Actually particle accelerators somewhat funded the early investment in high field superconducting magnets which might now appear to yield improvements in fusion energy Q factors due to the strong dependence on field intensity [1]
Of course it has to be useful. Based on that we build our world (through engineering) and if we work for something that cannot be used then it does not make sense. I do not see any use for quantic foam or quasars any time soon.
As for magnets: this certainly helps, but has CERN done any breakthroughs that were used afterwards? They had at some point the world record for the density of a magnetic field. There is no practical use for that neither in MRIs (that require a lower field and were used for many years already), nor tokamaks (where the homogeneity of the filed is paramount on larger scales compared to the ones in CERN.
I am not saying that the engineering work that is done in CERN is useless - it is just that the money poured there goes primarily in some "whose is bigger" contest that has exactly zero chances to be used.
No, it hasn't. "Science" means "knowledge", and the only things you can know are the things how they actually are.
A PhD from CERN should not confuse science with engineering.
Yes, but investing MM€ to know something that has no use does not make sense, if there is much more important knowledge competing for the fund. I guess that knowing how to cure MS is more important that discovering a four quarks particle, right? In an ideal world we could do everything but we have to choose wisely because the amount of funds is limited.
> A PhD from CERN should not confuse science with engineering.
Can you please tell me where I confused them?