We Have Discovered Spherules from the Path of the First Interstellar Meteor, IM1 | Hacker News Reader

We Have Discovered Spherules from the Path of the First Interstellar Meteor, IM1

avi-loeb.medium.com

38 pointsMizza43 comments

" If such an object is retrieved, its structure could inform us of its technological purpose and design."

Or it will be a lump of metal/rock. I mean, maybe these spherules are from the interstellar meteor, or maybe not, but by this comment, I'm not sure I trust any of it - the team seem to just be looking for confirmation of their alien-tech intruder hypothesis.

This is what motivates them, give them exposure and likely financing. It's good for moral, and for marketing.

If they eventually draw extraordinary conclusions from this, there will be hundreds of scientists to double check it, just out of curiosity, precisely because they had this stance.

All in all, it will be a win-win.

Yup. Earlier this week it was an alien wire found on a magnet.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36372194

Yes, one would assume if you charter a boat to the middle of the ocean hunting for alien debris, you are inclined to want to find some.

Fortunately, as we know, it isn't the end of the world that humans have motivations to do scientific research, as long as their methods are sound and they publish their findings in the right way.

I think he _hopes_, but doesn't believe. The actual papers around this project don't mention aliens (but they're ever-so-slightly hinted at, if you read between the lines). They treat it like an interesting metallic meteorite.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.09905.pdf

I think it's cool enough without needing to talk about ET technology, but it helps with the funding and exposure, so I don't really mind at as long as it remains fundamentally scientific.

Yes, as long as the science is good, having fun in the process is not horrible.

I'm not sure it's ideal that the people collecting the data have such a definite view on what they expect it to indicate.

It's not, but that's the dirty secret of researchers, the most passionate ones always have some conviction inside. They just don't voice it.

This data almost certainly wouldn't exist, without that view. In some cases, it's much harder to find something you're not looking for.

The data will be open. It doesn't matter what they think of the data.

It’s not horrible, but every time I see his name on a publication, I know what the primary subtext is going to be.

It will definitely be worth it if he’s the first scientist to establish deeply convincing evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization, but for now he seems like he’s mostly hat and short on cattle.

He's gone further than hope alone in public statements. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/harvards-top-...

> And while he’s not saying it’s definitely aliens, he is saying he can’t think of anything other than aliens that fits the data. And he’s saying that all over international news.

> “Many people expected once there would be this publicity, I would back down,” Loeb says. “If someone shows me evidence to the contrary, I will immediately back down.”

That's about ‘Oumuamua, a different object. That one is still a mystery.

Seeing aliens everywhere, not just one place, is worse, not better.

His position (I've read his book) is that if we find extrasolar objects that are easily produced artificially but require incredibly exotic conditions to be produced naturally, materials we have never seen or imagined yet, then the mainstream view is to assume the natural origin. But he thinks it's reasonable to assume that we are not the first technological civilization and as far as we know, the galaxy could be full of drifting alien space junk, and from that point of view it's reasonable to first think of sheet metal rather than spears of frozen hydrogen for example.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from lumps of metal and random chunks of rock" At least when it rains down on us as meteorites.

The first thing that they must do is an accurate analysis of the isotopic ratios of all chemical elements present in the spherules.

Only this can confirm that the objects are of extraterrestrial origin (if the isotopic ratios do not match the terrestrial ratios).

If it is true that they are extraterrestrial, then they must have a complex chemical history. Such a chemical composition cannot form from condensation in cooling gases of average stellar system composition, like in most meteorites that have never been parts of a planet, but could have been formed only from some initially oxidized rock (which would have lacked the nickel, cobalt and germanium that are present in primordial metallic iron, but which could have included magnesium oxide and titanium-iron oxide) and which would have been reduced to metal at some time later, by a reducing agent like hydrogen.

This could have easily happened naturally, but of course an artificial metallic object is made in the same way, by reducing metallic oxides.

Why do you have to trust any of it? The data will be made available to everyone. No trust required.

> As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer noted: “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

Survivor Bias, anyone?

Lots of hypotheses are ridiculed, turn out to really be ridiculous, and then are quietly forgotten.

Yes, but the quote use the word "truth", not "hypotheses".

The real kicker is that they are already assuming they are right, which is definitely over the top :)

Well at least it keeps them motivated, and it keeps readers engaged.

> the quote use the word "truth", not "hypotheses"

All truth starts as a hypothesis, but not all hypotheses turn into truth.

They're using the quote to say, "Hey, maybe they're ridiculing us, but look at Einstein!"

That's... what I'm saying?

It was that "Yes, but" there /s

It sounds like they are fairly confident they've located traces of the meteor which could lead to discovery of a larger core fragment. Very exciting.

Avi Loeb was the author of any number of crappy articles in Scientific American. Once I saw his name I started to skip over them. After a while Scientific American stopped publishing them. The only thing you really need to know about this guy is he's a self promoter – it's not about {subject}, it's about him.

[1] Surprisingly good Vice article on it.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3wwam/scientists-are-huntin...

“Ryan Weed, Jeff Wynn, Charles Hoskinson, J.J. Siler and Amir Siraj are all engaged in this effort.”

The founder of Cardano is on the team? Weird. I thought maybe just a coincidence of two people with the same name, but appears confirmed on his twitter. [0]

[0] https://twitter.com/iohk_charles/status/1671496735267467264

It's not all that weird, IMO. The Galileo Project is funded by private donors. It is a blue-sky project and so is Cardano (crypto more generally.) Mr. Hoskinson is paying the bills for this trip.

At least they are collecting and analysing samples and not just writing or making videos.

"The fundamental question is obvious: was this first recognized interstellar object from 2014 manufactured by a technological civilization?"

wat?

Perhaps not so obvious.

Yeah, may be confusing out of context. This is what he wants to do: "If IM1 were of technological origin, we can then study the technologies embedded in its relic."

Presence of spherules just means it collided with something in space. Which, considering where meteors come from, would be practically impossible for the material that makes up IM1 to have not collided with something at some point.

The majority of our advanced technology will not stick to a magnetic. Inconel won't. I understand the need, but wow it sure cuts out a significant class of materials/technology.

They are planning to sluice the material too so that they find non-magnetic items too.

I think the magnet is the first pass? Perhaps to try and narrow down the search area.

He seems like a bit of a nut, but it is quite refreshing to see some "real" science and analysis of materials etc and not just "oh hey we found these things SO IT MUST BE ALIENS!!!!"

Isn't the magnet mostly a necessity? How else would you dredge up somewhat interesting materials from the bottom of the ocean?

Well, how would you dredge up interesting materials when the vast majority of our interesting materials aren't magnetic?

I think it's more about ease, since dredging and sorting is technically possible, but much harder. In the ocean, most everything is calcium or sand, so maybe not impossible.

So, they dragged a magnet across the bottom of the ocean and found signs of non-naturally occurring materials… why is the first reaction that it is anything other than more human waste?

"We found a composition of mostly iron with some magnesium and titanium but no nickel. This composition is anomalous compared to human-made alloys, known asteroids and familiar astrophysical sources."

I took that to mean it wasn't likely to be human-made. Is that a misinterpretation?

If people drag stuff up in other locations and come up with the same stuff then it would be naturally occurring but we just haven't seen it before.

Avi Loeb is the new Bob Lazar.

He has a hypothesis that he is publicly testing. Not sure how they are the same.

Bob Lazar lied about going to MIT, and Avi Loeb is the head of the astrophysics department at Harvard. I suspect there are more than a few differences between them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com