Euclid space telescope to shed light on what the "dark universe" is made of

[Alfonso Maruccia]

Why it matters: A new European mission will soon depart for its deep space destination, providing scientists here on Earth with a very advanced exploration tool. Its mission: to finally solve the mysteries hiding beyond dark matter and dark energy.

Named after the Greek mathematician thought to be the father of geometry, Euclid is an upcoming space exploration mission which will soon depart aboard a Falcon 9 Block 5 reusable rocket. Developed by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Euclid Consortium with a €1 billion budget, the space telescope will study visible to near-infrared electromagnetic radiation to provide scientist with a better understanding of what dark energy and dark matter actually are.

The Euclid mission was initially planned to launch on a Russian Soyuz rocket, but the invasion of Ukraine forced the ESA to stop its collaboration with the Russian space agency (Roscosmos). The telescope will now depart Earth on a SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, launching from Cape Canaveral on July 1, 2023 – weather conditions permitting.

After launch, Euclid will have to travel 1.5 million kilometers to reach its destination, the second Lagrange point. The orbit, which is the same used by the James Webb Space Telescope, will let the space observatory peek into the cosmos with the Sun, Earth, and Moon orbits behind it.

According to Stephen Wilkins, an astronomer at Sussex University, Euclid has the same resolving power as the venerable Hubble Space Telescope with the additional ability to survey a third of the night sky at the same time. Therefore, Euclid will provide an "incredibly detailed" map of the observable universe, Wilkins said.

The two main scientific instruments aboard Euclid are VIS, a camera operating at visible wavelengths, and NISP, which includes detectors sensitive to near-infrared light radiation. Together, the tools will study the universe by exploiting a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing, collecting light which has been distorted and deflected by the gravitational field of the gargantuan cosmic structures they passed through.

Dark matter is the theoretical form of matter which pervades the universe, perhaps making up 85 percent of all matter while avoiding interaction with the electromagnetic field. Dark matter has had a strong influence on the structure and evolution of the universe, scientists think, while dark energy is an unknown form of energy which affects the universe on the largest scales and is seemingly accelerating its expansion.

Andy Taylor, astrophysicist and professor at Edinburgh University, highlighted the importance of the Euclid mission for studying and understanding the universe. We cannot possibly say that we know what the universe actually is if we don't understand the fundamental nature of its elusive "dark components" (ie dark matter and dark energy), Taylor said.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/99135-euclid-space-telescope-shed-light-what-dark-universe.html

 

[RudyBob]

It's probably someone's Dad

 

[mcnabney]

It matters because dark matter and dark energy makes up most of the universe and without it the math in our model doesn't come anywhere close to balancing. If this probe comes up empty we are going to need to rethink a lot of physics.

 

[mbk34]

I could save them billions. If our current understanding of physics requires us to invent 95% of the universe (as dark matter and dark energy) just to make our equations work then that tells me our equations are very wrong. I suspect all those books on string theory will also likely end up as recycling too.

 

[kiwigraeme]

I could save them billions. If our current understanding of physics requires us to invent 95% of the universe (as dark matter and dark energy) just to make our equations work then that tells me our equations are very wrong. I suspect all those books on string theory will also likely end up as recycling too.

yeah but there is wrong and and then there is Wrong

like there is lost and LOST - ie if walking in forests you must stop at lost and not LOST
eg you have lost the trail and not sure you can find the hut - but you know how to backtrack - LOST you don't know way forward or back

So they kind of want to know how they are wrong - stuff like this can rule out theories - vaguely point in right direction

 

[neeyik]

I could save them billions. If our current understanding of physics requires us to invent 95% of the universe (as dark matter and dark energy) just to make our equations work then that tells me our equations are very wrong. I suspect all those books on string theory will also likely end up as recycling too.

In the case of dark matter, the independent observational evidence for its existence is very strong. Alternate explanations for the observations don't work across the board, nor do they work for other things observed in cosmology, which is why dark matter is the preferred answer. It's not a particularly controversial one given the discoveries made in particle physics over the decades.

There is independent observational evidence for dark energy but the amount of it is far less than that for dark matter, and explanations for these aren't as robust as those for dark matter. The Euclid mission is one of the many projects being undertaken to collect more data to explore both ideas further, and by itself, it's unlikely to provide such evidence to conclusive affirm or dismiss dark matter and/or dark energy.

And part of the reason why is general relativity -- the source of the equations you're referring to. It's one of two of the most heavily tested models in physics, with the other being quantum field theory, and while there is a lack of reconciliation between the two, the independent observational evidence for them is enormous. The general consensus is that they're incomplete, rather than 'wrong', but the only way to confirm or deny this is to collect more data.

And this takes time (and money, of course). Take gravitational waves, for example. Almost 100 years passed between their mathematical prediction by Einstein and the first direct observation (and a little under 60 years for the first indirect evidence). Doubts over their existence persisted for decades (even by Einstein himself) and had scientists simply gone 'well, GR must be wrong' and given up, then LIGO would never have been constructed, and cosmology would have been all the poorer for it.

Doubting that dark matter and dark energy exist is a fundamental approach to how science works, as is testing whether such concerns are valid or not.

 

[kiwigraeme]

In the case of dark matter, the independent observational evidence for its existence is very strong. Alternate explanations for the observations don't work across the board, nor do they work for other things observed in cosmology, which is why dark matter is the preferred answer. It's not a particularly controversial one given the discoveries made in particle physics over the decades.

There is independent observational evidence for dark energy but the amount of it is far less than that for dark matter, and explanations for these aren't as robust as those for dark matter. The Euclid mission is one of the many projects being undertaken to collect more data to explore both ideas further, and by itself, it's unlikely to provide such evidence to conclusive affirm or dismiss dark matter and/or dark energy.

And part of the reason why is general relativity -- the source of the equations you're referring to. It's one of two of the most heavily tested models in physics, with the other being quantum field theory, and while there is a lack of reconciliation between the two, the independent observational evidence for them is enormous. The general consensus is that they're incomplete, rather than 'wrong', but the only way to confirm or deny this is to collect more data.

And this takes time (and money, of course). Take gravitational waves, for example. Almost 100 years passed between their mathematical prediction by Einstein and the first direct observation (and a little under 60 years for the first indirect evidence). Doubts over their existence persisted for decades (even by Einstein himself) and had scientists simply gone 'well, GR must be wrong' and given up, then LIGO would never have been constructed, and cosmology would have been all the poorer for it.

Doubting that dark matter and dark energy exist is a fundamental approach to how science works, as is testing whether such concerns are valid or not.

Fun fact Einstein didn't get a Nobel prize for general relativity (gravity waves or e equals m times c squared ) - ever feel cheated ?
Instead he got if for photoelectric effect.- a much easier concept to grasp than relativity

 

[mbk34]

In the case of dark matter, the independent observational evidence for its existence is very strong.

I'm not a physicist but I believe the observational evidence only tells us our current understanding is wrong. We've invented dark matter to try and balance the equations. It's a theory but I don't believe there's any solid evidence for the actual existence of dark matter (or dark energy or string theory). I suspect even a first year phrenology student can see that these theories will eventually go the way of luminiferous ether

 

[neeyik]

I'm not a physicist but I believe the observational evidence only tells us our current understanding is wrong. We've invented dark matter to try and balance the equations. It's a theory but I don't believe there's any solid evidence for the actual existence of dark matter (or dark energy or string theory).

The majority of cosmologists are in agreement that there is more than sufficient evidence (observable and independent) for dark matter to be real. It may not be, of course, but until there is a sufficiently strong and testable model to explain the evidence, then it will remain the preferred theory. This is no different from other things in physics, such as the Higgs field and pentaquarks -- all theoretically proposed decades ago, but held to be 'correct' until evidence was observed that proved or dismissed them (it was the former for both).

Fun fact Einstein didn't get a Nobel prize for general relativity (gravity waves or e equals m times c squared ) - ever feel cheated ?
Instead he got if for photoelectric effect.- a much easier concept to grasp than relativity

The stubborn snobbery, old-guard attitudes, and no small degree of antisemitism which pervaded how the Nobel committee did things meant that Einstein was arguably cheated out of a second Nobel prize; the first one was only awarded out of duress and 15 years too late. Sure, the complexity of the mathematics behind general relativity didn't help, but by 1922 there was sufficient evidence to show it was correct.

 

[Alfonso Maruccia]

It's probably someone's Dad

Ah, I see what you did there :-D

 

[AJ North]

"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

— Sir Isaac Newton, PRS (1642 - 1727)



"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose."

— John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, FRS (1892 - 1964)

("Possible Worlds and Other Papers," 1927, p. 286.)