Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

roshowclassic t1_j9mg2is wrote

Now can they pull energy out of me sitting on the couch

68

Pappa_Alpha t1_j9mld51 wrote

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics

470

Ikeeki t1_j9mpkvj wrote

Journalists Use ChatGPT to Pull Title out of Nothing Burger

45

Rexia2022 t1_j9mpvl5 wrote

Replying to johnjohn4011 (#1,930,449)

Oh no, he was definitely a kook. A ridiculous genius, but mans was weird.

Article title is nonsense, but particles do pop into and out of existence in a vacuum all the time. It's a pretty cool phenomenon.

12

johnjohn4011 t1_j9msca4 wrote

Replying to allenout (#1,931,003)

I remember him claiming that it was feasible to draw energy (electricity) out of the "ether". I guess depending on how you define his terminology it could be seen as fundamentally different, but then the more we refine our definitions, the more abstract and removed from how we actually experience reality they become.

4

Baron_Ultimax t1_j9mt9wt wrote

So the title is misleading and if the article had any more metaphor in it the energy would have come from darmok and jelad at tenagra.

The TLDR is the teleported energy between two entangled qubits.

Basicly if the two particles are entangled you observe how 1 interacts with a quantum feild ( this takes energy) you now know how the fluctuations (vacume energy) in that same feild will affect the other particle and extract the energy used to observe the other.

This is still a very exciting thing. But the universe's books are still balanced and the laws of thermodynamics will not be broken.

214

deezkeys098 t1_j9my3kt wrote

Now where is my reactor that pulls energy out of nothing for my starship! I need it and I need it now!

1

uggggh_ t1_j9mz0r1 wrote

More like their asshole.

1

PapaverOneirium t1_j9n07t7 wrote

Replying to Pappa_Alpha (#1,930,584)

It does. It’s actually about energy teleportation across quantum entangled particles rather than pulling it straight from nothing. That is, a certain amount of energy is input to a particle at one location, and released from an entangled particle at another.

edit: no this doesn’t allow for FTL energy transfer or anything like that. It’s a bit more complicated, because you need a “message” from the initial location to be received at the second location to know what to look for so to speak and that message will be limited by the speed of light. Article does an alright job of explaining it.

133

Feerlez_Leeder101 t1_j9n0m9e wrote

Physicists watch the universe do the thing it generally does all the time.

2

ahfoo t1_j9n57d8 wrote

I liked the car parked on the streets of Denver metaphor.

1

LiamTheHuman t1_j9n760p wrote

Replying to Pappa_Alpha (#1,930,584)

I miss the good ole days when everyone would reference the Simpsons. I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary.

42

tehpola t1_j9ncgbf wrote

Does anyone know if the speed of information transfer between entangled particles is limited to the speed of light?

Or is it that there’s a wormhole of sorts that connects the two? I.e. instantaneous

1

Baron_Ultimax t1_j9nhfzw wrote

Replying to greasyhorror (#1,933,387)

So to describe Entanglement we have to understand that fundamental particles. Like electrons are not like a tiny pellets with a negative charge, but represent a point where an electron feild is exited or has a bit more energy. Visualize a droplet hitting a pond. These feilds can have different states. It can have a twist that gives particles a form of angular momentum like a gyroscope. But in multiple directions.

Because of this knowing where a particle is how fast its moving or its spin direction isnt possible. And measuring one property effects the particle so the others cant be measured.

Now Entanglement happens when two particles interact or 1 particle decays into two. The universe insists that everything is conserved so if particle a is spinning one way. Then particle b must have the opposite.

This means when we measure a property of particle A we know what that same property is on particle B Now because you can only know one aspect of a particle if you are measuring say up or down spin on A you can't find out the left and right spin. What's weird is the particles seem to be connected and measuring particles a also effects particle B. Its like the can communicate with each other. And the understanding of why or how the do this represents the bleeding edge of physics.

19

Spactaculous t1_j9nlqyq wrote

Replying to greasyhorror (#1,933,387)

You are not alone. No one understands how it works.

We can observe it, calculate it, create experiments, but no idea how it works.

Other parts of physics that we do not understand, like dark matter, have many competing hypothesis. Entanglement is pretty lean on that front. Even though I am sure string theory had something about it, because it has something about everything.

It's just the way it is. Like the rest of quantum physics.

2

ToothlessGrandma t1_j9noce1 wrote

Replying to tinwhistler (#1,933,491)

Asking for someone to explain this stuff on reddit is almost impossible. This stuff is very hard to understand, even for those with advance degrees and years of schooling. This is the cutting edge of science that can't be summed up in a comment.

There's a famous saying that goes that if anyone says they know how this stuff works, they're lying.

7

Hyperion1722 t1_j9nqika wrote

Would be better if they can pull out more IQ points to their seemingly near zero IQ.

1

Supra_Genius t1_j9nqolc wrote

They did not. If it had energy in it to be pulled it was not "nothing" in the way anyone defines it. I'm long past sick of these stupid clickbait "quantum" articles.

1

thescandall t1_j9ns0h9 wrote

Do you want Goths? That kill Builders/Romans? This is how you get them

3

Prestige0 t1_j9nyaxf wrote

Imagine believing that nothing exists lol

2

Supertrinko t1_j9nyhjj wrote

>And he lacks the necessary knowledge to extract the energy until Alice’s text arrives, so no effect travels faster than light.

This is the disappointing part to me. It's a shame it's all in metaphor.

1

Plzbanmebrony t1_j9o10j1 wrote

Replying to PapaverOneirium (#1,932,243)

So they also sent data faster than the speed of light? My understanding with the whole limit of entangled partials is that while yes they remained sync you can't touch them without desyncing them. My understanding is that IS impossible based on our understanding of the universe.

2

DneSokas t1_j9o2m5y wrote

So while others have already mentioned that the title is misleading, it should be noted that it IS possible to pull energy from nothing at least on paper. In real life there are probably practical limitations that prevent the otherwise perfectly allowable maths to become reality but its a good thing to keep in mind anyway to remind ourselves that the laws of thermodynamics are descriptions of the universe and not ironclad parts of it.

3

NZGumboot t1_j9o5cvl wrote

Replying to Plzbanmebrony (#1,935,820)

No. Part of the process to extract energy involves the experimenters sending information from one entangled particle to the other (presumably along a wire). Thus it doesn't matter if the energy transfer itself is instantaneous, information still can't be transferred faster than the speed of light.

5

strapabiro t1_j9o5q75 wrote

is this the usual fancy named experiment where we don't count the energy required to run the experiment itself?

2

fruitloops6565 t1_j9o9gkh wrote

I’m other dimension someone’s power went out and they don’t know why

3

UFOskie t1_j9oa04j wrote

Why do I feel that if we actually start gathering large amounts of energy via this method it’s going to kick off a first contact war?

2

Nick_Beard t1_j9ock1m wrote

Headline :"SCIENTISTS PULL ENERGY OUT OF A TOPHAT 🙀🙀🙀🙀"

Article: We lied.

9

NZGumboot t1_j9ocwzl wrote

Replying to Plzbanmebrony (#1,936,560)

The energy fluctuations appear random, just like if the particle was not entangled. It's only with the information you got from the other entangled particles that the fluctuations become non-random.

Here's an analogy. You roll a die repeatedly and you need to guess when the die rolls six. But the die rolls are perfectly random, so with lots of rolls you can't guess right more than (on average) 1/6 of the time.

But this is a quantum die and your friend has another die that is linked to yours and rolls the exact same sequence of numbers as your one (though in isolation it's still perfectly random, just like your die). Now you can guess the six consistently; your friend just has to tell you what they rolled.

But even though the die are linked by some spooky method that travels faster than light, you cannot use this to transfer information faster than light. Because there's no way to influence what the sequence of numbers will be.

5

glowtape t1_j9od5pu wrote

Someone tell me how this relates to the Casimir effect and the virtual particle thingymabob.

1

groversnoopyfozzie t1_j9of7j9 wrote

Replying to PapaverOneirium (#1,932,243)

I was under the impression that Tesla invented a machine that could transfer electricity without the use of wires or cables(through the air like radio waves if you will). Am I mistaken or is this new breakthrough a different version of that?

1

Sniffy4 t1_j9ohxxf wrote

when will they be able to pull money out of my butt?

3

endosia__ t1_j9onq4b wrote

Replying to Pappa_Alpha (#1,930,584)

From a book on particle physics I managed to pick up the apparent fact that particles can definitely ‘pop’ into and out of ‘existence’. I can’t remember what it is called at the moment but will try to find it. Also molecules or particles can become charged or uncharged for no apparent reason we can deduce as of yet. So the idea of it being possible to have energy from nothing is not new.

To ramble in case other laymen like myself find interest, it is also possible for particles to turn into other particles spontaneously. Electrons, protons, muons, etc…. ‘Energy’, particles, are not immutable and depending on their environmental context can simply transform.

I hope to be corrected with the proper vocabulary

1

Adventurous_Stage979 t1_j9oo1l8 wrote

Replying to Plzbanmebrony (#1,935,820)

From what I understand, the particles must be close to each other to be entangled. You then have a single use bit that can be used to communicate, but you still have to physically ship your particles to their remote locations which doesn’t happen at the speed of light. The communication can be instant but the material must travel. If we wanted to communicate with a Mars base, for example, we’d still have to pre ship the entangled particles which would still take months.

1

RickDripps t1_j9op2ry wrote

Replying to Baron_Ultimax (#1,931,466)

No, I'm pretty sure we're stealing energy from some alternate-dimension race of energy-people who need it to live and in a few more years we're going to be at war.

That's just how these things go. Not your thing. Your thing doesn't make any sense.

1

Pisodeuorrior t1_j9otvx7 wrote

I'm no physicist but the article sounded like bollocks to me, or written by an AI who scraped random sentences from my grandma's FB page.

1

jonnyzat t1_j9ovia1 wrote

This reminds me of Asimov's book The Gods Themselves

1

Iapetus_Industrial t1_j9ovpy3 wrote

Replying to NZGumboot (#1,937,049)

> The energy fluctuations appear random, just like if the particle was not entangled. It's only with the information you got from the other entangled particles that the fluctuations become non-random.

Well that's fucking useless then. What's the point if you still need a light-speed channel? We want FTL!

2

subjectwonder8 t1_j9oxrj9 wrote

Replying to greasyhorror (#1,933,387)

Entanglement is a fancy way of saying the properties of two or more things rely on each other.

Imagine I have 10 balls which I'm going to put into two bags. I might put 3 in one and 7 in the other or 1 in one bag and 9 in the other. You don't know what I'm going to do, only that I will put all 10 balls in the bags.

Now imagine I gave a bag to you and you looked inside to find 6 balls. Since you know there are 10 balls in total you know the second bag must have 4.

These two bags are entangled as they have a property that relies on the other. This is mundane and isn't interesting at macroscopic level.

If we go smaller though we run into some more interesting things as things act less like solid things and more like waves.

So imagine I showed you a video of a wave in the sea. You could from that video see how fast the wave is moving but if I asked you to point to where the wave is that becomes slightly harder. The wave was in many places in that video because it was moving. (ok this simplified but just go with it)

If I showed you a picture of a wave. It would be easy to point to where it is. But if I asked you for the speed of that wave, that becomes hard.

As you can see the more we know about movement of something the less we know about its position. And the more we know about position the less we know about movement. This is uncertainty principle.

(Obviously that is simplified for the metaphor, but it is close enough in principle to how it drops out of the math. Just know that in the math, knowing more about one thing and less about the other is much more like a hard rule that must be obeyed than the metaphor implies. So following that principle is super important)

Now particle act a lot likes waves. The more I know about a position the less I know about its velocity. The more I know about its movement the less I know about where it is.

Think of our bag metaphor, imagine if the one bag was red balls only and the yellow balls only. You can either feel the bag to count the balls or open the bag to check the color of one ball. (presume there is always at least 1 in the bag). You will only ever know 1 property, but once tested you'll know it for both bags.

But what if you tested one bag for one and the other bag for another. So the one had 6 balls and other bag is yellow. Which means the bag has 6 red balls. Now I know two properties of one thing. But this isn't allowed by uncertainty principle.

To think of it in waves or particles. I check where something is (and know nothing about its movement) and then I check its counterpart's movement. Since I know velocity like the balls is shared between the two, I know the particles movement and position.

This isn't allowed so what happens?

First know that at the small scale things become probabilistic. You look in your bag and you have 6 balls. Look again now you have 5. Look again now you 7. Again 6, again 6 again 6 again 8. It's probabilistic, it is most likely going to be 6 but it could also be 5-7 and maybe even 4-8, even more unlikely but it could even be 1 or 2.

This is where the wave properties comes from, if you draw probabilities on a graph, you would see high point at 6 and it slows away like a wave. This is superposition (because it could be considered multiple things at the time) and where you check its wave-function collapse (because wave goes away and it becomes a thing) and also where all the talk about multiple things at the same time comes from. (bit more complex in practice but simplified it is reasonably accurate)

Now here is the "spooky action at a distance" or the part where everybody freaks out. The other bag was entangled. Every time you check the other bag somehow knows what value the bag you check has. If it 6 the other bag knows it must have 4 balls. But if you check again it has 5 and so the second has 5. If it is red it must be yellow. But you check again now you are yellow and the second knows to be red.

How does it know that? And how can it transfer that faster than light. You can't transfer information this way because you have no control of what answer your test will give.

But that is what entanglement is. One way this forms is if a particle decays into 2 or more particles. Those particles would be entangled because the velocity is shared between them.

In practice it is even more interesting because there are other quantum phenomena which interact with this to produce even more interesting phenomena.

4

subjectwonder8 t1_j9oynth wrote

Replying to Farklurth (#1,939,954)

Yes. In current understanding distance doesn't matter. It could be few atom widths apart or light years. The fact that distance doesn't matter is one of the very interesting things about it and why there was some resistance to it (notably from Einstein) when the idea was first introduced.

4

apple-pie2020 t1_j9p0v8m wrote

Replying to NZGumboot (#1,937,049)

This is a nice explanation that I did not understand prior. Thank you.

Now how about this 26 entangled particles. That don’t roll 1-6 but are either up or down. Your friend in isolation flips all particles down except one for A and so forth. Now could a message be sent faster than light?

2

DneSokas t1_j9p1jvy wrote

Replying to dhoffnun (#1,939,409)

Particles have a minnimum possible energy state that is slightly above zero, if you can find a way to extract that energy you can do it endlessly because the particles energy can't actually be reduced so you can extract that same energy over and over again. (Assuming no mechanisms we haven't discovered yet don't prevent this)

2

datusernames t1_j9p1n8k wrote

Inb4 tendrils of darkness more real than the world around us devour the human race

1

subjectwonder8 t1_j9p8qa6 wrote

Replying to groversnoopyfozzie (#1,937,361)

Presuming you are not thinking of Tesla's work on resonant inductive coupling (like a Tesla coil), you are probably thinking of Wardenclyffe tower. That was suppose to be a ground - air conduction system. Many people incorrectly think it is an induction or radio system.

If you think about a classic circuit, electricity flow into one end, round the circuit and returns to the source at a lower voltage.

If you put a button and buzzer into this circuit and stretch to many kilometres / miles you have a telegraph.

The problem with this is your wire has to travel the distance twice. Once when it comes from the source through the button to your buzzer and then it has to go all the way back to complete the circuit.

But people eventually noticed you didn't need to do that. If the wire went into ground after buzzer, telegraph still worked. It was believed the circuit was completed through the Earth. It was also believed that the atmosphere had an extremely good conducting layer that was separated from the Earth. So this is basically two wires.

So the idea was to feed electricity into the ground, it would travel through the Earth, you would put a wire into the ground going through what ever you want to power, and the electricity would flow into the sky and back to Wardenclyffe tower completing the circuit.

This would allow relatively large amounts of energy anywhere on the planet as long as you had a wire. And would have been truly transformational to humanity.

But this doesn't work. We now know that the ground flow rate is extremely limited and drops off fast. But Earth has significant capacitance. So the telegraph lines were just feeding charge into that. The amount that telegraph lines used was low enough that the slow discharge rate didn't impact it that much. That capacitance gets used today with neutral and grounding / earthing lines, they just go into the ground. AC pushes and pulls that capacitance without needing a return path.

So Tesla's idea (and other people who attempted similar) ultimately wouldn't work.

Tesla however did work on resonant inductive coupling which is used on modern wireless power transfer systems, just no where near the scale of what Wardenclyffe tower was meant to achieve. It is extremely short ranged, normally used in lower power embedded circuitry but does have some larger use cases like magnetically levitating vehicles and the Tesla coil.

3

andio76 t1_j9p8uhx wrote

Is this from all of those Ant people running around?

1

WolfmanHasNards_ t1_j9p9c65 wrote

The scientists put a spatially tessellated void inside a modified temporal field until a planet developed intelligent life. They then introduced that life to the wonders of electricity, which they now generate on a global scale.

1

MuffinMonkey t1_j9pce8u wrote

Jerry: Kramer, where are you gonna get all that energy from.

Kramer: from nothing, jerry! You see scientists figured out a way to get energy from nothing! And Newman and I are going to tap into it.

Newman: we’re gonna be rich, Kramer!

