Human molecular orbital

From Hmolpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The basic 'orbital structure' of a person, conceptualized as point, seen when one's weekly, monthly, or yearly movement spatial patterns are tracked at time-accelerated pace and mapped. The concept of people having "human molecular orbitals" was developed in 2003 by Libb Thims, amid his effort to formulate a working model of the human chemical bond and the mechanism of dihumanide formation, in respect to bond energy.

In hmolscience, human molecular orbital (TR:41) (LH:3) (TL:43) refers to the model of viewing a person as a particle, point, "proton-electron configuration" (Weiss, 1925), or molecule-like entity with a personal space invisible "bubble" (Hall, 1966), moving, in a preferred "circularity" pattern (Mach, 1885), which differs if one is north or south of the equator, in physio-chemical like activity "orbitals" (Thims, 2007), when viewed from above, e.g. using the advanced perspective, in a time-accelerated point of view.[1]

Early models

Mach | Turning tendencies

In c.1885, Ernst Mach was referring to the circular movements of troops, e.g. lost in a dark night or during a snow storm, as “turning tendencies”, such as illustrated below:[2]

Turning tendencies.png

This, in some sense, is an early conception of the idea of "human molecular spin"[3] and or the "Coriolis effect" operating on humans in their movement patterns.

Howard | Territoriality

In 1900, Eliot Howard, a British ornithologist and animal psychologist, began to study the mating behavior of warblers, in respect to the specifics of the territories guarded by each male:

“When studying warblers some twenty years ago, I became aware of the fact that each male isolates itself at the commencement of the breeding season and exercises dominion over a restricted area of ground.”
— Eliot Howard (1920), Territory in Bird Life (pg. v)

The following being one illustration:

Howard territory (Lapwigs, 1916).jpg

Noted as main originator of the science of “territoriality” (Hall, 1966); his territory theory, the result of a dissatisfaction[4] of Darwin and Wallace’s theories of sexual section, was presented in a nine-part The British warblers, published between 1907 and 1914, thereafter finalizing in his illustrated 1920 Territory in Bird Life, in which he describes territoriality behaviors in birds in a detailed manner; his a “law of territory” was stated to be widespread in birds: males struggle, not for females, but for territory, and if won, a mate is won also.[5]

Hediger | Attack reaction

In 1934, Heini Hediger, in his “On the Biology and Psychology of Flight in Animals”, was speaking about “flight reactions” and “critical reactions” of big cats.[6] This is illustrated below:[7]

Attack reaction (photo).png

Hediger latter summarized this as follows:

“According to the definition, ‘flight reaction’ occurs in every wild animal, or in an animal adapted to captivity, whenever man approaches to within the characteristic flight distance of that animal. In addition to this fundamental possibility of driving the new wild animal away to any desired point by releasing its flight reaction, the tamer has another basic possibility, of drawing the animal towards him from any point by releasing its so-called ‘critical reaction’. This occurs whenever the man approaches a wild animal (or one accustomed to captivity), which is prevented from escape, to a distance less than its characteristic ‘critical distance’. In the case of the big cats, this distance plays an exceedingly important part, is fixed, and may be determined to within centimeters. The critical reaction consists of a change from flight to attack, never with the character of an active offensive, but always of a defensive, emergency nature.”
— Heini Hediger (1955), The Psychology of Animals in Zoos and Circuses (pgs. 123-24)

Here, we see Hediger reporting measurements of animal "personal space" to within centimeters.

Calhoun | Rat study

In 1958 to 1961, John Calhoun, an American ethologist and animal behavior researcher, conducted a rat society experiment, wherein he built three 10x14-foot rooms (each room divided into four pens or homes via electrified partitions), open to observation, from above, by three 5-foot glass windows cut into the floor of the hayloft; each pen being a complete dwelling unit, with food, a drinking through, a nesting place, nesting material:

Calhoun rat study.png

Each pen was connected by ramp-like bridges passing over the partition electrified fences, therein making rectangular row of rat cities each connected by semi-permeable boundaries (bridges); from which he was able to diagram the living locations of the alpha males, the females, and the children, in single-door pens 1 and 4, with double-door pens 2 and 3 being more disordered, akin to filthy ghettos, where so-called "sink mothers" let their children be stepped on and eaten by other rats, and abnormal sexual behaviors developed. The ends of the pens, in human terms, are akin to the "north side" or affluent side of a given city, whereas the middle pens are equivalent to the south side or crime-ridden side of any given city.

Here we see each rat drawn like a molecular "bubble", with the alpha males having various attached female bubbles; similar to atoms bonding to form molecules.

Hall | Proxemics

A visual of the “bubble” around a lion, and how if the person broaches the bubble, it will trigger the “attack reaction”[7], from the pioneering work of Heini Hediger (1955), a concept adopted by Edward Hall (1966) to explain human social proxemics.

In 1966, Edward Hall, building on Eliot Howard (1920), Heini Hediger (1955), and John Calhoun (1961), developed the science of social proxemics, or space relations in animals and humans, e.g. personal space or animal territories;

Hall (no trespass).png

Hall states:

“Man, too, has territoriality and he has invented many ways of defending what he considers his own land, turf, or spread. This removal of boundary markers and trespass upon the property of another man are punishable acts in much of the Western world.”
— Edward Hall (1966), The Hidden Dimension (pg. #)

Hall alludes to the conception of how human behave orbitally or rather spatially similar to smaller molecules:

“As more and more is learned about both men and animals, it becomes clear that the skin itself is a very unsatisfactory boundary or measuring point for crowding. Like molecules that make up all matter, living things move and therefore require more or less fixed amounts of space (see: social space). Absolute zero, the bottom of the scale, is reached when people are so compressed that movement is no longer possible. Above this point, the containers in which man finds himself either allow him to move about freely or else cause him to jostle, push, and shove. How he responds to this jostling, and hence to the enclosed space, depends on how he feels about being touched by strangers.”
Edward Hall (1966), The Hidden Dimension (pg. 58) [8]

Hall also referred to humans, being like molecules, as having "bubbles", or "molecular bubbles", so to say, that they carry around with them invisibly, so to say:

“Each animal is surrounded by a series of bubbles or irregularly shaped balloons that serve to maintain proper spacing between individuals.”
— Edward Hall (1966), The Hidden Dimension (pg. 10) [8]
“If one sees man surrounded by a series of invisible bubbles which have measurable dimensions, architecture can be seen in a new light. It is then possible to conceive that people can be cramped by the spaces in which they have to live and work. They may find themselves forced into behavior, relationships, or emotional outlets that are overly stressful. When stress increases, sensitivity to crowding rises—people get more on edge—so that more and more space is required as less and less is available.”
— Edward Hall (1966), The Hidden Dimension (pg. #)

This bubbles can become very powerful when broached, e.g. when someone "gets in your face", triggering an "attach reaction", or, in the opposite sense, when someone comes in for a kiss, triggering a "reproduction reaction".

Personal space

In 1974, Johan Hartnett, Kent Vailey, and Craig Hartley, American psychologists, in their “Body Height, Position, and Sex as Determinants of Personal Space”, reported the results of a study conducted on 41 males and 43 females, in a laboratory setting, which yielded data on personal space in respect to height, size, and sex.[9]

In 1975, James Dabbs and Neil Stokes, in their “Beauty is Power: the Use of Personal Space on the Sidewalk”, found that “very attractive people of any size are given bigger personal space and territory; which they carry around with them” (Etcoff, 1999).[10] In other words, whereas the average person is given about 4-feet of personal space, studies show that "very attractive" people are allotted more personal space, or social volume, which they carry around with them, as summarized below:[11]

Personal space.png

The following, to exemplify, is a visual of the molecular "bubble" that the four lead characters of the 2004 Mean Girls carry around with them, which allots them more personal space as they walk down the hallway in high school:[12]

Mean Girls (molecular bubble).png

A synopsis of this personal space model, by beauty science researcher Nancy Etcoff, is as follows:

“As we walk down the street, we negotiate space with other people. We carry a small territory with us, a protected turf that surrounds us whether we are sitting or standing, and upon which others cannot trespass without permission. Move in too close, and people get uncomfortable. Tall people have bigger territories: their sheer size intimidates people. When people are asked to approach a stranger and stop when they no longer feel comfortable, they will stop about two feet away from a tall person (22.7 inches to be exact) but less than a foot (9.8 inches) from a short person. Very attractive people of any size are given persona territories; they carry their privileges around their persons.”
— Nancy Etcoff (1999), Survival of the Prettiest (pg. 46) [10]

In 1994, Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett, psychologists at the University of Michigan, conducted their "hallway study", which found similar results in respect to personal space and body size, albeit specifically men, set into different neurochemical states, approaching men of different sizes.[13]

Thims | Molecular orbitals

In 2003, Libb Thims, from his studies of the history of chemical bonding theory[14], developed the concept human molecular orbital, as one of the working models in the theory of the "human chemical bond".[15]

