They're constants, that describe physical effects: Newton's constant describes the strength of the gravitational interaction, Planck's constant describes the strength of quantum fluctuations and the speed of light provides the scale for when relativistic effects become significant.

So the three together describe situations where gravitational, quantum and relativistic effects all are comparable-which occured in the early Universe and in the near horizon geometry of black holes.

“ Are Planck Scales Constants, Parameters, or Principles?.”

As that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- Planck Scales Constants, i.e. the fundamental elementary physical action, ћ, Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP, are utmost fundamental and universal constants that determines everything in Matter,

- since Matter’s ultimate base is the binary reversible, and so at least 4D, fundamental logical elements [FLE] that compose the at least 4D dense FLE- lattice; and everything in Matter is/are ultimately only some disturbances in the lattice;

- while Planck length, and Planck time. are the main utmost universal “kinematical” parameters of FLE, i.e. FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time”.

These FLE parameters practically don’t reveal themselves directlythemselves on the classic and QM scales, but the fundamental elementary physical action ћ reveals itself in QM directly, and so is really one of the utmost fundamental universal constants on both – Planck and QM scales.

However the Planck scale constants reveal themselves indirectly in the mainstream physics in fundamental classic and QM utmost universal constants, say, the standard speed of light, c= lP/tP.

The “non-kinematical” fundamental specificconstants that determine strengths of specific fundamental Nature forces, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the Planck scale models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear, Forces [more see the last link and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces] are

- Gravity Force constant, G=ћc/MP2, where MP is Planck mass;

- Electric Force constant, e=√(αћc), where α is the fine structure constant;

- Nuclear [and with a well non-zero probability Strong] Force constant, gN~√[(1-√α)ћc].

Etc.; more see the links above, SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_a_particle_be_its_own_antiparticle

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_photons_have_positive_negative_or_neutral_charge,

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO29The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_5-If_the_quantization_of_nature_is_inevitable_what_are_its_mathematical_determinants/1, page 1,

- are relevant in this case as well.

Cheers

I am certain about one such constant.

The mysterious Stoney Mass which is a combination of fundamental constants reduces to elementary charge in a system of units where mass and charge fundamental units are replaced by derived units which are the same [m^3/s^2] as once suggested by Maxwell. Furthermore the Planck mass which Fundamental nature attracts some criticisms is a function of the elementary charge and fine structure constant only. This is the simplest possible representation.

Dear Stam Nicolis

You have explained the three fundamental physical constants from a different perspective, and perhaps this should be considered an extension of the role of the three constants. If we want to determine who is more fundamental, we should first emphasize the absolute role of the constants as "absolute numbers", and then the auxiliary roles of thresholds or orders of magnitude, etc. It's understandable that Planck Scales describes the role of the three as being comparable, but that doesn't mean that it's fundamental in any way. Physics should ultimately not be segmented, and it is only proper that the laws of physics should be the same no matter at what energy level. Also, physics always emphasizes probabilistic explanations, which may limit our further thinking about physics.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Neither is ``more fundamental'' than the other two, they describe different things.

The Planck scale doesn't describe the situation when the three are ``comparable'', which they can't be; it describes the situation where gravitational, quantum and relativistic effects are comparable-and this occurs in the pre-inflationary epoch of the Universe and the near horizon geometry of black holes.

The laws of physics aren't the same at all energy levels-new degrees of freedom can appear, depending on the energy.

Example: In beta decay the energy is too low to resolve the W boson, that, nonetheless, does mediate it; that's why it's not possible to detect the W-boson by studying the spectrum of electrons emitted during beta decay. For that process the description invented by Fermi-which can, now, be understood as the low energy limit of the Standard Model-suffices.

Again, see the SS post above: among 3 fundamental in mainstream physics constants, ћ, c,and G, only the fundamental elementary action Planck constant ћ is really “directly fundamental”; and other, besides ћ, really directly fundamental and utmost universal constants in Matter are the constants “Planck length” and “Planck time”. Fundamental in mainstream physics c and G are constants only since are really derived .from the 3 Planck constants above – more see the SS post above.

The G-constant really is only specifically – i.e. fundamentally non-universal – constant, which, and the other corresponding specific fundamental constants also, determine strengths of fundamental Nature Gravity, Weak, Electric, and Strong/Nuclear forces,

- and the values of these specific constants make everything in Matter to be as it is.

Everything in Matter really ultimately exists and happens on Planck scale as some disturbances in the ultimate base of Matter – “Matter’s ether” – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],

- which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where cτ,X,Y,Z, are 4 the space dimensions that relate to utmost universal “kinematical” digresses of freedom at FLE binary flips that happen in the disturbances, 4 the space g,w,e,s, dimensions relate to/are used by 4 fundamental Forces above.

Correspondingly just so everything that is observed on QM and classic scales is as it is. At that real, including so really observed, objects/events/effects/processes exist and happen on QM scale as extremely [on tens of orders by magnitude] averaged sequences of “FLE flips” on Planck scale,

- and really observed, objects/events/effects/processes that exist and happen on classic scale as extremely [on tens of orders by magnitude] averaged sequences of QM objects/events/effects/processes.

At that all the main fundamental laws/links/constants in Matter absolutely completely equally act on all scales.

Besides practically for sure, as that well scientifically rationally assumed in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s initial Planck scale cosmological model, see section “Cosmology” in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics- all that above wasn’t exist in the “pre-inflationary epoch of the Universe”, because in “pre-inflationary epoch” Matter didn’t exist at all;

- in “inflationary epoch” only primary version of the FLE lattice was formed,

- and primary matter, further Matter was created from which, was created in “after-inflationary epoch”, after in the primary FLE –lattice a huge portion of energy was pumped.

Etc., more see the SS post above and links in both posts/

Cheers

Dear Stam Nicolis

"The laws of physics aren't the same at all energy levels-new degrees of freedom can appear, depending on the energy."

"Indeed, one can find numerous examples in which the naturalness principle applied to an effective theory gives (or – to be historically correct – could have given) the right hint for the existence of energy thresholds at which there are changes in the physical degrees of freedom describing a certain phenomenon." [1]

You probably mean the same thing here? There's nothing wrong with that. But it should be valid everywhere for the ultimate law of physics, not the usual laws of physics. If a switch in the laws of physics is due to a switch in energy levels, then we have to ask what laws of physics dominate its switch?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

[1] Giudice, G. F. (2013). Naturalness after LHC8. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.7879.

No, naturalness is something different.

Constants.

Anyway I think the Plank Length (1,616255(38) × 10-35 m) is not well defined. Gamma rays have one of the smallest wavelengths, shorter than 10-11 m.

I think Planck flipped a little bit at that point.

Dear Sergio Perez Felipe

Planck scales are inevitable because they are the result of a combination of three fundamental constants. So is its meaning likewise a combination? Obviously not.

You mentioned gamma rays, which is a good trigger for questions. Is there a limit to the wavelength of gamma rays? If not, then Planck scales are meaningless; if they do, the wavelength of gamma rays (the short limit) must fail before Planck scales are reached. Or it would cease to exist. We need to ask: why does it fail? What causes the continuous change in its wavelength to be abruptly truncated?

Best Regards, Chian Fan

Dear Chian Fan

The limit for electromagnetic waves is about 1 x 10-15 m. Therefore the metric is 0,5 x 10-15 m (half the wave length). This was termed "the minimal length scale" and subject of research by Werner Heisenberg, Flint, March, Goudsmit, Möglich and others during the eind of the first half of the 20th century.

The Planck units are derived with the help of the gravitational constant too (see Wikipedia for the derivation of the formula). Unfortunately gravity is an emergent force field so the Planck units are obscure (gravity is not an elementary force).

It was convinced by Einstein in 1920 in relation to curved spacetime. Einstein stated that without matter there is no theory of general relativity.

With kind regards, Sydney

Chian Fan Dear Chian Fan,

that question is actually solved - and you know it (as we already in depth discussed in a similar related RG question of you, but you possibly choose to ignore the results as discussed there before) so I repeat myself here:

I have managed to find within the framework of iSpace theory (able to exactly derive value and geometry for 50+ constants of nature in two different quantum geometric unit systems iSpace-IQ and lab compatible iSpace-SI) all of which include a fully independent derivation of above mentioned Planck-Mass, Planck-Length and Planck-time all without in any way referring to Newtonian gravitational constant G.

All it took was referring to other well known quantum constants of nature like h, FSC alpha, e, c and some core iSpace geometric entities like GoldenRatio (Ampere) and derived quantum of time (to be 1/6961). Surprisingly even temperature (Kelvin) related energy representations can be stated fully precise (zero error bar) within iSpace, so we have an exact reference to Boltzmann constant kB as well, most important as such is geometrically also directly involved in all entropy related calculations.

Best and kind regards,

Christian

Sydney Ernest Grimm Sydney, “gravity is not an elementary force“ - gravity indeed is an elementary force - and the most basic one considering iSpace derived quantum of gravitational force (iFg).

iFg is „just“ (alphaG)^2 times Planck-Force, but can be expressed 100% identical result wise as 3/((299792458*10^3)^4) Newton and integer exactly so.

And of course that means large parts of SRT and GR are completely wrong (but not everything, and especially so not constancy of speed of light or experimental result precision in typical accelerator results like LEP and CERN).

Last posts that really scientifically answer the thread question are the SS posts on page 1. Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/https://www.researchgate.net/post/No28The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_4-Could_All_Physical_Constants_be_Unified_to_a_set_of_Fundamental_Constants_of_Nature/6 page 6

- is relevant to this thread question as well.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko Sergey, as you surely never give up (as well as never learn nor accept any new scientific facts derived and presented around you) you cannot and should not ever consider your approach to be scientifically based. In any case we will have to live with your stereotype replies for the foreseeable time to come.

The Planck scales, including Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass, Planck temperature, and Planck charge, are a set of physical constants that define scales at which quantum gravitational effects become significant, effectively marking the limits of our current understanding of the universe. These scales arise from fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum (c), the gravitational constant (G), and the reduced Planck constant (ħ).

and yes Gravity is a fundamental constant as far as our observations and experiments.

Constants:

In one sense, Planck scales can be considered constants because they are defined through a combination of other fundamental physical constants that do not change. They represent the scales at which gravitational interactions become as strong as quantum effects, leading to a regime where our current theories of physics—quantum mechanics and general relativity—no longer independently suffice.

Parameters:

Planck scales could also be seen as parameters within the broader context of theoretical physics and cosmology. They parameterize the scales at which new physics—potentially including quantum gravity, string theory, or other unified theories—must be invoked to accurately describe phenomena. In theoretical models extending beyond the Standard Model and General Relativity, the exact implications of these scales and their relevance can vary, making them parameters that guide our exploration of the universe at its most fundamental level.

Principles:

Viewing Planck scales as principles is a more abstract approach but equally valid. They embody the principle that there is a fundamental scale of distance, time, mass, and energy beyond which the classical descriptions of space-time and matter cease to apply and a more fundamental theory is required. This perspective invites reflection on the limits of our current theories and the principles that any future theory of quantum gravity must satisfy to seamlessly bridge the gap between quantum mechanics and general relativity.

In summary, Planck scales can be interpreted as constants, parameters, or principles depending on the context of the discussion and the framework within which they are being considered. As constants, they are fixed values derived from fundamental constants of nature. As parameters, they guide theoretical and experimental research into the realms of high energy physics and quantum gravity. As principles, they represent conceptual boundaries that challenge and inspire the development of new physics.

Harri Shore Harri, “problem„ of constants of nature, including Planck-Constants and their true integer geometry they are based on is a as of now solved one by results of iSpace theory:

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...

That

“…The Planck scales, including Planck length, Planck time, Planck mass, Planck temperature, and Planck charge, are a set of physical constants that define scales at which quantum gravitational effects become significant, effectively marking the limits of our current understanding of the universe….”

- isn’t correct in a few points. More see the couple of SS posts on page 1;

- here only note, that, first of all, the Planck constants, though practically only Planck length, lP, Planck time, tP, and fundamental elementary physical action ћ [more see SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/No28The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_4-Could_All_Physical_Constants_be_Unified_to_a_set_of_Fundamental_Constants_of_Nature/6, pages 5, 6], are important, all the rest Planck constants/units really have rather secondary sense.

These 3 constants really completely determine everything what exists and happens in Matter since are parameters of the ultimate base of Matter – the fundamental (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE]. Though really everything is determined also by a few fundamental constants that determine the strengths of the fundamental Nature forces [say, fine structure constant], these constants indirectly “are written” in / are parameters of every FLE as well.

Till now direct observations of what exists and happens on the Planck scale is impossible, since this scale is “below” the observable QM scale in a few tens orders by magnitude, i.e. much more than QM scale is “below” the quite easily observed “classic” macroscale, however Planck scale reveals itself on QM, and even classical, scales rather clearly, including, say, that

“… These scales arise from fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum (c), the gravitational constant (G), and the reduced Planck constant (ħ).

and yes Gravity is a fundamental constant as far as our observations and experiments.….”

- really isn’t correct. Really just the mainstream physics “fundamental physical constants” are “fundamental constants” only since arise from Planck constants, the speed of light in a vacuum c=lP/tP, gravitational constant G=lP5/ћtP3, etc.

From all that above indeed it follow that

“…Planck scales could also be seen as parameters within the broader context of theoretical physics and cosmology. They parameterize the scales at which new physics…”

- yeah, real physics development can be only as the way “classic physics” → “QM physics”→ “Plank scale physics”, however that

“…— potentially including quantum gravity, string theory, or other unified theories—must be invoked to accurately describe phenomena…”

- isn’t correct. All in the quote really is/are some fantastic unphysical mental constructions, development of which is quite irrational; the real Planck physics can be based only on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, the links to 3 main papers see in SS post February 8 on page 1.

Cheers

until now, i have not found or heard a convincing argumet, why quantum gravity should be significant or set in at the planck scale.

“…until now, i have not found or heard a convincing argumet, why quantum gravity should be significant or set in at the planck scale.…..”

- in “quantum gravity”, there is nothing surprising, since Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force; and, as that fundamentally logically obligatorily all other fundamental Forces interactions on QM scale are quantized, gravitational interactions are fundamentally quantized also.

That is another thing, that because of Gravity is extremely weak Force, in most what exists and happens in Matter on QM scale, gravitational interactions, though always happen, but are in tens of orders by magnitude weaker than, say, Electric Force interactions,

- and, when Gravity is to some extent essential, the interacting material objects really consist of tens of orders by magnitude numbers of “QM systems” – atoms, etc., i.e. that happens on macroscale, where QM events are drastically averaged and QM is quite inessential.

At that everything in Matter ultimately exists and happens only on Planck scale, but what exists and happens on QM scale is/are results of few tens of orders by magnitude numbers of Planck scale events, so on QM scale the events on Planck scale are enormously averaged – even more than that happens on macroscale relating to QM scale.

Nonetheless in some quite exotic objects, first of all in SMBHs compact central objects (CCO) Gravity is extremely strong, and in this case we cannot exclude that action of other Forces is suppressed, while CCO can be some “quantum gravity systems” – as that, say, neutron stars Strong Force QM systems are. Though now physics has zero knowledge about what are CCO.

However, despite that Gravity is extremely weak Force, its quantum nature with well non-zero probability can be rather easily [a few hundreds $millions] observed – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion

Cheers

From (iSpace theoretical) constants of nature point of view, Planck-scale is neither primary nor especially relevant. Such is easy to see if one is not preoccupied, but open to new, simple, integer geometric first order multiplicative (well documented, published) facts. GoldenRatio Ampere and 1/6961 iSpaceSecond, together with changed distance definition based Pi3=3 6 cells around 1 cell base geometry, able to derive zero unit pressure exact (arbitrary precision) values for 50+ constants of nature.

Really rigorously scientific comments/answers to the thread question see in the SS posts on pages 1,2.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ideas_for_Aether_Theory_of_Gravity/1is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers