I have always been critical of the idea of Planck units. They seem to be something conjured from numerology - particularly in view of the fact that it is possible to arrive at diffeent values of the so called fundamental dimension(s) by combiing different constants. But I recently had reason to rethink a relationship I derived a number of years ago in connection with a quantum theory of space. What fell out of the result was a unit of mass =(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

H(hbar)/2c^2 The value is about about 10^-69 kgm - which works out to be about what is needed to bring omega = 1 if the spatial units have a sphere of influence approximately equal to the classical electron radius

Anyway, when first derived H would not have qualified as a legitimate constant (everyone knew the universe was decelerating and H was a long term variable.

But in 1998 things changed - our universe appears to have long ago entered a de Sitter phase, an Lo, H can now be a regarded as a legitimate constant - so the question is whether the relationship

(H)(hbar)/c^2 might have significance as a fundamental dimension

Any Thoughts

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Fundamental Unit of Mass

Loading...

Similar Threads for Fundamental Unit Mass |
---|

I Does dark matter contribute to my body mass? |

B Is there a specific unit used to measure redshift? |

I Mass in the early universe and the CCC model |

B They found some missing mass, Hideki Tanimura Institute of S |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**