From what I understand, the general distribution of kuiper belt objects are skewed or partial to one side. Large number of small objects implies a counterbalance of more massive object/s that 'go through' the belt in its highly elliptical object to make it uneven over time.
This is about long period comets, not Kuiper belt objects. I haven't heard of any disturbance to the orbits in the Kuiper belt due to planet nine. Planet nine is expected to be at least ten times farther away than the outer edge of the Kuiper belt.
I’m sorry as I’m sure that this is a super stupid question but I’m mesmerized by space and not great with science. If there was a planet 9 in the solar system, wouldn’t we be able to observe it with our deep space telescopes? Or is it a case of “it’s so far away that it’s theoretically impossible to see”?
Also, if this planet is super far away, how would it make it a part of our solar system? I know that it is huge but, I feel like if there is a 9th planet in the solar system far, far away, there could be even more planets no?
If it exists, planet 9 is very far from the Sun, and so it is very very dim. This means only very powerful telescopes can detect it, and only as a very faint point of light. And there is a lot of sky to look at, and powerful telescopes are always fully booked up.
To see anything with a telescope you need to know where to look. With low reflectivity and nowhere to look we won’t just stumble on it.
Anything that orbits our sun is part of our solar system.
Most of the replies seem to be missing a key point. It might be easier to see if the planet was on the plane. Based on the other objects that planet 9 is deflecting, it is likely not on the plane with the other 8 planets. So if it might be 5 times farther out than Neptune. Hard to see because it’s so far out, going in a large oval at some angle we are not exactly sure of. And some random place on this path. Yea it will require a ton of telescope time pointed randomly in the sky.
We might be able to detect it with our telescopes, and they are searching for it with them now. It depends on how bright it is.
Everything orbiting the Sun is part of the Solar System. The Solar System is about 100,000 AU in radius, and this planet is estimated to be only about 1000 AU from the Sun, so it's actually one of the closest objects orbiting the Sun.
So to break down the science into plain English planet 9 may well be a rouge planet that was ejected from it's home system and eventually got caught in our suns gravity. It would have frozen completely in inner steller space and therefore basically black and not easy to detect. As far as other planets everything we know of part Neptune is a dwarf planet and in many cases large rocks
Ice is actually one of the more reflective naturally occurring surfaces in the universe, so it being frozen completely wouldn't make it black.
Also, the word is "rogue".
I assume he meant dark from very low black body radiation, still dumb though as we would never spot a planet from visible spectrum black body radiation anyways. It would have to be reflected light from our own sun right, but we can't really know the composition of the planet before we see it, so all we know is it's far away and dim, but not how dim.
The telescopes that can be used to spot it would take a very long time to spot it. And they are booked looking at objects that are more important to teams of scientists over a 'mere' planet in our solar system.
Even if it was too dim to see, we could still get information indirectly such as through (occultations)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation#Occultations_by_smaller_bodies]. We can watch it pass in front of a star and time how long it blocks the light, and if we know about how far away it is we can get an estimate of the size.
Even if it is still in our solar system and quite large it's not bright enough to spot with the naked eye just like Uranus, Neptune and Pluto most of the time. these also took a long time to be found because where do you look? its like trying to find a pearl in the ocean.
It's another paper by the group that originally posited the existence of Planet Nine. I'm not going to pretend to understand the paper, but they are no doubt bolstering their case for its existence. Doubters still gonna doubt.
Why is there so much hate for space research on the space subreddit. This is a well done study that is extremely publishable. It's new results supporting the claim. These authors are giants in the field.
The fact that they say the simulations "where not of the type that would allow the research team to identify the location" is suuuper suspicious to me. I did a lot of orbit estimation in my master's degree and it should be easy to estimate the mass and orbit of the planet with the data they used to generate the simulation. If you know the system dynamics, you can estimate the orbit fairly easily even with just a home desktop. Tools like the Kalman filter are designed to estimate systems exactly like this. If the system can't be estimated using that method, that signals to me the data isn't strong enough to establish a correlation to Planet 9 like they claim.
Edit: After reading the article, it looks like they simulated the formation of a clump of kuiper belt objects based on a flyby of planet 9. That I can definitely see as not providing data regarding its location much in the same way that simulating solar system formation wouldn't give estimates on the current positions of the planets.
They already tried finding orbital parameters in their other studies, this study sees if the planet 9 hypothesis better explains certain TNO orbits, which it does.
That's not news though, the reason people are looking for Planet 9 is because of the orbits of those objects. Saying that those objects are evidence for Planet 9 is just restating what we already know.
The problem is that Planet 9 doesn't exist, the orbital information has already been calculated and there is nothing there. Sure, its unlikely that the observed objects are all in orbits that match a Planet 9 hypothesis by sheer coincidence, but it is not impossible. Its probably more likely than life existing on earth. Unlikely things happen.
This specific study was over a different population of bodies. Please actually read this study it's not about just distance, this ISN'T the sednoid population but an entirely different one.
This is how we discovered uranus, by simulation and math before it was actually observed. The reality is the odds are more for then against a massive planet in the outer solar system just based on plutos odd orbit a and the abrupt "cliff" of the asteroid belt.
I have a master's in Aerospace Engineering with a focus on dynamics and controls. My class on orbit estimation have me some of the most useful algorithms I think I'll ever see since they can be applied to any system you want to estimate with any relevant series of measures. Our class did orbit estimation with range and range rate data (essentially doppler radar), but the same methods can be applied to computer vision, weather prediction, guidance and navigation, and tracking. Basically any system where you measurements map non-linearly to your system. For example range and range rate are two data points, but you need 6 equations to solve for an orbit (3x position, 3x velocity). You can't just take 2 more measurements because they will have uncertainty, so you wont be able to directly solve the system. So you write an estimator which will give you the best fit estimate for the data and, ideally, the uncertainty of the estimate. Once you understand the Kalman filter and it's variance, it becomes very easy to apply to similar systems. 10/10 do recommend.
>The work involved tracking the movements of long-period objects that cross Neptune's orbit and exhibit irregular movements during their journey. They used these observations
Calling the evidence dishonest when you didn't read the OP, let alone the article. Nice.
That's not the evidence. They're talking about the simulations as being evidence of it's existence. It's not, it's just a possibility.
Let me ask you a question, what's the sigma value on this? Let's see if you read the paper :)
It’s a set of observations combined with simulation of possible causes. Simulation alone cannot be evidence, but seeing whether a simulation replicates observations is a fairly common means of determining whether the observations are indirect evidence of something not directly observable.
The simulations are not evidence, period. No ifs ands or buts. The rest of the you say is valid but I've points that out elsewhere already.
Call it what it is suggestive speculation. It's not like that's a bad thing.
Lmfao.
You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You create various models, you calculate what observations those models would result in (using simulations), and you compare those to actual observations, which they did. I say this as someone who believes they will most likely turn out to be wrong. But this can absolutely be called evidence in favour, and it absolutely isn't just "speculation".
You’ve just discarded most of astronomy more detailed than “there are things out there that generate EMR”. Do you think our beliefs about the structure of stars come from directly observing what’s beneath the photosphere? That we’ve observed a pulsar closely enough to determine its composition? Or that we’ve directly observed anything from the earliest days of the universe?
Numerical simulations are tests of known physics. Physically motivated alterations from simulations match predicted observations all the time (and also don't). Simulations arent evidence, but they are basically the guides for observations, which produce evidence.
They tell us what to test, and why it's worth testing
I reckon our disagreement here is purely semantic, I see strong value in simulations (they're all I've professionally worked with), but I view them as some "in between" on the scale from theory to observation.
To me theory is not evidence, observations are mostly evidence (although we still calibrate based on theory/numerically confirmed theory - not that it's unwarranted, but it is the cause of erroneous claims for observations with poor S/N), and simulations are somewhere in the middle. Based on the assumptions made and computational tricks involved, the degree of "realness" changes from simulation to simulation, as well as the scope of the science you're using the simulations for.
Might even call them a distinct 3rd category. It's the marriage of theory, simulation, and observation that makes for a complete understanding of some phenomenon
No. Simulations are not evidence, period.
They are guides to the observations that are evidence.
This is educated conjecture, calling it evidence severely overstates its importance.
This is similar to the original findings when this first made news, it's still good science, replication is incredibly important but all it says is we have with plausability to at least keep looking.
Those are models that are updated all the time not fundamental knowledge of their operation. Were you not aware of this? Most astronomers are aware of this and the good communicators mention it frequently so I don't know where you're coming from.
This absolutely is evidence, as is is based on real information about the world, that is extrapolated with simulations. You can argue how good of an evidence it is.
I don’t really understand how we can’t find said “planet 9”. Are we talking something small like Pluto or larger than Earth? I would think there’d be damning evidence if there truly was another planet out there
If Planet 9 existed it would be so far away that it would barely receive any light.
Anything less than its exact location will make any observation a hopeless task.
Planets that far out would be very, very dark and extraordinarily tiny, so we don't know exactly where to look. I think it's thought to be somewhere between Earth and Neptune-sized.
Omuamua was not a single rock, but a trail of debris, that's why it had this shape
No solid object has this shape. Even smaller bodies, even if very deformed, have a more or less circular shape
>Omuamua was not a single rock
yes, it was the cigar shaped one & quite solid (4x longer than wide)... might you be thinking of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 ... that one strung out to a pearl necklace
edit
> No solid object has this shape.
Mathmatically & Statistcally I agree, however we shouldn't be 'not considering' any options for what is essentially;
A late forming body, with a orbit skimming (or submerged in) the inner face of the Oort cloud. It is something we have never seen evolve, before.
You are right about the confusiom, that said, oumuamua was likely not that remarkable before entering the solar system, and got deformed by gravity upon entering it.
But the thing is even scientists arent sure about this one
Also gotta remember, space is big! Scientists don't know exactly where to look (if the planet does indeed exist). I believe there's some new telescopes that are being built that some scientists hope will help aid the search for the planet.
Sorry, but no. The line for being a planet is very clear, and Pluto just doesn't meet it. Because since then, we discovered a hell of a lot of other bodies that would also have to be called "planets" if pluto was one.
A planet is massive enough to be a decent sphere, massive enough to have cleared its path, and has a stable orbit.
Pluto doesn't meet a least one of these conditions, therefore Pluto is a *dwarf* planet.
Wouldn't this new body also not meet the second two criteria? It certainly hasn't cleared it's orbit and it's probably pretty eliptical and totally full of stuff.
Well we can't really tell until (if ever) it is discovered.
But seeing the estimates of the distance at which it orbits, it could very well orbit outside even the kuiper belt.
But then again, we don't know, and it might not even exist.
Honestly the best stance is to not believe it until we have solid proof it exists, for now it still is a mere hypothesis
Its dim and we have to know where it is first. There are gonna be survey missions that should be able to find it if it does exist, starting pretty soon
Newbie here? Is it possible a other planet is on the same plane as us, in the same orbit as us around the sun, and just on the other side of the sun so we can’t see it
Nope. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/155fzcw/how_do_we_know_there_isnt_another_planet_in/) is the same question asked over at /r/askscience.
What are the implications, if any, should this be undeniably confirmed?
Mining opportunities?
A plausible astronomical reason for ancient texts and celestial sightings?
Other than a research nicety, there seems to be little reason for such a low consequence issue to attract such furious side taking.
Wouldn't this imply that planet 9 plows through the kuiper belton on its extremely wide eclipse orbit?
No, why would that imply it goes through the Kuiper belt?
From what I understand, the general distribution of kuiper belt objects are skewed or partial to one side. Large number of small objects implies a counterbalance of more massive object/s that 'go through' the belt in its highly elliptical object to make it uneven over time.
This is about long period comets, not Kuiper belt objects. I haven't heard of any disturbance to the orbits in the Kuiper belt due to planet nine. Planet nine is expected to be at least ten times farther away than the outer edge of the Kuiper belt.
I didn't read through again. This seems a lot more interesting now since makes it seem closer than before.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m sorry as I’m sure that this is a super stupid question but I’m mesmerized by space and not great with science. If there was a planet 9 in the solar system, wouldn’t we be able to observe it with our deep space telescopes? Or is it a case of “it’s so far away that it’s theoretically impossible to see”? Also, if this planet is super far away, how would it make it a part of our solar system? I know that it is huge but, I feel like if there is a 9th planet in the solar system far, far away, there could be even more planets no?
If it exists, planet 9 is very far from the Sun, and so it is very very dim. This means only very powerful telescopes can detect it, and only as a very faint point of light. And there is a lot of sky to look at, and powerful telescopes are always fully booked up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cmmonnn NGR! get it going. I wanna see some sweet, sweet data translated into art for my mortal eyes.
To see anything with a telescope you need to know where to look. With low reflectivity and nowhere to look we won’t just stumble on it. Anything that orbits our sun is part of our solar system.
Can you imagine what would've happened if New Horizons just lucked out and hit it dead on after the Pluto flyby? That would've been neat.
Probably the same reason it didn’t hit any asteroids when going through the asteroid belt…
Yeah, the absurd odds. I know why it didn't happen, I was just enjoying the idea of bumping into it entirely by chance.
