e. The kinetics of structural change 

A final important issue in attempting to bring some of the results into the context of current
(not classical) physio-chemical thought, concerns the kinetics of any structural change. We
have dealt in earlier sections with responses to specific objections. If indeed one were to
imprint “epitaxially”, specific structured information on to a homeopathic liquid remedy, or
expose it to a human intention field, how long would such a (metastable) imprint last? The
fact that a phase is metastable gives no clue whatsoever as to its rate of reversion to the stable
form. A diamond (a metastable phase in the room ambient) “is forever” the ad says;
thermodynamics says: not so. But diamond persists for billions of years under a wide range of
geological conditions, even under strong stresses, where it is metastable. The common
assumption is that different compositions and structures in ordinary liquids (like water) will
mix perfectly, “instantly”, or in seconds with stirring. This assumption has recently been
questioned. Yamashita and Tiller have shown that times in hours are required [83]. In the
careful work by Liu Zuyin at Tsinghua University, the meta-stable water state created by
intention by Yan Xin, was followed by Raman spectroscopy and shown to take a few hours to
return to “normal”. Recent results on the discovery of ortho and para water (the oxides of
ortho and para hydrogen) by Tikhonov and Volkov not only expanded the possibilities of
making different waters, but they clearly showed that the mixing kinetics, contrary to
expectations, required months in ice and a half hour in water [87]. The most relevant to
homeopathy parallel research is Tiller, Dibble and Kohane’s report on their ability not only to
alter the pH of water by focused intention, but also to preserve the altered state over time and
also over distances for weeks to months [65]. The study of the kinetics of structural change
among the different water structures, some possibly containing 250 H2O molecule oligomers,
now becomes the significant area for research.

We have pointed out the anisodesmic nature of a structure postulated to contain a variety of
oligomers or clusters, and necessarily surrounded by some “monomeric” or similar matter.
What is certain is that the intra-cluster bonds will be substantially different from the inter-
cluster bonds. In an earlier section dealing with the thermodynamics of aqueous solutions
with consolute points we made the case that the kinetics of bond breakage and formation (in
pico and femtoseconds) have little or no bearing on the existence and stability of two
structurally different liquid phases in equilibrium. The onomatopoetic conflation of bond
“breaking”, as if in a ball and stick wooden structural model, with actual change of structure
(i.e. the change of equilibrium atom positions in space) is obviously wrong. These kinetics of
structural changes of liquid liquid (A)+liquid (B) and of the survival at equilibrium of the
liquid A and liquid B combination become the most relevant kinetics for a starting point to
discuss how long the distribution of clusters changed by pressure, electric or magnetic fields
or subtle energies will last under specified p, t conditions. 

f. Experimental tools for determining the structure of liquids including water 

The tools which have been most used to attempt to determine the 3-D structure of bulk matter
are X-ray, electron and neutron diffraction. We recall that diffraction can be definitive for
periodic crystalline matter but all of these tools are indirect for aperiodic glasses and liquids,
requiring assumptions and models (see for example the review by Soper on the use of neutron
diffraction [88]). Further we note that it was these very tools, which led the entire scientific
world astray on the structure of most glasses (a “frozen” liquid) for 40 years by assuming the
“homogeneous-structure” implied by the “random network theory”. Most of these
approaches, such as deriving the structure from the radial distribution function, from X-ray or
neutron scattering, are only model fitting. None of these carry the definitiveness of diffraction
from a periodic lattice, nor the “photographic” record of TEM. 

periodic crystalline matter but all of these tools are indirect for aperiodic glasses and liquids,
requiring assumptions and models (see for example the review by Soper on the use of neutron
diffraction [88]). Further we note that it was these very tools, which led the entire scientific
world astray on the structure of most glasses (a “frozen” liquid) for 40 years by assuming the
“homogeneous-structure” implied by the “random network theory”. Most of these
approaches, such as deriving the structure from the radial distribution function, from X-ray or
neutron scattering, are only model fitting. None of these carry the definitiveness of diffraction
from a periodic lattice, nor the “photographic” record of TEM. 

Of the spectroscopic 

Of the spectroscopic methods, i.e. X-ray, infra-red and NMR, on balance while they provide
good information on nearest neighbor coordination, it is Raman that appears to pick up the
changes beyond nearest neighbor distances best. The literature on NMR spectroscopic
evaluation of homeopathic remedies versus controls, for example, has shown mixed results
[55, 89]. The only other direct method for determining structure at the nanometer level or
below is direct observation by transmission electron microscopy. It was this, in the hands of
Mazurin and Poria-Koshits, which demonstrated the incredible heterogeneity of structure (and
composition) in transparent, clear glasses [11]. Of course, these were all solids. Today we
believe that this technique is an obvious but new, albeit experimentally difficult, possibility
for studying water structure. The cryo-TEM approach to glassy water structure is now
feasible, in principle, by quenching samples to liquid He (or N2) temperatures, coating the ice-
glass with an appropriate polymer and carrying out the TEM imaging at liquid N2 or He
temperatures as has been done on other samples (See Fig. 18). Indeed TEM images of
crystalline and liquid samples in equilibrium at high temperature have recently been achieved.
Clearly this could be a new approach to possibly settling some of the arguments on the
structure of water and/or ultradilute—colloidal samples or homeopathic remedies, which may,
for example, contain nanobubbles, that continue without resolution.


Fig. 18. Cryo-TEM of microstructure of ice-cream consisting of three phases: water, fat, and air.
(From Hans Wildmoser [90]) 

g. Data from the literature on homeopathy consistent with the newer materials science models. 

This paper has attempted to review the literature on the structure of water through the prism
of materials science, hence focusing on that literature. Of course large amounts of very
relevant research also exist in the homeopathy literature, and in the following section we
attempt merely to connect the two approaches. 

The central thrust of this paper, which has presented an argument that nullifies the
simpleminded argument of “zero concentration of solute, hence no possible effect,” is that it is
structure NOT composition which has the effect. When we turn with that lens to the
homeopathy literature one can find much supportive data not only on effectiveness, but on
possible mechanisms, and the relation to structures when liquid homeopathic remedies are
subjected to marked changes in pH or x-rays after extreme cooling [91—93]. Clinicians also
claim that homeopathic remedies are destroyed by exposure to high heat and/or strong
magnetic fields. On the latter topic, a growing number of randomized controlled and
observational clinical studies as well as basic science studies on animals, plants, and cells
suggest that homeopathic remedies can indeed exert biological effects [55, 94—109]. At the
same time skeptics in the field correctly point to inconsistencies and replication failures—
albeit hardly unique to this field—that raise important concerns about the reliability of
phenomena that homeopathic remedies may induce [110—114]. Recent conceptual advances
in the field, e.g., understanding the patients’ and other living organisms’ responses to
remedies as manifestations of nonlinear system dynamics, may lead to new insights into some
of the bases for variations in reproducibility [53, 55].

However, these references are only cited for completeness, and they are not in any way
involved in the data or argument of the present paper, which is limited to the fundamental
chemistry and physics of pure water and the remedies themselves. To take one example, the
recent calorimetric thermodynamic study by Elia and Niccoli demonstrated with high
reproducibility that mixing a base (sodium hydroxide) with a homeopathically prepared agent
diluted beyond Avogadro’s number and shaken vigorously (dose of 12 C, diluted to 10-24 and
succussed) generated a pH-dependent excess of exothermic heat release in comparison with
diluted control solutions prepared with succussion [91]. They noted a pattern of apparent pH-
dependent disruption of order in the test solutions, analogous to that seen in protein
denaturation. In a very recent paper, the same authors, accurately, make the point that
virtually no “physico-chemical measurements”, other than their own, have been made on such
diluted and succussed solutions [92]. They then extend their property measurements to
include electrical conductivity and show again the influence of composition, dilution, and
succussion on these properties [92]. These findings are similar to those in a number of other
studies indicating the essential role of succussion, not merely dilution, in preparing active
remedies. In this paper we have shown that a possible key as far as changing the structure of
water is concerned, is the pressure, and nano-bubbles generated in the succussion process. It is
important to emphasize that the proper control solutions include not only untreated,
unsuccussed solvent, but also succussed solvent without the initial addition of any remedy
source materials to address possible artifacts generated by the shaking of the liquid per se
within the test container itself. Obviously chemical contamination from the container material
could itself serve as a “remedy”. This is particularly relevant in the materials science
perspective, since that includes the “poly-water” error of the 1980’s caused by contamination
from the glass containers. If successing is carried out in glass containers the likely possibility
of contamination with small fragments of silicate materials exists. But the influence of these
nano-fragments may really lie in the fact that they could serve as nucleating sites for particular
water clusters.