Talk:Planck's constant

Article says:

Similarly, the amount of time it takes a photon to travel one Planck length is Planck time: 10-43 seconds. This is the smallest meaningful division of time.

Shouldn't that be more accurately the amount of time it takes for a particle travelling at the speed of light in a vaccum one Planck length? Photon's can travel slower than the speed of light in a vaccum in some circumstances, can't they? -- SJK

I don't think that the photons actually slow down. I believe that the slow down in a refractive material is due to the absorbtion and re-emission of the photons; slowing down the wave as a whole. I may, of course, be wrong. --BlackGriffen

---

Shouldn't the title of the article contain an apostrophe, or is that not possible? --BlackGriffen

---

Also could someone post the equation for Planck's length and explain in detail why two points separated by less than Planck's length are indistingushable? I think it has something to do with heisenberg's uncertainty principle?

Moved --maveric149

Thanks for the suggestion! The formula for the Planck length is:

SQRT(h-bar G/c³)

There is currently a buzz in physics surrounding this length because general relativity and quantum mechanics are glaringly incompatible at Planck scale. This is a temporary condition. The theories of gravity and matter will be adjusted so they don't contradict each other, the buzz will stop or be about something else. The Planck units will still be there as natural units implicit in light and gravity explainable in simple terms without all the heavy talk about theories breaking down, just as they have been there for a hundred years. They're nice because they make the constants you use all the time come out to be one.

But yes!!!! maveric. The current clash of theories DOES have to do with HUP! The prevailing theory of gravity (Gen. Rel.) allows for black holes of any mass, consisting of a point of singularity surrounded and hidden by an event horizon whose size (the halfradius) is proportional to the hole's mass. For a non-rotating black hole of Planck mass the halfradius would be Planck length.

But in the prevailing theory of matter (Qua. Mech.) every mass has a Compton wavelength which imposes a limit on localization and the Compton for something with Planck mass is also equal to Planck length. This trashes the model of a black hole because how can the point of singularity be surrounded and hidden by the event horizon when the point is so spread out that it barely fits inside? there is not enough ability to localize for the trim geometry of the black hole model to work convincingly.

So physicists (as a professional class very subject to tunnel vision, thinking only about the Problem of the Day) tell you that Planck scale IS where the theories break down. Right now that is the significance of the Planck scale for them. I think in the long run it is more significant that the people who seem to be making the most progress at FIXING the problem (String Theorists) actually do their work in Planck units. In other words they are handy units to work in when you are trying to unify gravity and the other forces of matter and build a general theory, so that when there finally is some theory that works it will very likely be written in Planck units. I see them as the units of the future rather than as the place where current theories collide. But you are right to point out that aspect.