As per Japanese physicist (Masahiro Hotta), energy teleporation is possible

bohm2

I'm lost. What is your hunch about their meaning of "quantum energy"? Don't they mean the zero-point energy? I'm asking because this is what they write:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...109.2203v1.pdf

pranj5

And you are not the ultimate authority to announce what is "science" and what is "speculation". Just keep that to yourself.

M.Hotta

Hi! I'm Hotta. My friend emailed me about this thread. I'm glad to know you all have interest of my QET. However, you seem confused a little bit. Dr.Chinese looks like understand fairly well, though some part he also misunderstands.

I'm a theorist, not an experimentalist. I can not do experiments to verify my QET theory. My colleagues have a plan to do the exp, but, unfortunately, on 3.11 of this year, our university was severely affected by an big earthquake. This generated a big tsunami that killed a lot of people and a serious nuclear power plant accident. Now we are doing much effort to recover our research activity, though that seems very long-way. It is good for me that somebody will try the QET experiment in USA or other countries.

In order to understand QET precisely, please read my review article: http://www.tuhep.phys.tohoku.ac.jp/~...qet-review.pdf
The energy is 'teleported', just in an operational sense, as seen in p6-p8 of the above review.
If you see a process described in the pages, you say the energy is truly 'teleported' from a viewpoint of users, don't you? (Please see page 21.) The energy of information carriers, which Dr.Chinese worried about, is not important. Bob obtains energy of information carriers plus additional energy from local vacuum by generating a negative-energy wave packet of the quantum field.

In order to understand the meaning of the teleported energy deeply, we should recall two points, I think. The first is the fact that any energy has no tag which shows where it was stored, just like pure water. (Anyone cannot make distinction between pure water on earth and pure water on moon.) The second is the famous Wheeler's viewpoint about many particles. J. A. Wheeler came up with an exotic idea about electron and positron (anti-electron), and proposed it to Feynman. He imagined that one particle is doing a zigzag motion in our spacetime, and that it is electrons when it propagates forward in time, positrons when propagates backward in time. Actually, we have many electrons and positrons in our world, but he said they are a single particle. His picture could explain why all electrons have the same mass and charge. (As you know, the current precise explanation about that is provided by quantum field theory, not his own idea. ) In a similar way, we can regard a part of the energy Alice injects as the energy Bob extracts. Let us imagine that, after a one-round protocol of QET, the negative energy that Bob generates in the quantum field moves to the positive energy injected by Alice and merges ( partially pair-annihilated ). Then, the energy shows a zig-zag motion in the spacetime, like the electron of Wheeler. In this sence, it becomes meaningless to discuss distinction between the energy Bob obtains and a part of the energy Alice injects. What we can do is just to say that energy is transported in an operational sense via classical communication. Thus, I called this as energy teleportation. (As you know, a very similar situation happens when you say that energy of the Hawking radiation comes from inside a black hole event horizon and the black hole loses its energy.)

I would like to respond all comments here, but have no enough time. Please email me if you have a question about QET, though afraid that the response delay will often takes place, sorry.

pranj5

Hello Prof. Hotta,
Glad to have you in this forum. Whatsoever, I want to ask you the same question that I have asked you in my e-mail to you (to the e-mail address given on your papers). I am curious to know that 1) whether this QET phenomenon can be used as substitute to classical channel communication and 2) whether the classical channel is an integral part of the process or not. If Alice can inject energy at A and Bob can extract that at B and if the process is continuous i.e. Alice just started his "energy" pumping apparatus and Bob kept his own machine on, then why every time some kind of classical communication is necessary. Just think of a scenario when Alice just communicated to Bob (via classical channel) that "I have started" and Bob started his own apparatus. Then is the classical channel necessary after every pulse of energy injection?

M.Hotta

1) whether this QET phenomenon can be used as substitute to classical channel communication

ANS. The amount of 'teleported' energy becomes quite small, as the distance becomes macroscopically large. Thus, QET is not suitalble for macroscopic energy transfer like classical channel communication. QET is a small-world phenomenon, like processes in quantum devices.

2) whether the classical channel is an integral part of the process or not.
ANS. The classical channel for announcement of the measurement result is one of key ingredients of QET. This ensures that QET satisfies causality and prohibits superluminal (faster-than-light) energy transfer. What Dr.Chinese said about that is precisely correct.

DevilsAvocado

Thanks a lot Hotta!

This explains a lot, and I guess "Mars Power Plants" is out of the question!

Explanation: We have "one guy" here who says dogs can fly, but not by themselves.

pranj5

Well, from your answers, it seems that this phenomenon is useless beyond the volume of a hydrogen atom. In your papers, you have said about the damping factors, can you say something about that? I mean what are those damping factors that prevent QET to transfer large amount of energy to macroscopic distances.
Well, as per the paper you have mentioned in your first post, how big can the amount of energy that Alice can sent to Bob by thins method.

DevilsAvocado

Obviously not big enough for a power plant on Mars!

yoron

Nice, and thanks a lot for taking a interest Mr. Hotta. How do you view the interaction taken in measuring a entanglement? Do it impart a momentum as it measures? Will the momentum imparted, if existing, exist over the whole of the entanglement?

As for describing it as existing in a 'time symmetry', I don't know? Macroscopically there always should be someone initialising it, at least under our arrow of time. And when it comes to a controlled entanglement it is easy to define who's 'involved'. It all seems to fall back to what 'time' should be seen as, though? But as all theories it has to fit what we observe, and I do not know of any experiments made in 'reversed time'? To me they all have a causality chain following our macroscopic arrow of time, whether it is observing positrons or electrons?

To say that nothing happens to 'B' after me measuring 'A' gets me confused. It may be semantics, but as I understands it we define a entanglement as something being 'together', where an action taken on 'A' having a instantaneous effect on 'B'? I don't see how you can expect that to be true, at the same time as you define it as noting can have happened at 'B', until you measure it?

This one you need to explain MRChinese :)

"It is true that when A collapses first, it sets the wave state for B. However, and this is the point that is hard to grasp, it is equally true that when B is measured AFTER A, B sets the wave state for A."

Is that from the idea of a symmetric 'time'? If I use a beam splitter and split a 'photon' in two A and B. Then proceed to measure A after that go on to measure B, are they reversible? In 'time' that is?

What I mean here is that the action is taken on 'A' before the action taken on 'B'. That they are identical, and would give identical relations, no matter on which 'side' I started to measure don't invalidate the arrow I measured them under, well, as I see it?
=

And yes Mr Hotta

"The first is the fact that any energy has no tag which shows where it was stored, just like pure water. (Anyone cannot make distinction between pure water on earth and pure water on moon.)"

That's how I think of it too. And then it to me become a question of what we mean by 'information' in this case?

yoron

To me it would have to be a very 'still' universe, if I define particles and anti particles this way, Almost like a lightcone of 'relations' stretching both forward and backward in 'time', not 'moving' in themselves as they exist simultaneously, using the eye of God. Which then should become a question about why we have a macroscopic arrow. If I get it right here.

DevilsAvocado

Nothing final happens to B until you measure it. [In most cases] there is always a large amount of 'randomness' involved in EPR-Bell experiments when getting the final outcome. For instance, the angle is random and should be set in the very last moment (outside A’s light-cone) to do it properly. And depending on the relative angle a-b, you get very different probabilities for the final outcome. Malus' law: cos^2(a-b) gives you the probabilities. Hence, you cannot claim that A has an instant effect on B, what happens is that the shared wavefunction decohere/collapse and this sets the 'prerequisites' for the final outcome, but B isn’t 'materialized' until the measurement is performed.

I think this falls back on our previous discussion on SR and RoS...

There’s absolutely no doubt that the entangled pair of photons share the one and only wavefunction, period.

Could one wavefunction decohere/collapse/branch twice?? Answer: NO

Now, suppose you want to decide which one of Alice & Bob do actually decohere the wavefunction and sets the state, given they have equal opportunities; it will be impossible to tell according to RoS.

(And this time it is 'bulletproof', no "timer" in the world could save you. )

However, if you arrange so that you first measure A, to let say spin up, and then take this result to Bob and do the B measurement – this will of course not have any possibility to change the A measurement (in retrospect) to spin down... that’s impossible.

DrChinese

First, thanks to M. Hotta for the time to help us better understand QET!

pranj5, thanks for bring Hotta into the discussion, but you are still missing the big picture here. Hotta's work is theoretical, it doesn't really matter how much energy is teleported by the process. That there is a possibility that ANY could be shifted is a good result in itself (in my opinion).

I think most would understand that it's not likely this would be a net positive teleportation in the end (although I can't be sure). As mentioned previously, we already have practical devices that can do the same thing.

What I have been trying to tell you is that the speculative ideas you advanced early on are not appropriate for this forum. While yours is not science, Hotta's is. If you follow the following link, you will see that there were over 1000 papers written this year alone on theoretical AND experimental developments in entanglement. Many of the results presented are amazing papers, I think if you scan a few you will see all kinds of exotic terms and ideas mentioned that shed important new light on the quantum world. Every one is a step forward. This is how science works, it takes time and a bit of luck every now and then.

http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/abs...1?per_page=100

Skip the sci fi speculation, it doesn't really do anyone any good.

M.Hotta

Dear all, thank you so much for your responces. I have no time to reply them in detail. I think DrChinese has ability of explanation about that. (He is one of the best persons who understand physics quite well among this thread participants, I think. ) Please ask him to discuss about that.

If you want to know about the effect of quantum measurement, please read my review:http://www.tuhep.phys.tohoku.ac.jp/~...qet-review.pdf
In particular, p29 and p36-38. Time dependence of switch on-off of measurement devices always excites quantum fields in the vacuum state locally.


Description about the distance and energy scale of QET exp using quantum Hall systems can be found in our recent paper publsihed in Physical Review A. (You can see it via
http://xxx.yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp/abs/1109.2203 .) The typical length scale of QET systems is 10μm and the order of teleported energy is estimated as 100μeV.

The amount of teleported energy per one QET channel is quite small. However, if you consider huge numbers of QET channels paralley laid, the total amount of energy becomes large, in principle. Therefore it is valid to apply the QET argument to various gedanken experiments with cosmological distance scales or black hole physics, by taking a large N limit in terms of the number of quantum matter fields. The total amount of teleported energy can be N-times enhanced. About this, please see the above review (p51) and my recent paper published in Physical Review D.(You can see it via http://xxx.yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp/abs/0907.1378 .)

About the case with many people who extract energy using Alice's information, please see p49-50 of the above review.

yoron

DA :)

It's about definitions I think. To me causality exist in SpaceTime. Although you might want to define it as times arrow can take on different values, when comparing 'frames of reference', to me it have only one direction, into the future. Locally your clock always will be the same (relative your heartbeats, as a weak example), and that is enough to prove a casualty chain at the local plane.

On the conceptual plane, comparing frames of reference, you can find some other clock to, possibly, become unmeasurable, not ticking at all as you observe it. But you will nowhere find a 'clock' that, relative your local 'clock' ticks backward.

And that's where you make your experiments, inside SpaceTime.

"In relativistic QFT, all particles (and antiparticles) travel forward
in time, corresponding to timelike or lightlike momenta.
(Only 'virtual' particles may have unrestricted momenta; but these are
unobservable artifacts of perturbation theory.)

The need for antiparticles is in QFT instead revealed by the fact that
they are necessary to construct operators with causal (anti)commutation
relations, in connection with the spin-statistic theorem. See, e.g.,
Volume 1 of Weinberg's quantum field theory book."

So it is a question of 'definitions' to me. The same will be true with how you define that 'wave function' collapsing. As I understand it we can talk of a entanglement as existing as one wave function only, same as you described it. Assuming a arrow of time pointing one way, and with causality chains defined as above I expect us to be able to define who measured first, ignoring simultaneous measurements. Although there always will exist a doubt from a third observer, not involved in the process, we can, assuming that Lorentz transformations hold for defining a 'same universe' use those to prove who did what relative their own frames of reference.

Failing that, assuming that there is no coherent background, even though Lorentz transformations exist and work, we will have to look at the persons involved here, 'A' and 'B' and then define it as the measuring they do relative each other, as well as the message received, will define who did what, relative the relation created in their measuring, and messaging. Assuming no message but still a measurement we will have to define whom is observing them both, and then also 'measuring' their respective measurements ( in time :)

Why I discussed a 'timer' was just the remarkable definitions 'energy' has, which I'm still not sure of how to see. But I'm pretty sure that a measurement should impart a momentum, and as I expect, be present in all of it, not only one side. Whether you choose to measure that or something else, and no matter whether HUP treats it one way or another, I still would expect a addition by that measurments momentum.

As for it falling out, when it does it should to me be defined by one who did it first, even though there is a 'time symmetry' assumed in physics. And 'first' will easiest be defined relative a 'relation' as in a communication by message. Without it we fall back on defining a observer and his relation to those doing the experiment, or possibly assume that they was watching each other, and then use Lorentz transformations for defining who did it 'first'.

What I mean is that from the entanglements side there can be no two interactions on it, only one, if we define it as a 'wave collapse'.

bohm2

Thanks to everyone. This was a very useful thread and also a lesson to me to read the original papers more carefully and not through secondary sources. Because M. Hotta did suggest possible uses of QET on p. 50:

DevilsAvocado

Thanks again, for taking your time explaining QET!

DevilsAvocado

extremely good point, thanks...