Recent comments in /f/science

AutoModerator t1_j6z2tns wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

FwibbFwibb t1_j6z15br wrote

> Could we potentially use it to communicate with distant space craft, like with a Mars rover type vehicle?

This comes up every time an article on entanglement is posted, and the answer is always the same: no.

You don't know whether two things were "entangled" until you do the measurements on each and then compare them.

Measuring destroys the entangled state. But if you have one particle and it's the other particle that gets measured, you will not know about it until you do your own measurement and compare.

And actually one measurement isn't enough. The entanglement could have been broken long before the measurement and the answer you got just coincidentally looks like an entangled state. The only way to truly know is to do measurements on a number of these entangled systems and compare the statistics. If the measurements always come back indicating entanglement was present, then you can be sure entanglement is happening.

11

giltwist t1_j6ytez6 wrote

7

Immortal_Tuttle t1_j6yshv5 wrote

Interesting, as our university (biomed department actually) was doing research of influence of alpha brain frequencies on learning process in late 90s early 2000s. They were taking the EEG of a person to check for different bands and then they were stimulating person with the pure frequency or different percentage mix and checking how long the learning process took. As humans have problems with hearing infrasounds the audio stimulus was delivered via differential or modulated audio signals, the visual stimuli were delivered via precisely controlled LED light source (they were checking the shape of the wave controlling the LED - if I remember correctly a sinewave was giving the best results).

The difference with this new research was that they were using audio stimuli and the learning test was conducted during the stimulation, while in this new research the test was conducted immediately after the stimulus (and it was visual only). Audio stimulation is tricky as the frequencies are so low, so you have to use a carrier in the hearing range modulated with the frequency under test. IIRC they were testing a single ear, both ears with same signal and both ears with differential signal. And actually the differential signal was working (identical signal was working as well - it just had to be properly modulated - I don't remember if there was any difference in results between those two).

I am not saying that hemi-sync and other brands deliver what they promise, just that principle of stimulating brain with person's own frequencies was tested years ago and differential aural signal stimulus (known commonly as binaural beats for some reason) if matched with person's own frequencies can be used as a stimulus in this case.

1

amoralhedgehog t1_j6yn3ti wrote

That's not really true.

Firstly, binaural beats and hemi-sync don't work. They have been widely researched and show no benefits in or out of clinical context. They are produced by the alternative medicine community and marketed as a method of essentially getting high.

Secondly, binaural beats and hemi-sync do not operate on frequencies that match individual brain oscillatory states. So this new research does not relate to them nor corroborate any claim of their benefits.

1

raygundan t1_j6yfaww wrote

> We need "COFFEE GOOD" or "COFFEE BAD".

The problem is that for things like this, there really isn't a black-and-white answer like that. It will be good for some things and bad for some things and then it will probably vary by person on top of it.

As a general rule of thumb, if you read an article that says something like "red wine is good for you," you can safely assume the study was really, really specific and said something like "red wine can slightly reduce blood pressure in people with mildly elevated blood pressure" and that it's the reporter who has oversimplified. It's not like the risks of alcohol consumption increasing your chance of cancer and liver damage and so on went away... it just also does this other thing they found.

15