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 articles
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 articles

Archives

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

Planck Energy Intro[edit]

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 E_P 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)[reply]

I think it is a hang-over of trying to address the mysticism of Planck units. The mention of scale was only to show that not all Planck units are extreme, which (possibly inappropriately) supposes that the reader might need to have this pointed out. I've trimmed out the part aimed at highlighting the scale contrast. —Quondum 18:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive[edit]

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)[reply]

Can you add the Planck units of charge?[edit]

Planck units has no unit of charge? You can use either $k_{e}=1$ or $\epsilon _{0}=1$ 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 $k_{B}=1$ )?

Also, due to the article, the Planck’s original definition of the Planck unit uses $h=1$ , but in fact $\hbar =1$ is more natural since angular frequency $\omega$ is more natural than frequency $f$ , thus the modern definition uses $\hbar =1$ , by this logic, $4\pi G=\epsilon _{0}=1$ is more natural since this will make the impedance of free space $Z_{0}=1$ , but why the modern definition does not use it and instead use the original $G=k_{e}=1$ ? 36.233.219.197 (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article already discusses different ways of adding an electrostatic unit to the Planck system and the change from

h

to

\hbar

. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a contributor to its inclusion, I am somewhat concerned about the undue weight given to the concept of a "Planck charge" in this article. We cite primary (arXiv) and tertiary (non-reliable online encyclopedia/textbook) sources, because reliable sources are simply not available on this. I suspect that Planck failed to mention it because in the system of quantities of the time, charge was not considered to be an independent dimension, and thus a unit of charge was inherently implied as a derived unit. However, we have nothing to substantiate this hunch, and so we cannot make any such claim. It is not entirely clear to me how to reduce the weight without removing the mention of charge, since it is not even clear whether charge was implicitly included or not included. —Quondum 21:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a subject of rather niche interest, as evidenced by the sources about it being poor, obscure, and/or marginal. I have shortened the last paragraph of the introduction, because the article really doesn't say enough on the topic to justify giving it such prominent placement. WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems better. I also removed a somewhat stretched statement in the body. What is left is still only weakly supported, but I do not think it would help to remove it. —Quondum 23:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is Planck Temperature?[edit]

10^34 K seems rather hot 142.163.195.238 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intro with "numerical value of 1"[edit]

Expressing one of these physical constants in terms of Planck units yields a numerical value of 1.

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)[reply]