Are we catching photons traveling in time?

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this distinguished group. First of all, my congratulations. I have in mind a project that is essentially very similar. I am convinced that the mass can act as a bidirectional temporal bridge, that is, the analogical information through which a mass is excited. concrete can be rescued at any point in time, that is to say that the mass stores the information with which it has been excited over time, the easy part is to excite the mass that is going to be used as a temporary bridge, the complex part is to rescue the both past and future information since said mass is being energized through an automatic process with analogical information.

Can you explore the issue of time management at the same time?) Suddenly there are ways to go to your childhood self and give yourself a smack >_<

I like the spirit behind this experiment and am pretty sure that retrocausation plays a role in one way or another. However, I'm wondering how these observed deviations may be equally induced by an in time varying device efficiency that counts photons differently according to the different time intervals randomly chosen. I suspect that it could be a technically highly challenging undertaking to eliminate all the possible device artifacts to get a result that one can interpret uniquely.

Hello there, I was curious as to if you considered that your hypothesis is true, but in a very physical manner? Having todo with the hard mechanics of observation itself. Unequivocally, all observation is local observation only, meaning that your gravitational potential is the sole source of the rate of your observation of a particle called the photon. This effects the perception of distance to a degree that is directly proportionate to the rate of change along the path of observation. Meaning you see the universe according to your location alone. A sudden non-local change in gravitational potential can be proven to distort your perceptions of a non-local target. All non-local observation is quantum mechanics.

I notice that the duration of the runs was randomly selected in your pilot experiment. However, I couldn't determine whether the moment at which each run commenced was also randomly determined or dependent on a human operator. After several years working on the subject of intuition, I am convinced by Ed May's decision augmentation theory (DAT) according to which a participant uses precognition (in the form of intuition) to choose the moment at which to generate a data sample, in such a way that it conforms to the intended result. For example, in the REG experiments, the operator of the REG uses intuition to sample the bit stream at a moment for which the sample will later be found to contain the intended deviation in the mean value for the output distribution. Thus, if the result of your experiment could be affected according to the moment at which the runs are started, such human control could introduce an artifact. In this case, it might be worth automating such control, or better still, comparing the effect of automatic Vs manual control.

Hi Neil, I think there are a bunch of ideas about how QM could support precognition, but all of them are weak, because of course precognition is something that happens in very large systems (humans) with some kind of not-well-understood relationship with consciousness (which itself is not well understood). But I do know that some people who study precognition tend to read up on retrocausality, and the transactional interpretation and TSVF are interesting interpretations of QM that seem to support retrocausality, though there are arguments there too (like, whether what seems retrocausal is happening in spacetime or not). Anyway, it's all a mess, but that's the lay of the land as far as I am aware. Take care, Julia

A great crowdsource outcome which will continue to support you throughout this project

Congratulations, Julia! So glad you made it1

Congrats Julia !

Hi Julia. Having read Dean Radin's books I understand that the mere fact that you are a remote viewer (and therefore obviously a believer in remote viewing) might influence the test results. How do you plan to "tackle" this problem?

Hi Julia - More backers would be best, of course. But another way to get there is if the existing backers could manage to increase their pledges by 50%. Probably not everyone can. But I just doubled my pledge from $100 to $200. By the way, I love that you are living in a geodesic dome. My late wife and I were planning to build a geodesic dome as our first home about 40 years ago--I even built a scale model of it--but in the end it did not work out. Good luck with the funding! See you at the SSE in June. - Mike

Truly excited about supporting this experiment.

I'm looking forward to learning more about the project. Jeff

Folks might be interested in this chat I had with John Cramer about his theory of Transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyFuMy344yw

I'm interested in this area, ever since attending the 2006 retrocausal conference. I'm also interested in exploring the information theoretical aspects of this as well... good luck.

It's a remarkable direction. I am delighted to be part of it. Best wishes Babar Yousuf

So love Julia's work <3

Sending some your way now! :)

Julia, I know it is hard working with experiments where you are detecting single photons. Photomultipliers are just sensitive enough to do it, but dark current noise in them can be so high! I wish I had a spare avalanche diode photodetector that I could donate to your research project, to improve the signal to noise ratio you are probably dealing with on your current photomultiplier, but, alas, fate never dropped one into my hands. However, if you are interested, what I DO have is a PIN diode photon detector that's almost as good as an avalanche diode detector. I'm not currently using it, and it might work very well for your photon detection experiments. Check with your engineer and see if he/she thinks it might be of use. If so, it is yours. The specs: Analog Modules, Inc., Model 710-425 Amplifier, Ultra Low noise PIN photodiode detector, complete with 521-5 precision adjustable bias power supply Ultra low noise amplifier, 710-425, 1-10 MV/A Transimpedance Gain, Detector=FFD-100 SI PIN, Peak=900nm, Optimum bias=15V, Optical Gain=0.6-6.V/uW, Noise=5.0pW/(sqrt(Hz)) Power +-15VDC 3- mA, input photodetector, output BNC, PIN decoupled with 01.01 uF 1 kV cap. Output swing 2.5V pk(-1 and -2) or 6V pk (-3 and -4) Power supply specs: Power supply, biasing, low noise amplifier In +12V - 15V, or 24-28V DC, output +10 to +800V or -10V to -800V, using a 0 to 5 V control voltage Analog Modules, Inc., Model 521a You'd have to download the manufactures spec sheets to see if the diode's spectral response is wide enough to use with your current laser's wavelength, or perhaps instead you could use a 900 nm. laser with your double slit, as this PIN detector's sensitivity peaks at 900 nm. This unit was taken from an Alcon 193 nm Exciplex UV laser system (used for laser eye surgery - I believe the PIN photo detector was used with an IR light source and used to scan and track cornea movements.) I believe the photo detector is perfectly good, but I've never placed it in service, so it is untested, at this point. Let me know if your team is interested, and I'll ship it to you. Bert

I'm a remote viewer (distinctly amateur) who has had some significant success in both past and future RV cognitions. But I'm struggling to understand how you can anticipate that this experiment could allow any inferences or explanation of the workings of precognition. What specifically would photon have to do with human consciousness and it's purported ability to perceive future events? Seems like a stretch. I think it diminishes the credibility of the experiment. I mean, let's face it, psychic phenomena is still not mainstream. Wouldn't it interesting enough just to keep the experiment within the domain of QM?

You state, "Quantum retrocausation (QR), in which events occurring in the present seem to influence quantum events in the past, has been actively researched over the past two decades and is considered by many scientists to reflect physical phenomena either within or outside of spacetime." I do not see how an event in the past, once it has occurred and is part of recorded history, can be influenced by anything that comes later. If a mouse pushes a lever at -5 seconds then that act is part of recorded history, recorded on video, say. How can that observation be changed, to -3 seconds, for example? If it could be one could only recognize the change by having both the -5 and -3 video records, thus both, not just -3. So I am puzzled! Oh yes, Happy Birthday! Dad

Yeah! I am excited! Happy Birthday, Julia!!!! Congratulations for singing and dancing the universal rhythm--for 50 years!!! Love, Your sister, Jen

Thank you Karen!!!! I love your support and your love both!! An amazing birthday gift!!!!!

Happy Birthday, Julia....and happy hunting!