2003 UB 313 is the lost moon of Triton

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikeemmert

Guest
The new "planet", 2003 UB 313 or "Xena" (if that name is accepted) I believe initially formed in the Sun/Neptune L4 or L5 point as a binary, with the other object being Neptune's moon, Triton. I also think Pluto and Charon formed in the other stable Sun/Neptune Lagrange point (L5 or L4). These objects escaped because the system was a six-body system, rather than a three-body system. More than three bodies are unstable, eventually.<br /><br />For Triton to have been captured by Neptune, it would have to slow down. If Triton had formed anywhere else but the Sun/Neptune Lagrange point, it would approach Neptune at a considerably greater velocity than Neptune's escape velocity.<br /><br />But it would approach Neptune from a Lagrange point right at escape velocity. Even so, to lose enough velocity relative to Neptune to be captured would involve as much energy as Triton's mass in high explosives.<br /><br />There has to be a transfer of momentum for capture happen. I think the momentum of Triton was transferred to it's former moon, 2003 UB 313.<br /><br />The new objects orbital parameters support that. I'ts perihelion is close to the same altitude above the Sun as Neptune. It's orbital period is in a 20:3 resonance with Neptune.<br /><br />Today, 2003 UB 313 is larger than Triton. However, when Voyager II flew by Triton, geysers were noted. I believe Triton has lost mass in the intervening ages and long ago, Triton and 2003 UB 313 were about the same mass.<br /><br />Triton could have and indeed probably did transfer momentum to original moons of Neptune. However, these were probably not large enough to lower Triton to it's present altitude above Neptune. That would take a large object such as 2003 UB 313. <br /><br />Incidentally, I like the name, "Xena", which rumor says has been proposed for the new object. That would make 2003 UB 313 into Planet X (Roman numeral #10). It's ultimately Mike Brown's call.<br /><br />I don't really think it's a planet, though. It is a K
 
S

silylene old

Guest
Interesting hypothesis. This could be modeled to see if the current orbital paramters for all the bodies are possible after the hypothetical interactions. Perhaps there is some way you could do at least some rudimentary work with this system? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
I don’t think Pluto or 2003UB313 could have formed at a Lagrange point. I would expect a body that formed there would be in a similar orbital plane as the parent body. But Pluto’s orbital plane is inclined 20 degrees with respect to the other planets. And 2003UB313 is inclined an amazing 45 degrees to the elliptic.<br />
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
I'd certainly like to try. As I said, there are some quantities I might end up guessing on, like the mass of the original moons of Neptune, and also I think Triton may have shrunk. The mass of Xena (simpler name for 2003 UB 313, and I like it) is unknown. Also, probably Xena made a few extra close encounters with Neptune before settling into it's present orbit. These could have added a little to Xena's aposol, which makes a model a little uncertain. Another uncertainty is that Triton, orbiting backwards, is being drawn closer to Neptune (unlike the Moon, which is receding from Earth). The rate at which this is happening is controversial. In addition, see my reply to the next post.<br /><br />I figured out how much energy Triton had to lose a long time ago and will have to reconstruct that calculation. But it seems to be enough to have kicked Xena out to it's present 20:3 resonance orbit.<br /><br />Thank you for taking the time to reply. A detailed reply is going to take me some time. I had almost given up hope that the lost moon of Triton would ever be found.
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
An object formed in a Lagrange point would indeed be in the same orbital plane as the second body of the system (in this case, Neptune). But the objects escaped. Any object that starts out at a Lagrange (L4 or L5) point and is slightly perturbed away from it woil go into an orbit around the point. This orbit is not round, however. It is tadpole-shaped. As it is perturbed farther an farther away, the orbit becomes more and more elongate. The orbit at the edge of the zone of stability stretches from the L-3 point to the point at which the gravitational pull of the primary and the secondary object are equal, in other words where the Sun's and Neptune's gravitational influence are teh same. The most logical route for them to escape is a close approach to Neptune.<br /><br />This would result in a radical change in aphelion and orbital inclination. There would also be additional encounters until the object either gets into a stable resonance or escapes the system or crashes.<br /><br />Remember the Ulysses probe to study the poles of the Sun? It started out very near the plane of the ecliptic, and a polar pass over Jupiter threw it into an orbital plane inclined 90 degrees to the plane of the ecliptic. A similar mechanism was at work here, I believe.<br /><br />Remember, these things are not aimed by rocket scientists, they're random. Until they settle down into a semi-stable resonance orbit, their orbital plane would likely be considerably modified after the initial encounter.<br /><br />The Pluto/Charon system was not ripped apart by any really close encounter with Neptune. But the Triton/Xena system was. As a result, Xena wound up in a much more inclined orbit.<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
 
R

robnissen

Guest
A very well-thought out hypothesis, not bad for your second post. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> It definitely seems to me that further investigation might be fruitful.
 
S

Saiph

Guest
good post, but an unneccessary hypothesis.<br /><br />There is no evidence, nor reason to believe that pluto, the new KBO, and Triton had a mutual origin. The likelyhood of all forming around the same, or in Neptunes lagrange points is slight.<br /><br />It's more likely that they formed in their current states.<br /><br />BTW, any system with more than 2 bodies is chaotic (easily perturbed). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
Thank you; let me answer your post backwards.<br /><br />Any system with more than two bodies is indeed chaotic, very true. I think this is how objects formed in Lagrange points escape. Very few Lagrange points have objects in them today; exceptions are Saturn's moons Tethys and Dionne. These two objects DO have smaller objects in their Lagrange points.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine how Triton could have formed in orbit around Neptune, since it orbits backwards against the rotation of Neptune. In the rest of the Solar system, only tiny bodies do that. I think it's much easier to explain this retrograde motion by assuming Triton is a captured body, especially since Neptune does have inner moons that orbit prograde. How else would you explain this contradiction?<br /><br />If Triton is a captured body, then the question arises of where it formed in the first place. There is no other place it could have formed where it's approach velocity towards Neptune would be right at escape velocity. Any other place and the velocity would be considerably higher. As it is, for Triton to slow down to it's present orbital velocity would involve, as I said, as much energy as Triton's mass in high explosives.<br /><br />As for evidence that Triton and Xena had a mutual origin, I present for your perusal and enjoyment a diagram of the orbit of Xena, courtesy the Gemini Observatory:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/b4ax9<br /><br />Take a look at this orbit. See how closely it approaches the orbit of Neptune. Do remember that it crosses the plane of the ecliptic not at perihelion, but parallel to one of the foci of the elipse.<br /><br />Further evidence that Xena is involved with Neptune is the fact that it's orbital period is 6.66 times that of Neptune, in other words, a 20:3 resonance.<br /><br />It's hard to see how there would be enough material 45 degrees out of the plane of the ecliptic to form a large object like Xena. It is thought
 
S

Saiph

Guest
"There is no other place it could have formed where it's approach velocity towards Neptune would be right at escape velocity."<br /><br />I see no reason why it must travel that fast, nore do I believe that the lagrange points are the best and only place for this to occur. If captured it could have been sent from any place, having a myraid of possible trajectories. It only needed to be going slow enough, and close enough, to neptune for capture.<br /><br />The highly eccentric orbit is actually stronger evidence against the KBO's origin in the vicinity of neptune.<br /><br />If created primarily in the plane of the ecliptic, any orbital ejection event (sending the KBO out there) is incredibly unlikely to send it so far out of the plane of the ecliptic, due to the planar nature of the objects orientations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
<<Triton is way smaller than Xena and there is no way it could be a moon.>><br /><br />Uh...Triton _is_ a moon of Neptune...Google it.<br /><br />Perhaps you meant "Xena couldn't be a moon". Today it orbits the sun. Or "Xena could never have been a moon". <br /><br />Did you see my earlier posting with a link to Gemini observatory? Did you click on the link? Go back and read the link, here, let me make it convenient for you:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/b4ax9<br /><br />There you can see graphically that Xena's orbit does indeed approach Neptune's. I _do_ have evidence.<br /><br />I don't think the original capture of Triton and ejection of Xena was the last encounter of Xena with Neptune. The capture event would throw Xena into a random orbit which woud probably not be into the observed 20:3 resonance we see today. Further perturbations shaped Xena's present orbit.
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
It’s a hypothesis that one might be able to test. <br />Current solar system models show Neptune and Uranus forming much closer to the sun then where they presently orbit. So if Pluto formed in Neptunes Lagrange point it would have formed much closer to the sun then other KBOs. So its composition would be different. More similar to the moons of Neptune then to the native KBOs.
 
T

tony873004

Guest
Actually, the period of 2003 UB313's orbit is 3.4 that of Neptune's. That puts it in a 17:5 resonance with Neptune. Here's a Gravity Simulator screen shot of the resonance in a rotating frame. The fact that this pattern repeats itself over and over again suggests that it is locked in this resonance. Starting numbers supplied by JPL / Horizons.<br /><br />http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/neptune2003ub313resonance.GIF<br /><br />But 2003 UB313 never comes closer than about 2 billion kilometers from Neptune. 2003 UB313's perihelion (closest point to the Sun) is abut 5.7 billion kilometers, while Neptune orbits the Sun in a near-perfect circle at about 4.5 billion kilometers.<br /><br />The illustration in your link gives the illusion that UB313 and Neptune pass very close to each other, but the illusion is due to perspective. Here's a couple more Gravity Simulator screenshots showing the orbits looking down on the ecliptic plane, and one from the ecliptic plane.<br /><br />http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/TNO.GIF<br />http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/TNOb.GIF <br /><br />To simulate this yourself:<br />http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/newtno.html
 
T

tony873004

Guest
Mike, where did you find the info about the 20:3 resonance? I've searched the internet and can not find any info about the resonance except for the article I wrote and posted in the above post.
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
<<Further evidence that Xena is involved with Neptune is the fact that it's orbital period is 6.66 times that of Neptune, in other words, a 20:3 resonance. >><br /><br />Please excuse me, I have made a very serious error. Xena's orbital period is 6.666... times URANUS' orbital period. Oops!<br /><br />Anyway, Tony Dunn (see his posting in this thread) has uncovered the fact that Xena is in a 17:5 resonance with Neptune.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, Xena's orbit is also resonant with Uranus'.<br /><br />Thank you Saiph and Tony Dunn. My apologies.
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
<<This could be modeled to see if the current orbital paramters for all the bodies are possible after the hypothetical interactions.>> - silylene<br /><br />Here is one possible interaction that I have modeled:<br /><br />http://orbitsimulator.com/gravity/simulations/XGorilla%201.1.gsim<br /><br />This is a binary consisting of two Triton-sized objects making a polar pass near Neptune's south pole. The binaries separate, and one goes into orbit around Neptune and the other is flung out to a far distance (13.5 billion kilometers).<br /><br />I will be doing a lot more modeling on this. Thank you for your post.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Well, here is a problem: by saying that Xena formed in a Lagrange relationship with Neptune implies that Neptune was a fully-formed (or nearly so) body, *before* Xena began to coalesce. And that implies a vastly different scenario for planetary formation than we understand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
I couldn't open your links (lack the right software to view them).<br /><br />Post a few pictures maybe?<br /><br /><i>This is a binary consisting of two Triton-sized objects making a polar pass near Neptune's south pole. The binaries separate, and one goes into orbit around Neptune and the other is flung out to a far distance (13.5 billion kilometers). </i> Three-body interactions can arrive at some interesting possibilities. They are unlikely, but the universe is huge and the time is long enough for unusual events to occasionally happen.<br /><br />Post a few diagrams, I am very curious! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
<i>Well, here is a problem: by saying that Xena formed in a Lagrange relationship with Neptune implies that Neptune was a fully-formed (or nearly so) body, *before* Xena began to coalesce. And that implies a vastly different scenario for planetary formation than we understand. </i><br /><br />But does that make it impossible? Could sufficient mass get caught in that location afterwards? The early solar system was a messy place, and many small bodies were being pushed outwards by the inner gas giants, and perhaps they could've settled into the Lagrange location? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Settle, perhaps. Form, I have my doubts. I think it would be difficult for there to be stable LaGrange relationships, given the chaotic behavior of the early solar system vis a vis planetary formation. <br /><br />Addendum: I wasn't terribly clear there. What I meant was that numerous smaller bodies will certainly coalesce during planetary formation, as eventual moons. However, not quite the way that's been suggested here. The mechanics of it all are just too weird. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
The majority of Jupiters Trojans have orbital inclinations of 5 to 10 degrees with around 10 percent having inclinations exceeding 20 degrees.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
(By Yevaud):<br /><br /><<Well, here is a problem: by saying that Xena formed in a Lagrange relationship with Neptune implies that Neptune was a fully-formed (or nearly so) body, *before* Xena began to coalesce. And that implies a vastly different scenario for planetary formation than we understand. />><br /><br />Thank you. I would think that when Neptune gained some significant mass compared to the solar nebula in the appropriate orbits, whatever material would be in the Lagrange stability zone would be trapped. In other words, three (or rather, five, Neptune and two binary) objects would form together.<br /><br />(Some researchers think the gas giants formed as a star forms, with gas collpasing directly into the planet with energy absorbed by the breakdown of molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. If that is the case, then that would answer your question directly.)<br /><br />But in the first case, I have models working on that right now. These take a long time to run on my dinky little computer, so I won't have a definitive answer for a while; sorry.
 
M

mikeemmert

Guest
By silylene:<br /><br /><<I couldn't open your links (lack the right software to view them). />><br /><br />The software I used is GravitySimulator:<br /><br />http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/newtno.html <br /><br />which I got from a post right here on this thread, as a matter of fact. It was by Tony873004. Or look for GravitySimulator.com.
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Hmm. That's not quite what I meant by that.<br /><br />What I did mean was that you are postulating on the order of 5 large, moon-sized bodies forming in a relatively stable LaGrange relationship until much later, when they're perturbed out of it.<br /><br />I for one don't precisely see how such a stable LaGrange relationship can exist during the early formation period of Neptune. Coalesce and accrete as a moon, yes, but otherwise? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts