UAPs and “new physics”: Avi Loeb and the debate over what we really know

Unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), more commonly known as UFOs, have moved beyond science fiction and into serious discussions about science, national security, and the boundaries of human knowledge. Governments are investigating unexplained sightings while military personnel continue to report unusual encounters and scientists take a closer look at what the available evidence can actually tell us.

But astrophysicist and Harvard professor Avi Loeb begins the discussion from a much older scientific problem: What happens when scientists become convinced that they already know almost everything there is to know?

In 1894, physicist Albert A. Michelson, the first American Nobel Prize winner in science, said that the main laws of physical science were basically set and that future discoveries would mostly be about making more precise measurements. This was surprising, because just 10 years later, Einstein’s Special Relativity changed how we see space and time, and soon after, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics did the same.

Loeb sees Michelson’s mistake as a common problem in science. Just because a theory works well doesn’t mean it explains everything. New physics often emerges when old theories no longer explain everything, but these new ideas don’t always completely replace the old ones.

This history leads Loeb to ask: Could some UAPs be the kind of anomaly that shows us something our current physics doesn’t yet explain?

The premise: Could UAPs point to new physics?

In his July 2026 Medium article, Do UAPs Flag New Physics? Loeb uses Michelson’s famous prediction as a warning against assuming that the scientific picture is complete.

By the late 1800s, classical mechanics, Newtonian gravity, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism seemed to explain nearly everything in physics. But within a few decades, relativity and quantum mechanics changed scientists’ understanding of the world.

The point isn’t that every unverified claim should be accepted as true. Rather, the example shows that firsthand observations can sometimes provide the first clues to a genuine phenomenon, even before science has a clear understanding of what’s behind it.

Loeb says the lesson is that old physics still works where it applies, but new physics is needed when we explore new areas. This is why he argues that scientists should pay particular attention to anomalies rather than automatically dismissing them.

Loeb’s premise is that uncertainty itself is a reason for scientific investigation.

Known unknowns versus unknown unknowns

Loeb makes an important distinction between two kinds of scientific ignorance.

The first consists of known unknowns: things scientists know but don’t understand yet.

Dark matter is one example. Scientists have substantial evidence that most of the matter in the universe isn’t directly visible, but its underlying nature remains unknown. Dark energy presents another major mystery: scientists observe its apparent effects on the expansion of the universe without knowing its fundamental origin.

These are problems that science already knows it has.

But Loeb argues that the most exciting discoveries of new physics may come from unknown unknowns – the phenomena that scientists don’t even realise they’re missing.

That distinction is important to his argument about UAP. The question isn’t simply whether scientists can find an existing explanation for an unidentified object. It’s whether some observations could eventually reveal a phenomenon belonging to a domain of reality that current physics doesn’t adequately describe.

That possibility can’t be established merely by calling something a UAP. It would require evidence.

Avi Loeb’s view: Follow the anomalies

Loeb’s position is ultimately centred on evidence rather than belief.

He argues that the scientific community should collect higher-quality data using multiple types of sensors. Cameras alone may capture an object, but additional information about its motion, composition, and interaction with its surroundings could help differentiate among competing explanations.

This is also why Loeb remains sceptical of some of the more extreme theories proposed to explain UAP. Concepts such as warp drives, spacetime manipulation, and extra dimensions may be worth considering. However, they must still account for the physical effects they would produce and remain consistent with what can be observed and measured.

As Loeb points out, an object travelling rapidly through Earth’s atmosphere would have to interact with the air around it. That interaction should leave some observable effects, whether in the form of heat, light, or possibly shockwaves. A theory that explains an object’s unusual movement while ignoring those consequences wouldn’t constitute a convincing scientific explanation.

His approach is therefore neither an outright endorsement of the extraterrestrial proposition nor a dismissal of it.

Instead, Loeb argues that possibilities should remain open until better evidence rules them in or out.

Why anomalies matter

Loeb doesn’t view anomalies as automatic evidence of new physics. Instead, he sees them as signals that a particular phenomenon may be worth examining more closely.

There are historical cases in which observations once dismissed or misunderstood eventually gained recognition as legitimate scientific phenomena.

For centuries, people have reported witnessing rocks falling from the sky, but scientists have largely dismissed these accounts. The prevailing belief was that rocks couldn’t come from beyond Earth, leaving little reason to consider such reports credible. The 1803 meteorite fall in L’Aigle, France, challenged that assumption and helped change the scientific community’s view of these unusual observations.

That stubborn belief finally cracked on April 26, 1803, when a massive meteor event struck near L’Aigle and rained thousands of fragments down onto the landscape. Eager to look into it, the French Academy of Sciences sent physicist Jean-Baptiste Biot to investigate. By actually talking to the people who saw it happen and analysing the physical debris, Biot proved once and for all that the stones had indeed dropped from the sky.

The purpose of this example isn’t to suggest that every unverified claim should be accepted as truth. Instead, it demonstrates how initial observations and firsthand accounts can serve as the earliest indicators of a genuine phenomenon, even before science has fully uncovered the underlying causes.

Loeb gives another example: ball lightning.

For centuries, people reported seeing luminous, spherical objects associated with thunderstorms. Because the phenomenon was rare, brief, and difficult to measure, it remained difficult for scientists to study systematically.

Then, in 2012, a natural ball-lightning event was accidentally recorded with a spectrometer during a field study of ordinary lightning. The resulting spectrum contained emission lines associated with silicon, iron, and calcium – elements found in soil – providing physical evidence that could help explain the phenomenon.

For Loeb, these cases highlight a recurring scientific pattern: what initially seems like an unreliable or poorly understood anomaly can eventually be validated as a genuine phenomenon through more rigorous measurement.

The question, then, is whether some modern UAP reports could represent a similar situation.

What does the UFO community say?

The wider UFO community doesn’t have a single position on what UAPs represent. Some believe the unexplained cases could indicate technology beyond current human capabilities, while others remain sceptical of extraterrestrial explanations.

For those who believe new physics may be involved

The possibility of new physics enters the discussion largely because some UAP cases remain difficult to explain. Supporters of this view frequently point to still unresolved military encounters and reports.

The Pentagon’s UFO office has received over 319 reports in the last fiscal year and successfully explained 114 of them as ordinary objects like drones, balloons, and birds. While a handful of other sightings featured motion or capabilities that baffled investigators, All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) officials noted that the available data was simply too thin to verify those claims or figure out what was really going on.

For supporters of the UAP phenomenon, the unresolved cases are what make continued investigation worthwhile. They’re not necessarily arguing that unexplained objects must be alien. Rather, they believe that an observation should remain an open question when conventional explanations don’t adequately account for it. If an object appears to move or behave in a way that can’t be explained by known aircraft, drones, atmospheric conditions, or sensor problems, researchers should investigate the cause of the observation.

Some of the cases that attract the most attention encompass military personnel and multiple detection systems. The Navy’s “Tic Tac” encounters, for example, have been highlighted in discussions of recently released UAP files. The objects were reportedly detected by advanced military sensors and appeared to move in ways that didn’t have an obvious conventional explanation.

For those who believe new physics may be involved, cases like these suggest that the phenomenon deserves continued scientific attention, even if its ultimate explanation remains unknown.

Loeb takes a similarly open-minded though cautious position. He doesn’t rule out the possibility that future evidence could reveal non-human technology. However, he maintains that such a conclusion must come from strong evidence rather than assumption. In his view, researchers need to actively search for reliable data before determining what UAPs actually represent.

For those who reject the premise

Sceptics argue the real issue isn’t that UAPs are unexplainable, but that the available evidence is too weak to prove what they are.

Mick West, who has examined more than a thousand UFO photographs and videos, argues that ambiguity remains one of the central problems in evaluating such evidence. Photographs and videos often don’t provide sufficient information to rule out ordinary explanations, such as aircraft, balloons, birds, atmospheric effects, or sensor errors.

West also questions whether obtaining a clearer photograph would necessarily settle the question of whether an object is extraterrestrial. Even when an object appears unusual, it can remain unidentified without reliable information about its distance, size, velocity, and movement. A photograph can show what an object looks like, but it can’t necessarily establish where it came from.

