Originalarbeit · Original Article
Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 2003;10:192–200
Entanglement Model of Homeopathy as an Example of
Generalized Entanglement Predicted by Weak Quantum
Theory
H. Walach
Samueli Institute–European Office, Institut für Umweltmedizin und Krankenhaushygiene, Klinikum der Universität, Freiburg i.Br.
Key Words
Entanglement · Quantum mechanics · Weak quantum theory ·
Homeopathy · Semiotics
Summary
Homeopathy is scientifically banned, both for lack of consistent em-
pirical findings, but more so for lack of a sound theoretical model to
explain its purported effects. This paper makes an attempt to intro-
duce an explanatory idea based on a generalized version of quan-
tum mechanics (QM), the weak quantum theory (WQT). WQT uses
the algebraic formalism of QM proper, but drops some restrictions
and definitions typical for QM. This results in a general axiomatic
framework similar to QM, but more generalized and applicable to
all possible systems. Most notably, WQT predicts entanglement,
which in QM is known as Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlated-
ness within quantum systems. According to WQT, this entangle-
ment is not only tied to quantum systems, but is to be expected
whenever a global and a local variable describing a system are
complementary. This idea is used here to reconstruct homeopathy
as an exemplification of generalized entanglement as predicted by
WQT. It transpires that homeopathy uses two instances of general-
ized entanglement: one between the remedy and the original sub-
stance (potentiation principle) and one between the individual
symptoms of a patient and the general symptoms of a remedy pic-
ture (similarity principle). By bringing these two elements together,
double entanglement ensues, which is reminiscent of cryptographic
and teleportation applications of entanglement in QM proper.
Homeopathy could be a macroscopic analogue to quantum telepor-
tation. This model is exemplified and some predictions are derived,
which make it possible to test the model.
© 2003 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg
Fax +49 761 4 52 07 14 Accessible online at:
E-mail Information@Karger.de www.karger.com/fkm
www.karger.com
Schlüsselwörter
Verschränkung · Quantenmechanik ·
Verallgemeinerte Quantentheorie · Homöopathie · Semiotik
Zusammenfassung
Die Homöopathie wird wissenschaftlich nicht ernst genommen.
Dies liegt zum einen daran, dass empirische Befunde nicht konsis-
tent und nicht ausreichend stark sind. Zum anderen ist es aber auch
wesentlich darauf zurückzuführen, dass kein ernst zu nehmendes
theoretisches Modell existiert, das die behaupteten homöopathi-
schen Effekte plausibel machen kann. Diese Arbeit versucht, einen
solchen theoretischen Erklärungsansatz einzuführen. Er stützt sich
auf eine explanatorische Idee, die sich aus der verallgemeinerten
oder schwachen Quantentheorie herleitet, die unter dem Namen
«weak quantum theory» (WQT) von uns publiziert wurde. WQT ver-
wendet den Formalismus der algebraischen Quantentheorie im ei-
gentlichen Sinne, lässt aber einige Beschränkungen und Definitio-
nen fallen, die typisch für die Quantenmechanik (QM) sind, so etwa
das Planck´sche Wirkungsquantum oder die Addierbarkeit von Zu-
standsoperatoren. Durch diese Verallgemeinerung ergibt sich ein
Formalismus, der ähnlich dem der eigentlichen QM ist, der aber
weiter und allgemeiner anwendbar und im Grunde für alle Systeme
gültig ist. Insbesondere sagt dieser Formalismus der WQT Ver-
schränkung vorher, die in der QM als Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
(EPR)-Korrelation bekannt ist. Nach der WQT ist Verschränkung als
Phänomen nicht auf Quantensysteme im eigentlichen Sinne be-
schränkt, sondern tritt in jedem System auf, in dem eine globale
und lokale Beschreibung (oder Observable) zueinander komple-
mentär sind. Diese Idee wird hier aufgegriffen und dazu benützt,
Homöopathie zu rekonstruieren als ein Beispiel generalisierter Ver-
schränkung, wie sie von der WQT vorhergesagt wird. Es zeigt sich,
dass Homöopathie als ein System verstanden werden kann, das
eine zweifache generalisierte Verschränkung benutzt: diejenige zwi-
schen Arzneimittel und Substanz (Potenzierungsprinzip) und dieje-
nige zwischen individuellem Symptomenbild und Arzneimittelbild
(Ähnlichkeitsprinzip). Durch die Verbindung dieser beiden Elemente
entsteht eine Situation der doppelten Verschränkung, die an krypto-
graphische und Teleportationsanwendungen von EPR-Verschrän-
kungen innerhalb der QM erinnert. Homöopathie könnte also ein
makroskopisches, generalisiertes Beispiel von Teleportation sein,
wie sie innerhalb der QM diskutiert wird. Das Modell wird ausge-
führt und erläutert, und einige empirische und theoretische Konse-
quenzen ergeben sich daraus, die empirisch testbar sind.
PD Dr. Dr. Harald Walach
Klinikum der Universität
Institut für Umweltmedizin und Krankenhaushygiene
Hugstetterstr. 55, D-79106 Freiburg
Tel. +49 761 270-5497, Fax -7224
E-mail walach@ukl.uni-freiburg.de
Weak Quantum Theory
Quantum Mechanics and Its Generalization
Quantum mechanics (QM) is a theory of matter, which in a
more recent form is formulated algebraically. It is effective
and powerful because it is restrained to be applicable only
within a specified realm of validity, within which mathematical
operations can be carried out and formalized argument and
logic can be used. It is probably one of the most successful
theories ever constructed by scientists, and has stood many
hundreds of empirical tests of predictions derived from it. This
does not mean that QM is the only way in which material real-
ity can be conceived and described. Neither does it mean that
QM gives the ‘true’ picture of reality, let alone the only possi-
ble one. But it is a starting point for a possible generalization
to realms other than material reality and to systems in a very
general sense. Thus, QM also provides a theoretical structure
which can be used in a generic form and which if used in that
way describes systems in a general way, irrespective of their
material (or non-material) make-up, their size or their func-
tion. Such a generalized framework has been described as
‘Weak Quantum Theory’ (WQT) [1]. One of the features of
this approach is that it keeps some central elements of QM
and incorporates them into the algebraic formalism of WQT,
while dropping some of the restrictions typical for QM proper,
like Planck’s constant. One of the elements adopted from QM
by WQT or the generalized version of QM (note that in the
following I will use the term ‘WQT’ and ‘generalized version
of QM’ interchangeably) is the fact that it incorporates the
handling of non-commuting or complementary observables.
The axiomatic framework and the formal treatment for what
is claimed in this paper is given in [1], and for reasons of gen-
eral readibility and comprehensibility the formal argument is
not repeated here. Instead, the technically interested reader is
referred to the original publication.
Complementarity and Entanglement
Complementarity is at the heart of QM proper, since it is the
reason for uncertainty relations typical for QM [2]. For it is
complementary variables, like position and momentum, that
create the uncertainty relations of the Heisenberg type. This
means that precise knowledge of one variable precludes pre-
cise knowledge of the other variable in the same measurement
experiment [3]. Mathematically this is formalized as an alge-
bra of non-commuting operations, non-commuting meaning
that the sequence of the measurements of two complementary
variables makes a difference. If we decide to measure position
first we do not know a particle’s momentum precisely, and
vice versa. Thus, ‘non-commuting’ and ‘complementary’ are
synonymous notions within QM, sometimes also denoted as
‘incompatible’. Complementarity was Bohr’s way to take
apart elements – like position and momentum – which in clas-
sical mechanical descriptions had been together, because in
QM they cannot take defined values at the same time with ar-
Entanglement Model of Homeopathy
bitrary precision [4]. Yet, both aspects of a pair of comple-
mentary observables are needed to give the full picture of
what we are able to say about reality. In other words, comple-
mentary variables are not only maximally incompatible in the
sense that the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of
the other variable (in the same measurement experiment), but
they are also both needed to describe the full picture and thus
are both requirements for a holistic view of reality [5].
This leads to the strange situation first pointed out by Einstein
et al. [6] that complementary variables are at the base of en-
tanglement and result in non-local correlations, also called
EPR-correlations. Entanglement means that elements of one
system remain correlated in their behavior, as predicted by
theory, as long as the holistic structure of a system is not bro-
ken by a measurement process. Moreover, strictly speaking it
does not make sense to talk about ‘elements of a system’ be-
cause by virtue of the QM formalism those ‘elements’ are
treated as one holistic system, and the elements are only con-
stituted as separate by definite measurement decisions. Thus,
if one of two entangled parts of a system is measured or other-
wise manipulated, the corresponding part behaves in a certain
correlated fashion, predicted by theory. For this to happen a
quantum system can be widely distributed in space and time,
and still exhibit this strangely entangled behavior.
It is important to note here that entanglement does not oper-
ate via signals, which would be an operation obeying the local-
ity principle or a local operation, but non-locally, via holistic
correlations. Entanglement is a special case of complementarity
and occurs if variables that describe one global and one local
aspect of the system are complementary. Entangled parts of a
system act coherently, as it were, without the need to orches-
trate their actions by signals mediating them. They are corre-
lated by the very make-up of their structure. While this notion
of entanglement is well known within QM and meanwhile an
empirically demonstrated fact [7], it is unclear, exactly when
this entanglement decays and how far its outreach is. This area
is currently one of hot debate known by the term ‘decoher-
ence’. The question here would be: Precisely when do those
entangled states become so weak or thinned out that we do
not realize them in our everyday world and experience the
presence of separated objects which can be acted upon as dis-
tinct entities? More simply put: Precisely when does the world
of Newtonian physics emerge out of the world of QM? There
seems to be general agreement that entanglement in the strict-
ly quantum mechanical sense is fading away, as a system inter-
acts with other systems and is not shielded well enough
against its environment. Following this line of reasoning of
quantum mechanical entanglement proper, there is little scope
of using EPR correlations for explaining large and partly clas-
sical interacting systems like doctors, patients and homeopath-
ic remedies. And it is very important to notice and realize that
this is exactly not the way entanglement is used here. I rather
adopt the generalized version of quantum mechanics, which is
applicable to all sorts of systems, and the generalized version
Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 193
2003;10:192–200

Fig. 1. A schematic and graphical representation of the meaning of ge-
neralized entanglement. The black squares represent elements described
by local variables or observables that are complementary (black arrows)
to the description of the whole system (circle). Hence they are entangled
(round arrows), while other elements of the system (large rectangles or
fuzzy objects) are not. For reasons of clarity other routes between squares
are omitted.
of entanglement derived from it. Generalized entanglement,
according to WQT, can happen in all sorts of systems, provid-
ed the general preconditions hold. Thus generalized entangle-
ment is not simply (and inadequatly) an extrapolation of EPR
correlatedness proper to non-quantum systems. It is rather an
extrapolation of the formal structure used by QM proper to
other systems, that predicts entanglement also in those sys-
tems, if some preconditions hold. Thus, generalized entangle-
ment is more like a general template of which QM entangle-
ment would be a very well defined instance.
A Generalized Version of Entanglement
Therefore, the WQT approach is different: WQT proceeds
from the assumption that the generalized framework of QM
can be useful in general, even for systems other than material
ones, especially if complementary variables are to be expected
within such systems. The idea that complementarity or non-
commuting operations or variables can be expected outside
QM is intuitively clear, but it is difficult to say how to define
or formalize this. Different areas of practical importance for
humans are representative of complementary relationships.
The classical antithesis of individual and society, or individual
subject and group, the moral antithesis of love and justice, the
therapeutic antithesis of diagnosis and treatment, the systems
theoretical concepts of novelty and confirmation, or con-
stituent and system, are all examples of complementary no-
tions. This means that both elements are necessary to describe
the full situation, although they are maximally incompatible.
