🚀 go-pugleaf

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:
>>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.

     Somehow I don't think we should spend $10 billion to investigate
     this possibility.

>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.

>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.

     As far as Penrose's ideas about QM and intellegence, we'd probably do
     as well or better resurrecting JB Rhine and giving Duke $10 billion.

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