🚀 go-pugleaf

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

As you pointed out, cost is a big factor (in the case of the SSC, I
suppose it is a SuperFactor :-).

>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.

The question is not (or almost never) whether a specific experiment/
theory will have impact. The question should be how to maximize the
future impact give a finite budget.

Looking back at history, I don't think high energy physicist can 
effectively argue on this front. (Have there been any real spin-offs
from expensive, say > $100 millions, accelerator?)

--
Stanley Chow            InterNet: schow@BNR.CA
Bell Northern Research  UUCP:     ..!uunet!bnrgate!bqneh3!schow
(613) 763-2831
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.