BILLS GATES PERSONAL NET WORTH AND EINSTEINS PHOTOELECTRIC WORK FUNCTION By V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.

SUMMARY
Bill Gates personal net worth data, since he ascended to the top of the Forbes Billionaires list in 1995, is analyzed here and leads to: a) An estimate of the year in which Gates fortune will exceed his personal all-time peak net worth in 1999, and b) The interesting conclusion of a work function for Bill Gates. The work function in physics, first conceived by Einstein, in 1905, to explain photoelectric effect, is related to the difficulty of producing an electron by a photon, when the latter strikes the surface of a metal. Likewise, the work function in the billionaire problem is shown to be related to the difficulty of wealth generation. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction According to the 2014 Forbes Billionaires List [1], former Chairman and CEO of Microsoft, Bill Gates has again climbed to the top of the worlds billionaires list with a personal net worth of $76 billion. Gates has headed the Forbes list for 15 out of the last 20 years, losing the top spot to Buffett in 2008 (Gates had the No. 3 spot that year and Carlos Slims Helu of Mexico took the No. 2 spot) and then to Slims Helu from 2009 to 2013; see notes in Appendix I.
___________________________________________________________________

Email address: vlaxmanan@hotmail.com The author is a retired research professional, with advanced degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering who has spent his entire professional career in leading US research institutions, in academia ( MIT and CWRU), in government (NASA), and in corporate research labs (Allied Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, and the General Motors Research Labs). He has also published many widely cited scientific articles in Page 1 of 20

leading peer-reviewed international journals in both physics and the materials sciences. His current research interests include the study of business, financial, and economic data using methods commonly used in physics and the hard sciences. This has led him to propose a broad generalization of the Planck-Einstein ideas from quantum physics and their application to financial, economic, business, social, and political, sports and other systems. He has also recently been active in the analysis of the climate data, especially global average temperature data using similar methods (a new physics of global warming) and as recently created a Facebook group called Global Warming for the Layman; see https://www.facebook.com/groups/GWforlayman/, on January 5, 2014, aimed at discussing global warming data in an easy-to-understand manner, with short posts; see also https://www.facebook.com/groups/physicseconomicsandrealworld/

Table 1: Bill Gates personal net worth since climbing to top spot in 1995 Time t (years)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year pairs

Worth, U ($, B)
12.9 18 36.4 51 90 60 58.7 52.8 40.7 46

Time t (year)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Worth, U ($, B)
50 50 56 58 40 53 56 61 67 76

Change in Slope Year pairs Change in Slope worth, U U/t worth, U U/t 1995-1996 5.1 5.1 2006-2007 6 6 1998-2000 9 4.5 2009-2014 36 7.2 1997-2001 22.3 5.575 2011-2014 20 6.67 2003-2004 5.3 5.3 2011-2013 11 5.5 2003-2005 9.3 4.65 2010-2014 23 5.75 The average of these 10 slopes equals $5.62 B per year, which is close to $5.7 B per year the current statistically determined average rate from 2010 to 2014.
Data source: http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2012/billionaires-25th-anniversary-timeline.html

Gates personal worth, since he ascended to the top spot for the first time in 1995 has been compiled in Table 1. All of this data, except the 2013 and 2014 data, can be found in the Forbes Billionaires 25th anniversary timeline [2]. As we will see shortly, an analysis of this data leads us to an estimate of the year in which Gates fortune will exceed his all-time peak net worth. It also leads us to the interesting conclusion of a work function for Bill Gates, akin to the
Page 2 of 20

idea of a work function first conceived by Einstein, in 1905 to explain the photoelectric effect [3-14]; see Appendix II for a brief discussion. Analysis of the Gates net worth-time relationship A graphical representation of the data in Table 1 reveals a seemingly erratic variation in the net worth over time. Bill Gates personal net worth climbed to rapidly to the peak value of $90 billion in 1999 and then started falling, at first rapidly (a $30 B drop in just one year, between 1999 and 2000, most likely due to long-drawn antitrust case [15-18] which led to the breakup of Microsoft) and then more gradually to the low point in 2003. Gates was able to increase his net worth by an impressive 50%, between 2003 and 2008, but all was lost in just one year (during the near complete collapse of the US financial system in 2008). Nonetheless, his net worth is increasing again, he is again the worlds richest, and so we can all learn from Bill Gates [19].

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Net worth, U [$, billions]

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 1: Graphical representation of Gates Net Worth-time (U-t) relationship since 1995, when he ascended to the top of the Forbes Billionaires lists. The two arrows highlight the low points after the ascent to the peak began in 1995.

Page 3 of 20

U = ht + c = h(t t0) 120 110 = 5.1 t 10161.6 = 5.1 (t 1992.47) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 t0 = -c/h 30 20 10 0 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010

Net worth, U [$, billions]

Six slopes calculated 2011-12, h = 5 2003-04, h = 5.3 2003-05, h = 4.65 1997-2001, h = 5.575 2006-07, h = 6, and 1998-2000, h = 4.5 Average slope h = 5.2

2014

2018

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 2: The initial rate of increase of Bill Gates net worth after he became the worlds richest person in 1995 is illustrated here. The mathematical equation of the straight line joining any two (x, y) pairs on the net worth-time graph is y = hx + c, or U = ht + c, where x is time t and y is the net worth U. If we consider the net worth data for the first two years 1995 and 1996, the slope h = 5.1. If this initial rate of $5.1 B per year had been sustained, without the ups and downs in Bill Gates fortunes, in 2014, the net worth would have increased to $109.8 billion, far in excess of the current value of $76 billion, or even the peak value of $90 billion observed in 1999. A reconsideration of Gates net worth data since the second low point in 2009, on the other hand, reveals the nice linear trend illustrated in Figure 3. A statistical analysis (least squares method, see brief discussion in Appendix I) yields the linear regression equation, y = 5.7x 11,406 = 5.7(x 2001.05), or U = 5.7 (t 2001.05). The trendline and its mathematical equation were generated automatically by the Microsoft Excel program. The symbol U is being used here for the net worth, since this is the symbol used for energy in Plancks December 1900 paper [20-23], which led to the birth of quantum physics. The same symbol U was also used by Einstein to denote the energy of light [3]. Since money in economics is just like energy in physics, or vice versa
Page 4 of 20

[24], the same symbol U is now being used for net worth of billionaires; see also other articles on the billionaires problem [13, 14].
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 y = 5.7x - 11406 30.0 R = 0.9635 20.0 10.0 0.0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Net worth, U [$, billions]

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 3: The most recent net worth data reveals a nice linear, or fixed rate of, increase since the low point of 2009. U = ht + c = 5.7t 11406 = 5.7(t 2001.05). Note that the linear regression equation was developed using the data from 2010 to2014. Including the 2009 data would yield a higher slope, since the least squares line will pivot to accommodate the low value for 2009. The higher slope would, of course, mean a much earlier time estimate for Gates to exceed his peak worth of $90B. The lower slope will thus provide a more conservative estimate of the time frame for exceeding the peak. If the present trends continue, Gates would have a net worth of $90.9B sometime in 2017 or 2018, in excess of the all-time peak value of $90B. And by 2020, Gates net worth would increase to $108 billion. Superimposing this new linear segment on to the graph of Figure 1 reveals an interesting pattern and leads to the idea of a work function for Bill Gates. As we see in Figure 4, the U-t graph cuts the time axis at t = t0 = 2001.05. This is the cut-off time, or the cut-off x0 in the general equation y = hx + c = h(x x0).

Page 5 of 20

Net worth, U [$, billions]

