Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:15, 14 December 2005

Discussion Page: leave your notes, comments, and feedback for Libb Thims (username: wavesmikey) below:

DISCUSSION: Human Thermodynamics - Pseudoscience or Science?

Please feel free to leave me comments in this section; communication is fundamental!

Part A

• I see that you’ve removed my link from the thermodynamics article. Out of courtesy, do you think you could tell me what ‘jumped’ out at you on the website as pseudoscience? I have no doubt that what you say is true; I'm only requesting for you to elaborate a bit, so I can better understand your perspective for my future reference. Thanks:--Libb Thims 05:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You asked me to comment on why I think the "Human Thermodynamics" link is pseudoscience and not appropriate for wikipedia. Well, before we talk about pseudoscience, the first thing that jumped out at me is that the page seems to be, in essence, an advertisement. Because of this, even if it were considered genuine science it wouldn't really be appropriate as a link from wikipedia, (especially due to the fact that the page asks many questions, and answers nothing). As for the conclusion of pseudoscience, where do I begin? As I was scrolling down the page, the first thing I noticed was the interchanging of words with precise scientific meanings, (i.e. "bond," "energy," "reaction," "hot"), with their everyday meanings or referring to things which would not fit the scientific definition at all, which is one of the cornerstones of pseudoscience.

   "Of course human beings obey the laws of thermodynamics like everything else in the universe" 

But this website and the books it is advertising are trying to apply some equations which only describe large systems of microscopic particles to analogous situations between human beings, just because the everyday and scientific words involved happen to correspond, (in English). I'm sure the book is an entertaining read, actually, but it is not science. Ed Sanville 05:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Part B

• Ed, thanks for taking the time to respond; your insight is greatly acknowledged and appreciated. I agree with your viewpoint; and as such, I am content to have your decision stand. Sometimes when one is changing or adding to something that requires multiple inputs, such as adding a questionable link to an encyclopedia, it becomes difficult to read or anticipate the general framework of the other person’s mind or point of view. My general philosophy is such that if one person disagrees or reacts negatively to something, then so to will others. In this light, rather than instilling resistance, I instead tend to go with the flow, and then later decisively try to understand why such a response occurred in the first place, in the general scheme of things.

• You are not the first person to use the word ‘pseudoscience’, and I can certainly understand this perspective. Presently, I am at a cross between writing for the layperson, i.e. people who get light-headed when they see one equation, and writing for the hardcore science-minded person. The website currently is geared towards the former; being that, I’ve noticed, dumbed-down publications tend to have higher sales potential. If you’ve ever tried to explain thermodynamics, a topic typically considered to be a ‘weeder’ course by chemical engineering standards, to the average person you’ll know what I’m talking about. My goal is to sell 200,000 copies on such a topic. My fear is that if the application is presented in too technical or mathematical a manner that it will be too obscure to sell well. Anyway, by dumbing-down my presentation, as I have been forced to do, owing to financial constraints, I am resultantly losing a lot of sharp people, as yourself.

• Hopefully soon, down the road, I will have time to script an advanced all-equations version of the same topic, replete with full top-to-bottom derivation, as based on the works and papers of the founders, fully sourced down to the last equality and presumption .

• Just to give you a quick gist of where I’m going with this new topic, aside from graviton interactions, which no one seems to know anything about, all facets of human life, can be boiled down into photon, electron, and nuclei interactions.

• Knowing this simplicity,

1. first, according to definition, for hypothetical purposes, we can define each of the six billion entities known as ‘human’ to be bound states of protons, neutrons, and electrons; or more definitively we can define each of these quantities to be a ‘large’ biomolecule, of individual varying uniqueness according to elemental composition, being characterized by his or her own unique molecular formula.
2. Second, using various mass composition tables we can approximate a typical molecular formula for such a quantity, and define it as the average formula for one human molecule.
3. Third, using the combined bonding concepts inherent within both particle physics and quantum electrodynamics, which dictate that bonds hold owing to an overbalance of attraction to repulsion, characterized by reactionary movement patterns, owing to previous field particle absorptions, as pictorially described via Feynman diagrams, we can postulate a theory of human bonding, in which the biomolecular quantities, i.e. human molecules, in question are held together, in proximal location, to each other, in various arraignments, forming and breaking over time, according to what are called psycho-neuro-thermo-dynamic bonds, being, in each case, underlyingly photon mediated in atomic/molecular description and mechanism. Such bonds are quantifiable via energy absorbing and / or releasing exchanges, as emotional, physical, visual, sensual, financial, mental, etc.; as can be recored, videotaped, and measured.

• The simplest example is the ocular sense: it takes five photons to trigger a nerve impulse . Thus, for example, if you see an attractive person, via thermal-mediated photon absorptions in the 11:12 carbon-carbon bond of specific retinal molecules at the posterior of your eye, being conjoined with neurological processing (generated nerve impulses in the optic nerve), you are resultantly dynamically compelled, however slightly, consciously or not, towards that person. The same description holds for the repulsive case, as well as for all of the body’s sensory inputs (only each mechanism becomes more complicated). Accordingly, via these descriptions, we have a hypothetical theory of human bonding:

Mechanism of Bonding - when attraction, related to field particle exchange (direct or indirect), outweighs repulsion, related to field particle exchange (direct or indirect), then those ‘attached’ matter-particles (as bound state human molecules), are held in place – as if an apparent ‘bond’ were in existence .

• Video recorded long-term psychological studies show that a 5:1 ratio of attraction-to-repulsion, defined accordingly by all facets of mate interactions as physical and neurological (combined), is needed to hold newly married couples together. When this ratio breaches 5:2 or more, as correlated to actual measured married ‘couples’ and their patterns of stability down the road, it is found that divorce typically ensues .

• In this manner, using the aforementioned modeling scheme, if you, as an advanced-intelligence, were to view us from a great distance in space, we would have what you could call a ‘large system of microscopic particles’, being freely mobile over the substrate 'earth', whose horizontal interactions are governed by electromagnetic force, and whose verticle interactions are governed by the gravitational force.

• Obviously, the actual mathematical proof in justifying these hypotheses is immensely more complicated than this, however, this was only meant to give you a quick overview of a new way of looking at things (from one wikipedian to another). If you have any interest in working on any joint wikipedia projects with me, please let me know; also if you have any personal thoughts on the potential application of thermodynamics to human life, I am currently collecting and searching for these types of articles from a consortium of world-wide well-seasoned and accredited thermo-writers to be published at the following link Journal of Human Thermodynamics, a JHT work-n-progress.

• Also, for you to know about (so to see if you feel it needs to me removed as a link) I've attached an external link to the second law of thermodynamics page which connects to a chronological and historical list of 75+ variations of the second law (with a fun poll included). I work on increasing this list monthly (i.e., when I find more definitions). Hopefully, you will not view this list to be some form of false science? Thanks: --Libb Thims 21:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. sorry for clogging up you user page; feel free to delete this whole discussion after you read it.

Well, your responses are definitely more scientific than the actual website itself, but are tantalizing in their lack of detail. As I'm sure you know, molecular thermodynamics can be derived from statistical mechanics by making the assumptions that conservation of energy applies, microstates with equal energy have equal probabilities at equilibrium, and that the chaotic nature of any given system can be circumvented by making the assumption that large groups of microstates vastly different in their microscopic detail can be treated as macroscopically identical due to the averaging effects of having large numbers of particles. The problem with applying that logic to humans, (this is my opinion), is that humans and life in general aren't anywhere near equilibrium at any given time, and that the last part also can't necessarily be assumed. So, even though the humans all obey the same mechanical laws as molecular microstates, I think it remains to be shown that humans can be treated in a statistical way with anywhere near the same accuracy as molecules themselves. I'm just curious, when you deal with humans in a statistical way, how can you possibly apply something like Coulomb's Law to anything they do? I will agree that it's true that everything that occurs in the universe boils down to one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, (and that with life it's mostly the electromagnetic force at work), but rather than being a system that's simple to model, it's more like a huge version of that board game "Mousetrap," where one thing triggers another thing, triggers another thing, etc... I guess the biggest argument for my position is that physicists still have a HARD time describing such a "simple" system as liquid water, and you're talking about an entire society of human beings! Ed Sanville 19:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Part C

• Ed, thanks for the feedback! Your inputs are greatly appreciated. Upfront, let me state frankly that I assume that the full application, development, and confirmation of thermodynamics into the sphere of human activities will not be fully complete for many years (100-200 years possibly). Presently, however, there is no working model on such a topic; only a scattering of paragraphs, papers, ideas, and chapters all with no firm structural basis. Thus, my aims at present are to get such a fully-functionable, testable, and workable, top-to-bottom, full-derived model in place, as based on the work of the founders: Carnot, Helmholtz, Clausius, and Gibbs. Once such a model is going than certainly refinements and better model formulation will be needed.

• So, although, I feel that there certainly are better, more qualified people out there, than myself, if no one else is going to bother making such an attempt, than I am somewhat forced into this position. From my collected research, that I am aware of, there are perhaps a dozen or so people working in this direction presently; but these are all scattered compositions. Thus, I am working presently to pull all of these researchers into one group, then as a team to drive the science engine forward a bit.

• Regarding your equilibrium concerns, this seems to be a long standing discussion. I’m presently compiling a list of definitions on all varieties of equilibrium (see: equilibrium list under-construction). Following your line of reasoning, as you stated, certainly human life is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. Hence, the question remains which branch of thermodynamics is applicable to human life:

1. equilibrium
2. near-equilibrium
3. far-from-equilibrium
4. another variety of such?

• If we go back to the original 1608 definition of equilibrium , where we can imagine two quantities of mass positioned on either side of a scale, we can see that equilibrium, in this case, has to do with situations in which opposing gravitational forces are in balance. If they were out of equilibrium, as in water falling off a waterfall, then you would have ‘movement’ (dynamics). The trick is that in human life it’s the horizontal electromagnetic force that we’re dealing with. When it’s stable, social systems seem balanced, but when it tips (a tipping point), the out of balance electromagnetic force causes radical movements and ‘changes’ in social systems, occupational systems, or relationship systems, etc., which continue in time until a relative balance in forces is re-established (post-transition: social equilibrium, new job stabilization, or second marriage equilibrium, etc.).

• Thus, we can approximate human life to be a loose combination of Quasistatic Equilibrium – a process in which a system goes through a succession of equilibrium states + Punctuated Equilibrium – evolution that is characterized by long periods of stability in the characteristics of an organism and short periods of rapid change during which new forms appear especially from small sub populations of the ancestral form in restricted parts of its geographic range.

• The Russian physical chemist and thermodynamic researcher Georgi Gladyshev, puts forward a fairly good theoretical argument for these types of justifications via what is called the law of temporal hierarchies which justifies the application of Gibbsian thermodynamics to biospheric processes (i.e. Hierarchical Thermodynamics); in which we can theorize that humans are large supramolecular structures governed by the principle that the Gibbs function of formation will tend to a minimum over the course of both ontogeny and phylogeny (see Journal of Entropy Article: Thermodynamic Theory of Biological Evolution). Conversely, if one were so inclined, we may also theorize about human life processes from the near equilibrium point of view, as Eric Schneider has done in his new book Into the Cool – Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life where we may theorize that humans are non-equilibrium thermodynamic dissipative structures whose purpose in life is to degrade gradients (see: the Into the Cool website). Or we may follow the Progoginean far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics route, where we may theorize that humans are an evolved from of Bénard cells (see Prigogine's Nobel Lecture 1977). In human thermodynamics, as a division of study, it will be our intention to compare and contrast each of the above routes. However, to jump to the punchline, once you begin to deconstruct each of these frameworks, you will see that, for numerous reasons, only the full scale Gibbs thermodynamics, energy / mass balance principles, and 1st Law conservation stipulations applied to a system and its surroundings will hold.

