Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1016/j.homp.2017.01.002
‘Unconventional’ experiments in biology and medicine with optimized design based on quantumlike correlations
Subject Editor:
Publication History
Received16 August 2016
received10 December 2016
accepted06 January 2017
Publication Date:
20 December 2017 (online)
In previous articles, a description of ‘unconventional’ experiments (e.g. in vitro or clinical studies based on high dilutions, ‘memory of water’ or homeopathy) using quantumlike probability was proposed. Because the mathematical formulations of quantum logic are frequently an obstacle for physicians and biologists, a modified modeling that rests on classical probability is described in the present article. This modeling is inspired from a relational interpretation of quantum physics that applies not only to microscopic objects, but also to macroscopic structures, including experimental devices and observers. In this framework, any outcome of an experiment is not an absolute property of the observed system as usually considered but is expressed relatively to an observer. A team of interacting observers is thus described from an external view point based on two principles: the outcomes of experiments are expressed relatively to each observer and the observers agree on outcomes when they interact with each other. If probability fluctuations are also taken into account, correlations between ‘expected’ and observed outcomes emerge. Moreover, quantumlike correlations are predicted in experiments with local blind design but not with centralized blind design. No assumption on ‘memory’ or other physical modification of water is necessary in the present description although such hypotheses cannot be formally discarded.
In conclusion, a simple modeling of ‘unconventional’ experiments based on classical probability is now available and its predictions can be tested. The underlying concepts are sufficiently intuitive to be spread into the homeopathy community and beyond. It is hoped that this modeling will encourage new studies with optimized designs for in vitro experiments and clinical trials.
^{a} The concomitant consideration of these two principles (independence of the outcomes relative to O and O′ and intersubjective agreement) implies that the ‘shared reality’ of O and O′ does not preexist to their interaction from the point of view of P. This is a characteristic of quantum measurements. In the language of quantum mechanics, the ‘state’ of O would be said ‘superposed’ before interaction (idem for O′); O and O′ would be said ‘entangled’ after interaction.
^{b} Note that for a number of observers N > 2, they interact anyway by pairs; this equation will be useful for N = 0.
^{c} This means that the probability to observe ‘↑’ is not null, even if this probability is very low.
^{d} We assume here that probability after fluctuation n + 1 is dependent on probability after fluctuation n; this will be justified in the section “Which experimental systems are appropriate for ‘unconventional’ experiments?”
^{e} The remote supervisor should not be confused with the uninvolved observer P who describes the experiment. Indeed, P has no interaction with the system and the team members and, from his point of view, labels and corresponding outcomes remain undefined.
^{f} Note that Rovelli's interpretation preserves the principle of locality; therefore, quantum correlations cannot be considered in this framework as ‘non local’.

References
 1 Ball P. H_{2}O: a biography of water. UK: Hachette; 2015.
 2 Teixeira J. Can water possibly have a memory? A sceptical view. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 158162.
 3 Shang A., HuwilerMuntener K., Nartey L. et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebocontrolled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005; 366: 726732.
 4 Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 577582.
 5 Mathie R.T., Lloyd S.M., Legg L.A. et al. Randomised placebocontrolled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and metaanalysis. Syst Rev 2014; 3: 142.
 6 Hahn R.G. Homeopathy: metaanalyses of pooled clinical data. Forsch Komplementmed 2013; 20: 376381.
 7 Hansson S.O. Homoeopathy and consumers' right to know. J Intern Med 2013; 274: 493.
 8 Beauvais F. Ghosts of molecules – the case of the “memory of water”. Collection Mille Mondes. (ISBN: 9781326458744); Available at: http://www.millemondes.fr 2016
 9 Demangeat J.L. Gas nanobubbles and aqueous nanostructures: the crucial role of dynamization. Homeopathy 2015; 104: 101115.
 10 Cartwright S.J. Solvatochromic dyes detect the presence of homeopathic potencies. Homeopathy 2016; 105: 5565.
 11 Aïssa J., Litime M.H., Attias E., Allal A., Benveniste J. Transfer of molecular signals via electronic circuitry. Faseb J 1993; 7: A602.
 12 Benveniste J. Ma vérité sur la mémoire de l'eau. Paris: Albin Michel; 2005.
 13 Del Giudice E., Preparata G., Vitiello G. Water as a free electric dipole laser. Phys Rev Lett 1988; 61: 10851088.
 14 Temgire M.K., Suresh A.K., Kane S.G., Bellare J.R. Establishing the interfacial nanostructure and elemental composition of homeopathic medicines based on inorganic salts: a scientific approach. Homeopathy 2016; 105: 160172.
 15 Milgrom L.R. Gold standards, golden calves, and random reproducibility: why homeopaths at last have something to smile about. J Altern Complement Med 2009; 15: 205207.
 16 WeatherleyJones E., Thompson E.A., Thomas K.J. The placebocontrolled trial as a test of complementary and alternative medicine: observations from research experience of individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2004; 93: 186189.
 17 Walach H. Magic of signs: a nonlocal interpretation of homeopathy. Br Homeopath J 2000; 89: 127140.
 18 Atmanspacher H., Römer H., Walach H. Weak quantum theory: complementarity and entanglement in physics and beyond. Found Phys 2002; 32: 379406.
 19 Walach H. Generalized entanglement: a new theoretical model for understanding the effects of complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 549559.
 20 Walach H., von Stillfried N. Generalised quantum theory – basic idea and general intuition: a background story and overview. Axiomathes 2011; 21: 185209.
 21 Milgrom L.R. Patientpractitionerremedy (PPR) entanglement. Part 1: a qualitative, nonlocal metaphor for homeopathy based on quantum theory. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 239248.
 22 Milgrom L.R. Journeys in the country of the blind: entanglement theory and the effects of blinding on trials of homeopathy and homeopathic provings. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2007; 4: 716.
 23 Hyland M.E. Extended network generalized entanglement theory: therapeutic mechanisms, empirical predictions, and investigations. J Altern Complement Med 2003; 9: 919936.
 24 Weingartner O. What is the therapeutically active ingredient of homeopathic potencies?. Homeopathy 2003; 92: 145151.
 25 Beauvais F. A quantumlike model of homeopathy clinical trials: importance of in situ randomization and unblinding. Homeopathy 2013; 102: 106113.
 26 Beauvais F. Description of Benveniste's experiments using quantumlike probabilities. J Sci Explor 2013; 27: 4371.
 27 Thomas Y. From high dilutions to digital biology: the physical nature of the biological signal. Homeopathy 2015; 104: 295300.
 28 Thomas Y. The history of the memory of water. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 151157.
 29 Chaplin M.F. The memory of water: an overview. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 143150.
 30 Fisher P. The memory of water: a scientific heresy?. Homeopathy 2007; 96: 141142.
 31 Poitevin B. The continuing mystery of the memory of water. Homeopathy 2008; 97: 3941.
 32 Poitevin B. Survey of immunoallergological ultra high dilution research. Homeopathy 2015; 104: 269276.
 33 Schiff M. The memory of water: homoeopathy and the battle of ideas in the new science. London: Thorsons Publishers; 1998.
 34 Beauvais F. Quantumlike interferences of experimenter's mental states: application to “paradoxical” results in physiology. NeuroQuantology 2013; 11: 197208.
 35 Beauvais F. Memory of water and blinding. Homeopathy 2008; 97: 4142.
 36 Jonas W.B., Ives J.A., Rollwagen F. et al. Can specific biological signals be digitized?. FASEB J 2006; 20: 2328.
 37 Beauvais F. Emergence of a signal from background noise in the “memory of water” experiments: how to explain it?. Explore (NY) 2012; 8: 185196.
 38 Belon P., Cumps J., Ennis M. et al. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multicentre trial. Inflamm Res 1999; 48 (01) S17S18.
 39 SainteLaudy J., Belon P. Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions. Homeopathy 2009; 98: 186197.
 40 Rovelli C. Relational quantum mechanics. Int J Theor Phys 1996; 35: 16371678.
 41 Smerlak M., Rovelli C. Relational EPR. Found Phys 2007; 37: 427445.
 42 Breuer T. The impossibility of accurate state selfmeasurements. Philos Sci 1995; 62: 197214.
 43 Laudisa F., Rovelli C., In: Zalta E.N. (ed) Relational Quantum Mechanics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2013 edn. Available at:. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/qmrelational/.
 44 Fisher P. Local, entangled or both?. Homeopathy 2013; 102: 8586.
 45 Thieves K., Gleiss A., Kratky K.W., Frass M. First evidence of Beauvais' hypothesis in a plant model. Homeopathy 2016; 105: 270279.