The Planck units are just the expression of dimensional analysis. Their definition doesn’t imply that an object with a mass equal to the Planck mass must exist.

@stam_Nicolis but if we just go in Theoretical aspects so can we say that there is a particle like this or not ? Or still now we need a solid evidence for that ?

They say that planck time is the smallest. But for square seconds 10^-43 becomes 10^-86 which is smaller...

@Paul Pistea actually I didn't get your point can you elaborate little bit ..

Dear Kunal Rai

You can find Planck's formula of the Planck length at Wikipedia.

The formula shows that Planck used 2 physical quantities, de constant speed of light (c) and the gravitational constant (G). The problem is Planck's use of the gravitational constant.

If the differences between the primary forces in the universe (Standard Model) are absolute, our universe cannot transform continuously without any hitch or hike. Actually, we know that there is a unification of the primary forces. The unification will show that all the primary forces have the same origin. Thus the differences between the primary forces are related to our concept of forces and that determines the way we measure forces.

Thus Planck's use of the gravitational constant is meaningless. It is founded on unrealistic assumptions. For example gravity seems to be a vector force and vectors have no spatial dimension (1-dimensional).

So forget the Planck units. Nevertheless, Planck's constant (h), the quantum of energy, exists without any doubt.

With kind regards, Sydney

“…The Planck units are just the expression of dimensional analysis. Their definition doesn’t imply that an object with a mass equal to the Planck mass must exist.…..”

- that above really is fundamentally incorrect. Planck units relate to the utmost fundamental base of Matter, which [Matter] is based, in accordance with the really outstanding von Weizsäcker and Fredkin-Toffoli findings, on a binary reversible logics, which [the logics] is actualized in Matter as that the utmost fundamental “material” base of Matter is/are the [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],

- which [FLE] compose the Matter’s “everyferous ether” – i.e. the [5]4D dense FLE lattice that is placed in the corresponding Matter’s utmost fundamental and universal fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D logical infinite spacetime/“empty container” with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),

- whereas everything in Matter is/are some disturbances in the ether.

At that the FLE Planck scale above reveals itself on macro scale in the so called “fundamental physical constants”, including

- the standard speed of light, c=lP/tP, where lP and tP are Planck length, which is the “size” of FLE, and Planck time, which is the FLE “flip time”,

- gravitational constant G, G~1/mP2, where mP is the Planck mass,

- the Planck constant “ћ”, which is fundamental elementary physical action that is necessary to change information in the binary informational system “Matter” on 1 bit, including at changing energy and angular momentum, etc.

More see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s the informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko, I agree with you.]

Kunal Rai, they say that planck time is the smallest. Well, some physicists' laws are about square seconds, and merely 1-dimensional time. That means: 10^-43 is not the smallest value, because, if squared, 10^-43 becomes 10^-86 which is smaller

Paul Pistea

What is the physical meaning (physical analogue) of the square of time? Such an opus is possible only on paper, it will endure any fantasy, and the cube of time, and the 4th degree, and any n degree. But first, decide, what is it "time"? In LINKEDIN argued about this for a long time, but did not come to a consensus.

Kunal Rai.

Planck quantities are abstract. But if we replace them with the wave parameters of the gravitational field of the Universe, then they become real [1[.

[1] Nastasenko, V. (2021) Selection and Justification of a New Initial Level of the Material World. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 1089-1099. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.95075

Dear Valentyn, I already told you my definition of Time: time is motion. I.e. variation of space and variation of variation of space. Square seconds used în formulae shows that time is 2-dimensional

I said - this is not enough, arguments are needed.

Planck's constant 'h' is the proportionality constant between energy and frequency E=hw. Also h/k=(rH1)=4.8x10^-11Meters, where 'k' is Boltzmann's constant. The magnitude 4.8x10^-11 meters is the radius of the hydrogen atom, i.e., h/k=rH1. Planck's constant is the proportionality constant between energy and frequency, i.e., E=hw. Therefore: E=(k*rH1)w. Therefore: (E/(rH1))=kw. Therefore: E/rH!=F=kw where F is force. Therefore F=kw, i.e., Boltzmann's constant is the proportionality constant between force and frequency for the electron in the first energy level of the hydrogen atom. The units do match if Boltzmann's constant k has the units of seconds. This leads to learning that Boltzmann's constant is the time it takes for one ideal gas molecule to pass its kinetic energy to another ideal gas molecule at the constant Kelvin temperature of the gas. Additionally, it means that Boltzmann's constant is the thermodynamic entropy of an ideal gas divided by the number of ideal gas atoms, i.e., it can be then be concluded that Boltzmann's constant is the thermodynamic entropy of any single ideal gas molecule. Finally, the Universal gas constant R=(the thermodynamic entropy of a mole of an ideal gas). The units are not those of theoretical physics. They are from the system of units that results from formally defining mass in the strict historical manner at the time that it is introduced to us by f=ma. Define mass by mathematically equating it with a combination of length and duration. The unit of kilogram must then be defined mathematically as equal to some combination of meters and seconds only. The reason for taking this action is that the equation f/m=a shows that the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. The supporting work is done and has been on the Internet for many years. With regard to Planck's constant, it is found to be h=keC where k is Boltzmann's constant, e is fundamental electric charge, and, C is the speed of light.

Here is a paper from 2006 written by a student that uses my definition of the fine structure constant which is represented in this message as a=(2*pi*k*e^2)/hC or solving for Planck's constant h=(2*pi*k*e^2)/aC.

https://vixra.org/pdf/0702.0037v1.pdf

Quoting a footnote of his: 2 James Putnam. “A New General Theory of Physics.” Part III. URL: http://newphysicstheory.com, cited on: February 4, 2005. Putnam’s angular interpretation for the existence of the fine structure constant is given as ωP = α/(2π∆tc) = 6.58 × 1015 Hz, where ∆tc ≈ a0/c. Thus the Putnam ωP appears to give a nice and possibly physical reason as to why gc pops into eq. 7 as exp(0.985)/Tωe = ωP and provides a tool to further investigate this possible “quantum gravity” correction

After the SS post October 3 a number of posts appeared in the thread with rather strange approaches at definitions of Planck units, and even definitions of space and time.

Again, Planck constant “h” – though the “reduced” constant ћ=h/2π is more fundamental, is utmost fundamental elementary quant of the concrete fundamental parameters of QM material objects and interactions - “physical action”, and “particle angular momentum”,

- on which [the quanta] QM objects change their states at interactions. Since everything in Matter, which is based on utmost fundamental depth on the binary reversible logics and so all/every QM material objects and interactions is/are some rigorously logically organized informational systems, every changing of an object’s state is the sequential chain of the elementary quanta above, when at every elementary change the informational pattern “particle/system of particles” changes on 1 bit,

- thus, say, the observed particles’ parameters “spins”’ spatial projections in most cases change on 1ћ [bit], and at interactions corresponding uncertainty, that appears at fundamentally discreet changes, is equal to corrected in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s the informational physical model [the links see SS post above] Heisenberg uncertainty equation ΔPΔh…≥ћ, which really isn’t the inequality, but the equality ΔS=ΔPΔh…=ћ; etc..

Whilst, say, that

“…Planck's constant 'h' is the proportionality constant between energy and frequency E=hw. Also h/k=(rH1)=4.8x10^-11Meters, where 'k' is Boltzmann's constant. The magnitude 4.8x10^-11 meters is the radius of the hydrogen atom, i.e., h/k=rH1.….”

- is really rather strange physics. The dimensionality of h/k by no means is “Meters”, it is [second x K], where “K” is the measure of temperature, “Kelvin” which [temperature] is principally parameter of thermodynamic particles [including atoms, molecules, etc.] systems, where the number of particles is extremely large, and so where the elementary changes are extremely averaged, and so temperature has no relation to the Planck constant;

- really the radius of the hydrogen atom is a0 ≈ 5 , 291769241 × 10−11; etc.

Cheers

Kunal Rai No, a particle with a mass equal to the Planck mass may exist, mustn't exist, though.

However it should be kept in mind that the Planck mass is about 1019 GeV. That's about the mass of that many protons, which is about a tenth of a milligram of hydrogen, since a gram of hydrogen contains the number of Avogadro atoms of hydrogen, i.e. about 6.023 x 1023 atoms, so as many protons (and electrons, each of which has a mass about 2000 times smaller).

It's when the other Planck units are taken into account that something, apparently, remarkable occurs: From the expression of the Schwarzschild radius, Rs=2GM/c2, it turns out that any object of size less than the Planck length, whose mass exceeds the Planck mass, would be a black hole. That's why people get ``excited'' about these units.

The gap in this argument is that it's doubtful that Einstein's equations, of which the Schwarzschild is a solution, are valid at distances of the order of the Planck length. What the appropriate equations are, that are appropriate for describing what happens at distances less than the Planck length and for energies beyond the Planck scale, together, isn't yet, known.

There's no known reason that the Planck time is the shortest time possible. It may turn out to be the case; but this requires additional explanation.

Once more, the Planck units are the result of dimensional analysis. They're the ``natural units'' to use when quantum, gravitational and relativistic effects all become comparable; but there's no principle that implies that the corresponding mass, length or time describe any sharp limit.

For instance, from the magnetic permeability, μ0, of the vacuum and the dielectric constant, ε0 , of the vacuum, it's possible to deduce, from the properties of Coulomb's law and of the law of Biot and Savart, that the product μ0ε0 has the dimensions of the inverse of the square of a velocity and remark that the numerical value of this velocity is equal to that of light in vacuum; but, from this, alone, it's not possible to deduce special relativity. That can be deduced from the properties of the wave equation, that is satisfied by any solution of Maxwell's equations in vacuum-however not all solutions of the wave equation are solutions of Maxwell's equations. So it's this part that is missing from the discussion of Planck's units.

Sergey Shevchenko

Dear Sergey, I almost missed your message because you tend to not address the sources of messages or just those whose ideas you disagree with.

The unit of h/k is definitely the meter. The correct unit is not the meter in the system that you, and, probably anyone else participating is accustomed to using. The common SI system has a combination of defined units and undefined units. More importantly, it is formed based on theoretical physics. Theoretical physics doesn't tell us what direct empirical evidence is attempting to communicate to us; rather, it consists of making guesses about what can be usefully substituted into physics equations in place of the unknown.

Those guesses depend upon indirect empirical evidence because they cannot be supported by direct empirical evidence. The first guess made was that mass could be chosen to be the third indefinable property of physics. That act immediately removed fundamental unity from the physics that followed.

Mass isn't the only undefined property. Two undefined properties are permanently undefined, i.e., length and duration (This is what physicists misleadingly refer to as time.). In addition to failing to define mass, theoretical physics has not defined temperature or electric charge. Both of these properties again necessarily have undefined units.

The units of the SI system are the units of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics, because of its practice of making and insisting on teaching some of its guesses, necessarily contains units that are only correct in a fundamentally un-unified Universe. Obviously, our Universe is fundamentally unified. We can know this because it continues to exist.

If you are interested in learning why the meter is the correct unit of 'h/k', then I suggest you consider that solving for the equation f/m=a tells us that the units of force divided by the units of mass must reduce to the units of acceleration. Obviously, this differs from theoretical physics. That is because it is what fundamentally unified physics looks like at its beginning.

Fundamentally unified physics contains units that all are derived from mathematical equations that express each defined property's unit as equal to some combination of the units of direct empirical evidence, i.e., meters and second only.

In this case of my message which you disagree with, the SI units of Planck's constant are meters*seconds. In the SI sytem, which is the theoretical physics' system of units, the units of Boltzmann's constant are joule/(molecule-degreeKelvin). The degreeKelvin is an undefined unit. The unit of the Joule is a defined unit.

This mix of undefined units, units that are not related to the units of direct empirical evidence, and defined units, which should relate but do not relate directly to the units of direct empirical evidence because they are disconnected from the units of direct empirical evidence due to the inclusion of undefined units in their definitions, is corrupted principally because the property of mass was arbitrarily assigned the undefined unit of the kilogram. The kilogram leaves theoretical physics devoid of fundamental unity. For this reason, theoretical physics is incapable of presenting a unified interpretation of the Nature of the Universe.

The unit of the meter for h/k is not an error. The work supporting this statement has existed on the Internet for many years. if you do not immediately dismiss what I have written then please visit http://newphysicstheory.com. There you will find further information about how much the units of physics must change. Also, you will find results that support this move away from fundamentally un-unified physics toward fundamentally unified physics.

James A Putnam

P.S. I continue to respect and learn from your willingness to share your knowledge openly online. Disagreements do not change my mind about recommendations that I make for others to read your messages.

As Sydney Ernest Grimm already said, forget the Planck units... they present merely an idea Planck had, but they really represent a problem for physics since too many physicists still believe they are essential and produce numerous meaningless articles.

Looking e.g. at the derivation of the so-called Planck power and Planck force you will notice that the Planck constant is both on top and below the fraction line, thus indicating that they have no relation at all to the Planck constant. But the values of Planck power and Planck force are both related to the supernova... a fact not yet recognized mainly because of erroneous Einsteinian physics !

James A Putnam Dear James,

“…I continue to respect and learn from your willingness to share your knowledge openly online. Disagreements do not change my mind about recommendations that I make for others to read your messages. …”

- well, thanks. However it would be well also, if you read the SS posts more attentively, and so the number of your Disagreements would be lesser – as that looks from your posts, which are essentially more reliable than most of other posts,

- where the posters write some quite legitimate in the mainstream philosophy and official science mental constructions, but, since in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, including “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational, these constructions really are some transcendent, etc., sets of transcendent, etc., claims. So that [and most else in your posts in this case, but let only one comment]

“…The common SI system has a combination of defined units and undefined units. More importantly, it is formed based on theoretical physics. Theoretical physics doesn't tell us what direct empirical evidence is attempting to communicate to us; rather, it consists of making guesses about what can be usefully substituted into physics equations in place of the unknown. ….”

- is essentially correct; really, again, “theoretical physics” fundamentally doesn’t understand what are “Space” – and so Matter’s “space”, and “Time/time”; and indeed, say, SI defines the measurement units “guesses about what can be usefully substituted into physics equations in place of the unknown”.

However – as that follows from the rigorously proven the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, where practically all the phenomena/notions above are scientifically defined, and from their actualizations in the concrete informational system “Matter” in the informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/3

- [..follows that] Matter is rather simple, based on a simple binary reversible logics informational system; and, because of that human’s consciousness is also an informational system, the consciousness in many cases, though having no understanding what she makes, but instinctively correctly decodes some laws/links/constants adequately to the reality, at that mathematics quite naturally is an extremely effective tool, and the “guesses” are really true in this case. Including in this case that

“…The correct unit is not the meter in the system that you, and, probably anyone else participating is accustomed to using. ….”

- is incorrect. Though yeah, the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Space”, and its actualization “(3+1)D space” in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), absolutely fundamentally hasn’t some intrinsic “own” measure,

- nonetheless the Rule “Space” establishes, that every informational pattern/system occupies in its space absolutely fundamentally some non-zero space interval/[space volume], and so different patterns/systems can occupy different intervals. Thus if there is only one pattern it is senseless to state that it occupies some concrete interval, however if there are at least two patterns, it is possible to compare the intervals – some interval is more/less/equal than/to other interval.

Matter contains a huge number of patterns/systems, i.e. particles, bodies, etc., and, since it is based on a rather small set of utmost universal laws/links/constants, in this case it is possible to establish universal “pattern for the comparisons” – the SI space intervals measurement etalon “meter”,

- which, again, universal in whole Matter, and isn’t “The unit of h/k”, more see the yesterday SS post.

Etc., more see the links above, recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-time-an-illusion#view=5d6d0e75d7141b855454389fis relevant in this case as well.

Cheers

Planck quantities are abstract. But if we replace them with the wave parameters of the gravitational field of the Universe, then they become real [1[.

[1] Nastasenko, V. (2021) Selection and Justification of a New Initial Level of the Material World. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 1089-1099. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.95075

Sergey Shevchenko

I will complete the reading. Thank you.

James

“…No, a particle with a mass equal to the Planck mass may exist, mustn't exist, though.

However it should be kept in mind that the Planck mass is about 1019 GeV. …It's when the other Planck units are taken into account that something, apparently, remarkable occurs: From the expression of the Schwarzschild radius, Rs=2GM/c2, it turns out that any object of size less than the Planck length, whose mass exceeds the Planck mass, would be a black hole. That's why people get ``excited'' about these units. ….”

- Planck mass particles, if exist, are the same as all other particles – that are close-loop algorithms, which run as cyclic disturbances in the utmost fundamental base of Matter – the [5]4D dense lattice of the [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which [the lattice] is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), with the frequency ω=mc2/ћ, where m is a particle inertial mass, cis the speed of light,

- as sequential FLE flipping along corresponding 4D “helix”, which has so radius be equal to the particle Compton length λ=ћ/mc. More see the SS&VT informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics ; https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 .

Planck mass particles so have the “radius” being equal to the Planck length, and the “logical length” of these particles, N, is N=6 FLEs; the particle’s algorithm ticks with frequency ω=c/NlP = mc2/ћ~1.85x1043 s-1, lP is the Planck length. An other particle algorithm example, say, electron’s one, has radius λ =3.861x10-13m, the “logical length” N=2.4x1022FLE, and ticks with frequency ω=c/NlP=7.763x1020 s-1

At that lP is the Schwarzschild radius of Planck mass particle, and so it is - in accordance with the GR – some “black hole” in Matter’s spacetime. However really in Matter’s spacetime fundamentally there cannot be any [of numerous already in the GR and official physics] “holes”, “channels”, etc., that are – if exist – quite usual Matter’s particles, which differ from other particles fundamentally only in that they have only the gravitational charge “gravitational mass” and no charges of other, at least 3 known, fundamental Nature forces, whereas all other particles have, besides the obligatory charge of the fundamental Nature force “Gravity”, some other Forces’ charges, and so their algorithms aren’t symmetrical.

And, since the Gravity force is completely symmetrical force, so the Planck mass particle algorithm is completely symmetrical, it looks as quite natural to assume – as that is postulated in the SS&VT cosmological model, that at Matter Beginning the primary particles were only just Planck mass particles, and so Matter yet at Beginning didn’t contain antimatter, and so doesn’t contain it now, more see the https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355037416_The_informational_physical_model_cosmology , http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11088.64008.

As well as that

“…..Once more, the Planck units are the result of dimensional analysis. They're the ``natural units'' to use when quantum, gravitational and relativistic effects all become comparable; but there's no principle that implies that the corresponding mass, length or time describe any sharp limit. ….”

- isn’t correct. Planck units were derived by Planck from the so called “fundamental physical constants” – Planck constant, ћ, the standard speed of light, c, and the gravitational constant, G, and by no means as “result of dimensional analysis”. And that was just the case, when the utmost fundamental in Matter Planck scale reveals itself in extremely different macroscale – as that directly the speed of light, c=lP/tP, and G~1/mP2, are, and QM scale, which, though also reveals itself on macroscale as, say, black body, etc., radiation.

Cheers