
Top: American chemical thermodynamicist Frederick Rossini at about the time of his famous 1971 Priestley Medal address “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World”. Right: an excerpt of American chemist Harold Leonard's suggestion to use Rossini's theory to develop post 9/11 freedom and security anti-terrorism theories.

In debates, Rossini debate (TR:86) is a noted 2006-present argument about the content and subsequent inherent proposals of American physical chemist Frederick Rossini's 1971 “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real” Priestley Medal address, wherein he outlined the view that chemical thermodynamics explains the paradoxical relationship between freedom and security, quantified by via entropy and enthalpy, respectively, in social existence and their inverse relationship nature to each other. The following is Rossini's central message from his address:

“The picture we have developed from thermodynamics is very simple: One cannot have a maximum of freedom and a maximum of security at the same time. If there is a maximum of freedom, there will be zero security.”

In 2006, American chemistry professor Harold Leonard suggested, in the Journal of Chemical Education, that Rossini's premise might have real-world application to anti-terrorism efforts in a post 9/11-world.

Leonard's suggestion quickly found objection voiced by American physical chemist John Wojcik—professor at the strongly Catholic (Christianity-based) Villanova University—to the effect that he saw chemical thermodynamics as having no power whatsoever to explain the human condition. Rebuttal and a siding with Leonard was then made by chemist Todd Silverstein.

Further discussions on the debate can be found in works of German-born American organic chemist Ernest Eliel (1999), American chemical engineer Libb Thims (2007), Chinese-born Canadian economic thermodynamicist Jing Chen (2008), and others as outlined below. [2]

Rossini address | 1971
The roots of the debate originated in when in 1971 American chemical thermodynamicist Frederick Rossini was awarded the Priestley Medal, the highest honor conferred by the American Chemical Society, and in his address, “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World”, argued that the first two laws of thermodynamics could explain the paradox between freedom, as in being free to do what one wants, and security, as in being safe from harm, in social life; in that the more secure one is, the less free he or she will be. The following is the excerpt from Rossini's lecture, which was reproduced in the 2006 Journal of Chemical Education, that started or rather "ignited", using thermal words, the debate: [3]

With the first and second laws of thermodynamics we can derive two important equations:

$\ \Delta G^\circ = -RT \ln K$

$\ \Delta G^\circ = \Delta H^\circ - T \Delta S^\circ$

Since the term on the left side is the same in the two equations, the quantities on the right side are equal to one another. Hence we can write:

$\ -RT \ln K = \Delta H^\circ - T \Delta S^\circ$

or
$\ \ln K = - \frac{\Delta H^\circ}{R} \left ( \frac{1}{T} \right ) + \frac{\Delta S^\circ}{R}$

From this equation, K increases with increase in ∆S°; and K increases with decrease in ∆H°. Increase in ∆S° comes with increase in randomness, leading to greater “freedom” in the system. Decrease in ∆H° comes with increase in the energy of binding of the atoms in the molecular structure, leading to greater “security” in the system. These are opposing factors in the evaluation of K, and hence, for a given temperature, the final state of equilibrium is a compromise between the “freedom” term, ∆S°⁄R, and the “security” term, –∆H°⁄RT.

Here we have an interesting picture derived from our science of thermodynamics—equilibrium or stability is a compromise between freedom and security. In terms of human experience, the meaning of security can be interpreted to mean that one is secure and safe in his person, in his family, in his home, in control of his property, on the streets, and on his travels. The meaning of freedom is quite clear—the privilege of doing whatever one wants to do. However, in our civilized society, we have come to believe in behavior according to natural law—that one can do whatever he wishes so long as he does not abridge or infringe upon the rights and privileges of others. To me, all this means living with some rational kind of law and order.

The picture we have developed from thermodynamics is very simple: One cannot have a maximum of freedom and a maximum of security at the same time. If there is a maximum of freedom, there will be zero security. I interpret this to mean that if we have total freedom, everyone can do whatever he wishes, including injuring others, stealing property, and the like. On the other hand, if there is a maximum of security, there will be zero freedom. I take this to mean that if we have total security, we will be constrained at every step and have a virtual straitjacket life.

One sees that there is a trade-off between freedom and security. In a state of total freedom, we can afford to give up some freedom to obtain some security. The ideal situation would appear to be one in which we have established that amount of security necessary to have human beings live happily and in harmony with one another, through observance of an appropriate amount of law and order, and then to have as large an amount of freedom as can be accommodated in this situation.

