Advertisement

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp 657–658 | Cite as

Unresolved concerns about the “new SI”

  • Jack Miller
  • Theodore P. Hill
  • Albert Censullo
Letter to the Editor

Dear Sirs,

The International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) has proposed new definitions of four of the seven base units of the SI. The definitions of the proposed “new SI” have been published [1] and are available on the BIPM website [2], and have been the subject of lively discussions in the literature and in private communications. A number of concerns about the new SI have been raised in this journal and elsewhere [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. We feel that these concerns have not been adequately addressed to date. Since the new SI definitions are to be formally proposed in a resolution to be considered in late October at the General Conference on Weights and Measures, this discussion has some urgency.

In this letter, we focus on the new SI definition of the kilogram and specifically that it fails to meet three of the criteria for a good reference quantity as presented by Mills et al. in Ref. [1] that (1) it “should preferably be as simple as possible both to comprehend...

Keywords

Cesium Base Unit Alternative Definition Exact Mass Acceptable Alternative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Mills IM, Quinn TJ, Mohr PJ, Taylor BN, Williams ER (2011) Adapting the International system of units to the 21st century. Phil Trans R Soc A 369:3907–3924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Hill TP, Miller J, Censullo AC (2011) Towards a better definition of the kilogram. Metrologia 48:83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hill TP (2011) Criticisms of the proposed “new SI”. Accredit Qual Assur 16:471–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Price G (2011) A skeptic‘s review of the new SI. Accredit Qual Assur 16:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leonard B (2011) Why the invariant atomic-scale unit, entity, is essential for understanding stoichiometry without “Avogadro anxiety”. Accredit Qual Assur 16:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pavese F (2011) Some reflections on the proposed redefinition of the unit for the amount of substance and of other SI units. Accredit Qual Assur 16:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khruschov A (2010) Fundamental problems in metrology: possible definition of the unit of mass and fixed values of the fundamental physical constants. Meas Tech 53:583–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rusch P (2011) “Redefining the kilogram and mole”, ACS comment, chemical and engineering news digital edition. http://www.cen-online.org, 30 May
  10. 10.
    Feller U (2011) The International system of units—a case for reconsideration. Accredit Qual Assur 16:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chemistry International (2011) The kilogram in the “New SI”. http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2011/3305/2_kilogram.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jack Miller
    • 1
  • Theodore P. Hill
    • 2
  • Albert Censullo
    • 3
  1. 1.Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.School of MathematicsGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.California Polytechnic State UniversitySan Luis ObispoUSA

Personalised recommendations