A diagrammatic showing how it took Goethe 31-years to from the 1770 age 19 "puzzlement stage" (see: Goethe’s daimonic) to the 1799 age 50 "verbal gripe" / "idea stage" (see: passions like playing cards), to go another 10-years exactly to working finished "product stage", namely his coded novella Elective Affinities, which he declared his "best book" (greatest work), wherein the passions are explained NOT like playing cards, as Crebillon did, but rather by the rules, laws, and reactions of physical chemistry. |
Mary Shelley, famed Frankenstein author, on the "radical" elective affinities philosophy of her late husband Percy Shelley, "the idea" of which he gleaned, at the age of 12, in the chemistry class of Adam Walker. |
“The radical tenets of Shelley’s philosophy appear transmuted to something rich and strange in the medium of his poetry. These principles, which he imbibed from William Godwin’s Political Justice, are, briefly, the perfectibility of man, the usurpation of Church and State, the negation of moral evil, and the doctrine of elective affinities. When religion and government shall have passed away, and liberty, equality and fraternity, the ideals of the French Revolution, shall have come to dwell among men, then will the golden age return. Shelley regarded himself as a seer, a hierophant whose concern was with the regeneration of humanity.”
— Florence Moynihan (1922), “The Centenary of Shelley” (Ѻ)
“Everything 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.”
“He had even published a dozen volumes of American history for no other purpose than to satisfy himself whether, by severest process of stating, with the least possible comment, such facts as seemed sure, in such order as seemed rigorously consequent, he could fix for a familiar moment a necessary sequence of human movement. The result had satisfied him as little as at Harvard College.”
The 1885 Henry Adams love thought experiment, i.e. trying to understand "the idea" of relationships from the point of view of nature as determined by physics and chemistry. |
“On the physico-chemical law of development and dynamics, our society has reached what is called the critical point where it is near a new phase or equilibrium.”— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (Sep 27)
“The solution of mind is certainly in the magnet.”— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Charles Gaskell” (Sep 27)
“I have run my head hard up against a form of mathematics that grinds my brains out. I flounder like a sculpin in the mud. It is called the ‘law of phases’, and was invented at Yale [by Gibbs]. No one shall persuade me that I am not a phase.”— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Elizabeth Cameron” (Sep 29)
“I’m looking for a ‘young and innocent physico-chemist who wants to earn a few dollars by teaching an idiot what is the first element of theory and expression in physics.’”— Henry Adams (1908), “Note to John Jameson” (Dec)
“My essay ‘The Rule of Phase [Applied to History]’ is a ‘mere intellectual plaything, like a puzzle’ [to Brooks]. I am interested in getting it into the hands of a ‘scientific, physico-chemical proofreader’ and I am willing to pay ‘liberally for the job’ [to Jameson].”— Henry Adams (1909), Notes to Brooks Adams and John Jameson
A mock rendition of South African physical chemistry Adriaan de Lange (1986) teaching Lewis-based physical chemistry to his students, amid which he came to the realization that these principles ALSO apply to people at the social interaction and reaction level; it would take him another 23-years to go from the "idea stage" to be able to pen out a full book on this view. [3] |
“Since as a kid I was aware of the abyss (super rift) between the material and mental worlds. I tried to bridge this abyss, but could not. Yet I kept on with my own "Steigerung" as Goethe did.”
“Then during 1982-83 I discovered empirically that the law of entropy production applies to the spiritual [humanistic] world as it applies to the physical world. My joy knew no bounds. I have found the bridge between these two worlds with which to cross the abyss between them. Others thought I was crazy and would not dare to publish my account.”
“Then, in 1986, if I remember correctly, I was teaching university students the intricate calculations concerning free energy in chemical reactions. During that lecture I suddenly became aware how my mind was rushing along two levels. The lower level was concerned with chemical processes as a physical phenomenon. I executed this level almost automatically. But the higher level of my mind was exploring free energy in the process of knowing-learning as a spiritual [thermodynamics] phenomenon. I followed this level with great curiosity. I think the students became aware that I was rather absent minded that day, not perceiving my higher most thoughts. That day marks the beginning of my continual exploring of the role of free energy in the spiritulization [actualization] of humankind.”
