Here's something to answer anons Can any real life object be measured to its exact whole number there is always going to extremely small incorrect measure e.g a 5 cm stick would actually be a 4.99999999999999999999 cm stick something like that
>>9170242
No
There is no need to. 5 sf is more than suffcient for majority of works
>>9170242
As far as I know, there is only one object that has a 100% accurate measurement - the Kilogramme des Archives. This is the chunk of platinum metal that defines the kilogram, and so it weighs EXACTLY 1 kilogram. This is kind of stupid since lets say the Kilogramme des Archives loses 0.1% of its mass, everything else would technically gain 1/999 of its original weight. Pretty much every other SI unit has been redefined as some unchangeable constant of the universe, like certain light emission qualities or whatnot.
>>9170242
so? whats the point? atoms are in specific sizes and cant really be exact to infinity but it doesnt matter. you dont need a physical measurment to be exact as long as you can measure the value
>>9170541 what I'm saying is majority of things in the universe can't be measured to the exact whole number with our technolgy there is always going to be a exterme small incorrect measurement (almost atomic)unless we have a machine that measures in atoms lengths.
>>9170536
isn't the kg now a perfect sphere of c12 some radius across
>>9170242
>Can any real life object be measured to its exact whole number
1. not everything comes out to be an "exact whole number"
2. >measurement uncertainty
>>9170242
Who cares? It only needs to be "close enough" for the task at hand. Significant digits.
Two problems with perfectionists: 1) It's never perfect and 2) it never gets done.
>>9170835
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sphere-made-to-redefine-kilogram-has-purest-silicon-ever-created/
Silicon! It's still in the process of replacing the old model, but it'll be a huge improvement since it's based off natural constants (plancks mass)
>>9170242
on the planck scale, within limits based on h.uncertainty and probability.
also the centimeters would be unfeasible at that scale, you'd have to use scientific notation based on SI units of distance.
I suggest you finish highschool before posting here, OP. I have half a mind to report you as underage.
>>9172910 stfu nigga your retarded