In a message on the Minutus homeopathy discussion list dated 8/29/2013 2:34:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD writes:
“Dr. Jurgen Schulte is a physicist, quantum physicist and homeopath.
“At the 2012 Brisbane conference, he gave a talk about quantum physics and homeopathy, where he described in detail the experiments he performed to explain the mechanism of action through quantum physics. The conclusion was that he could not, the experiments were inconclusive.”
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. “The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind”.
[Joe Rozencwajg is the author of [ Third Millenium Homeopathy ]
On Fri Aug 30 2013 John Benneth writes,
Joe, what has quantum physics explained? Not anything that I can think of . . at the moment. It’s raised some very interesting anomalies, like entanglement, but I suspect they may have made it seem inexplicable.
Regarding Scholten, isn’t he known for his periodic table of supramoleculars? Can they really can’t be considered as legitimate homeopathics until they’re properly proven? It is sort of like Colin Griffith and his dream provers in “The New Materia Medica,” taking a detour around the lengthy, hard work of proving.
Where were Scholten’s physical “experiments” published? What were they? What was he testing for and why, for what purpose? There have been numerous pre-clinical tests of supramoleculars that show their physical distinctions and biochemical action that I believe can be explained in the terms of classical science, although I don’t know anymore where the line is drawn between classical and quantum science.
You say he’s a physicist AND a “quantum” physicist? Why should there be any difference between the two? Does a physicist stop reading when he runs into the word quantum?
So really, what does it mean when he says he doesn’t know? Why should that come as a surprise?
So far, I’m not too impressed with physicists. They seem to be very good at creating messes and entirely incompetent at cleaning them up. Hanford in Washington State USA is a prime example, so is Cherynoble, so is Fukishima, and hundreds of other disasters around the planet that will eventually happen unless somebody figures out how to undo what they did, and homeopathy offers the only solution I can think of . . [!]
From what I’ve seen, physics is an unmitigated disaster, like little children lighting matches and playing with fire, indoors, under the drapes. If the human race disappears from the face of the planet, it will be because of physicists who made it and homeopaths who failed to clean it up.
Physicists do the crime, homeopaths do the time.
What surprises me is how little they seem to know about classical science and reality in general, and nuclear physics in particular. From what I’ve seen they can’t ask questions and can’t even say how they got home last night.
Homeopathy doesn’t need quantum physics to explain it. I think homeopathy can be explained by piecing together the physical experiments that have been done with the known classical science of the material and plasma sciences, and sp[ecifically the sciences regarding water . As Professor Rustum Roy, head of Penn State’s material sciences said, its up to the skeptics to disprove homeopathy:
“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent. The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”
The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations Online 5 77
best wishes,
John Benneth
You have to read what’s next: Heavy Water! Transduction and Homeopathy
Read it here first: SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal . . do it now!
The John Benneth Journal 