We
all 
know
the story 
of the
speed
and the
​position
and not being able to measure them
​at the same time.

There's
another version
of events relating to
the paths taken
and not taken
and those 
yet to become
​apparent
as spacetime continues:

For the record, trajectory
puts us in line
with retrocausality
and that means
that while the future is uncertain
so was the past
and we can change what was
by the way we view it
which will be very different
​from the way we viewed it then.

SO from here
to eternity
we can be sure of only 
the power of endurance
alive in the constant
(speed of light)
and woven in the tachyon
(beyond the speed of light)
wherever non-locality can find itself from there,
​which is uncertain.

​With the onslaught of forays into New Physics has come a revival of some old theories which originally struggled to see the light of day. Everett’s Interpretation, a framework of quantum mechanics outlining the parameters of the Multiverse, refused to be granted mainstream respect until after the death of its originator in 1982. Indeed the purist would say, as is said here, that Hugh Everett never postulated multiple universes in the first place, even though he is 'credited' (using the term loosely) with MWT (Many-Worlds Theory) originality. Today, the Multiverse is adopted as a plausible foundation for reality not only by respected physicists but by a growing proportion of society as the population upgrades its quest for an identifiable vista of the way our Universe works in relation to the way we work ourselves. For as you'll see in the links above, what links the parameters of the MWT with other variants on the theme is in fact the collapse of the wave form.
 

By definition, this allows us to realise the property of Now in the framework of Retrocausality, wherein the past and the future are equally positioned in Real TIme. We view the past as a fixed commodity, when in fact our perception of events changes constantly. We might feel aggrieved by a quarrel, for example, to later reach a frame of mind whereby the debate was essential for personal progress. We can delve into the depths of sorrow over the closure of an event or relationship to find that time alters our viewpoint in the aftermath of what occurred. Whether these changes in viewpoint affect our trajectory into the future is undefined, but possible. Probable, even, given that a positive outlook has been shown to invite positive outcomes.

​Howsoever this may be, the fundamental principle of Retrocausality is that the future in some way affects the past, via the present moment; in other words, cause-and-effect works both ways.
 
While neither Wheeler nor Feynman remain alive to see the revival, it stands to reason that reworking our perception of Time is going to prove beneficial. There is no need, after all, to worry about a future that is going to happen anyway. Nor is there any need to grieve about the past (although we all catch ourselves doing this from time to time). Prior to arriving at references to Retrocausality, I’d been led to believe (as have many people) that Now is the only point that counts, and that while time is a flexible commodity (having very little to do with clocks), there is a future sketched out with allowance for variations (since Uncertainty has to have its say in there somewhere), according to a grander scheme of things than we are given to imagine. We’re simply not permitted to know, for reasons known to greater powers, what it looks like. While most people could cite snippets of information about future events looking spookily like precognition, Uncertainty reigns in guarding the gates of things to come. However it may seem at the time, it's the timing of things beyond our control that makes the sum of a lifetime. We have scientists of the past to thank in providing sound platforms for the science of the future, where I’m absolutely certain we are all destined to share in the workable, worthwhile spoils. ​

UPDATE 2020
Come along to the Quantumology Group on Facebook where we discuss these interesting subjects on a free-thinking basis. Live Videos to join in with every Monday, physicists present to answer tricky questions, and lots of people like you and me exploring this territory with enthusiastic curiosity.

The Dot Net site is reserved for the purest kind of science I can possibly deliver, but in this case the membrane between science and esoterics has to be stretched for reasons of - well, becoming apparent.

Non-locality, the phenomenon Einstein famously dubbed "spooky action at a distance", is a proven reality for particles. For people, there's no such research. Which is a bit of a shame, and something perhaps to be worked on soon, for it seems that when you believe something, its reality becomes that much more, well, realistic.

When my quantum quest was in its early stages at the onset of the Millennium, I knew non-locality existed as a quantum phenomenon. What was missing, at the time, was personal experience of it. Then in 2015, personal experience arrived in droves. My world was filled with communicative instances that can only be explained by non-locality. Without detailing those experiences here (you can find enough reference on the other Quantumology site), the point would be that I'm not alone. Many millions of other people will have been experiencing similar things, just as millions of other people were inexplicably waking up to "Quantum" implications just before the turn of the century.   

Scientifically, there's a tendency to stick tightly to the rules of focusing on particle behaviour and neglecting wider implications. In this sense, there's ground to be covered which hasn't even been looked at yet, and as signs become more strident that quantum principles apply to us, research programmes will hopefully move into territory where we can find the confidence to live and work with these principles in mind, and find our physical reality evolving accordingly. Recently, Symmetry Magazine published an article which shines an optimistic light on this version of the future.

The only barrier to this bridge being built is attitude. At the Paris Cosmology Colloquium in 2012, I approached the problem of Standard Model reversion to infinity in the dinner queue, where Hector de Vega refused to answer it, saying, "Different science, different science," subsequently moving swiftly down the line to join more intelligent members of his party. The lady standing next to me vindicated my questionable IQ by saying she thought it was a pretty good question, and George Smoot deigned to afford ten minutes of his time to discussing the presence of neutrinos in the early Universe with me, but aside from these two positive interactions, my time at the conference was spent in virtual isolation. Looking for a link today, it appears the 2015 Colloquium was in Hector's honour, indicating he has passed into other dimensions, where the science he studied over his lifetime surely takes a different form. My experiences since then, at Lambda and most recently at NNN17, demonstrate a growing warmth towards the unknown, and a freshly open mindset cannot help but create a wellspring for new, innovative forms of experimentation.

The virtual is indeed real, as explained here in Scientific American. So it would seem that our virtual sense of attachment to other souls, to our dreams, to the ways in which we would wish to live, teeter on the point of a paradox yet to be fully understood, one which many people have come to dub "The Law of Attraction". The paradox, in effect, is whether we have control over the events of our experience, or whether we are given to flow along with our particle mass on a wave form of pre-destined parameters. LoA advocates believe we can manifest whatever we want. Personally, I think that even thinking that way is potentially dangerous, and life is best left to work itself out as a result of what we, knowingly or unknowingly, put into it. What has this to do with non-locality? Well, whichever is the case, we seem to carry others along with us, for it has to be said that the effects of conscious exchange (even when unconsciously executed) have in influential impact over the course of personal and social histories. 

Whether your own experience causes you to question this paradox or not, you have doubtless had experiences of an inexplicable nature. If you haven't, you can safely place yourself next to the nearest positivist and share the denial of evidence which refuses to present itself, along with an explanatory guidebook. While esoteric experiences continue to be shared by ever-increasing numbers of people in increasingly diverse ways, the tide is bound to sweep a turn in favour of ground breaking exploration, and we are part of that swell, of the building tsunami waiting to hit the small town of Traditionalism - we are part of something we can't explain, but the thing we are part of is part of the Universe, and it has to be said that the bigger picture demonstrates the truth of its own diversity, even if the devil is inevitably in the detail.

​When you feel connected with someone, or you sense a direction that feels right to take, or you're partaking in a game show that requires of you to account for gut instinct in answering a question you don't know, just trust. That's all we can do right now, it's all we may ever be able to do for this lifetime, despite hopes (mine or anyone else's) that the quantum conundrum of how subatomic mechanics relates to us will be revealed while we are still here in this dimension to appreciate the revelation. In trusting, we forge a link to that part of the Universe wanting to divulge this information, and we have a duty to protect it against the ravages of positivists who will insist on its inaccuracy until such time as evidence secures a reason to prove otherwise. As has happened with many scientific suggestions throughout the eons of time.

There is much speculation regarding what is real and what is not. Some believe that only what can be seen or proved experientially is real. Others believe that we create our own reality from the perspective we hold. And there are those who have ventured so far from the versions of reality considered to be mainstream that they suffer the indignity of labels condemning their mental health. What we all have in common is a relationship with nature, and relationships with each other that subscribe to natural laws.

Our closest interactions with other humans, other species, and the planet itself all lead us to independent conclusions about the nature of reality,. Just as we all have different perspectives, personal experiences vary also. Every time you run a bath, the molecules of water are different. Grains of sand are structurally unique. No two snowflakes are quite the same.

Seemingly, the sun and the atmosphere have a close relationship. From a life-sustaining point of view, water needs the sun to create weather systems, cycle through the fabric of flora, and maintain the right temperature for all three states to exist - ice, liquid, and gas. Water and light breed the most beautiful colour combinations we could ever know. Cameras can't quite capture the intensity of dawn and evening vistas.  Every one of which is, of course, completely unrepeatable.

White light is all the colours, not just the ones we see. Ultraviolet and infra red are there too. We can't be sure what other forms of photon are raining down on us from above, just as we're not sure how many versions of Photon there really are. But we know that the electromagnetic spectrum contains many versions of energy, from gamma rays to radio, and that we are subject to them all just by being here. 
​
Water, a major component of all life forms, has memory. The mechanics of water's memory may be something of a mystery, but it does cycle the planet, gathering a lot of information on the way. False information can't be held in a water molecule, so what water retains is all true.

Out there on the Internet, there's a fair amount of reference to what electrons 'know'      
Electrons patrol the outer reaches of the atom, so they are the only things we physically touch. They are responsible for our ability to gather information through five senses. We interact with electrons all the time, and since electrons are negatively charged, my logic would have it that we can't be happy and high all the time, for in our balance of emotional equatiions, we have negativity to contend with as a resident force. But we do have a trick up our particle sleeve. There are positrons, too, and these postively charged counterparts might be fleeting in apparition, but they pack a hell of a punch in terms of energy. When we feel good, we have more energy. Are the mechanics trying to tell us something? 

As​ your DNA updates with the information you assimilate, the water that cycles through you and through the planet is gathering knowledge relating to our ever-changing, evolving conditions - it's not a race, and there is no contest. Seekers of power and plunderers of currency would have us believe otherwise, but we don't have to buy their story. The Universe has its own plan to follow while our state of mind is inclined to change according to our learning process. As unique individuals, we make valuable contributions to the global knowledge bank. Beautiful presents of truth.  

This picture should, had the original assignations been retained, read Truth instead of Top, Beauty instead of Bottom. The explanation as to why the change was made given by Jefferson Laboratories (see original names) does nothing to quell the mystery. I think it more likely than any of the cover stories given that certain people didn't like the idea of introducing Truth and Beauty onto the same stage, especially given the dance of our every existence depends on those quarks being there.

These quarks, this energy, the water circling the Earth, these make the fabric of Who You Are. Let no-one, least of all yourself, underestimate the incredible beauty and crucial truth of your role in the unversal play.