A quasi-weekly column from astronomer Mike Brown on space and science, planets and dwarf planets, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the joys and frustrations of search, discovery, and life. With a family in tow. Or towing. Or perhaps in mutual orbit.



There's something out there -- part 3

In part 1 of this story I told about the discovery of Sedna, the first – and still only – body found far beyond the edge of the Kuiper belt. Part 2 described some of our early theories on how Sedna had gotten there and what it was telling us about the early history of the solar system. Here I’ll begin talking about the most recent searches for more things like Sedna and how we’re doing so far.

Seven years ago, I knew with certainty that the discovery of Sedna in a strange orbit that never brought it close to any planet was telling us something profound about our solar system. I also knew that Sedna would never divulge her secrets alone. To learn more, we’d have to find more things like Sedna.


We had to find more because if there was one thing that we know for an almost certainty, it is that Sedna is not alone. Each of the different theories about why Sedna exists predicts something very specific about the other things that must invariably exists in the outskirts of the solar system along with Sedna.

For example, if Seda has been kicked into its current orbit by an unknown Planet X orbiting somewhere not far beyond Neptune, then this X would have done a lot more kicking, too, and the others out by Sedna would all have orbits which travelled to the far reaches of the solar system but then looped back to the location of X. The spot they all travelled back to would, in fact, mark X. If, in contrast, Sedna’s peculiar orbit was created when it was flung in the outer reaches of the solar system by a single star which had wandered unexpectedly close to our sun, then the orbit of every single other object out by Sedna would be able to be traced back to a kick from that single precise star. Finally (at least among my initial theories), if Sedna had been pulled into place by many tiny tugs exerted by a myriad of starts  born in the same cluster as the sun, there would be almost no pattern. Objects out by Sedna would be at every tilt, distance, and elongation possible.
The other theories each had their own unique pattern, too. If we could only find more of these distant unexpected objects like Sedna, we could read their pattern – or their lack of pattern – to understand precisely what had happened earlier in the history of the solar system. It would be easy, if only we could just find a few more.

But how?

Sedna itself had been an unexpected discovery in our ongoing search of the skies. Night after night we were systematically scanning the darkness, looking for faint points of light moving slowly over the hours. Sedna was moving so slowly – because it was so distant – that at first we didn’t even think it could be real. But it was. And when we realized that we needed to find more, my first thought was simply: keep on doing what we were doing. At the time that we found Sedna, we had covered about a fifth of the sky. So by simply continuing our normal search we were bound to find something good sooner or later.

Find something good indeed! In the years that followed, as the area we had searched grew, we found Orcus, then Haumea, then Eris, then Makemake. The outer solar system would never be the same. But the one thing we never found was anything remotely like Sedna.

Not finding anything else like Sedna was disappointing, of course, but, really, not surprising. Sedna was so far away and moving so slowly that we had almost missed it the first time around. And Sedna’s orbit is so elongated that is spends the vast majority of the time even further from the sun than it is now. In fact, most of the time Sedna is so far away from the sun that it would be moving so slowly that we would have missed it entirely. Of Sedna’s 12,000 year orbit around the sun,, we would only have been able to detect it for the 200 years when it was the absolute closest to the sun.

We were lucky to have found Sedna to start with. We would need luck to find more. Or, if luck wasn’t going to work, as it appeared it wasn’t, we would need a plan. And better than one plan, we decided on two plans.

OK, plan one. If your big problem is that everything you’re looking for is so far away that it is moving too slowly for you to be able to notice it, the obvious solution is to watch more carefully for things moving more slowly. In our case, watching more carefully simply meant taking pictures further apart. In our first search across the skies, we took 3 pictures spaced by 3 hours. Anything that moved even slightly during those 3 hours was suspect. But something so far away that it looked stationary over 3 or 6 or 10 hours we would have just called a star like everything else stationary in the sky. The solution? Obvious. Take pictures further apart. Consistently taking pictures of the the sky more than 3 hours apart during a single night is hard, so we switched, instead, to pictures 24 hours apart. With that dead simple modification we could suddenly see things moving 23/3=8 times more slowly, meaning 8 times further away. Even better, after the discoveries of Eris and Haumea and Makemake, other astronomers were willing – eager even – to monopolize the telescope for our quest. Where our previous search had occupied at most 2 hours per night on the 48-inch Schmidt telescope at Palomar – a telescope specialized for broad views of the sky like we needed – our new survey was going to take fully half of all of the time available. We would sweep up the sky at an incredible rate. We were going to go so fast, in fact, that we decided it would be best to simply start from the beginning. So after having finished the largest astronomical survey for slowly-moving objects in modern history, we immediately turned around and began an even larger astronomical survey for even more slowly moving objects.

