They are both describing the same particles.
Water and ice are made up the same particles and molecules yet the mathematical structure to define the effect of force/pressure is very different - plastic deformation vs fluid dynamics as the example given above
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.
As for Sabine’s proposal that we should be concentrating on quantum gravity -
a) A lot of people are currently involved in quantum gravity research and
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
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.
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.
Again particle physics also comes under ‘quantum behaviour’ and gives us a lot of information about the current state of the universe
I don’t see how this field would directly contribute to reduction of energy consumption.
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