Hold the presses! Forget everything I wrote about the new planet!
My enthusiastic blogging about the discovery of a new planet has been, it seems, throughly contaminated by a confusion of details between the announcements, twenty-four hours apart, of the discoveries of two (arguable) new planets, and the sometime attribution of characteristics of one of them to the other by the media.
And frankly- I myself got confused, and tried to rationalize, rather than research, the discrepancies. In all fairness, I should have been more careful.
Wikipedia gets it right.
So does this page.
I realized that there had been two discoveries of good-sized KBO's announced last week. But to my embarassment, I find that I let myself become so mixed up by the initial failure of many media sources to clearly distinguish betwen the two that much of what I have written on the subject in this blog (like much that has been writte about it in many blogs, and in some quarters of the professional media as well) is utter nonsense. In fact, the salient point- that it's the smaller of the two- 2003 EL61 (the designation wrongly attributed to the larger object in some of the initial stories about the "tenth planet") which has the moon- is the reason why a case can be made that it should be considered a planet despite its size.
I noticed earlier today that in various entries I had referred to the possible new planet by two different designations, 2003 EL61 and 2003 UB313. I wondered about that- and started digging through the press reports- which, as it turned out, either confused the two right from the start, or, more frequently, simply ignored the fact that either one or the other existed. Some of the earliest reports seem to have used the designation 2003 EL61 for both objects, doubtless confused by the similarity of the subject matter of two announcements occuring in such a brief space of time. And both objects were initially said to be larger than Pluto!
In any event, I failed to adequately distinguish between the two- and it went downhill from there. The only thing that makes me feel at least a little better is that, while some sources (notably, the more scientifically sophisticated) kept the discoveries straight, much of the popular media (including most of the blogosphere) seems to have fallen, to a greater or lesser degree, into the same trap I did.
No, 2003 UB313 is not a body having a moon, initially thought to be larger than Pluto, but later found not to be. In fact, none of these things is true. Rather, they represent an attempt on my part to rationalize often contradictory information about the two discoveries into a coherent set of data for only one potential "planet."
2003 UB313 is, indeed, larger than Pluto, and is the entity described by its discoverers as "the tenth planet." It was discovered-as reported in this blog- by Dr. Michael Brown and others at Mt. Palomar Observatory in California, and is known informally among Palomar astronomers by the humorous code- name Xena. As also reported here, it is referred to in the title of Dr. Brown's own webpage about the discovery, however, as "Planet Lila," after his baby daughter.
And it has no moon.
It has been reported by many (including yours truly) that since the rules of the body who actually gets to do the naming, the International Astronomical Union, require that, as a plutino (a Pluto- like Kuiper Belt Object with an orbital period to Pluto's) 2003 UB313 must be named after an underworld deity, the name Persephone is the front-runner.
Well, guess what? At long last (somebody play Also Sprach Zarathrustra in the background, please) I have realized the obvious thing that others indulging in the speculation apparently have not: at three times the distance from the Sun that Pluto is, ain't no way 2003 UB313 is a plutino! As Homer Simpson (who, believe it or not, actually figures in this story, sort of, a little further down the line) would say, "Doh!"
How did the confusion happen?
Well, a mere twenty-four hours before the news of 2003 UB313 was announced, Jose-Luis Ortiz of the Sierra Nevada Observatory in Spain announced the discovery of another significant Kuiper Belt Object, originally also claimed to be larger than Pluto- but subsequently found to be smaller than Pluto but larger than Sedna, previously the largest known KBO other than Pluto.
Got that?
It's Ortiz's discovery, 2003 EL61, which turns out to be smaller than Pluto, but larger than any other known KBO other than Pluto and 2003 UB313- which has the moon.
Ok?
The business that was bandied about the blogosphere about the alleged moon of "Xena" (i.e., 2003 UB313) being called "Gabrielle" was a bit of fancy based upon the confusion of 2003 UB313, discovered by Dr. Brown, with 2003 EL61, discovered by Dr.Ortiz.
To add to the confusion, this body, too, had been originally identified (though it had been discovered a year earlier) by Brown and his team, shortly after Christmas of 2004, and code-named "Santa"- but the announcement had been delayed in order to get more measurements, and as a result Ortiz's team beat them to the punch! (Brown's team did, indeed, have a code-name for the moon, too- not "Gabrielle," obviously, but "Santa's Little Helper-" an homage to the Simpson's dog!).
I'm not even going to get into 2005 FY9, yet another large KBO discovered by Dr. Brown, and announced almost simultaneously with the other two!
Anyway, the fact that Brown's Palomar team had been all set to announce the discovery of 2003 EL61, but was beaten to the punch by the Ortiz team, is why Brown was interviewed about Ortiz's discovery, too- and it was this body that Brown, Brian Marsden, and all the other famous astronomers said could not be larger than Pluto, despite earlier claims that it was.
This, I wrongly took as a retraction of the statement that 2003 UB313 was larger than Pluto, which it in fact is.
Larger than Pluto, that is.
Immediately, a goodly portion of the journalistic world and nearly all of the blogosphere seemed to confuse the stories and conflate the details. Dr. Ortiz's object's designation was used in those earlier reports along with apparently contradictory quotations from Dr. Brown, Dr. Marsden, and other experts- who were talking about an entirely different object! Hence, we had a "tenth planet" that was both larger and smaller than Pluto, and both was and was not a plutino (2003 EL61 clearly is, and in fact has an orbit which sometimes takes it inside that of Pluto. It may yet be named "Persephone!").
Hence, by logical deduction,yours truly tried to find an explanation for what appeared to be conflicting data about the same object- namely, that earlier speculation that 2003 UB313 was larger than Pluto had proven unfounded, that 2003 UB313 had the moon, and that 2003 UB313 was a plutino! Of course, encountering these mistakes as actual assertions, or at least implications, made by others didn't help, either.
Somehow, at some point, I forgot all about 2003 EL61, and the true explanation for the conflicting information didn't occur to me until I noticed the misattribution of that designation to 2003 UB313 in the initial reports of its discovery.
But as a non-plutino KBO, Brown's "tenth planet-" the one all those journalists and bloggers (including yours truly, until a few hours ago, confused in so many respects with Ortiz's plutino) will have to bear the name of a deity of creation.
IAU rules or no, I still think "Goofy" and (thanks, Bill) "Daffy" would be good choices, though- especially given all the confusion surrounding their discoveries. Then, as somebody has suggested, there's always "Discordia," after the Roman goddess of confusion! Alas, it is not to be.
In any case, this much should be said: by the definition of 'planet' I've endorsed- an object with enough mass to be forced into a more or less spherical shape by its own gravity, and orbiting no primary other than the Sun- both 2003 UB313 and 2003 EL61 would qualify as planets- as would Ceres, Sedna, Quaoar- and, finally beyond all doubt, Pluto.
And frankly- I myself got confused, and tried to rationalize, rather than research, the discrepancies. In all fairness, I should have been more careful.
Wikipedia gets it right.
So does this page.
I realized that there had been two discoveries of good-sized KBO's announced last week. But to my embarassment, I find that I let myself become so mixed up by the initial failure of many media sources to clearly distinguish betwen the two that much of what I have written on the subject in this blog (like much that has been writte about it in many blogs, and in some quarters of the professional media as well) is utter nonsense. In fact, the salient point- that it's the smaller of the two- 2003 EL61 (the designation wrongly attributed to the larger object in some of the initial stories about the "tenth planet") which has the moon- is the reason why a case can be made that it should be considered a planet despite its size.
I noticed earlier today that in various entries I had referred to the possible new planet by two different designations, 2003 EL61 and 2003 UB313. I wondered about that- and started digging through the press reports- which, as it turned out, either confused the two right from the start, or, more frequently, simply ignored the fact that either one or the other existed. Some of the earliest reports seem to have used the designation 2003 EL61 for both objects, doubtless confused by the similarity of the subject matter of two announcements occuring in such a brief space of time. And both objects were initially said to be larger than Pluto!
In any event, I failed to adequately distinguish between the two- and it went downhill from there. The only thing that makes me feel at least a little better is that, while some sources (notably, the more scientifically sophisticated) kept the discoveries straight, much of the popular media (including most of the blogosphere) seems to have fallen, to a greater or lesser degree, into the same trap I did.
No, 2003 UB313 is not a body having a moon, initially thought to be larger than Pluto, but later found not to be. In fact, none of these things is true. Rather, they represent an attempt on my part to rationalize often contradictory information about the two discoveries into a coherent set of data for only one potential "planet."
2003 UB313 is, indeed, larger than Pluto, and is the entity described by its discoverers as "the tenth planet." It was discovered-as reported in this blog- by Dr. Michael Brown and others at Mt. Palomar Observatory in California, and is known informally among Palomar astronomers by the humorous code- name Xena. As also reported here, it is referred to in the title of Dr. Brown's own webpage about the discovery, however, as "Planet Lila," after his baby daughter.
And it has no moon.
It has been reported by many (including yours truly) that since the rules of the body who actually gets to do the naming, the International Astronomical Union, require that, as a plutino (a Pluto- like Kuiper Belt Object with an orbital period to Pluto's) 2003 UB313 must be named after an underworld deity, the name Persephone is the front-runner.
Well, guess what? At long last (somebody play Also Sprach Zarathrustra in the background, please) I have realized the obvious thing that others indulging in the speculation apparently have not: at three times the distance from the Sun that Pluto is, ain't no way 2003 UB313 is a plutino! As Homer Simpson (who, believe it or not, actually figures in this story, sort of, a little further down the line) would say, "Doh!"
How did the confusion happen?
Well, a mere twenty-four hours before the news of 2003 UB313 was announced, Jose-Luis Ortiz of the Sierra Nevada Observatory in Spain announced the discovery of another significant Kuiper Belt Object, originally also claimed to be larger than Pluto- but subsequently found to be smaller than Pluto but larger than Sedna, previously the largest known KBO other than Pluto.
Got that?
It's Ortiz's discovery, 2003 EL61, which turns out to be smaller than Pluto, but larger than any other known KBO other than Pluto and 2003 UB313- which has the moon.
Ok?
The business that was bandied about the blogosphere about the alleged moon of "Xena" (i.e., 2003 UB313) being called "Gabrielle" was a bit of fancy based upon the confusion of 2003 UB313, discovered by Dr. Brown, with 2003 EL61, discovered by Dr.Ortiz.
To add to the confusion, this body, too, had been originally identified (though it had been discovered a year earlier) by Brown and his team, shortly after Christmas of 2004, and code-named "Santa"- but the announcement had been delayed in order to get more measurements, and as a result Ortiz's team beat them to the punch! (Brown's team did, indeed, have a code-name for the moon, too- not "Gabrielle," obviously, but "Santa's Little Helper-" an homage to the Simpson's dog!).
I'm not even going to get into 2005 FY9, yet another large KBO discovered by Dr. Brown, and announced almost simultaneously with the other two!
Anyway, the fact that Brown's Palomar team had been all set to announce the discovery of 2003 EL61, but was beaten to the punch by the Ortiz team, is why Brown was interviewed about Ortiz's discovery, too- and it was this body that Brown, Brian Marsden, and all the other famous astronomers said could not be larger than Pluto, despite earlier claims that it was.
This, I wrongly took as a retraction of the statement that 2003 UB313 was larger than Pluto, which it in fact is.
Larger than Pluto, that is.
Immediately, a goodly portion of the journalistic world and nearly all of the blogosphere seemed to confuse the stories and conflate the details. Dr. Ortiz's object's designation was used in those earlier reports along with apparently contradictory quotations from Dr. Brown, Dr. Marsden, and other experts- who were talking about an entirely different object! Hence, we had a "tenth planet" that was both larger and smaller than Pluto, and both was and was not a plutino (2003 EL61 clearly is, and in fact has an orbit which sometimes takes it inside that of Pluto. It may yet be named "Persephone!").
Hence, by logical deduction,yours truly tried to find an explanation for what appeared to be conflicting data about the same object- namely, that earlier speculation that 2003 UB313 was larger than Pluto had proven unfounded, that 2003 UB313 had the moon, and that 2003 UB313 was a plutino! Of course, encountering these mistakes as actual assertions, or at least implications, made by others didn't help, either.
Somehow, at some point, I forgot all about 2003 EL61, and the true explanation for the conflicting information didn't occur to me until I noticed the misattribution of that designation to 2003 UB313 in the initial reports of its discovery.
But as a non-plutino KBO, Brown's "tenth planet-" the one all those journalists and bloggers (including yours truly, until a few hours ago, confused in so many respects with Ortiz's plutino) will have to bear the name of a deity of creation.
IAU rules or no, I still think "Goofy" and (thanks, Bill) "Daffy" would be good choices, though- especially given all the confusion surrounding their discoveries. Then, as somebody has suggested, there's always "Discordia," after the Roman goddess of confusion! Alas, it is not to be.
In any case, this much should be said: by the definition of 'planet' I've endorsed- an object with enough mass to be forced into a more or less spherical shape by its own gravity, and orbiting no primary other than the Sun- both 2003 UB313 and 2003 EL61 would qualify as planets- as would Ceres, Sedna, Quaoar- and, finally beyond all doubt, Pluto.
Comments
Came to this site, just a few minutes ago and what can I say? Truly fantastic site. Well done!
Regards,
make at money home work