Determine your future by thinking

This theory brought to you entirely by me.

Blurry Particles
Correct me on any false or misunderstood facts. Quantum Physics, I have no clue how they work, and nobody knows how they work exactly, either. But I do know that 'probability' is a famous subject of Quantum Physics. Quantum particles can gain a shape. And they do so after they have been observed. Before that, they're in an unknown state. A particle may be A or B, and before they have been observed, they're both A and B. But as soon as light is cast upon their state, they change to either A or B (while their antiparticle immediately changes to the opposite, no matter the distance between them). Now I was wondering, are we able to change quantum states just by thinking? And using that, changing the future itself?

Sensitive Destiny
You probably have had the feeling sometimes that when you expect something, the opposite happens. And when you decide to expect the other thing instead, with previous statement in mind, something totally different happens. I myself often feel positive about a certain plan I want to execute, but upon executing, it actually turns out quite negative. When I don't really think it's going to turn out well (but execute it anyway), it actually is turning out well in the end. And when I feel positive about the plan, but know it's gonna turn out negative, it's suddenly still turning out positive (I think about such things way more than what's good for me).
Anyhow, I thought this might be because you unconsciously determine your own future path. With your expectations you observe things in a certain way while executing the plan, and with that you change the flow of events. Observing with a positive feeling causes a negative outcome, and observing with a positive feeling but negative expectation causes a positive outcome. Are you still with me?

Know few, change a lot
This applied to daily life; as long as you don't realise what other people know around you, you can let things happen you didn't expect to happen, by observing with certain expectations. But how more likely the event to happen, how less you can change it. Chance that your calculator give 6 by inputting 2+2 while you expect it will be 4 is so unlikely because you simply know it'll become 4. But chances that your train is delayed while you were cycling the legs from your body to not miss the train is far more likely, because you expect it to leave on time. But if you would cycle slow with the thought that the train will be delayed anyway, the train does leave on time (and you're left waiting half an hour). Quite a black and white example, but here's a gray one: When you, after cycling very fast to not miss the train, give up and cycle slowly because you sadly know you wont make it anymore, then suddenly there appears to be another train leaving 10 minutes later, departing at specific hours, coincidentally at your time. Events start to happen you didn't take in account, and I'd say almost 'compensate' the sad and angry mood you got. But like I said, the more likely the event, the less you can change it, simply because there are too many factors that are already determined by you. So the less you realise, the easier you can change your future.

Relative Future
It's interesting to ask what would happen if you expect red grapes to have a discount, while I expect green grapes to have a discount. If we don't know this from eachother, then chances are big green grapes have a discount in your scenario, while in mine the red grapes have. When you do know the expectations of eachother, which grapes then have a discount? Well, then it's still your own observation that'll become real. If you take in mind that I'll probably are right, then chances are high that you'll be right and red grapes have a discount. If you dearly hope you'll be right, then I'll be and green grapes have a discount. And for me? I'll walk my own path and things may be different for me than for you, at every choice one makes. You walk your own future, and while you find yourself in a different future than me, the 'clone you' in my future will deal with the choices observed in my future, despite and unrelated to the choices observed in your future, wherein the 'clone me' deal with those. This is getting quite complicated, but I hope you're following me still! In this theory I state that the future is relative for everyone who observes.

Of course it may be that I'm just getting idiotic ideas in my head, and that my observations simply affect my mood instead of the events happening, but it's still interesting and fun to think about it.
I'll gladly hear your opinions and experiences.

Regards,
Joozey

that was deep. i really want to respond, but i keep going to God and the concept of:
Proverbs 3:5-6 (New International Version)

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.

My thoughts are, we are too consumed with what is and what may be, and honestly, all we have to realize, whatever the Lord has planned for us, is all that matters. If we seek Him and the kingdom, we will be fine. truth is, i sleep well at night, not thinking about the small stuff.

What do I think?
I think, its simply about the 'two', it is this form of two possibilities, in difference to a form of three or four or more. It is this form of an opposition or double like "head or tail" that produces your narration about echoes of 'action and reaction' within ' expectation and event', 'hope and disappointment', 'fear and release'.
Your mind wants to force a handy 'cause and effect' to get a grip on an event simply by your expectation although the event is absolutely independent from your expectation. It is a psychological result of the 'hope for the best and expect the worst'.

It's not that always when you expect something, the opposite happens. But if it happens you remember it more likely because it's something special. If everything happens like you expect, there is nothing special about it. Most times you expect something, it happens exactly what you expected, but you don't remember it well because you don't care because it's nothing special.

I think what you meant in your fist paragraph was quantum entanglement, although an antiparticle is something else. Well, it is hard for physicists to create a quantum entanglement in a laboratory, so why should a human brain be able to create enough quantum entanglements to affect more than one atom? It would need more energy than it's worth so evolution wouldn't create such an ability.

Anyway, if a train is late the train must have already been behind before you thought of it. Or, if an other train is leaving ten minutes later, it must be in railway schedule which was made ages earlier, so to "change the future with our brain" we'd have to change the PAST!

We can NOT change the future with our brains. If you do want to believe it, fine, then go to a seminar where the first lesson costs 100€ and, if you want to continue, the second one costs 5000€. There they teach you simple magic tricks and claim it's telepathy and even stupider stuff that is not even a trick ("OMG, I correctly answered half of the yes-no-questions about that person I never met!").

The schedule didn't change, but the train is simply late. I'm not sure how it is with trains in Germany, but in the Netherlands they're late all the time . And the train doesn't need to be behind before you thought of it. That's the point of this theory. Everything you hadn't (consciously/unconsciously) interpreted is not yet defined.

Perhaps you're familiar with schrödingers cat? After typing this thread I recalled this experiment again.


So what determines the cat being alive or dead? Ones expectation of the cat being alive or dead? Or the fact that we look into the box? Or isn't it determined by our observations after all?

This is the superfluous state I'm aiming at.
Indeed I said antiparticle where I meant the quantum entanglement stuff.

the theory of, the yes is no and the no turns yes, in a cause effect event, also happens to me, but i guess, this is because im with that idea in my mind, and when i say something, i know it will be the reverse that will happen, because my mind is thinking on that, and make is true, so you dont think you are crazy.
I also think that destiny is all about balance, and emotion. Eveything is balanced, if you say no, something must turn yes, to balance nothing. like eveything in the universe, matter, antimatter, hot and cold, yes and no, fast and slow... everything is turning into Caos, which means lost of energy (consumption). And emotions because the emotions actually make the difference. positive emotions leads to positive things. The most strong emotion is LOVe, which i believe is the key to Human survival, in the future. At least that the key to life, and the key God also wanted humans to know, and follow. because everything that does not have love in someway, will lead to destruction.

I also have this mission.. i have to tell you guys, there is good outhere on space, but for human to survive, humans shall love eachother, and believe in strong force that created everything, and our mission is love and believe. Thats the only way someones soul evolve and turns into light.

This is on of the most important (3rd secret of lucia of Fatima) which reveals the enf of the worlds too. and enlightment.

It's definitely a plausible idea, but that means it wouldn't help you even if it could. If you really believe in it, you should try your hardest to disprove it using anything from science to personal experiences.

Scientifically, you got a lot going for you. Most physicists nowadays believe in multiple universes, or rather, they're forced to believe in them so that their field becomes valid(String theory, Quantum theory, Graviton particles, etc).

It's also generally believed that it's human observation that prevents particles from super positioning.

However, there's a difference between observation and thinking. Thinking does nothing to change the particles in any way. In the double-slit experiment, you will always be able to observe the results of a photon super positioning, irregardless of what you're wishing/not wishing the result to be.

Also, don't put too much weight on the Schrödinger's Cat paradox. It's purpose was to show that we still don't get something about quantum physics, not that the cat is both dead and alive before we open the box.

I actually don't really believe in it as I'm sceptical and rational of mind, but my "observations" imply it's not entirely impossible. So I've been trying my hardest best to prove it, but it might cost more effort than I can bring up.

i agree

there is a quantum slit experiment, that when an observer watched the electron, it will change its path. So could this mean that coincious, alters Matter?

do you guys know the jump rooms to mars? hiden ^"top secret" govs. few now about it.

Either G. the Lord straightens our paths to ultimate salvation, or religion all was a foggy concept for those who fear being on their own. I fear not, I care little about that. So I do not need religion to support me on that. Now I can't be sure if the path of God leads to eternal freedom, so why should I just choose this path anyway?

This is sadly not the stuff that keeps me awake at night. Tiny useless social issues do that already.

Nope
As far as entanglement is concerned we are just " passive observers "

Suppose you have two entangled electrons A and B

A goes through an electrical field while B is far away
You can control the movement of A via the intensity and the polarity of the elctrical field but this will not affect the movement of B

now, A goes through a magnetic field and B is still far away
A gets the spin " up " ( " down ") while B , at the same time, gets the spin "down" ("up")

The point is that there is no way to control the spin of A via , for example, the intensity and / or the polarity of the magnetic field
it is a mere random event

For this reason entanglement can not be used as a sort of high sophisticated remote controller

Despite its popularity and even though it has been proposed by a great scientist , the scientific value of "the schrödingers cat " paradox, is null

Many popular scientific books claim that :

A quantum entity ( a photon of light, an electron, an atom etc ) can exist in several states but if you observe it than it "collapse"
in one only state
This is false
The quantum entity collapse just in case you have the possibility to "observe" it regardless of the fact that you really do it

In other words a quantum entity behave as a " wave " just in case it is fully " isolated "
It is hard to think that the bilion and bilions atoms of a cat can be cosidered as "isolated" items

Hmm I see. However, entangled parts have not just two phases, right? One can spin "up" and the other "down", and one can spin "down" while the other spins "up". But they can also remain blurry. If we just hypotetically assume for a second that by thinking, we send out tiny magnetic flows around, just like the earth does in quite bigger proportions. This magnetic flow hits natural entangled particles, and you cause an effect, triggering either scenario A or B. If you did not think, you did not send the magnetic flow, and the particles remain blurry, leaving you in scenario C.



That's an interesting fact (yeah I take your knowledge as facts :P). But what do you exactly mean by "behave as a wave"? A blurry state, or a wave that passes through isolation?

In the latter case, if we are talking about a cat in a box well out of my range (like, I observe a box (with oxygen and all) on mars with a potential cat in it through a recorded tape with a delay of 10 minutes) then the quadrillion atoms of a cat can be considered isolated I guess?

And in the former case, can we assume that our sun is in a wave state right now? By no means can we ever observe what it does right now. It might be burning as it always did, or it might have been exploded. But we do know that it is very unlikely for it to explode right now, as there is no aparent reason whatsoever. But I can safely say quantum entanglement do not need reason for changing in state A or B, correct? So how come the sun isn't likely to explode?
If we all suddenly start thinking that the sun actually IS exploding, if all observers expect it to explode, will it more likely explode?

For a complete and exhaustive description of a particle you just need to define 3 spatial coord , x,y,z, and 3 speeds Vx,Vy,Vz
You may want to add also some angles but generally speaking a finite number of variables is enough
For an electron ( or a photon or an atom or a small molecule ) it is not sufficient

You must define a function in term of x,y,z and the time t
Something like

atom = f(x,y,z,t)

Dont worry about the physical meaning of the above function( nobody actually knows it )

The key point is that the atom looks like something diffused in the space, regardless of physical meaning of the value assigned to the spatial coords
In other words our atom is a sort of wave rather than a particle but do not assume that it is a real wave, it behaves like a wave
That's different

Ok, now let's consider a group of atoms , for example , our cat
How would you describe the cat in the mathematical language
Well the cat is made of atoms , so

Cat = f1(x1,y1,z1,t) + f2(x2,y2,z2,t) .....fn(xn,yn,zn,t)

with n = 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.........000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
False
Our cat is described by one only function with 3n + 1 variables rather than by n functions with 4 variable
Something like

Cat = f(X1,X2,...............X3n,t)

If you study this function you get the behaviour of our cat

Well if you do it you will find out that a cat behaves like .......a cat

In other words, all the amazing properties of quantum physics are valid only for a small number of isolated atomic entities



No, it will not explode
As I said we are just passive observers as far as entanglement is concerned

So then , why when they measure and observe it, it will behave like a particle, and when not observing like a wave, in the double slit video experiment..

So what does observing actually does? is the though, the concioness of expecting something, limited by our "limits" that will create the reality??

if quantum is not real in the real outside, why care about it? only if one can control or make it real , than thats worth it.

OK, just to throw a spanner in the works here, but can anyone explain this,
or point out a flaw in my logic...

All the atoms that make up my brain, or heart, or whatever, are INSIDE me,
so all the quantum particles that they are made of should be un-observable
and therefore un-collapsed "wave" state correct?
And I live.....
But if you stick me in a MRI or X-Ray machine, or even cut me open and look inside,
the particles are being observed, so shouldnt they all collapse into "single state' particles?
And seeing as the particles that make up my mind or heart have changed in a
pretty fundamental way, why dont I just die on the spot?

There has to be some behavioural difference between "wave" and "single state" particles
otherwise why would "they" feel the need to change when being watched?
And how could we spot the difference....
(and NO Im not looking for a way to hit a radiographer with a malpractice suit)

The " observing " by itself, actually does nothing
It is a popular belief that :

If you leave an electron alone than it is a wave but if you measure (observe) it, for example by placing some sensors near the slits, than the wave " collapses " into a particle
Same as a sort of " condensation reaction " due to a mechanical interaction wave / measuring instrument
If so, the duality wave / particle would not be that mistery, some fluids behave like that

I would not even comment the " the concioness of expecting something..." a ridicoulus interpretation proposed by some phylospher

The situation is different
First of all, real systems do not behave either as a waves or as a particles
It is alwayes an hybrid behaviour

apart from that, in the double slit experiment the wave collapses whenever you can potentially get some information out of the system even though you are a passive observer

If the system is completely " closed" than you have to deal with waves
If the system is completely " open " than you have to deal with particles
Some thing in between for semi open / close system

Nobody can provide an intuitive explanation

I always thought, but that's my humble explanation, that you can't observe small entities like an electron without affecting it.
You need some sort of tool to measure its position or energy, and the tool can't be smaller or more "detailed" than an electron.
It needs energy and positions which are influencing position and energy of the observed electron.
This means that the influence of the observer to the observed is because of his cumbersome observation tools, right?

This is the Heisemberg's principle of indetermination

I ask you a question

Why do the photons of light suddenly change direction after the slits ?

Because of the collision with the edges of the slits, maybe ?
Nope ,if so, they should be absorbed

It is because of the Heisemberg's principle

when the the photon is in the slit , you know both its position and the module of the speed but according to the Heisemberg's principle you can not know both position and speed with an unlimited degree of accuracy, thus the photon must change...direction

As you see that has little to do with " measuring tool "

It is the mistery of quantum physics

squeeze hard and the answer will reveal its self! In a brown sticky goo!

Moggy: spam elsewhere. Final ban.