Jump to content

List of possible dwarf planets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from List of plutoid candidates)

The number of dwarf planets in the Solar System is unknown. Estimates have run as high as 200 in the Kuiper belt[1] and over 10,000 in the region beyond.[2] However, consideration of the surprisingly low densities of many large trans-Neptunian objects, as well as spectroscopic analysis of their surfaces, suggests that the number of dwarf planets may be much lower, perhaps only nine among bodies known so far.[3][4] The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defines dwarf planets as being in hydrostatic equilibrium, and notes six bodies in particular: Ceres in the inner Solar System and five in the trans-Neptunian region: Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, and Quaoar.[5] Only Pluto and Ceres have been confirmed to be in hydrostatic equilibrium, due to the results of the New Horizons and Dawn missions.[6] Eris is generally assumed to be a dwarf planet because it is similar in size to Pluto and even more massive. Haumea and Makemake were accepted as dwarf planets by the IAU for naming purposes and will keep their names if it turns out they are not dwarf planets. Smaller trans-Neptunian objects have been called dwarf planets if they appear to be solid bodies, which is a prerequisite for hydrostatic equilibrium: planetologists generally include at least Gonggong, Orcus, and Sedna. In practice the requirement for hydrostatic equilibrium is often loosened to include all gravitationally rounded objects, even by the IAU, as otherwise even Mercury would not be a planet. Quaoar has been accepted as a dwarf planet under a 2022–2023 annual report.

Limiting values

[edit]
Calculation of the diameter of Ixion depends on the albedo (the fraction of light that it reflects). Current estimates are that the albedo is 13–15%, a bit under the midpoint of the range shown here and corresponding to a diameter of 620 km.

Beside directly orbiting the Sun, the qualifying feature of a dwarf planet is that it have "sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid-body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape".[7][8][9] Current observations are generally insufficient for a direct determination as to whether a body meets this definition. Often the only clues for trans-Neptunian objects (TNO) is a crude estimate of their diameters and albedos. Icy satellites as large as 1,500 km in diameter have proven to not be in equilibrium, whereas dark objects in the outer solar system often have low densities that imply they are not even solid bodies, much less gravitationally controlled dwarf planets.

Ceres, which has a significant amount of ice in its composition, is the only accepted dwarf planet in the asteroid belt, though there are unexplained anomalies.[10] 4 Vesta, the second-most-massive asteroid and one that is basaltic in composition, appears to have a fully differentiated interior and was therefore in equilibrium at some point in its history, but no longer is today.[11] The third-most massive object, 2 Pallas, has a somewhat irregular surface and is thought to have only a partially differentiated interior; it is also less icy than Ceres. Michael Brown has estimated that, because rocky objects such as Vesta are more rigid than icy objects, rocky objects below 900 kilometres (560 mi) in diameter may not be in hydrostatic equilibrium and thus not dwarf planets.[1] The two largest icy outer-belt asteroids 10 Hygiea and 704 Interamnia are close to equilibrium, but in Hygiea's case this may be a result of its disruption and the re-aggregation of its fragments, while Interamnia is now somewhat away from equilibrium due to impacts.[10][12]

Based on a comparison with the icy moons that have been visited by spacecraft, such as Mimas (round at 400 km in diameter) and Proteus (irregular at 410–440 km in diameter), Brown estimated that an icy body relaxes into hydrostatic equilibrium at a diameter somewhere between 200 and 400 km.[1] However, after Brown and Tancredi made their calculations, better determination of their shapes showed that Mimas and the other mid-sized ellipsoidal moons of Saturn up to at least Iapetus (which, at 1,471 km in diameter, is approximately the same size as Haumea and Makemake) are no longer in hydrostatic equilibrium; they are also icier than TNOs are likely to be. They have equilibrium shapes that froze in place some time ago, and do not match the shapes that equilibrium bodies would have at their current rotation rates.[13] Thus Rhea, at 1528 km in diameter, is the smallest body for which gravitational measurements are consistent with current hydrostatic equilibrium. Ceres, at 950 km in diameter, is close to equilibrium, but some deviations from equilibrium shape remain unexplained.[14] Much larger objects, such as Earth's moon and the planet Mercury, are not near hydrostatic equilibrium today,[15][16][17] though the Moon is composed primarily of silicate rock and Mercury of metal (in contrast to most dwarf planet candidates, which are ice and rock). Saturn's moons may have been subject to a thermal history that would have produced equilibrium-like shapes in bodies too small for gravity alone to do so. Thus, at present it is unknown whether any trans-Neptunian objects smaller than Pluto and Eris are in hydrostatic equilibrium.[3] Nonetheless, it does not matter in practice, because the precise statement of hydrostatic equilibrium in the definition is universally ignored in favour of roundness and solidity.[3][18]

The majority of mid-sized TNOs up to about 900–1000 km in diameter have significantly lower densities (~ 1.0–1.2 g/ml) than larger bodies such as Pluto (1.86 g/cm3). Brown had speculated that this was due to their composition, that they were almost entirely icy. However, Grundy et al.[3] point out that there is no known mechanism or evolutionary pathway for mid-sized bodies to be icy while both larger and smaller objects are partially rocky. They demonstrated that at the prevailing temperatures of the Kuiper Belt, water ice is strong enough to support open interior spaces (interstices) in objects of this size; they concluded that mid-size TNOs have low densities for the same reason that smaller objects do—because they have not compacted under self-gravity into fully solid objects, and thus the typical TNO smaller than 900–1000 km in diameter is (pending some other formative mechanism) unlikely to be a dwarf planet.

Assessment by Tancredi

[edit]

In 2010, Gonzalo Tancredi presented a report to the IAU evaluating a list of 46 trans-Neptunian candidates for dwarf planet status based on light-curve-amplitude analysis and a calculation that the object was more than 450 kilometres (280 mi) in diameter. Some diameters were measured, some were best-fit estimates, and others used an assumed albedo of 0.10 to calculate the diameter. Of these, he identified 15 as dwarf planets by his criteria (including the 4 accepted by the IAU), with another 9 being considered possible. To be cautious, he advised the IAU to "officially" accept as dwarf planets the top three: Sedna, Orcus, and Quaoar.[19] Although the IAU had anticipated Tancredi's recommendations, by late 2023 only Quaoar had been accepted.

Assessment by Brown

[edit]
Brown's categories Min. ⌀ Number of objects
Nearly certainly > 900 km 10
Highly likely 600–900 km 17 (27 total)
Likely 500–600 km 41 (68 total)
Probably 400–500 km 62 (130 total)
Possibly 200–400 km 611 (741 total)
Source: Mike Brown,[20] as of October 22, 2020

Mike Brown considers 130 trans-Neptunian bodies to be "probably" dwarf planets, ranked them by estimated size.[20] He does not consider asteroids, stating "in the asteroid belt Ceres, with a diameter of 900 km, is the only object large enough to be round."[20]

The terms for varying degrees of likelihood he split these into:

  • Near certainty: diameter estimated/measured to be over 900 kilometres (560 mi). Sufficient confidence to say these must be in hydrostatic equilibrium, even if predominantly rocky. 10 objects as of 2020.
  • Highly likely: diameter estimated/measured to be over 600 kilometres (370 mi). The size would have to be "grossly in error" or they would have to be primarily rocky to not be dwarf planets. 17 objects as of 2020.
  • Likely: diameter estimated/measured to be over 500 kilometres (310 mi). Uncertainties in measurement mean that some of these will be significantly smaller and thus doubtful. 41 objects as of 2020.
  • Probably: diameter estimated/measured to be over 400 kilometres (250 mi). Expected to be dwarf planets, if they are icy, and that figure is correct. 62 objects as of 2020.
  • Possibly: diameter estimated/measured to be over 200 kilometres (120 mi). Icy moons transition from a round to irregular shape in the 200–400 km range, suggesting that the same figure holds true for KBOs. Thus, some of these objects could be dwarf planets. 611 objects as of 2020.
  • Probably not: diameter estimated/measured to be under 200 km. No icy moon under 200 km is round, and the same may be true of KBOs. The estimated size of these objects would have to be in error for them to be dwarf planets.

Beside the five older accepted by the IAU plus Quaoar, the 'nearly certain' category includes Gonggong, Sedna, Orcus, 2002 MS4, and Salacia. Note that although Brown's site claims to be updated daily, these largest objects haven't been updated since late 2013, and indeed the current best diameter estimates for Salacia and 2002 MS4 are less than 900 km. (Orcus is just above the threshold.)[21]

Assessment by Grundy et al.

[edit]

Grundy et al. propose that dark, low-density TNOs in the size range of approximately 400–1000 km are transitional between smaller, porous (and thus low-density) bodies and larger, denser, brighter, and geologically differentiated planetary bodies (such as dwarf planets). Bodies in this size range should have begun to collapse the interstitial spaces left over from their formation, but not fully, leaving some residual porosity.[3]

Many TNOs in the size range of about 400–1000 km have oddly low densities, in the range of about 1.0–1.2 g/cm3, that are substantially less than those of dwarf planets such as Pluto, Eris and Ceres, which have densities closer to 2. Brown has suggested that large low-density bodies must be composed almost entirely of water ice since he presumed that bodies of this size would necessarily be solid. However, this leaves unexplained why TNOs both larger than 1,000 km and smaller than 400 km, and indeed comets, are composed of a substantial fraction of rock, leaving only this size range to be primarily icy. Experiments with water ice at the relevant pressures and temperatures suggest that substantial porosity could remain in this size range, and it is possible that adding rock to the mix would further increase resistance to collapsing into a solid body. Bodies with internal porosity remaining from their formation could be at best only partially differentiated, in their deep interiors (if a body had begun to collapse into a solid body, there should be evidence in the form of fault systems from when its surface contracted). The higher albedos of larger bodies are also evidence of full differentiation, as such bodies were presumably resurfaced with ice from their interiors. Grundy et al.[3] propose therefore that mid-size (< 1,000 km), low-density (< 1.4 g/cm3) and low-albedo (< ~0.2) bodies such as Salacia, Varda, Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà, and (55637) 2002 UX25 are not differentiated planetary bodies like Orcus, Quaoar, and Charon. The boundary between the two populations would appear to be in the range of about 900–1000 km, although Grundy et al. also suggest that 600–700 km might constitute an upper limit to retaining significant porosity.[3]

If Grundy et al.[3] are correct, then very few known bodies in the outer Solar System are likely to have compacted into fully solid bodies, and thus to possibly have become dwarf planets at some point in their past or to still be dwarf planets at present. Pluto–Charon, Eris, Haumea, Gonggong, Makemake, Quaoar, and Sedna are either known (Pluto) or strong candidates (the others). Orcus is again just above the threshold by size, though it is bright.

There are a number of smaller bodies, estimated to be between 700 and 900 km in diameter, for most of which not enough is known to apply these criteria. All of them are dark, mostly with albedos under 0.11, with brighter 2013 FY27 (0.18) an exception; this suggests that they are not dwarf planets. However, Salacia and Varda may be dense enough to at least be solid. If Salacia were spherical and had the same albedo as its moon, it would have a density of between 1.4 and 1.6 g/cm3, calculated a few months after Grundy et al.'s initial assessment, though still an albedo of only 0.04.[22] Varda might have a higher density of 1.78±0.06 g/cm3 (a lower density of 1.23±0.04 g/cm3 was considered possible though less probable), published the year after Grundy et al.'s initial assessment;[23] its albedo of 0.10 is close to Quaoar's.

Assessment by Emery et al.

[edit]

In 2023, Emery et al. wrote that near-infrared spectroscopy by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in 2022 suggests that Sedna, Gonggong, and Quaoar internally melted and differentiated and are chemically evolved, like the larger dwarf planets Pluto, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake, but unlike "all smaller KBOs". This is because light hydrocarbons are present on their surfaces (e.g. ethane, acetylene, and ethylene), which implies that methane is continuously being resupplied, and that methane would likely come from internal geochemistry. On the other hand, the surfaces of Sedna, Gonggong, and Quaoar have low abundances of CO and CO2, similar to Pluto, Eris, and Makemake but in contrast to smaller bodies. This suggests that the threshold for dwarf planethood in the trans-Neptunian region is a diameter of ~900 km (thus including only Pluto, Eris, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Quaoar, Orcus, and Sedna), and that even Salacia may not be a dwarf planet.[4]

Likeliest dwarf planets

[edit]

The assessments of the IAU, Tancredi et al., Brown, and Grundy et al. for some of potential dwarf planets are as follows. For the IAU, the acceptance criteria were for naming purposes; Quaoar was called a dwarf planet in a 2022–2023 IAU annual report.[24] An IAU question-and-answer press release from 2006 was more specific: it estimated that objects with mass above 5×1020 kg and diameter greater than 800 km (800 km across) would "normally" be in hydrostatic equilibrium ("the shape ... would normally be determined by self-gravity"), but that "all borderline cases would need to be determined by observation."[25] This is close to Grundy et al.'s suggestion for the approximate limit.

Several of these objects had not yet been discovered when Tancredi et al. did their analysis. Brown's sole criterion is diameter; he accepts significantly many more as "highly likely" to be dwarf planets, for which his threshold is 600 km (see below). Grundy et al. did not determine which bodies were dwarf planets, but rather which could not be. A red No marks objects that are not dense enough to be solid bodies; to this is added a question mark for the objects whose densities are not known (they are all dark, suggesting that they are not dwarf planets). Emery et al. suggest that Sedna, Quaoar, and Gonggong went through internal melting, differentiation, and chemical evolution like the larger dwarf planets, but that all smaller KBOs did not.[4] The question of current equilibrium was not addressed; nonetheless, it is not generally taken seriously despite being in the definition. (Mercury is round but known to be out of equilibrium;[26] it is universally considered as a planet according to the intent of the IAU and geophysical definitions, rather than to the letter.)[18] This would be relevant for Quaoar, as in 2024, Kiss et al. found that Quaoar has an ellipsoidal shape incompatible with hydrostatic equilibrium for its current spin. They hypothesised that Quaoar originally had a rapid rotation and was in hydrostatic equilibrium, but that its shape became "frozen in" and did not change as it spun down due to tidal forces from its moon Weywot.[27] If so, this would resemble the situation of Saturn's moon Iapetus, which is too oblate for its current spin.[28][29] Iapetus is generally still considered a planetary-mass moon nonetheless,[30] though not always.[31]

Two moons are included for comparison: Triton formed as a TNO, and Charon is larger than some dwarf planet candidates.

Designation Measured mean
diameter (km) 		Density
(g/cm3) 		Albedo Identified as a dwarf planet Category
by Emery
et al.[4] 		by Grundy
et al.[3][22] 		by Brown[20] by Tancredi
et al.[19] 		by the IAU
N I Triton 2707±2 2.06 0.60 to 0.95 (likely in equilibrium)[32] (moon of Neptune)
134340 Pluto 2376±3 1.854±0.006 0.49 to 0.66 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2:3 resonant
136199 Eris 2326±12 2.43±0.05 0.96 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SDO
136108 Haumea ≈ 1560 ≈ 2.018 0.51 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(naming rules)		 7:12 resonant cubewano
136472 Makemake 1430+38
−22		 1.9±0.2 0.81 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(naming rules)		 hot cubewano
225088 Gonggong 1230±50 1.74±0.16 0.14 Yes Yes Yes N/A 3:10 resonant
P I Charon 1212±1 1.70±0.02 0.2 to 0.5 (possibly in equilibrium)[33] (moon of Pluto)
50000 Quaoar 1086±4 ≈ 1.7 0.11 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
(2022–2023 annual report)[24]		 hot cubewano
1 Ceres 946±2 2.16±0.01 0.09 (close to equilibrium)[34] Yes asteroid
90482 Orcus 910+50
−40		 1.4±0.2 0.23 Maybe
(Not directly mentioned, but within the qualifying size range.)		 Yes Yes Yes plutino (2:3 resonant)
90377 Sedna 906+314
−258		 ? 0.41 Yes Yes Yes Yes detached
120347 Salacia 846±21 1.5±0.12 0.04 No Maybe Yes Maybe hot cubewano
(307261) 2002 MS4 796±24 ? 0.10 No No? Yes N/A hot cubewano
(55565) 2002 AW197 768±39 ? 0.11 No No? "highly likely" Yes hot cubewano
174567 Varda 749±18 1.78±0.06? or
1.23±0.04?		 0.10 No Maybe "highly likely" Maybe 4:7 resonant
(532037) 2013 FY27 742+78
−83		 ? 0.17 No No? "highly likely" N/A SDO
(208996) 2003 AZ84 723 or 772±12 0.76 0.10 No No "highly likely" Yes plutino (2:3 resonant)
28978 Ixion 710±0.2 ? 0.10 No No? "highly likely" Yes plutino (2:3 resonant)
(145452) 2005 RN43 679+55
−73		 ? 0.107+0.029
−0.018		 No No? "highly likely" Maybe hot cubewano
(55637) 2002 UX25 665±29 or 659±38 0.82±0.11 0.107+0.005
−0.008 or 0.1±0.01		 No No "highly likely" N/A hot cubewano
2018 VG18 656 or 500 ? 0.12 No No? "highly likely" N/A SDO
20000 Varuna 654+154
−102 or 668+154
−86		 ? 0.127+0.04
−0.042		 No No? "highly likely" Yes hot cubewano
229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà 642±28 or 638+24
−12		 1.04±0.17 0.142±0.015 No No "highly likely" N/A SDO
2014 UZ224 635+65
−72		 ? 0.131+0.038
−0.028		 No No? "highly likely" N/A SDO
2012 VP113 574? ? 0.09 assumed No No? "likely" N/A detached
(528381) 2008 ST291 549 or 584 ? 0.09 assumed No No? "likely" N/A 1:6 resonant SDO
(523794) 2015 RR245 ≈500 ? 0.11 assumed No No? "highly likely" N/A Maybe
(claimed without citation by AGU)[35] [36]		 SDO
19521 Chaos 415+83
−30		 ? ca. 0.1 No No? "highly likely" N/A hot cubewano
38628 Huya 411±7.3 0.8 0.081 No No "probably" Yes plutino (2:3 resonant)
(15874) 1996 TL66 339±20 or 575±115 ? 0.110+0.021
−0.015		 No No "possibly" Yes SDO
(15789) 1993 SC 328±10 or 398±10 ? 0.100+0.030
−0.020		 No No "possibly" Maybe plutino (2:3 resonant)

Largest measured candidates

[edit]
See also: Category:Possible dwarf planets

The following trans-Neptunian objects have measured diameters at least 600 kilometres (370 mi) to within measurement uncertainties; this was the threshold to be considered a "highly likely" dwarf planet in Brown's early assessment. Grundy et al. speculated that 600 km to 700 km diameter could represent "the upper limit to retain substantial internal pore space", and that objects around 900 km could have collapsed interiors but fail to completely differentiate.[3] The two satellites of TNOs that surpass this threshold have also been included: Pluto's moon Charon and Eris' moon Dysnomia. The next largest TNO moon is Orcus' moon Vanth at 442.5±10.2 km and a poorly constrained (87±8)×1018 kg, with an albedo of about 8%.

Ceres, generally accepted as a dwarf planet, is added for comparison. Also added for comparison is Triton, which is thought to have been a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt before it was captured by Neptune.

Bodies with very poorly known sizes (e.g. 2018 VG18 "Farout") have been excluded. Complicating the situation for poorly known bodies is that a body assumed to be a large single object might turn out to be a binary or ternary system of smaller objects, such as 2013 FY27 or Lempo. A 2021 occultation of 2004 XR190 ("Buffy") found a chord of 560 km: if the body is approximately spherical, it is likely that the diameter is greater than 560 km, but if it is elongated, the mean diameter may well be less. Explanations and sources for the measured masses and diameters can be found in the corresponding articles linked in column "Designation" of the table.

  • The bodies with estimated diameter over 900 km are bolded; they have general consensus as being dwarfs, per the previous section. Charon is also bolded, as it has sometimes been considered a possible dwarf in its own right; Triton is bolded as a former KBO that is still rounded and geologically active. Orcus and Sedna are put in the next category due to uncertainties.
  • Those with estimated diameter between 700 km and 900 km are in bold italic; most are borderline possibilities, but in most cases are too poorly known for much certainty. They tend to be dark, suggesting that they are not dwarf planets, but some might be dense enough to be fully solid bodies.
  • The others, having estimated diameter below 700 km, are unlikely to be dwarf planets on the basis of current evaluation, but may be transitional (partially compressed) bodies.
  • Light grey indicates objects whose densities may or may not be higher than 1.5 g/cm3.
  • Dark grey indicates those whose densities are known to be lower, and hence if the data is correct cannot be dwarf planets.
  • Satellites are highlighted in pink, as under the current definition a dwarf planet must directly orbit the Sun.

All of these categories are subject to change with further evidence.

Possible dwarf planets with measured sizes or masses
(satellites Triton, Charon, Dysnomia included for comparison)
Designation H

[37][38]

Geometric
albedo[a] 		Diameter
(km) 		Method Mass[b]
(1018 kg) 		Density
(g/cm3) 		Category
Neptune I Triton −1.2 60% to 95% 2707±2 direct 21390±28 2.061 satellite of Neptune
134340 Pluto −0.45 49% to 66% 2377±3 direct 13030±30 1.854±0.006 2:3 resonant
136199 Eris −1.21 96% 2326±12 occultation 16466±85 2.43±0.05 SDO
136108 Haumea 0.21 49% 1559 occultation 3986±43 ≈ 2.018 7:12 resonant/cubewano
136472 Makemake −0.21 83% 1429+38
−20 		occultation ≈ 3100 1.9±0.2 cubewano
225088 Gonggong 1.86 14% 1230±50 thermal 1750±70 1.74±0.16 3:10 resonant
134340 Pluto I Charon 1 20% to 50% 1212±1 direct 1586±15 1.702±0.017 satellite of Pluto
50000 Quaoar 2.42 11% 1086±4 occultation 1200±50 1.7–1.8 cubewano
1 Ceres 3.33 9% 939.4±0.2 direct 938.35±0.01 2.16±0.01 asteroid belt
90482 Orcus 2.18 23% ± 2% 910+50
−40 		thermal 548±10 1.4±0.2 2:3 resonant
90377 Sedna 1.52 41% 906+314
−258 		thermal ? ? detached
120347 Salacia 4.26 5% 846±21 thermal 492±7 1.5±0.12 cubewano
(307261) 2002 MS4 3.62 10% 796±24 occultation ? cubewano
(55565) 2002 AW197 3.47 11% 768+39
−38 		thermal ? cubewano
174567 Varda 3.46 11% 749±18 occultation 245±6 1.78±0.06? or
1.23±0.04?		 cubewano
(532037) 2013 FY27 3.12 18% 742+78
−83 		thermal ? SDO
28978 Ixion 3.47 10% 709.6±0.2 occultation ? 2:3 resonant
(208996) 2003 AZ84 3.77 11% 707±24 occultation 0.76 2:3 resonant
(90568) 2004 GV9 3.99 8% 680±34 thermal ? cubewano
(145452) 2005 RN43 3.69 11% 679+55
−73 		thermal ? cubewano
(55637) 2002 UX25 3.85 12% 659±38 thermal 125±3 0.82±0.11 cubewano
229762 Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà 3.5 14% 655+14
−13 		occultation 136±3 1.04±0.17 SDO
20000 Varuna 3.79 12% 654+154
−102 		thermal 0.992+0.086
−0.015		 cubewano
(145451) 2005 RM43 4.63 11% 644 occultation ? SDO
2014 UZ224 3.48 14% 635+65
−72 		thermal ? SDO
136199 Eris I Dysnomia 5.6 5±1% 615+60
−50		 thermal <140 0.7±0.5 satellite of Eris
(523692) 2014 EZ51 3.92 4% 575±80 occultation ? SDO
(78799) 2002 XW93 4.99 4% 565+71
−73 		thermal ? SDO
(455502) 2003 UZ413 4.38 4% 560+90
−92 		occultation ? 2:3 resonant
(612911) 2004 XR190 4.50 4% 560±15 occultation ? SDO
(612533) 2002 XV93 5.42 4% 549±80 thermal ? 2:3 resonant
(523794) 2015 RR245 4.01 4% 500±80 thermal ? 2:9 resonant
(84522) 2002 TC302 3.94 4% 500±14 thermal ? 2:5 resonant
  1. ^ The geometric albedo is calculated from the measured absolute magnitude and measured diameter via the formula: . Ranges have been given for Triton, Pluto, and Charon, which have been observed up close and therefore have known local albedo variations.
  2. ^ This is the total system mass (including moons), except for Pluto, Haumea, and Orcus.

Brightest unmeasured candidates

[edit]

For objects without a measured size or mass, sizes can only be estimated by assuming an albedo. Most sub-dwarf objects are thought to be dark, because they haven't been resurfaced; this means that they are also relatively large for their magnitudes. Below is a table for assumed albedos between 4% (the albedo of Salacia) and 20% (a value above which suggests resurfacing), and the sizes objects of those albedos would need to be (if round) to produce the observed absolute magnitude. Backgrounds are blue for >900 km and teal for >600 km.

Calculated sizes in km (based on different albedo assumptions)[a]
for brightest objects without measured size or mass
H Objects with this magnitude (H)[37][38] Assumed albedo (p)
4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
3.6 2021 DR15 (H = 3.61 ± 0.15)[39] 1,270 1,030 900 800 730 680 630 600 570
3.7 1,210 990 860 770 700 650 610 570 540
3.8 2014 EZ51, 2010 RF43 1,160 940 820 730 670 620 580 540 520
3.9 2010 JO179, 2018 VG18 (H = 3.92 ± 0.52)[40] 1,100 900 780 700 640 590 550 520 490
4.0 2015 RR245, 2010 KZ39, 2012 VP113,
2021 LL37 (H = 4.09 ± 0.31)[41] 		1,050 860 750 670 610 560 530 500 470
4.1 2015 KH162, 2020 MK53 (H = 4.12 ± 0.35)[42] 1,010 820 710 640 580 540 500 470 450
4.2 2018 AG37 (H = 4.22 ± 0.1),[43] 2013 FZ27, 2008 ST291,
2010 RE64 		960 780 680 610 560 510 480 450 430
4.3 2017 FO161, 2015 BP519,
2017 OF69, 2014 AN55 		920 750 650 580 530 490 460 430 410
4.4 2014 WK509, 2007 JJ43, 2014 WP509 880 720 620 550 510 470 440 410 390
4.5 2013 XC26, 2014 YA50, 2010 FX86 840 680 590 530 480 450 420 390 370
4.6 2020 FY30 (H = 4.6 ± 0.16),[44] 2006 QH181 2007 XV50, 2014 US277,
2002 WC19, 2010 OO127 		800 650 570 510 460 430 400 380 360
4.7 2014 FC69, 2014 HA200, 2014 BV64,
2014 FC72, 2014 OE394, 2010 DN93,
2015 BZ518 		760 620 540 480 440 410 380 360 340
4.8 2014 TZ85, 2007 JH43, 2015 AM281,
2008 OG19, 2014 US224 		730 600 520 460 420 390 360 340 330
4.9 2011 HP83, 2013 FS28, 2014 FT71,
2013 AT183, 2011 WJ157, 2014 UM33,
2014 BZ57, 2013 SF106, 2003 UA414 		700 570 490 440 400 370 350 330 310
  1. ^ The diameter can be calculated from the measured absolute magnitude , and for an assumed albedo , via the formula:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Mike Brown. "The Dwarf Planets". Retrieved 20 January 2008.
  2. ^ Stern, Alan (24 August 2012). "The Kuiper Belt at 20: Paradigm Changes in Our Knowledge of the Solar System". Applied Physics Laboratory. Today we know of more than a dozen dwarf planets in the solar system [and] it is estimated that the ultimate number of dwarf planets we will discover in the Kuiper Belt and beyond may well exceed 10,000.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Grundy, W.M.; Noll, K.S.; Buie, M.W.; Benecchi, S.D.; Ragozzine, D.; Roe, H.G. (December 2019). "The mutual orbit, mass, and density of transneptunian binary Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà ((229762) 2007 UK126)" (PDF). Icarus. 334: 30–38. Bibcode:2019Icar..334...30G. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.037. S2CID 126574999. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 April 2019.
  4. ^ a b c d Emery, J. P.; Wong, I.; Brunetto, R.; Cook, J. C.; Pinilla-Alonso, N.; Stansberry, J. A.; Holler, B. J.; Grundy, W. M.; Protopapa, S.; Souza-Feliciano, A. C.; Fernández-Valenzuela, E.; Lunine, J. I.; Hines, D. C. (2024). "A Tale of 3 Dwarf Planets: Ices and Organics on Sedna, Gonggong, and Quaoar from JWST Spectroscopy". Icarus. 414. arXiv:2309.15230. Bibcode:2024Icar..41416017E. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2024.116017.
  5. ^ Accepted in a 2022–2023 annual report
  6. ^ "What's Inside Ceres? New Findings from Gravity Data". 2 August 2016.
  7. ^ "IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes". International Astronomical Union. 24 August 2006. Archived from the original on 3 January 2007. Retrieved 26 January 2008.
  8. ^ "Dwarf Planets". NASA. Archived from the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2008.
  9. ^ "Plutoid chosen as name for Solar System objects like Pluto" (Press release). 11 June 2008. Archived from the original on 2 July 2011. Retrieved 15 June 2008.
  10. ^ a b Vernazza, P.; Jorda, L.; Ševeček, P.; Brož, M.; Viikinkoski, M.; Hanuš, J.; et al. (2020). "A basin-free spherical shape as an outcome of a giant impact on asteroid Hygiea" (PDF). Nature Astronomy. 273 (2): 136–141. Bibcode:2020NatAs...4..136V. doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0915-8. hdl:10045/103308. S2CID 209938346. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
  11. ^ Savage, Don; Jones, Tammy; Villard, Ray (19 April 1995). "Asteroid or mini-planet? Hubble maps the ancient surface of Vesta". HubbleSite (Press release). News Release STScI-1995-20. Retrieved 17 October 2006.
  12. ^ Hanuš, J.; Vernazza, P.; Viikinkoski, M.; Ferrais, M.; Rambaux, N.; Podlewska-Gaca, E.; Drouard, A.; Jorda, L.; Jehin, E.; Carry, B.; Marsset, M.; Marchis, F.; Warner, B.; Behrend, R.; Asenjo, V.; Berger, N.; Bronikowska, M.; Brothers, T.; Charbonnel, S.; Colazo, C.; Coliac, J.-F.; Duffard, R.; Jones, A.; Leroy, A.; Marciniak, A.; Melia, R.; Molina, D.; Nadolny, J.; Person, M.; et al. (2020). "(704) Interamnia: A transitional object between a dwarf planet and a typical irregular-shaped minor body". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 633: A65. arXiv:1911.13049. Bibcode:2020A&A...633A..65H. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936639. S2CID 208512707.
  13. ^ "Iapetus' peerless equatorial ridge". www.planetary.org. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
  14. ^ Raymond, C.; Castillo-Rogez, J.C.; Park, R.S.; Ermakov, A.; et al. (September 2018). "Dawn Data Reveal Ceres' Complex Crustal Evolution" (PDF). European Planetary Science Congress. Vol. 12. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 19 July 2020.
  15. ^ Garrick; Bethell; et al. (2014). "The tidal-rotational shape of the Moon and evidence for polar wander". Nature. 512 (7513): 181–184. Bibcode:2014Natur.512..181G. doi:10.1038/nature13639. PMID 25079322. S2CID 4452886.
  16. ^ Balogh, A.; Ksanfomality, Leonid; Steiger, Rudolf von (23 February 2008). "Hydrostatic equilibrium of Mercury". Mercury. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 23. ISBN 9780387775395 – via Google Books.
  17. ^ Perry, Mark E.; Neumann, Gregory A.; Phillips, Roger J.; Barnouin, Olivier S.; Ernst, Carolyn M.; Kahan, Daniel S.; et al. (September 2015). "The low-degree shape of Mercury". Geophysical Research Letters. 42 (17): 6951–6958. Bibcode:2015GeoRL..42.6951P. doi:10.1002/2015GL065101. S2CID 103269458.
  18. ^ a b Brown, Mike [@plutokiller] (10 February 2023). "The real answer here is to not get too hung up on definitions, which I admit is hard when the IAU tries to make them sound official and clear, but, really, we all understand the intent of the hydrostatic equilibrium point, and the intent is clearly to include Merucry & the moon" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  19. ^ a b Tancredi, G. (2010). "Physical and dynamical characteristics of icy "dwarf planets" (plutoids)". Icy Bodies of the Solar System: Proceedings IAU Symposium No. 263, 2009. 263: 173–185. Bibcode:2010IAUS..263..173T. doi:10.1017/S1743921310001717.
  20. ^ a b c d Michael E. Brown (13 September 2019). "How many dwarf planets are there in the outer solar system?". California Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on 13 October 2019. Retrieved 24 November 2019.
  21. ^ How many dwarf planets are there in the outer solar system? (updates daily), updated 2013-11-01
  22. ^ a b Grundy, W.M.; Noll, K.S.; Roe, H.G.; Buie, M.W.; Porter, S.B.; Parker, A.H.; et al. (December 2019). "Mutual orbit orientations of transneptunian binaries" (PDF). Icarus. 334: 62–78. Bibcode:2019Icar..334...62G. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2019.03.035. S2CID 133585837. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 April 2019.
  23. ^ Souami, D.; Braga-Ribas, F.; Sicardy, B.; Morgado, B.; Ortiz, J. L.; Desmars, J.; et al. (August 2020). "A multi-chord stellar occultation by the large trans-Neptunian object (174567) Varda". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 643: A125. arXiv:2008.04818. Bibcode:2020A&A...643A.125S. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038526. S2CID 221095753.
  24. ^ a b "Report of Division F "Planetary Systems and Astrobiology": Annual Report 2022-23" (PDF). International Astronomical Union. 2022–2023. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
  25. ^ "'Planet Definition' Questions & Answers Sheet". International Astronomical Union. 24 August 2006. Retrieved 16 October 2021.
  26. ^ Sean Solomon, Larry Nittler & Brian Anderson, eds. (2018) Mercury: The View after MESSENGER. Cambridge Planetary Science series no. 21, Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3.
  27. ^ Kiss, C.; Müller, T. G.; Marton, G.; Szakáts, R.; Pál, A.; Molnár, L.; et al. (March 2024). "The visible and thermal light curve of the large Kuiper belt object (50000) Quaoar". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 684: A50. arXiv:2401.12679. Bibcode:2024A&A...684A..50K. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348054.
  28. ^ Cowen, R. (2007). Idiosyncratic Iapetus, Science News vol. 172, pp. 104–106. references Archived 2007-10-13 at the Wayback Machine
  29. ^ Thomas, P. C. (July 2010). "Sizes, shapes, and derived properties of the saturnian satellites after the Cassini nominal mission" (PDF). Icarus. 208 (1): 395–401. Bibcode:2010Icar..208..395T. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2010.01.025. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 December 2018. Retrieved 25 September 2015.
  30. ^ Emily Lakdawalla et al., What Is A Planet? Archived 2022-01-22 at the Wayback Machine The Planetary Society, 21 April 2020
  31. ^ Chen, Jingjing; Kipping, David (2016). "Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds". The Astrophysical Journal. 834 (1): 17. arXiv:1603.08614. Bibcode:2017ApJ...834...17C. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/17. S2CID 119114880.
  32. ^ Thomas, P.C. (December 2000). "The Shape of Triton from Limb Profiles". Icarus. 148 (2): 587–588. Bibcode:2000Icar..148..587T. doi:10.1006/icar.2000.6511.
  33. ^ Kholshevnikovab, K.V.; Borukhaa, M.A.; Eskina, B.B.; Mikryukov, D.V. (23 October 2019). "On the asphericity of the figures of Pluto and Charon". Icarus. 181: 104777. doi:10.1016/j.pss.2019.104777. S2CID 209958465.
  34. ^ Raymond, C.; Castillo-Rogez, J.C.; Park, R.S.; Ermakov, A.; et al. (September 2018). "Dawn Data Reveal Ceres' Complex Crustal Evolution" (PDF). European Planetary Science Congress. Vol. 12.
  35. ^ "Six Things Dwarf Planets Have Taught Us About the Solar System". JoAnna Wendel. American Geophysical Union. 27 January 2024.
  36. ^ Hall, S. (15 July 2016). "New-Found Dwarf Planet Points to Solar System's Chaotic Past". Eos. Retrieved 16 July 2024.
  37. ^ a b "List Of Trans-Neptunian Objects". Minor Planet Center. Retrieved 15 July 2023.
  38. ^ a b "List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects". Minor Planet Center. Retrieved 15 July 2023.
  39. ^ "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: (2021 DR15)" (2022-04-11 last obs.). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  40. ^ "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: (2018 VG18)" (2022-03-09 last obs.). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  41. ^ "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: (2021 LL37)" (2022-06-16 last obs.). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  42. ^ "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: (2020 MK53)" (2020-06-25 last obs.). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Retrieved 15 July 2023.
  43. ^ "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: (2018 AG37)" (2021-08-24 last obs.). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  44. ^ "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: (2020 FY30)" (2021-04-16 last obs.). Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
[edit]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_possible_dwarf_planets&oldid=1265259339"