On following the work of the editor of Physics Today, Richard J. Fitzgerald

Physics Today is a publication of the American Institute of Physics (AIP)

Richard J. Fitzgerald, Physics Today, 1 Physics Ellipse Dr, College Park, MD 20740
Served as both the Managing Editor and the Editor-in-chief of Physics Today.

Articles: Controlling a tipping point, Physics Today 67, 9, 17 (17 Jul 2014); https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.2505
Homepage(s): CV, InspireHEP

Second email: 16 December 2022 @ 10:31 AM (lightly edited)

Dear Dr. Richard J. Fitzgerald:

A good exercise for me was to begin a page to document your work; your depth and breadth certainly set you apart from the maddening crowd (which I am part). Yet, could you be so in the trees, even with celestial mechanics in your mix, it may be hard to see the forest and how it first emerged? Could a bang hold you back? Remember the excitement around the amplitudhedron as more and more patterns emerged in the scattering amplitudes of particle interactions? For many it was hinting at “…an underlying, coherent mathematical structure behind quantum field theory? For me it was screaming. We applied base-2 to the Planck units (or Stoney units). Particles-waves-oscillations-fluctuations don’t show up for 64 notations. The numbers are fascinating: https://81018.com/chart/ My juvenile explanation: https://81018.com/stem/ You’re the expert. What going on?

I know you don’t have any time and I have already used up my lot; I’ll beg for more. How can this be so wrong? Is it closer to the truth and Alan Guth‘s work? Thank you.

Most sincerely,


PS That page about your work is here: https://81018.com/fitzgerald/ The more I learn, the more amazing you become. Be careful: https://81018.com/arrogance/BEC

First email: 22 October 2022 at 11:10 AM

Dear Dr. Richard J. Fitzgerald:

Frank Wilczek says in his first article of a 2001 three-part series in Physics Today, “…Planck’s proposal for a system of units based on fundamental physical constants was, when it was made, formally correct but rather thinly rooted in fundamental physics.” Reference: “Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom,” Physics Today, June 2001, p 13.

Just today, I am back quoting it: https://81018.com/old-theory/#1a I thought you might enjoy seeing it.

Thank you. 

Warm regards,


PS. My footnote opens that discussion further. -BEC 

[1] Wilczek. Webpages: Frank Wilczek – https://81018.com/wilczek/
• Physics Today, 312. Scaling Mt. Planck I: A View from the Bottom (June 2001)
• Physics Today, 321. Scaling Mt. Planck II: Base Camp (Nov 2001)
• Physics Today, 328. Scaling Mt. Planck III: Is That All There Is? (August 2002).

Endnotes (BEC Comment): In Frank Wilczek’s latest work, Fundamentals: Ten Keys to Reality, I was disappointed that he used the words, “after the Big Bang.” With its current raft of problems, * I had hoped that he would hold back from reaffirming the big bang. Even after ten years I recognize that he’s not quite ready to affirm a natural inflation with base-2 notation, the Planck base units, infinitesimal spheres, and pi, yet I still have hopes that maybe someday he will. He must somehow believe that the Planck base units are remotely related to the bing bang singularity. We met on two occasions; if we ever meet again, I’ll ask him that question.

* The “current raft of problems” refers to all the discussions coming from scholars working with the results from James Webb Space Telescope and the issues of smoothness. Several recent homepages focused on it including: 

  1. https://81018.com/reason/#1a  
  2. https://81018.com/communicate/
  3. https://81018.com/mathematical-universe/
  4. https://81018.com/analysis/