[amrit (OP)]

Bohr considered that the observer plays an active role in the behaviour of elementary particles, that the observer influences the experimental results concerning atomic and subatomic processes.

Einstein thought instead that the description of quantum phenomena proposed by Bohr and the other exponents of Copenaghen and Gottinga schools, despite functioned well in the prediction of experimental results, weren’t complete. He believed that the standard quantum mechanics developed by Copenaghen and Gottinga schools weren’t a perfect theory and that it could have been made causal by introducing some “hidden variables”. Einstein’s point of view was thus that the behaviour of subatomic particles is independent from the observer, that it depends on some “hidden variables” beside to their quantum wavefunctions.

Today we have got some important versions of quantum mechanics which avoid to ascribe a special role to the observer: they show that Bohr’s interpretation of quantum processes cannot be considered the only possible description of physical reality, and therefore cannot be considered convincing and satisfactory both from the physical point of view and from the philosophical point of view. In particular, the version of quantum mechanics originally proposed by David Bohm in 1952, known as pilot wave theory, allows to describe the atomic and subatomic processes without ascribing an important role to the observer, and allows to recover a principle of causality also in the microscopic world (1). If we base ourselves on Bohm’s theory, Einstein’s point of view can be considered more satisfactory than Bohr’s interpretation.

Here, starting from some recent researches on gravitation and consciousness, we want to show that speculations on the question “who is the observer?” open some new perspectives which bring closer Bohr’s view with Einstein’s view.

In an experiment with elementary particles (or in any other scientific experiment) a scientist plays the “observer”.
It is the same observer that has also possibility to watch (witness) the mind.
Everyone can watch his/her mind whenever he likes. By watching the mind a scientist becomes aware of the way his/her mind’s elaboration influences his experience of the experiment.

Let’s see the stream of information running into an experiment:

experiment - perception (eyes) - elaboration (mind) - experience (observer)

Information about the experiment are first perceived by the senses, then elaborated by the mind, finally experience occurs (2).

The ability of the scientist (the observer) to watch the mind belongs to the consciousness. It is consciousness that is watching (witnessing) the mind. Mind is creating the thoughts and consciousness is watching  them.

Research of Penrose suggests that consciousness is a result of quantum gravity acting on the neurons of the brain. This means that consciousness is not only the result of the biochemical reactions in the brain, it is also deeply related to the gravitation.

According to the “A-Temporal Gravitation Theory” gravitation is a-temporal, is carried directly by the a-temporal physical space (3, 4, 5).

Time exists only as an irreversible stream of material changes that run in the cosmic space. It is not that change runs in time, change itself is time. Cosmic space itself is a-temporal. Here it is fundamental to understand that clocks are precise instruments with a constant rate of change and run in a-temporal space. With clocks we measure the numerical order and the duration of all changes (6).

In the universe there exist two types of phenomena: temporal phenomena and a-temporal phenomena. “Temporal phenomena” are changes or movements of particles or other physical objects in cosmic space, for example the movement of the earth around the sun, or the movement of the light in cosmic space. For “A-temporal phenomena” to happen no movement of particles or other physical objects is needed, which means that for their existence no time is needed. For example, gravitational interaction is carried directly by the density of cosmic space. For gravitational force to be transmitted no travel of particle or wave through the cosmic space is needed. In analogous way, the instantaneous communication between two elementary particles A and B in an EPR experiment is carried directly by the a-temporal cosmic space, no travel of particle or wave is needed. A-temporal cosmic space is a “direct information channel” It transports the information from the particle A to the particle B instantly (5). Besides, since in Bohm’s theory nonlocal connection between two subatomic particles is tied to the action of the quantum potential, it appears lawful to interpret the quantum potential as the special “state” of a-temporal cosmic space. One can say that, in presence of an atomic or subatomic process (such as an EPR experiment), a-temporal cosmic space assumes the special “state” represented by quantum potential, and this determines an instantaneous communication between the particles in exam (7).

In a-temporal gravitation theory, gravitational force is carried directly by the density of quanta of space (QS) that build up a-temporal cosmic space. Density D of QS of a given volume of cosmic space depends on the density of matter contained in it:  , where D is the density of QS in the centre of the material object, m is the mass of the object and G is the gravitational constant. The gravitational force Fg between two material objects is given by the following relation:  , where r is the distance between the centers of the two material objects (4).
         
Quanta of space which compose cosmic space have the following features: they change their electrical charge from positive to negative in a Planck time (5.39 ), vibrate at the “basic frequency” 0.19 , have a “basic energy” given by the relation Eqs = h*0.19   where h is Planck’s constant (6.626069 ), and thus Eqs =  1.26 .

QS of a-temporal cosmic space have a “bipolar nature” (namely they change the electrical charge continuously) and are complete into themselves. Their existence does not depend on other physical entities. They have no radiation, no “dispersion of the energy”: their energy is always the same and precisely the basic energy Eqs =  1.26 . This means that QS that build up ATPS have no entropy.

QS of cosmic space are a-temporal and have no entropy. Consciousness has the same properties. It is a-temporal (in the sense that no movement of particle-wave is needed for its existence) and has no entropy.

Here there is a “quantum jump” of this speculation. One could suppose that consciousness is in a deep relation with the basic frequency of QS that build up a-temporal cosmic space. This basic frequency of QS by acting on the neurons of the human brain creates the phenomenon of “human consciousness”. More the vibrations of the neurons are in tune with the basic frequency of QS, more the person will be conscious. The intensity of the human consciousness depends on the synchronicity with the basic frequency of QS of cosmic space.

Human brain can be compared with the radio, cosmic space with the transmitter. More one is in tune with the transmitter, better he/she can use the radio. Our watching (witnessing) the mind depends on the intensity (quality) of tuning with the basic frequency of cosmic space.

We have now the answer to the question concerning the role of the observer: “Observer is the consciousness itself” It is consciousness that is observing the experiment, it is the same consciousness that is watching the mind. In every scientist the observer (the consciousness) is the same. This allows to the science to be “objective” (because, if in every scientist the consciousness had to be different, there would be no possibility for science to exist as it is).

As gravitation also consciousness is a-temporal and has existed long before man has appeared on the earth. Elementary particles have behaved in the same manner also before man has appeared.

Now, if one considers consciousness as a phenomenon that is related to the basic frequency of the cosmic space, it’s possible to open new perspectives about Bohr’s and Einstein’s interpretation of the behaviour of elementary particles.

Before all, one can say that it’s not the human mind (or better, an unconscious mind) to influence the results of the experiments of microphysics (because atomic and subatomic particles behave in the same manner, either with the presence of a scientist, or without the presence of a scientist). In this sense, Bohr’s original interpretation doesn’t seem appropriate and convincing. However, Bohr’s interpretation can be “recovered”, in a certain sense (and only in a particular meaning), if one considers consciousness as a phenomenon deeply related to the basic frequency of cosmic space (and thus as a physical property of cosmic space). In fact, one can say that it’s consciousness – intended just as a physical property of the universal space – to influence the behaviour of subatomic particles. Under this point of view, Bohr’s interpretation can be, in a certain sense, recovered (but only from a “formal” point of view, because here consciousness isn’t intended in Bohr’s standard manner: Bohr would have said probably that, according to him, both an unconscious mind and a conscious mind could influence the behaviour of subatomic particles). At Bohr’s time the idea of consciousness as a physical property of space wasn’t appeared yet and in the Copenhagen interpretation the observer always assumes a special role in the description of atomic processes.

It appears lawful to think that only space (and therefore the basic frequency of cosmic space) determines the behaviour of elementary particles; therefore, one can say that a conscious mind influences the experimental results of microphysics more than a less conscious mind, but a scientist can hope to determine totally the behaviour of subatomic particles only in the theoretical limit in which his/her “human consciousness” becomes equal to the “consciousness”, namely the real consciousness (intended as phenomenon that is related to the basic frequency of cosmic space). In synthesis, we can say that Bohr’s interpretation of subatomic particles can be considered coherent and satisfactory only if we identify the “observer” with the “consciousness” intended as a phenomenon that is related to a physical property of the universal space (namely to the basic frequency of QS of cosmic space).
This particular version of Bohr’s interpretation of subatomic particles can be considered now closer to Einstein’s point of view. In fact, if consciousness is understood as a phenomenon related to the basic frequency of QS that build up cosmic space it is also right to say that in an experiment the behaviour of elementary particles depends on some “hidden variable” that is consciousness itself. It appears lawful to think that it is the basic frequency of cosmic space the element which determines the behaviour of the subatomic particles (and this element is clearly additional, “hidden”, with respect to the description provided by the quantum wavefunction).

In conclusion, the conception of consciousness as a phenomenon that is related to a physical property of the universal space brings new light to Bohr’s interpretation and to Einstein’s view of atomic and subatomic processes.

Elementary particles behave in the same way also when no scientist is observing them. Consciousness is observing them continuously.

Bohr’s interpretation is pragmatic, Einstein’s view is speculative and keeps the door open.

Consciousness acts in a scientist as his/her capacity to watch and to become aware the way his mind functions. By watching the mind a scientist will become aware of the consciousness itself. He will become self-conscious, he will experience directly the a-temporal cosmic space. That’s the finest and the most noble discovery a scientist can have. Einstein has called it “now”.  

……... there is something essential about the "now" which is outside the realm of science.
                                                                                                                    Albert Einstein



References:

1. Fiscaletti D. (2003). I fondamenti nella meccanica quantistica. Un’analisi critica dell’interpretazione ortodossa, della teoria di Bohm e della teoria GRW, CLEUP, Padova

2. Sorli A., Sorli I. (2005). Consciousness As A Research Tool Into Space And Time,
Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol 2, Num. 6  http://www.ejtp.com/

3. Sorli A, Sorli I. (2004).  A-temporal Gravitation, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, Num. 2   http://www.ejtp.com/

4 Sorli A., Fiscaletti D. (2005).  Active Galactic Nucleus As a Renewing System Of the Universe, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 2, Num 6  http://www.ejtp.com/

5. Sorli A., Sorli I. (2005) From Space-time to A-Temporal Physical Space, Frontier Perspectives, Vol 14, Num 1

6. Sorli A., Sorli I. (2004).  Mathematical Time And Physical Time In The Theory Of Relativity, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, Num 4  http://www.ejtp.com/

7. Fiscaletti D. (2005). A-Temporal Physical Space and Quantum Nonlocality, Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 2, Num. 6  http:/www.ejtp.com/