New analyzes by scientist Avi Loeb on 3I/ATLAS, the interstellar comet that presents anomalies that, according to him, defy physics. And they reignite the scientific debate.
When a name like Avi Loeb publishes a new analysis, the scientific community prepares for discussion. Professor at Harvard, former director of the Department of Astronomy and founder of the Black Hole Initiative, Loeb – it must be said – is a scientist of undisputed authority. However, he is also known for some rather daring hypotheses, often on the border between consolidated science and exploratory curiosity – just think of his interpretations of ‘Oumuamua as a possible technological artifact. For a few months he has been formulating hypotheses according to which it cannot be ruled out that 3I/ATLAS, the third interstellar object ever observed in the Solar System, could also actually be an alien artefact.
In recent days he has dedicated two articles to 3I/ATLAS, which is showing behaviors that are difficult to explain with the physics of comets alone.
3I/ATLAS: a comet “too bright” and “too blue”
In his penultimate article, published on Medium, Loeb comments on new data from space observatories such as SOHO, STEREO and GOES-19. The images show that 3I/ATLAS suddenly brightened, with a growth in brightness that follows a much steeper law than that of known comets: its brightness increases as the inverse of the distance from the Sun raised to 7.5. In other words: in an almost unbelievable way. In normal comets this number is usually between 2 and 3, but for 3I/ATLAS it is 7.5: it means that its light increases exaggeratedly, as if it were “shining” much more than expected.
Even more surprising, the comet appears “bluer than the Sun.” Normally, comets reflect sunlight so they appear redder — a result of dust scattering the radiation. The blue color, however, suggests direct emission, perhaps from ionized gases (such as carbon monoxide) or from still unknown processes.
But what does “bluer than the Sun” mean? The Sun, in reality, is not blue: its light is white, slightly tending towards yellow, and contains all the components of the visible spectrum. Saying that a comet is “bluer than the Sun” means that its light is shifted to shorter wavelengths — that is, it reflects or emits more blue radiation than sunlight. This effect can indicate the presence of ionized gases or an unusual chemical composition, and therefore represents a truly rare anomaly.
Loeb highlights how this represents the ninth “anomaly” of 3I/ATLAS, after a series of unusual features already identified previously.
The new observation: a non-gravitational acceleration
In his most recent article, First Evidence for a Non-Gravitational Acceleration of 3I/ATLAS at PerihelionLoeb comments on the detection of a non-gravitational acceleration when the object reached perihelion (the minimum distance from the Sun, 203 million kilometers).
The data, recorded by Davide Farnocchia of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, indicates that 3I/ATLAS moves as if it were propelled by a “rocket” effect, probably due to the outgassing of volatile materials. However, Loeb does not completely exclude the most speculative hypothesis: that of an artificial push, generated by some internal mechanism, as if the object really had a sort of “engine”.
While maintaining a cautious tone, Loeb reminds colleagues that “it is a bad scientific method to discard data just because we do not yet have a convincing theoretical explanation”.
Science or suggestion?
Loeb’s analyzes are fascinating precisely because they oscillate between rigor and intellectual provocation. No one doubts his scientific competence – his CV speaks for itself – but many astrophysicists urge us not to confuse the exploration of hypotheses with proof of facts.
Observations in the coming weeks, especially from Hubble and James Webb, could clarify whether comet 3I/ATLAS is really losing mass at exceptional rates or whether natural processes that are still poorly understood are hidden behind its anomalies.
What is certain is that Loeb, with his often unconventional approach, manages once again to bring scientific wonder to the center of the debate – reminding us that curiosity, even when it surprises, is the very engine of knowledge.
