ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Pluto postmortem

Posted: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:10 AM by Alan Boyle

Protest petitions are still circulating, protest songs are still being written, and kids are still standing up for the littlest planet. But based on the postmortems on Pluto’s “demotion,” the icy world seems destined to remain a second-class solar system citizen.

When the International Astronomical Union approved a definition of planethood that put Pluto and other mini-worlds into a category known as dwarf planets, apart from the eight "classical" planets, the outcry wasn't long in coming: Not just one, but two petitions demanding reconsideration of Pluto's fate circulated online, drawing hundreds of signatures each.

The reaction from the general public was decidedly pro-Pluto as well - as reflected in our unscientific Live Vote, our message board and many other forums around the Internet. Many voiced precisely the kind of sentiment expressed musically by the Canadian band SubPlot A: "I don't care what the experts say, you'll always be my Number 9."

Now, however, the pendulum is swinging the other way. Astronomers have moved to give Pluto a number on the long roster of asteroids, a.k.a. minor planets. The IAU's newly elected president, Catherine Cesarsky, stuck to her guns this week and said the organization succeeded in getting "as large a fraction of the community as possible [to] agree with the decision."

In this week's issue of The Space Review, science writer Daniel Fischer recaps the IAU proceedings in Prague and says opponents of the decision lacked "any real arguments" for keeping Pluto on the list. He also pooh-poohs the idea of petitioning for a reversal:

"The tumultuous events of August 2006 are as much a lesson in sociology as in astronomy. Discussing what happened with the general public, you notice that the more they learn about the arguments behind the decision, the more they understand and accept it. This adds to the argument that a vote by a fraction of the world’s astronomers after a week of intense arguments might be a better way to determine where to go than aggressively promoted e-mail campaigns. ..."

That's not to say that the case is yet completely closed. Even Cesarsky acknowledges that the IAU's views on planethood will have to be fine-tuned over the next three years or so to account for the wide diversity of celestial objects - ranging from brown dwarfs to the weird theoretical possibilities for extrasolar planets. The requirement that a planet has to be something that has "cleared  the neighborhood around its orbit" might have to be rephrased more precisely.

However, no matter what happens, Pluto will never be returned to the place it held a few years ago, as a solid member of a nine-planet club. Astronomers pretty much knocked Pluto down a notch when a bigger "10th planet," currently known as Xena, was found last year. And there could be scores of other roundish mini-worlds still waiting to be discovered.

It will take years for the Pluto paradigm shift to percolate through new editions of science textbooks, but in reality, most science teachers have been aware for some time that the planetary menagerie is too diverse to be covered by an eight- or nine-word mnemonic. Science teacher Randy Pelton even suggests coming up with a new phrase that includes the solar system's three zones of cosmic leftovers: the asteroid belt, the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud.

So how's this sound? "My Very Eager Marksman Almost Joyfully Shot Up Nasty Killer Owls." Surely you can do better than that, right?

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

I don't know that it's better, but here's another one: Many Very Elaborate Mnemonics Are Just Smart Useful New Knowledge Objects. I'll have to give it some more thought and ask my readers.
My Very Educated Mother Alma Just Served Us Nine Killer Omelets
Considering that there is a real concern about Near Earth Objects, does this mean that Earth is not a planet?  The orbit is demonstrably not clear, so...

Pluto's orbit crosses that of Neptune, although neither has "cleared" the other.  So, we are now down to six planets by the new definition.  Whoops, I forgot the cosmicly recent impacts on Jupiter.  Does that mean that Jupiter has not "cleared" it's own orbit?  And then there were five!

The IAU had best look to its logic and semantics very quickly.  The ability of Marsden to jump in with a serial number is immaterial.  He has hordes of them at his disposal.

Size (gravity potential), shape (spheroidal), orbiting a star and not a star.
So we have Gas Giant Planets, Terestrial Planets and Dwarf Planets. They cemented Pluto and other Dwarf planets planethood when they gave them the deffinition of Dwarf planet. Notice the word planet after dwarf. If they want to call dwarf planets asteroids then they need to change the name of there classification. For now though but my understanding we should have gained and known body as a planet that fits the new Dwarf Planet classification. That brings us up to what, 12 or 13 planets ? I say we write our politicians and have them push the IAU to finish defining what a planet is so that we have a definition that not only applies to our system but to any other system we encounter.
Pluto is or is not a planet. To qoute Garfield "BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL". These are people who appear to have way too much time on their hands. Let's worry about something that would have an "impact" on our planet and the way we live, like that errant rock or comet out there with our name on it. Let's spend this time and money(millions/billions??)to find the means to get off this rock before some lunatic starts lobbing nukes or worse around the world. Let's apply this effort to something that, in the grand scheme of things, actually means something of importance to the people of our planet
It's sadly appropriate to this era of human history that Pluto should be downsized to being just another member of the Kuiper belt.  Still, a rose is a rose is a rose . . .
How can you justify this change when there were only 424 members (Out of 9000) left when the vote was taken? I call this dishonest in my books and the IAU just lost all respect I had once given it.
*sniff*
I'll always remember you Pluto, though you were always quite distant to me. You were more than just a planet; you were Mickey Mouse's best friend.
It always seemed like the first eight planets were formed in the same orbital plane, and thus out of the same primordial cloud.  Pluto was always an exception to that.  I'm surprised the astronomers did not take that into consideration when making a definition about our solar system.
sorry, but our solar system contains hundreds, thousands, or more, of plantary sized objects....i can just can't see a 'star trek' episode where they go into orbit around something a couple of thousand miles across and say 'let's beam down to this non planet'.. if it is big and round---it is a planet
Well, why not new categories such as gaseous planets, rocky planets, inhabitable planets (human lifeforms, that is), moonless planets, planets with too many moons, planets with circular orbits, planets with ellipitical orbits, planets with long solar orbits, planets with short solar orbits. Where do you draw the line for nomenclature?
Headline:

Physically Challenged Advocates Ask California Judge to Toss "Dwarf" Status for Pluto
scientists can call pluto what ever they like. As far as I'm concerned, its a planet and always will be. As far as the public accepting the descision, remember that people still say that the sun rises and sets even though everyone knows that it's the earth turning. I know that I didn't elect the IAU to do anything and don't really care what they say.
How about:
Most Versions Eventually Mention All Jumbo Spheres Until Nearing King-size Orbits.

I don't like the hyphen, but it's the best I can do right now
Mega Vaulting Engine Ares Just Sent Up NASA's King Orion
So far, the arguments I have heard against the "demotion" of Pluto have no scientific basis. Science is not static. It grows and expands as our knowledge grows. As we learn more about the universe around us, we have to let go of old ideas that were incorrect and embrace new ones.

One of the biggest arguments I've heard is that this demotion diminishings Clyde Tombaugh's discovery. I can think of little that could be farther from the truth. Clyde Tombaugh didn't discover the ninth planet. He discovered the first of an entirely new type of solar system object! He just didn't know it at the time.

That feat wasn't repeated for over sixty years! Today we call these objects "KBOs" or Kuiper Belt Objects. His memory should be honored as the first to discover a KBO.

I wonder what teachers of centuries past would think of our periodic table of elements? Once it was thought there were four basic elements, wind, earth, water and fire. Today there are hundreds of known elements on the periodic table, and none of those original four made the cut.
Fine-tuned, eh?  Talk about CYA...  Yeah, a real great definition that leave out exoplanets, free floating planets, and those others thrown out of a normal orbit by orbital migration (and/or other chance encounters)...  NOT!  They've only proved that scientists can be both bias and dead wrong!  

So what would be wrong with a spherical-ish body that does not orbit another planet (which would make it a moon).  Then and ONLY then can you subcategorize and say rocky, Jovian, ice, dwarf planet - which I wouldn't mind!  Lets not forget the blunder about neglecting the proper deffinition of a moon.  I am certainly not in favor of promoting moons to planets but it two bodies orbit a "point in space" rather than one orbiting the other, than you have a double planet. End of story!  It may be easy enough to forget Charon and Pluto, but if Venus and Earth orbited a point in space I certainly hope they'd call it a double planet.
 
