🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.202413.10772@pollux.lu.se> magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>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.

     I know what he meant, and I agree with you that they are terrible
     examples.

>"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

    Sure would have if Clerk-baby had asked for #10 billion sterling
    for a toy to investigate his equations.

    The results of such investigations might have screwed up the
    wonderful progress we have made without such a machine.

>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.

    Of course that is always the issue.  Cost being commensurate with 
    expected gain.  When it doesn't cost much, it is easier
    to justify spending money for unexpected gain.  When it costs
    $10 billion, it had better *do* something.

    Of course, the boys around Maxwell also had a pretty good
    idea what his equations were good for.  After all, telegraphy
    was one of the more profitable threads that held the empire together.
    (Of course that did not prevent them from misusing the equations
    at times).  

>>     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.

     'Purely hypothetical' is a very kind characterization.

     As far as the rest goes, it is a very weak justification of 
     a $10 billion project to say 'I'm *sure* that there will be
     some results that apply outside particle physics, I'm just
     not sure what they are'.  Well, *I* am sure that there will
     be 'some results'.  I am just not sure that they will be 
     anywhere near commensurate with the cost (predictions of 
     'hundreds of trillions' of dollars of spin-offs in the next
     century notwithstanding).

     However, this is an evasion of my question.  If you wish to 
     comment please tell me how you think the SSC will produce results
     relevant to biological or biochemical systems (apart from contributing
     to our national biological trip to the poor-house).  I am still
     waiting my enlightenment.

                         dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926