1 00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:02,680 Speaker 1: Welcome to the deep Dive, where we take the latest 2 00:00:02,680 --> 00:00:06,839 cosmic developments, the densest research, and the most compelling commentary, 3 00:00:07,160 --> 00:00:10,000 and just we break it all down into the insights 4 00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:11,080 you really need to hear. 5 00:00:11,240 --> 00:00:14,960 Speaker 2: And today we are really strapping in. We're focusing on 6 00:00:15,519 --> 00:00:18,760 a visitor from outside our solar system that has, I 7 00:00:18,800 --> 00:00:21,440 think it's fair to say, ignited a lot more controversy 8 00:00:21,719 --> 00:00:23,079 than it has provided clarity. 9 00:00:23,160 --> 00:00:25,920 Speaker 1: Oh for sure. We're talking about the mysterious interstellar object 10 00:00:25,960 --> 00:00:27,079 own as three ied lists. 11 00:00:27,359 --> 00:00:30,239 Speaker 2: This is truly one of the most fascinating objects discovered 12 00:00:30,239 --> 00:00:34,000 in decades. But the whole story around its official reveal, well, 13 00:00:34,119 --> 00:00:36,759 that's tell The story just as important as the object itself. 14 00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:40,920 Speaker 1: Right, There was this incredible anticipation building around NASA's official 15 00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:43,159 image release. Everyone was waiting and. 16 00:00:43,119 --> 00:00:47,159 Speaker 2: What we got was, frankly a masterclass in anti climax. 17 00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:49,320 We're calling it the unboxing of disappointment. 18 00:00:49,399 --> 00:00:51,719 Speaker 1: That's a perfect way to put it. The atmosphere was electric. 19 00:00:51,759 --> 00:00:54,240 You know, you have this interstellar guest, it's only the 20 00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:57,600 third confirmed object of its kind, and the entire world 21 00:00:57,679 --> 00:01:01,799 is waiting for the definitive images. The final analysis from 22 00:01:02,200 --> 00:01:03,479 the world's leading space. 23 00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:06,799 Speaker 2: Agency and to help us navigate this, this whole maze 24 00:01:06,799 --> 00:01:10,840 of data and frankly bureaucracy. Our main source material is 25 00:01:10,879 --> 00:01:15,200 going to be from a really insightful and very candid 26 00:01:15,280 --> 00:01:17,239 interview with Harvard professor. 27 00:01:16,879 --> 00:01:19,640 Speaker 1: Avi Loobe, the one he did on Fox thirty two Chicago. 28 00:01:19,920 --> 00:01:22,439 Speaker 2: That's the one he was reacting in basically real time 29 00:01:22,480 --> 00:01:26,159 to the official press conference, and his take is, well, 30 00:01:26,159 --> 00:01:26,879 it's essential. 31 00:01:27,319 --> 00:01:29,879 Speaker 1: He has been such a leading voice in encouraging the 32 00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:33,480 scientific community to take these anomalous objects seriously, to not 33 00:01:33,640 --> 00:01:35,359 just dismiss them out of hand exactly. 34 00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:38,560 Speaker 2: His perspective just cuts right through all that institutional hesitation, 35 00:01:38,879 --> 00:01:44,640 and his analysis is invaluable for understanding the unsaid implications 36 00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:46,239 of what NASA actually released. 37 00:01:46,359 --> 00:01:49,200 Speaker 1: Absolutely, so, our mission today is ambitious, but I think 38 00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:51,959 it's clear we're going to use Lob's commentary to peel 39 00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:54,680 back the layers. We're going to unpack what the official data. 40 00:01:54,480 --> 00:01:58,640 Speaker 2: Did confirm and more importantly, what it completely failed to explain. 41 00:01:58,480 --> 00:02:02,799 Speaker 1: Right and why the sheer number of highly unusual features, 42 00:02:03,120 --> 00:02:07,359 what he calls the colossal anomalies, suggests there's this profound 43 00:02:07,519 --> 00:02:10,960 gap in our current understanding of the cosmos. We're going 44 00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:14,080 deep into the statistics, the strange chemistry, all of it, all. 45 00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:18,360 Speaker 2: The uncomfortable questions that the scientific mainstream seems well pretty 46 00:02:18,360 --> 00:02:20,240 determined to just sweep under the rug. 47 00:02:20,439 --> 00:02:23,120 Speaker 1: We're looking for the statistical outliers, the things that just 48 00:02:23,199 --> 00:02:24,000 don't fit. 49 00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:27,319 Speaker 2: The chemical signatures that seem to defy standard stellar physics, 50 00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:30,879 and these bizarre orbital mechanics that challenge everything we think 51 00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:33,240 we know about how these objects should look and behave 52 00:02:33,240 --> 00:02:34,240 when we find them. 53 00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:37,159 Speaker 1: So let's start with the setup, the drama of it all. 54 00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:41,400 Professor Lowe, he's become famous for pushing this idea that 55 00:02:41,439 --> 00:02:45,759 some interstellar objects might have a technological origin, not a 56 00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:46,840 purely natural one. 57 00:02:47,039 --> 00:02:50,919 Speaker 2: Right, So, going into the official NASA briefing, he was already, 58 00:02:51,080 --> 00:02:53,800 let's say, managing his expectations. He was adopting a very 59 00:02:54,199 --> 00:02:55,919 cautious posture. 60 00:02:55,439 --> 00:02:58,560 Speaker 1: And his prediction was just It was unnervingly accurate. 61 00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:01,319 Speaker 2: It was spot on. He stated publicly, I think it 62 00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:03,639 was just an hour before the press conference that he 63 00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:07,680 didn't expect big news. He predicted almost word for word 64 00:03:07,800 --> 00:03:10,520 that NASA would stick to the official mantra, which is 65 00:03:10,599 --> 00:03:12,759 that three I at less is just a natural comment. 66 00:03:13,080 --> 00:03:16,080 Nothing to see here and that any images they released 67 00:03:16,120 --> 00:03:20,439 would be visually inconclusive, probably, in his words, just another 68 00:03:20,479 --> 00:03:21,400 fuzzy ball of light. 69 00:03:21,479 --> 00:03:24,199 Speaker 1: And what was his reaction? Right after the presentation. 70 00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:26,120 Speaker 2: Ended, He confirmed it, and you could almost hear the 71 00:03:26,159 --> 00:03:29,280 resigned frustration in his voice. He just said, I hope 72 00:03:29,280 --> 00:03:30,719 to be surprised and I was not. 73 00:03:31,560 --> 00:03:35,439 Speaker 1: Wow, that simple sentence, I was not. It just speaks volumes, 74 00:03:35,479 --> 00:03:37,960 doesn't it. Yeah about the quality the science they presented 75 00:03:38,039 --> 00:03:40,439 versus all the institutional fanfare leading up to it. 76 00:03:40,439 --> 00:03:43,360 Speaker 2: It truly does. The official images they just confirmed his 77 00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:47,800 lowest expectations. NASA used the predictable excuse right the government 78 00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:50,240 shut down for the forty five day delay in getting 79 00:03:50,240 --> 00:03:51,280 the data out. 80 00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:53,840 Speaker 1: And the highly anticipated imagery from their best instruments like 81 00:03:53,879 --> 00:03:54,520 high rise. 82 00:03:54,719 --> 00:03:57,520 Speaker 2: Exactly what the Hubble images had shown us months ago, 83 00:03:58,240 --> 00:04:02,360 essentially a faint, fuzzy ball of light. There was no 84 00:04:02,479 --> 00:04:07,120 discernible surface detail, no structure. It was a massive, massive 85 00:04:07,159 --> 00:04:11,400 amount of build up for an extraordinarily marginal scientific return. 86 00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:14,039 Speaker 1: Okay, so let's move past the visual disappointment for a 87 00:04:14,039 --> 00:04:17,560 second and actually unpack the few scientific nuggets they did 88 00:04:17,639 --> 00:04:21,439 give us. This brings us to Section one reviewing the 89 00:04:21,439 --> 00:04:25,519 new data, so fuzzy balls and water signatures. If they 90 00:04:25,519 --> 00:04:28,680 didn't give us clear pictures, what technical observations did they 91 00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:29,319 actually make. 92 00:04:29,399 --> 00:04:31,360 Speaker 2: That's the right question to ask, because when you have 93 00:04:31,439 --> 00:04:34,959 an event like this, the third confirmed interstellar object, you 94 00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:38,519 point every single observational asset you have at it, both 95 00:04:38,519 --> 00:04:39,680 on Earth and in orbit. 96 00:04:39,920 --> 00:04:41,759 Speaker 1: And LOBE noted that a lot of the information they 97 00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:44,319 presented with stuff we already knew from earlier observations. 98 00:04:44,439 --> 00:04:46,560 Speaker 2: A lot of it. Yeah, we already had basic data 99 00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:49,120 from the Hubble Space Telescope, some glimpses from the James 100 00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:51,240 Webb's Guidance sensor, the Swift. 101 00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:53,160 Speaker 1: Satellite which looks at X rays and UV light. 102 00:04:53,399 --> 00:04:55,959 Speaker 2: Right, and even the Test mission, which is mostly for 103 00:04:56,040 --> 00:04:58,959 finding exoplanets but can be pointed at other things. But 104 00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:02,040 the press conference did name check a few new data sources. 105 00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:03,160 Speaker 1: Okay, so what was new? 106 00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:07,319 Speaker 2: Well, they mentioned the Lucy spacecraft, which is an asteroid mission, 107 00:05:07,439 --> 00:05:11,680 and Maven Soho and high Rise. But the recurring theme, 108 00:05:11,759 --> 00:05:15,360 the real disappointment, regardless of the instrument, was this severe 109 00:05:15,439 --> 00:05:16,319 lack of detail. 110 00:05:16,639 --> 00:05:19,360 Speaker 1: So Lobe's assessment was that all these new images were 111 00:05:19,399 --> 00:05:20,879 just fuzzy and. 112 00:05:20,800 --> 00:05:24,279 Speaker 2: That they ultimately offered no new insight into the object's 113 00:05:24,279 --> 00:05:26,920 fundamental nature or what it even looks like up close. 114 00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:29,040 Speaker 1: Okay, let's pit a moment on Mavin though, because you 115 00:05:29,079 --> 00:05:32,040 said that was a key player. Maven is the Mars orbiter, 116 00:05:32,079 --> 00:05:35,360 the one studying its atmosphere. Why would Maven even be 117 00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,600 relevant to an object just passing through the Solar system? 118 00:05:38,879 --> 00:05:42,399 Speaker 2: That is a fantastic point, because it's not intuitive. Mayven 119 00:05:42,480 --> 00:05:45,560 has this unique suite of instruments, and one of them 120 00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:48,120 is a spectrograph. It's designed to look at the composition 121 00:05:48,199 --> 00:05:51,759 of very thin, tenuous gases, specifically around Mars. 122 00:05:51,920 --> 00:05:53,319 Speaker 1: But they could point it at three eye. 123 00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:55,800 Speaker 2: Alos they could, and it was able to detect hydrogen 124 00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:58,560 associated with the object, even from a huge distance. 125 00:05:59,079 --> 00:06:02,120 Speaker 1: And this hydridgen detection, according to Lobe, this was maybe 126 00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:06,240 the most interesting scientific output of the entire press conference. 127 00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:09,360 Speaker 2: It was because it gives us this tiny little window 128 00:06:09,519 --> 00:06:12,920 into the object's physical reality. It's basically the smoking gun 129 00:06:12,959 --> 00:06:14,160 for cometary activity. 130 00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:16,240 Speaker 1: How so explain that connection. 131 00:06:16,439 --> 00:06:20,360 Speaker 2: It's just fundamental chemistry. You get hydrogen when water molecules 132 00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:27,680 ho break apart, solar radiation hits them a process called photodissociation. 133 00:06:26,959 --> 00:06:30,480 Speaker 1: And poof, so sunlight hits the water ice that's sublimating 134 00:06:30,519 --> 00:06:33,519 turning to gas off the surface of three iatls, the 135 00:06:33,720 --> 00:06:35,399 HO molecule splits. 136 00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:37,279 Speaker 2: And you get a hydrogen atom, the H, which is 137 00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:40,079 super light and floats away really fast, and you get 138 00:06:40,120 --> 00:06:43,120 a hydroxyl radical OH, which is a little heavier. 139 00:06:43,439 --> 00:06:46,639 Speaker 1: So detecting that hydrogen lets you work backwards exactly. 140 00:06:46,839 --> 00:06:49,319 Speaker 2: It provides a direct measurement and from that scientist can 141 00:06:49,360 --> 00:06:52,240 calculate the production rate of water coming off the object. 142 00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:55,279 This is the classic established way to measure how active, 143 00:06:55,319 --> 00:06:58,560 how cometary an object is. It's strong evidence it has 144 00:06:58,639 --> 00:07:01,160 volatile stuff like water eye that's turning into gas as 145 00:07:01,160 --> 00:07:02,199 it gets closer to the sun. 146 00:07:02,399 --> 00:07:05,160 Speaker 1: And that wasn't the only detection that pointed to this process, 147 00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:05,519 was it? 148 00:07:05,639 --> 00:07:08,600 Speaker 2: No, it wasn't. Lobe also mentioned the detection of the 149 00:07:08,680 --> 00:07:12,120 hydroxyl itself, the OAH part. He called it hydroxyolight at 150 00:07:12,160 --> 00:07:14,720 one point, but he clarified it was a hydroxyl radical 151 00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:17,199 and it was detected a week or two after three 152 00:07:17,199 --> 00:07:19,000 iAtlas came out from behind the sun. 153 00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:21,560 Speaker 1: So having both the H and the OH. 154 00:07:21,399 --> 00:07:24,240 Speaker 2: It just strongly reinforces the idea that the object is 155 00:07:24,279 --> 00:07:27,879 outgassing water. It confirms its active. So while the visual 156 00:07:27,959 --> 00:07:32,519 data was marginal at best, the spectroscopic data pointed squarely 157 00:07:32,560 --> 00:07:34,720 toward a functioning icy commet. 158 00:07:34,800 --> 00:07:37,759 Speaker 1: But that presents a major paradox, doesn't it. If we 159 00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:43,000 have confirmed chemical activities suggesting this dynamic active object commet 160 00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:46,680 spitting out gas, why were the high resolution images they 161 00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:48,720 released so frustratingly indistinct? 162 00:07:48,920 --> 00:07:51,000 Speaker 2: It really does. It leads you to question the quality 163 00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:54,000 of the equipment or maybe the processing limitations. If this 164 00:07:54,120 --> 00:07:57,319 object is actively spewing out jets of gas, why are 165 00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:01,879 the professional, multi billion dollar instrum images just a fuzzy ball? 166 00:08:02,040 --> 00:08:04,399 Speaker 1: And this brings us to a really inspiring contrast you. 167 00:08:04,439 --> 00:08:06,160 Speaker 2: Mentioned earlier, the amateur observation. 168 00:08:06,639 --> 00:08:11,160 Speaker 1: Yes, this is where citizen science really really shines. While 169 00:08:11,240 --> 00:08:16,279 NASA was releasing this marginal, indistinct professional data, amateur astronomers 170 00:08:16,279 --> 00:08:18,680 were providing something far more interesting. 171 00:08:18,319 --> 00:08:21,800 Speaker 2: A far more interesting visual data point. Yeah, they produced 172 00:08:21,839 --> 00:08:25,399 observations showing multiple jets going in different directions. 173 00:08:25,439 --> 00:08:28,720 Speaker 1: That's just a remarkable feat isn't it From non professional astronomers. 