Interstellar meteor fragments found? Harvard astronomer's claim sparks debate, criticism

[Admin]

Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb believes he has found pieces of the first known interstellar meteorite. But others have their doubts, and the debate is turning ugly.

Interstellar meteor fragments found? Harvard astronomer's claim sparks debate, criticism : Read more

 

[Brad]

Dr. Loeb is hurting legitimate efforts in this field and I wish he would go away at this point. Aside from that I'm curious about this passage in the story:

"His expedition has drawn criticism for essentially stealing the fragments by not securing the proper permits from the government of Papua New Guinea. In addition, no women were present on the expedition."

There were no women on the expedition???? Who cares? It is political nonsense and I would like to think that these types of articles could rise above the background noise and stay true to their mission, which is reporting about scientific endeavours and the results of those efforts.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I agree with Brad that this article seems to be interjecting irrelevant politics into the scientific discussion. There do not need to be women (or men) included in a science team to do good science. And, Loeb did contact New Guinea and did have one researcher from New Guinea with him on the vessel. It sounds like there is a lot of political BS going on in New Guinea now that he found something, whatever it is, and they want "a piece of the action".

But, let's get to the science. The real issue here is the isotopic composition of the elements in the spherules that Loeb found and believes came from this fast meteor. Compare that to the same analysis of the other spherules he found in the same region that he thinks did not come from the fast meteor. And compare the "fast meteor" results to everything else we know about. Until that is done, this is just a bunch of adults claiming to be scientists while acting like children - it seems shameful - and not just Loeb's behavior.

I am not going to go into how the uncertainties that his critics claim make his statements uncertain (or even "false") are, themselves subject to uncertainties that they are not admitting. But, please, Peter Brown, show me the experimental measurements that prove your statement that "it would have been vaporized into fragments much smaller than the spherules Loeb's expedition discovered." Please show me the distribution of spherule sizes for all of the plausible meteor speed, size and composition scenarios that could have been "unbounded" to our own solar system. I don't think you have such experimental results - I think you only have theory, and that is highly uncertain in the tails of the distributions. So, this argument is not convincing me that there can be no spherules at all of the size found.

I want to see the analysis of those spherules. I hope "politics" doesn't get in the way.

 

[p3orion]

Dr. Loeb is hurting legitimate efforts in this field and I wish he would go away at this point. Aside from that I'm curious about this passage in the story:

"His expedition has drawn criticism for essentially stealing the fragments by not securing the proper permits from the government of Papua New Guinea. In addition, no women were present on the expedition."

There were no women on the expedition???? Who cares? It is political nonsense and I would like to think that these types of articles could rise above the background noise and stay true to their mission, which is reporting about scientific endeavours and the results of those efforts.

That jumped out at me as well. If the expedition made a conscious effort to exclude women for some indefensible reason, fine, call them on it (elsewhere.) But there's a difference between correlation and causality; I expect people of a scientific bent to use logic a bit better than those who continuously ascribe sexism (racism, transphobia, etc. etc.) to any situation in which minorities of whatever flavor are not assiduously represented by their exact percentage of the general population (even if that percentage is completely different from their representation in a given field.)

The criticisms that Loeb is maybe getting a bit ahead of the data seem, if not valid, at least plausible. But an adhominem gripe about not enough left-handed Hispanic pansexual Druids is just bullshot that has no place in the discussion.

 

[jamestmallow]

I agree with Brad that this article seems to be interjecting irrelevant politics into the scientific discussion. There do not need to be women (or men) included in a science team to do good science. And, Loeb did contact New Guinea and did have one researcher from New Guinea with him on the vessel. It sounds like there is a lot of political BS going on in New Guinea now that he found something, whatever it is, and they want "a piece of the action".

But, let's get to the science. The real issue here is the isotopic composition of the elements in the spherules that Loeb found and believes came from this fast meteor. Compare that to the same analysis of the other spherules he found in the same region that he thinks did not come from the fast meteor. And compare the "fast meteor" results to everything else we know about. Until that is done, this is just a bunch of adults claiming to be scientists while acting like children - it seems shameful - and not just Loeb's behavior.

I am not going to go into how the uncertainties that his critics claim make his statements uncertain (or even "false") are, themselves subject to uncertainties that they are not admitting. But, please, Peter Brown, show me the experimental measurements that prove your statement that "it would have been vaporized into fragments much smaller than the spherules Loeb's expedition discovered." Please show me the distribution of spherule sizes for all of the plausible meteor speed, size and composition scenarios that could have been "unbounded" to our own solar system. I don't think you have such experimental results - I think you only have theory, and that is highly uncertain in the tails of the distributions. So, this argument is not convincing me that there can be no spherules at all of the size found.

