Talk:Quarantine (Egan novel)

The Bubble permits no light to enter the solar system

I've been thinking about this. In the novel, Egan states that the bubble does let through 'background radiation', as a concession perhaps to the second law of thermodynamics causing the internals of the bubble to freeze. Light is merely a form of radiation that falls into the spectrum we can observe with our biological optical equipment. Many of the interesting things we have detected outside of the galaxy have been detected using radiation from other spectra using artificial equipment.

I think that (within the constraints of the interpretation of QM in the novel) detecting an object outside the solar system, even using artificial equipment and radiation we cannot detect naturally, would fix it's position and collapse the states that contradict with that information, just as observing the light from a star with the naked eye would. Thus, the bubble must exclude any information from any body outside the solar system in any of the (remaining) possible eigenstates that define the position.

Now since we don't really understand background radiation (in lieu of the horizon problem) I am descending into pure, unadulterated speculation. Assuming that BG radiation is generated by some form of object or objects that we do not understand, but may understand one day, then the BG radiation could allow us to collapse eigenstates on those objects as above. Therefore, the bubble must do one of two things

1. artificially generate background radiation (rather than let it pass-through as the novel states)
2. the bubble is imperfect- humanity could gain an understanding of the objects that emitt the BG radiation and collapse their states accordingly

Regarding point two: maybe this is related to the bubble-makers intentions for humanity to one day understand the bubble, why it's there, etc... and gaining control over the observer's eigenstate collapsing is a prerequisite for understanding the BG radiation?

Jon Dowland 13:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Um. Egan says that the Bubble emits nothing but "a featureless trickle of thermal radiation", which is far colder than the cosmic microwave background (whose signals no longer reach the Earth). This is consistent with the Bubble being an "inside-out" version of a black hole, a spherically symmetric event horizon whose outside is the solar system and whose inside is everything else. According to the bloke in the wheelchair, black holes emit Hawking radiation—an natural consequence of combining quantum mechanics with general relativity. The Bubble emits Hawking radiation. Whether or not this conveys any information about the uncollapsed world "outside" (really, one should say "inside"). . . well, that's a question modern physics hasn't really gotten around to answering yet. It's equivalent to asking what happens to the information which falls into a regular black hole, and that question is still, shall we say, not definitely collapsed. Anville 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

incorrect ending

The ending described in this write-up does not correspond with the one I read. However, I can't find my paperback right now, so I can't fix it. When it turns up I'll have a go :) -- Jon Dowland 21:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the end the Bubble vanishes and only New Hong Kong has become a disaster area with several million dead. The protagonist survived and travels from camp to camp in search of a woman, probably the one that was simulated by a mod in his head. --Fasten 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Bubble doesn't vanish; certainly, the narrator doesn't mention anything about the rest of the world reacting as if it had. Only NHK sees the infinite "superspace" beyond the Bubble, because either the Bubble Makers intervened or the "smeared humanity" recoiled. At the very end, the narrator is still trying to decide whether he's staring into infinity or at the backs of his own eyelids. Anville 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

rm original research

Is it original research to refer to metaphors in a novel? Many words are ambiguous and explaining possible interpretations of phrases probably does not qualify as original research. At what point does the interpretation of phrases, that is required for the understanding of any text, turn into original research and shouldn't that be a variable depending on the type and intend of the text? Novels often do conceal a relevant part of their meaning in metaphors and cannot be described sufficiently without a certain amount of analysis of the metaphorical language. --Fasten 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

From the official policy on the matter:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say.

And a little later:

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:

• it introduces a theory or method of solution; or
• it introduces original ideas; or
• it defines new terms; or
• it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or
• it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or
• it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or
• it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

Linking "stars" with "celebrities" (a puerile pun, if you ask me) introduces an interpretation of the novel. One would also have to go through extreme rhetorical contortions to explain how the technology in the novel "reduces personal options": practically all the mods Egan makes up allow people to have things "simply by wanting them". The only exception, of course, is the loyalty mod (which does, to be a Philadelphia lawyer, increase the options available to the Ensemble, just not to Nick and friends). Were I trying to do a close reading in a scholarly fashion, this is the sort of point I would bring up.

Exploring metaphors is, by necessity, a part of understanding and discussing books. No argument there. However, an encyclopaedia is far from the appropriate place to state which particular untangling of metaphor is "obvious" or correct. Science Fiction Studies publishes this sort of thing; the Wikipedia doesn't, unless someone else said it first.

Be seeing you. Anville 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)