Are the Jets from 3I/ATLAS Pulsed Like a Heartbeat?
-
Similar Topics
-
By SpaceObserver
In a recent segment on NewsNation, Dr. Kayla Iacovino discussed the potential catastrophic effects of a super-eruption from the Yellowstone supervolcano. One striking point made was that such an event could have consequences akin to those of a massive asteroid impact. This comparison raises important questions about our preparedness and understanding of volcanic hazards.
Dr. Iacovino explained that Yellowstone is home to one of the largest volcanic systems on the planet, and an eruption could bring about widespread devastation, affecting air quality, climate, and even agricultural systems. The scale of the potential damage is daunting. Using historical data on previous eruptions, such as the last major activity around 640,000 years ago, scientists can estimate the far-reaching effects on both local and global scales.
The discussion led by Jesse Weber emphasizes how critical it is to separate science fact from science fiction, particularly when discussing such profound geological threats. Many people might dismiss the supervolcano's potential for future activity, often viewing it as a distant concern, but the reality is that these systems are constantly monitored by geologists and volcanologists.
One of the key challenges in understanding supervolcanoes is the unpredictability of their eruptions. Unlike asteroids, which can be tracked and predicted to a degree, volcanic activity can be much harder to foresee. While scientists can monitor signs of unrest, such as earthquakes and gas emissions, predicting the exact timing and magnitude of an eruption remains complex. This uncertainty is a significant limitation in our current scientific understanding.
Moreover, the comparison to asteroid impacts brings up fascinating avenues for discussion regarding disaster preparedness. If we can clearly articulate the threats posed by Yellowstone, perhaps we can begin to develop more robust strategies for crisis response and even public education on this topic. The dialogue around such geological hazards is often overshadowed by more immediate concerns, yet the potential for widespread disruption makes it a critical issue.
So, considering the implications of Dr. Iacovino's insights, how should we balance between monitoring these geological threats and investing in public awareness regarding their potential impact? Understanding the science is one thing, but engaging the public with accurate information is another challenge altogether. What steps can we take to ensure that awareness translates into effective preparedness?
-
By CosmicSignals
I found Isaac Arthur's perspectives on alien contact to be quite thought-provoking. His main argument seems to center on the idea that our expectations of what alien contact might look like could be fundamentally flawed. He suggests that instead of the classic scenarios depicted in movies or books, actual encounters could be much more subtle or entirely different from our imagination.
Arthur highlights that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) often focuses on signals or technosignatures that resemble our own technologies or behaviors. However, he raises an interesting point: what if alien civilizations communicate in ways we can’t currently understand? This could include methods of interaction that don’t align with our human-centric view of communication.
One key detail he discusses involves the potential for advanced civilizations to employ technologies or forms of communication that are incomprehensible to us. For instance, if they use biological means, like pheromones or other forms of chemical signaling, our radio signal searches might completely miss them. This leads to a significant gap in how we prepare for possible contact; we might not even recognize it when it happens.
The video also delves into the history of human communication and how it has evolved. Arthur compares this evolution to what we might expect from alien civilizations, suggesting that their forms of communication could be as varied and complex as our own. It’s a humbling thought that we might be looking for something that doesn’t even exist or that might be beyond our current technological capacity to detect.
While the video raises several intriguing points, it also leaves some questions lingering. For example, how do we alter our current strategies in SETI to account for these possibilities? Are there metrics or methods we can develop to broaden our search parameters? It seems there's a lot of room for growth in how we approach the search for extraterrestrial life.
Ending on a more speculative note, if there are indeed civilizations out there communicating in ways we can't fathom, could it be that they are observing us without us realizing? This notion leads to a fascinating discussion on the nature of contact and what it might mean for humanity. Given the vastness of the universe and the potential diversity of life, how should we redefine our expectations of what alien contact could entail?
-
By SpaceObserver
In the recent video featuring Isaac Arthur, he presents a thought-provoking take on the nature of potential alien contact. One of the striking points he makes is that the form and method of contact might be entirely different from our current expectations. This challenges the common narrative that we might experience direct communication or visual encounters. Instead, Arthur suggests we might not even recognize the contact for what it is, and that could stem from our anthropocentric biases in imagining alien life.
Arthur references various scientific theories and historical perspectives on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, emphasizing that our understanding is limited by our own experiences and technologies. He proposes that advancements in fields such as astrobiology and the search for exoplanets could help broaden our horizons, but the reality of first contact might still be elusive and fundamentally different from our imaginations. This notion aligns well with ongoing discussions in astrobiology, where researchers are constantly refining their models of what life might look like on other planets.
The video also touches on the concept of technological singularity and how it might affect interactions with extraterrestrial civilizations. Arthur posits that if advanced civilizations exist, they might employ forms of communication or interaction that are beyond our current comprehension. This raises interesting questions about the nature of intelligence itself and whether forms of life we cannot currently conceive could be out there, possibly already observing us in ways we don't understand.
One of the key aspects of this conversation is the importance of humility in our search for extraterrestrial life. As we deploy instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to explore distant galaxies and potentially habitable exoplanets, we must remain aware that our expectations could limit our understanding. For instance, while we look for biosignatures or technosignatures, we may overlook more subtle indicators of life that don't fit our preconceived notions.
Viewer reactions to the video have been varied, with many expressing curiosity about the implications of Arthur's theories for humanity's future in space exploration. Some comment on the need for a paradigm shift in how we approach the search for alien life, suggesting that a more open-minded perspective could yield better results. The video clearly stimulates discussion about the limits of current scientific inquiry and the need for imagination in the face of uncertainty.
As we continue to explore the cosmos with missions from organizations like NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), the idea that alien contact may not resemble our expectations prompts a deeper inquiry. How should we prepare for the possibility that contact could come in ways we cannot currently imagine? The discussion invites us to consider not just the technological aspects of space exploration, but also the philosophical and sociocultural ramifications of discovering we are not alone in the universe.
-
By CosmicSignals
This year has brought some remarkable discoveries in the realm of exoplanets. A recent study revealed the detection of several Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of their stars. It's thrilling to think these planets might have the right conditions for life, or at least some form of biosignature that we could detect in the near future.
One of these newly identified exoplanets is located in the star system not too far from us, and researchers are already considering how we might study its atmosphere for potential signs of life. The technology we have at our disposal today, like the James Webb Space Telescope, could allow us to analyze the chemical compositions of these atmospheres in unprecedented detail. I wonder what we might discover if we find oxygen or methane present.
It's also interesting to speculate on how this discovery might influence our search for technosignatures. While finding biosignatures is exciting, the possibility of detecting advanced civilizations would be even more profound. Imagine if we found a planet with signs of technological activity! What kind of signals might we expect, and how would we interpret them?
On another note, these discoveries raise questions about the potential for future exploration. If we could confirm Earth-like conditions on one of these exoplanets, would we send missions to study them further? The challenges of interstellar travel are immense, but advancements in technology could change that over time. The idea of humanity exploring beyond our solar system feels less like science fiction each year.
For those of you following these developments, how do you think our approach to the search for extraterrestrial life will change as we discover more Earth-like planets? Do you think we will establish communication with any advanced civilizations before we manage to reach them physically? The prospects are truly fascinating and open up a lively discussion.
Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on these exciting developments, especially regarding the implications for life beyond Earth. Could 2026 be the year we finally begin to find concrete evidence of life elsewhere in the universe?
-
By Avi Loeb Medium
The symmetric system of three jets emanating from the nucleus of the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS (separately from the primary anti-tail jet) after the circularly symmetric glow was removed by the Larson-Sekanina rotational gradient filter, based on a Hubble Space Telescope image taken on November 30, 2025. (Image credit: T. Scarmato and A. Loeb 2026)A new paper (accessible here) that I co-authored today with Toni Scarmato analyzed images of the interstellar object 3I/ATLAS, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope over the past five months. After removing the circularly-symmetric glow around the nucleus of 3I/ATLAS using the Larson-Sekanina rotational gradient filter, we identified three jets emanating from the nucleus that are equally separated from each other in sky projection by about 120 degrees in addition to a primary anti-tail jet pointed at the Sun.
Whether these jets are technological thrusters or pockets of ice that happened to be oriented symmetrically on the surface of a natural iceberg, the outflows of gas and dust in these three jets exerted thrusts through the rocket effect, which resulted in the observed non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS (as summarized in a paper that I co-authored with Valentin Thoss and Andi Burkert, accessible here). Our new paper links, for the first time, the directions and momentum flows in these three jets to the non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS.
In our previous paper (accessible here), we demonstrated that the jet system wobbles with a period of 7.2 hours, likely as a result the rotation of the nucleus. We concluded that the jet structure wobbles around the rotation axis with a characteristic angular excursion of about 20 degrees, and the rotation axis is aligned with the sunward direction to within about 20 degrees.
Building on this inferred jet system and periodic wobble analysis of 3I/ATLAS, our new paper measures the observed jet position angles and links them to the non-gravitational acceleration components in three dimensions. We use the sky projection and images of the three persistent jets to estimate the order-of-magnitude thrust that each of them provides to the nucleus. Altogether, our analysis provides consistency between the properties of the three jets and the inferred non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS, strengthening the evidence that the rocket effect explains the deviations of its trajectory from the path expected from gravity alone.
We adopted the observed jet position angles (PAs) in the sky (with North=0◦, East=90◦) on November 30, 2025 as follows:
• Jet1: PA = 65◦, • Jet2: PA = 290◦, • Jet3: PA = 175◦.
Our analysis identifies Jet2 as the dominant contributor to the transverse non-gravitational acceleration. The table below shows the breakdown of the contributions from the three jets to the non-gravitational acceleration of 3I/ATLAS, a [with components (A1,A2,A3)], in meters per second squared:
The complete set of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images is available here.
The symmetric configuration of three jets plus the anti-tail jet raises the question of whether they might constitute a technological system designed for stabilizing the trajectory of 3I/ATLAS. A recent paper by Bo Andree (accessible here) suggested that the
minimal approach for steering an interstellar comet along a controlled trajectory indeed matches this 3+1 jet configuration. By relaxing the full six-degree-of-freedom control to forward-cone steering — sufficient for practical navigation — the paper showed that four thrusters are required: one primary jet and three secondary jets separated symmetrically by 120 degrees from each other. The secondary 3-jets synthesize continuous in-plane steering, while the primary (anti-tail) jet provides low-bandwidth attitude shaping: as the body rotates, the primary-jet torque direction sweeps predictably over a cycle, enabling out-of-plane steering via phase-scheduled firing.
This highlights the fundamental question: is the observed 3+1 jet system around 3I/ATLAS a technological signature?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
(Image Credit: Chris Michel, National Academy of Sciences, 2023)Avi Loeb is the head of the Galileo Project, founding director of Harvard University’s — Black Hole Initiative, former director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (2005–2026), and the former chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University (2011–2020). He is a former member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a former chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies. He is the bestselling author of “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth” and a co-author of the textbook “Life in the Cosmos”, both published in 2021. The paperback edition of his new book, titled “Interstellar”, was published in August 2024.
Professional website:
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/
Social media:
https://avi-loeb.medium.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessorAviLoeb
https://open.spotify.com/show/1zhndXkvSY2b8FdjspFpCd
https://x.com/ProfAviLoeb
View the full article
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.