Quantum Physics and Retrocausality

A Brief Investigation of Quantum Physics and Retrocausality vs. Natural Laws

(PD) Jean François de Troy An Allegory of Time Unveiling Truth - modifications by Larry Neal Gowdy

Larry Neal Gowdy

Foreword

The first rule that everyone ought to demand for themselves, is to think for themselves *before* believing what other people might claim.

A question to ask yourself, and to answer yourself: have you or anyone else that you know, ever had a 'gut feeling' or any other form of precognition that came true? Accurate 'gut feelings' are very common. It is assumed that surely no less than 10% of everyone on earth will have a gut-feeling that is later proven to have been accurate (the percentages ought be much higher, but may actually be much lower).

Now ask yourself: if some or many gut-feelings of future events are accurate, then does that not imply that the individuals were sensing their futures? Does that not also prove that the past is sensing the future, as well as the future influencing the past? A strong gut-feeling in the present may cause a person to change a behavior for the purpose of avoiding a future event, and thus, the 'impending' future altered the past.

Some people may never have a gut-feeling, and some other people may only have one or two gut-feelings in their lives, but some individuals have thousands of gut-feelings that are always proven true within seconds, days, months, or years. Give close attention to the words "days" and "years". The duration of time is not nanoseconds, but rather the perceptions are from days, years, and decades away. Remember that.

Now ask yourself: if billions of times people have reported sensing their own futures, and, the perceptions came true, then does that not confirm that the future can influence the past? And also ask yourself another simple question: why would anyone believe that the future does not influence the present?

And there is the current curiosity: why do known philosophers and scientists not know of 'gut-feelings' and other forms of precognition?

Again ask yourself: do some people sometimes sense their own futures?

Having your own thoughts lit brightly within your mind, now read what some people have said about the science of quantum retrocausality.

People Attempting to Rationalize What They Have no Knowledge Of

A humorously peculiar video titled "This Scientist Reveals We're Trapped in a Time Loop!" (original source and author unknown) imaginatively speaks of parallel universes and of how scientists have allegedly 'discovered' that future events influence past events: "Physicists have observed particles influenced by events that haven't happened yet. It's as if the future reaches back and leaves a fingerprint on the present. A phenomenon some call retro causality. The universe might actually be giving us hints, breadcrumbs of evidence pointing to this hidden truth."

The sensationalist video jumps from one topic to another without offering background information of why the video's claims might be valid, but the topics themselves do lend a momentary curiosity of where science's theories currently stand today. As a whole, and from what could be gleaned by glancing at numerous recent papers, the scientific theories appear to be most focused on cause-and-effect nanosecond measurements of quantum waves. In general, most of the references continue to revolve around John Wheeler's 'Self-excited Circuit' idea.

All in all, and of the papers seen, all of them appeared to be focused upon microscopics and quantum physics, or in other terms, the current research projects are searching for answers within the belief that measuring little things can produce an answer for big things. Perhaps the most prominent nature of the projects is that the scientists are looking for answers outside of themselves instead of personally observing the inside.

Included within the many alleged references is the Buddhist text Pramanavarttika (said to have been from the 8th to 9th centuries), of which allegedly spoke of a form of the future influencing the past. No known direct references were found for the claims, nor did a quick search of the book's wording reveal a parallel interpretation, and so at present there is no reason to assume that Pramanavarttika spoke of a retrocausality that is outside of philosophical reasoning. (Note: the book has over 60,000 words, which is much too lengthy for a curious read, especially when considering that all other similar Buddhist books read in the past had failed to present convincing claims.)

Although the scientific and philosophical approaches are incomplete and open for critiquing, still there is surmountable and verifiable evidence that the future can indeed influence the past.

While scientists are searching for answers within mathematics and actions that can only be measured with specialized test equipment (if accurately measured at all), some individuals find answers that are consciously and physically observable with the eyes and body. The two approaches — theoretical and firsthand observed — may share the concept of retrocausality, but the methods and results are diametrically different.

A Quick Overview of the Scientific Theoretical Approach

Example #1: The general Wheeler/Feynman idea is that when an accelerated particle's electromagnetic field is generated from a specific point, instantly half of the field is measured to occur forward of the particle, and half of the field is measured to occur behind the particle. Roughly, the 'behind' field would have (theoretically) influenced the particle when the particle was in the location of the 'past' field, and the 'forward' field would influence the particle as the particle entered into the field. It is valid that electromagnetic waves have 'positive' and 'negative' fields, but the theory is binary within its omission of the nature of the fields themselves.

Electromagnetic fields do not nascent as 'rings' (i.e. rings around Saturn), but rather the fields are spherical, encompassing all of the object. An easy experiment is to have a small ball in a tub of water. When the ball is moved, the waves occur all around the ball, not just in front and in back of the ball. Electromagnetic fields are similar. If a theory of electromagnetic waves around an object omits the spherical field's influences on all other objects' waves all around the object, then the resulting theory will have gross errors.

Example #2: Similar to the Wheeler/Feynman idea, the general Transactional Interpretation of quantum theory includes the idea of when a single quantum is emitted (i.e. a photon), the propagated field is forwards and backwards simultaneously. When the propagated field interacts with another field (wave transductance), more fields are created which also propagate forwards and backwards simultaneously and thus allegedly 'cancel' each other out. The theory is far more complex, but the above is an ample enough idea.

A general parallel idea is found within water waves. The water analogy is not ideal, but it lends an elementary idea of how 'electrical' waves interact.

(CCO) Photo by Maja R.. — A thinking man can learn more by looking at a pond for twenty minutes, than what a memorizing man can learn by listening in classrooms for twenty years. (Photo modifications by Larry Neal Gowdy) - (The above photo is from IQ is Irrelevant to Intelligence).

But again, fields are not flat, nor 2D. Fields are spherical, fluid, in motion, and are observable within 3D. When a theory only mentions 'forwards' and 'backwards', the theory is instantly recognized to be incomplete, and thus incorrect.

Compare the following two references to the scientific theoretical models.

(Alzheimer's Symptoms, Stages, Memory Loss and Cures): "A yard stick cannot measure weight, and a volt meter cannot measure resonant molecular transfer: physics is at the door, but there will be needed a measuring device that can measure what has not yet been discovered by science."

(Mermaid Effect): "Example: when measuring the field strength of electromagnetic radiation, most individuals will use an electronic device that measures and displays electromagnetic field strengths numerically and/or by two-dimensional lines and/or two-dimensional graphs. The device's readings become a shared experience amongst the observers. The shared experience is accepted as true fact because the experience is repeatable by all of the individuals individually — peer review. The repeatable experience and measurements become true and factual science. But when a different individual who can feel electromagnetic fields is also present during the field measurements, the individual feels the fields' three-dimensional patterns, intensities, fluxes, directional flows, and decay rates, and the different individual is aware that the measuring device is only measuring a single and imaginary surface feature of the electromagnetic radiation that does not really exist — a Flat Land-like two-dimensional measurement. The different individual is aware that although the science might be 'right' relative to group consensus, the different individual is also aware that the science is incorrect and false relative to what is real.

It is physically impossible for a field of an atom, an electron, or any other field to begin and to end at one specific point. Always is there a waxing and waning of the fields. The electronic measuring device displays a two-dimensional measurement, a measurement that is as if claiming that the measured electromagnetic field has a beginning and an end at one specific point; the measuring device's measurements are Flat Land-like measurements of measuring widths and lengths while possessing no concept of depths and motions. It is physically impossible for any man-made measuring device to accurately measure anything.

When the normal group applies mathematics to the electromagnetic fields, the group concludes that their conclusions are true fact because the mathematics always sum the same identical sums. A million normal humans can add the same numbers and always sum the identical same sum, which then becomes true and factual science. However, when the different person observes the math, he may see that the math is the same math that was used to create the measuring device, as well as being the same math that the measuring device made use of when displaying measurements. The measuring of electromagnetic fields is circular reasoning, of applying a math to create a thing that displays the same math, and then man claiming that the created thing proved his math to be true. To the different individual, however, the math itself is still only an imaginary Flat Land two-dimensional surface measurement that does not relate to what is real. To the different individual, mathematics does not and cannot measure Reality beyond what the median human can observe."

The devices that science uses to measure quantum, are based upon mathematics, and thus, are only able to register and to display readings that are based upon the same mathematics. Sorry, but the logic of using math-based devices always fails when applied to 3D fields.

The scientific approach may have its own merit, but another fact also remains: science does not know what the thing is that causes waves (e.g. energy). The universe and everything in it is composed of waves, but from where do the waves come from? What causes the waves? Energy is the product of waves, and so energy is a created thing, but what creates the waves that create energy? The cause of 3D waves cannot itself be 3D. Waves do not begin and end within specific 3D metrics. Why then are the scientific theories self-limited to 3D? Oddly enough, one of the foremost papers on quantum physics and retrocausality does not so much as once mention dimensions.

The question about the origins of waves is of foremost importance, and requires an in-depth answer before any quantum theory can become acceptable (as well as any other theory, whether it be philosophical, ideological, or any other), but, there is the problem; the origins of waves are unknown, and may forever remain unknown, which invalidates all retrocausality theories from all sources.

Another unknown to science is what 'time' is. From What Is Time? The Greatest Unknown, Known: "'Time' is a thing that ought to have been self-taught before the self-learning of 'triplicity'. 'Time' is one of the many core ingredients of life, and the whole of the universe is structured upon 'time', but yet no science, philosophy, ideology, nor academia knows what time is."

The whole of science's theories of retrocausality rely upon investigations of objects' behavior relative to 'time', the same 'time' that is unknown. Using mathematics to build devices that allegedly 'prove' mathematics to be true, measuring waves without first knowing what waves are, and measuring 'time' without first knowing what 'time' is: these are amongst the countless logical fallacies within scientific research.

A Quick Overview of the Firsthand Observed Approach

Portion of recorded events spanning over 60 years

The above graphic has a portion of a spreadsheet that spans 4 each 1440x900 monitors simultaneously when viewed at normal resolutions. Obviously, the graphic was purposefully reduced of size and resolution. The spreadsheet's data spans over 60 years of collected dates and events that illustrate and validate that future events can and do influence the past. The spreadsheet also only lists the more interesting data while omitting the countless other recordings that were not as dramatic.

Of first importance is that the recorded dates range from a few years to over fifty years between the origins and of when the future events occurred. The more common events — mostly of short durations from minutes to months — are not recorded. An example of one that is not in the spreadsheet is from Police Shoot Unarmed Man:

"In 1993 I woke up in the middle of the night with a gnawing sense of an intense imminent problem unlike anything that I had ever experienced before. Unable to go back to sleep, I went into the living room to sit. Minutes later a young man (whom I had never before met) attempted to break into my home while he repeatedly screamed that he was going to kill us all. I quickly walked to a gun safe located beside the front door and chose an AK-variant rifle (I had placed the safe there a couple weeks earlier due to another gut-feeling that I needed easy access). Stepping back to where the boy could see me through the glass door, I loaded a thirty round magazine into the rifle and cocked the action, my being ready to empty the magazine into the crazy man if he entered the house (heavy-set individuals on drugs have been known to not be easily downed with only one or two shots to the torso, so a twenty to thirty round magazine is deemed to have a margin of safety for defenders). The Desert Storm veteran temporarily slowed his attack, his saying that my "shotgun" did not scare him (his calling an AK a shotgun concerned me more than his attempt to murder me; he later said that he could dodge bullets, and so the boy was quite obviously either insane or suffering from a bad reaction to drugs). I closed the front door, called 911, and the police dispatcher could still hear the man screaming that he was going to come in and kill us all."

Similar 'gut feelings' are very common throughout the world. Another example: while driving west on a main street, I was in the north lane while another car was directly beside me. I felt an impending problem arising, and with my not yet being able to discern what the problem was, I slowed down, which had the car to my left drive further ahead of me. At the next intersection a person heading south ran the stop sign and broadsided the car that had been to my left. If I have not sensed the impending problem and slowed down, it would have been me who was broadsided.

Hundreds of similar perceptions have been felt and heeded. Due to their being so common, they are not included in the spreadsheet.

It would seem that surely most everyone on earth has had at least one similar 'gut feeling'. 'Future' perception is very much real, and very common.

Scientists' theories focus on tiny microscopic effects while ignoring macroscopic observations. It is highly doubtful that measuring a few electromagnetic fields will somehow lead to an understanding of how the future influences the past.

Some perceptions are not 'gut feelings', but rather they are 'felt' to be what will be inwardly felt when a future event occurs. One example was feeling a deep happiness that would occur within about two months and be located about a hundred miles towards the northwest. When the event did happen a couple months later, it was one of the most absolute entertaining days of my life. Important elements here are [1] recognizing the sensed effect, [2] sensing the time duration, and [3] sensing the distance. Quantum physics cannot do that. Too, and according to given estimates, at my location the earth spins at about 1,000 miles per hour, while the earth also revolves around the sun at about 67,000 miles per hour, while the solar system itself travels through the galaxy at about 434,960 miles per hour, and while the galaxy itself travels at about 1,367,000 miles per hour. The classical fields of electromagnetic, global magnetic, and gravity cannot explain the distant perception, nor are quantum wave theories able to. How could a small quantum wave (or groups of wave patterns) accurately convey complex information from over 626,342,400 miles away? And about two months in the future? A cell phone's EMF emission cannot be detected at a cell tower two months later, nor two months previously, nor can any current theory of physics explain how a future event is able to transfer complex information hundreds of millions of miles into the past. The science of today is not able to explain what emotions, consciousness, dreams, and thoughts are, nor explain anything else that is related to the mind (including animal migration), which simply means that all scientific theories of future perception are inherently false.

The mirror story within Calvin was based upon a true event, but it was also based upon having drawn the girl's face about two years earlier, as well as about fourteen years earlier having seen the ~3 year old girl in a different neighborhood as she looked towards the north while sitting on a cement porch (the only porch of its type in the neighborhood), and who was at that time sensed to later become my wife. Quantum physics cannot do that.

The spreadsheet's data primarily focuses on detailed perceptions that did not occur until years and decades later. The perceptions were first written down, dated, and then when the events happened, the events' dates could be correlated to help suggest patterns of how the perceptions occurred.

One of the variables within the futures influencing the past is that there were three specific elements present in each perception (plus others that will never be mentioned). The 2015 Quantum Metaphor article has a fair quantity of purposefully vague but useful references to two of the elements.

Of the countless other examples that could be overly verbosely spoken of, the spreadsheet data helped most by illustrating that the initial perceptions had misinterpreted one primary feature. When the primary feature was discovered, it made all of the other perceptions far more important.

Too, when comparing the dates, a very specific trend became obvious, a trend that would not have previously been expected.

Brief Sum

Science and philosophy have approached the question of retrocausality by attempting to measure nanosecond effects of a single particle. The self-observed approach to retrocausality includes huge volumes of fluidly spherical information that would not and could not occur for years. Scientists look at the feed-back of a single wave's momentary field, while individuals look at the feed-back of a lifetime of personal events. The two approaches are very much different, and neither are applicable to the other.

The hard fact remains; until a person knows of how the originating source creates 3D waves, then never can a convincing answer be found for how the future influences the past. Another hard fact also remains: neither precognition nor scientific retrocausality can occur within the commonly accepted physics of electromagnetic fields. Just because an electromagnetic field exists, it does not mandate that the field nascented itself, nor that the field is able to transmit semi-infinite quantities of information billions of miles away and decades into the past. The theories of science are based upon basic ideas (i.e. gravity, magnetism, electromagnetics), while the theories never include concepts of the other fields that exist.

However, as the long-term cognitions strongly suggest, there are some true beauties within the physics of Nature. Finding the beauties is one's own responsibility.