From Wikipedia:
“Abraham “Avi” Loeb (Hebrew: אברהם (אבי) לייב; born February 26, 1962) is an Israeli-American theoretical physicist who works on astrophysics and cosmology. Loeb is the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University. He had been the longest serving chair of Harvard’s Department of Astronomy (2011–2020), founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative (since 2016) and director of the Institute for Theory and Computation (since 2007) within the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Loeb is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the International Academy of Astronautics. In July 2018, he was appointed as chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA) of the National Academies, which is the Academies’ forum for issues connected with the fields of physics and astronomy, including oversight of their decadal surveys.
“In June 2020, Loeb was sworn in as a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) at the White House. In December 2012, Time magazine selected Loeb as one of the 25 most influential people in space. In 2015, Loeb was appointed as the science theory director for the Breakthrough Initiatives of the Breakthrough Prize Foundation. …
“Loeb has written eight books and authored or co-authored about 800 papers on a broad range of research areas in astrophysics and cosmology, including the first stars, the epoch of reionization, the formation and evolution of massive black holes, the search for extraterrestrial life, gravitational lensing by planets, gamma-ray bursts at high redshifts, 21-cm cosmology, the use of the Lyman-alpha forest to measure the acceleration/deceleration of the universe in real time (the so-called ‘Sandage–Loeb test’), the future collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, the future state of extragalactic astronomy, astrophysical implications of black hole recoil in galaxy mergers, tidal disruption of stars, and imaging black hole silhouettes.”
(Footnotes omitted.)
Okay, so the guy is very smart (he even looks smart, see photo at left), can do hard math, has an impressive C.V., and knows what he’s talking about (on this subject, anyway). Now that we have that out of the way, what does he believe about aliens, why does he believe it, and what does he know that all the other astrophysicists who aren’t buying into his conclusions don’t? I’ll tackle these questions one at a time.
Note his brief includes ” the search for extraterrestrial life.” Most scientists would say, “Is there any, and if so, how can we find it?” (One place they’re looking is exoplanets, i.e. planets of other suns, that might host life.) Loeb seems to think, “Yes, there is, and all we have to do is find it.” So there you have what he believes about aliens.
As for the second question, he thinks the evidence dropped into astronomers’ laps. In 2017, they made the first-ever observation of an object in our solar system that didn’t originate in our solar system (the technical term for such objects is “interstellar”). Dubbed ‘Oumuamua (Hawaiian for “scout” or “messenger”), a pair of reputable astronomers postulated that it was a splinter from a planet that broke up. Loeb had other ideas; he thought it was a “light sail.” For an explanation, of sorts, of how his mind got there, read this article.
The answer to the third question is: Nothing. He doesn’t know anything they don’t know. Unless he’s one of them.
I’d keep an eye on this guy. For changes in skin color and texture, extra eyes, tentacles, things like that. Look for these things when he doesn’t know you’re watching, because a real alien posing as a human to gather information about us and our defenses (i.e., a spy) will keep up appearances around humans. If you know what I mean.
Look, people who know as much about what’s out there don’t just drop into Harvard. How many of your neighbors can calculate distances between stars, or the masses of black holes, or can build a solar-powered spaceship? I’ll bet none. And don’t say “textbooks,” because there weren’t any textbooks on this stuff when he came along, he wrote them. Where did that come from?
As for me, I say ‘Oumuamua is a rock. In the artist’s depicture below, it even looks like a rock. Maybe with some ice on it. I say that, not because I know anything about it — I don’t — but because an esteemed conclave of astronomers and astrophysicists took a vote, and elected it a rock. To wit:
“In late 2018 Loeb and his co-author Shmuel Bialy, a Harvard postdoctoral fellow, published a paper* in the Astrophysical Journal Letters arguing that ‘Oumuamua had been nothing less than humanity’s first contact with an artifact of extraterrestrial intelligence. The paper has been a smash hit with journalists but has fallen flat with most of Loeb’s astrobiology-focused peers, who insist that, while strange, ‘Oumuamua’s properties still place it well within the realm of natural phenomena.”
(* I left the link in, because I know you’ll want to read his paper.)
Of course, they have ulterior motives:
“To claim otherwise, Loeb’s critics say, is cavalier at best and destructive at worst for the long struggle to remove the stigma of credulous UFO and alien-abduction reports from what should unquestionably be a legitimate field of scientific inquiry.”
In other words, being called “nerds,” is bad enough; they don’t want to be labeled “kooks,” too — it might affect their funding. But Loeb has his own axe to grind, namely his “book Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life beyond Earth, which is just as much about the author’s life story,” i.e. he has books to sell and royalties to earn to pay for whatever it is he wants (a bigger telescope?).
Scientific American interviewed Loeb here (their article is where the quotes above, except the Wikipedia quote, came from), and the first thing he did was complain about all the media interviews he had to do, after saying we’ve been visited by aliens, in order to sell copies of his book. Plus “10 filmmakers and producers from Hollywood who contacted me … if a film comes out of this, I want to be played by Brad Pitt.”
