What Is the Physical Significance of Planck Units and Their Derivation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jbar18
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical Planck Units
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the physical significance and derivation of Planck units, particularly focusing on the reasoning behind their construction from fundamental constants such as gravitational constant (G), speed of light (c), and reduced Planck's constant (h). Participants explore whether these units have deeper physical meanings or if they are merely a result of dimensional analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the Planck units are derived through dimensional analysis, combining constants to achieve the correct dimensions, but question the underlying physical reasoning for this combination.
  • Others argue that the significance of Planck units goes beyond mere dimensional analysis, pointing out that at the Planck scale, the Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius become equal, which has implications for quantum mechanics and gravity.
  • A participant highlights the relationship between the Compton wavelength, gravitational potential energy, and rest mass at the Planck scale, suggesting that these quantities become equal at this scale.
  • Questions arise regarding specific details of the derivation, such as the allowance to ignore factors of two, the formulation of the equations, and the historical context of the Schwarzschild radius in relation to the development of Planck units.
  • Concerns are raised about the relative sizes of the electron's Schwarzschild radius, Compton wavelength, and Planck length, indicating a need for clarification on these comparisons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of views, with some emphasizing the role of dimensional analysis while others advocate for a deeper physical interpretation of the Planck units. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific reasons for the equations and the historical context of their derivation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential missing assumptions about the constants involved, the dependence on definitions of the units, and unresolved mathematical steps in the derivation of the Planck units.

jbar18
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
I've been looking at the various Planck units, and I'm wondering how they are constructed from the constants involved. Like is there any physical reasoning behind those equations? I've looked all over the place for derivations of the equations or what the actual physical meaning of the units are, but it seems to be that Planck just found that you could combine the constants to give the correct dimensions for the units. Is that all there is to it? Or is there an actual reason for assuming that a fundamental unit of length will involve G, c and h? If someone could explain I would be very grateful.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's called dimensinal analysis, you don't know for sure if there isn't a mathematical constant which needs to be factored as well, so you look at fundamental physical units which are inherent in the problem.

In case of Planck length we know that the maximum barrier over the speeds of particles is c, so we know it should be included, we also know that at the tiny scales there's a parameter of h cause at the macro h=0, and we also look for gravity effects in this scale, which means G should be there.

Obviously this is a rough estimate of the smallest length, if there something like that.
 
Thanks for the response MathematicalPhysicist. I was just wondering whether there were, in particular, any thought experiments or anything which point to the equations, but it seems that they are just put together to make the dimensions work as an estimate. I guess it's a way of finding "nature's units" by combining real constants, I'm just having a hard time thinking about what the equations actually mean (if anything).
 
It's more than just dimensional analysis, there's actually a reason behind it. It's the scale at which the Compton wavelength is equal (ignoring a factor of two) to the Schwarzschild radius.

GM/c2 = ħ/Mc

Solving for M you get M = √ħc/G, the Planck mass. The Planck length is then

GM/c2 = √ħG/c3

Significance:

The Compton wavelength is the distance scale at which the zero-point energy of a confined quantum particle is equal to its rest mass.

The Schwarzschild radius is the distance at which the gravitational potential energy of a particle is equal to its rest mass.

All three (zero-point energy, gravitational potential and rest mass) become equal at the Planck scale.
 
Last edited:
Bill_K said:
It's the scale at which the Compton wavelength is equal (ignoring a factor of two) to the Schwarzschild radius.
[2]GM/c2 = ħ/Mc
Solving for M you get M = √ħc/G, the Planck mass.
The Planck length is then
GM/c2, L= √ħG/c3
Hi, could anyone please clarify these points:
- why are we allowed to ignore the factor of two?
- isn't the formula h/mc?
- why should the unit of length L be equal to G/c2 * M?
- is that the real genesis of the units? In 1900 the Schwartzschild radius was not known.

- one last problem : the rs of the electron is much smaller (10-50m) than its λC (10-12m), and even smaller than Lp (10-35m)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K