[delayed]

The web would be one of the more well known technologies to come out of running collider experiments. More directly a whole lot of medical imaging including PET is only possible because of either isotopes manufactured through colliders or sensors developed in colliders.

Look at it this way: they are investigating phenomena that require a collider-sized object to see. So unless your application involves a collider sized object, it won't use any effect they discover.

The problem is that fundamental physics has moved too far beyond the scales where we operate.

I don't think that argument holds up. See quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is demonstrable on a lab bench (or smaller), so your counterargument is completely wrong.

Any useful consequence of a physical effect is, in effect, an experiment that could test that effect. So if the smallest test is with a machine the size of a small country, no device using the effect can be smaller.

They’re using big things to do experiments. Maybe they discover some new physical effect. How do you know that that effect couldn’t be demonstrated in some smaller scale experiment after it’s understood better?

Can you tell me of an example where that has happened? I can't think of any.

Effective field theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_field_theory

demonstrably works up to the electroweak scale, which requires an LHC-sized machine to probe.

Effective field theory involves things like the BCS theory of superconductivity, which is of course based on small scale experiments.

Effective field theory is a general approach to integrate out degrees of freedom which are not relevant to the problem at hand. Trivial example: if you are trying to build an aqueduct (characteristic scale: meters and up), you can safely ignore the inner workings of individual water molecules (characteristic scale: tenths of nanometers), or even the fact that molecules exist at all.

In terms of interaction energies, once you have an effective field theory which demonstrably works well up to some scale E, you know that whatever new physics you may find by colliding things at energies larger than E will not significantly affect physics at energies lower than E.

Thanks to the LHC and its predecessors, E is now upwards of 1 TeV, or equivalently a spatial resolution of 1 attometer; a billionth of a nanometer, less than a thousandth of a proton's diameter. Anyone arguing that this still is not enough, and that a larger accelerator may reveal new physics with wonderful technological properties, must be planning to go live inside a proton.

The first working transistor was centimeter-scale, now billions of them fit in that space.

The first useful internal combustion engines were room-sized, now they fit on a moped.

The truck-sized hole in your argument is talking about "the smallest test". First discoveries/demonstrations of interesting phenomenons don't typically happen at the smallest scale (why would they?).

The first working transistors and engines were of the size which happened to be most convenient to work with. They could then be shrunk because fundamental physical limits to their size were far below human scale. Their inventors were neither constrained by nor interested in those fundamental physical limits. They were inventors, not scientists.

In contrast, a particle accelerator like the LHC is designed from the outset to explore physics at a given energy scale at the lowest possible cost. Shrink it any further and it will no longer work. Despite decades of attempts to come up with alternative designs, when time comes to draw up plans for a successor capable of pushing to even higher energy, it's just more of the same:

https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-colli...

Because if it were possible to (say) find the Higgs boson at a smaller scale, they would have done that.

You're in an IT forum and can't imagine implementations of both the smallest and largest scales? ICs are built at nanoscale and have to deal with quantum effects. PNT systems are so large that they have to deal with the speed of light and relativistic effects.

Many things humanity builds are on the scale of colliders.

> The problem is that fundamental physics

I didn't know there was a problem. It seems like one of humanity's greatest successes.

You are mistating my argument. An honest reading, where you try to read what I wrote in the way that makes the most sense, would have concluded I was talking about large scale, not small scale.

Maybe it's not dishonesty; maybe people can disagree genuinely; maybe others add their own points, and communication is difficult; maybe you even miscommunicated - such certainty and judgement is always a signal of not seeing other people's perspectives. Maybe, on a large scale, the world doesn't revolve around what you intend to say.

As an example, I talked about both large and small scale.

this particular collider or particle accelerators in general? Cyclotrons are rather useful, for example.

I hate to be harsh but this mentality is part of the decline of this country

(that is so evident with loss of manufacturing, open and free science and tech robber barons oligarchs that have taken over our national discourse)

Brookhaven was instrumental to Nobel winning discoveries and Stony Brook was a great science minded university

I’m not opposed to investing in AI but its not a zero sum game and we are not a country of data centers alone

At some point physics entitlement has to end -- why not here? We can't just keep scaling up the size and cost of fundamental physics experiments. Eventually the cost becomes so large that platitudinous arguments for them don't work.

We absolutely can, and I reckon we will... this is like a fraction of a percent of science funding which is a fraction of a percent of GDP, we spend more on maintaining warheads we can't use

10% of the US military budget for one year could build a 100km collider, RHIC is 4km

What a nonsense argument. Spending like this has to be justified on its own merits, not because there is some other bad spending. The argument you are trying to make would justify spending on almost anything.

The point is that there's so much bad spending that by comparison this is practically nothing to shake a stick at, and it produces actual science.

Repeating a bad argument doesn't transmute it into a good argument. I already explained why your argument is invalid. Please reconsider your dogmatic and irrational support for this kind of spending.

No, you just asserted that you think existing arguments are invalid, then accused a person who disregarded your assertion of being "dogmatic".

It's not a question of "can", it's a question of "should". No one knows what discoveries can happen and what the spillover from them could be in the future. In essence, it's a bet, a moonshot.

How can you look at current and recent US science and call it 'entitlement'? Have there been larger cuts anywhere in modern history?

If you think you are entitled to any amount larger than zero, you are showing entitlement.

It's not an entitlement if you're paying into the tax base.

I'm somehow entitled to others receiving corporate bailouts, entitled to massive military waste spending, and entitled to seeing the "victims" of Havana Syndrome receiving free healthcare for life.

Yet I am not entitled to this money going towards research for the greater good of humanity?

Nit: saying “this country” without context on where the parent poster is from or where you are from is kinda useless.

From context, you probably mean USA. And I’d agree, however the US was always more technology minded than scientifically minded, and the parent poster lines up with that centuries old ideology. So I don’t think this is per se a new thing.

Why past tense? BNL will host the EIC, and SBU is going full steam.

FYI the lab isn't shutting down. Glad you appreciate it's achievements though!

You were not nearly harsh enough.

Yeah, one of them is used by you right now. The Internet.

Particle physicists working on collider experiments were among the first people that needed to deal with large quantities of digitally stored data. As a result, advances in the particle and nuclear physics have fed advances in computing, and vice versa [0]. The World Wide Web was invented at CERN, the largest particle physics and accelerator laboratory in the world [1]. Another example more relevant to this post is when a few physicists developed a CouchDB-based solution to handle the large amounts of data generated by their RHIC and CERN experiments. They spun that out into Cloudant, which was one of the pioneers for DBaaS [2].

[0] https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-coevolution-of-...

[1] https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web/short-history-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudant

> has there been any discovery made with the help of a collider that found its way into an industrial product?

Yes. SLAC has an excellent public-lecture series that touches on industrial uses of particle colliders [1].

If you want a concrete example, "four basic technologies have been developed to generate EUV light sources:" (1) synchrotron radiation, (2) discharge-produced plasma, (3) free-elecron lasers (FELs) and (4) laser-produced plasma [2]. Synchrotrons are circular colliders. FELs came out of linear colliders [3]. (China has them too [4].)

We have modern semiconductors because we built colliders.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M6sjEYCE2I&list=PLFDBBAE492...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S270947232...

[3] https://lcls.slac.stanford.edu

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Synchrotron_Radiation...

In the context of the article "collider" means intersecting particle beams, like in RHIC and LHC, which obviously involves rather low probability interactions, as opposed to accelerators which slam a beam into a dense target (like the SLAC accelerator). In a synchrotron light source you want the beam to circulate and specifically not collide with anything; they were developed from particle physics accelerators, of course.

SLAC had a collider

I think there's a strong argument that the most useful product from collider science is the synchrotron light source. Researchers using collider rings realized that the x-ray synchrotron light these rings emit (an inconvenience to collider physics people) was a fantastic tool for structural biology and materials science. Eventually, they built dedicated electron storage rings that don't do collisions at all - the main goal is producing bright X-ray beams.

Synchrotron light sources have had wide-ranging, concrete impacts on "industrial products" that you probably use every day via studies in: - Drug discovery (Tamiflu and Paxlovid are good examples) - Battery technology (X-ray studies of how/why batteries degrade over time has lead to better designs) - EUV photolithography techniques - Giant Magetoresistance (Important for high capacity spinning-disk hard drives)

Indeed. The first dedicated light -- for various values of "light" -- source[1] repurposed the tunnel and various bits and techniques from the particle physics accelerator it replaced, and on which parasitic "light" measurements were made previously. See also [2].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_Radiation_Source

2. https://www.ukri.org/publications/new-light-on-science-socio...

> has there been any discovery made with the help of a collider that found its way into an industrial product?

Accelerators and colliders have had a profound impact on medical sciences. Nuclear isotopes used for nuclear medicine[1] is often produced by cyclotrons[2], the accelerator component of circular colliders. The detectors[3] used in things like PET scanners are based on detectors used in collision experiments[4]. Using protons to treat cancer was an idea that came directly from work on cyclotrons[5]. Using the tools developed to simulate how the collision fallout interact with the detectors at LHC[6] has been incorporated into radiotherapy to more accurately compute required doses[7][8].

> perhaps the first step was to create a much smarter entity than ourselves, and then letting it have a look at the collider data

We are actually data starved, we have lots of good ideas but no way to test them.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_medicine#Sources_of_ra...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_camera

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintigraphy#Process

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy#History

[6]: https://kt.cern/technologies/geant4

[7]: https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.17678

[8]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240542832...

Colliders have been the source of almost everything we know about the fundamental nature of reality. That makes them a fruitful scientific direction.

Very much yes: Knowledge is valuable itself. We're discovering the secrets of the universe.

The owners of capital have created an amazing, self-serving ideology in the US (and elsehwere): If something doesn't help them make money, it's worthless. People seem to think that's part of the US - in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Even more amazing is that I hear scholars in non-profitable fields parrot those ideas. I think capitalism - and especially free markets - work well in many ways, but it's a means to an end, not a religion. Capitalism serves us, not vice-versa.

This is not a capitalism issue. During the communist revolution, scientists were persecuted if their work was too "intellectual" and didn't have immediate use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_Old_Ninth

https://www.culturalrevolutionceramics.com/object-details/do...

The Church of Capitalism (as opposed to small-c capitalism) is the ideology of here and now; that's what I was talking about. The capitalist-communist dichotomy - a favorite of ideologues in both groups - is not something I was referring to.

There can be more than one religion with similar beliefs.

Tevatron’s construction program built up a lot of industrial capacity for superconducting magnets. This was by design, in the hopes that it would drive induced demand for them. One of the first beneficiaries were MRI machines, which became a lot more affordable to produce.

The DOE hoped to repeat that success in the 1990s with the much larger SSC, but it was cancelled.

> has there been any discovery made with the help of a collider that found its way into an industrial product?

That's not why they were built

> then letting it have a look at the collider data.

I don't think you understand how collider data is analyzed

What would that entity do exactly?