Talk:Planck units/Archive 5

Formulas for Planck's constant and the gravitational constant
New formulas for Planck's constant and the gravitational constant were published (in pre-print) here last week: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0017/v1

The article demonstrates that Planck's constant (in reduced form) can be stated in Planck units as $$ l_P^2 m_P / t_P $$ or simply $$ l_P m_P c $$. The gravitational constant can be stated as $$ l_P^3 / (m_P t_P^2) $$ or simply $$ (l_P / m_P) c^2 $$. The formulas are demonstrable in values and dimensions.

The article contains more information pertinent to the Planck units, some of which may be suitable now and some that may require peer review.

Davidhumpherys (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That's trivial, all constants (G, c, ℏ, kB and ke) can be expressed in terms of Planck units by simply replacing the dimensions of the constant with the corresponding units. The article already mentions it and it is just a consequence of how the Planck units are defined. --Grufo (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate the historical significance of these constants. However, the importance of showing the Planck unit formulas is to demonstrate how physical quantities are transformed by Planck's constant and the Gravitational constant. It is the Planck units within these constants that generate proportionality operators and determine physical quantities. For example, the momentum of a photon $$ h / \lambda $$ can be written in Planck units as $$ (l_p / \lambda) p_P $$ (where $$ p_P = m_P c $$). The Planck unit formulas identify the ratio of Planck length to photon wavelength as the proportionality operator acting on Planck momentum. de Broglie wavelength is another example. $$ h / mv $$ becomes $$ l_P (m_P / m) (c / v) $$ in Planck units. The Planck unit formulas demonstrate how proportionality operators are constructed out of Planck's constant and formula inputs. This pattern can be shown in formula after formula.


 * A second reason to emphasize the Planck unit relationships is to demonstrate when the constants $$ h $$ and $$ G $$ do not contain the right proportions of Planck units and must be modified to get the correct ratios. The Schwarzschild radius formula is one such case. Substituting Planck units into the formula $$ r = 2GM / c^2 $$ reduces to $$ r = 2 l_P (M / m_P) $$. The Planck unit formula shows that the value of $$ c^2 $$ embedded in the gravitational constant must be removed with a quantity of $$ c^2 $$ in the formula's denominator. The same can be shown in the Compton wavelength formula ( $$ h / mc $$) which removes a value of $$ c $$ from Planck's constant to give $$ \lambda_C = l_P (m_P / m) $$.