Jerry: I think that’s what you would call… “kooky talk”

1

HolyPommeDeTerre t1_j9pcfo8 wrote

Replying to NZGumboot (#1,937,049)

Just trying to understand.

If the other part sends 1 continuously and you know that (communication initialisation). You send 1 to ack "alignment". Then do the same with 0.

The question is. If I send 1 continuously, will the resulting behaviour in the entangle particule be the same or similar in anyway? Or will it change randomly and so we can't "align" on something without another communication method before?

1

zabuu t1_j9piwn2 wrote

Replying to Farklurth (#1,940,598)

Not quite... once you observe (read: measure) an entangled particle, it is no longer entangled.

Imagine 2 people face to face on a perfectly slippery frozen lake. If they push apart from each other, they would slide away. If you know the mass of each person, and you catch person A (this is like measuring the speed), then you'll know how fast person B is going. But measuring A changed the system and you'll get no additional info about B.

I'm no pro though, this is just how I understand it.

1

GhostRid3r16 t1_j9pj6hp wrote

Replying to Baron_Ultimax (#1,934,129)

> Because of this knowing where a particle is how fast its moving or its spin direction isnt possible.

No, that’s due to wave/particle duality leading to the uncertainty principle. There’s uncertainty in where a quantum particle exists or goes thanks to the fact that all of our measurement tools are too big and waves don’t exist at a point. Consider using a meter stick to measure the width of a piece of paper. You will have an uncertainty wave packet width of 1mm at best. That is a better analogy for uncertainty. The paper is the electron and the meter stick is the observation/measurement, where instead of 1mm it’s h/4π meter.

> And measuring one property effects the particle so the others cant be measured.

Also not true, and a common lay misinterpretation (by those who haven’t been instructed on quantum I mean). You can measure Px with certainty but not simultaneously X. You can meaaure Py with certainty but not simultaneously y. Likewise Pz and not z. You can however simultaneously measure Px without affecting the state or certainty of y,z or Py, Pz. And so on for [Py,x]=0, [Pz,y]=0 etc.

It’s only σPxσx = σPyσy = σPzσz = σEσt >= h/4π; where σPxσy = σPyσX etc = 0 believe it or not. The uncertainties are coupled to the vectors. If you want you can find absolute certainty in X momentum and y position without collapsing the wave function for Pz,z. Absolute certainty for the complete vector components or the particle as a whole is not possible.

Mathematically that looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/XbCrYh3.jpg : expectation of Δx^2 • expectation of Δp(x)^2 = h^(2)/16π^2 where <Δx^(2)> = <x^(2)> - <x>^2 , same for <Δp(x)^(2)>. For quantum systems; Scale up and these uncertainties become so small as to be negligible to the system, and we’re back in Newtonian kinematics (correspondence principle).

Let’s also take note that the form is of ΔxΔPx>=h/4π: so this means, you can measure x with certainty much higher than h/4π; for instance let’s say you measure x to a certainty of h/10^(5)π. ΔPx must therefore be required to have an uncertainty that satisfies ΔxΔPx>=h/4π where ΔPx >= h/4πΔx, or ΔPx >= h/4πh/10^(5)π >= 10^(5)/4, and that’s in kgm/s. So our uncertainty in momentum rises to 25,000 kgm/s for a certainty in position of h/10^(5)π.

It’s plain to see here that as Δx goes to zero as we would approach absolute certainty, ΔPx must go to infinity, and to absolute uncertainty. You can know exactly where a particle was and know nothing about where it will be, or you can know exactly where a particle is going and know nothing about where it was. And keep in mind without both of those you can’t model the motion. Enter the wave interpretation of quantum systems, aka Quantum Mechanics, a(less)ka Wave Mechanics, and statistical analysis of the wave function provides us a model of behavior before and after measurement within the parameters of ΔrΔPr>=h/4π.. where you actually don’t need both parameters of initial position and momentum to model the wave function through time as it’s only a first derivative with respect to time!! YAY! And rejoice because if it was δ^(2)/δt^2 we’d all be fucked and stuck only with experimental data and no closed form solutions.

As a side note about entanglement: consider what I’ve said about measurements collapsing the wave function: let’s say you have 2 electrons and they interact. That is, they bounce into each other and are deflected. We know from Newtonian mechanics that if we solve the current position and momentum of one particle, we can wind back time and reconstruct the collision. The consequence of this in quantum means that when you measure the physical properties of one of the entangled particles, you necessarily have measured the properties of the other particle. This collapses both waveforms, since you have gained knowledge of the system of particles through measurement. You can reconstruct b from a. Therefore you have collapsed b’s waveform as well when you measure and collapse a’s. And thus, the particles are said to be entangled at the quantum level, the same way a cue ball is paired to an 8 ball at the Newtonian level. Measuring the properties of the 8 ball necessarily tells you the properties of the cue ball.

Also interesting aside: black holes produce a pair of electrons at the event horizon boundary, where at a certain probability, one of the electrons has been pulled into the black hole, and the other released into the universe so to speak. For one instant in time, this is the ONLY truly unpaired particle in the universe.

4

allenout t1_j9pjb9o wrote

Replying to johnjohn4011 (#1,931,366)

Tesla was brilliant in many ways but really stupid in others. Many of his failed engineering designs failed due to essentially power by some non-mystical version of magic. Tesla vehemently disagreed with Einsteins theory of Special Relativity.

2

NZGumboot t1_j9q2gh0 wrote

Replying to HolyPommeDeTerre (#1,942,028)

The information you send over a wire doesn't change the entangled particles in any way (or do you mean sending a 1 using the entangled pair? That's not possible, the entanglement breaks). What does change the particles is any attempt to measure or change the particle's properties. (With regard to OPs article I believe they are measuring the environment around the particle, not the particle itself, in order to maintain the entanglement.)

2

HolyPommeDeTerre t1_j9q4m9k wrote

Replying to NZGumboot (#1,945,624)

Yes my intuition was "input 1 in one of the particle" (change it's state in a expected way) to observe the behaviour of the other entangled particle. But as you state that, influencing the state of the particle will break entanglement.

But, from there, how are we sure the particles are entangled if we can't act on any of them and reflect a resulting change in the other particle.

I guess we can observe both particles surrounding environment and see that there are similitudes ?

Anyway thank you for your time helping me understand :)

1

NZGumboot t1_j9q5n5w wrote

Replying to Montgomery0 (#1,941,028)

You could argue it's not really like a wormhole since nothing physical is moving (energy is a property of matter, it is not itself physical). And that it is FTL because even though the thing being transferred is non-physical it is still in some sense transferring from one place to another faster than light. But the laws of physics conspire in such a way that you can't send a message using entanglement. Which perhaps makes sense as faster-than-light messaging would appear to enable sending messages back in time, which opens a huge can of worms 😀

1

NZGumboot t1_j9q7l51 wrote

Replying to HolyPommeDeTerre (#1,945,931)

Basically what they do is create a huge number of entangled particles, separate each pair into locations A and B, then measure each the state of all of the particles at both locations (this breaks the entanglement, but that's okay.)

The measurements at A and B appear perfectly random according to all the tests of randomness that we have. But when you bring the measurements from A and B together, you find that they are correlated -- each pair might be e.g. in the same state, or the opposite state, depending on how the entanglement was created. A and B can be arbitrarily far apart.

You might think, well that's easy to explain, when you created the entanglement it set the state of each at that point. But no, you can prove that isn't the case, and that it must be the case that the entangled particles both have an indefinite state until they're measured, and the measurement of one affects the state of the other across any distance. (The proof is called Bell's inequality, see this video for more: https://youtu.be/ZuvK-od647c)

2

LivingNeighborhood56 t1_j9qotup wrote

This article is pretty cool, and as a quantum computer enthusiast I understand fairly well how the whole process outlined in one of the papers works to transfer energy between two qubits. However, I did not understand the part about the vacuum being "intrinsically entangled". I know that quantum fields can be entangled when two particles entangle since all particles are just excitations in a vacuum, but what does it mean for a quantum field in the vacuum itself to be entangled? If the field is entangled with itself everywhere, then doesn't that mean every particle which is an excitation of that field should be entangled with every other one (which obviously doesn't happen since we don't observe that)?

1

smartguy05 t1_j9r1z2l wrote

Replying to PapaverOneirium (#1,932,243)

Seems to me that's all you need for instant communication over limitless distance. If you have two of these (1 read, 1 write) you have a duplex wireless communication line that can't (as far as I understand it) be hacked.

1

Nekaz t1_j9raiw2 wrote

With any luck its gonna be the ol POWERED BY DEAD SOULS or some shit

1

usspacenut t1_j9rjcny wrote

So, is one practical application of this wireless power distribution? I’m thinking wireless small appliances getting power from a standardized distribution node?

1