Lastly, in 1905, a man named Albert Einstein became imbibed with the thought of trying to chase after and subsequently catch up to a beam of light.  For according to the logic of his time [i.e. Newtonian Mechanics] a stationary person and a moving person should each measure different speeds?  Meaning, a person moving fast enough, should, using such logic, be able to observe ‘stationary’ light — this was an impossibility to Einstein.

All three stories followed the same puzzle/solution path.  Similarly, as it is with all puzzles there are clues.  What follows are our clues.  That is, HT as a new science has as its directive the intentions to seek irrefutable fit to thirty observed patterns of curiosity.  Specifically, using what are known as the 4 fundamental forces and 12 fundamental particles, HT must explain, in all clarity, the following thirty puzzles:

NOTE: much of what follows may be unclear to the lay reader—however, subsequent study will clarify.

HT Mandates

[1] Why is physical attractiveness [A] inversely proportional to intelligence [I]?  Said another way, why is physical heat [Q] inversely proportional to neurological heat [Q]?

Example A: UIC - 'Attractiveness vs Intelligence' Study - conducted in 2002 [N=2,018 Students], see TABLE; Graduating classes of [1969+1972]; University of Illinois at Chicago [UIC] female science-majors: (mean score of group) physical attractiveness [A] of graduation photo vs. (mean score of degree) intellectual difficulty [I] of degree attained; 95 total 'like' students grouped per degree [below]: (1)

P = Psychology [41 students], B = Biology [ 20 Students], C = Chemistry [13 Students], M = Mathematics [21 Students]
A = Physical Attractiveness (of group); on a scale of 7.0 = Most Physically Attractive to 1.0 = Least Physically Attractive
I = Intellectual Difficulty (of degree); on a scale of 100 = Most Intellectually Difficult to 10 = Least Intellectually Difficult
[2] Why do highly physical-attractive [Hot] people (2), or animals (3), yield to the following bonding trends, observations, or tendencies:
[6] Why is 5-to-1 ratio of attraction-to-repulsion needed to hold a relationship marriage [bond] together? (6)

[7] Why do the following [12] factors lead to, or direct, human bond-formation (stability): (7)

Age (difference between mates) Separation
Latitude (of development) Separation
Occupation [+ Possessions or Money]
Status [+ Prestige]
Personality [+ Social Graces, Character, and Dependability]
Information [+ Intelligence, Education, and Knowledge]
Inner Nature [+ Values and Ambition]

[8] Why do the following [7] factors lead to, or instigate, human bond-dissolution (instability); i.e. divorce: (8)

Parallel Lives (co-habitating strangers)
Communication (a lack of or incompatible styles of)
Sex (poor in quality, a lack of, or differing viewpoints on)
Transitions (ex. job change, empty nest, relocation, retirement, holidays, etc.)

[9] How does human-bonding work, or operate, via the fundamental forces [strong-nuclear, weak-nuclear, electromagnetic, gravitational] as dictated via field particle exchange [photons, gravitons, bosons, gluons]? (9)

[10] Why do ‘like’ birth-order marriage pairings, that is:

      Bc1 + Bc1 ↔ Bc1Bc1
Bc2 + Bc2 ↔ Bc2Bc2
Bc3 + Bc3 ↔ Bc3Bc3

tend to be more unstable, as compared to ‘alternate’ birth-order marriage pairings, that is:

Bc1 + Bc2 --> Bc1Bc2
Bc1 + Bc3 --> Bc1Bc3
Bc2 + Bc3 --. Bc2Bc3

as stemming from the 3-offspring reaction: (10)

Mx + Fy --> MxFy + Bc1 + Bc2+ Bc3

[11] Why do first-borns [Bc1] tend to be comparatively more organized—i.e. possess low entropy [S]? (10)

[12] Why do middle-borns [Bc2] tend to seek bond formations outside of the family; for example with friends (F1, F2, F3, etc.)? (10)

MxFy-Bc1-Bc2-Bc3 + F1-F2-F3 --> MxFy-Bc1-Bc3 + F1-F2-F3-B2

[13] How does one explain, in terms of family bond structure, the observation that last-borns [Bc3] tend to have the best sense of humor? (10)

[14] Why are affluent homes and neighborhoods, always so exquistly organized—i.e. possess low entropy [S]?
[15] Why do people in general, tend to be more physically-attractive in the ‘hollers’ [high entropy arraignments], i.e. small-towns, as compared to the ‘hills’ [low entropy arraignments], i.e. big-cities?

Example: Cindy Crawford, the world’s most photographed model (with over 600 magazine covers to her credit), was discovered, at the age of 16, while working at her summer job shucking corn in a De Kalb Illinois cornfield. (11)

[16] Why do highly physically-attractive people, in general, tend to have rather bland personalities [high entropy arraignments]—or in many cases unpleasant personalities [high entropy arraignments]?

[17] Why are people most-sexually attracted to [have great molecular affinity for] ethnicities, which differ from their own by 15 degrees in latitude? [see VII]

[18] Why, in terms of bond stabilities, and energy transformations, are financially independent [i.e. possession of 10+ years worth of emergency savings], stable, life-long married couples admittedly 'happier' than those in their same income/age cohort who are not financially secure? (12)

[19] Why are ‘Blonds’ typically stereotyped as ‘Dumb’ [high entropy]?
Galaxies: When two galaxies [an entity composed of roughly 100 billion stars] of similar mass collide they become a large elliptical galaxy.  When a massive galaxy encounters a less massive galaxy, the effects of the merger are smaller and the massive galaxy can maintain its shape.  (18)

[27] Why, for 3% of the population, are ‘same’ sex relationship bond pairings:

Mx + Mx --> MxMx
Fy + Fy --> FyFy

more stable than ‘opposite’ sex relationship bond pairings: (19)

Mx + Fy ↔ MxFy 

[28] Regarding one’s level of happiness in relation to light [photon γ] stimulation, why do the following ranked light ‘attractiveness’ orderings exist:

[Most Attractive]   White Light > Neon Light > Sodium Light     [Least Attractive]

[29] During the initial stages of LOVE, how can it feel like your falling when it feels like you’re flying?

[30] Why are entropic bonds [neurological bonds] stronger then enthalpic bonds [physical bonds]?

The goal of HT, in addition to coalescing all of the above observations into a unified framework, will be to present a new science, synthesized and introduced here-within by Thims in unison with other world-renounded HT-researchers, as built on the work of those thermodynamic pioneers [Papin, Clausius, Helmholtz, Gibbs, and others] who came before—which will present and elucidate the equations governing the human lifecycle via the universal laws of energy transformations [i.e. thermodynamics].  Do be aware; however, as this is a new science, there remain many complicalities [complications/technicalities] yet to be embraced.

Through this new science, we will essentially be attending a groundbreaking ceremony on the subject of HUMAN THERMODYNAMICS [HT].  However, do note that the science of Thermodynamics, by itself, is a time honored one.  Stemming from the work of Leucipus [490 B.C], who formulated the first atom model of the universe, thermodynamics has evolved to become a cornerstone in almost every building of modern science—below are a few examples:
Humans: Two’s Company—Three’s a Crowd [Proverb]:
Stars: Binary star systems tend to form inside of globular clusters [a spherical cluster of
stars found in the outer region of galaxies], stars pairing off in tight little orbits—but when a third star encounters a binary, one of the three tends to get a sharp kick. (16)

Black Holes: Spectroscopic studies indicate that HDE 226868 is a BO Supergiant with a surface
temperature of 31,000 K; which seems to rotate about an X-ray source [black hole] called Cygnus X-1 with a period of 5.6 days [below]: (17)
As we see, thermodynamics seems applicable to all arenas—however, there is one stadium that remains untouched—no one, as of yet, as has thought to turn the microscope around—so to examine ourselves?  This task will be our unraveling.  In other words, for about 2,500 years now we have been studying about, analyzing within, and theorizing over, through mathematically modeling, the ‘behavior’ of those entities both smaller [quarks, atoms, molecules, etc.] and larger [planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc.] than us—with very promising results.  It’s now time to apply what we’ve learned concerning these neighboring ‘behaviors’ to our own existence. 