• A basis of this Gibbsian quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics is to define semi-equilibrium states according to similar lifecycle reaction times, by what is called Gladyshev’s Law, where thermodynamic systems are grouped via similar reaction life cycles. For example, bacteria reacting 'systems' have a reaction time of minutes whereas human reacting 'systems' have a reaction time of years; thus, each can seperately be considered to be a quasi-closed system relatively speaking, each being punctuated or set out of equilibrium with each new molecular species input. For example, the addition of one new person (chemical species) into the 'reacting system', as in a new co-worker at your workplace, functions to introduce a new chemical potential, thereby offseting the equilibrium of existing structure. To clarify, each person carries with them a certain electromagnetic 'potential' to form or break any of various bonds, i.e. to do things with their life; this gets augmented depending on location, just as a rock has more gravitational 'potential' the higher up on a cliff it is. Other phenomena may offset the existing equilibrium as well: geological / climate change (ex. earthquake, drought, etc.), or solar (thermal) input change (i.e. sunspot activity), etc. In this manner, one can confidently break up the biosphere into subsystems found to be in relative equilibrium; yet connected (earth-to-sun), these subsystems form a full ecosystem/solarsystem defined to be out of equilibrium, in the general scheme of things . See below:

• Furthermore, in human life specifically, I’ve polled numberous individuals on this topic, and in general people believe that about 70% of the average person’s life will be found in equilibrium, relatively speaking (i.e. stable). The other 30% fall into the ‘transition’ phases, ‘out-of-control’ phases, or unanticipated (chaotic) phases of a person’s life. Much more work is need in this area.

• Regarding your Coulomb's Law concerns you’re certainly on the right track. However, Coulomb’s Law is a specialized case for two proximal point charges in open space, sperated by a distance . For this situation, we draw hypothetical Gaussian spherical surfaces around each point charge and then apply the appropriate Maxwell field equation, where through a few calculations we arrive at an equation for the electromagnetic force being only applicable for this very simplistic situation (a repulsive force if the charges are the same and an attractive force if the charges are opposite). When the charged shapes become more irregular, one has to begin making approximations; as for example around the edges of a parallel plate capacitor (i.e. two charged sheets). Beyond the simple shapes as: rods, spheres, and cylinders, etc., the calculations become more difficult. In the human case, we’re talking about over 10E28 point charges (protons & electrons) arranged into the 3-dimensional configuration of life as we know it. Thus, we must, at first, approach the subject indirectly using approximations and simplifications.

• In this direction, this part took me some years to figure out. Generally, when I started on this path, it was clearly believed, as we all know, that certain people have ‘good’ chemistry together. Beyond this little was said. Thus, in my mind, hypothetically, I knew that one could loosely write a very crude human chemical reaction in terms of reactants and products as:

Man (meets) Women → (produces) Child

• Also, I knew from chemical engineering that the Gibbs free energy equation is used to effectively calculate the spontaneity (or outcome) of chemical reactions for various reacting molecular structures, ranging in size from hydrogen gas (a one element molecule) to larger reacting structures as Coenzyme A (a six element molecule) as would be made, formed, or synthesized in what is called a continuous stirred tank reactor . Essentially, a bunch of chemicals (typically 5-10 elements or various molecules) are put in a cylindrical vat, which is heated from the bottom, and stirred over time, so to yield products. In the human case, by analogy, I envisioned the earth to be big CSTR. Essentially, a bunch of chemicals (93 elements + molecules) are put into a ‘spherical’ vat (the biogeochemical sphere), which is heated at a variable rate (1370 Watts/meters-squared of solar flux at the earth-space boundary; plus the sun expands by so much every billion years), and stirred over time (at age = 1 billion years the earth rotated once on its axis every 10hrs, now it rotates once per 24hrs; and further the rotating magnetic core functions as stirring agitator), so to yield products (evolution). Beyond this, however, for a number of years, the whole thing just stood as complete blank to me?

• In time, I came to find that various people were making connections between human ‘intelligence’ and entropy and others between romantic ‘love’ (successful bonding) and free energy . The enthalpy connections remained a mystery to me for some time; eventually, by reading lots of evolutionary psychology books (about 50), I figured out a reasonable picture.

• One puzzle, that remained strange for me was that for many years I had neglected the male/female married ‘couple’ component in my calculations as based on the fact that it is known that the path towards a final state of a thermodynamic system is irrelevant; all that matters is the instantaneous moments of ‘final’ state (new child is created) and ‘initial’ state (man meets women); i.e., the choice of various possible in between paths do not effect the final calculation of free energy change (for the 33yrs/generation reaction). Thus, when I started theorizing I assumed that the state of the system (as defined by total bonding arrangements of the system in questions and the organizational configuration of the system in question ) would be defined by the instantaneous moment when a compatible couple first started to interact (exchange field particles); and that the final state would be the instantaneous moment when their child was capable of going off on its own (I assumed a child age of 15 and a reaction time of 18 years). Somewhere in between these before and after moments, I assumed that the parents died (say accidentally in a plane crash), so to simplify the calculation.

• Eventually, however, I was forced into including the 'married couple' into the final state of the basic human chemical reaction as:

Mx + Fy → MxFy + Bc

• where Mx = man, Fy = women, MxFy = married couple, and Bc = Baby/child. At this point, the problem becomes: What ‘force’ is holding the married couple together?

i.e. MxFy = Mx(force)Fy?

