Talk:Kuiper belt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kuiper belt is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	Kuiper belt is part of the "Solar System" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 11, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted May 28, 2007 Featured topic candidate Promoted June 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 12, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 7, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
	WikiProject Astronomy
	WikiProject Astronomical Objects
	WikiProject Solar System
	WikiProject Spaceflight	Importance to Spaceflight: Top
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contents 1 Origin of the dynamically cold classical belt 2 Scattered Disc 3 Kuiper Cliff cause?? 4 Kuiper Belt in Science Fiction 5 name: K. Belt vs K. belt 6 Eris 7 Eris is not KBO

[edit] Origin of the dynamically cold classical belt

I'm a bit confused about this. Did it form where it is, or was it sent into its orbit by Neptune? Serendi^podous 15:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• A good review is here [1].Ruslik 16:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scattered Disc

Where is the definition of " a KBO, strictly speaking, is any object that orbits exclusively within the defined Kuiper belt" from? The reference given ^[1] simply shows centaurs and scattered disc objects are on a different list to trans-Neptunian objects. In the scientific literature, the scattered disc is still often referred to as part of the Kuiper Belt (see e.g. Delsanti and Jewitt 2006 ^[2]. AstroMark 15:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, David Jewitt does define the scattered disc as part of the Kuiper belt. Mike Brown does too. Other organisations, such as the Planetary Society do not. The Minor Planet Center, which is the official catalogue of everything in the Solar System, lists scattered objects separately from the other trans-Neptunians, which are all Kuiper belt objects. Note that on that list there is no mention of Eris, or of 1996 TL66, or any other scattered object. I am of the opinion, and this is of course contestable, that Wikipedia should make a distinction between the Kuiper belt and the Scattered disc, because if it does not, that leaves some open questions about whether the centaurs should be considered KBOs as well, since they are also scattered, or even the Jupiter-family comets. Serendi^podous 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it you still consider scattered disc objects to be TNOs despite the fact that the MPC lists them in a different section? Unless the MPC or IAU actually have a definition somewhere saying that the scattered disc is separate from the Kuiper Belt, I don't think that can really be used as a reference. Do you know of anywhere in the scientific literature where the SD is considered separate to the KB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroMark (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of scientific literature treating the kuiper belt and scatterd disc as separate, but no, there is no official definition. The scattered objects in the MPC's catalogue are treated separately from the Trans-Neptunians presumably because Centaurs are not trans-Neptunian. Mike Brown's argument for including the scattered disc as part of the Kuiper belt and excluding the centaurs is quite complex, involving long term Solar System dynamics. He explains it here, though it's a bit above my head and I don't profess to fully understand it yet.Serendi^podous 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there is clearly no consensus in the scientific community on this matter, I think it would be better if Wikipedia reflects this. It should be made clear that the definition given is not necessarily the accepted definition. AstroMark 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedy agree with AstroMark here. Let's just do this, rather than have another unending debate about definitions. Deuar 08:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with AstroMark. It is confusing to novices, and the extent of the Kuiper belt is not certain; so what issue is being served by claiming Pluto is the largest KBO?. Simply loose that sentence or say that Pluto is a large KBO. ~rlj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.176.158 (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But Pluto also says that it is the largest KBO, as does Solar System, and indeed every other article dealing with the topic. I know this because I wrote most of them myself. I did include a line in the Kuiper belt article explaining that the definition of the Kuiper belt was not settled, but, since Wikipedia needs some form of definition to function, I chose the Minor Planet Center's implicit definition as the closest thing to a statement from a recognised authority. Serendi^podous 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, i don't know, how to use all this tags yet :( I have a question - why in the page written, that Pluto is largest object in Kuiper belt? The Eris appears to be 1,5 times larger, am i right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.156.21 (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the issue here. If the Scattered disc is part of the Kuiper belt, then Eris is the largest object in the Kuiper belt. If the Scattered disc is separate from the Kuiper belt, then Pluto is the largest object in the Kuiper belt. To sign your posts use four tilde (~) marks.Serendi^podous 08:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In general I'd follow the Minor Planet Centre's lead, eh? Realistically, the scattered disk and centaurs come from the Kuiper Belt (sort of, maybe not quite in the first case, but I digress) but don't have to be included in the def. Minor planet centre seems like the relevant authority. WilyD 13:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This issue goes far beyond this article. It encompasses every single trans-Neptunian article on this site. I even think a separate article dealing with this issue might be in order. Serendi^podous 11:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, about time I replied to this. I've decided to start making a list of the various definitions of the Kuiper belt for future reference. Feel free to add to it. AstroMark (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kuiper Cliff cause??

