Has Science found evidence of the Mandela Effect?

originally posted by: roadgravel
Unless reality is more of a brain thing than an actual universe reality.

BINGO!

a reply to: neoholographic

quantum mechanics is one thing, objective large scale reality is another. don't mix those two.

as for mandela effect, it's very simple to prove that it cannot be disproved. it's all about some future government manipulating the past, right? john titor and all that, right?

if they have the ability to manipulate the past, they can as well manipulate it so that at every point their deeds are to be proven, they intervene. john titor deemed a hoax? their work. if only one accepts the fact that someone from the future can manipulate the past, all bets are off and you can't really disprove anything anymore.

even when one doesn't believe in anything like that, it's just personal opinion, because you can't say john titor's story is 100% hoax when it can, in fact, be a result of another time traveler's intervention that it looks that way to some people.

it's a simple logic that "debunkers" of this whole thing love to ignore. you can't really prove anything so far, despite some claims here and there, but you definitely can't disprove it either.

Is the cat dead or not

Lol sorry but the Mandela effect is nonsense so nothing can prove it exists if it never existed to begin with. Sounds like you are a Mandela effect believer and just twisting studies to fit your beliefs.

originally posted by: SoulStoner225
Is the cat dead or not

Yes... no... maybe... *shrugs* I dont know.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: neoholographic


Qunatum Mechanics has got to be one of the dumbest theories man has come up with. We are going to look back on this time in 100 years and laugh at the stuff these Quantum Physicists believed. I am more a Bohmian Mechanics guy myself, it explains most of the qunatum phenomena observed using common sense. Quantum Physics is a pseudo science at best.

It's so Pseudo science they're building functional computers based on it.....


It is a sound science. But in saying that there is a lot of crap in it also. I believe it's usually called 'theoretical" which is science for "I'm making a guess here, an educated guess, but a guess none the less, with maybe some wishful thinking thrown in"

It gets stupid when you start hearing people talk about # like an infinite number of you existing. In one universe I am me, in another I am a 1 meter squared Rubik's Cube and in another I am Pinky Pie from MLP.

Like I said stupid. As stupid as thinking science can ever prove something that exists only in peoples memories. aka Mandella Effect.

However I can get on board with Quantum computing and teleportation. Although you'll never get me to use a quantum teleporter if the science is correct.
(You don't really teleport, a copy is made on the other end and the original is destroyed. well that's how it was last time I read up on it.)

To me it sounds like an ad hoc point of view of the universe in which every considerable frame or point of reference is it's own overlapping entwined universe on its own, so that all conscious perspectives are in effect in their own respective timelines. All points of view exist in a matrix or grid in which they're constantly exchanging information between all other members of the grid and this is how we get shared reality. It is also why each conscious member has a minute effect on the whole and why a large percentage participation might have the ability of switching or altering shared timelines. It's like if over 50% of the data slides into choosing or agreeing with one timeline then it alters for the combined whole with but still contains fragments of memories still existing within the new altered imprint... like small bits of radiation telling us of a close alternative branch still jittering in the code.

Like each timeline also has probabilistic States always present as there are several decisions available to the present moment at once and it acts as a feedback loop considering all possible options then looping back and unfolding the timeline as to what is agreed upon.

Like something folded in on itself over and over and over, with all these spaces and alignments playing out instantly, and the 'linking' of these 'shifts' in points of relation as a sort of forward moving alignment is what is considered as time and space. The linking is what makes it coherent and time is a product of this seemingly coherent causation 'forward' linking point of view.

I ponder if its all conscious yet only that which has the apparatus of creating a coherent point of view via sensory stimulation or data aggregation to build an effective way of analyzing and working with relative time space point of view has the ability through complexity, cohesion and energy to have greater affect on the probabilistic feedback loop affecting all timelines.

In this 'range' of overlapping possibility perhaps we 'slide' or 'snap' into the next strong gridline of casual progression as it has unfolded in that agreed upon timeline. Like branches on branches.

Who knows.

/endrambling

This isn't proof of the Mandela effect, its proof that an event can have 2 correct but contradictory interpretations, at least in theory.

The Mandela effect presents the idea that a whole host of things can be changed to multiple observers en masse. All after the fact. In the example given one of the observers would have to come back years later and say the cats in the experiment were dogs or the cats weren't flipping a coin they were rolling a die. The Mandela effect proposes changes after the fact not difference in observable outcome.

a reply to: nemonimity

This is just wrong.

You have no evidence that the Mandela Effect is something that occurs after the fact. That's just mere speculation without a shred of evidence to support it.

In fact all of the evidence points to the Mandela Effect or what we have called strange coincidences throughout the years is real.

If everything is Quantum, which many Scientist believe, this could mean that Quantum Theory applies to complex systems and there's no contradiction. We can just observe 2 events on a singular timeline.

Now, why would this be the case? It's because we live in a timeless universe.

Einstein said, the distinctions between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. Therefore, our observations wouldn't be bound by time but our perception of time. This would mean, classical systems will share the same experience for the most part but it could never be reduced to zero because everything is quantum. So you would expect to see something like the Mandela Effect.

In Hawking's last paper, he reduced eternal inflation to a timeless state.

Time is run of Clocks in Timeless Universe

Clocks are systems for measuring frequency, velocity, duration and numerical order of physical events. Time t obtained with clocks is not a forth dimension 4 X of space, time t is only a component of t c i X * * = 4 . This view of clock/time as a measuring system sees physical phenomena running exclusively in space and not in time. This view is supported with several experiments which confirm that time t of physical event can be zero. Universe is timeless phenomena. Past, present and future exist as a psychological time in the mind only not in the universe. We experience motion i.e. change in the universe through the frame of psychological time. We "project" linear time "past-present-future" into the universe, however it is not there. This view also resolves several ancient problems regarding time and motion.

www.researchgate.net...

Think about it. QM tells us that systems can't be reduced to zero. If everything is Quantum, then you should expect to see the Mandela Effect because observers could never live in a perfect world where the differences between their measurements is zero because t isn't a physical quantity.

a reply to: neoholographic

Sorry not to offend but your interpretation of the information is wrong. The thought experiment is about quantum information, it has nothing to do with the Mandela effect and doesn't pertain to mass mis-rememberings or disagreements of non quantum realities.

In the context of the cat examples it doesn't matter what the ground state of any event is because the thought experiment is about the quantum information transmission not about outcome.

Here's a better interpretation and break down of the real world implications:

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: neoholographic
Man has made the math to agree with their BS QM theories.

Not only that, but mathematics -- with all of its internal inconsistencies -- is a very inaccurate way of describing what happens in real life. One of my favorite books on the subject goes into this in simple but understandable detail:

Godel, Escher, Bach -- The Eternal Golden Braid -- Douglas Hofstadter

a reply to: nemonimity

Again, wrong.

You don't provide any evidence to support the notion that the Mandela Effect is something that occurs after the fact. Not one shred.

As to the article, someone posted this article earlier and again, it supports exactly what I'm saying. The experiment is about applying quantum theory to complex systems. When you do this you get the Mandela Effect because different observers can observe different results from a singular measurement. This is why it's being debated and is seen as contradictory. Here's more from the article you posted.

Quantum theory has a long history of thought experiments, and in most cases these are used to point to weaknesses in various interpretations of quantum mechanics. But the latest version, which involves multiple players, is unusual: it 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. This means that quantum theory contradicts itself.

The conceptual experiment has been debated with gusto in physics circles for more than two years — and has left most researchers stumped, even in a field accustomed to weird concepts. “I think this is a whole new level of weirdness,” says Matthew Leifer, a theoretical physicist at Chapman University in Orange, California.

www.nature.com...

Again, why is it a whole new level of weirdness? It's because, this says two observers can observe different events when there should be certainty as to what outcome has occurred.

THE SAME THING WE SEE WITH THE MANDELA EFFECT!

It goes on to say:

Frauchiger and Renner have a yet more sophisticated version (see ‘New cats in town’). They have two Wigners, each doing an experiment on a physicist friend whom they keep in a box. One of the two friends (call her Alice) can toss a coin and — using her knowledge of quantum physics — prepare a quantum message to send to the other friend (call him Bob). Using his knowledge of quantum theory, Bob can detect Alice’s message and guess the result of her coin toss. When the two Wigners open their boxes, in some situations they can conclude with certainty which side the coin landed on, Renner says — but occasionally their conclusions are inconsistent. “One says, ‘I’m sure it’s tails,’ and the other one says, ‘I’m sure it’s heads,’” Renner says.

Here's the kicker:

For Leifer, producing inconsistent results should not necessarily be a deal breaker. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics already allow for views of reality that depend on perspective. That could be less unsavoury than having to admit that quantum theory does not apply to complex things such as people, he says.

Again, this is about QM being applied to complex systems. The question is, is this a contradiction or is it telling us that observers can observe different outcomes of a singular event like we see in the Mandela Effect.

originally posted by: SoulStoner225
Is the cat dead or not

Turns out it was just napping.

a reply to: neoholographic

The though experiment is about quantum information transmission, its showing that the results of an observation on the quantum level can appear two separate ways, but that doesn't mean that there are two physical outcomes, just that two readings were not congruent. The coin was either heads or tales in our reality because the wave form collapsed, the difference is that during the reading, two separate outcomes were observed and that means you can view both possible outcomes regardless of which wave form ended up collapsing as the outcome.

