Speaker 1: Out of this door might come something, or we might
send something through it.
Speaker 2: You know, when you first read me that quote, I
thought it was from a movie.
Speaker 1: It sounds like right. It sounds like the opening line
to some huge, you know, sci fi blockbuster exactly.
Speaker 2: Or like a piece of found footage, the last entry
in a scientist journal before everything goes wrong. It's got
that ominous quality, it really does.
Speaker 1: But it isn't fiction, and that's the unsettling part. That's
a direct recorded quote from a man named Sergio Bertolucci.
Speaker 2: And just so everyone's clear at who that is. We're
not talking about some fringe blogger, No, not at all.
Speaker 1: He was the director of Research and Scientific Computing at CERN,
a top level guy. He was right there at the
heart of the operation.
Speaker 2: And when he talked about this door, he wasn't being poetic.
He wasn't talking about opening the door to new knowledge
in a Metica oracle sense.
Speaker 1: Now. He was being shockingly literal. He was talking about
the Large Hadron Collider, the LHC, the biggest, most powerful,
most expensive machine humanity has ever built.
Speaker 2: And he was specific about the timing too, which is
what I find so chilling.
Speaker 1: So specific he said, they could hold this door open
for a fedder and get this number ten to the
power of negnever twenty six seconds.
Speaker 2: It's a number that doesn't really mean anything to the
human brain. It's a concept, not a length.
Speaker 1: Of time, right, What even is that? It's a decimal
point than twenty five zeros and then a one.
Speaker 2: It's a moment so infinitesimally brief that it barely exists
by our standards. It's like a single frame in a
movie that runs for the entire age of the universe.
Speaker 1: But his claim, and this is the part that I'm
not gonna lie. It's been digging into my brain ever
since we started this research. His claim was that during
that tiny, violent.
Speaker 2: Fracture of a moment, they could peer through.
Speaker 1: They could peer through, they could see what was on
the other side, or and here's a kicker, they could
pull something out or push something.
Speaker 2: In, which leads to the central question of this whole thing,
doesn't it.
Speaker 1: It has to what if they did it? What if
they actually successfully opened that door or back in two
thousand and eight, and.
Speaker 2: Maybe the more important question is what if they couldn't
get it fully closed again? Or what if just the
act of opening it fundamentally changed the room we were
all standing in.
Speaker 1: Welcome to thrilling threads. Today we are pulling out a
string that, well, it might unravel the very fabric of
the reality you think you're living in.
Speaker 2: That sounds dramatic, but I think by the end of
this you'll see it might not be dramatic enough.
Speaker 1: We're looking at a convergence, a perfect storm of high
energy physics, these strange, unexplainable memory phenomena that millions of
people are experiencing, and the very real possibility that our
world ended, or at least shifted somewhere around two thousand
and eight.
Speaker 2: I know, I know, just hearing that, it sounds impossible.
I can feel you listening right now, maybe rolling your eyes.
It has all the hallmarks of a wild conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: Totally. I would have been right there with you a
month ago.
Speaker 2: But when you start digging into the sources we've compiled,
and we're talking insider testimonies from credentialed scientists, we're talking
about actual court documents from two thousand and eight that
tried to stop this thing. I honestly had no idea
those even existed.
Speaker 1: I didn't either.
Speaker 2: And then you add in thousands of data points on
collective memory. You have to stop and ask the question,
what if your memories aren't the things that are wrong?
Speaker 1: What if reality is what changed and we're just the
ones who remember what it was like before.
Speaker 2: We are diving deep into what people call the CERN conspiracy,
but also into the Mandela effect and this core idea
that we might be living in a slightly different timeline
than the one we were born into. I'm here to
try and parse the physics from the fiction, or maybe
find where they overlap.
Speaker 1: And I'm your host, and I am I'm ready for this,
but I'm also frankly a little bit terrified of where
this thread leads.
Speaker 2: Then let's start at the beginning. We have to understand
the machine. You can't understand the BITE if you don't
understand the Beast.
Speaker 1: Okay, yes, the Beast. CERN the European Organization for Nuclear Research.
Most people have a vague idea. It's in Switzerland, right.
Speaker 2: Switzerland and France. Actually the main site is near Geneva,
but the machine itself is so large it straddles the border.
It's an international project.
Speaker 1: And their main event, the star of the show is
the large Hadron collider the LHC. When they say large,
what are we really talking about?
Speaker 2: We are talking about a scale that is genuinely hard
to comprehend. Forget a lab bench, forget a big building.
Picture a circular tunnel like a subway system. Okay, now
imagine that tunnel is twenty seven kilometers around. That's about
seventeen miles in circumference.
Speaker 1: Seventeen miles, so if you wanted to walk it.
Speaker 2: You'd be walking for five or six hours easily. And
that entire seventeen mile ring is buried deep underground, about
one hundred meters or over three hundred feet down.
Speaker 1: Why so deep? Is that just for safety? Like if
it blows up, the dirt will contain it.
Speaker 2: That's part of it. Sure, containing any potential radiation is important,
but the main reason is shielding. They're trying to conduct
the most sensitive experiments imaginable.
Speaker 1: So they're hiding from what cosmic.
Speaker 2: Rays, the constant shower of particles from the Sun from distance, supernovae,
our amosphere excess for most of it. But for what
they're doing, even a single stray particle from space could
ruin an experiment. Burying it three hundred feet down uses
the Earth itself as a giant shield.
Speaker 1: So they have this pristine seventeen mile racetrack underground. What
are they racing?
Speaker 2: Protons mostly or heavy ions. They take these fundamental particles,
inject them into two separate beam pipes, and then they
use thousands of incredibly powerful superconducting magnets to accelerate them.
How fast I mean we're talking fast. The number is
ninety nine point nine nine one percent the speed of light.
Speaker 1: That's basically the speed of light. That seems impossible.
Speaker 2: It's close as you can get without breaking physics. At
that speed. The protons whip around that seventeen mile track
over eleven thousand times per second.
Speaker 1: Eleven thousand times a second. Wow.
Speaker 2: Okay, and then comes the main event. They had these
two beams of particles going in opposite directions at nearly
the speed of light, and at specific points in the
ring they use magnets to steer them into each other.
Speaker 1: They crash them head on a demolition derby for atoms.
Speaker 2: That's a perfect way to put it, and the energy
released in those collisions is immense. The whole point is
to recreate, for a fraction of a second, the conditions
that existed just after the big bang.
Speaker 1: They're making many big bangs in a tunnel under.
Speaker 2: Switzerland in a very very controlled way. Yes, they're trying
to see what the universe is made of at its
most fundamental level. They have these gigantic detectors stories high
built around the collision points just to take pictures of
the subatomic debris that flies out.
Speaker 1: And this is how they found the Higgs boson, right,
the god particle exactly.
Speaker 2: That was in twenty twelve. It was a monumental achievement.
The Higgs particle was the missing piece of what's called
the standard model of particle physics. Finding it was a
huge victory. It proved their theories were right.
Speaker 1: A triumph for science. Everyone celebrated, everyone celebrated.
Speaker 2: But the sources we're looking at today suggest that in
the process of finding that particle they might have stumbled
upon something else or done something on something they didn't
put in the press release.
Speaker 1: And this is where it gets weird. This is where
we have to bring in doctor Astrod Stucklberger.
Speaker 2: Yes, because this is the point where the story usually
veers off into pure speculation from anonymous internet forums. But
she's different.
Speaker 1: She is very different. This isn't some random person. Doctor
Stuckelberger is a Swiss scientist. She's worked for the World
Health Organization. She's taught at the University of Geneva. She's
an insider in that whole Geneva international community.
Speaker 2: She's not on the outside looking in. She's in the
room where it happens, so to speak. She has credentials,
she has a reputation.
Speaker 1: And she tells a story in our source material that
is well, it's just startling. She recounts being at a
formal meeting, some kind of dinner or event, and she
found herself sitting with two physicists who worked at CERNE.
Speaker 2: One from the main Geneva site, one from a partner
facility in Portugal.
Speaker 1: I believe right. And she saw her opportunity, and she
asked them a question. And the way she phrased it
is so important it is.
Speaker 2: She didn't ask are there other dimensions?
Speaker 1: No, she did ask is it theoretically possible? She leans
in and asks how many dimensions are officially living in
the cern?
Speaker 2: Officially living like it's common knowledge among the staff, Like
she was asking how many floors are in the building exactly.
Speaker 1: It implies a baseline of knowledge and their answer. They
didn't laugh, they didn't look confused.
Speaker 2: The answered immediately and they both said the same.
Speaker 1: Thing, seventeen seventeen. Okay, hold on, let's unpack that, because
my brain doesn't work that way. I live in three
dimensions left, right, forward, back up down the.
Speaker 2: Three spatial dimensions.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's the fourth one, right, that's what Einstein said,
So I can comprehend four dimensions. That's the reality I experience.
Where in God's name are the other thirteen coming from?
Speaker 2: So this is where mainstream theoretical physics actually does get
pretty wild. To make all the math work, especially to
unite gravity with quantum mechanics, theories like string theory and
m theory require extra dimensions.
Speaker 1: I've heard of string theory. It's the idea that particles
are just tiny vibrating.
Speaker 2: In a nutshell. Yes, but for the vibrations of those
strains to create all the different particles we see, they
need more room to vibrate. They need more dimensions. Usually
the theories call for ten or eleven total dimensions.
Speaker 1: Okay, so ten or eleven is already a lot, But
they said seventeen. That's not ten.
Speaker 2: It's not it's a very specific and much higher number
and the was Stuckelberger describes their tone, it wasn't that
well our theory suggests there could be. It was a
statement of fact. To them. It was operational knowledge. We
are working with seventeen dimensions.
Speaker 1: That confidence is what gets me. It makes it sound
less like a theory and more like an engineering schematic,
like they have a map of these other places.
Speaker 2: And if you have a map and you have a
machine powerful enough to punch a hole in.
Speaker 1: The paper, then you connect this back to Sergio Bridgelucci's
quote about opening a door. It stops being in metaphor entirely.
Speaker 2: It becomes a literal description of a function of the machine.
If you're operating in a seventeen dimensional space, opening a
door between say our familiar four dimensions and dimension number
eight becomes a technical procedure.
Speaker 1: And that's what has people so freaked out. The idea
that with the energies they're using, which are concentrations of
power that don't exist naturally anywhere in our solar system,
they are powerful enough to destabilize the barriers between these
states of being.
Speaker 2: They are, as one source put it, punching a hole
in the fabric of space time with a very hot needle.
Speaker 1: And you know this wasn't just a concern for theorists
after the fact. The fear was there from the very beginning,
before they even flip the switch.
Speaker 2: The legal panic of two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: Yes, I remember seeing headlines about this back then, but
I kind of dismissed it. You know, you see lawsuit
to stop science and you think it's just luddites who
are afraid of progress.
Speaker 2: But it was more serious than that. The lawsuits falled
in both the US and in Europe weren't just from
random people. One of the lead plaintiffs was a man
named Walter Wagner. His job was literally nuclear safety officer.
He understood risk assessment for high energy events.
Speaker 1: So what was he afraid of? Specifically, not just a
big explosion.
Speaker 2: It was much much weirder and more terrifying. The first
fear was the creation of stable, microscopic black holes.
Speaker 1: Little black holes.
Speaker 2: Yes. The idea is that the collisions would be so
energetic they could compress matter so densely it would collapse
into a black hole. Now, standard physics Stephen Hawking's work
says these should evaporate almost instantly.
Speaker 1: Right Hawking radiation.
Speaker 2: But Wagner and his group were worried about the what if.
What if the theory is wrong? What if one of
these micro black holes doesn't evaporate. What if it's stable.
What happens then, Well, it would have mass and gravity.
It would fall through the floor of the collider, through
the three hundred feet of Earth, and head straight for
the center of the planet, and it would just start
eating slowly, particle by particle, consuming the Earth from the
core outwards.
Speaker 1: That is a uniquely horrifying way for the world to end,
not with a bang, but with a gulp.
Speaker 2: But that wasn't even their biggest fear.
Speaker 1: It gets that's worse.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah. The other thing they were worried about was
something called a strange lit.
Speaker 1: A strange lit it sounds almost cute.
Speaker 2: It is the opposite of cute. A strange lit is
a hypothetical clump of matter made of strange quirks. The
theory is that strange matter might be the most stable
form of matter in the universe, more stable than the
normal protons and neutrons that make up well everything. So
the fair is, if you create a stable strange lit
and it comes into contact with normal matter like the
wall of the detector or an air molecule. It could
trigger a conversion, a chain.
Speaker 1: Reaction, a chain reaction of what.
Speaker 2: It would convert the normal matter it touches into more
strange matter, which would then touch other matter and convert that.
It'd be an exponential planet wide conversion event that turns
the entire Earth into a hot, dead lump of strange matter.
Speaker 1: The Ice nine scenario from Kurt Vonnegut's book precisely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a single seed that crystallizes the whole planet into
something else, the end of everything in an instant.
Speaker 1: So these are the stakes. These are the things that
a nuclear safety expert was suing to prevent. And what
did the courts say?