As regards the "Kuiper cliff" section: a larger planet would be one reason for the observed lack of objects found, but couldn't there be some much simpler kind of observation bias (some criticism of the conclusion, that would then belong to the section):

1. objects outside the "cliff" are numerous, but incredibly hard to observe due to faintness and slow orbital movement,
2. same but due to too dark (tholin from solar wind dissociation of CO and CO2),

Said: Rursus ☻ 14:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that isn't the case. The line mentioning Bernstein and Trilling's observations was horrifically worded, so I've condensed it, but in essence it appears that the Kuiper cliff is indeed real. Serendi^podous 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I'm reading Bernstein and Trilling now – they say that this phenomenon is noted by many observational programs. However, they treat a lot of material that claims the (real) Kuiper cliff, can have a lot of natural reasons, such as the solar nebula had too low density outside the cliff to condense to icy boulders of any significant size. I'll see what I can do with that. Said: Rursus ☻ 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read it now, and Bernstein and Trilling mentions lots of reasons, of which none is Planet X Reborn. The NewScientistSpace seems to be way wrong in claiming Planet X Reborn to be the only viable reason. Said: Rursus ☻ 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. reworked it and added some of Bernstein/Trilling's speculations. Serendi^podous 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine now. THX! Said: Rursus ☻ 18:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kuiper Belt in Science Fiction

There has to be a wealth of literature set on far off locations in the Kuiper Belt, devoted to KBOs. It'd be good to have a section in the article page that lists the texts/novels for plain 'ole bed-time reading :=) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.170.74 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That would fall outside the scope of the article. A "Kuiper belt in fiction" page would probably be listed for deletion. The Kuiper belt has only been known about for about fifteen years, so the total amount of literature depicting it in science fiction would be relatively small. It might warrant its own section in Solar System in fiction. Serendi^podous 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] name: K. Belt vs K. belt

which one is the correct form? Shouldn't "b" be capitalized since it is a name? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen both, but if Kuiper belt is to be capitalised, then asteroid belt should be too, and it seemed simpler to just stick with the established style. Serendi^podous 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eris

This article says that Pluto is the largest dwarf planet, but the Eris article says Eris is larger. Does someone know which is correct? Cadwaladr (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the article says that Pluto is the largest dwarf planet, but Pluto is the largest Kuiper belt object, at least according to the Minor Planet Center's definition of the Kuiper belt. Serendi^podous 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eris is not KBO

Eris is the largest TNO(trans-Neptunian object) and the largest dwarf planet with diameter 0-8% larger than Pluto, but it is not belong to the KBO group. Its orbit( Perihelion 37.77 AU and Aphelion 97.56 AU) is much farther in distance with sun than pluto and other KBOs, which classified it as the SDO( Scattered disk object).Cipher_101 03:54, 05 May 2008 (UTC)

• Mike Brown calls it a KBO (see his page here: http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~mbrown/planetlila/, for instance). Whether the Scattered disk is part of the Kuiper Belt is not uniformly agreed upon by astronomers, but *most* do take the view that the Classical Kuiper Belt (both the hot and cold components), the Scattered Disk and the Resonant Objects (Plutinos and the like) are all portions of the Kuiper Belt - only detacted objects aren't, and with a perihelion at 38 AU, Eris is not detacted. WilyD 12:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's odd, because this article doesn't actually say that Eris is a KBO. In lieu of anything like an established consensus, we (really, perhaps I should say "I", since there wasn't a lot of discussion on the topic until after the fact) decided to follow the example set by the Minor Planet Center, which separates its outer minor planets into two categories, "Trans Neptunians" (really, classical and resonant KBOs) and "scattered objects" (SDOs and centaurs). By the way, Sedna, the black sheep of the whole scheme, is considered scattered in their scenario. So as far as I and, for the moment at least, this article are concerned, Eris is certainly not a KBO. Serendi^podous 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)