Talk:Ansible/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

Don't want to edit the page because I don't fully understand the concept enough to explain it, but there have been recent advancements which DO in fact allow the storage and transmission of information via quantum entaglement: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090123-teleportation-atoms.html

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)

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)

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)

This is among several themes that Thomas M. Disch reports on in his book The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of. As I recall he equivocates on the plausibility of the lesbian/ansible anagram and the proposition that it was devised as a sci-fi technology that was "not equivalent to rape". Yeah right what? Anyway, he confirms that this was at one point a matter of genuine debate in fandom. Asat (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2008 (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))

Ansible=Answerable

Here is an (unreliable) source for this claim on rec.arts.sf.written: http://groups.google.tt/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_thread/thread/ac6ae29e85239fb/c1ff58cb2d78073e?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1&hl=en#c1ff58cb2d78073e Fences and windows (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Should a section be added for pop-culture and movie refernces?

In the video game, Advent Rising, the universe in which the game takes place also uses an ansible. The game's story was written mostly by Orson Scott Card, so perhaps it should be added to that section. I do not know of any other games or movies that have used an ansible other than Advent Rising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modsandends (talk • contribs) 05:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The MMO Eve Online backstory also describes the game's FTL communication to be based on entanglement. http://www.eveonline.com/background/communication/ Andersenman (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ansible as Metaphor

Is this not exactly the same thing that we have now, with streaming movies on demand on our wireless iPads, aside from the huge distances from transmitter to receiver that are required for science fiction? This was a concept that came to popularity in the 1960's. I think there should be a section on corollary technology in our current circumstances - if there are such sources. Radio was THE ONLY WAY to communicate across the globe nearly instantly at that time. Now everything is much faster, and the concept itself, as explained here, does not seem to have gotten outside of a long list of examples and a brief explanation. 75.134.26.34 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, radio was only used for local broadcasts and ship-to-ship until relay satellites came into their own, because atmospheric skip is unreliable. To communicate across the globe prior to that, they used transoceanic cables and morse code or telephony. Currently there is speculation that if neutrinos communication could be perfected, allowing signals to pass straight through the earth, then high-frequency traders would have an edge, knowing market conditions some milliseconds before other traders who must rely on information going the long way around the planet. But faster-than-light communication is thought to be impossible, because it would violate causality. Linuxgal (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking for an 'ansible as metaphor' section in wikipedia - causality arguments are not relevant when we're arguing about what should be on the wiki for fictional pop culture phenomenon. Speaking of speculation, you can hear a person on the opposite side of the globe on am OR fm if they are broadcasting in a frequency that bounces down as opposed to escaping the ionosphere. It's science FICTION - it doesn't matter whether "faster-than-light communication is thought to be impossible" - what matters is which writers and stories, and when and maybe if it can be documented, and why... and a healthy mix of current technology along with all that speculation makes for a big sell - wikipedia is above all that. There are more than enough primary sources to make this article better, and factual, under an "ansible as metaphor" sub. 75.134.26.34 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

not to mention that first sentence, where apparently no matter WHEN in time, an Ansible should always be the size of a lunch box - tell me - whose lunch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.26.34 (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Original Research

This article is entirely original research (see WP:OR: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."). The insufficient citations are all primary sources; not a single secondary source discussing "ansible-like" devices across the literature is cited. The only source that is not a ficional use of a supposedly 'ansible-like' device consists entirely of a comic and the text "There’s no such thing as an Ansible, and there’s no reason to believe they will ever exist, but if someone invented them I’m sure they would be used for porn.I’m getting ready for San Diego Comic Con! Are you going to be there? I will. I very, very will."

It's my opinion this article, as it stands, should be deleted. Can someone find a reliable secondary source to support this classification of a particularly narrow category of fictional devices? Eaglizard (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The term is quite widely used in SF and SF criticism. Wikipedia needs an article on it. I personally think WP:OR is overapplied, and I think the article is just fine as is. Zack (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine having an article - about the device invented by LeGuin and used by other writers. But a large part of the article is a listing of other "similar" devices. I don't see how that belongs here, unless you can argue that ansible is the most common name for such a device - and I am not sure that is true. Why not have that in an article on subspace radios ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Relativity and causation

I left it this way:

The theory of special relativity (and equally well the theory of general relativity) predicts that any such device would allow communication from the future to the past - a form of time travel which in general raises problems of causality.

This may be phrased a bit awkwardly, but it's more accurate than what came before. There's no difference between special or general relativity for this question, since the intended examples are accomplished locally, in a relatively small region of spacetime — meaning topologically trivial and nearly flat. That is, if you have the example in Minkowski spacetime, you have it in a general curved spacetime. GR does not help. Only other structures might.

Incidentally, the way you do the communication is to apply the ansible twice. Assuming you can can connect any two spacelike-related points in Minkowski space by an ansible, you can then connect any two points — in particular any two timelike-related points — by the concatenation of two ansibles. Meaning you need a repeater. 178.38.119.178 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally, but not universally accepted

However, it is generally (but not universally) accepted that this effect cannot be used to perform communication.

There are numerous theorems, expressed in the language of quantum mechanics, that show that FTL communication cannot occur, even though quantum nonlocality involves "instantaneous" effects, so to speak. But I didn't want to rule out that there will always be a few workers (meaning physics researchers) who look for a way around this from time to time. 178.38.119.178 (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Grandfather Paradoz

the article states, without citation, that the large hadron collider at CERN refuted the grandfather paradox. if this is confirmed in scientific literature, a citation is required. if not, this extravagant claim ought be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.151 (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Massive cleaning

I've done one round of revisions to this article. It needs a second round, but I want to wait for any comments before doing more on the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Other fictional FTL communication devices

There is a new discussion at Talk:Superluminal communication‎#Fictitious devices. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Quantum nonlocality and entanglement

Previous text:

Quantum nonlocality is often proposed as a mechanism for superluminal communication.[4] A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that in any hypothetical nonlocal hidden-variables theory the speed of the quantum non-local connection would have to be at least 10,000 times the speed of light.[5] Practical applications are shown to be impossible by the no-cloning theorem, and the fact that quantum field theories preserve causality, quantum correlations cannot be used to transfer information.

Quantum entanglement has also been theorized to be a means to create an Ansible.[6] Time reports that the Delft Institute of Technology in The Netherlands has demonstrated the principle by isolating target entangled electrons inside two supercooled diamonds placed 10 meters apart, creating what one of the physicists described as “miniprisons” for them. They then manipulated their spin rate and determined that the behavior of one indeed continued to determine the spin of the other, and vice versa, even at that distance.[7]

This text had some "soft" problems, as follows.

(1) Quantum entanglement and quantum nonlocality are not separate phenomena. Entanglement is the means by which nonlocality is realized. So these should be treated together.

(2) Practical applications are shown to be impossible by the no-cloning theorem, and the fact that quantum field theories preserve causality, quantum correlations cannot be used to transfer information. Actually, the current theory just says it can't happen.

(3) I don't know what to do with the examples. They don't demonstrate FTL communication. Maybe the first one does something to exclude it. Both seem to verify that entanglement is enforced by very fast FTL interactions, so to speak. But this is just what nonlocality means. It's still not (usable for) communication.

In any case, they are specialized, isolated pieces of evidence. My feeling is they belong in the articles on quantum nonlocality and quantum entanglement where they can fight it out for attention with their peers. (Meaning other very specific experiments.) So I've moved them below, and someone else can rescue them to somewhere, if they want to.

A 2008 quantum physics experiment performed in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that in any hypothetical nonlocal hidden-variables theory the speed of the "quantum non-local connection" would have to be at least 10,000 times the speed of light.

Time reports that the Delft Institute of Technology in The Netherlands has demonstrated the principle of entanglement by isolating target entangled electrons inside two supercooled diamonds placed 10 meters apart, creating what one of the physicists described as “miniprisons” for them. They then manipulated their spin rate and determined that the behavior of one indeed continued to determine the spin of the other, and vice versa, even at that distance.

By the way, I don't know how to prevent the two footnotes confusingly ending up at the bottom of the talk page. 178.38.119.178 (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Footnotes fixed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)