Talk:Planck particle

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Would a plank particle be the smallest measurable particle? --Justaperson117 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Smallest" in what sense? There are living things which are lighter, and atoms are much lighter. And it is doubtful whether a Planck particle can be measured in any conventional sense. --Rumping (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

contradiction[edit]

Is the radius smaller than or equal to the Planck length? - ∅ (∅), 03:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If this supposed particle is so small that it cannot be measured and its lifetime is one instant, it seems that it might as well /not/ exist for all that it would affect the universe. 74.194.87.88 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Planck particle's radius must be equal to the Planck length by definition because if m = the Planck mass in both the following equations: lsubc=hbar/mc and lsubs=Gm/csquared, then they both equal lsubp (the Planck length). The sentence should read: "its radius equalling..." rather than "its radius being smaller than..." Davidl9999 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Planck particle's existence would still be an event in a causal chain. Even though its size and duration are too small to be practically measured due to the finite velocity of c, the events preceding and proceeding it would definitely be measureable, including events that occur as a direct result of its existence. It may only exist for .26 Planck seconds, but that is still infinitely longer than an "instant", which is only a mathematical construct signifying a single point in time. Alexis Brooke M 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that a particle of a Planck mass would be very unstable. But if there were a particle that has a square of a Planck mass rather than just a Planck mass it would be as stable as the natural constants are which define the square of the Planck mass (mP^2=h/cxG). Such a particle would not interact in the usual ways with particles having a "normal" mass and hence we might get to the wrong conclusion that it does not exist. That it may exist could be concluded from the fact that the natural constants exist, even within a "vacuum" (which suggests that such particles may "form" the "vacuum" and cause the constants rather than the constants cause the Planck mass resp. its square).Particlefan (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources up for Debate[edit]

The reliability of these sources is disputed. I believe they are notable. Claims to the opposite need to state evidence to say they are not. Silver seren^C 23:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the sources as far as readily accessible I would agree that Planck-Particles so far are only hypotheses. Probably they will remain to be hypotheses forever as it is very unlikely that they will ever be more or less directly detected. This is because the protons/neutrons in our instruments for detection are about 10^20 fold bigger than such a particle. This would equal a scenario where an "instrument" composed of thousands of galaxies tries to investigate the physical properties of a human being.

Nevertheless, the current experimental knowledge allows to rule out certain hypotheses. For example I think any hypotheses can be ruled out which are based on calculations containing natural constants (and therefore the Planck units) but result in models exceeding the limits given by the Planck units. E.g. the concept of singularities which violates these limits.

On the other side, models being consistent with the dimensions and values of the Planck Units - including Planck Particles - have at least the right to be seen as an option for how reality truly could be working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.212.44.164 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A particle that is based on its photon orbit radius rather taan its Schwarzschil radius has a relationship to the electron mass. With this concept, the maximum energy photon wavelength is 2pi times (3/2) exponent 1/2 (Planck length). See: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/discussionpost/Relationship_of_electron_mass_to_Planck_mass_particle_96506908 DonJStevens (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawking radiation[edit]

I've put a {{cn}} tag on the claim that "It is thought that such a particle would vanish in Hawking radiation".

At micro black hole it points out that when you get as small as a Planck particle, the curvature is such that the energy of a Hawking radiation particle is essentially equal to the entire mass of the Planck particle. At that scale one might well expect Hawking radiation to be frozen out, so a Planck particle might actually be stable. Jheald (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]