Scholars on Bhagavad-gita As It Is Published in a total circulation of more than five million copies, in more than thirty languages ​​of the world, "Bhagavad-gita" in translation and with commentaries by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has become a real bestseller.

Guys, we put our soul into the site. Thanks for that
for discovering this beauty. Thanks for the inspiration and goosebumps.
Join us at Facebook and In contact with

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, then fuck off..." - Richard Dawkins, English biologist.

Probably, no one will argue with the fact that science is not only the engine of progress, but also one of the most beautiful and useful forms of creativity for mankind. Each scientific research is a process of creation, each scientist is a creator, rethinking and changing reality in his own way. Like all creative people, scientists know what inspiration is, how difficult it is sometimes to find and keep it. But if they find it, then they are happy to share their wisdom with everyone - and this is truly pleasing.

November 10 is celebrated as Science Day around the world. By this date site collected famous quotes from great scientists, which we gleaned from their works, letters, Nobel speeches and other sources.

Albert Einstein,
one of the most significant physicists of the 20th century, creator of the special and general theory of relativity, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics (1921).

• Theory is when everything is known, but nothing works. Practice is when everything works, but no one knows why. We combine theory and practice: nothing works ... and no one knows why!
• We are all geniuses. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is a fool.
• If you cannot explain something to a six-year-old child, you yourself do not understand it.
• Only a fool needs order - genius rules over chaos.
• There are only two ways to live life. The first is that miracles do not exist. The second - as if there were only miracles around.
• The only thing that prevents me from studying is the education I received.

Leonardo da Vinci
Italian painter, sculptor, architect, scientist, engineer of the Renaissance.

• Whoever wants to get rich in a day will be hanged in a year.
• Work on a work of art can never be completed, but can only be abandoned.
• An adversary who reveals your mistakes is more useful to you than a friend who wants to hide them.
• Experience flight once, and your eyes will forever be fixed on the sky. Once you have been there, you are doomed to yearn for it for the rest of your life.
• Where hope dies, there is emptiness.

Lev Landau,
Soviet theoretical physicist, founder of a scientific school, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Nobel Prize in Physics (1962).

• The greatest achievement of human genius is that man can understand things he can no longer imagine.
• English must be known! Even the most stupid English people know him well.
• The worst sin is being bored! … The Last Judgment will come, the Lord God will call and ask: “Why didn’t you enjoy all the blessings of life? Why did you miss it?
• Everyone has enough strength to live life with dignity. And all this talk about what a difficult time it is now is a clever way to justify your inaction, laziness and various dullness. It is necessary to work, and there, you see, times will change.

Nikola Tesla,
inventor in the field of electrical and radio engineering, engineer, physicist.

• Do you know the expression "You can't jump above your head"? It's a delusion. Man can do everything.
• The action of even the smallest creature leads to changes in the entire universe.
• Modern scientists think deeply instead of thinking clearly. To think clearly, you need to have common sense, but you can think deeply even when you are completely crazy.

Niels Bohr,
Danish physicist and philosopher, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics (1922).

• There are such serious things in the world that one can only talk about them in jest.
• An expert is a person who has made every possible mistake in a very narrow specialty.
• Your idea is, of course, insane. It's all about whether she's crazy enough to be true.

Peter Kapitsa,
Soviet engineer, physicist, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences, laureateNobel Prize in Physics (1978).

• Freedom of creativity - freedom to make mistakes.
• A person is young when he is not afraid to do stupid things.
• Leading means not interfering with good people's work.

Sir Toby: Isn't our life made up of the four elements?

Sir Andrew: You see, I heard it myself.

But, for me, it consists of food and drink.

(Shakespeare)

“I came home, dialed the phone number of my Perm friend. “What,” I say, “and aliens got to you?” And I retell him briefly the history of the M-zone. And he laughs at me in response: “I have not heard about it. We now have more and more gossip about something else. They say the Germans are going to open their own supermarket in the city. And they will sell, they say, for rubles. This is fantastic, so fantastic. Not like your aliens…” (17)

“…The longer an empty plate is on your table, the more often it will appear in the sky. Especially on an empty stomach” (9).

“The apocalyptic mood, the feeling of an inevitable end, has become more acute than ever. After all, it’s not so bad that there are no products in the store, but that there are fewer of them every day ... And people are looking for support, hope” (69).

Three different, but at the same time identical judgments of our contemporaries. But what did they say, or what?! Four centuries separate these modern sayings from Shakespeare's time, and we have to bow our heads before the genius of the classic. How stories repeat...

However, it is too early to draw far-reaching conclusions: well, a journalist embarked on philosophizing, a person with an academic degree relied on common sense ... We are interested in what “serious scientists”, experienced in the problem, think. At least about what happened there in the Vologda region, near Kharovsk.

Yu. Platov, one of the leaders of the group for the analysis of anomalous phenomena at the Academy of Sciences: “... You need to have an accurate source of information. However, there is no need to go to the place either - there are no reports, except for newspaper articles ... We cannot run around looking for who said or wrote what where” (87). But how, then, to notify this analysis team of something anomalous? After all, for this you have to say something or write something ...

At another time and in another place, Yu. Platov stated that “the information that comes to us is processed without fail” (9). But if we discard all these “who said what where” and, moreover, do not move from the spot, then where will the information come from? Perhaps that is why, three years after the well-known incident with a UFO that accompanied the train in Karelia, he said: “There are no materials about the incident with the train in the USSR Academy of Sciences, which, of course, does not mean at all the absence of an event as such. Until the data on this case come to us and are not analyzed, any comment is inappropriate” (88).

We haven't received a comment yet.

S. Lavrov, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences: “I am not interested in unidentified flying objects. I treat it like hell."

Here is such a scientific approach ... It would be an attitude, but it is not necessary to be interested. The principle, however, is quite common. Here is Professor A.I. Kitaygorodsky, a well-known fighter with all kinds of pseudoscientific views, according to a journalist who sympathizes with him, “he himself did not deny that some of his arguments are based simply on intuition and the rich experience of a physicist” (8). How can facts compete with “rich experience”?

N. Kardashev, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences: “I am professionally interested in the problem of extraterrestrial civilizations. But this message, I think, would be best commented on by Comrade Khazanov or Comrade Zhvanetsky" (87).

Hear guys? Those who saw something there - Sveta, Ira, Sasha, ay! Write letters to the mentioned comrades. That's something you laugh at!

However, satirists do not have to write. According to American researchers, only five percent of the world's population has a chance to see a UFO during their lifetime, based on UFO activity over the past 30 years. This means that the remaining 95 percent, who are used to knowing the world “by touch”, have the opportunity to laugh at these few eyewitnesses. What they do. In any case, “scientists treat pseudoscientific myths with a smile, such as visits to our planet by aliens from other worlds on so-called saucers,” reports Colonel M. Rebrov (89).

The same applies to messages related to UFOs. The scientific secretary of the working group “Extraterrestrial Civilizations” of the Scientific Council under the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences L. Nikishin once wrote: “They cause only laughter and surprise among scientists, and just sane people. For these tales lack the literary merit of even mediocre science fiction." Strongly said. Further - more: “... one should answer: there is a scientific problem of searching for extraterrestrial civilizations and pseudoscientific nonsense associated with UFOs ... Frank nonsense like“ travels ”in other people's starships, legends about the abductions of earthlings, of course, must be dismissed immediately ... It is likely that all the remaining mysterious cases will be explained by absolutely "earthly" reasons. The main thing is to seriously and conscientiously study all those meager facts that fall into the hands of researchers, and not raise unnecessary excitement around certain reports” (90).

Note that this was written in 1986. By that time, the facts were already quite enough for research. But if you immediately “sweep aside” the incomprehensible, hoping to explain the rest by earthly causes, then what can be called “serious study”?

But, in the end, after reading such articles, you begin to compose yourself something like this dictionary:

“sober explanation” means within the framework of habitual stereotypes;

“without sensations” - to pretend that what science has no opinion about does not exist at all;

"serious scientists" - who avoid sensationalism and prefer sober explanations;

As for “sensible people” who are drawn to laugh when it’s time to think, the following words of one of the classics of Marxism come to mind: dare to venture into the wide field of inquiry."

A cheerful character, as you know, helps a lot. Unless, of course, it interferes. However, this is not the only difficulty. For example, one researcher turns to another: they say that a “flying saucer” has landed near Pushkin. Just a sin not to check.

Ok, I'm sold. If you want, we'll go tomorrow, - a colleague agrees relaxed (16).

Here science is lucky. Managed to persuade. Although we still see that there are failures.

Why are serious scientists so concerned about a serious matter? They smile, they sigh. And everything is somehow reluctant, as if through force ...

And again, the notorious V.V. Migulin brought clarity:

The fact is, he said in one of his speeches, that serious scientists try to avoid problems of a speculative nature. The history of natural science has shown that, with rare exceptions, there is no scientific result in them, and engaging in them carries both the threat of loss of authority and a clear loss of time. Neither I nor my colleagues were delighted when the president of the Academy of Sciences instructed us to look into some sensational events, in particular, in Petrozavodsk. However, today I understand that the only way to deal with such sensations is to explain to people as widely and openly as possible the true nature of the phenomena that have happened (91).

And again everything fell into place. The task was not to study, but to fight. As for the explanations of the “true nature of phenomena,” we already have some idea of ​​them.

Well, what about the eyewitnesses?

There is no reason not to believe eyewitnesses, - said Yu. Platov, senior researcher at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Wave Propagation of the USSR Academy of Sciences. But, on the other hand, I see no reason to believe that these phenomena were not observed by eyewitnesses (and yet: to believe the eyewitnesses or not? - Auth.). I prefer to remain a “mild skeptic”… (92)

Against such a position, despite its some mystery, it is difficult to object anything. And in general, skeptics sometimes express their thoughts in a rather difficult way. “We have no evidence that the objects seen by eyewitnesses were actually reflected on the retina of their eyes. We can only state that the brain of the eyewitness received signals about these images” (93).

Or: “The Petrozavodsk phenomenon… is only partly due to the picture of a rocket launch, but is mainly determined by the effect associated with the launch…” The railway worker, instead of preventing accidents, protects against bad news. The psychologist talks about "cosmic factors", the correspondent talks about psychology, and the homebody scientist "debunks" what he knows from hearsay. Bold analysis is often carried out outside the boundaries of one's own profession - obviously, this gives scope for thought and the aforementioned courage. True, not everyone does this. V. V. Migulin says directly: “The question of the emergence of a stir around UFOs most likely belongs to the competence of sociologists and psychologists” (94).

And what, interestingly, psychologists?

Psychologist Yu. M. Orlov: “There is a whole theory that humanity turns to mysticism in the crisis periods of its development ...” To “mysticism” - and that's it. Obviously, for a psychologist, ufology and mysticism are one and the same. Yes, and humanity is not lucky: the crisis has been going on since time immemorial.

When asked how the same thing was seen by people who were unfamiliar with each other, who were also tens of kilometers apart, this question does not confuse the scientist either. Have you heard of telepathy? Let's say a person somewhere far away has a close relative in trouble, and he inexplicably feels it, or even sees it. Exactly the same here. In a scientific presentation, it looks like this: “It is impossible to exclude the possibility of transmission through sensory channels from one eyewitness to another of their mental state” (9). The phenomenon itself needs to be studied, and it is already being used to explain another riddle.

And so there is a conversation about this and that, or rather, about nothing, because there is simply nothing to cling to - not a single concrete fact. After all, there are many facts, the discussion may drag on, and it is still unknown how it will end. It is much more reliable to confine oneself to estimates, assumptions, hints. It cannot be ruled out... cases are known... could cause... a UFO in the Perm region? “The author of the sensational publications later made it clear that he was the protagonist of a not entirely correct draw” (9). And point. Who did the author let know when? Who played who? And is it really about the author, because a lot of people, including experienced ufologists, have visited the M-triangle besides the author. Here's how to ask them. But "experts" do not need it. It is quite enough that something happened within a radius of five hundred kilometers from the place of the event. Well, if the launch of the satellite. If not, you can always refer to geomagnetic activity, spots on the Sun ... Moreover, the scientist does not risk anything: the correspondent will not tactlessly find out what the garden elderberry, that is, sunspots, has to do with terrestrial humanoids.

Without waiting for explanations from scientists, we hopefully open the brochure of Vl. Gakov „Dark is the water in the clouds…“ (91). After all, she, as the abstract says, “rips the mystical veil from“ mysterious UFOs ”. The author is not going to follow the example of tabloid little books, in which it is customary, as it were, to “forget” to give references, to keep silent about the point of view of opponents and, in general, about any facts that contradict the author’s reasoning, and simply invent it as a rule of good form. In addition, Vl. Gakov is not going to avoid sharp corners. He directly writes: there are, they say, four types of evidence - visual observations, photographs, radar data and everything else - “supposedly discovered physical traces of a UFO“ landing ”, various material evidence, biophysical effects of UFO impact on people, animals, electromagnetic phenomena associated with UFOs etc". The author gives convincing advice: “In general, for now, forget about the fourth group of evidence ... You can fantasize here as much as you like, but serious scientists have not even analyzed these messages yet - all this is too “hanging in the air” due to lack of evidence. “Angel hair”, upon careful examination (who examined them so carefully? - Auth.), turned out to be a web of special, but well-known to entomologists, “balloon” spiders.

Is it? But the director of the Pulkovo Observatory, V. A. Krat, once said in an interview about “hair”: “Everything is just an invention. There has never been anything like it” (8).

There were, therefore, spiders. Their "web", according to Professor D. Connory, rector of the University of Florence, consists mainly of boron and silicon compounds. And Academician I. V. Petryanov-Sokolov, who (according to the materials of F. Yu. Siegel) studied “angel hair” back in 1968, noted: “The sample is of interest as a very fine-fibred substance and is unlikely to be a natural compound.” True, almost a quarter of a century later, the academician stated in print that although he saw these “hairs”, he did not investigate them ...

However, respected scientists are not experts on spiders, and therefore the testimony of the director of the observatory seems to us the most reliable, since there are no dubious assumptions in his conclusion.

But that's not all. Vl. Gakov and "sensational statements about stopping the engines of cars." Well, firstly, the author writes, the unreliability, to put it mildly, of these reports is now confirmed even by recognized ufologists. (Who, I wonder? - Auth.). And secondly, the “motors”, as it turned out (!), didn’t junk at all, or didn’t junk at all, or stopped working, because, looking at the sky, the driver simply let go of the pedal ... "

Well, the drivers ... A little something - they immediately bring down a UFO. Yes, what are their names? And do they even have a driver's license? But about this Vl. Gakov does not write.

Then we will cite one case that happened to a Muscovite, candidate of technical sciences L. I. Kupriyanovich. He has a good driver's license. So, “July 31, 1969, together with my friends, I was driving in the direction of Usovo (Moscow region). At a railway crossing near a worker's settlement (Kuntsevsky district of Moscow), our car was stopped by a passing electric train ... It was about 20 o'clock when two silvery disc-shaped apparatuses with sharply defined edges appeared in the sky. They quickly flew over the crossing in the direction from north to south and quickly disappeared. At that moment, the barrier was opened, but for some reason our and other cars' engines did not start for several minutes, and then we managed to turn them on without any difficulty. What the disks were and why the engines stalled because of them remained unclear.

In the manuscript of F. Yu. Siegel "Observations of UFOs in the USSR", which contains this message, the address of the eyewitness is also indicated, so that researchers interested in the problem could obtain additional information. There are many more recent posts. But we took precisely this old case because L. I. Kupriyanovich at one time got it from the science fiction writer Yeremey Parnov, who really does not like any fiction. In the article “Technology of the Myth”, he wrote: “There is no evidence of this incident either (from whom is E. Parnov waiting for them? - Auth.). But I heard from one of the participants in the seminar of young science fiction writers about a similar case, but already in the FRG with a column of NATO tanks. Since the copies of the “Apocrypha” about UFOs are accompanied by numerous discrepancies, I dare to assume that the case with tanks was also borrowed from there” (67). Here we raise our hands, because if science fiction writers, and even young ones, say it, then it is so. It is not clear how NATO tanks can refute the case with the Moscow car?

But let's get back to the brochure, "tearing off the mystical veil." Well there the author said about foreign little books. You understand, they don’t give links, they keep silent, invent ... In general, they don’t respect readers at all. Moreover, some of our authors are badly influenced in this sense, we will add from ourselves.

And while they doubt, sigh and smile, others work. Amateurs rushed to study UFOs, not being afraid to fill bumps and gain experience. They scold scientists, on whom vain hopes were placed in the knowledge of the world - in any case, "unidentified".

What about scientists? They put amateurs in their place. Here, for example, Academician S.P. Kapitsa argues: “I think it’s easy to guess how far a turner of the eighth category would send me if I began to give him advice on how best to turn a complex part. But nevertheless, there is an opinion that in science (and in art) it is more visible from the outside, that scientists, burdened with too much knowledge, are often blind, and that it is precisely an adviser from outside who can suggest some unexpected way out, which we we don't see" (95). Well, the idea is clear, and the motive is familiar. True, the poet, long before the academician, expressed it in a shorter way: “Judge, my friend, no higher than a boot!”

We do not think that anyone, including the turner of the mentioned category, came up with the idea of ​​advising the academician with which hand to do what. But even a turner will be surprised to learn how other scientists react to phenomena that should be studied. S. Shulman recalls: “My former classmate at the film institute .., M.I. made a film about Nina Kulagina, who also knew how to move objects with her “look”. M.I. invited me to his shooting to see this unique phenomenon. I, in turn, invited one of my good friends, a very prominent scientist, whose name is known to the entire scientific world. "Ivan Ivanovich (conditionally)," I said, "let's go and see." It’s so interesting: a woman moves objects with her “look!” My acquaintance smiled sweetly and answered: “I know only one object on Earth that can move under a woman’s look,” and refused to go” (93).

The cheerful irony of the “experts” is so contagious that sometimes it’s hard for us to resist it. But, really, this is the result of reading numerous statements on the UFO problem by "serious" but slightly ironic scientists. In addition, irony is a good way to avoid a specific conversation. Although there are others, more serious. For example, you can say: “I am skeptical about this. I don't think there is anything like it." Or even simpler: "This, of course, is nonsense." (We do not give links, so as not to bore the reader with a long list). On the one hand, it seems that a person is simply not up to date. And on the other hand, it turns out a solid answer, not a boy, but a learned man.

One fighter against amateurs suggested, among other things, such a test "for people who despise professionals: to pull out a tooth from an amateur dentist." The academician is right: you should not turn to amateurs. But God forbid you go with this to the Minister of Health. It is best to deal with someone who deals specifically with teeth, even if he is completely ignorant in philosophy and does not have a degree. It was about professionalism that the well-known Soviet historian B.F. Porshnev once wrote: “Previously, it seemed that certain “defendants” should bring proof to the “judges”, then these experts would graciously take the further development of research into their own hands. Now it is clear that such “defendants” are specialists and experts in this case… And the “judges” in an empty hall will doze off in their armchairs” (96). Although it was written on a different occasion, it seems that it is about a UFO.

