A Thought Experiment: Is Belief Structurally Embedded in Reality?
While writing my book, I kept circling one question: Is the double-slit experiment hinting at something deeper—beyond observation? What if belief itself structurally affects reality—even down to the quantum level?
I’m not a physicist. I’m just someone who’s spent a lifetime noticing patterns, questioning anomalies, and holding onto questions nobody seemed to have answers for. With help from generative algorithms to assist with math formatting (I haven’t done serious math since tutoring it in college), I developed a conceptual framework I’ve named the Quantum Expectation Collapse Model (QECM).
This theory proposes that wavefunction collapse isn’t just triggered by observation—it’s modulated by belief, emotional resonance, and expectation. It attempts to bridge quantum behavior with our day-to-day experience of reality.
🧠 Quantum Expectation Collapse Model (QECM)
A Belief-Driven Framework of Observer-Modulated Reality
By Jeremy Broaddus
Core Concepts
Observer Resonance Field (ORF): Hypothetical field generated by consciousness, encoding belief/emotion/memory. Influences collapse behavior.
Expectation Collapse Vector (ECV): Directional force of emotional certainty and belief. Strong ECV boosts fidelity of expected outcomes.
Fingerprint Collapse Matrix (FCM): Individual’s resonance signature—belief structure, emotional tone, memory patterns—all guiding collapse results.
Millisecond Branching Hypothesis: Reality forks at ultra-fast scales during expectation collisions, generating parallel experiences below perceptual threshold.
Macro-Scale Conflict Collapse: Massive ideological clashes (e.g., war) create timeline turbulence, leaving trauma echoes and historical loop distortion.
Mathematical Framework (Conceptual)
Let:
\Psi(x,t) = standard wavefunction
\phi = potential eigenstate
\mathcal{F}_i = observer fingerprint matrix
\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_i) = maps fingerprint to expectation amplitude
\alpha = coefficient modulating collapse sensitivity to expectation
Then:
P_{\text{collapse}} = |\langle \phi | \Psi \rangle|^2 \cdot \left[1 + \alpha \cdot \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_i)\right]
Interpretation: Collapse probability increases when observer’s belief/resonance aligns with the measured outcome.
Time micro-fracturing:
t_n = t_0 + n \cdot \delta t \quad \text{where} \quad \delta t \approx 10^{-12} , \text{s}
During high-belief collision:
\Psi_n \rightarrow \Psi_{n,A}, \Psi_{n,B}
Each path retroactively generates coherent causal memory per branch.
Conflict collapse field:
\mathcal{C} = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_i)
(i.e. the total “expectation force” of all (N) observers, found by summing each observer’s expectation amplitude.)
Timeline stability:
S = \frac{1}{1 + \beta \cdot |\mathcal{C}|}
Higher \mathcal{C} = more timeline turbulence = trauma echo = historical distortion
Experimental Proposals
Measure quantum interference under varying levels of observer certainty, simple rubber band breaking test vs youngs modulus, have users buzz in real time when they expect it to snap compare to when its expected to snap based on the modulus result. for best results offer a prize for closest to buzz in before it snaps for inventive. Can be done with any smartphone and rubberband by yourself even. use mic app to record sound of it breaking and a simple buzzer timestamp app.
Explore collapse modulation via synchronized belief (ritual, chant, intent)
Examine déjà vu/dream anomalies as branch echo markers
Investigate emotional healing as expectation vector realignment
Closing Thought
Expectation isn’t bias. It’s architecture.
Destiny isn’t predestination—it’s resonance alignment.
The strange consistency of the double-slit experiment across centuries may be trying to tell us something profound. In 1801, waves were expected—and seen. In the 1920s, particles were expected—and seen. Maybe reality responds not just to instruments… but to the consciousness behind them.
Would love to know what actual physicists think. Tear it apart, build on it, remix it—I’m just here chasing clarity.
Notes
\mathcal{C} = … (calligraphic C, our notation for the total expectation “force” of all observers)
so when using \mathcal{C} = \sum{i=1}^{N} \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}i)
is simply our way of adding up everyone’s “expectation amplitude” to get a single measure of total belief-tension (or “conflict field”) in a system of (N) observers. Here’s the breakdown:
– the Fingerprint Matrix for observer (i): encodes their unique mix of beliefs, emotions, memory biases, etc.
- (\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_i))
– a real-valued function that reads that fingerprint and spits out an Expectation Collapse Vector (ECV), essentially “how strongly observer (i) expects a particular outcome.”
– adds those expectation amplitudes for all (N) observers in the scene.
So
[ \mathcal{C} ;=; \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}1);+;\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}2);+;\dots;+;\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_N) ] is just saying “take everyone’s bias-strength number and sum it.”
We then feed (\mathcal{C}) into our timeline-stability formula
[ S = \frac{1}{1 + \beta,|\mathcal{C}|} ] so that higher total tension ((|\mathcal{C}|)) → lower stability → more “timeline turbulence” or conflict residue.
In short—(\mathcal{C}) is the aggregate expectation “force” of a group, and by summing each person’s (\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_i)) we get a single scalar that drives the rest of the model’s macro-scale behavior.
— Jeremy B
Core Equation (QIR Engine):
Quantum Expectation Collapse Model (QECM)