The first interstellar object, named ‘Oumuamua, was discovered in October 2017 by the Pan-STARRS 1 telescope in Hawaii. A recent paper by Dr. Avi Loeb of Harvard University and Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, it may possibly be an artificial alien light sail. The Youtube Channel Event Horizon spoke to Dr. Loeb about that paper.
Oumuamua appears to be weird. Like nothing we have seen before. It has an extreme shape based on the variation in reflected light from the Sun.
NOTE- At the bottom there is video where Neil DeGrasse Tyson gives his take on the shape. He thinks Oumuamua is a clump of loosely collected rocks.
What Avi Loeb said in the video interview
Loeb- Oumuamua appears to be at the so-called local standard of rest which is the average of all the stars in the vicinity of the Sun only one in 500 stars is so much at rest in that frame. If aliens did not want anyone to know where your origins are they would move at the rest frame. There is no star that belongs that is exactly at rest in that frame. This object seems to be there.
The Spitzer satellite observations of it did not detect thermal emission. It seems to be a very good reflector and absorbs very little of the sunlight but most intriguingly it moves on a trajectory that indicates an extra push in addition to the gravitational force from the Sun. This was reported in nature back in June. One would think oh maybe that push is just due to a cometary outgassing where water ice evaporates and gives through the rocket effect some push to the object that’s the situation in comets. Unfortunately it cannot be the case in this case in this object because there is no any cometary tail seen around it and moreover the amount of mass that it needs to lose is quite a significant fraction of its mass in order to give it the extra kick.
If it is regular comet density then it would weight 1 million to 10 million tons.
Comets produce the outgassing in directions that are not necessarily towards the Sun. They change their spin period and there is no change in a spin period of this object. It cannot be outgassing like we see in comets and then the question arises what gives the extra push.
Our paper tries to explain that and we basically suggest that sunlight is pushing on this object and that can be effective only if it’s very thin. Less than a millimeter in thickness roughly the size of 20 meters or more.
It is sort of like a sail just like a sail in a sailboat is being pushed by the wind here the solar radiation the sunlight is pushing on it and then one asks okay if that’s the case then what’s the origin of such an object. It could well be artificial light sail we are currently developing this technology here on earth there are projects and I actually lead one of them called starshot. It’s possible that another civilization mastered this technology already and you know it’s sort of like going to the beach and looking at sea shells that are swept ashore. You look at different seashells and you see they come from different origins but every now and then you see a plastic bottle that seems to be artificially made. We should examine all the debris that comes our way through the solar system from outer space. This is the very first unbound object that we have seen coming close to the Sun we should just check all these objects and even if most of them appear to be rock every now and then we might see some space junk or it maybe it’s from other it might be equipment that is not operational anymore from another civilization. It might be actually be a reconnaissance mission going our way for it and just simply someone’s trash. We produced the Voyager 1 and 2 that are leaving the solar system. The problem if you assume that this object is out 1 out of random population of objects then you need each star to eject of the order of 10 to the power 15 such objects over its lifetime that’s much more than we would have expected for the Sun big because I actually wrote a paper a decade ago forecasting how many asteroids should the solar system lose during its lifetime. It’s much less than that by a factor of a hundred to a hundred million so so the fact that we detected muah-muah in the first place is surprising because we would have expected a much lower abundance and the current service should not have seen anything and I’m very intrigued by the unusual properties of this object.
I think we should keep so the way to resolve this puzzle is to keep looking.
Within a few years there will be the large synoptic survey telescope LSST. Surely we will see another member of this population if it’s a random population and then we will be alert. We can use the best telescopes on earth for a follow-up and try to get as much information as possible on every interstellar object that passes by. Like the analogy with the seashells.
It is hard now to study Oumuamua.
It is moving away from us is there any chance of learning more well the problem is it moves at a speed that is twice to three times the speed of chemical rockets. We use chemical rockets for most of our space missions in the past and so we cannot use chemical propulsion
The standard chemical rockets to chase it down unless we have some very innovative scheme of using gravity assist from planets and perhaps you know stretching the limits of chemical propulsion.
There are people suggesting that maybe we should chase down more and that would be a mission that will cost more than a billion dollars.
NOTE: Nextbigfuture described how we could chase it down using to Falcon Super-heavies.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson thinks Oumuamua is a clump of rocks
Neil DeGrasse Tyson believes Oumuamua is a clump of rocks. Thus the elongated shape is from gravity pulling the rocks into a chain. However, this does not explain the acceleration.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
If it was a sail, some things don’t line up though. It would imply the sail was collapsed inbound, and I get the impression that if the sail unfurled on exit the albedo/radar return would have changed. If it was an active device, not unfurling the sail on approach to the sun implies fast flyby. Not unfurling on exit would imply active avoidance of detection during/after flyby at the cost of no boost aside from gravity slingshotting, as unfurling a sail would provide substantial acceleration that would make post-aphelion intercept excessively difficult (if one did not care about post-aphelion detection, only preventing inbound detection/intercept).There was some interesting commentary on being a drop tank for an off-axis approach to a star so the propulsion system doesn’t reveal the fact a decelerating craft is approaching a star, but if dropped as such the tank shouldn’t reach that target star, and go elsewhere as debris.It’s probably not in the same design vein as a stealthy hydrogen steamer either, due to acceleration after aphelion (oberth effect maneuver is done at the deep point in the gravity well, and you get less boost from the effect the farther you get from aphelion).Definitely lots of weirdness.
Anomalous acceleration fits with out-gassing, and there are comets like Encke that don’t visibly out-dust either (because we can’t see large grains). Google terms in quotes.”Non-Gravitational Acceleration in the Trajectory of 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)”And it is probably made of ice with a half meter thick coating on it. “Surprise Ice Discovery Just Made That Interstellar Object Even More Confusing”And Santa Claus does not exist”us air force santa claus doesn’t exist”
Solar sail ha ha ha. We have trained our scientists with a very rigid regime of conclusions made from obvious observations of cause and effect and now they cannot see beyond their field of focus. In other words, we are lost.
This came from earth about 150 000 yrs ago (3 circuits of 50000 yrs) this squares with red factor + present trajectory indicates that it couldnt come from another system increasing no of clues to previous high level civilization here on earth hows that for a point to ponder?
Of course, the shorter the distance, the less likely it is. But it didn’t go anywhere near 1 mile.
I did estimate the chances for 0.5 AU, which is on a similar scale to what actually happened. If you reread my previous comment, you’ll see that at Oumuamua’s perihelion of 0.25 AU from the Sun, it has a ~40% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Earth, ~50% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Venus, and ~70% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Mercury. All at the same time, at just that one single point. Those are pretty good chances.
The only condition is that its perihelion is at 0.25 AU from the Sun. That’s the unlikely part, but if that’s satisfied, you get the rest automatically.
BUT, the 2nd consequence of such a tight perihelion, which I also mentioned, is that you have to cross the orbits of each of these planets twice. Once on the way in, and again on the way out. Not only that, but any such trajectory necessarily puts you in opposite sides of the Sun at different parts of the trajectory. As a result, your chance of passing within 0.5 AU from each of these planets is actually higher, and since we started from 40+%, that puts your actual chances close to 100% (roughly double the original estimate). And you have a good chance of passing much closer.
All of this is without specifically aiming for any of these planets – just from passing so close to the Sun, and the fact that these planets are so close together (and so close to the Sun).
To hit any set of *specific* numbers is indeed unlikely, but what I’m saying is that hitting *similar* numbers isn’t that difficult.
Consider that Earth’s entire orbit is just 2 AU in diameter, 1 AU radius. Venus’ orbit is ~1.4 AU in diameter (~0.7 AU radius). Mercury’s is ~0.8 AU in diameter (but more eccentric, ~0.47 AU at aphelion). Passing that close to the Sun is the hard part. But once you’re inside Earth’s orbit, you have roughly 50% chance of being within 1 AU of Earth, ~60% chance of being within 1 AU from Venus, and ~70% chance of being within 1 AU of Mercury. So 0.5*0.6*0.7 = ~20% chance of being within 1 AU of all 3 of them at the same time.
If you happen to pass inside the orbit of Venus, you’re chances to be within 1 AU from Earth are still ~50%, since you need to be on the same side of the Sun. But now you’re chance to be within 1 AU of Venus is ~70%, and your chance to be within 1 AU from Mercury is ~85%. 0.5*0.7*0.85 = ~30% of being within 1 AU of all 3 of them at the same time.
If you pass within the orbit of Mercury – still 50% to be within 1 AU of Earth, but ~85% chance to be within 1 AU of Venus, and 100% for Mercury. ~40% chance for all three.
Oumuamua’s perihelion was 0.25 AU. At that perihelion, the chances for <1 AU are 50% for Earth, 100% for Venus, and 100% for Mercury. The chances to be within 0.5 AU from these planets at that perihelion are ~40% for Earth (0.5/1.25), ~50% for Venus (0.5/0.97), and ~70% for Mercury (0.5/0.7, using Mercury’s aphelion).
All of these numbers aren’t at different points of O’s path. They’re at a single point. It has nothing to do with orbital mechanics. It’s just the simple geometrical consequence of these planets being so close together. If you pass that close to the Sun, you basically can’t avoid them. 100% chance of being within 2 AU of all 3 of them, and pretty high chance to be within 1 AU or even 0.5 AU.
But since the perihelion is inside all 3 orbits, the trajectory crosses each orbit twice. So there’s a good chance of getting even closer than at perihelion (which is indeed what happened).
I may have gotten the calculation a little wrong. In particular, at perihelion of 0.25 AU from the Sun, the chance to be within 0.5 AU from Earth is actually 0, since it would be 0.75 AU from Earth’s orbit on one side, and 1.25 AU on the other side.
But without going into a more detailed calculation, I still think the general order-of-magnitude and sentiment is correct. Just by passing through such a tight perihelion, the chances of a close-ish approach to each of these three planets (within ~0.5 AU or even closer) gets pretty high. Certainly for Venus and Mercury.
Just because Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But that’s the way to bet.
The sun grazing trajectory is just what you’d want to redirect towards a target a fair number of degrees off your former course. I wonder what stars it will pass near in the next 100k years?If you wanted data from lots of star systems cheaply, and were not in a hurry, something that followed this sort of course would be desirable. You could make billions of them over a few millennia, and fling them towards interesting targets. If you had active nanotechnology, the probe could be incredibly flexible, but you wouldn’t necessarily need it.
What if it viewed earth and saw it as a habitable planet and then sent a message back saying it had found a planet worthy of colonization?
Eli figured out how to get Destiny home
I’ve been thinking about the Dyson-Harrup power satellite concept.If Oumuamua were mostly metal, it could have picked up a magnetic field when it cut through the Suns field, or built up a charge from the Solar wind. If so, then when it poked back up above the Solar plane it could have caught a boost from the Sun, like a magnetic sail.That could explain how it accelerated after leaving perihelion. And the force would be distributed rather evenly across the entire thing, avoiding the torquing caused in the cometary outgassing hypothesis, which would have shown up as a change in Oumuamuas spin.*no editing allowed?
StarTrek, season 2, episode 6
It’s an oddly shaped rock (not impossibly shaped) but an oddly shaped rock nonetheless. It is not an alien craft; it is not under intelligent control; it is not a solar sail. And it is not behaving in any manner unbecoming of an odd shaped rock on an elliptical orbit traversing our solar system…
This came from earth about 150 000 yrs ago (3 circuits of 50000 yrs) this squares with red factor + present trajectory indicates that it couldnt come from another system increasing no of clues to previous high level civilization here on earth hows that for a point to ponder?
I may have gotten the calculation a little wrong. In particular, at perihelion of 0.25 AU from the Sun, the chance to be within 0.5 AU from Earth is actually 0, since it would be 0.75 AU from Earth’s orbit on one side, and 1.25 AU on the other side.But without going into a more detailed calculation, I still think the general order-of-magnitude and sentiment is correct. Just by passing through such a tight perihelion, the chances of a close-ish approach to each of these three planets (within ~0.5 AU or even closer) gets pretty high. Certainly for Venus and Mercury.
Of course, the shorter the distance, the less likely it is. But it didn’t go anywhere near 1 mile.I did estimate the chances for 0.5 AU, which is on a similar scale to what actually happened. If you reread my previous comment, you’ll see that at Oumuamua’s perihelion of 0.25 AU from the Sun, it has a ~40% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Earth, ~50% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Venus, and ~70% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Mercury. All at the same time, at just that one single point. Those are pretty good chances.The only condition is that its perihelion is at 0.25 AU from the Sun. That’s the unlikely part, but if that’s satisfied, you get the rest automatically.BUT, the 2nd consequence of such a tight perihelion, which I also mentioned, is that you have to cross the orbits of each of these planets twice. Once on the way in, and again on the way out. Not only that, but any such trajectory necessarily puts you in opposite sides of the Sun at different parts of the trajectory. As a result, your chance of passing within 0.5 AU from each of these planets is actually higher, and since we started from 40 %, that puts your actual chances close to 100% (roughly double the original estimate). And you have a good chance of passing much closer.All of this is without specifically aiming for any of these planets – just from passing so close to the Sun, and the fact that these planets are so close together (and so close to the Sun).
