WHEELER’S BIZARRE DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT AND MANDELA EFFECT
I couldn't resist talking about this subject today after an interesting development on July 22nd's blog post, "Cantorian Economics"? Or Something Else? In response to that article, Steve Jinks commented as follows:
We might not need to go as far as Cantor to see the basic outlines of this scenario, although that is a fascinating hypothesis. What I mean is, if we look at these economic systems from the perspective of quantum theory and the power of consciousness, and factor in RISK and RISK PERCEPTION, it might be that people’s PERCEPTIONS of risk are causing a reordering of system behavior.
If you want to go a little further off the twig of speculation, it might also be true that, due to an experiment designed by Wheeler, which proved that a quantum system can reorder the past, based on the consciousness of the witnesses to it, we might also be seeing downside risk perception reorder the reality itself (past and present) to some extent, which might lead to amplification of action due to the coherent decisions and perceptions of masses of people. The boundary condition you describe might be the result of the mechanism which defends temporal cohesion (the alignment of past and present).
It could be that the past becomes somewhat worse which only drives the downward trend harder, since temporal cohesion is a core mechanism of this universe (conservation of temporal consistency). The cool thing here might be that Cantorian transfinity and quantum conscious temporal reordering, are *analogous* to one another.
Now, believe me when I tell you that this was the first time I'd ever heard of physicist Wheeler's experiment proving "that a quantum system can reorder the past, based on the consciousness of the witnesses to it..."
Being greatly interested in such things (as you already know if you're a regular reader here), I asked Mr. Jinks to email me a link. Another regular reader of this site, K.M., saw the exchange, and emailed me the following link, which clarified what was going on with Wheeler, and his very unique version of the quantum "double slit experiment":
Note the following:
A classic experiment used to examine the role of consciousness and its relationship to matter is the quantum double slit experiment. In this experiment, tiny bits of matter (photons, electrons, or any atomic-sized object) are shot toward a screen that has two slits in it. When there is no measuring device placed at the screen, the tiny bits of matter act as a “wave” and creates an “interference” pattern on the other side where a wall is placed to catch the pattern. Because there was no measuring or observation device used to see what slit the matter went through, we cannot know what path it took. When the pattern on the wall is examined to see what path it took, it represents a wave of possibilities, meaning the matter (particle) went through both slits, and one slit, and interfered with itself, which should be physically impossible. Welcome to the wacky world of quantum physics.
The kicker is, however, when an observation device is set up to observe what slit the particles goes through, the particle then only goes through one, thus collapsing the wave pattern and forming a pattern that is representative of the particle only going through one slit. In other words, the behaviour of the matter changes when we decide to measure it, almost acting as if it was aware that it’s being watched. The pattern on the wall set up behind the slit screen will show this pattern. 50 percent of the time the particle will go through one slit, and the other 50 it will go through the other and form a two slit pattern, just as if they were balls lobbed through one slit or the other.
If this isn’t already mind-altering enough for you, one physicist, John Archibald Wheeler, pondered what would happen if we don’t interfere with the photons on their way through the slits? What would happen if we didn’t set up a measuring device to observe what slit the matter went through, and instead, what if behind the back wall there were detectors? One detector is focused on each slit, and just before the particle lands on the screen after it has passed through the slit device, the detectors are pulled away. When no one could detect which slit the photon had gone through, there was a wave pattern, but when the detectors were in place, there was no wave pattern. Similar to observing the particles before they went through the slit. No observation produced an interference pattern, and observation formed a one line, one slit pattern.
If they collapse to a state of particles from a wave at the moment of detection, after they have gone past the slit device, this means that even though they went through the slit unobserved and should produce a wave (interference) pattern, the very act of observing, still, instantly transforms them into particles and collapses the wave function. This begs the question, how could these detectors interfere with something that had already happened? It would mean that what happened in the present changed the past. The very act of detecting the particles after they go through the slit determines how they went through the slit, either as a wave or as particles. How is this possible? In other words, what we chose to do in the present with regards to detection of the tiny bits of matter, changed what the tiny bits of matter behaved in the past, in this case, how they went through the double slit screen. (Emphasis added)
Now believe me when I say, as many times as I had read about quantum mechanics, double slit experiments, and Wheeler, I had never encountered his bizarre version of the experiment.
The reason I'm intrigued by it is the question I and many others have long pondered on this website, and particularly, in our many discussions in the members' area vidchats.
Clearly, Wheeler's version of the experiment demonstrates a retro-causation effect, or a kind of causation that literally flows backwards in time. But notably, like all quantum mechanical effects, this occurs only on the level of the very small...
... or does it?
For many years I've been fascinated by the so-called Mandela Effect, the phenomenon widely reported of some people remembering events differently than others. For example, some people remember South African leader Nelson Mandela reportedly dying in prison. The vast majority of the human population remembers him eventually becoming president of South Africa after the fall of the apartheid government there. In my own case, as I've stated many times on this website in connection to the Mandela Effect, I myself am a "victim" of such memory, remembering the death of noted White House reporter Helen Thomas in the 1990s during the Clinton era, many years before most people remember. Similar "contradictory" memories have been reported for the death of famous actors Kirk Dougless and Richard Chamberlain. (Note, I do not view various spellings of commercial products or various books as legitimate versions of the Mandela Effect, only differing memories of actual events.) Some of my friends have told me of similar memories that differ from the public narratives of certain events.
Because of this, I have often pondered whether or not someone were running a vast physics experiment using social engineering to see if, in fact, a macro-scaled effect of conscious observation could be observed, or if, to put it differently, if someone were running a large-scaled version of Wheeler's double slit experiment. The problem here is that if there were to be any possibility of success, one could not convert the entire human population into the "measuring observer", but only a segment of it, and even then, one would have to look for evidence that two different timelines were coexisting on a common surface, with the increasing confusion that such coexistence - if even possible - would result in.
So to put the question country simple: how would one detect retro-causation in scales larger than the quantum scale? And, while we're at it: is prophecy such a detection? is it related to the whole topic?
We've heard much recently about "narrative warfare," and the importance of controlling narratives. Viewed in this light, perhaps there is much more at stake than meets the eye, or that the narrative "warriors" are willing to admit.
This is a case of you-tell-me...
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.