Water...emotions...what do you think?

[Min]

Hi all,

I've had some family friends really getting into this What the Bleep set of movies recently and they convinced me to go to a showing of "Down the Rabbit Hole" last night at UQ. It discusses everything from Quantum physics to spirituality, and attempts to connect them all. Facinating stuff.

The most facinating thing I found was an interview with a Japanese scientist, Dr. Masaru Emoto, who did studies on the effects of human words / emotions on water crystals. He and his team took photos of water that had had "love", "thank you", "I hate you, I will kill you", been blessed by a monk, etc to it. The pictures of the crystals formed by this water was...well, facinating.

Images of the water crystals:


Control = water with nothing done to it.











In 'What The Bleep' they question if emotions/thoughts can do this to tap / dam water...and we're made up of mostly water...what are our thoughts doing to ourselves...?

So, what do you think...does it sound plausible or not?

Sounds like a case for the Mythbusters in my opinion...but it's so...facinating. Makes me want to take pictures of water

[Lauren]

Ooh, Min thats amazing! I think it's 'What The Bleep' that is like some of Traci Hardings books (*ducks from Mins flying (and chomping!) bull clips*). My friend has recommended them to me, so I think I shall have to see them!

As for the water, I think its totally plausible. I believe in stuff like that though, whereas a lot of people dont, so that may just be beliefs talking But great find Min! Hope you had fun at the show!

[scruffy]

i think the pictures are pretty, but I wonder if they are representative... I wonder how many "nothing" shots they had to discard, before they found something that was "cool"... And how much their own subjectivity influenced their decision.

I mean, we only have their word for it that the heavy metal did that pretty swirlly pattern all the time - that might have been just a one off, or the majority of times... we don't really know, do we? Likewise, it might have produced some pretty crystals, but they disregarded them, for whatever reason...

But yeah, it is fascinating and they very pretty...

(You guys should check out Angstrom Art for some pretty sciencey pictures... www.imb.uq.edu.au/index.html?id=18056

[Lauren Hedgehog]

You should check out the Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics page review - you can click on the link near the bottom of the page of www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ it has some facinating reviews of other movies aswell.


He's a quote from their review for those too lazy to go check it out
'...Yet, According to an October 2004 article in Popular Science one of the movie's featured experts:

David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, is outraged at the final product..."I was taken," Albert admits. "I was really gullible, but I learned my lesson." Yet the real shame with this film is that it plays on people's fascination with science while distorting and misrepresenting that science.

Dr Albert's views are essentially the exact opposite of those represented in the movie. He granted a four hour interview which was creatively edited. Albert describes it in an excellent Salon.com article as follows:

I was edited in such a way as to completely suppress my actual views about the matters the movie discusses. I am, indeed, profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness. Moreover, I explained all that, at great length, on camera, to the producers of the film ... Had I known that I would have been so radically misrepresented in the movie, I would certainly not have agreed to be filmed. ...'

[Min]

Oooh...scandalous...that'd be right. It felt a bit Hollywoodised. I would have prefered just the facts

Even if it's a propaganda piece, it's not hurting anyone What's wrong with getting people to think positivly? I've never been a big one for "we are all connected" type stuff but it was still an interesting watch.
The water is beautiful. And if it's right, then cool. If it's wrong, what's the harm? If people think more positivly because they believe it will make them beautiful on the inside, I don't see any harm in it. And I thought it was appropriate for 70's week!

Anyway I had a look at a couple of the sites that came up googling Masaru Emoto, and there's instructions on one of them on how to take your own water photos...didn't check it out, but I guess if anyone wants to know more, they can do the tests themselves

Peace out

[scruffy]

If it's wrong, what's the harm? If people think more positivly because they believe it will make them beautiful on the inside, I don't see any harm in it.

True... In the wise words of Slartibartfast "I'd rather be happy than right any day"

[Dark One]

Something like this is certainly plausible. Who's to say what power our minds have over the surroundings?

Your mind can have an effect on your body (ie if your cold you can imagine yourself to be in a hot place and you'll warm up)

To quote Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

[Min]

Ah, Slartibartfast, the wisest of the wise ;D

The effects thoughts / emotions have on us is interesting enough, let alone the effect we could have on others / other things (like water)...it's really weird. Seems almost like sci-fi. I guess that's why it's interesting...

I've heard that thinking you're hot will make you warmer too. Amazing how we can trick our bodies into thinking whatever we want.

[scruffy]

True -I was thinking about this last night. Okay, actually I was telling Scott about this last night ("so honey, how was your day...?")

He pointed out that one of the things they teach us in medicine is that the pyschological aspects often have a bigger effect than the physical things. If you don't beleive that the medicine is going to work, then it probably won't. Likewise, if you think sugar water will cure your cancer, it might. It turns out that what people think has a massive impact on their health - the extent that doctor who doesn't address your *thinking* at the same time as your physical illness is probably not going to cure you.

Likewise, I can always tell when Scott is feeling grumpy or stressed or upset. Often there is no obvious external signs, but i know. Even over the phone. And our cat always knows when I'm sad and will curl up on my lap and nuzzle me.

So, if our thoughts can alter our health, and if other people and animals can respond to our thoughts... Maybe there's something more to look at...

[catwhisperer]

How interesting! I like this freaky stuff

[Kangaruth]

Nyaaaaaaarrrrghgggggggggggh!

As a physicist, that's really all I have to say on the matter, before I have to take it to the rant thread.

*mutters about pseudo-scientist who think they can use the word "quantum" to justify any old load of hooey because they don't understand what it means and neither do any of the people listening to them*

The thing is, part of What the bleep to we know were really well presented, and some of the points raised were valid and interesting questions. The bit I really hated, though, was that they didn't introduce the "experts" properly until the end, so throughout the film you had no way of knowing when you were hearing from a Nobel-prizewinning physicist or a crazy lady who reads palms for a living!

EDIT: I thought I'd add a point - I'm in no way arguing that we can't affect our own bodies by our thoughts; our minds and bodies are linked in ways we don't completely understand, but it is through a physical link. All sensations are interpreted through the brain, so by influencing the brain we can influence the way we see/feel the world. However, there is no such link between our brains and the outside world. At least, not one explained by physics as we know it. And quantum mechanics is physics as we know it - it's actually fairly well understood. Using (eg) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or Schroedinger's Cat experiment, to justify claims of (eg) psychokinesis or the mental effect on water crystals, shows a complete misunderstanding, or a deliberate manipulation, of extremely difficult concepts.

[Min]

Is that who that "star trek" lady was (the one in red)?! lol!!!

[Kangaruth]

I don't remember if her actual job was palm reading... but yes, that's her.

[Raineth]

Decieving people is not harmless. exploting facts and twisting research so that it no longer represents reality does not encourage positivity it is an excercise in making money and offering false hope.

What a waste of money that could have been spent on discovering and presenting the truth to the public, on a topic that could have a real positive impact on the world.

Has anyone heard of the psychiatrist who believed that gender differences were a result only of nurture (not something innate). He believed in it so strongly that he advised tha parents of a male baby who had had his thingy burnt off (as a result of a botched circumcision) to castrate him and raise him as a girl. The parents thought that deceiving their son would be better that letting him know the truth because of how important the thingy is to a male's identity as a male. The parents proceeded with this course following strict instructions from the psychiatrist. As the 'girl' grew up it became more apparent that his experiment was not working. The 'girl' was a social outcast and behaved like a boy yet was rejected by boys because they didn't want to play with a girl. By the time the 'girl' was 13 she was threatening to commit suicide - at this point the parents decided to tell 'her' and her twin brother the truth. However the psychiatrist started claiming that his theory was a sucess - that gender differences in behaviour were indeed a result of nurture. Eventually this boy who had been raised as a girl killed himself. On a video he said it was the only was to convince the psychiatrist and the public that the experiment had failed, and prevent what had happened to him happen to anybody else. His twin brother also had committed suicide the year before.

The psychiatrist was pursuing a beautiful idea, that led to tragedy because he wasn't prepared to stick to that facts and present what was really happening. I know this is an extreme example, but I believe it shows that deception is never harmless. The truth ultimately serves everybody better, even if it isn't exciting or idealistic.

[Kangaruth]

I watched a programme on that guy - what he did to that poor kid was horrific, although I do understand that it must have seemed like a great idea. It's sad that scientists will disregard facts in order to try to prove a theory. And if you don't understand the facts, you shouldn't even be attempting to use them to justify a theory.

You can't really blame the film-makers (completely) for the slant on What the Bleep do We Know. They just didn't know any better. They had a story, they had experts, they chose their angle. They only showed the interview footage that fitted in with their angle. It's how most reporting is done. However, sadly for them, half of their experts were talking rubbish.

But, if someone said to you, because of x,y and z, quantum mechanics proves a, b and c, would you be in a position to know better?

[Min]

That's awful, Raineth!!

I don't know if the case is as extreme wiht "What the Bleep". In all honesty, I thought the DVD out was a load of Bleep itself. But the Down the Rabbit Hole went into a lot of things a bit more. Even if it was chosen at an angle to fit their story...well, I can't see it harming anyone.

All it's promoting is the power of positive thinking. Which isn't a bad thing. There are undertones, such as "take responsibility for your actions", which wouldn't be a bad thing for the world to do now and then.
That's what I took away from it. And the fact that the water experiement was interesting (not whether it was correct or not). If something sparks an interest in a mind, they usually do more investigating on it, and find opinions on it.

If anyone is really interested in the Quantum Physics side of it, they will, like some of you already have, perhaps go study physics, and find the truth out for themselves. Otherwise, it'll probably fade into the back of their mind and they'll forget about it.

I guess the thing that's stopping me from rejecting it immediately as well is that it's not saying "you must believe this or that". It's saying explore it. Don't take things at face value, try question things yourself. People could definately do with thinking a little more in life about cause and effects...

[Elspethseeker]

I heard about that it sounded so interesting i think that more experiments should be conducted.

[Lauren Hedgehog]

I remember reading(I'll try and find the reference for it) that some company offered $1million for any research group that could come up with similar results while following normal scientific procedure (stuff like controls, repeatability and having the person taking the pictures not knowing what the water had been labled). But so far noone (to my knowlege anyway ) has done it

EDIT: It was James Randi Educational Foundation who offered the money more than five years ago and so far there have been no takers, which makes me rather skeptical of the claims. Sticking labels on water and taking pictures would make this bloody easy money if it could be done

see www.randi.org/research/index.html

[Min]

I don't know if it was just sticking labels on water...a lot of them had people physically stand over the water and bless it, or scream at it, didn't they? I thought it was the emotions effecting the water, not the written words themselves...

I'm becoming a tad sceptical now though...if I ever get the opportunity I'd love to try it for myself one day...

[Cookie Lover]

I perosnaly tihnk it sounds a bt far fetched. But still, it could be possible, I just doubt it.

[scruffy]

I think it would definately be something that would be interesting to try...

And probably not too difficult, really.... At the very least it might yeild some pretty pictures you could stick on the wall...

[maverick]

kangaruth said:

Nyaaaaaaarrrrghgggggggggggh!

As a physicist, that's really all I have to say on the matter, before I have to take it to the rant thread.

*mutters about pseudo-scientist who think they can use the word "quantum" to justify any old load of hooey because they don't understand what it means and neither do any of the people listening to them*

agreed.... it really gets me when people talk of a "quantum leap" in the context of it being something huge *gives evil eyes to media* when in fact quantum physics is the study of physical theory and newtonian mechanics at an atmoic or subatomic level. grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

*goes back to bury head in physics text book*

[Fuil Dearg]

i heard somewhere that snowflakes are unique crystal formations. maybe thats why.

[Kangaruth]

maverick said:

it really gets me when people talk of a "quantum leap" in the context of it being something huge

Actually, in this context it can mean a sudden jump (ie, one with no intermediate states). Wikipedia explains it quite well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_leap

maverick said:

in fact quantum physics is the study of physical theory and newtonian mechanics at an atmoic or subatomic level.

Um... In fact, quantum mechanics is a physical theory of objects at an atomic or subatomic scale, and is interesting precisely because Newtonian (and more importantly, Einsteinian) mechanics cannot be used to explain particle behaviour on this scale.

May I ask what textbook you're reading?

[Min]

I guess that's why it's facinating...because the regular laws of science don't apply on the extremely large or extremely small scale...

When will someone come up with the "theory of everything" I wonder?
String Theory? *dodges more rotten fruit*