First of all, i made up flagillion and creetillion because I don’t speak that filthy, mongrel language “math”.You’ve expanded the window there a bit, haven’t you? Go the other way.Instead of setting 1 AU as the mark to beat, make it 1 mile.What are the odds of O passing within 1 mile of Mercury, 1 mile of Venus AND 1 mile of Earth?
To hit any set of *specific* numbers is indeed unlikely, but what I’m saying is that hitting *similar* numbers isn’t that difficult.Consider that Earth’s entire orbit is just 2 AU in diameter, 1 AU radius. Venus’ orbit is ~1.4 AU in diameter (~0.7 AU radius). Mercury’s is ~0.8 AU in diameter (but more eccentric, ~0.47 AU at aphelion). Passing that close to the Sun is the hard part. But once you’re inside Earth’s orbit, you have roughly 50% chance of being within 1 AU of Earth, ~60% chance of being within 1 AU from Venus, and ~70% chance of being within 1 AU of Mercury. So 0.5*0.6*0.7 = ~20% chance of being within 1 AU of all 3 of them at the same time.If you happen to pass inside the orbit of Venus, you’re chances to be within 1 AU from Earth are still ~50%, since you need to be on the same side of the Sun. But now you’re chance to be within 1 AU of Venus is ~70%, and your chance to be within 1 AU from Mercury is ~85%. 0.5*0.7*0.85 = ~30% of being within 1 AU of all 3 of them at the same time.If you pass within the orbit of Mercury – still 50% to be within 1 AU of Earth, but ~85% chance to be within 1 AU of Venus, and 100% for Mercury. ~40% chance for all three.Oumuamua’s perihelion was 0.25 AU. At that perihelion, the chances for <1 AU are 50% for Earth, 100% for Venus, and 100% for Mercury. The chances to be within 0.5 AU from these planets at that perihelion are ~40% for Earth (0.5/1.25), ~50% for Venus (0.5/0.97), and ~70% for Mercury (0.5/0.7, using Mercury’s aphelion).All of these numbers aren’t at different points of O’s path. They’re at a single point. It has nothing to do with orbital mechanics. It’s just the simple geometrical consequence of these planets being so close together. If you pass that close to the Sun, you basically can’t avoid them. 100% chance of being within 2 AU of all 3 of them, and pretty high chance to be within 1 AU or even 0.5 AU.But since the perihelion is inside all 3 orbits, the trajectory crosses each orbit twice. So there’s a good chance of getting even closer than at perihelion (which is indeed what happened).
I may have gotten the calculation a little wrong. In particular, at perihelion of 0.25 AU from the Sun, the chance to be within 0.5 AU from Earth is actually 0, since it would be 0.75 AU from Earth’s orbit on one side, and 1.25 AU on the other side.
But without going into a more detailed calculation, I still think the general order-of-magnitude and sentiment is correct. Just by passing through such a tight perihelion, the chances of a close-ish approach to each of these three planets (within ~0.5 AU or even closer) gets pretty high. Certainly for Venus and Mercury.
Of course, the shorter the distance, the less likely it is. But it didn’t go anywhere near 1 mile.
I did estimate the chances for 0.5 AU, which is on a similar scale to what actually happened. If you reread my previous comment, you’ll see that at Oumuamua’s perihelion of 0.25 AU from the Sun, it has a ~40% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Earth, ~50% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Venus, and ~70% chance to be within 0.5 AU from Mercury. All at the same time, at just that one single point. Those are pretty good chances.
The only condition is that its perihelion is at 0.25 AU from the Sun. That’s the unlikely part, but if that’s satisfied, you get the rest automatically.
BUT, the 2nd consequence of such a tight perihelion, which I also mentioned, is that you have to cross the orbits of each of these planets twice. Once on the way in, and again on the way out. Not only that, but any such trajectory necessarily puts you in opposite sides of the Sun at different parts of the trajectory. As a result, your chance of passing within 0.5 AU from each of these planets is actually higher, and since we started from 40+%, that puts your actual chances close to 100% (roughly double the original estimate). And you have a good chance of passing much closer.
All of this is without specifically aiming for any of these planets – just from passing so close to the Sun, and the fact that these planets are so close together (and so close to the Sun).
To hit any set of *specific* numbers is indeed unlikely, but what I’m saying is that hitting *similar* numbers isn’t that difficult.
