I have searched a backtrack on the prelims of the experiments, and that one factor that has been questioned, the controlled environment. You must have heard about super cooling of water, where it stays liquefied even under subzero temperature and solidifies rapidly on even slightest disturbance.
In another news, James Randi Educational Foundation offered Emoto $1,000,000 (one million) to replicate the same results under standard test conditions, and he declined. Later Dean Radin, a co-author of the paper with Emoto failed to get desired results. Has he tried publishing his research in any reputed journal yet, like Nature, American Physics Journal or Royal Chemistry Society?
And the formation of crystal depends on the rate of their formation. If a supercooled water is disturbed abruptly, the crystal formation will be asymmetrical. And if the water is cooled gradually, then symmetric crystal formation will take place.
Here's a take back science note, every molecules and atoms responds to frequencies, and the frequency where it absorbs the maximum energy is the resonance frequency. But those frequencies are way higher than your vocal cord to generate or your eardrum to translate to a audible signal.
Another effect what Dr. Deepak Chopra terms as quantum healing is infact known as placebo effect in general terms, where you believe in a medicine to work and it improves your condition over time. Even Dr Chopra said it's success rate is below 5%, hence cannot be termed as a proper medical process.
Heck, our Cancer treatment therapy has a success rate of 98.7%, still we are having hard time from FDA to get our experiments approved for Human tests.
In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.
In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the peer-reviewed Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
Dean Radin wrote:
The double-blind paper we published in 2006 was indeed peer-reviewed, and it showed a statistically significant difference between water that was "exposed" to intention vs. identical water set aside as a control. The magnitude of the observed effect was smaller than is implied in Emoto's books, but the direction of the effect was consistent with his claim.
The poor chap has not received his million Dollars yet
Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication
An experiment tested the hypothesis that water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water. Over three days, 1,900 people in Austria and Germany focused their intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. Water samples located near the target water, but unknown to the people providing intentions, acted as “proximal” controls. Other samples located outside the shielded room acted as distant controls.
Ice drops formed from samples of water in the different treatment conditions were photographed by a technician, each image was assessed for aesthetic beauty by over 2,500 independent judges, and the resulting data were analyzed, all by individuals blind with respect to the underlying treatment conditions.
Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p = 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test.
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1550-8307/PIIS1550830706003272.pdf
DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION
The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect
ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-
blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in
Tokyo focused positive intentions toward water samples located
inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That
group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different
location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of
water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an
analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic
appeal by 100 independent judges.
Results indicated that
crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic
appeal than those from the control water (P = .001, onetailed),
lending support to the hypothesis.
besides i have done this myself i found it to be true ..why don't you try this yourself ?