What an exciting survey! In our earlier survey we had found almost all of the known major dwarf planets. Now we could see things even 8 times further! If Sedna was the tip of the iceberg, as we suspected, we were about to be overwhelmed.

For 18 months we probed night after night. We found a lot of things which had been overlooked the first time around, objects in the Kuiper belt which had been in one of the blind spots of the camera or hiding so close to a bright star that it couldn’t be distinguished, but nothing in the far reaches were Sedna float – so far – alone. In fact, we only had a few days left before the telescope was to be taken out of service for major refurbishment, when something slow moving finally appeared in our pictures. It was far away – OK, not quite as far away as Sedna –but, still, it could be the next piece of the puzzle for which we were looking!

There was one problem, though. While we could tell that the new object (which we nicknamed “Snow White” based on what turned out to be an utterly wrong guess about what it would look like up close) was far away, we had no idea if, like Sedna, it was far away and moving even further out, or if, like many objects in the Kuiper belt, it was just spending a little time far away before plunging back towards the sun like a normal Kuiper belt object. We didn’t know simply because Snow White was so far away and moving so slowly that it would take a long time – not a day this time, but a year – before we could tell which way it was headed. We had no choice but to wait, come back a full year later, and look again.

But we didn’t have to sit around that whole year doing nothing, because, of course, we also had plan number two.

To be continued. And eventually finished. Promise.

15 comments:

Constantine Thomas said...

Gah! You end with such a tease! :)
(I'm curious to know what this "Snow White" is).

As a thought - if a "planet X" reasonably close to the sun would cause lots of objects to have orbits with perihelia near X's orbit, what if the supposed planet was actually very FAR from the sun instead? I'm not sure if it works like this, but could you then end up with many objects having the same *aphelion* distances, which mark where the distant X's orbit is? (so basically, you're reversing the original situation?). Is there any evidence for that at all?

Also, I can't track down a ref for it right now, but I'm sure I read an article a few years ago (this might be it? http://www.springerlink.com/content/q11p118835j6351m/ ) suggesting that there might be a clustering of comet orbits about 80 AU from Sol, suggesting a possible planet-sized object there (now I look at that again, maybe my idea posited above has some validity!). Did anything ever come of that?

Mike Brown said...

Constantine --
You are 100% right.

You also remember correctly, but these days it looks like that 80AU thing is just a fluke.

Snow White! I should have added the link to the blog post about it. I'll do that right now....

Constantine Thomas said...

Thanks, that clears things up a little! "Snow White" sounds interesting - did it ever get an official name?

Patteroast said...

Best I can tell, the only name that 'Snow White' has so far is (225088) 2007 OR10.

Joshua Bell said...

Hrm, and http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/oort-cloud-companion/ appeared today as well. The actual paper appears to be http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4584v1 (submitted for publication in ICARUS).

Possible spoilers for Part 4?

Brent said...

Snow White and the Seven Dwarf Planets

Cosmos Mariner said...

Mike, suppose the typical albedo of these objects is closer to the comet nuclei value of 0.04. Perhaps Sedna is anomalously bright, e.g. because of recent activity, and there are many more darker objects, otherwise due to long term cosmic ray irradiation? Could you detect in IR with JWST or another instrument?

kurt9 said...

The Kuiper belt mostly ranges from 35 to 50 AU, with a sharp drop off in the number of objects beyond 50 AU. Doesn't this suggest that there is a large object screening out KBO's beyond the 50 AU limit?

mikeemmert said...

@Joshua Bell and kurt9, here:

http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/MullerLunar.pdf

is an interesting paper by Richard Muller & crew that suggests that lunar cratering rates in the Solar system changed suddenly 3.5 and 1.2 billion years ago then dropped off. Intriguingly, cratering rates in the past 500 million years have increased.

I think there WAS an object much like Matese and Whitmire postulated but that it was torn away by a passing star 500 million years ago. It was responsible for the Kuiper cliff at 55 A.U. I think.

Maybe it's in a 26 million year eccentric orbit now that has a perihelion close enough to knock comets loose from the Kuiper belt. I think the Oort cloud is the wrong place to look. KBO's have all kinds of inclined orbits. It looks like something disturbed it.

My simulations on Gravity Simulator indicate a mass of about 5+ Jupiter masses.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Brown & all other interested parties:

It would seem rational and practical to start with your simplest (to empirically prove) explanation and rule it out, before moving onto your next most difficult to prove theory.

It also seems that another potential "controversy" is about to rear its ugly head. Remember what happened to poor Pluto after the discovery of Eris.

Well, on a different level we may have a healthy debate as to the structure of our Solar System, i.e. in what defined areas do objects reside.

We have words or terms for areas where long known objects reside such as the inner Solar System, asteroid belt, outer Solar System etc.

But as we venture beyond Neptune, the areas we find objects in and their boundaries are not clearly defined or named. Sure we have names for areas beyond Neptune such as the Kuiper belt, Scattered disk and Oort cloud, but what are their boundaries, are their other unnamed areas, are their sub-regions, where are these well defined areas and what do we call them? Also, can they and do they overlap?

Although some objects migrate from one area to another such as comets traveling from the Oort cloud to the inner Solar System, we need to be able to say "comet X came from the outer Oort cloud and traveled to the inner Solar System."

Remember the astronomical question "what is a planet?," well the new questions of the second decade of the 21st century are "what are each of the areas (beyond Neptune) of the Solar System called?" "What are the boundaries of these areas?" "Which objects reside within the boundaries of these areas?"

As a teacher, I need to be able to say something like "Sedna, a dwarf planet, resides in the extended scattered disk area of the Solar System."

I cannot say "Sedna, a dwarf planet, resides either in the scattered disk or extended scattered disk or the detached object area or the inner Oort cloud area of the Solar System."

It cannot be too difficult to set limits and boundaries of the Solar System, including the Solar System itself, and provide names for those areas.

The astronomical community "decided" what requisites an object must have to be called a planet. Now it is time for this community to define the areas of our Solar System (SS), i.e. the inner SS lies between 0 AU to 2.3 AU; the asteroid belt lies between 2.3 to 3.3 AU; the outer SS lies between 3.3 AU to 30 AU; the Kuiper belt lies between 30 AU to 50 AU; the scattered disk lies between 50 AU and 150 AU; the detached object region lies between 150 AU to 1,000 AU; the Oort cloud lies between 1,000 AU to 100,000 AU.

I am not an astronomer, but to teach science (astronomy) I need to be able to see, measure and explain concepts and need clarification to demonstrate, illustrate and teach them.

Thank you.

George Smith

Anonymous said...

> I cannot say "Sedna, a dwarf planet, resides either in the scattered disk or extended scattered disk or the detached object area or the inner Oort cloud area of the Solar System"

Why not?

You can say "Sedna, a dwarf planet, has an elliptical orbit with perihelion N and aphelion M. IOW: it is always much farther from the Sun than Neptune. Currently, scientists don't have a solid theory how and where Sedna was formed, and how it ended up in its current orbit".

This way, your students will get used to the idea than science is not just a set of cold, solid, boring rules and definitions. There are unsolved problems in it.

Anonymous said...

Is it correct to stipulate that "all SDOs eventually become Centaurs" ?

Philip C

Pavel Smutny said...

I tried to compare gravitational forces of Venus during transits, down conjunctions (40million km from Earth) with gravitational forces of X in distance 1billion km from us (end of 2010). Grav. forces (proportional k.M/(L.L)) from Venus ...(during transits,..) looks to be comparable with tidal gravity of Sun ( proportional k.M/(L.L.L)) on Earth. It is circa 1/4 of Moon's tidal force on Earth. When X is cca 25x farther than Venus (during transits,...) so X should be minimum 25x25 =625 times heavier than Venus,..circa 2xJupiter. These results comes from data also from Venezia, where it looks to be water level during spring tides 40cm higher than it was obvious some years ago. These spring tides,..aqua marea sostenuta have enormously rising number in previous, this year and are quite often. Water isn't going down too much,...
Amendment to water level during last 10 years due to ocean water rising is only cca 5cm/max 10cm per 10years over there,..Pavel

Mike Brown said...

Pavel --
Something that massive would be SO EASY to detect in SO MANY ways. I can say, with certainty, that such a thing DOES NOT EXIST. I rarely say anything so emphatic. This one, though, I am so confident about that I am willing to be quite emphatic.
Mike

Mike Brown said...

Philip C --
I think the only thing you can say with certainty (other than the comment above, about which I am certain) is that given an infinite amount of time all SDOs could become Centaurs. But it is not clear that it will happen before, say, all of the protons in the universe decay.

Post a Comment