Jump to content

The Rubin Observatory Could Discover Corner Reflectors or Artificial Lights in the Outer Solar…

Avi Loeb Medium
 Share

Recommended Posts

Avi Loeb Medium Newbie

Avi Loeb Medium

Posted
Posted

The Rubin Observatory Could Discover Corner Reflectors or Artificial Lights in the Outer Solar System

1*Jq_Nl7EMvUhkcSuOrknc7Q.jpeg
(Image credit: YIC-electronics)

A week ago, the Rubin Observatory initiated the release of its much-anticipated flood of data from its 3.2 gigapixel camera (as announced here).

Solar-system astronomers are accustomed to discovering asteroids by detecting the reflection of sunlight from their surface. However, a class of objects with the same surface area are potentially detectable to much greater distances in the outer solar system. They could be discovered, for the first time, by the Rubin Observatory.

Natural objects which reflect sunlight get dimmer inversely with distance to the 4th power at distances that are much larger than the Earth-Sun separation. The reason is simple. The flux of sunlight impinging on their surface declines inversely with distance squared and the observed flux as a result of reflection off their surface declines by another factor of inverse distance squared. Combining these factors implies that asteroids or the nuclei of interstellar objects get dimmer inversely with heliocentric distance to the 4th power.

On the other hand, a source that generates its own light, like a spacecraft or a city, would brighten inversely with distance squared as it approaches us from the outer solar system. This resembles the way that a lamppost brightens as we approach it from a dark street.

The difference between scaling with distance to the 4th and 2nd powers can distinguish between a natural and a technological object. In 2012, I published a paper here with Ed Turner from Princeton University, which showed that existing optical telescopes and surveys can detect artificially-illuminated objects comparable in total brightness to a major terrestrial city out to the outskirts of the Solar System. Since orbital parameters of Kuiper belt objects are routinely measured to exquisite precisions, we proposed to measure the variation of the observed flux from such objects as a function of their changing orbital distances. This idea is particularly feasible now with the Rubin Observatory. If objects with an inverse-square brightening law are found, follow-up observations can measure their spectra to determine whether they are illuminated by artificial lighting. The search can also be extended beyond the Solar System with future telescopes, which would be capable of detecting phase modulation due to very strong artificial illumination on the night-side of planets as they orbit their parent stars.

Another interesting class of objects which would follow the inverse-square brightening law are corner reflectors along the Sun-Earth axis. A corner reflector is a passive retroreflector consisting of three mutually perpendicular, intersecting flat surfaces that reflect waves directly back toward their source, regardless of the incidence angle. They are essential for enhancing radar visibility, satellite tracking, and laser ranging.

Corner reflectors were particularly helpful in measuring the distance between the surfaces of the Earth and the Moon using lasers. The distance is calculated from the round-trip time of laser pulses propagating at the speed of light, which are reflected back to Earth by the Moon’s surface or by reflectors on the Moon. Three reflectors were installed by the United States’ Apollo program, two by the Soviet Lunokhod 1 and 2 missions, and one by India’s Chandrayaan-3 mission. The precise distance measurements so far imply that Newton’s constant does not change by more than a part in ten trillion per year (as reported here and here).

Now, consider a corner reflector created by another technological civilization. If that corner reflector happens to be aligned with the Sun-Earth axis, it will follow the inverse-square brightening law because it will reflect rays of sunlight back to where they came from, allowing an observer on Earth to detect them. The shadow of the Earth has a negligible effect at large distances, because the surface area of Earth is 12,000 times smaller than that of the Sun. Our situation resembles a fly hovering over a lamppost and observing the reflection of light from a corner reflector in a dark street.

