How will Europe's Euclid space telescope see into the dark universe?

[Admin]

Europe's Euclid telescope is heading to space to prove whether hypothetical dark energy and dark matter really exist. The mission's findings may rewrite cosmology textbooks.

How will Europe's Euclid space telescope see into the dark universe? : Read more

 

[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 [Nature].

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!

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]

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.

"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]

"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.

No, I said what I meant.

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!

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]

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!

Well, that is demonstrably baloney!

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".

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).
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

 

[alexzuber750]

This is good.