 * One could argue that the Planck units are fundamental and $$ h $$ and $$ G $$ are composites. In any case, the relationships are unambiguous and calling out the formulas showcases an important quality of the Planck units. Davidhumpherys (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that we could consider our constants as trivial composite results of other fundamental constants. But we normally choose as constants simply what we can easily measure. We have a way to measure G, c, ℏ, but we don't have a way to measure lP, mP and tP, so we derive the latter from the constants that we can access, rather than the other way around. If we were able to measure lP, mP and tP directly, we wouldn't need any gravitational constant or Planck constant. But we are not. As for showing the consequences of this however, although it has no practical consequences (it does not make sense to remove G and put the Planck mass in a formula when you need again G for calculating the Planck mass), I agree with you, it offers a deeper understanding to how our universe works. I had even started by placing a table of conversions between the Planck base units in the article, but other Wikipedia editors did not share my enthusiasm. --Grufo (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's own work. Second, papers that are not published in peer-reviewed journals are only suitable references in rare circumstances which do not apply here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with XOR&#39;easter. I would add that the fact that we can express a lot of equations in a more elegant way by treating the Planck units as constants (but still maintaining the SI units for measuring) does not make the Planck units “more fundamental”. The speed of light is a composed constant of Planck length divided Planck time. And yet I am quite convinced that it is rather fundamental per se. That's why peer reviewed literature is important. There is difference between stating “the gravitational constant can be expressed as lP3 &times; mP&minus;1 &times; tP&minus;2” and stating instead “the gravitational constant is, at a fundamental level, the result of lP3 &times; mP&minus;1 &times; tP&minus;2”: the first statement is a trivial mathematical equivalence that does not need any peer review (it's trivially the inversion of how the Planck units are derived), the second statement instead is quite a strong one, that would need tons of proofs. --Grufo (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only suggesting that the page display the formulas, which are evident from the values and dimensions. The commentary explains why this would be valuable but I agree that publishing statements about what is fundamental would be premature. Regarding measurement, bear in mind that the Planck units are known with greater accuracy than the gravitational constant. Planck's constant and the speed of light give precision measurements of $$ l_P m_P (\hbar / c ) $$, $$ m_P t_P (\hbar / c^2 ) $$, and $$ l_P / t_P (c) $$. The ratio needed to improve the gravitational constant is $$ l_P / m_P $$, but a more precise measurement of $$ m_P / t_P $$ or $$ l_P t_P $$ would also allow derivations of all three Planck units to the same level of accuracy. These are things metrologists will want to think about, but beyond the scope of what I'm proposing. Simply showing the Planck unit formulas for $$ \hbar $$ and $$ G $$ on a page dedicated to the Planck units would be valuable and shouldn't be problematic. Davidhumpherys (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * “Planck units are known with greater accuracy than the gravitational constant”
 * Sure, but normally they appear with a power or in pairs, which brings back the uncertainty exactly to the starting point:
 * $$F = G \frac{M m}{r^2} = \frac{\hbar c}{m_\text{P}^2} \frac{M m}{r^2}$$
 * We have no ways to measure the Planck units, we can just derive them from the famous five constants. And you cannot improve the uncertainty of the latter via circular reasoning.
 * “The ratio needed to improve the gravitational constant is $$ l_P / m_P $$, but a more precise measurement of $$ m_P / t_P $$ or $$ l_P t_P $$ would also allow derivations of all three Planck units to the same level of accuracy. These are things metrologists will want to think about”
 * I am perfectly aware of that, and I think metrologists do think about these things…
 * “Simply showing the Planck unit formulas for $$ \hbar $$ and $$ G $$ on a page dedicated to the Planck units would be valuable and shouldn't be problematic.”
 * The page currently contains this text:
 * "A property of Planck units is that in order to obtain the value of any of the physical constants above it is enough to replace the dimensions of the constant with the corresponding Planck units. For example, the gravitational constant (G) has as dimensions L3 M−1 T. By replacing each dimension with the value of each corresponding Planck unit one obtains the value of (1 lP)3 &times; (1 mP)−1 &times; (1 tP)−2 = (1.616255&times;10−35 m)3 &times; (2.176435&times;10−8 kg)−1 &times; (5.391247&times;10−44 s)−2 = 6.674...&times;10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 (which is the value of G'').
 * "A property of Planck units is that in order to obtain the value of any of the physical constants above it is enough to replace the dimensions of the constant with the corresponding Planck units. For example, the gravitational constant (G) has as dimensions L3 M−1 T. By replacing each dimension with the value of each corresponding Planck unit one obtains the value of (1 lP)3 &times; (1 mP)−1 &times; (1 tP)−2 = (1.616255&times;10−35 m)3 &times; (2.176435&times;10−8 kg)−1 &times; (5.391247&times;10−44 s)−2 = 6.674...&times;10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2 (which is the value of G'').

This is the consequence of the fact that the system is internally coherent. For example, the gravitational attractive force of two bodies of 1 Planck mass each, set apart by 1 Planck length is 1 coherent Planck unit of force. Likewise, the distance traveled by light during 1 Planck time is 1 Planck length.''"


 * So, in addition to that, what you are proposing is to change this table:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin:1em auto 1em auto; background:#fff;"

! Constant ! Symbol ! Dimension in SI Quantities ! Value (SI units) (exact by definition) where h is the Planck constant (defined as $h⁄2\pi$ exactly) (exact by definition) where ε0 is the permittivity of free space
 * +Table 1: Dimensional universal physical constants normalized with Planck units
 * Speed of light in vacuum
 * c
 * L T
 * L T
 * Gravitational constant
 * G
 * L3 M−1 T
 * Reduced Planck constant
 * ħ = $undefined⁄2π$
 * Reduced Planck constant
 * ħ = $1⁄4\piε_{0}$
 * ħ = $8.988 kg⋅m^{3}⋅s^{−4}⋅A^{−2}$
 * L2 M T
 * Boltzmann constant
 * kB
 * L2 M T Θ−1
 * L2 M T Θ−1
 * Coulomb constant
 * ke = $h⁄2\pi$
 * ke = $undefined⁄2π$
 * L3 M T Q−2


 * }
 * into this table, with the “Expression” column added:
 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin:1em auto 1em auto; background:#fff;"
 * {| class="wikitable" style="margin:1em auto 1em auto; background:#fff;"

! Constant ! Symbol ! Dimension in SI Quantities ! Expression ! Value (SI units) (exact by definition) where h is the Planck constant (defined as $1⁄4\piε_{0}$ exactly) (exact by definition) where ε0 is the permittivity of free space
 * +Table 1: Dimensional universal physical constants normalized with Planck units
 * Speed of light in vacuum
 * c
 * L T
 * lP × tP−1
 * lP × tP−1
 * Gravitational constant
 * G
 * L3 M−1 T
 * lP3 × mP−1 × tP−2
 * Reduced Planck constant
 * ħ = $8.988 kg⋅m^{3}⋅s^{−4}⋅A^{−2}$
 * Reduced Planck constant
 * ħ = $l_{P}^{3} m_{P}⁄t_{P}^{4}$
 * ħ = $l_{P}^{3} m_{P}⁄t_{P}^{2} q_{P}^{2}$
 * L2 M T
 * lP2 × mP × tP−1
 * Boltzmann constant
 * kB
 * L2 M T Θ−1
 * lP2 × mP × tP−2 × TP−1
 * lP2 × mP × tP−2 × TP−1
 * Coulomb constant
 * ke = $l_{P}^{3} m_{P}⁄t_{P}^{2} q_{P}^{2}$
 * ke = $l_{P}^{3} m_{P}⁄t_{P}^{4}$
 * L3 M T Q−2
 * lP3 × mP × tP−2 × qP−2