With the first and second laws of thermodynamics we can derive two important equations: $\ \Delta G^\circ = -RT \ln K$ $\ \Delta G^\circ = \Delta H^\circ - T \Delta S^\circ$ Since the term on the left side is the same in the two equations, the quantities on the right side are equal to one another. Hence we can write: $\ -RT \ln K = \Delta H^\circ - T \Delta S^\circ$ or $\ \ln K = - \frac{\Delta H^\circ}{R} \left ( \frac{1}{T} \right ) + \frac{\Delta S^\circ}{R}$ From this equation, K increases with increase in ∆S°; and K increases with decrease in ∆H°. Increase in ∆S° comes with increase in randomness, leading to greater “freedom” in the system. Decrease in ∆H° comes with increase in the energy of binding of the atoms in the molecular structure, leading to greater “security” in the system. These are opposing factors in the evaluation of K, and hence, for a given temperature, the final state of equilibrium is a compromise between the “freedom” term, ∆S°⁄R, and the “security” term, –∆H°⁄RT. Here we have an interesting picture derived from our science of thermodynamics—equilibrium or stability is a compromise between freedom and security. In terms of human experience, the meaning of security can be interpreted to mean that one is secure and safe in his person, in his family, in his home, in control of his property, on the streets, and on his travels. The meaning of freedom is quite clear—the privilege of doing whatever one wants to do. However, in our civilized society, we have come to believe in behavior according to natural law—that one can do whatever he wishes so long as he does not abridge or infringe upon the rights and privileges of others. To me, all this means living with some rational kind of law and order. The picture we have developed from thermodynamics is very simple: One cannot have a maximum of freedom and a maximum of security at the same time. If there is a maximum of freedom, there will be zero security. I interpret this to mean that if we have total freedom, everyone can do whatever he wishes, including injuring others, stealing property, and the like. On the other hand, if there is a maximum of security, there will be zero freedom. I take this to mean that if we have total security, we will be constrained at every step and have a virtual straitjacket life. One sees that there is a trade-off between freedom and security. In a state of total freedom, we can afford to give up some freedom to obtain some security. The ideal situation would appear to be one in which we have established that amount of security necessary to have human beings live happily and in harmony with one another, through observance of an appropriate amount of law and order, and then to have as large an amount of freedom as can be accommodated in this situation.

Fuller discussion of Rossini's address, debate aside, can be found in “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World”.

Murphy and Rousseau | 1980
In 1980, American chemists Daniel Barker Murphy (1928-) and Viateur Rousseau (1914-2000), in their Foundations of College Chemistry, cite the Rossini’s priestly lecture and comment: [14]

“The everyday significance of thermodynamics is pointed out by Frederick Rossini in his Priestley Medal address, ‘Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World’, reprinted in Chemical and Engineering News, Apri 5 (1971), pg. 50.”

This is one of the only college textbooks, found so far, to have commented on the Rossini's real world chemical thermodynamics theory (see: List of thermodynamics textbooks that include human thermodynamics).

Eliel | 1999
In 1999, German-born American organic chemist Ernest Eliel (1921-2008), in his National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoirs article on Rossini, summarized his chemical thermodynamics in the real world discussion as follows:

“In 1971 [Rossini] received the Priestley Medal, the highest distinction conferred by the American Chemical Society. In his Priestly address ‘Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World’ he made a clever comparison of the counterplay of enthalpy and entropy in thermodynamics with that of security vis-à-vis freedom in the world at large.”

in short, calling it a "clever comparison", though not saying much beyond this.
photo needed

Leonard’s suggestion | 2006
In January 2006, American chemist Harold Leonard sent a one-page letter entitled “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World” the Journal of Chemical Education, which was published in the January 2006 issue, in which he made the suggestion that Rossini’s chemical thermodynamics views freedom and security might help the world leaders better understand terrorism in the post 9/11 world. The letter consisted of two short introductory comments, as shown below, with a reprint of the partial excerpt, as shown above, from Rossini’s Priestley Medal address: [4]

One of the world’s greatest challenges, at present, is to find a formula for fighting terrorism, while preserving civil liberties. The March 2005 anti-terrorism conference in Madrid is but one example of officials and experts seeking to address the same paradox. Some 34 years ago, one part of a Priestly Medal Address by F. D. Rossini from the University of Notre Dame discussed an interesting application of thermodynamics to this paradox. Below [above on this page] are excerpts from the address. In light of the ever-increasing need for compromise, Rossini’s observation now seems all the more relevant.

One of the world’s greatest challenges, at present, is to find a formula for fighting terrorism, while preserving civil liberties. The March 2005 anti-terrorism conference in Madrid is but one example of officials and experts seeking to address the same paradox. Some 34 years ago, one part of a Priestly Medal Address by F. D. Rossini from the University of Notre Dame discussed an interesting application of thermodynamics to this paradox. Below [above on this page] are excerpts from the address. In light of the ever-increasing need for compromise, Rossini’s observation now seems all the more relevant.

(add discussion)
John Wojcik (Villanova University)

Wojcik’s response | 2006
In a response December letter to Leonard’s suggestion, entitled “A Response to Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World”, American physical chemist John Wojcik greatly objected to the association of entropy with human freedom, argued that chemical thermodynamics has nothing to say about the human condition, calling the suggestion nothing but anthropomorphism in chemistry.

Wokcik, to interject, is a physical chemistry professor at a highly Catholic-influenced and belief system based Villanova University, a university named for Saint Thomas of Villanova, the school is the oldest Catholic university in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, founded in 1842 by the Order of Saint Augustine, the university tracing its roots to old Saint Augustine's Church, Philadelphia. Both the Villanova school logo is shown adjacent with clarification of symbol meaning: the cross and the Bible shown predominately as representative of the university's structure. Hence, Wojcik's objection, although this is not stated anywhere seems to be one of a "religious" conflict nature, i.e. a science vs. religion objection.

The following is Wojcik’s three paragraph very abrasive response letter—wherein he uses the term "danger" four times: [5]

By making available an excerpt from Rossini’s address, Harold Leonard has given us a good example of anthropomorphism in chemistry. The concepts of “freedom” and “security” (like “order” and “randomness”) were parts of our cultural heritage long before modern thermodynamics was formulated. Entropy was defined solely in response to the need to explain certain modern experimental observations. It was never necessary to invoke concepts like “freedom” and “security” to systematize these same specialized experiments. At best, associating “freedom” with entropy is similar on other loose associations as when we say a shaft moving in an oversize bearing has too much “freedom”. While there is a “freedom” for which one might die to defend, it is certainly not the “freedom” of an oversize bearing nor that of entropy. Such anthropomorphic associations might help some students absorb abstract concepts. They certainly are not part of the conceptual framework of the science.

The danger of such anthropomorphisms is that we really come to believe that there is substance in them. In this particular case, there is the danger that true human freedom will be reduced to some sort of physical freedom on the same par with entropy. There is the danger that some will think that true human freedom can be measured in terms of some sort of calculus of simultaneous maximums and minimums. And worst of all, there is the danger that chemical thermodynamics will have ascribed to it a power that it simply does not have, namely, the power to “explain” the human condition. There may be a sense in which chemistry is the “central science”. This is certainly not it.

It is possible that Rossini did not intend his associations to be taken as seriously as suggested here. Nonetheless, rather than encourage loose thinking through the use of such anthropomorphisms, it would be wise to purge them from science. Let chemistry solve those problems for which it was created. Let true wisdom solve the problems arising from the human condition.

By making available an excerpt from Rossini’s address, Harold Leonard has given us a good example of anthropomorphism in chemistry. The concepts of “freedom” and “security” (like “order” and “randomness”) were parts of our cultural heritage long before modern thermodynamics was formulated. Entropy was defined solely in response to the need to explain certain modern experimental observations. It was never necessary to invoke concepts like “freedom” and “security” to systematize these same specialized experiments. At best, associating “freedom” with entropy is similar on other loose associations as when we say a shaft moving in an oversize bearing has too much “freedom”. While there is a “freedom” for which one might die to defend, it is certainly not the “freedom” of an oversize bearing nor that of entropy. Such anthropomorphic associations might help some students absorb abstract concepts. They certainly are not part of the conceptual framework of the science. The danger of such anthropomorphisms is that we really come to believe that there is substance in them. In this particular case, there is the danger that true human freedom will be reduced to some sort of physical freedom on the same par with entropy. There is the danger that some will think that true human freedom can be measured in terms of some sort of calculus of simultaneous maximums and minimums. And worst of all, there is the danger that chemical thermodynamics will have ascribed to it a power that it simply does not have, namely, the power to “explain” the human condition. There may be a sense in which chemistry is the “central science”. This is certainly not it. It is possible that Rossini did not intend his associations to be taken as seriously as suggested here. Nonetheless, rather than encourage loose thinking through the use of such anthropomorphisms, it would be wise to purge them from science. Let chemistry solve those problems for which it was created. Let true wisdom solve the problems arising from the human condition.

See further discussion below (section: danger).
Todd Silverstein ns

Silverstein’s response | 2006
In yet another follow up June letter entitled “State Functions vs State Governments” (a play on the term state functions), American chemist Todd Silverstein notes in Wojcik’s view that certainly caution must be taken in using science to guild social policies, citing the example of eugenics becoming a core tenet of Austrian-born German politician Adolf Hitler’s extermination policies, but disagrees with Wojcik’s view that such loose thinking should be purged from science altogether. The following is Silverstein’s response letter: [6]

I found the discussion by Leonard, Rossini, and Wójcik of the validity of thermodynamic anthropomorphisms to be quite fascinating. Leonard presented an excerpt from the 1971 Priestley Medal Address given by F. D. Rossini, in which he likened entropy to personal freedom (cf. molecular motional freedom) and enthalpy to personal security (cf. bond formation and a more stable or “secure” system). Wójcik, in his response letter, warned against anthropomorphizing science: Models that work well in explaining experimental observations are not meant to shed light on the human condition. In fact, it can be dangerous to assume that they do. The rise of social darwinism in the late 19th century and eugenics in the early 20th century are just two examples of scientific theories that were mistakenly extended into misguided social policies. Although Wójcik’s point is well-taken, I do not agree that such “loose thinking” should be “purged” from science altogether. A well-drawn analogy between two surprisingly dissimilar concepts can not only be helpful in the classroom, it can be pleasing and instructive on its own merits, as long as one is cognizant of its limitations.

On the surface, Rossini’s analogy relating enthalpy, entropy, and the equilibrium constant to freedom and security in the modern nation-state seems like a good example of an unusual and instructive comparison. I was initially intrigued. Using the thermodynamic conclusion that (a) a reaction’s spontaneity (or Keq) increases when either ∆H gets more negative (stronger security) or ∆S gets more positive (more freedom), Rossini analogized that (b) “One cannot have a maximum of freedom and a maximum of security at the same time.” Sadly, point (a), although true, does not support point (b), not even in the limited realm of chemical thermodynamics, much less in the broader realm of political governance.

