CERN accepts $1B in private cash towards Future Circular Collider

It’s an interesting question. After all we were using electricity, batteries, electric motors, radios and telegraphs long before we ever discovered electrons and photons.

But discovering the electron was necessary for us to develop vacuum tubes. And developing quantum mechanics was necessary for developing transistors.

Think about the relative impact of the telegraph vs the vacuum tube.

When we do eventually find something to do with the W and Z bosons, it’s likely to look more like a transistor-level tech than an immediately practical tool like a lightbulb. But the second-order effects from whatever that new tech turns out to be, have the potential to be world-shattering.

I don't know why you were getting down voted for this. Discovery during technological development of scientific instrumentation is one of the greatest returns on investment of funding pure science research. And like your sibling comment says, the pure science helps direct applied science, eg cutting edge materials science. Long tail, if for no other reason, because its a whole other development process that happens after the pure science.

That's not an answer to the specific question asked. Not all types of fundamental research have the same potential for material benefits, or the same cost.

I was hoping that someone would be able to point me to some practical technical advance enabled by discoveries or measurements at CERN (or similar establishments).

It seems plausible to me that better understanding of the properties the subatomic particles might enable some previously unexploited technology (e.g. in quantum computing or sensing).

What actually happens is, smart people are isolated from the problems of the general population and work towards meaningless goals at the cost of the everyday tax payer doing unglamorous work to earn a living. Decoupling science from the state will also reduce the meaningless competition of academia that leads to the publish-or-perish and replication crises, because the people who will be doing it, will do it for the love of the game, regardless of social status and money.

If you want to live in this world, you have to trade your time and provide value to others. You shouldn't get a free pass because, just because you convinced yourself and the government that you're smarter than everyone else.

> Knowing which ideas are closer to the truth must be helpful to people who work on nano scale stuff, like chips so fine that quantum effect are considerable.

Sorry, no. That's solid state physics on inter-atomic scales: tenths of nanometers, a handful of electronvolts. The LHC probes physics at the electroweak scale: hundreds of billions of electronvolts, billionths of nanometers. It has zero relevance to anything of practical use.

the itch of curiosity can take someone to great heights... and glorious useless rabbit holes. us nerd programmers should be intimately familiar with this. i sort of do get a little irked at how a lot of the things discovered at the furthest reaches of our universe are just simply just trying to figure out that for the sake of figuring that out. don't get me wrong i'm a huge proponent of sciences in general im mostly just bewildered at the widespread collective belief that science can only be beneficial if you let it move at a glacial pace with lots of time and resources spent answering questions that should potentially be deprioritized. even writing software im constantly compelled to shake off the wild goose chases that are just me trying to find an answer to that and get back to doing something else, and i'm constantly hungry for ways to add my capacities to something that is beneficial for at least a handful of people.

we tend to give sciences a huge sort of "let them cook" pass about many things even though sometimes it's just resources spent on some giga niche corner of science to get to an answer that settles a 25 year old argument or theory no one knows or cares about. i don't think it hurts to get back occasionally to "ok guys let's try to focus on something of importance" and acknowledging even a little bit that some of the goose chases have been utterly pointless. is there some kind of unspoken rule that scientific discovery should only come from one giant leaky bucket exercise but the bucket is never ending? aligned research goals with some outcomes that aren't some super autistic itch-scratch only one or two people on earth understand are.. not a bad thing.

scientists of some levels sometimes terrify me. human, sure, but the relentless pursuit of finding that has throughout history caused many scientists and researchers to cross moral boundaries. sometimes i wonder if people looking the traces of hundred billion year old invisible invisible gamma stinky fart rays at the edge of our universe give any shits about the world and the people in it at all. its just harder now than ever to care about their laundry list of meaningless discoveries when we're in desperate need of here and now discoveries to solve problems we face today. in some respects staring at a scope into the edge of the universe is sometimes not any different than the kid who's just trying to escape the noise of life by throwing a video game on. i get it, i do. but i don't always wrap it in nobility because the sciences are filled with humans who are as imperfect as you and i, and sometimes they straight up aren't cooking much and seem a little directionless.

For starts for science itself. If transporting things to space wasn't so costly, so much more experimentation would better be done in space.

Yes it's cool, but that isn't why. It's because of resources and human progress.

I want mirrors in space that direct/magnify sun light to destinations on earth for example.

So many of human problems today have to do with resource scarcity. The "old" world had this, and the discovery of the "new" world in the west solved lots of problems.

Every tech we have to day, every advancement in medicine, industry,etc.. from steam engines to the internet and AI is a result of the discovery of the americas. the center of trade and commerce shifted to western europe, and western europeans used lots of means including conquest of the americas by force , enslaving africans,etc.. to get gold and riches from the americas back to europe. The improvement in the quality of life for western europeans meant they could focus less on subsistence and survival, and focus on science, industry and reformations.

Space is extremely hostile to humans. You're not wrong about that, but it isn't beyond humans' capability to conquer it. Solving the obstacles in the way of space expansion requires solving things that have the ability to improve humans' lives greatly. It means we could also conquer the polar zones and tundras much more easily, and be more resilient to climate change. Like how western europe benefited from the Americas, and how they pillaged gold from the americans, so is there gold and riches in space to be pillaged and improve the lives of the world on earth. Back in the 1800s, the west was a hostile (no comparison to space of course) place people with no options went to, space could be that for a while.

Humanity can't survive in a stagnant way. We will always need more space and more energy.

It's largely fans of Sabine Hossenfelder youtube channel, where some years ago sadly she shifted into just being a grifter selling conspiracy theories about the funding of particle physics.

The audience here tends to vastly overweight contrarian near conspiracy theory style stuff, so this sort of comment shows up on literally every damn post about physics research.

There’s an abandoned one around Dallas, the SSC. Lots of sunken cost in that one.

You could use the same argument to justify spending $1B on searching for the Loch Ness Monster. The problem is, you can only spend money once. If you're spending $1B on the FCC you aren't spending that same $1B on all kinds of other research.

With the LHC there was a very clear goal: verify the Standard Model and prove (or disprove) the existence of the Higgs boson - and hopefully discover some unexpected stuff along the way. On the other hand, the FCC is mainly a shot in the dark: they aren't validating a widely-accepted theory, they are just hoping that if you spend enough money on a bigger collider something interesting will fall out.

Most research gives you at least some insight. With the FCC there is a very real possibility that the insight will be "our $20B collider found absolutely nothing, now give us $1T to build an even bigger one". Sure, funding research is a long shot, but at a certain point you're just setting money on fire.