Could someone give me an appropriate criticism for this?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333531765_Deep_into_the_Water_Exploring_the_Hydro-Electromagnetic_and_Quantum-Electrodynamic_Properties_of_Interfacial_Water_in_Living_Systems

 

This is the paper I was talking about. It's been cited some times too. My confusion is if someone can cook up a 46 page article which makes sense then how does the other one on I orignay linked not make sense? 

I wouldn’t go so far as to say this makes sense.

Does he offer up any testable predictions and experimental support? The bit I read looks very hand-wavy.

 

[TheVat]

My early training was in physiology, so I'm familiar with interfacial water.  The author seems to have some grasp of the concept, but then seems to make a leap from electrostatics (applicable in cellular chemistry, as in all chemistry) to electrodynamics, which doesn't seem applicable.  It seems like he wants there to be electrical charges in fast motion and some EMF radiation, such that tissues are "broadcasting."  At that point, as Swanson noted, you need experimental support!

[Abhirao456]

10 hours ago, TheVat said:

My early training was in physiology, so I'm familiar with interfacial water.  The author seems to have some grasp of the concept, but then seems to make a leap from electrostatics (applicable in cellular chemistry, as in all chemistry) to electrodynamics, which doesn't seem applicable.  It seems like he wants there to be electrical charges in fast motion and some EMF radiation, such that tissues are "broadcasting."  At that point, as Swanson noted, you need experimental support!

He seems to have cited some papers by Emilio Del Giudice for the EMF thing?

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

He seems to have cited some papers by Emilio Del Giudice for the EMF thing?

Are they a physicist? I looked at reference [2] and don't see much in the way of physics discussion; they all seem to be citing each other without anything in the way of rigorous physics analysis. There are no equations, at least in the first several papers of [2]. That strikes me as odd for QED discussion.

They all seem to be stating certain physics premises and then proceeding as if they are true, rather than establishing them as true.

I am not reassured by the citation of cold fusion in the first article in that reference, nor by the incorrect description of paramagnetism in the original article.

 

[Abhirao456]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Are they a physicist? I looked at reference [2] and don't see much in the way of physics discussion; they all seem to be citing each other without anything in the way of rigorous physics analysis. There are no equations, at least in the first several papers of [2]. That strikes me as odd for QED discussion.

They all seem to be stating certain physics premises and then proceeding as if they are true, rather than establishing them as true.

I am not reassured by the citation of cold fusion in the first article in that reference, nor by the incorrect description of paramagnetism in the original article.

 

My main confusion is someone named Vladimir Voiekov cited him saying that the paper is a noteworthy review. Does this increase the credibility of the orignal author somehow? Also Del Giudice is a physicist (Wikipedia). And Vladimir voeikov apparently worked with him it seems like. Confusion 📈

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

My main confusion is someone named Vladimir Voiekov cited him saying that the paper is a noteworthy review. Does this increase the credibility of the orignal author somehow? Also Del Giudice is a physicist (Wikipedia). And Vladimir voeikov apparently worked with him it seems like. Confusion 📈

FYI, I'm not going to go looking for the supporting information that you have apparently found but chosen not to share links to.

 

edit: and it's also the case that people propose models all the time in papers, but it doesn't mean they are right. There needs to be experimental confirmation

[Abhirao456]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

FYI, I'm not going to go looking for the supporting information that you have apparently found but chosen not to share links to.

 

edit: and it's also the case that people propose models all the time in papers, but it doesn't mean they are right. There needs to be experimental confirmation

Emilio Del Giudice  and his Wikipedia page. However do you stand by your opinion that the orignal article is loads of bunk? my confusion is how one can produce a good paper and then produce nonsense....

 

Also here is the paper by Vladimir voeikov on the orignal author :- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351627720_Physicochemical_Effects_of_Humid_Air_Treated_with_Infrared_Radiation_on_Aqueous_Solutions

 

I also did some digging on the Vladimir fellow and found that the guy supports homeopathy:- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340332550_Disperse_and_Dissipative_Nature_of_Aqueous_Systems_-_a_Possible_Foundation_of_Homeopathy

 

 

Further questions:-

Because the vladimir is somehow advocating FOR homeopathy, would it be fair to dismiss whatever he says as bunk? 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Abhirao456
Extra info

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

Emilio Del Giudice  and his Wikipedia page. However do you stand by your opinion that the orignal article is loads of bunk?

I gave my assessment and nothing has changed

5 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

my confusion is how one can produce a good paper and then produce nonsense....

The fact that Fleischmann and cold fusion are mentioned in some of the associated works gives a hint. Scientists leaping to conclusions without sufficient supporting information is hardly a new phenomenon.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Abhirao456 said:

my confusion is how one can produce a good paper and then produce nonsense....

Linus Pauling was a brilliant chemist, he won the Nobel Prize, but he also championed the theory that Vitamin C in megadoses was a miracle treatment, which turned out to be nonsense.  All the world got from Pauling's "vitamin therapy" was a mass increase in kidney stones for several years.   This kind of thing, where eminent researchers stray outside their area of expertise, happens a lot.

[exchemist]

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

My early training was in physiology, so I'm familiar with interfacial water.  The author seems to have some grasp of the concept, but then seems to make a leap from electrostatics (applicable in cellular chemistry, as in all chemistry) to electrodynamics, which doesn't seem applicable.  It seems like he wants there to be electrical charges in fast motion and some EMF radiation, such that tissues are "broadcasting."  At that point, as Swanson noted, you need experimental support!

Yes. This reads almost like a spoof to me. I was intrigued that it references this guy Pollack and his "EZ water" idea. I've come across that before, about 4 years ago. I posted a summary of my brief investigations of it at that time on another forum, which I repeat below:

Actually, I've had a chance to read around this "EZ water" thingie a bit more today. I found it was in fact referenced on the site I linked to earlier, about the various crank theories of water. The writer does not dismiss Pollack but, being a chemist, is sceptical, as am I! 

I think I understand what Pollack thinks he is on to. He thinks he has evidence that wetted hydrophilic surfaces (e.g. glass, or cellular proteins) can impose a longer-range order on the adjacent water molecules than is generally recognised. He thinks this order excludes solute molecules from a layer close to the surface, rather as solute molecules are excluded from ice crystals as they form. As you may know, the developing lattice structure in a crystal can achieve greater stability (shorter and stronger bonding) by excluding foreign items that disrupt the regularity of the order - hence why salt depresses the melting point of ice and so forth. 

What is bizarre is that he also thinks that IR radiation (O-H stretch frequency I think?) is required for this structure to develop.  And he thinks the arrangement is one in which oxygen and hydrogen are present in a ratio of 2:3, giving the structure a -ve charge - as indeed one would expect from a ratio like that, which is effectively H2O.OH- .  So that's where the "H3O2" claim I found earlier comes from. 

He thinks the viscosity of this semi-ordered layer is a lot higher than that of free water (I can imagine it might be) and that, because there are hydrophilic proteins within cells, these features (viscosity, exclusion of solute) can provide an alternative account of the behaviour of certain aspects of living cells.  

It is not clear what observational evidence he has, or whether anybody has tried to replicate his findings.

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with "memory". However you will not be surprised to hear that garbled versions of this have been pounced on by various snake oil salesmen (e.g. some fellow called Mercola, who I think has actually done time for misrepresentation), sundry homeopaths, cranks and pedlars of water-based health gimmicks. I feel rather sorry for Pollack: this is attention he could well do without, if he is trying to get a serious hearing for his ideas.

 Regarding the last para, this EZ water idea has been picked up on by charlatans trying to promote homeopathy. I do wonder, looking at the history of the present thread, if there may be homeopathy or something pseudo- lurking somewhere, behind the scenes. This Voeikov guy looks dodgy.

Edited December 27, 2021 by exchemist

[swansont]

There's a part where they claim "Neither classical nor standard quantum theory predicts quantum coherence for water, largely because they ignore quantum fluctuations and the interaction between matter and the vacuum electromagnetic field (VEMF), which are taken into account in Quantum Field Theory (QFT)"

but there are no citations. Not surprising, as they say it's not taken into account, but then, you have to develop this model, which they do not do. So they're just forging ahead with the assertion that such interactions are relevant without showing it, and without specifying what these interactions actually would be doing.

and then

"QFT explicitly recognizes an extended VEMF interacting with matter, as well as quantum fluctuations whereby energy in the VEMF in the form of photons could be captured by matter." 

which AFAIK is flat-out wrong. The vacuum does not passively give you photons that could be captured. You can't tap into the energy of the vacuum.

[exchemist]

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

There's a part where they claim "Neither classical nor standard quantum theory predicts quantum coherence for water, largely because they ignore quantum fluctuations and the interaction between matter and the vacuum electromagnetic field (VEMF), which are taken into account in Quantum Field Theory (QFT)"

but there are no citations. Not surprising, as they say it's not taken into account, but then, you have to develop this model, which they do not do. So they're just forging ahead with the assertion that such interactions are relevant without showing it, and without specifying what these interactions actually would be doing.

and then

"QFT explicitly recognizes an extended VEMF interacting with matter, as well as quantum fluctuations whereby energy in the VEMF in the form of photons could be captured by matter." 

which AFAIK is flat-out wrong. The vacuum does not passively give you photons that could be captured. You can't tap into the energy of the vacuum.

I hadn't spotted that. But indeed: it is zero point energy, the very definition of which is that it can't be extracted, seeing as there is no state below the ground state.......or it wouldn't be the ground state! How absurd. 

As this is about water, I am always suspicious this may be to do with homeopathy, since serious money can be made out of that. The author, Claudio Messori, seems to be a physiotherapist. What expertise he has in QED or QFT seems rather unclear, ahem.  

[Abhirao456]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

Linus Pauling was a brilliant chemist, he won the Nobel Prize, but he also championed the theory that Vitamin C in megadoses was a miracle treatment, which turned out to be nonsense.  All the world got from Pauling's "vitamin therapy" was a mass increase in kidney stones for several years.   This kind of thing, where eminent researchers stray outside their area of expertise, happens a lot.

 

14 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes. This reads almost like a spoof to me. I was intrigued that it references this guy Pollack and his "EZ water" idea. I've come across that before, about 4 years ago. I posted a summary of my brief investigations of it at that time on another forum, which I repeat below:

Actually, I've had a chance to read around this "EZ water" thingie a bit more today. I found it was in fact referenced on the site I linked to earlier, about the various crank theories of water. The writer does not dismiss Pollack but, being a chemist, is sceptical, as am I! 

I think I understand what Pollack thinks he is on to. He thinks he has evidence that wetted hydrophilic surfaces (e.g. glass, or cellular proteins) can impose a longer-range order on the adjacent water molecules than is generally recognised. He thinks this order excludes solute molecules from a layer close to the surface, rather as solute molecules are excluded from ice crystals as they form. As you may know, the developing lattice structure in a crystal can achieve greater stability (shorter and stronger bonding) by excluding foreign items that disrupt the regularity of the order - hence why salt depresses the melting point of ice and so forth. 

What is bizarre is that he also thinks that IR radiation (O-H stretch frequency I think?) is required for this structure to develop.  And he thinks the arrangement is one in which oxygen and hydrogen are present in a ratio of 2:3, giving the structure a -ve charge - as indeed one would expect from a ratio like that, which is effectively H2O.OH- .  So that's where the "H3O2" claim I found earlier comes from. 

He thinks the viscosity of this semi-ordered layer is a lot higher than that of free water (I can imagine it might be) and that, because there are hydrophilic proteins within cells, these features (viscosity, exclusion of solute) can provide an alternative account of the behaviour of certain aspects of living cells.  

It is not clear what observational evidence he has, or whether anybody has tried to replicate his findings.

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with "memory". However you will not be surprised to hear that garbled versions of this have been pounced on by various snake oil salesmen (e.g. some fellow called Mercola, who I think has actually done time for misrepresentation), sundry homeopaths, cranks and pedlars of water-based health gimmicks. I feel rather sorry for Pollack: this is attention he could well do without, if he is trying to get a serious hearing for his ideas.

 Regarding the last para, this EZ water idea has been picked up on by charlatans trying to promote homeopathy. I do wonder, looking at the history of the present thread, if there may be homeopathy or something pseudo- lurking somewhere, behind the scenes. This Voeikov guy looks dodgy.

Ya'll won't believe what I found. The entire section on coherence domains has been copy pasted from this paper;-https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Quantum-Coherent-Water-%2C-Non-thermal-EMF-Effects-%2C-Ho/071e91e34a1245ee505888d9bca715d7e8facdde

 

The entire section doesn't belong to him. He's copy pasted it and changed some words in between. I haven't checked the other sections ( i will shortly in a week or so)  but when Swanson told me this sentence "QfT explicitly recognizes an extended VEMF......" I just pasted it google and found this article. My suspicions are correct. 

[swansont]

So exchemist's instincts were correct.

[Abhirao456]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So exchemist's instincts were correct.

Lol. Congrats Exchemist 

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by Abhirao456
Because I'm a cunt

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Abhirao456 said:

Lol. Congrats Exchemist 

 

Heh heh. 

[Abhirao456]

13 hours ago, exchemist said:

Heh heh. 

 

16 hours ago, swansont said:

So exchemist's instincts were correct.

So this means that the author doesn't have the expertise in his field and is just living on other people's research right?

[Abhirao456]

On 12/26/2021 at 7:57 PM, swansont said:

I wouldn’t go so far as to say this makes sense.

Does he offer up any testable predictions and experimental support? The bit I read looks very hand-wavy.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310270653_Intelligence_vs_Artificial_Intelligence_The_King_Is_Naked/comments

 

I actually saw this other article from the same dude Claudio and I saw that this guy named arturo tozzi said his paper was good. Essentially it's the same orignal paper as the beginning.  But why do you think he recommended it? And he's not just some other guy. He looks like he has worked with Karl friston 

On 2/24/2021 at 4:29 AM, joigus said:

It's BS at its grandest.

🤣

Joigus what u think of this

[joigus]

30 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310270653_Intelligence_vs_Artificial_Intelligence_The_King_Is_Naked/comments

 

I actually saw this other article from the same dude Claudio and I saw that this guy named arturo tozzi said his paper was good. Essentially it's the same orignal paper as the beginning.  But why do you think he recommended it? And he's not just some other guy. He looks like he has worked with Karl friston 

Joigus what u think of this

About the dialog between Claudio Messori and Arturo Tozzi? That they should get a room.

[Abhirao456]

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

About the dialog between Claudio Messori and Arturo Tozzi? That they should get a room.

Why do you think he recommended it tho? Why do you think good scientists recommended bad science? 

 

Specially arturo tozzi? He has worked with Karl friston a famous neuroscientist, yet he chose to recommend bad science. Is it some mistake in our thinking or are they just dumbos.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Abhirao456
Isk

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

Why do you think he recommended it tho? Why do you think good scientists recommended bad science? 

 

Specially arturo tozzi? He has worked with Karl friston a famous neuroscientist, yet he chose to recommend bad science. Is it some mistake in our thinking or are they just dumbos.

I have to confess I'm out of touch with this thread. The only thing I'm saying is that the last attachment is but a show of mutual affection between Arturo Tozzi and Claudio Messori. Nothing more. I see no scientific arguments displayed there. That's all I can say, honest.

Now that I've reminded myself of what the whole thing is about, I stand by what I said. Even great scientists can be highly susceptible to ideas from the periphery that seem to strongly support theirs. Scientists are human, you know.

I have serious doubts that QED can shed any light on cognitive processes in any far-reaching way. The most I can fathom, as it stands, is that renormalisation schemes have something (vaguely) to do with the fact that what we wish to know about a physical system deeply affects how the system responds. From that to a theory of mental processes, it takes a long stretch of the imagination, and is dangerous territory --as both theories stand.

Again, that's all I can say.

[Abhirao456]

27 minutes ago, joigus said:

I have to confess I'm out of touch with this thread. The only thing I'm saying is that the last attachment is but a show of mutual affection between Arturo Tozzi and Claudio Messori. Nothing more. I see no scientific arguments displayed there. That's all I can say, honest.

Now that I've reminded myself of what the whole thing is about, I stand by what I said. Even great scientists can be highly susceptible to ideas from the periphery that seem to strongly support theirs. Scientists are human, you know.

I have serious doubts that QED can shed any light on cognitive processes in any far-reaching way. The most I can fathom, as it stands, is that renormalisation schemes have something (vaguely) to do with the fact that what we wish to know about a physical system deeply affects how the system responds. From that to a theory of mental processes, it takes a long stretch of the imagination, and is dangerous territory --as both theories stand.

Again, that's all I can say.

Lmao I messaged arturo. Guess what he says  :- 'To be honest, I wrote all that to Claudio messori just because he is my friend. I like him, but I do not agree with his thinking '

[joigus]

14 minutes ago, Abhirao456 said:

Lmao I messaged arturo. Guess what he says  :- 'To be honest, I wrote all that to Claudio messori just because he is my friend. I like him, but I do not agree with his thinking '

There you go. That doesn't mean Claudio must be wrong. It's mostly a problem of it being or not being enough for other scientists to drop what they're doing and focus their attention on the idea. I can guarantee you that if you're a scientist, and they present you with a theory that really cuts it, you'll be paying outmost attention to it. In the meantime, nice words to your friends --maybe a little over-the-top encouragement-- doesn't do much harm.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Abhirao456 said:

why do you think he recommended it? 

I have no idea what someone else’s insights or motivations are.

1 hour ago, Abhirao456 said:

Lmao I messaged arturo. Guess what he says  :- 'To be honest, I wrote all that to Claudio messori just because he is my friend. I like him, but I do not agree with his thinking '

Well, there you go.

[Abhirao456]

On 12/31/2021 at 8:31 PM, swansont said:

I have no idea what someone else’s insights or motivations are.

Well, there you go.

 

On 12/31/2021 at 7:19 PM, joigus said:

There you go. That doesn't mean Claudio must be wrong. It's mostly a problem of it being or not being enough for other scientists to drop what they're doing and focus their attention on the idea. I can guarantee you that if you're a scientist, and they present you with a theory that really cuts it, you'll be paying outmost attention to it. In the meantime, nice words to your friends --maybe a little over-the-top encouragement-- doesn't do much harm.

I actually saw this definition of energy:-

First step. General Relativity can be considered a relationship theory in which the only relevant fact under the physical profile is the relationship between different events in space-time. - Second Step. In Aristotele by "dynamis" is meant the "potency" correlated to the "action" (energheia), efficient cause connected to the movement and its quantitative and qualitative effects, the "inherent potency" or intrinsic possibility of a body to be translated in an action (energheia) that may be realized or not, a value of reality only possible with respect to the real action realized. The mathematician and philosopher Arthur M. Young recognizes the "action" (energheia) its fundamental causative value deriving it from the notion of "quantum of action" as formulated by Planck: " Let us also note that the purposiveness is associated with that aspect of light known as the principle of action (or least action). (….) What did Planck add to this principle of action that was not already present in the ideas of Leibniz? It was the notion that action comes in quanta or wholes, and that this unit is constant. Note that despite the tendency to refer to energy as quantized – a habit which even good physicists are given to – it is not energy but action that comes in wholes. Action = E x T (Energy x Time) = Constant (h) Action is constant, energy is proportional to frequency. (T is the time of one cycle.) (….) Wholeness is inherent in the nature of action, or decision, of purposive activity. (….) While mass is measured in grams, length in meters, and time in seconds, quanta of action are counted with no necessity of specifying the kind of unit. This implies their fundamental nature; actions precede measure, they are prior to the analysis which yields grams, meters, and seconds. It might be objected that action has the measure formula ML^2/T and hence cannot be dimensionless. The answer is that, though action has the dimension ML^2/T, we are taking the position that this particular combination of dimensions (known as action) is the whole from which time, mass, and length are derived. The reasons are as follows: 1. Action comes in irreducible quanta or units. 2. These units are of constant size, i.e., invariant. 3. They are counted, not measured. 4. Because indeterminate, they constitute the end point in the chain of causation and are therefore a first cause. (Source: http://www.meru.org/coast/Arthur Young-LightAndChoice-RefUniv.pdf) - Third step. With aim of unifying gravitation and quantum mechanics, in 1924 Arthur Eddington proposed as an alternative to the "gravitational action" of Einstein-Hilbert ("action" which in astrophysical environs describes how gravity emerges from the curvature of space-time in the presence of matter and energy), a "gravitational action" that is valid in the absence of matter (i.e. a vacuum). The recent re-elaboration of Eddington’s gravitational action, carried out by the astrophysicists Maximo Banados and Pedro Ferreira (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1006.1769.pdf), led to a hypothesis that at the time of the Big Bang space-time was not continuous but was characterized by a minimum length, a non-continuous space-time that excludes the idea of the Universe as a singularity and which, consequently, leads to elimination of the necessity to turn to the very concept of singularity. Conclusion. The energy is the ability to generate interference, ability generated by perturbative relativistic phenomena, perturbation which triggers the transition from "inherent potency" to "quanta of action / gravitational action". "

 

 

Does this make sense? I'd recommend you read it completely so it is understandable.  PS Same author