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)

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With this new paper, the "Updated model" section is now ironically outdated and presents older information than the infobox at the top.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)

I think it is very problematic. Right now this is "vaporware" - without verification I am not even sure it should be part of wikipedia. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2022 (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)

I'd even go as far as to suggest to remove the whole article. This is all WAY too speculative to warrant such a long article for something nobody ever observed ... 2A02:8388:1600:A200:891:599B:CAEB:E16C (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. The scientists studying these phenomena know much more than us and the sources are high quality. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced. We can see numerous suns all over the place, yet nobody could detect "Planet Nine". That seems weird to me. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:CCD4:74A1:3FC0:A532 (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Suns emit light, so they are easier to see than planets, which only reflect light. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

That something was written by an expert is not a reason to mention it in a Wikipedia article. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Neptune resonances

New aticle on arxiv shows that many of the eTNOs are affected by Neptune resonaces Orbital dynamics landscape near the most distant known trans-Neptunian objects. Agmartin (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Giving up

Is anyone’s still searching for Planet Nine or have they given up? Jehochman ^Talk 10:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a serious question. The article needs an update about recent efforts (perhaps). Jehochman ^Talk 10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Still ongoing. Just no paper on it recently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I see some Feb 2023 articles suggesting that it may be possible to search for heat signatures of P9 satellites. Is this worth adding? What about the proposed JWST survey? Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you referring to as "the proposed JWST survey"?

I see one source says "Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division ... is optimistic that if Planet X is out there, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, expected to launch into space in 2018, could find it. The large infrared telescope is Hubble’s successor. 'If these guys are right, we’re going to be looking at [Planet X] in 2018'”, but I'm pretty sure the author misunderstood Green. I've seen Mike Brown explain multiple times on Twitter that JWST's small field-of-view makes it worthless for finding Planet Nine, but if and when it is found by some wide-angle telescope like Subaru or Rubin, then a top priority will be pointing JWST at it to get a better look. Birdfern (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Patryk Lakawka has a new paper out. Serendi^podous 19:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a hypothesis discrete from Planet Nine. While it's similar in that it's a hypothesized planet beyond Neptune explaining the orbits of objects like Sedna, it's different enough that it's considered a hypothesis entirely separate. See the last paragraph on page 3. 134340Goat (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Vera C. Rubin Observatory should be operational by late 2024. Wait until it has collected data for a few years, then ask again. Brown himself has said that this was the ultimate test of the hypothesis.[2] It looks to me like the interest in the search for P9 has decreased considerably, and only Rubin can really change things right now. To quote Brown again (?): Things happen slowly in the Kuiper belt. Renerpho (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Konstantin Batygin has just posted a thread on Twitter/X where he discusses the new Lykawka & Ito paper,[3] and announces that he is working on a new Planet Nine paper:[4]

So what's next? Together w/ Gabe Pichierri, a postdoc in my group at @Caltech, we are working on the next generation of P9 models with an eye towards the wealth of data soon to come from Vera Rubin Obs. While I won't share specifics yet, exciting results are on the horizon.

Probably predictions what exactly Vera Rubin's limits should be, and how likely it is to find P9 (if it exists). We have something to look forward to in the coming months, and in anticipation of first light at Vera Rubin! Renerpho (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

There’s also a new paper [5] that surprisingly finds that the MOND gravity model could explain the observed clustering. The clustering would be the effect not of a planet but of the galactic core under a revised model of gravity. Once this paper is published somewhere, I think it definitely needs to be added to the article because it’s a major new explanation for the observed phenomena. Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jehochman: That Brown&Mathur paper, which was uploaded to Arxiv in April, has to share the credit with Migaszewski's, which was accepted for publication in MNRAS in July and uploaded to Arxiv in March.[6] Quote from Brown&Mathur: "Accepted at the Astronomical Journal. [...] Complementary to the findings of Migaszewski"[7] Renerpho (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So, I'm kind of busy with school and work. Is there a volunteer who will update the article with the MOND theory? This seems important. Jehochman ^Talk 02:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Artist's impression

Andyjsmith has recently removed the image from the infobox, with the rationale weird planet made of vantablack? Speculation - I’m pretty sure Brown didn’t say it looked like this! Also, totally uninformative and i encyclopaedic. What are readers to gain from this black blob?[8] This was reverted by Jehochman, claiming that This image was carefully discussed during FAC.[9]

Was it though? Neither FAC1 nor FAC2 seem to include any discussion of the image. FAC2 mentions it in a single sentence, no discussion (just saying "it seems fine"), nothing that addresses Andyjsmith's rationale to remove it. Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 6#Image help doesn't mention it either. If I miss where the discussion took place then please point me to it.

I don't know if I agree with Andyjsmith, but an unencyclopedic image is certainly a good reason for removal, and we often shy away from using artistic impressions for that very reason. Renerpho (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

We've been having discussions about the infobox image since 2016, and so far consensus has held to use the current image (or to be pedantic, there has not been a consensus to change the image). I don't particularly have an opinion on the substance of the question, but it shouldn't be removed unilaterally. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

if it’s been discussed since 2016, then I think that helps to make my point, that it is is not obviously encyclopedic. A black disc against an unlikely background of stars could be an image of anything – planet Zog or the Death Star. Put it like this – it’s unreferenced and just something somebody made up one day.Andyjsmith (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I just found this, which seems to be the original source of the image under discussion. Frankly it's far better - actually looks like a planet. It's used by NASA and plenty of news media, with credits to "Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)" - that's a proper astronomer with his own WP article. IMHO we should replace the current image with this original one. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

However, if this file will in fact be uploaded to Commons and used here as teaser, I would like to wipe out the bright clouds on the night side shown there, as long as the article does not mention any serious theories presuming the existence of such clouds. -- Karl432 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an indication that Hurt's image isn't copyrighted. That it's used by others doesn't help if NASA isn't the original creator.

By the way, if the image has actually been discussed since 2016, and has not been removed, that shows it's not obviously UNencyclopedic, otherwise it would be long gone. That's why I asked for a link to the discussion at the FAC, which I haven't been able to find. Renerpho (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding copyright: Per IPAC's Image Use Policy, most of their images are released under a free license. However, quote, some image and video materials on IPAC public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image. Does that apply to Robert Hurt, who represents IPAC? If not then we could probably use that image. Renerpho (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No can do, unfortunately, as it's already been tried and deleted (see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Planet-Nine-in-Outer-Space-artistic-depiction.jpg, which lists both a "variant" of the original image and a link to the original image deletion discussion). Primefac (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, as we do not even know it exists I am unsure if any artist's impression is encyclopedic. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's useful to say that is an artists impression, and the article should have a lead image. If not this one then we should discuss replacing it with another. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)