the difference is with nasa we can name dozens of advancements that help people off the top of our heads but i cant even get someone to name something theoretical that might help the common man from the confirmation of the higgs-boson
so, maybe help out with that, what theoretically can we hope that we might improve our lives through confirming that particle
additionally chuds want to defund nasa to fund the military and prisons whereas id use the money from that particle thing to house homeless or invest in indigenous communities
so in short suck it nerd because it is in fact worthless to me, personally
i cant even get someone to name something theoretical that might help the common man from the confirmation of the higgs-boson
This is the type of research that can advance more immediate research into non-fossil fuel energy.
Earlier versions of this same science helped us understand the theory behind nuclear power, then eventually engineer nuclear reactors. Neither of us know enough about physics to do much beyond extending that analogy into the future.
Although I’m highly sympathetic to this argument until we have much better material conditions in socialism, I think your argument misses a significant dialectical process which must be taken into account and a reason that fundamental research is still necessary and good most of the time. Namely, the quantity -> quality relation. Fundamental research seems to have little effect until it’s quantity reaches a threshold where it becomes obvious how it can be used and what sort of benefits there will be in using it, whereupon the quality of that research shifts to no longer being called “fundamental research” and becomes now its own field of research or applied research. Finding where these will appear is a difficult, though hopefully possible, endeavor.
If you argument is that fundamental research in particles will never result in that shift, I’m excited to hear how you reasoned that no contradiction/drive in the dialectics of nature found by colliders will be useful to our material conditions. I suspect you may be right but don’t think I’m one who could possibly credibly say so, and therefore don’t claim that it’s useless.
If your argument is that fundamental research is too far away from results to make such decisions, i would really like to hear how we measure and understand this, because it feels like you know more about the threshold than me.
If your argument is that we should not focus on that when problems exist now: this is true, but can we possibly even call this focus? The money is miniscule in relation to the huge sums elsewhere and your focus on this is the real problem. You’re then not necessarily wrong, but you’re not fighting the most important fights.
The study of molecules was fruitful once chemical relations started being understood and used and resulted in some people “wasting time” on studying atoms. Those theories were useless except to probe what chemicists were doing already. Until the understanding reached a point that its exploitation became possible. Then the researchers were doing a science to utilize the energy of those atoms beyond the point where chemistry could apply as a framework. When this will occur again I don’t dare claim.
I’m not the original person you responded to, I just found your reasoning incorrect in asking for “ways it’ll help” as if that concrete answer can be given easily without deep expertise. Or even as if that can be said concretely. It’s missing the way the dialectical movement from quantity to quality works. I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a hundred years, fundamental research into the particles instead finds a contradiction in the way we understand them which can be exploited for energy. We have many precedents for that at every major “level” above that.
