The UFO Model
What I Might Have Found—A UFO could be the perfect immersive space for superior tech

By Mark Lien

When I was in my 20s, I saw a UFO. It was in rural Michigan where I owned a century-old fixer-upper farm. Driving home from my parents’ house a few miles away, I looked over the field to my right to see a cigar-shaped large object hovering a few hundred feet off the ground. My wife was with me, and I stopped the car and got out. She wanted to leave ASAP, but I was captivated. There was no sound at all on this late winter night in this remote location and that includes from whatever I was viewing. There were white lights on one end (like an illuminated control deck with windows) and a rotating red light at the other. My father was on my CB radio talking me home, and I was relaying what I was seeing until it shot off in the direction of his house. He looked out and saw it speed overhead before disappearing into the night. 

There is no abduction story here, but if there were, I know I would have looked at the lighting in the ship. Maybe not first thing, but I have been looking up at lighting for decades, and it is an automatic response in new environments. So, what was the lighting in that ship?

Let us dismiss any uncertainty about what I saw. It was very real to me, and my father and wife saw it too. Was it some unknown earth tech? That is unlikely since about 40 years have passed, and nothing that large hovers silently then speeds away. The shape is unlike any identified flying object. Jacques Vallée, a scientist who has researched UFOs extensively, believes they are likely visitors from another dimension or co-existing universe, not from other planets. Since 1957, when a mathematician from Washington, D.C., Hugh Everett, first proposed co-existing universes, the idea has slowly seeped into our popular culture and finally back to the scientific community that initially dismissed it. The term “multiverse” was first used in a sci-fi novel in 1963, the DC multiverse followed, then the Matrix series. The concept is even inferred by Facebook with their recent incarnation as Meta, as in the metaverse. Interesting theory but the mystery remains. This topic digression is to share options that attempt to explain the phenomenon I experienced.

What I did not experience directly was the ship’s lighting, but imagine that I was abducted and taken to this other world or dimension. Clearly, they have advanced technology, so what kind of lighting would they have? Would they have perfected the ideal light source?

Presumably they would have resolved our light and health metrics debates and developed ideal formulations to maximize the health benefits of lighting intensity and spectral distribution. Flicker would have been eliminated. Glare would still be irritating to some but likely not as offensive as we have now. Carbon generation would have been minimized and energy sources would be renewable.

We will not have wall switches and receptacles. Lighting will come on in anticipation of where we are moving to. It will adjust to how we are feeling. Not just mood lighting but lighting that enhances and responds to our moods. If we are ill, perhaps the lighting will come from displays of nature for biophilic benefits.

Imagine, as if in a dream state, that you are in an illuminated room. You have a feeling of light surrounding you comfortably and adequately, but no source is evident. It is unobtrusive like air, only noticed with conscious effort. This mental construct of light is also like air in the sense that we are stewards limited by ethical constraints but not supply. Air also escapes our notice unless we contaminate it with perfumes or poisons. Daylight envelops us outdoors. It occasionally entertains us with a stunning sunset but typically it is illuminating whatever we are doing without commanding our attention. At extremes we may prefer sunglasses or a flashlight but typically the light of the day goes unnoticed. Electric general light sources should emulate that.

In public spaces an average light level may seem brighter or dimmer than ideal, but we humans accept a range of light levels. Like temperature, there is not one temperature that we are comfortable in. It varies and is a range. Even in large spaces illumination could be modified by facial recognition profiling to allow for age as an illuminance weighing factor. When people break from the crowd the illumination transitions into their personal preferences as learned through instantaneous AI from their public postings and previous data from their home and business. Whatever the Facebook of the future is, perhaps there is a member page that includes preferences with the intent of this information informing the AI network that controls the environments around us. Lighting would be important for intensity and spectrum. Some may prefer some sparkle, shadowing, etc. Different types of spaces could have different preferences. Over time our pattern of choices made would inform the AI network.

Airborne bacteria and virus sensors trigger a germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) response appropriate for the situation. If there are humans, pets or plants, the application method could adapt. An algorithm assures that GUV is not overused, only on when absolutely needed, and does not target helpful bacteria and other microbes. These futuristic ideas assume a trajectory of technology that is dependent on the economic strength of our society. Wars, climate disasters, economic depressions, pandemics, etc. can slow the speed of change.

Today there are smart lighting professionals thinking about the ideal light source. The DOE 2022 Solid-State Lighting R&D Opportunities report from the impressive team at Pacific Northwest National Lab is an informative document available
online to everyone. One of the graphs (courtesy of Monica Hansen) grabbed my attention. It shows the multiple characteristics of “ideal lighting” (Figure 1).

The UFO Model Figure 1.
Figure 1. A schematic diagram illustrating the key attributes of an ideal lighting solution for an occupant. Source: Department of Energy

When I was thinking of the lighting of the future it struck me that the lighting community is going to have to learn a lot fast and keep on learning just to stay relevant. Complexity increases. We will soon need knowledge about things that have not been invented yet. Continuous learning will be critical, but is it critical now? The following quote is also from the DOE report noted above, courtesy of Morgan Pattison. 

“LED Lighting still requires knowledge of general lighting practices, but now also requires understanding network communications, building systems, new features enabled by LED technology, power grid behavior, and even new application understanding such as human health impacts, horticultural optimization, and animal response to light.”

So continuous learning is critical now to achieve even a competitive understanding. Some things, however, will remain an enigma, like witnessing a UFO over a rural Michigan field or that CB radio craze among us non-truckers in the 1970s. Then again, Smoky and the Bandit came out in 1977, the same year as Saturday Night Fever and the disco craze. Maybe there was something else in the air.