The Tenth Planet Shrinks Under Hubble's Gaze

starexplorer2001 writes "An object called the 10th planet by some astronomers is not as large as previously thought. New images of 2003 UB313 (aka Xena) were delivered by the Hubble Telescope and showed up as only 1.5 pixels! Now, some are calling to demote Pluto and kill Xena."

Comments

Re:atomic?

[gameforge]

You guys are making this too complicated. NASA's site says: "Located 10 billion miles away, but with a diameter that is a little more than half the width of the United States, Xena is only 1.5 picture elements across in Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys' view."

Think projection in a 3D game. A pixel represents, at a projected distance of 10 billion miles, a width x. Xena is 1.5x.

The final image (as you all have pointed out) would require a minimum of two pixels of information to accurately reproduce the projected image from a distance of 10 billion miles. The second pixel would not have the intensity of the first. But from the image on the site, it looks like a lot more than two pixels of information were recorded; I don't see how they could magnify two pixels and get that.

Re:Stupid name

[mgblst]

How about this line from the article
 
  Nicknamed "Xena," 2003 UB313 was discovered last year.
 
So 2003 UB313 was discovered last year, in 2005 - doesn't that strike someone as a little odd.

What did Mike Brown Really say?

[bloodstar]

From TFA:

The reasons are simple. Even Mike Brown says there is no scientific basis for calling 2003 UB313 a planet. Here is what he said last year:

I will not argue that it is a scientific planet, because there is no good scientific definition which fits our solar system and our culture, and I have decided to let culture win this one.

He's using Mike Brown's acceptance of the generally accepted cultural view that planets are 'anything pluto sized or larger' as a way of discrediting 2003 UB313. In fact, Mike Brown had felt previously that the definition of Planet was unsatisfactory and threw out some ideas on how the definition could be altered. http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/sedna/index.htm l#planets links to the text in question. Mike Brown has since come to the conclusion that culture is going to decide what defines a planet, not a bunch of scientists. So basicly, unless the scientists who want to change the definition of a planet can convince society to listen, it's going to be like a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it. Sure, it happened, but who cares?