Due to the fact that the information/energy essentially ignores the space between the particles, the biggest implications for this would be where the distances covered are very large.

For instance, light takes about 10 minutes to travel to mars. Due to this all communication with anything on mars takes about 10 minutes which makes voice communication, and even something along the lines of instant messaging impossible. By entangling 2 particles, keeping 1 on earth and sending the other to mars you would be able to have instant communications accross the vast distance.

In addition to this, anywhere where radio signals have problems would benefit. Submarines, deep mines, moon bases on the dark side of the moon, etc. would all benefit greatly by exploiting quantum entanglement.

The real question is how relativity affects this. As in if you sent one half of the entangled set off to some distant star system at near the speed of light, would it still be possible to send and receive information. 

..differs from teleporting of photons? From tunnelling of photons, be more specific? From evanescent waves, be even more specific?

Could this be used to transfer power to people's homes from the power plant? If so, no more power lines, and a big leap in efficiency. In addition, electric cars no longer need batteries.

I wonder how this might be exploited in computing. Could the energy being transported be varied?

How about teleporting energy into a spaceship's engines from earth so it doesn't have to actually carry all its own fuel?

We know we can harness the power of the sun through space power plants in the future, but we can't harness all of the suns rays as we only see half of the sun... could set up plants orbiting all around the sun and then "teleport" the energy to something back on earth to then use the energy for power or even to future spacecraft in space.. Would be nice to not have even more space junk orbiting earth!

It is a trivial exercise to show that space (distance) is but a perceptual illusion. Nonlocality is really synonymous with nonspatiality. In the future, we will have technologies that will allow us to jump from anywhere to anywhere instantly without going through the intervening positions. Evidence for long distance jumps already exists in the form of a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling.

Hold on a second. Something seems wrong about this argument.
So, we're going to use quantum entanglement to transmit energy.
Quantum entanglement is the cause of irreversibility in the universe. Entropy is generated in processes with quantum entanglement.
If seems like the physicists have addressed the conservation of energy (1st Law), but I'd like to see an approach to this problem from a 2nd Law point of view. What is the energy cost (work spent) in transmitting the energy?

On the small scale, it's easy to forget about the energy costs (work spent) to set up the particle interactions. I wonder if the energy spent is greater than the energy transmitted.

Could someone provide a reference for

"This [...] is certainly true for special relativity,"

from the last paragraph, and maybe elaborate?

Beam energy into the moon and blow it up

Highest.  Power bill.  Ever?

Practical human-scale applications would presuppose a rather unrealistically long decoherence time.

Cool, instant remote control and energizing of distant nano-bots on Mars AND instant halographic communication to and from astronauts on their way to Mars.

While most of the physics are over my head on this one. It seems to me in the expanse of space that there would already be particles in the desired quantum state that could be used for retrieval and be able to energize the particle that would be on the receiving end. It might be possible to receive power sources from distant stars instead of having to create the power ourselves. The pace for space travel would certainly change as we would now have universal power at our disposal. However if there is any other intelligent life using the same technology this might seem to be encroaching on their territory since using the power at an extreme could eliminate certain power sources beneficial to life.

I'd like to see more study of entanglement in natural systems, such as the brain and in plants during photosynthesis. All this talk of effortless energy and information transfer seems very similar to our current understandings of consciousness.

The way I read the spiel, it seemed to be saying that the particles aren't sent at all, only the information is sent. Once the information is recieved at that other point, (Mars for instance) it is then used to discribe the molecular structure of the original item and then used to assemble an identical item using the particles already present at that other location. Essentialy cloning the original item at the recieving end. One another note I could see a huge use for this technology, if we can teleport energy, we could send energy to propel cars, trains, ships, planes, you name it, all without the need to carry "HEAVY" canned energy, IE fuel tanks, batteries etc with unlimited range aspecialy around our planet, but also out into space and under the sea. This sounds very exciting to me.

Perhaps we could quantum pair a heap of deuterium, fire one half into the sun and keep the other half inside a tokamak reactor as a kind of catalyst to kick start the reaction and make the reaction energy efficient.

what would happen if we could drop one of those entangled particles into a black hole ?
would quantum mechanics allow for bridging the gap to another universe > ?

I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist. I believe we should work together to see the full range of possibilities that our findings offer us.

As a wannabe scientist don't bash me if I take this information whole-fully wrong. Just bare with me.

If it is possible to teleport energy you need a storage device that stores the information that is teleported. If everything in this world is built up out of energy, as quantum mechanics suggests. It would be possible, with enough computing power, to teleport not only humans, but also food and water.
Now, what if you used the stored information to replicate what ever you wanted to send? This would mean you could replicate food, water, medicine and even the replication machine itself. The consequences would be invigorating. You would solve all the hunger, thirst and sickness in the world. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Think about it.

Kind regards

Demian

This is exactly the method that I used to remain in contact with The Illusive Man while my ship (The Normandy SR2) was on a mission.

While the response time is excellent, the data throughput of this technique is a bit limited. And, unfortunately, due to cost, I could only have one such system installed in my ship. And it is a point-to-point system, so I have to have one set for each destination I want to communicate with, and they have to have a corresponding set at their end.

Still, I'm hoping that Cerberus will put more money into the technology so that it can be used on a more widespread basis.

This reminds me of the Foghorn Leghorn episode where he's playing hide and seek with the"Widder Hen's" genius son. He hides in a box & the kid does some calculations, then grabs a shovel and pries him out of the ground at some other location.  When Foghorn is walking past the box where he originally hid, he says " No, I better not look. I might still be in there."

perhaps I can now finally get a cell phone that won't have it's calls dropped, and just imagine the coverage map!  I just hope I won't get charged for roaming or long distance if I call my fiends in the horse head nebulae or betelgeuse!

Spad12: "The information still travels at the speed of light, but the particles behave as if the distance between them is 0, therefore the information can still obey relativity, yet seemingly traverse great distances instantaneously."

I think spad12 is on the right track. Essentially, there's a difference between instantaneous transfer of information with quantum "time-step" of 0 (which would violate relativity) and reducing the amount of time the information takes to enter the light cone of one particle and become a part of the future light cone of the other (which does not violate relativity). The change of state of both particles after one particle is measured would seem to occur simultaneously; however, for the information to affect anything else in the local vicinity of the second particle, it would take the timespan of (at least roughly) the Planck time and the spatial extent of roughly the Planck length before that instantaneously quantum-teleported information could enter the light cone of any other particle/process in the vicinity of the second quantum-entangled particle.

Essentially, it seems that the quantum-entangled particles become superimposed nodes which act to temporarily alter the topology, or connectedness, of space-time with respect to certain types of interactions which are within the entangled particles' quantum wave functions, essentially the entangled pair's information bandwidth restriction---allowing certain types of information to pass in either direction from remote regions of space-time within the space of roughly the Planck distance and the time of roughly the Planck time and only with respect to the entangled pair of particles in question.

Another picture which would seem to apply, to sprinkle in some Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin, is that of spin network edges and vertices collapsing for certain types of information into edges and vertices common to quantum-entangled pairs of particles separated by vast distances, far outside of each other's light cones through simply connected space-time topology. This uses the picture which Lee Smolin and others champion which sees space-time itself as a background-dependent crutch which fails to fully bring to bear general relativity, rather seeing the universe in terms of a series of interactions---no space, no time, only dynamic change/interaction of quanta of information. We know that, once the measurement is made, the angular momentum of the measured particle changes in the next step of the Planck time; thus, we know that the angular momentum of the entangled particle will have simultaneously changed as well, but only entering the light cone of the second entangled particle's space-time vicinity in the next quantum "beat."

In the end, relativity is not violated because there is a quantum beat between any information entering the light cone of the first particle in a quantum-entangled pair and that same information entering the light cone of anything local to the second particle in a distant region of space-time.

I'm no physicist. That's just what my evolving lay picture looks like after reading this article and the other reading on physics I've enjoyed. Whatever the truth, though, I hope they find a cool use for these quantum entanglement breakthroughs. ;-)


Mapou: "This could be the breakthrough that will eliminate the Von Neumann bottleneck, the most intractable problem in computing. If this can be used to allow a huge number of processor cores to access a single large memory store simultaneously without conflict, the age of the massively parallel computer will have arrived."

I am positively drooling, Mapou.

1) Take 2 entangled states
2) Send one in a 'box' at near light-speed oribitting the sun
3) Wait until the "time-dialation" as expressed in Relativity (Twin paradox conjecture) is sufficient.
Discuss.

Forget the teleportation... this could easily (in the same way it's easy to teleport) transmute one substance or energy into another (of equal value).  Wouldn't you only need to tweak the information about a particle or energy just a bit? You wouldn't even need to transmit the information either, especially when it comes to bio-hazardous substances... you just change the non unique info (the type identifier, not the serial number itself), and create some lighter elements (help radio active decay happen instantly, provided you don't get burned by a few angry neutrinos flying off in the process).

Back when I didn't care much, I think it was in mid 70's on the Big Island of Hawaii.  OTEC (ocean thermal exchange conversion) built an experimental floating labatory to make electricty using the tempature diffenence in ocean water, and it worked far better than they had expected.  When funding for this experiment was dropped by the Regan addministration, I believe that the University of Hawaii took over the works.  I believe they "beamed"(?) power from the floating lab to the top of Mauna Kea (14,000'+ high) and then on again to the University on Oahu.  Could be wrong but I think that was the talk when I lived there with my surf board for several years.

A friend's 18 yo son asks me physics questions that imply that somehow we are promulgating basic physics principles like relativity as a plot keep the next generation down. This young John Galt would probably wonder how these coordinated fluctuations could be used to power a train, if he could quit thinking of blowing things up. Any commenters want to take over the mentorship? Your sense of physics liberty would make quite a match.

I have been enjoying the current debate had on this post. However, maybe just maybe, many of you are still thinking inside the proverbial box on this subject.

"Speed of light, etc, etc". Sure sure. However, moving into another "space/time" where these limitations were non existent, and then back again?

Hint is in the Subject Title. Another hint can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090813083329.htm

Light, as you all well know, is an Electromagnetic waveform.

Another hint I will add, is the flux transfer event between the Earth and Sun, though it might not be readily apparent as to why this event is a hint.

Ok, have fun kiddos, and see you in class.

P.S.> The complicated questions usually have the most simple of answers. And remember that the "duh" effect came from an apple dropping on someones head. :)

Is it not the case that the entanglement of two particles is the same as eliminating any distinction between their ontological identity?
After entanglement, are we not dealing with one particle only, and that is why there is no spatial distance involved, and thus all relativistic questions are moot?

Might want to revise some language here...  "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"

"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."

Seems a bit like Newton's balls to me too.

(sorry, couldn't help myself)

Silly comment perhaps but isn't this also the transfer of information?  When I read such news articles, it is always seeming that energy and information share all the same properties.  If so, then can it be said that information is related to Mass? (because of E=MC2 and because information can not exceed the speed of light)

So Question: Why don't you need M to relay information?  Seems not to me because, if so, then information would drop off as it reaches the speed of light.  Yet if it is not true (that information requires Mass) then why does the imprint of information require Energy? And isn't Energy and Mass related? 

I'm obviously not a physicist but just wonder about information in that regard and especially in regard to this proposed experiment.

small the receiver could be. If you put it into a car, then you can transmit energy from the plant right to an electric car with no loss, same with the home. You could put some solar panels closer to the sun and then send the energy to earth.
You can communicate without delay. If it is small enough for a computer, then downloads could be instant. Heck, the receiver is small enough, you could remove batteries from almost all devices.

As another possible interesting experiment would be to entangle particles and send the transmitting pair in a craft to a black hole. While the transmitter wouldn't be able to (in theory) notify the receiver after it has entered the event horizon it would allow physicists a way to analyze quantum mechanical affects during the transition into the black hole. However, it would be quite possible that by the time the craft arrived, we would already know the answer to the question ;)

Could instant information transfer be created with a _REALY_ long (few light years long) pole? For example, if you pull it on one side it would mean 0 and if you push it it would mean 1. If I'm right, this doesn't violate the theory of relativity, because all the particles are moving under the speed of light. Does the quantum entanglement work in the similar way like a pole?

Assuming the states of each of a pair of systems joined by an entanglement protocol can be known, then changes to either may instantly be detected by the other. Example in IT might be remote desktop where activities on local computer are echoed on distant connection. Thanks.

How about no powergrid required and no bateries for electric cars ? Or a Mars rover with no bateries or solar pannels ?
How about the end of bateries...
Men this is a BIG thing, space ships with no fuel on board.

I understand that it might be hard to extract enough energy for the examples i gave, but thats a matter of design i think, a solar panel doesnt catch a single photon either, no thousends..
If it can be build in the same way, this would turn upside down how we think about the energy market.

But on a side note,.. all these spooky energy moving around .. how would it affect our ehm universe, what if the power of a nuclear reactor would all go trough, ehmm "wormhole" space ?

Here are two ways I can see it being used:

1. Teleport energy to spacecraft during their transit -- especially escaping orbit. By doing so, we could finally make launch cheap and efficient.

2. Send some of these crafts to energy dense parts of the universe, have them construct power stations and then teleport the energy back to earth! Imagine vastly more powerful nuclear power stations -- powered by the sun -- where we don't need to worry about finite resources, storage or earth-based fear.

Ridiculous.

At the risk of being accused of narcissism, I would just like to point readers to a piece I wrote in 2004 on basically the same concept:

http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=1124

Not having academic credentials I submitted this to a popular forum rather than a peer-reviewed journal, and the essay is therefore written for laymen.  At the time most of the people who read it ripped me as a crank.  So it's nice to see a measure of vindication through Dr. Hotta's work, which I deeply congratulate him on.

Mark Waldron

For those of you that don't understand, check out the thought experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen as the EPR-Paradox.

Would cost and the hardware necessary to do this make it a potential replacement for cell phone batteries?  How many years away is this?

"There is a growing sense that the properties of the universe are best described not by the laws that govern matter but by the laws that govern information."

Furthermore, the sciences of quantum information systems show us a universe not so much governed by laws as one with undeterminable behavior. Our observations reveal patterns and/or probabilities. Upon these our new mathematical tools are created to help describe and make predictions about the universe and the phenomenon of our observation anew.

Indeed, the science of the quantum era suggests that all the matter observable in the universe is of the same fundamental constituents, and that these fundamental constituents of matter are largely understandable in terms of energy and/or information.

"... the really exciting stuff is the implications this has for the foundations of physics." The implications may be related to the eminent quantum theorist David Bohm, who envisioned the "implicate order."

In chapter 14, "Science Performed with the Mind of Wisdom," of the book "Presence: human purpose and the field of the future," by Peter Senge et al, there are two sections which I think may help this long discussion.

In the second section of the two, “A Reflexive Science of Living Systems,” the authors write: “In the language of the implicate order, meaning comes from the whole ... like in music [where] you can't say one note means anything ... [or] an impressionist painting [where] when you step back, you see a picture, but in no correspondence between the spots of paint and what you see in the picture."

From the first section, "Unbroken Wholeness," I start to quote that: "In short, the fundamental insight of twentieth-century physics has yet to penetrate the social world: relationships are more fundamental than things."

A little later they add that: "In a lecture at University College in London in the mid-1950s, Bohm described an implication of the quantum theory and the idea for an experiment that captivated a young physicist in the audience, J.S. Bell. Bell worked out the theory more fully, as well as the means to test it experimentally. The results of the experiment and its many successors, demonstrating what's now known in physics as ‘nonlocality’ have been called ‘one of the most shocking events in twentieth-century science.’"

Finally they write that "Bell theorem and nonlocality reveal a level of interrelatedness that defies common notions of cause and effect."

Charles Stross used a similar sounding quantum entanglement in his entertaining space opera SF books:

    * Singularity Sky (2003, ISBN 0-441-01072-5)
    * Iron Sunrise (2004, ISBN 1-84149-335-X)

One half of the communication device first had to be transferred by starship to somewhere/one you wanted to communicate with.  Then you had a "bank" (from the device) constituting a limited number of bits.  Once the bits were used up, the device and communications died.

And the starship's were powered by miniature black holes.  :)

I hope they eventually figure out how to work with this quantum stuff.  We will need it to have any reasonable chance of expanding the human race outside the bounds of the solar system.  Chemical or even fusion rockets are not going to make the grade for interstellar travel.

I offer the following hypothesis for comment because it seems to me that if it's on the right track, it has the potential for explaining with perfect elegance this paradox of dual locality and impossible instantaneity.

The s orbital of an electron takes the shape of a fuzzy sphere and apparently offers a zero probability of occupying the (zero-dimensional) point centre of its "sphere".  That seems fair enough, as there's a nucleus there.

But the p orbital, which takes the shape of a fuzzy dumbbell, offers a zero probability that the electron occupies the entire plane between the two halves of the one dumbbell shape describing the possible locations of the one electron.  And that's frankly outrageous, unless the electron has a way of getting from one side to the other without traversing the space between.

It struck me when I learned about these matters, in 1996, that an elegant solution to this problem might lie in simply regarding the 3D shapes of orbitals as cross-sections of a 4D shape.  By analogy, a 2D dumbbell shape would be the flatland representation of a toroid; a 3D dumbbell shape could similarly be the result of sectioning a hypertoroidal shape.

I put that thought to a physicist, long ago, who didn't seem to find it too silly; so, as I think it bears on this subject, let me put it here for comment and add a little more.

Picturing these shapes and their relationships is far easier to do in relation to s, p, and d orbitals than in relation to the higher-energy f and g orbitals, but, after looking for hours at the diagrams at <http://www.d.umn.edu/~pkiprof/ChemWebV2/AOs/index.html>, I can say with confidence:

(1) in relation to d orbitals: that it is possible to obtain shape 2 by spinning shape 1, and to obtain shape 1 in 2D by cutting shape 2;

(2) in relation to f orbitals: that it is possible to obtain shape 1 by spinning either shape 2 or shape 3, and to obtain shape 3 in 2D by cutting either shape 1 or shape 2; and

(3) in relation to g orbitals: that it is possible to obtain shape 2 by spinning either shape 1, shape 3, or shape 4, and to obtain shape 1 in 2D by cutting either shape 2, shape 3, or shape 4.

To me, that apparent correspondence looks suggestive of the possibility that all of these shapes are merely 3D sections of 4D shapes.

Returning to the p-orbital dumbbell shape, what we have in that shape, if these ideas have merit, is 3D projection of a simple 4D toroidal shape, giving the illusion that the electron's path is, at a small scale, located in two discrete regions of space.  Naturally, the electron's motion in those two regions might easily appear to have opposite values.  It's but a mere quantum leap to picturing a single object -- say, a "particle" existing in two discrete locations, with opposite spin -- as being in actual shape an extremely large and extremely fine circle, spinning on its own circumference (i.e. with spin axis at any point being tangential to the circle and in the same plane).  The two locations at which that circle happens, at any one time, to intersect the three dimensions in which we detect it are merely two 3D cross-sections, which will naturally always appear to have opposite spin.

Is anybody able to comment on this notion?  I haven't thought of any ways in which to test it beyond the simple ones already mentioned of finding a straightforward geometric connection between the various shapes of each orbital type.  (I've never seen shapes of higher orbital types than g, so am unable to check those.  If anybody can direct me to some, I'll be very interested.)

This might explain how UFOs get the energy they need to travel interstellar distances. Either that or they are somehow exploiting the vacuum energy.

For ideas on entangling larger structures, I introduce the conjecture of Nicholas Greaves, an inspired amateur thinker of Oxford, UK. Let me first qualify him by outlining his thesis:
1) Heisenberg's principle means: you simply can't specify position. Hence you can’t specify a Thing being in exactly the same position now as yesterday; nor (4-d symmetry) a Thing happening at the same time across space. Hence, you can't specify arrangement.  (Familiar special case: You can’t have 2 things in the same place.)
2) IF two things are VERY similar - let's escalate: if two ARRANGEMENTS are very similar (structures at a point in time); or if the same thing repeats in time (structure at a point in space) - to a hyper(near-Heisenberg) degree, we are close to a ... singularity (limit of our known physics). This is because if they were the SAME, it would be: ... a singularity.
He says "when we get close, expect some singularity effect". He speculates (somehow using the "minimum energy principle") that as things get VERY close to perfect repetition, negative entropy is transmitted (probably to avoid the singularity.. ? - and can take the form of imparting information about the structure.
3) He then picks up a wire through which a trillion VERY similar electrons are passing with Heisenberg-scale similarity through the same PLACE a billion times a second and witnesses: order is transmitted (this is known as electromagnetic induction). Hence he has a draft explanation for no less than.. electromagnetism.
4) He says that because true repetition would be a singularity, when we come close to it we get a similar effect - influence [information, structure; order = negative entropy] is transmitted (A) at a distance (if the repetition is in time, at a place), or (B) over time (if the repetition is at a place, at many times).
In short, extreme departure from the random, from the probability structure, transmits.
Higher degree of similarity leads to higher "power" of "transmission". A direct current is very close to a singularity. Alternate that current, with extreme rapidity (degree of repetition increases the effect), and you add degrees of order, get more effect.
5) Case (B) is also familiar: It is .. Memory. This phenom. happens in a structure containing a mass of particles that can be activated into patterns on Heisenberg-scale and with Greaves-level repetition (degree of departure from the random), but also in which the surrounding matter can be kept in random state, called: a brain.
The subsequent speculations are elegant: to memorize a pattern we put a part of our brain into a random state because when pattern occurs in a context of absolute randomness, the effect transmits more easily. Degree of negative entropy transmits itself. "Idiot" savants have their capacity because they don't use the whole brain for evolution-hogging, order-protecting predator-surviving traffic-negotiating tasks; they have practiced this other functions, while most have used brains mainly for the literalities of survival (our main achievements have been in outwitting entropy).
6) Fancier flights: (i) we learn by: ... repetition. - OK, easy. But try this: (ii) We store memories not IN our grey matter; they are Greavesian phenomena, all around us, ready to be "picked up" when we "re-start" part of the memory chain in our brain. Wed don’t need brain capacity to store actual >memories.
(How do we search for a memory? We activate a part of it, and the rest "comes" ..). It works when (a physical part of) the "receiver" is in "trance", namely "random", state, switched off from literality-construction for a moment.
To remember, I have to put part of my brain in the same random state it was yesterday. So it helps if it is the same brain (mine - same one as yesterday.) In rare cases people (who are usually really "out of it") can communicate with each OTHER (this is called ESP) - though since the achievers are not-very-literals, science tends not to take much note.
(iii) Every event that has been registered once in a brain, could theoretically be picked up by another brain: at another place, or at another time. These "records" are the "Akashic records": Anybody remember the Hippies, who got a whiff of this (probably because they were so "out of it") - or know enough Indian philosophy to have heard of this alleged physical/mental phenomenon ?

Back to the context:
With this long-developed foundation (Koestler told him in 1978 to keep going), Greaves was not at all surprised when people began to actually create or observe entangled particles in practice. He shrugged and said "of course".
He speculates we should communicate by holding two similar clouds of particles in random movement (at Heisenberg-scale) in different places, and experiment with starting a pattern in one. It should be repeated in the other. Never again would we need fiber optics. Anyone want to take up this challenge?
Prof. Rita Pizzi of Milan has done this with (human?)(brain?) cells. It's in: http://www.dti.unimi.it/~pizzi/ppt%20Salzburg.html, also http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/people/faculty/baer/CompMod-phys/PizziWebPage/pizzi.pdf. (Refs:> Fantasia, A; Gelain, F; Rosetti,D & Vescovi A, (2204): Non local correlations between separated neural networks . Proceedings of SIE 5436, 107-117)

When we evolved this tumor of particle-holders and their conducting connectors able to hold structure for an instant (our brains) and then also go into random, we started to become sapiens. "The bigger the brain, the brighter..." - because you get more scale for practicing repeatability/more memory capacity I guess. But domestic animals can do ESP (survival?), presumably because they don't do much literal, and allocate a lot of what they have to the capacity to go into random.
ESP, prophecy, art, etc. all somewhat use the trance-state capacity.

I give all this extraordinary conclusion-background only to provide a credibility boost for Greaves's unique action-at-a-distance area of hypotheses.

It seems connected to entanglement; and you can consider entangling whole masses of particles - transmitting order - if you grasp his idea.

I have long and occasionally sought someone with the physics and math to give this more shape.
Greaves writes without math - See his >> www.mindandmemory.net  - but doesn't codify in a way to achieve the breakthrough (no math). It requires a math to specify how similar one structure (or group of) is to another. Any reader want to take this forward?

Then we may be on route to "entangling" larger structures.
Stephen Fry - sf@miracleread.com
Greaves:      champerty@freenet.co.uk
              www.mindandmemory.net
 

I am surprised no one is addressing an immediate need for energy here on earth, and what this could mean if packaged correctly. Our entire planet runs on a tiny, i mean really tiny, sliver of the suns entire ball of radiation. Satellites afford great effectiveness as it relates to solar conversion to energy in space, do to obvious reasons. How much more if scattered close to the sun, and transporting collected energy safely back here to the earth.

Couldn't we theoretically save the earth from the eventual expansion of the sun in it's death-throes by transporting the vast energy expended as it uses up it's fuel back into itself? That immense and horrific expulsion of energy might be enough to re-fuel the sun for several more millions of years. A blink of the eye in galactic terms but meaningful for humankind.

Could this be used to transfer useful energy from stars to Earth?

Could this help increase the speed of computers or HDD space? There's a nasty limit on CPU speed thats kind of ruining my day...

There is a simple but important feature of all types of quantum entanglement that is worth pointing out here: Entanglement always requires that the two entangled points originate at some common point in space.

That limits the potential of entangled energy rather strongly. You would need to send out two "entities" (one could remain in place) at sub-light speed. Only after they arrive at their final destinations would you be able to extract energy entangled between the two, and I suspect that even in the best of schemes you would be able to extract a very small amount of energy.

Given that, wouldn't it make more sense just to ship out energy-dense batteries or solar panels and thereby deliver a lot more energy?

I'm guessing that the extracted energy will also be distributed randomly and on average equally between the two objects, but that is just a surmise from how entanglement works in general. Anything other than such a random distribution would allow information to be transmitted.

Incidentally, the feature of entanglement that prevents it from transmitting information is just that: At the receiving end, the results always look completely random. The correlations don't emerge until _after_ you transmit a copy of whatever occurred at the other end. And guess what? The only way to ship that information is at the speed of light, since it has become ordinary information and is no longer entangled. Thus despite the very magical correlations that occur, the need to pull the two endpoints together using ordinary sub-light methods strictly prevents any transfer of real information.

Such a process is very similar to how some types of encryption work, though. That is why entanglement can plausibly be used to transmit _secure_ information that cannot be deciphered without data from both ends. The transmission of such secure information remains firmly stuck at light speed or below, however.

Incidentally, all of this "action but no info" behavior is deeply and profoundly intertwined with the nature of quantum mechanics itself -- and that is why it's so hard to get around it.

A quantum event can be defined very succinctly as an event for which no information about the past history or unfolding of the event exists within the rest of the universe. Within a region or situation in which that condition exist, quantum mechanics rules.

What does that mean? Well, it pretty much means that all of the histories that _could_ exist, some more plausible than others, all add together within that region to form what looks to the outside world like a wave-like construction.

Think of it this way: If all the places you _could_ have placed your couch in your living room were all projected together in that room at the same time, you'd see a deeper, more "real" lump of couches in the more likely spots, and a lot fewer of them in the more unlikely spots, such as the wall or the ceiling.

(I'm sort of kidding on the last two, but in all seriousness they would still be part of the projection of all possible couch histories since you _could_ locate a couch on a wall or ceiling if you have very, um, novel decorating tastes.)

The resulting mushy projections look a lot more wave-like than couch-like, and that's the point: Quantum physics is wave physics because it's the summation of all those possible histories that have not yet come into being. (There is another critical property called "phase" that I'm not addressing in this example, by the way.)

Entanglement simply adds two or more objects that place constraints on each other. Two couches in one room likely can't be placed too close too each other, so they become entangled: Setting the position of one couch unavoidably also limits the position of the other couch. Poke hard the wave function hard -- that is, ask it for specific information about the location of one of the couches -- and the remaining wave function for the other couch suddenly becomes much more constrained. That's entanglement, and it can happen over arbitrarily large distances.

So why can't you use this marvelous shrinking of possible histories to transmit information? One way to think of it is this: Each of the individual histories in the wave function is always an ordinary, boring, sub-light history, one that doesn't contain any magical variables or spooky entanglements. You look closely at it and find that what you thought was mysterious looking and spooky turned out to be ordinary correlation, a case of Bertlmann's socks.

(Bertlmann was a friend John Bell whose socks were "anti-correlated" -- a form of correlation -- because he liked to wear different colored socks on each foot.)

So the reason you can't transmit information is that when you poke a wave function, you cause an entire _fully causal, fully "classical"_ history to pop out. You don't get some strange thing that still allows spooky correlations at a distance.

Now I personally find that marvelously amusing.

Think about it: You have this incredibly powerful and complex safe with magical properties that seems to do impossible things, but every time you actually open it and take a look inside, all you end up with are the same kinds of very ordinary and mundane objects you see every day.

Finally, here's a really easy way to visualize the essence of the entanglement argument. It is a question that Albert Einstein asked at the famous Copenhagen conference. That's the one in which his life-long intellectual battle with The Great Dane, Niels Bohr, began. It was an argument over the soul of quantum mechanics started, one that Bohr arguably won in terms of number of converts.

What Einstein asked was this: With proper grooming, wave function of an electron can be made to grow as big as you desire.

(A more immediate example would be particles of light, or photons. When you gaze at a distant star, the photons you see may have quantum wave fronts vastly larger than our entire solar system, including the Oort cloud.)

Einstein pictured a wave function large enough that light would take some time to cross from one side of it to the other. It could, for example, be a full second across at the speed of light.

Next, you have someone "find" the electron. If that finder is on one side of the 1-second-across wave function, how then do you ensure that someone on the other side of the wave function does not also "find" the same electron within that 1 second window?

That is, how does the part of the wave function that is a full light second away suddenly "know" that it is no longer allowed to produce an electron if it is poked too hard?

Already, and using only a single particle, something decidedly "spooky" and faster than light is needed just to keep the electron from ending up literally in two places at once. Leave it to Einstein to go straight for the intellectual jugular in a folksy, grandfatherly way, in his very first question!

(I found out about the above incident in Louisa Gilder's "The Age of Entanglement." I've only started her book, but I'd already rank it as one of the best sources available for insights into how physics theories are really developed. You can read more about Bohr's response there.)

Notice that if you realize that wave functions are always sums of _fully mundane_ histories, the problem that Einstein raised changes form a bit.

More specifically, poking the wave function doesn't just cause the _location_ of the electron to become known, but also an entire (and entirely mundane) history of that electron as it traveled through space to the location at which it is finally found. The end location thus is not the whole story. It is just the tip of a potentially very long history, all of which must be selected to give the end result of placing the electron in just that final location.

Therein also likes the temptation of the pilot wave, the idea that there is only one particle and one path, guided by a mysterious wave. Pilot waves don't give correct results because they cannot, for example, explain effects such as "charge smearing." You really don't want to lose that, as all of chemistry would fall apart, and you as a chemical being with it.

Still, the temptation is there. If every time you look closely at a quantum wave you find a fully mundane and quite classical-looking history of how the particle moved through space, the idea of a guiding pilot wave along with a well-defined, fully classical particle starts looking awfully tempting.

It's a bogus vision, however. The version that works and is fully compatible with QED, the most accurately predictive physics model of all time, is for those mundane histories to materialize only when you take the trouble to force the quantum wave to give up a real history for you.

Note finally that quantum history selection does not answer any of the deeper questions of quantum mechanics. History selection is after all nothing more adding the concept of entanglement over time to the existing concept of entanglement over space.

That is, just as spatial entanglement is an aspect of space-momentum uncertainty, temporal entanglement is an exactly parallel aspect of time-energy uncertainty. When the two are combined they create an volume of 4D spacetime that contains the sum of all possible histories that could exist within that volume.

While really just another form of entanglement, history selection makes it easier to get a handle on why you can't use such processes to transfer real data. Similar limits should also apply to the concept of entangled energy.

[Disclaimer: History selection is my own way of interpreting quantum mechanics and QED. If the idea exists in a paper somewhere (very possible I'd say), I am not aware of it. History selection is sufficiently straightforward and compatible with QED -- which is after all the theory of (static) "integrals of all possible histories" -- for me to be quite solid about its value. It just makes certain aspects of quantum mechanics easier to understand conceptually.]

David Deutsch and Patrick Hayden's paper "Information Flow in Entangled Quantum Systems," http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9906007 demonstrates that all information in quantum systems (S) is, notwithstanding Bell's theorem, localised. Measuring or otherwise interacting with a quantum system has no effect on distant systems from which (S) is dynamically isolated, even if they are entangled with (S). Using the Heisenberg picture to analyse quantum information processing makes this locality explicit, and reveals that under some circumstances (in particular, in Einstein-Podolski-Rosen experiments and in quantum teleportation) quantum information is transmitted through 'classical' (i.e. decoherent) information channels. The same, of course, would be true with respect to energy "teleportation".  The commentators above who have focused on the limitations imposed by the speed of light are correct.

I believe that soon, by the will of Allah, atomic teleportation will become a reality.

The Qur'an has mentioned several instances of teleportation technology, among them:

He who possessed knowledge of the Book said: "I will bring it [the Queen of Saba's throne] to you before your glance returns to you." And when he [Sulayman] saw it standing firmly in his presence, he said: "This is part of my Lord's favour, to test me to see if I will give thanks or show ingratitude." (Qur'an, 27:40)

He who possessed knowledge of the Book" told Prophet Sulayman (as) that he could bring the Queen of Saba's throne to him very quickly. This is a possible reference to the teleportation technology. Another verse on the subject reads:

A demon of the jinn said: "I will bring it to you before you get up from your seat. I am strong and trustworthy enough to do it." (Qur'an, 27:39)

In our day, text, pictures, and films can be sent anywhere in the world in a matter of seconds, thanks to the Internet and advances in computer technology. Now we see energy teleportation, and tomorrow we may see atomic(physical) teleportation .

For instance, carrying the Queen's throne to Prophet Sulayman's (as) court very quickly may well refer to the fact that it will be possible to for teleport physical objects in a blink of an eye.

According to scientists, the teleportation of atoms and molecules, as well as larger bodies, may become possible in the near future. By this method, the item's material characteristics are removed from one location and transferred in every detail and atomic sequence to another location, where they are reconstructed. If this technology becomes operational one day, time and space will no longer represent an obstacle to travel and objects will be able to be transported anywhere in a single moment without traversing any physical distance.

And Allah Knows Best.

Terry Bollinger's observation, "you have this incredibly powerful and complex safe with magical properties that seems to do impossible things, but every time you actually open it and take a look inside, all you end up with are the same kinds of very ordinary and mundane objects you see every day" brings to mind Tesla's words from some years back:

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. . . . — " Radio Power Will Revolutionize the World," Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July 1934.

Entanglement wont send the validation of instantaneous response. This is just for conjectural flight of fancy, but how about wormholes as pathways for energy and information?