Hubble vs. LHC: Who Provides Bigger Return on Investment?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Duhoc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lhc
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on comparing the return on investment of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Participants explore the implications of scientific discoveries from both instruments, considering their contributions to knowledge in astronomy and particle physics, respectively.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the HST has provided significant value over its 24 years of operation, citing over 9,000 papers published using its data.
  • Others contend that comparing the two is inherently flawed due to their different scientific focuses and the LHC's ongoing data collection and potential discoveries.
  • One participant suggests that the LHC's discovery of the Higgs boson is a critical factor in its value, while another questions whether this discovery alone justifies a comparison.
  • There are claims that the LHC has the potential to answer fundamental questions about the universe, including the search for dark matter and supersymmetry, but results are still pending.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the ability to measure the impact of high-energy physics against astronomical observations, suggesting that such comparisons are not straightforward.
  • The discussion includes reflections on the engineering and design aspects of both projects, with some favoring the LHC in this regard.
  • Concerns are raised about the management and funding of collider projects, particularly in the context of the U.S. abandoning its collider project.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the HST or LHC provides a greater return on investment. Multiple competing views remain, with some advocating for the HST's historical contributions and others emphasizing the LHC's potential for future discoveries.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the long-term impact of the LHC, as it has not yet reached its design energy and has only completed a small fraction of its planned collisions. The discussion also highlights the challenges in quantifying the value of discoveries from different scientific domains.

Duhoc
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
With the handing out of Nobel Prizes last week it occurred to me that the selection committee decided to go in the direction of hard-headed application of science rather than some grand theory. We can certainly calculate over time, the value of a 'hard-headed" discovery, but calculating the return on more abstruse knowledge is far more difficult. And in that vein, I was wondering whether the Hubble Space Telescope or the Large Hadron Collider had provided mankind with a greater return on investment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't that like asking who would win a fight between Superman and the Hulk?

Also, the HST has been in orbit for around a quarter-century. The LHC hasn't reached design energy yet. How can you compare?
 
I'm for the HST. It's been in operation for 24 years and over 9,000 papers have been written using its data.

We'll have to wait another 2 decades or so to see how well the LHC impacts science.
 
I don't think there's any way to compare. You might be able to compare cost-effectiveness for one particle collider against another. But there's no way to compare high-energy physics discoveries against astronomical observations in terms of value.
 
No, there is a way to compare. How has the LHC changed our view of the universe? Has it measured up to the LHC? What is its potential to do so?
 
Finding the Higgs Boson seems to be the deciding factor in my humble opinion...
 
Duhoc said:
No, there is a way to compare. How has the LHC changed our view of the universe? Has it measured up to the LHC? What is its potential to do so?
Nope. No way to answer those questions.

And no, I don't think the Higgs discovery makes that decision any more objective.
 
A head to head between the most powerful telescope and most powerful microscope. That might qualify as the ultimate apples to oranges comparison. ... "I can see the most distant stars!", said the HST. "Pffft, I can see what they are made of.", said the LHC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: elusiveshame, davenn, dlgoff and 3 others
Duhoc said:
How has the LHC changed our view of the universe? Has it measured up to the LHC?
Yes I think so ;).

The LHC certainly changed my view of the universe, but that is not surprising if you work for it.
It is not just the Higgs boson:
There were multiple good arguments why the LHC should/could see supersymmetric particles. No result so far, which opens many new questions.
Before the LHC, particle physics experiments at accelerators formed two groups: proton/(anti)proton collisions to discover new things with a lot of other particles flying around from collisions, and electron/positron collisions to study those discovered things in detail in a clean environment. The LHC experiments can do both at the same time - in several measurements, they are more precise than existing electron/positron colliders already.

The LHC collected about 1% of the total collisions foreseen over the full lifetime (including upgrades) so far. 99% are still to come! And those 99% will be with a higher energy so they are much more effective.
 
  • #10
CaptDude said:
Finding the Higgs Boson seems to be the deciding factor in my humble opinion...
Yeah, I'd agree w/ that. I think they also done interesting work on antimatter.
 
  • #11
Looking at it from the design/engineering standpoint, IMO the http://www.atlas.ch/photos/lhc.html would win hands down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
mfb said:
Yes I think so ;).

The LHC certainly changed my view of the universe, but that is not surprising if you work for it.
It is not just the Higgs boson:
There were multiple good arguments why the LHC should/could see supersymmetric particles. No result so far, which opens many new questions.
Before the LHC, particle physics experiments at accelerators formed two groups: proton/(anti)proton collisions to discover new things with a lot of other particles flying around from collisions, and electron/positron collisions to study those discovered things in detail in a clean environment. The LHC experiments can do both at the same time - in several measurements, they are more precise than existing electron/positron colliders already.

The LHC collected about 1% of the total collisions foreseen over the full lifetime (including upgrades) so far. 99% are still to come! And those 99% will be with a higher energy so they are much more effective.
mfb said:
Yes I think so ;).

The LHC certainly changed my view of the universe, but that is not surprising if you work for it.
It is not just the Higgs boson:
There were multiple good arguments why the LHC should/could see supersymmetric particles. No result so far, which opens many new questions.
Before the LHC, particle physics experiments at accelerators formed two groups: proton/(anti)proton collisions to discover new things with a lot of other particles flying around from collisions, and electron/positron collisions to study those discovered things in detail in a clean environment. The LHC experiments can do both at the same time - in several measurements, they are more precise than existing electron/positron colliders already.

The LHC collected about 1% of the total collisions foreseen over the full lifetime (including upgrades) so far. 99% are still to come! And those 99% will be with a higher energy so they are much more effective.
Thoughtful reply. But how has it changed your view. The Hubble cost about 2 billion to build and maintain. The Collider about four times that. But the Hubble has been a window on the universe, settling scores of problems, showing us the extent of the universe. It has focused on predicted and unpredicted events. It has confirmed that the universe is expanding, shown us how new stars are born. The LHC has proved the existence of the Higgs Boson. But what else does it promise to do? The United States started to build a collider then thought better of it. Maybe it was right. But I am interested in your thoughts, as you work there.
 
  • #13
Duhoc said:
But the Hubble has been a window on the universe, settling scores of problems, showing us the extent of the universe. It has focused on predicted and unpredicted events.
So did the LHC, and will continue to do.
The pictures just do not look as nice as the photos Hubble can make.
Duhoc said:
But what else does it promise to do?
Finding the fundamental building blocks of the universe, or confirming we found all within the range of the LHC. The experiments have a chance to find dark matter, supersymmetry or particles from various other theories - we cannot predict their discovery simply because we do not know if those particles exist.
Duhoc said:
The United States started to build a collider then thought better of it.
That was mainly mismanagement that lead to a cost explosion. And the LHC was a project with similar goals, focusing on one big collider was not a bad idea. Now many US scientists work for LHC experiments.
 
  • #14
Chalnoth said:
Nope. No way to answer those questions.

And no, I don't think the Higgs discovery makes that decision any more objective.
There is some question about whether it was the Higgs boson that was discovered - see http://phys.org/news/2014-11-wasnt-higgs-particle.html
 

Similar threads

Graduate One quick question about Higgs boson and supersymmetry
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Graduate Big Bang Big Schmang, astronomical redshift is an artifact of distance
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
How Can the Philosophies of Great Physicists Guide Us Beyond the Standard Model?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K