This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
New formulas for Planck's constant and the gravitational constant were published (in pre-print) here last week: [1] https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0017/v1
The article demonstrates that Planck's constant (in reduced form) can be stated in Planck units as or simply . The gravitational constant can be stated as or simply . The formulas are demonstrable in values and dimensions.
The article contains more information pertinent to the Planck units, some of which may be suitable now and some that may require peer review.
Davidhumpherys ( talk) 22:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A property of Planck units is that in order to obtain the value of any of the physical constants above it is enough to replace the dimensions of the constant with the corresponding Planck units. For example, the gravitational constant (G) has as dimensions L3 M−1 T−2. By replacing each dimension with the value of each corresponding Planck unit one obtains the value of (1 lP)3 × (1 mP)−1 × (1 tP)−2 = (1.616255×10−35 m)3 × (2.176435×10−8 kg)−1 × (5.391247×10−44 s)−2 = 6.674...×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 (which is the value of G).
This is the consequence of the fact that the system is internally coherent. For example, the gravitational attractive force of two bodies of 1 Planck mass each, set apart by 1 Planck length is 1 coherent Planck unit of force. Likewise, the distance traveled by light during 1 Planck time is 1 Planck length.
Constant | Symbol | Dimension in SI Quantities | Value ( SI units) |
---|---|---|---|
Speed of light in vacuum | c | L T−1 | 299792458 m⋅s−1
[2] (exact by definition) |
Gravitational constant | G | L3 M−1 T−2 | 6.67430(15)×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2 [3] |
Reduced Planck constant | ħ = h/2π where h is the Planck constant |
L2 M T−1 | 1.054571817...×10−34 J⋅s
[4] (defined as 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1/2π exactly) |
Boltzmann constant | kB | L2 M T−2 Θ−1 | 1.380649×10−23 J⋅K−1
[5] (exact by definition) |
Coulomb constant | ke = 1/4πε0 where ε0 is the permittivity of free space |
L3 M T−2 Q−2 | 8.9875517923(14)×109 kg⋅m3⋅s−4⋅A−2
[6] |
Constant | Symbol | Dimension in SI Quantities | Expression | Value ( SI units) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Speed of light in vacuum | c | L T−1 | lP × tP−1 | 299792458 m⋅s−1
[2] (exact by definition) |
Gravitational constant | G | L3 M−1 T−2 | lP3 × mP−1 × tP−2 | 6.67430(15)×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2 [3] |
Reduced Planck constant | ħ = h/2π where h is the Planck constant |
L2 M T−1 | lP2 × mP × tP−1 | 1.054571817...×10−34 J⋅s
[4] (defined as 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1/2π exactly) |
Boltzmann constant | kB | L2 M T−2 Θ−1 | lP2 × mP × tP−2 × TP−1 | 1.380649×10−23 J⋅K−1
[5] (exact by definition) |
Coulomb constant | ke = 1/4πε0 where ε0 is the permittivity of free space |
L3 M T−2 Q−2 | lP3 × mP × tP−2 × qP−2 | 8.9875517923(14)×109 kg⋅m3⋅s−4⋅A−2
[6] |
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
Grufo, could you motivate the inclusion of Planck units#Conversions? — Quondum 11:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The very definition of Planck units makes this a trivial table of the ratios of the Planck units that the reader who has read up to that point should be able to write down for him/herself.Yes. There is also a bit of a due weight concern; it's always possible that somebody will want to write a time in terms of the Planck temperature, or a temperature in terms of the Planck charge, but I'll bet that doesn't happen too often. Nor, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, are we in the business of stepping through routine interconversions. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I paste the table here. My proposal is to restore the paragraph in this form:
(paragraph to be restored under § Definition) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ConversionsThe following table shows the mutual interchangeability of Planck base units.
|
-- Grufo ( talk) 14:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Quondum, recently you have removed some parts of the article. I would like to ask you to comment your edits. In particular:
the article still mentions Einstein field equations in relationship with Planck units twice (see Planck units § Gravitational constant and Planck units § List of physical equations), reaching the point of stating that some physicists normalize the Planck units differently exactly because of equations like that: removing it once with the argument that “that's not really the Planck force” (summarization is mine) would require to apply such statements to all mentions of Einstein field equations in the page.
Since I see here a partial lack of will to discuss and be constructive, I have restored Quondum's removals in a constructive way, completing the old text with references, adjusting the form, and trying to meet the few points raised in this discussion. As I had already invited in the past, before destructive edits (removals), please use this Talk Page, and in case of lack of references leave a {{Citation needed}} mark in the article – other editors will be more than happy to discuss and help finding the right references. My revision is only a possible starting point and can certainly be improved, especially concerning the form. -- Grufo ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
References
A reader noted that the formula for Original Planck temperature in table 4 has the Boltzman constant in the denominator, while the comparable formula in table two has the constant squared. The reader believes the formula in table 2 is correct, so the term in table 4 should also be squared. This sounds right, but I'd like someone with more sme to make the change.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a good reason why this article does not specifically mention the Plank impedance ( online calculator). It’s equal to precisely 29.9792458 Ω. Greg L ( talk) 05:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Name | Dimension | Expression | Approximate SI equivalent |
---|---|---|---|
Linear/translational mechanical properties | |||
Planck area | area (L2) | 2.61220×10−70 m2 | |
Planck volume | volume (L3) | 4.22191×10−105 m3 | |
Planck wavenumber | wavenumber (L−1) | 6.18724×1034 m−1 | |
Planck density | density (L−3M) | 5.15518×1096 kg/m3 | |
Planck specific volume | specific volume (L3M−1) | 1.93980×10−97 m3/kg | |
Planck frequency | frequency (T−1) | 1.85489×1043 Hz | |
Planck speed | speed (LT−1) | 2.99792×108 m/s | |
Planck acceleration | acceleration (LT−2) | 5.56082×1051 m/s2 | |
Planck jerk | jerk (LT−3) | 1.03147×1095 m/s3 | |
Planck snap | snap (LT−4) | 1.91326×10138 m/s4 | |
Planck crackle | crackle (LT−5) | 3.54889×10181 m/s5 | |
Planck pop | pop (LT−6) | 6.58279×10224 m/s6 | |
Planck momentum | momentum (LMT−1) | 6.52489 N⋅s | |
Planck force | force (LMT−2) | 1.21029×1044 N | |
Planck energy | energy (L2MT−2) | 1.95611×109 J | |
Planck power | power (L2MT−3) | 3.62837×1052 W | |
Planck specific energy | specific energy (L2T−2) | 8.98755×1016 J/kg | |
Planck energy density | energy density (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 J/m3 | |
Planck intensity | intensity (MT−3) | 1.38901×10122 W/m2 | |
Planck action | action (L2MT−1) | 1.05457×10−34 J⋅s | |
Planck gravitational field | gravitational field (LT−2) | 5.56082×1051 m/s2 | |
Planck gravitational potential | gravitational potential (L2T−2) | 8.98755×1016 J/kg | |
Angular/rotational mechanical properties | |||
Planck angle | angle (dimensionless) | 1.00000 rad | |
Planck angular speed | angular speed (T−1) | 1.85489×1043 rad/s | |
Planck angular acceleration | angular acceleration (T−2) | 3.44061×1086 rad/s2 | |
Planck angular jerk | angular jerk (T−3) | 6.38195×10129 rad/s3 | |
Planck rotational inertia | rotational inertia (L2M) | 5.68546×10−78 kg⋅m2 | |
Planck angular momentum | angular momentum (L2MT−1) | 1.05457×10−34 J⋅s | |
Planck torque | torque (L2MT−2) | 1.95611×109 N⋅m | |
Planck specific angular momentum | specific angular momentum (L2T−1) | 4.84533×10−27 m2/s | |
Planck solid angle | solid angle (dimensionless) | 1.00000 sr | |
Planck radiant intensity | radiant intensity (L2MT−3) | 3.62837×1052 W/sr | |
Planck radiance | radiance (MT−3) | 1.38901×10122 W/sr⋅m2 | |
Hydromechanical properties | |||
Planck pressure | pressure (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 Pa | |
Planck surface tension | surface tension (MT−2) | 7.48839×1078 N/m | |
Planck volumetric flow rate | volumetric flow rate (L3T−1) | 7.83116×10−62 m3/s | |
Planck mass flow rate | mass flow rate (MT−1) | 4.03711×1035 kg/s | |
Planck mass flux | mass flux (L−2MT−1) | 1.54549×10105 kg/s/m2 | |
Planck stiffness | stiffness (MT−2) | 7.48839×1078 N/m | |
Planck flexibility | flexibility (M−1T2) | 1.33540×10−79 m/N | |
Planck rotational stiffness | rotational stiffness (L2MT−2) | 1.95611×109 N⋅m/rad | |
Planck rotational flexibility | rotational flexibility (L−2M−1T2) | 5.11218×10−10 rad/N⋅m | |
Planck ultimate tensile strength | ultimate tensile strength (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 Pa | |
Planck indentation hardness | indentation hardness (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 Pa | |
Planck absolute hardness | absolute hardness (M) | 2.17647×10−8 N⋅s/m2 | |
Planck viscosity | viscosity (L−1MT−1) | 2.49786×1070 Pa⋅s | |
Planck kinematic viscosity | kinematic viscosity (L2T−1) | 4.84533×10−27 m2/s | |
Planck toughness | toughness (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 J/m3 | |
Electromagnetic properties | |||
Planck current | current (T−1Q) | 3.47893×1025 A | |
Planck voltage | voltage (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck impedance | resistance (L2MT−1Q−2) | 29.9792 Ω | |
Planck admittance | conductance (L−2M−1TQ2) | 3.33564×10−2 S | |
Planck capacitance | capacitance (L−2M−1T2Q2) | 1.79830×10−45 F | |
Planck inductance | inductance (L2MQ−2) | 1.61623×10−42 H | |
Planck electrical resistivity | electrical resistivity (L3MT−1Q−2) | 4.84533×10−34 Ω⋅m | |
Planck electrical conductivity | electrical conductivity (L−3M−1TQ2) | 2.06384×1033 S/m | |
Planck charge-to-mass ratio | charge-to-mass ratio (M−1Q) | 8.61738×10−11 C/kg | |
Planck mass-to-charge ratio | mass-to-charge ratio (MQ−1) | 1.16045×1010 kg/C | |
Planck charge density | charge density (L−3Q) | 4.44242×1086 C/m3 | |
Planck current density | current density (L−2T−1Q) | 1.33180×1095 A/m2 | |
Planck magnetic charge | magnetic charge (LT−1Q) | 5.62274×10−10 A⋅m | |
Planck magnetic current | magnetic current (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck magnetic current density | magnetic current density (MT−2Q−1) | 3.99264×1096 V/m2 | |
Planck electric field intensity | electric field intensity (LMT−2Q−1) | 6.45303×1061 V/m | |
Planck magnetic field intensity | magnetic field intensity (L−1T−1Q) | 2.15250×1060 A/m | |
Planck electric induction | electric induction (L−2Q) | 7.17996×1051 C/m2 | |
Planck magnetic induction | magnetic induction (MT−1Q−1) | 2.15250×1053 T | |
Planck electric potential | electric potential (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck magnetic potential | magnetic potential (LMT−1Q−1) | 3.47887×1018 T⋅m | |
Planck electromotive force | electromotive force (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck magnetomotive force | magnetomotive force (T−1Q) | 3.47893×1025 A | |
Planck permittivity | permittivity (L−3M−1T2Q2) | 1.11265×10−10 F/m | |
Planck permeability | permeability (LMQ−2) | 1.00000×10−7 H/m | |
Planck electric dipole moment | electric dipole moment (LQ) | 3.03131×10−53 C⋅m | |
Planck magnetic dipole moment | magnetic dipole moment (L2T−1Q) | 9.08764×10−45 J/T | |
Planck electric flux | electric flux (L3MT−2Q−1) | 1.68566×10−8 V⋅m | |
Planck magnetic flux | magnetic flux (L2MT−1Q−1) | 5.62275×10−17 Wb | |
Planck electric polarizability | electric polarizability (M−1T2Q2) | 4.69750×10−115 C⋅m2/V | |
Planck electric polarization | electric polarization (L−3M−1T2Q2) | 8.98755×109 C/V⋅m | |
Planck electric field gradient | electric field gradient (MT−2Q−1) | 3.99264×1096 V/m2 | |
Planck gyromagnetic ratio | gyromagnetic ratio (M−1Q) | 8.61738×10−11 rad/s/T | |
Planck magnetogyric ratio | magnetogyric ratio (MQ−1) | 1.16045×1010 s⋅T/rad | |
Planck magnetic reluctance | magnetic reluctance (L−2M−1Q2) | 6.18724×1041 H−1 | |
Radioactive properties | |||
Planck specific activity | specific activity (T−1) | 1.85489×1043 Bq | |
Planck radiation exposure | radiation exposure (M−1Q) | 8.61738×10−11 C/kg | |
Planck absorbed dose | absorbed dose (L2T−2) | 8.98755×1016 Gy | |
Planck absorbed dose rate | absorbed dose rate (L2T−3) | 1.66709×1060 Gy/s | |
Thermodynamic properties | |||
Planck thermal expansion coefficient | thermal expansion coefficient (Θ−1) | 7.05812×10−33 K−1 | |
Planck heat capacity | heat capacity (L2MT−2Θ−1) | 1.38065×10−23 J/K | |
Planck specific heat capacity | specific heat capacity (L2T−2Θ−1) | 6.34352×10−16 J/kg⋅K | |
Planck volumetric heat capacity | volumetric heat capacity (L−1MT−2Θ−1) | 3.27020×1081 J/m3⋅K | |
Planck thermal resistance | thermal resistance (L−2M−1T3Θ) | 3.90486×10−21 K/W | |
Planck thermal conductance | thermal conductance (L2MT−3Θ−1) | 2.56091×1020 W/K | |
Planck thermal resistivity | thermal resistivity (L−1M−1T3Θ) | 6.31126×10−56 m⋅K/W | |
Planck thermal conductivity | thermal conductivity (LMT−3Θ−1) | 1.58447×1055 W/m⋅K | |
Planck thermal insulance | thermal insulance (M−1T3Θ) | 1.10201×10−90 m2⋅K/W | |
Planck thermal transmittance | thermal transmittance (MT−3Θ−1) | 9.80335×1089 W/m2⋅K | |
Planck entropy | entropy (L2MT−2Θ−1) | 1.38065×10−23 J/K | |
Molar properties | |||
Planck amount of substance | amount of substance (N) | 1.66054×10−24 mol | |
Planck molar mass | molar mass (MN−1) | 1.31070×1016 kg/mol | |
Planck molar volume | molar volume (L3N−1) | 2.54249×10−81 m3/mol | |
Planck molar heat capacity | molar heat capacity (L2MT−2Θ−1N−1) | 8.31446 J/mol⋅K | |
Planck mass fraction | mass fraction (dimensionless) | 100.000 % | |
Planck volume fraction | volume fraction (dimensionless) | 100.000 % | |
Planck molality | molality (M−1N) | 7.62951×10−17 mol/kg | |
Planck molarity | molarity (L−3N) | 3.93315×1080 mol/m3 | |
Planck mole fraction | mole fraction (dimensionless) | 1.00000 | |
Planck heat of formation | heat of formation (L2MT−2N−1) | 1.17800×1033 J/mol | |
Planck catalytic activity | catalytic activity (T−1N) | 3.08012×1019 kat |
units
. Measuring acceleration in smoot-janskys per slug is entertaining, but not encyclopedic.) A paragraph on the concept of derived units could work, and would need only a few examples, though it would run the risk of being
WP:OR unless we found standard texts to build it upon.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)There is currently an incoherent behavior from Wikipedia. The symbol for the Planck length is sometimes presented as , some other times as . Should we not just stick to one? Which one should we choose? -- Grufo ( talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"A Planck time unit is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum" "The Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time"
