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 .

Can you add the Planck units of charge?

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?

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"

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]

Significance - "unit charge"

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)[reply]

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]