Tracking Water Molecules Could Unlock Secrets

ScienceDaily is reporting that several new discoveries about the simple molecule of water have kicked off a surge in research that scientists believe could lead to solving some of the world's most tricky problems from agriculture to cancer. "Understanding how individual water molecules maneuver in a system to form fleeting tetrahedral structures and how changing physical conditions such as temperatures and pressures affect the amount of disorder each imparts on that system may help scientists understand why certain substances, like drugs used in chemotherapy, are soluble in water and why some are not. It could also help understand how this changing network of bonds and ordering of local tetrahedrality between water molecules changes the nature of protein folding and degradation. 'Understanding hydrophobicity, and how different conditions change it, is probably one of the most fundamental components in understanding how proteins fold in water and how different biomolecules remain stable in it,' says Kumar. 'And if we understand this, we will not only have a new way of thinking about physics and biology but also a new way to approach health and disease.'"

Re:Hmm...

[MozeeToby]

I'm sure someone will say it more seriously than you are, so let me just point out right away, the structures that the scientists are describing are fleeting, lasting for billionths of a second before breaking down and reforming with different water molecules. In short, even if the structure of these bonds could effect the body (and that's a big if), you'd have to deliver the water to the problem area within a billionth of a second for it to do anything.

Re:Physics anyone?

[FooAtWFU]

No. The point of quantum mechanics was the quantization, with all those little quanta (discrete particles). Hence the name. The uncertainty principle, moreover, has a numeric quantity behind it which describes exactly how much you can hope to measure in a specific measurement. The physics of hydrophobia/hydrophilia and molecular biology in the aggregate is quite discoverable.

Re:Physics anyone?

[The_Wilschon]

I'm not certain, but I suspect that this is an instance of a relatively new field called "mesoscale physics". This deals with systems on scales between the atomic or single molecule level and the thermodynamic level. Quantum effects are significant, but not as dominant as in atomic (and smaller) physics, but you don't have the advantage of having enough particles to use average statistical behaviour in place of a complete description (ie no thermodynamic limit). It is very very difficult, and it is only recently that we have the tools to begin tackling these sorts of problems. We had one faculty member working on this in my department, but she has recently departed for another university.

Re:Hmm...

[Lil'wombat]

Maybe. Check out this explanation:

http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/ [howdoeshom...hywork.com]

maybe they'll rediscover "polywater"

[peter303]

Polywater [wikipedia.org] was the "cold fusion" of the 1960s. There is a new age fad called structured water [greenplanetparadise.com]too.

Re:Please

[rodarson2k]

It also bears mention that when you're making nonsensical claims about things that you fix, you are supposed to choose "from A to Z", not "from A to C". Even if cancer is more widely feared than zoonotic disease.

Re:Physics anyone?

[Roger W Moore]

Quantum mechanics is only in effect when considering things even smaller then atoms.

No, as a fundamental law of physics quantum mechanics is always "in effect" - otherwise it would not be a fundamental law. Classical mechanics is just the approximation of quantum mechanics for incoherent states with very large quantum numbers, but it is still quantum mechanics. Of course it is also possible, perhaps even likely, that Quantum Mechanics itself may turn out to be an approximation of some more fundamental physics but if that is the case we haven't seen any evidence of it yet.....other than our annoying inability to come up with a working quantum theory of gravity.

Re:Polywater

[Opyros]

bees have been "proven" not to be able to fly

Well, not exactly. [paghat.com]

Re:Polywater

[c6gunner]

Polywater is supposed to be one of those "unobtaniums", theoretically impossible - but then again, bees have been "proven" not to be able to fly.

People like you make my head hurt.

It's just mind-boggling to me that such an obvious and completely asinine urban legend is STILL being repeated some 70 years after it was first invented. I can understand young children repeating everything they're told ... but judging by your user number, you're probably older than I am. Stop and think before you speak!

What I find interesting is that this opens up at least the possibility of that old sci-fi standby (really old - I haven't seen a reference to it in modern sci-fi) of polywater.

No, it doesn't. As Feynman said, if pollywater were possible, we'd have an animal that doesn't eat. It would just drink normal water and excrete polywater, living off of the energy released in the process.