How will Europe's Euclid space telescope see into the dark universe?
Euclid's measurements may put Einstein's famous theory of general relativity into question.
There is a problem with our understanding of the universe: It doesn't make sense if we account only for the matter and energy that we can see, measure or detect.
Albert Einstein's famous general theory of relativity, which describes the physical 'rules' of the universe in a series of equations only adds up on cosmic scales if there is five times as much matter dispersed throughout the cosmos than what we can see and detect.
This invisible matter, or dark matter, together with another invisible entity, dark energy, form the biggest mystery in cosmology, the study of the origins of the universe. While dark matter pulls stuff together with the force of gravity, the elusive dark energy seems to be doing the exact opposite, pushing things apart and causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that was first discovered in 1998. Together, dark energy and dark matter account for a mind-boggling 95% of the "stuff" in the universe, and we know close to nothing about this "stuff."
But how do you study something that can't be seen, touched or heard? Europe's new Euclid telescope may have just the solution.
Related: Is dark matter fuzzy? Ultracold state of matter could shed light
Solving cosmology's greatest mystery
"Dark matter is something that gravity works on in the same way as normal matter, but it doesn't interact with any light or any anything so we only know it's there by the effect it has on the movements of galaxies and stars," Isobel Hook, a professor of astrophysics at Lancaster University in the U.K. and a Euclid scientist, told Space.com. "Whereas dark energy is something we found out about more recently when we discovered that the expansion of the universe seems to be getting faster with time. That doesn't make any sense if you think there's just gravity there. It should be slowing down."
Hook was part of the team that discovered this mysterious acceleration, for which the lead investigator of that research, American astronomer Saul Perlmutter, received the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics. Since then, Hook, just like many other astronomers, has been hoping to find out what that invisible 'something' pushing the universe apart actually is. The new European Euclid telescope, launching on Saturday, July 1, might bring that answer a little closer into view. The spacecraft, fitted with a 3-foot-11 inch (1.2 meters) telescope, will also help map the distribution of dark matter across spacetime in three dimensions for the first time ever.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
But how exactly is Euclid going to "reveal" the existence of the invisible universe when it cannot see and measure it? The telescope, fitted with sensors capable of detecting visible and infrared light, will join the famed James Webb Space Telescope at Lagrange Point 2. In this region some 900,000 miles (1.5 million kilometers) away from Earth, the gravitational forces of the planet and the sun are equal, keeping the spacecraft in a stable location relative to Earth. Here, shielded from the glare of the star at the center of our solar system, Euclid will look into the depths of the cosmos, 10 billion years back in time, to map the distribution of galaxies across one third of the sky outside our Milky Way galaxy. It will take over six years for the $660 million telescope to complete its survey.
Gravitational lensing
Euclid's images, which will look quite like the famous Hubble Space Telescope's Deep Field images, will also allow astronomers to study how the gravity of invisible dark matter alters the shapes of the galaxies as they appear in those images.
"If you've got a very large clump of matter, any sort of matter, not necessarily dark matter, it will bend the light rays," Hook explained. "Which means that anything behind that type of matter will look distorted."
These distortions, also known as the gravitational lensing effect, are minuscule — so minuscule in fact, that they can't be accurately measured by ground-based telescopes due to the blurring caused by Earth's atmosphere.
"The effect is very tiny, less than 1%," Giuseppe Racca, Euclid project manager at the European Space Agency (ESA), told Space.com. "To detect this tiny effect is very difficult. We need to be very, very precise with our image quality and measure many, many galaxies to be able to deduce anything."
By using some rather complicated math, astronomers will be able to use these gravitational lensing measurements to calculate the amount of dark matter between Euclid and each distorted galaxy, allowing them to create the first ever 3D map of the dark matter's distribution in the universe.
Racca said that although dark matter has never been directly observed, scientists are quite certain of its existence.
"There is evidence of dark matter in so many ways that it is quite unlikely that Euclid could find evidence through measuring the gravitational lensing that it does not exist," said Racca. "I think that dark matter must exist because there is simply not enough normal matter to grow [galaxy] structures, to have them assemble the way they are."
Challenging Einstein's theory of relativity
The existence of dark energy, on the other hand, is less certain and it's in this area where Euclid scientists expect the biggest surprises. At stake is the ultimate validation of Albert Einstein's famous and widely accepted theory of relativity, which claims to capture what is supposed to be the universal rules of the behavior of all matter and energy in the cosmos.
"It could be simply that general relativity doesn't really work at cosmic scale, and therefore dark energy is not needed," said Racca. "We need dark energy now if we assume that general relativity works. Dark energy is not needed to grow the cosmic structures, to grow stars and galaxies."
Many experiments and observations made at smaller distances have confirmed the theory of general relativity over the years. If Euclid's measurements were to take this theory into question, it would be "an absolute discovery," according to Racca.
The imprints of ancient sound waves
Astronomers want to find evidence for the existence of dark energy in the distribution of galaxies and galaxy clusters across spacetime. They believe this distribution is not random, but a reflection of soundwaves that bounced around the ancient universe.
In the wake of these soundwaves, regions of denser gas emerged that later gave rise to galaxies, Hook said. Astronomers can observe these patterns in the cosmic microwave background, the remnants of the first light that spread through the emerging universe in the first hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang and that can still be detected today.
"In the cosmic microwave background, we can see this pattern as it looked in very early times," said Hook. "With Euclid, we will be able to measure it much closer to us now in time in the pattern of galaxies in the sky. We will see this imprint in the scale that galaxies like to cluster, in their preferred distance separation."
By comparing the ancient imprints with the newer ones, scientists will be able to see how much the universe has expanded since its earliest days and what role dark energy may have played in this process.
"Because the dark energy pushes the universe apart, if there's a lot of dark energy, we'll see that that scale is much larger than we would have otherwise," said Hook.
While Euclid's first views of the cosmos may be revealed in a few months, it will take years for the telescope to gather enough data to answer the big questions.
"It could take years before there is something really new to be announced," said Hook.
For now, she added, all models point to the existence of dark energy that is constant and spread uniformly throughout the cosmos. Some evidence, however, suggests that things may not be all that simple. The Hubble constant that describes the rate of the universe's expansion doesn't appear to be the same in the nearby observable cosmos as it is in the early universe, a possible sign that something might not be right with the cosmology models.
"Maybe we will have a surprise," Hook said. "I just can't wait to find out."
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Tereza is a London-based science and technology journalist, aspiring fiction writer and amateur gymnast. Originally from Prague, the Czech Republic, she spent the first seven years of her career working as a reporter, script-writer and presenter for various TV programmes of the Czech Public Service Television. She later took a career break to pursue further education and added a Master's in Science from the International Space University, France, to her Bachelor's in Journalism and Master's in Cultural Anthropology from Prague's Charles University. She worked as a reporter at the Engineering and Technology magazine, freelanced for a range of publications including Live Science, Space.com, Professional Engineering, Via Satellite and Space News and served as a maternity cover science editor at the European Space Agency.
-
Torbjorn Larsson It's a cool mission, surviving Russia's war crime attacks on Europe, and joining similar missions of the US Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile 2024 (which it will need to assess galaxy distances), China’s 2-metre Xuntian space telescope to be launched to the Tiangong Space Station 2025; and NASA’s 2.4-metre Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope to be launched 2027 .Reply
But the article first states in error that dark energy and dark matter are things we can't see, measure or detect, only to go on and describe how we do see, measure and detect it.
It was precisely the observational discovery of dark energy that joined the earlier one of dark matter to make a general relativistic universe make sense of star ages et cetera by way of dark energy-cold dark matter (LCDM) theory.
"Direct" and "indirect" have no testable definitions so are not scientific in that sense but are used to express personal opinion on strength of evidence. "Direct" (say): Observe a tree by its reflected light, unlikely to be mistaken in normal daylight conditions. "Indirect" (say): Observe a seeming tree by its shadow peeking out behind a house, is it one or several trees or bushes joining up as the shadow, more likely the first but can't exclude the latter!?
The Dark Energy Survey data release 3 joined earlier evidence that the significant differences in various measurements of the Hubble rate is unlikely to change LCDM cosmology. Their cosmological paper show that the cosmological equation of state is robustly observed even so. The state equation - dominated by dark energy and dark matter by the way - express how well the dark energy LCDM model properties predict the observed universe. -
Unclear Engineer Whoa there, Torbjorn!Reply
It is more objective to state that the observations are "predicting" the model properties of "dark matter" and especially "dark energy".
When we get new observations that don't fit the model, we get changes to the model to make it fit. In particular, the theory of the expansion of the universe is relying on unexplained variations in "inflation" and "dark energy" that are lagging, not preceding, the observations. We do not have an equation of state that predicts those things ahead of time. Pretty much every time we have achieved a new ability to look deeper into space, we find our predictions for what we will see are not what we end up seeing so the theory needs some more "adjustment".
With the theory fitting now requiring 20 times as much matter + energy than the energy and matter that we have good equations of state to describe and predict behaviors, there are a lot of people seeing "red flags" related to unrealistic modelling. While it is not unusual for experiments to cause small changes in our models to best fit our observations, the BBT is not the same as that process - the whole BBT depends on the existence of both dark matter and dark energy/inflation. And, it still has problems. -
Atlan0001
"Look deeper into space"? Don't you mean look deeper into 'time'? Instantaneousness, by way of quantum entanglement regarding concurrent whole spaces here and there, in time for purposes of observation has not yet been proved. ;):)Unclear Engineer said:Whoa there, Torbjorn!
It is more objective to state that the observations are "predicting" the model properties of "dark matter" and especially "dark energy".
When we get new observations that don't fit the model, we get changes to the model to make it fit. In particular, the theory of the expansion of the universe is relying on unexplained variations in "inflation" and "dark energy" that are lagging, not preceding, the observations. We do not have an equation of state that predicts those things ahead of time. Pretty much every time we have achieved a new ability to look deeper into space, we find our predictions for what we will see are not what we end up seeing so the theory needs some more "adjustment".
With the theory fitting now requiring 20 times as much matter + energy than the energy and matter that we have good equations of state to describe and predict behaviors, there are a lot of people seeing "red flags" related to unrealistic modelling. While it is not unusual for experiments to cause small changes in our models to best fit our observations, the BBT is not the same as that process - the whole BBT depends on the existence of both dark matter and dark energy/inflation. And, it still has problems. -
Unclear Engineer
No, I said what I meant.Atlan0001 said:"Look deeper into space"? Don't you mean look deeper into 'time'? Instantaneousness, by way of quantum entanglement regarding concurrent whole spaces here and there, in time for purposes of observation has not yet been proved. ;):)
The telescopes we keep improving definitely allow us to see objects at greater distances. I don't see anybody arguing with that.
And, I think most of us agree that things at great distances, when seen by the light they emit, are seen here as they were long ago, not as they are at this instant in time.
But, exactly how long ago gets difficult to determine. For instance, we don't have an indisputable value of the Hubble Constant to apply to the apparent redshift so as to give us a time when things were as we see them. And, we have a BBT that says expansion rate has varied tremendously once we get past where we can see to, now.
Further, if the rate of time passage is not a constant, then the ages of what we see are being miscalculated.
So, all I meant to say is that, the better the telescopes, the more we see our predictions violated again. That is hard to argue with. -
Atlan0001 Sorry Unclear Engineer but you can't see space two silly millimeters -- not even one silly millimeter -- away from your eyes. And neither can a telescope, much less 13.8 billion times 9.656 trillion kilometers away. "Most" people are told by someone like you did above in no uncertain terms that they can and thus they think and believe! they can. And it was no uncertain terms (you said, "look deeper into SPACE")! Not time, but space! And you say you meant exactly what you said, "SPACE"! So, I now believe you, I really do, that you did mean exactly what you said (and the picture of seeing "space" -- "look deeper into SPACE" (not time) -- you presented to us) since you insist upon it so much!Reply
:) I, though, insist upon something totally different from what you insist upon, that it is time (including, as I have it, a current, concurrent, time constant (t=0)) we are looking deeper into, not space! Prove me wrong! ;) -
Unclear Engineer
Well, that is demonstrably baloney!Atlan0001 said:Sorry Unclear Engineer but you can't see space two silly millimeters -- not even one silly millimeter -- away from your eyes. And neither can a telescope, much less 13.8 billion times 9.656 trillion kilometers away. "Most" people are told by someone like you did above in no uncertain terms that they can and thus they think and believe! they can. And it was no uncertain terms (you said, "look deeper into SPACE")! Not time, but space! And you say you meant exactly what you said, "SPACE"! So, I now believe you, I really do, that you did mean exactly what you said (and the picture of seeing "space" -- "look deeper into SPACE" (not time) -- you presented to us) since you insist upon it so much!
:) I, though, insist upon something totally different from what you insist upon, that it is time (including, as I have it, a current, concurrent, time constant (t=0)) we are looking deeper into, not space! Prove me wrong! ;)
When I see something at arms length, I can reach out and touch it. When I can see something across the room, I can walk over there and touch it. When I look at something through binoculars, I can walk or drive over and touch it. When I look at the Moon, I know that others have gone there on rocketships and touched it. So, I have no problem extrapolating that knowledge to other things I or others can see in telescopes, even though I do not (currently) have any way to get to them to touch them. That is my recognition of reality.
As I said, I recognize that, at extreme distances, the speed of light makes it clear that the way I am seeing real things shows them at a time and position that has probably changed between the time that the light was emitted and the time that I see it. So, you can't argue with me there, either.
However, it is easy to argue with the timelines that are being used in the BBT for objects at great distances from us, and I have posted about that before. So, my point in my previous post that Atlan101 seems to dislike is that as we look farther away into space, what we see is not matching what the BBT timelines predict that we should see. That does not say we are not looking back in time, it just says we are not good at understanding how far back in time we are looking at any particular object in the very distant universe.
So, yes, Atlan101, you are wrong, both to say we cannot look into space at all, and to try to put words that I did not say into my mouth for you to argue with.
I am done with that part of this conversation. -
Atlan0001 Since the constant of the speed of light . . . the observed and observable constant of the speed of time passage in a duality of the twain . . . is approximately 300,000kps whether at a distance of 13.8 billion times 9.656 trillion kilometers away (13.8 billion light years away in an observed straight line), or a distance of one silly millimeter away, doubling in exactly the same light-time-history straight line, I'm very obviously -- only too obviously -- NOT the one speaking "demonstrable baloney".Reply
Light being emitted "at a distance" in space, any "distance" in space at all, from anywhere in space at all, is a time "future" observance "at a distance", at the constant of the speed of light, at the constant of the speed of time passage, from the event horizon. Again, I'm very obviously -- only too obviously -- NOT the one speaking "demonstrable baloney."
I'm done with that pa rt of this conversation.
------------------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein. -
DrRaviSharma DM has no property or attribute until it manifests as Matter-Energy (ME).Reply
Attempts at measuring DM even at smallest measurable particles and resonances ME are measuring only mass that happens lot later in DM to ME transformation, whether BEC or BSM!
BBT is an artifact and Hubble Constant or red shifts are also interpretations.
In summary Gravity and other 3 forces only address 5%+ ME and do not address DM.
My paper will clarify it, it is ready for submission almost say in a month or so.
Yet DE is a mystery perhaps related to disappearance of ME in to DM and its rate is confusing folks as the apparent acceleration!
Regards.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect