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

[pranj5]

This is cool with me, but a righteous question arises; – How does one entangle something that is "totally useless for a single experimenter"?

By the way, I think Wikipedia agrees on the uselessness of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Free-energy_devices" and "energy devices":

"No device claimed to operate using zero-point energy has been demonstrated to operate as claimed. No plausible description of a device drawing useful power from a source of zero-point energy has been given. Thus, current claims to zero-point-energy-based power generation systems have the status of *pseudoscience*."​

That's about so far, Hotta himself never said that zero point energy can be extracted and can be used. In contrast, he clearly said that zero point at B can be extracted at the cost of injecting more energy at point A. In short, he clearly opposed any violation of energy conservation. So, at least I don't want to engage in any debate regarding this matter.
You need at least two particle for entanglement and must have at least two observers. THAT'S WHY A SINGLE OBSERVER CAN NOT DO THAT. Plain and simple.

And now comes the best part:

"Note that, in the Bell state, Bob’s qubit has zero energy on average. After the state teleportation, the energy of Bob’s qubit increases to b on average because the teleported state is the up state. Because Bob’s operation in the protocol is local, it is clear that b of the averaged energy must be provided by an external operation device of Bob with a *battery*, for instance, to drive it. During one round of the protocol, the energy of the battery decreases by b on average. If Bob does not have energy source like this battery, the up-state teleportation does not succeed. On the other hand, if the down state is teleported to Bob, Bob’s qubit loses b of energy on average during his operation."​

Geez! I think Hotta has just proved that quantum information = energy!
Amazing! And why have I missed the need of a *battery* to drive entanglement??

No further comments...

If by "battery", you want to mean a power source, I don't want to oppose the idea. The paper is about energy teleportation, not about energy extraction from zero point level. The facility is no need for any kind of classical means of energy transportation like the electric wires, EM wave and other classical means we know today.
NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
It seems from you posts that you thought that this theory could be enable us to commercially explore zero point energy. But, that's not the case. Probably you are just fighting a shadow war.

 

[DrChinese]

Well, Hotta himself haven't said it, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. If, 30 years ago, anybody would dare to say in open that within 15-20 years, such facilities would be available to almost everybody, with which they can contact another person around the world almost instantaneously, there would be people (like you) to mark him/her with the stamp "crackpot". Most probably, your own forefathers were in crowds to stone the Wright brothers for the "crackpot" idea of a flying machine heavier than air.

And maybe dogs can fly! Which leads me to award you the coveted DrChinese Flying Dog award... (P.S. it's not science if you have to make analogies like yours. It's just PURE SPECULATION.)

 

[pranj5]

And maybe dogs can fly! Which leads me to award you the coveted DrChinese Flying Dog award... (P.S. it's not science if you have to make analogies like yours. It's just PURE SPECULATION.)

MAYBE, but at least can say that my speculations are based on theories. NOT ON SOME KIND OF GUESSING LIKE SHARE MARKET AGENTS.
If you put a dog in a plane, helicopter or rocket. CERTAINLY THEY CAN FLY ON THAT. BIOLOGICALLY DOGS CAN NOT FLY BY THEMSELVES, I HOPE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

 

[DrChinese]

MAYBE, but at least can say that my speculations are based on theories...

Sure, just not scientific ones... as I believe we have determined conclusively. I suspect you are a fan of science fiction, so I can tell you that my favorite author is A.E. Van Vogt. Read his classic, Voyage of the Space Beagle. This book inspired both Star Trek and Alien.

 

[yoron]

[my bolding all the way]
=
I don't see it as making it possible to 'send useful information'?
==

Really? Have you read the paper? Page 4:

"QET technology is expected to achieve rapid energy distribution without thermal decoherence inside quantum devices. Because it is not energy but *classical information* that is sent to the distant point, no heat is generated in the energy transport channel during the short time period of QET protocols."​

[QET = Quantum Energy Teleportation]

I was not citing the paper. I was expressing my own opinion, and doubts, about injecting 'energy' in a entanglement. As for a entanglement becoming 'classical information'? Slightly new to me, he seems to rearrange a lot of definitions in that sentence.

What I'm talking about is injecting 'energy' by your measuring, and that's all there is to it.

 

[yoron]

To inject 'energy', as when measuring a photon spin, is what you do normally, as you set that final 'state' for the entanglement. All direct measurements should do it, but as for the rest of his ideas I'm not sure at all. That's also why I would like to see a real experiment done, proving his concept to be true, or false.

You could imagine something driven by photons, a nano probe in space for example, but it seems incredibly complicated creating such a system. But I don't know, maybe? You can superimpose light, and if now waves also have 'photon' like properties you might be able to arrange some propulsion system by it? I don't really know, but the longer that experiment takes?

Well, maybe :)
=

MIT

"Today, building on a number of papers published in the last year, Hotta outlines his idea and its implications. The process of teleportation involves making a measurement on each one an entangled pair of particles. He points out that the measurement on the first particle injects quantum energy into the system. He then shows that by carefully choosing the measurement to do on the second particle, it is possible to extract the original energy."

And that is what I would like to see experimentally confirmed

 

[DrChinese]

... You could imagine something driven by photons, a nano probe in space for example...

Please, not you too!

 

[yoron]

Nah, not really. It would turn upside down the conservation laws, as I see it :)
But MIT took it seriously enough, so?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Which leads me to award you the coveted DrChinese Flying Dog award ...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

pranj5, there’s no point for me to respond on your comments, I honestly don’t see how you could justify the claims you do, like accepting the fact that this 'technology' would provide a tool for FTL information, and that this has been overlooked by the scientific community for over 2 years...

However, some things are more entertaining than the rest:

... It seems from you posts that you thought that this theory could be enable us to commercially explore zero point energy. But, that's not the case. Probably you are just fighting a shadow war.

... With such technologies, we can set solar panels on Mercury and teleport the energy to Earth directly and thus leaving the fossil fuels underground. Even with such kind of technologies, we can colonize Mars and other planets and probably can use the asteroid belt for mineral extraction leaving Mother Earth untouched.

So what’s your point? All this new and spacey "intergalactic technology" is a non-profit hobby of yours??

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... As for a entanglement becoming 'classical information'? Slightly new to me, he seems to rearrange a lot of definitions in that sentence.

Agreed 100%

... What I'm talking about is injecting 'energy' by your measuring, and that's all there is to it.

And what I’ve been repeating for a number of times now; if you do something on purpose in one end of an entanglement, and get a causal reaction in the other – you’ve got a lot to explain. It really doesn’t matter if it’s "Little Green Men" or anything else that you’ve got for input/output, it’s the mere fact that you use quantum entanglement to perform something that it has no chance to perform, according to all current knowledge.

Namely; to let Alice or Bob know that anything (no matter what) happened in the other end – at superluminal speed.

No need to dive any further into FTL causality problems and paradoxes, there are plenty...

To inject 'energy', as when measuring a photon spin, is what you do normally, as you set that final 'state' for the entanglement.

Please correct a layman if I’m wrong, but if I get this right, you are saying that a "photon spin up" represents more energy than a "photon spin down"...?? Sweet Geezus of Mother Tesla...

If what you are saying is right, I could use my Ray-Ban to "withdraw" surplus energy from the sunlight, if I can fix them to 'eject' only "photon spin ups"... aaaaaaaaamazing...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

BIOLOGICALLY DOGS CAN NOT FLY BY THEMSELVES, I HOPE YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

Well, that depends on the level of 'abstraction'…

 

[DrChinese]

Well, that depends on the level of 'abstraction'…

You're killing me!

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Woof!

 

[yoron]

"Please correct a layman if I’m wrong, but if I get this right, you are saying that a "photon spin up" represents more energy than a "photon spin down"...?? Sweet Geezus of Mother Tesla.."

You're having a good time here, don't you DevilsAvocado :)

No, I mean that any interaction with what you measure should impart a momentum, as it involves a interaction between the measured and what measures, and theoretically I see nothing hindering that from 'reaching' all of whatever a entanglement is. That is, btw, what the newfangled ideas of 'weak measurements' tries to get away from, using statistics and 'identical particles'.

 

[DrChinese]

...No, I mean that any interaction with what you measure should impart a momentum, as it involves a interaction between the measured and what measures, and theoretically I see nothing hindering that from 'reaching' all of whatever a entanglement is. ...

It is true that the context of a measurement "here" (Alice) is relevant to the results observed "there" (Bob). So in that sense, a momentum observation "here" is a component of that context. However, a momentum observation "there" is also a component of the context. There is absolutely no sense in which the ordering matters.

Assuming I follow what Hotta's approach is, he is saying that given a subsample of events in which Alice wishes to coordinate with Bob, she can give her results to Bob through a conventional communication channel in such a way as Bob can set his context optimally. That has the effect of teleporting "something", assuming that Bob was able to hold/maintain his entangled particle in the entangled state until the classical message from Alice arrives. Whether that something is actually some net amount of energy is the question I believe is worthy of discussion. As long as there is no violation of energy conservation being asserted, for all I know it might be feasible in some restricted sense.

