# Human thermodynamic instrument

 A 2013 screenshot of a Twitter-based searchable real-time so-called “social heat map”, a social heat gauge type of human thermodynamic instrument, found at Boston.com, according to which the social networks that glow red with activity indicate venues having the greatest activity in the given time period. [18]
In hmolscience, human thermodynamic instrument is a thermodynamic instrument, such as a thermometer, barometer, indicator, calorimeter, or reaction calorimeter, etc., built or conceived to measure large-scale "boundaried" human molecular quantities, as in a human system of two or more people, or rather, in a sense, "social", pressures (social pressure), volumes (social volume), temperatures (social temperature), energy (social energy), or heat (social heat).

History | Overview
In 1945, Stuart Dodd, supposedly, designed some type of barometer (or social barometer) of international tension to detect reliably and early the tensions that lead to war. [23]

In 1947, American sociologist George Lundberg, in his scientific method advocating Can Science Save Us? sociology booklet, devoted several pages to a discussion of the need for instruments to develop physical sociology; the following being an example statement: [20]

“We need to use instruments as far as possible to sharpen our observation, to check it, and to report it accurately. These instruments and skills do not exist ready-made in any field. The have to be invented. They may be quite elementary as yet in much social investigation, consisting of little more than a pencil, a schedule, a standardized test, or the recording of an interview. But we also have at our command the movie camera with sound equipment with which social behavior can be observed in its cruder aspects with the same accuracy as any physical behavior is observed.”

The camera mention brings to the mind the work of 1970s-1990s marriage stability work of John Gottman; also the early 1970s sidewalk study of American sociologists James Dabbs and Neil Stokes. The pencil mention brings to mind the invention of the indicator diagram.

Lundberg cites Ernest Greenberg’s 1945 Experimental Sociology as being the go to source for an examination of the literature on the non-impossibility of experimentation in the social sciences. [21]

The topic of quantifying systems of humans using standard thermodynamic parameter is one of the most complex areas in human thermodynamics and generally speaking a very nascent subject in infancy. As to difficulties involved in even conceiving of any type of "indicator" to gain data on the thermodynamic state variables of human activity, one must first note that measurements have to be obtained in SI units, just as is the case for any other system of study in the universe.

To cite one example, temperature, by definition is the measure of the ability of a body to absorb or give up energy, and is measured in degrees kelvin. Thus, on this definition how does one quantify the very significant aspects of the average sexual temperature of one person? It is well-agreed that a typical supermodel (who have larger personal space) has the ability to give off a larger amount of energy (causing volume expansion). Yet how is this measured in degrees kelvin?

Molar units
See main: Hmolscience, Avogadro's number, mole
In 1953, during the 40 person AAAS so-called “Committee for Social Physics” meeting, headed by John Q. Stewart, American physicist Stuart Dodd explicitly suggested that “chemical moles” be the equivalent to “number of people” in social physics. [22]

A significant issue first encountered in attempts at deriving and measuring numerical human thermodynamics quantity in units is the fact that standard chemical thermodynamic units are based on units per mole, e.g. energy per unit of 10E23 particles. The question then becomes: how are units to be based in human thermodynamics? On ten humans, on 100 humans, on the number of students in a typical school, a typical city, a typical country? Theoretical work in addressing this question include: the ‘social Avogadro number’ introduced in 2003 by Hungarian sociologist Babics Laszlo, the C-mol, introduced in bacterial thermodynamics in circa 2005, and the term ‘hmol’ introduced in 2007 by American chemical engineer Libb Thims.

 Swiss physicist Daniel Bernoulli’s 1738 Hydrodynamica depiction of pressure that of the rate at which molecules collide with the walls of the container; a definition based on Italian physicist Evangelista Torricelli's 1643 mercury barometer experiment, the world's first pressure measurement instrument.