You seem to be trying to infer that this would cause two separate realities to coexist at the same time for different people and that's not the case, the experiment only describes reading a result based on quantum information transmission.

The're no standard definition of the mandela effect, whether real or not. Heck Wikipedia redirects to False memories. You can't identify something without some form of definition of that identity but every description of the mandela effect and every single testimonial i have read has been someone saying something in the past is different from what they remember. The only evidence i have seen is based on peoples memory. Since that is the common thread and there's no set definition of the phenomenon, then that's what I have to use to define it. But still the thought experiment isn't proof of the mandela effect. Its just an experiment on quantum information transmission as another layer on top of the collapsed wave form idea (Schrodinger's cat).

a reply to: nemonimity

Sorry, this is just wrong and you don't understand the thought experiment. It's about applying Quantum Theory to complex systems like people. Schrodinger's cat was about how QM would relate to the classical world. It's not about quantum information transmission but how complex systems can observe two different results when you apply Quantum Theory to people. This is from the Nature article:

or Leifer, producing inconsistent results should not necessarily be a deal breaker. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics already allow for views of reality that depend on perspective. That could be less unsavoury than having to admit that quantum theory does not apply to complex things such as people, he says.

www.nature.com...

The reason Scientist are debating this and think it's weird is because it says classical observers will observe 2 different realities for a single event. That's the Mandela Effect.

Here's another article:

The conceptual experiment by the scientists from Zurich involves putting two physicist cats into boxes. One cat would toss a coin and using its knowledge of quantum physics send a message to the other cat. That second cat, in its turn, would also employ quantum theory but to detect the message from the other cat and guess the coin toss. If two outside observers were to open these boxes, they would some times be able to guess with certainty how the coin landed but on occasion their conclusions would not agree.

That's like implying reality can split in two on occasion.

bigthink.com...

Let me repeat:

That's like implying reality can split in two on occasion.

EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING! This is the Mandela Effect. You haven't provided a shred of evidence that shows the Mandela Effect occurs after the fact.

This thought experiment is about what happens when you apply Quantum Theory to complex systems just like the original Schrodinger's cat thought experiment.

If this was just about quantum information transmission, you wouldn't need the two observers outside of the box.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm sorry but you don't understand the thought experiment, it has nothing to do with quantum theory being applied to complex systems, its an illustration of quantum states prior to observation originally and with the edition of the new layer an illustration of quantum information transmission as well. They even directly use the qualifier "like" in your emboldened quote, that denotes that it isn't that way you are taking it, but that it acts as a good analogy.
Only one reality comes into existence the thought experiment just theorizes that you could measure both out comes prior to finding out which exists. It is not proof of the Mandela effect :/

a reply to: nemonimity

Your post makes no sense and has nothing to do with the experiment. You said:

it has nothing to do with quantum theory being applied to complex systems, its an illustration of quantum states prior to observation originally and with the edition of the new layer an illustration of quantum information transmission as well.

This is just pure Gobbledy Gook that means nothing.

Just like the original thought experiment was about how QM relates to the classical world so does this one. What you're saying makes no sense.

Quantum states prior to observation? That's just pure nonsense. What quantum states exist prior to observation? Where is there a shred of evidence that these states exist prior to observation?

One of the main points of "weirdness" of QM is that these states have no existence prior to observation. What you're saying doesn't even apply to QM.

Every article about this thought experiment mentions complex systems and how it relates to people. If it's not about complex system then it wouldn't talk about what the 2 observers outside the box observe. These two observers outside the box are complex systems.

Here's another Article from Quanta Magazine that spells this out. What you're saying doesn't make any sense and it doesn't even comply with a basic understanding of QM.

The experiment, designed by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, involves a set of assumptions that on the face of it seem entirely reasonable. But the experiment leads to contradictions, suggesting that at least one of the assumptions is wrong. The choice of which assumption to give up has implications for our understanding of the quantum world and points to the possibility that quantum mechanics is not a universal theory, and so cannot be applied to complex systems such as humans.

Again, this is self explanatory. It's about Quantum Theory being a universal theory. This means everything is Quantum. Many Scientist believe this.

Quantum theory works extremely well at the scale of photons, electrons, atoms, molecules, even macromolecules. But is it applicable to systems that are much, much larger than macromolecules? “We have not experimentally established the fact that quantum mechanics applies on larger scales, and larger means even something the size of a virus or a little cell,” Renner said. “In particular, we don’t know whether it extends to objects the size of humans and even lesser, [whether] it extends to objects the size of black holes.”

Again, THIS IS FROM ONE OF THE PHYSICIST THAT CAME UP WITH THIS THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.

Renner said. “In particular, we don’t know whether it extends to objects the size of humans and even lesser, [whether] it extends to objects the size of black holes.”

This is what the experiment was about. Does Quantum Theory extend to complex systems.

Despite this lack of empirical evidence, physicists think that quantum mechanics can be used to describe systems at all scales — meaning it’s universal. To test this assertion, Frauchiger and Renner came up with their thought experiment, which is an extension of something the physicist Eugene Wigner first dreamed up in the 1960s. The new experiment shows that, in a quantum world, two people can end up disagreeing about a seemingly irrefutable result, such as the outcome of a coin toss, suggesting something is amiss with the assumptions we make about quantum reality.

This thought experiment is to test the assertion by some in the Physics community that QM is universal and it describes systems on micro and macro scales.

Here's the kicker and this is the Mandela Effect!

The setup is now ripe for a contradiction. When Alice gets a YES for her measurement, she infers that the coin toss came up tails, and when Bob gets a YES for his measurement, he infers the coin toss came up heads. Most of the time, Alice and Bob will get opposite answers. But Frauchiger and Renner showed that in 1/12 of the cases both Alice and Bob will get a YES in the same run of the experiment, causing them to disagree about whether Alice’s friend got a heads or a tails. “So, both of them are talking about the past event, and they are both sure what it was, but their statements are exactly opposite,” Renner said. “And that’s the contradiction. That shows something must be wrong.”

AGAIN:

“So, both of them are talking about the past event, and they are both sure what it was, but their statements are exactly opposite,” Renner said. “And that’s the contradiction. That shows something must be wrong.”

www.quantamagazine.org...

I put this in all bold because you're having a hard time understanding basic QM. One of the biggest debates in QM is if everything is Quantum from micro to macro scales. This thought experiment shows that if everything is Quantum, then on occasion, complex systems can observe two different outcomes for a single event where it should be the same all of the time.

Now, Scientist are saying this is a contradiction because it would mean separate observers can have different histories of a singular event.

I'm saying there's no contradiction because we see this unfolding before our eyes. We call it the Mandela Effect or strange coincidences.

a reply to: neoholographic
You know in another galaxy far far away, which is also in another dimension, quite like this, but not alike, in so many ways. In that dimension Schrodinger cat is, Schrodinger dog.

Now personally I think a cat or dog in a box that may be dead is kind of silly. And not a very good way to describe anything.

But! Ya, multiple realities exist, of that there is no doubt, humans evolved beyond primates when they reached the realm of the abstract, things like, words, writing, past, future, death and taxes, math, and geometry, all those things are in the realm of the abstract and all of those are differential realities, one even may say dimensions, which in a literal sense for many it is exactly what they are, a dimension, an abstract measurement, even day and night and the seasons in calendar form is but that.

In there own right, and over time they have converged into one realm, or universe, or way of live. And well? How hard here would it be for you all to explain to your dog the meanings of that piece of paper on you wall which says January right now? Or how about time and that watch? How long do you think it would take you to teach any animal, even a chimp or dolphin the concept of time and of the seasons and a calendar?

If you started now, do you think you could do it in oh say the next few million years?

So ya, before that, before they realized there nakedness as is so described in the bible, but its more like before they discovered there frailties, humans were but animals. Now they are merely self revising animals. So ya, only a fool would say that there is no dimensions in the thing which at first was known as living, and now the universe. Which is yet another abstract thought.

But also, more importantly. One can only function, and be in one reality at a time. Its not saying nothing fancy, its saying you can only drive a car and read a book on you phone one at a time. Though some people can text and drive at the same time, they can also crash at that same time.

Which is exactly what would happen if you ran into the other you's in that mysterious box full of dead cats and possibly dead dogs.

a reply to: SoulStoner225
There is no cat, and there is no box. There is also no spoon either. So no bending of spoon need be tried.

Unless of course you like to eat with a bent spoon, and bend it with your hands? In which case, don't miss the target. For as the great sages of yonder and beyonder once were fond of saying.

And I quote.
"There is a great purpose to having a straight spoon...Great Sages of yonder"

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Thats a pretty good way to get things down to a less random structure, just keep it bellow the temperature of practically 80% of the known universe. It is a great medium to run data at, and hence probabilities. We have a atomic clock, but how far will we get with an quantum clock, may be just a matter of who is measuring all that.

Definitely not a self observing observer. One of those would get bored of such a job.

But not entirely unbreachable containment fields. Because like everything else it is quite susceptible to mass opinions. I am pretty sure that the flat earther's can breach all those containment fields for there little computing powers.

The mass of a few million brains and consequently a few trillions and trillions of neurons firing in sync VS a messly few million transistors firing in sync? Which will be the winner?

Ah. A question for another day I suppose. Reality, a concept defined at every corner, and by every corner turned.