Possible new planet discovered in our Solar System!

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

This semester first is Planetary Science and Astronomy 101. Very basic couple to start. The rest is Math, Physics and Chem for the first year.

[renormalised (Carl)]

The diameter of Jupiter is 142950kms, not 80000kms

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by mswhin63

This semester first is Planetary Science and Astronomy 101. Very basic couple to start. The rest is Math, Physics and Chem for the first year.

Are you doing a BSc or a Grad Diploma??

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Unless there is something wrong with my math, I calculate that this thing would be at Mag 13.9! H = -8.2 mag and from this m = 13.9 mag

using:

D = 1329/pv^(1/2) * 10^(-0.2*H)

I used Jupiters Diameter and albedo (80000km and 0.52)

m = H + 2.5 Log10(d1^2*d2^2/(px*d3^4))

d1 = distance Sun to body (=15,000)
d2 = distance Observer to body (=15,000)
d3 = distance observer to Sun (=1)
px = 2/3 = the phase integral (ie same as the full moon)

Cheers

I think that will find the math for that during my course, but for planetary system wouldn't brightness vary on chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Looking at Jupiter and the NEB the composition of chemicals produce a low magnitude.

I know it is fairly easy to calculate the luminosity of the sun due to the HR diagram but planets would show a different result. I am only learning so give me a break!

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Sorry Grad Diploma leading to a BSc

Error: Enabling Course leading to BSc.

I called my year 8 Math Teacher "Fishface" and he downgraded me to a non Uni pathway a long time ago.

[higginsdj]

Its the surface albedo (ie reflectivity) not luminance. If it is going to look and feel like Jupiter then I imagine it would have similar characteristics.

Whoops - used radius instead of diameter in which case it would be brighter...

So, if its as bright as I calculated we would have seen it by now!

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Thanks for that, I have only just heard the term Albedo yesterday but as I am starting Uni I have only been flicking through podcasts (Astronomy 141, 101, 161). Thanks for that.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Ok since no one has raised the question I will, assuming it is there and it is not a Brown Dwarf; what will it be categorised as?

Certainly does -not- fit the definition of a planet in our solar system.

Brian

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Ok since no one has raised the question I will, assuming it is there and it is not a Brown Dwarf; what will it be categorised as?

Certainly does -not- fit the definition of a planet in our solar system.

Brian

It's a planet, pure and simple. No need to go into all these subcategories and defining nonsense, just because a few astronomers want to get complicated about things.

That's precisely why Pluto was demoted in the first place and why their definition of what a planet is, is virtually unworkable. It was only decided upon by 4% of the astronomers that were at the conference, most had left by the time the vote was taken.

It orbits our star, it's large (over 1000kms), self gravitating, has undergone hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e. it's a sphere)....it's a planet.

[higginsdj]

But, non the less, it is THE official definition of a planet until it is changed - pure and simple.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

But, non the less, it is THE official definition of a planet until it is changed - pure and simple.

Yes, but it shouldn't be because they never consulted the wider professional community. That's why there was a big hullabaloo about it when it happened. They were probably in breach of the IAU's rules for voting in any case. The fact that they got it through was entirely political.

If you apply their new definitions in their strictest sense, there are no planets orbiting the Sun. All of them would have to be classed as dwarf planets, which is patently nonsense.

[higginsdj]

Theres not much point argueing about it. We can't change it. We are not IAU members!

Anyway, my math was off. At Jupiters albedo it would be mag 32.6. With an asteroids albedo it would be mag 33.6 - both slighlty beyond Hubble in day long stare mode.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Theres not much point argueing about it. We can't change it. We are not IAU members!

Anyway, my math was off. At Jupiters albedo it would be mag 32.6. With an asteroids albedo it would be mag 33.6 - both slighlty beyond Hubble in day long stare mode.

No, we're not, however it just goes to show you....only a little over 400 members voted, out of a total of more than 10000 individual members.

Their chances of finding it are next to zero....unless it occults a star.

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Unless there is something wrong with my math, I calculate that this thing would be at Mag 13.9! H = -8.2 mag and from this m = 13.9 mag

using:

D = 1329/pv^(1/2) * 10^(-0.2*H)

I used Jupiters Diameter and albedo (80000km and 0.52)

m = H + 2.5 Log10(d1^2*d2^2/(px*d3^4))

d1 = distance Sun to body (=15,000)
d2 = distance Observer to body (=15,000)
d3 = distance observer to Sun (=1)
px = 2/3 = the phase integral (ie same as the full moon)

Cheers

Umm that doesn't compute with your "A lazy Astronomer" moniker....
just jesting Jeez If I had to do calc like that?!?! Not lazy to me
Bartman

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by ngcles

At optical wavelengths it would be extremely faint but still reasonably bright at infra-red, microwave and radio wavelengths from gravitational contraction and heat left over when it formed 4.6 gyrs ago.

I believe the prevailing thought was that it was a captured planet, thus it may/could/should/would/might be much greater than 4.6 Gyrs.

Then again, maybe not!

[higginsdj]

Originally Posted by bartman

Umm that doesn't compute with your "A lazy Astronomer" moniker....
just jesting Jeez If I had to do calc like that?!?! Not lazy to me
Bartman

Yes, I find myself becoming less lazy in that regard these days. Observing and discovering stuff implies a certain knowledge about that 'stuff' and mine was seriously lacking to date so I have bitten the bullet and tried to at least "understand" the math behind the mystery.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by OICURMT

I believe the prevailing thought was that it was a captured planet, thus it may/could/should/would/might be much greater than 4.6 Gyrs.

Then again, maybe not!

Yes, it maybe native, just in a wacky orbit....but that wouldn't be the first time for a planet. We have plenty of example.

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

Theres not much point argueing about it. We can't change it. We are not IAU members!

Anyway, my math was off. At Jupiters albedo it would be mag 32.6. With an asteroids albedo it would be mag 33.6 - both slighlty beyond Hubble in day long stare mode.

Wow thats really very very dim. But hold on? Is that in visible light? What about in infrared? Isn't that the wave length used these days to hunt down brown dwarves and such? Things that don't emit much in visible light?

[astroron (Ron)]

As an astronomer from ESO once told me, there would have to be a dedicated search for such an object, and which at that time about five years ago there was no search going on that he knew of.
There may be a serandipitous discovery but that was not very likely.

[Rob_K]

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-060

Few robust discussions going on in mp circles too:

".....it's not a good idea to give to the hypothesized companion of the Sun the name Nemesis or Tyche, because Nemesis and Tyche are names of well-known asteroids:
Nemesis = asteroid No. 128,
Tyche = asteroid No. 258."
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/25036

"The question is not really if WISE could detect a kind of far away gas giant that would have formed where there were no material to make it in the first place, it is to see if the *******s in the world (neomaya and the likes) are going to associate a potential non existing planet with their 2012 non existing Niburu, etc... if you google Tyche, you get a pretty good idea... And if it comes to NASA, something must be fishy..."
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpml/message/25035

Bit of a non-story anyway. That WISE may or may not be capable of detecting it is completely irrelevant to its hypothesised existence (and 'narrowly' hypothesised, with not a huge amount of support it appears). Until we find out whether WISE did or did not detect it. Which we may know sometime in 2012. Or not.

Cheers -