These are circular definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.239.244 ( talk) 16:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Lengthy diatribe from
blocked sockpuppet
|
---|
XOR'easter delete likely for other reasons than he states! "curprev 15:44, 6 February 2021 XOR'easter talk contribs 73,547 bytes −2,535 →List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction" undothank So the reason "given" is a totally different article in a journal. Many even top journals have some junk papers, so we should delete references to papers in these journals because we can point out other junk papers in that journal?. And who say a peer reviewed published paper is junk or not, other peer reviewed researchers proving so or wiki editors? And we are not even talking about the paper he deleted reference to, because he did not want to indicate the real reason he deleted it. Interesting to see how CXOR'easter keeps deleting anything referring to the researcher he and David Eppstein wants to delete anything about on wikipedia, except if anyone write something negative on that researcher, that they will let stand and defend. Please check out /info/en/?search=Talk:Squaring_the_circle, is XOR'easter involved here? why was this delete again related to reference to this specific researcher by exactly XOR'Easter ? coincident, ohh yes for sure, LOL!! (XOR'easter and David Eppstein works hand in hand to delete and deplatforming anyone that write positive or refer to researchers they dont like. Off course now we will hear it was a pure coincident, and that I am putting out conspiracy... LOL "List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, " LOL yes we are sure that is why it was deleted. Because elementary things and simplification of science is not what highly complex wiki is about...LOL XOR'easter had for sure even forgotten the name on this researcher from last time he aggressively attacked him, so this delete was because he discovered another paper in the same journal (that not even is referred to on this or other pages on wiki) that he personally thought was nonsense, and why he now had to delete a link/info to a paper that by coincident was by the researcher he wants to delete anything positive about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestigateThis ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
XOR'aster are specifically mention the following article "particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" in his reason for deleting reference to another article someone has put on the Planck unit page. I googled the paper you specifically mention "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" and found it is a peer reviewed paper by Stephan J.G. Gift, Professor of Electrical Engineering, The University of the West Indies. Your claim that his paper and the journal is garbage is highly defamatory. I see Professor Gift has many papers in well respected journals, and also Physics essays is well respected in many circles. Either you should state your critics of why this paper is "tripe", preferably you should do so yourself in a peer reviewed paper you can get published, or you have to give reference to other papers doing so. Your editing had very doubvious standard, it is quite obvious you are after another researcher. Even if you have been co-author on a few physics papers, this do not make you an expert in the field. It is highly non-respectable the way you operate. And it is quite clear why you mention a paper not even that has been mentioned on the wikipedia page for Planck units, you wanted clearly to delete references to another researcher there. I have not done personal attack on any, I am criticizing how you and other editors are operating, and specifically mention how you in my view are doing personal attack on person that likely not even are aware of you are putting out very negative things about them on wikipedia, and therefore not even can respond. You are specifically mention very negative stuff about a paper written by a specific professor. Is this not a topic even in other much more well known journals also? How can it come that you think you can do what you do? You now try to play the game that it is me breaking the rules off wikipedia and doing personal attack, on editors that likely even will have my questions of their personal attacks tried removed. I do not think wikipedia benefit from you throwing out your personal opinion on researchers you dont like personally. Prof Gift should be informed I think about your claims! So XOR'aster think it is fully okay to put out defamatory claims on papers of Professor Gift and others. And as defense for me making wikipedia readers aware of this he say I am breaking the wikipedia code and personally attack them. I am stating what you delete, and also show very good indications you are after specific people etc. InvestigateThis ( talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Will XOR'aster also update the wikipedia profile on Physics Essays, and tell what he claim above "Physics Essays is a garbage journal" or will he get the page deleted? Should the editor of that journal be informed about XOR'asters claims? Is it fair to throw out such claims without more backing? Some will possibly consider your behavior highly defamatory, both towards specific persons such as Prof Gift, and to journals and their publishers and editors, all of them should be informed, and I am not sure the founding fathers of wikipedia would prefer editors to behave like this? InvestigateThis ( talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC) |
If Planck time is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length, can you then also claim that 1 Planck length is the length required for light to travel in the time of 1 Planck time? If so, it should be added under the Planck length section because it may not be obvious to the reader. 92.220.156.99 ( talk) 02:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Planck units has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A reference should be added in the section on history:
In the article is missing a reference to the book "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View (Kluwer Academice 2001). In the appendix of that book was considered an extension of the Planck units by including the dielectric constant \epsilon_0. The Wikipedia article "Planck Units" cites two books which appeared later than the above book. Therefore it is necessary to include a reference to that book as well.
My proposed edit is as follows:
Unlike the case with the International System of Units, there is no official entity that establishes a definition of a Planck unit system. Frank Wilczek and Barton Zwiebach both define the base Planck units to be those of mass, length and time, regarding an additional unit for temperature to be redundant. [1] [2] Other tabulations add, in addition to a unit for temperature, a unit for electric charge, [3] [4] sometimes also replacing mass with energy when doing so. [5] Depending on the author's choice, this charge unit is given by
or
The Planck charge, as well as other electromagnetic units that can be defined like resistance and magnetic flux, are more difficult to interpret than Planck's original units and are used less frequently. [6] Tjem Svasp ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
References
There are now a series of error claims on this page. They are backed up with web-page links or perhaps a single published paper. I though wikipedia should reflect a more objective picture. Sadly several of the editors working actively on this page clearly do not know the field very well.
