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

[yoron]

"Because that can be erased by bringing A's beamsplitter outputs back together again in a suitable manner. "

You lose me there DrC :)

If I measure A, how can I bring it back? If we're talking about photons A will annihilate in a direct measurement. Is it 'weak measurements' you are thinking of there? Or is it another type of experiment?

But it seems to be where we don't agree? So if you have a nice simple explanation I would be very interested.

 

[DrChinese]

"Because that can be erased by bringing A's beamsplitter outputs back together again in a suitable manner. "

You lose me there DrC :)

If I measure A, how can I bring it back? If we're talking about photons A will annihilate in a direct measurement. Is it 'weak measurements' you are thinking of there? Or is it another type of experiment?

http://www.optics.rochester.edu/~stroud/cqi/rochester/UR19.pdf

See figure 1. You have a photon go into a beamsplitter and follow that with a reverse PBS. The final reconstructed beam is still entangled.

So is the first beamsplitter a measurement if the beam is reassembled later? The entire context must be considered to get the correct answer. And that context gives NO preference for ordering.

 

[yoron]

I think I see your argument there, but a beam splitter isn't defined as the 'measuring', is it? Although I've wondered about that one before :)

What 'sets a state', is it when a 'photon' is annihilated, or do I need both the annihilation, and observer, to 'set' it? Or is it enough to let it pass something that will define a polarisation, even if I don't know what that polarisation is.

But no matter what manipulations I do on it, when I measure one of them, as in annihilate it, will be the moment I know the other ones state too, would you agree on that?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Maybe that is it?

Assume that I set up a entanglement by a beam splitter (A&B). Then I measure the spin for A to 'up'. Have I set the wave function then, or not?

According to how I think of it I now 'know' the spin of B, as it has to be the opposite. I see no probability for that spin to be anything else?

Wake up yoron, it’s 2011!

Seriously, they way you see it, is exactly the way Einstein & Bohr debated it for 20 years... let’s not repeat this 'mistake'!

If you lock Alice & Bob’s both detectors at angle 0° and measure Alice photon first – then yes you will know the result of Bob’s measurement!

But that’s no fun, is it...? Einstein would just say:

– He he, my dear lad, you are cheating, bechause zhis was all setup from tse beginning, nööö??

And this could go on for another 20 years...

The WHOLE POINT in Bell’s breakthrough is that you use ALL angles 0-360° to get out of the Einstein-Bohr-deadlock!

And when you do that, you have no "pre-existing idea" (except for 0° and 180°) about the outcome for either Alice or Bob, no matter if you make sure to measure Alice first.

It’s completely 100% random, trust me!

 

[yoron]

Trust is a dangerous thing DA :)

Lovely picture. And yes, entanglements is one of, or, the most confusing thing I know of. I used to be very interested in it some year(s)? ago, but then I got this headache :) that didn't let up, until I let it rest. And now I'm back, again :)

How about what's setting a entanglement? The beam splitter does it, but I can't know the polarisation/spin without first measuring, right? Now assume that I switch A:s polarisation/spin, not knowing what it is, I can still switch it right :) Will 'B' 'know' this in your definition, or is it the 'measurement' I do that 'force' it to 'know'?

 

[yoron]

One other thing that makes this interesting, even though it might be slightly outside this conversation? Is 'Interaction Free Measurements'. And it has a relevance, as I see it, to how we define this 'wave collapse'. Because that's the first step for me ever going to see what a entanglement might be.


"Another very interesting topic is that of a quantum object, i.e., one that can be in a superposition of being "there" and "not there". One such example is an atom in an atom interferometer, which simultaneously exists in both arms. Another is the recent separated-ion demonstration by Wineland et al., in which a single ion in a trap is made to coexist at two separated points in space.

If such systems are evaluated using the interaction-free measurement schemes, then the two sub-systems -- the quantum object and the interrogating light -- become entangled. In fact, although we have not discussed it at all here, for sufficiently large N, the interaction-free measurement methods even work for multiple-photon states, even for dim classical pulses.

Therefore, combining such an input with a quantum object, one is able to transfer the quantum superposition of the latter onto the former. In other words, one could make superpositions of "bunches" of photons; for example, one could prepare a pulse of light with an average of 20 photons in it, all of whom were horizontal, or all of whom were vertical, and yet until a measurement was made, none of them would have a definite polarization. Such a peculiar state of affairs would be a modest example of a Schroedinger cat."

http://physics.illinois.edu/people/kwiat/interaction-free-measurements.asp

 

[DevilsAvocado]

Trust is a dangerous thing DA :)

Yup, absolutely! But you can always trust a mushy avocado, yummy!

Lovely picture. And yes, entanglements is one of, or, the most confusing thing I know of.

Agree, the only consolation is that we’re in good company, no one understands entanglement 100%!
(As I see it, you’ve got all 'weirdness' in QM in one place; the measurement problem, wave/particles, probability, non-locality, HUP, RoS – and it’s just wonderful! )

How about what's setting a entanglement? The beam splitter does it, but I can't know the polarisation/spin without first measuring, right?

