Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Psychic Teachers. I am your host,
Speaker 1: Deb Bowen.
Speaker 2: And I'm Samantha Fay, and we're.
Speaker 1: So excited that you are with us this week. And
Speaker 1: I am so excited that Samantha is back with me
Speaker 1: this week. Samantha, I know you've had a busy few
Speaker 1: weeks with house stuff and moving and so much stuff
Speaker 1: going on in your world, and in the midst of
Speaker 1: all of that, we've had a time change here in
Speaker 1: the US in most states, and I wonder if in
Speaker 1: the process of all of your moving the time change
Speaker 1: was difficult for you more so than normal.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, losing that hour is something I definitely needed,
Speaker 2: But what can you do. I'm finally settled in and
Speaker 2: I just want to say thank you, Deb for taking
Speaker 2: the helm of the show and doing such a great job.
Speaker 2: I really appreciate it, and I'm so excited for what
Speaker 2: you've come up for us today.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, it was precipitated by me being curious
Speaker 1: about the time change as it is around the world,
Speaker 1: because it's different in different places, and it's even different
Speaker 1: here in the United States. And I'll talk about that
Speaker 1: in a minute. But the truth is, I truly dislike
Speaker 1: this spring time change. It takes me forever to adjust.
Speaker 1: Fall is so much easier. I just ease into that
Speaker 1: having that extra hour back in autumn, and in spring
Speaker 1: my body rebels. I guess that time change.
Speaker 2: You know what the worst is for me is, you know,
Speaker 2: like my phone automatically changes the time, but in the kitchen,
Speaker 2: on the oven and their microwave, you have to manually
Speaker 2: go in and do it. And those first few days,
Speaker 2: don't you always forget that and I'll be getting ready
Speaker 2: and making my tea, and I'm like, oh, I've got
Speaker 2: way more time than I thought I did.
Speaker 1: I don't forget it. I actually am very, very overconscious
Speaker 1: of it. I do change the stove clock, but I
Speaker 1: have an old fashioned analog clock next to my bed,
Speaker 1: and I leave that with the old time for several
Speaker 1: days so that I can kind of adjust into it.
Speaker 3: So I live on that.
Speaker 1: It's probably not the healthiest thing to do, but I
Speaker 1: live on dual time during that a week or so
Speaker 1: after we make that crazy time change. It might be
Speaker 1: interesting for folks to know this. Hawaii and Arizona, except
Speaker 1: for the Navajo Nation, never change their clocks, nor do
Speaker 1: the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. None of them
Speaker 1: observe this crazy time change madness. Wow, I knew Arizona,
Speaker 1: but I did not know about the others.
Speaker 2: You know, they were going to change it. They were
Speaker 2: just going to do away with daylight savings times. But
Speaker 2: I guess all the parents who have to help their
Speaker 2: kids get to school super early and wait for the
Speaker 2: buses didn't want their children waiting in the dark for
Speaker 2: a bus.
Speaker 1: So that will and I understand that. But you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's controversy for many years under many administrations, but nonetheless,
Speaker 1: here we are. And so this time change got me
Speaker 1: to thinking about time and space and whether or not
Speaker 1: these concepts are real or not, and how they relate
Speaker 1: to our metaphysical world. So I went down a rabbit
Speaker 1: hole in researching this whole concept. And you've heard of
Speaker 1: say often on this show, time isn't real anyway, It's
Speaker 1: an illusionary construct. Eckertoli, who wrote the Power of Now,
Speaker 1: writes that the only time we have is now and
Speaker 1: that the now is powerful. Einstein is credited with saying
Speaker 1: that time is speeding up, although We're not really sure
Speaker 1: that's an accurate quote. But let's just do something here
Speaker 1: for a minute, Samantha. Let's suppose that time is both
Speaker 1: real and an illusion. Let's entertain the notion in this
Speaker 1: episode of the ambiguity of time. Suppose for a minute
Speaker 1: that you could travel back in time. Suppose the past, present,
Speaker 1: and future are constructs that do not apply to the
Speaker 1: quote real world. What if in the world of quantum
Speaker 1: physics something called negative time exists? And here's what I mean.
Speaker 1: The BBC recently published an article by researcher Richard Fischer
Speaker 1: entitled the Bizarre Quantum Paradox of Negative Time. Fisher is
Speaker 1: the author of quote The Long View, why we need
Speaker 1: to transform how the world sees time, and he says,
Speaker 1: and the quantum world, our intuitive grasp of past, present
Speaker 1: and future may not apply. He explores the discom bobulating
Speaker 1: concept of negative time are what he calls retro causality.
Speaker 3: Yikes.
Speaker 1: Okay, So here's an example he gives us. Tony's soprano
Speaker 1: is smoking a cigar driving home. His journey begins in Manhattan,
Speaker 1: where he enters the Lincoln Tunnel headed towards New Jersey.
Speaker 1: There's no traffic, So he passes through in a few minutes,
Speaker 1: emerging into daylight, and so begins the familiar opening credits
Speaker 1: of the Sopranos TV show. I imagine folks who watch
Speaker 1: that and know what I'm talking about. In the physical
Speaker 1: world of Mafia Bosses, one event follows another. So if
Speaker 1: Tony strikes a match to light a cigar, this needs
Speaker 1: to happen before the tip of the cigar ignites. Such
Speaker 1: causality appears to be fundamental to how we experience the universe. However,
Speaker 1: at the quantum level, temporal sequencing is not so clear
Speaker 1: or intuitive, Fisher says. In recent years, physicists have been
Speaker 1: exploring behaviors which seem to throw our understanding of past,
Speaker 1: present and future into question. So imagine that a spy
Speaker 1: helicopter is watching Tony emerge from the Lincoln Tunnel, but
Speaker 1: from the spy's perspective, Tony leaves the tunnel before he
Speaker 1: enters it. When the spy checks their watch, Tony has
Speaker 1: spent a negative amount of time going through the tunnel.
Speaker 1: Certainly this is impossible, but is it, asks Fisher. So
Speaker 1: he says that physicists are experimenting with the notion of
Speaker 1: the duration of negative time. In their experiments, they sent
Speaker 1: light pulses through the equivalent of a tunnel, but like
Speaker 1: Tony Soprano's puzzling drive, the pulse has apparently spent less
Speaker 1: than zero time traveling through. So Fisher says that that's
Speaker 1: not the only baffling example of temporal strangeness at very
Speaker 1: small scales. Theorist think it's conceivable that some particles could
Speaker 1: even change the past from the future via an effect called,
Speaker 1: as I've mentioned, retrocausality.
Speaker 3: In the quantum world, it.
Speaker 1: Seems our familiar understanding of time quickly becomes disoriented.
Speaker 3: Hang in there, we're going to try to make sense
Speaker 3: of that.
Speaker 2: Wait, I kind of understand that.
Speaker 3: Okay, you got me out here.
Speaker 2: Well, not in a science y way, but there have
Speaker 2: been times when I've been doing readings for people and
Speaker 2: I'll see that they've broken like a generational pattern, or
Speaker 2: I'll see that they've healed something really big, like maybe
Speaker 2: an addiction issue. And oftentimes I'll get the message that
Speaker 2: this is helping the ancestral line, that it echoes back
Speaker 2: into the past the healing that they're doing now. And
Speaker 2: I wonder if that's what he's talking about. Where he
Speaker 2: says that future events can affect past events.
Speaker 1: I think maybe, so hold on to that thought and
Speaker 1: let's come back to it as we get towards the end,
Speaker 1: because I think that we will wrap it up with
Speaker 1: some of that Okay. The United Nations has designated this
Speaker 1: year as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology,
Speaker 1: as we celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the development
Speaker 1: of quantum mechanics.
Speaker 3: This year.
Speaker 1: One of the lesser known experiments in research on the
Speaker 1: puzzling way that light tunnels through barriers, such as clouds
Speaker 1: of atoms, which is fascinating to me. In the nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety physicists fired photons through a barrier as a wave packet,
Speaker 1: which is a bundle of waves that describes both the
Speaker 1: particles and the wave of natural light. Interestingly, the packets
Speaker 1: peak apparently emerged before they entered, like a car leaving
Speaker 1: a tunnel before it drove in. The idea was actually
Speaker 1: proposed in the mid twentieth century, but finding a way
Speaker 1: to create an experiment to observe it proved difficult and tricky. Basically,
Speaker 1: the theory proposed that light could travel faster than itself,
Speaker 1: which is nonsensical Moreover, events in time were apparently occurring
Speaker 1: out of order. Well, Lord have mercy, we have to
Speaker 1: find a new way to reconcile that with our ideas
Speaker 1: of causalicity, says physicist Steinberg of the University of Toronto.
Speaker 2: Wait, so saying like, we're using Tony soprano oddly as
Speaker 2: an example. So he has to light the lighter before
Speaker 2: the cigar can work and do its magic for him.
Speaker 2: But this is saying there's no such thing as causality,
Speaker 2: So the cigar could be lit before he even strikes
Speaker 2: a match on the lighter.
Speaker 3: That's right, That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: Wow, that things happen out of order, and sometimes in
Speaker 1: basically reverse order. So Weinberg and his fellow physicists proposed
Speaker 1: that the wave packet, how light and moves through, was
Speaker 1: not time traveling, but reorganizing itself to give the appearance
Speaker 1: of effect coming before cause. So back to the tunnel.
Speaker 1: Imagine a line of cars driving between New York and
Speaker 1: New Jersey. We might picture them as one hundred Tony sopranos,
Speaker 1: each driving bumper to bumper. These represent photons in a
Speaker 1: wave packet. Now imagine that the line of Tony's depart
Speaker 1: Manhattan at one pm. At around one point thirty, the
Speaker 1: midpoint of this car train enters the Lincoln Tunnel. This
Speaker 1: is the peak of the wave packet. You would expect
Speaker 1: this peak to emerge a few minutes later, right, however,
Speaker 1: the peak has already left the tunnel at one twenty five.
Speaker 1: Tony Soprano is apparently a time traveler. What may actually
Speaker 1: be happening in this quantum level in this side this
Speaker 1: barrier is not all the photons are making it through
Speaker 1: in the car analogy. Some Tonys are getting pulled over
Speaker 1: or turned back in the experiment, and they are absorbed
Speaker 1: or ejected by adams within the barrier. When this happens,
Speaker 1: the forward tail of the wave packet reshapes itself into
Speaker 1: a new peak. It looks uncannily like the one entering.
Speaker 1: So imagine this. Imagine that you've seen all these cars
Speaker 1: in line, and you kind of have this idea of
Speaker 1: they're all moving forward in one direction, but they're really
Speaker 1: just like freeze frame points in time on like an
Speaker 1: old fashioned camera video camera, so that you just see
Speaker 1: a part of the same one car along the way,
Speaker 1: and then you begin to see, oh, yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: the same thing it's just the way the camera is
Speaker 1: taking the pictures like boom.
Speaker 3: Boom boom, boom boom.
Speaker 1: So it's more complex in that, of course, and more
Speaker 1: than we can attempt to explain. But here's the gist
Speaker 1: of Steinberg's explanation. So what appears to be a violation
Speaker 1: of physical laws is more like a reorganization within the
Speaker 1: light pulse. Basically, no particle is experiencing negative time, and
Speaker 1: there's no faster travel than light travel. But wait, there's more.
Speaker 1: More recent experiments after Steinberg's group have added a new
Speaker 1: twist and can't be explained yet. Whereas physicists in the
Speaker 1: earlier work we're observing an apparent negative delay a pulse
Speaker 1: leaving a barrier before it entered. In more recent research,
Speaker 1: a team led by physicist Daniella Angelo Marcello was in
Speaker 1: fact able to calculate a negative duration. A negative measurement
Speaker 1: of duration has added a new level of strangeness in the.
Speaker 3: Car analogy that we're working our way through.
Speaker 1: Tony Soprano is spending less than zero amount of time
Speaker 1: in the tunnel, and it can't be explained by the
Speaker 1: same wave packet reshuffling that explained the negative delay so
Speaker 1: now somebody is saying this morning.
Speaker 2: Wait, so he's not even in the tunnel.
Speaker 1: Well, he's there, but less than a zero amount of time.
Speaker 2: Wow, Tony's fast, is he not?
Speaker 1: So this is a whole other layer to this notion
Speaker 1: of Okay, first of all, there may be like negative time,
Speaker 1: but now we see it totally reshuffling. So when this
Speaker 1: weirdness was explored in the nineteen nineties, people have tried
Speaker 1: to make some sense of it. But looking again a
Speaker 1: little deeper, the mystery appears to now be kind of
Speaker 1: there's something here that is truly seemingly paradoxical. It, says
Speaker 1: Josiah Sinclair, who is at MIT who worked with Steinberg
Speaker 1: and his colleagues in recent years. There's no clear correspondence
Speaker 1: to the world that we know, the physical world experience,
Speaker 1: and so we're just left saying, okay, well, I guess
Speaker 1: quantum mechanics are just different, says Sinclair. We and this
Speaker 1: is in quotes here, This is not dam talking. We
Speaker 1: understand mathematically why it's happening, but we don't know how
Speaker 1: to talk about the physical meaning of it. Sinclair says,
Speaker 1: there's no clear correspondence to the world that we know
Speaker 1: the physical world we experience, and so we're just left saying, Okay,
Speaker 1: I really do guess.
Speaker 3: This is just different.
Speaker 1: But if you think this is strange, quantum Mechanics has
Speaker 1: even more bewilderment in store.
Speaker 2: This is bigging of my headspin because all I can
Speaker 2: think about several years ago I took the kids to
Speaker 2: an animated movie called Wrecket Ralph. I'm going to assume
Speaker 2: pretty positively that you've never seen it dev.
Speaker 3: That would be a true statement.
Speaker 2: Yes, But it's about a character, Ralph, who is the
Speaker 2: star of a video game, but he doesn't know he's
Speaker 2: the star of a video game. He thinks he just
Speaker 2: wakes up and has this job to do where he
Speaker 2: wrecks everything, and finally, through the help of some of
Speaker 2: his cast and characters, he realizes he's in a video
Speaker 2: game and it's about how he is trying to break
Speaker 2: out of it. Doesn't this make you feel like we're
Speaker 2: little Wrecket Ralph's in our own video games and this
Speaker 2: is all just a created illusion?
Speaker 1: Well you do wonder about that? Or you think back
Speaker 1: to Greg Braiden, I mean in the Matrix, right, Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: I think we should take a quick break and give
Speaker 2: everybody's brain time to settle, OK, and we will be
Speaker 2: right back. Welcome back everyone, All right, Dad, bring us
Speaker 2: back down into this tunnel.
Speaker 3: Here we go.
Speaker 1: But stay with us here, folks, because at the end
Speaker 1: we really are going to talk about why this matters,
Speaker 1: or at least what I thought I think it matters about.
Speaker 1: So this notion of retrocausality, the idea that particles may
Speaker 1: be able to change the past from the future, which
Speaker 1: is what Samantha was talking about a few minutes ago
Speaker 1: with some of the reading work that she's done. While
Speaker 1: this idea doesn't have the observational evidence of the quantum
Speaker 1: tunnel experiments, it's a prospect taken seriously by physicists. The
Speaker 1: reason is that such temporal weirdness would help to solve
Speaker 1: an apparent impossibility that has been observed that they're calling, quote,
Speaker 1: spooky action at a distance. Wait, science meets ghostbusters, Well
Speaker 1: not quite. This spooky action happens when two particles are entangled,
Speaker 1: which means they are strongly connected regardless of how far
Speaker 1: apart they are physically. In principle, they could be opposite
Speaker 1: sides of the universe. But when science measure, scientists measures,
Speaker 1: say the spin or polarization of one entangled particle, a
Speaker 1: corresponding property of its entangled partner becomes instantly determined. So
Speaker 1: I envisioned when I hear the word particle, I kind
Speaker 1: of think of this. Well, actually, my vision of it
Speaker 1: is kind of this short string and ones over here
Speaker 1: on one side of the universe and ones on the
Speaker 1: other side, and there's somehow or another deeply cosmetically connected,
Speaker 1: so that if somebody pokes one, the other one responds exactly.
Speaker 2: And you know, it makes me think of love. All
Speaker 2: those stories we've read and seen through the years of
Speaker 2: say twins or a parent and child, or partners who
Speaker 2: are on opposite sides of the world or the country,
Speaker 2: and something happens to one in the other one feels it.
Speaker 2: I mean, how many stories have we read like that?
Speaker 1: A zillion exactly, And that's exactly the image I had
Speaker 1: as I was reading this material. So back to the
Speaker 1: Sopranos as our example, it's a bit like if Tony
Speaker 1: had a twin brother who lived in California. If Tony
Speaker 1: orders veal at a restaurant in New Jersey, his brother's
Speaker 1: order at a Los Angeles restaurant instantly becomes veal too,
Speaker 1: or perhaps fish. The properties needn't be identical, but the
Speaker 1: key point is that the brother's meal is not determined
Speaker 1: until that moment. I'm not sure that's the best example
Speaker 1: I would give, but I think it's this notion of
Speaker 1: and we've done this with friends. For example, You're in
Speaker 1: a restaurant on your cruise and I'm in a restaurant
Speaker 1: where we live, and we think about each other, and poof,
Speaker 1: we've both ordered the same or similar meal because we've
Speaker 1: been thinking about each other.
Speaker 3: It's that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: So it's possible to show mathematically that those correlations that
Speaker 1: are not explainable in terms of a common cause in
Speaker 1: the past, says physicist Emily Adlam at Chatham University in California.
Speaker 1: She says it looks naively as though there's some kind
Speaker 1: of instantaneous signal going from one particle to another telling
Speaker 1: the particle what measurement you perform, or vice versa. That's
Speaker 1: pretty weird. Physicists don't think that signals should be able
Speaker 1: to be sent faster than light. And I read that
Speaker 1: and thought, I don't know that I agree with that exactly.
Speaker 3: The reasons we've just said.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, same, I mean intuition is instantaneous.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, there's something cosmic I think that's being left out
Speaker 1: of this whole equation of this conversation. So one way
Speaker 1: to get around this, according to these researchers, one way
Speaker 1: to get around the spooky action at a distance problem
Speaker 1: also known as non locality, and I want to come
Speaker 1: back and ask you about that, Samantha, is to invoke retrocausality.
Speaker 1: This scenario, information does not need to pass instantaneously between
Speaker 1: the particles across space. It happens across time. And that
Speaker 1: of course, when I read that word non locality, I
Speaker 1: thought of your Cherish padre Pio.
Speaker 2: And yeah, and how he was able to bylocate, blocate.
Speaker 3: That's the word I was looking for. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So if this is true, it's this notion of time
Speaker 1: is the key here. It would mean that a measured
Speaker 1: particle passes information into the past to the moment it
Speaker 1: was entangled with its pair, with its twin, and then
Speaker 1: forwards to the motion and the moment at which the
Speaker 1: measurement happens. Or in the Sopranos analogy, Tony's meal order
Speaker 1: in New Jersey goes back to when the two twins
Speaker 1: were in the womb and then forwards to the California restaurant. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's some time travel. So here's my questions. What quantum
Speaker 1: physicists are calling retrocausality, which I think is a word
Speaker 1: I love. Is it that we Isn't that what we
Speaker 1: do when we're deeply connected to somebody? I mean, you
Speaker 1: and I both have had psychic connections to people we
Speaker 1: love in which communication happens beyond a time space continuum.
Speaker 1: For example, how many times have you picked up the
Speaker 1: phone to call one of your daughters and she's on
Speaker 1: the line calling you, and neither of your phone says
Speaker 1: yet to make the first ring?
Speaker 2: Oh all the time. How many times have you and
Speaker 2: I shown up to meet each other for lunch and
Speaker 2: we're wearing the same colors?
Speaker 1: Oh, we did that at Christmas? Remember we did, And
Speaker 1: we didn't talk about that. You know, we did not
Speaker 1: have that thing.
Speaker 2: No, I would never call up to and say what
Speaker 2: are you wearing?
Speaker 1: I know I wouldn't call Samantha because I know she'd
Speaker 1: say something big and fuzzy and that would be the
Speaker 1: end of that too. But we do that, we do,
Speaker 1: and this is this goes beyond science. To me, this
Speaker 1: is that meta physical, beyond the physical concepts that we
Speaker 1: say deeply believe in. So going down that rabbit hole
Speaker 1: of time connection, it made me think about time travel,
Speaker 1: and this notion of retrocausality is a counterintuitive concept for
Speaker 1: most of us to get our heads around. Still, if
Speaker 1: it's true, the universe would have to work differently than
Speaker 1: we currently imagine. Adam says, in one scenario, two timelines
Speaker 1: would essentially sit side by side. When people mention retrocausality,
Speaker 1: what they seem to have in mind is a picture
Speaker 1: in which there's a forward evolution and a backward evolution
Speaker 1: of the universe. It's a picture with two separate and
Speaker 1: independent causality arrows, that kind of dynamical picture of retrocausality
Speaker 1: where you have literally forward and backward processes happening in
Speaker 1: the same combination. So when I read that material, I thought, Okay,
Speaker 1: so she's envisioning these two parallel lines of time that
Speaker 1: work forward and backwards with each other, kind of like oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know rail road ties, you know, And I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that I would agree with that, nor is
Speaker 1: she She says that she does not think that this
Speaker 1: is a very appealing way to think about retro causality
Speaker 1: because you can get inconsistencies, contradictions, and paradoxes instead. She
Speaker 1: argues that retrocausality is more plausible if we live in
Speaker 1: what's known as a block universe.
Speaker 3: Okay, here we go.
Speaker 1: This is a hypothetical and philosophically controversial model of existence
Speaker 1: where all moments in time, past, present, and future exists
Speaker 1: inside a four dimensional object. So I guess we're in
Speaker 1: a cube, right yeah. I have to tell you when
Speaker 1: I thought about how all in the metaphysical world we
Speaker 1: say something to the effect I've heard me and you
Speaker 1: both do it. I hereby release whatever it is in
Speaker 1: all directions.
Speaker 3: Of time and space, right yeah? So do we live
Speaker 3: in that block?
Speaker 2: I don't know, because I'm thinking of a block with
Speaker 2: four corners, and the past is in one, the present
Speaker 2: is in the second, the futures in the third, what's
Speaker 2: in the fourth exactly?
Speaker 1: So hold on to that, because if this block is
Speaker 1: filled with every event that ever has or will happen,
Speaker 1: then it's easier to see how some hypothetical influence could
Speaker 1: pass between particles within it, says Adlam to explain the
Speaker 1: spooky actions of the entangled particles. Information would not need
Speaker 1: to travel backwards on some alternative retrocausalital timeline. There's no
Speaker 1: temporal flow, she says. Time is just another dimension within
Speaker 1: the block rather than being a material thing that moves.
Speaker 1: So she says, that's your fourth corner.
Speaker 2: So rather than taking a straight line as we perceive
Speaker 2: time now with past on the left and present in
Speaker 2: the middle of that line, in the future and the
Speaker 2: right of that line, take that line and form it
Speaker 2: into a square or a box. Yes, and then that
Speaker 2: could help to explain why we always say like your
Speaker 2: word is your echo, because it's all just in that
Speaker 2: same box. So everything we do not only does it
Speaker 2: echo back into the past in the future, but it
Speaker 2: echoes back into our present reality as well.
Speaker 3: That's basically what I think. She say, yes exactly. So
Speaker 3: if this is a case.
Speaker 1: We have arrived at what may be the most troubling
Speaker 1: implication of all about quantum mechanics, and it's weird temporal behavior.
Speaker 1: If you accept the most fatalistic interpretation of the block universe,
Speaker 1: then like Tony Soprano, we're all just characters, like we
Speaker 1: were just saying in some cosmic TV show, we may
Speaker 1: experience life episodically, but our future is just as determined
Speaker 1: as our past. So when you're currently in the middle
Speaker 1: of your story and here's a spoiler alert, your own finality,
Speaker 1: the moment where everything goes black, may already have been written.
Speaker 1: Is it possible? Rather than that the block notion of
Speaker 1: predetermined causality, we explore the idea of time travel as
Speaker 1: a real possibility. So this block thing does not make
Speaker 1: us happy, right, I don't know it.
Speaker 2: Could though, I mean, okay, well, just imagine that you
Speaker 2: are in some cosmic TV series or video game, okay,
Speaker 2: deb's magical tunnel, I don't know, all right, and you
Speaker 2: realize that and everything is predetermined. I feel like there's
Speaker 2: if we surrender to that, there's some piece and comfort
Speaker 2: in that, Like, all right, well, I'm just gonna enjoy
Speaker 2: this moment of this game.
Speaker 1: So if we if we accept the premise you've just
Speaker 1: provided us here, then any choice in every choice that
Speaker 1: we all we make is already predetermined and and it's
Speaker 1: just gonna happen the way it's gonna happen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So just exhale, relax, and have fun with it.
Speaker 1: And you know, I know people who can do that, Samantha.
Speaker 1: I have friends who literally see the world that way,
Speaker 1: and I'm always so jealous of them because I can't
Speaker 1: do that. I'm too much of a control freak.
Speaker 2: I know. Well, and then I think I found this
Speaker 2: little podcast where it's just like different screenwriters and showrunners
Speaker 2: and they talk about like really really famous TV shows
Speaker 2: and how they were given a trajectory for one character
Speaker 2: and then they were like, yeah, no, that's not going
Speaker 2: to happen. We need we need to rewrite that. So
Speaker 2: when I get stuck in my head that this is
Speaker 2: all the matrix or the block universe, sir, a TV show,
Speaker 2: what have you, I always think, well, I just need
Speaker 2: to contact this showrunner and ask for a rewrite. It's possible.
Speaker 1: Well, it is possible. And you know, I mean, I've
Speaker 1: been in enough place where we rehearse and rehearsing, rehearsal, rehearse,
Speaker 1: and every rehearsal is different, and every show is different,
Speaker 1: and yet the general premise is the same, and there
Speaker 1: are things you can control in things you can't. And
Speaker 1: I've seen that really as a metaphor for how we
Speaker 1: do life. And yeah, you know, sometimes there are some rewrites.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we can consider the notion that
Speaker 1: time travel is real. So, rather than thinking about Tony Soprano,
Speaker 1: win that Lincoln Tonneald, let's talk about Doctor Who and Tartists.
Speaker 1: How can anyone watch Doctor Who and not believe time
Speaker 1: travel is a real thing. Even if you don't believe
Speaker 1: in fairy tales or love science fiction, you can love
Speaker 1: Doctor Who. So, in his article is Time Travel Really Possible?
Speaker 1: Author Michael Marshall says the ability to jump forward and
Speaker 1: backwards in time has long fascinated science fiction writers and
Speaker 1: physicists alike, So is it really possible to travel into
Speaker 1: the past and the future? Doctor Who is arguably one
Speaker 1: of the most famous stories about time travel, alongside the
Speaker 1: Time Machine and Back to the Future. It has explored
Speaker 1: the temptations and paradoxes of visiting the past and voyaging
Speaker 1: into the future in the TV show. I imagine most
Speaker 1: folks know this, of course, but Doctor travels through time
Speaker 1: in The Tartists, which is an advanced craft that can
Speaker 1: go anywhere in time and space. Famously, however, the Tartist
Speaker 1: defies our understanding of physical space as we all know it.
Speaker 1: While time travel is fundamental to Doctor Who, the show
Speaker 1: never tries to ground the Tartis's ability in anything resembling
Speaker 1: real world physics. About the real world, Could we ever
Speaker 1: build a time machine and travel into the distant past
Speaker 1: or forward to see our great great great grandchildren. Answering
Speaker 1: this question, of course, requires some understanding of how time
Speaker 1: actually works, something physicists are far from certain and cohesive about.
Speaker 3: So far.
Speaker 1: What we can say with confidence is it traveling into
Speaker 1: the future is achievable, but traveling into the past is
Speaker 1: either wildly difficult or absolutely impossible. And here, of course
Speaker 1: I had to stop and just say.
Speaker 2: Outlander, that's right, hello, Yeah, she did it.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Time travel into the past always made more sense to
Speaker 2: me than time travel into the future, because in my
Speaker 2: linear mind, the future hasn't been created, so I always
Speaker 2: thought it would be more difficult. But now that we've
Speaker 2: been learning more about quantum physics and studying the gateway
Speaker 2: process and now this and dimensions, I guess time travel
Speaker 2: into the future does make more sense, especially if you
Speaker 2: talk about retrocausality, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, how do we really know? And so
Speaker 1: you know, then we can go off with a whole
Speaker 1: tangent about past lives and all that stuff, and who
Speaker 1: are we and what are we? All those things? Lots
Speaker 1: of questions, right, lots of questions. And as Einstein noted
Speaker 1: in his Theory of relativity, he says time can speed
Speaker 1: up or slow down depending on the circumstances. This is
Speaker 1: where time travel can come in and it is scientifically
Speaker 1: accurate and there is real world repercussions from that, says
Speaker 1: Emma Osborne, who is an astrophysicist at the University of
Speaker 1: York in the UK. Time passes more slowly for you
Speaker 1: if you are in an intense gravitational field, such as
Speaker 1: a black hole.
