Weighty Matters

The century-old artifact that defines the kilogram, the fundamental unit of mass, is to be replaced by a more accurate standard based on an invariant property of nature

By Ian Robinson

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 an age when technologies typically grow obsolete in a few years, it is ironic that almost all the world's measurements of mass (and related phenomena such as energy) depend on a 117-year-old object stored in the vaults of a small laboratory outside Paris, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. According to the International System of Units (SI), often referred to as the metric system, the kilogram is equal to the mass of this "international prototype of the kilogram" (or IPK)--a precision-fabricated cylinder of platinum-iridium alloy that stands 39 millimeters high and is the same in diameter.

The SI is administered by the General Conference on Weights and Measures and the International Committee for Weights and Measures. During the past several decades the conference has redefined other base SI units (those set by convention and from which all other quantities are derived) to vastly improve their accuracy and thus keep them in step with the advancement of scientific and technological understanding. The standards for the meter and the second, for example, are now founded on natural phenomena. The meter is tied to the speed of light, whereas the second has been related to the frequency of microwaves emitted by a specific element during a certain transition between energy states.

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