Talk:Planck units

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

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. Other tabulations add, in addition to a unit for temperature, a unit for electric charge, sometimes also replacing mass with energy when doing so. Depending on the author's choice, this charge unit is given by

$q_{\text{P}}={\sqrt {4\pi \epsilon _{0}\hbar c}}\approx 1.875546\times 10^{-18}{\text{ C}}\approx 11.7\ e$

or

$q_{\text{P}}={\sqrt {\epsilon _{0}\hbar c}}\approx 5.290818\times 10^{-19}{\text{ C}}\approx 3.3\ e.$

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. Tjem Svasp (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a fan of this book, but it is better than the reference we currently have, so I'll add it. Tercer (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

statement is too exact, and hence wrong

"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)

You are perfectly right. This is my point, several of the editors working on this page now have too little knowledge of the topic. A series of us can easily see such claims as ""It can be defined as the reduced Compton wavelength of a black hole for which this equals its Schwarzschild radius." are wrong. Sadly many of these things me and other editors made sure where correct years ago. Now we have incompetent editors presenting things that easily are proven to be flawed statements. TomStefano (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to go in and edit it, but seems like the page is blocked from editing by some editors. It looks like it is the user XOR'easter that have inputted this wrong information on this wikipedia page under the Planck length section:

"It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m, where the two digits enclosed by parentheses are the estimated standard error associated with the reported numerical value, or about 10−20 times the diameter of a proton. It can be defined as the reduced Compton wavelength of a black hole for which this equals its Schwarzschild radius."

The last sentence should be corrected as suggested above or deleted. As it stands now the page is incorrect and is worse than it used to be some years ago. Unfortunately someone often here delete things put in by people knowledgable about the topic and put in things that can even be easily proven wrong. TomStefano (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality down

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)

On the Planck length

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)

The article Planck length was not deleted. It was merged into this article after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Do we really need both Planck units and Planck length?. The previous content of the article is available in the article history, but any attempt to turn it back into an article will need to use much better sources than those that had been used there. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Regge, Migdal, Hawking, - these are all world-famous physicists. What other sources do you need?178.120.71.56 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of the Planck length page was plagiarized. Everything that wasn't, was redundant with Planck units. The Planck length is part of a system of units, and should be covered as such. A merge was suggested as long ago as May 2021; it was overdue. XOR'easter (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Moron. 178.120.71.56 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Given your indentation, I'm not sure exactly who you're trying to insult, but please don't. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If a person is not competent in the topic, do not go where you are not asked. 178.120.71.56 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that XOR'easter has no competence on the topic, he and some of his fellow editors have ruined the work of many other contributors. Clearly not interested in making the the page or the information about the Planck units better or more informative. Looks like he is here to promote researchers friends and his own subjective views. Even things mathematical wrong they will let stand as long as it promote someone in their circle. Before there where informative pages on the Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass etc. Many had contributed over many years, then XOR'easter and a few other editors ruined it. TomStefano (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, WP:NPA. For the record, none of the currently-54 references in the article are by friends or coauthors of mine.

A community consensus formed that none of the articles on the separate Planck units were worthwhile. For example, "Planck mass" was aptly described as 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)

The idea that I could add anything to the reputation of Frank Wilczek by citing him in a Wikipedia article is objectively funny. XOR'easter (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"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, " you did not fix it, but improved it slightly, still confusing and unclear, this could be made precise as we now the exact answer related to this by simple calculus. One can easily improve it. But I would never bother even touch a sentence written by XOR'easter as it will be quickly overridden. TomStefano (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Smaller than a Planck Length?

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)

Hi. Wikipedia's Talk pages are for discussions about specific improvements that can be made to Wikipedia articles, not general discussions of the article topic. XOR'easter (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

2.98.35.4 what you mention is indeed highly relevant for this page and we should consider adding this topic or at least links to it on this page. If the Planck length is the shortest possible length, then one indeed end up end up in this issue, which is related to the Weyl's tile argument, that indeed in several publications has been discussed in relation to the Planck units. There is a page already on Weyl's tile argument where several of us have contributed, this should be linked in to this page perhaps as it is highly relevant in relation to the Planck scale (I missed this discussed here also), but I won't even bother as one so easily get overridden and work deleted by XOR'easter. Actually it seems like XOR'easter is clueless on the Planck units, but is dominating also this page now, and has been deleting lots of pages that gave much more in depth information about many topics that could have evolved even further. A series of contributors have given up trying to improve pages as one meets exactly what you meet, that XOR'easter comes with some lame duck arguments!TomStefano (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you do not immediately cease the personal attacks on other editors, I will seek administrative action to have you blocked — it is completely unacceptable here. JBL (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A paragraph on the Weyl's tile problem in relation to the Planck length would be very natural to have in particular when we had a separate page on the Planck length (that many contributed on over tens of years for then to be deleted). The current page has much less depth, and is much more confusing than the old system we had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStefano (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@TomStefano, adding material like that is exactly what led to problems with the individual articles about Planck units. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of every idea ever published about a topic. Material in scientific articles should already be well-known, not ideas that haven't been assessed by the independent researchers in the scientific community. Sources should be textbooks, review papers, or introductions to articles that do a review of the literature. Just because an idea about a topic has been published does not mean it belongs here. That kind of discussion and development happens at scientific conferences and in journals, not in an encyclopedia. For example you added this topic and reference to the old Planck length article. The paper has been cited only by the author himself. It has not been commented on anywhere else in the scientific literature. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Weyl's tile in relation to the Planck scale is not "every idea on every topic", it is clearly a very central problem related to if the Planck scale is unique. If the Planck length is the shortest possible observable length as most experts on foundation theories think (look through the literature) then the Weyl's tile problem is essential.

Naturally also if one can measure the Planck length and not only derive it from other constants is very essencial. But what can I say, what should be on some wikipedia pages is now totally dominated by a small circle of very active wikipedia editors that back each others, block others, delete others. They abuse the consensus system. Because most researchers really knowing the topic are off course here not even weekly, likely not even monthly. So then one of these editors can just say lets have a consensus meeting, researchers that have contributed to the pages over years will not even know about the meeting, then the few editors backing each other and perhaps a few random visitors will decide what pages should be deleted etc. It all look like a democratic process etc., but it is clearly not. TomStefano (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the people who talk about the Planck length being the shortest physically observable length regard spacetime as becoming nonclassically foamy in some way rather than discretized, the Weyl tile problem isn't all that pertinent (as evidenced by how rarely the latter is discussed in the context of the former). Most physicists seem to do as Feynman did and dismiss the idea of space being any kind of grid structure for violating rotational and Lorentz invariance, without bringing up the narrower argument of Weyl. We can't invent a connection that's not there, nor can we stress a point that hasn't already been so. XOR'easter (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the topics that I struggled with explaining/finding sources for when Planck length was a separate article. I think something needs to be said about this issue, because it is a common misconception. A lot of people think that the Planck length is the shortest possible distance. I don't think we should take a firm stance on it, but provide some links for readers to explore further and at least alert them to the issue. My previous approach was a brief discussion of whether it represents some limit in the Universe, followed by "Regardless of whether it represents some fundamental limit to the universe, it is a useful unit in theoretical physics." So discussing the problematic nature of the grid concept here would enlighten our readers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable; the challenge is doing so in a way that is not WP:SYNTH-y and doesn't make speculations/hypotheses come across as established facts. "The spacetime foam, whatever it is, would have to be a structure that..." XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"and doesn't make speculations/hypotheses come across as established facts." sorry to say it to you XOR'easter but that you mention "established facts" says a lot about your type of editing. For example this page mention that "spacetime becomes a foam at the Planck scale" is in reality only a speculative hypothesis. Even if QM is very successful, we are not even close to measure anything directly close to the Planck scale with for example atomic clocks, optical clocks, energy levels. And even if there are many papers on Planck foam there are even more papers pointing out that our current physics likely have problems at the Planck scale. There are loads of pages on wikipedia about physics that actually are about speculative hypothesis. You are likely mistaking speculative hypothesis with many of papers published about them and established facts. Most researchers with some decent background in probabilities would be very careful with stating such as "established facts" for anything that not has been directly observed. Still you are not alone, and your circles (not to criticise any as persons, but their type of editing) are clearly also dominating what should be considered facts and good at blocking and censoring others. Others that understand that theories and ideas about things not directly observables only can be described as at best high probability of correct (or low probability etc), and never as established facts. Well that is if one are scientific, not if one as XOR'easter are about policing others and letting through what one self think is the correct world/physics picture. As you likely will agree on, if we give indications that speculative hypothesis are facts, then people not well studied in science can think this or that speculative theory is an established facts. Anyone should constrain themselves for saying anything is established facts if not directly observed, and then I mean really directly, and also verifiable. That something is well established is quite different than facts. TomStefano (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

A series of things on wikipedia that are speculative hypothesis actually comes through as facts or close to as facts (in particular for people not well studied on the topics). This causes a hostility towards alternative hypothesises that can be just as good or perhaps even better. It seems like many published papers on a hypothesis and that many researchers think the hypothesis is good seems to be mistaken as facts. Often this are just that the problem is not yet solved and the hypothesis is old and well established. Someone, for example frequent editors should perhaps spend time marking the many pages and ideas on wikipedia that indeed are hypothesis as exactly that. Perhaps wikipedia should make it clear that it is a well established hypothesis that is needed to mentioned on wikipedia. Still then many things mentioned (that only have one or two published papers behind them in recent years) should be removed. As it is now it seems very subjectively up to a handful of frequent established editors. TomStefano (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Making it understandable to readers

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)

I'm glad someone else is bothered by the "Significance" section; it's struck me as unsatisfying in various ways. Among other things, the use of "succinctly" is POV (saying in wiki-voice that the quote is both short and good for being short). More fundamentally, it's unclear why that specific block of text is singled out as being about the units' "Significance", when much of the rest of the text is also explaining ways in which they're found to be significant. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Planck time

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 this 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)