Four Famous Time-Slips Explained By Physics

[AlbertM2018]

Dear Friends
I’m very pleased to inform those who are interested in time-slips, that I just published here https://www.academia.edu/35526326/Are_Perceptions_of_TimeSlips_Explainable_by_Quantum_Mechanics_as_Random_Time-Solitons_a new study, in which I deeply analyzed – as a physicist – 4 of the most known and controversial narrations of time-slips:

1) The case of the “vanishing” hotel at Montélimar (1979)
2) The case of Petit Trianon (Versailles, Paris, 1901)
3) The vision in the future of Drem’s airbase in 1939 by RAF Field Marshal Robert V. Goddard in 1935
4) The case of Bampton village (Devon 1993)

My suggested hypothesis is that all these persons had been candid and trustworthy in reporting what they really experienced, and physics can explain those events as rare and fleeting interactions (“time-solitons” and quantum macro-entanglement) between a quantum state of the “past” with another quantum state of “present/future”, as emitted by the same location in 2 different times. Those interactions would create a temporary “time-bubble” (lasting from few minutes up to a few hours max.) , whose surplus of energy is generating also the anomalous electromagnetic fields, whose effects (feeling of depression, temporary inability to work by instruments measuring time: clocks, light meters, etc.) have been several times reported.
Hope you can enjoy .
Thanks and a prosperous 2018!
Alberto Miatello

 

[ramonmercado]

Dear Friends
I’m very pleased to inform those who are interested in time-slips, that I just published here https://www.academia.edu/35526326/Are_Perceptions_of_TimeSlips_Explainable_by_Quantum_Mechanics_as_Random_Time-Solitons_a new study, in which I deeply analyzed – as a physicist – 4 of the most known and controversial narrations of time-slips:

1) The case of the “vanishing” hotel at Montélimar (1979)
2) The case of Petit Trianon (Versailles, Paris, 1901)
3) The vision in the future of Drem’s airbase in 1939 by RAF Field Marshal Robert V. Goddard in 1935
4) The case of Bampton village (Devon 1993)

My suggested hypothesis is that all these persons had been candid and trustworthy in reporting what they really experienced, and physics can explain those events as rare and fleeting interactions (“time-solitons” and quantum macro-entanglement) between a quantum state of the “past” with another quantum state of “present/future”, as emitted by the same location in 2 different times. Those interactions would create a temporary “time-bubble” (lasting from few minutes up to a few hours max.) , whose surplus of energy is generating also the anomalous electromagnetic fields, whose effects (feeling of depression, temporary inability to work by instruments measuring time: clocks, light meters, etc.) have been several times reported.
Hope you can enjoy .
Thanks and a prosperous 2018!
Alberto Miatello

Tweeted & FBed.

 

[Coal]

Are_Perceptions_of_TimeSlips_Explainable_by_Quantum_Mechanics_as_Random

"No".

 

[Ermintruder]

@AlbertM2018 ....whilst I am not knowingly your peer, I am an interested consumer of your article (and perhaps qualified, in at least some senses of that overused word).

I'm going to re-read it, when I'm not working, but...I've a concern.

I feel (perhaps both wrongly and unfairly, and perhaps just because I've only skim-read it) that it reads rather like theoretical theoretical physics. If you don't understand what I mean by this statement, we both have a problem.

I will look at all the formulae again, in detail. It worries me to have seen the classic energy:mass special relativity equation sitting as a semi-dividend above some (unremembered) divisor....I'm sure it'll make more sense when I re-read it.

But if it doesn't, I'll be sure to say so. And if it does, I'll be sure to say so.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Where does that leave us then regarding these famous alleged time-slips then?

If the Goddard incident has been elaborated out of all proportion from a little whimsical wishful thinking, the 'Avin-you-on one reeks of misperception and/or hoax, the Versailles incident nothing more than an old dears' folie à deux and the Bampton one possible misinterpretation, then Occam's razor suggests strongly that we do not need to invoke supernatural or even quantum mechanical explanations at all.

 

[oldrover]

In the Montpelier and Bampton cases it's madness to imagine that human memory and detail noting is strong enough to support such claims.

 

[oldrover]

The Goddard story seems to be the most complex, the Montpelier, Brampton, incidents always did interest me, perhaps appealed to me would be a better way to put it, but there is absolutely nothing in them.

 

[EnolaGaia]

The Goddard story seems to be the most complex ...

It may be more to the point to say the Goddard story affords more 'hooks' (connections to tangible or demonstrable specifics) than some others. His story contains references to particular place, aircraft, and clothing - all of which are contextualized with two distinct time points about which he presumably or demonstrably had first-person knowledge.

Some others consist of no more than impressions of things seeming anachronistic or futuristic.

 

[IbisNibs]

Where does that leave us then regarding these famous alleged time-slips then?

If the Goddard incident has been elaborated out of all proportion from a little whimsical wishful thinking, the 'Avin-you-on one reeks of misperception and/or hoax, the Versailles incident nothing more than an old dears' folie à deux and the Bampton one possible misinterpretation, then Occam's razor suggests strongly that we do not need to invoke supernatural or even quantum mechanical explanations at all.

I read a logical explanation of the Petit Trinanon (Versailles) incident, I think in Roger Clarke's "A Natural History of Ghosts." it was explained as partly a cultural misunderstanding -- some locals in period costumes, who were interpreted as "ghosts by the two English tourists, were just minding their own business and having an elaborate party. In some contexts, to some people, it may seem more plausible that ghosts exist than that others would dress in fancy, accurate period costume just for a picnic. Viva la France!

It may seem like a silly explanation as I've summed it up, but the full, original explanation I read was very logical.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

I read a logical explanation of the Petit Trinanon (Versailles) incident, I think in Roger Clarke's "A Natural History of Ghosts." it was explained as partly a cultural misunderstanding -- some locals in period costumes, who were interpreted as "ghosts by the two English tourists, were just minding their own business and having an elaborate party. In some contexts, to some people, it may seem more plausible that ghosts exist than that others would dress in fancy, accurate period costume just for a picnic. Viva la France!

It may seem like a silly explanation as I've summed it up, but the full, original explanation I read was very logical.

Agreed. And the movie based on the incident left matters nicely ambiguous too.
I'm just wondering now if all alleged time slips dissolve into nothingness when scientifically scrutinised.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I'm just wondering now if all alleged time slips dissolve into nothingness when scientifically scrutinised.

I'd put it this way, in the context of the time slip stories / reports I've seen over the years ...

All alleged time slip reports consist of a retrospective narrative by one or more persons recounting an experience. This holds regardless of whether the alleged experience entails a shift into the past or the future.

The primary evidence is therefore subjective - every bit as subjective as relating last night's dream(s).

No such subjective time slip narrative can convincingly coalesce into substantiveness without some corollary evidence beyond the experiential narrative itself. (Note that I'm setting the bar at the level of 'suggestively substantive' and not 'literally true'.)

Such corollary evidence need not be tangible / physical; it could reasonably consist of a clear correlation with something unknown or unknowable without having literally visited another time point.

Almost all time slip stories I've seen fail to achieve this level of suggestively substantive, and therefore remain wholly subjective tales. This is a big reason why I've never paid much attention to them.

To illustrate with respect to the Goddard case ...

Goddard's account seemed to provide such suggestive substance owing to the particular items he cited, he recognized from his military / aviation experience, and which shifted over time to reflect their state within his unexpected vision. The state of the scene in his vision correlated with something seemingly unknowable without having directly observed the scene as it would be years later.

This is why his story became a paradigmatic or landmark case - it rose to the level of highly suggestive substantiveness.

As it turns out, everything he witnessed could have been witnessed at the earlier (1935) time of observation. This negates the leverage obtained with respect to aircraft developments.

Furthermore, the circumstances strongly suggest he wasn't where he thought he was. This negates both the leverage obtained with respect to airfield developments as well as his experience's status as a purported time slip.

NOTE: The Victor Goddard case now has its own dedicated thread, into which multiple posts originally placed here have been moved:

The Victor Goddard Time Slip Case (Drem Airfield; 1935)
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...dard-time-slip-case-drem-airfield-1935.66181/

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

I think your analysis is spot-on EnolaGaia, but it reminds me of when I found out Santa wasn't true!

I don't believe in time slips any more :-(

 

[Coal]

I don't believe in time slips any more :-(

There's a phenomenon to be looked into though, it might just have a more mundane explanation.

Plus what @EnolaGaia said.

 

[Mythopoeika]

There's a phenomenon to be looked into though, it might just have a more mundane explanation.

Plus what @EnolaGaia said.

Something is definitely happening, yes.
Not to be dismissed.

 

[EnolaGaia]

There's a phenomenon to be looked into though, it might just have a more mundane explanation.

Something is definitely happening, yes.
Not to be dismissed.

Oh, I agree ... IMHO at least some time slip reports represent actual phenomenal experiences that are similar enough to treat as a set.

By the same token, I strongly doubt they represent a literal shift to a different point along an objective time axis or dimension. This doubt is primarily based on other long-held theoretical commitments to the effect there is no such thing as an objective time axis / dimension.

 

[Coal]

Oh, I agree ... IMHO at least some time slip reports represent actual phenomenal experiences that are similar enough to treat as a set.

My thoughts are along similar lines, but it would require a determined and structured approach to the collection and collation of the data set, along with personal information from the witness, possibly as part of a follow up survey, along with careful examination of the text for signs of truth/deception, perhaps using something like CBCA. Once the basic training in the methodology is over, I reckon it'd take a good two years to do it properly, and I don't mean part time.

By the same token, I strongly doubt they represent a literal shift to a different point along an objective time axis or dimension. This doubt is primarily based on other long-held theoretical commitments to the effect there is no such thing as an objective time axis / dimension.

Additional there is the simpler issue which is that the earth, relatively speaking is never in the same place twice.

 

[AlbertM2018]

It seems the replies of those who are challenging here all the 4 narrations are very far from even scratching their reliability.

1) Trianon.

None of those who replied here noticed that Moberley and Jourdain reported at least 8 items ( the location of the pavilion, the "footman" from the left door of a "cuisine", the uniforms and toos of the gardeners, the precise "Austrian" accent of the man running toward them, etc. etc.) exactly corresponding to the year 1770-1771, that NOBODY could be able to reconstruct so precisely in 1901, as they had been discovered many years AFTER the Death of the 2 women. How did they know that so exactly ?

2) Goddard

It seems that those who replied are forgetting that Goddard visited Drem's airbase the day BEFORE, he knew very well how DERELICT it was, and definitely he was expert enough to realize how different it was

3) "Enolagaia"

No?

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!



4) "oldrover"
you wrote

"The Goddard story seems to be the most complex, the Montpelier, Brampton, incidents always did interest me, perhaps appealed to me would be a better way to put it, but there is absolutely nothing in them."

"there is absolute nothing"?

= apodiptic statement

Prove it!

5) "blessmycottonsocks"

"I'm just wondering now if all alleged time slips dissolve into nothingness when scientifically scrutinised"

What do you mean with "scientifically scrutinize"?

Can you "scientifically scrutinize" whether and when an anomalous giant wave can suddenly come out among 1 trillion of sea wave whose size is totally normal? Can you "predict" when an anomalous wave is occurring?

Can you scientifically scrutinize when 1 particle out of 99.99999999 is undergoing a "quantum tunnelling" making it the only one passing through a barrier?

It seems you confuse "repetibility" of experiments in classical physics with random and probabilistic assumptions of quantum mechanics, taking into account also marginal and non replicable phenomena.

 

[Roland Deschain]

Can you scientifically scrutinize when 1 particle out of 99.99999999 is undergoing a "quantum tunnelling" making it the only one passing through a barrier?

1 out of 99.99999999? Shouldn't that be a round number?

It seems you confuse "repetibility" of experiments in classical physics with random and probabilistic assumptions of quantum mechanics, taking into account also marginal and non replicable phenomena.

How does the "random" - your word - aspect of quantum mechanics provide a basis for actual physical interaction with past and present? how does it seamlessly join places separated in space as well as time, merging all the rotational and directional vectors involved so perfectly that observers transition without a jolt, just stroll back and forth?

 

[AlbertM2018]

1 out of 99.99999999? Shouldn't that be a round number?


How does the "random" - your word - aspect of quantum mechanics provide a basis for actual physical interaction with past and present? how does it seamlessly join places separated in space as well as time, merging all the rotational and directional vectors involved so perfectly that observers transition without a jolt, just stroll back and forth?

You know quantum mechanics and physics as a penguin knows Sahara desert.

1) Quantum mechanics and Schrodinger's equation time-dependent has NO preferential direction of time (past and future) time could go backward and forward, why don't you read last experiments showing RETROCAUSALITY ? Please, read papers and studies by quantum physicist JACK SARFATTI, instead of wasting your and my time. Or read BRIAN JOSEPHSON, if you can understand his papers (I doubt)


2) "Space-time" is NOT a concept of quantum mechanics , it is a relativistic (general relativity) concept, and nobody succeeded in matching QM with GR, because they are simply INCOMPATIBLE. Quantum mechanics is CORRECT and fully experimentally proved, GR is a lot of crap: "space-time"??? "mass warping the fabric of space-time"?????
Do you know how many physicists totally disagree with GR?
THOUSANDS!!

Again, I'm just wasting my time, take my advice, start studying instead of posting...

