🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5568@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com> rcj@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (R.C. Jones) writes:

> What are the more scientific opinions about the value
> of the Super Conducting SuperCollider program?

There is essentially no doubt that the SSC will be scientifically
valuable.  That is: the experiments that are planned will probably
function more or less as designed, and they are almost certain to
yield results that are very important to particle physics.  In fact,
there are a great many questions in particle physics today that can
only be answered by doing experiments at the 1 TeV energy scale.  The
SSC is not the only possible way of doing such experiments, but it is
probably the best (and cheapest) way.

Of course, that does not necessarily mean that it should be built: the
fact that it is a worthwhile experiment does not mean that it is worth
$8 billion.  This is a political question, not a scientific question,
and scientists, like everyone else, have varying political opinions.

(Particle physicists are almost unanimous in supporting the
construction of the SSC; the opinions of scientists in other fields
are more diverse.)
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.