As long as the Earth is observed to transit the Sun from the vantage point of the corner reflector, we would observe the corner reflector to follow the inverse-square brightening law. This favorable geometry selects a swath that covers 0.47% of the sky, the ratio between the radius of the Sun and the Earth-Sun separation. In other words, only one out of 214 corner-reflectors that are randomly distributed around the Sun will follow the inverse-square brightening law from the Earth’s vantage point. Gladly, these corner reflectors will all be detectable at nighttime when the body of the Earth blocks the sunlight and allows a ground-based telescope to search for them. They would all appear in opposition to the Sun within a cone of 0.25 degrees, corresponding to the angular radius of the Sun from Earth. The Rubin observatory or other survey telescopes resemble the eyes of the fly havering near the lamppost and looking away for reflected light from objects in the dark street.

A corner reflector can be distinguished from a source of light by its spectrum matching that of sunlight and by its position in the sky being in opposition to the Sun. Here’s hoping that the Rubin Observatory will show evidence for either sources of artificial light or a corner reflector. Any such detection will surely make our life on Earth far more exciting.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

1*LE3Xlzc3hNG5VDAGlDP8KQ.jpeg
(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, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 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

stat?event=post.clientViewed&referrerSou

View the full article

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Topics

    • UAPResearcher
      How UFO Disclosure Could Pass Before January
      By UAPResearcher
      Danny's analysis in the video suggests that there are substantial roadblocks preventing UFO disclosure from gaining the momentum it needs within the White House. He highlights various factors that contribute to the current stagnation, suggesting that despite the increasing public interest and the release of documents by the Department of War (DOW), the government's response remains lackluster. This situation feels particularly pressing given the ongoing discussions about transparency and accountability in government concerning UAPs.
      One key point raised is the disconnect between public pressure for disclosure and the internal dynamics of government agencies. Danny argues that, although there are efforts to push for transparency, bureaucratic inertia and perhaps even political maneuvering may be holding back meaningful disclosure. This raises questions about who truly drives the conversation around UAPs and what influences their decisions.
      The video references the sixth tranche of records released by the DOW, which could provide more insight into past military encounters with UAPs. However, the effectiveness of these releases depends on how they are perceived and acted upon by policymakers. While documents can reveal historical data, their interpretation and the political context in which they are released are crucial for understanding their impact on public discourse.
      Danny emphasizes the need for a more coordinated approach within various government factions to facilitate open discussions about UAPs. This notion sparks thoughts about the past UAP hearings conducted by Congress, which aimed to create a unified stance on the phenomena. Yet, the lack of follow-up or actionable outcomes from those hearings raises doubts about whether the government is genuinely committed to transparency.
      As we consider the implications of Danny's insights, it's important to recognize the limitations of the evidence presented. While the video suggests that disclosure could realistically happen before January, it does not detail specific actions or timelines that could lead to such a development. The lack of concrete steps from the government leaves much open to interpretation, which is a significant barrier for those who seek clarity on the issue.
      As the conversation around UFOs continues to evolve, one must wonder: what specific actions should be prioritized to break the current stalemate in UAP disclosure? Moreover, how can we ensure that public interest translates into policy changes rather than mere rhetoric? These questions remain pivotal as we navigate the complexities of government transparency in relation to UFOs.
    • UAPResearcher
      Catastrophic UFO Disclosure Could Happen At Any Minute
      By UAPResearcher
      The YouTube video titled 'Catastrophic UFO Disclosure Could Happen At Any Minute' raises some intriguing points about how technology has changed the landscape of UFO reporting. It suggests that, unlike in the past, when the government could easily downplay or dismiss sightings with vague statements, today's advanced technology makes that much more difficult. This shift is particularly relevant when considering notable mass sighting events such as the Phoenix Lights in 1997 or the Stephenville UFO sightings in 2008.
      The video highlights how smartphones with high-resolution cameras, along with other technologies like meteorological radar and crowd-sourced tracking networks, have made it almost impossible to ignore mass sightings. This technological evolution could imply that future disclosures regarding UFOs may need to address the substantial evidence that individuals now have at their fingertips. With such tools, witnesses can capture and share sightings in real time, complicating any narrative that relies on downplaying the phenomenon.
      However, while the video's assertions are compelling, it does not delve into specific incidents or government responses related to these technologies. For example, it would be interesting to know how the Pentagon has adapted its strategies for dealing with public perception after high-profile incidents were captured on personal devices. The lack of concrete examples leaves a gap in understanding whether these technological advancements have genuinely forced government transparency or if they merely change the way information is presented.
      The video also seems to imply an expectation of imminent 'catastrophic disclosure,' without defining what that would entail. This vagueness makes it hard to engage with the claim critically. What kind of disclosure are we talking about? Are we expecting a full admission of governmental knowledge regarding UFOs, or a more structured acknowledgement of sightings? The terms lack specificity, which could lead to a range of interpretations among viewers, further muddying the conversation.
      Furthermore, the comment section of the video reveals a mix of excitement and skepticism from viewers, with some expressing hope that the government will finally provide clarity, while others remain doubtful about the motivations behind such disclosures. This disparity in public sentiment underscores the challenges of navigating the UFO discourse in the current climate, where trust in government narratives is at an all-time low.
      In conclusion, the video touches on significant themes regarding public access to evidence and the evolving nature of UFO reporting, but it leaves many questions unanswered. It would be helpful to explore how recent advances in technology have influenced specific cases and what that means for future government interactions with the public regarding UFOs. Given the current atmosphere and the historical context of UFO sightings, are we equipped to handle the truth if it comes? What would a 'catastrophic disclosure' really look like, and how would it impact public perception and policy moving forward?
    • DisclosureWatch
      Loeb: Whistleblower Waiver Could Reveal What UAP Footage Can'T
      By DisclosureWatch
      A recent discussion featuring Avi Loeb on Jesse Weber Live highlights the Pentagon's recent waiver that may allow UAP whistleblowers to share crucial information without legal ramifications. This is particularly significant given the historical context of UAP disclosure efforts, where whistleblowers have often operated under the threat of punitive measures for revealing classified information. The promise of this waiver could open doors to more transparency in UAP investigations, potentially leading to a more comprehensive understanding of what these encounters entail.
      Loeb emphasizes that the information shared by whistleblowers could provide insights beyond what the released UAP footage has shown. Much of the public's understanding of UAPs comes from these brief snippets of video, which often lack sufficient context or detailed explanations. If whistleblowers can speak freely, they might offer more in-depth accounts of their experiences and findings, lending credence to the ongoing investigations by the AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office).
      Moreover, the timing of this waiver aligns with the increasing pressure from Congress for more accountability regarding UAP phenomena. As hearings continue to unfold, the expectation for reliable testimonies and evidence is mounting. The waiver could serve as a pivotal tool, allowing former military officials or other insiders to present their observations more candidly, which in turn could shape future legislative actions or directives regarding UAP investigations.
      While this waiver is a step in the right direction, it also raises questions about the reliability of the information that could emerge. The nature of the whistleblower's accounts might vary significantly, depending on personal experiences or biases. The challenge lies in distinguishing between anecdotal evidence and verifiable claims. Therefore, ongoing scrutiny and critical assessment of any new information shared under this waiver will be crucial to ensure that it contributes meaningfully to the body of knowledge surrounding UAPs.
      In conclusion, the potential for increased transparency regarding UAPs through whistleblower testimonies is promising, yet it also demands a cautious approach. As these individuals come forward, how do we ensure that their accounts are rigorously evaluated against existing evidence? This critical balance between openness and scrutiny will be vital for the integrity of future UAP investigations.
    • UAPResearcher
      What Insights Can Failed Solar Eruptions Provide About Space Weather?
      By UAPResearcher
      A recent discussion highlighted the mystery behind a failed solar eruption observed in March 2024. Researchers, including Dr. Kathy Reeves, focused on understanding the conditions that prevent some solar eruptions from escaping the Sun's atmosphere. This is particularly intriguing because solar eruptions can have significant effects on space weather and, by extension, our planet's atmosphere and technology.
      When a solar eruption occurs, it can eject large amounts of plasma and magnetic fields into space, commonly known as a coronal mass ejection (CME). However, not all solar flares lead to eruptions. The distinction is crucial: flares can happen without an eruption, and an eruption can occur without a flare. This relationship complicates predictions about space weather events.
      The March 2024 event was noteworthy because researchers had a wealth of data from multiple spacecraft, including NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory and JAXA’s Hinode. These instruments provided different perspectives on the eruption, offering insights into the conditions that lead to a successful eruption versus a failed one. For instance, Dr. Reeves mentioned that knowing when a flare might not lead to an eruption is valuable for understanding solar activity.
      The coordinated observations from various spacecraft allowed scientists to analyze the solar event in detail, utilizing extreme ultraviolet and X-ray data, as well as magnetic-field measurements. This comprehensive approach helps researchers identify the factors that determine whether material will escape the Sun.
      What makes this line of inquiry particularly relevant is its potential to inform our understanding of space weather's impact on Earth. Solar eruptions can disrupt satellite communications, power grids, and various technologies. Understanding why some eruptions fail could enhance our ability to predict and mitigate these disruptions, thereby protecting our technological infrastructure.
      Given the importance of solar activity in affecting life on Earth and possibly beyond, what can we learn from these failed eruptions? Could this knowledge lead to improved models for predicting space weather events that might have implications for future explorations and our understanding of life in the cosmos? There's a lot to unpack regarding how solar dynamics interact with the broader universe, especially if we consider life beyond our planet. This could fundamentally change how we assess habitability not just on Earth, but on exoplanets that experience similar solar phenomena.
      As we continue to study the Sun and its behavior, the question remains: how might insights from failed solar eruptions shape our understanding of both our solar system and the potential for life elsewhere?
    • CosmicSignals
      The Search for Exoplanets: New Discoveries and What They Could Mean for Life Beyond Earth
      By CosmicSignals
      I recently came across some intriguing information on NASA's exoplanet page, which highlights new discoveries in our ongoing quest to find planets outside our solar system. As of 2026, it seems that the number of known exoplanets continues to grow, with some of these worlds falling into the habitable zone of their stars—an area where conditions could support liquid water and, potentially, life. While the idea that some of these distant exoplanets might host intelligent civilizations is still speculative, the data we are gathering could bring us one step closer to understanding the universe's biodiversity.
      One of the more exciting aspects of these findings is the possibility of technosignatures—indications of advanced technological activity on these distant worlds. This pushes us to consider whether we might one day detect signals or even artifacts from alien civilizations. The ongoing efforts by SETI to monitor radio frequencies for potential signals are becoming increasingly relevant as we identify more exoplanets in the Goldilocks zone. However, the uncertainty remains high, as the nature of life, especially intelligent life, is still shrouded in mystery.
      It's worth noting that while the discoveries are significant, they do not guarantee that any of these exoplanets are actually habitable or home to life. Factors such as atmospheric composition, magnetic fields, and geological activity play crucial roles in determining a planet's ability to support life. Moreover, just because a planet is in the habitable zone does not mean it has the right conditions. This brings us to the question of biosignatures—chemical indicators of life that we might find in the atmospheres of these exoplanets. The excitement surrounding the potential to detect biosignatures offers a fascinating avenue for exploration, but it also comes with the caveat that we have yet to learn how to differentiate between biological and abiotic processes reliably.
      With each discovery, we are not only expanding our understanding of where life could exist but also refining our methods of searching for it. The implications of these findings stretch beyond academia—how might they influence our approach to searching for extraterrestrial life? The dialogue around what constitutes evidence of life is evolving, especially as technology advances. As more powerful telescopes come online and our techniques for analyzing exoplanet atmospheres improve, we could find ourselves in the position of needing to reassess our definitions and expectations.
      I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this. Given the advancements in exoplanet research and the potential for finding biosignatures or technosignatures, what are our next steps? How should we prioritize our search as we gather more data? And can we ever truly prepare for the implications of discovering life beyond Earth? For more information on this topic, you can check out NASA's exoplanet page at the provided link.
      Source: https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/
×
×
  • Create New...