Dwarf planet discovery hints at a hidden Super Earth in solar system

[Ichingcarpenter]

Astronomers have increased the size of the observable solar system after spotting a 450-km wide object orbiting the sun.

The lump of ice and rock circles the sun at a greater distance than any known object, and never gets closer than 12bn kilometres – 80 times the distance from Earth to the sun.

If its size is confirmed it could qualify as a dwarf planet in the same category as Pluto. Researchers said the discovery proves the existence of the inner Oort cloud, a region of icy bodies that lies far beyond the orbit of Neptune – which at 4.5bn kilometres from the sun is the most remote planet in the solar system.

Until a proper name is decided upon, the body is known only as 2012 VP113. According to the science journal Nature, the team that discovered it call it VP for short, or "Biden", after US vice president Joe Biden.

Its pink tinge comes from radiation damage that alters the make-up of frozen water, methane and carbon dioxide on the surface.

Though exciting in its own right, the discovery raises a more tantalising prospect for many astronomers: that a "Super Earth" up to 10 times the mass of our planet orbits the sun at such a great distance that it has never been seen.


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/26/dwarf-planet-super-earth-solar-system-2012-vp113

[Thor_MN]

1. But, but, the creationists tell us that the Oort cloud is unproven!!!

They were all up in arms about the description of comets on Cosmos. Comets couldn't possibly come from the Oort cloud because the universe is only 6000 years old...

That said, thankfully, it was discovered now instead of 8 years ago. Dwarf planet Chenney would likely be a DeathStar.

How does this play into the Dark Matter arena? If we have the potential for a super earth(s) sitting in you backyard and we haven't seen them yet, does it cut into the "missing" mass problem at all?

[longship]

3. Nope, dark matter is not baryonic, apparently.

It isn't normal stuff that we can't see. It is un normal stuff that we can't see. Apparently interacts via the weak nuclear force, but not electromagnetism. Strange stuff.

[Thor_MN]

5. Dark matter was conceived to account for "missing" mass

Between exoplanets and now the outer clouds, there has to be more mass accounted for, but it could well be negligible.

"Dark Matter" is a means to explain the missing mass, AFAIK, there is no proof of it. It's just a theoretical crutch to account for what we can see. If the missing mass is accounted for, Dark Matter goes Poof.

[longship]

6. Not about exoplanets and outer clouds, either, AFAIK.

It has to do with the rotational velocity stars within of galaxies. The measured velocity of the outer stars is too high to account for the mass of the stars (and other stuff). Unless there is more mass, the galaxies would fly apart.

Here's Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer writing about it.

It is a difficult to understand topic because, although we know it exists, we don't know what it is. Again, we know it exists. Here's Phil Plait again explaining about the data from the Bullet Cluster, which is pretty darned dead on evidence that dark matter is there.

Best regards.

[Thor_MN]

7. No, we know the mass must exist. We theorize that it's some mysterious thing because we don't see it

So along comes some mass that we haven't accounted for, right in our backyard, and around other stars. At some level, we have reduced the need for "Dark Matter". I think where you are seeing as difficult to understand is that you picture Dark Matter as a definite, concrete thing. It's just a place holder. It just might be some exotic thing, then again, we have no idea what or where it is, only that the mass exists.

The concept isn't difficult at all. We invent Dark Matter to take the place of mass we know must be there, but we can't measure. Then we discover some of the mass that we know must be there and the amount of Dark Matter needed is directly reduced by what we just found.

The one thing we can say is that the amount Dark Matter in the universe just got smaller. Maybe by an amount so small that in the big picture, it's a "who cares?" but it DID get smaller.

[longship]

8. I have not heard about finding some of the dark matter.

And I pay attention to these things. Please provide a citation.

Thanks.

My best.

[Thor_MN]

9. What is Dark Matter?

Dark Matter is the conceptual construct used to account for the "missing" mass needed explain the orbital mechanics we see. Dark matter = missing mass. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have not found any proof of what it is, just that the mass is needed.

What have they been finding over the past several years around other stars and just recently around ours?

It may be almost entirely negligible, but you can not argue they have not found previously unseen mass.

[longship]

10. I can read, and did read your previous posts.

Now I would like to see a citation for the claim that dark matter "may be almost entirely negligible".

Thanks. Much obliged.

[Thor_MN]

11. I'm going to have to differ with you on that.

I've said from my first post that the newly found matter may be negligible. It may be an infinitesimal portion of the Dark Matter needed. But the amount of the Dark Matter placeholder needed is reduced by each discovery of ordinary matter.

OTOH, you have been trying to describe Dark Matter as definitely being non-baryonic. We have no clue what it is, just guesses what it might be because otherwise we would see it.

Pretty simple concept as long as you don't get hung up on the idea that Dark Matter must be some exotic form of matter. It could be as boring as free planets tossed out of solar systems. We have no idea other that it's mass is needed.

[longship]

12. Again, please provide a citation.

Thanks.

[Thor_MN]

13. Sorry, I'm not going to bother with someone who can't read simple sentences.

Do you deny that the newly found dwarf planet has mass? If so, please provide YOUR citation.

One final time. Dark Matter = missing mass. New dwarf planet = mass.

If you don't understand, that's OK. Just admit that you are confused by the whole thing and move on.

[longship]

14. The knowledge of the Oort Cloud and the Kuiper Belt have been known for decades.

Your claim is that dark matter (damn I hate that terminology) is somehow a minimal effect, somehow accounted for by dwarf planets which is counter to just about everything science is saying about it.

For one thing, dark matter has been mapped (Google "bullet cluster&quot and it is not distributed with baryonic matter in the galaxies.

I asked for a citation of your claims, which is a standard thing to request when one makes a scientific claim. I am more than willing to change my opinion on dark matter if the science supports it.

Yes, I deny that dwarf planets are dark matter. But there may be something I've missed. AGAIN, I ASK YOU FOR A CITATION FOR ANYBODY SAYING THEY ARE. (I apologize for yelling, but you seem to not understand this very simple request.)

I am not ignorant, my friend. I would appreciate it if you did not treat me as such.

Apparently, you've ignored my citations.

[Thor_MN]

15. Are you really that obtuse?

I have never claimed that "that dark energy is somehow a minimal effect". I've never even said the term Dark Energy. That's your misinterpretation of my words that you continue to hold, even though I have explained it multiple times. Try re-reading it.

"I've said from my first post that the newly found matter may be negligible."

If you have trouble with that, let me try making it a little clearer, the newly found dwarf planet may be negligible
in terms of the missing mass needed to explain stellar observations, but it IS a piece of it.


Nice try on answering a question I didn't ask. I asked you if the dwarf planet had mass. It's obviously not Dark Matter, because we know that is is ordinary matter. But with it's discovery, the amount of Dark Matter needed got a very little bit smaller. You seem unable to grasp that very simple concept.

I read your citations and agree with them. The thing you seem to not understand is that Dark Matter isn't a concrete thing. It's not something you could touch if you were able to travel where ever you wanted. It's nothing more than a thought experiment at this point. If we were to discover enough mass in the form of cold planet sized objects, Dark Matter goes the way of Fire, Air, Earth, Water.

My citation is the OP. They have found new mass. Where's your citation that the dwarf planet has no mass?

[longship]

16. Gees! We've been posting past each other here.

But no. Dark matter is likely not going to go the way of the elementals. Why? Because the Oort Cloud and Kuiper belt have been known for decades, both the source of the dwarf planets and comets.

Also, dark matter can be seen by its effects, and dwarf planets are not likely to do it.

If you have a citation that says they can, I would very much like to read it. You apparently look at that request as a challenge to you personally. It is not. Like any good science person, I would gladly change my opinion on this, if there is evidence. That's the thing you have not provided. So until there is science that baryonic matter in the galaxy is enough to account for the effects of dark matter, I will presume it to be something unknown, something non-baryonic. The latter is the conclusion of every single article that I've read on the topic. Your posts here seem to say the contrary. I merely want to know why you say that when no astronomers are saying it. In other words, where are you getting your information?

I appreciate your responses, in spite of the miscommunication.


Corrected my previous post. Meant dark matter, typed dark energy.

Obtuse? Name calling will not help you here, my friend. I expect a polite conversation.

Much obliged.

[Thor_MN]

17. I really haven't been posting past you.

Dark Matter was proposed long before the first discovered exoplanets. Unless they accounted for planets that no one knew existed in 1932, the amount of "missing mass" has decreased since then. People may be unwilling to give up any bit of the concept of sexy, exotic Dark Matter, but it is an inarguable fact that the last several years have decreased the amount of Dark Matter needed. I'm not saying that all the missing mass is normal matter, just that the amount needed has been decreased.

