ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- Visit brilliant.org/... to get started learning STEM for free. The first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription and a 30-day free trial.
After Pluto's demotion to dwarf planet in 2006, our solar system went from having nine planets to eight. But about a decade later, some astronomers proposed there was another planet, larger than Earth, hiding in the Kuiper Belt. And in 2023, another team calculated there's a chance there's a gas giant orbiting the Sun in the outermost boonies of the solar system: the Oort cloud.
Hosted by: Reid Reimers (he/him)
----------
Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: / scishow
----------
Huge thanks go to the following Patreon supporters for helping us keep SciShow free for everyone forever: Adam Brainard, Alex Hackman, Ash, Bryan Cloer, charles george, Chris Mackey, Chris Peters, Christoph Schwanke, Christopher R Boucher, Dr. Melvin Sanicas, Harrison Mills, Jaap Westera, Jason A Saslow, Jeffrey Mckishen, Jeremy Mattern, Kevin Bealer, Matt Curls, Michelle Dove, Piya Shedden, Rizwan Kassim, Sam Lutfi
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
SciShow Tangents Podcast: scishow-tangen...
TikTok: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Instagram: / thescishow
Facebook: / scishow
#SciShow #science #education #learning #complexly
----------
Sources:
solarsystem.na...
solarsystem.na...
arxiv.org/pdf/...
cneos.jpl.nasa...
solarsystem.na...
arxiv.org/pdf/...
arxiv.org/abs/...
www.nasa.gov/f...
Image Sources:
solarsystem.na...
www.gettyimage...
commons.wikime...
www.gettyimage...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
www.gettyimage...
commons.wikime...
exoplanets.nas...
commons.wikime...
www.gettyimage...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
mobile.arc.nas...
solarsystem.na...
www.gettyimage...
www.gettyimage...
www.gettyimage...
www.gettyimage...
www.gettyimage...
svs.gsfc.nasa....
commons.wikime...
www.gettyimage...
commons.wikime...
commons.wikime...
www.gettyimage...
![[Re:all TREASURE] EP.6 in 방콕ㅣ🚩 쩡캠의 방콕 투어 빵 마이 와이 👍](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/uyFw-nItA_s/mqdefault.jpg)
Visit brilliant.org/scishow/ to get started learning STEM for free. The first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription and a 30-day free trial.
I love the rule of thumb in astronomy where if any objects are super far out or have weird orbits, it's probably all Jupiter's fault.
if all else fails, blame jupiter
@@yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeatsince Jupiter is Zeus, yeah that tracks.
Question: can I apply the same rule to my personal life?
"Oh, I*meant* to do this task, but Jupiter"
@@NinaDmytraczenko ya i think astrology specializes in that
@@NinaDmytraczenkoNah, in that case blame Mercury.
Imagine if we found planet 9 because, despite infinitesimal odds, a voyager probe smacked into it
@BassRck50”Even though Voyager 1 travels about a million miles per day, the spacecraft will take about 300 years to reach the inner boundary of the Oort Cloud and probably another 30,000 years to exit the far side.”
~ solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/oort-cloud/overview/#:~:text=Fact-,Fast%20Fact,to%20exit%20the%20far%20side.
Technically it would still be possible that one of the voyagers smacks into Planet 9 or 10.
@BassRck50 they’re still far on our side of the Oort Cloud though. But yea they’re in the 100 something range AU’s. Really dang far
Haha I was just thinking the same thing!!
Voyagers are in what’s considered interstellar space, but the Oort Cloud is technically speaking still part of our solar system and Voyagers have not reached the Oort Cloud yet. So if the planet or planets had been thrown all the way out into the Oort Cloud then there is a nearly impossible chance that one of them could run into a potential rogue planet that came from our system.
Hmm that reminds me of a certain game, that nobody should mention
I never even realized the Oort Cloud was well past the Heliopause (where solar winds can't travel further) and well into Interstellar Space; that's just so wild!
To call the heliopause the edge of the solar system is not really accurate. The Sun's gravitational dominance is much much larger than that.
@@Top_Weeb Depends on how you define "edge of the solar system". Until the IAU makes a formal definition, no answer (furthest planet? heliopause? Sun's gravitational sphere of influence?) is any more or less "accurate" than any of the others.
Who knows how many comets are floating around out there. In the cold vastness of space...
@@juliasophical What's the definition of "gravitational sphere of influence"? Everything has an "infinite" gravitational sphere of influence. It's just at some point it becomes really, really tiny to the point of negligibility. So what's that "limit"?
@@gobblinalThere's a range where the Sun's gravity is stronger than any other star.
Eris and Ceres deserve more love of the ‘endlessly arguing for Pluto’ crowd. Eris is more massive than Pluto and Ceres was a planet for decades in the 1800s. (And is genuinely a dwarf planet.)
That is certainly true, if we accept Pluto as a planet we still don't get 9 planets but more and the question is where you would draw the line.
Having enough mass to be round and to vacuum up it's own orbit was the scientific solution (instead of just saying that Mercury and anything larger is a planet) but that might pose some new problems if they find planet 9 and 10.
Because I am not convinced they would have cleaned up their orbits if they have an insanely long and maybe a bit wonky orbit and if they haven't, they could be as big as Neptune and still not fit our current model for being a planet which would mean back to the drawing board.
It is also pretty likely that there are more objects in the size of Pluto, Eris and Ceres in the Kuiper belt and probably in the Oort cloud as well, maybe many more since they are pretty hard to spot and we don't want to teach the school kids the name of our 30 or so planets, that would just be confusing.
The Pluto fans seems rather upset about Eris though, since it really was the final nail in Pluto's coffin. I am not sure who decided Ceres wasn't a planet suddenly but Pluto was.
Eris appeared to be larger for a long time due to our perspective, but now it's not. And Eris is further out in the belt.. Pluto has not cleared its orbit of space debris but neither have Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune. This is pretty limiting and every planet must clear its orbit otherwise it would smash into anything in its orbit.
@@ursaltydog Everything I’ve seen still lists Eris as more massive, just more compact?
Not just them, but also Sedna, Orcus, Haumea, Quaoar, Makemake, and Gonggong. (Yes, it's actually called Gonggong.)
@@ursaltydog Eris is still estimated to be a tiny bit larger and weights more but they are so close that if one is considered a planet the other must be as well. And yeah, Eris is 2400 km +-100 km and Pluto is estimated to 2,326 km so it is possible Pluto is slightly larger but likely slightly smaller.
Not to a degree that matters, if one is a planet, the others is too.
And yeah, Eris was originally estimated to 3000 km which would make it large enough to possibly warrant a different label.
The smallest official planet now is Mercury at 4,879 km at twice the diameter of both.
Ceres is 946 Km and far smaller but I would like to hear your definition for a planet if Pluto is one because Ceres is still pretty large compared to a regular asteroid.
So if a Neptune sized planet 10 is in the Oort Cloud, but the "planet" designation only applies to bodies that have cleared their orbit of other objects, wouldn’t that preclude "planet" 10 from being designated a planet just like Pluto?
Not necessarily it may exist in a band of the Oort cloud that has been cleared similarly to how the Saturn's moons cleared a path through its rings, alternatively we may have to adjust the definition further since at the scale that these planets would be orbiting, it might be impossible for them to completely clear their orbits before new material drifts in.
@@mocha9072 : Yeah, you’re probably right. Plus, who knows the average distance between Oort Cloud objects assuming the Oort Cloud exists and is anything like we’ve hypothesized. Growing up, my mental image of the asteroid belt between mars and Jupiter was based on what I saw in sci-fi, like in Star Wars and Star Trek, but I later learned the average distance between asteroid belt objects was somewhere around 2 to 3 times the distance between the earth and the moon.
Just out of curiosity, is "Nick" some type of working name for planet 10, or was that a typo? If it was a typo, I’m all for calling it Nick!
@@mocha9072 Or we can throw away the completely stupid artificial designation (because we 'Center of the Universe' humans hate counting past ten) of having to clear its nearby space when determining what a planet is, and allow planetary geologies in on the rule making of what makes a planet a planet. Just saying.
It would be a very large dwarf planet, indeed.
Yeah, in principal I don't mind reclassifying pluto a dwarf planet - there are a lot of them, and splitting planets into more sub-categories as we learn more is useful - but the definition of planet they chose to do it was a really ham-fisted kludge aimed specifically at excluding pluto based on our solar system as we currently understood it, and which only indirectly relates to size. In an era of accelerating discovery of exoplanets it was particularly out of place.
Just a thought for fun, but if our suns oort cloud goes almost halfway to proxima centauri, does that mean proxima also has it's own oort cloud that ''touches'' ours? And if so wouldn't this mean the interstellar medium could be like a bubble wrap made of touching, neighbouring oort clouds?
Yay, I'm not the only one who wonders that!
Sorta. It's a bit messier because stars push gas and dust outward but there are more stars than just the trinary Alpha Centauri system, and the solar system has its own motion through the galaxy. So there's turbulence and eddies where the direction of the local "wind" changes.
I was also thinking about that.
Oh yeahhhh
Sort of, remember that we do not know that the Oort Cloud even exists. Also, if it does exist we do not know it's composition or density. I imagine it would be less dense than our asteroid belt, which is not really that dense.
There is lots of "stuff" in between stars, but when they say cloud, they do not mean a thick shell that you would constantly be colliding with.
The fact that we can see through it to other stars with no issues proves that IF it is there, it is a very diffuse cloud.
If the cloud goes halfway to the next star maybe it's continuously swapping objects. Planets could also be swapped around.
@@realmstupid-on8df🤣🤣
@@realmstupid-on8df Sol might be a freak FR tho
Take what you get.@@realmstupid-on8df
@@realmstupid-on8dfwhat are you doing, stepstar?
I believe someone once calculated the chances of planets migrating like this between systems, and found something like one out of every 20 planets in the milky way might have swapped stars at some point. (including going from a star system to rogue planet and later being captured again somewhere else.)
Sadly I cant remember where I read this so I cant confirm a source. Still a fun idea to think about tho.
I always have to chuckle when I see animations of the (hypothetical), "Oort Cloud". These animations always show small rocky bodies huddled close together, as if in "a cloud". But if you work out the volume of the Oort Cloud - about *100 cubic light years* (yeah, that much ), and divide by the assumed number of objects in it - up to 1 trillion - you'll find that the average distance between them is the same as the *distance from the sun to Saturn* . So no - you won't see clumps of bodies out there in the Oort Cloud. It's essentially empty space.
If this is all accurate, then yes, those animations are definitely worth the chuckle! I’ll be chuckling now too 😂
Thanks for your mathematical wisdom and insights ❤
Space is mostly, well, space.
Nice! Pretty cool. Never thought of that.
almost Entirely wrong. Screenshot at 2:35 shows oort cloud outer radius is 100,000 AU ~ 1.58 LY (subtracting 1000 AU inner radius is negligible). Volume of a sphere with 1.58 LY radius is 16.52 LY^3. Not 100LY cubed…
Love all the space news and science, glad Scispace is still on this channel
There's a weird audio issue in this video that doesn't appear to happen in other videos. With stereo sound, the left track is mostly cut out, momentarily cutting in for a few frames, which is pretty jarring. Haven't noticed this issue in other videos, so I figure this'll be a one-off thing, but still would like to point it out!
Agreed. It's positively nauseating when wearing headphones.
Same problem here
And here I thought my left earbud was running out of battery
Omg I just got home from work and this was the first thing I watched, and was so scared my nice headset was breaking rip
I listen with mono audio and can confirm it sounded normal to me
Ah dang im out of foil to protect myself from the comments section 😂
But mah lizzard peeple
The world is a doughnut and we are the glaze
Climb into a microwave and close the door. Makes a great fiaraday (sp??) cage. Just don't let anyone turn it on.
@@Polkaknotthe world is a couch and we are the cast
Applying enough fire to any problem, even lack of tinfoil, will always solve the problem... no promises it won't give you a different problem
"In maaah day, there were 9 planets!" 😄😄
Yoo I know your videos
I’ve always been fascinated by the Kuiper Belt as a kid. I imagined this part of our galaxy as the Solar System’s ACTUAL belt. I don’t know why, I was a pretty strange kid 😂
Well we all were, and I grew up to be a strange adult. One guy was kinda disgusted. "What do you want to know that stuff for?'
I remember in my elementary school they taught us floppy disks for literally only 2 days then dropped it entirely because it was outdated that instantly.
Then with planets I remember being taught how Pluto was a planet. And then later they said how it wasn’t. Happy I’m included in the group of people who knew Pluto as a planet
As far as I’m concerned it never stopped being a planet.
Me too, it will always be a planet in my eyes
@@TheBorderRyker I definitely still consider it a planet no “scientist” can tell me otherwise😂😂
Justice for Pluto
@@Wetheuntitled if you want to logically think that, you also need to accept Eris as a planet, and also renounce every scientific advancement and recategorisation ever made.
God imagine them finding not one but two whole ass planets in your life time. That would be awesome!
People say it’s irrelevant if there is…..I’m like…..dude…..new planets to study? Yes!
Why do we feel such a strong emotional attachment to Pluto? It's odd that we get so upset by it no longer being classified as a planet.
People don't like change, and they especially don't like being told what they learned was wrong.
We were all children, so we all understand what it feels like to be "too small" to be taken seriously.
People hate perceived change even if it's only semantics.
The same reason why Pokemon Genwunners exist
It's because it's a dwarf PLANET and, for some reason, smart-aleks get ornery and correct them...which leads to people like me dropping the "dwarf" entirely just to piss people off. =w=
Nothing was wilder than being 4 years old in 2006, having learned about the concept and existence of planets a few weeks prior to hearing that Pluto was no longer a planet. Still upset about it.
At least you knew about that.
In kindergarten (about 2011) they thought us Pluto EXPLODED. That it was crushed by an asteroid.
I have no idea who tf invented that, but I couldn't tell all my classmates otherwise.
I remember the I told you so moment on elementary.
Ok zoomer 😜
@@genio2509 whoever taught you that needs to AT LEAST be banned from ever teaching again
@@genio2509 Maybe the memo said "demoted", but your teacher read "demolished".
@@andrewhooper7603 Nope, the tail was complete, an asteroid impacted on Pluto and it exploded.
And I'm Mexican so it's in Spanish, and I don't think there's any misspelling possible.
I propose that we call these Oort Cloud inhabitant Nethack Planets, because they are Roguelike
Loved the grumpy old man bit!
Scishow Space lives on in our hearts, and Reid's humor =D
"You know, back in my day, there were nine planets in the solar system."
"Get off my lawn with your new-fangled hypothetical planets and come back when you've got some cold hard proof!"
...and his facial expressions... 😅😂🤣🙃
Not sure how we'd continue to refer to either one as a planet given the 2000 IAU definition of a planet that requires it to prove "dynamical dominance", or in other words, "clearing the neighborhood", which means sweeping its orbital path from competing celestial bodies of comparable size. Proving the "planet" itself exists is going to be difficult; proving it has cleared the neighborhood without a quantum leap in technology is going to be well-nigh impossible. Ironic that the very definition that demoted Pluto could very well prevent these new discoveries from being designated as true planets as well.
It would provide an interesting test of the hypothesis that anyone takes that definition seriously. My prediction is that if a large body (gas/ice giant sized) is found in orbit of the sun it will be referred to as a planet even if it is proved it does not have dynamical dominance in its orbit. Showing (I say) that no one believes that is a real criterion, it was all an empty pretext.
If Planet 9 exists it would at least be an open question whether it has that characteristic.
If planet 10 exists as described in this video it sounds almost guaranteed not to have that dominance given how distant it would be from parts of its orbit most of the time etc. So if people call a planet 10 type body (an ice giant moving around the edges of the Oort cloud) a planet that would to me be pretty good evidence that clearing its orbit is not a criterion for what qualifies as a major planet, as opposed to minor planet, dwarf planet, rogue planets and so on.
I am personally looking forward to a 1 Mars Mass, a 1 Earth Mass, or a 1+ Earth Mass planet being found that is a dwarf planet. The IAU definition really feels like a marketting gimmick already, imagine this bombshell.
@@EksaStelmere Following up on that premise, let's assume that the current running hypothesis of how our moon was formed is true. That is, a Mars-mass object (Theia) and the Earth had a no-good, very-bad day and whacked into each other. Prior to their collision, what were they? Were they planets or something else? Obviously they had not "cleared one another's neighborhood" unless you want to fly real fast and loose with the term and consider their ill-fated meeting as "neighborhood clearing!" Fact is, the whole point of sweeping your orbital path clear is nonsensical, since dust, debris, asteroids, comets, etc. are continually migrating into the orbital paths of all the planets. So either they're all planets, or none of them are. IMO, the IAU painted themselves into a logical corner with that definition.
@@StarGeezerTim There's technically some mathematical stuff as to what counts as "clearing the neighbourhood" but, yeah. Early Solar system wasn't exactly a clean place.
Consider "clearing the neighborhood" to mean "not the Asteroid Belt, Kuiper Belt, or Oort Cloud, and nothing new inside of Neptune's orbit." The intent was to freeze the list at eight, and put any new discoveries into Minor Planet, Dwarf Planet, comet, ice ball, ...
That's the problem with nine planets -- you can't stop at nine. Eight is a stopping point, with a little hand-waving. Currently, the list of Dwarf Planets is nine, including Pluto, Ceres, and Sedna. So you could argue there are 17 planets, including Pluto, but in a few years, you'd be wrong when the list gets expanded.
Eight will stay eight, barring cataclysms.
Why planets are an important category requires a little thinking. There are similarities between the rocky planets and similarities between the gas giants but Pluto is more like an icy asteroid than than Mars or Neptune. So you could treat it like an exceptional planet or include it with other similar objects like Charon and Sedna.
I’m just in awe of the sun’s gravitational pull on these possibly very distant planets. Imagining space-time being warped by hundreds of millions of miles enough to keep a planet in orbit so far away is hard to even fathom. General relativity is wildd
And now I'm having a Buckaroo Banzai moment.
"Where are we going?!"
"Planet 10!"
"When?!"
"Real soon!"
Thanks. 😂
Why is there a watermelon there?
There's also still Ceres, Vesta, Juno, Pallas, and further out, Sedna and Orcus and tons of others....
The irony of being able to detect planets in other solar systems better than our own
To be fair, I'd argue we can't spot exoplanets well at all and that what we can see now is basically just best case scenarios. Perfect positioning for our systems to spot.
IIRC, most methods of finding exoplanets depends on observing the light of the parent star (cycles of dimming, shifts in wavelength indicating a wobble, etc).
Kinda hard to do that when our own local star is bright enough to drown out all other non-Moon lights from the sky when it’s overhead. And when it’s not overhead… well, there goes your main way of detecting exoplanets… :/
No matter what anyone says, for me Pluto will always be a planet, so there!😛
Still has "planet" right there in the title, so, honestly, if they wanted to stop you from saying it's a planet, they shoulda went and took it out.
I do not despise the ones that call Pluto a planet, but the ones that, calling Pluto a planet, refuse recognize Ceres, Sedna, and others like them as the same.
Could there be LaGrange points with the sun and the entire solar system that could possibly clump dust and rocks in a stationary location?
The Sun's orbit around the galaxy is way too large for that to be the case.
