Science
Physicist who found spherical meteor fragments claims they may come from an alien spaceship – here’s what to make of it
Data on the object is held by Nasa’s Centre for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS). The meteor’s official name is CNEOS 20140108, and is also referred to as IM1 (for interstellar meteor).
Loeb next to image of spherule. NewsNation/Youtube, CC BY-SA
There is a very large scientific leap from observing a fireball to claiming it is an alien spaceship. What is the evidence on which Loeb bases the claim? And how likely is it to be true?
‘Oumuamua, an interstellar comet
We have already had at least one visitor from interstellar space - the comet 'Oumuamua. The appearance of 1I/2017U1, the official name for 'Oumuamua, was certainly an unusual event. The object was observed in 2017 as it was leaving the Solar System. Its trajectory is different from the near-circular orbits of the planets and elliptical orbits of comets.
The comet’s path was traced back, with scientists discovering that it had come from well beyond the outermost fringes of the Solar System. Scientists were excited but also intrigued - although its shape was not captured on camera, the way that light reflected from it as it rotated suggested that it had an odd shape like a cigar when viewed side-on or a plate when viewed from the top.
‘Oumuamua. ESO/M. Kornmesser, CC BY-SA
In a thoughtful article written in 2018, Loeb speculated that 'Oumuamua might be artificial, rather than natural in origin – the product of an alien civilization. He suggested that we should keep searching for interstellar debris in the Solar System.
In pursuit of such debris, Loeb’s team interrogated the CNEOS database, looking for objects with unusual orbital characteristics. That’s when they found CNEOS 20140108 and, based on its high velocity, suggested it was an interstellar meteor – giving it the more manageable name of IM1.
Modeling the path of the fireball, Loeb identified a specific area of the South Pacific where he believed debris from IM1 would be deposited. Following a dredging operation in the area with a powerful magnet, he now claims to have found material from IM1.
But what are the chances that he has found genuine interstellar debris at all, never mind a spaceship?
Cosmic spherules?
The metallic spherules that have been recovered are each about half a millimeter in diameter. It isn’t impossible for them to be of extraterrestrial origin: several previous expeditions have recovered spherules from space from the seabed.
The first expedition to find such samples was HMS Challenger in 1872-76. Material dredged from the ocean floor contained many metallic droplets, described at the time, quite accurately, as “cosmic spherules”. Droplets from space are spherical because they solidify from molten material torn from the surface of meteorites as they traverse the atmosphere.
Subsequent expeditions throughout the 20th century have also found cosmic spherules at the bottom of the ocean, but it has become harder to identify them. This is because, in the 150 years since the Challenger expedition, the amount of pollution has increased on Earth.
In 1872, the industrial revolution was in its infancy in Europe and practically non-existent in the southern hemisphere. Hence pollution such as “fly ash” (waste from burning coal) and particles from vehicles was minimal. Many of these pollutants are also spherical in appearance and metallic in composition.
Today, products from industrial processes and vehicles are everywhere. So, without an actual analysis of the composition of the spherules and a comparison with analyses of meteorites (and common terrestrial pollutants), it is not possible to identify any as extraterrestrial.
Interstellar?
But Loeb doesn’t just think the material is from space, he thinks it is from interstellar space – arguing “this could be the first time humans put their hands on interstellar material”.
This is simply not true. We have an abundance of interstellar material on Earth. Some of it is almost certainly on the ocean floor, but not in the form collected by Loeb.
The interstellar material to which I am referring comes in several different varieties. It is well known by astronomers that the interstellar medium - the space between stars - is not empty, but contains several different molecules, many of which are organic (made up of chains or rings of carbon). A portion of these molecules got mixed into the region of space where the Solar System was starting to form.
Stars themselves have also contributed material to the interstellar medium, as they evolved or exploded as supernovas. Some of this material comes as tiny diamonds or sapphires - rare mementoes of stars that lived and died before the Sun was born. These grains became part of the dust cloud that collapsed to form the Solar System, and were eventually carried to Earth in meteorites.
Alien spacecraft?
Loeb’s evidence for an extraterrestrial source for the material – never mind an interstellar origin – is rather shaky. He has found metallic spherules. For me (and many others) to accept that these spherules are extraterrestrial, I’d need firm analytical evidence. What is their composition? What is their age? Can we rule out terrestrial pollutants? Can we rule out debris from extraterrestrial material from within the Solar System?
The first question, about composition, has been answered: analysis of the spherules shows them to be mainly iron with a few trace metals.
We know meteors from our Solar System contain iron and nickel, echoing the relative abundances of these metals in the Sun. But the spherules apparently contain “negligible” amounts of nickel - thus indicating that they are almost certainly not from meteors within the Solar System. This does not, however, prove they are interstellar - it merely makes it more likely that they’re terrestrial pollutants.
The most convincing evidence would be to measure an age for the spherules greater than that of the Sun - which would identify them as interstellar.
And that would be amazing, but it would not necessarily identify them as having an artificial, rather than natural origin. I am not sure what evidence would be sufficiently convincing for this - maybe the autograph of the alien engineer who built the spacecraft?
Monica Grady, Professor of Planetary and Space Sciences, The Open University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Why people tend to believe UFOs are extraterrestrial
Historical context
Like political scandals and high-waisted jeans, UFOs trend in and out of collective awareness but never fully disappear. Thirty years of polling find that 25%-50% of surveyed Americans believe at least some UFOs are alien spacecraft. Today in the U.S., over 100 million adults think our galactic neighbors pay us visits.
It wasn’t always so. Linking objects in the sky with visiting extraterrestrials has risen in popularity only in the past 75 years. Some of this is probably market-driven. Early UFO stories boosted newspaper and magazine sales, and today they are reliable clickbait online.
In 1980, a popular book called “The Roswell Incident” by Charles Berlitz and William L. Moore described an alleged flying saucer crash and government cover-up 33 years prior near Roswell, New Mexico. The only evidence ever to emerge from this story was a small string of downed weather balloons. Nevertheless, the book coincided with a resurgence of interest in UFOs. From there, a steady stream of UFO-themed TV shows, films, and pseudo-documentaries has fueled public interest. Perhaps inevitably, conspiracy theories about government cover-ups have risen in parallel.
Some UFO cases inevitably remain unresolved. But despite the growing interest, multiple investigations have found no evidence that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin – other than the occasional meteor or misidentification of Venus.
But the U.S. Navy’s 2017 Gimbal video continues to appear in the media. It shows strange objects filmed by fighter jets, often interpreted as evidence of alien spacecraft. And in June 2023, an otherwise credible Air Force veteran and former intelligence officer made the stunning claim that the U.S. government is storing numerous downed alien spacecraft and their dead occupants.
UFO videos released by the U.S. Navy, often taken as evidence of alien spaceships.
Human factors contributing to UFO beliefs
Only a small percentage of UFO believers are eyewitnesses. The rest base their opinions on eerie images and videos strewn across both social media and traditional mass media. There are astronomical and biological reasons to be skeptical of UFO claims. But less often discussed are the psychological and social factors that bring them to the popular forefront.
Many people would love to know whether or not we’re alone in the universe. But so far, the evidence on UFO origins is ambiguous at best. Being averse to ambiguity, people want answers. However, being highly motivated to find those answers can bias judgments. People are more likely to accept weak evidence or fall prey to optical illusions if they support preexisting beliefs.
For example, in the 2017 Navy video, the UFO appears as a cylindrical aircraft moving rapidly over the background, rotating and darting in a manner unlike any terrestrial machine. Science writer Mick West’s analysis challenged this interpretation using data displayed on the tracking screen and some basic geometry. He explained how the movements attributed to the blurry UFO are an illusion. They stem from the plane’s trajectory relative to the object, the quick adjustments of the belly-mounted camera, and misperceptions based on our tendency to assume cameras and backgrounds are stationary.
West found the UFO’s flight characteristics were more like a bird’s or a weather balloon’s than an acrobatic interstellar spacecraft. But the illusion is compelling, especially with the Navy’s still deeming the object unidentified.
West also addressed the former intelligence officer’s claim that the U.S. government possesses crashed UFOs and dead aliens. He emphasized caution, given the whistleblower’s only evidence was that people he trusted told him they’d seen the alien artifacts. West noted we’ve heard this sort of thing before, along with promises that the proof will soon be revealed. But it never comes.
Anyone, including pilots and intelligence officers, can be socially influenced to see things that aren’t there. Research shows that hearing from others who claim to have seen something extraordinary is enough to induce similar judgments. The effect is heightened when the influencers are numerous or higher in status. Even recognized experts aren’t immune from misjudging unfamiliar images obtained under unusual conditions.
Group factors contributing to UFO beliefs
“Pics or it didn’t happen” is a popular expression on social media. True to form, users are posting countless shaky images and videos of UFOs. Usually they’re nondescript lights in the sky captured on cellphone cameras. But they can go viral on social media and reach millions of users. With no higher authority or organization propelling the content, social scientists call this a bottom-up social diffusion process.
In contrast, top-down diffusion occurs when information emanates from centralized agents or organizations. In the case of UFOs, sources have included social institutions like the military, individuals with large public platforms like U.S. senators, and major media outlets like CBS.
The left image shows bottom-up diffusion, in which information spreads from person to person. The right shows top-down, in which information spreads from one authority. Barry Markovsky
Amateur organizations also promote active personal involvement for many thousands of members, the Mutual UFO Network being among the oldest and largest. But as Sharon A. Hill points out in her book “Scientifical Americans,” these groups apply questionable standards, spread misinformation and garner little respect within mainstream scientific communities.
Top-down and bottom-up diffusion processes can combine into self-reinforcing loops. Mass media spreads UFO content and piques worldwide interest in UFOs. More people aim their cameras at the skies, creating more opportunities to capture and share odd-looking content. Poorly documented UFO pics and videos spread on social media, leading media outlets to grab and republish the most intriguing. Whistleblowers emerge periodically, fanning the flames with claims of secret evidence.
Despite the hoopla, nothing ever comes of it.
For a scientist familiar with the issues, skepticism that UFOs carry alien beings is wholly separate from the prospect of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence have a number of ongoing research projects designed to detect signs of extraterrestrial life. If intelligent life is out there, they’ll likely be the first to know.
As astronomer Carl Sagan wrote, “The universe is a pretty big place. If it’s just us, seems like an awful waste of space.”
Barry Markovsky, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of South Carolina
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
What do astronomers say about Moon landing deniers? Batting down the conspiracy theory with an assist from the 1969 Miracle Mets
Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.