Mercury,
November/December 2003 Table of Contents
|
Image
courtesy of John Whatmough. |
by
Gibor B. Basri
Recent
discoveries inside and outside the solar system have complicated
our perception of what constitutes a "planet."
Even
before civilization, people looked at the sky and recognized different
celestial objects. The Sun defined daytime and the stars provided
a fixed background of twinkling lights at night. Among the stars
moved the Moon and a few special steadier lights. The Greeks called
the moving lights "planets," which was derived from
their word for "wanderer." The Greeks included the Sun
and Moon as planets, along with Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and
Saturn, because motion against the stars was their defining characteristic
of "planet." Both the stars and planets were thought
to revolve around Earth.
After
the Copernican Revolution, we recognize the Moon as the only natural
body that orbits Earth. We have also discovered that the Sun is
a very nearby example of a star, and the visible planets are other
large bodies that orbit the Sun. We see them by reflected sunlight,
while stars produce their own visible light. This understanding
yields a Webster’s dictionary definition of the word "planet":
any heavenly body that shines by reflected sunlight and revolves
about the Sun.
In
the past century astronomers gained much understanding of our solar
system, and robotic spacecraft have visited most of the planets.
Yet today, astronomers find themselves unable to agree upon a succinct
definition of the word "planet." After the recent discoveries
of objects in the outer solar system, extrasolar planets, brown
dwarfs, and free-floating objects of planetary mass, we realize
the longstanding definition of "planet" is overly simplistic
and narrow. There is much, much more than meets the eye.
|
|