Talk:2019 redefinition of the SI base units

Revocation of 31-Jan-2011

It is a moot point whether one writes 2 x 10^-8 or 20 x 10^-9. The former keeps the mantissa in the range 1.0 to 10.0 while the latter maps onto μg. In such circumstances, I think it appropriate to keep the article in line with the original text. Martinvl (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback of 29 March 2011

I have rolled back a series of changes that were made earlier today. While I agreed with some of the changes, I did not agree with them all. In particular,

• The CCU wrote to the CIPM - see the title given in the reference.
• Hard spaces between numbers and symbols were removed. The hard spaces were put there to ensure that the value and symbol were not separated by line breaks. This is standard practice.
• The way in which negative superscripts was handled - for example changing J·K⁻¹ to J/K. While I agree that these two have the same meaning, I used J·K⁻¹ for the sake of consistency with the rest of the article.
• The symbol "sec" is not the recognised symbol for "seconds" - "s" is.

Martinvl (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Impact on reproducibility

The current text contains a table, introduced with:

"The following table catalogues the improvements"

They don't look like they are all improvements, as in half the cases the change is from an exact value to an uncertain value. I suggest the table catalogues the changes.
—DIV (138.194.11.244 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC))

Following your observation, I am revising this section to include all constants listd in the reference. Martinvl (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Proposed redefinition of SI base units/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Perhaps link the background section to the History of the metric system using {{main}}
2. Can a citation be added for the paragraph concerning the setting-up of the CGPM, CIPM and BIPM?
3. "In 1889 the CGPM took delivery" - what does "took delivery" mean?
4. "the mandate of the CGPM was extended to provide standards for all units of measure, not just mass and length" - before reading this, it is not clear that the three organisations only dealt with mass and length; please make this explicit earlier on.
5. "In the ensuing years" - vague. Is there a known end date?
6. Can you explain how the conditions set by the General Conference were not fully met?

Adabow (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposer

I have taken on board your proposals and have implemented them. I have also ensured that the date passed to the accessdate parameter is consistent across all citations. Martinvl (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuing...

1. It is not stated in the background section that/when the speed of light was fixed.
2. Is "an elementary charge" correct, or should it be the elementary charge?
3. Please provide a citation for the current definitions of the base units.
4. There are some great analyses about the consequences of the redefinitions (eg effect of amp redefinition on vacuum permeability, vacuum permittivity and impedance of free space), but it is not all referenced
5. Ditto with the example of potentially defining kg from G - WP:OR
6. Who is Leonard?

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Placing review on hold now. Adabow (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposer

I have taken the liberty of replacing bullet points with numbers to simplify cross-referencing of comments.

The outstanding issues in the first set of comments have been handled as follows:

• Item 4: In this change, the text "under which three bodies were set up to regulate units of measure that were to be used internationally." was replaced by "under which three bodies were set up to take custody of the international prototype kilogram and metre and to regulate comparisons with national prototypes.^[1],[2]" Martinvl (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Item 5: The updated text reads: "In 1921 the Convention of the Metre was revised and the mandate of the CGPM was extended to provide standards for all units of measure, not just mass and length. In the ensuing years the CGPM took on responsibility for providing standards of time (1956), electric current (1946), temperature (1948), molar mass (1971) and luminosity (1946)." Martinvl (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The issues raised in the second set of comments have been handled as follows:

• Item 1: Done - diffs here. Martinvl (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Item 2: Done. Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Item 3: The intro paragraph to the section now reads "The current (2008)¹ and proposed (2011)² definitions are given below." Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Item 4: Discussion on the impact of the changes on the ampere has been overhauled and citations provided. Martinvl (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• Item 5: Section Proposed redefinition of SI base units#Impact on reproducibility has been modified - citations were found that paralleled work which could be held to be WP:OR. Martinvl (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Item 6: Final section has been rewritten - the comments made by the reviewer no longer apply, but the whole section needs to be reviewed.

As each item is addressed, it will be signed.

Martinvl (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Also note the contradiction "In 1960 the metre was redefined in terms of the speed of light, making it derivable from nature" in the lead vs "Similarly, the 17th CGPM (1983) replaced the 1960 definition of the metre[Note 2] with one where the metre is derived from the speed of light" in the background section. Adabow (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this - I have corrected it.

When trying to find out more about Leonard, I discovered that a lot more discussion material had become available, so I am rewriting the final section which I am calling "Discussion" rather than "Criticism". I hope to have it in place in a few days. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great! Take your time - no rush. Adabow (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adabow,

I have now completed my revisions following your initial review and when you are ready, I would be grateful if you could assess my latest offerings. Martinvl (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is still no explanation for who Leonard is. Ditto for Chyla. When someone is mentioned, there first name should be included in the first instance. If the first names are not known, then please at least give initials. Affiliation should be given as well. Adabow (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Reading between the lines Chyla appears to be a freelancer so his affiliation carries no weight, however the journal where this paper was published referees its papers, so that has been included in the text (complete with Wikilink).

OK, everything looks good to me now. Passing. Well done. Adabow (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Diagram description

the diagram for current definitions of SI units claims in its description that a meter is defined as the distance traveled by light in 1 second. according to the article on the meter it is equal to 1/299,792,458 of this value, and the claim is sourced. I suggest the source be reused here and the information corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.192.47 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The caption doesn't say that the metre is defined as the distance traveled by light in a second, it says "in term of". The point is that it's defined in terms of distance traveled. But you're right, it's clumsy enough to be potentially misleading. I'll try tweaking it (though without putting in the precise value because that isn't the point) - see what you think. NebY (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately the difference is big enough that it is hard to get wrong in actual use or discussion. It is nice to get it right, though. Gah4 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

gram

maybe it's time to change kg to gram? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.190.150 (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Spelling

I noticed that the article has the word artefact, and was about to change to artifact. But then again artefact seems to be the British spelling, and so maybe consistent with the rest of the article. But then I find that there are many artifacts, too. Seems to me that we should be consistent, one way or the other. I don't know which way, though. Gah4 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would use the word "prototype" anyway. 173.48.62.104 (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

unit order

Is there a consistent order that units should be when appended to a quantity? I am mostly used to kg - m - s order, for example usually used in explaining force or energy. I saw some quantities with a different order, though about changing them, then decided to ask here. Gah4 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Figures are confusing, how to fix?

The diagrams ("directed graphs" to a mathematician) of the current and proposed definitions seem unnecessarily hard to compare. Each has the units in a different order and a different colour code. The m is blue in both, K orange, and the kg red, but s/A swap green/purple and cd/mol swap yellow/turquoise.

This graphic that the first is based on shows the units in the same positions, but I'm not sure

Assuming that having arrows mostly "down" would be most legible, A, mol, K and cd have only in-arrows in both diagrams and so should be placed lower down. s has only out-arrows. kg and m have both.

The other place to look is the changes, which are the arrows we'd like to be noticed most.

• 5 links are unchanged: s→m, s→cd, s→A, m→cd, kg→cd
• 3 links are deleted: m→A, kg→A, kg→mol (A is now based only on the second, mol is standalone)
• 5 links are added: s→kg, s→K, m→kg, m→K, kg→K (kg is no longer primitive, K is no longer standalone)

So perhaps the following positions (expressed in terns of a 12-hour clock)

• 9:26: A
• 11:09: s
• 12:51: m
• 2:34: kg
• 4:17: mol
• 6:00: cd
• 7:43: K

That's like the first diagram, but with the kg-A-cd triangle rotated counterclockwise.

Any other ideas? More importantly, any volunteers to actually draw it? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Trying to fix the problem, I’ve just replaced the first diagram (current SI) with another one which is color-consistent, position-consistent and size-consistent with the second diagram (new SI), which I have created back in 2011 and which was color-consistent at that time (the color inconsistency dates frome 2015 when the creator of the current-SI diagram updated it and changed its colors for some unknown reason).

As for the optimal unit order in the diagrams, you mention valid points, and one advantage of your proposal would be the absence of upward arrows in both diagrams. Still, I have sticked to my original unit order. Here are some (debatable) reasons :

1. At least, the new-SI diagram has no upward arrow between units.
2. The highest, 12 o’clock position of the unit second emphasizes its major "donor" status in the new-SI diagram, with 5 arrows flowing down from it. (In hindsight, I find it looks like the rays of the sun-god Aten!)
3. This unit order allows a certain vertical symmetry of the arrows in the new-SI diagram.
4. The heptagon figure is visually more "stable" when oriented with two vertices on the base line and one vertex at 12 o’clock position. In your proposal (only one vertex on the base line at 6 o’clock position), the figure would look in an unstable equilibrium. In my new-SI diagram, the stability of the figure is further "weighted" with each of its two lower-edge units receiving three downward arrows.

Those two diagrams are PNG files converted in SVG format, but Wikimedia Commons warns me that "This SVG image contains embedded raster graphics.[1] Such images are liable to produce inferior results when scaled to different sizes". Anyone knows how to convert them in "pure" vector graphics format, without having to redraw them from scratch?

--Wikipetzi (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I redid both images using svg elements from File:SI base unit.svg. --IngenieroLoco (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@IngenieroLoco: I should have said this much earlier, but thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of redefinition

@Quondum: I put the word back to "likely", because "likely" is actually putting the case very mildly. It's basically certain, barring something very unexpected like the appearance of multiple inconsistent measurements of some of the constants. Perhaps the footnotes on that particular statement need improving, but the statement is WP:Verifiably true.

• As the first footnote says, the BIPM director called it a "foregone conclusion" in 2014 already.
• The 26th CGPM has already been scheduled for 13–16 November 2018.[1]. If you want to be specific, the redefinition is scheduled for the morning of Friday the 16th, and the press have already been invited. (Same source, right-hand side of p. 10.)
• The proposal has been around, and accepted in principle, by two previous CGPMs (2011[2] and 2014[3]). At those meetings, they agreed to the redefinitions as soon as the measurements met a defined quality level.[4] That level has now been achieved.
• The CODATA § Task Group on Fundamental Constants have already announced the deadline[5][6] for data to be incorporated into the redefinition: 2017-07-01 for the final fixed SI values.

The entire metrology world is assuming that it will occur. I can find half a dozen more sources (e.g. [7]) which state it in passing or obviously assume it. Can you find any fairly recent source which expresses the slightest doubt?

In fact, I've been thinking seriously about removing the word "likely" entirely, and either saying something like "planned" or "scheduled" or, even bolder, stating flatly that it will occur. Do you have any comments on that idea? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There is little doubt about it occurring then, but such an assertion remains a judgement. Using "likely" and "will" in the voice of Wikipedia is editorialization. WP should not be drawing conclusions (no matter how "obvious"), but should be citing sources, meaning stating what they say, or better, stating that they say something. To say that it is "expected" or "scheduled" would be fine, because that is what one or two of the sources say (though "expected" should be qualified by whom). My preference would be "scheduled", because that is a statement of fact (about intent), but does not attempt to predict the future. A statement in the future tense in WP is always suspect. —Quondum 16:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quondum: I understand your point about future tense being suspect, but not the first point about editorialization. Expressing a value judgement (either overtly or via choice of wording) is editorialization. I don't see how "likely" does that.

The word is just a summary of the sources. (Remember, SYNTH is not just any synthesis.) It's certainly possible to go into great detail about who said what, but when everyone who knows anything about the subject agrees, that's not good sourcing, that's bad writing.

I haven't figured out the right wording for a more specific statement. Formally, only the vote is scheduled, and while the result of that vote is a "foregone conclusion" and everyone is making plans based on the outcome, they're also being polite about it in public. Fitting all of that into something brief is difficult. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a very fine point, but for the lead to say that it "likely" is WP drawing a conclusion about probability that does not appear to be stated by the sources even if that conclusion seems inevitable (let's be guided by how the sources are stating it). I suppose my reaction is because that wording immediately tells me "this could be an editor who really wants this to happen, so maybe they're skewing the interpretation". It just doesn't have the right tone to be convincing. How about something like "... is on track for adoption at ..."? —Quondum 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quondum: I'm beginning to see the point here. I think that the conclusion is stated in the sources. As I described above, it's implied all over the place, but also stated explicitly in the sources already in the article. (Unless you think that "likely" isn't a reasonable synonym/paraphrase of the sources' words "foregone conclusion" and "expected".)

But even if that's a reasonable word in this context, it raises red flags for you in general and you'd like something which doesn't. That makes sense.

The problem is, as you mentioned earlier, anything that sounds like a prediction raises those flags. We could change the word to "expected" to match a recent source verbatim, but would that address your concern?

I could also add a footnote with details. But if it's going to be discussed in a footnote, I'm tempted to move all the caveats to the footnote, remove all the WP:WEASEL words from the lead, and just say it will happen.

I mean, obviously any statement about the future is subject to very unexpected caveats. There's no need to explicitly state that a major terrorist attack in Paris could preempt the 26th CGPM. But Summer Olympic Games says that "Tokyo, Japan will host the 2020 Summer Olympics" (emphasis added) because there's no reasonable doubt. (Someone added caveats to the lead of 2020 Summer Olympics, but the rest of the article uses the unmodified "will".)

Back to the topic at hand, do we have any remaining disagreement about what the sources say, or are we just trying to find the right wording to say it? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you've characterized it pretty well. Yes, it is probably only wording; I don't think there is any real disagreement with what the sources say, or that adoption is imminent at that date (I'm not well-learned here: it was a pleasant surprise to learn now that there is a definite timeline this time around). It is more that a reader might do what I did: see a red-flag word, check the footnote/references (I am guilty here: notes [1] and [2] don't directly deal with it and I thus barely scanned [3], then jumped to a conclusion about editing; I suggest perhaps keep only [3]; at least remove [1] as too dated and reorder [2] and [3] since [2] only confirms a premise in [3], as I scan it).

I take your point about how one expresses things (one is not expected to list all the caveats). In this case, I think word choice should suggest quoting something rather than an opinion of an editor. "Expected" would have raised less of a red flag for me, since it suggest at least that one is referring to a specific group who expects it and is less suggestive of editorializing. Being able to find the word in the footnote gives one a quick point of purchase. I'm not going to obstruct whatever you choose; I've learned something new and am not disagreeing . —Quondum 22:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The most apropos parts of the sources are actually included in the citations as quotes. [1] was the first overt statement I could find, and the speaker is someone particularly knowledgeable. (Think of the BIPM director as the CEO of a company, the CIPM as the board of directors, and the CGPM as a shareholders' meeting. While the CEO can't speak for the latter, a good CEO knows what they're thinking.) [3] is by the head of the CODATA task group on fundamental constants, who's in charge of producing the numerical values that the CGPM will enshrine. Another good source, but not quite as good as [1]. [2] is the same thing as [3], just in "lay summary" form. Of the three, I'd say it's the most disposable.

It was clear in 2011 that the redefinition was going to go through "soon";[8] the 25th CGPM was held only 3 years after the 24th in anticipation, which turned out to be a bit too optimistic. But everyone who's been following the matter has watched the measurement uncertainties decrease below the specified limits through 2015 and 2016, and could draw the same conclusions as [3] states. (In truth, the hardest thing to track down was the exact date (as opposed to "Q4 2018") of the CGPM. It's not secret, just only communicated to the attendees.)

Anyway, I'll amend that to "expected". 71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Specific values in the 9th edition draft

@Petr Karel and Quondum: Sorry for that last undo; I hadn't realized it was a consequence of User:Petr Karel's edit. That's the problematic one, but this will take more discussion than a simple undo. (Feel free to undo my undo pending discussion if you like; I did it in a hurry and then stopped when I realized the situation was more complex.)

The problem is that the draft 9th edition does give those specific values, but those aren't the final values. I think it was done to make the formatting closer to final, but I worry that importing them verbatim will cause confusion among readers.

That those aren't the final values is verifiably true, As http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/ says, they will be adjusted based on measurement results submitted up to a deadline of 1 July 2017, which is still open. (And the reason the deadline is more than a year before the redefinition is to allow time for criticism of measurements.)

So we need to add some explanatory text... okay, I think I know how to do that. Perhaps consider this just an apology for my too-hasty undo. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the undo; it was appropriate. And I was just commenting that the provisional nature of the values in Proposed redefinition of SI base units § Proposal should be made clearer, explaining that they will be finally revised after 2017-07-01, but you beat me to the talk page. —Quondum 05:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quondum: Well, I was apologizing for undoing your edit and then stopping to discuss before undoing the previous one that was the really important one. Kind of shooting the messenger. Anyway, edits made. I felt hurried to correct misleading information ASAP, so I'd definitely appreciate a review/copy-edit. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quondum: P.S. Going over your recent edits, the Avogadro constant article actually distinguishes between "the Avogadro constant" and "Avogadro's number". The former is 6.022140857×10²³, the latter is the number of hydrogen atoms is 1 g of gas, about 5.97538324×10²³ based on the atomic mass of protium at 1.00782504(7) u. Although the terms are understood as synonyms today, would it be better to avoid the ambiguity? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is beautifully clear and up to date now, with little chance of misinterpretation. The only thing is that the proposed values in the table could do with the same footnote, though this might increase the column width even more with the Planck constant and the Boltzmann constant. Perhaps that could be remedied by a forced line break before the footnote?

I kept the distinction between the Avogadro constant and Avogadro's number. All I did was fix minor variants in the terms to match the terms in the article Avogadro constant, specifically only adding/removing "the" and "'s".

A side issue: the table uses the symbol $R_{\infty }$ without ever defining it, or linking to the article Rydberg constant. —Quondum 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quondum: You're right about the table, sigh.

Regarding the Rydberg constant, the table doesn't define $c$, $\alpha$ or $A_{r}(e)$, either. (Although the last is defined in the text immediately after it.) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rationale behind choice of electromagnetic constant

Is there some background on the (proposed) SI's choice of the elementary charge rather than either the electric constant or the magnetic constant to be assigned an exact value in the New SI? They are nominally equivalent ways to specify the same thing in a sense. The latter are arguably more fundamental (even in quantum mechanics), but ultimately the choice in this context would be the one which leads to the most accurate and useful system. Precision of mass constants particularly might be affected. Looking at the table, the dominant source of imprecision for every interesting constant listed is the fine-structure constant, which is in a sense is just the square of e, at least as far as precision is concerned. It seems to me that the history of this choice and comments on it would be appropriate (and definitely interesting) content for this article. —Quondum 22:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that there is a recent paper that seems to speak to this: K.A. Bronnikov et al, On the Choice of Fixed Fundamental Constants for New Definitions of the SI Units, Measurement Techniques, November 2016, Volume 59, Issue 8, pp 803–809. —Quondum 04:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit technical for a lay audience, but we can try. I'll try explaining it here, and see if we can eventually turn it into something suitable for mainspace.

Basically, it's all about shifting the uncertainties around to minimize covariances. If I have a bunch of measurements over here which are accurate relative to each other to parts per trillion, then it's annoying to be measuring them relative to a standard which is only measurable to parts per billion.

That's what was happening in 1960 when the metre was redefined from the bar to a spectroscopic standard. The spectroscopists had all of these wavelengths measured to ridiculous precision relative to each other, but measuring a macroscopic dimension was much harder. The Ångstrom was an agreed-upon standard which was nominally 10⁻¹⁰ m, but that was known much more loosely. When someone finally figured out how to count the number of wavelengths in a metre, the metre bar quickly became the limiting factor.

Another place this has happened is the astronomical unit. It's much easier to measure the relative distances of the planets' orbits than to relate this to a metre bar on Earth. For a long time, the orbits of the planets were known to 3+ decimal places in A.U., but the A.U. was only known to one or two decimal decimal places. (Read up on the transit of Venus for details.)

These sort of situations result in a lot of measurements which are very strongly correlated. A is measured with an uncertainty of 25 ppb, B is measured with an uncertainty of 25 ppb, but all of that uncertainty comes from the 25 ppb uncertainty in the comparison to external standard Z. The ratio of A and B is known with an error of < 1 ppb. This quickly becomes an error-prone pain in the ass.

It would be better to find a standard which could be compared to A and B at their sub-ppb level and move the 25 ppb uncertainty over to Z, since it can't be measured to better than 25 pbb uncertainty anyway.

The interest in Plancks's constant and the elementary charge arise because the field of electrical metrology has surpassed mass metrology, yet the current definitions of the volt, ampere, etc. are all based on the kilogram. Quantum Hall effect resistance standards and and Josephson voltage standards are absolutely fantastic because, as far as anyone has been able to tell, there are no corrections.

When building a real cesium clock, there are all sorts of corrections that must be applied to correct for the non-zero temperature, Doppler effect due to the moving atoms, applied magnetic field, etc. etc. which mean that the atoms inside my clock are not absorbing radiation at quite 9192631770 Hz.

But if you build a Josephson voltage standard, nobody has yet found any source of intrinsic error. (Tested down to 3×10⁻¹⁹!) The only uncertainty is due to sources like thermal EMF and wiring resistance outside the Josephson effect itself. Likewise for QHE resistance standards. This makes them startlingly accurate and practical measurement devices.

And the two effects are defined by the constants K_J = 2e/h and R_K = e²/h. There's been 26 years of research which has been done using conventional electrical units based on assumed exact values of those constants, because the SI-referenced values are not good enough.

Anyway, the reason for defining e and h specifically is to give exact values to those constants, and thus the measurements made with those instruments. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That is illustrating the underlying process of reasoning for choosing reference standards, not the actual choices made. Someone reading this article (I assume) is interested in which standards are intrinsically more accurately comparable with the quantities of interest. The choice of e versus ε₀ is the one that I am interested in, and I'll use it as an example. The uncertainties in the table that change are:

Constant	Symbol	Proposed definition (e defined)		Alternate definition (ε0 defined)
		Relation to directly measured and fixed constants	Significant factor(s) in uncertainty	Relation to directly measured and fixed constants	Significant factor(s) in uncertainty
Josephson constant	$K_{\text{J}}$	${\frac {2e}{h}}$	exact	${\sqrt {8\varepsilon _{0}c\alpha /h}}$	${\sqrt {\alpha }}$
Von Klitzing constant	$R_{\text{K}}$	${\frac {h}{e^{2}}}$	exact	${\frac {1}{2\varepsilon _{0}c\alpha }}$	$\alpha$
Elementary charge	$e$	defined	exact	${\sqrt {2\varepsilon _{0}hc\alpha }}$	${\sqrt {\alpha }}$
Magnetic constant	$\mu _{0}$	${\frac {2h\alpha }{ce^{2}}}$	$\alpha$	${\frac {1}{c^{2}\varepsilon _{0}}}$	exact
Vacuum permittivity	$\varepsilon _{0}$	${\frac {e^{2}}{2hc\alpha }}$	$\alpha$	defined	exact
Impedance of free space	$Z_{0}$	${\frac {2h\alpha }{e^{2}}}$	$\alpha$	${\frac {1}{\varepsilon _{0}c}}$	exact
Faraday constant	$F$	$eN_{\text{A}}$	exact	${\sqrt {2\varepsilon _{0}hc\alpha }}N_{\text{A}}$	${\sqrt {\alpha }}$

The changes probably amount to just moving uncertainties around (despite the apparent halving of error), and metrologically this is probably inconsequential (in terms of what you say above). But from a practical perspective, an uncertainty of a measured quantity that is not pervasive in physics equations ($R_{\text{K}}$, $K_{\text{J}}$, $e$) is less bothersome or problematic than fuzziness in the definition of a pervasively used constant ($\varepsilon _{0}$, $\mu _{0}$, $Z_{0}$). Having Maxwell's equations exact (in terms of SI units) is probably better than knowing the exact charge of an individual electron, especially since the strength of the field that it generates is uncertain. That the constants chosen to define values for are actually those used at present in measurement is just "something under the hood"; it is the accuracy and usability of the final system that counts.

Anyhow, what I'm getting at is that this article might relevantly summarize references that give how the actual choices were made. —Quondum 04:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"But from a practical perspective, an uncertainty of a measured quantity that is not pervasive in physics equations ($R_{\text{K}}$, $K_{\text{J}}$, $e$) is less bothersome or problematic than fuzziness in the definition of a pervasively used constant ($\varepsilon _{0}$, $\mu _{0}$, $Z_{0}$)."

That's where I disagree with you. How often do people operate circuits in a hard vacuum? There's little point knowing $\varepsilon _{0}$ more accurately than you know the applicable medium's dielectric constant. People normally assume that the relative permitting of air is 1, but it's about 1.00059, and varies with the weather! If that's not stable to better than 1 ppm, uncertainties less than 1 ppm are negligible.

On the other hand, as I said, $R_{\text{K}}$, $K_{\text{J}}$, and $e$ make up the quantum metrology triangle (no article, but there should be one!) which are direct inputs to a lot of high-precision experiments.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In high-precision experiments, I expect that one would choose the standards one wishes to measure against. For example, if the caesium-133 standard proves to have a higher relative bandwidth or similar impediment to precision than some other source, the experimenter might use the latter. In the case being discussed, these constants are already built into the system, and one can use these instead of the units m and s for the experiment, if they prove superior under the circumstances. This does not seem to me to be a metrological argument, but rather one of allowing sloppy thinking by an experimenter, since correctly analyzed, this instance makes no difference. It comes down to aesthetics (and general usage), really. The accuracy of alpha, for example, stays just as imperfect either way. —Quondum 12:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quondum: "For example, if the caesium-133 standard proves to have a higher relative bandwidth or similar impediment to precision than some other source, the experimenter might use the latter."

Yes, but a good global standard is one that is usually the best possible. When a significant area of research builds up around an alternate standard because it can't be compared to the global one, the result is awkward. That's what happened with my historical Ångstrom and a.u. examples, and is the current situation with the Conventional electrical units $R_{\text{K-90}}$ and $K_{\text{J-90}}$, and with the International Temperature Scale of 1990. (And starting to happen with optical frequency standards, but that's not quite as pressing yet.)

It's absolutely true that changing the definition doesn't affect the accuracy of the experiments the tiniest little bit. All it means is that more and more people simply aren't using the unit to describe the result of their experiment because it's too inconvenient. That's the situation that international agreements like the Treaty of the Metre, and International yard and pound are designed to avoid.

As you point out, the two possible definitions are linked by the fine-structure constant, and it's a question of which side of that link to place the definition on, and which side to put the uncertainty on.

The fine-structure constant is known to 0.32 ppb, so that's the uncertainty that the losing side has to deal with.

The question is, which side is more likely to make measurements more precise than 0.32 ppb?

I's sure it's gotten better since then, but The PTB's Josephson voltage standard was achieving 0.15 ppb uncertainty in 2000.

On the other hand, the most accurate possible electric-field-type measurements are done with a gadget called a calculable capacitor. This is a special shape of variable capacitor where the relationship between the position of the plates and the capacitance can be calculated exactly. For realistic dimensions, the change in capacitance is about 0.5 pF. By measuring that change with high accuracy, the electrical standards can be linked to $\mu _{0}$ (and thus the current SI definition of the ampere).

More information:

• Metrology Triangle Using a Watt Balance, a Calculable Capacitor, and a Single-Electron Tunneling Device (2008)
• Progress on the Thompson-Lampard calculable capacitor project at BIPM (2015)

However, the current experiments are struggling to break the 10-ppb uncertainty barrier. This is the limit at which anything defined in terms of the permittivity of free space can be measured.

So, given two domains, one with 0.15 ppb uncertainty, and the other with 10 ppb uncertainty, with a link of 0.32 ppb uncertainty, which side should we place the definition on, and which should be derived?

---

If we were to keep the current fixed $\mu _{0}$, which can only be linked to $R_{\text{K-90}}$ and $K_{\text{J-90}}$ to 0.32 ppb, then we'd need to continue using "conventional" values of the latter for sub-10⁻¹⁰ electrical measurements.

If I had my choice about how to define things, I'd define the metric system in terms of Planck units, which would keep $\mu _{0}$ fixed. But unfortunately, they all depend on the gravitational constant, which is only known to 47 ppm = 47000 ppb.

71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

On measurements using $\varepsilon _{0}$ defined as exact, it would be effectively determined from measurements of $R_{\text{K}}$ and $\alpha$: there is no reason to require direct a more direct realization of the constant.
I guess the adoption of $R_{\text{K-90}}$ and $K_{\text{J-90}}$ is indicative of the difficulty of tracking uncertainties, what I rather irreverently termed "sloppy thinking", and I guess this carries your argument. But I think the article giving a traceable, notable argument advanced by CIPM would still make sense; this is only the talk page. I don't have access to the reference I cited; I was hoping someone could paraphrase its argument.
I also like a definition in terms of physical constants used in Plank units, but excluding $G$ (it does not enjoy the theoretical status of aspects of the Standard Model aside from the accuracy issues). A nongravitational constant can replace $G$. Is there not some other suitable physical constant that does not rely on gravitation or a system as complex as an atom for its definition? Examples include the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ and $m_{\text{e}}$, though these have similar issues. —Quondum 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Status of draft values

Note 3 ("This is a draft value, which will be updated before the redefinition.") was introduced when these values were still due to be updated. The publication of the CODATA 2017 values was presumably the expected update. I imagine a further revision is not impossible, but it seems to me that the values now reflected in the article are expected to be final. Does anyone have more insight so as to accurately revise this note? —Quondum 15:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Quondum: Indeed, the final numbers are known, and I have made the relevant edits, including removing that note from most places, and greatly softening what remains. On 20 October 2017, the 106th meeting of the CIPM formally approved a Draft Resolution A for consideration by the next CGPM. Although the final text of the resolution is not available from the BIPM web site AFAICT, all of the changes made to previous drafts are described in the meeting minutes and so we know that the 2017 CODATA values have been adopted. (Indeed, publication of the 2017 values was deliberately delayed until the same day the CIPM approved them.) 23.83.37.241 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I've made related tweaks. It is nice that N_A, N_N, Da and u now all have unambiguous draft definitions (given CIPM/106 and the draft ninth SI brochure). SI is becoming a very tight and consistent structure, excluding certain great big gaping flaws with cd and Sv that IMO could easily (and should) have been addressed. —Quondum 19:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured Article for 17 November?

For discussion: are other editors interested in turning this article into something suitable for a front-page feature when the CGPM resolution passes? With multiple active editors, an base that has already passed GA, and almost 10 months to prepare, it doesn't seem too strenuous.

The first things seem to me:

• Figure out the eventual article title (I'm thinking 2018 redefinition of SI base units, but not strongly attached)
• Decide if we're going to convert the current article or write a new one in the past tense, and
• Decide if we want to aim for the 16th or 17th
• Request the FA date

The 16th would make writing a good article trickier, as it would hit the front page a few hours before the vote. (What time zone does WP use to roll over featured articles, anyway?) But it would match the news explosion better.

Unless we want to do all the work in Draft space, a mainspace article would require an explanatory hatnote anyway, and maybe that would be good enough for the first few hours of the 16th, but I fear it's too messy and misleading-fine-print-y to satisfy FA review.

But before we get too far into details... anyone else interested? Yea or nay? 23.83.37.241 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Starting the title with the year suggests that it is a yearly event. Perhaps drop the year altogether and address all historical redefinitions, but with the focus on the most topical: the one that will just have been voted on. I wouldn't mind some involvement. —Quondum 03:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Mole and NIST

Just had my ref to https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/redefining-mole reverted. I thought it was a pretty good layman's overview of the overall redefinition, and specifically of the mole. NIST should be a pretty good RS too surely. Thoughts? (I won't myself be re-instating this). - Snori (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed the reference. I invite other opinions on the suitability of the linked NIST article as an encyclopaedic reference (in this instance for the expected definition of the mole). Just because NIST is normally considered to be a reliable source does not mean that everything that appears on their website is a suitable reference. Having a general sense of the process that led to the definition, I fail to see it as an overview of anything, historically or otherwise. —Quondum 00:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I like it. Much of the process of (re)defining units isn't easy to follow, but this is fairly easy to follow by less scientific people, but also includes historical information that is often forgotten or ignored. In any case, the idea is to carefully measure a Si sphere, such that one can accurately count the atoms. The lattice constant is known very accurately, so if you can measure the diameter accurately, you figure out how many atoms it has. Gah4 (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

one of these things must change

In the Mole section, it says that one of the two must change, suggests that it is the first one, and then says that implies the second is no longer true. If only one must change, and the first one changes, doesn't that mean that the second one doesn't need to change? Gah4 (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording is maybe ambiguous. It is intended to say that the first statement is implied (i.e. it will remain valid, not that it will change). The wording in the draft is: "The dalton (Da) and the unified atomic mass unit (u) are alternative names (and symbols) for the same unit, equal to 1/12 of the mass of a free carbon 12 atom, at rest and in its ground state." Your observation is good: I'll look at clarifying it. —Quondum 01:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Change of title

Assuming that the upcoming vote on 16 November is approved, the tag "Proposed" in the current title will start to lose some of its shine. Maybe this page should be retitled to "Planned redefinition..." or "Scheduled redefinition..." or something which makes it clear that this is no longer just a proposal? Episanty (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A change of title as proposed makes sense. Yet, it will have built-in obsolescence: after adoption only six months later, the article will become historical. I would be happy to change the title, or to leave it as is for that interval, and simply update the content. —Quondum 18:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps from Proposed redefinition of SI base units to 2018 redefinition of SI base units or 2019 redefinition of SI base units? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

When they finish this one, will there be new proposed changes? I would expect it to be a never ending task. Gah4 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

When they finish adopting this change? It will stand alone as the only major revision since 1960, and there is a good chance that there will be no major revision again for at least as long. A replacement of the caesium atom to define the second could occur in time, but it could not be for many decades. From an encyclopaedic perspective, it makes sense to capture this event (this particular revision) in this article (which makes Richard-of-Earth's title suggestions look reasonable). —Quondum 15:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we should have a moratorium on summarily changing the title of this article without first reaching some consensus on the talk page, as was just done: renaming any article with GA status should be treated this way. The recent change to prepend "2019" to the title may have issues, such as the comment I made under § Featured Article for 17 November?: Starting the title with the year suggests that it is a yearly event. Another point to consider is that it might make perfect sense to consider the scope of this article to be all redefinitions of the SI base units (it already speaks about these, only with the most emphasis on the last). —Quondum 15:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Constants and base units

Under the "Impact on reproducibility" heading, the article currently reads:

"Apart from the candela, all the base units will be defined in terms of universal physical constants, but without a direct one-to-one correspondence between the constants and the base units. Thus six physical constants will be needed to define the six base units."

Those sentences are confusing to me:

• I thought there were seven, not six, base units.
• The diagram labeled "New SI" at the top of the article, File:Unit_relations_in_the_new_SI.svg, appears to show seven constants defining seven units.
• If the second sentence's phrase "to define the six base units" means the six base units other than the candela, then I would suggest wording like "to define six of the seven base units" instead so as to not imply there are only six total base units.
• Also, the first sentence tells us there is no one-to-one correspondence, but the second sentence indicates six constants match six units; while both sentences could be true (a mapping that is not one-to-one could still have the same number of outputs as inputs if some inputs map to more or fewer outputs than other inputs do), the latter sentence as it currently stands is certainly not obviously implied by the former sentence, so "thus", with its meaning of "as a result", is thus the wrong conjunctive adverb to use to connect the two sentences.

—Lowellian (reply) 21:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The goal should be to leave the typical reader with an immediate sense of the meaning, and I agree that this was confusing. I've tried to address your concerns by adapting the text. —Quondum 00:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead

I removed the mention of criticism of the redefinition from the lead, and it was reverted with the suggestion As a short mention of the criticism has been in the lead for more than 7 years, I guess its removal needs to be discussed on the talkpage first, so I am accordingly opening a discussion here. My primary motivation is that a prominent mention in the lead gives undue weight to the perception of controversy in relation to the redefinition, notwithstanding the long presence in the lead. There will be a large number of new readers visiting the page due to the recent news coverage, and it mention might create the impression that the process was significantly less consensual than it was (it seems to have been exceptional in the degree of consensus). This topic is covered in the article for the more scientifically minded reader, but IMO it would be inappropriate to thrust this in the face of the multitude of readers who will take away little more than what is in the lead. Opinions? —Quondum 17:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

As one of the six main sections in the article addresses 'concerns', and it has four subsections (more than all but one of the other sections), then per "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." from WP:LEAD, it seems reasonable weight to cover it with a one-sentence-paragraph (the smallest of the six paragraphs) in the lead. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Diagrams colors and font

I’ve just updated the colors of the two diagrams at the top of the article so they match the colors of the BIPM’s SI Illustration Guidelines. If a SVG specialist knows how to change the font to match the font in the Guidelines (see last page), they’re welcome. The SI Logo graphic files may also be of some help in that purpose. Wikipetzi 22:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikipetzi and IngenieroLoco: Please do not edit the SVG directly without noting that in the metadata. As the file description notes, the original was generated directly from a Mathematica notebook, and direct edits that do not note that change create inconsistencies in the record. Ideally the changes should be to the .nb with an accompanying Pull Request on GitHub (to make for a maintainable image). I'm aware that this does require non-free software so if absolutely needed then direct edits to the SVG cannot be ruled out; just make sure to note that in your metadata.

I've updated the changes in the Mathematica notebook and pushed new versions of the SVG to Wikimedia. This includes a rollback of some incorrect changes to the Old SI scheme - while it makes sense to use the New SI colours for the untouched constants (Δν, c, K_cd), it makes no sense at all to use those colours for the pre-change constants (M_IPK, m(12C), μ_0, T_TPW), so I've switched them back to gray.

As to fonts - this is again best handled from the Mathematica notebook instead of needing an "SVG specialist", though given the state of the style guide this can only be done partially. The bulk of the symbols (those in the Latin alphabet) are in Source Sans Pro Semibold in the BIPM style guide, and those do not represent a problem. However, the Δν is at present completely unclear - the currently-available pdf of the style guide has the Δν as a path (instead of as text) and I can't determine what the original font is. I've chosen a MaTeX-over-xelatex compilation to get the least-ugly symbol possible for the combination that I could find. Alternatives (which are stable and play well with the existing stack over Mathematica) are welcome, particularly if anyone manages to get the BIPM stylists to state what the original font was for that symbol. Episanty (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Episanty: Thanks for the fonts change, it looks great. While you’re at it, could you fix a tiny minor problem? In both diagrams, the arrow between the "s" unit and its associated constant is the only one to touch the circle of the constant. It needs a narrow gap in between. --Wikipetzi 21:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Abrogated"

Could someone paraphrased "abrogated" in the Redefinition section to a more common word. It's not helpful even when linking to Wiktionary because there are multiple definitions there so it's unclear which meaning it really means. starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The end of the Redefinition section of the article currently says:

As part of the redefinition:

• The international prototype kilogram was retired and the previous definition of the kilogram was abrogated,
• The current definition of the ampere was abrogated,
• The current definition of the kelvin was abrogated and
• The current definition of the mole was revised.

I thought to replace "abrogated" with "discontinued", but really these definitions are replaced. But then I had a thought; why is this a table anyway. We really should just use prose.

As part of the redefinition the international prototype kilogram was retired and definitions of the kilogram, the ampere, and the kelvin were replaced. The definition of the mole was revised.

Any disagreements or other suggestions? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I like it. More readable, and still says the same thing. —Quondum 15:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. Thincat (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Losing" mass x Fluctuation

The beginning of the current version of the article says: "Although designed to not degrade or decay over time these prototypes were in fact losing minuscule amounts of mass over time, even in their sealed chambers." Then, section Impetus for change says "There was no way of determining whether the national prototypes were gaining mass or whether the IPK was losing mass". I propose we change the wording in the beginning of the article. BBC News refers to this difference between the IPK and its replicas as a "fluctuation" and I propose something in that spirit is done. Mateussf (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree what is said in the lead is unsatisfactory. The reference given for the "There is no way ..." claim says "The prototype and its copies appear to gain mass over time and lose mass when washed for use in comparisons." But that may not be the best statement to rely on. Any rewording needs to be careful because the IPK has been precisely constant in mass, measured in kilograms, even of not in comparisons. Thincat (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It will be interesting to know the small difference between the old physical standard and the newly adopted one, as sources on that become available. Jonathunder (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Kilogram#Stability of the international prototype kilogram is detailed and nicely written, though rather deficient in its referencing. Note 12 is worth reading. Thincat (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The current text ("Although designed [...] within an acceptable tolerance level") is worse than unsatisfactory; it is essentially incorrect. It would be better to replace it with something to the effect of "The masses of the prototypes have been found to be measurably unstable with respect to each other, becoming less suitable for modern precision requirements", pending sourcing of a more precise statement. —Quondum 17:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Go for it and maybe someone can improve it still further. It is a tricky concept to communicate clearly and precisely. Jonathunder (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Citation date formatting

The reference dates were changed in large numbers from an essentially consistent uniform yyyy-mm-dd format, incorrectly citing WP:DATEFORMAT, which does not even suggest consistency between the three groups Dates in article body text, Publication dates, and Access and archive dates, only within each group, and contrary to WP:STYLEVAR. I propose reverting to yyyy-mm-dd format for the latter two categories – essentially all the citation-related dates that display in § References. With the large (and growing) number of references, there is even the benefit of easier scanning of the list of references and space-saving on the page. For clarity, the dates in the body would remain dmy format. —Quondum 16:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Definition of kg

So does that mean that the kilogram is now defined as 14,755,213,997,352,709,121,298,852,911,707,242,627,072 hν/c²? Rwflammang (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The talk page guidelines discourage discussion of the topic on an article's subject; the science reference desk would be appropriate. But yes, except that after about 18 digits your figure is in error, and the value is not an integer. —Quondum 19:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add that to the article, as well as the other six base units? Say in a table:

1 Kg = 14,755,213,997,352,709,121,298,852,911,707,242,627,072 hν/c² (or whatever)

1 m = c / 299,792,458

etc.

After all, what's being redefined is one of each particular base unit. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, if we have sources for the correct values. Jonathunder (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have doubts that this value would be sourced reliably (even though it is easy to determine), and I fail to see how the actual value is of interest. That value would never actually get used directly. What might be more interesting (but may still lack sources) is simply the point that the kilogram is an exact numeric (rational) multiple of hν/c², without giving the number. A similar approach might apply for all base units. But I am not in favour of presenting this, and it could be regarded as synthesis without a good source with a similar conclusion. —Quondum 23:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:CALC which should allow for some. They would have to be exact calculations, though, so written as fractions might work, but rounded decimal expansion would not. Well, rounded values with an appropriate ≈ should be fine. Gah4 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, discussions on an article's subject with the intent to improve the article should be fine. I usually try to give reasonable leeway in such cases, unless it is really obviously not useful. Gah4 (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't the coulomb the base unit and ampere derived unit?

With this redefinition, it seems to me that the coulomb is now more fundamental, in that its definition does not depend on the definition of the second as the definition of the ampere does. So why didn't they change it to make the coulomb the base unit and the ampere a derived unit?