 

[escargot]

You know quantum mechanics and physics as a penguin knows Sahara desert.

1) Quantum mechanics and Schrodinger's equation time-dependent has NO preferential direction of time (past and future) time could go backward and forward, why don't you read last experiments showing RETROCAUSALITY ? Please, read papers and studies by quantum physicist JACK SARFATTI, instead of wasting your and my time. Or read BRIAN JOSEPHSON, if you can understand his papers (I doubt)


2) "Space-time" is NOT a concept of quantum mechanics , it is a relativistic (general relativity) concept, and nobody succeeded in matching QM with GR, because they are simply INCOMPATIBLE. Quantum mechanics is CORRECT and fully experimentally proved, GR is a lot of crap: "space-time"??? "mass warping the fabric of space-time"?????
Do you know how many physicists totally disagree with GR?
THOUSANDS!!

Again, I'm just wasting my time, take my advice, start studying instead of posting...

Tell you what, why don't you go off and discuss this with some actual physicists, say on a CERN or Fermilab chat page? I'm sure they'll be hugely grateful when you put them right.

 

[ramonmercado]

Tell you what, why don't you go off and discuss this with some actual physicists, say on a CERN or Fermilab chat page? I'm sure they'll be hugely grateful when you put them right.

My cat half-died laughing at these theories.

 

[escargot]

I'm just wondering now if all alleged time slips dissolve into nothingness when scientifically scrutinised.

That'll be it.

 

[Roland Deschain]

I'm just wasting my time

Yep.

 

[Roland Deschain]

2) "Space-time" is NOT a concept of quantum mechanics , it is a relativistic (general relativity) concept, and nobody succeeded in matching QM with GR, because they are simply INCOMPATIBLE. Quantum mechanics is CORRECT and fully experimentally proved, GR is a lot of crap: "space-time"??? "mass warping the fabric of space-time"?????
Do you know how many physicists totally disagree with GR?
THOUSANDS!.

I better discard my satnav then, because the corrections applied to the GPS satellites use/compensate for relativity, which if it's a 'lot of crap' as you state should render my navigation useless.

 

[escargot]

My cat half-died laughing at these theories.

Are you SURE about that that though? Eh? Eh?

 

[escargot]

Yep.

Yup, it's physicists who'll know about the, er, physics. They tend not to give timeslips (or UFOs, ghosts, levitation etc) house-room though so wouldn't generally be interested.

 

[ramonmercado]

Are you SURE about that that though? Eh? Eh?

He's both dead and alive, positively catatonic.

 

[Coal]

You know quantum mechanics and physics as a penguin knows Sahara desert.

1) Quantum mechanics and Schrodinger's equation time-dependent has NO preferential direction of time (past and future) time could go backward and forward, why don't you read last experiments showing RETROCAUSALITY ? Please, read papers and studies by quantum physicist JACK SARFATTI, instead of wasting your and my time. Or read BRIAN JOSEPHSON, if you can understand his papers (I doubt)


2) "Space-time" is NOT a concept of quantum mechanics , it is a relativistic (general relativity) concept, and nobody succeeded in matching QM with GR, because they are simply INCOMPATIBLE. Quantum mechanics is CORRECT and fully experimentally proved, GR is a lot of crap: "space-time"??? "mass warping the fabric of space-time"?????
Do you know how many physicists totally disagree with GR?
THOUSANDS!!

Again, I'm just wasting my time, take my advice, start studying instead of posting...

Not withstanding the above, your original post asserts "Four famous-time-slips-explained-by-physics". The paper you linked to is called "Are_Perceptions_of_TimeSlips_Explainable_by_Quantum_Mechanics_as_Random_Time-Solitons".

You paper does NOT make the case the title (which begs the question) asserts. Neither is it written in ANY of the accepted formats for a scientific paper (so clear you've done little studying, as getting the format right is one of the first things any student learns). Neither is it written in the third person. It make many assertions which are simply unproven for example:

"After having clarified that the narrations above deserve scientific attention - and so only a totally biased approach could dismiss them as “hallucinations”, “frauds”, etc., refusing aprioristically to cope with“ paranormal”
perceptions -"

Leaving aside the incorrect use of the double quotes in the context, you clarify nothing as you pay no proper empirical attention to any other possible means by which such experiences may have occurred. You simply wave them aside without examination.

Then (for example):

"If extra-terrestrial civilizations living in distant planets could have very powerful telescopes available, they could watch now you , me , London, Rome, Paris, New York, etc., as we were 5, 10, 20, 30, etc., years ago,"

This is demonstrably not the case. The most basic inverse square law can be used to show that even if an image of something on earth is transmitted to distant parts by the time the 'image' has travelled a tenth of the way to even Alpha Centarui, the 'image signal' will be lost in the noise of the electromagnetic spectrum.

However, as far as I can work out, you're suggesting that this 'light' is in someway being transmitted 'solitonically' is such a way that images are not being dispersed and can be viewed from a great distance. There are a number of problems with this idea. In the first place you are in error concerning the nature of solitonic waves. They do not, as you state move in
" in such a way that contradicts at least temporarily the usual laws of hydrodynamics by Bernoulli and Newton"

The wave propagates in a medium and it is not the case, at least in this instance (the tidal bore), that the wave is moving water against the flow, but is rather a wave function in the water although energy is certainly moving against the flow. The river's flow is unimpeded and were you to observe small items in the river flow the wave would literally pass under them without halting their movement downstream. Consider holding a sheet and creating a wave in it with a movement of one's hands. The wave travels down the sheet, the sheet doesn't move away from your hands.

For light, solitons are a real phenomena, there has been much work on transmitting light as solitonic pulses in fibre optic as a means of extending distance and also increasing bandwidth, both limited by the dispersion losses thorough he fibre. For a soliton for work, the medium's width must be in the region on the wavelength of the propagated wave. This is just about possible with a single-mode fibre optic, but it requires tight control of the wavelength of the pulse and even tiny variations in the fibre's diameter over (say) 2-300 km) eventually break up the waveform. Nevertheless, near-solitonic shaping has improved data transmission bandwidths and distances. It's how the bandwidth in existing undersea fibre are increased without re-laying cables.

However for such an effect to work on (say) a broad spectrum EM (say the visible light range, about 400-700nM), you need to explain how the laws of physics conspire to provide an infinite set of infinite wavelength-width channels for each 'colour' of EM radiation. This you most definitely haven't shown, neither have you proposed any new theories in terms that can be tested or provide modification to existing laws (in the same way relativistic effects are a modification of Newton's laws).

I could go on, but I won't.

You clearly put a lot of effort into this paper, but, in all honestly, you need to take your own advice and study, at the very least, the format in which this kind of paper needs to be presented to be taken serious, all such formats are freely available on the internet. Also unless you already have formal qualifications in Physics, you might consider one such, if only to clarify your ideas in a way that makes sense to everyone else, as even if you're right, it's incumbent on you to get your ideas across clearly, which is also one of the first things learnt when studying at degree level or above.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Are you SURE about that that though? Eh? Eh?

But cats shouldn't be indeterminate, but aloof and superior, as ever:

 

[oldrover]

4) "oldrover"
you wrote

"The Goddard story seems to be the most complex, the Montpelier, Brampton, incidents always did interest me, perhaps appealed to me would be a better way to put it, but there is absolutely nothing in them."

"there is absolute nothing"?

= apodiptic statement

Prove it!

Certainly, there is nothing in either of these accounts outside of personal perception to support anything out of the ordinary having happened. If there is, and I'm missing it, please point it out.

Also, while you raise the issue of Jenny Randles having questioned how they could have paid for a room in the early 20thC with 1970's currency, you don't seem to have addressed this adequately, why for example would the hotelier have assumed that as tourists they'd have had their money exchanged for some 'latest' update? And don't you imagine that even if this was the case, the hotelier wouldn't have examined the coins/notes? Especially as they were foreign and his most likely reaction would be that they'd given him foreign currency. And had he done this he may have noticed that the dates were from some point in the future. 'Funny that',he'd have thought.

As to her other question, regarding the cars, I don't think they would have just accepted a 1970's car as being not too far of normal. Not even a Citroen Dyane 6, and do you have any evidence that this was the model of car they were driving?

But after this you say that in 'section 5' we'll see a scientific explanation 'according to quantum mechanics and physics'. Which begins with

'After having clarified that the narrations above deserve scientific attention - and so only a totallybiased approach could dismiss them as “hallucinations”, “frauds”, etc., refusing aprioristically to cope with “paranormal” perceptions'

Well, you really haven't done that. In fact you've offered nothing in support of the the Montelimar case that even approaches doing that. I'm not sure you believe that your impressions of the couple from the Youtube clip, observations about the stolid seriousness of the English Middle Class, and the suggestions you offer regarding the discrepancies noted by Randle demonstrate that statement, but they do not. All being entirely subjective and unevidenced, so that statement remains completely unsubstantiated. I can't comment on what follows and in all fairness as neither of us are physicists it seems rather pointless to try.