2009 backdrop to the Human Chemistry 101 channel, showing that for two people to react they must "collide" in such a way that their movements surmount the activation energy barrier after which a decrease in Gibbs free energy (ordinate) over time (abcissa) signifies favored human chemical reaction, into which the stable product, the dihumanide molecule, forms, connect via a human chemical bond: A≡B.

In chemistry, human chemistry is the study of reactions between people. [1] American self-defined 'human chemist' Thomas Dreier, gave the following definition of the subject of human chemistry, in 1948, considering people viewed atomically as human chemicals: [12]

“Human chemistry, the study of how people ‘chemically’ react to one another, is an important branch of the science of human nature.”

A central aspect in human chemistry is the definition of the person as a "human molecule", a term coined by by French historian Hippolyte Taine in 1869, being the atomic definition of a person. [4] In this perspective, human chemistry is the quantitative study of reactions between human molecules and the structures they form. This is expressed clearly by American historian Henry Adams, a student of Taine's philosophy, who in 1885 gave the following definition of human chemistry (or rather 'social chemistry' as he called it): [24]

“Social chemistry—the study of the mutual attraction of equivalent human molecules—is a science yet to be created.”

In this definition, to note, the study of the force of 'repulsion' in human interactions and reactions is also a significant component, particularly in discussions of bond stability, as defined by the concepts of the Gottman stability ratio (in marriages) or the Muller stability ratio (in society). A defining aspect of human chemistry is that human chemical reactions occur over a surface, namely the earth's surface, as studied in the subjects of surface chemistry and surface thermodynamics; surfaces which act as a substrate and or catalyst. In chemical equation form, defining human molecules as chemical species A or B, basic human reactions, such as couple formation (combination reaction) or relationship breakup (bond dissolution), take the form of simple chemical equations, such as:

A + B → AB (bond formation)

AB → A + B (bond dissolution)

Likewise, more complicated reactions entail the use of coupled mechanisms, molecular intermediates, or effects such as Müller dispersion forces. A second aspect of human chemistry is the quantum mechanical definition of the human chemical bond A≡B between two human molecules, such as the attachment in an intimate romantic relationship.

Big picture view of human existence (humans are molecules)
Evolution of the "human molecule" by Canadian designer Shawn LaPaix.

Big picture
The big picture view of human chemistry considers each human to be a large atomic structure that has been synthesized over millions and billions of years. The diagram. shown adjacent, gives a “big picture” (advanced perspective) atomic view of what exactly is a human. In other words, if a large chemist was looking down on earth, as though the surface of the earth were a test-tube for his studies, the chemist would view humans to be little molecules reacting together forming products.

The diagram is a spin on English biologist Thomas Huxley’s famous 1863 evolution of man drawing, using the 1952 CPK atomic color scheme: red = oxygen, blue = nitrogen, gray = hydrogen, black = carbon (not shown), done for a poster for the 2005 University of British Columbia Art Gallery exhibit “The Human Body in History”, alluding to the idea that human is a body of evolving atoms, formed into the structure of a molecule, that has been chemically synthesized into its current form, over long spans of evolutionary time. [31] In the big picture view, the student of human chemistry must consider each person to be a tiny reactive molecule and in doing so begin to study how the various laws and principles of standard chemistry either can or cannot apply to human reactions.

First human chemist
	“People who love each other mix like water and wine; people who hate each other segregate like water and oil.”
Greek philosopher Empedocles (495-435 BC), the first human chemist, famous for his noted chemistry aphorisms of how people mix or sort.

Short history
The first proto human chemist was Greek philosopher Empedocles, notable for his circa 450BC theory that people related tend to mix like water and wine; whereas enemies mix or rather separate like oil and water.

The first depictions of human chemical reactions were made by German polymath Johann von Goethe (1809), German science historian Jeremy Adler (1987), American Germanic studies professor Karl Fink (2001), American computational chemist David Hwang (2001), and Canadian writer Chanel Wood (2007), among others. The first book entitled Human Chemistry was written in 1914 by English-born engineer American William Fairburn, extolling on the view that humans are chemicals and that one should used the principles of chemistry to facilitate working relations (or reactions) between people (such as in factories) in business operations. The first person to call himself a 'human chemist' was American author Thomas Dreier, whose publications on human chemistry developed from 1910 to 1948.

Human chemistry educational videos
Screenshot (2010) of the the YouTube Human Chemistry 101 channel, which sporadically makes educational videos on human chemistry topics.

The world's first full textbook on human chemistry, namely Human Chemistry (Volume One) and Human Chemistry (Volume Two), was written by American chemical engineer Libb Thims in 2007. YouTube's Human Chemistry 101 channel was started in 2008 by Thims, scheduled as a semi-weekly educational video series on the chemistry of human interactions. [10]

