Mark Whittington points out this article, which states that a new name has been chosen for 2003UB313:
Eris had been without a formal name while astronomers grappled over its status. Brown nicknamed it "Xena" after the protagonist of the TV show "Xena: Warrior Princess," pending an official designation. He admits the new name will take some getting used to.What the IAU apparently has overlooked (or has hoped that average people will overlook) is that the chosen names are not allowed under the IAU's own guidelines:
"It's a little sad to see Xena go away," he said.
Eris' moon, nicknamed Gabrielle after Xena's traveling sidekick, also received a formal name: Dysnomia, the daughter of Eris known as the spirit of lawlessness.
"Names proposed for minor planets will not be accepted if, in the opinion of the Minor Planet Names Committee, they are too nearly similar to those of other minor or major planets or natural satellites..."There is very little difference between the pronounciation of Eris and that of (433) Eros.
Objects sufficiently outside Neptune's orbit that orbital stability is reasonably assured for a substantial fraction of the lifetime of the solar system are given mythological names associated with creation.Eris was the goddess of chaos and strife, who sparked a quarrel among goddesses that led to the Trojan war. She has nothing do with creation. And in fact, the rule is going to have to be changed in the long run, as trans-Neptunian objects far outnumber all other objects in the solar system, so there simply aren't enough names to go around.
Discoverers have the privilege to propose names for ten years after numbering. Beyond that point, others may propose namesMike Brown proposed the name Xena for 2003UB313, and the name Gabrielle for its satellite. Ten years have not elapsed since the naming, so neither the IAU (nor anybody else) can propose a new name until that time has elapsed. They can reject the name, but not propose a new one.
This could have been avoided if a small minority of IAU members hadn't had a hard-on for kicking Pluto out of the group of planets. If they had simply accepted the definition proposed before the last IAU meeting, then Pluto would have retained its planetary status, and Ceres, Charon, and 2003UB313 would all be planets as well; in that case, the naming of 2003UB313 would have been entirely up to the IAU. However in their zeal to kick Pluto out, they have also kept 2003UB313 from being designated as a planet and so have given up the right to propose a name for it for at least several more years.
(Not only that, but they have also inadvertently kicked most of the existing planets out of the category by definition - according to the new definition, there are only two planets in the entire universe: Mercury and Venus. All the rest fail to match the new criterion in some fashion; for instance, because of Cruithne, the Earth can not be considered to have cleared its orbit, so the Earth is no longer a planet. Likewise, because of the Trojan asteroids, Jupiter can not be said to have cleared its orbit and so Jupiter is not a planet under the new definition. As for the 100+ extrasolar planets? None of them are considered planets under the new definition either, as none of them orbit the Sun. Silly, silly astronomers.)
So, until 2013 the dwarf planet 2003UB313 cannot be named Eris, and must be either called by its numerical designation, or else called Xena.
Update: It has been suggested in the comments that Mike Brown himself was the one to make the suggestion that 2003UB313 be called Eris; if that is the case, then much of my argument above is moot. However, the IAU has still been acting like a bunch of dumbasses lately. And Xena is still a cool name.
Technorati Tags: Space, Xena, 2003UB313, Eris
8 comments:
Note that Mike Brown did not, in fact, formally propose the name Xena--if you read his own website, he's always been very careful to make it clear that Xena was only a temporary nickname that he used in order to avoid saying "2003 UB313" all the time, and that he had never intended for Xena to become the object's official name.
According to IAU rules, an object's discoverer cannot formally propose a name until the object has been assigned a permanent catalog number. The object 2003 UB313 was assigned the permanent number 136199 on September 7, upon which Mike Brown proposed the name Eris. The IAU then moved unusually quickly to accept the name, no doubt due to the publicity surrounding this particular object.
Point being, the rules for the naming process were followed to the letter here. Well, modulo the bit about the creation deities.
The article I linked to didn't explicitly state that Mike Brown had suggested the name Eris, only that he was happy with it. If Brown himself was the one to suggest it, then that shoots part of my argument out of the water. However, the fact that there is already an asteroid (433 Eros) with an extremely similar name - virtually identical pronounciation - should be enough to eliminate the name Eris from consideration. And of course there is the rule that says that bodies outside Neptune's orbit must be given mythological names associated with creation, which now obviously must be changed due to the sheer number of objects out beyond Neptune. There simply aren't a quadrillion names available.
Sorry, you've fallen into the trap of assuming that the IAU defines "clearing the orbital neighborhood" as accreting all matter in orbit into one body. If you'll read Brown's own explanation -- http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/eightplanets/ -- you'll find that "clearing" refers to a planet's ability to totally gravitationally dominate its orbital environs, either by accretion, attraction, capture, or resonance. Earth has "cleared" the moon by keeping it in its orbit, Jupiter has "cleared" the Trojans by collecting them at its LaGrange points, Neptune has "cleared" Pluto by forcing it into a 3:2 orbital resonance.
Has Pluto cleared the Kuiper Belt? Does it exercise any gravitational dominance over a majority of other KBOs besides Charon, Nix, and Hydra? It doesn't. Therefore it is not a planet.
spoken as only a colonial can
I am glad someone else agrees that the IAU has basically been acting like a bunch of retarded cats.
Mike Brown did mention on his website last year that he had 'real' names (not Xena or Gabrielle) that he was going to propose to the IAU, so presumably they were Eris and Dysnomia.
I know the pronounciation is supposed to be ee-ris but I have to admit that I keep calling it eh-ris which doesn't sound like ee-ros. But then that is just because my pronounciation is so bad. I put it down to me not having a 'classical education'.
By the way, if you are going to complain about sticking to the exact rules, you can't allow the name Xena. As far as I'm aware, Xena is not a name from mythology; it was created by the makers of the TV programme.
I get the feeling that this rant is related to anger over the so-called 'demotion' of Pluto to dwarf planet as if that somehow changes Pluto. I don't think we should all be so bothered if something is a planet or isn't. Does it matter? There are a huge range of sizes of body and we shouldn't let the English language dictate what we think about them. To misquote Shakespeare:
What's in a name? That which we call a planet (dwarf or not)
By any other name would be as interesting.
I am certain it has nothing to do with anger of any kind. The fact is, the IAU did not consider what they were doing or why. The definition as it stands is so vague and based completely on opinion that it is a waste of the effort that was put into it.
Using such simple-minded concepts as "orbits the Sun" eliminates every planet in the universe except in our own solar system. I have a real problem with that immediately. Then the use of the term "round" really is silly. A dinner plate is "round", a planet is "spherical". By the IAU definition, a large cylinder orbiting the Sun might be a planet.
Why not say "an object that is spherical or nearly so under its own gravitation, that orbits a star" and get most of the objections out of the way? Then we can start pinning down differences and classifications.
If two planets have the same orbit, but are harmonically locked, and of similar mass, then by the IAU definition, neither would be a planet because of the "clearing the orbit" clause.
What, exactly, does it mean by dominate its orbital environs? Any double planet fails this test and therefore is a pair of other things... not at all planets.
A spherical natural object that does not glow, and is spherical by its own gravitation, and is not orbiting a larger similar body should be a planet. This eliminates the "orbits the Sun" clause and allows free floating planets, such as those ejected from a solar system. By IAU definition, there can be no such thing as a free floating planet, yet we know that they exist.
This is a case where personal opinions and emotions outweighed reason and a group of not-so-august astronomers made complete fools of themselves.
Two points I wanted to pick up on. First, an object may NOT be spherical and still have the required roundness - I suspect the IAU is very aware that the fast-spinning 2003 EL61 is probably of a size to eventually be confirmed as a dwarf planet, but its fast spin elongates it considerably ... which brings me on to the second point, which is that the dwarf planets and quite a number of the condidate dwarf planets are really interesting objects, and really should have their own classification - changing the classification of something happens frequently in the sciences as new facts become known (One of my favourite Heathers - 'Heaven Scent' - was an Erica Verticillata prior to when I bought it, was an Erica Manipuliflora when I bought it and has now been re-classified as Erica x Griffithsii) - so don't talk about Pluto being demoted, please talk about it being re-classified.
Post a Comment