It took Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg 13-years to go from the 1974 age 42 "this idea" stage of listening to his fellow humanities scholars lecture about public administration using metaphorical physical chemist language, such as: “polarization, activation, potential energy, complexes, compounds, etc.” to get to the 1987 age 55 non-metaphor presentation of physicochemical description "view" of society as an actual trained organometallic chemist sees things, via the publication of his New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior. |
● Beg, Mirza. (1979). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology”, Pakistan Management Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1980). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Assimilation”, Pakistan Management Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1981). “Human Behaviour in Scientific Terminology: Affinity, Free Energy Changes, Equilibria, and Human Behaviour”, Pakistan Management Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1982). “Article Title”, Pakistan Marketing Review.
● Beg, Mirza. (1983). “Physico-Chemical Processes and Human Behaviour Part—IV: Muslim Society, its Formation & Decline”, Science & Technology in the Islamic World.
The question Thims had, in his mind, at this point, was “who” exactly, historically, or “how” exactly, in modern terms, was this explained, in detail? Thims, for whatever reason, did not ask the question OPENLY in class, despite of the fact, that he routinely sat in the front of every class, raised his hand to as the most questions in class, or thereabouts, and was the student that did some of the most teacher office visits, to get specifics answer, on various questions, that he couldn’t solve on his own.
“Hirata (IQ:225|#3) is an astrophysicist who is known for his work 'The Physics of Relationships.' His fame came at age 13 when became the youngest competitor ever to win a gold medal at the International Physics Olympiad. At 16, he began working with NASA on a project dedicated to colonizing Mars. He produced a similar theory on human chemical thermodynamics to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (IQ:220|#4).”— Roxy Farrah (2014). “20 Smartest People to Ever Exist” (Ѻ), Aug 30
The 16-20 Nov 2010 opinions of wildcard Lubos Motl (photo shown being his Twitter (Ѻ) page avatar) – a former Harvard physics professor, who in 2007 was forced (Ѻ) to resign, owing to his over-typical approach of using flaming criticism of anti-string theory advocates, such as Lee Smolin and Peter Woit, whose books he described as “crank” and “crackpot” – on Hirata and Thims versions of human chemical thermodynamics theories, dismissing Hirata as "but a joke" and Thims as senile or crazy. [8] |
In the true spirit of Caltech (I'm not sure if this applies to Princeton), I devote this section of my website to the application of basic physical principles to relationships, particularly the romantic kind. Before I do this, I will make a few comments. You should understand them before you proceed. They aren't hard to understand: (a) Don't take it too seriously. This site is for your amusement, and it does not serve any other purpose. I am not a counselor, and if you have a real problem with your "significant other" then this page won't help you solve it. I take no responsibility for what you do with this information. Also recall that I don't have a girlfriend, so what do I know about this? Only what physics can tell me. [UPDATE: Since I wrote this page I have found Annika and we are engaged. This confirms that I know what I'm talking about.]. (b) This site is geared primarily toward nerds. If you're not a nerd, this doesn't mean I want you to go away. In fact, it will give you some idea of the types of jokes frequently made in Caltech dorms. You may or may not find it interesting. (c) This is not a dirty site. For my younger audience: since this is the Internet, and I recognize that little kids have access to any material I put here, this site contains no sexually explicit material. (This is also because I don't want losers reading my page.)
So enjoy the compilation of worthless applications of physics and mathematics to relationships:
A selection of four realism philosophers, namely: Goethe, Shelley, Froude, and Rossini, who each asserted boldly that the chemical affinity (human affinity theory) or chemical free energy model (human free energy) of humanity IS the modern real world model, i.e. realism, and and NOT a childish joke, as many, e.g. Hirata, Hwang, among others, like to passingly suggest, so not offend anyone's religion or beliefs, and or to side-step the "danger" that such suggestion tends to bring forth. |
“Froude’s semi-autobiographical Nemesis of 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.”— David Knight (2009), The Making of Modern Science
“These remarks were written as early as 1809. I should then have been much cheered to hear so kind a word about the Wahlverwandtschaften; for at that time, and afterwards, not many pleasant remarks were vouchsafed be about that novel.”
“Two people who fall in love with one another are often described as having a certain personal ‘chemistry.’ Although most people would probably be quite content with accepting this convention at face value, the truth is that the correlation between romance and everyone's favorite branch of the natural sciences runs quite deep. In fact, while the terminology of thermodynamics explains the spontaneity of chemical reactions very well, it also applies directly to various factors determining the success of human relationships.”— David Hwang (2001), “The Thermodynamics of Love” [1]
Einstein credited his famed intelligence to his tenacity with problems; only a few great thinkers, Goethe and Henry Adams in particular, have had the mental aptitude to “stay with” the elective affinities problem, past the passing “this idea” stage. |
“I have little patience for [thinkers] who take on a board of wood, look for its thinnest part, and drill a great number of holes when the drilling is easy.”— Albert Einstein (c.1930), recalled by Philipp Frank [18]
“I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jansci [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed. But Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the special and general theories of relativity; and for all of Jansci's brilliance, he never produced anything as original.”— Eugene Wigner (c.1980) (Ѻ)
“I think that the basic intention of the authors, to analyze the economic world, by constructing an analogous fictitious ‘model’, which is sufficiently simplified, so as to allows an absolutely mathematical treatment, is—although not new—sound, and in the spirit of exact sciences. I do not think, however, that the authors have a sufficient amount of mathematical routine and technique, to carry out program out.
Neumann's 1934 human thermodynamics variables table, based on his review of Georges Guillaume's 1934 On the Fundamentals of the Economy with Rational Forecasting Techniques. |
I have the impression that the subject is not yet ripe (I mean that it is not yet fully enough understood, which of its features are the essential ones) to be reduced to a small number of fundamental postulates—like geometry, or mechanics (cf. pgs. 77-78). The analogies with thermodynamics are probably misleading (cf. pgs. 69, 85). The authors think that the ‘amortization’ is analogous to ‘entropy’. It seems to me, that if this analogy can be worked out at all, the analogon of ‘entropy’ must be sought in the direction of ‘liquidity’. To be more specific: if the analogon of ‘energy’ is ‘value’ of the estate of an economical subject, then analogon of its thermodynamic ‘free energy’ should be its ‘cash value’.
The technique of the authors to set up and deal with equations is rather primitive, the way, for instance, in which they discuss the fundamental equations (1) and (2) on page 81-85 is incomplete, as they omit to prove that 1: the resulting prices are all positive (or zero), 2: that there is only one such solution. A correct treatment of this particular question, however, exists in the literature. Various other technical details in the setting up of their equations and in their interpretations could be criticized, too. I do not think that their discussion of the ‘stability of solutions’, which is the only satisfactory way to build up a mathematical theory of economic cycles and of crises, is mathematically satisfactory.
The emphasis the authors put on the possibility of states of equilibrium in economics (cf. pgs. 68-69) seems to me to entirely justified. I think that the importance of this point has not always been duly acknowledged. I cannot judge the value of their statistical methods, as they are given in the last part of the book for practical purposes. Their aim is to diagnose the present status of economics, and to lead to forecasts. But I think that the theoretical deduction, which lead to them is weak and incomplete.”
The humanities, according to Newton and Bridgman, are "harder" than the physical sciences; this is evidenced by the Bridgman paradox. |
“I can calculate the movements of stars, but not the madness of men.”— Isaac Newton (c.1690), after losing his hat in a market collapse [6]
“The humanities are much more complex and difficult than the sciences.”— Percy Bridgman (1958), “Quo Vadis” [7]
“Something 60-80 years ahead of its time. Thims, in the future, will be someone who’s talked about in classrooms as this guy who had this idea. However, now, yes the book will sell, but its premise will not be accepted by people of this generation.”References— Monzer Ettawil (2005), American law student
“As strange as it sounds, I have thought the same way (chemically) about relationships ... especially entropy and molecules. Weird.”— Hala Kalmareiata (Ѻ) (2014), “IQ:200+ | Smartest Person Ever (3 of 4)”, forum (Ѻ) post