Human molecule

See main: Human molecule, Human molecular formula

An important subject in human chemistry, is the definition of the the human being from an atomic point of view. Many terms have been employed over the years to define humans chemically, including: chemical entity (Johann Goethe, 1809), point atom (Humphry Davy, 1813) human molecule (Hippolyte Taine, 1869), social molecule (Thomas Huxley, 1871), economic molecule (Leon Walras, c. 1870s), human atom and human molecule (Ferninand Schiller, 1891), human molecule (Emile Boutmy, 1904), human molecule (Henry Adams, 1910), human chemical and human chemical element (William Fairburn, 1914), chemical formula in operation (George Carey, 1919), human molecule (Vilfredo Pareto, 1916), human molecule (Pierre Teilhard, 1947), social atom, acquaintanceship atom, collective atom, individual atom, psychological atom (Jacob Moreno, 1951), human molecule (C.G. Darwin, 1952), human atom (Erich Fromm, 1956), dissipative structure (Ilya Prigogine, 1971), human atomism (Arthur Iberall, 1987), social atom (Mark Buchanan, 2007), and many more. [4] The first calculation of the molecular formula for a human being was published in 2002 by American limnologists Robert Sterner and James Elser as shown below: [19]

Chemical formula for one human
		To contrast this calculation with most the main doctrine of twentieth-century, as to the elemental composition of active biological entities, a view that tends to conclude with a statement to the effect that "six main elements, carbon C, hydrogen H, oxygen O, nitrogen N, sulfur S, and phosphorous P, comprise 95% of living organisms" (whereas the other twenty active elements are somehow essentially non-notable stuffing, we see that the modern-view studies the function of twenty-six elements found to have active function in the human. In short, modern human chemistry is defined as the study of behaviors of human molecules and the structures they form. [1]
First alculated in 2000 by American limnologists Robert Sterner and James Elser (a 22-element formula). The formula, technically, is what is called an "empirical formula", which shows the lowest common ratio of atoms in the molecule, as contrasted with a "molecular formula", which shows all of the atoms in the molecule. More recent 2002 calculations by Libb Thims, however, indicates that 26 not 22 elements are active components of the human, and thus are requisite in the calculation of the formula.

The modern thinker must always return to the above formula when attempting to contrive or develop theories concerning human existence.

Death vs human chemistry?

Circa 1300 BC depiction of Anubis (jackal-headed) weighing the soul (heart) against the feather of Ma’at (truth), while Thoth (ibis-headed) records the results, Horus (falcon-headed), great-grandson of Ra, guides the dead through the process, while Ammut (crocodile-lion headed) awaits to eat the soul if it is found to weight too much.

Mythology: life|soul|purpose

See main: Religion

The implications and ramifications of human chemistry, the central feature of this logic being the view that a human is not a "being", but rather a mere "molecule", that moves under the influence of a force, come into direct conflict with some of the oldest and most-cherished theories known to humankind, dating back thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

The central conflicts arising, even for those claiming no religious affiliation, are the dominating view that each person considers themselves to: (a) be alive, or some variation of this, and (b) to have a soul, or some variation of this, and (c) to have been created by a greater power, or some variation of this. None of these words, however, are part of the modern corpus of chemistry.

Firstly, is the view that people believe themselves to be alive, whereas all other molecules that move are supposedly not "alive". This traces to the Egyptian notion that man was molded out of clay by a god and given the "breath of life". This is evidenced by the fact that about 72-percent of the world has some type of ingrained belief in the theory of life and death surrounding the Egyptian sun god Ra (Ab-ra-ham-ic faiths: Christianity 33%, Islam 20%, Judaism 0.2%, Baha’ism 0.1%, Mandaeism 0.001%; and B-ra-hma faiths: Hindu 13%, Buddism 6%, Sikhism 0.4%, Jainism 0.07%), and the Ra-derived theories of human synthesis.

In other words, both the concept of afterlife (heaven and hell (Ab-ra-ham-ic theory) and cyclical rebirth-life (reincarnation) (B-ra-hma theory) originated in the circa 2,500BC theory of the weighting of the soul, which itself originated from the circa 5,000 BC theory of the life (day journey) and death (night journey) cycle of the sun. We now know that the sun is not alive, nor does it die when it sets. When lit, it is simply a gravitationally-bound ball of hydrogen-burning reactions. This same logic, however, has not yet infused into the mind of the modern person who continues to believe that he or she is alive and that he or she dies, analogous to the the old "living sun" theory.

Human chemistry vs God?

Famous 1512 depiction of the creation of Adam, by the touch of the finger God, done by Italian artist Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

The way in which this question rears its head, particularly in America, where only 40 percent of people believe that “human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals”, is when a discussion of evolution comes up. In the typical conversation, someone will ask “do you believe in evolution?” The response will be of one of the following varieties: [25]

a. Yes, how can you not believe? I think it’s a proven fact (40%)
b. I’m unsure (20%)
c. No, I believe in God (40%)

Then, after the questioner explains to the people in group (c) that they believe in the theories of chemistry and physics over that of religion; the people in group (c) will typically ask: "well then, what do you think happens when you die?" This invariably leads to the question of whether or not a molecule can have a soul, be alive, be conscious, etc., from which arises a complex subject never before seen.

Humans alive; Hydrogen not alive, What?

Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger's famous 1943 lecture "What is Life?", where, in his order, disorder, entropy section, he famously positioned the puzzling riddle that life is something that feeds on negative entropy.

Life: defunct theory?

See main: Defunct theory of life; What is Life?, What is life? (theories of existence), What is the meaning of life?

The question of what is life has long plagued human thought. The human chemistry viewpoint breaks into this question with such acidity that a mental retrograde-rewiring-detractment effect occurs. As explained by American physicist Michael Brooks, in his chapter "Life: are you more than just a bag of chemicals", from his popular 2007 book 13 Things That Don't Make Sense:

“Stop taking it for granted, and think for a moment about what sets the biological world apart from the world of nonliving matter. No scientist on earth can tell you the fundamental difference between these two states.”

The solution to this conceptual "dividing wall" finds resolution in a combination of perspective (advanced perspective) and relativity (reaction speed), with a concurrent interment of the out-dated "theory of life", which finds that a moving "human" can never be said to be "alive", but rather "reactive" or "bound" or other chemical terminology variations. Said another way, in the correct modern sense, any given molecule (human molecule included), such as a hydrogen molecule, water molecule, or a bacteria molecule, etc., cannot technically be said to be alive, any more than the hydrogen or a star can be said to be alive. A chemical reaction cannot technically be said to be alive. This is a huge rewiring thought in the framework of human knowledge. One must side with either the fact that they themselves are not alive or that the hydrogen atom is alive. The latter alternative, as one will find, leads to a number of absurdities.

Unbridgeable gap

See main: Unbridgeable gap

This new scientific perspective arises from the modern discernment of prolonged study of molecular evolution tables and timelines, that it is technically impossible to find a specific "spark day" (or rather spark second), in the contiguous chemical synthesis mechanism, on the evolution timeline, starting with hydrogen reactants H (13.7 billion years ago), stepping through a number of molecular species intermediates MI, and ending with modern human molecule products MH (200,000 years ago), at which it can technically be said that the chemical mechanism suddenly "came alive":

					(warm pond model)

Hydrogen atom

Hydrogen molecule

Human Molecule

H

→

2H2

→

C

→

H2O

→

MI1

→

MI2

→

MI3

→

MI4

→

MI5

→

MI6

→

MIi

→

2MH

Not alive! No soul! No consciousness No brain (thinking) No free will!

↑ | | |

Alive? Has a soul? Has free will? Is conscious? Has brain/thinks?

The thinker who holds-fast to the ancient mythological doctrines of 'life', 'soul', 'consciousness', 'free will', 'choice', a 'brain', etc., will argue, to their grave, that, in some contrived-way or another, at one particular second in time, in the course of human evolution mechanism, that molecules, somehow, came to life, acquired souls, developed a free will, obtained the a state of consciousness, evolved the ability to think, among other now-defunct traits that do not apply to the hydrogen atom, nor to any other molecule, known in science.

(see correct formulations: animate chemistry, animate physics, animate thermodynamics)

In other words, in modern view, every intermediate, MI1, MI2, MI3, etc., in the steps of chemical synthesis of the human molecule, over time, are simply only bigger-and-bigger, more-and-more dynamic molecules, derivative of the hydrogen atom. Subsequently, one is forced into one of two conclusions, either the hydrogen atom is alive or the human molecule is not alive. The former is nonsensical.

Equation overlay method

The visual “equation overlay method”, from the 2008 Time magazine article “Why We Love”, common in hmol sciences, a combination of the Feynman problem solving algorithm and photo overlay of equations and scientific theory thought to govern human interactions onto a photo depiction of the phenomena of investigation.

Others, as history has shown, will argue that these olden-days properties said to be characteristic of "living beings" (living matter, living system, living organism, living molecules, ), are "emergent", or "self-organizing", or "auto-catalytic", etc., properties, or in possession of some type of "living energy" (or living force), or in a specific "living state", etc., and write entire books and spend decades in attempts to salvage the olden-days concepts.

A few prime examples, used to explain the "missing link" mechanism step (dividing life from non-life) in the above contiguous mechanism, include the 1926 theory of Vladimir Vernadsky who argues that “living matter” of the “biosphere” (sphere of life) is a type of “green fire” of stable compounds in a thermodynamics field living off of free energy; the 1970s views of Ilya Prigogine, who posits that living things are a far-from-equilibrium sort of Benard cell state or type of dissipative structure; to the 1990s views of Stuart Kaufman to argues that life is an auto catalytic reaction, able to complete one thermodynamic cycle, that somehow that ‘catches fire’.

In any event, in summary, many newcomers to the subject of the "human molecule" will object to the definition of a human being as 'molecule' on the grounds that a human being has a soul (religious objection), that humans have internal crystalline structures, e.g. teeth enamel, hence the term molecule cannot be used (technical jargon objection), that living things have an atomic turnover rate of about 48-percent of structural atoms per year and thus cannot be a molecule (theoretical issue), or that a human cannot be a molecule because a person has a brain (conceptual issue), that a human cannot be a molecule because a human has consciousness, choice, and free will (educational issues), and so on.

Whatever the objection, there is no doubt that humans are made purely of atoms, meaning that humans can be categorized as a type of chemical entity using whatever name one prefers, and that humans are reactive to each other, hence the subject of 'human chemical reactions' is a topic germane to human chemistry.


Goethe | human affinities

See main: Goethe's human chemistry; Goethe's human affinity table, Elective Affinities, etc.

The science of human chemistry was founded with the 1809 publication of the semi-biographical scientific novella Elective Affinities by German polymath Johann von Goethe (IQ=225), who viewed human relationships as reactions between chemical species, being predetermined by chemical affinity force relations as are found on standard affinity tables. [2] In this novella, in the famous chapter four, Goethe assigned the following Bergman-style letter chemical symbols to each character in the novella:

Symbol	Person			Verbal assignment
A		Charlotte		‘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.’ ‘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.’
B		Eduard
C		Captain
D		Ottilie

The seed for his logic arose in Goethe's mind as early as 1808, if not earlier. In particular, a year before publication Goethe, who had been studying chemistry for a period of forty-years, told his friend Friedrich 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., a statement in reference to a Scottish physician and chemist William Cullen’s 1757 pioneering development of chemical affinity reaction diagrams. To go through the first example of this logic used by Goethe, in the first chapter, the Eduard B and Charlotte A, considered purely as chemical entities, in the mind of Goethe, are bonded together in dull marriage, signified by the Cullen-notation of the bonding bracket “{“, who in turn invite their friend the Captain C to their estate to visit, where upon arrival Eduard B and the Captain C rekindle their old friendship, displacing Charlotte A from her bond with Eduard:

	The method of writing the 1809 novella Elective Affinities
		(transfer of chemistry theory to explain human relationships) →
	Bergman-Cullen reaction		Human reaction
What Goethe did, ingeniously, was to arrive at the view that humans are evolved chemicals that react together according to the same laws that govern smaller chemical entities and, based on this view, used Cullen's 1757 dart-arrow reaction diagram method, as found Bergman's reaction diagrams (1775), to explain human relationships as being larger versions of chemical reactions, governed by the principles of affinity chemistry, as captured in the logic of Bergman's affinity table (a 59-column 50-row affinity table), and in doing so wrote out a 36-chapter novella, based on this logic, in which each chapter is a different description of a human chemical reaction, a task which brings validity-closure to Goethe's long-standing title as being the greatest genius of all time.

▬▬▬
In technical terms, 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 B for C would cause or rather work to force B to displace A and to thus form a new union with BC, which equates to the following in modern terms:

▬▬▬AB + C → BC + A

Goethe ingeniously steps through thirty-six of these types of human chemical reactions in his novella. In commentary on the application of this type of logic, Goethe declared:

‘The moral symbols used in the natural sciences are the elective affinities discovered and employed by the great Bergman.’

Goethe here is referring to Bergman's great 1775 chemistry textbook A Dissertation on Elective Attractions. [11] In other words, what is moral or amoral, in Goethe’s view, is a point of view inherent in the laws of chemistry according to which species react.

Goethe's affinity table

See main: Goethe's human affinity table

It has been argued that German polymath Johann Goethe made a human affinity table, at least in his mind if not on paper, in circa 1808 during the writing of his 1809 novella Elective Affinities, as he readily admitted that the book was based on Bergman's affinity table (59-column 50-row affinity table) and Bergman's reaction diagrams, as made and described by Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman in his 1775 chemistry textbook A Dissertation on Elective Attractions. This will never be confirmed, however, in that in opposition to his usually practice, Goethe destroyed all of his notes and drafts to this particular novel.

Goethe's 1808 human affinity table	Elective Affinities (1996 film)
In 1808, German polymath Johann Goethe constructed a human affinity table on the model that humans are chemicals that will react to one another according to the moral principles (affinity tendencies of the reactants), contained in Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman's 1775 affinity table.	1996 film adaption of German polymath Johann Goethe's 1809 Elective Affinities: cover depicts the basic double elective affinity reaction threading the chapters of the book together (see: history). [13]

A tentative table was made in 2007 by American chemical engineer Libb Thims (shown below) based on the affinity descriptions between the main and supporting characters, such as: Eduard (Edu), Charlotte (Cha), Ottilie (Ott), the Captain (Cap), Luciane (Luc), Mittler (Mit), the Count (Cou), the Barroness (Bar), Otto (Oto), the Nanni (Nan), the Assistant (Ass), the Architect (Arc), the Elderly clerk (Eld), Homeless people (Hom), the Gardener (Gar), the Lawyer (Law), the Parson (Par), the Surgeon (Sur), the Englishman (Eng), the Traveling companion (Tra), among others: [2]

The affinity table works, as described by affinity table pioneer Etienne Geoffrey, such that at the head of each column is a header species with which all species below can combine or have a rapport with. The latter are so placed such that any higher species replaces all others lower in the column from their compounds with that at the head of the table. In other words, the species at the head of the table can potentially react with any species below it. All the species below the header species are ranked by chemical affinity preferences relative to the top species, with a higher rank corresponding to a higher affinity tendency.

The species at the bottom of each column, for instance, have the least amount of affinity for the header species. If the bottom species is in a weakly bonded relationship with the header species, any species above it can potentially displace it from its attached partner. [23]

To go through one example, in the opening of the novella Eduard (Edu) is bonded in comfortable, but tending towards mundane, marriage to Charlotte (Cha), signified by the bonding Edu=Cha. When Eduard's old friend the Captain (Cap) arrives, however, they rekindle their friendship, and thus act to displace Charlotte from her bond with Eduard. This is described as a single elective affinity reaction:

EduCha + Cap → EduCap + Cha

In other words, the Captain has a stronger chemical affinity for Eduard as compared to Charlotte, as represented by her lower position on the affinity table; thus when the Captain is introduced into the mixture (Estate viewed as a closed system, to other reactants) he acts to displace Charlotte from her attachment to Eduard.

