🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <12522@ntdd-1>, grayt@Software (Tom Gray) writes:
>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. 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.

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.

Of course, if you are willing to consider absolutely off-the-wall 
possibilities, there are Penrose's ideas regarding quantum gravity
and intelligence.  But SSC isn't high enough.  Ask again when they
build the Superconducting Superduperhuperruperluperkibocollider.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)