Talk:Ansible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Too much Ender's Game?

A great deal of Ender-verse specific information has recently been added to this article. I do not think this is appropriate; I would prefer that the article focus on the generic concept, perhaps with short (one-sentence) examples of use by various different science fiction authors. Thoughts? Zack 20:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so; it is simply an explanation (apparently, the only time an explanation has been given) of how an ansible might actually work. As such, I think it should be kept in. --Crais459 15:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Yah, it is the only attempt to explain it that I am aware of, but I still don't think it goes in the article, for two reasons. First, it's not a credible explanation to anyone who knows even a little particle physics (you can't separate the two quarks of a pi meson by even a foot, never mind interstellar distances), yet it was being presented as though credible. Second, it gives disproportionate attention to a universe where the ansible is barely ever on stage. It is far more significant in Le Guin's SF universe, yet we don't give the Ekumen multiple paragraphs of discussion.
For these reasons I have removed most of the Enderverse text, and the Enderverse category and infobox. What I've left is credit to Card for attempting to explain it, but then an explanation of why you can't build one his way in the real world. I think this is much more in keeping with the rest of the article.
Zack 04:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, really apprecitated the references to Card's ansible, and likewise have added a paragraph description of Le Guin's ansible, as well as a few of my own hypotheses. 66.44.126.237 21:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More reversions

I undid much of User:Marblespire's edits to the "we don't know how to build this in real life" paragraph and the Enderverse discussion. Allow me to explain.

  • Most importantly to my mind: I reverted (paraphrasing) "we don't currently understand this phenomenon well enough to use it for communication" to "as we currently understand this phenomenon, it cannot be used for communication". Applied to quantum entanglement, the former sentence incorrectly implies that future advances are likely to make it possible; the latter correctly implies that it would take revolutionary change to quantum theory to make it possible.
  • The reversion to "There is no known way to build an ansible" is for euphony. This is unlikely to change anytime soon, so it is silly to give a date; until the extraterrestrial aliens actually start talking to us, restricting the discussion to humanity is unnecessary.
  • Not saying how the ansible works is a deliberate choice on most authors' part -- they don't want to be nitpicked the way Card's explanation is nitpicked here.
  • Ender's Game is probably the most widely read work to use the word, but within the SF readers' community, "ansible" is associated much more strongly with Le Guin, so I don't think Card should have the "most famous" credit.
  • And I think it's more accurate to say that later Enderverse books plots depend strongly on philotics in general, but the ansible is just there, it's not a central social phenomenon the way it is in Ekumen stories.

Zack 03:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed a section

There are no ISFDB hits for "Mingus Casey"; I've removed that section as a probably joke/hoax. --Bob Mellish 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-ansible ansibles

Why would we call things that are not called ansibles ansibles in this article? FTL Communication predates Le Guins conceptualization of an ansible, yet we are attributing every post Le Guin FTL radio as an ansible. Why not characterize everything as an Asimov Hyperwave/Ultrawave radio set? 132.205.93.88 02:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph seems to address some of your issues; including identifying which ansible-like devices are not called ansibles. This is an article about the ansible, so I don't think it's inappropriate to use that term. If you think there should be more discussion about other FTL communication devices, why not add to the article or start a new article? I don't have much knowledge in this area, but it sounds like a great idea to have more information about the history and development of the concept.Qball6 21:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there are two good ways the article could be made less messy: Either change the opening sentence to make it clear that it's about the word "ansible", or move the whole article to "Faster-than-light communication" ("...is a common plot device in science fiction"). --DocumentN (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lesbian Anarchist conspiracy?

"it is often speculated that [ansible] is a deliberate anagram of the word "lesbian" (which is in keeping with the anarchist tones in [LeGuin's] writing)"

OK, so can someone explain:

  • Who "often speculated" this?
  • What makes an anagram of any sexual preference "in keeping with" anarchism?

Otherwise, this entire clause seems like original research at best, and at worst unverifiable fodder for removal. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 22:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I found what appears to be the source of this claim. The source cannot confirm that the anagram is deliberate, or that it is related in any way to anarchism. I'm revising the article to reflect this. Aardvark92 05:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this BBC page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1165501) is necessarily an acceptable source. Much of the BBC would be, but the h2g2 pages are pretty much like Wikipedia [1] and there is no source quoted. Maybe it's worth asking on Talk:Christopher Priest to see if anyone familiar with his work can give the place he original wrote (hopefully) or said (less useful) this. Notinasnaid 08:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this was at least enough information for me to dredge up a slightly better (read: more reliable) source. I'll put that in the reference, and move the h2g2 link to External Links, which is where it belongs if it's to stay at all. Thanks to both of you for the assistance. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 08:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "but Le Guin has never given any indication that this was deliberate" presumably refers to the "lesbian" anagram, but with that gone, it looks like it refers to "answerable", which she is quoted as saying was deliberate. I'm not sure of the best way of cleaning that up. Daibhid C 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase, as it doesn't appear to serve any purpose now. Aardvark92 16:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's time to update the page, guys. http://www.neatorama.com/2006/12/10/sending-encrypted-message-using-spooky-photons/#comment-57332 (209.90.91.19 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Re: The Reality; a quantum entanglement method not ruled out?

There's a proposed method for instantaneous interstellar communication that the author suggests might work around the limitations of the no cloning theorem. It's on a SETI website: http://www.seti.org.au/spacecom/quantumcom.html

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might opine on how credible John Walsh's idea actually is?


John G. Cramer Is about to test if this is possible. We might have an answer by September 15th. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274531.aspx Whiteflame74 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word choice

'Isaac Asimov solved the same communication problem with the "hyper-wave relay" in The Foundation Series.' I don't want to spend too much time on it right now, but this seems inaccurately worded. --DocumentN (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)