Kepler v. LHC -- which is the better BIG science?
NASA's Kepler Telescope asks a question: Can we identify Earth-like planets with atmospheres suitable for life?
The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) asks: Can we find remnants of a particle we think existed milliseconds after the creation of our universe that forced an imbalance of matter over anti-matter that is responsible for the universe existing as we know it.
Kepler cost $500M financec by one government (US-NASA); The LHC cost Billions split by multiple governments of the European Space Agency
In its first trial run, the LHC blew a fuse and was shut down for 6 months.
On August 6 of this year, 2 months after launch, NASA's Kepler telescope proved itself to be the best scientific experiment since the Hubble Space Telescope was launched. It was conceived in the late 80s as a wild shot in the dark. Could we design an instrument so sensitive that it could detect the atmosphere of an Earth-sized exoplanet light years away. The head honchos at NASA immediately laughed it off as so impossible that it wasnt worthy of their ridicule. Within one month of being turned on, Kepler detected the atmosphere of a large exoplanet 1000 light years away. Will we see this planet in our lifetimes? Don't hold your breath. But even that detection was never even imagined. Suddenly, the impossible became intriguing. Equally important was that it proved that not only was it the most light-sensitive instrument ever designed and built, but also that BIG science can be done on a relatively tiny budget (500M compared to the Bs spent on the LHC by multiple countries or the Space Station), and still produce high value results. All without putting anyone at risk.
Beyond all this, when one reads the background of the mission founder, this little experiment shows that the moral of never quitting when you know you're right is as true today as it ever was.
For Twitter updates on the project,
What else can we do?
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
LHC is not a project by ESA,
LHC is not a project by ESA, but by CERN and other countries. It's a physics project which will give us a deeper understanding of our universe in the very small scale and possibly of this we will learn more about it's nature, beginning and future and can use this knowledge to plan and make applications useful to society in more everyday life.
Kepler is an astronomy project which is doing what is basically a census of exoplanets in one small area of our galaxy. It's very worthwhile too, but it can't be compared to LHC. Kepler will, all going well, be one step in the Copernican revolution. It will not bring any utterly new information, it can't challenge our basic beliefs about the cosmos. What it will do at best is to test our theories of planetary formation and if goes well, find 1000-2000 new planets, of which several dozen could be about the mass of Earth and in orbits similar to the Earth is to the Sun.
But LHC could bring up utterly new physics and it surely can test the Standard Model of physics and show whether it stands or not, and also it should be able to finally bring (with Planck satellite) a way of testing some of the most daring theories in modern physics, like the String theory. Some variants of it should be proven impossible thanks to fully functioning LHC and Planck's findings.
Kepler v. LHC
You are absolutely correct in correcting the ownership of the LHC from the ESA to that of CERN et al. I was making an analogy between NASA and its European counterpart to make a point but accuracy should always trump analogy. You are also correct in identifying the enormous potential for a better understanding of our universe that the LHC represents. Finding the Higgs would be a monumental accomplishment. Never would discount that. However, isn't that experiment just a survey of current unseen particles?
Hubble was designed as an astronomic survey and has already found hundreds of exoplanets which was great. However, lens/mirror astronomy can not identify anything about the potential habitability of those planets. And what other use in finding a planet is there other than whether it may harbor life or not?
Beyond the simpler is always better argument that Kepler makes, Kepler's technology takes photometric astronomy to a level never considered before and shows how it is better adapted to answer that age-less question.
What this experiment now asks is whether such a probe/telescope can be sent out like a Voyager spacecraft to be placed in orbit around a distant planet (lets say Neptune or one of its moons) to extend our view/survey even further.
My website: www.davincilearningcenter.org/Kepler
Kepler and LHC, not Kepler v. LHC
Sacman, you are correct to tout Kepler as potentially a great accomplishment. In fact, Science Blog readers will probably want to read Alan Boss' new book, The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets, which I recently reviewed.
But it seems to me that you don't need to knock LHC in the process. Particle physics is an inherently expensive enterprise and equipment failures are as much a part of the process as lost spacecraft are in the business of planetary exploration. It is quite reasonable to expect the LHC to yield lots of data that will shed light on the fundamental nature of matter--and probably some surprises as well when it starts up again late this year.
For those who are interested in my work for young readers, I am working on book chapters on both of these topics for a series from Lerner Publishing called "Seven Wonders."
The next set of seven wonders titles cover science and technology, including my Seven Wonders of Exploration Technology, where we define exploration quite broadly and include the LHC as the culminating chapter. It is in the final stages of layout before printing, so it may be available within 3 months.
The set after that is about astronomy and space, and I am about to start writing a book on space technology, with the search for other Earths as its closing chapter. That will, of course, feature Kepler as the "Wonder."
Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews
Kepler v. LHC
Hi Fred,
I really wasn't trying to knock the value of the LHC experiment as much as put the cost of outstanding science into an economy of scale perspective. You might remember, in 1986, we had proposed a similar experiment to be created beneath the burnt soil of the state of Texas and called it the Super-Conducting Super-Collider. Congress decided we had other priorities. After that, Fermilab, in Chicago, tried to reach the same energy levels as predicted for the LHC and failed.
The LHC will produce magnificent results eventually and we may just find that fleeting Higgs boson which would confirm our current understanding of whence we came. A big project will have produced expected results.
The beauty of Kepler, as I see it, is an unexpected triumph that was the result of brilliant ingenuity noone thought possible at the time. Richard Feynman solved NASA's problem of what happened to the Challenger Shuttle after the 1986 disaster by simply dropping a rubber gasket into a glass of ice water-a 5th grade science experiment solved a multimillion dollar problem. A what-if scenario that worked.
That is why I like Kepler. Borucki asked a Feynman-like question regarding finding Earth-like exoplanets and designed an experiment to find out. I think we need more of that.
My own website on the matter with additional parts: http://www.davincilearningcenter.org/Kepler
Re: Superconducting Supercollider
Hi, Sacman.
Yes, the Superconductiing Supercollider turned out to be over-reaching. It was, in fact, planned to be much larger and expected to reach higher energies than the LHC. I mention that fact in my chapter about the LHC in the upcoming Seven Wonders of Exploration Technology.
I'll give Science Blog readers an advance peek at that chapter.
[NOTE: This is copyrighted material and may go beyond "fair use," which means it should not be quoted in full by others or used without acknowledgment (a.k.a. plagiarism). As the author, I am permitted to go beyond fair use.]
Fred Bortz
Author of Science Books for Young Readers