Prompt: Topic of you choice.
I like to think that I am both a physicist and an economist. According to XKCD, a web comic, #435 "Purity", physicists are the purist of practical scientists. We identify patterns in the behavior of particles and predict interactions. My dad -- a Finance professor -- says that economists are the physicists of human nature. We identify patters in human behavior and predict choices and reactions. On the tennis court, I am constantly, albeit subconsciously, calculating the angular momentum of the ball, envisioning velocity vectors, and analyzing trajectories. At the same time, I apply a risk/return ratio to determine my shot selection and use proper capital allocation to decide how much energy to expend sprinting to my opponent's shot. My on-court research has also found that my coach calls me a nerd every 45 minutes, on average. It's this love, of creating and using theories in my everyday life that has attracted me to physics and economics.
As I entered my teenage years, I was introduced to the perfection that is physics when my Algebra 2 teacher took me to a public lecture by a prominent physicist, Sir Roger Penrose. At first our relationship was little more than a crush; physics was way out of my league. But I wanted to be worthy of her, so I devoured book after book about physics from relativity to quantum theory. For more than two years I knew that I wanted to study physics in college and beyond. As I broadened my reading, I saw that physics was not only beautiful, but also had vast potential contributions to solving critical world problems.
I first read into economics during freshman year just so that I had fundamentals with which to argue the virtues of Ayn Rand's objectivism with my father. That egotistical phase passed within a few months, but the interest in economics endured. Although not as mathematically aesthetic, I was nevertheless captivated by economics ultimate goal; to model rational human behavior. Again, I began to read - economics textbooks furnished by my in-house Professor and juicy Opinion Editorials discussing the issues with current perspectives. For a few years, I felt like I could model and improve the world using just physics and economics. One discipline studied natural matter, and the other studied rational people; ironically, the basics of capitalism itself.
My passion in physics led me through a rigorous application process for a summer internship at Reed College's Research Reactor. I landed this dream job. Over three months, I learned about nuclear physics and helped develop a new research apparatus at the facility - Prompt Gamma Neutron Activation Analysis. The most thought-provoking part of the experience, however, was not directly related to the physics. The reactor director, through lunch-time discussions, introduced me to the concept of social limits on science, especially in regards to nuclear power. I was shocked to learn about the level of skepticism the general population held as to the related safety and costs. Sure, there were major issues 30 years ago, but science had tackled most of them. Why wasn't nuclear power being debated, especially in the midst of the domestic energy crisis, as a potential safe, cheap, and sustainable alternative energy source? Throughout my relationship with science, I never fathomed that promising technologies could be thwarted by anything other than flaws in their science.
Frequenting economics seminars and public lectures, I came across a thought that began to deal with the broader issue. My favorite Op-Ed writer, the Nobel Laureate Economist Paul Krugman asserted that empirical science could only be implemented as much as society allowed. The critical issue with a venture, he argued, was at times not its scientific or economic viability, but rather how well its proponents could push through social irrationalities.
Chewing on that thought, this past summer I sought to test the resistance on science for myself. I worked on a research paper analyzing the viability of nuclear power taking into account the scientific and economic factors. Officially, the paper sought to conclude whether or not nuclear power was ready for a renaissance. In my mind though, I had a deeper, provocative question: if nuclear power is ready, why isn't it in use? Fortunately, my findings assured me that physics and the economics were almost perfect. However, my personal conclusion heartbreakingly confirmed that there were in fact visceral human behaviors that did not allow science to effect maximum progress.
These enlightenments have shown me that everything is connected; science, although objective, is not independent. It has to play to the whims of some social irrationalities. Still, I have tremendous respect for the beauty and relief many find in literature, religion, and art - my violin is an invaluable friend and I find much support from my Sikh faith. I would like to weave the three spheres of academia; science, social science, and humanities. Now, I believe that an inter-disciplinary study into physics, economics, and the human condition will empower me to advance the cause of science; to empower society.
Its a daunting endeavor, of course. I have tried calculating the probability of success to analyze whether the venture is worth the initial investment, but I am stuck on one variable; will I launch from University of Pennsylvania?
