Which idea from science is most commonly misrepresented or oversimplified

Evolution through natural selection.

>>8430281
quantum mechanics, by a mile


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiAj7S6ko9Q

Quantum theory, because it's impossible to explain it without simplifying it.

>>8430281
Schrodinger's cat

>>8430335
Don't forget quantum entaglement, Everett's many world interpretation and quantum teleportation.

>>8430292
Sad thing is that goofy Dr Q video is actually pretty good

>>8430475
Though black holes are also quite heavily mistreated, as are their retarded cousins, wormholes.
The so-called "Big Bang" theory, black matter, dark energy, string theory, the Higgs mechanism, tachyons... pretty much anything that requires a Feynman diagram, a quantum state or General Relativity... so pretty much any concept formed after 1915. 1905 if we include the appalling treatment that special relativity is sometimes subjected to.

>>8430288

FPBP, dubs dubble-confirm

>>8430292

SPGP, these two topics comprise the better part of the grist of popsci's mill.

Although it is hardly ever touched by "popsci" as-such, the topic comes up periodically in internet conversations, media and so on and gets lost in translation often enough that it warrants tertiary mention, behind these:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

>>8430335

Pretty much this.

Probably string theory, since it's never explained in terms of strings vibrating and then magic happening.

>>8430737
Sorry, always explained that way*

>>8430281
>it can be a zero and a one at the same time

just, no.

>>8430335
THIS

>>8430281
Entropy and disorder

>>8431730
I cringed every time my gen chem teacher described entropy as "the amount of randomness" in a system. I guess you get what you pay for at community college.

Anything from modern physics

>>8430292
What the hell is the extra garbage around this video wow what a gagger. This lady is so full of shit.

Why don't physicists just say it upfront? Nonadiabatic interaction causes wavefunction collapse, NOT some kind of conscious observation.

>>8430281
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cel.... NO IT ISN'T! It's an ancient bacterium which established a symbiotic relationship with early Eukaryotic cells, and it has many functions including protein quality control, apoptotic signalling, extinguishing free radicals, etc.

>>8430281
>Which idea from science is most commonly misrepresented or oversimplified by popsci?

That einstein was even a scientist.

>>8431895
Also wasn't there a eukaryotic cell discovered recently without a mitochondrion?

>>8430335
came here to post this

>>8430281

Electromagnetic waves.

Walter White's uncertainty principle

>>8431865
Cause that isn't testable. But...you are also right

>>8432582
Kek

>>8430281
0.999... = 1

>>8432682
I've never actually seen this in popsci, what have you seen?

>Which idea from science is most commonly misrepresented or oversimplified by popsci?

Tesla's wireless transmission of energy.

Pop-sci has allowed people (even electrical engineers) to claim they understand his methods and that it wouldn't work.
Facts;
a. we live in a low frequency EM resonant cavity bounded by the surface of the earth and the ionosphere.
b. bounded waves have different properties than free space waves
c. efficient methods of injecting and extracting EM energy under bounded conditions (waveguides) are NOT like traditional free space EM antennas
In short Tesla's method is not feasible if you make the false assumption that the energy is in the form of traditional free space wave EM. (radio waves)

>>8430281
>Which idea from science is most commonly misrepresented or oversimplified by popsci?

The hypothesis that einstein was a scientist.

>>8431895
Well it's still the organelle that produces most of the ATP in an eukaryotic cell so it IS the powerhouse of those cells, even if it does other stuff and has an endosymbiontic origin.

>>8432018
>>8433402
Define scientist.

>>8431746
That's exactly what it is though, a measure of the disorder of a system

>>8432576
Heck, they're misrepresented in undergraf lecture courses too. It took me a while to convince my friend that they're not actually extending out from their axis of propagation like a wave on a string.

>>8434027
*undergrad obviously

>>8430335

DAMMIT BEAT ME TO IT

File: weeping_angel.jpg (27KB, 570x321px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 570x321px

>>8430281
Double slit experiment, coupled with a deliberate misunderstanding what is meant by "observer" or "measure".

I swear, anyone whose watched one of these new-age self-actualization videos seems convinced that quantum physics proves dogs have souls.

>>8430292
AND THAT SHIT AIN'T HELPING!
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

Thousands of people are getting sent back to the 1960's every day, because they don't realize that the weeping angels are gonna get you whether you are looking at em or not.

>>8430281
Evolution, it's way more complicated than what they teach you in high school. The misinformation that biology teachers provide is also the main reason for the huge amount of creationists claiming they can prove that evolution is not real.

>>8433952
so how's your community college treating you?

>>8432760
I see this often.
1/3 = 0.(3)
so 3 * 1/3 must be equals to 0.(9), but also be 1 since 3 * 1/3 = 3/3 = 1

>>8434052
I don't want to ruin it for you anon but that's called math, not popsci, and that's valid

>>8434045
>they can prove that evolution is not real.

But evolution is not real. A tree structure model is outright laughable if you put the smallest amount of thought into it.

Any decent theory must be in the form of a DAG.

>>8434068
Unless you are talking about prokaryotic systems where lateral genetic translation is possible, then the tree architecture is the only outcome.

>>8434066
But 1/3 isn't 0.3
0.3 is 3/10

Like if you said 1/3 is 0.34 then you get 1.02 the if you round it to 1dp it's just 1

>>8434078
I thought by 0.(3) you(?) meant 0.33333333333...

>>8433952
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTFY0H4EZx4

>>8430288
elaborate

>>8431895
Yes, it is the powerhouse of the cell. It produces ATP and is the site of cellular respiration. Without it, cells would have no energy and be unable to go through mitosis or meiosis.

>>8434299
>cells would have no energy
Now that's partly wrong, cells (including eukaryotic) have other ways to produce energy. Most of it comes from the mitochondria though.

>>8434078
Nobody says 1/3 = 0.3.
1/3 = 0.33333333333... and when both sides are multiplied by 3 you get 3/3 = 0.999999999..., thus 1 = 0.99999999...
This is called mathematics.

>>8434088
>>8434050
I only just started thermo on my mech eng course at uni and the only other thermo I've done is A2 chemistry which was pretty simplified but is standardised across the country (England). After reading up I see that it's the number of possible combinations in a system

Pretty much everything ever said about the brain has been severely twisted by the general public..

>>8431895
Your evidence for it not being the main source of energy for the modern-day cell is about its history, which has very little relevance or significance to it's current function.
In other words, your argument is not an argument for whether or not mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell, which makes it entirely irrelevant.

>>8430335
>DUDE, ZOMBIE CATS
Would've said this