# Human chemical reaction theory

 A Goethe-Adler depiction of relationship formation defined as a purely human chemical reaction, first done by German writer Johann Goethe in 1809. [3]
In human chemistry, human chemical reaction theory, or HCR theory, an initial state going to final state extension of human molecular theory, is the view that people can be defined as human chemicals, human elements, human molecules, atomic geometries, among other names (see: human), that "react", in the form of human chemical reactions, and hence combine and or debond in the same way and according to the same rules and laws as do smaller atoms and molecules.

The central aspect of human chemical reaction theory is the use of chemical symbols (A, AB, etc.) to represent "reactions" between people as chemical equations between human molecules using standard reaction dynamics notations (→,$\rightleftharpoons \,$, etc.). One example usage, for instance, would be a combination reaction between a man A and woman B in the formation of a couple C:

A + B → C

The history of this point of view details the usage and incorporation of chemical theory, e.g. spontaneity criterion, to model reactions between people. In short, the following article traces the history of the use of reaction equation diagrams to model human processes, e.g. love or divorce, as human chemical reactions or chemical mechanism steps, where the letters or symbols represent people modeled as chemical entities, molecules, or human molecules. The first to use chemical reaction theory to discuss human movements was German writer Johann Goethe in 1809 who wrote out 36 human chemical reactions in story form in his novella Elective Affinities.

 In 1718, English physicist Isaac Newton penned his last and final famous Query 31, wherein he gave a verbal hierarchy of single displacement reactions by power of displacement. That same year, French chemist Eteinne Geoffroy made the world's first affinity table based on Newton's verbal displacement descriptions. This is said to mark the start of the chemical revolution and the to seed the need for "chemical equations" diagrams.

Reaction diagrams
See main: History of chemical equations
The first verbal precursors to the concept of the chemical reaction in diagram or process form came from English physicist Isaac Newton's famous Query 31 appended to his 1718 Opticks. That same year, during a translation into French of this work, French chemist Eteinne Geoffroy, stated the first law of affinity: ‘whenever two substances are united that have a disposition to combine and a third is added that has a greater affinity with one of them, these two will unite, and drive out the other.’ Using this law, he published the first every affinity table. [12] More affinity tables were constructed in the years to follow, by other chemists. [13]

In 1757, using these affinity tables, Scottish physician and chemist William Cullen pioneered the development of affinity reaction diagrams during his lectures. To give an example, Cullen diagrammed Geoffroy's first law of affinity as: [1]

In which, for instance, as diagrammed above, if chemical species A and B are attached in a weakly bonded chemical union, signified by the bonding bracket “{“, ordered such that if species C were introduced into the system, the greater affinity preference of A for C would cause A to displace B and to thus form a new union with C. In modern terms, this equates to:

$AB + C \to AC + B \,$
 In 1657, Scottish chemist William Cullen (left) originated of the affinity reaction diagram; his student Joseph Black (center) expanded on these reaction diagrams. In 1775, Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman (right), while using variants of the Cullen-Black diagrams, introduced the A, AB, notation for single vs bonded species. In 1808, Johann Goethe (1749-1832): first to use chemical reaction diagrams as archetypes for human interactions.

which is called a single displacement reaction or single elective affinity. The other dozen or so laws of affinity were diagrammed similarly. The greatest table of reaction diagrams, was published in Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman's 1775 textbook A Dissertation on Elective Attractions, containing diagrams of 64 different affinity reactions. [2] To explain his table diagrammatically, Bergman drew out 64 reaction diagrams in his textbook, diagrams which later formed the basis of Goethe's human chemical reactions.

Goethe's 1809 reactions
In 1808, German writer Johann Goethe used the reactions in Bergman's chemistry textbook as a basis to model each of the human chemical reactions in the various 36-chapters to his soon-to-be novella Elective Affinities. Specifically, a year before publication (1809) Goethe, who had been studying chemistry for a period of forty-years, told his friend Riemer that ‘his idea for the new novella was to portray social relationships and their conflicts symbolically’, as in a, b, ac, abd, abcd, etc. (these letter combinations first employed in chemistry by Bergman), and that furthermore, according to Goethe, ‘the moral symbols used in the natural sciences were the elective affinities discovered and employed by the great Bergman’. In his preparatory notes, either in mind or on paper, then, Goethe would likely drawn out the world's first human chemical reactions using diagrams. The fact that he destroyed all of his notes and manuscripts to this novella leaves the question of whether Goethe actually drew out human reactions on paper open for debate.

The following, however, is from Goethe’s notebooks of 4-7 Oct 1793, the reaction diagram in the upper right hand corner showing a double elective affinity (double displacement reaction), using Bergman reaction diagram notation, of experiments with Berlin-blue liquor: [24]

 In generic symbol notation, the reaction Goethe was experimenting here, in his notebook, was the following:In modern terms, equates to the following: AB + CD → CA + BD Above: Goethe's notes on Double elective affinity (1793), i.e. double displacement reaction, of Berlin-blue liquor.