But not all scientists are opposed to "saucers" and their passengers. For example, Professor G. I. Barenblatt says in an interview with Pionerskaya Pravda: “I have a very good attitude towards aliens. And I would be glad to make sure that they really exist. I would love to meet people of any color and size. But they have nothing to do with “flying saucers” in the water and air environment” (97).

We have nothing to object to the respected professor. The “little men” really have nothing to do with those “plates” that he deals with, as we will see later. Well, as for a possible acquaintance ... That's the trouble: "little men" do not look into scientific laboratories. Therefore, those who really want to get to know them have to leave our capital for a while and go on expeditions. There, researchers talk with eyewitnesses, look for evidence, and if they're lucky, they themselves see something.

True, they see something, but they do not know what it is. And they turn for help to those who have not seen, but know. Those, as a rule, behave solidly, do not fuss. They are considering whether to give an interview, whether to get acquainted with the researchers, whether to go to the scene of the event. And then they say something about rocket launches and optical effects, once again putting "inexperienced and enthusiastic" enthusiasts into a puddle. And the experienced and gloomy have to wait for new messages, because - remember? - "really, you don’t get well for every sneeze."

However, maybe it's the writing brethren, greedy, as you know, for a sensation, stirs up passions? Does not look like it. Yes, “some dubious sensations are reprinting our papers. It happens that they give birth to their own, although, by general (!) Admission, our press in this respect is more strict and restrained than the Western press. That's it. Printed in 200,000 copies (8).

It seems that our press would have become exemplary at all if the attention paid to it by some representatives of academic science had not weakened. How things were with censorship in the benign "stagnant" times, the authors do not know from the newspapers ...

I remember that for the anniversary of K. E. Tsiolkovsky, we decided to talk on the newspaper pages about the cosmic philosophy of our great compatriot. Of course, words like "UFO", "flying saucer" were not there. However, the officer responsible for the protection of state secrets in the press demanded permission for publication from the Department of General Physics and Astronomy of the USSR Academy of Sciences. That's where the reporter went. Of course, he was not allowed to see the decision-maker, and while the material traveled somewhere, a certain consultant was engaged in the correspondent. He uttered irreconcilable monologues about the intrigues of home-grown "skeeters". When the material returned, it was confidently inscribed in the upper left corner: “OOFA strongly objects to the publication of this article. V. Migulin. 06/21/83". So it remains unclear who annoyed our academy more - whether Tsiolkovsky himself with his philosophy, or his modern admirers who decided to talk about it.

Why is there some kind of not very respectable publication ... Six years later, the newspaper Nedelya writes, in fact, about the same thing, talking about the already mentioned flight over Baksan: “Captain Shogenov, a day after the incident, came to the editorial office of the newspaper Sovetskaya youth” and told about an unusual observation. But the message never saw the light of day. Why?

Yes, we prepared an article, - the editors answered me, - but the censorship resolutely banned the publication, referring to some provision according to which any reports of such cases should be sent to the USSR Academy of Sciences, and nothing more.

I find out from the head of the Department for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press under the Council of Ministers of the KBASSR, Kh. Akhmetov, that there really is an instruction not to publish materials about the so-called “flying saucers” and other unidentified flying (UFOs) without the permission of the General Physics Department of the USSR Academy of Sciences? ..

However, my reproaches are addressed not to censorship, but to those who “recommended” it to impose a ban - the USSR Academy of Sciences itself,” writes correspondent A. Kazikhanov (21).

Why is it that the relationship between “big science” and something that goes beyond the usual does not develop so stubbornly? “To despise what we cannot comprehend is a dangerous boldness, fraught with the most unpleasant consequences,” a Frenchman once said. And if physicists, trying to interpret celestial anomalies, turn to psychology, why don't we try?

Psychologists, for example, divide all people into several types depending on how they relate to different innovations:

innovators - are distinguished by the fact that they are constantly looking for something new. Their motto is: "Everything that can be improved";

enthusiasts - accept the new regardless of the degree of its development and take on the hard work of promoting and defending this new;

rationalists - accept the new only after a thorough analysis of all the pros and cons. They are innovative but reliable;

neutrals. This doesn't matter. What they say, they will do. They themselves do not show initiative;

skeptics - do not believe anyone's word, even if the usefulness of the innovation is obvious. In a team, they are useful in that they cool the ardor of those prone to adventures. But the complete victory of the skeptics means the cessation of all search: after all, unlike the rationalists, their goal is to slow down the new;

conservatives are the godbrothers of skeptics, but only their skepticism knows no bounds. The motto is "no change, no risk";

Moreover, according to psychologists, the transition from one type to another is very difficult, especially in old age. Is there some bias in the group of "official experts" in favor of those who close this list? Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why experts are sometimes confident in the results of certain processes, without even thinking about taking on their study.

Vladimir Vasilyevich, don't you think that the mass of reports about UFOs and aliens from outer space is approaching critical? - asks correspondent O. Tkachuk.

Maybe, - answers V. V. Migulin. - And I am sure that the result of this process should eventually be a new qualitative state of public opinion. We will forget about UFOs, as we forgot about witches and brownies. Time heals and explains best of all (17).

In short, the problem is not with UFOs, but with you and me: we don’t imagine the world the way we should. But it is difficult for us to share Migulin's optimism. How many times have they tried to bury the problem under the drumbeat: “The end of the myth about“ flying saucers ”,“ The end of the sensation about the dead aliens ”...” And so on endlessly, dull and monotonous. How much longer?

... To avoid reproach in a one-sided view of the role of science in the study of the UFO problem, we note that not all researchers adhere to the approaches discussed in this section. But if they can be attributed to experts, then only to unofficial ones. But they are not a burden to care, thanks to which we know everything that we know about UFOs.

Is death the final fat point in a person's life, or does his "I" continue to exist, despite the death of the body? This is a question that people have been asking themselves for millennia, and although almost all religions answer it positively, many now would like to have scientific confirmation of the so-called life after life.

It is difficult for many to accept without proof the statement about the immortality of the soul. Recent decades of immoderate propaganda of materialism are having an effect, and now and then you remember that our consciousness is only a product of biochemical processes occurring in the brain, and with the death of the latter, the human “I” disappears without a trace. That is why we so want to receive evidence from scientists about the eternal life of our soul.

However, have you ever wondered what this evidence might be? Some intricate formula or demonstration of a session with the soul of some deceased celebrity? The formula will be incomprehensible and unconvincing, and the session will raise certain doubts, because we have already somehow observed the sensational "revival of the dead" ...

Probably, only when each of us can buy a certain device, use it to connect with the other world and talk with a long-dead grandmother, will we finally believe in the reality of the immortality of the soul.

In the meantime, we will be content with what we have today on this issue. Let's start with the authoritative opinions of various celebrities. Let's remember the student of Socrates the great philosopher Plato, which is about 387 BC. e. founded his own school in Athens.

He said: “The soul of man is immortal. All her hopes and aspirations are transferred to another world. A true sage desires death as the beginning of a new life.” In his opinion, death was the separation of the incorporeal part (soul) of a person from his physical part (body).

famous german poet Johann Wolfgang Goethe spoke quite definitely on this subject: “At the thought of death, I am completely calm, because I am firmly convinced that our spirit is a being whose nature remains indestructible and which will act continuously and forever.”

Portrait of J. W. Goethe

A Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy He stated: “Only one who has never seriously thought about death does not believe in the immortality of the soul.”

FROM SWEDENBORG TO ACADEMICIAN SAKHAROV

It would be possible to list various celebrities who believe in the immortality of the soul for a long time, and cite their statements on this topic, but it's time to turn to scientists and find out their opinion.

One of the first scientists who took up the issue of the immortality of the soul was a Swedish researcher, philosopher and mystic. Emmanuel Swedenborg. He was born in 1688, graduated from the university, wrote about 150 essays in various scientific fields (mining, mathematics, astronomy, crystallography, etc.), made several important technical inventions.

