Talk:ʻOumuamua/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New Nature article given 'Oumuamua comet-like features

Non-gravitational acceleration in the trajectory of 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua) published in Nature today, states it has comet-like properties. Dropping this here as I have no idea how to immediately include in this article at the current state. --Masem (t) 18:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's a naked comet after all. nagualdesign 19:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC) PS. Another link: http://hubblesite.org/news_release/news/2018-25

FWIW - added the following to the lede - at least for starters => On 27 June 2018, astronomers reported that ʻOumuamua is a comet, and not an asteroid, as previously thought. - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Re-write required

A few pointers for those updating the article: As with all WP articles, the lead should only summarize information in the article body, and should not require any references. At the moment we have a tacked-on paragraph with 5 references, yet we still have a subsection titled Asteroidal nature with no mention of the new observations, and the subsection titled Continuing observations has nothing to say either. I think that the article needs a slight rewrite from todays perspective, rather than it reading in a stepwise manner ending with words to the effect of "..but it turns out that it's a comet after all". ʻOumuamua is a comet, and the article should reflect that throughout. The fact that it was once thought to be an asteroid should be explained as an aside. One final point; we've got references from ESO, NASA and Nature, so I don't think having The New York Times is necessary. nagualdesign 12:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I made a start on moving things around (diff). I hope that's acceptable. There's plenty more that can be done, so I'll let someone else have a turn without me causing lots of edit conflicts. Cheers. nagualdesign 12:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I've made several more passes, copy-editing the article. There now seems to be a fair bit of unnecessary repetition of certain things, which could do with further cleaning up. I wasn't sure what the best course of action would be at this point, and can't see the point of doing multiple edits that will likely be reverted, so I'll pass the baton. Note that I've removed a lot of unnecessary blue links. It's okay to link uncommon words like perihelion but entirely pointless to link simple phrases like closest approach to the Sun, which are self-explanatory. What we don't want is a sea of blue. nagualdesign 22:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The simple fact is there is not much of a difference between a comet and an asteroid. Only extremely active (icy) comets and iron-nickel asteroids from the core of a destroyed protoplanet are at the extremes of the definitions. -- Kheider (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the category comet vs asteroid ought not to be a central focus, since it can be somewhere in the middle. Pretty much anything outside the orbit of Jupiter could qualify as a comet if it passed closer to the sun. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Relocated the "lede" image "File:Oumuamua orbit at perihelion.png |thumb|400px|center|Hyperbolic trajectory of ʻOumuamua through the inner Solar System with the Sun at the focus (animation)]]" - to a better location in the article - and - added a newly available NASA image (and link to a relevant animation) to the "lede" => "File:PIA22357-InterstellarObject-'Oumuamua-ExitsSolarSystem.jpg< center>Interstellar comet 'Oumuamua exits the Solar System (artist concept) (animation)< /center>" - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox prevew

• 
  Proposed
• 
  Current

I think that the image on the right is still better than the current one. Any thought?
DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 18:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Leaving the Solar System in 20,000 years"

I realize this came up before in an archived discussion, but this seems pretty confusing to me. We've used the Oort Cloud as the reference point to the "farthest reaches of the Solar System", but the outer edge of that is not well defined at all. From the Oort Cloud page:

The Oort cloud's outer limit is difficult to define as it varies over the millennia as different stars pass the Sun and thus is subject to variation. Estimates of its distance range from 50,000 to 200,000 AU.

Furthermore, it's not necessarily a given that the Oort Cloud is the "edge" of the Solar System. From the same page:

The outer limit of the Oort cloud defines the cosmographical boundary of the Solar System and the extent of the Sun's Hill sphere. (NASA, although the link is now broken)

However, NASA doesn't appear to even agree with itself, as this NASA article indicates that a "better" boundary is actually the heliosphere rather than the Oort Cloud (and it clearly is using this boundary for its press releases regarding Voyager I). Furthermore, the Oort Cloud article also claims that the cloud is entirely in interstellar space, which would (to me) indicate that it is not considered to be within the Solar System per se.

Given that we don't really know enough about the Oort Cloud to accurately estimate its edge to any degree of precision (50,000 to 20,000 AU would mean the object would take somewhere between 9,000 and 36,000 years to actually exit it) and using it as a Solar System boundary isn't universally agreed upon, I suggest we go a different route and report when object will leave the heliosphere and reach interstellar space (and just avoid the whole topic of "leave the Solar System", whatever that means). That would alleviate any confusion vis-à-vis Voyager I as well. I suppose there's no reason why we couldn't also say something about it leaving the Oort Cloud, but I would say so specifically and not peg it to a specific number like 20,000. Thoughts? CThomas³ (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say when it would leave the solar system, by any name or definition. The NASA article you mention is debatable. It was written by a particular project (the IBEX mission) and represents the views of the scientists who provided the content. It isn't NASA policy about the boundaries of the solar system. Even if we accept the heliopause as the boundary, it isn't a sphere. It's close to the Sun in the direction of the Sun's motion relative to the interstellar medium. There isn't a consensus on the exact shape or size. Predicting when ʻOumuamua will cross the heliopause would be very model-dependent, and I don't think anyone's even done that sort of estimate. If we need to say when it's going to leave the solar system, I'd be in favor of a very rough (order of magnitude) estimate and a statement that there is no clear definition of the "edge of the solar system." Fcrary (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight! I would be comfortable with wording like that, and I'd be comfortable with removing it entirely. CThomas³ (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

IPA error?

I'm not at all well-versed in Hawaiian, but I think there is an error in the IPA pronunciation guide. Shouldn't it have a glottal stop at the beginning? See ʻOkina. Wwhhllrr (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and make this change. Wwhhllrr (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A flat oval

In this TED Talk, the speaker Karen J. Meech, updates the possible shape to a "flat oval": The Story of ʻOumuamua. (at mark 8 min.) -Rowan Forest (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, similar to the update in the caption artwork File:PIA22357-InterstellarObject-'Oumuamua-ExitsSolarSystem.jpg Tom Ruen (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Mildly active comet?

Should the "mildly active comet" description be removed from lede and nomenclature sections? I agree it belongs in classification. -- User-duck (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the classification, we cannot state both in the intro in a contradictory manner. Best to mention in the body of the article that there are a couple of hypotheses. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Shouldn't ‘Oumuamua be spelt with a beginning curly single _close_ quote (alt 0146), rather than the curly single _open_ quote (alt 0145) presently seen in this entry? Edit: Damn, is the Wiki software changing the marks? How do you switch that off? NelC (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The character is neither, it is an ʻokina, see the nomenclature section of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

directions and metaphors

The Trajectory section uses the words above and below in two unrelated senses: "above the plane of the ecliptic" (north of it) and "above the orbit of Mars" (outside it). I'll change the former, at least, and maybe the latter. —Tamfang (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Surfin bird is a pancake?

Some (many?) analysis assume/suggest that its "cigar shaped". However, a more detailed analysis, using a combined dataset, and more careful examination, suggests that it could be either cigar-shaped, or a pancake. I quote: "This means that, if ‘Oumuamua is rotating in a LAM state, its shape could be any-thing from “cigar-like” to approximately “pancake-like” (a highly oblate ellipsoid rotating around one of its diameters). A LAM state, which is so far not precluded by the observations, includes the case in which the rotational energy is close to maximal (i.e., the instantaneous spin vector is more closely aligned with the long axis) and the shape would need to be an extremely oblate spheroid." (THE EXCITED SPIN STATE OF 1I/2017 U1 ‘OUMUAMUA, Belton et al. arxiv:1804.03471) Please note that the "et al" includes Meech, Drahus, Guzik, Waniak, Handzlik, Kurowski, Weaver, Xu, Micheli all of whom are co-authors of other papers cited in this WP article, and all of whom had earlier talked of a "cigar" shape. (the paper has 18 co-authors)

So cigar or pancake. Perhaps the article should be updated to reflect this? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary mystery

The thing looks like nothing so much as a volcanic pipe/plug, say of felsic magnesite basalt or some other likely dark material;
perhaps a segment remaining after a planetary collision in a system far away in our galaxy.
Let's exhaust the possibilities of conventional, familiar, natural explanations before going into solar sails and drifting alien spaceships, etc.
Occam's razor and all that JohndanR (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

While I agree, the actual research is not done by Wikipedia. We can only document it while following the 5 pillars and policies established. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Solar sail hypothesis

I acknowledge that the publications from the Harvard professor (Loeb) are founded in the scientific method and Loeb himself is a reputable astronomer. I appreciate the Wikipedia efforts to keep his hypothesis in the context it was proposed, and keep it brief. For a solar sail to function, its area:mass ratio has to be very low (low density), yet spectroscopy suggests composition of a D-type asteroid (dense minerals). Loeb suggests for this to work, 'Oumuamua —a 1 km long object— must have a mass of ~740 kg. So I wonder if this mass is compatible with that estimated by other researchers, so we can state so in this article for balance. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Thank you for your comments - yes - it's *entirely* ok with me to update the edit (re: In November 2018, astronomers from Harvard University suggested that the interstellar object 'Oumuamua may be an extraterrestrial solar sail from an alien civilization, in an effort to help explain the object's "peculiar acceleration".) as needed for balance and related - may have to wait-and-see if/when other researchers weigh-in on this particular notion I would think atm - iac - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind no-one honestly thinks it is a solar sail. -- Kheider (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's not give this WP:FRINGE theory too much weight (e.g., don't place it in the header). For one thing it clashes with the estimated dimensions of 'Oumuamua (25m thick at its thinnest, whereas the solar sail hypthesis requires 0.9mm at most). For another the paper tries to explain the acceleration by saying that it is extremely thin (0.3-0.9mm), but also explains the known colour of it by saying that it has accumulated ice and dust - which makes it unlikely that it is still very thin. Finally, well, no-one really believes this. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is a fringe assumption (even if selected for publication) so there would be no benefit in placing it in the introduction. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not in the introduction. Ideally, as soon as this is published, someone will submit a comment to the same journal. The two magnitude light curve, for example, is inconsistent with a solar sail (which would have to be face on to the Sun to get the suggested acceleration.) We can't say that ourselves, since that's original research, but if a comment is published, referencing it would close out the subject in this article. Fcrary (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As long as any references are framed correctly so as not to overstate any findings, let's please not bias against this content. I know that talk of "aliens" is a hard subject. People are very prone to jump all over this. Let's state the facts very clearly and concisely... and please stop attempting to just censor the content as per some of the latest edits. There have been many claims of "aliens" stretching to time immemorial. There is hard evidence here that something funny is happening. There is speculation as to that something potentially being artificial in origin. Let's state exactly that, that: Speculation exists based on X, Y, and Z. literallybenjamin (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Repeating a WP:REDFLAG claim multiple times in the body violates WP:WEIGHT. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

In this case that's not what's happening. If the claim was "It IS aliens" then significant evidence would be required and I would absolutely agree with you. The statement is that there "is speculation" which is 100% accurate and for which the references are completely accurate. Does that make sense to everyone else? I think there is a huge difference between informed speculation, and a non-trivial claim. Moreover, we would be remiss to not publish such speculation on the basis that follows: 1) Currently, there is significant evidence to conclude that something abnormal is happening with 'Oumuamua. 2) If there are no edits of the linked studies post-peer review, this could lead to the most significant finding of the 21st century so far. Please note that there is no contention that the object show anomalous acceleration. There is no contention that the object was likely long and tumbling. And there is no contention that the object did not appear to leave behind any trail in its wake. Those things together are a very big deal. The analysis of the object's tumbling with respect to comet off-gassing is also very compelling. That where the object to be off-gassing particles too small to be observed this still should have provided acceleration of the object's 3-dimensional rotation -> Which was not observed. Something very weird is going on here, and any reference that says something to the effect of "as of now we don't know what's going on exactly, scientists are speculating it is potentially artificial, it's definitely not a traditional comet or asteroid" may be 100% backed up by the studies by Raikov and Loeb. So, in conclusion, please note that "scientists are speculating based on X,Y,Z" != (ne) "It's aliens". literallybenjamin (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies. This is a "what if" paper that amounts to little more than mental masturbation. I could write a paper saying "let's assume the pioneer anomaly would be caused by radiation pressure from a distant Type Ia supernova" and proceed to calculate how far the supernova is to explain the anomaly. The math would check out, no one could disagree with me, because assuming there's a Type Ia supernova out there, then that's how far it would be to explain the anomaly. It's still completely bonkers to hunt supernovas using the pioneer anomaly in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is a paper attempting to classify an object that so far has managed to avoid classification. It's not a claim that the the object is a bundle of spaghetti. It is actually potentially approaching occam's razor. I know as soon as the word "aliens" pops up, people start to lose their minds one way or another. In this case, a solar sail is likely NOT what the object is. At this time however it may easily be the most plausible explanation. To say that this object is an asteroid may be refuted due to the anomalous thrust. To say that this object is a comet and accelerating due to off-gassing may be refuted due to the lack of an observed tail, as well as due to the analysis of its tumbling. That leaves us at square one, what is it? To say that it potentially is a solar sail is currently the most plausible explanation. I think this will be revised multiple times. But this is not a time to be biased against the most realistic current explanation for this object. Have you ever heard of a Von Neumann probe? We expect these objects to be everywhere... It's very plausible. literallybenjamin (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no plausibility whatsoever that this is a solar sail of some kind. This is a space rock. The classification debate about whether or not it's a comet vs asteroid vs whatever vs something new is an argument about the exact composition of the space rock. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Literallybenjamin: I think this may help: the mention of the "what if" thought experiment was never censored; the deletion of one entry was because it was mentioned twice in separate sections. A single mention along with its references is enough. Do you agree? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: I am of the opinion that the mention in both places in appropriate. It makes sense to me to mention that there is additional research ongoing in the section regarding that. And to mention that research's findings in the section about classification. I can see there are strong (and I would argue: biased) opinions here. As per the comment above yours which to me reads as such. I think it's important that in scientific discussions we go where-ever the evidence leads. In this case, "comets don't make course corrections." Thoughts? Literallybenjamin (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Self-reply for addendum. Perhaps the compromise here is to wait for peer-review, which I understand these studies are undergoing now? Literallybenjamin (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "research findings", or "conclusion" this is an ET, and no, the object had no "course corrections". It was a thought experiment, a "what if" exercise. To the point: your POV and accusations of censorship, are way out there, and as a Wikipedia editor, you must know that your approach is limited by WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That's right, there are no research findings about this object at all. Even the shape is just inferred from measurements of brightness. So why are we biasing against some content, and in favor of others? To say that this object is cigar shaped is just as controversial... We must follow Occam's Razor to resolve issues like this. In this case, I am most certainly not implying that we say it IS ET. I'm saying we say exactly what the latest "best guess" is. And give all valid computations or inferences due merit. If these studies are correct, they will have the first potentially valid theory for what caused the acceleration. That's not a "God of the gaps" argument. It will be the first, best theory. Off-gassing does not fit, and "comets do not make course corrections" (a quote from Man of Steel). Which, to be clear, prograde thrust would be a potential course correction; though obviously the quote was largely contextual not a direct implication. I mean to say "rocks do not accelerate under such conditions; as we understand." Literallybenjamin (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we don't follow Occam's Razor, we follow the sources. Given that the actual coverage of this hypothesis is limited to a preprint I would support not mentioning at all, but there seems to be support for some mention here, which is a defensible position given the bits of coverage in popular science articles. VQuakr (talk) 04:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay let me try to clarify what I'm trying to say. How exactly do we determine what is or is not "fringe?" Literallybenjamin (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To quote WP:FRINGE: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay well if I'm understanding you correctly, then I disagree. This is not a fringe theory. We have to determine what is meant by "scholarship." To say that just because an idea is rare is definitely not to say that it is incorrect, lest we fallaciously perform the Argumentum_ad_populum. That's what I'm trying to get at here. It may be valid that under the WP:FRINGE definitions this may classify as an "Alternative theoretical formulation". The prescription for such is "they should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective." Which is literally just what I've been saying this whole time. As long as nobody is typing out "IT'S ALIEAMZ ITS THEM THEY HERE"; as long as the statements read "here are the latest developments in our attempts to understand this object" then we are being accurate, and following the rules as they pertain to any "fringe" nature of this content. Again, to reiterate. Please understand, the idea that this may be a solar sail is speculative. Nobody is discounting that and any edits that imply factual knowledge should be fixed. However, to say that "speculative" is a label which applies specifically to this one aspect of Oumuamua is just plain wrong. Most everything we know about this object is speculative. The reports on the shape of the object are a fine example. We do not know it is a cigar, we do not know what it is made of, we don't "know" really anything about this object. That it may be pushed by solar radiation pressure is the most plausible solution we have thus far for the anamalous thrust. That should not be taken down under any circumstances, or relegated to the realms of fringe because people don't like it. Edit away, put it in perspective, say nobody knows, say the jury is out. Say how unlikely other astronomers think aliens are. But when you talk about the shape, say "based on the evidence, it is most likely a cigar." And when you talk about the thrust and classification, say "based on the evidence it may be being pushed by solar radiation pressure." If the community would like to wait for peer review on these articles I wouldn't object. Literallybenjamin (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, to speak to probabilities. I believe some of the judgements on this content I've seen here and in the media come from the idea that aliens are incredibly unlikely. But if you've ever heard of the Fermi Paradox then you know that's not the case. The paradox exists because we *should* be seeing aliens; and we aren't. It is surprising that we aren't. To finally see an artificial construct would be to start to set the statistics right. Literallybenjamin (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact if I'm not mistaken there was a statistical argument in favor of artificial origin in one of these studies. Based on the trajectory of the object, it was calculated (if I'm remembering correctly) that for this to be a random event would require 10^15 such objects -> per star in our galaxy. Literallybenjamin (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR. VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fringe theory. No peer reviewed sources have been presented; you haven't demonstrated any significant level of acceptance in the scientific community. A single sentence is the absolute maximum amount of coverage that is justifiable at this point. Since we seem to have consensus on that level of coverage, I suggest we move on. VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to re-emphasise, yes, this is a fringe theory. The extent of the coverage it is has received does not affect the fact that it is expressed in a single paper, yet to actually be peer-reviewed. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Context matters. It is not "evidence" but a thought experiment regarding acceleration. A related example is the Pioneer anomaly, which took a long time to figure and nobody invoked aliens. " "When you hear hoof beats, think of horses not unicorns." Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A nice twist on the classic quote. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Their paper was accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, and will appear on November 12. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly we have a disagreement here. And I feel a bit bothered by how difficult it has been to communicate my case. For example, the re-assertion that this article is indeed "fringe" is not a refutation of what I said previous. What I said previously is that this article is a subset of WP:FRINGE -> Most specifically an "Alternative theoretical formulation". For which the proper response is publication with context. That's different than plain "fringe". It should be referenced in all applicable locations in the text, and note should be made of it's speculative nature. That's what WP:FRINGE says. I suggest we follow the rules. Now, re: the Pioneer anomaly I will once again just point out that 1) it's not exclusively a "thought experiment" it is an attempt to understand the nature of this object and its characteristics. 2) To say "the anomalous thrust may be explained by X" is in the same class as saying "the variation in light magnitude may be explained by a tumbling cigar shaped object". Do you understand? In regard to the talk of "unicorns" as per the "fantastical" nature of "aliens". I will say this, 1) nobody is saying that it "is aliens" that claim is a scarecrow and fallacious. 2) The Fermi Paradox is a "paradox" because aliens are not fantastical, they are likely and it is surprising that we have not found them. I am absolutely, verifiably, and completely right about my opinion on this matter. However, this is a group effort and I will not strong arm my way through. I hope you will all critically re-appraise my argument and it's specific components. I am right. Literallybenjamin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

References

"Tumbling"

"ʻOumuamua is tumbling, rather than smoothly rotating" – does that mean anything? My guess is that its axis of rotation (about which it must be smoothly rotating, that's how rotation works) is neither the axis about which it has the greatest, nor that about which it has the least, moment of inertia. Maproom (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

See Tumbling (rigid body). Jonathunder (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think chaotic rotation is a little clearer. Also, doesn't the Tumbling article use "stable" when it really means "equilibrium" rotation about the first and third principle axes? Fcrary (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Tennis racket theorem contains another example of chaotic rotation, along with a cool video of an example demonstrated on the ISS. VQuakr (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Broken or Missing Citations

References 20 and 21 appear to be broken or missing. These seem pretty fundamental to the claim that the last observations of Oumuamua showed unexpected velocity. Can anyone supply what those references were? If not, of course, they should be removed. That would leave only reference 53, which is not a primary source. Thanks. MarkGoldfain (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Acceleration

Can somebody find the exact acceleration measured? I know it is tiny, but we can explain that even such a tiny change is enigmatic. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Search for Radio Transmissions 'Oumuamua

Serendipitous MWA Search for Narrow-band and Broad-band Low Frequency Radio Transmissions from 1I/2017 U1 'Oumuama 26 Feb 2018

We found no such signals with non-terrestrial origins and make estimates of the upper limits on Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) for these three cases of approximately 7 kW, 840 W, and 100 kW, respectively. These transmitter powers are well within the capabilities of human technologies, and are therefore plausible for alien civilizations.

Theories about oumuamua is a spaceship is far-fetched and can't be proven. It originates from Lyra, near the star Vega, a popular star in UFO folklore, and disappears in Pegasus, near the Andromeda Galaxy. The closest approach to earth was around August 21, 2017 when a total solar eclipse's totality path crossed the USA, North America. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

NASA img

Another artist conception https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-learns-more-about-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua prokaryotes (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Bolide blast over Papua New Guinea

The recent announcement of the likely origins of the bolide which exploded over PNG suggests that extrasolar objects might be more common here than we realised. Anyone else been keeping up with that? And does it need a mention in the article? Cadar (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia should become a stenographer for Avi Loeb. -Rowan Forest (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That was not my suggestion. If you've actually read the article in question, you'll be aware of the fact that there is a section entitled "Other interstellar objects," of which the PNG bolide would be one. No? Regardless, I don't see how you can separate the subject of interstellar objects from Avi Loeb without ignoring many of the facts, personal prejudices not withstanding.

Cadar (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by other sources ie National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/interstellar-meteor-may-have-hit-earth-fireball-oumuamua-avi-loeb/ Perhaps add a section to this article? Ilenart626 (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

As there were no telescopic observations or even camera recordings of the 2014Jan08 fireball, the data is a little more sketchy. There really has not been any doubt that exometeorites exist, it is just a question of how common they are. How much weight does that really need in this article? It might be worth a sentence. Does a 2013Jan17 Oort cloud comet that impacted California belong in the List of meteor air bursts article even if there are no known airburst measurements? -- Kheider (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I've fleshed out Kheider's edit on the article to include just a few more details. There's more information in some of the news and science articles online, but since the article's focus is a single specific instance of interstellar objects, I think there's no need to go into more detail. I see there's an existing article specifically about interstellar objects. I haven't looked at it yet, but I'd assume it's probably a better home for more detail on the PNG bolide than this article.

Cadar (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of previous edit on 'Oumuamua page?

Moved from User talk:Headbomb

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @Headbomb:, I was just wondering, what was the rationale behind removing the previous edit from the article in question? I saw two reasons for its inclusion: It fitted there under the section "Other interstellar objects" by its nature; and it was also discovered by Loeb. If your argument is that it's unconfirmed, that's fine, but then the entire section should be removed for exactly the same reason. Cadar (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is an unpublished article, not something that was published in The Astrophysical Journal. It was submitted to it, but has yet to be accepted. Case in point, another preprint from the same authors (arXiv:1811.09632) had to undergo 5 revisions before getting published.

Not saying this can't be mentioned in the article, but this is a very very recent preprint, and its claims have not been checked, so if there is a mention, then it to be clear this has not been published yet. There is also a lot of WP:UNDUE, and unless there is media commentary, I don't much see the relevance. This also applies to the others in the section. Good for interstellar object, not so much for Oumuamua. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Granted, although I'm thinking we're reaching a watershed here. We need to make a call on whether or not these candidate objects should be included at all, and if so, why. To my mind, assuming we opt to leave them in place, then the PNG blast is a definite candidate for inclusion, if only because it's a relatively unique type of interstellar object in its own right (being a bolide as opposed to an asteroid or similar). Working, again, on assumptions, I would think that a sample of interesting such candidates deserve mention to illustrate the fact that they aren't just confined to captures or transitory visits, but also have reached Earth. And this one, doubly so, because it's the first such, even if only tentatively identified. Regarding the newness of the published study/preprint, I don't see the relevance? It's been widely reported in the mass media, and as such has entered into the public record. The article can state that it's tentative and even that it's only a preprint. That's just a matter of wording, not of the inclusion of facts. Later revisions to the paper can be reflected in revisions to the article. That's what we're here for, after all.

Cadar (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

V1 (23 Nov 2018) of the paper listed two centaurs (2011 SP25 and 2017 RR2) that are not even included in V5 (4 Feb 2019). You can successfully do a text search for TL6 on both lists. -- Kheider (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Review article

A free version of the rewiew article The natural history of ‘Oumuamua in Nature Astronomy (paywall) is available using link in this tweet by one of the authors. Agmartin (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

New paper

Tidal fragmentation as the origin of 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua) Nature Astronomy Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

apostrophe

The majority of the article refers to ʻOumuamua, but there are a few uses of `Oumuamua. Is this the "wrong" ʻokina, and/or a sign of copy-paste plagiarism?

Even if both symbols are acceptable, Wikipedia's manual of style would probably recommend consistency within any single article.

96.244.220.178 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New study (2020) hints that Oumuamua could be alien technology

'Oumuamua — a mysterious, interstellar object that crashed through our solar system two years ago — might in fact be alien technology. That’s because an alternative, non-alien explanation might be fatally flawed, as a new study argues.

Sources:

- Interstellar visitor 'Oumuamua could still be alien technology, new study hints - Destruction of Molecular Hydrogen Ice and Implications for 1I/2017 U1 ('Oumuamua)

That was...an absolutely awful clickbait article. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and the paper itself doesn't really support "fatally flawed", when it comes to the hydrogen ice composition idea. It's more like an study on how such an object would be difficult to explain given current theories of cometary or planetary formation. Showing that, "if that's what it is, we don't understand how it formed" isn't proving that it couldn't be like that. And Avi Loeb is also co-author on this paper. He seems to have a personal agenda towards claiming 'Oumuamua could be of artificial origin. So I'd rather see a better reference, or a review paper on the subject, before making too much about the recent paper in this Wikipedia article. Fcrary (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit odd to be accusing him of having an agenda towards pushing the artificial origin when the hydrogen ice model on his paper there is the first plausible physical model for a natural origin. Regardless, you can't discount him because he's definitely not fringe; he has an obvious position of credibility, publishes in the peer reviewed media, the rest of us are engaging with his ideas, etc. As it stands, the article is a NPOV disaster, it's very easy to read the authors' biases out of fit. WilyD 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@WilyD: What kinds of biases do you mean? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

How is it odd, he's selling a book. It is clear sensationalism to up sales. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Userbox

This user believes ʻOumuamua is an AI-piloted UFO

Charles Juvon (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Leob book in "Alien object speculation" section

The reference to Dr. Leob's upcoming book has been deleted as advertising, and this edit was reverted. The current text in the article reads "In January 2021, Loeb is releasing a book, "Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth", which describes the possibility that 'Oumauamua may be alien technology, although such an explanation is considered very unlikely by most scientists.")

I think this should be removed, since we don't include the names of other papers or books on the subject. It also isn't clear if the book contains any new information, or if it simple repeats Dr. Leob's past statements on the subject (which are already described in the article.) When the book is published, we should add a description of any new information in it, and reference that. But not as an inline citation, just as another reference (i.e. just like all the other references.) Fcrary (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a very reasonable proposal. I support it. Attic Salt (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - a modest mention of the book in the article seems relevant - and worthy imo - however - I'm flexible with this at the moment, and would support the "WP:CONSENSUS" view - comments by other editors welcome of course - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Such sensationalism does not need to be in the lead. The simplest explanation of it being an oblong asteroid/comet is probably correct. -- Kheider (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure the book would be noteworthy in and of itself. At least not compared to other references which we do not call out by name in the test (just a superscript number and a link to the reference section.) Actually, the book may be less noteworthy. It's a primary source from one of the very few scientists who doubt 'Oumauamua was a natural body. And, as a book, it wasn't peer reviewed, which makes it an even more dubious primary source. Fcrary (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that the book should have a sentence about it. But if it is published, and there is something new in it that justifies a mention here, then the book could be used as a reference that the claim is made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

apparent discrepancies need clean-up

"However, this scenario leads to cigar-shaped objects whereas ʻOumuamua's lightcurve favors a disc-like shape."

This suggests that the light curve settles the matter and rules out cigars; it is not clear if the "favours" is intended as strongly or somewhat and I would like an expert to add the appropriate adverb.

A section that follows appears to suggest that the light curve is compatible with a range of shapes, including cigar and pancake. Again, an expert can judge the subtleties here.

As is, this page seems to say: "definitely not a cigar but a pancake. Or maybe a cigar." There are many illustrations favouring the cigar shape, so if this is ruled out (which I do to believe to be the case) even more clean-up would be required. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D4E0:D8E8:2332:D003 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Alien object speculation"

While I do not support Loeb's theory (or any of the others), I think Wikipedia should at least try to be fair to him, rather than trying to reduce his efforts to a footnote. This section of the article asserts "such an explanation is considered very unlikely by most scientists" - but the reference provided does not include any evidence to support that assertion, it simply carries a similar assertion "But most scientists think the idea that we spotted alien technology in our solar system is a long shot"; essentially the same claim, but worded for LiveScience's non-academic audience. I assert that this falls below an acceptable level of fairness and accuracy, and should probably be removed, despite most editors agreeing with it. Wikipedia is not about opinion-forming and assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.251.205 (talk • contribs)

There seems to be LOTS (arguably too much) of the "aliens, man" discussion in the article. It's not clear what change you are proposing. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

It being a footnote is fair. He is no more authority than anyone else on the topic, but he gets a full mention and no one else does? That is bias not fair. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

From recent edits, I think the change 92.20.251.205 was suggesting is about the use of word "most"scientists, as opposed to "some" scientists. I've tried to change that to "other" scientists, but the change was reverted (and I just reverted that change...) To avoid an edit war, what actual sources do we need to say "most" scientists disagree with Dr. Loeb's theory? I personally believe "most" is correct. Actually I think "virtually every" scientist would be correct. But we can't base the text of the article on my or anyone else's personal opinions. We don't have a survey of scientists to show that "most" (as in over 50%) disagree, and we don't have any sort of groundswelling of statements by other scientists saying that the alien spaceship idea is nuts. So I'd have to say that we're stuck with reliable sources, and they don't provide evidence most scientists disagree. I also think using the word, "some" would be misleading, since it could easily be read as meaning "just a few". It would really help if more scientists spoke out and said they thought Dr. Loeb was either insane or a maniac self-publicist. But that hasn't happened, so we can't include such a judgement in the article. Fcrary (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The source cited says MOST so I am going to revert your original research. It is a reasonable concept, but I doubt even Loeb believes it to be a spacecraft. -- Kheider (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The source says "most" but without providing any supporting evidence to back it up. That makes it an opinion, and we're not obliged to report opinions word-for-word. That's not original research. I think saying "other scientists" matches what the source said, since "most scientists" certainly counts as "other scientists." But if you insist on "most", I thin we should make it clear that's an opinion. As in, "According to Ran Letzer of Live Science, most scientists..." Fcrary (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Since we can not determine how many scientists Rafi Letzter has spoken to about Oumuamua, I am not sure we need to water-down his statement. But I will let others chime in on that. -- Kheider (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - perhaps the wording in the book article may be helpful? => "Loeb, an astronomer at Harvard University, speculates that the object might possibly be from an alien civilization in a far distant star system, a conclusion that is considerered unlikely by the scientific community." - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

This whole discussion may be a moot point. On January 21, I posted a comment to this talk page, saying that no inline references to Dr. Leob's upcoming book belong in the article. The current consensus seems to be that mentioning the book is inappropriate. I'm going to leave that open for further comments until February 4 (two weeks after the original suggestion.) If there are no significant changes on the subject by then, I'm going to assume there is a consensus among the editors and delete all mention of Dr. Leob's book from this article. So how we discuss that book is may be a bit of a moot point... Fcrary (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your proposal goes against WP:NPOV, science is not driven by consensus. Dr. Leob is an expert from a reputable university, published in a scientific journal his hypothesis and published a book to expand his argument. Did you read the book already? It was published today. So NPOV should prevail, whether or not we like his hypothesis.--Mariordo (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral point of view isn't relevant. In earlier comments on this talk page, the objections are. (1) The book is given undue weight, since it's no more noteworthy than any of the other sources on the subject, and those other sources are not listed by name in the text. They are just given the usual superscript and listing in the reference section. (2) The text on the book does not add anything to the article, since it does not mention any new ideas or information on the subject; it's just a statement that someone has published a book on the subject. That makes the sentence about the book look like it's simply an advertisement for the book, which is against policy. (3) It's a primary source by someone who clearly has strong opinions on the subject and is not peer reviewed. That makes it a suspect reference. None of that has anything to do with what I think of the hypothesis. Nor does the consensus have anything to do with the science; it's about whether or not discussing the book adds to the information content of the article and whether or not it is given appropriate or undue weight. Fcrary (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly second Fcrary here on all his arguments. Unfortunately, attention-seeking crack pottery happens in academia and even the most venerable institutes are not immune. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:D4E0:D8E8:2332:D003 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree as well, there is no need to give one sensationalist view on the object more attention than anyone else's. It is bias and needs new pass to put his work in line with instead of ahead of others. That means a footnote only. 96.31.190.97 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The facts can go in the Avi Loeb article. But we can retain the link to the Avi Loeb article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed text on Avi Loeb's recent book

I've removed the text on Avi Loeb's recent book. After suggesting this, I've waited the usual two weeks for discussion and consensus. The consensus seems to be that the existence of the book, rather than its contents, is not noteworthy, that its inclusion (while other work on the subject is simply cited as a reference) gives it undue weight, and that it could be considered advertising. I've also removed the test on a podcast by Rob Reid for the same reason. I did add Dr. Loeb's book to the "See also" section, since it seems appropriate there. If there is any new information or new ideas in the book, including that, with the book as a reference, would be a different matter. A simple statement that the book exists doesn't belong in this article. Fcrary (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Have been following, and agree with removal; although Loeb's theories are fun to listen to. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

'Non-gravitational acceleration' but I can't see any figures for that

I guess it's very low but some numbers would help. 79.76.149.15 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

They are known as A1+A2+A3. -- Kheider (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but as a layman that tells me literally nothing (Edit: I mean the link to JPL. I looked at the page and had no idea how to read it). Would a public-friendly description of this be possible, perhaps giving a feel of how much/little that is, in some manner I can relate to (eg. "the additional acceleration at its peak would be about the pressure a little finger could exert")? FYI I came here to look at what the acceleration was, from a scientificamerican interview (<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomer-avi-loeb-says-aliens-have-visited-and-hes-not-kidding1/>) with the same Avi Loeb being dissed elsewhere, and I rather wanted to get an actual feeling for this - carefully unspecified - extra kick. Ta 79.76.149.15 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It might be useful to add the actual, non-gravitational acceleration (probably in millimeters per second or smaller units) with a comparison to what a typical comet experiences at a similar distance from the Sun. But I'm not volunteering to look up the references or put that in myself. Fcrary (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The acceleration is roughly A1 (1 au/r)^2 where A1 = 5.6e-6 m/s^2. -- Kheider (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. Now can someone think of a normal comet with a nucleus about 50-100 meters in size? Then we could look up the A1 for it and use it as a comparison. I think the request was for description of the non-gravitational acceleration which gave non-specialists an intuitively feel for it. 5.6e-6 m/s^2 probably wouldn't do that, but the same number for a similar comet would. Fcrary (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Errant heading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua#Other_interstellar_objects What relevance is this heading — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.58.245 (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

AP, CGTN and nitrogen ice theory

I wanted to add the following to the end of nitrogen ice theory:

The paper's authors think that an impact 500 million years ago knocked a fragment off such a body and sent it towards our solar system.<citation> But some scientists dissented, with Harvard's Avi Loeb arguing that the artificial origin hypothesis should remain on the table.<same citation>

In the citation there would have been the supporting quote=The study's authors, Alan Jackson and Steven Desch, think an impact knocked a chunk off an icy nitrogen-covered planet 500 million years ago and sent the piece tumbling out of its own star system, toward ours. ... Not all scientists buy the new explanation. Harvard University's Avi Loeb disputes the findings and stands by his premise that the object appears to be more artificial than natural – in other words, something from an alien civilization, perhaps a light sail. Given that Oumuamua is unlike comets and asteroids – and something not seen before – "we cannot assume 'business as usual,' as many scientists argue," Loeb wrote in an email Wednesday. "If we contemplate 'something that we had not seen before,' we must leave the artificial origin hypothesis on the table and collect more evidence on objects from the same class."

The basic source for all this is the supposedly eminently 'reliable' US news agency AP, but I found it in China's CGTN so it turns out I can't use it for fear of brainwashing all our readers with totally unreliable Chinese Communist propaganda (as distinct from further brainwashing them with the usual eminently reliable Western capitalist propaganda ), unless I want to risk being hauled before the Supreme Cabal . I may or may not eventually be a good little boy and look for basically the same text in suitably 'reliable' Western capitalist organs, but at present I'm too irritated to want to bother (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, etc). However that might be a disservice to our readers, so I'm sticking this here in case anybody else wants to bother instead of me.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Nitrogen comet makes more sense and is far more likely than little green men. Avi Loeb's self promotion should be given little weight. -- Kheider (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Worthy news articles?

News article of possible interest - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't think so. The first article is pretty overstated. From the text, the only one claiming 'Oumuamua is potentially artificial is Avi Loeb and a few of his colleagues. This isn't something the "astronomy world" is quarreling over. Most of the community has just decided to ignore Dr. Loeb. So the article doesn't really add to the discussion of the subject in this article. For the second article, it's all about unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). There's just a brief mention of 'Oumuamua at the end: "Similarly, the strange `Oumuamua has been interpreted as a new type of asteroid, such as a frozen chunk of pure hydrogen or nitrogen. But what if high-resolution images of such a weird object revealed buttons? It could encourage us to learn more by landing on the surface..." Dr. Loeb is just using 'Oumuamua as an example of how we can learn things by getting better data on unusual objects, not saying anything new about 'Oumuamua itself. Fcrary (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Fcrary. Nobody but Avi Loeb is still pushing rhe Alien Spacecraft wreck idea. Too bad. It DID sound cool. Then Reality came to call.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This Alien malarkey reminds me of Percival Lowell and his canals on Mars. -- Kheider (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Name

Why is there an apostrophe before O - Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a glottal stop, which is common in Polynesian languages. Netherzone (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok - Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is written in English. I wouldn't expect us to remove the apostrophe, but perhaps a pronunciation guide would be useful. On the other hand, Dr Loeb in his book doesn't use a glottal stop when he tells us how to pronounce it. --142.163.194.149 (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

What was the last observation, and how accurately can we predict its trajectory

Infobox says Observation arc of 80 days (starting 19 Oct 2017?) but article doesn't seem to say : who saw it last, and where it was ? How accurately can we predict its future path (since it's been invisible since Jan 2018?) ? (eg if we did try to send a chaser spacecraft to get closeup images) - Rod57 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Goemboek Shape?

Did the rotation slow and heat one side causing the gasseous acceleration? 2600:100D:B10C:EEDC:49A7:A3F5:AD06:A64E (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)