Metric System?

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

It's been bothering me for awhile now; I'm really wondering why the U.S. hasn't adopted the Metric System as the system of measurment. It is used the world over, save for us, and I guess I just don't understand why we haven't picked it up. I mean, we have to learn all the conversions in class because we have to switch between Metric and our own crappy methods of measurement. Has anyone else wondered this?

 

[Aught3]

General US conservatism?

 

[Marcus]

The deeply ingrained isolationism that blights the US psyche. Adopting the metric system would be tantamount to admitting something foreign was better than something American, which is something that many Americans simply won't do regardless of the objective merits. It's what kept the US auto industry going for many years.

 

[ninja_lord666]

YOU TAKE YER GOSH DARNED METRIC SYSTEM AND GET YER FOREIGN ASS OUTTA MY COUNTRY!

Yeah, the reason the US doesn't switch is because we are 'special'. We think we're the best country in the world and so we should do things differently. Personally, I find that sentiment stupid. America's unwillingness to change is what's sinking this ship. Our golden age has come and gone (around the 1880s after the Civil War), yet everyone seems to be taking the ostrich approach to the problem...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I think they might adopt the metric system when everyone else starts to use a new and better system then the metric.

 

[Nashy19]

You are "special"

 

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

Still, isn't it more logical to measure using powers of 10, rather than made-up measurements? But, I guess you guys are right, we are "special" here.

It's funny; I can remember wasting 2 weeks of class having to learn the conversions between the Metric and "American" systems. It's time that doesn't need to be wasted.

 

[IrBubble]

This is a map of countries that do not use the metric system (red)

As you can see there are three countries that has not adapted to metric, these are US, Myanmar and Liberia.

 

[ninja_lord666]

@ IrBubble: Why is the moon on that map? :?

 

[IrBubble]

I don't have the slightest clue. It was the only map I could find which I could post on the board, and what is a moon or two between friends?

 

[Ictinike]

I'd have to go through grandma's card file and re-write all the recipes. Just not gunna happen!

This is one of those things I'll never understand. 5 Minutes thought from anyone with 1/2 a brain says convert, yet we don't. I think our only hope is to do it slowly. Soda is a liter or two liter, races are kilometers... Or maybe we'll get lucky and the next generation of kids will just find it "cool".

The big road blocks are gas by the gallon, speed limits in mph, and the dang weather man with his 80 degree forecast.

 

[borrofburi]

We don't convert because it will cost a ton of money to convert. All our factories would have to change, the way things were represented in stores would have to change, etc. It's a massive inertia in an entrenched technology.

It's the same reason we still define pi off diameter: too much of a pain to change it to be defined off radius.

Still, isn't it more logical to measure using powers of 10, rather than made-up measurements?

Metric is still made up. If you want to design a measuring system I suggest you do it by basing it on the length of a hydrogen atom, or a proton, not some bar of metal at a certain temperature. Also we need a better way to define time, perhaps the base time unit should be based off the half-life of something or the time it takes to fuse hydrogen.

And there's nothing inherently better about base 10, the two things metric has going for it are: used by most everyone, picked a base and stuck to it (base 8 would have been just as good).

Perhaps the best way to think if how to define a measurement system is to ask the question: what is the most likely system for an alien race to understand if they were to meet us? It gets to the heart of the issue: something universal.

It's funny; I can remember wasting 2 weeks of class having to learn the conversions between the Metric and "American" systems. It's time that doesn't need to be wasted.

But every living person in the US would have to relearn those and convert their entire brains into thinking in metric, it'd be a 2 year use of brain power for *everyone in the US*.


Not that I have anything against metric, and my children shall certainly not hear of the US system until school teaches it to them. They'll also think in radians instead of degrees. And hopefully waves instead of particles.

 

[IrBubble]

Aren't you going a bit too far trying to teach them trigonometry and quantum-physics before they start school?

And there's nothing inherently better about base 10, the two things metric has going for it are: used by most everyone, picked a base and stuck to it (base 8 would have been just as good).

The reason we use the base ten is because it's a number humans are very familiar with (think fingers). Besides, you're already using the base ten, just not for your meassurements, when calculating you still use 10 as a base.

