Can all fundamental constants be set to 1 in natural unit systems?

In summary, @PeterDonis says that among systems of natural units, the Planck units system sets not only "all three of those to 1", but also does the same with the Coulomb and Boltzmann constants, leaving the elementary charge not similarly normalized, because trying to normalize that too, would introduce an inconsistency.
  • #1
sysprog
2,617
1,795
This is a question arising from the discussion in another thread.

It's my understanding that among systems of natural units, the Planck units system sets not only "all three of those to 1", but also does the same with the Coulomb and Boltzmann constants, leaving the elementary charge not similarly normalized, because trying to normalize that too, would introduce an inconsistency.

That's part of my impression from the Wikipedia Natural units article; however, @PeterDonis said you can't set ##c = 1, \hbar = 1, G = 1## -- that no more than 2 of those can be set to 1 without inconsistency.

So far, it's been my experience that when he flatly disagrees with me about something, he's right and I'm wrong, but in this instance I'm still in doubt:

The cited article says:

Thus, we cannot set all of ##k_e, e, ħ,## and ##c## to 1, we can normalize at most three of this set to 1.​
[In that statement, ##e## refers to the elementary charge.]

and later,

Planck units are defined by​

##c = ħ = G = k_e = k_B = 1##,​

where ##c## is the speed of light, ##ħ## is the reduced Planck constant, ##G## is the gravitational constant, ##k_e## is the Coulomb constant, and ##k_B## is the Boltzmann constant.​

That seems to me to show that in the Plank units system of natural units, not only are ##c, \hbar,## and ##G## being set to 1, but so are ##k_e## and ##k_B##, while ##e## is not.

But @PeterDonis posted while I was editing, so I'll read his reply now, which I'm sure will be insightful.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You can't set all three of ##c##, ##G##, and ##\hbar## to ##1##, at least not if the ##1## is supposed to be dimensionless. The best you can do is set ##c = 1## and pick either ##G = 1## or ##\hbar = 1## (or something similar), but not both.

sysprog said:
the Planck units system

This system doesn't make all three of ##c##, ##G##, and ##\hbar## equal to a dimensionless number ##1##; for the reasons explained above, that can't be done. What it does is, basically, set ##c = 1## dimensionless and ##\hbar = 1## dimensionless; this sets the units of length and time to be the same (Planck length/time), and the units of mass/energy to be the same (Planck mass/energy). You can see from the first equation for the Planck energy ##E_P## on the Wikipedia page for Planck units [1] that with these definitions, the units of mass/energy are the inverse of the units for length/time (because ##\hbar## is dimensionless and ##E_P = \hbar / t_P##); note that this equation also shows how the units of mass and energy are the same if we set ##c = 1## so ##l_P = t_P##.

Then the system defines a "Planck force" ##F_P## and uses that to define ##G## and the Coulomb constant, and uses the Planck energy to define the Boltzmann constant and Planck temperature. Setting those three constants numerically equal to ##1## just fixes the units of force, charge, and temperature to the "Planck" values. But this does not make any of those three constants dimensionless; we can work out what units they must have from the equations:

Since the units of force are inverse length squared (because force = mass x acceleration and each of those has units of inverse length), the equation ##F_P = G m_P^2 / l_P^2## tells us that ##G## must have units of length squared, and the equation ##F_P = q_P^2 / 4 \pi \varepsilon_0 l_P^2## tells us that the Coulomb constant ##4 \pi \varepsilon_0## has units of charge squared.

Since the units of energy are inverse length, the equation ##E_P = k_B T_P## tells us that Boltzmann's constant has units of inverse length times inverse temperature. (Note that if we choose to measure temperature in energy units, which is common, then ##k_B## will in fact be dimensionless, but this is nothing specific to Planck units.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #3
As a further note, Planck units as described in my previous post are an example of typical quantum field theory units; in QFT it's most convenient to set ##c = \hbar = 1## and go from there. In General Relativity, however, it's more convenient to use "geometric units", in which ##c = G = 1##. In these units, mass/energy and length/time have the same units, and ##\hbar## has units of mass/length squared (though ##\hbar## is basically not used in GR since GR is a classical theory). It is also often convenient to use units of length for charge as well; this actually allows the Coulomb constant to be dimensionless since force turns out to be dimensionless in these units (since acceleration still has units of inverse length, so mass x acceleration is dimensionless). And temperature is usually measured in energy units, so Boltzmann's constant is dimensionless as well in these units.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #4
Thanks for that explanation. I'll mull it over for a time.
 

What are "Natural" systems of units?

"Natural" systems of units are measurement systems that are based on fundamental physical constants, such as the speed of light or the mass of an electron. These systems aim to eliminate the use of arbitrary conversion factors and provide a more universal and consistent way of measuring physical quantities.

What is the most commonly used "Natural" system of units?

The most commonly used "Natural" system of units is the International System of Units (SI), which is based on seven fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the elementary charge. SI units are used in most countries around the world and are the standard for scientific and technical measurements.

How do "Natural" systems of units differ from other measurement systems?

"Natural" systems of units differ from other measurement systems, such as the imperial system or the US customary system, in that they are not based on human-defined units. Instead, they are based on universal physical constants that can be measured and reproduced in any laboratory, making them more precise and consistent.

What are the advantages of using "Natural" systems of units?

There are several advantages to using "Natural" systems of units. Firstly, they provide a more universal and consistent way of measuring physical quantities, making it easier for scientists to communicate and compare their results. Additionally, they eliminate the need for arbitrary conversion factors, reducing the risk of errors in calculations. "Natural" systems of units also have a more logical and coherent structure, making them easier to understand and use.

Are there any drawbacks to using "Natural" systems of units?

One potential drawback of using "Natural" systems of units is that they may be more difficult to visualize and understand for non-scientists. Additionally, some physical constants used in these systems may have slight variations in their values, which can affect the accuracy of measurements. However, these drawbacks are outweighed by the numerous benefits of using "Natural" systems of units in scientific research and communication.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
685
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
849
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
808
Back
Top