Speaker 2: This is the crucial detail our sources uncovered. The courts
threw the cases out, But they didn't throw them out
on the merits of the science.
Speaker 1: What do you mean.
Speaker 2: They never issued a ruling that said we have reviewed
the evidence and we find that the LHC is safe.
They didn't do that. The US court dismissed the case
on jurisdictional grounds.
Speaker 1: Wait on a technicality.
Speaker 2: Yes, they essentially said, this machine is in Europe. We
are a court in Hawaii. We have no authority to
tell the European Organization what to do.
Speaker 1: So they didn't say it was safe, They just said
they couldn't stop it.
Speaker 2: That's the nuance. The green light wasn't a safety certification
from an outside body. It was a legal shrug, and
so with the legal challenges.
Speaker 1: Out of the way, they turned it on. And this
is where we have to look at the calendar, because
the timing of when this all happened and when the
world started to feel weird, it's just too perfect to
be a coincidence.
Speaker 2: The correlation is striking. The sources map it out very clearly.
For US September tenth, two thousand and eight, the LHC
circulates its first beam of protons. The machine is officially online.
Speaker 1: Okay, two thousand and eight.
Speaker 2: Now, they had a pretty big setback just nine days later.
A faulty electrical connection between two magnets melted, causing a
massive leak of liquid helium. It was a big mass,
caused a lot of damage.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't running full power right away.
Speaker 2: No. It took them over a year to do the
repairs and upgrades, but by November of two thousand and
nine they were back in business. They achieved their first
recorded proton collisions, and through twenty ten they just kept
ramping up the energy higher and higher.
Speaker 1: So the real high energy action starts around late two
thousand and nine, early twenty ten.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Now, what else happened in two thousand and nine?
Speaker 1: This is it? This is the moment.
Speaker 2: A paranormal researcher and writer named Fiona Broom is at
a convention greg and conn She's talking with people and
discovers that many of them share her distinct memory of
Nelson Mandela dying in prison in the nineteen.
Speaker 1: Eighties, a memory that is in our current reality completely.
Speaker 2: False, completely, and she realizes this is a widespread phenomenon.
She starts a website to document it, and she gives
it a name. She calls it the Mandela Effect, coined in.
Speaker 1: Two thousand and nine, right as the most powerful reality
bending machine in history is being turned on.
Speaker 2: Is it a coincidence? Maybe, But for the theorists, this
is the smoking gun. You have the cause and the
effect happening in the same year.
Speaker 1: And we have to be really clear about what the
Mandel effect is because people dismiss it so easily. Skeptics
just say, oh, people have bad.
Speaker 2: Memories, and that's a fair starting point. But this isn't
just bad memory. Forgetting your anniversary is bad memory.
Speaker 1: That's a lack of information, right, it's a blank space
in your head.
Speaker 2: The Mandela effect isn't a blank space. It's the opposite.
It's the presence of a vivid, detailed, incorrect piece of
information that is shared by a massive group of otherwise
unconnected people.
Speaker 1: The Nelson Mandela example is the perfect one. People don't
just vaguely think he died. They remember seeing it on
the news, they remember the funeral broadcasts, they remember his
wife giving speeches. It's a complete narrative, a.
Speaker 2: Narrative that exists in the minds of millions, but not
in any history book. He was released from prison, became president,
and died a celebrated hero in twenty thirteen.
Speaker 1: So the theory that connects these two events, the LHC
turning on and the Mendela effect being named, is that
it's not a memory error at all.
Speaker 2: The theory is that it's a symptom. It's evidence that
our consciousness has been shifted, that we jumped from the
timeline where Mandela died in prison to this one where
he didn't, and all we brought with us was the
memory of the way things used to be.
Speaker 1: So let's get into the evidence, the glitches, the little
details that just feel wrong. The sources gave us a
huge list, and some of these they genuinely made me angry,
like my own brain was gaslating me.
Speaker 2: Let's run through the Where do you want to start?
Speaker 1: We have to start with the monopoly man Ridge, Uncle Pennybags.
I want everyone listening right now to close your eyes
and picture him. Top ATXO came now.
Speaker 2: It's on his face, a monoicle. Almost everyone says a monoicle.
It's part of the archetype, the Gilded age tycoon.
Speaker 1: He does not have one. He has never ever, in
any version of the game, had a monocle.
Speaker 2: It's so jarring when you look it up. His face
looks naked without it.
Speaker 1: It looks wrong. But this is where it gets crazy.
The source material points out what they call residue, little
fossils left over from the old timeline.
Speaker 2: The Ace Ventura Pet Detective movie, Yes.
Speaker 1: The Jim Carrey movie from nineteen ninety four. There is
a scene where Ace is at a fancy party and
he confronts this pompous guy who's wearing a tuxedo, and
what's on the guy's face monocle a monocle, and Ace
mocks him, called him the monopoly guy and then punches him.
The entire joke, the whole cultural reference only works if
the audience knows that the monopoly man wears a monocle.
Speaker 2: It's a fascinating point. If that association didn't exist in
nineteen ninety four, the joke would fall flat. It's like
a comedic fossil. It's proof that in the reality where
that script was written existed.
Speaker 1: The reality changed, but the pop culture reference to the
old reality somehow survived the shift. Okay, next one. This
one gets a lot of people. Pikachu, the face of Pokemon.
Speaker 2: Describe as tail. It's yellow, it's shaped like a lightning bolt,
and the tip is black.
Speaker 1: A lot of people will say with one hundred percent
certainty that it has a black tip.
Speaker 2: It does not. It has never had a black tip.
His ears have black tips. The tail is solid yellow
except for a bit of brown at the base. And
this one is interesting from a psychological perspective because you
could argue it's schema confusion. The brain sees black tips
on the ears and just mistakenly applies that pattern to
the tail as well.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's a plausible counter argument. But why does everyone
make the same mistake? Why not a brown tip to
match the base? Why specifically black? And why do people
have memories of coloring it in that way in coloring books.
Speaker 2: The consistency of the error is what's so hard to
explain away.
Speaker 1: This one is my personal white whale. The Fruit of
the Loom logo the underwear brand. You know the logo.
It's a pile of fruit, apples, grapes, some lee ves.
What is behind the fruit?
Speaker 2: There's a cornicopia, a wicker horn of plenty.
Speaker 1: I can see it. I can see the woven texture
of the basket, brown, curving up to the right. It
is burned into my brain.
Speaker 2: It was never there.
Speaker 1: It was never there. If you look at their logo
history going back over one hundred years, it's always just
been the fruit, no basket, no cornicopia.
Speaker 2: That one actually gives me a feeling of vertigo. It
feels fundamentally wrong.
Speaker 1: It's so wrong, and the residue on this one is powerful.
People report in huge numbers that they learned the word
cornicopia from that logo. As a child, they ask their
parents what's that horn thing? And the parents said, that's
a cornicopia.
Speaker 2: How can thousands of people share that identical, specific childhood
memory about an object that didn't exist. That's not just
schema confusion. That's a created event.
Speaker 1: Let's do a lightning round. Pop culture mismatches C three
po from Star Wars.
Speaker 2: All Gold, Yeah, everyone remembers him as being all gold.
Speaker 1: He has a silver leg, the right one from the
knee down. It's been there since nineteen seventy seven.
Speaker 2: It's shocking when you go back and look. It's not subtle,
not at all.
Speaker 1: Mickey Mouse, what's holding up his red shorts?
Speaker 2: Suspenders?
Speaker 1: Nope, just two big white buttons. No suspenders ever.
Speaker 2: Tinkerbell in the classic Disney intro flying over the Castle.
Speaker 1: She flies up, waves her wand and dots the eye
and the Disney logo with a spark of magic.
Speaker 2: She doesn't. She flies in an arc over the castle
and the words appear. No eye is ever dotted. That
entire visual is a collective fabrication.
Speaker 1: And what about the Mona Lisa? We all know the painting.
Does she smiling or she not well?
Speaker 2: The whole mystery is her enigmatic expression, right. It's kind
of a half smile, maybe a smirk. It's ambiguous.
Speaker 1: In this reality, she is clearly unambiguously smiling. It's not
subtle at all. But countless people remember her being completely
emotionless or even frowning, which is what made her expression
so mysterious in the first place.
Speaker 2: So the very thing that made the painting famous has been.
Speaker 1: Altered, it seems so. Then there's the movie that doesn't exist,
the movie Shazam.
Speaker 2: Oh, the Sinbad genie movie.
Speaker 1: Exactly thousands, maybe millions of people from the nineties have
a clear memory of a comedy movie starring the comedian
Sinbad as a bumbling genie named Shazam.
Speaker 2: I remember my friends talking about it. I feel like
I've seen the video cassette cover in a Blockbuster orange
and purple.
Speaker 1: It does not exist. It was never made. People say
they're confusing it with the movie Kazam, which starred Shaquille
O'Neill as a genie.
Speaker 2: But people who remember Shazam are adamant. They say, no,
I know Shaq's movie. This was different, This was Sindbad.
Sinbad himself has gone on record multiple times, saying he
never made that movie.
Speaker 1: It's a phantom film that lives only in our collective memory.
Now let's talk about the movie lines. This is where
it gets really unsettling, because these quotes are part of
our culture.
Speaker 2: They're on t shirts, they're memes.
Speaker 1: Big One Star Wars, The Empire strikes back. Darth Vader
reveals the truth to Luke.
Speaker 2: What does he say, Luke, I am your father.
Speaker 1: It's one of the most famous lines in cinema hit
except he never says Luke. The line is no, I
am your father.
Speaker 2: Wow. That changes the whole rhythm of it. Luke, I
am your father is a pronouncement. No I am your
father is just a rebuttal.
Speaker 1: It's so much less powerful or snow white. The Evil
Queen goes to her.
Speaker 2: Mirror, dear mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of
them all?
Speaker 1: It's magic mirror on the wall. No way, Yes, wait,
go watch the clip Magic mirror Silence at the Lambs,
Hannibal Lecter's first meeting with Clarice Starling.
Speaker 2: Hello, Clarice Chilling.
Speaker 1: He never says it. He says good morning, but he
never says that iconic line in that way.
Speaker 2: That's impossible. That line is the whole character.
Speaker 1: The famous line from Forrest Gump. My mom always said
life is like a box of chocolates.
Speaker 2: In the movie, he says life was like a box
of chocolates past tense. But that doesn't make any sense.
The metaphor is about the present and future. You never
know what you're gonna get. Why would he use the
past tense.
Speaker 1: It's chrammatically awkward. It feels like a bad edit, like
reality was patched, but the patch has bugs in it, and.
Speaker 2: The spellings Berenstain bears. How do you spell it.
Speaker 1: B e r e n s t e i N.
Speaker 2: Nope, it's b e r e n s t a
i n. It always has been in this timeline.
Speaker 1: I refuse to accept that one. I can see the
E on the book cover in my childhood bedroom.
Speaker 2: Looney Tunes, the cartoons c.
Speaker 1: O nns like cartoons.
Speaker 2: It's t u n e s as in musical tunes.
Mary melodies looney Tunes. It was always a musical reference.
Speaker 1: So we have all these glitches, dozens hundreds of them,
tiny little details of reality that are just wrong. How
do we explain this if we take it seriously? What
is the mechanism. This brings us to the theories, and
our sources point to one particularly interesting idea from a
kid named Max Laffin. He's been called a prodigy, the
world's smartest kid, and.
Speaker 2: He has a theory that connects it directly back to
the LHC. He doesn't think it was an accident. He
thinks they altered a fundamental constant of the universe.
Speaker 1: Specifically, he says, the experiments at Cerne altered the weight
of a single.
Speaker 2: Election, and that sounds incredibly small and insignificant. An electron
weighs almost nothing.
Speaker 1: Right, who cares?
Speaker 2: But physics cares. The entire universe is a beautifully balanced equation.
The values of these fundamental constants, the speed of light,
the charge of an electron, the strength of gravity, are
tuned with impossible precision. If you change one of them,
even by a microscopic amount, the.
Speaker 1: Whole equation becomes unbalanced.
Speaker 2: You through the entire universe out of balance. Yea and
loss theory is that this tiny shift was enough to
knock us sideways, to push our entire reality, our collective consciousness,
into a neighboring parallel universe.
Speaker 1: So the multiverse theory which is actually a pretty mainstream
idea in physics.
Speaker 2: Now, oh absolutely, the idea that there are an infinite
number of parallel realities is taken very seriously. Think of
them like pages in a book, stacked infinite tesimbly close
to each other. We were living our lives on page four.
Speaker 1: Concern with its unprecedented energy was like poking the book
with the red hot needles so hard that it punched through.
Speaker 2: The paper, and we all bled through onto page five.
Speaker 1: And page five is almost identical to page four. It's
like a ninety nine point nine percent match.
Speaker 2: That's the key. The laws of physics are the same,
history is mostly the same. You're still you, I'm still me,
but the tiny details are different. On page five, the
peanut butter is called Jeff, not Jiffy. The bears are
spelled with an A. Vader says no, not luke.