100

I
80 60 40 20 0 1992

t0 = -c/h

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 4: The linear law for the increase in the net worth in recent years (from 2010 to 2014) implies a cut-off time t = 2001.05 when the net worth U goes to zero. The cut-off time t0 = -c/h = 2001.05 means that, after all the ups and downs in his fortunes, Bill Gates is now operating as if his net worth started increasing from zero at the cut-off time, and has increased at the fixed rate given by the slope of this best-fit, or least squares, line I through the most recent data. The cut-off time was t0 = 1992.47 with the initial rate for 1995 and 1996. The wealth generation work function for Bill Gates A closer examination of Figure 4, with the aid of Line I, suggests the existence of several (x, y) pairs, or (U, t) pairs, that seem to fall on parallels to Line I deduced from the linear regression analysis. This is confirmed by a calculation of the slopes between several (x, y) pairs. These calculations are listed at the bottom of Table 1. For example, the net worth increased between 2006 and 2007 by $6B, for a rate of h = U/t = 6 which is consistent with the slope h = 5.7 for t he best-fit line I. The slope of the line segment joining 2003 and 2004 equals 5.3. The average of these two slopes is (6 + 5.3) /2 = 5.65, which is practically the same as the slope h = 5.7 for the best-fit line. Continuing this process, with ten
Page 6 of 20

different U-t pairs listed in Table 1, we arrive at an average slope of $5.62 B per year, in agreement with the best-fit slope for the current period, from 2010 to 2014. A family of parallel lines can therefore be superimposed on the net worth diagram, as illustrated in Figure 5.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1990

IV

III II

Net worth, U [$, billions]

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 5: A family of parallel lines can be envisioned to sweep through the net worth diagram as illustrated here. Line II passes through the 1995 data. Line III passes through the 2004 data. Line IV passes through the 2000 data point. (For an alternative viewpoint see Figure 7, in Appendix II.) The existence of these parallels (same fixed value of h) means that exactly the same rate of wealth generation was also observed at earlier times in Bill Gates career. Indeed, a movement along parallels is also obvious in Figure 2. It appears that at least two parallels, with nearly the same slope h = 5.1, based on the initial rate, can be superimposed on to the graph of Figure 2. The changes in the numerical values of the nonzero intercept c (which have become more negative with increasing time t) mean that although the net worth is increasing, it is also lower than it would have been if the same fixed rate, observed at earlier times, had been maintained. The changes in the
Page 7 of 20

nonzero intercept signal a horizontal movement of the data, or a change in the rate of increase of U (change in the slope h = dy/dx = dU/dt), as Bill Gates moves from one parallel to the other, after following each parallel for a short time duration. A more consistent movement along the parallel I is being observed for the most recent years. The term work function can be used for the nonzero intercept c because of this movement along parallels. Einsteins photoelectric law, discussed briefly in Appendix II, is the only know law of nature which predicts such a movement of our (x, y) observations along parallel lines. A family of parallels is observed when photoelectricity experiments are conducted with different metals; see illustration in Physics Hypertext [5]. In summary, a careful analysis of Bill Gates personal net worth, and how it has increased with time, shows that the U-t data is moving along a family of parallel lines with a fixed slope h = dU/dt deduced from a statistical analysis of the trend for the most recent years, 2010-2014. If this fixed rate can be sustained, Bill Gates will exceed his personal all-time peak worth of $90B sometime in 2017 or 2018. The work function is a measure of the difficulty of generating wealth. Hence, the higher the work function (the more negative the nonzero intercept c), the lower is the net worth, although the net worth is increasing with time, t. The existence of such a work function, and a similar movement along parallels, is also obvious when we consider the aggregate net worth of the billionaires in a country and compare it with the same property for the billionaires in other countries, as discussed in related articles [13, 14]. Appendix I: Brief comments about Bill Gates rising and falling net worth extracted from the discussions given in the Forbes Billionaire lists The Wikipedia article gives a nice summary with the data on the number of billionaires and their aggregate worth from 2000 to 2014 and the worlds top 10 billionaires for each year (click here). In 2008, Gates lost his top spot to Warren Buffett. Microsoft made an unsolicited bid for Yahoo! and its stock price dropped in value by the last day

Page 8 of 20

used in the Forbes methodology for estimating net worth. More than 50% of Gates fortune is held outside Microsoft shares (click here for story) In 2009, Gates regained the top spot, although his personal fortune decreased by $18 billion. Buffetts fortune declined even more as Berkshire Hatchways stock price dropped by nearly 50% over a 12-month period (click here). This is the year of the second minimum point after the peak of $90 B in 1999.
100 90 y = 18.72x - 37342 80 R = 0.9129 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1994 1995 1996 1997

Net worth, U [$, billions]

