Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Defining units in the quantum based SI

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2008 Metrologia 45 129

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/45/2/001)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 163.247.43.71
This content was downloaded on 24/09/2014 at 20:00

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING METROLOGIA
Metrologia 45 (2008) 129133 doi:10.1088/0026-1394/45/2/001

Defining units in the quantum based SI

Peter J Mohr
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8420, USA
E-mail: mohr@nist.gov

Received 1 October 2007

Published 18 February 2008
Online at stacks.iop.org/Met/45/129

Abstract
Possible changes to the International System of Units (SI) are being discussed, including a
proposal to define the units by specifying the values of a set of fundamental constants. This
note is an elementary guide to the algebra associated with unit exponents which can be used
both to display the relationships between different sets of units and to provide simple tests of
whether a particular set of constants provides combinations of units that form a complete set.

1. Introduction at least, measurement of a velocity involves measurement of

Discussions are underway on how the International System
of Units (SI) can be improved [15]. One objective is to
define the units in such a way that they would be based on
natural physical phenomena, thereby providing a stable and
universally reproducible system. There are various ways of
implementing such an objective; the focus of this note is on an
approach in which the SI units are defined by specifying values
of certain fundamental constants [2]. SI units defined this way
would be based on the quantum phenomena that determine the
values of the fundamental constants.
The idea of specifying values of fundamental constants to
define units is natural and simple, although somewhat different
from the traditional approach of creating an example of a unit,
such as the metal artefact kilogram for mass or a sample of
water at the triple point for a particular temperature. However,
in either case, the measurement of physical quantities is often
based on a direct comparison of an unknown physical quantity
to a physical quantity with the same dimension which has a
value specified in a particular system of units. Other physical
quantities whose dimensions are not directly specified can be
expressed in terms of the specified units through theoretical
relationships.
In the SI as it is currently defined, an objects mass is
determined by measuring the ratio of its mass to the mass of
the artefact kilogram. Similarly, determination of a frequency
in SI units is made by measuring the ratio of an unknown
frequency to the frequency of a particular hyperfine transition
in caesium. In this case, the value of the unknown frequency
is the product of the measured ratio of the frequencies and the
SI specified value of the caesium hyperfine frequency. The
kilogram and caesium hyperfine frequency are associated with
the base units of mass and time in the SI. To go beyond base
units, the SI includes derived units such as velocity. In principle
an SI length, measurement of an SI time interval, with the
quotient giving the result in the SI unit of metres per second.
The proposed redefinition of the SI considered here is that
it would be a system of units scaled in such a way that the values
of the ground-state hyperfine splitting of caesium Cs , the speed
of light in vacuum c, the Planck constant h, the elementary
charge e, the Boltzmann constant k, the Avogadro constant NA
and the spectral luminous efficacy of a particular frequency
of radiation would have specified values [2]. The basis for
such a system is the fact that the constants are associated with
physical phenomena that can be used as the references for
measurements. The results would then be expressed in terms
of the specified values of the constants.
For example, according to special relativity, the speed of
light in vacuum is an invariant physical quantity, so it can be
used as a reference for the measurement of velocity. Such
a measurement could be made by comparing the observed
frequency of light emitted in a particular transition by a rapidly
moving ion to the frequency of the same transition made by an
ion at rest. Using special relativity theory, one could deduce
the dimensionless ratio of the ions velocity to the speed of
light from the measured frequency ratio. In this case, the ions
velocity in SI units would be the product of this ratio and the
specified speed of light c.
Another example would be in the measurement of mass.
Recent experiments have accurately determined the quotient
of the Planck constant and the mass of an atom by observing
the recoil frequency shift in light absorbed and emitted by
the atom [6, 7]. The experiments involve accurate frequency
measurements, and the results for the quotient are expressed
as a function of these frequencies and the speed of light, which
enters through the theory of the recoil effect. Thus, one can
write an expression for the mass of the atom in terms of the

0026-1394/08/020129+05$30.00 2008 BIPM and IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK 129
P J Mohr

speed of light and the Planck constant, both of which would It is evident that the correspondence is well defined in that a
have exact values in the redefined SI, and accurately measured given dimension determines a unique vector, and vice versa.
frequencies, which are determined relative to the caesium An example is the speed of light c, for which [c] = m s1 ,
hyperfine frequency. This would yield a value for the mass of corresponding to
the atom in SI units, i.e. kilograms, without making reference
1
to the prototype kilogram artefact as is now necessary.
0
Similarly, for the measurement of macroscopic masses, the
watt balance experiment [810] provides a realization of the vc =
1 . (4)