Speaker 1: Which explains why the world feels familiar. But just like
you came home to your house but someone moved all
the furniture one inch to the left. You can't prove it,
but you feel it in your bones. Something isn't right, And.
Speaker 2: Our consciousness, having originated on page four, retains the memory
of the way things were. Our brains are the only
record of the previous universe. The physical world of page
five says we're wrong, but our internal record screams that
were right.
Speaker 1: Okay, we have to play devil's advocate here. We have
to give this skeptical psychological explanation. It's fair shake. The
source material calls it the perception illusion, right.
Speaker 2: This is the argument that this is all in our
heads and nothing due to particle physics. The brain is
not a perfect recording device. It's a suggestion engine.
Speaker 1: They use. That Coca cola can example, it's an optical illusion.
You can find it online. It's a picture of a
coke can that looks red. Your brain swears it's red, But.
Speaker 2: If you use a tool to analyze the actual pixels
in the image, you find there is not a single
red pixel in it. It's all grays and science. Your
brain paints the red on top of it because it
knows from past experience that coke cans are red.
Speaker 1: So your brain isn't showing you reality, it's showing you
what it expects reality to be exactly.
Speaker 2: So the argument is, we expect a rich old timey
character to have a monocle, so our brain gives the
monopoly man one. We expect a pile of fruit to
come into basket, so we add a cornucopia to the
fruit of the loom logo. It's confabulation. It's our brain
filling in the gaps with plausible information that makes sense for.
Speaker 1: Some of them. I can see that, but it feels
too convenient for others. It doesn't explain the specificity. Why
does everyone fill in the gap with the exact same monocle?
Why not a cigar or a top hat?
Speaker 2: And it really struggles to explain the linguistic changes. Magic
mirror on the wall versus mirror mirror. One isn't more
plausible than the other. They're just different words. There's no
psychological gap to fill in. It's just a memory of
a different script.
Speaker 1: That's where the purely psychological exclanation feels a little thin
to me. It explains the general mechanism of false memory,
but not the bizarrely specific and shared nature of these examples.
Speaker 2: The consistency is the mystery.
Speaker 1: So let's zoom out again. Let's talk about the place,
because where cern is built is not random. It's not
just some flat, convenient piece of land.
Speaker 2: No it's very specific. The official reasons are you know,
Mundane Geneva is politically neutral, it's centrally located, the ground
is stable for construction.
Speaker 1: But the sources point to a much stranger geological context.
The LHC Ring is built right at the foot of
the Mont Blanc Massive, which is.
Speaker 2: The highest mountain range in Western Europe, a huge concentration
of mass in geological pressure.
Speaker 1: And the ground there is riddled with complex fault lines
and crucially, massive deposits of quartz crystal.
Speaker 2: In quartz under pressure exhibits a property called the piezoelectric effect.
Speaker 1: Right you squeeze it, it creates electricity. It's how the
sparker on a gas grill works exactly.
Speaker 2: So what you have naturally in that region is a
giant mountain range putting immense tectonic pressure on a huge
bed of quartz crystals.
Speaker 1: Which means the entire area is a natural geological battery,
constantly generating its own electromagnetic fields.
Speaker 2: It is a geologically high energy.
Speaker 1: Location, and that is where humanity decided to build its
seventeen mile long super cooled superconducting electromagnet.
Speaker 2: It seems like an odd choice if all you wanted
was stable ground. You're building an incredibly sensitive machine that
manipulates electromagnetic fields directly on top of a giant, unpredictable
natural electromagnetic generator.
Speaker 1: Unless you're doing it on purpose, unless you need that
natural energy.
Speaker 2: That's the speculation. The source drug from the location of
Cern to the location of ancient megalithic sites, the Pyramids
of Giza, Stonehenge, Machu Pichu.
Speaker 1: The energy grid or lay line theory, the idea that
these ancient sites weren't built in random places.
Speaker 2: They were built on specific nodes, intersections of magnetic lines,
astronomical alignments, geological features. The ancients, this theory goes, knew
where the Earth's energy was strongest, and they built their
temples and observatories there to tap into it.
Speaker 1: So is CERN a modern temple, a technological stonehenge built
on an ancient power spot to amplify whatever it is
they're trying to do.
Speaker 2: It's a compelling thought that modern science, knowingly or not,
was drawn to the same kind of energetic location that
ancient mystics were.
Speaker 1: It all leads to this final, really troubling philosophical point
that the sources raise something they called a trust gap.
Speaker 2: The verification problem, and for me, this is the core
of the whole issue.
Speaker 1: Explain it.
Speaker 2: Think about what science at this level asks of us
the general public. Cern publishes a paper, they say we've
discovered the Higgs boson, or we're investigating dark matter, or
we're creating quantum wormholes. Can you personally verify any of that?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. I don't have a multi billion dollar particle collider.
I can't see a quark. I wouldn't even know how
to begin to read their raw data.
Speaker 2: None of us can. We lack the tools, the training,
the access. So when they tell us about the nature
of the invisible world, we have two choices believe them
or don't, but we can't check their work.
Speaker 1: So trust replaces verification.
Speaker 2: That's the phrase. It becomes a matter of faith. It's
a modern scientific priesthood. They perform the rituals in their
underground sanctuary, and then they come up and tell arrested
us what they found. They tell us what reality is
made of, and.
Speaker 1: We just have to nod and accept it. And when
they say, don't worry, the machine is perfectly safe, we
have to trust them. When they say, no, we didn't
accidentally shift everyone into a parallel universe. We are forced
to take their word for it.
Speaker 2: Even if our own senses, our own memories are screaming
that something is wrong. We are told to trust the
instrument readouts over our own lived experience.
Speaker 1: And now they want to build a bigger one. The
sources mention the plans for a future circular collider.
Speaker 2: Yes, the FCC a ninety one kilometer ring. It's almost
sixty miles round, nearly four times the size and many,
many times the power of the current LAC.
Speaker 1: If the seventeen mile ring was enough to knock us
one page over in the book of reality, what does
a sixty mile ring do?
Speaker 2: Does it throw us ten pages over one hundred?
Speaker 1: Or does it just rip the book to shreds.
Speaker 2: We don't know, And that's the point. We are being
asked to trust them again with even higher stakes, based
on a track record that for many people includes the
complete destabilization of their perceived reality.
Speaker 1: So let's try and wrap this all up. We have
a machine built by its own director's admission to open
doors to other dimensions, a.
Speaker 2: Machine located on what could be considered a natural energy
amplifier on the planet.
Speaker 1: Its activation timeline aligns perfectly with the mass collective excit
experience of memory glitches and a feeling that the world is.
Speaker 2: Off and it all operates in a realm of physics
so complex that ninety nine point nine percent of the
world's population has no choice but to simply trust what
the scientists say is happening.
Speaker 1: What it suggests is that reality is not the fixed,
solid thing we think it is. It's malleable, it's editable,
and maybe, just maybe someone edited it in two thousand
and eight.
Speaker 2: And this leads to the final, most profound provocation in
all of this. If reality was changed, where did the
evidence of the old world go?
Speaker 1: Right? If the berenstainin Bear's books were always spelled with
an A, then every copy in every library should.
Speaker 2: Have in A, and they do. If the Fruit of
the Loom logo never had a cornucopia, then every old
T shirt in your attic should be cornucopia free.
Speaker 1: The physical evidence would shift along with reality itself, because
it's all part of the same fabric. The DVDs, the books,
the Internet archives, they would all reflect the new page
five reality.
Speaker 2: So what's the only thing that could survive this show?
It's the only thing that isn't purely.
Speaker 1: Physical consciousness, human memory.
Speaker 2: Our minds might be the black box flight recorder from
the old universe, the only record of the crash, the
only proof that page four ever exists.
Speaker 1: Is so we're where are the ghosts? We are walking
artifacts from a timeline that has been erased.
Speaker 2: It's a staggering thought.
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay, I think I think that's a lot to process. Yeah,
but we can't end this without turning the question over
to you, the person listening to this.
Speaker 2: Right now, we've laid out the evidence from our sources.
We've listed the examples, the monopoly man's monocle, the fruit
of the loom, cornucopia. Luke, I am your father.
Speaker 1: I need you to just stop for a second. Don't
google it, don't look it up. The internet will only
tell you the current version of things. Just check in
with your own memory. What do you remember?
Speaker 2: Do your memories line up with the official history books
of this reality or do they align with this other
phantom timeline that so many of us seem to share.
Speaker 1: We have a comment and tell us do you think
we shifted realities in two thousand and eight? Is cer
responsible or is this all just a grand fascinating trick
of the human mind. We really want to read your theories.
Speaker 2: Because whatever the answer is, it means the world is
a much stranger and more mysterious place than we're told.
Speaker 1: It certainly is. Thanks for listening to thrilling threads. Keep
pulling the string.