h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm sorry; I don't think it's time for a Coda yet.

I initially unsubscribed from this thread before Post 2 was made, because I knew, at that point, full well which direction it would take. Out of morbid curiosity, I have just read it. Before I read it, I was fervently undecided as to the validity of homeopathy; even now I can't say my position has improved:

Whatever the 'how', there is plenty of research evidence to suggest that homeopathic remedies do actually work. Whether this is biologically, chemically, psychologically or whatever I will not speculate. Homweopathy is an older discipline than medicine, and surely there must be a lot of trial-and-error logic in the cures.

No-one has really cut to the jib of homeopathic science yet. I have read some literature on the subject, and - like others on this thread - have reached the conclusion that the trick is in the dilution. Water is the most essential chemical for our body to survive, so a good intake of water is never a bad thing in any case. Homeopathists, as kea have said, claim the trick behind these solutions is not chemical. There's nothing wrong with that. I make no claims that Chemistry is the be-all and end-all. The only reason we are alive is because of non-chemical energy transfer from the Sun.

Homeopathists claim that water retains a 'memory' from the homeopathic solute - whether any remains in solution or not. I am going to stick my neck out here and state that this is not unrealistic. Metallurgists are now producing 'memory-metals': they regain their crystalline structure (the metals, not the metallurgists) when treated after deformation. Now water, due to its strong hydrogen bonding, is a liquid very close to being crystalline - hence it's low boiling point relative to molecules of similar size. I don't see any reason why, due to quantum 'spin twin' effects, energetically-favourable attraction effects, or similar, that a solute cannot cause water molecules to begin interacting in a certain way. Those water molecules may cause neighbouring molecules to act in a certain way, and so on down the chain - even if the solute is diluted out.

This is where I get thrown out of SEx. I'm afraid scientific laws have not yet explained everything. For heaven's sake, Einstein had to re-write the lot of them 80 years ago! They are simply the most logical, most plausible explanation for observed phenomena. By no means (ask a mathematician) do they constitute proof. In this case, science has been unable to prove very much because we cannot observe the direct, molecular results of homeopathic dilution. The best humans can do is see a row of atoms, and then only in a solid crystal. Watching individual water molecules in action seems a bit far off to me. I say again: I'm not necessarily in favour of homeopathy, just that they have a pretty good argument by scientific standards.

B

1) "Whatever the 'how', there is plenty of research evidence to suggest that homeopathic remedies do actually work."

If by "research evidence" you mean scientific research evidence, then no, there isn't "plenty". There is maybe one report.

Here's the thing. If there were plenty of "scientific research evidence", this thread would be discussing those results. But there isn't. And hence the thread got moved to the Forum.


2)"Homeopathists claim that water retains a 'memory' from the homeopathic solute - whether any remains in solution or not. I am going to stick my neck out here and state that this is not unrealistic. Metallurgists are now producing 'memory-metals': they regain their crystalline structure (the metals, not the metallurgists) when treated after deformation."

The metal is a solid the entire time. This is a critical difference. Also, phase changes happen all the time, where a solid changes from one crystal structure to another, and possibly back. This is a result of external parameters (temperature, pressure, etc.). Homeopathic memory affects are *not* dependent on external parameters. Big difference.

" Now water, due to its strong hydrogen bonding, is a liquid very close to being crystalline"

No, this is wrong. It is certainly not crystalline like at room temperature, let alone near the boiling point. Also, water is more dense than ice - so clearly there is a big difference between the "crystals" of ice than of the liquid water.

"- hence it's low boiling point relative to molecules of similar size."

No, this is wrong also. 1st, molecular size doesn't correlate very well with boiling point *in general*. The typical comparison for water is with similar hydogren compounds of elements in the same group of the periodic table (H2O, H2S, etc.) It has a *higher* boiling point than the others because of hydrogen bonding. Hyrogen bonding liquids are not "more" crystalline than non-hydrogen bonding ones.

Further, its incorrect to talk about degrees of crystallinity. Something is either crystalline or it isn't. You may have an *inhomogenous* sample, which contains crystalline and non-crystalline parts. You may have a "liquid crystal", which is crystalline in 1 or 2 dimensions, but not the third. And your liquid crystal may be inhomegenous as well. But you can't pick out a *homogenous* sample and say "this is 78% crystalline".

The above 2 arguments were made to show that water does not behave like metals, memory metals, etc.



3) " I don't see any reason why, due to quantum 'spin twin' effects, energetically-favourable attraction effects, or similar, that a solute cannot cause water molecules to begin interacting in a certain way. Those water molecules may cause neighbouring molecules to act in a certain way, and so on down the chain - even if the solute is diluted out."

You can propose any theory you want, but until you back it up with experimental evidence, it's not worth much. Even before you get experimental evidence, why not come up with what experiment you could run which would test this?


4) "I'm not necessarily in favour of homeopathy, just that they have a pretty good argument by scientific standards."

No, they don't, otherwise we'd be discussing those results, and not going over the scientific method, and what qualifies.

"If by "research evidence" you mean scientific research evidence, then no, there isn't "plenty". There is maybe one report."

I grant you, I may be digging myself into a hole here, because I haven't actually read the reports. But I've certainly read _of_ many. It's not that hard to carry out a 'scientific' investigation into such things - all you need is three groups of people with the same illness. I'm sure it's been done more than once. The reasons they don't get published in scientific journals is because the two camps are at constant war.

"Also, phase changes happen all the time, where a solid changes from one crystal structure to another, and possibly back. This is a result of external parameters (temperature, pressure, etc.). Homeopathic memory affects are *not* dependent on external parameters."

It wasn't my intention to make a direct comparison. I'm a metallurgist and I know about the differences. What I was trying to do is allay doubts of the general reader about an 'object' having a memory. And surely the homeopathic memory effect _is_ dependent on an external factor - that of the solute.

"No, this is wrong. It is certainly not crystalline like at room temperature, let alone near the boiling point. Also, water is more dense than ice - so clearly there is a big difference between the "crystals" of ice than of the liquid water."

I never said it weas crystalline, although I agree I exaggerated. What I was pointing out is that it is not completely amorphous. The dipolar effect of the hydrogen bonding does create a regular movement between water molecules - the 'swinging partners' analogy being most commonly used.

"Further, its incorrect to talk about degrees of crystallinity. Something is either crystalline or it isn't. "

On a sideline, that is not actually true at all. Part of my thesis rested on the degree of crystallinity in hydrogen storage compounds. But it's not relevant.

"You can propose any theory you want, but until you back it up with experimental evidence, it's not worth much."

Likewise, you can propose any rebuttal, but they all use the scientific 'most likely' explanation. We ought to face facts and acknowledge that modern science knows very little for definite about the molecular level of matter.

B

Homeopathists *have* to claim that water has a memory/special energy if they rely on science to any extent in their arguments for potency beyond extreme dilution.

This memory/energy is claimed to be capable of taking on numerous long-term stable states, to correspond with the numerous potential remedies, and get stronger the less of a substance there is dissolved in it. It is unaffected by the process of being absorbed onto lactose tablets (which one might think could be a traumatic experience for water molecules).
Dissolving the tablet on the tongue, and the consequent mixing with the complex aqueous solution of saliva and lactose still doesn't damage the stored information/energy in the water, nor does absorption into the tissues, bloodstream, and finally into the affected cells.

Is *any* explanation offered for how/why the presence of more molecules of solute earlier on in the dilution process prevents the water taking up its optimal state of highest enery/strongest memory, or indeed why a tube of ultrapure water wouldn't be incredibly susceptible to memorising any stray molecule that happened to fall into it, which would appear to be a logical conclusion.

From the outside, there appear to be a whole chain of speculative and unexplained events which *have* to happen for the chemical side of homeopathy to work as claimed, or indeed to work at all, apart from the positive psychological effects of a good consultation, and possible positive sides of belief.

There really are three seperate issues -
a) Does homeopathy work as a whole, compared to doing nothing, or other medical treatments. What effect does substitution with placebos have (ie does the human side have an effect on people even when the chemical cure is absent).

b) Do homeopathic remedies work as actual chemical remedies without any lengthy consultation, (compared to placebos) and does that depend on user's belief in homeopathy, or their knowledge they are being given homeopathic remedies.

c) Does the claimed method of operation have any plausible basis in physics (whether or not the treatment actually works).

"But I've certainly read _of_ many"

That means you've read secondary sources - which, scientifically speaking, is a big no-no. Look back through this thread. There are excellent links and references to the few actualy scientific studies that have been performed.



"What I was trying to do is allay doubts of the general reader about an 'object' having a memory. And surely the homeopathic memory effect _is_ dependent on an external factor - that of the solute."

Memory, historesis, etc. - fine, we all know about that and accept. But just because it happens with substance A, doesn't mean it happens with substance B. Where is the proof?

The extrenal factor - the solute is removed. Water, however, is a liquid - it undergoes strong thermal fluctuations which affect its inter-molecular structure. The inter-molecular structure is constantly being re-arranged. It is in equilibrium. So, if you remove the external factor - the solute - how does it retain the memory?

In systems which do display historesis (memory) effects, they are strongly temperature dependent. If you raise the temperature above a certain threshold, there is no memory. Water, being a liquid, is clearly above that threshold.


"The dipolar effect of the hydrogen bonding does create a regular movement between water molecules - the 'swinging partners' analogy being most commonly used."

No, it doesn't. It creates a motion, but to call it regular is wrong. I've seen many world-class scientists present their research on this *exact* topic. And "regular" or periodic is not how they have or would describe this.


"On a sideline, that is not actually true at all. Part of my thesis rested on the degree of crystallinity in hydrogen storage compounds. But it's not relevant"

Please elaborate, as I'm a physical chemist, and would be happy to discuss the nitty gritty. What was your "measure" of crystallinity, what was your sample?


"Likewise, you can propose any rebuttal, but they all use the scientific 'most likely' explanation."

My rebuttals are based on existing experimental evidence & theory & more evidence. Yes, it is called the "most likely" explanation - that's how science works. That's the highest level of certainity you're going to get.


"We ought to face facts and acknowledge that modern science knows very little for definite about the molecular level of matter.""

No, we know quite a bit about the molecular level of matter. Solid state physics is highly advanced. Chemistry is *all* about the molecular state of matter. THe list goes on and on...

An interesting question: if independent research can prove a) and b), does the answer to c) really matter?

I think it's a sad outlook for anyone who says Yes.

B

Err, you think its sad that generations of scientists have asked the question "why does this work" rather than just being happy with the fact that something does?

I consider *that* to demonstrate ignorarnce or lack of appreciation for the work it takes to advance science.

So if an amateur does come up with a verified medical (or otherwise) wonder that benefits lots of people (a cure for cancer, say), you won't be joyous of the miracle, you'll just be frustrated that you don't know how it works? Wear those glasses with pride, my man.

I'd like to draw a line under homeopathy at this moment - I'm sure we could find arguments ad infinitum to rebut each other. And I accept that you know more about the movement of water molecules and that may not be the root cause (if any).

For your interest - my thesis was on the nanoscopic corrosion of Mg2Ni. We could measure it on a (theoretical) atomic scale using Johnson-Mehl-Avrami analysis; the exponent in the equation is the degree of crystallisation: it can be used to take account of missing atoms, dislocation density and so on.

I've also come across historesis compounds (although, I admit, they are the exception not the rule), which are dependent on corrosion, dislocation and surface reaction.

B

"So if an amateur does come up with a verified medical (or otherwise) wonder that benefits lots of people (a cure for cancer, say), you won't be joyous of the miracle, you'll just be frustrated that you don't know how it works? Wear those glasses with pride, my man. winkeye "


No, I never said that. You're putting words on my fingers. If you think I did say that, point out where.

>>"...you won't be joyous of the miracle, you'll just be frustrated that you don't know how it works? Wear those glasses with pride, my man."

One can be glad that something does work and still wonder why, unless one is the kind of person that wants everything to be a miracle and is frustrated that there *are* rational explanations that at least some people can understand.

Given the acknowledgement that some regular pharmaceuticals work by unknown mechanisms, I don't think anyone's saying that *proven* treatments are a bad thing, however they work, yet it is still interesting to know *how* things work, in order to make things work *better*.

If someone came up with a drug that worked for a particular illness, and said it worked due to a chain of physical processes for which there was no apparent evidence, and some of which seem superficially to be fairly unlikely, I'd be really interested to know *how* they came to their explanation:
a) 'Just' thinking up a self-consistent explanation that fits the observed evidence.
b) 'Just' observing evidence that fit a pre-existing explanation.
c) Divine inspiration.
d) Some combination of the above
e) Other. (please specify)

Is the Kolomogrov-Johnson-Mehl-Avrami equation the same as the Johnson-Mehl-Avrami equation?

Most references I've found refer to KJMA. They talk about nucleation and growth of *crystals*.

I think we both have the same physical structure in our heads, but our word descriptions and point of view are markedly different.

I have to concede that crystallinity is not dichotomous. I suppose if you have a perfect crystal, and you add random defects, eventually the structure has to at some point be considered amorphous. Therefore, there is a region in between perfect crystallinity and amorphousness in which you have some degree of crystallinity.

However, that does not preclude the existence or labelling of some substances as 100% amorphous. I will not concede that there is *any* crystallinity to pure liquid water. The cases of partial crystallinity all rely on the substance being a solid or liquid crystal. Water is neither of these.

An x-ray diffraction measurement of the partially crystalline solids would reveal faint dots corresponding to the underlying crystallographic axes. There are no such dots for a water sample, regardless of how intense or sensitive an instrument you use.

Even if liquid water *had* some potential shape-holding mechanism to it, could it conceivably have enough stable states to hold impressions of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of different 'seed' chemicals?

It's hard to imagine any plausible physical mechanism for such behaviour.

If the act of simply shaking *virtually* pure water was capable of making it take on any one of many powerful energised states, depending on microcontaminants, one might expect that a truckload of bottles of distilled water would all be subtly (or seriously) different, depending on the odd unwanted molecule here or there spreading its effect through the water as the truck bounced along the road, unless it has to be a *human* doing the shaking (if so, why?).

Imay have misunderstood the conversation so far, but are to trying to equate the shape memory of metal structures with the hypothessised property memory of water? Surely the proposed meory of water quality being proposed has nothing to do with structure, and everything to do with the proerties of the 'remembered' molecules? H2O can never be CO2 in propery surely? (random example!) Even if somehow H2O could be the same shape, it stillwouldn't have the same properties?

I'm probably way out of my depth here, so apols if so! Just trying to understand!

I'm still not clear as to why, even if water did have some sort of memory, this would be ble to cure anything.

Noggin

I was wondering if homeopathic remedies are always supposed to be beneficial or harmless - if they can cause strong reactions by [unknown] chemical/physical means, even to someone taking them unknowingly, they'd seem like pretty ideal candidates for untraceable poisons.

In fact, it could be argued that
*cough*
*splutter*
*thud*

**fastens up briefcase and walks imperturbably out the door**

B

*waves after Master B*

But you never answered my question about Kolomogrov-Johnson-Mehl-Avrami being the same as JMA...

And what about x-ray diffraction from water versus metals/alloys with high defect concentrations...

I think KJMA is an adaptation of the analysis for crystal growth, whereas JMA is for disruption to crystals in situ, but don't quote me.

I think you're reading a bit too much into the way I described water. Of course it's more or less completely amorphous. But surely, statistically speaking, there is at least the potential (or probability) of some degree of alignment at any given time, due the dipolar effects.

B

OK, thanks for the explanation on KJMA vs JMA.

Yes, water molecules align - that is hydrogen bonding. And taking a snapshot of the sample you would see clusters of "aligned" water molecules. But those are *transient* structures, that last for an just a instant, and then are gone. And they are extremely localized - there is no long range ordering.

And yes, solutes do strongly affect this!! That is well established fact. The water molecules will align themselves around the solute, based on its properties. But it is a dynamic alignment. The alignments will fluctuate, new water molecules will move into place as original ones move out. The water is highly dynamic. Once the solute is gone, it continues its rapid movement and re-arrangement. But without the solute present, there is nothing there to induce partial alignment.

Well this is where we get into flapping-butterfly territory, isn't it? Just because we can't see any long range order doesn't mean that there isn't some. And if the pattern has been started, it doesn't matter whether the butterfly/solute is removed. I'm not by any means saying that it's true; just that I cannot find fault with the explanation.

B