🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug7.151909.10487@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 
> 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.

Since thousands of experiments are planned over the lifetime of the device,
it is misleading to designate the whole cost to this. Your arguements fail
because the Supercollider is not a single experiment, not a single project,
but a device to do thousands of experiments and hundreds of projects which employ
thousands of people. The cost per experiment is rather small compared to
the cost of funding these same people to build and run independent experiments.
Furthermore, the cost per scientific discovery is always better with a flexible
device like the Supercollider.

> 
> >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
> 
> 

Dr. Norman J. LaFave