Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday June 26 2017, @12:06AM   Printer-friendly
from the warp-and...weft? dept.

Astronomers are inferring the existence of a "Planet Ten" (or actually the true "Planet Nine"?), a Mars-sized body in the Kuiper Belt, several times closer to the Sun than where the hypothetical Neptune-like Planet Nine is expected to be:

An unknown, unseen "planetary mass object" may lurk in the outer reaches of our solar system, according to new research on the orbits of minor planets to be published in the Astronomical Journal. This object would be different from — and much closer than — the so-called Planet Nine, a planet whose existence yet awaits confirmation.

In the paper, Kat Volk and Renu Malhotra of the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, or LPL, present compelling evidence of a yet-to-be-discovered planetary body with a mass somewhere between that of Mars and Earth. The mysterious mass, the authors show, has given away its presence — for now — only by controlling the orbital planes of a population of space rocks known as Kuiper Belt objects, or KBOs, in the icy outskirts of the solar system.

[...] According to the calculations, an object with the mass of Mars orbiting roughly 60 AU from the sun on an orbit tilted by about eight degrees (to the average plane of the known planets) has sufficient gravitational influence to warp the orbital plane of the distant KBOs within about 10 AU to either side.

Also at New Scientist.

The curiously warped mean plane of the Kuiper belt

We estimate this deviation from the expected mean plane to be statistically significant at the ∼97−99% confidence level. We discuss several possible explanations for this deviation, including the possibility that a relatively close-in (a≲100~au), unseen small planetary-mass object in the outer solar system is responsible for the warping.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Weasley on Monday June 26 2017, @02:56AM (6 children)

    by Weasley (6421) on Monday June 26 2017, @02:56AM (#531079)

    Tha IAU established the scientific definition of a planet...which hadn't been properly defined before that. Colloquially though, anything spherical will either be considered a planet or a moon depending on whether it's orbiting a planet or a star. We'll worry about redefining the word planet if and when it becomes necessary.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by KGIII on Monday June 26 2017, @04:40AM (1 child)

    by KGIII (5261) on Monday June 26 2017, @04:40AM (#531119) Journal

    If you want some fun, ask a geologist for the definition of 'continent.'

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday June 26 2017, @09:10AM

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 26 2017, @09:10AM (#531214)

      > If you want some fun, ask a geologist for the definition of 'continent.'

      Continent is the opposite of incontinent, don't worry - even the geologists will get there in the end...

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Monday June 26 2017, @04:41AM (3 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Monday June 26 2017, @04:41AM (#531120) Journal
    "Tha IAU established the scientific definition of a planet"

    No. No one has the authority to 'establish the scientific definition' of anything. Just the concept betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'science.' Dr. Mike Brown does not own the word, well any of these words. He is not the pope of science, again, the concept betrays a fundamental lack of understanding. Nor does he own the English language. Nor does his obvious and demonstrated skill at politics have any scientific value.

    Pluto will still be a planet long after Dr. Mike Brown's pathetic power play has been forgotten forever.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @05:20AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @05:20AM (#531139)

      If a large and influential group of scientists in a field decides to give a particular term some official definition, that definition tends to stick, because otherwise it becomes difficult for them to communicate their results to each other. The IAU is such a body of astronomers, and if they say that 'planet' has a certain definition, the astronomers who belong to it will tend to use that definition in their subsequent communications, because that is what they agreed upon. They may not be the pope of astronomy, but they do carry a lot of influence among professional astronomers. Anyone who stubbornly insists on using terms with a meaning that is different from what most scientists in a field have decided it means will have a hard time getting their work across to them, regardless of its merit, because it cannot be understood or is misunderstood. Astronomers deal with planets as a part of their professional lives, while for most other people they are just minor trivia. Eventually, the official astronomical definition of a planet will filter down to the general population and the language will change.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Arik on Monday June 26 2017, @06:33AM

        by Arik (4543) on Monday June 26 2017, @06:33AM (#531159) Journal
        "If a large and influential group of scientists in a field decides to give a particular term some official definition, that definition tends to stick"

        Sure but that's a very weak point. Just because we expect a 55% chance of outcome a we don't forget about the possibility of outcome b.

        "The IAU is such a body of astronomers, and if they say that 'planet' has a certain definition, the astronomers who belong to it will tend to use that definition in their subsequent communications, because that is what they agreed upon."

        Has anyone done a good quantitative analysis of such communications?

        I doubt it, and without it this is sheer speculation.

        I'd love to be wrong, simply because such a study would be utterly fascinating regardless of the results.

        But, even if it is true, that doesn't mean it will stick. If future generations of incoming freshmen continue to refer to Pluto as a planet, then the divergent definition, even having dominated specialist communication for a shot time, won't last.

        "Anyone who stubbornly insists on using terms with a meaning that is different from what most scientists in a field have decided it means will have a hard time getting their work across to them, regardless of its merit, because it cannot be understood or is misunderstood."

        That sounds like a legitimate point in abstract, but in the specific it fails. No one is actually going to fail to understand a paper because it refers at some point to Pluto as a 'planet.'

        "Eventually, the official astronomical definition of a planet will filter down to the general population and the language will change."

        Or, more likely, long before that happens the IAU will abandon this ridiculous and unsustainable definition.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @12:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 26 2017, @12:56PM (#531284)

      So no one has the authority to define a planet, then you go to state Pluto is in fact a planet. So I guess you and only you have that authority, then?

      My opinion is all that counts, fuck everyone else!