7 ms·

I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it c

I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it could have been. I think is agenda is to get the community looking for these things more often, perhaps out of some disappointment that if it had been an actual probe (a la "Rendezvous with Rama"), we'd already have missed it. Whether it's worth bending the science to fit this narrative is of course, questionable.

sandworm101 6y ago
His battle is only partly about Oumuamua. That is just a vehicle for his arguments. The real issue is the bias against life detection experiments generally. Want to sample soil on mars and measure oxygen absorption? Great. We will put your sensor on the next rover. Want to pour nutrients on that soil and see if anything eats it? Go away you crazy person. Want to detect methane in an exoplanet atmosphere? Here is your telescope time. Want to detect CFCs, a likely technosignature? Good luck getting them to return your emails. That bias against definitive binary life detection efforts, solid yes/no answers, underpins Loeb's points on Oumuamua. If we are serious about life detection we should be looking for indisputable artifacts of both primitive and complex life, the later of which includes technological life. Loeb must also fight against widespread public assumptions about the hunt for life, specifically that people think SETI is a giant organization always scanning the sky. The public thinks the scientific community is actually putting in a solid effort to look for aliens. They aren't. We as a society spend more on candycrush than the entire SETI project. Want a definitive answer on whether the next Oumuamua is a light sail? Cough up the money so the scientists can buy the telescope time.
- shmageggy 6y ago
  You’re putting a lot of words in his mouth. He did an AMA on reddit yesterday where he had every chance to say such things if that’s what he thinks, but he did little more than list his accomplishments and link to his books and articles. https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l6xl3d/askscience_ama_series_i_am_avi_loeb_and_im_here/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l6xl3d/askscien...
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    Note that I said "his battle" rather than "his words". He is but one voice in the fight against the particular scientific bias I described. Had Oumuamua not come along, he would have attached to any number of other vehicles (eg BLC-1) to make basically the same points.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    Or you just has not listened to his conversations with Lex Fridman, Sean Carroll and Joe Rogan among others.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  It's a political problem because basic research on these matters still requires money that mostly comes from the US government. Space stuff exists because it's a jobs program in the South. The search for life starts crossing lines because it raises awkward questions that challenge politically meaningful people. End of the day, you don't bite the hand that feeds.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  Science money is very limited. Space science money more limited. Space science money to get components on rovers yet more limited. Telescope time is also limited. Mission time on remote probes is also limited. So you devise an experiment to measure oxygen absorption that uses a probe's existing mass spectrometer. Your experiment doesn't cut into the probe's mass budget so it basically is just a scheduling issue. If your experiment is bumped from the mission schedule there's not compromising the probe or total mission. You've got a pretty good chance of getting that experiment on the docket. This is contrary to a nutrient experiment that eats into the probe's mass budget and mission time. If the sensors are dedicated to the experiment that's less mass for other sensors. Even if you got approved if you can't built the experiment to be reliable and survivable it won't get approved. Similar is true for trying to measure CFCs on exoplanets. There's a handful of instruments that can even get spectra from exoplanets and even then only from transiting ones and even then only has giants so far. Even if we could detect CFCs in terrestrial planet atmospheres, CFCs do not stay in the atmosphere very long so you'd only detect them (from a technological civilization) for a very short window of time. The odds of finding them are vanishingly low with current instruments. No one is going to return your e-mails if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time. If you're a serious researcher you'd know this already and wouldn't waste people's time. Methane is a general purpose biomarker and is something far more likely to be found. Since you've got a limited stars you can even gather information from the time is better spent on the more likely observation.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    >> if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time. That's what they said about hot jupiters. Exoplanets could have been detected decades earlier had there not been a consistent bias against the idea of large objects orbiting so near host stars, a bias based on a single data point (our solar system).
    - giantrobot 6y ago
      It's unlikely many types of exoplanets could have been detected "decades" earlier. Transit and Doppler detection methods require good seeing power and accurate intensity measurements. It takes large mirrors with good optics for good seeing power and sensitive electronics for the spectral/intensity measurements. Those two things weren't readily available until the past few decades...which surprise is when exoplanet discoveries started happening. Hot Jupiters and CFCs are very different things. Hot Jupiters were puzzling but something that could be readily detected by existing instruments. Once discovered solar system development models were improved. CFCs in a planet's atmosphere is something current instruments can't detect. Even if they could the number of observational candidates is limited. The only way we could detect CFCs is if some civilization was actively producing them at the time that light left the planet. So even if there's millions of CFC producing civilizations in the galaxy the odds of detecting those CFCs in candidate systems is extremely low. Even if those civilizations produced CFCs for millennia the odds are against ever seeing them. So it's pretty wasteful to use valuable telescope time for that rather than something that has a higher probability of giving some results. It's not about solar system chauvinism or biases. There's not infinite amounts of science money or science time. No one is writing off unlikely events, it's just breathless searches for those unlikely events has a huge opportunity cost. And talking about biases, assuming technological civilizations will produce CFCs is a very Earth/Human biased assumption. CFCs were/are produced on Earth for market reasons that don't necessarily apply in any circumstances except those that worked out on Earth.
- api 6y ago
  At least one Mars lander has discovered ice and evidence of briny water beneath the soil. The fact that we have not sent a microscope just baffles me. I do get the sense that for whatever reason there is a bias against explicitly looking for life. I don't think there's a big conspiracy explanation. I personally think it's what I call the "boring universe brigade," the skeptic ideology that came to dominate science starting in the 1970s that treats fascination as a contrarian indicator. "If it really fascinates people it's probably bullshit." If there's anything beyond that bias it's probably a fear of triggering fundamentalists. Edit: Here's one bit of evidence for possible near surface water at a landing site: https://www.space.com/209-life-mars-scientist-claims.html https://www.space.com/209-life-mars-scientist-claims.html
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Astronomers are extremely interested in detecting biosognatures in exoplanet atmospheres. This is one of the hottest topics in astronomy right now. They're just not interested in idle speculation about whether or not Oumuamua is a light sail. If there were some measurement that could be done to learn more about Oumuamua, then astronomers would do it, but it's a tiny object that's quite far away now. Most astronomers simply believe that the most likely explanation for the anomalous acceleration is that there was some undetected outgassing from the rock. That's much more plausible than the idea that this one particular object is an alien spaceship - not because there couldn't be alien spaceships somewhere out there, but because there are so many rocks floating around in space. The one thing that you really can't get funding for is SETI, but that's not the fault of astronomers. That's the fault of congresspeople who ridiculed the search for "little green men" in the 1990s and barred NASA from funding it. Almost all astronomy funding comes from governments, so a government ban on funding a particular line of research means that that research basically won't happen.
- asiachick 6y ago
  I listened to Avi on the latest Mindscape podcast. I'm 99% on his side but I would have loved to hear responses to the idea, how do you distinguish this from hunting for ghosts, souls, E.S.P., telepathy, etc... Someone who believed in those things would pretty much make all the same arguments (eg, have an open mind). I'm sure there are good arguments to distinguish why searching harder in the directions Avi wants things to go is different from searching for ghosts. It would be nice have heard them.
hh3k0 6y ago
> I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it could have been. That was also my impression. A lot of scientists (rightfully) make fun of the dogmatic view that it must have been an alien probe, but fail to realize their view -- that it must have been _anything but_ an alien probe -- is just as dogmatic.
ryanmercer 6y ago
>I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it could have been. Same, he even went on Planetary Radio on January 27th and said something to the effect of "show me a plausible model that shows this wasn't some sort of craft using a solar sail to accelerate out of the system, I'm happy to be proven wrong". https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/0127-2021-avi-loeb-extraterrestrial https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/0127-2021-avi-loeb...