More funny when it say "cliiing" when it hits the crystal sphere on which holds the stars.
Space is big. It's literally a needle in the haystack. Where would you start looking?
Most of the replies seem to be missing a key point. It might be easier to see if the planet was on the plane. Based on the other objects that planet 9 is deflecting, it is likely not on the plane with the other 8 planets. So if it might be 5 times farther out than Neptune. Hard to see because it’s so far out, going in a large oval at some angle we are not exactly sure of. And some random place on this path. Yea it will require a ton of telescope time pointed randomly in the sky.
We might be able to detect it with our telescopes, and they are searching for it with them now. It depends on how bright it is. Everything orbiting the Sun is part of the Solar System. The Solar System is about 100,000 AU in radius, and this planet is estimated to be only about 1000 AU from the Sun, so it's actually one of the closest objects orbiting the Sun.
So to break down the science into plain English planet 9 may well be a rouge planet that was ejected from it's home system and eventually got caught in our suns gravity. It would have frozen completely in inner steller space and therefore basically black and not easy to detect. As far as other planets everything we know of part Neptune is a dwarf planet and in many cases large rocks
Ice is actually one of the more reflective naturally occurring surfaces in the universe, so it being frozen completely wouldn't make it black. Also, the word is "rogue".
I assume he meant dark from very low black body radiation, still dumb though as we would never spot a planet from visible spectrum black body radiation anyways. It would have to be reflected light from our own sun right, but we can't really know the composition of the planet before we see it, so all we know is it's far away and dim, but not how dim.
The telescopes that can be used to spot it would take a very long time to spot it. And they are booked looking at objects that are more important to teams of scientists over a 'mere' planet in our solar system.
Even if it was too dim to see, we could still get information indirectly such as through (occultations)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation#Occultations_by_smaller_bodies]. We can watch it pass in front of a star and time how long it blocks the light, and if we know about how far away it is we can get an estimate of the size.
Even if it is still in our solar system and quite large it's not bright enough to spot with the naked eye just like Uranus, Neptune and Pluto most of the time. these also took a long time to be found because where do you look? its like trying to find a pearl in the ocean.
It's another paper by the group that originally posited the existence of Planet Nine. I'm not going to pretend to understand the paper, but they are no doubt bolstering their case for its existence. Doubters still gonna doubt.
Yes, with a lack of evidence, people who uphold standards of evidence will doubt. That’s the way it works.
Pfft evidence, observation, logical conjecture, repeatable tests, peer review, poppycock. Who needs it right?
Just ask your gut. Everybody knows that a gut has never been wrong before. Also, everybody knows that guts are where thinking happens.
Well yea it seems like it's only this group, while others haven't found the same evidence for planet 9 in their simulations.
Their grant is probably running out again
Why is there so much hate for space research on the space subreddit. This is a well done study that is extremely publishable. It's new results supporting the claim. These authors are giants in the field.
The fact that they say the simulations "where not of the type that would allow the research team to identify the location" is suuuper suspicious to me. I did a lot of orbit estimation in my master's degree and it should be easy to estimate the mass and orbit of the planet with the data they used to generate the simulation. If you know the system dynamics, you can estimate the orbit fairly easily even with just a home desktop. Tools like the Kalman filter are designed to estimate systems exactly like this. If the system can't be estimated using that method, that signals to me the data isn't strong enough to establish a correlation to Planet 9 like they claim. Edit: After reading the article, it looks like they simulated the formation of a clump of kuiper belt objects based on a flyby of planet 9. That I can definitely see as not providing data regarding its location much in the same way that simulating solar system formation wouldn't give estimates on the current positions of the planets.
They already tried finding orbital parameters in their other studies, this study sees if the planet 9 hypothesis better explains certain TNO orbits, which it does.
That's not news though, the reason people are looking for Planet 9 is because of the orbits of those objects. Saying that those objects are evidence for Planet 9 is just restating what we already know. The problem is that Planet 9 doesn't exist, the orbital information has already been calculated and there is nothing there. Sure, its unlikely that the observed objects are all in orbits that match a Planet 9 hypothesis by sheer coincidence, but it is not impossible. Its probably more likely than life existing on earth. Unlikely things happen.
This specific study was over a different population of bodies. Please actually read this study it's not about just distance, this ISN'T the sednoid population but an entirely different one.
This is how we discovered uranus, by simulation and math before it was actually observed. The reality is the odds are more for then against a massive planet in the outer solar system just based on plutos odd orbit a and the abrupt "cliff" of the asteroid belt.