Sixteen years later, Goethe employs a reaction between limestone, i.e. calcium carbonate (CaCO3), and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which upon contact yields gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O), in the form an aqueous crystal, and carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, to compared and contrasted with the reactions that are occurring between the main characters in the novel: Charlotte (carbon dioxide), Edward (lime), Captain (sulfuric acid); as conceptually shown below:

The modern chemical equation for the limestone sulfuric acid reaction is shown above (top); also a video of reaction of calcium carbonate chips with sulfuric acid is shown (right), which shows that in the course of 13-minutes, the “extent”, symbol ξ, pronounced xi or “zi”, starting from an initial 50 grams total of reactant remains, only 49.13 grams remain, measurable by the scale, meaning that 0.83 grams of carbon dioxide gas was produced as reaction product.

 A portion of Goethe's human affinity table, from which he conceptualized each chapter reaction.
The above reaction forms the basis of the famous chapter four. The chapter begins with description of the affinity map (reaction map) or ‘topographical chart’ as Goethe calls it (a free energy map, in modern terms). On this reaction map, we are told that on it ‘the features of the estate and its surroundings were clearly depicted, on quite a large scale, in pen and in different colors, to which the Captain had give a firm basis by taking trigonometrical measurements’. Then, to explain a chemical reaction they are discussing, we are told: [3]

“Provided it does not seem pedantic,’ the Captain said, ‘I think I can briefly sum up in the language of signs. Imagine an A intimately united with a B, so that no force is able to sunder them; imagine a C likewise related to a D; now bring the two couples into contact: A will throw itself at D, C at B, without our being able to say which first deserted its partner, which first embraced the other’s partner.”

This is shown below, in modern reaction terms:

$AB + CD \to AD + CB \,$

Goethe, however, if he did at first draw this reaction out prior to writing the above paragraph, would have used Cullen's bonding "brackets" and "darts", in his scheme, as the above horizontal style chemical reaction had not yet evolved to that point. The chapter continues:

‘Now then!’ Eduard interposed: ‘until we see all this with our own eyes, let us look on this formula as a metaphor from which we may extract a lesson we can apply immediately to ourselves. You, Charlotte, represent the A, and I represent your B; for in fact I do depend altogether on you and follow you as A follows B. The C is quite obviously the Captain, who for the moment is to some extent drawing me away from you. Now it is only fair that, if you are not to vanish into the limitless air, you must be provided with a D, and this D is unquestionably the charming little lady Ottilie, whose approaching presence you may no longer resist.’

 Left: a 1996 film adaption of Goethe's 1809 Elective Affinities (with chemical equation overlay). [11] Right: 2012-launched working book project: Elective Affinities: Illustrated, Annotated, and Decoded, a fully-illustrated, annotated, decoded and de-formulated modern-day upgrade to Goethe’s self-defined "greatest work", in which he embedded, using hidden layers of gestalt, a physical chemistry based “principle” that he claimed was “true” (Nov 1809).
These human chemical symbol assignments would then be A = Charlotte, B = Eduard, C = Captain, and D = Ottilie, as pictured in the above human affinity table. In plain talk, Goethe is saying that when Ottilie (D) arrives at the estate, Charlotte (A) will naturally cling to her adopted niece ("A will go over to D") and that when their friend the Captain (C) arrives at the estate to visit, he will naturally begin to hang out with his childhood friend Eduard ("C will go over to B"). As the story unfolds, however, Goethe gives his readers the true final end reaction he had in mind, which occurs as a second main step in the reaction mechanism, in the heightened activation energy state of the time period the visitor's arrival, where the pairings of Charlotte-Ottilie, AD, and Captain-Eduard, CB, begin to relax, wherein after Eduard and Ottile fall in love, DB, and Charlotte and the Captain fall in love, AC:

$AD + CB \to DB + AC \,$

These two reaction mechanism steps constitute the main human chemical reaction described in the novella. In each of the 36 chapters, however, Goethe used a different affinity reaction, based on his studies in chemistry. In chapter nine, to go through one example we find a fascinating single displacement human chemical reaction, namely a displacement reaction described verbally. In short, Eduard B, Charlotte A, the Captain C, and Ottilie D are entertaining Mittler E the 'mediator' for the day, but when he hears that the Count F and the Baroness G are in the area he quickly gets his hat and riding-crop and leaves. He states that he is being ‘driven away’, for he will ‘not be under the same roof with them.’ This reaction is depicted below:

$ABCDE + FG \to ABCDFG + E \,$

In other words, Mittler E, who is also described as a human catalyst type of person in other chapters (in that he mediates reactions), has an intense negative affinity to the Count-Baroness pair FG, such that he is driven out of the bonded complex (ABCDE). The following is a circa 2011 Fischer paperback artistic rendition of the main reactions of the novella, depicting the idea that different contacts of human chemical species produced different amounts of heat (exothermic) and or coldness (endothermic): [29]

These paragraphs, as we see, are centuries ahead of their time. To give proof of this, we note in these reactions that Goethe is well-aware that each chemical entity (person) has a unique physical and mental character, which thus determines unique chemical affinity preferences per reaction and thus, in modern terms, unique Gibbs free energy preferences per each personal reaction. This fact, however, is not easily discerned. Two-hundred years later, high-IQ (225) child prodigy Christopher Hirata, discussed below, makes an attempt at describing human chemical reactions scientifically, but makes incorrect assumptions about how human chemical reactions would be quantified by affinity and Gibbs free energy; in particular, he assumes no difference in affinity preferences among a system of students at a university.

Lewis | 1925
In 1925, American physical chemist Gilbert Lewis discussed the possibility that him writing his 1925 Anatomy of Science might be a chemical reaction: [22]

“Suppose that this hypothetical experiment could be realized, which seems not unlikely, and suppose we could discover a whole chain of phenomena [evolution timeline], leading by imperceptible gradations form the simplest chemical molecule to the most highly developed organism [human molecule]. Would we then say that my preparation of this volume [Anatomy of Science] is only a chemical reaction [extrapolate up approach], or, conversely that a crystal is thinking [extrapolate down approach] about the concepts of science?”

Lewis, humorously, defends his own position by commenting "nothing could be more absurd".
 American physiologist Lawrence Henderson (1935) outlined a number of Willard Gibbs + Vilfredo Pareto equilibrium reaction based models of socioeconomic process change.

Henderson's Gibbs-Pareto equilibrium model | 1935
In 1935, American physiologist Lawrence Henderson, in his Pareto’s General Sociology: a Physiologists Interpretation, elaborateed on a large number of Pareto-Gibbs comparisons, such as the following: [1]

“Gibbs considers temperature, pressure, and concentrations, so Pareto considers sentiments, or, strictly speaking, the manifestations of sentiments in words and deeds, verbal elaborations, and …”

Henderson, however, never actually stated that Pareto derived his theory from Gibbs but rather only “compared Pareto’s social system to a physicochemical system as defined by Gibbs and emphasized that the equilibrium of the social system is logically identical to physiological equilibrium.” In fact, in his appendix "Note 5", Henderson states is views on this matter explicitly:

“It is very unlikely that the general characteristics of Gibbs’ system had anything to do with Pareto’s construction of his social system. In other words, it is very probable, I thing certain, that Pareto did not keep Gibbs’ work in mind and a fortiori that he did not imitate it, when he worked out his social system; so that Pareto’s system is not the result of the application of the theories of physical chemistry to sociology.”

Henderson, however, does have this application in mind, and in his end note appendices, actually goes though a comparison of the equilibrium properties of the following liquid phase chemical reaction, namely of reactants carbon acid H2CO3 with disodium phosphate Na2HPO4 to form the products of sodium bicarbonate NaHCO3 and monosodium phosphate NaH2PO4:

$H_2CO_3 + Na_2HPO_4 \rightleftharpoons NaHCO_3 + NaH_2PO_4 \,$

to that of the equilibrium properties of social systems, at the end of which he states:

“This simple example illustrates [the] logical principles [physical chemistry] that find universal application in the physical, biological, and social sciences.”

Henderson's treatise is fairly decent and in need of detailed analysis.

Boyajian | Mind-stuff

In 1956, Aram Boyajian, in his “A.A. Michelson Visits Immanuel Kant”, digressed, via hypothetical dialogue between physicist Albert Michelson and philosopher Immanuel Kant, on what physics and philosophy have to say on the nature of the soul, on the following future chemical equation:

2H2 + O2 → 2H2O + 293,000 J + X

where 'X' is some unknown "mind-stuff" that that future thinkers will invent to rectify the apparent on-going dualism between science, governed by blind forces and meaningless laws, and theology, governed by purposive souls and guiding gods, and evolution bridging the two nefarious domains.

Melko's 1969 transition mechanism diagrams
In 1969, American political scientist Matthew Melko published his The Nature of Civilizations, in which he employed diagrams to define "transitional periods", reversions to original periods, etc., using what can be called transition mechanism diagrams, to describe the transitioning from a primitive society P to a feudal society F to a state society S to an imperial society, each with a transition phase, i.e. PT, FT, ST, IT, and possible reversion to original state side routes, indicated by side-route branches angled forward, an example of which is shown below: [17]

Melko defines this in terms of a pin ball machine:

“[The mechanism] is rather like a pin-ball machine. The ball, when shot, has a universe of possibilities … but as soon as it passes through the first slot on its downward curve, the possibilities are narrowed. Thus, having reached FC, it can no longer return to PC. But the machine also has rubber bumpers, so that the ball can reverse its course. Having reached slot SC, it can no longer return to PC, the initial ejection slot, which has been closed off by a one-way valve.”

American physical chemistry Thomas Wallace (2009), see below, would later expand on these early models in the form a more advanced physical chemistry based description of the rise and falls of civilizations. [18]

Dolloff | 1975
In 1975, Norman Dolloff, in his Heat Death and the Phoenix, penned the following pair of synthesis and analysis of an organism equations, which he says is the general overall reaction mechanism equation according to which humans came into existence:

where Σni represents the “sum of simpler chemical species”; his free energy of formation signs, however, to note, seem to be backwards (being that he gives correct free energy of formation values for smaller chemical reactions correctly.

In 1969, under the direction and advisement of German literature scholar Claus Bock, compiler of the 1960 book Goethe the Critic, English poet and German literature scholar Jeremy Adler, decided to make his PhD dissertation be on the theoretical basis and of affinity reactions used by Goethe to construct his Elective Affinities. In the eight years to follow, Adler would go on to work with some of the biggest chemistry historians of the 20th century, a processes which he summarizes as follows: [16]

"John McEvoy (later at Pittsburgh) and his supervisor, Satish Kapoor (Sussex), gave Adler assistance with the background to the history of chemistry. Satish was working on French chemist Claude Berthollet at the time, and suggested to Adler that he switch to the history of chemistry; and so Adler joined the outfit of historians of science in England that ranged from the old masters, such as Joseph Needham and Walter Pagel, to his colleagues, like Roy Porter, Nick Jardine and others, interested in linking literature and science. Adler also had good contact with English affinity chemistry historian Alistair Duncan, who was working on the history of affinity theory."

