[raziel2701]

Why is this work important? To me it just feels so distant from my reality. At the core of this, is there an answer to the "who cares?" attitude?

Because if the answer is that we might incidentally create new useful technology in the build up of a new collider, why not just diversify the investment and put that money into a bunch of smaller projects? Hedge your bets sort of thing.

Why support this and not allocate more into high temperature superconductivity for example? I don't understand what is the justification that entitles such a large amount of money to a singular project.

[jfengel]

There is a lot of interest. It may not be the most efficient use of money, but people like the feeling that scientists are trying to unravel the most fundamental nature of the universe.

People got so excited about the Higgs boson, despite having no idea what it really means. They kept asking if it had an application, but seemed to accept that the answer is "no".

I'll admit, I too would rather put the money into an array of different sciences. But the money goes where you can get interest, and a lot of other science happens in the margins.

[refulgentis]

First thought: I'm not the greatest at coming up with a stirring polemic justifying pushing out boundary science.

Next thought that come to my head is, how do I boundary-test this. ex. work my way backwards, what was the last collider worth building?

It's perfectly rational and intellectually honest to say "whichever one gave us something that got commercialized / helped people / etc."

As far as high-temperature superconductivity, I'm virtually certain if there was consensus a $XXB facility would concretely advance that, I assume it'd get funded.

I'm not certain, but I believe someone with more wherewithal / had skin in the game would argue that there's no reason to think this isn't that facility. (in that, advancing the boundary of physics tends to bring breakthroughs down the pipeline)

[gonzobonzo]

> what was the last collider worth building?...It's perfectly rational and intellectually honest to say "whichever one gave us something that got commercialized / helped people / etc."

It seems like the LHC wouldn't pass this test? In which case, continuing down the path wouldn't make sense under this criteria.

[refulgentis]

Right! :)

(the thing is, "continuing down the path" is a Not Even Wrong (in the Pauli sense) description of what's going on. It's a hopelessly confused. At least, I have given up hope: I wrote a quite detailed post, with both a TL;DR and longer, linking out to an approachable article, explaining this.)