Homeopathy had No Place in Pharmacy: Canadian Pharmacist

[DetlefK]

233. Hi. I understand Quantum Physics and I AM GOING TO DESTROY YOU.

For a molecule to emit electromagnetic radiation it needs a moving charge.
Organic molecules are naturally charged in water and they are vibrating mechanically due to phononic excitation (due to temperature), so that's no problem.
It is entirely reasonable for a certain molecule to emit a certain electromagnetic signal.

Problem:
The idea that this electromagnetic signal can be imprinted and conserved is outlandish.
Where does it stay? It's not moving around as a photon, so it has to be converted back into an oscillating movement of charge.
What kinds of oscillators are available? We have the dipoles of water-molecules and some hydrated inorganic ions (salt) as the bulk of the solution.

Interludium:
Every oscillating system has a specific frequency that is determined by its parameters, e.g. the length of a pendulum. You cannot force pendulums of different lengths to oscillate with the same frequency (except with elaborate feedback-steered mechanical contraptions).

Back to the problem:
The hydrate-shells of the ions are so thick that they are effectively insulated. Additionally, the hydrate-shells are in a dynamic equilibrium with the bulk-liquid, exchanging molecules. So, even if you found an ion-hydrate-shell system with exactly the right frequency, the amplitude of the oscillation would quickly wear out because of thermal fluctuations.
How about water? Water has a natural electrostatic dipole, however it is a small, light molecule (3 atoms) and therefore its natural frequency is many times higher than the electromagnetic oscillation of a molecule consisting of hundreds of molecules. This means, the molecule has a hard time exciting the water at all and if it does, it does so at the frequency of the water, not the frequency of the molecule.

Conclusion: If you understand Quantum Phyisics, you understand why this claim doesn't make sense.



And for Montagnier's claims:
The paper can be found here: http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/media/news/MontagnierElectromadneticSignals.pdf
Its diagrams are conveniently so small that you cannot possibly discern anything and you have to take the author's word on what you are supposed to be seeing.
I MEAN, SERIOUSLY???
A SCREENSHOT OF YOUR COMPUTER-SCREEN???
AND EVERYTHING IS SO SMALL THAT YOU CANNOT EVEN READ ANYTHING???
AND WHY DOES THE SIGNAL LOOK DIFFERENT IN FIGURES 2 AND 3???
AND THIS SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ACCEPTED THIS STEAMING PILE OF USELESS BULLSHIT??????????????

And if you still have any doubts that this paper is entirely and utterly fake:
The journal received it on January 3rd. It was "in review" for less than 2 days, was revised on January 5th and accepted on January 6th...
- No review process in the world is this fast. It normally takes at least a month when the paper is handed over to anonymous scientists to fact-check it.
- There is absolutely nothing computational in this paper, so why would a journal about computational science accept this paper in the first place?
- The horrible, horrible diagrams that show precisely zero. Real scientific journals have their own layout-department. If you submit a paper, you submit the text and then at the end of the text all the images. Once your paper gets published, the journal takes care of the layout and sizes your images in a way that readers can read them and places them at appropriate positions in the text. Which is what didn't happen here.






Conclusion:
A claim that flies in the face of everything known about physics and chemistry, made in a useless paper that was printed by a fake scientific journal.
And you base your argument on that.
Wow.