How much do we value our physicists?

Some banknotes carry pictures of great physicists. It seems obvious to conduct an investigation using this data to find out how much we value them. Research can be carried out by finding what denomination a country uses for its physicists and using some simple currency conversions. All discussions of the relative merits of physicists have so far ignored this data. Newton, so often the baseline of physics greatness, was once represented on the English one-pound note. Although he has since been shredded and replaced by coins we will use the Newton as our base unit of currency, where one Newton is equal to one pound [those making a dimensional analysis should remember we are talking about currency].

At this point the research becomes interesting because an (only slightly varying) constant emerges. The Danes value Bohr at 42 Newtons, whilst the Austrians consider Schrödinger to be worth 46 Newtons. Obviously, as with all quantum physics effects, those spending Schrödingers (as well as anyone who has retired) will find that when you have money to spend there is not time, and when you have the time there is no money to spend.

These figures clearly show a trend that all physicists trade at about 45 Newtons. And they also seem to show how much the UK has undervalued Newton. However, this result may well be a feature of a newly suggested inverse square law of being famous, that the longer ago you lived the less important you seem. Physicists are working hard to reconcile this with the 'never famous before you are dead' postulate.

More data is needed. With Marie Curie on the 500 French Franc note, one Curie is worth 48 Newtons, supporting the theory. However, Pierre Curie also appeared on this note so Marie can only really be valued at 24 Newtons. Quite how two physicists superpose in their currency valuations is unknown by theorists.

Appearing on two notes also raises questions about the effect on value of working in several countries. The idea is yet to be fully formulated, but it would be nice if it were exponential.

Certainly the fact that New Zealand's hero Rutherford has been represented on the one hundred dollar note, valuing him at 28 Newtons, adds to the idea of an attenuation coefficient.

There also seem to be transient effects on value, resulting from the personality of the physicist involved. It seems entirely appropriate that the mercurial Tesla should be represented by the ten billion dollar Yugoslavian note, which was nevertheless worth almost nothing.

But of course any discussions of great physicists always involve Einstein. Amazingly he has been seen represented on the Israeli five-pound note, valuing him at about 0.08 Newtons. Before rushing off, in support of the great man, to prove that this is clearly a relativistic aberration, just pause. Perhaps calculating your salary in Einsteins could be really rather good for morale...

More about physicists on money can be found at www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/

Philip Britton
Head of Physics, Leeds Grammar School, UK