Advertisement

Measurement Techniques

, Volume 60, Issue 7, pp 649–655 | Cite as

An Alternative Set of Defining Constants for Use in Redefining the Four Units of the International System of Units

  • V. V. Khruschov
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS IN METROLOGY
  • 45 Downloads

Different sets of constants the fixed values of which may be selected for new definitions of the four units (kilogram, mole, ampere, and kelvin) of the International System of Units are discussed. The concept of the “order of a constant” in a given system of units is proposed. Criteria for arriving at an optimal selection of defining constants as well as a set of constants consisting of Planck’s constant h, Avogadro’s constant N A, Boltzmann’s constant k, and the magnetic permeability of a vacuum (magnetic constant) μ0 are considered. The proposed set is an alternative to the base set consisting of h, e, k, and N A.

Keywords

redefinition of the units of the International System of Units dimension of a physical quantity defining constant Planck’s constant Avogadro’s constant Boltzmann’s constant magnetic permeability of a vacuum magnetic constant 

References

  1. 1.
    G. Girard, “The third periodic verification of nationals prototypes of the kilogram,” Metrologia, 31, 317–336 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Nielsen, R. S. Davies, and P. Barat, “Improving traceability to the international prototype of the kilogram,” Metrologia, 52, 538–551 (2015).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, www.bipm.org, acc. May 23, 2017.
  4. 4.
    SI Brochure: The International System of Units (SI) (2016), draft 9th ed., www.bipm.org.en/measurement-units/new-si/#communication, acc. May 23, 2017.
  5. 5.
    5. Resolution 2, Committee Internationale des Poids et Mesures (CIPM), www.bipm/org/en/CIPM/db/1946/2.
  6. 6.
    I. M. Mills, P. J. Mohr, T. J. Quinn, et. al., “Redefinition of the kilogram, ampere, kelvin, and mole: a proposed approach to implementing CIPM recommendation 1,” Metrologia, 43, 227–246 (2006).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. J. T. Milton, R. Davis, and N. Fletcher, “Towards a new SI: a review of progress made since 2011,” Metrologia, 51, R21–R30 (2014).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. N. Taylor and P. J. Mohr, “On the redefinition of the kilogram,” Metrologia, 36, 63–66 (1999).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Fletcher, R. S. Davis, M. Stock, and M. J. T. Milton, “Modernizing the SI-implications of recent progress with the fundamental constants,” https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.08324.
  10. 10.
    C. A. Sanchez, B. M. Wood, R. G. Green, et. al., “A determination of Planck’s constant using the NRC watt balance,” Metrologia, 51, S5–S14 (2014).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Azuma, P. Barat, G. Bartle, et. al., “Improved measurement results for the Avogadro constant using a 28Si-enriched crystal,” Metrologia, 52, 360–375 (2015).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. A. Sanchez, B. M. Wood, R. G. Green, et. al., “Corrigendum to the 2014 NRC determination of Planck’s constant,” Metrologia, 52, L23–L23 (2015).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, “CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants 2014,” Rev. Mod. Phys., 88, 035009 (2016).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. P. Leonard, “Why the dalton should be redefined exactly in terms of the kilogram,” Metrologia, 49, 487–491 (2012).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. J. Duff, L. B. Okun, and G. Veneziano, “Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants,” JHEP, 03, No. 23, 2–30 (2002).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. J. Mohr, “Defining units in the quantum based SI,” Metrologia, 49, 487–491 (2008).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    V. N. Melnikov, “Gravitation and cosmology as key problems of the millennium,” A. Einstein Century Int. Conf., in: AIP Conf. Proc., No. 861, 109–127 (2006).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    F. Cabiati and W. Bich, “Thoughts on a changing Sl,” Metrologia, 46, 457–466 (2009).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. A. Bronnikov, V. D. Ivashchuk, M. I. Kalinin, et. al., “On the selection of fixed fundamental constants for the new defining units of SI,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 8, 11–15 (2016).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. A. Bronnikov, V. D. Ivashchuk, M. I. Kalinin, et. al., “On the new definitions of the base units of SI. Why the atomic kilogram is preferable,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 1, 11–18 (2015).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Pavese, “The new SI and fundamental constants: different meanings assigned to the same data, and how to proceed from recommended numerical values to their stipulation and beyond,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00857.
  22. 22.
    C. J. Borde, “Reforming the international system of units: on our way to redefine the base units solely from fundamental constants and beyond,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01752.
  23. 23.
    P. Becker, P. de Bievre, K. Fujii, et. al., “Considerations on future redefinitions of the kilogram, the mole, and of other units,” Metrologia, 44, 1–14 (2007).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Stock and T. J.Witt, “CPEM round table discussion ‘Proposed changes to the SI’,” Metrologia, 43, 583–587 (2006).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. J. T. Milton, J. M. Williams, and S. J. Bennett, “Moderning the Sl: towards an improved, accessible, and enduring system,” Metrologia, 44, 356–364 (2007).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    V. D. Ivashchuk, L. K. Isaev, S. A. Kononogov, et. al., “Redefinition of the mole and the results of measurements of Avogadro’s constant by the method of crystalline silicon spheres,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 7, 38–42 (2015).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    V. V. Khrushchev, “On an optimal set of the fundamental physical constants with fixed values for the redefinition of the units of SI,” Izmer. Tekhn., No. 10, 3–8 (2011).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Bouchendira, P. Clade, S. Guellati-Khelifa, et. al., “State of the art in the determination of the fine structure of constant test of quantum electrodynamics and determination of h/mu,” Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 525, 484–492 (2013).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. A. Bronnikov and S. A. Kononogov, “Possible variations of the fine structure constant α and their metrological significance,” Metrologia, 43. P, R1–R9 (2006).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Report of the 18th CCU Meeting, www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/CC/CCU/CCU18.pdf, acc. May 23, 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.All-Russia Research Institute of Metrological Service (VNIIMS)MoscowRussia
  2. 2.National Research Center Kurchatov InstituteMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations