Talk:Teleportation (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents

Context and Light Speed[edit]

What is the difference between travelling at the speed of light and teleporting? Isn't the traveller per definition teleporting, as no time passes while travelling at the speed of light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.72.236 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did it go?[edit]

I am having trouble linking up to List of teleportation in fiction and List of teleportation in science fiction. Is it parented under "Category" or what? Is there any consensus as to where this list can be found? Sometimes it is there, and sometimes it isn't. It seems to be disappearing and reappearing every 10 minutes or so. Is there some kind of re-re-reverting going on? Sort of like an "edit" battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter Nextnumber (talkcontribs) 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of underlying quantum ideas[edit]

Since the first type of teleportation mentioned in the article - and most studied and accepted type (as noted below) is quantum teleportation, shouldn't there be an effort to explain the quantum terms and theories like "quantum states"? For someone without an understanding of Quantum Mechanics, looking up quantum teleportation or quantum states does not make any sense and doesn't really help to explain the article. Unless this article is meant to be read only by people with understanding of Physics, shouldn't that be noted? Otherwise it should be explained in the article. For example, the "'inexact' teleportation (where quantum states are not preserved)" needs to be explained more to let the reader know what a quantum state is and why it might or might not be important to keep it preserved.

Second, What are, specifically, these "anomalous phenomenon" that are constantly being mentioned? If Charles Fort had written about teleportation to possibly explain anomalies that could otherwise not be explained, that what are the anomalies he is talking about? At least give examples. Otherwise, saying teleportation could be used to explain anomalies is way too general, (i.e. so teleportation can explain the anomalies of Aurora Borealis? The anomalies of religion? the anomalies of science? the anomaly of the Colorado Rockies going to the world series?) All anomaly means is something or an event that deviates from what is expected. Cody-7 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Redo first paragraphs[edit]

Shouldn't the first paragraphs of this entry (as of 2004-Sep-24) be changed, since the initial paragraph describes teleporation with a specific form of it (mass to energy, transmit energy, energy to mass), instead of a general description. The article mentions other forms (wormhole transit; religious or psychic journey), but the initial impression gives the first method an overriding weight. The subject could be generally described as relocating an object to a new location in space (and/or possibly time) without using a continous physical path. The derivation of the term can follow that, then the various forms.

Another simple solution to changing its initial definition is to say that an object travels without moving (through normal linearity) through standard 3 dimensions and fourth dimension of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.120.238 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It sohld be noted that, of all of the different notions of teleportation described in this article, quantum teleportation is the only represented actual, documented, repeatable physical phenomenon. This is not to say that the meaning of the term teleportation should be as narrow perhaps as it is at the article's introduction. Of course, consdiering that Quantum teleportation does already have its own article, perhaps it does not in fact need even as much discussion as it recieves in this article.
Just some thoughts. And please, Sign you posts. Shaggorama 09:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Some consideration should be given to incorporating a few of the definitions and findings from Davis' Teleportation Physics Study. It had been developed under contract with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Edwards Air Force Base. I included that reference in the section for additional reading. Also added was the reference to Danielle Graham's paper on human generated augmentation to local gravitational and geomagnetic fields. It was presented at the 2006 Space Technology and Applications International Forum as a potential stepping stone towards space propulsion and teleportation. Tcisco 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Materialization (science fiction)[edit]

This could fit into the "real" article, since the material is somewhat minimal, and this article alread y has a sci fi section... Yea or nay? Zotel - the Stub Maker 02:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yea --Guest

Agreed, as the materialization article does not really concern materialization.. -- AdamDobay 20:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC) arnold coronado december 31 2005 we and my teamgroup groups and associations had already mastered and perfected the art and advanced science and technology of teleportation.

I agree that it should be merged. It makes perfect sense, ands helps to expand the Teleportation article. Allemannster 20:30, 4 December 2005 (CST)

No, don't merge. That is going to cause harm to this article. This is not a science fiction article. This is information for those that believe teleportation is phisically possible.


Merge. A section titled teleportation in fiction would work within this article.Anthopos 21:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Marvel teleporters should not be merged a scifi reference will do.. arbales

No - does not work in the instance of (for example) a time and space ship materialising. DavidFarmbrough 09:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No - Teleportation should not be merged with science fiction. There has been, and is continuing research into the feasibility of teleportation and several instances where scientists believe it to be possible. Just because we do not currently poses the knowledge to build a device that has the ability to teleport objects, we must not immediately discredit the possibility of it happening in the future - Agent.

Don't merge. Teleportation is a subject unto itself, not simply science fiction, but a genuine paranormal phenomenon as well as the object of scientific investigation.

I have a different issue. In the third sentence of the introduction, the statement that teleportation is similar to apports, encompassing the phenomenon of bilocation, is confused. Apports are manifested objects (for real, I've seen several) that come "out of nowhere", as it were. There is no implication that such a manifested object exists in two places at the same time (bilocation)as the author states. This reference to apports should be removed and the paragraph rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global46 (talkcontribs) 05:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Materialization[edit]

At present, Materialization (science fiction) just redirects right to teleportation, but that's not always how it's used in sci-fi; there are some examples of materialization of matter from energy or from nothing, for instance the replicator (Star Trek), the Grails from the Riverworld novels, in the tv series Ark II, one of the Tom Swift books from the '80s, and probably a lot more that I've forgotten. It deserves its own separate entry, I think. -- Noclevername 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservation of angular momentum[edit]

If teleportation takes place instantaneously and without a balancing countermass it would violate the law of conservation of angular momentum.

Does anyone have any information if there has been any thougth or calculations of this?

84.160.243.3 19:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Larry Niven addresses this in one of his SF short stories. Uncle G 19:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrong date[edit]

It's impossible that Gil Perez was teleported in 1593, because Guardia Civil (Spanish Guardia Civil at least) was founded in 1814

Merge from Marvel_teleporters[edit]

Instead of merging a list from Marvel, why not expand the listing under the main teleportation page and add links to teleporters from different Universes? Such as Marvel, DC, Star Trek, etc... Also, a complete list of teleporters known in popular culture could be created (if there isn't already one) and *then* lists of characters could be merged into that instead of having a huge list of unsorted characters on the main teleportation page.

Lopsided article[edit]

The article is very poor. It does not address the ethical and philosophical problems of possible human teleportation (does the person die when he is disassembled and reconstructed elsewhere, since his/her atoms are replaced, etc.)? Summa Technologiae, a 1970 book by by SF author Stanislaw Lem treats on these topics extensively. 195.70.32.136 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

News about teleportation[edit]

I don't want to mess up the article by editing it myself, but I do think this: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/10/04/teleportation.reut/index.html would be worth mentioning.

Teleportation Scenarios[edit]

Is there any "reliable source" (in the domain of philosophy and speculation, that is) that discusses the constant or variable nature of "soul", or if teleportation is comparable to the normal alternation of matter in the human body throughout metabolism? Frigo 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have some misgivings about having that paragraph on ethics of teleportation under the heading "Teleportation Scenarios". Shouldn't it rather have an "Ethics of Teleportation" section of its own? Icemuon 16:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it will probably never be possible to teleport any living being but couldnt it be possible to teleport other stuff like stuff you order online especially when you are ordering from overseas which could take about a month. I have heard they tried it with animals but they end up deformed but couldnt they teleport non living things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanm27 (talkcontribs) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

TP in fiction[edit]

Is it really necessary to list every appearance of teleportation in fiction? Almost every sci-fi and fantasy setting features some form of teleportation, so I think most of the "there's TP in here too!" references shouldn't be here. We should leave only the significant references (TP in folk tales, early sci-fi and so). XamiXiarus 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it all to a seperate article, Teleportation in fiction. It was way too long to stay on the main article. GhostPirate 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the article is about fictional teleportation (as distinct from non-fictional teleportation, eg. quantum teleportation), some of the fundamental fictional references should remain - otherwise the article would be empty.--210.84.46.224 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Teleportation on Page Teleportation (c)Wikipedia, is consist of 3 types. Actually it's dematerialisation, demention & wormholes. Here is my comments ab a Dimentional teleportation. In Russia in 1986 on TV we'd kid's movie 'Guest from future' of Kir Bulichev's novell where story about Moskow 1984 when opened teleportation effect in 2084 known as "flat (2d) bus" 'Kolya stayed at front of future kind of some transportation system'. Bus was made of wood&paper 7 x 3 x 0.1 m It consisted of several doors. 'Kolya' has opened one, went to some ocean coast, beck to bus-stop then teleported to some Moskow's street or square, I don't remember. It may be very simple organized method to teleport man (men) alone the biosphere. Maybe it'll complex to organised teleportation to another planets ````Smir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.163.105.114 (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Took a chunk out[edit]

I removed this:

But instead of this technique, you could just scan the original object or organism, and make those molecules come apart, and then be reconstructed with different atoms at a different spot, albeit instantaneously. This would not actually kill the human being in question, it would just take the human apart and reconstruct it somewhere else. Since the atomic make-up has not been changed, it is the exact same human as was taken apart. Also, since you're just moving their atoms, you're not killing the human. The only problem with this theory is the scanning of the human, because the process would have to be instantaneous.

Because it seemed redundant, not to mention unencyclopedically written.

Noclevername 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good removal. This looks like original research. Val42 02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethical concerns[edit]

Wow i can't believe you took out the ethical concerns paragraph. The above poster was right this article is poor and its most likely like that becuase of the people that are running it. The article really needs a paragraph on ethical concerns. If you think its "unencyclopedically", not a real word, written then edit it instead of removing it. If you think the information isn't written properly then edit it don't censor it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.38.209 (talk)

Indented line

The problem is that it appeared to be original research. Unless you can actually provide a reliable source discussing these ethical concerns, it would appear they originated from you. Someguy1221 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can dispute the facts then go for it. Theres nothing wrong with a primary source now and then.
That's not an excuse for injecting your own opinions into an article. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Someguy1221 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph simply stated that if a person is taken apart molecule by molecule then they are technically killed thats a fact its not a belief.
If my heart stops, I am technically killed. But I don't start an "ethical concerns" section at Cardiopulmonary resuscitation unless it's been discussed by a reliable source. Someguy1221 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
If your heart stops it is still a heart. If a person is taken apart molecule by molecule then each molecule ceases its function as a part of your body and resumes the role of a stray molecule with no connection to any sort of chemical process. When each molecule is recombined the individual that existed before the separation ceased to exist and a new person with the same memories and personality is created. Its like cutting and pasting a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.3.187 (talk) 05:49, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
This very ethical issue is dealt with in the Star Trek novel The Price of the Phoenix. The article doesn't do it justice, so you'll have to read the book to get the in-depth view on it. It would behove this discussion for this book to be read by the proponents of both sides. This would also give you some referenceable material. — Val42 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ethical concerns portrayed in notable fiction would circumvent the verifiability and original research issues entirely. Someguy1221 09:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

3 points.

1) When your heart stops you arent neccasarily (sp?) dead as death is the absence of any physical or mental activity, just because your heart stops doesnt mean your brain did

2) The whole point above is negated if you are religious, by the 'soul'

3) The recombined person on the other side may not keep the memories/personality of the teleportee.195.171.111.194 13:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone can find an example of the ethical concerns of teleportation in fiction feel free to put it in the discussion section to prove my or any other point. I really don't have time to find and read the star trek novel that someone else mentioned. I'd also just like to say in response to the second point made above me that if you don't believe in a soul then the point is very valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.164.35 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

from Russian mentalities
imagine thut all populations has different ethics: if one ready to kill himself like Gagarin or one astronaut but not as team. Historicaly was the time the people mast believe in the Earth is a flat shape, the planet, the Dark matter or in Higgs bosons. This is the time to discover new structura of space and outer space, new shapes

Teleportation of complex objects?[edit]

I remember watching a history channel docu a couple of years ago about teleportation and it stated that there was a machine in belgium IIRC that was capable of teleporting an apple 30 feet, it didnt teleport it through space however it was a large machine that had 2 stations (a disapearing one and a reapearing one)

Was this a fake thing or something?195.171.111.194 13:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tokyo Teleport Station[edit]

That's a great bit of Engrish, but seems to have nothing to do with the article, and the caption is not helpful. I suggest removing it, and keeping it removed.--VAcharon 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I vigorously oppose removing the picture (as the person who put it up). The article lacks any photos, not even a still from an episode of Star Trek (you can change the caption, though). It's not really Engrish, as it is the proper name of the station. Finally, I have a couple of other pictures of the Tokyo Teleport Station, found here: [1]. Zweifel 16:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it's actually called that. It doesn't mean it has the least thing to do with "teleportation" as a concept, though - the image is fundamentally irrelevant to the topic of the article. If we must have an image for the sake of having an image, there's a free one on Charles Fort which would do. Shimgray | talk | 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I say keep the picture, mostly for the above reason: the article needs at least one picture and this one shows one of the few non-sci-fi uses of the word in the real world. Kit Cloudkicker 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Remove it, please. It has nothing to do with teleportation as per the article's description. The only reason I haven't outright removed it is because a user believed that discussion was needed. As for the article needing an image, no article requires one and this one is highly irrelevant. I highly suggest finding a more relevant image; either something regarding the physics behind the theories or a fictional representation of such. The image of a Tokyo train station demonstrates nothing other than poor English. If there is no relevant discussion or changes within 2 days I'll go ahead and consider the matter closed, removing the image and perhaps finding something more appropriate. -- AVX 04:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Objects[edit]

Aren't elementary particles objects, too? Why do they need to be mentioned separately in the first sentence?--84.160.90.32 (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is debate as to what elementary particles actually are. — Val42 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think "objects" in the first sentence refers to macroscopic aggregations of atoms and molecules. Hence the separate reference to "elementary particles." Jedwards01 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

More news[edit]

"Teleportation has been done, moving a single proton over two miles." --Edward Farhi, director of the Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT. Quoted in ComputerWorld, 17 Jan 2008 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=development&articleId=9057664 Jedwards01 (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Experiment[edit]

I don't quite have the time to add it in myself, but the Philadelphia Experiment may make a handy addition to the Historical, mythical and religious accounts section. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

nightcrawler?[edit]

where is nightcrawler from x-men? he can teleport. it's that blue guy with the tail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talkcontribs) 11:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

is it really necessary to include a anime reference in for every disngle wikipedia article? tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.80.46 (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Quantum Teleportation[edit]

I understand that Quantum Teleportation isn't the same as the teleportation mentioned here, but I think it's close enough to be mentioned in the "See Also". I'm putting it back in. I only ended up on this page because I was searching for quantum teleportation and so it would have been easier to have a link to that page. I don't see why that would be different to anyone else or what the problem could be. Master z0b (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a link in the disambiguation page. Having the Quantum Teleportation link here gives the illusion that it is related, when it is totally unrelated. It is simply an unfortunate choice of a name. Skippydo (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So why is it any less relevant than "Psychokinesis " or "Reality Shift" which have virtually nothing to do with teleportation and what's the harm in having it on that list? I don't think the fact it's on the disambiguation page makes it any less relevant as you would only reach the disambiguation page if you deliberately clicked on the link which many users do not do. Anyway the fact that it does share a name seems enough for me. Master z0b (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Psychokinesis or Reality Shift. If you think they don't belong, then remove them. Since you believe that sharing name is the criteria for inclusion in the see also section, do you propose adding each member of the disambiguation page to this section? What about Group? Skippydo (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well you seem to be on a mission to delete any reference to Quantum teleportation in this article, I'm actually trying to make it easier for people to understand the difference. A link on the disambiguation page does not preclude any mention of something in the article. If someone doesn't understand that Quantum Teleportation isn't the same as this teleportation then they wont necessarily look at the disambiguation page. I'm trying to make the difference clear to laypeople. Please explain what the problem with simply mentioning the difference in the See Also section. It's not just an unfortunate name, there are many articles in magazines and on the net that give the false impression that we can already teleport things with QM. Master z0b (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course QT is unrelated, but most people who might use wikipedia to learn about these topics (QT or teleportation) don't know that. This is the scientifically less rigorous topic, so an explanation of why it is not the same is in order at least here. Rewrite the explanation if you so like, don't just remove it. Even the fact that references to QT are constantly being added to this page shows how the difference is unclear and should be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.199.123 (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is confusing the two, they can learn about the distinction in the QT article. There is no reason to introduce a mathematically terse topic in a fiction article aimed at those without advanced degrees in mathematics. I would not be immediately opposed to the addition of a section in this article distinguishing the topics but it would have to be sourced, scientifically accurate, and aimed at the laymen. Skippydo (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So just mark the addition as requiring cleanup or rewrite, don't just remove it without a proper explanation of the mistakes in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.17.199.123 (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I summarized your comments in a single sentence and added a citation needed tag. If a citation is not added within a week, i will likely remove the mention of quantum teleportation as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Skippydo (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhh what happened to this article?[edit]

There used to be good information about how we teleported photons short distances, but I don't see it here anymore. I just see a bunch of fictional references and nonsense now. ScienceApe (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Photons have never been teleported. You are probability thinking of the method of transmission of quantum information known as Quantum Teleportation. Information encoded in a photon has been transmitted to a different proton using this procedure. I removed any reference to Quantum Teleportation from the article to avoid confusion with the fictional topic of teleportation. Skippydo (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In this video, Kaku says we teleported photons and other particles, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FqLCLooayM ScienceApe (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The speaker is confusing the transmission of quantum information with the teleportation of physical matter. Of course, youtube is not a scholarly source. Skippydo (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The speaker is Michio Kaku, who is a theoretical physicist, and has a Phd. He knows what he is talking about, and specifically stated that photons can be teleported, and other particles. Youtube is not the source obviously, Kaku is. But that's irrelevant actually because I'm not trying to include anything into the article, merely showing you what I've heard. ScienceApe (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any observable difference between transferring information between particles, or changing the position of the particles? I think it's worth mentioning, at least under "See Also". --74.71.209.20 (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it quite disturbing that you "choose" to remove reference to Quantum Teleportation to "avoid confusion"... I dont think there are any underlying scientific reason for such a choice. Quite the opposite in fact; first a physicist myself let me tell you that as photon are ruled by the Bose Einstein statistics transfering photon state to another photon is highly similar to transfering the photon itself as they are indistinguishable, as long as some EPR paired photon exist at the destination; second if you decide to your choice of not even mentioning quantum teleportation you should be coherent with your own choice and remove from your quite personal definition of teleportation the concept of information transfer as it is quite clear that quantum teleportation is definitely information transfer without crossing the distance.... it seems that your turned this article into your own very personal definition of teleportation, which you are definitely entitled to and is respectable in your own blog; but by doing so you are quite far from the neutrality expected from an encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that you either remove the information transfer from your article or rather that you do mention quantum teleportation as an exemple of physically proven teleportation of information only. You could also rename this article Teleportation in fiction and folklore if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.104.249 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See also http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/37450 on a new (2009) development. 77.100.13.55 (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Eric Deeson 23 Jan 09 77.100.13.55 (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

QM Disclaimer[edit]

Just by looking at this talk page we can see that many people believe that Quantum Teleportation actually teleports particles or something. There are many articles from light weight science magazines like "New Scientist" that make people think that we have teleported light across a lab. I believe we need either a section or a disclaimer clearly describing the difference, this would not only direct people to the information they are looking for it would also stop people from trying to add information about Quantum teleportation to this article. Master z0b (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't travel faster than light?[edit]

I thought the problem with FTL wasn't that it was impossible, but that (as stated here) to accelerate to the speed of light would require infinite energy? So even though we can't accelerate beyond c, there are known examples of "things" moving faster than the speed of light, as discussed here. So the second sentence under Scenarios should be fixed or scrapped somehow... Revgraves (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


The development of teleportation[edit]

Will involve cats. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The CNN link (number 6) is no longer working[edit]

Just as the title said, I don't know what to do at it, because, well... wikipedia editing isn't my thing (I suck at it), but I figured I'd inform you lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trocisp (talkcontribs) 07:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Article Needs Update, Scientists Have Already Teleported a Single Particle of Matter[edit]

This has been in Scientific American and numerous other reputable sources. However, those articles also state that only a single particle of matter was teleported and that scientists say that the amount of energy required to teleport an entire person is beyond the energy output for the entire world for one year.

Also, the particle was transported but not 'information' (there is a kind of conservation of information that occurs when the particle is teleported). So the question was-- is it true teleportation or not?

In any case this certainly passes the threshold for article inclusion.

Sean7phil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Article structure / history of ideas[edit]

The article doesn't seem to have a clear structure.

It would be interesting to trace the deveopment of ideas of teleportation - by machine, and by the mind -- Beardo (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

23 January 2009 article[edit]

Not sure if this warrants inclusion in the article, as I'm not science-savvy enough to make that distinction: "for the first time, information has been teleported between two separate atoms across a distance of a meter ... Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland" - http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090123-teleportation-atoms.html --85.5.154.155 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I seem to find better information about teleportation on the talk page than the actual article!

Cody-7 (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit too indepth?[edit]

Not much of a big thing, I was just wondering if the etymology section went a bit far into this guy thinking about teleportation rather than the etymology itself. --86.26.241.28 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Difference between teleportation and QT[edit]

Could someone explain why quantum teleportation doesn't qualify as teleportation?Mortsgne1 (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it transmits information, not physical objects. The internet sends information from wikipedia to your computer, this is not teleportation. Skippydo (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"One proposed means of teleportation is the transmission of data which is used to precisely reconstruct an object or organism at its destination" Mortsgne1 (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually, that's not entirely correct. In quantum teleportation physical objects are transmitted. It is not a copy of the physical object that arrives at the other end. It is the same object that arrives. It is, however, true, that a form of information, communicated by conventional means (like the internet) is involved. This information (transmitted by conventional means) can be regarded as that aspect of a physical object that can't be teleported. Another way of looking at it is to say that a physical object (prepared for teleportation) is composed of two aspects - that which is "entangled" between departure point and arrival point (ie. already in two places at once, so to speak) and that which isn't. To acheive the effect of teleportation involves separating out these two aspects without causing decoherence of the entangled aspects. This is acheived by ensuring the information is in a form of entanglement as well. The information is then transposed (moved from A to B) where it is disentangled, resulting in decoherence of the originally entangled apsect. --202.6.86.1 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

h,lj[edit]

ghk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.138.208.192 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are there so many articles on fictional, impossible and stupid shit like this?[edit]

Please have the niceness of answering my question, thank you very much.--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to assume that teleportation is fictional, impossible and stupid. --202.6.86.1 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No help there. I believe the reason is that the human mind is an exceptionally inventive and fantasizing one in order to get optimal profit from the extraordinary manual process sequencing (craft) and problem solving capability. We're just freaks in the animal kingdom that have compensated some otherwise fatally degenerate mutations (small cheek size, generally weak, weak backbone) with extreme versability enabling survival. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
dawkinsfanboi. 90.205.92.115 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An encyclopeia includes information on fictional topics. That's what it's there for. If it exists, even in story form, and is noteworthy enough, it's included in Wikipedia. Why you think an encyclopedia like this should only include factual, observable topics is perplexing. Esprix (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Quantum teleportation??[edit]

In three places above someone is angry for the missing quantum teleportation. Since I'm the fourth I'll insert a link at the top accordingly. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Dönë! ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Besides sharing a part of it's name, Quantum Teleportation bares no relation to this article. Skippydo (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It is very related. Both are some kind of teleportation, one is teleportation of matter, the other one is teleportation of quantum info. Any editor wondering if teleportation works only for matter will get an answer by looking at the quantum teleportation article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
First, I will assert that you do not believe that the containment of the word teleport is criteria for inclusion. Please correct me if this assertion is false.
If you think the transmission of quantum information is more related to teleportation than the transmission of non-quantum information, you need to justify this claim. Otherwise, a radio should be listed as an example of a teleporter. Skippydo (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, just the word 'teleport' is not a criterion for inclusion.

Teleportation is transport of matter faster the speed of light. Quantum teleportation is transport of quantum info faster the speed of light. They are analogous concepts. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Quantum teleportation requires the transmission of two classical bits through a conventional channel, which is bounded by the speed of light. Skippydo (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the two types of teleportation are very related. Not the same thing, not perfectly analogous, but more similar than just the name. Having a "see also" link would be very relevant. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Please justify your opinion. As a talking point, why do you think this particular form of quantum communication warrants inclusion over, say, Optical fibre? Skippydo (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is justified above. Ordinary teleporation works with matter, while quantum teleporation works with quantum info. The concepts are very analogous.
Per the article http://www.signandsight.com/features/614.html, quantum teleporation transfers "the properties of light particles over certain distances onto other light particles, with no time delay".
In short, quantum teleporation is an analog (not a perfect one) of matter teleporation at the quantum level. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The statement you quote is false. If you had cared to read the article on quantum teleportation, you would find in the second sentence: It does not transport the system itself, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal (faster than light) speed. I have already stated above why this is the case. Skippydo (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I did read the Wikipedia article. That reference which you claim is false is cited from the Wikipedia article.
I have no more energy to argue with you, this has been going on for many days. Many people agree that the two articles have things in common and one should link to the other. You stubbornly disagree. Fine. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In a strict sense, nothing is instantaneous since you can always look for a shorter time, language is not absolute. I have hard time understanding your behaviour, seems to me it's more important for you to be right instead of actually being constructive. This article should hold perspectives on both fictional and scientific concepts of teleportation. They are different but nevertheless both are describable by the idea of teleportation. You are quick to revert, but you still haven't given a response to the earlier discussion about the same subject. --Sapeli (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I don't respond to indirect pondering statements such as yours. This is why I have not responded above. I do not wish to have a meta-discussion about whether or not I'm being constructive. However, I believe my willingness to clear up misunderstandings people have about the inappropriately named subject of Quantum teleportation is a constructive contribution. Skippydo (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Let me weigh in with my opinion. I haven't ever edited this article before. First, User:Skippydo is correct. There is no relation between the two concepts apart from the name. If quantum teleportation qualifies as teleportation in the sense of this article, then so do fibre optic cables, radio transmissions, telephone wires, etc. Thus any perceived relation between the two topics is not a good enough reason to include a link to quantum teleportation. However, if it is the case that casual readers often come to this article looking for quantum teleportation, then it makes sense to have a hatnote informing them that this is the wrong article. This reason might justify adding a link to quantum teleportation in this article. --Robin (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this solution will make everyone happy, since now QT is easily accessible and it's still clear we are talking about different matter. --Sapeli (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes! It doesn't matter whether the this here teleportation is the same as quantum teleportation. the point is, people are coming here looking for QT, so let's help them find it. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. First, you refer to the teleportation of information, quantum teleportation does not teleport anything. Second, most of the people interested in this article do not have the background to get through the opening paragraph of the quantum teleportation article, leading to people crying in the talk page about their inability to understand a topic that they aught not to have an interest in. Skippydo (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a quick note that {{otheruses}} will not work as the disambiguation page redirects to here. When re-inserting this template, please recreate the disambiguation page, otherwise it will create a circular redirect which may be confusing to readers. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
First Skippydo, if you don't agree with the description, you can change it, though the popular media speaks of teleportation, seems like you are on a personal crusade on this one. Second point is irrelevant since the problem should be attributed in the QT article, not here. The writers of that article have failed as an educators, it's not the readers fault for being interested in the subject. And finally, a separate disambiguate page was irrelevant since there was no other content. --Sapeli (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a disambiguation page which already points to the Quantum teleportation article. If you feel that Quantum teleportation deserves more of a mention than the rest of the content of the disambiguation page, you at least need to make a case for it. Skippydo (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's a case for inclusion. The BBC recently did a show "James May's Big Ideas" which asserts that Quantum Teleportation is "essentially identical" to the Star Trek sci-fi concept. To quote the show (Ep 1 at 54:44 on the DVD) "Scientists have actually achieved it. Believe it or not, teleportation is a reality". I'm happy to accept that this statement was wrong, but this article needs to address QT even if only to point out that the media makes incorrect claims about the relationship. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Graphs illustrating the idea of spacetime motion are most simply presented by use of an orthogonal coordinate chart of the entities S (for distance) and T (for Time). Motion is communicated by plotting a continuous function of a concerned entity on the chart, which is related to the simultaneous existence conditions of the concerned entity. The plot of the spacetime continuous function of a normal moving entity is always continuous and can vary from verticle (for zero velocity) to some maximum slope for moving entities and by convention is usually at a 45 degree for the velocity of light. There is accordingly no fundamental prohibition to the idea of being able to move tangible matter at the velocity of light; except for the lack of a concept of a manner of transfering a sufficient amount of kinetic energy of motion by using a force entity which itself cannot move faster than light velocity. So teleportation at a velocity of almost up to the speed of light is theoretically possible. But would require a conserved energy concept that that would allow the transported entity to slow back down to some reasonable physical velocity of movement, as well as any other level of action contained by the entity by reason of his physical relationship with other matter. But the idea of faster than light motion is logically eliminated by energy content considerations, and the idea of instantaneous translation, while not violating energy conservation considerations, would involve a discontinuity in the S versus T plot that would boggle the minds of most Physicists as well as the Mathematicians.WFPM (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

teleportation in Russian military[edit]

no idea! I've no thinking about! Actually I don't know about developing teleport mashines or projecting method in russian Army. It may be interestings which methods are in deep russian Syberia or in China. Thut's cool idea for tourism! Andrey10012 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Smir

Teleportation actually achieved[edit]

Here is the article: [2] I know you might think that this is "quantum teleportation" and not true teleportation, but if they had destroyed the first photon instead of sending it across the river, then it would be true teleportation, as the "Dematerializing" section states it. So it may not have actually been true teleportation, but it was so close that it should be considered teleportation. Here is another source: [3] Quantumkayos (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibberish[edit]

It's been a long time since I read so much shit. It's not even in proper English. Pathetic.

Wikipeida: The font of all human stupidity.

You're free - nay, encouraged - to contribute yourself, you know. Esprix (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Material lifted from elsewhere[edit]

Section 2.1 ends with this:

"Teleportation appeared in literature for the first time in 1931 in the nonfiction book Lo! The American author Charles Fort combined the Greek word “Tele,” meaning distant, and the Latin verb, “Portare,” meaning to carry. Fort used this new term, teleportation, to explain anomalies occurring at that time. For Fort the book LO! was his third published work, but teleportation became the awaking of new challenges and perhaps a new frontier for mankind. Years later, the term teleportation became very popular with the 1966 TV series, Star Trek, created by the American screenwriter and producer Eugene Wesley "Gene" Roddenberry. This report will deliberate the transition from science fiction to science fact."

The presence of "This report will deliberate" made me wonder, so I copied that entire section and Googled it. It came from Answers.com. Looks like the facts should remains and the wording chopped up. Any comments?Indy (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

new geometry[edit]

1 1st axiom: rotated lines (closely to string's Theory?). What if two or one of two parallel lines are rotated?? 2 2nd - we change (as in quantum world) time and space by places. So, we've 3 proections of time & 1 complex space 3 What if the "2nd" includes innersial & simple logic -> we've proection on one string (∞) our 3D space and thuts time colapsed into 2 dimention disk ('halo') / What is teleportation? 4 if mirrow rules (simetry) in Energy Save Low begin run -> we've Kolia the person who moved from one textural door fit on a structural (2D?) base /some chemistry 5 Kolia's steped on himself but under low anti'simmetric mirrow 1st "Kolia" must die, demutterialized, disantigrate or dissapier, Iа We 've mass-energy safing low, gravity wave theory on uncentrism spectra explore 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrey Smirnov Valentinovich (talkcontribs) 08:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 1st axiom of Euclidian geometery about straightlines. 2-6 Lobachevsky-Menkovsky geometery. Is the line are direct? Where is it may warp? Why neutrino has a stright a very penetratating ability: it's close to quantum theory. If this straightline is very strong (no warp) - is it a vector dimention? --188.134.36.168 (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

mentalities of Russian & USA in teleportation[edit]

On mentalities was affect a movie of Startreck (in us) and a "Guest from future" in russia on 1980-90. In 2000 it was influence of TV serial StarGate . All types of tele-portation are in Teleportation physic Study of Eric W.Davis--188.134.36.168 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncertainty principle[edit]

The uncertainty principle alone would appear to provide an insurmountable barrier.

But fortunately, all Star Trek transporters have Heisenberg Compensators installed. 41.220.174.41 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Article is Missing Any Mention of "Partial-Teleportation" (Of single photons and other subatomic particles) Which Has Already Been Achieved In Physics[edit]

Although limited, this should absolutely be in the article: This is a 'partial' teleportation, in that information and the physical particles have been stripped apart, but nevertheless has been proven and replicated in many science labs. It is also limited to only single particles and also single photons, nothing larger and no complex molecules or objects. Nevertheless it should be included in the article and cited.

This should have its own section. It's odd that it is not mentioned. Perhaps we have some overzealous editing going on here.

173.246.35.183 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a disaster of fictionalized synthesis[edit]

The title pretty much says it all. There have been real-life studies and research into this field, and all I find in the article is pseudo-intellectual bullshit cloaking the extrapolation of science fiction novels into a doppleganger of of actual science. I am a monkey's eyelash away from taking an editorial ax to this article or simply nominating it for deletion. I urge the authors of this particular article cowboy up and start researching some actual science, and pronto. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you in that the article doesn't contain enough about teleportation's plausibility (or lack of...) as a scientific phenomenon, it currently does state in every section that it's a fictional element. Teleportation is widely used in various cultural works, and is certainly, as an idea, notable. However, I welcome that editorial ax of yours, but I don't think we have a problem that requires deleting the whole article. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There's a reason for the lack of scientific information. See the discussion above. mgiganteus1 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article should contain greater reference to scientific background and experiments. It's fine to cover fictional uses but the article at present gives the very clear message that teleportation is completely impossible, has always been seen as such, and no one has ever attempted any practical investigations in the area. I would also like to see far clearer linkage with the Quantum teleportation, and an explanation of the distinction between the two concepts here, since 'teleportation' is very often used as a shorthand for quantum teleportation.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I added a mention about quantum teleportation and these two ideas being separate - but as I'm not an expert and I may have missed a point or two, I welcome further editing or even reverting if it's not what you want. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Quantum Teleportation is a very technical topic. It has about as much relevance to a given person as Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm. Roughly speaking, the article Telephone is as related to this article as Quantum Teleportation, since both Telephone and Quantum Teleportation are methods of transmitting data. I hope this explanation helps! Skippydo (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
As of educating me, no, it doesn't help much as it's getting rather late where I am and I'm getting a bit sleepy... however, if you can use this to refine my recent edit to be more factually accurate while remaining understandable to normal people, it'd be appreciated. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I have three major issues with your explanation and approach. 1. Teleportation is very commonly used to describe quantum teleportation, such as here: [4], and in my view there needs to be a far clearer link between this article and the quantum teleportation one, together with an explanation of the distinction between the two concepts. 2. You seem to be suggesting that quantum teleportation is very technical and therefore not relevant to readers and so it's fine to keep the article on the topic hard to find. This seems to me to go completely against the whole idea of Wikipedia. 3. Although the general scientific view is that the type of teleportation which this article concerns is impossible, this does not mean that there have been no experiments in the field, nor that the concept should be present purely as a fictional/paranormal one to readers with no scientific context given.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1) Yes, the media does confuse teleportation and quantum teleportation. However, the scientific community does not. You will find no mention of star trek in the scientific literature. If this is simply a semantic issue, then yes, we can define the two to be the same. However, to the average person, a telephone is a not a teleportater and hence, the teleporation is not related to quantum teleportation. 2) Yes, I am suggesting that the average reader has no interest in the article for the same reason they have no interest in the Deutsch–Jozsa algorithm article. 3) I can't comment on this, since I'm unaware of any scientific experiments relating to teleportation. If they exist, they should be added. Those related to quantum teleportation are not related.
To Zakhalesh's comment, my issue with any inclusion of Quantum teleportation in the article is that it is no more related than telephone. To argue for it's inclusion, you need to explain how Quantum teleportation is more like fictional teleporation than transmission of information by some other means. Skippydo (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I readded some text explaining that quantum teleportation may be confused with teleportation but tried to make it clearer that the two ideas are related in name only. If it isn't explained that QT isn't teleportation, the natural assumption of people will be that it is. And if the article about teleportation concentrates on portraying teleportation as a fictional idea, people will think of QT as likewise. That's why it should be explicitly mentioned in both this article and quantum teleportation. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1. It isn't a question of confusing teleportation and quantum teleportation, it is a case that, in common useage, teleportation is used to refer to quantum teleportation. You may not like this but it is a fact and one which cannot be ignored in this article. 2. You are admirably honest but I must say that your attitude goes completely against the ideals of this project, which are to make information as widely available as possible and not to hide things away that certain editors may believe are of limited general interest (in any case I disagree that the topic of quantum teleportation is of very limited general interest). 3. There must have been experiments and/or theoretical work in the area, or how could you say that this is an impossible concept? Rangoon11 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Zakhalesh, you make a good point. Perhaps it is a good idea to dispel the myth of a relation. Thank you for your edits and fruitful discussion. Skippydo (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Rangoon11, hopefully we've reached some agreement at the moment. 1) I now agree. 2) The minimum level of education required to even begin to care about the quantum teleporation article is complex linear algebra, maybe from the second year of an undergraduate science program. I suspect those with such an education make for a very limited audience. 3) I have a math/cs background. Most of my physics education is from youtube. I'm unaware of any teleporation research in the sense of the article. If it exists, it definitely should be added. Quantum teleporation research can go in the quantum teleporataion article. Does that sound reasonable? Skippydo (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
On 1, great, and the new text in the article lead is fine by me, although I would like to see a citation for the 'not currently accepted as possible by the scientific community' statement. On 2, I think a distinction needs to be made between fully understanding something, having an interest in something, and having an ability to understand in part but not in whole. Most people do not understand how a computer works, or the internet, or even a telephone, but are still interested in the topics and could, if they wished, develop at least a partial understanding of all three. We should not be trying to second guess readers on here but making information as easy to find as possible. If that stimulates a greater interest in science great but if not then what has been lost? On 3 is the No-teleportation theorem not relevant? I agree that information about quantum teleporation experiments should go in the quantum teleporation article and not this one.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry for leaving prematurely last night, it was getting a bit late and my connection decided to die out. I'd like to clarify something: I have personally nothing against removing the "not accepted" part if no source for it can be found. I only added it to ease the distinction between QT, an observed scientific phenomenon, and teleportation, a wide array of ideas ranging from pure fiction to actual (even though disproven) scientific hypotheses. In short, feel free to improve it any way you desire, I won't object, but I'd prefer if the QT/teleportation distinction was clearly present. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There have been real-life studies and research into this field: then please add them. That would be useful William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away addressing RW concerns and missed the larger part of this conversation, but I think it somewhat less than useful for William to simply revert the edits back to those immediately before mine. Not that I'm taking offense, but if the problem keeps coming up (as Mgiganteus1 pointed out), then its time to address it, not pretend it doesn't exist.
I should illustrate how I saw the article before I started making changes. To begin with, there was entirely too much information being presented sans citation - always a red pennant in any primarily (supposedly?) scientific article. I find that alarming, so rather than tagging each and every instance where either bold or synthetic statements were being made with a 'cn' tag, it was fare less interruptive to simply tag the section needing citation. And let's be frank - every section was in dire need of referencing.
Secondly, it is my estimation that the editors of this article are not sure what they are writing about - teleportation as a scientific phenomena (be it quantum-related or not) or the teleportation of classic and pop science fiction. There are/were plenty of examples of the fictional kind, and if that's what the article is about, then let's call it such: "Teleportation in fiction"
Seeing as the article isn't called that, the article needs to address the concept in its purest form (read: scientific definitions and relevant practical studies - of which a simple Google search rendered no less than 3.7 million hits) and then - and only then - address the fictional applications and treatments of teleportation. Our opinions as to the possibility or impossibility of teleportation are of no consequence, we use notable sources, via citable references to write the article.
I'd love to see the article written, but not without references; its simply New Age nonsense the way it is now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I used a distinction template instead ("Not to be confused with quantum teleportation") to clarify. The distinction between the two must be done someway. Apart from that, I think this article could use a good division in two - maybe Scientific study which would explain studies and hypotheses concerning teleportation (even if disproven) and another on Teleportation in fiction which would contain selected examples of the way teleportation is portrayed in fiction (not an indiscriminate lump). Agreed? Zakhalesh (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit: By division in two, I mean two sections, not two articles. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support - there is no reason why this article should not contain descriptions of fictional portrayals but in my view it must contain information about scientific context and theory and experiments (if any have happened, and I'm fairly certain that they have, I will try and find some citations), and that infomation must come before the content about portrayals in fiction. Rangoon11 (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
At least wormholes have been suggested to exist and have been studied using mathematical means, but they have their own article so no use having too much information on them here. Finding experiments or suggestions about "classical" teleportation online isn't easy, because almost everything that pops up is about QT. I wouldn't lose hope though. Zakhalesh (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit: Ooh, I found this: "Teleportation Is Real - But Dont Try It at Home". Yes, it describes QT, but it does mention "classical" teleportation as well near the end, mainly that the research group's leader says it's impossible. For scientific analysis on teleportation, this could be useful. Zakhalesh (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice. That's more along the lines of what I thought would be helpful for this article. So, if I am understanding the comments here, the quantum teleportation that contributors are speaking of regards the transportation of quanta, whereas this article discusses the origins of the term, and how its been applied in a more romantic notion of teleporting people and things across distances, yes? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
That's my understanding, that teleportation in a scientific sense refers to the instant movement of physical objects across space, whilst quantum teleportation refers to the instant movement of quantum information across space. There is some cross-over in two senses however. Firstly, quantum teleportation is often referred to simply as teleportation, particularly in the media (both because it is a handy shorthand, and because teleportation in the primary sense is commonly believed to be impossible). Secondly, quantum teleportation may in any case be able to achieve the same practical effect as teleportation if some means is developed for instant assembly of a physical object from quantum information transmitted by quantum teleportation. Impossible today but by no means theoretically impossible. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so that seems to highlight the difficulties in approach to the article. We should start off (foregoing the Lede for now, as its based on the resulting content) explaining the origins of the term (which we do, with cites). Then we should explain the differences between qt and the commonly thought-of term (though you seem to be dashing that they are essentially the same thing, just minus the bump-n-grind of scifi applications). For that, we absolutely need to use references whenever possible, to avoid any appearance of OR or synthesis. Every statement, every connection needs to be verifiable. Then, we can note how the term was co-opted (or was it like the cell phone, where fiction came before fact?) for use in fiction. Finally, we can list prominent instances in fiction. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes that works for me.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

always a red pennant in any primarily (supposedly?) scientific article - the fiction bits aren't scientific. But since they are clearly seen as fiction, I don't see the problem. If people were trying to pass of fiction as reality, I'd be the first to object William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What about the idea I suggested, that we divide the article in two major sections: scientific views and fictional portrayals? Would you agree on that? It seems to me that Rangoon and Jack Sebastian are willing to agree on this as long as everything is properly verified, so that would be a good goal for the article. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an accurate assessment of my position, for the greatest point. I just don't want scifi stuff mixed in with science. There are genuine attempts to resolve the uncertainty principle (which I only really know about because of 'Trek) in science; they are real scientists, not fat D&D nerds with bad fashion sense and a pair of rubber Vulcan ears; this article should not give precedence to the fictional, romantic, Gary Larson-esque aspects of what can easily be a solid scientific article, or at least an article wherein the topic can be discussed outside the realm of scifi. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I guess we can start working on it unless William M. Connolley wishes to object and improve the suggestion somehow. The things we need the most are scientific articles describing classical teleportation, possible ways of achieving it and why it is/isn't impossible. Fictional examples are good, but it shouldn't be too indiscriminate. Finding sourced examples won't be too hard there, I assume. Zakhalesh (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The science and the sci-fi should not be mixed, I agree. But I don't think they are. Teleportation is essentially nothing but sci-fi, so ther is little scope for a "pure science" section. they are real scientists - great: find them, find the refs, then start the discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact that teleportation is considered impossible by most (all?) scientists doesn't mean that we should not mention the scientific viewpoint. It means quite the opposite - we should mention why it is considered impossible, just like what's being done at hollow Earth and torsion field (pseudoscience) and so on. Zakhalesh (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientific viewpoint Section[edit]

This section contains three sentences, I'll make comments on the last two.

Quantum information may be moved in a similar fashion, however. This phenomenon is known as quantum teleportation.

Comparing teleportation with Quantum teleportation makes as much sense as comparing a fireoptic cable with a teleporter.

Teleportation of energy has also been theorized to be possible

If I remember correctly, this is via unverified experiments that are directly related to Quantum teleportation. But there are no scientific references in the article or here, so I can only guess. For the same reason, the topic is unrelated to this article. Since that leaves a section with one valid sentence, I'm removing the section and moving the sentence to the intro. Skippydo (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The scientific viewpoint section required expansion, not deletion. I am strongly against your deletion of the section, and your attitude of seeking to maintain this article as presenting teleportation solely from the perspective of fiction/the paranormal. And I also take strong issue with your attitude that teleportation and quantum teleportation are wholly unconnected topics. They are not the same, but they are connected concepts, hence the fact that they both include the word 'teleportation'.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"If I remember correctly"? "No scientific references"? Just look. There were references supporting the statements in the article. Mentioning quantum teleportation is feasible if for nothing else, to avoid confusion. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Rangoon, I don't know of any scientific research into that related to fictional teleportation and I didn't think a single sentence saying it's impossible deserved it's own section. My only concern is in dispelling the confusion regarding quantum teleportation. Case in point, you mistakingly believe that fictional teleportation and quantum teleportation bear a relation beyond semantics. Please explain why you believe that quantum teleportion is more like fictional teleportation than transmission of quantum data by other means, for instance, a fiberoptic cable. Skippydo (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've already made my understanding quite clear above but I will repeat it again here in case you missed it: 'teleportation in a scientific sense refers to the instant movement of physical objects across space, whilst quantum teleportation refers to the instant movement of quantum information across space. There is some cross-over in two senses however. Firstly, quantum teleportation is often referred to simply as teleportation, particularly in the media (both because it is a handy shorthand, and because teleportation in the primary sense is commonly believed to be impossible). Secondly, quantum teleportation may in any case be able to achieve the same practical effect as teleportation if some means is developed for instant assembly of a physical object from quantum information transmitted by quantum teleportation. Impossible today but by no means theoretically impossible.'
The concepts are therefore linked in that they (1) both include the word 'teleportation', (2) have the potential achieve precisely the same practical outcome, and (3) both relate to instant movement across space.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd address my question directly. I'm going to assume you are claiming that Quantum teleportation is instantanious while transmission via Fiberoptic cable is not. Quantum teleportation is not instantaneous, it requires the transmission of two classical bits and is, hence, bounded by the speed of light. Skippydo (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I had a sourced section that explained that while teleportation of quantum data is considered possible and teleportation of energy has been theorized, teleportation of matter is considered to be beyond our reach. Every single thing was sourced, it improved the article by adding valuable information that is especially helpful for the layman who may have no idea what kinds of teleportation are possible. The section had nothing that warranted deletion, in fact, if anything, it needs to be replaced and expanded. Deleting sourced and helpful information is not very constructive. I'm replacing the section unless you can state why it is detrimental to the encyclopedia to have it. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I disagree that teleportation of quantum data is considered possible. The definition of teleportation in the lead is

Teleportation is the idea of the transfer of matter from one point to another, more or less instantaneously

If we go by this definition, then Quantum teleportation is not teleportation, since it is not instantaneous, as I've mentioned in my previous comment. Nevermind the fact that there is no matter involved in Quantum teleportation. Skippydo (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The speed of light is 'more or less instantaneous' when thinking about earth-scale distances. I agree that this sentence could be clarified though. However the key issue is transportation across space, without transmission through the intervening space.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
So, you're claiming that the light in the room with you is teleporting? Below which level of latency can I claim my computer is teleporting data across the internet? Please address my earlier question: Please explain why you believe that quantum teleportion is more like fictional teleportation than transmission of quantum data by other means, for instance, a fiberoptic cable. I don't know what transportation across space, without transmission through the intervening space means. Especially in light of the two classical bits which are transmitted through intervening space during quantum teleportation. Please clarify. Skippydo (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think this discussion is pointless; what any one of us thinks is possible or not is moot - we are not citable. Any argument presented here advocating the possibility or impossibility of teleportation needs to be girded with references. Otherwise, this is forum chat. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also possible (and I think likely) that the definition we have of teleportation in the lead is flawed. When I type teleportation in Google, most of the results I get are about quantum teleportation and most of them refer to it simply as "teleportation" at some point. We can't define teleportation to suit just one meaning if more exist, it would make the entire Wikipedia a mass of tautology: It's not true because it's not true. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's a few refs to prove that what the IP above says is true - defining teleportation to only mean the impossible transportation of matter that only happens in scifi or any derivative of that is wrong. This was in the article. It says "Teleportation is Real", in reference to quantum teleportation. The prose explicitly states that the experiment involved teleportation of information. It also states that teleportation of humans is impossible, with a strong hint that it applies to matter in general, not just us fleshbags. This source also says information is being teleported. As does this one. In light of these and a ton of other similar examples found via Google, I will change the lead so it won't be restrict the term teleportation to matter. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Good. Now, if anyone has a counterpoint, make sure you have references, or we cannot listen to the arguments. Too much time has been wasted on a pretty pointless debate that isn't usable in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break[edit]

This is a reference for the peer-reviewed paper originally proposing Quantum teleportation. Here's an excerpt:

We call the process we are about to describe "teleportation," a term from science fiction meaning to make a person or object disappear while an exact replica appears somewhere else. It much be emphasized that our teleportation, unlike some science fiction versions, defies no physical laws. In particular it cannot take place instantaneously or over a space-like interval, because it requires, sending a classical message from Alice to Bob. The net result of teleportation is completely prosaic: the removal of [the qubit] from Alice's hands and its appearance in Bob's hands a suitable time later. The only remarkable feature is that in the interim, the information in [the qubit] has been cleanly separated into classical and nonclassical parts.

The article was published in Physical Review Letters in 1993. Any comments? Skippydo (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

1993 is a long ago, things have evolved a lot. I think the principles still apply though. as for defining teleportation, the excerpt you provided supports the current definition of "teleportation" in the article by acknowledging the usage of the word both in fiction and in science. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The quote is from a very out of date article and it is clear that the science has moved a very long way in the interim. However the quote does in fact establish that even then 'teleportation' was being used to describe quantum teleportation. In the intervening 18 years the use of the word in that context has of course become far more widespread.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It must be admitted though - the original use of the term teleportation was from before quantum teleportation was conceived, so the original use of the term was just fiction. However, the same applies to lots of other things, like robots. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Not to sound like a broken record, but do you have references to support those statements? Let us focus on those points which can be made (with references) in the article.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
According to our own articles, teleportation was coined in 1931 and quantum teleportation in 1993. Not that it has any bearing on the content of the article though, even fi the word originally was for fictional use only it is very obvious that the word is used more universally now. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see my post immediately before yours regarding the use of cited statements in place of your own reasoned assurances. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, we have a reference at the top of this very talk section that states that the word was used before any actual teleportation (quantum teleportation included) was made possible. However, I agree with the IP that this has no bearing at all on the article's content as we've got good refs that prove that the current use of the word includes actual phenomena, so no need to discuss this further. Zakhalesh (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Providing a link as to when a term was coined is just as important to the article as explaining its various applications. Plus, its cited. So, I am not hearing a good reason to remove it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, you got me wrong. I was not going to remove anything, just wanted to clarify to everyone participating in the discussion that while the word teleportation was only used in fiction for several decades after being coined, words and meanings change. Just like with robot which originally meant a specific type of fictional machine. I'm ok with the current version of the article - now that we have reached a consensus that teleportation can't be defined to be an all-fiction concept, should we consider readding the "in science" section? Zakhalesh (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that Energy (esotericism) should contain a section on the technical definition that physicists use called energy. For the same reason, I would question the relevance of putting a section mention Quantum Teleportation here. However, let's assume that such a section should exist. Please post it here first. Thus far, all mentions of Quantum teleportation have been appallingly inaccurate, as reflected by their false representation in the media articles people keep giving. Skippydo (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yeah, that's the main problem with creating such a section, as there's bound to be overlap with other articles. Perhaps a mention about the actual forms of teleportation in lede is enough and the rest of the article may be devoted to fiction. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. the article is on teleportation - and that includes every form that isn't FRINGE. While the idea was birthed in fiction, there is a scientific basis for it, and scientific references for it. That I am not a physicist (quantum-type or otherwise) is immaterial. That the term may be actually referring to quantum teleportation is less immaterial, but such distinctions are for the citations to say, not us. If you find the citations to be "appallingly inaccurate", find better ones. Until then, we use the citations we have, and don't replace it with our own, uncitable (in any way) opinion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This is true as well, especially about sources (as the saying goes, verifiability before truth), but if the section would only be a sentence or two long it might be better formatted otherwise. We also do have an article on QT already, so no use covering that here in-depth. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It is an unsupported assumption that only a sentence or two exist regarding the scientific study of teleportation, Zakhalesh. As well, while we do have an article on QT as well, we are not prevented from discussing it here, especially if the two terms are simultaneously very, very different (as folk have been suggesting - without citations, it bears noting) but used almost interchangeably by the regular reader. I don't need to point out the thousands if not millions of articles wherein we place a redirect link to a more expansive discussion of a text topic; its apparent that there is considerable overlap, and having the scientists and scifi geeks at one another's throats over 'their turf' seems inane and wasteful to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me, I think I'm having a problem expressing myself clearly. Of course, the section might grow into a long one, but currently I can't think of material to add to it except the stuff that was in my first draft of the section. If you can expand on it, go ahead. I have no objections to adding it, but until we have more than a few sentences about it, it may look better if kept in the lede. And yes, some overlap is allowed - that's why I said "no use covering that here in-depth" - of course we can have the basic idea here since it's related. Since you've got much more editing history than me and we agree with the basic idea, I trust you'll be able to decide what goes in the section and what should stay out. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a bit of a wild idea I'll throw out there. We could have two main articles teleportation (fictional) and quantum teleportation. What's in the teleportation article now could go into the former. I'm not sure what becomes of this article, maybe just a redirect to the disambig page. Skippydo (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That would certainly solve a lot, although we'd have to revamp it again if/when the Japanese finish their energy teleportation stuff... just kidding. I've got no downright objections to this idea. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
In that case the disambiguation page would be moved to the title of this article, per standard practice. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That would work for me, although in my view 'Teleportation in fiction' would be a better title and would mirror similar articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation issues[edit]

I think it is a mistake to disambiguate this page in the way that has been done. First, most of the links are for the term "Teleport", which is not quite the same thing, and should have its own disambiguation page; Certainly no one refers to Teleport, Amsterdam as "Teleportation". Removing all of those would leave two links, which would then be subject to WP:TWODABS. bd2412 T 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, though I see your argument. Some people type in teleport seeking the scientific idea, and some type in the term seeking someone else. Offering them the choice only serves the encyclopedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, placement of a disambiguation page is determined by the existence of a primary topic. "Teleport" is not a "topic" for any usage of "Teleportation", which leaves two actual candidates for a primary topic. Surely some people type in George Washington seeking something other than the Founding Father, but that is not reason enough to make that page a disambiguation page and move the article on the person elsewhere. bd2412 T 18:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The existence of a primary topic doesn't exclude the possibility of a subsidiary or completely unrelated term. I am guessing that the good folk of Intercourse, PA or Hell, Michigan might tend to agree. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course, that is why it is called a primary topic, and not the only topic. Note, however, that Hell is not a disambiguation page; it is an article on the most prominent meaning, with a hatnote on top guiding readers who were looking for something else to Hell (disambiguation). bd2412 T 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Whether this stays a dab page or not, the references to 'teleport' articles have no place here and I'm removing them. Even the wiktionary link points to 'teleport' instead of 'teleportation.' Did some misguided editor simply copy the Teleport dab page over and add a couple links? -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony[edit]

Teleportation is an invention of science fiction. It is commonly understood as such. A page that existed here, but which has recently been deleted, bore out the ubiquitousness of the notion of teleportation in fiction. But the page was deleted on the basis that it was considered "trivia", and it seems to have been pitted in an ideological war against the notion of "Quantum Teleportation". The two have little in common, even lexically; they are as distinct as Alaska the country and Baked Alaska the dessert. But it seems there's a certain faction that wants us to know only about a certain "slice" of knowledge, which one might call the empirical or rational. Ironically, while imagining themselves so enlightened and rational, that faction is drawn into actually claiming TELEPORTATION for science! That, apart from being extremely amusing, is a category error. Teleportation is A LITERARY DEVICE - a STORY-TELLING DEVICE. We crazy goons always actually knew that. Johncurrandavis (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)