• In this direction, for some time, the entire thing was mystery for me. Eventually, however, I began to apply hybrid molecular orbital theory to human bonding; meaning that his and her social ‘orbitals’ had to initially overlap, in order to 'spark' the possible or potential bonding phase of the dating interactions (thermal sensory exchanges). This solved part of problem. Latter, after I started reading about and researching into the actual mechanisms of the ‘force’ as it is currently understood today, I learned that all forces in the universe operate via the exchange of messenger particles through what are known as fundamental interactions. From this base, it is a logical deduction to ask which of the four field particles is holding humans together in bonding relationships: gluons, photons, bosons, or gravitons?

• We know that via the exchange of gluons, quarks are held together. We know that via the exchange of gravitons (hypothetically), planets are held together. We know that via the exchange of bosons, radioactive decay operates. Thus, by deduction, in some way, the exchange of photons must be functioning to hold humans together into structures as friendships, marriages, social collectives, etc., but how?

• The ‘event’ defining the culmination of an effective realized ‘force’ is the instant in which any sort of body (quark, electron, atom, human, planet, etc.) absorbs a messenger particle. This absorption has the effect of:

1. changing direction and momentum of the ‘body’
2. changing the character of the ‘body’
3. (possibly) causing the ‘body’ to release a reactionary messenger field particle

• Hence, using this 'standard model', or cause / effect fundamental interaction formulation, of the force, see: Photonic Bonding Basics, conjoined with a new concept called 'human molecular spin' in which human molecules tend to 'spin' or rotate in a counter-clockwise direction north of the equator and in a clockwise direction south of the equator, in their daily patterns of movement, owing to the direction of the earth's magnetic field lines (ex. driving on the right-side of the road in America but driving on the left side of the road in Australia), one can facilitate the construction of precisely defined time-lapsed human molecular orbital movements, as we do currently with fundamental particles.

• In this light, I realized that, in crude model format, it is an overbalance of attraction-to-repulsion, owing to previous field particle absorptions (or their effector particles), that is holding humans together in bonded relationships; furthermore, this same mechanism holds for the assemblages of quarks, to nuclei, to atoms, to stars, and so on. From this logic, knowing that a 5:1 ratio of attraction-to-repulsion is optimal towards holding happily married couples together, you then see that it's not so much what you 'like' about a person, or friendship, or job (i.e. bonding arrangments) that matters, it's what repulses you that really matters. Too much repulsion, the ratio tips, the bond breaks. Furthermore, this logic holds for all bonding arrangements in the universe. For example, within atoms, electromagnetic attraction is balanced by coulombic repulsion; within stars, gravitational attraction is balanced by thermonuclear repulsion.

• A big eye-opener for me was, via this methodology, to see that things do not actually have to be ‘touching’ to be held together by a force. This phenomenon was first note by Ernest Rutherford, in his 1910 alpha particle / gold foil experiments, who noted that most of the actual volume of an atom or molecule is actually ‘open’ space. Thus, a husband and wife, bonded into the formation that we may define as a di-human-ide molecule, may not actually touch each other, for months on end, yet still be bonded owing to fundamental interactions. Note: a molecule, by definition, is an aggregate of at least two atoms in a definite arrangement held together by special forces (Source: Chang’s Chemistry 6th Ed.).

• Your Mouse trap analogy is perfect! The trigger is the ‘quantum’. An absorbed quantum of energy triggers an upward movement of an electron in an atomic orbital; a released quantum of energy triggers a downward movement of an electron in an atomic orbital. These electron ‘movements’ cause structures of atoms and molecules, of which they are apart, and of which we are made, to bend, straighten, move, or reconfigure into more (or less) stable arrangements or movement patterns depending upon type of quantum trigger, or card dealt as it is in the Mouse Trap game

• Regarding simple systems, your point is valid: anything beyond modeling the hydrogen atom via the Schrodinger equation is difficult. However, science is not something that concerns itself with impediments. Hypotheses are formulated; then tested against reality. Only the filtered out best theories survive. From here the process starts anew (See: Popper's Falsifiability for discussions on the evolution of scientific knowledge). In this light, you will note, by looking in any biochemistry textbook, that scientists seem to easily find thermodynamics models (as Helix-coil Transition Theory) for such ‘complex’ systems as cell nuclei / DNA configuration dynamics, which are certainly a step above water modeling.

• Feel free to write me back with further speculations and concerns. These concepts and ideas are still in development. Thanks: --Libb Thims 14:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, my main concern is that a human being is an intricately complicated quantum chemical machine, where in some places the exact orientation and configuration of a molecule can result in drastic differences in the time-development of the (completely open) system. So, I think thermodynamics is not a good tool to apply to this situation as a whole, (as thermodynamics implicitly assumes that the details of a system do not matter, i.e. the system is not chaotic). Of course one can apply the laws of thermodynamics to a cell nucleus, or another individual part of a human being and get reasonable results, (although the precision of the results decreases with decreasing size of the system of course), but given the assumptions of thermodynamics I think the ability of this tool to scale up to a huge system of a trillion very different interacting systems, (cells), is much more remote, if not impossible. Anyway, away from the theoretical criticisms, what kinds of predictions does Human Thermodynamics make? Does the evidence agree with them? How does one determine the "potential" of a human-human "reaction?" How does a person establish whether two humans have "reacted," and to what degree? If we're discussing only two human molecules, how can a person apply the laws of thermodynamics, which require huge amounts of systems to work properly? Ed Sanville 16:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's get specific for a moment, if you don't mind. In the HT website, I browsed around and found this page on inverse attractiveness/intelligence ratio, (the conclusion of which is completely debatable in my opinion). But, anyway, it said this about "hot" people:

(c) Tend to be highly specific in bonding site choice/preference

But that's the opposite of what "hot" molecules will do when reacting! They are decidedly non-specific in their binding sites, they have the greatest tendency to bind in the lowest-energy places like a cooler molecule, (at which point they of course won't bind at all unless they can dump their energy into another place like a phonon, vibrational or rotational mode, or emit a photon). They just have an increased probability to bind at higher energy locations as well. Ed Sanville 16:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Part D

• Ed, good to hear back from you! I like your definition of a human: an intricately complicated quantum chemical machine (excellent!!). I see that you’re still hinged on the barrier: open vs. closed. I will agree that this is definitely a question that needs to be addressed with a tremendous magnifying glass of mathematical complexity. I am still presently filtering, dissecting, and reading through The Scientific Papers of J. Willard Gibbs, Vol I (500 pages) - it is quite a book (and replete with derivation), as well as about 10 other related thermodynamic books, thus It will be some time before I can present a more cogent (i.e. mathematical) answer to this specific question; however, chemical engineering thermodynamics is quite apt at handling both ‘open’ and ‘closed’ systems (See: Smith, Van Ness, and Abbott’s Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, 7th Ed. ).

• Regarding your second concern, i.e. ‘thermodynamics not being a good tool’ to apply to human life, if one were to ask you to write up a dissertation on “physical and neurological hotness in human life”, which by the way, I might add, may possibly be the two most defining quantities in human life, what branch of science would you be most inclined to use? Presently, from what I know, the only two sciences willing to dwell on these topics are psychology and genetics (which are both, in my opinion, ‘soft’ sciences). We may for a while tip-toe around these emotionally-delicate subjects via the soft sciences, but as many invariably know, life, in its roots, is a ‘hard’ science topic.

• Regarding your third concern, about getting ‘reasonable results’, I will agree with you: the more complex the system, the less accurate the results will (likely) be. So, yes, since human life is very complex system, then of course the results, at first, will lack in accuracy. However, once you filter through the hypotheses, theories, and models (about 1,000 pages worth) on the topic of Human Thermodynamics, you will see that it answers, each to a relative approximation, many long-standing unanswered curiosities.

• Regarding ‘what predictions does human thermodynamics make?’, its primary concern is to put in place a working model that can be loosely (at first) used to predict intimate human relationship ‘successfulness’, in the long term. Presently, if you walk into any chemistry laboratory, and ask one of the chemists to tell you how he or she would predict whether or not two molecules will react, they tell you that they would calculated the ‘potential’ change in the Gibbs free energy for that ‘hypothetical’ reaction. It is our intention to extrapolate these same calculations into the human sphere (Note: it may take upwards of 300+ years to get such a model fully functionable; yet a crude one is under-construction now).

• Regarding ‘how does one determine the “potential” of a human-human reaction?’, to give you a quick common-sense, i.e. non-technical, answer, we all know the phrases: ‘he or she has great potential’, or ‘I don’t see the potential in us working out?’ or ‘I see in you a lot of potential’, or ‘that newly formed rock group has a lot of potential’, etc. Of course you can give me the argument (again) that just because the scientific word and the grammatical word are the same doesn’t make them equivalent. This point has merit, yet superficially, without diving into a full scale technical proof (or disqualification) you can ‘feel’ the pleasing effect of what we’re talking about here. In a more technical manner, if we study the work of Rod Swenson, a thermodynamic ecologist at the University of Connecticut, and his version of the second law (Swenson's variation of the 2nd Law) we find your answer:

• More specifically, in the diagrams on the right we're viewing versions of gravitational potential energy, at "work", due to nonequilibrium distributions of energy owing to graviton exchange; in the diagrams on the left we're viewing versions of electromagnetic potential energy, at "work", due to nonequilibrium distributions of energy owing to photon exchange. More directly, in the piston-n-cylinder 'combustion' version of actualized potential, we focus on two key points:

1. first we note that the system is closed with respect to matter, i.e. a set number of molecules are enclosed inside the vessel (just as a set number of molecules are enclosed inside the vessel ‘earth’), yet open with respect to energy, i.e. heat energy, not used to push the piston, dissipates outward through the boundary walls of the piston (just as solar heat energy conversely dissipates into the biosphere across the earth/atmosphere system boundary).
2. second we realize that we are speaking of hydrocarbon "molecules" electromagnetically-reacting with oxygen "molecules"; as for example the propane combustion reaction shown below:

C₃H₈ + 5O₂ → 3CO₂ + 4H₂O

• Note: in this reaction, to point out what is occurring, in essence, first the lives of two separately unique (2-element) molecules kinetically run into each other (i.e. they are pulled uncontrollably towards each other) in the ‘initial state’, then swap atomic material (H and O) in the 'transition state', so to emerge transformed in the ‘final state’ as two new entities, i.e. two separately unique (2-element) molecules newly formed. This reaction is invariably of the form:

A + B → C + D

• Which by direct extrapolation into the human reaction sphere would configure as:

Mx + Fy → MxFy + Bc

where: Mx = male human molecule, Fy = female human molecule, and Bc = baby/child molecule.

• Note: in this analog reaction, to point out what is occurring, in essence, first the lives of two separately unique (26-element) molecules kinetically run into each other (i.e. they are pulled uncontrollably towards each other) in the ‘initial state’, then swap atomic material (DNA) in the 'transition state', so to emerge transformed in the ‘final state’ as two new entities, i.e. two separately unique (26-element) molecules newly formed. Statistically, 85% of people will go through this human chemical reaction.

• Pictorially, to clarify, below we see a collective "reactionary system" of human molecules at "work" owing to accumulated variations "electromagnetic potentials":

• Regarding ‘how do you tell when two people have reacted’, based on the argument, at a bare minimum, that a reaction is defined by either the formation or the dissolution of a bond (however slight), we can state, as based on the supposition that human bonding is defined by ‘exchange’ (atomic, molecular and/or electromagnetic), that at a minimum a single act of two-way-exchange constitutes, by definition, the point at which two human molecules have ‘reacted’. For example, take the trivial example of paying for the reception of gas at a gas station, where both the absorb and release 'moment' constitute field particle exchange in step-by-step atom-molecular-photonic mechanism, that if resultantly you begin to frequent a certain favored station over time you will note the development of a slight 'bond' with that particular gas station more so than other possible options of refuel.

