"Entangled quantum batteries". I'd fund that one just for the cool terminology.

Anyone knows what a typical energy density in such a battery where number of batteries increases to the point where it's almost optimal would be (which would be between 20 and 40 if I read their paper correctly)? I.e. what the 'thermodynamical bound' is?

It's not clear from the article whether the battery is entangled internally, or whether two or more separate batteries are entangled. If the latter, you could end up with a power transmission scheme where you pump energy into a stationary battery and the mobile mate in your car makes use of the power. Holy science-fiction, batman!

Holy science-fiction, batman!

Batman uses 'atomic batteries'. Very old school.

It's not clear from the article whether the battery is entangled internally, or whether two or more separate batteries are entangled.

From their paper:
"As we are dealing with small quantum systems we may
wonder whether using processes that entangle two iden-
tical copies of a given battery can yield a higher energy
extraction."

So it seems it's several batteries that are entangled. I.e. each battery can deliver a given energy value - but when you couple (entangle) two of them it's more than two times the energy of one battery.

If the latter, you could end up with a power transmission scheme where you pump energy into a stationary battery and the mobile mate in your car makes use of the power.

Not really, as these two separate systems would not be entangled.

Entanglement and coupling are not exactly the same thing. Coupling implies that two independent systems are somehow joined together and are exchanging work. Entanglement means that all members of an ensemble are required to fully describe the expected outcomes of the system (which are probabilistic.) For entangled quantum batteries, the probabilities for electron transfer improve as the properties are shared between more and more cohorts. In essence, as you add batteries, the system gets more and more robust, from a probability standpoint. Eventually, you reach a point where the probabilities of electron transfer overcome conventional (or in the words of the paper, 'independent') battery losses.

Why not go all Douglas Adams and build an Improbability Battery or a Bistro Battery? Cool!

I was wondering why charging a nano-suit took so much time in minecraft. I guess that's 'cause there is no quantum-battery mod yet.

(Phys.org)—Theoretical physicists Robert Alicki… theorize that it should be possible to build an almost perfect entangled quantum battery. … their overall performance approaches the thermodynamic limit.
If ever an entangled quantum battery were made with nearly perfect energy transfer… allow for the creation of batteries that are far superior to those used in everyday applications such as lithium-ion battery packs.

This is amazing, unfortunately nowadays it seems that we still do not understand whether the entanglement is really happen or not, and if it is true then how does it work! Knowing the mechanism of quantum mechanics below may help the quantum battery idea.
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en

Electrons in metals are entangled and these batteries really do work with high efficiency. What next?

Quantum Mechanics is very spooky. That's for sure. Quantum mechanics has for many years been used in new age to "prove" the existence of esp, paranormal activity, telepathy etc. ad infinitum, but those ideas are getting closer and closer to a scientific bluestamp.

I have been a fan of Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford University for many years. He was the first scientist to say that consciousness should be found in the quantum field rather than in the brain. I am so much a fan, that I made my own theory out of the idea that consciousness might be explained through a better understanding of antimatter and parallel universes.

My idea is that antimatter is the mirror of this universe, and that antimatter might be where memory is located.

I think that the subconscious mind and consciousness are located in parallel universes in the form of antimatter. That makes the spirit and maybe even God all physical, so basically I could be said to be an atheist, even though I consider myself spiritual.

I have been a fan of Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford University for many years. He was the first scientist to say that consciousness should be found in the quantum field rather than in the brain. I am so much a fan, that I made my own theory out of the idea that consciousness might be explained through a better understanding of antimatter and parallel universes.

Why has the comments section of this site become so much of a sink for cranks and crazies?