Quantum theory is used in a variety of fields - from mobile phones to elementary particle physics, but in many ways it still remains a mystery to scientists. Her appearance was a revolution in science, even Albert Einstein doubted her and argued with Niels Bohr almost all his life. The Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli publishes the book Seven Etudes in Physics by the Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli, which has been translated into more than 40 languages and in which he tells how discoveries in physics in the 20th century changed our knowledge of the universe. Theories and Practices publishes an excerpt.
It is commonly said that quantum mechanics was born exactly in 1900, effectively ushering in an age of intense thought. The German physicist Max Planck calculated the electric field in a hot box in thermal equilibrium. To do this, he resorted to a trick: he imagined that the energy of the field was distributed in "quanta", that is, concentrated in packets, portions. This trick led to a result that perfectly reproduced the measurements (and therefore was necessarily correct to some extent), but at odds with everything that was then known. It was believed that energy was constantly changing, and there was no reason to treat it as if it were made of small bricks. To imagine energy composed of limited packets was a kind of computational trick for Planck, and he himself did not fully understand the reason for its effectiveness. Once again, Einstein realized five years later that "energy packets" were real.
Einstein showed that light consists of portions - particles of light. Today we call them photons. […]
Einstein's work was at first regarded by colleagues as a clumsy attempt at writing by an exceptionally gifted youth. It was for this work that he later received the Nobel Prize. If Planck is the father of theory, then Einstein is the parent who brought it up.
However, like any child, the theory then went its own way, not recognized by Einstein himself. Only the Dane Niels Bohr laid the foundation for its development in the second and third decades of the 20th century. It was Bohr who realized that the energy of electrons in atoms can only take on certain values, like the energy of light, and, most importantly, that electrons can only “jump” between one atomic orbit and another with fixed energies, emitting or absorbing a photon during the jump. These are the famous "quantum jumps". And it was at the Bohr Institute in Copenhagen that the brightest young minds of the century came together to study these mysterious behaviors in the world of atoms, to try to bring order to them and build a consistent theory. In 1925, the equations of the theory finally appeared, replacing all of Newton's mechanics. […]
The first to write the equations of the new theory, based on unimaginable ideas, was a young German genius - Werner Heisenberg.
“The equations of quantum mechanics remain enigmatic. Because they do not describe what happens to a physical system, but only how a physical system affects another physical system.
Heisenberg suggested that electrons exist not always. But only when someone or something is watching them - or better said, when they are interacting with something else. They materialize in place, with a computable probability, when they collide with something. Quantum jumps from one orbit to another are the only way to be "real" at their disposal: an electron is a set of jumps from one interaction to another. When nothing disturbs him, he is not in any particular place. He's not in the "place" at all.
As if God did not depict reality with a clearly drawn line, but only outlined it with a barely visible dotted line.
In quantum mechanics, no object has a definite position, except when it collides head-on with something else. To describe it in the middle between one interaction and another, we use an abstract mathematical formula that does not exist in real space, only in abstract mathematical. But there is something even worse: these interaction-based jumps by which each object moves from one place to another do not occur in a predictable way, but by and large random. It is impossible to predict where the electron will reappear, one can only calculate probability with which it will arise here or there. The question of probability leads to the very heart of physics, where everything, as it seemed before, is regulated by strict laws, universal and inevitable.
Do you think this is ridiculous? Einstein thought so too. On the one hand, he nominated Heisenberg for the Nobel Prize, recognizing that he understood something fundamentally important about the world, while on the other hand, he did not miss a single opportunity to grumble that Heisenberg's statements did not make much sense. .
The young lions of the Copenhagen group were confused: how is it possible that Einstein thought so? Their spiritual father, the man who had first shown the courage to think the unthinkable, now retreated and feared this new leap into the unknown, a leap he himself had brought about. The same Einstein, who showed that time is not universal and space is curved, now said that the world cannot be so strange.
Bohr patiently explained new ideas to Einstein. Einstein raised objections. He came up with thought experiments to show the inconsistency of new ideas. “Imagine a box filled with light, from which one photon flies out ...” - this is how one of his famous examples begins, a thought experiment on a box of light. In the end, Bohr always managed to find an answer that overturned Einstein's objections. Their dialogue continued for years - in the form of lectures, letters, articles ... […] In the end, Einstein admitted that this theory is a giant step forward in our understanding of the world, but remained convinced that everything cannot be as strange as it suggests, - that "behind" this theory there should be the following, more reasonable explanation.
A century later, we are all in the same place. The equations of quantum mechanics and their consequences are used daily in various fields - physicists, engineers, chemists and biologists. They play an extremely important role in all modern technologies. Without quantum mechanics, there would be no transistors. Yet these equations remain mysterious. Because they describe not what happens to a physical system, but only how a physical system affects another physical system. […]
When Einstein died, his archrival Bohr found words of touching admiration for him. When Bohr died a few years later, someone took a photo of the blackboard in his office. It has a drawing on it. A box of light from Einstein's thought experiment. Until the very end - the desire to argue with oneself in order to understand more. And until the last - doubt.
On September 29, 2006, the NCC Kazan hosted the ceremony of presenting the Evgeny Zavoisky International Prize, which this year was awarded to Professor Jan Schmidt of the Leiden University (Netherlands).
The ceremony was held within the framework of the regular International Scientific Conference "Modern Development of Magnetic Resonance" (EPR). So we have an informational reason to once again remember Evgeny Konstantinovich Zavoisky, in whose honor once a year his colleagues are honored - physicists from all over the world who continue the work he started in Kazan during the war years of the last century.
The head of the department of the Kazan State Academy of Veterinary Medicine, Ruslan BUSHKOV, submitted interesting materials to the editorial office about why Zavoisky did not receive the Nobel Prize. He was told about this by the daughter of an outstanding scientist - NATALIA ZAVOYSKAYA.
As Sergei Leskov reported in the Izvestiya newspaper in October 2003, since 1917 only 12 Russian scientists have been awarded the Nobel Prize. The Americans received about 150 awards, the British - 70, the Germans - about 60. This is largely explained by the fact that Soviet science was closed, for ideological reasons there was no cooperation with the Nobel Committee. But there were cases when the prize was not awarded even after the presentation, although the nominee had significant services to world science. Perhaps, a scientist from Kazan Evgeny Zavoisky belongs to their number.
The most annoying thing is that in 1952 the Americans Bloch and Purcell received the prize for a discovery in the same direction, made two years later.
N. Zavoiskaya notes that the success of American scientists who became Nobel laureates was achieved by using the measurement technique proposed by a Kazan colleague back in 1944. The discovery of Associate Professor Zavoisky, made by him in 1944, was an outstanding event in world science. It marked the beginning of a new branch of physics - magnetic radio spectroscopy. On the basis of EPR, a new field of knowledge emerged - quantum electronics.
"Kazan stories" wrote about this discovery, in particular, that the device, with the help of which it was possible to see the phenomenon of paramagnetic resonance, was designed by Evgeny Konstantinovich himself. As Natalya Evgenievna clarifies, he used the Dubois magnet.
In 1939-1941. Zavoisky, together with S. Altshuler and B. Kozyrev, searched for nuclear magnetic resonance, but the war prevented them from completing this work - they had to dismantle the installation with which they observed the first signals. S. Altshuler subsequently recalled that the low quality of the “old-fashioned electromagnet” prevented success: “Had Zavoisky another 2-3 months of time for experiments, he would no doubt have found the reason for the poor reproducibility of the results.”
Evgeny Konstantinovich continued his research during the war and in May 1944 submitted his dissertation to the Physical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. They did not attach due importance to his discovery, and then the scientist turned to the Institute of Physical Problems. Academician P. Kapitsa gave him the opportunity to assemble an EPR installation and conduct his own experiments.
At a meeting at the IFP on December 27, 1944, 49 scientists listened to the report of the Kazan scientist - the flower of Soviet physical science. “However, even then the idea of the father and his experiments were called into question,” writes Natalya Zavoyskaya. Nevertheless, on January 30, 1945, at the P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute, Zavoisky defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences. A transcript of this defense has been preserved in the archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Alas, when reading it, one gets the impression that only very few people understood what EPR is.
In the essay about Semyon Altshuler (KGU, 2002), one can find indirect evidence of the rejection of works in nuclear physics. It was considered a worthless science, since the research had no practical application.
In 1946, Zavoisky's work on the EPR was nominated for the Stalin Prize, but no positive decision was made. The archive of economics (RGAE) preserved a review by I. Kikoin, which says: "If this hypothesis really turns out to be true, then physicists will receive a powerful and fairly simple method for determining magnetic moments."
In 1994, when the 50th anniversary of Zavoisky's discovery was celebrated, Kazan hosted the 27th International Ampère Conference of Physicists. Among the participants was the Swiss scientist Richard Ernst, the founder of the scientific school on paramagnetic resonance, who developed the Zavoisky method in chemistry. Of course, he could not miss the opportunity to see the laboratory where his colleague made the discovery, and was extremely surprised at how, in such primitive conditions, with what technique this discovery was made.
In her letters to Bushkov, Natalya Evgenievna described the terrible conditions in which the outstanding scientist lived at that time. The Zavoisky family lived in a service apartment in the university courtyard. There were two rooms, but in winter one was not heated. The dampness was incredible: water flowed along the walls ...
Most likely, it was for this reason that the wife of the scientist became very seriously ill. According to Natalya Evgenievna, her father was nominated for the Nobel Prize at least twice: the first time - in 1964, the second - in 1975. In the book published by her, the text of the presentation from Academician S. Vonsovsky is given, in her father's archive she found presentation on behalf of Academician A. Alexandrov. The 2003 Nobel laureate Academician Vitaly Ginzburg recalled in an interview that he was once the initiator of the nomination. Versions of why he never became a laureate were given a variety of.
First, the conditions of secrecy - but EPR research did not have them.
Secondly, the transition of Evgeny Konstantinovich to work on defense topics - which supposedly should not happen in the life of a Nobel laureate.
Thirdly, the short duration of the study of this problem ...
As is known, Zavoisky's later life was connected with other scientific areas. Zavoyskaya considers these versions to be shallow. In addition, there is a significant experience of awarding the Lenin Prize to a scientist in 1957, which was preceded by a rather scandalous story that erupted literally on the eve of the decision.
Although the discussion in the Committee on Lenin Prizes took place confidentially, nevertheless, there were rumors about a letter against Zavoisky sent by J. Dorfman (who he was, it was not possible to find out - Ed.) to the Committee, could not help reaching the nominee.
It is good that Zavoisky was completely indifferent to the promotion and "removal". As Zavoiskaya writes, it was “an extremely ugly and unfair attack from around the corner: “So I think the “one-dimensional” reasons for not awarding the Nobel Prize are too simple.
It is necessary to search for the answer to the “mystery of the century” in the archives of the Russian Scientific Center, the Academy of Sciences, the Presidential Archive and, possibly, in the Nobel Committee. If the documents reached the committee at all.”
During the celebration of the 200th anniversary of Kazan University, a monument to the outstanding scientist was solemnly opened in front of the building of the Faculty of Physics. The absence of the Nobel Prize did not in the least detract from his services to world science. Especially in the Soviet Union. In 1969 he was awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labor, had three orders of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor. He was awarded, in addition to the Lenin Prize, the State Prize (1949).
Abroad, Zavoisky's discovery was marked by the posthumous award of the prize of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance. Now in the scientific world there is also a prize named after him. It was established in 1991 by the Institute of Physics and Technology of the Kazan Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan and Kazan State University. Awarded to physicists for outstanding contributions to the development of EPR techniques. Despite its small size - 1000 US dollars - the award has won the status of a prestigious international award. In 2004, the 60th anniversary of the EPR discoveries was celebrated.
Natalya Evgenievna Zavoiskaya donated to Kazan University the last of 12 albums dedicated to her father and his scientific work. These are photographs taken by Evgeny Konstantinovich, Natalya Evgenievna, donated to the scientist, as well as clippings from newspapers and magazines, numerous documents. For several years she systematized her father's archive, working in many Russian archives. Being a literary critic, a specialist in German literature of the 18th-19th centuries and having no specific knowledge in the field of physical sciences, she collected unique material, “scattered everywhere drop by drop”. She studied the work on EPR not only in Russia, but also abroad. She analyzed Russian-American relations in this scientific direction. Compiled an index of 200 names. The albums are now in the Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts of the Scientific Library of Lobachevsky KSU.
“Do you know how hard it is to part with them? - Natalya Evgenievna wrote to Bushkov. - As soon as there is a desire to send at least volume I, your heart skips a beat: what if it disappears in the mail? When they asked me how much I value one album, I answered (I figured out what and how in the mail) that it is priceless. And there is. Almost everything is in one copy, so the loss will be forever.
In addition, Natalya Evgenievna worked on the book "The History of a Discovery", in which she planned to tell how her father did not become a Nobel laureate. She worked in the main Russian libraries and archives. Carried away by archival searches, Natalya Evgenievna tried to find data on her pedigree from her father. Their ancestors (until 1810 they bore the surname Kurochkin, and then split into three branches: the Zavoiskys (beyond the Voya River), the Razsvetovs and the Zakharovs) lived in the village of Rozhdestvenskoye.
In 1996, she visited her small homeland and saw the house where the Zavoiskys lived. There was also a church in which the Kurochkin priests served. Natalya Evgenievna also wrote about the history of the village. When a person tastes the sweetness of archival search, he will have a craving for this work all his life ...
"Kazan stories", No. 8, 2006
/jdoc:include type="modules" name="position-6" />Many scientists are known to the world not only for their achievements, but also for their oddities. In the end, you need to perceive the world in a completely different way in order to believe in what others consider impossible.
Albert Einstein
The hairstyle of this brilliant physicist seems to scream: “Crazy scientist!” - perhaps because Einstein himself was often called too "out of this world." Besides the fact that his theory of relativity turned physics on its head and showed people that there is still a lot of unknown around them, Einstein's work contributed to the development of theories about gravitational fields and quantum physics and even mechanics. His favorite pastime on a quiet, windless day was to launch his sailboat "to defy nature."
Leonardo da Vinci
In addition to creating beautiful works of world painting and developing the theory of art, this genius and inventor of the High Renaissance was known for his eccentricity. Leonardo's scientific notes and his journals with drawings and sketches were written in a mirror image, according to some sources, it was easier for him to write. Many of his drawings and ideas were several centuries ahead of the development of science and mechanics, such as a sketch of a bicycle, helicopter, parachute, telescope and searchlight.
Nikola Tesla
Nikola Tesla was born, as befits a man who "tamed" electric current, in a terrible thunderstorm. One of the most eccentric, brilliant and productive scientist-inventors of his time, Tesla is just the kind of person who was never afraid of electricity, even when a current flowed through his own body, and sparks flew from the transformer he invented in all directions.
James Lovelock
This modern environmental scientist and independent researcher is the author of the Gaia hypothesis that the Earth is a macroorganism that controls climate and chemical composition. Initially, his theory was accepted with hostility by almost all existing scientific communities, but after most of his predictions and forecasts regarding climate and environmental changes came true, colleagues began to listen to this eccentric scientist, who does not tire of making radical predictions about the fate of humanity as a species.
Jack Parsons
In his spare time from founding the world's first jet propulsion laboratory, Parsons practiced magic, the occult, and called himself the Antichrist. This unique engineer had a bad reputation and no formal education, but neither the first nor the second prevented him from creating the basis of rocket fuel and getting into the backbone of scientists who ensured US space achievements.
Richard Feynman
This genius began his career in the Manhattan Project among scientists developing the atomic bomb. After the end of the war, Feynman became a leading physicist and made a significant contribution to the development of quantum physics and mechanics. In his free time, he played music, spent time in nature, deciphered Mayan hieroglyphs, and cracked locks and safes.
Freeman Dyson
The "father" of quantum electrodynamics and an outstanding theorist, Dyson writes a lot and in an accessible way about physics and in his free time ponders hypothetical inventions of the distant future. Dyson is absolutely sure of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and looks forward to the first contact.
Robert Oppenheimer
The scientific director of the Manhattan Project was nicknamed "the father of the nuclear bomb", although he himself was categorically anti-militarist. His sentiments and calls to limit the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons caused him to be removed from secret developments and lose political influence.
Wernher von Braun
The founding father of the American space program and prominent rocket scientist was brought to the US as a prisoner of war after the end of World War II. At the age of 12, von Braun set out to break Max Vallier's speed record and attached a lot of fireworks to a small toy car. Since then, the dream of high-speed jet engines has not let go of him.
