Comment posted by Pedepano

Perfect — I’ll present a structured, point-by-point analysis as you requested: for each anomaly, I will explain (A) what was observed, (B) the current natural explanation proposed (with references), (C) whether that explanation is plausible and why, (D) a rarity score from 0–5 (0 = common / 5 = extremely rare), (E) where this explanation conflicts with other anomalies (i.e. where “rarity stacking” occurs), and (F) a short layperson-friendly version.
I’ll cite the most relevant sources when making data-dependent statements (the five most “loaded” claims include references). If you’d like, I can later bring specific PDFs or excerpts from those papers.

Quick summary of the main sources referenced throughout the text (the more data-heavy ones):
JWST NIRSpec: coma dominated by CO₂ detected.
Keck KCWI: spectroscopy confirming CN and showing Ni profiles.
VLT/NOT Polarimetry: extreme negative branch (minimum −2.7%) and unprecedented curve.
Loeb’s reports/analyses (preprints / Medium) discussing non-gravitational acceleration / interpretations.
NASA/JWST releases and compilations on CO₂ and composition.

⸻

1. Trajectory: alignment with the ecliptic, grazing planetary orbits, and passage “near” the habitable zone

A — Observation
3I/ATLAS entered with a hyperbolic vector whose projection lay relatively close to the ecliptic plane, with geometries that produced grazing (low-angle) passages near planetary orbits, making the trajectory “less random” than most detected ISOs (interstellar objects). Some authors and commentators noted this as statistically unlikely.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Two main elements: (1) observational bias — surveys have detection limits and are more sensitive to objects coming from certain directions; (2) dynamic origin — objects ejected from planetary disks tend to retain some memory of the disk plane (so not all arrivals are isotropic). Population and ejection models show that trajectories near the ecliptic are rare but expected for a small fraction of the population.

C — Plausibility
Moderate. Combined effects of detection bias + dynamic processes make this geometry possible without invoking directed causality. However, its statistical rarity increases interest when combined with other anomalies.

D — Rarity level: 3/5 (rare, but not impossible; biases and origin distribution reduce surprise)

E — Conflicts / stacking
On its own, the trajectory is explainable. The problem arises when it’s stacked with atypical composition (CO₂-dominated), extreme polarization, anomalous jets, and temporal sequences — then the “bias + dynamics” explanation no longer suffices to explain the set as a whole.

F — Lay summary
Usually, interstellar visitors come from all directions. This one came right through the middle of the Solar System — a bit unusual. It could be luck, observation bias, or, if combined with other oddities, something more directed.

⸻

2. CO₂-dominated coma (CO₂/H₂O ≈ 8) — JWST detection

A — Observation
JWST NIRSpec observed a CO₂-rich coma with CO₂/H₂O ≈ 8±1 — among the highest ratios ever measured; CO, OCS, water, and dust were also detected. This indicates activity driven mainly by volatiles more volatile than water.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Formation and evolution: the object formed near the CO₂ ice line of its parent star or was radiatively processed, fractionating volatiles; an insulating crust inhibits H₂O release but allows CO₂ to escape. In short: a formation/evolutionary history leaving a CO₂-enriched core.

C — Plausibility
Moderate to high as an isolated explanation — some comets have high CO₂ content (e.g. C/2016 R2). Rare, but not impossible. JWST provides strong evidence for this composition.

D — Rarity level: 3/5 (uncommon but seen before as exceptions)

E — Conflicts / stacking
CO₂ dominance helps explain activity at large distances and odd jets, but it complicates explaining (without overfitting) the Ni detection without Fe, the observed polarization, and the lack of measurable Δv if ejection were anisotropic. In short: reconciling CO₂-rich composition with the other anomalies requires additional (sometimes contradictory) hypotheses.

F — Lay summary
The “gas” released by this object is mainly carbon dioxide — unlike most Solar System comets, which emit mostly water. That suggests the object formed or evolved under very different conditions.

⸻

3. Sunward jet / anti-tail later becoming a normal tail (dust tail pointed forward)

A — Observation
Records show a structure pointing toward the Sun (a sunward jet/anti-tail) which later evolved into a tail pointing away from the Sun — its geometry changed over time; at some points, the tail appeared to point “forward,” in the direction of motion.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Anisotropic grain ejection models: if the particle population spans a wide size range and sublimation is selective (CO₂ and fine grains behave differently), geometric projection + nucleus rotation + thermal shifts can create a sunward jet appearance that later flips to a normal tail. Physical models (e.g. Keto & Loeb) show that jets and projection can produce such optical illusions.

C — Plausibility
Physically plausible given fine particles and anisotropic ejection with favorable rotation dynamics — seen in rare comets. However, the coincidence of the directional change occurring exactly when an artificial maneuver would be energetically optimal raises suspicion (though not proof).

D — Rarity level: 4/5 (uncommon; seen before, but timing + direction combination is rare)

E — Conflicts / stacking
Explaining the sunward jet with fine grains requires grain properties that also affect polarization and color — yet models fitting the jet contradict those for extreme polarization or no Δv. In short: explaining the jet alone works; explaining jet + polarization + Ni>>Fe + no Δv fails.

F — Lay summary
We saw a “tail” that sometimes pointed toward the Sun and later changed direction. That can happen if very fine dust is blown in unusual ways — or, if timed too precisely, may warrant deeper investigation.

⸻

4. Nickel (Ni) detection with relatively little Iron (Fe) / Ni–Fe anomaly

A — Observation
Keck KCWI reported emission attributed to Ni; Fe was weakly detected or only later. The Ni radial profile and Ni/Fe ratio were described in a preprint.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Astrochemistry: volatilization routes for metals (metal carbonyls like Ni(CO)₄) in CO/CO₂-rich environments; prior mineral fractionation leaving Ni more available. Alternative: unusual samples from a differentiated parent body with selective Fe loss. These are theoretical and require specific conditions.

C — Plausibility
Low to moderate. Metal carbonyls exist industrially and can form under the right conditions, but selective Ni volatilization (without Fe) in a natural interstellar body and its convincing detection are surprising — require independent verification.

D — Rarity level: 5/5 (very rare — Ni>>Fe is atypical; resembles processed materials)

E — Conflicts / stacking
Explaining Ni>>Fe via chemical routes requires CO/CO₂ abundance — conflicting with expectations that such volatilization would produce detectable Δv and metallic-particle polarization effects. Thus, natural Ni explanation is hard to reconcile with extreme polarization, lack of Δv, and directional jets without overfitting.

F — Lay summary
Finding nickel vapor alone in a comet’s “smoke” is strange — nickel usually appears with iron. A ratio like “lots of nickel but no iron” resembles engineered materials, so this result raises eyebrows.

⸻

5. Lack of measurable non-gravitational acceleration (until recent reports) / massive nucleus estimate

A — Observation
Analyses indicated the trajectory fit pure gravity well — implying very low non-gravitational acceleration, hence a high-mass nucleus (>33 billion tons) if activity exists. However, newer reports suggest measurable acceleration near perihelion (debated).

B — Proposed natural explanation
If activity occurs but Δv is small, explanations include a massive nucleus, near-isotropic outgassing (canceling recoil), or temporary astrometric uncertainty. Another: shallow, low-mass activity causing negligible recoil.

C — Plausibility
Moderate — large nuclei and isotropic ejection are possible, but reconciling with other anomalies (brightness, jets, Ni, polarization) requires fine-tuning. If acceleration is confirmed without enough detectable outgassed mass, natural models weaken.

D — Rarity level: 4/5 (rare: active but non-accelerating massive bodies are unusual)

E — Conflicts / stacking
Massive core explains low Δv but not Ni>>Fe, extreme polarization, or blue brightness. Isotropic ejection contradicts observed jets. If acceleration exists but lacks corresponding gas mass, stacking favors non-natural interpretations.

F — Lay summary
If it’s “smoking” but not pushed by its own smoke, then either it’s enormous (the smoke can’t move it) — or something stranger is going on (controlled or compensated thrust).

⸻

6. Extreme negative polarization (min. ~−2.7%)

A — Observation
Polarimetric measurements (VLT, NOT) showed a deep and narrow negative branch, minimum ≈ −2.7%, inversion near ~17° — unprecedented among comets and asteroids.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Scattering models using porous aggregate particles with specific refractive indices and sizes can reproduce negative branches — requiring special porosity/composition not seen before in comets.

C — Plausibility
Low to moderate: theoretically possible, but parameters must also match those needed for other anomalies (CO₂-rich, Ni, no Δv), which is problematic.

D — Rarity level: 5/5 (very rare — unprecedented combination)

E — Conflicts / stacking
Models producing strong negative polarization require porous organic grains, yet Ni>>Fe implies metallic refractive indices — conflicting. Polarization constraints also contradict blue-brightness models involving ultrafine metallic dust.

F — Lay summary
The light from this object is polarized in a way never before seen in comets — revealing dust properties that don’t fit any known “normal comet dust.”

⸻

7. Rapid color changes: green → red → blue (several episodes)

A — Observation
Reports showed color shifts over time: greenish/red tones early, later bluish — noted in coronagraph and telescope images.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Color changes may result from varying coma composition (different volatile emission lines dominating at different times), particle size shifts (affecting scattering), or combined gas emission + dust reflection. Examples: CN (green), NaD (yellow), ultrafine particles/plasma (blue).

C — Plausibility
Physically plausible — known comets change color with time and distance. The issue is whether the intensity and rapid sequence seen here can occur naturally without stacking rare conditions.

D — Rarity level: 4/5 (rare — color change exists, but such dramatic shifts are uncommon)

E — Conflicts / stacking
Explaining colors chemically also demands reconciling Ni>>Fe, polarization, lack of ionic tail, and brightness — simultaneously. Adjustments that fix one anomaly tend to worsen another.

F — Lay summary
Its “smoke” changed color — green to red to blue. That can happen naturally, but this quick, intense sequence seems unusually dramatic.

⸻

8. Sudden extreme brightening (law ~r⁻⁷.⁵)

A — Observation
Photometric reports show brightness rising far faster than typical (r⁻² to r⁻⁴), more like r⁻⁷.⁵.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Violent outbursts of supervolatiles, surface fragmentation exposing new ice, or geometry boosting apparent flux. Short-term explosive models can produce steep brightening temporarily.

C — Plausibility
Physically possible but requires extreme eruption and/or ideal geometry — rare, especially alongside other anomalies.

D — Rarity level: 5/5 (extremely rare for the observed magnitude)

E — Conflicts / stacking
If brightness is due to massive outgassing, Δv and detectable gas/dust mass should appear; if not, we get acceleration without mass — supporting non-natural scenarios.

F — Lay summary
It brightened much faster than expected — as if someone opened a giant light valve. Could be a natural outburst, but explaining everything together demands many “lucky coincidences.”

⸻

9. Lack/atypical ionic tail (dust-dominated, jet-like)

A — Observation
Images and spectra show no dominant ionic tail; signal is dust/jet dominated, sometimes pointing forward.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Different composition (little H₂O → fewer typical ions), larger particles that ionize poorly, or geometry hiding the ion tail. Weak ionization possible due to local physicochemical factors.

C — Plausibility
Moderate if H₂O scarcity (JWST-supported) is accepted. Still, a forward-pointing dust jet remains unusual.

D — Rarity level: 4/5 (rare but consistent if CO₂ dominates and ionization is weak)

E — Conflicts / stacking
Explaining absent ion tail plus Ni, polarization, brightness, acceleration, etc. strains microphysical consistency — difficult without added assumptions.

F — Lay summary
It didn’t show the usual “flag” solar wind forms on comets — instead, just a dust plume, sometimes jet-like. Unusual for a typical comet.

⸻

10. Non-gravitational acceleration detected near perihelion

A — Observation
Recent reports (cited by Loeb and JPL/ALMA summaries) indicate astrometric shifts/Δv not explained by gravity near perihelion; Loeb analyzes magnitudes and mass-loss implications. If confirmed without matching gas mass, this becomes a key observation.

B — Proposed natural explanation
Outgassing causing “rocket effect.” By momentum conservation, expelled mass can be estimated; if detected, natural explanation holds. Alternatives: sudden fragmentation or astrometric error — but JPL/ALMA precision reduces the latter.

C — Plausibility
If mass ↔ acceleration match exists, plausible (though demanding). If acceleration exists without enough mass, natural explanation weakens — and artificial hypotheses (controlled propulsion, directed ejection, compensation) gain relative explanatory power.

D — Rarity level: 5/5 (very rare — acceleration without measurable coma was the key ʻOumuamua puzzle; repeating pattern is highly intriguing)

E — Conflicts / stacking
This is critical: acceleration without visible mass breaks many natural explanations attempting to stay consistent with CO₂, Ni, polarization, and jets. If confirmed, stacking strongly favors alternative hypotheses.

F — Lay summary
The object changed speed slightly — not by gravity. If it’s from “blowing” gas, we should see a lot of gas; if not, the mystery deepens.

⸻

— Summary on rarity stacking and final comparison

Each natural explanation has some degree of plausibility on its own: some are well-established (CO₂-rich coma via JWST), others highly exotic (Ni>>Fe). The real issue is explaining all of them simultaneously with a single natural model — without invoking multiple rare, fine-tuned events.

For example, if one accepts “CO₂-rich + anisotropic jets + ultrafine particles” to explain blue brightness, one must also explain:
• why Ni appears in such proportion (requiring very specific chemical routes),
• why polarization has that shape (demanding incompatible grain microphysics), and
• if acceleration is confirmed — why the required gas/dust mass isn’t detected.

From a Bayesian standpoint: each rare hypothesis lowers the joint probability of the overall natural model. If the alternative hypothesis (a controlled/technological object) explains several anomalies with one assumption (“device with propulsion/control and processed materials”), then by Occam’s razor and overall coherence, the alternative gains relative weight — not as proof, but as a hypothesis deserving serious, critical testing.

⸻

— What will decide the case (crucial observations)
1. Rapid determination of whether the observed acceleration is real and whether enough gas/dust mass exists to justify it (IAWN, ALMA, JWST, HST, major ground telescopes). This is Loeb’s “acid test”:
• acceleration + matching coma → strong natural case;
• acceleration without matching mass → non-natural hypothesis gains strength.
2. Replication of Ni/Fe ratio by independent instruments; robust confirmation makes natural metal-carbonyl explanations less comfortable.
3. Multi-wavelength polarimetry and higher-resolution imaging to constrain grain microphysics.
4. High-precision astrometry to quantify Δv and post-perihelion trajectory.

⸻

— Direct, practical conclusion
1. Some anomalies (CO₂ dominance, CN, presence of coma) are solidly observed and individually have plausible natural explanations.
2. Others (Ni>>Fe, unprecedented polarization, r⁻⁷.⁵ brightening, precisely timed sunward jet, possible non-gravitational acceleration) are much harder to reconcile together without stacking multiple rare assumptions.
3. If non-gravitational acceleration is confirmed without sufficient gas/dust mass to explain it, the relative weight of the non-natural/technological hypothesis will increase substantially.

____
https://avi-loeb.medium.com/gravitational-lensing-of-3i-atlas-by-the-sun-f4ca18720d65