You’re a Child of the Stars and an Echo of the Big Bang
Your body, made of stardust, contains more atoms than there are stars in the observable universe. A cosmos of seven billion billion billion atoms is held within you.
These atoms tell two cosmic stories. The majority by count are hydrogen atoms, 13.8-billion-year-old relics from the Big Bang itself. However, the fiery hearts of ancient stars forged the vast majority of your mass – the carbon in your DNA, the calcium in your bones, and the iron in your blood. Thus, you are indeed stardust.
You are a living paradox: by number, an echo of the universe’s first breath; by substance, a child of the stars. You are made of both stardust and the dawn of time.
Video: You’re composed of Stardust and the Dawn of Time
Look inward,
and what do you see? Not merely flesh and bone, but a teeming, silent cosmos. Within the quiet confines of your own being, you hold a universe more populous than the one you see at night. You gather more atoms within you than there are stars in the velvet sweep of the observable sky. Being composed of atoms made of stardust speaks to your cosmic origins.
Each of these infinitesimal points of light tells a story, a dual epic of creation.
Listen closely.
Can you hear it? The faint, persistent hum of the beginning. The majority of you, by sheer count, forms a chorus of hydrogen, the firstborn atoms. The universe shaped these in its very first breath. An echo of the Big Bang, you are a 13.8-billion-year-old whisper. Within you lies the memory of a time before stars, before galaxies, before light had a place to land. Woven from the fabric of the dawn of time itself, you embody the universe’s earliest moments.
But you are also a child of fire and light.
The strength in your bones, the calcium that gives you form? The iron in your blood, carrying life with every beat of your heart? The carbon that writes the elegant script of your DNA? None of this was born in that first, quiet moment. Instead, it was all forged in the hearts of celestial furnaces. Long-dead suns left behind their ashes to form you, gifts from stars that burned brilliantly, collapsed, and seeded the cosmos with the raw material of life. You are, quite literally, stardust given a voice. It’s as if you are made of stardust echoing the secrets of ancient galaxies.
Here, then, is the paradox you embody: You are both the ancient, simple whisper of the beginning and the complex, brilliant song of the stars. You are a bridge between two eternities, the dawn of time and the heart of a sun. You are not just looking at the universe; you are the universe, looking back at itself.
For millennia, we have stared into that inky blackness, into that glittering cosmic abyss, and we have felt a connection. It’s a profound human impulse. To see the stars and wonder: are we a part of that? Are our lives, our destinies, entwined in those celestial patterns? This is the heart of astrology – an idea as ancient as it is persistent.
Sagan’s Twin Paradox
Carl Sagan took a look at this in his landmark series Cosmos. He was a master at applying simple, elegant logic to big claims. He posed a challenge – a beautiful, scientific thought experiment: identical twins.
Born minutes apart in the same place, their astrological charts are virtually indistinguishable. If astrology holds true, their lives should follow similar paths. Yet, as Sagan pointed out, their destinies often diverge wildly. One becomes an artist, the other an accountant. One is happy, one is not. For him, this was proof that astrology didn’t work. Case closed?
Well, not so fast. The universe is always more subtle and interconnected than we first assume.
The Twist in the Tale: Twins Reared Apart
Science, you see, keeps moving. After Sagan’s series, from 1979 to 1999, a groundbreaking study began: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. And the results… wow. They are just jaw-dropping.
They found pairs of identical twins, separated at birth, who met for the first time as adults and discovered… well, uncanny similarities. The most famous are the “Jim Twins.” Separated at four weeks old. Reunited at 39.
Both had married women named Linda, divorced them, and remarried women named Betty. Both had a son named James. Both owned a dog named Toy. Both drove the same car, smoked the same cigarettes, and even vacationed at the same beach in Florida.
So, what’s going on here? Sagan’s argument was that twins born at the same time have different fates. But here we have evidence that twins born at the same time can have astonishingly similar ones, even when they don’t know each other.
The Ghost in Our Genes… and in the Cosmos?
The mainstream scientific explanation is, of course, genetics. That this is the power of our DNA: the double-helix code as a staggeringly powerful blueprint for who we are. And not just our eye color, but also our temperaments, preferences and predispositions. It’s a fantastic and simple explanation.
The Rise of Epigenetics
But a new field called epigenetics shows that’s not the whole story. Think of your DNA as a giant cookbook. Epigenetics is the master chef who decides which recipes to use based on environmental cues. The cookbook itself doesn’t change, but based on the environment – stress, diet, toxins, love, cold, heat – the chef decides which recipes to use. It adds a little molecular bookmark here, a sticky note there, telling this gene to be loud and that gene to be quiet.
The Epigenetic Chef
This is why one identical twin can get asthma and the other doesn’t. Their genetic cookbook is identical, but their chefs have made different choices based on different life experiences.
This brings us to the modern case for astrology. If the living cell is an “intelligent system” responding to its environment… what if that environment includes the cosmos? What if the “chef” is, in some small way, listening to the planets?
The Question of Mechanism
Okay. It’s a fascinating idea. So let’s test it.
Scientists have to ask: What is the force? What is the physical mechanism by which Mars – a planet whose gravitational pull on you at birth is less than the pull of the doctor delivering you – can reach into the nucleus of your cell and flip a specific epigenetic switch? Is it gravity? Electromagnetism? The strong or weak nuclear force? Which one? You have to show that a force exists.
Chaos Theory: The Butterfly Effect
How can a distant planet have any effect? This is where we must consider one of the most profound discoveries of modern science: chaos theory.
We’re all familiar with its central metaphor: the “butterfly effect,” where the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas. The point is not that the butterfly has the power of a tornado, but that in a complex, dynamic system (like weather, or a human life), a minuscule, barely measurable change in the initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes down the line.
The Lyapunov Exponents
The Lyapunov Exponents
The moment of birth is the ultimate set of “initial conditions” for a human life, the first flutter of possibility, setting the delicate initial conditions that ripple through a life. Like butterfly wings in chaos theory, even the tiniest variations can orchestrate profound destinies.
The Butterfly Wings
This brings us to the modern case for astrology. If the living cell is an “intelligent system” responding to its environment… what if that environment includes the cosmos?
Newsflash: planets already affect life on Earth. Tides, seasons, your vitamin D levels – all cosmic puppetry.
Both gravity and electromagnetic forces can impact genetics by influencing how genes are expressed and how cells function. For example, microgravity conditions can change gene expression patterns related to cell structure, metabolism, and immune responses. Similarly, electromagnetic fields – especially magnetic fields – can also cause changes in gene activity and cell behavior, possibly affecting epigenetic modifications.
For instance gravity: Blaber, E. A., Fogle, H., Dvorochkin, N., Naqvi, S., Lee, C., Yousuf, R., … & Almeida, E. A. (2015). Microgravity induces pelvic bone loss and fatty liver through epigenetic mechanisms. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0124396.
For instance electromagnetic fields: Cui, Y., Park, J. H., & Miyamoto, Y. (2017). The effect of electromagnetic fields on the epigenetic modifications of DNA and histones. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(12), 2736.
Planetary Gravity as an Initial Condition
The old rebuttal that the doctor’s gravitational pull is stronger than Mars’s is a failure of imagination. It’s not about raw power. Framed by chaos theory, the subtle gravitational state of the entire solar system at the moment you are born doesn’t need to be strong; it just needs to be the initial “flap of the wings” in the incredibly complex system of your life. We have proof that these tiny forces have huge effects over time: science has confirmed that Mars’s gentle, rhythmic tug is enough to alter Earth’s orbit and drive a 2.4-million-year climate cycle. If that’s not a butterfly causing a planetary-scale tornado, what is?
Infant ponders Mars
The Moon: Its gravitational pull is so powerful it moves entire oceans, creating the daily tides. This is a tangible, physical force exerted upon the planet and every living thing on it, a rhythmic pulse that has shaped coastal life for eons.
The following table provides a comprehensive comparison of the maximum possible tide-generating force of the Sun and all planets relative to the Moon:
External forces of gravity on Earth
Planetary Electromagnetism as an Initial Condition:
We know planets are not inert. They are dynamic worlds broadcasting unique energetic signatures. Jupiter and Saturn emit powerful radio waves detectable on Earth. These are not brute forces, but tiny variations in the initial electromagnetic environment – part of the unique cosmic “weather pattern” you were born into. They are another set of butterfly wings, flapping at the precise moment your own complex system began its journey.
The Sun: Its cycles govern our seasons, our climate, and the circadian rhythms that are hard-wired into our biology. The Sun’s immense electromagnetic energy literally fuels our world and directly impacts Earth’s magnetic shield. Its influence is total.
The Radio Planets
The following chart details the magnetic moment of each planet – a measure of the magnetic field’s overall strength – relative to Earth’s.
External electromagnetic forces on Earth
Jupiter‘s powerful magnetosphere accelerates charged particles to incredible energies, producing intense radio waves. These “decametric” radio bursts are so powerful that, at certain frequencies, Jupiter can be the brightest object in the sky after the Sun.
Saturn is a source of intense radio emissions, much like Jupiter. Its auroral radio waves, known as Saturn Kilometric Radiation (SKR), are similar to Jupiter’s but are not powerful enough to be detected by radio telescopes on Earth. However, Saturn produces another, more powerful type of radio signal from massive lightning storms in its atmosphere. These signals, called Saturn Electrostatic Discharges (SEDs), are at least 10,000 times stronger than emissions from terrestrial lightning and have been successfully detected by ground-based radio telescopes.
Uranus and Neptune: The Voyager 2 spacecraft confirmed that both Uranus and Neptune are “radio planets” with complex radio emissions generated by their magnetic fields. However, their radio signals are considerably weaker than those from Jupiter and Saturn. While a tentative detection of Uranus was reported by an Earth-orbiting satellite in the 1970s, the signal was difficult to distinguish from terrestrial interference.
The other rocky planets, Venus and Mars, do not have significant global magnetic fields and are not known to be sources of noticeable radio emissions. However, you will hear radio waves coming from those planets in the following recording:
Our Universe Is Not Silent
All planets in our solar system emit waves, gravitational and electromagnetic. NASA recorded radio waves from planets with the help of spacecraft. They then converted the signals into the audible range of human hearing (20-20,000 Hz). So, you can listen to all planet sounds from space.
Listen to the radio sounds of the planets in our solar system.
A New Cosmic Perspective
I have presented here a number of arguments of why astrology may actually have a scientific basis. Chaos theory explains how small initial differences can have a huge effect. Sagan’s initial argument against serious astrology, is shown to be inconclusive.
There’s a case to be made for the infinitesimal influence of the planets on our DNA, magnified through the Lyapunov exponents.
And I haven’t even touched on the possibility of quantum entanglement of our atoms with the cosmos.
Comparison of similarities between brain astrocyte cells and the cosmic web.
The universe is connected. We are stardust. Now that is a cosmic perspective.
Empirical Evidence
The one characteristic that sets astrology apart from science, and which is cited consistently by sceptics, is the lack of empirical evidence. There are plenty of anecdotes, but quantifiable repeatable evidence?
Not so much, apparently.
Of course, I could tell you that I worked in Brussels in 1989 for a NATO defence contractor, and the manager asked me my star sign, and I told him “Aquarius”, upon which he shook his head and told me: ” I knew it. We have 120 employees here, and 80 of them are Aquarius”. Enough with the anecdotes!
I searched around a bit and found this study in a Postgraduate Medical Journal:
They surveyed 1,923 physicians in the UK and uncovered some surprisingly specific, and sometimes quirky, correlations between their zodiac signs, personality traits, and the medical fields they chose.
The patterns they found are intriguing: Physicians specializing in Care of the Elderly were more likely to be Geminis, known for their communication skills, than Cancers (16.1% vs 2.3%).
Heart of a Lion: Cardiologists, who deal with the heart, were far more likely to be Leos. In the study, 14.4% of cardiologists were Leos, compared to just 3.9% who were Aries.
A Womb with a View: Obstetrics and Gynecology was dominated by Pisces. A full 17.5% of OB-GYNs were Pisces, while there were zero doctors in that specialty who were Sagittarius.
The Practical Capricorn: Those in General Medicine were more likely to be Capricorns (10.4%) than their Aquarius colleagues (6.7%).
Addendum The Cosmic Irony of Sagan’s Birth Chart
I really wanted to do a horoscope of Carl Sagan:
Birth Information: Name: Carl Edward Sagan Date of Birth: November 9, 1934 Time of Birth: 5:05 PM (17:05:00) Place of Birth: Brooklyn, New York, U.S.
I hit a road block because there is no reliable or verifiable source for his exact birth time. Carl Sagan never spoke about it, nor have his relatives.
An Unverified Source
Carl Sagan’s birth time supposedly was 17:05:00, with the singular source cited as ‘765 Notable Horoscopes‘ on the AstroSage website. ‘Notable Horoscopes’ is a book by B.V. Raman, a respected figure in Vedic astrology. This provided an adhoc time and a traceable source: https://www.astrosage.com/celebrity-horoscope/carl-sagan-birth-chart.asp
A Product of Circular Reasoning
But this raises a number of red flags: his birth time is traced back only to a single origin: a compendium of horoscopes created for the practice of astrology, not for historical accuracy. The claim is contradicted by the complete absence of this information in all reliable records, including extensive biographies, institutional archives, Sagan’s personal papers, and accounts from his family.
The specificity of the time suggests it is not a recorded fact but a “rectified” time, calculated backward to fit a preconceived astrological model, rendering it a product of circular reasoning.
The existence of an unverified astrological birth time for Carl Sagan is not merely a piece of biographical trivia; it is a profound and telling irony.
The sole claim for his time of birth -17:05:00- is uncorroborated, without merit, and should be dismissed as a biographical fact.
I was peeved by this. There’s no record of Carl Sagan’s birth time? I decided to dig deeper.
The Search for the Certificate
With the help of “Upwork”, a professional genealogist and the librarian of the Library of Congress I tracked down Carl Sagan’s birth announcement.
It was deposited in the Seth McFarlane collection. But unfortunately the hospital didn’t write the time of Carl’s birth down. And his birth certificate is sealed from the public until 2035, or some such (100 years after his birth).
An impression of Carl Edward Sagan’s birth announcement.
And there you go. Of course Sagan – the man who spent decades debunking astrology – would ghost us on his own birth time. The cosmic joke writes itself: the astronomer who demanded evidence for the stars’ influence left us no evidence to test his own chart.
But was it only Sagan who is a sceptic of astrology? No, some Christians also have an uneasy time with it… I thought about it briefly, and then found an argument in favour of astrology, related to Christianity, that is hard to dismiss.
The Divine Symphony: A Christian Case for the Stars
While some Christian interpretations of Astrology focus on biblical prohibitions, a deeper reading reveals a more nuanced and even positive relationship between God, the heavens, and humanity. Rather than seeing astrology as a forbidden practice, we can view it as an ancient and intuitive language through which God communicates with all of creation, a truth powerfully demonstrated at the very birth of Christ.
Three Magi follow a star
The birth of Christ was not just announced despite astrology; it was announced through it. The journey of the Magi is a powerful testament that no field of human knowledge is outside of God’s reach. The heavens are not a source of pagan fear but a canvas for divine glory. The story powerfully suggests that for those who seek with a sincere heart, the stars themselves will bow and point the way to the true King.
The Heavens Declare the Glory of God
Psalm 19:1 states this beautifully: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
In this light, astrology is not a departure from God but an attempt to listen to what His creation is saying. It is an act of paying attention. Why would God create such a magnificent and orderly celestial clockwork if not for it to hold meaning and purpose?
The Goal Determines the Goodness of the Practice
The biblical prohibitions against “divination” are aimed at idolatry—the act of replacing God with something else. They forbid seeking guidance from the stars instead of God. The Magi, however, did the exact opposite.
The Magi: Honored Heroes of the Faith
The story of the Magi is not a cautionary tale, but a story of honor. These astrologers from the East are the first Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew to recognize and worship Jesus. They are presented as wise, diligent, and faithful seekers.
God Meets Us Where We Are
A loving God communicates with people in a language they can understand. He spoke to fishermen in terms of fishing (“I will make you fishers of men”) and to farmers through parables of sowing seeds. To the Magi, who dedicated their lives to reading the heavens, God spoke through a Star.
A Divine Endorsement: By placing a special star in the sky, God was not setting a trap; He was validating their search. He affirmed that their study of the cosmos was a legitimate path that could lead to Him. The Star of Bethlehem can be seen as God’s ultimate seal of approval on the search for divine truth within the patterns of creation.
Chapter 10 of the Sagan Paradox, “From Sun Gods to StarChips,” presents a fascinating hypothesis. At its core, the text argues for a radical re-interpretation of ancient signs (pyramids, myths). It proposes a new code for their decoding – a code made available to us only through modern technology. We can powerfully illuminate this idea through the lens of Umberto Eco’s semiotic theory (A Theory Of Semiotics).
The Sign, the Code, and the Modern Interpretant
Umberto Eco posits that the relationship between a signifier (the physical form, like a word or image) and a signified (the concept it represents) creates meaning. Cultural codes govern this relationship. The text’s argument begins by establishing a new, contemporary code.
The Modern Sign: The “Breakthrough Starshot” initiative provides a new, tangible sign.
Signifier: The “StarChip” probe, a gram-scale, pyramidally-folded solar sail.
Signified (Denotation): An inexpensive, unmanned interstellar probe capable of reaching nearby stars within decades.
Code: 21st-century astrophysics and micro-engineering.
This modern sign acts as an interpretant – a new sign in our minds that allows us to re-evaluate older signs. The text successfully resolves “Sagan’s Paradox” not through philosophical argument. Instead, it demonstrates a shift in the technological code. Scientists can now achieve with a few kilograms of material what they once thought required ‘1% of the mass of all stars.’ This establishes the plausibility of the signifier (an interstellar probe) existing.
Aberrant Decoding: The “Cargo Cult” Hypothesis
The central thesis of the text is a classic case of what Eco termed aberrant decoding. This happens when someone interprets a message with a different code than the one the sender used. We hypothesize a prehistoric instance of First Contact as the ultimate example of this.
Imagine the following scenario:
The Sender (Hypothetical): An extraterrestrial intelligence.
The Message (Encoded): An autonomous probe, possibly resembling a “StarChip,” arrives on Earth. Its “meaning” is purely technological – a device for exploration. The code is one of advanced physics and engineering.
The Receiver: Ancient humanity.
The Decoding: Lacking the code of advanced technology, our ancestors could not interpret the object for what it was. They applied the dominant codes available to them: the mythological and the divine.
Thus, a technological artifact (the signifier) was aberrantly decoded. Its signified was not “interstellar probe” but “divine messenger,” “primordial creator,” or “celestial vessel.”
The Proliferation of the Sign: From Ur-Event to Cultural Memory
Eco’s concept of unlimited semiosis explains how a sign can generate an endless chain of subsequent signs (interpretants). The text argues that this single, misunderstood technological event (the “Ur-Sign”) rippled through human culture, creating a web of interconnected myths and symbols.
The Original Signifier: A pyramidal, reflective object descending from the sky and perhaps associated with a body of water (a common landing necessity).
This signifier generated multiple interpretants across different cultures, all retaining fragments of the original form and context:
The Egyptian Interpretant: The signifier becomes the Benben stone, the pyramidal mound rising from the primordial waters of Nu, from which the sun god Atum-Ra emerges. The probe’s act of searching becomes the myth of the Eye of Ra. This is a “sentient probe” sent to find his lost children.
The Abrahamic Interpretant: The signifier’s shape – a stable structure offering salvation from water – is remembered as Noah’s Ark. Recent analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests a “pyramid-like roof” that powerfully reinforces this connection. It is not that the ark was a pyramid. Instead, they mapped the memory of a pyramidal savior-object onto the story of the ark.
The Universal Interpretant: The probe’s function as a traveler from an unknown place becomes the recurring motif of scout birds and divine messengers (e.g., the dove in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible). These birds were sent across the water to find a home for humanity.
Semiotic analysis of the cargo cult hypothesis
The Monument as Interpretant: Building the Sign
The most profound outcome of this aberrant decoding, according to the text, is not just mythological but architectural. Faced with an awe-inspiring event they interpreted as divine, ancient peoples sought to reconnect with it. They did so by recreating the signifier.
The pyramids, therefore, are not alien artifacts. In semiotic terms, they are a monumental, physical interpretant. They are humanity’s attempt to reproduce the form of the divine visitor. This is a grand act of imitation meant to venerate the original event and perhaps solicit its return. The pyramids are the ultimate expression of a prehistoric “cargo cult” – a monument built not by aliens, but in memory of them.
Conclusion: A New Reading of History
By applying a semiotic framework, we can see that the argument in chapter 10 of the Sagan Paradox is not a simple “ancient astronauts” theory. It is a more nuanced claim about meaning, memory, and interpretation. It suggests that our ancestors witnessed a signifier they could not comprehend. Consequently, they spent millennia processing it through myth, religion, and architecture and signs.
The “Cosmic Mirror” metaphor at the end is apt. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence forces us to re-examine our own signs. The “Breakthrough Starshot” project does not just offer a future of exploration. It also provides a new code, a key that might unlock the meaning behind our most ancient and enigmatic symbols. The pyramids cease to be just tombs or temples. They become signs of a profound encounter, not with alien builders, but with human awe in the face of the unknown.
The article moves from the general historical context of SETI to a specific, modern candidate for life, then to a mysterious signal from that candidate, critiquing the scientific response to potential extraterrestrial signals, presenting an alternative theory for the signal, and finally broadening the discussion to the overall limitations of the SETI methodology.
A Sagan-Sized Question
For decades, the search for extraterrestrial life was haunted by a daunting sense of scale. In a 1969 lecture that laid the foundation for modern UFO skepticism, Carl Sagan imagined our cosmic neighbors searching for us by a random principle: sending a spaceship to any old star and simply hoping for the best. More often than not, he assumed, they would find nothing. The universe was a colossal haystack, and intelligent life was a single, lonely needle.
It is a triumph of modern astronomy that this picture has been completely overturned. Today, we know of promising candidates for life-bearing planets right in our cosmic backyard. The proverbial haystack, it turns out, might just be a needle factory.
Proxima b’s orbit is in the habitable zone, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be habitable.
From Random Hopes to Targeted Searches
We are no longer searching blindly. Armed not with metal detectors but with powerful telescopes, we can pinpoint the most likely worlds to harbor life. An intelligent civilization on Earth would not send probes randomly into the void; we would send them to these promising targets. And there are many.
In 2016, astronomers discovered one such target: Proxima Centauri b in the Alpha Centauri system: a potentially habitable planet orbiting the closest star to our sun, a mere 4.2 light-years away. While its parent star’s fierce solar winds make surface picnics unlikely, life could theoretically thrive in subterranean shelters.
In an unrealized project, NASA studied in 1987 the possibility of reaching the orbit of Proxima Centauri b within just 100 years at 4.5% the speed of light. This project was named Longshot, and it was about sending an unmanned probe using nuclear propulsion.
If our initial observations of such a world prove inconclusive in the search for life, what would we do? We would do what we are already doing with Mars: we would send probe after probe until we could be certain. Why would an alien intelligence, having discovered a promising blue dot called Earth, be any different? And from a distance, what do our own Martian space probes look like, if not unidentified flying objects?
In a remarkable coincidence, just as we began to focus on Proxima b in the search for extraterrestrial life, a potential signal emerged from its direction. In April and May of 2019, the Parkes radio telescope in Australia detected a strange, narrow-band radio emission. Dubbed Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1 (BLC1), initially it was classified as a possible sign from an alien civilization.
The signal’s characteristics were puzzling. Its Doppler shift—the change in its frequency—appeared to be the opposite of what would be expected from the planet’s orbit. Curiously, the signal appeared 10 days after a major solar flare from Proxima Centauri, though no link has been established. The primary investigators were two interns, Shane Smith and Sofia Sheikh. They worked cautiously to rule out terrestrial interference.
BLC1 – Breakthrough Listen’s First “Signal of Interest”
Some senior researchers did review the results but found nothing of note.
Long Delay
The BLC-1 signal was first reported publicly 1.5 years after its detection, and only because it was leaked to The Guardian newspaper. The public then had to wait another year for the final results. People were puzzled by the secrecy which fueled speculation.
Delays in announcing a discovery—or non-discovery—within SETI and astronomy are standard practice. Data are not released to the public until they have been verified. For instance, when radio stars were first discovered in 1967, it took two years before the discovery was published. The scientists held on to their data until they found what they considered a plausible natural explanation. The supposed Pulsar mechanism remains a mystery to this day.
PULSAR SHOCKER—SCIENCE’S BIGGEST BLIND SPOT!
Pulsars have puzzled scientists for over 50 years.
This delay practice by SETI can give the impression that data are withheld until “natural explanations” have been found; radio-frequency interference (RFI) is one such explanation.
“Ultimately, I think we’ll be able to convince ourselves that BLC-1 is interference.”
– Andrew Siemion, SETI Principal Investigator for Breakthrough Listen
Within the SETI community, Siemion’s statement exemplifies scientific humility and the cautious process necessary to distinguish genuine signals from interference. Outside SETI, analogous statements can be understood as masking underlying biases or reluctance to accept paradigm-shifting discoveries. This highlights how context influences the interpretation of such remarks.
The Mysterious Signal from Proxima Centauri
It was the perfect alien signal… until it wasn’t. This is the story of BLC1, a radio signal that appeared to be a message from Proxima Centauri.
How long did Earth listen for the BLC-1 signal?
Breakthrough Listen reserved 30 hours on the Parkes telescope to observe Proxima Centauri, but the putative signal was detected during only about three of those hours—roughly 10 % of the total observing time.
During the next six months the team logged another 39 hours of follow-up observations. Out of the 4,320 hours in that half-year, just 0.9 % was spent searching for a repeat—about one-tenth of the effort devoted to the original scan.
The question remains: Was a longer campaign warranted? More generally, aren’t extended observing campaigns in radio-astronomical SETI necessary? We cannot presume that extraterrestrial civilizations broadcast continuous signals; those transmissions may be the only ones we ever detect, and even then only by chance.
BLC-1 has underscored that, when practicable, observations of potential technosignatures should be conducted from at least two different observing sites simultaneously. That this wasn’t done in the case of BLC-1 is inexplicable.
What would be the worst case when announcing the discovery of extraterrestrial technological intelligence?
A mass panic? That later investigations prove the discovery to be wrong and it has to be retracted? Thus discrediting the field of SETI? Or that humankind no longer occupies the pinnacle of evolution in the Cosmos? Would this discovery temper humankinds worst instincts, such as warfare, to the detriment of despotic rulers?
A “Galactic Communications Grid” and BLC-1
At first glance, detecting a narrowband radio signal (e.g., BLC-1) from Proxima Centauri—the star system next door—seems fantastically unlikely. Astrophysicist Jason T. Wright countered that, from an engineering standpoint, Proxima is exactly where we should expect to find such a transmission.
If a galactic communication network exists, Proxima would be the most likely “last mile” transmitter to the Solar System. Instead of every civilization trying to beam powerful, targeted messages to every other star system they want to contact, they would establish a network of communication nodes or relays.
Proxima as the Solar System’s “Cell Tower”
Proxima as the Solar System’s “Cell Tower” In this scenario, Proxima Centauri—the closest star to our Solar System—serves as the logical “cell tower.” A message intended for our region of space would be routed through the galactic network to the Proxima Centauri system. A transmitter located there would then handle the “last mile” broadcast to the Solar System.
These nodes in the Galactic Communications Grid would need to ping each other regularly. But since radio waves travel at the speed of light, a single ping would take over eight years (accounting for the 4.24-light-year distance and signal processing time). Given this limitation, perhaps there’s another way to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)?
The speed of light is fixed for electromagnetic radio waves—but what about physical objects? And I’m not primarily referring to warp technology, but rather to objects that might already be here.
The Trouble with SETI
ET to SETI: can you hear us now?
SETI’s foundational premise is that extraterrestrial civilizations would likely be light-years away, not operating stealthily in Earth’s atmosphere. The hundreds of thousands of reported UFO sighting are perceived by SETI as being mostly the product of wishful thinking, misinterpretations and fakes.
Because UAPs/UFOs have no confirmed extraterrestrial link, SETI has no scientific basis for allocating resources to them. Consequently, no scientific efforts are undertaken to attempt contact with UAPs by radio or other signalling methods (e.g., lasers).
To qualify as a genuine ETI radio signal, the signal must come from far away and its detection must be reproducible. Otherwise it risks being classified as interference outright.
Highly directional, sensitive radio telescopes are not suited for close-range communication. For this reason, the Contact Project has suggested involving amateur radio operators (hams), whose omnidirectional antennas could be used in communication attempts with UAPs.
SETI with directional AND omnidirectional antennas, for far-and close-range Rx/Tx searches
Scientific Observational Attempts to Detect UAPs/UFOs
Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb has been leading the Galileo Project, one branch of his project is the detection of possible radio emissions from UAPs.
With new observatories online Avi Loeb is challenging the scientific establishment by taking UAPs seriously.
He sensationally declared he’s looking for intelligent life in deep space, blasting: “I’m interested in intelligence in outer space because I don’t find it very often here on Earth!”
The definition of his job is simple. “What is it to be a scientist?” he asks. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the privilege of being curious.” It is this foundational principle that now drives one of the most ambitious and controversial scientific endeavors of our time: the Galileo Project. In an age of polarized opinion, the project aims to rise above the noise by focusing on a single, unimpeachable authority. “In science,” he declares, “the arbitrator is the physical reality.”
The project, which is now in full swing in the summer of 2025, was born from a frustration with a scientific community he sees as often too quick to dismiss the unknown. The turning point was the baffling 2017 interstellar visitor, ‘Oumuamua. Its strange, flat shape and its acceleration away from the sun without a visible cometary tail led him to suggest it could be an artifact of an alien technology. The backlash was swift. He recalls a colleague, an expert on rocks, confiding that ‘Oumuamua was “so weird I wish it never existed”—a statement project leader Avi Loeb sees as the antithesis of scientific curiosity.
What If We Were About to Make Contact? The Hypothetical Implications of Confirmed Extraterrestrial Intelligence
Explore the potential consequences of an extraterrestrial discovery. What could happen upon contacting extraterrestrial intelligent life?
CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM For generations, the night sky was a canvas of glittering uncertainty. We gazed upon it, pondered our solitude, and whispered the profound question: Are we alone in the habitable universe? For decades, our answers were mere philosophical musings, tethered by limited data and a rather quaint, Earth-centric view of the cosmos. But that era is over. We stand at the precipice of a new understanding, a scientific awakening that paints a truly breathtaking picture of a universe teeming with possibility.
Decoding Destiny: Sagan and the Drake Equation’s Dawn
Once, the Drake Equation – our grand cosmic census – was a theoretical construct, its variables educated guesses in the twilight of astronomical knowledge. Carl Sagan first met Drake and his famous Equation in 1961—it constitutes a framework to estimate the number of communicative civilizations in the Milky Way. Sagan, then a young graduate student, became a lifelong advocate for the equation’s optimistic interpretations.
Based on the Drake equation, Sagan postulated between 1,000 and 1,000,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way. Carl Sagan, a visionary, frequently referenced the Drake Equation in his work and often used the original 1961 estimates, peering through the cosmic fog. (But also updated the numbers as new data emerged.) But today, the fog has lifted. The digital revolution, coupled with an explosion in space-faring technology, has ushered in a golden age of discovery, transforming those guesses into empirical certainties.
Consider the sheer scale. In 1992, the very first exoplanet was found. It was a singular pearl in a cosmic oyster. Now, less than three decades later, missions like Kepler and TESS have opened the floodgates! We’ve talliednearly 6,000 confirmed worlds (Reference) orbiting distant stars – each a potential cosmic frontier. This staggering avalanche of data tells us something profound: planets are not a rarity; they are the rule. The fraction of stars with planets (fp) is no longer a hopeful guess of 50%; it’s closer to 100%! Every star you see twinkling above likely harbors its own planetary system.
Cosmic Oases: Billions of Habitable Worlds Beckon
And within these systems, the number of potentially habitable worlds (ne) is far from a mere statistical blip. Our own Milky Way galaxy alone, that majestic spiral of stars we call home, is now estimated to contain300 to 500 million potentially habitable planets (Reference). Multiply that by the latest, mind-bending estimate of 2 trillion (or 2000 billion) galaxies (Reference) in the observable universe, and you’re looking at hundreds of billions of billions of cosmic oases!
A Sextillion Planets: Life’s Galactic Revolution
300 to 500 million potentially habitable planets multiplied by 2 trillion galaxies amounts to 600 billion billion to 1000 billion billion habitable planets. In other words, there are 600 qintillion to 1 sextillion potentially habitable planets in the cosmos.
This isn’t just an increase; it’s a galactic revolution in our baseline understanding of where life could arise.
But here’s where the possibilities truly explode – the “L” factor, the length of time a civilization releases detectable signals. Early calculations often assumed that civilizations were tied to their home world, vulnerable to asteroid impacts, climate change, or even self-destruction. This would lead to a tragically short “L,” perhaps a few thousand years. But for a truly advanced civilization, one that masters stellar energies, perhaps even galactic resources, simply staying put on one fragile world is a cosmic folly.
Cosmic Nomads: Galactic Colonization Extends ‘L’
Single Planet vs Multi System Civilizations
Frank Drake’s original formula makes no allowance for the ability of technological civilizations to colonize other planets or solar systems.
But as soon as another world is colonized, the chance of survival increases. Therefore far more older technical civilizations with space faring capability than Sagan originally assumed may exist.
A short critique of the Drake equation as commonly understood:
L – IS NOT simply the longevity of civilizations! Instead it’s the timespan that a civilization releases simple detectable signals. Earth itself has released easily detectable radio and TV signals for only 40 to 60 years before switching to spread spectrum digital communication, satellite, cable and internet. The signals that Earth is still leaking into space are random and repeating pings and blips from powerful radar, and unintelligible signals from digital sources that blend into the cosmic background noise (CMB).
Galactic Empires in a Blink: The Kardashev Scale Beckons
A civilization with space-faring capability, even one moving at a fraction of light speed, could colonize its entire galaxy in a mere 5 to 50 million years. In the cosmic timescale of billions of years, this is but the blink of an eye!
Blink Of An Eye
Colonization acts as a cosmic insurance policy, diversifying risk and extending the effective “lifetime” of a civilization from millennia to millions, even billions of years. This utterly transforms the “N” in the Drake Equation, suggesting a universe far more populated with ancient, thriving civilizations than we dared to dream. We’re talking about the emergence of Kardashev Type I, Type II, Type III and even Type IV civilizations – those that harness the power of their planet, their star, their galaxy or even the entire universe!
The Great Cosmic Silence: Unraveling the Fermi Paradox
Of course, the cosmic riddle persists: The Fermi Paradox. If the universe is so abundant with life, where is everybody? The silence, the eerie quiet of the cosmos, has led to theories like the “Great Filter” – a bottleneck that prevents life from reaching advanced stages, either in our past (making us incredibly rare) or, more ominously, in our future (a catastrophic universal speed bump). Or perhaps the “Rare Earth Hypothesis,” suggesting our planet’s specific conditions for complex life are extraordinarily unique.
Echoes of Advanced Life? Or a Cosmic Sanctuary Awaits?
But even these daunting questions now inspire a different kind of optimism. Perhaps the “Great Filter” lies behind us, making our existence all the more triumphant. Perhaps extraterrestrial civilizations are so vastly more advanced (Type III-IV) that their communications are simply beyond our current comprehension, a cosmic symphony we lack the instruments to hear.
And maybe the answer to the Fermi paradox is another: THE SANCTUARY HYPOTHESIS- coming soon.
The Sanctuary Hypothesis
The Quest Continues: A Universe Primed for Discovery
The search for ETI is no longer a fringe endeavor; it is a fundamental “market research” initiative into the ultimate cosmic landscape. The data is overwhelmingly in favor of abundance. The universe is a grand laboratory, a vast stage for the emergence of life and intelligence. And as we continue to unlock its secrets, each new discovery amplifies the profound conviction that we are not alone. The grandest adventure of all is just beginning.
“Billions and Billions”: The Catchphrase That Captured the Cosmos
One Sagan: The iconic catchphrase, “billions and billions,” was popularized by comedian Johnny Carson, who hosted The Tonight Show. Carson frequently did affectionate parodies of Sagan, mimicking his voice and intellectual demeanor, and in these skits, he would often quip, “billions and billions!”
This parody was so pervasive and well-loved that it became the phrase most people associated with Sagan, even though he didn’t originally say it that way. Sagan himself acknowledged this humorous invention by Carson and even titled his final book, published posthumously in 1997, Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium, playfully embracing the phrase that had become his popular legacy.
Johnny Carson’s spoof of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos
In 1980, Johnny Carson did a short spoof of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, which aired on PBS that year to huge ratings and rave reviews. Carson does a terrific impres…
Sagan’s UFO Paradox: Fostering Scientific Rigor Through Skepticism and Advocacy
A landmark event highlighted the Carl Sagan UFO controversy: the 1969 symposium he co-organized for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This meeting notably brought together leading UFO proponents, such as J. Allen Hynek.
Cameo of J. Allen Hynek in “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind”, an UFO encounter category he defined himself..
The meeting also included prominent skeptics, like the first theoretical astronomer of the United States, Donald Menzel. In 1968, Menzel testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics – Symposium on UFOs, stating that he, Menzel, considered all UFO sightings to have natural explanations.
While critics accused Sagan of legitimizing what they considered a “pseudoscience,” Sagan defended the AAAS symposium. He argued that significant public interest in UFOs warranted serious scientific scrutiny.
Carl Sagan was a prominent advocate for the search for extraterrestrial life. Yet, he remained a skeptic regarding Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) as evidence of alien visitation. This seemingly contradictory stance fueled the ongoing debate between UFO skeptics and believers. This is often referred to as the Carl Sagan UFO controversy.
Sagan’s influence on UFO studies produced its most significant beneficial effect by pushing researchers to ground their investigations more firmly in scientific methods. This emphasis on rigor contributed to the emergence of two distinct categories of researchers in the field.
SKEPTICS VS. BELIEVERS: The Secret War Over UFOs
A: Serious UAP researchers who set themselves the goal of identifying and cataloging UFOs, with the main focus on the assumption that there can be no extraterrestrial UFOs. Their focus was on finding conventional, or “banal,” explanations for sightings. They aimed to demystify the phenomenon and bring it within the realm of established science. The Carl Sagan UFO controversy played a role in how these explanations were pursued.
B: Marginalized Fringe UFOresearchers, who in contrast remained open to, or actively pursued, the hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence behind UFO sightings found themselves increasingly on the periphery. This group, while not necessarily uncritical or prone to accepting every hoax, was willing to explore unconventional explanations. These were explanations that the “serious” camp often dismissed outright.
UAP or UFO? The Government’s Sneaky Word Game to HIDE the Extraterrestrial Truth!
The contemporary preference for the term UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) rather than UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) starkly reflects the divide between serious and fringe research.
While both terms essentially refer to the same core mystery—observed objects or phenomena in the sky that are not immediately identifiable—’UAP’ has gained traction among those seeking to legitimize their research. They want to avoid the cultural baggage and stigma associated with ‘UFOs,’ which are often colloquially synonymous with alien spacecraft. This shift is part of the Carl Sagan UFO controversy, as different terminologies affect the perception of research.
Researchers, particularly those affiliated with governmental or academic institutions, often opt for ‘UAP’ to protect their professional reputations. They use it to signal a more data-driven, agnostic approach, free from preconceived notions of extraterrestrial involvement.
“BANAL” OR ALIEN? Inside the Bitter Feud Splitting UFO Hunters in Two!
The comparison between a case like the authors “Mufon UFO case #111680” and a frame from the Pentagon’s “Gimbal UAP” video can illustrate this division:
A MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) case, typically investigated by citizen researchers often aligned with the “fringe” category (though MUFON itself has varying methodologies), might present evidence and interpretations that lean towards or explicitly suggest an extraordinary (extraterrestrial) origin.
A government source released the “Gimbal” video, and serious UAP researchers—including military and intelligence analysts—analyzed it. They discussed its flight characteristics, sensor data, and possible but elusive mundane explanations. Although they acknowledge the video’s anomalous nature, they focus their rigorous approach on ruling out known technologies or natural phenomena.
In contrast, the “fringe” perspective may treat the footage as evidence supporting an extraterrestrial hypothesis. But this is due to careful consideration.
Unusual Flight Characteristics in Navy’s 2015 Gimbal UAP Sighting
A study by Yannick Peings and Marik von Rennenkampff analyzes the Gimbal UAP video.
“FRINGE” RESEARCHERS FIGHT BACK
In essence, Carl Sagan’s legacy in UFO studies is complex. His insistence on scientific rigor undoubtedly elevated the quality of investigation in certain quarters. It helped to filter out less credible claims. However, it also contributed to a climate where exploring the more speculative, yet potentially profound, extraterrestrial aspects of the phenomenon became scientifically and academically challenging. As a result, these inquiries were pushed to the margins. This is a key part of what makes the Carl Sagan UFO controversy so enduring.
In essence, Carl Sagan’s legacy in UFO studies is complex. His insistence on scientific rigor undoubtedly elevated the quality of investigation in certain quarters. It helped to filter out less credible claims. However, it also contributed to a climate where exploring the more speculative, yet potentially profound, extraterrestrial aspects of the phenomenon became scientifically and academically challenging. Consequently, such inquiries were pushed to the margins.
SAGAN’S PARADOX: Did His “Science First” Rule KILL the Search for Alien Life?
Was Sagan a hero of reason—or did his skepticism accidentally suppress the truth? The ongoing debate and the terminological distinctions highlight this enduring tension between cautious, mainstream scientific inquiry and the persistent, more speculative allure of the unknown inherent in the UFO/UAP enigma. Discussions continue over his role and influence in shaping public perception and scientific investigation of unexplained aerial phenomena. The Carl Sagan UFO controversy exemplifies this tension.
“Alien lifeforms would visit Earth only if life in the universe is rare, but then there wouldn’t be enough alien visitors to explain the countless UFO reports.”
Did Carl Sagan privately believe in UFOs, despite his public skepticism? 🤔 Dive into ‘The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 6,’ which explores Sagan’s famous argument against extraterrestrial visits and fascinating claims about his alleged private views. Investigative journalist Paola Harris shares an account from Dr. J. Allen Hynek, suggesting Sagan might have admitted to believing UFOs were real, but couldn’t risk his research funding by speaking openly. Discover the tension between Sagan’s public stance and these intriguing allegations.
Sagan’s Defining Argument
The “Sagan Paradox” was first formulated in 1969 at an American symposium on the UFO phenomenon in Boston. Carl Sagan and Thornton Page served as co-chairs of this event. It was sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The title of the symposium was: UFOs – The Scientific Debate
It was here that the renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan advanced an argument. The argument was meant to explain why there could be no extraterrestrially crewed “flying saucers.”
The Boston War Memorial Auditorium, site of the AAAS symposium in December 26.-28. Dec. 1969
The Rare Earth Hypothesis: Sagan’s Core Premise for “THE SAGAN PARADOX”
Carl Sagan argued that the Earth had to be somehow special in the cosmos to attract the attention of aliens. The special position of the Earth is its life on it, which Sagan said is very rare in the cosmos.
Because life in the cosmos is so rare, according to Carl Sagan, there are not enough extraterrestrial civilizations in the vicinity of the Earth. Therefore, they cannot visit us in the huge numbers that the thousands of UFO sightings every year since 1947 suggest (~2312 yearly).
On the other hand, if there were actually as many alien civilizations as the number of sightings suggests, then life on Earth would not be special. Consequently, our planet would not be worth visiting with a spaceship.
As a result, UFOs controlled by aliens could not exist but are exclusively false alerts, implied Sagan.
Mock-up and additional enhancement of the famous British Calvine UFO photo, after Nick Pope. The original six photos are in color. The MOD has blocked their release until 2072. Wikipedia
The core of this paradox, as presented by Sagan, lies in the tension between the potential number of advanced technical civilizations in the galaxy and the lack of convincing evidence for frequent visits to Earth.
Sagan’s Skepticism: Witness Testimony
Carl Sagan regarded witness evidence for UFOs as insufficient to constitute robust scientific proof. He attributed accounts to human fallibilities, including emotional desire, boredom, paranoia, and a low tolerance for ambiguity. Consequently, these factors often result in self-deception and the misinterpretation of ordinary phenomena.
Photographic Evidence
Sagan also found UFO photographs unconvincing, due to their poor quality and ease of manipulation. Moreover, the lack of physical evidence and the influence of psychological and cultural factors were concerning. They all failed to meet the high standards required for extraordinary claims under the scientific method.
Would Sagan Have Accepted the Pentagon’s UAP Videos?
Regardless of Carl Sagan’s private views, his public stance on UFOs was unequivocal. He dismissed them as either misidentifications or deliberate hoaxes. This position dominated UFO discourse for decades. Moreover, it continues to influence the field, where the default approach among many researchers remains the systematic debunking of sightings—often without thorough evaluation.
This mindset, reinforced by ‘Sagan’s Paradox’ and his famous dictum ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,’ gave rise to a peculiar scientific orthodoxy. While the existence of extraterrestrial life is deemed plausible, any connection between UFOs and alien intelligence is treated as inherently implausible. This conclusion is enforced rather than investigated.
Sagan was convinced that given the number of stars in the universe—”billions and billions” as he used to say—the chances are very high that highly developed civilizations must exist. He simply doubted that emissaries from these civilizations had a habit of appearing at distant farms. He also doubted their emergence above Uncle Fritz’s garden, as popular reports often claimed.
Speaking of the back garden
UFO sighting by Dennis & Mandy. The object was seen within just a few meters from the backyard of the authors house. The author didn’t see this UFO himself. What he and his wife did notice at night was a strange “hum”, that persisted for long periods of time.
Sound of the “hum”.
The sound and, for instance, the UFO pictured here, remained in place for over 20 minutes. Planes don’t remain stationary for such extended periods of time.
“Erich” marks the location of the author’s house. “Dennis and Mandy” witnessed the UAP sighting—initially unknown to the author. He later interviewed them in person because he suspected he was being pranked.
Carl Sagan’s Alleged Private Beliefs on UFOs: An Examination
“Renowned astronomer and astrophysicist Dr. Carl Sagan revealed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek that he believed UFOs were real. However, he avoided any public statements to prevent the loss of academic research funding.“
This allegation suggests a divergence between Sagan’s public skepticism and his private views.
Paola Harris’s Account: Sagan’s Alleged Admission
Investigative journalist Paola Leopizzi-Harris met astronomer, professor, and UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek in 1978 at CUFOS, the Center for UFO Studies. Upon learning Harris was Italian-American, Dr. Allen Hynek enlisted her for translation work. Moreover, she was his assistant in UFO investigations. Their collaboration occurred mainly from 1980 to 1986. This association provided her with significant exposure to UFO research and key individuals involved in the subject.
According to Paola Harris :
“My recollection is that Hynek said it was backstage at one of the many Johnny Carson Tonight shows Sagan did. He basically said (to Hynek) in 1984, ‘I know UFOs are real, but I would not risk my research funding, as you do, to talk openly about them in public.’ ” Paola Leopizzi-Harris
This quote has been verified by Paola Leopizzi-Harris.
Another correspondent, Bryce Zabel, said Sagan had to downplay his passionate belief in extraterrestrials. This was in order to avoid being written off as a crank—a cool crank but a crank nonetheless: “The truth of the matter, to me, is that he felt giving any quarter on the UFO issue could kill his career.”
Debating UFOs with Carl Sagan
Early in Bryce Zabel’s TV career, he debated UFO reality with Carl in a PBS parking lot after the Voyager II Saturn encounter.
The UFOs Carl Sagan Was Convinced Of But Couldn’t Talk About
Writer Bryce Zabel recalls a dispute with Sagan on the topic in a parking lot 40 years ago, during the Voyager 2 flyby — which changed Zabel’s career.
DEEP DIVE
The following is a fact check of this anecdote: Dr. J. Allen Hynek once remarked about Carl Sagan: “I knew Carl Sagan. We had lunch one day and he said that UFOs were bunk. I asked him his thoughts on a multitude of cases and he said, ‘don’t know anything about it”. Then I said, ‘Carl, you know we scientists are not supposed to comment on anything we haven’t sufficiently studied and he said, ‘yes, I know, but I don’t have the time’. True or false?
Hynek vs. Sagan: UFOs, Science, and the Battle for Belief
Reference: UFO’s: A Scientific Debate, Papers presented at a symposium sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Boston on Dec. 26-27, 1969, Pages 265 – 275, https://archive.org/details/ufosscientificde0000unse
In 1971 Dr. Sagan, writing under the pseudonym “Mr. X” described his history of marijuana use.
As the paragon of reasoned, evidence-based science, what could have possibly prompted Carl Sagan to light up a joint? He argued that marijuana can be a powerful tool for facilitating mind expansion. When he was high, he had breakthroughs in knowledge and moments of true insight, according to his experience.
He vigorously defended the validity of these pot-fueled realizations:
“There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we’re down the next day. Some of the hardest work I’ve ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing. The problem is that ten even more interesting ideas or images have to be lost in the effort of recording one.”
Reference: Psychiatrist Grinspoon Smoked Pot with Sagan—A Lot
Dr. Lester Grinspoon, associate professor emeritus of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, recalls exploring the cosmos with a little help from cannabis, and his best friend Carl Sagan.
In April 2019, astronomers with the Breakthrough Listen project detected something extraordinary: a narrow radio signal at 982 MHz, seemingly emanating from Proxima Centauri, our solar system’s closest stellar neighbor. Dubbed BLC1 (Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1), the signal had all the hallmarks of a technosignature—a potential transmission from an extraterrestrial civilization.
For a brief moment, the world dared to wonder: Had we finally found evidence of alien technology?
But as scientists dug deeper, the truth proved far more mundane—and far more fascinating.
The Case for BLC1 as an Alien Signal
At first glance, BLC1 was the most compelling candidate in the history of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI):
Precise frequency: The signal was laser-sharp, just a few Hertz wide—something natural astrophysical phenomena can’t produce.
Non-zero drift: Its frequency drifted at 0.03 Hz/s, consistent with a transmitter on a planet like Proxima b.
Localized: It appeared only when the telescope pointed at Proxima Centauri, vanishing during off-source scans.
“The signal appears to only show up in our data when we’re looking in the direction of Proxima Centauri, which is exciting,” Ms. Sheikh said.
The Plot Twist: A Cosmic False Alarm
The Breakthrough Listen team subjected BLC1 to relentless scrutiny—and cracks began to appear.
May 2nd 2019, a possible BLC1 redetection: radio dish is pointed at Proxima b
1. The Drift That Didn’t Fit
If BLC1 came from Proxima b, its frequency drift should have shown:
Cyclical variation (rising and falling as the planet rotated). Orbital signatures (subtle shifts tied to its 11.2-day year).
Instead, the drift was strangely linear—more like a glitching human device than an alien beacon.
2. The RFI Doppelgängers
Then, researchers found dozens of similar signals at frequencies like 712 MHz and 1062 MHz—all mathematically linked to common radio interference (RFI). These “lookalikes” had the same drift behavior but were unmistakably human-made, appearing even when the telescope wasn’t pointed at Proxima.
BLC1 wasn’t a lone anomaly—it was part of a pattern.
3. The Cadence Coincidence
The final clue? BLC1’s timing matched the telescope’s observing schedule.
On-source (30 min): Signal detectable. Off-source (5 min): Signal too faint to see.
This created an illusion of localization—like a flickering streetlight that only seems to work when you walk by.
The Verdict: A Cosmic Mirage
After a year of analysis, the team concluded: BLC1 was interference, likely from:
Intermodulation: A “ghost” signal created when two radio waves mixed in faulty electronics.
A malfunctioning device (possibly hundreds of miles from the observatory).
Lessons for the Hunt for Alien Life
BLC1’s rise and fall taught scientists three critical lessons:
Single telescopes are vulnerable to false alarms. Future searches need global networks to cross-check signals.
The search is worth it.
For now, Proxima Centauri’s secrets remain hidden. But the hunt continues.
BLC1 wasn’t aliens—but as SETI enters a new era (with projects like the Square Kilometer Array), we’re better prepared than ever to answer humanity’s oldest question: Are we alone?
Primary Research Papers
These two papers were published concurrently and should be read together for a complete understanding of the BLC1 signal, from its detection to its ultimate classification as interference.
A radio technosignature search towards Proxima Centauri resulting in a signal of interest
Authors: Shane Smith, Danny C. Price, Sofia Z. Sheikh, et al.
Abstract: This paper describes the overall search for technosignatures from Proxima Centauri and the initial detection of the BLC1 signal. It details the characteristics that made BLC1 an intriguing candidate.
Analysis of the Breakthrough Listen signal of interest blc1 with a technosignature verification framework
Authors: Sofia Z. Sheikh, Shane Smith, Danny C. Price, et al.
Abstract: This is the companion paper that provides a deep dive into the analysis of BLC1. It outlines the verification framework used and presents the evidence that led to the conclusion that BLC1 was a product of human-generated radio frequency interference.
Additional Resources from Breakthrough Listen
The Breakthrough Listen initiative has also made a wealth of information about BLC1 available to the public.
BLC1 – Breakthrough Listen’s First “Signal of Interest”: This is the main resource page from the Berkeley SETI Research Center, providing summaries, links to the papers, data, and other supplementary materials.
What if time isn’t a single, smooth river but a hidden cascade of microscopic “droplets”? Blending hard science with speculative fiction, “The River of Time” follows Dr. Mara Lentz to CERN, where a mysterious program called Chronos may prove that every moment in the universe comes in indivisible ticks.
The river was frozen solid—or so it seemed. Beneath the glassy sheath of ice, water still slid forward, grain by grain, molecule by molecule, each one stealing an instant from the future and secreting it into the past. Dr. Mara Lentz stood on the footbridge and let her gloved fingers tap against the rail, her every heartbeat echoing the tick-tock she had sworn to conquer. In the distance, CERN’s cavernous domes glittered beneath the winter sun like watch gears strewn across the snow. Today, she promised herself, she would decide whether time was prisoner or jailer, river or clock.
Frozen River
The Invitation
A month earlier, the summons had arrived in a yellowed envelope, the handwriting achingly familiar to any physicist.
Mara, If you wish to see how deep the river of time runs—and whether it is made of droplets—come to Geneva. A. E.
Impossible, of course. Albert Einstein had been dead for nearly a century. Yet the looping letters were unmistakable, right down to the playful curl beneath the final E. A prank, she assumed, until the envelope yielded a security badge to CERN and a one-sentence note: “Ask for Chronos.”
Chronos
The man who met her at CERN reception looked nothing like a mythic god and everything like a graduate student in overwashed jeans.
“Call me Noah,” he said, steering her through a maze of elevators that plunged beneath the Earth.
“Chronos is more program than person,” he explained. “A string of algorithms built to test the most radical hypothesis on the table—that time itself has a dual identity.”
“A wave and a particle?” Mara asked, half-teasing.
“Exactly.” Noah’s eyes gleamed in the fluorescent gloom. “Just like light.”
They reached a vault-like door. Above the keypad a single line was etched into steel: FOR AS LONG AS WE HAVE BEEN HUMAN, WE HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE TYRANNY AND GRACE OF TIME.
CERN Control Room
Inside, the air thrummed with cooling fans and suppressed excitement. Monitors covered the walls, each looping equations Mara knew as well as her own pulse—general relativity’s smooth curves entwined with quantum mechanics’ jagged spikes.
The Duality
“For a century,” Noah continued, “we’ve known that if you watch an electron’s path, it behaves like a point particle. If instead you watch its spread, it becomes a wave. Wave-particle duality. Our question is whether time plays the same trick.”
“What if time flows in indivisible droplets?” she murmured.
“Chronons,” Noah supplied. “Each a jump of 10⁻⁴³ seconds—the Planck tick.”
Emergence
At the Planck scale, time does not flow; it hops.
Aggregating trillions of those hops, a seamless current emerges—just as a lake’s surface looks smooth though every molecule jitters.
The arrow of time appears only once enough chronons click in concert.
When fatigue blurred her vision, Mara imagined she could hear them: countless microscopic gears ratcheting reality forward—click … click … click …
The Rift
But the duality, however elegant, sat like an unsolved crime against everything Einstein had bequeathed. Relativity demanded a continuous spacetime; quantum mechanics insisted on discreteness. Chronos promised a bridge but offered no proof.
“Tools,” Noah groaned, rubbing bloodshot eyes. “We need instruments slim enough to slip between two ticks, to watch the droplet itself.”
CERN Control Room
“Or,” Mara countered, “we find evidence in the macroscopic world—patterns only quantized time could leave behind.”
Einstein’s Ghost
That night, Mara reopened the mysterious envelope. A translucent sheet she’d missed before drifted out, bearing Einstein’s familiar scrawl:
“The answer is not in the river or the clock, But in believing they are one; Watch the particle, see the wave— Then look away and they are gone.”
The River and the Clock
Back in the vault at dawn, Mara loaded gravitational-wave echoes from merging black holes. Traditional analyses assumed continuous time. She resampled the data at chronon intervals.
CERN Synchro-Cyclotron
A pattern emerged: micro-staccato pauses in the waves, like hidden commas in a cosmic sentence. They repeated every 10⁻⁴³ s.
Noah stumbled in with two coffees. One sloshed onto the floor as he saw the display. “Droplets,” he whispered. “A river of droplets.”
Convergence
Word sprinted through CERN, through Caltech, Tokyo, Cape Town. Observatories retuned their algorithms to chronon cadence. Within weeks, corroborating signals poured in. Everywhere physicists looked, the universe ticked like a flawless watch hiding inside a roaring river.
Epilogue
Mara returned to the frozen footbridge. Beneath her boots, the river still looked motionless, an immense silver ribbon. Yet she knew it for what it was: trillions upon trillions of glimmering beads—each an indivisible heartbeat of existence.
The tyranny of time remained—but its grace had multiplied. Every instant was a jewel, perfect and complete, and the future was nothing more than an undiscovered sequence of brilliant ticks.
And somewhere, maybe in the hush between those droplets, she imagined she heard Einstein laugh—soft as snow falling on the river that was also a clock.
Background:Is Time Both a River and a Clock?
A Dual Identity for Time?
What if time behaves just like a particle of light? This radical new idea from the frontiers of physics suggests that our most fundamental reality has a dual identity.
The Birth of the Arrow of Time
The dynamics of a collection of particles gains a direction in time, called the arrow of time, when there are many particles. And this arrow of time is absent for a single particle.
Tyranny and Grace: Time’s Two Faces
For as long as we have been human, we have been subject to the tyranny and grace of time. It is the steady, flowing river of our lives, as Einstein imagined it—a dimension that can be bent and stretched by gravity. It is also the relentless tick-tock of the clock, marching forward one second at a time. But what if both are true? What if time itself leads a double life?
A Quantum Clue to the Puzzle
On the cutting edge of theoretical physics, a fascinating proposition is taking shape. It suggests that time may not be one thing or the other, but could possess a dual nature, an idea borrowed directly from the strange and proven rules of the quantum world. While still speculative, it’s a powerful lens through which scientists are tackling the biggest unanswered questions in the cosmos.
The Lesson of Wave-Particle Duality
The concept hinges on an analogy to one of science’s most famous paradoxes: wave-particle duality. A century of experiments has shown that an entity like an electron or a photon refuses to be pigeonholed. If you design an experiment to track its path, it behaves like a discrete, pinpoint particle. But if you design it to observe its flow, it acts like a continuous, spread-out wave. The nature it reveals depends entirely on the nature of the measurement.
Applying this same principle to time offers a startlingly elegant way to resolve a deep conflict in physics. It would mean that time’s identity is also dependent on context.
Relativity’s Smooth River
At our human scale—the world of falling apples and orbiting planets described by Einstein’s theory of general relativity—time behaves like a continuous wave. It is the smooth, flowing river we all experience, a dimension that warps and bends to create the force we call gravity.
Zooming to the Planck Scale
But if we could zoom down to the impossibly small Planck scale, a fraction of a second so tiny it’s written with 43 zeroes after the decimal point, we might see time’s other identity. Here, it would behave like a particle. In this view, time would not flow but “tick” forward in indivisible, quantized jumps. These hypothetical droplets of time, sometimes called “chronons,” would be the fundamental clockwork of the universe.
Emergent Time: River from Droplets
This isn’t just a philosophical parlor game. The idea aligns with a leading theory known as Emergent Time, part of the grand quest to unite Einstein’s relativity with quantum mechanics. This framework suggests that the smooth river of time we perceive is not fundamental at all. Instead, it *emerges* from the collective behavior of countless discrete, particle-like ticks at the quantum level—much like the smooth, liquid surface of a lake emerges from the chaotic interactions of trillions of individual H₂O molecules.
One Reality, Two Appearances
From this vantage point, there is no paradox. The “particle” nature of time is its true, fundamental identity, while the “wave” nature is what we perceive at our macroscopic scale. It’s one reality that simply appears differently depending on whether you’re looking at the individual pixel or the entire screen.
A Roadmap to a Theory of Everything
We do not yet have the tools to probe reality at such an infinitesimal scale to prove it one way or the other. But the proposition offers a tantalizing path forward. By daring to question the very fabric of our experience, scientists may be on the verge of solving the ultimate puzzle: creating a single, unified theory of everything. The answer may have been hiding in plain sight all along—not in the river or the clock, but in the profound possibility that they are one and the same.
References:
Amelino-Camelia, G. (2013). Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology. Living Reviews in Relativity, 16(1), 5.
Isham, C. J. (1993). Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time. In L. A. Ibort & M. A. Rodríguez (Eds.), Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories (pp. 157-287). Springer.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