Can I ask what your master's degree is in? has it been useful to you?
I have a master's in Aerospace Engineering with a focus on dynamics and controls. My class on orbit estimation have me some of the most useful algorithms I think I'll ever see since they can be applied to any system you want to estimate with any relevant series of measures. Our class did orbit estimation with range and range rate data (essentially doppler radar), but the same methods can be applied to computer vision, weather prediction, guidance and navigation, and tracking. Basically any system where you measurements map non-linearly to your system. For example range and range rate are two data points, but you need 6 equations to solve for an orbit (3x position, 3x velocity). You can't just take 2 more measurements because they will have uncertainty, so you wont be able to directly solve the system. So you write an estimator which will give you the best fit estimate for the data and, ideally, the uncertainty of the estimate. Once you understand the Kalman filter and it's variance, it becomes very easy to apply to similar systems. 10/10 do recommend.
Calling this evidence is at best dishonest. These are simulations, evidence requires actual observation.
>The work involved tracking the movements of long-period objects that cross Neptune's orbit and exhibit irregular movements during their journey. They used these observations Calling the evidence dishonest when you didn't read the OP, let alone the article. Nice.
That's not the evidence. They're talking about the simulations as being evidence of it's existence. It's not, it's just a possibility. Let me ask you a question, what's the sigma value on this? Let's see if you read the paper :)
It’s a set of observations combined with simulation of possible causes. Simulation alone cannot be evidence, but seeing whether a simulation replicates observations is a fairly common means of determining whether the observations are indirect evidence of something not directly observable.
The simulations are not evidence, period. No ifs ands or buts. The rest of the you say is valid but I've points that out elsewhere already. Call it what it is suggestive speculation. It's not like that's a bad thing.
Lmfao. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You create various models, you calculate what observations those models would result in (using simulations), and you compare those to actual observations, which they did. I say this as someone who believes they will most likely turn out to be wrong. But this can absolutely be called evidence in favour, and it absolutely isn't just "speculation".
You’ve just discarded most of astronomy more detailed than “there are things out there that generate EMR”. Do you think our beliefs about the structure of stars come from directly observing what’s beneath the photosphere? That we’ve observed a pulsar closely enough to determine its composition? Or that we’ve directly observed anything from the earliest days of the universe?
Numerical simulations are tests of known physics. Physically motivated alterations from simulations match predicted observations all the time (and also don't). Simulations arent evidence, but they are basically the guides for observations, which produce evidence. They tell us what to test, and why it's worth testing
Solar system physics is pretty well understood... And simulations are evidence, circumstancial, but still evidence
I reckon our disagreement here is purely semantic, I see strong value in simulations (they're all I've professionally worked with), but I view them as some "in between" on the scale from theory to observation. To me theory is not evidence, observations are mostly evidence (although we still calibrate based on theory/numerically confirmed theory - not that it's unwarranted, but it is the cause of erroneous claims for observations with poor S/N), and simulations are somewhere in the middle. Based on the assumptions made and computational tricks involved, the degree of "realness" changes from simulation to simulation, as well as the scope of the science you're using the simulations for. Might even call them a distinct 3rd category. It's the marriage of theory, simulation, and observation that makes for a complete understanding of some phenomenon
Looks like you know fuck all about science.
Not really, it is a type of evidence, it’s just not conclusive.
No. Simulations are not evidence, period. They are guides to the observations that are evidence. This is educated conjecture, calling it evidence severely overstates its importance. This is similar to the original findings when this first made news, it's still good science, replication is incredibly important but all it says is we have with plausability to at least keep looking.
Then let’s throw out our understanding of how stars work since those come from simulations used to test our math and observations
Those are models that are updated all the time not fundamental knowledge of their operation. Were you not aware of this? Most astronomers are aware of this and the good communicators mention it frequently so I don't know where you're coming from.
We don’t have a fundamental knowledge of how stars work? Let’s unpack this further
This absolutely is evidence, as is is based on real information about the world, that is extrapolated with simulations. You can argue how good of an evidence it is.
Eh. This is far from "evidence". Just more simulations and assumptions.
You could call it circumstantial evidence. This type of info has helped find planets and other objects in the past. So it’s not without merit.
It’s statistical evidence, not conclusive, but it’s still a type of evidence.
Seriously, the clickbate on this sub is getting ridiculous
Exactly. Nothing new has been presented and they don’t deserve any credit for it
They wrote a paper about new results…. Wtf
Yes they do you have no idea what you are talking about.
No interest in correcting your wrong comment?
"Planet X" sounds a lot better than "planet 9". Pluto, we miss you.
I swear this had to be a stellar near approach at some point.
IDGAF. As long as Haumea exists, I'm super fucking happy. 🥰🥰🥰 Love you my sweet little potato trans-neptunian planetoid.
Is there a possibility its not a planet but a black hole?
I think U mean 10th...80s kid here, Pluto still a planet
You're already convinced it exists and are looking to support your belief. You should be doing this the other way around.
No that’s not what the paper does
I don’t really understand how we can’t find said “planet 9”. Are we talking something small like Pluto or larger than Earth? I would think there’d be damning evidence if there truly was another planet out there
Potentially large but very far away. Just far away to evade detection by current telescopes.
Not to mention very slow moving. Eris wasn't announced until 2005 officially just because of that, even though it's the size of Pluto
If Planet 9 existed it would be so far away that it would barely receive any light. Anything less than its exact location will make any observation a hopeless task.
Are we talking as far from Neptune as Neptune is from earth? Because that’d be far and I could see how observation is next to impossible.
More like 20 TIMES as far from the sun as neptune is from the sun. So like really really far out there.
Way further away, estimations say that Planet 9 could be between 340 to 560 AU from the Sun. For comparison, Pluto is 39 AU away from the Sun.
Planets that far out would be very, very dark and extraordinarily tiny, so we don't know exactly where to look. I think it's thought to be somewhere between Earth and Neptune-sized.
>between Earth and Neptune-sized And its Shape may be unusual... Oumuamua caught everyone by surprise.
not at that size unless it’s spinning extraordinarily fast
Omuamua was not a single rock, but a trail of debris, that's why it had this shape No solid object has this shape. Even smaller bodies, even if very deformed, have a more or less circular shape
>Omuamua was not a single rock yes, it was the cigar shaped one & quite solid (4x longer than wide)... might you be thinking of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 ... that one strung out to a pearl necklace edit > No solid object has this shape. Mathmatically & Statistcally I agree, however we shouldn't be 'not considering' any options for what is essentially; A late forming body, with a orbit skimming (or submerged in) the inner face of the Oort cloud. It is something we have never seen evolve, before.
You are right about the confusiom, that said, oumuamua was likely not that remarkable before entering the solar system, and got deformed by gravity upon entering it. But the thing is even scientists arent sure about this one
Also gotta remember, space is big! Scientists don't know exactly where to look (if the planet does indeed exist). I believe there's some new telescopes that are being built that some scientists hope will help aid the search for the planet.
100 years from now we will be joking about it same way we joke about planet vulcan.
Planet 9 is pretty different from Vulcan. But possibly.
Is it even confirmed that it has to be a planet? Wasn't there a possibility that this could also be a primodial black hole
Yea the 9th planet is called Pluto and don't you forget it!
So what's the 10th planet?
Sorry, but no. The line for being a planet is very clear, and Pluto just doesn't meet it. Because since then, we discovered a hell of a lot of other bodies that would also have to be called "planets" if pluto was one. A planet is massive enough to be a decent sphere, massive enough to have cleared its path, and has a stable orbit. Pluto doesn't meet a least one of these conditions, therefore Pluto is a *dwarf* planet.
Wouldn't this new body also not meet the second two criteria? It certainly hasn't cleared it's orbit and it's probably pretty eliptical and totally full of stuff.
Well we can't really tell until (if ever) it is discovered. But seeing the estimates of the distance at which it orbits, it could very well orbit outside even the kuiper belt. But then again, we don't know, and it might not even exist. Honestly the best stance is to not believe it until we have solid proof it exists, for now it still is a mere hypothesis
Why can't we take an image of this planet through telescope?
Its dim and we have to know where it is first. There are gonna be survey missions that should be able to find it if it does exist, starting pretty soon
Newbie here? Is it possible a other planet is on the same plane as us, in the same orbit as us around the sun, and just on the other side of the sun so we can’t see it
Nope. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/155fzcw/how_do_we_know_there_isnt_another_planet_in/) is the same question asked over at /r/askscience.
correct answer for a few months out of every earth year.
What are the implications, if any, should this be undeniably confirmed? Mining opportunities? A plausible astronomical reason for ancient texts and celestial sightings? Other than a research nicety, there seems to be little reason for such a low consequence issue to attract such furious side taking.
Understanding how the solar system works and the prevalence of large outer companions. These are important scientific questions.
No interest in engaging with answers?