Maximal incompatibility is more than a simple negation or
predicative contradiction. To speak in a quasi-geometric anal-
ogy: Negation or contradiction can be viewed as two extreme
ends of one continuum, as used in visual analogue scales. In-
194 Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd
2003;10:192–200
compatibility refers to orthogonal concepts which are situated
in a different plane altogether. Nevertheless complementary
elements are both needed to describe the situation in full.
Niels Bohr, who introduced the concept of complementarity
to QM [8], chose as his coat of arms the Chinese Yin-Yang
symbol with the Latin inscription ‘contraria sunt complementa
– opposites are complementary’ [9].
It is important at that point to pause for a minute and distin-
guish several semantic layers of the term ‘complementarity’:
In QM proper strong complementarity is operative. The com-
plementarity between position and momentum, for instance, is
an irreducible aspect of matter and not only due to our lack of
knowledge. The same is true for the complementary descrip-
tion of the wave and particle nature of photons or indeed any
subatomic particle. This fundamental level of reality is nor-
mally referred to as ‘ontic’ level [1]. From this we can discern
a weaker version or an epistemic notion of complementarity.
The term ‘epistemic’ refers to our knowledge of a system.
While two aspects may be epistemically complementary, they
might, on an ontic level, be one and the same, but we cannot
say anything about it, for lack of knowledge of that ontic level.
Most of the examples mentioned above – the complementari-
ty between individual and society, novelty and confirmation,
love and justice, and many others – fall in that category. We
can distinguish a third meaning from those two technical us-
ages of the term complementary, and this is a rather trivial and
loose one. Examples of that loose and trivial usage of comple-
mentarity are the two sides of a coin, which cannot at the
same time be visible, or the fact that a door cannot be open
and closed at the same time. It is not always easy to distin-
guish trivial and loose versions of complementarity from rich
epistemic notions. One distinguishing element is the fact that
whenever complementarity is an essential element of descrip-
tion, non-commutativity holds, that is, the sequence of ‘mea-
surements’ makes a difference and changes the situation.
While for a coin it does neither change its size, value, or mate-
rial composition, whether I view it first heads or tails, for ontic
and epistemic notions of complementarity sequence this does
matter, and hence non-commutativity is a defining element.
While trivial examples of complementarity are not important
in any sense, QM proper addresses ontic and epistemic levels
of complementarity. WQT addresses mainly epistemic levels
and leaves the question open, whether there are also ontic lev-
els of complementarity. Due to the generalized nature of QM
used in WQT, the question whether complementarity is ontic
or epistemic cannot be addressed and solved. However, WQT
still offers a way of dealing with epistemically complementary
observables and predicts that they produce entanglement
within a system, independent of its ontic make-up. Thus, most
examples of complementarity encountered through the formal
treatment of systems according to WQT will in fact reveal
richly epistemic descriptions of complementarity, but they will
not pose any ontic claims about these systems. Nevertheless,
and contrary to first intuitions of many physicists, entangle-
Walach
ment is predicted also for those more general examples. To
distinguish these examples from proper QM examples, we
refer to them as examples of ‘generalized entanglement’. The
claim of the formal treatment of WQT as in [1] is that such
generalized entanglement will result also in certain instances
of epistemically complementary situations and not only in sit-
uations treated by QM proper, where complementarity reigns
on an ontic level.
Thus, we expect that a formalized theory like WQT which is
able to deal with complementary variables is useful beyond
QM proper. This, then, is the approach taken by WQT. It
adopts the notion that non-commuting variables are possible,
indeed necessary to describe some situations, and expected for
many contexts other than the description of material process-
es. One prediction following this formalization is analogous to
QM. It predicts entanglement within any system governed by
complementary relationships. More precisely: Whenever with-
in a system there is a global variable describing the complete
system and local variables describing parts of the system, then
entanglement ensues within the system. Figure 1 represents this
situation graphically and schematically.
If this prediction of WQT is not a truism and at all relevant as
well as true in the sense that it reflects some aspect of reality,
then we should be able to both use it as an explanatory struc-
ture for phenomena badly understood so far as well as to
make predictions which can be empirically tested. And it is in-
deed necessary to underline at this point that the generalized
version of entanglement, which I use here, is at the moment a
pure prediction in analogy to QM proper. While QM entan-
glement has been tested and verified experimentally, general-
ized entanglement is only a theoretical option, derived from
the formal framework of WQT. However, it can be tested ex-
perimentally, because it makes definite predictions about cer-
tain situations. At the moment, we can use generalized entan-
glement only as an explanatory tool and test its explanatory
power as to different phenomena, which have been badly or
not at all understood until now. In what follows I would like to
use homeopathy as an example in which WQT can unfold
both explanatory and predictive strength. Lest readers accuse
me of undue speculation I repeat here that these explanatory
structures are at the moment purely theoretical and founded
on derivations from an axiomatic framework modelled ac-
cording to QM. They are valid and useful inasmuch as gener-
alized entanglement will be experimentally proven to be a real
phenomenon. Experimental tests of that statement are in the
process of being conducted.
Homeopathy as an Example of a Generalized Version of
Entanglement
Homeopathy: A Short Introduction
Homeopathy is considered to be a (para-)medical discipline
following the rule of similars and using potentized substances
Entanglement Model of Homeopathy
which purportedly carry some ‘information’. The rule of simi-
lars was known long before the invention of homeopathy by
Hahnemann, but it was Hahnemann’s genuine insight into
how to operationalize it: He used the remedial substances of
his days and what he later on thought might be useful as a
remedy, gave these substances to volunteers, so called
‘provers’, and observed the symptoms they experienced. This
is what homeopaths call a proving, traditionally, or a patho-
genetic trial more recently [10]. The symptoms collected that
way make up the homeopathic materia medica, the body of
knowledge about remedies. In the case of an ill patient the
symptoms the patient exhibits are matched with the symptom
picture produced by the remedies in healthy volunteers. By
serendipity Hahnemann discovered that when he prepared
the substances in a certain way, by stepwise diluting and suc-
cussing them, and later on by triturating them in lactose, they
become more active and powerful. He called those remedies
potencies or dynamisations of the remedies, and nowadays
most homeopathic remedies are used in potentized form, al-
though treatment with mother tinctures and crude substances,
as well as low potencies that contain molecules of the original
substance can also be homeopathically indicated.
To date, empirical investigations have shown conflicting evi-
dence concerning its efficacy, which is more akin to the empir-
ical database of parapsychology [11] than that of medicine. Al-
though some empirical evidence exists which makes the state-
ment plausible that something other than chance fluctuation
goes on in homeopathy, it is very difficult to pinpoint homeo-
pathic effects in experimental models. It was argued that very
likely homeopathy is not a causal phenomenon but has more
similarity with magic and paranormal phenomena [12].
What is in itself interesting is how something that is not found-
ed on at least a partial grasp of reality could survive two cen-
turies, as homeopathy has done, in the face of strong academic
and political opposition, if there wasn’t a grain of truth in it.
Historical research has pointed out that at the same time Hah-
nemann developed homeopathy other theories like Browni-
anism were much more influential and were adopted by the
majority of academic medical teachers and intellectuals. Yet
because of the lack of therapeutic effects these died out with-
out leaving any trace in modern practice [13], while homeopa-
thy is on the rise. This is so, despite the American Medical As-
sociation’s witch-hunt against homeopathy during the last cen-
tury [14], or despite the fact that there is little official academ-
ic research and structural support. The renaissance of
homeopathy is completely consumer driven, due to word of
mouth of therapeutic effects, and certainly also because it fits
certain world views [15, 16]. Thus we face the situation that
homeopathy, as a medical theory, is only weakly supported by
experimental facts, and highly endorsed by circumstantial and
anecdotal evidence which is unique in the history of medicine
over such a long time. Although many other therapeutic prac-
tices were used for a long time, some of which were even
harmful, like bloodletting, the situation with homeopathy is
Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 195
2003;10:192–200
 law of
similars
similarity
remedy symptoms
sign sign
matching
object meaning meaning object
substance remedy remedy
picture
Fig. 2. Semiotic triad of homeopathic process – two semiotic processes
(object, its sign and meaning) are linked by the law of similars.
altogether different. Those practices were backed by a theory
and only partially by empirical experience. They were
dropped not as a consequence of empirical research, but as a
consequence of change in therapeutic theory. With homeopa-
thy neither a change in therapeutic background theory, nor
negative experimental results have changed the climate of
public acclaim together with professional disdain.
Explanation: Homeopathy as Enactment of Double-
Entangled States
This points to the fact that some other phenomenon might be
operative here, which is the reason why we propose to look at
it in terms of an entanglement model along the lines of WQT.
This is, how a theoretical reconstruction along those lines
might proceed:
The systems aspect of homeopathy is rather obvious. It is a
strong ritual, a healing system of its own with clear rules and
precepts. In homeopathy remedies are used according to the
simile rule which states that in the case of illness the symptoms
of an ill patient have to match the signs which have been ob-
served in healthy volunteers ingesting a certain substance, ei-
ther in crude form or potentized. The potentization principle
states that by stepwise diluting and succussing of a substance
the resulting remedy becomes more active, even beyond Avo-
gadro’s number. The latter yields the number of molecules per
mol of substance and in reverse the boundary dilution from
which onward no molecule of the original solution can be ex-
pected statistically. In applying a potentized remedy according
to the simile rule, then, a homeopath uses something which is
not present any more – a substance diluted out – to treat a
symptom picture, which in the past and in other people was re-
lated to this very substance. This is a double-semiotic structure
that has been elaborated on elsewhere [17]. ‘Semiotic’ means
here that the basic relationship is the one of a semiotic triad
developed by Charles S. Peirce [18], who pointed out that the
semiotic triad of object, sign, and the meaning of the sign is
universal. It can be applied to homeopathy in that the homeo-
pathic remedy can be construed as a sign for an object, the sub-
stance, conveying a certain meaning, the remedy picture. In the
same sense the symptoms of a disease are the signs of that dis-
196 Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd
2003;10:192–200
ease, with a certain meaning, namely the remedy indicated.
Both are matched by the law of similars (fig. 2).
There are multiple modes of entanglement present here:
A) The remedy itself is something like a magical presence of
the past, at least in the case where ultra-high dilutions are
used (note that in the case of low dilutions there might be a
mix of entangled states and signalling processes via mole-
cules). We have a general descriptor of something that is not
disease present any more, by virtue of Avogadro’s number, and a local
descriptor of something that is used as if it were present. One
way of interpreting complementarity here would be temporal,
then, as something, which used to be present but is not any
more. Thus, the homeopathic remedy might itself be an entan-
gled system by virtue of the process of stepwise dilution and
succussion used for the preparation, producing a magical pres-
ence of the substance without the actual material presence.
Then this substance is brought into a relationship with a par-
ticular diseased organism exhibiting special signs, which in
other cases were related to and brought about by this sub-
stance, as represented in the knowledge system of homeopa-
thy and its materia medica.
B) This therapeutic rationale of homeopathy might enact an-
other entangled state between substance and diseased organ-
ism, but in this case ‘transferring’ the symptoms from the or-
ganism back to the substance. If this is true, then, homeopathy
would be an ingenious system of using entangled states not to
induce something, but to exduce symptoms, as it were. In that
case, the substance which is not present, that is the homeo-
pathic remedy, would become a kind of receptacle which ‘ab-
sorbs’ symptoms, insofar as they are related by similarity, the
more so, the less the likelihood of material presence in the
remedy, or, in homeopathic parlance, the higher the potency.
In homeopathy, then, we would have a double entanglement
situation: The remedy is an entangled state itself between ac-
tual remedy and original substance (a). This is achieved by po-
tentization. The homeopathic ritual enacts another entangled
state between the symptomatology of the patient and the re-
medial substance (b). This is the similarity principle. Only this
entanglement functions in reverse order. The (unwanted)
symptomatology of the diseased organism is ‘transferred’ via
the entanglement produced by the therapeutic ritual from the
organism back to the remedy field, as it were.
This analysis makes obvious that homeopathy hinges on two
separate exemplifications of generalized entanglement and thus
is in a double sense vulnerable to actions disturbing entangle-
ment or to incomplete production of entanglement. The first
one is that of the remedy production process. Entanglement
could be described here by the global variable ‘no substance
present’ and the local variable that the remedy is really treated
as if it were a remedy with ‘something’ in it. Another way of re-
constructing would be that of a global variable ‘specific remedy’
and the local variable ‘no substance present’. Thus, the first part
of the generalized entangled state (a) depends on the proper
production process and is intimately connected to the ritual of
Walach
remedy producing. It follows that a more dedicated, more pre-
cise and more time- and energy-consuming production of reme-
dies should produce better remedies. One prediction would be
that remedies which are produced by hand, by trituration or
other complicated procedures should be more effective than
those coming from industrial production with succusion ma-
chines or sonicated production. Thus the first part of the entan-
gled state depends on a correct production process that is possi-
bly helped by a pseudo-causal theory, which Walter von Lu-
cadou has called a pseudo-machine [19].
Let us pause here to note that it is possible to use different
modes of reconstructing entanglement in a system. It might
also be possible that the consciousness of the persons active in
the production and application process plays a role. We have
deliberately left consciousness out here to show that by only
focusing on the technical aspects of homeopathy a reconstruc-
tion in terms of generalized entanglement is already possible.
This does not mean, however, that the theoretical reconstruc-
tion offered here is the only one possible; indeed other ways
using similar considerations have been offered already [20].
The second type of entanglement, that between symptoms and
remedy picture, depends on the global description that the
whole symptom picture – that of the patient and that of the
remedy – is coherent, i.e. that there is sufficient similarity
(global variable), and the local description that the symptom
picture is individual (local variable), since the symptoms of
the patient are new and unique. The complementarity here is
between uniqueness/individuality and similarity/globality.
One part of this second generalized entangled system depends
on knowledge and technicalities, namely of finding the correct
remedy in order to link remedy picture and symptom picture
of the patient. This link has to be sufficiently strong as well as
sufficiently correct and similar such that one single global de-
scription ensues, namely the remedy picture. The other part is
rather simple and of a defining nature. For by the very nature
of being individual symptoms the local description of the sys-
tem is always complementary to the remedy picture. The rem-
edy picture contains symptoms collected in the past and by
other subjects; thus, they are temporally and factually differ-
ent. The individual symptoms are complementary to the reme-
dy picture in the sense that they are not common and general-
izable, but very individual, idiosyncratic exemplifications of
the generic remedy picture. The individual symptomatology is
in the same sense complementary to its common denomina-
tor, the remedy picture, as individual and society, freedom and
responsibility, singularity and communion are complementary
notions [21]. Thus the individual symptom picture and the
commonality of the remedy symptoms or materia medica are
the complementary descriptions that create the entangled
state of the second entangled system (b). But this entangle-
ment is, as it were, a negative one and blots out the individual
symptomatology, absorbing it, so to speak, in its common de-
nominator. The success of this second entanglement depends,
on the one hand, on the technical correctness of finding the
Entanglement Model of Homeopathy
common denominator or the similar remedy, and on the cor-
rectness of the individual symptomatology. That is, the patient
and the doctor must have hit the nail and have found out the
decisive, individual symptoms during the case-taking inter-
view. This aspect of creating entanglement is more deeply con-
nected to the technically correct application of the rules of
homeopathy. It can be disturbed by many aspects, like con-
necting a patient’s symptoms to the wrong remedy picture, or
by not finding the truly individual nature of the patient’s suf-
fering. If this entanglement between remedy picture and indi-
vidual symptomatology is created, then any symbol or sign
representing the substance, which is in fact not present, will do
the job. Hence the anecdotal reports of slips of paper with the
name of the remedy written on as effective (Jeremy Sherr,
personal communication) or the purported effectiveness of
the radionic version of homeopathy.
This double entanglement thus creates a kind of circularity be-
tween substance – remedy picture – individual symptomatol-
ogy – remedy/sign of the substance – substance, which is remi-
niscent of circularity in systems-therapeutic contexts and of
semiotic webs. This double entanglement relates substance to
patient and remedy, and patient to substance via remedy, thus
obliterating the symptomatology [17]. This analysis construes
homeopathy along the lines that are known in modern QM as
teleportation of states and distillation of entanglement for the
purpose of understanding and creating quantum computers or
for quantum cryptography [22–25]. This should only be seen
as an analogy, although the fact that a generalized, albeit
weaker version of QM can be constructed should warn that
other quantum phenomena based on entanglement like
tunelling and teleportation might also have macroscopic
equivalents, if the situation is prepared accordingly. Quantum
teleportation applications always use double-entangled states
plus a weak classical channel of communication. The latter is
needed to actually decode the original signal, while the entan-
gled states are used to get the code across. In homeopathy we
have an analogous situation in that traces of the original sub-
stance as a classically conceived information channel could ei-
ther be materially left over in terms of single molecules, or as
imprints of those molecules. Thus the research tradition which
tries to localize signals in homeopathic remedies might in the
end be important in that a classical channel could be estab-
lished by that route which enables the teleportation element
stemming from generalized entanglement to become effective
in the first place.
As noted above, it might be possible to reconstruct an entan-
glement version of homeopathy along different lines, and it
might be possible that for different versions of homeopathy
different processes are active which could even be conceived
as operating in parallel. The purpose of this analysis was to
show that such a reconstruction along the lines of WQT is pos-
sible and yields a plausible explanatory model of homeopa-
thy, which is able to explain some of the paradoxes and the
two basic rules of homeopathy.
Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 197
2003;10:192–200
Some Predictions and Possible Tests
Some predictions can be derived from this analysis, some of
which are trivial, others could be used as experimental tests:
1. Substances which produce stronger symptoms in the origi-
nal remedy provings or pathogenetic trials should be more
effective in experimental tests or clinical practice than sub-
stances producing the same, albeit weaker type of symp-
toms. Should two substances produce comparable sympto-
matologies, then a generalized entanglement theory would
predict that in a system susceptible to both substances the
substance which was originally more powerful should pro-
duce stronger effects, even if diluted beyond Avogadro’s
number and used in the same potency as the other one. For
instance, a plant substance producing mild nephrotoxic ef-
fects used in a kidney-cell system for protective effects,
should produce smaller effects than mercury, a strongly
nephrotoxic substance or cadmium, even if all substances
are used in ultramolecular doses of, say CH200.
2. If two new substances are tested, which have not been
known to homeopathy so far and which, from a phenome-
nological or physiological point of view are comparable,
then the following prediction can be derived: If one sub-
stance is tested in fewer subjects and hence produces fewer
symptoms, its therapeutic action should be more restricted
regarding symptoms in people who have been treated, but
who were not originally covered by the proving data. By the
same token, substances better known are more potent, a
fact widely known and corroborated by practice, and new
substances should become therapeutically more powerful
across subjects with increased use.
3. This is also an explanation for the widely observed fact that
clinical symptoms become part of the remedy picture,
which were never observed in provings, but healed by a
homeopathic remedy, as in the case of Rhus tox., which in
provings mainly produces skin symptoms, but is very useful
also in arthritic diseases or certain types of flu. In the same
vein, it should be possible to broaden and amplify the rem-
edy picture of a new remedy by frequent clinical use and
incorporating symptoms cured by the substance, which
were not part of the original picture.
4. If in the near future an easy-to-use basic research model is
developed, the following prediction could be tested: If we
use the same substance in the model, potentized by differ-
ent ways, the model would make the prediction that a more
time-intensive production process produces more potent
remedies. This prediction could be used to distinguish be-
tween local and non-local models of homeopathy. For a
local model time or intensity of the production process
does not make a difference, as long as the physical parame-
ters like energy input and the like are equal. The model of
a generalized version of entanglement predicts that even if
the physical parameters are less favorable – less kinetic en-
ergy used in sum total of the production process – a thor-
198 Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd
2003;10:192–200
ough hand-made process or a more time-consuming proce-
dure would produce stronger remedies.
5. Since the nature of the homeopathic therapy relies on a
double entanglement process, according to the model advo-
cated here, the remedy itself does not do anything by itself,
if the context is disturbed. If the context is disturbed in a
controlled way, this feature can be studied. One prediction
would be that completely blinded studies produce weaker
effects. In EPR entanglement proper the entangled state it-
self cannot be experimentally tested directly, but entangle-
ment can only be experimentally derived from the statistical
behavior of a large ensemble of measurements. In other
words, entanglement is observed as a meta-property in ex-
periments that do not probe it directly, but indirectly. Due
to the information-transfer prohibition theorem an entan-
gled state cannot be used directly for information encoding,
but only indirectly [26]. If that were possible, super-lumi-
nous telegraphy would ensue which violates special relativi-
ty. Thus, a favorable strategy would be to perform a large
series of simple experiments and do a meta-analysis or test
for meta-properties of a statistic, like a change in variance.
Also, experimental systems that have more degrees of free-
dom are more favorable. Thus, in experiments a complex
remedy consisting of more compounds is more likely to
show effects than single remedies, or an experimental test
with multiple outcome measures tested by complex multi-
variate statistics, which uses a compound variable for a sta-
tistical omnibus test should be more favorable. Also, in
basic models which use blinding, ‘blinder’ experiments or
experiments with a stricter policy on keeping the blinding
code should produce weaker effects.
6. In pathogenetic trials one would expect that the symptoms
experienced by volunteers are closely connected to the rem-
edy picture. Thus, the symptoms seen should not simply be
placebo symptoms, background noise of indiosyncrasies, but
symptoms specific to the substance. In a blinded trial, which
induces another type of entangled state between the true
homeopathic and the placebo group, we would not expect
symptoms to stick to the group taking the homeopathic
remedy, but also to be seen in the placebo group, but they
are still expected to be typical for the remedy. First data,
which we are in the process of evaluating, support this.
7. By the same token, blinded trials of homeopathy are not a
good idea at all. They are difficult enough for conventional
pharmacology, although pharmacology deals at least with
some causal mechanism. But they are fatal, if no such
causal mechanism is at work. For the blinding of a trial in-
duces another kind of generalized entangled state, namely
between the treatment and the placebo groups. The global
descriptor in that case is that of a trial as blind, the local
variable is that of a definite assignment of a subject to a
group. Both variables – blinded study and definite assign-
ment – are complementary variables and hence entangle-
ment would be predicted. This is something we see repeat-
Walach
 edly in meta-analyses of conventional blinded trials, where
high correlations between the improvement rates with
treatment and placebo have been reported [27–29], and
thus the effect is also bound to be active in homeopathy
trials. We would expect open, non-blinded trials of single-
remedy homeopathy versus a control procedure – wait-list
controls, conventional therapy – to be more potent than
blinded homeopathy trials. Since it is difficult to distinguish
this prediction from the trivial one that higher expectancy
in open trials produce better effects, additional measures
would have to be taken to control for that. This could be
achieved by deliberately inducing low expectancy, by re-
cruiting patients with a high level of a priori skepticism
about the treatment, or by measuring expectancy as a co-
variate, while at the same time not blinding patients or the
doctor. A trial could also be conceived where a simple form
of individualized homeopathy is used, keynote prescribing,
which can be done by any doctor, since he has only to dif-
ferentiate between some prominent symptoms, which at
the same time function as inclusion criteria. If the doctors
are deliberately chosen to be homeopathic skeptics and the
expectancy level in patients is measured, then a blinding of
the trial is not necessary to test for the specific effects of
homeopathy. A trial could even be handled in a way that
part of the patients are assigned to the correct remedy and
part of the patients to the wrong remedy, which is not
blinded, however, without them or the doctor knowing.
This could be achieved by false ‘training’ of some of the
physicians or nurses dispensing the medications. This could
even be crossed with an induced level of enthusiasm in a
2*2 experimental design with ‘correctness of remedy’
(wrong or right) as one factor and ‘enthusiasm’ (high or
low) as the second factor. A traditional placebo hypothesis
would predict the enthusiasm factor to be significant. A hy-
pothesis of specific effects would predict the remedy factor
to be significant, and possibly an interaction between reme-
dy and enthusiasm. But since the trial is not blinded this
would constitute a test of the specificity of homeopathy
without violating the context conditions necessary for en-
tanglement to be active. Hence it would not be a test of the
entanglement hypothesis of homeopathy, but a way to vin-
dicate the specificity claim against the placebo hypothesis
without having to take refuge to a blinded trial that would
disturb any potential entangled state.
These are some obvious predictions derived from an entan-
glement version of explaining homeopathy. It would be an in-
teresting task to devise more predictions and experimental
tests.
Perspectives
Homeopathy can be highly effective, if and only if all circum-
stances are respected which lead to successful entanglement.
Entanglement Model of Homeopathy
According to the analysis presented here the technical aspects
of finding the correct remedy seem most important, and of
guaranteeing a proper remedy in the first place. It might well
be the case that the consciousness of the practitioner and the
patient likewise plays another important role, not, as yet, ana-
lyzed. It is one of the key features of processes such as home-
opathy, which are a kind of sophisticated modern magic based
on a generalized version of entanglement, that they are not
completely reliable. That is the reason why for the conduct of
our everyday life, we prefer causal systems like automobiles,
power-lines, and computers, and why in the normal case of
medical care – emergencies, clear causal diagnoses, etc. – we
rely on local processes. Entangled systems are not completely
reliable, because we do not understand them properly and be-
cause entanglement by its definition can easily be disturbed. It
might be due to the little understood role of consciousness in
such systems that they lack reliability. It could be that if one
wants to enact the magic with a mechanistic-causal mindset, it
will fail, precisely because consciousness plays an important
role. This would then constitute a built-in security button:
whoever tries to misuse it, or uses it with a specific intent, can-
not use it at all. This seems to be one explanation for Hahne-
mann’s continuous development of his theory and practice,
because he seems to have experienced more failures than his
theory would have had it, and so he had to go on improving
his method or finding new ways of creating entangled states.
The analysis along the lines of a generalized version of entan-
glement presented here is only one of many possible ways of
reconstructing entanglement. It is a feature of WQT that it
does not regulate or quantify the amount of non-commutativi-
ty. In QM proper this is achieved by Planck’s constant, which
quantifies the amount of non-commutativity. In WQT there is
no such term or constant. Thus, theoretically, entanglement
could be even stronger. There could be multiple ways how en-
tanglement is brought about in real-world systems. And it
does not at all preclude causal-local signalling processes going
on in parallel and supplementing them. On the contrary, re-
garding the potential biological usefulness of entanglement as
a communication system [30], it would be strange if biological
systems had not used it. Thus it is likely that a closer look at
the world and a thorough reconstruction of other situations
along the lines suggested here, would reveal other exemplifi-
cations of generalized entanglement, which for lack of a theo-
ry and for want of concrete predictions we have not seen so
far. But this is not surprising, since we normally see only what
we are expecting or are prepared to see. We have recently
proposed that generalized entanglement, if used by the body
as a communication system to communicate between genes
and subsystems, would both constitute a hyperfast communi-
cation system and a means for the body to ‘know’ when a de-
sired end state is reached [31]. It is likely that such processes
play also an important role in other branches of complemen-
tary medicine. Generalized entanglement could be the key to
understanding a lot of the modern gadgets from radionics to
Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 199
2003;10:192–200
electro-acupuncture, from bioresonance apparatuses to other
purportedly causal machines, which might be clever pseudo-
machines distracting the mind of the patient and practitioner
to capitalize on entangled states. If the analysis offered here is
at all useful and has some truth to it we have to suppose that
the same processes play an important role in other therapeutic
procedures as well. It is to be suspected that they supply the
base of what is termed therapeutic alliance or was called rap-
port by the early hypnotists. My general prediction would be
that it is far more useful for CAM practitioners and re-
searchers to explore generalized entanglement as a vehicle for
therapeutic processes and as a model for explanation than to
find causal-local explanations [32]. The next step should be to
incorporate consciousness into the model. For, after all, the
intimate relationship between mind and body, between con-
sciousness and the brain, is also a complementary one [21],
and we should expect entangled states both within a human
organism and whenever the human mind relates to other
minds and to other bodies and objects. It may be here that
WQT unfolds its greatest strength and promise, not yet
touched upon. It has always been an intuition of Wolfgang
Pauli, one of the founders of modern QM, that physics will
only be complete if it has incorporated consciousness into a
final theory of matter [33].
Acknowledgement
My work is supported by the Samueli Institute (www.siib.org). The
thoughts expressed in this paper have developed over years of discussions
and reading, stimulated first by Walter von Lucadou, and given a new di-
rection by Hartmann Römer. I am grateful for discussions with Hartmann
Römer, who also encouraged me to pursue the analogy to quantum tele-
portation (which I had already discovered, but would otherwise have been
very careful to mention). He is a continuous source of insight and under-
standing of that complicated matter. Without this private tuition I would
hardly have been able to understand the important concepts properly.
What is still amiss is due to my own failure to grasp the concepts in full
depth. I am also grateful to the referees, Gary Bruno Schmid and Dr.
Füchslin. They disagreed with our interpretation that epistemic comple-
mentarity can produce entanglement. Even if we disagree at that point –
and the question will ultimately be an empirical one, as it was in QM
proper – their report has pointed out some weakness in terminology,
which I have tried to amend. The distinction into strong, weak, and trivial
concepts of complementarity is due to his intervention, as well as some
other clarifications. I am also grateful to Lionel Milgrom, who encour-
aged me to pursue this line of reasoning. He had worked on his own ver-
sion of an entanglement model of homeopathy quite independently from
me, and was favorable and supportive, even though he opted for a slightly
different route.

References

1 Atmanspacher H, Römer H, Walach H: Weak
quantum theory: Complementarity and entangle-
ment in physics and beyond. Found Phys 2002;32:
379–406.
2 Kim I, Mahler G: Uncertainty rescued: Bohr’s com-
plementarity for composite systems. Phys Lett A
2000;269:287–292.
3 Jordan P: Quantenphysikalische Bemerkungen zur
Biologie und Psychologie. Erkenntnis 1934;4:215–
252.
4 Bohr N: Collected Works. Vol. 6: Foundations of
Quantum Physics I (1926–1932). Amsterdam,
North Holland, 1997.
5 Meyer-Abich KM: Vom Baum der Erkenntnis zum
Baum des Lebens. Ganzheitliches Denken der
Natur in Wissenschaft und Wirtschaft. München,
Beck, 1997.
6 Einstein A, Podolsky B, Rosen N: Can quantum-
mechanical description of reality be considered
complete? Phys Rev 1935;47:777–780.
7 Rowe MA, Kielpinski D, Meyer V, Sackett CA,
Itano WM, Monroe C, Wineland DJ: Experimental
violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detec-
tion. Nature 2001;409:791–794.
8 Meyer-Abich KM: Korrespondenz, Individualität
und Komplementarität. Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1965.
9 Laurikainen KV: Beyond the Atom. The Philo-
sophical Thought of Wolfgang Pauli. Berlin,
Springer, 1988.
10 Dantas F: How can we get more reliable informa-
tion from homoepathic pathogenetic trials? A cri-
tique of provings. Br Homoeopath J 1996;85:230–
236.
11 Walach H, Schmidt S: Repairing Plato’s life boat
with Ockham’s razor: The important function of re-
search in anomalies for mainstream science. J Con-
sciousness Stud (in press).
12 Walach H: Magic of signs: A non-local interpreta-
tion of homeopathy. Br Homeopath J 2000;89:127–
140.
13 Schwanitz HJ: Homöopathie und Brownianismus
1795–1844. Stuttgart, Gustav-Fischer, 1983.
14 Schmidt JM: Homeopathy in the American West:
Its German connections; in Jütte R, Risse GB,
Woodward J (eds): Culture, Knowledge, and Heal-
ing. Sheffield, European Association for the Histo-
ry of Medicine and Health Publications, 1998, pp
139–172.
15 Furnham A, Kirkcaldy B: The health beliefs and
behaviors of orthodox and complementary medi-
cine clients. Br J Clin Psychol 1996;35:49–61.
16 Furnham A, Vincent C, Wood R: The health beliefs
and behaviors of three groups of complementary
medicine and a general practice group of patients. J
Altern Complement Med 1995;1:347–359.
17 Walach H: Homoeopathy as semiotic. Semiotica
1991;83:81–95.
18 Sheriff JK: Charles Peirce’s Guess at the Riddle.
Grounds for Human Significance. Bloomington, In-
diana University Press, 1994.
19 v. Lucadou W: Kommentar zu Taylor et al. (2000) in
Journal Club. Forsch Komplementärmed Klass
Naturheilkd 2001;8:43–46.
20 Milgrom LR: Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR)
entanglement: A qualitative, non-local metaphor
for homeopathy based on quantum theory. Home-
opathy 2002;91:239–248.
21 Walach H, Römer H: Complementarity is a useful
concept for consciousness studies. A reminder.
Neuroendocrinol Lett 2000;21:221–232.
22 Kwiat PG, Barraza-Lopez S, Stefanov A, Gisin N:
Experimental entanglement distillation and ‘hid-
den’ non-locality. Nature 2001;409:1014–1017.
23 Svozil K: Quantum information: The new frontier;
in Antiniou I, Calude CS, Dinneen MJ (eds): Un-
conventional Models of Computation. London,
Springer, 2001, pp 248–272.
24 Tóth G, Lent CS: Quantum computing with quan-
tum-dot cellular automata. Phys Rev A 2001;63
(52315):1–9.
25 Bennett CH, DiVicenzo DP: Quantum information
and computation. Nature 2000;404:247–255.
26 Wootters WK, Zurek WH: A single quantum can-
not be cloned. Nature 1982;299:802–803.
27 Walach H, Sadaghiani C, Dehm C: Predicting
placebo response rates in clinical trials: A meta-
analysis (abstr). Altern Ther Health Med 2001;7
(suppl):S34.
28 Walach H, Maidhof C: Is the placebo effect depen-
dent on time? in Kirsch I (ed): Expectancy, Experi-
ence, and Behavior. Washington, DC, American
Psychological Association, 1999, pp 321–332.
29 Kirsch I, Sapirstein G: Listening to prozac but
hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant
medication. Prev Treat 1998;1:2a.
30 Josephson BD, Pallikari-Viras F: Biological utiliza-
tion of quantum nonlocality. Found Phys 1991;21:
197–207.
31 Hyland ME, Walach H, Holgate ST: Do some
genes act as pattern specifiers? An explanation for
the way genes make macro-structures and implica-
tions for complex disease (submitted).
32 Dossey L: How should alternative therapies be
evaluated? An examination of fundamentals. Al-
tern Ther Health Med 1995;1:6–10;79–85.
33 Römer H: Annäherung an das Nichtmessbare?
Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958). Philos Jahrb 2002;109:
354–364.

200 Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd Walach

2003;10:192–200

The author has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate.