On October 19, 2017, astronomers noticed a strange object flying through the solar system, which they described as "a red and very elongated asteroid." In an interview, astronomer Avi Loeb warns that the object may have been sent for reconnaissance by aliens. The scientist explains: at least a quarter of the stars in the Milky Way have a planet similar to Earth, which means that it can be assumed that we are not alone in the universe.
On October 19, 2017, astronomers at the University of Hawaii noticed a strange object flying through the solar system, which they later described as "a red and very elongated asteroid." It was the first interstellar object found in the solar system. Scientists named him "Oumuamua" ('Oumuamua), which translated from Hawaiian means "scout" or "messenger from afar."
In October 2018, Avi Loeb, chair of the Department of Astronomy at Harvard University, along with fellow postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University Shmuel Bialy, wrote a paper in which he investigated the "unusual acceleration" of "Oumuamua" and suggested that the object "may, is a fully functional probe specifically aimed at Earth by an alien civilization. " Loeb has a long interest in the search for extraterrestrial life, and he recently made new sensational claims, suggesting that we might be in contact with the civilization that sent this probe. “If these creatures are peaceful, we could learn a lot from them,” he said in an interview with Der Spiegel magazine.
I recently spoke on the phone with Loeb, who was upset that the scientists saw the Oumuamua flying by too late and were unable to photograph the object. “It made me want to write the article to warn the community so that it would pay attention and pay much more attention to the next interstellar 'guest',” he told me. During our conversation, which has been edited and shortened to make it easier to understand, we discussed why Loeb believes that we need to consider the possibility that Oumuamua was sent by aliens, the dangers of pseudoscientific hypotheses, and the fact that belief in existence advanced extraterrestrial civilization has something in common with belief in God.
New Yorker: It may be difficult for laymen to understand how you explain why Oumuamua might be an interstellar probe. Why can this be so, except that much is possible?
Avi Loeb: “In Scientific American, I published an article combining six weird facts about Oumuamua.” First, we did not expect this object to exist at all. We see the solar system and can calculate how fast it has “thrown” solid rock objects into interstellar space throughout its history. And if we assume that all systems of planets around other stars are doing the same, we can figure out how many interstellar objects should be. This calculation opens up many possibilities, but these possibilities are much less than necessary in order to explain the discovery of Oumuamua.
There is another unusual fact associated with this object. When you look at all the stars in the vicinity of the Sun, they are moving relative to the Sun, the Sun is moving relative to them, but as slowly as Oumuamua, only one out of five hundred stars is moving in this system. One would expect most solid rock objects to move at roughly the speed of the parent star. If this object came from another star, this star must be very unusual.
When it was discovered, we realized that it makes a revolution around its axis in eight hours, and that when it rotates, its brightness increases at least ten times, which means that its length is at least ten times its width. We do not have photographs, but in all the illustrations that are available on the Internet, this object looks like a cigar. This is one of the options. But it is also possible that it has a flat shape, which is interesting, this version is considered more preferable."
Promotional video:
And what does flat form mean?
"Wait. The most unusual thing about this object is that it deviates from an orbit, which is formed exclusively by the gravitational force of the Sun. Usually, in the case of comets, this deflection is caused by the evaporation of ice on the surface of the comet, during which gases are formed that push the comet like a rocket. This is what we see in a comet - its tail of vaporized gas. Here we do not see the same tail as that of the comet, but at the same time we observe a deviation from the predicted orbit. And that is what made me write this article. Once I realized that the object was not moving as expected, the question arose as to what was giving it that extra push. And by the way, after the publication of our article, another article came out, in which the results of the analysis were presented, which showed a very low content of molecules based on carbon,in the space near this object."
What does it mean?
“This means that there is no sign of gas that forms when ice evaporates. And we don't see the signature comet tail. Moreover, if it were cometary activity, then we would count on a change in the rotation period of this object, but we do not see this. All this indicates that this object is not at all the same as comets that we observed in the solar system before. And it is not at all like an asteroid. Its brightness increases tenfold, and usually we observe an increase of no more than three times. This object has a much more unusual, "extreme" geometry, and there is some other force that gives it a push. The question is where does this power come from and made us write this article.
The only thing that occurred to me was that, probably, the sunlight gives it an additional impetus when it is reflected from the surface of the object. It is like the wind reflected by the sail of a ship. So we tested this and found that for this principle to work, the object must be less than a millimeter thick. If it is really less than a millimeter thick, if it is "pushed" by sunlight, then it is possibly a light sail, and I do not know of a single natural process as a result of which a light sail could form. It is much more likely that this is happening artificially - it is created by representatives of a technically advanced civilization.
I must say, just for reference, I do not consider the possibility of a technically advanced civilization to be purely hypothetical, speculative, for two reasons. First, we exist. Secondly, at least a quarter of the stars in the Milky Way galaxy have a planet like Earth, the conditions on the surface of which are very similar to those on Earth and with the same chemical composition of living organisms that, as we know, may appear on it. If we try, then it is quite possible to assume that with tens of billions of stars in the Milky Way, we are not alone.
So this civilization would be outside the solar system and in the galaxy?
“In the galaxy. It is possible that she has already disappeared because we do not care about our planet. Imagine another story in which the Nazis have nuclear weapons and the Second World War ends differently. One can imagine a civilization that develops such technologies, and this would lead to its destruction.
Perhaps civilization has already died, but it sent a spaceship. We ourselves sent Voyager I and Voyager II into space. And there may be a lot of technology. The fact is that this is the very first object that we have found and which appeared outside the solar system. It is very similar to when I walk along the beach with my daughter and look at the seashells washed ashore. From time to time we find an object of artificial origin. And this is perhaps a message in a bottle, and we must be open to everything new. Therefore, we presented this idea in the article."
Of course, this is something different, but what you said reminded me of the argument for the theory of creation. According to this argument, if you find a clock on the beach, you know that it must have been made by a person, and since our eyes are as complex as a clock, then we must be the creations of a creator.
“A technologically advanced civilization is a good approach to God. Imagine you take a cell phone and show it to a caveman. And the caveman says it's a good stone. The caveman is used to stones. Now imagine that this object - "Oumuamua" - is an iPhone, and we are cavemen. We look at it and say that it is a stone. Just an unusual stone. The meaning of this analogy is that the technologies that we have today would be magical for a caveman. Given by God."
Astronomer Corinne Bailer-Jones, whom you cite in one of the chapters of your article, wrote: “In science, we must ask ourselves: 'Where is the evidence?'
"Exactly! Quite right!"
Wait. “But where is the lack of evidence so that I can fit into any hypothesis I like?” [Beiler-Jones of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, identified four stars that might be mothers for Oumuamua, and NBC TV asked him to comment on Loeb's "solar sail theory"]
“This is exactly the approach I used. I approached this from a scientific point of view - like any other problem in astronomy or science in which I work. The fact is that we are guided by evidence, and the evidence in this particular case is such that there are six unusual facts. And one of these facts is that this object deviated from the orbit formed by the force of gravity, showing no signs of activity of cometary gases. Therefore, we do not see gas around it, we do not see the tail of a comet. It has an extremely unusual geometry that we have never observed on either asteroids or comets. We know that we could not detect heat coming from it and that it is much brighter (ten times) than an ordinary asteroid or comet. All such facts. I am guided by the facts.
Last year, I wrote an article on cosmology that described the unusual result that gas in the universe may be at a much lower temperature than we expected. We assumed that dark matter has some ability to cool gas. And nobody cares about it, nobody cares, nobody says that this is not science. Everyone says it's the prevailing tendency to talk about dark matter, a substance we've never seen before. This is completely normal. It doesn't bother anyone.
But when they talk about the possibility of the existence in outer space of technology created and sent by another civilization (which, in my opinion, is much less speculative, since we have already sent something into space), then this is considered pseudoscientific. But we didn’t come up with it from scratch. And we put forward this idea based on the facts. If anyone has a better explanation, they should write an article about it, not just say what you said."
Responding to these criticisms, you once said: “I follow the principle of Sherlock Holmes:“Throw away everything that is impossible, and what remains will be true, no matter how incredible it may seem.”But when it comes to the fact that we are unable to explain or what we do not understand, we rarely turn to concepts that exist in popular culture and society.
"No and no again. Let me give you a better example of the argument you are making. The idea of the Multiverse is widespread, according to which everything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times. And I think it is pseudoscientific because it cannot be tested. And if the next time we see an object like this, we might think about taking a picture of it. I am motivated, in particular, by the desire to inspire the scientific community, to convince it of the need to collect more data about the next object, and not a priori claim that they know the answer. As for the hypothesis of the Multiverse, we have no way to test it, and everyone is happy to shout: "Yes!"
Another common idea is the idea of an extra dimension. You can see this in string theory, which has received a lot of praise from the press, and the awards given to members of that community. Not only has it not been empirically tested for almost forty years, there is no hope that it will be tested in the next forty years. However, your friend has no objection to this! The person you are citing has no objection to either multiverse theory or string theory. No objection, he agrees with all this!"
I would like to clarify - we do not know what this man, Corinne Beiler-Jones, thinks about all this.
"He never resented it, never talked about it."
I don't even know what it is - "he" and I don't know his or her opinion.
"It doesn't matter who it is, it doesn't matter."
I wanted to say that we live in a culture where people talk about aliens.
"No, that's completely different."
Wait. Let me finish. The common term "UFO" basically means something like aliens. This is what I want to ask - are we inclined to perceive what we cannot know or understand through the prism of what we have heard since childhood. Are we not inclined to consider something like an alien to us extraterrestrial society more an explanation than something that we are probably not even able to understand or express in words?
“I don't like science fiction because there is something in science fiction that violates the laws of physics. I love science and I love fiction, but in isolation. The main argument you may be aware of against all UFO stories is that the technique for detecting objects has improved significantly over the past few decades. We have cameras that are much better than before, but there is still little evidence of their existence. That is why we have no scientific evidence for the existence of UFOs.
“What we are talking about today is a branch of science. We have seen an object moving from space outside the solar system, and we are trying to understand what it is and what kind of star it is. We don't have enough information. I am discussing this on the basis of the data we have, and it annoys people, they do not even want to think about it - as in the time of Galileo it caused alarm in the church, and she did not even want to think about the possibility that the Earth is moving around the Sun. Prejudice is based on past experience. The problem is that it gets in the way of making discoveries. If you think that the probability of an interstellar "guest" appearing in the solar system is zero, you will never find one!"
Have your religious beliefs or ideas about God changed as you study astronomy?
“I'm not religious. Why did you think about it?"
No, I didn't think so. I'm just wondering if your thoughts have somehow changed.
“First of all, it depends on what you mean by 'God'. But if you take something that is zero and multiply by any number, then it will remain zero. From the very beginning, I was not religious. I do not believe in God. I am amazed by the order that we observe in the Universe, the regularity, the existence of the laws of nature. I am always in awe of how the laws of nature that exist here on Earth seem to operate throughout the universe to its very borders. This is amazing. The universe could be chaotic and very disorganized. But it obeys a number of laws to a much greater extent than humans obey the body of laws on Earth. My work as a scientist is based solely on evidence and rational thinking. That's all.
Isaac Chotiner
