
Austrian physicist Ernst Mach's circa 1885 turning tendencies, the first visual depictions of what might be considered as graphical depictions of types of human wave functions. [6]

Austrian physicist Ernst Mach's circa 1885 turning tendencies, the first visual depictions of what might be considered as graphical depictions of types of human wave functions. [6]

In human quantum mechanics, human wave function, symbol ψ(x, y, z), is the solution to a wave equation that describes the movement of a single human molecule (or human particle) in trajectory, when a human is viewed as a wave (or viewed as in possession of wave behavior), according to the principle of wave-particle duality. [1]

Overview
In circa 1885, Austrian physicist Ernst Mach outlined a loose model of human particle/human wave behavior was first documented in circa 1885 by and his noting of what he called "turning tendencies" in troops lost in a snow storm. [2]

In 1923, French physicist Louis de Broglie derived a proof that all bodies of the universe have a wave-like nature and thus a wavelength associated with them.

In the 1992 book Creation Revisited, English physical chemist Peter Atkins attempted to outline a view of humans as evolved purposeless molecules that behave according to the standard principles of physics. On the question of wave particle duality, Atkins comments: [3]

“The reason why particles like pigs and people do not normally seem to be waves is simply that their wavelengths are normally so short as to be undetectable. Nevertheless, distribution as waves they are, and that attribute provides explanations which are totally beyond the reach of classical physics.”

In 1999, Viennese researchers, supposedly led by physicist Anton Zeilinger, reported interference in in the movement of Buckyball molecules, a 60-atom molecule, through the double slits, the largest objects to-date ever to show quantum phenomena. [4] In short, by passing Buckyball molecules, one at a time, through a double slit experimental apparatus, Zeilinger showed that single molecules possess wave particle duality. [5] The implications of the finding that large molecules, such C60, possess wave particle duality, are that single human molecules , CHNOPS+26, also possess wave particle duality.

In 2001, American physicist Aman Ahuja gave the following response to a query as to whether or not humans have a wavelength: [7]

“What about humans? Well, theoretically, since all matter possess wave-like properties, so do humans, and cats, and whatever you please. We could hypothetically demonstrate this fact by performing the double slit experiment with these "particles". So here we go, firing cats haphazardly at two slits, trying to get cats to interfere with each other. Will it work? Well. . . kinda. There are a lot of little technicalities, so you'll have to be careful not to aim at the slits (i.e., you must fire randomly to create a incoherent cat-beam), and you'll have to space out the firings. You fire one cat, you wait for a while, then you fire the other cat. Eventually, you'll form the familiar interference pattern on the other side of the slits. Unfortunately, that waiting period between firings is about the age of the universe when you're using cats. Finally! What is the wavelength of a human being? Assuming he/she weighs 70 kg, and is being fired at 25 m/s, it's about 3.79 x 10E-37 meters.”

In 2007, Libb Thims, in his Human Chemistry, in the context of human quantum chemistry, introduced a modern approach to the issue of wave particle duality behavior, in the concept of the human molecular orbital, as explained in human molecular orbital theory, wherein a person as a bound state point-like molecule (or human particle) moves daily in probabilistic activity orbitals. [6]


A 2007 diagram of the average human molecular orbital, showing the "orbital" or wavelike nature of a typical human in his or her daily activity. [6]

A 2007 diagram of the average human molecular orbital, showing the "orbital" or wavelike nature of a typical human in his or her daily activity. [6]

In the 2009 Moriarty-Thims debate, Irish physics professor Philip Moriarty commented on Thims premise that quantum mechanics apply to the study of the nature of people viewed as individual molecules with the comment:

“Libb's response beggars belief: ‘It is only a matter of extrapolation to apply this logic to systems of human molecules...’ No, it is not a matter of extrapolation, Libb. Just as it is not a matter of extrapolation to take fundamental quantum mechanics and apply it to "human molecules". What physical evidence do you have, Libb, for a "human wavefunction"? Have you somehow carried out the equivalent of the double slit experiment for humans?! Do you understand what is meant by decoherence or complementarity in the context of QM? I shudder to think that students are going to be exposed to this pseudoscientific nonsense next semester.”

Thims referred Moriarty to the Zeilinger's 1999 Buckyball experiment, to show that there is experimental evidence to premise that humans have a wavefunction.

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“Every thing in this universe has its regular waves and tides. Electricity, sound, the wind, and I believe every part of organic nature will be brought someday within this law. The laws which govern animated beings will be ultimately found to be at bottom the same with those which rule inanimate nature, and as I entertain a profound conviction of the littleness of our kind, and of the curious enormity of creation, I am quite ready to receive with pleasure any basis for a systematic conception of it all. I look for regular tides in the affairs of man, and, of course, in our own affairs. In ever progression, somehow or other, the nations move by the same process which has never been explained but is evident in the oceans and the air. On this theory I should expect at about this time, a turn which would carry us backward.”
— Henry Adams (1863), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (Oct) [8]

“We are walking wave functions.”
— Alexander Wendt (2015), Quantum Mind and Social Science (Ѻ); 2019 video interview (Ѻ)

References
1. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (pgs. 238-95). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
2. McManus, C. (2002). Right Hand, Left Hand: the Origin of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms, and Cultures (turning tendencies, pg. 166). Harvard University Press.
3. Atkins, Peter. (1992). Creation Revisited (pg. 55). W.H. Freeman & Company.
4. (a) Zeilinger, Anton. (2006). "I believe quantum physics requires us to abandon the distinction between information and reality", in: What We Believe, But Cannot Prove (pgs. 223-24). Harper-Perennial.
(b) Anton Zeilinger – Wikipedia.
5. Arndt, Markus; O. Nairz, J. Voss-Andreae, C. Keller, G. van der Zouw, and Zeilinger, A. (1999). "Wave–particle duality of C60" (abs). Nature, 401(6754): 680–682.
6. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (section: Human molecular spin, pgs. 209-11; turning tendencies diagram, pg. 210; human molecular orbtal, pg. 265; orbital transition state, pgs. 268-69). (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
7. Ahuja, Aman. (2001). “I have heard that humans have a wavelength: Is this true?”, Ask an Expert, PhysLink.com.
8. (a) Adams, Henry. (1863). “Letter to Charles Gaskell”, Oct.
(b) Adams, Henry. (1982). The Letters of Henry Adams, Volume 1: 1858-1868 (editor: Jacob Levenson) (pgs. 395-96). Harvard University Press.
(c) Stevenson, Elizabeth. (1997). Henry Adams: a Biography (pg. 69). Transaction Publishers.
(d) Taylor, Matthew A. (2008). Universes Without Selves: Cosmologies of the Non-Human in American Literature (pg. 108), PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University. ProQuest, 2009.

External links
● Wave function (quantum mechanics) – Wikipedia.