Talk:Planck temperature

Why does this particular formula reveal the Planck Temperature? Is there some sort of universal formula for temperature of which this is a special case? The Planck temperature is extremely hot -- appearantly, hotter than anything that currently exists in our universe. What are the implications of this (if any)? Ravenswood 20:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the final value

Does it make any sense to include two digits on parentheses?

AFAIK, it's a scientific convention denoting that there is some uncertainty in the actual value. Druiffic (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Planck Temperature

If absolute zero represents the lowest possible temperature because particles are not moving relative to each other, what is happening to the particles at the Planck Temperature? Are they moving relative to each other at the speed of light? If so, it may be appropriate to include this information in the article. Kmorford 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're moving slower than light, but they're more or less at the highest kinetic energy that it makes sense to consider for particles, based on our current understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics. Above the Planck temperature, you'd treat them as black holes, instead. In practice, we expect strange things to happen as this regime is approached, probably resulting either in it being impossible by any means to accelerate particles to higher energies, or in the inevitable decay of the particle into multiple particles of lower energy. There is presently no good description of what happens at these energies. At minimum we'd need a good description of quantum gravity, and for a truly complete description we'd need a theory of everything (as the Planck temperature corresponds to the expected energy scale for unification of all four forces). --Christopher Thomas 01:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be extremely useful to provide some form of explanation as to why matter cannot exceed the Planck temperature. This article has me, and I'm sure many other people, quite confused. In fact, additions of this sort to other Planck units and derivatives that do not have them would be desirable. CharonM72 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This article (and the related "Planck constants" articles) explain how Planck's units are such that certain fundamental constants (like c and G) become 1, but this doesn't say anything about the planck constants being any sort of physical limits. For example, one "planck momentum" is just 6.5 kg m/s - obviously not a special momentum at all (just a normal momentum you can encounter in a day-to-day situation). Why is "Planck's temperature" a theoretical limit? Why does it require quantum gravity? This is certainly far from obvious, and not adequately explained in the article. Nyh (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall from Vsauce this appears to be the hottest because at this point the light emitted from the object has so much energy that the wave length is equal to the Plank distance, and therefore it doesn't make sense that an object could be any hotter. And the gravitational constant used here is based off of other Plank units, not the metric gravitational constant (as mentioned in its article). The Boltzmann constant page also has some stuff specific to Plank Temperature. I'm guessing it is in the formula shown in order to convert the temperature to kelvin.192.183.206.58 (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Why is this a unit of temperature? Surely it's just a constant rather than a way in which we can express temperatuares? hitman012 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planck units were developed to be units, and even if I guess nobody actually measures temperatures in T_P it is possible to do that. --Army1987 11:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, this is dumb

Planck didn't bother to put in the proper degrees of freedom; this "unitary" expression has 2/2 as the factor, or two dimensions, when it should be 3/2. They should normalise the constant at (2/3)T_P. -lysdexia 05:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Conversion table

The table "Planck temperature temperature conversion formulae" is a conversion table from and to Kelvin, not Planck temperature. Gulliveig (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepency between this and "Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature)" page

I may be wrong here but on this page Planck temp is said to be about 1.42*10^32 K, but on the http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(temperature) page, it is said to be 14.2 million YK which unless I'm wrong is 14.2 *10^6 *10^24 which is 1.42*10^31, one order of magnitude off. I haven't done the calc myself so I'm not sure which to believe. I will likely post this on that talk page also.Washyleopard (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source

How is The Straight Dope a reliable source? 2.124.172.198 (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, the reference is noted in the "External links" section so it is not considered as a source for the article. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect deletion of original reference to where Max Planck first mention what today is known as the Planck temperature

I think actuality who came up with these ideas should be referred to also to where they published it first. I mentioned that Max Planck mentioned the Planck temperature in 1899 and the reference to this. Editor Omnipaedista then deleted this and said there were no reference to the no known Planck temperature there. Possibly Omnipaedista do not read German, and I dont know if there exist an English translation, but yes in the original 1899 work by Max Planck he mentioned what today is known as the Planck length, the Planck mass, the Planck time and the Planck temperature, please look yourself

http://bibliothek.bbaw.de/bbaw/bibliothek-digital/digitalequellen/schriften/anzeige/index_html?band=10-sitz/1899-1&seite:int=494

In general I think wikipedia should be better at also refer to where the scientific ideas it describe where first published and by whom. There are other wikpages much worse, where one can get the impression a scientific idea was created by someone different than the ones came up with it. I think editors on wikipedia should work to go through many pages related to science and mention the scientists that known too first come up with the idea and where they first published it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EntropyFormula (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. I think that what Omnipaedista meant was that the source does not verify the statement that it was first mentioned at that time, resulting in original research. The source given is the book, when what is needed is one that makes the claim that this was the first mention, which is likely possible to find. —Paleo Neonate – 21:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate wrote "The source given is the book, when what is needed is one that makes the claim that this was the first mention". I am not exactly sure what you mean here, you mean this is just a book so it should be in a published paper also? This is not a traditional book, this seems to be the Collection of papers presented for the Royal Academy (Koniglich Preussischen Akademie) during that year and would therefore be the first published source of it, but the presentation date is likely earlier the same year. This was very common in National (or Royal) academy of science in several European countries, that they collected the work presented there at the academy during each year in a book with collection of the papers presented (but typically not published before). If some of you can find an earlier published source to the Max Planck temperature then please give specific reference to it, do not delete references where it is specifically published in 1899. Do you mean he presented it on a conference first, yes very likely, but this is the official document book (or more precisely I would think a collection of works from members/presenters at the Akademie that year) from Der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften. Likely the collected work presented that year 1899 in the Der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie. So please explain exactly what you mean by deleting this reference, that there is a earlier reference?, if so add it or replace this with that one, but then give the reference, I would be happy for such an earlier reference as I then learn something new and very interesting (for me). Do not delete just because you suspect there is a earlier reference, then show it. I do not say this is not the case, I say this is what I (and also others) found out to be the earlier published reference on it when trying to investigate when Max Planck first mentioned in publications the Planck temperature (our investigation could naturally have missed even earlier references). But yes it was likely also presented by Max Planck at Der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie that year, is that what you guys mean? if so I dont disagree. But I almost start to suspect a small crowd of editors want to delete all I write as this has been the case so far, I hope not that is the case here, but yes likely one way too kick out an editor one dont like?. EntropyFormula (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I think all great discoveries in physics deserves as hort history section, so we know who originally published the idea and where. And I am very happy if even older references are given, possibly in addtion, naturally feel free to try to improve the article as also I am doing a serious attempt on. But one get discourage as editor if others just delete based on vague claims that not seems to make much sense. The 1899 reference given is very clear on what Max Planck mean and also his formulas are very clear (even if using other notation than what has become the "standard" today) EntropyFormula (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate deleted the history section again. Even if a full citation including page numbers where given. What exactly do you mean with proper citation PaleoNeonate? That it must be a internet links on all older documents. Even a internet link was given in my explanation above. Please comment and be specific, before I do any further editing or undoing on the article page. I already presented this link,

http://bibliothek.bbaw.de/bbaw/bibliothek-digital/digitalequellen/schriften/anzeige/index_html?band=10-sitz/1899-1&seite:int=494

Also you should be aware that the same reference is given on the Planck mass page and the Planck length page. If you think it is more important to delete where things original where published than for you to take a little effort to verify then you should delete also on these pages?EntropyFormula (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I also like history sections, I find that they enrich topics a lot, I even commonly suggest on talk pages to add one on articles where they lack and would be useful. My concern is not about fiding an earlier or later mention, only that when we do the research ourselves to find which is the oldest, it becomes WP:OR. I looked at the main Plank article and think that we found what we're looking for: [1]. We could also keep the other citation as it could be used to support the material. —Paleo Neonate – 18:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]