Jump to content

A Q&A on the Scientific Search for Extraterrestrials with a Classroom in Sweden

Avi Loeb Medium
 Share

Recommended Posts

Avi Loeb Medium Newbie

Avi Loeb Medium

Posted
Posted
1*LuV2V6-V6YBfIuwSfufa0g.jpeg
(Image credit: Getty Images/HISTORY Channel)

Below is the transcript of a Questions and Answers session that I had on April 13, 2026 with a class full of students in Sweden, taught by Professor Henrik Nordvall.

***

Q: First, we will give you the chance to say a few words about yourself.

A: I haven’t changed much since I was a small child. I grew up on a farm and was interested mainly in nature. That’s pretty much what I am right now. I don’t care how many likes I get on social media, and my main focus is in trying to understand our cosmic environment, nature, without any prejudice, without assuming that we are at the top of the food chain.

Q: The first question relates to methods and technology and research practice. It’s kind of an umbrella category: which practical and methodological challenges are the most decisive when conducting research on unidentified phenomena, such as in the Galileo Project?

A: The most important thing is to pay attention to anomalies, which are behaviors that do not line up with what we expect. And you might say, well, it’s obvious if there is something that we don’t expect. Everyone would be curious to know what it is, but that’s not the case.

If you spend some time in academia, what you would find is that most scientists worry about their reputation. They do not want to take risks. And they often build their stature and self-esteem on past knowledge. So, they know that every object in the sky must be either a rock or an iceberg, an asteroid or a comet. And so, as a result of that, even if the object does not behave like a rock, they would say, well, it’s a dark comet. It’s a rock of a type that we’ve never seen before, but it’s still a rock. Now, I should say it’s not just the problem of comet experts.

It’s also true of any branch of science including fundamental physics or cosmology, because right now we don’t know what 95% of the content of the universe is. We give it a name; we call it dark matter. This is matter that is invisible. We call it dark energy. This is energy that is invisible. We have no idea what it is. Both of these. And, you know, for the past century or so, we’ve been searching for clues that will tell us what it is, but we call it matter and energy. Why do we label it matter and energy? Because then we feel comfortable that we pretty much understand what these things are. They’re just a different form of matter, a different form of energy. But just think about these names. It may be neither of these. It may be just modified gravity. It may well be that the way we describe gravity, Einstein’s theory of gravity, is incomplete. And because of that, we have these ghosts. We believe that there are dark matter and dark energy, even though it’s just a modified form of gravity. We use equations that are not adequate, and therefore we infer these additional components. But we haven’t found what they are. So, by labeling these components as matter and energy, cosmologies feel comfortable and then they don’t even consider seriously the possibility of modified gravity.

And for the same reason, when the 1st interstellar object, `Oumuamua, was identified, it was cataloged as a `dark comet’ because it showed non-gravitational acceleration but there was no gas or dust around it. So, they called it a dark comet because the typical signature of a comet, which is a tale of gas and dust, was not found. So, instead of saying this is an anomalous object, they said it’s a dark comet.

So, you can see how scientists cheat. You might say scientists should be curious and therefore when they see something that doesn’t line up with what they expect, they would immediately flag it and study it and try to figure out what it is. But no, the way they think about it is they already know the answer. It’s a comet. We don’t see evidence for a comet and so we call it a dark comet. It’s matter, we don’t see evidence for that matter, we call it dark matter. And the same with dark energy. And this is a trick being used for decades by mainstream scientists to indicate that it’s not a crisis. In fact, people get a Nobel Prize for identifying how much dark matter and how much dark energy are needed, just for doing the counting and saying how much are we missing. They get a Nobel Prize, and everyone says: “Wow, look at that. Such an accomplishment in cosmology. We had figured out how much dark matter exists. But we don’t know what it is. That’s the truth.

So, the point of the kind of research that I’m doing is to stay honest. If we see an anomaly, what it should do is trigger an interest in collecting more data about it so that we can figure it out. That’s the only way to gain new knowledge. It’s not by giving names to unknown things. If you call a zebra an elephant, you don’t make it an elephant. You just gave it a name of something that it’s not. The key is to make progress in our knowledge by collecting data. That’s the only way we can make progress. And that’s the approach that I’m taking with the Galileo Project. And by the way, if I had an infinite amount of money, I would allocate it to studying anomalies and doing the best I can to figure out their nature. So that’s basically the approach that I’m taking.

Q: Right. I have a couple of questions that that are connected to this. What kinds of evidence would lead you to consider an object such as an asteroid or a comet fragment as being a possible techno signature? And what broader scientific questions, could such a discovery help answer?

A: If I had the the ability to collect the best data possible, then obviously there is a very simple thing that I would like to have, which is a close-up photograph of the object or some material sample from it, because if you have a close-up photograph or you actually get close to an object, you can tell if it’s a rock or a spacecraft. Any person can do that. The only way to deny that it might be something else is by not having enough evidence. If we are in a situation of uncertainty, and we see an object that behaves in ways that we do not understand; for example it displays non-gravitational acceleration without a cometary tail, and you don’t know how it’s maneuvering, and you don’t have an image of it; then you can say: “well, it’s a rock of a type that I’ve never seen before,” which is what the experts are saying. And so, the only way to figure it out is to actually get a high-resolution image, which in principle will immediately tell us what the object is. Or you can look for some additional signatures of technology. For example, artificial lights. If the object has artificial lights and is not just reflecting sunlight, then that would be a clear technological signature. If we see the object maneuvering in ways that cannot be explained, with accelerations far greater than we expect for any comet. An object that wants to stay within the solar system will come into the solar system and could stop, by braking. That would be a clear technological signature. There are lots of those. And in terms of materials, obviously we can tell the difference between stainless steel and rocky material, right?

In September 2020, there was an object that was identified by the same telescope in Hawaii that discovered `Oumuamua, the 1st interstellar object. The observers saw a new object which they labeled 2020 SO, and realized that it’s being pushed by reflecting sunlight. Really strange. They collected the spectrum of this object and found that it’s made of stainless steel. And then they realized: oh, wait a minute, this object is actually a rocket booster, an upper stage of a surveyor lunar lander. They realized that NASA launched this object in 1966 and it is technological. And then, of course, they never wrote a paper about it. Because why would they discuss an object that happens to be technological that NASA launched? But think of what would happen if the same object would have been manufactured by another civilization. What would they do? It is not clear that they would follow on it and conclude that this is actually technological because they don’t know who launched it and it looks like it’s moving along a path that we’ve never launched an object into. So, they might continue to classify it as a dark comet.

Q: How do you interpret objects such as `Oumuamua and 3I/ATLAS, and what features make them scientifically unusual or significant in your view?

A: Both objects showed anomalies, but none of the anomalies was conclusive in flagging a technological origin. So, I defined a new Loeb Classification Scale in July 2025 after 3I/ATALS was discovered. This is a classification scale of interstellar objects where 0 implies a natural object and 10 implies a technological object of potential threat to humanity. alien technology. I gave both of 1I/`Oumuamua and 3I/ATLAS a rank of order 4 because they showed anomalies, but these anomalies were not conclusively technological.

In the case of `Oumuamua, it was the fact that it had an extreme shape. As it was tumbling every 8 hours, the amount of sunlight reflected from the object changed by a factor of 10. And that meant that the object had an extreme shape, where one axis is at least 10 times longer than the other axis projected on the sky. In addition, the object was pushed away from the sun by some mysterious force without showing any cometary outgassing. So, I suggested that it may be pushed away from the Sun by reflecting sunlight. That was consistent with the decline of this non-gravitational acceleration, inversely with the square of the distance from the Sun. But that required that the object be extremely thin and flat. And nature doesn’t make such objects, so I suggested it may be technological. Just like 2020 SO, the previous object I had mentioned, which was discovered 3 years later. These were the main anomalies of `Oumuamua. There were some others, but these were the main ones.

For 3I/ATLAS, there were other anomalies. It was much bigger than `Oumuamua, at least a factor of 10 or so, which means a factor of a 1,000 or more in mass. And that means that we should have seen, many more `Oumuamua-like objects for any object as big as 3I/ATLAS, which we did not. 3I/ATLAS also arrived within 5 degrees of the plane of the planets around the Sun. And the chance of that happening at random is 1 in 500. It also didn’t show a standard commentary tail, but had an anti-tail; namely a jet pointed towards the Sun rather than away from the Sun. And it had an abundance of deuterium that is 1000 times higher than the mean cosmic abundance. It had biological markers in the form of methane and other organic molecules. It had a system of 3 jets coming from its nucleus that are equally spaced on the sky by 120 degrees and unusual for pockets of ice on the surface of a rock. It also displayed nickel with very little iron. Usually, nickel and iron have a similar abundance in astrophysical objects, but not in industrial production of nickel alloys.

3I/ATLAS displayed very different anomalies than `Oumuamua; some of them were geometric, some of them had to do with composition. But again, one can say: “well, it’s an extremely rare and unusual object. So, we might have been lucky that it came this way.” I listed 22 anomalies in a recent summary essay on this object, posted here.

Q: Is our search for extraterrestrial life necessarily limited to bio-signatures or techno-signatures, or should we remain open to the possibility that extraterrestrial life might take forms that do not fit our standard assumptions?

A: Of course. The way I approach it is to search for things that are not familiar. I’m not trying to imagine that they use the radio communication approach that we developed a century ago. That’s what the SETI community has been focusing on for the past 65 years. And I think it’s misguided to keep searching for a very primitive mode of communication that we developed at the beginning of our technological evolution. When you keep looking and you’re not finding anything, that’s not a good practice to keep doing the same thing, expecting a different result.

In my view, we should approach it differently. Looking for a package in our mailbox is very different than waiting for a phone call. And so that’s the approach I’m taking with the Galileo Project.

And I also wrote papers about searching for artificial lights on the night side of exoplanets. When an exoplanet goes around the star, one hemisphere is illuminated by the starlight, and the opposite hemisphere is dark. And so, if you monitor the light reflected from the planet, you can tell at which phase it is along its orbit, just like the phases of the Moon. But if there is artificial light on the night side, or there is heat produced on the night side which is otherwise cold, you might be able to detect it as additional light that has nothing to do with the illumination by the star. So that’s a different techno signature. Another is to search for industrial pollution in the atmosphere of exoplanets, and I wrote the 1st paper that quantified that with my student and a post-doc a decade ago. There are various molecules that we produce industrially, and if another civilization might wish to purposely put a blanket of pollution in its atmosphere so that the planet — which is otherwise too cold — will get warmer. It’s a clear technological signature because these molecules are not produced by nature, the kind of CFCs is that we produce with our industries. Any there are more ways to search for technological. You can search for mega-structures around the habitable regions of stars.

Unfortunately, the SETI community is too traditional. They keep doing what they were doing and recently started to follow the community of astrobiology. The focus of the mainstream is to search for the molecular fingerprints of life on exoplanets by seeking specific molecules in their atmospheres, like oxygen, methane, water, or carbon dioxide. However, even if we find those molecules, it will not be a conclusive fingerprint of life because the same molecules could be produced by geological processes that do not involve life. The astrobiology community is locked on investing more than ten billion dollars over the next 2 decades on developing the Habitable World Observatory. But nearly zero federal funding is allocated to the search for technological signatures, and I don’t think that’s wise. Even though microbes might be far more abundant, the signatures of technology could be easier to identify. And if we if we find tech signatures, then we would have not only evidence for life, but also for intelligence.

Q: Which technological breakthroughs or new tools do you see as crucial for future progress in this field of study or interest?

A: It depends on which signature one is looking for. In the context of interstellar objects, for example, trying to see if any of them might be technological. And by the way, I should say rocks that arrive into the solar system randomly from outer space, but technological probes may arrive preferentially to the inner part of the solar system for the same reason that bees are clustered around flowers. They might have a larger concentration around resources they are interested in. The habitable region might be of interest to them for some reason. And so the abundance of probes that we see are not representative of the average abundance in interstellar space, because we reside in the habitable zone of the Sun.

This requires monitoring the sky for incoming objects. Right now, we have the Rubin Observatory in Chile that is monitoring the southern sky with a 3.2 gigapixel camera, and the hope is that it will discover dozens of interstellar objects in the coming decade. But we don’t have a survey telescope in the northern sky and there is a plan for the Argus array, which will do the same there. So having both survey telescopes to cover the entire sky would be essential.

And then the question is: how do we get a high-resolution image of an object? For that, we need the much bigger telescope than currently available on Earth or in space. For example, we can build an optical interferometer on the Moon that is at least 100 meters in diameter. That could resolve the image of an object like 3I/ATLAS from the Moon without a flyby near the object.

Finally, we need to design interceptors. These are space missions that could cross the path of incoming interstellar objects of interest, get much more data about them, and potentially also mitigate the risk if they happen to be heading towards Earth. This might become a high priority if we identify a technological object from outside the solar system. If we had a high-resolution image of an interstellar object, and we realize that it is technological, we should have a contingency plan for how to intercept it.

Also, if we happen to notice a very interesting iceberg, it would make sense to land on it and bring materials back to Earth, because then we can check the materials for any building blocks of life as we know it. And that’s a completely different approach to astrobiology that is not recognized. I’m the only one advocating for that. Nobody is discussing it among astrobiologists. This approach is very different than building a huge telescope to look at the atmosphere of an exoplanet and figure out whether it has molecules that are indicative of life. Here we are examining material that came from another star far away. And the only reason we can do that is because there was this interstellar object that spent billions of years traveling through interstellar space from the parent star and arrived to our backyard. Ee should take advantage of that. I cannot understand how astrobiologists are not excited about this opportunity with interstellar objects as a new path to finding whether the material in planetary disks around other stars has the ingredients for life as we know it.

Q: What you hope to recover from the ocean in the Galileo project or future similar projects and how would such a finding relate to the hypothesis of extraterrestrial life or possible technical signatures?

A: In June 2023, I led an expedition to the Pacific Ocean aiming to recover materials from the 1st recognized interstellar meteor that exploded there in 2014 based on data from US government sensors. Ee went there and collected materials from the bottom of the ocean. There will be a Netflix documentary about it. I encourage all of you to check it out when it comes out, hopefully this year. At first, we analyze the chemical composition of the materials and found that about 10% of the molten droplets or spherules that we identified within the original material, has a chemical composition very different from solar system materials. There was an enhancement in some elements of like beryllium, lanthanum or uranium, by up to a factor of 1,000 relative to solar system materials. More recently, we engaged in additional studies of isotopes. I should also note that we recovered only molten droplets that are less than a millimeter in size, so we can’t tell the nature of the object. We cannot infer if this meteor is a Voyager-like probe or just a rock that came from another star. Obviously, most likely, it’s a rock, but to figure out that it’s natural — we have to get a sample of bigger fragments because the fragments that we retrieved were melted by the fireball of the explosion, when this object entered the earth’s atmosphere.

Q: What concrete results have you achieved so far in your projects and is there any finding that has been particularly surprising or emotionally significant?

A: By the way, I’m not driven by emotion. Significance for me is evidence. Although you might say that searching for a partner in our cosmic neighborhood is the most romantic search in science. But this is a blind date of interstellar proportions, meaning that we don’t know what will be on the other side. The only thing is I’m aiming high. When I went dating at a young age before I met my wife, I was trying to find someone who is more intelligent than I am. But what my fellow astrobiologists are doing is aim low. They say that microbes are far more abundant, so let’s search for them. It’s just like going on dates and saying that since mediocre partners are far more abundant, we should search for a mediocre partner. I don’t think that’s the right attitude. I want to find something that will give us inspiration, an encounter that would reveal new levels of science and technology, that could bring us to a better place. That’s the kind of partner I want to find. So even if mediocre partners are far more abundant, I would never marry one of those.

We cannot imagine what may be out there because our experience is limited to this Earth, and to only one century of modern science and technology. Aliens may represent our future if there are a thousand years, a million years, a billion years more advanced than we are. We have no idea how they might look like. And so, our imagination is limited. I don’t care what script writers in Hollywood imagine. It’s probably very different. Actually, Steven Spielberg, when I met him one time, said: “Please tell me if you find anything. Let me be the first to know.” He also recognizes that his imagination is limited.

All in all, you know, we should be open-minded and hope for something more advanced and collect data that would educate us about it.

Q: If you made a groundbreaking discovery, how would you choose to communicate it? Would you do it through traditional scientific channels or faster and more public forums? Or would you just call Steven Spielberg?

A: One thing is clear. I also would not waste any time going to Stockholm in your country. Why would I go to a Nobel cocktail party, dressed up, and waste my time in chatting with people, when I can actually learn more about our cosmic neighbors? That’s far more fascinating. So, I will actually follow Bob Dylan in just ignoring the phone call from the Nobel committee if I get one from Stockholm.

But coming back to your previous question, I should say that we are currently within the Galileo Project at a very important phase where we are measuring distances to objects in the sky. We have three observatories that we constructed. Measuring distances allows us to infer the velocity and acceleration of objects that that appear as outliers relative to human made technologies. With respect to expeditions for materials from interstellar objects, we have identified another interstellar meteor from 2022. I would love to go and search for its materials off the coast of Peru. This expedition will cost about six million dollars and at the moment we are seeking potential funders. The funder could join us onboard the ship.

Q: How is this type of research funded and which actors have an interest in the results? Do you see any patterns among interest parties?

A: We are funded in part by foundations that are interested in the research. For example, most recently, the Templeton Foundation’s president visited me and said that he would like his Foundation to be involved with any discoveries we make. So, he provided a generous donation to the Galileo project, which I’m grateful for. We were also funded independently to construct an observatory on top of Sphere in Las Vegas which is the largest entertainment center in the world, about 100-meters in height, and we placed a Galileo Observatory on top of it. Timothy Chalamet, the main actor of a ping-pong player in a recent movie called Marty Supreme, filmed the promo for the movie on top of Sphere when it was lit up as a giant ping-pong ball. If you look at the promo images, you would see the Galileo Observatory next to him. The newspaper articles about the promo said that he was the first person to stand on top of Sphere, but it cannot be true because our observatories were put there half a year before he went there. This is an example for funding that we receive from individuals in addition to foundations that, because these individuals have interest in the research that we are doing. At the moment, we are not receiving any funding from federal agencies, which in a way gives us freedom to do the research with no strings attached.

Q: How do security interests and military involvement affect the research, if at all?

A: Frankly, I find any human-made objects boring. And that means that what the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies are interested in, which are human-made technologies that might be produced by adversarial nations, is completely uninteresting for me. I’m happy to give them all the data that relates to human-made objects. But I would hope that in return, I’ll receive some data from them that cannot be assigned to human-made technologies.

Actually, tomorrow is a soft deadline for a request for the Pentagon to release 46 videos of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) based on a request letter submitted by Representative Anna Paulina Luna. I don’t know which fraction of these videos will be released but we might know more tomorrow, or maybe the deadline will be extended. I am hoping to meet Representative Luna and speak with her about it. But the idea is that if government has anomalous data that can be declassified, that would be of great interest to scientists like myself, and I’ll be happy to help government figure out the nature of these unusual objects. That includes videos of objects maneuvering in ways that we don’t understand, or it could even include materials from crash sites of such objects.

You can understand why the government would be the first to notice UAP. This is because most astronomers use telescopes that are focused on a small part of the sky and are interested in very distant sources of light. They ignore anything close to Earth. So, astronomers will not find rare UAP, but the government that monitors the sky for national security purposes would be the first to notice them after monitoring the sky for many decades with the best equipment. The military and intelligence agencies also have a much larger budget than astronomers. So, they might be the first to notice unusual things, and they would keep the data classified because it was collected by classified sensors, and they don’t want adversarial nations to know about the capabilities of these sensors. And also, if they are unable to figure out what these objects are, they don’t want to show their vulnerability in terms of not being able to figure out things that they’re observing. For those reasons, it is obvious why such data would be classified. But my hope is that if government has data from a long time ago that is irrelevant to the battlefield today, or they have data that cannot be explained by human-made technologies for sure — they might just put it out this data a degraded form. I’ll be happy to look into it.

Q: How do you assess the credibility of the testimonies and the information presented. For example, in the US Congressional hearings on UAP.

A: Science is based on the collection of data by instruments, and you might ask why. The answer is simple. Look at the judicial system, which is attending to reports by humans. There are convicts who were put on death row, about to be executed. And then came evidence from DNA tests that indicated that they are innocent and they were exonerated. What does that tell you? It implies that people were testifying under oath, being absolutely sure that they are telling the truth. But these people were wrong. How is that possible? Well, if you are ever involved in a car accident, then when the police officers come along and ask the different parties involved in the car accident: “what happened?”, they get very different reports. People cannot be trusted. Why? Because they have a biased view of reality. They have wishful thinking. And they have an agenda sometimes. That was a lesson learned from history when Galileo looked through his telescope and saw moons orbiting Jupiter, and then was put in house arrest by the Vatican which had a different opinion. In 1992, the Vatican admitted that Galileo was right, but he was already 350 years dead. And what that tells you is that people have a lot of reasons for saying things. Obviously, the young people here know that from social media. If they use a dating app, they should not believe most of the profiles displayed there. Right? And so, the point is that people are not scientific instruments. When people tell you: “I’m absolutely convinced that something happened”, you might not believe them even if they are completely sincere about it, because someone told them or they thought they saw something that did not exist, or all kinds of circumstances might lead them to say something that is not real.

Therefore, eyewitness testimonies from people who worked in government who say that they know about programs, are not sufficient for me as a scientist. They are intriguing in the sense that I believe those people. They are probably very sincere in what that’s saying, but the testimonies by themselves do not hold water, so to speak. I would like to see the actual evidence. I want to see the data. I want to see if there is material evidence. It’s very simple. And that’s a very elementary request. Obviously, it’s sufficient to see one thing. I’m not asking for dozens of different objects. I just want one. If you have one clear piece of evidence, that’s it. We’re done. If we want to convince ourselves that we are not alone, that there is someone else out there, just one piece of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, collected by instruments or representing material evidence that we can examine in laboratory, would be sufficient. So just give me one thing. I don’t need 46 videos, dozens of reports. I just want one.

Q: If a verified discovery of extraterrestrial life or technology were made, how do you think governments and authorities would act? Do you believe there are any contingency plans for this type of discovery?

A: Some people claim that the government authorities already have evidence, and they have a plan or that are discussing how to release the data. That is called the process of disclosure, and they would do it gradually by first asking Steven Spielberg to release the movie Disclosure Day in June 2026 in order to prepare the public mentally. They might be worried that disclosure will disrupt the financial markets, that it will induce societal unrest. Governments have their authority because they promise their citizens that they can protect them. But in case there is a threat from alien technology that governments have no way of protecting their citizens against, there will be societal unrest. And all kinds of crazies will start going running down the street and doing all kinds of crazy stuff. And so that may be one reason for releasing such information gradually.

However, the way I think of this is that if you were to go to the backyard of your home and you found a tennis ball that was thrown by a neighbor, and then at the dinner table you would insist not to release that information to your family members, then I don’t think it’s a good practice because the neighbor is still out there. You know about it because you found the tennis ball among the rocks in your backyard. So, you know that there is something out there. And that neighbor may knock on the front door one day or may affect the lives of your family members. It makes very little sense to hold this information away from humanity. We are all in the same boat. We should know whether we have neighbors in our cosmic street. For the same reason that the Vatican was not supposed to censor the information that Galileo Galilei revealed with his telescope, we should not censor or keep under wraps the information that alien tech might be visiting us.

The fundamental question is whether the authorities actually have that information. If government does get access to such information or if through the Galileo Project I get access to it, the ultimate goal must be to share it with all humans. I see more benefit out of disclosure than negative repercussions, because we will recalibrate what we think about reality, and then we will start adapting to it. It’s like any other disruption. We developed advanced AI recently and AI is also very disruptive to society. Many of the people on this call may not have job opportunities that they were hoping to have because of AI. And what do you do about it? Do you just avoid the bad news to those young people who may not have a job of the type that they were dreaming about? For example, there are little future prospects for coders, people who write computer codes. In my generation, there were many people that invested their career in code writing, but we are obligated to tell aspiring coders about that job risk in the age of AI. Why? Because then they will adapt to the new reality and do something else. If you avoid the bad news, these people would make career mistakes that would harm them in the future. In my view, it is always good to know the reality that you live in. You must be sober to realize what the facts are and then decide how to adapt to them, how to cope with them. That’s the better approach. If you deny the reality by having magical thinking, your future will be worse. By the way, even rational people, business people or scientists, sometimes prefer to have magical thinking. Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer but refused conventional medical treatment for it for nine months during which he utilized dietary changes, juice fasting and consultation with a psychic while the tumor was growing and spreading. He later expressed regret over this decision since it shortened his lifespan.

Q: What does the scientific criticism of this research look like in general? And are there particular disciplines or groups that are more skeptical? And how do you respond to that criticism?

A: Over the years, I wrote more than a thousand scientific papers. I started in cosmology, which is the study of the universe at large. And now I’m doing some work related to objects near Earth that could be comets or asteroids. What I can say is that the community of scholars working on cosmology is more like a community of chess players. They think abstractly and strategically, they appreciate original thoughts and because they don’t know the answer to many things, like the nature of dark matter and dark energy. They appreciate innovative thoughts that can be tested experimentally. They are not very dogmatic. However, astronomers who focus on studying rocks or icebergs in space make a community that resembles mud wrestlers more than chess players. The thing is that I don’t want to get dirty, so I don’t mud wrestle. Why do I say mud wrestling? Because they would basically bring you to the ground. Get you into the mud, and make sure that your voice is not heard just in order to preserve their prejudice that an object must be a rock of a type that they’ve never seen before and nothing else. I have many examples to report about, including by reviewers and editors of journals, but I will not waste your time on that because I prefer to focus on positive things. Some of these critics want to bring me to a negative mindset where I would focus on them because they have nothing better to do than to criticize. You might ask, why are terrorists sometimes more effective than governments? It is because in order to destroy something you don’t need to do a lot. You just need to put an explosive and destroy a building. But to create this building, you need to put a huge amount of work. Destroying is much easier than building. That’s why terrorist groups are effective, because they can destroy with very little effort. And therefore, they get a lot of attention. For the same reason, you can think about the construction of new concepts or ideas or scientific programs. It’s much easier to destroy those. How do you destroy them? First of all, you argue that there is no basis for this research project, that is completely unfounded, that in fact an interstellar meteor was actually a mistake made by the U.S. government. It’s not real, and maybe it actually happened somewhere else, and maybe the materials that were collected by the Galileo Project are just human-made materials, and maybe it was just a truck that passed near that side that gave the impression that there was a meteor there, but it was not really there. It was somewhere else. And you can just throw a lot of dust in the air and say that you don’t see anything. And that is done by people who don’t want any discussion on the possibility that an interstellar meteor might have been discovered. If this effort is not sufficiently effective, what they will do is take it to a second level where they would attack me personally and say bad things about me. You might say, if this is done by accomplished scientists, criticism is a fair game. But most of the people who write bad things and making negative YouTube videos with personal statements about me, are those who were not good enough to get an academic position. These are people who dropped out of academia. One of them calls himself a professor, even though he never held any professorship, not to speak about tenure track position or advanced research position. He dropped out of academia but calls himself a professor and then talks about me negatively. How dare he do that without practicing science? He is just a blogger on YouTube that gets attention by attacking me without doing anything productive. You just need to look at the resume of people who gain visibility in the public’s eye and ask: did they publish a single scientific paper over the past decade? Why should we trust them in telling us what science needs to be like? I am a practicing scientist. I published several new papers every month, and these people are telling me how to do science. It’s really ridiculous these days that people can get a lot of attention for pretending to represent science, even though they don’t have the credentials for being practicing scientists, and they throw mud at people who are practicing science like myself. I asked myself, how dare they do that? But that’s the reality of social media, a very unfortunate reality of misinformation. There are also people who created YouTube channels starting in November 2025 with content being spoken in my voice and in my image, AI-generated fake YouTube videos. Because of that, I decided three months ago to create my own YouTube channel just in order to fight those fake videos. These agents of misinformation are mudding the waters and people who watch them have a hard time deciding whether their content is authentic or misinformation. And it’s really an unfortunate part of the online culture that we have right now.

Q: What’s your favorite depiction of extraterrestrial in pop culture?

A: I don’t like science fiction. I like science and I enjoy fiction, but not the mix of the two because the storyline often violates the laws of physics and I feel uneasy about those violations. But an artist named Greg Wyatt, one the most accomplished sculptor in the US, delivered two bronze sculptures of Galileo Galilei and fifty-one watercolors that he created to my office at Harvard. But the biggest gift that he awarded me was the foundation for a new sculpture. He gave me plastelina, which is this material that you can use to make the shape of an intended sculpture that will eventually be cast in bronze. And I decided to call my new sculpture “The Alien”. I crafted a body of an alien by imagining what would an ideal body, better than the human body, look like. One thing I regret, for example, is that I don’t have a third eye because I cannot look backwards. It would have been great if we could see backwards as well, right? So, I put a 3rd eye for this alien and I put also wings so that the alien would be able to fly in a gaseous atmosphere. And I put a third leg which gives a more stable posture for the alien and I put some electronic or technological components in the alien body. Altogether, I created a model of an alien and Greg just sent me two days ago four photographs of this sculpture which is now made in red wax, and then eventually it will be cast in bronze. This is my first sculpture, a very different image of an alien than you find in science fiction movies. But that’s what my imagination produces. And once the bronze sculpture is done, I’ll be glad to show you how it looks. The images of the wax version are available on my recent post here.

Q: How do you think pop culture representations influence our view of extraterrestrial life? Like, for example, the idea that they would be humanoid and they would be similar to us.

A: I think pop culture affected a lot. It also affected testimonies of potential pilots that may have been retrieved along with materials from crash sites. But I would be really surprised if these imagined humanoid figures represent reality because if they arrived from a distant star, then the trip must have been very long, and biological bodies are not designed to survive such a long journey, while being exposed to energetic particles, cosmic rays. Just going to a low-gravity environment removes about 1.5% per month of the bone mass in our body and that means if we stay for several years on the Moon, our body would crumble, not to speak about the exposure to cosmic rays and micrometeorites without the protection of an atmosphere. A micrometeorite hit would pierce through our body like a bullet. Small micrometeorites burn up in the Earth’s atmosphere so we don’t think about the risk from them. The Earth’s atmosphere is like a womb, protecting us from a lot of the risks in outer space, such as cosmic rays and micrometeorites. All in all, the human body is not suitable for long distance travel, despite what you see in science fiction movies like “Project Hail Mary” — where a human survives a long trip to another star — making very little sense. I believe that sending robots with AI would make much more sense because they will not get bored during the journey, their material structure will be sustainable for long trips and they would not suffer in a low gravity environment. Therefore, if I imagine an alien visit my guess is that it involves a craft or probe being controlled by artificial intelligence, not by natural intelligence. That is why I’m a little bit skeptical about humanoids.

Q: How do how do you interpret recurring descriptions of UFOs with strong lights on them? Could such lights serve a function if they were extraterrestrial crafts, or do they rather suggest natural phenomena that have been misinterpreted like ball lightning of charged clouds?

A: One has to deal with each case on its merit, and most importantly, we need to know the distance of what we are seeing, and that would allow us to infer the speed and the acceleration. So, without distance information, it’s really difficult to tell because you can have something flying close to the camera that would look like a fast-moving object at a large distance. But if you have a second camera separated from the first one, then you will be able to tell that the object does not appear in both cameras or if it does appear, you can infer the distance. It’s really the quality of the data that matters. You can’t make general statements. So far, I haven’t seen conclusive evidence for alien technology. I would love to see the most intriguing cases that the US government or anyone else may have, and analyze that data. If there is a clear-cut case, it would be a learning experience. Most of the scientific community does not invest in this kind of research, and that is inappropriate given that the government talks about things it cannot identify and the public cares so much about it. So, our duty as scientists is to figure it out. At the very least, we will help the government figure out things that they cannot, and it will be important for national security. But of course, if we find something that is non-human made, then that would be a huge leap forward for humanity.

Q: How do you view recurring reports of an anomalous phenomenon in the ocean? And is there anything you find particularly interesting or underestimated in these reports? If you know about them.

A: We have more information about the surface of the moon than we have about the bottom of the oceans on Earth. It’s quite possible that there are surprising things down there, especially because there are reports on objects that go from the water to air or back in ways that are really anomalous. It’s possible the U.S. government has more data on that, and I would love to see it. It’s certainly a subject that is worth attending to.

Q: In conclusion, do you have anything you’d like to tell the students in this class who may have a scientific interest for studying UAP?

A: Well, my advice is very simple. Stay true to your childhood curiosity, and ignore people who pretend to be the adults in the room. Because as soon as there will be conclusive data, indicating perhaps that there are alien technological objects within the solar system, as soon as the data will be clear, everyone will start saying: “of course, we suspected that, we talked about it. There is nothing really new here. Look, I actually mentioned it before”, and it will become a common knowledge at that point. That’s what happened with the idea that the Earth moves around the Sun. By now, it’s impossible to deny it and so the Vatican is onboard. But it took many centuries for that to happen. And the best way to stay ignorant is by claiming that there is nothing to study, that in fact we should not invest any funds in the search, in the study of anomalies, because anomalies can be shoved under the rug of conventional thinking. And that’s what the people who pretend to be the adults in the room often say. They tell kids: “I know the answer to your question. There is no need to check it.” But the beauty of being a child or having a beginner’s mind — and by the way I’m 64 years old so biologically I’m definitely not a child but the way I think is still like a child — the benefit of being with a mindset of a child or a beginner is that you say: “Well, you are telling me that this round object is just a beach ball. Let me go and check, so the kid goes to the object and turns it around, checks it out. That’s what the kid does because that’s the process of learning while the adult says: “I don’t have to go and check it. I know what it is.” That’s the approach of someone who pretends to be the adult in the room, but my point is that adults with this mindset will never discover something that fundamentally shakes their worldview. Whereas if you maintain your childhood curiosity, you might be the one to deliver news to humanity. And so that’s a great privilege. It sounds like it’s really a dangerous thing to do to behave like a child, but in fact it’s a great privilege. Somehow, when people become adults, they deny themselves from having the privilege to behave that way. And when I speak to adults, I can see the child in them. Every adult, has some spark of childhood curiosity but they suppress it. They suppress it and that’s why they develop gray hair. That’s why they’re frustrated and not happy with their life. I bring them the news that they can be free of these chains. They don’t need to develop gray hair and a grudge as they get older. They can stay curious. Why is that so difficult?

Q: Thank you very much for answering our questions, so passionately. So fascinating to listen to and we are very grateful for your time and generously answering all those questions. Looking forward to perhaps inviting you again in the future.

A: I hope to have some exciting new evidence to show you within a year.

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 (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

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
      The SETI Institute And ETH Zurich Join Forces To Search For The Origin Of Life
      By UAPResearcher
      ETH Zurich and the SETI Institute announced a strategic scientific partnership today. The US-based research organization will provide start-up funding for a new assistant professorship and associated research activities at ETH Zurich. Bill Diamond (left), SETI Institute President and CEO, and ETH President Joël Mesot seal the partnership at ETH’s main building in Zurich. (Image: Daniel Winkler / ETH Foundation) September 1, 2026, Mountain View, CA --The question of how life originated and whether it exists elsewhere in the universe has fascinated humanity for centuries. Now, ETH Zurich and the SETI Institute in California are joining forces to seek answers. The two institutions have agreed on a strategic partnership and signed a corresponding agreement. At the heart of the collaboration is a new assistant professorship, to be called ‘Earth and Planetary Evolution’, which will be based in
      The source gives us a useful starting point, but the underlying details and evidence are still worth examining closely.
      Which detail in this report do you think deserves the closest follow-up?
      https://www.seti.org/news/seti-institute-and-eth-zurich-join-forces
    • 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/
    • DeepSkyExplorer
      Exciting Developments in the Search for Exoplanets
      By DeepSkyExplorer
      I was browsing the latest updates on exoplanets over at NASA's site (check it out if you haven’t: https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/) and came across some fascinating discoveries. They’ve been diving deep into the data collected from various missions, and it seems like we’re closer than ever to understanding if there are other worlds out there that might host life.
      What really caught my eye is how they’re using new techniques to analyze the atmospheres of distant planets. The idea that we could potentially detect biosignatures—chemical indicators of life—on exoplanets is mind-blowing. It’s one thing to find a planet in the ‘Goldilocks Zone’ where conditions might be just right for life, but the possibility of actually identifying signs of life? That’s something else entirely.
      I remember watching a documentary recently that discussed how our understanding of habitability has evolved. It’s not just about being at the right distance from a star anymore; we’re now looking at factors like atmospheric composition and even surface pressure. It’s fascinating to think about how diverse life could be in the universe, especially given the range of conditions we’re now considering. I wonder how many more planets we’ll find that could fit the bill of being potentially habitable.
      One thing I find perplexing, though, is the scale of these discoveries. With so many exoplanets being identified, it’s almost overwhelming to wrap my head around. How do scientists prioritize which ones to study more closely? And with the ongoing advancements in technology and methodology, what might the next steps look like? I’d love to hear your thoughts on these discoveries and how they might shape our future exploration efforts. Are we truly on the verge of finding life beyond Earth, or is it still too early to say?
      Source: https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/
    • CosmicSignals
      Recent Extremophile Discoveries Might Change Our Search for Life
      By CosmicSignals
      The recent discoveries of extremophiles in some of Earth's most hostile environments have really got me thinking about what life might look like elsewhere in the universe. Just last month, scientists found microbial life thriving in the deep ocean vents, existing in temperatures and pressures that seem uninhabitable for most organisms. If life can survive there, what does that mean for our search for extraterrestrial life in extreme environments on other planets or moons?
      I remember back in 2021 when we first started discussing the potential for life in places like Europa and Enceladus. The idea that life could exist beneath thick ice sheets in oceans heated by geothermal vents seems less far-fetched now. Extremophiles show us that life might not just be limited to conditions like those on Earth, and that’s a game-changer for astrobiology.
      There’s also the question of biosignatures. If we were to find evidence of life on a distant exoplanet, how would we recognize it? Would the biosignatures we’re looking for be similar to those we’ve studied from extremophiles here, or would they be completely alien? This could significantly refine our approaches in missions targeting exoplanets with harsh environments.
      I’ve also been pondering how extremophiles might help us understand alien ecosystems better. For instance, if we ever encountered a planet where life has adapted to extreme pressures or radiation, could those organisms have their own unique ecosystems? It raises so many possibilities about what intelligent life could look like in those situations.
      What are everyone’s thoughts on the implications of extremophiles for the search for extraterrestrial life? Do you think our current understanding of life on Earth is too limited to fully grasp the possibilities elsewhere in the universe? It feels like every new discovery only opens up more questions than answers.
      I’d love to hear about any specific extremophile research or case studies that have caught your attention recently. It seems each breakthrough could lead us closer to understanding how life might thrive in the most unexpected places beyond our planet.
    • Avi Loeb Medium
      Avi Loeb Comments on the UFO Files and Extraterrestrials
      By Avi Loeb Medium
      Below is a transcript of the latest interview I had last evening with Al Arabiya English (AAE), the official English-language digital platform of Saudi-Arabia state-owned international news channel. AAE’s comments and questions are marked with AAE and my answers are marked with AL.
      ***
      AAE: We’re joined now by Dr. Avi Loeb, who is a theoretical physicist and professor of science at Harvard University. He’s also the author of Interstellar, the search for extraterrestrial life and our future in the stars.
      In fact, Dr. Loeb, it seems you’ve written numerous books on astrophysics and cosmology. I’d like to start by asking you, out of all of these files that have been released, there’s been audio files, videos, photos, some of them dating back to 1948, which ones have you found to be most thrilling?
      AL: Well, I felt like a kid in a candy store because as a scientist, our conception of reality should be driven by evidence. And here is a trove of data that the U.S. government collected about objects that they cannot identify. The Pentagon and the intelligence agencies cannot figure out the nature of some of these objects.
      I found most interesting a black sphere that was moving through the clouds. It didn’t look like a drone. It could be a balloon. We don’t have good assessment of its speed because we don’t know the distance to it. There was also an object that accelerated very quickly, much faster than you expect from a drone. But again, without knowing the distance, we can’t infer the actual value of the acceleration. There was a report by a senior intelligence officer from last year who went on a mission with a helicopter to identify an object and saw a swarm of orbs and other unusual phenomena there. That’s a testimony, not data from instruments. The question is whether he was looking at human-made drones, perhaps by adversarial nations. This illustrates the fact that these reports imply that the U.S. intelligence agencies are not doing a perfect job. They cannot identify objects that are potentially human-made, and that’s a serious national security concern. So, it’s a serious matter, and the question is how to resolve the nature of these objects.
      If any of them is from outside of this Earth, of course, it’s the biggest discovery ever made by humanity.
      AAE: Dr. Loeb, the images that some people are particularly excited about relate to what appears to be footage of a UFO being shot out of the sky to pieces. I don’t know if you saw that one, but what’s your explanation for that?
      AL: That one is well understood. It’s a balloon. It was discovered shortly after the Chinese spy balloon was shot down. This one may be of civilian origin. We don’t know because the pieces landed in a place that was difficult to reach. But it was clearly a balloon.
      There are also reports by astronauts that can be easily explained. For example, Buzz Aldrin spoke about flashes of light. Those can be introduced by high-energy charged particles, namely cosmic rays, that entered his eyeballs. The intensity of cosmic rays on the Moon or on the way to the Moon is 200 times larger than on the ground on Earth because we are protected by the blanket of the atmosphere and the magnetosphere — the magnetic field of the Earth, shielding us from these cosmic rays. There were also some lights in the photographs taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. But I found that there are similar lights also in parts of the film of the Kodak camera that were not exposed to the lens of the camera. So clearly these are related to cosmic-rays and nothing else.
      So, all in all it’s a mixed bag, but it’s a serious matter in the sense that some objects here on Earth are not being identified, and potentially they’re used for espionage or other military purposes. Many of them are found in military contexts like war zones, which are places where there are many eyes on the sky, many sensors looking around, and that’s where you expect to find objects that are not identified because they represent technologies that are not known to the intelligence agencies.
      AAE: Dr. Loeb, it sounds like you’ve got a rational explanation for a number of the phenomena that were reported and released in these files. Doesn’t sound like you’ve seen anything that sounds like conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life therefore.
      AL: That’s correct. But, you know, just like seeking a marriage partner for life, you just need one. So, I think it’s worthwhile for scientists like myself to go through the data. In fact, there may be even better data released in the future and we can see if one in a million of the unidentified technological objects happens to be not human-made.
      That would be an amazing discovery as it will change our perception about our place in the universe. We would realize that we are not at the top of the food chain, cosmologically speaking. Apparently, there is a visitor that was sent by a more accomplished technological civilization than we are, because they reached our backyard before we reached their backyard. And so, that motivates me. I’m not wasting my time because at the very least, I’m helping the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies figure out what such objects might be. So, I do think it’s the obligation of scientists to engage with such data that looks anomalous and figure out what it means. It’s like a detective story.
      AAE: Do you think President Trump was right to go down this sort of transparency route? Should these files be released?
      AL: I think so. I believe there was resistance to release them because it shows the vulnerability of the U.S. defense system if these unidentified objects are made by adversarial nations. Also, some of the data was collected by classified sensors and you don’t want to expose the abilities of those sensors to adversarial nations. But, on top of that, there is of course the psychological tendency of bureaucrats or administrators within government to hide the fact that they’re not doing their job. And they can do that by classifying documents and data. The U.S. defense budget in 2026 is close to a trillion dollars and yet they are unable to identify some objects in the sky. That’s embarrassing and that’s the reason for them to keep it under wraps. And I do think that exposing that failure to identify objects is important because it will bring the U.S. to a better place. At the very least, it brings this subject of unusual objects to the forefront of the public discourse and the scientific mainstream.
      But my hope is that if there is something that came from outside of Earth, it will be unraveled in this process. And the best we can do is to collect new data rather than obsess with past reports because we can’t go back in time and check exactly the circumstances. A better approach is to use the best available sensors we have right now and look at the sky and we don’t need to wait for the government to tell us what’s in the sky. That’s the approach that I’m taking with the Galileo Project that I’m leading at Harvard University. We built three observatories. We monitor the entire sky at all times in these three locations. We collect data on millions of objects. And frankly, any object that is human-made is boring as far as I’m concerned. We’re looking for outliers that move outside the performance envelope of human-made technologies.
      AAE: Some of the older files in this dossier date back to the 1940s. Could you perhaps now with the Artificial Intelligence technology we have today finally debunk them or explain them?
      AL: AI cannot improve the quality of the data. The subject gets more attention now because the detections are more significant as we have better sensors, better cameras. Just look at the Artemis II images that were taken of the Moon with the latest cameras compared to those used by the Apollo astronauts half a century ago. Obviously, the images are far better and we don’t see any lights hovering over the Moon. So, it’s clear that using better sensors gives a better understanding of what’s going on. That’s one reason that we detect things that previously may have been ignored. In addition, we can do much better follow-up research now with those excellent sensors that we have. Of course, there is more cluttering as there are more than ten thousand communication satellites around the earth and other gadgets like drones that complicate the picture. But I think we can approach it with much more rigor and I do hope that this release would lead to more research on this subject in the future so that we can tell if we are being visited by some cosmic neighbor, and whether there is a smarter kid on our cosmic block.
      AAE: Statistically, we’re more likely today than ever to capture moving images or close-up photos of any inexplicable UFOs or whatever else that we might capture because every human pretty much on this planet nowadays has a smartphone in their pockets. Are you hopeful therefore that we will perhaps within our lifetime see something that is conclusive evidence one way or the other?
      AL: One can be hopeful. UFOs are a mixed bag and most of the objects would be human-made or natural phenomena that we don’t fully understand. But we have to separate the wheat from the chaff. The key in doing science is not to detect a signal, but show that the signal is not just noise, name that a UFO is not just something that we don’t fully understand that happens to be in our neighborhood.
      We also detect objects from outside the solar system in the form of interstellar objects. Over the past decade, astronomers detected them for the first time in history. So, that gives us an additional opportunity. The Rubin Observatory in Chile uses a camera of 3.2 gigapixels monitoring the southern sky every four nights and that would give us a much more data than before. So, all in all, I think we are at an exciting time and we should keep our eyes open.
      I have the hope that we might find intelligence in outer space because when watching the news about geopolitics every day, I realize that there is room for improvement regarding human intelligence. So, my hope is that discovering alien intelligence will inspire us to do better. Encountering it will resemble a knock on the door by a neighbor. When the family hears that from inside the house, all the loud arguments quiet down. So, my hope is it will bring all of us to a better place because we would realize all humans here on Earth are in the same boat and should cooperate instead of fighting each other.
      AAE: It’s a very good point actually, and it would certainly dissolve the separation between `us’ and `them’ among humans in the sense that we have this common unknown entity out there somewhere. But I want to ask you why you think there’s so much secrecy surrounding these files and who we keeping the secret from?
      AL: As we’ve been saying this is something that should be of common interest to every human on the planet if you look at it from a scientific perspective, but from a national security perspective — the sensors being used are classified. You don’t want adversarial nations to be aware of their capabilities, and moreover, not identifying objects shows vulnerabilities. If these are human-made objects, then it means that the defense of the U.S. has holes in it. As you know, there was the Chinese spy balloon, and obviously there could be many more of them hovering over the U.S. and getting surveillance data. So, if the US implies that they cannot really figure out the identity of those objects, and the Chinese know about it, then they will put even more. So, there are good reasons why the Pentagon or the national intelligence agencies prefer to keep it under wraps. An additional incentive is for them not to be scrutinized by the U.S. Congress that they’re not doing their job. But if you look at data from decades ago, of course it’s not relevant for the battle field today. So, my hope is eventually there will be access to interesting data, and if it all turns out that all UFOs are human-made, so be it. It’s good to know that we’re not being visited.
      When you imagine a dating partner of interstellar proportions from another star, you never know whether it will be friendly or maybe a serial killer. It’s a blind date. So, it’s good to check our cosmic environment just to make sure that we are not being visited. And if we are not, then we can then conclude that at least locally we are alone. We don’t know on the large scale of the Milky Way galaxy, perhaps there are other civilizations, but they’re not making their way to our backyard.
      AAE: Is it just me or has there been a massive uptick in the last few months when this whole concept of discussing life beyond our planet? We’ve heard former President Obama talking about it in recent weeks saying that he thinks aliens do exist. President Trump has been making comments about this as he released the second of these batches of files. Why do you think this uptick of interest is happening right now?
      AL: I do think this subject belongs to the mainstream because there are billions of Earth-Sun analogs within the Milky Way galaxy alone. And it’s like seeing billions of houses on the street that are resemble your house. Now, the mainstream of the astronomy community says: “Well, these houses probably have microbes. So, let’s look for microbes.” They choose to invest 10 billion dollars over the next two decades in the next space telescope called the Habitable World Observatory. But when I went on blind dates before I met my wife, I was aiming high, not low. I was not looking for the most mediocre dating partners that are everywhere. I was looking for someone who is more intelligent than I am. And I think we should adapt that strategy in the search for extraterrestrial life within the scientific community. This should be a subject that is discussed openly.
      Of course, there are lots of crackpots that come up with ideas or stories that make no sense, but that should not prevent us from discussing the obvious possibility that most of the stars formed billions of years before the Sun and there were civilizations before us, because we could learn from them. They can produce technological signatures that are easier to detect than the chemical fingerprints of microbes. And so, we should invest similar levels of funding in the search for technological signatures as we do in the search for biological signatures. Right now, nearly all the federal money goes to the search for microbes, and I just don’t think it’s the right approach. I think we should discuss it openly as former President Obama indicated and as President Trump just did. This is a subject I’ve been promoting over the past decade or so because I think it belongs to the mainstream, and it could foster the most important scientific discovery made.
      “Are we alone?” is the most romantic question in science. We would observe the universe differently if we find partners out there. Right now, all the textbooks, some of which I’ve written, focus on the universe as a collection of matter and radiation. But if it has intelligent beings, we can connect to it emotionally. These would be the siblings in our family and it will also imply for any religious person that God is not a parent that attends only to one child.
      AAE: One of the places that is the most suitable location for observing the night sky is the country that I’m speaking to you from, Saudi Arabia, because there are vast areas with dark night skies that are free of light pollution, and what’s called astro-tourism is apparently something that is taking off in in in this particular country. So, by this logic, shouldn’t the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have a high number of sightings of UFOs and inexplicable objects in the night sky?
      AL: Potentially, yes. But the number of detected unidentified objects depends on how many people are looking up and how many observatories are constructed. I would highly recommend putting more observatories in the country that you’re in.
      One thing about the lights coming from Earth is that, in principle, they can be seen from space, and Saudi Arabia has very bright parts that are probably visible all the way to the Moon. Someone out there could be looking at us, and we should be looking back at them. I once calculated how far away would the city like Tokyo be observable with the Hubble Space Telescope, and the answer is all the way to the distance of Pluto. So, if there was a city like Tokyo on Pluto, we would be able to see it with a Hubble Space Telescope. The only thing we need is the curiosity to motivate us to look up. Because most of the time we just focus on down-to-Earth matters. As kids, we are curious, but we lose that curiosity as we become adults. And all that I’m recommending is to maintain our childhood curiosity, because that will bring us to a better place where eventually all humans would be more cooperative than they are right now.
      AAE: We’ve talked about some of what’s been in these files, the green orbs, the discs, the fireballs that are described in there. And I want to ask you about your own sort of evolution in this field and the evolution of your beliefs. Would you say you are more or less convinced today than you were at the start of your scientific career, which was in the 1980s?
      AL: Yes, I’m much more intrigued about aliens today than I was before. First, we know about the existence of planets around every star and some of them are in the habitable zone. So, it’s not speculation that conditions similar to Earth may have emerged in billions of other places within the Milky Way galaxy alone, and there are a trillion galaxies like it in the observable volume of the universe. To assume that we are alone is very arrogant of us, as we are probably not the pinnacle of creation. There is something better than us and one way for us to learn about it is by searching for it because space is vast, time is very long and so that requires a special effort on our behalf to find the evidence. It’s not obvious. You need telescopes to see things and even with our best telescopes, we can see an object the size of a football field only out to the distance of the Earth-Sun separation as a result of it reflecting sunlight. It’s challenging to detect objects similar in size to the biggest rocket that humans constructed, Starship, which is roughly the size of a football field. So, there may be things around us that we haven’t detected as of yet, and that’s exciting.
      That is a realization that I came about over the past decade with the discovery of interstellar objects. The first one was called `Oumuamua, which means a scout in the Hawaiian language. It was discovered by telescope in Hawaii, and was very strange because the amount of sunlight reflected from it changed by a factor of 10 as it was tumbling every 8 hours. And that meant that it has a flat and extreme shape. It was also pushed away from the Sun by some mysterious force without showing any evidence for evaporation cometary gas that would give it a push. So, it remains quite mysterious, and that’s what triggered my interest in searching in our backyard for a `tennis ball that was thrown by a neighbor’.
      We haven’t done so, and it’s a new way of searching for technological signatures. In the past we focused on searching for radio signals. And frankly, radio signals are not used as much for communication today as they were a century ago. The Artemis II mission used lasers for communication. So, it may well be that the aliens forgot about using these ancient technologies — as far as they are concerned — if they had a thousand years, a million years, or a billion years of science and technology. We only had one century since quantum mechanics was discovered. And look how far we went over that time.
      What we know is an island of knowledge in an ocean of ignorance. There is a lot for us to learn and that’s what makes me excited. I should say that I am as curious as I was at the young age. I haven’t changed much in that regard. I refuse to become the adult in the room. I don’t pretend to know things that I don’t know. It’s very uplifting to actually have the privilege of being a scientist when you can follow your childhood curiosity and be guided by evidence.
      AAE: President Trump said as this latest batch of files was made public: “Let the people decide for themselves, quote, what the hell is going on.” Just to wrap up this conversation, Dr. Loeb, you’ve had a few days to work out what’s going on and look at these files. Which of all of the dossiers that have been released up until this point have given you the greatest cause for intrigue?
      AL: I would say none of the objects that we were shown provides clear evidence for an extraterrestrial origin. I can potentially explain all of the evidence in terms of human-made technologies. So, I’m waiting for the next batch of files to be released. I’m sure the government has better data and they also potentially have some materials that were retrieved from crash sites, the way that some testimonies in Congress under oath were mentioning. I’m looking forward to that. Even if the government wants to keep this data classified, it would make sense to have a board or a committee with proper clearance that looks into the classified data and recommends to the President of the United States, President Trump, how to interpret that kind of data and what to make of it and how to move forward. If there is clear evidence for an extraterrestrial origin, we should decide how to inform the public and we should also develop a plan to protect planet Earth. And that would be extremely interesting.
      AAE: Okay, we’re going to have to leave it there. It’s been a real pleasure talking to you, Dr. Avi Loeb, theoretical physicist and professor of science at Harvard University. We really appreciate your time today, sir. Thank you.
      AL: Thanks for having me.
      ABOUT THE AUTHOR
      (Image credit: Lotem Loeb) 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

      View the full article
×
×
  • Create New...