Everything we have ever learned is wrong!

This is the claim of prominent stem-cell scientist Dr. Robert Lanza, the best-selling author of Biocentricism. Lanza states that scientists have always had it backwards in claiming that life comes from matter. Such bold claims are diametrically opposed to almost all previous scientific approaches. We must restart our theory of everything with a new paradigm, one where everything is based on consciousness. Lanza states that space and time are concepts of the mind and that death does not exist in the reality, that our entire being ends with “death,” and that, “Nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.”

Lanza claims that the Big Bang cannot explain the greatest mystery in the universe: “Why is the universe exquisitely fine-tuned to support life?”

Lets face it, our theories of the universe and physical world are antiquated and can never work until they fully account for life and consciousness as an integral part of such a theory.

‘According to Lanza, what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it. According to Lanza, and co-author Bob Berman, “Biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful attempts for a unified field theory eight decades ago.”’ [REF 1]
NOTE: ALL REFS => change to superscript 1, same for further refs [superscripts in next parag need to be smaller font size also]

Let us start with Lanza’s claim that consciousness is behind everything. After all, this is how mathematics or science professors might start your semester studies. We are told up front to believe that the area of a circle is pi R2 and that the energy equivalent of matter is equal to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light, the renowned formula: E = mc2. We accept such statements easily because of our faith in the source.


In the above example it is Einstein’s famous energy formula, whose theories almost everyone accepts at face value. Yet we find that Einstein himself had trouble accepting the so-called New Physics of Quantum Mechanics (QM). QM, while turning science upside down, accurately explains physical phenomena in ways never thought of previously and has held a prominent position in mainstream physics for almost a century. Yet, QM is somewhat of an enigma. Its abstract probabilistic predictions still fall short of a reliable consistent description of the reality around us and even sometimes produce contradictory predictions.

QM, while accurately predicting interactions and behaviors on a nuclear level, has introduced many novel methods of observing this reality, such as treating particle movements in terms of probability wave movements. This part of QM theory was a primary source of Einsteins dislike of QM. In relating to such hazy probabilistic predictions he stated that, “God does not play dice.” Although disliking QM’s abstract unintuitive methodologies, Einstein and future scientists nevertheless accepted its more accurate than previously available descriptions of phenomenon. Quantum Mechanics has retained its stature as a major edifice of science ever since.

Einstein furthered the strange unbelievable predictions of QM with the astounding conception of Quantum Entanglement (discussed later in this article), which seems to defy Einsteins very own theory of relativity.

According to the current theories of physics there are four fundamental fields by which forces are transmitted between objects: Strong Interactions primarily within nuclei, Electromagnetic Interactions between electrically charged particles, short range Weak Interactions on some particles, responsible for some forms of radioactivity and the long range attractive Gravitational Interaction acting upon all particles.

A Unified Field Theory (a term coined by Einstein) or an all encompassing theory of fundamental particles and forces remains an open field with no conclusive uniform theory. It has not been possible to bring science under such a formal and consistent system.

Even in the most prominent sciences there are disagreements and controversy. Yet, scientific theories are generally accepted as factual descriptions of reality because they mostly work and we don’t have anything better to work with. Yet, these (apparently) solid time tested theories are continuously changing — evolving and devolving — ultimately failing to describe reality accurately.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, in spite of mountains of archaeological and other scientific evidence contradicting and disproving this theory, has outlasted it all and is still accepted and taught around the world. Rationalists have fought the fundamentalists tooth and nail to keep the Intelligent Design conception from gaining an ounce of credibility. So, we are left with only the limp insufficient and un-credible theory of Darwin to account for the origins of the multitude of life forms.

Isn’t it better to admit that we don’t know, rather than teaching untruths? Carl Sagan sagely expresses this, “The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and it has no place in the endeavor of science.”

Although ever newer theories ‘may’ provide more and more accurate descriptions of our material world, they always seem to come up a little short and never quite explain it all. In fact information theory predicts just such limits to science. Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem proved that there are limitations on all but the most basic mathematical systems. Gregory Chaitlin of the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center has taken this result further and shown with algorithmic information theory that mathematics has serious limitations and demonstrated that not only is there no structure to the foundation of mathematics, the foundation is in fact random. [2]

Stephen Hawking agrees that any attempt to formulate a Unified Theory of Forces will be incomplete — science can never give us a conclusive answer.

The ancient Vedic literatures of India concur—all living entities have four inherent defects—bhrama, pramada, karanapatava, vipralipsa. We are subject to illusion, we make mistakes, we have a cheating propensity and we have imperfect senses. These defects are that which magicians take advantage of to trick us and indeed they work well for them.

More importantly these defects or human imperfections limit everyones’ (including our most brilliant scientists’) capacity to arrive at the truth, no matter how sophisticated their techniques. They limit our scientific findings, which are little more than extensions of our own limited capacities, minds and senses — the microscope and telescope are merely extensions of the eye and our incredibly fast number crunching Cray computers are mere mechanical extensions of our minds. In science, ’seeing is believing,’ yet much is still invisible to our enhanced sense detection and many things we do see are just wrong. We are looking at this incorrectly. No amount of conceptualization by our defective mind and senses will lead to the ultimate truth. We must find a higher authority or uncorrupted evidence — that which is beyond these human defects, uncontaminated by prejudicial assumptions and selfish agendas which we all share. This needs to be explored further.

In 1900 Lord Kelvin stated the prominent worldview at that time succinctly, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurements.” This worldview was shattered five years later by Albert Einstein with his Theory of Special Relativity. F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration), the classical certainty of physics, is not valid at the quantum level. In the 1920’s Erwin Schrodinger developed his wave equations, which along with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle provided much of the basis of Quantum Mechanics, a revolutionary new theory providing an entirely different viewpoint of the nature of reality. The movements of particles are seen as probability amplitudes of waves propagating thru space; where observation of events define the very event itself.


What this means is that Quantum Mechanics is saying that the conscious observer creates the reality, which is in essence what Lanza is stating, that consciousness is the root of everything.

Such a radical approach seems needed to bypass the stagnation and present limitations of science. After all it was Einstein who stated that, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” We have to think outside of the box of our limited brain capacity and experience. Haven’t genius’s been ahead of their time, their theories far beyond the grasp of their peers? Copernicus barely escaped the inquisitions of the church, but the stalwart bearers of his incredible contributions to science and astronomy, Bruno and Galileo, where imprisoned, tortured and Bruno was burned at the stake for putting forth the heretical ideas of Copernicus: such as, the Sun doesn’t revolve around the earth and there are other equally important universes than ours. It seems that history has, in many instances, been unkind to some of our greatest thinkers and their uncluttered creativity.

Continuing our present line of thinking, following in Lanza’s footsteps, it seems that the most logical way to create a theory of everything is to place consciousness at the root of everything else. Lanza’s Biocentric universal model is a much lauded step in this direction. This very thing is enunciated clearly throughout the Vedas.

Such a fundamentally new paradigm is urgently needed and necessary — one which accounts for consciousness itself as an integral and essential element of reality. After all, our most advanced sciences, such as QM, have determined that consciousness shares an integral part of reality. Quantum Mechanics shows that the observer of reality creates the reality they observe by their very act of observation.

A truly scientific approach demands that the only theories that should not be considered viable are those that have no measurable consequences and no testable predictions. One may logically then question if we truly can measure or detect consciousness? Certainly consciousness is the symptom of life, the difference between a live and dead entity is consciousness itself. This subject of consciousness has become too important to be ignored. It requires extensive investigation and as we shall see consciousness fortunately now has a prominent place amongst many scientific inquiries.


Let us then ask, ‘what is consciousness?’ Traditional science has repeatedly tried to break consciousness down to physical parameters interacting mechanically. Typically, the western concept has been that the mind is the self. Huxley believed that states of consciousness were caused by molecular changes in the brain and that the mind is a byproduct of these changes.

Our Psychological states can be influenced by the chemical state of our brain. For example, alcohol and drugs affect us and our abilities are impaired by this intoxication. When particular portions of the brain are damaged or impaired our thinking and functioning are debilitated. We experience many modes of consciousness even within unconsciousness, for example dreaming, lucid dreaming, deep and dreamless sleep. Even when unconscious our senses are working, so a kick or loud noise may awaken us from our unconscious state.

Thus it seems that we are our bodies and minds and we feel and identify ourselves as such. This personal identity is even taken so far that a dent in our car is often taken as if our own body is damaged and we react as if we feel pain. This is due to our attachment and reliance on our car much like we rely on our body and its functions to support our life and its activities. Just as we are not our car, so we may not be our bodies.

The experience of enjoyment cannot be reduced to a simple physical mechanism. Our consciousness and emotions are not quantifiable. They cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation nor truly replicated by a machine. The conclusion then is that consciousness is not measurable or detectable in the typical empirical manner normally demanded by science. Yet we cannot deny its existence, only that we have a hard time understanding where it resides and precisely what makes it work the way it does.

A former colleague of mine once long ago defeated the then reigning world champion chess master (Bobby Fisher) by using the masters own defense against him but deviating slightly in the middle of the exhibition game, fooling the master. Computers can be programmed to do all of this except think outside of what they are precisely programmed to do (i.e., think outside of the box). Artificial intelligence is still artificial and can never challenge human consciousness in its breadth of capabilities and subtle nuances, emotions and keen discriminating perceptions.


An alternative approach in the usual scientific quest to understand reality, that of considering a conscious independent non-physical self (called atma in sanskrit) which monitors the various patterns of electrochemical events of our brain and translates them into a psychological experience is not entirely out of concert.

As related previously, the well known double-slit experiment in Quantum physics reveals the interesting phenomena that the results are different when the experiment is observed than the results when it is not observed. In other words the observer creates the reality that they observe. A simple explanation of the double-slit experiment is that when scientists watch a particle pass through a multi-holed barrier, the particle acts like a bullet traveling through a single slit. When the particle is not watched, however, the particle moves through the holes like a wave, where the portions of the wave produce an interference pattern.

Scientist John Wheeler has stated regarding the double slit experiment, that in his opinion, no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is observed. “Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago ‘to be is to be perceived.’” [3]

A rather intriguing result obtained from Wheeler’s experiments is the conclusion that time has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics’ choices and that indeed the observation of the result causes the result. [4] A more recent experiment by French physicists even more conclusively proved that the result is still determined by the cause (observed or not) even when the particle has already passed the point of observation—its cause. [5] Physicist Roch stated that this result, “Really emphasizes the tension between quantum mechanics and relativity." I.e., there is a large conflict—laws of physics are being broken here and no one knows how to fix them.

It may also be argued that the observer in the QM double slit experiment may be a physical device and not a conscious device, therefore consciousness plays no role in QM. Yet we find the same results from the double slit experiment when conscious observers are thinking or not thinking about the double slit and in neither case directly observing the experiment. Thus consciousness, in addition to a nonphysical observing mechanism, does influence the result. This means that our choices create our reality. The behaviour of a particle is altered by a persons perception of it.

A paper published in the peer reviewed journal Physics Essays [6] describes how experiments were conducted with the double-slit optical system to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wave function. “The ratio of the interference pattern’s double slit spectral power to its single slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. The study found that factors associated with consciousness significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double slit interference pattern. ‘Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.’” In other words the observer creates the reality. This means that the New Physics is telling us that without consciousness we have no reality.

