Geophysical planet definition

The geophysical planet definition states "A planet is a sub-stellar mass object that has never undergone nuclear fusion and that has sufficient self-gravitation to be round due to self-gravity" [i.e., assume a spheroidal shape adequately described by a triaxial ellipsoid], "regardless of its orbital parameters."[1][2][3]

Under the Geophysical Planet Definition, there are many more satellite and dwarf planets than terrestrial or giant planets in our solar system. Many more planets, not shown here, exist around other stars as exoplanets or float freely in the galaxy, not gravitationally bound to a star, as rogue planets.

Introduction

This definition is equivalent to the second clause of the IAU definition of planet. It excludes the first clause (that a planet be in orbit around the sun) and the third clause (that a planet has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit). This definition results in dwarf planets and round moons being counted as planets. Five bodies are currently recognised as dwarf planets by the IAU: Ceres, Pluto (the dwarf planet with the largest known radius[4]), Haumea, Makemake, and Eris (the dwarf planet with the largest known mass[5]).[6] It has been suggested that for icy bodies the limit at which objects are likely to be in hydrostatic equilibrium is around 400 km. This would mean there are many more dwarf planets in the Kuiper belt, and would make dwarf planets the most common type of planet in the Solar System (numbering around 130) under the geophysical planet definition.[7] This definition allows objects in the solar system to be grouped together on the basis of common physical properties regardless of location. An examination of spacecraft imagery of objects in the solar system reveals that the threshold at which an object is large enough to be round by self-gravity is also likely to be where geological activity becomes prevalent.[8] However, some "round" satellites such as Mimas and Callisto are geologically inactive. Others, such as Io, Europa and Enceladus are geologically active due to tidal heating, rather than the gravitational energy more closely associated with "roundness".

Background

The geophysical planet definition is an alternate definition of what is and is not a planet that was formalized as a response to criticism of the definition adopted by the International Astronomical Union.[1][2] Early proponents of the geophysical planet definition include the lead organisers of a petition shortly after the IAU vote, protesting the definition adopted by the IAU. The petition attracted more than 300 signatures.[9][10][3] Proponents of the geophysical planet definition have published papers reviewing the planetary science literature, which shows this definition has occasionally been used by some planetary scientists for decades, including after the IAU definition was established, and that asteroids have routinely been regarded as "minor" planets though the usage is somewhat inconsistent and varies considerably.[11][12] Others have expressed general support for a definition based on intrinsic values, particularly one that includes Pluto as a planet,[13][14] consistent with the reasoning behind the geophysical planet definition, albeit without explicitly endorsing a specific proposed definition.

Applicability to exoplanets

Since the geophysical planet definition does not specify that planets orbit the Sun, it also applies to exoplanets. It excludes objects that have ever undergone nuclear fusion so it may exclude some of the higher mass objects included in exoplanet catalogs and brown dwarfs. The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, Exoplanet Data Explorer and NASA Exoplanet Archive all include objects significantly more massive than the theoretical 13 Jupiter mass threshold[15] at which deuterium fusion begins for reasons including: uncertainties in how this limit would apply to a body with a rocky core, uncertainties in the masses of exoplanets, and discussions about whether deuterium burning or formation mechanism is the most appropriate criterion to use to define an upper cut-off.[16][17][18]

Nonetheless, both the geophysical planet definition and the IAU definition require a planet to be "round" (in or close to hydrostatic equilibrium). Determining the roundness of a body requires measurements across multiple chords but exoplanet detection techniques provide only the planet's mass, the ratio of its cross-sectional area to that of the host star, or its relative brightness. However, as of 2019, the smallest detected exoplanet (Kepler-1520b) has a mass 0.02 times that of the Earth, and analogy to objects within our own solar system suggests that is enough.

gollark: If you won't do the 2D array representation then yes.
gollark: For purposes³³³.
gollark: Maybe I am to add a timezone option.
gollark: What of the Minoteaur Internal Accursed Language™ (coming 2022)?
gollark: Yes, but this makes it not a special case. It's very elegant.

