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
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

Archives

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

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]

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".

141.168.147.196 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.183.237.97 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]