Unfortunately, two errors lurk within Rossini’s exposition. The first is a simple typo: The final part of the last equation should read

$\ - \left ( \frac{\Delta H^\circ}{RT} \right ) + \frac{\Delta S^\circ}{R} = \ln (K_{eq})$

not –RT ln(Keq). More importantly, Rossini’s point (b) from above is that in any thermodynamic system, a negative ∆H or a positive ∆S can be maximized, but never both. This conclusion is only true, however, if Keq is constant; of course Keq (and ∆G°) are only constant if reactants and products and all reaction conditions are identical. Rossini does not specify, in his political governance thermodynamic system, the “reactants” and “products”. Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that the “reactants” are citizens living under an initial system (i) of political governance, and the “products” are citizens living under a final system (ƒ) of political governance. Then Rossini’s argument is that for different final systems of governance (ƒ1, ƒ2, ƒ3, etc.), ∆H° and ∆S° for the change in political systems can vary, but always in opposite directions: If, relative to political system i, ƒ features increased personal freedom (positive ∆S°), then ƒ must also feature decreased security (positive ∆H°). Conversely, if ƒ features increased security (negative ∆H°), then ƒ must also feature decreased personal freedom (negative ∆S°). In other words, Rossini seems to believe that ∆H° and ∆S° must have the same sign.

This conclusion may make a certain amount of political sense, but it is flawed from a purely thermodynamic perspective. Although it is true that ∆H° and ∆S° are the same sign for many reactions (especially homogeneous reactions with no phase changes), this is by no means always the case. To present just two common counter-examples, for the combustion of solid glucose, ∆H° = –2803 kJ/mol and ∆S° = +260 J/mol•K; for the disproportionation of aqueous hydrogen peroxide (to dioxygen and water), ∆H° = –95 kJ/mol and ∆S° = +29 J/mol•K.

So to take Rossini’s analogy to its final conclusion, based on his own thermodynamic analysis, there could well be a political system out there that maximizes both personal freedom and security. From a chemical perspective, there does not have to be a tradeoff between security (negative ∆H) and freedom (positive ∆S). Although Rossini’s analogy is amusing and entertaining and makes some political sense, unfortunately, its thermodynamic conclusions are flawed.

I found the discussion by Leonard, Rossini, and Wójcik of the validity of thermodynamic anthropomorphisms to be quite fascinating. Leonard presented an excerpt from the 1971 Priestley Medal Address given by F. D. Rossini, in which he likened entropy to personal freedom (cf. molecular motional freedom) and enthalpy to personal security (cf. bond formation and a more stable or “secure” system). Wójcik, in his response letter, warned against anthropomorphizing science: Models that work well in explaining experimental observations are not meant to shed light on the human condition. In fact, it can be dangerous to assume that they do. The rise of social darwinism in the late 19th century and eugenics in the early 20th century are just two examples of scientific theories that were mistakenly extended into misguided social policies. Although Wójcik’s point is well-taken, I do not agree that such “loose thinking” should be “purged” from science altogether. A well-drawn analogy between two surprisingly dissimilar concepts can not only be helpful in the classroom, it can be pleasing and instructive on its own merits, as long as one is cognizant of its limitations. On the surface, Rossini’s analogy relating enthalpy, entropy, and the equilibrium constant to freedom and security in the modern nation-state seems like a good example of an unusual and instructive comparison. I was initially intrigued. Using the thermodynamic conclusion that (a) a reaction’s spontaneity (or Keq) increases when either ∆H gets more negative (stronger security) or ∆S gets more positive (more freedom), Rossini analogized that (b) “One cannot have a maximum of freedom and a maximum of security at the same time.” Sadly, point (a), although true, does not support point (b), not even in the limited realm of chemical thermodynamics, much less in the broader realm of political governance. Unfortunately, two errors lurk within Rossini’s exposition. The first is a simple typo: The final part of the last equation should read $\ - \left ( \frac{\Delta H^\circ}{RT} \right ) + \frac{\Delta S^\circ}{R} = \ln (K_{eq})$ not –RT ln(Keq). More importantly, Rossini’s point (b) from above is that in any thermodynamic system, a negative ∆H or a positive ∆S can be maximized, but never both. This conclusion is only true, however, if Keq is constant; of course Keq (and ∆G°) are only constant if reactants and products and all reaction conditions are identical. Rossini does not specify, in his political governance thermodynamic system, the “reactants” and “products”. Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that the “reactants” are citizens living under an initial system (i) of political governance, and the “products” are citizens living under a final system (ƒ) of political governance. Then Rossini’s argument is that for different final systems of governance (ƒ1, ƒ2, ƒ3, etc.), ∆H° and ∆S° for the change in political systems can vary, but always in opposite directions: If, relative to political system i, ƒ features increased personal freedom (positive ∆S°), then ƒ must also feature decreased security (positive ∆H°). Conversely, if ƒ features increased security (negative ∆H°), then ƒ must also feature decreased personal freedom (negative ∆S°). In other words, Rossini seems to believe that ∆H° and ∆S° must have the same sign. This conclusion may make a certain amount of political sense, but it is flawed from a purely thermodynamic perspective. Although it is true that ∆H° and ∆S° are the same sign for many reactions (especially homogeneous reactions with no phase changes), this is by no means always the case. To present just two common counter-examples, for the combustion of solid glucose, ∆H° = –2803 kJ/mol and ∆S° = +260 J/mol•K; for the disproportionation of aqueous hydrogen peroxide (to dioxygen and water), ∆H° = –95 kJ/mol and ∆S° = +29 J/mol•K. So to take Rossini’s analogy to its final conclusion, based on his own thermodynamic analysis, there could well be a political system out there that maximizes both personal freedom and security. From a chemical perspective, there does not have to be a tradeoff between security (negative ∆H) and freedom (positive ∆S). Although Rossini’s analogy is amusing and entertaining and makes some political sense, unfortunately, its thermodynamic conclusions are flawed.

