In science-based online dating, the history of pair-matching site ReactionMatch.com traces the development of chemical thermodynamic based pair matching from the 1809 "elective affinity compatibility" views of German polymath Johann von Goethe, through the 1914 "affinity/energy/entropy compatibility" views of English-born American engineer William Fairburn, to the 2007 modern computer algorithm-based, human chemical thermodynamics, "free energy compatibility" views of American chemical engineer Libb Thims.

Early developements
The conception of human reaction pair matching, similar to pair matching of chemicals in reactions, traces its origins to the 1809 human elective affinity theories of German polymath Johann von Goethe, IQ: 210+, who, after studying chemistry for a period of fifty-years, arrived at the view that it is chemical or elective "affinities" that, in the long run, determine the course of human relationships. [1] In 1882, after the development of the science of thermodynamics, it was shown, by German physician and physicist Hermann Helmholtz, that the true measure of affinity (the "force" of reaction) is what is called the "free energy" (the energy available to do work) of the reaction. [2]

At the turn of the 20th-century, physical chemists began to using free energy measurements, tabulated in terms of thermodynamic data tables or free energy tables (similar to the older affinity tables) to not only predict chemical reactions, but also to successfully predict the outcome of reactions that had not yet been experimentally verified. [3] The first thermodynamic table for biochemical species, containing about 100 species, was the 1957 table by K. Burton in Krebs and Kornberg's Energy Transformations in Living Matter. [4]

The next logical step, then, would be to extend this chemical thermodynamic methodology of reaction prediction to the case of intelligent reaction matchings and predictions of human chemical species. This was first outlined, in terms of occupational matchings of people, considered as “human chemicals” or “human elements”, who could be quantified by personal measures of energy, entropy, affinity, friction, explosiveness, catalyst effect, etc., in the 1914 book Human Chemistry by English-born American engineer William Fairburn. [5] In a nutshell, according to Fairburn:


Hence, when the foreman is considered as the “master human chemist”, according to Fairburn, it would facilitate the operation of his or her factory or corporation if they were to match individuals in working relationships, according to “their peculiar attributes and characteristics” so as to obtain the desired “reactions resulting from combinations of individuals”. Said another way, according to Fairburn, in order to eliminate “loss through unnecessary fatigue and wasteful reaction, or from combustion caused by friction and explosiveness”, the human chemist would be wise to match people according to their natural affinities; where, “just as there are affinities among chemical elements, so there are many possible harmonious combinations of human(s) … some of these harmonious (and some) violently explosive.”

Fairburn concludes “many human chemists waste their own time and strength and annoyingly harass their workers by endeavoring to compel non-mixing types to produce the best results when placed in direct contact.” The extension of this logic, then, for the case of human romantic pairings is obvious.

The question of ideal love?
The first to ruminate on this type of chemical thermodynamic matching logic, in terms of what would be the theoretically-best way to choose a marriage partner, was American Libb Thims, who, sometime in the early 1990s, began to ruminate on the issue of why a person gets married? And that, if a person does decide to engage in a marriage union, how does one go about picking the right one? In other words, if, according to standard protocol, a stable lifelong pairing is the goal, what rule does one use to choose?

Obviously, regarding this question, folk wisdom abounds: a) Follow your heart, b) Trust your instinct, c) Listen to your mind, d) Take your friend’s advice, e) Feel it in your bones, f) Do what your family says, g) Pick the smartest one, h) Go with the hottest one, i) Choose the funnest one, j) Choose the best cook, k) Pick the one who makes you laugh the most, and so on (as well as combinations of the above). When polled, for instance, when picking mates, using a rule of thumb, men and women seem to use each of the above formulas, to various degrees: [6]

Along these lines, during one summer in particular when Thims had recently been accepted to the chemical engineer program, the highest paying undergraduate degree, at the University of California at Berkeley, one of the top-3 engineering schools in the country, he had upwards of ten girl friends simultaneously. In this situation, a visceral sort of ranking seemed to emerge, such that one or two would seem to stand out from the rest. The question then became: what methodology would one use to pick the best or ideal love?

At one point, in about 1993, being rather confused, Thims took the top-20 females in the running, and attempted to analyze them mathematically, using an excel spread sheet, tabular format, point tallying sort of system. Each individual’s name was listed on the horizontal and a long list of desired traits, or attributes, were listed on the vertical, such as: grandmother would like her, has great spontaneity, don’t get bored around, etc. [7] This methodology, however, seemed to lead nowhere?

In about 1994, Thims came across the newly published book The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating by American evolutionary psychologist David Buss, a book described by the Washington Post Book World as “A drop-dead shocker”. [8] Thims was very captivated by this book. Over the next few years, while finishing degrees in chemical engineering and electrical engineer, Thims read about a hundred more books on this subject. In 1995, possibly stimulated by The Evolution of Desire, while sitting in a chemical engineering thermodynamics class at the University of Michigan, Thims felt the impulse to raise his hand in class and ask how basic Gibbs free energy reaction prediction calculations of the "spontaneity criterion" for spontaneous reactions:

ΔG < 0 signifies a spontaneous (energetically favored) reaction
ΔG > 0 signifies a non-spontaneous reaction (one that would require energy)

would apply to calculations of mating reactions between humans, particularly referring to dating, marriage, and reproduction variations of human chemical reactions. In short, how would one use chemical thermodynamics to explain the evolution of desire; from the desire of two hydrogen atoms H to attach together (H2), a process that began occurring 13.7 billion years ago, to the evolved state of the desire of two human molecules H to attach together (H2), a process that began occurring 150,000 years ago?

In other words, in chemistry, a calculation of ΔG < 0, for a given hypothetical reaction between chemical species, signifies a “spontaneous” or feasible reaction, meaning that the reaction would go on its own, proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint or extra energy input. Thims wanted to know how this was done for humans. For whatever reason, however, Thims held his tongue. Instead, over the next six years, Thims kept the problem in the back of his head, and from time-to-time tried to figure it out on scratch paper and readings of potentially related works. The basic problem, as Thims saw it during these years, was to figure out how the ubiquitous basic human reproduction:

A + B → C

in which A and B are the reactants (the dating pair) and C is the product (a 15-year old child) could be predicted using the standard Gibbs free energy equation:

ΔG = ΔH – TΔS

supposing that person A was to be hypothetically paired up with three potential mates (B, D, E):

A + B → Child

A + D → Child

A + E → Child

In short, how would one use the logic of chemical thermodynamics and its ability to predict reactions to help them determine who they should marry? In other words, which of the above reactions, 1, 2, or 3, would be more spontaneous and thus more energetically favored? The puzzle, however, remained a complete blank until November 15, 2001, at 3:00 AM, when during a reading of British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking’s Illustrated A Brief History of Time, Thims began to see how human reaction spontaneity could be determined in terms of calculations of changes in values of one’s free energy G, enthalpy H, and entropy S instantaneous values over evolutions of decades, with respect to the numerous variables involved in the energetics of reproduction.

Building on these seeds of insight, over the next few years, Thims increase his research efforts and theory development and by 2007 written the world’s first textbook on human chemistry, the study of the chemical behaviors of human molecules. [9] The first published, human chemical thermodynamics, outline on how to set up human thermodynamic tables for reactions between human molecules (people), able to predetermine or predict reaction feasibilities and spontaneities of different combinations of human chemical species (human molecules), was a section entitled “Human Affinity (Gibbs free energy) Tables” in the 2007 Human Chemistry (Volume Two) by Thims. [10]

2008
The idea of free energy matching, in the mind of Thims, was originally something that he had only conceived of as only a future branch of science or application, such as occurring 200-300 years from now. In 2006, however, the sites eChemistry.com, American chemical engineer Glenn Gasner, and Chemistry.com, conceived on the love theories of American anthropologist Helen Fisher, were launched both claiming that “by using the new “science of attraction” they have “taken the mystery out of romantic chemistry” and that they can “let people experience real chemistry”, respectively. In addition, in 2007 the site ScientificMatch.com, founded by American electrical engineer Eric Holzle, was launched claiming to be able to be able create optimized “physical chemistry” between people.

Furthermore, after email conversations with, with both Gasner, in 2006, and Holzle, in 2008, and multiple attempted contacts with Fisher, an irritation about all of these hyped-up claims, among others sorts of charlatan claims (one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability) at other websites, such as eHarmony Labs, who claim to be measuring “interpersonal chemistry”, and after discussions on Thursday, June 19th with American headhunter Cleo Median, who had been conceiving over the last year of building a Chicago Latino matching site, as to whether or not Thims could do a match, based on the theories in his Human Chemistry textbook, if Median brought him five guys and one girl, Thims purchased the domain name “ReactionMatch.com” on June 20th, 2008, at 8:49 AM.

In addition, during the course of the following day, Thims polled 55-people about which name, of available domains, sounded the best for a dating/matching site. The original name that came to mind, that Thims suggested Median, on the 19th, was “Reaction.com” (but this was taken by American clothing designer Kenneth Cole for a clothing line). The three remaining choices, which would in some way incorporate the either elective affinity (ElectiveAffinity.com was taken) or affinity in some way were the following three, shown below (ranked by vote):

ReactionMatch.com (29 votes)

AffinityMatch.net (18 votes)
AffinityReaction.com (8 votes)

The female voters seemed to like “AffinityMatch.net”; however, there were concerns about going to a “dot.net” site and many asked what “affinity” means. Hence, the final choice for the new chemical thermodynamics based pair matching site was “ReactionMatch.com”. Medina and Thims were the first two to sign on to the project. In short, ReactionMatch.com was conceived on June 19th of 2008, by American chemical engineer Libb Thims, working in association with American corporate head-hunter Cleo Medina, slated to be a pair-matching site that matches people (human molecules) to create optimized and lasting chemistry using the methods (chemical thermodynamics) of how chemicals (atoms, molecules, and chemical species) are paired. The sciences used to study and determine reaction feasibility include: physical chemistry, quantum chemistry, and chemical thermodynamics, or in one unified anthropomorphic sense human chemistry + human thermodynamics, to create spontaneous and energetically feasible reactions. In this manner, human molecules, the technical name of a person, are paired successfully using the same methodology as to how molecules are paired.

In review, Thims, who had been studying the scientific nature of relationship pairs since the early 1990s, thus developing the sciences of human chemistry and human thermodynamics in the 2000s, was goaded into the field of science-based online pair matching, out of a dissatisfaction of seeing the new-breed of science matching sites repetitively claim to match people according to “chemistry”; but not, however, based on the type of standard chemistry-matching actually found in a standard chemistry textbook. Thus, after conversations with Glenn Gasner, founder of eChemistry.com (who matches using psychology compatibilities), Eric Holzle, in 2008, founder of ScientificMatch.com (who uses offspring immune-system compatibilities), and attempted interactions, 2006-2008, with Helen Fisher, algorithm-designer at Chemistry.com (who uses finger-length measurement compatibilities), who all claim to match people according to “chemistry”, along with eHarmony Lab’s 2008 efforts to study “interpersonal chemistry” through video, Thims saw that he needed to take the lead in these scattered introductory attempts and claims of creating chemistry.

Subsequently, in theory, if one desired to get matched to someone “chemically”, one would ideally go to a chemist, physical chemist, chemical engineer, or human chemist, rather than an anthropologist, psychologist, or sociologist. The goal, then, of ReactionMatch.com is to assemble a team of researchers from both the hard-sciences: chemists, physical chemists, biochemists, neurochemists, theoretical chemists, chemical engineers along with others from the soft-sciences: genetics, evolutionary psychology, sociology, anthroplogy, medicine, etc., so to match people to get "good" chemistry the very same way chemicals are actually matched.

