🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug10.220817.2983@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>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.

I have no idea.  Various conjectures exist, and I'm not competent to
even have a favorite.

>    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.

So what if it's not "obvious"?  The point of the SSC isn't to discover
the obvious.

>>>>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.

I'm not interested in trite generalities.  Anybody who can type can
enumerate them and throw in a few "probably"s, but that's not very
informative.  Moreover, the "probably"s are irrelevant.  I was refuting
a claim that there was zero chance that what we might learn from the
SSC would be applicable to biochemistry.

As it is, we already know there is a strong connection between the theory
of symmetry breaking and superconductivity--the latter was the inspiration
for the former.  And we've achieved an awfully frustrating situation with
respect to the latter--a new form exists, of extremely valuable potential,
but little in the way of working theory exists to guide us.  If current
theoretical imaginations can't figure out the right framework, then it's
quite possible that an outside kickstart is needed.  One provided by an
actual concrete example of symmetry breaking.  (I'll point out that the
previous high-Tc front runner invoked anyons, developed by HEP theorists.)

>>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.

Yes.  Various aspects of what an SSC could do.  These and other aspects
are true, false, plausible, ridiculous, interesting, boring, what have
you, regardless of the price tag.  Aspects that people would like more
information regarding before they decide yes or no about their ten Gs.
Aspects that you are not doing one whit to clarify by merely reiterating
your endlessly stated opinion.

If all you are willing to do is run interference on such discussions, you
are just a jerk, and worse, a boring jerk.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)