求真分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/zlyang 求真务实

博文

[优先权?] 中国人首先提出 SI 基本单位“安培”新定义?

已有 1370 次阅读 2020-10-4 13:56 |个人分类:痛苦的人生|系统分类:科研笔记| 中国人, 首先, 安培, 基本单位, 新定义

汉语是联合国官方正式使用的 6种同等有效语言之一。请不要歧视汉语!

Chinese is one of the six equally effective official languages of the United Nations.

Not to discriminate against Chinese, please!

                                             +        

[优先权?] 中国人先提出 SI 基本单位“安培”新定义

  

一、中国人首先提出 SI 基本单位“安培”新定义?

著名专家 Peter 教授2020-10-04 08:11说:

你的安培新单位定义,属于“公开发表”。

似可这样讲故事:中国人首先提出安培新单位(大意)


  

   根根据爱因斯坦的相对论,运动(速度、加速度及其改变,引力等)会带来各种变化,所以,物理量的各种基本单位,尽可能使用受外界影响小的客体。SI基本单位,从宏观转到微观,就是一个这样的巨大进步。其实,采用静止作用定义安培,比采用运动更合理。所以,第一方案是“直接用电荷(库仑C)作为基本物理单位,而不再使用安培。”这样就没有了运动的效应。这是与2005年国际计量委员会(CIPM)建议不同的地方。

         

为了中国人,俺就打听一下吧?

“中国人比 SI 提前6年以上提出新的安培定义”,是否成立?

在多大程度上成立?或不成立?

       

   相关的“优先权”求证:

   (1)1990年代提出《电路理论》的“互容”元件。2006年被李泽元等老师论文里记在俺的名下。

   (2)1995年,超前美国学者20多年提出“互容传输信号的集成电路”。

          

二、BIPM 的一些扼要信息

BIPM, Electricity and Magnetism: Units for electrical quantities

https://www.bipm.org/metrology/electricity-magnetism/units.html

SI 安培 01 历史.jpg

      Electric units, called "international units", for current and resistance were introduced by the International Electrical Congress held in Chicago in 1893 and definitions of the "international ampere" and "international ohm" were confirmed by the International Conference in London in 1908.

      By the time of the 8th CGPM (1933) there was a unanimous desire to replace the "international units" by so-called "absolute units". However because some laboratories had not yet completed experiments needed to determine the ratios between the international and absolute units, the CGPM gave authority to the CIPM to decide at an appropriate time both these ratios and the date at which the new absolute units would come into effect. The CIPM did so in 1946, when it decided that the new units would come into force on 1 January 1948. In October 1948 the 9th CGPM approved the decisions taken by the CIPM. The definition of the ampere, chosen by the CIPM, was referenced to the force between parallel wires carrying an electric current and it had the effect of fixing the numerical value of the vacuum magnetic permeability μ0 (also called the magnetic constant). The numerical value of the vacuum electric permittivity ε0 (also called the electric constant) then became fixed as a consequence of the new definition of the metre adopted in 1983.

      However the 1948 definition of the ampere proved difficult to realize and practical quantum standards (based on Josephson and quantum-Hall effects), which link both the volt and the ohm to particular combinations of the Planck constant h and elementary charge e, became almost universally used as a practical realization of the ampere through Ohm's law. As a consequence, it became natural not only to fix the numerical value of h to redefine the kilogram, but also to fix the numerical value of e to redefine the ampere in order to bring the practical quantum electrical standards into exact agreement with the SI. The present definition based on a fixed numerical value for the elementary charge, e, was adopted in Resolution 1 of the 26th CGPM (2018).

(1)Historical perspective

            

SI 安培 02 决定.jpg

CIPM,      1946 definition of mechanical and electrical units in the SI

10th CGPM, 1954 ampere adopted as a base unit

14th CGPM, 1971 adopts the name siemens, synmbol S, for electrical conductance

18th CGPM, 1987 forthcoming adjustment to the representation of the volt and of the ohm

CIPM,      1988 Josephson effect

CIPM,      1988 quantum Hall effect

CIPM,      2000 realization of the ohm using the value of the von Klitzing constant

23rd CGPM, 2007 possible redefinition of certain base units of the International System of Units (SI)

24th CGPM, 2011 possible future revision of the International System of Units, the SI

25th CGPM, 2014 future revision of the International System of Units, the SI

26th CGPM, 2018 revision of the International System of Units, the SI

(2)CGPM/CIPM decisions

                     

三、一些本科生《电工学》教学创新的优先权

本科生《电工学》教学创新点(第一批)_副本.jpg

             

考虑到“安培定义”、“扩展 SI prefixes”有可能进入教材,还是声明一下的好。为了中国人!

