This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this folio. Terms of use.

Pluto

Like many people, I grew up in a solar organization of nine planets. It's the same solar system we live in now, of grade, but the definition of a "planet" changed in 2006 to exclude poor trivial Pluto and its frosty kin. That was before nosotros'd even seen the trivial ice ball upwardly shut, but New Horizons paid it a visit in 2015. Since then, an increasingly vocal minority of scientists has suggested that peradventure kicking Pluto out of the planet club was a error. A report from a team of noted astronomers soon to exist published in the journal Icarus lays out the argument for readmitting Pluto. However, information technology'll bring a lot of friends.

Pluto was mostly accepted as a planet from the moment it was discovered in 1930, but we didn't know much about the outer reaches of the solar organisation at the time. In the intervening years, astronomers discovered more than Pluto-like objects in a region of space we now know as the Kuiper Belt — Pluto was just the first ane we spotted. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) adopted a new definition of what constitutes a planet: it has to be round, orbit the sun, and take cleared its orbit of other objects. Pluto misses on the third, as would other Kuiper Belt objects.

Is that right, though? The new report argues that it isn't, claiming the change was based more on astrology than astronomy. By 2006, we already know about objects like Eris and Makemake which would have fit the old definition of a planet. Rather than heave the number of planets every fourth dimension we spotted a new spherical thing out there, astronomers opted to narrow the definition. According to the study, this improperly sets bated Globe and the other inner planets every bit "special" in the aforementioned way astrology does.

If we invite Pluto to the planet party again, it's going to bring friends. Ceres and Vesta (not shown) might also qualify every bit planets nether a more relaxed version of the definition.

Co-ordinate to the report, mislabeling Pluto as a dwarf planet is damaging to science and the popular agreement of the solar system. After seeing Pluto up close, many scientists wondered aloud if we had made a mistake in 2006. It has a thin atmosphere, circuitous geology, and maybe fifty-fifty a liquid ocean. The IAU, they argue, was influenced by unscientific "folk taxonomy" to simplify our flick of the solar organisation. If we're going to do science the correct manner, the study says, nosotros need to accept that in that location are non viii nor nine planets — the truthful number may be as high every bit 150. The paper in question goes well beyond Pluto and argues that the moons of various planets should exist considered planets in their own right. It is not clear which objects would exist considered moons, if any, nether the proposed system.

Eris and Makemake take since been joined by Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and others. The more nosotros look, the more "planets" we're going to find. Should we ignore them only considering information technology's inconvenient? And what if Planet Nine turns out to be real? Aside from needing a new moniker, information technology could again reshape our narrow ideas of what is and is not a planet.

Some scientists accept already taken to calling Pluto a planet in their papers, basically ignoring the IAU definitions. If the ranks of Pluto'due south defenders keep to grow, we may soon live in a solar system of 15, 50, or 150 planets.

Now read:

  • NASA Is Because Plans for a Pluto Orbiter
  • Scientists Confirm the Presence of Water on the Moon
  • Passing Stars May Have Kept a Distant Alien World Tethered to Its Sun