The serious problem with all of this is that Bob must wait for Alice's message before realizing any advantage. That message arrives at sub-light speed, which means the "net teleported energy" (assuming there is some) cannot be realized usefully any earlier. We already have ways to transmit energy at sub-light speeds. So I don't see the potential new application here. Heck, I could shoot a high power laser to the moon tomorrow and heat a steam engine to transmit energy using yesterday's technology. That would be just as fast and probably a lot more efficient.

 

[yoron]

Yes, but if this idea of Hotta would be correct, then you don't need to use that 'sub channel' any more. You can then take it on 'experience', instead of as a theory. And that should mean that whatever we transfer by that idea of 'energy/momentum' does not belong under 'information'. And that's another reason why I find it questionable actually, then, on the other hand. This belongs under QM, and QM have its own rules. They don't fit Relativity, we don't see entanglements there as I know. I know there is a description of how entanglements is thought to transport energy in plants for example, and ? I don't know, but both QM and relativity question distances, and 'time'.

 

[DrChinese]

Yes, but if this idea of Hotta would be correct, then you don't need to use that 'sub channel' any more. You can then take it on 'experience', instead of as a theory. And that should mean that whatever we transfer by that idea of 'energy/momentum' does not belong under 'information'. And that's another reason why I find it questionable actually, then, on the other hand. This belongs under QM, and QM have its own rules. They don't fit Relativity, we don't see entanglements there as I know. I know there is a description of how entanglements is thought to transport energy in plants for example, and ? I don't know, but both QM and relativity question distances, and 'time'.

Not true, because as I mentioned: Without the classical channel, there is no preferred direction of anything. You cannot be any more sure you will do something from A to B as B to A. That is because time ordering does not change the outcome.

As to plants, I wouldn't mention that along with this paper. Our goal here is to stay away from speculation and focus on established science. The basic science behind entanglement is 75 years old, with Bell coming in 1965 and Aspect et al in 1981. There have been a lot of exciting developments in the past 20 years too, all towing the line with standard QM.

 

[yoron]

Assuming that you can create 'identical entanglements' then injecting this 'energy'.

"He gives the example of a string of entangled ions oscillating back and forth in an electric field trap, a bit like Newton's balls. Measuring the state of the first ion injects energy into the system in the form of a phonon, a quantum of oscillation.

Hotta says that performing the right kind of measurement on the last ion extracts this energy. Since this can be done at the speed of light (in principle), the phonon doesn't travel across the intermediate ions so there is no heating of these ions. The energy has been transmitted without traveling across the intervening space. That's teleportation."

Now, as I think of it, you need to set up a procedure once, by a 'sub channel'. But, if it is possible to repeat the procedure, and getting the same results, you only need the initial 'information' with some agreed on later repeats for when to extract that energy. How you do that is up to you, if it would be correct I expect this to be the next step.

 

[yoron]

One thing though. I don't see it as FTL, it's still a entanglement. But if it works you now have a way of gaining 'energy' at one point, while 'losing' the same amount at the first as it is injected, in that measurement. But it still hurts my head, what happens to that phonon/energy/oscillation injected for example? Does it become radiation/heat? or would it just disappear'? Into what, the vacuum?

If it does then conservation laws seems to rule (not really), but, what if it doesn't?

I really need to see that experiment.
=

Or maybe it's the other way around, if the injected 'energy' convert into ?? radiation/heat at A while being lifted out at B, then the conservation laws rule, although we then seem to have what Hotta suggests, a way to lift 'energy' from the vacuum, which must have some implication on that vacuum as it can't be in equilibrium if you do it.

 

[DrChinese]

Assuming that you can create 'identical entanglements' then injecting this 'energy'.

"He gives the example of a string of entangled ions oscillating back and forth in an electric field trap, a bit like Newton's balls. Measuring the state of the first ion injects energy into the system in the form of a phonon, a quantum of oscillation.

Hotta says that performing the right kind of measurement on the last ion extracts this energy. Since this can be done at the speed of light (in principle), the phonon doesn't travel across the intermediate ions so there is no heating of these ions. The energy has been transmitted without traveling across the intervening space. That's teleportation."

Now, as I think of it, you need to set up a procedure once, by a 'sub channel'. But, if it is possible to repeat the procedure, and getting the same results, you only need the initial 'information' with some agreed on later repeats for when to extract that energy. How you do that is up to you, if it would be correct I expect this to be the next step.

No, each iteration (observation) is fully independent. So you need the classical information each time. That is why I keep mentioning the ordering. You cannot state which way anything is flowing. It may flow backwards, which would defeat your objective.

 

[DrChinese]

If it does then conservation laws seems to rule (not really), but, what if it doesn't?

...

Or maybe it's the other way around, if the injected 'energy' convert into ?? radiation/heat at A while being lifted out at B, then the conservation laws rule, although we then seem to have what Hotta suggests, a way to lift 'energy' from the vacuum, which must have some implication on that vacuum as it can't be in equilibrium if you do it.

Just assume the conservation law rules. That is a tried and true assumption, yet to be violated that we know of. (Unless you count the existence of the universe itself as a free lunch, which some do.)

 

[pranj5]

Well, that depends on the level of 'abstraction'…

http://www.whoismrwife.com/?p=223
You two just look like this in the picture.

 

[pranj5]

pranj5, there’s no point for me to respond on your comments, I honestly don’t see how you could justify the claims you do, like accepting the fact that this 'technology' would provide a tool for FTL information, and that this has been overlooked by the scientific community for over 2 years...

Ya, you are right. It seems to me that I am wasting my energy to teach a kid graduation level physics and WHO ACTUALLY THINK THAT HE KNOWS THE ULTIMATE. Well, as far as I can remember, I haven't said anything about any "technology". It's still in theory phase and if you have some idea about matter of concern in physics, you would know that "entanglement" and its use is one of the top priorities at present.

However, some things are more entertaining than the rest:

So what’s your point? All this new and spacey "intergalactic technology" is a non-profit hobby of yours??

To understand that, you need the capability to differentiate between "extraction of zero point energy" and "energy teleportation". Whatsoever, to make you a little more knowledgeable, I want to say that first one is using the zero point energy source for useful energy production and the 2nd is transfer of energy from one point to another "in a quantum way without using any kind of classical means". Though, I guess that I am wasting my time because too much of your brain capability has been used in designing the wings of dogs. I suggest you to attach the wins to your (and DrChinese's) head to get them some lift from the ground level.

 

[DrChinese]

To understand that, you need the capability to differentiate between "extraction of zero point energy" and "energy teleportation"... I want to say that first one is using the zero point energy source for useful energy production and the 2nd is transfer of energy from one point to another "in a quantum way without using any kind of classical means".

Both of these ideas are completely speculative and have no basis in existing science.

Hotta's papers notwithstanding. And he certainly claims neither despite your mangling and mingling of his words from various papers. I have seen nothing so far that remotely implies that he has discovered anything beyond standard QM.

I suggest you re-read the forum rules on overly speculative posts. This is not the place to come to promote crank science and stand on a soapbox to gain attention. You can set up your own site and promote it on the internet, but this site is intended for normal and accepted science. There are a lot of readers here, and they may not be aware that you are spreading extremely speculative ideas due to the way you present them. Next time, try saying: my personal opinion, which is not in accordance with mainstream science, is X. That way any reader will know that what you are saying is out of touch with the mainstream.

There is no science - theory or experiment - indicating there is a technique for pulling useful energy from the vacuum. 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. 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.

 

[yoron]

Well, I don't know what to think about it, except that a experiment is needed to prove it, one way or another. And that is what I first thought too, two years ago? I remember reading that Einstein saw a entanglement as being 'one particle' somewhere? Which in a very weird way makes a lot of sense to me as it, in some sense, is 'connected'. It's rather strange that no experiment has been forthcoming since that time. I don't think I would have missed it.

 

[pranj5]

There is no science - theory or experiment - indicating there is a technique for pulling useful energy from the vacuum. 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. 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.

REALLY? Given below are some quotes from Hotta's papers:

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.

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 zeropoint energy can in fact be extracted.

Although the validity of this protocol has been confirmed mathematically, its physical significance remains questionable:

This generation of a negative energy density is attained by squeezing the amplitude of the zero-point fluctuation less than that of the vacuum state during the interaction.

This type of quantum feedback is also relevant to black hole entropy, whose origin has often been discussed in string theory [5], because energy extraction from a black hole reduces the horizon area (i.e., the entropy of the black hole [6]).

 

[DrChinese]

REALLY? Given below are some quotes from Hotta's papers: ...

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.

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."

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.

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.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

You're having a good time here, don't you DevilsAvocado :)

Yup although "some" seems not to appreciate the jokes!

No, I mean that any interaction with what you measure should impart a momentum, as it involves a interaction between the measured and what measures, and theoretically I see nothing hindering that from 'reaching' all of whatever a entanglement is. That is, btw, what the newfangled ideas of 'weak measurements' tries to get away from, using statistics and 'identical particles'.

I buy this, no problem, but if you look in the paper you’ll see that Hotta is building his 'thesis' on the 'fact' that a "spin up" represents increased energy, while "spin down" represents decreased energy

I have never heard anything like it, but if you could explain, it would be much appreciated.

(To me that’s like saying that the "up side" of a magnet has stronger attraction then the "down side"... )

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Yes, but if this idea of Hotta would be correct, then you don't need to use that 'sub channel' any more.

Back to square one = FTL information.