The recent appearance of the interstellar comet 3I/Atlas has reignited both public and scientific interest in celestial objects originating beyond our Solar System. This unique celestial body has garnered attention not only for its exotic characteristics but also for the distant possibility that it may not be entirely natural. Analyzing this comet presents a remarkable chance to deepen our understanding of universal mechanisms and explore hypotheses that, while speculative, should not be dismissed outright.
3I/Atlas is the third known interstellar object, following “Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov, and exhibits distinct features. Its trajectory, which comes directly from interstellar space, makes it a remarkable visitor. Unlike “Oumuamua, which made a brief pass through our solar system, 3I/Atlas travels within the ecliptic plane—the same path that planets follow—allowing for extended and detailed observations.
In an interview with National Geographic, physicist and science communicator Javier Santaolalla discussed the primary hypothesis surrounding 3I/Atlas, suggesting that it is likely a natural comet. However, he noted that a non-natural explanation cannot be entirely ruled out. Similar to the discussions about “Oumuamua, some scientists have proposed that objects like 3I/Atlas might exhibit movements that cannot be explained solely by gravitational forces, potentially indicating some form of external propulsion or even extraterrestrial technology.
Santaolalla stated, “If it changes its trajectory inexplicably after passing near the Sun, it would be very unusual; if it does not change, we will maintain the comet hypothesis.” This perspective is not rooted in science fiction but rather aligns with the scientific method, which emphasizes the need to consider all possibilities based on available data without dismissing even the most unconventional ideas if they align with observations.
The comet is currently in an optimal observation phase, as its path within the ecliptic allows for prolonged tracking. This continuous observation is crucial for detecting any non-gravitational accelerations, similar to what sparked debate during the study of “Oumuamua. “This is a direct and immediate mechanism to verify or refute a risky hypothesis,” emphasized Santaolalla during the interview.
The case of 3I/Atlas also raises significant communication challenges. The heightened media attention has led to confusion and misinformation, including claims about the activation of NASA”s planetary defense system. In reality, this is part of a routine observation campaign conducted by the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN), which includes NASA, without any real threat to Earth.
Santaolalla criticized the sensationalism, stating, “Armageddon has been mixed with Independence Day, and it has brought out the worst from both films,” highlighting the dangers of unfounded alarmism and media manipulation. He stressed the importance of referring to official and scientific sources, such as NASA”s websites or astronomical organizations, to avoid falling prey to sensationalist narratives.
One of the key messages from the National Geographic interview is the necessity of embracing anomalies rather than fearing them. Science is not an infallible discipline that always provides answers; it is an ongoing process of learning and reevaluation. “Strange things are not failures; they are the true driving force of scientific progress,” asserted Santaolalla. He pointed out that phenomena like COVID-19 demonstrated how science adapts and evolves with new data. The same applies to interstellar objects: studying them can challenge the boundaries of current knowledge and open new avenues for exploration.
Another important point raised by National Geographic is the advocacy for diverse and honest scientific communication. Santaolalla cautioned against extremes: neither should we accept any theory without evidence nor categorically dismiss hypotheses simply because they deviate from established norms. It is essential to maintain a balance between skepticism and openness, encouraging critical thinking among the public. “Not everything is valid, but we also cannot fall into an imposition where only one perspective exists,” Santaolalla concluded in the interview.
This pluralistic view not only strengthens science but also enhances its relationship with society, fostering a healthier environment for debate and curiosity.