Then he says, “My routine is to wake up each morning at 5 A.M. and go jogging.” I ask you, what kind of nut goes jogging at 5:00 a.m. every day?
Next, the interviewer says,
“Speaking of important things, here is one I think we both agree on: in science, we must keep each other honest. I mention it only because there’s a point in Extraterrestrial where you claim you don’t want the limelight and that you’re not interested in self-promotion. How can that be true?”
and Loeb replies,
“Let me explain. I think talking to the media is an important opportunity because it allows me to share my message with a broader audience that otherwise would not have exposure to it. … My message is that something is wrong with the scientific community today in terms of its health.”
Well, hey … all of us. I, a non-scientist, have doctor visits, too. Expanding on this theme, he adds,
“Too many scientists are now mostly motivated by ego, by getting honors and awards, by showing their colleagues how smart they are.”
I suspect some of his colleagues might be thinking, “and he isn’t?” I think they’re overlooking something, though. He might be in it for the money. However, he claims
“the other problem with science today [is] people are not only motivated by the wrong reasons; they are also no longer guided by evidence. Evidence keeps you modest because you predict something, you test it, and the evidence sometimes shows you’re wrong.”
He then talks about getting “high on drugs” and being “wealthier than Elon Musk.” I’m not sure what that has to do with searching for extraterrestrials, but apparently it does. On the other hand, it may be the more he talks, the less smart he sounds to some other smart folks. If I were him, I’d be thinking about cutting my losses at this point. But I’m not him, sooo …
Interviewer: “So speculating about string theory and multiverses is bad, but speculating about alien civilizations and their artifacts passing through the solar system is okay?”
Loeb: “The difference is: you can make predictions and test for the latter, and the speculations come from a conservative position.”
And his test results are? From what he says next, it sounds like somebody has to pony up money for the tests first, before we’ll get those. You could also suspect he called his colleagues “crazy” in the same sentence so that funding would come to him instead of them. He then reads his resume to make sure we haven’t forgotten he’s a genius (I’m not disputing he is, but even geniuses can be venal and grasping, not to mention wrong), and then reminds us that even if we pony up for “future telescopes costing billions of dollars,” no matter those telescopes find, “people will still argue about it forever.” So what’s the point? His point is,
“my point is that with these same instruments—you don’t need any extra investment of funds—you can actually get conclusive evidence for life, intelligence and technology. What would that be? Industrial pollution in the … atmosphere”
of exoplanets. Now, keep in mind here that we’re still on the second question, i.e., why does he believe in aliens? Actually, it’s the interview who answers:
” … you say believing ‘Oumuamua is an alien artifact would be a net good because it could catalyze a revolution in space science and technology centered around a more vigorous search for life and intelligence beyond Earth. Even if that hunt finds no aliens, your reasoning goes, we’d still gain a much deeper understanding of our cosmic context. And the investments behind it would enhance our ability to answer other questions about the universe and perhaps even help stave off our own extinction.”
Now you know the why: To get money to keep researchers like him in business (when they’re not writing books to raise personal cash). As Loeb himself admits,
“By and large, the public funds science. And the public is extremely interested in the search for alien life.”
And therefore, he says, he has to look for alien life and the public has to give him money so he can. This is what’s known as “circular reasoning,” and it’s not very reputable in intellectual circles (you can look it up here), even when money isn’t involved. Money just makes it more crass and brazen.
Then the interviewer asks Loeb if he’s martyring himself (in his profession, of course). Loeb replies, “No one has violently assaulted me or anything like that. Maybe people talk behind my back.” Maybe? He thinks “maybe”?? Which, of course, is an admission they do. These snakes in lab coats know each other quite well, thank you.
The interviewer then gets around to asking, “Someone could uncharitably say what you are really doing here is attempting to curry further favor with wealthy benefactors ….” And Loeb replies, “I can’t deny the fact that …” (if you want to know the rest of what he said, go to the link I provided and read the article).
I’ll give you a spoiler about the article, though: Loeb never gets around to proving that ‘Oumuamua is a spaceship, not a rock. I haven’t read his book (and don’t intend to; you can read only so many books in a lifetime), but I’ll bet he doesn’t prove it there, either. The reason I say that — and it’s a perfectly good reason — is that if he did, the other astrophysicists would get on board, and they haven’t. So something’s missing. What’s missing is evidence. He doesn’t have any. He’s speculating, and in science, that’s not good enough to establish something as factual.
You might say he’s the Donald Trump of SETI, but that’s stretching the analogy by parsecs; like Trump, he’s an attention-seeker, but unlike Trump, he has a resume, knows what he’s talking about in general, admits he’s speculating and doing it for money, and he doesn’t claim the election was stolen.
Related story: The UFO report didn’t say aliens don’t exist. But that doesn’t mean they do. (Read it here)
