Why Are Planck Mass and Energy Not Considered Extreme?

Dmitry67
Messages
2,564
Reaction score
1
I was always puzzled by the fact that while almost all Planck units are extreme (very high or very low), Mass and Energy are exception from that rule. Planck mass is in the ‘middle’ of the spectrum, and it divides the mass spectrum into 2 parts:

  • For small masses/energies m << Mplanck we can define a wavelength corresponding to the energy (E=hv). The higher energy – the shorter wavelength.
  • For big masses we can define Schwarzschild radius Rs which is proportional to mass (and as I noticed in Black Hole physics scientists think in Rs units, substituting R with M). So, the higher energy – the longer wavelength.

So the same length corresponds (in Planck’s sense) to 2 masses: one light and one heavy. And there is also a correspondence (mapping) of heavy masses into light masses and vice versa. Assuming that Planck units are natural such mappings must be important, but so far I haven’t heard anything about it.
This is really weird. Any thoughts? (or URLs?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dmitry67 said:
I was always puzzled by the fact that while almost all Planck units are extreme (very high or very low), Mass and Energy are exception from that rule. Planck mass is in the ‘middle’ of the spectrum, and it divides the mass spectrum into 2 parts:

  • For small masses/energies m << Mplanck we can define a wavelength corresponding to the energy (E=hv). The higher energy – the shorter wavelength.
  • For big masses we can define Schwarzschild radius Rs which is proportional to mass (and as I noticed in Black Hole physics scientists think in Rs units, substituting R with M). So, the higher energy – the longer wavelength.

So the same length corresponds (in Planck’s sense) to 2 masses: one light and one heavy. And there is also a correspondence (mapping) of heavy masses into light masses and vice versa. Assuming that Planck units are natural such mappings must be important, but so far I haven’t heard anything about it.
This is really weird. Any thoughts? (or URLs?)

This is confusing but you really just need to think about what different physical mass/length scales are. You need to differentiate between the A) total energy of the system B) the typical energy scale of the system. Its only when B) is approaches the Planck scale that we need to start caring about Planck scale physics. In terms of black holes you can think of A) as the mass of the black hole M and B) as the temperature T of the black hole. Large Black holes M>>m_p have T<<m_p where small black holes M~m_p will have a temperature T~m_p.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...
Back
Top