Physicochemical Sociology
A basic physicochemical sociology diagram showing, on the left (macro-view): a physiochemical sociologist studying social mass, defined as an aggregate of human molecules, each defined as powered CHNOPS+22 molecule or chemical, via the advanced perspective, using, predominately, the universal methods of chemical thermodynamics, of semi-open isothermal isobaric systems, freely reacting, i.e. freely running (Lewis, 1923), and on the right (micro-view): the nature of individual interactions, relationship bonds, family dynamics, sexual interactions, psychological phenomena, etc., from the mechanism view, according to physics and chemistry. See: Alfred Lotka for how micro-mechanics relates to macro-mechanics.
In hmolscience, physicochemical sociology, coined in 1943 by Pitirim Sorokin, or socio-physical chemistry, a subset of physicochemical humanities focused on sociology, is the study of social relations, reactions, processes, and phenomena via the physicochemical methods and principles of physical chemistry.

Prodigies | Need
Among IQ:200+ cited child prodigies, namely: Goethe, Sidis, Hirata, and Arroyo, a commonality found is for such intellects to gravitate / electromagnetate towards the use of thermodynamics to explain the humanities. Goethe, the child prodigy who went onto found human chemistry (1809) and to become the first person ever cited with an IQ of 225 (Cox, 1926) being the prime example. William Sidis (1898-1944), with an IQ citation of 250-300 at circa age 14, and Christopher Hirata (1982-), with an IQ citation of 225 cited (age 16), who each, with similar background in math and physics, applied thermodynamics to the deeper questions of the humanities as teenagers, Sidis at age 16 and Hirata at age 18. In 2010, Luis Arroyo (1990-), cited with an IQ of 200 (Ѻ) at age 15, completed his MS degree in physics-based economics via thermodynamics. The subject of physiochemical sociology and or physicochemical humanities in general (e.g. physicochemical economics, aka mathematical economics) would seem to cater to these types of growing intellectual needs. Presently, however, such a graduate school is lacking in America, if not globally, give or take a few patch examples (e.g. Mimkes in Germany).

In 1809, Goethe ferreted out the beginning principles of society and social phenomena explained via the physicochemical principles; he used Bergman-principles in particular; Bergman being the forerunner to modern Gibbs-Lewis based physical chemistry.

In 1863 to 1910, Henry Adams worked to ferret out a subject that he seemed to indirectly refer to, in its end Willard Gibbs based result, as "physico-chemical social dynamics theory", as he seems to have referred to his theory in the 27 Sep 1908 letter to Charles Gaskell:

“On the physico-chemical law of development and dynamics, our society has reached what is called the critical point where it is near a new phase or equilibrium.”

the result of which being that Adams had convinced himself that he was a social phase or Gibbs energy equilibrium state of being.

In the 1890s, French sociologist Emile Durkheim outlined a type of social theory using “physico-chemical” terminology and theory. (Ѻ)

In 1893, Gabriel Tarde outlined a semblance of ideas of physics, chemistry, and sociology, particularly with respect to war and chemical affinities.

In 1914, German-born American electrochemical engineer Eugene Roeber, in the wake of WWI (28 Jul 1914 – 11 Nov 1918), published his "The European War", shown below, wherein he outlined some basic principles of human chemical thermodynamics, e.g. stated that WWI was a gigantic chemical reaction [see: human chemical reaction theory], governed by the second law, wherein people’s free will becomes like that of the will of “free” ions of dissociation theory; that entropy will increase as the war goes; that the end result will be a new Europe closer to absolute zero of temperature.

In the 1930s, American physical chemist Lawrence Henderson ran the famous Willard Gibbs + Vilfredo Pareto based Harvard Pareto circle, one of the precipitates being "Sociology 23" a physicochemical based sociology course taught at Harvard.

“The social system thus defined and characterized is clearly an instrument that may be employed, within limits, similar to those explained [by Gibbs] for the physico-chemical system, in studying all the subjects of the first class (history, literature, economics, sociology, law, politics, theology, education, etc.). For like history, literature, law, and theology, all these subjects are conversant with the interactions of individuals in their manifold relations, with their sentiments and interests, with their sayings and doings, while none can dispense with considerations of the mutual dependence of many factors.”
Lawrence Henderson (1935), Pareto’s General Sociology: a Physiologist’s Interpretation
Thermodynamic lens
The 2014 interaction of chemical engineer Marc Donohue and leadership psychologist Richard Kilburg, as presented in their “Leadership and Organizational Behavior: a Thermodynamic Approach”, involving some 12 total authors in various fields, allowed the latter, the psychologist, to formulate theories on leadership and group formation dynamics via the eyes of the former, i.e. a “thermodynamic lens”, as American business leadership scholar Bruce Avolio (Ѻ) refers to their approach, thus bring about a soft science + hard science amalgamation; which is a generalized model of physicochemical sociology, applied. [13]

Henderson’s version of physico-chemical system conceptualized sociology would go onto influence a number of thinkers in the decades to follow, such as: Pitirim Sorokin (below), Walter Cannon, and Talcott Parsons, to name a few. (Ѻ) This Gibbs-Pareto analysis view of society, to note, is equivalent to the recently-named "thermodynamic lens" view of society (2014), in respect to leadership roles and employee bonding, outlined by chemical engineer Marc Donohue and psychologist Richard Kilburg, depicted below: [13]
Thermodynamic lens 2
In 1943, ironically, the term "physicochemical sociology" was coined by Russian-born American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in his opening chapter “Declaration of Independence of Sociology and the Social Sciences from the Natural Sciences”, of his Sociocultural Causality, Space, Time, in an anti-reductionism (or anti-positivism) stance vehement objection to the physicochemical-based sociology views being promulgated via Henderson and the general "mechanistic school" of the turn of the early 20th century:
Physicochemical sociology (Sorokin, 1943) 2

Sorokin, here, declares that "sociology" and the "social sciences" should forever remain "independent" from the natural sciences (physics and chemistry). The subject of "physicochemical sociology", here, then, would seem to have entered the "violent opposition" phase of the Schopenhauer three stage self-evident truth acceptance model:

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer (1818), The World as Will and Representation (preface)

The “ridicule phase”, to note, seemingly started when Christoph Wieland, in 1809, called Goethe’s human chemical theory “childish nonsense and fooling around”. The actual verbal confrontations occurring during the 1930s Harvard Pareto circle wherein Henderson and Sorokin were said to have been butting heads during nearly every meeting. [1] Sorokin’s vehement objections, here, to note, were of a "covert theological" nature, as his later 1954 writings on “love energy” would indicated, wherein he anchors his ideology in the red-flag word "creative", e.g. creative power, creative heroes, creative love, etc., indicative of his “god-through-energy” or “god-through-power” reformulation of Christianity, a pitfall common to many ontic opening theorists; Sorokin, in short, opposes the idea of “physicochemical sociology” because it conflicts with his ingrained deeply-rooted beliefs about: life, free will, soul, morality, meaning, purpose, and afterlife—which of course is the can of worms that the physicochemical-approach opens.

In 1971, American chemical engineer turned sociologist James Coleman, in his “Theoretical Bases for Parameters of Stochastic Processes”, discussed the 1961 social "attitude" free energy theory of John Tukey.

WWU PCSPhysicochemical Humanities (torch) 2
Left: a depiction of the historical Western Washington University "physicochemical sociology" group, comprised of leader sociologist Ed Stephan working in coordination with physicist Louis Barrett and chemist George Gerhold, in efforts to formulate sociology in terms of physical and chemical fundamentals; one precipitate of which being the "Stephan social system" (left), one of the first visual models of a society (or social system) to employ social chemical potential theory. Right: A depiction of physicochemical sociology, namely: the "torch of knowledge" being passed to from the physicochemical sciences (physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, natural science) to the humanities, first and foremost the social science department (sociology), thereby bringing enlightenment to the latter.
In the 1970s, American sociologist Ed Stephan, together with physicist Louis Barrett and chemist George Gerhold, at Western Washington University, coordinated in joint interaction, up until circa 1995, culminating in the publication of Stephan’s online manuscript The Division of Territories in Society, with its famous “Stephan social system” model:

Stephan social system (2015)

to form a prototype for a department of physical chemical sociology, focused on the application of fundamental physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics concept to the study of society and territory dynamics.

In 1983, German physicists Wolfgang Weidlich and Gunter Haag (Ѻ), in their Concepts and Models of a Quantitative Sociology: the Dynamics of Interacting Populations, attempted, via platforming off Hermann Haken’s 1960s synergetics, admixtured with a few other concepts, e.g. bifurcations, Brownian motion, etc., to attempt to apply “physico-chemical” stylized concepts to sociology, to develop a physics-like attempt at quantitative sociology; to quote:

“When applying synergetic concepts to sociology it must be stated that there exists no direct ‘short-cut’ to transfer physico-chemical concepts to sociology.”

Their result, however, was superficial and lacking, amounting to calling people “units” and societies as “open”, in short.
The three ingrained beliefs of anthropism, which one must grapple with whenever the physical science based evolution view is applied to humanities, according to Ernst Haeckel (1899), namely: anthropocentrism, belief that man is the preordained center of the universe; second: anthropomorphism, belief that man’s shape is the ideal perfect form and or fashioned in the image of god; and third: anthropolatrism, belief that main has personal immortality, and or that the universe operates on man’s acts via some type of moral restitution principle, as conceptualized by soul or equivalent, e.g. karma (or spirit); each of which, according to Haeckel, deriving from Abrahamic-based monotheism (or Anunian theology, in modern terms).

In 1987, Indian-born Pakistani chemist Mirza Beg published New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, the first so-called "textbook" on physicochemical sociology, wherein he seems to be the first to semi-cogently outline the subject of "physicochemical sociology" (see: two cultures namesakes), as a standalone subject, a physicochemical humanities conceptualized branch (or root) of education, in which, to exemplify, he likens society to a chemical solution and explains human behavior in terms of physicochemical laws, using terms such as fugacity, likening migration to evaporation of solution molecules at higher temperatures, social conflict to the generation of heat in solution, slums to the formation of coarse-grained solids, etc. [2]

In 2005, Czech chemical engineer, solid state physicists, and materials scientist Jaroslav Sestak, in his chapter section “Thermodynamic Laws Versus Human Feelings”, to his Science of Heat and Thermophysical Studies, employs what he calls the “physico-chemical” approach to the sociological studies of human societies, according to which he defines “people as unvarying thermodynamic particles without accounting for their own human-self-determination”. He estimates that the full elaboration of this approach might take another century: [10]

“Researching the analogy of physical chemistry to sociological studies of human societies is a very attractive area particularly assuming the role of thermodynamic links, which can be functional until the relation between inherent particles and independent people, is overcome by the conscious actions of humans because people are not so easily classifiable as are mere chemicals [see: human chemical]. Such feedback between the human intimate micro-world to the societal macro-state can change the traditional form of thermodynamic functions, which, nevertheless, are here considered only in a preparatory stage of feelings. Therefore this sociology-like contribution can be classified as a very first though rather simplified approach to the problem whose more adequate solution will not, hopefully, take another century [2105] as was the development of the understanding of heat and the development of the concept of the early elements.”

BYU sociology and physics
The banner for BYU’s Science Phy 453 “Sociology and Physics” course taught by David Barnard, one of America’s first physicochemical sociology like college courses (see: hmolscience courses). [12]
In 2011, Brigham Young University, was running a winter 400-level course called “Science Phy 453: Sociology and Physics”, taught by professor David Samuels Barnard, whose course notes contain Mieczyslaw Dobija’s 2004 “Theories of Chemistry and Physics Applied to Developing an Economic Theory of Intellectual Capital”, Jing Chen’s 2008 “Understanding Social Systems: a Free Energy Perspective”, which, in turn, cities the works of John Bryant (2007), Bikas Chakrabarti (2005), Charles Hall (1986), Paul Colinvaux, Erich Muller (1998), Jurgen Mimkes (2005), Libb Thims (2007), and the Rossini debate works of Harold Leonard (2006) and Frederick Rossini (1971), among other residual works, such as Edwin Jaynes. [24]

In 2015, Mirza Beg, in forum posts, was referring to his work as the “socio-physicochemical approach” or the “socio-physicochemical sense” of things, etc. (Ѻ)

Beg ( profile)
Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg's 2015 user profile, with the tag "physico-chemical sociology", shown at the time of the upload of his Oct 22 “Socio-Physico-Chemical Interpretation of Poverty, Class Structure and Social Pollution” article, replete with human chemical reaction theory conceptualization and a human chemical thermodynamics basis. [6]
Abstract | Short
The following is the short abstract for any basic course in physicochemical sociology:

Goethe and Empedocles
Gibbs and Goethe
● Empedocles + Goethe + Beg

The basic student of say a one semester course in "physicochemical sociology", should, at the bare minimum, know the progression of connective ideas of the world view or universal view inherent in the works of Empedocles, Goethe, and Beg as defined, in modern retrospect, by Gibbs.

Abstract | Full
The following, generally framed around Pitirim Sorokin's 1928 classification (shown boxed) of first main branch of contemporary sociology, i.e. the "mechanistic school", is the work-in-progress modern draft structure of physiochemical sociology (or "physiochemical humanities" in expanded form), name-size indicative of subject dominance as per social Newton or existive social Newton rankings go, divided into four eras, one (classical), two (Sorokin contemporary), three (beginner Gibbsian), and four (explicit realism):

Physicochemical Sociology

Era one(a) Atomic sociology | Four element philosophy | Greco-Roman philosophy
Representative: Thales, Empedocles, Parmenides, Aristotle, Epicurus, Cicero

(b) Social physics [17th century-18th century, early]
Representative: Hobbes, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Comte, Quetelet
Natural science (sociology)

Sorokin "Mechanistic School" classification (1928)

Era two(c) Social mechanics
Representatives: Antonio Portuondo, Spiru Haret, Alfred Lotka
(d) Social physics [18th century, late]
Representatives: Henry Carey
(e) Social energetics | Social thermodynamics
Representatives: Ernest Solvay, Bekhterev, Wilhelm Ostwald, Thomas Carver, and Leon Winiarski
(f) Mathematical sociology
Representatives: Vilfredo Pareto and Filippo Carli

Sorokin classification (1928)

Era three

(g) Physico-chemical social dynamics | Gibbs-based sociohistory
Representatives: Henry Adams
(h) Sociology 23 | Gibbs+Pareto based sociology
Representatives: Lawrence Henderson, Harvard Pareto circle
(i) Mathematical economics | Gibbs-based economics
Representatives: Edwin Wilson, Paul Samuelson
(j) Social physics [20th century, early-mid] | Sociophysics [20th century, late]
Representative: John Q. Stewart, Arthur Iberall, Paris Arnopoulos, Serge Galam
(k) Social chemistry | Molecular sociology | Sociochemistry
Representatives: Goethe, Thomas Huxley, Henry Adams, Roy Henderson,
Goethe, Sacher, Winiarski, Pareto

Era four
(l) Physicochemical humanities
Representatives: Goethe, Buchner, Mirza Beg, Thomas Wallace
(n) Socio-thermodynamics | Human chemical thermodynamics
Representatives: Harold Blum, Frederick Rossini, Jurgen Mimkes, Christopher Hirata, David Hwang, Surya Pati, and Wenyuan Niu
(o) Modern social Newtons:
Representative: Wayne Angel, Erich Muller, Josip Stepanic, Adriaan de Lange, Sture Nordholm
Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World (image)
Beg-Thims (books)

Adjacent (top): American physical chemist Frederick Rossini explaining, in his 19171 "Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World" address, how freedom and security equate to entropy and enthalpy, respectively, in society, and how human "reactions" are larger types of chemical reactions, equilibrating in society; the first robust lecture on physicochemical sociology; the contentions and ramifications of which acting to spark the Rossini debate (2007-present):

Adjacent (bottom, left): Indian-born Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg’s 1987 New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, the first general treatise on physicochemical sociology, showing people as reactive chemicals or molecules, in different states of aggregation, and societies conceptualized as being confined in semi-permeable reaction beakers or test tube. [2]

Adjacent (bottom, right), Libb Thims' Human Chemistry, which introduced human chemical reaction theory, in historical overview, and the modern CHNOPS+20 human molecular formula view, explicitly; one the precursors to Hmolpedia, and hence the complete synthesis to all of above.

Human chemical bond (diagram)
Linus Pauling, in 1917, as a chemical engineering student at Oregon State University, was taught the "hook-n-eye" bonding model, John Dalton version, which he found so archaic that went on to pen his quantum chemistry based On the Nature of the Chemical Bond (1939) to remedy the situation. The equivalent patch solution for 21st century chemical engineers does not, of yet, exist, in any chemical engineering curriculum, despite a near century long work in human free energy theory, of which part of the Gibbs energy must exist quantifiably in the bond of relationships (bond energy), mechanistically described by a “force”, aka relationship force, for lack of a better name, described generally in terms of fermion-boson interactions.
Bond energy
See main: Relationship force
A key topic in physicochemical sociology is discussion and study of the nature of the yet-to-be quantified amount of Gibbs energy in the bond structure (see: bond energy) of a given human chemical bond.

