Your statement contains a mix of scientific concepts and speculative ideas, so let's break it down to assess its validity:
-
Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: The idea that quantum mechanics has a direct role in consciousness is a speculative area of thought. While some theories, like those proposed by physicists such as Roger Penrose and others, suggest a connection between quantum phenomena and consciousness, these ideas are not widely accepted in the scientific community and remain controversial.
-
Cylinder Shape of Cosmological Objects: The shape of cosmological objects (like cosmic strings or other theoretical constructs) is a topic of study in theoretical physics. However, the implications of a "cylinder shape" leading to specific effects like time travel or altering the arrow of time is not grounded in established physics. Current understanding of cosmological structures is based on general relativity and observable phenomena, which do not support the idea that a specific shape would allow for affecting time in such a manner.
-
Impact on the Expanding Universe: If a cosmological object were to collapse or release energy (e.g., a supernova), it could have localized effects on surrounding space-time. However, the idea that such an event would fundamentally alter the expansion of the universe or create time travel retrospectively is not supported by empirical evidence.
-
Time Dilation: Time dilation is a well-established consequence of relativity, where time passes at different rates depending on the relative speed of observers or the presence of strong gravitational fields. However, this principle is distinct from the notion of a "bent" structure causing time travel in a more fantastical sense.
-
Predictions of Reality: The idea that thoughts or predictions could manifest reality verges on philosophical rather than scientific discourse. While consciousness and perception can influence human behavior and interpretations of events, the concept of consciousness directly altering physical reality remains unproven.
In summary, while your statement raises interesting points and connections to theories, many aspects are speculative, and established physics does not support them as you have framed them. Therefore, we can say that your statement is largely false or at least not reflectively true within the current scientific understanding.