![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In the article it states that Planet Nine hasn't been named yet but is called "George" another name for the planet is "Mieko" or "Meiko". Could this possibly be it's real name? Fdmjiv ( talk) 22:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) If you find that name as one name that Planet Nine is being called please tell me on my talk page. Thanks! Fdmjiv ( talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL Fdmjiv ( talk) 14:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks! I had no idea if that was true or it just randomly came out of my head. Fdmjiv ( talk) 14:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
New paper. The interaction of Planet Nine with a preexisting disk produces a spheroidal distribution of objects with semimajor axes near 1200 AU due to interactions with its mean-motion resonances, an inclined disk between 1500 AU and 3000 AU and a warped disk beyond this. Agmartin ( talk) 16:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Another one from Batygin and Brown Agmartin ( talk) 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The point to note here, I think, is that in earlier simulations B&B had modelled all the giant planets as a single disk, so they couldn't use that model to simulate objects which come close to Neptune. In this new model, the giant planets are modelled as separate objects thus allowing them to model the trajectories of high inclination objects that come closer to Neptune. J mareeswaran ( talk) 15:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
What's with this new L91 body?! New icy world with 20,000-year orbit could point to Planet Nine Tom Ruen ( talk) 10:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It must be this uo3L91. [1] Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think they are both the same objects going by the name of the observatory, telescope & researcher involved. J mareeswaran ( talk) 15:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Six from Trujillo and Sheppard 2014 FE72, 2014 SS349, 2014 SR349, 2013 FT28, 2013 UH15, 2013 FS28.
Paper by them to show up soon? Agmartin ( talk) 17:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Some notes
I see one new article among 2014 SS349, 2014 SR349, 2013 FT28, 2013 UH15, 2013 FS28. There's an orbital diagram here [2], [3] with 2013 FT28 (aligned with P9) and 2014 SR349 (aligned with other eTNO). Tom Ruen ( talk) 14:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Another graphic is here: [4], i.e. [5] showing orbits of 2014 FE72, 2014 SR349, and 2013 FT28. Tom Ruen ( talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If we're adding these objects to the list [6], 2013 FT28, 2014 FE72, 2014 SR349, then we need a graphic for them. Tom Ruen ( talk) 12:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
How does this look?
suggested changes welcome. Agmartin ( talk) 19:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Larger image with Sun and Neptune added, I made the lines thinner so they could be distinguished from Neptune.
Agmartin (
talk)
18:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Cropped version
Cropped version
Agmartin ( talk) 18:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Honestly,
Tomruen, it would probably be simpler and overall more useful to take your SVG attempt and file a request at
Commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop asking someone to pretty-please fix it (and to insert the Sun in the image). SVGs are always best for these sorts of images because they scale, are small, and can easily be translated when necessary. I tried to fix it, but my Inkscape-fu is zero and the code is too complex for manual text editing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
00:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it just me or the sun looks in these images a little bit too much "squared"? Not a big issue of course, just asking...-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 04:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
p.s. This article also talks of "A seventh distant object, spotted by the Outer Solar System Origins Survey, was discussed by Michele Bannister", sourced here [11], listed there as uo3L91 is NOT included in the new list of objects. I tried overlaying some images, and its orbit is clearly unique from the new 3 ones listed, AND its apogee is much further than the 3 other objects listed at the top of this section, excluded by semimajor axis closer than 250AU. Anyway, it seems strange this object described in a March public lecture has not been publicly defined! Is there ANYTHING on that mystery object? OH, I see an article exists uo3L91, but largely unsourced. Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
How is the Starshot Breakthrough Initiative going to identify the said structure? They are microspacecraft with very limited payload. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 11:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
To preempt any speculation
Dwarf planet candidate 2014 UZ224 H=3.6, distance 91 AU only Eris and V774104 more distant.
Semimajor axis = 109 AU, not part of Planet Nine group. Agmartin ( talk) 19:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to add to article now, since paper unpublished, but news! Tom Ruen ( talk) 19:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
And there's an orbital diagram here [12], including L91, and sky search area diagram here [13]. Tom Ruen ( talk) 19:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() L91 added |
![]() Cropped, rotated and labeled |
![]() Clean |
I calculated exactly the same position in 2013 to the east of Orion-
Brian Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.204 ( talk) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyone got some to spare?
and this "@StartsWithABang oh hey it answers your argument of perihelion question. which is nice." Agmartin ( talk) 20:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"Batygin and Brown suggest that it may be a primordial giant planet core..."
This may come across as some to suggest it is the core only; a super-earth rather than an ice giant like Uranus or Neptune. Perhaps some rewording is in order?
134340Goat (
talk)
20:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice picture comparing size to Earth, but is there one comparing its likely size to Neptune? I believe the most likely size for P9 is about 30,000-35,000 km in diameter. Is there something comparing it to Neptune, possibly Earth AND Neptune? I feel it would be beneficial to many readers. 72.231.228.215 ( talk) 06:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
A second video, this one is an excerpt from the Adler Planetarium full length sky show on Planet Nine, it includes an animation from a simulation of the extreme KBOs as influenced by Planet Nine. Agmartin ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What is calculated about the planet's hill sphere? Given its eccentricity stretching hundreds of AU, it may be prudent for a graph to be made, perhaps a line separating perihelon to aphelion's hill sphere? It must be simply enormous compared to Neptune's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.34 ( talk) 00:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Given = 12.5 au, given e=0.6, M=2e30 kg, m=6e25 kg, a=700. Tom Ruen ( talk) 06:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
New paper Their results
Note the difference in the ascending node 50∘ vs B&B's 100∘ Agmartin ( talk) 02:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed the paper includes a link to a 3-D figure of their proposed orbit. Agmartin ( talk) 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of the Shankmann paper
Lecture from December 7 by Konstantin Batygin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agmartin ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I finally got around to adding orbit paths to my astronomy software, and updated the orbits for the TNOs, all 9 in main table except uo3L91 which I didn't have full parameters. I picked a view location and orientation similar to the one given in the article (P9 in green). The first thing that struck me, of course, was to see how the current positions are all so close to perihelion, so statistically we know there must be hundreds of additional objects (whether they agree with these positions or not), but too far away (so far) to be seen. I added a close up image, top-right, with the 9 bodies labeled. I added a third view, from earth now, with P9 and coincidentally 5 of 9 of the TNOs. I included current distances there and magnitude estimates, and 3 are similar to what P9 might be, 23-24 magnitude. And a 4th image from 6000BC (When P9 maybe near perihelion), with 4 objects clustered in Virgo with magnitudes 33 to 36, undetectable! Tom Ruen ( talk) 13:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() View from above solar system |
![]() Close up view from above solar system |
![]() View from earth now |
![]() View from earth in 6000BC |
Here's one more simulation, adding the 5 high inclination orbits, all of them now within the orbit of Uranus. The view location over 1 million AUs away, so minimal depth perception. (I suppose I should try a 3D image for red-blue glasses!) Tom Ruen ( talk) 17:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's a rectangular sky plot of the current sky positions of most of 9 TNO in magenta (aphelion>250au), 10 TNOs in yellow (ap>150au), and 5 high inclination bodies in blue. A nice clustering near Cetuss! Tom Ruen ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
http://www.planet9search.org - worth linking? Smkolins ( talk) 18:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Linkable for points made? Smkolins ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The longitude of perihelion I determined from the graphic in the SETI talk video was only off by 0.3 degrees. Pats self on back. :-P Agmartin ( talk) 23:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that that is out of the way new paper OSSOS: V. Diffusion in the orbit of a high-perihelion distant Solar System object Agmartin ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
New Paper details once I have chance to read it. I've also read that Batygin has submitted a new one to arXiv, be on the look out for that. Agmartin ( talk) 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Simulated the orbits of clones of the observed objects rather than starting from a disk interacting with Neptune. Did not begin with objects in resonances since "resonance confinement is not the proposed mechanism for ω bar shepherding". Found:
My guess is that the reason for the difference between their results and B&B is the objects are not started in resonances (though some clones spend time in resonances). I did see another paper showing longitude of perihelion confinement without resonances. Agmartin ( talk) 19:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's their table of 16 objects, including 6 with a>250 (article list), and 10 with 150<a<250, but excluding the 3 new ones: 2014 SR349 2014 FE72 2013 FT28. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
|
|
New paper from the abstract
Agmartin ( talk) 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Might be a small details worth mentioning - Embedded Binaries and Their Dense Cores by Sarah I. Sadavoy and Steven W. Stahler Accepted 2017 April 28 (not sure of the publication name.) Smkolins ( talk) 22:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Planet Nine is included in some of the models in new paper Origin and Evolution of Short-Period Comets
Quote from the intro "Planet 9 (hereafter P9), hypothesized to exist on a wide orbit around the Sun (Trujillo & Sheppard 2014, Batygin & Brown 2016a), is included in some of our simulations (see Section 3) to test its influence on the structure of the trans-Neptunian region and comet delivery. We find that P9 would enhance the flux of HTCs by ~30%. The inclination distribution of ECs (ecliptic comets) can be matched in a straightforward manner in a model without P9, but when P9 is included, it acts to increase the inclination dispersion of SDOs. This propagates into the inclination distribution of ECs, which then appears to be too broad to match observations" Agmartin ( talk) 19:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
New post at findplantenine
New paper from the Outer Solar System Origins Survey, a quote from the abstract
OSSOS page summarizing the paper Striking Biases Agmartin ( talk) 16:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Name | Orbit | Current | Body | Orbit | Observations | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MPC | OSSOS | a | e | q | i° | Ω° | ω° |
ϖ =ω+Ω |
r | mr | Hr | Tperi | No. | Arc |
2013 GP136 | o3e39 | 150.2 | 0.727 | 41.0 | 33.5 | -149.3 | 45.4 | -106.8 | 45.5 | 23.1 | 6.4 | 2465012 | 31 | 1566 |
2015 KH163 [14] | o5m85 | 153 | 0.739 | 39.9 | 27.1 | 67.6 | -129.2 | -61.6 | 51.7 | 24.7 | 7.6 | 2471713 | 36 | 1087 |
2013 UT15 [15] | o3L83 | 200 | 0.780 | 43.9 | 10.7 | -168.0 | 107.9 | 84.1 | 61.2 | 24.1 | 6.2 | 2476001 | 36 | 1278 |
2015 RY245 [16] | o5s13 | 226 | 0.861 | 31.4 | 6.0 | -18.5 | -5.5 | -24.0 | 34.3 | 24.6 | 9.1 | 2452363 | 27 | 538 |
2015 GT50 [17] | o5p060 | 312 | 0.877 | 38.4 | 8.8 | 46.1 | 129.0 | 175.1 | 41.0 | 24.5 | 8.3 | 2451593 | 34 | 824 |
2015 RX245 [18] | o5t52 | 430 | 0.894 | 45.5 | 12.1 | 8.6 | 65.2 | 73.8 | 62.4 | 24.1 | 6.1 | 2475606 | 33 | 587 |
2015 KG163 [19] | o5m52 | 680 | 0.940 | 40.5 | 14.0 | -140.9 | 32.1 | -108.8 | 41.1 | 24.3 | 8.1 | 2459752 | 29 | 739 |
2013 SY99 | uo3L91 | 735 | 0.932 | 50.0 | 4.2 | 29.5 | 32.2 | 61.7 | 60.9 | 24.8 | 6.8 | 2471634 | 33 | 1156 |
Plot (left) with location of the poles of the Extreme TNOs, similar to a this post on findplanetnine.com, with areas OSSOS had no or poor coverage marked. Agmartin ( talk) 21:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() Poles of Extreme TNOs |
![]() Close up, 4 new objects (a>250au) in orange |
![]() Full orbits, 4 new objects (a>250au) in orange |
article in Science discussing new objects. Agmartin ( talk) 01:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Tweet from Konstantin Batygin showing how objects fit with their simulations. Agmartin ( talk) 01:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Article by Ethan Siegal Agmartin ( talk) 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I see Batygin talked about the 4 new objects on June 30. Status Update (Part 1) Tom Ruen ( talk) 00:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Doing some nonpermissible OR, being curious about objects to include (beyond current 13), I expanded the B&B parameters with 250>a>200 and found 4 objects, and reduced by removing 35<q<30 AU, leaving 2 "new" objects 2000 CR105 and 2002 GB32, the first seems anti-aligned, and the second more an unhelpful case. 15 objects: q>35 AU, a>200 AU I considered this expansion since we want larger q to be far above Neptune, while a>250 seemed somewhat arbitrary, perhaps only defined because it isolated the original list of 6. But now that we have counter-cases anyway, seems better to include.
I plotted these objects as viewed from above the solar system, and viewed from the sun along the ecliptic centered away from milky way center. Viewed from the sun (near the earth), you can see most the objects are away from the milky way where its hard to see 23 magnitude objects among the bright star fields. I colored the anti-aligned objects red, and others blue, with hypothetical P9 green. I put boxes around the two objects with 250<a<200 AU that B&B would exclude.
![]() Orbits viewed |
![]() Sky positions of objects from sun |
If I expand the search q>35, a>180 3 more objects appear: 2007 VJ305, 2013 UT15, 2003 SS422, all generally anti-aligned with existing objects above (in red). Tom Ruen ( talk) 10:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's the current positions of 19 eTNOs, adding 2003 HB57 q>35, a>160, showing a surprising clustering of current positions, possibly suggesting survey bias? Tom Ruen ( talk) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Discussed in Origin and Evolution of Short-Period Comets beginning on page 19 and previously in Observational Signatures of a Massive Distant Planet on the Scattering Disk although not by name. An interesting note about this cloud, few objects would be in these orbits without the influence of Planet Nine. Instead of clearing its neighborhood Planet Nine has cluttered it. So if Planet Nine is found they may need to rewrite the definition of planets again. Won't that be fun? Agmartin ( talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is now updated to include all the relevant papers I have seen on arxiv. Agmartin ( talk) 22:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's an interesting new source about the computer science behind the search. http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/satellites/is-there-a-giant-planet-lurking-beyond-pluto In August a couple Berkeley grad students are going to run a new algorithm over archived photos to add them together and thus identify extremely faint objects moving along the predicted orbital path of P9. This computing will only take a few days, but may generate ~10,000 hits that will have to be investigated. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks exciting! Also:
Breaking News: Planet 9 Found!
Mr. Green appears to be a casino. Agmartin ( talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
According to this article, Brown's currently estimated mass for P9 is about 8 Earth masses, not 10+ as stated in this article. Source 134340Goat ( talk) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
More specifically, the article says this: Tom Ruen ( talk) 20:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Headbomb has three times reverted my attempt to include a statement about how brightness for planets decreases with the fourth power of its distance, claiming "This claim is both 1) ill-defined and false 2) unsupported by references. This is WP:BRD stuff. You've been reverted, go to talk page and discuss."
Would anyone like to help me support this? I linked a calculation of planetary apparent magnitude, although you still have to look a bit to get the 1/16 brightness for double the distance. The relationship is approximate in the sense that the distance from the earth to planet is not identical to the sun to planet distance, although for distances of hundreds of AUs this is effectively true. I also noted that doubling the distance is about 3 magnitudes dimmer, although the exact brightness ratio for 3 magitudes is 100^(3/5)≈15.849. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A bit of OR (slaps wrist with ruler)
According to a search of JPL's small bodies database there are 16 asteroids with semimajor axis > 150 AU and inclination > 40 degrees. I have plotted the argument of perihelion relative to Planet Nine vs inclination and longitude of ascending node relative to Planet Nine vs inclination with figure 9 from Batygin and Brown 2016 as the backgrounds link1, link2. It appears to me that asteroids with semimajor axis greater than 300 AU follow the tracks from B&B about as well as the five on their plot even if when the perihelion is inside Jupiter's orbit, two have 3 < q < 5 AU ( 2005 VX3 [24] and 2017 MB7 [25]) and two q < 3 ( 2002 RN109 [26] and 2007 DA61 [27]). Unfortunately all were only observe for short arcs. I note the tracks from B&B are for objects with a > 500 AU and that when Sailinfest etal 2017 (mentioned in second paragraph of the Secular dynamics of extreme TNOs section) discussed perpendicular objects those with a > 300 AU crossed the orbits of the other planets. Agmartin ( talk) 21:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Objects appear to avoid crossing the ecliptic at some distance, perhaps because their orbits are avoiding the orbit of Planet Nine.
Evaluating the Dynamical Stability of Outer Solar System Objects in the Presence of Planet Nine
Identifying range of semimajor axes and eccentricities that allow orbits of know ETNO's to remain stable even if their semimajor axes vary. Agmartin ( talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Another one Non-resonant secular dynamics of trans-Neptunian objects perturbed by a distant super-Earth Agmartin ( talk) 15:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
On the first paper, I extracted the Table 1 objects into a wikitable below. It's excluding 6 newest objects ( 2013 UT15 2015 GT50 2015 KG163 2015 RY245 2015 KH163 2015 RX245 ). (I colored green where Ω+ω aligned with P9, in [180,300], and yellow orthogonal) Tom Ruen ( talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Object | a | σa | ab | e | σe | eb | i | σi | ib | Ω | σΩ | Ωb | ω | σω | ωb | r+ | r− | rb+ | rb− |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(au) | (au) | (au) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (au) | (au) | (au) | (au) | ||||
(82158) 2001 FP185 | 227.23 | 0.07 | 215.49 | 0.84914 | 0.00004 | 0.84106 | 30.76288 | 0.000053 | 30.800391 | 179.31043 | 0.00006 | 179.35869 | 7.1638 | 0.0011 | 6.8733 | 34.404±0.014 | 402.49±0.12 | 34.364±0.014 | 382.19±0.12 |
(90377) Sedna | 487.77 | 0.62 | 507.42 | 0.84409 | 0.00021 | 0.84987 | 11.929003 | 0.000009 | 11.928559 | 144.45959 | 0.00147 | 144.40308 | 311.613 | 0.0115 | 311.3066 | 89.864±0.169 | 319.13±0.52 | 90.275±0.166 | 320.99±0.51 |
(148209) 2000 CR105 | 222.92 | 0.65 | 221.98 | 0.80139 | 0.00057 | 0.80123 | 22.756428 | 0.000585 | 22.755916 | 128.2916 | 0.0003 | 128.28584 | 317.0376 | 0.0117 | 316.6901 | 50.273±0.208 | 192.86±0.65 | 50.205±0.208 | 190.60±0.64 |
(445473) 2010 VZ98 | 150.48 | 0.02 | 153.43 | 0.77185 | 0.00004 | 0.77611 | 4.510987 | 0.000024 | 4.510524 | 117.3946 | 0.00147 | 117.39674 | 313.8822 | 0.0028 | 313.7247 | 39.629±0.009 | 130.83±0.03 | 39.710±0.009 | 131.62±0.02 |
(474640) 2004 VN112 | 315.4 | 1.75 | 326.91 | 0.84999 | 0.00081 | 0.85525 | 25.592704 | 0.000317 | 25.547995 | 65.9821 | 0.00053 | 66.02214 | 326.9906 | 0.0093 | 326.9871 | 51.104±0.396 | 304.75±1.85 | 51.126±0.394 | 310.40±1.86 |
2002 GB32 | 219.01 | 0.78 | 206.71 | 0.8386 | 0.00056 | 0.82903 | 14.17587 | 0.00031 | 14.192093 | 176.98897 | 0.00044 | 177.04362 | 37.1585 | 0.0047 | 37.0472 | 38.955±0.193 | 195.95±0.79 | 38.900±0.192 | 191.06±0.78 |
2003 HB57 | 166.14 | 0.71 | 159.59 | 0.77061 | 0.00094 | 0.76128 | 15.47247 | 0.001354 | 15.500156 | 197.8225 | 0.00043 | 197.87105 | 11.0091 | 0.0631 | 10.833 | 38.417±0.232 | 277.04±1.20 | 38.394±0.229 | 265.97±1.19 |
2003 SS422 | 199.47 | 148.31 | 203.26 | 0.80296 | 0.16161 | 0.80657 | 16.811966 | 0.14714 | 16.781796 | 151.08067 | 0.17403 | 151.04186 | 211.7279 | 43.173 | 211.5975 | 224±1733 | 42±69 | 227±1853 | 42±77 |
2005 RH52 | 152 | 0.26 | 153.65 | 0.74365 | 0.0004 | 0.7462 | 20.445528 | 0.000718 | 20.446049 | 306.09328 | 0.00172 | 306.11117 | 32.311 | 0.0619 | 32.5448 | 41.720±0.096 | 182.88±0.38 | 41.802±0.094 | 183.56±0.38 |
2007 TG422 | 471.7 | 0.42 | 502.81 | 0.92462 | 0.00007 | 0.92927 | 18.603413 | 0.000075 | 18.595308 | 112.89216 | 0.00034 | 112.91072 | 285.6562 | 0.0034 | 285.6605 | 54.770±0.068 | 91.19±0.11 | 54.850±0.070 | 91.58±0.11 |
2007 VJ305 | 188.02 | 0.16 | 192.17 | 0.81298 | 0.00016 | 0.8169 | 12.004643 | 0.000171 | 11.98358 | 24.38369 | 0.00008 | 24.38259 | 338.1883 | 0.0038 | 338.3541 | 36.331±0.045 | 259.98±0.24 | 36.337±0.044 | 265.59±0.23 |
2010 GB174 | 363.66 | 25.46 | 351.38 | 0.86583 | 0.01021 | 0.86181 | 21.560511 | 0.005128 | 21.562666 | 130.71336 | 0.01973 | 130.7153 | 347.7672 | 0.3671 | 347.2366 | 49.311±5.080 | 591.81±42.26 | 49.119±5.091 | 566.85±42.17 |
2012 VP113 | 255.76 | 1.34 | 262.07 | 0.68525 | 0.00195 | 0.69274 | 24.08564 | 0.00232 | 24.052058 | 90.73148 | 0.00562 | 90.80272 | 293.8367 | 0.3765 | 293.925 | 106.24±0.89 | 187.62±1.64 | 106.41±0.88 | 189.56±1.66 |
2013 FS28 | 196.7 | 98.78 | 191.76 | 0.82439 | 0.09765 | 0.82134 | 13.006215 | 0.024737 | 13.068231 | 204.67337 | 0.01617 | 204.63813 | 101.5395 | 2.4474 | 102.1765 | 75.47±55.58 | 54.10±41.92 | 75.47±53.68 | 53.18±39.62 |
2013 FT28 | 312.28 | 10.53 | 294.52 | 0.86051 | 0.00505 | 0.85239 | 17.329026 | 0.003416 | 17.375249 | 217.78017 | 0.00483 | 217.72271 | 40.2649 | 0.1672 | 40.6969 | 48.92±2.47 | 236.02±9.87 | 48.92±2.46 | 227.65±9.62 |
2013 GP136 | 154.27 | 0.82 | 149.71 | 0.73359 | 0.00168 | 0.72571 | 33.466607 | 0.001909 | 33.538942 | 210.70939 | 0.00023 | 210.72727 | 42.2113 | 0.1643 | 42.4635 | 46.16±0.37 | 156.02±1.04 | 46.16±0.37 | 152.52±1.04 |
2013 RF98 | 349.23 | 11.73 | 363.87 | 0.89667 | 0.00358 | 0.9008 | 29.579219 | 0.003374 | 29.538373 | 67.58666 | 0.00532 | 67.6356 | 311.7287 | 0.6725 | 311.7566 | 42.86±2.04 | 169.77±8.07 | 42.89±2.07 | 171.49±8.07 |
2013 SY99 | 672.89 | 21.43 | 729.24 | 0.92578 | 0.00245 | 0.93147 | 4.233857 | 0.001201 | 4.225428 | 29.47329 | 0.00519 | 29.50927 | 32.3248 | 0.1138 | 32.141 | 53.96±2.46 | 441.81±17.31 | 53.96±2.50 | 456.82±17.79 |
2013 UH15 | 170.66 | 8.3 | 173.75 | 0.79524 | 0.01131 | 0.79846 | 26.12711 | 0.005795 | 26.080631 | 176.60152 | 0.00721 | 176.54233 | 283.0936 | 0.2724 | 282.8653 | 53.16±3.74 | 76.52±5.12 | 53.47±3.75 | 76.60±5.09 |
2014 FE72 | 1836.42 | 2066.4 | 1559.28 | 0.9802 | 0.02248 | 0.9768 | 20.616558 | 0.008942 | 20.637561 | 336.80375 | 0.01621 | 336.83831 | 134.3877 | 0.2131 | 133.9213 | 229±475 | 43±94 | 222±421 | 43±85 |
2014 SR349 | 294.06 | 18.29 | 298.5 | 0.83813 | 0.01107 | 0.84073 | 17.984844 | 0.002072 | 17.968246 | 34.75185 | 0.01736 | 34.88438 | 341.2503 | 0.6557 | 341.2593 | 48.78±4.64 | 424.01±27.78 | 48.72±4.65 | 429.31±27.93 |
2015 SO20 | 161.62 | 0.04 | 164.79 | 0.79481 | 0.00005 | 0.79871 | 23.451236 | 0.000136 | 23.410786 | 33.61877 | 0.00009 | 33.63407 | 354.8049 | 0.0063 | 354.8329 | 33.225±0.012 | 285.54±0.07 | 33.229±0.012 | 291.70±0.07 |
From a conference abstract by Bailey, Brown, and Batygin
While this runs counter to a number of papers discussed in the article, I'm waiting for it to show up on arXiv or in the press before adding it. Agmartin ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
New paper Was Planet 9 captured in the Sun's natal star-forming region? from the abstract:
New post at findplanetnine. Agmartin ( talk) 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Another discussing the latest paper. Agmartin ( talk) 21:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the article could make more clear the differences between Centaurs and TNOs. Are the minor planets mentioned in section Batygin and Brown (2016) - Clustering, Centaurs? Also for detection, since meteor impacts are traced back to their origin based on impact speed (at least for the Chelyabinsk meteor#Origin), are there any studies to use meteor origins to get a better clue of Planet 9s orbit (If origin could be traced to related regions)? prokaryotes ( talk) 13:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I was experimenting with a different arrangement of the article, in what I thought was my sandbox, but had wrong tab open. Sorry about the mess I made of it. Back to normal now, closing this tab. Agmartin ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
and from twitter, refering to Dark Energy Survey - Hamilton: detected 8 extreme TNOs, 2 news + 2013 RF98 have a>250 au. #DPS17 Agmartin ( talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a rearranged and partially rewritten version of Planet Nine in my sandbox. You can view that, right? First, I have moved the summary back above the table of contents. Second, to address one of the reasons for the "too technical" notice, instead of being a list of result by a series of papers, I organized the first part with the answers to the questions Who, Where, What, Why, When, and How in mind. For the dynamics section I used the five pieces of evidence cited by Batygin and Brown in a recent NASA article as an initial outline. After describing the clustering that provoked the recent speculation about Planet Nine I describe what happens in simulations then describe the dynamics that produces these results, before moving on to the other effects. I decided to place the alternate hypotheses after origins because the low probabilities of the mechanisms proposed served as a good lead in. Those are ordered by most skeptical, i.e. no clustering in models or in observations, then from the least similar model with no planet, to a planet with objects in strong resonances, to the Trujillo and Sheppard that began recent work, and finally ending with some earlier models. Next is searches with telescopes, which I think most reader will find more interesting than the more technical indirect detection methods. I'm thinking of moving some pieces of the material in the latter section, for example that on dynamical stability of distant objects, up into the dynamics or simulation sections. And some of the optimal orbit if in strong resonances up to the Object in lower eccentricity orbit section. That depends if it can be done without making then cluttered or confusing.
Suggestions welcome. Agmartin ( talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you add all (or most) of the content from the previous general section? I would prefer a general section which summarizes the gist. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Planet_Nine&oldid=805331232 prokaryotes ( talk) 12:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded this image to the Commons:
The curves are modeled on upper right part of Fig. 2 of Dynamical Evolution Induced by Planet Nine by Konstantin Batygin and Alessandro Morbidelli. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01804
After finishing this plot I overlayed the curves from B&M 2017 and determined that while they are similar they clearly do not match those in the diagram from B&M 2017.
The image is intended as an illustration to aid the description of the changes in the orbits of extreme transeptunian objects with time in first paragraph of Secular and resonant dynamics of extreme TNOs section of the Planet Nine article /info/en/?search=Planet_Nine#Secular_and_resonant_dynamics_of_extreme_TNOs
I was wondering would wikipedia consider this not to be entirely my work and delete the file? Should I claim it is Fair Use instead? Agmartin ( talk) 20:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Circularizing Planet Nine through dynamical friction with an extended, cold planetesimal belt
Only skimmed so far, few quotes:
The simulations start with Planet Nine's perihelion at 30 AU, and interacting with Neptune, which might affect their success rate. The planetesimals form quickly so the model would work if Planet Nine is scattered out early, as they assume, and I guess it would also work late like in the Nice model. Now I'm wondering if the inclination instability Madigan proposed could still occur with Planet Nine in the midst of the disk. Agmartin ( talk) 18:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be relevant to talk why in physics a new discovery requires a 5 sigma in order to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, some recent hyped "discoveries" with 3 sigma proved to be just noise. Such a ?debate?/analogy could be relevant to mention in this section, to show that things like this are not unique to this specific case. 86.123.22.216 ( talk) 10:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
From one of the abstracts (click on online program, Tuesday, 216 and Thursday, 405 for others) of next weeks DPS meeting. I wonder when they will release the data.
Another one mentioned here
The Becker et al paper calls the new ETNO 'Caju' (but offers no mpl designation), orbital details: a = 450 AU, e = 0.92, i = 54 degrees. ( https://aas.org/files/resources/dps49_becker.pptx) Assscroft ( talk) 20:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Guest post by Stephanie Hamilton on Planetary Society Blog Then vs. Now: How the Debate Over a Distant Planet in the Solar System Has Evolved includes image of orbits of 15 objects including Caju and ws301y4a. Agmartin ( talk) 16:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
is that it doesn't tell a story. It's just a list of different hypotheses. No wonder people are finding it hard to read. Orbital mechanics is complicated and people need to be drawn in. I would suggest going with a more historical approach, and focus more on the people involved. Serendi pod ous 21:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally, if that matters at all, I find this article fantastic, and for the most part well-ordered (and fascinating). It's a credit to Wikipedia. No idea if I'm in the minority in this opinion. Occasionally the 'research paper updates' need to be reorganised by theme, but that will never be apparent as they come in. Assscroft ( talk) 01:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Spotted on twitter:
Daniel Fischer @cosmos4u Eek, have radio astronomers killed the #planetnine postulated by @kbatygin and @plutokiller?! Just learned of an upcoming paper based... 1/3 1:11 PM - 25 Oct 2017 from Cologne, Germany
Daniel Fischer @cosmos4u Oct 25 ... on precision pulsar timing which nails down the barycenter of the solar system with enormous precision. The known planets show ... 2/3
Daniel Fischer @cosmos4u Oct 25 ... clearly visible timing effects - but there are none from #planetnine where there should be. Paper out in a few months - stay tuned. 3/3
Mike Brown @plutokiller Oct 25 Replying to @cosmos4u @kbatygin can't wait to read! difficulty, I think, is that P9 is essentially not moving and that pulsars aren't sensitive to a stationary tide. Maybe.
Konstantin Batygin @kbatygin Oct 25 I agree w @plutokiller, but there might be at least an interesting constraint in there
Jonathan Hochman @Jehochman Oct 26 This https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3607 says no results for Uranus or Neptune. If not sensitive to those two, how to measure P9?
Mike Brown @plutokiller Oct 26 well, that WAS 7 years ago. there should be a ton of new high quality data.
Jonathan Hochman @Jehochman Oct 26 It would be funny if they said impossible and then you pull out a picture...
Mike Brown @plutokiller Oct 26 yes! also, we're willing to be proven wrong. if they can do it that is support important.
https://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/923280935025610753 Agmartin ( talk) 17:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
A dynamical approach in exploring the unknown mass in the Solar System using pulsar timing arrays Figure 3 shows the upper limits for the mass of unknown massive object at different distances to the Solar System barycenter but only extends to ~50 AU. Agmartin ( talk) 17:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Brown @plutokiller 5 hours ago
There was a workshop in Coimbra, Portugal this week discussing transneptunian objects. http://www2.mps.mpg.de/services/coimbra/ On twitter see hashtag #TNO2018
Today Planet Nine was one of the topics. Some relevant tweets
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi
This one is already in the article (in the table; it has been nicknamed "Caju"). -- Renerpho ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Sam @sundogplanets
Mike Alexandersen @Mikea1985
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi
Dr. Sam @sundogplanets
Dr. Sam @sundogplanets
Stephanie Hamilton @StephHamy820
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi
The new high-q TNO is probably the object we know as V774104. There has been some confusion about this object, see here and here. Some mistakes happened during in the announcement, so the object's internal designation is different. [38] I'd be cautious to include this information in any Wikipedia article, because 1. there is no official confirmation yet, and 2. Brown et al. haven't been able to include it in their calculations (they also don't have the details). [39] -- Renerpho ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Mike Alexandersen @Mikea1985
So still no P9. Nergaal ( talk) 20:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
AAS Division Dynamical Astronomy conference is this week. This abstract is relevant to Planet Nine
Also spotted this on twitter:
A 36:1 resonance would be at ~327 AU, possibly (474640) 2004 VN112 Agmartin ( talk) 21:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
New paper appears to be claiming that a massive disk with modest and varying eccentricity can produce a cluster of objects anti-aligned to it by preventing their precession. I think that's what they are claiming at least. Agmartin ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't figure out how does P9 and the streak on IBEX map align. Can someone help? If P9 is real and has a meaningful magnetic field, then the termination shock seen in IBEX should show signs. Nergaal ( talk) 09:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Where were the numbers for the barycentric orbits found? Are they from the minor planet center, JPL's small body database, or somewhere else? Agmartin ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
New paper by Tali Khain, Konstantin Batygin, and Michael E. Brown examines whether which object remain stable after Planet Nine is captured on its proposed orbit starting with either a narrow perihelion distribution (similar to scattered disk objects) or a broad distribution due to their perihelia also being raised by nearby stars. Agmartin ( talk) 18:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
And blog: Planet Nine makes some KBOs go wild May 7 Tom Ruen ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I tested a SVG orbital chart, including the 13 known TNOs with hypothetical Planet Nine. I added a background grid for scale, with 100 AU fine units, and 1000 AU coarse units. I also rotated for Ecliptic 0 up, Ecliptic 90 left, which is ~160 degree rotation from the old chart. The SVG doesn't show current positions since useless at this scale, or at least if labeled. I won't put in article for now, since orientation not consistent with close up image.
This is my one of first posts, so I might get the talk page format wrong, and this post is kind of old, but I'll still respond. I think this diagram should incorporate the two TNO's with q > 30 AU and semi-major axis > 220 AU, which are (148209) 2000 CR105 and 2015 RY245. (semi-major axes at 227 and 221 AU respectively) Note the difference between 2015 RY245 and 2015 RX245. (They are different objects.) I believe RY245 is the object "os513" seen here. https://twitter.com/astrokiwi/status/994983595835056136 2015 RY245, like 2015 GT50, is one of those "weird" objects. Ardenau4 ( talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Apparently the MPC has the semi-major axes of CR105 and RY245 at 220 and 223 AU. I also forgot to mention (82158) 2001 FP185 (a = 226 AU, the article lists it as an SDO) Ardenau4 ( talk) 23:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I expect more data will show up soon at minor planet center
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi I'll finish by showing you our newly reported extreme TNO: this tiny world is on a vast, detached orbit with a=283 au (red), never coming closer than 39.5 au to the Sun. I wonder what past stories it will tell. https://twitter.com/astrokiwi/status/994983595835056136 Agmartin ( talk) 19:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
A paper will be out soon at arXiv, DISCOVERY AND DYNAMICAL ANALYSIS OF AN EXTREME TRANS-NEPTUNIAN OBJECT WITH A HIGH ORBITAL INCLINATION. The referenced eTNO 2015 BP519, [44] was the one nicknamed Caju. Tom Ruen ( talk) 19:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Out now link Agmartin ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.popsci.com/kuiper-outer-solar-system#page-3
Nergaal (
talk)
20:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It's 'pe82' that perhaps shouldn't be in the table at 'Hypothesis and the calculated effects/Extreme trans-Neptunian objects'. While Caju is now well-documented, the fact that pe82 was found by the DES is not stated in the Powerpoint referenced (Juliette Becker's slides to her talk), and in fact it does not appear to be referenced anywhere else. It appears in the figures in the slides, but nothing is said about it. Assscroft ( talk) 00:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Some recent articles have been discussing a new model by Madigan, Fleisig, and Zderic (iPoster from recent AAS metting here) that use the collective gravity of many small objects to detach the orbits of larger objects like Sedna. This occurs occasionally when the orbits of a group of the objects cluster on one side of the solar system. This model explains the detachment of the objects' orbits, but not alignment, and like the inclination instability requires a sizable mass. Agmartin ( talk) 17:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Paper on arxiv by Gongjie Li, Samuel Hadden, Matthew Payne, Matthew J. Holman.
An interesting objection to the 'insensitive' use of the term 'Planet Nine' appearing in the Planetary Exploration Newsletter and signed by 35 scientists including Alan Stern. http://planetarynews.org/archive18/pen_v12_n31_180729.txt (item 15).
ON THE INSENSITIVE USE OF THE TERM "PLANET 9" FOR OBJECTS BEYOND PLUTO
We the undersigned wish to remind our colleagues that the AU planet definition adopted in 2006 has been controversial and is far from universally accepted. Given this, and given the incredible accomplishment of the discovery of Pluto, the harbinger of the solar system's third zone - the Kuiper Belt - by planetary astronomer Clyde W. Tombaugh in 1930, we the undersigned believe the use of the term "Planet 9" for objects beyond Pluto is insensitive to Professor Tombaugh's legacy.
We further believe the use of this term should be discontinued in favor of culturally and taxonomically neutral terms for such planets, such as Planet X, Planet Next, or Giant Planet Five.
Assscroft ( talk) 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I received an email on July 31, 2018 (from Astronomy magazine?) stating that a team led by Mike Brown has submitted a paper announcing the discovery of (a) Planet Nine. As such things go, astronomers need to confer to assure they have their "ducks in line" before sharing details with the general public. The authors bemoaned the difficulty of having a submission peer reviewed in August. Publication will follow; the team hopes that this will occur in August 2018. At that point, the general public will have whatever details are in this paper. Assuming confirmation, an informal nickname will follow; then, eventually, an official name. Confirmation by the James Webb Space Telescope will have to wait until a few [perhaps several] months after its launch, currently slated for Spring 2021. 2602:304:B190:1550:D481:93FB:BEE8:7D1A ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Robert Gorby 2602:304:B190:1550:D481:93FB:BEE8:7D1A ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 8/3/2018 8:25 AM PDT
New Paper by Jessica Cáceres and Rodney Gomes
In this paper we study the possibility that lower perihelion distances for the additional planet can lead to angular confinements as observed in the population of objects with semimajor axes greater than 250 au and perihelion distances higher than 40 au... Our investigations showed that lower perihelion distances from the outer planet usually lead to more substantial confinements than higher ones, while retaining the Classical Kuiper Belt as well as the ratio of the number of detached with perihelion distances higher than 42 au to scattering objects in the range of semimajor axes from 100 au to 200 au.
Agmartin ( talk) 20:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-there-a-mysterious-planet-nine-lurking-in-our-solar-system-beyond-neptune/2018/08/31/1957c8ca-a495-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.186.255 ( talk) 06:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Same article also published in Quanta Magazine J mareeswaran ( talk) 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Both Mike Brown and Konstantin Batygin have tweeted to refute the element of the much-copied WaPo/Quanta story that Planet Nine might be invisible being beyond 1000AU:
Mike Brown @plutokiller: Uh, no. OK, so I'm eternally optimist and think we'll find Planet Nine this year, on my most pessimistic days I fear that it might take a decade.
— https://twitter.com/plutokiller/status/1036810171043930113
Konstantin Batygin @kbatygin:
A few news articles have popped up about Planet Nine over the last few days. To set the record straight: no P9 is not hiding, it’s not invisible, and it’s not going to destroy the Earth. It’s dim, but within our grasp - the beauty of the P9 theory is that it’s directly testable.
It’s true that something at 1000au is a challenge but if it’s ~4 earth radii, it’s possible
— https://twitter.com/kbatygin/status/1036815568215531521
Assscroft ( talk) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Batygin adds the caveat that Planet Nine can be spotted by optical telescopes, even if it is beyond 1000 AU, IF its radius is 4 times that of Earth's J mareeswaran ( talk) 07:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the CMB Stage 4 referred in this article same as BICEP-3 or something else ? J mareeswaran ( talk) 17:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
One idea is to look for the heat glow the body should emit directly. Luhman essentially ruled out the existence of anything bigger and warmer than a gas giant with a 2014 analysis of infrared data, but physicists expect a smaller, colder Planet Nine to shine in the millimeter part of the spectrum.
Current millimeter telescopes in Antarctica and Chile could detect Planet Nine today should it stray across their search field, according to Gilbert Holder, a cosmologist at the University of Illinois. Yet those instruments are busy mapping the cosmic microwave background (CMB), so they’re not necessarily pointed in the right direction at the right times. Holder is waiting for the Next Generation CMB Experiment, which his preliminary calculations estimate could pick up a planet as small as Earth at 1,000 AU.
— why so shy planet nine?
J mareeswaran ( talk) 11:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This table in the microwave page is very helpful in differentiating the different waves J mareeswaran ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Held back in May, I spotted its webpage while searching for something else. A few of the topics hint at possible upcoming papers. Agmartin ( talk) 21:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In the article it states that Planet Nine hasn't been named yet but is called "George" another name for the planet is "Mieko" or "Meiko". Could this possibly be it's real name? Fdmjiv ( talk) 22:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC) If you find that name as one name that Planet Nine is being called please tell me on my talk page. Thanks! Fdmjiv ( talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL Fdmjiv ( talk) 14:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok thanks! I had no idea if that was true or it just randomly came out of my head. Fdmjiv ( talk) 14:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
New paper. The interaction of Planet Nine with a preexisting disk produces a spheroidal distribution of objects with semimajor axes near 1200 AU due to interactions with its mean-motion resonances, an inclined disk between 1500 AU and 3000 AU and a warped disk beyond this. Agmartin ( talk) 16:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Another one from Batygin and Brown Agmartin ( talk) 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The point to note here, I think, is that in earlier simulations B&B had modelled all the giant planets as a single disk, so they couldn't use that model to simulate objects which come close to Neptune. In this new model, the giant planets are modelled as separate objects thus allowing them to model the trajectories of high inclination objects that come closer to Neptune. J mareeswaran ( talk) 15:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
What's with this new L91 body?! New icy world with 20,000-year orbit could point to Planet Nine Tom Ruen ( talk) 10:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It must be this uo3L91. [1] Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think they are both the same objects going by the name of the observatory, telescope & researcher involved. J mareeswaran ( talk) 15:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Six from Trujillo and Sheppard 2014 FE72, 2014 SS349, 2014 SR349, 2013 FT28, 2013 UH15, 2013 FS28.
Paper by them to show up soon? Agmartin ( talk) 17:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Some notes
I see one new article among 2014 SS349, 2014 SR349, 2013 FT28, 2013 UH15, 2013 FS28. There's an orbital diagram here [2], [3] with 2013 FT28 (aligned with P9) and 2014 SR349 (aligned with other eTNO). Tom Ruen ( talk) 14:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Another graphic is here: [4], i.e. [5] showing orbits of 2014 FE72, 2014 SR349, and 2013 FT28. Tom Ruen ( talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If we're adding these objects to the list [6], 2013 FT28, 2014 FE72, 2014 SR349, then we need a graphic for them. Tom Ruen ( talk) 12:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
How does this look?
suggested changes welcome. Agmartin ( talk) 19:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Larger image with Sun and Neptune added, I made the lines thinner so they could be distinguished from Neptune.
Agmartin (
talk)
18:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Cropped version
Cropped version
Agmartin ( talk) 18:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
![]() |
Honestly,
Tomruen, it would probably be simpler and overall more useful to take your SVG attempt and file a request at
Commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop asking someone to pretty-please fix it (and to insert the Sun in the image). SVGs are always best for these sorts of images because they scale, are small, and can easily be translated when necessary. I tried to fix it, but my Inkscape-fu is zero and the code is too complex for manual text editing. —
Huntster (
t
@
c)
00:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it just me or the sun looks in these images a little bit too much "squared"? Not a big issue of course, just asking...-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 04:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
p.s. This article also talks of "A seventh distant object, spotted by the Outer Solar System Origins Survey, was discussed by Michele Bannister", sourced here [11], listed there as uo3L91 is NOT included in the new list of objects. I tried overlaying some images, and its orbit is clearly unique from the new 3 ones listed, AND its apogee is much further than the 3 other objects listed at the top of this section, excluded by semimajor axis closer than 250AU. Anyway, it seems strange this object described in a March public lecture has not been publicly defined! Is there ANYTHING on that mystery object? OH, I see an article exists uo3L91, but largely unsourced. Tom Ruen ( talk) 23:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
How is the Starshot Breakthrough Initiative going to identify the said structure? They are microspacecraft with very limited payload. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 11:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
To preempt any speculation
Dwarf planet candidate 2014 UZ224 H=3.6, distance 91 AU only Eris and V774104 more distant.
Semimajor axis = 109 AU, not part of Planet Nine group. Agmartin ( talk) 19:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to add to article now, since paper unpublished, but news! Tom Ruen ( talk) 19:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
And there's an orbital diagram here [12], including L91, and sky search area diagram here [13]. Tom Ruen ( talk) 19:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() L91 added |
![]() Cropped, rotated and labeled |
![]() Clean |
I calculated exactly the same position in 2013 to the east of Orion-
Brian Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.204 ( talk) 13:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyone got some to spare?
and this "@StartsWithABang oh hey it answers your argument of perihelion question. which is nice." Agmartin ( talk) 20:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"Batygin and Brown suggest that it may be a primordial giant planet core..."
This may come across as some to suggest it is the core only; a super-earth rather than an ice giant like Uranus or Neptune. Perhaps some rewording is in order?
134340Goat (
talk)
20:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice picture comparing size to Earth, but is there one comparing its likely size to Neptune? I believe the most likely size for P9 is about 30,000-35,000 km in diameter. Is there something comparing it to Neptune, possibly Earth AND Neptune? I feel it would be beneficial to many readers. 72.231.228.215 ( talk) 06:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
A second video, this one is an excerpt from the Adler Planetarium full length sky show on Planet Nine, it includes an animation from a simulation of the extreme KBOs as influenced by Planet Nine. Agmartin ( talk) 20:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
What is calculated about the planet's hill sphere? Given its eccentricity stretching hundreds of AU, it may be prudent for a graph to be made, perhaps a line separating perihelon to aphelion's hill sphere? It must be simply enormous compared to Neptune's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.34 ( talk) 00:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Given = 12.5 au, given e=0.6, M=2e30 kg, m=6e25 kg, a=700. Tom Ruen ( talk) 06:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
New paper Their results
Note the difference in the ascending node 50∘ vs B&B's 100∘ Agmartin ( talk) 02:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed the paper includes a link to a 3-D figure of their proposed orbit. Agmartin ( talk) 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This reminds me of the Shankmann paper
Lecture from December 7 by Konstantin Batygin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agmartin ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I finally got around to adding orbit paths to my astronomy software, and updated the orbits for the TNOs, all 9 in main table except uo3L91 which I didn't have full parameters. I picked a view location and orientation similar to the one given in the article (P9 in green). The first thing that struck me, of course, was to see how the current positions are all so close to perihelion, so statistically we know there must be hundreds of additional objects (whether they agree with these positions or not), but too far away (so far) to be seen. I added a close up image, top-right, with the 9 bodies labeled. I added a third view, from earth now, with P9 and coincidentally 5 of 9 of the TNOs. I included current distances there and magnitude estimates, and 3 are similar to what P9 might be, 23-24 magnitude. And a 4th image from 6000BC (When P9 maybe near perihelion), with 4 objects clustered in Virgo with magnitudes 33 to 36, undetectable! Tom Ruen ( talk) 13:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() View from above solar system |
![]() Close up view from above solar system |
![]() View from earth now |
![]() View from earth in 6000BC |
Here's one more simulation, adding the 5 high inclination orbits, all of them now within the orbit of Uranus. The view location over 1 million AUs away, so minimal depth perception. (I suppose I should try a 3D image for red-blue glasses!) Tom Ruen ( talk) 17:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Here's a rectangular sky plot of the current sky positions of most of 9 TNO in magenta (aphelion>250au), 10 TNOs in yellow (ap>150au), and 5 high inclination bodies in blue. A nice clustering near Cetuss! Tom Ruen ( talk) 22:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
http://www.planet9search.org - worth linking? Smkolins ( talk) 18:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Linkable for points made? Smkolins ( talk) 18:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The longitude of perihelion I determined from the graphic in the SETI talk video was only off by 0.3 degrees. Pats self on back. :-P Agmartin ( talk) 23:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Now that that is out of the way new paper OSSOS: V. Diffusion in the orbit of a high-perihelion distant Solar System object Agmartin ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
New Paper details once I have chance to read it. I've also read that Batygin has submitted a new one to arXiv, be on the look out for that. Agmartin ( talk) 20:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Simulated the orbits of clones of the observed objects rather than starting from a disk interacting with Neptune. Did not begin with objects in resonances since "resonance confinement is not the proposed mechanism for ω bar shepherding". Found:
My guess is that the reason for the difference between their results and B&B is the objects are not started in resonances (though some clones spend time in resonances). I did see another paper showing longitude of perihelion confinement without resonances. Agmartin ( talk) 19:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's their table of 16 objects, including 6 with a>250 (article list), and 10 with 150<a<250, but excluding the 3 new ones: 2014 SR349 2014 FE72 2013 FT28. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
|
|
New paper from the abstract
Agmartin ( talk) 21:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Might be a small details worth mentioning - Embedded Binaries and Their Dense Cores by Sarah I. Sadavoy and Steven W. Stahler Accepted 2017 April 28 (not sure of the publication name.) Smkolins ( talk) 22:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Planet Nine is included in some of the models in new paper Origin and Evolution of Short-Period Comets
Quote from the intro "Planet 9 (hereafter P9), hypothesized to exist on a wide orbit around the Sun (Trujillo & Sheppard 2014, Batygin & Brown 2016a), is included in some of our simulations (see Section 3) to test its influence on the structure of the trans-Neptunian region and comet delivery. We find that P9 would enhance the flux of HTCs by ~30%. The inclination distribution of ECs (ecliptic comets) can be matched in a straightforward manner in a model without P9, but when P9 is included, it acts to increase the inclination dispersion of SDOs. This propagates into the inclination distribution of ECs, which then appears to be too broad to match observations" Agmartin ( talk) 19:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
New post at findplantenine
New paper from the Outer Solar System Origins Survey, a quote from the abstract
OSSOS page summarizing the paper Striking Biases Agmartin ( talk) 16:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Name | Orbit | Current | Body | Orbit | Observations | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MPC | OSSOS | a | e | q | i° | Ω° | ω° |
ϖ =ω+Ω |
r | mr | Hr | Tperi | No. | Arc |
2013 GP136 | o3e39 | 150.2 | 0.727 | 41.0 | 33.5 | -149.3 | 45.4 | -106.8 | 45.5 | 23.1 | 6.4 | 2465012 | 31 | 1566 |
2015 KH163 [14] | o5m85 | 153 | 0.739 | 39.9 | 27.1 | 67.6 | -129.2 | -61.6 | 51.7 | 24.7 | 7.6 | 2471713 | 36 | 1087 |
2013 UT15 [15] | o3L83 | 200 | 0.780 | 43.9 | 10.7 | -168.0 | 107.9 | 84.1 | 61.2 | 24.1 | 6.2 | 2476001 | 36 | 1278 |
2015 RY245 [16] | o5s13 | 226 | 0.861 | 31.4 | 6.0 | -18.5 | -5.5 | -24.0 | 34.3 | 24.6 | 9.1 | 2452363 | 27 | 538 |
2015 GT50 [17] | o5p060 | 312 | 0.877 | 38.4 | 8.8 | 46.1 | 129.0 | 175.1 | 41.0 | 24.5 | 8.3 | 2451593 | 34 | 824 |
2015 RX245 [18] | o5t52 | 430 | 0.894 | 45.5 | 12.1 | 8.6 | 65.2 | 73.8 | 62.4 | 24.1 | 6.1 | 2475606 | 33 | 587 |
2015 KG163 [19] | o5m52 | 680 | 0.940 | 40.5 | 14.0 | -140.9 | 32.1 | -108.8 | 41.1 | 24.3 | 8.1 | 2459752 | 29 | 739 |
2013 SY99 | uo3L91 | 735 | 0.932 | 50.0 | 4.2 | 29.5 | 32.2 | 61.7 | 60.9 | 24.8 | 6.8 | 2471634 | 33 | 1156 |
Plot (left) with location of the poles of the Extreme TNOs, similar to a this post on findplanetnine.com, with areas OSSOS had no or poor coverage marked. Agmartin ( talk) 21:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() Poles of Extreme TNOs |
![]() Close up, 4 new objects (a>250au) in orange |
![]() Full orbits, 4 new objects (a>250au) in orange |
article in Science discussing new objects. Agmartin ( talk) 01:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Tweet from Konstantin Batygin showing how objects fit with their simulations. Agmartin ( talk) 01:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Article by Ethan Siegal Agmartin ( talk) 01:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I see Batygin talked about the 4 new objects on June 30. Status Update (Part 1) Tom Ruen ( talk) 00:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Doing some nonpermissible OR, being curious about objects to include (beyond current 13), I expanded the B&B parameters with 250>a>200 and found 4 objects, and reduced by removing 35<q<30 AU, leaving 2 "new" objects 2000 CR105 and 2002 GB32, the first seems anti-aligned, and the second more an unhelpful case. 15 objects: q>35 AU, a>200 AU I considered this expansion since we want larger q to be far above Neptune, while a>250 seemed somewhat arbitrary, perhaps only defined because it isolated the original list of 6. But now that we have counter-cases anyway, seems better to include.
I plotted these objects as viewed from above the solar system, and viewed from the sun along the ecliptic centered away from milky way center. Viewed from the sun (near the earth), you can see most the objects are away from the milky way where its hard to see 23 magnitude objects among the bright star fields. I colored the anti-aligned objects red, and others blue, with hypothetical P9 green. I put boxes around the two objects with 250<a<200 AU that B&B would exclude.
![]() Orbits viewed |
![]() Sky positions of objects from sun |
If I expand the search q>35, a>180 3 more objects appear: 2007 VJ305, 2013 UT15, 2003 SS422, all generally anti-aligned with existing objects above (in red). Tom Ruen ( talk) 10:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Here's the current positions of 19 eTNOs, adding 2003 HB57 q>35, a>160, showing a surprising clustering of current positions, possibly suggesting survey bias? Tom Ruen ( talk) 12:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Discussed in Origin and Evolution of Short-Period Comets beginning on page 19 and previously in Observational Signatures of a Massive Distant Planet on the Scattering Disk although not by name. An interesting note about this cloud, few objects would be in these orbits without the influence of Planet Nine. Instead of clearing its neighborhood Planet Nine has cluttered it. So if Planet Nine is found they may need to rewrite the definition of planets again. Won't that be fun? Agmartin ( talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is now updated to include all the relevant papers I have seen on arxiv. Agmartin ( talk) 22:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's an interesting new source about the computer science behind the search. http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/satellites/is-there-a-giant-planet-lurking-beyond-pluto In August a couple Berkeley grad students are going to run a new algorithm over archived photos to add them together and thus identify extremely faint objects moving along the predicted orbital path of P9. This computing will only take a few days, but may generate ~10,000 hits that will have to be investigated. Jehochman Talk 15:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks exciting! Also:
Breaking News: Planet 9 Found!
Mr. Green appears to be a casino. Agmartin ( talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
According to this article, Brown's currently estimated mass for P9 is about 8 Earth masses, not 10+ as stated in this article. Source 134340Goat ( talk) 03:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
More specifically, the article says this: Tom Ruen ( talk) 20:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Headbomb has three times reverted my attempt to include a statement about how brightness for planets decreases with the fourth power of its distance, claiming "This claim is both 1) ill-defined and false 2) unsupported by references. This is WP:BRD stuff. You've been reverted, go to talk page and discuss."
Would anyone like to help me support this? I linked a calculation of planetary apparent magnitude, although you still have to look a bit to get the 1/16 brightness for double the distance. The relationship is approximate in the sense that the distance from the earth to planet is not identical to the sun to planet distance, although for distances of hundreds of AUs this is effectively true. I also noted that doubling the distance is about 3 magnitudes dimmer, although the exact brightness ratio for 3 magitudes is 100^(3/5)≈15.849. Tom Ruen ( talk) 05:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A bit of OR (slaps wrist with ruler)
According to a search of JPL's small bodies database there are 16 asteroids with semimajor axis > 150 AU and inclination > 40 degrees. I have plotted the argument of perihelion relative to Planet Nine vs inclination and longitude of ascending node relative to Planet Nine vs inclination with figure 9 from Batygin and Brown 2016 as the backgrounds link1, link2. It appears to me that asteroids with semimajor axis greater than 300 AU follow the tracks from B&B about as well as the five on their plot even if when the perihelion is inside Jupiter's orbit, two have 3 < q < 5 AU ( 2005 VX3 [24] and 2017 MB7 [25]) and two q < 3 ( 2002 RN109 [26] and 2007 DA61 [27]). Unfortunately all were only observe for short arcs. I note the tracks from B&B are for objects with a > 500 AU and that when Sailinfest etal 2017 (mentioned in second paragraph of the Secular dynamics of extreme TNOs section) discussed perpendicular objects those with a > 300 AU crossed the orbits of the other planets. Agmartin ( talk) 21:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Objects appear to avoid crossing the ecliptic at some distance, perhaps because their orbits are avoiding the orbit of Planet Nine.
Evaluating the Dynamical Stability of Outer Solar System Objects in the Presence of Planet Nine
Identifying range of semimajor axes and eccentricities that allow orbits of know ETNO's to remain stable even if their semimajor axes vary. Agmartin ( talk) 18:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Another one Non-resonant secular dynamics of trans-Neptunian objects perturbed by a distant super-Earth Agmartin ( talk) 15:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
On the first paper, I extracted the Table 1 objects into a wikitable below. It's excluding 6 newest objects ( 2013 UT15 2015 GT50 2015 KG163 2015 RY245 2015 KH163 2015 RX245 ). (I colored green where Ω+ω aligned with P9, in [180,300], and yellow orthogonal) Tom Ruen ( talk) 09:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Object | a | σa | ab | e | σe | eb | i | σi | ib | Ω | σΩ | Ωb | ω | σω | ωb | r+ | r− | rb+ | rb− |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(au) | (au) | (au) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (◦) | (au) | (au) | (au) | (au) | ||||
(82158) 2001 FP185 | 227.23 | 0.07 | 215.49 | 0.84914 | 0.00004 | 0.84106 | 30.76288 | 0.000053 | 30.800391 | 179.31043 | 0.00006 | 179.35869 | 7.1638 | 0.0011 | 6.8733 | 34.404±0.014 | 402.49±0.12 | 34.364±0.014 | 382.19±0.12 |
(90377) Sedna | 487.77 | 0.62 | 507.42 | 0.84409 | 0.00021 | 0.84987 | 11.929003 | 0.000009 | 11.928559 | 144.45959 | 0.00147 | 144.40308 | 311.613 | 0.0115 | 311.3066 | 89.864±0.169 | 319.13±0.52 | 90.275±0.166 | 320.99±0.51 |
(148209) 2000 CR105 | 222.92 | 0.65 | 221.98 | 0.80139 | 0.00057 | 0.80123 | 22.756428 | 0.000585 | 22.755916 | 128.2916 | 0.0003 | 128.28584 | 317.0376 | 0.0117 | 316.6901 | 50.273±0.208 | 192.86±0.65 | 50.205±0.208 | 190.60±0.64 |
(445473) 2010 VZ98 | 150.48 | 0.02 | 153.43 | 0.77185 | 0.00004 | 0.77611 | 4.510987 | 0.000024 | 4.510524 | 117.3946 | 0.00147 | 117.39674 | 313.8822 | 0.0028 | 313.7247 | 39.629±0.009 | 130.83±0.03 | 39.710±0.009 | 131.62±0.02 |
(474640) 2004 VN112 | 315.4 | 1.75 | 326.91 | 0.84999 | 0.00081 | 0.85525 | 25.592704 | 0.000317 | 25.547995 | 65.9821 | 0.00053 | 66.02214 | 326.9906 | 0.0093 | 326.9871 | 51.104±0.396 | 304.75±1.85 | 51.126±0.394 | 310.40±1.86 |
2002 GB32 | 219.01 | 0.78 | 206.71 | 0.8386 | 0.00056 | 0.82903 | 14.17587 | 0.00031 | 14.192093 | 176.98897 | 0.00044 | 177.04362 | 37.1585 | 0.0047 | 37.0472 | 38.955±0.193 | 195.95±0.79 | 38.900±0.192 | 191.06±0.78 |
2003 HB57 | 166.14 | 0.71 | 159.59 | 0.77061 | 0.00094 | 0.76128 | 15.47247 | 0.001354 | 15.500156 | 197.8225 | 0.00043 | 197.87105 | 11.0091 | 0.0631 | 10.833 | 38.417±0.232 | 277.04±1.20 | 38.394±0.229 | 265.97±1.19 |
2003 SS422 | 199.47 | 148.31 | 203.26 | 0.80296 | 0.16161 | 0.80657 | 16.811966 | 0.14714 | 16.781796 | 151.08067 | 0.17403 | 151.04186 | 211.7279 | 43.173 | 211.5975 | 224±1733 | 42±69 | 227±1853 | 42±77 |
2005 RH52 | 152 | 0.26 | 153.65 | 0.74365 | 0.0004 | 0.7462 | 20.445528 | 0.000718 | 20.446049 | 306.09328 | 0.00172 | 306.11117 | 32.311 | 0.0619 | 32.5448 | 41.720±0.096 | 182.88±0.38 | 41.802±0.094 | 183.56±0.38 |
2007 TG422 | 471.7 | 0.42 | 502.81 | 0.92462 | 0.00007 | 0.92927 | 18.603413 | 0.000075 | 18.595308 | 112.89216 | 0.00034 | 112.91072 | 285.6562 | 0.0034 | 285.6605 | 54.770±0.068 | 91.19±0.11 | 54.850±0.070 | 91.58±0.11 |
2007 VJ305 | 188.02 | 0.16 | 192.17 | 0.81298 | 0.00016 | 0.8169 | 12.004643 | 0.000171 | 11.98358 | 24.38369 | 0.00008 | 24.38259 | 338.1883 | 0.0038 | 338.3541 | 36.331±0.045 | 259.98±0.24 | 36.337±0.044 | 265.59±0.23 |
2010 GB174 | 363.66 | 25.46 | 351.38 | 0.86583 | 0.01021 | 0.86181 | 21.560511 | 0.005128 | 21.562666 | 130.71336 | 0.01973 | 130.7153 | 347.7672 | 0.3671 | 347.2366 | 49.311±5.080 | 591.81±42.26 | 49.119±5.091 | 566.85±42.17 |
2012 VP113 | 255.76 | 1.34 | 262.07 | 0.68525 | 0.00195 | 0.69274 | 24.08564 | 0.00232 | 24.052058 | 90.73148 | 0.00562 | 90.80272 | 293.8367 | 0.3765 | 293.925 | 106.24±0.89 | 187.62±1.64 | 106.41±0.88 | 189.56±1.66 |
2013 FS28 | 196.7 | 98.78 | 191.76 | 0.82439 | 0.09765 | 0.82134 | 13.006215 | 0.024737 | 13.068231 | 204.67337 | 0.01617 | 204.63813 | 101.5395 | 2.4474 | 102.1765 | 75.47±55.58 | 54.10±41.92 | 75.47±53.68 | 53.18±39.62 |
2013 FT28 | 312.28 | 10.53 | 294.52 | 0.86051 | 0.00505 | 0.85239 | 17.329026 | 0.003416 | 17.375249 | 217.78017 | 0.00483 | 217.72271 | 40.2649 | 0.1672 | 40.6969 | 48.92±2.47 | 236.02±9.87 | 48.92±2.46 | 227.65±9.62 |
2013 GP136 | 154.27 | 0.82 | 149.71 | 0.73359 | 0.00168 | 0.72571 | 33.466607 | 0.001909 | 33.538942 | 210.70939 | 0.00023 | 210.72727 | 42.2113 | 0.1643 | 42.4635 | 46.16±0.37 | 156.02±1.04 | 46.16±0.37 | 152.52±1.04 |
2013 RF98 | 349.23 | 11.73 | 363.87 | 0.89667 | 0.00358 | 0.9008 | 29.579219 | 0.003374 | 29.538373 | 67.58666 | 0.00532 | 67.6356 | 311.7287 | 0.6725 | 311.7566 | 42.86±2.04 | 169.77±8.07 | 42.89±2.07 | 171.49±8.07 |
2013 SY99 | 672.89 | 21.43 | 729.24 | 0.92578 | 0.00245 | 0.93147 | 4.233857 | 0.001201 | 4.225428 | 29.47329 | 0.00519 | 29.50927 | 32.3248 | 0.1138 | 32.141 | 53.96±2.46 | 441.81±17.31 | 53.96±2.50 | 456.82±17.79 |
2013 UH15 | 170.66 | 8.3 | 173.75 | 0.79524 | 0.01131 | 0.79846 | 26.12711 | 0.005795 | 26.080631 | 176.60152 | 0.00721 | 176.54233 | 283.0936 | 0.2724 | 282.8653 | 53.16±3.74 | 76.52±5.12 | 53.47±3.75 | 76.60±5.09 |
2014 FE72 | 1836.42 | 2066.4 | 1559.28 | 0.9802 | 0.02248 | 0.9768 | 20.616558 | 0.008942 | 20.637561 | 336.80375 | 0.01621 | 336.83831 | 134.3877 | 0.2131 | 133.9213 | 229±475 | 43±94 | 222±421 | 43±85 |
2014 SR349 | 294.06 | 18.29 | 298.5 | 0.83813 | 0.01107 | 0.84073 | 17.984844 | 0.002072 | 17.968246 | 34.75185 | 0.01736 | 34.88438 | 341.2503 | 0.6557 | 341.2593 | 48.78±4.64 | 424.01±27.78 | 48.72±4.65 | 429.31±27.93 |
2015 SO20 | 161.62 | 0.04 | 164.79 | 0.79481 | 0.00005 | 0.79871 | 23.451236 | 0.000136 | 23.410786 | 33.61877 | 0.00009 | 33.63407 | 354.8049 | 0.0063 | 354.8329 | 33.225±0.012 | 285.54±0.07 | 33.229±0.012 | 291.70±0.07 |
From a conference abstract by Bailey, Brown, and Batygin
While this runs counter to a number of papers discussed in the article, I'm waiting for it to show up on arXiv or in the press before adding it. Agmartin ( talk) 17:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
New paper Was Planet 9 captured in the Sun's natal star-forming region? from the abstract:
New post at findplanetnine. Agmartin ( talk) 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Another discussing the latest paper. Agmartin ( talk) 21:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the article could make more clear the differences between Centaurs and TNOs. Are the minor planets mentioned in section Batygin and Brown (2016) - Clustering, Centaurs? Also for detection, since meteor impacts are traced back to their origin based on impact speed (at least for the Chelyabinsk meteor#Origin), are there any studies to use meteor origins to get a better clue of Planet 9s orbit (If origin could be traced to related regions)? prokaryotes ( talk) 13:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I was experimenting with a different arrangement of the article, in what I thought was my sandbox, but had wrong tab open. Sorry about the mess I made of it. Back to normal now, closing this tab. Agmartin ( talk) 19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
and from twitter, refering to Dark Energy Survey - Hamilton: detected 8 extreme TNOs, 2 news + 2013 RF98 have a>250 au. #DPS17 Agmartin ( talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a rearranged and partially rewritten version of Planet Nine in my sandbox. You can view that, right? First, I have moved the summary back above the table of contents. Second, to address one of the reasons for the "too technical" notice, instead of being a list of result by a series of papers, I organized the first part with the answers to the questions Who, Where, What, Why, When, and How in mind. For the dynamics section I used the five pieces of evidence cited by Batygin and Brown in a recent NASA article as an initial outline. After describing the clustering that provoked the recent speculation about Planet Nine I describe what happens in simulations then describe the dynamics that produces these results, before moving on to the other effects. I decided to place the alternate hypotheses after origins because the low probabilities of the mechanisms proposed served as a good lead in. Those are ordered by most skeptical, i.e. no clustering in models or in observations, then from the least similar model with no planet, to a planet with objects in strong resonances, to the Trujillo and Sheppard that began recent work, and finally ending with some earlier models. Next is searches with telescopes, which I think most reader will find more interesting than the more technical indirect detection methods. I'm thinking of moving some pieces of the material in the latter section, for example that on dynamical stability of distant objects, up into the dynamics or simulation sections. And some of the optimal orbit if in strong resonances up to the Object in lower eccentricity orbit section. That depends if it can be done without making then cluttered or confusing.
Suggestions welcome. Agmartin ( talk) 22:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Did you add all (or most) of the content from the previous general section? I would prefer a general section which summarizes the gist. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Planet_Nine&oldid=805331232 prokaryotes ( talk) 12:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I've uploaded this image to the Commons:
The curves are modeled on upper right part of Fig. 2 of Dynamical Evolution Induced by Planet Nine by Konstantin Batygin and Alessandro Morbidelli. https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01804
After finishing this plot I overlayed the curves from B&M 2017 and determined that while they are similar they clearly do not match those in the diagram from B&M 2017.
The image is intended as an illustration to aid the description of the changes in the orbits of extreme transeptunian objects with time in first paragraph of Secular and resonant dynamics of extreme TNOs section of the Planet Nine article /info/en/?search=Planet_Nine#Secular_and_resonant_dynamics_of_extreme_TNOs
I was wondering would wikipedia consider this not to be entirely my work and delete the file? Should I claim it is Fair Use instead? Agmartin ( talk) 20:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Circularizing Planet Nine through dynamical friction with an extended, cold planetesimal belt
Only skimmed so far, few quotes:
The simulations start with Planet Nine's perihelion at 30 AU, and interacting with Neptune, which might affect their success rate. The planetesimals form quickly so the model would work if Planet Nine is scattered out early, as they assume, and I guess it would also work late like in the Nice model. Now I'm wondering if the inclination instability Madigan proposed could still occur with Planet Nine in the midst of the disk. Agmartin ( talk) 18:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be relevant to talk why in physics a new discovery requires a 5 sigma in order to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, some recent hyped "discoveries" with 3 sigma proved to be just noise. Such a ?debate?/analogy could be relevant to mention in this section, to show that things like this are not unique to this specific case. 86.123.22.216 ( talk) 10:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
From one of the abstracts (click on online program, Tuesday, 216 and Thursday, 405 for others) of next weeks DPS meeting. I wonder when they will release the data.
Another one mentioned here
The Becker et al paper calls the new ETNO 'Caju' (but offers no mpl designation), orbital details: a = 450 AU, e = 0.92, i = 54 degrees. ( https://aas.org/files/resources/dps49_becker.pptx) Assscroft ( talk) 20:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Guest post by Stephanie Hamilton on Planetary Society Blog Then vs. Now: How the Debate Over a Distant Planet in the Solar System Has Evolved includes image of orbits of 15 objects including Caju and ws301y4a. Agmartin ( talk) 16:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
is that it doesn't tell a story. It's just a list of different hypotheses. No wonder people are finding it hard to read. Orbital mechanics is complicated and people need to be drawn in. I would suggest going with a more historical approach, and focus more on the people involved. Serendi pod ous 21:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally, if that matters at all, I find this article fantastic, and for the most part well-ordered (and fascinating). It's a credit to Wikipedia. No idea if I'm in the minority in this opinion. Occasionally the 'research paper updates' need to be reorganised by theme, but that will never be apparent as they come in. Assscroft ( talk) 01:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Spotted on twitter:
Daniel Fischer @cosmos4u Eek, have radio astronomers killed the #planetnine postulated by @kbatygin and @plutokiller?! Just learned of an upcoming paper based... 1/3 1:11 PM - 25 Oct 2017 from Cologne, Germany
Daniel Fischer @cosmos4u Oct 25 ... on precision pulsar timing which nails down the barycenter of the solar system with enormous precision. The known planets show ... 2/3
Daniel Fischer @cosmos4u Oct 25 ... clearly visible timing effects - but there are none from #planetnine where there should be. Paper out in a few months - stay tuned. 3/3
Mike Brown @plutokiller Oct 25 Replying to @cosmos4u @kbatygin can't wait to read! difficulty, I think, is that P9 is essentially not moving and that pulsars aren't sensitive to a stationary tide. Maybe.
Konstantin Batygin @kbatygin Oct 25 I agree w @plutokiller, but there might be at least an interesting constraint in there
Jonathan Hochman @Jehochman Oct 26 This https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3607 says no results for Uranus or Neptune. If not sensitive to those two, how to measure P9?
Mike Brown @plutokiller Oct 26 well, that WAS 7 years ago. there should be a ton of new high quality data.
Jonathan Hochman @Jehochman Oct 26 It would be funny if they said impossible and then you pull out a picture...
Mike Brown @plutokiller Oct 26 yes! also, we're willing to be proven wrong. if they can do it that is support important.
https://twitter.com/cosmos4u/status/923280935025610753 Agmartin ( talk) 17:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
A dynamical approach in exploring the unknown mass in the Solar System using pulsar timing arrays Figure 3 shows the upper limits for the mass of unknown massive object at different distances to the Solar System barycenter but only extends to ~50 AU. Agmartin ( talk) 17:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Mike Brown @plutokiller 5 hours ago
There was a workshop in Coimbra, Portugal this week discussing transneptunian objects. http://www2.mps.mpg.de/services/coimbra/ On twitter see hashtag #TNO2018
Today Planet Nine was one of the topics. Some relevant tweets
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi
This one is already in the article (in the table; it has been nicknamed "Caju"). -- Renerpho ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Dr. Sam @sundogplanets
Mike Alexandersen @Mikea1985
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi
Dr. Sam @sundogplanets
Dr. Sam @sundogplanets
Stephanie Hamilton @StephHamy820
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi
The new high-q TNO is probably the object we know as V774104. There has been some confusion about this object, see here and here. Some mistakes happened during in the announcement, so the object's internal designation is different. [38] I'd be cautious to include this information in any Wikipedia article, because 1. there is no official confirmation yet, and 2. Brown et al. haven't been able to include it in their calculations (they also don't have the details). [39] -- Renerpho ( talk) 20:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Mike Alexandersen @Mikea1985
So still no P9. Nergaal ( talk) 20:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
AAS Division Dynamical Astronomy conference is this week. This abstract is relevant to Planet Nine
Also spotted this on twitter:
A 36:1 resonance would be at ~327 AU, possibly (474640) 2004 VN112 Agmartin ( talk) 21:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
New paper appears to be claiming that a massive disk with modest and varying eccentricity can produce a cluster of objects anti-aligned to it by preventing their precession. I think that's what they are claiming at least. Agmartin ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't figure out how does P9 and the streak on IBEX map align. Can someone help? If P9 is real and has a meaningful magnetic field, then the termination shock seen in IBEX should show signs. Nergaal ( talk) 09:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Where were the numbers for the barycentric orbits found? Are they from the minor planet center, JPL's small body database, or somewhere else? Agmartin ( talk) 20:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
New paper by Tali Khain, Konstantin Batygin, and Michael E. Brown examines whether which object remain stable after Planet Nine is captured on its proposed orbit starting with either a narrow perihelion distribution (similar to scattered disk objects) or a broad distribution due to their perihelia also being raised by nearby stars. Agmartin ( talk) 18:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
And blog: Planet Nine makes some KBOs go wild May 7 Tom Ruen ( talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I tested a SVG orbital chart, including the 13 known TNOs with hypothetical Planet Nine. I added a background grid for scale, with 100 AU fine units, and 1000 AU coarse units. I also rotated for Ecliptic 0 up, Ecliptic 90 left, which is ~160 degree rotation from the old chart. The SVG doesn't show current positions since useless at this scale, or at least if labeled. I won't put in article for now, since orientation not consistent with close up image.
This is my one of first posts, so I might get the talk page format wrong, and this post is kind of old, but I'll still respond. I think this diagram should incorporate the two TNO's with q > 30 AU and semi-major axis > 220 AU, which are (148209) 2000 CR105 and 2015 RY245. (semi-major axes at 227 and 221 AU respectively) Note the difference between 2015 RY245 and 2015 RX245. (They are different objects.) I believe RY245 is the object "os513" seen here. https://twitter.com/astrokiwi/status/994983595835056136 2015 RY245, like 2015 GT50, is one of those "weird" objects. Ardenau4 ( talk) 23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Edit: Apparently the MPC has the semi-major axes of CR105 and RY245 at 220 and 223 AU. I also forgot to mention (82158) 2001 FP185 (a = 226 AU, the article lists it as an SDO) Ardenau4 ( talk) 23:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I expect more data will show up soon at minor planet center
Michele Bannister @astrokiwi I'll finish by showing you our newly reported extreme TNO: this tiny world is on a vast, detached orbit with a=283 au (red), never coming closer than 39.5 au to the Sun. I wonder what past stories it will tell. https://twitter.com/astrokiwi/status/994983595835056136 Agmartin ( talk) 19:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
A paper will be out soon at arXiv, DISCOVERY AND DYNAMICAL ANALYSIS OF AN EXTREME TRANS-NEPTUNIAN OBJECT WITH A HIGH ORBITAL INCLINATION. The referenced eTNO 2015 BP519, [44] was the one nicknamed Caju. Tom Ruen ( talk) 19:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Out now link Agmartin ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.popsci.com/kuiper-outer-solar-system#page-3
Nergaal (
talk)
20:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It's 'pe82' that perhaps shouldn't be in the table at 'Hypothesis and the calculated effects/Extreme trans-Neptunian objects'. While Caju is now well-documented, the fact that pe82 was found by the DES is not stated in the Powerpoint referenced (Juliette Becker's slides to her talk), and in fact it does not appear to be referenced anywhere else. It appears in the figures in the slides, but nothing is said about it. Assscroft ( talk) 00:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Some recent articles have been discussing a new model by Madigan, Fleisig, and Zderic (iPoster from recent AAS metting here) that use the collective gravity of many small objects to detach the orbits of larger objects like Sedna. This occurs occasionally when the orbits of a group of the objects cluster on one side of the solar system. This model explains the detachment of the objects' orbits, but not alignment, and like the inclination instability requires a sizable mass. Agmartin ( talk) 17:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Paper on arxiv by Gongjie Li, Samuel Hadden, Matthew Payne, Matthew J. Holman.
An interesting objection to the 'insensitive' use of the term 'Planet Nine' appearing in the Planetary Exploration Newsletter and signed by 35 scientists including Alan Stern. http://planetarynews.org/archive18/pen_v12_n31_180729.txt (item 15).
ON THE INSENSITIVE USE OF THE TERM "PLANET 9" FOR OBJECTS BEYOND PLUTO
We the undersigned wish to remind our colleagues that the AU planet definition adopted in 2006 has been controversial and is far from universally accepted. Given this, and given the incredible accomplishment of the discovery of Pluto, the harbinger of the solar system's third zone - the Kuiper Belt - by planetary astronomer Clyde W. Tombaugh in 1930, we the undersigned believe the use of the term "Planet 9" for objects beyond Pluto is insensitive to Professor Tombaugh's legacy.
We further believe the use of this term should be discontinued in favor of culturally and taxonomically neutral terms for such planets, such as Planet X, Planet Next, or Giant Planet Five.
Assscroft ( talk) 21:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I received an email on July 31, 2018 (from Astronomy magazine?) stating that a team led by Mike Brown has submitted a paper announcing the discovery of (a) Planet Nine. As such things go, astronomers need to confer to assure they have their "ducks in line" before sharing details with the general public. The authors bemoaned the difficulty of having a submission peer reviewed in August. Publication will follow; the team hopes that this will occur in August 2018. At that point, the general public will have whatever details are in this paper. Assuming confirmation, an informal nickname will follow; then, eventually, an official name. Confirmation by the James Webb Space Telescope will have to wait until a few [perhaps several] months after its launch, currently slated for Spring 2021. 2602:304:B190:1550:D481:93FB:BEE8:7D1A ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Robert Gorby 2602:304:B190:1550:D481:93FB:BEE8:7D1A ( talk) 15:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC) 8/3/2018 8:25 AM PDT
New Paper by Jessica Cáceres and Rodney Gomes
In this paper we study the possibility that lower perihelion distances for the additional planet can lead to angular confinements as observed in the population of objects with semimajor axes greater than 250 au and perihelion distances higher than 40 au... Our investigations showed that lower perihelion distances from the outer planet usually lead to more substantial confinements than higher ones, while retaining the Classical Kuiper Belt as well as the ratio of the number of detached with perihelion distances higher than 42 au to scattering objects in the range of semimajor axes from 100 au to 200 au.
Agmartin ( talk) 20:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/is-there-a-mysterious-planet-nine-lurking-in-our-solar-system-beyond-neptune/2018/08/31/1957c8ca-a495-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.186.255 ( talk) 06:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Same article also published in Quanta Magazine J mareeswaran ( talk) 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Both Mike Brown and Konstantin Batygin have tweeted to refute the element of the much-copied WaPo/Quanta story that Planet Nine might be invisible being beyond 1000AU:
Mike Brown @plutokiller: Uh, no. OK, so I'm eternally optimist and think we'll find Planet Nine this year, on my most pessimistic days I fear that it might take a decade.
— https://twitter.com/plutokiller/status/1036810171043930113
Konstantin Batygin @kbatygin:
A few news articles have popped up about Planet Nine over the last few days. To set the record straight: no P9 is not hiding, it’s not invisible, and it’s not going to destroy the Earth. It’s dim, but within our grasp - the beauty of the P9 theory is that it’s directly testable.
It’s true that something at 1000au is a challenge but if it’s ~4 earth radii, it’s possible
— https://twitter.com/kbatygin/status/1036815568215531521
Assscroft ( talk) 04:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Batygin adds the caveat that Planet Nine can be spotted by optical telescopes, even if it is beyond 1000 AU, IF its radius is 4 times that of Earth's J mareeswaran ( talk) 07:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Is the CMB Stage 4 referred in this article same as BICEP-3 or something else ? J mareeswaran ( talk) 17:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
One idea is to look for the heat glow the body should emit directly. Luhman essentially ruled out the existence of anything bigger and warmer than a gas giant with a 2014 analysis of infrared data, but physicists expect a smaller, colder Planet Nine to shine in the millimeter part of the spectrum.
Current millimeter telescopes in Antarctica and Chile could detect Planet Nine today should it stray across their search field, according to Gilbert Holder, a cosmologist at the University of Illinois. Yet those instruments are busy mapping the cosmic microwave background (CMB), so they’re not necessarily pointed in the right direction at the right times. Holder is waiting for the Next Generation CMB Experiment, which his preliminary calculations estimate could pick up a planet as small as Earth at 1,000 AU.
— why so shy planet nine?
J mareeswaran ( talk) 11:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
This table in the microwave page is very helpful in differentiating the different waves J mareeswaran ( talk) 16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Held back in May, I spotted its webpage while searching for something else. A few of the topics hint at possible upcoming papers. Agmartin ( talk) 21:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)