In hmolscience, Jason Robert Smith (c.1973-) is an American physicist noted for his circa 2014 launched blog “Information Transfer Economics”, wherein he writes as a self-described “physicist who messes around with economic theory”, on topics such as Eric Weinstein (Ѻ) has been pushing for an interpretation of economics in terms of gauge theory; Cosma shalizi (2007) on Philip Ball’s views of econophysics (Ѻ); and most-interesting his attempt at defining economic potentials in terms of thermodynamic potentials via what he calls thermodynamic analogies.

Overview
In circa 2000, Smith, while writing his physics thesis, toyed with the idea of becoming a “quant” or quantitative analyst as he was, during which time he studied up on finance models, and was offered a few positions in that area (which he turned down). [2]

In circa 2005, Smith, amid a period when he was considering going into financial physics, states that Jan Dash’s 2014 Quantitative Finance and Risk Management: a Physicist’s Approach (Ѻ) was his main reference book. [3]

In circa 2012, Smith discovered Peter Fielitz and Guenter Borchardt’s 2009 “A General Concept of Natural Information Equilibrium: from the Ideal Gas Law to the K-Trumpler Effect” (Ѻ), wherein Edwin Jaynes’ information theory based version of the maximum entropy principle (MaxEnt school) is applied to system far from equilibrium (Prigogine model) systems of the economic variety, which stimulated him into starting a blog to expand on his own economics + physics ideas. [2]

Weinstein | Gauge theory economics
In Oct 2013, Eric Weinstein (Ѻ), then managing director of Thiel Capital, in his “What Math and Physics Can Do for New Economic Thinking” (Ѻ) video interview, with New Economic Thinking, asserted that gauge theory could fix economics, or something along these lines.

On 21 Mar 2014, economist blogger Chris House posted the following toolism grip about Weinstein and his assertion that gauge theory could fix economics: (Ѻ)

“Eric Weinstein for instance has somehow managed to convince himself that the instability of preferences is a huge problem for economics (it’s not) and that the application of gauge theory to economics will improve things. Now, I don’t know anything about gauge theory but I would be willing to bet that it has virtually nothing to add to economics. If Eric Weinstein has some insight that he wants to share then fine – send it my way and I’ll listen but I’m not going to listen just because the math is difficult. The fact that it’s difficult to understand something does not mean that it is important to pay attention to it. Weinstein might be perfectly well-intentioned but if he thinks that because he knows some fancy mathematics, economists are obligated to grant credence to his work, he is sorely mistaken.”

On 2 Apr 2014, Smith posted the following rebuttal on House’s objections: [1]

“Now there is nothing incorrect about Weinstein's reformulation of economics in the language of fiber bundles with ordinal utility behaving like a connection (gauge field). As a physicist, I actually enjoyed the mathematics involved in reformulating gauge theory in the language of fiber bundles (and differential forms). I gave seminars on both as a grad student.”

(add discussion)

Economic | Thermodynamic potentials
In 2013, Smith, in his “Economics for Fun and Profit”, was citing and discussing Paul Samuelson's 1960 objectionable views of economic thermodynamics: [3]

“The formal mathematical analogy between classical thermodynamics and mathematical economic systems has now been explored. This does not warrant the commonly met attempt to find more exact analogies of physical magnitudes—such as entropy or energy—in the economic realm. Why should there be laws like the first or second laws of thermodynamics holding in the economic realm? Why should "utility'' be literally identified with entropy, energy, or anything else? Why should a failure to make such a successful identification lead anyone to overlook or deny the mathematical isomorphism that does exist between minimum systems that arise in different disciplines?”

Smith, at this point, however, is unaware that in 1938, Edwin Wilson, the last protege of Willard Gibbs, who was also Samuelson' economics PhD adviser, wrote the following to Samuelson, in commentary on one of Samuelson's papers, wherein, in the context of his mathematical economics course, suggested that he use Gibbs equation 133 to formulate a new foundational version of economics; specifically:


Annotated image, page from Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifschitz’ 1959 Course of Theoretical Physics (Ѻ), from Smith’s 2015 blog “Economic Potentials: How to Define an Economy”, wherein he attempts, as she says, to “construct the thermodynamic potential of an economy by elaborate analogy.” [5]

Annotated image, page from Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifschitz’ 1959 Course of Theoretical Physics (Ѻ), from Smith’s 2015 blog “Economic Potentials: How to Define an Economy”, wherein he attempts, as she says, to “construct the thermodynamic potential of an economy by elaborate analogy.” [5]

“Moreover, general as the treatment is I think that there is the possibility that it is not so general in some respects as Willard Gibbs would have desired. [In] discussing equilibrium and displacements from one position of equilibrium to another position [Gibbs] laid great stress on the fact that one had to remain within the limits of stability. Now if one wishes to postulate the derivatives including the second derivatives in an absolutely definite quadratic form one doesn’t need to talk about the limits of stability because the definiteness of the quadratic form means that one has stability. I wonder whether you can’t make it clearer or can’t come nearer following the general line of ideas [that] Gibbs has given in his Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, equation 133.”

The very impressive mention of "equation 133", from Gibbs' subsection "Internal Stability of Homogeneous Fluids as indicated by Fundamental Equations", is the following:

$U - TS + PV - M_1 m_1 - M_2 m_2 ... - M_n m_n \,$

Wilson, in other words, is suggested that Samuelson use the Gibbs fundamental equation to formulate a theory of economic stability. Samuelson, however, not being intellectually capable (i.e. he lacked education in pure physics, chemistry, and engineering, of the Gibbs mentality) of doing what Wilson suggested; accordingly, nine years later, in 1947, Samuelson, taking Wilson's advice, in part, as best he could, used some of this logic, via "mathematical isomorphisms", as Samuelson called them, in outline (e.g. Le Chatelier's principle), to pen his magnum opus Foundations of Economic Analysis, which invariably put economics into a new form of a more rigorous, semi-physical science conceptualized or analogized, mathematics-based science; in short, he used Gibbs' models of minima and maxima, not thermodynamically, but generally, and argued that such could be found amid various economic variables.

In 2015, Smith, in his “Economic Potentials: How to Define an Economy”, still unaware that Samuelson was told that the correct way to formulate "equilibriums" in economics was to used the isothermal isobaric thermodynamic potential (equation 133), i.e. the Gibbs energy for open systems, attempted to derive economic potentials via thermodynamics. [5]

Difficulties
The main difficulties on Smith's research efforts, idea brain storms, articles, and blogs, presently is that his is taking an unknowing ride on the Shannon bandwagon; which, as history has shown, e.g. Brooks-Wiley theory, leads to a self-Sokal affair sabotage and academic dead-end, as is often the case with many melting pot theories (when the name Shannon is involved). [6] That, however, Smith is digging around in the area of thermodynamic potentials shows he has promise, as long as he scrapes off his information theory adhesions.

Education
In the 1990s, Smith completed a degree in mathematics, focused on topology and group theory, and a degree in physics, focused on plasma physics, at the University of Texas. He then completed a PhD in theoretical physics, with a thesis (Ѻ) on the quark structure of the nuclei. [2]

Quotes | Employed
The following are employed, discussed, and or cited quotes:

“And where is this law of the universe that says that the human world can't be modeled like the world of particles or the world of cells and DNA? Does anyone have evidence to back up that contention? How the heck do you know that human behavior doesn't lend itself to modeling? If humans are so unpredictable, tell me why Google auctions get so much money from advertisers, or how economists can predict (Ѻ) how many people will ride a train before the train is built. If you think social science can never be science, explain to me why these successes were possible.”
— Noah Smith (2015), “Lazy Econ Critiques” (Ѻ), Oct 12; per assertion (Ѻ) Noah is stealing his material, Oct 12

References
1. Smith, Jason. (2014). “Economics is Neither Physics nor Computer Science” (Ѻ), Information Transfer Economics, BlogSpot, Apr 1.
2. Smith, Jason. (2015). “About Me” (Ѻ), Information Transfer Economics, BlogSpot, May 20.
3. Smith, Jason. (2015). “The Foundation” (Ѻ), Information Transfer Economics, BlogSpot, Apr 17.
4. Smith, Jason. (2013). “Economics for Fun and Profit” (Ѻ), Information Transfer Economics, BlogSpot, Apr 1.
5. Smith, Jason. (2015). “Economic Potentials: How to Define an Economy” (Ѻ), Information Transfer Economics, BlogSpot, Apr 25.
6. Thims, Libb. (2012). “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science’s Greatest Sokal Affair” (url), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 8(1): 1-120, Dec 19.

Further reading
● Smith, Jason. (2013). “Are the Thermodynamic Analogies Useful?” (Ѻ), Information Transfer Economics, BlogSpot, Apr 27.

External links
● Jason Smith – Google+
● The Anome (user) – Wikipedia.