In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of four universal physical constants, in such a manner that these physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.
Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are a system of natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are only one of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (the choice of which is inherently arbitrary), but rather on only the properties of free space. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity.
The term Planck scale refers to quantities of space, time, energy and other units that are similar in magnitude to corresponding Planck units. This region may be characterized by energies of around 10^{19} GeV, time intervals of around 10^{−43} s and lengths of around 10^{−35} m (approximately respectively the energyequivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time and the Planck length). At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate. The bestknown example is represented by the conditions in the first 10^{−43} seconds of our universe after the Big Bang, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.
The four universal constants that, by definition, have a numeric value 1 when expressed in these units are:
Planck units do not incorporate an electromagnetic dimension. Some authors choose to extend the system to electromagnetism by, for example, adding either the electric constant ε_{0} or 4πε_{0} to this list. Similarly, authors choose to use variants of the system that give other numeric values to one or more of the four constants above.
Any system of measurement may be assigned a mutually independent set of base quantities and associated base units, from which all other quantities and units may be derived. In the International System of Units, for example, the SI base quantities include length with the associated unit of the metre. In the system of Planck units, a similar set of base quantities and associated units may be selected, in terms of which other quantities and coherent units may be expressed. The Planck unit of length has become known as the Planck length, and the Planck unit of time is known as the Planck time, but this nomenclature has not been established as extending to all quantities.
All Planck units are derived from the dimensional universal physical constants that define the system, and in a convention in which these units are omitted (i.e. treated as having the dimensionless value 1), these constants are then eliminated from equations of physics in which they appear. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation,
can be expressed as:
Both equations are dimensionally consistent and equally valid in any system of quantities, but the second equation, with G absent, is relating only dimensionless quantities since any ratio of two likedimensioned quantities is a dimensionless quantity. If, by a shorthand convention, it is understood that each physical quantity is the corresponing ratio with a coherent Planck unit (or "expressed in Planck units"), the ratios above may be expressed simply with the symbols of physical quantity, without being scaled explicitly by their corresponding unit:
This last equation (without G) is valid with F′, m_{1}′, m_{2}′, and r′ being the dimensionless ratio quantities corresponding to the standard quantities, written e.g. F′ ≘ F or F′ = F/F_{P}, but not as a direct equality of quantities. This may seem to be "setting the constants c, G, etc., to 1" if the correspondence of the quantities is thought of as equality. For this reason, Planck or other natural units should be employed with care. Referring to "G = c = 1", Paul S. Wesson wrote that, "Mathematically it is an acceptable trick which saves labour. Physically it represents a loss of information and can lead to confusion."^{[1]}
The concept of natural units was introduced in 1881, when George Johnstone Stoney, noting that electric charge is quantized, derived units of length, time, and mass, now named Stoney units in his honor, by normalizing G, c, and the electron charge, e, to 1. In 1899, one year before the advent of quantum theory, Max Planck introduced what became later known as the Planck constant.^{[2]}^{[3]} At the end of the paper, he proposed the base units later named in his honor. The Planck units are based on the quantum of action, now usually known as the Planck constant, which appeared in the Wien approximation for blackbody radiation. Planck underlined the universality of the new unit system, writing:
... die Möglichkeit gegeben ist, Einheiten für Länge, Masse, Zeit und Temperatur aufzustellen, welche, unabhängig von speciellen Körpern oder Substanzen, ihre Bedeutung für alle Zeiten und für alle, auch außerirdische und außermenschliche Culturen notwendig behalten und welche daher als »natürliche Maßeinheiten« bezeichnet werden können.
... it is possible to set up units for length, mass, time and temperature, which are independent of special bodies or substances, necessarily retaining their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, including extraterrestrial and nonhuman ones, which can be called "natural units of measure".
Planck considered only the units based on the universal constants , , , and to arrive at natural units for length, time, mass, and temperature.^{[3]} His definitions differ from the modern ones by a factor of , because the modern definitions use rather than .^{[2]}^{[3]}
Name  Dimension  Expression  Value (SI units) 

Planck length  length (L)  1.616255(18)×10^{−35} m^{[4]}  
Planck mass  mass (M)  2.176434(24)×10^{−8} kg^{[5]}  
Planck time  time (T)  5.391247(60)×10^{−44} s^{[6]}  
Planck temperature  temperature (Θ)  1.416784(16)×10^{32} K^{[7]} 
Unlike the case with the International System of Units, there is no official entity that establishes a definition of a Planck unit system. Frank Wilczek and Barton Zwiebach both define the base Planck units to be those of mass, length and time, regarding an additional unit for temperature to be redundant.^{[8]}^{[9]} Other tabulations add, in addition to a unit for temperature, a unit for electric charge,^{[10]} sometimes also replacing mass with energy when doing so.^{[11]} Depending on the author's choice, this charge unit is given by
or
The Planck charge, as well as other electromagnetic units that can be defined like resistance and magnetic flux, are more difficult to interpret than Planck's original units and are used less frequently.^{[12]}
In SI units, the values of c, h, e and k_{B} are exact and the values of ε_{0} and G in SI units respectively have relative uncertainties of 1.5×10^{−10}^{[13]} and 2.2×10^{−5}.^{[14]} Hence, the uncertainties in the SI values of the Planck units derive almost entirely from uncertainty in the SI value of G.
In any system of measurement, units for many physical quantities can be derived from base units. Table 2 offers a sample of derived Planck units, some of which in fact are seldom used. As with the base units, their use is mostly confined to theoretical physics because most of them are too large or too small for empirical or practical use and there are large uncertainties in their values.
Derived unit of  Expression  Approximate SI equivalent 

area (L^{2})  2.6121×10^{−70} m^{2}  
volume (L^{3})  4.2217×10^{−105} m^{3}  
momentum (LMT^{−1})  6.5249 kg⋅m/s  
energy (L^{2}MT^{−2})  1.9561×10^{9} J  
force (LMT^{−2})  1.2103×10^{44} N  
density (L^{−3}M)  5.1550×10^{96} kg/m^{3}  
acceleration (LT^{−2})  5.5608×10^{51} m/s^{2}  
frequency (T^{−1})  1.8549×10^{43} s^{−1} 
Some Planck units, such as of time and length, are many orders of magnitude too large or too small to be of practical use, so that Planck units as a system are typically only relevant to theoretical physics. In some cases, a Planck unit may suggest a limit to a range of a physical quantity where presentday theories of physics apply.^{[citation needed]} For example, our understanding of the Big Bang does not extend to the Planck epoch, i.e., when the universe was less than one Planck time old. Describing the universe during the Planck epoch requires a theory of quantum gravity that would incorporate quantum effects into general relativity. Such a theory does not yet exist.
Several quantities are not "extreme" in magnitude, such as the Planck mass, which is about 22 micrograms: very large in comparison with subatomic particles, and within the mass range of living things. It has been speculated that it may be an approximate lower limit at which a black hole could be formed by collapse. Similarly, the related units of energy and of momentum are in the range of some everyday phenomena.
Planck units have little anthropocentric arbitrariness, but do still involve some arbitrary choices in terms of the defining constants. Unlike the metre and second, which exist as base units in the SI system for historical reasons, the Planck length and Planck time are conceptually linked at a fundamental physical level. Consequently, natural units help physicists to reframe questions. Frank Wilczek puts it succinctly:
We see that the question [posed] is not, "Why is gravity so feeble?" but rather, "Why is the proton's mass so small?" For in natural (Planck) units, the strength of gravity simply is what it is, a primary quantity, while the proton's mass is the tiny number [1/(13 quintillion)].^{[15]}
While it is true that the electrostatic repulsive force between two protons (alone in free space) greatly exceeds the gravitational attractive force between the same two protons, this is not about the relative strengths of the two fundamental forces. From the point of view of Planck units, this is comparing apples with oranges, because mass and electric charge are incommensurable quantities. Rather, the disparity of magnitude of force is a manifestation of the fact that the charge on the protons is approximately the unit charge but the mass of the protons is far less than the unit mass.
In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale is an energy scale around 1.22×10^{19} GeV (the Planck energy, corresponding to the energy equivalent of the Planck mass, 2.17645×10^{−8} kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, present descriptions and theories of subatomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory break down and become inadequate, due to the impact of the apparent nonrenormalizability of gravity within current theories.
At the Planck length scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable with the other forces, and it is theorized that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale, but the exact mechanism of this unification remains unknown. The Planck scale is therefore the point where the effects of quantum gravity can no longer be ignored in other fundamental interactions, where current calculations and approaches begin to break down, and a means to take account of its impact is necessary.^{[16]}
While physicists have a fairly good understanding of the other fundamental interactions of forces on the quantum level, gravity is problematic, and cannot be integrated with quantum mechanics at very high energies using the usual framework of quantum field theory. At lesser energy levels it is usually ignored, while for energies approaching or exceeding the Planck scale, a new theory of quantum gravity is necessary. Other approaches to this problem include string theory and Mtheory, loop quantum gravity, noncommutative geometry, scale relativity, causal set theory and padic quantum mechanics.^{[17]}
In Big Bang cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest stage of the Big Bang, before the time passed was equal to the Planck time, t_{P}, or approximately 10^{−43} seconds.^{[18]} There is no currently available physical theory to describe such short times, and it is not clear in what sense the concept of time is meaningful for values smaller than the Planck time. It is generally assumed that quantum effects of gravity dominate physical interactions at this time scale. At this scale, the unified force of the Standard Model is assumed to be unified with gravitation. Immeasurably hot and dense, the state of the Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch, where gravitation is separated from the unified force of the Standard Model, in turn followed by the inflationary epoch, which ended after about 10^{−32} seconds (or about 10^{10} t_{P}).^{[19]}
Properties of the observable universe today expressed in Planck units:^{[20]}^{[21]}
Property of presentday observable universe 
Approximate number of Planck units 
Equivalents 

Age  8.08 × 10^{60} t_{P}  4.35 × 10^{17} s, or 13.8 × 10^{9} years 
Diameter  5.4 × 10^{61} l_{P}  8.7 × 10^{26} m or 9.2 × 10^{10} lightyears 
Mass  approx. 10^{60} m_{P}  3 × 10^{52} kg or 1.5 × 10^{22} solar masses (only counting stars) 10^{80} protons (sometimes known as the Eddington number) 
Density  1.8 × 10^{−123} m_{P}⋅l_{P}^{−3}  9.9 × 10^{−27} kg⋅m^{−3} 
Temperature  1.9 × 10^{−32} T_{P}  2.725 K temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation 
Cosmological constant  2.9 × 10^{−122} l^{ −2} _{P} 
1.1 × 10^{−52} m^{−2} 
Hubble constant  1.18 × 10^{−61} t^{ −1} _{P} 
2.2 × 10^{−18} s^{−1} or 67.8 (km/s)/Mpc 
After the measurement of the cosmological constant (Λ) in 1998, estimated at 10^{−122} in Planck units, it was noted that this is suggestively close to the reciprocal of the age of the universe (T) squared. Barrow and Shaw proposed a modified theory in which Λ is a field evolving in such a way that its value remains Λ ~ T^{−2} throughout the history of the universe.^{[22]}
The Planck length, denoted ℓ_{P}, is a unit of length defined as:
It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10^{−35} m,^{[4]} where the two digits enclosed by parentheses are the estimated standard error associated with the reported numerical value, or about 10^{−20} times the diameter of a proton.^{[23]}
The Planck time t_{P} is the time required for light to travel a distance of 1 Planck length in a vacuum, which is a time interval of approximately 5.39×10^{−44} s.^{[24]} All scientific experiments and human experiences occur over time scales that are many orders of magnitude longer than the Planck time,^{[25]} making any events happening at the Planck scale undetectable with current scientific technology. As of October 2020^{[update]}, the smallest time interval uncertainty in direct measurements was on the order of 247 zeptoseconds (2.47×10^{−19} s).^{[26]}
While there is currently no known way to measure time intervals on the scale of the Planck time, researchers in 2020 proposed a theoretical apparatus and experiment that, if ever realized, could be capable of being influenced by effects of time as short as 10^{−33} seconds, thus establishing an upper detectable limit for the quantization of a time that is roughly 20 billion times longer than the Planck time.^{[27]}^{[28]}
Most Planck units are extremely small, as in the case of Planck length or Planck time, or extremely large, as in the case of Planck temperature or Planck acceleration. For comparison, the Planck energy E_{P} is approximately equal to the energy stored in an automobile gas tank (57.2 L of gasoline at 34.2 MJ/L of chemical energy). The ultrahighenergy cosmic ray observed in 1991 had a measured energy of about 50 J, equivalent to about 2.5×10^{−8} E_{P}.^{[29]}
The Planck unit of force may be thought of as the derived unit of force in the Planck system if the Planck units of time, length, and mass are considered to be base units.
It is the gravitational attractive force of two bodies of 1 Planck mass each that are held 1 Planck length apart; equivalently, it is the electrostatic attractive or repulsive force of two Planck units of charges that are held 1 Planck length apart.
Various authors have argued that the Planck force is on the order of the maximum force that can be observed in nature.^{[30]}^{[31]} However, the validity of these conjectures has been disputed.^{[32]}^{[33]}
The Planck temperature T_{P} is 1.416784(16)×10^{32} K.^{[7]} There are no known physical models able to describe temperatures greater than T_{P}; a quantum theory of gravity would be required to model the extreme energies attained.^{[34]}
Physical quantities that have different dimensions (such as time and length) cannot be equated even if they are numerically equal (1 second is not the same as 1 metre). In theoretical physics, however, this scruple can be set aside, by a process called nondimensionalization. Table 3 shows how the use of Planck units simplifies many fundamental equations of physics, because this gives each of the five fundamental constants, and products of them, a simple numeric value of 1. In the SI form, the units should be accounted for. In the nondimensionalized form, the units, which are now Planck units, need not be written if their use is understood.
SI form  Planck units form  

Newton's law of universal gravitation  
Einstein field equations in general relativity  
Mass–energy equivalence in special relativity  
Energy–momentum relation  
Thermal energy per particle per degree of freedom  
Boltzmann's entropy formula  
Planck–Einstein relation for energy and angular frequency  
Planck's law (surface intensity per unit solid angle per unit angular frequency) for black body at temperature T.  
Stefan–Boltzmann constant σ defined  
Bekenstein–Hawking black hole entropy^{[35]}  
Schrödinger's equation  
Hamiltonian form of Schrödinger's equation  
Covariant form of the Dirac equation  
Unruh temperature  
Coulomb's law  
Maxwell's equations 


Ideal gas law  or 
As already stated above, Planck units are derived by "normalizing" the numerical values of certain fundamental constants to 1. These normalizations are neither the only ones possible nor necessarily the best. Moreover, the choice of what factors to normalize, among the factors appearing in the fundamental equations of physics, is not evident, and the values of the Planck units are sensitive to this choice.
The factor 4π is ubiquitous in theoretical physics because the surface area of a sphere of radius r is 4πr^{2} in contexts having spherical symmetry in three dimensions. This, along with the concept of flux, are the basis for the inversesquare law, Gauss's law, and the divergence operator applied to flux density. For example, gravitational and electrostatic fields produced by point charges have spherical symmetry (Barrow 2002: 214–15). The 4πr^{2} appearing in the denominator of Coulomb's law in rationalized form, for example, follows from the flux of an electrostatic field being distributed uniformly on the surface of a sphere. Likewise for Newton's law of universal gravitation. (If space had more than three spatial dimensions, the factor 4π would be changed according to the geometry of the sphere in higher dimensions.)
Hence a substantial body of physical theory developed since Planck (1899) suggests normalizing not G but 4πG (or 8πG) to 1. Doing so would introduce a factor of 1/4π (or 1/8π) into the nondimensionalized form of the law of universal gravitation, consistent with the modern rationalized formulation of Coulomb's law in terms of the vacuum permittivity. In fact, alternative normalizations frequently preserve the factor of 1/4π in the nondimensionalized form of Coulomb's law as well, so that the nondimensionalized Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism and gravitoelectromagnetism both take the same form as those for electromagnetism in SI, which do not have any factors of 4π. When this is applied to electromagnetic constants, ε_{0}, this unit system is called "rationalized". When applied additionally to gravitation and Planck units, these are called rationalized Planck units^{[36]} and are seen in highenergy physics.^{[37]}
The rationalized Planck units are defined so that .
There are several possible alternative normalizations.
In 1899, Newton's law of universal gravitation was still seen as exact, rather than as a convenient approximation holding for "small" velocities and masses (the approximate nature of Newton's law was shown following the development of general relativity in 1915). Hence Planck normalized to 1 the gravitational constant G in Newton's law. In theories emerging after 1899, G nearly always appears in formulae multiplied by 4π or a small integer multiple thereof. Hence, a choice to be made when designing a system of natural units is which, if any, instances of 4π appearing in the equations of physics are to be eliminated via the normalization.
Some theorists (such as Dirac and Milne) have proposed cosmologies that conjecture that physical "constants" might actually change over time (e.g. a variable speed of light or Dirac varyingG theory). Such cosmologies have not gained mainstream acceptance and yet there is still considerable scientific interest in the possibility that physical "constants" might change, although such propositions introduce difficult questions. Perhaps the first question to address is: How would such a change make a noticeable operational difference in physical measurement or, more fundamentally, our perception of reality? If some particular physical constant had changed, how would we notice it, or how would physical reality be different? Which changed constants result in a meaningful and measurable difference in physical reality? If a physical constant that is not dimensionless, such as the speed of light, did in fact change, would we be able to notice it or measure it unambiguously? – a question examined by Michael Duff in his paper "Comment on timevariation of fundamental constants".^{[38]}^{[39]}
George Gamow argued in his book Mr Tompkins in Wonderland that a sufficient change in a dimensionful physical constant, such as the speed of light in a vacuum, would result in obvious perceptible changes. But this idea is challenged:
[An] important lesson we learn from the way that pure numbers like α define the world is what it really means for worlds to be different. The pure number we call the fine structure constant and denote by α is a combination of the electron charge, e, the speed of light, c, and Planck's constant, h. At first we might be tempted to think that a world in which the speed of light was slower would be a different world. But this would be a mistake. If c, h, and e were all changed so that the values they have in metric (or any other) units were different when we looked them up in our tables of physical constants, but the value of α remained the same, this new world would be observationally indistinguishable from our world. The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value [including the Planck mass m_{P} ] you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged.
— Barrow 2002^{[20]}
Referring to Duff's "Comment on timevariation of fundamental constants"^{[38]} and Duff, Okun, and Veneziano's paper "Trialogue on the number of fundamental constants",^{[40]} particularly the section entitled "The operationally indistinguishable world of Mr. Tompkins", if all physical quantities (masses and other properties of particles) were expressed in terms of Planck units, those quantities would be dimensionless numbers (mass divided by the Planck mass, length divided by the Planck length, etc.) and the only quantities that we ultimately measure in physical experiments or in our perception of reality are dimensionless numbers. When one commonly measures a length with a ruler or tapemeasure, that person is actually counting tick marks on a given standard or is measuring the length relative to that given standard, which is a dimensionless value. It is no different for physical experiments, as all physical quantities are measured relative to some other likedimensioned quantity.
We can notice a difference if some dimensionless physical quantity such as finestructure constant, α, changes or the protontoelectron mass ratio, m_{p}/m_{e}, changes (atomic structures would change) but if all dimensionless physical quantities remained unchanged (this includes all possible ratios of identically dimensioned physical quantity), we cannot tell if a dimensionful quantity, such as the speed of light, c, has changed. And, indeed, the Tompkins concept becomes meaningless in our perception of reality if a dimensional quantity such as c has changed, even drastically.
If the speed of light c, were somehow suddenly cut in half and changed to 1/2c (but with the axiom that all dimensionless physical quantities remain the same), then the Planck length would increase by a factor of 2√2 from the point of view of some unaffected observer on the outside. Measured by "mortal" observers in terms of Planck units, the new speed of light would remain as 1 new Planck length per 1 new Planck time – which is no different from the old measurement. But, since by axiom, the size of atoms (approximately the Bohr radius) are related to the Planck length by an unchanging dimensionless constant of proportionality:
Then atoms would be bigger (in one dimension) by 2√2, each of us would be taller by 2√2, and so would our metre sticks be taller (and wider and thicker) by a factor of 2√2. Our perception of distance and lengths relative to the Planck length is, by axiom, an unchanging dimensionless constant.
Our clocks would tick slower by a factor of 4√2 (from the point of view of this unaffected observer on the outside) because the Planck time has increased by 4√2 but we would not know the difference (our perception of durations of time relative to the Planck time is, by axiom, an unchanging dimensionless constant). This hypothetical unaffected observer on the outside might observe that light now propagates at half the speed that it previously did (as well as all other observed velocities) but it would still travel 299792458 of our new metres in the time elapsed by one of our new seconds (1/2c × 4√2 ÷ 2√2 continues to equal 299792458 m/s). We would not notice any difference.
This contradicts what George Gamow writes in his book Mr. Tompkins; there, Gamow suggests that if a dimensiondependent universal constant such as c changed significantly, we would easily notice the difference. The disagreement is better thought of as the ambiguity in the phrase "changing a physical constant"; what would happen depends on whether (1) all other dimensionless constants were kept the same, or whether (2) all other dimensiondependent constants are kept the same. The second choice is a somewhat confusing possibility, since most of our units of measurement are defined in relation to the outcomes of physical experiments, and the experimental results depend on the constants. Gamow does not address this subtlety; the thought experiments he conducts in his popular works assume the second choice for "changing a physical constant". And Duff or Barrow would point out that ascribing a change in measurable reality, i.e. α, to a specific dimensional component quantity, such as c, is unjustified. The very same operational difference in measurement or perceived reality could just as well be caused by a change in h or e if α is changed and no other dimensionless constants are changed. It is only the dimensionless physical constants that ultimately matter in the definition of worlds.^{[38]}^{[41]}
This unvarying aspect of the Planckrelative scale, or that of any other system of natural units, leads many theorists to conclude that a hypothetical change in dimensionful physical constants can only be manifest as a change in dimensionless physical constants. One such dimensionless physical constant is the finestructure constant. There are some experimental physicists who assert they have in fact measured a change in the fine structure constant^{[42]} and this has intensified the debate about the measurement of physical constants. According to some theorists^{[43]} there are some very special circumstances in which changes in the finestructure constant can be measured as a change in dimensionful physical constants. Others however reject the possibility of measuring a change in dimensionful physical constants under any circumstance.^{[38]} The difficulty or even the impossibility of measuring changes in dimensionful physical constants has led some theorists to debate with each other whether or not a dimensionful physical constant has any practical significance at all and that in turn leads to questions about which dimensionful physical constants are meaningful.^{[40]}
However, for most experimental physicists, approaching energies comparable to Planck energy is little more than a distant fantasy. The most powerful accelerators on Earth miss Planck energy of 15 orders of magnitude, while ultra high energy cosmic rays are still 9 orders of magnitude short of M_{p}.
The point at which our physical theories run into most serious difficulties is that where matter reaches a temperature of approximately 10^{32} degrees, also known as Planck's temperature. The extreme density of radiation emitted at this temperature creates a disproportionately intense field of gravity. To go even farther back, a quantum theory of gravity would be necessary, but such a theory has yet to be written.