An old artifact kept in a vault outside Paris is no longer the standard kilogram | Hacker News Reader

An old artifact kept in a vault outside Paris is no longer the standard kilogram

news.mit.edu

202 pointsWalterSobchak143 comments

And with that, I mourn the obsolescence of my last remaining "absolute unit" joke and will have to develop something equally satisfying based on dressed lumber to replace it.

What about the imperial units? Are those defined against metric as well?

A quick glance at Wikipedia seems to indicate so, but I didn't go over every base unit.

Yes, for example an inch is now defined as precisely 2.54 cm, so a foot exactly 30.48 cm, a mile is exactly 1609.344 m.

Definition of mole changes too.

One mole contains exactly 6.022 140 76×10²³ elementary entities (as opposed to the number of atoms in 12 grams of ¹²C). Effective 20 May 2019.

Eh? Straight 6.022*10^23 is what I learned in highschool chemistry in 2003..

It's being slightly tweaked:

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/91692/avogadro...

The difference is more epistemological than practical. Before, 6.022x10^23 was the measured value of the conversion factor between a gram (exactly 1/100 of the Prototype Kilogram) and a dalton (exactly 1/12 the mass of a carbon-12 atom). After the redefinition, a dalton is defined as being 1/6.022x10^23th of a gram, and measured to be approximately equal to 1/12 the mass of a carbon-12 atom. In essence, the dependency chain was reversed, so now it all flows from the kilogram outwards.

The real wtf is that we had a unitless unit, ie a number whose value changes over time with some reference object.

Defining a unit of weight in terms of a unit of time and a unit of length. Explain that to your grandma! :)

Your grandma might be a physicist, and she'll explain it to you ;)

Or to me. So I guess a weight = some number of square meters per second. I'm trying to think of a intuitive idea why it should be thus.

It's actually the unit of mass in terms of action (time and energy). You can think of it as "how much of something is required to balance a scale where I'm pulling this much" https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/AE6A/production/...

Unit of mass.

Unit of weight in terms of time and length? It's the unit of mass in terms of action (time and energy). It's very easy to explain https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/AE6A/production/...

The unit of length is also defined in terms of the unit of time (distance travelled by light in a specific interval of time) ;)

Weight is mass times acceleration. Now explain that.

Weight is a measurement of force. Mass isn't.

More accurately, force is a unit of mass and acceleration.

For the next revision: remove the mole from the SI. It's completely pointless. A number is not a unit! Instead replace it by the bit, the fundamental unit of information.

How do you imagine that? And what has the bit to do with it?

The SI units are supposed to be used to define all other units.

The mole is just a unitless number which isn't used for many definitions, while the bit (or preferably, Shannon) has a fundamental use in information theory and the wider field of physics.

The mole is a human specific number, the bit is a property of the universe. Information is a physical quantity, just like mass or length, and deserves to have a unit in the SI system. You could use other bases, like the nebit (natural log) or Hart (base 10), but bit is most elegant as it uses the smallest integer base possible, 2.

"The smallest=the most elegant=the most desirable" seems like terrible reasoning, and similar to the reasoning behind the infamous 'Uno':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts-per_notation#Uno

However, I don't entirely disagree with where you go with this, but in my opinion, one ought to:

1. Use the nat an normalize everything else (which might seem like an odd idea at first, but think about it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_%28unit%29

But, if we assume you want to avoid the normalization, then it would seem more sensible, due to numerical efficiency, to use balanced ternary, which actually has, unlike what people who rather cluelessly apply the literal textbook (and terrible) metric of 'Radix efficiency'(an entirely artificial measure originally invented to account for engineering concerns related to vacuum tube spacing.) would presume, higher numeric efficiency than unsigned ternary, as shown here by a then Indian computer science student, Abhijit Bhattacharjee, whose work on this unfortunately only remains accessible via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090312094241/http://abhijit.in...

He actually got a reply by Marvin Minsky(to an email he had sent him) at some point (also available via archive.org, but only if you do a lot of trickery which I can't do from my mobile phone, I've however previously verified the quote he provided on the bottom of the page and it does, by all things I could account for, indeed seem genuine), which I'll quote here:

"Yes it is a fascinating subject, and your explorations and descriptions are extremely readable. I hope it gets the interest of more mathematicians."

Dear Lord no, the "mole removal" jokes in mainstream press would be too much.

It happened on May 20th and I'm not finding any mole removal jokes :o The Guardian did have "The weight is over" for the Kg.

The reason the mole is in the SI puzzled me too.

It seems that the reason is that chemists don't care how many atoms there are in their reactions. It would be inconvenient: fractions of atoms don't make sense, and the numbers are far from human scale. They just want an agreement, so that even if they don't know the exact number of atoms in their test tube, they know they all have the same number. That's what units are for.

The definition of units are done in the most convenient and precise way possible. And they are updated as science progresses. For the kg, the artifact used to be the best we had, alternative methods weren't precise enough, they changed that to the Kibble balance because now, it is better. It may change again at a later time if we find something better.

Back to the mole, it used to be defined as the ratio between the kilogram and the mass of a 12C atom because it is the best we had. Now that we can count atoms with more precision, we decided to change it to just the Avogadro constant, which becomes fixed. Again it might change. What may happen (or may have happened, see Avogadro project) is that we can define the kilogram using the mole, making it fundamental.

That is what has happened, essentially. The mole is atomically precise, and will never change.

>The definition of units are done in the most convenient and precise way possible.

testing my scale with a mirror that contains a kg of photons doesn't sound very convenient.

You were also never going to test your scale with a weight that is stored in a vault in Paris. So far you would test with a replica of a replica of that weight, in the best case (getting a copy directly from the local standards body). With the new definition in principle anybody can create an object that weighs exactly one kg and sell it to you.

Ahem, with a mass of 1kg. They might sell you a particular weight but it won't be the same when you get it home to your [local gravitational] field!

will this increase the probability of adoption of the SI system? I have often had the impression that some nations avoided transitioning to SI out of principle, not wanting to depend on the maintenance and cooperation of another nation?

If you speak about USA - they are already using the metric system, they just add their weird conversion on top of it to make things more confusing.

It's actually really hard to imagine an actual physical apparatus for producing a "reference" Kg mass using the new definition of Kg.

I get the feeling this just changes the definition of "Kg", but not how reference Kg's are actually produced?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance

The standard changed because people came out with a apparatus for using it. If there wasn't one, it wouldn't have changed.

But it's fit for measuring micrograms up to grams. One won't measure actual kg on it, at least not currently.

The point of the mole unit is this: 1 mole of nucleons (protons or neutrons) has a mass of 1 gram. So while a mole is "just" a name for a large number (akin to billion or quintillion), the actual underlying exact count isn't very important. Instead what matters is making the stochiometric computations easy to do from first principles; given the formula of a molecule, and the atomic weights of each element, you can compute the mass of one mole, and dividing the mass of your stuff tells you how many moles without any other conversion factor. If we used a different unit of mass than grams, such as pounds, then it would make sense to use a similarly different definition of mole to avoid throwing extra units into the equation.

The difficulty with this simplistic view is that it turns out that nucleons actually differ in mass slightly, depending on which nucleus they're in (and, also, isotopic ratios matter), which means there are a few different definitions you can use for the number of nucleons in 1 gram of stuff. In practice, the difference is small enough that it doesn't matter for most uses, especially if you build it into your table of atomic weights.

If you think mole is redundant, the bit is just as redundant.

> A number is not a unit!

Related to this is the fact that the Avogadro constant, 6.02214076×10^23 mol^-1, is equal to 1.

The bit is defined as the the entropy information (hence the expected value) of a random variable, which is also just a number

As part of this SI redefinition, the Boltzmann constant is also getting an exact definition 1.380 649 e-23 J/K (thereby defining the Kelvin).

If we identify the entropy formula

    S = kB ln W

as really being about bits, we see that in natural units kB = 1/ln(2) and can eliminate all energies in favor of temperatures (or vice-versa). If you think that entropy is better measured in nats, kB = 1.

A SI byte would comprise of 10 bits.

I've always been mildly irritated that the name of the SI mass base unit has a prefix. Second, liter, meter, Newton, kilogram. Were I emperor of the world I would slide the name scale up so the mass equal to 2.205lbs was called a gram.

How about we keep the current name and use it as a basis for prefixing?

    gram       -> millikilogram
    milligram  -> microkilogram
    metric ton -> kilokilogram

...never mind.

It's almost a crime that a metric ton isn't called a "megagram".

Aside, are the mega and giga prefixes ever used for anything except bits and bytes?

(Edit: OK, OK. I forgot about megaohms, megahertz, megawatts. Also megapixels and Megadeth.)

Megatons of TNT equivalent for big bombs.

Are those metric tons or imperial tons? If metric, why aren't they gigakilograms (teragrams?) of TNT?

Answering my own question, "megatons of TNT" does refer to metric tons.

Here in the Netherlands GJ (gigajoule) is used for buildings that use blockheating.

It always feels a little grating when I hear someone say some number of "thousand kilometers".

Yes, describing my old car's odometer as "250 megameters" is oddly satisfying to let roll of the tongue.

I prefer to mix my references between metric & imperial: 1.55 deca-miles

Mega-, giga- and terawatts are well used and relatively common. More specialised but still common enough are megaohms and mega/giga/terahertz.

> Aside, are the mega and giga prefixes ever used for anything except bits and bytes?

Sure, few examples of the top of my head:

- Megatons, as in yield of nuclear weapons. Which is a bit odd unit, should be in J, goddammit!

- Similarly, energy consumption/production. Commonly used units MWh, GWh, TWh. Again, the proper unit would be J, not Wh. Or Mtoe, for Million tons of oil equivalent.

> Megatons, as in yield of nuclear weapons. Which is a bit odd unit, should be in J, goddammit!

That’s what is odd about it? It should be teragrams.

It's a measure of energy, hence the unit should be J (with some appropriate prefix).

Peta- would be the appropriate prefix. 4.184 PJ is 1 megaton.

Actually, it should be grams. 51.3162(...) grams, to be somewhat precise.

Yield of explosives is generally measured in kilograms of TNT, that's why.

Whoosh.

Megahertz, Megawatt, Megapixel?

Yes! Aside from the extremely common megahertz and gigahertz, commonly used units are megajoules, gigajoules, megawatts, gigawatts, terawatts, petajoules (when countries are negotiating about energy security), exajoules (when people measure world energy consumption), megohms, gigohms, megalitres (for the capacity of a dam, though teraliters would have been more appropriate), megapascals (of some kind of tensile strength typically), gigapascals (of Young's modulus typically), megaergs (back when people still used ergs), and so on.

Um yes, for ..., like EVERYTHING?

How much money do we have left in the budget -> Several k€.

Astronomical distances in kilo, mega and giga parsecs / light years.

Forces (e.g engine thrust) Kilo and Meganewtons.

output of powerplants are usually in the Megawatt to Gigawatt.

Frequencys of radio waves are Megahertz to Terahertz.

Energy of cosmic Ray's goes all the way up to zetta electronvolts.

I could name more

> and Megadeth.)

Laughed at that one.

Megadeth is named after the term “megadeath”, a unit in Cold War calculations of possible nuclear attacks to designate a million deaths. The 80’s were a grim time. (You can actually see in the film Dr. Strangelove a scene where George C. Scott’s character leans over a binder labeled “World Targets in Megadeaths”.)

An engineering mechanics textbook that I used had megagram as a unit.

Gigawatts were popularized in a certain movie :)

Physicists studying the sun and effect on its surface use megameter as a length scale quite a bit.

If you were emperor of the world, I would implore you to finance a multibillion dollar project to measure the gravitational constant to higher percision so that we could move to units that actually make sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

Shpx, gung'f n shpxvat terng vqrn.

I have been exposed.

V fcrag na rzoneenffvatyl ybat gvzr penpxvat guvf pbqr...

Came here to mention the Planck units, aka God's units :)

Sadly they are a little outside of the human realm of experience, both in their single units (waaay to small usually) and in the units that the list contains (speed, electrical charge, etc; where we like "introductory" units such as length, time, weight)

With the exception of the Planck mass, which ends up being about that of a gnat.

The units aren't "waaay too small", it's the humans that are big.

