Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday May 17 2018, @02:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the pluto-is-gonna-be-pissed dept.

2015 BP519, nicknamed "Caju", is another extreme trans-Neptunian object that points to the existence of Planet Nine. Discovered with data from the Dark Energy Survey, Caju has a relatively large diameter, estimated at around 400-700 km, meaning the object could be a gravitationally rounded dwarf planet. It also has a highly inclined orbit of 54°, which a team of scientists says can be explained by the presence of the hypothetical Planet Nine:

After discovering it, the team tried to investigate 2015 BP519's origins using computer simulations of the Solar System. However, these tests were not able to adequately explain how the object had ended with such an orbit.

But when the team added a ninth planet with properties exactly matching those predicted by the Caltech scientists in 2016, the orbit of 2015 BP519 suddenly made sense. "The second you put Planet Nine in the simulations, not only can you form objects like this object, but you absolutely do," Juliette Becker, a Michigan graduate student and lead author of the study told Quanta.

Some researchers, however, caution that Planet Nine may not be the only explanation for 2015 BP519's strange orbit. Michele Bannister, a planetary astronomer from Queen's University Belfast, in Ireland, who was not involved in the study, told Newsweek that while the latest findings were "a great discovery," other scenarios could account for its tilt. "This object is unusual because it's on a high inclination," she said. "This can be used to maybe tell us some things about its formation process. There are a number of models that suggest you can probably put objects like this into the shape of orbit and the tilt of orbit that we see today."

Also at Quanta Magazine.

Discovery and Dynamical Analysis of an Extreme Trans-Neptunian Object with a High Orbital Inclination (arXiv:1805.05355)

Related: Medieval Records Could Point the Way to Planet Nine


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @03:47PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17 2018, @03:47PM (#680752)

    It's very far away and faint. One estimate was "at least 600 times fainter than Pluto". It will take awhile to find it visibly if we find it at all.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 17 2018, @04:29PM (6 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 17 2018, @04:29PM (#680764)

    > One estimate was "at least 600 times fainter than Pluto".

    Any astrophysicist to explain to us how you can guess the albedo of an object for which you barely have an estimate of mass and maybe orbit ?
    I'm assuming that it's not too hard to guess: "It probably won't be breaking Enceladus's record, or we'd have seen it", but beyond that, given the diversity of objects and materials out there, why say 600 and not 1000 or 100 ? Three-digit law ?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:05PM (1 child)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday May 17 2018, @05:05PM (#680774) Journal

      Because it is estimated to be at least Magnitude 22? (I think that was because the WISE survey didn't find it and at the estimated distance for Planet Nine of 700 AU's it would have been discovered if it was at least Mag. 22.... I could be all wrong about that.) Pluto is known to be Magnitude 14. Each difference in magnitude corresponds to a 2.512 change of brightness. 22-14 = 7. 2.512^7 = 631.157061373. Hence, "at least 600 times fainter than Pluto." If it were at least magnitude 23 it would be more than 1,500 (1,585.46653817) times fainter than Pluto.

      --
      This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:03PM (3 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:03PM (#680801) Journal

      Why say "at least 600 times fainter than Pluto".

      Why not 1/600th as bright as Pluto.

      Fuzzy speaking doesn't may you look smarter.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 17 2018, @06:52PM (#680830)

        > Fuzzy speaking doesn't may you look smarter.

        It dunn not, may it ?

        Would "dimmer" please you more?
        I'm a big fan of keeping precise words in circulation, rather than dumbing down the language. There's enough dumbing going on already.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @07:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 18 2018, @07:48AM (#681064)

          Would "dimmer" please you more?

          There is no "dimness" scale.

          If there was, to find out how dim 600 time dimmer than Pluto is, we would take the difference between the dimness of Pluto and zero dimness, and multiply that by 600.

          To do so would require a reference point for zero dimness.

      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday May 17 2018, @08:02PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday May 17 2018, @08:02PM (#680865) Journal

        Because it could be far dimmer in either actual or observed magnitude without much difficulty?

        Albedo depends on many factors, but if it were much brighter than 1/600th Pluto the odds favor it would have already been discovered by other surveys. So you have an "at least as faint as" without knowing how faint it actually could be. (It would be an interesting problem to work out - what's the maximum faintness it could be if it were a chunk asphalt or other dull nonreflecting carbon...)

        --
        This sig for rent.