Update on Pluto

A while back, I posted an argument about why Pluto is not a planet. Recently, there has been a movement to reinstate Pluto as one of the planets in our solar system. Let's delve into this a bit further.


From the previous post, here are the IAU definitions of a planet and a dwarf planet.

• A planet is a spherical body that orbits the Sun and has cleared its orbit of other objects, i.e. it does not share an orbit with other bodies (not including moons).
• A dwarf planet is a spherical body that orbits the Sun but has not cleared its orbit of other objects. They may co-orbit with other bodies. Many of the Trans-Neptunian Objects, Kuiper Belt Bodies, Oort Cloud comets may have the same semi-major axis as other objects, therefore are not planets.

As to these current definitions, we can see that Pluto is not a planet. All the arguments I made are in the previously linked post. A nice thing about science is that new information can change our understanding of nature and the universe. Science is a fluid subject. Our perceptions can alter. So that is why it may be important to reinvestigate the idea of a planet.


If we were to redefine what makes a planet, we should be clear on what is and what is not a planet. Pluto is smaller than seven moons in our solar system, including our Moon. However, Mercury is also smaller than the two largest moons, Ganymede (orbiting Jupiter) and Titan (orbiting Saturn). We can all agree that Ganymede, Titan, the three other Galilean satellites, Triton (orbiting Neptune), and our Moon are NOT planet, they are moons. They orbit around planets which in turn orbit around the Sun. Pluto, only orbits the Sun (though it can be argued that it also orbits around the common center of mass of its system (Pluto, Charon, and its other orbital companions).


If the IAU does change the definition of a planet, it will have to get rid of the idea of co-orbiting bodies that are a significant fraction of the largest body's mass and radius. Remember, Charon is about 11.6% the mass of Pluto and has a radius about half that of Pluto. Our Moon is only 1.2% the mass of Earth and has a radius just over a quarter of the Earth. Looking at all the large satellites of the gas giant planets shows that all of them are significantly smaller in comparison to their parent planet than our Moon is to the Earth.


So if the definition is changed, what other objects in our solar system will have to be redesignated as a planet? Pluto is obviously the first. Eris will also have to redefined as it is a larger body than Pluto. After that, it depends on what the lower limit the IAU wants to use. Makemake may become a planet, Ceres may as well, though if Ceres does get redefined, than all the trans-Neptunian objects larger than Ceres will have to be classified as planets. Not only that, we will have to add a third type of planetary body along with terrestrial and Jovian. This will have to be something in between, though that type is not really a bridge between terrestrial and Jovian.


At the moment, I personally like the definition we have for planets. It's clear, concise, and makes a lot of sense. But as I said before, science can change and our understanding of what is going on can help us make more informed conclusions. Only if the IAU changes the definition of a planet, only then will Pluto, Eris, and some of the other dwarf planets/minor planets in our solar system become full-fledged planets.


We will learn more about Pluto once New Horizons reaches the Plutonian system in July of 2015. Then we will know more about Pluto and its sisters and may be able to make more informed conclusions about what they are.