ALERT! I will be on Coast to Coast AM radio tonight to talk about this from 10:00 to 10:30. I also have a new webpage about it.
Note: After I posted this, another announcement came across my desk: yet another big object past Pluto, maybe bigger than the one discussed below. Designated 2033 UB 313, it may be 3000 km across, comfortably larger than Pluto’s 2300 km. Read about both here.
I had something else I was gonna post today, but then this came up.
Checking an old series of images to look for dim, distant objects beyond Pluto, astronomer Jose-Luis Ortiz at the Instituto de AstrofÃsica de AndalucÃa, Spain, found something interesting. It was slow-moving, indicating it was well beyond Pluto, but much brighter than you’d expect for something that far out. That implies (but does not prove) it might be large, even larger than Pluto.
The object was picked up again by American astronomers using the giant Keck 10-meter telescopes in Hawaii, as well as with the also-giant-but-not-quite-as-much 8-meter Gemini telescope. It’s been given the designation 2003 EL61. And the plot thickens– it appears to be the same object found by another group (the same ones who found Quaoar and Sedna, two of the largest objects orbiting the Sun beyond Pluto).
Is this an object bigger than Pluto? That depends. By measuring the orbit, astronomers are confident about its distance. If it is very reflective (think icy) then it doesn’t have to be as big to be so bright. If it’s non-reflective and dark (as many objects out there are) then it has to be a lot bigger to be as bright as it is as seen by us.
Read more about it here and here. If you are a member of Yahoo!Groups, you can also read about it on the Minor Planets Mailing List. And be prepared to see the debate on "what is a planet" heating up yet again. I might even write my own thoughts about it.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Hey astronomy guy!
I remember reading your articles a year or so ago… You seemed pretty damn sure of yourself about non-existence of larger than Pluto bodies beyond Pluto.
Not that I’m a cultist who thinks this planet will attack me in my sleep in 2003 or whatever, but this just goes to show ya - it is *science* not freaking religion.
Leave dogmatism, certainty, irrationality to the shamans.
Scientists are supposed to try to *approach* truth, not claim to have it.
Btw, I don’t hate you, just hoping you’ll tone it down a bit. I’m sick of various fundies using this certainty displayed by many scientists as an issue to take some heat off of their own unsupported convictions.
July 29th, 2005 at 10:47 am
I already knew about this planet by deciphering ancient sumerian texts. In fact I was in a hot tub with Carl Sagan and Richard Hoagland in 1971, and I sketched out the orbit and location of this planet on a bar of soap.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Freethought: if you read what I wrote, you will see that I said there is no *giant* planet out there, and certainly not one on an elliptical orbit that brings it into the inner solar system. In fact, I have written on my site and said in many radio interviews that there could be an Earth-sized planet in our outer solar system, a LONG way out, but it would have to be on an orbit that does not bring it close to the Sun. There is no evidence this planet exists, but no evidence it doesn’t either. I have even advocated a search to look for one.
I have also said in many places that there could be larger TNOs beyond Pluto.
Before you accuse me of being a “fundie” or of being dogmatic, you should read what I write more carefully.
July 29th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
:0
Could this be the dreaded Planet X coming our way after all?
Quick! spread the panic all over the internet! Mr Hoagland, why didn’t you warn us before?????
Seriously, would this count as a planet, part of our solar system? What is now our system’s planet count with Quaoar and Sedna? 12?
I’ll let the scientists do their jobs, I think…..
July 29th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
“I remember reading your articles a year or so ago… You seemed pretty damn sure of yourself about non-existence of larger than Pluto bodies beyond Pluto.”
Any articles published “a year or so ago” would still be availible as of now, curious why you didnt point to any specific articles or quotes. Maybe because you’re relying on what you remembered you read, opposed to what you actually did read.
July 29th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
According to Sky and Telescope, another TNO has been found that is bigger than Pluto! Here’s the article:
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1560_1.asp
Wow.
freethought: I’d like to see that reference too. I’ve never heard a professional astronomer say what you are suggesting.
July 29th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
The planet count in our solar system seems to be “At least 9, but probably more like 30 - 40″. This is based on a recent report in New Scientist about a new theory of how our solar system formed. Basically, the new theory suggests that a great many planetesimals formed (thousands of ‘em) but as the giant planets accreted, there was a time during which the orbits of smaller objects were chaotic. Some of them collided with other objects (especially Jupiter), some of them were flung out of the solar system altogether, and many of them were sent into much much larger orbits, i.e. beyond Neptune and possibly even beyond the Kuiper Belt. The suggested semimajor axis for these things is around 100 - 1000 AU.
This could perhaps account for the Mars-sized object that struck the young Earth to form the moon, and perhaps even the object that struck Uranus to impart its axial tilt.
Of course, this does sound very speculative, but there are hints that it matches what we know of the solar system slightly better than the existing theory. The discovery of new, large TNOs, especially in eccentric orbits (I think 2003 EL61’s orbital inclination was something like 26 degrees, which is why previous planet-searches had not found it - everyone was looking mostly in or near the plane of the ecliptic), seems to lend some weight to this new theory.
So the next few years could see our solar system’s family of planets growing quite rapidly. Or maybe it’s a load of hogwash. Let’s wait and see.
July 29th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
This is so kewl - another planet!
“Three times farther away from the Sun than Pluto.”
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905-images.html
But will they name it Planet X?
July 29th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
This is so kewl - another planet!
“Three times farther away from the Sun than Pluto.”- NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905-images.html
But will they name it Planet X?
July 29th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Hun? I guess I was concentrating on my homeworks too hard, I almost missed the big news while they’re fresh. That’s just plain intriguing! I can’t wait to see what it’s made of and the true size of it. Looks like there’s STILL some stuff out in our Sun’s backyard, eh? (If you call something that far a backyard…)
July 29th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
WOW…what a neat thing to happen! Most of us weren’t even alive when ole Clyde discovered Pluto.
I sincerely hope that this will not ignite a flame war on demoting Pluto to non-planet status but I do hope it inspires Professional Astronomers at the IAU to wake up,smell the coffee and define what a planet really is.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
Good job on C2C. You are smart to resist their set-ups.
Debating Hoagland is like wrestling a hog — you get covered in filfth and the hog enjoys it.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Like the other side of many issues are on the web yet still not seen by the majority. LINKhttp://www.yahoo.com
July 30th, 2005 at 1:21 am
The designations given to these objects seem rather dull. Any chance of giving them proper names, (I assume we would have to use the convention of staying with Greek Mythology)
July 30th, 2005 at 2:37 am
This is preptty amazing stuff.. I hope this planet has aliens that land on earth in lightening bolts.
Having talked with both Hoagland and Plait, I’d love to hear them talk. I bet they would agree on more than they think. Except for the conspiratorial theme.
July 30th, 2005 at 7:49 am
What? A new planet? No wonder my horoscope predictions haven’t been working properly.
By now, I should have fallen in love and been married three times, found seven new jobs, and won the Powerball lottery twice!!
This really sucks. Can I get my money back?
July 30th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Richard,
Gee, you know it must be really hard to be an Astrologer!
Just think of it, with all those comets,asteroids,satellites & KBO’s racing around..who has time to figure out what their
“aspects & powers” are?
Anyone hear of of Unemployment for Astrologers?:)
July 30th, 2005 at 11:00 am
BBC article 9-10-1998; Pioneer slowing down
BBC article 9-28-1999;Pioneer knocked off course
BBC article 11-9-1999; planet found 100 kilometers in size
BBC article 7-3-2001; planet is reddish brown
BBC article 10-7-2002; planet 1280 kilometers in size
BBC article 7-9-2003; Pluto atmosphere increasing
BBC article 3-15-2004; planet size of pluto
BBC article 7-30-2005; planet 3000 kilometer in size, on an angle orbit.
