Wilczek, Frank

Frank Wilczek
Professor of Physics, MIT
ArXiv  Nobel  Twitter  Website  Wikipedia   YouTube
Article Why Change Without Change Is One of the Fundamental Principles of the Universe
Book (2015): A Beautiful Question

Page contents:

Most recent email: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 7:08 PM
Dear Frank,

I was invited to be part of the NASA SpaceApp challenge. It felt a bit odd being 70 years old among all the millennials, but it was great fun.  A group from Stanford want to use the data from our horizontally-scrolled chart of the base-2 exponentiation from the Planck base units to the Age of the Universe.

It gave me a change to reflect on the work to date. This is what I said:
https://81018.com/nasa1/ (third paragraph)


History lessons. Though Max Planck developed the basic math for these units between 1899 and 1905, it wasn’t until 2001 when a Nobel laureate, Frank Wilczek of MIT lifted these numbers out of the category of numerology. He had written a series of articles, Scaling Mt. Planck [3] (2001) and slowly the Planck’s units began becoming part of the core of accepted scientific thought.

I don’t know if you ever bumped into Ed Fredkin. I don’t think you two overlapped at MIT. He told me back in my earlier times with these numbers (2012), that he was one of the few people who did not believe in Planck’s base units. Only today did I catch up with the Fredkin finite nature hypothesis where there is the claim, “…ultimately all quantities of physics, including space and time, are discrete and finite. All measurable physical quantities arise from some Planck scale substrate for multiverse information processing.”

I suspect there is no substrate except the 65 notations from the base units to the CERN scale.

Yes, but who am I? Nobody from nowhere. I hope that the above reference and links are acceptable to you.  Thanks.

Email: Saturday, April 22, 2017

Dear Frank:

I have written the following two paragraphs about your work on the Planck units. Does it capture the spirit?  Would you have me change anything? Thanks.
Sincerely,
Bruce

“Although Max Planck began developing these numbers in 1899 and first published them in 1906, nobody paid much attention to them until 2001 when Frank Wilczek (MIT) began publishing three articles for Physics Today around the title, Scaling Mt. Planck  (312321328). Others had done significant work using one or more of the Planck numbers, yet the citations began to break open with the Wilczek articles.

“Yet, there were others who had even earlier intuitions about  the significance of these numbers.

“In 1959 C. Alden Mead (UMinn) began his struggle to published his work about the Planck Length. Though finally published in 1964, the article,  Possible Connection Between Gravitation and Fundamental Length  Phys. Rev. 135, B849 ( 10 August 1964), was ignored by the scholarly community.  Planck Length commanded no respect as a fundamental unit of length.”

Friday, October 21, 2016 email

The entire statement from within the box on this page was sent to Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Max Tegmark, Frank Wilczek, and Freeman Dyson.

Another email:  March 24, 2016: Work began at MIT, long ago!

From the LinkedIn blog:

Physics Today (MeadWilczek discussions – Ref.9): Though formulated in 1899 and 1900, the Planck Length received very little attention until 1959 when C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota submitted a paper proposing that the Planck Length and Planck Time should “…play a more fundamental role in physics.” Though published in Physical Review in 1964, very little positive feedback was forthcoming. Frank Wilczek in that 2001 Physics Today article comments that “…C. Alden Mead’s discussion is the earliest that I am aware of.” He posited the Planck constants as real realities within experimental constructs whereby these constants became more than mathematical curiosities. More…

From a posting titled, “Could The Planck Length Be The Next Big Thing? Could Planck Time Be A Gateway To The Universe?”

Theories abound.
Oxford physicist-philosopher, Roger Penrose16 calls it, Conformal Cyclic Cosmology made popular within his book, Cycles of Time. In a September 24, 2008 interview on NBC News (Cosmic Log), Frank Wilczek of MIT simply calls this domain, the Grid,17 and the most complete review of it is within his book, The Lightness of Being. We know with just two years of work on this so-called Big Board – little universe chart and much less time on our compact table, we will be exploring those 60-to-65 initial steps most closely for years to come. This project will be in an early-stage development for a lifetime. More…

From the web postings within the Big Board-little universe:

Notwithstanding, there is a substantial amount of work that has been done within the academic and scientific communities with all the Planck numbers and those base numbers that were used to create the five Planck base units. Perhaps chemistry professor, C. Alden Mead of the University of Minnesota began the process in 1959 when he first tried publishing a paper using the Planck units with serious scientific intent. Physics professor Frank Wilczek of MIT was the first to write popular articles about the Planck units in 2001 in Physics Today (312, 321, 328). From that year, the number of articles began to increase dramatically and experimental work that make use of these numbers has increased as a result. More…

First email: Friday, December 14, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Our first email to 2004 Nobel laureate, MIT physics professor, Frank Wilczek
Bruce Camber wrote:

Dear Prof. Dr. Frank Wilczek:

Back ten days ago, we sent this note through your resources page
within your your website — http://frankwilczek.com/resources.html
It is from five high school geometry classes.

We have a model of the universe and we are not sure what to do with it.

We started with one meter and divided it in half as if it
were an edge of a tetrahedron, and then we continued dividing
in half until we got down in the area of the Planck Length. Later,
we started at the Planck Length and used base-2 exponential notation
to go out the 202+ steps to the edges of the observable universe.
We used Plato’s five basics as an inherent continuity equation and
symmetry function.

It seems too easy, perhaps a bit of poppycock, but we don’t know
why. The question now is how to continue to develop it. Is it a useful
ordering system (STEM project)? Or, could it possibly be more?
We don’t know. After all we are just five high school geometry classes.

Is it just a bit of silliness? Or, might it be useful? We, the kids and
teachers, are anxious to know. We will be having a major discussion about it
next week with all five classes. Thanks. -Bruce

Bruce Camber

Note: We first found you here:
Physics Today, Alden Response PDF
http://frankwilczek.com/resources.html