This is really very simple, any object having sufficient mass to achieve a spherical(rotational oblation notwithstanding) shape that orbits a star and is not in orbit around another non-stellar object is a planet.  Pluto and Charon appear to revolve around a common centre of mass (Trojan orbit), this makes them a double planet.  Having cleared its neighbourhood only means that nothing else shares it's specific orbit.  Being struck by an object from outside its orbit does not indicate failure to clear.
I believe that it is important for science to adjust as new information becomes available.  We now know that Pluto is far smaller than originally believed.  Armed with that information and knowing that Pluto revolves around the Sun like a comet, instead of like the other planets, it makes perfect sense to reclassify it.  If science didn't change as new information became available, we would still believe that the Earth is the center of our solar system.
Decades ago my grandmother asked me what we learned in school that day. I told her that our solar system had 9 planets. She corrected me and said, no, it has 8. I recounted them for her. She pensively looked at me and said: "We have 9 planets? When did we get 9 planets?" She did not believe the name "Pluto", either. I now realize she was greatly ahead of her time. Remember: Grandmas are always right.
Don't be so sure Pluto won't be returned to its place as one of the nine planets orbiting our sun.  The IAU process for coming up with this definition was flawed and highly political. 400 out of 10,000 people voting in haste on the last day of the conference when most participants had already left hardly equals a consensus.  The planet "definition" appears to have been created specifically to exclude Pluto.  Pluto orbits the sun, has three moons, and has an atmosphere, all of which make it a planet.  What would make more sense is dividing the planets into subcategories such as terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars); gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), and Kuiper Belt Objects (Pluto, UB313, and other large similar objects).
Remember, Neil De Grasse Tyson is probally lobbying to leave Pluto as a non-planet.  Too bad, even Xena lost it name along with Gabrielle
I subscribe to the KISS philosophy - Keep It Simple, Scientists!  Look, if it's big enough to have enough wieght to force itself into a sphere and it orbits a star, it's a planet.  Clear the orbital path?  If that's the definition, I know of about 100 million dinosaurs that would testify that Earth isn't a planet either.
Solar systems with two or more stars that orbit each other are called double-star systems, etc.  The don't call one of the stars a dwarf star...
Plain and simple, this is just an attempt to get their names in the paper and possibly be granted tenure at their local community college.  It's so pathetic, it's comical.
I have heard nothing about moons. Now I suppose we will have to reclassify them too.  Jupiter has many,  big ones, little ones, some round, some not.  Some moons are not even round and some have retrograde orbits.  Saturn's moons are still in the rings.  what now?
For those who are fond of Pluto, Pluto will always be a planet for them. For those who wishes for it's demotion, they can stick with the IAU's definition. Although it's not like when people discovered the earth was round and not flat because there was geographical evidence proving it. This topics is all in human definition of what a planet is.
I was there in Prague and voted for resolutions 5a and 5b, because they were at least a reasonable conclusion to an increasingly sterile debate. The definition makes no difference to the known facts about the solar system, and does not require any theories to be re-written. What matters is the exciting new discoveries of more and more bodies at the edge of the solar system. Scientifically, the "definition" of Pluto will fade into irrelevance. For most of us I think, the vote was a vote to get on with some real work now please.

How to take such decisions is of course a tricky business. It ain't obvious. But what about this "only 4% of astronomers" stuff ? The vote was passed by an overwhelming majority. Those who know some statistics might like to work out the probability that the majority of astronomers were actually against the resolution, when a random sample of 1 in 20 voted by about twenty to one in favour...
That four percent minority who voted to demote Pluto are not representative of the majority of IAU members or professional astronomers around the world. How do you substantiate that claim? Most who voted in Prague are not even planetary scientists. Electronic voting was not allowed, meaning anyone not in the room couldn't vote. The sample you had was not representative or random. It was heavily dominated by dynamicists. Within only a few days, an equal number of planetary scientists signed a petition saying they will not use the new planet definition and reject the decision. In the six months since the vote, some who originally supported it have changed their minds, and Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of the New Horizons mission to Pluto and one of the leading authorities on Pluto in the world, plans to convene a conference of 1,000 astronomers later this year to reopen this issue. This vote is not leading to "getting on" with other issues--instead it has opened a Pandora's box and only intensified this debate. How about the IAU change its policy and allow Internet or email voting in 2009? Let's see how the results go then. That's not to mention that a lot of astronomers who've never attended IAU General Assemblies before now are outraged and plan to show up in person in 2009. This decision will not stand.
The whole contervorsy seems trivial. Why not call all natural bodies orbiting the Sun and endowed with enough gravity to make them spherical "Planets". Why worry about the number of such bodies? The object of language is to convey meaning. "A rose by another name" etc. Clearing its obit of other debris is not a very easy criterion. So many bodies cross the orbit of the Earth after all. Of course somebody has to judge these things; and I am nobody to argue with the IAU.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=3732

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google