Cited by 33Astro and Planetary ScienceStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesSpace Satellite Systems and Control

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON PLANET NINE: ASTROMETRY OF PLUTO AND OTHER TRANS-NEPTUNIAN OBJECTS

Open access
Holman, Matthew J., Payne, Matthew J.·2016·The Astronomical Journal

Abstract

We use astrometry of Pluto and other trans-neptunian objects to constrain the sky location, distance, and mass of the possible additional planet (Planet Nine) hypothesized by Batygin & Brown. We find that over broad regions of the sky, the inclusion of a massive, distant planet degrades the fits to the observations. However, in other regions, the fits are significantly improved by the addition of such a planet. Our best fits suggest a planet that is either more massive or closer than argued for by Batygin & Brown based on the orbital distribution of distant trans-neptunian objects (or by Fienga et al. based on range measured to the Cassini spacecraft). The trend to favor larger and closer perturbing planets is driven by the residuals to the astrometry of Pluto, remeasured from photographic plates using modern stellar catalogs, which show a clear trend in decl. over the course of two decades, that drive a preference for large perturbations. Although this trend may be the result of systematic errors of unknown origin in the observations, a possible resolution is that the decl. trend may be due to perturbations from a body, in addition to Planet Nine, that is closer to Pluto but less massive than Planet Nine.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3847/0004-6256/152/4/80

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bouvard, 1824, AN, 2, 441
  2. Folkner, 2014, IPNPR, 42, 1
  3. Le Verrier, 1846a, AN, 25, 53
  4. Le Verrier, 1846b, AN, 25, 65
  5. Press, 1986

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Holman, M. J., & Payne, M. J.
Affiliations
Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian (US)
Venue
The Astronomical Journal
Published
2016-09-09
Volume
152
Issue
4
Pages
80
ISSN
  • 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-3881
OpenAlex
W2317010023
Cited by
32
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Astronomical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Astro and Planetary Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Space Satellite Systems and Control
Keywords
Planet Nine, trans-Neptunian objects, orbital perturbations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review