A series of editors also contributed in the past considerably when there where separate pages for Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass etc. These pages got deleted. There is therefore also little or no reasons for us to contribute here, as the page is now dominated by editors doing as they want without requirements for solid documentation. TomStefano ( talk) 12:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
"It can be defined as the reduced Compton wavelength of a black hole for which this equals [half] its Schwarzschild radius." Here, "defined as" is too strong, since the "[half]" is necessary to make this equal. The sources are all very order-of-magnitude discussions. 172.82.47.201 ( talk) 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem. I propose to return a separate article on the topic "Planck length". 178.120.21.10 ( talk) 10:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
a disaster[1]; before being redirected here, it had been tagged as needing citations for 11 years. There's simply no point in repeating the same blurbs about motivation and history across multiple pages, when they apply to the unit system as a whole. The only mathematical error anyone has pointed to on this page is a missing factor of 1/2, which (a) had been sitting on Planck length for months, (b) I didn't write over there in the first place, and (c) I fixed, as it happens before I noticed a complaint about it. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
One of my biggest pet peeves is that our technical physics articles seem to require a physics degree to comprehend. For example, the "Significance" section here makes the topic harder, not easier, to comprehend. Supposedly the quote puts it "succinctly", but it only muddles my understanding. I also think the lead needs a paragraph which explains the concepts in laymen's terms, even if some simplifications must be made (and of course stated to the reader). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Assume you can't get any smaller than a Planck length. Imagine a square with each side being a googolplex of Planck lengths long. Is the diagonal's length a non-integer? Thus the original assumption is wrong. 2.98.35.4 ( talk) 13:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The page now has a section on the Planck time of 5 lines. Out of the large number of papers (with many citations) the only topic covered outside a little bit of Planck's original work is a single paper published in 2020 and some popular science quoting it. Nothing at all wrong with that paper, which is very interesting. What is very wrong is that the Planck time page was deleted, and that if one only are going to have 5 lines about the Planck time, and that editors then who came to that 40% of this should be about a single paper that not is so much about the Planck time, but about a physical possible hypotetical measure. Again no critics of that paper, which is very interesting. My critics is of how this is edited and what is prioritzed. Also some of the worlds most famous physicists have claimed the Planck time could be one of the most important things in physics to understand, and here instead of extending much more in a page one have one have limited this to 5 lines. Clearly if not cleaned up in and improved then someone should seriously look to fund something better, something more similar to what wikipedia once was. There is a massive problem if a handfull of frequent editors suddenly can remove pages others worked on for years. Another well know professor in physics with at least 50 publications on gravity once said something like, we do not really understand the Planck scale yet, so that is an area where there is room for speculation still. So the right thing would be to have separate pages on the different Planck units, where indeed the many speculative published hypothesis where presented. What do most readers of physics find the most interesting. The pages about the 100% for facts, such as the Earth has a moon, or the frontiers of physics. That it is the frontiers of physics do not mean it is something new, or recent, the Planck scale has been the frontiers of physics for more than 100 years. TomStefano ( talk) 13:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
is it forbiddenYes, it is, because that's more conspiratorial nonsense and WP:AGF-violations. -- JBL ( talk) 13:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like TomStefano got blocked, but for doing what? ChristopherLL ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"approximately respectively the energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time and the Planck length" in the introduction is horrible. It should be something like, "respectively the approximate energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time, and the Planck length". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.52 ( talk) 18:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The article seems to imply that the only difference between standard Planck units and "alternative" Planck units is that the base unit of mass is divided by a factor of √(4π) for rationalised Planck units, and by a factor of √(8π) for reduced Planck units, with any other, consequent difference (e.g. between the standard vs. alternative Planck units for force and energy) being exclusively a result of this difference in the base unit of mass (e.g. [force] = [mass]×[length]÷[time]² and [energy] = [mass]×[length]²÷[time]², so [rationalised Planck force] = [standard Planck force]/√(4π), [reduced Planck energy] = [standard Planck energy]/√(8π), etc). However, if you run the numbers as a system of equations where the other four equations (c0 = 1 [length]/[time], ε0 = 1 [charge]²[time]²/[mass][length]³, ħ = 1 [mass][length]²/[time] and kB = 1 [mass][length]²/[temperature][time]²) remain constant and only one equation changes (from standard G = 1 [length]³/[mass][time]² to rationalised G = 1/(4π) [length]³/[mass][time]² or reduced G = 1/(8π) [length]³/[mass][time]²), you find that, while indeed the end value for the base unit of mass is divided by √(4π) or √(8π) as the article claims, the end value for the base unit of temperature is also divided by the same factors, while the end values for the base units of length and time are in turn multiplied by them, which causes a chain shift in the derived units one could not predict by simply replacing the mass unit (e.g. while the units for speed and energy vary as would be expected, the unit for acceleration is also divided by a factor of √(4π) or √(8π), so the unit of force is consequently divided by a full 4π or 8π instead). Isn't it the case that perhaps the article should explicitly mention that? E.g. instead of just saying that, in the reduced Planck unit system, the base unit of mass is divided by √(8π), wouldn't it be better if it said that, in the reduced Planck unit system, the base units of mass and temperature are divided by √(8π), while the base units of length and time are multiplied by √(8π)? 186.223.215.50 ( talk) 02:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm just listening to Leonard Susskind's lectures and he says the planck mass is equal to the mass of the smallest possible black hole. I suppose he should know what he is talking about, but I'm not an expert in the field, so I will not add it. Considering that there is some explanation for the signifance of the other units, it might make sense to add that to the Planck energy subsection, though. The significance of the unit was a natural question that came up in my mind right away anyway. OdinFK ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
it has been speculated that [the Planck scale] may be an approximate lower limit at which a black hole could be formed by collapse. We could potentially elaborate here or there; of course, it's hard to say how much detail we should go into when the whole topic is so speculative. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
My wording was an attempt at improving historical correctness. As implied by Tercer, my wording might be clumsy/inscrutable, but at least it was not incorrect, which the alternative of suggesting setting the constants to 1 would be. Stoney, if you read his paper, was apparently mindful of remaining dimensionally correct, and used symbols for his units of length, time and mass. This was unfortunately complicated by his treatment, which reflected the usage of the time of what one could term the Gaussian system of quantities, in which the force equations of electromagnetism omitted what is now would be called the Coulomb constant, thus treating that differently. One could gloss over that and just say that he chose his units such that the numeric part of G, c, e and ke were 1 when expressed in terms of these units. However, the concept of "normalizing/setting these constants to 1" appears to have been completely absent, but is only too prevalent in WP (and, I guess loved by some contemporary particle physicists). Is there a way of wording this so that it is in fact correct and "clear"? — Quondum 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
XOR'easter, I'm afraid your comment above, "I think we should remove the "cosmological constant" and "Hubble constant" rows from Table 3 until the cosmologists get the Hubble tension all figured out. (Or at least we should avoid the spurious appearance of precision that the figures we currently quote imply.)", got ignored. I agree. These entries seem to belong as much as any of the others and are only needed for order-of-magnitude illustration, so my inclination would be to reduce these to one significant digit with a preceding tilde rather than to remove the entries altogether. I have no strong feeling on this, though. — Quondum 21:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Planck units has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ann Guy BillyGuy1234 ( talk) 01:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a table of planck units extended to the electric domain with the elementary charge. WalkingRadiance ( talk) 14:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
New formulas for Planck's constant and the gravitational constant were published (in pre-print) here last week: [1] https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0017/v1
The article demonstrates that Planck's constant (in reduced form) can be stated in Planck units as or simply . The gravitational constant can be stated as or simply . The formulas are demonstrable in values and dimensions.
The article contains more information pertinent to the Planck units, some of which may be suitable now and some that may require peer review.
Davidhumpherys ( talk) 22:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A property of Planck units is that in order to obtain the value of any of the physical constants above it is enough to replace the dimensions of the constant with the corresponding Planck units. For example, the gravitational constant (G) has as dimensions L3 M−1 T−2. By replacing each dimension with the value of each corresponding Planck unit one obtains the value of (1 lP)3 × (1 mP)−1 × (1 tP)−2 = (1.616255×10−35 m)3 × (2.176435×10−8 kg)−1 × (5.391247×10−44 s)−2 = 6.674...×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 (which is the value of G).
This is the consequence of the fact that the system is internally coherent. For example, the gravitational attractive force of two bodies of 1 Planck mass each, set apart by 1 Planck length is 1 coherent Planck unit of force. Likewise, the distance traveled by light during 1 Planck time is 1 Planck length.
Constant | Symbol | Dimension in SI Quantities | Value ( SI units) |
---|---|---|---|
Speed of light in vacuum | c | L T−1 | 299792458 m⋅s−1
[2] (exact by definition) |
Gravitational constant | G | L3 M−1 T−2 | 6.67430(15)×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2 [3] |
Reduced Planck constant | ħ = h/2π where h is the Planck constant |
L2 M T−1 | 1.054571817...×10−34 J⋅s
[4] (defined as 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1/2π exactly) |
Boltzmann constant | kB | L2 M T−2 Θ−1 | 1.380649×10−23 J⋅K−1
[5] (exact by definition) |
Coulomb constant | ke = 1/4πε0 where ε0 is the permittivity of free space |
L3 M T−2 Q−2 | 8.9875517923(14)×109 kg⋅m3⋅s−4⋅A−2
[6] |
Constant | Symbol | Dimension in SI Quantities | Expression | Value ( SI units) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Speed of light in vacuum | c | L T−1 | lP × tP−1 | 299792458 m⋅s−1
[2] (exact by definition) |
Gravitational constant | G | L3 M−1 T−2 | lP3 × mP−1 × tP−2 | 6.67430(15)×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2 [3] |
Reduced Planck constant | ħ = h/2π where h is the Planck constant |
L2 M T−1 | lP2 × mP × tP−1 | 1.054571817...×10−34 J⋅s
[4] (defined as 6.62607015×10−34 J⋅Hz−1/2π exactly) |
Boltzmann constant | kB | L2 M T−2 Θ−1 | lP2 × mP × tP−2 × TP−1 | 1.380649×10−23 J⋅K−1
[5] (exact by definition) |
Coulomb constant | ke = 1/4πε0 where ε0 is the permittivity of free space |
L3 M T−2 Q−2 | lP3 × mP × tP−2 × qP−2 | 8.9875517923(14)×109 kg⋅m3⋅s−4⋅A−2
[6] |
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help)
Grufo, could you motivate the inclusion of Planck units#Conversions? — Quondum 11:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The very definition of Planck units makes this a trivial table of the ratios of the Planck units that the reader who has read up to that point should be able to write down for him/herself.Yes. There is also a bit of a due weight concern; it's always possible that somebody will want to write a time in terms of the Planck temperature, or a temperature in terms of the Planck charge, but I'll bet that doesn't happen too often. Nor, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, are we in the business of stepping through routine interconversions. XOR'easter ( talk) 04:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I paste the table here. My proposal is to restore the paragraph in this form:
(paragraph to be restored under § Definition) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ConversionsThe following table shows the mutual interchangeability of Planck base units.
|
-- Grufo ( talk) 14:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Quondum, recently you have removed some parts of the article. I would like to ask you to comment your edits. In particular:
the article still mentions Einstein field equations in relationship with Planck units twice (see Planck units § Gravitational constant and Planck units § List of physical equations), reaching the point of stating that some physicists normalize the Planck units differently exactly because of equations like that: removing it once with the argument that “that's not really the Planck force” (summarization is mine) would require to apply such statements to all mentions of Einstein field equations in the page.
Since I see here a partial lack of will to discuss and be constructive, I have restored Quondum's removals in a constructive way, completing the old text with references, adjusting the form, and trying to meet the few points raised in this discussion. As I had already invited in the past, before destructive edits (removals), please use this Talk Page, and in case of lack of references leave a {{Citation needed}} mark in the article – other editors will be more than happy to discuss and help finding the right references. My revision is only a possible starting point and can certainly be improved, especially concerning the form. -- Grufo ( talk) 16:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
References
A reader noted that the formula for Original Planck temperature in table 4 has the Boltzman constant in the denominator, while the comparable formula in table two has the constant squared. The reader believes the formula in table 2 is correct, so the term in table 4 should also be squared. This sounds right, but I'd like someone with more sme to make the change.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 01:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a good reason why this article does not specifically mention the Plank impedance ( online calculator). It’s equal to precisely 29.9792458 Ω. Greg L ( talk) 05:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Name | Dimension | Expression | Approximate SI equivalent |
---|---|---|---|
Linear/translational mechanical properties | |||
Planck area | area (L2) | 2.61220×10−70 m2 | |
Planck volume | volume (L3) | 4.22191×10−105 m3 | |
Planck wavenumber | wavenumber (L−1) | 6.18724×1034 m−1 | |
Planck density | density (L−3M) | 5.15518×1096 kg/m3 | |
Planck specific volume | specific volume (L3M−1) | 1.93980×10−97 m3/kg | |
Planck frequency | frequency (T−1) | 1.85489×1043 Hz | |
Planck speed | speed (LT−1) | 2.99792×108 m/s | |
Planck acceleration | acceleration (LT−2) | 5.56082×1051 m/s2 | |
Planck jerk | jerk (LT−3) | 1.03147×1095 m/s3 | |
Planck snap | snap (LT−4) | 1.91326×10138 m/s4 | |
Planck crackle | crackle (LT−5) | 3.54889×10181 m/s5 | |
Planck pop | pop (LT−6) | 6.58279×10224 m/s6 | |
Planck momentum | momentum (LMT−1) | 6.52489 N⋅s | |
Planck force | force (LMT−2) | 1.21029×1044 N | |
Planck energy | energy (L2MT−2) | 1.95611×109 J | |
Planck power | power (L2MT−3) | 3.62837×1052 W | |
Planck specific energy | specific energy (L2T−2) | 8.98755×1016 J/kg | |
Planck energy density | energy density (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 J/m3 | |
Planck intensity | intensity (MT−3) | 1.38901×10122 W/m2 | |
Planck action | action (L2MT−1) | 1.05457×10−34 J⋅s | |
Planck gravitational field | gravitational field (LT−2) | 5.56082×1051 m/s2 | |
Planck gravitational potential | gravitational potential (L2T−2) | 8.98755×1016 J/kg | |
