Dreaming the past

My novel In the Midst of Lions opens with a character named Mary Hansard -- an ordinary forty-something high school physics teacher -- suddenly realizing she can see the future.

More than that, really; she now has no reliable way of telling the future from the past.  She "remembers" both of them, and if she has no external context by which to decide, she can't tell if what's in her mind occurred in the past or will occur in the future.  Eventually, she realizes that the division of the passage of time she'd always considered real and inviolable has changed.  Instead of past, present, and future, there are now only two divisions: present and not-present.  Here's how she comes to see things:

In the past two months, it felt like the universe had changed shape.  The linear slow march of time was clean gone, and what was left was a block that was unalterable, the people and events in it frozen in place like butterflies in amber.  Her own position in it had become as observer rather than participant.  She could see a wedge of the block, extending back into her distant past and forward into her all-too-short future.  Anything outside that wedge was invisible...  She found that it completely dissolved her anxiety about what might happen next.  Being not-present, the future couldn’t hurt her.  If pain lay ahead of her, it was as removed from her as her memories of a broken arm when she was twelve.  Neither one had any impact on the present as it slowly glided along, a moving flashlight beam following her footsteps through the wrecked cityscape.

 I found myself thinking about Mary and her peculiar forwards-and-backwards perception while I was reading physicist Sean Carroll's wonderful and mind-blowing book From Eternity to Here: A Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time, which looks at the puzzling conundrum of what physicists call time's arrow -- why, when virtually all physical laws are time-reversible, there is a clear directionality to our perceptions of the universe.  A classic example is the motion of billiard balls on a table.  Each ball's individual motion is completely time-reversible (at least if you discount friction with the table); if you filmed a ball rolling and bouncing off a bumper, then ran the recording backwards, it would be impossible to tell which was the original video and which was the reversed one.  The laws of motion make no differentiation between time running forward and time running backward.

But.

If you played a video of the initial break of the balls at the beginning of the game, then ran the recording backwards -- showing the balls rolling around and after a moment, assembling themselves back into a perfect triangle -- it would be blatantly obvious which was the reversed video.  The difference, Carroll explains, is entropy, which is a measure of the number of possible ways a system can exist and be indistinguishable on the macro level.  What I mean by this is that the racked balls are in a low-entropy state; there aren't that many ways you can assemble fifteen balls into a perfect equilateral triangle.  On the other hand, after the break, with the balls scattered around the table seemingly at random -- there are nearly an infinite number of ways you can have the balls arranged that would be more or less indistinguishable, in the sense that any of them would be equally likely to occur following the break.  Given photographs of thousands of different positions, not even Commander Data could determine which one was the pic taken immediately after the balls stopped moving.

Sure, it's possible you could get all the balls rolling in such a way that they would come to rest reassembled into a perfect triangle.  It's just extremely unlikely.  The increase in entropy, it seems, is based on what will probably happen.  There are so many high-entropy states and so few low-entropy states that if you start with a low-entropy arrangement, the chances are it will evolve over time into a high-entropy one.  The result is that it is (very) strongly statistically favored that entropy increases over time.  

The Arrow of Time by artist benpva16 [Image licensed under the Creative Commons Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 license: creativecommons.org/licenses/b…]

The part of the book that I am still trying to parse is chapter nine, "Information and Life," where he ties the physical arrow of time (an example of which I described above) with the psychological arrow of time.  Why can't we all do what Mary Hansard can do -- see the past and future both -- if the only thing that keeps us knowing which way is forward and which way is backward is the probability of a state's evolution?  After all, there are plenty of cases where entropy can locally go down; a seed growing into a tree, for example.  (This only occurs because of a constant input of energy; contrary to what creationists would have you believe, the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't disprove evolution, because living things are open systems and require an energy source.  Turn off the Sun, and entropy would increase fast.)

So if entropy actually explains the psychological arrow of time, why can I remember events where entropy went down -- such as yesterday, when I took a lump of clay and fashioned it into a sculpture?

Carroll's explanation kind of made my mind blow up.  He says that our memories themselves aren't real reflections of the past; they're a state of objects in our environment and neural firings in our brain in the present that we then assemble into a picture of what we think the past was, based on our assumption that entropy was lower in the past than it is now.  He writes:

So let's imagine you have in your possession something you think of as a reliable record of the past: for example, a photograph taken of your tenth birthday party.  You might say to yourself, "I can be confident that I was wearing a red shirt at my tenth birthday party, because this photograph of that event shows me wearing a red shirt."...

[Is] the present macrostate including the photo... enough to conclude with confidence that we were really wearing a red shirt at our tenth birthday party?

Not even close.  We tend to think that [it is], without really worrying about the details too much as we get through our lives.  Roughly speaking, we figure that a photograph like that is a highly specific arrangement of its constituent molecules.  (Likewise for a memory in our brain of the same event.)  It's not as if those molecules are just going to randomly assemble themselves into the form of that particular photo -- that's astronomically unlikely.  If, however, there really was an event in the past corresponding to the image portrayed in the photo, and someone was there with a camera, then the existence of the photo becomes relatively likely.  It's therefore very reasonable to conclude that the birthday party really did happen in the way seen in the photo.

All of those statements are reasonable, but the problem is that they are not nearly enough to justify the final conclusion...  Yes, the photograph is a very specific and unlikely arrangement of molecules.  However, the story we are telling to "explain" it -- an elaborate reconstruction of the past, involving birthday parties and cameras and photographs surviving essentially undisturbed to the present day -- is even less likely than the photo all by itself...

Think of it this way: You would never think to appeal to some elaborate story in the future to explain the existence of a particular artifact in the present.  If we ask about the future of our birthday photo, we might have some plans to frame it or whatnot, but we'll have to admit to a great deal of uncertainty -- we could lose it, it could fall into a puddle and decay, or it could burn in a fire.  Those are all perfectly plausible extrapolations of the present state into the future, even with the specific anchor point provided by the photo here in the present.  So why are we so confident about what the photo implies concerning the past?

The answer, he says, is that we're relying on probability and the likelihood that the past had lower entropy -- in other words, that the photo didn't come from some random collision of molecules, just as our surmise about the billiard balls' past came from the fact that a perfect triangular arrangement is way less likely than a random one.  All we have, Carroll says, is our knowledge of the present; everything else is an inference.  In every present moment, our reconstruction of the past is a dream, pieced together using whatever we're experiencing at the time.

So maybe we're not as different from Mary Hansard, with her moving flashlight beam gliding along and spotlighting the present, as I'd thought.

Mind = blown.

I'm still not completely convinced I'm understanding all the subtleties in Carroll's arguments, but I get enough of it that I've been thinking about it ever since I put the book down.  But in any case, I'd better wrap this up, because...

... I'm running short on time.

****************************************

Timey-wimey light

I don't always need to understand things to appreciate them.

In fact, there's a part of me that likes having my mind blown.  I find it reassuring that the universe is way bigger and more complex than I am, and the fact that I actually can parse a bit of it with my little tiny mind is astonishing and cool.  How could it possibly be surprising that there's so much more out there than the fragment of it I can comprehend?

This explains my love for twisty, complicated fiction, in which you're not handed all the answers and everything doesn't get wrapped up with a neat bow at the end.  It's why I thoroughly enjoyed the last season of Doctor Who, the six-part story arc called "Flux."  Apparently it pissed a lot of fans off because it had a quirky, complicated plot that left a bunch of loose ends, but I loved that.  (I'm also kind of in love with Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor, but that's another matter.)

I don't feel like I need all the answers.  I'm not only fine with having to piece together what exactly happened to whom, but I'm okay that sometimes I don't know.  You just have to accept that even with all the information right there in front of you, it's still not enough to figure everything out.

Because, after all, that's how the universe itself is.

[Nota bene: Please don't @ me about how much you hated Flux, or how I'm crediting Doctor Who showrunner Chris Chibnall with way too much cleverness by comparing his work to the very nature of the universe.  For one thing, you're not going to change my mind.  For another, I can't be arsed to argue about a matter of taste.  Thanks.]

In any case, back to actual science.  That sense of reality being so weird and complicated that it's beyond my grasp is why I keep coming back to the topic of quantum physics.  It is so bizarrely counterintuitive that a lot of laypeople hear about it, scoff, and say, "Okay, that can't be real."  The problem with the scoffers is that although sometimes we're not even sure what the predictions of quantum mechanics mean, they are superbly accurate.  It's one of the most thoroughly tested scientific models in existence, and it has passed every test.  There are measurements made using the quantum model that have been demonstrated to align with the predictions to the tenth decimal place.

That's a level of accuracy you find almost nowhere else in science.

The reason all this wild stuff comes up is because of a pair of papers (both still in peer review) that claim to have demonstrated something damn near incomprehensible -- the researchers say they have successfully split a photon and then triggered half of it to move backwards in time.

One of the biggest mysteries in physics is the question of the "arrow of time," a conundrum about which I wrote in some detail earlier this year.  The gist of the problem -- and I refer you to the post I linked if you want more information -- is that the vast majority of the equations of physics are time-reversible.  They work equally well backwards and forwards.  A simple example is that if you drop a ball with zero initial velocity, it will reach a speed of 9.8 meters per second after one second; if you toss a ball upward with an initial velocity of 9.8 meters per second, after one second it will have decelerated to a velocity of zero.  If you had a film clip of the two trajectories, the first one would look exactly like the second one running backwards, and vice versa; the physics works the same forwards as in reverse.

The question, then, is why is this so different from our experience?  We remember the past and don't know the future.  The physicists tell us that time is reversible, but it sure as hell seems irreversible to us.  If you see a ball falling, you don't think, "Hey, you know, that could be a ball thrown upward with time running backwards."  (Well, I do sometimes, but most people don't.)  The whole thing bothered Einstein no end.  "The distinction between past, present, and future," he said, "is only an illusion, albeit a stubbornly persistent one."

This skew between our day-to-day experience and what the equations of physics describe is why the recent papers are so fascinating.  What the researchers did was to take a photon, split it, and allow the two halves to travel through a crystal.  During its travels, one half had its polarity reversed.  When the two pieces were recombined, it produced an interference pattern -- a pattern of light and dark stripes -- only possible, the physicists say, if the reversed-polarity photon had actually been traveling backwards in time as it traveled forwards in space.

The scientists write:

In the macroscopic world, time is intrinsically asymmetric, flowing in a specific direction, from past to future.  However, the same is not necessarily true for quantum systems, as some quantum processes produce valid quantum evolutions under time reversal.  Supposing that such processes can be probed in both time directions, we can also consider quantum processes probed in a coherent superposition of forwards and backwards time directions.  This yields a broader class of quantum processes than the ones considered so far in the literature, including those with indefinite causal order.  In this work, we demonstrate for the first time an operation belonging to this new class: the quantum time flip.

This takes wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey to a whole new level.

Do I really understand what happened here on a technical level?  Hell no.  But whatever it is, it's cool.  It shows us that our intuition about how things work is wildly and fundamentally incomplete.  And I, for one, love that.  It's amazing that not only are there things out there in the universe that are bafflingly weird, we're actually making some inroads into figuring them out.

To quote the eminent physicist Richard Feynman, "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing.  I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.  I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure about anything."

To which I can only say: precisely.  (Thanks to the wonderful Facebook pages Thinking is Power and Mensa Saskatchewan for throwing this quote my way -- if you're on Facebook, you should immediately follow them.  They post amazing stuff like this every day.)

I'm afraid I am, and will always be, a dilettante.  There are only a handful of subjects about which I feel any degree of confidence in my depth of comprehension.  But that's okay.  I make up for my lack of specialization by being eternally inquisitive, and honestly, I think that's more fun anyhow.

 Three hundreds years ago, we didn't know atoms existed.  It was only in the early twentieth century that we figured out their structure, and that they aren't the little solid unbreakable spheres we thought they were.  (That concept is still locked into the word "atom" -- it comes from a Greek word meaning "can't be cut.")  Since then, we've delved deeper and deeper into the weird world of the very small, and what we're finding boggles the mind.  My intuition is that if you think it's gotten as strange as it can get, you haven't seen nothin' yet.

I, for one, can't wait.

****************************************