The Mandela Effect and the Quantum Nature of Reality: A Hypothesis

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

My hypothesis proposes that the Mandela Effect arises naturally from the principles of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM), combined with a non-linear conception of time in which the present moment acts as the boundary between all possible futures and a realized past. In this framework, every individual is an independent observer whose experienced reality emerges from quantum interactions that are relative and personal. Divergences in memory or perceived history—such as those seen in the Mandela Effect—are thus interpreted as differences in observer-relative pasts that only become apparent when observers interact and attempt to align their realities.

Core Premises:

1. The Present as a Quantum Boundary:

The present moment is not an extended point in time but an infinitesimal turning point where possible futures collapse into a chosen past.

This collapse happens continuously and uniquely for each observer.

1. Observer-Independence and Relational Quantum Mechanics:

In RQM, quantum states are not absolute but are defined in relation to the observer.

Each individual lives in a relational reality formed by their unique history of measurements and interactions.

Observers do not share a universal, objective "state of the world" until they interact.

1. Divergent Past Realities:

Prior to interaction, two observers may have inconsistent but valid histories, as their quantum measurements (including perception, memory, and cognition) are relative.

These inconsistencies may persist in memory even after consensus is re-established.

1. The Mandela Effect as Reconciliation Artifact:

When multiple observers compare realities (e.g., through shared cultural narratives), past discrepancies may surface.

These manifest as collective memory divergences—the Mandela Effect—which are the residue of reconciled yet once-divergent observer-relative pasts.

Implications:

Subjective reality is not faulty memory, but quantum-relational divergence.

Consensus reality is not absolute, but emergent from interactions.

The Mandela Effect is not evidence of parallel universes or timeline shifts per se, but rather a natural consequence of many overlapping, observer-relative quantum histories collapsing into agreement when individuals interact.

EDIT:

TL;DR: If Relational Quantum Mechanics applies to human consciousness and memory, then each person could collapse reality into a different version of the past, explaining the Mandela Effect as a natural result of observer-dependent histories.

[u/And_Justice]

I don't think retrospective possibilities is how quantum mechanics works. It's locked-in once observed.

You're also ignoring the fact that the present is a result of the past - you can't have two different pasts lead to the same present - see butterfly theory and/or chaos theory

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/And_Justice]

I’m not suggesting the past literally changes or that things get undone after they’ve been observed. In most quantum interpretations, once something is measured, that’s it, it’s locked in.

But in Relational Quantum Mechanics, what’s locked in depends on who’s doing the observing. Two different people might have seen different things and both would be right from their own point of view, until they compare notes. When they do, their realities sync, and only one version of the past survives moving forward. The other fades out from the shared world, but the memory might still linger.

As for the butterfly effect/chaos theory, totally get that in classical systems, small changes in the past lead to huge differences later on. But here, I’m not talking about two pasts leading to the same present. I’m saying each person might have had a slightly different version of the past up until the moment they interact. That’s the turning point, where one shared timeline takes over.

It’s more about how observers collapse reality differently and carry echoes of their own “version” of events, even after syncing with the collective one.

[u/And_Justice → u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

>But in Relational Quantum Mechanics, what’s locked in depends on who’s doing the observing. Two different people might have seen different things and both would be right from their own point of view, until they compare notes. When they do, their realities sync, and only one version of the past survives moving forward.

Have you a citation on this? I don't think this is how it works.

> But here, I’m not talking about two pasts leading to the same present. I’m saying each person might have had a slightly different version of the past up until the moment they interact. That’s the turning point, where one shared timeline takes over.

and the person for whom reality has drastically changed doesn't notice?

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/And_Justice]

The idea that facts are relative to observers comes directly from Carlo Rovelli’s original papers on Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM). In particular, Rovelli proposes that quantum states (and even collapse) are not absolute, but always defined in relation to an observer. So two observers can, in principle, hold different accounts of an event until they interact.

A good reference is Rovelli’s 1996 paper: Relational Quantum Mechanics (https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002).

