His behavior when speaking to respected scientist's in the field is appalling, and he's called out by just about every other respected name. As is always the discussion when aliens come up, people...
Exemplary
His behavior when speaking to respected scientist's in the field is appalling, and he's called out by just about every other respected name.
As is always the discussion when aliens come up, people forget that SETI exists and has been hunting seriously for aliens for decades. They don't make headlines though because they're doing real science, and so 99.9999% of what they've found is "fucking nothing" with some extremely small % of "well it's weird but it's almost certainly not aliens".
I hate repeatedly posting her videos since I don't think any person is 100% correct, but I think this video is a great breakdown as to WHY he's such a problem and how what he's doing is at least unethical:
Sharing this article because there were a lot of strong opinions the last time I posted an article about this guy. I thought these bits from one part of the article were particularly noteworthy or...
Sharing this article because there were a lot of strong opinions the last time I posted an article about this guy.
I thought these bits from one part of the article were particularly noteworthy or discussion-worthy:
Loeb maintains that looking for alien spacecraft is less speculative than a lot of mainstream science. His go-to foil is fundamental physics. Since the discovery of the Higgs boson particle more than a decade ago, the multibillion-dollar particle colliders that physicists built to find postulated forces and fields have mostly come up empty, and still, Loeb says, scientists believe with quasi-religious faith that if they just build even bigger colliders, their theories will be redeemed.
That's a very interesting perspective. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with him, but it gives me something to think about (at least a little).
He reserves most of his scorn for string theorists, who, after assembling a theory of nature based on tiny hypothetical entities, have spent decades postulating extra dimensions and parallel universes trying to make the math work.
I agree with Dr. Loeb on this. String theorists aren't scientists. Their claims aren't testable. They're just making up their own math. One of my favorite professors (for my Cosmology & Relativity undergrad class) strongly felt this way, too. I still had some great discussions with him about potential future physics, including a fifth fundamental force. I can't remember his exact position, but it was great to discuss his thoughts on dark energy and where he would look to test his theories.
Loeb’s outspokenness about extraterrestrial life has made him the most famous practicing astronomer in the country.
I certainly hope not (I would hope for it to be Mike Brown or maybe Kip Thorne if he is still practicing) but I'm afraid he might be because it goes on to say a Netflix crew is following him.
Yet many in his own field consider Loeb a pariah. His more polite critics say that he is distracting from the horizon-expanding discoveries astronomers are making with new instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope.
That sounds like a bad argument. JWST should speak for itself.
The more outspoken ones accuse Loeb of abandoning the scientific method and misleading the public in pursuit of fame.
I think many on this site would agree.
Loeb says he gets attacked from both sides: by his colleagues in the mainstream and by the U.A.P. “crazies” who get upset when he dismisses their most ridiculous theories by pointing to the laws of physics.
At least he's not totally off the deep end. Those people really are delusional. Same as the crazy cryptid people. There are some people who believe but have a healthy skepticism and I can only respect them for being honest with themselves about their "out there" beliefs, but the ones who attack anyone who is at all skeptical of even the most idiotic claims are just deluding themselves and it's sad to see them have their whole identity tied up in that one thing.
I would just push back a bit on your point about string theorists. Whether or not they are doing 'science' in that they are positing theories that one can go out and test, they are doing something...
I would just push back a bit on your point about string theorists. Whether or not they are doing 'science' in that they are positing theories that one can go out and test, they are doing something useful for science. The mathematical tools that have resulted from string theory over the past 40 years have been incredibly useful in high energy and condensed matter physics. I know plenty of scientists who are not working on anything directly testable. Many (most?) people doing mathematical physics would fall under this umbrella. To dismiss this as "making up their own math" undersells its usefulness to physics as a whole. Now, there is a strong argument to be made that string theory has been overfunded relative to other interesting theory programs, but to dismiss outright the entire field I don't really think is warranted.
Out of curiosity, what about Avi's work has drawn you in so much? For me it's hard to take him seriously when he justifies his work by comparing it to fringe science. When I see him jump in front...
Out of curiosity, what about Avi's work has drawn you in so much?
For me it's hard to take him seriously when he justifies his work by comparing it to fringe science. When I see him jump in front of the media with extreme, unsubstantiated claims - such as the meteor being a space craft - it compound this feeling. Nothing I've seen from Avi gives me the slightest confidence that his science operates in good faith. I'd love to understand why NYT would do a positive piece on him and I'm hoping your interest, despite know his scientific background and hearing the loud critiques from folks on Tildes, might give me some insight.
Oh, nothing has drawn me in. I don't follow him whatsoever. This is the first time I have heard about him since my last post on him, which was this first time I had heard about him since...
Oh, nothing has drawn me in. I don't follow him whatsoever. This is the first time I have heard about him since my last post on him, which was this first time I had heard about him since "astrophysicist claims 'Oumuamua is a UFO." My last post about the spherules generated some good discussion so I figured I would post this article that is directly about Loeb.
I'm not the guy you asked the question of, but I do find Loeb's ideas compelling. When it came out, I read Extraterrestrial, and as a person without schooling or credentials in related fields (I'm...
I'm not the guy you asked the question of, but I do find Loeb's ideas compelling. When it came out, I read Extraterrestrial, and as a person without schooling or credentials in related fields (I'm a software engineer) it wowed me. But this article sure makes it sound like the "hydrogen puffball" theory beats Loeb's alien hypothesis for Oumuamua. And, of course his whole attitude and the manner in which he comports himself is extremely distasteful and really distracts from his ideas and endeavors.
That said, I've pre-ordered Interstellar. Even if it's transparent BS and whiney, it'll still fill my head with alien possibilities for a few hours 🙂
Using particle physics is unfair. I mean, he's not wrong that looking for alien spacecraft is more scientific than looking for unparticles, but so is looking for pegasi. Just because something is...
Using particle physics is unfair. I mean, he's not wrong that looking for alien spacecraft is more scientific than looking for unparticles, but so is looking for pegasi. Just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean it's scientific.
On particle physics, we're just stuck. When you press particle physicists, they sometimes admit they don't believe their own theories, but that the math might be useful and it's good to discard some possibilities. The sad matter is that, whenever we do an experiment, it turns out the Standard Model was right. Again. Like it's been for like a century or whatever now.
Updated theoretical calculations have reduced the tension to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ since there's now tension in the theoretical estimates (data-driven vs lattice) and even between the most recent...
Updated theoretical calculations have reduced the tension to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ since there's now tension in the theoretical estimates (data-driven vs lattice) and even between the most recent (data-driven) CMD-2/CMD-3 results. (See slide 28 from Alex Keshavarzi's Lattice talk.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Avi Loeb just not do anything to progress actual science and acts victimized when qualified scientific professionals call him out?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Avi Loeb just not do anything to progress actual science and acts victimized when qualified scientific professionals call him out?
The article kind of leaves us a bit of a cliffhanger: I'm curious to know what the spectroscopy indicated the origin of the spherules to be. The article itself stated that they were found...
The article kind of leaves us a bit of a cliffhanger: I'm curious to know what the spectroscopy indicated the origin of the spherules to be.
The article itself stated that they were found alongside volcanic ash, and Papua New Guinea is known for its volcanic geography. I wonder if the results were inconclusive, or omitted for sake of saving face for Loeb.
It would be fair to assume that if the spectroscopy came back with something wild, he'd be going bananas.
His behavior when speaking to respected scientist's in the field is appalling, and he's called out by just about every other respected name.
As is always the discussion when aliens come up, people forget that SETI exists and has been hunting seriously for aliens for decades. They don't make headlines though because they're doing real science, and so 99.9999% of what they've found is "fucking nothing" with some extremely small % of "well it's weird but it's almost certainly not aliens".
I hate repeatedly posting her videos since I don't think any person is 100% correct, but I think this video is a great breakdown as to WHY he's such a problem and how what he's doing is at least unethical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY985qzn7oI
Sharing this article because there were a lot of strong opinions the last time I posted an article about this guy.
I thought these bits from one part of the article were particularly noteworthy or discussion-worthy:
That's a very interesting perspective. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with him, but it gives me something to think about (at least a little).
I agree with Dr. Loeb on this. String theorists aren't scientists. Their claims aren't testable. They're just making up their own math. One of my favorite professors (for my Cosmology & Relativity undergrad class) strongly felt this way, too. I still had some great discussions with him about potential future physics, including a fifth fundamental force. I can't remember his exact position, but it was great to discuss his thoughts on dark energy and where he would look to test his theories.
I certainly hope not (I would hope for it to be Mike Brown or maybe Kip Thorne if he is still practicing) but I'm afraid he might be because it goes on to say a Netflix crew is following him.
That sounds like a bad argument. JWST should speak for itself.
I think many on this site would agree.
At least he's not totally off the deep end. Those people really are delusional. Same as the crazy cryptid people. There are some people who believe but have a healthy skepticism and I can only respect them for being honest with themselves about their "out there" beliefs, but the ones who attack anyone who is at all skeptical of even the most idiotic claims are just deluding themselves and it's sad to see them have their whole identity tied up in that one thing.
I would just push back a bit on your point about string theorists. Whether or not they are doing 'science' in that they are positing theories that one can go out and test, they are doing something useful for science. The mathematical tools that have resulted from string theory over the past 40 years have been incredibly useful in high energy and condensed matter physics. I know plenty of scientists who are not working on anything directly testable. Many (most?) people doing mathematical physics would fall under this umbrella. To dismiss this as "making up their own math" undersells its usefulness to physics as a whole. Now, there is a strong argument to be made that string theory has been overfunded relative to other interesting theory programs, but to dismiss outright the entire field I don't really think is warranted.
Out of curiosity, what about Avi's work has drawn you in so much?
For me it's hard to take him seriously when he justifies his work by comparing it to fringe science. When I see him jump in front of the media with extreme, unsubstantiated claims - such as the meteor being a space craft - it compound this feeling. Nothing I've seen from Avi gives me the slightest confidence that his science operates in good faith. I'd love to understand why NYT would do a positive piece on him and I'm hoping your interest, despite know his scientific background and hearing the loud critiques from folks on Tildes, might give me some insight.
Oh, nothing has drawn me in. I don't follow him whatsoever. This is the first time I have heard about him since my last post on him, which was this first time I had heard about him since "astrophysicist claims 'Oumuamua is a UFO." My last post about the spherules generated some good discussion so I figured I would post this article that is directly about Loeb.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks!
I'm not the guy you asked the question of, but I do find Loeb's ideas compelling. When it came out, I read Extraterrestrial, and as a person without schooling or credentials in related fields (I'm a software engineer) it wowed me. But this article sure makes it sound like the "hydrogen puffball" theory beats Loeb's alien hypothesis for Oumuamua. And, of course his whole attitude and the manner in which he comports himself is extremely distasteful and really distracts from his ideas and endeavors.
That said, I've pre-ordered Interstellar. Even if it's transparent BS and whiney, it'll still fill my head with alien possibilities for a few hours 🙂
Using particle physics is unfair. I mean, he's not wrong that looking for alien spacecraft is more scientific than looking for unparticles, but so is looking for pegasi. Just because something is falsifiable doesn't mean it's scientific.
On particle physics, we're just stuck. When you press particle physicists, they sometimes admit they don't believe their own theories, but that the math might be useful and it's good to discard some possibilities. The sad matter is that, whenever we do an experiment, it turns out the Standard Model was right. Again. Like it's been for like a century or whatever now.
I dunno how we get unstuck.
Muon g-2?
Updated theoretical calculations have reduced the tension there to around 2 sigma I believe.
Updated theoretical calculations have reduced the tension to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ since there's now tension in the theoretical estimates (data-driven vs lattice) and even between the most recent (data-driven) CMD-2/CMD-3 results. (See slide 28 from Alex Keshavarzi's Lattice talk.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Avi Loeb just not do anything to progress actual science and acts victimized when qualified scientific professionals call him out?
The article kind of leaves us a bit of a cliffhanger: I'm curious to know what the spectroscopy indicated the origin of the spherules to be.
The article itself stated that they were found alongside volcanic ash, and Papua New Guinea is known for its volcanic geography. I wonder if the results were inconclusive, or omitted for sake of saving face for Loeb.
It would be fair to assume that if the spectroscopy came back with something wild, he'd be going bananas.