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

[DevilsAvocado]

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.

Exactly! And to add to your previous post; at the time Alice 'calls' Bob to inform "Fire in the hole!" this "energy", traveling at least 10,000 times c, is already on its way to Andromeda...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

"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. ..."

And to me, this shows the 'level' of this paper. Anything moving, vibrating or oscillating "Newtonian" will always travel at ≤ speed of sound. That’s why you can’t beat FTL by building a 1ly long stiff rod and move it "back and forth".

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... It's rather strange that no experiment has been forthcoming since that time. I don't think I would have missed it.

Since Einstein? I don’t get it? What about all successful EPR-Bell experiments performed this far... What do you mean?

 

[yoron]

heh. Nah, since Hotta first presented the idea, which I think is about 2009?

As for 'information' and FTL :) A entanglement do not consist of anything doing FTL, as I know, I like the description of it being 'one particle' better, in some sense, as one measurement on a photon spin 'falls out' the opposite spin at the 'other'. And as there is no 'delay' involved as far as I know, between the measurement and that other spin, time has no meaning for describing it.

If you could prove a delay it would become, even weirder :)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

heh. Nah, since Hotta first presented the idea, which I think is about 2009?

phew

()

As for 'information' and FTL :) A entanglement do not consist of anything doing FTL, as I know,

Correct, no superluminal information. And this holds as long as we restrict our self to (random) correlations. Wanna do something more and "useful"? I say you have some paradoxes to solve in the same "package"...

I like the description of it being 'one particle' better,

I think that the contemporary view (even if Einstein maybe would object) is that there is one wavefunction shared by the 'two particles'... hence, once you do a measurement the properties for both particles is 'materialized', and the 'magic' is broken once and for all.

If you could prove a delay it would become, even weirder :)

Yup, that would mean that time exist 'together' with something that might not exist at all..

 

[yoron]

You're right DrChinese, Hotta clearly defines it as needing a 'sub channel' for each 'entanglement'. And yeah, he does define the 'up state' as positive, containing energy, and the 'down spin' as negative, losing energy, DA.

" For the teleportation, they must share two qubits in a Bell state. The Hamiltonian of each qubit is given by Hb = b3 with a positive constant b. 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. Then the operation device receives b of the averaged energy as a work done by his qubit. Thus the down-state teleportation may be accomplished even if Bob does not have external energy sources to drive the operation device. However, it should be noticed that the averaged energy gain b was originally available for Bob without using the teleportation. Before the operation, Bob's qubit was already excited in a Bell state storing b of energy, on average, larger than that of the spin-down ground state.

Bob's qubit merely has disgorged the surplus energy due to the transition into the ground state. Therefore, in this protocol, available energy for Bob moves around the region of Bob without any increase of its total amount. No energy is teleported in this case. Then do the known laws of physics truly allow energy teleportation? Can we teleport an object with energy to a zero-energy local-vacuum region?

Amazingly, the answer is yes, in principle. Energy can be selectively transported simply using local operations and classical communication, just like in the usual quantum teleportation protocol. In quantum mechanics, we can generate quantum states containing a spatial region with negative energy density of quantum fields [3].

Thus, even if we have zero energy in a region where an object is going to be teleported, its energy can be extracted from the vacuum fluctuation of quantum fields, generating negative energy density around there. This can be attained by using a local squeezing operation dependent on the result of a measurement at the starting point of the teleportation. Of course, local energy conservation and all the other physical laws are not violated in the energy teleportation."

I must admit that I don't follow his conclusions. I need to look at entanglements again to see how he thinks there.

You wrote "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."

Can you expand on how you define it there DRChinese?

 

[DrChinese]

You're right DrChinese, Hotta clearly defines it as needing a 'sub channel' for each 'entanglement'...

You wrote "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."

Can you expand on how you define it there DRChinese?

Are we teleporting "energy" from A to B, or B to A? There is no way to tell, since the ordering is immaterial to the outcome. Because if you measure every independent entangled pair the same way, the net would approach zero transferred ("teleported") in either direction. Hotta adds a twist, in which a classical message is always sent in one direction (say A to B). This allows the "receiver" (B) to gain additional information about his choice of basis. With optimal selection, B can end up with more "energy" than would be possible without this twist (since it would otherwise be zero). This is what Hotta is asserting.

