May 18, 2011 5:28pm

Lonely Planet: Worlds Found Wandering Interstellar Space

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union — the professional organization for astronomers — put itself through a painful and, for many members, embarrassing exercise: It tried to come up with a scientific definition for "planet," a word that dated from ancient times.

The crisis arose as astronomers found more and more worlds, some larger than Pluto, orbiting the Sun in the frozen wastes of the outer solar system.  Should they be called planets?  Would the solar system become a very crowded place?  Did Pluto still qualify?  What about all those people who grew up believing there were nine planets? (“My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas.”)

After heated argument, they came up with this: "A 'planet' is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit."

Kaboom.  Things changed with a paper in this week's edition of the journal Nature.

Study author Takahiro Sumi, an astrophysicist at Osaka University in Japan, reports that he's found at least ten Jupiter-sized objects wandering the nearby galaxy, apparently not part of any solar system. "These planetary-mass objects have no host stars that can be detected within about ten astronomical units," he writes. He only found them by watching to see if anything moved in front of distant stars, distorting their light.

If they were orbiting stars, they would most likely fit the IAU's definition of "planet."  They're probably large enough to be round, but not large enough to generate heat and light as stars naturally do.  They have enough gravity that they probably swallow up any smaller space junk wandering their way.

They may have formed when stars did, but were, for some reason, flung free of them.  And here's the zinger: Sumi and others say that based on his two-year survey, such worlds may be more common than stars in our galaxy.

No saying what these bodies are really like close-up, but scientists suggest they must be dark, frozen, and desperately lonely in the eternal night.  They may have moons.  They may have seas of liquid that would be gas if they had suns to warm them, or sheets of ice made from compounds that would be liquid if there were ever daylight.  The view of the stars around them must be staggering.

Someone –perhaps Sumi — will have to come up with a name for them.

(Image: Artist's conception of a planet without a host star. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.

User Comments

Why not call them Wanderers?

Posted by: Constance Graettinger | May 18, 2011, 6:28 pm 6:28 pm

Why not Evagors? Means to wander out…
Or Aberros – to wander..

Posted by: looncraz | May 18, 2011, 6:35 pm 6:35 pm

Constance and Looncraz’s suggestions are ironic. ‘Planet’ in Greek means ‘wanderer’. So it will be ironic to call these new objects aberros when they have the same original meaning of ‘planet’. ;D
Oh, well. I gues the IAU are going back to the drawing board. LOL! XD

Posted by: GWP | May 19, 2011, 10:04 am 10:04 am

“Celestial Bodies” works.

Posted by: Gerald | May 19, 2011, 11:58 am 11:58 am

The IAU vote never represented anything more than one opinion in an ongoing debate. In fact, it turns out no objects larger than Pluto have been found beyond Neptune. Eris, once thought to be larger than Pluto, turns out to be minimally smaller though more massive. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the 2006 definition, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by New Horizons Principal Investigator Dr. Alan Stern. This latest discovery only underscores how premature the IAU’s attempt to define the term planet is.

Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | May 20, 2011, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm

Maybe they’re huge Leviathan creatures who thrive on space junk and/or dark matter???? I can guess and speculate, too. :-)

Posted by: LCook | May 21, 2011, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm

Does the IAU want to be scientific? Or does it want to continue clinging to this flawed and ridiculous idea a tiny minority of its members manipulated the system in order to foist on the world back in 2006, just so it won’t have to confront Pluto’s status again? It’s got more holes in it than Ted Nugent’s shooting targets. Here’s another one.

Posted by: Mark | May 21, 2011, 6:03 pm 6:03 pm

How about “Celestial Nomads”

Posted by: Dave | May 23, 2011, 11:46 am 11:46 am

“Bachelor Planets”

Posted by: Erin Kelley | June 20, 2011, 9:02 pm 9:02 pm

If one of them is green, call it Krypton! Ha Ha, no?

Posted by: John | August 4, 2011, 9:04 pm 9:04 pm

If one of them is green, call it Krypton! Ha Ha, no?

Posted by: ilahi dinle | August 16, 2011, 4:02 am 4:02 am