1998

1999

2000

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 6: The initial rise in Bill Gates net worth to the peak value of $90 B is made of four line segments with increasing slopes h = 5.1, 18.4, 14.6, and 39 giving an average slope of h = 19.275 (same as the slope of line joining 1995 and 1999 data). Let U = ht + c, or y = hx + c be the equation of the least squares line. This line (the dash-dot line) has a slope h = 18.72 and an intercept c = -37342. Thus, U = 18.72t 37342 = 18.72(t 1994.765). The slope of this line, also called the best-fit line, is determined by minimizing the sum of the squares of all the vertical deviations of each data point from the line; hence the name least squares. For example, the 1995 and 1999 data fall above the line with a positive vertical deviation, (y yb). Here y is the actual net worth and yb is the predicted value on the least squares or the best-fit line. The other three points are below the line and have a negative deviation. The sum of all the positive and negative vertical deviations will be zero. However, the square of the sum of the vertical deviations (y yb)2 has a finite positive value. The principle of minimizing the sum of the squares of deviations fixes the slope h. The mathematical formula for the slope h was given by Legendre [25-31], in a famous paper published in 1805. How do we determine the nonzero intercept? The least squares line always passes through the point (xm , ym) where xm and ym are the mean values of x and y in a dataset. Here x m = 1997, the mean year and ym =
Page 9 of 20

$48.85B, the average of the five net worth values. Once slope h = 18.72 is fixed using the least squares argument, the intercept c = htm - Um is automatically fixed since we know the slope h and also the mean values Um = ym and xm = tm. With modern computational capabilities, we do not have to memorize the formula for determining the slope (given in statistics textbooks). The Microsoft Excel program generates the line automatically, along with its equation.

Net worth, U [$, billions]

70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 2000 y = 3.3286x - 6625.3 R = 0.9579

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 7: The first phase of the recovery of Bill Gates fortunes, between 2003 and 2008 is analyzed here. The best fit line U = ht + c has a slope h = 3.33 and an intercept c = -6625.3. Thus, U = 3.33t 6625.3 = 3.33(t 1990.42) and the cut-off t0 = 1990.42. Bill Gates fortunes were increasing at a fixed rate, as if they started growing at time t = 1990.42. The cut-off time is lower than for the initial rise to the peak value because of the reduced slope of h = 3.32. (More time is needed, if fortunes grow at a slower rate.)

In 2010, Gates was ranked second. His fortune increased by $13 billion but he was overtaken by Mexicos telecom tycoon Carlos Slim, who fortunes soared with the increase in the value of the latters holdings (click here to read story). In 2011, Carlos Slim retained the top spot with a surge in his telecom holdings. Gates was No. 2 and 70% of his fortunes are from investments outside Microsoft (click here for story) In 2014, Gates regains his top spot as Slims fortunes decline due to loss of value of his holdings in the telecom sector (click here)

Page 10 of 20

Appendix II: Work function in physics and its broad generalization The idea of a work function was conceived by Einstein, in his famous 1905 paper [3-12], which actually fetched him the Nobel Prize in physics (not his theory of relativity, or E = mc2 upon which much of his fame rests). A more detailed list of references on the photoelectric effect, with some illustrations about the photoelectricity experiments, in provided in another recent article [13] discussing the Forbes billionaires data from different countries [14]. Very briefly, when light shines on the surface of a metal, electrons are produced which can be collected and made to flow in an external circuit. The work function W refers to the energy that must be given up by a photon, with energy E = hf, when it strikes the surface of a metal. Here h is the Planck constant and f is the frequency of the light (wave). Mathematically speaking, the work function W is the nonzero intercept that appears in Einsteins photoelectric law describing this process, which can be written as K = E W = hf W = h(f f0). Here K is the maximum energy of the electron that is produced. The difference W = E K is the energy that must be given up to produce the electron, in order to overcome the complex forces that bind the electron to the interior of the metal. Instead of embarking upon a difficult calculation to determine W, Einstein simplifies the whole problem by writing the linear equation relating K and f. Thus, Einstein points out that experiments aimed at a careful determination of the maximum energy K of the electrons produced in the photoelectricity experiments will lead to a direct determination of the numerical value of the constant the Planck constant h. Although Plancks theory is now widely heralded, it was originally ignored by contemporary physicists, who were more fascinated by what is known as the Rayleigh-Jeans law, which was derived using the classical laws of electromagnetism, see Gearharts review [22]. Plancks work began to gain traction only after the unknown Einstein showed that the fundamental constant h introduced by Planck, in 1900, can be determined experimentally via the photoelectric measurements.

