As an astrophysicist that searches for signs of alien technology beyond Earth, I’m often asked these days what I think about Avi Loeb.
Loeb, you might know, recently rose to public prominence with his claims that the first discovered interstellar comet, ‘Oumuamua, is actually a piece of an alien spacecraft passing through the Solar System. Since then he has headlined UFO conventions, written a very popular book about his claim, and raised millions of dollars to study UFOs with his “Galileo Project” initiative. His latest venture with that money is to sweep a metal detector across the Pacific to find fragments of what he claims is another interstellar visitor that the US military detected crashing into the ocean, resulting in the headline “Why a Harvard professor thinks he may have found fragments of an alien spacecraft” in the Independent.
Loeb has the credentials to be taken seriously. He is a well-respected theoretical cosmologist that has made foundational contributions to our understanding of the early universe. He served as the chair of the Harvard astronomy department, and leads the distinguished Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is well known as an outside-the-box thinker who is brave enough to be wrong often enough to occasionally be right in important and unexpected ways. He is a prolific paper writer, mentor to many students and postdoctoral researchers, and a leader in the community. I, in particular, was strongly influenced by a lecture he gave on “diversifying one’s research portfolio” to include a lot of safe but passé research, some more risky cutting edge work, and a small amount of outré science. It’s important advice for any scientific field.
But his shenanigans have lately strongly changed the astronomy community’s perceptions of him. His recent claims about alien spacecraft and comets and asteroids largely come across to experts as, at best, terribly naive, and often as simply erroneous (Loeb has no formal training or previous track record to speak of in planetary science, which has little in common with the plasma physics he is known for). His promotion of his claims in the media is particularly galling to professionals who discover and study comets, who were very excited about the discovery of ‘Oumuamua but have found their careful work dismissed and ridiculed by Loeb, who is the most visible scientist discussing it in the media.
Most recently, his claims to have discovered possible fragments of an alien ship in the Pacific have been criticized by meteoriticists at a recent conference. Loeb claims the metallic spherules he found trawling the ocean floor are from the impact site of an interstellar object (dubbed 20140108 CNEOS/USG) but they point out that they are much more likely to have come from ordinary meteorites or even terrestrial volcanoes or human activities like coal burning ships or WWII warfare in the area. And, they argue, 20140108 most likely did not come from outside the Solar System at all. (It also appears that Loeb may have violated legal and ethical norms by removing material from Papua New Guinean waters—you’re not supposed to just go into other countries and collect things without permission.)
Also frustrating is how Loeb’s book and media interviews paint him as a heroic, transformational figure in science, while career-long experts in the fields he is opining on are characterized as obstinate and short-sighted. His Galileo Project has that name because it is “daring to look through new telescopes.” In his book claiming ‘Oumuamua is an alien spacecraft, he unironically compares himself to the father of telescopic astronomy, Galileo himself. The community was aghast when he blew up at Jill Tarter, a well-respected giant in the field of SETI and one of the best known women in science in the world. (When Tarter expressed annoyance at his dismissal of others’ work in SETI, he angrily accused her of “opposing” him, and of not doing enough for SETI, as if anyone had done more! Loeb later apologized to Tarter and his colleagues, calling his actions “inappropriate”).
It is true that there is much work to be done to normalize work on SETI and UFOs in scientific circles. Tarter herself has worked for decades to change attitudes about SETI at NASA and among astronomers generally, to get them to embrace the serious, peer-reviewed work to answer one of the biggest questions in science (as I’ve written about before). Scientifically rigorous studies of UFOs have also begun to make inroads, most notably with NASA’s recent panel advising it on the topic (Loeb was pointedly not involved; I must note that I see the UFO and SETI questions as scientifically unrelated). But Loeb’s work is unambiguously counterproductive, alienating the community working on these problems and misinforming the public about the state of the field.
So it is against all of this background that, even when asked, I have generally stayed quiet lately when it comes to Loeb, or tried to give a balanced and nuanced perspective. I do appreciate that he is moving the scientific “Overton Window”, making SETI, which used to (unfairly) seem like an outlandish corner of science, seem practically mainstream by comparison. I appreciate the support he’s given to my work in SETI, and I generally discourage too much public or indiscriminate criticism of him lest the rest of the field suffer “splash damage.”
I have noticed, however, that Loeb’s work and behavior have been seen as so outrageous in many quarters that it essentially goes unrebutted in popular fora by those who are in the best position to explain what, exactly, is wrong about it. This leaves a vacuum, where the public hears only Loeb’s persuasive and articulate voice, with no obvious public pushback from experts beyond exasperated eye-rolling that feeds right into his hero narrative.
So for the past several months, I’ve worked with Steve Desch and Sean Raymond, two planetary scientists and experts on ‘Oumuamua, to correct the record. It has taken a lot of time: as Jonathan Swift wrote, “falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.” I read Loeb’s book on ‘Oumuamua, cover to cover, and carefully noted each of his arguments that ‘Oumuamua is anything other than a comet or asteroid. The three of us then went through and did our best to take an objective look at whether his statement of the evidence is correct, whether it really supports the alien spacecraft hypothesis, and whether it is actually consistent with ‘Oumuamua being a comet. No surprise, we find that under careful scrutiny his claims are often incorrect, and that there is little to no evidence that ‘Oumuamua is an artificial object. We’ve done our best in our rebuttal to avoid criticizing Loeb or his behavior, and to focus instead just on what we do and do not know about ‘Oumuamua. You can find our analysis here.
There is little joy in or reward for debunking claims in science. We would all rather be finding new natural phenomena to celebrate than spending a lot of time correcting the mistakes or false claims of others published years earlier.
Because the truth is, we’re entering a new era of astronomy where we can for the first time contemplate studying samples from other solar systems, where we are seeing the first serious and comprehensive searches for signs of alien technology among the stars, and where truly new telescopes and methods are unlocking secrets of the universe that will thrill fans of science around the world, without any need for sensationalism. Now that we’ve addressed Loeb’s most outlandish claims about ‘Oumuamua, I’m excited to get back to work on it!
I like the way you made this article. Short but juicy. Thanks for sharing.
YourTexasBenefits
Good Work.https://yacinetv-id.com/ Url
Thanks for this amazing information here. ADPVantage
Thanks for levomaro!!!! Covered California
ohh! i want to figure out more. massgeneralbrigham
Instead of characterizing your analysis as a critique by a peer, you say you are “setting the record straight.”. That’s claiming to be god, or The Decider. Are you qualified to declare that Avi’s work is counterproductive?
You have to TELL us that your opinion is balanced and nuanced. You’re right that I would not have come to that conclusion myself. My opinion is that your writing exemplifies the notion of “holier than thou.”
Nicely written useful info. – from Home Decors
Well done. Avi demonstrates that expertise in one area doesn’t necessarily transfer to other domains. Unfortunately the public tends to assume the opposite.
IN DEFENCE OF AVI LOEB
I have some insight, but no professional interest in planetary science. So, if I speak for anyone (other than myself), it is for amateurs able to interpret the utterances of pros in context.
I have followed AL’s work with dispassionate interest and I await peer reviewed evidence of technological civilisation(s) other than our own. Until it arrives, I acknowledge grand estimates of goldilocks planets in SETI’s light cone, the inherent uncertainty in Drake’s equation and the persistence of Fermi’s hanging question. Like any scientist, I am a sceptic. AL’s conjecture, makes no impression. However, I agree with him that science needs mavericks who can stand some ridicule and I admire him for stepping up to that.
While I readily appreciate that ‘belief without evidence’ can bring comfort and meaning to the faithful, I have no interest in debating them. AL’s aliens and UFOs are in this category. So too, are the multi-world, holographic, MUH, 11-dimensional, CCC, simulation speculations of eminent scientists I respect. Conjecture is healthy, everyone’s at it. To rubbish it, is to give it a status it doesn’t claim for itself.
A criticism of AL’s conjecture that could carry weight, is that it gives credence to the beliefs of the UFO faithful. Except that, they have no need of AL’s help. The ‘little green men abducted me’ lobby manufactures ‘evidence’ by the ton and currently, has ample support from the US military and intelligence agencies. AL’s conjecture is a negligible contribution.
The diligent rebuttal of AL in print is therefore wasted on me, it adds nothing. Moreover, it’s of no consequence to the faithful, as confirmation bias won’t permit them to read it. Everyone will take AL seriously in their own time. In the meantime, may his popsci entertain, his books make money, his friends defend his rep and his detractors hit the nitrazepam and get some sleep.
Now, has anyone got Sabine’s number?
I believe it might be wise to contact Avi and ask to be invited to the Galileo project weekly meetings before you go too much further out on this limb.
If the hundreds of metallic spheroids his expedition retrieved from the sea floor under the exact impact path of the re-entering object (but not elsewhere nearby) show elemental and/or isotopic composition inconsistent with mundane explanations (ordinary meteors, volcanoes, WW2 activities, etc) then that is indeed an important finding.
If not – if a simpler explanation suffices – I am quite confident he will accept it. I am disappointed in what appears to be a (slightly) indirect ad-hominem argument against him.
He has a hypothesis which – like any good scientist he is attempting to test experimentally, using neutral 3rd party world-class laboratories for the (open source) data analysis.
Obviously it is highly unlikely that any number of mesoscopic samples (<1mm diameter) will provide evidence of extra-terrestrial technology. But it could provide evidence of extra-solar origin. That is an important finding.
And if the finding is positive, there will probably be expeditions to look for larger fragments.
Yes, most scientists ignore out-of-fashion ideas. That's one of the reasons physics (high energy physics and cosmology at any rate) may have stagnated for several decades. Their funding often depends on that behavior whether they like it or not.
And yes there is no end of BS, clickbait, and ignorant posturing in popular science journalism. So "who's got the time [to comment on crackpottery]?"
Avi is serious. He's doing SCIENCE. In the classic tradition of the great naturalist philosophers and explorers, actually. I find that admirable.
Hi Jason,
I wrote my own paper criticising SETI a few years ago “a critical review of SETI” and got a pounding from you and others. But this was okay, and is to be expected in science when we put our ideas out there. I agreed with some of the counter points against my own paper, …although still hold some of my positions. From what Avi has said, I could have seen the social media attacks on me for writing that paper as a form of bullying, but I did not. Instead, it was a constructive form of peer review over my ideas which I found helpful in understanding the issues. This is vital in the scientific method. Scientists must have a thick skin, lick our wounds and pick ourselves up and then move onto the next idea, or develop stronger ones.
I would like to say that I think your article above was well written and balanced and I agree with your perspective. As a hypothesis for ‘Oumuamua being an artificial probe this is fine, but the evidence is not currently in support of it. I think we would all wish for a ‘Rama’ moment, but must keep our objectivity. Especially in the current climate with many exotic claims being made and yet no evidence laid out.
I know Avi, since I have worked with him on the Starshot project where I have been a member of the advisory committee since 2016. He is brilliant and a great scientist to be admired, and also on a personal level a really nice guy and an inspiring leader to his post-graduates. Yet, his comments of late have not been helpful and it would be good to see a more moderate tone. Hoping that he and Jill will sit down and work all this out. Ultimately, they both want the same thing so that should be possible.
Excellent commentary, separating fact from hype and conjecture. I admire Loeb’s enthusiasm and intellect, but worry that his public remarks are not always consistent with the available evidence. He could have waited for a true analysis of the marine spheres by recognized experts before speculating about their origin. Reminds me of the Martian meteorite fiasco of the 1990s! Look forward to more insight from you on the fascinating discoveries awaiting us in astronomy. Thanks!
it’s a tricky balance, and I think you’ve got it right. Nice work.