For West, more reliable evidence would come from accurate three-dimensional tracking. If an object were independently tracked by multiple instruments and demonstrated manoeuvres that known human technology couldn’t perform, this would provide substantially stronger grounds for reviewing an extraordinary explanation.

This position doesn’t mean that every UAP report is fabricated. Rather, it emphasises the need for stronger and more reliable evidence before accepting extraordinary conclusions.

The real debate may not be about aliens

Despite their differences, Loeb and his critics share an important point: many UAP cases have ordinary explanations.

AARO has already attributed numerous cases to conventional objects and phenomena, including satellites, balloons, birds, aircraft, and drones.

The real disagreement concerns the cases that remain unresolved.

For Loeb, those cases are opportunities to collect better data. For sceptics, an unresolved case shouldn’t be treated as evidence of anything extraordinary simply because investigators haven’t yet identified it.

Research into online UAP communities also suggests that the UFO world itself is far from uniform. A 2026 study of discussions on Reddit’s r/UFO and r/UAP communities found that r/UAP discussions tend to focus more heavily on government, military, and national security issues, whereas r/UFO discussions tend to focus more on mystical, paranormal, religious, conspiracy, and debunking themes.

That diversity is important because the UFO community isn’t a single bloc with one accepted explanation.

What would actually settle the question?

The strongest common ground between the competing sides is the need for better evidence.

Loeb’s UAP Science Advisory Council is tasked with reviewing existing evidence and supporting the collection of new data. Instead of beginning with a fixed conclusion, Loeb advocates examining different possible explanations and using observation and experimentation to determine which ones can be supported or ruled out.

That approach could ultimately benefit both believers and sceptics.

If improved measurements show that unexplained objects are drones, satellites, atmospheric phenomena, or sensor artefacts, the mystery becomes smaller. If those measurements instead reveal physical characteristics that can’t be reconciled with known technology or natural phenomena, the implications would be much greater.

Either way, reaching a clearer understanding would be a step forward.

Holding the line between wonder and rigour

Instead of saying UAPs must be extraterrestrial, Loeb asks a different question: What should scientists do when they cannot explain something with the evidence they have? He thinks these cases deserve a closer look. Sometimes, unexplained findings show where our knowledge falls short, so they are worth studying even if we do not know their origin.

But that doesn’t mean that a strange observation proves alien technology exists. For Loeb, just because we don’t have a normal explanation doesn’t mean it must be something extraordinary. Any claim about extraterrestrial origins would still need clear, strong, and reliable evidence.

Sceptics approach the issue from the other side. To them, the problem isn’t a lack of possible explanations but the lack of sufficiently clear evidence to distinguish an extraordinary one from a conventional explanation. Many UAP cases involve incomplete or ambiguous observations that can have several possible interpretations. What initially appears unusual may turn out to be an aircraft, an environmental effect, or simply a limitation in how an event was observed, recorded, or interpreted.

At UFOConnect, we believe there is still room for both curiosity and caution. The evidence available today doesn’t provide a definitive answer. Still, it doesn’t completely rule out the possibility that some UAP may point to phenomena that exceed our current understanding.

As research advances and higher-quality data become available, the challenge will be to separate what we know from what remains unexplained, and, just as importantly, from what is simply speculation. Either outcome would represent progress: confirming an explanation or discovering something new for science to investigate.

As of writing, the question remains open, and that uncertainty is precisely what makes the subject worth investigating.

For more deep dives into the science, scepticism, and unresolved questions shaping the UAP conversation, explore our content library.

​FAQ

Does Avi Loeb think UAPs prove new physics exists? 

No; he thinks UAPs may point to gaps in current physics, but they don’t prove new physics exists.

What does Avi Loeb mean by “new physics”?

He means phenomena that can’t be fully explained by existing scientific models and may require an extension of our understanding of physics.

What is Avi Loeb doing to investigate this scientifically?

He advocates collecting higher-quality, multi-sensor data and testing different explanations through observation and experimentation.

What would count as evidence of new physics?

Reliable measurements showing physical characteristics that can’t be explained by known technology or natural phenomena would be stronger evidence.

​Resources