Reaching the practical end of physics?

Hi, this may be more of a question... probably for cavediver... than a solid debate position.In the realm of fundamental particles, and forces, physics has made a lot of gains within the last century. I'm wondering if physics is reaching an end point, especially with regard to particle physics.While I realize more might always be found, smaller and smaller, as our instruments get more precise. However, I am wondering if the finding of smaller particles and what influences their behavior, is of any real use, especially given the great amount of energy needed to parse them out?From what I can tell... and this may be wayyyyy off... all these fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, etc) don't last long in the "real world". That is to say, no matter how much we pick them apart, they fall back together (or reduce to energy) such that they have no value beyond understanding the esoteric properties of the universe.Is it true that for all practical purposes we'll have to deal with particles and events from the electron size up? Disregarding that photons have no size of course. Is their some use that could be found among the sub-subatomics? What would they be? How about smaller than them?I'm not sure where this should go... maybe is it science?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

My thread title was a bit over dramatic, and I tried to draw it down in the OP itself. I really didn't mean all of physics. Gravity is one good example of something still not understood well enough, and I take antimatter as completely useful (even if currently hard to control).frgab correctly surmised what I was really asking, and Percy also rewrote my question more eloquently.frgab had an interesting point about the tech developments alone which come out of these searches. The ability to manipulate the world better is always of some value.However, and this is what I didn't see you (cavediver) mention. While I do agree with everything you said, and I'M not going to be the guy asking for anyone to halt science, I'm wondering if we can and perhaps have found a practical limit to our capabilities? Or if the nature of the universe itself is showing some practical limits of control?Here's a crude example. When we pull things apart and say get quarks, is there any idea that we can use them for anything, beyond recreating what we already have existing at the nuclear level? Sort of like, are all we doing then is reinventing the wheel? Maybe it could have use at a different time scale than we live, but then that still doesn't help us.I'm not sure if that question is the same as what was said about the atom at the turn of last century.Hahahaha... now that I think about it, maybe another way of asking it is if this kind of research will ever allow Physicists to be more important in everyday manipulations of the most basic physical structures of the world. Currently Chemists would seem to hold that role. Could Physicists end up manufacturing quark or lepton materials for mom and pop?Personally I do like the never-ending quest, the russian doll nature of the universe. But I'd still like to be able to recognize when I pushed past a practical limit.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Don't have to apologize for skipping threads... especially when they get wacky. Just appreciate it when you do pop in (to be honest I still spend some time each night mulling over implications of your post on rights/relativism).On this thread, I get what you're saying regarding devices like NMR and PET. In a way that also goes along with what frgab was saying with developing tech just to discover the new particles. We find new ways to do things. Okay, I buy that.But from what I am understanding, the effects of anything coming out of the most fundamental particles are on such a short time scale, that there might not be much to harness... such that we could get something like NMR (which uses properties of much more stable matter).I suppose I'd love to be surprised that there are things coming out like that, and maybe CERN's future work can provide it? Actually I'm excited by their capture of antimatter particles, and would love to know what we can get out of that. Yes, personally I'd like to be able to probe deeper into the fundamental nature of the universe at about the low energy level of a human-sized tub filled with hot water (bubbles, and whirling currents optional).

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Ahhhhh, you're not in disagreement. I wasn't stating we had reached the end (me with sandwich-board "end is nigh!"). I was asking a question to push answers.I do wonder if there is a limit of human capability, or even inherent practical limits. There are still plenty of things for Physicists to look at and play with. As I stated earlier gravity is still relatively unknown, antimatter is simply unwieldly at this point in time (but who knows for later), and quantum effects are clearly exploitable.Where I was specifically pointing was within a section of physics... particle physics... at the search for smaller and smaller bits and how they operate. With the great deal of energy, and the extremely short times they can exist... and they seem to fall back together into what we have to deal with on a daily basis, could we be hitting a practical wall on that end?But I think everyone has been pitching in responses that explain where some value can be obtained. And actually I hadn't known of how NMR was originally tested, which seems like an even better parallel (for a practical answer to my question) than analogies to the state of general knowledge regarding the atom circa 1900.Whether you got the speed of light thing right or not, I do appreciate the references. I hadn't heard of one of them and it was fascinating, even if not Einstein-breaking.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Heheheh... I would absolutely agree. Like there are some people who think they know of Gods and absolute morals. Just kidding!To be serious I do agree that "I don't know" is the true state of human nature, and why I like science so much. When practiced properly it embraces that reality, rather than projecting some intellectual hubris on everyone else. I realize my thread title was a bit hyperbolic, but I figured it would bring people in (P.T. Barnum at work). I had hoped the OP itself would focus it down to my specific question regarding particle physics.Right now, from what I understand, it is Quarks and Leptons at the smallest scale. Admittedly there could be smaller chunks, and there is some intrinsic emotional value in parsing them out. The question if they will hold any practical value is another thing entirely. Yes, as you might have surmised from my double-slit thread I am trying to re-orient my mind to the twists and turns involved with QM. I don't believe we've hit an end to that at all. Especially when we look at applications of the weirdness which occurs at that level.Edited by Silent H, : - of

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello, I hope you caught my earlier response which included ref to your post.In any case, I just noticed your profile says you are from Naperville, and given that you say you are doing experimental physics, I was wondering if you work/study at FermiLab?I grew up within walking distance of it, and that played a strong role in shaping my interest in science (as well as art). You can't get much closer to a literal ivory tower of brilliant minds shut away to concentrate on the mysteries of the universe.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Absolutely perfect description. And the building itself, inside and out felt inspirational.I lived in Warrenville, and I'm not kidding about walking to Fermi... though a bike was better to get from the front gate to the main building. I went there many times, some for open house type science stuff, but also for arts programs and just to hang out in the nature area around it. I'm assuming they still have the theater in the back of the main building, and that's where they'd have movie nights and even live theater.I always came away feeling fully en-cultured. Just going up to the top, looking into the windows of REAL LIVE SCIENTISTS at work, made me think... okay that's what I want to be doing.Unfortunately, once in science, I found out it all ain't Fermi. That's a special place.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Note: see other message to you above...Thanks for this post. It does sort of get at what I know of where we are at... though a bit more detailed... and why we might be hitting a limit.I had my fingers crossed that Fermi would get the go ahead (aka money and permission) for the larger ring... alas.I hope cavediver has a response to your post.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

As far as I understand it relativity does get at how time impacts our existence. I would love to have better models, though I don't think direct manipulation of time will ever be possible.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I know time travel is theoretically possible based on GR, though I thought that was restricted to natural phenomena (time dilation, and wormholes)... which I don't consider direct manipulation of time.However that spinning cylinder thingy, and hijacking of wormholes and moving them around certainly would be. Intriguing... though how one constructs an infinitely long cylinder I don't get.I hope we can find some wormholes to move about the Universe faster, rather than their time travel properties.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I did read the whole thing, and I just read that section again. What's the problem? What did I say in my reply that was wrong?Edited by Silent H, : minus s

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Hello. Yeah, don't worry I'm not thinking physics itself is near an end, it was really the subatomic particle (or I suppose I should say subquarkic) physics I was asking questions about.People have done a pretty good job bringing up the side benefits of the research itself... which you've now added to. One thing I found interesting... I never knew this, and its almost counter-intuitive to me. Not saying I doubt you, just that I'm surprised to hear it. How do they make a profit? Is it from the research or use of the land/facilities?I know Fermi seemed to have a bunch of other things going on, but for some reason I always pictured it as a place supported by grants.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

There's an irony, in generally socialized countries their colliders produce a profit, in a capitalist one they don't.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I see it now... adopt a subatomic particle. They are lost, they need your help. You get its name, what it looks like, and where it would fit into the standard model. Watch its progress as you send in money.heheheh.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I should have noted that I wasn't trying to criticize your idea. Actually I like it and think secular organizations could be making a push for such things.Its just the comical vision of a little lepton with tearful eyes and Sally Struthers discussing its plight came to mind.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard