wanderaven's review
4.0
While Loeb's theory is fascinating and exciting, I'm ultimately left somewhat depressed due the clearly visible outcome, what with it being influenced by politics and insular views.
The appearance of 'Oumuamua in autumn of 2017 was, excuse the obvious pun, a blip on my screen. At the time, the prevailing scientific voices quickly buried the early excitement, telling us that this was nothing more than some super odd, incredibly rare, but naturally occurring object.
There's so much understatement in those claims, as Loeb goes into great detail to explain just how incredibly infinitesimal some of these likelihoods are, and then the compounding of those elements in one object.
Early on in my reading of Extraterrestrial (ARC provided by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) I googled the artists' rendering of the object, and stumbled across multiple recently published articles immediately refuting Loeb's hypothesis and allowed myself to read one of them. The ferocity of and patronizing, incredibly dismissive words in that article were so offensive compared to Loeb's sometimes caustic rants in here, against the very community that publishes these articles, that I absolutely understood and accepted his gripes.
No less than Hawking himself encouraged the theoretical possibilities and need to search for extraterrestrial intelligent life, but so many scientists dismiss it so quickly out of hand that they instantly show their biases. I imagine there are scientists out there that - like the hipster-style I'm-more-intelligent-and-above-the-rabble stereotype - dismiss even Hawking, and regular peons such as myself (I could track Loeb's scientific explanations here, which is admirable for a book written for a regular reader, but I'm sure it's elementary to actual astrophysicists) for considering this sort of stuff.
I'm inclined to be on Loeb's side, here, and that shows my own bias (because I'm inclined to be open to these big ideas, and see little fault in at least entertaining them). But even if I weren't, I'd commend his honesty and academic bravery in continuing to step forward to bring his theories and concerns to our attention.
I found it a strange you-can't-have-it-both-ways thinking that Loeb repeatedly and disdainfully dismissed his young students' obsessions with social media and yet also praised them as being the only possible saviors of his theories, as enthusiastic and open-minded scholars who may help revive the SETI program and similar searches. I know that, technically, these are separate things, but surely the access these students have to the wider world and to finding others outside their immediate in-person-communities who share their curiosities and desires to think on larger scales can't help but foster their ultimate inclusion into worldviews like those that Loeb presents.
The appearance of 'Oumuamua in autumn of 2017 was, excuse the obvious pun, a blip on my screen. At the time, the prevailing scientific voices quickly buried the early excitement, telling us that this was nothing more than some super odd, incredibly rare, but naturally occurring object.
There's so much understatement in those claims, as Loeb goes into great detail to explain just how incredibly infinitesimal some of these likelihoods are, and then the compounding of those elements in one object.
Early on in my reading of Extraterrestrial (ARC provided by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) I googled the artists' rendering of the object, and stumbled across multiple recently published articles immediately refuting Loeb's hypothesis and allowed myself to read one of them. The ferocity of and patronizing, incredibly dismissive words in that article were so offensive compared to Loeb's sometimes caustic rants in here, against the very community that publishes these articles, that I absolutely understood and accepted his gripes.
No less than Hawking himself encouraged the theoretical possibilities and need to search for extraterrestrial intelligent life, but so many scientists dismiss it so quickly out of hand that they instantly show their biases. I imagine there are scientists out there that - like the hipster-style I'm-more-intelligent-and-above-the-rabble stereotype - dismiss even Hawking, and regular peons such as myself (I could track Loeb's scientific explanations here, which is admirable for a book written for a regular reader, but I'm sure it's elementary to actual astrophysicists) for considering this sort of stuff.
I'm inclined to be on Loeb's side, here, and that shows my own bias (because I'm inclined to be open to these big ideas, and see little fault in at least entertaining them). But even if I weren't, I'd commend his honesty and academic bravery in continuing to step forward to bring his theories and concerns to our attention.
I found it a strange you-can't-have-it-both-ways thinking that Loeb repeatedly and disdainfully dismissed his young students' obsessions with social media and yet also praised them as being the only possible saviors of his theories, as enthusiastic and open-minded scholars who may help revive the SETI program and similar searches. I know that, technically, these are separate things, but surely the access these students have to the wider world and to finding others outside their immediate in-person-communities who share their curiosities and desires to think on larger scales can't help but foster their ultimate inclusion into worldviews like those that Loeb presents.
whitecat5000's review against another edition
adventurous
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
4.0
From Nasa.Gov, "'Oumuamua · The first known interstellar object to visit our solar system." I mean...if NASA says aliens exits, who am I to doubt it.
rick2's review
5.0
This book slaps. Like, brought Avicii back from the dead to headline Coachella 2021, slaps. Like, found out your state is legalizing marijuana in the same year that the Grateful Dead and Phish are doing a weeklong concert in your town. Instilling a renewed sense of childhood wonder. The way Aloe Vera is on sunburn, this book is to the mind.
Starting with the negatives because they’re sparse. The single major drawback to this book is that it’s explaining very complex mathematical physics for laypeople. As such it’s difficult to really evaluate the credibility of the author without relying on heuristics. The guy works at Harvard. Did research at Princeton. I’m guessing he’s more than your average kook, but I’ve taken it nowhere near the number of physics or mathematics classes to understand the fine points of what is being talked about. My guess is that there are under 100 people in the world who finally could refute the mathematics of what is going on behind the scenes. So most of the math and science here goes straight over my head. I was about halfway through before I realized that the light sail he’s talking about on Oumuamua, is not the same light sail he was talking about shooting a laser at to propel away from earth in earlier chapters. I was very confused as to how the laser powered light sail could be used in a scenario where there were no lasers. Google tells me it has to do with electrons, guess they workout or something.
There are also some analogies and rhetorical bits that rubbed me the wrong way. For example, towards the end of the book the author talks about occam‘s razor and how simple is better than complicated, giving us a reminder not to overfit your model. He gently chides Aristotle for creating tortured mathematics to justify a heliocentric view of the world. Then like three pages later he goes on talking about his black hole equation and how he still needs to “fine-tune the mathematics.” I’m convinced this is a case of my ignorance making me look the fool, I just found this type of thing to be more confusing than anything. Help a mathematical toddler out. Thankfully, most of the similar quabbles I have with the writing are ultimately inconsequential to the general sweep of the book. These fall into what I consider to be more personal frustrations than global indictments of the quality of the book.
The rest of the book is a highly successful IPO of knowledge on three major points.
One, holy fahkong shit is science cool. Do you know that feeling you had as a little kid learning about dinosaurs, lasers, Norse Mythology or any sort of other thing that made you go “oh wow, awesome!” And then proceed to spend the next three months of your little life learning everything about them? This book is that for adults. I’d read a bit, then start googling whatever sweet concept this guy was talking about and end up in a Wikipedia hole deeper than the one I tried to dig as a kid when I was obsessed with big trucks and whether or not I could find China.
Two, a reminder to not gatekeep scientific research because it’s ultimately detrimental to science and society as a whole. This book has one of the better systematic criticisms of deficits in our current science research and post graduate world that I’ve seen. The author discusses how he is not your typical candidate for high-level Ivory tower funded research. But due to a series of fortunate mentors and lucky breaks he was able to contribute significantly to the small corner of the astrophysics universe that he lives in. I thought the personal bits were very well written and humble. Should be a must read for that reason alone for people considering doctorates or going into research.
Third. Dude, aliens. Heck yeah. I thought the book was fantastic in the way it was not solely focused on extraterrestrial aliens. But the author builds a pretty compelling case to point out why it’s possible that evidence associated with Oumuamua could lead us to conclude that we have been visited by some form of alien *something.
Read this book. Geek out and enjoy yourself. Astroarchaeology. That’s a thing this guy talks about. Searching for ancient alien civilizations as a field. Space-mothaflunking-archaeology. Where was this book when I was a lost undergrad trying to figure out what to work on with my life? I could have ended up whatever the equivalence to the British appropriating historical artifacts from Egypt is to the galaxy.
Starting with the negatives because they’re sparse. The single major drawback to this book is that it’s explaining very complex mathematical physics for laypeople. As such it’s difficult to really evaluate the credibility of the author without relying on heuristics. The guy works at Harvard. Did research at Princeton. I’m guessing he’s more than your average kook, but I’ve taken it nowhere near the number of physics or mathematics classes to understand the fine points of what is being talked about. My guess is that there are under 100 people in the world who finally could refute the mathematics of what is going on behind the scenes. So most of the math and science here goes straight over my head. I was about halfway through before I realized that the light sail he’s talking about on Oumuamua, is not the same light sail he was talking about shooting a laser at to propel away from earth in earlier chapters. I was very confused as to how the laser powered light sail could be used in a scenario where there were no lasers. Google tells me it has to do with electrons, guess they workout or something.
There are also some analogies and rhetorical bits that rubbed me the wrong way. For example, towards the end of the book the author talks about occam‘s razor and how simple is better than complicated, giving us a reminder not to overfit your model. He gently chides Aristotle for creating tortured mathematics to justify a heliocentric view of the world. Then like three pages later he goes on talking about his black hole equation and how he still needs to “fine-tune the mathematics.” I’m convinced this is a case of my ignorance making me look the fool, I just found this type of thing to be more confusing than anything. Help a mathematical toddler out. Thankfully, most of the similar quabbles I have with the writing are ultimately inconsequential to the general sweep of the book. These fall into what I consider to be more personal frustrations than global indictments of the quality of the book.
The rest of the book is a highly successful IPO of knowledge on three major points.
One, holy fahkong shit is science cool. Do you know that feeling you had as a little kid learning about dinosaurs, lasers, Norse Mythology or any sort of other thing that made you go “oh wow, awesome!” And then proceed to spend the next three months of your little life learning everything about them? This book is that for adults. I’d read a bit, then start googling whatever sweet concept this guy was talking about and end up in a Wikipedia hole deeper than the one I tried to dig as a kid when I was obsessed with big trucks and whether or not I could find China.
Two, a reminder to not gatekeep scientific research because it’s ultimately detrimental to science and society as a whole. This book has one of the better systematic criticisms of deficits in our current science research and post graduate world that I’ve seen. The author discusses how he is not your typical candidate for high-level Ivory tower funded research. But due to a series of fortunate mentors and lucky breaks he was able to contribute significantly to the small corner of the astrophysics universe that he lives in. I thought the personal bits were very well written and humble. Should be a must read for that reason alone for people considering doctorates or going into research.
Third. Dude, aliens. Heck yeah. I thought the book was fantastic in the way it was not solely focused on extraterrestrial aliens. But the author builds a pretty compelling case to point out why it’s possible that evidence associated with Oumuamua could lead us to conclude that we have been visited by some form of alien *something.
Read this book. Geek out and enjoy yourself. Astroarchaeology. That’s a thing this guy talks about. Searching for ancient alien civilizations as a field. Space-mothaflunking-archaeology. Where was this book when I was a lost undergrad trying to figure out what to work on with my life? I could have ended up whatever the equivalence to the British appropriating historical artifacts from Egypt is to the galaxy.
yasminmackie's review against another edition
4.0
In 2017, our solar system witnessed the passage of an interstellar object. Named Oumuamua, meaning "scout" in Hawaiian, it marked the first discovery of its kind. The object's peculiar shape and trajectory defied conventional expectations, leaving its origin and composition shrouded in mystery. As scientists eagerly sought to unravel the enigma surrounding this extraordinary "comet," Avi Loeb ventured to pose a daring question: What if Oumuamua was not of this world?
While skeptics may dismiss this notion as far-fetched or even laughable, it represents a hypothesis rather than an established scientific fact. The text serves as a catalyst for pondering a profound philosophical query: Are we truly alone in the vast expanse of the universe? It elicits existential contemplation and instills humility, provoking deep introspection about the origins of life itself and the future that awaits humanity. Long after its pages have been turned, it leaves an indelible impression, compelling readers to grapple with the mysteries of our existence.
While skeptics may dismiss this notion as far-fetched or even laughable, it represents a hypothesis rather than an established scientific fact. The text serves as a catalyst for pondering a profound philosophical query: Are we truly alone in the vast expanse of the universe? It elicits existential contemplation and instills humility, provoking deep introspection about the origins of life itself and the future that awaits humanity. Long after its pages have been turned, it leaves an indelible impression, compelling readers to grapple with the mysteries of our existence.
abarrera's review against another edition
4.0
Gripping read! Not only is Loeb a phenomenal scientist, he's also an extraordinary divulgator and writer. I really enjoyed the first half of the book. The way he analyzes the evidence around the 'Oumuamua interstellar object is amazing. His hypothesis of extraterrestrial tech is definitely plausible and I agree with him that the scientific community tends to be biased around SETI-related conclusions.
The book though felt a little long. It reaches a point where it's all about Loeb's essays on the state of the scientific community and how we should be thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence. There is virtue in all of it, but it extends the book too much.
If anything, it feels there is a pronounced personal bias around how a potential alien civilization might behave. His theories oscillate from being like "humans" and using "humanity" as the experimental baseline, to affirming they would probably be more advanced than humans. While I felt he has a brilliant command of the scientific dimensions, he kind of slipped on the anthropological ones imho. It might be the way he writes about it or the book's editing, but it felt his arguments were way more tenuous when he talked about the human-alien dimensions than the actual physics.
Overall, a very good book to open your mind to other potential realities. One that is surprisingly solid on the evidence side, at least when related to the object itself.
The book though felt a little long. It reaches a point where it's all about Loeb's essays on the state of the scientific community and how we should be thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence. There is virtue in all of it, but it extends the book too much.
If anything, it feels there is a pronounced personal bias around how a potential alien civilization might behave. His theories oscillate from being like "humans" and using "humanity" as the experimental baseline, to affirming they would probably be more advanced than humans. While I felt he has a brilliant command of the scientific dimensions, he kind of slipped on the anthropological ones imho. It might be the way he writes about it or the book's editing, but it felt his arguments were way more tenuous when he talked about the human-alien dimensions than the actual physics.
Overall, a very good book to open your mind to other potential realities. One that is surprisingly solid on the evidence side, at least when related to the object itself.