Pressure
See main: Social pressure
The concept of human system pressure is an elusive one. The barometer was invented in 1643 by Italian physicist Evangelista Torricelli who was studying the Parmenides' 485BC theory of the nonexistence of vacuums in nature.

The basic definition of pressure is that it refers to the rate at which the particles of the system collide on the walls of its container, as described in Swiss physicist Daniel Bernoulli’s 1738 Hydrodynamica. This is the basic model we have, thus far, to describe pressures in human systems, which invariably need to be quantified in units of pascal (PA) or newtons per meter squared acting on the surface in question.

The pressure in a standard barometer measures the weight of the molecules in the atmosphere pushing down on the molecules at the surface-level of the earth. When the water molecules push out against the piston of a piston and cylinder heat engine, it signifies that the pressure of the water molecule system is higher than the surrounding system of atmospheric molecules, owing to the actions of heat transferred to the system, typically.

In extrapolation of this model to systems of humans, a human system barometer would measure the weight of the molecules (humans) in the surroundings a given system pushing on the molecules of that system or on the boundary of that system.

Russian biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky, in 1926, outlined a description of the biological pressure as a force that can be felt and the work that must be done to resist this pressure, e.g. between humans and the ecological environment, or such as when population count rises. He states: [17]

Living matter—organisms taken as a whole—is spread over the entire surface of the earth in a manner analogous to a gas; it produces a specific pressure in the surrounding environment, either by avoiding obstacles on its upward path, or overcoming them. The careful observer can witness this movement of life, and even sense its pressure. In the impact of a forest on steppe, or in a mass of lichens moving up from the tundra to stifle a forest, we see the actual movement of solar energy being transformed into the chemical energy of our planet. Cosmic energy determines the pressure of life, which can be regarded as the transmission of solar energy to the earth’s surface. This pressure arises from multiplication, and continually makes itself felt in civilized life. When man removes green vegetation from a region of the earth, he changes the appearance of virgin nature, and must resist the pressure of life, expending energy and performing work equivalent to this pressure.”

To extrapolate on this, using the transformation of the Roman system model, over a span of about 1,000-years, to give an idea of human pressure, the population of the world at 1 AD has been considered to be between 200 and 300 million people. In that same period, the population of the early empire under Augustus (27 BC – 14 AD) has been placed at about 45 million. [13] Using 300 million as the world benchmark, the population of the Empire under Augustus would've made up about 15% of the world's population. In this case, in order for the Roman system to expand outward to its eventual largest volume (116 AD), the pressure in the Roman system would have been greater than that of the territory of the neighboring surrounding world.
 Left: Indicator: a work measurement tool invented in 1796 James Watt and John Southern, that tracks pressure of the steam in a cylinder against the steam's volume, concomitantly. Right: American engineer Isaac Daniel wearing his newly invented GPS shoes (2007), a potential future type of human molecular volume indicator. [8]

Volume
The first work on measuring and quantifying volumes or spaces of humans in movement and interaction was American anthropologist Edward Hall's 1966 work on "proxemics", which was based on the earlier 1955 measurements of German zoologist Heini Hediger on the distances of reaction between animals, e.g. flight or fight distance, social distance, etc. This joint work was incorporated into American chemical engineer Libb Thims' 2007 formulation of human molecular orbital volumes. [3]

Some prototype "indicator" readings or measurements done on human volume changes include the 1990s findings that, when asked to approach a stranger and stop when they no longer feel comfortable, people will tend to stop about two feet away from a tall person (22.7 inches to be exact) but less than a foot (9.8 inches) from a short person. [9] This same effect operates in proportion to beauty. Specifically, according to American attractiveness researcher Nancy Etcoff:

“Very attractive people of any size are given bigger personal space and territory; which they carry around with them.”

