65

In homeopathic remedies the original substance is often diluted to a point where statistically there should be not a single molecule left of the original substance. The most common explanation by homeopaths, on how it still works although there is no substance left, is that water has a memory. That the "essence" or "imprint" of a molecule can stay in water and continue to have some effect even after the molecule itself is removed.

Is this at all possible from a physical point of view?

Can water molecules (in the liquid phase) form structures that are stable over long periods of time?

going
  • 18,069
  • 18
  • 86
  • 151
Mad Scientist
  • 43,643
  • 20
  • 173
  • 192
  • 1
    Does homeopathy require the use of pure distilled water? If not then it's a slightly different thing since non-pure water would have other things in it – Russell Steen Feb 24 '11 at 23:43
  • @Russell - I believe the solvent is supposed to be pure, yes. – Shinrai Feb 24 '11 at 23:45
  • @Shinrai - "pure" water doesn't exist in nature. At least with the 1700s technology it didn't - I seriously doubt that homeopathy indicates you have to evaporate water and collect vapor which is as close to pure as you can get. – user5341 Mar 25 '11 at 17:54
  • 3
    @shinrai At risk of going further off-topic here, Wikipedia mentions distilling water is described as early as 200 CE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_water That said, you can distill water with nothing more than a fire, a big shell (for boiling sea water), an animal skin (for collecting water vapor/steam), and a cocoanut (for collecting the fresh water). It does't take much in the way of technology to do it. (evaporative distilling is even easier) – Ustice Mar 29 '11 at 14:15
  • Just wanted to point to [this wonderful article](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/11/18/measuring-contaminants-and-concluding-th/) which points out critical flaws in the [study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20970092) that I had based my (now removed) answer upon – S P Jan 04 '13 at 14:25

2 Answers2

121

No

Water forms strong intermolecular forces between its molecules. This is called hydrogen bonding and is a form of permanent dipole/permanent dipole interaction. Oxygen is more electronegative (its nucleus attracts a bigger share of the electron cloud of the covalent bond) than hydrogen. This causes water to form a permanent dipole where the oxygen has a small negative charge and the hydrogens have small positive charges.

hydrogen bondingFile:Hydrogen-bonding-in-water-2D.png

This causes electrostatic attraction between water molecules and they can form structures for a small amount of time. Other molecules in the water can affect these short lived structures and water does retain some 'memory' of these molecules.

This is how some proponents of homeopathy claim it works. This memory somehow has an opposite effect to the toxin or other chemical that was diluted, although there has not been any mechanism proposed for this.

However, the duration of the water memory has been scientifically tested and shown to be very short (less than one billionth of a second). This means that the memory has gone by the time the patient even takes the dose.

Even if water did have a long term memory, it would not prove homeopathy. There would also need to be evidence that this water memory had the medical effects that have been claimed.

Community
  • 1
david4dev
  • 3,239
  • 3
  • 21
  • 15
  • So you would claim that for less than the billionth part of a second, if a molecule of something is taken away from some water this something could be identified, just by the electrostatic structure in a very, very short region? But that doesn't fit to homeopathic claims, if they sell this to slow human beings? If they dilute and dilute the water? That doesn't fit. – user unknown Feb 25 '11 at 01:18
  • The time between two "bumps" of molecules in water is about 10exp-13 ! This is about a 10 000th of a billionth. – No longer here Apr 07 '11 at 20:59
  • Brilliant. There is also interesting experiment supervised by James Randi on BBC, part 1 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-jIIgwO71w – Chris Hasiński Aug 08 '11 at 14:47
  • There is no reason to believe the homeopathic claims, and for sure, they don't believe in this effect, only to be effective much, much longer - so it's a strawman argument. – user unknown Aug 10 '11 at 03:22
  • 8
    @user unknown - My answer clearly shows I have no belief in homoeopathy and why. Some believers of homoeopathy claim this 'water memory' to be how it works. I have shown with scientific evidence that this can't be the case. This is not a stawman argument because I haven't misrepresented any opinions. The 'wonderful formula' is a simplified diagram that I used to try to explain the underlying science and is not to 'fool the voters'. I don't want to assume everyone has A level Chemisty knowledge so I needed a way to explain hydrogen bonding simply. – david4dev Aug 10 '11 at 06:31
  • 1
    Homeopaths use the word 'memory' in a very different sense. They don't claim, that you can deduce which molecules have been in contact some time before, but they claim, that the water overtakes the effect, the liquid would have, if the molecules where still inside. I understand the work, cited by you, in that way, that there is a kind of imprint, a counterpart of the substance in the water. I see that you clearly don't believe in homeopathy, and why, and I appreciate it, but I don't vote on your habitus against homeopathy, but on my impression, whether your answer matches the question. – user unknown Aug 10 '11 at 18:46
  • 1
    It's trival to prove this answer wrong. Take a pot of water and put your hand into it and take it out. It will take a lot longer than one billionth of a second till the water reaches it's orginal state. Water is clearly able to retain some information for longer than one billionth of a second. More seriously, if the logic of the answer would be true there wouldn't be any hurricanes. Additional we aren't talking about pure H_2O. – Christian Jan 04 '13 at 18:22
  • 9
    @Christian if you have an answer to the question that is contrary to this response and evidenced backed, I would be *very* interested in seeing you post an answer yourself. – Kaz Dragon Jan 07 '13 at 13:58
  • I've removed multiple comments. According to our [Privileges section](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment), you should only use comments to request clarification from the author or leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving this post. Please review the **When shouldn't I comment?** section and act appropriately in the future. – Sklivvz Jan 15 '13 at 13:40
  • 1
    Also, this answer needs to be updated with references. – Sklivvz Jan 15 '13 at 13:40
  • "The central argument of this answer is theoretical in nature." while I tend to agree homeopathy claims to be generally controversial, I was recently presented with a few very compelling arguments in favor of it and I need strong science to confirm or deny it. I could argue that even if water have a very short memory that still would not disprove homeopathy. We need clinical double blinded reproduced trials! – cregox Feb 21 '16 at 22:47
  • This answer doesn't show that water does not have a memory; it shows that a certain mechanism, that is sometimes claimed by pseudoscientists as proof of water memory, is not actually relevant to homeopathy. Water could still "remember" via some different mechanism that's unknown to us. – Tgr Dec 03 '17 at 21:34
-12

Possible

This was demonstrated by Nobelist Luc Montagnier virologist (discoverer of HIV) in his study and his results were confirmed by his colleges and other scientists. This is well demonstrated and explained in the Water Memory documentary.

Basically in one of their recent experiment (2009) they've recorded EMF reading of water which was containing diluted DNA and exported into the audio file (wav), then sent from France to University of Sannio in Italy (famous for the quality of lab specialised in molecular biology) where tube of purified water was "listening" to the recording for about an hour and "memorizing" it.

The test was successful. The water it-self started to emit reconstituted DNA signals.

So according to Prof Montagnier, the highly diluted DNA in water has retained the memory of the original DNA traces and it returns them under the form of electromagnetic signals.

Currently the classic biology doesn't recognise such phenomenon, but this study can be the turning point for molecular biology, physics, chemistry, medicine and so on. In 2014 UNESCO hosted meeting to discuss this controversial 'memory of water' research.

Currently more independent studies are required to truly confirm Montagnier's findings independently.

References:

kenorb
  • 512
  • 5
  • 21
  • 13
    It must be mentioned that this paper was [widely panned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier#Responses.2C_criticisms_and_interview) by scientists and [isn't taken seriously by the scientific community](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927952.900-scorn-over-claim-of-teleported-dna/). – Oddthinking Apr 30 '16 at 00:08
  • @Oddthinking This is old info in wiki, in 2014 there was meeting at UNESCO discussing that controversy. There is also new documentary describing the study in details. The test was performed in specialised lab. This just need to be repeated, as nobody claimed after that it didn't work. – kenorb Apr 30 '16 at 00:53
  • 10
    You didn't show that the UNESCO meeting resolved anything. You just used it (and the Nobel prize) as appeals to authority. – Oddthinking Apr 30 '16 at 00:58
  • He performed the test several times and this was documented, so I don't see this as nonsense. In the link above to newscientist, it's says 'the results can’t be dismissed out of hand.'. So where has been dismissed? – kenorb Apr 30 '16 at 01:03
  • 8
    "This just need to be repeated, as nobody claimed after that it didn't work." [This study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16394263?dopt=Abstract) looked at the device used by Montagnier (developed by developed by Jacques Benveniste). The claimed abilities of the device were unable to be reproduced. – Oddthinking Apr 30 '16 at 01:06
  • @Oddthinking This is related to Prof Benveniste, not Montagnier. Therefore different device. Secondly he did that test after 2006, so probably he was aware about it. – kenorb Apr 30 '16 at 01:08
  • @kenorb: My source that Montagnier was using a device from Benveniste was [this](http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Memory_of_water) which doesn't support the claim with a reference, so you may be right. Yes, Montagnier may well have been aware of it. – Oddthinking Apr 30 '16 at 03:07
  • 4
    Related: [Has Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier found experimental evidence for homeopathy?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2540/has-nobel-prize-winner-luc-montagnier-found-experimental-evidence-for-homeopathy) – Sklivvz Apr 30 '16 at 09:26
  • 6
    This paper shouldn't even be indexed on Pubmed since the journal is clearly not a scientific journal. The Montagnier paper was accepted after just one day of "review", and Montagnier is on the board of editors. Their claim of proper peer review is clearly fraudulent. – Konrad Rudolph May 16 '16 at 08:53