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

Hugh Everett's birthday! Pioneer of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Let us celebrate by thinking about ontological extravagance. I will do so by way of analogy, because I have found that everyone loves analogies and nobody ever willfully misconstrues them.


We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.

One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).

But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!

So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
1/ Automobiles and Intake Fraction. Since cars are back in the news I thought I would retweet this model result I offered in early April 2020. I focused only on 1 micron particles & accounted for windows completely closed & cracked slightly open.


2/ Related air exchange rates were based on experimental results in literature for mid-sized sedans. Particle deposition to indoor surfaces were accounted for, as the surface to volume ratio in a 3 m3 cab is large. An important outcome was the intake fraction (IF)

3/ Here, IF is the number of particles (or virions in collective particles) inhaled by a receptor DIVIDED BY the number or particles (or virions in collective particles) emitted by an infector.

4/ Integrated over the two hour drive (in this example) the IF for all windows closed & a receptor at rest is 0.08 (8% of what comes out of the infectors respiratory system ends up in the respiratory system of the receptor). 8%! That is a very high intake factor.

5/ With additional ventilation from cracking a window open drops the IF to 0.012 (1.2%) still relatively high. Can get lower by opening more windows.

You May Also Like

рдХреНрдпрд╛ рдЖрдк рдЬрд╛рдирддреЗ рд╣реИрдВ рдХрд┐ рдХреНрдпрд╛ рд╣реИ, рдкрд┐рддреГ рдкрдХреНрд╖ рдореЗрдВ рдХреМрд╡реЗ рдХреЛ рдЦрд╛рдирд╛ рджреЗрдиреЗ рдХреЗ рдкреАрдЫреЗ рдХрд╛ рд╡реИрдЬреНрдЮрд╛рдирд┐рдХ рдХрд╛рд░рдг!

рд╢реНрд░рд╛рджреНрдз рдкрдХреНрд╖ рдореЗрдВ рдХреМрдУрдВ рдХрд╛ рдмрдбрд╝рд╛ рд╣реА рдорд╣рддреНрд╡ рд╣реИред рдХрд╣рддреЗ рд╣реИ рдХреМрдЖ рдпрдо рдХрд╛ рдкреНрд░рддреАрдХ рд╣реИ, рдпрджрд┐ рдЖрдкрдХреЗ рд╣рд╛рдереЛрдВ рджрд┐рдпрд╛ рдЧрдпрд╛ рднреЛрдЬрди рдЧреНрд░рд╣рдг рдХрд░ рд▓реЗ, рддреЛ рдРрд╕рд╛ рдорд╛рдирд╛ рдЬрд╛рддрд╛ рд╣реИ рдХрд┐ рдкрд┐рддрд░реЛрдВ рдХреА рдХреГрдкрд╛ рдЖрдкрдХреЗ рдКрдкрд░ рд╣реИ рдФрд░ рд╡реЗ рдЖрдкрд╕реЗ рдЦрд╝реБрд╢ рд╣реИред


рдХреБрдЫ рд▓реЛрдЧ рдХрд╣рддреЗ рд╣реИрдВ рдХреА рд╡реНрдпрдХреНрддрд┐ рдорд░рдХрд░ рд╕рдмрд╕реЗ рдкрд╣рд▓реЗ рдХреМрд╡реЗ рдХреЗ рд░реВрдк рдореЗрдВ рдЬрдиреНрдо рд▓реЗрддрд╛ рд╣реИ рдФрд░ рдЙрд╕реЗ рдЦрд╛рдирд╛ рдЦрд┐рд▓рд╛рдиреЗ рд╕реЗ рд╡рд╣ рднреЛрдЬрди рдкрд┐рддрд░реЛрдВ рдХреЛ рдорд┐рд▓рддрд╛ рд╣реИ

рд╢рд╛рдпрдж рд╣рдо рд╕рдмрдиреЗ рдЕрдкрдиреЗ рдШрд░ рдХреЗ рдХрд┐рд╕реА рдмрдбрд╝реЗ рдмреБрдЬрд╝реБрд░реНрдЧ, рдХрд┐рд╕реА рдкрдВрдбрд┐рдд рдпрд╛ рдЬреНрдпреЛрддрд┐рд╖рд╛рдЪрд╛рд░реНрдп рд╕реЗ рдпреЗ рд╕реБрдирд╛ рд╣реЛрдЧрд╛ред рд╡реЗ рдЕрдирдЧрд┐рдирдд рдХрд┐рд╕реНрд╕реЗ рд╕реБрдирд╛рдПрдВрдЧреЗ, рдХрд╣реЗрдВрдЧреЗ рдмрдбрд╝реЗ рдмреБрдЬрд╝реБрд░реНрдЧ рдХрд╣ рдЧрдП рдЗрд╕реАрд▓рд┐рдП рдРрд╕рд╛ рдХрд░рдирд╛

рд╢рд╛рдпрдж рд╣реА рд╣рдореЗрдВ рдХреЛрдИ рдЗрд╕рдХреЗ рдкреАрдЫреЗ рдХрд╛ рд╡реИрдЬреНрдЮрд╛рдирд┐рдХ рдХрд╛рд░рдг рдмрддрд╛ рд╕рдХреЗред

рд╣рдорд╛рд░реЗ рдЛрд╖рд┐ рдореБрдирд┐ рдФрд░ рдкреМрд░рд╛рдгрд┐рдХ рдХрд╛рд▓ рдореЗрдВ рд░рд╣рдиреЗ рд╡рд╛рд▓реЗ рд▓реЛрдЧ рдореБрд░реНрдЦ рдирд╣реАрдВ рдереЗ! рдХрднреА рд╕реЛрдЪрд┐рдпреЗрдЧрд╛ рдХреМрд╡реЛрдВ рдХреЛ рдкрд┐рддреГ рдкрдХреНрд╖ рдореЗрдВ рдЦрд┐рд▓рд╛рдИ рдЦреАрд░ рд╣рдорд╛рд░реЗ рдкреВрд░реНрд╡рдЬреЛрдВ рддрдХ рдХреИрд╕реЗ рдкрд╣реБрдВрдЪреЗрдЧреА?

рд╣рдорд╛рд░реЗ рдЛрд╖рд┐ рдореБрдирд┐ рд╡рд┐рджреНрд╡рд╛рди рдереЗ, рд╡реЗ рдЬреЛ рдмрд╛рдд рдХрд░рддреЗ рдпрд╛ рдХрд╣рддреЗ рдереЗ рдЙрд╕рдХреЗ рдкреАрдЫреЗ рдХреЛрдИ рди рдХреЛрдИ рд╡реИрдЬреНрдЮрд╛рдирд┐рдХ рдХрд╛рд░рдг рдЫреБрдкрд╛ рд╣реЛрддрд╛ рдерд╛ред

рдПрдХ рдмрд╣реБрдд рд░реЛрдЪрдХ рддрдереНрдп рд╣реИ рдкрд┐рддреГ рдкрдХреНрд╖, рднрд╛рджреЛ( рднрд╛рджреНрд░рдкрдж) рдкреНрд░рдХреГрддрд┐ рдФрд░ рдХрд╛рдХ рдХреЗ рдмреАрдЪред

рдПрдХ рдмрд╛рдд рдЬреЛ рдХрд╣ рд╕рдХрддреЗ рдХрд┐ рд╣рдо рд╕рдм рдиреЗ рд╕реНрд╡рддрдГ рдЙрдЧ рдЖрдпреЗ рдкреАрдкрд▓ рдпрд╛ рдмрд░рдЧрдж рдХрд╛ рдкреЗрдбрд╝/ рдкреМрдзрд╛ рдХрд┐рд╕реА рди рдХрд┐рд╕реА рджреАрд╡рд╛рд░, рдкреБрд░рд╛рдиреА

рдЗрдорд╛рд░рдд, рдкрд░реНрд╡рдд рдпрд╛ рдЕрдЯреНрдЯрд╛рд▓рд┐рдХрд╛рдУрдВ рдкрд░ рдЬрд╝рд░реВрд░ рджреЗрдЦрд╛ рд╣реЛрдЧрд╛ред рджреЗрдЦрд╛ рд╣реИ рди?

рдЬрд╝рд░рд╛ рд╕реЛрдЪрд┐рдпреЗ рдкреАрдкрд▓ рдпрд╛ рдмрд░рдЧрдж рдХреА рдмреАрдЬ рдХреИрд╕реЗ рдкрд╣реБрдВрдЪреЗ рд╣реЛрдВрдЧреЗ рд╡рд╣рд╛рдБ рддрдХ?┬ардЗрдирдХреЗ рдмреАрдЬ рдЗрддрдиреЗ рд╣рд▓реНрдХреЗ рднреА рдирд╣реАрдВ рд╣реЛрддреЗ рдХреЗ рд╣рд╡рд╛ рдЙрдиреНрд╣реЗрдВ рдЙрдбрд╝рд╛рдХреЗ рд▓реЗ рдЬрд╛ рд╕рдХреЗред