The Trillionaire’s Club of Nations Is the US National Debt Out of Control?

V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.
A Trillionaire’s Club, which includes 13 countries, is conceived here based on the GDP values for 2012 (data compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit, see The Economist, global debt clock). The countries that make up this first Trillionaire’s Club of 2013 are, in order of decreasing GDP, USA, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Brazil, Italy, Russia, India, Canada, Mexico, and Australia. The analysis of the GDP-Debt data for this Trillionaire’s Club reveals that the current, astoundingly large, US national debt ($16.829 trillion on April 30, 2013), relative to its GDP, is, statistically speaking, fully consistent with the debt and GDP values of other members of this Trillionaire’s Club of nations.

Utica, Michigan


The Trillionaire’s Club of Nations Is US National Debt Out of Control?
§1. Summary
A Trillionaire’s Club, which includes 13 countries, is conceived here based on the GDP values for 2012 (compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit, see The Economist, global debt clock). The countries that make this first Trillionaire’s Club for 2013 are, in order of decreasing GDP, USA, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Brazil, Italy, Russia, India, Canada, Mexico, and Australia. An analysis of the GDP-Debt data for this Trillionaire’s Club reveals that the current, astoundingly large, US national debt ($16.829 trillion on April 30, 2013), relative to its GDP, is, statistically speaking, entirely consistent with the debt and GDP values of other members of this Trillionaire’s Club of nations.

**************************************************** Table 1: The Trillionaire’s Club of Nations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Average

USA China Japan Germany France UK Brazil Italy Russia India Canada Mexico Australia

Debt/GDP [%] 100 (y/x)
69.8 15.5 215.8 82.1 87.1 87.7 54.3 120.3 8.2 49.0 87.2 35.6 36.9

GDP, x $ trillions
15.202 7.729 5.887 3.406 2.636 2.383 2.298 2.084 1.805 1.794 1.712 1.076 1.068 3.775

Debt, y $, trillions
10.611 1.198 12.704 2.796 2.296 2.090 1.248 2.507 0.148 0.879 1.493 0.383 0.394 2.981

Data source: The global debt clock, The Economist (click here)
Page | 1

Table of Contents
§ No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Topic Summary Introduction Brief Comments on Methodology Analysis of the Trillionaire Club GDP-Debt Einstein’s work function outside physics Conclusions Reference List Page No. 1 2 3 6 18 24 26

§2. Introduction
How do we tell if the US national debt, which now stands at $16.829 T, as of April 30, 2013, is out of control and unsustainable, as some believe? Is there a “scientific” basis for such a conclusion? Enter now the Trillionaire Club of nations. Every year, Forbes publishes its annual billionaires list (click here) during the month of March, see Refs. [1-9]. The 2013 list includes a total of 1426 billionaires, worldwide, distributed over 64 countries; see also the list by Hurun [10,11]. The aggregate net worth of all the world’s billionaires is $5,431,810,000,000, or $5.432 trillion. The US heads the list with 442 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1,872.5 billion ($1.872 trillion) and an average net worth of $4.236 billion. There are no trillionaires, yet. The world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecom tycoon, is worth $73 billion, or less than one-tenth of one trillion. I have analyzed the billionaires’ net worth data and published several articles on this topic recently; see Refs. [12-14]; see detailed bibliography in Ref. [15]. Thus, following up on this, I have now put together a list of countries whose net worth, as measured by the GDP, exceeds $1 T (trillion), see Table 1.

Page | 2

1981 it is $997.183. The current US public debt. see website of The Economist. 2011 was. 2013).90 or $16.064 trillion (the senior George Bush was President). see Ref. Brief Comments on Methodology The methodology that we will use to analyze the GDP-Debt observations.034 billion). the highest in the planet.066 trillion (Obama’s first term).507 trillion (George W Bush was President) and had doubled again by Sep 30. a bit more dispassionately. The US national debt crossed the $1 T mark for the first time in 1981. 2012 when it was $16. using a more scientific approach.142. The US Bureau of Public Debt gives a figure of $14. will be able to make sense of this article Page | 3 . is $16.There are only 13 countries in this Trillionaire’s Club. Anyone with a high school education.855 billion and on Sep 30. §3. following the near total collapse of the economy due to the financial crisis of 2008? We are now in a position to answer this question.829 trillion. to the penny (as of April 30.202 trillion and a total public debt of $10. It had more than quadrupled by Sep 30. as many like to think. 1982 it was 1. The US heads this list with an annual 2012 GDP of $15. Since we are interested in understanding the implications of the US national debt levels.611. 2005 when it was $8. after President Reagan took office (on Sep 30.845. which is higher the figure given by the EIU and The Economist for 2012. albeit for a single year (2012). y = hx + c. Is the US national debt out of control. is a very simple and transparent one. based on the GDP for 2012. in a step-by-step manner. with the ability to read an x-y graph and/or the willingness to learn how to derive the numerical values of the constants h and c in the equation for a straight line.495. especially in these troubled times. we will first prepare a x-y scatter plot and then analyze the trends observed. [16]. 1992 when it was $4.790 trillion for Sep 30. which was obtained the data compiled by the Economics Intelligence Unit. It had more than doubled by Sep 30. by analyzing the Debt-GDP data for our Trillionaire’s Group. see the global debt clock (click here). instead of merely partisan political arguments.828.

Interestingly. Page | 4 . notably by Phillip Lenard and other contemporary physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century. The following steps have been taken in the analysis. we will use classical linear regression analysis to study the trends. 2. Since we are interested in understanding the US debt in relation to other countries of the Trillionaire Club. This is the topic of § 5. the same year that Einstein provided a theoretical explanation for certain puzzling observations. and China. The above is covered in the next section.and then understand the implications of the Reinhart-Rogoff (RR) findings and more importantly the call for austerity. The main conclusions are then summarized in §6. §4. based on the idea of a “work function” conceived by Einstein in 1905 to explain the experimental observations on photoelectricity. Finally. US. The same idea of a work function is also shown to emerge naturally when we analyze the batting statistics of an exceptional baseball player like the legendary Babe Ruth. Exclude all three. we will: 1. an entirely new methodology is proposed. with or without RR. Japan. Accordingly. This is illustrated in Figure A and separated from the rest of the discussion. First exclude Japan (very high debt) and China (very low debt) from the analysis to see how the US debt compares with the other 10 countries. to explore the GDP-Debt relation observed with the smaller countries (with GDP less than $5 trillion with Germany having the highest GDP in this subgroup). Lenard received his Nobel Prize in 1905. Include Japan and China to see if the conclusions are changed significantly. 3.

00 (xm .50 2. The generally upward and rising trend in GDP and the Debt can be described mathematically by the “best-fit” line.00 3. (The German mathematician Gauss.00 0.00 1.119x .00 0.00 5. In our example here.755) r2 = 0. The formula for the slope.026. (x m .119 (x – 0. The vertical deviations of the individual points from the best-fit line (y – yb) will change and hence the square of these deviations (or “errors” as Legendre puts it) will change. x [$. claimed priority after Legendre published his paper. as discussed by Prof. Trillions] 2. Now let us see how the presence of the three large countries affects this analysis.845 = 1.) The best-fit line always passes through the point (xm . y [$.00 GDP. along with a worked example.50 0. ym) where xm and ym are the “mean”. Miller in his recent note on asteroids and their orbits. a contemporary. ym ) y = 1.50 1. Trillions] Figure A: The GDP-Debt diagram for the 10 smaller countries of the Trillionaire Club of nations with a GDP of less than $5 trillion. described by Legendre in a paper published in 1805.50 3.00 2.423) and is highlighted by the solid blue dot.00 4. Germany has the highest GDP and also the highest debt in this group. 1. or “average” values of x and y in the data set. Imagine a free pivoting of the best-fit line about this “mean point”. see Page 1.0. Page | 5 . ym) = (2.00 Debt. The method of least squares adjusts the slope h to minimize the sum of all these errors. is given in the references cited.3. determined using (linear) least squares regression.6746 Type I Behavior 1.

Not surprisingly. The Debt-GDP diagrams for several countries in our list. taken together. Trillions] 12. Canada. reveals a nice upward trend with the Debt y increasing as the GDP x increases. This is consistent with the linear law relating the debt and the GDP as discussed in three recent articles on this topic. Germany.00 6. China. the data for the Trillionaires group.00 GDP.00 10. We observe exactly the same linear relation if we consider the multi-year data for a single country in the Trillionaires group.00 20. [17. y [$. Japan.00 Debt.00 14.§4. Trillions] Page | 6 .00 16. 16. [17-19]. Brazil. Analysis of the Trillionaires Club GDP-Debt Data Consider the x-y scatter plot in Figure 1 which is nothing more than a graphical representation of the data that has been tabulated here. and Australia have already been presented in Refs.00 Japan 012 USA 8. see Refs. for USA.19]. x [$.00 12.00 8.00 0.00 China 4.00 2.00 4.00 0.

Trillions] Figure 1b: Graphical representation of the Debt-GDP data for the 10 countries with GDP less than $5 Trillion. Trillions] 2. USA.50 Germany France UK Debt. Nonetheless both these countries reveal the same linear law. for the period 2002-2012 are presented in Figures 2 and 3 here. As further examples.3% in 2002 reaching a maximum of 61.00 2. The upward trend is more clearly evident here.50 Canada Brazil 1. and Japan are the Page | 7 . The Debt/GDP ratio for India.00 GDP.00 0. varied from 59.00 India 0. the Debt-GDP diagrams for Italy and India. The top three countries. on the other hand. and Japan being the exceptional cases.50 3. x [$.50 Russia 2. 3. USA.00 Italy 2.3% in 2012. China.00 0.00 3. A nice upward trend is seen here with three countries.50 Mexico Australia 0. y = hx +c relating the Debt y and the GDP x. y [$. using an expanded scale.5% in 2003 and then decreased to a low of 49% in 2012.Figure 1a: Graphical representation of the Debt-GDP data for the Trillionaires’ Club (2012) of nations.00 1.50 4. Italy had a Debt/GDP ratio ranging from a low of 100. The only difference lies in the numerical values of the constants h and c.00 1.3% in 2004 to a high of 120.50 1. China.

1%. see further discussion in Refs.00 1. Italy is close to this limit now with a Debt/GDP ratio of 120.00 1.9113. Italy follows what has been called the Type I behavior (h > 0.50 3.50 0. Page | 8 . 3.19]) with a positive slope h and a negative intercept c.00 GDP. The best-fit line through the data is determined using the method of least squares.221 – (0.50 1. A crisis may be looming unless something fundamentally changes (usually this means a change in the intercept c.234/x) will keep on increasing as the GDP x increases. line up on a vertical line with debt levels increasing from Russia (lowest debt of the Trillionaire Club) to Canada.00 -0. This means the Debt/GDP ratio y/x = h + (c/x) = 1.exceptional cases. y [$.221 or 122.00 0. c < 0.3% in 2012. Trillions] Figure 2: The Debt-GDP diagram for Italy (2002-2012).00 2.50 1.00 Italy (2002-2012) Debt.221x . and Canada.50 3.234/x) increases as we move up this Type I line to larger GDP values. Refs.50 2.21]. with r2 = 0. Trillions] 2. with nearly the same GDP.9113 Type I Behavior 0.50 y = 1.221 – (0. and has the equation y = 1. [20. x [$. Russia.00 0. we will discuss this point shortly in §4).221x – 0.234 r2 = 0.50 2. The Debt/GDP ratio y/x = 1.234.0. India. [17. The limiting value of the Debt/GDP ratio is equal to the slope h = 1.

we find the batting stats following the law y = x + c where x is the number of At Bats (AB) and y the number of Hits (H) and the constant c has values of 0. with a Debt/GDP ratio of 120.8 r2 = 0. with a Debt/GDP ratio of Page | 9 .9829. The limiting value of the Debt/GDP ratio equals the slope h = 0.8. indicating the number of missed hits. x [$.21]. Refs. like Italy. i.221 or 122.3%. India is also very close to this in 2012.The limiting value of the Debt/GDP ratio equals the slope h = 1. The best-fit line through the data is determined using the method of least squares.1%. [20. 1200 1000 Debt. y [$.449 + (113. as discussed in detail in Ref. and has the equation y = 0. -1. Italy is very close to this limit in 2012.23].449 or 44. Further increases in the GDP are only possible if Italy is able to change the slope h and/or change the intercept c. [19] using the analogy of batting performance in baseball [22.. with r2 = 0.449x + 113.8/x) decreases as we move up this Type II line to larger GDP values. The Debt/GDP ratio y/x = 0.449x + 113. Again. If we analyze the player’s game-by-game batting logs. Billions] Figure 3: The Debt-GDP diagram for India (2002-2012).9%.9829 Type II Behavior 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 GDP. the ‘economic work function’. Billions] India (2002-2012) 800 600 400 200 y = 0. -2 etc.e.

