Homeopathy 2004; 93(03): 154-158
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2004.03.002
Education and debate
Copyright ©The Faculty of Homeopathy 2004

Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 6. Miasms revisited: non-linear quantum theory as a model for the homeopathic process

L.R. Milgrom
Further Information

Publication History

Received04 September 2003
revised28 October 2003

accepted08 March 2004

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)


The possibility that non-linear quantum theory could be used to model PPR entanglement is discussed in relation to the treatment of miasms. In this model, miasms are imagined as disease entities behaving like solitary waves, or ‘solitons’ which, when trapped in a therapeutic state space, requiring equally soliton-like (miasmatic or high potency) remedies to effectively ‘annihilate’ them.

  • References

  • 1 (a)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 (b)Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 3. Refining the quantum metaphor for homeopathy. Homp 2003; 92: 152–156 (c)Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 4. Towards classification and unification of the different quantum models for homeopathy, submitted for publication to Homp 2004; 93: 34–42
  • 2 (a)Walach H. Magic of signs: a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Br Hom J 2000; 89: 127–140, and references therein (b)Walach H, Entanglement model of homeopathy as an example of generalised entanglement predicted by weak quantum theory, Forsch Komp Klass Natur 2003; 10: 192–200.
  • 3 Hyland M. A brief guide to extended network entanglement theory as a theory of healing and its empirical predictions. Forsch Komp Klass Natur 2003; 10: 201–206, and references therein; See also, Hyland ME. A connectionist theory of asthma J Clin Exp Allergy 1999; 29: 1467–1573 Hyland ME. The intelligent body. New Scientist, 2001; 170: 32–33.
  • 4 Atmanspacher H, Römer H, Walach H. Weak quantum theory; complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found Phys 2002; 32: 379–406.
  • 5 Wackermann J, Seiter C, Keibel H, Walach H. Correlations between brain electrical activities of two spatially separated human subjects Neurosci Lett 2003; 326: 60–64.
  • 6 Cramer JG. Quantum nonlocality and the possibility of superluminal effects. Proceedings of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop, Cleveland OH, August 1997, pp 1–6.
  • 7 (a)Gribbin J. Q is for Quantum. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1998 (b)Al-Khalili J. Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 2003.
  • 8 Aspect A, Grangier P, Roger G. Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen-Bohm Gedanken experiment: a new violation of Bell's inequalities. Phys Rev Lett 1982; 49: 91–94.
  • 9 Bell JS. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
  • 10 Nadeau R, Kafatos M. The Non-local Universe: The New Physics and Matters of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  • 11 Cramer JG. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Rev Mod Phys 1986; 58: 647–687.
  • 12 Green NJB Quantum Mechanics 1: Foundations. Oxford Chemistry Primers Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
  • 13 Weinberg S. Precision tests of quantum mechanics. Phys Rev Lett 1989; 62: 485.
  • 14 Polchinski J. Weinberg's non-linear quantum mechanics and the Einstein–Rosen–Podolsky paradox. Phys Rev Lett 1991; 66: 397.
  • 15 (a) Briggs J, Peat FD. Turbulent Mirror. New York: Harper & Row, 1990, p 119 (b) Pain HJ. The Physics of Vibrations and Waves, 5th Edn. Chichester: Wiley, 2002.
  • 16 Wooters WK. Quantum entanglement as a quantifiable resource. Philos Trans R Soc London A 1998; 356: 1717–1731, and references therein.
  • 17 Stegeman GI, Segev M. Optical spatial solitons and their interactions: universality and diversity. Science 1999; 286: 1518–1523.