From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience green.svg

This pseudoscience related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Of course, it's important to note that a suspension in water looks just like semen - David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this article needs some good old fashion RW editing. tmtoulouse 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The snark is already exquisite, treat it carefully - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
So it it is...I missed it at first. tmtoulouse 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a really bad idea to have multiple sections with the same name. Will it break the exquisite snark if I fix this? ħumanUser talk:Human 09:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Try it and see. This isn't rocket surgery. Doctor Dark (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


The Ormus believers (Hudson et al.) write monoatomic, not monatomic.--P. Wormer (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do they? Eegh. Perhaps they mean something different then! That explains EVERYTHING! - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed to "mono". That's how I spell it. If I'm wrong, please revert. EVERYTHING! ħumanUser talk:Human 09:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the distinction to be of VAST IMPORTANCE (e.g. to how it resembles semen), so have made a note to this effect - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
We rational people spell monatomic, while Ormus believers spell monoatomic. It can indeed well be, as suggested by David, that the Ormusians think of something spiritual or ethereal when they write monoatomic. --P. Wormer (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC) (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Attractive interactions

The experiments led by Randall Hulet at Rice University from 1995 through 2000 showed that lithium condensates with attractive interactions could stably exist, but only up to a certain critical atom number. Beyond this critical number, the attraction overwhelmed the zero-point energy of the harmonic confining potential, causing the condensate to collapse in a burst reminiscent of a supernova explosion where an explosion is preceded by an implosion. By quench cooling the gas of lithium atoms, they observed the condensate to first grow, and subsequently collapse when the critical number was exceeded.

Further experimentation on attractive condensates was performed in 2000 by the JILA team, consisting of Cornell, Wieman and coworkers. They originally used rubidium-87, an isotope whose atoms naturally repel each other, making a more stable condensate. Their instrumentation now had better control over the condensate so experimentation was made on naturally attracting atoms of another rubidium isotope, rubidium-85 (having negative atom–atom scattering length). Through a process called Feshbach resonance involving a sweep of the magnetic field causing spin flip collisions, they lowered the characteristic, discrete energies at which the rubidium atoms bond into molecules, making their Rb-85 atoms repulsive and creating a stable condensate. The reversible flip from attraction to repulsion stems from quantum interference among condensate atoms which behave as waves.

When the JILA team raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, expelling off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud.[16] Carl Wieman explained that under current atomic theory this characteristic of Bose–Einstein condensate could not be explained because the energy state of an atom near absolute zero should not be enough to cause an implosion; however, subsequent mean field theories have been proposed to explain it. The atoms that seem to have disappeared almost certainly still exist in some form, just not in a form that could be accounted for in that experiment. Most likely they formed molecules consisting of two bonded rubidium atoms.[23] The energy gained by making this transition imparts a velocity sufficient for them to leave the trap without being detected. (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC) The above post is from Wiki Bose Einstein condensate. Consider that water dimers have been discovered by Russian scientists in the atmosphere to explain the radiation discrepancy.

I fail at humor?[edit]

Definitely there are some funny remarks in the comment sections, but they are commenting claims that are not even made by Hudson, so the debunking in ineffective. They are made by "second-order quacks", e.g. those who can't even come up with an original scam idea and end up exploiting someone else's. When you read the transcripts of his presentations, Hudson only makes analogies to various mythical substances, but doesn't claim levitation, telepathy, etc.

My version is at User:Tweenk/ORMUS rewrite. --Tweenk (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is possible I am just being too precious with the original. Took me about the third call-and-response, but I was laughing out loud after that. Maybe I'm wrong and your version is just better. Anyone else got an opinion? - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Sense the unilateral award giver seems to have departed, I nominate this article for bronze status. The unbusinesslikeman of business 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

i thought we din't have to nominate articles for bronze, we could just do it if it fits the criteria. Silver and gold still need to a argued about, though. or something. — Unsigned, by: Real first name and last initial / talk / contribs 2011-07-23T20:05:03

Errors in Definitions and Understanding[edit]

I have gotten deep into this subject and find this post to contain embarassingly poor research and misleading representation. To separate fact from internet fiction, I have actually met or conversed at length with David Hudson, his PhD expert materials extraction chemist, a former NASA science manager who made the substance under a US Navy research grant, and the former roommate of the individual who ingested the substance and experienced interesting mental abilities. First, Ormus is a cult substance created by an individual, Barry Carter,,who,to my knowledge, has little training in chemistry or physics. Ormus is nothing more than milk of magnesia (magnesium hydroxide) containing background trace elements all precipitated out of solutions of aqueous seawater, bulk rock salt, Dead Sea salt or similar sources by adding lye (sodium hydroxide). It is promoted as a miracle cure by the unscrupulous. Ormus and Ormes are represented by this crowd to be the same thing. They are not. Ormes, or Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements, as David Hudson named these compounds, is likely a gold or platinum group element allotrope, and do exist. It cannot be purchased, and vendors claiming to sell it are usually selling an unassayed powder, often ormus. "Ormes" is not easy to manufacture and all of the knowledgeable players refuse to divulge process specifics. My research indicates David Hudson did, indeed, come across unknown allotropic forms of gold and PGE's. His PhD chemist did extract them and further proved their existence using carbon arc spectroscopy. The former NASA manager made the gold allotrope for the Navy at Cal Tech's chemistry department (with Hudson's process help). These are all documentable facts. The individual experiencing supernormal psychological skills is anecdotal, subject to replicable experimentation. Bottom line, ormus is bogus. "Ormes" is real. I believe a new page should be written removing the ormus hype from "ormes". Desertdweller (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Desertdweller

Documentable facts or documented facts? Where are the "documents"? Please present published (and preferably peer reviewed) proofs of the existence of Ormes. Especially a reliable report on how "unknown allotropic forms of gold" were discovered by carbon arc spectroscopy will make thrilling reading. It will be fascinating to learn how electric sparks may distinguish the different crystal and amorphous forms of solid gold.
I like to add that in my view as retired professor of quantum chemistry the term "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements" is rather unfortunate (an understatement): elements are by definition monoatomic (or is monatomic something else?). In the second place, the two words "orbitally rearranged" taken together are meaningless. The concept of "orbital" belongs to an approximate model (the "independent particle model"), an orbital is not a physical observable. Electrons may be rearranged over orbitals (within the independent particle model, that is), but orbitals cannot be rearranged, they are simply mathematical functions used in an approximate description of the physical reality of atoms, molecules, and crystals. In the third place, as soon as you speak of allotropy you speak of the solid state. What is the meaning of a "monatomic element" in a solid, is it not bound to other atoms and no longer mon(o)atomic? --P. Wormer (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny farm[edit]

As a farmer came up with this - if it did work 'working class practical people' (including smiths) would have discovered the processes and put them to use 'a long time ago', even if they did not know why it worked.

QED ideas very wrong.

And is it 'chemicals used' or 'used chemicals' (ie the unwanted byproducts)? (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment from[edit]

This website is for armchair critics that are clueless about reality - that is the bottom line. Get paid to be trolls for the gov much? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

We're getting paid? Since when? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)