Realistically, we might also have shorthands for a convenient order of magnitude for each of the units

http://www.ihst.ru/personal/tomilin/papers/tomil.pdf

but these types of decisions should probably be left for whenever people can economically measure the constants with enough precision to be serious about switching.

The gram was the original base unit in the French revolutionary metric system. It was defined as the weight of 1 cm^3 of water at the temperature of melting ice. The definition was too imprecise and the kilogram turned out to be more practical, but renaming the unit would have been too much trouble I guess.

Such a choice might get you removed as emperor of the world -- the number related of engineering, scientific, and medical errors might be high. Generations of scientists would remember such an emperor, but not in a positive light.

I share your consternation with the kilogram's name, but it is almost as fundamental to our units as Franklin's implicit, and perhaps unfortunate, choice to call the charge of the electron negative.

Furthermore, the pound is a unit of force. One can find locations (poles and equator) on Earth's surface where the measured weights of an object can differ by at least 0.5% [1], making any definition of mass based upon weight troublesome.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude

I'm aware of that, but had I given the value in another mass unit like AMU my meaning would have been less apparent.

Reading about standard kilogram always reminds me 2014 movie "1001 grams" [0]. Not sure how accurate it reflects how the things are actually run there, but was interesting to watch it nevertheless.

[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3346824/

Directed by Bent Hammer

Confused, so how do they measure 1 kilo of something now when they need to calibrate the most precise instruments? They count 10^40 photons? How? And how does that translate into a physical mass they want to carry around?

Edit: Seems I completely missed a paragraph somehow. Thanks!

The term of art is "realisation". The article mentions two realisations but does not elaborate: "In practice, there are currently two known methods for measuring such masses with great precision. These are known as the Kibble balance and the single-crystal silicon sphere". You should be able to google from that.

I never understood why a sphere was even in the discussion of a standardized atomic count.

Any rational fractions using pi = pi atoms or molecules. And that's absurd to have r=(3V/4pi)^1/3 . No matter how you mess with it, it's irrational to the extreme!

Now.. Face-centered or ody-centered cubic follows a nice quadratic expansion for integer based counting. We don't need no steenkin pi's!

It's not difficult to round to the nearest atom.

Because it's easiest to polish perfectly and verify the diameter of if there's no preferrer orientation. Edges of any kind are liable to wear.

For most intents and purposes its OK if you are a bit inaccurate. The important thing is that we will never drift further and further away. In 1000 years time we will still have exactly the same kg as we have now.

Transitioning is quite interesting, you have to measure your old unit with the new system at a resolution never reached before so that you know you don’t invalidate a large collection of numbers everywhere in the world. Then, depending on your definition, you might choose a special number, Avogadro’s number has to be a perfect cube, number of transitions have to be integer, etc.

>Despite the greatest of precautions, every time the standard kilo was handled — for example, to compare it to another unit that could then be used to calibrate instruments — it would shed some atoms and its mass would be slightly changed. Over its lifetime, that standard kilo is estimated to have lost about 50 micrograms.

Why did the standard kilo ever need to be handled? Just store it on a balance and only handle the comparison unit.

I think they needed to take the replicas from other countries like the US to the master one in Paris for comparison every year.

Edit: see this Veritasium episode https://youtu.be/SmSJXC6_qQ8

Also relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y

The balance still would need to be balanced.

right...

and then left...

At this precision you weigh things twice. Once with the reference on the left arm of the balance and the test object on the right and another time with objects swapped.

The standard kilo was/is stored in a vault inside several bell jars and only removed once every ~30 years to compare with the world's national reference/transfer standards.

As far as I know, the mechanism by which Le Grand K is drifting with respect to all of the national references is not known.

To leave it on a balance (which must be operated/checked/maintained) would expose the K to much more risk.

This article sounds like it got written by a scientist but got butchered through a PR department.

It talks about the "Mass of a photon" and weighing them directly, rather than the energy-equivalent mass, which is presumably what they are intending to talk about?

As the article correctly states, photons have a finite mass that could in principle be measured by putting an optical cavity on a scale.

I know that zero is a finite number, but since the photon is a massless particle, wouldn't it be impossible to get a kilogram worth of photons bouncing around in an optical cavity?

No, it’s entirely possible in principle. If you build a perfect optical cavity, weigh it, pump a bunch of light in, and weigh it again, you’ll find that the weight went up by ghf/c^2 summed over each photon added to the cavity. Divide by g and you get the sum of the masses of the photons. 1 kg of photons would be enough to destroy your lab and the rest of your city, so only a very advanced civilization would ever do the experiment on this scale.

Photons indeed have no rest mass, but it’s impossible to ever find a photon at rest unless you yourself have no rest mass, in which case you also have no ability to do experiments.

Actually, as a physicist with no rest mass, I'm perfectly capable of performing experiments. I just never seem to find the time...

Only in practical terms, as that’s c^2 joules of photons, which is roughly equivalent to the Tsar Bomba detonation.

Photons have zero rest mass but it so happens that they are always zipping around at the speed of light so their actual mass as observed is nonzero.

For some reason, zero is often considered not finite. I personally find this terminology quite unintuitive, but it is well established.

Something fun of a related nature; if you heat something up, zero particles added, it gets heavier :)

If you had a perfectly reflective impervious box, put in 500g of matter and 500g of antimatter, and shook it, the box would then contain 1000g of gamma ray photons. Same gravitational and inertial mass as 1000g of inert matter. (Due to gravitational blueshifting, the photons hit the bottom of the box slightly harder than the top. This is not a halfbaked science blooper; your local physicist will tell you this is actually correct.) QM says photons have zero 'rest mass', but that's not the same thing as actual zero mass.

Physicists finally moving from SVN to Git.

Git is fundamental now?

Was just thinking centralised repository to distributed, where everyone can have their own copy :)

More like from JPG to SVG

Not JPG, a physical picture that cannot be copied perfectly.

If you consider re-encoding a JPG perhaps the initial comparison holds.

more like from cvs/cvsup to git.

Veritasium has a video back in 2017 explaining kibble balance https://youtu.be/Oo0jm1PPRuo

I wonder if there is a process that has to be gone through to now update the pound avoirdupois. It is defined as 453.59237 grams but given the formal definition of the gram has changed could there be a need for a formal acknowledgement, or does the law encompass changes in methods so it just happens automagically?

I don't know about US, but this does need formal amendment to Weights and Measures Act 1985 (current UK standard in force) Schedule 1 Part V, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/72/schedule/1/part/....

I think the US is not affected by this change, as the NIST didn't define what kilogram actually is back in 1959 [1].

[1] https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.p...

Change is scheduled for 20 May 2019.

checks date

fake news... the artifact is still the official reference for the standard kilogram for another 72 hours... ;)

Yeah, jokes aside I think _technically_ the post title should be changed. (Even the article's title is wrong. Though, it wouldn't be the first time NH's title is more accurate than that of the article it points to.)

Is there a reason why this took so long?

Don't know why this was downvoted.

But here is the answer [1]: "The new definition only became possible when instruments were devised to measure the Planck constant with sufficient accuracy based on the IPK definition of the kilogram."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram

Le Grand K is dead! Long live Le Grand K!

The new reference kilogram is an engineering marvel, but I’ve always wondered this: why didn’t they just build a reference gram instead? Seems like that would be at least a thousand times easier to pull off.

Likely a lot harder to get the tolerances down on something much smaller.

As covered in the article, the reference object loses some of it's atoms every time it is handled. The smaller the reference object, the larger the relative error induced this way.

Not just that, it's probably just the surface (or near surface) that sublimes. The surface only increases with the square of the radius while the volume increases with the cube. so multiplying the volume by 27 only multiplies the surface by 9.

It was easier and more reliable to manufacture the reference kilo in the past. With the new redefinition, you can make your own reference gram, nanogram, megagram, etc.

Your intuition is correct -- it is possible to build more-precise intercomparison tools at the gram scale than the kilogram scale, but until next Monday, our units are referenced to Le Grand K, and any gram-reference must subdivide the absolute standard. After Monday, you're free to build your own gram-scale Kibble balance and call it an absolute standard.

Basically, it's part of the lie of the mythology of the metric system.

The metric system did some great things (eliminated the use of measures that depended on the substance being measured, dry pints vs wet pints, bushel of wheat versus bushel of oats; simple relationship between units of length, area and volume), some things that were already common at the time (eliminated regional definitions of units; related the volume and mass of water), and some stupid things (metric prefixes).

But at the end of the day, the size of the meter and kilogram were chosen to be very nearly 3 Parisian feet and 2 Parisian pounds, because that made it easier to adopt.

This reply doesn't seem to address the comment it's replying to at all...

The answer to the question "why is the unit weight the kilogram instead of the gram" is "because the kilogram is about 2 Parisian pounds, which is what everyone at the time actually cared about".

As a scientist I've gotta say...how are metric prefixes bad? I couldn't do my job without them every day.

As a scientist, use scientific notation off the base units; you eliminate opportunities for confusion. The prefixes don't really add anything.

The Sun is 1.5 x 10^11 meters from the Earth.

Calling it 1.5 x 10^8 kilometers doesn't help you visualize the distance better, nor calling it 150 gigameters. Now you have three numbers that mean the same thing floating around, and if you accidentally write 1.5 x 10^8 m somewhere instead of km, or read 1.5 x 10^11 km as m, you've just introduced a thousand-fold error.

Common units (eg, Angstrom) make sense when you do not need to convert between them; it's convenient if they are easily convertible to your standard unit, but having mg and ug and g and kg floating around is just an unnecessary headache, you inevitably accidentally interpret a microgram dose as a milligram dose from time to time and poison a patient or eight.

Unless you need to make a dial on a physical piece of equipment. In that case it's helpful not to have to append x10^N to all of your numbers.

Or if you need to write it down anywhere at all; that's why programmers use eN or e+N. Although we really need to get around to standardizing a hexadecimal equivalent.

Personally, I find the prefixes helpful when memorizing approximate values, eg for back-of-the-envelope estimates (proton mass is 1GeV, electron mass is .5MeV, room temperature is 25meV, h_bar c is 197 MeV fm, ...)

A valid defense of the metric prefixes (I mean, I still think they're on the balance a mistake, but you do have a point), but ironically, electron-volts are not an SI unit.

Why 1 GeV instead of 160 picojoules?

If you don't mind I'll keep using milligrams and micrograms, micromolar, nanomolar etc. instead of writing all that out.

The reference kilogram is estimated to have lost 50 micrograms over it's lifetime. I think it's safe to say that a reference gram would have lost a similar amount of mass. This would have caused a larger change in the definition of a gram/kilogram over time because the ratio of mass lost in the reference would have been greater.

Not much, but still.

Why wouldn't the mass loss scale with the mass of the object? Why would it always be the same mass loss in absolute terms?

It's hard to say because the mechanisms for the mass loss are not fully known. In fact, we are just guessing that mass loss actually occurred, and how much did occur. How would we have measured the mass change of the reference kilogram? By definition the reference kilogram was the most stable quantity of mass we could have generated at the time, and the most well protected quantity of mass for the duration of it's service as the reference kilogram.

I think mass loss is probably proportional with either the surface area or the surface area of the handled portion. This is just a hypothesis based on what I suspect the mechanism for mass loss is (friction from air resistance and being touched). Now that we have a more accurate way of measuring mass we could repeat the experiment of trying to preserve a quantity of mass, even doing different variations based on quantity, material, conditions, etc. Such an experiment would be relatively expensive and take a long time for good results, but maybe someone curious with funding will do it.

EDIT: The idea that we could have preserved a gram of material, while measuring it's mass every 40 years, for the last 130 years while it only lost 5 picograms (1/1000th of the estimated mass of the reference kilogram lost) is so crazy I can't believe it.

Is the concept of a half-life similarly crazy to you?

No, and radioactive decay doesn't account for the variances between the reference kilogram and it's sister kilograms we've observed.

So it's an issue of "an event happens uniformly randomly across a mass" that seems unusual to you, and only applicable to radioactive decay?

I love that everyone took this as a serious comment.

It's either the best unintentionally punny question or the best unintentionally serious pun in history.

Either way, I'm loving this.

Apparently they were going to go a different way, but this saved them a ton.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com