Talk:Planck mass
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template.
|
- The issue is that general relativity predicts that smaller black holes can exist within an event horizon of radius less than the Planck length, while quantum mechanics predicts that the mass would probably be outside the event horizon.
Sounds fascinating, but what does it mean?
It means that, at the high energy density limit, (maximum energy density), photon energy could produce gravitationally confined mass particles (black holes). If the electron is a gravitationally confined particle, it is expected to have a relationship to the Planck mass energy.
The electron mass is approximately equal to (h/ 4 pi c) times (c/ 3 pi hG) exponent 1/4. The mass energy of two electrons (2 m c squared) is approximately equal to the square root of the product of (2/3) exponent 1/2,(Planck mass energy) times the energy h/(2 pi) squared. When (if) this relationship is verified to be correct, rather than approximate, the gravitational constant value (G) must be very close to 6.6717456 x 10 exponent -11. This is slightly smaller than the current CODATA value (by the factor 0.9996323).
User: DonJStevens
See Talk: Time dilation, See also Black hole electron.
[edit] Hmmm
"The Planck mass is the value for which the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton length are equal, and equal to the Planck length"
according to this sentence, and the sentence proceeding it, fleas are a planck length in diameter, and their Schwarzschild radius and Compton length are equal. Very strange indeed. I think the sentence should be like this:
"If an object with a mass equal to the Planck mass has a Schwarzschild radius and Compton length that are equal, its length is a Planck length"
However, I don't understand how such a sentence would fit in the structure of the article. We could add "On another note, if an object..." or "The Planck mass is such that if an object..."
Basically, could the author or someone else who feels competent change this sentence or delete it?ChadThomson 12:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
no, the sentence is quite right. You may read it as 'if you compress a flea to the size of the Planck length, it will become a black hole', or 'the energy required to resolve, by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a distance as small as the Planck length, will be sufficient to create a black hole within that length'. Maybe this article should be merged with Planck energy, since the distinction of mass and energy becomes really pointless at this scale. Baad 10:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note that the Planck Energy is already listed as a "derived natural unit" and it is stated in the energy article that it is equal to the Planck mass. I think they stand alone well enough, and if you merge them, you'd have to merge every natural unit.-- Rmrfstar 11:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Schwarschild radius and Planck Length
I corrected what appeared to me to be an anomoly. As I understand it, the Planck length is half the Schwarzschild radius and it is equal to the Compton length divided by Pi. There are similar 'anomolies' on the Planck length page but I'll leave those until I see what reaction this change gets. Sorry if I stepped on any toes by this or if I've misunderstood some physical process in correcting the maths. Lucretius 04:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
