Celestia Forums

Here an email, just received together with a bunch of many other on the same object, regarding the confirmed discovery at 644 Palomar Mountain/NEAT Observatory, observers NEAT Team, M. E. Brown, C. A. Trujillo, D. Rabinowitz, with the 1.2-m Oschin Schmidt + CCD, of an object that has all the characteristics to enter in the list of Solar System's planets:

2003 UB313's diameter ranges from 4400 km to 9900 km, assuming its albedo is between 0.05 and 0.25. This might qualify as
a new planet. It has a crazy inclination though of 44 degrees. Here's its
orbit:

Code: Select all

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/2003ub313.html

Ron Baalke

So now they are ten.
Well, we'll have to modify all the educational scripts on Solar System.
Bye

Andrea

If the large size is confirmed, this will give people who want to get a definition for planets sorted out a bit of a headache.

chaos syndrome wrote:If the large size is confirmed, this will give people who want to get a definition for planets sorted out a bit of a headache.

Sure! But as you know many astronomers say that Pluto itself is NOT a planet, because probably it was not born within the cloud of gases that generated the other planets (and this is based on its eccentricity, retrograde rotation, orbit inclination), but that it was captured by our Sun after Solar System creation.
Moreover, in a debate regarding the division line between planets and other objects, someone proposed to accept as planets the objects with radius bigger than Pluto's one.
This means that, if accepted, being probably 2003 UB313 at least bigger of Pluto and Mercury and, perhaps, even bigger than Mars, it will be surely defined as the tenth planet.
It's interesting to note that the discoverers found this object on 2003, as you see in the given code, but waited two years in order to have further evidence of its presence in other images.
And they found it on 1989, 2000, 2001, 2005 images, and announced the discovery just a few hours ago.
A nice example of astronomers's patience.
It's a very very important discovery, honour to the authors!
Bye

Andrea

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... lanet.html





2003 UB313 http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/2003ub313.html


http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mpec/K05/K05O41.html






^^

Is there a name for this new body yet?

Yes- From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050730/ap_on_sc/new_planet:

Brown has submitted a name for the new planet to the International Astronomical Union, which has yet to act on the proposal. He did not release the proposed name.

d.m.f.

Here is my definition of a "planet"

A Planet is a body that is geological active, or more precisely has a ?€?warm?€

Oh lord, the "what is a planet" debat is gonna get all fired up again in astronomy circles Let's just call everything a world or body and be done with it!

...John...

PlutonianEmpire wrote:Is there a name for this new body yet?

They should call it Rupert.

bdm wrote:

PlutonianEmpire wrote:Is there a name for this new body yet?

They should call it Rupert.

Why "rupert"? is there something special about that name?

PlutonianEmpire wrote:

bdm wrote:

PlutonianEmpire wrote:Is there a name for this new body yet?

They should call it Rupert.

Why "rupert"? is there something special about that name?

Are you not familiar with the works of Douglas Adams? Google for "planet rupert".

Hi ANDREA,

You steal my thunder!

I was going to call the 2003 EL61 topic something like "the Second Ninth Planet", because it rivals Pluto rather than supercedes it, and I didn't want to open the 'is Pluto a planet' can of worms. But this 2003 UB313 surely makes the matter unavoidable.

ANDREA wrote:But as you know many astronomers say that Pluto itself is NOT a planet, because probably it was not born within the cloud of gases that generated the other planets (and this is based on its eccentricity, retrograde rotation, orbit inclination), but that it was captured by our Sun after Solar System creation.

I concur that many astronomers doubt the planetary status of Pluto, but I wonder if you have any references to the matter about Pluto and other TNO's being captured by the Sun after solar system formation.

My understanding is that Pluto and the TNO's did form within the solar nebula, but they would take so long to gather into another single planet that Neptune formed in time to perturb and excite them into a scattered Kuiper-Edgeworth belt. So, they are natives after all. Only Sedna is currently suspect as a 'foreign' body because its orbit does not overlap something else.

bdm wrote:They should call it Rupert.

Well, this can't be the planet Humphrey.

Spiff.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Well, this can't be the planet Humphrey.

Nor should it be "planet Bob", like in that "titan: after earth" movie.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Hi ANDREA, I concur that many astronomers doubt the planetary status of Pluto, but I wonder if you have any references to the matter about Pluto and other TNO's being captured by the Sun after solar system formation. Spiff.

Hello Apaceman Spift, give a look here:

5 IAU PRESS RELEASE 03.02.1999 (1999) The Status of Pluto: a clarification

and here:


A bootstrap approach to Pluto's origin
Vic Patrangenaru and Kanti V. Mardia

Journal of Applied Statistics, 2002, vol. 29, issue 6, pages 935-943

Abstract: The solar nebula theory hypothesizes that planets are formed from an accretion disk of material that, over time, condenses into dust, small planetesimals, and that the planets should have, on average, coplanar, nearly circular orbits..... We test here the nebula theory for Pluto, using both parametric and non-parametric methods. We first develop asymptotic distributions of extrinsic means on a manifold, and then derive bootstrap and large sample distributions of the sample mean direction. Our parametric and non-parametric analyses provide very strong evidence that the solar nebula theory does not hold for Pluto.

