Why the Controversy Around 3I/ATLAS Theories Are Good for Astronomy
Avi Loeb, head of the Galileo Project and the founding director of Harvard University’s Black Hole Initiative, is a well-known voice in the exploration of astronomical phenomena. Recently, Loeb has drawn a lot of attention based on his July 12 essay titled “Preliminary Anomalies of 3I/ATLAS,” in which he argues that we should at least consider the possibility that the interstellar object could be technology from extraterrestrial intelligence.
Following its detection on July 1, 2025, 3I/ATLAS captivated the scientific community due to its unusual characteristics. Loeb pointed out that at its initial discovery distance, the object appeared anomalously bright, suggesting a diameter of around 20 kilometers. With our very limited dataset on interstellar asteroids, that makes 3I/ATLAS an outlier and much larger than anything else we’ve seen.
Loeb’s main argument in favor of 3I/ATLAS being a technologically engineered object rather than a natural celestial body is its trajectory and the angle at which it’s approaching our solar system. Its retrograde orbit near the Earth’s orbital plane, the timing and distance at which it will be passing close by to several planets, and the timing of when the object will be behind the Sun from our perspective are all coincidences that Loeb has calculated to be highly improbable.
To say that Loeb’s controversial views have fueled debates within the scientific community is an understatement. Jason T Wright, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, for instance, has this to say about Loeb’s proposal:
“[Loeb has] constructed the not-at-all-self-aggrandizing ‘Loeb Scale,’ in which he purports to quantify the chances that an interstellar object is an alien spacecraft. Unlike the Torino scale for asteroids, which is quantitative and logarithmic, this one is linear and squishy.”
Loeb’s proposals regarding 3I/ATLAS have stirred considerable buzz and controversy both online and within the scientific community. One thing you can say for Loeb, though, is that his bold conjecture has captivated the public’s imagination. Countless pop-culture publications and forums have covered his proposals, and that has drawn massive amounts of attention to an otherwise niche topic of scientific discovery.
There are a number of notable problems with Loeb’s propositions, however.
One of the principal issues with Loeb’s conclusions is his emphasis on the object’s brightness and size anomaly. He proposed that the lack of typical cometary features, such as a tail, combined with the object’s bright glow, suggested a potential technological origin… but similar anomalies can be explained without resorting to extraordinary claims. The absence of a cometary tail does not automatically imply artificiality; it might simply reflect observational limitations or unique compositional properties not yet fully understood.
Furthermore, many in the scientific community have raised concerns about the methodological rigor in Loeb’s assessments. The “Loeb Scale,” as I mentioned earlier, is particularly contentious since it offers a subjective measure that inflates the object’s enigmatic allure without robust empirical support. Using the least generous interpretation, this approach undermines the credibility of scientific discourse, where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Loeb’s assertion of 3I/ATLAS having a retrograde orbit closely aligned with the Earth’s orbital plane as an indication of possible artificial manipulation has also been contentious. While uncommon, those alignments can occur naturally due to a multitude of gravitational interactions and need not be attributed to extraterrestrial intervention.
If you subscribe to the foundational principles of Occam’s Razor, the simpler, more natural explanations should be exhausted before considering more complex interpretations, and therein lies the main contention with Loeb’s statements.
While most experts have – probably rightly – dismissed Loeb’s ideas as highly speculative, his willingness to challenge prevailing notions is the kind of mindset that’s crucial for advancing our understanding of the universe.
There’s a fundamental tension in contemporary astrophysics (and in all science, really): the balance between embracing innovative hypotheses and adhering to rigorous scientific methodologies.
It’s always a vital part of science to keep an open mind and follow the data rather than forcing data to fit into a pre-existing framework, which is why, on the whole, I think Loeb’s publications are a net positive.
Pointing out anomalies to draw attention to interesting scientific study is a tactic that has its place. Many contemporary astrophysicists and aerospace engineers first got their start because they were interested in those sensational questions about the nature of our universe. How many more people, particularly young people in online spaces, have heard about 3I/ATLAS than they have about any other asteroid or comet due to the alien invasion angle?
That said, inflammatory or sensationalist statements also run the risks of conflating real scientific discoveries with outlandish pop-science speculation and drawing the public’s attention in ways that are counter-productive. Public hype can easily run away with a narrative and muddy the waters when it comes to rigorous discussion of scientific work.
The ripple effects of public sentiment are hard to predict. Even a well-meaning line of questions can be twisted and used to manipulate discussion on a topic, like we’ve already seen in plenty of examples of clickbait headlines on 3I/ATLAS as an impending extraterrestrial invasion.
In any case, we love to see the buzz around ongoing phenomenon, and 3I/ATLAS as the third recorded interstellar object is no exception. We’ll certainly be watching the news each day as it gets closer to the sun and its closest rendezvous with Earth.
Check out our selection of telescopes at thespacestore.com if you want to get started on your astronomy hobby today!
- Written by Matt Herr