You keep going again and again about 'quantum science’s but what exactly do you think that means because particle physics is based on quantum field theory which is probably the most advanced and complete version of ‘quantum science’ known to us.

The current knowledge of particles is enough to work with exploration of quantum phenomena like entanglement and superposition and using lasers, it may be possible to design efficient ways of encrypted communication and compute. More "in-depth" analysis of particles and particle fields requires more investment in a new bigger particle collider, the heavy investment of which I am in favor of delaying.

b) the only reason that quantum gravity research is ‘inexpensive’ is because it is mostly theoretical in nature and not because the experiments to research quantum gravity are ‘efficient’. Also we can create a thousand theories but it doesn’t matter after a certain point because without experiments to verify which theory is right, it is all educated guessing in a sense

Theoretical physics paves way for new insight, and it certainly does not expend too much energy unless machine learning models are employed which again consumes a significant amount of energy. Still this is not as huge an investment as the one towards building a new bigger collider.

I am bewildered that you think scientists are not already doing everything they can to build/operate colliders(and any experimental setup for that matter) in an efficient way. They are already trying to get more data from the experiments while keeping all other parameters the same while also building better methods to parse and interpret the data so more conclusions can be drawn from the same amount of data. Experimentalists always know that their field is viewed unfavourable by certains sections of the public which results in them getting less resources as compared to shit like sports, entertainment, etc. which is why they are used to maximizing the equipment they are able to build.

I am happy to know that particle physicists are doing everything they can to work with the resources at hand. Building a complete new apparatus in terms of a bigger collider is something I am against. If modification of the existing collider to build the bigger one is economically viable, that is a separate discussion.

While I agree that a lot people are involved in science have personal motivations to claim that those motivations supercede their interest to progress knowledge seems very insulting especially as there is no data to backup your claims.

From my perspective, a push towards building a bigger particle collider to continue being relevant in a field that a physicist has invested most of his / her study towards in life, instead of diversifying towards other equally important and interesting scientific fields is selfish, if achievement is viewed in terms of publishing, for this individual. There will not be any data anyway as no scientist will voluntarily disclose that they would rather lobby for bigger particle colliders than work in a different scientific field. Hypothetically speaking, if the research papers involving the bigger particle collider wouldn't mention names of the associated researchers, I wonder if we'll start seeing mood swings of physicists pushing for the same.

Finally while I respect discussions on investments in science and whether that money can be utilised in a better way or for a different purpose, I ultimately find these discussions facile because things like sports, cinema, other forms of entertainment use much more resources(both monetary and natural) while contributing little to society in the long term. Unless we divert resources from those fields to use for the betterment of the planet, arguing that we should do the same from scientific research of any kind is a meaningless gesture

Ordinary people have a right to energy as much as scientists do. Ordinary people are consumers of the products of scientific research, either in terms of access to knowledge or products of the same so they are engaged in the same ecosystem. Sports, cinema and other entertainment contribute to general wellbeing of people. Comparing energy expense of public engagement in these activities to scientific research has left me bewildered. Scientists should set the precedent of conserving energy as much as possible and inspire the world in doing the same, sparking more innovation in industry.