Skip to main content
Log in

Planet X — The current status

  • Long Term Evolution of Planetary Systems
  • Session on Planetary Dynamics
  • Published:
Celestial mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Neptune and Pluto were discovered because of predictions derived from the differences between the observations and ephemerides of Uranus, but Pluto wasn't the predicted planet and the discrepancies still exist. This continuing existence of systematic differences between the observations and ephemerides of Uranus and Neptune has led to predictions of a Planet X. The demise of the dinosaurs and the existence of comets have been cited as additional evidence for another celestial object.

Therefore, possible bodies have been hypothesized in the outer part of the solar system, or out beyond the solar system, including a binary companion, Nemesis. The theory of relativity and the incompleteness of the law of gravity have also been suggested as explanations for the outer planet discrepancies. Predictions of the possible locations of planet X have been made, with rather large uncertainties, and selected searches of some regions have yielded nothing. IRAS and Pioneer observations exist as additional sources of useful observational data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Airy, G. B.: 1832, “Reports of British Association”, I, 154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Airy, G. B.: 1846, Royal Astr. Soc. Month Not.7, 9, 121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. D. and Standish, E. M.: 1986, “Dynamical Evidence for Planet-X”, The Galaxy and the Solar System, edited by R. Smoluchowski, J. Bahcall and M. Matthew, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J. A.: 1981, “The Discovery of Uranus” Sky and Telescope, March 1981.

  • Bessel, F. W.: 1824, Astron Nachrechten 2 Nr., 48, 441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouvard, A.: 1821, Conn. des Temps p. 341, 342.

  • Challis, J.: 1846, “Special Report of Proceedings in the Observatory Relative to the New Planet”, Cambridge Observatory.

  • Christy, J. W. and Harrington, R. S.: 1978, “The Satellite of Pluto”, Astron J.83, 1005–1008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clube, S. V. M. and Napier, W. M.: 1984, “Terrestrial catastrophism-Nemesis or Galaxy”, Nature311, 635–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, T. E.: 1980, “Systematic Reductions of 19th Century Planetary Observations”, Celestial Mechanic22, 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncombe, R. L. and Seidelmann, P. K.: 1980, “A history of the Determination of Pluto's Mass”, Icarus41, 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert, W. J., Brouwer, D., and Clemence, G. M.: 1951, Astron. Papers of American Ephemeris XII.

  • Gaillot, M.: 1910, Annals of the Paris Observatory,28,

  • Gould, B. A.: 1850, “Report on the History of the Discovery of Neptune”, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C..

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, R. S. and Ferraz-Mello, S.: 1988 “Would a Planet X Explain the Discrepancies in the Motions of Uranus and Neptune?” in press.

  • Grosser, M.: 1979, “The Discovery of Neptune”, Dover Publications Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, R. S.: 1988, “The location of Planet X”, in press.

  • Heisler, J. and Tremaine, S.: 1986, “The influence of the Galactic Tidal Field on the Oort Comet Cloud”, Icarus65, 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisler, J., Tremaine, S. and Alcock, L.: 1987, “The frequency and Intensity of Comet Showers from the Oort Cloud”, Icarus70, 269–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, J. G.: 1984, “Dynamical constraints on the mass and perihelion distances of Nemesis and the stability of its orbit”, Nature311, 636–638.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, J. G.: 1985, “The passage of a “Nemesis” like object through the Planetary System”, Astron. J.,90, 1876–1882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyt, W. G.: 1980, “Planet X and Pluto”, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hut, P.: 1984, “How stable is an astronomical clock that can trigger mass extinctions on Earth?”, Nature311, 638–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowal, C. T. and Drake, S.: 1980, “Galileo's Observations of Neptune”, Nature287, 311–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeVerrier, U. J.: 1845, Comptes Rendus XXI, 1050.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, P.: 1915, “Memoirs on A Trans-Neptunian Planet”, Memoires of the Lowell Observatory,1, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matese, J.J. and Whitmire, D.P.: 1986, “Planet X and the Origins of the Shower and Steady State Flux of Short-Period Comets”, Icarus65, 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauvais, V.: 1847, Compt. Rend.24, 666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, H. R. and Lyons, U. S.: 1930, “On the tables of Uranus and Neptune”, Astr. J.40, 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D. E. and Muller, R. A.: 1986, “Tidal Gravitational Forces: The Infall of “New” Comets and Comet Showers”, Icarus65, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb, S.: 1867, “An Investigation of the Orbit of Neptune with General Tables of its motion”, Smithsonian contributions to Knowledge, City of Washington.

  • Newcomb, S.: 1898, “Tables of Neptune, Tables of Uranus”, Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris VII.

  • Raup, D. M. and Sepkoski, J. J.: 1984, “Perodicity of Extinctions in the Geologic Past.”, Proc Natn Acad Science, USA81, 801–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering., W. H.: 1909, “A search for a Planet Beyond Neptune”, Annuals of the Astronimical Observatory of Harvard College LXI, pt II, Cambridge, MA.

  • Pickering, W. H.: 1928, “The Orbit of Uranus”, Popular Astronomy XXXVI, 353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, W. H.: 1931, “Planet P. Its Orbit, Position and Magnitude. Planets S and T”, Popular Astronomy XXXIV, 385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Conley: 1988, “A Mathematical Search for Planet X”, in press.

  • Seidelmann, P. K. and Duncombe, R. L.: 1982, “Problems concerning the Outer Planets', Dynamical Astronomy edited by B. A. Balazs and V. Szebehely, Budapest.

  • Seidelmann, P. K., Santoro, E. J., Pulkkinen, K. F.: 1985, “Systematic Differences between Planetary Observations and Ephemerides”, Dynamical Astronomy, Proceedings of the Second U.S.-Hungary Workshop, edited by Victor G. Szebehely and Bela Balazs, University of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, C. W. and Moore P.: 1980, “Out of the Darkness: The Planet Pluto”, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, C. W.: 1961, “The Trans-Neptunian Planet Search”, Planets and Satellites edited by G. P. Kuiper and B. M. Middlehurst, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbett, M. V.: 1986, “Dynamical Influence of Galactic Tides and Molecular Clouds on the Oort Cloud of Comets”, The Galaxy and the Solar System, edited by R. Smoluchiwski, J. Bahcall and M. Matthew, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. C.: 1847, “Elements of the Planet Neptune”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society4, 332–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S. C.: 1847, “Elliptic elements of the planet Neptune”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society4, 378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitmire, D. P. and Matese, J. J.: 1985, “Periodic comet showers and Planet-X”, Nature313, 36–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, L. R.: 1942, “A Comparison of Newcomb's Tables of Neptune with Observations 1795–1938”, Publ. U. S. Naval Observatory15 part 1.

  • Whyte, A. J.: 1980, “The Planet Pluto”, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seidelmann, P.K., Harrington, R.S. Planet X — The current status. Celestial Mechanics 43, 55–68 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01234554

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01234554

Keywords

Navigation