Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1*CQ8APGYi6f6yMXVM8rHggQ.jpeg
(Image credit: The Spectator)

During one of the dozen television interviews on Artemis II that I had in recent days (as summarized here, here, here and here), I made the trivial prediction that its four astronauts will witness meteor flares on the surface of the dark side of the Moon. Since the Moon has no atmosphere, objects on a collision course with it would impact the lunar surface directly rather than burn-up and disintegrate inside a fireball, as they do due to friction in the Earth’s atmosphere.

This prediction came true near the end of Orion’s closest approach to the Moon on April 6, 2026, when the Sun was eclipsed by the Moon for almost an hour. During that time, the astronauts witnessed with their naked eyes six micrometeor impacts on the dark side of the Moon.

It is widely believed that the Moon formed out of material ejected from the surface of Earth as a result of an impact by a Mars -size proto-planet named Theia. Upon formation the lunar surface was smooth, but as evident from the latest high-resolution images — transferred by laser communication from Artemis II to Earth — the lunar surface is scarred with numerous impact craters. The Moon serves as a museum for the material collected from these impact events, some of which was delivered by interstellar objects from outside the Solar System.

What is the chance that an interstellar object like 3I/ATLAS impacted the Moon over the 4.5 billion years of its history?

The calculation is straightforward. The probability for an interstellar impact equals the product of the number of interstellar objects per unit volume, N, times the typical velocity of 3I/ATLAS-like objects, V=60 kilometers per second, times the cross-sectional area of the Moon, A=9.5 million square kilometers, times the age of the Moon, T=4.5 billion years. The number density was estimated as N=0.007 per astronomical unit cubed in the latest analysis of the Hubble Space Telescope data, reported here. Altogether this product yields an impact probability of, P=(N*V*A*T) = 17%.

In other words: the chance of a 3I/ATLAS-like interstellar object to impact the Moon during its entire history equals to the probability that a six-sided die cube will land on a specific face. This is a significant probability. Adopting a mass of order a billion tons for 3I/ATLAS (as estimated here), suggests that a single impact could have cover the entire lunar surface with a thin layer of interstellar dust. By now, this layer was mixed with a much thicker dust layer from accumulated impacts of numerous Solar System asteroids of the type observed by the Artemis II astronauts.

1*t6YG6zcu3ebVYXiqHzhHAA.jpeg
An image from Artemis II of the Earth behind the Moon, showing numerous impact craters on the lunar surface. (Image credit: NASA)

Since Earth has a surface area that is larger than that of the Moon by a factor of 13.5, there should have been a few impacts of interstellar objects like 3I/ATLAS on Earth. These events were likely separated in time by about a billion years from each other, implying that their imprint was buried underground by geological mixing over these long periods of time.

In 2019, I co-authored a paper (accessible here) with my undergraduate student at that time, Amir Siraj, suggesting a systematic search for interstellar impacts on the Moon. The paper proposed to send a new telescope in lunar orbit in order to study in real-time interstellar impacts and to serve as a laboratory for hypervelocity collisions. We calculated that a telescope with a diameter larger than 2 meters should be able to detect at least one impact of an interstellar object with a diameter of a few centimeters among hundreds of Solar System meteoroid impacts, every year. For each interstellar object, measurements of the reflected sunlight and shadow, as well as the impact’s optical flash and crater, would allow for the determination of the velocity, mass, density, and composition of the impactor.

This proposal might be realized in the coming years as part of the Artemis program to establish a human base with technological and scientific infrastructure on the Moon. Pursuing a comprehensive survey of meteor flashes would provide a new opportunity to use the Moon as a fishing net for interstellar material. Perhaps among the numerous rocks that constitute most lunar impactors, humanity will also identify crash sites of technological debris from extraterrestrial civilizations. This will constitute a new tool in the toolbox of the 66-year-long search for extraterrestrial technological civilizations.

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, former 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.