This prediction of Quantum Mechanics derails our long held views of determinism and materialism. It tells us that the universe is conscious and is making choices—choices which create reality. An alternative worldview with consciousness at its root is the essence of the perspective presented by the Vedic literatures of India.


The principle founders of Quantum Mechanics and Nobel Laureates Neils Bohr, Erwin Schroedinger and Werner Heisenberg were all avid believers in the philosophical and scientific presentation of the monumental ancient Vedic literatures of India and were profoundly influenced by its philosophy — a philosophy of consciousness.

This Vedic view is a philosophy founded on the belief in the spiritual conscious self or atma as the life giving principle of all living entities as well as the belief that the atma at the time of death of the body it is associated with, travels to another body, i.e. the atma reincarnates in a new body when the old body can no longer support it.

Careful documentation of previous life remembrances, and elimination of other viable causes, has revealed that reincarnation is the only possible explanation for remembering such precise and accurate information. [7] How can this information be transferred from a dead human to a now living human if not via an immaterial, unmeasurable, undetectable and invisible entity such as the atma? Our scientists cannot answer this question.

Much of the Vedic literatures have been scientifically corroborated with modern technological techniques — such as satellite remote sensing, radiocarbon dating of archaeological evidence, genetic DNA halogroup tracing of paleolithic continuity, computer calculations of dates of precise astronomical configurations recorded thousands of years ago at the time of the Vedic compositions, study of micro-fossil marine sediments, for example. It defies common sense and a true scientific approach to neglect such a plethora of irrefutable evidence of the dating of the Vedas as well as their veracity. [8] The Vedic literatures do not conflict with Lanza’s paradigm. We strongly believe that Lanza’s entire viewpoint supports these teachings of the Vedas regarding the existence of a spiritual life force at the heart of every living entity and the universe itself.

Before we go too far out on a proverbial limb, let us also confirm the unique acceptance of the Vedic literatures by some of the most profound and deep thinkers the world has known. In previous articles we have substantiated the lofty glorification of the Vedic literatures by Emerson, Thoreau, Schopenhauer, Whitehead, Voltaire, Oppenheimer, Lin Yutang, Carl Sagan, and many others. [9] The principle founders of Quantum Mechanics itself, Neils Bohr, Erwin Schroedinger and Heisenberg, were avid readers of the Vedas and utilized these teachings within their quantum theories, even stating that the Vedic conceptions helped them considerably in their scientific formulations. [10]

Einstein, a firm believer in science, regularly read the Bhagavad Gita and glorified it: “When I read the Bhagavad Gita, about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.”

Newton is credited with his Classical Mechanics of action-reaction, a basic theory of physics, presented some 300 years before the introduction of Quantum mechanics. Here we find the classical formula for force equals the mass times the acceleration or F = ma. It is claimed that Newtons entire presentation in Classical Physics and Calculus was derived entirely from the Vedas and the Kerala Book of Calculus. Even the Serbian genius Nikola Tesla was well acquainted with the Vedas and often used sanskrit words as well as becoming vegetarian and celibate. The list of Vedic literati only adds more notably famous great thinkers.

In the beginning of the 20th century, Danish physicist Neils Bohr explained how atoms emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation only at certain frequencies, giving us the formula for this as E = hv. Here E is the energy of the radiation which is the discrete difference in energy between two different electron orbital levels in the atom and v (nu) is the frequency of that emitted or absorbed radiation. Neils Bohr was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922 for his theory on the hydrogen atom based on quantum theory. Bohr, an avid follower of the Vedas, is quoted as stating: “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.”

Both Bohr and Erwin Schrodinger, the founders of quantum mechanics, regularly read the Vedic literatures and noted that their quantum mechanical experiments produced results which were consistent with the Vedic teachings.

Austrian-Irish Erwin Schrodinger is most well known for his wave equations which equate the movement of particles as probability waves, for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in 1933. Schrodinger consistently included Vedic references in his writings such as Mein Weltansicht and What is Life?

Schrodinger, in explaining his representation of particles in the universe as wave functions of probability stated, “The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. This is entirely consistent with the Vedanta concept of All in One.” He wrote that, “The only solution to this conflict (plurality of consciousness) insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad. [11]

Werner Heisenberg, also in the 1920s, formulated his now well known Uncertainty Principle, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1932. The Uncertainty Principle states that when you observe a subatomic particle, you cannot but disturb that particle. Another way to state this, is that if you know the position of a particle then you cannot know its speed, or to the degree you know its speed, you cannot know its position. This is easy to understand on the subatomic level as the photons of light used to observe this particle are of the same order of magnitude as the particle itself, so will obviously disturb it. Later experiments have shown that this disturbance extends even to conscious thinking of the particle itself. This was proven extensively under rigorous scientific “conditions” in the testing of the double slit experiment as stated previously above. [12]

Schrodinger has related in a series of discussions with Heisenberg, that Heisenberg spoke of his travels to India as a lecture guest of (the famous Indian poet and writer) Rabindranath Tagore while working on the quantum theory. Heisenberg said that his talks with Tagore on Indian philosophy helped him a lot with his work in physics, because “they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were not all that crazy. He realized that there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas.”

Even Robert Oppenheimer, lead scientist in the Manhattan Project (development of the atom bomb during WWII), learned Sanskrit so that he could read the Bhagavad Gita in its original language and stated that his life’s philosophy was profoundly influenced by it. He stated that, “The Vedas are the greatest privilege of this century.” It is also well known that he quoted the Bhagavad Gita during the USA’ first nuclear test explosion.


To continue with our discussion of consciousness and sensory perceptions let us use vision as an example. Images are received on the retina in the back of our eye where they are translated into electrochemical impulses transferred thru the optic nerve as neurons to the visual cortex. Yet these neurons are binary like our computer communications. That is, a neuron is either on or off, thats all. These neurons pass thru various logic gates at the brain which receives these incoming stimuli and understands them as various images in terms of shape, color and motion similar to how our modern computers react to incoming stimuli, images and other electronic input signals and displays them on the screen. Science has not as yet been able to account for how this transfer of incoming electrochemical stimuli to our actual vision of the images represented in this stimuli is accomplished by the self.

Somehow, these mechanical impulses are magically transformed into visual perceptions. Imagine for a moment the retina and also the brain as a TV screen processing these incoming abstract signals. Where then, we must ask, is the observer of the images on the screen? Is there a little man in the brain observing and interpreting these images? A computer or any machine has no emotion yet scientists still try to show that our bodies’ responses are a mechanical reaction to external sensory stimuli.

Even with the most advanced compression schemes (such as those available on our computers) our entire lifetime of recorded images, impressions, feelings, emotions, etc are normally still spread out and repeated in our brain and readily available. The display of such information in the brain does not in any way account for consciousness and the multitude of variegated responses and emotions each living entity is capable of displaying instantaneously.

There seems to have been a consortium of opinion amongst scientists in their reactionary responses trying to negate the idea of consciousness and will as occupying any significant position within science. Fortunately in the preceding decades science has finally realized the necessity and essential place of consciousness in descriptions of reality.

Although, we are not aware of how we do it, we perceive all the electrochemical input from all of our senses correctly when we are in good health. We are not conscious of analyzing these incoming stimuli, only the resultant images & impressions of these various sensory stimulations.

A simple breakdown, for example of colors into the standard R, G, B in the trichromatic scheme of Red, Green and Blue colors as short, medium and long wavelength, fails when we analyze yellow. It is formed by equal combinations of red and green, yet it is not a greenish red nor a reddish green. It is unary, not binary and this failure has caused neurophysiologists to completely revise their theory of neural processing beyond the retina. A simple binary correlation fails. This is just one simple example of how such simple correlations fail to explain where consciousness is, what it is, and how it actually works.

A red car is perceived differently when seen with regular lighting (as red), when the suns reflection glares off the car (gold or white) or the car is seen in shadow (grey). Our perception of the car’s color thus appears as totally different depending on the conditions of lighting under which it is observed. This human perception along with our emotions is difficult to quantize and reduce to simple physical parameters. Remember that incredible occasion captured in a photograph? When shown to a friend, the miniature replica was flat, devoid of the emotion of the moment. The vitality of the moment is lost in the mechanical replica.

Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles has stated that the mind or a beings consciousness is separate from the body because a conscious will is required before neurological events take place in the brain. This would mean then that the brain is the functioning material organ and the separate mind or consciousness is an immaterial separate symptom of the living entity. But what is this conscious part? Is it detectable or not?

Max Planck, a principle architect of the Quantum Theory, who also won the Nobel Prize in 1918 for this work, stated, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, [is] postulating consciousness.”

Theoretical Physicist Eugene Wigner also contributed much to quantum theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. He stated, “It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

Part Two of this article will be continued in the next issue of Gaudiya Touchstone. Next we will present experimental evidence uncovered in the militaries’ research of the major world powers during their mostly secret research projects of many areas related to consciousness and other phenomenon not empirically obvious. Convincing evidence is presented—the results all point towards the necessity of including consciousness and other empirically invisible phenomenon within science.

The duplicity predicted by such Quantum Mechanical paradoxes as Schroedinger’s Cat and simultaneously conflicting spin orientations is resolved by the concept of acintya-bheda-bheda, simultaneously one and different—a page from the Vedic Paradigm.


1- Bob Berman and Robert Lanza, “The Biocentric Universe Theory”, Discover magazine (May 2009), http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-cre....

2- Gregory Chaitin, “A Century of Controversy Over the Foundations of Mathematics”, Complexity, Vol 5 Issue 5 (May /June 2000),  pp. 12-21, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1099-0526(200005/06)5:5%3C12::AID-CPLX3%3E3.0.CO;2-6/abstract.

3- John Horgan, “Quantum Philosophy”, Scientific American (July 1992), pp. 94-104, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed_choice_experiment.

4- Ross Rhodes, “Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Exeriment,” http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm.

(If you find the hidden humor of quantum theory intriguing, then you might like to look into the brilliant “Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser!”  Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 1-5 (2000):   http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm)

5- Jean-François Roch and colleagues from École Normale Supérieure de Cachan, “Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment”, Science, Vol. 315 no. 5814 (February 2007),  pp. 966-968, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract.

6- Dean Radin, Leena Michel, Karla Galdamez, Paul Wendland, Robert Rickenbach, and Arnaud Delorme, “Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments”, Physics Essays, Vol 25 Issue 2 (June 2012), http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/PhysicsEssays-Radin-DoubleSlit-201....

7-  Ian Stevenson, MD, Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation, 1987, Revised edition (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co Inc, 31 March 2001, ISBN 978-0786409136).

8- Swami B B Vishnu, “From Mythology to History”, Vedic Science & History (Bangalore: Gosai Publishers, Dec 2014, ISBN 9788192660134), p. 23, http://archaeologyonline.net/mythology-to-history.

9- Ibid., “Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge”, p. 11,  http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/scientific-verif-vedas.html. Also available as a video: http://store.devavision.org/content/scientific-verification-vedic-knowledge.

10- Ken Wilber, The Holographic Paradigm, (Shambhala, 12 September 1982, ISBN 978-0394712376).

11- Erwin Schrödinger, Mein Leben meine Weltansicht, Mit einem Vorwort von Auguste Dick: Deutsch Auflage, Keine Übersetzung (My Life My World View, With a foreword by Auguste Dick: German Edition, No English Translation), 1st edition (Diogenes Taschenbuch, 1989, ASIN: B00LK1J0VS).

12- Radin, op. cit.