Talk:Kuiper belt

Contents

1 KBO table 2 Trans-Neptunian vs. Kuiper Belt 2.1 Do we need separate articles? 3 Rewrite issues 4 Sedna 5 Is it really Kuiper's belt? 6 Kuiper belt around other planets?

KBO table

It turns out that the mean distance values and diameter estimates of these objects are noisy. We can cite the mean distance values from the Minor Planets Circular (which has no search engine itself, unfortunately). Brian Marsden does not share his error bars, so we cannot know how accurate the values are. But, at least there is one canonical source for the numbers.

The diameter estimates are even worse. They come from the absolute magnitude, which is moderately accurate, combined with the albedo, which for KBOs seem to be random guesses. Ordering the table by diameter estimates may be misleading.

Should we just display absolute magnitude in the table, and sort by that ? The downside is that very few people would understand what the parameter means. -- hike395 10:03, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why not include a paragraph explaining what you've just said? Wouldn't that sort out any confusion? :) Dysprosia 10:05, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Trans-Neptunian vs. Kuiper Belt

Current revision extensively uses TNO over KBO. Which is acronym preferred by astronomers? --- hike395 06:40, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"KBO" would probably be better, since this is an KB, and not a TNO article. I used TNO thruout since "Kuiper" is not as good a name for the belt, but TNOs do of course include Oort cloud objects. How's the 2003-10-06t22:12z edit? Also, are subscript object numbers (1992 QB₁) depreciated? - Jeandré, 2003-10-06t22:17z

Thanks for clarifying the article, Jeandré! It's much cleaner now. As for subscript object numbers, I think that it is uncommon. Much of the information on minor planets is still published in ASCII text files (for example, see [1] (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/TNOs.html) for the official list of TNOs from the Minor Planets Center). Thus, designations seem typically not to have subscripts. Even book-published ephimerides don't use subscripts (although this statement is relying on 15-year-old memories that may be incorrect).

Do we need separate articles?

The pair of articles Kuiper belt/Trans-Neptunian objects bothers me. As far as I can tell, the only TNOs that are not KBOs are Oort cloud objects, which have never been observed. This article is more fleshed out than the TNO article, but I don't know how to combine them rationally, since they aren't identical subjects. Should we copy over all of the good stuff? The articles will drift apart, anyway...

What's the precedent in Wikipedia? How do we handle levels of a taxonomy when one level is dominated by one leaf node below it? -- hike395 01:23, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with having the Trans-Neptunian objects article become relatively puny. It may wind up only a glorified disambiguation page linking Oort and KB, but considering how many non-glorified disambiguating pages there are it won't be the worst of the lot. :) Now that I think of it, there's at least one other astronomical article that deserves mention in TNO that's neither Oort or KBO; Nemesis (star). I'll add that in. Bryan

Whether glorified disambiguation or not, KBO is a proper subset of TNO so we need separate pages. However, if all (or nearly all) the known TNOs are KBOs, this does not answer the question of whether these objects should be discussed in the Trans-Neptunian or Kuiper belt pages. Joelwest 14:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite issues

Some source pages for 2004 DW: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~chad/2004dw/ (calls it a plutino) and http://www.hohmanntransfer.com/mn/0402/19.htm#04dw (cubewano).

The 2nd paragraph could do with some rewording: the 2004 DW mention was just squeezed in.

I don't think we should link "2004 DW" until it has a post code name number e.g. 2004 DW42 (what is that number?), or a number e.g. Quaoar's 50 000 (what is that number called?). We can later move the article when it gets a religious proper name. - Jeandré 2004-02-20t10:50z

Thanks for updating the article. To answer your question, 2004DW is a number assigned to an apparition: a minor planet that is viewed over the course of one or two nights. The apparition does not have a very well determined orbit. Researchers go through a "pre-covery" process, which links together apparitions over a number of years. Once those are all linked together as one body, the orbit is much better determined and the minor planet considered "discovered" and given an official IAU number. The discoverer (the person who made the final apparition that linked together all previous ones) is then given a chance to name the object, subject to IAU approval.

2004DW is a perfectly valid apparition designation: the D means it is discovered in the 7th or 8th week of 2004, while W means that it was the 23rd apparition found.. You only start to see the extra numbers on the end when more than 26 apparitions are seen in a 2 week period, which almost always happens nowadays.

-- hike395 14:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sedna

I see Sedna has been added to the list. I was under the impression that it was actually beyond the Kuiper belt... Evercat 19:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's definitely not an Oort cloud object, and I believe Oort and Kuiper are the only two divisions. Currently, anyway. These things are still somewhat ill-defined. Bryan 19:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is controversy over whether Sedna is Kuiper or Oort, and the current Sedna discussion now reflects that. Joelwest 14:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, this page says the KB goes to about 50 AU, but also gives Sedna's distance as 67 AU... Evercat 20:27, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Oort cloud page says the Oort cloud doesn't begin until 50,000 AU, so I think KB is still a more likely classification for it. Does anyone know whether the 50 AU limit is based on some objective definition, or if that was simply as far out as anyone had detected KBOs to this point? Bryan 22:01, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Note that the semi-official Sedna page (http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/sedna/) says it's not a KB object... Evercat 00:58, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Going to have to update the Oort cloud page, then. 50,000 AU is a few orders of magnitude off. :) Bryan 01:27, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well that page calls Sedna an inner Oort cloud object. :-) Evercat 01:29, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it really Kuiper's belt?

Dan Green of Harvard has posted a scathing critique (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/icq/ICQpluto2.html) of the name "Kuiper Belt", far beyond the Edgeworth issue. He uses the terms "Cubewano-belt" or "Leonard/Edgeworth/Kuiper/Whipple-belt". He seems to be alone right now.

I don't think this questions whether we should have an entry or call it by "Kuiper belt", the commonly accepted usage. But do we want to acknowledge the controversy? Link to his page? Does anyone have knowledge of the issue beyond Green's complaint? Joelwest 14:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kuiper belt is the most common name, so that should be used in Wikipedia, as per the Naming conventions. As for the name controversy, it should in my opinion definitely be addressed in this article. Only when standard use changes to Edgeworth-Kuiper or whatever-Kuiper belt should the term be changed everywhere. — Jor (Talk) 14:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the word "controversy" (n: a dispute where there is strong disagreement; "they were involved in a violent argument" (WordNet 1.6)) should be used. "Kuiper" is simply a strange name to use when one looks at the evidence presented; other suggestions are given but there is no mention of "Leonard/Edgeworth/Kuiper/Whipple-belt" in the article (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/cfa/ps/icq/ICQpluto2.html). - Jeandré, 2004-04-10t03:15z

Kuiper belt around other planets?

Is the name Kuiper belt unique to the belt of asteroids around the Sun, or can it be expanded to included other asteriod belts? And if not, what is the name given to the Kuiper belt around other planets? -- Ec5618 23:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)