This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
The lead says As of November 2021, no observation of Planet Nine had been announced, with two citations given for this - one from 2017, one from 2018. How are these citations relevant for the claim? Of course it's true that no observations of P9 were announced, but the references seem to be out of place. Renerpho (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have said a long while ago this is pointless as of course until it has been seen its not been seen. I do not think we need this, as it will need to be updated every month.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence was added back in '18 when it seemed like there was going to be a short search and then BAM it got found. Clearly, three years later, we're still waiting, so I would have no issue with removing the statement. If and when an observation is announced, we can obviously update the article. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article says: Michael Medford and Danny Goldstein, graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, are also examining archived data using a technique that combines images taken at different times. Using a supercomputer they will offset the images to account for the calculated motion of Planet Nine, allowing many faint images of a faint moving object to be combined to produce a brighter image. -- The source for this is from 2017, so this is almost certainly outdated. I suggest to either update (with the results of their search), rephrase (use past tense), or remove the sentence as irrelevant (do we really care what some students planned to maybe do, but didn't, half a decade ago?). Renerpho (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find published results in my search, but maybe somebody else could. We should not assume they completed these tasks. I recommend deleting this sentence if a published result is not found. JehochmanTalk00:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see some Feb 2023 articles suggesting that it may be possible to search for heat signatures of P9 satellites. Is this worth adding? What about the proposed JWST survey? JehochmanTalk10:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to as "the proposed JWST survey"?
I see one source says "Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division ... is optimistic that if Planet X is out there, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, expected to launch into space in 2018, could find it. The large infrared telescope is Hubble’s successor. 'If these guys are right, we’re going to be looking at [Planet X] in 2018'”, but I'm pretty sure the author misunderstood Green. I've seen Mike Brown explain multiple times on Twitter that JWST's small field-of-view makes it worthless for finding Planet Nine, but if and when it is found by some wide-angle telescope like Subaru or Rubin, then a top priority will be pointing JWST at it to get a better look. Birdfern (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hypothesis discrete from Planet Nine. While it's similar in that it's a hypothesized planet beyond Neptune explaining the orbits of objects like Sedna, it's different enough that it's considered a hypothesis entirely separate. See the last paragraph on page 3. 134340Goat (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vera C. Rubin Observatory should be operational by late 2024. Wait until it has collected data for a few years, then ask again. Brown himself has said that this was the ultimate test of the hypothesis.[1] It looks to me like the interest in the search for P9 has decreased considerably, and only Rubin can really change things right now.
To quote Brown again (?): Things happen slowly in the Kuiper belt. Renerpho (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: Konstantin Batygin has just posted a thread on Twitter/X where he discusses the new Lykawka & Ito paper,[2] and announces that he is working on a new Planet Nine paper:[3]
So what's next? Together w/ Gabe Pichierri, a postdoc in my group at @Caltech, we are working on the next generation of P9 models with an eye towards the wealth of data soon to come from Vera Rubin Obs. While I won't share specifics yet, exciting results are on the horizon.
Probably predictions what exactly Vera Rubin's limits should be, and how likely it is to find P9 (if it exists). We have something to look forward to in the coming months, and in anticipation of first light at Vera Rubin! Renerpho (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s also a new paper [4] that surprisingly finds that the MOND gravity model could explain the observed clustering. The clustering would be the effect not of a planet but of the galactic core under a revised model of gravity. Once this paper is published somewhere, I think it definitely needs to be added to the article because it’s a major new explanation for the observed phenomena. JehochmanTalk00:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jehochman: That Brown&Mathur paper, which was uploaded to Arxiv in April, has to share the credit with Migaszewski's, which was accepted for publication in MNRAS in July and uploaded to Arxiv in March.[5] Quote from Brown&Mathur: "Accepted at the Astronomical Journal. [...] Complementary to the findings of Migaszewski"[6]Renerpho (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm kind of busy with school and work. Is there a volunteer who will update the article with the MOND theory? This seems important. JehochmanTalk02:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which theory is the below?
An alternative “flavor” of the Planet Nine hypothesis that Brown concedes is that it’s actually
Andyjsmith has recently removed the image from the infobox, with the rationale weird planet made of vantablack? Speculation - I’m pretty sure Brown didn’t say it looked like this! Also, totally uninformative and i encyclopaedic. What are readers to gain from this black blob?[7] This was reverted by Jehochman, claiming that This image was carefully discussed during FAC.[8]
Was it though? Neither FAC1 nor FAC2 seem to include any discussion of the image. FAC2 mentions it in a single sentence, no discussion (just saying "it seems fine"), nothing that addresses Andyjsmith's rationale to remove it. Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 6#Image help doesn't mention it either. If I miss where the discussion took place then please point me to it.
I don't know if I agree with Andyjsmith, but an unencyclopedic image is certainly a good reason for removal, and we often shy away from using artistic impressions for that very reason. Renerpho (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've been having discussions about the infobox image since 2016, and so far consensus has held to use the current image (or to be pedantic, there has not been a consensus to change the image). I don't particularly have an opinion on the substance of the question, but it shouldn't be removed unilaterally. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if it’s been discussed since 2016, then I think that helps to make my point, that it is is not obviously encyclopedic. A black disc against an unlikely background of stars could be an image of anything – planet Zog or the Death Star. Put it like this – it’s unreferenced and just something somebody made up one day.Andyjsmith (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this, which seems to be the original source of the image under discussion. Frankly it's far better - actually looks like a planet. It's used by NASA and plenty of news media, with credits to "Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)" - that's a proper astronomer with his own WP article. IMHO we should replace the current image with this original one. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, if this file will in fact be uploaded to Commons and used here as lead image, I would like to wipe out the bright clouds on the night side shown there, as long as the article does not mention any serious theories presuming the existence of such clouds. -- Karl432 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an indication that Hurt's image isn't copyrighted. That it's used by others doesn't help if NASA isn't the original creator.
By the way, if the image has actually been discussed since 2016, and has not been removed, that shows it's not obviously UNencyclopedic, otherwise it would be long gone. That's why I asked for a link to the discussion at the FAC, which I haven't been able to find. Renerpho (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding copyright: Per IPAC's Image Use Policy, most of their images are released under a free license. However, quote, some image and video materials on IPAC public web sites are owned by organizations other than Caltech, JPL, or NASA. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech, JPL, and NASA is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image. Does that apply to Robert Hurt, who represents IPAC? If not then we could probably use that image. Renerpho (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's useful to say that is an artists impression, and the article should have a lead image. If not this one then we should discuss replacing it with another. JehochmanTalk15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fall back on my original reasoning. It's a pitch black blob. I'm fairly sure Planet Nine is not a pitch black blob. From the position of the sun we'd expect to see a significant crescent (and maybe a hint of atmosphere) so even by its own limited standard this is not an accurate representation of anything. I got DALL-E to create a fairly rubbish image that makes my point. I couldn't get the sun far enough away, which would have made the crescent bigger. Image for Talk:Planet_NineAndyjsmith (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mountain of a molehill. A black blob is hyperbole. We will have nothing for decades or more to represent Planet 9 accurately, if ever. I rather like the obscurity, because it emphasizes the enigma that its appearance is unknown, and it remains elusive and difficult to detect. It's appearance is all speculation. A blue blob, a highly detailed red blob, it doesn't matter. None of it will be correct, and it's possible Planet 9 doesn't exist. Change it back to the original image if you prefer, but it too, is a black blob that I'm perfectly happy with. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an arXiv pre-print published January 31st 2024 giving new information on the search, some of which has already been reported in the popular astronomy press.
We present a search for Planet Nine using the second data release of the Pan-STARRS1 survey. We rule out the existence of a Planet Nine with the characteristics of that predicted in Brown & Batygin (2021) to a 50% completion depth of V = 21.5. This survey, along with previous analyses of the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) and Dark Energy Survey (DES) data, rules out 78% of the Brown & Batygin parameter space. Much of the remaining parameter space is at V > 21 in regions near and in the area where the northern galactic plane crosses the ecliptic.
This sounds like good info and the preprint is solid but I don’t think it counts as a reliable secondary source yet. If you can find something else that cites it, that might be a stronger reference. Either way this is definitely relevant to the article and should probably be included. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I actually found out about this precisely because there are a lot of secondary sources reporting on it (I'll include a few here for the purposes of discussion, but if you search for "Planet Nine" on Google with the time criteria set to "within the last month", you'll find many). Having said that, I don't think I would personally bother sourcing any of these, even if they may technically be WP:RS. All of them are just citing the pre-print anyway and the pre-print will eventually pass peer review, and is less likely to be a dead link in 10 years than the random science interest sites. So, if it were me, I'd either 1) cite the pre-print directly, as the likelihood of it being rejected in peer review is incredibly low and anyway the articles in question are citing the same information, forcing a retraction by WP in either case or 2) wait until it passes peer review and then cite it.
There's precedent on this article for citing pre-prints btw. B&B papers on this subject don't generally get rejected and this one isn't making any bombshell claims (fundamentally, it's still "We haven't found Planet Nine").
That's actually great then. Seems like the primary is getting plenty of secondary references; atp I think it's good as a source for the article. Id say find the references of highest journalistic quality and then either start adding to the article or post them here for another to add (I am more than willing if you are not)! OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..jpg){kind=small}
