How Would You Use an Infinite Research Budget?

Avi Loeb Medium · April 14

1*NXUHFUurGzz38EWRAsxTIw.jpeg — In his seminal work *Astronomia Nova* (1609), Johannes Kepler commented on the mutual gravitational attraction between the Moon and Earth. 417 years later, the Artemis II crew circled the Moon and returned to Earth, sampling the gravitational potential wells of the two bodies. The cost was 4.1 billion dollars. What would NASA do with an infinite budget? (Image credit: Greg Wyatt)

Today I was asked by students: “If you had an infinite research budget, how would you allocate it?” This is an interesting question to be asked just a week after the White House released the FY2027 Budget Request with major proposed cuts to science agencies. Cutting fundamental science while nurturing the latest technological advances is equivalent to cutting the roots of a tree and hoping that watering its leaves will keep the tree alive.

Investment in fundamental science reflects hopes for new discoveries with major implications to society. The silicon chips used to facilitate the advanced technology of artificial intelligence systems were enabled by fundamental research on quantum mechanics and solid-state physics over the past century.

How could we maximally promote future breakthroughs with an infinite research budget? The answer depends on imagination. But the imagination of both natural and artificial intelligence is limited to content found so far on planet Earth or its immediate vicinity. We know that we are missing a lot about the cosmos at large because we have not identified 95% of the cosmic mass budget. We encapsulate our ignorance by using the labels `dark matter’ and `dark energy’. These are examples for `known unknowns.’ But our ignorance might be much bigger as a result of `unknown unknowns.’ How can we discover them with additional research funds?

1*JjBe3tbTItHyldG4SDyZdA.jpeg — (Image credit: Greg Wyatt)

The answer is straightforward. We should attempt to maximize the disruptive discovery of `unknown unknowns.’ Currently, all research funds are allocated to studying either `known knowns’ or `known unknowns.’ How can we seek the `unknown unknowns’ if we have no clue as to what they are?

As with the search for the nature of `dark matter’ and `dark energy,’ the simplest approach to promoting breakthroughs is to search for anomalies, namely phenomena that do not line up with expectations. Scientists tend to sweep anomalies under the rug of traditional thinking by either assigning familiar labels to them — like `matter’ or `energy’ for invisible cosmic constituents that may otherwise reflect modified gravity, or by quenching attention to anomalies because: “Strange things happen but that does not imply that they mean anything.” Suppressing our childlike curiosity by pretending to be the adult in the room is a common strategy for avoiding reputational risks and denying the interest in a new perception of reality.

1*Hj7n9rmpgeot3HVbtjg4XA.jpeg — (Image credit: Greg Wyatt)

Consider the following example. If a space object near Earth, like the interstellar object 1I/`Oumuamua, displays a non-gravitational acceleration without a traditional cometary tail of dust or gas, it is classified as a `dark comet’ (as done here), unless it follows the trajectory of as an object launched by NASA or SpaceX (as described here and here). Just as the labels of `dark matter’ and `dark energy’ ignore the possibility of modified gravity, the label `dark comet’ ignores the possibility of an extraterrestrial technological object. To counteract this bias, my imagined research program with its infinite funding, will catalog such an object as `anomalous’ and aim to collect more data that in an attempt to explain why the object deviates from the behavior of familiar asteroids or comets. By labeling anomalous objects as `dark comets,’ dogmatists are weakening the motivation of their colleagues to fund the quest for more data on them. In this way, they are locking their opinion into a self-fulfilling prophecy where no data will be collected to falsify their prejudice. The benefit of an infinite budget is that it allows to break self-confirmation biases and circular arguments of dogmatists who control fund allocation in the current system.

Unlimited research funds are essential for exploring uncharted territories beyond the beaten path and discovering the `unknown unknowns’ there. The prescription for breakthroughs is straightforward: take anomalies seriously and study non-traditional interpretations. Outliers that appear differently than expected should be pursued, not dismissed. For them to be regarded as `unknown unknowns,’ they must be distinguished from `known knowns’ and `known unknowns.’ The more data the better in promoting a new perception of reality.

An experimental path for the discovery of `unknown unknowns’ involves sensors with new capabilities. For example, gravitational wave detectors allow the detection of invisible objects which do not produce or reflect light and hence escape detection by traditional telescopes. Known members of this invisible class include black holes or dark matter objects. But other types may include dark objects that make a negligible contribution to the cosmic mass budget, such as a stealth alien spacecraft passing near Earth.

Similarly, cameras with a high shutter speed on telescopes with large collecting areas, would detect new fast-moving objects which currently appear as faint streaks that are ignored in existing sky surveys.

On the data processing front, our discovery potential could also be expanded by employing artificial superhuman intelligence (ASI). Such ASI systems might identify patterns in large datasets that the human brain misses, and pick up new anomalies that would unravel `unknown unknowns.’

Science is guided by evidence, but scientific innovation rests on imagining which experiments are worth investing resources in. Currently, the mainstream of the astronomy community defined the search for biological signatures of microbes as its highest priority (as summarized here), worthy of investing over ten billion dollars over the next two decades. With an infinite budget, I would also invest a similar amount of money in the search for alien technological signatures, such as anomalies in interstellar objects (as discussed here), artificial lights or excess heat on the nightside of habitable exoplanets (as discussed here), or industrial pollution in exoplanet atmospheres (as discussed here). The infinite funds will support data collection on technological civilizations that exhibit similar signals that the ones we produce.

In addition, ASI could also expand the limits of our imagination, by conceiving of possibilities that the human brain fails to recognize. Imagining the unknown may stem from a higher processing rate of all possibilities, reminiscent of chess playing, which allows ASI to navigate through all that is possible based on our full body of knowledge. The faster processing rate may enable ASI to imagine the unknown better than the human brain.

Ultimately, what we learn about the physical reality will rely on experimental data. And as long as we develop new sensors, our research endeavor with ASI could harvest `unknown unknowns.’

In summary, if I had an infinite research budget, I would invest it in building new sensors and employing ASI to identify new anomalies in their experimental data. My research program would focus on the fingerprints of `unknown unknowns,’ which serve as rose petals leading the way to our future scientific breakthroughs.

1*qHP4lf0jRtOSjUFD9i3CaQ.jpeg — (Image credit: Greg Wyatt)

Our current scientific knowledge is an island in an infinite ocean of ignorance. As we expand the landmass of this island, we increase our shoreline with the ocean of ignorance, allowing new opportunities to expand it further. Science should be viewed as an infinite-sum learning experience rather than a zero-sum game.

This is my dream for how to spend an infinite research budget. And of course, with a limited budget I would pursue the same goals at a slower rate.

1*BT53r_oC95KgizVK0caaZw.jpeg — The appearance of a rare bird in my backyard today was an anomaly of natural origin. (Image credit: Avi Loeb)

***

In this essay, I featured four amazing watercolors from a series created by the celebrated artist, Greg Wyatt. These watercolors incorporate inspiring statements by John Milton and Johannes Kepler. This is the eleventh in a sequence of essays, where Greg and I collaborate on the interface between art and science. The first essay in this series, titled “Music of the Cosmic Spheres,” appeared here; the second essay, titled: “Cosmic Waterfalls in Spacetime Cliffs,” appeared here; the third titled “Missing Elements in the Cosmic Jigsaw Puzzle,” appeared here; the fourth essay, titled: “Why Do We Exist?”, appeared here, and the fifth titled “Inspiration from the Stars”, appeared here, the sixth titled: “We Might Understand How the Cosmos Works Before We Understand How Life Works”, appeared here, the seventh titled: “Will the Human Survive for Billions of Years”, appeared here, the eight titled: “The Butterfly Effect of Intelligence in the Cosmos”, appeared here, the ninth titled: “Benefits of Extraterrestrial Intelligence over AI”, appeared here, and the tenth titled: “Übermenschen on Exoplanets” appeared here.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

1*LE3Xlzc3hNG5VDAGlDP8KQ.jpeg — (Image Credit: Chris Michel, National Academy of Sciences, 2023)

Avi Loeb is the head of the Galileo Project, founding director of Harvard University’s — Black Hole Initiative, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the former chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University (2011–2020). He is a former member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a former chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies. He is the bestselling author of “Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth” and a co-author of the textbook “Life in the Cosmos”, both published in 2021. The paperback edition of his new book, titled “Interstellar”, was published in August 2024.

Professional website:

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/

Social media:

https://avi-loeb.medium.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessorAviLoeb

https://open.spotify.com/show/1zhndXkvSY2b8FdjspFpCd
https://x.com/ProfAviLoeb

View the full article