As the memes say, it wasn’t particularly viral. But for a couple of hours on the morning of November 6, the term “the darkest timeline” trended on Google searches, and several physicists posted reflections on social media about whether we were really there. All the probabilities expressed in opinion polls and prediction markets collapsed into one specific outcome, and history shifted from “what might have been” to “just happened.” In this hyper-polarized US presidential election, the two sides agreed on almost nothing, except the belief that their outcome would be an unfortunate choice between two different trajectories for our world.
This raises the obvious (but perhaps pointless) question: Could the “darkest timeline” (or any other “timeline,” for that matter) be real? Somewhere in the great beyond, could there be a parallel world where Kamala Harris won the election instead?
It is seen there, outside of the promotion of fleeting socio-political fantasy and outside of putting a scientific gloss on the genre. counterfactual historythe notion of alternate timelines is something physicists take very seriously. The most popular concept appears in quantum mechanics, which predicts many outcomes.cats alive and dead and all that. If a particle of light—a photon—hits a partially silvered mirror, the particle can somehow cross and reflect off that surface—two mutually exclusive results known in physics parlance as superposition. Only one of these options will appear when the observation is made, but until then, the particle juggles both options at once. That’s what mathematics and experiments confirm. For example, you can create an overlay and then undo it by partially directing the light onto a second silver mirror. This would not have been possible unless both options remained in play. Although this feature is usually framed in terms of subatomic particles, it is believed to be ubiquitous at all scales of the universe.
About supporting science journalism
If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you’re helping to ensure a future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world.
It supports the idea that these timelines are real, and not just imaginary fictions “note” with each other increasing or decreasing the probability of their occurrence. This is something that could happen but he doesn’t what does it have a measurable impact on? does, as if the former were reaching from the shadowy realm of the possible into the world of the real.
Let’s say bomb detector What physicists Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman proposed in 1993 and has since been proven (thankfully not with real bombs): Do the experiment with a partially silvered mirror but place a light-sensitive bomb in one of the two paths that can receive photons. This blocking prevents the superposition from being created to return the traveling photon to its original state. It does so, even though the bomb never ignites, indicating that the photon never touched it. simple option that the photon could hit the bomb it affects what happens. In theory, you could use this principle, known as counterfactual definition—to take X-ray images of cells without exposure to harmful radiation. In a matter known as counterfactual quantum computing, a computer derives a value Even if you never press the “run” button.
One way to think about the counterfactual definition is known as the many-worlds interpretation. A photon hitting a mirror forks the cosmic timeline, creating a world in which the particle passes through the mirror and another that reflects off that surface. Each of us is embedded in our own world and therefore sees only one outcome at a time, but the other is still there, visible to an inhabitant of the alternate world. All such worlds, taken together, they form the “multiverse”.
Whether or not you agree with the many-worlds interpretation, physicists and philosophers certainly love to argue about it. Some admire its elegance; while others are dealing with conceptual problems, such as the slippery matter of what constitutes a “world”. Quantum theory not only allows for multiple worlds, but provides multiple ways to define them.
In all the many world debates, however, the essential vision of the creator of the idea, the physicist. Hugh Everettit is often forgotten. Everett developed his view in response to the hypothesis of other physicists that if a particle enters such a state that we can only see one of the overlapping possibilities, something must rule out all other possibilities. In other words, some mechanism must collapse the superposition—perhaps the act of observation itself or some sporadic randomness inherent in the fabric of reality. Everett noticed a fallacy in that line of reasoning: it will always the overlay looks like it’s collapsed, even though it’s still intact. The reason is that, in our observation, we interact with the particles, and we and it become one combined system. Since the particle is in superposition, so are we. But we can’t say. Everett’s basic point is this: we are part of the reality we want to observe, but no part can fully grasp the whole, and therefore our view is limited. Multiple timelines are created in the hidden gaps imposed by the introgression into our universe.
Other branches of physics also treat existence as bifurcating timelines. Physicists consider counterfactuals when calculating a particle’s trajectory; according to what they call the principle of least actioneven a classical particle showing no distinct quantum effects rules out all possibilities. In statistical physics, researchers study particles by the septillion by thinking in terms of “multiverses,” which is another type of multiverse that includes all the possible ways particles can organize and evolve. Over time, the particles explore all open options. We sense their machinations indirectly as the setting of heat flow and thermodynamic equilibrium. Outside of physics, evolutionary biologists also talk about multiple timelines: if you do it again. evolution of specieswould things turn out the same?
All these scientific issues are rooted in a fundamental puzzle: what does it mean to be possible but not real? Why is something more than something else? Physicist Paul Davies has called this “the puzzle of what is”. It not only touches on esoteric ideas about timelines but also aspects of everyday life such as causation. In order to say that something causes something else, there must first be the possibility that “something else” never happened. In astrobiologist Sara Imari Walker’s latest book on the physics of life, A life that no one knows that the entire observable universe does not have enough material to create all possible small organic molecules, let alone large ones like the DNA strands we know and love. For him, living things are distinguished by making molecules and other different structures it is likely to disappear. Life makes a path through the void of opportunity space.
Perhaps a deep rule selects true reality from among possible realitiesbut efforts to identify this principle have been interrupted. It’s hard to argue that ours is the best of all possible worlds. Nor, XIX. Not to mention the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer of the 20th century he proclaimedlooks like it’s the worst – things can always get worse, Google searches for “darkest timeline” anyway. For many, for example the philosopher David Lewis and the cosmologist Max Tegmark, it is the most direct conclusion all possible realities exist.
The real question, then, is not whether there is another timeline; there are, without a doubt. On the contrary, that is why we only see it. Perhaps life or intelligence would not be possible if branching were too obvious. Physics is full of such prerequisites for our existence. For example, if the flow of time had no directionan arrow of time—there could be no permanent change, no memory, no intelligence, no agency. Keeping other timelines hidden can be of similar importance. Quantum superposition may work some specialized functions in our bodies, but is otherwise dissipated in biology’s vigorous material and energy exchange with the environment, along with remnants of alternate timelines. The very nature of intelligence is to be selective; We would be paralyzed if we had to rehearse limitless infinities. Instead of keeping all options open, the mind must settle on one, at least temporarily. The effort required to make that choice – and, from then on, to act on it – can be the key to giving us at least the subjective feeling of free will.
So be careful what you wish for. In dark hours we can imagine alternate timelines and long to escape to another, but we seem inseparable from our own. If it were easier to walk among them, we would only reach oblivion. Like it or not, we’re stuck in this—if we want to change, we’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way.
