Emmy Vadnais (3:42)

We're grateful to have you back and as A cognitive neuroscientist, you are really interested in understanding, love, time, technology. You've conducted research, research studies. What had you become interested in? This research you conducted, which we're going to be discussing today, which is the replication and characterization of the causally ambiguous duration sorting, or CADS effect. It looks at photons and the relationship to time.

Julia Mossbridge (4:15)

Yeah, causally ambiguous. So what that means is I don't frigging know. That's a fancy way of saying I don't know what's causing what. And when you're looking at the data, it's pretty hard to figure out what's causing what. So the ambiguity is right there in the name.

Emmy Vadnais (4:36)

What exactly were you hoping to find with this study and what motivated you to do it?

Julia Mossbridge (4:41)

So my training's in neuroscience, not physics. After graduate school, however, my father's a physicist and I of course had read like, I guess maybe of course isn't the right phrase, but anyway, I had read Richard Feynman and some other physicists and some of the classic books like how the Hippies Saved Physics, things like this. So I was introduced to the basics of the double slit experiment and sort of the mystery of that. And so after college and I think after graduate school, actually after I got my PhD, I kept thinking I would read different books and they would explain the double slit experiment in a different way. Each time basically the same. But the explanation for why a single particle, whether or particle wave, why it would interfere with itself, or why it would show an interference pattern when you're not detecting which of the two slits it would go through struck me as a little assumptive. So the assumption was that it must be interfering with itself over space, as if it went through slit A and slit B at the same time. And that it's like when I was a kid playing in the bathtub. I used to play with waves in the water and set off wave motion in the water with my fingers. I don't know, I think a lot of people do this and so don't know. You would see the waves interact as they began to near one another. And that's an interference pattern. And that's the kind of pattern you would see, right, if you sent a single particle, and you're sure it's a single particle down this tube towards these slits. So you would see as if there were two waves interacting with each other, but that would build up over time. It wasn't like you saw it when one single particle hit the end. Some detector sheet over here that's detecting the particle, that's not it at all. It's that it would build up over time. So it's like it was showing you that there was this interference. So I agreed. Okay, so there's this interference. Why do we assume that it's interference over space? Why can't it be interference over time? It's pretty weird to say. I mean, in our 3D reality, where we sort of think we understand where things should be like billiard balls, even though we know that's not true, it feels pretty weird to say that a particle, a single particle, can be in two places at the same time and are actually waves and then interfere with each other. It's just as weird, but not done generally, to say that a single particle can interfere with itself over time. So in other words, single particle goes down this tube, it goes through one slit, and there's a particle in the other tube from the past or the future with which it interacts to form the interference pattern. So all I wanted to do was test this. I mean, the amazing thing is I knew that it was testable. I was thinking about it for several years, thinking, well, why isn't this tested? Because, see, I knew that if this particle going through this slit, slit A, let's say, is interfering with the particle going through slit B, then the future amount of particles available to interact will have no effect on the interference pattern if it's interference in space. But if it's interference in time, then the number of particles available to interact throughout a period of time will impact that interference pattern. Does that make sense, starting there?

Emmy Vadnais (9:18)

It does. I'm wondering if you could just to back up a moment, explain the double slit experiment for those who might not be familiar, and how you basically took it deeper. It sounds like.

Julia Mossbridge (9:30)

I don't know if I took it deeper or if I took it sideways. I think I took it sideways. The double slit experiment is this simple, simple experiment where. And I'm going to talk about the double slit single particle experiment just because it's easier to explain why it's mysterious. You can do it with multiple particles. So in the double slit single particle experiment, you're firing a photon, an electron, actually small atoms. This has been shown to be true for all of them. You're firing them at a detector sheet. So I'll do it this way. There's a tube, there's an emitter. Here's a detector. So emit single, let's say photon or electron. Emit single particle. Go down here before it gets to the detector sheet, it has to go through one of two slits. It could also just bounce against the wall and then you never detect it. A slit is just what it sounds like. It might be a square of metal or cardboard and there's these little tiny slits that are cut out of it. So a lot of those photons are just going to bounce off of the non slit areas. But since they're waves, there are some part of them might get through. And this is why this is tricky to think about, because they're both particles and waves. The detector sheet detects them like particles, little spots of light, boom, boom, one at a time. So this is going on. The emitter goes through a slit or the slits together, depending on how you interpret it. You get a detection over time. You look at the detections and you say, holy cow. When I had those two splits slits open, even though there was only one particle at a time in this tube, it looks like those particles were interfering with something that looks like themselves. And so the initial interpretation, and I think the dominant interpretation still is that they were interfering with. So it's all retro, it's all retro interpreted, but they were interfering with themselves. So that we're sort of non local going of the wave through both slits and then interfering as if it was simultaneously in two places at once. So if you cover one of the slits. So let's do the experiment now, thought experiment, we're going to cover one of the slits. You still see a little bit of an interference pattern because of the edges. But mostly you hear that, you see these detections that are right across from where the one open slit is, which is what you'd predict. Now we're going to close the other slit. You see the same thing on the other slide. Okay. So the only mysterious thing so far is that a single particle is somehow creating an interference pattern that you would expect there to be produced by multiple particles going through at the same time. But it gets weirder. And this is part of the mystery of the double slit experiment. It gets weirder because you can put a detector up at either of those two slits, slit A or slit B, you choose. But if you detect whether this particle went through that slit. Now there's no interference pattern over here on the detector side. It behaves as if only one slit is open. So it's like you have what they call collapsed to the wave function. You have told it, I'm measuring you now. And now that I'm measuring you, it forces you to be in one place at one time. And there's not going to be an interference pattern at the detector side. So that is still true. As far as I know, all that stuff is still found. But the interpretation is what I was inspired by. I was inspired by the fact that if it is. If one explanation for the interference pattern that you see at the detector sheet, if one explanation is interfering over time, then what that means is you can show that to be changed by the number of photons available in the future, assuming, like the future is an area of time that you can borrow photons from to make this interference. And so that ended up making me want to do the initial experiment, which I can describe. But did I understand? Did I. Did you understand my explanation of the double slit?

Emmy Vadnais (14:43)

I do, yes. That's helpful. I know it's been discussed many times on New thinking allowed, but I think it's helpful to hear it from your perspective because it's relevant to this study, this research that you then carried on.

Julia Mossbridge (14:55)

It's very relevant because that's what motivated me. But it turns out everything that I found may or may not have anything to do with that interpretation of the double slit. So sometimes when you realize that. Well, so when I realized that you could actually test this, I really wanted to do the experiment, but I didn't. I wasn't a physicist. I didn't know any physicists. I didn't have the equipment. I wasn't sure even if I had the equipment. I was afraid that I would use it. Wrong. You got to get trained in this stuff to use this. Well, but at the time I was at ions, I was leading the innovation lab there, and I knew Dean Radin had a double slit set up. So I said, dean, here's this idea. And he's like, yeah, you could test that. And I'm like, I know. And so I'm like, could I use your equipment? And he showed me how to use it and let me use it. I, like, would sign up for it when he wasn't using it. So my first round of the experiment was a success in that indeed, I showed that depending on the future number of photons available for interference, the interference pattern in the now looked different. Okay, so what does that explain what that looks like? Yeah.

Emmy Vadnais (16:11)

Well, it makes me wonder, how does one know how many future photons are available? Because isn't that potentially infinite?

Julia Mossbridge (16:18)

So you can actually control that as an experimental variable. And so the way the experiment was done is for each of each trial, I just said, we're going to turn this whole system on the emitter and the detector. And then for the first 30 seconds. I'm just going to measure. But at 30 seconds, I'm going to randomly select how long this thing will be on in the future. It's going to be on for 0 more seconds, 120 more seconds, 360 more seconds, whatever it is. Right. It'll use a true random number generation process to select between a bunch of alternatives for the quote unquote on time of the experiment. Then the dependent variable, which means the thing that I was looking at to see if anything changed was the first 30 seconds. What did everything look like during the first 30 seconds before this decision was made? This, if you know anything about precognition or presentiment, is exactly like a presentiment experiment, which I had just been doing for years. And that's why I thought of this. So it's like you measure something when you don't know what the future choice is going to be, but you're testing the hypothesis that the future choice that you don't know is going to affect the thing that you're measuring.

Emmy Vadnais (17:48)

Wow.

Julia Mossbridge (17:49)

Yeah. And it did. So I presented it at the American Physical Society meeting at Stanford, I think in 2014 or something, I don't know. And then someone got yelled at. That was funny. Like, like a graduate student was like, wait, I've never heard of this kind of retrocausal thing. And the professor was like, we don't talk about that. I'm like, wow, that's interesting. So. So it was controversial, but, you know, whatever.

Emmy Vadnais (18:24)

Do you have any thoughts about why that was controversial?

Julia Mossbridge (18:28)

Yeah, I mean, so physicists, like when I was in my, you know, AP physics class or whatever, I had the same experience back in the 80s that. But I think apparently it's true, true until relatively recently that physics professors and physics teachers habitually tell their students to ignore any negative T results to equations. So most physical equations are time symmetric. They'll have like maybe a positive T and a negative T that could work in the equation, but negative T is thrown out because the physicists say that's non physical. We don't see that. So it's like this endless cycle, right? We don't see that, therefore we're not going to see that, therefore don't do those experiments. Therefore if someone's talking about that, we don't see that. So it's kind of funny.

Emmy Vadnais (19:24)

Well, that's why we're so grateful for the work you're doing because you help bring consciousness and psychic intuitive functioning to the forefront where science has been very dominated by the materialists.

Julia Mossbridge (19:43)

Thank You. I also think science has been dominated by materialists. And I'm not a materialist. If anything, I'm a post materialist in that I know that the material world is important in our understanding, but I also know that there's things that are not the material world. So putting that over here, you don't have to believe in any kind of materialist or post materialist structure to understand this effect. In other words, it's just physics. It's just that the way physics is working, it's not immaterial for time to go backwards. And it's not non physical. It's just that people are taught that it's non physical. I wanted to test the hypothesis that maybe what's going on in the double slit experiment in terms of interference with a single particle is that the particle is going through one slit and that is interfering with either a past or future version of that particle. So it's interference in time rather than space. Now, since then, people have done the interference in time at a very small time scale and found that indeed you can force conditions where you can show that this is interfering in time. I was more interested in the standard interpretation and whether that could be explained, which is why I did this kind of experiment.

Emmy Vadnais (21:20)

You discovered that it is in fact what you thought was happening.

Julia Mossbridge (21:26)

Well, this is the tricky part. It is, it's like this. This happens in a lot of experiments. If it were true that this thing that these particles were interfering with themselves over time, then you should see some kind of impact in the number of future availability available particles. But just because you see some kind of impact in the number of future available particles does not mean that this is following the story of interfering with itself over time. There could be another reason that's inscrutable to us or that at least to me. And so I'm very careful about. That's why I use terms like causally ambiguous, that it's really important to say what you don't know and just describe the effect as it is. But the reason I call it causally ambiguous duration sorting is because if you describe the effect as it is, what it's doing is sorting out different durations. So I bet that doesn't make sense. So let me explain. It's like if you shine a flashlight at a wall and you're recording over there how much light is coming through and you say, okay, when such and such amount of light, you know, after, after 30 minutes of shining the light, we're going to turn it off versus after 10 seconds of shining the light, we're going to turn it off. Okay, that's. You could do that experiment. But the implication of these results is that in that first 10 seconds before you make the choice about whether it's going to just turn off right now or shine for another 29 minutes and 50 seconds before you make that choice, you would see a significant sorting out or distinction or significant difference between the photons that you're receiving over there on the wall. As if the photons that appear on the wall or that are detected are aware of the duration that's coming up. So that's the duration sorting part does that. I know this is all very weird. Like I'm not, like I'm not saying this is normal, but it complicates things in a way to talk about it as a double slit experiment. And when I talked with, you know, I met with Sir Roger Penrose, that guy once, and he said to me, what's the best evidence for precognition? Because, you know, he knew me as a someone studying precognition. I told him I thought it was presentiment and remote viewing. And he said, well, do you really think there's any evidence for retrocausality? I said, well, the best evidence I have is this effect. And I told him about this effect and he said, well, you should do it with a single slit. You don't need two slits to show this. It's really not about the interference pattern. You're trying to explain that. It's really though about some kind of other thing that's going on. And he was right and that was really helpful. So I simplified the experiment on that advice.

Emmy Vadnais (24:46)

You were wanting to understand if what was happening in the present or the soon to be past was influenced by the future.

Julia Mossbridge (24:58)

Yes. Yeah. I mean, sort of generically. That's what every experiment I do is interested in, whether it's in people or photons. In this case, I was motivated to do the experiment with photons because I thought it could relate to a different interpretation of the double slit experiment. Make sense?

Emmy Vadnais (25:19)

It does. And so do you have a new interpretation of the double slit experiment? I mean, I know you're open to possible interpretations, but how do you view it now then?

Julia Mossbridge (25:28)

I think there's a high likelihood that there's at least a component that's interfering over time and space.

Emmy Vadnais (25:35)

It sort of begs the question then of what is a photon? Which I'm curious. I would imagine you've contemplated that.

Julia Mossbridge (25:44)

Yeah.

Emmy Vadnais (25:45)

So tell us your thoughts on that.

Julia Mossbridge (25:48)

So I write about this in my New book, actually, My Weird Thoughts. If you want to. If anyone's interested in my Weird Thoughts, read my new book because it's full of my weird new thoughts.

Emmy Vadnais (25:58)

This is. Have a nice disclosure, is that right?

Julia Mossbridge (26:01)

Yeah.

Emmy Vadnais (26:01)

And we hope in the future, as your schedule allows, that we can actually do an interview on that at some point.

Julia Mossbridge (26:06)

Yeah, sure. And. But I can tell you right now sort of what I say in there in the very short chapter about photons and just more generally bosonic particles. So I'm sort of in love with the distinction between bosonic and fermionic particles. So ferromionic particles are these things like electrons, neutrons, protons, like, I mean there's a lot of them actually. Those are some examples people have heard of. They follow the rules that we're used to in 3D reality. Like if. If we may not know where the electron is, we have a probability field for the electron. But if it's here, if it is there, then no other electron with that same quantum state could be in that same position. You know, that's kind of like a billiard ball type rule, you know. So that's kind of. People are pretty comfortable with that. It's very physical in our intuitions about what physical means. But sonic particles like for instance, can be in the same place exact. At the exact same time. So the same place in spacetime, the same spot in spacetime as another bosonic particle that has exactly the same quantum state. There's. You're not going to say like over here is one and over here is another and they're just really close? No, they could be exactly. They could have exactly the same quantum state in the same space time coordinate. That sounds pretty non physical. Another non physical feature is. And this is saying the same thing in a different way. But like photons, for instance, this photon, photon A and photon B are the same photon if they have the same frequency, if they have the same momentum, and if they have the same phase or polarization. Even if this one's from 1933 was emitted from a light bulb in 1933 and this one's emitted right now, they're the same. So photons are more like stories. Photons are more like packets of energy that are like stories that they're more like mental things. I mean, in the sense that they come up when you need them.

Emmy Vadnais (28:30)

Like a light bulb with an idea.

Julia Mossbridge (28:33)

Yeah, exactly like. I'd love that. Exactly. So bosons are sort of my. And photons as an example. So another example is like the Higgs boson But photons I think about more and understand. Not anymore, but definitely don't understand. Higgs boson are more like mind in that way. And so my sort of bet for an interaction particle between mind and matter is a. Is a bosonic bet on the bosonic particles.

Emmy Vadnais (29:10)

Now, how would you define bosonic particle? Or did you just define it as something that can be at the same place as something as perceived as physical?

Julia Mossbridge (29:19)

There are certain particles that are just defined as bosonic particles because they can do that. They could have the same quantum state and occupy the same spacetime coordinate. So, okay, now they're bosonic particles. Okay, so they don't seem physical in the same way.

Emmy Vadnais (29:36)

So definitely. I feel like we're moving into the consciousness aspect of this conversation. And I'm curious with your. Your current research that you did that we're discussing here today, how is consciousness involved or what did you see with the effects that might relate to that somehow?

Julia Mossbridge (29:55)

I don't know. So I know that. Sorry.

Emmy Vadnais (30:00)

No, I love the honest answer.

Julia Mossbridge (30:02)

So I know that the whole field of consciousness studies and parapsychology and psy. People think that there's a consciousness component to this. I sort of think it's like every other experiment. Every experiment has a consciousness component. So I think it relates like every other experiment in that maybe the consciousness of the experimenter affects. But. So I really don't like using the word consciousness without defining it.

Emmy Vadnais (30:31)

Okay, let's define it

Julia Mossbridge (30:34)

because. Okay, well, so what I really see. And I. I'm sorry I'm such a complainer about this, but what I really see is that people use consciousness in two different ways and they're almost opposed. So it's worth talking about. So one is like a cosmic consciousness, like William James talked about. Like all. Everything's intermingled underground and we're all connected. And almost like. Which is almost like an unconsciousness, like something that we're not aware of, like the individual is not aware of, but that fully impacts how we behave and what we perceive. And then there's this idea of consciousness as the thing that goes away when you are in deep sleep or when you are taking a general anesthetic. And that's like the neuroscientific sort of view of consciousness, I think using the same word for something that is really a different world, the world of awareness and the world of unawareness. But high influence is a mistake, and I think it's made a lot. And so help me understand what you mean by consciousness.

Emmy Vadnais (31:51)

They're all interrelated, I think Both of those, those two of those two definitions are interrelated, right?

Julia Mossbridge (31:57)

Are they?

Emmy Vadnais (31:58)

There's something called a Glasgow Coma scale of how alert somebody is. Which one could also show is how much is somebody able to focus or pay attention to something. I understand what you're saying too about there could be something kind of running in the background that we may not always be aware of. And so I think maybe the word awareness maybe could bridge the two. Now I'm, I'm not here to definitively say one way or the other, but I, I think they're connected because simple consciousness is I am aware that I'm, I'm perceiving or I think I'm having a conversation with Julia Mossbridge right now. So that's a form of consciousness. If I were asleep, I probably, I wouldn't be doing a very good job with this at all because I would not be present and able to communicate with you.

Julia Mossbridge (32:51)

Oh, but hold on the same way verbally. Yeah. We entangle I with consciousness.

Emmy Vadnais (32:57)

Yeah.

Julia Mossbridge (32:57)

You say I wouldn't be fully present. Well, that's not really true. I mean, are you only your conscious mind?

Emmy Vadnais (33:02)

Well, again, it goes back to what we mean by.

Julia Mossbridge (33:04)

You're right.

Emmy Vadnais (33:05)

You mean by conscious, I'm awake. No, you're right, because we can connect, you know, through dreams. And this is another way of maybe, shall we say, perception.

Julia Mossbridge (33:14)

Right. It's like this unconscious thing or the thing that we are less conscious of or aware of in a different way or in an altered state. Right. Of course, if you hold like I do that the foundation of the universe is non physical, it is something beyond that. It's like a transcendent thing like love. I think of it as universal love or something.

Emmy Vadnais (33:37)

I would agree with that.

Julia Mossbridge (33:39)

Yeah. If you hold that then the question becomes uninteresting because it's like what is our personal waking. It's either the question either becomes what does our personal waking daily experience have to do with this experiment? And you're like, and you know, like whatever, like we're going to perceive it and you know, just boring answer. Or the question becomes what does the substrate, what is the informational substrate of the universe have to do with this experiment? And the answer is the same as the answer for everything else, which is everything. The informational substrate of the universe is at cause on some kind of a grand scale outside of space time. So it's interesting to think about causality outside of space time is at cause of all the things that are what we call happening here. So either way, I feel like we. Without making the distinction or defining consciousness, we end up sort of throwing everything in the same bucket and saying, oh, but it's consciousness. And it's like, oh, but it's magic. I mean, it's not very informative, you know, and so I like to stay away from that.

Emmy Vadnais (34:50)

I recently viewed your interview with Deborah Lynn Katz on this channel where you two were discussing all sorts of topics. Your work, of course, and precognition, remote viewing and. And love as well. And you two got into a point in your conversation where you're talking about love being what interconnects everything. And so I'm wondering if that is also part of this research for you as well.

Julia Mossbridge (35:19)

Yeah, that's part of all my research. I think I sort of speak about universal love and the informational substrate of the universe in one breath. Mm. Because I think I think of them as the same one is one description of how it feels to humans when you're accessing that or when you're in the flow with that, when you're aware of accessing that, you're always accessing it. That according to this idea, like, you can't help it, you're created from it. Right. According to this idea. And then the other is sort of a scientific description, or I think. I actually think human emotion is. Can. Can be very scientific. So let's just say a more physical, friendly description. Easier for physicists to grasp than this idea of love, which feels to them

Emmy Vadnais (36:17)

very,

Julia Mossbridge (36:19)

I think, far from physics. But I really. There's another thing I read about the book. I really think there needs to be a physics of love. Oh, I love that, you know, because I think love has a very clear definition. I think love is that which connects. We don't really have a name, a generic name for that which connects. Like a one word name. Like we have bridges, you know, we have gap junctions in our cells, we have tunnels. But these are all handshakes, hugs. These are all example of things that connect. But if love is that which connects, then all of physics is about love. It's about relationship. Whether you're talking about repulsion or connect or attraction, for instance, those are both forms of connection. One describes the connection as moving apart. One describes the connection as coming together. So everything in physics is about relationships between particles. And that's something. A long time ago, I talked to Dean about. I was like. I came into this realization of, like, everything in physics is really about relationships. And he's like, yep. And it was really cool to recognize that.

Emmy Vadnais (37:44)

Yeah, that's beautiful. Because it brings it home to all of us. And I think love is something that we all really want to give and receive. And just some thoughts, maybe, that. I think some people can be feeling comfortable around love based on their own experiences with it that were maybe positive or negative.

Julia Mossbridge (38:05)

And that.

Emmy Vadnais (38:06)

That is. It's such a powerful. I had a conversation with Carolyn Mace, who's a fabulous intuitive, and, you know, she talks about it being the most powerful thing in the universe and that people know it, and they'll either either give you their love or they'll withhold it or do all sorts of different permutations, consciously or subconsciously, if you will.

Julia Mossbridge (38:27)

Yeah, well, that's. That kind of love is what I call conditional love. So if you can withhold it or you can apply it at will only in certain circumstances, that's conditional, and that's what we're trained to do. We have less of an opportunity to experience unconditional love until we start having the capacity to. I don't know how to describe it. Okay. To tap into sort of the informational substrate or universal love, and to just feel that connection without defending against it. Then we feel unconditional love. So that the unconditional love is an emotional response to tapping into something that I believe is very impactful in the physical world, which is universal love. Mm. But the human response to something that is foundational, that is our source, in a way, our cause is to feel unconditional love.

Emmy Vadnais (39:37)

Right. Right. And maybe if we bring the physics of love, maybe it is how much we are connected to that or attracted or, you know, relating to that unconditional love versus that we are repulsed by it, fearful of it or not, kind of in the flow of it, perhaps.

Julia Mossbridge (39:55)

Maybe. I'm afraid I'm not very good at explaining or describing the conditions that you can control, if there are any that you can control that allow you to have that experience. I wonder if there are any conditions that you can control that would allow you to have that experience. So when people say things, you just have to let go or stop blocking yourself. It's like, that's great if you can, but I don't think you're in control of that. Like, if it's really the case that love is the found, universal love is the foundation of everything in some kind of physical sense, like electricity, that kind of physical force, some kind of physical sense. Why would you have control over whether you receive the experience, the conscious experience of that or not?

Emmy Vadnais (40:47)

Well, there's different theories on that, I suppose. You know, where a person's consciousness is at possibly. But what I'm really curious about, and of course you can share more about this if you, if you want, is how then does love relate to this current research study that we're discussing today? Or what were you. What did you notice in that study related to that for you?

Julia Mossbridge (41:12)

People often think about love as connected to people connected by space. And this study is about. If you, if you're relating it to love, I would say it's about love connections made over time that we are way less aware of. Like, we don't think that the photons present now have any opinion about or are affected in any way by the photons in the future. But the experiment shows otherwise. So in the same way, in some of my other work with tilt, the Institute for Love and Time, which has been renamed by the way, all Applied Love Labs, which is amazing. And I'm pretty excited about that new name soon to be how to Applied Love. I do work with all. I'm getting used to the name change. It's all about the connection over time. For me, that's what it's about. And for other people at Tilt, it's about or at all, it's about other things. But for, for me, I think the power of it is connecting with oneself over time within a space of unconditional love. So that's why we developed time Machine, for instance, back in the day. Time machine love, where you can learn to connect with yourself over time with love. And it's sort of a forgotten healing modality. I mean, it's gaining more popularity now. People think of healing in the moment with something that they can see and feel in the moment. But it's very powerful to sort of recognize. If this research is real, then, you know, your actions of the future, considering yourself with love in the past, should have a powerful impact in a little bit of time.

Emmy Vadnais (43:05)

I want to talk with you about time, but before we go there, I just want to share that I had a conversation with Katherine Schoenberg, who is a lineage keeper of the Kabbalah of light. It's an 800 year Kabbalah believe. She learned about it when she was in France. And I asked her, what is this light? And she said, it's consciousness. So when you're talking about photons, I mean, one could say consciousness is. It's in all, it's in everything. Do you have any sense of that relationship of light and consciousness? Or are you just kind of more open to possibilities?

Julia Mossbridge (43:46)

Yes, I mean, I think this idea of bosonic particles Generally, and photons in particular is being very mind like or awareness like speaks to that connection, if that's true. But just doing the thought experiment and considering it is really interesting. Like, if you assume that there has to be some kind of relationship between mind and brain, and I. And I think there's no doubt that there is a relationship between mind and brain. We don't have to talk about the causality, it's causally ambiguous. But there is a relationship between mind and brain. If you know anyone who had a stroke, you know that. Right. Given that that's true, what mediates that relationship? And that's where I think about photons. They're sort of living on the edge of mind and brain, physical and mental or non physical. Yeah.

Emmy Vadnais (44:45)

I'm thinking about energy healing, which I'm trained to do and have practiced for many years myself. Many people who practice that talk about working with light as well, which is fascinating. I mean, some people are trained to do that and some people just naturally do that.

Julia Mossbridge (45:03)

Yeah. So eventually we'll understand how all that stuff or we won't. I think we're getting closer to understanding how all that. Why all that stuff kind of makes sense. You know, it's so interesting, the lags in our understanding. Like, people invent stuff that sounds crazy the first time you hear it, and then you hear it more and more and you start to understand it, and then it doesn't sound as crazy. So your intuitions change. And I think that's. I'm always on the cutting edge of that. Like, I hear a lot about stuff that sounds crazy, but then I get used to it. But I think it takes a while for people to feel like, okay, that doesn't sound totally insane. Takes like generations. And so I think eventually physicists will be working alongside psychologists, we'll be working alongside anthropologists to figure out, you know, how light is impacting our culture. You know, stuff like that. Mm.

Emmy Vadnais (46:13)

How would you describe what time is? And I imagine you thought a lot about this because this is what your study also. It's a big factor in your study.

Julia Mossbridge (46:22)

I would say that there's a mental component of time, so it's sort of a psychological component. And, you know, go read William James, like, there you go for that. Better. But our understanding is hard to get. I think there's a physical component to time that relates to this mental component. And I think there's a non, non mental, non physical informational component to time. So I guess I would say there's three components of time. One are the Rules that the psych. The psyche uses to process events in time. What are the rules that the physical world uses to set up or not to set up, but to express events in time? And another set of founding rules that the informational substrate uses to create both of those. The experience of the human or animal to events in time and those processing rules and the physical reality of events in time according to the physical rules. So the link between them is not immediate, but foundational. Why time is necessary is because there can't be anything without time. So nothing can exist unless it exists for a duration of time. That duration could be really short. It could be as short as, like the Planck constant. Right. It could be very, very short, but that's still a duration.

Emmy Vadnais (48:08)

Okay, and how did your concept of time change or what did you learn through this study of it?

Julia Mossbridge (48:15)

What I learned is that it appears to be woven like a braid. So I think in the future people will look at you funny if you're trying to describe a system, a physical system, without describing how long it lasts, because they'll know that how long that system lasts in the classical realm impacts the entire system, regardless of how many seconds into that or microseconds into, or nanoseconds into that system you are in in your now. I mean, if you think about, like Minkowski spacetime, that says that there's these slices sort of of the block world and that you may be in one slice, but someone who's moving in a different acceleration might be in a different slice. It tells us that the future of that system has to exist so it's not just empty when that other person gets there. Well, if the future of that system somehow exists, that it wouldn't have any impact on the entire system. Like a box. It would be like trying to tell me the volume of a box without telling me its length. Just its width or. No, its depth. Let's say that's a better image. Just its width and its length. But don't tell me its depth, but tell me its volume. And you'd say, yeah, it's crazy. Can't do it.

Emmy Vadnais (49:41)

So how does time function? Is it linear, circular? How do you perceive it?

Julia Mossbridge (49:48)

I perceive it as a braid.

Emmy Vadnais (49:50)

A braid? You said a braid.

Julia Mossbridge (49:51)

Yeah, yeah. And each aspect of the braid, what is woven is different events of different durations.

Emmy Vadnais (50:05)

And can we pull up the braid in our mind if we wanted to at a particular.

Julia Mossbridge (50:11)

I think we do, yeah. I mean, well, how does memory work? You know, I mean, I think we do, and I think we do the Same thing in the future when we're doing precognition, conscious precognition, maybe unconscious precognition. We use our intention. Let's just look at memory. Because everyone agrees that memory exists. We use our intention and memory to intentionally, it can be unconscious, intention can be conscious, intention to. Sorry. So I also say intentionally because whether it's conscious or unconscious is intention to intentionally grab a bit of information based on our own personal braid.

Emmy Vadnais (50:51)

Or kind of like maybe karma, if you will, might be another way of saying maybe.

Julia Mossbridge (50:55)

Although karma has this sort of negative connotation, like you did something bad and you, you know what I mean? Right.

Emmy Vadnais (51:02)

I think a lot of people go there, but it, I know I talked with Eddie Billamoria about karma and it's perhaps more about our understanding and learning of our own kind of what our soul maybe is wanting to understand or needs. Maybe is too strong of a word. But something on that, along that line.

Julia Mossbridge (51:27)

Yeah, it's like our beautiful, colorful, ambiguous, forgivable braid. Beautiful. If that's what karma is, then, yes, like karma.

Emmy Vadnais (51:41)

After having completed this study and looked at the results, how does it impact your work now and has it inspired other research?

Julia Mossbridge (51:51)

Yeah, I mean, it impacts my work because I'm still trying to figure it out. I mean, I, I, I derived this equation from the data which was very interesting and explained a lot of the variants. But I would like to have a, a further intuitive understanding of it.

Emmy Vadnais (52:13)

So maybe the braid is thickening.

Julia Mossbridge (52:15)

Interesting. That's a good, let's bring it back to that metaphor. Yeah, and it's, and it's love that's thickening it. Boom. I love that. Well, yeah, because the more as a scientist, the more you become connected to your experiment. And really like the thing I love about empirical work is you may have an idea, but you're going to be wrong. And this is such a delight to be wrong because you'll do an experiment and it'll show you something better. It'll say like, yeah, you thought it worked like this, but that was simple minded. It works like this or whatever, or that was too complex. It works in this elegant way. So yeah, if anything, the brain is thickening with love.

Emmy Vadnais (52:59)

So maybe your past self is being influenced by your future self with your own research.

Julia Mossbridge (53:06)

No doubt. I have in the past sat there with my lab notebook and literally wrote down stuff that I was like, okay, future self, thanks.

Emmy Vadnais (53:14)

It's amazing.

Julia Mossbridge (53:16)

Yeah, maybe it's amazing or maybe it's just how everything is done. If you ever read Eric Wargo's work. He kind of claims this is how all creativity works.

Emmy Vadnais (53:28)

Well, amazing in that. Like what you were saying earlier, that when something seems like a new idea, it takes us a while to understand it, to grasp it. And I think what you're doing and other fabulous researchers like Dean Radin are doing is to help us understand what is there, perhaps, and for us to. I don't know. You tell me. What is it that you think you're helping us all to do?

Julia Mossbridge (53:52)

More of? Love, I hope. Mm.

Emmy Vadnais (53:58)

I love that.

Julia Mossbridge (54:00)

Yeah.

Emmy Vadnais (54:00)

Because I was gonna ask you, what, if any, do you think the everyday applications are of this research or your research in general, to those listening?

Julia Mossbridge (54:11)

Just knowing that, like, just because we can only see this moment doesn't mean this moment is the only thing that matters. When people say, live in the moment, that's really real. Right. You don't want to be, like, lost in your thoughts and miss something and not be present, but also know that the moment contains the past and the future. So truly living in the moment allows you to open those doors as well.

