Talk:Trans-Planckian problem

Ambiguity in beyond word
I see two interpretations of the phrase

"the trans-Planckian problem refers to the appearance of quantities beyond the Planck scale, "

I assume it means "smaller than Planck length". However, beyond can denote something bigger: I went  north of NYC to beyond the Canadian border. Please clarify to perhaps:
 * 1) "the trans-Planckian problem refers to the appearance of quantities smaller than the Planck scale",
 * 2) "the trans-Planckian problem refers to the appearance of quantities hovering around the Planck scale, "

where The Planck "region may be characterized by energies around 1.22×1019 GeV (the energy-equivalent of the Planck mass), time intervals around 5.39×10−44 s (the Planck time) and lengths around 1.62×10−35 m (the Planck length). "

Can the hawking radiation article be repurposed here?
I'm not a cosmologist or physicist, but it seems odd and unnatural that this article has no equations:

The Trans-Planckian problem seems to be better defined in the Hawking radiation article, and there are more references (many questioning hawking's math, apparently)


 * The trans-Planckian problem is the observation that Hawking's original calculation requires talking about quantum particles in which the wavelength becomes shorter than :the Planck length near the black hole horizon. It is due to the peculiar behavior near a gravitational horizon where time stops as measured from far away. A particle :emitted from a black hole with a finite frequency, if traced back to the horizon, must have had an infinite frequency there and a trans-Planckian wavelength.

rhyre (talk) 06:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

better visualization in the context of the expansion of the universe?
Could be a simple metric problem based on the expansion of the universe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUHZ2k9DYHY&t=600s

If this is true, an expert should reformulate. 2003:F2:8702:DA25:A519:D848:DD39:8CAC (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)