Angular/rotational mechanical properties | |||
Planck angle | angle (dimensionless) | 1.00000 rad | |
Planck angular speed | angular speed (T−1) | 1.85489×1043 rad/s | |
Planck angular acceleration | angular acceleration (T−2) | 3.44061×1086 rad/s2 | |
Planck angular jerk | angular jerk (T−3) | 6.38195×10129 rad/s3 | |
Planck rotational inertia | rotational inertia (L2M) | 5.68546×10−78 kg⋅m2 | |
Planck angular momentum | angular momentum (L2MT−1) | 1.05457×10−34 J⋅s | |
Planck torque | torque (L2MT−2) | 1.95611×109 N⋅m | |
Planck specific angular momentum | specific angular momentum (L2T−1) | 4.84533×10−27 m2/s | |
Planck solid angle | solid angle (dimensionless) | 1.00000 sr | |
Planck radiant intensity | radiant intensity (L2MT−3) | 3.62837×1052 W/sr | |
Planck radiance | radiance (MT−3) | 1.38901×10122 W/sr⋅m2 | |
Hydromechanical properties | |||
Planck pressure | pressure (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 Pa | |
Planck surface tension | surface tension (MT−2) | 7.48839×1078 N/m | |
Planck volumetric flow rate | volumetric flow rate (L3T−1) | 7.83116×10−62 m3/s | |
Planck mass flow rate | mass flow rate (MT−1) | 4.03711×1035 kg/s | |
Planck mass flux | mass flux (L−2MT−1) | 1.54549×10105 kg/s/m2 | |
Planck stiffness | stiffness (MT−2) | 7.48839×1078 N/m | |
Planck flexibility | flexibility (M−1T2) | 1.33540×10−79 m/N | |
Planck rotational stiffness | rotational stiffness (L2MT−2) | 1.95611×109 N⋅m/rad | |
Planck rotational flexibility | rotational flexibility (L−2M−1T2) | 5.11218×10−10 rad/N⋅m | |
Planck ultimate tensile strength | ultimate tensile strength (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 Pa | |
Planck indentation hardness | indentation hardness (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 Pa | |
Planck absolute hardness | absolute hardness (M) | 2.17647×10−8 N⋅s/m2 | |
Planck viscosity | viscosity (L−1MT−1) | 2.49786×1070 Pa⋅s | |
Planck kinematic viscosity | kinematic viscosity (L2T−1) | 4.84533×10−27 m2/s | |
Planck toughness | toughness (L−1MT−2) | 4.63325×10113 J/m3 | |
Electromagnetic properties | |||
Planck current | current (T−1Q) | 3.47893×1025 A | |
Planck voltage | voltage (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck impedance | resistance (L2MT−1Q−2) | 29.9792 Ω | |
Planck admittance | conductance (L−2M−1TQ2) | 3.33564×10−2 S | |
Planck capacitance | capacitance (L−2M−1T2Q2) | 1.79830×10−45 F | |
Planck inductance | inductance (L2MQ−2) | 1.61623×10−42 H | |
Planck electrical resistivity | electrical resistivity (L3MT−1Q−2) | 4.84533×10−34 Ω⋅m | |
Planck electrical conductivity | electrical conductivity (L−3M−1TQ2) | 2.06384×1033 S/m | |
Planck charge-to-mass ratio | charge-to-mass ratio (M−1Q) | 8.61738×10−11 C/kg | |
Planck mass-to-charge ratio | mass-to-charge ratio (MQ−1) | 1.16045×1010 kg/C | |
Planck charge density | charge density (L−3Q) | 4.44242×1086 C/m3 | |
Planck current density | current density (L−2T−1Q) | 1.33180×1095 A/m2 | |
Planck magnetic charge | magnetic charge (LT−1Q) | 5.62274×10−10 A⋅m | |
Planck magnetic current | magnetic current (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck magnetic current density | magnetic current density (MT−2Q−1) | 3.99264×1096 V/m2 | |
Planck electric field intensity | electric field intensity (LMT−2Q−1) | 6.45303×1061 V/m | |
Planck magnetic field intensity | magnetic field intensity (L−1T−1Q) | 2.15250×1060 A/m | |
Planck electric induction | electric induction (L−2Q) | 7.17996×1051 C/m2 | |
Planck magnetic induction | magnetic induction (MT−1Q−1) | 2.15250×1053 T | |
Planck electric potential | electric potential (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck magnetic potential | magnetic potential (LMT−1Q−1) | 3.47887×1018 T⋅m | |
Planck electromotive force | electromotive force (L2MT−2Q−1) | 1.04296×1027 V | |
Planck magnetomotive force | magnetomotive force (T−1Q) | 3.47893×1025 A | |
Planck permittivity | permittivity (L−3M−1T2Q2) | 1.11265×10−10 F/m | |
Planck permeability | permeability (LMQ−2) | 1.00000×10−7 H/m | |
Planck electric dipole moment | electric dipole moment (LQ) | 3.03131×10−53 C⋅m | |
Planck magnetic dipole moment | magnetic dipole moment (L2T−1Q) | 9.08764×10−45 J/T | |
Planck electric flux | electric flux (L3MT−2Q−1) | 1.68566×10−8 V⋅m | |
Planck magnetic flux | magnetic flux (L2MT−1Q−1) | 5.62275×10−17 Wb | |
Planck electric polarizability | electric polarizability (M−1T2Q2) | 4.69750×10−115 C⋅m2/V | |
Planck electric polarization | electric polarization (L−3M−1T2Q2) | 8.98755×109 C/V⋅m | |
Planck electric field gradient | electric field gradient (MT−2Q−1) | 3.99264×1096 V/m2 | |
Planck gyromagnetic ratio | gyromagnetic ratio (M−1Q) | 8.61738×10−11 rad/s/T | |
Planck magnetogyric ratio | magnetogyric ratio (MQ−1) | 1.16045×1010 s⋅T/rad | |
Planck magnetic reluctance | magnetic reluctance (L−2M−1Q2) | 6.18724×1041 H−1 | |
Radioactive properties | |||
Planck specific activity | specific activity (T−1) | 1.85489×1043 Bq | |
Planck radiation exposure | radiation exposure (M−1Q) | 8.61738×10−11 C/kg | |
Planck absorbed dose | absorbed dose (L2T−2) | 8.98755×1016 Gy | |
Planck absorbed dose rate | absorbed dose rate (L2T−3) | 1.66709×1060 Gy/s | |
Thermodynamic properties | |||
Planck thermal expansion coefficient | thermal expansion coefficient (Θ−1) | 7.05812×10−33 K−1 | |
Planck heat capacity | heat capacity (L2MT−2Θ−1) | 1.38065×10−23 J/K | |
Planck specific heat capacity | specific heat capacity (L2T−2Θ−1) | 6.34352×10−16 J/kg⋅K | |
Planck volumetric heat capacity | volumetric heat capacity (L−1MT−2Θ−1) | 3.27020×1081 J/m3⋅K | |
Planck thermal resistance | thermal resistance (L−2M−1T3Θ) | 3.90486×10−21 K/W | |
Planck thermal conductance | thermal conductance (L2MT−3Θ−1) | 2.56091×1020 W/K | |
Planck thermal resistivity | thermal resistivity (L−1M−1T3Θ) | 6.31126×10−56 m⋅K/W | |
Planck thermal conductivity | thermal conductivity (LMT−3Θ−1) | 1.58447×1055 W/m⋅K | |
Planck thermal insulance | thermal insulance (M−1T3Θ) | 1.10201×10−90 m2⋅K/W | |
Planck thermal transmittance | thermal transmittance (MT−3Θ−1) | 9.80335×1089 W/m2⋅K | |
Planck entropy | entropy (L2MT−2Θ−1) | 1.38065×10−23 J/K | |
Molar properties | |||
Planck amount of substance | amount of substance (N) | 1.66054×10−24 mol | |
Planck molar mass | molar mass (MN−1) | 1.31070×1016 kg/mol | |
Planck molar volume | molar volume (L3N−1) | 2.54249×10−81 m3/mol | |
Planck molar heat capacity | molar heat capacity (L2MT−2Θ−1N−1) | 8.31446 J/mol⋅K | |
Planck mass fraction | mass fraction (dimensionless) | 100.000 % | |
Planck volume fraction | volume fraction (dimensionless) | 100.000 % | |
Planck molality | molality (M−1N) | 7.62951×10−17 mol/kg | |
Planck molarity | molarity (L−3N) | 3.93315×1080 mol/m3 | |
Planck mole fraction | mole fraction (dimensionless) | 1.00000 | |
Planck heat of formation | heat of formation (L2MT−2N−1) | 1.17800×1033 J/mol | |
Planck catalytic activity | catalytic activity (T−1N) | 3.08012×1019 kat |
units
. Measuring acceleration in smoot-janskys per slug is entertaining, but not encyclopedic.) A paragraph on the concept of derived units could work, and would need only a few examples, though it would run the risk of being
WP:OR unless we found standard texts to build it upon.