References
  1. Runyon, K. D.; Stern, S. A.; Lauer, T. R.; Grundy, W.; Summers, M. E.; Singer, K. N. (March 2017). "A geophysical planet definition" (PDF). Lunar and Planetary Science Conference Abstracts. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  2. Runyon, Kirby D.; Stern, S. Alan (17 May 2018). "An organically grown planet definition — Should we really define a word by voting?". Astronomy. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  3. Flatow, Ira; Sykes, Mark (28 March 2008). "What Defines a Planet? (transcript)". NPR. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  4. Stern, S. A.; Bagenal, F.; et al. (October 2015). "The Pluto system: Initial results from its exploration by New Horizons". Science. 350 (6258). aad1815. doi:10.1126/science.aad1815. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 26472913.
  5. Brown, Michael E.; Schaller, Emily L. (June 2007). "The Mass of Dwarf Planet Eris". Science. 316 (5831): 1585. doi:10.1126/science.1139415. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17569855.
  6. "Naming of Astronomical Objects". International Astronomical Union. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  7. Tancredi, Gonzalo; Favre, Sofía (June 2008). "Which are the dwarfs in the Solar System?". Icarus. 195 (2): 851–862. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2007.12.020. ISSN 0019-1035.
  8. Sykes, Mark V. (March 2008). "The Planet Debate Continues". Science. 319 (5871): 1765. doi:10.1126/science.1155743. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 18369125.
  9. Chang, Kenneth (1 September 2006). "Debate Lingers Over Definition for a Planet". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  10. A Planet Definition Debate Alan Stern & Ron Ekers
  11. Runyon, K. D.; Metzger, P. T.; Stern, S. A.; Bell, J. (July 2019). "Dwarf planets are planets, too: planetary pedagogy after New Horizons" (PDF). Pluto System After New Horizons Workshop Abstracts. 2133: 7016. Bibcode:2019LPICo2133.7016R. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
  12. Metzger, Philip T.; Sykes, Mark V.; Stern, Alan; Runyon, Kirby (February 2019). "The reclassification of asteroids from planets to non-planets". Icarus. 319: 21–32. arXiv:1805.04115v2. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.08.026. ISSN 0019-1035.
  13. Bridenstine, Jim, "NASA Chief Believes Pluto is a Planet", Youtube video of address at International Astronautical Congress, retrieved 2019-10-30
  14. Science, Passant Rabie 2019-08-27T16:08:05Z; Astronomy. "Pluto Still Deserves to Be a Planet, NASA Chief Says". Space.com. Retrieved 2019-10-29.
  15. Saumon, D.; Hubbard, W. B.; Burrows, A.; Guillot, T.; Lunine, J. I.; Chabrier, G. (April 1996). "A Theory of Extrasolar Giant Planets". The Astrophysical Journal. 460: 993. arXiv:astro-ph/9510046. Bibcode:1996ApJ...460..993S. doi:10.1086/177027. ISSN 0004-637X.
  16. Schneider, J.; Dedieu, C.; Le Sidaner, P.; Savalle, R.; Zolotukhin, I. (August 2011). "Defining and cataloging exoplanets: the exoplanet.eu database". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 532. A79. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116713. ISSN 0004-6361.
  17. Wright, J. T.; Fakhouri, O.; Marcy, G. W.; Han, E.; Feng, Y.; Johnson, John Asher; Howard, A. W.; Fischer, D. A.; Valenti, J. A.; Anderson, J.; Piskunov, N. (April 2011). "The Exoplanet Orbit Database". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 123 (902): 412–422. doi:10.1086/659427. ISSN 1538-3873.
  18. "Exoplanet Criteria for Inclusion in the Archive". NASA Exoplanet Archive. 26 March 2019. Retrieved 12 October 2019.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.