Why is the kilogram the base unit of mass, instead of the gram?

In summary, the decision to use the kilogram as the base unit of mass in the mks-system was based on practical reasons such as the inconvenience of using smaller units for everyday measurements and the difficulty in accurately measuring a 1 gram artefact. However, in the 19th century, other scientists did not see this as an issue and chose to use the gram as the base unit in the cgs-system. The change to the kilogram as the base unit was a choice, not a legacy, and the names of the units are simply a result of historical reasons. The SI is a practical system controlled by an international organization, with decisions often made for political or historical reasons.
  • #1
spareine
129
39
Why is the kilogram the base unit of mass, instead of the gram?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cgs_system_of_units" [Broken] explains the replacement of the cgs- (centimeter-gram-second) by the mks-system (meter-kilogram-second) by: "The values (by order of magnitude) of many cgs units turned out to be inconvenient for practical purposes. For example, many everyday length measurements yield hundreds or thousands of centimetres, such as those of human height and sizes of rooms and buildings" and "The units gram and centimetre remain useful .., especially for instructional physics and chemistry experiments, where they match the small scale of table-top setups". That does not make sense, does it? Lengths and masses are expressed identically in cgs and mks, when using the prefixes properly: 5 meters is 5 meters and 7 kilograms is 7 kilograms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I suspect there are several practical reasons, One being that it would have been extremely difficult to make a 1g artefact (remember that it can only be a base unit if it can be realized, units need to be practical so that we can use them to calibrate instruments).
Another that it is presumably easier to measure a 1kg artefact than a 1g artefact (accurately).
 
  • #3
You run into problems with derived units. For example, the standard unit of force in the cgs system is the dyne which is 105 times smaller than the Newton. That makes it rather useless for everyday scenarios if you consider that the weight of an average person would be something like 70 million dyn.
 
  • #4
I think the question here is not:

Which mass do we choose as 1 base-mass-unit?

but rather:

Why does the name of the chosen base-mass-unit start with "kilo"?

If the mass of 1 liter water (or whatever else is used) is a practical amount of mass to be used as the base-unit, then why call it kilo[something] and just [something]? I guess it's just "historical reasons" and it doesn't really matter.
 
  • #5
Yuqing said:
You run into problems with derived units. For example, the standard unit of force in the cgs system is the dyne which is 105 times smaller than the Newton. That makes it rather useless for everyday scenarios if you consider that the weight of an average person would be something like 70 million dyn.
The mks system became popular early in the 20th century, without having a name for the kg·m/s2 until 1948 (the Newton). Apparently in everyday scenarios people were happy with the kilogram-force, and then forces are expressed identically in cgs and mks. So I guess the unit of force was not an important motive for introducing the mks-system.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
spareine said:
Why is the kilogram the base unit of mass, instead of the gram?
I agree, I find it annoying. Since the kg is the base unit I am never certain if a thousand kg should be a kkg or a Mg. I usually go with Mg, but it never seems quite right.
 
  • #7
f95toli said:
I suspect there are several practical reasons, One being that it would have been extremely difficult to make a 1g artefact (remember that it can only be a base unit if it can be realized, units need to be practical so that we can use them to calibrate instruments).
Another that it is presumably easier to measure a 1kg artefact than a 1g artefact (accurately).
Why didn't that count in the 19th century? For example Gauss, who promoted the use of coherent unit systems, chose the millimeter-milligram-second system. Apparently he did not mind that the base unit of mass was a millionth of the artefact. And those 19th century scientists who switched to the cgs system did not mind either.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
A.T. said:
... I guess it's just "historical reasons" and it doesn't really matter.
As the mks-system was the successor of the cgs-system, the change from gram to kilogram was a choice, not a legacy.
 
  • #9
spareine said:
the change from gram to kilogram was a choice, not a legacy.
The change of the base unit was a choice. The names are legacy.

Ideally you would have neither "kilo" nor "centi" in the names of base units. So the cgs-system was not better here.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
A kilogram just has more everyday uses than a gram. Most non-scientists don't talk about grams of this or grams of that.
 
  • #11
KingNothing said:
A kilogram just has more everyday uses than a gram. Most non-scientists don't talk about grams of this or grams of that.

Grams of fat or sodium?
 
  • #12
spareine said:
Why didn't that count in the 19th century? For example Gauss, who promoted the use of coherent unit systems, chose the millimeter-milligram-second system. Apparently he did not mind that the base unit of mass was a millionth of the artefact. And those 19th century scientists who switched to the cgs system did not mind either.

I think you are missing the point. You can use whatever system of units you want (and people do, e.g. Angstrom is not part of the SI) as long as they can be derived from the SI.

However, the SI is set up so that all the units can be realized (you can perform an experiment to measure it). From a practical point of view this means that the starting point for all calibrations is a primary standard which -by definition- has exactly the value of the base unit OR a calculable fraction of that standard. In the case of the kg this means that the artefact has the mass of 1 kg, and in the case of the other units most primary calibration systems will give you 1m, 1V etc or a calculable fraction of the unit.

Two things are worth keeping in mind when discussing the SI (and units in general). Firstly, the SI is controlled by an international organisation. This means that there is no "deeper" reason for some decisions, they are essentially political in nature or were made for historical reasons (which is why the Cd is a base unit). Secondly, the SI is a practical system. There is large international network dedicated to maintaining standards and calibrating instruments. This is why some of definitions in the SI are quite "ugly" (an obvious example is the Ampere, everyone would prefer to define it using the charge of the electron, but experiments based on electron-counting are not accurate enough)
 
  • #13
KingNothing said:
Most non-scientists don't talk about grams of this or grams of that.
Kids talk about grams all the time. But if they start talking about kilograms you should check what they really grow in the attic.
 
  • #14
A.T. said:
The change of the base unit was a choice. The names are legacy.

Ideally you would have neither "kilo" nor "centi" in the names of base units. So the cgs-system was not better here.
I agree, a mgs-system would be preferable from a simple naming convention. The naming convention causes inconsistent prefixes with derived units like the following:

5 kC / 1 s = 5 kA
5 Mg / 1 s² = 5 kN

or weird double-prefixes like the following

5 kkg / 1 s² = 5 kN
 
  • #15
Apparently he did not mind that the base unit of mass was a millionth of the artefact.

A (small?) correction to a frequent mistake.

milli stands for 1/1000 not 1/1000000
 
  • #16
Studiot said:
spareine said:
For example Gauss .. chose the millimeter-milligram-second system. Apparently he did not mind that the base unit of mass was a millionth of the artefact.
A (small?) correction to a frequent mistake.

milli stands for 1/1000 not 1/1000000
The kilogram artefact in Paris was made in 1799. Thirty years later, Gauss developed his system of coherent units. His milligram unit was a millionth of the artefact.
 
  • #17
olivermsun said:
Grams of fat or sodium?

I still would think kg are used more often in speech and informal discussions. I guess there's no way to be sure though - I doubt there are any studies on this.

Besides, what we really should be talking about is how people tend to use time units like this:
microsecond < millisecond < second < minute < hour < day

It also seems as though "centi-" is really only used for centimeters, but not much else. Centiseconds anyone?

Units are a funny thing!
 
  • #18
f95toli said:
I think you are missing the point. You can use whatever system of units you want (and people do, e.g. Angstrom is not part of the SI) as long as they can be derived from the SI.

However, the SI is set up so that all the units can be realized (you can perform an experiment to measure it). From a practical point of view this means that the starting point for all calibrations is a primary standard which -by definition- has exactly the value of the base unit OR a calculable fraction of that standard. In the case of the kg this means that the artefact has the mass of 1 kg, and in the case of the other units most primary calibration systems will give you 1m, 1V etc or a calculable fraction of the unit.
...
In reply to your previous post: sure, if someone wants to replace the kilogram artefact by a gram artefact, that is a bad idea.

Just to defend Gauss: he was not just anyone, and he was a masterful experimentalist. The desirability of realizeable base units may have crossed his mind too.

I wonder, isn't the definition of the meter, as the path traveled by light in 1⁄299 792 458 of a second (previously 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of krypton), suitable to define the millimeter and the centimeter as well?

I am still wondering about the replacement of cgs by mks. I am not convinced that rigorous use of the definition of the meter and the kilogram was the motivation.
 
  • #19
KingNothing said:
I still would think kg are used more often in speech and informal discussions. I guess there's no way to be sure though - I doubt there are any studies on this.

Besides, what we really should be talking about is how people tend to use time units like this:
microsecond < millisecond < second < minute < hour < day

Sure, but there are fairly compelling practical reasons to use the otherwise arbitrary period of "1 day." :tongue: 12 hours twice to make a day is maybe a bit more due to tradition, but it too has advantages over, say, 10 "standard hours" (shours? stours?) per day. (And, of course the use of base 60 in circular measurements has a long and glorious history. :biggrin:)

It also seems as though "centi-" is really only used for centimeters, but not much else. Centiseconds anyone?
Centiliters seem to appear in common use. Centistokes in scientific use. Any other examples?

Units are a funny thing!
Indeed!
 
  • #21
KingNothing said:
It also seems as though "centi-" is really only used for centimeters, but not much else. Centiseconds anyone?
Units are a funny thing!

Try pronouncing 2,34 s as 2 seconds, 3 deciseconds, and 4 centiseconds.

Originally the prefix range (milli up to myria) made one step per decade to facilitate a pronunciation similar to 11 pounds, 4 shillings and 6 pence
 
  • #22
welcome to pf!

hi spareine! welcome to pf! :smile:
spareine said:
Lengths and masses are expressed identically in cgs and mks, when using the prefixes properly: 5 meters is 5 meters and 7 kilograms is 7 kilograms.

yes, in the cgs system, we can make calculations based on metres and kilograms,

but we would then have to be careful about how many zeros to put in the final answer …

if we use 500 (cm) and 7000 (g), then the answer automatically comes out it dynes (or whatever), without our having to think about it :wink:
 
  • #23
spareine said:
I wonder, isn't the definition of the meter, as the path traveled by light in 1⁄299 792 458 of a second (previously 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of krypton), suitable to define the millimeter and the centimeter as well?

Sure, in the same way the defintio of the Ampere is used to define mA. However, the "natural" defintion of the meter is quite modern; and for most of the history of the SI it was also based on an artifact. Moreover, engineering length standards are still used quite a lot and a 1m standard is much easier to use than a 1mm standard in practical applications.
Again, the units in the SI need to be practical; and a lot of it is driven by customer requirements, i.e. what the people who rely on accurate measurements actually need (be it in industry or academic research).
 
  • #24
spareine said:
Why is the kilogram the base unit of mass, instead of the gram?
Cgs was replaced by mks because mks turned out to be the only system of units in which volt, ohm, and ampere are coherent with our units of length, mass, and time.

The cgs, which was adopted by the 1881 International Electrical Congress (IEC), contained three electrical quantities with a prototype: voltage, resistance and current. The coherent cgs-units were abvolt, abohm and abampere. The prototypes were called volt (a specification using a chemical cell), ohm (a thin, long column of mercury), and ampere (current which deposits silver by electrolysis at a certain rate). The cgs-units abvolt and abohm were unpractically small, 1 abvolt = 10-8 volt and 1 abohm = 10-9 ohm. Because of the large difference between these electrical base units and their prototypes, the cgs was unsatisfactory.

Giorgi discovered that the prototype units were coherent in another unit system, mksA. Ampere's Force Law, which relates current to force, got a new coefficient in the mksA system (2·10-7 instead of 2). The mksA system was adopted some time later by the IEC.

Fortuitously, in the new unit system, the base units for mass and length finally coincided with the prototypes from 1799 (kilogram and meter). Just lucky, not on purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
For what its worth, there is a push to redefine the standard unit of mass in terms of fundamental quantities such as Plank's constant, Boltzmann constant etc.

Claude.
 

What is the definition of a base unit of mass?

A base unit of mass is a fundamental unit of measurement that is used to quantify the amount of matter in an object. It serves as the basis for all other units of mass in the metric system.

Why is the kilogram chosen as the base unit of mass instead of the gram?

The kilogram was chosen as the base unit of mass because it is a more practical unit for everyday use. It is larger and easier to measure than the gram, making it more suitable for measuring larger objects.

How was the kilogram originally defined?

The kilogram was originally defined as the mass of one liter of pure water at its freezing point. However, this was found to be unreliable, and in 1889, the kilogram was officially redefined as the mass of a platinum-iridium cylinder known as the International Prototype Kilogram (IPK).

Is the kilogram still the base unit of mass?

Yes, the kilogram is still the base unit of mass in the International System of Units (SI). However, a new definition of the kilogram was adopted in 2019, which is based on the Planck constant and is more accurate and stable than the physical IPK.

Why is it important to have a base unit of mass?

A base unit of mass is important because it provides a universal standard of measurement that is consistent and reproducible. This allows for accurate and precise measurements to be made in various scientific fields, such as chemistry, physics, and engineering.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
2
Replies
57
Views
5K
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Electromagnetism
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
26
Views
6K
Back
Top