New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Physicists Demonstrate a Four-Fold Quantum Memory


Science News

Here we have a tangible proof that water - which is but a storage medium - can have a so-called memory. This finding is of tremendous importance to homoeopathy.

In our view, the homoeopathic remedies are quantum entities, generated by trituration. They fall in the category of nano-potencies, as explained in a previous blog of mine. See here at HWC under my blogs: Scientific Explanation of Homeopathic Potencies

The project described here in this post gives us ample reason to study it carefully, since it speaks not just of a single form of memory, but a four-fold one, showing that there is more to homoeopathic potencies than at first meets the eye. The claims of Benveniste, Roy, Conte and Montagnier have been vindicated by these findings.

The quantum interface is between the atomic memories, which of course also exists in water. After all, water is H2O, consisting of two different atoms in a particular configuration. If we take as an example Calcarea carbonica, CaCO3, then we see that the "memory" is shared between the Calcium component, the carbonic component and the different atoms of water - H2O. Hence a further dilution will share this memory again and again, even after Avogadro's limit.

Physics comes up with more and more proof of the memory of water and the possibility that homoeopathic remedies do contain more than "nothing." After all, something can never become nothing, it can only turn into something else. The basic premise of physics is that matter can never be destroyed. It can however be reduced to information, with which we can influence the information processing of both the human, animal or plant body and its genetic material, which is nothing less than an interactive information processing system. Input equals output at all times.

A good argument againsts the skeptics is to point out the difference between generalised medicine as in Pharmaceutical poisons and the quantum potencies of homoeopathy. It is based on the same difference between physics and quantum physics. Quantum physics cannot be explained away by Avogadro's limit, as little as homeopathic remedies can be explained away by it. ConMed is physics and homoeopathy is quantum physics. The two are mutually exclusive in terms and any comparison between the two must fall flat for those reasons alone.

Another difference to be pointed out is that an RCT is not the right vehicle for testing, since we cannot assign qualities to homoeopathic medicines they do not posses. Just as we do not demand ConMed poisons to be tested the homoeopathic way - since they would utterly fail in the individualised prescription, there being no proving done with them, apart from the poisoning cases that provide but a gross symptom picture - it is unrealistic to demand that our medicines should be subjected to the testing methods as employed in the RCT.

Therefore, the post here reproduced is also a good argument to show that memory of water can no longer be denied, since it has been proven to be not just a single form, but a four-fold aspect of the remedies. It is recommended that we take heed and use it to our advantage.

Physicists Demonstrate a Four-Fold Quantum Memory

ScienceDaily (Nov. 20, 2010) — Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have demonstrated quantum entanglement for a quantum state stored in four spatially distinct atomic memories.

Their work, described in the November 18 issue of the journal Nature, also demonstrated a quantum interface between the atomic memories -- which represent something akin to a computer "hard drive" for entanglement -- and four beams of light, thereby enabling the four-fold entanglement to be distributed by photons across quantum networks. The research represents an important achievement in quantum information science by extending the coherent control of entanglement from two to

multiple (four) spatially separated physical systems of matter and light.

The proof-of-principle experiment, led by William L. Valentine Professor and professor of physics H. Jeff Kimble, helps to pave the way toward quantum networks. Similar to the Internet in our daily life, a quantum network is a quantum "web" composed of many interconnected quantum nodes, each of which is capable of rudimentary quantum logic operations (similar to the "AND" and "OR" gates in computers) utilizing "quantum transistors" and of storing the resulting quantum states in quantum memories.

The quantum nodes are "wired" together by quantum channels that carry, for example, beams of photons to deliver quantum information from node to node. Such an interconnected quantum system could function as a quantum computer, or, as proposed by the late Caltech physicist Richard Feynman in the 1980s, as a "quantum simulator" for studying complex problems in physics.

Quantum entanglement is a quintessential feature of the quantum realm and involves correlations among components of the overall physical system that cannot be described by classical physics. Strangely, for an entangled quantum system, there exists no objective physical reality for the system's properties. Instead, an entangled system contains simultaneously multiple possibilities for its properties. Such an entangled system has been created and stored by the Caltech researchers.

Previously, Kimble's group entangled a pair of atomic quantum memories and coherently transferred the entangled photons into and out of the quantum memories. For such two-component -- or bipartite -- entanglement, the subsystems are either entangled or not. But for multi-component entanglement with more than two subsystems -- or multipartite entanglement -- there are many possible ways to entangle the subsystems. For example, with four subsystems, all of the possible pair combinations could be bipartite entangled but not be entangled over all four components; alternatively, they could share a "global" quadripartite (four-part) entanglement.

