Let's talk about Avi Loeb and his theory about alien

First, I should disclose that I work at the fame research facility as Dr. Loeb, though I work in a different department and to my recollection we've never met.

He's a scientist; I'm in computer support.
With that out of the way...
The interview above is worth a read, and a lot of serious thought, because there's an idea there that's really critical to science, and it isn't whether or not aliens have visited (exactly).
It's about how fashion and culture and taboo have an unfortunately strong effect on science.

In particular he compares his theory on alien visitation with the multiverse theory.

Which of these is more deserving of ridicule?
Science is fundamentally a structure for forming hypotheses and then (critically) testing these hypotheses to see if they should be kept, rejected, or modified.
And so a big part of his point is that we just discovered an object passing through our galaxy that is truly bizarre compared to any other known objects we've ever seen.

So bizarre that there's no really good theory for what it might be. Except maybe for Dr. Loeb's theory.
He's postulated that it could be a cast-off solar sail from an alien probe. On a simple matter of facts, it's a great fit. It explains the bizarre shifts in brightness, and it explains the bizarre acceleration as the object moved out of our galaxy.
But as I said and as he says in the article, science is all about testability. This is an object. It exists. We have seen it. We can look for more objects.

The hypotheses we form can and should help guide us in how we look.
So if we think it might have been an alien solar sail, versus a long skinny low mass comet with an invisible jet mechanism, these hypotheses point to different things we can look for.
So why not just say we should look for more? Why be like "Aliens!"? Because it affects how we look, not just whether we look.

And because "Aliens!" is based on observable phenomena: us.
It's a fascinating point that is easy to overlook. The "Aliens" theory has at it's core a phenomenon known to exist already: lifeforms that can launch probes through space. Because we know we exist.

The competing theories are all about phenomena with NO prior observations.
So just on that, "Aliens!" ought to be the leading theory here because it's the only theory that matches any known previously observed phenomenon. And yes, there's some spin in this viewpoint, but it's worth consideration.
He also talks about it relative to other popular theories like the multiverse theory.

Why is it unsafe to talk about "Aliens!" but safe to talk about the "multiverse"?
The multiverse theory is popular these days because it has invaded our culture in seemingly every sci-fi show in existence, and from there, it has turned into a sort of de facto background "fact" in our culture.

Yet the notion has always (to me) been utterly absurd.
As shown in popular culture, multiverse are just a way for writers to explore "what if?". Generally, what if some character had different life experiences.

But this isn't the scientific theory of the multiverse at all.
In the science viewpoint, every possible quantum state of every particle in existence, does exist in some alternate universe.

But under this theory, there'd be an infinite number of "adjacent" universes spinning off of that one single particle at the tip of my pinky toe.
And another infinity of universes for every other particle in the universe.

In such a multiverse system, the "nearest" (by measure of similarity) million, trillion... heck the nearest googol of alternate universes would be utterly identical to ours.
That is, the single particle state differences that differentiated those universes from this one are most likely not even in our observable universe.
In some of these shows (e.g. D.C. Comics, though they're not the only ones) they start to number the Earths to keep track, so there's like earth 32 and earth 18 or whatever.
But in reality Earth 9099813298719283701928374018972348712397108570385710234871092847019283703287019823470198327018732 would be identical to our Earth down to the last measurable particle.
To misquote "Contact", that seems like an awful waste of spacetime.

And really, an utterly pointless one.
So unlike the alien probe theory, we have absolutely no way to test the multiverse hypothesis. It's a mathematical castle in the sky (which probably all spins from a misunderstanding of Schroedinger's thought experiment).
So if the multiverse isn't really science at all, but just some sort of mathematical fancy, or better yet fiction, why is it that we act like the multiverse is science and that the possibility of aliens is not science?
In other words, Professor Loeb is mocked for bringing up the possibility of an organic life form developing technology, even though we KNOW that happens, yet countless scientists talk about the multiverse almost as a given, though we've never seen an alternate universe.
This disparity is not science. It is simply what is in fashion and what is not.
I should probably mention that I did a speculative thread about Oumuamua almost a year ago. It's worth mentioning in this context because I was in fact talking about a testable hypothesis related to Oumuamua.

https://t.co/XiHA9cRwjR
In particular, this tweet from that thread is about the testable hypothesis (though I didn't express it that way):

https://t.co/hj1ytCbFDH
In other words, I had this hypothesis that I got from Dr. Loeb, and created a test in my head without even thinking of it that way.

The test was, if a small object showed up in orbit around Earth in the next couple of years after Oumuamua we should be extra suspicious of it.
And one did.

More from Science

1. I find it remarkable that some medics and scientists aren’t raising their voices to make children as safe as possible. The comment about children being less infectious than adults is unsupported by evidence.


2. @c_drosten has talked about this extensively and @dgurdasani1 and @DrZoeHyde have repeatedly pointed out flaws in the studies which have purported to show this. Now for the other assertion: children are very rarely ill with COVID19.

3. Children seem to suffer less with acute illness, but we have no idea of the long-term impact of infection. We do know #LongCovid affects some children. @LongCovidKids now speaks for 1,500 children struggling with a wide range of long-term symptoms.

4. 1,500 children whose parents found a small campaign group. How many more are out there? We don’t know. ONS data suggests there might be many, but the issue hasn’t been studied sufficiently well or long enough for a definitive answer.

5. Some people have talked about #COVID19 being this generation’s Polio. According to US CDC, Polio resulted in inapparent infection in more than 99% of people. Severe disease occurred in a tiny fraction of those infected. Source:

You May Also Like

#தினம்_ஒரு_திருவாசகம்
தொல்லை இரும்பிறவிச் சூழும் தளை நீக்கி
அல்லல் அறுத்து ஆனந்தம் ஆக்கியதே – எல்லை
மருவா நெறியளிக்கும் வாதவூர் எங்கோன்
திருவாசகம் என்னும் தேன்

பொருள்:
1.எப்போது ஆரம்பித்தது என அறியப்படமுடியாத தொலை காலமாக (தொல்லை)

2. இருந்து வரும் (இரும்)


3.பிறவிப் பயணத்திலே ஆழ்த்துகின்ற (பிறவி சூழும்)

4.அறியாமையாகிய இடரை (தளை)

5.அகற்றி (நீக்கி),

6.அதன் விளைவால் சுகதுக்கமெனும் துயரங்கள் விலக (அல்லல் அறுத்து),

7.முழுநிறைவாய்த் தன்னுளே இறைவனை உணர்த்துவதே (ஆனந்த மாக்கியதே),

8.பிறந்து இறக்கும் காலவெளிகளில் (எல்லை)

9.பிணைக்காமல் (மருவா)

10.காக்கும் மெய்யறிவினைத் தருகின்ற (நெறியளிக்கும்),

11.என் தலைவனான மாணிக்க வாசகரின் (வாதவூரெங்கோன்)

12.திருவாசகம் எனும் தேன் (திருவா சகமென்னுந் தேன்)

முதல்வரி: பிறவி என்பது முன்வினை விதையால் முளைப்பதோர் பெருமரம். அந்த ‘முன்வினை’ எங்கு ஆரம்பித்தது எனச் சொல்ல இயலாது. ஆனால் ‘அறியாமை’ ஒன்றே ஆசைக்கும்,, அச்சத்துக்கும் காரணம் என்பதால், அவையே வினைகளை விளைவிப்பன என்பதால், தொடர்ந்து வரும் பிறவிகளுக்கு, ‘அறியாமையே’ காரணம்

அறியாமைக்கு ஆரம்பம் கிடையாது. நமக்கு ஒரு பொருளைப் பற்றிய அறிவு எப்போதிருந்து இல்லை? அதைச் சொல்ல முடியாது. அதனாலேதான் முதலடியில், ஆரம்பமில்லாத அஞ்ஞானத்தை பிறவிகளுக்குக் காரணமாகச் சொல்லியது. ஆனால் அறியாமை, அறிவின் எழுச்சியால், அப்போதே முடிந்து விடும்.