VIDEO: This video will come as a shock to the LLLT industry. Produced by Dr. Feller of Great Neck, NY

valencia · December 18, 2008

How is it that some materials have this magic property that the "new photon will be exactly like the old one" 100%, and other materials have this property as 0%? What do semi-transparent materials do?

Of course that is a nonsense.

Solid (what Feller calls surface)forms of those chemical substances might not be as porous as their gas forms, but because they are consisted of the same elements and molecules (atoms )they are still porous. If laser can travel through them, remaining laser, it can travel regardless of if they are solids or gas or liquid. Laser does transform into radiation and heat through its journey colliding with the mater (those molecules, atoms).It transforms (loses as Feller says) less when colliding with gas, then when colliding with solid, because of the COMPOSITION of those molecules atoms when they are in the aggregate of a solid. Solids have Denser composition, thus transform more of the laser energy into heat and radiation than gas does.

even glass

contains 60-75% silica, 12-18% soda, and 5-12% lime??¦.or/and high percentage of lead oxide (at least 20% of the batch)??¦. or/and borosilicate glass, is any silicate glass having at least 5% of boric oxide in its composition??¦.

But all that substances that in a glass are solids can be gas??¦for http://www.nanoscience.gatech....er/2002/02_APL_2.pdf

Feller to find the answer does LLLT laser reach the follicles 'as a laser' and if it does how much of it, one need to shift experiments on molecular scale, not what we can see with naked eye. We can't see much of laser spectrum by naked eye.

Feller says

(When light energy strikes a surface it is absorbed completely by the atoms in that material and then NEW light is produced and radiated outward. While the frequency of the new light is more or less the same as the original, the coherency of that original light energy is completely lost, and the power is attenuated with respect to the brightness of the material.) Instead, when a photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. Even if the incoming light is coherent (laser) the outgoing light will always be non-coherent UNLESS that surface is mirrored, which scalp skin clearly is no.

What is a surface sir? What do you mean when you say surface? Is for an example ice a surface? Water has the ability to exist as liquid, gas or solid. The transformation from liquid to gas is called evaporation; the reverse process, from gas to liquid, is called condensation; from liquid to solid is known as solidification (freezing); and from solid to liquid, fusion (melting). Water can also be transformed directly from solid to gas, or the reverse, through a process called sublimation. ( see these various processes in the formation of clouds.)

Feller wrote When light energy strikes a surface it is absorbed completely by the atoms in that material and then NEW light is produced and radiated outward.

1.Laser travels through cloud (atmosphere).according to Feller Laser retains VIRTUALLY ALL its characteristics

2.Laser travels through air and strikes water (liquid) surface (as Feller understands surface).according to Feller photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. meaning it is no longer laser, after that

3.Laser travels through air and strikes ice (solid) surface (as Feller understands surface). according to Feller photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. meaning it is no longer laser, after that

But ,sir, The cloud, water and ICE are consisted of the same MOLECULES and same atoms according to you completely ABSORB the (light) photon!!??

Water, cloud and ICE are all the SAME substance .Therefore you can not use the words COMPLETELY ABSORBED and RETAINS VIRTUALLY ALL when referring laser retaining characteristics when colliding with these three (just an example, I have to draw it to you like this I guess so you can understand)

Sir, GAS is a substance ALSO.WE live in gas. WE breathe GAS. ,The earth the solar system, the rocky cores of the earth, all chemical elements existing formed from the accretion of heavier material in the original proto-solar nebulous cloud of gas and dust and acted as the seeds around which the lighter material - primarily hydrogen and helium ??“ became gravitationally bound and formed solids .

You ONLY understand solids as a SURFACE.

Sir, Everything that exists was once GAS.

If you claim that laser retains all its characteristics when Traveling through GAS, you are wrong. It does not. Partially light energy is transformed to heat, radiation etc (NOT as YOU say completely lost, Sir energy can not be LOST, can ONLY be transformed).

Sir, It is the same for the SOLIDS. Traveling through solids Laser light energy is transformed to heat, radiation etc not COMPLETELY LOST SIR, not lost even one bit, energy does not 'disappear', it gets transformed).

You do NOT know basics of Physic. You do not know how to debate.

You Insult people who never gave you reason for that.

You think that your claim is sound. Publish it in a scientific paper then.

You think that your claim is sound. Bet then with GH as you proposed your self.

Don't INSULT the man by calling him phony. He never called you names, SIR.

When you hold peace of skin if front of the laser,see picture in your post, and say ??¦see laser COMPLETELY GONE.. laser is COMPLETELY GONE ,BECAUSE,WE don't SEE it any more.

you overlook something Sir

Know this basic fact ,SIR, we are blind to many wavelengths of light. Visible light waves are the only electromagnetic waves we can see

Actually as already note in this forum,what we actually see is visible radiation. A display or graph of the intensity of visible radiation emitted or absorbed by a material as a function of wavelength or some related parameter. You can not see the light it self ,you only see its interaction with mater which results in radiation .

Proof that laser (or light) interacts with molecules when traveling through AIR therefore,Sir,is because we see it (it is visible to US).Do not claim nonsense,that laser retains VIRTUALLY all power (100% as YOU say) traveling through air.And do not claim nonsense that is not longer a laser when traveling through solids (or surface as you understand solids) or liquids .It is not as YOU say'completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. meaning it is no longer laser, after that'

What the hell do you mean by surface?

Mater?

Everything you see or know about is MATER and ENERGY.In fact mater and energy are the SAME THING.

In physics, mass??“energy equivalence is the concept that any mass has an associated energy and vice versa. In special relativity this relationship is expressed using the mass??“energy equivalence formula

' E = energy,

' m = mass,

' c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas),

You take your video for 'REVISION' sir. Or, publish it in science journal.

Don't spill venom on people calling them names.That is not cool.Your potential patients don't want someone with rage and anger,holding scalpel on their skin ,typing here in between surgeries.

valencia · December 18, 2008

PGP

Oh Im not a advocate of lllt. Thats some buuuuuuuuullllllsh*t

Ill give you credit though your not as transparent as some of these other fools

PGP

When you were staring into your little gun and that little laser pointer attached to it yesterday??¦ you lost any credit you might have had before. So you are NOT correct and you can't give any credit to any fools??¦rather they could lend you some ??¦

GreyHunk · December 18, 2008

There are also materials, like glass, that absorb light and transmit all it's original charachteristics through itself for great distances (think fiber optics).

I can't get past this thing... Shouldn't we then add air to the list of those magic materials?

Dr. Feller, are we reading the same posts? You know different molecules and electrons are involved when it gets into your eyes than mine? But we still call the concept of a "post" the information, not the material.

Is the sound that gets into your ears the same as the ones said by a friend in your room? You know the wave is transferred through multiple molecules passing the wave. Yet, we model the world by calling "sound" the abstract phenomenon as it carries through this wave.

Are you the same person that you were 10 years ago? You know most of your cells and probably all of your atoms and molecules have been replaced; in that sense even the concept that we know as "Dr. Feller" or GreyHunk has more of an informational quality than material.

Light itself is unique in having both matter-like and wave-like quality. Even if this photon-theory with "surfaces" stopping light would be valid, you'd have to say the original light is gone when it hits the laser lens, and a new light ray -- same in characteristics -- is created, then on the next molecule of the lens, then on the next, then at the first molecule of the air, and the next, and the next. Yet you call it simply just the same light up till it hits the first "surface" (solid surface? whatever that may mean, I am still not sure); apparently this works fine as the physical concept of "light" even for you. So if we are OK with having this abstract concept of light (unrelated to the actual indistinguishable photons) in air, why don't we just call it the same light also then (like the rest of the world does) when it hits one of them magic solid materials like the "glass"?

And if it only keeps some of the more important properties (say, spectrum and phase) -- and only fails to keep the direction and gets say polarized, call it, let me think, let me pick a good word: yes, how about "reflected" or "refracted"? It would be a whole lot easier to not talk past each-other.

PLEASE GROW PLEASE · December 18, 2008

Valencia , Im not looking for credit .

Obviously you are ,problem is your longwinded posts are irrelevant .

This is a HAIRLOSS forum so people only care what lasers do to hair .

NOTHING ELSE!

This thread is about the video so I see why your posting but Im so glad that you and Greyhunk know that lasers for hairloss is a HUGE moneymaking SCAM.

Thats all that matters on here and Im happy we can all agree of that

Dr. William Lindsey · December 18, 2008

I can tell you what happens when you expose human tissue to laser light of sufficient strength. It heats the skin by the light be absorbed by various pigments (blood, tattoo marks) or water.

This is quite effective at VAPORIZING epidermis and dermis and leaving scar tissue; or a raw surface that can heal by the migration of surrounding skin onto the wound surface. It is also quite effective at vaporizing genital and pharyngeal warts.

But when the clinician treats any of these conditions, whether they are wrinkles, dilated capillaries, warts, or even localized cancers, the effect is obvious. The area being targeted vaporizes into a cloud of smoke, possibly containing infectious viral particles--hence the need for smoke evacuators and special surgical masks.

That is what happens when laser light impacts human tissue with sufficient strength. With less power, heat is not sufficient to vaporize the target....nothing happens.

Now one might argue that lower power laser light may actually heat the target rather than vaporize it. That would make sense, but extrapolated to LLLT, that would suggest that the mechanism for its "effectiveness" is heating the scalp. It would not be the "magic" of the laser whose energy is lost on contact with the scalp...not down several millimeters.

If indeed heating the scalp is all you need to grow hair, how come so many golfers, who don't wear hats, living in my area and farther south....need hair transplants?

Lasers sound fancy, but we all know that the acronym stands for: Last Attempt to Stimulate Every Referral (LASER)

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

GreyHunk · December 18, 2008

Originally posted by dr. lindsey:
I can tell you what happens when you expose human tissue to laser light of sufficient strength. It heats the skin by the light be absorbed by various pigments (blood, tattoo marks) or water.

Dr. McLean, I must disagree. In addition to those effects at certain wavelengths and applications, etc. light, as well as laser (as laser) does penetrate the skin, and there are physiological effects that I can find very plausible and believable. Search for LLLT with RA, that has numerous publications from respected sources in peer-reviewed publications and repeated studies suggest the benefits. There are a few hypotheses on what the mechanism of action is, and those are also quite plausible, one such example is that it may promote ATP production.

I do find it plausible to some extent that it may even slightly stimulate growth of HEALTHY hair, but doubt it at cosmeticly significant levels. I don't believe that treating MBP, especially with cheap lasers in those combs is effective.

But the reason for its ineffectiveness is not that laser doesn't penetrate into skin "as laser" or not that it cannot have distinct physiological effects there (as opposed to placebo non-laser lights), there is scientific proof to the contrary with RA.

Bill - Seemiller · December 18, 2008

Can we please keep the nonsense out of this post?

GreyHunk,

I think it would be better to make all your points in one post and then wait for a reply before posting again and again.

Valencia,

People might actually read your posts if they were shorter and on topic.

What do you all think...

Do we let this topic live or has it run its course and is it time to lock it?

Bill

hairthere · December 18, 2008

I think enough has been said on the subject. These two (valencia/greyhunk) are not even here to debate the efficacy of laser on hairgrowth (at least that's what they claim), but to debate on the validity of dr. feller's experiment.

thanatopsis_awry · December 18, 2008

Because the thread is now, principally, a debate between Dr. Feller and GreyHunk (I don't think Valencia is being taken seriously in the context of this thread and the spirit of it) I'd say Dr. Feller and GreyHunk should reach a mutual agreement to either continue, and, if not, I could see locking it.

Part of the "agreement" should also, IMO, include a streamlining of the core point and issue they are raising to help any continued debate be more apprapo.

EDIT -- it's been a very interesting thread to say the least, and considering the level of complexity and passion put into it I think it's been quite civil.

valencia · December 18, 2008

But I am on the topic

Why are you like that...putting me down...is it because I am blonde,and a girl?

valencia · December 18, 2008

give me some....credit...common

thanatopsis_awry · December 18, 2008

Hahaha, maybe that came off a bit harsh....but, in the interest of the thread's continuation and my suggestion it makes the most sense to narrow the players down to Feller/Grey!

Bill - Seemiller · December 18, 2008

I don't have a problem continuing this thread if it can stay on course and accusations stop.

I want to make it clear that I understand and agree with Dr. Feller's point that anyone affiliated with the laser industry needs to be divulged in their forum signature. This is made clear in our terms of service.

But this thread is devoted to the mechanics and efficacy of laser therapy, not the identify of individuals. Continue debating the science and let's be respectful toward one another.

Best wishes,

Bill

PLEASE GROW PLEASE · December 18, 2008

I do find it plausible to some extent that it may even slightly stimulate growth of HEALTHY hair, but doubt it at cosmeticly significant levels. I don't believe that treating MBP, especially with cheap lasers in those combs is effective

and then you go but careful: if a detergent is using deceptive advertisment it doesn't *necessarily* mean it doesn't work at all .

Come on greyhunk you know you want to scream outloud so bad what you really feel.

Ive got you pegged as someone who was hired to dispute this video because it was the final kick in the nuts for lllt.

You keep throwing in these little comments because you want people to think it "could" have some effect on hair knowing that some goofs will take a shot

You remind me of this coral calcuim commercial that sold this stuff for 50 bucks a bottle and even had its own halfhour tv paid advertisment about it . It was from some shore off of Japan and it was praised for every ailment known to man and it was only available on tv. It wa even said to rid of cancer

Next thing you know it was knocked down to 29.99 then 19.99 at healthfood stores .

Then I saw it at Walmart for 9.99 then on a clearance at GNC for 6.99 .

Then I heard a radio commercial that would send you a free bottle if you only paid the 4.99 shipping cost.

This is what your doing. Your trying to get that last batch of gullible people to fall for these laser toys .

Obviously the laser industry has took a HUUUUUUUGE hit from this forum and now you are helping those scam artists

sell the last batch .

You mean to tell me you and blonde just stumble across this site . You Greyhunk say your a sceintist well how does a scientist just find this laser video.

You havent made one post on anything else but this .Whoever directed you here just lost thier money cause you have shown your true colors.

Im a huge sports fan but I dont go looking on cars.com for a scoreboard update . Why would a laser fanatic be looking on a hair forum for a laser debate

We all see right through you and blonde.

No go back trying to cure real diseases.

PEOPLE DONT FALL FOR THIS BS . YOU WILL WASTE YOUR MONEY. YOU WOULD GET BETTER RESUTLS SPREADING CHIA SEEDS ON YOUR HEAD.

Just dont forget to water

thanatopsis_awry · December 18, 2008

PGP on a rampage of late...well done....

Bill - Seemiller · December 18, 2008

PGP,

As much as I enjoy reading your posts, what did this post have to do with debating the science of lasers?

This thread is getting filled with members on one side of the argument hurling insults at members on the other.

Please feel free to contribute to the debate. But bring it back on topic and discuss Dr. Feller's video and laser mechanics.

Thanks,

Bill

PLEASE GROW PLEASE · December 19, 2008

Obviously Im going to have to give you a pair of xray glasses Bill.

How come hes always adding his comments about it potentially helping hairloss in every other post IF this is just a discussion about mechanics.

Common Bill your brighter then that my friend

You dont ONLY debate mechanics and add comments like this

I do find it plausible to some extent that it may even slightly stimulate growth of HEALTHY hair, but doubt it at cosmeticly significant levels. I don't believe that treating MBP, especially with cheap lasers in those combs is effective

and then you go but careful: if a detergent is using deceptive advertisment it doesn't *necessarily* mean it doesn't work at all .

Bill - Seemiller · December 19, 2008

PGP,

The issue of laser therapy and whether it works for hair loss is actually the point behind discussing the mechanics and science of lasers.

Hurling insults at one another isn't.

Make sense now?

Bill

PLEASE GROW PLEASE · December 19, 2008

I understand that . So I geuss there are still some people out there that realy think lasers should even be discussed anymore for hairloss.

Havent we all been convinced yet?

For something that doesnt work theres alot of time spent on it.

Go ahead guys/girls and show us how intelligent you are

When your done typing open your eyes and do some research and youll easily see you wasted lifes precious time on a silly toy

Desperately Seeking Hair · December 19, 2008

I want some frickin sharks with some frickin laser beams attached to their heads, alright?

Vasilius · December 19, 2008

D.S.H. -

Thank you.....thank you......

We needed a good laugh.

-Vasilius

GreyHunk · December 19, 2008

Hey, good morning everyone.

I read through this debate on the debate itself.

I think we should be in agreement in the following on the topic and its rules:

<LI> This topic is about the video.

Dr. Feller has spent time and effort to create a video, that he genuinely believes is a correct scientific explanation that shows clearly that LLLT cannot work and posted it here.

He himself declared this rule on this topic vehemently, so everyone, including himself should stick to that.

Things not directly related to the video should not be discussed in the topic. Such things not are, among other things other circumstancial an especially non-scientific evidence about LLLT not working. I think there are plenty of other topics for that.

I believe -- hope -- that it was not simply put here to collect applaud and cheers from supporters of his cause, but for critique and discussion as well.

It is also irrelevant if I have an interest or I am a payed advocat of the LLLT industry, or I am just a nut debating for the debate, as well as it is irrelevant also the Dr. Feller has an interest or not to discredit LLLT. I myself don't care about it much; since if I am thought to be not from the LLLT industry, the argument was that "but noone is here from the LLLT industry to defend it, that proves the video is correct", and when I was thought to be "well his arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, he is payed to confuse people".

<LI> The issue between me and Dr. Feller is that I believe the video is unscientific and in fact attempt to prove something that's simply not even true. His whole argument is based on the false belief that the laser suddenly gets converted to "regular light" immediately when it hits any (maybe solid?) surface; and therefore any light reaching below the surface of the skin is always the same phyisical quality and therefore incapable if having any physiological effect. This is scientifically ridiculous. Therefore the video -- regardless of good causes, actual truths about LLLT in general, or specifically the laser hair grow industry -- doesn't discredit LLLT, but discredits science and Dr. Feller himself, or anyone who endorses this video in his or her fight against LLLT.

Now back to the topic. Putting the video through scientific scrutiny, Dr. Feller defended his claims and here is where we are.

Originally posted by Dr. Alan Feller:
Greyhunk,

To understand the flaws in your theory you need to learn some basic optical physics.

To the uninitiated, the truth about light is counter-intuitive, but I assure you the following is how nature really works:

When light energy strikes a surface it is absorbed completely by the atoms in that material and then NEW light is produced and radiated outward. While the frequency of the new light is more or less the same as the original, the coherency of that original light energy is completely lost, and the power is attenuated with respect to the brightness of the material.

This is the case for ALL light no matter it's frequency, power, polarity, modulation, or other forms including COHERENCY.

Coherency is just a fancy word for photons that travel in phase. A device that produces coherent light is called a LASER. Another term for coherent light is 'columnated' light.

If the red dot on the black screen you see in my video were actually laser light (coherent), it would continue across the room until it hit the first obstruction and appear as yet another red dot. But that's not what happens. Instead, the light on the black screen simply radiates out as standard, non-coherent, light no different than a red light bulb or LED.

Light does NOT bounce off surfaces like a tennis ball does. That is, when light is said to be reflecting off a surface, it's not as if the light struck the surface and then did a 180 degree turnabout like a tennis ball would. That's what intuition tells you is happening, but that's not REALLY what happens.

Instead, when a photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. Even if the incoming light is coherent (laser) the outgoing light will always be non-coherent UNLESS that surface is mirrored, which scalp skin clearly is no.

Your theory is flawed in that you believe that MORE coherent light was absorbed by the black cloth than my white skin. What you don't understand is that it doesn't matter what color the material is, or even if the light source was coherent or not, ALL of the energy will be absorbed by the atoms in the surface. Some of that energy will be converted to brand new photons and radiated out, most of the rest will be converted to heat and radiated out at different frequencies. That's ALL that happens at the atomic level, and none of this conversion, also known as quantum dynamics, has any magical effect on the atoms themselves. None.

Dark surfaces simply don't re-radiate light as efficiently as light colored surfaces. But that DOESN'T mean that the coherency quality of the light was 'captured' and absorbed intact. The material has no idea what form the photons entered the material in. Once the first photon encountered the first atom in the surface, the coherency was totally lost.

What the LLLT industry and all other LLLT advocates don't understand is that coherent light is only coherent as long as it isn't striking a surface. Coherent light has no magical properties, it is just one of many forms of energy that is only useful to us because light energy in this form doesn't disperse as quickly as standard monochromatic light.

Coherent light will not impart 'coherent-ness' to it's target, because in the end it just comes down to the interaction between one atom and one photon. It doesn't matter if the photons came to the dance in an orderly straight line (coherent) or in a disorderly group (non-coherent). The atom has no idea whether the photon came alone or with friends. It doesn't care. It will process one atom at a time and wait for the next one. There is no magical phenomenon created here.

It is my understanding that Dr. Feller explained that the way he believes light works is that photons are travelling through air (somehow uninterrupted? pls. clarify), and when they hit a surface (i.e. the first atom, rather molecule of that material?), the molecule will absorb the light and convert it to antother form of energy, most often reemit a new photon, but that no longer has the same properties (wavelength, polarity, phase). This is why laser is "instantly" converted to light when it hits "any surface". To the mistery of glass and mirrors, he explained, that some materials have a unique property that the reemitted photons will "copy" the properties of the one that was absorbed, but we still know somehow that it is not the same photon. He makes it seem that there are transparent materials such as glass, that have this property, and mirror, that does it, but reemits the new photon in a specific direction, and then there are the "regular" materials that don't have this property, none, 0% -- obviously crucial as if the skin could do it even partially, replicating the properties even of a small percentage of photons, some photons with "laser quality", although copied multiple times, could still reach the follicles, breaking the whole argument.

In addition, he believes that coherency is not about the frequencies being synchronized as I explained with the bridge and marching example, but it is simply another fancy word for being parallel, or "columnated", and is a property that can simply be demonstrated by it being seen as a red dot.

Dr. Feller, tell me if and where I misunderstood your explanation of light and transparency in general. From your explanation I see it as in my attachment, but feel free to fix it if it is wrong.

Specifically I am trying to understand where air fits in in this theory, and what do we need to mean when we say "surface". Is air like glass, that it has this magic property, or are photons really going uninterrupted in a "gas"? How does Dr. Feller believe these molecules are spatially? Are they somehow very sparsely in a gas, letting light through uninterrupted as in the attachment, and dense, like a brick wall in "solid material", so that once we hit a "surface", we immediately run into a molecule that absorbs and reemits it?

If the attachment is wrong, and air is more like glass, then what do we mean by "light" at all, if it keeps getting absorbed and reemitted by the "atoms" in air too?

Dr. Feller, I am waiting for the clarifications.

And the bet is still open, let me not forget that.

valencia · December 19, 2008

GreyHunk

Don't steal my arguments

I was first stating that solids,liquids and gas are consisted of SAME molecules.What makes difference is the relationship between those (on molecular level) and density.

And I said if laser travels through gas (atmosphere retaining as Feller claims 100% "laser quality"-which is power output and coherency)how come "instantly" disperses when hits same molecules in different agregate form

(my example with water ice and clouds.

Here it is any one can see going through the posts: