Slashdot Mirror


Huge Lenses To Observe Dark Energy

Iddo Genuth writes "UK astronomers, as a part of the Dark Energy Survey collaboration, have reached a milestone in the construction of one of the largest ever cameras to detect dark energy by completing the shipment of the glass required for the five special lenses. Each step in the process of completing this sophisticated camera brings scientists closer to detecting the invisible matter that cosmologists estimate makes up around 75% of our universe."

9 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. dark energy? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're making it sound like dark energy is visible light. If it's "dark" that means it's undetectable by normal means like giant lenses for instance. How could you just see dark energy? Isn't it more like something you'd detect with sensors, not a giant lense? But no, straight out of the article, they're gonna use it to for "detecting the invisible matter" because it has "advanced optics." Btw they said MATTER, not energy so apparently that's what they're actually looking for. Well that would officially make it dim matter, wouldn't it? Like I always thought, dark matter is just matter without a whole lot of light shining on it cuz it's in between galaxies and stuff.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:dark energy? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you can get good enough optics, you can watch regular light and detect when it's being affected somehow by dark matter.

      Confusing enough summary though.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  2. Dark energy = false vacuum? by little1973 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dark energy may be an indicator that we live in a false vacuum. If this is the case and the true vacuum is speeding towards us with the speed of light then we are doomed. So, add another doomsday scenario to your list.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
  3. Re:Oymoron anyone? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are you sure you removed the world's largest lens cap.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  4. huge lenses by ouachiski · · Score: 5, Funny

    scientists needing huge optics 8-) whood a thought it

    --
    sorry for my comments, I'm drunk
  5. Re:Oymoron anyone? by pudro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Basically, they will take more accurate measurements than before. Then they will look at how badly gravity-only models fail. They will adjust this as much as possible using the imaginary qualities of "dark matter". When they still come up well short of getting it right, then the rest will be explained away by assuming "dark energy" wherever needed to adjust for the failure.

    When "96% of the universe" is only detectable by how your model fails with the visible stuff alone, measurements of the visible stuff become useless. It isn't even science at that point.

    --
    Freedom is assumed. Then they try to take it away. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.
  6. Re:I don't think it exists. by NeoSkink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Occam's Razor actually works against MOND. MOND has to be changed to account for what we observe at pretty much every scale. The MOND that works for Galaxy rotation doesn't work for clusters, which doesn't work for lensing, which doesn't work for early structure formation, and so on.

    LCDM accounts for this. Heck, you don't think that we scientists got together one day and said "I know, lets make up some goofy theory and then fudge the data to fit it!" do you? You do realize multiple theories were purposed, predictions were created, new data was taken, and conclusions drawn about which theories were supported by the new evidence, right? And that LCDM is the one that survived all the vetting?

    Just checking... See, that's sort of how science is supposed (and did in this case) work.

  7. Not exactly by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's somewhat incorrect, and makes a hash of two unrelated things too:

    1. Dark matter. Unlike what its name might imply, it isn't dark as in "light absorbing". It's dark as in, it doesn't interact with light at all, except through gravity.

    It's only "dark" in the same way as a sheet of glass is dark against the night sky.

    But even that metaphor is misleading. "Dark matter" is just a name for a lot of mass that should be there according to calculations (or our understanding of gravity is completely broken at large scales), but hadn't been observed. It's just a funky name. It doesn't mean it's actually dark in any form or shape.

    The best example of a scale where this is visible is inside a galaxy. With just gravity determining the speed of rotation around the centre, the stars closer to the centre should rotate faster than those on the edges. (In the same way as Mercury rotates around the sun once every 0.24 years, Earth in a year, and Pluto in 248 years.) But galaxies don't seem to rotate that way. They rotate more like a solid texture, so to speak. So there must be some mass distributed through the disc, in addition to what we see.

    But again, the whole point is that we can't see it. If it were just a cloud of pitch-black baryonic matter, that would actually be easy and comfortable. We'd just do what you said: look at what happens to the light of stars behind it. Since it's plenty of it inside a galaxy, we have plenty of stars to look at and notice if something like that was between us and them. But all we can see is some extra gravity, with all that involves for both star movement and gravitational lensing.

    A much more accurate name would be "completely transparent matter."

    2. Dark energy.

    This is an even funnier concept. With all that mass in the universe, there's gravity all around. Duly noted, the gravity pull of a hideously distant galaxy is really tiny, but it's there. The universe expansion should slow down as gravity pulls everything towards the centre. The funny thing is: it doesn't. It's actually accelerating, and weirdly enough, the farther something is, the faster it seems to accelerate away.

    There is _something_ that pushes stuff away from the centre, and it's not like any force we already know.

    It's also something we'd be hard pressed to reproduce in a lab. Whatever it is, it's insignificantly weak at small ranges, and only starts to matter at very very very large distances. Even at galactic scales (hundreds of thousands at light years) it seems to do practically nothing at all, but move a few _billion_ light years away, and you start seeing whole galaxies accelerating away. It's not something you can reproduce in a lab.

    It's also weird in that a normal energy (e.g., the potential energy in a compressed spring) would get used up, or rather converted into work, as it pushes stuff away. So the force would logically diminish. This one only seems to grow stronger.

    So basically this big "WTF?" is what's called "dark energy". There's some energy that's pushing the universe apart, but we don't know what it is, and how to detect it.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  8. Three answers: by MichaelCrawford · · Score: 5, Informative
    An uncoated mirror actually does oxidize, but it does so in a very nice way, forming an optically-homogenious layer of very tough aluminum oxide.

    In that respect it's completely different from iron oxidation.

    The other way is to overcoat it with something tough and transparent; traditionally silicon monoxide was used.

    One can both protect the aluminum and enhance its reflectivity by giving it multiple layers of tough, transparent minerals. Interference effects cause it to reflect better than aluminum would alone.

    That's how laser mirrors work - they're not aluminized. It's the same principle as antireflective coatings on camera and eyeglass lenses, but a different choice of refractive indices and thicknesses causes it to enhance rather than cancel reflections.

    --
    Request your free CD of my piano music.