Talk:Planck particle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics 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.

Help with this template 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.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Would a plank particle be the smallest measurable particle? --Justaperson117 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction

Is the radius smaller than or equal to the Planck length? - ∅ (∅), 03:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. If this supposed particle is so small that it cannot be measured and its lifetime is one instant, it seems that it might as well /not/ exist for all that it would affect the universe. 74.194.87.88 03:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


The Planck particle's radius must be equal to the Planck length by definition because if m = the Planck mass in both the following equations: lsubc=hbar/mc and lsubs=Gm/csquared, then they both equal lsubp (the Planck length). The sentence should read: "its radius equalling..." rather than "its radius being smaller than..." Davidl9999 21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


A Planck particle's existence would still be an event in a causal chain. Even though its size and duration are too small to be practically measured due to the finite velocity of c, the events preceding and proceeding it would definitely be measureable, including events that occur as a direct result of its existence. It may only exist for .26 Planck seconds, but that is still infinitely longer than an "instant", which is only a mathematical construct signifying a single point in time. Alexis Brooke M 15:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Agree that a particle of a Planck mass would be very unstable. But if there were a particle that has a square of a Planck mass rather than just a Planck mass it would be as stable as the natural constants are which define the square of the Planck mass (mP^2=h/cxG). Such a particle would not interact in the usual ways with particles having a "normal" mass and hence we might get to the wrong conclusion that it does not exist. That it may exist could be concluded from the fact that the natural constants exist, even within a "vacuum" (which suggests that such particles may "form" the "vacuum" and cause the constants rather than the constants cause the Planck mass resp. its square).Particlefan (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)