真傻年事已高,行将就木,这些都无所谓了。

                         

参考资料:

[1] Shuo Wang, Fred.C. Lee (李泽元,美国工程院院士), J.D. van Wyk (IEEE Fellow). Numerical Simulation of Mutual Capacitance Touch Screens for Ungrounded Objects [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY,卷: 48,期: 2,页: 311-318,出版年: MAY 2006

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7962288

[2]  一种新型集成电路概念—— 串音计算[N]. 中国科学报,2019-08-15 第7版 信息技术

http://news.sciencenet.cn/sbhtmlnews/2019/8/348727.shtm

http://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dznews_photo.aspx?t=&id=33020

[3] 华春雷,2019-02-14,《自然》发文揭开"大科学"背后的沉重真相 [EB/OL]
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2910327-1162214.html
   但是令人深思的事实是, 那些科学领域中的不知名的独立学者或小团队, 却在科学和技术的最前沿的天际线上在拓荒和耕作. 他们在选择研究课题上, 往往更重视真正的难题和最尖端性问题, 因此, 他们才真正承担了科学前沿区的最大的风险性, 正是他们的努力和工作, 才维持了科学的后驱力, 维持了科学的生命力. 但是, 他们却往往得不到舆论的关注, 没有记者的注意, 无法被聚光灯照射, 在资金上也往往更困难. 这就是该论文所揭示的当今科学界原始森林中的沉重的生态真相. 
[3-2] Lingfei Wu, Dashun Wang, James A. Evans. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology [J]. Nature volume 566, pages378–382(2019), 2019-02-13 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0941-9?wpisrc=nl_science&wpmm=1
   Small teams disrupt science and technology by exploring and amplifying promising ideas from older and less-popular work. Large teams develop recent successes, by solving acknowledged problems and refining common designs. Some of this difference results from the substance of science and technology that small versus large teams tackle, but the larger part appears to emerge as a consequence of team size itself.

[4] 刘全慧,2020-09-22,开学第一课,丘成桐给大学生指出一条成材捷径

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3377-1251601.html

   念好大学里的每门课程的基础上,集中精力把两门以上的专业课程学到通透的程度。达到通透的必由之路是:认真做习题、特别是困难的习题。通透的一个判据是:“当你在一门课里面把基本功夫搞扎实以后,你就发现书里面很多是错的”。

相关链接:

[1] 2020-10-03,[严肃内容] 2019年 SI 的新“安培定义”:我当初一些考虑

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1253079.html

[2] 2020-10-02,[严肃内容] 2019年 SI 的新“安培定义”,是对我2012年第二方案的细化

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1252951.html

[3] 中国科学院科学智慧火花,2012-04-12,SI基本单位中安培定义的两种可能缺陷

http://idea.cas.cn/viewdoc.action?docid=4681

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1253075.html

蹉跎岁月、痴心不改:

[1] 2012-04-19,增加 SI prefixes 的建议 (Suggestion to add the SI prefixes) 

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-561082.html

[2] 2018-04-03,增加 SI prefixes 的建议 (Suggestion to add the SI prefixes)”再回首

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1107140.html

[3] 2020-03-05,扩展 SI prefixes 的建议(Suggest to extend the SI prefixes)

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1221975.html

              

感谢您的指教!

感谢您指正以上任何错误!

感谢您提供更多的相关资料!



http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1253168.html

上一篇:[严肃内容] 2019年 SI 的新“安培定义”:我当初一些考虑
下一篇:[严肃内容] 2012-04-13,《增加SI prefixes的建议》,可能属于“0到1”原创

16 范振英 许培扬 刘立 檀成龙 宁利中 武夷山 彭振华 刘炜 吉培荣 尤明庆 李毅伟 郑永军 晏成和 刘钢 杨学祥 杜占池

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (22 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2020-11-28 10:52

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部