Emmy Vadnais (54:35)

I love that. That's why there's something about. It can be challenging to be in the moment because we are grasping at something we want from the future or thinking about something maybe we regret or appreciate from the past. But when we really drop in, as you say, it's all there. But it can take a bit to. To get into that state, which is maybe why there's been multiple millennia's worth of meditation and spiritual and other forms of practices. Walking on a treadmill.

Julia Mossbridge (55:08)

Yeah. I think of it as if you go on vacation, it's really wonderful to go see other things, but you're gonna. When you get home, you have to check the mailbox and find out what you missed. And going on vacation from your body, I have learned the hard way, is one way to miss a lot of stuff, including information about the past and the future. In other words, the best address for any information to get to you is in your body.

Emmy Vadnais (55:40)

When you say a vacation from your body, what do you mean by that?

Julia Mossbridge (55:43)

People do, like, out of body experience.

Emmy Vadnais (55:45)

Oh, I see what you're saying in

Julia Mossbridge (55:47)

an attempt to get information. And I'm saying, like, the best address where information can find you is you.

Emmy Vadnais (55:59)

The body is an instrument of our being.

Julia Mossbridge (56:01)

Yeah, you're. It's an antenna. It's not gonna help you to leave the antenna. It might help you. It's not gonna be sustainable. Right.

Emmy Vadnais (56:08)

I see what you're saying. Yeah. And that gets into, like, people like Graham Nichols out of Body experiencers, remote viewers. I believe you're a remote viewer or Deborah.

Julia Mossbridge (56:18)

Yeah, but I. I was taught by John Bovanko, who said remote viewing is neither.

Emmy Vadnais (56:23)

Well, that's what I was just gonna say is that some people think that it's. Are you going somewhere? Are you here? So what do you mean by neither or. What did he mean by neither?

Julia Mossbridge (56:30)

What do you mean? He meant it's neither rem receiving everything inside your body. You're receiving all the signals inside of your body. You're not going anywhere. So it's neither remote nor viewing. It's not. You're not seeing things with your eyes necessarily. You may be doing that as well as hearing things or feeling things or sensing things or smelling things or tasting things or moving your body. So remote viewing is sort of an impoverished way to describe it.

Emmy Vadnais (57:00)

Right. And so then it gets into your research that bosonic particles are happening maybe all the time, or we can tap into them.

Julia Mossbridge (57:10)

They're everywhere. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's photons in your body, there's photons outside your body. There's photons in everything, and that's just photons.

Emmy Vadnais (57:20)

Well, Julia, I really enjoyed our conversation. Is there anything you want to share about where you feel this research is taking you next or what you're doing now based on this research?

Julia Mossbridge (57:33)

No, I think I'm doing my own little internal explorations that I'm not up for sharing.

Emmy Vadnais (57:39)

Ah, okay.

Julia Mossbridge (57:40)

Because I'm learning from them right now.

Emmy Vadnais (57:42)

Gotcha.

Julia Mossbridge (57:43)

But we'll see in the future.

Emmy Vadnais (57:45)

Well, is there anything else you want to share about your research study on the replication and characterization of causally ambiguous duration sorting cads effect today? Anything that we haven't covered that you want our listeners and viewers to know about?

Julia Mossbridge (58:02)

We covered the really good stuff, so thank you. And a thank you to Winthrop Williams, who built an amazing system so that I could replicate this or that he could run it so that I could get the data and replicate this over an entire year. 365 days continuously running the experiment. That's amazing.

Emmy Vadnais (58:22)

That is some serious dedication. Well, thank you for your work, Julia, and to him as well. I've really enjoyed all that you've shared today, and I look forward. Yes, love, I look forward to connecting with you again in the future. Thank you so much for being with me.

Julia Mossbridge (58:38)

Same same, Emmy. Wonderful.

Emmy Vadnais (58:41)

And for those of you watching or listening, thank you for being with us because you are the reason that we are here.

New Thinking Allowed Announcer (59:09)

You can now download all nine copies of the new Thinking Allowed magazine for free or order Beautiful printed copies go to newthinkingalowed.org book4 in the New Thinking

Emmy Vadnais (59:23)

Allowed dialogue series is Charles T. Tart 70 years of exploring Consciousness and Parapsychology, now available on Amazon.

New Thinking Allowed Announcer (59:36)

For early access to our videos and live stream events, sign up for our free weekly newsletter@newthinkingallowed.org New Thinking Allowed is presented by the California Institute for Human Science, a fully accredited university offering distant learning graduate degrees that focus on mind, body and spirit, the topics that we cover here. We are particularly excited to announce new degrees emphasizing parapsychology and the paranormal. Visit their website at cihs.edu.