OK so according to my math, which I’m really bad at, 5 1/2 years ago the planet is 100 kilometers and now it is 3000 kilometers so this planet is growing about 600 kilometers a year.
So I guess what I’m saying is that this planet is approaching us and it’s a lot bigger than what we now know, reddish brown in color on an angle orbit, so it sure sounds like the infamous Planet X.
I DO NOT buy into the doomandgloom stuff, however I think I will reread Sitchin again with a different view of things.
July 30th, 2005 at 5:03 pm
Ranger Rick, you should provide links or urls to those articles. They surely refer to different objects.
July 30th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Mr. Plait, I respect your direct analysis but I don’t understand why you will not have a discussion (NOT DEBATE) with Mr. Hoagland. He also seems to have valid views. Is there no commonality of interest and knowledge?
I think Burma Jones displays his ignornance when he/she has nothing to contribute to the thread so seeks refuge in personal attack and inuendo.
July 30th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
My reasons for not discussing this with Hoagland are clear. There would be no discussion; we disagree on almost everything. That’s because my view is based on logic, reality, fact, science, image analysis, math, physics, etc. His is based on fantasy.
July 31st, 2005 at 6:41 am
Bad Astronomer
And I thought the reason one does not discuss with Mr. Hoagland is that one cannot get a word in edgewise.
Tim G
google bbc science, it’s a fun ride.
Granted they could be different objects, I did not follow through with the research on each article. I was just trying pointing out the time line with the a different point of view.
July 31st, 2005 at 11:54 am
Dear Bad Astronomer:
I did not accuse you of being a fundie, I said that fundies use “certainty displayed by many scientists as an issue to take some heat off of their own unsupported convictions.”.
From reading your articles, it was my own impression that you were certain about non-existence of a 10th planet. I could be wrong of course.
Wonder how the planet x cult is doing. Didn’t they pretty much break up recently?
I smell a new tax exampt corporation in the making!
July 31st, 2005 at 5:28 pm
A little part of me hopes they name the planet “Rupert” as a tribute to the late, great Douglas Adams.
July 31st, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Can you explain the basis that these objects are named? UB313, EL61, I am sure that the letters and numbers are not chosen at random.
July 31st, 2005 at 9:17 pm
I can’t be alone in hoping somebody names one of these planets “Yuggoth”. If that is against the rules, then how about “Definitely Not Yuggoth”?
August 1st, 2005 at 12:11 am
IIRC, the names for new astronomical objects are suggested by the discoverer and approved by the International Astronomical Union Group Thingie (well, whatever it’s called). So no, these things won’t have crappy alphanumeric designations forever.
August 1st, 2005 at 9:57 am
To follow up on Suressh’s question, the name is related to when it was discovered, so the “2003 U” part of 2003 UB313 means it was discoverd in the first half of November of 2003. First half of Jan would be “2003 A”, second half is “2003 B” etc. The B313 part of the name is a sequence number.
My question is how the heck do you get up to B313 in just two weeks? That’s well over 8000 objects? Are a lot of them dust on the lens?
Thanks
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 am
Maybe they should name it Hera. Cold, distant, and harsh.
August 4th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
Tenth Planet?
The discovery of 2003 UB313, an object larger than Pluto orbiting at a far greater distance, has called back into question the debate as to…
August 15th, 2005 at 8:49 am
BTW, I haven’t seen this mentioned here, but one reason EB313 was hard
to find was that its orbit is VERY highly inclined, like 44 degrees. Nobody
looks that far off the ecliptic. I don’t know how Mike Brown found it. And
last I heard the IAU has not passed judgement on the submitted name for
it. Mike’s being coy about it. He and his team have been calling it
“Xena” as a working name (because “2003EB313″ is too long), but they
won’t talk about the official name until it becomes official.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
When the hell is someone going to give 2003 UB a name for heaven’s sake. I mean now that it’s a “real” planet it needs a mythical “real” name. Tell your friends to get on it!!!!