• Regarding ‘to what degree’, take for example a human marriage, according to the US Census Bureau currently when two people ‘react’ to form the extra-strong bond known as ‘marriage’, such a formation will have a 43% probability of breaking up (dissolutioning) at the 15-year mark. Slightly thereafter, the point of divorce, there will remain some ‘exchange’ (as child support payments, infrequent visits, random phone calls, etc.) but at some definite point in time exchange may completely cease to be. At this point, the reaction has stopped.

• Regarding, ‘how do apply the laws of thermodynamics to the case of two human molecules’,

First you define the ‘system’ for one human being spatially defined (system boundary) by the 90% probability region of its movement patterns (i.e. a human molecular orbital), as shown below via a very rudimentory model:

Furthermore, encompassed within this definition are two stipulations:

1. nutrient intake and waste export may both be approximately defined as ‘substrate interactions’; i.e., the substrate modifies the attached molecule, and the molecule in turn modifies the substrate to which it is attached (by analogy see: the Haber process).
2. at the boundary region, i.e. the 90% probability delineation of movement patterns, of this one human molecular ‘system’, we can approximately define this boundary to be thermally insulated, i.e. interactively-wise, from the surroundings; meaning to a certain approximation, as an example, that one such system may overlap with and move through many other such similar systems (orbitals), as in New York with a population of 8 million plus people, yet be rather ‘inert’ (thermally) to other such human molecules (orbital systems) when say walking through a crowd of thousands of people; just as, by analogy, hypothetically, a neutrino may pass through the earth rather 'inertly' without fundamental interaction.

Second you state that for two such ‘systems’ to come into thermal contact there must be some form of ‘exchange’ (electromagnetic, molecular, vibrational, etc.) as flirting, emotional, visual, sensual, or financial exchange, etc.; i.e. there must be (thermally-active) molecular orbital overlap:

Third, as long as the total energy content of the two systems is lowered (i.e. meaning that via bonding the ‘couple’ is at a more stable configuration) as compared to the initial state of the system, then the ‘couple’ will continue to ‘react’, via a process called thermalisation, or progress in time, until that point at which the two ‘systems’ in contact reach a state of thermal equilibrium (i.e. when there is no longer any ‘spark’ left in the marriage), where typically divorce will ensue, that is unless the ‘couple’ decides to ‘try’ to hold it together, wherein such a situation they will need to either absorb energy from the universe (i.e. their associations: as family, friends, co-workers, the community, etc.) so to structurally maintain the bond (possibly done for the ‘sake’ of the kids, etc.), or, as a compromise, make 'major' structural changes in their 'relationship'.

• Energetically, the process of ‘reactions’, in human life, can be time-detailed via a reaction coordinate (the plot of the energy of the system vs. the progression of time):

• Regarding the remainder of your questions, this is where the analysis gets tricky. First, we can set the following definition:

      Temperature: a measure of the tendency of an object or system to spontaneously give up energy. 

• Also, the time required for a system to come to thermal equilibrium is called relaxation time . Hence, applied to the case in which two humans are bonded, you see that when one component of the bond (i.e. one mate) views the other component perceptually to be at a higher temperature than them (i.e. ‘hot’), in one or more aspects of physical or neurological attractiveness, and visa-versa, we then see that we have a very pleasing hypothetical model. That is, as long as each partner views the other to be ‘hot’, respectively, then each, in turn, draws energy off of the other so to be used to fulfill (or fuel) his or her purpose in life. Those couples who suceed in the attainment of the golden wedding (i.e. the 50-year marriage) may be characterized by an inherently long relaxation time. Yet others, may go through a series of reactions (two or three marriages, five or six jobs, etc.); where once thermodynamic equilibrium is reached, referring to these such systems in thermal contact, the reaction will typically end.

• Below I’ve posted the list you are referencing (this list by the way is culled from annals of evolutionary psychology; i.e. human and animal mating behaviors):

1. Have a greater tendency to de-bond (divorce)
2. Tend to be highly specific in bonding site choice/preference
3. Have a greater affinity for symmetrical mates
4. Tend them selves to be highly symmetric
5. Tend to be comparatively larger in size
6. Tend to have an ‘averaged’ shape indicative of great stability
7. Their introduction into a closed system increases the energy level of the system.
8. When introduced into any closed system , they are resultantly and invariably given more personal space; i.e. they their introduction tends to increase the volume of the system.

• The ones in bold show exact correlation between atomic-molecular level and human-molecular level; the ones not in bold are puzzling? I personally got stuck on one of these, and am still quite puzzled, back when studying prairie vole mating behaviors as correlated to their size, reaction rates, and physical attractiveness, and neurological attractiveness, etc. As an example, it has been statistically verified that when someone who is highly physically attractive (i.e. 'hot'), as say a model, walks through a crowd of people they will be given more personal 'space' than say someone who is less physically attractive (i.e. 'cold'); hence there is a slight ‘volume increase’ in the system.

• For example, when people are asked to approach a stranger and stop when they no longer feel comfortable, they will stop about two feet away from a tall person (22.7 inches to be exact) but less than a foot (9.8 inches) from a short person ; and as height is correlative with physical attractiveness, e.g. short men and women are less attractive than tall men and women, we find, according to Etcoff, that “very attractive people of any size are given bigger personal space and territory; which they carry around with them”. In other words, “hot” molecules trigger volume increase be it a gaseous molecule or a human molecule. Similarly, in animal studies, in what is called the lek pecking order it is found that the more ‘physically-attractive’ leks, i.e. 'hot' leks, as defined via health, size, virility, opposite mate desirability criteria, etc., are given more spatial room in the center of the courtship and display assembly area, and the less attractive leks, i.e. 'cold' leks, are confined to the outer rims of the courtship circle being give less space; again a tendency towards ‘volume increase’ appears. However, in this case there is complicating factor of electromagnetic pressure increase towards the center.

