Celestial mechanics

, Volume 43, Issue 1–4, pp 55–68

Planet X — The current status

  • P. K. Seidelmann
  • R. S. Harrington
Long Term Evolution of Planetary Systems Session on Planetary Dynamics

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Airy, G. B.: 1832, “Reports of British Association”, I, 154.Google Scholar
  2. Airy, G. B.: 1846, Royal Astr. Soc. Month Not.7, 9, 121.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bennett, J. A.: 1981, “The Discovery of Uranus” Sky and Telescope, March 1981.Google Scholar
  5. Bessel, F. W.: 1824, Astron Nachrechten 2 Nr., 48, 441.Google Scholar
  6. Bouvard, A.: 1821, Conn. des Temps p. 341, 342.Google Scholar
  7. Challis, J.: 1846, “Special Report of Proceedings in the Observatory Relative to the New Planet”, Cambridge Observatory.Google Scholar
  8. Christy, J. W. and Harrington, R. S.: 1978, “The Satellite of Pluto”, Astron J.83, 1005–1008.Google Scholar
  9. Clube, S. V. M. and Napier, W. M.: 1984, “Terrestrial catastrophism-Nemesis or Galaxy”, Nature311, 635–636.Google Scholar
  10. Corbin, T. E.: 1980, “Systematic Reductions of 19th Century Planetary Observations”, Celestial Mechanic22, 25.Google Scholar
  11. Duncombe, R. L. and Seidelmann, P. K.: 1980, “A history of the Determination of Pluto's Mass”, Icarus41, 12–18.Google Scholar
  12. Eckert, W. J., Brouwer, D., and Clemence, G. M.: 1951, Astron. Papers of American Ephemeris XII.Google Scholar
  13. Gaillot, M.: 1910, Annals of the Paris Observatory,28,Google Scholar
  14. Gould, B. A.: 1850, “Report on the History of the Discovery of Neptune”, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C..Google Scholar
  15. Gomes, R. S. and Ferraz-Mello, S.: 1988 “Would a Planet X Explain the Discrepancies in the Motions of Uranus and Neptune?” in press.Google Scholar
  16. Grosser, M.: 1979, “The Discovery of Neptune”, Dover Publications Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  17. Harrington, R. S.: 1988, “The location of Planet X”, in press.Google Scholar
  18. Heisler, J. and Tremaine, S.: 1986, “The influence of the Galactic Tidal Field on the Oort Comet Cloud”, Icarus65, 13–26.Google Scholar
  19. Heisler, J., Tremaine, S. and Alcock, L.: 1987, “The frequency and Intensity of Comet Showers from the Oort Cloud”, Icarus70, 269–288.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Hills, J. G.: 1985, “The passage of a “Nemesis” like object through the Planetary System”, Astron. J.,90, 1876–1882.Google Scholar
  22. Hoyt, W. G.: 1980, “Planet X and Pluto”, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
  23. Hut, P.: 1984, “How stable is an astronomical clock that can trigger mass extinctions on Earth?”, Nature311, 638–642.Google Scholar
  24. Kowal, C. T. and Drake, S.: 1980, “Galileo's Observations of Neptune”, Nature287, 311–3.Google Scholar
  25. LeVerrier, U. J.: 1845, Comptes Rendus XXI, 1050.Google Scholar
  26. Lowell, P.: 1915, “Memoirs on A Trans-Neptunian Planet”, Memoires of the Lowell Observatory,1, 1.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Mauvais, V.: 1847, Compt. Rend.24, 666.Google Scholar
  29. Morgan, H. R. and Lyons, U. S.: 1930, “On the tables of Uranus and Neptune”, Astr. J.40, 97.Google Scholar
  30. Morris, D. E. and Muller, R. A.: 1986, “Tidal Gravitational Forces: The Infall of “New” Comets and Comet Showers”, Icarus65, 1–12.Google Scholar
  31. Newcomb, S.: 1867, “An Investigation of the Orbit of Neptune with General Tables of its motion”, Smithsonian contributions to Knowledge, City of Washington.Google Scholar
  32. Newcomb, S.: 1898, “Tables of Neptune, Tables of Uranus”, Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris VII.Google Scholar
  33. Raup, D. M. and Sepkoski, J. J.: 1984, “Perodicity of Extinctions in the Geologic Past.”, Proc Natn Acad Science, USA81, 801–806.Google Scholar
  34. Pickering., W. H.: 1909, “A search for a Planet Beyond Neptune”, Annuals of the Astronimical Observatory of Harvard College LXI, pt II, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Pickering, W. H.: 1928, “The Orbit of Uranus”, Popular Astronomy XXXVI, 353.Google Scholar
  36. Pickering, W. H.: 1931, “Planet P. Its Orbit, Position and Magnitude. Planets S and T”, Popular Astronomy XXXIV, 385.Google Scholar
  37. Powell, Conley: 1988, “A Mathematical Search for Planet X”, in press.Google Scholar
  38. Seidelmann, P. K. and Duncombe, R. L.: 1982, “Problems concerning the Outer Planets', Dynamical Astronomy edited by B. A. Balazs and V. Szebehely, Budapest.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Tombaugh, C. W. and Moore P.: 1980, “Out of the Darkness: The Planet Pluto”, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. Walker, S. C.: 1847, “Elements of the Planet Neptune”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society4, 332–335.Google Scholar
  44. Walker, S. C.: 1847, “Elliptic elements of the planet Neptune”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society4, 378.Google Scholar
  45. Whitmire, D. P. and Matese, J. J.: 1985, “Periodic comet showers and Planet-X”, Nature313, 36–38.Google Scholar
  46. Wylie, L. R.: 1942, “A Comparison of Newcomb's Tables of Neptune with Observations 1795–1938”, Publ. U. S. Naval Observatory15 part 1.Google Scholar
  47. Whyte, A. J.: 1980, “The Planet Pluto”, Pergamon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. K. Seidelmann
    • 1
  • R. S. Harrington
    • 1
  1. 1.U. S. Naval ObservatoryUSA

Personalised recommendations