 * }
 * Don't you think it's quite unnecessary? Don't take it wrong, I wish you the best of luck with your article, but what are you proposing Wikipedia to do concretely? --Grufo (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we are not reviewers. I have started to give a fast look at your article. Already at page 3 you write the Coulomb constant as ke = $l_{P}^{3} m_{P}⁄t_{P}^{2} q_{P}^{2}$, but the correct form is ke = $l_{P}⁄m_{P}$. Consequently the other electromagnetic units that you have derived are wrong as well. I have stopped there and not looked further. --Grufo (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The expression column is what I'm suggesting. This form is significant because it shows the more granular relationships between the constants and inputs into the formulas that use them. It wasn't my intention to start a discussion about the paper on this page, only to point to the formulas. I'll just mention that the equations for the Coulomb constant and other electromagnetic units are as intended. Electromagnetic charge can be quantified in units of time just as mechanical and gravitational force and acceleration are quantified--but a topic for another page. I appreciate you considering my suggestion to show the Planck unit formulas. Davidhumpherys (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * “The expression column is what I'm suggesting”
 * Personally I feel that the Expression column would be redundant, especially considering that at the point in the article we have not presented the Planck units yet, and the text explains it immediately afterwards (although I don't have a strong opinion against it). But maybe others might feel differently.
 * “the Coulomb constant and other electromagnetic units are as intended. Electromagnetic charge can be quantified in units of time just as mechanical and gravitational force and acceleration are quantified--but a topic for another page.”
 * But then why $l_{P}⁄m_{P}$ = 8.98755&times;109 kg m3 s−4 A−2 (which has the correct value and dimensions of ke), but $2$ = 1.08772×1061 kg m3 s−4? Do you have any source/demonstration/explanation for your statement? You know why I am quite sure it is wrong? Because if that was the case – even forgetting for a second the mismatching results – we would be able to extract the value of the Gravitational constant from the Coulomb constant (which is known with fairly high precision). And obviously that is not the case. --Grufo (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The units and values are consistent and you'll get the correct answer when you use the formulas in table 2 together with the unit conversions in table 12. This can be shown unambiguously, but getting the right answers only demonstrates the consistency of the proportions. The evidence for the new formulas is that the traditional constants take on physically meaningful values (for example, vacuum permittivity embeds the Planck force which is reduced by formula inputs in the right proportions). Note how this is consistent with restating the mass-energy component of the Einstein Field equations (here I'm only using the Planck unit formulas for $$ c $$ and $$ G $$): $$ (8 \pi G / c^4) T_{uv} $$ becomes $$ (8 \pi / F_P) T_{uv} $$, where $$ F_P $$ is the Planck force. It's the same pattern that repeats across constants--a maximal Planck potential reduced by proportionality operators. But again, I'm only suggesting the Wikipedia Planck units page display formulas for $$ c $$ and $$ G $$ at this point. Davidhumpherys (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Throwing in those two formulae would be redundant with what the "Definition" section already says. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot take a known constant and give it another value and dimensionality. You can create your own constants instead, as many as you like. Call them Humpherys constants in your paper if you like, but the Coulomb constant has only one value, whatever units you use to measure it – and this is ke = $G⁄c^{4}$, which in SI is equal to 8.98755&times;109 kg m3 s−4 A−2. For example, an analogous operation to what you are attempting to do (if I understood your words correctly) would be to state that since the gravitational constant is equal to G = $L^{3} M^{&minus;1} T^{&minus;2}⁄L^{4} T^{&minus;4}$c2 we could create another constant named “Wikipedia Constant” (w) equal to w = $1⁄L M T^{&minus;2}$ and say that G = wc2. Our “Wikipedia Constant” will have different value and dimensions compared to G and will make the latter completely useless (more or less like what you are attempting to do with the Coulomb constant), but will not give another value to it. But I guess we should not go forward with your article here. As for the Expression column, I agree with XOR&#39;easter. --Grufo (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Throwing in those two formulae would be redundant with what the "Definition" section already says. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot take a known constant and give it another value and dimensionality. You can create your own constants instead, as many as you like. Call them Humpherys constants in your paper if you like, but the Coulomb constant has only one value, whatever units you use to measure it – and this is ke = $1⁄8\pi$, which in SI is equal to 8.98755&times;109 kg m3 s−4 A−2. For example, an analogous operation to what you are attempting to do (if I understood your words correctly) would be to state that since the gravitational constant is equal to G = $2.612$c2 we could create another constant named “Wikipedia Constant” (w) equal to w = $4.222$ and say that G = wc2. Our “Wikipedia Constant” will have different value and dimensions compared to G and will make the latter completely useless (more or less like what you are attempting to do with the Coulomb constant), but will not give another value to it. But I guess we should not go forward with your article here. As for the Expression column, I agree with XOR&#39;easter. --Grufo (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the historical significance of the constants and units as they're defined today; and I understand it will take time to persuade people that there's a better way to express them. In any case, I thank you for considering my input. Wikipedia is a valuable source of information and I have many editors to thank for their contributions to my understanding. Davidhumpherys (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Incoherence with the symbol for the Planck length
There is currently an incoherent behavior from Wikipedia. The symbol for the Planck length is sometimes presented as $$\ell_\mathrm{P}$$, some other times as $$l_\mathrm{P}$$. Should we not just stick to one? Which one should we choose? --Grufo (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The latter seems more consistent with other units, that appear here to generally use a standard English letter with a subscript p. --314pies (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

circular definitions
"A Planck time unit is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum" "The Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time"

These are circular definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.239.244 (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Was that really the reason for the delete
XOR'easter delete likely for other reasons than he states! "curprev 15:44, 6 February 2021‎ XOR'easter talk contribs‎ 73,547 bytes −2,535‎  →‎List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction" undothank

So the reason "given" is a totally different article in a journal. Many even top journals have some junk papers, so we should delete references to papers in these journals because we can point out other junk papers in that journal?. And who say a peer reviewed published paper is junk or not, other peer reviewed researchers proving so or wiki editors? And we are not even talking about the paper he deleted reference to, because he did not want to indicate the real reason he deleted it. Interesting to see how CXOR'easter keeps deleting anything referring to the researcher he and David Eppstein wants to delete anything about on wikipedia, except if anyone write something negative on that researcher, that they will let stand and defend. Please check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squaring_the_circle, is XOR'easter involved here? why was this delete again related to reference to this specific researcher by exactly XOR'Easter ? coincident, ohh yes for sure, LOL!! (XOR'easter and David Eppstein works hand in hand to delete and deplatforming anyone that write positive or refer to researchers they dont like. Off course now we will hear it was a pure coincident, and that I am putting out conspiracy... LOL

