Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quantum entanglement and wireless electricity

  1. Jul 8, 2005 #1
    I read about quantum entanglement in an article about teleportation I read on the web.

    If two particles can be connected despite an enormous distance, in such a way that the properties of one can be transferred to another, even though no wire or string is linking them, can you use this quantum phenomenon to transmit power without wires? For example, if I submit an electron to a strong magnetic field, will the electron entangled to it behave as though it is being affected by a strong magnetic field? Could I use this to transport energy without a wire?

    I know I am making little sense, but I can't be any clearer.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 8, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    According to the quantum theory of entanglement, you can't transmit CAUSE from one entangled particle to another. They have an after-the-fact correlation, which can only be verified by exchanging signals at light-speed or less. In other words, relativity is not mocked by quantum entanglement.
  4. Jul 8, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physicsforums!

    The entangled state does not mean that what happens to one happens to the other. It means that what you learn about one is consistent with the other - while they are entangled. In the example you describe, you would terminate the entangled state rather than transmit an effect. That is because the magnetic field could be used, in principle, to gain information about particle spin.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2005
  5. Jul 10, 2005 #4
    You couldn't use it to transport energy. The separated
    particles aren't physically connected and aren't 'communicating'
    in any way. No properties of the particles are transferred.

    But now, after the replies you got, I'll bet you're wondering
    what entanglement is, exactly. :-)

    Well, here's my take on it.

    A *constant* (as in nonvarying) global property of the
    entangled particles is being analyzed by a *variable*
    global instrumental setting.

    "Global property" of the particles refers to some physical
    characteristic, such as momentum or polarization, wrt which
    they're related. Two ways to create such a relationship are
    to have them interact (ie., hit each other) or to produce them
    by the same atomic oscillation (there are also other ways
    to entangle two or more particles).
    For certain preparations, this relationship is invariant, and
    such an invariant relationship is what is necessary in order
    to produce predictable variable results (of the sort that
    are called entangled) by variable global instrumental settings.
    As long as no external torques are introduced to either of
    the entangled particles, then they can be light years apart
    and the relationship they have to each other, created
    by common cause or interaction, will remain intact.

    "Global instrumental setting" refers to some combination
    of the setting of the instrument analyzing particle 1 with
    the setting of the instrument analyzing particle 2.
    For example, in the case of photons entangled in
    polarization, it's the angular difference of the polarizer
    setting p_a, at A, and the polarizer setting p_b , at B -- and
    you can see that, even if the polarizers are light years apart,
    changing the setting p_a or p_b simultaneously
    (ie., instantaneously) changes the global variable |p_a - p_b|.
    Further, there is always one and only one global instrumental
    setting for any pair of detection attributes (A,B) -- no matter
    how or how often the global instrumental setting is
    varied while the entangled particles are in flight.
  6. Oct 28, 2011 #5
    Well, Masahiro Hotta, the Japanese physicist, who published the paper wouldn't agree with you. I suggest that you should search papers published by him and read it.
    As per Hotta, energy can certainly be transported from Point A to Point by entanglement and at the conclusion, he said that "it may be concluded that bipartite entanglement between A and B itself is not essential for QET" (QET: Quantum Energy Teleportation). His another conclusion is "this implies that an almost classical correlation between A and B is su¢ cient to execute QET for large separation, and is expected to be robust against environmental disturbances in contrast to the entanglement fragility in the previous quantum teleportation scheme. It should be emphasized, however, that this classical correlation is originally induced by the ground-state multipartite entanglement generated by nearest-neighbor interactions".
    I suggest to everybody to read papers published by Hotta in this regard and then make comments.
    But, after studying the paper, a scheme of information exchange suddenly come to my mind. As per the good old Alice and Bob analogy. As per Hotta, if Alice inject energy Ea to his own particle, the output Bob will get will be Eb, and the output is less than or equal to (maximum) the input by Alice. But, whatsoever, there is an output.
    I just want to propose that we can use this phenomenon for information exchange. As for example, when there is an input, there would be an output and that means 1(one). When there is no input (as per Hotta), there would be no output and that's 0(zero). I just wonder why don't we use this phenomenon for transfer of information.
    At present, conventional IT is enough for us to communicate. But, problems arise when we want to communicate with something that had already left our planet. As for example, some probe in Mars can send pictures and data far more quickly and clearly than conventional method and we don't have to set large antennas to capture the very faint signal sent by the probes.
    Moreover, such kind of communications will be much safer and "leakage proof". There is practically no chance for any third party to tap the data.
  7. Oct 28, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Welcome to PhysicsForums, pranj5!

    This is a 6 year old thread. I would recommend that if you want to discuss a specific paper, that you cite it - and the issue you wish to discuss - in a new thread.
  8. Nov 27, 2011 #7
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook