NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/sci/physics/12726

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-12 | 10.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
From: [e-mail] (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Super Conducting Supercollider
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:07:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 194
Nntp-Posting-Host: sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass)

In article <[e-mail]>, 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.

No, I spent the last article bitching that you railroaded potential
discussion just to run by your same old tired billion + N rant.  I am
not competent to carry out the actual discussion, but I am competent
to point out that it could exist.

>>>    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.

Why bring this up, since the SSC is not a blind fishing expedition?  Oh,
right, I keep forgetting, billion + N^2 ranting isn't enough for you.  No
matter what may actually be discussed, you prefer to rant.

>     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.

What is your research area?  Word games?  It is of course tautological
that the SSC will investigate what it will investigate.  What it will
find is simply not obvious.  Were it so, there'd be no need to build it.

>                            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).

Why?  Strength was not the issue, just existence.  That suffices to refute
the claim that the two fields are conveniently compartmentalized with no
connection.  It remains refuted.  It remains refuted regardless of the
cost of SSC.  And as I said, I don't know enough about the subject to
provide stronger examples.  Meanwhile, it remains refuted.

>>>>>>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.

I will not give narrow minded provincial cowhicks who cannot comprehend
that there is more than one way to do research one iota of 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.

Of course not.  Nor is it the second nor the third nor even the hundredth.
Then again, why bring this up, since no one ever claimed that the point of
SSC is to provide the one and only long shot for understanding high-Tc??
Oh, right, I keep forgetting, you've suddenly switched into billion + N^N
rant mode again.

>                                   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.

Then you are durn well sure ignorant.  Symmetry breaking is at the heart
of SSC and superconductivity.  Saying that the understanding possible from
the detailed study of the one is "as unlikely as all get-out" to connect
with the other requires deliberate refusal to recognize basic physics
history, which I summarized below.

As an aside, on the practical side, just building SSC is going to provide
a big boost to the engineering side of low-Tc superconductivity.

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

That's true.  In fact, more than somewhat less.

>>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.

Not really.  If the only explanation is one long expensive calculation,
we don't understand anything.  We shall not be able to identify a priori
other materials, possibilities for room-temperature Tc's and so on.  If
you want to investigate a particular structure, atom-by-atom nanotechnology
is going to get there first.

But a breakthrough in theory--something more likely when symmetry breaking
is investigated head on, and nature surprises us in the right direction--
can tell us what we should look for.

>     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.

So what?  Anyone can generate completely irrelevant analogies.

>>>>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?

Yes.  That is a good question!  I don't know.  I don't even know how to
know, short of building the thing and pointing out how obvious it all
is in hindsight.

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

No one is implying such, except maybe ignorant congressmen.  But I think
it should be realized that certain surprises may not be so surprising.
The odds are heavy that my suggested applications will not come through.
But the odds are even heavier that there will be valuable surprises.

To name yet another long shot application, one of the original SSC-like
proposals (due to Glashow et al) involved neutrino tomography of the
entire earth, and oil/metal prospecting via neutrino beams and sonic
detectors.  At SSC energies, the cross-section of a neutrino is roughly
one Earth diameter.

(I guess it's too late to sell the SSC-in-space as the ultimate beam
weapon against those Evil Empire mongers.  That would have gotten the
necessary funding very quickly.  First, though, we have to build a
ground model to test the principles...  Then again, maybe President
Quayle would go for it.  We'd tell him it's the only defense against
the Space Potatoe.)

>     Has someone been messing with your cornflakes recently?

Fortunately, no.  *I* have a clear head.
--
-Matthew P Wiener ([e-mail])