From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I remember having read a sci-fi novel once where the protagonist discovered to his horror and amazement that during all "routine" teleportations, a kind of "echo" of the teleported object or person was created. This echo experienced our reality in a kind of transposition of the aggregate states: "Our" solids are experienced as liquids with a very high surface tension, so the echoes can walk on them but also sink in; "our" liquids, to them, display the properties of gases, and "our" air, those of the luminiferous aether.

I forgot the titel and author, does anybody know it?-- (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake the Magician[edit]

I know that in Mandrake the Magician, teleportation is used often. Can somebody add stuff about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bioshock perhaps?[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, In the early stages of BioShock the player was going to gain the ability to teleport (this was even shown in a game trailer before its release), but was removed due to screwing up scripted sequences. Should BioShock be included? (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Err yeah, no. (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

This article only includes video games for some reason, but the teleport spell from D&D is particularly influential as far as gaming is concerned and should certainly be mentioned. Incidentally, the creators of the video game Doom, id Software, were involved in a D&D campaign where hell invaded the material world, and that inspired the hellish plot of their game. It's likely thus that their use of teleportation (with that name) in the game was influenced by their playing D&D. The majority of the VGs mentioned more of less owe the inclusion of teleportation to D&D, Doom, or both. Who is like God? (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should[edit]

OMG, this article should be rated, it is very well written, and it impressed me so much, it has many cohesive statements, I like this article. Which project would it fit? Sci-fi?

Eduemonitalk 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect needed[edit]

This article needs to be more accessible.

Someone should create a page titled "Teleportation in fiction" and then redirect it here. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Commander[edit]

Supreme Commander also contains a large amount of teleportation, and fits into a fictional video game. Quantumkayos (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


There's already an entry for it under the Half-Life series, so someone should probably either move or combine the info specifically for Portal up there. - Nadie 05:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

A few things...[edit]

It is superfluous to give this article the title "Teleportation in Fiction" since teleportation exists *only* in fiction. Oh, and in simulated worlds such as Second Life... which should also be addressed here perhaps? ... A query for whatever unlikely person might care... Presumably this word originally had only a transitive meaning, "to teleport something", as it derives from (or shares its etymology with) "transportation". On that basis, to me anyway, it sounds a bit wrong to speak in the intransitive sense of "teleporting somewhere". I wonder when this usage arose? ... re "The Tomorrow People" - I have to say I love the description of them as "random teenagers" as it is so true on so many levels. But I should point out that "random" did not have quite that meaning back when the programme was originally on. ... OK. I'm out of here. Johncurrandavis (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been long and repeated discussions on the old teleportation page about teleportation in non-fiction. Apparently, a lot of people, people without the proper credentials to understand the topic, seem to think Quantum teleportation counts. They haven't been able to explain to me why but a quantum/fiction split of the teleportation page was the compromise. Skippydo (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah! I hadn't seen the original page and its associated discussion. I'd say that the compromise arrived at is a mistaken one. While I can see the attempt to be rationalistic, the resulting effect is, I think, quite the opposite. Teleportation is, surely, according to all reasonable semantic inquiry, a presumably exclusively fictional phenomenon, much like vampires and so on. To distinguish between "vampires in fiction" and other vampires would be to imply that the fictional ones constitute the special case, as distinct from the real ones. To have a page on "teleportation in fiction", on that analogy, comes rather close to implying that quantum teleportation (whatever that is!) is indeed the REAL counterpart of the phenomenon found in the novels and movies. Clearly a disambiguation page will be useful here, to ensure that people find the page they are looking for; but "teleportation" and "quantum teleportation" are not the same term (one has, er, one word, and the other has two). Which term has the greater heritage? which was named after the other? Or had the scientists who invented the term "quantum teleportation" not read any science fiction? I'm with you, Skippydo.

Johncurrandavis (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Actual teleporting machines are fictional, but the concept is real and I'm sure it's been researched and attempted. That's what I was looking for when I came to the article but it's just a stub. I haven't looked at the page history but it looks like a bunch of nerds ran away with the "In popular culture" section and the page ended up getting scrapped. Is there really no information on the study and research of teleportation? I doubt no credible men of science has ever looked into it. (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source that covers these things, feel free to add any relevant information. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a trivia list, not an article[edit]

This article really needs help - it has too much trivia, and not enough scholarly discussion on the concept of teleportation in fiction. Certainly one can find a few good sources discussing the concept in a scholarly sort of way. A list of fiction containing teleportation is kind of useless here, and better suited for a category, like, say, Category:List of fictional works using teleportation.

To this end, I'm going to clean out the unreferenced trivia, which will leave us with an introduction, a well-referenced section on the etymology, and maybe one other thing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the brief exchange above ("A few things...") between Skippydo and myself, your edit leaves this article having virtually nothing at all to do with teleportation *in fiction*. It is now an article on teleportation as a notion, teleportation as a non-real thing, but only in the most tangential way a *fictional* thing. The extensive list of "trivia" that WAS here attested somewhat to how thoroughly this notion pervades fiction. Maybe a lot of was indeed trivia, but that is always a judgement call. Fiction is not automatically trivia. (Or should we wipe out on Dickens's page all mention of his fiction?)

Johncurrandavis (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point regarding that this isn't about fiction so much anymore. Fixed that with a few page moves, since it is painfully apparent that we have a primary topic, and now it's where it belongs. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Splendid! I have amended the disambiguation page to reflect this. I am not absolutely certain that my wording is the very best possible, but hopefully it is an improvement. It does make it clear in the place where it needs to be clear that this is NOT a topic about a real and known scientific process. Now, I daresay, since teleportation really is an important and ubiquitous element in science-fiction, we do need something by way of the category you suggest: Category:List of fictional works using teleportation. Which would need keepiong an eye on, to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. But for me, the 1950s horror film "The Fly" alone justifies it! (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in thinking about it a little bit, a correct category name for that would be Category:Fictional works using teleportation, but otherwise, I agree with your point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you move the removed content to Teleportation in fiction or similar? emijrp (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The article should contain a list of important fictional examples as this is the main context for the topic. Warden (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the article should contain a short list of important examples in fiction. As it stands, the article contains far, far too many examples, most of which are very trivial, as well as horribly structured. Unless someone comes up with a great reason for keeping them, I'll be removing these trivial examples. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The content has been forked to Teleportation in fiction, and is currently the subject of a deletion discussion. As I said in the AFD, "It can all be summarized by saying, 'Teleportation is often used as a plot device in fictional works,' and leaving it at that. We can definitely find a source somewhere to verify that. No need to list every instance of teleportation that's ever happened, or even a summary of such. One sentence, and it's already there, and it's sourced, even (lookit that!)." SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
SchuminWeb seems to be editing without due care and attention as this most recent edit removes not only the disputed examples but also an image, citations to two encyclopedia, and a new section about Jewish myth. This edit restores misinformation to the article, claiming that Charles Fort first used the term, when this is inaccurate. Such edits seem to be dog in the manger disruption. Warden (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As has been clearly pointed out, all of the content in question is already at Teleportation in fiction. The deletion discussion there will determine what happens to that content. In the meantime, we certainly don't need to have it in both that article and this one. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose a compromise of sorts. Since most of the fictional references to teleportation are unsourced anyway, which runs into original research, how about allowing discussion of teleportation in fiction where that fictional depiction is the subject of discussion in reliable third-party sources. In addition to Star Trek (for which such a source is provided below) I suspect we would be able to find properly sourced materials for teleportation occurring in at most three or four other fictional settings. bd2412 T 17:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't think you want to open that can of beans, because then we'll eventually be back where we are now, with a list of junk that's going to have to get deleted. I believe a discussion of the physics of it like in that "Physics of Star Trek" book would be a great addition for an intellectual piece, but otherwise, we don't need a pop-culture list, no matter how small it is. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely a work of fiction may function as its own source? I don't see any point in requiring it to be "laundered" by some 3rd party (possibly inaccurately) before anything from it can be included in Wikipedia. This article is now rather short given that it's supposely about teleportation in science fiction. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Although looking at Teleportation in fiction, I see the problem that's involved in writing a decent article. Tangerine Cossack (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek[edit]

I would strongly suggest reviewing and referencing The Physics of Star Trek, which was written by a relatively notable physicist and contains an entire chapter comparing the fictional depiction of teleportation in Star Trek with the actual and theoretical science of the concept. bd2412 T 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Shound make for some interesting reading, plus verify facts. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No section on Scientific possibility?[edit]

Surely there are some theories as to the realistic possibility or information as to why it's not possible. Muleattack (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Muleattack: I added a short section on scientific possibility, and they kept on deleting it. It was not my own theories. It was verifiable info from the Nova program that aired November 2011. (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's what I was expecting to see here. If there is a separate "Teleportation in Fiction" article, then that implies this is about scientific teleportation, and the only thing you can write about that is how people think it might theoretically be possible, based on science. (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fabric of the Cosmos[edit]

The research that was talked about in the Nova episode is actually Quantum teleportation, which is not the same as the teleportation this article refers to (we should probably have that wikilink in the See Also section, by the way). The comments on how humans might be "teleported" in the future might be worth keeping here, but it's not really something people haven't thought of before. Anyone else have thoughts on whether the human teleportation part should be kept? -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't think we should include this info, since this "theoretical human teleportation" isn't teleportation at all. The only thing being transferred is information, which we already know how to do. We only lack the ability to record all the information about a person and create a body from this information. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Firefly: You contradict yourself, and your semantics cloud the issue. The only thing being tranferred is information? That appears to be a declarative statement of fact, on the science of teleportation. There is no existence of fact yet, on the subject of the science and technology of future teleporation, since it still is a theoretical science in its infancy stage of research and development. There is existence of fact that humans perceive teleporation to be a future ability where people will be able to transport themselves. There is existence of fact that scientists on the Nova program contradict that perception with their own scientific opinion that teleportation will be merely the transfer of information of the subject's atomic structure, to be copied at the receiving end. You say We already know how to transfer information? Thats not the point!!!! The main point is the FUTURE ABILITY of TELEPORATION of an object or living being, and the contrary opinion that that future ability will be limited to the teleportation of information of the atomic structures of that object or being. Firefly: you're twisting the whole issue around.

Again, yes, we already know how to tranfer information. But thats not the point. It would be the point, IF the current ability to tranfer information was the end result we were left with, after trying to achieve a much greater objective! That greater objective is the point. That greater objective is teleportation. But thats not what we were trying to do in the twentieth century when we perfected the science of tranferring data.

Nova is a scientific program which is highly acclaimed within the academic community as being very educational. Yet my additions to the teleportation article, citing a few things mentioned on the episode Fabric of the Cosmos, keep getting deleted. Your deletions of my edit are not appropriate. My comments added should have remained. They were not Talk. They were not my own research. They are verifiable, and Nova is as respected as any scientific journal printed on paper. My most recent edit, I shortened it to ONE SENTENCE, and it still got deleted!

We need to put these points back into the article. (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, I haven't contradicted myself at all. However, I understand that you're saying the information is relevant because scientists were commenting on the future possibility of actual teleportation. And I would agree that that small part is relevant to the article. At this point I would question its significance though. Does a few scientists simply commenting that they doubt teleportation will be possible/practical in the future really bear mention in the article? I wish I had a transcript or something for this episode so that I knew at what length they discussed these possibilities.
Also, I have not actually removed your entry at any point; I just shortened it to what was relevant, and that was days ago. The reverting editor described the info as "trivial", which makes it seem as though they agree on the lack of importance. I wish that editor would weigh in on the discussion briefly. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Stating that a particular popular science programme discusses teleportation is trivial because the subject has been covered in countless such programmes. I don't think we want to start an "In the media" section here. Either way, this has nothing to do with etymology, which is where it was added. I'll be the first to admit I'm no expert, but my understanding is that transfer of matter (what this article deals with) is considered impossible, irrespective of possible future technology. Quantum teleportation (tranfer of information) is well established and is probably what the Nova programme was discussing (?). If so, 206.192's addition is not directly relevant to this article, whether trivial or not. If not, are there any published academic sources discussing such a possibility? mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You all at least acknowledge an understanding of my points. Lets be clear on one thing. Yes, we can transmit data, but we're talking apples and oranges. The theories of teleporation, (again, as discussed on the Nova episode) suggest that the data of an object's or living beings atomic structures, is instantly created within seconds or minutes from a full scan of that object or being. Which leads to a final point that I wish to make here, because if I add it to a wikipedia article,it would surely get deleted. As described on the Nova show, teleporation of a human being sounds like cloning. And they conveniently ignore that ethical issue. To be copied in New York, and appear in France: Wheres the original version? destroyed? If you believe in an afterlife, then you have a soul looking down from the heavens asking "What the hell happened? I was just teleporting to France for vacation." You have not just the scientific arguments, but a bunch of potential ethical controveries. (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this last response has anything to do with including the Nova info or not. This isn't a forum. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Light Teleports[edit]

The fact that time and speed being interrelated leads to the fact that light teleports from a certain vantage point, I think is notable. It's more than just a theory, it's an implication that is used to calculate your position on the planet by GPS. Id you want to delete the section on Special Relativity, explain yourself! I think it's notable and will entice people to read up more about the subject if they realise that in a sense, teleportation is part of your reality in a very concrete way. All energy teleports. Because we're "slow" it only appears to have finite speed "c" to us, but if you were energy you would teleport too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the entry per wp:UNSOURCED. See also my comment at Talk:Speed of light#The slowness of matter. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It is not the goal of Wikipedia to entice the reader to do anything. The goal is to inform the reader of verifiable facts. You need to cite reliable sources for any information you wish to add. -- Fyrefly (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


probably one of the better teleporting references video game wise, also one of the better representations on actual teleportation physically speaking — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This would really belong in Teleportation in fiction, and even then only if you had a reliable source for the info. -- Fyrefly (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Why is this article so tiny? Surely there must have been some scientific progress about this subject by now. No one is really interested about the words etymology because it's already pretty self-explanatory. --Shandristhe azylean 09:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This article is very short and merely defines the word 'Teleportation'. Compare this to the article on time travel, which is long and detailed, containing speculations by physicists about how time travel might be achieved. I would assume, hopefully, that there has been at least some scientific investigation into the possibility of teleportation, and this article should detail that. (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Could this link be of service in authenticating or defining 'Teleportation' as quantum movement of information? It's a scientific report on a how a group in Tokyo verified a previously successful 1997 experiment by repeating it with a new technique and moving 100 times the amount of material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What you're talking about is called quantum teleportation. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
The article lists some references which appear on topic. WP:SOFIXIT based on those. Oh wait, only to have stuff deleted by all the cretins who patrol such pages? Worth the trouble? Probably not. JMP EAX (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Force Report[edit]

If someone wants to go through this report and add some relevant information to the article (and then cite the report as a reference, not the futurist site that simply links to it), that would be fine. However, the misleading header of "Teleportation could be real" and just telling the reader to go "get the report" is not encyclopedic at all. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Teleportation in fiction[edit]

Teleportation in fiction is a long page, I think this is an acceptable category Ryulong has been reverting all of my additions to this category. There is a discussion on the administrators noticeboard. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#CensoredScribe's categories on discussion on how CensoredScribe is inappropriately making dozens of categories of questionable quality. CensoredScribe, this is not the page to make this sort of discussion, either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is restricted to teleportation through technological means and leaves out teleportation by paranormal means. In the film Somewhere in Time, the character teleports to another time and similarly, Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee travels back in time. There are other references and there are people who claim to have teleported by paranormal means. Regardless, the claims and the appearance of paranormal teleportation in fiction are not mentioned in this article.

scope of this page (possible merge)[edit]

The scope of this page/stub is unclear. The dabhat seems to suggest that it intends to cover only fictional material, in which case a merge with teleportation in fiction would seem appropriate. On the other hand, if intends to be the top-level article for this notion—fictional or not—then it needs to summarize the other two articles (quantum teleportation as the only physically envisageable (pardon my French, but not quite the same meaning as "possible") one at the moment and the fictional material) Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

How does a hatnote which reads "For other uses, see Teleportation (disambiguation)" suggest that this article would only cover fictional material? -- Fyrael (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The scope also does not seem unclear. This page is meant to deal with non-fictional teleportation, which really doesn't exist yet, so it gives a brief overview of the concept and an etymology. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Discussed above in places, the list of teleportation in fiction was on this page originally then tossed out to its own article. This article covers everything about teleportation. I just added a reference to a study published by the American Air Force and the five types of teleportation they defined. The article could be expanded. Dream Focus 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Quantum teleportation is not the only type of theoretical teleportation. Wormholes are a completely separate theoretical model. The fictional type of teleportation used in Star Trek is also strictly speaking NOT Quantum teleportation. But I also agree with Dream Focus that this article should have more substance, to act as a better synopsis of the aforementioned types. Jodon | Talk 11:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quantum teleportation see-also link[edit]

I have added [back] the link to Qt given that the lead of the other article mentions the term "Teleportation" and discusses the difference: "Although the name is inspired by the teleportation commonly used in fiction, current technology provides no possibility of anything resembling the fictional form of teleportation. While it is possible to teleport one or more qubits of information between two (entangled) atoms,[1][2][3] this has not yet been achieved between molecules or anything larger." "See also" doesn't mean "exactly the same topic".JMP EAX (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They certainly don't need to be the same topic, but they should be in some way related. 'Teleport' is pure jargon in the context of quantum communication. The concept the jargon describes has no resemblance to the fictional concept. I've reverted the addition. Skippydo (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

inaccuracy in etymology section[edit]

Here are a couple earlier uses of the word "teleport." Hopefully someone could add this, as I have absolutely no interest in rewriting the article to correct it. Ana Rexia (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ana Rexia:  Done. As you will see, it hardly required a rewrite. General Ization Talk 01:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Teleportation just happened[edit] AHC300 (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)