🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.180045.28455@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.145127.7221@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>>I guess you wouldn't have seen the potential of X-rays in medicine, or
>>nuclear materials in treatment of cancer,..... I have no real evidence
>>but I'm not foolish enough to make a statement that goes "There
>>will never be any relevance of field X in field Y". The reason I won't make
>>such a statement is BECAUSE I'm educated.
>
>     I see the potential of x-rays as well as nuclear materials.  I 
>     do not see the potential of the SSC.  

I think he meant that you wouldn't have seen the relevance of X-rays if
you had been around when Roentgen discovered them, or radionuclides back
when the Curies discovered radium.

Actually, both of these are pretty bad examples, since the medical
applications of both X-rays and radioactivity came very quickly.

A better example, which is a favourite of mine when being asked by
engineers what's the use of particle physics:

"If you had been a contemporary of Maxwell's, would you have seen any
practical relevance of his equations to engineering (or to medicine)?
Woudln't you rather have said 'this is theoretical playing around with
maths; let's do something *useful* instead'?" I'll not insult your
intelligence by pointing out where, say, medicine would be today
_without_ Maxwell's equations.

Of course, Maxwell's research cost a tiny fraction of what the SSC
will cost if it's built, so this argument can't be used unmodified to
say that we should build it. *But* I think it's just as impossible to
foresee future applications of, say, Higgs fields, as it was for
Maxwell to foresee magnetic spin resonance.

>     Why do you not enlighten us
>     as to its relevance in biological systems? (though please spare
>     me tales of using the injector for cancer treatment)

The possible influence of parity violation in Z0 exchange on
biochemistry is still purely hypothetical, and SSC results may not throw
any light on it at all. However, to assume that SSC results will have
no impact whatsoever on future technology and science (outside
particle physics) is IMHO  pessimism on the verge of blindness.

Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52          | /e-      \q