Projections
There is great potential in the future matching of people via efficient internet-mediated connection, search, and computer-based algorithm capabilities. The key, however, in this picture is the scientific theory behind the algorithm. Currently, for instance, according to a recent study conducted by the Online Publishers Association (OPA) and comScore Networks, online dating, personals, and matchmaking is the second largest segment of “paid content” on the web. Moreover, in 2004 U.S. residents spent $469.5 million on online dating and personals and over $500 million in 2005. Online dating and matching is expected become a billion-dollar a year inductry before the end of the decade. To summarize the future of this technology, in simple terms, in Wired magazine writer Rufus Griscom forecasted that:

"Twenty years from now, the idea that someone looking for love without looking for it online will be silly, akin to skipping the card catalog to instead wander the stacks because: the right books are found only by accident.”

He concludes “how likely is it that the book of your dreams will just fall off the shelf and into your arms”. As such, Griscom concludes, “serendipity is the hallmark of inefficient markets, and the marketplace of love, like it or not, is becoming more efficient” [11]

See also
● ReactionMatch.com (projections)
● ReactionMatch.com (operations)
● ReactionMatch.com (theory)

References
1. (a) Goethe, Johann von. (1809). Elective Affinities. New York: Penguin Classics.
(b) See: Goethe's human chemistry
(c) Tantillor, Astrida O. (2001). Goethe's Elective Affinities and the Critics. New York: Camden House.
(d) Adler, Jeremy. (1987). “Eine fast magische Anziehungskraft”. Goethe’s “Wahlverwandtschafte” und die Chemie seiner Zeit (“An almost Magical Attraction”). Goethe’s Elective Affinity and the Chemistry of its Time), Munich.
(e) Adler, Jeremy. (1990). "Goethe's use of chemical theory in his Elective Affinities" (ch. 18, pgs. 263-79) in Romanticism and the Sciences - edited by Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine, New York: Cambridge University Press.
(f) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two), (ch. 10: "Goethe's Affinities", pgs. 371-422), (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
2. (a) Helmholtz, Hermann. (1882). “Die Thermodynamik Chemischer Vorgänge (The Thermodynamics of Chemical Operations”, SB: 22-39, in Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen von Hermann von Helmholtz. 3 vols. Leipzig: J.A. barth, 1882-95. 2:958-78.
(b) Young, Paul T. (1936). Motivation of Behavior – the Fundamental Determinants of Human and Animal Activity, (ch. 2: “The Energetics of Activity”, pg. 68) New York: Wiley.
(c) Cahan, David. (1993). Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth-Century Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. Lewis, Gilbert N. and Randall, Merle. (1923). Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.
4. (a) Krebs, H.A. and Kornberg, H.L. (1957). Energy Transformations in Living Matter (with an Appendix by K. Burton with 21 figures). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
(b) Alberty, Robert, A. (2003). Thermodynamic of Biochemical Reactions, (pg. 2). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
5. Fairburn, William Armstrong. (1914). Human Chemistry. The Nation Valley Press, Inc.
6. Thims, Libb. (2003). “How to Pick the Right One” (male and female perspectives on mate selection). Research Project #14, Chicago: IoHT Publishing.
7. Thims, Libb. (2004). “Manuscript fragments of Human Thermodynamics (Volume One)” distributed to about a half-dozen individuals around Chicago.
8. Buss, David M. (1994). The Evolution of Desire – Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books.
9. World's First-ever Textbook on the Chemistry of Love - PR.com (Institute of Human Thermodynamics)
10. Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume Two), (ch. 11, section: “Online Matching”, pgs. 455-64; section: “Human Affinity (Gibbs free energy) Tables”, pgs. 464-68). (preview), (Google books). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
11. Griscom, Rufus. (2002). “Why are Online Personals So Hot?” Wired Magazine, Nov. Issue 10.11.