In other words, physically ‘hot’ molecules, in a sense, trigger volume increase be it a gaseous molecule or a human molecule. [3]

To give an example of the magnitudes involved, the following diagram shows the changes in the territory (volume) of a system of about 45-million people (human molecules) (Roman empire) as it expands, doing thermodynamic pressure volume work, against its surroundings, and then contracts (during its fall), over the course of 929-years, as is captured in the idiom the rise and fall of Rome.

Another potential way to quantify volume changes in systems of humans is via using GPS technology. To give one example, in 2007, after reading a article on how “GPS Shoes Make Tracking Kids, Elderly Easier”, American chemical engineer Libb Thims contacted the GPS shoe developer American engineer Isaac Daniel on the possible idea of using his newly developed line of GPA shoes to track groups of people, in year-long studies, so to function as a potential human molecular indicator technology, giving data as to changes in movement orbital volumes of people over daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly averages, just as a steam engine indicator tracks the boundary position of the water molecules as they expand outward and contract inward in one heat cycle of the piston and cylinder. [8] This communication, however, was not returned.

In 1997, Russian physical chemist Georgi Gladyshev stated that the value of the Gibbs free energy change ΔG for the formation of any particular human society, could be estimated by calculating the work that when into building that society. [11] Although Gladyshev does not give any specifics as to how this might be calculated, aside from mention that some hypothetical type of “absolute hard currency” might facilitate this measurement, one might be able to get a reading of volume change of a given society by studying boundary of the territory expansion and contraction, over the course of the rise and fall of a society, as diagrammed on a world atlas. The rise and fall of Rome could be one case study, as diagrammed below: [12]

In 2005, German physicist Ingo Muller suggested that changes in the “parts of the habitat lost” involved in animal species interactions represents a type of thermodynamic pressure-volume boundary work. [10]

Temperature
The term economic temperature dates back to 1915 in the work of Italian economist Emanuele Sella, who seems to have described it as wealth and the capacity to absorb it; such that between different organisms a thermoeconomic diversity (or temperature difference) exists. In 1930, French sociological philosopher Maurice Halbwachs uses the terms social temperature and in another instance moral temperature to allude to the suggestion that the suicide rate of a particular group of humans could be considered as a gauge of the moral temperature of the group: [1]

“The number of suicides [in a region] can be considered a sort of thermometric indicator which informs us of the condition of the mores, of the moral temperature of a group.”

Beyond, bulk measurements of the temperature of a system of human molecules, the temperature of an individual human is a complex topic. The term sexual temperature, is one example.

In 2009, Chinese physicist Yi-Fang Chang suggested that social temperature could be defined by the following equation:

$T = c \bar{K} (t) \!$

where $\bar{K} \!$ is an average value of the social kinetic energy. [4] In this sense, in theory, one could use GPS tracking devices to measure the kinetic energy, or the sum of ½ the masses of the human particles times their respective average velocities squared, of a system of human molecules under study and thus get a hypothetical reading of temperature of a social system. In 2010, German Mimkes argues that GDP per capita may be representative of the temperature of the economic system. [15]

 In a reaction calorimeter, a liquid is circulated around the vessel containing the reaction medium. The temperature of the liquid in the temperature-controlled jacket is maintained at a constant value. When the liquid reagent is introduced into the solution, a difference of temperature is measured by a thermocouple. A calibration probe is used to determine the heat of the reaction. [14]
Heat
The development of indicators to quantify human molecular heat is an elusive subject. How does one, for instance, quantify sexual heat, in units of joules?

In 2007, American chemical engineer Libb Thims gave an overview as to how to go about constructing a human reaction calorimeter and human molecular or human system thermometers, so to be able to measure quantities such as human reaction enthalpy change. [3]

Entropy
Attempts as measurements of the entropy of one human or a system of humans have been amusing, to say the least, most of which have been not even theoretically sound attempts. The dozens of claimed attempts in information theory, for instance, are all baseless.