Thims' 2007 HC bookcart

Book cart full of human chemistry textbooks that American chemical engineer Libb Thims uses in his human chemistry lectures, at various universities, at public places such as the Magnificent Mile, Chicago.

The theoretical premise here is correct, as compared the other types of metaphorical "human element periodic tables" (as shown below), in that, as proved by German polymath Hermann Helmholtz, in his 1882 publication "The Thermodynamics of Chemical Processes", affinity between reacting chemical entities, for isothermal isobaric systems, is determined by the change in the Gibbs free energy, as define by the following expression:

In other words, the ability of humans to react and thus to bind together is based a combination of competing affinity preferences as measured by the changes in the free energies in the systems, knowing in particular that free energy coupling occurs. In more advanced human chemical thermodynamics reaction analysis, this last equation can be expanded, via German physicist Rudolf Clausius' 1865 The Mechanical Theory of Heat, into the form:

A = TΔS – PΔV – ΔTv – ΔJ

which means that affinities A involved in the reactions between people, will be favored when there is an entropy increase, ΔS > 0, or transformational content increase in the reaction system, meaning that heat was transformed in to system internal evolution work, which signifies that the body or boundaried system of the relationship has transformed or evolved over time; when there is a volume decrease, ΔV < 0, in the molecular orbitals of the reactants, meaning that spatial movements of the pair come together over time rather than diverging, as is simplified by saying that two lives become one; a vis viva decrease, ΔTv < 0, and an ergal decrease, ΔJ < 0.

Human chemical reactions

See main: Human chemical reaction (history)

A larger part of the subject of human chemistry is that of applying the logic of the chemical equation, showing the reactants before the reaction arrow and the products following the reaction arrow:

Before (initial) state (reactants) → After (final) state (products)

signifying a structural change in time of atoms or molecules over the extent of the the reaction, to model human interaction as purely chemical reactions. The topic is by no means a simple one, where in some cases equations or mechanisms must capture decades of interactions. Historically, Goethe was the first to outlined human chemical reactions in the form of symbols in a verbal sense and Germanic studies and science historian Jeremy Adler, in 1969, was the first to make an attempt at drawing out the various reactions used by Goethe in chemical equation diagram form. Only recently have people, e.g. Libb Thims (1995), Christopher Hirata (c. 2000), Karl Fink (2001), David Hwang (2001), etc., begun to draw out human interaction processes such as forming a relationship or going through a divorce as before and after states of chemical reactions, and to discuss these equations in terms of theory, e.g. collision theory, activation energy, human chemical bonding, change in Gibbs free energy, human molecular orbital theory, etc.

First books on human chemistry
English-born American engineer William Fairburn's 1914 booklet Human Chemistry, who states that people can be defined entropically.	American writer Thomas Dreier's 1948 We Human Chemicals picturing people as elements on a periodic table.

Dreier’s human chemistry

Fairburn's human chemistry
The first actually book titled "human chemistry" was the short 55-page booklet Human Chemistry written by American naval engineer William Fairburn in 1914. In his opening pages, Fairburn defines his subject as such:

“Human chemistry is the [study of] reactions resulting from combinations of individuals [who are] like chemical elements in a well-stocked laboratory.”

Fairburn's human chemistry, to note, is written mostly using chemical analogies, focused on the occupational aspects of the variations of work producing reactions between people, who he defines as "human chemical elements", in factories, as viewed through the eyes of the foreman, the "human chemist". [3] Fairburn argues that the reactions resulting from combinations of individuals can be determined and improved though measures of personal energies, entropies, and affinities, etc., so to eliminate loss through unnecessary fatigue and "wasteful reaction".

First textbook on human chemistry
	Volume One Volume Two
Two-volume, 824-page, 2007 Human Chemistryby American chemical engineer Libb Thims, the first attempt at formulation of the the subject matter of human chemistry into an basic college textbook.

Thims' human chemistry: textbook

See main: Libb Thims (history); Human Chemistry (history); Human Chemistry (textbook origin)

The world's first textbook on human chemistry is the 2007 two-volume Human Chemistry by American chemical engineer Libb Thims, written in an attempt to standardize the subject according to basic textbook chemistry on the premise that a human being is a molecule, pure and simple, made to be reactive on a surface owing heat input from the sun. The following is the opening sentence of the first chapter: [1]

“Human chemistry is the study of reactions between people.”

In origins, beginning in circa 1995, Thims, while University of Michigan chemical engineering student, began to ruminate on the issue of as to how chemical thermodynamics applied to mate selection. In 2002, after figuring out how relationship feasibilities could be defined in terms of changes in "before" and "after" states of enthalpies (ΔH) and entropies (ΔS), Thims began writing a manuscript on the science human thermodynamics.

In circa 2006, it began to become apparent, after numerous arguments with other scientists, that prior to the successful establishment of any type of science of the study of reactive systems of humans, that a precursor science of "human chemistry" would need to be situated, establishing the fundamental view that humans are molecules (human molecules) and that life (or a state of animated existence) consists of chemical reactions between human molecules. At about this time, also, Thims discovered the great work of Goethe (via Prigogine). On November 7, 2006, Thims sent an email to an internet associate of his, an theoretical physicist, stating that he was in the process of writing an approximate 150-page book on the topic of human chemistry, “situated on the premise that each human being is a molecule and that human molecules react, form bonds, de-bond, abide by the laws of thermodynamics energetically, etc., just as do all assemblies of molecules”, wherein Thims stated:

“I’m forced to write a book out of necessity; I’ve found that I can’t talk to anyone intelligently about any kind of thermodynamic theory of human [existence] until someone situates a basic textbook arguing that human [existence] is a chemical process involving human chemical reactions between human molecules and the bonds formed or broken therein, i.e. reactions between people, and the energetics associated with this. Most of the book is going to be based on Carnot, Clausius, Gibbs, Helmholtz, Goethe, the first person to write an actual human chemistry book (1809), Gladyshev, and about a dozen others.”

