Talk:ʻOumuamua: Difference between revisions

{{talkheader}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=|1=

{{WP Astronomy|object=yes|class=C|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Solar System|object=yes|class=C|importance=high}}

{{annual readership}}

|counter = 4

== Search for Radio Transmissions 'Oumuama==

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.09276 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.

== 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? [[User:NelC|NelC]] ([[User talk:NelC|talk]]) 13:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

:The character is neither, it is an [[ʻokina]], see the nomenclature section of the article. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk: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. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 03:17, 1 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, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk:Rowan Forest|talk]]) 13:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

:{{reply|Rowan Forest}} Thank you for your comments - yes - it's *entirely* ok with me to update the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CA%BBOumuamua&diff=867012604&oldid=867008285 edit] (re: ''In November 2018, astronomers from [[Harvard University]] suggested that the [[interstellar object]] [['Oumuamua]] may be an [[Extraterrestrial intelligence|extraterrestrial]] [[solar sail]] from an alien civilization, in an effort to help explain the object's "peculiar acceleration".''<ref name="UT-230181031">{{cite web |last=Williams |first=Matt |title=Could Oumuamua Be an Extra-Terrestrial Solar Sail? |url=https://www.universetoday.com/140391/could-oumuamua-be-an-extra-terrestrial-solar-sail/ |date=31 October 2018 |work=[[Universe Today]] |accessdate=2 November 2018 }}</ref><ref name="ARX-20181101">{{cite arxiv |last1=Baily |first1=Shmuel |last2=Loeb |first2=Abraham |title=Could Solar Radiation Explain 'Oumuamua's Peculiar Acceleration? |date=1 November 2018 |eprint=1810.11490v2|class=astro-ph.EP }}</ref><ref name="SA-201809287">{{cite web |last=Loeb |first=Abraham |title=How to Search for Dead Cosmic Civilizations - If they're short-lived, we might be able to detect the relics and artifacts they left behind |url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-to-search-for-dead-cosmic-civilizations/ |date=26 September 2018 |work=[[Scientific American]] |accessdate=2 November 2018 }}</ref>) 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! :) [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 13:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

::Keep in mind no-one honestly thinks it is a solar sail. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Rowan Forest|Rowan Forest]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Fcrary|Fcrary]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:literallybenjamin|literallybenjamin]] ([[User talk:literallybenjamin|talk]]) 05:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Repeating a [[WP:REDFLAG]] claim multiple times in the body violates [[WP:WEIGHT]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk: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". [[User:literallybenjamin|literallybenjamin]] ([[User talk: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 1a 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. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 14:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}