Trans-Neptunian Objects Point To Existence Of Two Or More Unknown Planets

Two papers published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, authored by scientists from Complutense University of Madrid and the University of Cambridge, will no doubt encourage believers in various mystery planets theories.

Based on their calculations, the scientists hypothesize the existence of two or more as yet unidentified planets (or dwarf planets) in the outer reaches of the solar system, far beyond the orbit of Pluto. The calculations were made using data on the orbits of extreme trans-Neptunian objects (ETNO) which show evidence of perturbation by the gravitational pull of large objects in more distant orbits (the Kozai mechanism).

Excerpts are from a Science Direct article that was top of my news feed this morning:

"This excess of objects with unexpected orbital parameters makes us believe that some invisible forces are altering the distribution of the orbital elements of the ETNO and we consider that the most probable explanation is that other unknown planets exist beyond Neptune and Pluto," explains Carlos de la Fuente Marcos, scientist at the UCM and co-author of the study. "The exact number is uncertain, given that the data that we have is limited, but our calculations suggest that there are at least two planets, and probably more, within the confines of our solar system," adds the astrophysicist.

Relative sizes, albedos and colours of some large TNOs. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

If their hypothesis is correct, these dwarf planets would add to the growing list of recently discovered dwarf planets — but there is evidence of even more massive bodies in the dark outermost reaches of the solar system:

Last year two researchers from the United States discovered a dwarf planet called 2012 VP113 in the Oort cloud, just beyond our solar system. The discoverers consider that its orbit is influenced by the possible presence of a dark and icy super-Earth, up to ten times larger than our planet.

a reply to: theantediluvian

A superearth would be fun. Though I doubt they'll find one this far from the Sun.

S&F for the find!

Hang on, the article says "dwarf planets", but the actual quote from the scientists mentions just "planets". Since we haven't seen the original paper (if there is one), it's possible that the scientists actually meant planets, but the Science Daily editors decided to add "dwarf".

What do you think?

a reply to: wildespace

I noticed that as well. The abstract from the first paper makes mention of the evidence for a "super-Earth" at 250 au but I believe the authors are referencing an earlier study in this line:

The existence of an outer planet beyond Pluto has been a matter of debate for decades and the recent discovery of 2012 VP113 has just revived the interest for this controversial topic. This Sedna-like object has the most distant perihelion of any known minor planet and the value of its argument of perihelion is close to 0°. This property appears to be shared by almost all known asteroids with semimajor axis greater than 150 au and perihelion greater than 30 au (the extreme trans-Neptunian objects or ETNOs), and this fact has been interpreted as evidence for the existence of a super-Earth at 250 au. In this scenario, a population of stable asteroids may be shepherded by a distant, undiscovered planet larger than the Earth that keeps the value of their argument of perihelion librating around 0° as a result of the Kozai mechanism. Here, we study the visibility of these ETNOs and confirm that the observed excess of objects reaching perihelion near the ascending node cannot be explained in terms of any observational biases. This excess must be a true feature of this population and its possible origin is explored in the framework of the Kozai effect. The analysis of several possible scenarios strongly suggest that at least two trans-Plutonian planets must exist.

The abstract of the second paper only refers to the hypothetical bodies as "massive perturbers."

if they find a frozen rogue planet out there i'll do my best to invent a gravity cage to pull it into a stable habitable zone orbit. XD

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Sounds good right up until we thaw it out only to awaken the daemon sultan Azathoth!

"Outside the ordered universe that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flute."

-- The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath

a reply to: stormbringer1701

I shall grab a jacket! I want off this planet!

originally posted by: wildespace
Hang on, the article says "dwarf planets", but the actual quote from the scientists mentions just "planets". Since we haven't seen the original paper (if there is one), it's possible that the scientists actually meant planets, but the Science Daily editors decided to add "dwarf".

What do you think?

Indeed. The good news about science daily is that unlike most mainstream media sources they're at least kind enough to give the exact citation of the paper at the end instead of just mentioning the name of the journal. Since I have access to most scientific journals, I downloaded the full paper and while you'll just have to take my word on its contents (it would be illegal for me to put it up for others to download) the pre-print version has been online on arxiv since last summer. It's not really news, it's just that the article is now being published in a peer reviewed journal, anyone can upload anything to arxiv.
arxiv.org...
The full paper makes no mention of the hypothetical planets' mass other than to reference the Hees and Iorio papers constraining the hypothetical masses at specific distances. The distances discussed in this paper are for two planets, one at about 200 AU the other at about 250 AU.
arxiv.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk...
journals.aps.org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk...

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I shall grab a jacket! I want off this planet!

the idea would be to give it an orbit close enough to the sun to allow liquid water and warmth without placing it where it would gravitationally influence the earth moon system or present a collision hazard or migrate around.

celestial mechanics suggest there are at least a couple of empty stable orbitals available according to the best modelling available.

