Talk:Tyche (hypothetical planet)

Appearance of this planet

Would this planet excist of solid hydrogen, since the melting temperature of hydrogen is 14 Kelvin? (OP)

Possibly you might find solid hydrogen at its core, the astrophysicists in question claim a surface (hard to define) temperature of around 200.15K, now the core would be at greater pressure, so possibly you might get solid hydrogen. But this gas giant is suspected a relatively mild temperature of -73 celsius, compare this to the coldest temperatures on earth which are in the region of -89 celsius. This is all assuming the planet even exists.Larryisgood (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I realize this is a fully hypothetical situation. But about the temperature: How would the temperature of this planet be so high? The Oort Cloud isn't even reaching 10 Kelvin, if I'm right? How would this hypothetical planet get (or have gotten) it's energy to stay at that relatively high temperature? (OP again)

I'm only an undergrad astrophysics student but I can give it a try. We can probably rule out any greenhouse effects like those that give Venus it's high temperature, since it's much too far away from the sun, and we can assume that since the mass is MUCH to low to even achieve brown dwarf status, that it's not producing its own energy through nuclear interactions. If a gas cloud were to collapse to something the size of a 4 jupiter mass object, its gravitational potential energy is converted to heat energy through interparticle collisions, and would be pretty significant. I can't give you the figures, but the energy would be more than enough to account for the kind of temperature that Tyche is postulated to have.Larryisgood (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

redirect

Can someone please explain why this should be a redirect and not its own article? Kingturtle = (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune is the catch-all page for any and all trans-Neptunian planets. It has had a subsection on Matese and Whitmire's planet since it was created. Right now, there isn't enough new information to justify a new article; their planet, like all the other planets on this page, is still just speculation. If we actually found it, that would change the game somewhat. But we haven't yet. Indeed there isn't really any reason to assume that the WISE data will reveal evidence of it. Other than some extra media attention and a catchy name, I don't really see any difference between this and their dozen or so other attempts to publicise their idea over the last nine years.Serendi^podous 09:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This also somewhat reminds me of the talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Are planet candidates notable?. -- Kheider (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Tenses need work

According to this article the evidence regarding the planet has not yet been presented, and won't be till WISE's data comes out in April, yet the article suggests the evidence has already been presented. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The original paper

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud (arXiv:1004.4584 / PDF) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.197.99 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirected

This article was redirected to Planets beyond Neptune on 15 Feb 2011 by Serendipodous.

64.229.101.183 (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Planets beyond Neptune

Nine Twelve years these two have been promoting their planet. In that time the evidence for its existence has not increased one iota. But suddenly they get a namecheck in the Daily Mail and this thing is notable enough for an article of its own? Planets beyond Neptune features several more hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets. What about Mike Brown's trans-Neptunian planet? What about Patryk Lakawka's planet? Those arguably have more evidence to back them up. Serendi^podous 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It was all over CNN this morning as well... 64.229.101.183 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a whole lot of new Gscholar hits [1] ... only some Gnews hits [2] -- 64.229.101.183 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

According to NY Daily News [3], it's actually been 12 years... 64.229.101.183 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right. The source does say 1999. But my point still stands. Serendi^podous 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic to your position. Among other things, we see a much more skeptical article today at space.com. Why don't you put up a merge proposal, and let's work the process on this one, as opposed to taking perhaps over-bold unilateral action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.5.34 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Changed post to a merge request. Serendi^podous 17:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I support this merge. The existence of this article is reflective of WP's popmedia bias. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think I also support a merge, but only after the media hype has slowed down in a week. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is very much a practical answer. Users are going to expect an article with background material while this is hot news. When it dies down, the information can be properly merged to a background article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Absolutely agree. Not every wild-eyed hypothesis needs an encyclopedic article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to develop this article to see where it will go. Given how some people never read beyond a blog, and the fact some people are comparing Tyche to Nemesis, I am now inclined to think his article should stay for now. Nemesis (star) was hypothesized in 1984 to explain mass extinctions every 27 million years, where-as Tyche is more of a Jovian-mass best-fit to a perceived statistical fluke in the orbit of comets with a semi-major axis > 10,000AU. -- Kheider (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Merges lose too much information. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 12:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge, if you take a look at the kind of traffic this page has been getting, I think it would be obtuse to merge it as a subsection of another article. So long as the article makes clear (as it does) that this is an hypothesized planet, and that it's existence has only really been proposed by two astronomers and need much more evidence (which the article does), then I don't see why we would remove the article. People come to Wikipedia to find out more about a topic, and if the article is removed we are doing them a disservice in the name of officious bureaucracy. Larryisgood (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Much as it pains me, I have to conclude that this topic has gained an undeserved notability thanks to chicanery on the part of its proponents. I am outraged by Matetse and Whitmire's actions- to substitute actual scientific acceptance with media hysteria (especially given the still-ongoing insanity over the Nibiru collision) shows a lack of probity so extreme as to be almost criminal. But nonetheless, however reprehensible their tactics may have been, they appear to have worked. Serendi^podous 12:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Though the existence of Tyche seems unlikely, we still have pages for Big Foot, the Nibiru collision (as you said, serendipodous) etc. It's important enough to have an article where the reality of the situation is set out, and any connection to a doomsday scenario is rebutted. Larryisgood (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

wee need a pick

like wee can uss a pick from Celestia that can work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiza667 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Celestia is that it just generically draws a gas giant either close or far from a host star. That is not as good as a NASA reviewed artists rendering, and thus would not add depth to the article.. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

a good pick?

File:Tyche.JPG

Tyche should be roughly the same volume as Jupiter and thus smaller than imaged.

U think it looks good enough? -- Freiza667 (talk • contribs)

We do need to avoid original research. At 1 M_J it would be basically the size of Jupiter. TrES-4b (also 1M_J) is larger than Jupiter because it is a hot jupiter. We do not know if Tyche even exists and even if it does, we do not know how far away it is. According to the hypothesize, The further out it is, the more likely it is to be more massive. Even at 4 M_J, this object may barely be larger in volume than Jupiter, though I have not looked up the rules for sub-brown dwarf diameters recently. Wikipedia shows HD 80606 b and HD 17156 b being 3-4 M_J and having diameters just less than Jupiter. Do you have a reliable reference that a 2-4 M_J gas giant should have your diameter? -- Kheider (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Theory of Giant Planets (2002) Hubbard, Burrows, Lunine[4] and Mass-Radius Relationships for Solid Exoplanets (2008) Seager, Kuchner, Hier-Majumder, Militzer (arXiv:0707.2895 / PDF) the volume of a cold gas giant of that size would be close to the same as Jupiter (or smaller than Jupiter). The planet with the largest diameter would have a mass of approximated 500 M_E (Jupiter being 300 M_E, it is close to the maximum size, as size does not change much in the range of Jupiter) To calculate it, use the formulae in the paper The Mass-Radius Relation for Cold Spheres of Low Mass (1969)[5]. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

misinformation from blogs

http://www.gearfuse.com/eighteen-stars-have-nemesis-orbit-around-our-sun/ now it seams that wee have 18 red dwarf stars orbiting ar sun. -- Freiza667 (talk • contribs)

What? They are merely talking others stars that may pass close to Sun as they (including our Sun) orbit inside the Milky Way galaxy. John Bochanski is talking about Galactic structure. No reliable source seems to claim that they orbit the Sun. I suggest staying away from blogs that focus on Nemesis if you want good data. BAUT is a good place to get useful information. -- Kheider (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This just isn't true. There are major scientific papers suggesting Tyche may be there. You shouldn't review blogs, but instead you should review science articles before you go making such statements. NASA is also looking into the theory.

That doesn't mean that the theory is correct, but to say it's only a subject in the blogosphere shows poor research on your part.

This article (among many) covers the recent NASA press interview on the Tyche theory: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110220204429.htm

205.169.70.175 (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure whom you are replying to but there is a big difference between claiming Tyche may exist and claiming that 18 red dwarfs orbit the Sun. See: Solar System 'Nemesis': Nearby Stars Could Pose Threat Stars pass close to the Solar System on an (astronomically-speaking) regular basis. -- Kheider (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

WISE NASA quotes

Some quotes from the NASA statement, and also it's Press Conference, on the Issue of the WISE Telescope Mission and the Tyche Theory should be added to the article

NASA is looking into the Tyche planet theory and held a press conference about this recently. No definitive answers on issue are expected for up to two years as much sky survey data has to be analyzed first.

This article (among many recent articles from various credible news sources) covers the recent NASA press interview on the Tyche theory: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110220204429.htm

205.169.70.175 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have a link to that article; it's in the heading. Serendi^podous 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

But thank you anyway for your contribution. Larryisgood (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As Larry and Serendipodous have mentioned the primary NASA source for that article is http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-060 (February 18, 2011), and was added to the article on Feb 19. Why should we use a secondary source written Feb 21? -- Kheider (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Go easy K, he was just trying to help. Serendi^podous 13:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a widely-accepted hypothesis.

As far as I can tell this is a hypothesis proposed mainly by Matese and Whitmire which is not widely accepted by the astronomical community. At the very least this article needs further discussion on criticisms of the Tyche hypothesis. Icalanise (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is not widely accepted. I call it "a Jovian-mass best-fit to a perceived statistical fluke in the orbit of comets with a semi-major axis > 10,000AU.". I was more concerned with the planets potential physical characteristics than the politics, but we certainly can not forgot about the 2012 crowd that may take an interest in a sister article to Nemesis. Feel free to add material, but I am still not sure we need a POV-disclaimer above the article. I know of no astronomer that claims Tyche can not exist. -- Kheider (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To make the hypothetical-ness of Tyche's existence more evident, I think the article should be moved to Tyche (hypothesized planet) (or something similar) - the current disambiguating extension "(planet)" is shorter but not really correct: strictly speaking Tyche is not a planet (yet), only a hypothesized one.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Since Vulcan (planet) directs to Vulcan (hypothetical planet). I agree. -- Kheider (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nemesis (star) is the main article on Nemesis, and it's hypothetical. Heck, Wormwood (star) is that star's main article, and that's only mentioned in the Book of Revelation. Serendi^podous 17:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think (hypothetical planet) goes a long way towards summarizing the article quickly. -- Kheider (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, I would find it reasonable to move the Nemesis article to Nemesis (hypothetical star). As to Wormwood, the benefits of a similar move might not oughtweight the chances of getting into a long theological discussion about "revelation" as a basis of knowledge; but in principle I would prefer "hypothetical" there, too. JoergenB (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Tyche (planet) → Tyche (hypothetical planet) — This planet is hypothesized and is NOT known to exist. -- Kheider (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. Larryisgood (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Move---Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Supporting, as I suggested similarly in the last thread. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support this move, although right now I am not particularly convinced that the Tyche hypothesis should stand as a separate article beyond more general discussion of other "Planet X" hypotheses. Icalanise (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment but "Planet X" is the planet that accounts for deviations from the calculated orbit of Neptune... This is more like Shiva Hypothesis + Nemesis (star) background hypotheses, accounting for excess in long period comets. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support and would also support a move of other proposed and hypothetical celestial objects to include an adjective in the disambigifier. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Support this makes sense. Nemesis (star) should also be renamed to Nemsis (hypothetical star). 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)