Page 11 of 20

It is of interest to note that Lenard, whose photoelectric work [8, 9] is cited by Einstein, received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1905, the same year in which Einstein published his explanation for Lenards cut-off frequency. The discovery of a cut-off frequency is mentioned quite prominently in Lenards biography for the Nobel award [8]. Einstein also describes how an experiment, to determine h accurately, can be performed; see also the discussion by Shamos [4]. Indeed, subsequently, Millikan developed an experimental technique to determine the slope h of the K-f graph following exactly the method described by Einstein in his 1905 paper. Millikan also recognized the importance of determining the maximum value of K, as we see from the introduction to his 1916 papers [11, 12]. Only the determination of the maximum K = V0q will yield consistent results for the slope h and thus reveal the movement of the data along parallel lines, when experiments are conducted with different metals, with different values of the work function W, a characteristic property of each metal. Here q is the absolute magnitude of the electrical charge on a single electron and V0 is the stopping potential. Millikan had already determined q accurately in his famous oil drop experiments (see Nobel lecture [10]). Hence the maximum K could be determined by stopping the flow of electrons completely (by applying the opposing potential V0) so that even the most energetic electrons (produced by irradiation of the metal by light) could not reach the collector to produce the photocurrent. The same considerations apply for the wealth generation problem being discussed here. One must study the best companies to gain insights on the profits-revenue relation. One must study the net worth of billionaires to gain insights about wealth generation, and so on. All the rest is like the noise produced by electrons with less than the maximum energy K. Yes, such electrons are produced and they must be overlooked if we want to determine the Planck constant, h. Millikans introductory remarks are thus noteworthy. The changes in the business climate and financial environment in which wealth is generated are akin to light shining on different metals. As the work function W increases, photons with higher energies are needed to observe the
Page 12 of 20

same value of K. Likewise, the same wealth, or net worth U, is more difficult to generate as the work function increases (intercept c becomes more negative). The appearance of a nonzero intercept c, relating any two variables x and y, can thus be thought of as a work function. In physics, W, which is a measure of the difficulty of producing an electron, manifests itself as the finite nonzero cut-off frequency f0 = W/h. Likewise, we often observe a cut-off value x0 in our (x, y) observations on many problems, as revealed by linear relation y = hx + c = h(x x0). This cut-off x = x0 = - c/h is the result of the nonzero c. The changing value of the nonzero c, over time, is related to the difficulty of increasing y, here the net worth, and hence the difficulty of wealth generation. The existence of such a nonzero c is often overlooked [32, 33], as discussed in detail within the context of the aggregate net worth relationship between the 2014 Forbes billionaires from different countries [13, 14]. Herein also lies the fundamental difficulty with the widespread use of y/x ratios in business, finance, and economic analyses. If the law y = hx + c = h(x x0) applies, then the ratio y/x = h + (c/x) = h [1 (x0/x)] can either increase or decrease in a very complex manner depending on the numerical values of h and c, which can be either positive or negative. Thus, we encounter three cases, and their inverses, when we try to analyze (x, y) observations. 1. Type I (h > 0, c < 0): The ratio y/x increases with increasing x and y. 2. Type II (h > 0, c > 0): The ratio y/x decreases with increasing x and y. 3. Type III (h < 0, c > 0): The ratio y/x decreases with increasing x, decreasing y. The inverses refer to the case when x is decreasing. Now y can either decrease or increase following the reverse of the graphs for Types I, II, and III behavior. The confusion created by erratic variations in ratios like the profit margin, earnings per share, debt/GDP ratio are rooted in this fundamental property of ratios and the overlooked work function, or nonzero intercept c. And, since it is clear that both positive and negative slopes can be observed on the profits-revenues graphs, the above also implies the existence of a maximum point on the graph of profits versus revenues for a company. This
Page 13 of 20

profits-revenues behavior can be modeled using the generalized statement of the Planck-Einstein ideas, which can be written in the most general form as y = [mxne-ax/(1 + be-ax)] + c ..(1)

For the special case of n = 1, a = 0, and b = 0, equation 1 reduces to the linear law y = mx + c with a finite nonzero intercept. For b = 0 and c = 0, it reduces to y = mxne-ax dy/dx = (n ax)(y/x) ..(2) ..(3)

Now it easy to see that there is maximum point on the graph at x = n/a since the derivative dy/dx, or the slope of the graph goes to zero at this point. The slope is positive for x < n/a and negative for x > n/a. Einstein uses this simplified version of Plancks law (equation 2) to develop the theory of light quanta. The linear photoelectric law then follows. Thus, recognizing the variations in the work function, over time, is actually a simple way to account for the nonlinearity observed in a complex world. This is also what the present analysis of Bill Gates personal fortunes reveals. Business, financial, and economic analysis are based on the ratio y/x which is clearly not the same as the ratio dy/dx, or the rate of change that is of interest in most financial analysis. Indeed, a maximum point, as predicted by the nonlinear model above, has actually been observed in the business world; see discussion in Ref. [24]. General Motors was operating past its maximum point (profits decreasing with increasing revenues) for many years before it was forced into bankruptcy. Unfortunately, even the existence of such a maximum point is NOT known to business leaders, and more importantly even to billionaires, who are amongst the most astute investors! May be Bill Gates and Warren Buffett will pay attention and take over some of these companies that are operating past the maximum point! Now, here is a good example of the practical application of these ideas to the real world.

Page 14 of 20

I Net worth, U [$, billions]

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1990

II III

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Time, t [Calendar years]

Figure 8: An alternative view which differs slightly from the movement along parallels of Figure 4 is presented here with three straight lines with the general equation U = ht + c. For Line I, U = 5.1t 10161.6= 5.1(t 1992.47) with slope h being the initial slope determined from the data for 1995 and 1996. This means Bill Gates net worth was increasing initially as if it had started increasing from zero in mid-1992. If that rate had been sustained, his net worth in 2014 would be $109.8B. Even the 2002 data, after the rise and fall, is very close to line I. For Line II, U = 5.3t 10575.2 = 5.3(t 1995.32) and the slope h is determined from the data for 2003 and 2004. A higher rate of growth was observed compared to the initial years. For Line III, U = 5.5t 11004.5 = 5.5(t 2000.82). The slope h is determined from the data for 2011 and 2013, the years when Bill Gates had lost his top spot. The rate of growth is higher than the other two rates. The higher the rate, the higher the cut-off time t0. Instead of allowing both h and c to vary, it is, theoretically speaking, more elegant to think of a constant h and a varying c. In other words, we embrace the idea of a work function from Einsteins photoelectric law. The least squares method allows for only a single value of the nonzero intercept c and moreover, the least squares line must always pass through the point (xm, ym), the average values of x and y. The method suggested by Einstein to determine the Planck constant h, is based on seeking the maximum energy of the electron, and may be called the method of excellence we must seek the highest slope, wherever possible (or the lowest slope, depending on the physics of the problem). Being the richest person on the planet, being a Bill Gates, or being a billionaire, is all about being the best not seeking the average.
Page 15 of 20

REFERENCES [1] Dolan, K. A., and Kroll, L., Inside the 2014 Billionaires List: Facts and Figures, http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2014/03/03/insidethe-2014-forbes-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures/ The list can be sorted by country to prepare the Tables of the Top 10 for each country. Kroll, L., Forbes Worlds Billionaires 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakroll/2012/03/07/forbes-worldsbillionaires-2012/ see also The Worlds Billionaires 2th Anniversary Timeline within this article, http://www.forbes.com/specialreport/2012/billionaires-25th-anniversary-timeline.html Einstein, A., On a heuristic point of view about the creation and conversion of light, Annalen der Physik (1905). In Stachel, J. A., (1989), pp. 150-166,
http://www.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_heuristic.pdf

[2]

[3] [4] [5]

[6]

The Photoelectric Effect, Great Experiments in Physics, Edited by Morris H. Shamos (Dover Publications, 1959), pp. 232-237. Photoelectric Effect, The Physic Hyper Textbook, http://physics.info/photoelectric/ see an illustration of the movement of photoelectric measurements along parallels for different metals. Stuewer, R. H., Einsteins revolutionary light quantum hypothesis, pp. 15 (pp. 14 to 18 of 374) in Conference on History of Quantum Physics,
Preprint 350 (2008), Christian Joas, Christoph Lehner, and Jrgen Renn (eds).

[7]

[8]

[9]

Neuenschwander, D. E., Einsteins Quanta, Entropy, and the Photoelectric Effect, Excellent discussion about how Einstein arrives at his conception of light quanta by considering a property called entropy possessed by radiation in the form light, http://www.sigmapisigma.org/radiations/2004/elegant_connections_f04.pdf Philipp Lenard Biographical, Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Web. 23 Feb 2014. It is stated here that Lenard never forgave Einstein for discovering and attaching his own name to the photoelectric law < http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1905/lenard-bio.html > Lenard, P. E., Nobel lecture, delivered on May 28, 1906, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1905/lena rd-lecture.pdf It is, perhaps, of interest to note that Lenard does not cite Plancks December 1900 paper on blackbody radiation or the young and unknown Einsteins explanation for the cut-off frequency, published in
Page 16 of 20

1905. Lenard provides an exhaustive list of the relevant literature in his Nobel lecture, through 1906. Perhaps, Lenard did not want to associate himself with the idea of light being discrete particles with an energy equal to the Planck quanta. [10] Millikan, R. A., The electron and light quanta from experimental point of
view, Nobel lecture, May 23, 1924, Einstein, A., On a heuristic point of view about the creation and conversion of light, Annalen der Physik (1905)
http://www.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_heuristic.pdf

[11] Millikan, R. A., Einsteins Photoelectric Equation and Contact Electromotive Force, Phys. Rev. 7, 18-32, (1916). This is the first of two papers on photoelectricity published in 1916; see Figure 2 with only two measurements with lithium. http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Millikan_1916_1.pdf [12] Millikan, R. A., Direct Photoelectric Determination of Plancks h, Phys. Rev. pp. 355-88 (1916) http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Millikan_1916_2.p df Interestingly, Millikan does not present the sodium and lithium data on a single graph probably because the slopes are slightly different. The following linear regression equations were obtained using his data. For lithium V0 = 0.4126 f 3.593, from 1st paper published in 1916 For lithium V0 = 0.4223 f 3.922, from 2nd paper published in 1916 For sodium V0 = 0.4069 f 4.288, from 2nd paper published in 1916 [13] Laxmanan, V., The Average Net Worth of Billionaires in Different Countries, Published March 5, 2014, http://www.scribd.com/doc/210746319/The-Average-Billionaire-NetWorth-in-Different-Countries-A-Partial-List-of-Forbes-2014-billionaires [14] Laxmanan, V., On Billionaires and Wealth Generation, Published March 6, 2014, http://www.scribd.com/doc/210980525/On-Billionaires-andWealth-Generation-A-Broad-Generalization-of-Einstein-s-WorkFunction-Outside-Physics [15] Wilcox, J., and Junnarkar, S., Government to Judge, Breakup Microsoft, April 28, 2000, http://news.cnet.com/Government-to-judge-Break-upMicrosoft/2100-1001_3-239867.html

Page 17 of 20

[16] Breaking up Microsoft, The Economist, June 8, 2000, http://www.economist.com/node/315474 [17] Ingram, M., US Judge Orders Breakup of Microsoft, June 9, 2000, http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/06/micr-j09.html [18] Barrett, V., Time to Breakup Microsoft? August 12, 2010, http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0830/outfront-microsoft-excelballmer-computers-break-it-up.html [19] Laxmanan, V., We can all learn from Bill Gates, Published March 7, 2014, http://www.scribd.com/doc/211146461/We-Can-All-Learn-From-BillGates [20] Planck, M. The Quantum Hypothesis, in Great Experiments in Physics, Morris H. Shamos (Ed.), Dover Publications (1959) pp. 301-314. [21] Planck, M, Nobel Lecture: The Genesis and Present State of Development of the Quantum Theory". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2013. Web. 23 Feb 2014. < http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/plancklecture.html >

[22] C. A. Gearhart, Planck, the Quantum, and Historians, Phys. Perspect. 4 (2002) 170215 http://employees.csbsju.edu/cgearhart/Planck/PQH.pdf [23] Badino, M., The Odd Couple: Boltzmann, Planck and the application of statistics to physics (1900-1913), pp. 17 to 27 (30 to 40 of 374) in Conference on History of Quantum Physics, Preprint 350 (2008). Excellent discussion of Boltzmann's 1877 paper, Planck's 1900 and subsequent papers, and also the Ehrenfest and Kammerlingh Ones (1915) arguments to explain the meaning of Plancks R in the expression for S. [24] Laxmanan, V., Money in Economics is Just Like Energy in Physics, Extending Plancks law beyond Physics, Published January 14, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/120324960/Money-in-Economics-is-Justlike-Energy-in-Physics-Extending-Planck-s-law-beyond-Physics [25] Adrien Marie Legendre, On Least Squares, Quoted here from the introduction, If there are the same number of equations as unknowns, there is no difficulty in determining the unknowns, and the error E can be made absolutely zero. But more often the number of equations is greater than that of the unknowns and it is impossible to do away with
Page 18 of 20

[26] [27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31] [32]

all the errors. In a situation of this sort of all the principles which can be proposed for that purpose, I think there is none more general, more exact, and more easy of application, that of which we made use in the preceding researches, and which consists of rendering the sum of squares of the errors a minimum. By this means, there is established among the errors a sort of equilibrium which, preventing the extremes from exerting an undue influence, is very well fitted to reveal that state of the system which most nearly approaches the truth. http://www.stat.ucla.edu/history/legendre.pdf ; see nice worked example here, http://academic.sun.ac.za/mathed/174WG/LeastSquares.pdf S. M. Stigler, The History of Statistics: Measurement of Uncertainty Before 1900, Harvard Univ. Press (1986), S. E. Feinberg, A Brief History of Statistics, http://unileipzig.de/~strimmer/lab/courses/ss09/currenttopics/download/fienberg1992.pdf Johannes Kepler and the Door Science: Discovery of Ceres, http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Asteroid.html R. Miller In Mathematics of Planet Earth, article on Asteroids, see discussion about least squares methods and Legendre-Gauss priority dispute and the earths close encounter with an asteroid earlier in 2013, http://mpe2013.org/2013/02/20/asteroids/ J. Tennenbaum and B. Director, How Gauss Determined the Orbit of Ceres? p. 4, 19 observations over 42 days from Jan 1 to Feb 12, 1801, after which Ceres disappeared http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_9701/982_orbit_ceres.pdf L. Weiss, Gauss and Ceres, History of Mathematics Term Paper, Spring 1999, describes the method of least squares used by Gauss. http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~cherlin/History/Papers1999/weiss.html G. F. Serio, A. Manara, P. Sicoli, Giuseppe Piazzi and the Discovery of Ceres, http://www.lpi.usra.edu/books/AsteroidsIII/pdf/3027.pdf Laxmanan, V., Bibliography I of Articles by V. Laxmanan on the Extension of Plancks and Einsteins Ideas on Energy Quantum to Topics Outside Physics, compiled April 16, 2013,
Page 19 of 20

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136492067/Bibliography-I-Articles-onthe-Extension-of-Planck-s-Ideas-and-Einstein-s-Ideas-on-EnergyQuantum-to-topics-Outside-Physics-by-V-Laxmanan [33] Laxmanan, V., Bibliography II of Articles by V. Laxmanan on the Extension of Plancks and Einsteins Ideas Beyond Physics with Examples from the observations on financial, economic, social, and political systems, compiled June 16, 2013,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/147955814/Bibliography-II-of-V-Laxmanan-Articleson-the-Extension-of-Planck%E2%80%99s-and-Einstein%E2%80%99s-IdeasBeyond-Physics-with-Examples-from-the-Observations-on-Finan

Page 20 of 20