Peer review

Reviews | Review board | Other

Kalyan Annamalai | 3 May 2013 | Email

Comment: “I briefly went over; it is an interesting proposition; after finals are over (May 13th), I will have another look at it.”




Curtis Blakely | 7 May 2013 | Email

Comments: Comments regarding “Natural Law Social Science: A Method of Socioeconomics as an Exact Science”. To begin, let me say that the quality of articles that appear in JHT are some of the best that I have read over the course of my academic career – and I have found this article stimulating as well.

I agree with many of the statements that Ternyik makes especially with regard to the lost science of applying the natural sciences to the study of human behavior as a way of gaining insight into the social realm. His discussion of “time” at least for me, was a bit confusing, but all of us would certainly agree that time is the only reference point with universal meaning.

In several places, the author uses the words “our” and “we” - this is a bit misleading since he appears as the sole author of the paper.

The author’s discussion of recurrent recessions and depressions is greatly welcomed as I too find that many events occur in “cycles” (and these are often difficult for us to discern since we are participants and our vantage point is quite limited (yes, often by time itself)). In fact, one of the great things about socio-physics is that it provides us insight into concepts like “cycles”.

If I were to add a single suggestion, it would simply be that I would attempt to write in a more simplistic manner to facilitate understanding among the layperson. For example, “The physicality of money is its medial service as replicative market mechanism….” – a bit confusing, and while I understand the meaning being conveyed, believe that we must keep specialized terminology and phrases to a minimum (thereby making our efforts more attractive to a larger audience). Another quality paper and I applaud the author!



Libb Thims | 7 May 2013 | Post

Re (Blakeley review): "His discussion of “time” at least for me, was a bit confusing, but all of us would certainly agree that time is the only reference point with universal meaning", yes I get the idea that he recently read Moshe Carmeli's 2008 Relativity: Modern Large-Scale Spacetime Structure of the Cosmos, which is cited in his reference section? The usage of time in the argument also brings to mind Gilbert Lewis' famous quote:

"Time is not one of the variables of pure thermodynamics."

— “The Symmetry of Time in Physics” (1930)

these "variables" of pure thermodynamics, to remind us, are the following, give or take one or two I may be leaving out:

Variables (extensive)	Variables (intensive)
Length l Surface A Volume V Entropy S Internal energy U Enthalpy H Free energy, F or G Momentum Kinetic energy Electricity amount of (of substance)	Temperature T Pressure P Magnetic field B Chemical potential μ Density Velocity

in which "time" is not one of the variables. Hence, if Ternyik's aim, quoting from his abstract, is to make socioeconomics into an "exact science" (which he seems to think will be in units of time, money, and energy) he will have to rethink his target, because "time" and "money" are not variables of pure thermodynamics, as Lewis defines things.

Re (Blakeley review): “The physicality of money is its medial service as replicative market mechanism….”, being personalized jargon ridden, I agree. The author needs to be more clear in these loaded terms, e.g. "replicative market mechanism".

Stephen Ternyik | 7 May 2013 | Post

Response: Thank you for the comments and I will learn from the details mentioned; visit SSRN (world system energetics) and you can see that it got more simple; also plain logic formulae are work in progress. Yes, M.Carmeli*** is exciting, because of the backward motion of time ! Energy is the technical key as money has become (temporal) access to energy; historically and empirically, human energy consumption evolved like the Snooks-Panov algorithm projects!' New thermodynamics' (e.g, the syntropy project/Ulisse di Corpo) points to alternative views of energetics; E. Yudkovsky from Machine Intelligence Research Institute opens up new horizons for applied rationality. Of course, my scientific aim is exactness ( say 99%).

Umberto Lucia | 8 May 2013 | Email

Comments: I think that the author would consider Velasco's approach in his paper. Indeed, prof. Velasco have introduced a thermodynamic approach to economics, obtaining many results. Moreover, I suggest to introduce also some consideration on Wall's and Sciubba's papers and results.

Stephen Ternyik | 10 May 2013 | Post

Response: Grazie! Prof. Velasco served very well as Finance Minister/Chile (2006-2010), his model of reserve-building is an empirical example/pardigm that dynamic efficiency pays back for the better interplay of public & private concerns. Maybe, Prof. J. Huerta de Soto's : Theory of Dynamic Efficiency was influential as it was first written in Castellano/Spanish.

Mohsen Mohsen-Nia | 9 May 2013 | Email

Comments: Good article overall, but for me (I’m not a professional in the social science discipline of economics), there is one major problem in this
article with the re-definition of values of the physical thermodynamic variables as representative monetary production economic. In thermodynamics, there are clear definition for the independent thermodynamic variables such as temperature, volume and pressure and their relations with the dependent variables such as energy, force and entropy. The author needs to present a brief description for the left column of redefinition table showing the relation between monetary production economics variables and the corresponding variables in the right column. Can the author elaborate some on the conceptual definition of "accounting" and "equilibrium"?

Stephen Ternyik | 10 May 2013 | Post

Response: The balance of payments in the daily economics profession is traditional boop-keeping technique, trying to compute the monetary flow into equilibrium. Scientifically, it does not exist because the payment (particle) travels in the wave function of all payments; the fiat expansion of the monetary volume (via credit x interest in exponential rate) wants politcally to grow the market, hence even more energy is needed for input. This economic behavior is an artificial wish list that does not reflect the physical boundaries of production/distribution; a more advanced elaboration is now posted at SSRN: World System Energetics. Even if bioelectronic money will be introduced, the monetary system will physically evolve towards dynamic efficiency (minimum: narrow reserves) or fully go bust. Time will teach us this lesson, even it is not a thermodynamic variable, but energy is; the temporal acceleration on this globe is proportionally caused by increasing energy consumption, i.e. monetary reserves are a consequence of economic reason.The Snooks/Panov-algorithm documents this empirical trend from the long-term perspective.

Gheorghe Savoiu | 29 May 2013 | Email

Comments: THE PROBLEMS OF THE ARTICLE
How can we identify laws and variables between economics and physics?
How can we generate a new physics theory and reunite general relativity and quantum theory?
How can we extend this theory to economics when it does not exist in physics?

THREE FORMAL SOLUTIONS
The major similarities between:

-variables in economics and physics
-laws of economics and physics
-methods and models of economics and physics

COMMENTS
The similarities or the similitude between the variables and the laws of economics and physics must consider the following:

Macroeconomics overlaps the idea of Macrocosmic / Multiverse and could be reconsidered under the action of theory of relativity where the variable “inflation – unemployment” becomes the variable space – time from physics.

Microeconomics virtually identified with the micro particles / Microuniverse and quantum theory could be basically a quantum economics theory (e.g. the service could be the real wave).

Response: Multumesc ! Scott Patterson gave us in THE QUANTS and DARK POOLS a journalistic impression of methodical mischief in monetary economics, pointing to 'scientific errors'. Among the 3 formal solutions, methodical research into the basic laws comes in NLSS first, but identifying & modeling variables (e.g. energy input, monetary volume, temporal interval) is vital for knowledge applications, to elaborating socio-economics and moneto-physics as exact discipline. In addition, the global monetarization of human relations calls ethically for a humanistic approach of the world monetary production economy (e.g.Syntropy, Value and Money/U di Corpo&Vanini/2013/e-book). It is my empirical guess or evolutionary observation that monetary economics will become more congruent with energetics if methodical rational reasoning gains 'sociophysical momentum'.

Stephen I. Ternyik/1 June 2013


Jeff Tuhtan | 28 June 2013 | Post

Comments:
This is an interesting article, however there are in my opinion significant issues with assuming a connection between economics and energetics. It must be stated, that this is a much larger issue which extends far beyond the material in this submission. This criticism is therefore not meant solely for the author of this submission, but for all practitioners of economics as a "science", which it is certainly not.

A fundamental problem is relating the concept of money withanyphysical variable. Just as thermodynamic entropy cannot be described using Shannon's information theory, money cannot be described as units of energy. Money is debt, not energy. This is often easily overlooked, and through some hand-waving, or dealt with using complex mathematical formulations. It remains that there are no mathematically or physically rigorous theories in economics which have any real relations to "equilibrium" concepts culled from classical thermodynamics. If this were the case, the bankers would have harnessed a physical energy source unimaginable!

Criticisms
Economics is not thermodynamics similar to the way that information theory is not. My recommendation is to put economics in the same category as religion when considering future submissions.

Response: Many thanks for your elaborations, Dr, Jeff Tuhtan ! Economis is a social science, it has to explain human behavior. Money is temporal acces to energy and can be made into debt by banking practice ( if the legal system allows that kind of 'economic performance'). We ( me and you) have both bank accounts and we need to use these facilities to finance our livings; NLSS points precisely to this fact!Your dogma=( money is debt, not energy) can be submitted to the Vatican or any other orthodox institute ( always financed via taxation as the state or any other similar non-productive organization), but it is false*** ( debt can be used as temporal access to energy)*** For .myself, using the empirical rationalist method, you can not explain the passion of financial greed that destroys the harmony of our common biosphere. As having said that, Dr. Tuhtan, in future editions of this journal, you will surely not have to bear the religious burden of reading future submissions by un-scientific researchers like me!*******. 'The bankers' ( your' scientific' jargon) can use and issue debt as temporal access to energy because it is legal, but it is a violation of natural law; exactly this problem is NLSS about. Consequently, 'the bankers' indeeed harnessed already unimaginable physical energy resources, but they have exploited vital future potential for no-thing than passionate greed ('stochastic gambling' as science). Economics is not thermodynamics and it is not information theory; it is about human behavior and adaptation to natural law. Economics is a profession (like medicine), not a science ! In any case, all the best: Stephen I. Ternyik/June28, 2013

I don't fully comprehend your response. There seems to be two levels involved, the first is some kind of personal issue surrounding my academic title. This has nothing to do with my comments, you don't need a PhD to point out that economics is not a physical science. Science is a method whose long-term successes are contingent upon the repeatability of the theses established by those practicing science. If you have a monetary theory invoking tenets of thermodynamics, it should be related to the well-worn concepts of heat and work. This should be expected when you submit to the Journal of Human Thermodynamics.

The first law of thermodynamics does not allow for the creation or destruction of matter-energy. Money can be created. This seems to be the crux of my problem in understanding how analogies between energetics and economics are not physically reconcilable without a new metaphysics. You state that "Money is temporal access to energy" and then attack my statement that money is debt. Only a few lines later you reiterate that "debt can be used as temporal access to energy." The harnessing of energy via debt is then described as a violation of natural law. What natural law are you talking about?

In your response, you seem to agree with my criticism: "Economics is not thermodynamics and it is not information theory..." That was pretty much all I was trying to convey. Your submission is certainly interesting, I am however not certain how well it fits within the Journal of Human Thermodynamics. This is why I made the recommendation that economics articles should be placed in the same "not necessarily related to Hmol science" category. I do not mean to state that economics is a type of religion.

Response: Yes, economics is not thermodynamics and not information theory; a system of morality/ethics is always involved. The monetary system has to learn from ecological energetics ( 6 principles, e.g. H.Odum) to fix the economic brakes of the financial machinery. The molecular 'Aufbau' (E.Müller) of human society is of higher physical order, even in group dynamics, and this is the social scientific problem to solve; human psychophysiology is more complex than the 4 laws of TD as veterinary medicine can also not catch the higher psycho-neural functions.of the 'homo economicus'; I hope this clarifies my point, concerning the economic application of the scientific method.

Stephen I. Ternyik/June 29, 2013

Exercises | Problems

Exercises | Homework problems | Other

On the wise protocol of Swedish physical chemist Sture Nordholm's penning of eight homework problems to his 1997 Journal of Chemical Education article “In Defense of Thermodynamics: an Animate Analogy”, the submitting author has provide (6 May 2013) two homework problems and or exercises, shown below, that will be added to the finial version of the submitted article, if published:

● Problem #1: The technical introduction of bioelectronic money will not resolve the implicit error in our financial system. Why not, according to NLSS?

● Problem #2: Money is temporal access to energy. Please discuss this statement from the viewpoint of NLSS! Is monetary inflation the economic indicator of social entropy?

JHT editor Libb Thims may, down the road, end up writing a Chemical Thermodynamics: with Applications in the Humanities textbook, built on Gilbert Lewis' famous 1923 Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances, and some of these JHT homework problems may find their way into the end of chapter exercises.

References
1. Thims, Libb. (2013). “Econoengineering and Economic Behavior: Particle, Atom, Molecule, or Agent Models?” (abs) (main), University of Pitesti Econophysics and Sociophysics Workshop (UPESW) 2013 / Exploratory Domains of Econophysics News (EDEN V) (organizer: Gheorghe Savoiu). University of Pitesti, Pitesti, Romania, Jun 29.