• A similar such phenomenon occurs in high school cafeterias. That is, if you poll high school homecoming queens, and ask them to draw detailed maps of their cafeterias as they evolved year-by-year (freshman-to-senior), they invariably construct crude drawings showing, as they describe the most ‘elite’ top 20 seniors (i.e. the ‘hottest’ of the class), out of school sizes of 2,400+ total students (average), sitting at a very select center table away the entrance doors (the boundary) to the cafeteria (the system); where the ‘out crowd’, i.e. the ‘cold’ groups, are confined to the perimeter. Most curiously, in such cafeteria ‘systems’ there is a radial density variation. That is, groups towards the center aggregate in loosely bound ‘packs’ of 20-30; whereas groups toward the perimeter function in tighter outcast ‘units’ of 4-5.

• This temperature gradient, furthermore, i.e. that the hottest parts aggregate in the center, is duplicate in structure to the solar-system, as well earth-system, as well as the galaxy, as well as the sun being itself viewed as a system; i.e. the hottest part of the sun is at the center. All of these systems describe the interactions of molecules. Moreover, when you ‘heat’ a volume of gas (or solid or liquid) there is a tendency towards ‘volume increase’. In addition, bonds between 'colder' human molecules (physically-speaking) tend to be of a stronger variety; i.e. divorce is less likely. Again, by analogy, a cold carbon molecule bond as in diamond, is quite strong, as contrasted with a hot carbon molecule bond - as in methane.

• These irregularities "on the nature of human molecular heat", is an area of curiosity that I’m currently working on, musing over, and researching into. Feel free to write me back; these types of questions are quite stimulating. Thanks:--Wavesmikey 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC) (i.e.Libb Thims).

COMMENTS: "on discussion" (sent via email)

EMAIL #1

    Sent to Libb Thims from Lawrence Chin on 10/02/05:

After reading your discussion with Ed, I have now only two thoughts. In both cases I'm rather on your side.

First, I don't think it matters that much whether the thermodynamics of human life is real or pseudo-science. Is psychology a real or pseudo science? Just because something is pseudo science that doesn't mean that it's false. The problem seems to hinge on the fact that Ed simply does not think that a non-quantitative description (of human interaction) whose basis consists in entities from what have been purely quantitative descriptions (photons, etc) can be real science. In other words, science for him is defined as "quantitative description of micro- or macro-scopic inanimate constituents of reality." It seems like a problem of definition only.

Second, when Ed says:

• "The problem with applying that logic to humans... is that humans and life in general aren't anywhere near equilibrium at any given time, and that the last part also can't necessarily be assumed. So, even though the humans all obey the same mechanical laws as molecular microstates, I think it remains to be shown that humans can be treated in a statistical way with anywhere near the same accuracy as molecules themselves."

He is simply wrong. We all know that different collectives of human beings "vastly different in their microscopic detail" can be treated as macroscopically identical due to the averaging effects of having large numbers of . This is why "polling" or "marketing research" are effective. When I used to work at movie theatre and sandwich shops I often was amazed at how a definite number of people, say 100, always show up on every weekday, and 200 during weekends. Why does a collection of people, each of whom has a totally free will and independent interests (i.e. random), somehow behave together in a way as to have a perfectly predictable "average"? The "masses" behave just as a collection of particles.

Part of the problem here, of course, is that this is not "thermodynamics of human beings" but only "statistical mechanics of human beings." The first is a sub-branch of the second. You are mostly doing the first but sometimes people think you are doing the second. Bye, Lawrence.

I wish I had more time to discuss these ideas more thoroughly, but I'm writing my PhD thesis right now, which consumes a lot of time. But I should respond to these two points. The first point is well-taken. I guess my definition of what is and isn't science probably corresponds more closely to your definition of a "hard science," as you call it. In my opinion, some of psychology is "real" science, but there is a lot of that particular branch of science which I would not consider "real science." As for the second point he makes: I'm well aware that people can behave statistically on a large level in the way that Lawrence discusses above. I'm sure we could all think of hundreds of different successful applications of statistical laws in a quantitative way to observations of what humans do on a daily basis. I am not quite as blind to obvious statistical patterns as Lawrence is implying. In fact I notice them all the time on a daily basis, but the point I was trying to make was different. Perhaps I described my main objection in a bad way.

In any case, I do generally agree with you that the real world is composed of nothing but "hard science" as you put it. Ed Sanville 04:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, all good points. Out of curiosity, as you don't state this on your user page, what is your thesis and in what division of study are you in? Good interactions. Thanks:--Libb Thims 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My research has been the application of computational chemistry to problems in materials science. Basically, I use computer programs to solve the electronic molecular Hamiltonian for molecules and periodic systems, using a finite basis set. Actually, I also wrote that basis set article...haha. Ed Sanville 14:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

EMAIL #2

    Sent to Libb Thims from Georgi Gladyshev on 10/05/05:

Dear Libb, Thank you. I had a look at your text of “The discussion of the potential application of thermodynamics to human life” . You are winning the discussion!!! Excellent!

I believe this is very important information, and it is original work. Certainly it is a scientific approach to the problems of thermodynamics of human life. In my researched opinion, I believe that there are two general approaches to understanding of life:

1. Thermodynamics or kinetic thermodynamics (the thermodynamics of near equilibrium systems and processes). In this case we have a possibility to use the apparatus of full differentials (the functions of state). As you know the power of this approach is connected with the full differentials.
2. Kinetics (thermodynamics of far from equilibrium systems and processes – Prigogine’s “thermodynamics” – pure kinetics and so on). The kinetic functions here have no full differentials.

I think we should create (construct) the linear physical models for the understanding of our world primarily. Thank you once again for the excellent presentation. Sincerely, Georgi.

Message Section:

Please feel free to leave me comments in this section; communication is fundamental!

Misplaced Pages How To Section:

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Misplaced Pages documentation, there's also Misplaced Pages:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 13:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cleanupism

Karol, what is your criterion for using cleanup tags? For example the state (thermodynamic) article; i.e. how can you put a clean up tag on one paragraph? Why not just cleanup what you perceive to be as ‘dirty’, and then move on to something else? A cleanup tag makes the article look broken to the floating researcher. Thanks: --Wavesmikey 20:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Re: your concern about my tag on thermodynamic state. I added it, because, per WP:CU, it's confusing and unclear, and I think imprecise in a few places. I hadn't the time to be bold at the moment, hence the tag. I don't have the time right now either, but the page is on my watchlist and I will get around to it sooner or later (which the tag should help me with). If you think the tag is very inappropriate here, go ahead and remove it. I won't cry :) Karol 21:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thermodynamics

Miguel, I'm working to smooth over the thermodynamics article. Could you check what I've done so far and offer further suggestions? Thanks: --Libb Thims 21:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• If I find time I'll have a look at the article. I have to say last time I looked my previous reworking of the article had been completely destroyed, so I feel disinclined to spend a lot of time on it. Best Wishes. Miguel 20:03, 2005 November 15 (UTC)

Solar gradient

Image Tagging Image:Solar-gradient.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Solar-gradient.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --➥the Epopt 04:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Epopt, thanks for the notice regarding the solar gradient file (I fixed it today):

• The above image is my own design (created today) and now part of the www.humanthermodynamics.com website. I guessing I choose the correct copyright release labels?

• Later,

--Libb Thims 16:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Chemistry links

Vsmith, I notice you removed my Human Chemical Reaction link on the chemistry page 15 minutes after I placed it there; would you be so kind to tell me why? I don’t question your action, I assume you are a reasonable person; I’m just looking for a little insight into your reasoning. Thanks - --Wavesmikey 10:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Simple - Misplaced Pages is not a list of links. The linked webpage was good for a laugh, but not much else. If you added it to other pages, it should also be removed as linkspam. Cheers - Vsmith 14:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Vsmith,

• Let me take a moment to comment on your last action:

1. I don’t appreciate the very derogatory language and presumed speculations directed towards me.
2. This is third millennium, the electronic age, time is a factor; instead of simply referencing articles and books, as in olden days, we now in addition link directly to the articles and books, saving the reader a trip to the library.
3. Every page in wikipedia has links; (a) it certainly is a requirement of its contributors to use prudence in choosing the appropriate links, (b) links having to do with commerce, i.e. the exchange or buying and selling of commodities, should not be found on wikipedia pages, (c) a page should only contain the most relevant links, (d) the links should come from the foremost experts in those respective fields, and (e) there should be no fee whatsoever involved in traveling to a link; unless of course it is a famous article, as found in a well-respected journal being that there is no other route, electronically, to its procurement.

• The link I connected to the chemistry article was a short researched debate, on both sides of the issue, between two engineers regarding the query “Is love a purely chemical reaction?”, a question asked by a seven-year-old Chicago boy. As such, if a seven-year-old has questions about the chemistry of love, a subject on which I have over 50 books in my home library, then I feel there certainly should be a full encyclopedia article available for those curious. I would certainly be more than capable of writing such an article, yet my interests and time are focused elsewhere presently. Thus, as we both noted, I attached a quick link to the chemistry page on such a subject.

• My faults, I will admit, were: (a) the page I attached was only an anchored section in the middle of page that is just a general consensus on the polled opinion of love and should have been found as full stand alone article, (b) the page attached was only a short quick discussion, between two engineers, and certainly could have used many more footnotes and sources, and (c) the links I attached to the other three pages (which you removed of course) were not really thought out actions on my part, my main interest is with the chemistry article, thus those actions were probably mistakes on my part.

• Not to be belittling to you and not to claim that I am by any means an expert, I am going to reason that a chemical engineer knows more about chemistry than a geologist. Thus, down the road, in a few months I may attach a better, more logical and sourced full-article, , written from an objective point of view, on this subject to the chemistry page for the sake of those young seven-year-old people out there who may wish to research such a topic from both sides of the argument. I will certainly inform you when I make this action (if I do); whereby if there stands to be a general consensus that it is a bad link than I will oblige according.

Thanks again: --Wavesmikey 19:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Pardon

I ask a pardon for the delivered inconveniences. Some links is a good addition to content imho. I shall follow to your advice - concerning "stop"

solarcoast 17:23, 27 Nov. 2005 (GMT+04)

4th laws

Thanks for the note Wavesmikey. I hope it is good reading, and not load of crackpottery. I noticed that you've included a few links on the thermodynamics page and also Odum's renditions of the 4th law on the human webpage. It seems to fit in nicely with the others. I think it would be useful for the math of each principle to be stated to see if there is any formal connection between the different statements, and to trace the history of their mathematical evolution. Lastly It would be really good for schools (and students & teachers) if the apparatus for the laws were demonstrated. Now that you're up on the latest publications, please feel free to adding to the emergy etc wiki pages as you judge fit. :) Sholto Maud 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh hey re: human thermodynamics you might be interested to follow up some of the info at including the CD book http://www.actionlove.com/ if your server will allow you to view it. Sholto Maud 03:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sholto, thanks for the input; however, regarding the "thermodynamic sex" project, that is not exactly the idea. Rather, for example, when asked, people will quickly recall their "hottest" ever day of sex. Technically, heat defines as energy in transit. The question remains: what specific combination of "energy in transit" dynamics operated or functioned during the 20 years prior to this eventful day such to have instilled this irreversible path towards spontaneous atomic exchange? The actual act of sex is rather trivial. It is the elusive multi-year thermodynamically-defined chemical reaction mechanism occuring between two symbiotic reacting molecules that bends the mind to curiosity.

See the following links for further ideas:

1. Molecular Evolution Table
2. Human Chemical Reaction

Let me know what you think of these links. Later:--Wavesmikey 04:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)