You misunderstandings are your own, I explained many times, yet you continued to misread. After continued attempts to misstate what I had said, and your confusing Dark Energy and Dark Matter, my conclusion that you were trolling is not remarkable.

[longship]

18. Unfortunately, the dwarf planets are pretty damned small.

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2014, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)

And the amount of dark matter required is very large. And again, I have yet to read any physicist write that dwarf planets, or black holes, or rogue planets can account for the dark matter effects. In fact, they are all saying the contrary, especially since the data from the Bullet Cluster (cited above). That's why I asked for a citation.

Well, the confusion between dark matter and dark energy was kind of inevitable as soon as they named them. I am a frustrated amateur astronomer who lives in cloudy Michigan, with a BS in physics, so I certainly know the difference between them. What I find remarkable is your inability to provide a simple citation and your apparent tendency to be personally insulting.

Bye for now.

[Thor_MN]

19. Yes, one dwarf planet isn't much, but trillions of them add up.

What I find remarkable is your tendency to push your beliefs into my words.

You would be well served to open up your perceptions a bit. Your insistence to incorrectly restate my words, even through several explanations, is what turned me to be insulting. I was repeatedly, from my first post saying that the newly found matter was probably a negligible amount, yet you kept reading that as my saying that Dark Matter was negligible. After correcting you three or four times, I got a little cranky with the obstinance to not read simple sentences. I'm glad you know the difference between Dark Matter and Dark energy, yet it did not stop you from confusing the two in your post.

I needed no citation because it is a very simple concept. Dark Matter is a placeholder, a theoretical construct. Any additional mass found in the universe subtracts from the amount that was proposed in 1932. That is an inarguable fact.

[longship]

20. All the models apparently disagree with your assessment.

AFAIK, there are no scientists saying what you are advocating here.

BTW, the total mass of Kuiper Belt Objects in the solar system is much less than an earth mass. The Oort Cloud total mass is a bit larger, but still less than an earth mass. So your first question of whether the dwarf planets are of sufficient mass to account for dark matter seems to indicate "no", which is what I have been trying to communicate, albeit maybe not so well.

So there are likely not enough dwarf planets to account for dark matter effects. These are small objects.

Again, that is why I have continued to request a citation for your information, which I must now assume you just do not have.

I am done with this conversation.

Good day.

[Thor_MN]

22. Glad that you are done.

Did you perhaps miss the potential SuperEarth posited in the OP? Which would, if found, blow away your beliefs that the mass of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud being much less than 2 earth masses. So now, instead of (much) less than two, there is discussion of up to 10 earth masses in ONE body out there, around our sun. There's a lot of suns in the universe, and most of them are, within the last handful of years, theorized to have planets. You can not (albeit the fact that you are) argue that the mass of the known universe has increased in the last decade, thereby reducing the amount of Dark Matter needed.

I have told you many times now, my information comes from the OP and my ability to interpret it's implications. I have also told you many times that I do not think that ALL Dark Matter is dwarf planets. You really seem to be stuck in a closed little space.

The cool thing about science is, if one's mind isn't closed, that discoveries alter existing theories.

[Edim]

21. I agree with Thor_MN

Dark matter is an ad hoc hypothesis, to account for the "missing" mass. If there is much more "normal" matter that we haven't observed yet, then it cuts into the "missing" mass problem. If one day we find all the missing mass, then the dark matter hypothesis is falsified. Another possibility is that our theory of gravitation is incomplete or that there may be additional forces at work.

[DeSwiss]

2. K&R

The lump of ice and rock circles the sun at a greater distance than any known object, and never gets closer than 12bn kilometres – 80 times the distance from Earth to the sun. According to the science journal Nature, the team that discovered it call it VP for short, or "Biden", after US vice president Joe Biden.

- I wonder if nick-naming this cold, isolated, icy dwarf that's the farthest thing away from the center of things in our solar system after Joe Biden was Hillary's people's idea?

[sofa king]

4. Heh: Planet X Myth Debunked

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gXTG_sAOxE6bwAtFsYBEau5Gy9iA?docId=871ba9ab-1a46-4d6c-90df-a2c1a828c115&hl=en

That was from only twelve days ago.

The bottom line is that the latest studies suggest that there is no Jupiter sized planet within 25000 AU of the sun, and no Saturn-sized planet within 10000 AU.

However, we're sure something is out there, refilling the Centaur pool and tossing comets our way. My money is on hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets, rather than a single super-rock.

But we'll see. Everything is coming together awfully fast this month.