A skeptic’s review of the New SI

Price, Gary

doi:10.1007/s00769-010-0738-x

Cited by 9 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• Complexity, incomprehensibility to users, unteachability and incommunicability [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. • Lack of robustness, relevance, practicality and adaptability in a closed and irreversible system [17,[19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The resolve of the proponents of the new SI to ignore or misrepresent those concerns is disturbing indeed and is raising serious questions regarding governance of the Treaty of the Metre. The March issue of this journal, ACQUAL [15], in many articles, raised many questions concerning the treatment of chemical measurements and the principles of the new SI [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. None have been convincingly addressed by the proponents of the new SI, despite repeated invitations to do so.…”

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Lack of robustness, relevance, practicality and adaptability in a closed and irreversible system [17,[19][20][21][22]. • Inability to add new kinds of quantities that may become important in the future (such as biological activity or information) as human understanding grows [17]. • Incompatibility with the currently well-accepted International System of Quantities [25] and with the 2008 International Vocabulary in Metrology [16][17][18]26].…”

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

No prospect for change

Price¹

2011

Accred Qual Assur

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent discussion by Martin Milton in the November issue of this journal was critical of many published objections to the proposed new International System (SI) measurement units (and in particular the definition of the mole) on the grounds that many objectors had proposed new terms in attempts to clarify thinking and that it is impractical to achieve consensus on such proposals. This discussion in response argues that those criticisms miss the point of the objectors' arguments and are perhaps more appropriately directed at both the current and the new SI itself. A primary example of a neologism in the SI is the term ''amount of substance.'' The many substantive problems with the new SI remain unaddressed by its proponents. Many important consequences of exactly fixing multiple inter-dependent fundamental physical constants as the basis of the world's measurements would appear not to have been considered by the global institutions responsible for the world's measurement units.

show abstract

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Some Disquiet Concerning the New Simentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

No prospect for change

Price¹

2011

Accred Qual Assur

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[9], claim that mole is a macroscopic unit, whereas others, for example [10], emphasize its link with the number of entities on the atomic scale. In the twenty-first century, it is trivial to say that the description of a macroscopic system (consisting of atoms or molecules) can be done, in a macroscopic or in a microscopic way, by the same quantity.…”

Section: Amount Of Substance and Other Controversial Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prospect of the dalton in the new SI: an educator’s point of view

Barański

2013

Accred Qual Assur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If the definitions of the kilogram and the mole, based on exact values of the Planck and Avogadro constants, respectively, are accepted within the framework of the new SI, then the current definition of the dalton cannot be retained. Acceptance implies redefinition of the dalton exactly in terms of the kilogram. The redefined, exact dalton is useless in mass spectrometry, and hence, a new quantity for the carbon-12 reference mass would have to be established-against the principle of Ockham's razor. In order to remove the roots of this awkward concept, the kilogram based on the Planck constant, and the mole, consisting of a particular number of entities equal to the inexactly determined numerical value of gram-to-dalton mass ratio, should be included in the new SI system. Some controversies related to the concept of mole have been also briefly outlined.

show abstract

The mole is not an ordinary measurement unit

Johansson

2011

Accred Qual Assur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A skeptic’s review of the New SI

Cited by 9 publications

References 37 publications

No prospect for change

No prospect for change

The prospect of the dalton in the new SI: an educator’s point of view

The mole is not an ordinary measurement unit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About