3 ms·

Question. Does it have to be a planet out there? Could it be a small black hole? Or is it just a matter of us not spending the time/effort to find it. I know

Question. Does it have to be a planet out there? Could it be a small black hole? Or is it just a matter of us not spending the time/effort to find it. I know time on instruments like Hubble is very, very tight and scheduled out years in Advance. But they have been talking about Planet X since like the 80s at least, and probably earlier. Even Pluto was detectable relatively early and it’s on a crazy orbital plane and elliptical orbit.

solidangle 5y ago
It could be, but it would be the size of a tennis ball. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28167058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28167058
- pitaj 5y ago
  According to my calculations it would take more than 10^53 years to decay.
  - scatters 5y ago
    It won't even start to decay until space expands enough that it's warmer than the cosmological background, not that that's more than a rounding error to your calculation.
lgl 5y ago
> Could it be a small black hole? It could, the relevant part of the whole thing is the object's mass (and therefore its gravitational influence) and its orbit. Lex Fridman did a podcast interview a few months ago with Konstantin Batygin [0] about the topic of Planet Nine and he poses this exact question of whether or not it could be a black hole [1]. More specifically, he asks if it could be a primordial black hole which would make it a double discovery since primordial black holes are still only theoretical. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k&t=4757s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k&t=4757s
- koheripbal 5y ago
  The odds are incredibly tiny for it to be anything other than a planet.
NL807 5y ago
Counter argument against the black hole hypothesis includes the lack of powerful x-ray activity where the black hole should be. Also, its size would be quite unusual, which in that case could be a primordial black hole, which in itself is theoretical and never been observed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
nxpnsv 5y ago
Could yes. But it certainly is not the easiest explanation.
ncmncm 5y ago
If it were a black hole, which would necessarily mean a primordial black hole, we would never spot it. We would look, and look, and eventually give up and say it must be a statistical fluke. A coal-black body would also be hard to spot. Surprisingly many asteroids are black, for poorly-understood reasons.
- madaxe_again 5y ago
  We might not spot it from earth, but if we’re confident enough of where we’ll find it, its orbital parameters, its mass, a probe could be sent, and it could be detected through its SOI, and perhaps even direct observation. Sure, ~300AU is a long way, but we have the technology, and it’s our closest black hole candidate by many orders of magnitude
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    If it is a choice between, (1) Spend $500M just to see whether there really is a black hole there, or (2) it is probably a just statistical fluke -- it is not hard to guess which will be chosen.

solidangle 5y ago

It could be, but it would be the size of a tennis ball. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28167058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28167058

pitaj 5y ago
According to my calculations it would take more than 10^53 years to decay.
- scatters 5y ago
  It won't even start to decay until space expands enough that it's warmer than the cosmological background, not that that's more than a rounding error to your calculation.

lgl 5y ago

> Could it be a small black hole? It could, the relevant part of the whole thing is the object's mass (and therefore its gravitational influence) and its orbit. Lex Fridman did a podcast interview a few months ago with Konstantin Batygin [0] about the topic of Planet Nine and he poses this exact question of whether or not it could be a black hole [1]. More specifically, he asks if it could be a primordial black hole which would make it a double discovery since primordial black holes are still only theoretical. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k&t=4757s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm7poMupE8k&t=4757s

koheripbal 5y ago
The odds are incredibly tiny for it to be anything other than a planet.

NL807 5y ago

Counter argument against the black hole hypothesis includes the lack of powerful x-ray activity where the black hole should be. Also, its size would be quite unusual, which in that case could be a primordial black hole, which in itself is theoretical and never been observed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nxpnsv 5y ago

Could yes. But it certainly is not the easiest explanation.

ncmncm 5y ago

If it were a black hole, which would necessarily mean a primordial black hole, we would never spot it. We would look, and look, and eventually give up and say it must be a statistical fluke. A coal-black body would also be hard to spot. Surprisingly many asteroids are black, for poorly-understood reasons.

madaxe_again 5y ago
We might not spot it from earth, but if we’re confident enough of where we’ll find it, its orbital parameters, its mass, a probe could be sent, and it could be detected through its SOI, and perhaps even direct observation. Sure, ~300AU is a long way, but we have the technology, and it’s our closest black hole candidate by many orders of magnitude
- ncmncm 5y ago
  If it is a choice between, (1) Spend $500M just to see whether there really is a black hole there, or (2) it is probably a just statistical fluke -- it is not hard to guess which will be chosen.