Re: "The results may also be relevant to research into molecular and biological systems in aqueous solutions and provide insight into protein folding, for example."

Yes, but you won't get there without a single mention of hydrophilic surfaces, since water appears to exhibit a highly structured state for literally millions of molecules around them. This has been the big discovery which is almost certainly going to do away with these mechanical pump and channel notions associated with cell membranes. It's not that there are pumps and channels actively shifting ions across the membrane in order to maintain ionic gradients; proteins structure the water of the cell's cytoplasm into a gel state, and gels come, naturally prepackaged, with these ionic gradients.

People might actually be seeing things which look like pumps and channels, but they are not maintaining the ionic gradients. Why would nature pay for something it can get for free?

They tried to fix something that worked. Typical. Now, back to hydrogen permeates everything and is always driving around looking for a parking spot.

A computer model cant prove or falsify anything, it can only provide hypotheses for testing. The empirical result of only 2 bonds needs to be challenged with an empirical observation of 4 bonds. This work was an complete waste of time; get back to the lab and fire up the x-ray machine!

A computer model cant prove or falsify anything, it can only provide hypotheses for testing. The empirical result of only 2 bonds needs to be challenged with an empirical observation of 4 bonds. This work was an complete waste of time; get back to the lab and fire up the x-ray machine!


I'm not sure of the absorption regime in the XRay method, but isn't it possible that the use of xrays is responsble for the observed results in the experiment? That the energy added to the water molecules caused the temporary cancellation of the tetrahedral-bonding?

This work is very far from a waste of time. All spectroscopic experiments need to be interpreted by modeling the electronic structure of the probed system and the interaction between probe and target. This modeling is in essence done by solving the many particle Schrödinger equation numerically. This nonsense attack on simulations must be stemming from ignorance on the physics involved here. The suggested two bond model was also concieved this way.

There is certainly nothing wrong with computer simulations as it is our way to verify acquired knowledge. When the simulation doesn't behave the way nature does than we know we're missing something. Besides, it does not take that long to translate a few formulas and algorithms into a computer program. On the other hand it is impossible for any of us to give credit of any related findings without taking a close look at the implemented code.

This work is very far from a waste of time. All spectroscopic experiments need to be interpreted by modeling the electronic structure of the probed system and the interaction between probe and target. This modeling is in essence done by solving the many particle Schrödinger equation numerically. This nonsense attack on simulations must be stemming from ignorance on the physics involved here. The suggested two bond model was also concieved this way.



Sigh ... there is a difference between using a computer to interpret results and using a model to create results.
The two bond observation wasnt suggested by a model you fool; it directly contradicts the models! Thats the whole point!
To claim that an experimental result being interpreted by computer is somehow equivalent to claiming the output of a simulation can invalidate an experimental result is a shamefull anti-scientific 'bait and switch' and all intelligent people can see through it.