Metric is still made up. If you want to design a measuring system I suggest you do it by basing it on the length of a hydrogen atom, or a proton, not some bar of metal at a certain temperature. Also we need a better way to define time, perhaps the base time unit should be based off the half-life of something or the time it takes to fuse hydrogen.

1983 October 21 , The seventeenth CGPM defines the metre as equal to the distance travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second

 

[borrofburi]

Aren't you going a bit too far trying to teach them trigonometry and quantum-physics before they start school?

No not at all. I knew there were 360 degrees in a circle before I got to trig, I knew 90 degrees was a right angle, the angle squares use, etc. When I got to trig I found that was all a bad way of thinking about it, that there are 2pi radians in a circle, that 2pi/4 is a right angle that squares use, that 2pi/8 is the angle to fire an object for the furthest distance possible.

I knew that tables were made of billions of extraordinarily small particles, that water could be seen as billions of bouncy balls, etc. Long before I got to quantum mechanics.

Unfortunately now I can't convert. I still think in degrees, in feet, in particles, when it would be vastly better to think in radians, meters, waves. It is my desire that my children don't encounter these difficulties (even if it will cause others).

The reason we use the base ten is because it's a number humans are very familiar with (think fingers). Besides, you're already using the base ten, just not for your meassurements, when calculating you still use 10 as a base.

Oh right, that's why all my attempts to pick a better base haven't worked out, I always think "it's arbitrary, we should fix that" only to realize that there's no good reason to pick any base, 10 fingers is pretty much the best one we have.

1983 October 21 , The seventeenth CGPM defines the metre as equal to the distance travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second

That is not how metric was originally defined. That also does not in ANY WAY change that it's completely arbitrary. The history of metric is that there was a metal bar. Eventually they decided that was inaccurate, so they looked to light and the time interval that would be required for light to travel approximately that distance.

Regardless of all that, 1/299792458 is still completely arbitrary, especially because "second" is arbitrary.

 

[IrBubble]

Regardless of all that, 1/299792458 is still completely arbitrary, especially because "second" is arbitrary.

Also we need a better way to define time, perhaps the base time unit should be based off the half-life of something or the time it takes to fuse hydrogen.

A simple wikipedia search will provide you with a reason why a second is not arbitrary, as well as a definition, while not in the exact same form as you asked, in a similar fashion.

 

[Josan]

Also we need a better way to define time, perhaps the base time unit should be based off the half-life of something or the time it takes to fuse hydrogen.

A second is based of the half-life of something.



I prefer the metric system because it is quite consistant across all of the measurements we use in physics/chemistry etc.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit

 

[borrofburi]

A second is based of the half-life of something.

A simple wikipedia search will provide you with a reason why a second is not arbitrary, as well as a definition, while not in the exact same form as you asked, in a similar fashion.

No, this is still arbitrary. We had an approximate definition of a second, so we looked at the closest regular occuring phenomena and said "hey, that's what we'll define as the second". A second is still arbitrary for the same reason that a meter is still arbitrary: we looked at speed of light in a vacuum and picked the fraction of a second that was pretty close to our bar of metal. In the same way we looked at radioactive decay of a variety of things and picked the one that was really close to the second we already knew, and said "we'll redefine second based off of that".

I will of course concede (some) defeat if you can tell me why 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is not anymore arbitrary than 4,982,349,238 periods of some other atom (carbon 16 maybe?). Even if you can tell me why that's not completely arbitrary, I still think there would be less arbitrary and a more readily identified basis for time.



Though I can think of two ways to define time and distance: find a good way to define time, and then base distance off how far light travels in that amount of time (probably the best method), OR find a good way to define distance (e.g. length of a hydrogen atom, or a proton, or some small fundamental particle) and define time based on how long it takes light to travel that distance.

I prefer the metric system because it is quite consistant across all of the measurements we use in physics/chemistry etc.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit

And that is exactly why I also prefer the metric system, and that is exactly why my children will think in meters (i.e. that peach is about 30 centimeters in diameter, that car is about 4 meters long). But despite being better than the US or imperial units, it is still exceedingly, and unnecessarily, arbitrary.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

We don't convert because it will cost a ton of money to convert.

Not really... we already use BOTH, for some goddamned reason. All you'd have to do is make everything new metric, and problem solved. You just let the old nonsense fade away, like 8-track players.

The reason we don't is because it would cost a little money, and our broken pseudo-capitalist system won't allow for it.

 

[Josan]

No, this is still arbitrary. We had an approximate definition of a second, so we looked at the closest regular occuring phenomena and said "hey, that's what we'll define as the second". A second is still arbitrary for the same reason that a meter is still arbitrary: we looked at speed of light in a vacuum and picked the fraction of a second that was pretty close to our bar of metal. In the same way we looked at radioactive decay of a variety of things and picked the one that was really close to the second we already knew, and said "we'll redefine second based off of that".

It is not arbitrary in any way. A second is redefined from a previous arbitrary measurement of time - yes, but why does that matter? By defining 1 second from the half-life of a specific isotope (which you yourself suggested) we have objectivity. What we need are constants, and we have some constants in reality, the half-life of a specific isotope does not change - neither does the speed of light trough a vacuum. Terrific, now we have both length and time based on reality itself, it is by no means arbitrary and if we got into contact with some other space civilization we could quickly show them our units of measurements through these objective values.

I will of course concede (some) defeat if you can tell me why 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom is not anymore arbitrary than 4,982,349,238 periods of some other atom (carbon 16 maybe?).

I'm not saying that the specific isotope has any meaning (maybe it does, I honestly have no clue), but that is not the point at all. You could define the second on any amount of periods of any isotope you want, but defining it like this gives it objectivity and therefore greater meaning.

Even if you can tell me why that's not completely arbitrary, I still think there would be less arbitrary and a more readily identified basis for time.

The reason it is not arbitrary is that it is based on reality itself. In a sense our measurements of time/length etc. will always be a bit arbitrary, as they are simply chosen from a vast array of possibilities. To make a good set of measurrements we need: 1) Numbers and definitions that are good to work with. 2) That these are consistant with each other. 3) That these are based on physical constants that we see in the universe. The current SI-Units fulfill all these. And if you still think we have picked poorly, please define what criteria you would need for some better set of measurements.

Though I can think of two ways to define time and distance: find a good way to define time, and then base distance off how far light travels in that amount of time (probably the best method)

This is EXACTLY what we have done. A second is defined of a specific isotope, and then distance is given by the speed of light. If you want to argue that we should pick some other isotope, YOU need to explain why any other isotope would be better.

OR find a good way to define distance (e.g. length of a hydrogen atom, or a proton, or some small fundamental particle) and define time based on how long it takes light to travel that distance.

And please explain to me why a proton is any less arbitrary? I would at least pick a particle, as that is at least a elementary particle. But it still makes no difference, both are constants found in reality itself.

that peach is about 30 centimeters in diameter,

That is one big-ass peach!

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Why is the moon on that map?

Because we use the metric system even to go to the moon?

And there's nothing inherently better about base 10, the two things metric has going for it are: used by most everyone, picked a base and stuck to it (base 8 would have been just as good).

Despite the fact that almost everyone can only calculate almost exclusively in base 10.

Regardless of all that, 1/299792458 is still completely arbitrary, especially because "second" is arbitrary.

No, it is not quite random, because the most used application is to count the phases associated to the day, and a unit is as useful depending to what it is used for.
To be able to explain the reasons why the SI units are the way they are I would have to explain a long history of it. And it would be quite long for me to do so.
But in my attempt to resume this, the following are related problems that are part of the selection criteria (when you think of units try to satisfy this criteria):
1. Type, Dependent of the nature of the measurement, is it linear or non-linear?
2. Root, Problem associated with a clear point that can be said unequivocally to correspond to zero in a given system (eg of unit suffering of this problem: Temperature until the development of the Kelvin unit, entropy, electric potential)
3. Scale, Problem associated with a clear point that can be said unequivocally to correspond to a unit in a given system (see plank units)
4. Preservation, This problem is associated whit how we define the units so someone else in a different place or time can arrive to the same measurement for the same unit.
5. Utility, Problem associated to how praticle it is to use the units depending of their general application (we do not use plank units because the measurements on the general application would result in impracticably big numbers)

Then there is ofcourse some neat multiplier and power tricks that can be used in SI system that can simplify allot the calculation, and work with a range of units more suitable at difrent scales.

SI units may not be the best possible system, but it is the most praticable system we have today.