🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25125@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

{In reference to Rustum Roy's Macneil Lehrer Newhour interview opposing the 
 SSC}

|>I guess it depends on what you mean by "effective."  Statements to the effect
|>that particle physics has nothing to do with the origins of the universe
|>and that if we want to understand it we need to study chemistry and biology
|>just convinced me that he had *no* idea of what was going on around him.

Be careful here. You need to define terms. What you mean by "Universe" and
what Roy did may be two different things. His point may have been that the
average person may find his perspective more useful than an alternate
perspective that relied on reduction to earlier times and higher
energies.

Canonical Particle physicists say "something happened at the planck time" and 
then the universe as understood by particle physics evolved into its present
form. Why is that position philosophically more satisfying then saying that
"something happened at the quark/hadron freeze out time" and then the universe
as understood by nuclear physics evolved into its present state?

Definition of terms: Canonical Particle Physicist --- One who spouts
the standard mechanical catechism about the HEP-centric view of physics.
"All physics is derivable from High Energy Particle Theory", "All that can
be known can be known more completely and more fundamentally from a HEP
viewpoint"
                     
Of course, while we are all grinding our personal axes, let me throw in my
favorite. If you want to understand the universe then you should study
only plasma physics. Since over 99% of the universe is in the plasma state
studying anything else is simply irrelevant.
[Note: tongue planted firmly in cheek for those in the audience whose
 humor has been surgically removed].


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