Although this concept may at first unnerve you, it should give you comfort to know that an engineer developed it [i.e. formulated its structural applicability and integrity towards the dissection of human life]—just as was the science of thermodynamics developed by engineers.  More to the point, this thesis is structured over, based on, and indebted to, those stone-stepping pioneers who laid the foundation:

Leucippus [490 BC] - formulated the first theory of atomism.
Democritus [460 BC] - refined the theory of the atom
Aristotle [384 BC] -
Archimedes [287 BC] -
Gutenberg [1394] - invented the printing press
Copernicus [1473] - presented the heliocentric view of the cosmos
Galileo [1562] - invented the telescope
Kepler [1571]
Descartes [1596]
Fermat [1601]
Harvard [1607]
Torricelli [1608]
Pascal [1623]
Newton [1642] - formulated the theory of gravitation
Boyle [1645] - constructed an air pump to study the interrelation of pressure, temperature, and volume with air.
Papin [1647] - conceived of a steam powered engine
Savery [1650] - built the first engine on Papin's designs
Newcomen [1663]
Gravesande [1688]
Franklin [1706]
Cavendish [1731]
Watt [1736]
Lavoisier [1743]
Dalton [1766] - established the basic principles to the science of chemistry
Fourier [1768]
Avogadro [1776]
Gauss [1777]
Faraday [1791]
Babbage [1792]
Carnot [1796]
Anderson [1805]
Darwin [1809] - established the theory of evolution via natural selection.
Schwann [1810]
Rankine [1820]
Helmholtz [1821]
Clausius [1822] - formulated the concepts of both enthalpy [H] and entropy [S]
Mendel [1822]
Pasteur [1822]
Kelvin [1824]
Maxwell [1831]
Pemberton [1831]
Noble [1833]
Mendeleyev [1834]
Gibbs [1839] - formulated an expression [G = H - TS] able to predict the spontaneity of any chemical reaction.
Boltzmann [1844]
Rontgen [1845]
Edison [1847]
Fleming [1849]
Pavlov [1849]
Boole [1851]
Rydberg [1854]
Tesla [1856]
Planck [1858]
Rutherford [1871]
Curie [1867]
Millikan [1868]
Rutherford [1871] - discovered the proton [p]
Aston [1877]
Meitner [1878]
Einstein [1879] - established the equivalence of energy [E] and matter [m] and proposed the existence of the photon [γ]
Schrodinger [1887]
Hubble [1889]
Chadwick [1891] - discovered the neutron [n]
de Broglie [1892]
Thomson [1892]
Lemaitre [1894]
Kinsey [1894]
Hund [1896]
Pauli [1900]
Heisenberg [1901]
Pauling [1901]
von Neumann [1903]
Turing [1912]
Hoyle [1915] -
Crick [1916] - co-discovered the structure of DNA
Kennedy [1917]
Feynman [1918] - helped establish quantum electro dynamics [QED] as a workable science.
Bohr [1922]
Watson [1928] - co-discovered the structure of DNA
Gell-Mann [1929] - proposed the existence of the quark [u, k, c, s, t, b]
Hawking [1942] - established the framework of the big-bang theory of universal origin
GNL [1979] - confirmed the existence of gluons [gab] via experiment.
Venter [2000] - mapped the human genome
...and more recently: Ridley, Miller, Buss, Margulis, Capra, Fisher, Leman, Greenberg, Warren, Lowndes, Morris, Albom, McManus and Guth; to name a few. 

This list of Mandates defines our HT to-do-list [See Vol. I-III]