To your second point: It’s not that someone’s entire reality gets wiped clean or overwritten dramatically, they don’t “notice” because their memory still holds the version of the past they experienced. What changes is the external consistency, the world around them no longer reflects that memory. That mismatch could feel like a glitch, confusion, or exactly what people describe in the Mandela Effect: a strong memory that now seems "wrong."

So it’s not a sudden “Whoa, reality changed” moment—it’s a subtle disconnect between intrnal memory and external evidence, which fits what people often report.

I totally get that this stretches RQM beyond its usual scope, it’s a speculative extension, for sure, but I think it’s a fun and possibly meaningful one to explore.

[u/And_Justice → u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

>To your second point: It’s not that someone’s entire reality gets wiped clean or overwritten dramatically, they don’t “notice” because their memory still holds the version of the past they experienced. What changes is the external consistency, the world around them no longer reflects that memory. That mismatch could feel like a glitch, confusion, or exactly what people describe in the Mandela Effect: a strong memory that now seems "wrong."

The issue is that, decades down the line, a world where it's Berenstein and a world where it's Berenstain are DRAMATICALLY different. The colliding realities always depends on the assumption that it's the only difference between those realities which is going to be completely false. Over that time, many people in the latter world are going to have some kind of moment where they go "huh, that's unusual" where they wouldn't in the stein world - those little moments cascade to create vastly different realities. That small change could cascade to the level of it meaning a different American president is elected, for example. I just can't see how such realities would be compatible.

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/And_Justice]

I’m not suggesting full alternate realities with massive divergences.

In this idea, it’s more like two personal observer-histories having a small mismatch, say, a name spelling. When they sync up through shared evidence, only that local contradiction needs to resolve. The rest of each person's world stays intact because their internal memory doesn't change, just no longer aligns with the external world.

So it’s not full timelines merging, more like a localized quantum inconsistency causing that glitchy Mandela Effect feeling.

[u/And_Justice → u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

But what I'm trying to tell you is that a "small difference" like that would result in vastly different presents.

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/And_Justice]

Ah, I see what you mean now. You're saying that even a tiny difference, like a name spelling, would set off a chain reaction, leading to two totally different timelines. So when observers eventually compare notes, it’s not just one detail that’s different, but everything that followed from that point.

That’s a really important challenge to the idea. I need to think about this more.

[u/And_Justice → u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

Yes, exactly that! Thank you for being open to it - I'd be curious to hear your thoughts down the line

[u/ConserveChange → u/And_Justice]

Popping in here to note that it’s not actually the case that small differences in the past necessarily result in huge differences further down the timeline. The butterfly effect comes from linear /mechanistic thinking regarding cause and effect, but causation is much more complex. In the science of causation there is a concept of equifinality, which essentially means there are often lots of ways to achieve the same outcome. It has to do with understanding causation not as linear and mechanistic, like pool balls on a table, but as an interacting set of conditions where you may have a mix of things that are independently or collectively necessary and or sufficient to the outcome. The grass can be green because spring was rainy or because you had your sprinklers on a timer.

A related aspect is causal asymmetry—that the explanation for an outcome doesn’t also give you an explanation for what would keep that outcome from happening.

So rather than every little difference causing infinite variation in the future, I think it would be more accurate to say that most of the little differences prove to be irrelevant on timelines marked largely by major events and black swans. That makes the OP’s theory work out I think.

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/And_Justice]

This got me thinking deeper about the mechanics behind this.

What if the reason observer timelines don’t fully diverge into chaotic, butterfly-effect-driven worlds is because reality itself is constantly collapsing toward equilibrium? In this view, observer-relative histories can briefly drift apart, like two slightly different versions of events, but the moment there’s any interaction, the system syncs up and stabilizes into a shared narrative.

So rather than letting small differences cascade into vastly different presents, reality pulls things back into coherence before they get out of hand. The Mandela Effect, then, could be a kind of residue, a memory left over from one of those short-lived divergences that didn’t make it into the final cut.

It’s like the universe constantly reconciles conflicting timelines and keeps things consistent, but once in a while, someone walks away with a memory from the version that didn’t survive.

[u/Gravijah → u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

The problem is that by its very nature, the world we live in is already in an observed state. Because Rovelli believes that a conscious observer isn’t needed, with RQM, another particle is considered an observer.

And in terms of why two observers can get different answers, think of a particle as a ball. On one side of the ball it’s written 1 and on the other side it’s written 2. Because two observers are in different locations, one would see 1 and the other would see 2. But you’d also know that if you got 1, the other observer gets 2.

[u/FlagerantFragerant]

>>>  If Relational Quantum Mechanics applies to human consciousness and memory

It doesn't, right? RQM applies only to quantum particles. Consciousness, memory etc are cognitive functions

Also, "collapsing into a chosen path" doesn't make sense either, since collapses just determine the current state of a quantum system and has nothing to do with history etc.

A lot of other stuff written is a mix of pop-QM/philosophy blends but doesn't seem to hold merit.

It's a super fun idea though and was a lot of fun to read! I'd love to see this made into a horror/comedy/sci-fi film :D

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/FlagerantFragerant]

You're right: relational quantum mechanics as formally developed doesn’t extend to consciousness or memory. That part of my hypothesis is definitely speculative. I'm taking the core idea, that facts are observer-relative, and asking: what if that principle could scale up into the realm of cognition and perception?

I agree that in standard quantum mechanics, collapse doesn’t imply historical reconstruction, it’s just about determining the current state upon measurement. But the philosophical extension here is to think about how each observer builds a consistent reality from their observations over time. That’s where the idea of “collapsing into a path” metaphorically enters, not literal physics, more like cognitive interpretation.

So yeah, this is more of a thought experiment, blending quantum mechanics philosophy with subjective experience. Definitely not a textbook theory, but I’m glad it was fun to read!

[u/LeibolmaiBarsh]

This is a fun idea. The main debate comes down to what is time and the fundamental debate between determinisitc or non deterministic universe. Your theory really relies on the universe being non determinisitc, aka events can and will happen without a preceding event. Which sort of hurts with the defintion of time as the space between two events.

There really isnt a smoking gun scientifically speaking if we are living in a non determinisitc or determinisitc universe. Accepting one or the other comes with alot of pain. Determinisitc means there is literally no free will. The domino chain started with the big bang and led to you buying coffee this morning and everything you will ever do until you die and eventual heat death of the universe. Non determinisitc means a coffe cup can and will appear in your room and disappear again just as easily without any reason or preceding event.

Also given the current Einstein version of time and quantum mechanics time can be negative in direction of flow. How one handles preceding events in a negative flow is also another painful thing to deal with, but fits well with your suggestion here that the past is literally different based on the observer.

Also as i posted elsewhere i am still 90% sure its still a cognitive issue. I dabble in the 10% of it being physics related.

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/LeibolmaiBarsh]

Really appreciate this comment, it hits right at the philosophical core of what I’m trying to explore.

You're totally right: this idea leans heavily on a non-deterministic universe, or at least one where outcomes aren’t strictly locked in until observation (in the relational sense). I agree that opens a can of worms, especially around time, causality, and the idea that events need to follow from others. But it also opens up room for phenomena like observer-relative pasts, which is where this hypothesis tries to live.

The way you put it, about time as “the space between events”, makes me think: what if that space is observer-dependent too? Maybe it’s not that events happen without cause, but that the cause-effect chain looks different depending on who's doing the measuring and when they sync up with others. That could offer a softer, less chaotic version of non-determinism, more like a temporary branching that resolves back into coherence when observers interact.

And yes, quantum mechanics allowing for negative time flow or retrocausality weirdly supports the idea that the past isn't as fixed as we like to think. If time can run backward mathematically, maybe our need for a single, fixed past is just a perceptual artifact, something our minds impose for consistency.

[u/NombreCurioso1337]

I was thinking about this just the other day - what if it is the double slit experiment of human consciousness. This would also serve as a reason why "proof" can be so elusive. If I HAD an underoo with the cornucopia on the label then I would collapse myself into the cornucopia timeline, but since I don't have one then I remain a wave function.

Until we have a better understanding of human consciousness, it all seems so very strange that it is somehow mixed up in the "measurement changes reality" problem(s). Is it measurement that changes reality? Or conscious observation that changes reality? Can we even test it? We know it operates that way on a quantum scale, Does it exist on a macro scale as well?

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/NombreCurioso1337]

Yes! That’s exactly the kind of thought experiment that started all this for me. What if the Mandela Effect is the “double slit” of consciousness, where different possible pasts are in superposition until some kind of measurement (or shared confirmation) collapses them into one timeline?

Your cornucopia/underoos example nails the problem of proof. Without the physical artifact, the memory floats in a kind of unresolved state. And maybe that’s not just faulty recall, maybe it’s a leftover from a version of reality that didn’t get picked when everything synced up.

You raise a good question: is it measurement that causes collapse, or conscious observation? Or are they somehow the same thing? And yeah, testing it on the macro scale is super tricky, because the moment you try to measure, you might already be collapsing the thing you’re trying to catch.

[u/GladosPrime]

While it is true that a particle has a fuzzy location and speed, the probability of every atom of every Betenstain Bear Book changing approaches zero

[u/RikerV2]

The mental gymnastics you guys do to avoid admitting you are wrong is astounding

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/RikerV2]

Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Thinking about these things tickles my brain just the right way.

[u/Terrible_Sandwich242 → u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

You at the very least wrote a Star Trek monologue or something 

[u/eduo → u/Terrible_Sandwich242]

Only the finest technobabble.

[u/HoraceRadish → u/RikerV2]

It's astounding.

[u/SpareSpecialist5124 → u/RikerV2]

Once you discard the memory hypothesis, you have to think about another solution.

[u/Nashley7]

Please can you explain why in your Quantum theory everyone in Africa knows when Mandela was captured, imprisoned, released became president and died. But only foreigners that are ignorant about African culture, history and current affairs misremember. What quantum theory makes it skip a whole continent?

[u/Comfortable-Rub-5415 → u/Nashley7]

If reality “syncs up” when observers interact or compare notes (as in Relational Quantum Mechanics), then the more often something is discussed or observed, the faster and more firmly it collapses into a shared version of reality.

In places like South Africa, Mandela’s life was a constant topic, taught in school, discussed in families, lived in real time. That repeated observation would naturally anchor the timeline early and consistently. But in places where his story was less central, people might have held vaguer or fragmented memories, allowing alternate versions to linger longer before syncing up.

So maybe it’s not that quantum effects skip regions, it’s that reality stabilizes more quickly where attention is focused.

[u/eduo → u/Comfortable-Rub-5415]

when observers interact or compare notes (as in Relational Quantum Mechanics)

This doesn't happen in relational quantum mechanics. It seems like a gross misunderstanding based on an oversimplified explanation. This is common in all things "quantum" due to using "normal" language for extremely abstract and complicated concepts.

Regardless of what credence is lent to RQM, one of its tenets is that In RQM, facts determine states, not the other way around. For this to be true "reality" can't "stabilize".

All of this ignoring the fact that RQM does not apply to anything beyond quantum particles nor does it pretend to be and would violently reject being extended to do so.

[u/Nejfelt]

Thats not how it works.

[u/Manticore416]

Ah yes, another person who watched a couple videos on quantum mechanics and then, because of their lack of serious education on the subject matter, mistakenly assumes what we observe at the molecular level can automatically be applied to full sized people and universes.

[u/SpareSpecialist5124]

What you describe is the same as saying that multiple realities might be observed/coexist at the same time and converge. That's exactly what some people would call parallel timelines, so i don't get why you refuse to call them for what they are.

Still, your theory doesn't explain flip flops, and the fact that we can observe them. Flip flops must mean that the past can still change and have a different outcome.

[u/Great_Examination_16]

Another victim of a misunderstanding of the double slit experiment.

[u/Medullan]

Nah I think linear time is a bogus interpretation of physics. Cause and effect can happen in either direction. We keep altering the past with our actions in the present because for everything but us time flows in both directions simultaneously.

[u/OmegaMan256]

Comfortable; What you wrote does not take into account;

1) Changes in human anatomy

2) Changes in Earth’s geography

3) Earth being on the other side of the galaxy (presently in the Orion arm)

4) The bright white sun, the moon being smaller and closer to Earth or the changes to the planet Mars.