Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Telescopes Vs Particle Accelerators?

Posted by Cliff on from the can-we-abandon-one-for-the-other dept.

RobotWisdom asks: "As I follow the scientific results from the Hubble and other space telescopes, it sure seems like they're delivering a ton more bang-for-the-buck than particle accelerators could ever dream of. If we can map the universe at every wavelength, won't this be data enough to -deduce- the particle laws? Is there still any reason to waste any money on accelerators?"

1 of 9 comments (clear)

  1. Don't forget PR by hubie · · Score: 4
    Your perception of space telescopes vs particle accelerators is probably affected by the amount of press NASA provides. NASA has (for many reasons) a very good PR machine and they do a very good job of getting beautiful pictures out to the public. Fermilab, CERN, etc. also cranks out a lot of good stuff, but it isn't the kind of thing that is going to make the evening news or the cover of popular magazines.

    Additionally, it also depends on your perspective. Particle accelerators have done much more to advance our understanding of the physical laws than telescopes (or most other instruments). On the other hand, nothing has given us a better sense of the grandeur of the Universe and our part in it than telescopes. There are probably more "gee-wiz" discoveries to be made by telescopes because we have only recently been able to escape the bounds of our atmosphere which has opened up a whole new realm of wavelengths to our eyes. However, particle accelerators have already made all the easy discoveries and they are now probing the heart and soul of the physical laws.

    It is a very exciting time for either field.