<<

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND , VOL. 56, NO. 2, APRIL 2007 Toward the SI System Based on Fundamental Constants: Weighing the Edwin R. Williams, Membe~IEEE

units in the SI. Even if the CGPM does not choose the SC have a one-to-one correspondence with the base units and, thus, approach, it is useful to understand it, because this approach will have the same time-tested properties. The first three quan- is, in fact, the system created by any of the sets of definitions tities previously defined have the same effect as the present outlined in our paper [4]. definitions for the base units of the second, the meter, and the candela. However, for the four constants e, h, k, and NA, for which an exact value is given in the previous definition, there is a corresponding definition of a or Most of the electrical metrology community already are that must be changed. If the electron charge e is to have an familiar with the following basic concept. Our electrical units exact value, then the magnetic permeability po will have an are defined through mass, , time, and the base unit ampere p,-, = 4x x 10-'(1 & 0.7 x ~o-')N/A~;similarly, defined as follows: "the ampere is that constant current which, if if the Planck constant h is to have an exact value, then the maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, mass of the artifact kilogram that resides at the BIPM m(K) of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one meter apart will now have an uncertainty m(K) = (1 f 2 x kg; if in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force the Boltzmann constant k is to have an exact value, then the equal to 2 x lop7 newton per meter of length." This definition, triple point of is no longer exactly 273.16 K, but has an along with the physical law that describes the force between uncertainty of a few mK; and if the Avogadro constant NA is to two such wires, uniquely defines the magnetic permeability have an exact value, then the mass of one mole of carbon 12 will of free to be pg = 47~x ~o-~NIA~.When defining the have an uncertainty m(mole of 12C) = 12(1 f 1.4 x lo-') g. ampere in 1960, the authors of the definition understood that Of course, at the time of redefinition, the value of the constants choosing this constant fixes the scale for all electrical quantities, will be chosen so that the units remain unchanged, but the SI even though it takes two experiments to realize the electrical uncertainty is transferred to the old quantity. For example, as units completely. At that time, they used an absolute ampere previously shown, the kilogram artifact m(K) would have a experiment and an absolute ohm experiment. In the 1970s, the 20 parts in lo9 relative standard uncertainty when h becomes X-ray crystal (XRCD) measurement and the calculable exact. In this scenario, base units and derived units would be on capacitor experiment were the best methods. Today, a measure an equal footing. In fact, all units are derived from the "set of of the fine-structure-constant combined with the quantum Hall seven constants" and the known physics, just as derived units effect (QHE) best defines the SI value for resistance, whereas are in today's SI. If the conditions suggested by the CIPM are the watt balance best defines the SI electrical watt, and these satisfied, that is, if the data are consistent and accurate, then provide a measure of the SI and current as well. This same the major advantages of having a measurement system based philosophy, defining constants and using the best physics to on an invariant set of constants of nature greatly outweigh the realize all units, is what I am describing in the SC approach. inconvenience of the aforementioned loss of exactness to the base units, as now defined.

IV. IMPROVING THE SI V. ALL THE UNITSIN THE SI The definition for the SC approach is taken directly from [4], Given the seven constants previously defined, our knowledge except that I have changed the order of the list of quantities. of physics can be used to derive any unit in the SI, including The definition would read as follows: the seven "base units" in the old system. The definitions for the The International System of Units, the SI, is the system of second, the meter, and the candela would be defined the same units scaled so that the way as they are in the present SI, although other ways of stating 1) hyperfine splitting transition frequency of the equivalent definitions would be equally valid. For example, the cesium 133 Au('~~CS)~~is 9 192 63 1 770 Hz; we could say the meter is defined such that the 2) speed of light in vacuum co is 299 792 458 ds; has the value 299 792 458 ds. 3) spectral luminous efficacy of monochromatic of Table I is copied from [4, Table 11, which shows various frequency 540 x 10" Hz, K(X540),is 683 lm/W, choices for defining four base units. But instead of giving a 4) elementary charge e is 1.60217653 x loi9 C; choice of one definition for each of the four base units of mass, 5) Planck constant h is 6.6260693 x J . S; current, , and the , I view these 6) Boltzmann constant k is 1.3806505 x loz3 JIK; definitions as valid descriptions of how these units are derived 7) Avogadro constant NA is 6.0221415 x per mol. from this "set of constants." There is a simple correspondence between the set of seven (Note: the numeric values used in items (4), (3, (6) and (7) constants and the set of seven base units previously defined, are the 2002 Committee on Data for Science and Technology and each set can be derived from the other. It follows that we recommended values. The values that will be chosen to base create the same system whichever way we choose to define it the new SI would likely differ slightly from these values.) formally. It also follows that because the new SI can define the The seven base units form a time-tested measurement sys- same seven units, it should enjoy the same time-tested success tem. In changing the SI, it is essential that we maintain the as the old system. key property of the SI that all units of measure are uniquely One interesting point that is sometimes not understood is that defined. We can show that the aforementioned seven quantities Single Electron Tunneling (SET) experiments can help verify IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMFlVT. VOL. 56. NO. 2. APRIL 2007

TABLE I THEDEFINITIONS OF THE KILOGRAM,AMPERE, KELVIN, AND MOLEDISCUSSED IN [4] LINK THESEUNITS TO EXACTVALUES OF THE PLANCKCONSTANT h, ELEMENTARYCHARGE e, BOLTZMANNCONSTANT k, AND AVOGADROCONSTANT NA. RESPECTIVELY. IN THE "SETOF CONSTANTS"SI,ALL THESEARE ACCURATEDEFINITIONS. IF INSTEAD THE CGPM CHOOSESTO DEFINE BASEUNITS,THEN ONLY ONE DEFINITIONFROM EACH UNIT WILL BE THE DEFINITIONFOR THATBASE UNIT

The kilogram is the mass of a body The kilogram, unit of mass, is such (whose equivalent is equal to that that the Planck constant is exactly of a number of whose 6.626 069 3 XI o-'~ second. kilogram sum to exactly) -or- (whose de Broglie- Compton frequency is equal to exactly) [(299 792 458)'/(6.626 069 3 x 1 o-~~)]. The ampere is the in the The ampere, unit ofelectric current, direction of the flow of exactly is such that the elementary charge ampere V(1.602 156 53 x10-19) elementary is exactly 1.602 176 53 xl0-I9 charges per second. . The kelvin is the change of The kelvin. unit of thermodynamic thermodynamic temperature that results in temperature, is such that the kelvin a change of thermal encrgy kT by exactly Boltzmann constant is exactly 1.380 650 5 XIO-~'joule. 1.380 650 5 XI o-~'joule per kelvin. The mole is the amount of substance of a The mole, unit of amount of system that contains exactly substance of a specified elementary 6.022 14 1 5 x 1 o~~specified elementary entity, which may be an atom, entities, which may be , , , , electron, any other mole , , other , or , or a specified group of specified groups of such particles. such particles, is such that the Avogadro constant is exactly 6.022 14 1 5 XI023 per mole.

assumptions about the Josephson junction and QHE accuracy, atomic mass in units where the atomic has a value near but SET is not likely to be the most accurate way to realize the the number of . The effect of the CGPM choosing SI unit of current in the near future, except at very low current. h over u is that one non-SI system (the 1990 representation) We can measure the number of electrons passing in a circuit would be eliminated. today [I], assuming the Josephson and Quantum Hall theories Quantum physics is the basis of most modem day metrology. are accurate, just by measuring the voltage across a resistor in The Planck constant h is important to quantum physics, as c the 1990 representation. The measured current divided by the is to relativity and e is to electromagnetic theory. In practical charge ego = 2/(KJ-90RK-90) tells the number of elementary terms, when converting X-ray frequencies into , charges per second in the circuit. ego is not an exact value in the one must add an uncertainty in today's SI. An uncertainty SI, so today, this is not an SI current, but in the new system, e would still be needed if u is exact, but by choosing h no added and h will be fixed, making these measurements SI. uncertainty is necessary. In fact, if e, h, k, and NA are made to have exact values, then the following are also exact: the F, the magnetic quantum do, the Josephson VI. WHYDEFINE h? constant Kj, the von Klitzing constant RK, the in The most discussed issue that still remains is the choice eV, the molar constant R, and the Stefan-Boltzmann between defining the kilogram in terms of the atomic mass unit constant a. u or the Planck constant h. There are two non-SI systems of It is probably true that a definition of the kilogram based on units that would be affected by the choice between h and u. The an exact value for u is easier to explain than one based on an first system is the 1990 electrical representation of the units of exact value for h; but the metrology community has worked the volt and ohm (SIgO). This system is used to maintain all hard to base much of our measurement system on quantum the electrical units, where numeric values are assigned to the effects, so it seems reasonable to explain the importance of the Josephson constant, KJ-go. and von Klitzing constant, RK-go. Planck constant as part of any description of the SI. Choosing u The second system is based on the mass of carbon 12, defined makes sense if you look only at mass, but looking at the entire to be equal to 12 u. If the CGPM chooses to define e and SI strongly favors choosing h. To explain the "set of constants h, thus 2e/h and h/e2 also have exact values, the SIgo type SI" to a nonscientist, I would describe or define the kilogram units will neither be needed nor desired, but the unit u would as follows: have a relative uncertainty of order 1.4 x loa9. If, however, the The kilogram is the mass of 6.0221415 x ideal- CGPM decides that u be given an exact value, then it is likely ized atoms, each of these atoms having a mass such that that an electrical representation like the 1990 unit would still be the Planck constant, the most important constant in quan- needed, although the uncertainty of that representation in the SI tum mechanics, has the specified value of 6.6260693 x would be of the order 1.4 x lo-', much smaller than at present. J - S. Such atoms have a mass very close (within an If the kilogram is defined to make u exact, the atomic mass unit uncertainty of 1.4 nglg) to 1112th the mass of 12C. This would still be used, because it would still be useful to express means that a mole of 12Cweighs 12 x (1 f 1.4 x loM9)g. WILLIAMS: TOWARD THE SI SYSTEM BASED ON FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS: WEIGHING THE ELECI'RON 649