174 00:08:28,839 --> 00:08:32,679 Speaker 2: It's incredible. These are intricate plumes, you know, clear evidence 175 00:08:32,720 --> 00:08:37,279 of highly directional outgassing, and what's astonishing, truly is that 176 00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:40,799 the scientific community is as low put it yet to 177 00:08:40,840 --> 00:08:44,679 see a big telescope imaging those jets. So far, these complex, 178 00:08:44,799 --> 00:08:48,039 detailed plumes have only been captured by amateur telescopes. 179 00:08:48,200 --> 00:08:51,399 Speaker 1: That suggests there's this dedicated, highly skilled group of people 180 00:08:51,399 --> 00:08:54,840 out there who are prioritizing getting the clearest possible detail. 181 00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:59,039 Maybe they're using different observation windows or processing techniques than 182 00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:00,639 the big automated surveys. 183 00:09:00,679 --> 00:09:03,840 Speaker 2: It does. It also, though, raises the uncomfortable question of 184 00:09:03,879 --> 00:09:08,000 whether the official channels were specifically not looking for these details, 185 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:10,440 or maybe just not prioritizing the release of anything that 186 00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:11,960 looked too complex. 187 00:09:11,720 --> 00:09:12,919 Speaker 1: A predetermined narrative. 188 00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:17,519 Speaker 2: Perhaps it almost implies a lack of scientific urgency and 189 00:09:17,639 --> 00:09:22,960 the existence of multiple possibly erratic jets. That leads us 190 00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:26,679 directly into the ongoing debate about its movement. Is it behaving. 191 00:09:26,320 --> 00:09:29,279 Speaker 1: Normally you're talking about non gravitational acceleration. 192 00:09:28,879 --> 00:09:32,679 Speaker 2: The rocket effect. Yeah. If the outgassing isn't perfectly even, 193 00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:36,000 the force of the gas pushes the object off the 194 00:09:36,039 --> 00:09:39,159 path that you'd predict just from gravity alone. It acts 195 00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:41,480 like a tiny self correcting thruster. 196 00:09:41,279 --> 00:09:44,200 Speaker 1: A very very weak one, but measurable exactly. 197 00:09:44,399 --> 00:09:47,720 Speaker 2: And the calculation and debate over whether three itels actually 198 00:09:47,759 --> 00:09:51,559 shows non gravitational acceleration is, as Loeb says, still being 199 00:09:51,600 --> 00:09:55,759 calculated and debated. This is fundamental because it's usually the 200 00:09:55,799 --> 00:09:58,720 line between an asteroid which is just rock and doesn't accelerate, 201 00:09:58,799 --> 00:10:01,080 and a comet which is and does so. 202 00:10:01,120 --> 00:10:03,879 Speaker 1: If it has significant acceleration, it fits the comet model. 203 00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:06,799 Speaker 2: But if the acceleration is found to be say extreme, 204 00:10:07,000 --> 00:10:09,840 or if it's oddly aligned with those tightly colimated debts 205 00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:12,480 we just talked about, well, it complexity itself just becomes 206 00:10:12,480 --> 00:10:14,279 another anomaly to add to the pile. 207 00:10:14,600 --> 00:10:16,799 Speaker 1: And speaking of anomalies, let's pivot now. This is where 208 00:10:16,799 --> 00:10:20,080 it gets really interesting. We've established the official release gave 209 00:10:20,159 --> 00:10:24,320 us basically fuzzy visuals and a water signature, right, But 210 00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:26,840 to truly get the significance of that, we have to 211 00:10:26,919 --> 00:10:32,080 contrast it with the colossal mysteries, the anomalies that the 212 00:10:32,159 --> 00:10:34,679 data failed to explain or even to acknowledge. 213 00:10:34,799 --> 00:10:38,200 Speaker 2: This brings us to section two, the colossal anomalies of 214 00:10:38,360 --> 00:10:42,679 three ILSs, and this is the absolute core of Loeb's argument. 215 00:10:42,759 --> 00:10:45,080 You can't just slap a label on something, call it 216 00:10:45,120 --> 00:10:48,039 a comet, and then ignore all the characteristics that make 217 00:10:48,080 --> 00:10:51,320 it statistically and chemically unprecedented. He has a whole list 218 00:10:51,440 --> 00:10:54,320 besides twelve anomalies in total, but for this deep dive, 219 00:10:54,320 --> 00:10:56,799 we're going to focus on the three most staggering ones, 220 00:10:57,039 --> 00:11:00,240 the ones that just defy any easy explanation, okay, are. 221 00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:03,039 Speaker 1: With the mystery of how it was made anominally number one, 222 00:11:03,759 --> 00:11:07,279 the nickel iron ratio. The chemical mystery. 223 00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:10,799 Speaker 2: This is a deep, deep chemical puzzle. Low pointed out 224 00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:15,080 this very specific oddity. Instruments detected nickel, but that detection 225 00:11:15,279 --> 00:11:17,960 was not matched by a significant detection of iron. 226 00:11:17,960 --> 00:11:19,879 Speaker 1: So they found nickel but not its partner. 227 00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:23,600 Speaker 2: Basically, yeah, the initial data had quote no iron, just 228 00:11:23,639 --> 00:11:26,480 an upper limit, which means if iron was there, it 229 00:11:26,559 --> 00:11:29,000 was in such trace amounts that it was below what 230 00:11:29,039 --> 00:11:30,559 the instruments could even detect. 231 00:11:30,720 --> 00:11:36,039 Speaker 1: And in normal cosmic objects, asteroids, comets, even the Sun itself, 232 00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:40,720 nickel and iron are like they're inseparable cosmic siblings. Why 233 00:11:40,759 --> 00:11:41,039 is that? 234 00:11:41,200 --> 00:11:44,039 Speaker 2: It's all about how elements are created. They're forged in 235 00:11:44,120 --> 00:11:48,200 the heart of massive stars that then explode as supernovae. 236 00:11:48,480 --> 00:11:51,720 Nickel and iron especially the isotope iron fifty six. They 237 00:11:51,759 --> 00:11:54,039 sit right at the peak of what's called the nuclear 238 00:11:54,039 --> 00:11:55,360 binding energy. 239 00:11:55,080 --> 00:11:57,360 Speaker 1: Curve, meaning they're the most stable elements, the. 240 00:11:57,240 --> 00:12:00,600 Speaker 2: Most stable, so they're produced together in similar, very high 241 00:12:00,639 --> 00:12:03,200 amounts in that universal factory. If you look at the 242 00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:05,639 composition of our own sun, the raw ingredients for a 243 00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:08,240 solar system, there's actually more iron than nickel. 244 00:12:08,399 --> 00:12:12,960 Speaker 1: So to find a celestrical body with a very extreme 245 00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:15,759 ratio of nickel to iron that was never seen before 246 00:12:15,799 --> 00:12:18,360 in any comet, that's like what baking a cake and 247 00:12:18,399 --> 00:12:20,360 finding a ton of flour but almost no sugar. It 248 00:12:20,440 --> 00:12:21,440 just breaks the recipe. 249 00:12:21,519 --> 00:12:26,120 Speaker 2: It fundamentally challenges the recipe of stellar nucleosynthesis. Yeah, and 250 00:12:26,279 --> 00:12:29,039 planet formation. It just challenges the models of where this 251 00:12:29,120 --> 00:12:33,360 object could have formed. If it's not from our solar system, okay, 252 00:12:33,360 --> 00:12:35,679 then it must be from another star system where the 253 00:12:35,759 --> 00:12:39,080 chemical conditions are just drastically different. 254 00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:41,159 Speaker 1: But different in a way we've never seen before. Never. 255 00:12:41,519 --> 00:12:44,399 Speaker 2: And Love makes a really dramatic point here he says, 256 00:12:44,399 --> 00:12:47,879 this high nickel low iron ratio is only typically seen 257 00:12:47,960 --> 00:12:51,720 in one place, right, an industrial production of nickel alloys 258 00:12:51,759 --> 00:12:53,840 that are used for aerospace application. 259 00:12:54,039 --> 00:12:56,879 Speaker 1: Okay, now, let's apply the critical ends here. That's an 260 00:12:57,039 --> 00:13:02,480 enormous logical leap to go from unusual ratio to aerospace application. 261 00:13:03,399 --> 00:13:06,960 What's the non technological explanation. What would the mainstream scientific 262 00:13:06,960 --> 00:13:07,759 community say? 263 00:13:08,000 --> 00:13:11,519 Speaker 2: And that's the crux of the debate. The favored mainstream explanation, 264 00:13:11,600 --> 00:13:15,320 as Lob points out, is basically dismissal by attribution. NASA 265 00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:18,720 will just categorize this as a signature of an unusual 266 00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:21,080 comet that came from a different environment. 267 00:13:21,159 --> 00:13:23,159 Speaker 1: So they just invent a new type of star system 268 00:13:23,159 --> 00:13:24,639 we've never seen to explain it away. 269 00:13:24,960 --> 00:13:30,480 Speaker 2: Essentially, they postulate some specific exoplanetary system that somehow preferentially 270 00:13:30,519 --> 00:13:33,759 filter out all its iron during its core formation, or 271 00:13:33,799 --> 00:13:37,960 had some other unique chemical process. It avoids the statistical 272 00:13:38,000 --> 00:13:40,720 puzzle by placing the anomaly in a context that is 273 00:13:41,360 --> 00:13:45,919 unobservable and distant. It's an explanation, but it requires inventing 274 00:13:46,000 --> 00:13:51,000 a highly specialized, unknown stellar factory just to make it work. 275 00:13:50,919 --> 00:13:53,799 Speaker 1: Which brings us to the statistical puzzle, which is maybe 276 00:13:53,879 --> 00:13:56,519 the most shocking part of the whole thing. Anomaly number two, 277 00:13:57,240 --> 00:14:02,279 the monumental size discrepancyco is it the giant iceberg problem? 278 00:14:02,360 --> 00:14:06,399 Speaker 2: This is pure, unadulterated statistics, and it is genuinely baffling. 279 00:14:06,799 --> 00:14:09,679 Based on all the observational data, the object is estimated 280 00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:12,399 to be at least five kilometers in diameter, and maybe. 281 00:14:12,159 --> 00:14:14,720 Speaker 1: More five kilometers just to give you the listener a 282 00:14:14,759 --> 00:14:17,519 sense of scale. That's larger than Central Park in New York. 283 00:14:17,519 --> 00:14:19,639 It's roughly the size of a small city. That is 284 00:14:19,639 --> 00:14:22,360 an enormous object for a comet, especially for a random 285 00:14:22,399 --> 00:14:23,440 visitor from another star. 286 00:14:23,799 --> 00:14:25,559 Speaker 2: And now we have to compare it to the only 287 00:14:25,639 --> 00:14:29,480 two other confirmed interstellar objects we've ever found, and the 288 00:14:29,519 --> 00:14:32,440 math here is just staggering. Three eyes a less is 289 00:14:32,480 --> 00:14:36,039 at least one thousand times more massive than Comet Borisov. 290 00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:38,639 Speaker 1: Borisov was the second one discovered in twenty nineteen. 291 00:14:38,799 --> 00:14:41,840 Speaker 2: Right, And even more dramatically, it is about a million 292 00:14:41,919 --> 00:14:45,919 times more massive than Umumua, the very first interstellar object 293 00:14:46,000 --> 00:14:47,840 we detected back in twenty seventeen. 294 00:14:48,120 --> 00:14:51,200 Speaker 1: Wait, a million times bigger. We found the third object, 295 00:14:51,360 --> 00:14:53,159 and it's a million times bigger than the first one. 296 00:14:53,240 --> 00:14:56,480 That can't be right. That doesn't fit with any standard 297 00:14:56,480 --> 00:14:59,039 model of how populations of things are distributed. 298 00:14:59,120 --> 00:15:03,240 Speaker 2: It completely breaks the expected statistical distribution in astrophysics. This 299 00:15:03,279 --> 00:15:05,759 stuff is usually governed by something called a power wall. 300 00:15:06,159 --> 00:15:09,919 In any random population stars, planets, comets, whatever, you always 301 00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:12,879 always accept to find the small, numerous objects first. The 302 00:15:12,960 --> 00:15:15,200 cosmos should be teeming with tiny things. 303 00:15:15,679 --> 00:15:18,519 Speaker 1: So if this giant iceberg three iitellus. 304 00:15:18,039 --> 00:15:20,559 Speaker 2: Is out there, statistically we should have found a thousand 305 00:15:20,639 --> 00:15:24,200 Borisovs and a million umuras first before we stumbled upon 306 00:15:24,240 --> 00:15:27,759 one of these massive giants. The cosmic inventory is mathematically 307 00:15:27,840 --> 00:15:28,399 upside down. 308 00:15:28,679 --> 00:15:30,960 Speaker 1: It's like dragging a fishing net in the ocean for 309 00:15:31,039 --> 00:15:33,759 the very first time, and your first catch is a 310 00:15:33,799 --> 00:15:35,240 fifty ton blue whale. 311 00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:38,000 Speaker 2: Perfect analogy, even though you know for a fact the 312 00:15:38,039 --> 00:15:40,960 water is dense with millions of plankton and thousands of 313 00:15:40,960 --> 00:15:42,840 small fish that should have been in your net long 314 00:15:42,919 --> 00:15:46,679 before the whale. This is the main anomaly. Lobe stresses. 315 00:15:47,320 --> 00:15:51,799 It's profoundly puzzling, and yet he noted NASA didn't even 316 00:15:51,840 --> 00:15:55,960 mention this monumental statistical oddity during their press conference. 317 00:15:55,639 --> 00:15:58,759 Speaker 1: Not once, And the implications of that are just huge. 318 00:15:58,799 --> 00:16:01,279 If the object is natural, it means the processes that 319 00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:04,279 eject these things from star systems are fundamentally skewed. Towards 320 00:16:04,360 --> 00:16:07,679 sending out massive objects, which contradicts what we know about 321 00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:09,080 stellar system dynamics. 322 00:16:09,399 --> 00:16:12,919 Speaker 2: Or it means our tiny observational sample is so bizarrely 323 00:16:13,000 --> 00:16:16,080 lucky that it just completely invalidates our ability to draw 324 00:16:16,120 --> 00:16:19,080 any conclusions from it. And if it's technological, then the 325 00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:22,679 statistics suggests a very different kind of selection effect. Maybe 326 00:16:22,840 --> 00:16:25,799 massive objects designed for long haul journeys are the only 327 00:16:25,840 --> 00:16:27,799 ones that survive, or maybe they're the only ones that 328 00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:30,000 are targeted toward the inner part of a solar system. 329 00:16:30,600 --> 00:16:34,279 Either way, the statistical puzzle demands a new physics or 330 00:16:34,320 --> 00:16:37,000 a new way of taking a census of the cosmos. 331 00:16:37,399 --> 00:16:40,759 Speaker 1: Okay, let's move to a third anomaly. This one speaks 332 00:16:40,840 --> 00:16:45,000 less to physics and more to just improbable luck or design. 333 00:16:45,840 --> 00:16:50,559 Anomaly number three the miracle alignment the orbital plane luck. 334 00:16:50,960 --> 00:16:54,919 Speaker 2: So three iatlus is moving in the plane of the planets, 335 00:16:55,000 --> 00:16:58,240 what astronomers call the ecliptic plane. This is the flat 336 00:16:58,240 --> 00:17:00,840 disc where pretty much all the familiar our solar system 337 00:17:00,960 --> 00:17:03,600 bodies orbit because that's the plane where the initial disk 338 00:17:03,879 --> 00:17:06,079 of dust and gas settled down to form. 339 00:17:05,920 --> 00:17:08,680 Speaker 1: Everything, and the usefulness of that is obvious. It means 340 00:17:08,680 --> 00:17:11,480 our telescopes on Earth and in orbit can look at 341 00:17:11,480 --> 00:17:15,079 it constantly without having to deal with extreme viewing angles, which. 342 00:17:14,880 --> 00:17:17,039 Speaker 2: Is why the NASA administrators were so happy about it. 343 00:17:17,039 --> 00:17:19,640 They could monitor it so closely, and that right there 344 00:17:19,759 --> 00:17:22,480 is the source of the anomaly. Lob argues this alignment 345 00:17:22,480 --> 00:17:23,200 as a miracle. 346 00:17:23,440 --> 00:17:25,039 Speaker 1: Why a miracle. 347 00:17:24,839 --> 00:17:28,920 Speaker 2: Because interstellar objects, by their very definition, should come from 348 00:17:29,000 --> 00:17:32,200 random directions all across the galaxy. They should approach our 349 00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:35,480 solar system at random angles, completely off the plane of 350 00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:38,279 the planets. It would be a pure coincidence for one 351 00:17:38,279 --> 00:17:39,480 to line up so perfectly. 352 00:17:40,119 --> 00:17:44,240 Speaker 1: So what's the actual probability of finding an object this big, 353 00:17:44,319 --> 00:17:47,119 which we should have found last, that is also perfectly 354 00:17:47,119 --> 00:17:48,319 aligned for us to look at it? 355 00:17:48,519 --> 00:17:52,480 Speaker 2: Lobe calculates the rarity. He states that only one in 356 00:17:52,599 --> 00:17:55,839 five hundred incoming objects would be aligned so well with 357 00:17:55,920 --> 00:17:59,400 the ecliptic plane to allow all these specialized NASA assets 358 00:17:59,400 --> 00:18:02,599 to be used so effectively. It just raises a massive 359 00:18:02,640 --> 00:18:03,200 red flag. 360 00:18:03,279 --> 00:18:05,920 Speaker 1: So we have an object that is chemically unique, statistically 361 00:18:05,960 --> 00:18:08,279 almost impossible in terms of its size, and it's in 362 00:18:08,279 --> 00:18:10,839 a ridiculouly convenient orbital plane for us to observe it. 363 00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:12,680 Speaker 2: The trifecta of weirdness. 364 00:18:12,759 --> 00:18:14,880 Speaker 1: But let's play Devil's advocate here for a second. Yeah, 365 00:18:15,039 --> 00:18:17,359 while one in five hundred is rare, if you look 366 00:18:17,359 --> 00:18:20,039 long enough, you're bound to find one. Right, why is 367 00:18:20,119 --> 00:18:24,039 Lobe framing this specific alignment as a miracle and not 368 00:18:24,119 --> 00:18:26,920 just you know, a statistical rarity we happen to catch. 369 00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:29,960 Speaker 2: Because of the combination of all the anomalies together. If 370 00:18:29,960 --> 00:18:32,680 you just found a small, ordinary comment that happened to 371 00:18:32,680 --> 00:18:35,119 be aligned, you'd shrug and say, Okay, that's our one 372 00:18:35,119 --> 00:18:37,440 in five hundred chance. You'd chock it up to Look, 373 00:18:37,599 --> 00:18:39,640 but that's not what we have here, not at all. 374 00:18:40,000 --> 00:18:42,319 Here the alignment is coupled with the one in a 375 00:18:42,359 --> 00:18:47,160 million size anomaly and the chemically unique composition. The combined 376 00:18:47,200 --> 00:18:50,359 probability of all three things happening in the same object 377 00:18:50,680 --> 00:18:53,920 is well, it's astronomical. It forces you to question if 378 00:18:53,960 --> 00:18:57,440 there's a selection effect on our side, like maybe we're 379 00:18:57,480 --> 00:19:00,000 just only good at seeing things in the ecliptic, or. 380 00:19:00,240 --> 00:19:02,759 Speaker 1: Or there's a selection effect on the object side. 381 00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:05,400 Speaker 2: Exactly that it was deliberately placed there, or it came 382 00:19:05,440 --> 00:19:08,640 from a star system that was by sheer coincidence moving 383 00:19:08,680 --> 00:19:11,440 along the same plane as ours. It's a perfect storm 384 00:19:11,559 --> 00:19:13,079 of improbability, and. 385 00:19:13,039 --> 00:19:15,680 Speaker 1: That takes us to the fourth anomaly, which actually circles 386 00:19:15,680 --> 00:19:18,240 back to the physics of those plumes and the amateur 387 00:19:18,240 --> 00:19:22,799 observations anomaly four the tightly collimated jets. Right. 388 00:19:22,839 --> 00:19:25,200 Speaker 2: We talked about that viewer question earlier about why the 389 00:19:25,240 --> 00:19:29,200 plumes don't seem to be influenced by the object's estimated 390 00:19:29,319 --> 00:19:33,000 sixteen hour rotation log confirmed. This is one of his 391 00:19:33,319 --> 00:19:36,880 key anomalies, and it's a beautiful point of observation that 392 00:19:36,920 --> 00:19:39,440 demands a closer look at rotational physics. 393 00:19:39,519 --> 00:19:41,880 Speaker 1: So if the object is a big spinning ice ball 394 00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:45,960 rotating once every sixteen hours, and it's suddenly erupting material 395 00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:49,559 in these jets, we have a standard physical expectation of 396 00:19:49,559 --> 00:19:50,279 what should happen. 397 00:19:50,880 --> 00:19:53,960 Speaker 2: Physics tells us that the rotation should twist the jets. 398 00:19:54,240 --> 00:19:56,480 It should create what we call wiggles or kind of 399 00:19:56,559 --> 00:19:59,559 spiral pattern as the material leaves the surface and gets 400 00:19:59,599 --> 00:20:03,440 pushed by the spin. Given the typical speed of stuff 401 00:20:03,440 --> 00:20:07,200 in cometary jets, that deflection should be visible, but it's not. Now. 402 00:20:07,559 --> 00:20:11,200 The observed jets are tightly collimated. They shoot out straight 403 00:20:11,240 --> 00:20:13,759 as if they're completely ignoring the centrifical force. 404 00:20:13,960 --> 00:20:17,319 Speaker 1: So what does that imply with the possible explanations. 405 00:20:16,799 --> 00:20:19,880 Speaker 2: Well, there are two main ones. One, the material is 406 00:20:20,000 --> 00:20:23,000 leaving the surface. It's such an incredible velocity, way faster 407 00:20:23,079 --> 00:20:27,119 than we assume for commets, that the sixteen hour rotation 408 00:20:27,240 --> 00:20:29,599 just doesn't have enough time to influence its path before 409 00:20:29,599 --> 00:20:30,640 the material is long on. 410 00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:32,680 Speaker 1: And the second possibility. 411 00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:36,039 Speaker 2: Two, the source of the outgassing is highly localized and 412 00:20:36,079 --> 00:20:38,759 maybe it's focused by some kind of internal mechanism that 413 00:20:38,799 --> 00:20:43,079 counteracts the spin, or maybe our rotation estimate itself is 414 00:20:43,119 --> 00:20:47,039 just wrong or even stranger, maybe the object isn't actually 415 00:20:47,160 --> 00:20:50,759 rotating freely, which would suggest a kind of structural rigidity 416 00:20:50,759 --> 00:20:52,519 you wouldn't expect from a typical commet. 417 00:20:52,680 --> 00:20:55,880 Speaker 1: And Lowe's point is that this is where real science happens. 418 00:20:56,039 --> 00:20:59,359 Speaker 2: Yes, this is a critical opportunity for gaining new knowledge 419 00:20:59,359 --> 00:21:02,440 and science of asking questions or paying attention to anomalies 420 00:21:02,559 --> 00:21:04,440 instead of just throwing your hands up and saying, oh, 421 00:21:04,480 --> 00:21:06,599 it's a commet, and commets do strange things. 422 00:21:06,720 --> 00:21:09,720 Speaker 1: That phrases a conversation ender. Isn't it not a scientific 423 00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:10,400 starting point? 424 00:21:10,559 --> 00:21:13,920 Speaker 2: It's the opposite of science. Science demands we investigate the 425 00:21:13,960 --> 00:21:17,359 strange things. In this case, either we're about to discover 426 00:21:17,720 --> 00:21:22,160 a new super high velocity type of commentary jet, or 427 00:21:22,440 --> 00:21:25,119 the source of that jet isn't just a simple spinning 428 00:21:25,160 --> 00:21:28,720 ice ball. The integrity of those jets challenges our whole 429 00:21:28,799 --> 00:21:31,160 understanding of how this stuff works in space. 430 00:21:31,359 --> 00:21:34,039 Speaker 1: Okay, shifting our focus a bit, now, let's move from 431 00:21:34,039 --> 00:21:37,160 the object's internal properties to the wider context of its 432 00:21:37,240 --> 00:21:41,160 journey and the limitations of our own scientific framework. This 433 00:21:41,200 --> 00:21:44,880 brings us to section three, the constraints of interstellar travel 434 00:21:45,000 --> 00:21:45,640 in physics. 435 00:21:46,000 --> 00:21:48,319 Speaker 2: And this is a really crucial section because we often 436 00:21:48,319 --> 00:21:51,759 get listener questions and philosophical arguments really that are based 437 00:21:51,839 --> 00:21:53,839 more on science fiction than on current science. 438 00:21:53,960 --> 00:21:57,799 Speaker 1: Right, there's this assumption that any advanced alien civilization must 439 00:21:57,880 --> 00:22:00,440 operate beyond our known laws of physics. 440 00:22:00,079 --> 00:22:03,359 Speaker 2: And that's precisely what a listener Adam asked. He suggested 441 00:22:03,359 --> 00:22:05,759 that if the object is billions of years old and 442 00:22:05,920 --> 00:22:09,720 advanced civilization wouldn't be using some ancient comet like spacecraft, 443 00:22:09,799 --> 00:22:13,519 why wouldn't they have discovered FTL travel or wormholes or teleportation? 444 00:22:13,640 --> 00:22:14,240 By now a. 445 00:22:14,279 --> 00:22:17,920 Speaker 1: Very common sci fi question. What was Loeb's take his rebuttal. 446 00:22:17,920 --> 00:22:21,000 Speaker 2: Here is swift, and it's essential for grounding this debate 447 00:22:21,039 --> 00:22:24,680 in scientific reality. He argues that this kind of skepticism 448 00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:26,880 is based on assumptions that have nothing to do with 449 00:22:26,920 --> 00:22:29,599 what we know about physics. We have to assess the 450 00:22:29,640 --> 00:22:32,480 object based on what is physically possible, not on some 451 00:22:32,680 --> 00:22:34,799 hypothetical contradictory technology. 452 00:22:34,960 --> 00:22:38,119 Speaker 1: Okay, let's break down that physics rebuttal. Let's start with FTL, 453 00:22:38,519 --> 00:22:40,039 or faster than light travel. 454 00:22:40,359 --> 00:22:44,319 Speaker 2: It's the cornerstone of modern physics, Einstein's theory of relativity. 455 00:22:44,759 --> 00:22:47,680 It dictates a fundamental speed limit in the universe, the 456 00:22:47,680 --> 00:22:51,839 speed of light. As Lobe states very clearly, FTL travel 457 00:22:52,039 --> 00:22:55,640 is not possible. As far as we know, it doesn't exist. 458 00:22:56,359 --> 00:22:59,599 So if we dismiss an object because it's supposed creators 459 00:22:59,599 --> 00:23:02,640 didn't use a technology that violates our entire understanding of 460 00:23:02,680 --> 00:23:05,880 space time, we're just substituting physics for fantasy. 461 00:23:06,039 --> 00:23:08,279 Speaker 1: And the same logic would apply to wormholes, the other 462 00:23:08,720 --> 00:23:11,000 sci fi staple for zipping across the cosmos. 463 00:23:11,039 --> 00:23:14,039 Speaker 2: Exactly, wormholes, as far as we know, also do not exist. 464 00:23:14,079 --> 00:23:17,440 And what's more, any theoretical model that allows for a stable, 465 00:23:17,559 --> 00:23:21,079 traversible wormhole inevitably opens up the possibility of building a 466 00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:22,279 time machine. 467 00:23:21,920 --> 00:23:25,079 Speaker 1: Which would violate the laws of physics by creating paradoxes, 468 00:23:25,799 --> 00:23:27,359 the Grandfather paradox and all that. 469 00:23:27,599 --> 00:23:30,680 Speaker 2: So the conclusion holds you cannot be skeptical of an 470 00:23:30,720 --> 00:23:33,720 object based on the absence of technologies that do not 471 00:23:33,839 --> 00:23:36,720 exist according to our current verified physics. 472 00:23:37,160 --> 00:23:40,480 Speaker 1: That's a powerful point. If we are searching for evidence 473 00:23:40,519 --> 00:23:43,519 of technology, we have to look for evidence of engineering 474 00:23:43,839 --> 00:23:46,920 something that couldn't form naturally, not for the absence of 475 00:23:46,920 --> 00:23:49,200 a warp drive or a teleportation being. We have to 476 00:23:49,240 --> 00:23:52,960 look for something manufactured within the rules that physics allows exactly. 477 00:23:53,079 --> 00:23:55,519 Speaker 2: We're looking for something that respects the speed limit of 478 00:23:55,559 --> 00:23:59,640 the universe, but shows evidence of controlled operation or unusual 479 00:23:59,640 --> 00:24:03,480 structural integrity, like the high nickel ratio or those tightly 480 00:24:03,519 --> 00:24:04,400 colimated jets. 481 00:24:04,599 --> 00:24:07,839 Speaker 1: But that raises the counter question about its speed. Three 482 00:24:07,839 --> 00:24:10,720 IELs is moving fast, for sure, but it's still way, 483 00:24:10,880 --> 00:24:13,400 way less than the speed of light. Why wasn't it 484 00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:16,880 moving faster? If a civilization built a fast ship, wouldn't 485 00:24:16,920 --> 00:24:17,880 be much faster. 486 00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:20,640 Speaker 2: And that is answered by something we call the selection effect. 487 00:24:21,240 --> 00:24:24,359 This is a fundamental bias in our ability to observe things. 488 00:24:24,400 --> 00:24:27,400 It's a massive blind spot that basically guarantees we will 489 00:24:27,400 --> 00:24:29,680 only ever find slow moving objects. 490 00:24:29,720 --> 00:24:32,920 Speaker 1: Okay, explain that if an object we're moving incredibly fast, 491 00:24:33,039 --> 00:24:36,480 say ten percent the speed of light, what would our 492 00:24:36,480 --> 00:24:37,839 telescopes actually. 493 00:24:37,519 --> 00:24:40,720 Speaker 2: See our current wide field surveys, which are designed to 494 00:24:40,799 --> 00:24:43,559 find faint, little points of light moving slowly against the 495 00:24:43,599 --> 00:24:48,920 background stars, they would fail catastrophically. A very fast object 496 00:24:48,960 --> 00:24:51,720 would just appear to the telescope as a smearing of 497 00:24:51,759 --> 00:24:54,759 the light along a line, a streak, a very dim streak. 498 00:24:54,799 --> 00:24:57,599 The light would be very dim because the exposure time 499 00:24:57,799 --> 00:25:00,759 needed to even detect it would only the object for 500 00:25:00,759 --> 00:25:02,440 a fraction of a second as it whizzed by. 501 00:25:02,559 --> 00:25:04,559 Speaker 1: It's like trying to photograph a speeding bullet with a 502 00:25:04,599 --> 00:25:07,559 long exposure camera. Yeah, you wouldn't get a crisp image. 503 00:25:07,599 --> 00:25:09,759 You just get a faint, indistinct blur. 504 00:25:10,079 --> 00:25:14,240 Speaker 2: Precisely, and the observers, whether they're automated surveys where humans 505 00:25:14,279 --> 00:25:17,640 checking the data, would dismiss it as an object. It 506 00:25:17,640 --> 00:25:20,200 wouldn't fit the signature of a trackable asteroid or a 507 00:25:20,200 --> 00:25:23,000 point source commet. It would just look like noise in 508 00:25:23,039 --> 00:25:26,759 the data. Our surveys are inherently not tuned to detect 509 00:25:26,839 --> 00:25:28,559 objects moving close to the speed. 510 00:25:28,359 --> 00:25:31,160 Speaker 1: Of light, so we're overwhelmingly predisposed to find the. 511 00:25:31,119 --> 00:25:33,720 Speaker 2: Slow ones because they are the only ones that sit 512 00:25:33,759 --> 00:25:36,400 in the field of view long enough for our cameras 513 00:25:36,440 --> 00:25:39,079 to gather enough light to register them as an object. 514 00:25:39,440 --> 00:25:42,680 Speaker 1: That is a crucial insight. It means every interstellar object 515 00:25:42,720 --> 00:25:45,119 we've found so far is a product of our own 516 00:25:45,160 --> 00:25:49,079 technical limitations. We could be missing an entire fleet of 517 00:25:49,119 --> 00:25:53,119 fast moving travelers simply because our digital eyes aren't built 518 00:25:53,119 --> 00:25:53,640 to see them. 519 00:25:53,720 --> 00:25:56,720 Speaker 2: It's the ultimate scientific dilemma. We only find what our 520 00:25:56,720 --> 00:25:58,519 instruments are optimized to see. 521 00:25:58,640 --> 00:26:01,160 Speaker 1: Okay, moving to the question of its origin and age. 522 00:26:01,759 --> 00:26:05,480 A listener Reazel asked where three atolests came from based 523 00:26:05,519 --> 00:26:07,359 on its trajectory and how old it might be. 524 00:26:07,680 --> 00:26:11,200 Speaker 2: The trajectory only tells us one thing for sure. Its 525 00:26:11,240 --> 00:26:14,680 speed is very high relative to the local stars around us. 526 00:26:15,200 --> 00:26:18,960 That high speed confirms its interstellar It's not bound by 527 00:26:18,960 --> 00:26:22,000 the Sun's gravity, but it doesn't tell us its origin 528 00:26:22,240 --> 00:26:25,519 or its age. As lobnoes, we have no clock on 529 00:26:25,599 --> 00:26:29,000 it to measure the duration of its journey. It could 530 00:26:29,000 --> 00:26:32,079 have been traveling for millions or even billions of years. 531 00:26:31,799 --> 00:26:34,279 Speaker 1: And there's a key ambiguity in trying to connect its 532 00:26:34,319 --> 00:26:36,400 speed to its age, isn't there there is? 533 00:26:36,960 --> 00:26:38,799 Speaker 2: On the one hand, the high speed could suggest it 534 00:26:38,799 --> 00:26:41,400 came from a really old star, one that's been kicked 535 00:26:41,400 --> 00:26:43,880 around the galaxy for a long time and naturally picks 536 00:26:43,920 --> 00:26:47,319 up speed through gravitational interactions. That would point to an 537 00:26:47,359 --> 00:26:48,160 ancient origin. 538 00:26:48,839 --> 00:26:51,599 Speaker 1: But the caveat is the ejection mechanism. 539 00:26:51,759 --> 00:26:53,960 Speaker 2: Yes, it could have come from a parent star that 540 00:26:54,039 --> 00:26:57,039 was actually moving very slowly, but the object itself was 541 00:26:57,039 --> 00:27:00,759 given a huge ejection speed from that star, maybe during 542 00:27:00,799 --> 00:27:04,519 a massive planet on planet collision or a gravitational slingshot 543 00:27:04,640 --> 00:27:06,240 near a binary star system. 544 00:27:06,480 --> 00:27:08,200 Speaker 1: So we don't know how much of its speed is 545 00:27:08,240 --> 00:27:10,039 from its parent star and how much is from how 546 00:27:10,079 --> 00:27:11,920 it was kicked out exactly. 547 00:27:12,319 --> 00:27:15,119 Speaker 2: And since we don't know the relative contributions of those 548 00:27:15,119 --> 00:27:18,240 two things, we can't confidently determine its age or its 549 00:27:18,279 --> 00:27:22,119 definitive origin. So unless we make the potentially false assumption 550 00:27:22,240 --> 00:27:25,680 that it just inherited its parent star speed, we're kind 551 00:27:25,680 --> 00:27:29,039 of stuck. It remains a kinematic puzzle wrapped in all 552 00:27:29,119 --> 00:27:32,440 those chemical and statistical anomalies we talked about earlier. 553 00:27:32,119 --> 00:27:35,319 Speaker 1: Which is why we have to focus on the immediate 554 00:27:35,720 --> 00:27:40,400 observable anomalies. They're the only hard facts we really have exactly. 555 00:27:40,599 --> 00:27:43,319 Let's pivot now to section four. This focuses on the 556 00:27:43,359 --> 00:27:47,400 frustrating human and bureaucratic side of this discovery. We're talking 557 00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:50,759 about bureaucracy, data delays and what we might be able 558 00:27:50,799 --> 00:27:52,680 to see in the future. This gets back to that 559 00:27:52,880 --> 00:27:54,720 data hostage situation you mentioned. 560 00:27:55,240 --> 00:27:58,440 Speaker 2: The delay was just truly frustrating for everyone, the public 561 00:27:58,559 --> 00:28:01,599 and the scientific community. The image was held for forty 562 00:28:01,599 --> 00:28:04,599 five days before it was released, forty five days for 563 00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:08,559 an image that, as we've said, offered no groundbreaking new insights. 564 00:28:08,599 --> 00:28:10,720 Speaker 1: It was a marginal image, yet they treated it like 565 00:28:10,759 --> 00:28:12,039 it was classified material. 566 00:28:12,319 --> 00:28:15,599 Speaker 2: And the contrast with other NASA data releases from the 567 00:28:15,599 --> 00:28:19,039 same time period makes the delay around three Ayatlas look 568 00:28:19,079 --> 00:28:23,960 particularly conspicuous. Lobe pointed out that other routine data like 569 00:28:24,119 --> 00:28:27,279 images from the high rise camera on the Mars Reconnaissance orbiter, 570 00:28:27,519 --> 00:28:29,880 were being released quickly, sometimes a day. 571 00:28:29,799 --> 00:28:32,519 Speaker 1: Later, even during the government shutdown that they used as 572 00:28:32,559 --> 00:28:34,400 the excuse for the three Ayalas delay. 573 00:28:34,519 --> 00:28:37,680 Speaker 2: Yes, even during the shutdown, and this contrast led Lob 574 00:28:37,759 --> 00:28:41,839 to conclude that the delay was primarily due to NASA bureaucracy, 575 00:28:42,240 --> 00:28:46,519 which specifically targeted this one high profile object. A rule 576 00:28:46,599 --> 00:28:50,079 must have been set that required administrators, not the scientists 577 00:28:50,079 --> 00:28:52,839 doing the work, to review the data before it could 578 00:28:52,839 --> 00:28:53,920 go public, which. 579 00:28:53,680 --> 00:28:57,319 Speaker 1: Is essentially taking hostage the dissemination of scientific information. 580 00:28:57,759 --> 00:29:00,440 Speaker 2: It is, and it highlights this fundamental differ diference in 581 00:29:00,559 --> 00:29:04,720 organizational culture. In academia, the whole point is rapid dissemination 582 00:29:04,799 --> 00:29:07,200 of knowledge. It doesn't matter what time it is or 583 00:29:07,240 --> 00:29:08,920 if the campus is officially closed. 584 00:29:09,119 --> 00:29:12,000 Speaker 1: Right, an academic scientist would have processed and released that 585 00:29:12,119 --> 00:29:14,240 data immediately, probably from home. 586 00:29:14,480 --> 00:29:19,359 Speaker 2: But in a large government organization, administrative procedures and perhaps 587 00:29:19,400 --> 00:29:21,839 you know, a desire to control the narrative around such 588 00:29:21,839 --> 00:29:25,960 a provocative object can just override the urgency of scientific discovery. 589 00:29:26,079 --> 00:29:28,279 Speaker 1: Okay. The next viewer question goes back to the search 590 00:29:28,359 --> 00:29:31,880 for technological signatures. It connects three ID laws to one 591 00:29:31,880 --> 00:29:36,160 of astronomy's biggest cold cases, the nineteen seventy seven signal. 592 00:29:36,680 --> 00:29:40,079 Speaker 2: The question was could the nineteen seventy seven WOW signal 593 00:29:40,200 --> 00:29:43,039 have come from three IAT loss because it was reported 594 00:29:43,079 --> 00:29:48,039 from the same general direction in the sky, the constellation Sagittarius. 595 00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:51,599 Speaker 1: And Lobe, always advocating for actually checking these things, confirmed 596 00:29:51,599 --> 00:29:54,160 that radio observers did look at three IAT loss after 597 00:29:54,200 --> 00:29:54,960 it was discovered. 598 00:29:55,039 --> 00:29:57,200 Speaker 2: He did. He cited a recent finding I think it 599 00:29:57,240 --> 00:29:59,480 was detailed in one of his medium essays from the 600 00:29:59,519 --> 00:30:01,039 Mirrat Radio Observatory. 601 00:30:01,119 --> 00:30:02,000 Speaker 1: And what did they find. 602 00:30:02,319 --> 00:30:05,640 Speaker 2: The merit report focused on observations they made on November fifth, 603 00:30:05,759 --> 00:30:08,960 and they set a really crucial constraint. They established an 604 00:30:09,039 --> 00:30:12,519 upper limit on any radio transmission power coming from the object, 605 00:30:12,839 --> 00:30:15,039 and the key finding was that the power level being 606 00:30:15,079 --> 00:30:17,519 transmitted was less than that of a cell phone. 607 00:30:17,680 --> 00:30:19,799 Speaker 1: Less than a cell phone. That sets a pretty low 608 00:30:19,839 --> 00:30:22,640 bar for an advanced alien communication technology. 609 00:30:22,799 --> 00:30:25,920 Speaker 2: It does. The conclusion for that observation data is firm. 610 00:30:26,720 --> 00:30:29,880 No cell phone level transmission was detected from three iatless, 611 00:30:30,359 --> 00:30:32,799 so we can definitively rule it out as the source 612 00:30:32,839 --> 00:30:36,359 of a recent high powered deliberate signal. If it were 613 00:30:36,359 --> 00:30:40,319 some actively operating craft, you'd expect transmission levels far beyond 614 00:30:40,359 --> 00:30:43,680 our consumer electronics. This is a powerful constraint on that 615 00:30:43,839 --> 00:30:45,599 active technology hypothesis. 616 00:30:45,680 --> 00:30:48,839 Speaker 1: Okay, let's consider a hypothetical. Now, this addresses the question 617 00:30:48,880 --> 00:30:52,400 of interception, which speaks to our own scientific preparedness. If 618 00:30:52,400 --> 00:30:55,640 three iatlsts were a technological entity and it changed course 619 00:30:55,920 --> 00:30:58,440 at roughly its current speed, how long would it take 620 00:30:58,480 --> 00:30:59,160 to get to Earth? 621 00:30:59,359 --> 00:31:01,359 Speaker 2: Lo Ben mentioned and that if it changed course without 622 00:31:01,400 --> 00:31:04,400 any significant speed boost, it would take a couple of 623 00:31:04,440 --> 00:31:05,599 months or so a few months. 624 00:31:05,640 --> 00:31:07,599 Speaker 1: And this wasn't just a gas. 625 00:31:07,400 --> 00:31:10,200 Speaker 2: No, this wasn't back of the envelope stuff. He actually 626 00:31:10,200 --> 00:31:12,559 co authored a peer reviewed paper on this with Adam 627 00:31:12,599 --> 00:31:16,440 Hibbert and Adam Crow. They modeled this exact interception scenario. 628 00:31:16,839 --> 00:31:20,319 The paper details a specific, very small velocity shift, the 629 00:31:20,359 --> 00:31:23,279 tiny NUTCH that would be required to redirect the object 630 00:31:23,279 --> 00:31:26,000 to reach Earth on various hypothetical target dates. 631 00:31:26,200 --> 00:31:29,079 Speaker 1: And that kind of work is essential because it shows 632 00:31:29,079 --> 00:31:32,240 the scientific rigor is there. It proves that people in 633 00:31:32,279 --> 00:31:35,880 the community are actively engaging with the possibility of a 634 00:31:35,920 --> 00:31:39,720 targeted trajectory, even if the official line is just it's 635 00:31:39,759 --> 00:31:40,480 a comet. 636 00:31:40,960 --> 00:31:44,039 Speaker 2: It shifts the discussion from casual what if speculation to 637 00:31:44,119 --> 00:31:47,799 precise calculations of what would the physics actually require. 638 00:31:48,480 --> 00:31:51,079 Speaker 1: So looking ahead, we won't mention a specific calendar date 639 00:31:51,119 --> 00:31:53,000 since it's in the past, but let's talk about the 640 00:31:53,039 --> 00:31:57,000 best observational window. When was the best chance to finally 641 00:31:57,039 --> 00:32:00,279 get the high quality, non fuzzy data that might actually 642 00:32:00,319 --> 00:32:01,640 resolve some of these anomalies. 643 00:32:01,880 --> 00:32:04,400 Speaker 2: The best opportunity, by far, was always going to be 644 00:32:04,480 --> 00:32:06,519 when three I at lists was at its closest point 645 00:32:06,559 --> 00:32:10,079 to Earth. That's the moment when all our observational assets 646 00:32:10,160 --> 00:32:12,799 can be fully leveraged. It was the best chance to 647 00:32:12,880 --> 00:32:15,559 use hundreds of telescopes on the ground, plus Hubble and 648 00:32:15,640 --> 00:32:18,759 Web in space to get the absolute best data on it. 649 00:32:19,519 --> 00:32:22,200 The coming weeks are crucial for analyzing everything that was 650 00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:23,400 gathered during that flyby. 651 00:32:23,720 --> 00:32:26,680 Speaker 1: It was the last best chance to settle the debate 652 00:32:26,759 --> 00:32:30,160 before it gets too far away for us to observe effectively. 653 00:32:30,799 --> 00:32:32,680 We have to hope that data they secured during that 654 00:32:32,759 --> 00:32:36,640 period finally surpasses the disappointing release we've been talking about. 655 00:32:36,680 --> 00:32:39,599 Speaker 2: Absolutely I think the entire scientific community is holding its 656 00:32:39,640 --> 00:32:40,799 breath for that analysis. 657 00:32:41,200 --> 00:32:43,799 Speaker 1: Let's move to our final section, which really addresses the 658 00:32:43,839 --> 00:32:48,519 philosophical context of this whole endeavor. Section five trust in 659 00:32:48,519 --> 00:32:51,240 the Pursuit of New Knowledge, and this starts with a 660 00:32:51,319 --> 00:32:54,400 very fundamental question from a viewer about trust in the 661 00:32:54,440 --> 00:32:55,480 images themselves. 662 00:32:55,640 --> 00:32:58,400 Speaker 2: The viewer asked whether the images released by NASA are 663 00:32:58,480 --> 00:33:02,519 authentic and not doctors, and Lob's response is a really 664 00:33:02,559 --> 00:33:05,839 profound reflection on the nature of big science projects today. 665 00:33:06,559 --> 00:33:10,200 He says, we can never know fully we the public 666 00:33:10,240 --> 00:33:13,079 and external scientists. We don't have access to the instruments 667 00:33:13,119 --> 00:33:16,519 themselves or the raw, unprocessed data flow, which is the 668 00:33:16,559 --> 00:33:17,880 reality of modern science. 669 00:33:18,240 --> 00:33:21,440 Speaker 1: We're often totally reliant on the integrity and the interpretations 670 00:33:21,680 --> 00:33:23,200 of these huge institutions. 671 00:33:23,359 --> 00:33:26,720 Speaker 2: Science is fundamentally built on a foundation of trust, on 672 00:33:26,720 --> 00:33:29,519 what Lobe calls a code of honor, which dictates that 673 00:33:29,559 --> 00:33:33,400 you should never ever fabricate data, and when violations happen, 674 00:33:33,759 --> 00:33:37,599 and they do occasionally, the scientists involved are punished severely. 675 00:33:38,400 --> 00:33:41,160 The system, for all its flaws, is designed to be 676 00:33:41,200 --> 00:33:43,839 self correcting through replication and peer review. 677 00:33:44,039 --> 00:33:46,839 Speaker 1: But his reason for trusting the authenticity of these particular 678 00:33:46,920 --> 00:33:51,079 marginal images is kind of ironic and well pretty witty. 679 00:33:51,160 --> 00:33:53,160 Speaker 2: It is he says he trusted the data because it 680 00:33:53,240 --> 00:33:56,200 was not very, very impressive. He finds it hard to 681 00:33:56,240 --> 00:33:58,440 imagine that they would make the images fuzzier than they 682 00:33:58,440 --> 00:33:59,680 actually are, right if you. 683 00:33:59,640 --> 00:34:01,440 Speaker 1: Were going to fake something you'd fake something good. 684 00:34:01,759 --> 00:34:04,799 Speaker 2: Exactly, if NASA we're trying to pull off some massive 685 00:34:05,000 --> 00:34:08,079 cover up or fabrication, you'd expect the data to be 686 00:34:08,159 --> 00:34:13,800 either suspiciously pristine showing impossible detail, or suspiciously non existent. 687 00:34:14,360 --> 00:34:16,519 The very fact that the release was so marginal and 688 00:34:16,559 --> 00:34:20,519 fuzzy actually lends it credibility. It suggests this is genuinely 689 00:34:20,559 --> 00:34:22,360 the best data they managed to get at the time. 690 00:34:22,599 --> 00:34:25,639 Speaker 1: So his final takeaway on the press conference remains completely 691 00:34:25,679 --> 00:34:29,559 consistent with his initial prediction. The scientific output was not 692 00:34:29,840 --> 00:34:32,719 much and the quality of data was marginal to what 693 00:34:32,760 --> 00:34:33,719 we already. 694 00:34:33,360 --> 00:34:35,880 Speaker 2: Know, so the focus has to return to the anomalies. 695 00:34:36,119 --> 00:34:39,559 The appropriate scientific response is not to dismiss these extremely 696 00:34:39,679 --> 00:34:43,199 rare properties, but to acknowledge that their existence means we 697 00:34:43,239 --> 00:34:45,559 don't understand the factories that make such things. 698 00:34:45,719 --> 00:34:48,159 Speaker 1: Whether three I at lists is ultimately confirmed as an 699 00:34:48,239 --> 00:34:53,039 extraordinarily rare natural commet or something else. Entirely, the existence 700 00:34:53,039 --> 00:34:56,280 of those anomalies, the huge size, the impossible alignment, the 701 00:34:56,599 --> 00:34:59,719 unnatural nickel iron ratio, it means there's a missing piece 702 00:34:59,719 --> 00:35:02,159 of non knowledge about how it was generated. And that's 703 00:35:02,159 --> 00:35:04,119 the most important message we should be taking away. 704 00:35:04,400 --> 00:35:07,320 Speaker 2: Right We are fundamentally missing a key mechanism in the 705 00:35:07,320 --> 00:35:11,320 cosmos that produces objects like this one. The key message 706 00:35:11,320 --> 00:35:14,000 is that nature or something else has presented us with 707 00:35:14,039 --> 00:35:18,239 a monumental statistical outlier, and to simply label it an 708 00:35:18,320 --> 00:35:21,800 unusual commet and move on is to choose comfortable ignorance 709 00:35:21,880 --> 00:35:24,400 over the thrill of real discovery. We have to hold 710 00:35:24,440 --> 00:35:26,840 onto those puzzles because that's where the next revolution in 711 00:35:26,880 --> 00:35:28,519 our understanding is going to come from. 712 00:35:28,599 --> 00:35:31,639 Speaker 1: That is profound thought. To end on, We've covered the 713 00:35:31,639 --> 00:35:35,960 frustrating data delays, the statistical impossibilities of its size, the 714 00:35:36,079 --> 00:35:39,559 challenges its chemistry poses to our models of how stars work, 715 00:35:39,880 --> 00:35:42,079 and the real constraints of interstellar physics. 716 00:35:42,159 --> 00:35:43,920 Speaker 2: And as we move into the coming weeks, where the 717 00:35:43,920 --> 00:35:47,400 analysis of the best data is hopefully happening, the stakes 718 00:35:47,440 --> 00:35:51,880 remain incredibly high. We found one massive, perfectly aligned object, 719 00:35:52,000 --> 00:35:55,360 yet statistically we are missing the thousands of smaller objects 720 00:35:55,400 --> 00:35:58,519 that should have come first. What is the fundamental flaw 721 00:35:58,599 --> 00:36:02,679 in our cosmic inventory? What mechanism allows this giant iceberg 722 00:36:02,719 --> 00:36:06,239 to appear so early in our search, defying every probability 723 00:36:06,239 --> 00:36:06,960 we understand? 724 00:36:07,039 --> 00:36:08,079 Speaker 1: It's the central question. 725 00:36:08,360 --> 00:36:12,519 Speaker 2: It is if nature made this object, then our understanding 726 00:36:12,559 --> 00:36:16,519 of cosmic factory processes is broken. If engineering made it, 727 00:36:16,800 --> 00:36:20,800 our search parameters for technology are fundamentally flawed. That is 728 00:36:20,840 --> 00:36:23,519 the question that demands a revolution in our understanding of 729 00:36:23,559 --> 00:36:24,559 the universe. 730 00:36:24,280 --> 00:36:26,159 Speaker 1: A question that we hope will be answered soon. Thank 731 00:36:26,159 --> 00:36:27,519 you for taking this deep dog with us.