Hence, multipartite entanglement is accompanied by increased complexity in the system. While this makes the creation and characterization of these quantum states substantially more difficult, it also makes the entangled states more valuable for tasks in quantum information science.

To achieve multipartite entanglement, the Caltech team used lasers to cool four collections (or ensembles) of about one million Cesium atoms, separated by 1 millimeter and trapped in a magnetic field, to within a few hundred millionths of a degree above absolute zero. Each ensemble can have atoms with internal spins that are "up" or "down" (analogous to spinning tops) and that are collectively described by a "spin wave" for the respective ensemble. It is these spin waves that the Caltech researchers succeeded in entangling among the four atomic ensembles.

The technique employed by the Caltech team for creating quadripartite entanglement is an extension of the theoretical work of Luming Duan, Mikhail Lukin, Ignacio Cirac, and Peter Zoller in 2001 for the generation of bipartite entanglement by the act of quantum measurement. This kind of "measurement-induced" entanglement for two atomic ensembles was first achieved by the Caltech group in 2005.

In the current experiment, entanglement was "stored" in the four atomic ensembles for a variable time, and then "read out" -- essentially, transferred -- to four beams of light. To do this, the researchers shot four "read" lasers into the four, now-entangled, ensembles. The coherent arrangement of excitation amplitudes for the atoms in the ensembles, described by spin waves, enhances the matter-light interaction through a phenomenon known as superradiant

"The emitted light from each atom in an ensemble constructively interferes with the light from other atoms in the forward direction, allowing us to transfer the spin wave excitations of the ensembles to single photons," says Akihisa Goban, a Caltech graduate student and coauthor of the paper. The researchers were therefore able to coherently move the quantum information from the individual sets of multipartite entangled atoms to four entangled beams of light, forming the bridge between matter and light that is necessary for quantum networks.

The Caltech team investigated the dynamics by which the multipartite entanglement decayed while stored in the atomic memories. "In the zoology of entangled states, our experiment illustrates how multipartite entangled spin waves can evolve into various subsets of the entangled systems over time, and sheds light on the intricacy and fragility of quantum entanglement in open quantum systems," says Caltech graduate student Kyung Soo Choi, the lead author of the Nature paper. The researchers suggest that the theoretical tools developed for their studies of the dynamics of entanglement decay could be applied for studying the entangled spin waves in quantum magnets.

Further possibilities of their experiment include the expansion of multipartite entanglement across quantum networks and quantum metrology. "Our work introduces new sets of experimental capabilities to generate, store, and transfer multipartite entanglement from matter to light in quantum networks," Choi explains. "It signifies the ever-increasing degree of exquisite quantum control to study and manipulate entangled states of matter and light."

In addition to Kimble, Choi, and Goban, the other authors of the paper are Scott Papp, a former postdoctoral scholar in the Caltech Center for the Physics of Information now at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, and Steven van Enk, a theoretical collaborator and professor of physics at the University of Oregon, and an associate of the Institute for Quantum Information at Caltech.

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Security Science and Engineering Faculty Fellowship program at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), the Northrop Grumman Corporation, and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity.

Views: 1342


You need to be a member of Homeopathy World Community to add comments!

Join Homeopathy World Community

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on February 27, 2012 at 10:59am

Moreover, Dr MAS, Benveniste's test has been replicated 24 times, some from a time that lies before his own experiment.
To claim there are no replications is to not know one's science. My friend John Benneth has all those studies on his website The John Benneth Journal.
There are more studies done at later dates which confirm Benveniste's findings, even such as recently done by Luc Montagnier, who could not be discredited. So they hounded him as a senile to China, where skepticaemia has not yet found the same roots as in the narrow-minded west.

There, they are very interested. The Chinese also do tests with homoeopathy on plants, which work in all potencies, from the tincture to the 50M and higher. The false notions of mechanistic materialism do not apply to the realm of homoeopathic medicines, because they answer not to those rules. They have rules that are beyond those of mere matter in its gross material form.

"There are more things between heaven and earth, Horatius, than conceived of in your philosophy."
(William Shakespeare)

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on February 27, 2012 at 10:49am

Not only that, at Benveniste's lab, Randi swapped the bottles in a sleight of hand.

I mean, why suddenly did the bottles have to be taped to the ceiling?
Why did they have to be "out of sight"?

So that it would never be detected how the bottles where swapped and the experiment "failed".

And why not an independent investigator on the scene?
Randi does not qualify as an "independent investigator", because he sought to discredit Benveniste and was called in as the Great Quackbuster, just for the purpose of slandering and smearing Benveniste's name.

Was the "test" scientific?
Not by a long shot.

Conclusion: Maddox and Randi swindled and lied.
That is the long and short of this sordid story, with Randi rabidly slandering Benveniste on the instigation of that breeding ground of skepticaemia, Maddox.

For those that do not understand the term:

Skepticaemia, a virulent disease of the brain, characterised by inability to think clearly and for oneself, increasing sheeplike behaviour and painful extension of narrow-mindedness.

Comment by Jonathan Lawrence on February 27, 2012 at 6:15am

Dr Mas. The BBC horizon programme used a different protocol to the one Ennis used it was designed to get a negative result. Also the replication by Maddox et al in Benveniste's lab used a slightly changed protocol and in addition insufficient trials were conducted to be conclusive.

There is a lot of disinformation out there.

Comment by Dr. MAS on December 20, 2010 at 10:39pm

Third-party attempts at replication of the Benveniste experiment have failed to produce positive results that could be independently replicated. In 1993, Nature published a paper describing a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find a similar effect,[21] and an independent study published in Experientia in 1992 showed no effect. An international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed in 1999 to have replicated the Benveniste results.[23][24] Randi then forwarded the $1 million challenge to the BBC Horizon program to prove the "water memory" theory following Ennis' experimental procedure. In response, experiments were conducted with the Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby, overseeing the proceedings. The challenge ended with no memory effect observed by the Horizon team. For a piece on homeopathy, the ABC program 20/20 also attempted, unsuccessfully, to reproduce Ennis's results.


Comment by Dr. MAS on December 20, 2010 at 10:35pm

It was not a stage show, where he can change the bottles. Your approach is not sensible. There are many other scientist and Randi just came to observe there protocol and not for conducting the protocol.

1. Were you there?

2. Did you see him?

3. who told you?

4. In each consective studies which are failed he did the same trick?

5. The findings which came in USA stated that no considerable result is obtained after adopitng ben protocol, although few stated the mere results are obtained but after using same Ben lab.


But its ok, I know James Randi is stupid person but he had no role to play in Ben experiment.

Comment by Dr. MAS on December 20, 2010 at 10:25pm

Quoted from Kaviraj: That was the Nature "team" of which Randi was a participant, who changed the bottles with a trick of sleight of hand.


Dr.MAS: For God sake, be a sensible person.


Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on December 20, 2010 at 3:59am

"I have no courage to discradit to anyone."

Yet you discredit everything I posted on all the threads about the science of homoeopathy.


"I said, when the same protocol was adopted no result was obtained."

That was the Nature "team" of which Randi was a participant, who changed the bottles with a trick of sleight of hand. No wonder no result was obtained. He was not an "observer", but a participant in the attempt to discredit Benveniste.

So to me it is clear. Benveniste's test was repeated by more than 2 dozen other researchers, who DID obtain the same results, following the original protocol and without interference by Maddox and Randi.


Comment by Dr. MAS on December 20, 2010 at 3:47am

You discredit Benveniste, who was cheated by Randi - a stage magician as the arbiter of science, LOL.


I have no courage to discradit to anyone. I said, when the same protocol was adopted no result was obtained. Hence Ben report is controversial. It is not my opinion. I just given you information. It is also beyond my comprehension that Ben was defeated by stupid james randi. No it can't be happened. As he had no role in Ben study. He was the part of a group who actually observed Ben protocol in his own lab and obtained no result.

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on December 20, 2010 at 3:26am

"Kaviraj, if Indian Research Report is verified then what will be the weighage of your hypothesis?"


It is not a hypothesis and it is not mine. I report what reputable scientists have discovered. You discredit Benveniste, who was cheated by Randi - a stage magician as the arbiter of science, LOL. Benveniste's claims about the memory of water has been repeated more than 2 dozen times and proven to be true.

So the Indian report's verification shows they had contaminants. That does not say anything.

One report against over 2 dozen that prove it is right and 2 other reports from materials science, which also prove the memory of water. Nothing to do with contaminants in the reports quoted here. You claim the remedies were obtained in the market. Yet you provide no proof.

Dr Mas, assertions do not constitute proof. You only make assertions, quote no scientific papers that prove those assertions, as is usual in scientific discussions and thus these assertions mean nothing, till you provide proof. Otherwise it is all just talk, without any meaning. Opinions do not count in scientific work. Only the facts count and the facts are there for all to see.

Comment by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. on December 20, 2010 at 3:16am

"Now it has been verified by your companion doctor."


And who may that be? And where is the verification that Pakistani labs have bad quality control, which is automatically replicated worldwide in ALL labs?

HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...