Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Possible Duplicate:
Why do we still not have an exact definition for a kilogram?

I was thinking about SI units. I found the following definition for the base units:

  • Meter: distance covered by light in 1/299792458 seconds.
  • Second: duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two levels of fundamental state of 133-Cesium.
  • Kelvin: 1/273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of water triple point
  • Mole: Number of atoms in 0.012 kg of carbon 12
  • Candela: [...]
  • Ampere: [...]

I searched the definition of the kilogram and I found only this one:

Mass of the international prototype of kilogram.

Why such definition? It is impossible to well define the kilogram? Why?

By my point of view the mass of the prototype will change a little with time. Is this effect considered? And what about definition of mole: it is based on kilograms, so also mole definition is "impossible"?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by dmckee Oct 9 '12 at 17:04

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

    
I know this question is answered elsewhere, but the answer is that the standard kilogram gives a more reproducible weight than you would get from something like $\frac{1000}{12}$ of a mole of carbon-12. –  Jerry Schirmer Oct 9 '12 at 16:51
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

It is possible to define kilogram, but right now the accuracy would be worse than for the prototype. And yes, the mass of the prototype is changing a bit, so efforts are being made to introduce a definition of kilogram.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.