According to the scientist, who has the gift of clairvoyance, he has been studying other dimensions for more than twenty years and has talked with people more than once after their death.

Emmanuel Swedenborg

He wrote: “After the spirit separates from the body (which happens when a person dies), it continues to live, remaining the same person. In order to make sure of this, I was allowed to speak to practically everyone I knew in physical life—some for hours, others for months, some for years; and all this was subordinated to one single purpose: so that I could be convinced that life after death continues, and be a witness to this.

It is curious that already at that time many people laughed at such statements of the scientist. The following fact is documented.

Once, the Queen of Sweden, with an ironic smile, told Swedenborg that, after talking with her dead brother, he would win her favor without delay.

It's only been one week; meeting the queen, Swedenborg whispered something in her ear. The royal person changed her face, and then said to the courtiers: “Only the Lord God and my brother could know what he just told me.”

I admit that few have heard of this Swedish scientist, but the founder of astronautics K. E. Tsiolkovsky probably everyone knows. So, Konstantin Eduardovich also believed that with the physical death of a person, his life does not end. In his opinion, the souls that left the dead bodies were indivisible atoms wandering through the expanses of the Universe.

And academician A. D. Sakharov wrote: “I cannot imagine the Universe and Human life without some kind of meaningful beginning, without a source of spiritual “warmth” lying outside matter and its laws.”

SOUL IS IMMORTAL OR NOT?

American theoretical physicist Robert Lanza also spoke in favor of the existence
life after death and even with the help of quantum physics tried to prove it. I will not go into the details of his experiment with light, in my opinion, it is difficult to call this convincing evidence.

Let us dwell on the original views of the scientist. According to the physicist, death cannot be considered the final end of life; in fact, it is rather the transition of our "I" to another, parallel, world. Lanza also believes that it is our "consciousness that gives the world meaning." He says: "Actually, everything you see does not exist without your consciousness."

Let's leave the physicists alone and turn to the doctors, what do they say? Relatively recently, headlines flashed in the media: “There is life after death!”, “Scientists have proven the existence of life after death,” etc. What caused such optimism among journalists?

They considered the hypothesis put forward by the American Anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff from the University of Arizona. The scientist is convinced that the human soul consists of “the fabric of the Universe itself” and has a more fundamental structure than that of neurons.

“I think consciousness has always existed in the universe. Perhaps since the time of the Big Bang,” says Hameroff and notes that there is a high probability of the eternal existence of the soul. “When the heart stops beating and the blood stops flowing through the vessels,” the scientist explains, “the microtubes lose their quantum state. However, the quantum information that is in them is not destroyed. It cannot be destroyed, therefore it spreads and dissipates throughout the Universe. If the patient, once in intensive care, survives, he talks about the "white light", he can even see how he "leaves" his body. If it dies, then quantum information exists outside the body for an indefinite time. She is the soul."

As we can see, so far this is only a hypothesis and, perhaps, it is far from proving life after death. True, its author claims that no one can yet refute this hypothesis. It should be noted that there are much more facts and studies that testify in favor of life after death than are given in this material, let us recall at least the studies of Dr. Raymond Moody.

In conclusion, I would like to recall the remarkable scientist, Academician of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Professor N. P. Bekhtereva(1924-2008), who for a long time headed the Research Institute of the Human Brain. In her book “The Magic of the Brain and the Labyrinths of Life,” Natalya Petrovna spoke about her personal experience of observing post-mortem phenomena.

In one of the interviews, she was not afraid to admit: “The example of Vanga absolutely convinced me that there is a phenomenon of contact with the dead.”

Scientists who turn a blind eye to obvious facts, avoiding “slippery” topics, should recall the following words of this outstanding woman: “A scientist does not have the right to reject facts (if he is a scientist!) Just because they do not fit into a dogma, worldview.”