In his research, Adler would attempt to theorize about which chemical reactions Goethe used for each chapter. In the decades to follow the completion of his PhD dissertation, in 1977, Adler would go on to draw out numerous human chemical reactions, such as found in his 1987 and 1990 articles on the same subject, published in German and English. One reaction, discussed by Adler, is the possible simultaneous influence of both French chemist Claude Berthollet and Bergman, in Goethe's mind, whereby the coming together of the two bonded pairs of Charlotte-Eduard, AB, and Captain-Ottilie, CD, as they gathered in the house to intermingle would be a type of human combination reaction: [4]

$AB + CD \to ABCD \,$

Beyond this simple example, Adler has done a tremendous amount of work and research in determining the specific chemist, which number possibly more than a dozen, used by Goethe to model each human reactions scenario in each of his chapters. Others to comment on and or expand on the Adler's pioneering work include, as discussed below, include: Karl Fink (1999), Astrida Tantillo (2001), and Libb Thims (2007), among others.
 Mirza Beg (1932-)

Beg | 1987
In 1987, Indian-born Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg, independently, i.e. independent of Goethe, in his New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, seems to have been the first, following Goethe, to pen out human chemical reactions in diagrammatic chemical equation form. Firstly, Beg, in his attempt to explain migrations and immigrations out of and into societies, in terms of fugacity, gives the following vaporization-condensation equilibrium reaction: [25]

Beg then states that an "interesting analogy", with the above reaction equation, is the case of a society, conceptualized by him as human molecules in a liquid state of association, stricken by some calamity or hazard: earthquake, fire, flood, or war, etc., that some if not all of its members, become so scared that they leave the calamity stricken area without delay, a process that can be modeled, according to Beg, by the following equilibrium reaction:

Beg, in chapter four "Human Interaction and the Socialization Process", begins to treat human molecules individually, e.g. how past psychological states (e.g. birth order or sibling group size), say of two potential friends, A and B, may affect later (adult) human chemical reactions processes (e.g friendship bonding), such as the formation of "close friends denoted by AB formed according to reaction 4.1", which Beg denotes as follows:

$A + B \rightleftharpoons AB \,$

Beg then goes on to calculate equilibrium constants (relative values) for the reaction scenario between three human molecular species: A, B, and C, and their possible products, e.g. AB, AC, BC, ABC, and secondary reaction mechanism products, which becomes rather involved. Beg, beyond these examples, employs a good deal of human chemical reaction logic and models in his arguments and reasoning.

Steer's 1990 reaction speculations
In 1990, American Goethean scholar Alfred Steer, in his Goethe's Elective Affinities: the Robe of Nessus, stated that in the chapter four reaction discussion, wherein the men discuss the reaction between chalk and dilute sulfuric acid, producing gypsym and carbon dioxide, that the modern reaction, according to Steer would be written as follows:

Steer then speculates, using Bergman symbols, that Goethe might have had the following chemical reaction model in mind at this point of the novella:

There may be some sense to what Steer speculates on here, however, it is more likely that Goethe had the Cullen-Bergman bracket and or arrow chemical reaction model logic in mind (see: Elective Affinities | IAD: Reaction decipherment). Steer continues:

“The Captain then reduced the chemical process to an equation with letters: if compound AB comes into contact with compound CD, they may switch partners and end up in the new combination AC and BD. Here Eduard supplies the last and most ironic stage of anthropomorphizing by relating the letters to the people present: if A is Charlotte, then B is Eduard, C stands for the Captain, and D is the ‘Dämchen’ (little lady) Ottilie.”

Steer points out here, for the first time in English, it seems, that Goethe, in his Bergman letter anthropomorphizing of the reaction, scaled up to the human level, used the letter D for Ottilie as the “Dämchen” or “little lady”; a near synonym to “dame”, from Latin domina feminine of dominus master; akin go Latin domus “house”, therein meaning “a woman of rank, station, or authority; archaic: the mistress of the house; the wife daughter of a lord.

 Libb Thims (c. 1975-)
Thims' 1995 reactions
In circa 1995, independent of either Goethe or Adler, American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims began to study the basic human reproduction reaction, modeled using the following reaction:

$A + B \to C \,$

where A, B, and C were the typical man, woman, and child formed during the process of the former two units falling in love. Thims central interest was to understand how the enthalpy change ΔH and entropy change ΔS terms functioned or could be understood or quantified during the span of the reaction, which he considered to be 18-years, for the average reaction, so as to understand how the spontaneity criterion, i.e. ΔG < 0 signifying a spontaneous reaction, could be understood as the central determinate of human movement. Thims efforts culminated in the writing of the 2007 textbook Human Chemistry, a full treatise on nearly every type of human chemical reaction (24 example human chemical reactions are given in chapter one), which he wrote in 18-months and 14-days after discovering Goethe's work in 2006 (and Adler's work shortly thereafter). In the course of this investigation, Thims also unraveled the nature of the human chemical bond in the AB union:

In his work, Thims set forth a standard protocol on notation, naming, and symbols to be used in describing and discussing human chemical reactions. Commonly, for instance, one might use M or F for male or female in describing a basic human combination reaction, yet M stands for mega and F for fluorine. In short, the revised standard for human chemical reaction notation is show below for the basic reproduction reaction, in overall mechanism, for instance, is defined by: [5]

$Mx + Fy \to MxFy + Bc \,$

where Mx, is the male human molecule, Fy the female human molecule, MxFy the bonded dihumanide molecule, and Bc the baby-child human molecule at the circa 15-year point of detachment from the parental orbital construct.

In 2005, Thims launched the Journal of Human Thermodynamics, publishing the online article "On The Nature of the Human Chemical Bond", wherein some basic human chemical reaction theory logic began to be discussed publicly. [26] In 2006, Thims discovered Goethe, via footnote 2.5, and shortly thereafter the pioneering reaction decoding work of Jeremy Adler.

 Christopher Hirata (1983-)
Hirata's 2000 reactions
In circa 1997 to 2001, American physicist Christopher Hirata, began to model the student body at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) as system of about 900 human molecules (of which 600 were male, and according to his observations about 200 were in paired relationships), male Y and female X, a certain equilibrium percentage of which, during their four-year stay as undergraduate students, would have undergone an reversible combination reaction of the form: [6]

$X + Y \leftrightarrow XY \,$

Hirata used the symbols of X = girl, Y = boy, and XY = paired relationship, calling the single boys and girls as “basic elements”. He also comments that in his modeling he is neglecting other rare human chemical reactions, which form the “rare and non-traditional” products or compounds that may form such as “the gay molecule Y2, the lesbian molecule X2, and the middle-Eastern polygamous molecule X4Y.” Interestingly, Hirata attempts at a calculation of the equilibrium constant for this reactions and then speculates as to what the bonded concentration of products would be if more females were introduced into the system.
 Karl Fink (c.1943-)

Fink's 2001 reactions
In 1991 book Goethe’s History of Science, American Germanic studies professor Karl Fink footnoted his knowledge of Adler’s 1987 depictions of Goethe’s human chemical reactions, stating that he “Adler has provided the most detailed study of Goethe’s research in the history of chemistry, particularly the history of chemical affinity.” [14] In his 2001 article “Goethe’s Intensified Border”, as what seems to be a follow up to his earlier note, Fink draws out nine of Goethe’s reactions, including discussion, the way he sees them, among which, curiously, he considers the birth of the child to be a precipitate. [15] The first reaction of Goethe's novella, according to Fink, is a combination reaction, beginning with Charlotte (A) and Eduard (B) being described as being bonded by marriage, where the attachment AB signifies a human chemical bond:

A + B → AB

This changes, according to Fink, with the arrival of the Captain (C), which triggers the second reaction, the Eduard detaching from Charlotte and bonding with his old friend the Captian:

AB + C → A + BC

The third reaction, according to Fink, is designed (by Eduard and Charlotte) to find a bonding partner for Charlotte, which is actuated by the introduction of Ottilie (D), Charlotte’s adopted niece, as discussed in Goethe's famous chapter four:

A + BC + D → AD + BC

The fourth reaction, according to Fink, operates such that, following their natural inclinations rather than planned expectations, Charlotte (A) and the Captain (C) are attracted by common interest in landscaping and music, whereas Eduard (B) and Ottilie (D) bond in self-same patterns of each other with common headaches, music skills, handwriting, and habits of eating:

AD +BC → AC + BD

The fifth reaction, according to Fink, is that stimulated by illicit bonding, the married couple conceives a child in the images of elective affinities, creating what Fink calls a precipitate (P) or PPT, using Fink’s symbols. Fink gives the following chemical equation for this reaction:

AC + BD → AC + BD + P

In this last reaction, to note, there may be some error (and correction needed), in that many mechanism steps seem to have been grouped into an overall reaction; whereas human reproduction typically is described as a double displacement reaction. In any event, Fink states that this is the end to part one of the novella, where we find Charlotte pregnant with a baby conceived with her husband in the image of the Captain and Ottilie.
 David Hwang (c.1980-)

Hwang's reactions
In 2001, American computational chemist David Hwang had written out a basic pair-bonding human chemical reaction in his article “The Thermodynamics of Love”, where he tells his that love is the process where two elements, "male" (M) and "female" (F), combine to form a new compound called "couple" (M-F)

$M + F \to MF \,$

He goes on to explain how Gibbs free energy, the modern measure of Goethe's elective affinity, "not only explains the spontaneity of chemical reactions", but "also applies directly to various factors determining the success of human relationships". Interestingly, Hwang specifically draws a dash '-' between the M and F elements, M-F, in his article, signifying that he had some conception of the idea of a "human chemical bond", which is a conceptually difficult topic, not easily spotted in beginning study of human chemical reactions. [7]

Hwang was also the first to use free energy diagrams, in which he plotted the free energy of the typical paring process of in a dating-to-couple forming relationship over the extent of the reaction.
 Chanel Wood (c.1982-)

