×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Entangled Particles Break Classical Law of Thermodynamics, Say Physicists

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the not-in-homer's-house dept.

Japan 222

New submitter Zex_Suik writes "Japanese physicists have used one of Maxwell's thought experiments and the ability to turn information into energy to extract more energy from an entangled system than should be possible according to the laws of thermodynamics (abstract). From the article: 'Imagine two boxes of particles with trap door between them. You want to use the trap door to guide the faster particles into one box and the slower particles into the other. In a classical experiment you would have to measure the particles in both boxes to do this experiment. But things are different if the particles in one box are entangled with the particles in the other. In that case, measurements on the particles in one box give you info about both sets of particles. In essence, you're getting information for nothing. And since you can convert that information into energy, there is clear advantage when entanglement plays a role. That's hugely significant. It means that the laws of thermodynamics depend not only on classical phenomenon and information but on quantum effects too.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

222 comments

hehehe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849449)

The 12" anaconda in my pants also broke CmdrTaco's asshole.

Re:hehehe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850899)

Jonah Falcon [wikipedia.org] laughs derisively in your direction.

Any cost to entangled particles ? (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#40851261)

TFA talks about "Entangled Particles" breaking the law of thermodynamics, seemingly getting something out of nothing

I am not good at all on particle physics, but I believe that particles in their ordinary state do not come "entangled", right?

So, in order to get particles that are already in the "entangled" state, something must have happened to ordinary particles, first, right?

If so, what's the cost (in term of energy) to get originally un-entangled particles to be "entangled"?
 

Soooo (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849455)

I can create something out of nothing ?

Re:Soooo (4, Funny)

oPless (63249) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849505)

Well God did *that* some 6,000 years ago.

Re:Soooo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849519)

BWAHAHAHAHA! We got a Christ tard on our hands.

Re:Soooo (5, Funny)

gd2shoe (747932) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850109)

I can create something out of nothing ?

Well God did *that* some 6,000 years ago.

According to classical theology, which is totally unsubstantiated by biblical text. Just because it's been taught for more than a thousand years doesn't make it biblical.

Re:Soooo (2, Funny)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850365)

I can create something out of nothing ?

Well God did *that* some 6,000 years ago.

According to classical theology, which is totally unsubstantiated by biblical text. Just because it's been taught for more than a thousand years doesn't make it biblical.

"Substantiated" by the Biblical text? Somebody mod that Funny.

Re:Soooo (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849643)

Actually that happens all the time. Empty space has energy, and energy and mass are interchangeable. Thus particles pop in and out of existence continuously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state [wikipedia.org]

*I'm not a physicist, please don't kill me for getting it completely wrong.

Re:Soooo (2)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850007)

Yes, but I thought the point was that an anti-particle was created at the same time, and so the net was still zero.

Re:Soooo (2)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850311)

The trick is getting rid of the anti-particle. Sort of like you get rid of the clam-shell when you buy a yo-yo and thus have a net-positive gain!

Re:Soooo (5, Informative)

Rei (128717) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850349)

This isn't about antiparticles; it's about information being exchangeable for energy.

This is really fascinating in that they've actually implemented Maxwell's Demon. A bit of backstory: Maxwell's Demon is a thought experiment about there being two chambers with a tiny, atom-sized demon sitting guarding an atom-sized gate between them. If there's a high-energy particle coming, he open's the gate. If there's a low-energy particle, he lowers the gate. Hence, you end up doing work (pumping heat) without a relevant source of energy (since there's no realistic constraints on the mass of the demon or the gate, they can be discounted). Entropy is going in the wrong direction. The question is: would such a thing work, violating the laws of physics, and if not, why?

The solution was that to know when to open the gate, the demon would have to measure the incoming particles. And it turns out that the entropy change involved in the measurement is more than the gain from what the demon is doing. But then later a hole in this argument was pointed out: if you have information on quantum states stored in a "memory", the demon doesn't need to measure the particles. But since memory can't be infinite, at some point you must cause the entropy change that the information storage is hiding. Information is basically acting as a form of energy.

Here, from the sound of it, they've actually implemented that in the real world, which I find just fascinating.

Re:Information to Energy (3, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850585)

And with our love of all things military, what would an Information Bomb look like? It took Einstein to barely get us to believe Mass to Energy. Information to Energy just has a whole other creepy ring to it.

Since we and the **AA have had fun lately with modern topics in Information, I'll even let the Copyright problems (!!) go for now - how many conversion does it take to convert information from a safe source to a bomb? With the obligatory facetiousness, could someone build a bomb out of a Justin Bieber MP3?

Re:Soooo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40851345)

But the flaw is that it takes energy to entangle particles. You simply don't get anything for nothing... ever.
However, whatever the universe is doing, it is doing it forever, because you also cannot destroy energy, only change its form.
Therefore all possible permutations of energy and form, that are logically possible, will eventually occur.
Black can never be white in one universe unless it is defined to be the opposite in the other.
That is, until the next zebra crossing, at which time all bets are off.

Re:Soooo (2)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850201)

Not out of nothing, out of less than you should have put in. It's the difference between a cheap lunch and a free one.

Would not one have to spend energy... (5, Insightful)

PaulBu (473180) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849483)

... beforehand to entangle particles? And then put one from each pair into separate boxes?

Something tells me that energy conservation still holds...

Paul B.

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849721)

According to TFA, the particles are already in an entangled state.

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (4, Insightful)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850961)

According to TFA, the particles are already in an entangled state.

That seems very "Hydrogen Economy." You can get energy from Hydrogen, but only if you "somehow" already have Hydrogen. Where do we get a continuing supply of entangled particles without expending energy?

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (1)

Old Wolf (56093) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849901)

Something tells me that energy conservation still holds...

I don't think there's any suggestion that energy conservation is being violated. TFA is extremegly vague, but as far as I can tell, the suggestion is that there is some entropy in entanglement. Can anyone find a more detailed writeup?

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850021)

It took a bit of searching, but I found a better summary.

http://goo.gl/9niNw [goo.gl]

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850097)

So linking to the front page of some sports network is the new rickroll these days, or what?

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850169)

Troll

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (2)

lurker1997 (2005954) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850295)

If entropy is equivalent to information, doesn't the information that the particles are entangled itself represent additional entropy?

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (5, Informative)

Zex_Suik (951570) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850429)

I should have linked to this in the submission, but here is the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.6872v1.pdf [arxiv.org] From their abstract: "entangled states require less measurement cost because we can perform feedback control without decreasing the entropy of the system, and hence the memory does not need entropy production to compensate for the feedback gain."

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40851041)

Yes but can it push my Chevy around town?

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850391)

Yep. Something was not included in the math. Also missing: a plausible means of entangling a boxfull of particles and a plausible means of using the entanglement to harvest energy. But aside from the mathematical sleight of hand and the unphysicality, everything looks legit.

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (2)

sp332 (781207) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850677)

Since you're not *un*-entangling the particles during the experiment, the energy used to entangle the particles shouldn't matter. Besides, they're not talking about a specific amount of energy, they mean there is a technique to sort *all* of the higher-energy particles into one side of the box. That means you can extract some energy from the diffusion when the particles re-randomize, and then do it all over again to collect (over time) an unbounded amount of energy.

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850733)

If the particles are entangled, measuring the one should also alter the other.

      Brett

Re:Would not one have to spend energy... (2)

epine (68316) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850919)

Stupid physicists. The given information (which particles are entangled) is a thermodynamic asset. I guess they decided not to count this, since there isn't an experiment (which I'm aware of) to test particles for entanglement. I think you have to know they were stamped out with the same vintage code.

This whole thing smells more of violating presumptive accounting categories than real physics. But then I'm an even stupider arm-chair physicist.

And suddenly (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849509)

Humans are now in the future.

When can we Star Trek?

Re:And suddenly (0)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850001)

shortly after the world war three and the eugenics wars.

Re:And suddenly (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850171)

Can we combine them to get it over with quicker?

Re:And suddenly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850331)

Weren't the eugenics wars over by the late nineties anyway?

How does this measurement work? (2)

Lord Lode (1290856) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849515)

So you have two particles which are entangled. One is moving fast, one is moving slow. You measure one, and you then get the speed of *both*? How does that work? Does the measurement instrument have two dials?

Also, maybe the entanglement itself is worth the extra energy :)

Article title (5, Informative)

Old Wolf (56093) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849521)

doesn't seem to match the rest of the article. TFA talks about how they can extract more usable energy from the system using entanglement, but it doesn't violate any physical laws. The only violation is in the title!

Re:Article title (5, Funny)

mrstrano (1381875) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849681)

Physical laws only apply in TFA, titles exist in a parallel universe where physics does not have strict laws and the only thing that matters is clicks.

Re:Article title (5, Funny)

Odin's Raven (145278) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850405)

Physical laws only apply in TFA, titles exist in a parallel universe where physics does not have strict laws and the only thing that matters is clicks.

But as we know from basic Slashdot theory, the title and TFA are entangled at the point of publication - the so-called "quantum firehose phenomenon". Just look at the number of people who, from examining the title alone, are able to determine the article's content in sufficient detail to completely refute it without having read a single word. This is, of course, the real-world equivalent of Gallagher's Watermelon, which as we all know is based on the classic deiknymi (the ancient Greek term for "dessert") or gedankenexperiment (German, literally "seed spitting contest") in which a watermelon is put inside a box with a Geiger counter, a vial of Roundup, and a small sample of radiactive material, the contents of which become irrelevant once you hit them repeatedly with a sledgehammer. It doesn't really have much to do with science, but it's quite a lot of fun.

Re:Article title (3, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#40851273)

The title is technically accurate (misleading as hell, but accurate): you can, indeed, get more energy from a system than predicted by the classical law of thermodynamics. You just have to extend the law to include the energy bound in the quantum entanglement, which classical thermodynamics does not.

Radioactivity is out, quantum entangelment is in. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849525)

So.....when can we expect the electron pump ?

why doesn't entanglement work both ways? (2)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849565)

I get how two different entangled particles can share behavior, and how you can check one to test the other, but why don't things that affect one particle cause the entangled particle to also be affected?

And the other question I had on this is with the Brownian Motion. When you throw up a barrier to stop a particle from moving, and it hits the barrier, isn't that newton's 3rd law at work? Both deflecting the particle and providing equal but opposite energy to the barrier? How is this accounted for in this conservation of energy model? That would seem to be the missing input of energy?

Lets say that little invisible demon gets knocked back a little by the deflection of the particle. He eventually has to reposition himself back where he was, in front of the door. That requires energy. And I think there is where we are adding energy into the system that we think we're getting for "free".

(I'm no quantum mechanic, I only work on Fords)

Re:why doesn't entanglement work both ways? (3, Funny)

Smallpond (221300) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849811)

Q. Where do you get Maxwell's demon?
A. Monster.com

Re:why doesn't entanglement work both ways? (5, Funny)

Chemisor (97276) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850369)

> monster.com

Job title: Maxwell's demon

Job description: evaluates energy of subluminal particles. Makes time-critical decisions and pass/fail determinations on them. Operates retractable gate assembly. Supervises particle passage through the gate. Maintains the integrity of the gate assembly through preventive maintenance.

Job requirements: Ph.D. in Physics with 15 years of experience specializing in quantum mechanics and entanglement. At least 10 years of industry experience with retractable gates. Minimum 12 years of experience required with FPGA controller development and .NET programming. Must be able to make quick decisions under pressure (23 kPa or higher) and possess excellent interpersonal communication skills. Must be able to repeatedly lift up to 34 ng.

Compensation: 42 kJ/hour

Re:why doesn't entanglement work both ways? (2)

Rei (128717) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850399)

Work (change in energy) is force times distance. The barrier is not moving, hence, no work is being done to it, any more than you standing on the floor is doing work to it because of gravity. The particle is retaining its kinetic energy, just redirecting it - again, no change in energy. The energy input comes in from Brownian Motion - the heat (motion) of the particles on which the particle is intercting. But that's seemingly a violation of the 2nd law at hand. The missing piece of the picture is the entropy embodied by the information used to decide whether to lower the gates.

Re:why doesn't entanglement work both ways? (1)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#40851313)

The barrier is not moving, hence, no work is being done to it,

To block something, you have to have an interaction with it. And then we have newton's first law. The barrier may not move, but somehow some way there is a change in energy in the barrier. Temperature, orientation, location, etc.

If I run my truck into a brick wall and the wall doesn't move, it doesn't mean I had no affect on the wall. At the very least, I created sound, heat, cracked some bricks, and broke some mortar free of bricks.

Although conservation of energy is the point we're hashing out, for the purpose of comparison it helps to remember that it ought to hold true, and when you keep that in mind, it helps you find the less obvious places energy has escaped to.

Re:why doesn't entanglement work both ways? (2, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850617)

I think it works more like ebola. Lets say I give some guy ebola. Then he bumps into you. Then I test him and find out he has ebola. Now I know you also have ebola. If I shoot him at this point, that doesn't affect you. You're still just out there putting your ebola in everyone. See where I'm going with this? The entanglement is ebola! You now have to find and shoot both particles before everyone's wandering around with ebola! Get to it!

Fail (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849619)

No information is gained, for the same reason that separating entangled particles by a great distance and then measuring one doesn't result in information traveling faster than the speed of light.

This is like saying putting a red ball in one bag and putting a blue ball in an identical bag, then shuffling the bags around, then looking in one bag gives you free information about the other bag. It doesn't.

Re:Fail (1)

v1 (525388) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849665)

looking in one bag gives you free information about the other bag

I think his point there was you paid for information about the one bag, and that your ability to infer the other information as a result means you got it for "free". Which I agree, is wrong. You always knew that the bags contained different balls. So no new information was gained, just clarification of existing information.

It's like me giving you one more number for your Sudoku puzzle and your then being able to solve the entire puzzle, all 15 remaining numbers. You got the other 14 numbers "for free"? No, you didn't.

Re:Fail (2)

Brad1138 (590148) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849833)

I have a problem with the "info is energy". If I tell you my toe hurts, exactly what energy can you get from that?

Re:Fail (1)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#40851305)

You just need to scream very loudly (think dilbert's annoying coworker) and stand in front of a small wind turbine!

Re:Fail (4, Interesting)

Old Wolf (56093) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849847)

No information is gained, for the same reason that separating entangled particles by a great distance and then measuring one doesn't result in information traveling faster than the speed of light.

This is like saying putting a red ball in one bag and putting a blue ball in an identical bag, then shuffling the bags around, then looking in one bag gives you free information about the other bag. It doesn't.

Not quite. The latter scenario is affectionately called "Bertlmann's socks"; once you separate the bag, it's true that one has the red ball and one has the blue ball but we don't know which until we look.

However, with a pair of entangled particles of spin state (up + down) for example, it's not the case that one is up and one is down. If you measure one particle in the "east" direction and find that it is pointing east, then the other one will be found to be pointing "west". It's been proven (Bell's inequalities etc.) that there is no possible "hidden state" that would account for the fact that the two measurements can be taken in arbitrary directions and still correlate.

Re:Fail (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849943)

And still you get no free information.
Since the particles are entangled you already know that their states are related. You can look at one and know the state of the other, but this information isn't free, it's accounted for when you entangle the particles.

Re:Fail (3, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850525)

"that there is no possible "hidden state" that would account for the fact that the two measurements can be taken in arbitrary directions and still correlate."

Not quite. Bell's theorem, and the experiments inspired by it, suggest that any classical theory (or hidden variable theory) would have to be non-local. The non-locality can be quite mild though.

Also, both the results of the experiments that show Bell's inequality is violated, and the theorem itself, are being challenged.

Re:Fail (1)

Old Wolf (56093) | about a year and a half ago | (#40851189)

Also, both the results of the experiments that show Bell's inequality is violated, and the theorem itself, are being challenged.

Usenet post "LOAL BELL AND EINSTEIN WERE WRONG truthfully in the 24 dimensions of te quantum pie blaaa.." doesn't count

Check the cables! (4, Funny)

Sebastopol (189276) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849627)

Just sayin', before they start publishing data they should check their cables. /ducks

Their excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849977)

Japanese physicists have used one of Maxwell's thought experiments and the ability to turn information into energy to extract more energy from an entangled system than should be possible according to the laws of thermodynamics .

I never studied law. [youtube.com]

-Bugs Bunny

Re:Check the cables! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850053)

no, they were plugged into a cat's bum

What about the energy... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849659)

What about the energy you need to spend in order to entangle these particles? Or it comes for free? Like the beer? Oh, never mind, keep swimming...

ZPE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849707)

Zero point energy is well known. Just not understood by most people including the readers of this site. All systems can be considered an open system when considering ZPE. Open systems have different rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Open_system

There have been several devices invented and some patented that produce excess energy presumably by integrating ZPE and capturing the potential. Electricity produced this way behaves differently. Shorting the wires will cause them to freeze rather than burn, for example. This is actually why these devices stop working when they attempt to "close the loop" to make it "self-powering."

That's good, though. There is still no "free lunch." These devices are very harmful the environment in ways not yet known to most. The laws of conservation of energy basically cause time to speed up in the presence of these "negative energy" fields produced by these devices relative to their environment. You can imagine how this is more devastating than the usual environmental harm we're used to with our power generation. So these really aren't a good energy solution.

The only answer is conservation and balance within one's own environment. The concept of unlimited wealth with infinite fiat currency is the culprit. The energy and environmental crisis would be resolved if we switched to a currency based on units of energy -- which would be finite. Everything would balance out.

Re:ZPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849827)

Everything is a mesmerade energy is your argument? Don't make me scoff! Your pseudoscience is merely a draconian procedure leading up to the events of Armageddon. Wow! Such a thing!

Re:ZPE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849845)

Agreed. Everything there is to discover about the physical universe is already well-known. Obvious troll is obvious.

try again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849925)

strawman. just because not everything is known doesn't automatically make pseudoscience correct.

Re:ZPE (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849855)

Your post is awesome - can I use it when I want to sound insane?

Re:ZPE (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850633)

Your post is awesome - can I use it when I want to sound insane?

Just get an ear bud for your cell phone, and stand on the street corner during telephone conversations.

What about the reverse? (2)

Commontwist (2452418) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849931)

If you make it can you break it? IE. If you can 'make' energy this way then can you 'unmake' it?

Re:What about the reverse? (2)

Snard (61584) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850895)

If you make it can you break it? IE. If you can 'make' energy this way then can you 'unmake' it?

If you break it, you bought it.

Simple adjustment: (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year and a half ago | (#40849941)

a cat somewhere dies to compensate. It all adds up.

Re:Simple adjustment: (1)

Longjmp (632577) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850065)

a cat somewhere dies to compensate. It all adds up.

What really makes me wonder is why you - and Schroedinger - dislike(d) cats.