Keep in mind that the idea of this being actual useful energy is doubtful. That is why I am putting the quotes around "energy". Assuming someone could actually turn this into useful energy - which is speculation at this point - you would have a device that could do the same thing as other existing devices - such as a laser. A suitable laser pointed at Mars would in fact transfer energy (heat) from Earth to Mars. This would occur at the speed of light of course. I guess if I stretch the language enough, I could call that Quantum Energy Teleportation too.

 

[yoron]

If I get it right the idea is that without a sub-channel for each entanglement the 'receiver', inadvertently, might end up as the sender?

Assume that I have a 'timer' at the receivers end, and ten entanglements. The sender send one sub-message, defining a time rate, which the receiver then set the timer to. The timer then proceed to measure each of the entanglements successively according to the defined time rate. Would that still be a 'indeterministic flow', or is it something more I'm missing here?
=

Is it HUP entering the question? If that is the cause then HUP should be just as big a problem for Hotta, shouldn't it. It might mean that the momentum/energy can't be defined to an exact degree, for identical entanglements, but it would still get injected with an added energy?

This is tricky.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

yoron, if I may chime in...

It looks to me that the 'problem' here is the conception of a "flow". Normally in EPR-Bell you would send a pair of entangled photons to Alice & Bob, from the source. You could view this is some kind of "flow", but I’m sure this is not what you’re after.

When Alice & Bob have got their entangled photons, it’s time for the measurements. Normally they 'just' measure, and that’s it. However, suppose you’re looking for some kind of "magical effect" ;) and want to ensure that Alice always do her measurement first.

What do you do?

Well, the simplest is to put Bob on a double distance from the source, compared to Alice. And now everything will be okay, right?

Not quite. According to SR and Relativity of Simultaneity (RoS), there will always be some observer who experience that Bob did his measurement first. And furthermore, even if you set up some advanced "timer system" it would have to obey SR and RoS... There is no "global now" and no preferred frame of reference according to theory, experiments, and ongoing commercial implementations.

That’s why IMHO, you get these kind of "paradoxical difficulties" if you want to use entanglement to do something other than random correlations (where 'directions' and 'timing' is irrelevant).

There isn’t anything "moving" in any "direction" in entanglement. Look at it as a "rubber band" (wavefunction) that gets 'stretched' between the particles, and a measurement (doesn’t matter which one) "cuts" the "rubber band", and the entanglement is then lost forever.

And yes, HUP could give you problem too... ;) If you got real pissed on Einstein and decided to settle this once and for all, by placing Alice & Bob at the exact same location... now you’re going to measure picoseconds and nanometers... Good luck! :D

 

[DrChinese]

If I get it right the idea is that without a sub-channel for each entanglement the 'receiver', inadvertently, might end up as the sender?

Assume that I have a 'timer' at the receivers end, and ten entanglements. The sender send one sub-message, defining a time rate, which the receiver then set the timer to. The timer then proceed to measure each of the entanglements successively according to the defined time rate. Would that still be a 'indeterministic flow', or is it something more I'm missing here?

...

This is tricky.

Yep, a bit!

If you set up a prearranged timing between A and B, the net "energy" received by B will approach zero in all cases. Hotta's trick is to tell B the proper measurement basis for each individual trial. Because each AB pair is different, of course! A pre-arranged plan gets you nothing, the results are simply random! Instead, A tells B what to expect, and B responds accordingly knowing the now predetermined outcome.

It is important to note that is is NOT true that applying some energy at A causes energy to appear at B. It does not matter how much energy is invested by A, that does not change what occurs at B. That is NOT the mechanism.

Honestly, this is a very complex subject and all I can really tell you is that calling it Energy Teleportation is misleading as a lay term. This is a scientific label, and you should not take it too seriously.

 

[yoron]

No, I'm not taking it too seriously, I hope? It just bugs me :
And yes, I also wondered about it DA.

But assuming both in uniform motion and that 'locality' of 'c' holds (using 'c' as your 'clock'), and that 'B' doesn't start measuring until he gets the message defining the 'time rate' from 'A'. Starting from its arrival for example. Then it seems to me that as 'B' receives the message from 'A', they have a 'timing' protocol that will work relative those two? That is, they have set up a 'causality chain' of sorts, that will hold relative them.

That we can have a third observer defining it differently doesn't change the relation in between 'A' and 'B', does it? Neither does it change the way they now can 'time it' from the arrival of that message, assuming them both moving uniformly. To assume that this relation won't hold seems, to me, to imply that 'B' can answer 'A' and that 'A' then could get this answer even before he sent his message in a worst case. And that one can't be correct.

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?

I'm ignoring the Hotta injection for this, just asking if you can define it otherwise than that A:s interaction measuring the momentum will add a momentum from A:s measurement, that is valid for the whole entanglement? No matter how HUP treats it, the idea should hold, or?
==

To make it somewhat easier to think about, let us assume that they are uniformly moving, of a identical mass distribution/gravity, and at rest relative each other. 'Time dilations' are hard to avoid :)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

No, I'm not taking it too seriously, I hope? It just bugs me :

No worries mate.

But assuming both in uniform motion and that 'locality' of 'c' holds, and that 'B' doesn't start measuring until he gets the message defining the 'time rate' from 'A'. Starting from its arrival for example. Then it seems to me that as 'B' receives the message from 'A', they have a 'timing' protocol that will work relative those two? That is, they have set up a 'causality chain' of sorts, that will hold relative them.

Okay, but for how long? Clocks will always drift no matter what... The safest way must be to create (let’s say) 100 entangled pairs, let A do her measurements, and then send the 'twins' to B for an "energy measurement"... but then you could use DrC’s "Laser Gadget" instead... cheaper, safer and simpler...

That we can have a third observer defining it differently doesn't change the relation in between 'A' and 'B', does it? Neither does it change the way they now can 'time it' from the arrival of that message, assuming them both moving uniformly. To assume that this relation won't hold seems, to me, to imply that 'B' can answer 'A' and that 'A' then could get this answer even before he sent his message in a worst case. And that one can't be correct.

But this reasoning builds on that you are sending something beforehand in a "classical channel" ≤ c, right? And then were back to the "Laser Gadget"...

If you don’t do that, and are using entanglement (at least 10,000 times c), and try to define a 'causality chain' you’re in for a real treat...

The fact is, that if a "peak of energy" was about to propagate (like a bullet) from A to B at FTL, you couldn’t even agree on the direction! Some would be certain it was going from B to A!

Fredrik has constructed a very nice "Computer Paradox" https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2588832#post2588832". It is nuts!

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?

I’m not sure I understand... in real EPR-Bell experiments with a BBO crystal, entanglement happens at random and is very rare. The only way to ensure that you are measuring the same pair is thru time tagging and coincidence counting (slot). If you use so-called "perfect correlations", i.e. put the measuring apparatus at the same angle, you will always know the exact outcome for B, if A is measured first.

But this knowledge (about B) can only be transmitted at ≤ c.

EDIT: And of course you cannot enforce the outcome of A (and hence B), it will always be 50/50 random up/down.

I'm ignoring the Hotta injection for this, just asking if you can define it otherwise than that A:s interaction measuring the momentum will add a momentum from A:s measurement, that is valid for the whole entanglement? No matter how HUP treats it, the idea should hold, or?

Generally, there is absolutely no way for A or B to tell if something was 'done' in the other end, like a measurement. All A and B will see from their measurements is random noise. Finally, when they get together and compare their data, a pattern of correlations will emerge from the two separate measurements. That’s all you get, but to me it’s pretty cool as it is!

 

[DrChinese]

...

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.

 

[yoron]

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'.

 

[yoron]

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.

 

[DrChinese]

...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.

 

[pranj5]

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[DrChinese]

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).

 

[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.

 

[yoron]

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.

 

[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.?

 

[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.

 

[DrChinese]

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?

 

[bohm2]

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

 

[DrChinese]

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.

 

[bohm2]

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/1109/1109.2203v1.pdf

 

[pranj5]

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.

 

[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/~hotta/extended-version-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]

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/~hotta/extended-version-qet-review.pdf
The energy is 'teleported', just in a operational sense, as seen 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.

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.