Human motion

Feynman diagram
A example depiction of human motion: a "repulsive interaction" of two human molecules, one male Mx one female Fy, shown moving in time on a Feynman diagram, in which the exchange of a repulsive visual sight, a sight transmitted or exchanged in the form of electromagnetic waves of light, which itself consists of field particles called photons, defined as being "on mass-shell", causes the two bodies to repel away from each other. [1]
In hmol science, human motion refers to the action of a force giving rise to movement of a specific human body on which it acts. [1]

Forces
In the human state of existence, according to standard model, the two forces that mediate human motion and daily activity are the electromagnetic force and gravitational force. In modern particle physics terminology, however, what we thought of as a "force", in the past, has come to be quantified in terms of what is called the "exchange of a particle" (either primary field particles, i.e. spin 1 or spin 2 particles or secondary field particles), which results in the apparent existence of an "exchange force". [2]

The measurable particle called the photon, a type of spin 1 boson, is said to be the carrier of the electromagnetic force, the hypothetical particle called the graviton is said to be the carrier of the gravitational force.

In sum, the ‘standard model’ holds that of the so-called fundamental forces of nature, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity, that human motions are under the operation of the electromagnetic force, predominately, an example being the force of love at first sight, a reaction process in which 20% of people will be pulled though uncontrollably into the marriage bond, and the gravitational force, in a secondary manner of effect, an example being the fact that a female’s state of being ‘in heat’ is governed or initiated on lunar cycles, and thus indirectly due to the gravitational force. [1]

The gravitational force, however, can be shown to be a derivative of the electromagnetic force, by virtue of the fact that the human (human molecule), the earth (earth molecule), and the sun (sun molecule) can each be quantified as being a different type of molecule and by standard definition the force that creates bonds that attach molecules together is the electromagnetic force, which can be explained in terms of exchange forces, wherein the field carrier, in fundamental unit, is the photon. The details of this derivation, however, remain to be worked out.

Work
As soon as any human body moves under the influence of the force, according to the standard thermodynamic definition, work is performed. [3] This work is quantified, in standard definition equation format, by the French physicist Gustave Coriolis’ 1829 principle of the transmission of work.

Equilibrium
In certain processes, one force may be prevented from its tendency to give rise to motion of a body by other opposing forces, such that equilibrium results, and the body remains at rest. In this case the force performs no work. These states of tensioned equilibrium can be graphically explained in terms of what are called negative pressures, such as may exist in solids, and in some liquids.

History
The subject of the why’s and how’s of human motion, not in terms of the so-called kinematics of human motion, but rather in terms of what fundamental forces moves humans in the same way the fall of an apple to the ground is defined as being due to the force of gravity, is a very nascent and controversial subject, even in modern times.

The principle that “heat can produce”, in regards to the “vast movements which take place on the earth”, considered from the general point of view, was first outlined in the form of a universal theory applicable to any working substance of the universe by French physicist Sadi Carnot in 1824.

Controversy
That human motion is due to forces, as is the case for any physical body of the universe, is unquestionable. Tensions, however, arise when this notion of human motion being to external forces (electromagnetic and gravitational) comes into conflict with age-old ideas of "free will", "choice", and so-called "self-motion", or "self-drive" and the connected concept that one's choices between so-called good and evil determines one's moral worth in after-death weight (soul, karma, etc.) and that this measurement determines one's state of existence in the afterlife, in whatever state of existence one views this to be, speaking plainly, which for over 72 percent of the world is a belief derived from Ra theology. As Indian chemical engineer DMR Sekhar stated, in his 2011 objection to the view that his actions were governed by the control of the electromagnetic force: [6]

“The external force view of human motion contradicts common sense. If contradiction exists then there should be experimental proof. While you are going up stair you are lifting yourself up. There is no external force that lifts you. Hence humans are self driven and self directed. The idea that ‘human actions are controlled by external electromagnetic forces’ is a premise that needs to be defended, in terms of explaining the difference between why a water molecule evaporates off a hot plate and why a human molecule jumps off a hot plate.

Is it not funny to think that some external ‘electro magnetic force’ decides if we need to climb up or down or decides what we are going to have for lunch? The external force induced human motion theory will be successful only when it can distinguish the difference between ‘evaporating water molecules’ and ‘a man escaping the heat to self preserve’.

Do you really think that human actions and behavior are not self controlled but are controlled by external electromagnetic waves? I, myself, do not agree that human actions are governed by external electromagnetic forces. Human actions are self controlled. This has nothing to do with God or any religion. I strongly believe that science should not be laced with any kind of philosophy including materialism. The the theory of ‘external electromagnetic control of human behavior and actions’ needs to be expanded to a full argument. In my view human beings are self driven and we don't need science to know this. Just common sense is enough.

Time only will tell how long Thims can carry the load of thinking that human actions and behavior are governed by external electro magnetic forces. Everyone can test by himself if he is self driven or not! I wonder who is going to accept that he is driven by electromagnetic forces from out side of him? And that he is not alive in the same way that a water molecule is not alive?

In sum, Sekhar believes that is a type of animated ‘living matter’ or being made of atoms, but one that is exempt, so to speak, from the standard laws of physics, via the view that humans choose their own actions according to their "will" and are “self driven”, on the logic that a human being uses his or her “internal biological energy”, which is not the same as a “perpetual motion machine”, because as a human "chooses" to takes in food from the external environment to accumulate and store “internal biological energy”.

This view, however, is a view of the olden days. The correct view is that all human choices and decisions originate not from within, but rather from the forces of sensory inputs, both recent and as stored as reactive memories. This view was stated in 1847 by Scottish physicist James Maxwell, who at the age of seventeen concluded that: [7]

“The only thing which can be directly perceived by the senses is force, to which may be reduced to light, heat, electricity, sound and all the other things which can be perceived by the senses.”

These input forces then give rise to what is called readiness potentials, which thus gives rise to states of consciousness and conscious choice. In the simplified words of American naturalist Diane Ackerman, "our senses define the edge of consciousness". [8]

The central problem or rather tension between the two seeming competing views (internal choice vs external forced choice), lies not in the view that human motion is a result of external forces, which is the standard model, but rather that the state of the world's modern 21st century educational system is still stuck in the mire of the 1833 Whewell-Coleridge debate mindset, wherein the so-called ‘scientist’ (defined during this debate by William Whewell in 1834), is one who studies of the ‘material world’, but explicitly not the material world of the human mind and its so-called connected ‘moral world’, a world often considered as being incorporeal to many, which is a territorial subject specifically left to the theologians and philosophers, and not to be tredded on by the modern physical scientist. This unwritten rule is so instilled that in American, in particular, high school teachers fear loosing their jobs and college professor fear loosing their grants if this subject is even mentioned or discussed in passing overview. [9]

See also
Library walk problem
Turning tendencies
Human molecular spin

References
1. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (ch. 6: Attraction and Repulsion, pgs147-182; ch. 7: Bound State Interactions, pgs. 183-211). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
2. Veltman, Martinus. (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics (pgs. 69-71). World Scientific.
3. Clausius, Rudolf. (1875). The Mechanical Theory of Heat (section: Mathematical Introduction: on Mechanical Work, on Energy, and on the Treatment of Non-Integrable Differential Equations, pgs. 1-20). London: Macmillan & Co.
4. Carnot, Sadi. (1824). “Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire and on Machines Fitted to Develop that Power.” Paris: Chez Bachelier, Libraire, Quai Des Augustins, No. 55.
5. Maxwell, James. (1871). Theory of Heat (pg. 206). Dover.
6. Defunct theory of life (forum posts: #24, 25, 33, 42, 50, 59, 63, 86) – EoHT.info.
7. Mahon, Basil. (2003). The Man Who Changed Everything (pg. 25). Wiley.
8. Ackerman, Diane. (1995). A Natural History of the Senses. Vintage Books.
9. (a) Humes, Edward. (2007). Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, and the Battle for America's Soul. Harper Perennial.
(b) Harris, Sam. (2010). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Free Press.

Further reading
● Maxwell, James. (1876). On Matter and Motion. Dover.
● Thims, Libb. (2009). “Thermodynamic Philosophy of Evolution”, (Nature Network: abstract) (Wikiversity: abstract) (13-pages), in: Philosophy of Evolution, AK Purohit (editor). India: Publisher (circa Oct. 2010 publication date).

TDics icon ns

More pages