Re:Simple adjustment: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850553)

They keep getting into my boxes and dying (or not)

More to this to come (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40849973)

When quantum mechanics get involved there is a big issue looming, more on a high level, dare I say philosophical level. For instance if the idea of parallel universes there is a question about where the energy\mass\etc come from. It a big issue in time travel theory. Infinite but different universe's imply on a basic level that there is enough energy\mass to account for all those. In one universe a hydrogen atom exists but in another it was obliterated into pure energy and ended up a carbon atom in the end. Yet there must be a hydrogen atom in universe A and a carbon atom in universe B. Either the universes operate by index (the fundamental particles are 'tagged') and each universe is differentiated by the index of what fundamental particles exists where\when\etc (conserving the mass of the universe in a way) or somehow we are creating alternate universes out of thin air... so to speak. Then you get into a real mess when you start having a conversation about time travel and "does the past exist" or is there only the current moment, if so then where is that energy in relation to it's future state. If I travel back in time to observe our hypothetical hydrogen atom and you stay in the present, then how can we account for the mass\existence of the hydrogen atom I am observing as you look at the carbon atom. Since I've travelled back in time, assuming the parallel universe approach, where did the universe in which I am observing the hydrogen atom get it's mass\energy from? Did it copy the universe with the carbon? It's ugly to think about.... Not saying this is hard science but there are some lingering questions about the fundamental laws once we start talking about quantum physics. FUCK YOU AND YOUR DAMN CAT!!! I'm getting a beer now...

totally trivial (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850089)

totally trivial and uninteresting. they just defined information wrong. there's no information for free. the total information of two entagled particles is less than that of two un-entangled particles. duh. so what? also, 2+2=4.

conservation of energy and information still holds just fine. this is just a trivial example _of_ conservation.

Description sounds familiar (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850131)

Imagine two boxes of particles with a trap door between them. You want to use the trap door to guide the faster particles into one box and the slower particles into the other.

Pffft, they're just looking for an excuse to play Pong all day (in reverse-paddle mode).

Maxwell's Demon (0)

treeves (963993) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850155)

also breaks the Laws of Thermodynamics. Just sayin'.

Re:Maxwell's Demon (1)

pipedwho (1174327) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850603)

Maxwell's Demon only violates Thermodynamics if you don't count the energy required to sense the medium and switch gate. The demon in that case would be some externally powered system and thus the entropy is transferred from within the monitored containment out to the external apparatus and environment driving the process. Thus, no net loss of entropy.

So unless you can somehow put the 'demon' outside of our measurable universe, thermodynamics still applies.

How much energy to entangle the particles? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850503)

I wager it takes just a bit more energy to entangle the particles than they are getting out. I also wager it takes at least "just a bit more" energy to obtain information on where entangled particles are, assuming you did not create them yourself.

They have NOT done it (2)

SoftwareArtist (1472499) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850535)

The summary is very misleading. This work is purely theoretical. They have not actually succeeded in doing it, contrary to what the summary would make you think.

It will be interesting to see whether someone can actually make this work in practice.

Japs need better schooling. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40850931)

They are forgetting, that at the start, you know not what particles are entangled with what other particles, and whether the particles in one box are entangled with the particles in the other box. See, they are assuming prior knowledge, and here we go, they just broke the closed system, they set things up incorrectly, they are already adding energy based on the original calculation and entanglement.

Question (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#40850975)

Ok I don't know anything about entanglement, so here is my question: Does it take double the energy to change the spin on an entangled particle?

Wanking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40851077)

why is this posted under physics?
the article describes little more than mathematical masturbation.

Energy from information? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#40851119)

Neato.... what's the theoretical minimum number of joules it takes to represent a bit?

Spying IS good for you! (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about a year and a half ago | (#40851179)

Excellent! Now we have to figure out how to entangle all the information the NSA, CIA, FBI, Dept. of Homeland Security and local police forces have gathered on unsuspecting people and we can have an unlimited source of power. I love it when a plan comes together.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...