Why the SI-unit for mass is chosen to kg and not g?

  • Thread starter EL
  • Start date
  • #1
EL
Science Advisor
547
0
Anyone who knows why the SI-unit for mass is chosen to kg and not g?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #3
EL
Science Advisor
547
0
The link says: "The kilogram is the unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram."

Yes but why wasn't it defined as: "The gram is the unit of mass; one kilogram is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram, "
Why was that ugly prefix k kept?
 
  • #4
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,833
956
Actually, the way I learned it, there were two standard systems- cgs for "centimeter- gram- second" and mks for "meter- kilogram- second". If you are working with "normal" sizes then mks is natural- a gram is awfully small (about the mass of a raisin!). That's why there are often two names for particular measurements: in mks, the unit of force is the Newton (which will accelerate a mass of one kilogram at one meter per second per second) and the unit of energy is the Joule (the work done in applying a one Newton force for a distance of one meter); in cgs, the dyne (which will accelerate a mass of one gram at one centimeter per second per second-and is really small weak) and the erg (the work done in applying a one dyne force for a distance of one centimeter- now that's almost non-existant!).

It's the fact that most measurements are in the mks range rather than the cgs range that make mks (and therefore the kilogram) the standard.
 
  • #5
EL
Science Advisor
547
0
Ok, thanks. But I still don't like it... :smile:
 
  • #6
105
0
HallsofIvy said:
erg
I think I know why they have chosen the kms system...this just sounds like you had a fishbone in your throat :yuck:
 
  • #7
Maybe it was just a case of one standards decision following after another. The original "gram" was handy because a cubic centimeter of liquid water near the ice point weighs about that much. The "cgs" system was quite suitable for ordinary chemistry experiments; it grew more unwieldy when considering larger things (industrial and astronomical). Maybe they should have invented another name, for example, a "pond" for 1,000 grams and proposed a "mps" system. But gram was already established, much data recorded in that unit (and multiples like km) and conversion was an easy slide of decimal point three digits leftward. So, "mks" it became.

P.S. I have in mind that "pond" would mean a unit of "ponderable" mass.

P.S. Units for electromagnetism also complicate the story.
 

Related Threads on Why the SI-unit for mass is chosen to kg and not g?

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
35K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
852
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
37K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
Top