[QUOTE=Jwb52z]Actually many scientists think it is almost impossible for this planet to be bigger than pluto due to other details about it.[/QUOTE]
[quote=jinydu]Do you have a link? Brown is sure that this object is bigger than Pluto.[/quote]You two are talking about two different discoveries!! And it doesn't help any that many journalists share the same misunderstanding.

Confusingly, [b]on successive days two teams announced 3 different bright Kuiper Belt object (KBO) discoveries: 2003 EL61 (by Ortiz et al.), 2003 UB313 and 2005 FY9 (both by Brown et al.)[/b]. See the last table (near the bottom, under the subheading "What else is out there?") on page [url="http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html"]http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/index.html[/url] .

2003 EL61 is smaller than Pluto. It was the first announced.

2003 UB313 is the one that's bigger than Pluto. It was announced a day after 2003 EL61 was announced, and is the one being called the "tenth planet" by those who are not confused by the multiple announcements.

2005 FY9 is smaller than Pluto, but brighter than 2003 UB313 because it's closer to us. Indeed, it's now the second-brightest (after Pluto) known KBO. (2003 EL61 is now the third-brightest known KBO, though it ranked as second-brightest for one day. 2003 UB313 is now the fourth-brightest known KBO, even though it's the largest, because it's farther away than the others.)

I read about this in one of the online news services, but Brown's webpage really make it sound like a mystery novel - nefarious rival astronomers prowling the web in black hats and trench coats, that sort of thing. :Unsure:

[QUOTE=ewmayer]I read about this in one of the online news services, but Brown's webpage really make it sound like a mystery novel - nefarious rival astronomers prowling the web in black hats and trench coats, that sort of thing. :Unsure:[/QUOTE]Well, astronomers are people, too. And discovering/naming a new planet of our own solar system is a [b][i]Very, Very Big Deal[/i][/b] in astronomy.

Following the announcement of the discovery of this record-size Kuiper Belt object, the NY Times ran an editorial ("Too Many Planets Numb the Mind", Aug. 2) arguing that with further such discoveries inevitable and possible quite numerous, Pluto's official status should be changed from its current one as the 9th and most-distant planet of the solar system, to that of the nearest large KBO. (The distinction is somewhat arbitrary, but considered strictly scientifically Pluto is definitely a KBO, and in key aspects quite different than the other 8 planets). Several readers responded, some quite passionately, all in defense of Pluto-as-a-planet. Here is my favorite of the replies:

To the Editor:

You say that "few in our culture want to memorize the names of 20 or more planets."

Several years ago I read that many children by the age of 3 can recognize up to 50 corporate logos. I decided that if my baby granddaughter could distinguish between McDonald's and Wendy's, she should be able to learn other things as well.

By the time she was 2½, she knew the names of the planets. We added play dough replicas of Quaoar, Sedna and now 2003 UB313 to her solar system mobile. We talk often about the amazing macro- and microcosmos into which she has been born.

I believe that if I nurture curiosity, appreciation and awe, she will never feel that she is just memorizing a list. With deep knowledge about her cosmic home, she should come to know the names of planets and other bodies - whatever their number - as easily as she can rattle off the names of Disney princesses.

Linda Peeno
Louisville, Ky., Aug. 2, 2005

This news is already over two weeks old, but I just noticed it: A paper has been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal:

[url]http://www.gps.caltech.edu/%7Embrown/papers/ps/xena.pdf[/url]

Brown's webpage states that it is currently being peer-reviewed.

has the name of this thing been released yet?

[QUOTE=E_tron]has the name of this thing been released yet?[/QUOTE]No, and won't be for quite a while. (Actually, "2003 UB313" is its official name/designation now, but that's not what you meant.)

1) Discoverers [i]propose[/i] names, but the International Astronomical Union ( [url="http://www.iau.org/"]http://www.iau.org/[/url] ) makes the decisions. Usually, the IAU will approve the discoverer's choice, but not always.

2) The IAU has established rules for naming objects in various categories. Thus, planetary satellites' names follow one set of rules, asteroids' names follow another set of rules, KBOs have still another set of naming rules, and so on.

3) However, the IAU has never established an official set of rules for naming planets in our own solar system (it has rules for extrasolar planets, but not solar planets). This has never been a problem until now, because the IAU's system had not yet been established at the time of the most recent prior solar planet discovery, Pluto in 1930. Now the size of 2003 UB313 makes it necessary for the IAU to make an official decision on the definition of "planet". It has already created an IAU Working Group for "Definition of a Planete" ( [url="http://www.iau.org/IAU/Organization/divcom/wg_2003_2006.html#DIII-004"]http://www.iau.org/IAU/Organization/divcom/wg_2003_2006.html#DIII-004[/url] ), but that group's work in still in progress.

4) Object 2003 UB313 will not be named until the IAU decides whether it's a planet or not, and that won't happen until the Working Group for Definition of a Planete establishes an official definition and the IAU approves that. Then there also has to be established an official set of naming rules for new Solar System planets.

5) Mike Brown has submitted his choice of name subject to the condition that 2003 UB313 is decided not to be a planet (in which case it'll be a KBO; Brown's choice fits the KBO naming rules). Brown won't reveal his choice until it's made official by IAU.

But if IAU decides that 2003 UB313 is a planet, Brown will need to choose another name that fits the to-be-decided IAU planet-naming rules.

Hackers exposed the findings
 

Did anybody happen to see this? OK, jinydu, this is old news, too.

[url]http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-5814229.html[/url]

[QUOTE=cheesehead]5) Mike Brown has submitted his choice of name subject to the condition that 2003 UB313 is decided not to be a planet (in which case it'll be a KBO; Brown's choice fits the KBO naming rules). Brown won't reveal his choice until it's made official by IAU.

But if IAU decides that 2003 UB313 is a planet, Brown will need to choose another name that fits the to-be-decided IAU planet-naming rules.[/QUOTE]
[b]Correction:[/b] I should have labelled that section 5) as [b][i]my speculation,[/i][/b] not presented it as though it were known fact like my sections 1) through 4) above. In particular, I did and do not have actual knowledge that Brown submitted a name that fit the KBO naming rules. I recall having read something like that, but can't find it now -- it may have been someone else's speculation. Anyway, AFAIK Mike Brown has not stated what I attributed to him in my speculative section 5.

Indeed, upon further consideration of Brown's comments it seems to me that his opinion (at least his [i]public[/i] opinion) is firmly that 2003 UB313 [u]is[/u] a planet, so it would make sense that he has at least submitted a proposed planetary name to the IAU, perhaps along with a proposed KBO name.

[QUOTE=ekugimps][url="http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-5814229.html"]http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-5814229.html[/url][/QUOTE]It is unfortunate that some are writing about this as though (or at least hinting that) Mike Brown did something improper or unethical by not having announced the discovery earlier. AFAIK from all I've read, I agree with Brown that he was properly and ethically following standard scientific procedure.

Astronomy involves an extremely wide range of objects and events. Some discoveries, such as novae and supernovae, asteroids discovered just as they closely approach Earth, gamma-ray bursts, and comets crashing into Jupiter, need to be announced promptly so that others may make observations during the short time available before the events end or the objects become too faint to observe.

But other discoveries are of objects or phenomena that are long-lasting and relatively quiescent, for which it is not necessary to make prompt announcement in order to avoid losing valuable observations. 2003 UB313 is in this latter category. In such cases, it is entirely right, proper, and precedented that the discoverer be allowed to conduct careful study so as to be able to present as full and detailed a description as possible in his/her original announcement. without being "scooped" by someone else zipping in to glean some tidbits then basking in the glory of making a first announcement.

- - - -

I have read that the folks who complained that Brown was improperly "sitting" on his discovery were amateur astronomers who were accustomed to discovering transient stuff as in the first category above and did not have an appreciation of the differences in the proper ways of studying/announcing items in the two different categories.

There's nothing wrong or inferior about being an amateur in astronomy. Many observations and discoveries are more suited to the circumstances of amateurs than to those of professionals.

(I am proud to have been an amateur astronomer who was at age 14 able to contribute my first teeny bit of scientifically-worthwhile observation -- of the December 1963 total lunar eclipse -- which was acknowledged in a leading astronomy magazine, which really impressed my ninth-grade biology teacher.

There remain many things an amateur astronomer, even a relative beginner, can valuably contribute.)

Yet another new twist to the story:

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051002/ap_on_sc/new_planet_moon;_ylt=AlZ2UzFvbTiBC4uax5Po0A.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-[/url]

And for some unknown reason, it seems that the (proposed?) name of the "planet" has now been made public.