Talk:Planck units

Table 3: Derived Planck units

In Table 3, the column “Approximate SI equivalent” gives the value 4.63298 × 10¹¹³ J/m³ for the Planck energy density and the value 4.63309 × 10¹¹³ Pa for the Planck pressure.

The final Expressions, however, for the two are identical, and since it can readily be shown, that Pa is equivalent to J/m³, shouldn’t the two SI equivalents be the same, even though they are merely approximate? Wouldn’t it be sensible to make them identical (choose one value or the other or a compromise value) or, alternatively, to indicate that the last three digits are uncertain? This, I think, is an edit that a physicist, expert in the subject matter, should make. --Wikifan2744 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is correct and I came to make the same point, the planck pressure and the planck energy density are two names for the same thing, it's possible that the two figures given represent approximations based on different methods of measurement, or maybe the result. It doesn't look like the numbers are sourced. Plugging in "sqrt(c^14/(G^4*hbar^2))" to the Google calculator (I'm sure it's not a reliable source but just to see) gives 4.6332523 × 10^113 pascals. Since we only have agreement to the first three decimals in the three values, I think I'll go ahead and shorten it to 4.633 until someone can cite a source that gives a definite measurement and uncertainty.66.179.158.5 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Plank mass and 2016 CODATA value

The value quoted for the Plank mass is inconsistent with that quoted in the cited 2016 CODATA source. I can't seem to find the value in the source code, and so I don't know how to change this to the up-to-date value. Can someone explain this, and possibly change the value? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you edit it here: Template:Base_Planck_units. I never thought it necessary or even a good idea to create that template. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that doesn't do the the trick. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to be patient. Your edit to the template has shown up in the article, but I added a non-breaking spaces between the 3rd and 4th digit (like the other values), and that has not yet shown up in the article. So there might be a longer period of time between when the articles update themselves from the templates. I hadn't known that before. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. Thanks. 17:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction to speed of light in human scale units value

This statement

 1 nano-(Planck length per Planck time) is about 1.079 km/h.

is wrong, not 1 nano-speed of light, but 1 pico speed of light is equal to 1.079 km/h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.188.11.41 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope, check your calculations. It is correct as stated in the article. —Quondum 01:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This is 1 nano-Planck speed, a Planck speed is equal to the speed of light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xayahrainie43 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Density?

In the table the density of the universe is given as 9.9x10^-27 kg. Should the units be kg/m^3?

Yes, the units should be kg/m³. I fixed that, but I didn't check the stated numerical value. 50.47.109.19 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Derived Planck Units by ElectroMagnetism & Thermodynamics proprieties

References

MarianGheorgheWiki (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive explanation of your approach to this matter. However, I think that your grasp of the English language is not adequate for you to edit this Wikipedia. I suggest that you gain experience of editing the Wikipedia in your native language. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC).

Hi MarianGheorgheWiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish the results of work that you are doing yourself. You say "As I working for 4 years almost each day on creating all new Derived Planck Units" and "wished to publish my research on wikipedia". As an encyclopedia our articles are about things that have become known by being written about in other places first. Just because the fundamental Planck units can be combined in many ways does not mean that they belong in a Wikipedia article. Just those that are already explained and used in textbooks and scientific papers. We also require that editors be able to write clearly in English. I know you are disappointed, but you will have to write about your work someplace else. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank for your advise, StarryGrandma, I will kept it in mind. But just wanted to adds more Derived Planck Units, not post my research on the page of Planck Units. just thought it that lack of Planck Units of Electromagnetisms. But don't worry I am not touch it anymore Wikipedia English, for my lack of langueage, even just add math formulas on table, not comments or else. As told me Xxanthippe to do so. I hope can give you my inspiration to do so, or somebody else. not my concerns to give my new theories or what I been discovery with Planck Units, just want to thank this articles of Planck Units because was so inspired me so much than others website, witch was very lack of informations and sources. It's not my way to became an Wikipedia writer or else. Just reading stuff on it. So I give to you to keeping writing and updates stuff on it. I will try on Arvix or others place to post my research, even I try it. can I leave at least my own page user my work? MarianGheorgheWiki

Your original research will not be suitable for inclusion in your user page: see Wikipedia:User pages. Neither on this talk page: Wikipedia does not publish WP:Original research anywhere. talk) 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

Removed comments.

${\displaystyle }$ MarianGheorgheWiki (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You will also be expected to remove original research from your user pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC).

Ok, I found Wikiversity, it seem work with Original Research, gonna move it there. But please give some few day to updates my own stuff on Wikiversity before I deleted from users pages on Wikipedia. As I removed my last comments on this Talk page, I was too much offensive on this Talk page, I still sorry for it, and for lost time to Xxanthippeuser. -- MarianGheorgheWiki (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Needs update to reflect change in SI system

"due to the definition of ampere which sets the vacuum permeability μ0" is no longer true since the SI system was changed in 2019. The vacuum permeability is no longer defined in terms of an Ampere.