This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Companions to Planet Nine
I see the additional planets proposed by de la Fuente Marcos in Dynamical impact of the Planet Nine scenario: N-body experiments is getting some coverage, for example with comments by Michael Brown. This was discussed here when it hit arXiv but has since been removed. Agmartin (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
New one by de la Fuente Marcos Finding Planet Nine: apsidal anti-alignment Monte Carlo results still claiming more than one additional planet. Agmartin (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
New Paper: Solar Obliquity Induced by Planet Nine
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.03963 - Planet Nine can explain the sun's 6 degree axial tilt relative to the rest of the planets. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Planet 9 solves everything, it would appear. Next they'll find it cures cancer. However, this is a pre-print and the reason why arxiv is strongly discouraged (because it hasn't actually been reviewed for publication). Primefac (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the authors are pretty reliable people, so I don't think this is dubious. The paper itself identifies many caveats. P9, if is exists, has way more angular momentum (radius x momentum) than everything else in the solar system combined, so it would make sense that it would have an impact like this. Any gravitational binding between P9 and other bodies would tend to transfer angular momentum. I find the claims to be very plausible. Jehochman Talk 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, of course, I probably should have used some <sarcasm> tags or something. I don't doubt the credentials or the work of the researchers, I guess I was just less-than-surprised that P9 has answered yet another great mystery of the Solar System. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Someday a probe will visit P9 and find all the missing left socks. Jehochman Talk 17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Therefore, there must be a P10 that harbors all the right socks, and cures impotence. I love science! BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the authors are pretty reliable people, so I don't think this is dubious. The paper itself identifies many caveats. P9, if is exists, has way more angular momentum (radius x momentum) than everything else in the solar system combined, so it would make sense that it would have an impact like this. Any gravitational binding between P9 and other bodies would tend to transfer angular momentum. I find the claims to be very plausible. Jehochman Talk 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Another paper making same claim The inclination of the planetary system relative to the solar equator may be explained by the presence of Planet 9 Agmartin (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Article discussing Dong Lai's version of the result. Agmartin (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- To put all this in perspective, for P9 to get stolen from a passing star or to get ejected into its proposed orbit requires a strong external gravity source to have passed near the solar system. This external perturber could also affect the other planets, making any analysis of the tilt unclear. I posed a question to an expert and haven't heard back whether P9 might be a captured rogue planet. This scenario would not involve that external perturber. I'm not sure how the torque and axis alignment analysis has any meaning unless it is attributable to P9, not other perturbers. Jehochman Talk 21:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
2015 RR245
What about 2015 RR245 who possibly throws a monkey wrench in all this, at least according to some? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Objects with semi-major axis less than 150AU are not influenced by Planet Nine as per B&B's simulation / hypothesis J mareeswaran (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- It is a wild turkey-shoot. Really, we don't have to list all the speculations printed, no matter how brainy they are. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- The only thing that stands out about 2015 RR245 is its among the top 20 brightest by absolute magnitude. I don't see why Ethan Siegel is connecting it to planet nine, its semimajor axis is too small. He appears to be claiming that since new objects are being discovered that somehow this indicates there is a possible observer bias, but looking at the initial P9 paper you can see the perihelion locations of the smaller semimajor axis objects are distributed across the sky. Agmartin (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- [1] Quote: “I know that it’s going to fit in at least with most of the story,” Dr. Brown said. “It’s exactly in the direction it should be for Planet Nine.”
- That quote does not refer to 2015 RR245, but to another object in the same survey. Tbayboy (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's not my reading of the quote. When you say "it", logically it must be talking about the primary "it" of the article. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- That quote does not refer to 2015 RR245, but to another object in the same survey. Tbayboy (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't get this line
"Simulations indicate that the mass in high-perihelion and moderate-semi-major-axis orbits (q > 37 AU, 50 < a < 500 AU) is increased threefold if there is a distant planet in a circular orbit and tenfold if it is in an eccentric orbit."
Does that added mass include the mass of the planet, or just the mass of the objects out there? Serendipodous 16:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see how it can include the mass of the massive ice giant that is Planet Nine. All minor bodies combined have far less mass than Earth. --JorisvS (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- The referenced article used mass in its abstract though they also refer to the fraction of object and number of objects in the text, I've change this in the article to clarify. Agmartin (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
High inclination centaur
Found one on MPC's list not in B&B, orbit may have been updated recently. 2014 LM28 Inclination 84.8°; Semimajor axis 264 AU; Perihelion 16.77 AU Agmartin (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear well aligned with the arcs in fig. 9 a/b, but this may be because only those with semimajor axes greater than 500 AU are well aligned and plotted. Agmartin (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- 2014 LM28 is a Uranus-family Ejected Centaur, with its primary gravitation influence (as one would assume) being that of Uranus. While some objects, such as 1996 PW, have orbits that don't take them near any major inner planets, this one on the other hand can be explained by a close approach in the last few thousands or millions of years. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
FAC
One of you guys should start a FAC. @Agmartin: @J mareeswaran:. Nergaal (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Tease
Something new?
"Oh Planet Nine, I keep finding new things that you do. Never realized a giant planet so far away could cause so many ripple effects #vague" https://twitter.com/plutokiller/status/758766720601292800 Agmartin (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- No. He wrote: #vague BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
New entry at findplanetnine
Konstantine Batygin discusses possible origins, and points out a potential conflict between Planet Nine being scattered outward by Jupiter while the gas disk is still present with it remaining on a bound orbit. Agmartin (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Would everyone be OK if I took this to FAC?
I think it's ready, minus a peer review. But I'd rather have credit shared with the people who actually worked on the article, so if I went through with it would you guys mind being listed as co-nominators? Serendipodous 14:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The article is missing that picture showing likely orbits and areas already surveyed that B&B have in their blogs. [This https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DkW_wt_yxXM/VuswhR2L5rI/AAAAAAAANrA/YWT3z3dCJ8wN_YbebgmhCqW9LGK-r0zKw/s1600/fig10.png] Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Are these copyrightable? They shouldn't be too hard to transcribe with the right software, which I don't have. Serendipodous 18:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say the image is copyrightable. Image is certainly not PD-ineligible (quite complicated in nature), and while pure data is not copyrightable, I feel certain that consideration and effort went into the arrangement of the image's data. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think if you schematize just the declination image, showing just the range vs Milky Way, it would be ok to have. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say the image is copyrightable. Image is certainly not PD-ineligible (quite complicated in nature), and while pure data is not copyrightable, I feel certain that consideration and effort went into the arrangement of the image's data. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Are these copyrightable? They shouldn't be too hard to transcribe with the right software, which I don't have. Serendipodous 18:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
New Objects
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
- objects with q > 35 and a > 150 AU have argument of perihelion between 290 and 40 degrees, significant and six sigma level
- objects with q < 35 and a > 200 AU have argument of perihelion largely clustered in opposite direction (these are mostly objects with perihelia < 25 AU including some crossing Jupiter's orbit)
- for objects with q > 35 and a > 150 AU longitude of perihelion is correlated with argument of perihelion, those with long peri 0 - 120 degrees have arg peri 280 - 360 degrees, those with long peri 180 - 340 have arg peri 0 - 40, significance of correlation 99.99%
- their analysis including observational biases and stability of the finds the clustering of longitude of perihelion is likely real but marginal (page 17)
- 71% of objects with q > 40 and a > 150 AU should have 50 < q < 75, odds of their survey finding three without one in this range ~2%, including other surveys assuming same biases (unlikely since theirs only followed up on objects at greater than 50 AU) odds 6x10^-11 or seven sigma Agmartin (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
- I tried tracing the orbit ellipses from [7] in Inkscape, but the text doesn't seem to work. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
How does this look?
suggested changes welcome. Agmartin (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It works for me. Could it be any larger? I wish we could show an inner circle of Neptune. I'm not against cropping the outer orbit of 2014 FE72 for space reasons. The main question is whether we want to follow the "new extreme objects" coloring approach, or this of just showing all the objects. It looks like 2007 TG422 was missed on the [8] graphic I tried to trace. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:09, 13 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 |
Original, looks like view direction is reverse? |
Agmartin (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Much better. I liked the cropped version, just maybe a bit higher resolution. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- I added the cropped one to the article above the table. It would also be great if each object was shown in its current position around the orbit. Finally, what about the other 3 objects above not included? I see semimajor axis less than 250 AU. 2014 SS349 (a=142<250 AU), 2013 UH15, (a=172<250 AU), 2013 FS28, (a=196<250 AU). Tom Ruen (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- p.s. I compared the original one with cropped. It looks like the view direction (north-to-south or south-to-north is reverse between the two. Perhaps this should be clarified which one is which. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)