For those familiar with Mr Adams’ claims on elemonics, the reader can skip ahead to the section entitled: “Shat the sciences say” to avoid a brief reference and summary on the topic.
The song and dance
Mr Adams’ first Natural News/cite> article on elemonics was entitled “Health Ranger to unveil revolutionary scientific synthesis of atomic physics and musical harmonics” which appeared a few days after his live presentation on this topic at “Truth on Cancer Symposium 2016”. A second more recent article was published on Natural News entitled “Now you can HEAR chemistry: Health Ranger translates molecules into music in stunning video demonstration that will blow your mind (and your ears)” with Mr Adams as the main author thereof as well. There is also a video copy of his symposium presentation which is quite popular in many of the CAM media and blogs. Lastly, Mr Adams (or a business partner) appears also have moved very quickly to commercially capitalize on elemonics as can be seen via the following advertisement:” Upgrade your hydration with the Echo Elemonics hydrogen infusion machine.” Whatever ones opinion, both Mr Adams and many in the CAM industry (which include a few its key proponents and spokesman) have shown strong support for elemonics. It is clear that collectively they believe that Mr Adams has achieved a genuine and “stunning” breakthrough in the sciences via elemonics; and if not them, then certainly Mr Adams’ supporters and fans certainly do based on their feedback on Natural News.
A summary, after review of the available information, shows that the central tenets of elemonics start with quantum mechanics, as given by Mr Adams’ opening statements, in his first article:
All matter — which includes everything in the Table of Elements — is nothing more than organized vibrations…The SPDF orbitals of electrons at the atomic level, for example, are nothing but vibratory probability clouds.
Mr Adams gives considerable focus to electron orbital theory in this opening. However, Mr Adams explanation of the quantum mechanics therein is actually very poor and suggests that Mr Adams may not really understand his subject matter particularly well. From there Mr Adams moves onto the atomic mass of elements and attempts to imply that an element’s mass (or more specifically its inverse mass) is related, or a determinant of, its chemical properties, particularly whether it is beneficial or detrimental to biological systems and general health. He subsequently attempts to relate these inverse elemental masses to acoustic frequencies use a conversion factor of 3520 Hz (which Mr Adams states is the A-note in music, roughly the pitch at 1:47 in this video); and hence his following attempt to relate this to the music notes on a 88-key keyboard. Thus an element can be represented via a musical tone given by 3520 Hz divided by its molecular mass in g/mol. This gives the highest pitched note for the lightest element, namely hydrogen (A-note), to ever-decreasing tones for heavier and heavier elements (D-note for carbon and right at the bottom of the musical scale for mercury). For molecules, Mr Adams represents them as a string of different notes starting at the highest tone (typically hydrogen at 3520 Hz for an organic) down to the lowest (carbon, Sulphur, or a metal – depending on which is the heaviest). Lastly, Mr Adams then proceeds to fit this all into a 4-note chord system (based on the four valence nature of a carbon atom). This allows Mr Adams to represent each molecule, or so he claims, as repeated music tunes. With this “foundation” set, Mr Adams then proceeds to claim that by listening to these simple musical tunes an individual can easily tell “acoustically” if a particular molecule or element sounds harmonious with the background four-note chord system (and so is beneficial) or out of harmony (and is so detrimental). Further, Mr Adams asserts a direct correlation between an elements chemical properties and its elemonics. Thus if an element or molecule is toxic (eg. Mercury, DDT, ect.) it will sound “bad”, but if it is “good/healthy” it will sound “pleasant”. Finally, Mr Adams also states that the acoustic elemonics tones not only serve an analytical purpose, but can also be used to directly manipulate the physical and chemical properties on any element.
As an aside, I found the information given by Mr Adams on elemonics a little challenging to follow. Mr Adams’ discussion around elemonics appeared to be poorly given and rather vague in that his arguments were not well developed and his discussion appeared to lack adequate information to be clearly coherent as a scientific discourse.
What the sciences say
However a review of established science shows that elemonics, as a hypothesis, runs afoul of a number of scientific fields.
First, matter (whether elements or molecules) is not “nothing more than organized vibrations.” In quantum mechanics, a particulate or entity (whether a molecule, a lone atom, their electron cloud, a single electron or photon, ect.) can actually be defined by a wave-function based on specific solutions to the Schrödinger equation. The Schrödinger equation can actually be viewed as a general or broad mathematical scaffold to solve any number of models simulating a variety atomic or molecular processes which also incorporate the quantized nature of energy. (Max Plank discovered that energy is not a continuum in nature when it comes to its magnitude, it actual comes in “bundles” or “energy elements” of discrete size – see the quantization of the energy.) Using specific models, such as: particle-in-a-box, the rigid-rotor, and the harmonic oscillator quantum mechanical solutions for the movement of a particle, the rotational and vibrational energies of a molecule respectively can be (and have been) found showing the discrete energy levels in each. For lone atoms, the s, p, d, and f atomic orbitals serve as good solutions to the orbital wave functions for the atom’s electrons and their energy levels in that atom. For molecules, the observer must employ molecular orbitals instead, such as the Sigma, Pi and non-bonding orbitals, to describe electron distribution and energies in the molecule. It should be noted that a detailed mathematic explanation of these solutions is beyond the scope of this article, and my own knowledge.
Second, Mr Adams’ assertion, in context of elemonics, that an element’s properties can be determined by its total atomic mass (or more specifically its inversed mass) is unfounded. Yes, he is correct in regards the periodicity of the period table of elements in that elements in the same period (ie. vertical column) tend to have similar chemical properties. But this periodicity is not determined by the element’s atomic mass, rather by the electron configuration in the outer valence orbitals of that element – as it is only the outer valence electrons that participate in chemical reactions. This also applies molecules as well and is also the reason why a molecule’s properties are determined by the electron configuration in its outer molecular orbitals (Sigma and Pi orbitals, ect.) instead of its atomic orbitals. This is classically illustrated by the properties of the elements sodium , carbon and nitrogen vs the molecule sodium cyanide; and elemental mercury vs thiomersal. To imply that a substance’s chemical properties (ie. element or molecule) are determined by its atomic mass (and resulting periodicity) is equivalent to saying a substances chemical properties are determine by its total electron content, which is completely false as only its outer orbital electrons are valent (able to combine with other atoms or molecules) in nature – and even then not all of them.
Third, Mr Adams’ method in determining what constitutes a harmonious tune and what constitutes an unharmonious tune (ie. good/beneficial vs bad/toxic) is purely subjective. This subjectivity falls into two categories. In the first category, the preference as to what is harmonious and what is not, is based solely on the preference of the individual observer, meaning that one observer will classify certain music tunes as “good” while another will classify it as “bad”. It is solely at the discretion of the observer (or listener in this case). In fact, given that music and its styles tend to be almost largely cultural constructs, there is likely to be a strong cultural bias to the elemonic’s acoustic results. For the second category, there is simply not a clear numerical quantification or definition as to good and bad. In other words, no quantified zero point with no qualified method of measurement; and if nothing is or can be accurately measure (ie. quantified) the entire process is subject to unlimited levels of bias and uncertainty. In essence, the premises of “good” and “bad” collapse as they are solely observer driven.
Fourth, Mr Adams has not proposed any mechanism by which elemonics operates, whether viable or otherwise. He simply states it as fact, as a given – the equivalent of a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat shortly after the music starts. This is among the Health Ranger’s most significant failings in regards elemonics. In any field of science, a viable mechanism of action is essential. No mechanism … NO action. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. In chemistry, we have the formation of activated complexes during reactions with the shifting of molecular bonds between the reagents after they have come together (new bonds forming and old bonds breaking). This is also the situation when intermediates are formed from a single reaction molecule in a multi-set reaction process. In physics, when a container of water is heated, water molecules with higher kinetic energy (provided by the heat-source) pass that heat energy on by colliding with other less energetic “cooler” water molecules. (It is interesting to note that in terms of the field of force-particles, the thermal heat is passed between water molecules in their “collision” as a photon. This exchange then causes the equivalent of a recoil between the two water molecules based on the law of the conservation of momentum.) These are only two of an enormous collection of examples ranging from swinging pendulums, to the generation of x-rays, through to the photo-electric effect and even black holes. Mr Adams’ elemonic hypothesis lacks this most critical component. This is even more acute an issue if Mr Adams’ claim of manipulating the chemical properties of a substance with acoustical energy is taken as sincere.
Fifth, there is simply no way sound in the audible acoustic range can be used to transfer energy to a chemical reaction with adequate efficiency. To impact a chemical reaction or drive it with sound, the experimenter typically requires ultrasonic frequencies, even in the best of circumstance getting acceptable results tends to be challenging. Audible sound is simply too un-energetic, too low a frequency to influence a chemical reaction. This is clearly illustrated by Planck’s equation on electromagnetic radiation, in which the energy delivered by a photon of light is dictated by its frequency (the higher the frequency the greater the energy carried). The same would apply to acoustic frequencies and the phononic model for such a system. Consequently, the new Echo Elemonics hydrogen infusion machine advertised on Mr Adams’ Natural News website is unlikely to produce any benefits due to elemonics, as audible acoustic sound cannot significantly impact on the behavior on the hydrogen and oxygen atoms making up the water passing through it.
And “amazing” flights of pseudoscience follow
The flurry and flight of pseudo-science that follows (or could follow) from elemonics is likely to be quite notable as is clearly illustrated in the advertisement for same aforementioned new Echo Elemonics hydrogen infusion machine, advertised on Mr Adams’ Natural News website. This requires a direct quote therefrom to illustrate the point:
First, it infuses water with free hydrogen, yet without substantially altering the pH of the water in the process. In other words, it’s not an “alkaline water” machine. …”
In essence, Echo Elemonics is a water filter, a hydrogen infusion machine and an Elemonics infusion system, all in one. The result is clean, hydrogen infused water with a symphony of balanced trace elements.
Seriously? … Free hydrogen (locked in a volume of water)? … hydrogen infused water? … a symphony of balanced trace elements? And one query that arises from these claims: Are the advertisers now claiming molecular forms given by H3O, H4O, H6O …?
These are clear examples of pseudo-science run amok in which the proponents are both ignoring and violating a whole gauntlet of scientific laws. First, hydrogen has an extremely low level of solubility in water (like most gases) if we are assuming only a locked-in infusion type process. If they are claiming new molecular forms of “water” then they are suggesting water molecular “forms” that would be extremely thermodynamically unstable and have never been seen before in nature unless under the most extreme of conditions. In addition, they have also not proposed a viable mechanism for the formation of the new “forms” or the bonding configuration. Last, audible acoustic sound cannot influence the properties of any element or molecule, nor can it be used to manipulate matter on the atomic scale. In the end the aforementioned advertisement literally overflows with pseudo-science in places, and this is likely to be the repeated outcome from any future elemonic “application”.
At best, this is expensive music
In conclusion, although Mr Adams’ elemonics produces some interesting audible work and likely would produce some “pleasant” tunes; that is all it can do. It is devoid of many key requirements to qualify as even a low-tier scientific study, let alone a genuine and “stunning” major breakthrough. Thus, elemonics as a concept is both meaningless and poorly constructed. It is not real science; it is pseudo-science from beginning to end, even if it alludes to some real scientific content. The day of the lone maverick redefining entire scientific fields is centuries behind us now. Major advances are always built on the work of dozens or hundreds of others – modern science is simply too complex for any other possibility. Mr Adams overwhelmingly lacks the funds, skill, and expertise to match those on science’s cutting-edge and always will. Hopefully Mr Adams will take this into serious consideration for any science project he boldly embarks on in the future.