Talk:Planck units

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Measurement (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Article is full of nonsense, needs a complete rewrite

This article suscribes way too much importance to planck units. They're a set of normalized units and nothing more and could be normalized in any number of ways with any dimensional scalers tacked on without changing anything. There is no physical significane, but the article implies otherwise. --Stupidplanckunits (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plank's mass is not 22 ug, its 22 nanogramms.

Planks mass is not 22 micro grams, its 22 nm or nano grams! Please fix in text. Check this sentence: "Several quantities are not "extreme" in magnitude, such as the Planck mass, which is about 22 micrograms: very large in comparison with subatomic particles, and within the mass range of living organisms.[20]: 872".

141.168.147.196 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Constants: From Alpha to Omega, the Numbers that Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe" by John D. Barrow says that the Planck mass is 5.56 times 10 to the negative 5th power grams. Compared to the ridiculously short Planck length (far less than an atomic nucleus) and tiny Planck time, the Planck mass is the weight of things that you can personally see, if not with the naked eye, then with an ordinary magnifying glass... AnonMoos (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is unequivocally incorrect

Clearys Law shows that the universe breaks drop to Planck length over planck time equals c in his grand unification. Almost all of this is incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.183.237.97 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram with Schwarzchild Radius

The current article doesn't have much in terms of proper images (outside a picture of Planck). I think this diagram, a mass-radius log plot of all objects in the universe does a good job of explaining how all the Planck units derive from the intersection of the Schwarzchild Radius and Compton Wavelength. I had added a previous version of the chart, but now it's much more simplified and specifically for this article. Alex Van de Sande (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the white background color of the tables (background:#fff). It does not work with the dark mode, the mathematical expressions are invisible. 130.234.110.113 (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: updating images cannot be accomplished through edit requests. I suggest you start a discussion about it and see what others think. If there is an agreement to remove the background, then you can make a request on WP:GL/P. M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism undercover

User:Tercer deleted section "Relationship the Planck length to mass m_A = αm_P" under the guise (remove obscure fringy source). What is unclear about this source?
Abdukadyrov, А. (2020), "Fundamental Values of Length, Time, and Speed", Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences, 4 (4): 2050008 ^[1]. -- Aab64 (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think this content has sufficient encyclopedic value to be retained. According to Crossref, it has been cited once, and even that is a self-cite. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is unknown, it does not mean that it cannot be cited. Its importance is that it shows: the Planck length is associated with two completely different masses at once,

m_{\text{P}}

and

m_{\text{A}}

. -- Aab64 (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if according to Crossref this was only cited once, then it turns out that this conclusion has not been refuted by anyone and it is correct! Am I right or not? -

Aab64, the issue is not whether it has been refuted. We don't add every paper written about a topic to that topic. Only the ones that have become significant as shown by people independent of the original author finding them significant enough to include in their work. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Analysis of the units" (Planck length) it is written: "... reduced Compton wavelength is comparable to its Schwarzschild radius".
This is not true, e.g., for the Planck mass

{\frac {\hbar }{m_{\text{P}}c}}={\frac {Gm_{\text{P}}}{c^{2}}}

,
i.e. the Compton wavelength and half of the Schwarzschild radius are the same. The inaccuracy needs to be corrected.
212.241.20.141 (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Abdukadyrov, А. (2020), "Fundamental Values of Length, Time, and Speed", Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences, 4 (4): 2050008

[Abdukadyrov1-1] Abdukadyrov, А. (2020), "Fundamental Values of Length, Time, and Speed", Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences, 4 (4): 2050008

[1]