The arrival of a visitor from another solar system is undoubtedly one of the most important scientific news of recent times. But if we add to that that is the fastest object (more than 200,000 km/h), which is noticeably larger than the two visitors previous and that it is older than our solar system, the surprises already create many speculations.
According to an essay published by Sara Webb, from the Center for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, establishes the characteristics that an object must meet to be considered alien technology. Parameters include the following:
1) Unexplainable trajectory only by gravitational forces, i.e. clear non-gravitational accelerations.
2) Brightness or internal emission that is not explained by solar reflection or known cometary activity (for example, emitting its own light).
3) Inconsistent behavior with typical comets: lack of intense coma, lack of tail, outgassing anomalies.
4) Brightness variationsattitude or maneuvers that suggest deliberate control.
5) Strange materials or spectranot coincident with what we would expect in natural bodies (rare metals, non-cometary spectral lines).
6) Extreme durability/resistance against events that would destroy a normal comet (for example, resisting close passes to the Sun without fragmenting).
7) Consistency with a technophysical hypothesis: that these anomalies can be integrated into a scenario where the object functions as a probe or artifact.
Which of these criteria are met, partially or completely? Let’s go in parts. If we limit ourselves to anomalous behavior against typical comets, 3I/ATLAS shows a somewhat strange trajectory, to say the least. Its “path” has an inclination of ~175° with respect to the ecliptic plane (the plane in which the planets orbit). That means that it is in a retrograde orbit (it circulates in the opposite direction to most planets), and that its inclination is about 5° misaligned in the other direction. This means that, If 3I/ATLAS came from the solar system, its inclination would be perfectly normal, but coming from another star systemthis alignment so close to the plane of the planets is curious, although not impossible.
As for internal emission or brightness not explainable only by reflection or dust, Avi Loeb, an expert in astrophysics at Harvard, has argued that part of the observed brightness could come from the core itself, beyond the effect of dust and solar reflection. In an essay, Loeb points out that the CO₂ cloud is so prominent that residual dust may not explain all of the brightness. In other words: The nucleus could be actively contributing to the brightness, a feature that could align with expectations of a more “active” object than a passive comet..
The lack of significant non-gravitational acceleration is also another factor that experts point out to differentiate both options. In this regard, Loeb has modeled the trajectory data to find that there are no clear indications of major deviations from pure gravitational motion. That lack of a pronounced “rocket” effect means that if there are gas/dust thrusts, the object must be massive enough to visibly damp them. This combination (activity + little deviation) is a point that favors more exotic hypotheses within the range of what is acceptable.
Then we have the spectral anomalies or rare materials. In the coma of 3I/ATLAS, elevated nickel and an abundance of CO₂ that exceeds what is usual in comets of the solar system have been detected. According to a study carried out using images from the James Webb Space Telescope, a CO₂/H₂O ratio ≈ 8.0 ± 1.0 has been measured, a value among the highest ever observed.
In addition, the SPHEREx observatory detected an extensive CO₂ coma reaching at least 348,000 km. These Atypical features add more arguments in favor of being a less “normal” object compared to common comets. These indications suggest that the chemical composition is not typical and that it could contain materials or ice that do not show standard behavior.
Finally, we have the resistance or durability section. Here it should be noted that Being older than our solar system works in its favor, but we will have to see how it withstands its passage through the vicinity of the Sun.. Regarding the remaining criteria, more information is needed to confirm or rule out any response.
A note to finish. Most of these conclusions They correspond to studies carried out by Avi Loeb that, although they have been published, have not been peer-reviewed. It is important that we ask ourselves questions, but we must also do so with a critical spirit, without being guided by our “desire” to confirm a hypothesis.