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.
we accomplished all of that with the theoreticals, ie, without any of the physical proofs that the colliders provide (and havent provided in some cases)
also, there is criticism from actual physicists over these colliders as well and no not just that wierd lady with the accent who sucks
i find it strange for people to be like "oh you cant know what good it'll do for us in the future but i cant explain becuase none of us know enough about it" and dismiss me because im doubtful of its benefit because sometimes science just doesnt pan out, like sometimes theories are wrong and we could actually just be wasting a shit ton of money and resources to try and prove theories that are bunk
think of my point of view: we spend money on a collider to find a particle we already strongly suspect exists. cant find it. we spend money on a larger one. cant find it. spend money on a larger one, cool we found it! we confirmed what we already knew but it didnt answer a question we had. there must be something else. return to step one. so, maybe eventually we find what we are looking for. or maybe we dont. or maybe we do but realize it is not possible to interact with the thing in any ways that is useful outside of some obscure physics maths. but how many colliders do we build until enough is enough? we may very well be on a wild goose chase. what im saying is it is also possible that this stuff has as much scientific value to our real lives as elon launching a car into orbit
...No. There were plenty of tests, for example the atomic pile built at the University of Chicago. They certainly didn't just do a bunch of math and then build an industrial nuclear power plant on the first go.
there is criticism from actual physicists over these colliders
I don't think you're making the same criticisms they are (I last read some of those criticisms a while ago, though).
I'm not saying a particle accelerator was used to test the theoretical underpinnings of nuclear power. I'm saying testing was done, that is, they did not "accomplish[] all of that with the theoreticals." They just used earlier tools.
To test modern physics, many (not all) physicists say the tool they need is an accelerator.
specifically, how?
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.
we accomplished all of that with the theoreticals, ie, without any of the physical proofs that the colliders provide (and havent provided in some cases)
also, there is criticism from actual physicists over these colliders as well and no not just that wierd lady with the accent who sucks
i find it strange for people to be like "oh you cant know what good it'll do for us in the future but i cant explain becuase none of us know enough about it" and dismiss me because im doubtful of its benefit because sometimes science just doesnt pan out, like sometimes theories are wrong and we could actually just be wasting a shit ton of money and resources to try and prove theories that are bunk
think of my point of view: we spend money on a collider to find a particle we already strongly suspect exists. cant find it. we spend money on a larger one. cant find it. spend money on a larger one, cool we found it! we confirmed what we already knew but it didnt answer a question we had. there must be something else. return to step one. so, maybe eventually we find what we are looking for. or maybe we dont. or maybe we do but realize it is not possible to interact with the thing in any ways that is useful outside of some obscure physics maths. but how many colliders do we build until enough is enough? we may very well be on a wild goose chase. what im saying is it is also possible that this stuff has as much scientific value to our real lives as elon launching a car into orbit
...No. There were plenty of tests, for example the atomic pile built at the University of Chicago. They certainly didn't just do a bunch of math and then build an industrial nuclear power plant on the first go.
I don't think you're making the same criticisms they are (I last read some of those criticisms a while ago, though).
they literally did do that
the first particle accelerator was built like over a decade later
I'm not saying a particle accelerator was used to test the theoretical underpinnings of nuclear power. I'm saying testing was done, that is, they did not "accomplish[] all of that with the theoreticals." They just used earlier tools.
To test modern physics, many (not all) physicists say the tool they need is an accelerator.