View source for Talk:Planck units

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Physics |importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Measurement |importance=Low 
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
| b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no>
| b3 <!-- Structure             --> = <yes/no>
| b4 <!-- Grammar and style     --> = <yes/no>
| b5 <!-- Supporting materials  --> = <yes/no>
| b6 <!-- Accessible            --> = <yes/no>
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 128K
|counter = 6
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Planck units/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
# [[Talk:Planck units/Archive 1|June 2005 &ndash; May 2006]]
# [[Talk:Planck units/Archive 2|July 2006 &ndash; September 2009]]
# [[Talk:Planck units/Archive 3|October 2009 – October 2015]]
# [[Talk:Planck units/Archive 4|November 2015 – June 2020]]
# [[Talk:Planck units/Archive 5|June 2020 – ]]
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn 
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes 
}}

== 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.
--[[User:Stupidplanckunits|Stupidplanckunits]] ([[User talk:Stupidplanckunits|talk]]) 17:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

== 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".

[[Special:Contributions/141.168.147.196|141.168.147.196]] ([[User talk:141.168.147.196|talk]]) 11:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

: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... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 14:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

== 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  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.183.237.97|142.183.237.97]] ([[User talk:142.183.237.97#top|talk]]) 01:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Diagram with Schwarzchild Radius ==

[[File:Triangle of everything simplified 2 triangle of everything - Planck Units.png | thumb | a mass-width of objects in the universe ]]

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. [[User:Avsa|Alex Van de Sande]] ([[User talk:Avsa|talk]]) 17:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

== Edit request ==

{{Edit semi-protected|Planck units|answered=yes}}
Remove the white background color of the tables (<code>background:#fff</code>). It does not work with the dark mode, the mathematical expressions are invisible. [[Special:Contributions/130.234.110.113|130.234.110.113]] ([[User talk:130.234.110.113|talk]]) 11:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> 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]]. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

== Vandalism undercover ==

User:Tercer deleted section "Relationship the Planck length to mass ''m''<sub>A</sub> = α''m''<sub>P</sub>" under the guise (remove obscure fringy source). What is unclear about this source? <br>
Abdukadyrov, А. (2020), "Fundamental Values of Length, Time, and Speed", ''Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences'', 4 (4): 2050008
<ref name = Abdukadyrov1>{{citation|first1= А.|last1= Abdukadyrov|title= Fundamental Values of Length, Time, and Speed|url = https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424942420500085|journal= Reports in Advances of Physical Sciences|year= 2020|volume= 4|issue= 4|page= 2050008}}</ref>.  
-- [[User:Aab64|Aab64]] ([[User talk:Aab64|talk]]) 06:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Jähmefyysikko|Jähmefyysikko]] ([[User talk:Jähmefyysikko|talk]]) 07:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::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, <math>m_\text{P}</math> and <math>m_\text{A}</math>. -- [[User:Aab64|Aab64]] ([[User talk:Aab64|talk]]) 05:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
 
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? -
::{{u|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. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:In the section "Analysis of the units" (Planck length) it is written: "... [[reduced Compton wavelength]] is comparable to its [[Schwarzschild radius]]".<br> This is not true, e.g., for the Planck mass <math> \frac \hbar {m_\text{P} c} = \frac {Gm_\text{P}} {c^2}</math>,<br> i.e. the Compton wavelength and '''half''' of the Schwarzschild radius are the same. The inaccuracy needs to be corrected.<br> [[Special:Contributions/212.241.20.141|212.241.20.141]] ([[User talk:212.241.20.141|talk]]) 09:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}