sandworm101 6y ago

His battle is only partly about Oumuamua. That is just a vehicle for his arguments. The real issue is the bias against life detection experiments generally. Want to sample soil on mars and measure oxygen absorption? Great. We will put your sensor on the next rover. Want to pour nutrients on that soil and see if anything eats it? Go away you crazy person. Want to detect methane in an exoplanet atmosphere? Here is your telescope time. Want to detect CFCs, a likely technosignature? Good luck getting them to return your emails. That bias against definitive binary life detection efforts, solid yes/no answers, underpins Loeb's points on Oumuamua. If we are serious about life detection we should be looking for indisputable artifacts of both primitive and complex life, the later of which includes technological life. Loeb must also fight against widespread public assumptions about the hunt for life, specifically that people think SETI is a giant organization always scanning the sky. The public thinks the scientific community is actually putting in a solid effort to look for aliens. They aren't. We as a society spend more on candycrush than the entire SETI project. Want a definitive answer on whether the next Oumuamua is a light sail? Cough up the money so the scientists can buy the telescope time.

shmageggy 6y ago
You’re putting a lot of words in his mouth. He did an AMA on reddit yesterday where he had every chance to say such things if that’s what he thinks, but he did little more than list his accomplishments and link to his books and articles. https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l6xl3d/askscience_ama_series_i_am_avi_loeb_and_im_here/ https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l6xl3d/askscien...
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Note that I said "his battle" rather than "his words". He is but one voice in the fight against the particular scientific bias I described. Had Oumuamua not come along, he would have attached to any number of other vehicles (eg BLC-1) to make basically the same points.
- cambalache 6y ago
  Or you just has not listened to his conversations with Lex Fridman, Sean Carroll and Joe Rogan among others.
Spooky23 6y ago
It's a political problem because basic research on these matters still requires money that mostly comes from the US government. Space stuff exists because it's a jobs program in the South. The search for life starts crossing lines because it raises awkward questions that challenge politically meaningful people. End of the day, you don't bite the hand that feeds.
giantrobot 6y ago
Science money is very limited. Space science money more limited. Space science money to get components on rovers yet more limited. Telescope time is also limited. Mission time on remote probes is also limited. So you devise an experiment to measure oxygen absorption that uses a probe's existing mass spectrometer. Your experiment doesn't cut into the probe's mass budget so it basically is just a scheduling issue. If your experiment is bumped from the mission schedule there's not compromising the probe or total mission. You've got a pretty good chance of getting that experiment on the docket. This is contrary to a nutrient experiment that eats into the probe's mass budget and mission time. If the sensors are dedicated to the experiment that's less mass for other sensors. Even if you got approved if you can't built the experiment to be reliable and survivable it won't get approved. Similar is true for trying to measure CFCs on exoplanets. There's a handful of instruments that can even get spectra from exoplanets and even then only from transiting ones and even then only has giants so far. Even if we could detect CFCs in terrestrial planet atmospheres, CFCs do not stay in the atmosphere very long so you'd only detect them (from a technological civilization) for a very short window of time. The odds of finding them are vanishingly low with current instruments. No one is going to return your e-mails if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time. If you're a serious researcher you'd know this already and wouldn't waste people's time. Methane is a general purpose biomarker and is something far more likely to be found. Since you've got a limited stars you can even gather information from the time is better spent on the more likely observation.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  >> if you propose observations of CFCs because it's a snipe hunt wasting valuable and limited instrument time. That's what they said about hot jupiters. Exoplanets could have been detected decades earlier had there not been a consistent bias against the idea of large objects orbiting so near host stars, a bias based on a single data point (our solar system).
  - giantrobot 6y ago
    It's unlikely many types of exoplanets could have been detected "decades" earlier. Transit and Doppler detection methods require good seeing power and accurate intensity measurements. It takes large mirrors with good optics for good seeing power and sensitive electronics for the spectral/intensity measurements. Those two things weren't readily available until the past few decades...which surprise is when exoplanet discoveries started happening. Hot Jupiters and CFCs are very different things. Hot Jupiters were puzzling but something that could be readily detected by existing instruments. Once discovered solar system development models were improved. CFCs in a planet's atmosphere is something current instruments can't detect. Even if they could the number of observational candidates is limited. The only way we could detect CFCs is if some civilization was actively producing them at the time that light left the planet. So even if there's millions of CFC producing civilizations in the galaxy the odds of detecting those CFCs in candidate systems is extremely low. Even if those civilizations produced CFCs for millennia the odds are against ever seeing them. So it's pretty wasteful to use valuable telescope time for that rather than something that has a higher probability of giving some results. It's not about solar system chauvinism or biases. There's not infinite amounts of science money or science time. No one is writing off unlikely events, it's just breathless searches for those unlikely events has a huge opportunity cost. And talking about biases, assuming technological civilizations will produce CFCs is a very Earth/Human biased assumption. CFCs were/are produced on Earth for market reasons that don't necessarily apply in any circumstances except those that worked out on Earth.
api 6y ago
At least one Mars lander has discovered ice and evidence of briny water beneath the soil. The fact that we have not sent a microscope just baffles me. I do get the sense that for whatever reason there is a bias against explicitly looking for life. I don't think there's a big conspiracy explanation. I personally think it's what I call the "boring universe brigade," the skeptic ideology that came to dominate science starting in the 1970s that treats fascination as a contrarian indicator. "If it really fascinates people it's probably bullshit." If there's anything beyond that bias it's probably a fear of triggering fundamentalists. Edit: Here's one bit of evidence for possible near surface water at a landing site: https://www.space.com/209-life-mars-scientist-claims.html https://www.space.com/209-life-mars-scientist-claims.html
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Astronomers are extremely interested in detecting biosognatures in exoplanet atmospheres. This is one of the hottest topics in astronomy right now. They're just not interested in idle speculation about whether or not Oumuamua is a light sail. If there were some measurement that could be done to learn more about Oumuamua, then astronomers would do it, but it's a tiny object that's quite far away now. Most astronomers simply believe that the most likely explanation for the anomalous acceleration is that there was some undetected outgassing from the rock. That's much more plausible than the idea that this one particular object is an alien spaceship - not because there couldn't be alien spaceships somewhere out there, but because there are so many rocks floating around in space. The one thing that you really can't get funding for is SETI, but that's not the fault of astronomers. That's the fault of congresspeople who ridiculed the search for "little green men" in the 1990s and barred NASA from funding it. Almost all astronomy funding comes from governments, so a government ban on funding a particular line of research means that that research basically won't happen.
asiachick 6y ago
I listened to Avi on the latest Mindscape podcast. I'm 99% on his side but I would have loved to hear responses to the idea, how do you distinguish this from hunting for ghosts, souls, E.S.P., telepathy, etc... Someone who believed in those things would pretty much make all the same arguments (eg, have an open mind). I'm sure there are good arguments to distinguish why searching harder in the directions Avi wants things to go is different from searching for ghosts. It would be nice have heard them.

hh3k0 6y ago

> I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it could have been. That was also my impression. A lot of scientists (rightfully) make fun of the dogmatic view that it must have been an alien probe, but fail to realize their view -- that it must have been _anything but_ an alien probe -- is just as dogmatic.

ryanmercer 6y ago

>I'd gotten the impression that Loeb isn't trying to convince the public and scientific community that it was an alien probe so much as is he trying to show it could have been. Same, he even went on Planetary Radio on January 27th and said something to the effect of "show me a plausible model that shows this wasn't some sort of craft using a solar sail to accelerate out of the system, I'm happy to be proven wrong". https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/0127-2021-avi-loeb-extraterrestrial https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/0127-2021-avi-loeb...