Hijack from Historical changes to Planck constant.

**Strange** · September 21, 2019

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Do you know if it was Max Planck that created this expression, or was it done by someone else?

"Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

Conjurer · September 21, 2019

2 minutes ago, uncool said:

"In 1898, Max Planck discovered that action is quantized, and published the result in a paper presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in May 1899.^[24]^[25] At the end of the paper, Planck introduced, as a consequence of his discovery, the base units later named in his honor. The Planck units are based on the quantum of action, now usually known as Planck's constant. Planck called the constant b in his paper, though h (or ħ) is now common. Planck underlined the universality of the new unit system [...]"

1 minute ago, Strange said:

"Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

I wasn't aware that he quantized the gravitational constant of the universe, so that is why I asked. It seemed like that could have been referring to just h bar itself. I know he had worked with other physicist to try to quantize everything to create the foundation of particle physics.

**Strange** · September 21, 2019

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

I wasn't aware that he quantized the gravitational constant of the universe

He didn't.

uncool · September 21, 2019

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

I wasn't aware that he quantized the gravitational constant of the universe, so that is why I asked.

Again, he didn't, because that's not what "quantized" means.

Conjurer · September 21, 2019

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

He didn't.

Are you sure you are not just mis-remembering this? It is on the wiki!

2 minutes ago, uncool said:

Again, he didn't, because that's not what "quantized" means.

It means to describe something in the smallest possible units.

https://www.google.com/search?q=quantized&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS778US778&oq=quantized&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2367j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

1.

PHYSICS

apply quantum theory to, especially form into quanta, in particular restrict the number of possible values of (a quantity) or states of (a system) so that certain variables can assume only certain discrete magnitudes.

I would say that the gravitational constant of the universe being put into Planck Units would surely qualify for that one.

uncool · September 21, 2019

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I would say that the gravitational constant of the universe being put into Planck Units would surely qualify for that one.

It doesn't.

What values or states are restricted by choosing a unit system?

Edited September 21, 2019 by uncool

**Strange** · September 21, 2019

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

I would say that the gravitational constant of the universe being put into Planck Units would surely qualify for that one.

It is a constant. How can it be quantised. It only has one value. That is 1 in Planck units and 6.7x10^-11 in SI units. Just because you use Planck units doesn't mean it is quantised

Conjurer · September 21, 2019

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is a constant. How can it be quantised. It only has one value. That is 1 in Planck units and 6.7x10^-11 in SI units. Just because you use Planck units doesn't mean it is quantised

If was just equal to one when it is quantized, then it would seem like you could take any particle in quantum mechanics and just multiply it by the mass of another particle, and divide it by the radius squared to end up in the proper units to figure out how much force of gravity they would exert. Since the gravitational constant of the universe is equal to one, when it is quantized, you wouldn't even need to multiply it by a number. The G_p would just put it into the proper units.

There you go, quantum gravity made easy.

uncool · September 21, 2019

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

There you go, quantum gravity made easy.

No.

Conjurer · September 21, 2019

6 minutes ago, uncool said:

No.

Well, a lot of particles would be traveling close to the speed of light, so you would have to use a relativistic theory of gravity.

**Strange** · September 22, 2019

35 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

If was just equal to one when it is quantized

It isn't quantised. It is just defined to be 1 in Planck units.

35 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

then it would seem like you could take any particle in quantum mechanics and just multiply it by the mass of another particle, and divide it by the radius squared to end up in the proper units to figure out how much force of gravity they would exert

You can do that anyway. (Assuming by "radius" you mean distance between them.)

You can do that in Planck units, or kg and metres, or pounds and feet. It still isn't quantised.

37 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Since the gravitational constant of the universe is equal to one, when it is quantized

It isn't quantised.

37 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

you wouldn't even need to multiply it by a number. The G_p would just put it into the proper units.

That is the advantage of Planck units. All the basic constants are set to 1.

38 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

There you go, quantum gravity made easy.

Nothin what you said has anything to do with quantum gravity. You used Newtonian gravity.

**swansont** · September 22, 2019

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.^[90] On the following day, this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.^[91]

That wasn’t there a week ago. Next you’re going to tell me Kennedy was’t shot by Arthur Lyle Freeman.

54 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I would say that the gravitational constant of the universe being put into Planck Units would surely qualify for that one.

You would be wrong.

Conjurer · September 22, 2019

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

That wasn’t there a week ago. Next you’re going to tell me Kennedy was’t shot by Arthur Lyle Freeman.

No, there were 6 people in the car instead of only 4.

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

It isn't quantised. It is just defined to be 1 in Planck units.

It just doesn't need to be quantised by other special methods, which I don't much about. Then it doesn't have to be quantized by any special means, because it is already quantized.

41 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nothin what you said has anything to do with quantum gravity. You used Newtonian gravity.

I have been a big fan of Newton, and no one really understands how he derived his version of gravity. I am not sure he even did, but it should be valid for a proton and neutron sitting in an atom if that description on the wiki is correct.

The relativistic properties of particles are mostly hidden behind the uncertainty principal of quantum mechanics, so I don't know exactly how you could apply a theory of gravity to particles traveling close to or at the speed of light.

Look at what they did to find the gravitational coupling constant.

$\alpha _{\mathrm {G} }={\frac {Gm_{\mathrm {e} }^{2}}{\hbar c}}=\left({\frac {m_{\mathrm {e} }}{m_{\mathrm {P} }}}\right)^{2}\approx 1.7518\times 10^{-45}$

instead of a radius or distance they just divided by the Planck constant and the speed of light. Then it just has the gravitational constant in front of the mass of the electrons squared, or multiplied by itself.

Isn't the Planck Constant times the speed of light equal the amount of distance traveled? Would they need to square that instead?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_coupling_constant

Edited September 22, 2019 by Conjurer

uncool · September 22, 2019

29 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It just doesn't need to be quantised by other special methods, which I don't much about. Then it doesn't have to be quantized by any special means, because it is already quantized.

It isn't quantized, because what you've said isn't what "quantized" means.

Conjurer · September 22, 2019

5 minutes ago, uncool said:

It isn't quantized, because what you've said isn't what "quantized" means.

I have read from different authors in theoretical physics that what Max Planck did is the definition of quantization. Then other methods were developed to quantize things to make them be able to fit in with his work mathematically. That may have been their opinion, but I bought it.

I don't know why you would think quantization would be something different, other than you think everything I post should be something different.

uncool · September 22, 2019

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

I have read from different authors in theoretical physics that what Max Planck did is the definition of quantization.

"What Max Planck did" included many things beyond defining a set of units.

Conjurer · September 22, 2019

2 minutes ago, uncool said:

"What Max Planck did" included many things beyond defining a set of units.

Ya, he founded quantum mechanics, so anything that deals with his work has to be quantized. He defined things in the smallest units or quanta.

uncool · September 22, 2019

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

Ya, he founded quantum mechanics, so anything that deals with his work has to be quantized.

No.

Conjurer · September 22, 2019

1 minute ago, uncool said:

No.

Whatever, sure thing boss. I will just have to ignore you now.

**Strange** · September 22, 2019

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I have read from different authors in theoretical physics that what Max Planck did is the definition of quantization.

Planck quantised electromagnetic radiation in order to explain the black body spectrum. That had nothing to go with the use of Planck units.

7 hours ago, Conjurer said:

you think everything I post should be something different.

It would be nice if it had some relationship to reality.

**swansont** · September 22, 2019

!

Moderator Note

This nonsense has gone on long enough

Sign In

Hijack from Historical changes to Planck constant.

Recommended Posts

Strange

Conjurer

Strange

uncool

Conjurer

uncool

Strange

Conjurer

uncool

Conjurer

Strange

swansont

Conjurer

uncool

Conjurer

uncool

Conjurer

uncool

Conjurer

Strange

swansont

Browse

Activity

Important Information