TrES-2-b, der dunkelste jemals aufgezeichnete Exoplanet. Ist es wahrscheinlich, dass der Grund, warum wir Planet 9 nicht gefunden haben, ein ähnlicher Grund ist? Planet 9 würde auch die Existenz des 5-Planet-NICE-Modells beweisen, was aus einer ganzen Reihe von Gründen interessant ist.
5 Kommentare
The hypothesized planet 9 would be 13-26 times as far away from the Sun as Neptune is, between 400–800 AU. That is a *staggeringly* long distance, and from that far away the sun is just a bright star.
Put another way, planet 9 would be dark regardless because there’s hardly any light where it’s predicted to be.
There might be far more rogue planets in interstellar space than previously thought. Could their combined effect be enough to explain any anomalies that have been attributed to just one new planet? Nancy Grace Roman should shed some light on this.
Strength of light falls off with inverse square of distance.
Jupiter is about 5 times as far from the sun as earth. So it gets 1/25 of the sunlight.
Uranus is about 18 earth distances from sun. So it gets about 1/324 of the sunlight.
Something 400 A.U. from the sun would get about 1/160,000 of the sunlight.
I think they are looking for Planet Nine using mostly infrared (someone please correct me if I’m wrong). I wonder if it makes that much of a difference how dark it is in visible light.
I read that the evidence for Planet 9 is pretty scant. The perturbed objects are so far away, that we have observed a very small portion of their orbits around the sun to really get a clear picture . Passing stars in the past may have caused disruption of the paths. It is fun to think of a mysterious planet.