Jump to content

IAU definition of planet: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→August 18: antecedent ambiguity in consecutive sections
→August 22: antecedent ambiguity with previous section
Line 81: Line 81:


==August 22==
==August 22==
On [[22 August]] the proposal was rewritten with two changes from the previous draft.
On [[22 August]] the draft proposal was rewritten with two changes from the previous draft.


The first was a generalisation of the name of the new class of planets (previously the draft resolution had explicitly opted for the term 'pluton'), with a decision on the name to be used postponed.
The first was a generalisation of the name of the new class of planets (previously the draft resolution had explicitly opted for the term 'pluton'), with a decision on the name to be used postponed.

Revision as of 05:18, 25 August 2006

The final definition left the solar system with eight planets, pictured above

Since the discovery of Pluto in 1930, the solar system has been considered to contain nine planets, and assorted other bodies. The discovery over recent years that there are at least three, and probably more, bodies which orbit the sun in a planet-like manner and which are comparable to Pluto in size, led to a situation whereby either additional minor bodies might regularly need to be added to the list of officially recognized planets, or older ones would need to be removed, in order to ensure consistency of definition, as well as concerns over future discoveries of planet-like objects in other stellar systems. In 2006, the matter came to a head with the need to categorize and name the recently-discovered trans-plutonic object 2003 UB313.

Debate within the International Astronomical Union led to suggested proposals to redefine the term "planet" so as to include other objects beyond the traditional nine planets which have historically been considered part of the solar system.[1] The proposal is denoted as Resolutions 5A, 5B, 6A and 6B for GA-XXVI. Members of the IAU voted on the proposal on August 24 2006 in Prague, Czech Republic, with the result of the vote reclassifying Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet.[2]

In its original form the redefinition would have recognised three new planets: Ceres, Charon, and 2003 UB313. It was presumed that, after more observation and discussion, astronomers would accept more objects in the solar system as meeting the new definition.

On August 22 the original redefinition (which recognized twelve solar system planets, including Pluto) was dealt fatal blows in two open IAU meetings. Jay Pasachoff of Williams College, who attended both meetings, was quoted as saying, “I think that today can go down as ‘the day we lost Pluto’ ”.[3]

August 16

Draft proposal

The original proposal would have immediately added three planets, shown here in a size comparison to Earth. Leftmost is 2003UB313, then Charon, Ceres, and Earth
Illustration of the draft proposal.

The IAU published the original definition proposal on August 16, 2006. Its form followed loosely the second of three options considered by a 19-member IAU-appointed panel in 2005. Its form was:

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

This definition required that three celestial bodies would immediately become planets:

  • Ceres (considered first a planet, then an asteroid)
  • Charon (a moon of Pluto; the Pluto-Charon system would be considered a double planet)
  • 2003 UB313 "Xena", a recently discovered body in the outer solar system, as yet officially unnamed

A further twelve bodies were possible candidates to join the list under this definition, pending refinements of knowledge regarding their physical properties. Some objects in the second list were more likely eventually to be adopted as 'planets' than others. Despite what had been claimed in the media, the proposal did not necessarily leave the solar system with only twelve planets. Mike Brown, the discoverer of Sedna and 2003 UB313, has said that at least 53 known bodies in the solar system probably fit the definition, and that a complete survey would probably reveal more than 200.[4]

The definition would have considered a pair of objects to be a double planet system if each component independently satisfied the planetary criteria and the common center of gravity of the system (known as the barycenter) was located outside of both bodies.[5] Pluto and Charon would have been the only known double planet in the solar system. Other planetary satellites (for example, in the Earth and Moon system) might be in hydrostatic equilibrium, but would still not have been defined as a double planet since the barycenter of the system lies within the more massive celestial body (that is, Earth).

The twelve "candidate planets" that were possibilities for inclusion under the originally proposed definition.

The term "minor planet" would have been abandoned, replaced by the categories "Small Solar System Body" (SSSB) and a new classification of "pluton". The former would have described those objects underneath the "spherical" threshold. The latter would have been applied to those planets with highly inclined orbits, large eccentricities and an orbital period of more than 200 years (that is, those orbiting beyond Neptune). Pluto would have been the prototype for this class. The term "dwarf planet" would have been available to describe all planets smaller than the eight "classical planets" in orbit around the Sun, though would not have been an official IAU classification.[6] The IAU did not make recommendations in the draft resolution on what separated a planet from a brown dwarf.[7] A vote on the proposal was scheduled for August 24, 2006.[8]

Such a redefinition of the term 'planet' could also have led to changes in classification for the trans-Neptunian objects 2003 EL61, 2005 FY9, Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, Varuna, 2002 TX300, Ixion, 2002 AW197, and the asteroids Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea.

On 18 August the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, the world's largest international professional society of planetary scientists, endorsed the draft proposal.[9]

According to the IAU, the roundness condition generally results in the need for a mass of at least 5 x 1020 kg, or diameter of at least 800 km.[10] However, Mike Brown claims that these numbers are only right for rocky bodies like asteroids, and that icy bodies like Kuiper Belt objects reach hydrostatic equilibrium at much smaller sizes, probably somewhere between 200 km and 400 km in diameter.[11]

Advantages

The proposed definition found support among many astronomers as it used the presence of a physical qualitative factor (the object being round) as its defining feature. Most other potential definitions depended on a limiting quantity (e.g. a minimum size or maximum orbital inclination) tailored for the solar system. According to members of the IAU committee this definition did not use man-made limits but instead deferred to "nature" in deciding whether or not an object was a planet.[12]

It also had the advantage of measuring an observable quality. Suggested criteria involving the nature of formation would have been more likely to see accepted planets later declassified as scientific understanding improved.

Additionally, the definition kept Pluto as a planet. Pluto's planetary status was and is fondly thought of by many, and the general public could have been alienated from professional astronomers after the uproar that occurred last time the media raised the possibility of demotion.[13]

Criticism

There was some criticism regarding the proposed redefinition with respect to ambiguity. Astronomer Phil Plait[14] and NCSE writer Nick Matzke[15] had both written about why they thought the redefinition was not, in general, a good one. It defined a planet as orbiting a star, which would have meant that any planet ejected from its star system or formed outside of one (a rogue planet or interstellar planet) could not have been called a planet, even if it fitted all other definitions. A similar situation already applied to the term 'moon', such bodies ceasing to be moons on being ejected from planetary orbit; this term had widespread acceptance.

Similarly the redefinition did not differentiate between planets and brown dwarf stars. Any attempt to clarify this differentiation was to be left until a later date.

There had also been criticism of the definition of double planet: at present the Moon is defined as a satellite of the Earth, but over time the Earth-Moon barycenter will drift outwards (see Tidal acceleration) and could eventually become situated outside of both bodies. This development would then upgrade the Moon to planetary status at that time, according to the redefinition. The time taken for this to occur, however, would be billions of years, long after many astronomers expect the Sun to expand into a red giant and destroy both Earth and Moon.[16]

In an 18 August Science Friday interview, Mike Brown expressed doubt that a scientific definition was even necessary:

"The analogy that I always like to use is the word "continent". You know, the word "continent" has no scientific definition ... they're just cultural definitions, and I think the geologists are wise to leave that one alone and not try to redefine things so that the word "continent" has a big, strict definition."[17]

On 18 August, Owen Gingerich, a historian and astronomer emeritus at Harvard who led the committee which generated the original definition, said that correspondence he had received had been evenly divided for and against the proposal.[18]

August 18

According to Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, a subgroup of the IAU met on August 18, 2006 and held a straw poll on the draft proposal: only 18 were in favour of it, with over 50 against. The 50 in opposition preferred an alternative proposal drawn up by Uruguayan astronomer Julio Ángel Fernández.[18]

(1) A planet is a celestial body that (a) is by far the largest object in its local population[1], (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) does not produce energy by any nuclear fusion mechanism [3].

(2) According to point (1) the eight classical planets discovered before 1900, which move in nearly circular orbits close to the ecliptic plane are the only planets of our Solar System. All the other objects in orbit around the Sun are smaller than Mercury. We recognize that there are objects that fulfill the criteria (b) and (c) but not criterion (a). Those objects are defined as "dwarf" planets. Ceres as well as Pluto and several other large Trans-Neptunian objects belong to this category. In contrast to the planets, these objects typically have highly inclined orbits and/or large eccentricities.

(3) All the other natural objects orbiting the Sun that do not fulfill any of the previous criteria shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".[4]

Definitions and clarifications

  1. The local population is the collection of objects that cross or closely approach the orbit of the body in consideration.
  2. This generally applies to objects with sizes above several hundred kilometers, depending on the material strength.
  3. This criterion allows the distinction between gas giant planets and brown dwarfs or stars.
  4. This class currently includes most of the Solar System asteroids, near-Earth objects (NEOs), Mars-, Jupiter- and Neptune-Trojan asteroids, most Centaurs, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), and comets.[19]

Under the alternative proposal the current solar system would have remained unchanged, but Pluto would have been demoted to a dwarf planet.

August 22

On 22 August the draft proposal was rewritten with two changes from the previous draft.

The first was a generalisation of the name of the new class of planets (previously the draft resolution had explicitly opted for the term 'pluton'), with a decision on the name to be used postponed.

Many geologists had been critical of the choice of name for Pluto-like planets,[20] being concerned about the term pluton which has been used for years within the geological community to represent a form of magmatic intrusion; such formations are fairly common hunks of rock.[21][22] Confusion was thought undesirable due to the status of planetology as a field closely allied to geology.[23]

Further concerns surrounded use of the word pluton as in many European languages such as French, Pluto is itself called Pluton, potentially adding to confusion.

The second change was a redrawing of the planetary definition in the case of a double planet system. There had been a concern that, in extreme cases where a double body had its secondary component in a highly eccentric orbit, there could have been a drift of the barycenter in and out of the primary body, leading to a shift in the classification of the secondary body between satellite and planet depending on where in its orbit the system was. Thus the definition was reformulated so as to consider a double planet system in existence if its barycenter lay outside both bodies for a majority of the system's orbital period.

Later on the 22nd two open meetings were held which ended in an abrupt about-face on the basic planetary definition. The position of astronomer Julio Ángel Fernández gained the upper hand among the members attending and was described as unlikely to lose its hold by the 24th. This position would result in only eight major planets, with Pluto ranking as a "dwarf planet" or "planetoid".[24] The discussion at the first meeting was heated and lively, with IAU members in vocal disagreement with one another over such issues as the relative merits of static and dynamic physics; the main sticking point was over whether or not to include a body's orbital characteristics among the definition criteria. In an indicative vote members heavily defeated the proposals on Pluto-like objects and double planet systems, and were evenly divided on the question of hydrostatic equilibrium. The debate was said to be "still open", with private meetings being held ahead of a vote scheduled for the following day.[25]

At the second meeting of the day, following 'secret' negotiations, a compromise began to emerge after the Executive Committee moved explicitly to exclude consideration of extra-solar planets and to bring into the definition a criterion concerning the dominance of a body in its neighbourhood.[26]

Final draft

The final, third draft definition proposed on 24 August was:

The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A planet [1] is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3] orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as “Small Solar System Bodies”.

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.

[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

Illustration of the final proposal.

The exact scientific definition of "cleared the neighbourhood around [a body's] orbit" was not explained.

Voting on the definition took place at the IAU during the afternoon. Following a reversion to the previous rules on 15 August, as a planetary definition is a primarily scientific matter every individual member of the Union attending the Assembly was eligible to vote. The number having registered their attendance at the Assembly at the time of the vote stood at 2411,[27] but fewer than 500 attended the plenary session.

The IAU Executive Committee presented four Resolutions to the Assembly, each concerning a different aspect of the debate over the definition.[28] Minor amendments were made on the floor for the purposes of clarification.

  • Resolution 5A constituted the definition itself as stated above. There was much discussion among members about the appropriateness of using the expression "cleared the neighbourhood" instead of the earlier reference to "dominant body", and about the implications of the definition for satellites. The Resolution was ultimately passed by a near-unanimous vote.
  • Resolution 5B sought to amend the above definition by the insertion of the word classical before the word planet in paragraph (1) and footnote [1]. This represented a choice between three distinct categories of body (planet, "dwarf planet" and SSSB) and the opening of an umbrella of 'planets' over the first two such categories; the Resolution proposed the latter option. It was defeated convincingly, with only 91 members voting in favour of the Resolution.
  • Resolution 6A proposed a statement concerning Pluto: "Pluto is a dwarf planet by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects." After a little quibbling over the grammar involved and questions of exactly what constituted a "trans-Neptunian object", the Resolution was approved by a vote of 237-157, and a new category was established.
  • Resolution 6B sought to insert an additional sentence at the end of this statement in 6A: "This category is to be called 'plutonian objects'." There was no debate on the question, and in the vote the proposed name was defeated by 186-183; no re-vote was conducted. An IAU process will be put in motion to determine the name for the new category.

On a literal reading of the Resolution, "dwarf planets" are by implication of paragraph (1) excluded from the status of 'planet'. Use of the word 'planet' in their title may however cause some ambiguity.

Final definition

Illustration of the outcome of the vote.

The final definition, as passed on 24 August 2006 [29], is

The IAU...resolves that planets and other bodies in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:

(1) A "planet" [1] is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that: (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape [2], (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d) is not a satellite.

(3) All other objects [3] except satellites orbiting the Sun shall be referred to collectively as "Small Solar System Bodies".

Footnotes:

[1] The eight planets are: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
[2] An IAU process will be established to assign borderline objects into either "dwarf planet" and other categories.
[3] These currently include most of the Solar System asteroids, most Trans-Neptunian Objects (TNOs), comets, and other small bodies.

The IAU further resolves:

Pluto is a "dwarf planet" by the above definition and is recognized as the prototype of a new category of trans-Neptunian objects.

See also

References

  1. ^ Connor, Steve (2006-08-16). "Solar system to welcome three new planets". New Zealand Herald. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Pluto loses status as a planet". BBC. 2006-08-24. Retrieved 2006-08-24.
  3. ^ Overbye, Dennis (2006-08-22). "Pluto Seems Poised to Lose Its Planet Status". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Mike Brown (2006). "How Many Planets Are There?". CalTech. Retrieved 2006-08-16.
  5. ^ Robert Roy Britt (2006). "Nine Planets Become 12 with Controversial New Definition". Space.com. Retrieved 2006-08-16.
  6. ^ "Draft Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI: Definition of a Planet". International Astronomical Union. 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-16.
  7. ^ "Planet Definition" Questions & Answers Sheet". International Astronomical Union. 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-16.
  8. ^ Gareth Cook (2006). "Nine no longer: Panel declares 12 planets". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2006-08-16.
  9. ^ "Planetary Scientists Support Proposed Redefinition Of A Planet". SpaceDaily. 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-19.
  10. ^ "Draft Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI: Definition of a Planet". 2006.
  11. ^ Mike Brown (2006). "New Planets". Retrieved 2006-08-22.
  12. ^ Robert Roy Britt (2006). "Nine Planets Become 12 with Controversial New Definition". Space.com. Retrieved 2006-08-19.
  13. ^ Pearson education (2006). "The Flap over Pluto". infoplease.com. Retrieved 2006-08-19.
  14. ^ Phil Plait (2006). "Congratulations! It's a planet!". Bad Astronomy. Retrieved 2006-08-18.
  15. ^ Nick Matzke (2006). "Wherein I argue emotionally about the definition of "planet"". The Panda's Thumb. Retrieved 2006-08-18.
  16. ^ Robert Roy Britt (2006). "Earth's moon could become a planet".
  17. ^ Ira Flatow and Mike Brown (2006-08-18). "Pluto's Planet Status / String Theory". Talk of the Nation - Science Friday. National Public Radio. Retrieved 2006-08-22.
  18. ^ a b Britt, Robert Roy (2006-08-18). "Pluto May Get Demoted After All". Space.com. Retrieved 2006-08-24.
  19. ^ "Details Emerge on Plan to Demote Pluto". 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-18.
  20. ^ "Star-gazers puzzled by Pluto". Independent Online. 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-18.
  21. ^ "Geologists Force Astronomers To Rethink Pluto Plan". 2006. Retrieved 2006-08-18.
  22. ^ Elise Kleeman (2006). "Planet, pluton or rock?". Pasadena Star News. Retrieved 2006-08-20.
  23. ^ Geoff Brumfiel (21 August 2006). "Plutons, planets and dwarves : Geologists and astronomers wrangle over words". news@nature.com.
  24. ^ Overbye, Dennis (2006-08-22). "Pluto Seems Poised to Lose Its Planet Status". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. ^ "Astronomers divided over 'planet' definition". Deutsche Presse-Agentur. 2006-08-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ Tresch Fienberg, Richard (2006-08-22). ""The Day We Lost Pluto"". Sky & Telescope. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ^ IAU General Assembly Welcome page 24 August 2006.
  28. ^ IAU General Assembly Newspaper, 24 August 2006
  29. ^ "IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes". IAU. 24 August 2006.

Template:Wikinews2


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IAU_definition_of_planet&oldid=71752870"