.

The Future of Time



Written By: Danielle Graham

The scientific interpretation of time was discussed with five noted physicists: University of Connecticut Physics Professor Dr. Ronald Mallett, author of Time Traveler: A Scientist’s Personal Mission to Make Time Travel a Reality; University of Washington Physics Professor Dr. John Cramer, author of Twistor and Einstein’s Bridge; Institute of Advanced Studies at Austin Physicist Dr. Eric Davis, author of the Teleportation Physics Study; University of San Diego Physics Professor, Dr. Daniel Sheehan, editor of Frontiers of Time: Retrocausation - Experiment and Theory; and from the Institute of Advanced Studies at Austin, Director and pioneering physicist, Dr. Hal Puthoff, author of Mind Reach, Mind at Large and The Iceland Papers.

The Future of Time - Danielle Graham

Both quantum mechanical (QM) and general relativistic (GR) models of time theory were examined. For GR, I spoke with Mallett and Davis and for QM, Cramer and Sheehan. The discussion with Puthoff focused on his perceptions of time based on decades of studying remote viewing and excerpts of that interview are published elsewhere in this magazine.

Both quantum mechanical (QM) and general relativistic (GR) models of time theory were examined. For GR, I spoke with Mallett and Davis and for QM, Cramer and Sheehan. The discussion with Puthoff focused on his perceptions of time based on decades of studying remote viewing and excerpts of that interview are published elsewhere in this magazine.

Cramer originated his “Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” (TIQM) some 20 years ago, which describes time in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-in-time) waves. TIQM avoids the philosophical problems of the Copenhagen interpretation by eliminating the role of the observer, essentially the human element. However, Cramer does concur that the “present emerges from the future.” Sheehan takes an interpersonal approach by first asking the question, “Doesn’t the past influence you? Symmetrically, the laws of physics say that the future should have a similar influence on us.” He reasons that the equations in physics are actually time symmetric. Theoretically, then, if the past influences the present, so too should the future influence the present.

Sheehan agrees with the premise presented in this issue, stating, “Most of us experience time in much the same way, I suspect. But how we describe it and interpret it and its passage depends on our cultural background, scientific training and our sense of aesthetics.” And I agree with Sheehan’s observations about the scientific interpretations of time. “I think most of the physics fields have a certain appreciation for time, but it’s like the blind men and the elephant; everyone’s touching a different part of the elephant.”

Within this issue, we have presented a small sampling of evidence: Humans can and do manipulate time and matter. And as long as our physical sciences discount or even eliminate consideration of this human element from theoretical modeling, physics will always fall short of a comprehensive explanation of the nature of reality. Dr. Paul Davies says it best: “The four currently known fundamental physical forces cannot explain life and life-related phenomena. Finding this or these yet-unknown physical interactions(s) is the task of the upcoming physics…” It is inevitable that the sciences of the future must evolve to incorporate into its theorems our natural human interface with time and matter to be able to touch the entire elephant.

Danielle Graham is the Founder and Executive Director of the NW Frontier Research Institute (NWFRI) in WA State. NWFRI’s experimental research focuses on human-generated gravitational and electromagnetic anomalies and is published by the American Institute of Physics.

Danielle Graham Science and Spirituality Blog Author Bio

About the Author:
Danielle Graham is a founding editor and current Editor-in-Chief of SuperConsciousness Magazine, and is a published (American Institute of Physics) experimental researcher. She is primarily interested in contributing to and advancing scientific understanding generally, and evolving the field of physics specifically — relational to human mind.

Do you think our physical sciences fall short of a complete explanation of the nature of reality?

Comment Below