Consider that Earth’s entire orbit is just 2 AU in diameter, 1 AU radius. Venus’ orbit is ~1.4 AU in diameter (~0.7 AU radius). Mercury’s is ~0.8 AU in diameter (but more eccentric, ~0.47 AU at aphelion). Passing that close to the Sun is the hard part. But once you’re inside Earth’s orbit, you have roughly 50% chance of being within 1 AU of Earth, ~60% chance of being within 1 AU from Venus, and ~70% chance of being within 1 AU of Mercury. So 0.5*0.6*0.7 = ~20% chance of being within 1 AU of all 3 of them at the same time.
If you happen to pass inside the orbit of Venus, you’re chances to be within 1 AU from Earth are still ~50%, since you need to be on the same side of the Sun. But now you’re chance to be within 1 AU of Venus is ~70%, and your chance to be within 1 AU from Mercury is ~85%. 0.5*0.7*0.85 = ~30% of being within 1 AU of all 3 of them at the same time.
If you pass within the orbit of Mercury – still 50% to be within 1 AU of Earth, but ~85% chance to be within 1 AU of Venus, and 100% for Mercury. ~40% chance for all three.
Oumuamua’s perihelion was 0.25 AU. At that perihelion, the chances for <1 AU are 50% for Earth, 100% for Venus, and 100% for Mercury. The chances to be within 0.5 AU from these planets at that perihelion are ~40% for Earth (0.5/1.25), ~50% for Venus (0.5/0.97), and ~70% for Mercury (0.5/0.7, using Mercury's aphelion).
All of these numbers aren't at different points of O's path. They're at a single point. It has nothing to do with orbital mechanics. It's just the simple geometrical consequence of these planets being so close together. If you pass that close to the Sun, you basically can't avoid them. 100% chance of being within 2 AU of all 3 of them, and pretty high chance to be within 1 AU or even 0.5 AU.
But since the perihelion is inside all 3 orbits, the trajectory crosses each orbit twice. So there's a good chance of getting even closer than at perihelion (which is indeed what happened).
I concede the point. But “aliens!” still violates Occam’s razor for the same reason “it’s a conspiracy!” does using your (correct) definition. A ton of unproven things are required.
I think you mean that there are many points in one orbit of Earth when Oumuamua could have come within 30,000,000 miles of it. That is, Big O passed about 15,000,000 miles from Earth, so if O wanted to get within 15 million miles, there’s a 30 million wide chunk of Earths orbit it needed to be within. That’s about 5% of Earths orbit. A 1 in 20 chance for a random path through.For Mercury, O came within 23 million miles. Times two, that’s about 20% of Mercury’s orbit. A 1 in 5 chance of a random path through.For O two pass within 55 million miles of Venus, that a 1 in 5 chance for a random wanderer.Orbital mechanics are mind bogglingly complex to me, but even I can see that, for O to follow a path through our system, incorporating flybys of each of these three planets, beating the odds against randomly passing by even ONE of them within those tight parameters, you’re talking about a 1 in flagillion maybe creetillion, chance of hitting your mark.And, as Goatguy points out, that’s after beating the odds by making such a close flyby of the Sun!”That a pretty big minus.” (Movie quote.)
Everything is Star Trek: X to me, including TOS. I did find it a bit after I posted. You can write that off as a spasm of lazyness on my part.
Addendum, because – no editing.”The Doomsday Machine”
No. There is one Star Trek. All others are derivatives: Star Trek: X. (Some better than others.) If I had meant any other, I would have written such.That said, tos.A simple google search would have made my reference quite obvious.
It’s an oddly shaped rock (not impossibly shaped) but an oddly shaped rock nonetheless. It is not an alien craft; it is not under intelligent control; it is not a solar sail. And it is not behaving in any manner unbecoming of an odd shaped rock on an elliptical orbit traversing our solar system…
Considering the orbit diameters of these planets, as long as you go inside the orbit of Earth, you get similar numbers by default. There can easily be a single point with all of these distances satisfied at the same moment. So that’s not as remarkable as you make it sound. It would be much more difficult to plot such a course if the planets were further apart.
Everything is Star Trek: X to me, including TOS. I did find it a bit after I posted. You can write that off as a spasm of lazyness on my part.
It’s an oddly shaped rock (not impossibly shaped) but an oddly shaped rock nonetheless. It is not an alien craft; it is not under intelligent control; it is not a solar sail. And it is not behaving in any manner unbecoming of an odd shaped rock on an elliptical orbit traversing our solar system…
You’ll need to be more specific. There’s a whole bunch of ST series.
Eli figured out how to get Destiny home
Can’t edit, so…Correction to above. Oumuamua came within .16 AU of Earth. It also made a close pass of Venus at .6 AU AND a close pass of Mercury at .28 AU.NASA would be proud of plotting out such a crazy-tight trajectory to include so many juicy targets in one pass.
Its origin and destination could be one in the same.If a craft, large but stealthy, or a rogue plant, or darkling star system were passing by, a probe could be sent forward to swing through, catch a bit of a boost, the meet back up with its source further down range.An interstellar boomerang probe.And it took not just an unlikely dive on old Sol, but a very close, (0.22 AU) a very thorough, (from below and above the ecliptic plane) pass by the most interesting planet in our entire system.
Considering the orbit diameters of these planets, as long as you go inside the orbit of Earth, you get similar numbers by default. There can easily be a single point with all of these distances satisfied at the same moment. So that’s not as remarkable as you make it sound. It would be much more difficult to plot such a course if the planets were further apart.
I’ve been thinking about the Dyson-Harrup power satellite concept.If Oumuamua were mostly metal, it could have picked up a magnetic field when it cut through the Suns field, or built up a charge from the Solar wind. If so, then when it poked back up above the Solar plane it could have caught a boost from the Sun, like a magnetic sail.That could explain how it accelerated after leaving perihelion. And the force would be distributed rather evenly across the entire thing, avoiding the torquing caused in the cometary outgassing hypothesis, which would have shown up as a change in Oumuamuas spin.*no editing allowed?
StarTrek, season 2, episode 6
Just because Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But that’s the way to bet.
The sun grazing trajectory is just what you’d want to redirect towards a target a fair number of degrees off your former course. I wonder what stars it will pass near in the next 100k years?If you wanted data from lots of star systems cheaply, and were not in a hurry, something that followed this sort of course would be desirable. You could make billions of them over a few millennia, and fling them towards interesting targets. If you had active nanotechnology, the probe could be incredibly flexible, but you wouldn’t necessarily need it.
You’ll need to be more specific. There’s a whole bunch of ST series.
What if it viewed earth and saw it as a habitable planet and then sent a message back saying it had found a planet worthy of colonization?
No, it’s not. Occam’s Razor is the notion that, all things being equal, the explanation with the fewest assumptions is the most likely. That doesn’t mean the explanation can’t be complex. It means that it requires the fewest unproven things to be true. It also doesn’t mean that the explanation with more unproven assumptions isn’t true; just that it is less likely.In your example (conspiracy), there are generally a ton of unproven things that would be required.
That’s a common misconception. The razor refers to hypotheses not explanations. The explanation (theory)can be complex. Otherwise “it’s a conspiracy” solves all hypotheses with its simple (but wrong) theory.
If it was a sail, some things don’t line up though. It would imply the sail was collapsed inbound, and I get the impression that if the sail unfurled on exit the albedo/radar return would have changed. If it was an active device, not unfurling the sail on approach to the sun implies fast flyby. Not unfurling on exit would imply active avoidance of detection during/after flyby at the cost of no boost aside from gravity slingshotting, as unfurling a sail would provide substantial acceleration that would make post-aphelion intercept excessively difficult (if one did not care about post-aphelion detection, only preventing inbound detection/intercept).There was some interesting commentary on being a drop tank for an off-axis approach to a star so the propulsion system doesn’t reveal the fact a decelerating craft is approaching a star, but if dropped as such the tank shouldn’t reach that target star, and go elsewhere as debris.It’s probably not in the same design vein as a stealthy hydrogen steamer either, due to acceleration after aphelion (oberth effect maneuver is done at the deep point in the gravity well, and you get less boost from the effect the farther you get from aphelion).Definitely lots of weirdness.
That’s not what Occam’s Razor says. It says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is the better one. All that means is, given what we know for sure, which explanation requires the fewest assumptions? That one is more likely. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the explanation with more assumptions is wrong, just that it is less likely.
Anomalous acceleration fits with out-gassing, and there are comets like Encke that don’t visibly out-dust either (because we can’t see large grains). Google terms in quotes.”Non-Gravitational Acceleration in the Trajectory of 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)”And it is probably made of ice with a half meter thick coating on it. “Surprise Ice Discovery Just Made That Interstellar Object Even More Confusing”And Santa Claus does not exist”us air force santa claus doesn’t exist”
Your calculations aren’t even including important things like they can’t be sure it is long and thin – it may just have varying albedo. It is *probably* long and thin. Like 70% probably.That 70% right there explodes your multiplying far-out numbers to create a one in kajillion result (and there are plenty more measurement uncertainties). Also, interstellar objects are probably 30,000 times more likely that previously assumed….there’s a whole big dollop of wishful thinking here.
We weren’t even able to see things like this until like 2016 (read up on discovery of Manx type comets for instance that new capabilities recently enabled), so it is extremely probable things like this are just way more common than presumed.Raising “aliens!” is just LOL absurd and violates Occam’s Razor (the simplest hypothesis is the correct one). Adding aliens or angels is just about *never* the simplest hypothesis.Please read up the more sober papers on Oumuamua – not just this IMO (bad) Harvard one.
Just because Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. But that’s the way to bet.
That kind of “meta comment” is rather disingenuous, Kimchee. Kind of a group oriented ad coetus. The evidence so far is fairly succinct:• Oumuamua is long and thin¹• It is the first object definitively known to NOT be from our system²• O’s path was provocative: an interstellar hyperbola, solar grazing³• It has exhibited anomalous acceleration⁴• Its source vector doesn’t place it in any particular local stellar system⁵• Its destination is likewise not pointing at any star or group. ⁶• The velocity of receding is low enough that we conceivably could intercept it.⁷• The RADAR signature indicates it is fairly conductive⁸• Its albedo⁹ is consistent with it accumulating substantial PCAH’s.¹⁰Quite the marvel: the first object² of any size to our system… perhaps one in 30,000 days. That its path turned out to be a solar grazing path is provocatively serendipitous. Less than 1 in 1,000. Being also the very first really-long-and-thin object is forehead-slapping-uncommon. Never seen one of these before, anywhere. 1 in 100,000? That it has exhibited anomalous acceleration is probably only 1 in 100. The rest — conductivity, albedo, path … are nominal. But taken together, the thing is wickedly provocative. Well nigh of one in a billion. That’s why, at the core, astrophysicists trot forth speculative theories of alien civilization byproducts or probes. The cumulative chances are so remote that it just begs even the most stretched theories of plausibility to explain its transit through our solar system. Now it could just be a long thin rock. It could be the core of a comet that somehow knows how to jet off its volatile payload in just the right direction at the right time to jet off somewhat faster than it came in. It could be covered with PCAH’s because … it been in Space a Long Time. But this old goat’s “spidey sense” says no: it is not an inert, weirdly shaped, ultimately lucky travelling dud. Just saying,GoatGuy________________________________________¹ — 1000 m by 30–40 m … is REALLY long and thin. ² — and we’ve been looking for a long time³ — The hyperbola isn’t odd. That it approached Sol so closely is remarkably odd. Rare indeed. From the millions of radians of possible incoming orbits, to graze Sol by ¼ AU is something amazing. Inside Mercury’s orbit. ⁴ — wait, what? How!⁵ — at least nothing seems to be in reasonable travel-time distance from its apparent origin⁶ — and the same goes for its apparent destination⁷ — So… lets go take a look⁸ — Not all that amazing, especially for its shape. ⁹ — It is supposedly quite reddish and dun.¹⁰ — PCAH’s are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Created from simpler hydrocarbons being polymerized by the unending bombardment of cosmic rays and other high energy space nasties.
The sun grazing trajectory is just what you’d want to redirect towards a target a fair number of degrees off your former course. I wonder what stars it will pass near in the next 100k years?
If you wanted data from lots of star systems cheaply, and were not in a hurry, something that followed this sort of course would be desirable. You could make billions of them over a few millennia, and fling them towards interesting targets. If you had active nanotechnology, the probe could be incredibly flexible, but you wouldn’t necessarily need it.
Solar sail ha ha ha. We have trained our scientists with a very rigid regime of conclusions made from obvious observations of cause and effect and now they cannot see beyond their field of focus. In other words, we are lost.
If it was a sail, some things don’t line up though. It would imply the sail was collapsed inbound, and I get the impression that if the sail unfurled on exit the albedo/radar return would have changed. If it was an active device, not unfurling the sail on approach to the sun implies fast flyby. Not unfurling on exit would imply active avoidance of detection during/after flyby at the cost of no boost aside from gravity slingshotting, as unfurling a sail would provide substantial acceleration that would make post-aphelion intercept excessively difficult (if one did not care about post-aphelion detection, only preventing inbound detection/intercept).
There was some interesting commentary on being a drop tank for an off-axis approach to a star so the propulsion system doesn’t reveal the fact a decelerating craft is approaching a star, but if dropped as such the tank shouldn’t reach that target star, and go elsewhere as debris.
It’s probably not in the same design vein as a stealthy hydrogen steamer either, due to acceleration after aphelion (oberth effect maneuver is done at the deep point in the gravity well, and you get less boost from the effect the farther you get from aphelion).
Definitely lots of weirdness.
That’s not what Occam’s Razor says. It says that the explanation with the fewest assumptions is the better one. All that means is, given what we know for sure, which explanation requires the fewest assumptions? That one is more likely. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the explanation with more assumptions is wrong, just that it is less likely.
Anomalous acceleration fits with out-gassing, and there are comets like Encke that don’t visibly out-dust either (because we can’t see large grains). Google terms in quotes.
“Non-Gravitational Acceleration in the Trajectory of 1I/2017 U1 (ʻOumuamua)”
And it is probably made of ice with a half meter thick coating on it.
“Surprise Ice Discovery Just Made That Interstellar Object Even More Confusing”
And Santa Claus does not exist
“us air force santa claus doesn’t exist”
Your calculations aren’t even including important things like they can’t be sure it is long and thin – it may just have varying albedo. It is *probably* long and thin. Like 70% probably.
That 70% right there explodes your multiplying far-out numbers to create a one in kajillion result (and there are plenty more measurement uncertainties). Also, interstellar objects are probably 30,000 times more likely that previously assumed….there’s a whole big dollop of wishful thinking here.
We weren’t even able to see things like this until like 2016 (read up on discovery of Manx type comets for instance that new capabilities recently enabled), so it is extremely probable things like this are just way more common than presumed.
Raising “aliens!” is just LOL absurd and violates Occam’s Razor (the simplest hypothesis is the correct one). Adding aliens or angels is just about *never* the simplest hypothesis.
Please read up the more sober papers on Oumuamua – not just this IMO (bad) Harvard one.
That kind of “meta comment” is rather disingenuous, Kimchee. Kind of a group oriented ad coetus. The evidence so far is fairly succinct:
• Oumuamua is long and thin¹
• It is the first object definitively known to NOT be from our system²
• O’s path was provocative: an interstellar hyperbola, solar grazing³
• It has exhibited anomalous acceleration⁴
• Its source vector doesn’t place it in any particular local stellar system⁵
• Its destination is likewise not pointing at any star or group. ⁶
• The velocity of receding is low enough that we conceivably could intercept it.⁷
• The RADAR signature indicates it is fairly conductive⁸
• Its albedo⁹ is consistent with it accumulating substantial PCAH’s.¹⁰
Quite the marvel: the first object² of any size to our system… perhaps one in 30,000 days. That its path turned out to be a solar grazing path is provocatively serendipitous. Less than 1 in 1,000. Being also the very first really-long-and-thin object is forehead-slapping-uncommon. Never seen one of these before, anywhere. 1 in 100,000? That it has exhibited anomalous acceleration is probably only 1 in 100. The rest — conductivity, albedo, path … are nominal.
But taken together, the thing is wickedly provocative. Well nigh of one in a billion.
That’s why, at the core, astrophysicists trot forth speculative theories of alien civilization byproducts or probes. The cumulative chances are so remote that it just begs even the most stretched theories of plausibility to explain its transit through our solar system.
Now it could just be a long thin rock. It could be the core of a comet that somehow knows how to jet off its volatile payload in just the right direction at the right time to jet off somewhat faster than it came in. It could be covered with PCAH’s because … it been in Space a Long Time.
But this old goat’s “spidey sense” says no: it is not an inert, weirdly shaped, ultimately lucky travelling dud.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
________________________________________
¹ — 1000 m by 30–40 m … is REALLY long and thin.
² — and we’ve been looking for a long time
³ — The hyperbola isn’t odd. That it approached Sol so closely is remarkably odd. Rare indeed. From the millions of radians of possible incoming orbits, to graze Sol by ¼ AU is something amazing. Inside Mercury’s orbit.
⁴ — wait, what? How!
⁵ — at least nothing seems to be in reasonable travel-time distance from its apparent origin
⁶ — and the same goes for its apparent destination
⁷ — So… lets go take a look
⁸ — Not all that amazing, especially for its shape.
⁹ — It is supposedly quite reddish and dun.
¹⁰ — PCAH’s are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Created from simpler hydrocarbons being polymerized by the unending bombardment of cosmic rays and other high energy space nasties.
Solar sail ha ha ha. We have trained our scientists with a very rigid regime of conclusions made from obvious observations of cause and effect and now they cannot see beyond their field of focus. In other words, we are lost.