🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug7.192009.29866@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
|>In article <1992Aug7.151909.10487@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|>> 
|>> In article <85546@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
(Matthew P Wiener) writes:
|>> >In article <12522@ntdd-1>, grayt@Software (Tom Gray) writes:
[TOM]
|>> >>Why do the HEP physicists think that their results are any more
|>> >>fundamental then results in biochemistry? Fundamental biochemistry
|>> >>results certianly do not depend on any fundamental results in HEP.
[MATT]
|>> >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.
[DALE]
|>>      Somehow I don't think we should spend $10 billion to investigate
|>>      this possibility.
[NORMAN]
|>Since thousands of experiments are planned over the lifetime of the device,
|>it is misleading to designate the whole cost to this. Your arguements fail
|>because the Supercollider is not a single experiment, not a single project,
|>but a device to do thousands of experiments and hundreds of projects
which employ
|>thousands of people. 
[john]
all doing experiments about the behavior of matter in the narrow 
(logarithmic) energy range of 10GeV-10Tev.

[NORMAN]
|>The cost per experiment is rather small compared to
|>the cost of funding these same people to build and run independent
experiments.
|>Furthermore, the cost per scientific discovery is always better with a
flexible
|>device like the Supercollider.

[john]
And even better with even more flexible with a multitude of innovative
small science experiments. Your point is exactly the point that the
small scientists have been shouting and rending their clothing about.
I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion that we should favor small
science over all large science effrots, I just find it rhetorically amusing
that now you are cheerleading for the SSC, the mother of all big science
projects, with a cost per discovery/flexibility of approach appeal. The
ssc is very limited. 1) It will only work with charged particles
2) it will only accelerate protons or similar mass particles (unless you
buy an entire magnet upgrade) 3) It has strict upper and lower energy bounds.

Now if you really want to study some neat fundamental physics, why not
spend one-tenth of the cost of the SSC to study the 6 orders of magnitude
in energy scale achievable with milli-Kelvin to nano-Kelvin laser cooled
systems? This ad. brought to you by the fun-fellows who brought you
superconductivity and super-fluidity. Imagine what physics lurks in these
dark and cold regions. This is the stuff of multi-body theorists dreams.

I beat there are some neat spinoffs from this also. In the "we're responsible
for NMR" vein of exaggerations, I'll predict that such a program would have
the benefit of a determination (or strict limits) on the neutrino mass. :>

john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu

%
% things are more like they are today then they have ever been before!
%