relation between the Planck constant and a mass of the order of 0
one kilogram. The experiment thereby provides a value for the 0
mass in the redefined SI kilogram unit expressed in terms of the
Planck constant, the speed of light and measured frequencies The product of two quantities, q and r, where
using the necessary theoretical relationships.
While these examples illustrate practical use of units based [q] = mp1 kgp2 sp3 Ap4 K p5 , (5)
on defined values of fundamental constants, a question which
naturally arises is whether a particular set of constants is [r] = ms1 kgs2 ss3 As4 K s5 , (6)
necessary and/or sufficient to define a system of units. It is
convenient to use linear algebra to provide a simple test of the is given by
completeness of a particular set of constants and to show the
relationships between different sets of constants and units. [qr] = [q][r] = mp1 +s1 kgp2 +s2 sp3 +s3 Ap4 +s4 K p5 +s5 , (7)

which corresponds to the sum of the associated vectors

2. On units and algebra
vqr = vq + vr . (8)
The seven units and their symbols adopted in the SI
are the metre m (length), kilogram kg (mass), second s For a quantity raised to a power a, we have
(time), ampere A (electric current), kelvin K (thermodynamic
temperature), mole mol (amount of substance) and candela [q a ] = [q]a = map1 kgap2 sap3 Aap4 K ap5 (9)
cd (luminous intensity). However, in order to simplify the
discussion, our attention will be restricted to the units of length, and
mass, time, electric current and thermodynamic temperature.
vq a = avq . (10)
In the following, we consider properties of these units in terms
of a vector space of the powers of dimensions. Other algebraic Equations (8) and (10) suggest that the powers associated with
formulations of properties of units and their relation to the units constitute a vector space, where multiplication of units
present approach are summarized at the end of this section. corresponds to addition of the associated vectors, and raising
In a frequently used notation, the value of a physical a unit to a power corresponds to scalar multiplication of the
quantity q is written as associated vector by the power. It can readily be confirmed (by
checking for commutativity, etc) that this is indeed the case.
q = {q}[q], (1)
The vectors associated with the base units form a basis for this
where {q} is the numerical value of q expressed in the unit [q]. vector space with
The general form of [q] for the units under consideration is
1 0 0

[q] = mp1 kgp2 sp3 Ap4 K p5 , (2) 0
1 0

vm = 0 ,
vkg =
0 , vs =
1 ,
where the pi are powers of the base units that give the
dimension of the quantity q. The powers may be any real 0 0 0
numbers, but they are usually integer, or possibly rational 0 0 0

numbers. It is well known that the units follow the standard 0 0
rules of multiplication and division in the same way as the

0 0
physical quantities themselves.
A correspondence with linear algebra can be made by vA =
0 , vK =
0 . (11)

associating a vector vq with the exponents in the unit of q: 1 0
0 1
p1
One of the questions that can be asked about units based
p2
on fundamental constants is whether the units associated with
vq =
p3 . (3)
the specified set of constants form a complete set in the space
p4 of dimensions under consideration. Stated in terms of this five-
p5 dimensional vector space, the question is whether the vectors

130 Metrologia, 45 (2008) 129133

 Defining units in the quantum based SI

associated with the units of the selected constants form a basis. and vci j is the ith component of the vector vcj . For the basis
This set of five vectors is (c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 , c5 ) = (Cs , c, h, e, k) given in equation (12), the

0 1 2 relationship between the sets of exponents for any quantity q is

0 0 1
p1 0 1 2 0 2 s1
vCs = 1 , v = 1 , v = 1 ,
0
1
c h
p2 0 1 0 2
s
0 0 0
p3 = 1 1 1 1 2 s3 . (19)
0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
p4 s4
0 2 p5 0 0 0 0 1 s5

0 1

ve = 1

, vk = 2 ,
(12) For the case s3 = 1, s1 = s2 = s4 = s5 = 0, equation (19)
gives
1 0
0 1 [h] = m2 kg s1 . (20)

which form an alternative basis if they are linearly independent. Since the set of units associated with the constants is complete,
In fact, they are, because for this set, the test for linear equation (19) can be inverted to yield
independence is whether the equation

s1 1 1 1 1 1 p1
a1 vCs + a2 vc + a3 vh + a4 ve + a5 vk = 0, (13) 1
s2 2 0 0 0 p2

s3 = 0 1 0 0 1 p3 . (21)
can only be satisfied if all the coefficients are zero:
0 0 0 1 0
s4 p4
a1 = a2 = a3 = a4 = a5 = 0, (14) s5 0 0 0 0 1 p5
and equation (14) does follow by explicit calculation from
It follows by inspection of the second column that
equations (12) and (13). This means that the base units can
be expressed in terms of the units of the set of constants under
consideration, and so the constants constitute what can be kg = [Cs ] [c]2 [h], (22)
called a complete set.
It is useful to take the correspondence between the units for example. A less direct example is the newton, the
and the associated vector space a step further in order to derived unit of force, for which (p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 , p5 ) =
explicitly show the relationship between different basis sets. (1, 1, 2, 0, 0) and
The dimension of q can be expressed in terms of units
associated with an arbitrary complete set of constants or N = [Cs ]2 [c]1 [h]. (23)
combinations of units denoted by c1 , c2 , . . ., by writing
An alternative set of constants of possible interest for
[q] = [c1 ]s1 [c2 ]s2 [c3 ]s3 [c4 ]s4 [c5 ]s5 , (15) a redefinition of the SI would be obtained by using the
Rydberg constant R , which provides a unit of inverse length,
with an associated vector w given by instead of Cs in the new system [2]. This choice, for which
(c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 , c5 ) = (R , c, h, e, k), would yield
s1

s2 p1 1 1 2 0 2 s1
0
wq =
s3 . (16) p2 0 1 0 1
s2

s4 p3 = 0 1 1 1 2 s3 , (24)

0 0 0 1 0
s5 p4 s4
p5 0 0 0 0 1 s5
The question being considered can be posed as what is the
relationship between the exponents in equation (15) and those
which can be inverted to obtain
in equation (2). From equations (8) and (10), we have

s1 1 1 1 1 1 p1

5
0
vq = sj vcj = Mwq , (17) s2 1 1 1 1
p2

j =1 s3 = 0 1 0 0 1 p3 . (25)

0 0 0 1 0
where s4 p4
Mij = vci j , (18) s5 0 0 0 0 1 p5

Metrologia, 45 (2008) 129133 131

P J Mohr
In principle this system would provide a complete set of units,
but at the present time, the theory needed to make the Rydberg
constant a practical measurement standard is not sufficiently
accurate [11].
If a set of five constants proposed to define a unit
system did not provide a complete set of units in the
subspace under consideration, the vectors corresponding to
those given in equation (12) would fail the test for linear
independence, allowing a non-trivial solution of equation (13),
and the determinant of the square matrix that would be
the analogue of the matrix in equation (19) would be zero.
It is easily confirmed that the sets {Cs , c, h, 0 , k}, where
0 is the magnetic constant and {me , c, h, e, k}, where me
is the mass of the electron, are complete, whereas the
set {Cs , c, e , 0 , k}, where e is the reduced Compton
wavelength of the electron, is not.
In a related approach, although the notation is quite
different, Remillard [12] introduces matrices to the application
of dimensional analysis. Equation (3) of [12] is equivalent to
a 3 3 version of equation (19), and Remillard notes that if
the transformation in that equation is to produce a usable set
of dimensions, the determinant of the square matrix must be
non-zero.
A somewhat different formulation by Subramanian
et al in [13] represents dimensions as basis vectors in a
three-dimensional space that resembles coordinate space.
Subramanian et al define a matrix that transforms a 3 1
dimensional matrix, where each element is a basis vector, to a
31 dimensional matrix consisting of alternative basis vectors.
Although these authors do not consider the vector space of the
unit exponents, they show that under a change of basis, the
exponents are transformed by the transpose of the inverse of
the square matix that transforms the matrix of vectors [13].
A connection can also be made between the  theorem of
dimensional analysis [1416] and the vector space considered
here. If a phenomenon is described by a set of n
quantities, q1 , q2 , . . . , qn , where k of the associated vectors
vq1 , vq2 , . . . , vqn are linearly independent, then the linearly
independent set forms a basis that may be regarded as
determining the scale of the units, and the n k remaining
vectors can be expressed as linear combinations of the vectors
in the basis set. For example, if {vq1 , vq2 , . . . , vqk } is selected
as the linearly independent set, then the equation
a1 vq1 + a2 vq2 , + + ak vqk + ai vqi = 0, (26)
for k + 1
i
n, will have a non-trivial solution for the
coefficients, because the set of vectors is linearly dependent.
This corresponds to the relation
q1a1 q2a2 qkak qiai = i , (27)
where i is a dimensionless constant. The utility of the
theorem is that the theoretical description of a phenomenon
should only depend on the n k dimensionless variables i ,
because it will be independent of the scale of the relevant units
which is set by the values of the k quantities q1 , q2 , , qk .
132
3. The role of base units
Some remarks can be made on the role of base units in a
system of units. In equation (2), the dimension of a quantity
is expressed in powers of the base units of the current form
of the SI. However, the analysis of relationships between
different sets of units can start from an arbitrary basis set. In
particular, the combinations of units [c1 ], [c2 ], . . . can be used
as the starting point, with the relation between exponents and
the associated vector given by equations (15) and (16). The
connection to the expression for the dimension of q in terms of
a new set of unit combinations denoted by d1 , d2 , . . . is made
from the definitions
[q] = [d1 ]t1 [d2 ]t2 [d3 ]t3 [d4 ]t4 [d5 ]t5 (28)
and
t1
t2
xq =
t3 . (29)
t4
t5
It follows that

5
wq = tj wdj = N xq , (30)
j =1
where
Nij = wdi j , (31)
as in the previous discussion. However, here no reference to
the base units is made.
Even though this relationship is independent of the base
units, it can still be useful to use the base units to make contact
between the two sets of constants. This is the case if the
constants d1 , d2 , . . ., are not known in terms of the constants
c1 , c2 , . . ., but are known in terms of the base units. Then the
matrix M  , where
vq = M  xq , (32)
can be written directly, and N would be given by
N = M 1 M  . (33)
Here the base units play a useful, but not essential, role.
They would play a similar role in the SI system if it were defined
in terms of fundamental constants. Inspection of the columns
of the square matrix in equation (21), which correspond to
the base units of the current form of the SI in terms of the
constants of the redefined SI, reveals that all but one of the
current base units is expressed in terms of the units of two or
more of the defining constants. Therefore in formulating a
possible redefinition of the SI, associating one particular base
unit with one particular defining constant would be somewhat
arbitrary and not necessary.
Setting the scale of the units of the SI by fixing values of
certain constants sets the scale of the combination of base units
associated with each constant. It is sufficient to set the scales
of a complete set of such combinations to define the system
Metrologia, 45 (2008) 129133

of units. The scales of the base units in the current form of
the SI can be derived from this set, but one could just as easily
consider these to be derived units in the new system. In fact,
for an SI system defined in terms of values of fundamental
constants, the distinction between base units and derived units
is not necessary.
4. Summary and perspective
One of the proposals to redefine the SI would be to assign
values to a particular set of fundamental constants [2]. A
vector space can be associated with the powers of the units of
the fundamental constants used for the definition, and suitable
choice of constants will correspond to a linearly independent
set of vectors in this space. While this provides a necessary
condition for selecting the set of constants, it is not a sufficient
condition. Another important condition is that the choice of
constants be made so that the results of experiments expressed
in SI units be as accurate as possible. A set of constants
that meets both of these requirements is suggested in [2].
However, the choice of constants that best meets the condition
of accuracy may evolve over time as the available technology
and theory progress.
Presumably, the original choice of base units in the SI was
made with reference to the artefacts, such as the metre bar and
metal kilogram, in the definitions. If physical constants were
used as the reference for the scale of the units, there would
be little reason to link each constant to a base unit as defined
in the current form of the SI or to make a distinction between
base units and derived units in the revised SI.
Metrologia, 45 (2008) 129133
Defining units in the quantum based SI
Acknowledgment
I am grateful to Professor Ian Mills and Dr Eite Tiesinga for
helpful comments.
References
[1] Becker P, De Bievre P, Fujii K, Glaeser M, Inglis B,
Luebbig H and Mana G 2007 Metrologia 44 1
[2] Mills I M, Mohr P J, Quinn T J, Taylor B N and Williams E R
2006 Metrologia 43 227
[3] Borde C J 2005 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 363 2177
[4] Mills I M, Mohr P J, Quinn T J, Taylor B N and Williams E R
2005 Metrologia 42 71
[5] Taylor B N and Mohr P J 1999 Metrologia 36 63
[6] Wicht A, Hensley J M, Sarajlic E and Chu S 2002 Phys. Scr. T
102 82
[7] Clade P, de Mirandes E, Cadoret M, Guellati-Khelifa S,
Schwob C, Nez F, Julien L and Biraben F 2006 Phys. Rev.
Lett. 96 033001
[8] Kibble B P, Robinson I A and Belliss J H 1990 Metrologia
27 173
[9] Williams E R, Steiner R L, Newell D B and Olsen P T 1998
Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 2404
[10] Steiner R L, Williams E R, Liu R and Newell D B 2007 IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas. 56 592
[11] Jentschura U D, Kotochigova S, Le Bigot E-O, Mohr P J and
Taylor B N 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 163003
[12] Remillard W J 1983 Am. J. Phys. 51 137
[13] Subramanian P R, Gnanapragasam B and Janhavi G 1985 Eur.
J. Phys. 6 238
[14] Vaschy A 1892 Ann. Telegraphiques 2528 189
[15] Riabouchinsky D 1911 LAerophile 19 407
[16] Buckingham E 1914 Phys. Rev. 4 345
133