This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Resonant trans-Neptunian object article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
(unsigned) Need some discussion about 2:3 orbits being a "well" for collecting object due to considerations of minimum energy differences and 2:3 being the first orbit has a large "out of phase" (non-interacting) aspect.
I think there were a few typos in the "Toward a formal definition" section, and I have attempted to fix them according to what seemed logical − but someone who is knowledgable had better check in case I've made a dog's dinner of it. The changes were
Deuar 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The most recent MPEC Circular declassifies a number of resonant objects. A hecatomb of the twotinos population: only two numbered objects are listed! Eurocommuter ( talk) 09:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Object | G25 | C70 | Quality | DES |
---|---|---|---|---|
(119979) 2002 WC19 | Y | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
(130391) 2000 JG81 | Y | Y | 2 | 2:1 |
(20161) 1996 TR66 | N | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
(26308) 1998 SM165 | N | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
(137295) 1999 RB216 | N | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
Since then I compared the entries for 1998 SM165 in the MPCORB database as of Oct 2008 and as of yesterday (MPEC format is defined here)
2008-10-05:
26308 5.8 0.15 K096I 37.39611 131.26248 183.09247 13.48154 0.3743936 0.00297152 47.9163398 2 MPO 13953 48 8 1982-2000 0.49 M-v 38h Marsden 000A (26308) 1998 SM165 20001003
2009-05-09
26308 5.8 0.15 K08BU 36.98188 131.04571 183.10754 13.48871 0.3738678 0.00297930 47.8328728 2 MPO 13953 48 8 1982-2000 0.49 M-v 38h Marsden 000A (26308) 1998 SM165
The semimajor axis is curiously smaller; please note that less observations have been taken into account that by DES and they stop in 2000! Consequently, I would suggest keep listing the twotinos that did not make it, following the DES orbit classification with a note about the MPEC Circular. BTW it will be a minor nightmare for me to update the diagrams next time as the update is done programmatically from the MPEC database and the Circular. Eurocommuter ( talk) 09:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The explanatory footnotes (denoted within sections by daggers and small font) appear to be argumentative and should be migrated to the Talk page, and/or their ideas should be integrated into the article text proper. Memetics ( talk) 11:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgeable enough to make the correction myself, but it sure looks like the last 4 resonances ought to be reversed. If not, I'd appreciate knowing why. Thanks.
66.75.198.179 ( talk) 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ltaylor@csub.edu Larry Taylor
See Talk:Plutino#3:2_resonance_or_2:3_resonance. It is kind of like asking which way is up in space. -- Kheider ( talk) 06:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Are there any other possible resonant angles than 180°? -- JorisvS ( talk) 23:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This pdf (p.6) gives some candidates for distant resonant SDOs, going up to the 1:18 (2002 GB32?) and 4:79 ( (148209) 2000 CR105?) resonances. (Though our article on the latter states that it is not gravitationally influenced by Neptune.) Double sharp ( talk) 04:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new diagram with the distribution of all known TNOs, including the known confirmed resonances. I noticed that the article itself is based on information as old as 2008, with some of the resonances now known to be erronous (including the notable 1:5). I will try to rewrite the article, but that could take some time. If somebody else comes with a better version, that would be fine, too. Renerpho ( talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Just looking at the "real vs coincidental" section (which seems to anthopomorphise things somewhat - there's not really anything so much as a coincidence in space, as that suggests some kind of agency in the other cases; if things are walking and quacking like ducks, then they probably are ducks, even if arrived at from totally different ancestors by a bizarre quirk of convergent evolution)... the example given for the "coincidence" that isn't *quite* 3:7, with a graph of calculated orbital libration (thus, NOT progression! just a different libration! someone messed up there, I think?) seems to show a pretty clear centreline around 2.305 to 2.310 (wheres 3:7 is 2.333). Noodling around with a calculator I find 13:30 to give a result of 2.3077, which is a more or less perfect match for the figures. But is this too extreme a figure? There seem to be others which are e.g. 6:11 or such, just a little shy of some more fundamental, simple fraction or halfway between them (1:2 or 3:5 in that case - 3:6 and 3:5 if you prefer, and 12:30/14:40 above, ie 6:10 (3:5 again) or 7:10).
I don't see why nature would abhor it particularly, it would just be less likely - ie in space terms, less common - that we might find such a thing occurring naturally, and it would be more sensitive to being fatally perturbed by novel external forces, compared to the far more common and routinely observed simple versions. But surely there might be one or two orbital pairs showing such a high numbered relationship? If you spread it out over cosmic time, even if they're far-TNO they'll have a steady, long-running "beat" in terms of their phase waveforms drifting apart, being in total opposition, then coming back together for a near-perfect repeated conjunction every 13 times one of them finishes an orbit, and every 30 times the other does. Of course as mentioned, the forces keeping them in that relationship are fairly fragile, but if enough of the dice of chance come up sixes on the next roll, they'll get to go round again, and again, until after eons something might finally knock one of them just hard enough to disrupt that.
(I've arrived here from trying to work out how to fix some very awkward wording on the Praamizus (cubewano) article, which has been with it since the page was first created for the then not-yet-named MP, saying something about it being almost a 5:3 relationship but needing 160 too many (too few?) Neptune orbits (??)... failed at figuring that out so have tried to come back to first principles in understanding what goes on with orbital resonance to interpret the known data for it and Neptune for myself and see if there's a relationship there. Depending on how the maths works out, it could realistically rate a not-too-extreme 10:17 relationship thanks to a moderate uncertainty parameter and figures for the orbital period and the semi-major axis that don't quite gel with each other... however, when we split the difference between the latter two, the strongest candidate by miles is 13:22 (a little off 2.95:5), which is a bit "high" for the ratio between one of those fundamental stats, and a bit "low" for the other, by about the same proportion. And if we trust one or other of them alone, the best candidates are either 53:90, or 59:100, which makes it look relatively tame.
So, resonances where the smaller figure is in the low teens, and/or the larger around 20 to 30... allowable? Both of these cases have an odd number for the inner cycle and an even one for the outer, and I don't know if that works as well as the reverse, but it seems to me that combining the two instead of two odd numbers (two even ones would of course decompose to one or the other anyway, as you could immediately divide them by 2) allows a more stable relationship to develop as each particular relative position around the macrocycle has an exact opposite that occurs a half-macrocycle before/after, helping to balance out the forces, particularly if the position of aphelion and perihelion are suitably tuned) 146.199.0.251 ( talk) 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Resonant trans-Neptunian object. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/astrom/02GD32.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up 2002 MS4. If you know of any good, reasonably recent sources for which TNOs are resonant objects, could you add them to Resonant trans-Neptunian object? I've tagged almost all the lists as cn. — kwami ( talk) 05:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Renerpho. That should do it, though it looks like the IDs are often tentative. I started to look into this because we claimed that Salacia and MS4 were in the same resonance, which suggested an obvious name for MS4 as well as for the resonance class (something based on paredrae). Since anyone can submit a name for MS4 now, I thought I might give it a shot. But now they're both ID'd as cubewanos, so that's out. Given that naming conventions depend on whether a body is resonant or not (not just if it's a plutino), how can anyone decide if a particular name is appropriate? — kwami ( talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following table comes from a 10My integration of the orbit of the object. Three columns are shown. The first column is the result of integrating the nominal orbit. The other two columns are based on clones of the nominal orbit that are +/- 3 sigma from the nominal orbit. If all three types agree then the classificiation is deemed secure. The basis for these calculations is described in more detail in AJ, 129, 1117 (2005). Any use made of these calculations should refer to and credit this publication and the Deep Ecliptic Survey Team.Renerpho ( talk) 19:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Renerpho. I was worried not so much about instability as about our ability to reliably detect resonances with such a short observation arc. I'm going through the list and updating per JA, but of course if you think some should be reclassified, please do so. (E.g., the librating trojan, JA only classified as 'other'.) — kwami ( talk) 20:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That's nice in that it italicizes the less-certain IDs. — kwami ( talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm taking too much time out from other things I need to get done as it is. That would make a good ref for future expansion. My motivation for now is the more modest one of not having mis-ID'd objects. — kwami ( talk) 21:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, given how often that's been claimed, I'd prefer to leave it in. It's currently at the end of the section, and makes a nice transition to 'Coincidental versus true resonances'. — kwami ( talk) 21:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to say that coverage in the Haumea article should be enough, and we can delete here. But if it's in a temporary resonance, that makes an even better transition to the next section, and IMO it should definitely be kept. Any chance that Salacia and MS4 are similarly in temporary res? That would suggest an obvious name for MS4, though personally I don't care for how much Venilia sounds like "vanilla". — kwami ( talk) 21:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Resonant trans-Neptunian object article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
(unsigned) Need some discussion about 2:3 orbits being a "well" for collecting object due to considerations of minimum energy differences and 2:3 being the first orbit has a large "out of phase" (non-interacting) aspect.
I think there were a few typos in the "Toward a formal definition" section, and I have attempted to fix them according to what seemed logical − but someone who is knowledgable had better check in case I've made a dog's dinner of it. The changes were
Deuar 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The most recent MPEC Circular declassifies a number of resonant objects. A hecatomb of the twotinos population: only two numbered objects are listed! Eurocommuter ( talk) 09:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Object | G25 | C70 | Quality | DES |
---|---|---|---|---|
(119979) 2002 WC19 | Y | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
(130391) 2000 JG81 | Y | Y | 2 | 2:1 |
(20161) 1996 TR66 | N | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
(26308) 1998 SM165 | N | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
(137295) 1999 RB216 | N | Y | 3 | 2:1 |
Since then I compared the entries for 1998 SM165 in the MPCORB database as of Oct 2008 and as of yesterday (MPEC format is defined here)
2008-10-05:
26308 5.8 0.15 K096I 37.39611 131.26248 183.09247 13.48154 0.3743936 0.00297152 47.9163398 2 MPO 13953 48 8 1982-2000 0.49 M-v 38h Marsden 000A (26308) 1998 SM165 20001003
2009-05-09
26308 5.8 0.15 K08BU 36.98188 131.04571 183.10754 13.48871 0.3738678 0.00297930 47.8328728 2 MPO 13953 48 8 1982-2000 0.49 M-v 38h Marsden 000A (26308) 1998 SM165
The semimajor axis is curiously smaller; please note that less observations have been taken into account that by DES and they stop in 2000! Consequently, I would suggest keep listing the twotinos that did not make it, following the DES orbit classification with a note about the MPEC Circular. BTW it will be a minor nightmare for me to update the diagrams next time as the update is done programmatically from the MPEC database and the Circular. Eurocommuter ( talk) 09:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The explanatory footnotes (denoted within sections by daggers and small font) appear to be argumentative and should be migrated to the Talk page, and/or their ideas should be integrated into the article text proper. Memetics ( talk) 11:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgeable enough to make the correction myself, but it sure looks like the last 4 resonances ought to be reversed. If not, I'd appreciate knowing why. Thanks.
66.75.198.179 ( talk) 20:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ltaylor@csub.edu Larry Taylor
See Talk:Plutino#3:2_resonance_or_2:3_resonance. It is kind of like asking which way is up in space. -- Kheider ( talk) 06:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Are there any other possible resonant angles than 180°? -- JorisvS ( talk) 23:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This pdf (p.6) gives some candidates for distant resonant SDOs, going up to the 1:18 (2002 GB32?) and 4:79 ( (148209) 2000 CR105?) resonances. (Though our article on the latter states that it is not gravitationally influenced by Neptune.) Double sharp ( talk) 04:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new diagram with the distribution of all known TNOs, including the known confirmed resonances. I noticed that the article itself is based on information as old as 2008, with some of the resonances now known to be erronous (including the notable 1:5). I will try to rewrite the article, but that could take some time. If somebody else comes with a better version, that would be fine, too. Renerpho ( talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Just looking at the "real vs coincidental" section (which seems to anthopomorphise things somewhat - there's not really anything so much as a coincidence in space, as that suggests some kind of agency in the other cases; if things are walking and quacking like ducks, then they probably are ducks, even if arrived at from totally different ancestors by a bizarre quirk of convergent evolution)... the example given for the "coincidence" that isn't *quite* 3:7, with a graph of calculated orbital libration (thus, NOT progression! just a different libration! someone messed up there, I think?) seems to show a pretty clear centreline around 2.305 to 2.310 (wheres 3:7 is 2.333). Noodling around with a calculator I find 13:30 to give a result of 2.3077, which is a more or less perfect match for the figures. But is this too extreme a figure? There seem to be others which are e.g. 6:11 or such, just a little shy of some more fundamental, simple fraction or halfway between them (1:2 or 3:5 in that case - 3:6 and 3:5 if you prefer, and 12:30/14:40 above, ie 6:10 (3:5 again) or 7:10).
I don't see why nature would abhor it particularly, it would just be less likely - ie in space terms, less common - that we might find such a thing occurring naturally, and it would be more sensitive to being fatally perturbed by novel external forces, compared to the far more common and routinely observed simple versions. But surely there might be one or two orbital pairs showing such a high numbered relationship? If you spread it out over cosmic time, even if they're far-TNO they'll have a steady, long-running "beat" in terms of their phase waveforms drifting apart, being in total opposition, then coming back together for a near-perfect repeated conjunction every 13 times one of them finishes an orbit, and every 30 times the other does. Of course as mentioned, the forces keeping them in that relationship are fairly fragile, but if enough of the dice of chance come up sixes on the next roll, they'll get to go round again, and again, until after eons something might finally knock one of them just hard enough to disrupt that.
(I've arrived here from trying to work out how to fix some very awkward wording on the Praamizus (cubewano) article, which has been with it since the page was first created for the then not-yet-named MP, saying something about it being almost a 5:3 relationship but needing 160 too many (too few?) Neptune orbits (??)... failed at figuring that out so have tried to come back to first principles in understanding what goes on with orbital resonance to interpret the known data for it and Neptune for myself and see if there's a relationship there. Depending on how the maths works out, it could realistically rate a not-too-extreme 10:17 relationship thanks to a moderate uncertainty parameter and figures for the orbital period and the semi-major axis that don't quite gel with each other... however, when we split the difference between the latter two, the strongest candidate by miles is 13:22 (a little off 2.95:5), which is a bit "high" for the ratio between one of those fundamental stats, and a bit "low" for the other, by about the same proportion. And if we trust one or other of them alone, the best candidates are either 53:90, or 59:100, which makes it look relatively tame.
So, resonances where the smaller figure is in the low teens, and/or the larger around 20 to 30... allowable? Both of these cases have an odd number for the inner cycle and an even one for the outer, and I don't know if that works as well as the reverse, but it seems to me that combining the two instead of two odd numbers (two even ones would of course decompose to one or the other anyway, as you could immediately divide them by 2) allows a more stable relationship to develop as each particular relative position around the macrocycle has an exact opposite that occurs a half-macrocycle before/after, helping to balance out the forces, particularly if the position of aphelion and perihelion are suitably tuned) 146.199.0.251 ( talk) 19:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Resonant trans-Neptunian object. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~buie/kbo/astrom/02GD32.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up 2002 MS4. If you know of any good, reasonably recent sources for which TNOs are resonant objects, could you add them to Resonant trans-Neptunian object? I've tagged almost all the lists as cn. — kwami ( talk) 05:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Renerpho. That should do it, though it looks like the IDs are often tentative. I started to look into this because we claimed that Salacia and MS4 were in the same resonance, which suggested an obvious name for MS4 as well as for the resonance class (something based on paredrae). Since anyone can submit a name for MS4 now, I thought I might give it a shot. But now they're both ID'd as cubewanos, so that's out. Given that naming conventions depend on whether a body is resonant or not (not just if it's a plutino), how can anyone decide if a particular name is appropriate? — kwami ( talk) 19:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The following table comes from a 10My integration of the orbit of the object. Three columns are shown. The first column is the result of integrating the nominal orbit. The other two columns are based on clones of the nominal orbit that are +/- 3 sigma from the nominal orbit. If all three types agree then the classificiation is deemed secure. The basis for these calculations is described in more detail in AJ, 129, 1117 (2005). Any use made of these calculations should refer to and credit this publication and the Deep Ecliptic Survey Team.Renerpho ( talk) 19:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Renerpho. I was worried not so much about instability as about our ability to reliably detect resonances with such a short observation arc. I'm going through the list and updating per JA, but of course if you think some should be reclassified, please do so. (E.g., the librating trojan, JA only classified as 'other'.) — kwami ( talk) 20:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That's nice in that it italicizes the less-certain IDs. — kwami ( talk) 20:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm taking too much time out from other things I need to get done as it is. That would make a good ref for future expansion. My motivation for now is the more modest one of not having mis-ID'd objects. — kwami ( talk) 21:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, given how often that's been claimed, I'd prefer to leave it in. It's currently at the end of the section, and makes a nice transition to 'Coincidental versus true resonances'. — kwami ( talk) 21:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I was going to say that coverage in the Haumea article should be enough, and we can delete here. But if it's in a temporary resonance, that makes an even better transition to the next section, and IMO it should definitely be kept. Any chance that Salacia and MS4 are similarly in temporary res? That would suggest an obvious name for MS4, though personally I don't care for how much Venilia sounds like "vanilla". — kwami ( talk) 21:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)