Researchers believe it could be extraterrestrial spy software

Writing in the controversial study, researchers said: "The consequences, should the hypothesis turn out to be correct, could potentially be dire for humanity."

The interstellar entity is named 3I/ATLAS and was discovered on July 1.

Researchers believe it could be a piece of extraterrestrial spy software.

The research was conducted by Avi Loeb, Adam Hibberd and Adam Crowl, with Loeb writing in a blog post that he believes that the position of this object offers "various benefits to an extraterrestrial intelligence."

One of the benefits he wrote of was that 3I/ATLAS will make close approaches to Jupiter, Mars and Venus, which could allow aliens to stealthily plant spy “gadgets” there.

By late November the entity will slip behind the sun and not be visible to Earth.

Loeb adds: "This could be intentional to avoid detailed observations from Earth-based telescopes when the object is brightest or when gadgets are sent to Earth from that hidden vantage point."

Loeb believes that this could lead to an attack which could “possibly require defensive measures to be undertaken.”

However, not everyone is convinced by Loeb's theory.

Samantha Lawler, an astronomer at the University of Regina in Canada who studies solar system dynamics, said: "All evidence points to this being an ordinary comet that was ejected from another solar system, just as countless billions of comets have been ejected from our own solar system."

Even Loeb himself admitted his spy theory is somewhat far-fetched.

He said: “By far, the most likely outcome will be that 3I/ATLAS is a completely natural interstellar object, probably a comet.”

He even warned the public to take his paper with a pinch of salt.

Loeb added: "This paper is contingent on a remarkable but, as we shall show, testable hypothesis, to which the authors do not necessarily ascribe, yet is certainly worthy of an analysis and a report.

"The hypothesis is an interesting exercise in its own right, and is fun to pursue, irrespective of its likely validity.”