Specifically, during the moves towards Le Système international d'unités in the 18th and 19th centuries, why didn't anyone attempt to move us away from the definition of there being 24 hours in a day?
Wikipedia informed me that the name second comes from the second division of an hour. It also claims that the concept of having 24 hours in a day dates back at least 6000 years to the earliest Egyptian civilization. It also says the word second (as a measurement of time) didn't make it into English until the 1500's and couldn't be measured with any accuracy for 100 years. So by one way of looking at things, the base unit of time (or perhaps the grand-pappy unit of time) is the hour.
Is there some convenient property of 24 hours = 1 day that caused it to hold on while other units were phased out? I understand the significance of a degree being 1/360th of a circle (360 = 60 * 6 = 23 * 32 * 5), and 24 shares all of its factors (23 * 3), but that seems a flimsy reason. The math for converting earth's rotation to elapsed time doesn't even work out very conveniently (IMO) with these units.
I expected to find a reason in time being one of the basic properties of the universe, being immutable (in 18th century eyes) and therefore used as a pivot point for other unit definitions. But the dependency graph of SI units mostly dispelled me of that: both temperature and mass were found to be as independent as time, and both units were redefined during this period (to Kelvins and kilograms, respectively).
During the same period, other units were attempted to be re-measured from new standards:
- The measure of Length was changed to be the meter, at one ten-millionth from the North Pole to the Equator in 1793
- The measure of Mass was changed to the gram, at the cube of the hundredth part of the meter filled with water (at STP) in 1795
- The measure of Temperature was changed to be degrees Celsius, one hundredth of the separation between boiling and freezing of water (and eventually Kelvins).
And yet, efforts to define the second seem to center on more perfect measures of the existing definition of 1/86,400th of the Earth's rotation. Given the predilection for base 10 (and the gradual move away from units depending on our earthly frame of reference), why was the second left at such a cumbersome, ancient interval? Why didn't we redefine a new measure of time to be (say) 1/100,000th of a day, put 10 hours in a day, etc. etc.?
Did no one think to challenge the convention of 24 hours in a day? Why not?
That came out a little more jumbled than it was in my head, so let me sum up: I'm mainly interested in answers addressing attempts to redefine units of time and why they didn't achieve wide adoption in the scientific community.
Best Answer
It's my understanding that the invention of the metric system during the turbulence following the French Revolution also included a switch to decimal time, with ten hours per day, etc., but that it didn't take. There's a certain amount of cultural inertia that has to be overcome; as you're probably aware, those of us in the United States still have many miles to go before we can fully adopt the metric system.
As you say, you have to give anonymous inventors of the 24-hour day credit: while the metric approach of powers-of-ten relationships between units is dreadfully easy to handle when you're using base 10 arithmetic, it's quite difficult to divide ten things into three equal-size sets. Remember that base ten is essentially an arbitrary choice made because most people have ten fingers and spend their childhood grouping things into fives and tens to count them. Twenty-four has boatloads of divisors: you can separate into a dozen pairs, three groups of eight, or six quartets. Sixty would make a pretty nice base, since it's the first number divisible by two, three, four, and five; but sixty is too many things for most people to count in their heads.
The second is actually historically based not on the length of a year, not of a day: until the adoption of the cesium clock standard in 1960, the definition of the second was actually the appropriate fraction "of the tropical year 1900." It took roughly half a century for the standards committee to realize that we can't go back and re-run the year 1900 to see whether we're still producing correct seconds.
There are several things that the SI system does that don't quite make as much sense as you might like. Why on earth does the base unit for mass, the kilogram, have a prefix? Why is the base unit for electricity the ampere, when we've known for a century that charge occurs naturally in standard-sized lumps? I put the SI endorsement of the historical relationship between the second, the minute, the hour, the day, and the year in the same category. It's a convenient unit with strong historical and popular support. I don't see a need to decimalize the day.
Emilio Pisanty asks for references.
The Time Service Deptartment at the U.S. Naval Observatory, which is responsible for inserting leap seconds every ~500 days to keep atomic time (as defined) from slipping relative to ephemeris time, seems to be the source for the Wikipedia account of the history of the second, but does not cite additional sources.
The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, which is the orgainization responsible for defining and revising the international system of (SI) units, does not discuss the history of the second in its brief history of SI, and does not seem to have a page describing the history of the second in the same detail as the history of the meter.
The NIST/CODATA reference website contains historical background statements about the different fundamental units; the page for the second describes the shift from ephemeris time to the cesium standard as above.
An abandoned-looking, authorless site about units repeats the same story, but includes a handful of technical and non-technical references, including a 1958 article (Markowitz et al.) entitled "Frequency of Cesium in Terms of Ephemeris Time." This reference discusses plans at that time to move to the atomic standard.
The articles citing Markowitz et al. include a 2005 review in Metrologia entitled Atomic time-keeping from 1955 to the present, a much more detailed discussion with about four dozen techical references. A more recent review, Evolution of timescales from astronomy to physical metrology, seems from its abstract to offer a broader historical perspective.
For historical timekeeping systems and the decimal time adventure of the French Revolution I happened across Carrigan, "Decimal Time", 1978, which cites
For the division of the day in 24 hours by Egyptians, and the 60x60 subdivisions of the hour by Babylonians: O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences In Antiquity, Brown University Press, 1957.
For a catalog by Hipparchus (ca 140 BC) of stars whose rising is separated by one-hour intervals, accurate to about one minute: the "time" article in the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica. The corresponding article in Brittanica online is quite lengthy, but hidden behind a paywall for me.
For a medieval division of time into lit and dark "tides" (in English, "noontide" and "eventide"), each with twelve "hours" but only having equal length near the equinox: K. Welch, The History of Clocks and Watches, 1972.
For a similar Oriental system not supplanted until Western commerce became important in the 1800s: J. Arthur, Time and its measurement, 1909.
Old papers have old references! Carrigan observes that while weights and measures are important enough for commerce that many local standards arose more or less at once, early precise timekeeping would be complicated by the vagaries of travel by ship or by land. The engineering skill to build a clock with a useful second hand "preceded to some extent the need for standards of communication at small time intervals[, which] may have led to the universality of the present time system."