Coffee is not Caffeine: When Researchers Make Dumb Equations

This one comes out of Duke University (2008, January 28), a world-renown institution at which one would think researchers would have gotten the memo that, especially in the world of biology, context matters.

The article, Cutting Caffeine May Help Control Diabetes, from ScienceDaily, makes the now common logical and biological error of equating the chemical caffeine with foods that contain caffeine.

Anyone who has experienced the difference between drinking coffee and taking caffeine pills knows what I'm talking about.

It doesn't take a scientist to know that somehow the body sees a big difference between downing a couple of "No-Doz" pills and drinking even the "equivalent" amount of caffeine.

That's because, in the body, the caffeine in coffee apparently is modulated by the literally thousands---yes, thousands---of compounds in complex relationships with each other and with chemicals produced by the body that is nowhere near equatable with the consumption of pure caffeine.

The Duke University study did the following:

Participants took capsules containing caffeine equal to about four cups of coffee on one day and then identical capsules that contained a placebo on another day. Everyone had the same nutrition drink for breakfast, but were free to eat whatever they liked for lunch and dinner.

The researchers found that when the participants consumed caffeine, their average daily sugar levels went up 8 per cent. Caffeine also exaggerated the rise in glucose after meals: increasing by 9 percent after breakfast, 15 percent after lunch and 26 per cent after dinner.

Please.

Whether caffeine, in its purified, pill form, does or does not effect blood glucose levels and, thus, diabetes, is not my point. What I want to point out is that it's not helpful in the least---and, in fact, it seems kind of dumb---that researchers ignore the incredibly complex nature of a food that delivers a chemical, caffeine, in a biologically meaningful context and blithely assume that pure caffeine, not modulated by that incredibly complex food, effects the body the same way.

Coffee is NOT caffeine. To wit:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2007, August 2). Coffee Drinking Related To Reduced Risk Of Liver Cancer. ScienceDaily.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2007, May 25). Drinking Four Or More Cups Of Coffee A Day May Help Prevent Gout. ScienceDaily.

American Academy Of Neurology (2000, November 14). Study Ties Coffee Use With Lowered Parkinson's Risk. ScienceDaily.

JAMA and Archives Journals (2006, June 28). Coffee Intake Linked To Lower Diabetes Risk. ScienceDaily.

Harvard School Of Public Health (2004, January 6). Long-Term Coffee Consumption Significantly Reduces Type 2 Diabetes Risk. ScienceDaily.

One message is: if you're worred about blood sugar levels, stay away from caffeine pills!

Quantum Physics and "Them Dry Bones"

One principle in quantum physics sets out that everything in the universe is, at bottom, information and that information is never lost. Information may be cut up, scrambled, blurred or whatever, but it is not "lost."

IOW, in the example of a building that is demolished by an explosion, theoretically all the information that comprised the building still exists and, if it could be gathered, the building---unlike Humpty Dumpty---could put back to together again.

This point became the crux of the debate on Stephen Hawking's "The Information Paradox."

But here's a point on a different note.

This principle of quantum physics---that information is never lost---is a principle also evidenced in man's nonscientific conclusions.

To see this, we have to look to conclusions / principles humans have reached in developing various belief systems.

In one major belief system, Christianity, there is a story of a valley of "dry bones" which gather their former information and reform into living human bodies. This is very similar to the example given by quantum physicists (the demolished building being reassembled).

In the context of a belief system, the occurence (or future occurence) of this event is what we commonly call a "leap of faith." However, logically the first step in a "leap of faith" must involve a measure of acceptance of the conclusion that such an event is possible.

Although here the belief system contains no observable or articuable basis for the conclusion that human bodies, being made of information, theoretically can be reassembled, arguably the possibility of such an event is proven by quantum physics.

If information is never lost, then the information in the valley of dry bones was not lost and, theoretically, could be reassembled. This is true whether the story was intended literally or as an example of a discerned principle about the universe.

Thus, in developing their nonscientific explanations of the universe, the ancients reached the same conclusion as quantum physics. Huh?

I am fascinated with the times that scientific knowledge (based on observation and extrapolations from observation) and unscientific knowledge (based on intuition, imagination and (some claim) some type of revelation) correlate.

Philosophically, when scientific knowledge posits a theory that, fundamentally, is the same as that posited by a myth, legend, belief system developed apart from and without the help of science, is that corroboration?

What does it say about our ability to discover facts / truth? Does it indicate that there are multiple valid ways to discover facts / truth?

If a theoretical conclusion is posited by both science and nonscience, is it more likely to be valid? Or does this fact speak more to something basic about how humans think?

If a theoretical conclusion is not posited by both science and nonscience, does that fact indicate anything about the validity of the scientific or nonscientific theory or conclusion? Is corroboration a one-way street?

How did the ancients discover and accept such a principle of quantum physics?

Swarmbots and Human Social Organization

Recently I saw two programs on the Science channel with information about swarmbots. In both programs, scientists were studying ants as a way to discover principles to apply to the collective functioning of swarmbots.

Ants constantly accomplish huge collective tasks, such as organizing their nests, yet they do so without any real means of communication, with no observable plan or rigidly assigned functions, with no way of perceiving the collective result of their individual actions, and with no leader.

A group of scientists in England have succeeded in making a "brood" of swarmbots that can accomplish a collective task under similar circumstances. The swarmbots are able to sort frisbees, collecting the white discs into a certain area or pattern and collecting the black discs into a certain area or pattern. (In addition to the above constraints, this task is accomplished without any onboard vision mechanism.)

How?

Interestingly, the scientists theorized that individual ants labor under a certain set of "rules," the result of which is the accomplishment of a huge collective task (and, I noticed, incidentally the effectuation of a regularized social order within the nest).

So the scientists mulled what type of rules might lead to the collective accomplishment of sorting frisbees. They came up with four and programmed the swarmbots accordingly.

The first rule was if you're moving forward and nothing stops you, keep on going.

The second rule was if you run into a large immovable object, such as a wall or another bot, make a random turn and then keep going (See Rule # 1).

The third and fourth rules had to do with picking up the frisbees. They were something like, if you pick up a white frisbee, take it a certain distance and drop it. And similarly do something objectively indeterminate if you pick up a black frisbee.

The swarmbots were then set to do their swarming according to these rules. After many hours, the frisbees were sorted and in their "correct" places. Moreover, this result was achieved even if not all the swarmbots functioned correctly or obeyed the rules. So long as the majority of bots did what they were supposed to do, the nest was as it should be and order reigned.

It occurred to me that this is a perfect illustration of how human social order is achieved and maintained. The majority of individuals obey a small set of simple rules, even though they cannot necessarily perceive how their individual act contributes to the collective result. Even if a percentage of individuals malfunction, or refuse to obey the rules, order still results so long as most individuals function in accordance with the rules.

Yes, there are people who break down or who insist upon banging their head against a dead-end. But so long as most people who hit an obstacle will turn around and try a different direction, and keep trying a different direction until they can move forward unimpeded, society as whole will move toward accomplishment of collective goals and social order.

It would be interesting to study the effect of majority obedience to a simple rule such as saying "please" when asking for something and saying "thank you" when receiving something. It's intuitive, in a gushy sort of way, that this would make social life better. But the ant-society-derived view of rules may explain this process in actuality.

And it may explain why "small" violations of what might be called the rules of our social contract---for example, rude talk and violent gestures in public---seemingly lead inexorably to some measure of breakdown in the larger social order.

IOW, it's one thing to observe that when most people obey the "rules" (whether the rule be one of law or one of custom or one of common decency and consideration in how to treat another human being), society is a more pleasant place for everyone. It's quite another to explain the actual mechanism by which this increased social order occurs.

Ants provide much insight for those researching robots. But I think they are a very apt subject for those studying human sociology as well.

Pasta and Climate Change.

What does cooking a big pot of pasta have to do with climate change?

It's a graphic example of what it takes to trap heat in an air space.

The theory of the "greenhouse effect" has been around for a long time and its salient idea has been stated in many different ways. Regardless of how it's stated, it is a central hypothesis of how the earth could become abnormally warmed.

Simply put, the "greenhouse effect" hypothesizes that, through some atmospheric mechanism (I will use the word "mechanism" here in its conceptual, not technical sense), heat becomes trapped in the earth's atmosphere, thus causing the earth to heat up, thus causing catastrophic climate change.

Much of the discussion on this point centers on whether certain activities create "greenhouse gasses" or contribute to the "greenhouse effect" (that is, contribute to the atmospheric mechanism that traps heat against the earth).

IOW, the greenhouse effect and all its sequelae (in whatever context) assume that (1) it is possible to put a lid on the earth's atmosphere. Moreover, it assumes that (2) this lid can become large, stable and efficacious enough to trap heat.

Of course, there is more to the theory than that: it assumes, for example, that this trapped heat can become sufficient to abnormally warm the entire planet. It also assumes that this can occur without any change in the earth's major heat source, the sun. Further, there's a big difference between boiling water, with the heat source below the lid, and heating a greenhouse, with the heat source above the "lid." But for now I would like to concentrate on the examining the mechanics of this atmospheric "lid."

All cooks know that to boil water faster than usual, they can use a lid to trap heat in the pot. But the bigger the pot, the bigger the lid has to be. In fact, there's an inverse relationship between the size and tightness of the lid and its efficacy at trapping heat. Just from cooking pasta, I would guess that a lid has to be more than 50% the size of the pot before it has any noticeable capacity to trap heat and hasten boiling.

Moreover, to hasten boiling (heat increase), the lid mostly has to be kept on the pot. It must remain stable, and not be taken on and off.

For heat to become trapped in the earth's atmosphere, how much of the earth's atmosphere would have to be under the "lid"?

How stable would this "lid" have to be to effectively trap heat?

Even if the "lid" covered the entire earth's atmosphere, how likely is it that leaks (escape valves) would not exist ---IOW, that it would fit completely and remain stable (that size and in that place) for a sufficient amount of time to trap sufficient heat, and, moreover, remain uneffected (competent as a lid) by the heat building under it? (After all, this atmospheric lid would be made of gasses, not of metal or glass as a pot lid is.)

So here's what I'm asking:

If x (something like the creation of "greenhouse gasses") leads to y (an area that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere), to reach w (global warming resulting in catastrophic climate change), y would have to equal g (the percentage of the earth's atmosphere sufficient to trap heat sufficient to effect the global climate) x s (the period of time a g-size trap would have to remain in place [stable] to trap heat sufficient to effect the global climate).

In this analysis, to demonstrate that something like the creation of "greenhouse gasses" leads to global warming, you'd have to show:

x = y
y = g x s
g x s = w
w = x

What do you think?

Death by Biological Black Hole

Previously on this blog, I posited a hypothesis about the existence of biological black holes.

Basically, I extrapolated my idea from an explanation of how supermassive [astrophysical] black holes are integral to the formation of galaxies.

To restate my hypothesis on the existence of biological black holes:

1. Sperm and egg cells contain vast (relative to their size) stores of energy.

2. When a sperm cell penetrates an egg, either the collision of the two cells' energy stores or the "combustibility" of the fuel that results from combining the two cells' energy stores results in an explosion.

3. This explosion, ultimately, results in the formation of a biological black hole that feeds off the fuel, like an astrophysical black hole feeds off its quasar.

4. The biological black hole causes matter to condense---the creation of cells (analogous to the creation of stars).

5. The continued functioning of the black hole pushes those cells outward, eventually forming the body.

6. The biological black hole feeds until its fuel (its "quasar") is gone and then enters a (relative) "quiet" state.

This hypothesis addresses the formation of the physical component of "life."

Might it also explain the formation of the physical status we call "death"?

Here's what I'm thinking.

As I said in my initial piece, my thoughts here were prompted by two programs on astrophysical black holes, one on supermassive black holes and one on Stephen Hawking's theory of the information paradox.

One fact I gleaned from these programs is that, while scientists theorize and prove mathematically the destructive power of black holes, and they do attribute some movement of stars to the effect of black holes, no one yet has been able to image matter actually being sucked into a black hole and, supposedly, disappearing (at least from human sight).

[This brings up the question of the information paradox, as proposed and later elaborated upon (some say repudiated), by Stephen Hawking . However, I am putting the information paradox, and all its associated controversy, aside for the moment.]

What I am wondering about is this:

On the one hand, a scientist noted that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has hundreds of millions of black holes, and that there may be many, many small black holes throughout the realm in which we live---as the scientist said, for example, there may be black holes "in this room or in my head."

On the other hand, since, according to scientists, black holes retain their destructive power after they stop feeding on their quasars and enter a (relatively) quiet state, why are they not wreaking measurable or image-able destruction wherever they occur? Why has no one been able to image matter / information entering a black hole?

I wondered if, in the ying and yang that seems to characterize all that exists, the destructive force of black holes is countered by some force or phenomenon that acts as a black-hole shield.

I also contemplated how the continued, though apparently at times abated, destructive power of black holes would function in my hypothesis of the existence of biological black holes. (I am also now calling these biological black holes "primal" black holes, as they are present at and integral to the formation of a living entity and remain associated with that entity until the entity no longer exists in its present form.)

Here's an idea:

If biological black holes exist and function to form new physical structures (such as a human body), then we could hypothesize that, like astrophysical black holes, biological black holes persist in a quiet state and retain their destructive potential.

This, then, would be a way to explain the physical component of the process we call "death."

The hypothesis of death by biological black hole would go like this:

Death of a biological entity, such as a human body, occurs when that entity's associated biological black hole (the bbh formed when the energy stores of the sperm and egg collided or combined to create an explosion, and which then condenses the matter and pushes it into the form of the entity) becomes reactivated and begins to feed off the entity's presently unrecognized cellular energy stores.

(These energy stores go beyond what we know about mitichondrial-produced energy and so on. They are along the lines of nuclear energy. I will call this energy ozz.)

The biological black hole sucks increasing amounts of energy (ozz) out of the body.

(Again, it must be emphasized that here "energy" has a much broader, though presently undefined, meaning than its usual usage in biology. Moreover, since the form of this energy is unknown, the way it is stored and how it is associated with the body is unknown. Therefore, to state the biological black holes sucks energy (ozz) "out of the body" means something like "out of the body and its associated energy stores.")

As the biological black hole depletes the body's ozz, the body begins to die. If not interrupted, the reactivated biological black hole continues to feed off the body's ozz (associated energy stores) until the body is dead and, ultimately, decomposed.

As we observe, the process of death can be fast or slow. It can be sudden or appear to be sudden. If what we call the physical component of death is essentially the reabsorbtion of the body's matter / information into that body's associated (primal) biological black hole, then what causes or allows the reabsorbtion at one point in time, but not others?

IOW, if a biological black hole, like an astrophysical black hole, remains at all times able to destroy---in this hypothesis, to induce the process we call "death" in living entities---why does death occur one day and not another? Why does a particular event cause death in one entity but not in a seemingly similarly situated entity? What abates the destructive power of the black hole until death occurs?

This abatement could be related to the size of the entity's ozz stores. The more ozz, the more protected the body is against the destructive power of its associated black hole. And perhaps the entity's ozz stores can be influenced by what we call "healthy choices."

Or it could be that the primal biological black hole is not actually quiet after construction of the body, but rather that it has a different energy source it feeds on while it appears "quiet." But at some point this different energy source is depleted. Then the primal biological black hole taps into the entity's ozz and feeds on it until the physical component of death and decomposition of the body is complete or sufficiently interrupted.

What we view as "sudden death," then, would be the visible result of a sudden ozz depletion caused by sudden voraciousness of the entity's primal biological black hole.

In any event, if it were proved correct that biological (primal) black holes formed entities' physical component---such as a human body, then I would hypothesize that death occurs by the destructive force of those black holes.

What do you think?

A Theory of the Existence of Biological Black Holes

Last night, I watched back-to back programs on PBS on the subject of black holes. One program was on supermassive black holes and the other was on the history of the "information paradox" posited by, and later superceded (some say repudiated) by, Stephen Hawking.

Once black holes were "discovered" (i.e., recognized), scientists originally thought they were a rare phenomenon. Now scientists know that, even in our own galaxy, there are hundreds of millions of black holes. Moreover, they have concluded that at the heart of every (or most every) large galaxy, there is a supermassive black hole.

Here's how I heard the information presented.

Initially, the consensus seemed to be that these supermassive black holes were coincidental with a galaxy, but not integral to it. IOW, that the supermassive black hole was some sort of "leftover" from the process of galaxy formation; a remnant of a largely destructive force that no longer exerted influence on the coherent relationships of the stars (and whatever else that presently is unrecognized) in the galaxy.

Scientists were wrong. Now they believe that not only are supermassive black holes integral to the structure of a galaxy, but that supermassive black holes are an important, if not the, mechanism for galaxy formation.

The following explanation is for a general overview, but it probably is not completely accurate, or completely technically correct, but here's the gist as IRI:

The process of galaxy formation, restating what I learned from this program, involved the formation of the supermassive black hole, which then began to feed violently on the gasses of its quasar.

This process of energy consumption led to the condensation of matter---the creation of stars.

As the black hole continued to consume energy, the force of this process pushed the stars outward. The black hole continued this process of energy consumption until its quasar was completely consumed.

At this point, the black hole had exhausted its energy source and, therefore, it went "quiet" (terms such as "quiet" are always relevant, in my view; yes, the black hole is no longer in a feeding frenzy viz-a-vis its quasar, yet that by no means demonstrates that it is devoid of activity or influence).

When the black hole went quiet, the stars were "set" (again, relatively speaking) in their galaxy.

I wondered: did a black hole enter a "quiet" state simply because it consumed all the energy available for its so-called "active" state?

IOW, would a black hole continue to consume quasar-like energy infinitely if it had an infinite source of such energy?

Further, would a "quiet" black hole re-enter an active state if it were resupplied with quasar-like energy? IOW, could and would the black hole begin feeding again if it had a new source of energy?

As I contemplated this explanation of the formation of galaxies, and my questions set out above, I began to relate this to other ideas discussed in these programs.

First, that black holes traditionally have been viewed as destructive, not creative.

That the destructive power of a black hole has only been theorized, never imaged.

So here's what I'm asking:

It seems to me that the process of formation---here, of galaxies---is fundamental. That is, that it has patterns or mechanisms that, at some level, are repeated in every process that results in formation of something. One of these patterns seems to be release of energy (e.g., the force pushing the stars away from the active / "feeding" black hole) through the consumption of energy (e.g., the black hole consuming its quasar).

So this might mean that our understanding of the formative process for galaxies could help explain other formative processes.

Based on that, I set out an hypothesis of the existence of biological black holes that are analogous to astrophysical black holes, as follows.

Take the example of the formation of a human body.

Put in terms of galaxy formation, here's the hypothesis:

Sperm cells and ova contain (not yet recognized) vast (relative to their size) stores of energy that act like fuels that are combustible only in combination.

When a sperm cell penetrates an ovum, either a violent collision of energy (cellular energy that is not yet recognized) or combustibility caused by combining two cellular fuel stores results in an explosion that leads to formation of a biological black hole.

This explosion of (what we will presently call) the cellular fuel stores of the sperm and the egg results in a "quasar" that feeds the biological black hole.

As the biological black hole feeds vigorously on its quasar, it causes the condensation of matter---the creation of cells.

As the biological black hole continues to consume energy, the force of this process pushes the cells outward. The biological black hole continues this process of energy consumption until its quasar is completely consumed and the cells have formed a human body, like the stars form a galaxy.

Of course, this hypothesis does not address how the cells differentiate and organize. (Then again, the theory of galaxy formation does not address how the stars, at some level, differentiate and organize into a coherent structure, a galaxy.) But it does go to how the initial spark for the formation of a new structure (here, a human body) might occur.

What do you think?

First Things - The iwonder Guide to Wondering

As the first post on this blog, and as I'm sure it will take a while to get to writing the explanatory sidebars, let me begin with this qualifier:

What I am about to embark upon here is an exposition of a layman's contemplation. I have no specialized knowledge in all the fields I may muse on, but I enjoy what essentially is "shooting the breeze" at a high level.

While I try to use language in a precise way, clearly I will not always use words in their technical sense or as terms of art. For example, "consumption," as in "consumption of energy" no doubt has a precise technical meaning, but I would more likely be using its popular meaning.

The point is, try to get the gist of the idea before picking at the technicalities.

The whole point is that I believe a more frequent melding of science (thinking that requires more or less rigid adherence to certain parameters) and imagination (thinking that has no bounds and is even fantastical) might just lead us to some astounding insights.

Plus, it's just plain fun.

Really, there has to be more to read and talk about on the internet than Britney Spears stories.

So here's to throwing stuff out there and seeing if anything sticks. Happy Cogitation to all!