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

by pranj5
Tags: energy, hotta, japanese, masahiro, physicist, teleporation
PF Patron
P: 5,055
 Quote by yoron ... As for the entanglement? Doesn't the measurement define all of it? If 'A' measure a momentum, won't 'A:s' interaction with the entanglement, measuring it, impart a added momentum, and also redefine the momentum for 'B' after he received the message that he can start his?
1. The RESULTS of Bob's measurement is 100% predictable if made after Alice's, and 100% UNpredictable if made before Alice's. That assumes they are measuring on the SAME BASIS. This is simply a restatement of the HUP.

2. On the other hand, when measuring on a different (non-commuting) basis: The RESULTS of Bob's measurement is 100% UNpredictable (i.e. no better than chance) even if made AFTER Alice's and you send Alice's results to Bob in advance. This is too simply a restatement of the HUP.

3. QM says that the results of measurements of entangled A and B are themselves independent of time ordering. This has been experimentally verified. See 1. again and you will realize that when you combine Alice's and Bob's results, this is ALWAYS the case. That is because when they measure on the same basis, the results are completely redundant! When they measure on a different basis, the results are completely random! So ordering obviously does not change the outcome.

4. Keep in mind that every pair of A and B is fully independent of all other A+B pairs. So if you need information for 1 pair, you will need to get fresh information for other pairs. That is because each pair has random values, I am sure you can see this will be true if they are entangled (it is practically definitional).

5. There is NO ENERGY BEING INJECTED AND TELEPORTED ANYWHERE FROM A MEASUREMENT APPARATUS. That is a misunderstanding, plain and simple, despite what you are reading from Hotta. Again, the terminology is what is confusing. You cannot push A and feel it at B, or something similar. This is NOT a part of QM, and there is no evidence or hint of evidence for this concept. The "energy" being teleported has to do with the system of A+B, and has nothing to do with the measuring device at A injecting something into that system which is received at B. I believe that in the example, we are talking about a measuring device which is simply a passive polarizer - which is obviously incapable of adding energy.
 P: 244 As for "There is NO ENERGY BEING INJECTED AND TELEPORTED ANYWHERE FROM A MEASUREMENT APPARATUS." I agree totally, never have said anything else? What I'm talking about is not Hotta there, just about what happens as you measure a entanglement, that is 'interact' with it. I assume that the interaction will add a momentum to your entanglement, and also, as you can't differ/split the 'wave function' without interfering, that this 'added momentum' will exist at all 'places' of the entanglement, meaning 'both sides'. I'm not discussing Hotta at all there. The question is: is it so that a measurement of a entanglement will add a momentum in the interaction by your measuring. If not, how do it do it? If it do, then it seems to me that we always inject 'momentum/energy' in our measurements. = When it comes to injecting 'energy' in general. I presume that you see 2. "On the other hand, when measuring on a different (non-commuting) basis: The RESULTS of Bob's measurement is 100% UNpredictable (i.e. no better than chance) even if made AFTER Alice's and you send Alice's results to Bob in advance. This is too simply a restatement of the HUP." as the definition of why a 'timer' won't work here? When it comes to sending a code, or something where a 'decoder' is needed you always need a sub channel for each entanglement. I'm just not sure that this argument works for 'work', as this 'energy seems to become in his description? There is no decoder needed as I think of it, what is needed is just knowing the intervals between measuring the entanglements for the 'receiver', relative the 'sender'.
 P: 244 Yeah DA, better see this as an 'idealised' thought experiment. It's extremely hard to imagine it any other way as gravity is 'everywhere', and clocks will differ relative the observer. So, uniformly moving, at rest with each other, of the exact same gravity, etc :) As for entanglements 'propagating information' I never said they did? The initial 'message' I'm discussing is through a sub-channel, slower that light, or lights speed in a vacuum. I don't see a entanglement that way, as I said a description I like was the one of 'one particle'. I can go with a 'wave function' describing it too though, as long as we then assume it to be in a pristine 'superposition' prior to the measurement, with 'both sides' falling out in the interaction/measurement, no matter if the side not making that initial measuring, will measure it later, or not.
PF Patron
P: 5,055
 Quote by yoron ...I assume that the interaction will add a momentum to your entanglement, and also, as you can't differ/split the 'wave function' without interfering, that this 'added momentum' will exist at all 'places' of the entanglement, meaning 'both sides'. I'm not discussing Hotta at all there. The question is: is it so that a measurement of a entanglement will add a momentum in the interaction by your measuring.
Nope, generally this is not the case (although there are some complex exceptions that are really not relevant to this discussion). Once there is a measurement on an entangled particle, it ceases to act entangled! (At the very least, on that basis.) So you might potentially get a new entangled pair [A plus its measuring apparatus] but that does not make [A plus its measuring apparatus plus B] become entangled. Instead, you terminate the entangled connection between A and B.

You cannot EVER say specifically that you can do something to entangled A that changes B in any specific way. For all the evidence, you can just as easily say B changed A in EVERY case! This is regardless of the ordering, as I keep pointing out. There is NO sense in QM entanglement that ordering changes anything in the results of measurements. Again, this has been demonstrated experimentally.

My last paragraph, if you accept it, should convince you that your hypothesis is untenable. Because you are thinking measuring A can impart momentum to the A+B system, when I say it is just as likely that it would be B's later measurement doing the same thing. (Of course neither happens in this sense.) Because time ordering is irrelevant in QM but would need to matter to make your idea be feasible.
P: 43
 Quote by DrChinese There is no science - theory or experiment - indicating there is a technique for pulling useful energy from the vacuum. Nothing you quoted or elsewhere in the literature contradicts this statement. The law of conservation of total energy forbids this. You cannot end up with more energy than you started with, and nowhere has Hotta suggested otherwise.
Nobody denies that. Hotta clearly said that energy at B can be extracted only when there is an input at A. SO, WHY ARGUING?
 Quote by DrChinese There is no science - theory or experiment - indicating there is a technique for "teleporting" useful energy from point A to point B faster than light. Nothing you quoted or elsewhere in the literature contradicts this statement. Hotta's technique for "quantum energy teleportation" requires a classical communication channel to function. To quote Hotta: "Recently, negative energy physics has yielded a quantum protocol called quantum energy teleportation (QET) in which energy can be transported using only local operations and classical communication (LOCC) without breaking causality and local energy conservation."
Another quote from Hotta"
 Amazingly, the QET protocol can transport energy from A to B in a time scale much shorter than that of the usual transportation.
 Quote by DrChinese On the other hand, there is theory and experiment for "teleporting" useful energy from point A to point B at speeds at or near the speed of light, and those have been known for decades. An example is a laser, which has been around for about 50 years.
We are discussing quantum energy teleportation here, NOT CLASSICAL.
 Quote by DrChinese pranj5, there is a difference between accepted science (what I have given above) and your speculation based on Hotta's work. I can cite you plenty of papers that give exciting and interesting results which hint of all kinds of things - such as retrocausal action. And yet there is still no theoretical assertions that retrocausal action is possible. That is simply a parallel. In the case of Hotta, we are fascinated by the idea that essentially, you invest something into the vacuum at one point and extract it at another. And Hotta shows that is in keeping with QM. If so, fine, but understand that the principles of QM are respected at all times - including conservation and classical limits of causality. You need to either accept that yours is pure speculation, or stop talking about it here. PhysicsForums is for science.
Before Fermi made the first atomic energy based experimental power plant, E=MC2 was also a "speculation" as per your terminology, BUT SPECULATION BASED ON SCIENCE.
Well, can you explain how Quantum computers respect "classical limits of causality". As per wikipedia, Quantum Computers can perform computation much much faster than classical computers and it need a classical computer of huge memory and RAM to perform the same actions which are just unachievable with present technologies.
PF Patron
P: 5,055
 Quote by pranj5 Before Fermi made the first atomic energy based experimental power plant, E=MC2 was also a "speculation" as per your terminology, BUT SPECULATION BASED ON SCIENCE.
Hey, you aren't Fermi. Or Einstein. And there is not a lick of science to support your speculations (which is not Hotta's, as he is not prone to the speculation you seem to employ).
 P: 244 You wrote "You cannot EVER say specifically that you can do something to entangled A that changes B in any specific way. For all the evidence, you can just as easily say B changed A in EVERY case! This is regardless of the ordering, as I keep pointing out. There is NO sense in QM entanglement that ordering changes anything in the results of measurements. Again, this has been demonstrated experimentally." So if I choose to measure its momentum I don't define it in a special way, as compared to measuring a spin for example? Mixing in relativity we can get a uncertanity relative a third observer, but his relation as a observer seems to me weaker than the role 'A' and 'B' takes measuring. And between 'A' and 'B', that do the actual deed, there should be no confusion to whom was the first to do it, assuming 'A' informing 'B' via a sub-channel as he do the initial measuring. Looked at as a wave function you collapse it in your initial measurement, that sets the 'state' for the whole entanglement, as I see it (or 'particle':) and if a measurement exert a 'force' on what it measures (interaction) then I wonder where that momentum goes, if it doesn't exist on 'both sides'. Seems like a collision of terms if you want a interaction as a measurement to exist, without it imparting any momentum/energy? But I'm not sure, and if you know how to define a interaction without imparting a momentum I'm curious.
 P: 244 The point I see here is that we're talking about 'energy'. It is a addition of 'work' for 'B', assuming that 'A:s' measurement indeed impart a momentum/energy in the collapse of the wave function. And energy is something you can use, not needing it to 'make sense' first, as I think of it that is. And that's where the 'timer' comes in for me, relative a initial sub-channel light message. Assuming only one entanglement, and message, you only need to define if there is, or is not, a addition of momentum in the entanglement through the initial measurement though. It might be that there are different definitions, in where we always need to 'make sense' of it, before using it though, but then I would like a example showing me why, and how, we do that. And it's not really Hotta, although he had some ideas of how to lift that 'energy' out.
 PF Patron P: 634 This is confusing me. With respect to quantum teleportation, the advantage would be one can quickly and reliably move around quantum information via electromagnetic signals and material particles (electrons, light, etc.). That would be useful in the future in stuff like quantum computers, etc. If accurate, what would be the implications of quantum energy teleportation with respect to using this "energy" be? Would it be for long-distance transportation of quantum information in quantum computers, quantum nanodevices, etc.?
 P: 3 Since this paper has been published new scientist published an article saying light has been transported across a room through pairs of entangled particles.
PF Patron
P: 5,055
 Quote by yoron You wrote "You cannot EVER say specifically that you can do something to entangled A that changes B in any specific way. For all the evidence, you can just as easily say B changed A in EVERY case! This is regardless of the ordering, as I keep pointing out. There is NO sense in QM entanglement that ordering changes anything in the results of measurements. Again, this has been demonstrated experimentally." So if I choose to measure its momentum I don't define it in a special way, as compared to measuring a spin for example? Mixing in relativity we can get a uncertanity relative a third observer, but his relation as a observer seems to me weaker than the role 'A' and 'B' takes measuring. And between 'A' and 'B', that do the actual deed, there should be no confusion to whom was the first to do it, assuming 'A' informing 'B' via a sub-channel as he do the initial measuring. Looked at as a wave function you collapse it in your initial measurement, that sets the 'state' for the whole entanglement, as I see it (or 'particle':) and if a measurement exert a 'force' on what it measures (interaction) then I wonder where that momentum goes, if it doesn't exist on 'both sides'. Seems like a collision of terms if you want a interaction as a measurement to exist, without it imparting any momentum/energy? But I'm not sure, and if you know how to define a interaction without imparting a momentum I'm curious.
The issue is that your idea of entanglement does not mesh with what actually happens. If you do something to A, nothing changes at B. Ever - at least as far as we know. All you can say is that the results from measurements at A and B will be consistent with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Measurements at A and B can be at any time or place, and this will be true.

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. There is no possible experiment which will yield a different result. Any other description is one which a convenience for our language. A does not "cause" B in any strict meaningful sense of the word. Only the entire context matters, and that is why order of measurements is not important.

If you work through an actual example using 2 polarization entangled photons, it will probably be easier to follow. Then you will see better WHY I am repeating the points I keep making. Would you like me to show you?
PF Patron
P: 634
 Quote by aspades Since this paper has been published new scientist published an article saying light has been transported across a room through pairs of entangled particles.
Is it this one?

Teleportation of Nonclassical Wave Packets of Light

 We report on the experimental quantum teleportation of strongly nonclassical wave packets of light. To perform this full quantum operation while preserving and retrieving the fragile nonclassicality of the input state, we have developed a broadband, zero-dispersion teleportation apparatus that works in conjunction with time-resolved state preparation equipment. Our approach brings within experimental reach a whole new set of hybrid protocols involving discrete- and continuous-variable techniques in quantum information processing for optical sciences.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6027/330.abstract
PF Patron
P: 5,055
 Quote by bohm2 This is confusing me. With respect to quantum teleportation, the advantage would be one can quickly and reliably move around quantum information via electromagnetic signals and material particles (electrons, light, etc.). That would be useful in the future in stuff like quantum computers, etc. If accurate, what would be the implications of quantum energy teleportation with respect to using this "energy" be? Would it be for long-distance transportation of quantum information in quantum computers, quantum nanodevices, etc.?
It is not clear to me that there is an implication, because there are already experiments which show a lot of quantum FTL effects (entanglement swapping being an example). Hotta seems to see an angle I don't, but that is hardly surprising (he's the expert). I would strongly urge everyone following this thread to be very cautious with the term "quantum energy teleportation" as this is seriously misleading.
PF Patron
P: 634
 Quote by DrChinese Hotta seems to see an angle I don't, but that is hardly surprising (he's the expert). I would strongly urge everyone following this thread to be very cautious with the term "quantum energy teleportation" as this is seriously misleading.
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:

 In this counterintuitive protocol, the counterpart of the classical "transmission line" is a quantum mechanical many-body system in the vacuum state (i.e., a correlated system formed by vacuum state entanglement. The key lies using this correlated system (hereinafter, the quantum correlation channel) to exploit the zero-point energy of the vacuum state, which stems from zero-point fluctuations (i.e., nonvanishing vacuum fluctuations) originating from the uncertainty principle. This energy, however, cannot be conventionally extracted as that would require a state with lower energy than vacuum—a contradiction. In fact, no local operation can extract energy from vacuum, but must instead inject energy; this property is called passivity. According to QET, however, if we limit only the local vacuum state instead of all the vacuum states, the passivity of the local vacuum state can be destroyed and a part of the zero-point energy can in fact be extracted.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...109.2203v1.pdf
P: 43
 Quote by DrChinese Hey, you aren't Fermi. Or Einstein. And there is not a lick of science to support your speculations (which is not Hotta's, as he is not prone to the speculation you seem to employ).
And you are not the ultimate authority to announce what is "science" and what is "speculation". Just keep that to yourself.