Subsequently, killing two birds with one stone, namely explaining Goethe's Elective Affinities in a modern sense and writing a basic introductory textbook on human chemistry, in September 2007, after eighteen months and fourteen days of work, Thims published the first textbook, 824-pages in length, on the subject of human chemistry (pictured). A spin-off of this was the publication of the 2008, equation-free, 120-page booklet The Human Molecule, readable at junior high or high school science level.

Cultural views: colloquial conceptions
In the cultural lexicon, the generalized theory that a certain type of “chemistry” exists between successful couples is prominent, as in romantic chemistry, social chemistry, sexual chemistry, relationship chemistry, interpersional chemistry, screen couple chemistry, etc. Yet, the fact that human chemistry is not a standardized school subject, however, leaves the subject open to generalized theory speculation.

Colloquial version of human chemistry

Colloquial version of human chemistry by Ezra Nugroho (2009); which is similar to Canadian writer Chanel Wood's 2007 combination lock theory [18]

An example, is the June 2007 article “A Questions of Social Chemistry” by Canadian writer Chanel Wood, who when thinking about the question of human chemistry, was “completely mystified and very curious”. [9] In her analysis of the question, Wood asks: “what exactly is chemistry between two people?” She states that, “few people actually seem to be able to define it” and that, for the most part, “the majority of us have never given it a deeper thought, or if we have, we came to the highly logical definition of “that intangible something”… But does that really explain anything?” Wood states, in excellent form, that:

“When I was first brought with this question of human chemistry, I was both completely mystified and very curious. Like most people, I’d never really stopped to think about it. But if chemistry in the social world is anything like chemistry is in the physical world, there has to be a logical, tangible definition.”

In conclusion of her thoughts on the issue, she outlines a combination lock theory of dating arguing that a relationship can be thought of, using the reaction model of single people as "reactants", as a:

▬▬▬Reactant + Reactant → Product

chemistry point of view; 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.

What does the steam engine have to do with the process of two people falling love?
	? ↔
Papin engine		Love the chemical reaction
The application of steam engine theory to the riddle of love is what is called the reverse engineering puzzle. In short, applying thermodynamics to human chemical reactions is done the same way thermodynamics is applied to chemical reactions, by study of the laws of operation of the 1690 Papin engine (basic heat engine).

Human thermodynamics: heat and work of relationships

See main: human thermodynamics

The generalized effect of interpersonal chemistry, particularly couple chemistry, as discussed by American film studies professor Martha Nochimson, in her 2002 book Screen Couple Chemistry, is an "energy issue". [8] The science of energy is thermodynamics.

The science of "human thermodynamics", subsequently, divided into human chemical thermodynamics, the study of the properties of heat, work, energy, entropy, chemical potential, and external forces in reactive systems, with focus on changes in equilibrium and the effects of irreversibility, and human statistical thermodynamics, the study of the distribution of total energy over a set number of non-interactive identical systems or chemical entities, is the study of this human energy issue.

To exemplify the idea of "good chemistry", according to Nochimson, film provides for a means to capture human chemical reactions on film. The undeniable chemistry seen and felt between classic silver screen stars, such as Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers or Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy, according to Nochimson, generates a kind of “raw energy” in which the relationships themselves become “freestanding energy vortexes” where couples become bigger than the films they made. What is good in contrast to what is bad (or evil) in chemistry, however, is a thick subject; generally having to do with spontaneity and the direction of energy flows.

The natural dynamics of good or visually pleasing reactions is what yields the unforgettable screen chemistry. Explaining these effects thermodynamically is the most advanced subject, but actuates according to the laws of thermodynamics, particularly the combined law of thermodynamics.

Quotes: chemical wisdom

See main: Human chemistry quotes; Chemical philosophy, Chemistry aphorisms

The following are random trivia quotes making intuitive references to the chemistry between humans:

“The only unions which are legitimate are those ruled by a genuine passion.”

Stendhal (1783-1842) French writer On Love (1821)

“Love is in its ultimate analysis nothing but a chemical reaction.”

Anon scientist (c.1920) Quoted by Frederick Bennett

“The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances; if there is any reaction, both are transformed.”

Carl Jung (1875-1961) Swill psychologist Modern Man in Search of Soul (1933)

“Love is a romantic designation for a most ordinary biological process—or, shall we say, chemical—process … a lot of nonsense is talked and written about it.”

Greta Garbo (1905-1990) Swedish actress Ninotchka (1939)

“I miss her smell, and the way she tastes. It’s a mystery of human chemistry and I don’t understand it, some people, as far as their senses are concerned, just feel like home.”

John Cusack (1966-) American actor High Fidelity (2000)

If you know of other noted-related quotes, please add comment in the threads.

Magazines
The following is a chronological pictorial listing of the famous magazine cover stories revolving around the central motif of the chemistry of love or the science of love generally themed on or discussing the logic that people have can have various levels, good or bad, of relationship chemistry together:

Time's 1993 "The Chemistry of Love", arguing that love is a function of (a) imprinting, bonding characteristics familiar from youth, (b) attraction, governed by phenylethylamine (PEA), dopamine, and norepinephrine, types of amphetamines, and (c) attachment (John Bowlby's theory), a function of endorphin (endorphin theory of love), the runner's high, and oxytocin (oxytocin theory of bonding), the cuddle chemical.	National Geographic's 2006 "Love the Chemical Reaction", wherein American anthropologist Helen Fisher, argues that love is a chemical reaction in the brain, associated with the ventral tegmental area and the caudate nucleus, the reward and pleasure centers of the brain, the latter of which is home to a dense region of dopamine receptors, dopamine being the neurotransmitter responsible for intense energy, exhilaration, focused attention, and motivation.	The Atlantic's 2006 "The New Science of Love", presenting the view that the recent increase in online dating has become an enormous social experiment allowing scientists, such as Neil Warren, psychologist behind eHarmony.com, to unlock the secrets of human attraction; wherein they ask: "in the subject realm of love, can cold, hard science help?"; according to Galen Buckwalter, of eHarmony Labs, "we're trying to predict physical chemistry [between people]."	Time's 2008 "The Science of Romance", wherein it is explained that scientists are looking to explain why people fall in love.

Chemistry music
See main: music chemistry; also: music thermodynamics
Throughout history, people have often had a habit of singing about love and relationships, and in the last several decades, singing about love and relationships in terms of chemistry. In other words, people tend to sing about what they don't understand.

The 1962 song "The Chemistry of Love" by Al Hazan, singing about moonlight and falling in love, one of the first recorded "chemistry of love" style songs.	Cover to American alternative rock band Semisonic's 2001 album All About Chemistry, depicting relationships as reactions between molecules in beaker.	2007 song “Chemistry” by Velvet, singing about concepts of flow, biology, electricity, and biogravity involved in the chemistry of falling in love.

To cite an example lyrical verse, in American smooth jazz singer Michael Franks 2006 song “The Chemistry of Love”, he states:

“A formula aside should help us crystallize into the chemistry of love.”

This seems to be alluding to either love as a chemical reaction described by a "molecular formula", to a love potion sort of formula, or to the equation of love, or some variation of these. The 1962 two-minute and thirteen-second song "The Chemistry of Love", above, written by Al Hazan and Annette Tucker, was recorded by Crystalette Records and sung by Tony Caro with Jimmy Haskell and his Orchestra, is one of the first modern-day songs on chemistry of love.

Debate: many agree; others disagree

See main: Objections to; Rossini debate, Moriarty-Thims debate

Since the 1809 publication of Goethe's Elective Affinities, and 2007 Human Chemistry by Thims, a revival and modern day reformulation of Goethe's treatise, wherein the characters are said to mirror the activities and behaviors of the chemicals, there has been a never-ending stream debate, people being either in favor of or against the chemical theory of humanity. [5] This seems to be reflective of recent polls which show that 34.5% of people do not think love is a chemical reaction and 43.5% of people do not think they are a 'giant molecule'. [29] Out of this, a dividing line has slowly been emerging in the hard scientific community as to whether or not modern human chemistry of human molecules is reality or fiction, i.e. whether or not a human is a molecule and if chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics can be applied to the study of human molecules. Some these points of view are listed below: [30]

Supporters: ~61% agree				Objectors: ~39% disagree
Georgi Gladyshev (1936-) Russian physical chemist	John Avery (1933-) Danish physicist and theoretical chemist	Jing Chen (c.1965-) Chinese-born Canadian mathematician		Christoph Wieland (1733-1813) German author	Tominaga Keii (1920-2009) Japanese chemical engineer	Steve Fuller (1959-) American philosopher and sociologist
Thinks that human chemistry (2007) symbolizes the beginning of a new era (epoch) in human history.	Thinks (2007) that human chemistry, with its focus on Gibbs free energy, looks at life in a unified way.	Has a "feeling" (2007) that human chemistry will eventually bring about the fundamental change in thinking in science.		Commented (1810) on Goethe's Elective Affinities, that it was nonsense and childish fooling around.	Commented (2004) on Goethe's Elective Affinities that it "did not add any scientific value."	Thinks (2005) that he is not a molecule and considers even the thought of the idea to be "infuriating".
Ted Erikson (1928-) American chemical engineer	Viktor Minkin (1965-) Russian biometrist	Satch Ejike (c.1950-) African-born American social scientist		Stephen Lower (c.1945-) Canadian physical chemist	Philip Moriarty (c.1965-) English thermal physicist	Tim Vickers (c.1978-) English-born American biochemist
Has the view (2007) that one cannot argue with the logic of human chemistry.	Believes (2007) that we can apply molecular terms and rules of molecular behavior to human behavior and does not find any arguments against human chemistry.	Thinks (2008) that human chemistry provides a reliable framework for an understanding of human bonding and bond rupturing.		Considers (2007) the idea of chemical reactions occurring between humans molecules to be a crackpot-subject, pseudoscience, and a lunatic notion.	Considers (2009) human chemistry to be pseudoscience and believes that quantum mechanics and entropy cannot be apply to people.	Considers (2010) the subjects of the human molecule, human chemistry, and human thermodynamics to be “hoax/fringe subjects, not real fields of study; each a metaphor or joke”.