I want to see the analysis of those spherules. I hope "politics" doesn't get in the way.

I agree it's absurd to criticize Loeb for not having women on the team. Also, whether or not they contacted the proper authorities of New Guniea has no bearing on the results. I do understand why Astronomers, particularly those in SETI, are frustrated with Loeb though. He essentially claimed that Oumuamua is an alien space craft and that UAP are probes sent by aliens to study us. Then there is the name of his project - the Galileo Project - which he chose because he likes pretending he is a martyr for science. Little is more annoying than a martyr complex.

 

[billslugg]

One person made a criticism of the lack of women. Give it that much weight.

IF the meteor was at the claimed speed of 46 km/s and made of iron, then a one kilogram portion would require 6 mega joules to melt and evaporate. The kinetic energy of that kilogram is equal to 1 giga joule, or 170 times the amount of energy needed to vaporize it.

Spherules have been recovered from meteorites traveling at 28 km/second, half the purported speed here. At 28 km/s or faster the meteor is purportedly vaporized. That is one fourth of the energy our alien visitor had. This is why the scientists are adamant that spherules at 56 km/s are an impossibility.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Bill, Just saying that "impossible" seems too strong. It is easy to calculate the energy needed to vaporize something. But, it is not so easy to show that the energy all went into vaporization. And, it is also not so easy to show that there was absolutely no recondensation into spherules.

It seems that this is becoming an ego battle, when it should be a scientific study.

Just do the isotopic analyses and compare them to relevant data on other materials. Then report the findings and have a discussion. Not looking at all because you are "sure" there is nothing to find is an unscientific head-in-the-sand attitude. So, I do give Loeb points for actually doing the work to see if there is anything recoverable from the meteor. Jumping to conclusions = minus points, though. But, I am not actually keeping score. I just want to see real data, not opinions, especially when those opinions are expressed as facts.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, the isotopic signature will tell exactly where it came from. Isotopes don't lie.

 

[jamestmallow]

Bill, Just saying that "impossible" seems too strong. It is easy to calculate the energy needed to vaporize something. But, it is not so easy to show that the energy all went into vaporization. And, it is also not so easy to show that there was absolutely no recondensation into spherules.

It seems that this is becoming an ego battle, when it should be a scientific study.

Just do the isotopic analyses and compare them to relevant data on other materials. Then report the findings and have a discussion. Not looking at all because you are "sure" there is nothing to find is an unscientific head-in-the-sand attitude. So, I do give Loeb points for actually doing the work to see if there is anything recoverable from the meteor. Jumping to conclusions = minus points, though. But, I am not actually keeping score. I just want to see real data, not opinions, especially when those opinions are expressed as facts.

How do we even know it's from the meteor ? It was nearly a decade ago.

 

[billslugg]

How do we even know it's from the meteor ? It was nearly a decade ago.

They claim they determined a long skinny zone where it might be. Then they criss crossed the zone and showed a specific type of chondrule only appeared in that zone.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Do we really have good isotopic ratios for different star systems, so that we could say which one this meteor probably came from if it is different from the ratios found on Earth?

If the Sun was born in a dense cloud that birthed many stars, wouldn't those stars have similar isotopic ratios and still be scattered more or less "nearby"?

I am hoping these spherules do have "extrasolar" isotopic ratios, because if they look pretty much like what is on Earth or at least solar asteroids, this argument could go on for the lifetimes of those involved.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, isotopic ratios have been determined for different area of the Solar System and the stars visible from Earth. This is done by spectroscopy. Given a physical specimen, scientists can tell from which part of the Solar System it originated, or from which nearby star. All stars have different ratios.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am a little surprised that all nearby stars have significantly different ratios.

But, that is just the stars - what about the asteroids/planetesimals around those stars? Since the asteroids around the Sun have different ratios than the Sun, itself, wouldn't we expect the same situation in other star's planetary systems? I don't think we have spectroscopy data on the non-luminous stuff around other stars. How would we know which star sent one of its asteroids to us?

 

[jamestmallow]

They claim they determined a long skinny zone where it might be. Then they criss crossed the zone and showed a specific type of chondrule only appeared in that zone.

Right, but the ocean floor is dynamic and spherules are found through out the oceans.

 

[billslugg]

Each different star system has a unique mixture of metals and isotopes. Minor variations exist within each system.
The spectroscopy requires emission lines, like from a star. We can't examine local variations except here in the Solar System where we can get hold of a piece of it.
From examining Moon samples we find that the Earth and Moon have nearly the same Titanium-47/Titanium-50 ratio. This is so close that some scientists doubt the Impactor Theory.

 

[billslugg]

Right, but the ocean floor is dynamic and spherules are found through out the oceans.

They specify a particular size/type of chondrule as being localized to the zone. Lots of other scientists are questioning this.

The isotopic analysis will tell the tale.

 

[R_X]

Hi everyone

Regarding the search for IM1 and IM2, I may need to open this as a new topic in the community, but I would like to suggest that a group of people from diverse technical fields of expertise collaborate and work on the search for fragments of IM1 and IM2, in a scientific and accountable way, together.

Consider why such a collaboration may be more likely to yield positive results than small groups of a few people doing the bulk of the work, which may not be the best way to find the most fragments of IM1 and IM2.

In a larger group, people can share their suggestions, insights, methods and calculations with each other in the form of a group discussion, with the hope that with many of diverse experience, some may have taken hours of time to work on these problems, perhaps better or thoroughly checked methods will emerge through discussion. I believe there are experts in diverse fields that can positively contribute to this, far better than any small group alone.

Over the last weeks I've been doing my own analysis on IM1, its flight path from the NASA CNEOS data fireball entry, its flight path as given in various papers about it, have written software to process the other CNEOS fireball entries where sufficient data exists, doing my own calculations of the most likely flight path of various other meteors, the dynamic pressures, drag pressures, determining angles of elevation, azimuth angles, writing numerical drag simulations for meteor fragments based off the initial conditions of the CNEOS data, which may be able to be used to determine where fragments may land and their size. I have used other known meteor events to refine my analysis tools such as the Chelyabinsk meteor, where fragments were found, of known size at known distances and distributions from the CNEOS fireball event. These kinds of tools I believe could be valuable to anyone searching for any kind of meteor fragments in the future. If anyone is interested in these tools I could demonstrate how they work, and am open to suggestions to further improve them. This work has already consumed very much of my time, and I’m hoping that someone may see the value in the work, and perhaps even fund or contribute towards the further development of these tools.


I have gone over the papers of others that have contributed to the search for IM1, and have gone over many calculations and methods to determine what their team considers the most likely flight path. I've read the daily reports of Professor Loeb and his team; I've considered the approaches being used to find the fragments and spherules.

A number of things have concerned me. I would prefer these concerns be discussed internally with a group of people with expertise, who highly value the work of attempting to find the fragments of IM1 and IM2.

With something as scientifically important as this and what the recovery of a substantial quantity of real fragments of interstellar material may mean, what I believe we need is scientific accountability and discussion among a group of minds that have insights to contribute, to test theories and double check calculations and methods, so that we may make sure we are looking in the most likely place to find the fragments as determined by a number of experts, and are using effective methods during the search.

I don't make this suggestion lightly and believe it's very likely that after discussion, new insights may be gained, and we may even consider going back to the fireball location to do a second search, not to mention we can build up a framework for fragment search that can be used for looking for IM2, and any other future meteor events.

I also would like to suggest that we should see if there is any way this team could be funded by the public through donations or any parties interested in the results of searching for the fragments of both IM1 and IM2. I think this in an extremely important work, that many people in the public are interested in this, and that much value could come from a group of people that put in substantial work on the analysis of the data, going over calculations and methods, and meet weekly to discuss all the work that has been done, suggest methods for searching for the fragments, and also report back to the public on what the team discovers.

With more people involved with diverse expertise in various fields, there is less chance of errors being made, as well as that better methods may emerge for the search of fragments.


What are your suggestions on how to do this, and should we open up a new thread about it?

Who is willing and keen to have a zoom meeting to discuss this?

 

[R_X]

One person made a criticism of the lack of women. Give it that much weight.

IF the meteor was at the claimed speed of 46 km/s and made of iron, then a one kilogram portion would require 6 mega joules to melt and evaporate. The kinetic energy of that kilogram is equal to 1 giga joule, or 170 times the amount of energy needed to vaporize it.

Spherules have been recovered from meteorites traveling at 28 km/second, half the purported speed here. At 28 km/s or faster the meteor is purportedly vaporized. That is one fourth of the energy our alien visitor had. This is why the scientists are adamant that spherules at 56 km/s are an impossibility.

Hi billslugg, appreciate your thoughts and insights on this, and I've read your comments on this thread.

What many people do not seem to be taking into account is what this data actually means. If for example the NASA CNEOS data entry is 44 km/s that is the velocity at peak brightness (based on my reading of the introduction section explaining what each field means), this can be read on the introduction page of NASA CNEOS fireball website, as to what each field in the data means.

Now bear in mind this is recorded at a very low altitude of 18 km, there are substantial drag forces in flight as this altitude is reached, meaning, that the initial speed of the object was surely considerably higher.

The original velocity perhaps could have been a factor larger than this.

In a thought experiment imagine an object coming in at 100km/s, now the air is not dense in the upper atmosphere, and the object decreases in height the air density increases, and thus the drag pressure increases, and forces of drag continue to reduce the objects velocity considerably due to the very high drag pressures caused by the velocity and current air density, to a point where there is substantial drag forces reaching around lets say a dynamic pressure of 115 MPa, at which point the body becomes very bright, indicating a possible break up or extreme heating of the object and surrounding air, radiating as light, after having lost a considerable amount of its velocity, it records a velocity of its peak brightness of 44 km/s.

I like to keep in mind that we do not know what this object is, its high dynamic pressure that it had its peak brightness event at hints at a very strong material as you know. That it managed to have this be at such a low altitude with such a high velocity is extremely unusual.

If it has high material strength, then we can we say for definite the entire object broke apart? Perhaps parts of the object did, or perhaps a significant part of the mass was ablated, but other parts may have survived the very high dynamic pressures (which may have only lasted a few seconds), especially if parts of the object had a material strength in excess of this dynamic pressure.

Is there anything wrong with this logic. Please also if you can read my comment on this thread before responding.

 

[billslugg]

Thank you for your kind comments.
Te object had a certain amount of kinetic energy when it entered the atmosphere and that energy must be accounted for. Some is lost as heat, some as noise, radio waves, etc.
By observation, scientists have found that when the incoming kinetic energy exceeds about 40 times the energy needed to vaporize the meteor, it all gets vaporized. In the case of this meteor, the incoming kinetic energy was 160 times what was needed to vaporized it. There is no chance any of it survived as a solid or else condensed into spheroids. The hot, ionized gas, due to its very high anount of superheat, would have quickly expanded into a cloud far too thin to condense..

 

[R_X]

Thank you for your kind comments.
Te object had a certain amount of kinetic energy when it entered the atmosphere and that energy must be accounted for. Some is lost as heat, some as noise, radio waves, etc.
By observation, scientists have found that when the incoming kinetic energy exceeds about 40 times the energy needed to vaporize the meteor, it all gets vaporized. In the case of this meteor, the incoming kinetic energy was 160 times what was needed to vaporized it. There is no chance any of it survived as a solid or else condensed into spheroids. The hot, ionized gas, due to its very high anount of superheat, would have quickly expanded into a cloud far too thin to condense..

Appreciate your time to engage with me and check my logic through. I also learned something today about this ratio you mentioned with typical meteors, that if the kinetic energy is 40 times greater than the energy needed to vaporize a meteor then all of the meteor gets vaporized. So this applies to all known meteors, and there is data to support that.

But we need to keep an open mind as to that this may not have been a meteor. I think this is really important. You seem to be very sure there is no possible way the object could be artificial in origin, but what has led you to that conclusion? I have not yet come across anything that leads me to that definite conclusion. Yes I would like to believe there is a chance that the object could be artificial, even we determine that it is perhaps "not likely" e.g lower than a 5 percent chance, that is not the same as impossible.

When scientists do not yet observe something, especially early on in a new field of research, that of course doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. How many times have people assumed certain things didn't exist because they hadn't been observed or measured only for them to be discovered later when we had the technology and tools to find them?

So would it be possible for an object that was artificially made, that possessed a heat shield, made with materials of high material strength, and low drag profile (e.g. shaped like a re-entry capsule) to survive entry without getting vaporized? I'd like you to think about that.

We do not know either what quantity of energy is required to vaporize the material because we do not actually know what the material is, especially if is artificial in origin.

Can you definitively tell me, it could not survive re-entry without being completely vaporized, especially if made of materials that are even decades above our current level of technology with regard to material strength?

In my reply I tried to make the point that we cannot disregard that this object could be artificial, especially with its anomalous material strength, anomalous velocity of at peak brightness (and perhaps speed that may have been as high as more than double the reported speed, in order to register that speed value at peak brightness, after significant drag forces) .

This whole search for the object involves the idea that the object MAY be artificial in origin, and is also an interstellar object, has properties different to all known meteors. This doesn't mean it is artificial, I think we should consider it, especially as that would be a very special thing if it was.

What do you think about a group of people meeting to check over and discuss the assumptions and calculations regarding IM1 and IM2. I have concerns about assumptions and calculations that were done for the search for IM1. Do you have any thoughts about IM2 (CNEOS 2017-03-09), if a search for fragments would be useful? I have done many hours of analysis on IM1, and I'm going to be doing more analysis on IM2 in the coming weeks.

Thanks for taking the time to consider these thoughts.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Now that Loeb has some things he thinks came from the meteor, let's just wait to see what the isotopic compositions tell us. A lot of this speculation and assumption-based computations may be wasted effort if the results seem to show extrasolar origin or solar origin.

Regarding setting up a fund to pay for a self assembled group to study this meteor, I think that will run into skepticism due to the history of fraudulent "Go Fund Me" accounts. We really have no idea who R_X is (or me, either, for that matter), and what calculations he really has already done with what level of expertise. If some university with a well established reputation in astronomy decided to set up such a group, I might donate a bit to that, if that university asked specifically for donations to support their group.

But, to be "inclusive", the group would probably have some "very interesting" dynamics, since it would probably include both Loeb and his detractors.

 

[billslugg]

The simplest explanation for the meteor is that it came from another solar system. I have no need to assume it was an intelligent craft. I can't rule it out, but don't need to invoke it.
I assume it is iron because that is the type of meteor that would have the best chance of surviving and producing chondroids.
I have no interest in discussing the issue outside this forum.

 

[Snowball Solar System]

One needs to make allowances for the possible survival of a tiny fraction of an interstellar bolide, almost regardless of its entry velocity. Atmospheric ablation of a meteor is not a homogenous process where you merely compare the specific kinetic energy of the meteor vs. its specific vaporization energy.

There are a number of possible parasitic mechanisms that can sap energy from an incoming bolide:
- Endothermic chemical reactions: e.g., N2 dissociation becomes significant at around 5000 K
- Parasitic airbursts: airbursts could propel fragments backwards in the trajectory, reducing air speed.
- Adiabatic self shielding: rapid traversal of the atmosphere vs. the finite conduction speed of heat, particularly considering the possibility of internal voids
- Shock absorbing: water is roughly 50 times as compressible as granite and as such will act as a shock absorber, absorbing 50 times as much compressive energy as granite in an atmospheric-impact-induced shock wave, such that relative compressibles will superheat, sacrificially protecting relative incompressibles.
- Atmospheric cooling: wind chill is nearly proportional to temperature, and the column density of the atmosphere at sea level is equivalent to a sheet of water 10.3 meters deep, which provides lots of cooling

I like the theory of panspermia, due to the almost impossibility of killing every bacteria in a heterogenous bolide, and similarly, I think that the likelihood of vaporizing every single particle of a (large) heterogenous bolide is also unlikely. But I can also imagine that the likelihood of finding any of the surviving spherules by sweeping the ocean floor based on bolide sightings may also be low.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

OK, there is now some isotopic analysis that seems to indicate that some of these iron spherules are different from others in the same area, and different from compositions expected of materials from our solar system. See https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astronomy/it-came-from-interstellar-space/ .

"Much of what they got was, of course, normal seabed material, such as iron-containing volcanic ash. But from this, Loeb and his summer intern Sophie Bergstrom tweezered out 722 tiny iron spheres, each about 1 mm in size. 57 of these have now been analyzed, and 5 of them, all from the heart of the impact zone, where they are almost certainly from the asteroid, were decidedly unusual."

"Their most unusual feature, he says, is that they were extremely rich in three elements – beryllium, lanthanum, and uranium . . ."

"The lanthanum and uranium are 500 times more plentiful than in earthly rocks, indicative of a source very unlike anything in our solar system. But the beryllium, also hundreds of times more plentiful than on Earth, is even more important." {Th eartilce claims that the beryllium is created by exposure to cosmic radiation outside the Sun's heliopause.]

"Even the iron in these spherules is unusual, with isotope ratios unlike anything we know in the Solar System."

 

[PROF J CARRINGTON]

It was obvious as I read that he arguments against Avi were very petty, unscientific and originated from jealousy!
Very sad to see that! He may be right or wrong, but one must have scientific arguments not "guessing" or "supposing" arguments!
Joe Carrington