modern nursing and modern physics: does quantum theory contain useful insights for nursing practice...

Modern nursing and modern physics: does quantumtheory contain useful insights for nursing practice andhealthcare management?

John Hastings MBA BSc (Physics) RGN RNT DMSSenior Lecturer, Homerton College, Cambridge, School of Health Studies, Nurse Education Department, Peterborough District Hospital, Peterborough, UK

Original A

rticle

Abstract In recent years, a number of articles have appeared in the nursing lit-erature proposing that the branch of modern physics known as quantumtheory offers insights that may be useful in nursing practice and health-care management. This paper critiques this literature in the light of keyconcepts in quantum theory. The conclusion is that quantum theory hasbeen misunderstood and misapplied within the nursing journals.Quantum theory is essentially mathematical and is based on quantita-tive experimentation. To successfully apply this theory to nursing prac-tice, nurses will have to equip themselves with the necessarymathematical and experimental skills.

Keywords: quantum theory, the uncertainty principle, the observationproblem, the Hawthorne effect, Bohm’s implicate order, holisticnursing.

© Blackwell Science Ltd 2002 Nursing Philosophy, 3, pp. 205–212 205

Correspondence: John Hastings, Homerton College, Cam-

bridge, School of Health Studies, Nurse Education Department,

Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough,

PE3 6DA. Tel.: +44 (0)1733 874770;

e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

Nurses frequently use the science of physics in clini-cal practice; perhaps more so than most nursesrealize. Every time a nurse measures a patient’s temperature, height, weight, blood pressure, centralvenous pressure or peak expiratory flow (s)he is

measuring a physical parameter. It is thereforearguable that nurses should have a basic understand-ing of physics in order to practice nursing. However,in recent years, a number of nurses have proposedthat the esoteric but fundamental branch of physicsknown as quantum theory contains insights that canbe appropriately used by nurses to inform clinicalnursing practice and healthcare management(Bradley, 1987; Sarter, 1989; Clifton, 1991; Slater, 1992;Owen & Holmes, 1993; Barker, 1996; Koerner, 1996;Porter-O’Grady, 1997; Powell, 1997; Meehan, 1998;Patterson, 1998; Elwood, 1999; Hanchett, 1999;Todaro-Franceschi, 1999; Valadez & Sportsman,1999; Whittemore, 1999). This paper addresses the

206 John Hastings

question of whether or not such an application isappropriate.

Quantum physics is a highly successful theory thatexplains many features of the everyday world andmodern technology (see below), so it is reasonable toexplore its application to nursing. However, it is thecontention of the present author (who is a nurse andhas a degree in physics) that the exposition ofquantum theory in the cited articles has been greatlysimplified, and indeed oversimplified, to the pointwhere errors have been made in the presentation andinterpretation of the theory. These errors cast doubton the validity of the applications that have beenmade. This paper will attempt to critique the citedarticles in the light of a more accurate exposition ofthe relevant aspects of quantum theory.

Quantum theory

Quantum theory is already nearly 100 years old.Gribbin (1985) contains a detailed account of the his-torical development of the theory and its supportingexperimental work. Although quantum theory is primarily concerned with the submicroscopic worldof the very small (atoms and electrons, light andphotons) it is one of the most successful and influen-tial scientific theories of all time. It explains, at leastin principle, the behaviour of light, how spectaclelenses work, the colours of the rainbow, how the sunand stars shine, chemistry and biochemistry (includ-ing the structure of DNA). It has given us the elec-tron microscope, the transistor and microchip (and sothe computer) and the laser (and hence the ‘compactdisc’ and the CD-ROM drive in a personal com-puter) (Davies, 1990; Feynman, 1990; Gribbin, 1998).Medical technology also makes use of quantumtheory, e.g. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) makesuse of the quantum properties of protons (Gore &Kennan, 1999).

Traditional physics is usually referred to as ‘classi-cal’ physics and this is still the physics that is used forthe everyday, macroscopic world. The ‘correspon-dence principle’ states that, as the mathematicalequations of quantum theory are applied to largersystems, quantum and classical theory become equivalent (Hannabus, 1997).

Nursing theorists have most frequently used (andmisused) two key concepts of quantum theory: the‘uncertainty principle’ and ‘non-locality’. Addition-ally, the uncertainty principle has often been confusedwith the ‘observation problem’, which is not uniqueto quantum theory.

The uncertainty principle

Porter-O’Grady (1997, p. 16), in a paper that was con-sidered sufficiently important to be reprinted in Hein(1998), states, ‘All reality is essentially uncertain andcannot be predicted with any degree of assuredness.If we measure position (particle), direction becomesuncertain; if we measure direction (wave), positionbecomes uncertain’.

Valadez & Sportsman (1999, p. 210) claim that abasic principle of quantum theory is ‘the world isunpredictable’. Similarly, Barker (1996, p. 239) speaksof ‘a continuum of uncertainty which appears to linkquantum mechanics, chaos and complexity’.Althoughnone of them identify it by name, the above authorsare presumably referring here to the uncertainty prin-ciple of Heisenberg. (Porter-O’Grady is also referringto the phenomenon of ‘complementarity’, accordingto which quantum objects, such as electrons, some-times behave like particles and sometimes exhibitproperties that we normally associate with waves.)However, Koerner (1996, p. 2) is more specific in identifying the principle by name: ‘Heisenberg’sUncertainty Principle replaced predictability’.

Quantum objects, such as electrons and photons(the name given to quantum particles of light) do nothave well-defined positions and momenta. This is oneof their fundamental characteristics (Gribbin, 1998).(The momentum of an object is equal to its mass mul-tiplied by its velocity; velocity is speed in a certaindirection.) A macroscopic object, such as a ball on abilliard table, does have well-defined properties. Theposition of the ball can be defined as accurately as weplease with respect to the sides of the table. If the ballis stationary, it has zero momentum. If it is moving, itsmomentum can be calculated from measuring itsvelocity and multiplying by its mass. However, elec-trons and photons can never be made to stand stilland they always have a non-zero momentum. The

© Blackwell Science Ltd 2002 Nursing Philosophy, 3, pp. 205–212

On the irrelevance of quantum theory to nursing 207

uncertainty principle was first recognized by Heisen-berg in 1926 and is defined by a mathematical rela-tionship (see Box 1). The implication of this equationis that if we attempt to measure the position of anelectron very accurately, its momentum becomes veryuncertain and vice versa.

In practice, this does not matter very much. Anatom is about 10–8 cm across (one hundred millionthof a centimetre) (Feynman, 1998). Imagine the atomexpanded to the size of the dome of St Paul’s cathe-dral in London. At this scale the nucleus of the atomis the size of a pea and the electrons are a few specksof dust moving around inside the dome. (Of course,the atom does not have a firm outer surface like thereal dome.) The electrons have a large uncertainty intheir position and can therefore have a fairly well-defined momentum while still being confined withinthe atom.

The uncertainty principle does imply that thefuture history of a single electron cannot be pre-dicted. If the present position and momentum of anelectron cannot be known accurately, its position inthe future cannot be calculated. What can be pre-dicted is the probability that the electron will arrivein a certain place. Quantum theory deals in probabil-ities (Feynman, 1992). However, that does not meanthat the future is totally unpredictable. In the every-

day world, the numbers of electrons and photonsinvolved in events is so large that the uncertaintyprinciple becomes negligible. A television set pro-duces a picture by sending beams of electrons to thescreen, building up the picture by scanning in linesacross the screen. No doubt the uncertainty principlemeans that a few electrons do not hit the right spotson the screen but the overwhelming majority do;enough to produce a sharp picture.

Similarly, in a beam of laser light, all the photonsare moving in the same direction and with the samewell-defined momentum. If they did not there wouldbe no advantages in having laser light rather than anordinary beam of light focused by lenses. Lasers arequantum devices; without quantum theory, laserscould never have been thought of. Lasers are alsocommonplace; every compact disc player in a musiccentre and every CD-ROM drive in a computer con-tains a laser.

It can be seen that the authors cited above have misunderstood the uncertainty principle by claiming that it means complete uncertainty and unpredictability. They have ignored the fact that probability can be calculated and that, in the macroscopic world, the large numbers of particlesinvolved mean that the uncertainty principle has noeffect.


The uncertainty principle can be illustrated by the following equation:

Dx is the uncertainty in the position of a particle, such as an electron, Dp is theuncertainty in its momentum. h is a very small number called Planck’s constant andp is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter.

In words, the equation says that the uncertainty in position of a particle multiplied byits momentum must always be greater than or equal to Planck’s constant divided by4p.

The value of h is: 6.626 x 10–34 joule seconds. The uncertainty principle applies toeveryday objects but, because Planck’s constant is so small, the effects can never be detected.

Dx Dp ≥ h/4p

Box 1 The uncertainty principle.

208 John Hastings

Porter-O’Grady, in addition, has made two furthererrors. He has not taken the trouble to understandmomentum (which is not just a matter of directionbut is a combination of mass, speed and direction). Hehas also confused the properties of particles andwaves. Particles have position and momentum, so it isnot correct to equate particle only with position.Waves have momentum but they spread out overtime, so it is not accurate to equate waves with direction.

Rather than saying that the uncertainty principlemakes the whole world unpredictable, it would bemore correct to say that it puts limits on predictabil-ity. Quantum theory is, in fact, capable of great preci-sion. For example, the theory predicts that the valueof a property of the electron called its ‘magneticmoment’ should be 1.00115965246. The experimen-tally measured value is 1.00115965221. As Feynman(1990, p. 7) says, ‘If you were to measure the distancefrom Los Angeles to New York to this accuracy, itwould be exact to the thickness of a human hair’.

Of course, in nursing, outcomes of interventionsoften are unpredictable. This has nothing to do withthe uncertainty principle; it is due to the fact thatnursing has no theory that has been validated to theprecision of quantum theory, coupled with the factthat nursing observations are not particularly accu-rate. The observer errors and instrument errors thatoccur when measuring a patient’s blood pressure arewell documented (Feather, 2001). However, nursesstill confidently document a patient’s blood pressureas (for example) 134/92 mmHg, although, even inresearch, a trained observer is only expected to obtaina result within 10 mmHg of an ‘expert’ observer(Beevers et al., 2001, p. 1044). In statistical analyses ofnursing research (and in medical and social scienceresearch), a significance level of 5% is usuallyaccepted as being appropriate for rejecting or accept-ing a hypothesis (Munro, 2001; Polit et al., 2001).Nursing simply does not achieve the accuracy at whichthe uncertainty principle would become important.

The observation problem

A number of nursing authors have not only mis-understood the uncertainty principle, they have con-

fused it with a practical problem that is not specific toquantum theory; the ‘observation problem’. Clifton(1991, p. 347) quotes Talbot ‘that the observer altersthe observed by the mere act of observation’. Patter-son (1998, p. 287) defines ‘Heisenberg’s UncertaintyPrinciple . . . that by observing an object, person orphenomenon we actually change it’. Elwood (1999)explains the uncertainty principle in terms of the actof observation disturbing the observed particle.Todaro-Franceschi (1999, p. 32) states: ‘The uncer-tainty principle holds that it is impossible to measuremore than one variable at a time in the microcosm. . . scientists cannot measure both the position andvelocity of a particle simultaneously without chang-ing the outcome, simply by observing something itchanges’. Whittemore (1999, p. 1029) explains the‘Principle of Uncertainty’ (sic) as follows, ‘The veryact of investigation leads to a disturbance of con-ditions so that only the probability of an atom’sbehaviour can be determined’.

Electrons and photons are extremely small objectsand can only be observed indirectly through elabo-rate experimental apparatus. Thus it is difficult, inpractical terms, to measure their properties. In theeveryday world we see objects by observing lightreflected from them. In the microscopic world, wecould attempt to observe an electron in the same way,by shining a light on it. However, at least one photonof light would have to strike the electron in order todetect it, and a photon is a quantum particle compa-rable in size to the electron. Hence, in the collisionbetween electron and photon, the photon is reflectedand the electron recoils. This is the observationproblem; when we observe something, we disturb it.However, it is not a quantum phenomenon. In classi-cal physics, electromagnetic radiation (light) interactswith electrons. Unfortunately, books on quantumtheory often explain the uncertainty principle interms of the observation problem. Even so eminent awriter as Professor Stephen Hawking does this(Hawking, 1988).

As can be seen, all of the nursing writers quotedabove are confusing the two concepts. Only Sarter(1989, p. 76) appears to recognize the distinctionbetween the uncertainty principle that concerns theindeterminacy of position and momentum and the



observation problem that concerns the measurementof these two parameters.

Note that the observation problem is not unique tophysics. Social scientists have known for many yearsthat observing people may change their behaviour.This is usually known as the ‘Hawthorne effect’(Parahoo, 1997). Another form of interaction is theplacebo effect in medicine, where the expectations of the patient and doctor influence the effect of amedication. Sokal & Bricmont (1998, p. 178) state,‘Psychologists, for example, do not need to invokequantum mechanics to maintain that in their field

“the observer affects the observed” ’ (italics in origi-nal). Substitute the word ‘nurses’ for ‘psychologists’and this statement is equally valid.

Non-locality and Bohm’s ‘implicate order’

A number of nursing authors adopt a particularexplanation of quantum theory, David Bohm’s modelof the ‘explicate order’ and ‘implicate order’ (Bohm,1980). Bradley (1987) uses Bohm as a support for the‘energy field’ model of nursing. Slater (1992) usesBohm’s model in support of the concept of the uni-verse as a hologram. She suggests that this impliesthat all minds are interconnected and we are there-fore justified in taking intuition seriously. Owen &Holmes (1993) cite Bohm in support of their discus-sion of the concept of ‘holism’ and ‘holistic care’ innursing. Powell (1997) cites Bohm in support of aholographic model of the universe and discusses howthis gives rise to a new world-view of health andnursing. Meehan (1998, p. 118), expounding the theo-retical framework for therapeutic touch, states, ‘Inthis framework the universe is viewed as a unitaryflow of energy within which all matter, conscious-ness and events are interconnected’ and cites Bohmin support. Hanchett (1999) also quotes Bohm insupport of Rogers’ Science of Unitary Human Beings(energy field) model for nursing. Todaro-Franceschi(1999) regards the ‘nonlocality’ aspects of quantumtheory as supporting the idea of ‘wholeness’ in theuniverse and accepts Bohm’s concept of the ‘impli-cate order’. Several of the above authors makeexplicit or implicit links between Bohm’s model and

‘holism’ in nursing, suggesting that this model isattractive to nurses because it is ‘holistic’ and there-fore appears to give a scientific basis for the holisticpractice to which so many nurses aspire.

Although Porter-O’Grady (1997, p. 16) does notcite Bohm, he appears to be thinking of the non-localaspects of quantum theory when he writes (under theheading, ‘Quantum Principles . . .’):

Systems are defined by a conception of the whole, not by an

enumeration of the parts . . . All components of a system

intersect and overlap, creating interdependencies that

cannot be addressed separately or unilaterally . . . A system

engages all of its components in undertaking a potential

change . . .

Bohm developed his theory of the implicate orderas a way of explaining a feature of quantum theorythat is particularly hard to understand and accept,i.e. ‘non-locality’. If two quantum particles, e.g. a pair of photons, are produced together, they remainlinked even if sent through an apparatus that sepa-rates the two particles. This is called ‘entanglement’(Buchanan, 1999); the two photons form a coherentsystem. They continue to exist in this entangled stateuntil one photon is observed. The wave function (the mathematical expression that describes how aquantum system evolves over time) of the observedphoton collapses and so does that of the otherphoton, instantaneously, no matter how far apart thetwo photons are. (Strictly speaking, there is only onewave function, which describes the total system of thetwo photons). Experiments of this nature have beencarried out and are an important verification ofquantum theory (Gribbin, 1998). The implication isthat quantum theory is ‘non-local’. No matter how big a coherent quantum system becomes, an influenceon one part of the system will affect the whole system instantaneously. This can also be thought of as‘action at a distance’ and, in principle, it could happeneven if the quantum system extended across the universe.

Clearly, the quantum world is very different fromthe everyday world. Professor Richard Feynman, whoreceived the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1965 for hiswork in this field, wrote, ‘I think I can safely say that


210 John Hastings

no one understands quantum mechanics . . . Nobodyknows how it can be like that’ (Feynman, 1992,p. 129). Given the strangeness of quantum theory, itis not surprising that many models have been pro-posed in order to try and explain it. Gribbin (1998)lists nine different interpretations.

The Copenhagen interpretation (Whitaker, 1996)simply suggests that there is a distinction between theclassical and quantum world, although the boundaryis not clearly identified. Lindley (1997) notes thatinteraction with other systems destroys quantumcoherence (entanglement) and forces the collapse ofthe wave function. He suggests that in the macro-scopic world there are so many interactions thatquantum properties simply disappear. Everydaysystems are ‘decoherent’.

Bohm (1980) suggested that the universe has anunderlying framework, the ‘implicate order’, which isdeterministic and holistic. The everyday world, the‘explicate order’, is that part of the implicate orderthat we can perceive with our senses. Quantum phe-nomena are expressions of this implicate order. Theproblem with this model is that, as the implicate orderis hidden, no experiment can ever detect it. There isno way of discovering if the implicate order reallyexists.

The problem for physicists is that there is at presentno way of deciding which (if any) of the proposed theories most closely models reality. Hannabus (1997.p. 177) summed up the situation neatly: ‘There arecertainly many world views, and few explanationsseem persuasive to more than a small band of enthusiasts’.

The nursing theorists cited above have simplyignored the facts that Bohm’s model is speculative,unproven and merely one of a number of competingmodels. They should heed the caution of Gribbin(1998, p. 238): ‘One of the most important things toappreciate about models is that they are not (any ofthem!) the truth’.

No doubt Porter O’Grady is right to suggest thatthe parts of a macroscopic system do interact witheach other and changes in one part of the systemaffect the whole, but this is through everyday com-munication, not through quantum non-locality. Forexample, if a hospital decided to open an outpatient

clinic during the evening rather than during normal‘office’ hours, this would have implications for diag-nostic and pharmacy services. These services wouldhave to adapt their own working practices but thiswould be done over a period of time, through plan-ning and discussion, not automatically as in aquantum system. In the everyday world, separatingthese services from each other on a large hospital site makes communication more difficult. For aquantum system, distance in itself does not affect itscoherence.

Mathematics, measurement and analogy

One aspect of quantum theory that is ignored by thenursing articles cited is that the theory is essentiallymathematical. Only Patterson (1998) acknowledgesthis. Popular books expounding quantum theory necessarily exclude or simplify the mathematics.Real textbooks on the theory, such as Hannabuss(1997), are packed with mathematics. Quantumobjects can really only be described in mathematicalterms. Words like ‘wave’ and ‘particle’ are only analogies for quantum entities, such as electrons and photons, which have no counterparts in themacroscopic world of everyday experience and aretherefore unimaginable. The articles reviewed in thispaper, which suggest that nursing can draw usefulinsights from quantum theory, are at best drawinganalogies from analogies; surely a most unsoundmethodology.

A second aspect of quantum physics is that it is anexperimental science, dependent on accurate meas-urement. There is no debate among physicists, asthere is among nurses, between the relative merits ofqualitative and quantitative methodologies; quantita-tive research is the only acceptable kind. The nursingarticles cited offer no practical suggestions as to howthe relation between nursing and quantum theorymight be elucidated by experiment. Without suchexperimentation leading to sound theory, the sugges-tion that nurses should try to apply quantum theoryto clinical practice or healthcare management is, tosay the least, premature.



Conclusion

The exposition of quantum theory in this paper isgreatly simplified and incomplete. However, it is suf-ficient to demonstrate that the nursing literature, asreviewed here, has generally misunderstood thetheory and/or selected one interpretation from othersthat are equally valid (or invalid).

Nursing theorists are not alone in misunderstand-ing quantum theory. Sokal & Bricmont (1998) havedrawn attention to the abuse of modern science by‘postmodern’ philosophers. However, the theoristsreviewed here fit at least one of the four characteris-tics that Sokal and Bricmont use to define the ‘abuse’of science; that of ‘Importing concepts from thenatural sciences into the humanities or social scienceswithout giving the slightest conceptual or empiricaljustification’ (Sokal & Bricmont, 1998, p. 4).

Quantum theory is a fascinating subject and, inprinciple, it explains many phenomena from theeveryday world. However, in the macroscopic worldof nursing care there are no quantum phenomenathat nurses need to take account of in their normalpractice. Attempts to use quantum theory in supportof speculative and esoteric models of nursing areunjustified.

References

Barker P.J. (1996) Chaos and the way of Zen; psychiatricnursing and the ‘uncertainty principle’. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 3,235–243.

Beevers G., Lip G. & O’Brien E. (2001) ABC of hypertension: blood pressure measurement: part II – conventional sphygmomanometry: technique of ausculatory blood pressure measurement. BritishMedical Journal, 322, 1043–1047.

Bohm D. (1980) Wholeness and the Implicate Order.Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Bradley D.B. (1987) Energy fields; implications for nurses.Journal of Holistic Nursing, 5(1), 32–35.

Buchanan M. (1999) An end to uncertainty. New Scientist,161(2176), 25–28.

Clifton B. (1991) Nursing and the new physics. Nurse Education Today, 11, 347–353.

Davies P. (1990) God and the New Physics. Penguin Books,London.

Elwood T.W. (1999) Congress from the perspective ofquantum physics. Journal of Allied Health, 28(3),184–189.

Feather C. (2001) Equipment for blood pressure measure-ment. Professional Nurse, 16(11), 1458–1462.

Feynman R.P. (1990) QED; the Strange Theory of Lightand Matter. Penguin Books, London.

Feynman R.P. (1992) The Character of Physical Law.Penguin Books, London.

Feynman R.P. (1998) Six Easy Pieces; the Fundamentals ofPhysics Explained. Penguin Books, London.

Gore J.C. & Kennan R.P. (1999) Physical and physiological basis of magnetic relaxation. In:Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 3rd edn (eds D. D. Stark & W. G. Bradley), pp. 33–39. Mosby,St Louis, MO.

Gribbin J. (1985) In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat. CorgiBooks, London.

Gribbin J. (1998) Q is for quantum; particle physics fromA to Z. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

Hanchett E.S. (1999) Field phenomena and outcomesresearch – on the brink of a quantum leap? Visions; theJournal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 7(1), 44–48.

Hannabuss K. (1997) An Introduction to Quantum Theory.Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hawking S.W. (1988) A Brief History of Time. BantamPress, London.

Hein C. (1998) Contemporary Leadership Behaviour;Selected Readings, 5th edn. Lippincott, PA.

Koerner J.G. (1996) Imagining the future for nursingadministration and systems research. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 20(4), 1–11.

Lindley D. (1997) Where Does the Weirdness Go? Vintage,London.

Meehan T.C. (1998) Therapeutic touch as a nursing intervention. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(1),117–125.

Munro B.H. (2001) Statistical Methods for Health CareResearch, 4th edn. Lippincott, PA.

Owen M.J. & Holmes C.A. (1993) ‘Holism’ in the discourse of nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing,18, 1688–1695.

Parahoo K. (1997) Nursing Research. Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Patterson E.F. (1998) The philosophy and physics of holistic health care; spiritual healing as a workable interpretation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 27,287–293.

Polit D.F., Beck C.T. & Hungler B.P. (2001) Essentials ofNursing Research; Methods, Appraisal and Utilisation,5th edn. Lippincott, PA.

Porter-O’Grady T. (1997) Quantum mechanics and thefuture of healthcare leadership. Journal of NursingAdministration, 27(1), 15–20.


212 John Hastings

Powell G.M. (1997) The new physics; health and nursing.The Australian Journal of Holistic Nursing, 4(1),17–23.

Sarter B. (1989) Some critical philosophical issues in thescience of unitary human beings. Nursing Science Quarterly, 2(2), 74–78.

Slater V.E. (1992) Modern physics, synchronicity and intuition. Holistic Nursing Practice, 6(4),20–25.

Sokal A. & Bricmont J. (1998) Intellectual Impostures;Postmodern Philosophers’ Abuse of Science. ProfileBooks, London.

Todaro-Franceschi V. (1999) The idea of energy as phenomenon and Rogerian Science; are they congruent?Visions; the Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science, 7(1),30–41.

Valadez A.M. & Sportsman S. (1999) Environmental management; principles from Quantum Theory. Journalof Professional Nursing, 15(4), 209–213.

Whitaker A. (1996) Einstein, Bohr and the QuantumDilemma. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Whittemore R. (1999) Natural science and nursing science;where do the horizons fuse? Journal of AdvancedNursing, 30(5), 1027–1033.


modern nursing and modern physics: does quantum theory contain useful insights for nursing practice...

Documents