Talk:Teleportation (disambiguation)

message: 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)
thread_title: Context and Light Speed

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did it go?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of underlying quantum ideas 

message: 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)
replies: text: No - does not work in the instance of (for example) a time and space ship materialising. DavidFarmbrough 09:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Materialization (science fiction)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Materialization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conservation of angular momentum 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lopsided article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Teleportation Scenarios 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TP in fiction 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good removal.  This looks like original research.  Val42 02:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Took a chunk out

message: 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)
thread_title:  Teleportation of complex objects? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: .  Zweifel 16:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Tokyo Teleport Station

message: 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)
replies: text: There is debate as to what elementary particles actually are. — Val42 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Objects

message: "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)
thread_title: More news

message: 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 (talk • gallery • contrib) 23:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Philadelphia Experiment

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  nightcrawler? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quantum Teleportation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Uhh what happened to this article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  QM Disclaimer 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can't travel faster than light? 

message: Will involve cats. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The development of teleportation

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The CNN link (number 6) is no longer working 

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Needs Update, Scientists Have Already Teleported a Single Particle of Matter

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article structure / history of ideas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  23 January 2009 article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A bit too indepth? 

message: Could someone explain why quantum teleportation doesn't qualify as teleportation?Mortsgne1 (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Difference between teleportation and QT

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

message: Please have the niceness of answering my question, thank you very much.--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is incorrect to assume that teleportation is fictional, impossible and stupid. --202.6.86.1 (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: dawkinsfanboi. 90.205.92.115 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Why are there so many articles on fictional, impossible and stupid shit like this? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  teleportation in Russian military 

message: Here is the article: 
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:  Quantumkayos (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teleportation actually achieved 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gibberish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Material lifted from elsewhere 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  new geometry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  mentalities of Russian & USA in teleportation 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Uncertainty principle 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: arbitrary break

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oh, the irony