4 ms·

ML supports existence of unrecognized transient astronomical phenomena

73 points by solarist 5mo ago

damnitbuilds 5mo ago
Not saying...
- pinkmuffinere 5mo ago
  I’m too out of the loop I guess — can you please tell me what you’re not saying? As thanks, I won’t tell you what I am saying :P
  - thecr0w 5mo ago
    "Not saying it's aliens but, it's aliens"
    - damnitbuilds 5mo ago
      That's what I meant. With an implied subtext: "We aren't going to show why it's aliens, but trust us, we're experts."
  - realo 5mo ago
    It's too large to write in the margin of this book...
surprisetalk 5mo ago
> For example, is it possible that unknown to the public there were multiple launches of artificial satellites long before Sputnik with some launches timed to coincide with U.S. nuclear tests? Or rather, do the current findings represent detection of a non-human technosignature? Due to data limitations, such hypotheses cannot be subjected to falsification.
- estimator7292 5mo ago
  This is why we need better education in this country. Anyone who has read any amount of history from this time should know that this is very simply not possible. This statment is unfalsifiable in the same way that "I'm a six-legged alien from Venus typing this message from orbit" is unfalsifiable. It's just flat nonsense.
  - _alternator_ 5mo ago
    This actually _is_ falsifiable; I've written before that you can determine whether the point-spread function of the transients match the PSF of stars. If not, then it does not come from outer space, it's an issue with the film, i.e., radiation.
_alternator_ 5mo ago
Transient 'objects' after nuclear tests are quite possibly high energy radiation from the tests themselves. Remember these are on film, and the film is likely removed from its protective housing for some time before, during, and after imaging. (And in many cases protective housing wouldn't help anyway.) I get the sense that this topic is popular because "aliens y'all". It's much more likely to be radiation. It's possible that atomic tests kick luminous particles into the upper atmosphere. But it's not aliens.
- cshimmin 5mo ago
  When I was a research physicist I spent a lot of time looking at the effects of ionizing radiation in pictures, although mostly in the context of digital images. The mechanisms are a bit different for photo emulsions, but to me the reason I'd discount radiation is because they're specifically filtering for features that exhibit the expected point spread function (which is a geometric property of the telescope's optical assembly itself). I guess you could test by exposing emulsion plates to ionizing radiation and seeing how often you get PSF-like images by chance. Also, their search is for +/- 1 day of nuclear testing, which seems weird. Certainly radiation from fallout wouldn't make sense on the day before testing. It would have been useful to see +1 day and -1 day separately. Or 0-2 days. The way it's chosen makes me suspect they couldn't find a signal in those windows, and therefore it's probably just statistical noise that they've massaged out of the data. But to me the biggest flag is that these images are from 50 minute exposures. The objects don't appear as streaks, so they are either very, very short flashes (much shorter than 50 min), or they are very far away. The authors interpret this to mean the objects should be in geosynchronous orbit, which doesn't make sense; objects in geosync would still appear to move relative to the star background over the course of 50 min. Yet this is the entire basis for their "shadow deficit" window calculation. You could constrain the duration vs distance by looking at the effect it would have on smearing the PSF, which would be interesting. Overall it seems pretty unscientific. If you go looking through enough statistically noisy data for signals in enough places, you'll eventually find it.
  - _alternator_ 5mo ago
    Yes, 50-minute exposures would certainly rule out geosynchronous; I've used image stacking to look at geo and you get visible movement relative to the star background after even a few seconds. Fifty minutes would be almost 15 degrees of movement relative to the background! This isn't even accounting for the fact that you would need to be looking in a narrow region above above the equator to get something geosynchronous to begin with. There are other possiblities that are likely: Upper atmosphere tests resulting in transient luminous phenomena. This would be more likey in certain conditions where the sun could reflect off of specular matter (e.g., bits of metal). You would see this most likely within 1-2 hours of sunset or 1-2 hours of sunrise (source: I've used optical equipment to spot satellites professionally). I'd note that thier pipeline for removing "plate defects" is not based on the PSF but on some vaguely defined "expert review" training. This can, and should, be a quantifiable step.
mellosouls 5mo ago
"Now, we're not saying its aliens but coincidentally here's a recent paper authored by some of us:"* A cost-effective search for extraterrestrial probes in the Solar system https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/2/staf1158/8221885 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/2/staf1158/822188... *Not an actual quote
aaroninsf 5mo ago
I read the pre-publishing version of this paper, and there was then and still is a serious problem with their logic, consistent with if not bad faith, something akin to it: Assume for a moment their core hypothesis is correct, there were transient objects captured on film pre-Sputnik in LEO objects. What might we say about their nature? The authors' undisguised implication is "it's aliens" to be blunt; that's their motivation for this work. Consequently they put effort (which may not be noted in the final published papers...) into the question of whether they could make any meaningful inference about the geometry and spectral properties of their "transients," their interest (of course) was that if they could make a meaningful argument for regular geometry, they had the story of the century in effect. These efforts failed totally. A natural inference might be, among the reasons this might be, is that the objects (remember we are assuming they exist) do not have such characteristics. The primary reason that would be true is if they were naturally occurring objects. I looked this up and was surprised to learn that there are currently estimated to be on the order of a million small objects in the inner solar system. So: the entire hypothesis hinges on "significant correlation with nuclear testing." Because otherwise, once can reasonably assume that transient traces of objects—when they are actually traces of objects—would in a quotidian way presumably be caused by some of these million objects. Or so say I. There is no end of peculiar and provacative history and data in UFOlogy, and even more murk; one needs to tread very carefully to not go down (or, be led down) to false conclusions, disinformation, and the like. The authors of this paper seem singularly disinterested in that caution.
- aaroninsf 5mo ago
  If you want to downvote, I invite an alternate explanation for their behavior and the contextualizing media posture, which regularly situates what they are willing to say in print, within unsupported and click-bait-worthy speculation. Another example of bad faith: curve-fitting around what constitutes "nuclear testing."
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  Assuming what you say is true then couldn't that be validated by making additional observations in the present day? Since we'd assume some sort of statistical distribution for such objects. Is there any reason that would be unrealistic?
card_zero 5mo ago
The "diminish significantly in Earth's shadow" part makes me think it's sunlight glinting off spyplanes. The B-47 was shiny.
ordinarily 5mo ago
Awhile ago I built my own ML pipeline to automate scanning these plates, it was very revealing. Beatriz and her team were very helpful. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04810 https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04810
- alexpotato 5mo ago
  Did you end up with similar results/conclusions?
  - ordinarily 5mo ago
    The transients were pretty easy to replicate yes. The nuclear testing stuff was pretty inconclusive but they have a much better curated collection of plates that aren't available yet.
tastyfreeze 5mo ago
One of the authors, Beatriz Villarroel, has been interviewed on this topic several times. She has never said "its aliens". She just says its interesting and warrants investigation. She is also a little stunned that nobody has investigated pre-sputnik transients before.
josefritzishere 5mo ago
"Idk, therefore aliens" is not good science.
- hosteur 5mo ago
  Where do they state it is aliens?
anthk 5mo ago
From Beatriz Villarroel -I guessed it without opening the link-, right? On the papers, it doesn't mean that it must be aliens, but weird phenomena.
aaronbrethorst 5mo ago
The lead author on this paper is a professor of anesthesiology. I think it's fairly safe to describe its conclusion as crank-adjacent, if not outright cranky.
- npunt 5mo ago
  Wake up sheeple! Oh.. uh hold on a second... removes anesthesia mask from patient Wake up sheeple!
  - fmajid 5mo ago
    https://xkcd.com/1013/ https://xkcd.com/1013/
kittikitti 5mo ago
This is exactly the kind of research meant to be on preprint servers like arxiv.org
wao0uuno 5mo ago
What's more interesting is that a third of these plates were destroyed by Donald Howard Menzel without reason or explanation. From Wikipedia: "During World War II, Menzel was commissioned as a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy and asked to head a division of intelligence, where he used his many-sided talents, including deciphering enemy codes. Even until 1955, he worked with the Navy improving radio-wave propagation by tracking the Sun's emissions and studying the effect of the aurora on radio propagation for the Department of Defense.[3][4] Returning to Harvard after the war, he was appointed acting director of the Harvard Observatory in 1952, and was the full director from 1954 to 1966. His colleague Dr. Dorrit Hoffleit recalls one of his first actions in the position was asking his secretary to destroy a third of the plates sight unseen, resulting in their permanent loss from the record."
tristramb 5mo ago
If the transients occur immediately following the nuclear explosions but not before them, then the correlation together with the earth shadow deficit suggests that the transients are caused by reflective debris produced by the nuclear explosions. I don't know how feasible it would be for this debris to survive the explosion and be blasted above the atmosphere to glint in the sunlight at night, but there is the case of the missing manhole cover from one of the Operation Plumbbob tests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Missing_steel_bore_cap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Missing_ste...
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

73 points by solarist 5mo ago

damnitbuilds 5mo ago

Not saying...

pinkmuffinere 5mo ago
I’m too out of the loop I guess — can you please tell me what you’re not saying? As thanks, I won’t tell you what I am saying :P
- thecr0w 5mo ago
  "Not saying it's aliens but, it's aliens"
  - damnitbuilds 5mo ago
    That's what I meant. With an implied subtext: "We aren't going to show why it's aliens, but trust us, we're experts."
- realo 5mo ago
  It's too large to write in the margin of this book...

surprisetalk 5mo ago

> For example, is it possible that unknown to the public there were multiple launches of artificial satellites long before Sputnik with some launches timed to coincide with U.S. nuclear tests? Or rather, do the current findings represent detection of a non-human technosignature? Due to data limitations, such hypotheses cannot be subjected to falsification.

estimator7292 5mo ago
This is why we need better education in this country. Anyone who has read any amount of history from this time should know that this is very simply not possible. This statment is unfalsifiable in the same way that "I'm a six-legged alien from Venus typing this message from orbit" is unfalsifiable. It's just flat nonsense.
- _alternator_ 5mo ago
  This actually _is_ falsifiable; I've written before that you can determine whether the point-spread function of the transients match the PSF of stars. If not, then it does not come from outer space, it's an issue with the film, i.e., radiation.

_alternator_ 5mo ago

Transient 'objects' after nuclear tests are quite possibly high energy radiation from the tests themselves. Remember these are on film, and the film is likely removed from its protective housing for some time before, during, and after imaging. (And in many cases protective housing wouldn't help anyway.) I get the sense that this topic is popular because "aliens y'all". It's much more likely to be radiation. It's possible that atomic tests kick luminous particles into the upper atmosphere. But it's not aliens.

cshimmin 5mo ago
When I was a research physicist I spent a lot of time looking at the effects of ionizing radiation in pictures, although mostly in the context of digital images. The mechanisms are a bit different for photo emulsions, but to me the reason I'd discount radiation is because they're specifically filtering for features that exhibit the expected point spread function (which is a geometric property of the telescope's optical assembly itself). I guess you could test by exposing emulsion plates to ionizing radiation and seeing how often you get PSF-like images by chance. Also, their search is for +/- 1 day of nuclear testing, which seems weird. Certainly radiation from fallout wouldn't make sense on the day before testing. It would have been useful to see +1 day and -1 day separately. Or 0-2 days. The way it's chosen makes me suspect they couldn't find a signal in those windows, and therefore it's probably just statistical noise that they've massaged out of the data. But to me the biggest flag is that these images are from 50 minute exposures. The objects don't appear as streaks, so they are either very, very short flashes (much shorter than 50 min), or they are very far away. The authors interpret this to mean the objects should be in geosynchronous orbit, which doesn't make sense; objects in geosync would still appear to move relative to the star background over the course of 50 min. Yet this is the entire basis for their "shadow deficit" window calculation. You could constrain the duration vs distance by looking at the effect it would have on smearing the PSF, which would be interesting. Overall it seems pretty unscientific. If you go looking through enough statistically noisy data for signals in enough places, you'll eventually find it.
- _alternator_ 5mo ago
  Yes, 50-minute exposures would certainly rule out geosynchronous; I've used image stacking to look at geo and you get visible movement relative to the star background after even a few seconds. Fifty minutes would be almost 15 degrees of movement relative to the background! This isn't even accounting for the fact that you would need to be looking in a narrow region above above the equator to get something geosynchronous to begin with. There are other possiblities that are likely: Upper atmosphere tests resulting in transient luminous phenomena. This would be more likey in certain conditions where the sun could reflect off of specular matter (e.g., bits of metal). You would see this most likely within 1-2 hours of sunset or 1-2 hours of sunrise (source: I've used optical equipment to spot satellites professionally). I'd note that thier pipeline for removing "plate defects" is not based on the PSF but on some vaguely defined "expert review" training. This can, and should, be a quantifiable step.

mellosouls 5mo ago

"Now, we're not saying its aliens but coincidentally here's a recent paper authored by some of us:"* A cost-effective search for extraterrestrial probes in the Solar system https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/2/staf1158/8221885 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/546/2/staf1158/822188... *Not an actual quote

aaroninsf 5mo ago

I read the pre-publishing version of this paper, and there was then and still is a serious problem with their logic, consistent with if not bad faith, something akin to it: Assume for a moment their core hypothesis is correct, there were transient objects captured on film pre-Sputnik in LEO objects. What might we say about their nature? The authors' undisguised implication is "it's aliens" to be blunt; that's their motivation for this work. Consequently they put effort (which may not be noted in the final published papers...) into the question of whether they could make any meaningful inference about the geometry and spectral properties of their "transients," their interest (of course) was that if they could make a meaningful argument for regular geometry, they had the story of the century in effect. These efforts failed totally. A natural inference might be, among the reasons this might be, is that the objects (remember we are assuming they exist) do not have such characteristics. The primary reason that would be true is if they were naturally occurring objects. I looked this up and was surprised to learn that there are currently estimated to be on the order of a million small objects in the inner solar system. So: the entire hypothesis hinges on "significant correlation with nuclear testing." Because otherwise, once can reasonably assume that transient traces of objects—when they are actually traces of objects—would in a quotidian way presumably be caused by some of these million objects. Or so say I. There is no end of peculiar and provacative history and data in UFOlogy, and even more murk; one needs to tread very carefully to not go down (or, be led down) to false conclusions, disinformation, and the like. The authors of this paper seem singularly disinterested in that caution.

aaroninsf 5mo ago
If you want to downvote, I invite an alternate explanation for their behavior and the contextualizing media posture, which regularly situates what they are willing to say in print, within unsupported and click-bait-worthy speculation. Another example of bad faith: curve-fitting around what constitutes "nuclear testing."
fc417fc802 5mo ago
Assuming what you say is true then couldn't that be validated by making additional observations in the present day? Since we'd assume some sort of statistical distribution for such objects. Is there any reason that would be unrealistic?

card_zero 5mo ago

The "diminish significantly in Earth's shadow" part makes me think it's sunlight glinting off spyplanes. The B-47 was shiny.

ordinarily 5mo ago

Awhile ago I built my own ML pipeline to automate scanning these plates, it was very revealing. Beatriz and her team were very helpful. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04810 https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04810

alexpotato 5mo ago
Did you end up with similar results/conclusions?
- ordinarily 5mo ago
  The transients were pretty easy to replicate yes. The nuclear testing stuff was pretty inconclusive but they have a much better curated collection of plates that aren't available yet.

tastyfreeze 5mo ago

One of the authors, Beatriz Villarroel, has been interviewed on this topic several times. She has never said "its aliens". She just says its interesting and warrants investigation. She is also a little stunned that nobody has investigated pre-sputnik transients before.

josefritzishere 5mo ago

"Idk, therefore aliens" is not good science.

hosteur 5mo ago
Where do they state it is aliens?

anthk 5mo ago

From Beatriz Villarroel -I guessed it without opening the link-, right? On the papers, it doesn't mean that it must be aliens, but weird phenomena.

aaronbrethorst 5mo ago

The lead author on this paper is a professor of anesthesiology. I think it's fairly safe to describe its conclusion as crank-adjacent, if not outright cranky.

npunt 5mo ago
Wake up sheeple! Oh.. uh hold on a second... removes anesthesia mask from patient Wake up sheeple!
- fmajid 5mo ago
  https://xkcd.com/1013/ https://xkcd.com/1013/

kittikitti 5mo ago

This is exactly the kind of research meant to be on preprint servers like arxiv.org

wao0uuno 5mo ago

What's more interesting is that a third of these plates were destroyed by Donald Howard Menzel without reason or explanation. From Wikipedia: "During World War II, Menzel was commissioned as a lieutenant commander in the United States Navy and asked to head a division of intelligence, where he used his many-sided talents, including deciphering enemy codes. Even until 1955, he worked with the Navy improving radio-wave propagation by tracking the Sun's emissions and studying the effect of the aurora on radio propagation for the Department of Defense.[3][4] Returning to Harvard after the war, he was appointed acting director of the Harvard Observatory in 1952, and was the full director from 1954 to 1966. His colleague Dr. Dorrit Hoffleit recalls one of his first actions in the position was asking his secretary to destroy a third of the plates sight unseen, resulting in their permanent loss from the record."

tristramb 5mo ago

If the transients occur immediately following the nuclear explosions but not before them, then the correlation together with the earth shadow deficit suggests that the transients are caused by reflective debris produced by the nuclear explosions. I don't know how feasible it would be for this debris to survive the explosion and be blasted above the atmosphere to glint in the sunlight at night, but there is the case of the missing manhole cover from one of the Operation Plumbbob tests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Missing_steel_bore_cap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Missing_ste...

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]