[Updated, see below.]
You’ll recall the news I reported about a number of members of the astronomy and planetary science community asking people to sign a petition to get the IAU to reconsider their Prague decision to accept the planetary definition that resulted in the “Pluto demotion”. See this link where you can find the precise language of their objection. (HST image of Pluto and Charon on right. Click for larger.) The short statement at the header of the petition itself is:
We, as planetary scientists and astronomers, do not agree with the IAU’s definition of a planet, nor will we use it. A better definition is needed.
Well, this is an update to let you know that they have gathered all the signatures that they wanted, from members of the scientific community. The petition is now closed. I don’t know if I’m allowed to point to the website where you can see the list of signatures (I hope someone will let me know), but I can report that there are 300 signatures (after a quick count), from a truly international group, from every continent, and from pretty much every astronomy department (or other institution) that I’ve heard of. [Update: I’ve got permission from Mark Sykes, one of the proposers of this petition, to make public the website. It is here, and has the list of signatories. There is now a press release there. If you’re a member of the press, I imagine it might form the basis for an interesting story.]
Also on the website is the following:
Sufficient signatures from planetary scientists and astronomers have been gathered to bring into serious question the definition for planet adopted by the IAU as fundamentally flawed, as was the process by which it was generated.
The list of signatories have studied every planet in the solar system, asteroids, comets, the Kuiper Belt, and planet interactions with space environment. They have been involved in the robotic exploration of the solar system from some of the earliest missions to Cassini/Huygens, the missions to Mars, ongoing missions to the innermost and outermost reaches of our solar system, and are leading missions preparing to be launched. The list includes prominent experts in the field of planet formation and evolution, planetary atmospheres, planetary surfaces and interiors, and includes international prize winning researchers.
The IAU is incapable of correcting this action until its next General Assembly in 2009. In the meantime, the IAU definition will stand as a source of confusion and incongruity to educators and the public. An alternative is needed.
Planning is underway to establish an open and inclusive grass-roots process by which planetary scientists and astronomers from around the world can approach a better resolution to the issue of planets in our own solar system and elsewhere, with every step and discussion in public view. This process should culminate in a conference, not to determine a winner, but to acknowledge a consensus.
The discussion will be wide ranging and should offer the public a fascinating and educational view of scientific discourse on a topic to which they can all relate.
A further announcement will be made in September from the initial sponsoring institutions.
I think that I can tell you [see update] that the petition was proposed by members of various institutes and departments, but notably, the Planetary Science Institute and the Southwest Research Institute (Department of Space Studies) are listed as the sponsoring institutions.
[Update, cont’d: Quote from the now-released press statement:]
“This petition gives substantial weight to argument that the IAU definition of planet does not meet fundamental scientific standards and should be set aside,†states petition organizer Dr. Mark Sykes, director of the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona. “A more open process, involving a broader cross section of the community engaged in planetary studies of our own solar system and others should be undertaken.â€
It will certainly be interesting to see what happens with this.
-cvj
Pingback: Demotion of Pluto
Pingback: Poor Pluto! - Asymptotia
Pingback: Clues in the Blood Splatter Patterns - Asymptotia
Brad: “I’m sure the fact that many of those objecting to Pluto’s demotion are affiliated with the New Horizons mission is purely coincidental…”
I think that this could be a common idea, but I don’t see how to disentangle the New Horizons mission personnel from the outer solar system experts who are also on the mission. Or how to disentangle that the petition did not get wide circulation in Europe. I note that some of the most active outer solar system researchers did not sign the petition, and some of the most active Dawn mission researchers did not sign the petition, either. I think that one can make whatever conclusion that one wants, but at the end, I suspect that each person on that petition list has their own reason(s), which is probably not attached to any particular space mission.
astromcnaught: “Are you implying that this process of proposition, counter-proposition, etc. is deliberate? If so then it is a masterstroke of public relations. Spin doctors at the IAU, whatever next!”
No, it’s not deliberate, but I find it very interesting. A glimpse at the more human side of science. (Maybe that is why the press easily picked it up.)
Haha yes, maybe a public vote on the number of dimensions!
astromcnaught:- Good lord, we have unseemly bunfights (and yes, mostly artificailly driven by the press … sometimes independently of what is *actually* going on in the field at large) in HEP all the time. Witness the storm(s) in a teacup about research in string theory, for example.
Cheers,
-cvj
Well Amara, it’s certainly fun!
Are you implying that this process of proposition, counter-proposition, etc. is deliberate? If so then it is a masterstroke of public relations. Spin doctors at the IAU, whatever next!
I have certainly noticed an effect. People knowing I like such stuff ask me questions about planets. I get more chances to haul my telescope out and fill folk’s eyes full of starlight. A rare pleasure indeed.
Maybe Clifford, we will see an ‘unseemly bunfight’ amongst the HEP folk soon 🙂
Oh, we have already.
I’m sure the fact that many of those objecting to Pluto’s demotion
are affiliated with the New Horizons mission is purely coincidental…
The ‘hundreds of KBOs’ has already been reached, I guess the number will reach 1000 within the next year, if it hasn’t been reached already.
I don’t think ‘arguing about semantics’ is anyone’s goal; either the arguing or the semantics part. I see the planetary scientists as using this opportunity to educate themselves and others about the outer solar system at the same time of reaching a consensus so that everyone is using the same language; opening up the process to the public so that they can observe and participate too. Their intention is for the process to be educational and fun.
This is fascinating, and thanks for the timely updates Clifford.
My views are changing as I learn more about planetary dynamics (thanks amara) and certainly support the dissenters objections.
But is it the case, unlike (possibly) mathematics that we talked about below, that all publicity is good publicity? For modern planetary* astronomy I doubt it.
*late O.E., from O.Fr. planete (Fr. planète), from L.L. planeta, from Gk. (asteres) planetai “wandering (stars),” from planasthai “to wander,” of unknown origin. So called because they have apparent motion, unlike the “fixed” stars. Originally including also the moon and sun; modern scientific sense of “world that orbits a star” is from 1640.
No, it won’t.
Hundreds of years from now, when hundreds or thousands of objects in the Kuiper belt will have been discovered, everyone will laugh about those silly astronomers who couldn’t find anything better to do than argue semantics.
What’s next? After hundreds of objects have been found orbiting Jupiter, almost continuous in size down to pebbles, will they argue about the definition of satellite?
Maybe they should just decide Pluto is a dog, and argue about what Goofy is. In fact, I propose “Goofy” as an alternative for “Xena”.