View Full Version : Planet 9 Discovered
It appears there is another yet undiscovered planet in our solar system. It shows that there's things to be found and learned in our own tiny area of the galaxy! It's not a lock until verified, but "the math checks out" as scientists like to say.
New ‘Planet 9’ May Be Next to Join Our Solar System
Michael Brown doesn’t care how much you love Pluto. He loves it too, but that didn’t stop him from leading the charge in 2006 to strip it of its “planet” designation and bust it down to a mere dwarf planet. But now, the Caltech astronomer is making amends in a big way: along with Caltech planetary scientist Konstantin Batygin, he has just released a paper announcing the highly likely discovery of a new planet to replace Pluto—and no one’s ever going to be able to demote this one.
“The existence of another planet has been spoken about 100 times before,” Brown says. “But this is the first time in 150 years that we can say we have convincing evidence that the census of the solar system is incomplete.”
The discovery of the world that Brown and Batygin refer to in The Astronomical Journal simply as “Planet 9” began in 2003, with the discovery of a far more modest object named Sedna. A dwarf planet even smaller than Pluto, Sedna is a Kuiper Belt object (KBO), like Pluto one of a vast band of icy, rocky objects that surround the solar system beyond the orbit of Neptune. Brown was part of the team that found Sedna too, and if anything made the new world remarkable, it was its extreme distance from the sun—one that has it completing a single orbit in 11,400 years, compared to Pluto’s 248.
Read next: 500 Planets on One Exquisite Chart
But something else was strange about Sedna as well—or at least about the company it keeps. In the years that followed, astronomers discovered five other KBOs whose closest approach to the sun (or perihelion) matches Sedna’s almost perfectly, both in distance and in the angle of the orbit relative to the horizon of the solar system.
This couldn’t be a coincidence. The matching perihelia have only a 0.7% likelihood of occurring by chance; the matching angles have only a 1% chance. The double match among all six objects factors out to a vanishingly small .007% likelihood of being random. “It was very exciting to notice this collection of objects in this super obscure arrangement,” says Brown. “The orbits are physically lined up in space.”
Cont:
http://time.com/4184942/planet-9-new-pluto-solar-system/
MountainRaven
01-22-16, 14:12
Slightly misleading thread title.
The math says there should be another planet out beyond Pluto, but it hasn't actually been discovered yet.
:)
Slightly misleading thread title.
The math says there should be another planet out beyond Pluto, but it hasn't actually been discovered yet.
:)
My understanding, it exists to the satisfaction of most scientists at this point, but I was clear to say it requires verification to be a done deal. Sue me. :agree:
MountainRaven
01-22-16, 14:53
My understanding, it exists to the satisfaction of most scientists at this point, but I was clear to say it requires verification to be a done deal. Sue me. :agree:
From what I was reading in the paper yesterday, not everybody - perhaps not even most everybody - is perfectly satisfied. I believe the guy in charge of New Horizons at NASA said he'd believe that there's a ninth planet when he saw it.
Interesting if nothing else. The Pluto bit still erks me however.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Plan 9 from Outer Space (originally titled Grave Robbers from Outer Space) is a universally lauded...alright it's laughable, but planet 9, puhleeze...
ColtSeavers
01-22-16, 16:02
Been listening to this theory of a giant planet (or massive gravitational object) in the Kuiper belt for awhile now. Cool idea, but I too would like to see to believe.
Oh, and...
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Poor_cb188c_889652.jpg
When it gets a Sailor Scout or Roman god named after it, it can be a planet.
Until such time it is a rock out there behind Pluto.
If there is an island near the equator of this new planet I've got dibs on it. Just sayin....
MountainRaven
01-22-16, 16:39
If there is an island near the equator of this new planet I've got dibs on it. Just sayin....
Pretty sure that any rocks that exist on this new world will be located somewhere far enough down its gravity well that you would be crushed to death.
Nevermind that this island will be extremely cold - unless you're being heated by being crushed to death.
A better bet would be to build a self-sustaining, completely contained colony that can float in the planet's atmosphere.
And remember that on this day in that planet's last year, human beings were only beginning to establish civilization - assuming that it's year only lasts 10,000 years and not closer to the estimated upper end at 40,000 years.
Plan 9 from Outer Space (originally titled Grave Robbers from Outer Space) is a universally lauded...alright it's laughable, but planet 9, puhleeze...
We had 9 planets in out solar system, Pluto was demoted, leaving 8. New planet found, brings us back to 9. No actual name given to the planet as if yet, so planet 9 it is. Not sure what your objection is there. One of the scientist who "discovered" the yet to be proven and and named planet, want its it be maned after David Bowie in some form. I heard him sat it on an interview today. If it exists, he seemed to think 2-5 years for actual visual conformation. Finding a needle in a haystack does not even begin to cover how difficult it is to find such a thing.
Pretty sure that any rocks that exist on this new world will be located somewhere far enough down its gravity well that you would be crushed to death.
Nevermind that this island will be extremely cold - unless you're being heated by being crushed to death.
A better bet would be to build a self-sustaining, completely contained colony that can float in the planet's atmosphere.
And remember that on this day in that planet's last year, human beings were only beginning to establish civilization - assuming that it's year only lasts 10,000 years and not closer to the estimated upper end at 40,000 years.
I know, just sain I got dibs. Just in case. :-)
Been listening to this theory of a giant planet (or massive gravitational object) in the Kuiper belt for awhile now. Cool idea, but I too would like to see to believe.
Agreed, but it should be noted that it's now fully accepted that at the center of our galaxy, and all spiral galaxies, is a super massive black hole or two, and they can't be seen for obvious reasons. So, "the math" along with the gravitational effects on objects around it, is viewed as proof of existence in some cases. It appears the "case" for their being a large planet out there is strong it appears.
I'm not an astronomer, but splain to me how we can see millions, of much further distant galaxies, yet we can't train Hubble to find this planet in our own solar system? Why exactly is that?
I'm not an astronomer, but splain to me how we can see millions, of much further distant galaxies, yet we can't train Hubble to find this planet in our own solar system? Why exactly is that?
Short answer, Size difference. A single galaxy contains billions of stars and untold number of planets, and emits the light energy of billions of stars. However, even extremely distant galaxies are difficult to find/see, which should tell you something. One planet, that's billions of miles away, the fraction of the size of a single star, that emit no light of it's own, is beyond needle in a haystack as mentioned and "seen" only by it's gravitational effects on objects around it, until the most powerful telescopes we have can take the time and effort to visually find it, and I'd assume we're talking a fuzzy smudge of a picture at best considering.
We had 9 planets in out solar system, Pluto was demoted, leaving 8. New planet found, brings us back to 9. No actual name given to the planet as if yet, so planet 9 it is. Not sure what your objection is there. One of the scientist who "discovered" the yet to be proven and and named planet, want its it be maned after David Bowie in some form. I heard him sat it on an interview today. If it exists, he seemed to think 2-5 years for actual visual conformation. Finding a needle in a haystack does not even begin to cover how difficult it is to find such a thing.
Isn't this old news? Kim Kardashian's ass was discovered years ago. So including Pluto, we're at 10 now, right?
:confused:
Short answer, Size difference. A single galaxy contains billions of stars and untold number of planets, and emits the light energy of billions of stars. However, even extremely distant galaxies are difficult to find/see, which should tell you something. One planet, that's billions of miles away, the fraction of the size of a single star, that emit no light of it's own, is beyond needle in a haystack as mentioned and "seen" only by it's gravitational effects on objects around it, until the most powerful telescopes we have can take the time and effort to visually find it, and I'd assume we're talking a fuzzy smudge of a picture at best considering.
That makes sense. Thanks!
Isn't this old news? Kim Kardashian's ass was discovered years ago. So including Pluto, we're at 10 now, right?
:confused:
Silicone does not count and her ass, like Pluto, would be a dwarf planet, and the gravitational effects, unlike Pluto, has a specific affinity for A Holes....
I thought we discover other planets orbiting other stars within our galaxy by detecting tiny fluctuations in light when the planet passes in front of its star. We don't get this same effect when hunting for distant objects within our solar system. Also, current theories on solar system composition and construction would most likely men this distant planet would be a gas planet as the heavier elements that formed the rocky planets migrated towards our star. If it is rocky it was either captured by our stars gravity and formed outside our solar system or it was ejected from the inner solar system towards the outer edge early in our solar systems history, both would explain the erratic orbit. These are just my theories based on my understanding of solar system formation.
That makes sense. Thanks!
Making sense of seemingly complex chit since 1992. It's my job. :neo:
I thought we discover other planets orbiting other stars within our galaxy by detecting tiny fluctuations in light when the planet passes in front of its star. We don't get this same effect when hunting for distant objects within our solar system. Also, current theories on solar system composition and construction would most likely men this distant planet would be a gas planet as the heavier elements that formed the rocky planets migrated towards our star. If it is rocky it was either captured by our stars gravity and formed outside our solar system or it was ejected from the inner solar system towards the outer edge, both would explain the erratic orbit. These are just my theories based on my understanding of solar system formation.
Composition wise, they think it's something of a hybrid planet. It's quite large, but too large to be a rocky planet. Something in between they surmise. I think it should be named Cold As Fu%$ Planet.
We had 9 planets in out solar system, Pluto was demoted, leaving 8. New planet found, brings us back to 9. No actual name given to the planet as if yet, so planet 9 it is. Not sure what your objection is there. One of the scientist who "discovered" the yet to be proven and and named planet, want its it be maned after David Bowie in some form. I heard him sat it on an interview today. If it exists, he seemed to think 2-5 years for actual visual conformation. Finding a needle in a haystack does not even begin to cover how difficult it is to find such a thing.
Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta were also once plants, now considered dwarf planets.
MountainRaven
01-22-16, 20:10
Agreed, but it should be noted that it's now fully accepted that at the center of our galaxy, and all spiral galaxies, is a super massive black hole or two, and they can't be seen for obvious reasons. So, "the math" along with the gravitational effects on objects around it, is viewed as proof of existence in some cases. It appears the "case" for their being a large planet out there is strong it appears.
We can't see the black hole itself, but we can see the stuff being dragged toward the event horizon and, IIRC, pulses of X-ray and Gamma radiation that escape the accretion disk.
I'm not an astronomer, but splain to me how we can see millions, of much further distant galaxies, yet we can't train Hubble to find this planet in our own solar system? Why exactly is that?
Per Will, it won't be the easiest thing to find ever, but we also haven't been looking for it. And part of the effort to find this new planet has been to go through and look at photographs to see if maybe somebody missed it or categorized it as something else.
It's entirely possible that this possible world might be discovered by somebody with a really good telescope in their backyard - or we might need to use an orbital telescope. As I believe the article Will posted up said, it would appear some 600-times dimmer than Pluto and Pluto was only discovered in 1930 - and mathematics had predicted its existence since the late 1800s.
In any event, now we're looking and we have a rough idea of where to look, it shouldn't take very long - less than 5 years predicted, as stated. Certainly shouldn't take as long as it took for us to predict and then find Pluto or even Neptune (predicted in 1821, found in 1846). Sure it's dimmer and much further away than Pluto or Neptune, but our telescopes are much more capable.
I thought we discover other planets orbiting other stars within our galaxy by detecting tiny fluctuations in light when the planet passes in front of its star. We don't get this same effect when hunting for distant objects within our solar system. Also, current theories on solar system composition and construction would most likely men this distant planet would be a gas planet as the heavier elements that formed the rocky planets migrated towards our star. If it is rocky it was either captured by our stars gravity and formed outside our solar system or it was ejected from the inner solar system towards the outer edge early in our solar systems history, both would explain the erratic orbit. These are just my theories based on my understanding of solar system formation.
There are a couple of ways that we discover exo-planets and one is - as you mentioned - the dimming of a star's light as a planet passes between their star and us.
As Will mentioned, we also use the gravitational effects to find exo-planets, chiefly through the "wobble" imparted on a star by its orbiting worlds but also, IIRC, by the light of distant stars being bent by other planets. Although this method may be more a part of the method you mentioned.
We can't see the black hole itself, but we can see the stuff being dragged toward the event horizon and, IIRC, pulses of X-ray and Gamma radiation that escape the accretion disk.
