4 ms·

I always thought this was the most likely explanation. Advanced civilization builds self-replicating probes, probes spread out over the whole galaxy. Stationed

by Lutzb 4y ago

I always thought this was the most likely explanation. Advanced civilization builds self-replicating probes, probes spread out over the whole galaxy. Stationed in every system to catalog signs of life evolving.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Really, the most likely explanation for a fast blur on some airplane's sensors is an alien self-replicating physics defying probe from a hyper-advanced civilization?
- bumby 4y ago
  Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on some airplane's sensors". You may be conflating the the article's topic with other UAP stories in the recent news.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The paper is not about 'Oumuamua, it's specifically about "highly-maneouverable UAPs": > We derive physical constraints on interpretations of “highly maneuverable” Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
    - bumby 4y ago
      If you aren’t aware of the broader context, the author (Avi Loeb) has used the various techniques within the paper to make the case that Oumuamua is of ET origins. The direct context of the article is meteorites (like Oumuamua), not the “fast blurs on aircraft sensors” you seem to be referencing.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        I know who Avi Loeb is and his previous work in this area. But this paper is very explicitly not about meteorites or objects seen by advanced telescopes, it is exactly about the fast blurs on aircraft sensors. Here is a piece from the conclusion: > For example, one of the most common sets of data within the military holdings comes from FLIR (forward looking infrared) pods. These sensors provide an accurate resolved image of relative thermal measurements across the scene. Typical UAP sightings are too far away to get a highly resolved image of the object and determination of the object’s motion is limited by the lack of range data. Not to mention, 'Oumuamua was emphatically not a UAP, it was a pretty-well-identified spatial object. UAP in fact refers exclusively to sightings that are not even clearly known to be "objects" at all, hence the move away from "UFO".
        bumby 4y ago
        It's both. The UAP context is a meteorite (i.e., '-ite' defining that it comes in contact with the earth's atmosphere). The article seems very much about meteorites (or possible, mis-identified meteorites), using RF, military FLIR, and observational telescope data. >"Parallax data from the James Webb Space Telescope may identify the nature and 3D trajectory of more ‘Oumuamua-like or smaller interstellar objects crossing through or trapped within the solar system. Below we show that any supersonic motion by such devices through the Earth’s atmosphere would inevitably be accompanied by bright optical emission and detectable characterization signatures." He first describes how such an object (i.e., Oumuamua-like meteorite) travelling through the Earth's atmosphere can be measured through its luminosity signature. He then describes how RF and thermal (i.e. FLIR) signatures can also be used.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    > Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on some airplane's sensors". No, not a fast blur on aircraft sensors; rather a fast blur on telescope sensors. All those telescopes saw was a very dim dot of variable brightness. They couldn't even see what shape the object was and even today nobody really knows what it was shaped like. From the period of it dimming scientists have inferred what shape it might have, but they don't really know because there are many geometries which could explain the observed data. It might have been cigar shaped, or it might have been more of a flat disk (a hypothesis favored by Avi Loeb I believe, one of the authors of the OP article). Nobody really knows because nobody actually got a good look at it. The limited data the telescopes were able to get leave a lot of room to interpretatation making it perfect UFOlogist bait, just like those videos from the airplane sensors. Actually the airplane sensors got a much better look at their objects than any telescope got of Oumuamua.
    - bumby 4y ago
      That’s fair, but I’d still argue it’s not a fast blur on a telescope. They had 11 days to collect data so I’d have to be very charitable to call that “fast” at least in the context of comparing it to aircraft sensors.
      - stametseater 4y ago
        They saw it moving fast relative to our system, and all they were able to make out was a faint dot. I think comparing it to a "fast blur" on an aircraft sensor is actually too charitable, because those aircraft sensors actually got better looks at their objects.
        bumby 4y ago
        And slow relative to other celestial bodies, depending on the amount and type of data collected. I guess if we're being subjective we can call it whatever we want.
wil421 4y ago
You should read Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke.
- hiidrew 4y ago
  thanks for the tip, adding this to my reading list. synopsis sounds awesome.
krapp 4y ago
If you believe this to be likely reality, you're going to have to explain it in light of the Fermi Paradox because a galaxy-blanketing swarm of self-replicating machines is a lot of heat and mass to hide.
- l33tman 4y ago
  Maybe all the dark matter turns out to be cloaked Von Neuman probes...
- chatmasta 4y ago
  Wouldn't the explanation be that there never was any paradox, but rather we just hadn't noticed the alien probes yet? This is in contrast to the hypothetical scenario of finding microbial life on Mars, which as Nick Bostrom is fond of explaining [0], "would be very bad news" because it would imply the Great Filter is ahead of us. [0] (timestamped) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vD4df_63wo&t=382s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vD4df_63wo&t=382s
  - krapp 4y ago
    Would it be possible not to notice them? The more probes there are, the more likely one of them happens across Earth. Interstellar space should be full of them. Unless we're talking about, like, one or two probes making a breadcrumb trail to Earth from wherever.
    - chatmasta 4y ago
      Well, I think it's a bit of a circular question :) But it seems like one of the conclusions of the linked paper in the OP (which is trying to put parameters on this very question) is that it actually would be hard to notice them, for certain scales of probe (on the order of 1 meter), at least while they're in outer space: > At a distance d from the Sun and the telescope, objects that are a meter in diameter and reflect a fraction a ≈ 10% of sunlight impinging on their surface would yield a flux of optical light of ∼ 0.2(d/1 AU)−2 nJy, well below the detection threshold of even the James Webb Space Telescope But it goes on to suggest that we could notice them, even at sizes less than a meter, with radar technology, once they're in the atmosphere: > In contrast, the radar signatures of a meter class object would be detectable with our deep space radars and space fence, much like IM2 was, out to beyond geosynchronous orbit at an altitude above 36,000 km. Such objects could also become optically detectable as they get close to Earth, especially if they create a fireball as a result of their friction with air. But, such FLIR systems also produce a lot of false positives, i.e. actual everyday meteors in the atmosphere. So the challenge is narrowing down the data to find the most anomalous objects. And indeed that's what Loeb has done with the Galileo project, as he's identified one such object that landed a few years ago, and is chartering a ship to go try to find it in the Pacific Ocean. Estimating the chance of success of his quest is an exercise left to the reader, but we'll have to see what comes of it.
OscarCunningham 4y ago
Then why do the mostly stay hidden but sometimes leave exterior lights on? It seems to me that UFO behaviour isn't consistent with likely alien goals. I would expect them to either announce themselves openly or else be entirely invisible.
- Loquebantur 4y ago
  Maybe your assumptions about "likely alien goals" are just wrong? If you want not to shock people, you don't sneak up on them, but rather you start by giving the faintest hint, alerting their attention to your presence. "Having lights on" has the additional benefit of obscuring your vehicle quite effectively from camera sensors.

