Astronomers gather additional evidence suggesting Planet Nine is real

[Shawn Knight]

Planet hunting: Astronomers have discovered even more evidence suggesting the existence of a mysterious planet at the edge of our solar system. Konstantin Bogytin and his team of astronomers based their latest research on a set of trans-Neptunian objects, which are objects found at the edge of the solar system beyond Neptune and orbit the Sun at a distance of more than 250 times that of Earth.

Astronomers typically do not look at these bodies when hunting for Planet Nine because they interact with Neptune's orbit.

Bogytin, however, decided to focus specifically on these objects to better understand their movements. They ran a series of simulations to see how other objects in the solar system including nearby giant planets and the Milky Way's Galactic tide affected their orbits.

The model that included Planet Nine, a long-suspected but as-yet-proven planet in the outskirts of our solar system, proved to be the best explanation for the observed behavior. It is not the only possible explanation, Bogytin said, just the best one and represents the strongest statistical evidence yet that it is really out there.

Pluto was long considered to be the ninth planet in our solar system, but was reclassified as a dwarf planet by the International Astronomical Union in 2006.

Astronomers could get even more answers in the near future. The Vera C. Rubin Observatory, currently under construction in Chile, will use a powerful 3.2 gigapixel camera with a 5.1-foot-wide optical lens called the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) to scan the sky in hopes of unlocking even more mysteries of the universe. It should also provide astronomers with a better understanding of the most distant objects in our solar system, and help pin down whether Planet Nine is fact or fiction.

The new observatory is expected to go online in January 2025.

Bogytin and his team have published their findings in a paper titled, "Generation of Low-Inclination, Neptune-Crossing TNOs by Planet Nine", that is available now over on the open source repository arXiv.

Image credit: ZCH, Raymond McClintonel

Permalink to story:

Astronomers gather additional evidence suggesting Planet Nine is real

 

[The Talking Tech]

Before Pluto got the unjustified demotion we used to refer to that "hidden planet" as Planet X...now Planet 9 sounds more like something we already discovered centuries ago.

 

[flipspot]

This was all foretold in 'Plan 9 from Outer Space'

 

[Lew Zealand]

His last name is Batygin, time to Find/Replace.

Konstantin Batygin | CALTECH

Konstantin Batygin, Planetary Astrophysicist at Caltech

www.konstantinbatygin.com

 

[Endymio]

Before Pluto got the unjustified demotion we used to refer to that "hidden planet" as Planet X...now Planet 9 sounds more like something we already discovered centuries ago.

Pluto's demotion was entirely justified: it's merely one of dozens, potentially hundreds of similar-sized KBOs. We can't classify one a planet without doing so far all.

 

[yRaz]

I always love when Shawn tries to write science articles. It's not 250 times the distance of earth from the sun. The unit name is called an AU, or astronomical unit. Also, this can't be a planet because planets have 3 requirements. 1)they have to be massive enough to make themselves round under gravity created from their own mass. 2) they need to be massive enough to clear all other objects from their orbit and 3) they must have a circular orbit around their host star.

The math from planet nine suggests it has an eleptical orbit that ranges from 20AU to over 250AU with a full orbit taking approximately 52,000 years.

But there is also an issue with planet nine that I hear very few people talk about. This is all based on theoretical mathematics. We have 9 massive objects, well, more than that. There are moons and dwarf planets in our solar system with more mass than some planets. My point being is that we cannot solve the 3 body problem with math so the idea that we can accurately predict the existence of a ninth planet with math is little more than just a fun intellectual exercise.

 

[Endymio]

I always love when Shawn tries to write science articles.

Your point might have been more valid if your 'rebuttal' not been so inaccurate.

It's not 250 times the distance of earth from the sun.

It is. The fact he used the definition of the unit rather than its name doesn't constitute a factual error.

Also, this can't be a planet because planets have 3 requirements.

Oops again! This hypothetical planet meets all the criteria: it is, in fact, estimated at 5,000 times the mass of Pluto:

“This would be a real ninth planet,” says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy. ... Unlike the class of smaller objects now known as dwarf planets, Planet Nine gravitationally dominates its neighborhood of the solar system. In fact, it dominates a region larger than any of the other known planets—a fact that Brown says makes it “the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system.”

My point being is that we cannot solve the 3 body problem with math so the idea that we can accurately predict the existence of a ninth planet with math is little more than just a fun intellectual exercise.

This is the most off-target of all. Despite what you read on sites like Wikipedia, the 3-Body problem has no general analytical solution, but it has many specific analytic solutions. And even when it doesn't, you can determine a numerical solution based on the degree of accuracy of your initial conditions.

 

[VitalyT]

With all the overblown space exploration, we cannot get even this one right?

Why bother with all that infinitely remote crap like black holes, super-novas etc, if we cannot determine definitively what is in our own backyard? It's kind of f-d up.

 

[yRaz]

Your point might have been more valid if your 'rebuttal' not been so inaccurate.


It is. The fact he used the definition of the unit rather than its name doesn't constitute a factual error.


Oops again! This hypothetical planet meets all the criteria: it is, in fact, estimated at 5,000 times the mass of Pluto:

“This would be a real ninth planet,” says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy. ... Unlike the class of smaller objects now known as dwarf planets, Planet Nine gravitationally dominates its neighborhood of the solar system. In fact, it dominates a region larger than any of the other known planets—a fact that Brown says makes it “the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system.”


This is the most off-target of all. Despite what you read on sites like Wikipedia, the 3-Body problem has no general analytical solution, but it has many specific analytic solutions. And even when it doesn't, you can determine a numerical solution based on the degree of accuracy of your initial conditions.

Well, it was point number 3 where planet nine fails the definition of what makes a planet. I figured someone smart enough to analyze my post wouldn't have to be told that. O'well, I'll take the fact that you didn't rebutt that point as evidence that you knew that.

But I actually love reading Shawn articles about science. I remember having to correct his reporting on the laniakea supercluster where he kept calling it a super galaxy.

But I do believe it is important that the uncertainty in the maths involved in this prediction make it barely worth paying attention to. Even if the prediction is accurate, planet nine is so far away and faint that we can't see it.

There is yet another story about this guy. He's barely relevant and he is desperately seeking funding for his research. He releases 1 or 2 things a year to keep the talk about planet 9 up. It's almost like clock work, you can search Google trends for planet nine and all his "discoveries" just happen to coincided when people stop search Google for planet 9

 

[Endymio]

Well, it was point number 3 where planet nine fails the definition of what makes a planet. I figured someone smart enough to analyze my post wouldn't have to be told that. O'well, I'll take the fact that you didn't rebutt that point as evidence that you knew that.

The IAU definition of planet -- even the updated 2006 definition 2006 -- doesn't require circular orbits. In fact, all existing planets have orbits that are actually elliptical (though *nearly* circular).

 

[nnguy2]

With all the overblown space exploration, we cannot get even this one right?

Why bother with all that infinitely remote crap like black holes, super-novas etc, if we cannot determine definitively what is in our own backyard? It's kind of f-d up.

If you think that's bad, we know even less about the ocean floor

 

[Endymio]

From the story:

"Konstantin Bogytin and his team of astronomers...."

This is in error. This is actually Konstatin Batygin from Caltech. I realize the source article linked above also has the same typo, but error it is nonetheless.

 

[Plutoisaplanet]

Pluto's demotion was entirely justified: it's merely one of dozens, potentially hundreds of similar-sized KBOs. We can't classify one a planet without doing so far all.

Therefore it was entirely arbitrary, and not scientific. That's so justified!

I thought the reason for Pluto not being a planet was that it wasn't fully developed as a planet based on some barely supported theory that planets form by bombarding into everything in their path. Ironically if something large enough hit another object close enough to Earth's orbit, we would no longer be living on a planet, regardless of any impact to Earth itself.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Therefore it was entirely arbitrary, and not scientific. That's so justified!

I thought the reason for Pluto not being a planet was that it wasn't fully developed as a planet based on some barely supported theory that planets form by bombarding into everything in their path. Ironically if something large enough hit another object close enough to Earth's orbit, we would no longer be living on a planet, regardless of any impact to Earth itself.

All designations are arbitrary and the pre- and post-2006 classifications are both equally so.

Pluto is one of a class of objects with overlapping orbits, like Ceres, so they decided to reclassify it. Whatever. It's still Pluto before and after, and if you classify a planet as the biggest thing by a bunch (highly technical) in it's orbit around a star then we got 8 planets and these guys are looking for a 9th.

 

[bviktor]

Also, this can't be a planet because planets have 3 requirements. 1)they have to be massive enough to make themselves round under gravity created from their own mass. 2) they need to be massive enough to clear all other objects from their orbit and 3) they must have a circular orbit around their host star.

You're certainly wrong on 3). In fact, no planet has a circular orbit. If they had, we wouldn't have the terms perihelion and aphelion in the first place. They're elliptical, and not even perfectly elliptical in fact. That'd require the Sun to be a perfect sphere (which it isn't, either) and the solar system not to have any other planet.

 

[yRaz]

You're certainly wrong on 3). In fact, no planet has a circular orbit. If they had, we wouldn't have the terms perihelion and aphelion in the first place. They're elliptical, and not even perfectly elliptical in fact.

They size of the ellipse is so small that it's difficult measure. It's like how the earth has mountains but if it was the size of beach ball it would be so smooth that it would be imperceptible.

The models that they show in school are so exaggerated to express these concepts it gives people the wrong idea of the size and shape of the universe.

 

[Dysnomia]

Pluto's demotion was entirely justified: it's merely one of dozens, potentially hundreds of similar-sized KBOs. We can't classify one a planet without doing so far all.

I strongly disagree with that. We can classify anything we want into anything we want. Entities that have been classified as a planet should never be "demoted" due to outside reasons. It would be understandable if something happened to the planet itself, ie it hits something and breaks into tiny, not planet pieces.

 

[yRaz]

I strongly disagree with that. We can classify anything we want into anything we want. Entities that have been classified as a planet should never be "demoted" due to outside reasons. It would be understandable if something happened to the planet itself, ie it hits something and breaks into tiny, not planet pieces.

It's still a planet, it's just a dwarft planet as it doesn't meet the 3 criteria we use to define what a planet is. Pluto meets none of those and it was "discovered" before we could actually really see what it was. It took us 40ish years to even see pluto

 

[Endymio]

I strongly disagree with that. We can classify anything we want into anything we want. Entities that have been classified as a planet should never be "demoted".

You prefer nostalgia to productive scientific taxonomy? Entities are classified by common characteristics to further understanding. At one point, Venus and Mars were classed as stars: we "demoted" them to planets when we understood just how different that latter category was. Was that a mistake?

 

[daffy duck]

The idea that because we can't solve the 3-body problem analytically - it's impossible - therefore we can't use mathematics, actually it will all be numerical solutions of the well known equations of motion for an n-body system, is ludicrous. The main issue will be error propagation in trying to predict an orbit far into the future. The simulations will be able to very accurately determine the true orbit once enough data is known.

 

[toooooot]

Entities that have been classified as a planet should never be "demoted" due to outside reasons.

Yep, statues and monuments only.

 

[cristianm]

3) they must have a circular orbit around their host star.

The IAU resolves that planets and other bodies, except satellites, in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

A planet is a celestial body that
(a) is in orbit around the Sun,
(b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and
(c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
So, it seems the current definition of a planet in out solar sistem does not require a circular orbit.
from here
https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/planets/what-is-a-planet/

 

[Endymio]

The IAU resolves that planets and other bodies, except satellites...

Technically, that should read artificial satellites. Planets, moons, asteroids & comets are all satellites.

 

[poohbear]

I always love when Shawn tries to write science articles. It's not 250 times the distance of earth from the sun. The unit name is called an AU, or astronomical unit. Also, this can't be a planet because planets have 3 requirements. 1)they have to be massive enough to make themselves round under gravity created from their own mass. 2) they need to be massive enough to clear all other objects from their orbit and 3) they must have a circular orbit around their host star.

The math from planet nine suggests it has an eleptical orbit that ranges from 20AU to over 250AU with a full orbit taking approximately 52,000 years.

But there is also an issue with planet nine that I hear very few people talk about. This is all based on theoretical mathematics. We have 9 massive objects, well, more than that. There are moons and dwarf planets in our solar system with more mass than some planets. My point being is that we cannot solve the 3 body problem with math so the idea that we can accurately predict the existence of a ninth planet with math is little more than just a fun intellectual exercise.

You start by saying "you love when Shawn write science articles". Then go on to correct it. Why not just start by saying "Just want to clarify..." instead of the snide sarcasm. I understand u learned this behavior from others around u, but awareness is the first step! Your ego is not your amigo.

 

[Eflow]

Opened the comments expecting vitriolic discussions about the definition of a planet.

Was not disappointed.