Talk:Rogue planet

2M1207b
2M1207b is an extra-solar planet, not an interstellar planet, right? I don't think the "proplyds" section really applies here. No interstellar planets have yet been confirmed. Maltodextrin 04:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure how an interstellar planet and a sub-brown dwarf can be seen to be the same thing. Any planet object found in interstellar space would be considered an interstellar planet, wouldn't it? but that wouldn't be the same thing as a brown dwarf, necisarrily. Thanatosimii 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New definition of planet
With the new 2006 redefinition of planet, we would need to stop calling these things planets, perhaps interstellar planemo or sub-brown dwarf instead? (The IAU recommended sub-brown dwarf in 2003) 132.205.93.195 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll see if this redefinition takes. I'm increasingly skeptical it'll survive. I think it's going to end up like International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry having to list Aluminum as an acceptable spelling.--T. Anthony 11:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On further studt the new redefinition only applies to our solar system. It's sole purpose is to avoid their being too many planets as it's just all cluttery having that many symbols or planets to worry about. (This sounds sarcastic, but I believe it's basically correct. The asteroids that were downgraded were in part done so because it was causing there be too many planets)--T. Anthony 10:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After about ten years of waiting, what's the status on this? I'm assuming that the definition stuck, so perhaps the article should really avoid calling these objects planets. --87.212.167.60 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetical
What is hypothetical about interstellar planets when the article gives an example of one? Reworded a little - the 2M1207b sentence made it seem like it was interstellar. Orthografer 06:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Would like new title
The IAU is really quite clear: these objects are not to be called "planets." That was established before the famous 2006 redefinition of "planet" and really has nothing to do with that redefinition. So I propose that the article be retitled. Unfortunately I can't come up with a good alternate title. "Interstellar planemo" would be logical, but unfortunately the term "planemo" hasn't really caught on in the astronomical literature. More often you see the clumsy phrase "planetary-mass object." So the title could be "Interstellar planetary-mass objects," but that sounds awkward to me. Any ideas? Kevin Nelson 10:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The redefinition only applies to our own solar system. Extrasolar planets have yet to be properly defined. 137.28.55.99 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming and rewriting
The title "Interstellar planetary-mass object" does not seem to be used. I cannot find any occurrence in the abstracts of astronomical articles, despite of some efforts with the NASA ADS Query Form.

What about free-floating planetary-mass object (FFPMO) or sub-brown dwarf which are used in the literature ? (See fr:objet libre de masse planétaire and notes attached to the English names which are listed) ?

Furthermore, this article needs intensive rewriting. It focuses a lot on life there, whereas most studies focus on explaining their origin and detecting them.

Cheers.

Régis Lachaume —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.248.81.29 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * After thinking about it a little more, I like "Isolated planetary-mass object" which is a phrase I've seen in a paper or two. Thoughts?  Kevin Nelson 11:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move discussion - Renamed in 2007 from interstellar planetary mass object to rogue planet

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

interstellar planetary mass object to rogue planet. "Rogue planet" is much more commonly used than "interstellar planetary mass object". Do a Google search and you will see. These objects are not planets, but there still rogue planets as much as dwarf planets are dwarf planets. Astroguy2 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you search for "planetary mass object" alone, that returns 1,420,000 sites. Rogue planet has 1,620,000. (Wikimachine 02:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
 * "rogue planet" is still the most common term for these kinds of objects. The second most common term for them is "interstellar planet". Astroguy2 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See another RM on USA Patriot Act. When there is not much difference between the two names (see google search above), the official name should be used, and then other alternatives should be redirected to the main title. Interstellar planetary mass object is the official technical name within the scientific community, and it is so much more descriptive. They're not even "planets". (Wikimachine 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Then you should also propose moving dwarf planet to something else, as that title's not descriptive enough, with dwarf planets not even being "planets". Astroguy2 13:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikimachine's assessment is incorrect. "Rogue planet" is the correct term; see my comments below.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. "rogue planet" is how these objects are usually referred to, despite them not being planets. The term "interstellar planetary mass object" is virtually never used. Astroguy2 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Rename to free-floating planemo ? 132.205.44.134 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to Rogue planet - A search with the ADS Abstract Service shows that "rogue planet" is in use to describe these objects in scientific articles. A search on "interstellar planetary mass object" shows that the term is not in use (and may be a neologism).  Therefore, the name "rogue planet" should be used for this article.  Dr. Submillimeter 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. If you place the mentioned Google search in quotes, "rogue planet" has about 80K hits, and "planetary mass object" has under 800. I'm not sure why Wikimachine has been doing Google tests this way lately. Anyway, as mentioned above, this common use agrees wtih the official name. There is a significant page history at Rogue planet which will have to be preserved in the move. Dekimasu よ! 06:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the Google hits for "rogue planet" are references to TV shows, etc., but a search for "interstellar planetary mass object" gets less than 100 hits outside of Wikipedia. Dekimasu よ! 07:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 08:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

in fiction
For what it's worth there was a series of comic strip stories about the Daleks that appeared in the British magazine TV Century 21 entitled "Rogue Planet" back in March 1966. Almost three years before "Satan's World". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.3.161 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I remember that Poul Anderson's novels Satan's World and Ensign Flandry both involve rogue planets? &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or am I confusing Satan's World with Mirkheim? —Tamfang (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And Star Wars includes another rogue planet: Iego (see starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Iego), which was first mentioned in Episode I. 89.212.134.219 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In Francis Carsac's novel "The Fleeing Earth" humanity voluntary made Earth a rogue planet to escape the exploding Sun. I have not been able to find a full translation into English, though. 194.44.31.194 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Further, one episode of Star Trek: the Original Series first aired 12 January 1967 -- "The Squire of Gothos" -- features a rogue planet. IMHO, this indicates that scientists had suspected or postulated the existence of these objects at least as early as the 1960s. -- llywrch (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Occurrence of rogue planets
Recent studies indicate that rogue planets are more prevalent in the universe than estimated. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13416431 89.204.153.230 (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC) If I read the articles noted in the text correctly, "twice as many rogue planets as stars" refers to those larger than Jupiter, while "100,000 times as many rogue planets as stars" refers to those larger than Pluto.

Resources
What kind of resources might one expect to find on a rogue planet? And how useful might they be for space colonization? 198.151.130.51 (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are very difficult questions to answer. I suppose it might be worth adding a sentence or two to the article on that topic, which would basically boil down to "it's unknown." Kevin Nelson (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I am very much inclined to do a three-way merger between free-floating planet, rogue planet, and sub-brown dwarf. I don't see a lot of astronomers emphasizing the distinction between the latter two categories of object, and observationally they have enough in common that it seems reasonable for them to be treated in the same article. I will wait a while to see what others have to say, and if there are no objections then I will be bold and make the merger myself. Kevin Nelson (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would Rogue planet be the destination article for this merge, appears to be the most developed article of the lot. SkyMachine (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I was thinking of free-floating planet as being the destination, since it has rogue planets and sub-brown dwarfs as subcategories of free-floating planets. I agree that Rogue planet is the best developed article, but if they're all put together we'll be left with an article that keeps that development. Kevin Nelson (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather oppose merging "Sub-brown dwarf" with either of the other articles, since sub-brown dwarfs are not usually considered planets AFAIK; they're usually considered as "substellar objects", and often not distinguished from brown dwarfs. I'd support merging the other two articles - I think "free-floating" and "rogue" are usually used synonymously, actually.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is it still in "Hypothetical planet types"
Okay, I've noticed that this is still in the "Hypothetical planet types" category. As this type of planet has been undeniably and repeatedly demonstrated to exist, I propose we take it out of this category. It makes no sense being in there. Samcashion (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll remove it. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Merged Free-floating planet into this page 2012
I have merged Free-floating planet into this page, see Talk:Free-floating_planet. Cliff12345 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Example
Why are there no specific examples of interstellar planets when they have been detected in data? 216.246.130.20 (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Retention of heat in interstellar space
Wouldn't everything in this section of the article apply to bodies beyond the outer edge of stars' habitable zones? 216.246.130.20 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Jargon rich
As a non-astronomer, this page made little sense to me. And I have a degree in science. There is too much jargon, much of which is not even hyperlinked. An encyclopedia entry should have a range of basic to sophisticated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.251.230 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, such as? —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest deleting "In popular culture section
The section "In popular culture" is almost as long as the rest of the article. I understand that rogue planets are still largely hypothetical but such an overwhelmingly long section that includes seemingly every fictitious rogue planet amounts to clutter. Other astronomy articles do not have such sections. Zedshort (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can handle this by creating an article Rogue planets in fiction and transferring the section to the new article. Then Rogue planets in fiction could be added to the see also list.  Fartherred (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Rogue vs. free-floating
Some discussion here about how the naming choices affect other articles. Samsara 12:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed Proplyds of Planetars section
This section had been flagged as needing citations and clarification for some time. I'll reproduce it here for posterity:


 * Recently, it has been discovered that some exoplanets such as the planemo 2M1207b, orbiting the brown dwarf 2M1207, have debris disks. If some large interstellar objects are considered stars (sub-brown dwarfs), then the debris could coalesce into planets, meaning the disks are proplyds. If these are considered planets, then the debris would coalesce as satellites. The term planetar exists for those accretion masses that seem to fall between stars and planets.

Wanting to help I set about trying to determine first of all when "Recently" was. I was surprised to find that this section was added by an editor in June 2006, so it's really not so recent after all -- a good explanation of why we should avoid terms like Recently spotted in the wild. (Here's the diff).

Anyway, looking around for sources I found this article, which fits the timeframe of the edit: The Planetary Mass Companion 2MASS 1207-3932B: Temperature, Mass, and Evidence for an Edge-on Disk by Mohanty et al. It was published in 2007 but received in April of 2006. It hypothesizes that the then recently discovered sub-brown dwarf 2M1207b's low luminosity was the product of an edge-on disk (a disk seen edge-on from our perspective). Despite the original editor's language in the wiki, this was an unproved hypothesis and while put forth by credible researchers was not the only hypothesis at the time for 2M1207b's low luminosity.

In 2011 (so several years after the original edit) another research paper, The Young Planet-Mass Object 2M1207b: A Cool, Cloudy and Methane-Poor Atmosphere by Barman et al takes this and other various hypotheses advanced to explain this low-luminosity issue and concluded that contrary to previous hypotheses, it was probably an atmospheric phenomenon. This is also just a hypothesis, but the point here is that the original editor's blurb about debris disks being discovered around planetary-mass objects was, despite his language, far from certain at the time of his edit and is in fact still far from certain.

Then there's the fact that, strictly speaking, 2M1207b is not a rogue planet. It orbits another brown dwarf, 2M1207, making it at best an exoplanet, as it is not in orbit around the galactic center of mass, per the article's own definition. This has been brought up before on this talk page.

So: we have claims that in hindsight seem to have been wrong about an object that is not really a rogue planet, on an article about rogue planets. Rather than explaining all the above in article space I thought it best to just nuke the section. Hope that was a good decision. If not hopefully the above information can help another editor make something useful out of it.Eniagrom (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Oumuamua
What's Oumuamua doing in this list of planet-sized objects? It's supposed to be 100m - 1000m in size, its mass in Jupiter masses would be ridiculous. That's not a rogue planet, that's a large rock.

Is there a good reason to have it in this list (maybe for comparison)? Then this should be made clear, otherwise it should be removed. --Alfe (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarify scope - objects or microlensing events
Is this article really about the objects, or rather the microlensing observations ? The Observations section seems to suggest these are all microlensing observations - a brief flash of a distant light source (star or distant galaxy?) microlensed by some mass passing in front. If just the microlensing observations, then we haven't seen any light emitted or reflected from the object itself ? Can article explain how distance and mass are separately estimated from the observation. By their nature are these microlensing observations unrepeatable ? eg We don't know even in which direction the object passed ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Title giving
The term is titular. You could also say eponymous 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:177:708:E43C:5DB5 (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)