Talk:Planck units

‹See TfM›

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 the different 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)

This page is for proposing concrete suggestions for how to improve the article, not a forum for whining about an imagined cabal of editors intent on ruining it. Your behavior is entirely disruptive, and it is becoming increasingly clear that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Please desist. --JBL (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

My very concrete suggestion is that this page again should be split into many different pages, one for each Planck unit, and that this page are kept as a short summary (but need considerably improvement) with link to those pages. Can we have a consensus vote for that again? And can we let the vote be open for some months so not just frequent editors get aware of the vote before the vote is over? TomStefano (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You can begin a discussion and see if you can convince other editors to agree with you -- keeping in mind that it is essential to assume good faith about other editors, even when they disagree with you. If that doesn't work, a more formal process is an WP:RfC (which is not, strictly speaking, a vote, but a more structured discussion with vote-like aspects). Ultimately, though, you should be willing to contemplate the possibility that other editors will not agree with you, and to engage constructively even if you are in the minority. --JBL (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Second if kept as it is then a concrete suggestion (if not clear enough from above) is for editors to consider exactly what ideas and their papers should be prioritised under for example the Planck time. Should recent papers with a few references in peer reviewed journals be prioritised or older papers with many references? And is it forbidden to ask why papers from relatively frequent editors or of researchers promoting editors work seems more often referred to than for example older papers with many more references? TomStefano (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

is it forbidden Yes, it is, because that's more conspiratorial nonsense and WP:AGF-violations. --JBL (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There was nothing in the old article on the Planck time except badly-written and badly-sourced material that was redundant with what the main article already said. Nothing prevents the section here being expanded, if there is more to say and it is worth saying according to reliable sources and it pertains to the time unit specifically. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no more speculative theory than string theory. But this theory is devoted to many pages in Wikipedia. Where is the logic? String theory can do anything, but Planck units cannot have separate pages.178.120.61.106 (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to render judgment upon string theory. We just summarize what has already been said about it, which is a lot, and which is naturally broken up into multiple pages. It makes sense to separate, say, dual models for Regge trajectories in the early 1970s and "let's apply machine learning to the swampland conjectures" speculation from 2020. The situation here is different. Here, all the subtopics are fellow-travelers, there's much less to say about each one, and much of what can be said about each one is actually said about them all. XOR'easter (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

fully agree with you 178.120.61.106, superstring theory is today known among most physicists to be highly speculative, with not a single thing they predict that are testable, still this has got many wikipedia pages. That they got many pages is okay, but only if more important topics got their space. The Planck units that for example the editor in Chief of Nature claimed is among the most important topics to understand better to come to a unified theory. But off course some editors here know better. They claimed the individual pages had so little information and was of so low quality, even if they clearly could see this they could not improve them to a decent standard. Unfortunately it looks like I soon will get blocked, so I will not be able to contribute on improving these pages. My critics of how the pages have evolved has not felt in good earth.TomStefano (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like TomStefano got blocked, but for doing what? ChristopherLL (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'll note that I am a fan of the merge, since the individual units just did not have enough sources to make full length articles. But combined into one article, it's the right length. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Editorial suggestion

"approximately respectively the energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time and the Planck length" in the introduction is horrible. It should be something like, "respectively the approximate energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time, and the Planck length". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.52 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense; edited. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

On rationalised and reduced Planck units

The article seems to imply that the only difference between standard Planck units and "alternative" Planck units is that the base unit of mass is divided by a factor of √(4π) for rationalised Planck units, and by a factor of √(8π) for reduced Planck units, with any other, consequent difference (e.g. between the standard vs. alternative Planck units for force and energy) being exclusively a result of this difference in the base unit of mass (e.g. [force] = [mass]×[length]÷[time]² and [energy] = [mass]×[length]²÷[time]², so [rationalised Planck force] = [standard Planck force]/√(4π), [reduced Planck energy] = [standard Planck energy]/√(8π), etc). However, if you run the numbers as a system of equations where the other four equations (c₀ = 1 [length]/[time], ε₀ = 1 [charge]²[time]²/[mass][length]³, ħ = 1 [mass][length]²/[time] and k_B = 1 [mass][length]²/[temperature][time]²) remain constant and only one equation changes (from standard G = 1 [length]³/[mass][time]² to rationalised G = 1/(4π) [length]³/[mass][time]² or reduced G = 1/(8π) [length]³/[mass][time]²), you find that, while indeed the end value for the base unit of mass is divided by √(4π) or √(8π) as the article claims, the end value for the base unit of temperature is also divided by the same factors, while the end values for the base units of length and time are in turn multiplied by them, which causes a chain shift in the derived units one could not predict by simply replacing the mass unit (e.g. while the units for speed and energy vary as would be expected, the unit for acceleration is also divided by a factor of √(4π) or √(8π), so the unit of force is consequently divided by a full 4π or 8π instead). Isn't it the case that perhaps the article should explicitly mention that? E.g. instead of just saying that, in the reduced Planck unit system, the base unit of mass is divided by √(8π), wouldn't it be better if it said that, in the reduced Planck unit system, the base units of mass and temperature are divided by √(8π), while the base units of length and time are multiplied by √(8π)? 186.223.215.50 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of Planck mass/energy

I'm just listening to Leonard Susskind's lectures and he says the planck mass is equal to the mass of the smallest possible black hole. I suppose he should know what he is talking about, but I'm not an expert in the field, so I will not add it. Considering that there is some explanation for the signifance of the other units, it might make sense to add that to the Planck energy subsection, though. The significance of the unit was a natural question that came up in my mind right away anyway. OdinFK (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)