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)There is currently an incoherent behavior from Wikipedia. The symbol for the Planck length is sometimes presented as , some other times as . Should we not just stick to one? Which one should we choose? -- Grufo ( talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
"A Planck time unit is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum" "The Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time"
These are circular definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.239.244 ( talk) 16:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Lengthy diatribe from
blocked sockpuppet
|
---|
XOR'easter delete likely for other reasons than he states! "curprev 15:44, 6 February 2021 XOR'easter talk contribs 73,547 bytes −2,535 →List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction" undothank So the reason "given" is a totally different article in a journal. Many even top journals have some junk papers, so we should delete references to papers in these journals because we can point out other junk papers in that journal?. And who say a peer reviewed published paper is junk or not, other peer reviewed researchers proving so or wiki editors? And we are not even talking about the paper he deleted reference to, because he did not want to indicate the real reason he deleted it. Interesting to see how CXOR'easter keeps deleting anything referring to the researcher he and David Eppstein wants to delete anything about on wikipedia, except if anyone write something negative on that researcher, that they will let stand and defend. Please check out /info/en/?search=Talk:Squaring_the_circle, is XOR'easter involved here? why was this delete again related to reference to this specific researcher by exactly XOR'Easter ? coincident, ohh yes for sure, LOL!! (XOR'easter and David Eppstein works hand in hand to delete and deplatforming anyone that write positive or refer to researchers they dont like. Off course now we will hear it was a pure coincident, and that I am putting out conspiracy... LOL "List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, " LOL yes we are sure that is why it was deleted. Because elementary things and simplification of science is not what highly complex wiki is about...LOL XOR'easter had for sure even forgotten the name on this researcher from last time he aggressively attacked him, so this delete was because he discovered another paper in the same journal (that not even is referred to on this or other pages on wiki) that he personally thought was nonsense, and why he now had to delete a link/info to a paper that by coincident was by the researcher he wants to delete anything positive about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestigateThis ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
XOR'aster are specifically mention the following article "particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" in his reason for deleting reference to another article someone has put on the Planck unit page. I googled the paper you specifically mention "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" and found it is a peer reviewed paper by Stephan J.G. Gift, Professor of Electrical Engineering, The University of the West Indies. Your claim that his paper and the journal is garbage is highly defamatory. I see Professor Gift has many papers in well respected journals, and also Physics essays is well respected in many circles. Either you should state your critics of why this paper is "tripe", preferably you should do so yourself in a peer reviewed paper you can get published, or you have to give reference to other papers doing so. Your editing had very doubvious standard, it is quite obvious you are after another researcher. Even if you have been co-author on a few physics papers, this do not make you an expert in the field. It is highly non-respectable the way you operate. And it is quite clear why you mention a paper not even that has been mentioned on the wikipedia page for Planck units, you wanted clearly to delete references to another researcher there. I have not done personal attack on any, I am criticizing how you and other editors are operating, and specifically mention how you in my view are doing personal attack on person that likely not even are aware of you are putting out very negative things about them on wikipedia, and therefore not even can respond. You are specifically mention very negative stuff about a paper written by a specific professor. Is this not a topic even in other much more well known journals also? How can it come that you think you can do what you do? You now try to play the game that it is me breaking the rules off wikipedia and doing personal attack, on editors that likely even will have my questions of their personal attacks tried removed. I do not think wikipedia benefit from you throwing out your personal opinion on researchers you dont like personally. Prof Gift should be informed I think about your claims! So XOR'aster think it is fully okay to put out defamatory claims on papers of Professor Gift and others. And as defense for me making wikipedia readers aware of this he say I am breaking the wikipedia code and personally attack them. I am stating what you delete, and also show very good indications you are after specific people etc. InvestigateThis ( talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) Will XOR'aster also update the wikipedia profile on Physics Essays, and tell what he claim above "Physics Essays is a garbage journal" or will he get the page deleted? Should the editor of that journal be informed about XOR'asters claims? Is it fair to throw out such claims without more backing? Some will possibly consider your behavior highly defamatory, both towards specific persons such as Prof Gift, and to journals and their publishers and editors, all of them should be informed, and I am not sure the founding fathers of wikipedia would prefer editors to behave like this? InvestigateThis ( talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC) |
If Planck time is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length, can you then also claim that 1 Planck length is the length required for light to travel in the time of 1 Planck time? If so, it should be added under the Planck length section because it may not be obvious to the reader. 92.220.156.99 ( talk) 02:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Planck units has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A reference should be added in the section on history:
In the article is missing a reference to the book "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View (Kluwer Academice 2001). In the appendix of that book was considered an extension of the Planck units by including the dielectric constant \epsilon_0. The Wikipedia article "Planck Units" cites two books which appeared later than the above book. Therefore it is necessary to include a reference to that book as well.
My proposed edit is as follows:
Unlike the case with the International System of Units, there is no official entity that establishes a definition of a Planck unit system. Frank Wilczek and Barton Zwiebach both define the base Planck units to be those of mass, length and time, regarding an additional unit for temperature to be redundant. [1] [2] Other tabulations add, in addition to a unit for temperature, a unit for electric charge, [3] [4] sometimes also replacing mass with energy when doing so. [5] Depending on the author's choice, this charge unit is given by
or
The Planck charge, as well as other electromagnetic units that can be defined like resistance and magnetic flux, are more difficult to interpret than Planck's original units and are used less frequently. [6] Tjem Svasp ( talk) 13:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
References
There are now a series of error claims on this page. They are backed up with web-page links or perhaps a single published paper. I though wikipedia should reflect a more objective picture. Sadly several of the editors working actively on this page clearly do not know the field very well.
A series of editors also contributed in the past considerably when there where separate pages for Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass etc. These pages got deleted. There is therefore also little or no reasons for us to contribute here, as the page is now dominated by editors doing as they want without requirements for solid documentation. TomStefano ( talk) 12:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
"It can be defined as the reduced Compton wavelength of a black hole for which this equals [half] its Schwarzschild radius." Here, "defined as" is too strong, since the "[half]" is necessary to make this equal. The sources are all very order-of-magnitude discussions. 172.82.47.201 ( talk) 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem. I propose to return a separate article on the topic "Planck length". 178.120.21.10 ( talk) 10:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
a disaster[1]; before being redirected here, it had been tagged as needing citations for 11 years. There's simply no point in repeating the same blurbs about motivation and history across multiple pages, when they apply to the unit system as a whole. The only mathematical error anyone has pointed to on this page is a missing factor of 1/2, which (a) had been sitting on Planck length for months, (b) I didn't write over there in the first place, and (c) I fixed, as it happens before I noticed a complaint about it. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
One of my biggest pet peeves is that our technical physics articles seem to require a physics degree to comprehend. For example, the "Significance" section here makes the topic harder, not easier, to comprehend. Supposedly the quote puts it "succinctly", but it only muddles my understanding. I also think the lead needs a paragraph which explains the concepts in laymen's terms, even if some simplifications must be made (and of course stated to the reader). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Assume you can't get any smaller than a Planck length. Imagine a square with each side being a googolplex of Planck lengths long. Is the diagonal's length a non-integer? Thus the original assumption is wrong. 2.98.35.4 ( talk) 13:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The page now has a section on the Planck time of 5 lines. Out of the large number of papers (with many citations) the only topic covered outside a little bit of Planck's original work is a single paper published in 2020 and some popular science quoting it. Nothing at all wrong with that paper, which is very interesting. What is very wrong is that the Planck time page was deleted, and that if one only are going to have 5 lines about the Planck time, and that editors then who came to that 40% of this should be about a single paper that not is so much about the Planck time, but about a physical possible hypotetical measure. Again no critics of that paper, which is very interesting. My critics is of how this is edited and what is prioritzed. Also some of the worlds most famous physicists have claimed the Planck time could be one of the most important things in physics to understand, and here instead of extending much more in a page one have one have limited this to 5 lines. Clearly if not cleaned up in and improved then someone should seriously look to fund something better, something more similar to what wikipedia once was. There is a massive problem if a handfull of frequent editors suddenly can remove pages others worked on for years. Another well know professor in physics with at least 50 publications on gravity once said something like, we do not really understand the Planck scale yet, so that is an area where there is room for speculation still. So the right thing would be to have separate pages on the different Planck units, where indeed the many speculative published hypothesis where presented. What do most readers of physics find the most interesting. The pages about the 100% for facts, such as the Earth has a moon, or the frontiers of physics. That it is the frontiers of physics do not mean it is something new, or recent, the Planck scale has been the frontiers of physics for more than 100 years. TomStefano ( talk) 13:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
is it forbiddenYes, it is, because that's more conspiratorial nonsense and WP:AGF-violations. -- JBL ( talk) 13:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like TomStefano got blocked, but for doing what? ChristopherLL ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
"approximately respectively the energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time and the Planck length" in the introduction is horrible. It should be something like, "respectively the approximate energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time, and the Planck length". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.52 ( talk) 18:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The article seems to imply that the only difference between standard Planck units and "alternative" Planck units is that the base unit of mass is divided by a factor of √(4π) for rationalised Planck units, and by a factor of √(8π) for reduced Planck units, with any other, consequent difference (e.g. between the standard vs. alternative Planck units for force and energy) being exclusively a result of this difference in the base unit of mass (e.g. [force] = [mass]×[length]÷[time]² and [energy] = [mass]×[length]²÷[time]², so [rationalised Planck force] = [standard Planck force]/√(4π), [reduced Planck energy] = [standard Planck energy]/√(8π), etc). However, if you run the numbers as a system of equations where the other four equations (c0 = 1 [length]/[time], ε0 = 1 [charge]²[time]²/[mass][length]³, ħ = 1 [mass][length]²/[time] and kB = 1 [mass][length]²/[temperature][time]²) remain constant and only one equation changes (from standard G = 1 [length]³/[mass][time]² to rationalised G = 1/(4π) [length]³/[mass][time]² or reduced G = 1/(8π) [length]³/[mass][time]²), you find that, while indeed the end value for the base unit of mass is divided by √(4π) or √(8π) as the article claims, the end value for the base unit of temperature is also divided by the same factors, while the end values for the base units of length and time are in turn multiplied by them, which causes a chain shift in the derived units one could not predict by simply replacing the mass unit (e.g. while the units for speed and energy vary as would be expected, the unit for acceleration is also divided by a factor of √(4π) or √(8π), so the unit of force is consequently divided by a full 4π or 8π instead). Isn't it the case that perhaps the article should explicitly mention that? E.g. instead of just saying that, in the reduced Planck unit system, the base unit of mass is divided by √(8π), wouldn't it be better if it said that, in the reduced Planck unit system, the base units of mass and temperature are divided by √(8π), while the base units of length and time are multiplied by √(8π)? 186.223.215.50 ( talk) 02:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm just listening to Leonard Susskind's lectures and he says the planck mass is equal to the mass of the smallest possible black hole. I suppose he should know what he is talking about, but I'm not an expert in the field, so I will not add it. Considering that there is some explanation for the signifance of the other units, it might make sense to add that to the Planck energy subsection, though. The significance of the unit was a natural question that came up in my mind right away anyway. OdinFK ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
it has been speculated that [the Planck scale] may be an approximate lower limit at which a black hole could be formed by collapse. We could potentially elaborate here or there; of course, it's hard to say how much detail we should go into when the whole topic is so speculative. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
My wording was an attempt at improving historical correctness. As implied by Tercer, my wording might be clumsy/inscrutable, but at least it was not incorrect, which the alternative of suggesting setting the constants to 1 would be. Stoney, if you read his paper, was apparently mindful of remaining dimensionally correct, and used symbols for his units of length, time and mass. This was unfortunately complicated by his treatment, which reflected the usage of the time of what one could term the Gaussian system of quantities, in which the force equations of electromagnetism omitted what is now would be called the Coulomb constant, thus treating that differently. One could gloss over that and just say that he chose his units such that the numeric part of G, c, e and ke were 1 when expressed in terms of these units. However, the concept of "normalizing/setting these constants to 1" appears to have been completely absent, but is only too prevalent in WP (and, I guess loved by some contemporary particle physicists). Is there a way of wording this so that it is in fact correct and "clear"? — Quondum 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
XOR'easter, I'm afraid your comment above, "I think we should remove the "cosmological constant" and "Hubble constant" rows from Table 3 until the cosmologists get the Hubble tension all figured out. (Or at least we should avoid the spurious appearance of precision that the figures we currently quote imply.)", got ignored. I agree. These entries seem to belong as much as any of the others and are only needed for order-of-magnitude illustration, so my inclination would be to reduce these to one significant digit with a preceding tilde rather than to remove the entries altogether. I have no strong feeling on this, though. — Quondum 21:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Planck units has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ann Guy BillyGuy1234 ( talk) 01:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like to propose adding a table of planck units extended to the electric domain with the elementary charge. WalkingRadiance ( talk) 14:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)