In 1931, psychologists Siegfried Bernfeld and Sergei Feitelberg , in their article “The Principle of Entropy and the Death Instinct”, presented the results of their study where they attempted to measure a paradoxical pulsation of entropy within a living organism, specifically in the nervous system of a man. [5] Specifically, by comparing the brain temperature to the rectal temperature of a man, they thought to acquire evidence of paradoxical variations, i.e. variations not conforming to the principle of entropy as it functions in physics for inanimate systems. [6]

In 1993, American physical chemist Martin Goldstein, in his book The Refrigerator and the Universe: Understanding the Laws of Energy, co-written with American epidemiologist Inge Goldstein, outlined the basic difficulties involved in calculating the entropy of a mouse, via the standard procedures used to calculate the entropies of simple molecules (assuming the mouse to be a larger molecule, that was synthesized). The following is a condensed excerpt of that section: [7]

“To apply thermodynamics to the problem of how life got started, we must ask what net energy and entropy changes would have been if simple chemical substances, present when the earth was young, were converted into living matter [as in the formation of a mouse] … to answer this question [for each process], we must determine the energies and entropies of everything in the initial state and final state.”

Energy determinations, they state, are rather straight forward; whereas entropy determinations are more difficult. As stated by Canadian economist Bernard Beaudreau in 2008: [16]

“While theoretically appealing, entropy as a scientific approach to studying [economic] production processes has been woefully inadequate, as evidenced by the lack of any empirical work. The key problem is with measurement. How does one measure entropy? More importantly, how does one measure entropy at the firm level?”

In 2009, New Zealand business engineer Gavin Ritz claims to have been conducting research to measure and quantify “motivation entropy production”. [2]

Enthalpy
Enthalpy is complicated calculation, involving internal energy, pressure, volume, temperature, and entropy.

Gibbs free energy
In 2007, Thims outlined a "dodecabond model" in which Gibbs free energy could be quantified by measurements of various physical and evolutionary psychology aspects involved in human movement, human work and of human bonding. [3] In 2009, Ritz also claims to be able to measure and quantify Gibbs free energy in business systems and organizations. Both the contentions by Ritz, to note, are mostly hollow claims; his understanding of thermodynamics is very elementary, and it is likely that his claims are purely superficial, or very simplified models, at best. [2]

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“It is unlikely that the generating substance hypothesis – energy or entropy discoverable in human social relations and groupings – will achieve any great precision in its application to psychological or social and political affairs in its entropist formulation. This has to do with the shortcomings of the terms and categories of entropism as they are applied in these realms: the term ‘entropy’ is used metaphorically when it is applied to any form of energy that cannot be denominated in calories, and there are insurmountable difficulties involved in discovering a quantifiable, determinate, caloric content for such terms as ‘psychic energy’, ‘cultural energy’ or the energy of a community, an institution, or an idea.”
Eric Zencey (1983), “Entropy as Root Metaphor” [19]

“Adapting thermodynamic ideas to the study of culture is limited by a very simple fact: nobody has yet figured out what might be the cultural equivalent of heat or energy … nobody has yet found the ‘heat’ or the ‘energy’ in cultural matters … the concepts of ‘cultural temperature’ to refine our understanding of ‘cultural heat’ have not yet appeared. This is one of the most pressing problems for the next generation of anthropologists, and the difficulties are profound.”
Paul Bohannan (1995), How Culture Works

