![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Most Planck units are extremely small, as in the case of Planck length or Planck time, or extremely large, as in the case of Planck temperature or Planck density. For comparison, the Planck energy EP is approximately equal to the energy released in the combustion of the fuel in an automobile fuel tank (57.2 L at 34.2 MJ/L of chemical energy).
The intro to the Planck Energy section starts with a little bit about Planck units are very small or very big. The second sentence then talks about how much energy the Planck energy is, but gives no indication of how that level relates to the first. It feels like something is missing. Maybe remove the first sentence altogether? LambdaKnight ( talk) 17:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello all!
This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Planck units has no unit of charge? You can use either or to calculate the Pronic unit of charge, also compare with Stoney units and Hartree atomic units and “Natural units (particle and atomic physics)” and “Quantum chromodynamics units”, all these units have the unit of charge, but instead none of them have the unit of temperature, so could you also add the unit of temperature of them (simply use )?
Also, due to the article, the Planck’s original definition of the Planck unit uses , but in fact is more natural since angular frequency is more natural than frequency , thus the modern definition uses , by this logic, is more natural since this will make the impedance of free space , but why the modern definition does not use it and instead use the original ? 36.233.219.197 ( talk) 07:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
10^34 K seems rather hot 142.163.195.238 ( talk) 19:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it would add a lot of understanding here to follow this sentence with "(For example, c = 1 Planck length / Planck time.)" D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand this sentence:
the disparity of magnitude of force is a manifestation of the fact that the charge on the protons is approximately the unit charge but the mass of the protons is far less than the unit mass
because earlier in the article it says
Other tabulations add [...] a unit for electric charge, so that either the Coulomb constant or the vacuum permittivity is normalized to 1
and then gives the two possible derivations.
so what is meant by the "unit charge"? Is there even a unit charge in Planck Units? Neither 3.3e or 11.7e feels especially close to the charge of a proton, although I guess when you're comparing it to the unit mass, it is much closer...?
The fact that "unit charge" just links back to this article doesn't really help either... Timtjtim ( talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Most Planck units are extremely small, as in the case of Planck length or Planck time, or extremely large, as in the case of Planck temperature or Planck density. For comparison, the Planck energy EP is approximately equal to the energy released in the combustion of the fuel in an automobile fuel tank (57.2 L at 34.2 MJ/L of chemical energy).
The intro to the Planck Energy section starts with a little bit about Planck units are very small or very big. The second sentence then talks about how much energy the Planck energy is, but gives no indication of how that level relates to the first. It feels like something is missing. Maybe remove the first sentence altogether? LambdaKnight ( talk) 17:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello all!
This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.
Thank you! Remagoxer (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Planck units has no unit of charge? You can use either or to calculate the Pronic unit of charge, also compare with Stoney units and Hartree atomic units and “Natural units (particle and atomic physics)” and “Quantum chromodynamics units”, all these units have the unit of charge, but instead none of them have the unit of temperature, so could you also add the unit of temperature of them (simply use )?
Also, due to the article, the Planck’s original definition of the Planck unit uses , but in fact is more natural since angular frequency is more natural than frequency , thus the modern definition uses , by this logic, is more natural since this will make the impedance of free space , but why the modern definition does not use it and instead use the original ? 36.233.219.197 ( talk) 07:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
10^34 K seems rather hot 142.163.195.238 ( talk) 19:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it would add a lot of understanding here to follow this sentence with "(For example, c = 1 Planck length / Planck time.)" D. F. Schmidt ( talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand this sentence:
the disparity of magnitude of force is a manifestation of the fact that the charge on the protons is approximately the unit charge but the mass of the protons is far less than the unit mass
because earlier in the article it says
Other tabulations add [...] a unit for electric charge, so that either the Coulomb constant or the vacuum permittivity is normalized to 1
and then gives the two possible derivations.
so what is meant by the "unit charge"? Is there even a unit charge in Planck Units? Neither 3.3e or 11.7e feels especially close to the charge of a proton, although I guess when you're comparing it to the unit mass, it is much closer...?
The fact that "unit charge" just links back to this article doesn't really help either... Timtjtim ( talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)