News Feeds

April has a lot to offer when it comes to popular science reading, promising to help us do everything from future-proof our brains courtesy of Hannah Critchlow, to get to grips with really big numbers, thanks to Richard Elwes

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “woe,” literally begs the question of whether he was the True Prophet.

The early universe is absolutely so far outside our understanding of how the world works it's hard to describe in words. Back then, the cosmos wasn’t filled with stars and galaxies but with a boiling soup of quarks and gluons, with a few microscopic black holes thrown in, occasionally detonating like depth charges. That’s the early universe theorized by a new paper, available in pre-print from arXiv, from researchers at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and MIT anyway.

Scientists have unveiled a new approach to ultra-secure communication that could make quantum encryption simpler and more efficient than ever before. By harnessing a 19th-century optics phenomenon called the Talbot effect, researchers developed a system that sends information using multiple states of single photons instead of just two, dramatically boosting data capacity. Even more impressive, the setup works with standard components and requires only a single detector, reducing cost and complexity.

There is a quiet revolution going on. While so much media attention is being spent on debating the risks vs benefits of raw milk, the latest outrages from the systematic dismantling of quality science at the CDC and other federal agencies, and by the tsunami of terrible medical science being pushed on social media, science-based medicine marches on. Public awareness of recent […]

The post Smart Drugs Are Here first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

A virus seems to have jumped from marine animals into people for the first time ever, and it is causing serious vision problems

Plug-in solar panels are a cheaper, simpler alternative to professionally installed panels. But can they really reduce energy bills and are they safe? Matthew Sparkes investigates

A study based on tree rings claimed that droughts played a role in events that led to the Roman withdrawal from Britain, but other researchers say that isn't backed up by historical evidence

A collection of stories set in George R. R. Martin’s Wild Cards universe and a novel from The Expanse author James S. A. Corey are among the science-fiction books we’re looking forward to this month

The planet Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun, and also the most difficult for spacecraft to visit and explore. This is because as spacecraft get closer to Mercury, the Sun’s enormous gravity pulls in the spacecraft, greatly increasing its speed and making it hard to slow down without large amounts of fuel. But what if a spacecraft could both travel to and explore Mercury without fuel? This could drastically reduce mission costs while delivering impactful science.

Scientists studying Bennu samples have discovered that its chemistry is far from uniform. Organic compounds and minerals cluster into three distinct types of regions, each shaped differently by past water activity. This uneven pattern shows that water altered the asteroid in a complex, localized way. The survival of delicate organic molecules adds an important clue to how life’s building blocks may persist in space.

Scientists have transformed a groundbreaking 2D nanomaterial called MXene into an even more powerful 1D form—tiny scroll-like tubes that are incredibly thin yet highly conductive. By rolling flat sheets into hollow nanoscrolls, they’ve created structures that act like fast “highways” for ions, boosting performance in batteries, sensors, and wearable electronics.

The planet Venus is often called “Earth’s twin” due to the similar sizes, but the reality couldn’t be farther from the truth. Unlike Earth, which is hospitable to an estimated billions of lifeforms, Venus is not hospitable to life as we know it, at least on its surface. This is because the surface of Venus not only experiences an average temperature of 464 degrees Celsius (867 degrees Fahrenheit), but it also has crushing pressures approximately 92 times of Earth, or equivalent to approximately 1 kilometer (3,000 feet) below the ocean. These extreme surface conditions are why the longest spacecraft to survive on the Venusian surface is just over two hours.

Ordinary telecoms grade optical fiber could help planetary scientists better characterize the moon’s deep interior as well as its lava tubes, say two new journal papers.

The Universe expanded rapidly soon after the Big Bang, and we aren't sure why. But a theory of quadratic quantum gravity might be the answer.

Because many readers have been saying I was wrong in thinking that Bill Maher was jesting when he did a recent “New Rules” piece on UFOs, in which he seemed to be joshing when he said that he’d changed his mind and now believes in them, I queried the pretty reliable AI bot Grok to find out. My question is in bold below, and Grok’s answer is indented.  The good thing about Grok is that it gives links (see sources below) so you can check their claims.

 

Does Bill Maher believe in extraterrestrial beings visiting Earth in UFOs?

Thought for 20seconds

Yes, Bill Maher currently believes that extraterrestrial beings (or non-human intelligence) are visiting or observing Earth via UFOs/UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena).

foxnews.com

In a “New Rule” monologue on the March 27/28, 2026 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher (titled “The Disclosure Moment”), he stated:

“Given the increasing number in recent years of sightings by serious military personnel of unknown aircraft operating outside our apparent abilities, if at this point you don’t believe aliens are here and observing us, maybe you’re the conspiracy theorist. … They’re here, they came in a sphere, get used to it.”

youtube.com

He added that his view has evolved: “My opinion changes when the information changes.” Maher contrasted this with older abduction stories (which he dismissed as anecdotal from “rural people”), noting that current reports come from credible military pilots, intelligence officials, and bipartisan figures describing objects that defy known physics—accelerating instantly, moving between air and water seamlessly, and “playing peek-a-boo” with the military.

foxnews.com

This stance appears consistently in his recent appearances. For example:

• On his Club Random podcast with filmmaker Dan Farah (director of the UFO documentary Age of Disclosure, which Maher has promoted), he discussed government cover-ups of crashed UAPs, recovered non-human bodies, reverse-engineering efforts, and why disclosure could spark a global tech race. youtube.com
• He has raised the topic multiple times on Real Time in the past several months, treating recent UAP reports from “serious people” (military, politicians, officials with security clearances) as compelling evidence rather than fringe claims. realclearscience.com

Critics (including some skeptics and science writers) have called this a shift to “full-blown believer” territory and questioned the evidence, but the question is about Maher’s own position—not whether it’s correct. He has long been a vocal skeptic of pseudoscience and religion, so this represents a notable change driven by what he sees as accumulating high-credibility reports.

realclearscience.com

In short, as of early 2026, Maher explicitly accepts that extraterrestrial visitors are here and actively interacting with (or at least observing) us through these phenomena. He even jokes directly to the aliens in his monologue, asking them not to wipe us out while pleading for help with nuclear weapons and fossil fuels.

So, I may well have been wrong when I said Maher couldn’t possibly accept the existing “evidence” for aliens and UFOs.  He actually appears to. I’d like to see somebody ask him the question straight out, and insist that Maher give a straight answer. If he said he was a believer, I have to say that my respect for him would plummet, for I see the evidence as thin. And where would those aliens have come from? Why hasn’t the nosey news media managed to sniff out the most important story in the history of humanity?

I don’t have any problem admitting I was wrong—I just want Maher to give a straight answer to a straight question. The Grok-ish answer above is, in my view, not dispositive.

All eyes are on the inner solar system in April 2026, as two comets reach perihelion. One, Comet R3 Pan-STARRS we’ve known about since last year. Another, sungrazer A1 MAPS was just found as the first comet of 2026 and presents us with a big question: will it survive its blistering perihelion passage on Saturday, April 4th, or simply vaporize like the majority of sungrazers before it?

The muon collider was once dismissed as impossible, but is now gaining steam as the successor to the Large Hadron Collider. If built, it could offer a new window to reality 

It’s hopeless: Nature, like nearly all prominent science journals, has been colonized by woke craziness.  Perhaps the word “craziness” for the present topic is a bit too strong, but the headline below suggests a degree of unhinged-ness that often comes with virtue-flaunting. And of course this isn’t the first such article in Nature.

Click the screenshot to below read the article, part of a series billed as “profiles [of] scientists with unusual career histories or outside interests”. This scientist, Dr. Anne Poelina, has the unusual habit of naming a river as the first author of her science papers:

An excerpt;

Conservationist Anne Poelina has a deep connection to the fresh water that runs through the dry red-rock landscape of the Kimberley region in Western Australia. Poelina identifies as a Nyikina Warrwa woman, and her people are the Traditional Custodians of the Martuwarra Fitzroy River. The river meanders through the region’s arid land, cutting a path of about 735 kilometres long through steep gorges, savannahs and flood plains before terminating at King Sound, a delta fringed by tidal mangroves by the Indian Ocean.

The Martuwarra Fitzroy River is one of Australia’s last-remaining relatively intact, undammed tropical river systems. For now.

The river faces many threats, for instance, from water use in agricultural irrigation. It’s also at risk from proposed plans to extract natural gas through fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, and to look for rare-earth elements and metals such as vanadium and titanium. Moreover, climate change is predicted to cause extreme floods and droughts.

. . .Poelina is connected to the river through her matrilineal heritage — her mother’s people are the Nyikina First Nation. The Nyikina’s traditional territory, or Country, lies in the river’s watershed, as do those of nine other Indigenous communities. (Country is the term that Aboriginal Australian people use to refer to their ancestral lands, its meaning is similar to the Western concept of nature.)

Poelina explains that “in terms of property rights, the river owns me. So, I have a duty of care and the fiduciary duty to protect this river’s right to life.” Because Poelina works with the river to produce fresh knowledge and assimilate ancient wisdom, she decided to recognize its contributions formally. In 2020, she started including the Martuwarra River of Life as the first author on her publications.

Poelina says, “Country is a first author for Indigenous people in the Northern Territory of Australia. So, I just did it.” Whether the journal to which she submitted her first paper assumed “that the name was human or not, I don’t know”, she adds.

