Jump to content

Talk:Tyche (hypothetical planet)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kheider (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 17 February 2011 (a good pick?: Wikipedia shows HD 80606 b and HD 17156 b being 3-4 Mj and basically having Jupiters diameter.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Solar System Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Solar System task force.

Appearance of this planet

Would this planet excist of solid hydrogen, since the melting temperature of hydrogen is 14 Kelvin? (OP)

Possibly you might find solid hydrogen at its core, the astrophysicists in question claim a surface (hard to define) temperature of around 200.15K, now the core would be at greater pressure, so possibly you might get solid hydrogen. But this gas giant is suspected a relatively mild temperature of -73 celsius, compare this to the coldest temperatures on earth which are in the region of -89 celsius. This is all assuming the planet even exists.Larryisgood (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize this is a fully hypothetical situation. But about the temperature: How would the temperature of this planet be so high? The Oort Cloud isn't even reaching 10 Kelvin, if I'm right? How would this hypothetical planet get (or have gotten) it's energy to stay at that relatively high temperature? (OP again)
I'm only an undergrad astrophysics student but I can give it a try. We can probably rule out any greenhouse effects like those that give Venus it's high temperature, since it's much too far away from the sun, and we can assume that since the mass is MUCH to low to even achieve brown dwarf status, that it's not producing its own energy through nuclear interactions. If a gas cloud were to collapse to something the size of a 4 jupiter mass object, its gravitational potential energy is converted to heat energy through interparticle collisions, and would be pretty significant. I can't give you the figures, but the energy would be more than enough to account for the kind of temperature that Tyche is postulated to have.Larryisgood (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

Can someone please explain why this should be a redirect and not its own article? Kingturtle = (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planets beyond Neptune is the catch-all page for any and all trans-Neptunian planets. It has had a subsection on Matese and Whitmire's planet since it was created. Right now, there isn't enough new information to justify a new article; their planet, like all the other planets on this page, is still just speculation. If we actually found it, that would change the game somewhat. But we haven't yet. Indeed there isn't really any reason to assume that the WISE data will reveal evidence of it. Other than some extra media attention and a catchy name, I don't really see any difference between this and their dozen or so other attempts to publicise their idea over the last nine years.Serendipodous 09:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This also somewhat reminds me of the talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Are planet candidates notable?. -- Kheider (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses need work

According to this article the evidence regarding the planet has not yet been presented, and won't be till WISE's data comes out in April, yet the article suggests the evidence has already been presented. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original paper

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud (arXiv:1004.4584 / PDF) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.197.99 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected

This article was redirected to Planets beyond Neptune on 15 Feb 2011 by Serendipodous.

64.229.101.183 (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Twelve years these two have been promoting their planet. In that time the evidence for its existence has not increased one iota. But suddenly they get a namecheck in the Daily Mail and this thing is notable enough for an article of its own? Planets beyond Neptune features several more hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets. What about Mike Brown's trans-Neptunian planet? What about Patryk Lakawka's planet? Those arguably have more evidence to back them up. Serendipodous 21:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was all over CNN this morning as well... 64.229.101.183 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a whole lot of new Gscholar hits [1] ... only some Gnews hits [2] -- 64.229.101.183 (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to NY Daily News [3], it's actually been 12 years... 64.229.101.183 (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think you're right. The source does say 1999. But my point still stands. Serendipodous 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not unsympathetic to your position. Among other things, we see a much more skeptical article today at space.com. Why don't you put up a merge proposal, and let's work the process on this one, as opposed to taking perhaps over-bold unilateral action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.5.34 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Changed post to a merge request. Serendipodous 17:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this merge. The existence of this article is reflective of WP's popmedia bias. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I think I also support a merge, but only after the media hype has slowed down in a week. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is very much a practical answer. Users are going to expect an article with background material while this is hot news. When it dies down, the information can be properly merged to a background article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Absolutely agree. Not every wild-eyed hypothesis needs an encyclopdia article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wee need a pick

like wee can uss a pick from Celestia that can work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiza667 (talkcontribs) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Celestia is that it just generically draws a gas giant either close or far from a host star. That is not as good as a NASA reviewed artists rendering, and thus would not add depth to the article.. -- Kheider (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a good pick?

File:Tyche.JPG
Tyche compared to Jupiter and Earth

U think it looks good enough? -- Freiza667

We do need to avoid original research. At 1 MJ it would be basically the size of Jupiter. TrES-4b (also 1MJ) is larger than Jupiter because it is a hot jupiter. We do not know if Tyche even exists and even if it does, we do not know how far away it is. According to the hypothesize, The further out it is, the more likely it is to be more massive. Even at 4 MJ, this object may barely be larger in volume than Jupiter, though I have not looked up the rules for sub-brown dwarf diameters recently. Wikipedia shows HD 80606 b and HD 17156 b being 3-4 MJ and basically having Jupiters diameter. Do you have a reliable reference that a 2-4 MJ gas giant should have your diameter? -- Kheider (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]