I meant something Similar to a foot in terms of size. Larger than a centimeter but smaller than a meter. maybe a Manometer?

You mean the decimeter? That's 10cm or 0.1m, about 1/3rd of a foot. While not the same size, it's about the same order of magnitude as a foot*. In many cases more convenient since most hand-sized objects can be expressed as a multiple of decimeters, as opposed to a fraction of foot. And yes, decimeter is a normally accepted unit (unlike "megameter")

[EDIT]

*Examples: a sheet of letter-sized paper is about 2×3dm, a CD is about 1dm in diameter, a laptop is about 3-4dm wide, etc. You could measure in feet but you'd need to add fractions. Of course one can argue the same in favor of the foot when it comes to sizes of cars, furniture, etc.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Kerbart

[Kryten]

there are several copies.

That just makes it worse. Most of the copies have gained mass relative to the prototype-but does mean the prototype has lost mass, or that the others, (most of them being less well-kept), have gained mass? Or even that they've all gained mass and the prototype has just gained less than most? Nobody can tell.

[ZetaX]

Then give a better solution.

[ZedNova]

You mean the decimeter? That's 10cm or 0.1m, about 1/3rd of a foot. While not the same size, it's about the same order of magnitude as a foot*. In many cases more convenient since most hand-sized objects can be expressed as a multiple of decimeters, as opposed to a fraction of foot. And yes, decimeter is a normally accepted unit (unlike "megameter")

[EDIT]

*Examples: a sheet of letter-sized paper is about 2×3dm, a CD is about 1dm in diameter, a laptop is about 3-4dm wide, etc. You could measure in feet but you'd need to add fractions. Of course one can argue the same in favor of the foot when it comes to sizes of cars, furniture, etc.

Yeah that's it! Thanks for explaining to me.

[Ralathon]

Then give a better solution.

There are several better solutions that link the kg to unchangeable natural constants:

You can base it on the mass of atoms by defining the kg as the mass of a certain volume of pure isotope. That's what they're trying to do with the Avogadro Project.

You can link it to the speed of light and plancks constant via a watt balance.

You can also flip the definitions around and define Kg's as a function of ampere instead of the current implementation. Then you simply accelerate some mass via a current and use that to define the kg.

All of the above have trouble with the required accuracy though. But that's easily solved with better tech.

[Kerbart]

There are several better solutions that link the kg to unchangeable natural constants

With all respect, if there are solutions that are better, they'd already be accepted. It's not like SI is hugely conservative or has a sentimental attachment to the definition of standards; I think that the meter had it's definition changed about once every other year in the late 20th century because technology advanced.

The problem with a definition is that it needs to be:

• accurate
  
• repeatable
  
• preferably repeatable anywhere on earth

The fact that, despite it's shortcomings, the kg in Paris is still "the gold standard" tells me that as of yet nobody has come up with a way to define the kilogram in a more reliable way.

[Devo]

[Ralathon]

With all respect, if there are solutions that are better, they'd already be accepted. It's not like SI is hugely conservative or has a sentimental attachment to the definition of standards; I think that the meter had it's definition changed about once every other year in the late 20th century because technology advanced.

The problem with a definition is that it needs to be:

• accurate
  
• repeatable
  
• preferably repeatable anywhere on earth
  

The fact that, despite it's shortcomings, the kg in Paris is still "the gold standard" tells me that as of yet nobody has come up with a way to define the kilogram in a more reliable way.

Fair enough for current tech, but I wouldn't be surprised if it changes in the coming decade or so. People are slowly chipping away at the accuracy and linking measurement units to natural constants is so much more appealing than defining an arbitrary chunk of steel as anchor.

[Kerbart]

Fair enough for current tech, but I wouldn't be surprised if it changes in the coming decade or so. People are slowly chipping away at the accuracy and linking measurement units to natural constants is so much more appealing than defining an arbitrary chunk of steel as anchor.

...and given the current problems, that will not be a moment too soon! I'll fully agree that a laboratory experiment would be a much better way to provide the definition of the kilogram than an actual physical object, with all the problems that come with it.

[dharak1]

I'm not quite sure everyone on the forum knows the entire metric system. There are a couple steps between kilo and one before and after centi. There is deca as in decameter or 10 meters. Then hecto as in hectogram or 100 grams. Then you have the smaller units. Deci as in deciliter or .1 liters. Then there is centi like centimeter .01 of a meter. Then you have milli like milliliter. This should clear up anything in case anyone is confused. I'm sure there are higher and lower units but these are the common basic ones.

[Seret]

Tbh, I've never seen or heard a lot of the prefixes used. Deca, deci and hecta are pretty much unused (except maybe for hectares). Almost everything in everyday scales is milli, centi and kilo. You'll get into greater and lesser than that in science and engineering, even then you'll never hear anybody talking about megagrams or exameters. Very big or small stuff is just expressed in scientific or engineering notation.

[Skyler4856]

1984 bar scene. priceless XD