So recently I’ve been watching a lot of science documentaries to take my mind off the non-stop horror show that is my life, specifically stuff about Einstein, relativity, and lectures with Michio Kaku. After a while I began to think: If a dork like Einstein could win a Nobel prize for Physics, why can’t I? But then reality set in when I considered the fact that I’ve never taken a physics class in my whole life. That is a pretty big obstacle because the competition is fierce. If I was going to win a Nobel prize, I’d have to discover something almost by accident. Wouldn’t you know- that’s exactly what I did.
What I have discovered can best be described as a physical anomaly, entirely localized within a certain territory. The actual inner workings of the anomaly are not understood at this time, we can only confirm its existence based on its observed effects.
According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, observing particles changes them, so that the more we know about them at a particular point in time the less we actually know about them in the present. In the case of our anomaly it would see that the opposite is true. The more one observes the territory from a distance, the more they know about what is going on within the territory. Far more fascinating, however is the fact that the observer within the anomalous territory actually knows less, or at least cannot know more, than the outside observer. Let us use a thought experiment to break this down.
Person A is outside the territory by thousands of miles. Person A has never visited the territory and is unable to speak or understand the languages of the people indigenous to the area affected by the anomaly.
Person B may either be permanently located within the territory of the anomaly, or they may have visited the area numerous times and have connections to people who do permanently live within the territory. They understand the language and are able to communicate with the indigenous people in the territory, something they have often done.
Knowing what we do about the limitations of human senses, particularly in terms of range, the intuitive conclusion would suggest that Person B would know more about the territory than Person A. Not only do they receive far more information, but they also are better able to judge what sources of information are reliable. Assuming Person A never visits the territory, they should never be able to equal Person B in terms of knowledge about the subject, assuming that both persons are making an effort to observe.
This is course, is the intuitive conclusion, based on what we observe in everyday life all around the globe. But in the territory of the anomaly, my research has found that the rules here are reversed. Outside the anomaly, if Person A is in the United States and Person B is in France, based on the aforementioned attributes of both persons we would assume that Person A couldn’t possibly know more about the political situation, current events, local attitudes, etc. than Person B. What we find in the anomaly though, is that Person A will, with a high degree of reliability, actually know more than Person B on the inside. How was this conclusion determined?
Subjects were observed interacting online in discussions about the territory in question. “A” subjects were those who had the same features as Person A in our thought experiment, while “B” subjects were represented by Person B. One would think that in discussions between A and B subjects, the A subjects would recognize the wide gap between the information they had access to and that of the B subjects. As such, one would expect the A subjects to either defer to B subjects, or at least attempt to exchange information so as to get a more accurate view of what was going on around the B subjects. Surprisingly, this is not what happened. A subjects actually asserted their superior knowledge and wealth of information over that of B subjects.
This can only mean one thing- in spite of being separated from the territory by thousands of miles, and in spite of never having visited the territory and not speaking the local languages, due to the anomaly these A subjects actually had more accurate information about what was happening in the territory. The consistency of these interactions between subject pairs was the initial basis for identifying the anomaly.
Having determined that the anomaly is localized, i.e. covering a particular geographic area, the next step was to beginning mapping out the territory in which the anomaly is effective. I was shocked to find that the anomaly actually conforms to the political borders of the territory, something highly unusual for natural phenomenon. Here one can see a map of the anomalous territory. (The anomaly is shaded light green)
Obviously such a discovery certainly merits a Nobel Prize for Physics. What we have on our hands is a potential real world example of remote viewing, not contingent on some sort of extrasensory perception on the behalf of individual people, but rather the location itself actually triggers a sensory experience akin to remote viewing. By this means, the further and less connected a person is to the territory, the more they actually know about it, and the opposite is also true. Hopefully we will soon begin to understand the causes of this phenomenon. Till then, I’m going to work on my acceptance speech.