🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <85799@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>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?

    Certainly.  Present how you think such a thing might work and I'd
    be glad to discuss it.

    However, the original discussion regarded the SSC and its relevance
    to biochemical systems.  Salam's paper notwithstanding, I think that
    it would be rather silly to suggest that SSC has obvious relevance
    to such systems.

>>>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.

     The point, of course, is that one usually must look in the direction
     of the problem to get the answer.  Answers have sometimes come
     from other directions, but that is probably not the most fruitful
     method.

>>>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.

     Make it 10 billion and 2.  Of course, I could be mistaken, but
     I was under the impression that we were actually discussing the 
     SSC.

                              dale bass

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