- 15,524
- 769
Yep. An atomic mass-based mass standard certainly is one of the contenders. Unfortunately, physicists do not yet know what 1/12 of the mass of 12C is. As you noted, the published value, which is the value that you cited, has a 50 ppb uncertainty. This is largely due to the uncertainty in Planck's constant. Then there's the uncertainty in Avogadro's number. An mass standard that is only usable to particle physicists is of limited value. An atomic mass-based standard would require better definition of Avogadro's number (One solution: Just give it an ad hoc value), a way to accurately count the atoms in a largish sample, repeatability, cost, and all that.Dickfore said:The unit of mass can be made precise. Even today, in mass spectroscopy, there is a unit of mass called atomic mass unit and is denoted by u. It's definition is that it is exactly \frac{1}{12}th of the mass of the isotope ^{12}C.
There are a number of efforts underway to do the prototype-based mass standard in. One of them almost certainly will pay off, sometime. One thing is certain: It ain't going to happen any time soon. This is an international standard we're talking about, after all. There are claims to be validated, committees to be organized, documents to be written and reviewed, votes to be taken, ... Years.