Researchers Weigh the Benefits of a New Kilogram Standard

At a meeting today, researchers will consider a new world kilogram standard, and other units. John Matson reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In a laboratory vault outside Paris is a small cylinder of platinum–iridium alloy that serves as the standard for all mass measurements worldwide. By an 1889 international accord, the mass of this metal cylinder defines the kilogram.

But that may soon change. The kilogram is the only unit of measurement still based on a man-made artifact. A second of time, for instance, is now defined in terms of an electron transition of the cesium atom. And the meter is tied to the speed of light. Those standards are universal and unchanging—unlike the official kilogram. The reference cylinder's mass has drifted slightly through the years—not enough to throw off your bathroom scale, but enough to bother measurement scientists.

Some of them are meeting January 24th at the Royal Society in London to discuss future improvements to the measurement units. The plan is to eventually relate the kilogram to a universal number known as Planck's constant. But the technology needed to do that is not yet fully developed. So, for the time being, that little metal cylinder outside Paris will just have to keep pulling its weight. I mean, mass.

--John Matson

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe