Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [XT] Einstein's action at a distance: 10,000 times faster than light
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[XT] Einstein's action at a distance: 10,000 times faster than light - Page 7

post #61 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvergoat View Post

Quantum entanglement isn't movement, it's a state of being......way down at the subatomic level.

This. I kind of imagine this as a pole with a ball on each end. When I turn one ball, the other also moves, without a signal of some sort that has to travel across. They're just connected.
Corona
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 6700K ASUS Z170-A Gigabyte GTX 780 Windforce GEiL EVO Potenza 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 Samsung 850 EVO WD Caviar Green 2TB Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Caviar Blue (apple) Antec Kühler 620 Windows 10 Pro 64bit MacOS 10.12.1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
YAMAKASI Catleap Q270 2560x1440 Apple wired OCZ 850w Modular NZXT H630 White 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech Performance MX Zalman Z-Machine ARGON 7460A 
  hide details  
Reply
Corona
(19 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 6700K ASUS Z170-A Gigabyte GTX 780 Windforce GEiL EVO Potenza 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 Samsung 850 EVO WD Caviar Green 2TB Samsung Spinpoint F1 750GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
WD Caviar Blue (apple) Antec Kühler 620 Windows 10 Pro 64bit MacOS 10.12.1 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
YAMAKASI Catleap Q270 2560x1440 Apple wired OCZ 850w Modular NZXT H630 White 
MouseMouse PadAudio
Logitech Performance MX Zalman Z-Machine ARGON 7460A 
  hide details  
Reply
post #62 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostalTwinkie View Post

....

I will be back after I have woke up.
People were also skeptical that a person could travel faster than the fastest horse without damaging themselves. Then people were skeptical that people could travel in a car without damaging themselves, all due to "going too fast".

Then people were ultra skeptical when Fiber Optic technology was being developed saying "It is just light! You can't transfer information over light!".....then we figured out how to pack net data in that and pick it up at the other end.

While Einstein has a laugh right now, it might not be the last laugh. If that "random" data can be sent between the two atoms across vast distance, it is just a matter of time before we figure out how to pack non-random data in with that random data. The word "Random" itself is a bit subjective, I can show someone who has never coded a webpage any code used to do so and it would be "Random" to them. But someone with the proper insight, coding experience, can read it like we can read this very text...

Random is about perspective, and from the right perspective, some things aren't so "Random".
Who was skeptical about Fiber Optic technology? Of course, one could transfer information over light since there are two absolute states... On/Off. (See: Morse Code with predated fiber optics).

Most of your examples do not have scientific merit though..... it was just some lay people being scared.

You also are misunderstand quantum entanglement.... It's not random data. Data means a piece of information. The moments you measure a quantum particle it gets a state. The act of reading a particle affects the state. This trick can be used to send information once.

Also we are talking about the scientific definition of random. Random as in scope of the universe simulation to make it not random.

Example would be cosmic background radiation..... how do you predict or even estimate what the next value would be (and hence make it non-random)? They only way would be to simulation the existing universe to get an exact value.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukkooh View Post

Why write a wall of text when you could have basically said that you completely understood my point?
Because your example was an invalid example and your point is weak since ANYTHING can never be the "truth". However, for science to proceed on top of the shoulder of giants.... they have to accept something as truth for all intent and purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radeon915 View Post

This. I kind of imagine this as a pole with a ball on each end. When I turn one ball, the other also moves, without a signal of some sort that has to travel across. They're just connected.
No. That's not it. It's quantum physics.... Newtonian physics need not apply.

Both particles are all states simutaneously. When you attempt to read the state of one particle, it collapses into one state. The other entangled particle will also collapse into the same state.


Schrödinger's cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat



NOTE TO ALL: Do not attempt to apply your real-world observation or understanding of the every day to quantum physics.... it gets weeeeeeeird.
Edited by DuckieHo - 3/8/13 at 10:06am
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
Once again...
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 920 [4.28GHz, HT] Asus P6T + Broadcom NetXtreme II VisionTek HD5850 [900/1200] + Galaxy GT240 2x4GB G.Skill Ripjaw X [1632 MHz] 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel X25-M 160GB + 3xRAID0 500GB 7200.12 Window 7 Pro 64 Acer H243H + Samsung 226BW XARMOR-U9BL  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec Truepower New 750W Li Lian PC-V2100 [10x120mm fans] Logitech G9 X-Trac Pro 
  hide details  
Reply
post #63 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

Who was skeptical about Fiber Optic technology? Of course, one could transfer information over light since there are two absolute states... On/Off. (See: Morse Code with predated fiber optics).

Most of your examples do not have scientific merit though..... it was just some lay people being scared.

You also are misunderstand quantum entanglement.... It's not random data. Data means a piece of information. The moments you measure a quantum particle it gets a state. The act of reading a particle affects the state. This trick can be used to send information once.

Also we are talking about the scientific definition of random. Random as in scope of the universe simulation to make it not random.

Example would be cosmic background radiation..... how do you predict or even estimate what the next value would be (and hence make it non-random)? They only way would be to simulation the existing universe to get an exact value.

My post was directed at the general attitude people have had about scientific advancements over human history, not the specifics of the science being discussed in this thread. It wasn't just the "lay" person who was against some of the examples I listed, but those in the various scientific communities surrounding those fields.

Something you aren't taking into consideration is that in every generation of the scientific community there has been someone, or a group, that feel we are at the height of human advancement! That we know it all! This is it, the top of the charts! To even think about discussing anything on the quantum level being possible or not, without considering that anything is possible, is a bit silly.

In the grand scheme that is the Universe, we as a species just "recently" thought this planet was still flat. Only a fraction of time ago we started looking at Gravity from a mathematical and scientific point of view. What we think we know about how this Universe, or any other Universe, works is so small, I doubt there is even a measurement for it.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 5820K AsRock Extreme6 X99 Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti Windforce OC 16 GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 EVO 250GB - HDD Speed Edtition Samsung SM951 512 GB - I still hate Samsung!  Noctua NHD14 Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
Achieva Shimian QH270-Lite Overlord Computer Tempest X27OC  Acer Predator XB270HU Filco Majestouch 2 Ninja 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Seasonic X-1250 Fractal Design R5 Razer Naga Razer Goliathus Alpha 
AudioAudio
AKG K702 65th Anniversary Edition Creative Sound Blaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
post #64 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PWN]Schubie View Post

They say exactly that
And it isn't an arbitrary value, it is a lower bound that they were able to establish with their setup.

But the concept of a lower bound in a situation like this provides no worthwhile conclusion.
They don't know when a particle becomes entangled , because in order to determine whether something is entangled or not, they would have to measure it, which means it would be unentangled since measurement breaks entanglement. Unless you can measure entanglement without disturbing the entanglement system, you're not going to be able to find out the speed at which entanglement works, which is a concept that you can't even apply to the math of QM. If the lower bound is 10,000 times the speed of light, then that leaves every value from 10,000 to infinity. It would be far more monumental if they we're able to establish that 10,000 was the upper bound, because then we would know for a fact that it is finite. A lower bound is absolutely worthless in this situation basically.Basically all the lower bound is saying is that their equipment is fast enough to see a change over a distance at a speed 10,000 times the speed of light.
Edited by serp777 - 3/8/13 at 4:01pm
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
2500k 5.0 ghz 1.39v Asus p8p67 deluxe SLI 465 4 gb gskill 1600mhz Cas 6 
Hard DrivePower
ocz vertex 2 60 gb 650 watt 
  hide details  
Reply
post #65 of 174
The 'Ansible' from Ender's game!
Black friday 13'
(13 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
phenom 945 asus 4890 mushkin 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
ocz vertex lite on vigoor monsoon windows 7 
PowerCase
corsair 750 lian li lancool 
  hide details  
Reply
Black friday 13'
(13 items)
 
   
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
phenom 945 asus 4890 mushkin 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
ocz vertex lite on vigoor monsoon windows 7 
PowerCase
corsair 750 lian li lancool 
  hide details  
Reply
post #66 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by lambecrikas View Post

I like it when these complex are presented here and all of a sudden these threads are flooded with "experts" arrowheadsmiley.png

LOL
Pancake-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 @ 5.0 GHz ASUS Rampage IV Extreme x79 (4) EVGA 4GB 680 GTX 8GB (2x4) G.Skill PI @ 6-8-6-20 (1600 Mhz) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Series Samsung Blueray Windows 7 64 Ultimate 50'' 1080P Panasonic Plasma & (3) Asus VE248 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
"overclock.net" Ducky DK9008 Shining 1200W Cooler Master GOLD Silverstone Raven RV03 Razor Deatheradder 'Black Editon' 
Mouse PadAudio
Nova W3 Klipsh 2.1 
  hide details  
Reply
Pancake-PC
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3820 @ 5.0 GHz ASUS Rampage IV Extreme x79 (4) EVGA 4GB 680 GTX 8GB (2x4) G.Skill PI @ 6-8-6-20 (1600 Mhz) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 830 Series Samsung Blueray Windows 7 64 Ultimate 50'' 1080P Panasonic Plasma & (3) Asus VE248 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
"overclock.net" Ducky DK9008 Shining 1200W Cooler Master GOLD Silverstone Raven RV03 Razor Deatheradder 'Black Editon' 
Mouse PadAudio
Nova W3 Klipsh 2.1 
  hide details  
Reply
post #67 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieHo View Post

No. That's not it. It's quantum physics.... Newtonian physics need not apply.

Both particles are all states simutaneously. When you attempt to read the state of one particle, it collapses into one state. The other entangled particle will also collapse into the same state.


Schrödinger's cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat



NOTE TO ALL: Do not attempt to apply your real-world observation or understanding of the every day to quantum physics.... it gets weeeeeeeird.

That's actually a good way of thinking about it - anything is possible until you look at it (basically), and then you know. You also know the opposite, in the other example. Kinda like a bag of balls - reach in and grab one, and until you pull it out, you don't know what colour it is. If there are only 2 balls, you know the other too, through a process of elimination (I'm not sure if this is a model of quantum entanglement or not - could be your last point applies)

On your last point - this is why I hate quantum physics. Science should be based on observations in my opinion. If you can't observe it (or have some hypothesis explaining your observations), they're not valid. Sure, make up theories, but in that case, you have to hold all theories as valid until disproved. So, whoever said that we live on a giant pink elephant might be right, as might religion.

This is what cheeses me off about using epidemiology as the basis of medical news - show me a biological theory behind it, and I'll believe you. There was a story in the week, saying that "processed meat" increases your risk of cancer. No biological reason, just a statistical observation. That isn't news imo. Stats are not the "be-all-and-end-all" - the OPERA team showed that, with their FTL neutrinos
Edited by chemicalfan - 3/11/13 at 5:28am
Little Beast
(12 items)
 
Black 'n' blue II
(15 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4710MQ Nvidia Geforce GTX860M 2GB 16GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz 240Gb Silicon Power S55/S60 SSD 
Hard DriveOSOSMonitor
1Tb Toshiba HDD 5400rpm Windows 8.1 Linux Mint 18 17.3" LED 1920x1080 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
PCSpecialist Optimus V ST17-860 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK Creative HS800 Fatal1ty 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 860 @ 1.25V MSI P55-GD65 Xpertvision Radeon HD4850 4GB G.Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
150Gb Velociraptor & 1Tb WD Caviar Black Opticon Lightscribe DVD-RW DL Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Vista Home Premium x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hyundai BlueH H224W 22" LCD Saitek Eclipse II Thermaltake Purepower RX 550 Galaxy III 
Mouse
Patuoxun optical gaming mouse 3200dpi 
  hide details  
Reply
Little Beast
(12 items)
 
Black 'n' blue II
(15 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4710MQ Nvidia Geforce GTX860M 2GB 16GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz 240Gb Silicon Power S55/S60 SSD 
Hard DriveOSOSMonitor
1Tb Toshiba HDD 5400rpm Windows 8.1 Linux Mint 18 17.3" LED 1920x1080 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
PCSpecialist Optimus V ST17-860 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK Creative HS800 Fatal1ty 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 860 @ 1.25V MSI P55-GD65 Xpertvision Radeon HD4850 4GB G.Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
150Gb Velociraptor & 1Tb WD Caviar Black Opticon Lightscribe DVD-RW DL Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Vista Home Premium x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hyundai BlueH H224W 22" LCD Saitek Eclipse II Thermaltake Purepower RX 550 Galaxy III 
Mouse
Patuoxun optical gaming mouse 3200dpi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #68 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemicalfan View Post

That's actually a good way of thinking about it - anything is possible until you look at it (basically), and then you know. You also know the opposite, in the other example. Kinda like a bag of balls - reach in and grab one, and until you pull it out, you don't know what colour it is. If there are only 2 balls, you know the other too, through a process of elimination (I'm not sure if this is a model of quantum entanglement or not - could be your last point applies)

On your last point - this is why I hate quantum physics. Science should be based on observations in my opinion. If you can't observe it (or have some hypothesis explaining your observations), they're not valid. Sure, make up theories, but in that case, you have to hold all theories as valid until disproved. So, whoever said that we live on a giant pink elephant might be right, as might religion.

This is what cheeses me off about using epidemiology as the basis of medical news - show me a biological theory behind it, and I'll believe you. There was a story in the week, saying that "processed meat" increases your risk of cancer. No biological reason, just a statistical observation. That isn't news imo. Stats are not the "be-all-and-end-all" - the OPERA team showed that, with their FTL neutrinos

I won't get into much about your post, as my quantum physics is really rusty, last studied in 2004. But you are careless with your terminology, it is make up hypothesis. If you test something long enough and you validate your results they become theories, and all theories are valid until disproved. It kind of is the basis of the scientific method.

That is the basis of epidemiology, they have the math done, and evidence to support their theories. But like any science, it isn't ever "proven", it is supported by further evidence or discredited.
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
post #69 of 174
Fair comment - I meant hypothesis, not theory. My point was, that I don't consider a hypothesis alone to be valid in it's own right. I require some scientific reasoning behind it, which will require some form of previous observation, or reasonable extrapolation. In terms of physics, I don't mind non-testable theories (like string theory), as long as they can be communicated in a "classical way". For example, string theory (any of them) is primarily a mathematical exercise (as I understand it), cooked up by mathematicians many years ago. Now, on the face of it, I'd reject it, as it has no relation to the observed world. However, people have explained it in "real" terms, that all particles are the same string vibrating at different frequencies, and interacting on branes. This makes it real, and I can understand it and believe it. For me, this is the distinction between science and maths - a very big distinction in my opinion. Mathematicians are NOT scientists, although they may work on science (in fact, in terms of physics, they are probably more important for the generation of maths of the theories).

My point about epidemiology is when stats are used to spot trends in a population, and that is published (in popular press) as a result. In my opinion - it's not a result until a scientist (not a mathematician/statistician) has assimilated the data, and come up with a practical/real/classical hypothesis as to the reasons behind the stats. When that's investigated/tested, THEN it becomes a result.

Appreciate that this is my own opinion - I'm aware it's not the standard (otherwise epidemiology wouldn't make the national press), but I'm entitled to think how I like tongue.gif
Little Beast
(12 items)
 
Black 'n' blue II
(15 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4710MQ Nvidia Geforce GTX860M 2GB 16GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz 240Gb Silicon Power S55/S60 SSD 
Hard DriveOSOSMonitor
1Tb Toshiba HDD 5400rpm Windows 8.1 Linux Mint 18 17.3" LED 1920x1080 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
PCSpecialist Optimus V ST17-860 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK Creative HS800 Fatal1ty 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 860 @ 1.25V MSI P55-GD65 Xpertvision Radeon HD4850 4GB G.Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
150Gb Velociraptor & 1Tb WD Caviar Black Opticon Lightscribe DVD-RW DL Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Vista Home Premium x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hyundai BlueH H224W 22" LCD Saitek Eclipse II Thermaltake Purepower RX 550 Galaxy III 
Mouse
Patuoxun optical gaming mouse 3200dpi 
  hide details  
Reply
Little Beast
(12 items)
 
Black 'n' blue II
(15 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4710MQ Nvidia Geforce GTX860M 2GB 16GB Kingston DDR3 1600MHz 240Gb Silicon Power S55/S60 SSD 
Hard DriveOSOSMonitor
1Tb Toshiba HDD 5400rpm Windows 8.1 Linux Mint 18 17.3" LED 1920x1080 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
PCSpecialist Optimus V ST17-860 Logitech MX518 Steelseries QcK Creative HS800 Fatal1ty 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 860 @ 1.25V MSI P55-GD65 Xpertvision Radeon HD4850 4GB G.Skill Ripjaw 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
150Gb Velociraptor & 1Tb WD Caviar Black Opticon Lightscribe DVD-RW DL Noctua NH-U12P SE2 Vista Home Premium x64 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Hyundai BlueH H224W 22" LCD Saitek Eclipse II Thermaltake Purepower RX 550 Galaxy III 
Mouse
Patuoxun optical gaming mouse 3200dpi 
  hide details  
Reply
post #70 of 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemicalfan View Post

Fair comment - I meant hypothesis, not theory. My point was, that I don't consider a hypothesis alone to be valid in it's own right. I require some scientific reasoning behind it, which will require some form of previous observation, or reasonable extrapolation. In terms of physics, I don't mind non-testable theories (like string theory), as long as they can be communicated in a "classical way". For example, string theory (any of them) is primarily a mathematical exercise (as I understand it), cooked up by mathematicians many years ago. Now, on the face of it, I'd reject it, as it has no relation to the observed world. However, people have explained it in "real" terms, that all particles are the same string vibrating at different frequencies, and interacting on branes. This makes it real, and I can understand it and believe it. For me, this is the distinction between science and maths - a very big distinction in my opinion. Mathematicians are NOT scientists, although they may work on science (in fact, in terms of physics, they are probably more important for the generation of maths of the theories).

My point about epidemiology is when stats are used to spot trends in a population, and that is published (in popular press) as a result. In my opinion - it's not a result until a scientist (not a mathematician/statistician) has assimilated the data, and come up with a practical/real/classical hypothesis as to the reasons behind the stats. When that's investigated/tested, THEN it becomes a result.

Appreciate that this is my own opinion - I'm aware it's not the standard (otherwise epidemiology wouldn't make the national press), but I'm entitled to think how I like tongue.gif

There are measurable, reproducible tests for some portion of some of those theories. You take the good with the bad when you are talking about something so small that it happens within the diameter of the nucleus of a hydrogen atom.

There is no scientific barrier for the sensationalism. Most things posted and broadcast by the media are either just shy of being a fallacy, or an outright fabrication of "facts". I share your views on the topic, but it is the media you have issue with, not the epidemiologists.
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
Nightrider
(17 items)
 
Commodore 64
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3930k x79 gd45 PLUS GTX Titan Crucial Ballistix Sport VLP  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
HyperX 3k Intel 320 Seagate Barracuda Swifttech H220 
CoolingCoolingOSOS
Swifttech 220QP Corsair SP120 Windows 8.1 Pro Windows 10 Pro 
OSOSMonitorMonitor
Windows 7 Home Ubuntu 15.4 QNIX 2710 Catleap 2B 
Keyboard
Ducky - Cherry MX Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k DZ77GA - 70K GTX670-DC2-4GD5  MV-3V4G3D/US 
Hard DriveCoolingOSOS
HyperX 3k CM 212 + Win 7 64 ubuntu 
PowerCase
Seventeam 850w modular CS-NT-ZERO-2  
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [XT] Einstein's action at a distance: 10,000 times faster than light