Galileo Project/Avil Loeb: Paper on UAP

[Nemon]

Avi Loeb and Sean M. Kirkpatrick are coming up with their paper "PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS ON UNIDENTIFIED AERIAL PHENOMENA" these days. A draft version can already be downloaded: https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/LK1.pdf

The abstract reads as follows:

We derive physical constraints on interpretations of "highly maneuverable" Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) based on standard physics and known forms of matter and radiation. In particular, we show that the friction of UAP with the surrounding air or water is expected to generate a bright optical fireball, ionization shell and tail - implying radio signatures. The fireball luminosity scales with inferred distance to the 5th power. Radar cross-section scales similarly to meteor head echoes as the square of the effective radius of the sphere surrounding the object, while the radar cross-section of the resulting ionization tail scales linearly with the radius of the ionization cylinder. The lack of all these signatures could imply inaccurate distance measurements (and hence derived velocity) for single site sensors without a range gate capability.

Oumuamua is mentioned 11 times ... then the paper says:

2. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL POSSIBILITY The academic interest in UAP stems from their potential non-human technological origin. Extraterrestrial equipment could arrive in two forms: space trash, similar to the way our own interstellar probes (Voyager 1 & 2, Pioneer 10 & 11 and New Horizons) will appear in a billion years, or functional equipment such as autonomous devices equipped with Artificial Intelligence (AI). Electronic probes employing conventional chemical propulsion and refueling that we currently understand, would be a likely choice for travel within a planetary system.

What are your thoughts on this? The topic is already in the media. One headline is: "Pentagon Report Draws New UFO Scenario With 'Alien Motherships'"

Is Loeb doing serious science here, or is he deliberately triggering such misunderstandings and reactions - and not entirely altruistically, e.g. with regard to the funding of his projects?

 

[flarkey]

The paper appears to be entirely theoretical, the third paragraph noting the possibility of the potential for a UAP to be manoeuvrable craft of extra-terrestrial intelligence origin.

Nevertheless, the coincidences between some orbital parameters of 'Oumuamua and IM2 inspires us to consider the possibility that an artificial interstellar object could potentially be a parent craft that releases many small probes during its close passage to Earth, an operational construct not too dissimilar from NASA missions.

This is clarified in a later paragraph...

Are there any functioning extraterrestrial probes near Earth? We do not know. But the Galileo Project (2021) (Loeb 2021) intends to use the scientific method to explore this possibility, following the 2021 report about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to the US Congress (ODN 2021). The stateof-the-art suite of instruments and computer algorithms of the Galileo Project will be able to study such data in the near future (Loeb & Laukien 2023).

Loeb states the aim of this paper

The search for UAP, and the characterization of UAP, requires bounding the search plan with physics-based constraints on what we are searching for. This paper aims to constrain one aspect of the UAP hypothesis with parameters that govern the movement and interaction of a UAP with Earth's atmosphere to eliminate or bound observational uncertainties. Some data collected to date, while arising from multiple sensors, have uncertainties in one or more dimensions, leaving the exploitation of the data with a significant range of interpretations.

This suggests that he believes that unknown alien technology will still be restricted by currently known principles of physics, in that any hypervelocity manoeuvres will be accompanied by sonic booms, fireballs and atmospheric ionizations - although I would guess that the absence of any of these signatures in a sighting would be used by UFO-fans as further validation that the alien technology was so advanced that it could counter these effects. This reminds me of two quotes - "God moves in mysterious ways" , and Arthur C Clarke's quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

 

[Ann K]

Loeb and others have discussed "directed panspermia" in detail, and the possibility of sending interstellar vessels to seed other planets with DNA-containing organisms; in other words, the possibility of earth-based craft becoming the UFOs of other planets. It all remains theoretical and wildly speculative, but he approaches it in great detail. I get the impression that he would really be exited to see alien craft in our skies, but the physicist in him understands that many sightings have been described in ways that are simply not possible because of their violation of the known laws of physics. But while dismissing the impossible, he seems eager to discuss the highly improbable! (I think the close-up photos of Oumuamua must have been very disappointing to him.)

 

[Nemon]

The paper appears to be entirely theoretical, the third paragraph noting the possibility of the potential for a UAP to be manoeuvrable craft of extra-terrestrial intelligence origin.



This is clarified in a later paragraph...



Loeb states the aim of this paper



This suggests that he believes that unknown alien technology will still be restricted by currently known principles of physics, in that any hypervelocity manoeuvres will be accompanied by sonic booms, fireballs and atmospheric ionizations - although I would guess that the absence of any of these signatures in a sighting would be used by UFO-fans as further validation that the alien technology was so advanced that it could counter these effects. This reminds me of two quotes - "God moves in mysterious ways" , and Arthur C Clarke's quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

So do you consider his approach to be serious science? Apart from the physics he does here? Is it serious science that he refers to the UAP report as a reason and motivation? Is he putting up a reasonable thesis at all?

After all we know about several cases the report contains — and the ones we know as erratic or we think we know and can't be taken seriously. So which cases does he know of that justify his effort and his argumentation?

Perhaps he will come up with some interesting or fascinating research methods. But I don't get along with this way at all, don't know how to assess it. Especially since we know the whole process still has a foothold at Skinwalker Ranch.
Is this Harvard? Is this appropriate?

 

[flarkey]

So do you consider his approach to be serious science? Apart from the physics he does here? Is it serious science that he refers to the UAP report as a reason and motivation? Is he putting up a reasonable thesis at all?

I think he is being serious, and there is nothing wrong with theoretical science - this seems to be a genuine attempt at Theoretical UFO-ology. However, there is fine line between being theoretical , being speculative and doing some wild-ass guessing on a poor foundation. For example, the website uaptheory.com (see disclaimer below) is an honest attempt by a scientist to try and explain not how UFOs might work, but how they do work. The author uses the term 'theory' in the 'well supported hypothesis' sense which it clearly is not. Similarly he uses Aguadilla 'uap' as an example of how his theory is shown to be valid in that we can see the effects of the craft's anti-gravity propulsion system, such as gravitational lensing and invisibility .

So someone can make an honest and serious attempt at science but with some 'out there' presuppositions, There's nothing wrong in trying to predict the nature of things that we might see in the future. The problem I see is the use of "Unidentified" in the term UAP. How can a scientist compare and contrast things that have not even been identified to be the same thing? Three 'UAPs' that look similar could be each 1) an alien craft, or 2) ball lightning or 3) a satellite. If scientists are to be serious re their investigation into UAPs they'd be better to classify those UAP sightings that are not in the LIZ but remain unidentified. At least Loeb has decent credentials and is saying that his efforts are dealing with the theoretical / possible / potential nature of UFOs. I don't know how his own UAP beliefs or biases will affect his conclusions in future work. Hopefully he'll find some good evidence of alien visitation.

Disclaimer - I've had a run in with @UAPTheory in the past, and it was this website that drove me to write my own bit of 'science' in my Aguadilla paper. He even mentions the position of delusional skeptics (ie me & others) on his page. His Twitter feed is very entertaining.

 

[Nemon]

Aguadilla

This reminds me of the Powell Report as a prime example for the epic fail of a "scientific analysis" of a UFO incident. Wasn't it?

I have nothing against creativity in research. But the way Loeb directly ties in with the questionable tradition of the recent UAP reports and processes in the Bigelow universe and also the Pentagon - I lack a bit of understanding.
Does he simply want to entertain, be popular and strike a chord with people? People outside the science community?

 

[AmberRobot]

! (I think the close-up photos of Oumuamua must have been very disappointing to him.)

Which "close-up" photos are you referring to?

 

[Ann K]

Which "close-up" photos are you referring to?

True, it isn't the photos that show its shape, but the measured light curve from which its long shape and tumbling behavior is inferred. Sorry!

 

[FatPhil]

Plasma stealth is something that could potentially reduce an aircraft's friction through the atmosphere, eliminating any noise.

It's a shame about the reduction in noise, as having a plasma emission spectrum, it would have a *really clear and predictable spiky signal*.

Get them to work on adding some noise back so the thing wouldn't be so detectable.

 

[Landru]

This thread is about

Galileo Project/Avil Loeb: Paper on UAP

not DaveG's UAP sighting.

 

[MapperGuy]

I frankly do not see much new in the draft document linked in the first post. Going over well trodden ground for the most part. Perhaps of interest to those who don't follow the topic. Theories I have seen before and guesses based on old observations.

I had hopes when the Galileo Project was first announced that they were going to make a serious attempt to gather new data, free from government control, that would shed light on the subject of UAP. This paper just seems like something to publish to keep themselves in the public eye.

 

[Nemon]

I frankly do not see much new in the draft document linked in the first post. Going over well trodden ground for the most part. Perhaps of interest to those who don't follow the topic. Theories I have seen before and guesses based on old observations.

I had hopes when the Galileo Project was first announced that they were going to make a serious attempt to gather new data, free from government control, that would shed light on the subject of UAP. This paper just seems like something to publish to keep themselves in the public eye.

In any case, what I see in the media everyday now, what the media make of it, is largely misconceived. And I have to assume Loeb is toying with that reaction. He knows exactly what allusions are sufficient to trigger exactly this echo and keep the story running.