Can You Change the Past?

by Robert Lanza and Deepak Chopra

Can decisions we make now change the past? Modern physics tells us that particles possess a range of possible states, and that it's not until the actual act of observation that they take on real physical properties. Until this occurs there cannot be a past. Even eminent physicists Stephen Hawking and John Wheeler (one of Einstein's last collaborators) agree it can be no other way.

According to a new scientific theory, the past is simply the framework of events that defines our existence (Biocentrism, BenBella, 2009). Much of it is still fluid and unwritten, and has yet to be determined. In fact, two years ago, a team of French scientists published a landmark experiment in the prestigious journal Science showing that what they did -- now, in the present -- could retroactively change an event that had already happened in the past.

When you walk through the woods and observe things, the 'probability waves collapse' and the past is locked in. For instance, when you look down at the ground, there is a certain degree of physical uncertainty as to what is underneath. If you dig a hole for a tree, there is a range of probability that there will be a pebble either here or there. Of course, the probability of finding a diamond is much less than finding sand. But all those probabilities exist, and at any given time you either experience hitting a boulder or loose soil. Say you hit a boulder, the precise glacial movements of the past that account for the rock being in exactly that spot in your yard will change as described in the Science experiment.

Some will ask "But what about dinosaurs -- how can there be fossils?" Of course, once fossils are observed, part of the past has been determined. But dinosaur fossils are really no different than anything else you observe in nature. For instance, the carbon atoms in your body are 'fossils' created in the heart of exploding supernova stars.

The sum of the matter is this: physical reality begins and ends with the observer. We cannot go beyond the observer with our concepts of space and time. Without such an animal observer, space and time, and the evolutionary events thought to fill them, are altogether impossible.

As humans, we take the mind for granted. We are pleased with such books as Newton's Principia, or Darwin's Origin of Species. But they instill in us a complacency. Darwin spoke of the possibility that life emerged from inorganic matter in some "warm little pond." Trying to trace life down through simpler stages is one thing, but assuming it arose spontaneously from nonliving matter wants for the rigor of the quantum theorist.

In 1953, Stanley Miller mixed together some gases in an effort to mimic the geophysical environment of the primitive earth. He then subjected them to electrical sparks, corresponding to the lightning present on the primitive earth. After about a week the fluid turned brown and was found to contain amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Subsequent experiments by Miller and others have also succeeded in producing more complex organic molecules, including nucleic acids, which act to store and translate genetic information in living organisms.

While it is true, a rich variety of organic molecules can be synthesized in any one of many different ways, and it can probably be done in your bathtub, the experiments do not fail to have an animal subject. Our intercourse with the molecules is such as is necessary for them to exist as real objects. Half of the experiment is the scientist, who does not recognize that their consciousness renders possible the space, indeed, the very reality of the reaction vessel itself. It cannot be otherwise than important to remember that the Universe does not run mechanistically like a clock, and that physical reality extends no further than the animal observer.

"We are participators," Wheeler once said "in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past." Before his death last year, he stated that when observing light from a distant quasar that's bent around a foreground galaxy, we set up a quantum observation on an enormously large scale. It means, he said, the measurements made on the light now, determines the path it took billions of years ago.

Choices we make now really do change the past.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

Robert Lanza, MD is a leading scientist and author of Biocentrism a book that lays out his theory of everything.

deepakchopra.com

 

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Deepak_Chopra

Comments

[mamacat]

From the intro on the lead-in page: "....physical reality begins and ends with the observer. We cannot go beyond the observer with our concepts of space and time." This to me is worthy of more discussion.

On the face of it, the idea that reality begins and ends with the observer seems patently, obviously, and almost cruelly, absurd. However, the idea can, and does, in its own way, connect to another matter. What is the role of the observer in science? In what ways, and to what extent, if any, does a difference in observers determine differences in descriptions and natures of observations?

Theories are supposed to be proved when multiple individuals doing independent tests come up with the same results. And yet, our scientific theories themselves undergo a process of refinement, of evolution. As we gain more data, and see how other theories interact, we change our descriptions of the universe. So, what can we say about the role of the observer in any description of space and time? How should we treat seemingly anomalous observations, observations which fly in the face of accepted theory? When, if ever, are we justified in denying the validity of honest observations, and when should we assert that a theory may not be as perfect as we previously thought it was?

Perhaps there is more to the author's premise than we would like to admit.

[johnsopinion]

Yea, strange how beliefs work ..........­..........­.

NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science@NASA

Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth

Oct. 30, 2008: During the time it takes you to read this article,
something will happen high overhead that until recently many
scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking
Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles
may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time
you reach the end of the page.

"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist
David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was
pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is
incontrovertible."

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

[research]

That's Cool! I wonder if they create local Auroras? every 8 minutes, wow.

[KrautMan]

I don't see your point here. There can be hardly any scientist who'd claim that our formalization of the universe in all it's aspects is complete or true beyond doubt. There is no "proof" in science, beyond the domain of mathematics.

The opposite is the case: science observes phenomena, formulates theories that could explain them and then tries to DISprove them. A theory which survives this scrutiny for long enough (usually evolving in the course) is accepted as the best possible approximation of the "truth".

The questions you are asking in the last part of your post are all answered and implemented into scientific methodology: When an observation "flies in the face of accepted theory", the theory is disproved and has to be modified / replaced. Honest (and repeatable) observations should NEVER be denied. And all it takes to disprove a theory is ONE observation that contradicts that theory.

However, I fail to see what this has to do with "the role of the observer in science" or why this leads to the assumption that "there is more to the author's premise than we would like to admit".

[RMankovitz]

From my perspective as a research scientist, the biocentrism approach offered in this article is really a disguised form of anthropocentrism, which stands for the proposition that humans are considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of reality.

It seems that our outrageous arrogance and ignorance as a species places us at the top (there is no top), even attempting to define the past and present in terms of our pathetic level of comprehension and observation.

Consider the example given of digging a hole for a tree. Let's say there is an earthworm in the hole, or a plant had been growing there. Doesn't a worm or a plant define the reality in that hole?

I have a deep reverence (to honor and admire profoundly and respectfully) for that which has caused everything in our universe (and probably others) to evolve and exist. Our pathetic level of comprehension is only able to grasp "that which" by applying anthropomorphic traits to "it." We generally call it (her) nature. I have written many publications extolling her virtues in fields as diverse as rocket science and health.

Nature can dispense with us in the blink of an eye. She has millions of years to cleanse herself of our hubris, regenerate, and perhaps create a more humble replacement. As a reminder of our importance in the grand scheme of things, perhaps stand in front of a large breaking ocean wave.

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com

[elmerfude]

Totally agree Roy. Maybe some of these folks should stand in from of a semi and try to change the last few seconds of its momentum by positive thinking.

[KrautMan]

Circular logic, non-sequiturs and over-gener­alizations all over the place. Annoying.

[johnsopinion]

Then why do you hang around?

Do you enjoy being annoyed?

[KrautMan]

I'm interested in what my fellow commenters have to say about the issue at hand. Bizarre question.

[FloresdelaHoz]

agree

[Zanti]

It's called Huff-Po.

[iamjones]

cool, so i can go back and change my credit history then! yes please, thank you quantum mechanics.

[OtayPanky]

This old metaphysical chestnut is just one more iteration of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics theory. Schrodinger debunked it in his famous thought experiment, known as "Schrodinger's Cat". Even Einstein wrote Schrodinger a letter admitting that "Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation."

The really interesting question isn't whether one can think the past away (try doing that with George Bush's presidency, or better yet, the Holocaust) - but why people would grasp at such metaphysical straws.

[Weirdo]

To feel good?

[OtayPanky]

We have a winner, folks.

[spottery2k]

Naive Realism: common sense realism, is the most common form and we all fall into this category at some point in our lives, until we think more cautiously. The Naive Realist assumes that we are merely passive observers of a universe of objects/events and that we perceive them as they "really are" - that the coffee cup and its properties (hardness, texture, color) exist even when closed within the darkness of the cupboard.

Phantom Limb Perception - the perception of a missing limb by an amputee. Our nervous system is really just a medium between the objects/events of the external world and those of the internal world, or mind, and we are simply without any means of physically distinguishing between these worlds. The brain is in itself a 3lb universe. It was only less than 2 centuries ago that we discovered that light, magnetism and electricity were 3 ways of perceiving the same universe we thought we had always known. Marshall McLuhan rightly observed, "The medium IS the message." Our eyes detect only a very fine slice of frequencies, but only our skin feels the warmth of infrared and burns when exposed to ultraviolet. A narrow range of frequencies is why we call them "colors. " They are not colors "in themselves." We do not passively perceive objects/events of the external world. Our minds actively generate and organize representations, internal objects/events - a fact that both professors and filmmakers have built careers on.

[dnaromney]

Carefully chosen decontextualized selections from metaphysics and physics, as relayed by one completely unversed in either subject (radio host or medical doctor), endowed with a spiritual, supernatural mystic...makes for one strange article.

[OtayPanky]

It's not really strange. It's just the umpteenth resurrection of the old Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics - the kind of thing new agers love to prattle on about because it makes them feel we have some sort of power to transform reality by their thoughts.

Anyone who wants a nickel's worth of legitimate education on the subject can read this short article on Wikepedia about Schrodinger's Cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat

Note carefully that even Einstein admitted that it was ridiculous to say that the status of the cat depended on the interaction of cat and the observer.

As South Park's Officer Barbrady says so eloquently: "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here".

[GrainOSand]

"the kind of thing new agers love to prattle on about because it makes them feel we have some sort of power to transform reality by their thoughts."

Define thought, for surely an election of a president is an attempt to change things through thought manifested in the act of voting and otherwise participating. The actual events coinciding in time with a presidency, are not changed, for it happened, but can the trajectory of its impact be changed thereby changing its original impact and meaning? If not, then we are living a charade -- don't you think?

[Shirley Fisk]

10/27/09
3:36am
Alexandria, VA

Well, I just tried to change the past so I would have remembered to cover my car and wouldn't have had to run outside and cover it in the rain at 3am.

But I'm still wet.

[johnsopinion]

Your belief in getting wet in the rain is stronger
than your belief in being able to change the past!
Sorry, it just works that way.

[KrautMan]

Master, please demonstrate your capability to change the past by altering, say, your last sentence to "SoRrY, iT jUsT wOrKs ThAt WaY. Surely a small feat for you - but what a revelation to us mortals that would be...

[DAE]

How much of your own past do you remember? How many false memories are part of your psychic self that define you as an individual? The past is a fiction that we are constantly recreating. Our life experiences are a scaffolding upon which we construct an imagined past that is but a pale reflection of our actual existence.

[alwaysthere]

My sister and her Bob have been in love and together for nearly 60 years
And I cannot begin to imagine the tenderness with which they was each other's backs
But they all know I get off tracl
And I wonder
What was Beethoven really thinking
That we would still listen after all these years
But if I were Jesu I would gather all the poor souls up
Who were damaged by religion
And put them under one roof
Oh.. I wouldn't call it a church
Or anything else that hurts

But Heaven

[krypton86]

Bacon. Also, narwhals.

[arjuna3guna]

My dear sir, the Observer is no such animal. The mind has zero connection with the Observer or the human animal. All three are as seperate as oil and water.

Yet as we dive further towards the Origin or the Unified Field, all things and all non things become Unified. The figure and the ground become One.

As the Vedas point out, I am that you are that all this is that. This is your sand box to play in.

Now lets play responsibly.


What mary doesnt know and why zombies love to laugh.

[khanti]

Of course you can. Let us go back to some very basic example we all can relate to.
Our recognition and perception of external phenomenon the instant our senses come into contact, is based on our stored experiences call memoiries.
When a guy scold or rough you up and at that very instant your emotional response to that situation creates a consciousness which is stored as memory. Beside remembering the physical unpleasantness you also form an opinion of dislike towards that guy. Now depending on the strength of your emotional reaction that instant become an 'experience' to you; lodge in your mind for decades. Even after twenty years and if you meet the same guy, you will recognize and perceive him according to your unpleasant experience. Unfriendly, bad tempered or violent guy. The actual condition may have changed. That guy may have changed his old habits and is a completely different person. But your perception of him has not changed. In your mind he is still that disliked person.
So you can actually go back to your past and changed that perception.

[jgzeger]

C'mon Deepak. It's good to give people a sense that they have control over their lives, but telling them that they can change their past? I think you are going a bit too far with that one.

There is an interaction between our thoughts and what happens in our lives and everything goes better with a bit of positive thinking, but to say that "physical reality begins and ends with the observer" makes people believe that changing the world is as simple as changing our thoughts. That sort of nonsense only appeals to the most simple-minded among us and that's why you don't appeal to me.

You are sounding a lot like Bishop Berkeley who believed that the world just exists in our heads and I'm afraid there is a physical world out there and we really don't know how and where it began if it ever had a beginning at all. I rather think that consciousness does complete the circle and that there wouldn't be a universe without it, but that's not the same as saying that everything can be reduced to mind. That's as simplistic as saying that everything can be reduced to matter.

[johnsopinion]

"as you believe, so you are.'

[skantea]

Philosophically speaking, I guess I haven't suffered enough "personal tradgedy" to to have ever wanted to change the past.
However, I'm a firm believer in staying true to it as a moral guide. The alternative being to white wash our experiences to fit a false image of ourselves.
Additionally, I believe that a personal commitment to truth will contribute to some extraordinary "Aha" moments in my final hours.
At least that's the plan.