Scientific American April 1997 [antikvár]

from the editors Seriously, We're Not Kidding Something about April Fools' Day makes magazine readers cynical. Every year around now we get at least a few letters saying, "All right, very funny. You really had me going there for a minute. Until I realized I was reading the April issue, 1 almost fell for that article on_And then they point to some piece on physics or biology or social science that seemed too far-fetched to be plausible. The only problem is that the articles in question are completely on the level. Would we lie to you? Not that Scientific American hasn't ^^ \ ^^^^ sneaked in a few ah diversions for \ .-Sw readers over the years. Martin Gardner, Douglas R. Hofstadter and A. K. Dewdney, during their years as the math and computer recreations columnists for this magazine, frequently used their April outings to present brain-teasers dressed up as actual inventions or situations. The "Amateur Scientist" column has also had a card or two up its sleeve on occasion. I have always been fond of a contribution from that renowned physicist Antoni Akahito, who in 1989 described how to build the ultimate particle accelerator, a very rewarding and manageable amateur project if you have enough free weekends to assemble a structure as wide as the solar system. And then there was the time art historian Ricardo Chiav'inglese explained how computers could restore and enhance children's finger paintings. M n IS MURPHY ALL WET? No, scientific truth is just stranger than fiction. But the feature articles have always been real. If some of them have seemed astounding, chalk it up to what the noted scienrist J.B.S. Hal-dane meant when he wrote that "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose." Not surprisingly, some of the discoveries described in Scientific American could make a skeptical mind balk. Take the issue in your hands, for example. Seen through a thin veil of suspicion (brought on by having sat on one too many whoopie cushions, perhaps), don't many of the described ideas stagger the imagination? Does it really seem likely that erosion could make mountains higher? That cells could live in boiling water? That replacing trees might hurt rain forests? Or, most unbelievable of all, that Murphy's whimsical Law might have a scientific foundation (see page 72)? Science at its most wonderful can clothe the nakedly impossible in a fabric of facts. As you read, be skeptical enough to consider the evidence and arguments presented by the authors, but keep an open mind. Rest assured that we're not trying to fool you, that everything in this Issue is real. Even the "Letters to the Editors" on page 8 JOHN RENNIE. Editor in Chief editors @ scia m. com