Indeed, but it's still based on math and the effects of objects around it vs visual confirmation.
Indeed, but it's still based on math and the effects of objects around it vs visual confirmation.
But we have "observed" black holes, or at least the effects of black holes on other objects.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast12jan_1/
As for extrasolar planets, we can probably never directly observe them from our vantage point, as everyone knows the light from it's sun will always obscure it even if we had a telescope powerful enough to observe a planet size object as far away as the Alpha Centuri system, which we don't.
The proposed "Planet 9" presents a similar problem, and that is being so far it reflects very little of our suns light. It might be there, it might be just a cluster of kuiper belt objects that we are interpreting as a single object. Until we task and launch an explorer vehicle we will never know for sure and it might be awhile before we are capable of such a project.
Probably the best thing about the Cold War is the US and the USSR did some serious space exploration with respect to our neighboring planets.
wildcard600
01-23-16, 02:19
That thing is a long way out. Did one of the voyager probes not just "leave the solar system" a few years ago ? If it took that long to get out past Pluto, imagine how long it would take to reach this new planet.
That thing is a long way out. Did one of the voyager probes not just "leave the solar system" a few years ago ? If it took that long to get out past Pluto, imagine how long it would take to reach this new planet.
That was voyager passing through and beyond the heliosphere. Sell well beyond the orbit of Pluto.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
wildcard600
01-23-16, 11:11
That was voyager passing through and beyond the heliosphere. Sell well beyond the orbit of Pluto.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
My mistake, looks like they would have traveled past pluto's orbit back in 89. So it only takes about 10 years to get to pluto then about an additional 25 to make it to intersteller space.
Still quite the drive.
But we have "observed" black holes, or at least the effects of black holes on other objects.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast12jan_1/
As for extrasolar planets, we can probably never directly observe them from our vantage point, as everyone knows the light from it's sun will always obscure it even if we had a telescope powerful enough to observe a planet size object as far away as the Alpha Centuri system, which we don't.
The proposed "Planet 9" presents a similar problem, and that is being so far it reflects very little of our suns light. It might be there, it might be just a cluster of kuiper belt objects that we are interpreting as a single object. Until we task and launch an explorer vehicle we will never know for sure and it might be awhile before we are capable of such a project.
Probably the best thing about the Cold War is the US and the USSR did some serious space exploration with respect to our neighboring planets.
Which is how they found this new planet, or what they're fairly sure is a planet sized object effecting objects around it.
My mistake, looks like they would have traveled past pluto's orbit back in 89. So it only takes about 10 years to get to pluto then about an additional 25 to make it to intersteller space.
Still quite the drive.
Fore sure.
Side note, we sure as hell better figure out faster than light travel because it literally takes FOREVER to go from point A to point B in the Cosmos
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Fore sure.
Side note, we sure as hell better figure out faster than light travel because it literally takes FOREVER to go from point A to point B in the Cosmos
The good news is, FTL does not break any laws of physics at least. "On paper" it can be done. Warp drive ala Star Trek is actually based on legit science conceptually. Other than getting around the solar system, simply going faster will be of little value to us as you point out. There's some cool sci fi stories of FTL being developed well after we sent out huge arc ships, or putting people into some long term storage, getting to their destination well before the arc ships and such. What I like so muc about good sci fi is, one of them is the correct future. Of course, if the multiverse is correct, they are all the correct future!
Which is how they found this new planet, or what they're fairly sure is a planet sized object effecting objects around it.
But was it visual observation? Not trying to split hairs but directly observing the effects of an event horizon is direct observation of a black hole. Observation of orbital wobble of a star is not direct visual observation of the object influencing the star.
And I'm asking the question, I haven't had time to go read everything in the link of your original post yet.
But was it visual observation? Not trying to split hairs but directly observing the effects of an event horizon is direct observation of a black hole.
Not trying to split hairs either, but there's been no direct visual observation of either right? The observation of the black hole is via the effects it's having on matter around it right? The way it was discovered there's a black hole at the center of our galaxy was via the extreme orbits and rate of travel of stars around it. No direct visual observation of the back hole has taken place. The conclusion was the only thing that could possibly be that size and have that much gravitational ability is a super massive black hole, and it's considered a lock, yet no actual visual confirmation of a black hole has taken place as far as I'm aware. The same effect was seen with this new planet, in that the trajectories of matter around it, showing that planet sized object effecting them. From Caltech has more depth as to how they are concluding a legit planet 9 exists, but admit that additional confirmation is needed:
https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523
Observation of orbital wobble of a star is not direct visual observation of the object influencing the star.
Agreed, but see also comments on the black hole existence which depends strictly on it's effects on the stars around it. Way more than a wobble to be sure, but it's the same deal in terms observing effects on stuff around it vs actual observation:
"In the past 20 years, astronomers have collected enough evidence through the observed motions of gas and stars to convince ourselves that something very massive lurks at the center of our galaxy. The first dynamical evidence came from the motions of the ionized gas streamers of the mini-spiral orbiting Sgr A*. Using the velocities of the gas estimated from the Doppler shift of spectral lines, astronomers estimated that a mass of six million solar masses must lie within 10 arcseconds of Sgr A*. This did not explicitly prove the existence of a black hole since that amount of matter could be accounted for by a high density of stars within such a large volume."
Cont:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/journey/smbh.html
And I'm asking the question, I haven't had time to go read everything in the link of your original post yet.
Rgr rgr. The evidence for this new planet is not as strong as the evidence for a super massive black hole in the center of the galaxy, but both still depend on indirect observation and math as support for their existence,
Rgr rgr. The evidence for this new planet is not as strong as the evidence for a super massive black hole in the center of the galaxy, but both still depend on indirect observation and math as support for their existence,
Actually, and I'll have to go find it, but we have directly observed the event horizon of black holes. Not the supermassives we believe are at the center of just about every galaxy in existence, but plain jane black holes. For obvious reasons we will never directly see a black hole.
turnburglar
01-23-16, 22:43
The good news is, FTL does not break any laws of physics at least. "On paper" it can be done. Warp drive ala Star Trek is actually based on legit science conceptually. Other than getting around the solar system, simply going faster will be of little value to us as you point out. There's some cool sci fi stories of FTL being developed well after we sent out huge arc ships, or putting people into some long term storage, getting to their destination well before the arc ships and such. What I like so muc about good sci fi is, one of them is the correct future. Of course, if the multiverse is correct, they are all the correct future!
If we take a cue from nature (as breakthrough discoveries usually do) I believe we will be curbing mortality in the very near future. Whether through a hibernate-like state, where we can drastically slow down metabolism or even a dormant-like state where we could 'freeze' ourselves awaiting a destination. The transhumanism approach would be to simply stop aging all together through DNA therapy or gene manipulation. I know quite a few TED talks have talked about this and researchers claim we are closer than we realize.
If we take a cue from nature (as breakthrough discoveries usually do) I believe we will be curbing mortality in the very near future. Whether through a hibernate-like state, where we can drastically slow down metabolism or even a dormant-like state where we could 'freeze' ourselves awaiting a destination. The transhumanism approach would be to simply stop aging all together through DNA therapy or gene manipulation. I know quite a few TED talks have talked about this and researchers claim we are closer than we realize.
Keep in mind, in 1970 we were damn near positive we'd have a moon colony before the end of the century, flying cars, would be sending manned missions to other planets and would be in the next ice age.
Keep in mind, in 1970 we were damn near positive we'd have a moon colony before the end of the century, flying cars, would be sending manned missions to other planets and would be in the next ice age.
Very true but no one would have or could have predicted a computer that you could carry in your pocket that could make phone calls, store 10s of thousands of songs/photos and have access to the entirety of human knowledge (the Internet). It's interesting how technology advances and in what areas it does.
turnburglar
01-24-16, 10:45
Keep in mind, in 1970 we were damn near positive we'd have a moon colony before the end of the century, flying cars, would be sending manned missions to other planets and would be in the next ice age.
To be fair: the reason we don't have a moon colony is a lack of public interest. It took less than 70 years to go from the first flight, too the first landing on the moon. Really if we spent as much on NASA and JPL as we do on war, sports, and welfare: we would probably be on mars by now.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.