by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
There is a very intriguing story out there that was shared by L.N. with our gratitude, because that story concerns one of those obvious problems that is not so obvious until someone points it out: is there a limit to quantum entanglement? Or, to put it differently and more precisely: if the second law of thermodynamics is true, should there not be a similar phenomenon in entangled systems, introducing more “noise” (and hence, less “entanglement”) into the systems, to the extent that, at some point, entanglement and non-locality break down completely? (leaving us with… with what, exactly? Leibniz’s monads? an undifferentiated Dirac sea? and to really crawl out onto the end of the twig of high octane speculation, what if the mechanism or means of entanglement is that undifferentiated Dirac sea? But that’s a topic for another day.)
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
With questions like these, some physicisists are proposing that there is such a quantum entanglement version of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and they are arguing their case by proposing a kind of “battery” that can actually store up “entanglement” and which can release that “entanglement” as needed:
(See also the following article, referenced in the above article, for the opposing view:
There is no second law of entanglement after all, suggests a study
From the first article:
But there’s been a missing piece: a quantum version of the second law of thermodynamics. This classical law states that systems naturally tend toward greater disorder (higher entropy) and that while reversing a process perfectly is theoretically possible, it’s extremely rare and requires ideal conditions.
In the quantum world, reversibility doesn’t mean rewinding time. Instead, it means that an outside agent can change a quantum system’s state and then return it to its original state without losing any information, a form of perfect control. Until now, proving this kind of reversibility for entanglement had been elusive.
These features led to the idea of an “entanglement battery”:
To tackle this problem, researchers often envision two people, typically referred to as Alice and Bob, who are separated and wish to share quantum information. However, there’s a catch: they can only interact with their local quantum systems and communicate with each other using conventional methods, such as a phone or the internet.
This setup, known as LOCC (Local Operations and Classical Communication), simplifies things. It also means that, regardless of what Alice and Bob do, they can’t directly alter the deep, nonlocal connection —the entanglement —between their quantum systems.
Under LOCC operations, entanglement is irreversible. Considering this, researchers in this study posed the question: Can we somehow go beyond LOCC in a meaningful way and recover reversibility?
They found the answer that it is possible, as long as Alice and Bob share an additional entangled system: an entanglement battery.
Like an ordinary battery stores energy, an entanglement battery injects and stores entanglement. Imagine Alice and Bob have access to a special kind of battery, not one that stores electricity, but one that stores entanglement. This entanglement battery can be used to help them change the state of their quantum systems. They’re allowed to charge or drain the battery during the process, but there’s one strict rule: they can’t reduce the total amount of entanglement in the battery.
…
The idea of an entanglement battery can be expanded into a broader concept: a resource battery. This is an extra quantum system that facilitates a transformation, as long as it doesn’t reduce the key resource being utilized, whether that’s entanglement, coherence, or something else.
It’s this idea of an “entanglement battery” that has me intrigued, and it’s that very idea that led me to propose my outlandish question above: what if that undifferentiated Dirac sea is the fundamental mechanism behind entanglement? If so, then it takes little imagination to see how the whole idea of a “zero point energy” relates to an “entanglement battery”, which, in these terms, might be viewed as a local system with an over-unity coefficient of performance that is balanced out by an increase of entropy in some other (entangled) local system. or to put the point differently, I am but a hack from South Dakota, and certainly not an information theorist nor a physicist, but I do not see how an entanglement battery is even possible without the Dirac sea.
And that implies some fundamental reconstructions of the whole edifice will eventually be necessary. In short, this is one to watch, because should the idea of “entanglement batteries” be eventually proven, then the implications for computing, encryption, decryption, and such wild and woolly things like teleportation, are immense, and one can predict a new kind of “arms race” between nations as they all scramble to have the biggest and most efficient “entanglement batteries”… One might go even further into the world of wild and woolly speculation, and imagine “non-locality batteries”, but we’re getting way out over our skis and ahead of the story.
