Talk:Planet Nine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaronfawley.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Search for Planet Nine heat emissions

New article on arXiv: The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: A search for Planet 9 quote:

"We use Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) observations at 98 GHz (2015--2019), 150 GHz (2013--2019) and 229 GHz (2017--2019) to perform a blind shift-and-stack search for Planet 9... For a 5 Earth-mass Planet 9 the detection limit varies from 325 AU to 625 AU, depending on the sky location. For a 10 Earth-mass planet the corresponding range is 425 AU to 775 AU. The search covers the whole 18,000 square degrees of the ACT survey... Overall we eliminate roughly 17% and 9% of the parameter space for a 5 and 10 Earth-mass Planet 9 respectively." Agmartin (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If they find it it might be interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

More from the conclusion:

The upcoming Simons Observatory (SO) (SO Collaboration 2019) will substantially improve on these bounds. Extrapolating our current results to the expected depth of the combined ACT+SO data set, we can expect to detect a 5M_earth Planet 9 at 500–600 AU near the expected aphelion location and 500–900 AU over most of the rest of its orbit. This is still not enough to guarantee a discovery, but it will probe a substantial fraction of its parameter space. Agmartin (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Neptune's distant resonances

New article on arxiv: Stability of Neptune's distant resonances in the presence of Planet Nine quote:

"We conclude that both resonant and non-resonant objects beyond the 12:1 near ~157 au are removed rather efficiently via perturbations from the hypothetical Planet Nine. Additionally, we uncover a population of simulated TNOs with a < 100 au, 40 < q < 45 au and low inclinations that experience episodes of resonant interactions with both Neptune and Planet Nine. Finally, we simulate the evolution of observed objects with a > 100 au and identify several TNOs that are potentially locked in n:1 resonances with Neptune; including the most distant known resonant candidates 2014 JW80 and 2014 OS394 that appear to be in the 10:1 and 11:1 resonances, respectively. Our results suggest that the detection of similar remote objects might provide a useful constraint on hypotheses invoking the existence of additional distant planets." Agmartin (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Perihelion Gap

Potential explanation for the perihelion gap:Outer Solar System Perihelion Gap Formation Through Interactions with a Hypothetical Distant Giant Planet "Some simulations containing Planet X produce the ETNOs, the IOCs, and the perihelion gap from a simple Kuiper-Belt-like initial particle distribution over the age of the solar system. The gap forms as particles scattered to high eccentricity by Neptune are captured into secular resonances with Planet X where they cross the gap and oscillate in perihelion and eccentricity over hundreds of kiloyears. Many of these objects reach a minimum perihelia in their oscillation cycle within the IOC region increasing the mean residence time of the IOC region by a factor of approximately five over the gap region." Agmartin (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive the ignorance, but in laymen's terms, is this compatible with Brown et al.'s Planet Nine hypothesis, or does this suggest a different possible cause for the unexplained configuration of ETNOs? 134340Goat (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What they are saying is that under Planet Nine's influence some of the objects that start with perihelion near Neptune's orbit don't return to that orbit. Instead their perihelion goes through a cycle that has a minimum at 65 au or higher. Agmartin (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like 90377 Sedna. Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

New paper from Brown & Batygin

Brown and Batygin have published a new paper [1] which addresses some of the observability bias arguments advanced earlier this year. This is still very recent but it's probably worth keeping an eye on the astronomy press in the coming weeks and months as I expect there will be quality material to work into the article. Eniagrom (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the update! If the new estimate of semi-major axis for Planet Nine is 380 AU (440 limit), what will its orbit be 10,000 or less in years? Thanks in advance.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9501:4120:DD4C:AFF:A56A:7D10 (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's better off taking questions like that to another place like Reddit or something - Wikipedia talk pages are intended to discuss the article itself - but to briefly answer your question, it depends on a number of variables, but with the given data, its orbital period could fall in the range of roughly 5200-11,800 years. Give it some patience. If the planet exists, Brown and Batygin estimate we'll probably know at least a bit more about it before the end of the decade 134340Goat (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Great answer as I hoped from my question one can infer the need to include its updated orbit in years inside said infobox. This way general readers will better understand what AU means time wise.134.79.160.199 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

With this new paper, the "Updated model" section is now ironically outdated and presents older information than the infobox at the top. Should the most recent numbers be reflected there, or would we be better off just removing that section altogether? 134340Goat (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Update to match the latest published research. The key word is "published." This is still a pre-print. Should we hold the horses a bit longer? Jehochman ^Talk 21:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I mean, the infobox is already updated and the arxiv is sourced. One way or another, it's information that will be published soon. I think it's more efficient just to consider that the latest information, even if it's not officially published. 134340Goat (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, wouldn't it make more sens to update "Orbit" and "Mass and radius" rather than to create an "Updated model" section? Maybe there could be an explaination that the model was updated in 2021 in the "History" section? I found at least one National Geographic article on the subject that could be used to make these changes. I also find the way the plus-minus sign is written confusing to the casual reader. Giving a range would be more practical. - Espandero (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

References

The lead says As of November 2021, no observation of Planet Nine had been announced, with two citations given for this - one from 2017, one from 2018. How are these citations relevant for the claim? Of course it's true that no observations of P9 were announced, but the references seem to be out of place. Renerpho (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think I may have said a long while ago this is pointless as of course until it has been seen its not been seen. I do not think we need this, as it will need to be updated every month.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I agree, it is pointless. Any objections to removing the sentence altogether? Jehochman? Renerpho (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The sentence was added back in '18 when it seemed like there was going to be a short search and then BAM it got found. Clearly, three years later, we're still waiting, so I would have no issue with removing the statement. If and when an observation is announced, we can obviously update the article. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

They are named references and may be needed elsewhere. I suggest removing them to the {reflist} at the bottom. Jehochman ^Talk 11:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. I removed "Perdelwitz_etal_2018", as it was not used anywhere else. Renerpho (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Preprint for potential candidate

I removed the following paragraph as sourced only to arxiv:

In 2021, a search in archival IRAS data have resulted in one faint planetary candidate at coordinates 21^h 0^m 0^s, 64° 0′ 0″. If detection is true, it corresponds to planet Nine of mass 4±1 M_E and distance 225±15 AU.

References

Posting it here so that it can be re-added when the research is published. Primefac (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia inclusion policy on non-obvious topic explicitly require to provide reference, not peer review. Normal practice for papers which fails to be peer reviewed is to just mention the presense or absense of peer review, not to delete data outright.Trurle (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

See this discussion, a bit in this discussion (let's keep an eye on it and wait till review is done), among others, as to why we tend to not use preprints.

Also, as a minor point regarding BRD (mentioned here), it's "BOLD, revert, discuss", not "BOLD, then revert until they agree with you on the talk page". I disagreed with your change and started a discussion, so you're the one that needs to convince folk to keep the content. Primefac (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

"Bold, revert, discuss" is neither recommended nor obligatory on any page. Appropriate is Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing. Primefac have made an error here trying to remove a significant primary reference from Wikipedia. Potentially high-impact data should be properly presented, not silenced. Regarding Talk:Planet_Nine/Archive_7#What_if_Planet_9_is_a_Primordial_Black_Hole? the Primefac is trying to promote as exemplary discussion, i strongly disagree. The discussion mentioned is of very poor quality by scientific or even Wikipedia standards, including a mockery and authoritarian arguments violating WP:NPOV. Trurle (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, clearly we disagree, so I'll wait for others to comment. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It does point out that it has been accepted for publication in MNRAS, however one would think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. and that if this were a distinct possibilty then maybe Mike Brown would be talking about it on twitter or something....in two minds here but leaning on leaving it out for the moment.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is is not much peer-review when a paper is authored by one guy. I say leave it out until more information is available. -- Kheider (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone explain to a nonscientist that a source which says (in the summary) "I have examined the unidentified sources in three IRAS 60micron catalogues: some can be identified with 2MASS galaxies, Galactic sources or as cirrus. The remaining unidentified sources have been examined with the IRSA Scanpi tool to check for the signature missing HCONs, and for association with IRAS Reject File single HCONs. No matches of interest survive." is not saying "I have not found a planet"?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Not detected on short distances (fast movers). Later in text the different criteria for long distances (i.e. slow-moving targets) have resulted in claimed detection.Trurle (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Then we might be able to say that "According to Michael Rowan-Robinson his search of IRAS data found a faint match". But then we have the issue of but is this really a significant opinion. It is one many in (what appears to be) an un peer-reviewed paper. After years of no one finding anything I think we need a lot better than a faint match.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not know if the author opinion is significant or not. But it at least verifyable - and much more easily than vast majority of planet Nine related peer-reviewed modeling and speculations. The basic scientific criteria is verifiability, not authoritative opinion (glorified as peer review) after all.Trurle (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is that the case, as far as I was aware the criteria is "is it an RS" (it passes that as he is an expert). Then "Is it a fringe view" (I am unsure it passes that as it is just his view).Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• As a featured article, it was promoted on the premise that claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. I suggest that by their nature this precludes pre-prints. Also per NOTNEWS and NODEADLINE, what's the rush. ——Serial 11:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Argument by —— is sadly illustrating the sort of harm done by rating articles. Yes, the rating satisfy the desire of some editors to keep things neat and clean. In expense of others aspects.Trurle (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the consensus is regardless of rating. Most posters on this page are not concerned with the article's rating. Anyway, Mike Brown is talking about it on twitter now so is getting traction. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Citing twitter of Michael E. Brown.

The candidate is on an orbit utterly inconsistent with our predictions for Planet Nine, and would not be capable of gravitationally perturbing the distant solar system in the ways that we have suggested. But, of course, that doesn't mean it isn't real! Interesting...good fast answer for one of questions of original paper.Trurle (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me if my memory is mistaken, but did we not integrate the new data from Brown and Batygin's 2021 arxiv on here before further publication when we discussed that two sections up from here? I don't see why this couldn't go on here - but as a related or alternative hypothesis (since according to Brown's Twitter, while this might be something that exists, it certainly is not the hypothetical planet he and Batygin have envisioned, and if a ~4 Earth-mass planet really is found a couple hundred AU out there, it would be through pure chance) 134340Goat (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

according to Brown's Twitter - Just a note: We don't need to refer to Twitter and/or Mike Brown here. The paper itself says the same. Renerpho (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's good idea to include it since the author Michael Rowan-Robinson seems to be a subject-matter expert, as per WP:RSP. ExoEditor 16:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest to wait. What do we even want to include? Regarding the validity of the claim, the author themselves states that the detections are not of high quality, do not show a strong correlation with a point-source profil, and that the source was in a region strongly affected by cirrus - in other words, it is regarded as "unlikely to be real" even by the author. It is also definitely not the Planet 9 predicted by Brown&Batygin. Considering this, the detection part of the paper seems of little interest for this Wikipedia article. This would change if it actually leads to the serendipitous discovery of another planet, but we're not there yet. More interesting for the Planet 9 case is the part about constraints put on Planet 9 by its non-detection (see the "Discussion" section). This is worth adding once it has been peer-reviewed. In the mean time, the only people who that paper should concern are the astronomers capable of checking if it's correct (and searching the proposed region of the sky). We don't need Wikipedia for that, and Wikipedia doesn't need to be concerned about that process. Renerpho (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur with waiting. IRAS isn't exactly a cutting edge instrument, and it has a history of false positives when planets are concerned. Serendi^podous 18:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Wait. Somebody may have found a potential unknown solar system object, or more likely a false positive, that does not fit the predicted profile of Planet Nine. This finding is interesting but not yet established to be related to the Planet Nine hypothesis. Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, however, if a ~4 Earth mass object has been discovered, would it not be worth mentioning on this page, even if it is not P9, as it would have been found (again, if real) during a search specifically for Brown and Batygin's P9? 134340Goat (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if a new planet gets discovered, it will likely get its own article (and likely a mention here as well). However, that has not happened, so "man potentially finds something" is all we have right now. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If is not Has, when they find it we can mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This would be relevant if this planet existing would be evidence that Planet Nine does not. For example, if interactions between the two would lead to one or both being ejected. While that seems likely to me, I have seen no authoritative claims either way. Agmartin (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting point, Agmartin. From my experience, the theoretical papers regarding its effects on Planet 9 won't be far behind if this new prediction is considered credible. We'll see if someone jumps on the wagon. Such a paper, once published, could turn the existence of the small predicted planet into a testable prediction of the Planet 9 hypothesis (as in, Planet 9 implies that the small planet doesn't exist), which would be very relevant indeed, even before the small planet is actually found (or ruled out). Renerpho (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of any "uniqueness results" regarding Planet 9? Constraints on the existence of any additional planets (aside of Planet 9) that would be allowed while keeping the rest of the Planet 9 hypothesis intact? This new paper is not the first result that claims planets that are "competing" with Planet 9; the two planets predicted by the de la Fuente Marcos brothers come to mind. Have there been any studies that look into what kind of additional planets could still exist alongside Planet 9? Renerpho (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding your question, but per Brown and Batygin, it's also possible that instead of one single, high mass planet, it could be two or three planets that cumulatively add up to that mass, or a large population of smaller objects whose gravity would effect the orbits of the eTNOs which led to the theory in the first place. As for whether this potential object could play into it or not, I suppose time will tell. My money's just on this being a false positive (though that could just be wishful thinking since I think a 5 or 6 Earth mass planet would be a lot more interesting lol) 134340Goat (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Not related to your question, but there is Planet 10 which currently links to Planets beyond Neptune. IIRC, it would be a Mars-sized planet. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Outdated?

The article says: Michael Medford and Danny Goldstein, graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, are also examining archived data using a technique that combines images taken at different times. Using a supercomputer they will offset the images to account for the calculated motion of Planet Nine, allowing many faint images of a faint moving object to be combined to produce a brighter image. -- The source for this is from 2017, so this is almost certainly outdated. I suggest to either update (with the results of their search), rephrase (use past tense), or remove the sentence as irrelevant (do we really care what some students planned to maybe do, but didn't, half a decade ago?). Renerpho (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It all should be in past tense.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't find published results in my search, but maybe somebody else could. We should not assume they completed these tasks. I recommend deleting this sentence if a published result is not found. Jehochman ^Talk 00:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Determining the Mass Ratio of the Ninth Planet by using the Mass Ratio of Known Planets

The Mass of the 9th Planet should be part way between the Masses of other planets in the Solar System. The larger pair of Planets is Uranus and Neptune, and the smaller pair of planets is Earth and Venus. These Planet Pairs when combined in a ratio of Mass of the Larger Planet divided by mass of the smaller planet makes 4 combinations. Simplified, Uranus / Earth is 14.5358 to 1.0. Neptune / Venus is 21.0402 to 1. Uranus / Venus is 17.8352 to 1. Neptune / Earth = 17.1478 to 1. The Average is 17.63975 to 1. Now for the important part. These planet ratios are not one Net Galactic Rotational cycle Apart, they are two Net Galactic Rotational Cycles apart. That means the missing planet in the middle is about the square root of 17.63975 = 4.19997 times the mass of the Earth. By taking the square root of the original numbers above, the 9th planets mass range will fall between 3.8125 and 4.5870 times the mass of the Earth with an average of 4.1909 times Earth's mass. So, Why are these averages important. The answer comes from PHI. Or in this case from ( PHI ) ^ 3 . That is ( 1.618 033 989 )^3 = 4.236 067 979. PHI controls all forms of growth from the spiral form of sea shells to the angle that tree limbs rotate ( 137 degrees ). The conclusion is that over vast amounts of time periods, planets form in groups, and the average of the mass ration between a larger and older group divided by a smaller and younger group has to be just less than the cube of the growth number PHI. Remember it is the average of the system of all possible combinations that has to be just less the cube of PHI. 4.19997 and 4.1909 is less than 4.236 068, but they are still close. Not that PHI^3 is a Volumetric Mass growth ratio in a system. In this case, it is the cyclical growth of Planets, Moons, and Dwarf Planets that are one or more Net Galactic Rotational Cycles apart. The Sun is the reference at 31.354 X 186.6 My old. The Cycle is a Net because it is only 186.6 MY per cycle, not the 230 MY per Gross rotation of the M.W. Galaxy. Note that the 186.6 MY is also the extinction event cyclicity. Jupiter and Saturn are 27.354 cycles old, Uranus and Neptune are 26.354 cycles old. Earth and Venus are 24.354 cycles old, and Mars and Mercury are 23.354 cycles old. Note that 25.354 is missing. All of the Moons and Dwarf planets are 23.354 cycles old, or younger. Moons quit getting spherical around 14.354 cycles in age. All of the Planet fall into a base range of ( 1.003 2 )^ ( age ) = radius in meters up to ( 1.003 5)^ (age) = Radius in meters. I have not yet found an equation for a ( Base )^ ( age ) = Mass. I will work on this in the future. Back to the 6.38 Ratio in this article. Since Mercury has a lot of problems, I suspect it was originally one of the two 25.354 cycle planets, but it is now on the lowest end of 23.354 in Radius. This would imply that if there was a collision between planets at the Asteroid Belt, the excess material would be ejected to form planet 9, and the formed planet plus its moons would have a mass greater than PHI ^ 3 times Earth's Mass. Lots of food for thought here. 98.245.216.62 (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)