Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
History of Solar System formation and evolution hypotheses wikipedia , lookup
Formation and evolution of the Solar System wikipedia , lookup
Eris (dwarf planet) wikipedia , lookup
Late Heavy Bombardment wikipedia , lookup
Scattered disc wikipedia , lookup
Kuiper belt wikipedia , lookup
Planets in astrology wikipedia , lookup
The Pluto Debate Sarah Ruth Hughes Professor Hirshfeld Honors Project: Part One Astronomy 151 It has been dark for seventy-seven days. As day finally breaks, you find yourself on a barren field of frozen nitrogen and methane. The sun appears as a bright star through the thin atmosphere; it is so far from the planet's surface that the temperature will not reach above -333 degrees Fahrenheit that day. On the horizon, the moon is rising. You are on the surface of Pluto, up until now considered the ninth planet in our Solar System. But is it actually worthy of that title? Discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, Pluto was quickly hailed as the long sought for Planet-X. For many years, astronomers had been aware that there was scientific evidence indicating the probability that another planet lay beyond the orbit of the then furthest planet Neptune. Eventually, however, became clear that the ‘evidence’ for Planet X arose from a misassumption in the mass of Neptune. In addition to that, Pluto is not large enough to account for observed gravitational disturbances on the other outer planets. Located about 40 times the Sun-Earth distance, Pluto has a mass that is about .2% of Earth's mass. Its surface gravity is a mere 1/20th of Earth's. In fact, it is very similar in size and has a similar erratic orbit to many of the new objects discovered since the 1990s in the Kuiper Belt – a collection of icy objects that orbit the sun beyond Neptune. Gerard Peter Kuiper was the DutchAmerican astronomer that first suggested the existence of a belt of trans-Neptunian objects. Within the last two decades, astronomers have discovered over 800 of these objects. In light of these new discoveries, the scientific and general community has been pondering just what, in fact, constitutes a planet. Well, the answer is not as simple as one might think. Technically, there is no ‘official’ definition of a planet. There had been no need to give a precise definition because, with our technology being so limited, a planet was anything big enough to seen in orbit of the sun. The asteroid Ceres was the first object to call attention to the lack of characterization. Giuseppe Piazzi accidentally discovered Ceres in 1801 while searching for another night sky object. He noted the position of the strange light; through measurements, he began to believe it to be a comet. However, it was moving very slowly. Other professionals such as German astronomer Johann Elert Bode noted that Ceres was in just the right location away to fill the ‘blank’ orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres was assigned a planetary symbol. However, as hundreds of such objects were discovered in similar orbits, it became clear that this was no ordinary situation. Post-Ceres, the consensus was that a planet must inhabit its orbit exclusively barring natural satellites. Thus over the next 200 years, our society became familiar with the Asteroid Belt: tens of thousands of relatively small chunks of rock and ice orbiting the sun as remnants of the original matter of the solar system that, because of Jupiter’s massive gravitational pull, never fully formed into a planet. The debate about what was or was not a planet could then rest, for a time. Now the debate is raging once again. In the last decade, there have been major new discoveries of many trans-Neptunian objects (or, TNOs) including Quaoar and Sedna, both of which are only slightly smaller than Pluto is. Most recently, in July of 2005, astronomers presented another TNO of probably equal or greater size than Pluto. Some astronomers almost instantly hailed 2003 UB313 as the 10th planet. Presently, other astronomers consider the unnamed object to be a minor planet – a loose term given to objects in our solar system that are larger than meteorites but smaller than planets we are familiar with. This discovery has once again thrown the question about the true definition of a planet into the spotlight. If this new object is larger than Pluto is, then by some theories, it must be a planet. Other astronomer’s notions, however, would show that this new discovery points to evidence that Pluto is just one of many Kuiper Belt objects. Scientific professionals and the public are locked in a battle of questions as they try to come to grasp with the new discoveries. So what are the options for Pluto if we were to reclassify it? As mentioned, mounting evidence does suggest that Pluto is in fact most likely on of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. Perhaps astronomers falsely categorized Pluto as a planet because of the lack of understanding of the far reaches of the solar system. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) announced in an official press release in 1999 that there were no plans to change the status of Pluto or assign it a minor planet number. Officially, it is a planet with an orbit around the sun, a moon and an atmosphere. Many in both the scientific and general community argue that tradition has it that Pluto is a planet and therefore by societal standards, it should remain so. This point of view is reminiscent of many public reactions to new ‘truths’ as we continue to learn about the universe we live in. It hardly seems logical to continue to follow nostalgic social norms when science, in the pursuit of truth, finds evidence otherwise. However, there are some problems with reclassification: a new definition for Pluto could change how we define other objects in our solar system as well. Some astronomers believe that size should be the determining factor in defining a planet. This creates an interesting situation for the Solar System because the proposed cut off diameter, 700 kilometers (about 435 miles), would add many TNOs and even some asteroids to our list of planets. Our list of planets could grow to a dozen or more! Another common suggestion is that the shape of an orbiting body might determine its ‘planethood.’ Under this suggestion, scientists state that a planet would be an object that became spherical under its own gravity, thus allowing Pluto to keep the title of planet. This presents some discrepancies because of the make up of many objects in the solar system. Ice and rock do not compress at the same rate, thus some larger objects made of rock might not form as spheres when smaller icy objects would. There is also the matter of defining just how spherical an object would have to be to gain the title of planet. Perhaps it is time to develop a new classification for the objects that orbit our sun. I am reminded fondly of nights spent with my father enjoying Gene Roddenberry’s “Star Trek” series in which the fictional inter-stellar human space explorers discussed the habitable Class M terrestrial planets and Class C geologically inactive planets that rested desolate in the cold outer regions of a star system. With the discovery of more complex space objects, it might become necessary to not only more frequently redefine our ideas about our universe, but also to create names and definitions to suit these objects we find. These classifications could take into account so many specifics that they could foster clearer definitions of celestial objects more scientifically than culturally. Eventually, these scientific definitions would become commonplace in society as well. Thus, science would reclassify Pluto, but it would not be any less important than other created classifications of objects in orbit around our star. History would preserve Pluto as the object formerly known as the ninth planet. Just as the idea of a spherical Earth was unacceptable and hard to comprehend for many of the people in the time of Pythagoras and Aristotle, the notion of changing our views on Pluto seem to threaten to the status quo. However, in the face of new discovery let us not forget that throughout human evolution new information has provoked new knowledge and greater understanding. With this new understanding, our society must come to terms with the idea that our universe will constantly surprise us as we probe greater depths. It is up to the scientific community to pursue scientific truth to present the clearest possible image of the space in which we exist, even if at present it contradicts the popular notion. After all, what is popular is not always true.