https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser#Other_delayed-choice_quantum-eraser_experiments on DQCE:

“pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on Earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago” That suggests some MWI
technology like observing a more human-beneficial anthropic pinciple prior to theorized coalescence of the human starting planetary system. Although, I have been told by a time traveller, JY, the human experience world, possibly the universe was created.

More wikipedia: “While delayed-choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics. If a photon in flight is
interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the
standard view, and recent experiments have supported it.” So that brings up set theory, and the possible definitions of an unexamined set. There’s structure, like “there are set elements”, or a “set without elements”. As well as things of
unknown validity I have glimpsed at Quora, like “photons are a field”, so does a field, being a set element, have an effect, possibly testable with a new DQCE experiment, on retrocausal action? I have a feeling it is well described at physics, but
the math description of the field, that when observed, expresses itslef as a photon, is unknown to me. Does it have any mutually exclusive parts even though it is a field? Perhaps since it precedes wave-nature it absent doing node and antinode things,
but has a shape like a U (more likely to be actualized as a photon ner its emission point or near something like an atom that gloms it) with the anisotropy of the distal parts of the U having a DQCE testability or effect. Is there anything about a photon
field that has a separable quantizable (quantum) state that is separate from/different than the quantum states (even spectral levels) of the photon. For different photons to have different energies yet all be considered to be a field, that suggests
there is some, potentially readable (detectable), component that supports/comprises wavelength or frequency. Can you observe just a frequency of a photon field without observing the photon, and do DQCE experiment with that observation?

A quoran says, of photon fields, “Electric charges interact with each other exchanging photons with energies proportional to their frequencies.” which suggests that if as it says, EM fields are based on photon influence which differs from absorption/
re-emission, then maybe the charge of an electron wobbles a little if you partially observe the photon field that it’s EM is composed of, or just perhaps a system that would ordinarily be just short of the energy to jump an electron up a quantum level
to make a (detectable) photon emission can get extra energy from a partial photon-field observation (perhaps something hinting at wavelength). Thus showing that some enquiry short of producing an actual photon, at the photonic field can effect other
matter and/or energy. That field effect could then be used at a new DQCE retrocausality experiment where the photon field has (or perhaps has not!) quantizable pre-photon characteristics.

Another Quoran writes, “I think the answer is there in pair production and annihilation along with other hard scientific evidence such as the Einstein-de Haas effct. We can make an electron and a positron out of photons in gamma-gamma pair production.
Then we can diffract electrons and positrons. and then when we annihilate them, we get the photons back. So the electron and the positron are in themselves a configuration of the photon field.” That seems to suggest it is possible to make many
varieties of action, mass. or activity at a photon field. It is possible some of those numerous varied photon field possibilities could be used to clarify the “has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is “
neither” “ thing that says “neither” is absent retrocausality. Perhaps some specialized versions of photon fields support retrocausality directly as they are absent “neither”ness.

Those retrocausal custom “neither”less photon-fields could then be measured as to their possible (potentially valuable) chronological isolation, if any, from the global experience of time. Also, these “neither”less photon fields could perhaps be
found at nature. If findable at nature then they could be observed at a far distance, thus beneficially changing the human inhabited universe retrocausally.

Are photon fields near matter nearly always particle-or wave-ized, that might make the retrocausality of the DQCE the usual effect at matter or near matter as most photons around humans are also near matter or electrons. Is it rare that a photon-field
would go preobserved/unobserved? Also, what about the thing where it says electrons communicate/share effect via a photon field? Is that electron distance so minute that it is absent photon-field determinacy, suggesting DQCE works differently on
electron systems as compared with atom systems?

What if you retrocausally modfy an atom (a neither-less DQCE occurence) yet the atom has electrons? Do you get blended, optimizable, results? Can the blend be customized to produce beneficial new technologies like chronological insulators or amplifiers?
Like: Nucleus retrocausal at DQCE, electrons: resolved as particle compared with: Nucleus retrocausal at DCQE, electrons resolved as wave; do they have different DQCE retrocausal effects or produce engineerable time technologies?

Retrocausality might be stronger with more massive objects: Also, as to DQCE retrocausality going with wave or particle ness rather than “neither”ness Are there any atomic particles or other things (even macroscopic quantum things I have read about;
like 2mm at 2018 AD) That always have either waveness or particleness. I think a blob of matter 3x the size of the double slit’s separation distance is likely, statistically, usually a prticle, although there is a real finite chance it will wave its
way through the double slit. The thing is though, does the preponderance of one state cause DCQE retrocauslity prevalence notably at blobs of matter? i doubt it is a ratio, but what if DCQE retrocausality is like the ratio (probability distribution) of
macroscopic waveness or particleness : “neitherness” . That doubtful ratio thing would cause macroscopic blobs of matter to be more retrocausally affectible.

What if you use a preobserved blob of matter, so that you already have it described as a wave or particle before it meets the DQCE apparatus? It still gets its wave/particle opportunity, again, at the DQCE, yet you know what you have utilized at it. I
am kind of being extraploative, but one of the 1999 AD DQCE things is observing the system later, to change a photon’s path retrocausally; Could either omitting or recording the state, or at a subsequent perhaps after-experiment moment, viewing the
matter-blob’s first definitional wave/particleness have an effect on the DQCE part of the apparatus? If the idea is to observe it first, to prevent “neitherness” causing actual retrocausal effects, does omitting a record of the form-producing pre
DCQE observation have an effect?


What if the DQCE with photons or diffractable/particleizable matter, does the initial measurement/characterization of the matter-blob as one of its available retrocausal actions; this is possibly a constructible time-feedback technology.

Another Quoran says, “the energy, momentum and angular momentum associated with a specific excitation of the photon field vanishes, while at the same time the properties of a corresponding excitation of the electron field (which we perceive as an
electron) change. “
So from an MWI perspective are there universe differences based on these possibly isolatable elements: “the energy, momentum and angular momentum associated with a specific excitation of the photon field…[excites an electron]” so the MWI universe
from an electron doing an emissions level attainment nd photon emission event could possibly be customized with modifying angular momentum of the energizing photon; or possibly doing some impressive laser thing where the photon re-emission ocurs at some
externally guided momentum or angular momentum, or spin. Like I read you can direct spin with magnets or lasers, so re-emitting a photon in a magnetic field could effect the MWI universe generated. The quote mentions three things so there are three
factorial variations, that could affect the new MWI universe, from each photon action. I previously write about nesting MWI universes; it is possible that linking these three items (energy, momentum and angular momentum) at photons and/or between atoms
could also cause two MWI-universe events to depend on each other, possibly at different time scales, producing contingent, connected, and/or chronologically related new MWI universes.

Silver is an element that conducts electrons at two orbital levels simultaneously whereas I perceive with many other elements it is just one “external” orbital. Silver could have a wider possibly variety of MWI universe creation technologies as a
result of its two electron conduction and/or quantum level effects. Nesting or contingencies at MWI universes could also be effected, possibly improved, or new forms generated, at silver systems.

There is a the slight possibility that silver used at new or previously described MWI verification/refutation/verification tests could heighten MWI test effectiveness. At one of a few previously described “wobble” MWI tests it is possible that the
two electron system might produce a different amount of “wobble”, So a frequently mentioned “wobble” test where you have a about a billion locations (a billion is kind of like flashdrive electron tunneling plenum volume) on a chip made with IC
technology, Then energize it with electrons or zap it with a laser, then find out if adjacent locations at the array do something novel, possibly from energy saturation/desaturation (note littler than electron possibility as well)

Planck length thing: If an electron event produces an MWI universe does that suggest that some measure, littler than an electron, would be beneficial at MWI tests? Possibly a novel, different than prediction, quantum level photon emission. If the MWI
event causes saturation (greater local/initial universe energy)then the emissions spectra line might go up (because the thing is still working off one electron, so it could be beneficial to create a functional measurable that measures “wobble” that
is compatible with a one elctron change. At desaturation the “wobble” would cause the emissions spectra line to be lesser than the norm. Also I read about a thing that might be called a planck length or planck volume. Is there anything measurable
that occupies less planck volume than many other things, which, planck volume used, might change from MWI universe creation “wobble” So like, if a photon or electron “occupies” a particular planck volume, does some expansion or shrinkage event
from “wobble” cause the planck volume to change? I do not know of a way to measure change in the planck volume of a photon or electron. Unless the thing where you have like a few hundred quantum entangled (linked) photons directed at one photon,
or electron, or optimally a particle/wave of size: one planck length; Then change just one of the hundreds of linked photons thus causing a fractional effect at the one planck length/volume particle or photon system that is multipley entangled, then at
that smaller than planck-length technology it is possible that the resistance to the change at (ease of observability or change in ease of observability of the one of hundreds entangled photon) observing one of several hundred observable photons the
entangled/linked photons could then measure “wobble”

Also, if planck volume is experimentally (as well as possibly predicted with theory) found to change when perturbing just one of hundreds of quantum entangled (linked) photons or matter things, or any other planck volume modifier be used as planck length
technologies?

A quoran writes, “the photon is a quantum particle that therefore has a wave function and wave functions are complex valued functions of space and time such that the probability that the particle is at a particular position and time is proportional to
the absolute value of the wave function.” which reminds me of a another quoran who wrote that the math efficacy of absolute value, like addition and multiplication is non-determined (my approximate phrase for “not math definition supported at some (
frequently thought about) systems”) So if absolute value can be questioned on a math basis, and it is the math-root of quantum indeterminacy, then it is possible there are math systems that replace quantum indeterminacy with some other thing; that
math could generate new testable physics hypotheses. Also, there is previously written material of modifying/verifying/refuting the MWI based on showing that parts of the schroedinger equation have nonvalid math. (Math thing: absolute value) could refute/
verify/modify MWI universe generation as well.

It looks like the partial applicability or nonapplicability of “Math thing: absolute value” could affect the MWI from a view of “the probability that the particle is at a particular position and time is proportional to the absolute value of the
wave function.” so it could be that absolute value is an important part of the equations, or it could just be that (math thing: absolute value) easily models measured physics results.

Unlikely: previously written is material about D3 islands of truthiness and math also data structures: Where at, if you note a trend, or make a correlation, then it is math-system based to be a causation. I am uninformed but have a perception that an
electron is kind of like a “quantum smear”. It is possible there are valid mathematical statements or restatements about quantum things that have a D3 (an undecideability number system (D1, D3, etc) I thought of) region where at that math system,
correlation is equal to causation. That math, and a possible physics measured region, or group of perhaps non-quantum physics measurements, could cause regions of quantum science to be more determined (from the correlation is causation math construction
space) at certain realms of measurement, or being approximate, and relying overmuch on what little I know about statistics, causing some standard deviations at a normal distribution to have greater durability than the middle (most populated area) of the
distribution when perturbed. So as an experiment the physics person would find where a correlation goes with causation math region at some area of physics, perhaps optimally at atomic physics (although macroscopic “newtonian” physics correlation-
math-linked-to-causation math system applied at particular physics systems adjustments would be nifty as well), then do things that modify the system, then see if some statistical parmaeter showed unusually durable or notable effects. So that would be
finding a region of a quantum or classical system where the math constructions that cause correlation to always go with causation apply, and measuring the predicted, yet otherwise without previous explanation, change or durability effect.

So at MWI universes, if there are universe generating quantum-smear resolution events that have notably particular math-regions where correlation always links to causation, then those MWI universe generating events could have a durable theme between and
amongst separate measurements and/or measured systems. Translation: novel math finds things that “unpredicted previously, stick around” and were not previously predicted at quantum system math; The things that “persist between/amongst experiments”
could have an effect on the MWI universes generated. So, is it possible that the D3 math systems where things are constructed such that correlation is always specifying of causation have applicability to various parts of physics or regions of behavior
at actual materials and/or photons and electrons and atomic nuclei. Those regions could have technological applications.

Quantum and or wave amusement: Stitching together wave versions or phtons and/or matter: One quoran writes, “A system as simple as two emitters and two detectors just doesn't work with a wave model.” so thinking about that as actual postitionable
sources and some double slit actual physics experiment, it could be possible to have two photon sources linearly a few cm away from each other such that the diffraction from the double slit rather than superimposing them causes them to be adjacent to
each other, making what looks like one extra-lengthy wave. That ~~ lengthy version could have some technological application but is also reminiscent of a unique math identity of things that can be wave produced with light (or electrons). like node,
antinode, and now, adjacent lengthening! A meaningless application would be an audio enrichment setting at music. Make the double-length wave ~~, analog or digitally then perhaps notice it sounded like layered recording polyphonics. A laser application
could be cutting/welding lasers where two lasers spaced right, or more likely put through a diffration slit, create the longer ~~wave causing greater energy deposition; this from combining what might be smaller cheaper lasers. Although I am confused
about how this effects frequency (I think it has no effect; consider a monochromatic laser, none of node or antinode, but: adjacentized to ~~)

It is possible this approach (~~) to light could have some utility tessellating a surface. Tessellating a surface with light sounds nice. I have no clue, but better 2d or (even 3d) interferometry might be possible? Is Three-D interferometry already a
thing? sounds facile, but possibly MRi or fMRI could benefit from 3d interferometry; it could increase reolution.

Another possibility, although this is obvious use of antinodal, is to layer two diffracted light waves on each other to goantinode at just half the physical length, producing a light spot of half the width, but at usual power, possibly useful for higher
resolution point sources of light.

Quora: a quoran likely knows: If a magnet makes a static EM field, which turns to electricity if something moves in it, can wave superposition at that EM field generated oscillation produce things like double length waves ~~, as well as the usual node
and antinode forms? rather dubious, but perhaps a particular shape of magnet could produce a |||||| magnetic field spaced such that anything that moved through it generated double length waves of EM activity. Or similarly, node or antinode effects. So
a nodal EM magnet could increase the functional applied power at MRI and/or fMRI machines increasing resolution.

.5B
Also MRI/fMRI: could chemicals, like biochemicals at the body, physically adjacent to each other, or just possibly, at some gigantic EM wavelength, actual physical structures at the body (unlikely), cause the EM radio output that the MRI/fMRI detector
detects have double length wave, nodal or antinodal effects? If a water next to a lipid caused some EM (node/antinode) radio effect variation then that could improve diagnostic ability and possibly physical resolution.

MWI test with modifying a distribution and seeing if MWI universe generation causes cumulative numeric effects. A quora person says, “Quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes” So a scientist could
make something on an integrated circuit wafer that produces a really high homogenity, notably predictable, normal distribution, have that at an integrated circuit wafer, then zap the wafer with lasers to create MWI universe creating events near the
probability circuits or geometric areas of the wafer; the thing is that each of the areas of the normal distribution curve, like standard deviation parts of the graph-curve, could then be measured as to greater than expected lack of change; greater than
expected change, as well as multimodality/modality shifts. This is a little different than other described “wobble” wafer tests as rather than binary preence or absence of effect, or magnitude of effect at a specfic measured thing, it accumulates
trend. Also, there might be some benefit I lack awareness of: DQCE uses cumulative statistics on photon path to exhibit its effects, so there might be useful math or some kind of “nature is rarely an angular wave function” measurement direction
benefit.

Usually, but hey, why not think more, I think about MWI generated universes; but at non MWI multiverse theories, one survey is from Tegmark, one says that with enough space, and finite describable states of matter, there start to be repeats, so there are
repeats of any particular person. One other thing seems to suggest that there could be many of these repeat universes at distances farther than light has travelled, thus perhaps suggesting some or many of the non MWI multiverses are outside the human
and human’s universe’ lightcone.
So I read a book called “faster than light” or a lot like that title. It had a list of things that go faster than light, and one of them was radio waves at the ionosphere. So, does that suggest radio waves at interstellar plasma have attributes
that exceed lightspeed? If so, then some of the repeat universes could be a part of each others effect-cone. Also, just to entertain, consider an organism that only lives at radio waves in the ionosphere; it always lives faster than the speed of light.
It could even benefit from an anthropic principle that causes a known-mechanism of faster than light velocity to exist with a sentience, cradling the entity who has an even wider variety of multiverses to visit than a human.

One could do physics actions, like experiments, that proceed from a benevolent effort to make the anthropic principle more beneficial to humans and other beings. Then, with benevolence carrying the day, it is possible other beings might lend their
effects to a MWI or multiverse generator/detector. Other beings might voluntarily support and physically do things that produce a more benevolent version of the anthropic pinciple. If other universes or beings perceive humans, and the humans are making
something benevolent, they might assist, which on its own could be a detectable test of the MWI.

Also, sampling the “if you do not know anything you are statisticlly likely to be in the middle” statistical math concept, It is possible that humans live in a mid-range anthropic principle, with much opportunity for increased benevolence at many
kinds of beings. It might be that creating technologies and thought systems (like ethics) to benevolently edit the anthropic principle causes inclusion at benevolent sentience groups or universe connectabilities.

Thinking blue and white it is possible to think of many forms and methods to tune the anthropic principle benevolently. To write so daringly as to be plonk, you could do a wiki model where a plurality of humans as well as, as they might like to
participate, benevolent beings, make pages about a benevolent anthropic principle topic and/or technology. One of them might be: Ways to figure out if your species is poised for benevolence reifying growth; then someone might bring up shifting the
distribution of predictable MWI universes towards a greater plurality of bnevolence reifying growth. Another wiki page might describe faster than light ionosphere sentiences and the way that if not poised for benevolent reifying growth they might be
poised for quality of living, feeling, and thinking improvements, and so multiverse/MWI technologies that move the distribution of universe creation and/or anthropic principle tuning towards more benevolent being, thought and feeling as compared with
growth could be make a part of the wiki for public improvement.
One page at the wiki might be different sources of universes, which were more tunable, and which could be constructed or modified to communicate voluntarily.

Just a thought: if they do not already exist, making benevolent faster than light ionosphere radio communications sentient entities could be a benevolence effect at new universes and/or anthropic principle newstructurings; Noting the amount of ionized
gas scientists have found at intesterstellar areas, the way lasers can make ionized gas at a distance at lightspped, and the moderate light year distances between stellar objects, notably a few near Earth, sentient faster than light ionosphere beings
could support benevolent growth as well as heightening quality of being attributes. Thus at the wiki page on “being benevolent what should we do?” The verfication, and/or contact and/or creation of beneficial, utilizing Dave Pearce’ Hedonistic
imperative as an buildable base, faster than light ionosphere radio wave entities could bebrought up.

Also, putting the benevolent MWI wiki at the various MWI test experiments (populate a flash drive or write it on a wafer) might prompt other universe’ beings to comment or contribute. So it is a benevolence hieghtening and attracting thing that could
verify the MWI if there was new wiki activity.

Wikipedia describes a technology to observe things so much they cease chronological progression, “The quantum Zeno effect (also known as the Turing paradox) is a feature of quantum-mechanical systems allowing a particle's time evolution to be arrested
by measuring it frequently enough with respect to some chosen measurement setting.[1]”

So using quantum Zeno effects as a benevolent MWI technology, perhaps it is possible to use zeno effects at different attributes to cause one area of a system to be more active than another. causing some kind of beneficial surplus, greater capability, or
possibly “freeze” what would have been non beneficial so it can be replaced with something new or previously known, that is beneficial. Humans are different than computers, so if you were benefitting a human you could decreae the perceptual amplitude
of a neutral activity as a result of stretching out the chronology of how long it took. There are numerous other ways to make the birthing process more pleasant, but it is possible that a zeno approach to the feeling sensing mind could cause birth to
happen with greater perceived rapidity and less felt stimuli.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)