This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/ufos by /u/galacticbyte on 2023-07-18 00:28:17.

Hi there, just want to share some perspective regarding the physics of UAPs, from someone with formal training in theoretical particle physics and worked with some of the best physicists in the field. Some of you might find it helpful (I have a Ph.D and did a 3 years post-doc in the past).

First of all, are UAPs real? I maintain an agnostic stance until there is scientific data that I can examine. As a physicist, I’m probably as excited if not more than most of you in the forum. Even if there is a 0.001% chance that we have some real but unexplainable phenomenon, this would easily be the most exciting scientific discovery for a long time (if not for all times). Yet, science requires us to examine scientific data. So I eagerly await publications from say NASA to draw definitive conclusions. For context, physicists have waited 50+ years for discoveries on say the Higgs Boson and blackhole mergers, I think I can wait.

Second, what about all the talk about UAPs breaking the laws of physics? There is a difference between breaking expectation and actually breaking the laws of physics. I agree that some of the UAPs’ alleged behaviors seem strange: unreal speed, acceleration, lack of sonic boom…etc. But I don’t think they are necessarily really breaking the real laws of physics. For instance, we have no evidence that they break the speed-of-light, sonic boom could technically be minimized by shaping, and accelerations that seem unreal are not technically impossible. So I say we should attempt to use physics as much as we can to analyze these phenomenon. What this means is we need calibrated scientific data and multi-channel measurements. For instance, say we don’t observe sonic boom, maybe they aren’t loud enough and our equipments aren’t sensitive enough. If indeed sonic boom can be minimized and we figure out how this could be a serious improvement in propulsion tech.

Third, what about things like inter-dimension, time-travel…etc? In physics, these aren’t real explanations, these are more like comfort words that give the illusions of explanations. Real explanations demand some sort of physical modeling, consistent mathematics, and testable predictions. So say if you want to see if there are hints of extra-dimension, you need to build a model and test them out. For instance the LHC has some constraints on these models https://cerncourier.com/a/the-lhcs-extra-dimension/. We can’t just have extra-dimensions that work for UAPs but for not for the rest of the world, there needs to be some mathematical reason why that is the case.

All together, I’m not trying to be a party buster. Science is hard, but science is our best friend for moving humanities forward. It is important that we uphold its standards because if we keep an open mind on the possibilities, we might be pleasantly surprised. There are way more fantastical possibilities that we could be limiting ourselves to if we always lean onto words that sound meaningful but don’t have rigorous scientific model building and mathematical equations behind them. For instance, if we relax these beliefs, we could explore things like what if UAPs interact with Dark Matter, and could those be their energy sources? Could the UAPs be an engineered mirage/projection or some sort? Could there be new particles with anomalous gravitational interactions that UAPs are utilizing? Could there be new forces that LHC has not discovered that the UAPs are using for propulsions? Any one of these could be absolutely ground-breaking discoveries, and world changing discoveries. By being skeptical, we keep open these fantastical possibilities for investigations.

Indeed, if one needs a reminder on how world changing some of these physical discoveries can be, examples are plenty: fertilizers (the only way to feed our world), nuclear forces (it ended the War), transistors (foundations of electronics)… I could go on and on.

Anyway, just my 2 cents rant.