Hmm, not sure if this satisfies your question but we have the Trojan Asteroid groups, and other groups like these. They are groups of asteroids that orbit at or around Lagrange points in the orbits of other planets. For example we have the Jupiter Trojans.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_(celestial_body)
@@Top_Weeb you think I said sun and galaxy?
@@fraliexb You did say the entire solar system. Perhaps "sun and each planet" would have been more specific, since that doesn't treat the solar system as a single object.
But yes, "trojan asteroid."
@@icollectstories5702 yeah I know the sun and every planet have some, but I was more thinking the entire solar system. Like including the gravity forces between the sun and ort cloud, could there be something in its L2, L4 or L5.
The Great thing about looking for something is you usually find Something, it may not be what you were looking for but you find Something maybe something wonderful.
True
If one of the reasons that Pluto was declared not a "real" planet was because it intercepted the Kipper belt. Wouldn't planet 9 be excluded because it's in the Ort cloud?
Dynamical dominance is based on bodies of comparable size. That said, it's also a massively stupid bit of criteria and the IAU can kick rocks.
In fact, they can kick boulders for the fact that they probably won't name a hypothetical Planet 9 'Proserpina' because some mouldy ass in the 18th century named a random rock Proserpina already.
At least Planet 10 could be named Erebus just fine.
The IAU not deciding what a planet is based on the planet itself has always made me very fussy.
No matter how huge any new "Planet N" may be, it better hope it cleared its neighborhood (however large that might be) or NdT and MB will have something to say about it.
If Outer Wilds taught me anything, about a planetary body so distant from our star and with such an unpredictable orbit so that it could be literally in any direction, proving very difficult to simply directly look at and find it's that "Science compels us to blow up the Sun."
Maybe we're just blinking too often.
Cowtec did say they was 99% sure that there was a 9th planet the simulations and the math already pointed to a yes, and is why Neptune has an odd orbit
I don't know the presentators name but i really like him. A great contender for hank!
My high school astronomy teacher was SO passionate that Pluto was a planet. He got in drag-out fistfights with other faculty about it. His office door had a sign on it that read “Don’t let Pluto kick you in on th way out!”
Well we are pretty sure that we started with many more planet size objects. There could be some that didn't get destroyed or fully ejected over time.
And would have orbits that are more like a very very long period comet.
The Kuiper belt rocks!
Oooh... I see what you did there..
😂😂😂
More of a suspenders guy myself.
For detection purposes, we could try a small set of spread beams that are unlikely to be absorbed by intervening dust. By set, I mean 5-10 chosen frequencies that meet the low absorption requirement. Beam them out at 1 second intervals, then await return signals, if any, at 1 second intervals. If any are "seen" (because visible-to-us signals may be unlikely), then we have indications of direction. (This will probably require a ring of signal-horn systems across the planet, to delineate which signals came from which directions, and the detection system will have to run for over a year. You don't want a 10 minute break at the several-light-month mark that misses a definite return pulse. Nor do you want a daily 8 hour gap in which to miss signals.)
That's the thing with growing up in the middle of nowhere. Nobody has ever heard of where you're from. Some people even doubt its existence.
I know how that feels. I used to live in a middle-of-nowhere town in the mining sector of my home state.
The disrespect Pluto gets 😢
Guys, if Pluto was a planet then so would Eris, which is more massive than Pluto. If you want 9 planets be ready for at least 10, not counting Ceres, Quauoar, Sedna, Orcus, Haumea, and Gonggong, according to the list of dwarf planets.
Planet X is multiplying.
I object to Pluto being dubbed with the prefix word dwarf. It isolates Pluto from other planets in the same way that using the word is wrong for short people or who have the unfortunately named condition of dwarfism. I object to the term dwarf being applied to a certain category of small people or small planets.
I kinda agree with you lol, but the size of Pluto is teeny lol. It could sit on Australia and still have plenty of Australia left around it to see
It's also smaller than our own moon lol! But I will not say anything else negative about Pluto, for the sake of Gus lol! He's too cool to be talking crap about his favorite pickup line lol
Would planet 9 be considered a minor plant since it hasn’t cleared its orbital plane? I thought the 3 rules for main planet was orbit/be circular and clear the debris from its orbit.
You kinda pointed out my biggest issue with the IAU definition of a "planet" right there. I personally wanna see a nice big rock of Mars, Earth, or greater mass that is technically a dwarf planet.
The real question is whether anyone really believed that third rule. Discussions like this that ignore it make me think that indeed no one cares about it.
@@allanolley4874 It doesn't take into account debris caught in the L4 and L5 points and becoming Trojans.
This is the first video that I've heard call the mystery planet number 9 instead of 10. Makes me really miss Pluto.
Why is the discussion always just about our solar system's Oort Cloud? Surely other star systems must have them too? If our Oort Cloud extends "Halfway to Proxima Centauri" as suggested in this video, then surely Proxima Centauri's Oort Cloud is halfway to us? Maybe they interact? Maybe objects like some comets or ʻOumuamua might originate from that interaction? Maybe even the hypothetical Planet 10?
This is a cool theory. But I have no actual expertise in space, just a genuine interest.
They undoubtedly would have something similiar with size based on the material present. Proxima's solar system may have more or less mass than our own, which would affect how much material hangs around this cloud.
I don't understand. Why not figure the existence of planets 9 & 10 by measuring the solar system's barrycenter procession hyper-precisely?
And how to do that? Also, would need more than one method of calculating any plausible existence to move from postulation to proven fact.
I like the theory that planet 9 is actually a primordial black hole from the early universe, if nothing else Imageine how much we could learn from direct observations and experiments of a real black hole!
If it was then those asteroids around will be smaller and smaller in quantity. Yes but no. It's been proven that it can't be a black hole
How did we prove anything if the whole planet 9 thing is still unobserved directly? At the moment it could be anything.
The horizon of a black hole with the mass of planet 9 would still be incredibly small in volume. Think of spotting something the size of a bowlingball or less thát far away and you see how hard observing it would be. That's also why the black hole solution for planet 9 was even thought up because it could explain us failing to observe it untill now.
@@juanmondragon
@@juanmondragon Care to share that proof?
@@leykimayri sure. You also want me to spoon feed you?
@@juanmondragon I think you're confusing primordial black holes which are hypothetical, with stellar black holes. There is certainly no stellar black hole orbiting our sun but there is also certainly no proof that there isnt a primordial black hole since they are still only hypothetical anyway.
This sounds identical to the Planet X they were looking for (supposedly affecting the orbit of Neptune) when they found Pluto.
I propose that we change the name of the Oort Cloud to "Feet". Why? Because whats halfway between your head and the Oort cloud? Uranus, of course!
I suggest naming planet X, Leviathan when found.
After your mom?
All I can is if there are more planets in our solar system, two of them better be named Vulcan and Bellona.
Bellona has been claimed by the asteroid 28 Bellona, but Vulcan's still available!
@@dweebteambuilderjones7627 Then have the other one be named Kadmos or Janus.
@@aaronlaluzerne6639 Janus is in use for a moon of Saturn, but Kadmos is available as well.
@@dweebteambuilderjones7627 Erebus and Tartarus are available.
Great angry, old man impressions, especially the one at the end! 7:02
If there is a planet 10 out there/and is confirmed to exist what should its name be? Planet 9 I propose should be called Proserpina (A Roman Death goddess and overseer of funerals), and 10 should be Somnis (Roman God of sleep/considering it found in a very sleepy corner of the solar system).
Planet 9: persephone
Planet 10: erebus
What's Erebus the God/Goddess of? I've heard of Persephone... the wife of Hades for half the year (the myth explains why winter happens).
@@GladDestronger erebus is the greek God of darkness
Is there a Roman counterpart to it?
Not surprised at the idea that there are more rogue planets than planets bound to a star. It makes sense when you think about how difficult it is for a planet to get bound to a star
Fast forward 50 years, there'll be tens more, just lurking in the shadows.
This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them!
You know what I never understood? Why we don't use "minor and major" planet nomenclature. As it is, I see no reason to stop people from calling Pluto and Eris and pals "planets" because "dwarf planet" still includes "planet" in the name. It's kinda weird to just interrupt people with the ol' ACKSHUALLY on this bit of jargon when said jargon isn't exactly robust. Yes, I AM one of those people who prefers terms like "G" or "M" when referring to stars.
because there are a lot of them, and no-one really agrees on exactly how many. anywhere from 5 to 26, with 9 being the most common number. it would just be unnecessarily confusing.
Either way people will still complain because there still won't be exactly 9 major planets or exactly 9 planets in total. They're really just emotionally attached to some specific diagram they saw in a textbook when they were a kid that showed 9 and only 9 planets, and refuse to add to their knowledge beyond that.
@@sudonim7552 I meet way more people who get fussy with me about Pluto being "not a planet" than I do "9 planets", so I really gotta say it feels like the emotionally attached types are the ones who wanna stick it to the nonexistent man.
So, instead of "planet and dwarf planet", you propose "minor planet and major planet"?
I don't see the benefits, if anything, your proposal has one extra word, and also minor and mayor share the first letter, making their abbreviations more confusing.
@@Jossandoval My proposal requires an essay, actually. It's based on geological activity. Pluto, based on info from New Horizons, is geologically active. That, to me, is way more important of a "planet" definition. And no, I don't wanna use minor and major, I was dropping shade on how silly it is that "dwarf planet" still has "planet" in the name and people still insist on saying "Pluto is not a planet!"
This guy is great 😂 I love the thought of mysterious gigantic planets somewhere out there
i absolutely love the idea of "there's at least one more planet out there"
because all "respected and old experts" agree it's not possible.
and when all the old & respected men in your field tell upcoming eggheads it's not do-able, it usually is very possible and will be done in 20-30 years.
also, the more you look into the topic the more you get this nagging feeling (as a math geek) that the "old experts" haven't even taken the time to look at the math proofs and just dismissed it out of hand.
There are respected experts who accept it could be true
I love the idea that the fifth giant hypothesized in the nice model never really left. Makes the whole idea of it being there wholesome.
Love how the thumbnail includes the *real* planet nine! #LongLivePluto
#FakePlanet!!
Okay bye!
Pluto said he was big enough for your mom lol!
Pluto turned into a dwarf in 2-3rd grade. Welp, didn’t stop my teachers. I heard about Pluto as the 9th planet until middle school.
Could it be possible that it is just a dense section of the ort cloud? Maybe the ort cloud captured a rogue planet at some point?
To be honest, I think that it's kinda funny that we don't have at least one capture. Assuming the estimates are right and given how, as soon as we started looking, we started spotting rocks from outside the system. I suppose there's the possibility that, like those cases, any rogue planet is so massive and fast-moving that it just zipped in and out relatively quickly.
Guys, something went wrong with audio stereo. I hope that caught your attention and root cause of it is resolved. Thank you for your efforts and work put in educating us :)
Planet X and planet 9 could be a possibility?
We get the best of "both worlds!"
I have a question on rogue Planets, supposing that interplanetary travel will one day be possible, how likely is it that our future space ship would bump onto a rogue or some olanets? and how would we be able to detect them? And I am talking specifically about rocky planets, not giant gas planets.
Would detect them as eclipses against background stars, but it'd be equivalent to looking for a speck of dust.
The likelihood of striking a rogue planet is infinitesimally small. Even when Andromeda and the Milky Way collide one day in the future, it's expected that there will be very few instances of *stars* colliding with one another. The same could be said of planets and a spacecraft. Hypothetically possible, but so unlikely as to not even be a concern.
The chances of running into one at all are incredibly slim, but they'd certainly be able to detect it long before a collision and get out of dodge I think, due to it obscuring stars, gravitational lensing, and light from reflections and internal heat.
People can get so mad when you tell them the things they learned in 2nd grade might not be the accurate or complete picture, or that things change sometimes. Like. I really think there's a connection between people denying Pluto's new classification, and the people deadnaming my brother. Meanwhile there's a complex and fascinating universe out there, but they're too upset to learn about it.
I was 7 and building a little model of the Solar System when they announced Pluto wasn't a planet anymore. I was like "So, should I put Pluto on there or not?"
What if there are two planets, and they are each hiding behind the other?
Then they are very naughty planets! 😡
One _could_ be behind the other, but BOTH hiding behind each other at the same time?!
@@dweebteambuilderjones7627 Sure. It hides both of them without needing a third undiscovered planet to hide one of them.
@@waverod9275 I'm not sure that's physically possible. For both planets to be hiding each other they'd have to be routinely switching places...and we would notice that.
@@dweebteambuilderjones7627 that depends on how you warp space. :-) (and no, this was never a serious proposal....)
Two more giants out there; wild
If we do find planet 9, what would we call it? Fortuna? Pax? Faunus? Janus? Diana? Minerva? Bacchus? Flora?
Lousy Sneaker
Planet 9: persephone
Planet 10: erebus
If the theory that they could have been flung out to their orbits by jupiter (zeus) turns out to be correct, perhaps something along the lines of 'Tartarus' and 'Kronos' could be appropriate since you could say that Jupiter banished them to deep space much like Zeus imprisoned Kronos in Tartarus.
I had a question about supermassive blackholes in galactic centers.
is it possible there isn't physical mass there but instead just a barycenter with the gravitational influence that is amalgamation of all of the orbiting mass of the system?
There is a barycenter. The supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies are a tiny fraction of the total mass of their surrounding galaxies. The Milky Way has an estimated mass of 1.15 x 10^12 solar masses while the SMBH at its center Saggitarius A* around 4 x 10^6 solar masses. The stars in the outer galaxy orbit the barycenter of the galactic bulge, but barycenter is a relative concept especially at galactic scales.
We know that black hole exists because we've observed huge stars at the center of the galaxy very quickly orbiting around an (relatively) small invisible object with an enormous gravitational well. There's a cool video showing this using real data from telescopes you can find if you Google it. The only thing that would explain that kind of concentrated mass existing while being completely invisible would be a black hole. We've also taken a picture of it using the Event Horizon Telescope array and it looks exactly like what the physics say a black hole with an accretion disk should look like.
Well galaxies are thought to all (or mostly) have supermassive black holes in the center region as part of how galaxies form. But the black holes themselves aren't necessarily the center of mass for galaxies, and popping them out of existence wouldn't cause the galaxies to fall apart. What really holds them together is, indeed, the combined mass of all the matter in the system. The actual center of mass is probably empty space, basically the barycenter of all that combined mass, which likely also shifts around depending on the distribution of mass in the galaxy which would always be changing over time since the stars and interstellar dust and gas lazily circle around it at different rates while also being influenced by local gravitational perturbances. The supermassive black hole would also be orbiting that center of mass rather than being the center of mass itself.
So in simple terms: yes, the galactic center of mass probably doesn’t have anything physically there. The supermassive black hole is probably nearby, but that’s not the thing holding the galaxy together, it’s the collective mass of all the stars/planets/etc that’s keeping each other together.
We know there is a black hole because we can see stars orbiting really fast around *nothing*. We even have an Image of Saggitarius A*'s accretion disc.
@@UGNAvalonyeah it's mostly like chains reaction it means our solar system has no direct impact to the galactic core
Someone should talk to the star Trek producers about including a planet 9 or 10 in an episode.
"Ending up in the Oort cloud" and "banished to the Oort cloud" sound like pretty bleak fates for a human D:
I saw a vid about the possibility that our Sun is part of a binary system which is brown dwarf or failed star. It helps explain weird orbits.
The orbits are potentially explained by an object with earth-sized masses, not something with dozens of jovian masses. I don't see how there could be a brown dwarf in binary with our sun and us not knowing about it. We also might not exist because planetary orbits in binary systems are probably very unstable.
@@rheiagreenland4714 The show i watched said most systems are binary. It explained that it is difficult to find the dwarf because it is so dim. I don't know either way. Just sharing another approach to the observations. It was an astronomer who presented the theory. Just a thought. Maybe JWST confirms either one during its deployment.
Nice video! I love your channel, you provide great content and information without relaying on clickbait 🙏
for some reason, im getting a hint of boarderlands vibe in his voice
I think it's great that something the size of Uranus could be in the kuiper belt
We need to build a giant laser pointer so we can put a dot on planet 9 and detect it.
If it's in the Oort Cloud it's not a planet. Remember what happened to Pluto? If it can't clear it's orbit, it's not a planet.
Since Roman numeral 10 is X, they should call that tenth one Planet X.
But we may not find it until the 24th and a half century.
No, no, no!
#9: Lousy Sneaker
#10: Lousy Slipper
This draft is official.
But then Duck Dodgers will have to defend it against Marvin the Martian.
@@David_K_pi So be eat!
I feel like this topic could have shoe horned in a joke more or less going "Where you have gas, you've got mass - and that's where things get messy" You are welcome to use this joke in a future topic. ;)
Sci-Show Space; the superior Sci-Show
Love Reid Reimers. MORE! MORE! ENCORE! :)
There is one idea of using our own sun as a telescope with gravitational lensing. IF we ever found a massive enough planet 9 or 10, could it be used in a similar way?
Crazy how many diagrams show the ort cloud, without clarifying that it's still theoretical.
My right ear enjoyed this video, thanks.
I absolutely love space and the stars, I wanted to be an astronomer or astrophysicist for most of my life, part of me still does want it. But got damn it. Astronomy can be so insanely infuriating, or just science in general because we have these beautiful theories and ideas but it's just so hard to find those juicy answers. ARGHHHH it just mocks you endlessly, like a carrot on a stick. And even more frustrating is how unless you're a researcher, you can't really actively work on identifying these things or figuring things out.
"Planet 9 from Outer Space?" ?? I was disappointed that Bela Lugosi wasn't mentioned 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I reckon that there are at least THREE further planets beyond Neptune that are yet to be found. At least that is what the maths indicates.
Very interesting. Thank you for your informative video. Btw I am watching you from Russia
Grammar note to the sitemaster: the note beside the host talking about rogue planets completely missed the word "than".
6:49 What's up with the counter clockwise orbit? Also that's crazy and scary how the orbits are and how fast Mercury is going compared to Jupiter
It's because of the direction the Sun rotates.
Nice to see proposals for Planet X with no evidence are in vogue again.
The novel Lucifers Hammer in the 70 described such a planet 10 as I recall
its so quaint to think of our solar system the way we do. We are a part of something much larger and more complex.
Space is so cool. A lot of people don’t realize what an amazing age we live in, we are the first to get images FROM space, not of it. We will most likely see people go to mars, which is by far the most amazing and human thing to do: venturing into the unknown, scared, knowing very well you’re going to die, and yet, there’s a part of you that won’t back down from it. Other hominids died out, but not us. The difference between us and them? Our desire, no, NEED to explore.
I don’t care if I’m not a professional space dude, I will always argue that PLUTO IS STILL A PLANET! The definition of a dwarf planet, if we go by the name, is just a smaller planet. That fact is proven by its actual definition, it’s too big to be an Asteroid, Comet or similar, but it’s too small to be a “normal sized” planet. Well guess what, Pluto is normal sized and fully functional! The name scheme of our planets also makes less sense if Pluto is not a planet. I don’t care if this is seen as a smooth brain hot take, Pluto can’t stick up for itself so I will!
I don't think Pluto is a planet in the same sense as the conventional 8 because it's not really unique. If Pluto is a planet you'd also have to include Eris and tons of other large kuiper belt objects. Same as Ceres. I certainly think it's worthy of just as much attention as any planet or moon though.