No prospect for change

Abstract

A recent discussion by Martin Milton in the November issue of this journal was critical of many published objections to the proposed new International System (SI) measurement units (and in particular the definition of the mole) on the grounds that many objectors had proposed new terms in attempts to clarify thinking and that it is impractical to achieve consensus on such proposals. This discussion in response argues that those criticisms miss the point of the objectors' arguments and are perhaps more appropriately directed at both the current and the new SI itself. A primary example of a neologism in the SI is the term ''amount of substance.'' The many substantive problems with the new SI remain unaddressed by its proponents. Many important consequences of exactly fixing multiple inter-dependent fundamental physical constants as the basis of the world's measurements would appear not to have been considered by the global institutions responsible for the world's measurement units.

Making progress in a practical discipline

“…Another point raised recently [2] is whether a set of definitions for the base units of the SI defined with respect to fixed values for selected fundamental constants would be subject to ''systematic'' errors that cannot be detected. The question has been considered before [12].…”

“…The proposals to redefine four of the base units of the SI are proving to be an exception-or are they? There has been an intense exchange of views in the pages of ACQUAL [1][2][3][4]. However, the intensity of this discussion has not been reflected elsewhere.…”

“…Another source of contention is the use of the term ''amount of substance''. This is in no sense a ''neologism'' [2]. As has been discussed in recent publications [7,8], the earliest usage of amount of substance in English does not approach the age of the earliest usages of ''the mole''.…”