Last month, excitement rippled through the scientific community when theoretical physicist Avi Loeb claimed that tiny spherules recovered from the bottom of the ocean were likely of alien origin. Loeb, a decorated astrophysicist from Harvard University, made headlines with his bold hypothesis, stating that the recovered objects were most likely technological gadgets with artificial intelligence. However, many of his peers argue that while Loeb’s claims may be sensational, they do not meet the criteria of good science.
Loeb’s assertions began with an object that was logged by US government sensors on January 8th, 2014. The object, a fireball from space, entered the western Pacific Ocean off the northeastern coast of Papua New Guinea. Loeb, along with his undergraduate assistant Amir Siraj, identified the object as an anomaly and decided to further investigate.
To gather evidence, Loeb led an expedition funded by a crypto entrepreneur. Using a magnetic sled attached to the expedition boat, the team dragged it across the ocean floor to recover small spherical objects. Loeb described the objects as beautiful metallic marbles under a microscope. Preliminary analysis showed that the orbs were mostly composed of iron, with traces of silicon, magnesium, and other elements. Loeb suggests that the surface of the objects disintegrated into these tiny spherules after being exposed to the heat of the fireball.
Loeb’s excitement was palpable as he described the discovery of the spherules as a new frontier in astronomy, where the study of objects outside the solar system can be conducted under a microscope. CBS News picked up on his enthusiasm, publishing an attention-grabbing article titled “Harvard professor Avi Loeb believes he’s found fragments of alien technology.” Loeb sent the mysterious spheres to Harvard University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Bruker Corporation in Germany for further analysis.
One of the key points Loeb emphasizes is that the spherules exhibit material strength tougher than any space rock catalogued by NASA. He also notes that the speed of the object outside the solar system was faster than 95% of all stars in the vicinity of the Sun. Loeb speculates that this suggests the possibility of the object being a spacecraft from another civilization or some technological gadget.
Despite the intriguing nature of Loeb’s claims, the scientific community remains skeptical. Peter Brown, a meteor physicist at Western University, points out that several percent of detected events initially appear interstellar but are often chalked up to measurement errors. Steve Desch, an astrophysicist at Arizona State University, argues that if the object was traveling as fast as the data suggests, it would have been incinerated upon entering the Earth’s atmosphere. Other scientists criticize Loeb for not engaging with peers who study similar unidentified fireballs.
Brown recently presented data demonstrating that NASA’s recordings in cases like these often prove to be untrustworthy. He believes that the fireball likely impacted at a slower speed than initially recorded. Loeb, however, maintains his trust in government data and argues that they are responsible for national security and know what they are doing. Unfortunately, the specific data that could confirm the accuracy of the recordings is unlikely to be declassified by the government.
While the origin of the spherules remains uncertain, researchers express concern about Loeb’s tendency to make bold claims outside the realm of science. They argue that being a Harvard-employed astrophysicist does not grant one the ability to know answers that the scientific method has not yet confirmed. Instead, it should mean that one exercises restraint and operates within the scientific method. Desch describes Loeb’s claims as a breakdown of the peer review process and the scientific method, which is demoralizing and tiring for the scientific community.
Loeb, however, remains unfazed by the criticism and stands by his preliminary findings. He cites philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who said, “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” Loeb seemingly views his team’s findings as “truth,” despite many unanswered questions remaining.
Critics argue that Loeb’s confidence and excitement may be driven by confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one’s existing beliefs or theories. They emphasize that the scientific method requires cautious interpretation and rigorous testing, rather than jumping to conclusions. Desch warns that the public should not view Loeb’s approach as representative of how science works.
In conclusion, while Avi Loeb’s claims about the spherules being of alien origin have generated significant interest, they have also sparked controversy within the scientific community. While Loeb believes he has made groundbreaking discoveries, his peers argue that his claims do not meet the criteria of good science. The debate surrounding the spherules’ origins and the scientific method serves as a reminder of the caution and rigor required in the pursuit of scientific understanding.