In 2007, Libb Thims, in his Human Chemistry, building on Mach, Howard, Hediger, Hall, and others, and using molecular orbital theory of physical chemistry as a basis, introduced the human molecular orbital model, shown below, wherein a person, conceptualized as "dot" or point, surrounded by their "molecular bubble" (Hall, 1966) of personal space they carry around with them, moves through larger daily average social activity orbitals, such as work W, the orbits of friends one F1 or friend two F2, the mall M, grocery store G, or school S, and so on, with the home being the "nucleus" so to say, of the human molecular orbital:[1]

Human molecular orbital model (Thims, 2007).png

Here, we can conceptualize this model, i.e. a person moving in their activity orbitals, from a time-accelerated point of view, as a spacetime "proton-electron configuration" (Weiss, 1925) orbital geometry:

“For purposes of description, each separate geometrical electron-proton pattern, no matter how simple or complex it may be, is to be regarded as a system. Such systems may be classified into the degrees of the similarity or dissimilarity postulated of atoms, molecules, compounds, tissues, plants, animals, men, races, nations, planets, etc. The systems of especial interest to the behaviorist are classified under animal tissues and social organizations.”
Albert Weiss (1925), A Theoretical Basis of Human Behavior (pg. 19) [16]

Dihumanide formation

Hence, when two compatible human orbitals collide in time, e.g. a young man Mx and women Fy, meeting at school, i.e. their school S orbitals overlap, as shown below:

School orbital overlap.png

Then suppose, the male and female, Mx and Fy, begin to hang out at each other's friend's houses, i.e. F1 and F2 orbital overlap:

Friend orbital overlap.png

Subsequently, if the change in the Gibbs energy ΔG of the ongoing reaction is favorable, i.e. the ΔG is negative to a large value, and the kinetics of the reaction are aligned, i.e. the trajectories of each person vision of the future are in the same direction, then nuclear unification can accrue, i.e. the two people or human molecules will move in together, and thereby become a dihumanide complex or molecule, i.e. two people bonded as one:

The floating magnets experiment is a helpful way to visualize this.

Reaction mechanism

In chemical reaction terms:

where the dihumanide unit MxFy, couple, or married couple, has a quantifiable amount of "Gibbs energy" stored in the bond, symbol "≡", as bond energy in the Mx≡Fy unit, which plays a role in the determination of the "spontaneity" of the reaction, wherein spontaneity occurs when the following condition is met:

meaning that the overall reaction has to show a decrease in the Gibbs energy on going from reactants to products; where:

Which, in the above dihumanide formation reaction example, is:

In other words, the male individually, at the point of initial meeting, e.g. love a first sight, the female, at the point of first meeting, and the couple, after couple formation, each have a distinct Gibbs energy, namely: GFx, GFy, and GMxFy, respectively, the latter of which found stored as bond energy (Haber, 1909; Lipmann, 1941), similar, in nature, to the energy stored as phosphate bonds in ATP. This logic of assigning each chemical entity or species a specific Gibbs energy in a given state, to note, was pioneered by Gilbert Lewis (1923), in his famous "free energy of formations" of the chemical species tables.

End matter

See also

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 (a) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry, Volume One (dihumanide, 5+ pgs; quote, pg. 34; orbital overlap diagram, pg. 269). LuLu.
    (b) Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry, Volume Two. LuLu.
  2. Turning tendencies – Hmolpedia 2020.
  3. Human molecular spin – Hmolpedia 2020.
  4. Eliot Howard – Encyclopedia.com.
  5. Kinlen, L.J. (2018). “Eliot Howard’s Law of Territory in Birds: the Influence of Charles Moffat and Edmund Selous” (abs), Archives of Natural History, 45(1):54-68.
  6. Hediger, Heini. (1934). “On the Biology and Psychology of Flight in Animals” (“Zur Biologie und Psychologie der Flucht bei Tieren.), Biol. Zentralbl. Vol. 54, pp. 21-40.
  7. 7.0 7.1 Attack reaction – Hmolpedia 2020.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Hall, Edward T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension: an Anthropologist Examines Man’s Use of Space in Public in Private (bubbles, pg. 10; molecules, pg. 58). Doubleday.
  9. Hartnett, J.J. Bailey, and Harley, C. (1974). “Body Height, Position, and Sex as Determinants of Personal Space” (abs), Journal of Psychology¸ 87:129-36.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Etcoff, Nancy. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest: the Science of Beauty (pg. 46). Anchor Books.
  11. Sidewalk study – Hmolpedia 2020.
  12. Mean girls model – Hmolpedia 2020.
  13. Study – Hmolpedia 2020.
  14. History of chemical bonding theory – Hmolpedia 2020.
  15. See: Progress report (2003).
  16. Weiss, Albert P. (1925). Theoretical Basis of Human Behavior. Adams, 1929.

External links

Theta Delta ics T2.jpg