A Is M_{Pl} the Planck mass or the reduced Planck mass?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the ambiguity of the term M_{Pl} in the context of the Planck collaboration's observation papers, questioning whether it refers to the Planck mass or the reduced Planck mass. The value of the Planck mass is noted as 2.176 434 x 10^-8 kg according to NIST. There is confusion in the literature as M_{Pl} is often used interchangeably for both masses without clear definitions. A suggestion is made to use a diagonal line through the letters in the subscript to distinguish the reduced Planck mass, similar to the notation for reduced Planck's constant. Clarity in terminology is emphasized to avoid misinterpretation in scientific communication.
Alpha2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
What is the value of M_{Pl} used in the Planck (CMB) collaboration's observation papers, such as the one referenced in this link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.06211.pdf. Specifically, I am wondering if it refers to the Planck mass or the reduced Planck mass?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Thanks for your kind reply.
Definition of reduced Planck mass can be found here.
The problem is that M_{Pl} is used in the literature interchangeably as Planck mass or reduced Planck mass. Did you see anywhere in Planck's papers where they define M_{Pl}?
 
  • Like
Likes anuttarasammyak
I found in

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck
> https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2020/09/aa33910-18/aa33910-18.html#S1
1683151818052.png

You may get value of m_pl they use.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and Alpha2021
Alpha2021 said:
What is the value of M_{Pl} used in the Planck (CMB) collaboration's observation papers, such as the one referenced in this link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.06211.pdf. Specifically, I am wondering if it refers to the Planck mass or the reduced Planck mass?
Better practice, although you are right in asking as some authors are sloppy in their typesetting, is to indicate the reduced Planck mass with diagonal line through the letters P or Pl in the subscript, just as one indicates the reduced Planck's constant with a diagonal link through the symbol "h" for Planck's constant.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top