I’ve just heard back from psychologist Dr. Gary Schwartz, director of the Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Healing, and his chief lab technician Mark Boccuzzi, both at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. They have just finished analyzing the results of our historic January 30 Water into Wine Experiment, which I want to share with you.
Like all science, even the simplest experiments take a good deal of planning and many steps to carry them out. Here’s how we did it, and here’s what happened.
Preparation
Five days before the Saturday experiment, Mark filled up two 300 ml beakers (labeled “Beaker #1” and “Beaker #2”) with simple Tucson tap water.
Two days before the experiment, I wrote “Beaker #1” and “Beaker #2” on two pieces of paper, folded them, juggled them about, and chose one at random. Usually my youngest daughter performs this crucial part of the experiment for me, but this time, she was at school so I stepped in.
The target turned out to be Beaker #2, below:
Here’s the actual recording setup with the sensors, holders, Vernier PC interface, and computer.
I immediately emailed the photo of the beaker to my web team at CopperStrings, located in India, who were preparing our experiment pages. Each Intention Experiment gets assembled using the expertise of people from three continents, which just goes to show what an international effort this is.
As with all our experiments, both Mark and Dr. Schwartz were deliberately ‘blinded’ — they did not know which beaker was selected as the target for distant global intention until after the experiment was finished and they’d performed their calculations.
The twenty-minute experiment
On January 30, the Intention Experiment was carried out for 20 minutes in total: a five-minute period to ‘Power Up’ (following the special program I developed to focus the mind and heart); a five- minute ‘Instruction’ period to read about water pH, why we were doing this intention and how the experiment would work; and then the 10- minute period of the actual experiment, where the image of Beaker 2 was revealed to our participants, who were told to hold a specific intention to lower the pH of the water by at least 1 pH measure.
As with all our recent experiments, our Copperstrings web team control all the pages, so that they flip over automatically during the experiment. As usual, one of the team was on hand for two hours before the experiment started to well afterward, and we had virtually no reports of problems in participating.
We also asked our participants to focus on an image of pH scale and to imagine the water’s pH moving toward the acidic (or red) side of the scale. During the intention, the participants were instructed to imagine the water tasting more like wine and to do so with all their five senses.
Meanwhile, Mark, back in Tucson, then took recordings of pH and temperature twice every second for five minutes before our experiment started, during all the time of our Power Up period, Instruction period, and Intention period, and for five minutes after the experiment. In total, his equipment monitored pH and temperature in the two beakers for a half hour.
Beside this ACTIVE Experiment (where we were actually sending intention), the following week, the Tucson scientists set up an identical DUMMY Experiment. In this experiment, they designated Beaker #2 as the ‘intention’ beaker, and ran the entire experiment for the exact same length of time, but this time there were no participants, no procedure on the web and no intention sent to either beaker.
Having a DUMMY Experiment provides scientists with more information, in order to control for any variables.
Our results
Here’s the simple raw data of pH and temperature of the two beakers, recorded by the sensors and then displayed by the Logger Pro software, for first the ACTIVE and then the DUMMY Experiments.
ACTIVE EXPERIMENT (our actual Water into Wine Experiment) (Fig.1)
DUMMY EXPERIMENT (Fig.2)
The upper graph in the ACTIVE Experiment chart represents the pH data for the two beakers and the lower graph represents the temperature data, plotted for that half hour period before, during and after the experiment.
The red line in the first graph represents the pH reading for Beaker #2 (our target), and the blue line its temperature. The green line is the pH and orange squiggle the temperature reading of Beaker #1 — the control.
In the DUMMY Experiment, the scientists imitated the real experiment exactly, by designating Beaker #2 the ‘target’ and Beaker #1 the ‘control’.
The same colors apply to pH and temperature for the two beakers in this DUMMY Experiment.
Note that as soon as Mark inserted the pH sensors, the pH rose rapidly and then began to stabilize.
You’ll also note Beaker #2 was always slightly cooler than Beaker #1 (in both Experiments), which may have had something to do with the placement of the beakers relative to the computer monitor.
During both experiments, the temperature in both beakers decreased as time went on. Nevertheless, it began to recover in the DUMMY Experiment more than in the ACTIVE Experiment.
Studying the results more closely
In order to carefully analyze our results, Mark and Dr. Schwartz then thin-sliced the time frame further, so that even the subtlest of changes would show up more clearly. Here are the graphs for pH for the ACTIVE and DUMMY Experiments, shown below.
In this expanded scale, it is now easy to see that the pH of our target Beaker #2 (the red line) is consistently lower than that of Beaker #1 (the green line) for both sessions, again possibly because of the position of the two beakers relative to the computer monitor.
ACTIVE Session pH (Fig. 3)
DUMMY Session pH (Fig. 4)
Nevertheless, a close examination of the 10-minute Intention period reveals a slight decrease in pH for the Target Beaker #2 (red) compared to the Control Beaker #1 (green). Interestingly, the five-minute Instruction period (directly preceding the 10-minute Intention period), and the five-minute Post-intention period both show pH increasing for the Target Beaker compared with the Control Beaker.
These patterns are less prominent in the DUMMY Experiment’s results for pH, which stayed relatively steady through the entire Experiment (fig. 4).
Temperature changes
The next two sets of graphs show the data for temperature — again examined in closer detail for a clearer snapshot of any subtle changes.
ACTIVE Experiment Temperature (Fig. 5)
DUMMY Experiment Temperature (Fig. 6)
Close examination of these two sets of graphs again reveals a subtle but meaningful trend, says Dr. Schwartz. In our actual ACTIVE Experiment (Fig. 5), the temperature of the Targeted Beaker #2 (shown in blue) decreases between the first half and the second half of the ten- minute Intention Period. The Control Beaker #1’s temperature (shown in orange) stayed relatively steady.
In other words, our decrease in pH during the exact time we sent intention was paralleled by a small but measurable decrease in temperature (compared to the matched control).
Furthermore, as you can see in the graph, the decreased temperature is maintained in the five-minute Post-intention period.
The difference between Targeted and Non-Targeted beakers is clearer in the ACTIVE Experiment (Fig. 5), when compared to the DUMMY Experiment (Fig.6). In the Dummy Experiment, the the Targeted and Non-Targeted beakers show a consistent and parallel path throughout the experiment, including a decrease over the ten-minute “intention” period - even though, of course, no intention was actually sent for that experiment.
Furthermore, during the five-minute Post-intention period, the temperature in both beakers moved in the opposite direction to that of our Target Beaker. The temperature rose in both beakers in the DUMMY Experiment, whereas the temperature fell with the Target of our ACTUAL Experiment.
What does this all mean?
It means, quite simply, that we had a small, positive result — a measurable lowering of both pH and temperature in our TARGET beaker, compared to the control of the ACTIVE Experiment and the two beakers in the DUMMY Experiment.
“The trends observed in this exploratory experiment are consistent with our prediction that global distant intention to lower the pH of tap water could have a measurable effect on decreasing the pH of water in a controlled, blinded experiment,” Dr. Schwartz concluded.
Furthermore, the effects were observed exactly during the 10-minute window of our Intention. “Moreover, adds Dr. Schwartz, “these effects were paralleled in the temperature of tap water, and were observed in both the Intention and POST periods,” he adds.
Although the effects were small (a part of a pH and a degree of temperature) it’s well to remember that subtle changes in pH or temperature can improve or disturb a live body of water – or indeed an entire ecosystem damaged by modern pollution. We do well to realize that just a change of a half pH in our bodies would cause life-threatening illness, if not kill us.
In this, our first exploratory experiment into pH, we discovered that positioning of the beakers may matter, as Beaker #2 had consistently lower pH and temperature values than Beaker #1 in both our ACTIVE and DUMMY Experiments.
Nevertheless, the observed effects of our intention on the pH and temperature were larger than any possible effects from position, Dr. Schwartz concludes.
As we replicate this experiment in the future, we’ll get enough data to control for position. We’ll also examine the pH levels over longer periods of time to determine whether our changes remain constant.
Our thanks and blessings to Dr. Schwartz, Mark and their entire University of Arizona lab and also to our web team at Copperstrings for pulling off a flawless experiment.
So this, our 19th experiment, is also our 16th successful Intention Experiment – demonstrating, once again, that our collective thoughts have the power to change – perhaps even heal – our world. Every experiment brings us that much closer to understanding what intention can and cannot do.
What happens next?
It’s time to focus, for the first time, on a real live target — namely a real and highly polluted body of water. I’m partnering with Masaru Emoto and four prominent scientists (to run four Intention Experiments on Lake Biwa, near Kyoto in Japan on March 22, which also happens to be the United Nation’s World Water Day. See: http://lakebiwaevent.com if you would like to come to this historic event. And stay tuned for more information about our planned simultaneous Intention Experiment, which I hope to run live over the internet so that all of you can take part.
Facebook Comments
Wonderful.. small steps are good. And to see you are partnering with Dr. Emoto... fantastic. Sounds like a great path you're on.
Congratulations!
In order to be accurate would you not have to do a control of the whole experiment without intention as there may be many subtle differences naturally occuring . From reading this it is hard to know if other factors are playing a role. Nonethe less I really appreciate your intense work and dedication . There are so many aspects of naturally occuring things we are so blind about so your work around such matters contributes on ongoing understanding of nature and her powers.
fantastic and amazing!
WOW!! This is truly the forefront of our evolutionary change. Thank you to all who are helping make our planet and our lives a much better place. Blessings. We CAN make a difference!
I really need to come in contact with Lynn McTaggart!
Please contact me on Mail or ph: 47 9411 1110
it is about a TV series
How many people were part of the intention experiment?
And are there any plans to replicate this in future to see if it becomes easier to achieve a positive result in the same experiment as more people become practiced at this? It would be interesting to see whether this conforms to the concept of the, admittedly mythical, hundredth monkey effect.
During our Amsterdam Seminar I had the chance to play part in "our "100 ml waterbottle experiment. This experiment showed that "my "so called "rainbow-Intention-Bottle"was a good hit compaired to the other samples. That means that using the 5 senses as advised by Lynne, works perfect.However, receiving the Energy of the other 9 bottles was to me a misser.( I had a hit of 1 out of 10 ) So learning to "Receive"is my maintopic.I hope that this experience can be used for other people as well.The seminar was a very very good one!
I wish the experiment would be done in a different way to avoid as much as possible some outside influences as the temperature around beakers, humidity in the room, etc. If the changes in pH would be statistically significant (5-10% of the inital value) than this would be of lesser imprtance. Otherwise, beakers should be placed in the temperatur/humidity controlled environments and kep exactly under the same conditions for the target and control. Otherwise what you got is statistically insignificant result. I would suggest to repeat this experiement in a better controlled environment and possibly to see of the volume of a beaker would make a difference on results. This is just one trial. It is not enough to make any projections and more than that - to go to a life experiment on a lake. This looks to me not very scientific. If you wish, I could discuss these issues with Dr. Scwartz.
Thats brilliant .. I would add one more thing to it. Since intentions from multiple sources are sent to the active beaker ,we can clearly see the distortion in the Ph graph of the Active one in comparison with the Dummy one.
I could not take part in the experiment because of not knowing my password. I couldn't find any way to reach anyone before the experiment to ask. What are we to do to find the password that we originally used in the former experiment? Thanks1
Great verification of the power of global intention -- thanks for setting these experiments up. Even though I couldn't get to a computer this time, I held the intention.
It seems to me that the water you used is a unknown variable i.e. you don't know what is in it.
I think using liquid with a predetermined stable ph would be better, eliminating unknown substances that may effect temp.,reaction time etc. Also I would focus on a specific ph number for the target beaker with participants not knowing the starting ph #. Just some thoughts
Dear Eileen,
The 'DUMMY' experiment I write about was indeed the 'non-intention' experiment replication. We duplicated the experiment but did not send intention. So we not only had a control; we had a control of our control.
However, this is only our initial exploratory step. Nothing is science gets interesting until you replicate it a number of times. This we're planning to do - starting at Lake Biwa.
Warm wishes,
Lynne McTaggart
How very exciting to be working with Masaru Emoto. His book "Messages in Water" is one of my all time favorites. Thank you Lynne for conducting these experiments! How exciting we have the ability to change the world in very positives ways and through these links and networks - the whole world will soon learn ways to improve their lives, their spaces and our world as a whole. Faith, Love and Intention - what more do we need? Blessings!
Just looking at the experimental devices setup and location it seems to me that in order to control the experiment even more tightly, each beaker and its meticulously calibrated and matched measuring device should have been "isolated" in an airtight and temperature controlled isolation chamber to prevent temperature variables from making a difference in each beaker as to how much CO2 and other gases might be absorbed by the different beakers. In addition, water samples have to be selected from the same source and equilibrated meticulously in the same type of very clean glass beakers without cleaning agent residues. In my opinion, these are just some additional variables that need to be controlled tightly if they had not already been considered. Keep up the great attempts. These experiments should be very tightly controlled to prevent their critiques from destroying the desire and motivation to continue.
In all scientific tests the question always is: is the observed effect significant or can it explained as a random occurrence? There exist several statistical tools (like for instance Pearson's Chi-Square test) that allow to answer this question. Perhaps you could ask the people that set up the experiment to run an analysis like this for you.
Hope you don't feel that I'm too sceptic - and please keep up the good work!
Kind regards, Hans
I suggest that you look into Remote viewing procedures as I think RV has a lot to do with intention. Contact The Monroe Institute in Virginia.
Cheers
Lynn, you are amazing. I just wanted to comment that as the number of participants in these experiments increas, there is probably a contributing factor people who may have the intention to make these experiments fail for whatever motive or reason. There should be some thought given around these experiments as to how you can filter out those particular participants and maybe even factor those results of intention into the experiements. Perhaps by having the participants answer a couple of questions before starting the experiement that may reveal their true intentions towards the outcome of the experiment. Those with negative intentions could be routed to a target that you would expect to fail because of the negative intentions. Some people may not even know that subconciously they want these experiments to fail. You are dealing with deeply embedded believe systems and programming that is often threatened by the results of these experiments. Fear is one of the most powerful forces in human conciousness and currently reigns supreme on this planet. I would not be surprised if that power was cancelling out a lot of the energy being sent. I know there are a lot of people who probably participated (myself being one of them) that were afraid of the experiment being a failure. Who knows how much of that fear energy was affecting the results? So getting pure intentions from your participants is one of the biggest factors in these experiments that isn't being addressed. Just a thought. Keep up the amazing work.
Your efforts, dedication as also the organization of this experiment is highly commendable. So far, it has been drilled into me by our Indian spiritual philosophy that thoughts are the creative, transforming forces; so we must be careful about what we think and intend to do. But I never imagined that this hypothesis can actually be tested in a scientific set-up. Thanks for providing this insight. It is believed that the whole Universe was initiated by a single thought of the 'Almighty Power' (better known as the 'Big-Bang' theory in modern-day scientific language... )
What caught my attention is, that the red line of our target Beaker # 2 keeps on rising, even thought the 10 min. intention period was over.
This is pretty much coherent with my own personal intention experiences, in which I intend something.. and days, weeks or even months later things manifest.
What if the the line is keeping on rising?
Let's keep on intending!
Love
Namasté
Silke
I applaud your intention efforts, but I think those calling this a successful experiment in demonstrating intentions must be wearing rose colored glasses. LOL
In the active experiment, the PH actually rose over time, and the target beaker rose more. And, we are talking 0.02, 0.03 in Ph. The intention was to affect a change of 1.00 between the beakers. Hello, is anybody home? The PH change can be explained by outside noise of some kind. This is NOT significant, and the change is in the unintended direction!
You guys really must be more honest. I would say this experiment did not show any effect of the intentions in a statistically valid manor.
Wow, and wow. I knw the xperiment would be a success. I can't wait for the day a hospital will be opened and the only treatment will be a staff of intentioners.
The key to creating through intention is to allow for it to be possible. I have to wonder how many participants actually do allow for the seeming impossible. Do not forget that "professional skepticism" is also an intention and very creative as well.
I myself have manifested material objects out of thin air intentionally. Mind you, this isn't an every day occurrence, but it's happened more than a few times. And while this may be earth shattering to some, to me it's very ho hum.
Best wishes,
Katie Webb
It's hard to say if you affected the water or the instrumentation... either way it is interesting!
I, too, would be interested to know how many people took mart in the experiment. It could be that individual ability to affect the water is so minute that, as a practical matter, it would take too many people to appreciably clean a body of water such as Lake Biwa. Also it might be that such a thing could work if the intention were focuses and amplified somehow, e.g through radio waves or through a crystal.
Hi Lynne I'm Really pleased to see that we had a positive effect with our 'Intention' again, however I do feel that what I understand about sending 'Intention' and 'Manifesting' is that there nearly always seems to be a time lapse, as we saw in our Sri Lanka project. (where we actually had the oposite effect to what we wanted at first before it dramatically changed within weeks) And as you've described in 'The Intention Experiment' about the seeds that had intention sent to them. I think to expect an impact actually at the time of sending is expecting rather a lot and feel we need some experiments that allow a time lapse. This is only my opinion but feel it worthy of note. Regards Penny Joseph
I agree that statistically, change was probably not detectible. You would have to replicate this test multiple times to filter out the "statistical noise" and control for all influences so each beaker is as close to being the same as possible.
But we have to start somewhere and I think this was a good effort, maybe more of a "pilot project" than a definitive experiment. Something to learn from for future trials.
Another possible twist is to compare us untrained intentionists from the web world with trained meditators to see if there is a noticeable difference.
We should not be discouraged by nay-sayers but continue to develope and run experiments. Baby steps...we have to crawl before we can run - we're going to get there!
I applaud the efforts of all involved. But frankly I'm a little disappointed in the result. This seems to be a very tiny effect which could be have been affected by monitor heat or radiation or other variables. I'm not convinced this was a sucess. But I do appreciate everyone's efforts and am hopeful for future experiments.
Super ! je suis française et je ne comrends pas tout ! dommage, j'aimerais bien une traduction, surtout pour pouvoir particper au conférences et formations !
c'est vraiment formidable, pas à pas, nous allons y arriver. Marci à l'équipe et félicitations. Merci de nous permettre de participer à cette aventure.
à bientôt !
Very interesting and enlightening.
From a web visitor point of view, perhaps the web people at Copper Strings could use something like the Light Box effect so we could see some of the detail in the chart images.
[...] interested in the role of human intention in scientific research recently performed a successful mass online experiment in an attempt to influence the acidity (pH) of a sample of tap water. The experiment, organized and conducted under the auspices of British science writer Lynne [...]
Not interesting at all. As others have pointed out above, was this tiny change in pH statistically significant or simply due to chance? Who knows, because no analysis was done.
Why were only two beakers used, and why were the conditions not properly controlled?
I applaud your motivation to try and explore this area with experimentation, but if you're going to go to all this effort please at least think through your experimental design. I'm a mere graduate student in the biological sciences, but if I tried to draw any conclusions based on "results" like this I would be laughed out of school.
I don't think the "dummy" experiment could truly mirror one where no intention was sent since the researchers filling the beakers as well as Lynne and other investigators were already aware that beaker #2 had been used previously in the active experiment. In addition, you informed all of us of the intention to do the dummy experiment as well, and we all also already knew that beaker #2 had previously been used.
I believe that this knowledge of the prior use of beaker#2 couldn't help but influence our thinking in the execution of the dummy experiment, as we all already had a different sense between beaker #1 and #2.
I think you would need to use blinded people to set up, conduct and analyse the results of the dummy experiment so their knowledge of the prior use of beaker #2 did not influence their natural thoughts towards beaker #2 in the dummy experiment. And not tell any of us about the dummy experiment either.
I think, while no conscious intention was sent to beaker #2 in the dummy experiment, even the subconscious knowledge of the use of beaker #2 in the active experiment by those involved in the dummy experiment could influence its values. This variable would need to be eliminated by blinding all people involved in the dummy experiment to the mechanics of the real experiment.
I was at the workshop in Maarsen, NL: quite enthusiastic. However this experience should in my opinion not be heralded as a significant success. I agree with Daniel Rose: the pH change was insignificant and in the wrong direction. Better to acknowledge this rather than create an enthusiasm with readers who cannot understand these graphs which are far from clear. I see two groups in the audience: a few critical readers and a crowd of believers who applaud Lynne and believe Lynne’s words.
I also applaud Lynne, but not this time. Sorry to say so, but honesty obliges me.
Bravo for all that you do Lynne these results are promising and I so look forward to the work with
Dr. Emoto and the water in Japan.
One comment comes to mind. I was aware both times I participated in a petri dish type experiment that I had a bit of a diffiult time feeling emotional connection to it. Intention can be so expanded with the increase of emotional connection as we felt so strongly with Sri Lanka.
I am feeling that when we are connected to a body of water that is in trouble and needs our help it will have an entirely different result.
I look forward to feeling and seeing this theory come to life. I also think there is an undertone with the "changing water into wine" concept.
There could also be an unconsious feeling that we are not worthy to perform what could seem to be a miracle yes? For this experiment with a true body of water in need perhaps you might use concepts of gratitude for all water gives to us and appreciation to mother earth for the gifts she gives to us. Perhaps even connecting to the energy of water as it resonates within us.
This takes it out of the mode of "healing" the water and into the mode of connecting to it energetically and with positive intentions.
All best to you and I send you my gratitude for all of your work in this world!
Best,
Carol
Marie-José, vous pouvez ue Google Translate. Voilà comment a été en mesure de comprendre votre commentaire.
PS to my nr 34:
I do believe in the power of intention and wonder whether the pH is the right parameter to look for.
Was there any change in the activity of the PC during the experiment? If the PC was doing more work, measuring more often, more disk activity, etc, could it have impacted the beaker closest? Could you publish the actual data, or show the graphs with better fidelity so we could see them better?
I have to confess that I am quite dissapointed with the results. It is very difficult to see the scale in the graphs, but it seems that the difference of pH between the control and the active sample is less than 0.02 pH units (which is far away from the targeted 1 unit). I am a chemist and work with pH measurements almost everyday. Well, this small difference can be explained by the sensitivity of the pH-meter. Usually, a difference of 0.1 (5 times higher) is not considered significant. So, in my opinion, we didnt get it this time 🙁
Hello Lynne, thankyou for your response, making myself more clear , it was unfortunate the dummy was later as other things such as temp , humidity etc may have changed. I guess I was looking at whether it could have been at the same place and time , along with the controls, just to rule out the variables .
Yes, agreed that it was such a disappointing result.
I had much higher hopes for a clear and indisputable variation between them.
For those of us who have had our confidence in the power of intention eroded, a few words of possible explanations for such disappointing results would be appreciated.
I have an easy question for you.
Since intention is supposed to work (well I myself believe in it) then how can anything be "blinded"? I.e. the person that knows what number the Targeted Beaker will have will of course share this knowledge with everyone involved that is interested to tap into this information (telepathically via the Zero point field if my memory is correct).
So if intention work, i.e. almost the same as saying that telepathy work, why, why would anyone care to to do blinded tests?? It does not make sense really....
I'd really like to see the data slides but they are not interactive and they are just too small to see. Would it be possible to post them or links to them?
Thank you.
Lynn,
First of all, I really enjoy your work and the way you popularise such an important area, but this experiment really didn't work. I agree with most of the previous critical posts. The pH and temperature changes in the graph are not what is stated in the report as regards the comparisons between Active Target and Dummy Target. I think Gary Schwarts is rather over-zealous in promoting this null result. I would try to repeat this experiment under more stringent conditions rather than a more outlandish attempt in a natural setting (with all the attendant lack of controls therein).
Keep up the good work though. Very impressive overall the past couple of years, and look forward to a new book on the Intention experiments: The Results. x
Michael Duggan Ph.D
Dearest Lynne,
As you well konw I LOVE your work and believe in it wholeheartedly.
I keep making the same request, can you PLEASE factor in to your Intention, the quark of EXPECTATION it does play a big role, but is not I admit the be all
Loving you forever Gae.xxx
Sorry Lynne... as much as want to believe that intention made a difference, the test hasn't shown this. Outsdie factors could easily explain the extremely slight difference. I do believe in the power of collective thought but for it to work, the participants must truly believe in the outcome... in this case as someone else has already said.. I think you are looking at the results through rose coloured glasses.
This is a good intention, to show that intention really manifests. It is a step in the overall process. Comments are all good and helpful for the next finetuned steps. It might also be good to include cosmic configurations at the time of the experiment. In biodynamics, earth phenomena are strongly influenced by cosmic rhythms and configurations. Positive effects may even be cancelled by eclipses, and other cosmic body configrations. More power to this initiative.
Since humanity has been seperated from their soul for such a long time and Most of the education and Religions Expand this seperation even more. there is no real power in peoples intention. As you can see in your experiment. It would take a human Years of åurification and rewiring of the brain to Come to Real results
Dear Lynne,
If I may, I suggest that for next experiment, exact words and sentences are carefully selected being aware that if we use symbols (which many are the same in the whole world), we choose them as they fit for everybody every where and if we want to lower the Ph, we do not use the term wine as it confuses the minds.
I explain,
What I want to enfasize is that the words or sentences used for the experiment were confusing.
At the beginning we heard about "turning water into wine" then it was "lowering the Ph" or getting more acidic or looking at the color of Ph etc. and it was also mentionned white wine as, may be, some were prepared to visualize red wine.
I think that all those different words and sentences were driving us in many diffrent directions and therefore underminig the experiment.
The point was that using "changing water into wine" we were either boosting or bloking the intention as it refers to a major symbol of the cristianity and I suppose that for many, in the unconscious, the idea of comparing to Jesus was not acceptable and therefor blocked.
As some here, I confess I am disapointed because it seem's to me a very small drop in the Ph.
Many thanks with love
Gilbert
[...] post: Results of the January 30 Water into Wine Experiment | The … active, actual, beaker, control, dummy, intention, january, opinion, power, results, same, [...]
did anyone actually taste both samples?
Hi
Your email address listed on your website does not work anymore. Is returned to me as undeliverable after 3 attempts.
Thanks
Dear Lynne
I'm deceived by our results. As many contributors I think that there are no significant results. Any scientific experiment is due to finish with a statistical analysis. And here, as in the previous one, we areonly offered a look at unclear images...
I have stressad before the experiment that the intentions of lowering the ph of water and changing water into wine was confusing and could prevent focusing on a single target.
I'm afraid that a real life experiment on a lake will be even more fuzzy as scientific conditions and evaluation would certainly be impossible.
Being confident that intention is working I urge you to focus on working in controlled conditions with a robust statistical analysis. I'll be happy to participate in these conditions.
Emotion is like jet fuel to intention, and in this type of experiment it would be very difficult to feel great empathy or compassion for increasing its ph -- emotion would largely be absent. I am confident the results would be very different if the experiment were centered around healing intentions towards someone in dire need, where we could feel for that person and use our love and compassion to fuel our intentions!!
its very good to see that your hard work along with your team is paying off
Hi all,
I have to agree with the naysayers. I don't see large enough results to merit applause. As I was reading the blog and looking at the graphs I was wondering why I wasn't seeing anything to get excited about. This experiment was supposed to take place in early December...it got pushed back two months and then wasn't run in a way that seems "solid". With this being the 19th experiment, it would seem that the controls should have been cleaner and that more variables should have been accounted for. I am behind this endeavor 110%, but I really want complete honesty out of the results. Also, I think the control experiments should be run prior to the intention so that NO intention or residual could account for fluctuations. I think the intention with Dr. Emoto is premature at best and that if we are going to go forward with that intention, then perhaps we could run more with Dr. Schwartz and his team concurrently. While I am aware that a small difference in pH level is enough to make a body become ill, the results of this experiment were too small to be of any true value. Just my opinion. I believe in "intention" because I have used it with positive results in my own life, I know it is valid and has amazing potential. But! I would like to see experiments and data that actually "prove" it rather than "stretch" the results and evidence. Thanks for your work and I certainly hope you continue it.
Hi,
I read this report carefully, like the others. Here I wish to criticise the science of this experiment (but not the purpose). I'm free to discuss it if you wish.
It seems that a lot of variables were not controlled, among them:
- Temperature (as you said)
- Composition of water
- Humidity of the room
- Variabilty of the meausrement (electrode)
Also, you haven't provide us with the statistics Gary produced, so this is hard to evaluate. However from the figure the differences don't seem very significant.
As a result, i think it is dangerous to conclude anything here, except the need to repeat the experiment.
Here are some suggestions for a further experiment:
- do it in a laboratory (not a desk)
- know what is in the water, preferably use distilled water
- you could use a color indicator to pH. it is a very sensitive mean to cross a pH value. You could send an intention like "turning the water in blue"
- use a stirring
- use replicates, at least for the control
- measure at least from 1h before the experiment
- use 2 or 3 electrodes per beaker
- use a continuous measuring
- reinforce "blindness of participant" and "randomness"
It would be very ambitious to do it right know in very complex conditions like in a lake.
However, I know that's not easy-to-organised kind of experiment...
Anyway, I wish you all the best for the future of your researches.
Thank you for reading.
Great experiment! In Medicine for the Earth classes with Sandra Ingerman we saw the pH of water change almost 2 full points (toward neutral pH) during a short session where we focused on transmuting personal toxins, with a beaker of acidic water in the circle of our group. Such changes also occur regularly when her groups pray over the water. A control is done, which is kept out of the room. It does not change. She has been having these results consistently with every group for years.
Dear Lynn, I think it would be imperative to accurately describe how to 1. power up and 2. how to send an intention, in the instructions that every participant will get once (s)he signs up. Refering to your book or other tutorials is not enough because probably a lot of people don't have these materials.
They get the info about the experiments from friends, and just participate improvising "how to send an intention". Some will repeat the intention phrase on and on, others will only visualize, etc. Some will power up through hearthmath, others through TM, etc...
In order to have a coherent and scientific approach of the "intention-sending-part" this should be streamlined by very clear instructions for the participants.
I look forward to the lake water experiment coming up. I would like to see you use the exact same sample of water for both the experiment and the (dummy)control. Perhaps if you took a large beaker full of the lake water and divided said beaker into four parts.
It would also be fabulous if you could get a mass spectrometer reading both prior to and after the experiment is run.
Is there a reason for running the dummy a week later? Would it not be OK to do the dummy run at the same time. You would only have to change the location to an area known only by one person who will not otherwise participate.
I agree with the many who have suggested the importance of temperature control in the room you run the experiment. Comparison of the dummy run to the experimental run are useless without knowing the ambient room temp., air flow etc.
In short:
Same sample for all runs.
Same controlled temp. for all.
Multiple measurements of pH.
Reading of exact composition of water before/after test.
As I stated at the beginning of this note, I look forward to your next experiment, in the meantime I wish much love to all and solid proof endeavoring to show scientifically what we know in our hearts.
Patty
Dear Everyone,
Thank you for taking the time and energy to put down all your interesting and thought-provoking remarks. I especially appreciate all your ideas about the design of future Intention Experiments.
I feel I should clarify some misunderstandings of our results - and indeed a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of The Intention Experiment.
First of all, let's just review exactly what we did and why we did it. A sizable group of people (and the exact numbers will be available from our web team next week), all dispersed in some 80 countries around the globe, assembled in front of their individual computers for approximately 20 minutes one Saturday and for 10 minutes of that period, sent the exact same thought to a PHOTOGRAPH of a beaker of water — not the beaker itself, just its photographic representation, sitting on the Experiment website, which is generated and manned in India.
The beaker itself was sitting in a laboratory in Tucson, approximately 5000 miles away from me here in London, UK. The chances are the beaker of water was thousands of miles away from virtually everyone who participated.
So we had the photo on a server in India, the beaker itself in Tucson, and all of you scattered all over the globe.
Nonetheless, we appeared to have some sort of a subtle effect on the water in the beaker. The readings on that beaker were different — slightly lower and more changeable — compared to the readings on the control beaker and on both beakers on a Dummy experiment run the following week.
For all those who believed that the pH of our target went up, please refer back to figure 3 and study the 10-minute Intention window, where you will see a small dip.
You'll also see a small dip during the same time frame during the temperature reading.
Perhaps the most significant result was the fact that we recorded more variation in all the readings for our target beaker, compared to the readings of the control and also compared to both beakers during the Dummy experiment.
Unlike almost every experiment on intention carried out informally or in a laboratory, our intention is generated from a remote and dispersed source. Nevertheless, we are consistently demonstrating some sort of a subtle effect on our targets.
Even if we are able to affect the water for 10 minutes only and only by two-hundreds of a pH,
that in itself is a miracle - a preposterous violation of orthodox science.
Of course, with just one experiment, it is impossible to determine if we had a true effect, or whether it was temperature, the heating inside the room, electromagnetic interference or a myriad number of other factors.
This was a simple exploratory pilot experiment, the design of which may have to be sharpened. Dr. Gary Schwartz makes no definitive claims - nor do I. Every scientist takes a stab in the dark and from that result learns what to do next.
Everyone involved with the Intention Experiment, including me, is more than happy to announce a nil effect - as I have on four occasions.
We also recognize the need to replicate experiments. We have replicated almost every experiment we've attempted (in the case of the Germination Experiment, we ran it six times) and we'll replicate this one as well. Plans are in the works to replicate those than haven't been repeated, such as the Peace Intention Experiment, a very labor-intensive project.
As I wrote in my book The Intention Experiment, what is most important in frontier science such as this is the simple willingness to ask outrageous questions, whatever the answer, and to learn from that answer so that you can formulate the next question.
What we're attempting with the Intention Experiment is to prove nothing less than the existence of a collective consciousness. We may only be able to provide a subtlest of glimmer , but that may have more to do with our study design or the limits of our technology than the extent of our true collective power.
That's why I have labeled this an 'experiment' - so we can explore its effects, no matter how subtle - and then figure out, baby step by baby step, how we can put our collective power to positive good use.
I hope that clarifies my purpose and our results. Do keep your comments coming.
Warmest wishes,
Lynne
Many thanks for your thoughtful, clarifying response, Lynne!
Is it just me or can anyone else see no significant difference in the graphs? The difference in the initial period looks greater than the changes during the experiment. I would like to see the statistical calculations to prove any significant difference. The variation in the experiment compared to the dummy is interesting though.
Dear Lynne,
I want to say thank you for making it ( mind over matter and of the collective consciousness ) work globally, so more and more people learn to focus and to train their telepathic mussel. I thank you that I am able to be part of such a big group of people with the same intention.
Warm regards to you and yours
Sylvia Hendriks
Wow, this is great. Small steps. I wish to learn more. Thank you for this.
It seems to me that most people reading this blog are supportive of Lynne's work. However, proving the actual experimental data, and or better quality graphs would remove the doubts in many people's minds. Or perhaps would convince some that the results are too small to matter. We need more information!
Excellent results, its good to see the power of intention validated.
Hi Lynne, thanks for your recent blog entry in which you clarify your findings.
You state that even if there was only a 0.02 change in pH then this is a miracle and a "preposterous violation of orthodox science". I disagree.
First, the reading depends on the accuracy of the pH meter. Usually pH is recorded only to one decimal place, as many pH meters are not sensitive to smaller changes (even though they may show two decimal places). So the meter itself will show constant little variations in pH just by chance. Perhaps you would be so kind as to report the make and model of pH meter used so we can verify the accuracy?
Second, I'm not sure you understand statistical significance. When you sample something such as pH, you will always get a slightly different reading each time you sample it (due to chance fluctuations in the thing being measured, or the measurement instrument itself). A statistical test tells you whether an observed change in the measurement is simply due to chance fluctuations, or whether this reading would be very unlikely to happen due to chance, in which case it's said to be significant.
Unfortunately it's probably difficult to do any statistical tests on these results, because as others have pointed out, the measurement period was very short, there were only two beakers, and the "control" condition was run at a different time. Also, if we assume intention has very subtle effects, any effect of intention may be hidden because of other fluctuations in pH caused by uncontrolled variables such as differences in water composition, atmospheric conditions, temperature, etc etc.
Third, you say that this experiment is only a "baby step". Considering the effort you went to recruiting people for the experiment, setting up the live video streams etc it would have been a comparatively small effort to improve the experimental design and thus improve your chances of demonstrating a solid result. Or why now make the improvements and repeat the experiment? This is the normal process of science - incrementally building on previous results, positive or negative.
Finally, you are often critical of science, yet you are attempting to use science to support the power of intention. I've noticed that if the experiments provide a positive result, then you shout from the rooftops that you have scientific support (though you are yet to publish any results in a respectable scientific journal). However, if your experiment produces a null result (as in this one), then you are quick to point out that orthodox science has many limitations. You can't have it both ways.
Figures 3 & 4.
The y-axis scale is clearly different. This can be seen by a) different number of significant figures after the decimal point and b) obviously different increments in y-axis measurement between active and dummy sessions.
What is the error range in your pH electrode.
Often these are not really accurate to ±0.1 pH units, and yet in the active experiment, the y-axis looks to have increments of ±0.0? pH units.
Have you repeated multiples times?
Can you provide the raw data?
Congratulations!
I was expecting the results for a while… Even though, I can see different data for the two beakers, the difference in the initial period looks bigger than the changes during the experiment.
I’m convinced about sending intentions for needed people, but I don’t think we can measure the changes as in a lab experiment. Anyway, I’ll continue sending my best intentions to all.
Hi everyone, I learn so much from everyone. What I enjoy so much though are the reasons that everyone comes together. The energy that makes the miracles.
Yes, I agree. Over selling rather unreliable and weak results (in my view indistinguishable from background) doesn't help promote this project.
Dear Lynne,
I really would like to be convinced but until this moment I am not. Next time it would be helpful if the graphs presented were shown larger in order to allow me to read the numbers properly which right now is not the case. I notice fluctuations but cannot even check the size of these fluctuations.
Raw water, without a buffer, is quite an unstable, delicate substance for determining the PSI effects. But you do need a delicate test for PSI.
My personal experience in the lab is that the absorbance of CO2 , agitation, prior state of the electrodes, etc. have an overwhelming effect. [I have never done PSI experiments, just prep'ing HPLC eluents, curious to see what raw water looked like.] Just counting on diffusion to get a measure of the bulk pH is rather meager science. And the list goes on and on.
Hope you can find real evidence of PSI, I think it is out there. Good Luck!
I also happen to agree with the naysayers...there's no way this test showed any significant differences and this is the type of stuff that you'll now hear Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra talking about in their PBS specials...the power of thought/intention changed water into wine...it's just not ethical to call this a meanigful difference. I truly believe in the power of intention, but like all things in the universe, there are random events that can interfere with the best of intentions.