[1] Thims, Libb (2005) Human Thermodynamics VI-VIII; chapters 7, 8, & 9 + Research Project [#9] + Proof  [#8] + Appendices III [A-E]. 1st Printing (estimated): 2005-2006, World Scientific: New Jersey.
[2]  ● Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human fluctuating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297-302.
     ● Gangestad, S. W., and Thornhill, R. (1997) ‘The Evolutionary Psychology of Extrapair Sex: The Role of Fluctuating Asymmetry.’ Evolution
and Human Behaviour 18:2, 69-88.
     ● Penton-Voak, I. (2000). ‘Consistency and Individual Differences in Facial Attractiveness Judgments: An Evolutionary Perspective. Social
[3] Rhodes, Gillian & Zebrowtz, Leslie, A. (2002). Facial Attractiveness—Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives.  Westport, Connecticut:
    Ablex Publishing.
[4] ● Haynie, D. T. (2001). Biological Thermodynamics (textbook). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    ● []
[5] ● Haynie, D. T. (2001). Biological Thermodynamics (textbook). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    ● Challenger, Gray & Christmas. (2003). Analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Data.
[6] Gottman, John. Ph.D. (1994). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail…and How You Can Make Yours Last. New York: Fireside Books.
[7] ● Buss, D. (1994). The Evolution of Desire: strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
    ● Rhodes, Gillian & Zebrowtz, Leslie, A. (2002). Facial Attractiveness—Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives.  Westport, Connecticut:
    Ablex Publishing.
    ● Lowndes, Leil. (1995). How to Make Anyone Fall in Love with You—as based on scientific studies into the nature of love . Chicago:
     Contemporary Books.
     ● Bates, B., Cleese, J. (2001). The Human Face. London: BBC Worldwide Limited.
[8] ● Fisher, Helen, Ph.D. (1992). Anatomy of Love—A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
    ● Cohen, Robert. (2002). Reconcilable Differences—7 Essential Tips to Remaining Together from a Top Matrimonial Lawer. New York: Pocket
[9] Veltman, M. J. G. (2003). Facts and Mysteries in Elementary Particle Physics. New York: World Scientific.
[10] ● Leman, Kevin, Dr. (1998). The New Birth Order Book—Why You Are The Way You Are.  Grand Rapids:  Baker Book House Company.
      ● Leman, K. Dr. (2001). The Birth Order Connection—finding and keeping the love of your life. Grand Rapids, Mi: Fleming H. Revell.
[11] []
[12] Stanley, T., Ph.D, and Danko, W. (1996). The Millionaire Next Door—the Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy. New York: Pocket Books.
[13] Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest—the science of beauty. New York: Anchor Books.
[14] Darwin, Charles. (1859).  The Origin of Species.  New York: Bantam Books.
[15] Chang, R. (1998). Chemistry – sixth edition. (textbook).  Boston: McGraw-Hill.
[16] Gleick, J. (1987) Chaos—Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books.
[17] Kaufmann (1996). Universe. 4th Ed.  (textbook).  New York:  W. H. Freeman and Company.
[18] Saintonge, A. (2004). Curious About Astronomy?—Ask An Astronomer. Cornell University, Astronomy Department.
[19] Buss, D. (1994). The Evolution of Desire: strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

Example -- The down-fall and inherent tension within the #1 hit '70's comedy's show:
'Three’s Company'

Editorial Reviews [source:]
Book Review: Come and Knock on Our Door; author: Chris Mann, June 1998 [paper-back]

The no-holds-barred complete story of the #1 hit '70s sitcom. Find out what really happened both behind and in front of the cameras.  Come and Knock on Our Door delivers all the titillation and travails of the breakthrough coed roommate farce that launched John Ritter, Joyce DeWitt, and Suzanne Somers to stardom in 1977. On-screen, the trio's dilemmas were always just zany misunderstandings riddled with pratfalls and double entendres and resolved with hugs and kisses. But behind the scenes, the real-life tensions of fame and controversy plus personal, financial, and creative conflicts threatened to end the love and laughter.

With interviews from over sixty actors, producers, directors, and crew members, Chris Mann uncovers the good, the bad, and the ugly that occurred on the set-- from the fun and friendships to the feuding and falling-outs. For the first time ever, John Ritter and Joyce DeWitt break their silence about the eroding relations and bitter breakup with their onetime pal and original costar, Suzanne Somers and some of the show's top execs tell their sides of the story behind her big money demands and missed work, the public outcry, and her eventual firing. Joyce DeWitt also reveals her secret struggles with the show's producers and explains why she turned her back on Hollywood when John Ritter spun off alone in Three's a Crowd-- and what she's been doing ever since. Jenilee Harrison tells what it was like to replace Suzanne Somers during the contract dispute. Norman Fell, Don Knotts, Richard Kline, and Ann Wedgeworth disclose the ups and downs of TV's looniest landlords and tenants. And the late Audra Lindley, in her final interview, describes what she looks for in a muu-muu. So Come and Knock on Our Door, We've Been Waiting for You.

About the Author:
Growing up in Oklahoma in the '70s and '80s, Chris Mann learned about peace, love, and misunderstanding by watching Three's Company. An art director and writer living in Los Angeles, he now sees life as one big double entendre.

A blond walks into a store and says ‘How much for that TV?’  And the salesman says ‘We don’t sell those things to blonds.’  So she goes home.  The next day she comes back and says ‘How much for that TV?’  And the salesman says  ‘We don’t sell those things to blonds.’  So that night she dyes her hair brown.  The third day she goes back and says ‘How much for that TV?’  And the salesman says ‘We don’t sell those things to blonds.’  Then she says ‘ How did you know I was a blond?’  And the salesman says ‘Because that’s a microwave!’
[20] Why are some people content [stable] in life [a series of chemical reactions]—and others aren’t?

[21] Why does I.Q. [a measure of entropy] increase with latitude [a measure of photon [γ] input]? [see VII]

[22] Why is happiness, or contentment, greatest at latitudes of 24 degrees [the largest photon [γ] input latitude in the world]? [see VII]

[23] Why do women who never marry tend to be significantly more intelligent [I] then women who marry? (13)

[24] Why does the level, or strength, of bonding between a mother [Fy] and her infant [i.e. Bc1, Bc2, or Bc3] vary, depending upon the varying physical-attractiveness of each infant? (13)

[25] Why are deviations from the norm, in terms of physical appearance, shape, or form, precursors to extinction (molecular instability)? (14)

[26] Why, for entities larger than quarks, are binaries [i.e. electron-pairs, even numbered atoms, human-pairs, solar-pairs, blackhole-pairs, etc.] more stable then tertiaries [i.e. three bonded electrons, a human threesome, a three star system, three bonded blackholes, etc.]?


Electrons: Only two electrons may occupy the same atomic orbital—and
their spins must be opposite [Pauli Exclusion Principle]. (15)

Atoms: Nuclei with even numbers of both protons and neutrons are generally more stable than those with odd numbers of these particles [below]: (15)
Regarding the current understanding of that vast expanse known as our physical universe, there exists a great divide between science [life as explained to us] and day-to-day reality [life as we live it]?  As scientists, we understand how chemical reactions work [W].  As people, we understand how human relationships work [W].  They both obviously have all-the-world to do with each other—yet no one has come forward to explain how?  This will be our task!  All great turning points in human thought involved such similar puzzle/solution formats.

For example, in 1543, a man named Nicolaus Copernicus was puzzled by the observation that certain planets varied in both size and brightness over the course of the year—yet according to the prevalent theories of his time, all such planets were thought to be held at a fixed radius, on an unchanging celestial sphere, which was assumed to continuously rotate about an ever-stationary earth at its center?
Example B: Cynthia from the movie 100 girls who is described as the 'Superbowl of Women':
Comments: (while she's writing to herself - adjacent):

I'm not stupid.  I know I got things easy.  Guys will pretty much do anything for me because of the way I look (referring to a guy who did her term paper).  It's a curse.  You see, nothing is a challenge for me.  Everything's made easy.  And if I ever actually do, do something on my own, then everyone assumes I got there because of the way I look.  It sucks!
Similarly, in 1859, a man named Charles Darwin was perplexed by observations made while traveling on the Galapagos Islands.  He wondered why certain fossilized extinct animals, called glyptodonts [below: top], seemed to bear striking resemblance to living armadillos [below: bottom]?  Current thinking in his time, supposed the earth to be only 6,000 years old—yet it would have taken millions of years to fossilize such a creature?
Copernican System of planetary rotation
Ptolemaic System of planetary rotation
[3] Why do couples, or animal pairs, with low average physical-attractiveness, i.e. [Cold] people (2), or animals (3), tend to form stabler bonds?

[4] Why are both enthalpy [H] and physical-attractiveness [A] defined in terms of heat movements [Q]? (4)

[5] Why are both a ‘good’ marriage [bond] and a ‘negative’ Gibbs free energy change [∆G] defined in terms of the ability of a system to do work [W]; [below]? (5)
(a) Tend to react sooner (and more often), i.e. yield more product
(b) Have a greater tendency to de-bond (divorce)
(c) Tend to be highly specific in bonding site choice/preference
(d) Have a greater affinity for symmetrical mates
(e) Tend themselves to be highly symmetric
(f) Tend to be comparatively larger in size
(g) Tend to have an ‘averaged’ shape indicative of great stability
(h) Their introduction into a closed system [any gathering] increases the energy level [stimulates the mood] of the system.
(i) When introduced into any closed system [any gathering], they are resultantly and invariably given more personal space; i.e. they their introduction tends to increase the volume of the system.
Want to see more FAQ?
Know of any corrections, modifications, or additions to this page?
Tell a friend about this page
Inception: 04/17/07 (counter reset)
Copyright © Institute of Human Thermodynamics and IoHT Publishing Ltd.
All Rights Reserved