Watt summary as of March 2006 Fig. 1 shows two graphs of Pt-Ir artifact . The 200- 'C'. - 4 b left graph shows all three measurements of the International 150-4 st.. 1 Yr. Kilogram m(K) against sister copies distributed to 100 Y rs. a 100 .. :,,: .. countries who signed the Treaty of the Meter in 1875. The right graph shows 175 measurements of a similar Pt-Ir kilogram 50 -- measured in vacuum in terms of the Planck constant using the -0, NIST watt balance. Both have about the same vertical scale, ...... a, but the horizontal (time) scale is about 100 expanded -50.. ..., .,.,...... -* ,.:. , a. .. in the right graph. This figure says that we can, at present, -100 measure mass standards against constants of nature with similar ...... accuracy to the artifact's stability. It is time to make the change -150 '. :,.-. 'a to a kilogram standard based on fundamental constants; being -200' * - - able to calibrate your standard only once every 50 years is not 1885 1905 1925 1945 1965 1985 10/1/2004 10/1i2005 acceptable. It has restricted mass metrology research for years. Year Once we put this old artifact standard to rest, we will likely see increased activity in high-accuracy measurements, just as Fig. 1. Left graph plots comparisons of various nations' primary kilogram Pt-lr standards against the International Prototype Kilogram standard made in We increased in length measurements when we 1889, 1946, and 1989. The right graph plots a Pt-lr mass in vacuum measured adopted the constant c as the definition for the meter. using the NlST watt balance apparatus in terms of the Planck constant. The vertical scales are the same in relative magnitude, but the horizontal scalesdiffer by a factor of one hundred. VIII. CONCLUSION There may not yet be total agreement on how we define Vn. WEIGHINGTHE ELECTRON the improved SI, but it appears that almost everyone agrees it The most accurate methods with which to measure the is good to replace the artifact standards with quantum-based Planck constant, the electron mass, the electron charge, and constants as soon as reliable experiments are available. As the the Avogadro constant are the XRCD method and the watt- CIPM has recommended, the year 201 1 is a reasonable target balance method. Peter Becker will report the progress and date. I believe that the best way to redefine the SI is to define future of the XRCD method, and earlier results have been pub- the constants in a simple statement and include those seven lished [5]. Several papers presented at the 2006 Conference on constants previously listed, but whichever way we decide to Precision Electromagnetic Measurements (CPEM06) discussed define the new SI, science and industry will be much better the prospects for the watt balance. A third method uses the off with a system based on constants of nature. It will take the current of an ion beam to count the number of ions deposited on entire scientific community to communicate these changes, SO a balance [6]. All three methods measure a macroscopic mass, it is important that we start the process now. the kilogram, in terms of quantum effects in nature. The watt balance experiment uses the quantum Hall resis- tance and the Josephson volt in an experiment that equates electric (quantum) to mechanical (SI) power. This is I. Mills, P. Mohr, T. Quinn, and B. ~a~lorare major contribu- accomplished using a balance that compares the force on a tors to the SI redefinition discussion in this paper, and similarly, coil in a magnetic field to the force of gravity on a kilogram R. Steiner, D. Newell, and R. Liu are major contributors to the mass. A clever technique suggested by Bryan Kibble [7] allows watt balance work. us to measure the magnetic field and geometrical effects by measuring a voltage in the moving coil and its . These measurements can be used to calculate the Planck constant (see [l] I. M. Mills, P. J. Mohr, T. J. Quinn, B. N. Taylor, and E. R. Williams, "Re- [8, eq. 61) and many other fundamental constants, including the definition for the kilogram: A decision whose time has come," Metrologia, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 71-80, Jan. 2005. SI mass of the electron. [2] R. S. Davis, "Possible new definitions of the kilogram," Philos. Trans. There are five active watt balance experiments in progress Roy. Soc. London A, Math. Phys. Sci., vol. 363, no. 1834, pp. 2249-2264, in the world today. Four are at the national measurement Sep. 2005. [3] J. L. Flowers and B. W. Petley, 'The kilogram redefinition-An interim institutes of Great Britain [9], USA [lo], Switzerland [l I], solution," Metrologia, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. L31-L34, Oct. 2005. and France [12], and one is at the International Bureau of [4] I. M. Mills, P. J. Mohr, T. J. Quinn, B. N. Taylor, and E. R. Williams, Weights and Measures [13]. These five watt balance experi- "Redefinition of the kilogram, ampere. Kelvin, and mole: A proposed approach to implementing CIPM recommendation 1 (CI-2005)," Metrolo- ments each involve significant differences in design from the gia, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 227-246, Jun. 2006. others, and I refer the reader to their respective reports. . [5] K. Fujii el al., "Present state of the Avogadro constant determination from The most accurate measurement to date was reported by crystals with natural isotopic compositions," IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meus., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 854-859, Apr. 2005. the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), [6] M. Glaeser, ''Tracing the atomic mass unit to the kilogram by ion accu- Gaithersburg, MD [8], [lo], but others may soon report more mulation," Metrologia, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 376-386, Nov. 2003. accurate results. Results presented here and in the near-future [7] B. Kibble, "A measurement of the of the by strong field method," in Atomic Musses and Fundamental Constants, CPEMs will likely determine if the redefinition of the SI will vol. 5, J. H. Sanders and A. H. Wapstra, Eds. New Yo&: Plenum, 1976, occur in 201 1. pp. 545-55 1. 650 IEEETRANSACTIONSON INSTRUMENTATlON AND MEASUREMENT, VOL. 56. NO. 2, APRIL 2007

[8] R. Steiner, E. Williams, D. Newell, and R. Liu, 'Toward an electronic Edwin R. Williams (M'85) received the M.S. degree kilogram: An improved measurement of the Planck constant and electron in physics from the University of Colorado, Boulder, mass." Metrologia, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 431-441, Oct. 2005. in 1996 and the Ph.D. degree from Wesleyan Univer- [9] 1. A. Robinson and B. P. Kibble. 'The NPL watt balance: Modifications sity, Middletown, CT. and new measurement," in Proc. Con\$ Precision Electromagn. Meas. The highlights of his work are chronologically Dig., 2006, pp. 60-61. ISBN 0-. listed as follows: His thesis result is still among the [lo] R. Steiner et al., "Uncertainty Improvements of the NIST electronic most accurate tests of Coulomb's law and is pic- kilogram," IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 592-596, tured in J. D. Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics" Apr. 2007. textbook. He worked with Prof. Stuart Crampton at [l I] A. Eichenberger, B. Jeckelmann, and P. Richard, "Tracing Planck's con- Williams College. Williamstown, MA, on hydrogen stant to the kilogram by electromechanical methods," Melrologia, vol. 40, maser research and measured the frequency shifts no. 6, pp. 356-365, Nov. 2003. due to exchange collisions in hydrogen. He worked with Paul Olsen and [I21 G. Genevts el al., "The BNM wan balance project," IEEE Trans. Ir~srrurn. William Phillips at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Meas., vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 850453, Apr. 2005. Gaithersburg, MD, and accurately measured the dimensions of a precision [I31 A. Picard, M. Stock, H. Fang, T. J. Win, and D. Reymann, 'The BlPM solenoid to 0.1 ppm and then measured the proton gyromagnetic ratio in water, watt balance," IEEE Trans. Inslrum. Meas., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 538-542, which led to one of the best values for the fine-structure constant. He worked Apr. 2007. with Marvin Cage at NIST and was involved in the detection of quantized states in the dissipation of quantum Hall devices canying high current. He worked with the group in Saclay, France, and was involved in the detection of single-electron oscillations in small islands using an SET transistor as the detector. He worked with Richard Steiner and David Newell and measured the SI Watt using a precision balance and 0.03-ppm measurement of a velocity. (This Watt experiment is expected to help replace the last artifact in the SI system, the Kilogram, with an atomic definition.) He helped start a nanoforce calibration project at NIST. Recently, he has been working to provide a revised SI system with Ian Mills, Peter Mohr, Teny Quinn, and Barry Taylor, and on a new vacuum mass competence project with Zeina Jabbour. His research has involved testing Coulomb's law (sening rest mass limit), measuring fundamental constants (e.g., proton gyromagnetic ratio, fine-structure constant, Planck's constant), testing the QHE, and SET experiments. He has published over 50 papers in the field of precision measurements. Dr. Williams is an NIST Fellow of the Fundamental Electrical Measurements Group, NIST. He is also a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He was awarded the US Department of Commerce Medal in 1979 and the Gold Medal in 1989 and 2006. He is also the recepient of the 1999 NIST Stratton Award.