Talk:Planck length/Archive 1

1.616199(97)×10−48 metres
Am I the only one who has a problem with the claim that the Planck Length may be reduced to 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres? Planck length itself is defined in terms of physical constants - there is no uncertainty as to its value. The article quoted doesn't imply that Planck length itself may be redefined. It only mentions that the quantum graininess was originally expected to manifest itself at around Planck scale, but now there is evidence it may be of the order of 10-48 or smaller. Observing quantum graininess doesn't change a quantity defined by physical constants. And even if it would, the article most certainly doesn't imply that quantum graininess is a precise power of ten factor smaller than Planck length (as demonstrated by keeping the significant digits exactly the same). From my understanding, whoever added this part completely missed the boat, though I am reluctant to change it directly myself in case I am the one who's missing something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.189.142 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

agree

NO! You have indeed missed the boat (and I'm surprised that no one has indicated so earlier). The Planck scale is indeed defined in terms of fundamental constants (and that definition has no uncertainty), but only one of those constants (c) has a DEFINED value (with no uncertainty). The numerical values of the other two are not known precisely (G is the most poorly determined fundamental constant, with a relative uncertainty of roughly 47 ppm, see for instance the NIST site at:https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bgspu|search_for=Gravitational+Constant; this uncertainty in G makes the dominant contribution to the uncertainty of l_P since the uncertainty on h-bar is only about 12ppb). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1BD0:4A70:8577:FEC6:F2A2:A3E5 (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

2010-04 thread
'Black Holes, with masses less than ~1.1e-8 kg, would have Schwarzschild Radii less than the Planck Length''. So, if you cannot have Black Hole Entropies less than ~1, perhaps you cannot have Black Holes with masses less than 1.1e-8 kg ??''' 66.235.27.181 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

'The Planck Length'' is (essentially) equal to the wavelength of a Photon, which was energetic enough, that its wavelength was equal to its Schwarzschild Radius (Lambda = R_SC). A Photon, w/ a wavelength of (of order) 10^-35 meters, would create such "crisp" curvature in spacetime, that it would "buckle" or "nipple" spacetime into a singularity.''' 66.235.27.181 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Statements moved to talk page
Moved these statements here since they seemed wishy-washy. Please move them back if you can go into detail about which physicists make these statements and why.

"His paper says nothing about its being 'the smallest meaningful length in quantum mechanics' although some contemporary physicists talk like that. In 1899 quantum mechanics had not been invented yet. It might or might not be helpful to say 'two points separated by less than the Planck length are indistinguishable from each other'. This is an issue for today's physicists irrelevant to the original definition of the Planck length a hundred years ago."

It might or might not turn out to be useful to think of it as "the smallest meaningful division of time." One hears speculation about that, but the jury is still out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.93.53.199 (talk • contribs).

Inconsistency in the length template and Value section values
The value in meters for Planck Length seems to be correct in the Value section of the article, but the length template shows wrong value. I tried fixing it, but apparently there is some bug in the template. Can anyone fix it? --George (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nature article
Here is an article from Nature that seems to raise doubts about the Planck Length:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/030324/030324-13.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.79.78 (talk • contribs).

1.6blabla(12)*10^-35?
What does that (12)-thing do there? It seems to be totally out of place. Crakkpot 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, a number in parentheses in a figure tells you what the standard deviation is in the measurement (where it's pretty likely to be within one standard deviation, very likely to be within two deviations, etc). So, it's telling you how accurate the value given is. The deviation value is in terms of the last place in the original number, so 1.61624(12) means 1.61624 with a standard deviation of 0.00012. --Christopher Thomas 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The numbers in parentheses are the uncertainty of a measurement or result of a calculation of two or more measurements. So, for instance, 1.650(25) is the same as saying 1.650, plus or minus 0.025. Uncertainty and standard deviation are two completely different things. Standard deviation is a statistical measure of the variation within a sample. Uncertainty represents the accuracy of a measurement. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think user Crakkpot has located an error in Wikipedia! But what kind of an error is 12? Unfree (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainty in Momentum
Uncertainty in momentum is not a momentum, but a delta momentum, in the case of Heisenberg's equation the delta momentum is a range of possible momentums. So I think it should read something like "precision of position of an object to the plank length would mean that it would be impossible to distinguish if the object was a something moving like an electron, or having the capacities of a black hole." This is also meaningless because black holes do not necessarily have momentum.

Compton Length
question: Is this meant to be the same as Compton Wavelength? Also, if one knew the sum total of all energy in the universe, would the corresponding wavelength be the Planck length?
 * Yes, same as compton wavelength. I don't know what you mean. If you mean the corresponding compton wavelength for all the energy in the world. I'm pretty sure that the answer would be no. The mass that has a compton wavelength equal to the planck length is equal to the planck mass. And the sum total of the energy in the universe is much larger than the energy in the planck mass.McKay

Consequences
The article does not distinguish, but I presume it is not whether or not the baseball is at rest or moving that matters, but that the speed can only be estimated within ±51 mph--JimWae 04:50, 2004 Nov 25 (UTC)
 * Yes essentially. The uncertainty of velocity in this case would be 51 mph. I don't think it's a +- 51, but that the range is 51, so its like +=25 McKay 00:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Does this phenomenon appply to footballs as well as baseballs? Indeed, how about any other type of ball? Arcturus 16:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the phenomenon works fine with any object, but I'll bet the masses are different. The article on uncertainty principle covers the ground nicely. Note my recent change to this article though. If you've further questions about the uncertainty principle, feel free to ask (here or my talk page works fine).McKay 23:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * So perhaps object would be a better word to use than baseball? I'll change it unless anyone disagrees. Thanks, Arcturus 16:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Object doesn't work, because the uncertainty in this case is in the momentum. Since we can probably safely assume the mass of the baseball is unchanged, the uncertainty is in the velocity (the typical case). The momentum is the uncertainty, so you can't just say "object" but you could say an object of 34kilos (or whatever the size of a baseball is, I forget), like a baseball if you want to.


 * OK let's stick with baseball. However, not being a specialist in these matters I found it difficult to understand the concept as it is currently written. Could you elaborate within the article on the point about the mass? Arcturus 16:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Mabey it should say "something with the same mass as a baseball" so people know it doesn't work with all objects.Daniel 19:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A baseball with a mass of 34 kg? I don't know whether that was a parody of Americans not understanding the metric system or a genuine mistake. J I P  | Talk 04:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not the speed of the basaeball that is uncertain, but its velocity. One can be certain of a baseball's speed yet still not know what its velocity is. That is, uncertainy in velocity can come from uncertainty in speed, uncertainty in direction, or a combination.Flarity
 * You would be correct in saying that it is the velocity that is uncertain, but if the velocity is that uncertain, can you really know the speed? What I'm saying, is that if you certainly know it's speed, you do know something about its velocity, so can there actually be that imprecise about velocity? Its easier to visualize the variation on a constant, rather than a vector. McKay 20:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be less US-centric to use a type of ball used more in the rest of the free world such as a cricket ball. 31.185.241.136 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Schwarzschild radius and Compton length are not equal
"The Planck mass is a mass whose Schwarzschild radius and its Compton length are equal distances. This distance, called the Planck length, is equal to:"

The above statement is wrong.

m = mC / lC

m is the mass

mC is the constant of proportionality

lC is the compton wavelength

Mass is inversely proportional to the Compton wavelength.

The constant of proportionality, mC, is about 2.2102188e-42 kg.m

This shows that the Compton wavelength of the Planck mass is equal to the Planck Length times 2.pi


 * Confirmed. We should probably update all of the Planck unit pages accordingly. They, and compton wavelength, state that the Schwarzschild radius is equal to both the Compton length and the Planck length, whereas it's twice the Planck length and (1/pi) the compton wavelength.
 * The error most likely originally arose because some texts (including the one I'd first seen Planck units in) _define_ the Planck length in this manner, while Planck units defines it as the length that, with the Planck mass, makes G = 1. --Christopher Thomas 06:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)