Here’s a list of her papers on Google Scholar, and, sure enough, a few of them—but far from all—have “MRiverofLife” as first author, with “M” standing for “Martuwarra”. Here’s one (click to go to site):

Here’s a description of the river in northwest Australia (it’s called either “Martuwarra” or “Fitzroy”), and here’s a description of its place in local culture, where the river is called a “living ancestral being.”  It’s neither living nor an ancestral being: that is just lore. Still, the indigenous council of “river keepers” consults with the Australian government to keep the river in good shape, and that’s an admirable thing, But making a river a coauthor? Perhaps I should have made my Drosophila flies the first author of my papers, maybe disguised as “Dr. O. Sophila.”

At any rate, reader and professor Jente Ottenburghs (an evolutionary biologist who works on birds) couldn’t take it the Nature paper, and wrote me this: “This seems to be another case where a high-profile journal romanticizes indigenous knowledge (similar to the situations in New Zealand and Canada that you covered recently). I also decided to write a blog post about it, partly inspired by the book The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch which I am currently reading.”

Sure enough, his blog post is below, and you can access it for free by clicking the screenshot:

Two excerpts. First, on the ubiquity and sacralization of the “two-eyed seeing” trope and the sacralization of the oppressed (i.e., indigenous people). Note that yes, Australian indigenous people were badly treated by European colonists, but that is not what’s under consideration here.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in incorporating indigenous knowledge into scientific research. There are indeed nice examples where such knowledge has proven valuable. For instance, a recent study in Oryx combined ethnospecies lists from local communities with scientific datasets to reveal a consistent decline in bird body mass across three continents. Approaches like this study demonstrate that local knowledge can complement scientific inquiry, particularly in data collection and long-term ecological observation.

However, indigenous knowledge is often romanticized, sometimes being portrayed as inherently superior to scientific knowledge. This tendency is partly driven by a legitimate desire to correct historical injustices (such as colonialism and the marginalization of local communities) and to show greater respect for indigenous perspectives. While this shift is clearly necessary and overdue, it should not come at the expense of critical evaluation of indigenous knowledge.

Many elements of indigenous knowledge consist of local myths or context-bound explanations. As such, they are often parochial rather than universal, and therefore do not qualify as good scientific explanations. This does not diminish their cultural, historical, or philosophical value, but it does mean they should not automatically be treated as reliable sources of scientific insight.

Of authorship and the river:

There appears to be growing pressure within academia to signal the recognition of indigenous knowledge, sometimes in ways that blur the distinction between cultural respect and scientific rigor. A striking example appeared in Nature, where conservationist Anne Poelina listed the Martuwarra River of Life as a co-author on her publications.

Poelina explains that “in terms of property rights, the river owns me. So, I have a duty of care and the fiduciary duty to protect this river’s right to life.” Because Poelina works with the river to produce fresh knowledge and assimilate ancient wisdom, she decided to recognize its contributions formally. In 2020, she started including the Martuwarra River of Life as the first author on her publications.

When asked why the river should be listed as first author, she responded: “Because it’s the authority. It’s where I get my authority.” This reasoning stands in direct contrast with the scientific method, which explicitly rejects appeals to authority as a basis for truth. Science operates as a culture of criticism, where ideas must withstand scrutiny regardless of their source. As physicist Richard Feynman famously put it: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Hence, attributing authorship to a river on the grounds of authority is not just unconventional; it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how knowledge is evaluated in science.

. . .A similar issue arises in arguments that emphasize the age of indigenous knowledge (or any other knowledge system). Poelina suggests that “if we have the oldest systems of thinking around science and law, shouldn’t the world be listening to what our people have to say?”. But age is not a marker of reliability. As discussed earlier, Greek myths are thousands of years old, but they obviously fail as scientific explanations because they are easily varied and lack universality.

The same principle applies more broadly: all knowledge claims (whether scientific or indigenous) must be evaluated using the same standards. Some elements of indigenous knowledge may indeed prove robust and valuable under scrutiny, while other elements may not. We still need to separate the trustworthy wheat from the superstitious chaff. And the scientific method is the best approach to do just that.

There’s a preliminary section of Ottenburghs’ paper, inspired by his reading of Deutsch, about how science works and how scientific explanations are evaluated, which fed into the post (or riposte) above.  This whole thing may seem trivial, but if we don’t keep calling out the creeping sacralization of indigenous knowledge, and the intrusion into science of myth, storytelling, and superstition, it will become stuck in science like a tick on your leg, with the potential to cause the scientific equivalent of Lyme disease.

The immune system going rogue and attacking healthy tissue seems to behind some cases of long covid, a discovery that could open doors towards treatments