Leonard’s response | 2006
In response to Silverstein’s “State Functions vs State Governments” article, Leonard comments: [7]

I was pleased to see the response by T. P. Silverstein to my letter. I support his conclusions completely, especially that a “well drawn analogy between two surprisingly dissimilar concepts cannot only be helpful in the classroom, it can be pleasing and instructive on its own merits, as long as one is cognizant of its limitations”. We can assume that Rossini may have used this analogy in his teaching, as I did for over 30 years, as well as in his Priestley Medal Address.

I was pleased to see the response by T. P. Silverstein to my letter. I support his conclusions completely, especially that a “well drawn analogy between two surprisingly dissimilar concepts cannot only be helpful in the classroom, it can be pleasing and instructive on its own merits, as long as one is cognizant of its limitations”. We can assume that Rossini may have used this analogy in his teaching, as I did for over 30 years, as well as in his Priestley Medal Address.

(add discussion)

Libb Thims ts

Thims | 2007
In 2007, American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims devoted ten pages of the "Human Thermodynamics" chapter to his Human Chemistry textbook to a detailed critique of the Rossini debate, as the debate itself is a very rare look into the minds of a very rarified group: chemists, physical chemists, chemical thermodynamicists about the real or not real implications of their own work in potential application to their own existence, the following being a representative excerpt: [8]

“In response to Leonard’s suggestions about the use of Gibbsian-Rossini thermodynamics to better understand terrorism, a follow-up letter was published, in the same journal, by American physical chemistry professor John Wójcik, at Villanova University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, titled ‘A Response to Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real’. In this very abrupt letter, Wójcik ridicules Leonard for his suggestion. He starts out his response-letter with ‘Leonard has given us a good example of anthropomorphism in chemistry’. From here, his letter goes down hill where he argues that Leonard is wrong for naively thinking that chemical thermodynamics applies in human life. Now, Wójcik certainly has some set of balls for going up against figureheads such as Gibbs, Lewis, Randall, Giauque, and Rossini, among others. To this end, we give him credit for speaking his mind. Yet, as Rossini is not here to give his input, as he passed in 1990, here we will clarify the matter.”

Thims' since has been actively working to re-educate the physical science community about the correctness of Rossini's position.

Jing Chen (s)

Chen | 2008
In 2008, Chinese-born Canadian mathematical economist Jing Chen, in his “Understanding Social Systems: A Free Energy Perspective”, gave his opinion on the Rossini debate, commenting to the effect that it is one of the few pioneering works to have received attention from the research community:

“The few pioneering works about social conditions from detailed mathematical analysis of physical laws received little attention from the research community … In human society, E represents the amount of energy resources available for human consumption. Changes in entropy represent a change in randomness. Where an increase in randomness represents an increase in freedom in a system.”

(add discussion)

Philip Moriarty ns

Moriarty | 2009
In 2009, during the Moriarty-Thims debate, Thims brought up (comment #118) the Rossini debate, as a comparative example, during which time Irish physicist Philip Moriarty commented (comment: #128) the following:

“Thank you for the link to that debate. You are correct - the theme mirrors that of our argument. Your suggestion, however, that scientists are "split on the issue" is, as ever, a remarkable overstatement. Silverstein's observation is that "Although Rossini’s analogy is amusing and entertaining and makes some political sense, unfortunately, its thermodynamic conclusions are flawed." Even Leonard, in his closing response, appreciates the difference between drawing an *analogy* between thermodynamic functions of state and features of society, and the claim that one can **equate** a thermodynamic entropy/enthalpy/free energy with properties of human relationships/society. It is this distinction between analogy and mathematical/physical equivalence that is so important and which you seem unable to grasp.

Hence, you misinterpreted the analogy I drew in the Sixty Symbols YouTube video on entropy and argued that I was actually claiming that one could associate a thermodynamic entropy with the arrangement of students. That someone could confuse the analogy with the actual thermodynamic quantity just never occurred to me. Of the ~ 750 physics majors who took the 1st year Thermal and Kinetic Physics module I taught, not one made this fundamental error. Similarly, the number of professional scientists who have made this error is very small indeed.”

which resulted in followup discussion (comment #160, etc.)

Joel Janin

Janin | 2013
In 4 Mar 2013, French bio-physicist (chnops-physicist) Joel Janin voiced his opinion as follows: [10]

“I guess I generally agree with Frederick Rossini, though I see no chance to make a quantitative estimate of 'energy' and 'enthalpy' in social issues.”

This latter "no chance" comment by Janin here is a foray into the newly-emerging field of the development of human thermodynamic instrumentation, though ideas on how to go about calculating human energy, human entropy, human enthalpy, and human free energy have a long historical past, such as have been attempted in historical attempts at making human thermodynamics variable tables, a subject dating back to at least to American economist Irving Fisher's 1892 table.

John Prausnitz

Prausnitz | 2013
On 28 Mar 2013, American chemical engineer John Prausnitz, professor emeritus of the University of California, Berkeley, noted for work in protein thermodynamics and the history of chemical thermodynamics, gave the following opinion to Thims, in query about the potential fit of a two cultures department at UC Berkeley, with the central hub located within the chemical and biomolecular engineering department, and the humanities integrated into this hub, in which the Lewis school and the Rossini debate were mentioned: [10]

“I don't know what the Rossini debate is but I hope to find out. No, your idea for a department for teaching two cultures would not be appreciated at Berkeley. In the social sciences and in some humanities, thermodynamics may be useful as an analogy, as a suggestion for looking at a problem (e.g., information theory) but beyond that, I see little use of thermodynamics outside science.”

(add discussion)

Drew Sowersby s

Sowersby | 2013
On 14 Jul 2013, American bio-chemist (chnops-chemist) Drew Sowersby gave the following opinion on the Rossini debate: [15]

“I am fundamentally sentimental to the notion raised by Rossini, albeit see both ends of the spectrum asymptotic in nature. I generally don't see in black and white, and colors often bleed into each other when I try to explain complex ideas.

I have come up with some pretty good analogies to help others better understand the varying "degrees of freedom" [DOF] found within the various levels of nature. For instance, imagine someone trying to get into an inner tube for a float down the river. This is often a big challenge. Why? and When? Well, there are many variables that contribute to a person being able to get into the tube, and stay put. The first challenge is to ensure that the tube contains enough air. If your hand sinks into the tube as you brace yourself, there may be too many DOF and you would have to use more energy in the form of a muscle contraction (quick leg swing or something). Technically, the tube need to have a high enough buoyant force which acts as a counterbalance to a human load.

Next, the tube needs to stay in place as to also limit the DOF. How are you going to get in a tube that is moving unless you are willing to learn some kind of ninja trick. If you can buttress the tube against a wall or at least hold it in place, it will require much less energy to get in. Obviously some DOF of available, like in the flexibility of the rubber and your arms. Overall, getting into a tube properly and floating down a river without falling out takes a balance of rigidity and flexibility.

I see it the same way for most of human behavior, especially running organizations such a politics and the economy. Some have talked about a steady-state economy that has a well-balanced DOF system that is not allowed to sway too far in any direction. Based on the Rossini page you sent, I think he was trying to get to this understanding.”

(add discussion)


A representative of the perceived "danger" associated with the ramifications inherent and embedded within the revolutionary subject of human chemical thermodynamics, whether discussed in reference to Goethe's 1809 Elective Affinities, Rossini's 1971 "Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World", or Thims' 2008 Hmolpedia, a subject, namely the "moral symbols" of physical chemistry, in direct conflict to the religio-mythology based morality and belief system of modern the modern world; one example of this perceived danger being James Froude, pictured, and his 1849 Elective Affinities influenced Christian-faith renouncing Nemesis of Faith, which was publicly burned, after which he lost his post at Oxford, and thus resultantly did the first English translation of Goethe's revolutionary-doctrine containing, human chemical theory, self-defined "best book" anonymously. [6]

A representative of the perceived "danger" associated with the ramifications inherent and embedded within the revolutionary subject of human chemical thermodynamics, whether discussed in reference to Goethe's 1809 Elective Affinities, Rossini's 1971 "Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World", or Thims' 2008 Hmolpedia, a subject, namely the "moral symbols" of physical chemistry, in direct conflict to the religio-mythology based morality and belief system of modern the modern world; one example of this perceived danger being James Froude, pictured, and his 1849 Elective Affinities influenced Christian-faith renouncing Nemesis of Faith, which was publicly burned, after which he lost his post at Oxford, and thus resultantly did the first English translation of Goethe's revolutionary-doctrine containing, human chemical theory, self-defined "best book" anonymously. [6]

God vs Gibbs | Discussion | Danger
Although difficult to ascertain to what specific "dangers" Wojcik has in mind in his objections, which underlyingly amounts to a "God vs Gibbs" objection, the deeply-loaded term "danger" employed four times, which by no means should be talking lightly, we may glean some comparison from the following version of godless scientific socialism tested out in Russia:

“Soviet orthodoxy [1917-1986] was shaped as a quasi-religion with Marx as God and the Spirit, Lenin as God the Father, and the party as collective God the Son.”
— Yuri Tarnopolsky (1993), reflection, as a scientist, i.e. self-defined “human chemist” (or pattern chemist), on his time as a Russian citizen (1936-86) and Siberian concentration camp days (1983-85), prior to his 1987 immigration to America, amid the eventual “fall of communism” in 1989 (Ѻ) [17]

Mass killings, to note, occurring under Communist regimes, i.e. those countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist definition, during the twentieth century, resulted in death tolls numbering between 85 and 100 million. (Ѻ)

In other words, per this example, the jump from scientific socialism theories, such as Marx-Engels “scientific materialism”, as Marx called it, or “dialectical materialism”, as Engels called it, to 100-million dead (dereacted), is not such a small jump, particularly when cautions to possible dangers are not heeded or deemed prudent.

Nevertheless, Wojcik is incorrect in his assertion that “chemical thermodynamics does not have the power to explain the human condition”, being that thermodynamics, whether of social chemical processes, plant production scale chemical processes, or laboratory-scale chemical processes, is the science that gives the definitive definition of “power”, i.e. in social phenomena, namely: the quantification of work or energy per unit time per social change or transformation. We may very well throw God out the window, as Marx and Lenin did, in their reformulation of Soviet society, but what to put in its place is not, as we see, so simple.

One may very well envision a future utopian-escaped refugee making a similar quote replacing Marx with some future "thinker" — who builds a social theory on an admixture of Gibbs + Darwin + Goethe — and Lenin with some future scientifically-trained political "leader" who makes a God out of the said thinker and is social ideology.


A synopsis of Frederick Rossini’s 1971 “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World” argument, namely: slide #22 (Ѻ) of Libb Thims 2015 “Zerotheism for Kids Lecture”, wherein Rossini is shown explaining how freedom and security equate to entropy and enthalpy, respectively, in society, and how human "reactions" are larger types of chemical reactions, equilibrating in society; the contentions and ramifications of which acting to spark the Rossini debate (2007-present).

Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World (Zerotheism slide #22)

A synopsis of Frederick Rossini’s 1971 “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World” argument, namely: slide #22 (Ѻ) of Libb Thims 2015 “Zerotheism for Kids Lecture”, wherein Rossini is shown explaining how freedom and security equate to entropy and enthalpy, respectively, in society, and how human "reactions" are larger types of chemical reactions, equilibrating in society; the contentions and ramifications of which acting to spark the Rossini debate (2007-present).

The same loaded term was used in reference to German polymath Johann Goethe's 1809 physical chemistry treatise Elective Affinities, which argues exactly the same position as Rossini is arguing in 1971, albeit in terms of chemical affinities governing freedom and security of human existence and experience, the two, affinity chemistry and chemical thermodynamics, translatable into one another via the affinity-free energy equation:

$A=-\left(\frac{\partial G}{\partial \xi}\right)_{p,T}$

proved in 1882 German physicist Hermann Helmholtz and his thermodynamic theory of affinity.

To give an example of this "danger", we note that the first English translation of Elective Affinities, was done "anonymously" in 1854 by English clergyman-abnegator turned historian, novelist, biographer, and editor James Froude less than five years after his 1849 Goethean human chemical theory epistolary philosophical novel The Nemesis of Faith was publicly burned and because of which he lost his post at Oxford. This situation is summarized well by English science historian and philosopher David Knight (2009) as follows: [12]

“Froude’s semi-autobiographical Nemesis of Faith [a renunciation of Christian faith], published in 1848, owed much to Goethe’s novel of human and chemical reactions, Elective Affinities, which he translated. Nemesis lost him his fellowship at Exeter College, Oxford, where his book was publicly burned.”

Likewise, in 1880 German scholar Herman Grimm cogently characterized Elective Affinities as Goethe's "most dangerous work" and likewise prior to this German poet-writer Christoph Wieland gave his opinion on the same book, in a letter which he said should be burned after reading, that it was but "childish nonsense and fooling around" and that his main objection was because of the “radicalness of its Christianity”.

Hence, by repercussion of Rossini's argument, if freedom is determined by enthalpy and entropy, then "choice" is a chemical thermodynamic property, whereby subsequently the doctrine of "freely", as in belief in free will, choosing right (good) from wrong (bad) so as to achieve moral salvation is a theory that comes into question, hence undermining the modern belief system and colloquial social structure, for many, such as seems to be the case with Wojick.


Kenneth Connors (2002) and later his co-author Sandro Mecozzi (2010) seem to have independently suppositioned the same premise as Rossini on freedom (or liberty), security, and thermodynamics.

Connors | Security vs liberty
In 2002, American pharmaceutical thermodynamicist Kenneth Connors, in his Thermodynamics of Pharmaceutical Systems, seemingly independent or rather unaware of Rossini's 1971 Priestley Medal address, footnotes a politics type explanation of free energy, i.e. a type of political thermodynamics, as a compromise between security and freedom (or liberty), as follows: [18]

“It is not too fanciful to draw an analogy with a political science setting, in which each society must choose its own compromise position between the extremes of maximum security (the energy component) and maximum liberty (the entropy component).”

In 2010, Connors, together with co-author Italian-born American pharmaceutical chemist Sandro Mecozzi (Ѻ), in their second edition, restated the above footnote, albeit in a little more organized fashion, with the footnote bottom page, versus end of chapter (2002), showing a free energy diagram concordantly; the newer presentation, with the footnote inserted, reads as follows: [19]

	“The essential characteristic of the Gibbs free energy function is its combination of both energy and entropy components in a form that reveals how these two thermodynamic concepts complete to generate a compromise that determines the position of equilibrium in a chemical process. It is not too fanciful to draw an analogy with a political science setting, in which each society must choose its own compromise position between the extremes of maximum security (the energy component) and maximum liberty (the entropy component). A more negative ΔH favors spontaneous reaction, and a more positive ΔS favors spontaneous reaction, in both instances making ΔG more negative.”
	Connor’s figure 3.1 captioned as “free energy of a reacting chemical system, showing how the direction of the reaction depends on the initial state of the system”, amid his free energy and political science discussions. [19]

Connors, to note, does cite Rossini’s 1950 Chemical Thermodynamics textbook twice, though he does not cite nor seem to be aware of his 1971 Priestley Medal address or of the Rossini debate (in his 2010 second edition). In 2014, Libb Thims email queried Connors (and Mecozzi) to see if they knew of Rossini's political suppositions, but there was no response. [20]

See also
● Detractors
● Human thermodynamics (objections to)
● Libb Thims (attack)
● What is entropy debate?

References
1. (a) Rossini, Frederick D. (1971). “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World” (abs)(pdf), Priestley Medal Address, delivered Mar 29 at the national American Chemical Society meeting, Los Angeles, California; in: Chemical Engineering News, April 5, 49 (14): 50-53.
(b) Eliel, Ernest L. (1999). “Frederick Rossini”, Biographical Memoirs (Priestley Medal address, pg. 294). National Academy of Sciences.
(c) Anon. (2008). “The Priestley Medalists, 1923-2008.”, Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 86, No. 14, pgs. 60-61, Apr 07.
(d) Priestley Medal – Wikipedia.
2. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two) (section: Rossini’s political thermodynamics, pgs. 679-88). (preview). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(b) Chen, Jing. (2008). “Understanding Social Systems: A Free Energy Perspective”, September, 16. pgs. 1-10. Social Science Resource Network.
3. Rossini, Frederick D. (1971). "Priestly Medal Address: Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World". Chem. Eng. News., April 5, 49 (14): 50-53, American Chemical Society.
4. Leonard, Harold, E. (2006). “Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World.” (PDF) Letters, Journal of Chemical Education, (83) 39, Jan, No. 1. pg. 39.
5. Wójcik, John F. (2006). ‘A Response to Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World.’ (PDF) J. Chem. Educ. (83) 39.
6. Silverstein, Todd, P. (2006). “State Functions vs. State Governments”, Journal of Chemical Education, Jun. (83): 847, Letters.
7. Leonard, H. (2006). “Author replies to Silverstein”, J. Chem. Educ. (83): 39, Jun.
8. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two) (section: Rossini’s political thermodynamics, pgs. 679-88). (preview). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
9. Chen, Jing. (2008). “Understanding Social Systems: A Free Energy Perspective”, September, 16. pgs. 1-10. Social Science Resource Network.
10. Email communication from John Prausnitz to Libb Thims (28 Mar 2013).
11. (a) Eliel, Ernest L. (1999). “Frederick Rossini”, Biographical Memoirs (Priestley Medal address, pg. 294). National Academy of Sciences.
(b) Ernest L. Eliel – Wikipedia.
12. (a) Knight, David. (2009). The Making of Modern Science: Science, Technology, Medicine and Modernity: 1789-1914 (Elective Affinities, pgs. 29, 184, 255). Polity Press.
(b) David M. Knight (faculty) – Durham University.
13. Larson, Edward J. and Witham, Larry. (1998). “Leading Scientists Still Reject God”, Nature, 394:313, Jul 23.
14. Murphy, Daniel R. and Rousseau, Viateur. (1980). Foundations of College Chemistry (Rossini, pg. 345). Wiley.
15. (a) Hmolpedia messaging communication from Drew Sowersby to Libb Thims (14 Jul 2013).
(b) Drew Sowersby – Google+.
16. Moriarty, Philip. (2009), “Comment #128”, in Moriarty-Thims debate (part two), Sep 12.
17. Tarnopolsky, Yuri. (1993). Memoirs of 1984 (Amz) (pg. 135). University Press of America.
18. Connors, Kenneth A. (2002). Thermodynamics of Pharmaceutical Systems: an Introduction to Students of Pharmacy (ch. 3: The Free Energy, pgs. 30-41, esp. 41). John Wiley and Sons.
19. Connors, Kenneth A. and Mecozzi, Sandro. (2010). Thermodynamics of Pharmaceutical Systems (pgs. 95-96). Wiley.
20. (a) Thims, Libb. (2014). “Emails to Kenneth Connors and Sandro Mecozzi” [no response], Sep 8.
(a) Thims, Libb. (2015). “Emails to Kenneth Connors and Sandro Mecozzi” [no response], Oct 11.