by Lutzb 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

Really, the most likely explanation for a fast blur on some airplane's sensors is an alien self-replicating physics defying probe from a hyper-advanced civilization?

bumby 4y ago
Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on some airplane's sensors". You may be conflating the the article's topic with other UAP stories in the recent news.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The paper is not about 'Oumuamua, it's specifically about "highly-maneouverable UAPs": > We derive physical constraints on interpretations of “highly maneuverable” Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
  - bumby 4y ago
    If you aren’t aware of the broader context, the author (Avi Loeb) has used the various techniques within the paper to make the case that Oumuamua is of ET origins. The direct context of the article is meteorites (like Oumuamua), not the “fast blurs on aircraft sensors” you seem to be referencing.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      I know who Avi Loeb is and his previous work in this area. But this paper is very explicitly not about meteorites or objects seen by advanced telescopes, it is exactly about the fast blurs on aircraft sensors. Here is a piece from the conclusion: > For example, one of the most common sets of data within the military holdings comes from FLIR (forward looking infrared) pods. These sensors provide an accurate resolved image of relative thermal measurements across the scene. Typical UAP sightings are too far away to get a highly resolved image of the object and determination of the object’s motion is limited by the lack of range data. Not to mention, 'Oumuamua was emphatically not a UAP, it was a pretty-well-identified spatial object. UAP in fact refers exclusively to sightings that are not even clearly known to be "objects" at all, hence the move away from "UFO".
      - bumby 4y ago
        It's both. The UAP context is a meteorite (i.e., '-ite' defining that it comes in contact with the earth's atmosphere). The article seems very much about meteorites (or possible, mis-identified meteorites), using RF, military FLIR, and observational telescope data. >"Parallax data from the James Webb Space Telescope may identify the nature and 3D trajectory of more ‘Oumuamua-like or smaller interstellar objects crossing through or trapped within the solar system. Below we show that any supersonic motion by such devices through the Earth’s atmosphere would inevitably be accompanied by bright optical emission and detectable characterization signatures." He first describes how such an object (i.e., Oumuamua-like meteorite) travelling through the Earth's atmosphere can be measured through its luminosity signature. He then describes how RF and thermal (i.e. FLIR) signatures can also be used.
- stametseater 4y ago
  > Oumuamua is an interplanetary object that was able to be studied for days by multiple telescopes as it passed through our solar system. Not some "fast blur on some airplane's sensors". No, not a fast blur on aircraft sensors; rather a fast blur on telescope sensors. All those telescopes saw was a very dim dot of variable brightness. They couldn't even see what shape the object was and even today nobody really knows what it was shaped like. From the period of it dimming scientists have inferred what shape it might have, but they don't really know because there are many geometries which could explain the observed data. It might have been cigar shaped, or it might have been more of a flat disk (a hypothesis favored by Avi Loeb I believe, one of the authors of the OP article). Nobody really knows because nobody actually got a good look at it. The limited data the telescopes were able to get leave a lot of room to interpretatation making it perfect UFOlogist bait, just like those videos from the airplane sensors. Actually the airplane sensors got a much better look at their objects than any telescope got of Oumuamua.
  - bumby 4y ago
    That’s fair, but I’d still argue it’s not a fast blur on a telescope. They had 11 days to collect data so I’d have to be very charitable to call that “fast” at least in the context of comparing it to aircraft sensors.
    - stametseater 4y ago
      They saw it moving fast relative to our system, and all they were able to make out was a faint dot. I think comparing it to a "fast blur" on an aircraft sensor is actually too charitable, because those aircraft sensors actually got better looks at their objects.
      - bumby 4y ago
        And slow relative to other celestial bodies, depending on the amount and type of data collected. I guess if we're being subjective we can call it whatever we want.

wil421 4y ago

You should read Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke.

hiidrew 4y ago
thanks for the tip, adding this to my reading list. synopsis sounds awesome.

krapp 4y ago

If you believe this to be likely reality, you're going to have to explain it in light of the Fermi Paradox because a galaxy-blanketing swarm of self-replicating machines is a lot of heat and mass to hide.

l33tman 4y ago
Maybe all the dark matter turns out to be cloaked Von Neuman probes...
chatmasta 4y ago
Wouldn't the explanation be that there never was any paradox, but rather we just hadn't noticed the alien probes yet? This is in contrast to the hypothetical scenario of finding microbial life on Mars, which as Nick Bostrom is fond of explaining [0], "would be very bad news" because it would imply the Great Filter is ahead of us. [0] (timestamped) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vD4df_63wo&t=382s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vD4df_63wo&t=382s
- krapp 4y ago
  Would it be possible not to notice them? The more probes there are, the more likely one of them happens across Earth. Interstellar space should be full of them. Unless we're talking about, like, one or two probes making a breadcrumb trail to Earth from wherever.
  - chatmasta 4y ago
    Well, I think it's a bit of a circular question :) But it seems like one of the conclusions of the linked paper in the OP (which is trying to put parameters on this very question) is that it actually would be hard to notice them, for certain scales of probe (on the order of 1 meter), at least while they're in outer space: > At a distance d from the Sun and the telescope, objects that are a meter in diameter and reflect a fraction a ≈ 10% of sunlight impinging on their surface would yield a flux of optical light of ∼ 0.2(d/1 AU)−2 nJy, well below the detection threshold of even the James Webb Space Telescope But it goes on to suggest that we could notice them, even at sizes less than a meter, with radar technology, once they're in the atmosphere: > In contrast, the radar signatures of a meter class object would be detectable with our deep space radars and space fence, much like IM2 was, out to beyond geosynchronous orbit at an altitude above 36,000 km. Such objects could also become optically detectable as they get close to Earth, especially if they create a fireball as a result of their friction with air. But, such FLIR systems also produce a lot of false positives, i.e. actual everyday meteors in the atmosphere. So the challenge is narrowing down the data to find the most anomalous objects. And indeed that's what Loeb has done with the Galileo project, as he's identified one such object that landed a few years ago, and is chartering a ship to go try to find it in the Pacific Ocean. Estimating the chance of success of his quest is an exercise left to the reader, but we'll have to see what comes of it.

OscarCunningham 4y ago

Then why do the mostly stay hidden but sometimes leave exterior lights on? It seems to me that UFO behaviour isn't consistent with likely alien goals. I would expect them to either announce themselves openly or else be entirely invisible.

Loquebantur 4y ago
Maybe your assumptions about "likely alien goals" are just wrong? If you want not to shock people, you don't sneak up on them, but rather you start by giving the faintest hint, alerting their attention to your presence. "Having lights on" has the additional benefit of obscuring your vehicle quite effectively from camera sensors.