  • Similar Topics

    • By UAPResearcher
      Has anyone seen the new video shared by Elex Michaelson featuring a flying disc? It was obtained from Jeremy Corbell, who’s known for his work with UFO footage. The video showcases what appears to be a disc-shaped object, and it’s raising questions about the nature of UAP encounters.
      In the footage, the disc moves in a way that doesn’t seem typical for any known aircraft. Its dynamics and speed might suggest advanced technology, but without additional context, it’s hard to draw definite conclusions. Corbell has a history of presenting intriguing evidence, but this video alone doesn’t provide enough detail to ascertain the object's origin.
      Viewer reactions on the video have been mixed, with some expressing excitement about the footage and others remaining skeptical. It seems the community is divided between those who think this might be a significant piece of evidence and those who argue it could be misidentified phenomena. The lack of corroborating data or a clear identification leaves plenty of room for speculation.
      As we discuss this video, it’s important to consider the implications of such sightings. While it’s easy to jump to conclusions about advanced technology or extraterrestrial origins, we should also remember that misinterpretations can occur, especially with camera optics and atmospheric conditions. This need for careful analysis is crucial in the ongoing discussion around UAPs.
      What do you think this new footage tells us about the current state of UAP investigations? Are we progressing toward clearer answers, or are we still in the same place of uncertainty?
    • By UAPResearcher
      I recently came across a YouTube video where Matthew Brown, a well-known UFO whistleblower, shares some startling insights during an interview. He discusses revelations that might change our understanding of UAPs altogether. It's intriguing to see such direct commentary coming from someone with experience in the field.
      In the video, Patrick from the VETTED channel breaks down Brown's statements, which focus on the implications of recent UAP disclosures. While the specifics of these statements aren't laid out in detail in the provided notes, it’s suggested that Brown's perspective adds significant weight to ongoing discussions about UAP visibility and government transparency.
      One of the major points of interest is how Brown frames the conversation around UAPs. Instead of just adding to the chatter, he seems to hint at deeper layers of understanding that haven’t been fully explored. Given the history of UAP reports and the government’s fluctuating stance on their existence, this could be crucial for how the public perceives these encounters moving forward.
      However, what stands out is the lack of verifiable evidence presented in the summary notes. Brown’s claims are compelling, but without specific examples or case studies, it’s difficult to gauge their validity. This makes me wonder how much of what he says can be substantiated. His insights are valuable, but they also underscore the need for tangible proof in a field that is often marred by speculation.
      Furthermore, the comments from viewers seem to reflect a mix of skepticism and intrigue. Many are eager for more details, while others caution against jumping to conclusions without hard evidence. This is a critical point for anyone following the evolution of UAP discussions—balancing curiosity with a healthy skepticism is essential.
      As we wait for more concrete information, it raises an important question: how can we best separate genuine insights from speculative claims in the realm of UAPs? With figures like Matthew Brown speaking out, it’s crucial to critically assess the content and push for transparency in evidence. What do you think is the best approach for evaluating claims made by whistleblowers in this field?
    • By SpaceObserver
      Recent discussions around dark matter have been reignited with the announcement of the first potential detection of a dark matter particle. This event not only captures the imagination but also stands as a pivotal moment in our ongoing quest to understand the universe's unseen components.
      In the video, John Michael Godier explores the findings related to the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, which aims to observe dark matter interactions. The study, "Search for dark matter particle interactions in an extended nuclear recoil energy window with the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment" by Akerib et al., outlines the experimental framework and the significance of these potential detections. The implications of this research could help answer longstanding questions about the composition of our universe, which is thought to be made up of approximately 27% dark matter, yet remains largely elusive.
      What's particularly intriguing about this development is how it compares to previous dark matter research attempts. For instance, earlier experiments such as the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) project laid the groundwork for understanding dark matter interactions. However, the LZ experiment takes a significant leap forward by expanding the energy window for detection, potentially increasing the chances of identifying a dark matter particle.
      Nevertheless, the evidence is still tentative. The term 'potential detection' implies that while there may be signals indicative of dark matter interactions, they are not yet confirmed. The scientific community often approaches such findings with a healthy dose of skepticism until further verification is achieved. The results need to be reproducible and peer-reviewed to gain wider acceptance.
      Additionally, it's important to consider the limitations of the current research. While the LZ experiment's methodology is robust, the detection of dark matter particles depends heavily on factors such as background noise and the sensitivity of the detection equipment. The physicists involved must contend with numerous variables that could obscure or mimic the signals they are trying to capture.
      As we await further updates from the LZ collaboration, it's worth pondering how this finding might influence our understanding of cosmology. If confirmed, the detection of dark matter could lead to revolutionary changes in the theoretical frameworks we use to describe the universe. How might it impact future research directions, or even the search for new physics beyond the Standard Model?
      Given the complexities and uncertainties surrounding dark matter, one focused question for discussion is: What are the potential ramifications for cosmology if the existence of dark matter particles is definitively confirmed?
    • By UAPResearcher
      In a recent YouTube video from Post Disclosure World, investigative journalist George Knapp discusses the intricate landscape of UFO disclosure. He addresses the various complexities involved, emphasizing the need for thorough analysis in understanding these phenomena. Knapp, known for his deep insights into the UFO field, presents a nuanced perspective that goes beyond surface-level observations.
      One key point Knapp makes is about the contrasting narratives surrounding UFO sightings and government responses. While many reports suggest increasing openness from officials, the actual details often remain shrouded in ambiguity. This discrepancy raises questions about what is being disclosed and what remains hidden. Knapp's analysis highlights this tension, suggesting that the public may not be receiving the full picture.
      Moreover, Knapp touches upon the implications of whistleblower testimonies. With several individuals coming forward to share their experiences, the credibility of these accounts plays a significant role in shaping public perception and trust. However, as Knapp points out, the lack of corroborating evidence for many claims can complicate the discourse. This brings us to the critical need for independent verification of such testimonies to strengthen the case for disclosure.
      Another intriguing aspect discussed in the video is the role of technology and its impact on UFO investigations. As new surveillance tools and data-gathering techniques emerge, the potential for uncovering more information about UAPs increases. However, Knapp raises concerns about whether these advancements are being effectively utilized by authorities, or if they are merely another layer of obfuscation in the ongoing dialogue about UFOs.
      In conclusion, Knapp's insights prompt a vital discussion about the future of UFO disclosure. Are we truly moving towards transparency, or are we simply witnessing a rebranding of long-held secrets? With so many unanswered questions, it becomes imperative to consider the evidence that supports or contradicts the narratives we are presented with. What do you think are the most significant barriers to achieving clarity in UFO disclosure today?
    • By DisclosureWatch
      During a recent congressional hearing, former military and NASA officials presented alarming testimonies regarding Unidentified Submerged Objects (USOs) off the U.S. East Coast. This second hearing on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAPs) raised new questions about what might be lurking beneath the waves and the implications for national security. The emphasis on USOs adds a unique dimension to the ongoing discussions about UAPs, which have traditionally focused more on aerial phenomena.
      The witnesses claimed to have encountered USOs during military operations, noting that these objects demonstrate capabilities far beyond current human technology. This part of the testimony opens up avenues for speculation and concern. If these USOs are indeed of non-human origin, what does that mean for our understanding of potential threats from the ocean depths? The fact that these claims come from credible sources like former military personnel and NASA officials lends weight to the discussion, but it also raises issues of verification and transparency.
      Historically, underwater sightings have often been relegated to the realm of anecdotal evidence. However, the congressional focus on USOs signals a shift in how such phenomena are perceived by government entities. The acknowledgment that there may be objects operating undetected in our oceans presents a significant challenge to existing maritime security frameworks. With advancements in technology, monitoring and engaging these USOs could become a pressing need for defense agencies.
      One key challenge that remains is the lack of specific data supporting these claims. While the testimonies provide intriguing insights, they do not come with the robust documentation often demanded in scientific discourse. A lack of concrete evidence can lead to skepticism among those in the scientific community and the public. As discussions unfold, it will be crucial for the government to provide more than just verbal testimonies to substantiate these claims.
      Moreover, this hearing comes at a time when societal interest in UAPs is surging. With the recent push for disclosure and transparency regarding UFOs, the focus on USOs could further fuel public curiosity and demand for information. The ocean is still one of the least explored places on Earth, and if USOs are real, it could mean that our understanding of both the ocean and potential extraterrestrial life is far from complete.
      As we consider the implications of these testimonies, a critical question emerges: What steps should be taken to investigate these USOs further, and how can we balance national security interests with the public's right to know? The testimony underscores a complex interplay of scientific inquiry, military secrecy, and public accountability that will be essential as this dialogue progresses.
×
×
  • Create New...