Adjacent we see that modern humanities students are still being taught the "hook-n-eye bonding" model, of human relationships, i.e. "I saw her, and I was hooked", the way Linus Pauling, as an undergraduate chemical engineering student, in 1917, was taught the hook-n-eye bonding model of physical chemistry, at Oregon State College.

If Gibbs energy, in short, is the driving force of societies and social change, as has been posited as a mater-of-fact given universal rule (Mirza Beg, 1987; Thomas Wallace, 2009; etc.), then the Gibbs energy component of social bonds is a paramount topic in respect to micro-structure of macro-change; the preliminary outline and foundations of which being worked out by Goethe two centuries ago:
Goethe model (chemicals to humans)
A noted problem here is that 21st century chemical engineering students, presently (2015), are not even given the bare minimum the hook-n-eye model of human chemical bonding; if questions of such nature arise, students are brushed off with the dismissive that "oh, the psychology department handles that topic" (Ѻ), or something along these lines; the following being one example:

“The premise of the subject of ‘human chemistry’, referring to things such as: chemical aphorisms (Empedocles, 450BC), love defined as a chemical reaction (Goethe, 1809), attraction and repulsion between ‘human molecules’ defining social chemistry (Adams, 1885), chemical thermodynamics explaining freedom and security in society (Rossini, 1971) and the post-9/11 debates on this to follow (Rossini debate, 2008), entropy of human civilizations (2005), etc., sounds like crackpottery to me and abuse of the word ‘chemistry’. Students interested in the study of human interactions should consult sociology and psychology, where these topics are covered.”
Marcin Borkowski (2010), on whether human chemistry should be taught as part of required college education, Sep 27 [8]

These types of dismissives, of course, are but blatant looped nonsense, by virtue of specialization-produced ignorance (see: hydraism), being that Freud founded psychology, in 1895, in his "A Project for Scientific Psychology", via culling the chemical thermodynamics concepts of "free energy" (dG) and "bound energy" (TdS) from the chemical engineers, namely Willard Gibbs, America's first PhD engineer, via the Helmholtz school; culturally we have become intellectual imbeciles, in large.

Social Physics (Gladwell) WWI (labeled)
A Buchanan-Gladwell model (2001) of social physics, defined by concepts including: social heat, tipping points, activation energy, connectors, six degrees, Dunbar numbers, etc.; the above diagram showing how the rubbing of Bosnia with Austria-Hungray created "social friction" which on 28 Jun 1914 produced enough heat (or social heat) to "spark" the flame or social combustion of the first world war. [3]
Terrorism | Hot topic
The 2006 Rossini debate was sparked into heated debate by the proposal that human chemical thermodynamics, as outlined by Frederick Rossini (1971), be used to study and model freedom and security in a post 9/11 terrorism prominent world. Shown adjacent is a Mark Buchanan + Malcolm Gladwell conceptualized social activation energy and social friction stylized social physics model, showing how 19-year-old Bosnian terrorist Gavrilo Princip was the spark that brought about WWI and in turn WII. It would seem a keen investment to fund a college curriculum on such a topic, i.e. physicochemical sociology, being that radical Islamic terrorists of the early 21st century seem to be presently reenacting the roll of the Bosnian terrorists of the early 20th century.

Required reading
The following are famous publications selections of required reading, most of which readily available—the Wiskamp (2002) article, interestingly, being the result of lecture notes to a high school class, of 16-year-olds, on Goethe’s human chemical theory, morality, relationships, and religion:

Elective Affinities: Illustrated, Annotated, and Decoded (1809) | Johann Goethe (German polyintellect)
The European War (1914) | Eugene Roeber (German-born American electrochemical engineer)
● The Mechanistic School (§1:pdf) (full: pdf) (1928) | Pitirim Sorokin (Russian-born American sociologist)
Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World (1971) | Frederick Rossini (American physical chemist)
New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (pdf) (1987) | Mirza Beg (Pakistani organometallic chemist)
In Defense of Thermodynamics: an Animate Analogy (1997) | Sture Nordholm (Swedish physical chemist)
Human Societies: a Curious Application of Thermodynamics (1998) | Erich Muller (Venezuelan-born English thermodynamicist)
Humans, All Too Chemical (2001) | Kaspar Bott (German organic chemist)
The Thermodynamics of Love (2001) | David Hwang (American chemist-neurophysician)
Chemistry in the Work of Goethe (2002) | Volker Wiskamp (German organic chemist)
The Human Molecule (issuu) (2008) | Libb Thims (American electrochemical engineer)
● The Fundamentals of Thermodynamics Applied to Socioeconomics (2009) | Thomas Wallace (American physical chemist)

Willard Gibbs and the Social Science (Middleton, 2015)
English poetry & science scholar Peter Middleton's 2015 section "Willard Gibbs and Social Science", the core subject of physicochemical sociology, from his Physics Envy, wherein he traces the path from Gibbs' chemical thermodynamics into sociology via Lawrence Henderson, the Harvard Pareto Circle, and Sociology 23. [9]
See also: Hmolscience quotes; Two cultures calls
The following are related quotes:

“Social scientists are reaching the long-delayed conclusion that happenings in the social and the political sphere are not the result of chance, and individual impulse or willing, or of direct and arbitrary interference of an infinite power [god]. Social and political happenings, like physical and chemical actions and reactions, occur in an orderly and law-abiding manner. Events, movements, reforms, agitations, decay or growth of institutions may, in a measure, be prophesied, directed and aided or retarded. There is, or may be, a social science (or social sciences) as well as physical sciences. Social mechanics, social physics and social chemistry are real terms.”
Frank Carlton (1912), “History-Making Forces”

“… emergence, the physicochemical, the organismal, the mental and the social. Hence, it till the advent of a few super-Einsteins (see: another Newton; polymathy degree problem), theoretical biology must stand as a combination of oppositions—a compositio oppositorum.”
William Wheeler (c.1935), “Essay” (person who in 1927 introduced Lawrence Henderson to the works of Vilfredo Pareto)

“As late as a week ago, such a phrase as ‘hopefully awaiting the gradual convergence of the physical sciences and the social sciences’ would have provoked no more than an ironic tingle or two at the back of my neck. Now it howls through the Ponchitoula Swamp, the very sound and soul of despair.”
Walker Percy (1961), The Moviegoer; opening quote to Philip Mirowski’s 1989 More Heat Than Light

“Ideas about order and disorder began to germinate in my mind about the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s. Their origin was in the areas of physics and chemistry—the Carnot cycle, of course, as well as my wanderings through the labyrinth of chemical thermodynamics. It was about this time that the laws and principles of thermodynamics began to be applied on an increasing scale to the geological and biological sciences. My discovery in the 1950s of Shannon’s and Wiener’s development of information theory and its relation to statistical mechanics meant to me that the concept of entropy was much more universal than my formal courses [BS, MA, MA, PhD, in geology, chemistry, and metallurgical engineering, at MIT, Columbia, and Stanford] had indicated. The conviction grew that energy and entropy relationships were fundamental not only in understanding processes in physics and chemistry but also in astronomy, geology, and biology. Inevitably this led to the conjecture that further extrapolation would lead to the human sciences and arts, and even to psychology, sociology, history, music, philosophy and religion.”
Norman Dolloff (1975), Heat Death and the Phoenix (Preface)

“The sun and earth, or storms and earthquakes, which nowadays we understand as manifestations of natural physico-chemical forces, [were once seen as] persons or as the results of actions and designs of persons [gods]. Only gradually did the transition come about from magical and metaphysical thinking to scientific thinking about the physico-chemical aspects of the world. The change was to a large degree dependent on the fading away of heteronomous, naively egocentric explanatory models. In sociology, we are [presently] confronted with a similar task of emancipation.”
— Norbert Elias (1978), What is Sociology? [3]

“Man must jump, as Adams liked to say, if he would save himself; a moral and intellectual elite must be recruited. If nothing else would serve to make moral philosophers out of historians, the fear of imminent annihilation might. University education must be revolutionized by the physicist-historian.”
Ernest Samuels (1989), Henry Adams

“The first and second laws of thermodynamics are usually presented as straight physics. Local problems (such as heat engines) may be assigned but seldom is any effort made to examine universal human problems. Considering moral implications of these laws makes them relevant to students, gaining their attention and easing instruction.”
Alvin Saperstein (1982), “Point of View: Ethics in the Classroom: Morality and the Laws of Thermodynamics”

“The study of the interaction between the natural sciences and the social sciences has been a grossly neglected field of study.”
Bernard Cohen (1993), “Analogy, Homology, and Metaphor in the Interaction between the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, Especially Economics” [11]

“It is interesting to note that socio-thermodynamics is only accessible to chemical engineers and metallurgists. These are the only people who know phase diagrams and their usefulness. It cannot be expected, in our society, that sociologists will appreciate the potential of these ideas.”
Ingo Muller (2007), A History of Thermodynamics
The European War (tight)
German-born American electrochemical engineer Eugene Roeber's famous Sep 1914 editorial "The European War", wherein he outlines a proto-version of human chemical thermodynamics, in his explanation that WII is a large phase change global social chemical reaction, in short. [1]

See also
Bruno Latour
Physical sociology falloff problem
Mathematical economics | Physicochemical economics
Polymathy degree problem
Rennie creationism fiasco
Stephan social system
Why Students Choose Chemical Engineering?

1. Sorokin, Pitirim. (1943). Sociocultural Causality, Space, Time: a Study of Referential Principles of Sociology and Social Science (pg. 4). Publisher.
2. Beg, Mirza Arshad Ali. (1987). New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (abs) (intro) (pdf, annotated via Libb Thims, 2014) (individual, pg. 23). Karachi: The Hamdard Foundation.
3. Elias, Norbert. (1978). What is Sociology? (pg.s 16-17). Columbia University Press.
4. Weidlich, Wolfgang and Haag, Gunter. (1983). Concepts and Models of a Quantitative Sociology: the Dynamics of Interacting Populations (physico-chemical, sociology, 8+pgs). Springer, 2012.
5. (a) Adams, Henry. (1908). “Letter to Charles Gaskell”, Sep 27.
(b) Adams, Henry. (1992). Henry Adams: Selected Letters (editor: Ernest Samuels) (pg. 504-06). Harvard University Press.
6. Beg, Mirza A.A. (2015). “Socio-Physico-Chemical Interpretation of Poverty, Class Structure and Social Pollution” (Ѻ),, Oct 22.
7. (a) Buchanan, Mark. (2000). Ubiquity: Why Catastrophes Happen (pg. 3). Three Rivers Press.
(b) Gladwell, Malcolm. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things can make a Big Difference. Little, Brown, and Co, 2006.
8. Should Human Chemistry be Taught in School (2010) –
9. Middleton, Peter. (2015). Physics Envy: American Poetry and Science in the Cold War and After ((§4:Conceptual Schemes: The Midcentury Poetics of Muriel Rukeyser and Charles Olson, pgs. 117-50; §§:Willard Gibbs and Social Science, pgs. 127-; Gibbs, 34+ pgs; Henderson, 13+ pgs; Pareto, 8+ pgs). University of Chicago Press.
10. 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; Carnot cycle, pg. 232). Gulf Professional Publishing.
11. Cohen, I. Bernard. (1993). “Analogy, Homology, and Metaphor in the Interaction between the Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, Especially Economics” (Ѻ), in: Non-natural Social Science: Reflecting on the Enterprise of More Heat Than Light (editor: Neil de Marchi) (pgs. 7-44). Duke University Press.
12. (a) Barnard, David S. (2011). “Science Phy 453 – Sociology and Physics” (Ѻ); SSRN-id1269035 (Ѻ), Brigham Young University, Winter,
(b) Chin, Jing. (2008). “Understanding Social Systems: a Free Energy Perspective” (abs),, Sep 16.
(c) Dobija, Mieczyslaw. (2004). “Theories of Chemistry and Physics Applied to Developing an Economic Theory of Intellectual Capital” (abs), in: Knowledge Café for Intellectual Entrepreneurship Through or Against Institutions, Wydawnictwo WSPiZ im. Leona Koźmińskiego, Warszawa.
13. Kilburg, Richard R and Donohue, Marc D. (2014). “Leadership and Organization Behavior: a Thermodynamic Inquiry” (abs) (main), 66(4):261-87.

TDics icon ns