The Dark Energy Survey is one of the coolest science projects ever.
Goal: measure everything there is, the whole universe.
Reason: we know essentially nothing about Dark Energy and Dark Matter—which is 97% of the universe.
How can we not do this exploration?
This summer the DES folks report an important new large scale map of the sky (i.e., everything we can see from here [2]. The map represents evidence of gravitational lensing to infer the mass of dark matter between us and the source.
I don’t really understand the details. The data is complex and noisy, and the inference of interest involves some complicated geometry that I haven’t really mastered, to say the least. Much of the paper is about comparing the strengths and weaknesses of alternative methods of estimating these effects.
But I do understand this:
As so often happens in astronomy and science in general, when we actually observe and measure nature it doesn’t quite fit our theories. (This is particularly frequent in astronomy, which has a very low data to theory ratio.)
In this case, the distribution of Dark Matter does not seem to match theoretical estimates [1]. If these discrepancies hold up, this would have to mean that the theory is wrong.
This is both exciting and scary. It’s also what science is about, no?
Now, there is still plenty of room for doubt about these results. For one thing, the alternative methods of estimation give different results. And both the theory and the data analysis depend on very large scale computations, which are always vulnerable to error and mathematical biases. A difference of one percent could certainly be partly due to computational and/or data errors that have accumulated.
But, considering how little we understand about Dark Matter, there is certainly room to wonder if there is something missing from the theoretical models. And if so, it would be really, really important and cool.
Well done, all. And let’s try to get more and better maps to try to pin this down better.
- Pallab Ghosh, New dark matter map reveals cosmic mystery, in BBC News – Science & Environment, May 27, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57244708
- N. Jeffrey, M. Gatti, C. Chang, L. Whiteway, U. Demirbozan, A. Kovacs, G. Pollina, D. Bacon, N. Hamaus, T. Kacprzak, O. Lahav, F. Lanusse, B. Mawdsley, S. Nadathur, J. L. Starck, P. Vielzeuf, D. Zeurcher, A. Alarcon, A. Amon, K. Bechtol, G. M. Bernstein, A. Campos, A. Carnero Rosell, M. Carrasco Kind, R. Cawthon, R. Chen, A. Choi, J. Cordero, C. Davis, J. DeRose, C. Doux, A. Drlica-Wagner, K. Eckert, F. Elsner, J. Elvin-Poole, S. Everett, A. Ferté, G. Giannini, D. Gruen, R. A. Gruendl, I. Harrison, W. G. Hartley, K. Herner, E. M. Huff, D. Huterer, N. Kuropatkin, M. Jarvis, P. F. Leget, N. MacCrann, J. McCullough, J. Muir, J. Myles, A. Navarro-Alsina, S. Pandey, J. Prat, M. Raveri, R. P. Rollins, A. J. Ross, E. S. Rykoff, C. Sánchez, L. F. Secco, I. Sevilla-Noarbe, E. Sheldon, T. Shin, M. A. Troxel, I. Tutusaus, T. N. Varga, B. Yanny, B. Yin, Y. Zhang, J. Zuntz, T. M. C. Abbott, M. Aguena, S. Allam, F. Andrade-Oliveira, M. R. Becker, E. Bertin, S. Bhargava, D. Brooks, D. L. Burke, J. Carretero, F. J. Castander, C. Conselice, M. Costanzi, M. Crocce, L. N. da Costa, M. E. S. Pereira, J. De Vicente, S. Desai, H. T. Diehl, J. P. Dietrich, P. Doel, I. Ferrero, B. Flaugher, P. Fosalba, J. García-Bellido, E. Gaztanaga, D. W. Gerdes, T. Giannantonio, J. Gschwend, G. Gutierrez, S. R. Hinton, D. L. Hollowood, B. Hoyle, B. Jain, D. J. James, M. Lima, M. A. G. Maia, M. March, J. L. Marshall, P. Melchior, F. Menanteau, R. Miquel, J. J. Mohr, R. Morgan, R. L. C. Ogando, A. Palmese, F. Paz-Chinchón, A. A. Plazas, M. Rodriguez-Monroy, A. Roodman, E. Sanchez, V. Scarpine, S. Serrano, M. Smith, M. Soares-Santos, E. Suchyta, G. Tarle, D. Thomas, C. To and J. Weller, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: curved-sky weak lensing mass map reconstruction. arXiv 2105.13539, 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13539