If you search Google for "Pluto origin" you can find a wealth of sources on the matter.
Bye

Andrea

The object, designated 2003 UB313:



___________________
Thanks!!!
Marino wrote since....
Avatar The Aztec Sun

There is yet another giant Kuiper Belt object announcement. The object, 2005 FY9, is even brighter than 2003 EL61. Not much information is available about it, except the discovery MPEC. It has been detected with Spitzer and seems to be 50%-75% Pluto's size.

Hi ANDREA,

thanks for the info. Er, unfortunately, I have to point out that after looking closely at the first several links under your suggested Google search that none of them actually state the origin of Pluto was by capture into the Solar system.

The IAU link (URI properly written: http://www.iau.org/PlutoPR.html* - I managed to guess it! ) merely dismisses incorrect press speculation that Pluto was about to be demoted from 'planet status'. It doesn't discuss Pluto's origin.

The first link from Google is that second which you already give. This is a curious paper: printed in the Journal of Applied Statistics, I'm sure it was referreed, but probably not by any astronomer! The line you skipped in your quote from the abstract: "If the orbit of Pluto has a different origin to the other planets in the solar system, then there will be tremendous repercussions on modelling the spacecrafts for a mission to Pluto." suggests to me that the authors, while perhaps being mathematical experts, know nothing about planetary science! The origin of Pluto turning out to be different makes no difference to what orbit or instruments a spacecraft needs in order to fulfill a scientific mission.

The second link I got is Educational Psychology: Windows on Classrooms 5th Ed. Chapter 16 ( http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubboo ... ntent.html ). This link is not about a formation theory of Pluto, it is about teaching about the psychology of teaching. In fact, the lecture example happens to use the now discredited solar tidal theory of Sir James Jeans (see Jeans-Jeffreys tidal hypothesis ( http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... tidal.html ). In fact, if you read the lecturer's teachings, he doesn't actually state what the origin of Pluto is, only that it's different (from being formed from a blob of gas from the sun). It does not say that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system. Possibly, it's meant to show an example of indoctrination of children rather than actual teaching by explanation.

The third link, The origin of Pluto ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980MNRAS.193..171D ), discusses the origin of Pluto with regard to being a lost satellite of Neptune after a perturbing encounter with Triton. To quote the abstract: "It is shown that if Pluto originated as a satellite of Neptune an encounter with Triton could perturb it sufficiently to eject it from the Neptunian system to pursue a heliocentric orbit similar to that observed at the present day." This does not say that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system.

The fifth link merely states that the above theory and another theory stating Pluto came from an impact on Uranus don't work, but not that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system.

The sixth link only says that Pluto's orgin is unknown, but not that Pluto was captured from outside the solar system.

And the remaining ones seem to be one of:
- Origin of Pluto and Charon double body: how did it form?
- Origin of the name Pluto for the ninth planet.
- Origin of Pluto by divine creator, because God made everything - QED.
- Origin of Pluto's unusual orbit by being a Kuiper belt object perturbed by Neptune,

In general, I think astronomers are becoming more confident on that fourth one. After cataloguing 700 TNO's, many of which are in the same type of highly inclined, eccentric orbits having a 3:2 resonance with Neptune, it's become more apparent that Pluto (and Charon) are just Edgeworth-Kuiper belt objects and that all of them formed in the outer solar nebula.

Sorry to say, I think you've extrapolated in idea that isn't there!** It was such a surprise to hear about evidence or an extrasolar origin of Pluto, I had to check.

Spiff.

* Oh, I wish phpBB wouldn't autoformat URI's...!
** But we all make mistakes, or at least, I know I have .

PlutonianEmpire wrote:Is there a name for this new body yet?

For an excellent set of humour concerning what to call the new 'planet', see this SlashDot article: Planet X Larger Than Pluto? ( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl? ... 160&tid=14 ). Turn the comment threshold to 5 (best rated posted) to filter on the funnies. Warning for minors, rude comments related to the name of the planet Uranus!

Yes, I know the title's a bit silly: if the object was smaller than Pluto, no one would call it Planet X. In fact this post is on 2003 EL61, before 2003 UB313 was announced...

Spiff.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Hi ANDREA,
- Origin of Pluto and Charon double body: how did it form?;

Many, if not most of Minor planets are double, as is the other just discovered TNO, 2003 EL61. The big one has captured the smaller one. So why not the same for the Pluto-Charon system?

Sorry to say, I think you've extrapolated in idea that isn't there!

May be, but if I'll have some time, I'll check to find some more consistent script on the matter. I remember to have read something somewhere, but who remembers where?

It was such a surprise to hear about evidence of an extrasolar origin of Pluto, I had to check. Spiff

It's not evidence, it's only a theory. Anyhow, Oort's cloud is not Solar System, or is it? In the first case if coming from there it would be of extrasolar origin, in the second would be not.

Anyhow we are speaking of Angel's sex, neither you nor I will have the possibility to influence the final decision so... let's stay tuned, the answer is round the corner.
Bye

Andrea

That definition, however, would immediately discard many of the exosolar substellar companions as planets, due to eccentricity.

And I don't think it takes into the dynamics of gravity at distances- The further out from a primary gravitational body, the more inclined they tenmd to be. (My question on that is, is the inclination aiming for the Galactic Plane, considering our own Solar system is at, what, an 80deg. angle from the Galactic Plane?)

Most of our Sun's planets deviate from the Solar Plane to some degree, just as our own Moon isn't even on the terrestrial plane.

While accretion does occur, I would discount the planar definition of a planet, especially since we know gravity wells in a plane distort the plane, and this could be the cause of eccentricity.

d.m.f.