Spider Star
The human colony on the planet Argo has long explored and exploited the technology left behind by an extinct alien race. But then an archaeology team accidentally activates a terrible weapon...
Read More.Praise for Star Dragon
"Seldom does a storytelling talent come along as potent and fully mature as Mike Brotherton. His complex characters take you on a voyage that is both fiercely credible and astonishingly imaginative. This is Science Fiction."
-- David Brin"Star Dragon is terrific fare, offering readers a fusion of hard science and grand adventure."
-- Locus Magazine"Star Dragon is steeped in cosmology, the physics of interstellar travel, exobiology, artificial intelligence, bioscience. Brotherton, author of many scientific articles in refereed journals, has written a dramatic, provocative, utterly convincing hard science sf novel that includes an ironic twist that fans will love."
-- Booklist starred review"Readers hungry for the thought-provoking extrapolation and rigorous technical detail of old-fashioned hard SF are sure to enjoy astronomer Brotherton's first novel."
-- Publishers Weekly"Mike Brotherton, himself a trained astrophysicist, combines the technical acuity and ingenuity of Robert Forward with the ironic, postmodern stance and style of M. John Harrison. In this, his debut novel, those twin talents unite to produce a work that is involving on any number of levels. It's just about all you could ask for in a hardcore SF adventure."
-- Paul di Fillippo, SCI-FI.COM
Search
Rethinking Pluto
September 1st, 2009
OK, I’m not crazy about this topic because I’m a realist and deal with reality, and calling Pluto a planet or not is semantics. The astronomical and cultural classification is not important to reality and doesn’t have any physical effect on Pluto whatsoever.
In general, I’m happy with the IAU’s definition of a planet and the reclassification of Pluto. I don’t think the definition is perfect, however. It is somewhat consistent in equating Ceres and Pluto as non-planets, and keeping things simple with all the other Pluto-type worlds being found in the Kuiper Belt.
But I’ve been thinking about it some more. Apparently a handful of folks, particularly Americans — who I think simply don’t like international bodies to tell them how to think about anything — are still annoyed. I’m fine with folks being annoyed, because, to be frank, no matter what you do there will be a handful of people annoyed. That doesn’t mean you didn’t do the right thing. It just means that some people are obnoxious loudmouths.
I saw it suggested that Americans in particular are upset because Pluto was discovered by American Clyde Tombaugh and the Disney character Pluto was also created at the same time. (And I love that bit in the movie Stand by Me: “If Pluto is a dog, what the hell is Goofy?” But that’s a different problem of classification.)
Sometimes the loudmouths are right, however. I don’t think this is the case here. I mean, let’s face it. The designation of “planet” is pretty arbitrary. We really only need some consistency for science to be happy. Semantics are rarely something where there is an absolute right answer.
Still, consider this interesting offering about the Grand Opening up of the Solar System. Put it in conjunction with planetary astronomer Mark Sykes’s comments in this CNN article:
The more logical way to classify planets is the geophysical definition, which simply states that planets are round objects that orbit the sun, Sykes argues. The objects must still be big enough so that gravity crushes them into a ball.
“The problem with the geophysical definition is we might have a couple of dozen planets in the solar system as more are discovered in the distant reaches,” Sykes said.
He believes the International Astronomical Union’s definition won’t stick around after NASA spacecraft reach Pluto and Ceres, a Texas-size asteroid in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter that is now also classified as a dwarf planet.
“I think [the IAU’s definition] is going to collapse by 2015 when the Dawn mission gets to Ceres and the New Horizons mission gets to Pluto because we’re not going to see irregular-shaped, impact crater-filled, boring surfaces. We’re going to see dynamic worlds,” Sykes said.
I personally like the simpler definition of solely whether or not something has enough self-gravity to pull itself round, and the part of the IAU definition of “clearing its orbit” does seem less compelling. The IAU definition has the advantage of keeping things simple and more or less consistent. If we wanted to be more serious, we’d have three definitions anyway, as we already break up the eight planets into gas giants and terrestrial planets, and the Kuiper Belt Objects would be a different sort altogether.
But if we’re going to have one definition, one word “planet,” I can see some merit to opening up the solar system.
As a kid I longed for astronomers to find “planet X.” I remember eagerly updating my memory about how many moons every planet had (Jupiter and Saturn have been particularly dynamic this way). It was sort of exciting.
What’s wrong with adding Ceres as a planet? And then Pluto? And getting excited every time a new Kuiper Belt Object is found that is big and round? Having dozens more planets in the solar system? That would be of huge public interest and make astronomy look like the exciting and dynamic science that it is.
I’m fine with the status quo and the IAU definition, but I’m starting to lean toward a more inclusive definition that would be good and exciting PR for astronomy. If people can learn all the baseball teams in the major leagues, they can learn several dozen planets.
It would be fun. And maybe we could even name one of the new planets “Goofy.”
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Well, Ceres *was* classified as a planet, for a while, in the 19th century, until more asteroids were discovered. It then got demoted to asteroid status.
I suspect astronomers don’t want to “change their mind again” on Ceres and will resist naming it a planet.
You know, I think Ceres really is more of a sticking point. I agree. Easier to demote Pluto than upgrade Ceres, at least for astronomers, to achieve consistency.
several SF novels refer to a big cold dark planet past pluto as ‘persephone.’ as I recall. I’ve seen it more than once. Odd.
The fatal flaw in the “Is Pluto a planet” argument is the idea that every astronomical body is either a planet or not a planet, nothing can be in both categories, and the word planet is a precision scientific standard.
Human language is not capable of expressing all scientific truths. Godel Escher Bach has good examples. We’re lucky that our words can even get us close.
If you want the real definition of planet you should go back 2000 years when planet meant “a bright star visible without a telescope which wanders against the fixed stars”. That’s the last time human language was able to match the scientific definition of a planet. It also means that Uranus and Neptune probably aren’t planets either.
Pluto does have moons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Pluto). At one stage, that was suggested as a good criterion to keep it as a planet. We realize a lot of small asteroids have objects in orbit around them, too, however.
Wow. Pluto has three moons? Heh, a lot has changed since I last looked that up in an elementary school science book. Also just looked up Saturn and it has 61 moons. The last I can recall it had around 23 or something.
As far as the definition of what a planet is I really don’t care as long as one is finally settled upon.
Ceres was initially demoted because 19th century scientists could not resolve it into a disk even with their best telescopes. Today, we know it is spherical and in hydrostatic equilibrium, which is why it makes sense to classify it as a planet.
At the Great Planet Debate, held in August 2008 at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, Sykes sensibly advocated keeping the term planet broad to encompass any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star while establishing multiple subcategories to distinguish the different types of planets. Dwarf planets could simply be a new subclass of planets that are planets because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium but are of the dwarf variety because they do not gravitationally dominate their orbits. This would put the term “dwarf planet” in synch with other uses of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, as dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies.
In stellar classification, we have seven major star types, each with multiple subcategories that themselves have subcategories. Why not do the same for planets?
Having many new planets would most certainly generate widespread public interest in astronomy and excite people about the field. It would also familiarize them with Ceres and the new bodies discovered, knowledge that too often has been overlooked due to the focus being on the demotion of Pluto.
“If Pluto is a dog, what the hell is Goofy?â€
a Dog Sapiens Sapiens (not so much sapiens considering Goofy, but all the other Disney caracthers that are like Goofy)
Anyway, I agree with Kornfeld ´s post… I was going to post something like that.
Consider ALL round bodies orbiting the sun (and other stars) as planets. Then DIVIDE the planets… terrestrial, gas giants, dwarf, etc (none in the etc category yet, but maybe in the future, as we discover more extrasolar planets)
The same thing is done with stars. There is no such thing as a “star” and then a lower category called Dwarf Stars. There are the STAR category which is a lot of different things, and then you subdivide this category.
Same thing could be also done to satellites… giant moons, medium moons, small moons, dwarf moons and artificial satellites.
“If we wanted to be more serious, we’d have three definitions anyway, as we already break up the eight planets into gas giants and terrestrial planets, and the Kuiper Belt Objects would be a different sort altogether.”
My thoughts exactly. Any category broad enough to include both Jupiter and Mercury is surely broad enough to include Pluto, but the real issue is that Jupiter and its like are so different from the inner four.
There’s really three categories. I’d call ’em rockies, gassies, and icys, but I suppose terrestrial planets, gas giants, and Kuiper Belt objects sounds a bit more technical.
I’m not sure it would actually have much effect on the general public though. We’re finding planets around other stars at this point and most of America doesn’t seem to care.
/s
I find the discovery of planet orbiting other stars one of the most exciting developments of my lifetime. People have wondered about this for generations, and now for the first time, we are actually starting to find some answers! Maybe more people would care if the media actually spent time covering this instead of passing off “celebrity gossip” as news.