# Human thermodynamics variables table

 American economist Irving Fisher's famous 1892 mechanics-to-economics variables table, wherein, being supervised directly by the great engineer Willard Gibbs and economist William Sumner at Yale, he specifically defines a person as a particle (see: human particle). [9]
In human thermodynamics, human thermodynamics variables table (CR:33), or "HTV table", is any sort of tabulated listing of thermodynamic variables (extensive or intensive) and their tentative, approximated, or extrapolated correlative measure in human interaction field of study (sociological, economic, evolutionary psychology, etc.) terms along with the author's physical science definition of an individual human, e.g. human molecule (Sales, 1789), human particle, human chemical, human fluid, powered CHNOPS+20 thing (Thims, 2018), etc..

Overview | Proper translation
See main: Translatability
In 1997, Swedish physical chemist Sture Nordholm, in his famous Journal of Chemical Education article “In Defense of Thermodynamics: an Animate Analogy”, wherein an outline of the subject he termed "animate thermodynamics", or thermodynamics applied to the study of human behavior, was given, the first formulation step of which, in the scale up or extrapolate up process, according to Nordholm, proper translation of terms and concepts is requisite:

Thermodynamics great generality and power remains hidden by layers of abstraction and axiomatic rigor. Must this be so? Could we not gain much by loosening the strictures and bringing the main point home by more qualitative applications of thermodynamics to the widest range of everyday experiences? An attempt, at the same time loose and seriously meant, follows. I will argue that given the proper translation of terms and concepts from the inanimate to the animate world the laws of thermodynamics can be seen at work in our everyday lives. No proofs will be offered.”

The variety of ways, historically, in human thermodynamics, this "translation" process has accrued in a number of parallel ways, in 2011, prompted American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims to begin requiring that all submitting JHT authors provide "human thermodynamics variable tables", themed in outline to American economist Irving Fisher's 1892 mechanics-to-economics variables table, shown in part above (in full below).

Balfour Stewart | 1883
In 1883, Scottish physicist Balfour Stewart, noted for his 1868 "social cannon ball" theory, co-authored with English astronomer Norman Lockyer, noted founding editor of Nature, although he did not make a table, gave the following equivalences: [8]

Fisher | 1892
In 1892, American economist Irving Fisher completed his PhD in economics, entitled Mathematical Investigations into the Theory of Value and Prices, described by Paul Samuelson as "the best of all doctoral dissertations in economics", the content of which was heavily influenced by the physics, chemical thermodynamics, and vector analysis teachings of his advisor, American engineer Willard Gibbs. [9] The original variable "table" made by Fisher is found in his chapter three "Mechanical Analogies" (below left); another version of Fisher's physics-to-economics variables "translations" can be found in American physical economics historian Philip Mirowski's 1989 book More Heat that Light (below right): [10]

 Original version (1892) Fisher's translations (Mirowski's 1989 version)

What is curious in Fisher’s table, as shown in the first row, is that he defines a person as a particle, in other words he uses the “human particle” model; as can be compared with the other workable models: human molecule (model), human fluid (model), human electron (model), human atomism (model), human orbital (model), among others. He then says that one can use the laws of composition and resolution of forces, acting on the particle, to determine things such as the mechanical equilibrium of the particle (human particle), in terms of things such as utility vectors and disutility vectors. Very interesting approach indeed.

Pareto | 1897
In circa 1893, Pareto began teaching a course in political economics, on economics and sociology, at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland (see: Lausanne school), a large part of which was based on a direct extrapolation of elasticity theory and vibration theory of equilibrium of the atoms and molecules in solid bodies to develop a theory of equilibrium of moving humans in socioeconomic systems. The content of this course, finished in draft notes form in 1895, was published in two volumes, in 1896 and 1897, respectively, entitled Course of Political Economics. The first volume, a little over 70 pages, explains his principles of political economy and provides a first-approximation treatment of the economic phenomena that allows for the setting forth of the general conditions of economic equilibrium. The second volume, of about 800 pages, covers applied economics, wherein a large amount of statistical and factual material is used and analyzed, and in which his famous law of income distribution (Pareto principle) is formulated. [8] In these works, Pareto outlines a rather intricate theory of humans defined as types of molecules acted on by forces and wherein a certain type of elastic equilibrium exists. The following, below right, from the second volume (pgs. 12-13), is a 1971 English translation, by translator Ann S. Schwier, of Pareto's famous 1897 mechanical-to-sociology comparison table, below left hyperlinked text version: [12]

 Mechanical phenomenon Social phenomenon Given a certain number of solids, we study their relations of equilibrium and movement abstracted from the other properties. We obtain thus a study of mechanics.The science of mechanics is divided into two others. If we consider inextensibly connected material points we obtain a pure science, rational mechanics, which studies in an abstract way the forces of equilibrium and movement. The easiest part of science is equilibrium. D’Alembert’s principle, considering the forces of inertia, enables the reduction of the dynamic problem to a static one.From rational mechanics comes applied mechanics, which is a little closer to reality, considering elasticity, friction, etc.Real solids not only have mechanical properties of the phenomena caused by light, electricity and heat. Chemistry studies other properties. Thermodynamics, like other sciences, studies some of these properties in detail. All these sciences constitute the physical-chemical sciences. Given a society, we study the relations of production and wealth between men, abstracted from other circumstances. We obtain thus the study of political economy. The science of political economy is divided into two others. If we consider the homo economicus who acts only as a result of economic forces, we obtain political economy, which studies in abstract terms ophelimity. The only part of this which is well known is static equilibrium. There may be a principle for economic systems analogous to D’Alembert’s, but at present our knowledge is very poor. The theory of economic crisis offers an example of dynamic study.From pure political economy comes applied political economy, which does not consider solely homo economicus, but also other models of humankind closer to reality.Men and women have other characteristics which are studies by other particular sciences, such as law, religion, aesthetics, the organization of society, and so on. Some of these have quite a high level of development, others on the contrary, have not. As a whole they constitute the social sciences. If we wish to consider a concrete fact, all these sciences must be taken into account because they have been separated through a process of abstraction. In reality, solids with only mechanical properties do not exist. It is a mistake to assume the existence of concrete phenomena subject only to mechanical forces, abstracted form chemical ones, as it is to assume that concrete phenomena may be subtracted from the laws of rational mechanics. In reality, persons who are subject only to economic stimuli do not exist. It is a mistake to assume the existence of the concrete phenomenon subject only to economic motivations, abstracted from other considerations, just as it is to assume that a concrete phenomenon may be subtracted from the laws of pure economics. The practice differs from the theory precisely because practice must take into account a quantity of secondary characters which are not studied in the theory. The relative importance of primary and secondary characters is not the same from the general point of view of science and from the particular point of view of a practical operation. Syntheses have sometimes been attempted. An attempt has been made to find the cause of all phenomena in: The attraction of atoms. An attempt has been made to reduce to all physical and chemical forces from a fundamental unity. Utility, of which ophelimity is simply a type. An attempt has been made to explain all phenomena in terms of biological evolution. These are all interesting studies. But we must not resist these hypotheses and not go far from the solid basis of experience.

The above table, to note, seems to have been modeled on Fisher's earlier table, being that Pareto seems to have been well-aware of Fisher's PhD dissertation. In 1902, in his Socialist Systems, Pareto, for example, commented the following: [13]

“Progress in the purely scientific sense of political economy are considerable. Books such as Mathematical Psychics, F. L. Edgeworth, Principii di economia pura [Pure Economics], Maffeo Pantaleoni, Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices, Irving Fisher, etc., are written in a purely scientific point of view. A similar attempt is one of my courses, in the first volume, published in 1896, I said: "In all treatises on political economy, the main part is formed by the science of ophélimité and utility.”

Namely that on the Edgeworth, Pantaleoni, Fisher pioneering platform, that he had made a "similar attempt" in his 1897 Course on Political Economics.

Neumann | 1934
In 1934, American chemical engineer and mathematician John Neumann was sent a copy of French physicist and economist Georges Guillaume's 1932 PhD dissertation (turned book) On the Fundamentals of the Economy with Rational Forecasting Techniques, wherein he utilizes thermodynamics models. In his review of Guillaume's book, Neumann commented that: [1]

"It seems to me, that if this [economic-thermodynamic] 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’."

To summarize, although he does not make a table, Neumann gives the following equivalences:

Neumann seems to have been spurred on by what he saw were deficiencies in Guillaume's paper to write his his highly cited 1938 article “A Model of General Economic Equilibrium”, in which derives a function φ (X, Y) related to the production of goods, based on the model of thermodynamic potentials. [2]

John Q. Stewart | 1953
In 1953, John Q. Stewart, in his “Remarks on the Current State of Social Physics”, in commentary on his growing Princeton social physics group, gave the following variables table, which he says are intensive and extensive social variables: [23]

Then gives the following so-called “characteristic function” for the social “working body” as he defines things:

Which, as we see, is his attmept at making a social Pfaffian form of cherry picked social conjugate variables, as he sees things.

Galtung | 1967
In 1967, Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, published his table 5.6.1, captioned as a survey of push and pull forces, in systems of low entropy and high entropy, at the personal and social levels: [16]

Lukacs comparisons | 1989
In 1989, Hungarian physicist Bela Lukacs—noted for lectures such as his “On Economics and Other Utilities” (1994), wherein he attempts to show that an economy in itself can never satisfy the Gibbs-Duhem relations, subsequently an economy in itself can never have a thermodynamic formalism, but rather only the set economy + ecology, may possibly have such a formalism—in his article “Once More about Economic Entropy”, is said to have given some type of economic-to-thermodynamic comparisons (table or not?), comparison which later influenced the later construction of Australian organic chemist and commerce theorist James Reiss's 1994 chemical thermodynamics to economics variables table (below). [3]

Hoede | 1990
In 1990, Dutch mathematician Cornelis Hoede published some type of physics-to-social variables table, the following being a snippet, wherein he seems to be defining people as molecules, and theorizing about social volume: [18]

Reiss's table | 1994
In 1994, James Reiss, an Australian organic chemist and commerce theorist, in his chapter "Comparative Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Economics", cites Bela Lukacs (1989), but then goes on to use physical chemistry and drug receptor thermodynamics models to explain economic systems, e.g. postulating how tools, like hammers, act as catalysts to lower the activation energy barrier; how the “chemical interaction” factors of electronic attractions and repulsions and stereochemical shape and fitting of molecules will play a roll, economic temperature effects, etc.; during which, in his chapter sub-section 2.1: The Value-Dynamic Model, he gives the following variables table: [4]

This equivalence table, technically, seems to be one of the first printed "human thermodynamics variables tables" known. While some of these "assumed equivalences" may be correct, e.g. process energy barrier equated with activation energy (if the human chemical reaction view is assumed), technology equated with catalysis, etc., many of these speculative assignments, however, seem to be incorrect, such as enthalpy being equated to work, or entropy equaling negentropy, etc. One assignment here that may have merit to it could possibly be Gibbs free energy change ΔG being equated to "value", being that what is favored evolutionary wise, tends to be something that has a future to it, and Gibbs free energy change is what predicts the future or favorability of chemical reactions or processes.

In his table, Reiss equates raw materials to chemicals (correctly: raw materials are catalysts and substrate factors, whereas people are the reactive chemicals); value to Gibbs free energy change ΔG (correctly: this should be the functional work output of the factory); work and labor energy to enthalpy change ΔH (correctly: enthalpy is the raw heat released or absorbed from the activation of the human chemical bonds plus the work related to pressure-volume work changes inside the economy, although there is some connection between work and enthalpy); order or negentropy to entropy (correctly: the magnitude of entropy |S| is a measure of disorder, although there is more to the issue); temperature to temperature (correctly: there are other issues, e.g. economic temperature, sexual temperature, physical attractiveness temperatures, intellectual temperatures, etc.); process energy barriers to activation energy Ea (correctly: the activation energy most germane to an economic system is the barrier to successful sexual reproduction, faced by each individual); concentration of industry to free energy coupling of reactions and cells (correctly: sector formations is a result of like-attracts-like industry chemical bonding energy lowering effects); technology to catalysis (correctly: Reiss may be correct in this assignment, in that he defines tools, such as hammers, screwdrivers, and wrenches to be ‘catalysts’ designed to increase the efficiency of human processes); and money to stored energy as in fuel (correctly: money can act in the form of stored chemical potential, but more accurately money is defined as a secondary field particle acting to transmit the force of human chemical reaction).

Nordholm | 1997
The following, from the noted 1997 Journal of Chemical Education article “In Defense of Thermodynamics: an Animate Analogy”, are Swedish physical chemist Sture Nordholm's first draft attempt at "proper translation" of terms and concepts, one of the more difficult aspects of human thermodynamics, as he refers to the scale up process: [14]

This step, again, being a more tricky aspect of thermodynamics applied to human behavior.

Saslow's table | 1999
In 1999, American physicist Wayne Saslow, in his article “An Economic Analogy to Thermodynamics”, in which he goes through a considerable, albeit mostly empty, derivation, wherein starts off with a 1980 study on the experimental findings of rat economic behaviors, and goes on to argue that the state of an economic system, being a physical system, must be quantified by a temperature and conjugate variable pair entropy. He also formulates an analogy version of free energy, Maxwell relations, and a Gibbs-Duhem relationship. The following is Saslow's analogy between thermodynamic and economic systems variable table, from this article: [5]

In this table, he equates wealth W to negative Helmholtz free energy (-F), utility U to negative energy (-E), surplus Ψ to entropic energy (TS), price p to chemical potential, and number of goods n to number of chemical species crossing the boundary N.

Mimkes | 2005
In 2005, Jaroslav Sestak, in his Science of Heat and Thermophysical Studies, citing Jurgen Mimkes, gave the following physical to humanities correlation table: [21]

In 2008, Jurgen Mimkes, in his “Differential Forms: a New Tool in Economics from Biological Models to Econophysics”, attempted a thermodynamics conceptualized model of a first law of economics and a second law of economics based on the following variables correlations: [20]

Some of Mimkes mappings, at this point, however, were nearly incoherent; e.g. in respect to the Euler reciprocity relation, he defines Y as income and attempts the following jump:

“A not exact differential (δY) may be turned into an exact differential (dF) by an integrating factor (1/λ):

dF = δY/λ

F may be called production function. The law corresponds to the second law of thermodynamics, dS = δQ /T. The production function (F) is called entropy in physics.”

This, jump, makes little sense, and seems far off target, in respect to the Clausius formulation of entropy based on the Carnot heat cycle.

Thims' table | 2007
In terms of a general theory of human thermodynamics, applicable to all varieties of human activity in entirety, in the 2007 textbook Human Chemistry, American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims cites the work of James Reiss, among others, and in his chapter on human molecular orbitals gives the following variables table for a tentative assignment of enthalpy and entropy components for individual reactive human molecules involved in mate selection: [6]

where the instantaneous enthalpy of a given person (human molecule) in a given state of existence is:

where HAVG is the enthalpy (heat content) associated with the physical attractive trait "averageness" (the most averaged person tends to be the most physically attractive), HAGE with the physical attractive trait age (age 22 for females is the most physically attractive age), HS with the physical attractiveness trait "symmetry" (the most physically symmetric persons tend to be seen as the most attractive), HX with the physical attractiveness associated with the testosterone to estrogen ratio of a given individual (high estrogen women tend to pair with high testosterone men), HL the physical attractiveness associated with one ethnicity, i.e. latitude of development (people tend to be most physically attracted to individuals differing in ethnicity to their own by 15 degrees ± in latitude, as determined experimentally via the Sweaty T-shirt study, i.e. MHC-compatibility complex matching, and in person surveys), HF the physical attractiveness associated with "fitness" (fit people are seen as being more physically attractive than less fit people), and HC the physical attractiveness associated with "complexion" (people with better complex are seen as being more physically attractive). Likewise, the instantaneous entropy of a given person (human molecule) in a given state of existence is:

where SP is the entropy associated with organizational attractiveness of a person's "personality", social graces, character, and dependability, SO is the entropy associated with the organizational attractiveness of a person's "occupation", possessions, and or money, SI is the entropy associated with the organizational attractive of a person's "information", intelligence, or education (see for example: Stephen Hawking's 1996 human entropy diagram), SS the entropy associated with the organizational attractiveness of a person's "status" or prestige (representative of a person's position in the hierarchy of the social structure), and SN the the entropy associated with the organizational attractiveness of a person's inner "nature", values, and ambition. Within this framework, the instantaneous free energy of a given human molecule of the reactive social system can thus be quantified according to the standard chemical thermodynamic definition of Gibbs free energy:

and likewise for the situation when one is attempting to calculate the Gibbs free energy change:

$\Delta G = \Delta H - T \Delta S \,$

for a given human chemical reaction, such as two human molecules, A and B, paring into a relationship, AB, over the course of several years on going from an initial state Ginitial to a final state Gfinal:

where:

The essence of the justification of these variable assignments, and accompanying logic, is exemplified well by the following definitive statement on the thermodynamic nature of the bonding between molecules (human or otherwise), as stated by American-born Canadian biochemist Julie Forman-Kay, in her 1999 article "The Dynamics in the Thermodynamics of Binding": [7]

“Whether two molecules will bind is determined by the free energy change of the interaction, composed of both enthalpic and entropic terms.”

In plain speak, the bulk of human existence can quite readily be boiled down a discussion of sexual competition among reacting human molecules confined to various substrate defined social systems all of which is centered on the desire to bond perfectly, as colloquially captured in the ancient term “true love” to another human molecule, and therefore the factors of this quest is entirely determined by enthalpy and entropy quantifications, which must be mapped over into understood human interaction variables, of which the above twelve are the most agreed-upon powerful variables involved the process of mate selection and reproduction, according to evolutionary psychology.

Ferrara-Udriste | 2008
In 2008, Ferrara, in his “Advances on Thermoeconomics: a Model for the Equilibrium of European Union’s Economy (Geobiodynamics and Roegen Type Economy)”, in association with Constantin Udriste, noted for his “Thermodynamics versus Economics” (2007), et al, attempt to platform off Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1971), to do the following, rather bold, on the surface, sounding jump:

“The fundamental Gibbs-Pfaﬀ equation of thermodynamics dU − TdS + PdV + ∑µkdNk = 0 is changed into fundamental Gibbs-Pfaﬀ equation of economics dG − IdE + PdQ + ∑νkdNk = 0.”

Here we recall Edwin Wilson’s 1938 suggestion to Paul Samuelson to use Gibbsequation 133 for formulate a theory of economic equilibrium. When, however, we view their human thermodynamics variables table, as shown below, we see them using the letter rhyming derivation method, e.g. P of economic pressure equates to P of price (level of inflation), among other issues: [19]

Another salient issue is their symbol usage, namely: they translated internal energy U, i.e. the internal energy of an economic system, into "growth potential", symbol G, which only sets up the remainder of their derivation, into confusion that economic potential is measured by Gibbs energy, symbol G.

Mohsen-Nia | 2011
In 2011, following discovery of Irving Fisher's elucidating physical economics variable table, as discussed above, JHT founding editor Libb Thims has begun to request that all submission articles to the Journal of Human Thermodynamics include a "human thermodynamics variable" table, in which, similar to Fisher, in the first row, the author's specifically state their model of the human (particle, molecule, fluid, etc.), and also describe, in understandable lay or human terms, each of the variables used in their article.

The first of these requested tables was made by Iranian-American chemical engineer Mohsen Mohsen-Nia, as shown below, which can be found in his 2011 article “A Thermodynamic Methodology for Evaluating Friendship Relations Stability”, co-authored with Iranians human scientist F. Arfaei, thermodynamicist H. Amiri, and computer engineer A. Mohsen Nia. [11]

Newer tables can be found in individual JHT articles, 2012 to present.

Chisleag | 2012
The following is Romanian physicist Radu Chisleag's 2012 physics-to-economics "correspondence" table as he calls it: [15]

Chisleag goes on to apply the Schrodinger equation of and the de Broglie waves of French physicist Louis de Broglie to the situation where "some individuals, even having been granted the right to act, are rejected at the step".

Donohue and Kilburg | 2014
In 2014, Americans chemical engineer Marc Donohue and leadership psychologist Richard Kilburg, in their “Leadership and Organization Behavior: a Thermodynamic Inquiry”, employ not only the standard human molecule, human gas (or gas particle), but also "human liquid" (first done by Lawrence Henderson, 1935) and "human plasma" analogy models. The following is their human analogy table: [17]

Other
In 2016, Prabakaran, in his “Statistical Thermodynamics of Money: Thermoney”, citing people such as: Adam Smith, Elliott Montroll, Paul Samuelson, Victor Yakovenko, Vilfredo Pareto, Bikas Chakrabarti, Edouard Guillaume, Georges Guillaume, Wayne Saslow, and Eugene Stanley, started with the following human thermodynamics variables table, which is a duplicate of Saslow's 1999 table [22]

after which, he attempts to make an analogy between economics and thermodynamics to provide a theoretical framework so that economics measurements can determine the functional dependence of the utility U on the economic parameters that specify the state of an economic system.

References
1. (a) Leonard, Robert J. (1995). “From Parlor Games to Social Science: von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the Creation of Game Theory, 1928-1944” (abs), Journal of Economic Literature, 33(2): 730-761.
(b) Leonard, Robert J. (2010). Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the Creation of Game Theory (pg. i). Cambridge University Press.
(c) Neumann, John. (1934). “Letter to Abraham Flexner”, May 25, Faculty Files, Folder 1933-35. VNIAS.
2. (a) Neumann, John von. (1938). A Model of General Economic Equilibrium (tr. G. Morgenstern) in Collected Works (ed. J.H. Taub), London: Pergamon, Vol. VI.
(b) Neumann, John von. (1945-46). “A Model of General Economic Equilibrium.” (pdf) Review of Economic Studies, 13: 1-9.
(c) Burley, Peter and Foster, John. (1994). Economics and Thermodynamics – New Perspectives on Economic Analysis (pgs. 17, etc.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. Lukacs, Bela. (1989). “Once More about Economic Entropy, Acta Oeconomica, 41:1-2, pgs. 181-92.
4. Reiss, James A. (1994). “Comparative Thermodynamics in Chemistry and Economics”, in: Economics and Thermodynamics: New Perspectives on Economic Analysis (ch. 5, pgs. 47-72) edited by Peter Burley and John Foster. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Saslow, Wayne M. (1999). “An Economic Analogy to Thermodynamics”, Am. J. Phys. 67(12): 1239-47.
6. (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (Reiss, pg. 138; variables table, pg. 270). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
(b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
7. Forman-Kay, Julie D. (1999). “The ‘Dynamics’ in the Thermodynamics of Binding.” Nature Structure Biology, 6: 1086-87.
8. (a) Stewart, Balfour. (1883). The Conservation of Energy (pgs. 26-27, 34). Routledge.
(b) Mirowski, Philip. (1989). More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics (pg. 132). Cambridge University Press.
9. Fisher, Irving. (1892). Mathematical Investigations into the Theory of Value and Prices (variables table, pg. 85-86). Yale University Press.
10. Mirowski, Philip. (1989). More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics (pgs. 224-25). Cambridge University Press.
11. Mohsen-Nia, Mohsen, Arfaei, F., Amiri, H., and Mohsen Nia, A. (2011). “A Thermodynamic Methodology for Evaluating Friendship Relations Stability”, Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 7(2): 5-14, (Beta Review), Dec.
12. (a) McLure, Michael. (2002). Pareto, Economics and Society: the Mechanical Analogy (molecules, pg. 124; molecule, 4+ pgs; comparison table, pg. 65-66). Routledge.
(b) Donzelli, Franco. (1997). “Pareto’s Mechanical Dream” (pdf) (comparison table, pgs.2-4), History of Economic Ideas, 3:127-78.
13. (a) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1902). The Socialist Systems, Volume 1 (Les Systéms Socialistes, Volume 1) (pgs. 3-7). V. Giard & E. Briére.
(b) Pareto, Vilfredo. (1902). The Socialist Systems, Volume 2 (Les Systéms Socialistes, Volume 2). V. Giard & E. Briére.
14. Nordholm, Sture. (1997). “In Defense of Thermodynamics: an Animate Analogy” (abs) (GB), Journal of Chemical Education, 74: 273-75.
15. Chisleag, Radu. (2012). “A Quantum Model May Explain the Infringement of Some Financial Rules in Spite of Stiff Supervision” (GB), in: Econophysics: Background and Applications in Economics, Finance, and Sociophysics (editor: Gheorghe Savoiu) (§6, pgs. 79-89; correspondence table, pg 81). Associated Press.
16. Galtung, Johan. (1967). Theories of Peace: a Synthetic Approach to Peace Thinking (new preface) (pdf). International Peace Research Institute, 2005.
17. Kilburg, Richard R and Donohue, Marc D. (2014). “Leadership and Organization Behavior: a Thermodynamic Inquiry” (analogy, pg. 266), Consulting Psychological Journal: Practice and Research, Special Issue: the Physics of Leadership and Organizational Structure (abs) (Ѻ) (main), 66(4):261-87.
18. Hoede, Cornelis. (1990). Social Atoms (social volume, pg. 63). Fac., Univ.
19. (a) Ferrara, Massimiliano. (2008). “Advances on Thermoeconomics: a Model for the Equilibrium of European Union’s Economy” (abs), Il Politico, LXXIII, 3:97-107.
(b) Ferrara, Massimiliano, Udriste, Constantin, Zugravescu, D. and Munteanu, F. (2008). “Geobiodynamics and Roegen Type Economy” (pdf), Far East Journal Mathematical Science, 28(3):681-693.
20. Mimkes, Jurgen. (2008). “Differential Forms: a New Tool in Economics from Biological Models to Econophysics” (Ѻ) (pdf), Paderborn University.
21. Sestak, Jaroslav. (2005). Science of Heat and Thermophysical Studies: a Generalized Approach to Thermal Analysis (§8: Thermodynamics, Econophysics, Ecosystems and Societal Behavior, pgs. 230-; 8.3: Thermodynamic Laws Versus Human Feelings, pgs. 236-42 [table, pg. 241]; Carnot cycle, pg. 232). Gulf Professional Publishing.
22. Prabakaran, Sellamuthu. (2016). “Statistical Thermodynamics of Money: Thermoney” (Ѻ), International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 11(5):3409-20.
23. Stewart, John Q. (1953). “Remarks on the Current State of Social Physics” (pdf), 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.