Science Odds and Ends

The surgical removal of the appendix and tonsils before the age of 20 was associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack in a large population study performed in Sweden. Tonsillectomy increased the risk by 44% (hazard ratio 1.44) and appendectomy by 33% (HR 1.33). The risk increases were just statistically significant, and were even higher when the tonsils and appendix were both removed. However, there was no risk association evident when the operations were performed in people over the age of 20.

Like many physicists, Michio Kaku thinks our universe will end in a "big freeze." However, unlike many physicists, he thinks we might be able to avoid this fate by slipping into a parallel universe.

One of the most fascinating discoveries of our new century may be imminent if the Large Hadron Collider outside Geneva produces nano-blackholes when it goes live again. According to the best current physics, such nano blackholes could not be produced with the energy levels the LHC can generate, but could only come into being if a parallel universe were providing extra gravitational input. Versions of multiverse theory suggest that there is at least one other universe very close to our own, perhaps only a millimeter away. This makes it possible that some of the effects, especially gravity, "leak through," which could be responsible for the production of dark energy and dark matter that make up 96% of the universe.

The work has another strange implication. The idea of parallel universes would apparently side-step one of the key complaints with time travel. Every since it was given serious credibility in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel, many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect. An example would be the famous “grandfather paradox” where a time traveler goes back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place.

But if parallel worlds do exist, there is a way around these troublesome paradoxes.

That misappropriation of Darwin’s identity is emblematic of the X-Men films’ tortured portrayals of key ideas in biology. The movies are of course meant to be fun, not factual, and it feels like the height of stodginess to warn: “SPOILER ALERT: This film about superpowered telepaths and shape-shifting blue women is not a science documentary." There’s probably no point in wasting time discussing how various powers conferred by the fictional X-gene mutations violate physical laws, because they are really fantasy devices like the spells in Harry Potter books.

Nevertheless, it is worth looking at some of the film’s errors about evolution and speciation because they may be reinforcing some popular misconceptions.

We spend a third of our lives asleep. Every organism on Earth—from rats to dolphins to fruit flies to microorganisms—relies on sleep for its survival, yet science is still wrestling with a fundamental question: Why does sleep exist? During Shakespeare and Cervantes’ time, sleep was likened to death, with body and mind falling into a deep stillness before resurrecting each new day.

In reality, sleep is a flurry of action. Trillions of neurons light up. The endocrine system kicks into overdrive. The bloodstream is flooded with a potent cocktail of critically vital hormones. Such vibrant activity begs the question: Where do we go when we go to sleep? Based on new sleep research, there are tantalizing signposts. Join us in exploring this slumbering journey.

This week on MonsterTalk, we talk with Dr. Brian Regal about his new book, Searching For Sasquatch: Crackpots, Eggheads & Cryptozoology. It’s an academic book about the history of the search for Sasquatch—yet not about Sasquatch.

Is cryptozoology a pseudoscience? Is it a waste of time? Does real science care about monsters?

In this episode of MonsterTalk we’ll take a look at Cryptozoology through the eyes of a science historian, and find that many of the common myths about why science doesn’t embrace cryptzoology have less to do with dogma and more to do with caution.

Aiden is a scientist, yes, but while most of his peers stay within a specific field – say, neuroscience or genetics – Aiden crosses them with almost casual abandon. His research has taken him across molecular biology, linguistics, physics, engineering and mathematics. He was the man behind last year's "culturomics" study, where he looked at the evolution of human culture through the lens of four per cent of all the books ever published. Before that, he solved the three-dimensional structure of the human genome, studied the mathematics of verbs, and invented an insole called the iShoe that can diagnose balance problems in elderly people.

His approach stands in stark contrast to the standard scientific career: find an area of interest and become increasingly knowledgeable about it. Instead of branching out from a central speciality, Aiden is interested in ‘interdisciplinary’ problems that cross the boundaries of different disciplines.

At just 31 years of age, Aiden has a joint lab at MIT and Harvard. In 2010, he won the prestigious $30,000 MIT-Lemenson prize, awarded to people who show "exceptional innovation and a portfolio of inventiveness". He has seven publications to his name, six of which appeared the world’s top two journals - Nature and Science. His friend and colleague Jean-Baptiste Michel says, "He's truly one of a kind. I just wonder about what discipline he will get a Nobel Prize in!"