Why Are Planck Mass and Energy Not Considered Extreme?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the unique positioning of Planck mass and energy within the spectrum of Planck units, highlighting their role as intermediaries rather than extremes. Planck mass divides the mass spectrum into two distinct parts, with small masses corresponding to shorter wavelengths and larger masses to longer wavelengths. The conversation emphasizes the significance of differentiating between total energy and typical energy scales in systems, particularly in black hole physics, where the mass (M) and temperature (T) of black holes are crucial for understanding their behavior at the Planck scale.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Planck units, specifically Planck mass and Planck energy
  • Familiarity with the concepts of wavelength and energy (E=hv)
  • Knowledge of Schwarzschild radius (Rs) in black hole physics
  • Basic grasp of energy scales in physical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Planck mass in quantum gravity theories
  • Explore the relationship between mass and temperature in black hole thermodynamics
  • Study the concept of energy scales and their significance in particle physics
  • Investigate the mapping of heavy and light masses in the context of Planck units
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of theoretical physics interested in the nuances of Planck units and their implications in black hole physics and quantum mechanics.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K