Gray-area
In the gray area, many people remain torn on the issue as to how and if chemistry and physics applies to humans in their relationships. Many are straight puzzled of the chemical physics of love. As famously said by German-born American physicist Albert Einstein (IQ: 225+), in the 1940s, "how on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" This quote, ironically, comes from a person who owned the 52-volume set of Goethe's collected work (as well as a bust of Goethe), forming the largest part of his personal library.

See also

● Human chemistry books ● Human periodic table ● Human element

● Endorphine theory of love ● Love the chemical reaction ● Music chemistry

● ReactionMatch.com ● Science-based online matching ● Social chemistry

A 2008 human chemical element apron, modeled on the noted 2006 Dow Corning “human element” advertising campaign. [14]

References
1. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
2. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
3. Fairburn, William Armstrong. (1914). Human Chemistry. The Nation Valley Press, Inc.
4. Thims, Libb. (2008). The Human Molecule, (preview) (Google Books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
5. Tantillo, Astrida O. (2001). Goethe's Elective Affinities and the Critics. New York: Camden House.
8. Nochimson, Martha P. (2002). Screen Couple Chemistry, (pg. 13). Auston, Tx.: University of Texas Press.
9. Wood, Chanel. (2007). "A Question of Social Chemistry", June 06. Sociology, ChanelWood.com.
10. Human Chemistry 101 - YouTube.com.
11. (a) Wiese, Benno von. (1951). Anmerkungen to Die Wahlverwandtschaften. In Goethe’s Werke, edited by Benno von Wiese. Vol. 19. Pg. 621, Hamberg: Wegener.
(b) Crosland, M. P. (1959). “The use of diagrams as chemical ‘equations’ in the lecture notes of William Cullen and Joseph Black.” Annals of Science, Vol 15, Num 2, June.
(c) Bergman, Torbern. (1775). A Dissertation on Elective Attractions. London: Frank Cass & Co.
12. Dreier, Thomas. (1948). We Human Chemicals: the Knack of Getting Along with Everybody (quote: pgs. 4+21). Updegraff Press.
13. The Elective Affinities - Wikipedia.
14. Luna1Sierra. (2008). “Human Chemistry Apron.” Zazzle.com.
15. Thims, Libb. (2005). "What is Love?: Human Chemical Reactions" (poll results and discussion). Chicago: IoHT Publications.
16. Thims, L. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two) (Quote: "Good for a laugh, but not much else", pg. 673). LuLu.

Popular chemical symbol word arrangement.

18. Nugroho, Ezra. (2009). “Human Chemistry”, Luchita Blog, Ezran.org, Feb 13.
19. Sterner, Robert W. and Elser, James J. (2002). Ecological Stoichiometry: the Biology of Elements from Molecules to the Biosphere, (chapter one) (term: "human molecule", pgs. 3, 47, 135). Princeton University Press.
23. ibid. Thims (2007), pg. 382: description of Geoffroy's 1718 affinity table.
24. (a) Samuels, Ernest. (1989). Henry Adams (human molecule, pg. 115). Harvard University Press.
(b) Gooch, George P. (1913). History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century (human molecule, pg. 240). Longmans, Green, and Co.
25. (a) Miller, Jon D., Scott, Eugenie C., Okamoto, Shinji. (2006). “Public Acceptance of Evolution”, Science 11, Aug. Vol. 313, pgs. 765-66.
(b) Anon. (2006). “Did Humans Evolve? Not Us, Say Americans”, The New York Times, Aug. 16.
26. Harrell, Eben, Kloberdanz, Kristin, and Stinchfield, Kate. (2008). “Why We Love”, Time (pgs. 54-60), Jan 28.
29. (a) Thims, Libb. (2005). "Poll: Is Love a Chemical Reaction?" [N=100], Chicago.
(b) Eadon, Jim. (2001). "Poll: Are You a Giant Molecule?" [N=350], England.
30. Note: the 61% agree, 39% disagree figure is a guesstimate, using the mean of the two studies of ref [29], i.e. (34.5+43.5)/2.
31. UBC (sample works) – ShawnLaPaix.com.

Further reading
● Anon. (1887). "Human Chemistry", [URL], New York Times, 19 Sep.
● Kundis, Robin D. (1986). Human Chemistry (306-pgs). dissertation/thesis. Johns Hopkins University.
● Mueh, Hans J. (2006). “Human Chemistry Equation: Intent + Imagination + Initiative = High Achievement”, Audio Interview (MP3), 58:19-min, with Jim Meier, Oct. 31.
● Kenny, Bob. (2009). “The Human Chemistry of Ben Jonson’s ‘The Alchemist’”, AssociatedContent.com, May 18.

External links
● Human Chemistry - HumanChemistry.net
● Human Chemistry - NationMaster: Encyclopedia
● Human Chemistry T-Shirt – Zazzle.com
● 200th Anniversary Elective Affinities T-Shirt – Zazzle.com
● Interpersonal chemistry - Psychology Wiki, a Wikia wiki.