Resonance-matched stimulation and standardized coherence-induction protocols are predicted to yield higher composite multiscale coherence index κΔ than amplitude-matched frequency-offset controls and surrogate null models after multiple comparisons correction.
Presents a mechanism-agnostic, falsifiable protocol for testing cross-domain phase coupling between physiological oscillations, environmental electromagnetic variability, and water-adjacent readouts.
Updated from: ∆.72 Coherence Physics, Time as Vibration, Water as Recorder (V1.4). Summary of changes in V1.5: This release refactors the manuscript from a conceptual framing into a preregisterable, falsification-forward methods paper. Language implying broad claims (e.g., “biofield,” “water memory,” and geometry as “amplification”) is replaced with strictly operational definitions and mechanism-agnostic scope. The protocol is strengthened with explicit blinding, sham exposures, contamination and temperature controls for water-adjacent readouts, and matched-control difference-of-differences requirements for enclosure/boundary-condition testing. The analysis plan is tightened via prespecified estimators, surrogate/phase-scrambled null models, primary decision rules, artifact controls (including coil-on baselines), and multiple-comparisons correction. Figures were updated clearer domain mapping.
Allison Hensgen (Mon,) conducted a other in Healthy adult participants in controlled environment. Resonance-matched electromagnetic stimulation and standardized coherence-induction protocol vs. Amplitude-matched frequency-offset stimulation and surrogate null models was evaluated on Within-subject difference in composite multiscale coherence index (ΔκΔ) across physiology, environment, boundary condition, and water-adjacent persistence readouts. Resonance-matched stimulation and standardized coherence-induction protocols are predicted to yield higher composite multiscale coherence index κΔ than amplitude-matched frequency-offset controls and surrogate null models after multiple comparisons correction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: