Homeopathy 2003; 92(03): 152-160
DOI: 10.1016/S1475-4916(03)00038-9
Education and Debate
Copyright ©The Faculty of Homeopathy 2003

Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 3. Refining the quantum metaphor for homeopathy

L.R. Milgrom
1  Department of Chemistry, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received13 January 2003
revised13 March 2003

accepted07 April 2003

Publication Date:
27 December 2017 (online)

Abstract

The notion of patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement, previously proposed for homeopathy, is refined by adapting concepts derived from Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger's treatment of three-particle entanglement (GHZ states), and a generalised version of quantum theory, called weak quantum theory (WQT). These suggest that for maximum PPR entanglement during the therapeutic encounter, the practitioner's awareness needs to be directed inward as well as outward toward the patient, and that health and disease are mirror images of each other, similar to and represented by, the relationship of complex numbers to their complex conjugates.

 
  • References

  • 1 Walach H. Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 127–140, and references therein.
  • 2 Milgrom LR. Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 1: a qualitative, non-local metaphor for homeopathy based on quantum theory. Homp 2002; 91: 239–248.
  • 3 Milgrom LR. Patient–practitioner–remedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 2: extending the metaphor for homeopathy using molecular quantum theory. Homp 2003; 92: 35–43.
  • 4 Cramer JG. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 1986; 58: 647–687.
  • 5 Nadeau R, Kafatos M. The Non-local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • 6 Jean Y, Volatron F. An Introduction to Molecular Orbitals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993.
  • 7 Greenberger DM, Horne MA, Shimony A, Zeilinger A. Bell's theorem without inequalities. Am J Phys 1990; 58: 1131–1143.
  • 8 Atmanspacher H, Romer H, Walach H. Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found Phys 2002; 32: 379–406.
  • 9 Wootters WK. Quantum entanglement as a quantifiable resource. Philbs Trans R Soc London A 1998; 356: 1717–1731.
  • 10 Nielsen MA. Rules for a complex quantum world. Scientific American 2002; 287: 49–57.
  • 11 Bell JS. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. See also, Hill S, Wootters WK. Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits. Phys Rev Let 1997; 78: 5022–5025.
  • 12 Aravind PK. Borromean entanglement of the GHZ state. In: Cohen RS et al. (eds). Potentiality, Entanglement and Passion-at-a-Distance. UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997. Borromean rings appear on the coat of arms of the Borromeos family, Lake Maggiore in Northern Italy, see Supplement to Not Knot, Epstein D, Gunn G, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston, MA, 1991, p 7.
  • 13 Aczel AD. Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2003.
  • 14 Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N. Can a quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys Rev 1935; 47: 777–780. See also, Aspect A, Grangier P, Roger G. Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell's inequalities. Phys Rev Lett 1982; 49: 91–94.
  • 15 Jung CG, Pauli W. The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. New York: Pantheon, 1955.
  • 16 Josephson BD. Beyond quantum theory: a realist psycho-biological interpretation of reality revisited. Biosystems 2002; 64: 43–45.
  • 17 Atkins PW. Oxford Chemistry Guides: Concepts in Physical Chemistry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995, p 239.
  • 18 For some readable accounts of the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the following are suggested, (a) Gribbin J. Schrödinger's Kittens and The Search for Reality. London: Phoenix, 1995; (b) Gribbon J. Q is for Quantum. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1998.
  • 19 See reference 18, pp 124.
  • 20 Kent JT, Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, Lecture XXIV: Idiosyncrasies. Homeopathic Book Service, Sittingbourne, UK, 1990.
  • 21 Moynihan R, Heath I, Henry D. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. BMJ 2002; 324: 886–891; also Moynihan R. The making of a disease: female sexual dysfunction. BMJ 2003; 326: 45–47.
  • 22 Schiff M. The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science, London: Thorsons (HarperCollins), 1995 and references therein. Also, (a) Milgrom LR, King KR, Lee J, Pinkus AS. On the investigation of homeopathic potencies using low resolution NMR T2 relaxation times; an experimental and critical survey of the work of Roland Conte, et al. Br Hom J 2001; 90: 5–13; (b) Del Guidice E, Preparata G, Vitiello G. Water as a free electron dipole laser. Phys Rev Lett 1988; 61: 1085–1088; (c) See Bellavite P, Signorini A. Homeopathy: A Frontier in Medical Science. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 1995; (d) Samal S, Geckeler KE, Chem Commun 2001; 2224.