Hello — OK, so maybe it shouldn’t include the syllable “port”? To me, “porting” means moving something, with or without “tele”.
If you have the same program open twice on a PC, it is considered Multiple Instances. That sounds like what this is.
An instance is an occurrence of an object, regardless of how many times the object occurs, with identicality being implied/assumed thanks to Spooky Action.
The quick verb could be “Spooky”, meaning make another instance of something (wherever).
If I have item X in New York, and want it to also be in London, I could “Spooky” it to London. And, by Spooky Action (no transporting involved), it is there. And, in London, it is equally as X as it is in New York.
I do not pick up from the article that the original in New York would disappear. In fact, it is not relevant unless the Effect of Spooky Action continues past creation, which is not, as I can tell, herein implied.
If the Effect of Spooky Action were continued past creation, the items could be considered “Haunted”.
I believe the items actually are Haunted in Theoretical Quantum Mechanics, but we haven’t done that in the laboratory.
Also, in cases where there is Haunting, which Instance inherits change (via Spooky Action) from which, if they are Identical? Would change occur in either direction? Sounds like conflicts would occur. And what if one Instance is destroyed?
Also #2: There doesn’t seem to be a limit on the number of instances. If New York & London, why not Paris & Munich?
But it *is* teleported. A “cloned” quantum particle with the same wavefunction is not different in any material sense; your analysis is mistaken because you are thinking as if these photons are classical particles. They are not. Because they are entangled there is really no way to know which one is “here” and which one is “there.” Both particles are actually in both places and neither particle is in either place. There is only a state vector which describes both of them until we do an experiment that subsequently untangles them.
I think your reading too much into this. We can manipulate objects at a distance with magnetism. We can manipulate charged particls in an electric field. We can predict orbits in a gravitational field. Now scientists are manipulating particle states at a distance. All this stuff is "action at a distance." For all the clever calculations and speculations scientists make, they still can't tell us the underlying mechanics of how forces act at a distance. It's spooky, erie, otherworldly for the time being.
I think your reading too much into this. We can manipulate objects at a distance with magnetism. We can manipulate charged particls in an electric field. We can predict orbits in a gravitational field. Now scientists are manipulating particle states at a distance. All this stuff is "action at a distance." For all the clever calculations and speculations scientists make, they still can't tell us the underlying mechanics of how forces act at a distance. It's spooky, erie, otherworldly for the time being.
I think your reading too much into this. We can manipulate objects at a distance with magnetism. We can manipulate charged particls in an electric field. We can predict orbits in a gravitational field. Now scientists are manipulating particle states at a distance. All this stuff is "action at a distance." For all the clever calculations and speculations scientists make, they still can't tell us the underlying mechanics of how forces act at a distance. It's spooky, erie, otherworldly for the time being.