Live your best possible life. How good can it get?

Posts tagged ‘quantum physics’

I Just Learned I Died in Another Reality

One of the most astonishing types of reality shifts is the Alive Again phenomenon, in which someone is witnessed as being alive after having previously been reported dead.  And without a doubt, the most stunning type of Alive Again experience is one in which you yourself are the person that people heard had died–and this year was the first time I heard from someone reporting that I had died–fortunately to come back and be Alive Again!

I’ve researched numerous cases of people being reported dead, only later to be witnessed very much alive, with one of the earliest reports being that of the actor Larry Hagman, who was an actor in the TV show, “Dynasty.”  I include that one in my book, Reality Shifts: When Consciousness Changes the Physical World, as well as my experience seeing my roommate’s dead cat very much alive again. 

Ashes in 1983

My first Alive Again experience occurred in the 1980’s when my neighbor’s cat, Ashes, was run over by a car and killed… only to appear in my backyard a couple of weeks later!  I was flabbergasted, to say the least.  My husband reacted normally at first to seeing the cat, until I reminded him, “Ashes DIED a couple of weeks ago!”  My husband rubbed his chin and recalled more details, without any prompts from me.  “Oh, yeah… he was hit by a car, wasn’t he?”  I spent an hour petting and talking with Ashes, since I never thought I’d see him again after he’d died.  He had previously kept himself immaculately groomed (prior to being alive again), and he was a bit scruffier and greasier, as if he’d suddenly become a bit arthritic, and now had trouble washing himself and keeping his fur as fluffy and attractive as he had before.  I’d heard from my roommate that Ashes had died, after having been hit by a car, when I’d asked her where he was.  I had been living in the same house with that roommate, Kathryn, and her cat Ashes, for many years, and then had moved directly across the street, where I’d been delighted to continue getting to visit with Ashes most every day.  It occurs to me that having a bit of distance between my old apartment where I’d lived in the same house with Ashes, and my new apartment across the street may have provided just enough of a gap by which I could experience Kathryn telling me why I was no longer seeing Ashes come to visit in my garden–and then a couple of weeks later, be astonished to see Ashes alive again!


How I Received News of My Death

Imagine my surprise when I received an email this past month from someone named Steve, who said he had a very unusual experience that he wanted to share with me:

Hi Cynthia,

I have an unusual story to tell you in regard to the Mandela Effect. My name is Steve Boucher and I’m from St.Catharines, Ontario.  I’m 63.  I have had several occurrences of the Mandela Effect in my life over the years, but none like the most recent one.  I watched your interview with Regina Meredith on Gaia TV and have been a fan of your work for a while now.  Shortly after the interview with Regina, I decided to visit your Facebook page to learn more.  Upon arriving at your Facebook page, I was greeted with a message from your husband stating that he regretted to inform us that you had passed away and that you had been ill for quite a while.  I was shocked to read this news and immediately responded offering my condolences.  I remember feeling this great sadness come over me, as I had very much enjoyed your work.

A month or so later, I noticed a new video of yours on YouTube and was amazed to see that it was a recent video.  Then I started to notice more recent videos popping up on YouTube. It didn’t take me long to realize that you were still alive!  I realized then, that I must have shifted to a different timeline in which you had not passed away.  I knew then, that I had to write to you and tell you this story, as strange as it sounds.  I am grateful to have shifted to a timeline in which you are alive and continuing to bring videos to the public about the Mandela Effect and time shifting.  Hope you don’t think I’m crazy. I just had to tell you.

My response to Steve’s email was:

Wow–that is a DOOZY of a reality shift!  I am so glad you and I are both today in a reality where I am alive and well–and no, I don’t think you’re crazy.  This is the first time I’ve heard from someone reporting that they’d seen believable evidence that I’d died, and then seen me alive again, yet it does bring to mind another related type of reality shift. I’ve heard from people who tell me that they are certain I did not exist previously in their experienced realities, since if I did, they would surely have come across my website and YouTube videos, yet I had not.

I’ve been interviewed twice now by Regina Meredith for GaiaTV, most recently with a show about high energy money that aired in early 2019.  Since you are writing to me about this matter this year in 2019, am I correct in surmising that my death after long illness that you experienced was this year, in 2019?  I’m also curious if you recall any other details.

I then received Steve’s response in reply:

I don’t think I’ve seen the new high energy money video with Regina yet. I think this was shortly after the previous video you did with her. Although, it was in 2019 that I noticed this. I find in most of my observations of the Mandela Effect,  often the memories are a little obscured. Sometimes it is difficult to clearly remember specific details. Another thing I have noticed, is that a certain number of the instances seem to center around the death of a person. I’ve also noticed that when these types of incidents occur, people associated with the event, seem to disappear and become very difficult to track down to ask them how they remember it. It’s almost as though when there is a reality shift, especially if it relates to a death, all the loose ends relating to the old timeline are mysteriously tied up, making it almost impossible to get confirmation. Have you noticed this? It’s almost as if there is some kind of intelligence cleaning up any evidence that things were different before the shift occurred.

After receiving Steve’s emails, I went back to see when that first interview I did with Regina Meredith aired, and it looks like that it was originally planned to be released in mid-November 2016, but going back to check some of my notes, it looks like it likely aired in one of the first days of January 2017.  At that time, I had been publishing YouTube videos each month until I became very sick with a respiratory infection starting in December 2016, and thus there is a gap of several months between my YouTube video of November 23, 2016, Mandela Effect VS Manifestation (before I got very sick) and the next one I did, Many Possible Realities and Mandela Effect, on April 3, 2017, once I was feeling well enough to get back into creating videos.  I had been so ill in December 2016 that I commented to just a few closest friends and family that I felt I’d been close to death.

How it Feels to be ‘Alive Again’

I have a clear sense that I’ve experienced Divine Love and Divine Grace.  During the time I had been so ill, I was aware of the fragility of life.  Realizing that I’m now in a unique position to know how it feels to be Alive Again, my first emotional responses are of great gratitude and thanks, with a sense of reverence.  I have renewed my personal commitment to keep a pure heart, making a daily meditative and prayerful practice of requesting assistance from God / Divine Source to purify my heart and keep it pure, so that all I feel in my heart is a sense of Divine Love and Joy.

To me, this incident is a great deal bigger than most all the other types of reality shifts I report in the monthly RealityShifters ezine.  And I feel very grateful to Steve and all others who felt I might die and had an adverse emotional reaction to that possibility.  I know of two other friends who, in addition to Steve, also were aware that I might almost die at that time, about two years ago.

One thing I’ve noticed when having a “No!” reaction to hearing news of someone’s death, to be followed later by them being alive again is that it’s entirely possible that people connected through collective consciousness are making a kind of vote on the matter.  I thus was especially grateful to hear news that some people were alive again after I’d heard reports of their death, including:  Larry Hagman, Jane Goodall, and Benicio del Toro–and my roommate’s cat, Ashes.  While not everyone I hear of dying subsequently is alive again, I’m just grateful for those that I have experienced being alive again so far in my life.  The reason I attribute such shared awareness and “No!” votes to altering reality is that I witnessed a similar effect once in my household when our beloved elderly family dog appeared to be getting cataracts.  I noticed this on my own one day, and emotionally felt, “No! This can’t be happening to our dear dog!” and almost immediately, his eyes looked bright and clear. Then my daughter told me one day, “Bad news about the dog.”  I immediately inquired, “Is it about his eyes?” and replied that, “It sometimes looks like he’s getting cataracts, but then we can feel we don’t wish that to occur, and it reverses out.”  A similar discussion then followed with my husband, and after that, none of us ever witnessed our dog’s eyes clouding over again.

Because I’ve witnessed the benefit of shared collective consciousness assisting the wellbeing of others (such as my family with our dog’s vision), I am now feeling grateful to all those who would not wish me to have died. 


Mandela Effects Go Far Back in Time

In Steve’s correspondence with me related to my being Alive Again, he raised the subject of changes to the Bible, going back thousands of years.  Steve wrote:

There is one Mandela Effect that completely baffles me. It is perhaps the oldest one discovered. It would be the biblical scripture of Isaiah 11:6. I was raised as a Christian and have a strong Christian background. I left the church and abandoned Christianity over a decade ago, after reading some books by author Bart D. Ehrman on the origins of Christianity and the bible. But, that’s another story. The scripture found in Isaiah 11:6 has changed.  I remember it reading that ‘the lion will lie down with the lamb.’  Now, it reads, ‘the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid…’ I knew that scripture well, so much so that I did a pastel painting of the scene once, with a lion lying down with a lamb.  Ask anyone who knows the Bible well, and they will tell you that it was the ‘lion’ that lied down with the lamb, not the wolf.

I have looked up that scripture in many different versions of the bible and they all say the wolf will dwell with the lamb now.  Even the oldest bibles now say this. I have a very old one that is falling apart.  I bought it because the illustrations in it were done by Gustav Dore, who is one of my favorite artists.  It reads the same way. This shows that the Mandela Effect can actually be retroactive, changing thousands of years of history.  The implications of this are staggering.

Isaiah 11:6 (KJV)
The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

The passage above is one of the most well known and most quoted verses in the Bible yet some claim that this is correct. It is not! This verse should read, “The lion shall lie down with the lamb…”

It makes me wonder about time travel. Could it have been possible for someone to have gone back in time and influenced Isaiah to write the scripture differently? This is one possibility that might explain how something like this could change history and have a ripple effect that could completely rewrite history and many would never be aware of it.

I also recall the Bible passage about the lion laying down with the lamb, and recall having heard it exclusively mentioned that way, with no mention about a wolf lying down with the lamb.  I know of an artist, Kimberly-Lynn Hanson, who recently had a Mandela effect gallery showing in which she invites viewers to consider how some Mandela effects may be ‘closer to truth.’  These are presented like brain-teaser puzzles, and now that way of viewing Mandela effects has me wondering how it might be possible that a “wolf lying down with the lamb” might be closer to truth.  When I think about this particular example, the first thing that comes to my mind is that wolves and lambs have often historically been found living closer together than lions and lambs.  Lions are native to Africa, and their natural prey has historically consisted of wild animals such as gazelles, rather than tame farm animals such as sheep.

There appears to be no limit on how far back in time Mandela effects are capable of going, and this could go a long way to helping explain how our universe is so amazingly off-the-charts unlikely to have come into being ‘accidentally’ or ‘randomly.’  With such a built in collective consciousness ‘voting’ mechanism as reality shifts and Mandela effects seem to provide, we begin to get a sense of how there truly is a hidden order of intrinsic goodness and consciousness operating everywhere, and every-when.

So yes, I do believe it’s possible that the Bible can now have been written differently–and just about everything that’s so far occurred can also have been done differently.  I include a section near the beginning of my book, Quantum Jumps, about how our appreciation and understanding of quantum logic and how quantum jumps can and do occur is about to transform every field of study–including medicine and our courts of law, and not just constrained to various fields of science.  We already witness that there have been sudden shifts in the evolutionary stages of plants and animals–and to me, quantum jumps helps explain the otherwise inexplicable typical lack of ‘missing links’ along the evolutionary trails.  Scientists have even witnessed in laboratory settings that, for example, lactose-intolerant bacteria have mutated in a single generation to suddenly, inexplicably, be able to digest lactose when that was their only source of food in their petri dish environments.

The clues that there might exist a science of miracles has been with us literally for millions of years–yet thanks to quantum physics, we are only just now beginning to fully appreciate what this actually means, and how it might really work.


Dr. Yasunori Nomura with Cynthia Sue Larson

Alive Again and Suddenly Appearing

Equally intriguing to me and possibly very related to these Alive Again reality shift experiences are those in which people seem to pop out of nowhere.  I noticed that physicist Dr. Yasunori Nomura definitely didn’t exist in my realities at the time I was researching and writing my book, “Quantum Jumps” in 2013, since I would have found his research papers and published works in the fields I was investigating, right alongside his colleague, Raphael Bousso, whose work I do cite in Quantum Jumps.  I was able to tell Dr. Nomura this in person when I met him to chat and have tea after seeing him at a showing of the 2013 film, “Particle Fever” at UC Berkeley in 2014, and Yasunori seemed to appreciate the possibility that these sorts of macro-scale quantum events really can and do happen, and such might be the case with his sudden existence in my realities.  I have been told by several people, starting around late 2010 that they were absolutely 100% certain I didn’t use to exist in their realities prior to that time, since they definitely would have heard of me and my website and books and research–which at that point in time had been around for a decade.

I invite you to watch the companion video to this blog post at:



QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Gaia TV, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:

Physics Experiment Challenges Objective Reality

I’m fascinated by news this past month of exciting results from a quantum physics experiment that according to the MIT Technology Review appears to provide evidence that two people can observe the exact same event, see two different things happen, and both be correct.

Observers Witness the Same Event Differently

Physicists at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh succeeded in bringing a classic Gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) out of the realm of pure conjecture and into the real, physical world of a physics laboratory.  The thought experiment requires two people to observe one single photon–which is a quantum, or indivisible, unit of light.  Quantum particles can behave as either particles, or as waves, settling into one state or the other (particle or wave) at the precise moment it is observed.  All the rest of the time when the particle is not being observed by someone, it exists in a ‘superposition of states’ in which it can be considered to be simultaneously both ‘particle’ and ‘wave.’  When a second person is unaware of the first person’s observational measurement, this thought experiment proposes that the second person who is unaware of the first person’s measurement might be able to to confirm that the photon still exists in a quantum superposition (undecided) state.

Scientists including Caslav Brukner at University of Vienna in Austria and Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh took this experimental concept and created an experimental apparatus involving lasers, beam splitters, and six photons to be measured by various equipment representing the role of the two observers.  Preliminary results appear to provide real evidence that within quantum physics, our assumption of shared objective reality may be inaccurate.

How Nature Operates

Welcome to the new Quantum Age, featuring quantum logic!  With this new physics experiment supporting the idea that two people can observe the same event, see two different things happen, and both be correct, we are catching glimpses of the way Nature operates.  In Nature, we witness such things as:  instantaneous species mutation to the most advantageous possible adaptation, and plants routinely performing photosynthesis at more than 90% efficiency.  Lactose-intolerant organisms have been observed to adapt to a new lactose-based food source when it was the only one available, by making an evolutionary leap in one generation.  All photosynthesizing plants are performing miraculously efficient feats of storing energy from incoming photons, far beyond any human photovoltaic technologies.

When viewing the way so many natural systems seem able to ‘jump to the best reality,’ I can’t help feeling that we’re witnessing nothing less than some kind of deeper, hidden underlying awareness at work–far beyond what materialists might claim to be in charge.  Philosophers who share my sense that we are witnessing some kind of optimalism at work include Nicholas Rescher, author of a book on this topic called Axiogenesis.  I enjoy taking conscious part in this evolution by consistently asking, “How good can it get?”

The Second Quantum Revolution

I predict that we are now at the dawn of witnessing so-called ‘quantum phenomena’ moving out of the so-called ‘quantum realm’ ever increasingly in view in our everyday macroscopic lives.

When I gave a talk for Marin Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) this past month before having seen news of this experiment, I mentioned the famous EPR paper, as well as Wigner’s Friend, Quantum Zeno Effect and EPR steering–but where all of this gains traction and significance is in the context that we are now officially entering the “second quantum revolution” in which macro-scale quantum technology is being created now.  This new quantum technological race will feature engineering devices bringing ‘quantum scale’ phenomena into the macroscopic realm for applications in computing, communication, encryption and more. Macroscopic quantum systems have been developed recently in laboratories around the world, and with such fierce competition, we’ll soon be seeing astonishing breakthroughs, such as entangled diamonds.

Mandela Effect, Reality Shifts, and No Objective Reality

Physicists involved with this recent experiment, Massimiliano Proietti and his colleagues, state that, “The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them.”  Yet we are now glimpsing some of the first clear evidence that such assumptions can be proven false.  We are starting to see that the physicist Eugene Wigner’s idea that two scientists might have two different experiences while witnessing the same event appears to be proving to be true.

News of these experimental results is validating for the work I’ve been doing these past 20 years… and very exciting in terms of the implications for how humans can truly address all seemingly ‘impossible’ problems and situations–of every size, shape, and variety!  After 20 years of waiting for such an announcement, I’m pleased to see these experimental results that provide validation that we can expect to sometimes witness alternate histories from what others observe.  When we recognize that such subjective observation of ‘facts’ is constantly taking place, and that this can help provide a foundation by which we can better understand what is going on with the Mandela Effect and reality shifts, we can gain renewed confidence that humanity can address all seemingly ‘impossible’ problems and situations.

Welcome to the Quantum Age!


I invite you to watch the companion video to this blog post at:



QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Gaia TV, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:

Reality Shifting and Quantum Jumping as Spiritual Practice

My preference for a reality shifting and quantum jumping approach is a more spiritual (rather than magickal) practice, in which I acknowledge a higher order of divine love and awareness, and respect myself and others as being part of this greater, interconnected whole.

While it’s tempting to think we know what we want, there is a genuine risk any time we neglect to consider what we genuinely need, and what our hearts most adore and truly care about. We can gradually come to learn such spiritual truths as the value of compassion and kindness, yet we can sometimes succumb to various fears and doubts, as well as all manner of other issues such as greed, pride, or jealousy.

There is a risk any time we make a mistake of confusing egoic, selfish interests for holistic intentions. And just like King Midas came to regret having his wish granted that everything he touched turn to gold, so too can we come to regret getting the very things we might at one moment in time think we most need.

Many people write to me, requesting steps to follow by which they can shift reality in desired ways. Such steps would be along the lines of a ‘right brain,’ action-based or ‘yang’ approach to reality shiftnig. While there are some occasions where such steps can be employed, it’s been my experience that the best results in my life occur thanks to a Spiritual Approach to reality shifting. So what’s the difference, you might well ask. Let’s take a look.

Magical Approach to Reality Shifting

Magical approaches to shifting reality paved the way for much of our modern-day science, with interest in keeping records, taking note of observed patterns for success, and following steps that have historically proved to generate good results.

Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) chief scientist, Dr. Dean Radin has recently published an excellent book describing a magical approach to reality shifting,  Radin’s scientific exploration of “Real Magic” has nothing to do with trickery, sleight-of-hand, nor the occult, but truly is the real deal, falling into three categories:  “mental influence of the physical world, perception of events distant in space or time, and interactions with nonphysical entities.”  These three can also be known respectively as:  force of will, divination, and theurgy.   Radin describes how magic is a natural part of our daily lives and reality, accessible to us all.  Declassified documents from the American government’s review of such programs as remote viewing (also known as a valid “information transfer anomaly”) meet all recognized statistical and methodological criteria.

Spiritual Approach to Reality Shifting

A spiritual approach to reality shifting could be considered to be something similar to a “right-brain” approach, or a receptive “Yin” (rather than “Yang”) approach.  In Carolyn Miller’s excellent book, “Creating Miracles,” Miller describes how people have faced potentially lethal situations and avoided victimization by realizing in the midst of their ordeal that they could find and project a higher state of awareness on the situation. Their feelings changed their situations so much that would-be muggers and rapists walked away from potential victims, and a car plummeting off the side of the road landed safely in a lake… that had never been there before.

Miller tells numerous true stories that all share a common thread… in a time of need, people can and do create miracles. All that is needed is an attitude of love and “miracle mindedness”. This attitude can overcome even the most horrific situations, bringing compassion to individuals who otherwise would show no mercy, and shifting reality in very profound ways.

What makes this book particularly fascinating and useful to me is that Carolyn Miller reviews dozens of stories to find some common threads… some ways that people have found to shift reality in these times of great stress:

Feel Love
Move beyond the limited perspective of ego’s worries and fears.

Expect a Positive Outcome
Instead of assuming that the situation will continue to go in a negative direction, expect a positive (or neutral) outcome.

Turn Inward
Feel a meditative sense of detached, non-judgmental peacefulness.

It seems that by practicing achieving a meditative state on a regular basis, being optimistic, and being loving, we can predispose ourselves to experiencing wonderful miracles. I know this is true from my experiences with reality shifts!

I love the way Miller explains that it’s not necessary to believe in divine intervention in order to create miracles. She explains that people who simply keep the “miracle-minded” attitude can bring miracles to even the most hostile situations.

The Power of Asking “How Good Can it Get?”

Once we appreciate the value of adopting a spirtual approach to reality shifting and quantum jumping, it’s possible to recognize the power of guiding our attention and imagination and consciousness to investigate “How good can it get?”  The significance of making this question our personal mantra in all circumstances might be hard to recognize, until we’ve personally experienced extraordinary reality shifting and quantum jumping results first-hand.


You can watch the companion video to this blog post at:



QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Gaia TV, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:

Physics Experiments Predict Observers Witness Different Histories

According to a new theoretical experiment, quantum physics indicates that observers witness different histories.  Taking this concept to its logical conclusion, this suggests that you and I and others may not necessarily recognize the same historical events–and the very suggestion of such a possibility is sending shock waves through scientific communities who take as a core assumption that there must logically be only one set of true historical facts.

You may have heard that quantum physics has gained a reputation for including such things as, “spooky action at a distance,” and that it somehow involves a cat inside of a box that may or may not be dead–but quantum physics is looking even weirder still, thanks to contributions by theoretical physicists Matthew Leifer and Robert Spekkens, whose work I’ve been following with great interest, and citing in my published papers, such as Primacy of Quantum Logic in the Natural World.

At the heart of these new observations is the idea that different observers can witness different realities, such that contradictory pictures of reality are observed.  This is described in a recent article written by Davide Castelvecchi, Reimagining of Schrodinger’s Cat Breaks Quantum Mechanics–and Stumps Physicists.

The headline here is perhaps a bit overly dramatic, as for all practical purposes, quantum mechanics can still be relied upon to deliver consistent results when it comes to it’s predictive abilities that we’ve relied upon for nuclear reactors, and that we are beginning to harness for up-and-coming new quantum computers.  What has broken has less to do with the actual physical world breaking as our biased perspective of there being “one and only one historical past.”

The Observer’s Role in Determining a Cat’s Fate

The original thought experiment designed by Erwin Schrodinger involved placing a cat in a presumedly ludicrous situation where it’s fate rests entirely in the hands of a quantum random event, such as a vial of poison gas inside the cat’s small room possibly being broken open when the randomizing trigger for the poison vial is activated at a time of decay of a radioactive isotope.  What Schrodinger originally found to be an outrageous notion was that, if we were to take quantum physics seriously, the cat inside the box with the poison vial could actually be considered to be BOTH alive AND dead–in a superposition of states–up until the moment when an Observer opened the box to check on the cat.  At the moment of such observation, the cat was considered to now actually be either alive or dead, and no longer in the seemingly preposterous state of alive-and-dead.

Introducing a Second Observer

In a small refinement of Erwin Schrodinger’s original thought experiment (where no physical cats were actually harmed), Eugene Wigner proposed that we contemplate what would happen when we add to our experimental design of the Observer and the Cat in the box a friend of the original observer.  We now have a Cat, an Observer, and a Friend–all waiting to see whether the cat in Schrodinger’s box is either alive or dead.  And as long as the Observer does not look, we can say the cat can be considered to be in a superposition of states–both alive-and-dead.  Once the Observer checks to see what the cat’s state actually is, we used to say that we now knew what the outcome is.  Yet, another way of viewing this more complex system of observation is that we don’t really have a final answer until the Observer’s Friend becomes aware of the result.

Complex Systems Can Experience Different Pasts

Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich shows that “if the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, then different experimenters can reach opposite conclusions about what the physicist in the box has measured.”

What’s new with this thought experiment is the creation of a more sophisticated conceptualization of multiple observers, such that there can now be two Wigner Friends, “Alice” and “Bob,” who are each conducting their own separate observations of a physicist Observer who they keep in a box.

What’s interesting about this experimental design is that now when the two Friends open their boxes, they will sometimes make observations that are inconsistent with one another.

While we do not yet have quantum computers available that can prove or disprove the hypothesis that we can expect to see differences in observations in more complex systems of observers, we are moving steadily toward a time when such quantum computers will be able to provide us with a definitive answer on what now appears to be proof of a lack of a singular factual history.

Mandela Effects, Reality Shifts, and Quantum Jumps

There has been a great deal of discussion about this new take on the classic Schrodinger’s cat experiment in physics circles, with some of the world’s top physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, long ago having already suggested that we may expect to see, for example, physical evidence of there having been many original “big bangs” at the time of the creation of our universe.  Hawking co-authored a paper on this topic with Thomas Hertog in 2006, Populating the landscape:  A top-down approach.

I suggest this discussion about observers witnessing different possible past ‘truths’ and ‘facts’ should be very much part of conversation amongst those of us who are noticing such things as Mandela Effects, reality shifts, and quantum jumps.  When we recognize that there is scientific precedent for such phenomena, we can hopefully glean insights about the true mysterious workings of Nature, while appreciating our good fortune in sometimes getting to see evidence of such things ourselves.

You can watch the companion video to this blog post at:



QuantumJumps300x150adCynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Gaia TV, Coast to Coast AM, the BBC and One World with Deepak Chopra and on the Living the Quantum Dream show she hosts. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:

Cynthia Sue Larson Interviews Stanley Krippner


Dr. Stanley Krippner with Cynthia Sue Larson

I recently had the pleasure to chat with Dr. Stanley Krippner about quantum logic, consciousness, and dreams. Dr. Krippner is a professor of psychology at Saybrook University, and author, editor, and co-author of numerous books including:  “The Voice of Rolling Thunder,” “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” and many others.

I first met Stanley Krippner about ten years ago at the International Conference on the Study of Shamanism and Alternative Modes of Healing, where we’ve both given presentations. I’ve long been deeply impressed with the insights Stanley shares, such as I reported in the September 2005 issue of RealityShifters, in which I mentioned some fascinating aspects of his work:

 Stanley Krippner presented a thought-provoking paper at this year’s shamanism conference that summarized research findings between the differences in the dreams of schizophrenics and non-schizophrenics. Imagery in schizophrenic dreams is quite different than imagery in shamanic dreams and visions; schizophrenic dreams are more apathetic, banal, and low-energy with few clear settings or distinct outcomes. I am intrigued to note that one of the biggest differences between shamanic and schizophrenic dreams appears to be that of lucidity… that what the shaman knows for sure is something the schizophrenic has not noticed. The shaman maintains a constant sense of awareness and focus that brings greater meaning to peoples’ lives.


CYNTHIA: Thanks so much for meeting to talk with me today! I’d love to know your thoughts about the connection between quantum physics, consciousness, and dreams.

STANLEY: Montague Ullman was doing just what you’re telling me—applying quantum physics to dreaming. Especially to psychic dreaming. And he was working on that before he died. I’ve not seen the manuscript of his incomplete book, but you can get some information from an interview he did with Mark Schroll.

CYNTHIA:  Wonderful!

STANLEY: Now in the sense that I see it, it’s especially true of precognitive dreams—dreams about the future, because there will be several possible futures that the dreamer could dream about. And the psychic dreamer knows which one to dream about, so this is where the observational effect comes in. And this is why some people are able to do this and some people aren’t. Some people have the talent to unconsciously select the possible future that indeed comes true. And I wrote an article about the probable future years ago, before I knew anything about quantum physics. But in that article, I pointed out how so many dreams about the future are pliable. In other words, once the dreamer knows about what might takes place, the dreamer can make a change to prevent something disastrous from happening.

CYNTHIA: So you’re saying this happens frequently.

STANLEY: This happens frequently, yes. There’s been a study on this, years ago, by Louisa Rhine. If I remember the statistics, whenever there was a portending disaster, the dreamer was able to prevent the disaster in about three out of four occasions, which was a lot. And there was another evidence indicating that the disaster might happen, to know that this was something that was not just being made up.

CYNTHIA: Right. That would be the challenging thing, to know if it didn’t happen, would it have happened, of course.

STANLEY: One case I do remember was a woman who had a dream about a light fixture falling on her baby’s crib, killing the baby at exactly two o’clock in the morning. So she woke up and took the baby into the bed with her and husband. He was very dismissive, saying, “Oh, it’s just a dream. You were worried—you’re concerned.” But later that night, at two o’clock in the morning, this light fixture did fall into the baby’s crib.

CYNTHIA: Wow. And that’s something they would hear, and it would wake them up if they were asleep.

STANLEY: Yes, if they were telling the truth about this account, there you have an example of where the likely future had changed by human volition. 


STANLEY: Now, your feeling that dreams show us the real nature of reality is something that’s shared by many indigenous groups around the world.

CYNTHIA: Yes. What I’m suspecting is that’s the best way to look at the quantum paradigm that we’re trying to understand. I think that one of the best ways to look at it is as if everything really is a dream, basically. As you know, we can’t even agree on what consciousness is to begin with. But I’m expecting that we’re making progress.

STANLEY: Consciousness is anything you define it as. I tell people instead of waiting, just take any definition that you like, and use that, and run with it! So I don’t think the issue is that we don’t know what consciousness is. The issue is we don’t have a consensus on what consciousness is. Far from it.

CYNTHIA: We recognize it when we see it, but we don’t know how to explain it or describe it fully, so that everyone agrees.

STANLEY: That’s the so-called “hard problem,” which many people don’t think exists.

CYNTHIA: How about yourself?

B00RY85CQI.imitationgameSTANLEY: Oh, yes! I’m working with a team of people who are interested in doing a documentary on the hard problem. Are you familiar with the new movie, The Imitation Game?


STANLEY: Did you know that the protagonist had written about telepathy?

CYNTHIA: No. Wow! In real life?

STANLEY: In real life. It was Henry Stapp who picked up on that essay, and carried it a step further, in a classic article which came out in about 1972. So you might ask Henry for the article that builds on Turing’s notion of telepathy. It came out in a journal called Mind, as I recall. I have a copy of it. And it’s I think still very timely. Henry was so far ahead of his time.

CYNTHIA: Wow! So Henry Stapp wrote an article and published it…

STANLEY: Yes, based on Turing’s original article. Turing was saying, well, if telepathy exists, then it would proceed this way and that way. And so then what Henry did was to take that and show, yes, this is how it would proceed. And he was able to fill in the gap that Turing had no way of knowing about.

CYNTHIA: That’s quite useful! I appreciate the way that Henry Stapp looks at the Von Neumann cut, focusing attention on finding the place where consciousness occurs. I think of it as levels of consciousness, actually. So I agree with that. But at the same time, I’m also quite interested in the multiverse concepts and ideas, because they match the feeling of how it feels when you jump into another world.

STANLEY: They do, yes.

CYNTHIA: And you can jump in, and jump out. You can see things go back and forth, which is quite interesting to me. That’s why I want to talk to people who have experienced them, rather than people who say that you can’t do it. I’d rather trade notes with other people who’ve been there, on the SS Quantum Beagle, as we observe things from the deck, and share our notes. And then when it comes to levels of consciousness, I find that’s where some of the most interesting phenomena occurs, when you meditate a lot. I do martial arts, and I meditate a lot.

STANLEY: Keep doing both!

CYNTHIA: I think it helps. When you do martial arts, you’re honing your entire system and your ability to focus attention. I can move my consciousness and sort of expand it out. Like when I first met Eva Herr at the Portland airport and without any tips from her walked away from her to pick up her unmarked suitcase that she had not told me anything about, I was what you might call entangled with or coherent with the entire system of me and Eva Herr—and it felt very much like a dream. What it felt like to me was, “Now it’s time to go–wave at Eva. Now go this way. Now walk that way. Pick up that bag that is just now dropping onto the baggage claim carousel at the same moment you arrive. Now look at Eva and gesture to this bag to make sure it is hers.” It was her bag, and her jaw just about hit the floor, as she’d been on her cell phone that whole time, and had not given me any information about her luggage, nor was it tagged. It just felt like I was ‘in the zone’–like what athletes experience. So it wasn’t so much precognition so much as, “Here we go! This is what we’re doing.” I think a lot of people do this, and they don’t know that they’re doing it. It goes unrecognized quite a lot. And when we expand our consciousness, then you can have an effect on things like the weather, I believe. On a lot of things. A lot more than people recognize, even.

1591431336.rollingthunderSTANLEY: Two years ago I came out with the book about Rolling Thunder, the native American medicine man. I did it with his grandson, who’s also interested in quantum physics, and there are several documented instances where Rolling Thunder seemed to have an effect on the weather.

CYNTHIA: Yes, exactly! That sounds like a great book! I’ve also experienced other changes. Just on the flight to New York, we hit turbulence. The plane was just “bah-duh-duh-duh-duh” So I spread my consciousness to the plane, and the weather, and everything became all smooth. Smooth! Then my friend next to me started talking to me, and I turned and I looked at her, and it went back to “bah-duh-duh-duh-duh,” so I said, “Excuse me—I need to meditate.”

STANLEY: Really! I’m going to have to try that when I’m on a turbulent flight.

CYNTHIA: I think we often think we are the bodies that we’re in; we’re not the bodies that we’re in.

STANLEY: This is another native American concept—the concept of the “long body.” The body does not end with our skin—it extends into time, into space, and into other people.


STANLEY: William Roll wrote a whole series of articles about the long body.

CYNTHIA: That’s what I would call levels of consciousness; you can expand it, you can bring it in, you can direct it.

STANLEY: Now getting back to dreams, have you read Fred Alan Wolf’s book about dreams?

CYNTHIA: Yes, it’s quite excellent.

STANLEY: Yes, I like his book about “The Dreaming Universe,” very much.

CYNTHIA: It’s one of my favorites!

STANLEY: I have an article coming out in a European newsletter, “Transpersonal Transformative Experiences,” and I have a whole series of examples past and present TTEs.

CYNTHIA: That sounds excellent.

STANLEY: There are two types of Transpersonal Transformative Experiences. One is the spiritual, and one is the secular. In both of them, they’re transpersonal, because the person goes beyond their usual self identity. And in spiritual experiences, it’s (vertical). They go up to the upper world, and go down to the lower world, and they encounter entities or beings or energies or forces that are not part of their customary world or identity. Whereas in the secular experience, that’s horizontal. People go to Nature. They become involved with other people in a group movement. And again, they transcend their ordinary identity in sort of a group consciousness or a version of their consciousness with Nature, and that’s all observable entities and observable objects, which is why it’s horizontal. But either one can transform a person.

CYNTHIA: Yes, they can.

STANLEY: I’m going to do another version of that on the east coast. I just signed the agreement today, for the Academy of Spirituality and Consciousness Research. You should look at their website—very interesting group. And that’s happening right after the International Association for the Study of Dreams.

CYNTHIA: I’d love to ask you one last question: What would be the one thing that you would like people to be aware of with regard to everything that you’ve done, and all of your work?

STANLEY: Interconnectedness. If people see how we’re all interconnected and connected with Nature, we wouldn’t have an environmental crisis, we wouldn’t have two dozen wars all over the world. We’d honor the rest of Nature and the rest of humanity, because we’d know that those are parts of ourselves. So that’s an easy question.

CYNTHIA: Getting to the place of how we can do that is the hard problem.

STANLEY: What you’re doing, with books like yours, helps raise peoples’ consciousness. And you don’t have to have everybody agreeing with this. A small group of people who want to make change is enough to get the ball rolling.

CYNTHIA: That’s right.

STANLEY: Have you heard of Stephen Schwartz?

CYNTHIA:  Stephen Schwartz—that sounds very familiar.

STANLEY: He has written several books. He has a new book coming out, “Eight Rules for Changing the World.” He gives many examples of how small groups of people in very peaceful ways can make major changes in the world, or parts of it, simply by following these eight rules.


STANLEY: His book isn’t out yet, but it will be available on

CYNTHIA: OK. Thank you so very much!


Dr. Stanley Krippner

Cynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, and BBC. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:


Cynthia Sue Larson Interviews Stuart Hameroff

Cynthia Sue Larson with Dr. Stuart Hameroff

I talked with Stuart Hameroff this month about his ideas about quantum physics and consciousness. Dr Hameroff is a clinical anesthesiologist and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, and lead organizer of the Toward a Science of Consciousness conferences that began in Tucson, Arizona in 1994.

Stuart Hameroff’s research involves a theory of consciousness developed over the past 20 years with British physicist Sir Roger Penrose. Their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (‘Orch OR’) theory suggests that consciousness arises from quantum vibrations in protein polymers called microtubules inside the brain’s neurons.  For a review, along with critical commentaries and replies, see:

Hameroff and Penrose suggest these vibrations compute, collapse, interfere and resonate, regulating neuronal processes and connecting to the fundamental level of the universe, providing moments of conscious experience and choice.


3540238905.emergphysconsciousnessCYNTHIA: Some scientists point out that the brain is basically dissipative, essentially, that it’s not isolated. Would you agree with that?

STUARTI think that the brain is a little bit more clever, that there are alternating phases of isolated/quantum and dissipative/classical processing. Quantum and classical, quantum and classical, quantum and classical. The classical is dissipative and interacts with the environment, bringing information in and letting information out, exerting causal efficacy in the world. But classical phases alternate with quantum phases at EEG frequencies, for example, at 40 Hz. Or maybe even faster, at megahertz. So for 40 Hz, that would imply every twenty-five milliseconds there is a cycle of quantum processing followed by collapse, a classical result that interacts with the outside world. In this classical phase information comes in and that’s when it’s dissipative, and then the cycle repeats. So you have a quantum phase that’s isolated, then an open phase that’s dissipative and brings information in, and then another quantum phase, so on in alternating phases. I think consciousness consists of sequences of these alternating phases, the end of each quantum phase a discrete event. Consciousness is a sequence of discrete events, not a continuum. A movie appears continuous to us, but it’s actually a sequence of frames; I think consciousness is like that, and these frames alternate, quantum and classical.

CYNTHIAI love your theory, which is about the best one I’ve seen for bringing that together. When we look in the brain, would you say we see evidence of this quantum logic happening? You might say that we do?

STUART: As far as quantum logic, specifically, I think that you see that in dreams. I think dreams are quantum information without collapse—you stay in the quantum phase, without the dissipative phase. If there’s a loud noise, you wake up, so you’re shielded, isolated. Except for sleepwalkers, or something like that.

CYNTHIA: And lucid dreaming is interesting.

STUART: Lucid dreaming, exactly.

CYNTHIA: In that case, maybe, would there be alternation?

STUART: Lucid dreaming, I have to think about that. Probably there’s some collapse, but maybe infrequent, or not total, or something like that. I’m not sure. That’s certainly an exception to the rule. Sleepwalking and lucid dreaming are special cases.  Matte Blanco described the logic of dreams which is very similar to quantum logic.

CYNTHIA: You can find the extremes there, but they come together.

STUART: Well the big issue in quantum logic is noncommutativity. In regular logic, A times B equals B times A, but in quantum logic, A times B is not equal to B times A. Paradox reigns. Opposites co-exist.


STUART: Irreversible steps are one of the keys.

CYNTHIA: In addition to the irreversible steps, some people have noticed that quantum logic is a little bit like four-fold logic—so-called “Asian logic”—because it does have True, False, True-and-False, and Not-True-Not-False.

STUART: Yeah, superposition, quantum superposition. Or as Stuart Kaufman talks about, Aristotle’s ‘excluded middle’ actually occurs in quantum logic.

CYNTHIA: Would you say that quantum logic feels like an equal partner to classical logic, or do you feel it’s more of the primarily logic that is constantly there? This gets to what you were noticing about the brain.

STUART: I think the logic of the quantum world underlies the classical world—but then when collapse occurs—you get the classical world. I believe in collapse, but quantum field theorists don’t necessarily agree with collapse. And then you have Henry Stapp’s view, that collapse is caused by the Cosmic Mind. I don’t think that solves the problem. That puts consciousness out there, kind of outside of science, so it’s really a spiritual, religious type of approach. But I think you can get spirituality out of collapse, with non-locality and Platonic values, which is what Penrose brought in.

CYNTHIA: I love the way you bring up protoconsciousness, the Planck scale, and the way consciousness might exist in that sort of decoherent state, but at the same time, you do look to consciousness to bring about collapse.

STUART: Roger Penrose essentially replaced decoherence with self collapse, what he called ‘objective reduction’. Decoherence is kind of an ill-defined thing anyway. Nobody can really say exactly what it is. Plus it doesn’t really get rid of the quantum superposition—just buries it in noise. So Roger came up with the idea that there is this objective threshold for reduction, related to the uncertainty principle, so every superposition will reach this threshold, and have a self collapse. Now normally, that occurs in a very charged, polar environment, like in this table, or in the air, or liquids. So the charge will entangle with another charge, the simple equation is: E = h/t, where E is the amount of superposition, h is Planck’s constant, and t is the time at which self collapse occurs by OR. So the larger the E, the faster the t. Roger then also said that when OR happens, there is a moment of subjective experience.


STUART: Now normally, if that happens in a polar environment, then it’s random, and it’s going to happen very quickly, but randomly, so the moment of conscious experience won’t have any cognition. That’s what we call protoconscious moments, random, non-cognitive and inconsequential—but still experience. There’s consciousness everywhere, but it doesn’t hang together and do anything meaningful.

CYNTHIA: That could explain, perhaps, why plants can photosynthesize using that quantum random walk, because on some level, they’ve got protoconsciousness.

STUART: Yeah, photosynthesis is a really interesting thing. I was talking about this yesterday with these guys down at Stanford. Does that collapse? That’s a good question. The problem is that, by e=h/t, if it’s just electrons, electrons have very little mass, so e is going to be very, very small. So it will take a lot of electrons to reach collapse.


STUART: Everything has proto-conscious moments. But in the brain, and specifically due to structures called microtubules inside neurons, the random entanglements are avoided during quantum isolation phases, and the quantum states are organized, or ‘orchestrated’ by memory, sensory inputs and resonances, and cognitive ‘orchestrated’ OR conscious moments occur. But plants have photosynthesis which uses electron quantum coherence but probably don’t have orchestrated OR and meaningful consciousness. The problem is that by E=h/t, electrons comprising E have very little mass, so E is going to be very, very small, and t very, very long. So plants might have meaningful conscious moments but very rarely.


STUART: But the quantum movements of electron excitations in plant proteins which enables highly efficient conversion to food is similar to what happens in microtubule proteins. You have these aromatic rings, kind of like benzene and phenyl rings, which have excitons and dipole states. These are the same molecules that are in psychedelics, dopamine and psychoactive drugs and neurotransmitters. And that type of environment is non-polar, so there’s no charge. There are induced dipoles, but no net charge. So the quantum states there don’t automatically and quickly entangle with the environment and collapse. They can persist and couple with other quantum states to interact cognitively and process information. Or in the case of photosynthesis, transfer energy.

CYNTHIA: This coupling with other quantum states is really interesting, and brings me to the core of something I’ve been looking at, which is levels of consciousness. When we ask this big question, “Who are we?” and “Who is the observer?” we tend to have a human bias, of course, because this is how we see the world. But obviously, people who meditate are able to focus very closely in on one particular system within themselves, such as their breathing, their heart rate, these kind of things. So it’s something that we have the ability—at least yogi masters do—through meditation and awareness of themselves—to change that kind of level of consciousness. This to me is the key.

STUART: Yes, levels of consciousness. If you go back to E=h/t, these protoconscious events are happening in the table, in the air, in the coffee cup all the time. It’s basically the same as decoherence, except there is this little snippet of protoconscious experience that’s happening everywhere. So that seems bizarre and crazy, but on the other hand you have people—panpsychists—now saying that everything’s conscious, without any clue as to what actually that might mean. But then, if you get into a non-polar environment, you avoid the random entanglements, and have cognition and meaningful consciousness. In other words, the quantum states are orchestrated. It’s like the difference between the sounds and tones of an orchestra warming up, and the orchestra playing a symphony.

CYNTHIA: Exactly.

B00M25DDQE.lucySTUART: So the orchestra warming up with the various isolated tones and notes is like protoconscious moments here and there. And then they start playing Beethoven, because it’s all orchestrated, and that’s music. It’s a very good analogy, the musical analogy, except with music you need a listener, whereas here, the vibrations are self-aware. So when you start to orchestrate the objective reduction events, you get cognition and consciousness. And then it’s a matter of the intensity of the levels. So for example, assuming it’s orchestrated, and you have meaningful consciousness, then as “E” becomes larger, “t” becomes shorter, and you get more intense conscious experience, like music changing to a higher octave. As E is larger, you use more of the brain. Did you see that movie, “Lucy”?


STUART: It’s about how we use some percentage of the brain, and Lucy was using more and more percentage of her brain. And how they were saying she was doing it wasn’t right.

CYNTHIA: It was fanciful.

STUART: Nobody really knows. Based on available technology they tell us we only use a small fraction of our brain. Well, bullshit! How do you know how much of our brain we use? We may use a lot of it for stuff that’s not conscious, or that is conscious and cant be measured, like quantum effects in microtubules. But just for consciousness, I think if you’re meditating or if you’re in an altered state or something like that, that means you’re using more and more of your brain that is involved. Therefore, “E” becomes greater and “t” is faster, so you get faster, more frequent, conscious events. You go to a deeper level which is a higher plane. It’s been shown that meditators have  higher frequency gamma synchrony, for example, but it could go even faster, like to megahertz, for example. So we could be having ten million of these events per second. But then you’d say, “Wait a second. For EEG, our cognition is much, much slower.” What Roger and I proposed in our last paper is that these faster events interfere and give beats, just like in music, when you have beat frequencies. And the beat frequencies are what we see—the EEG. The beat frequency that we see is cognitive windows in the range of milliseconds. But they are actually deriving from faster vibrations, like in megahertz, which is where the microtubules are vibrating. So there’s a spectrum of terahertz, gigahertz, megahertz, kilohertz, and then hertz. And the EEG is basically hertz. So what we see as EEG I think of as beat frequencies of faster vibrations at a deeper level. EEG is the slower, large scale tip of an iceberg of deeper, faster vibrations. So if you’re meditating, or you go in an altered state, you’re going into that faster, more intense domain. So it will include more conscious moments per second, and they are more intense. So that’s what I think an altered state is, a deeper level, higher frequency level of consciousness—it’s the frequency at which you’re having orchestrated conscious events, more deeply into spacetime geometry. Very intense experiences may be entirely in spacetime geometry, and could exist independent of the brain, at least temporarily, remaining entangled. So this could explain out-of-body experiences. As the Beatles said – ‘The deeper you go, the higher you fly….”


Dr. Stuart Hameroff


Center for Consciousness Studies


Consciousness in the Universe: A Review of the ‘Orch OR’ Theory

by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose





Cynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, and BBC. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:


Cynthia Sue Larson Interviews Yasunori Nomura

Yasunori Nomura with Cynthia Sue Larson

Yasunori Nomura with Cynthia Sue Larson

I’ve been following Professor Yasunori Nomura‘s work this past year with tremendous interest, since he was one of the first theoretical physicists to publish a paper on the topic of the many worlds of quantum mechanics being one and the same as the eternally inflating multiverse. This perspective is one I consider to be extremely promising, both for its elegance and also for its ability to explain much that other theories cannot so easily address.

I was thrilled when attending a screening of the recent documentary film, “Particle Fever,” about the hunt for the Higgs boson to see Yasunori’s name up on the podium. I’d received an invitation to attend this UC Berkeley event through the Physics Department where I’d studied and received my degree many years ago. Dr. Yasunori Nomura was one of the panelists who talked about what we’re learning from the hunt for the Higgs boson after the show, along with Lawrence Hall, Marjorie Shapiro, Walter Murch, Mark Levinson, Petr Horava, Beate Heinemann, and Surjeet Rajendran. Dr. Nomura is a Professor at UC Berkeley at the Berkeley Center for Theoretical Physics, where his work is primarily focused on particle physics and cosmology.


Panelists at “Particle Fever” screening at UC Berkeley, September 12, 2014


CYNTHIA: Thank you so very much for taking time from your busy schedule to answer a few questions! I also want to thank you for writing such a clear and persuasive paper in the Journal of High Energy Physics, “Physical Theories, Eternal Inflation, and Quantum Universe.” You’ve also developed a new theoretical framework to describe dynamics of quantum gravity in low energy regimes, preserving locality. What’s so wonderfully exciting about bringing these ideas together is that you are presenting us with a view of general relativistic global spacetime being an emerging classical concept that arises from a special relativistic, quantum mechanical description of quantum gravity. When these concepts are applied to the idea of the multiverse, we then have a multiverse with no beginning and no end, but rather time that emerges locally in branches. Is this a fairly good summary of your most current perspective? And in what new directions is your work going next?

YASUNORI: Yes, that is a good summary of my perspective. Our world is quantum mechanical. Quantum mechanics governs how nature works at the deepest level, not just in small subatomic scales but also at the largest scale of the eternally inflating multiverse. At the same time, quantum mechanics is a “weird theory” which predicts many counter-intuitive phenomena, and from which the “normal world” we perceive emerges only in a certain limit. This includes concepts such as space and time. Furthermore, quantum mechanics is an intrinsically probabilistic theory—every prediction you make is probabilistic. My current effort focuses on developing a deeper understanding of these issues. What is the detailed microscopic mechanism underlying the emergence of spacetime? What does the probability really mean? How does understanding of these issues help revealing the so-far elusive quantum theory of gravity?

CYNTHIA: I love the way you describe our world as being quantum mechanical at the deepest level! This conceptualization has not been popularly embraced, perhaps due to the counter-intuitive “weirdness” of quantum mechanics. You make excellent points about quantum mechanics being intrinsically probabilistic, and I appreciate your emphasis on the importance of better understanding what probability really means. In the introduction of your 2011 paper, “Quantum Mechanics, Spacetime Locality, and Gravity,” you point out that, “Quantum mechanics introduced the concept of probability to physics at the fundamental level. This has led to the issue of the quantum-to-classical transition, in particular the measurement problem.”  What is needed for us to better understand probability in a quantum world?

YASUNORI: What the probability in quantum mechanics really means is a deep question, with which people have been struggling for a century. At the most naive level, it means that when we prepare an ensemble of a large number of systems all of which are in an identical state, then the records of performing physical measurements on these systems are distributed according to what quantum mechanics predicts. Does this mean that we simply do not know enough details of the systems, and if we do, then we can predict the outcome of measuring each member of the ensemble with certainty? People certainly wondered this possibility in early days in developing quantum mechanics, but we are now almost certain that this is not the case. In quantum mechanical world, the outcome of a measurement is intrinsically probabilistic—the probabilistic nature is not a manifestation of our incomplete knowledge of the system. A question then arises when we ask what happens if we make a “single” measurement on “a” system in our universe. According to quantum mechanics, the result is “probabilistic,” but what does that really mean? Where is the ensemble? Are there many universes which are “distributed” according to the prediction of quantum mechanics? This is where the necessity of considering many universes—or multiverse—comes in. We need to consider cosmology in a deepest sense to really address this problem.

CYNTHIA: This suggests there is a deeper interconnectedness that goes beyond any “single” measurement on “a” system that is occurring everywhere–and not just in the realm of quantum particles, because we cannot assume that any given experiment is closed off from its surrounding environment. We definitely require an understanding of probabilities beyond mere statistical frequencies, since we can’t run experiments on multiple versions of the universe! What are your thoughts about the value of the Bayesian interpretation of probability for quantum cosmology–the idea that before we start measuring probabilities, we must set initial assumptions about the probabilities?

YASUNORI: Yes, the issue is certainly relevant beyond the realm of quantum particles at small scales. Quantum effects are there even at large distances—they are simply hard to recognize for an observer like us living in “a branch” of a complete quantum state. We still do not know exactly what form the physical law that allows us to address this issue will take, but I can certainly imagine that some sort of Bayesian ways of thinking may play an important, and perhaps even crucial, role in formulating such a law. In fact, there are already several hints to move forward, based on consistency of quantum cosmology. (Another obvious clue is that the new rule must reduce to the standard Born rule in situations in which an ensemble is explicitly available to an observer.) Perhaps, explorations of this issue may lead to a new theory beyond quantum mechanics, not just reinterpretation (or reformulation) of the standard quantum mechanics.

CYNTHIA: Quantum cosmology is an especially exciting field right now, as it is becoming clear that multiverse theories can be modeled using computer simulations that can be compared to cosmic background radiation. When you envision a new theory beyond our current conceptualization of quantum mechanics, what ideas do you find most interesting now?

YASUNORI: Yes, quantum cosmology is an especially exciting field right now because of observational and theoretical evidence pointing to the multiverse, gathered in the last decade or two. We are, however, not at a stage in which we can simulate the multiverse as we do for cosmic background radiation. The problems we are struggling are still conceptual: what is the probability in the cosmological context, etc. I am, however, optimistic about near future progress. One idea which I think promising, and which I have been pursuing, is that “time” we perceive emerges only locally in relevant branches (e.g. in our own universe) in the static multiverse state. This would solve many conceptual issues such as what is the beginning or end of the multiverse.

CYNTHIA: Considering time to be more of a variable than a constant in the multiverse is fascinating and mind-bending. We now have measurements from our most accurate strontium atomic clocks showing that time elapses more slowly at lower altitudes, influenced by gravity, so a clock positioned just a few centimeters higher will read a different time. NIST’s chief timekeeper, Tom O’Brian, recently stated in an NPR interview that, “My own personal opinion is that time is a human construct.” Could you describe a little bit more about how might we envision time as being something we perceive locally in relevant branches of the multiverse–is there some way to visualize such a thing?

YASUNORI: What we call time is nothing more than (a very special form of) correlations between physical objects. Consider throwing a baseball. It is usually stated that the baseball then moves (relative to the earth) as “time passes.” What is really happening, however, is that the relative location between the baseball and the earth is correlated with configurations of other physical systems, e.g. the location of the hands of a clock, relative configurations of the Sun, Earth, and Moon (although their changes are minuscule in the timescale of the motion of the baseball), configurations of synapses in your brain, etc. To describe all these correlations, one may introduce some parameter “t” and write the configurations of the systems as functions of this “spurious” parameter t as we describe a curve in a two-dimensional plane using a parametric representation: (x(t), y(t)). This parameter t is precisely what we call time—it does not really “exist” as a physical object!

A real question then is why there exists such a special form of correlations between configurations of various physical systems, more specifically correlations that are described in a simple manner using a single spurious parameter t. This is what really must be explained, which my static quantum multiverse proposal is trying to address. Note that these special corrections (i.e. time) need not exist in all the branches of the multiverse state. We only know experimentally that they exist in the branches corresponding to our universe.

CYNTHIA: You point out that our conceptualization of infinitely large space that we associate with eternal inflation is really just an illusion, and a more accurate way to describe everything is that we exist within an intrinsically probabilistic multiverse. The vastness of eternally inflating space can thus be found in probability–in which an initial state evolves into a superposition of states, with branches occurring whenever bubble universes burst forth. In your “Static Quantum Multiverse” 2012 paper, you explain how the multiverse need not evolve in order to be consistent with an arrow of time–which presents a completely different picture of cosmology than the currently popular sense of infinitely large space. Within this static quantum multiverse, can you envision there being a place for subjective observation with its associated sense of past, present and future—so important to people, as Bernard d’Espagnat’s observes, “Time is at the heart of all that is important to human beings.” For example, when imagining ourselves throwing a baseball, is there anything we can identify as being ‘now’–the present moment?

YASUNORI: You correctly summarize that the vastness of eternally inflating space can be found in probability space. In a sense, the “Static Quantum Multiverse” proposal simply says that the vastness of time should also be found in the probability space. In this picture, the (static) multiverse state contains many “observers,” e.g. myself, at “different times,” each of whom has his/her own sense of past, present and future. In your example, each of these “observers” (which we usually describe as a single observer in different moments) has his/her own sense of now, with the baseball located in the place determined mostly by the Newtonian mechanics. I can’t affirm that the absence of the absolute notion of ‘now’ is not a problem, but I think it is not.

CYNTHIA: I appreciate how your static quantum multiverse model’s inclusion of probability space and time provides such an elegant view of the cosmos while allowing for free will and unique individual experience. Thank you for sharing some of your fascinating ideas and observations about quantum cosmology, time and space! In addition to reading your many publications–which number 111 to date, according to ResearchGate–how best can people follow your work and what you are doing?

YASUNORI: It is my pleasure. ResearchGate is one option. Another possibility is to use an author search in INSPIRE, the High Energy Physics information system built by CERN, DESY, Fermilab and SLAC: I will also be updating my homepage:

Cynthia Sue Larson is the best-selling author of six books, including Quantum Jumps, Reality Shifts, Aura Advantage, High Energy Money, and Karen Kimball and the Dream Weaver’s Web, and the Aura Healing Meditations CD. Cynthia has a degree in Physics from UC Berkeley, and she discusses consciousness and quantum physics on numerous shows including the History Channel, Coast to Coast AM, and BBC. You can subscribe to Cynthia’s free monthly ezine at:

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: