Talk:Teleportation (disambiguation)

Paranormal Disambig‑class

	This disambiguation page 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.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Disambig	This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

you guys gotta go back and explain who charles fort is before referencing him. I would do it but I'm too lazy 68.50.232.189 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any examples of teleportation without technology? Isn't this a miracle credited to some saints?

I'd like to see some information about the experiments with teleportation in Australia go into this article. Loui Da Boss

Should we cite the teleport poem from HHGG by Douglas Adams ?

Redo first paragraphs

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Merge from Materialization (science fiction)

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Materialization

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)[reply]

Conservation of angular momentum

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)[reply]

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

Wrong date

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

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

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)[reply]

News about teleportation

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TP in fiction

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Took a chunk out

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)[reply]

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

Ethical concerns

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 • contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ethical concerns portrayed in notable fiction would circumvent the verifiability and original research issues entirely. Someguy1221 09:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Teleportation of complex objects?

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)[reply]

Tokyo Teleport Station

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 world in the real world. Kit Cloudkicker 16:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]