Wood's reactions
In June 2007, Canadian writer Chanel Wood, developed a simple combination lock theory to explain love and human relationships, whereby she viewed single unattached individuals are considered as "reactants", the resultant couple the "product", such that a synthesis of energy level satiety bonding patterns and matrix compatibility factors determine the desired "we just clicked" scenario of successful pairings. Wood states that in defining “what exactly is chemistry between two people”, we can use physical chemistry to explain how people combine, behave, and relate to one another in the social world, using the following point of view: [8]

$Reactant + Reactant = Product \,$

such that "chemistry" is a result of all the elements between any two people—character, personality traits, timing, goals, dreams, priorities, lifestyle, etc., and how they ‘react’ with the other person’s elements. She used the stable eight electron filled orbital bonding model of the noble gases to model perfection in human-human bonding, whereby physical (e.g. hair color, eye color, etc.) and mental (e.g. leadership ability, etc.) attributes combine between people to make stale noble gas like pairings. She gives the example of how the elements sodium (Na), with one electron (+1 charge), and chlorine (Cl), seven electrons (-1 charge), combine to “complete” each other as the compound sodium chloride (NaCl) with the stable noble gas electron configuration:

$Na + Cl \to NaCl \,$

She argues that this model, applied to reactions between human beings, explains the saying “he completes me”, in the sense that the paring forms a stable compound with filled energy levels.
 Don Jorge (1988-)

Jorge’s reactions
See main: Human reproduction reaction
In August 2007, a Swiss individual named Don Jorge, in what seems to be an attempt at using chemistry to explain sex humorously to his girlfriend, made a video entitled “Aufklarung: How to Learn about Sex with Chemistry”, in which he described the process of sex using the following reaction: [9]

♂ + ♀ ⇌ Baby

In the video, Jorge draws the diagram on paper where he draws little sperm, with a head and a wiggle tail, moving from the male ♂ to the female ♀ and describes how “latex” can block the progress of the reaction. Of note, he incorrectly uses a two-way reversible reaction arrow to define the sex/reproduction reaction. The correct formulation is to use a one way arrow, signifying that the formation of an embryo and later an infant is an irreversible process. If, however, the couple or female decided to opt for an abortion, a completely different reaction mechanism would be used.
 Surya Pati (1983-)

Pati’s reactions
In 2009, Indian chemist and business school theorist Surya Pati wrote a short blog article on the “Thermodynamics of the Human bond”, in which he models a relationship as combination reaction between two persons A and B, who he says “come together to form a molecule”, AB, a reaction he defines as follows: [10]

$A + B \to AB \,$

Pati uses the logic that A and B are atoms, representative of single people, and AB is a molecule of two atoms, representative of the relationship. Technically, to clarify, the AB product is what is called a ‘dihumanide molecule’, a bound state of two human molecules. The human particle (or human atom) model, generally, is only good when speaking in the perspective of human statistical thermodynamics, human physics, or in human molecular orbital theory, etc.; it is not technically correct from a definitional chemistry point of view. [5]
 Thomas Wallace (1937-)

Wallace's reactions
In 2009, American physical chemist Thomas Wallace, building on the earlier mechanism models of American political scientist Matthew Melko, rephrase the entire description in purely physical chemistry terminology and depiction, using the double dagger "‡" to indicate a molecular reactant species in an unstable transition state, the double arrow "↔" to represent a reversible reaction, and a one-way arrow "→" to represent an irreversible reaction, as follows:

Wallace modifies Melko's mechanism by adding in the side-step reaction mechanism step that the transition state, e.g. (PT)‡, may undergo ossification O, an Arnold Toynbee term meaning to "freeze at a crystal stage". Wallace also describes each step in terms of being types of double displacement reactions:

A + B → C + D

in which a change in conditions, e.g. stress, temperature, addition of reactants or products, etc., to the system will affect a change in the dynamic equilibrium of the reaction, according to Le Chatelier's principle.
 Romanian high school student Christine Kamla's 2011 poster presentation “If the Genes Are Not the Last Word: of Elective Affinities to Adoptive Families”, wherein she uses Goethe's human reaction theory models to theorize about "adoption".

High School | Projects
In 2011, Romanian high school student Christine Kamla gave a presentation, entitled “If the Genes Are Not the Last Word: of Elective Affinities to Adoptive Families”, on the elective affinities of child adoption in terms of reactions, supposedly in some way modeled on the Ottilie adoption scenario of Goethe’s Elective Affinities in the context of modern adoption policies. The overview of her presentation is as follows: [23]

“Christine Kamla had the special topic "elective affinities" with the same group selected topic. She shared her brilliant lecture in "General", "Academic" and literary "(see poster image). Having discussed the conditions and the procedure for a child's adoption, she made an interesting trip into the chemistry and showed that even in this science some elements of their "Elective Affinities" pick, the finale was the reference to JWv Goethe's eponymous book, which also convert the fate of already existing relationships in the new Elective Affinities - The problematization resulted from the fact that when an adoption is an element of arbitrariness. must be excluded and you cannot adopt children how to shop goods in the supermarket.”

Some of the talk seems to have themed on how the laws of adoption and methods of differ between Romania and Germany. This a fairly interesting application in need of discussion.

In 2010, a student from Big Foot High School, Wisconsin, turned in a four page final entitled “Chemistry”, for their advanced composition class, which concluded with the following paragraph: [26]

“You may wonder if there is any correlation between the different forms of chemistry; well, the answer to this question is yes. Theories and studies have stated that there is a correlation between relationships and chemical reactions. Friendship, marriage, and even just a young love are based on the idea that people are “human molecules;” they form a basic equation that:

A (boy) + B (girl) = AB (bond)

or vice versa for a break up, divorce, or lost friendship (humanchemistry.net). Therefore, despite the differences between these classes of chemistry, there is a major link between each; the science of chemistry sends chemicals throughout one’s body to create incredible relationships between two people.”

Modern | 2010-present
With the 2005 launching of the Journal of Human Thermodynamics and the 2008 launching of Hmolpedia, independent arrival of insight into human chemical reaction formulation is increasingly difficult.
 In 2012, Indian chemical engineer Vamshi Regalla and American mechanical engineer Ravi Vedula utilized a Pati-Thims reaction theory in their argument on love. [19]

To cite one example, in Indian chemical engineer Vamshi Regalla and American mechanical engineer Ravi Vedula’s 2012 short film “A Strange Thing Called Love” (Feb 04) turned JHT article “A Strange Thing Called Love: Chemical Thermodynamics” (May), they outline their take on the chemical thermodynamics of love, employing Thims-Pati style reaction mechanisms to explain human bonding as a reaction, commenting at the end that:

“A video was made by the authors on the same concept with the title as “A strange thing called love”. The plot of this video is that a man falls in love with nine girls and that day comes when he is supposed to make a decision on choosing ‘the one’. Surprisingly in the early 1800s, Johann Goethe published a book named Elective Affinities based on a similar concept of love and marriage relations among two couples. It is a pure coincidence and the current authors actually didn’t know about it until they started preparing this article.”

This is what is called a “love thought experiment”, similar to Goethe and his mid 1808 “The Renouncers”, about a hero simultaneously in love with four women, and Libb Thims’ circa 1992 Excel spreadsheet formulaic attempt to rank the top nineteen girlfriends he could possibly marry, in all three scenarios involving a person puzzling on how to ‘choose’ the correct love. In their article, Regalla and Vedula go on to make advanced or modified types of human chemical reactions, such as employing or modeling human relationship reaction changes on the concept of reaction intermediate "radicals" (asterisk symbol), such as in the following two-step reaction: [19]

R → R*
R*
→ P

wherein a reactant R goes to product P.
 Forest Blind A selection of "objectors" to HCR theory, namely: Canadian theist chemist Stephen Lower (2007), American secular nuclear chemist Mitch Garcia and Polish analytical chemist Marcin Borkowski (2010), and Irish atheist biochemistry student Ryan Grannell (2011), viewing the premise of using chemical equations to describe reactions occurring between people as pseudoscience, crackpottery, or a the views of someone who is "nuts".

Objection
The modelling of human-human interactions, processes, and social transformations in the language of chemical mechanism is not without criticism and many, such as Marcin Borkowski, Mitch Garcia, and Stephen Lower, consider the premise of “chemical reactions occurring between human molecules” to be a crackpot-subject, pseudoscience, and or a lunatic notion. To cite one example, in 2011 Irish openly-atheist biochemistry student Ryan Grannell spent a month blogging about human chemistry, commenting for example: [20]

“This is all just a horrendous analogy. Chemical laws apply to humans, but our﻿ behavior is more complex than something that can be modeled with a couple of thermodynamic equations. A + B → AB is just a pretentious way of stating something we already know; it tells us absolutely nothing new [and Goethe’s Elective Affinities is a 'nutty theory'].”

The comment "A + B → AB is just a pretentious way of stating something we already know; it tells us absolutely nothing new", of note, here is very telling, in that it seems to give way to the notion that Grannell, possibly like many new to the subject of human chemistry, and rightly skeptical, are in the mindset of something along the lines of not seeing the ships in the harbor + not seeing the forest amid the trees, i.e. being "forest blind", type of perspective; the glass wall of the human chemical bond, is one example of this.

Discussion
Objectors, in short, tend not to see the big picture. Deeper thinkers, e.g. Goethe and Henry Adams, however, tend to see everything in terms of mechanism and chemical reaction. Adams, e.g., after stating categorically in 1885 that “Social chemistry—the mutual attraction [and repulsion] of equivalent human molecules—is a science yet to be created”, went on from 1889 to 1891, to write and published his nine volume History of the United States of America: During the Administrations of Thomas Jefferson, a history of the years 1801 to 1809, when Thomas Jefferson was president, supposedly, for no other reason than to prove to his own satisfaction that causality and mechanism exists in the course of history; about which he retrospectively stated, in his The Education of Henry Adams (1900), as follows: [28]

Historians undertake to arrange sequences,—called stories, or histories,—assuming in silence a relation of cause and effect. These assumptions, hidden in the depths of dusty libraries, have been astounding, but commonly unconscious and childlike; so much so, that if any captious critic were to drag them to light, historians would probably reply, with one voice, that they had never supposed themselves required to know what they were talking about. Adams, for one, had toiled in vain to find out what he meant.

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.

Where he saw sequence, other men saw something quite different, and no one saw the same unit of measure. He cared little about his experiments and less about his statesmen, who seemed to him quite as ignorant as himself and, as a rule, no more honest; but he insisted on a relation of sequence, and if he could not reach it by one method, he would try as many methods as science knew. Satisfied that the sequence of men led to nothing and that the sequence of their society could lead no further, while the mere sequence of time was artificial, and the sequence of thought was chaos, he turned at last to the sequence of force; and thus it happened that, after ten years’ pursuit, he found himself lying in the Gallery of Machines at the Great Exposition of 1900, his historical neck broken by the sudden irruption of forces totally new.”

References
1. Crosland, Maurice P. (1959). “The Use of Diagrams as Chemical ‘Equations’ in the Lecture Notes of William Cullen and Joseph Black” (abs), Annals of Science, 15(2):75-90.
2. Bergman, Torbern. (1775). A Dissertation on Elective Attractions. London: Frank Cass & Co.
3. Goethe, Johann. (1809). Elective Affinities. Penguin Classics.
(b) Adler, Jeremy. (1987). “Eine fast magische Anziehungskraft”. Goethe’s “Wahlverwandtschafte” und die Chemie seiner Zeit (“An almost Magical Attraction”). Goethe’s Elective Affinity and the Chemistry of its Time), Munich.
(c) Adler, Jeremy. (1990). "Goethe's use of chemical theory in his Elective Affinities" (ch. 18, pgs. 263-79) in Romanticism and the Sciences - edited by Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine, New York: Cambridge University Press.
(d) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two), (preview), (ch. 10: "Goethe's Affinities", pgs. 371-422). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
5. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One), (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two), (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
6. Hirata, Christopher M. (c. 2000). “The Physics of Relationships” (section: Fun), Tapir.Caltech.edu.
7. (a) Hwang, David. (2001). "The Thermodynamics of Love", Journal of Hybrid Vigor, Issue 1, Emory University.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One), (ch. 4: section: "Love and the Combined law of Thermodynamics", pgs. 116-19), (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
8. Wood, Chanel. (2007). "A Question of Social Chemistry", June 06. Sociology, ChanelWood.com.
9. Jorge, Don. (2007). “Aufklarung: How to Learn about Sex with Chemistry”, YouTube, Aug. 07.
10. Pati, Surva P. (2009). “The Thermodynamics of Human Bond!”, Sep. 09, MentalProjections.Blogspt.com.
11. The Elective Affinities - Wikipedia.
12. Geoffroy, Étienne F. (1718). Tableau des différentes Rapports Observées entre Différentes Substances (Table of the Different Relations Observed between Different Substances). France.
13. Kim, Mi Gyung. (2003). Affinity, That Elusive Dream – A Genealogy of the Chemical Revolution. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
14. Fink, Karl J. (1991). Goethe’s History of Science (elective affinities, pgs. 111, 195). Cambridge University Press.
15. Fink, Karl J. (2002). “Goethe’s Intensified Border”, in Goethe, Chaos, and Complexity (pg. 93-104; elective affinities, pgs. 99-103). Ed. Herbert Rowland (Amsterdam: Rodopi); originally presented as a paper at the Purdue University Symposium “Goethe, Chaos, and Complexity, April 9-10, 1999.
16. Email communication (cleaned and formatted by Thims) from Jeremy Adler to Libb Thims on 26 Jul 2008.
17. Melko, Matthew. (1969). The Nature of Civilizations (mechanisms, pgs. 47-57). Porter Sargent Publishers.
18. Wallace, Thomas P. (2009). Wealth, Energy, and Human Values: the Dynamics of Decaying Civilizations from Ancient Greece to America (pg. 2, Le Chatelier's principle, pgs. 142-43). AuthorHouse.
19. Regalla, Vamsi and Vedula, Ravi. (2012). “A Strange Thing Called Love: Chemical Thermodynamics”, Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 8(1): 1-##, May.
20. (a) Grannell, Ryan. (2011). “Category: Human Chemistry”, Bag of Many Things, WordPress.com (Jun 26 –Jul 22).
(b) Grannell, Ryan. (2011). “Comment on: Sexual Heat | Pop Quiz” video, Jul.
21. Steer, Alfred G. (1990). Goethe’s Elective Affinities: the Robe of Nessus (pg. 38). Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitatsverlag.
22. Lewis, Gilbert N. (1925). The Anatomy of Science (§7: Non-Mathematical Sciences), Silliman Lectures; Yale University Press, 1926.
23. Kamla, Christine. (2011). “The Elective Affinities of Child Adoption” (GermanEnglish), auslandsschulwesen.de.
24. Adler, Jeremy. (1987). “Eine fast magische Anziehungskraft: Goethe’s 'Wahlverwandtschafte' und die Chemie seiner Zeit (“An almost Magical Attraction: Goethe’s Elective Affinity and the Chemistry of its Time) (pg.76) (Amazon). Munich: Beck.
25. Beg, Mirza Arshad Ali. (1987). New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (abs) (intro) (pgs. 31-33). Karachi: The Hamdard Foundation.
26. Anon. (2010). “Chemistry” (pdf), Advanced Composition (teacher: Jeff Brower), Final Paper, Big Foot High School, Walworth, Wi.
27. Thims, Libb. (2005). “On the Nature of the Human Chemical Bond” (un-finished), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, Vol. 1, Issue 5, pgs. 36-67. Dec.