Speaker 3: Now listen to this sentence.
Speaker 1: Your head is aging quicker than your feet, because Earth's
Speaker 1: gravity is stronger at your feet, says Osborne.
Speaker 2: What my head's older than my toe.
Speaker 1: If you're in an intense gravitational field. And of course
Speaker 1: this made me think about those you know, Samantha. I
Speaker 1: realized a long time ago that I would never be
Speaker 1: cut out to be an astronaut. I think the claustophobic,
Speaker 1: that team of people who have been up in the
Speaker 1: sky for how many months now, forever forever, right in
Speaker 1: that tiny little space, that they have something within them
Speaker 1: I don't have. And so when I saw photographs recently
Speaker 1: of the of the folks getting to them. I thought,
Speaker 1: I cannot even imagine what that must feel like and
Speaker 1: how incredibly brave it must be. And I wondered how
Speaker 1: the passage of time must have felt all these months
Speaker 1: to them.
Speaker 2: Oh awful. And you know, physically they lose so much
Speaker 2: muscle mass from being in that space area they have
Speaker 2: to do you know, they have to walk on the treadmill.
Speaker 2: But even even if they exercise almost every minute, they're
Speaker 2: going to come back to Earth and having lost a
Speaker 2: lot of physical muscle mass.
Speaker 1: It's just I can't even breathe when I have watched,
Speaker 1: literally I've stopped breathing watching some of those things with
Speaker 1: interviews with those two people, and I think, well, if
Speaker 1: this is true, and they've certainly been in zero gravity, right,
Speaker 1: what does that look like for them in terms of aging?
Speaker 3: And how will we measure that?
Speaker 1: And you know they're going to be tested all over
Speaker 1: hell and back when they get home. It'll be interesting
Speaker 1: to see. But let's go back to doctor who who
Speaker 1: uses this notion of intense gravitational fields so that we're
Speaker 1: different aging different parts of our bodies. In Season ten
Speaker 1: finality entitled World and enough in which the Twelfth Doctor
Speaker 1: and his friends are trapped on a spaceship close to
Speaker 1: a black hole. At the front of the craft, closer
Speaker 1: to the black hole, time passes more slowly than at
Speaker 1: the rear. This means the small group of cybermen at
Speaker 1: the rear of the craft are able to develop into
Speaker 1: a huge army in from the Doctor's point of view,
Speaker 1: a matter of minutes. In our everyday lives, these relativistic
Speaker 1: effects are too tiny to be noticed, but they do
Speaker 1: affect the satellites that we use for GPS. The clocks
Speaker 1: above click faster than the clocks on Earth and must
Speaker 1: constantly be readjusted, says Osborne, if we didn't Google maps,
Speaker 1: would be wrong about six miles a day. How about
Speaker 1: that relativity means that it is possible to travel into
Speaker 1: the future. We don't even need a time machine exactly.
Speaker 3: We need to.
Speaker 1: Either travel at speeds close to the speed of light
Speaker 1: or spend time in an intense gravitational field. Okay, I
Speaker 1: don't know how to do either of those things. In relativity,
Speaker 1: these two acts are essentially equivalent. Either way, you will
Speaker 1: experience a relatively short amount of subjective time, while decades
Speaker 1: are centuries past in the rest of the universe. If
Speaker 1: you want to see what happens hundreds of years from now,
Speaker 1: this is how to do it. I don't think I
Speaker 1: understand how to do it.
Speaker 3: Do you sumen that?
Speaker 2: No, I do not. I would like to take a
Speaker 2: break to talk about crystals for a moment or anything else.
Speaker 2: My head hurts.
Speaker 3: Okay, we're almost done hanging here with me.
Speaker 2: I really don't understand what you just explained, and it
Speaker 2: makes me feel like a little brain.
Speaker 1: You're not a little brain, You're just human. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the problem. And all of this is theoretical. Remember right,
Speaker 1: there's no real proof for any of this. It's just
Speaker 1: the idea that it's fun to entertain notions and ideas
Speaker 1: that may or may not be true, and isn't it
Speaker 1: fun to just explore them? And we will never know.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've heard me say this a hundred times
Speaker 1: that when I die, I want to be able to
Speaker 1: take a pen in a notepad across the veil with
Speaker 1: me because I got questions.
Speaker 2: I know, well, I mean, according to this, you're not
Speaker 2: going to need a pen or a paper. You're going
Speaker 2: to just be there and understand it, right, away. Just
Speaker 2: by the implicit nature of block theory, it'll already have
Speaker 2: happened exactly.
Speaker 1: And so if I believe that, if that is my
Speaker 1: belief system, then all is well and I don't need
Speaker 1: the pen and paper. But in the belief system I
Speaker 1: currently hold, I need the pen and paper, right, okay,
Speaker 1: And so that is what I mean by theoretic both
Speaker 1: both scenarios I just rattled off.
Speaker 3: It's theory. I don't know.
Speaker 1: About getting everything, nor do I know about the block theory.
Speaker 1: In theory, it's possible for space time be folded like
Speaker 1: a piece of paper, allowing a tunnel to be punched through.
Speaker 1: Relativity offers some options for backward time travel, but this
Speaker 1: time they are much more theoretical. People tie themselves up
Speaker 1: and not trying to find ways to rearrange space time
Speaker 1: in order to make time travel to the past possible,
Speaker 1: says Katie Mack, who is a theoretical cosmetolog cosmologist. Let
Speaker 1: me do that again, Katie Max.
Speaker 2: He does great highlights, sorry.
Speaker 1: Is a theoretical cosmologist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
Speaker 1: Physics in Waterloo, Canada. One option is to create a
Speaker 1: closed time like a curve a path through space and
Speaker 1: time that loops back on itself. A person who follows
Speaker 1: that path would eventually find themselves at the same place
Speaker 1: in time when they started. A mathematical description of such
Speaker 1: a path was published by Logiston Kirk Godell in nineteen
Speaker 1: forty nine, and others have followed. However, this doesn't look
Speaker 1: like a promising approach for several reasons. We don't know
Speaker 1: whether this exists anywhere in the universe, or whether or
Speaker 1: not this is really purely theoretical.
Speaker 3: There's just no evidence.
Speaker 1: It's also not obvious how we could make such a thing.
Speaker 3: The loop thing. Even if we had.
Speaker 1: Much greater technology than we currently do, it seems unlikely
Speaker 1: that we would be able to create closed time like
Speaker 1: curves on purpose, says Adlain. Remember she's at Chaplain University
Speaker 1: in California. Even if we could, we wouldn't want to.
Speaker 1: You would literally be repeating exactly the same thing over
Speaker 1: and over again. And my comment for that is Groundhog
Speaker 1: Day much.
Speaker 2: Okay, I love that movie so much. I just made
Speaker 2: my kids watch it again with me a couple of
Speaker 2: months ago over the break. That's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: If you remember that movie with Bill Murray, he completely
Speaker 2: resists doing the same thing over and over and over
Speaker 2: again in his block world, right, and he gets mad
Speaker 2: and he tries to just do all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 2: The magic happens when he surrenders to it and just
Speaker 2: decides to enjoy it. And he's like, all right, well,
Speaker 2: if this is my day, I'm going to learn how
Speaker 2: to play the piano. I'm going to learn how to
Speaker 2: be an ice sculptor. I'm going to learn how to
Speaker 2: make this woman love me. I'm going to learn how
Speaker 2: to love myself. I'm going to learn how to enjoy
Speaker 2: the present moment. I think that's the key takeaway for
Speaker 2: if this theory is true, where you are, you have
Speaker 2: to find your own happiness exactly.
Speaker 1: The Doctor Who series uses a similar setup in this
Speaker 1: classic episode called Heaven sent in which the Doctor lives
Speaker 1: the same few hours over and over again for billions
Speaker 1: of years. However, this didn't involve a closed timeline curve,
Speaker 1: but rather repeated use of a teleporter.
Speaker 2: That was an episode on Supernatural where was one of
Speaker 2: the brothers lived the same day over and over and
Speaker 2: over and we don't know how long it was, and
Speaker 2: it was done from a trickster god. Of course, from Boyer,
Speaker 2: A trickster God, a trickster guard.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, interesting.
Speaker 1: So let's go back to Richard Gott in nineteen ninety one,
Speaker 1: who's a physicist who set out a mathematical description of
Speaker 1: a wild scenario in which he called two cosmic strings
Speaker 1: moving past each other in opposite directions. According to his calculations,
Speaker 1: this would create close time like curves looping around the strings. Well,
Speaker 1: this sounds handy, But where might we find cosmic strings?
Speaker 1: They are hypothetical phenomena that may have formed in the
Speaker 1: very early universe.
Speaker 3: According to some theories.
Speaker 1: None has ever been detected. We don't have any reason
Speaker 1: to believe cosmic strings exist as mac Even if they
Speaker 1: do exist, it would be an incredible stroke of luck
Speaker 1: to find two moving neatly in parallel. We don't have
Speaker 1: any reason to believe that this would happen. You know
Speaker 1: what that reminds me of in the early days of
Speaker 1: the computer, Samantha the screensaver. Remember where those images of
Speaker 1: stringy kind of things that just randomly moved across your
Speaker 1: computer screen.
Speaker 2: But if those continually moved around each other, wouldn't math
Speaker 2: like the laws of math? If there is such a thing,
Speaker 2: imply that eventually they would line up that way.
Speaker 1: And that's what I wondered about too, with the whole
Speaker 1: concept of chaos theory, where things eventually move into order
Speaker 1: as opposed to randomness. It's the notion of a homeostatic
Speaker 1: state versus an entropic state, and where things do come
Speaker 1: together in some kind of way eventually in time, and
Speaker 1: that I don't think was addressed in any of this conversation,
Speaker 1: but that's exactly what.
Speaker 3: I wondered too.
Speaker 1: And everything we've been talking about is theoretical. Everything we've
Speaker 1: been talking about thus far is theory as opposed to reality.
Speaker 3: So how about wormholes.
Speaker 1: First of all, guess what, We don't have any evidence
Speaker 1: they really exist. It's been shown mathematically that they can exist,
Speaker 1: but whether they exist physically it's something else. What's more,
Speaker 1: if wormholes do exist, they will be incredibly short lived.
Speaker 1: Often wormholes are described as two black holes that have
Speaker 1: been joined together. This means a wormhole would have an
Speaker 1: incredibly intense gravitational feel it would collapse under its own gravity,
Speaker 1: says researcher Osborne. Okay, so much for time travel based
Speaker 1: on relativity. What about on a mechanics The Great theory
Speaker 1: in the universe, whereas.
Speaker 2: All right, wait before we jump into quantum mechanics, we've
Speaker 2: got to take our last quick break of the show.
Speaker 2: We will be right back, Okay, welcome back everyone. All right,
Speaker 2: dev you're taking us down quantum mechanics now.
Speaker 1: And I think this is about the end of where
Speaker 1: we're headed here, so okay, and then we're going to
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to make it make sense and does
Speaker 1: in our real life, whatever real life means these days.
Speaker 1: Whereas relativity describes the behavior of large objects like humans
Speaker 1: and galaxies, quantum mechanics describes the very small, in particular
Speaker 1: particles smaller than atoms, such as electrons and protons. On
Speaker 1: these subatomic scales, physics operates in ways that confound our intuitions.
Speaker 1: And this article I researched didn't even talk about quarks,
Speaker 1: which are even smaller than electrons and protons and neutrons.
Speaker 1: One of the particular observations that has urge from the
Speaker 1: study of the quantum realm is non locality, So we're
Speaker 1: cycling back to that concept. A change in a particle
Speaker 1: state in one location can instantaneously influence another entangled particle
Speaker 1: somewhere else. Something Einstein referred to as quote spooky action
Speaker 1: at a distance. This has been shown experimentally quote many
Speaker 1: times in Nobel Prize winning research, says Adlam. A lot
Speaker 1: of physicists are very unhappy with the possibility of non locality.
Speaker 1: She says that's because for the effect to be instantaneous,
Speaker 1: the information must be conveyed from place to place at
Speaker 1: faster than the speed of light. This is supposed to
Speaker 1: be impossible. Some physicists, however, propose alternative ways to interpret
Speaker 1: the experiments. These interpretations get rid of a non locality issue,
Speaker 1: but in doing so they mess with our understanding of time.
Speaker 1: Instead of having an instantaneous, non local effect, you would
Speaker 1: just send your effect into the future, and then at
Speaker 1: some point it would turn around and go back into
Speaker 1: the past, says Adlam. It would be instantaneous, but in
Speaker 1: reality the effect would have gone on a long journey
Speaker 1: into the future and back again. And guess what now,
Speaker 1: We're back to retrocausality. That is, events of the future
Speaker 1: having an effect on the past. If retro causality is real,
Speaker 1: it probably won't help us become time lords. Retro Causality
Speaker 1: is not quite the same thing as time travel.
Speaker 3: Says Adlam.
Speaker 1: For one thing, our observations of non locality have all
Speaker 1: involved tiny numbers of particles. Scale up to a human
Speaker 1: or even something smaller like a piece of paper would
Speaker 1: be an enormous challenge. So like sending a piece of
Speaker 1: paper into somewhere else, it isn't even possible to send
Speaker 1: a message in to the past.
Speaker 3: She says.
Speaker 1: The retrocausality is very specifically hidden in the way it's implemented. Now,
Speaker 1: from a metaphysical standpoint, we probably vehemently disagree with that sentence.
Speaker 1: This is best understood by thinking through an experiment. Suppose
Speaker 1: Adam conducts a measurement in the lamb. However, the results
Speaker 1: he gets is dependent on a measurement that Beth does later.
Speaker 1: In other words, Beth's experiment in the future controls the
Speaker 1: outcome of Adam's experiment in the past. This only works
Speaker 1: if Beth's experience destroys all the records of what Adam
Speaker 1: did and saw.
Speaker 2: Wait, what so, but Adam sounds a lot like Thelma
Speaker 2: from Scooby Doo. Well, she is trying to rain on
Speaker 2: our fun magical party parade.
Speaker 3: Well, so this is true. So there we have it.
Speaker 1: On our current understanding of the universe, we could potentially
Speaker 1: travel into the future, but traveling into the past may
Speaker 1: be in no no, she says. The only remaining loophole
Speaker 1: is that the theories that all of this is based
Speaker 1: on are incomplete. Relativity and quantum mechanics work very well
Speaker 1: for certain aspects of the universe, but they also aren't compatible.
Speaker 1: This suggests we need a deeper theory that unifies the two,
Speaker 1: but despite decades of efforts, we don't have one. Of course,
Speaker 1: there is another way to look at it all. In
Speaker 1: the time it has taken you to listen to this
Speaker 1: podcast episode, you've already traveled an hour into the future.
Speaker 3: You're welcome.
Speaker 2: If I'm in the future, I would like to go
Speaker 2: back to the beginning of this hour and somehow magically
Speaker 2: give my brain an upgrade. A but I like to
Speaker 2: ask this lovely physicist Adlum to read Time and Again
Speaker 2: by Jack Finney. You read that right. They made it
Speaker 2: into a movie with Christopher Reeves.
Speaker 3: I read the book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, the book is way better, even though the
Speaker 2: movie's pretty good too. But the book explains how they
Speaker 2: do time travel, and it's the most realistic one I've
Speaker 2: ever read. Because it's all done in the mind. Do
Speaker 2: you remember how they rent an apartment in New York
Speaker 2: City and they decorate it to look like the time
Speaker 2: period he's traveling back to, and then they teach him
Speaker 2: how to meditate and visualize he's in that time, and
Speaker 2: that's how he does it.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's certainly a great example. But you and
Speaker 1: I both know that there is this continuum of memory
Speaker 1: that we can't explain or describe. Any more than these
Speaker 1: scientific theories can be explained and described and verified. We
Speaker 1: can't verify the metaphysical concepts, many of them that we
Speaker 1: trust in and believe in either and yet we know
Speaker 1: they're real. I mean, certainly, past life regression work has
Speaker 1: been something that has dramatically improved my life. I'm very
Speaker 1: grateful for having had regression sessions. And I know that
Speaker 1: who I said I was existed, I'm sure of it.
Speaker 3: How do I know?
Speaker 1: I don't know how I know, but I do and
Speaker 1: so and it.
Speaker 2: Makes me just to be contrary. It makes me think
Speaker 2: about if all of this is theory. It makes me
Speaker 2: ask the question what is real? And does it even
Speaker 2: matter if it's real? I mean, I've read books that
Speaker 2: are fiction that have helped me tremendously to be too happier,
Speaker 2: to understand myself better, to feel more deeply connected to
Speaker 2: others around me, to open my mind to a different
Speaker 2: way of thinking. And none of that was real, but
Speaker 2: the effects it had on me.
Speaker 3: Were real absolutely.
Speaker 1: I mean, we both could rattle off a ton of books,
Speaker 1: but that meet all of the criteria you've just suggested,
Speaker 1: and music and relationships and even the tree I'm sitting
Speaker 1: here looking at. I mean, I look at this tree
Speaker 1: and I think, well, how old is this tree and
Speaker 1: how did it grow there? And what is it seen?
Speaker 1: And what does it know? And does it know? Does
Speaker 1: this tree have consciousness? And I believe it does. We
Speaker 1: could go on and on and on with what we believe,
Speaker 1: what we feel, what we trust, what has become our
Speaker 1: own versions of reality or not, and how we navigate
Speaker 1: every minute of our life. And minute is a relative
Speaker 1: term here, And that's really one of the reasons I
Speaker 1: wanted to dive down this rabbit hole and do this
Speaker 1: exercise that I know for some of our listeners will
Speaker 1: be like, oh my god, where in the world are
Speaker 1: they believe me?
Speaker 3: I was there too.
Speaker 1: I think Samantha was too, as we were making our
Speaker 1: way through it, but it really was this episode was
Speaker 1: precipitated by the time change and the different realities on
Speaker 1: different clocks in my house at the same time. That's
Speaker 1: what precipitated me going down this rabbit hole and wondering
Speaker 1: about how we see the time that we have and
Speaker 1: are given in every moment, and what do we do
Speaker 1: with it?
Speaker 3: And how do we re.
Speaker 1: Assess where we are in our lives and what we
Speaker 1: want each moment to look like.
Speaker 2: And I think a part of that is definitely asking
Speaker 2: and contemplating these deep, highly intelligent questions that make my
Speaker 2: brain hurt. But also the other part of it is
Speaker 2: realizing that none of it's real. It's all an illusion,
Speaker 2: and so what are we going to do with that?
Speaker 2: And turning instead of oh my gosh, I own you know,
Speaker 2: I'm in the second, third, fourth, whatever chapter of my life.
Speaker 2: Time is going too fast? What am I gonna do
Speaker 2: with this? With that, with this, instead of going there
Speaker 2: just kind of throwing your hands up in total trust
Speaker 2: and saying, you know what, It's all unfolding as it
Speaker 2: should and I'm just gonna have fun with it.
Speaker 1: There is that you know I am going this coming
Speaker 1: weekend to a memorial party for one of my best friends,
Speaker 1: who was one of my best friends for fifty years
Speaker 1: and who died not long ago. And we're gonna laugh,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna sing, and we're gonna eat, and we're
Speaker 1: gonna tell stories about her, and in many ways she
Speaker 1: will still be there with us, and we will all
Speaker 1: have moments in those past fifty years that we were
Speaker 1: friends that will feel as real and as close from
Speaker 1: forty years ago as it feels today, because that's what
Speaker 1: memory does for us. I agree. I think that's really
Speaker 1: all we can do is to as Bob Rob Doss
Speaker 1: said many many years ago, here now.
Speaker 2: You know, I have a funny quick thing about when
Speaker 2: you're talking about looking at your tree. When the girls
Speaker 2: and I were saying goodbye to the house, one of
Speaker 2: my girls said, I'm really gonna miss that tree, this
Speaker 2: one beautiful tree in the backyard. And I try to
Speaker 2: keep my metaphysical weirdness to myself as much as possible, right,
Speaker 2: are you like that?
Speaker 3: Dad?
Speaker 2: Like I don't walk around going you know, well, there's
Speaker 2: a crystal that could help you with that, or you
Speaker 2: know your aura seems a little fluffy today. I just
Speaker 2: keep that to myself.
Speaker 1: Says the woman who who runs a podcasters have been
Speaker 1: downloaded more than six million times.
Speaker 3: But go ahead.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, but but I mean I keep
Speaker 2: it amongst us.
Speaker 3: I know what you mean.
Speaker 2: So my daughter was saying, like, she's going to miss
Speaker 2: that tree, and I said, oh, well, have you tried
Speaker 2: talking to it and saying goodbye? And I didn't even
Speaker 2: think about it. And my girls looked at me. They
Speaker 2: just burst out laughing, and she was like, could you
Speaker 2: please do that again? I'm gonna put it on TikTok.
Speaker 2: It's going to go viral. I'm like, no, no, but
Speaker 2: you can definitely go talk to that tree and give
Speaker 2: it a hug.
Speaker 3: Oh I do that every day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I do it every day to the trees around
Speaker 1: where I live.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I agree.
Speaker 1: You know we are there's no difference. We're all the
Speaker 1: same thing.
Speaker 2: You know, We're all and you can feel the energy.
Speaker 2: And to me, my favorite part of what your beautiful
Speaker 2: research uncovered is that non local spooky reality at a distance.
Speaker 2: I can't even remember the perfect name for it, but
Speaker 2: that whole idea that proves we are all connected, whether
Speaker 2: you are you know, sitting here in America and someone
Speaker 2: listening to us is in you know, New Guinea. We're
Speaker 2: all connected. Whether you're sitting here in Australia and you're
Speaker 2: missing your father in heaven only a thought away, were
Speaker 2: all connected. I don't think in terms of time or past,
Speaker 2: prison or future, any of that matters. And you know
Speaker 2: what I always think about is a photo. Remember back
Speaker 2: in the old days, you would take a photo and
Speaker 2: there would be one copy of that photo and a
Speaker 2: negative and that was it. If the negative was lost,
Speaker 2: if the photo was lost, that photo was gone. Nowadays,
Speaker 2: you take a photo and how many copies are there?
Speaker 2: Even if you delete that photo from your phone, it
Speaker 2: stays on your phone for what thirty forty five days,
Speaker 2: and it probably still exists somewhere out there in the
Speaker 2: internet world, whatever that means. But you can take a
Speaker 2: thousand copies of a photo. That's how I think about
Speaker 2: the world we live in. In terms of time, I
Speaker 2: think that there are maybe a thousand copies of the
Speaker 2: life you and I are living deb and at every
Speaker 2: crossroads where we made an important decision about our life,
Speaker 2: we created a different copy of the photo of our
Speaker 2: world in that moment.
Speaker 3: That is very likely true. Samantha and.
Speaker 1: This, even this side of the conversation, while where we've
Speaker 1: moved from the quantum physics side of the conversation to
Speaker 1: the metaphysical side of the conversation, it still boggles my
Speaker 1: mind too, and I somehow have to remember that, yes,
Speaker 1: all I can really do is right here, right now,
Speaker 1: in what is to me at this moment reality. It
Speaker 1: may not be reality in five minutes, but for right
Speaker 1: this minute, here it is. See minute, we're back to
Speaker 1: time again. So I hope everybody's changed their clocks and
Speaker 1: or have not changed your clocks depending on where you live,
Speaker 1: and are moving along in some kind of linear fashion
Speaker 1: that doesn't feel crazy to you.
Speaker 2: You know what I am a little stickler about is
Speaker 2: changing the clock on my car.
Speaker 3: I did that.
Speaker 2: I always do, and my friend does not, and she
Speaker 2: cracks me up because every time there's a time chain,
Speaker 2: she goes, whooho, my clocks work. So do you remember
Speaker 2: when I was talking This is like probably a couple
Speaker 2: of years ago, but I was talking about a book
Speaker 2: I read as a kid that I loved so so much,
Speaker 2: and it was about a girl I think she was
Speaker 2: like thirteen or fourteen, and she's going to see her grandmother.
Speaker 2: She had a fight with her mom, as you know
Speaker 2: teenage girls tend to do, so the mom's like, go
Speaker 2: spend a weekend with my mom. And she's on the
Speaker 2: train and she falls asleep. I think she hits her
Speaker 2: head and when she wakes up, she's back in time
Speaker 2: and she meets her mom as a thirteen year old girl.
Speaker 2: And I could not find that book. It's out of print.
Speaker 2: I mentioned it. One of our amazing listeners found it
Speaker 2: and I ordered it. I got it. It's called Hanging
Speaker 2: Out with CC by Francine Pascal, and it's a little
Speaker 2: kid book. I know our listeners are adults. I mean
Speaker 2: it's two hundred and thirty pages. It's like a middle
Speaker 2: grade book, I think they would call it. But it's
Speaker 2: a wonderful, wonderful book about time and understanding your parents
Speaker 2: in terms of the different things they've been through in
Speaker 2: their own time. But I just wanted to give a
Speaker 2: shout out because without our listeners, I wouldn't find half
Speaker 2: the books I have. And I have another request now
Speaker 2: for any of our librarians out there. I was listening
Speaker 2: to another podcast and she was talking about one of
Speaker 2: her favorite books and she couldn't remember the name but
Speaker 2: it was about a woman who had this very lovely life,
Speaker 2: but she every time she fell asleep, she would dream
Speaker 2: of a completely different life. And it got to the
Speaker 2: point where her dream life felt more real than her
Speaker 2: waking life. And at some point the two worlds collide
Speaker 2: and she realizes both are real. The dream life is
Speaker 2: real and the waking life is real, and she has
Speaker 2: to choose one. Doesn't that sound good?
Speaker 1: It does sound good. And I just have to tell
Speaker 1: you that while we're putting this together, make yourself a
Speaker 1: note that you need to put these things on our
Speaker 1: Facebook page because invariably somebody who is out at the
Speaker 1: gym without a piece of paper in their hand is
Speaker 1: going to email or or write on Facebook.
Speaker 3: What was the name of that book you mentioned, Samantha.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, Okay, So I will put in
Speaker 2: the show notes time and again by Jack Finney and
Speaker 2: CC's hanging out with CC.
Speaker 1: Okay, good, because folks will certainly want to know those books.
Speaker 2: Wow, thank you deb for putting this all together. I
Speaker 2: feel like between our Gateway series in this I hope
Speaker 2: we don't lose some listeners. I promise you guys were
Speaker 2: going back to fun How to Be psychic stuff. But
Speaker 2: it's important to visit these topics because science is catching
Speaker 2: up and it is starting to prove that everything you
Speaker 2: and I know and sense to be true is actually real,
Speaker 2: that we are all connected, that time is an illusion,
Speaker 2: that what we do now, in this beautiful, perfect moment
Speaker 2: has profound implications not only on our future, but also
Speaker 2: on our past, and not on our past, but on
Speaker 2: all the past people who have gone before.
Speaker 3: Us through story, which is why I did it.
Speaker 1: So I hope you all have enjoyed it and made
Speaker 1: your way through it, and thank you for hanging in
Speaker 1: here with us. And we'll be back with some quote
Speaker 1: normal Samantha and Deb stuff next week.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Deb, and thank you for helping me fill
Speaker 2: in all the good stuff when I was moving. I
Speaker 2: really appreciate you so much.
Speaker 1: I was happy to do that, and I'm glad you
Speaker 1: said that. Huge thank you to all of you who
Speaker 1: have comment on our Facebook page and sent me emails
Speaker 1: about that short episode that I did without Samantha. How
Speaker 1: kind of you all. I'm so glad it was helpful
Speaker 1: and you all liked it, so thank you again.
Speaker 2: I loved it. Thanks, I really did you have such
Speaker 2: a calming soothing way of putting things to and making
Speaker 2: you think.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm so glad you feel that way. Thanks Darren.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you found your toothbrush and are settling in.
Speaker 1: So everybody take care, Samantha tell them what to do.
Speaker 2: Have a great week everyone, whether you're in the past, present,
Speaker 2: or future, and don't forget as always to be the
Speaker 2: light for yourself and others.
Speaker 3: Take care everyone.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening to Psychic Teachers, your podcast for seekers,
Speaker 2: light workers, mystics, and magical thinkers. If you like the show,
Speaker 2: please tell a friend or leave us a review wherever
Speaker 2: you listen to your podcast. For more information, check out
Speaker 2: our Facebook page Psychic Teachers, or our websites Samantha Fay
Speaker 2: dot com and Deb Bowen dot com. Thanks for listening
Speaker 2: and have a great week.