Grabbing a planet and moving it at will is a looooong way off. but presumably you could do it with enough energy and the right sort of formation flying satellites using relativity's weak connection between gravity and various other types of energy.
or you could possibly pull a wormhole maneuver on it. put a portal in front of it in it's direction of travel and an exit aperture opening in the same direction on the proposed orbital path for it's new home.

If they do discover an icy super-earth out there, who is down with naming it Jotunheim?

It's weird that we can find hundreds of exo-planets light years away from us, yet we still have no clue what's in our own backyard. I guess it makes it easier when you have stars to look at and see bodies orbiting across them as opposed to trying to see something in as dark of a void as our outer solar system. On second thought it makes more sense.

A super Earth or dwarf planets could give rise to the belief that Nibiru exists. After all, it is supposed to have planets or satellites in orbit around it so it's not such a far-fetched idea.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the idea would be to give it an orbit close enough to the sun to allow liquid water and warmth

Liquid water (on the surface) can't exist without a thick atmosphere. And a thick atmosphere cannot exist for very long without a magnetic field. Mars is a good example of this. It used to have rives, lakes, and perhaps even seas. Not anymore.

originally posted by: Cynic
A super Earth or dwarf planets could give rise to the belief that Nibiru exists. After all, it is supposed to have planets or satellites in orbit around it so it's not such a far-fetched idea.

It does exist..here you go!..all in there..
poleshift.ning.com...

Wow! two announcements in one day..this is yet another step closer to 'the' announcement that indeed Planet X will be making passage soon and indeed the subtle preparation in the psyche of the masses..

Thanks for the thread OP very well laid out and concise.

originally posted by: EndOfDays77

originally posted by: Cynic
A super Earth or dwarf planets could give rise to the belief that Nibiru exists. After all, it is supposed to have planets or satellites in orbit around it so it's not such a far-fetched idea.

It does exist..here you go!..all in there..
poleshift.ning.com...

Nope, nothing in that link but lies and fantasies.

Here, we are discussing real science and scientific hypotheses. Perhaps you will find better reception in a General Conspiracies forum.

a reply to: theantediluvian

nice find OP SnF

originally posted by: EndOfDays77

originally posted by: Cynic
A super Earth or dwarf planets could give rise to the belief that Nibiru exists. After all, it is supposed to have planets or satellites in orbit around it so it's not such a far-fetched idea.

It does exist..here you go!..all in there..
poleshift.ning.com...

No, zetatalk is an internet cult. They believe that the earth is halted in orbit and seasons are simulated by aliens wobbling the earth back and forth. If that's the case, why does my polar aligned telescope still work (the EPROM memory chips it uses cannot be altered without physically replacing them...), why is Polaris where it should be relative to the north celestial pole, and if we're halted in our orbit around the sun, why doesn't diurnal time equal sidereal time? Nancy would tell you that I am a government shill who is lying about all of that to confuse you, but I am not. I'm just a regular amateur astronomer, and like all the other serious amateur astronomers who spend countless hours observing the night sky with high precision equipment, if what she said was true I would definitely know about it.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
the idea would be to give it an orbit close enough to the sun to allow liquid water and warmth

Liquid water (on the surface) can't exist without a thick atmosphere. And a thick atmosphere cannot exist for very long without a magnetic field. Mars is a good example of this. It used to have rives, lakes, and perhaps even seas. Not anymore.

frozen worlds might come with (joke) dehydrated air. just add water.

actually i mean that the atmosphere most likely precipitated down at some point. phase changed to ice. simply warming the planet up may be enough to restore most of the atmosphere. or if it's a true rogue (booted out of some other star system by gas giant migration or a near stellar pass) it may have enough residual core heat to effect the atmospheric situation. a frozen planet may not be entirely frozen

I wonder if the astronomers can predict and narrow down the location of the suspected planets via perturbations in the orbits of outer solar system objects. That's how Neptune was discovered, via oddities in Uranus's orbit.

Could outer bodies cause asteroids to swing in and bombard the inner system? Sure, why not. Is it predictable? On reflection, I don't see why not, even if the orbits are eccentric like Pluto and Sedna. It will be interesting to see if die-offs and meteorite strikes in the past map to possible modeled orbits of these outer bodies.

Don't get me wrong. I find all the Niburu talk loathsome and ignorant, but I've been watching the whole planet-X debate for years, and I don't see why it couldn't exist, and why it couldn't cause periodic asteroid bombardments. This sort of stuff could be matched to the age of craters on Mars. I'm not worried about planet-X bombarding us. We have a lot more likely self-generated problems closer to home that are likely to kill us off first.

I am not an astronomer but i would think they could get a general location based on the perturbations of the orbits of the dwarf planets and known kuiper objects. you do not have to get all the back plots to cross at the same point. if you get a triangle through multi sided polygonal plot you just average and average again until you are at the center of the averaged plots. then you would determine the mass necessary to affect each dwarf or kuiper object and maybe average the results of that. then searchers would know where to look and roughly what type of instrument is needed to find some thing there.

a reply to: theantediluvian

So when does bar hopping take a back seat to planet hopping?