Template:Vital article

Physics C‑class High‑importance

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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Measurement C‑class (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

June 2005 – May 2006 July 2006 – September 2009 October 2009 – October 2015 November 2015 – June 2020 June 2020 –

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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.^[1][2] Other tabulations add, in addition to a unit for temperature, a unit for electric charge,^{[3] [4]} sometimes also replacing mass with energy when doing so.^[5] Depending on the author's choice, this charge unit is given by

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

or

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

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.^[6] Tjem Svasp (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"A community consensus formed" the community consensus these days quite often consist of a series of almost "full-time" editors like XOR'easter, they are backing each other so the consensus is the consensus among mostly this circle of editors. To get through their own opinions and agenda is much more important than quality or listen to what others says. One can also ask how can some editors be here almost "full time" on so very many different topics. Are you paid for this? How can you dominate the editing on so many different topics? Are you an expert on all these topics? Wikipedia on pages related to science used to be dominated by researchers that a few times now and then added a litte to the topics they where specialists on, now it is dominated by almost full time editors using loads of time here with special privileges to override everyone else. The real expert will never have time to waste loads of time on wikipedia, so they don't get the high editor privileges like XOR'easter, so this seems to be a weakness in how wikipedia has evolved. TomStefano (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter; "Again, WP:NPA. For the record, none of the currently-54 references in the article are by friends or coauthors of mine." Okay, a quick search only show that on this particular page you promote friends of your wikipedia editorial friends (one that like to block others and accuse other for such, one that has been on this page recently to block others from edit, and yes he is promoted by one of the researchers you here promote papers from.). Do you want me to list the specific names, titles, the papers, and how they are connected? and how they are connected to you. If you request so I will be happy to come with a long list of documentation, then others can see for themselves. I do not see anything very wrong in what you are doing if it not was for that you are strongly policing others and correcting others, blocking others, and deleting others etc. TomStefano (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some condom accused me of plagiarism. Who are you to judge? Ignoramus.178.120.71.56 (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]