Article 56Z84 Planet X? Why not a tiny black hole instead?

Planet X? Why not a tiny black hole instead?

by
Chris Lee
from Ars Technica - All content on (#56Z84)
primord_black_hole-800x388.jpg

Enlarge (credit: SXS Lensing)

Planet X has a long and storied history of non-existence. For about 130 years, astronomers have debated the existence of an additional planet or planets to explain discrepancies in the orbits of the known planets (mainly Neptune and Uranus). Later, the list of discrepancies was expanded to cover trans-Neptunian objects. But none of the Planet X candidates discovered, including Pluto, have the mass or location to explain observations.

Primordial black holes have now been proposed as the latest planet X (or planet 9, since Pluto was demoted).

Orbital weirdness

Planet X's origin starts with the discovery of Neptune. Neptune was not found by accident: observations of oddities in the orbit of Uranus were used to calculate the location of Neptune, and it was subsequently found.

Read 12 remaining paragraphs | Comments

index?i=XJG5o3SUXWw:5VWHs7keLIc:V_sGLiPB index?i=XJG5o3SUXWw:5VWHs7keLIc:F7zBnMyn index?d=qj6IDK7rITs index?d=yIl2AUoC8zA
External Content
Source RSS or Atom Feed
Feed Location http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/index
Feed Title Ars Technica - All content
Feed Link https://arstechnica.com/
Reply 0 comments