🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug7.151909.10487@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>By this I mean, that no theory in biochemistry will be modified by any
>>>result of work at the SSC.

>>Not so fast.  The question of the origin of biochirality is sometimes
>>studied from the HEP point of view!  There was a recent paper by Salam
>>in J of Mol Evol (I think) on speculations that would enhance the Z0
>>channel in biochemical circumstances.

>     Somehow I don't think we should spend $10 billion to investigate
>     this possibility. 

Yes, we know that's what you think.  Who cares?  It has zero relevance
to what I was saying.  Care to address my point?  You know, like discuss
the actual or possible physics of Z0 biochirality?

>>The idea of high-temperature biochemical superconductivity has been
>>floated around for quite some time.  So far, explaining high-Tc has
>>not succeeded.  Perhaps new ideas on symmetry breaking are needed
>>for this--ideas dependent on SSC results.

>     And perhaps all that is needed is a better calculation.  I suspect
>     that help in this direction is unlikely to come from the SSC.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  Care to provide the calculation?  Even a clue?
Sometimes, no matter how smart we fancy ourselves, nature sometimes
proves smarter, and we've got to look.

>>Of course, if you are willing to consider absolutely off-the-wall 
>>possibilities, [...]

>     As far as Penrose's ideas about QM and intellegence, we'd probably do
>     as well or better resurrecting JB Rhine and giving Duke $10 billion.

What's your point again?  I already said that SSC itself (as opposed to
HEP in theory) would have no relevance to Penrose's ideas.  Oh right, we
didn't hear your opinion about SSC the first 10 billion times, you've got
to tell us 10 billion and one times.

Try responding with something regarding the points, instead of your inter-
jecting your crusade to save our national deficit, or whatever.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)