?

Log in

No account? Create an account

fanf

Letter to Prospect Magazine

« previous entry | next entry »
18th Mar 2005 | 09:47

Pedantry about basic units... (I hope these URLs work.)

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6820&AuthKey=ffd48ae887d8c740d86a0d7354814dbc&issue=503

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6746&AuthKey=ffd48ae887d8c740d86a0d7354814dbc&issue=501

| Leave a comment | Share

Comments {4}

(Deleted comment)

Tony Finch

from: fanf
date: 20th Mar 2005 21:18 (UTC)

It was originally, but that definition doesn't provide a sufficiently accurate repeatable experiment.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Metrology

from: anonymous
date: 8th Apr 2005 22:11 (UTC)

If you define the kilo in terms of counting actual atoms as they whoosh past, you simultaneously define Avogadro's number.

Question: do you count radians as units? Think carefully.

CRB

Reply | Thread

Tony Finch

Re: Metrology

from: fanf
date: 9th Apr 2005 17:20 (UTC)

The problem with that definition is that it isn't currently practical, i.e. you can't use it to calibrate machinery.

You can treat radians as a unit or as a ratio, depending on what's convenient. However a significant difference between radians and physical units is that they are defined mathematically rather than based on some experiment.

Reply | Parent | Thread