Johann Conrad Dippel
This 17th century German alchemist was born in Frankenstein Castle. His labors and experiments included boiling body parts, trying to transfer the soul from one body to another, and creating an elixir of immortality. It is not surprising that it was he who became the prototype of Victor Frankenstein - the hero of the gothic novel by Mary Shelley. But thanks to Dippel, the first synthetic paint appeared in the world - Prussian blue.
Did you know, What is the falsity of the concept of "physical vacuum"?
physical vacuum - the concept of relativistic quantum physics, by which they understand the lowest (ground) energy state of a quantized field, which has zero momentum, angular momentum and other quantum numbers. Relativistic theorists call the physical vacuum a space completely devoid of matter, filled with an unmeasurable, and therefore only an imaginary field. Such a state, according to relativists, is not an absolute void, but a space filled with some phantom (virtual) particles. Relativistic quantum field theory claims that, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, virtual particles are constantly born and disappear in the physical vacuum, that is, apparent (seemingly to whom?), particles: the so-called zero-point oscillations of fields occur. The virtual particles of the physical vacuum, and therefore, itself, by definition, do not have a frame of reference, since otherwise Einstein's principle of relativity, on which the theory of relativity is based, would be violated (that is, an absolute measurement system with a reference from the particles of the physical vacuum would become possible, which, in turn, would unequivocally refute the principle of relativity, on which SRT is built). Thus, the physical vacuum and its particles are not elements of the physical world, but only elements of the theory of relativity that exist not in the real world, but only in relativistic formulas, violating the principle of causality (they arise and disappear without a reason), the principle of objectivity (virtual particles can be considered, depending on the desire of the theorist, either existing or non-existing), the principle of actual measurability (not observable, do not have their own ISO).
When one or another physicist uses the concept of "physical vacuum", he either does not understand the absurdity of this term, or is cunning, being a hidden or obvious adherent of the relativistic ideology.
It is easiest to understand the absurdity of this concept by referring to the origins of its occurrence. It was born by Paul Dirac in the 1930s, when it became clear that the negation of the ether in its pure form, as the great mathematician did, but the mediocre physicist, is no longer possible. Too many facts contradict this.
To defend relativism, Paul Dirac introduced the aphysical and illogical concept of negative energy, and then the existence of a "sea" of two energies compensating each other in vacuum - positive and negative, as well as a "sea" of particles compensating each other - virtual (that is, apparent) electrons and positrons in a vacuum.
The ability of human consciousness to influence physical reality is recognized in various fields. For example, the efficacy of placebo treatment has proven to be a challenge to modern conventional medicine.
Dr. Robert Yan served as Dean of the Faculty of Engineering at Princeton University. For decades he studied the influence of human thought on mechanical devices. In his book The Limits of Reality, he discusses issues that have been raised by Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger and other influential scientists - issues of human consciousness.
Jahn, Planck, and Schrödinger are not the only scientists who have raised the issue of the role of human consciousness in science. Scientists have to solve the riddle of consciousness, this will be a huge leap forward. Here are the views of the mind of eight scientists.
1. Max Planck, father of quantum mechanics
Planck is considered one of the founders of quantum mechanics. In 1918, he received the Nobel Prize in Physics "in recognition of the services he rendered to the development of physics with his discovery of energy quanta," according to the Nobel Prize website.
In An Inquiry into Physical Theory, Planck wrote: “All the ideas that we form under the influence of the external world are but a reflection of our own perception. Are we capable of becoming truly independent of our self-consciousness? Aren't all the so-called laws of nature just rules that are convenient for us, created by our perception?
2. Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Prize in Physics
Erwin Schrödinger is a physicist and theoretical biologist. He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933 "for the discovery of new productive forms of atomic theory."
Schrödinger said: “Consciousness is the thing that allowed the world to materialize; the world is made up of elements of consciousness.”
3. Robert J. Yan, Dean of Engineering, Princeton University
Professor of Aeronautics, Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton University, Dr. Robert J. Yan has been studying the paranormal for 30 years.
In Edges of Reality, Yang writes that the study of consciousness can begin by measuring consciousness in a statistical form. He conducted many experiments, studying the ability of the mind to influence devices. One of his experiments was as follows.
The random number generator creates bits that represent 1 or 0. The participants in the experiment mentally tried to influence the generator. If experience showed changes in accordance with the intention of a person, this meant that the will of a person really affects the machine. Thus, human intention has acquired a measurable binary form. After running a large number of tests, Yang received results from which reliable statistics could be formed.
However, he notes: “Since any statistical format is itself a product of consciousness, it is necessary to articulate and well understand the limitations and accuracy of statistical sampling.”
4. David Chalmers, cognitive scientist and philosopher at New York University
Chalmers is Professor of Philosophy and Head of Consciousness Research at the Australian National University and New York University.
Earlier this year, in a TED Talk, he said that science has reached a dead end in the study of consciousness, and to take a step forward, "radical ideas may be required." "I think we need one or two ideas that look crazy on the surface."
In the past, physics was forced to include new concepts, such as electromagnetism, that could not be explained with basic principles. Chalmers believes consciousness could be another such new component.
“Physics is surprisingly abstract,” he says. "It describes the structure of reality using a lot of equations, but they don't explain the reality behind them." He cites the question asked by Stephen Hawking: "What brings life to equations?"
Maybe consciousness could bring life to equations, Chalmers says. The equations will not change, but we will begin to perceive them as a means to express the flow of consciousness.
“Consciousness does not hang outside the physical world, like some kind of addition, it is in its very center,” he said.
5. Imants Barušs, psychologist, member of the Society for the Study of Consciousness
Dr. Imants Barušs is a psychology professor at the University of Eastern Ontario in Canada who studies consciousness. In addition to psychology, he studied engineering and received a master's degree in mathematics.
At a meeting dedicated to the opening of the Society for the Study of Consciousness at the California Institute for Integral Studies on May 31, Barušs gave a presentation in which he presented his vision of the study of consciousness and explained why he supports such research.
He emphasized the importance of this kind of research and even changing the mindset, stating that pure materialistic science leads to psychological problems in young people. Many depressed, self-harming teens don't have psychiatric symptoms, writes Barušs, citing a TorontoStar article, "Psychiatrists say teen suicide is on the rise." “Instead, they are in an existential crisis, they are filled with thoughts like ‘I am empty’, ‘I don’t know who I am’, ‘I have no future’, ‘I don’t know how to deal with my negative thoughts’.”
Barušs writes: "Scientific materialism convinces us that reality is a meaningless, random mechanistic combination of improbable events."
He gave some examples that have already cast doubt on the materialist interpretation of reality: quantum events are not deterministic; time is no longer linear because the effect can precede the cause; particles change their position depending on whether someone is watching them or measuring them.
At the end, he adds: "Materialism is not able to explain the sense of existence that people feel."
The scientist hopes that the Society for the Study of Consciousness will support open study. Together, scientists interested in this topic will be able to find funding and support those scientists who are facing negative reactions from colleagues or management.
6. William Tiller, professor at Stanford University
Tiller is a Fellow at the American Academy for the Advancement of Science and Professor of Materials Science at Stanford University.
Tiller discovered a new kind of matter in the empty space between the fundamental electrically charged particles that make up atoms and molecules. This matter is usually invisible to us and is not recorded by our measuring instruments.
He discovered that human intention can influence this matter, causing it to come into contact with substances that we can observe or measure.
Thus, consciousness is able to interact with forces that are currently impossible to measure using existing instruments.
7. Bernard Bateman, Psychiatrist, University of Virginia
D-. Bateman is a visiting professor at the University of Virginia and a former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Missouri. He graduated from the Yale Medical Institute, improved his qualifications in psychiatry at Stanford.
In a 2011 report, Bateman wrote: “One of the biggest problems in developing a new discipline is that coincidences depend on the mind of the observer. The most important question is how to develop methods and technical language that would take into account the subjective factor.
8. Henry P Stapp, quantum mechanics physicist, UC Berkeley
Stapp is a theoretical physicist at the University of California at Berkeley, California, who has worked with some of the founders of quantum mechanics.
In a talk titled "The Compatibility of Modern Theory of Physics with Personal Survival," Stapp looks at how the mind can exist independently of the brain.
Scientists physically influence quantum systems when they choose which property to study. In exactly the same way, the observer can record the brain activity of his choice, which would otherwise be short-lived. “This shows,” says Stapp, “that mind and brain are not the same thing.”
From his point of view, scientists should consider "the physical effect of consciousness as a problem to be solved in dynamic ways."
