![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oumuamua: A Nitrogen Iceberg
Mar. 21st, 2021 07:23 amThere's an intriguing new theory that seems to explain Oumuamua's unusual motion by modelling the object as a nitrogen iceberg that broke off of a frigid exoplanet:
https://www.livescience.com/oumuamua-nitrogen-iceberg.html
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oumuamua-interstellar-object-origin-pluto-exoplanet-not-aliens
This theory models the behavior and appearance of the object very accurately. I've posted about Oumuamua earlier (I think on Pillowfort), but I discussed a different theory that it was an artificially produced object. While we can't eliminate that possibility for Oumuamua, as well as other unlikely but still possible explanations, this nitrogen iceberg theory sounds like the most plausible to me so far.
I'm not sure the original proponent of the artificial origin theory is entirely convinced, though he doesn't explicitly voice any disagreement with the possibility, either:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-the-interstellar-object-oumuamua-a-nitrogen-iceberg/
It sounds like his argument against the nitrogen iceberg theory may be that Oumuamua appeared to have inherited the motion of the local standard of rest, the relative motion of the galaxy, rather than the motion of a star (which would almost certainly be different). This was one of the original arguments he used to indicate that the object is of artificial origin.
However, it seems possible to me that a planet or asteroid could form outside of the influence of a star, using material that had perhaps been mixed from multiple stars, thus gaining the relative motion of the galactic local standard of rest. In any event, I think the nitrogen ice chunk theory is probably the best one for the currently available data.
I think this is a really exciting development. I don't think it's bad to explore the possibility that an object may be artificial in origin, but I also think that's not necessarily going to be the only explanation even if no other explanation immediately presents itself. Regardless of the answer, it's going to take time to sift through the possibilities, and it's a good thing that people are constantly exploring alternative possibilities for ambiguous data like this.
https://www.livescience.com/oumuamua-nitrogen-iceberg.html
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oumuamua-interstellar-object-origin-pluto-exoplanet-not-aliens
This theory models the behavior and appearance of the object very accurately. I've posted about Oumuamua earlier (I think on Pillowfort), but I discussed a different theory that it was an artificially produced object. While we can't eliminate that possibility for Oumuamua, as well as other unlikely but still possible explanations, this nitrogen iceberg theory sounds like the most plausible to me so far.
I'm not sure the original proponent of the artificial origin theory is entirely convinced, though he doesn't explicitly voice any disagreement with the possibility, either:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-the-interstellar-object-oumuamua-a-nitrogen-iceberg/
It sounds like his argument against the nitrogen iceberg theory may be that Oumuamua appeared to have inherited the motion of the local standard of rest, the relative motion of the galaxy, rather than the motion of a star (which would almost certainly be different). This was one of the original arguments he used to indicate that the object is of artificial origin.
However, it seems possible to me that a planet or asteroid could form outside of the influence of a star, using material that had perhaps been mixed from multiple stars, thus gaining the relative motion of the galactic local standard of rest. In any event, I think the nitrogen ice chunk theory is probably the best one for the currently available data.
I think this is a really exciting development. I don't think it's bad to explore the possibility that an object may be artificial in origin, but I also think that's not necessarily going to be the only explanation even if no other explanation immediately presents itself. Regardless of the answer, it's going to take time to sift through the possibilities, and it's a good thing that people are constantly exploring alternative possibilities for ambiguous data like this.