the ‘economic work function’. is Page | 10 . relative to its GDP.00 0.9588 Type I Behavior 8.00 6. Now. Indeed.00 8.00 Without China and Japan (In 2012) (xm . Further increases in the GDP are only possible if India is able to change the slope h and/or change the intercept c. let us now reconsider the single year data for the Trillionaire’s Club of nations.00 4. Against this background. In other words. see Figure 4.751 trillion versus the actual value of $10. y) pairs for Japan and China which are clearly “outliers”.00 20.709 (x – 10.709x – 0. Trillions] Figure 4: The Debt-GDP diagram for the Trillionaires’ Club (2012) of nations with the best-fit line determined by excluding the (x.00 2. Since Japan (high debt relative to its GDP) and China (low debt relative to its GDP) are both exceptions.00 16.00 Debt. The US data can be seen to fall practically on this best-fit line.e.00 GDP. the current US national debt.709x – 0. Billions] 12. x [$. y [$.00 12. This yields a Type I best-fit line with the equation y = 0. i.751) r2 = 0.49%.611 trillion). 16.00 10.00 0..00 14.0272 with r2 = 0.00 4. let us exclude these two countries from the linear regression analysis. we find that the US data point falls practically on this best-fit line.0272 = 0. ym ) y = 0.9588. the US debt is slightly lower than predicted by the best-fit equation ($10.

981 T Without China and Japan: (xm. Hence. Adding or subtracting points from the data set will change the mean values. Here y is the actual observed value and yb the theoretical value on the best-fit line.423 T How do we fix the values of h and c? Imagine a “best-fit” line which is allowed to pivot around the “average” point. where h is the slope of the best line and c the intercept made on the y-axis. This can only be ascertained by re-determining h and c by including ALL the members of the Trillionaires Club in the regression analysis. The vertical deviations (y – yb) of each point from the “best-fit” line will change as the line pivots. ym) = $2.21]). All 13 members: (xm. The solid blue dot in Figure 4 is the “mean” point without China and Japan. The mathematical formula for the best-fit line “adjusts” by the slope h to render a minimum the sum of the squares of the vertical deviations from this line (see Refs. For example we get the following results for the “mean” point if we exclude China and Japan and then also exclude USA. ym) = $3. As we know. ym = hxm + c. $2.259 T Without US. ym) where xm and ym are the “mean” or “average” values of the x and y values in the data set. This is illustrated. this may also be an artifact of the methodology that has been used to determine the slope h of the best-fit line. $2. Page | 11 . $1. they counteract each other and do not affect the slope h significantly.026 T.775 T.224 T. the best-fit line always passes through the point (xm. China and Japan: (xm. in Figure 5.statistically speaking. ym) = $3. [20. Of course. after re-computing. Let me explain. entirely consistent with the Debt and GDP levels of the remaining members of the Trillionaire’s Club of nations. perhaps. The US data thus does have an undue influence on the slope of the best-fit line since the position of the “mean” is affected by the US data. Since China and Japan lie on opposite sides of the best-fit line deduced at this stage.

when he introduces this method. compared to the best-fit line prediction of $16. the slope h has also increased and the best-fit line has pivoted away from the US and Chinese data points towards the Japanese data point. This is illustrated in Figure 6. The US data now falls significantly below the recomputed best-fit line.Indeed. statistically speaking. Hence. Legendre states the least squares methods recommends itself not only because it is a simple and elegant method (mathematically speaking) but also because it will reduce the influence of “extreme” values in the data set. according to the Economic Intelligence Unit. Once again. relative to its GDP. this means that. it is of interest to note that in his famous 1805 paper. ym). Correspondingly. in order to assess the influence of the US data. the US national debt is entirely consistent with the Debt and GDP levels of the remaining members of the Trillionaire’s Club of nations. Page | 12 . the intercept c now has a small negative value. In fact. the US national debt is significantly lower than the predicted values ($10. compared to the $5T Club. let us now exclude it and again and re-determine the best-fit line considering only the remaining ten countries in the Trillionaires group.611 T in 2012.173 T). With the re-positioning of the average point (xm .

Page | 13 . Billions] 12. which means the best-fit line has pivoted to accommodate the Japanese data point much more than the Chinese data point.716x + 0.00 4.00 14.00 4. y [$. With the re-positioning of the average point (xm . Trillions] Figure 5: The Debt-GDP diagram for the Trillionaires’ Club (2012) of nations with the best-fit line determined by INCLUDING ALL 13 members.00 GDP. ym).16.5047 Type II Behavior 2.00 12. ym ) y = 0.00 0.278 r2 = 0. Correspondingly.00 20.00 8. statistically speaking. x [$.00 All 13 countries (in 2012) Debt.00 16.00 0. Again. the slope h has increased slightly. the intercept c now has a small positive value instead of a negative value.00 6.00 10.00 (xm . the US national debt is entirely consistent with the Debt and GDP levels of the remaining members of the Trillionaire’s Club of nations. relative to its GDP. this means that.00 8. The US data now falls slightly below the best-fit line.

This comparison of the US national debt data with the debt and GDP data for the 10 members with GDP of under $5 T also reveals another remarkable feature of this GDP-Debt relation.00 20.26 for the US-China line is very nearly the same as the slope h = 1.611 – 1. The best-fit line indicated here was determined by considering only the 10 members with a GDP of less than $5 trillion.11 for the best-fit line through the data for the smaller economies (< $5T) of the Trillionaires Club. y) pairs for China and the USA seem to fall roughly along a parallel to the new best-fit line in Figure 6.202 – 7.16.00 16.675 Type I Behavior 4. Notice that the (x.00 Debt. Japan.00 GDP. x [$. Billions] 12. The slope and intercept of the US-China line is: Slope h = (y2 – y1)/(x2 – x1) = (10.00 6.00 4.698)/(15.00 2.00 14.00 10. Trillions] Figure 6: The Debt-GDP diagram with focus on the $5T Club (under $5T).00 0.00 Under $5 T Club 10 countries (in 2012) y = 1.1119x – 0.2596 Intercept c = (y1 .00 8.00 12. How does one assess this? Page | 14 .8.729) = 1. China.845 r2 = 0. and USA are excluded.00 0. y [$.00 8.hx1) = (y2 – hx2) = .538 The slope h = 1.

16.00 0.00 Debt.1119x – 0.119x + 6.00 10. as illustrated in Figure 7. one can envision a PERFECT set of parallels to the best-fit line through each of the (x. Indeed. The parallel through China is not shown in Figure 7 but look at how close the Chinese (x. China and USA fall on a line that is roughly parallel.406 where the intercept c is obtained from c = y – hx with h = 1.00 14. Japan is the “odd” Uncle in the Trillionaire Club. the parallel through the Japanese point has the equation y = 1. the slope of the best-fit line and (x.00 0 2 4 6 y = 1. Billions] Japan 12. This statistical “outlier” can now be rationalized by introducing the idea of a family of parallels with the general equation y = hx + c with c having a different value for each member of Page | 15 . Japan. and the US. Trillions] Figure 7: The Debt-GDP diagram with a series of parallels to the best-fit line (solid line) determined by considering only the 10 members with a GDP of less than $5 trillion.00 2.00 4.00 6.845 r2 = 0.00 8. The parallel through the US data point has the equation y = 1.675 Type I Behavior USA China 8 10 12 14 16 18 GDP. y) = (15.114. y [$. This means the US-China line is indeed “roughly” parallel to the best –fit line. 10.119.611) being the (GDP. y) pairs for China. Likewise.202. y) pair is to the parallel through the US data point.119x – 6. Debt) values for US. x [$.

and use just any two (x.00 1. The slope h is fixed by considering the (x.00 3.808 India-UK Type I Behavior 0. where the data for the 10 countries with GDP under $5T was plotted.055x – 2. To quote. Billions] 3. and more easy of application.the Trillionaire Club and “h” being the best-fit slope deduced for the large majority (mostly the smaller GDP members).00 0. y) pairs for Mexico and Italy are yield the same slope h.50 1.00 2. one can abandon statistical arguments.00 y = 2. This is now illustrated in Figure 8. such as the least squares regression analysis.11 for the best-fit line through all the 10 data points. that of which we have Page | 16 . if one examines Figure 1b carefully.50 0. x [$. This new slope is considerably steeper than the slope h = 1. y) pairs to determine the equation for a system of parallels through the data set.00 Debt. Or.00 1. “Of all the principles that can proposed.50 2.079x – 1.00 GDP. It is also worth reviewing Legendre’s introductory remarks in his 1805 paper (click here). y) pairs. Trillions] Figure 8a: The Debt-GDP diagram with a series of parallels. there is none more general. more exact. it is easy to envision a series of parallels connecting various (x. Indeed. y) pairs for India and UK.50 3.826 Mexico-Italy Type I Behavior 2. 4. completely. The (x. y [$.00 y = 2.

as has been done here. By this means. It is also remarkable that Legendre mentions “finding the truth about the state of the system” whereas the popular perception now is that statistics is often associated with lies and cheating to confuse or to bolster weak arguments (see quote attributed to British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. The difficulties with the method of least squares are also obvious. the 13 members of the Trillionaire Club. there are other methods of solving the same problem of finding “the truth” about the “state of the system” while guarding against the “extremes from exerting undue influence”. the alternative view being proposed here. and which consists of rendering the sum of squares of the errors a minimum. the key point is “of all principles”. One often excludes “outliers”. is indeed consistent with the debt and GDP levels for the other members of this Trillionaire Club. in general).) However. as made clear in the title. In other words. This alternative view is illustrated now in Figure 8. “There are three types of lies: lies.made use in the preceding researches. perhaps. as noted by Legendre. (This was the main purpose of this article. and statistics” (click here). is very well suited to reveal the state of the system which most nearly approaches the truth. However. there is established among the errors a sort of equilibrium which. preventing the extremes from exerting undue influence. Can we really do that? How does the “outlier” change the story? Is this to be done selectively? Where does the truth really lie? Since we are dealing with a special grouping countries. after allowing for the higher GDP level.” This is a remarkable statement which offers the philosophical justification for the use of the method of least squares (and statistical methods. This also leads to the conclusion that the US national debt. damned lies. and others. Although widely used and easy to apply. it also suffers from the defect of being subject to data manipulation. the right way to analyze this GDP-Debt data is to INCLUDE ALL members. that of imposing a series of parallels on to the data set (provided there is some justification for the Page | 17 . as done in Figure 5.

These two parallels are included in Figure 8. Thus. For those (especially non-Americans) who may be not be familiar with the sport of baseball.079). the Japanese GDP has NOT stopped growing. What is the significance of these parallels? §5. emerging and vibrant economies on the planet. Indeed. is an elite club of nations and represents some of the most advanced. that we can invoke to understand the significance of these parallels. there is another example.66%) with the debt growing from $5. One can likewise show that Russia and Brazil fall on a line that is “roughly” parallel to these two lines (h = 2. or 49. we find that India and UK (h = 2. the photoelectricity experiments. Likewise. fall on almost PERFECT parallels. We will discuss this immediately after the baseball example. the other members of this Trillionaires Club represent fast growing and emerging economies and are also the home to the world’s richest individuals according to the Forbes lists mentioned in the introduction.765 T to $12.709T in 2012.055). Einstein’s Work Function Outside Physics The Trillionaire Club.897T in 2012 (GDP growth measured by ∆x/x = 0.choice of the (x. like the Forbes billionaires Club.23).942 T in 2002 to $5. also recommends itself for reasons that will become obvious when we discuss the idea of a “work function” in the next section. y) pairs used to fix the slope h).4966. and Mexico and Italy (h = 2. It increased from $3. Although Japan is burdened with debt (crippling debt as some would say and certainly well above the Reinhart-Rogoff threshold of 90% Debt/GDP ratio). after careful examination. we will now compare the Debt-GDP data for this Trillionaire group with the batting stats for an elite baseball player: the legendary Babe Ruth. Page | 18 .

swings his bat. Babe Ruth achieved the highest (single season) batting average of 0. and hits the ball. Page | 19 . receives the pitch. just like a batsman hitting a boundary (worth 4 runs) or a sixer (worth 6 runs) in the game of cricket (strictly. faces the pitcher. 4) 4 (6. That is called a home run. The entire stadium rises and roars to celebrate a home run.7 y=x 6 Number of Hits. 1) 1 0 0 1 ) ) 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number of At Bats. especially when he wanted to wipe out a lead and make a charge up the leaderboard. ‘boundary’ means 4s and 6s). as they say. Sometimes he hits it so powerfully that the ball is hurled way way out of the field. very popular in the rest of the world. 2) 2 (1. on every par 5 hole. y 5 (4. invariably. and is a feat worth celebrating in baseball.394 = 205/520 in this season with 41 homers and 205 hits. x Figure 9: The movement of Babe Ruth’s game-by-game batting data (hits for the 1923 season) along parallels is illustrated here. especially a home run from a legend like Babe Ruth. 3) 3 y = x -1 (2. with immaculate timing and precision. 5) (3. A great player like Babe Ruth appears on the “plate”. It is like the “eagles” that Tiger Woods used to make in his heyday. and tremendous power.

If we study the game-by-game batting logs for Babe Ruth. 3). for any season (see more detailed discussion of his 1923 season. being related to the number of missing hits. For these games y = hx + c = x – 1 where again h = 1 and c = -1 is related to the number of missing hits. etc. 2). Ruth had scores of (2. And. For Ruth. This is also the reason for the legendary status of Babe Ruth. (5. The more he batted the better he seemed to get. see Figure 9. and the intercept c = 0. and then the data for a whole season. y = hx + c = x – 2 and h = 1 and c = . y = mx where m = y/x = BA = 1. Ruth had scores of (1. Babe Ruth would thus have a PERFECT batting average BA = H/AB = 1/1 = 2/2 = 3/3 = 4/4 = 1. (2.2 where c is again related to the missing hits. the slope of the line. For these games. (3. When we deal with the economies. In baseball it is hits (or home runs) and At Bats. (3. such as the Trillionaire Club here. In other games. 2). the game-by-game batting stats can be viewed as a series of parallels all having a slope h = 1. in some other games. it is Debt and GDP. we will find (x. we can analyze the home run (HR) stats. Likewise. we see the data falling nicely on an upward sloping straight line with the general equation y = hx +c where the batting BA = y/x = h + (c/x) will either increase or decrease as the number of At Bats x increases. the slope h in the linear law tells us about the rate of increase of some observable y when another observable x increases. (1. 1). -2.23]). for a legendary player like Babe Ruth. 1). 5). In other words. 3) and even (6. c < 0 and so his BA kept increasing as AB increased. (3. Figure 9. Refs. (4. 2). In short. Why the term “work function”? Page | 20 . [22. If we start aggregating the game-by-game stats into monthly data. (4. (2. the PERFECT value. (4. In other words. 0). y) scores like (0. the nonzero c is Babe Ruth’s “work function” which is related to the ‘difficulty” of producing hits in baseball. The nonzero c can be thought of as a generalized work function.000.000 in these games. Thus. The HRs are even more difficult to produce than hits and so h < 1 for the HR stats. 4) where the first number x is the number of At Bats (AB) and the second number y is the number of Hits (H). 0). -1. 3) and so on. The limiting value of the BA equals h. 0). 1).

entropy. this means K = hf – W = h(f – f0) where f0 is the cut-off frequency below which no electrons are produced and W = hf0 is thus the minimum photon energy needed to produce an electron. The photons strike electrons which are present inside the metal surface. see also Millikan’s introduction of Einstein’s equation in Ref. When light shines on the surface of a metals. see reference list. the K-f graph will be a series of parallels. Ah. [35]. called the photoelectric law: K = ε – W where “W” is the “work function”. Refs. in this 1905 paper. Einstein used a simplified version of Plank’s blackbody radiation law (enunciated just a few years ago in in December 1900) to describe the quantum nature of radiation in the form of light. and temperature with light radiation. So. After associating concepts such as energy. Energy is exchanged between the photon and the electron which is then knocked out of the metal and can be collected and made to flow in an external circuit.W having different values depending on the nature of the metal surface (see figure 5. if we study this photoelectricity phenomenon by shining light of different colors (or frequencies) on the surface of different metals. [24-45]. according to Planck.This idea of a work function was first conceived by Einstein and all the English translations of his famous 1905 paper use the term “work function” to describe the nonzero intercept c in his photoelectric law. Einstein simplified this entire complex phenomenon by writing the following simple law. Einstein first showed that light can be thought of as a stream of particles (now called photons) each having an energy equal to the elementary energy quantum ε. Very briefly. The maximum energy K of the electron will be less than ε because some energy must be given up to do the work needed to overcome the forces that bind the electron to the metal. a characteristic of the metal upon which light is shining. isn’t this just like the missing hits in baseball that we just discussed? Page | 21 . [37]). Ref. where “h” is a universal constant (now called the Planck constant) and f is the frequency of the radiation (here visible light). Modern photocells work on this principle. with the intercept c = . Since ε = hf. photons with energy ε bombard its surface. conceived by Planck in December 1900.

of the famous lithium-ion batteries all around us. [15] and Ref. did exactly the experiments just described with two metals (lithium.922 in 2nd paper of 1916 (five data points) For sodium.4069f – 4. in 2nd paper of 1916 (six data points) Millikan reports the values of V0 instead of K. the Planck constant. [46]. and then reports the “average” value of “h”.288. called the oil drop experiments). Millikan was able to determine the maximum value of K for the electrons produced in his experiments. or Babe Ruth’s work function.4223f – 3. My statistical analysis of Millikan’s raw data (which can be found in his 1916 papers on photoelectricity. the American physicist and Nobel laureate. see also articles on Air Tran in the bibliography. on the rate of creation of billionaires in a population. and sodium. tells us something about the ‘difficulty” of producing hits or home runs. Page | 22 . Robert Millikan. V0 = 0. Ref. For lithium: V0 = 0. Einstein’s work function tells us something about the “difficulty” of producing “free” electrons from inside a metal. By measuring this stopping potential accurately. the numerical value of the slope of the V0-f graph equals h/q and the Planck constant “h” could be determined since “q” was known (measured in other independent experiments. It should be noted that Millikan does NOT use regression analysis. the nonzero c. [34-36] and Millikan’s Nobel lecture for the citations. He simply considers a number of (x. y) pairs on the graph to determine the slope “h”. V0 = 0.4126f – 3. click here) yields the following regression equations for lithium and sodium.The missing hits. Thus. The regression equations for sodium and lithium given below can be shown to be consistent with the value of “h” deduced by Millikan. see Refs. Indeed.593 in 1st paper of 1916 (two data points) For lithium. present in common salt) and showed the K-f graph is a straight line and also that the slope was roughly constant and had the same value for both metals. The kinetic energy K = qV0 where “q” is the absolute magnitude of the electrical charge on a single electron and V0 is called the stopping potential.

00 16.Notice that there are slight differences in the numerical values of the slopes.00 8. Page | 23 . The difference in the slopes of h = 1.00 Japan 10. based on well established “laws”.00 12.00 20. Indeed. x [$. Trillions] 15. y [$.00 China 0.00 USA 5. or in K-f graphs in the experiments of Millikan! 20. The US-China line is assumed to define the slope h and Japan is assumed to fall on a parallel to this line with a higher (more positive) value of the nonzero intercept c.11 observed here with the GDP-Debt data is therefore to be viewed in the same light. from the perspective of the three largest economies.00 0.00 Unified View of the Trillionaire Club Debt. We are indeed observing a movement along “parallels” in the GDP-Debt diagrams just like we observe in the batting stats of a player like Ruth.00 GDP. All the other countries can then be seen to line up along parallels with slightly different work functions. the 10 countries with GDP of less than $5T can now be seen to have virtually the same work function. What constitutes this work function? That is for professional economists to discuss and formulate policies – much like scientists and engineers “design” various engines and other devices. Trillions] Figure 10: The GDP-Debt diagram for the Trillionaire’s Club.00 4.25 and h = 1.

Japan is the only ‘odd’ man out here and so is China. A recent study shows that such extreme austerity measures have indeed been socially injurious. The differences arise from what has been suggested here as the “work function”. [17-19]. The seemingly Page | 24 . see also the viewpoint illustrated in Figure 10. Type I behavior) whereas his Yankee team mate Lou Gehrig’s stats reveal a positive intercept (c > 0. The US national debt. Babe Ruth’s stats reveal a negative intercept (c < 0. over the entire range of Debt/GDP ratios from as low as 7% (Russia in 2008) or 8% (Kazakhstan in 2008) to as high as 215. no threshold Debt/GDP ratio that stifles GDP growth. Type II). this now brings us to the end of our story. determines the position of the country on the Debt-GDP diagrams. Everything is country specific and depends on the “work function” of a country which determines where it is found in a system of parallels that can be envisioned to describe this problem on the GDP-Debt diagram. The “economic work function”. 3) The earlier conclusion.. both GDP and Debt having been rising (during the period 2002-2012) in all leading economies studied. is confirmed again here with the analysis of the US debt and GDP relative to other members of the Trillionaires Club. [50]. Refs. the value of the nonzero intercept. The numerical value of c thus depends on the skill of the baseball player. In conclusion: 1) It appears that we must take a hard look at the present worldwide concerns about the debt and the persistent calls for ‘austerity’ and the reduction of the national debt by fiscally conservative politicians. of great concern to many (essentially the fiscal conservatives). especially the cuts to health care. see Ref. The Type I and Type II behaviors observed here with the GDP-Debt data are exactly analogous. viz. in a way. is seen to be fully consistent with the debt levels observed for other countries of the Trillionaire Club once we properly account for the differences in the GDP levels.And.5% (Japan in 2012). 2) As also discussed in the companion articles on the GDP-Debt relations. The linear law means that there is no threshold and no stifling in the growth as posited by Reinhart-Rogoff.

is seen to be entirely consistent with the GDP and debt levels of the economies of the Trillionaires Club of nations. The same applies to many other observations. y) observations fall on a PERFECT straight line. y) pairs from his graphs for sodium and lithium (V0-f graphs) and finds the slopes. He does NOT exhaustively determine all the 10 slopes for sodium (with 5 points on the graph) and 15 slopes for lithium (with 6 points on the graph). Further research will no doubt shed light on what policies can be formulated and/or encouraged to beneficially alter the “work function”. with a third hand also introduced often to triangulate every complex issue of great societal concern. “Lies. the most important finding here is: Even if all of our (x. Although it is not explicitly stated. and statistics” perceptions can be overcome and there is no need for the “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” gestures practiced by economists. 4) The idea of an “economic work function” discussed here (by invoking the analogies to baseball batting stats and the photoelectric work function of Einstein) in relation to the Debt-GDP problem merits the attention of all economists. based on his knowledge of how accurately V0 and f were determined in the individual experiments. 5) The slope h in the GDP-Debt diagrams can be fixed with just two of the most reliable observations. fast approaching the $17T level. 6) The Reinhart-Rogoff errors debate got me interested and I have offered the discussion here as a concerned non-economist. Millikan chooses a few (x. it appears that Millikan is using his most reliable measurements of the slope.astronomical US national debt. damned lies. Perhaps. As noted in the discussion both the Debt/GDP ratio for both Italy and India seems to be approaching the limiting value of h. This is also what we can learn from Millikan’s determination of the universal constant called the Planck constant “h” from his experiments with lithium and sodium to confirm Einstein’s law. the most general law is y = hx + c and hence the ratio y/x = h + (c/x) is not a constant and can either increase or Page | 25 . the slope of the Debt-GDP graph and further increases in the GDP (and accompanying Debt) is only possible by changing the work function and/or the slope h of the graph.

2013. http://www. Mapping the wealth of the world’s richest.S. 2013. http://www.5 Billion. three times more than the combined wealth of billionaires from the rest of the 3.5 billion. March 13. March 9. $572. March 22.forbes. which have a total of 129 billionaires. by Edwin Durgy. in Legendre’s noble goal. If we exclude Carlos Slim. Average Billionaire Net Worth by Country: Full List. The Richest People on the Planet 2013. 5. http://www.forbes. http://www.forbes. 2013. by Ricardo Geromel. is $4. Reference List 1.9 billion. while the average fortune of a billionaire from any other country in the Americas is $4.forbes. the world’s richest with an estimated net worth of $73 billion. Those 442 ultra-rich from the U.2 billion.forbes. Mapping the wealth of the world’s billionaires. March 22. 2013. There are 442 billionaires with citizenship from the United States. made all the more worse by the general misperception of “statistics”. was meant to “find the truth”.872. March 4. more than in any other country in the world and even more than in all the other countries in The Americas Page | 26 .S. http://www. by Ricardo Forbes’ Map of Billionaires in the Americas.forbes. by Luisa Kroll. own a combined wealth of $1. the average net worth of American billionaires from countries other than the US drops to $ 2. by Luisa Kroll. The World’s Billionaires. The failure to recognize this linear law is usually at the root of many bewildering observations and needless controversies. Inside the world’s billionaires: Facts and Figures. which. http://www. The average fortune of a billionaire from the U.4 billion.decrease as x increases as we move up or down the line. by Luisa Kroll and Kerry A Dolan.

September 27.hurun.html see also http://www. March 23. which was downloaded. Hurun Global Rich List. The full list of the 30 richest men in 1918 may be found on page 15 of 17 of this article. Provides combined net worth data for each country.forbes. sorted by country of citizenship. and analyzed to prepare this 8.scribd. http://www. 2013.68 B) and the average net worth was $0. 2002.000 ($3. http://www. http://www. Provides combined net worth data for each Planck’s description of entropy and the Generalization of Planck’s expression for the average energy U is discussed along with a brief discussion of Einstein’s work function. http://www. Average Net Worth of the Forbes 2013 Billionaires: Summary of Regional Analysis. The Empirical Evidence for Entropy outside Physics. by Ricardo Geromel. 7. by Arik Hesseldahl and Claudia DeMairo. 2013. http://www.666. April 1. by Ricardo Geromel. Page | 27 . 2013.forbes.forbes.666). 12.hurun.680.aspx 11.scribd. Special Issue. Profiles of the Top 20 Billionaires on pages 86 to 9. Forbes’ Map of Billionaires of Latin America.123 B ($122. Published April The First Rich Fuller discussion of entropy and Planck’s average energy expression. 10. Forbes’ Billionaires Asia-Pacific Map. The Hurun Report. Published March 24.html The combined fortune of the 30 richest was $3. Forbes Billionaires. 2013. 2013 http://www.aspx A Microsoft Excel with the full list of 1453 billionaires is available at this March 22.

scribd. English Translation of the original paper http://www. then monthly statement of debt and find Debt to the Penny in the left side bar. A Brief Survey of the Debt-GDP Relations for Some Modern 21st Century The Average Net Worth of the Top 10 Billionaires in a Country.york. x2 and xy. see worked example given http://hotmath. Compiled on April 16. is given below. http://www. The debt on April 30. http://www.495. with xm and ym denoting the “mean” or “average” values of x and y in the data set. 2013. http://www.html The formula for h used in this example is an actually approximate one and was used. Published May 1.183. 17. 2013.845.scribd.pdf 19. 2013. Bureau of Public 16.scribd. before the advent of modern computers.829 trillion. and ym = hxm + c since the “bestfit” line always passes through the point (xm . Bibliography. Line of Best-Fit. y.scribd. The exact 18. 2013. Least Squares Method. 2013. Articles on Extension of Planck’s Ideas and Einstein’s Ideas beyond Click on Treasury Direct.scribd. Published April 28. An MIT Non-Economist’s View of the Harvard-UMass Debt/GDP Ratio and Economic Growth Debate. Page | 28 . Published March Published April 26. http://www. http://www. ym).14.90 or $16. http://www. On Least Squares. Iceland Votes Against Austerity: Analysis of Iceland’s Debt-GDP. since it only involves the determination of x2 and xy and the sum of all the values of x. 2013 was $16.

using the regression equation. (x – xm) and (y – ym). 25. 2013. Max Planck: The Quantum Hypothesis.yb)2. Shamos.scribd. 306. English translation of the original paper by Max Planck with brief explanatory notes by Shamos. 185.. 301-314. Dover Publications (1959).. This gives the denominator in the expression for h. Maxwell's principle of. The sum of these squares is a minimum. 2013.. See quantum hypothesis. 22.{ ∑(y. pp. To be Published April 23. or “average”. nature of. 307.ym)2 } is a measure of the strength of the correlation between x and y (or y/x versus x). Determine the product (x – xm)(y – ym) and their sum. rectilinear propagation of. For a perfect correlation. determine the predicted value yb on the best-fit line and the vertical deviation (y – yb) and the squares (y. 216-217. The regression coefficient r2 = 1 . http://www. 216 radioactivity.scribd. http://www. editions Firsthand Accounts from Galileo to Einstein Morris H. Then. Babe Ruth’s 1923 Batting Statistics and Einstein’s Work 24.Preview .. Great Experiment in Physics: Firsthand Accounts from Galileo to . Published April Morris H.yb)2 / ∑(y. Page | 29 . Shamos . This also fixes the intercept c via ym = hxm = c . density of. This can be checked by assigning other values for h (using any two points) and allowing the graph to pivot around (xm. Babe Ruth Batting Statistics and Einstein’s Work Function.Page 367 books. Determine the square (x – xm)2 and the sum. and atomic . Edited by Morris H. Max radiation. This gives the numerator in the expression for h. in Great Experiments in Physics.1959 . ym). Shamos . r2 = +1.h = ∑ (x – xm)(y – ym)/ ∑ (x – xm)2 Determine the deviations of the individual x and y values from the “mean”. when all points lie exactly on the graph.. .

htm Max Planck: The Reluctant Revolutionary.) A Brief biography of Max Planck. Einstein.pdf Page | 30 .edu/~krasny/math156_article_planck. December 2000. In Perspective.princeton.ub. by Helge Kragh.lsa.umich. by A. equations 8 and 9 on page 188 and page 202.pdf 32. by Clayton A. http://www. see equation 7 on page 186 for total number of complexions. by Daniel Kleppner and Roman Jackiw. the expressions given here and Boltzmann’s example of now entropy arises. Princeton Univ. by Chapters 9 to 15 (case studies IV and V) and also chapters under Case Study II (Maxwell equations and electromagnetism) are highly recommended and cover the Planck and Einstein laws which are actually founded upon Maxwell’s work. Gearhart. http://www. Paper One Hundred Years of Quantum Physics. 4 (2002).pdf Planck. 31-35. 31. http://employees. On a heuristic point of view about the creation and conversion of http://cosweb1.pdf see discussion of Boltzmann’s definition of entropy starting page ck+shamos+quantum+hypothesis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2HVcUbfTGaC0QGl9YCQBg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=planck%20shamos% 20quantum%20hypothesis&f=false (The original text of Planck’s December 1900 paper may be found by clicking on the link given here. 28. http://books. Press (1998). http://www. pp. 27. On a heuristic point of view concerning the production and transformation of S. Also. in Einstein’s Miraculous Year: Five Papers that changed the face of physics.html Theoretical concepts in physics. Longair. Physics World. 29. 30. the Quantum and Historians.fau. 1905. Cambridge University Press (1984). http://press. Einstein’s original paper which showed light can be viewed as particles with fixed energy quanta. equations 5 and 6 on page 182.

nobelprize. Rev. VII No. Millikan provides only two data points (V0 and f values) for the experiments with lithium metal. by Philip Lenard.pdf 35.pdf More detailed experiments with lithium (5 data points) and sodium (6 data points) are presented in this second paper. by Dwight E. for experiments with sodium. May 28. pp. Vol. The straight line graph for photoelectric experiments confirms Einstein’s law. The electron and light quant from experimental point of view. published in 1916. A Direct Photoelectric determination of the Planck’s “h”. /The%20Photoelectric%20Effect%20-%20m213. VII. http://tap. and the Photoelectric Effect. Vol.sigmapisigma. Einstein’s Photoelectric Equation and Contact Electromotive Force. A. (click here) Phys. http://www. 18-32. 3 (1916). by Robert A Project PhysNet. Entropy. by Robert Millikan.pdf See sketch on page 5 showing parallel lines (K-f graph) for sodium and potassium. by Gerald Holton.33. No. The Photoelectric Effect. Nobel Lecture. 1 (1916).pdf 39. pp. Focus: Centennial Focus. Second Series. Millikan (click here). 23 (1999). see Figure 4 on page http://www. http://www. http://physics.umontreal.ifsc. by R.. Phys. April 40. Brandl.iop. Phys.pdf 34. Rev. n-lecture. by M. The Millikan experiment to verify the Photoelectric relationship. On Cathode Rays.pdf Page | 31 . May 23. Focus 3. 37. Excellent discussion about how Einstein arrives at his conception of light quanta from the property called entropy possessed by radiation in the form light. The slope of the graph gives the universal Planck constant “h”.org/radiations/2004/elegant_connections_f04. In this first paper. Second Series.aps. Millikan’s Measurement of the Planck constant. 1999. 38. 36.usp. one of the fundamental constants of nature. also published in 1916. 1906. Nobel Lecture. Neuenschwander. 355-390 http://mapageweb. Einstein’s Quanta.nobelprize.

The Hypothesis of Light Quanta and the Photoelectric http://physics.html Photoelectric Effect. Page | 32 .41.kutl. [42].htm The following schematic diagrams are copied from Ref.kyushu-u.

2012. Dean E. 50. What is Entropy? June 3. Ford.reuters. http://www.lib. depression and infectious diseases and reducing access to medicines and care.scribd. Bowen (Purdue University.scribd. April 28. Purdue University. 44. by Dr. Introduction to the generalized statement of Planck’s radiation law and application to describe the maximum point on the profits-revenues graph of a company (the “old”. Headley (Wichita State 49. Millikan’s experiment discussion and regression equations for lithium and 45.purdue. driving suicide. 2013. Brent D.scribd. http://www. Austerity is hurting our health. 2013. Page | 33 .43. April 8. Airline Quality Rating Austerity is having a devastating effect on health in Europe and North 46. 2013. GM. 2012. College of Technology) and Dr. Discussion of example given by Boltzmann in 1877 http://www. researchers said on Monday. Money in Economics is Just like Energy in Physics: Extending Planck’s Law Beyond Physics. Published April 18. Airline Quality Report: An Analysis of On-Time Percentages. by Kate Kelland. Reuters. 2013. Rate of Creation of Billionaires: Analysis of 2013 Forbes Billionaires list. http://www.scribd. Planck’s Blackbody Radiation law rederived for more general case. Frank Barton School of Business) http://docs. W. Yahoo). Airline Quality Report 2013: An Analysis of On-Time Percentages. http://www. Published April 18. May 30. 2013. say researchers. http://www. Published Jan 14.scribd.

This led to a simple model to explain the growth of dendritic structures in both the groundbased experiments and in the space shuttle experiments. USA. Case Western Reserve University (CWRU). Einstein applied Planck’s ideas to describe the photoelectric effect (by treating light as being composed of particles called photons.e. This extends (to financial and economic systems) the mathematical arguments used by Max Planck to develop quantum physics using the analogy Energy = Money. He holds four patents in materials processing. energy in physics is like money in economics. The author obtained his Bachelor’s degree (B.About the author V. followed by a Master’s (S.) in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Poona and his Master’s degree (M. and..) degrees in Materials Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Laxmanan. E. MA. E. and General Motors Research and Development Center in Warren.) and Doctoral (Sc. production of snowflakes!). Allied Chemical Corporate R & D. has co-authored two books and published several scientific papers in leading peer-reviewed international journals.). now part of Honeywell. D.g. More recently. freezing of water. i. He then spent his entire professional career at leading US research institutions (MIT. yes. D. referred to here as the generalized power-exponential law. like structures (called dendrites) widely observed in many types of liquid-to-solid phase transformations (e.. MI). or snowflake. M. also in Mechanical Engineering. The mathematical law deduced by Planck. Sc. NASA. he has been interested in the analysis of the large volumes of data from financial and economic systems and has developed what may be called the Quantum Business Model (QBM). each with the fixed quantum of energy conceived by Planck). His expertise includes developing simple mathematical models to explain the behavior of complex systems. Cambridge. freezing of all commercial metals and alloys. might Page | 34 . Bangalore. he was responsible for developing material processing experiments to be performed aboard the space shuttle and developed a simple mathematical model to explain the growth Christmas-tree. While at NASA and CWRU. from the Indian Institute of Science.

Robert Solow (1987 Nobel Prize in economics). who was Chairman of Corporate Research Review Committee. Finance. Cover page of AirTran 2000 Annual Report Can you see that plane flying above the tall tree tops that make a nearly perfect circle? It requires a great deal of imagination to see and to photograph it. Page | 35 . Robert Schrieffer (1972 Physics Nobel Prize). business. Einstein’s photoelectric law is a simple linear law and was deduced from Planck’s non-linear law for describing blackbody radiation. during my professional career. 1986) and second at GM Research Labs to Prof.actually have many applications far beyond blackbody radiation studies where it was first conceived. who was the Chairman of the Schrieffer Committee appointed to review NASA’s space flight experiments (following the loss of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28. appointed by GM corporate management. I also twice had the opportunity and great honor to make presentations to two Nobel laureates: first at NASA to Prof. Finally. It appears that financial and economic systems can be modeled using a similar approach. economics and management sciences now essentially seem to operate like astronomy and physics before the advent of Kepler and Newton.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful