🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <85904@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>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.

     Why do you not present even a single scenario?  After all you
     spent the last article bitching that *I* would not 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.
>
>So what if it's not "obvious"?  The point of the SSC isn't to discover
>the obvious.

     It also is not a $10 billion blind fishing expedition.  Let's
     leave blind fishing expeditions at the million dollar level.

     As far as the obvious, it *is* for the obvious, that is, the behavior
     of matter at higer energies that we have heretofore been privy.
     Nothing could be more obvious than that.  Why don't you suggest
     how this higher energy behavior could have relevance to the
     much lower energies present in, say, biochemical systems (a stronger
     example than the one used above would be appreciated).
 
>>>>>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.

     Geez, give me a break.  If you want to calculate the electrical
     properties of a material, the first thing you do is certainly not
     building a $10 billion machine to study something else.  That is
     not a 'trite generality'.  As far as the 'probablies' go. I certainly
     do not know that it *will not* help, but I'm durn well sure that it
     is unlikely as all get-out.

     Let's just say that the likelyhood of it being relevant in 
     biochemistry is somewhat less than other directions to say the least.

>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.)

     It seems to me that the SSC is not the way to go
     if you want to make progress in this area.  Just build a large
     enough parallel machine to actually do electrical computations
     for this very complicated material, and then see if your 
     predictions match experiment.  If they do, see what simplifications
     you can make.  Of course, this may cost more than the SSC, but
     at least it has the potential for great short-term gain.
  
     It is possible that the diplomats of the world will achieve 
     world peace with the kickstart of the SSC.  I don't find it
     plausable, however.

>>>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.

     How 'plausable' is it that there will be results from the SSC 
     that will have some relevance in biochemistry or high-T_c superconductors?

     How honest do you believe it to be to imply that they are getting
     such results for their $10 G?

     Has someone been messing with your cornflakes recently?

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