Well... eh... um... actually, you can’t say that it does...

We could agree that a photon 'bouncing' in a mirror is kinda 'measured', right? But what about a photon going just straight thru a mirror (BS)? That can’t be a 'measurement'... or?

Check this out:

Photons are emitted one at a time from the yellow star. They each pass through a 50% beam splitter (green) that reflects 1/2 of the photons, which gives two possible (red/blue) traveling paths.

In the top picture it’s no doubt which path the photon took, right?

But what happens when you insert another beam splitter, as in the lower picture? Well if the length of the path is exactly equal (through + reflected / reflected + through) – you can’t tell which path!

This is a standard setup for Alice’s and Bob two detectors:

To be absolutely "sure" (if this is 'feasible' in QM I don’t know... ;), you have to wait for the "click" in the yellow detectors.

... and then you can start the fight with Einstein, on who "did it" first!

Here’s a video on a standard EPR-Bell experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8J0SNAOXBg&hd=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8J0SNAOXBg

And here’s an 'interactive' http://www.didaktik.physik.uni-erlangen.de/quantumlab/english/".

[PLAIN]http://www.pienkow.com/img/science/dnconv.jpg

[URL]http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbophoto.jpg[/URL]
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm"

 

[pranj5]

http://printfu.org/read/first-quant...n6eCc5M7u4NTe1qTI49WU4NbPpa2Yq6KdoKak1djOh6vv
A new experiment done regarding entanglement of light and matter.

 

[pranj5]

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/quantum-entanglement/
Quantum entanglement now can be observed with naked eye soon.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=room-temperature-entanglement
Entanglement observed in room temperature

 

[pranj5]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/18/first-light-wave-quantum-teleportation-achieved-opens-door-to-u/
http://www.dwavesys.com/en/pressreleases.html
Another example of quantum teleportation.

 

[scijeebus]

There's this
http://news.discovery.com/tech/teleport-light-experiment-110418.html
It would be hard to move up from and teleport any amount of energy that actually mattered, mostly because the main mechanism for transporting the energy is entangled particles, and it's hard to entangle macroscopic objects.

 

[pranj5]

Well, it's true with present day technology. But, the question is whether it's theoretically impossible to create macroscopic objects or future technologies can be able to do that.

 

[D.Blackburn]

Forgive me for jumping in here with questions, I have not read the entire thread, or much about your theory other than what came from technology review website. My question is probably asked a lot so here goes. If you can teleport energy over unlimited distances, light years, than could you somehow relay messages utilizing this theory?

I envision something like a binary code for passing on messages this way, this could be significant for obvious reasons. Do entangled protons occur in space, and if so would you be able to find one and look for messages from other parts of space?

If you can make a binary system that sends 1 entangled proton for 0 and 2 entangled for 1, then you'd be able to interpret this and create a binary message capable of interstellar travel, and maybe intergalatic.

It could also be used to create a high tech internet system, and much more here in our own solar system. You could power drones in space remotely, and have nearly instant communications.

 

[DrChinese]

Forgive me for jumping in here with questions, I have not read the entire thread, or much about your theory other than what came from technology review website. My question is probably asked a lot so here goes. If you can teleport energy over unlimited distances, light years, than could you somehow relay messages utilizing this theory?

Welcome to PhysicsForums, D.Blackburn!

This thread should really be closed and a new one started.

The short answer is: energy cannot be teleported in the manner in which you envision, nor in the manner you might conclude from the original post. That is simply incorrect.

Additionally, you cannot signal faster than c using entanglement or any other know mechanism.

Again, start a new thread to discuss further if needed. We don't need to re-hash discredited ideas.

 

[D.Blackburn]

Welcome to PhysicsForums, D.Blackburn!

This thread should really be closed and a new one started.

The short answer is: energy cannot be teleported in the manner in which you envision, nor in the manner you might conclude from the original post. That is simply incorrect.

Additionally, you cannot signal faster than c using entanglement or any other know mechanism.

Again, start a new thread to discuss further if needed. We don't need to re-hash discredited ideas.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/523716/energy-teleportation-overcomes-distance-limit/

According to this article they claim he can send electricity almost any distance.

 

[DrChinese]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/523716/energy-teleportation-overcomes-distance-limit/

According to this article they claim he can send electricity almost any distance.

That article is an inadequate source by forum rules. See:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380

Even as a newbie, I think you know that energy cannot be teleported as implied by the article. That is because the direction and amount of energy nets to zero every time. There are conservation considerations, among others.

I am recommending this thread be closed. If you have a suitable subject to discuss, please open a new thread. But please do not reference this article again.

 

[Dale]

This thread should really be closed and a new one started.
...
Again, start a new thread to discuss further if needed. We don't need to re-hash discredited ideas.

Agreed.

Note also that the reference is a pop-sci reference and that the arxiv article that it references is unpublished. That is not up to the PF standards, particularly since it seems to conflict with known physics.