"List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, " LOL yes we are sure that is why it was deleted. Because elementary things and simplification of science is not what highly complex wiki is about...LOL XOR'easter had for sure even forgotten the name on this researcher from last time he aggressively attacked him, so this delete was because he discovered another paper in the same journal (that not even is referred to on this or other pages on wiki) that he personally thought was nonsense, and why he now had to delete a link/info to a paper that by coincident was by the researcher he wants to delete anything positive about!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestigateThis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My edit summary was accurate. Physics Essays is a garbage journal that we should not cite (see WP:CITEWATCH). I've been cleaning up citations to it in many articles. Your comments here and at Talk:Squaring the circle constitute personal attacks against myself and, which violate Wikipedia policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

XOR'aster are specifically mention the following article "particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" in his reason for deleting reference to another article someone has put on the Planck unit page. I googled the paper you specifically mention "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" and found it is a peer reviewed paper by Stephan J.G. Gift, Professor of Electrical Engineering, The University of the West Indies. Your claim that his paper and the journal is garbage is highly defamatory. I see Professor Gift has many papers in well respected journals, and also Physics essays is well respected in many circles. Either you should state your critics of why this paper is "tripe", preferably you should do so yourself in a peer reviewed paper you can get published, or you have to give reference to other papers doing so. Your editing had very doubvious standard, it is quite obvious you are after another researcher. Even if you have been co-author on a few physics papers, this do not make you an expert in the field. It is highly non-respectable the way you operate. And it is quite clear why you mention a paper not even that has been mentioned on the wikipedia page for Planck units, you wanted clearly to delete references to another researcher there. I have not done personal attack on any, I am criticizing how you and other editors are operating, and specifically mention how you in my view are doing personal attack on person that likely not even are aware of you are putting out very negative things about them on wikipedia, and therefore not even can respond. You are specifically mention very negative stuff about a paper written by a specific professor. Is this not a topic even in other much more well known journals also? How can it come that you think you can do what you do? You now try to play the game that it is me breaking the rules off wikipedia and doing personal attack, on editors that likely even will have my questions of their personal attacks tried removed. I do not think wikipedia benefit from you throwing out your personal opinion on researchers you dont like personally. Prof Gift should be informed I think about your claims! So XOR'aster think it is fully okay to put out defamatory claims on papers of Professor Gift and others. And as defense for me making wikipedia readers aware of this he say I am breaking the wikipedia code and personally attack them. I am stating what you delete, and also show very good indications you are after specific people etc.  InvestigateThis (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Will XOR'aster also update the wikipedia profile on Physics Essays, and tell what he claim above "Physics Essays is a garbage journal" or will he get the page deleted? Should the editor of that journal be informed about XOR'asters claims? Is it fair to throw out such claims without more backing? Some will possibly consider your behavior highly defamatory, both towards specific persons such as Prof Gift, and to journals and their publishers and editors, all of them should be informed, and I am not sure the founding fathers of wikipedia would prefer editors to behave like this? InvestigateThis (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Planck length and time equal conversion?
If Planck time is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length, can you then also claim that 1 Planck length is the length required for light to travel in the time of 1 Planck time? If so, it should be added under the Planck length section because it may not be obvious to the reader. 92.220.156.99 (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022
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. Other tabulations add, in addition to a unit for temperature, a unit for electric charge, sometimes also replacing mass with energy when doing so. Depending on the author's choice, this charge unit is given by
 * $$q_\text{P} = \sqrt{4\pi\epsilon_0 \hbar c} \approx 1.875546 \times 10^{-18} \text{ C} \approx 11.7 \ e$$

or
 * $$q_\text{P} = \sqrt{\epsilon_0 \hbar c} \approx 5.290818 \times 10^{-19} \text{ C} \approx 3.3 \ e.$$

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. Tjem Svasp (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

Quality down
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)

statement is too exact, and hence wrong
"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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

On the Planck length
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)


 * The article Planck length was not deleted. It was merged into this article after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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&#39;easter (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (in reference to a since-deleted comment) Given your indentation, I'm not sure exactly who you're trying to insult, but please don't. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It is clear that XOR&#39;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&#39;easter and a few other editors ruined it. TomStefano (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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 ; 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&#39;easter (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea that I could add anything to the reputation of Frank Wilczek by citing him in a Wikipedia article is objectively funny. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "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&#39;easter as it will be quickly overridden. TomStefano (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Making it understandable to readers
One of my biggest pet peeves is that our technical physics articles seem to require a physics degree to comprehend. For example, the "Significance" section here makes the topic harder, not easier, to comprehend. Supposedly the quote puts it "succinctly", but it only muddles my understanding. I also think the lead needs a paragraph which explains the concepts in laymen's terms, even if some simplifications must be made (and of course stated to the reader). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm glad someone else is bothered by the "Significance" section; it's struck me as unsatisfying in various ways. Among other things, the use of "succinctly" is POV (saying in wiki-voice that the quote is both short and good for being short). More fundamentally, it's unclear why that specific block of text is singled out as being about the units' "Significance", when much of the rest of the text is also explaining ways in which they're found to be significant. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Smaller than a Planck Length?
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)


 * 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&#39;easter (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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&#39;easter. Actually it seems like XOR&#39;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&#39;easter comes with some lame duck arguments!TomStefano (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not immediately cease the personal attacks on other editors, I will seek administrative action to have you blocked — it is completely unacceptable here. JBL (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * @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)


 * Weyl's tile in relation to the Planck scale is not "every idea on every topic", it is clearly a very central problem related to if the Planck scale is unique. If the Planck length is the shortest possible observable length as most experts on foundation theories think (look through the literature) then the Weyl's tile problem is essential.


 * Naturally also if one can measure the Planck length and not only derive it from other constants is very essencial. But what can I say, what should be on some wikipedia pages is now totally dominated by a small circle of very active wikipedia editors that back each others, block others, delete others. They abuse the consensus system. Because most researchers really knowing the topic are off course here not even weekly, likely not even monthly. So then one of these editors can just say lets have a consensus meeting, researchers that have contributed to the pages over years will not even know about the meeting, then the few editors backing each other and perhaps a few random visitors will decide what pages should be deleted etc. It all look like a democratic process etc., but it is clearly not.  TomStefano (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the people who talk about the Planck length being the shortest physically observable length regard spacetime as becoming nonclassically foamy in some way rather than discretized, the Weyl tile problem isn't all that pertinent (as evidenced by how rarely the latter is discussed in the context of the former). Most physicists seem to do as Feynman did and dismiss the idea of space being any kind of grid structure for violating rotational and Lorentz invariance, without bringing up the narrower argument of Weyl. We can't invent a connection that's not there, nor can we stress a point that hasn't already been so. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of the topics that I struggled with explaining/finding sources for when Planck length was a separate article. I think something needs to be said about this issue, because it is a common misconception. A lot of people think that the Planck length is the shortest possible distance. I don't think we should take a firm stance on it, but provide some links for readers to explore further and at least alert them to the issue. My previous approach was a brief discussion of whether it represents some limit in the Universe, followed by "Regardless of whether it represents some fundamental limit to the universe, it is a useful unit in theoretical physics." So discussing the problematic nature of the grid concept here would enlighten our readers. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds reasonable; the challenge is doing so in a way that is not WP:SYNTH-y and doesn't make speculations/hypotheses come across as established facts. "The spacetime foam, whatever it is, would have to be a structure that..." XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "and doesn't make speculations/hypotheses come across as established facts." sorry to say it to you XOR&#39;easter but that you mention "established facts" says a lot about your type of editing. For example this page mention that "spacetime becomes a foam at the Planck scale" is in reality only a speculative hypothesis. Even if QM is very successful, we are not even close to measure anything directly close to the Planck scale with for example atomic clocks, optical clocks, energy levels. And even if there are many papers on Planck foam there are even more papers pointing out that our current physics likely have problems at the Planck scale. There are loads of pages on wikipedia about physics that actually are about speculative hypothesis. You are likely mistaking speculative hypothesis with many of papers published about them and established facts. Most researchers with some decent background in probabilities would be very careful with stating such as "established facts" for anything that not has been directly observed. Still you are not alone, and your circles (not to criticise any as persons, but their type of editing) are clearly also dominating what should be considered facts and good at blocking and censoring others. Others that understand that theories and ideas about things not directly observables only can be described as at best high probability of correct (or low probability etc), and never as established facts. Well that is if one are scientific, not if one as XOR&#39;easter are about policing others and letting through what one self think is the correct world/physics picture. As you likely will agree on, if we give indications that speculative hypothesis are facts, then people not well studied in science can think this or that speculative theory is an established facts. Anyone should constrain themselves for saying anything is established facts if not directly observed, and then I mean really directly, and also verifiable. That something is well established is quite different than facts.   TomStefano (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * A series of things on wikipedia that are speculative hypothesis actually comes through as facts or close to as facts (in particular for people not well studied on the topics). This causes a hostility towards alternative hypothesises that can be just as good or perhaps even better. It seems like many published papers on a hypothesis and that many researchers think the hypothesis is good seems to be mistaken as facts. Often this are just that the problem is not yet solved and the hypothesis is old and well established. Someone, for example frequent editors should perhaps spend time marking the many pages and ideas on wikipedia that indeed are hypothesis as exactly that. Perhaps wikipedia should make it clear that it is a well established hypothesis that is needed to mentioned on wikipedia. Still then many things mentioned (that only have one or two published papers behind them in recent years) should be removed. As it is now it seems very subjectively up to a handful of frequent established editors. TomStefano (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 kB = 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)


 * The page already says that it has been speculated that [the Planck scale] may be an approximate lower limit at which a black hole could be formed by collapse. We could potentially elaborate here or there; of course, it's hard to say how much detail we should go into when the whole topic is so speculative. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. The problem was actually, that I was looking in the wrong place. I was expecting a comment about the significance in the subsection titled Planck Energy. In comparison the first sentence of Planck length immediately gives a picture of its (assumed) physical relevance. Anyway, maybe it's better the way it is, just a suggestion on my part to experts because it baffled me a bit. OdinFK (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting! This is one of those topics where it can be hard to find the right spot to put a statement, because all the units are conceptually interrelated. The mass of a black hole determines its radius, so talking about a minimum mass is the same as talking about a minimum radius. My own feeling is that it's simplest to say "Planck scale", which covers all the bases, as it were. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"Normalized" constants
was an attempt at improving historical correctness. As implied by, my wording might be clumsy/inscrutable, but at least it was not incorrect, which the alternative of suggesting setting the constants to 1 would be. Stoney, if you read his paper, was apparently mindful of remaining dimensionally correct, and used symbols for his units of length, time and mass. This was unfortunately complicated by his treatment, which reflected the usage of the time of what one could term the Gaussian system of quantities, in which the force equations of electromagnetism omitted what is now would be called the Coulomb constant, thus treating that differently. One could gloss over that and just say that he chose his units such that the numeric part of G, c, e and ke were 1 when expressed in terms of these units. However, the concept of "normalizing/setting these constants to 1" appears to have been completely absent, but is only too prevalent in WP (and, I guess loved by some contemporary particle physicists). Is there a way of wording this so that it is in fact correct and "clear"? —Quondum 17:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * How about "Stoney chose his units so that G, c, and the electron charge e would be numerically equal to 1"? On a different note, I think we should remove the "cosmological constant" and "Hubble constant" rows from Table 3 until the cosmologists get the Hubble tension all figured out. (Or at least we should avoid the spurious appearance of precision that the figures we currently quote imply.) And I'm not sure we need Table 4 at all; "equations that include constants look simpler when those constants are set to 1" is not particularly edifying. One or two examples in prose would be better, I think. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The issue is that everyone understand what it means to set the constants to 1, and that was indeed Stoney's go. I don't think being technically correct will help the reader. Nor am I a fan of a historical approach to physics, which is usually more confusing than an anachronistic explanation. Tercer (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How do reliable sources explain what Stoney did? JBL (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * XOR, I would be happy with your wording: simple, and would be interpreted to mean the same as I said (minus the subtlety about ke, which Stoney evidently did not even consider: it was implicit in the equations that he used, and is a retrospective commentary for clarity, not needed in a historical account).
 * Tercer, I have no idea what you mean by "that was indeed Stoney's go". Anyhow, I am not objecting to your objection to my wording and would be happy with understandable simple alternatives.  I do object to the statement that "everyone understand what it means to set the constants to 1", though. I would suggest that this is nearly manifestly untrue amongst WP readers, and to me it is thoroughly ambiguous: it could mean defining the units so that the constants are numerically 1, or it could mean defining the quantities involved so that they are mathematically 1 (and hence dimensionless) through a process of nondimensionalization.  These are not the same.
 * JBL, you can read the paper by Stoney himself, which is a ref that I added in the diff linked at the start of this thread: On The Physical Units of Nature, The Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, 3, 51–60, 1883. It is a bit of a read, but I think it is fair to use it as a source for what Stoney did.
 * —Quondum 18:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a typo, I meant to say "that was indeed Stoney's goal". I don't think it is ambiguous what it means to set the constants to 1, the only sensible interpretation is choosing units that makes the constants numerically equal to 1. Moreover, Stoney's paper is not a good source on what Stoney did, see WP:PRIMARY. A good source is a paper by someone else analysing Stoney's work. In any case, I'm also happy with XOR's wording, so there is no need to argue. Tercer (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is no need. We seem to have a mutually agreeable result   —Quondum 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

remove the "cosmological constant" and "Hubble constant" rows from Table 3
, I'm afraid your comment above, "I think we should remove the "cosmological constant" and "Hubble constant" rows from Table 3 until the cosmologists get the Hubble tension all figured out. (Or at least we should avoid the spurious appearance of precision that the figures we currently quote imply.)", got ignored. I agree. These entries seem to belong as much as any of the others and are only needed for order-of-magnitude illustration, so my inclination would be to reduce these to one significant digit with a preceding tilde rather than to remove the entries altogether. I have no strong feeling on this, though. —Quondum 21:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to trimming to 1 significant figure (e.g., "$$\approx 10^{-122}$$" or what-have-you). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I might call that 0 significant figures (or order-of-magnitude), which feels right for the context, and matches about how it often seems to be expressed in this sort of context. Done.  —Quondum 17:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022
Ann Guy BillyGuy1234 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Derived Electric Units
I would like to propose adding a table of planck units extended to the electric domain with the elementary charge. WalkingRadiance (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I realize that the electric units aren't used that often but maybe they should be included. WalkingRadiance (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree on multiple grounds.
 * Electrical units were not part of in Planck's original version.
 * There are multiple versions depending on the choice of electrical constant. There is no definitive version.
 * Derived electrical units have no clear relevance in the Planck scale context.
 * We have had this argument before about derived units. Editors have extensively edit warred about it.  This resulted in indefinite blocks and the derived units being removed.
 * Adding a whole list "nice-to-have" unused derived units is not what Wikipedia is for. The motivation "maybe they should be included" is not good enough here.
 * We don't have references. Individual papers using these units do not constitute a reference that these are units in general use.
 * —Quondum 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * About the previous arguments, see for example Talk:Planck_units/Archive_5, Talk:Planck_units/Archive_4 and Talk:Planck_units/Archive_4. Tercer (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I realize this was not part of Planck's original set of units so maybe they don't belong in the article Planck units.
 * I think this could be added to article on natural units though. WalkingRadiance (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it belongs in Wikipedia? Talk:Planck_units/Archive_5 (linked by Tercer above), discusses this idea, and in particular, mentions that including lists of stuff anywhere in article space that is cute but has no encyclopedic value violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which, being policy, is stronger than a guideline.  I find it difficult to imagine why what you are suggesting would not be covered by this policy.
 * Since you mention an article on natural units, we do have Natural units, which lists notable systems of natural units with a brief overview of each. You'll see that as a higher-level coverage of the topic, inclusion of low-level detail would be even more out of place there, even if it had a place in Wikipedia.  What you seem to want is an article along the lines of Speculative extensions of some natural systems of units or Possible extensions of Planck units, which are quite clearly impermissible topics.  —Quondum 21:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with all six of Quondum's points enumerated above, and I also agree that other articles would be an even worse place to include derived-unit-cruft than this article is. Sorry for sounding grumpy, but this article has a long history of suffering from irrelevant tangents, unsupported speculation, and people wanting to reshape physics rather than document the subject how it is. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)