James Reiss

References
1. Halbwachs, Maurice. (1930). The Causes of Suicide (social temperature, pg. 289; moral temperature, pg. 6). Taylor and Francis.
2. (a) Ritz, Gavin. (2001). Motivation Modeling: A Systems Thinking Approach”, Nov. 17, Scribd.com.
(b) Ritz, Gavin (2009). "The Fundamental Formula as Energy & Work." Scribd.com.
3. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two) (human calorimeters, pgs. 431-330; proxemics, pgs. 550, 631). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (hot molecules and volume change, ch. 8: “Planck’s quantum, pgs. 213-245; proxemics, pgs. 225-; ch. 9: Human Molecular Orbitals, pgs. 247-95). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
4. Chang, Yi-Fang. (2009). “Social Synergetics, Social Physics, and Research of Fundamental Laws in Social Complex Systems” (abstract), eprint arXiv: 0911.1155.
5. (a) Bernfeld, Seigfried, Feitelberg, Sergei. (1931). "The Principle of Entropy and the Death Instinct" ("Der Entropiesatz und der Todestrieb"). Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 12:61-81.
(b) Kapp, R.O. (1931). “Comments on Bernfeld and Feitelberg's 'The Principle of Entropy and the Death Instinct”. J. Psycho-Anal., 12:82-86.
(c) Spring, W.J. (1934). “A Critical Consideration of Bernfeld and Feitelberg's Theory of Psychic Energy”. Psychoanal Q., 3:445-473.
6. Lacan, Jacques and Miller, Jacques-Alain. (1991). The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-1955 (entropy, pgs. 77, 81, 83, 95, 114, 327, 334; Bernfeld and Feitelberg, pg. 115). W.W. Norton & Co.
7. Goldstein, Martin and Goldstein, Inge F. (1993). The Refrigerator and the Universe: Understanding the Laws of Energy (section: Entropy of a mouse, pgs. 297-99). Harvard University Press.
8. (a) Anon. (2007). “GPS Shoes Make Tracking Kids, Elderly Easier”, FoxNews.com, Feb 09.
(b) Isaac Daniel, Inc. – IsaacDaniel.com.
9. Etcoff, Nancy. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest – the Science of Beauty. New York: Anchor Books.
10. Muller, Ingo and Weiss, Wolf. (2005). Entropy and Energy - A Universal Competition, (ch. 20: "Socio-thermodynamics", pgs. 203-21). New York: Springer.
11. Gladyshev, Georgi, P. (1997). Thermodynamic Theory of the Evolution of Living Beings (pg. 38). Nova Science Publishers.
12. Haywood, John. (2001). Atlas of World History (pgs. 2.01-2.05). Barnes & Noble Books.
13. Roman empire population – UNRV.com.
14. Calorimetric methods – EviTherm.com.
15. Mimkes, Jurgen. (2010). “Stokes Integral of Economic Growth: Calculus and Solow Model” (abstract), Physica A, 389: 1665-76.
16. Beaudreau, Bernard C. (2008). Energy and Organization (entropy and economics, pgs. 37-38). LuLu.
17. Vernadsky, Vladimir I. (1926). The Biosphere (pressure, pgs. 59-62, 76). Copernicus.
18. Social Heat Map – Boston.com.
19. Zencey, Eric. (1983). “Entropy as Root Metaphor”, Conference on Science, Technology, and Literature, Feb, Long Island University, New York; in: Beyond the Two Cultures: Essays on Science, Technology, and Literature (editors: Joseph Slade and Judith Lee) (§9:185-200), Iowa State University Press, 1900.
20. Lundberg, George. (1947). Can Science Save Us? (pgs. 29-21). Longmans, Green and Co.
21. (a) Greenberg, Ernest. (1945). Experimental Sociology. Kings Crown Press.
(b) Lundberg, George. (1947). Can Science Save Us? (pg. 22). Longmans, Green and Co.
22. Stewart, John Q. (1953). “Remarks on the Current State of Social Physics” (pdf) (“chemical moles”, pg. 2), Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference, Boston, Dec 30; in: Box 58, Miscellaneous Writing, John Q. Stewart Papers, Rare Books Special Collections, Princeton University.
23. (a) Dodd, Stuart C. (1945). “A Barometer of International Security”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Summer.
(b) Dodd, Stuart. (1959). “A Proposed Barometer of International Tensions” (abs), Journal of Conflict Resolution, Dec 1.
(c) Lundberg, George. (1947). Can Science Save Us? (pg. 49). Longmans, Green and Co.