Jason Toddman wrote:I've never been able to figure out how the incongruously high Planck's mass fits in with atomic weights. Just one reason why I've always been a science generalist rather than a physics specialist.
The Planck mass is the square root of
ch/
G where
h is Planck’s constant,
c the speed of light and
G the gravitational constant.
c is big and
h is small, but
G is very small, so the result is comparatively large.
Simple, really :o)
Actually, on second thoughts, I don’t think that’s what you meant.
You are puzzled about the difference in scale. No one really knows, but it may be that the Planck mass is, in this case, an upper limit. (And remember, it is a unit of
measurement; it is really the particles that are large or small.) If a fundamental particle was large enough to approach the Planck mass (which is better defined in terms of density), it would “collapse” under its own gravity (which is insignificant at the actual atomic level). Since all matter hasn’t collapsed into a black hole, we live in a universe where – possibly by a happy accident – particle masses are extremely small.
So I should really not have included the Planck mass with the other Planck units, as it is really only significant in dealing with black holes and the very early universe.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.