Planet 9 might be Black Hole?

[Cikomyr]

So I saw a lot of articles recently published about how there's a new hypothesis around that advances that the gravitational anomaly we call Planet Nine might be a "primordial black hole" close to our solar system.

First of all, I suck at discerning between fake science reporting and real science reporting, so.. Is this honest way of putting it, or its sensationalism?

Second, if it's true, are the scientists basing themselves on more than "gravitational pull" + "we can't see why".

Third - and where it might get more advanced theorisation - would these mini primordial black holes represent a substantial part of the Dark Matter that compose the majority of the mass of the universe and we can't detect via electromagnetic emissions?

[5crownik007]

I'd like a link to these articles, but without it, I'm going to go with a solid no on this idea.

Disclaimer, my science education is not extensive, but this is my shot in the dark.

If Planet 9 is a black hole, there would be significant evidence for it to be detected. It would be flinging any nearby asteroids around, or consuming them. If it's just messing with the orbits of one planet, black hole seems insufficient.

I also have no clue how it would have gotten in orbit of our star. Black holes are collapsed stars. If a star collapsed near the solar system even before life on Earth evolved, we would have found something about it, and I feel like much of the solar system would have been immolated in supernova debris. If it was so early in the formation of the solar system to take place in the period of heavy bombardment(when everything was a pile of rocks smashing into eachother) The black hole would probably have accumulated some of its own orbital buddies and maybe an accretion disk?

Of course, the black hole might be very tiny and much closer than I think, but then it would decay much sooner, and that still doesn't solve the question of how it got there. If anything, it raises more questions of how such a small black hole formed.

Then again, I don't know very much about science, and there are people on this forum much smarter than me or maybe even actually qualified to answer this question.

Hope this helped!

[Cikomyr]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.or...black-hole.amp

http://<br /> https://www.sciencema...-be-black-hole

First of all: primordial black hole would mean not a collapsed star but as collapsed leftover of the start ofnthe universe. I think.

Second: I Think the gravitational anomaly that drives Planet Nine theories is more than a gravitational pull for a single planet, but actually a bunch of them.

Third: a black hole can theoretically have any gravitational pull possible since its dependant on its mass. A black hole the weight of the Earth would just be a tiny dot pulling as strongly as the earth. Which is problematic when you are used to feel that pull only from the planet's surface, and no closer.

[Razade]

I've seen a lot of these articles. Most of them boil down to "We're being really narrow in saying that it's a planet so we're offering something totally off the wall but still totally within the bounds of reality." The claim is that it's 15 times the gravitational pull of the Earth. They're saying it's a primordial Black Hole, ancient. Whatever is out there is doing something similar to a planet. We don't know what it is. It could be a planet, it could be a primordial black hole. Both those things cause the effects we're seeing hypothetically so you can't rule either out.

It's a fluff piece.

[DeTess]

Here is the paper for those interested: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.11090.pdf

I'm not proficient enough in particle physics to make a proper judgement call on how realistic their speculation is (and it is only that, speculation. They don't claim to have actually found a black hole). That having been said, there's no reason for panic or whatever. The paper contains an 1:1 scale image of what the black hole(including event horizon) would look like, which should tell you a thing or two about its size.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Yeah, the claim is that it's a planetary mass black hole.

Normal black holes, formed from collapsed stars, weigh at least about 3 solar masses. There is no black hole like that orbiting the sun, because gravity demands the sun would instead be orbiting it (or, you know, they'd be a double star, but the heavier partner moves the least), and we could detect that happening by looking at our place in the universe compared to background stars.

Planetary mass black holes are as far as I understand theoretical. The possibility of them was thought up around a century ago as an explanation for dark matter. Dark matter itself is an explanation for measurements of galaxies and star clusters that don't seem to obey general relativity as far as their gravitic interactions go. Most if not all galaxies appear to be several times heavier than the amount of light coming from them suggests. The idea behind primordial black holes, which can at least theoretically be of planetary mass, was that they were formed soon after the big bang. Without any evidence that they could exist, including no trace of them in the cosmic background radiation, which stems from an also relatively early universe, many astronomers dropped the idea. They looked elsewhere to explain dark matter, to a larger abundance of regular black holes or red or brown dwarfs, or to exotic theoretical types of matter that only interact with regular baryonic matter through gravity. Those last ones, often called weakly interacting massive particles or WIMPs, are what most people picture when they imagine dark matter. They're the option with the least clear evidence against them, but they have about as little evidence for them as the other options as well.

In other terms: finding a planetary mass black hole in our own solar system would not be huge shock in terms of "o my god we're all going to die", the hole would act for most purposes exactly like a planet of its size, it's not a threat, or a portal to another dimension or some such (at the very least not one we can use). But it would be a very valuable find in two ways. The first being that it would give us a black hole we might actually be able to experiment with in the coming few centuries, you can bet your ass NASA would start thinking about a mission immediately. The second big thing was that these small black holes are back on the table as an explanation for dark matter, and at that point they quite possibly look like the best contender. We'd have one option that we know exists, though not in what quantities, and another that requires most of the universe to be an unknown type of matter. Hard choice.

But again, that's if this idea is true and Planet 9 in fact does exist ánd is a type of object never observed before, either directly or indirectly. This is in the news because of how important a find it would be if Planet 9 was a black hole, not because of how big the chance is. The odds are still very much in favor of something more planet like, or even a calculation error.

[factotum]

The problem with planetary mass black holes is that they're most likely to have formed in the massive temperatures and pressures immediately following the Big Bang, but that would mean they would almost certainly have evaporated by now due to Hawking radiation.

[halfeye]

The problem with planetary mass black holes is that they're most likely to have formed in the massive temperatures and pressures immediately following the Big Bang, but that would mean they would almost certainly have evaporated by now due to Hawking radiation.

The rate of evaporation depends on how small they are, as they get smaller, they evaporate faster. At about Earth's mass, the rate of evaporation matches the rate of incoming radiation due to the cosmic background radiation. I think a primordial black hole with an original mass at about the current mass of the Moon would be evaporating about now ( give or take a billion years), a black hole that was originally a bit bigger than that might now have shrunk considerably but still be due to be around for a few more billion years.

People have been looking for evaporating primordial black holes for a while now, the emission signature of the final second is precisely predictable, and so far none have been detected in the whole universe, so they are quite rare. The odds are thus against one being in orbit out in the Oort. If there was one, and it "ate" something, there should be a recogniseable energy signature from that event.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

Planet 9 is Pluto. The New Horizons Space Craft proved it beyond any doubt.

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Pluto/The-Pl...stem.php#Pluto


Based on effects on other bodies, we know there as to be something acting as a planet X.


Small black hole, really cold gas planet, something.

We just haven't found it yet. There was a good TED talk in it.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Planet 9 is Pluto.

I'm not accepting Pluto without Ceres. So at best it's planet 10.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I'm not accepting Pluto without Ceres. So at best it's planet 10.

I'd accept Ceres, but Pluto stays 9 due to tradition.

:-)

[Rakaydos]

I'd accept Ceres, but Pluto stays 9 due to tradition.

:-)

Pluto doesn't even have a Roman name.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'd accept Ceres, but Pluto stays 9 due to tradition.

:-)

Order of discovery and being labeled a planet would make Ceres 9. Average distance from the sun is more practical, making Ceres 5.

[Eldan]

The name Pluto is complicated, mythologically. The Greek name is Hades, usually. Plouton (Pluto) has a complicated history as a name, but from what Igather, the god Hades was sort of merged with a different god of wealth named Ploutos, which happened pretty late. The equivalent Roman god seems to have been either Dispater or Orcus, and they were merged later into the Roman Pluto.

Roman gods are complicated. But then, we already have a different planetoid called Orcus, so Pluto can't have that name.