Talk:Haumea

“fifth-order 7:12 resonance”

> fifth-order 7:12 resonance

This non-expert reader was wondering about this resonance, and it took awhile before realising that there was a ‘title’-style tag:

> In principle, the strength of a resonance is inversely proportional to the difference between the numerator and denominator, which is called its 'order'. The lower the difference (order), the stronger the resonance will be. A 12:7 resonance is fifth order (12 - 7 = 5), which is fairly weak.

First, please could this be more obviously visible.

Second, just wow! So a 101:100 resonance is as strong as 2:1. Really?! JDAWiseman (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Such an extreme resonance as 101:100 is simply unrealistic. The strongest resonance is generally 3:2. -- Kheider (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I chose that example because of its manifest unrealism. Yet the current text in the pop-up says “proportional to the difference between the numerator and denominator”, which I don’t believe, because it suggests that 101:100 would be strong. I’m not an expert, so might be wrong, but I hope that the experts can see that the current text is at least one of unclear and misleading. JDAWiseman (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And I’m surprised that 3:2 is stronger than 2:1 or 1:1. Please, is their intuitive reasoning why this is so? JDAWiseman (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I hate semantics. It might be more accurate to write the 3:2 resonance captures more objects and is generally the most populated *if additional bodies are not acting on a 3-body system*. It is rare to find a real resonance weaker than 5:17. Something complex like 101:100 will not happen in the real world because of the n-body problem. The note can always be re-worded to mention resonances like 1:1, 2:1, and 3:2 are much stronger. -- Kheider (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

There's also the dynamic effect of these resonances. Pluto in 3:2 may have been carried along as Neptune migrated outward, but presumably a 7:12 resonance would not have been able to do that with Haumea, right? — kwami (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The comments here make perfect sense (at least in that they concur with my slightly-informed prejudices). Splendid.

But they clash with the wording in the article. Clearly the strength of a resonance cannot be numerator minus denominator, as that would have 101:100 ≈ 3:2, even though the former is too weak to be observed.

Hence expert re-wording of the article is needed. JDAWiseman (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Previously doing work on resonances, I had made a calculation for the probability of a resonance. Although there are various versions of complexity, they all essentially follow the same ideas. This one I've found to be the simplest and most reliable:

Equation 1 (simplest):

S=1/((N*n)+(N-n))

where S is the strength of the resonance, N is the resonance with a larger value, and n is the resonance with a smaller value. A lower value is a weaker resonance.

1:2 = 0.33333333

2:3 = 0.14285714

101:100 = 0.00009900

5:17 = 0.00934579

exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reciprocal of product plus difference makes lots of sense. But the pop-up title tag in the article fails to mention the bit about the product, saying just reciprocal difference. Please could the article match your comment.

And, FYI, your ordering is 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, 3:2 = 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 4:3 = 5:2 = 7:1, 8:1, 5:3 = 9:1, 7:2 = 10:1, 5:4 = 11:1, 12:1, 7:3 = 9:2 = 13:1, 14:1, 8:3 = 15:1, 6:5 = 7:4 = 11:2 = 16:1, 17:1, 18:1, 7:5 = 10:3 = 13:2 = 19:1, 20:1, 9:4 = 11:3 = 21:1, 7:6 = 8:5 = 15:2 = 22:1, 23:1, 24:1, 9:5 = 13:3 = 17:2 = 25:1, 11:4 = 26:1, 14:3 = 27:1, 19:2 = 28:1, 8:7 = 29:1, 30:1, 11:5 = 13:4 = 16:3 = 21:2 = 31:1, 32:1, 9:7 = 17:3 = 33:1, 12:5 = 23:2 = 34:1, 35:1, 11:6 = 15:4 = 36:1, 9:8 = 10:7 = 13:5 = 19:3 = 25:2 = 37:1, 38:1, 20:3 = 39:1, 14:5 = 27:2 = 40:1, 11:7 = 17:4 = 41:1, 42:1, 13:6 = 22:3 = 29:2 = 43:1, 44:1, 12:7 = 23:3 = 45:1. JDAWiseman (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The ‘nb 3’ is clearly wrong, so, I’ve removed it and slightly changed the sentence which contained it. JDAWiseman (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT has added back the wrong reference. I lack the confidence to argue with a machine, so am leaving it wrong. JDAWiseman (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A more complicated version of the previous equation also takes into account difference between true resonance compared to the length of the resonance:

Equation 2 (more complicated):

S=1/((N*n)+(N-n))*d

Firstly, the period of a body in orbit around the Sun in years is determined by the square root of the semimajor axis in AU cubed. AKA p=√(a^3). Although typically in AU and years, it can theoretically be applied to any orbit; if the inputted a value is in terms other than AU, then the result of the equation would be in multiples of the time it takes a body with the semimajor axis reciprocal(A) to make an orbit around the Sun. I did a bad job of explaining that.

Next, assuming the period of both bodies are known in the suggested resonance, divide the longer period by the shorter period, and find the least common multiple over one to at least a decimal place or two. The given value is the likely resonance between the bodies. However the further it is from a full number, the less likely it is.

To calculate the vicinity to the resonance, multiply the orbit of the primary body by the resonance ratio in the format Primary:resonating (such as a 7:12 to Neptune being 164.791*(12/7)=~282.5) Then find the difference of the resonating body (Haumea) to the true resonance; 284.12-282.50=1.62. Divide 284.12 by 1.62; 175.38. how many orbits it takes Haumea to become a full orbit behind a 7:12 resonance. Multiply 175.38 by 284.12 and you get ~49830 years for Haumea to become a full orbit behind a 7:12 resonance. Find the reciprocal of 49830; 0.00002007, and multiply it by 284.12-0.005702. This means every orbit, Haumea becomes one 0.005702 orbits behind where it should be in resonance to Neptune. Yes there are simpler ways to do this (like finding the reciprocal of 175.38), but no I didn't do them because I wanted to demonstrate what the different values meant and their relation to each other.

Finally take the rate of change per orbit (0.005702) and subtract it from one (0.99430) and you multiply that by 1/((N*n)+(N-n)). This gives Haumea, which would otherwise have the value 0.011236, now has the value 0.011172.

OK. We need a source on this subject that can be quoted, to correct the current error. Please recommend one. JDAWiseman (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The exact reason I had hesitated was because of the fact that this is all original research of mine. Although based on clear, simple ideas, it still ventures far enough into the territory original research to require a reliable reference or similar material. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah. That makes it more interesting. Please can you, exoplanetaryscience, take charge. The article is currently wrong. Please make it right. As the article as about Haumea, rather than about resonances, this could be very concise. Indeed, my attempted edit, reverted by a bot, deleted the note and softened the description of the resonance to ‘weak’ (does ‘fifth-order’ add anything useful?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDAWiseman (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That is now accurate. Thank you. I’m not a Wikipedia expert, so don’t know, but I expect that linking to a user’s talk page is officially discouraged. JDAWiseman (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Rename category

Category:Haumea (dwarf planet) should be renamed Category:Haumea to be in agreement with this article's title.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haumea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208204927/http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080919/NEWS02/709199740 to http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080919/NEWS02/709199740
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923170519/http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C26081101-23109%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C27574%2C26081101-23109%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haumea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111105134/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~fabrycky/EL61/ to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~fabrycky/EL61/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Haumea has a ring.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/11/16453478/haumea-dwarf-planet-ring-formation-occultation

The article needs to be updated. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added the tag on the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You called Haumea a "planet". It's a dwarf, so I have fixed your tag. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Or is it a spaceship disguised as a "planet", but it's odd oblong shape gives it away? Like the theory about 'Oumuamua, the interstellar asteroid passed by Earth last August-Sep 2017. Haumea isn't interstellar AFAIK. 67.49.85.100 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Such a shape is perfectly normal for a rapidly rotating body. See this. Double sharp (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Is Namaka still occulting Haumea?

The source is from a decade ago. Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Wasn't that just an expectation? I never heard of anyone observing any of the expected occultations. — kwami (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

So is it a dwarf planet or isn't it?

The introduction to the article says it's "a likely dwarf planet" suggesting its classification is unclear. And then the article repeatedly states that the IAU officially categorizes it as a dwarf planet. Has some official doubt been cast on the classification, or is the introduction outdated? I was going to follow WP:BOLD and delete the word, but then I noticed this is a featured article so I'll let others make the call. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph explains everything: "On September 17, 2008, it was recognized as a dwarf planet by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and named after Haumea, the Hawaiian goddess of childbirth, though subsequent observations cast doubt on its shape being consistent with hydrostatic equilibrium (and thus perhaps not a dwarf planet)." Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. According to the latest study, it is *not* a DP. But it'd best to have 2ary sources that supported that conclusion. — kwami (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Where is this study online?? A Google News search on Haumea doesn't reveal such a study. Georgia guy (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

At the time, it was likely this. But, later came this saying that it might be in equilibrium after all. Double sharp (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Neptune resonance

copied from User_talk:Nrco0e#Other_resonances

@Kwamikagami: My orbit simulation for Haumea is finished. The resonant angle $\phi$ in this case is (with the variables as defined here):

$\phi ={\rm {12\cdot \lambda -{\rm {7\cdot \lambda _{\rm {N}}-{\rm {5\cdot \varpi -{\rm {1\cdot \Omega }}}}}}}}$

This angle is librating intermittently, hence why Buie does not classify Haumea as a resonant object.[1] Haumea's ascending node $\Omega$ precesses with a period of about 4.4 million years. It seems like Haumea's 7:12 resonance is broken twice per precession cycle, about every 2.2 million years, and is reestablished again a few hundred thousand years later. The resonance will next be broken about 250,000 years from now. See here for some results of my orbit simulation.

Haumea and the other objects in the Haumea family occupy a region of the Kuiper belt where multiple resonances (including the 3:5, 4:7, 7:12, 10:17 and 11:19 mean motion resonances) interact, leading to the orbital diffusion of that collision family.[2] While Haumea is in a weak 7:12 resonance, other objects in the Haumea family are known to temporarily occupy some of the other resonances, and resonance hopping (switching from one resonance to another) is possible on time scales of hundreds of millions of years. (19308) 1996 TO66, the first member of the Haumea family to be discovered, is in an intermittent 11:19 resonance. Renerpho (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Renerpho. I'll copy some of this into the Haumeid article. Please revert or modify if that's inappropriate, of course. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind uploading your imgur img to WP or Commons? Since the data is publicly available, it's equivalent to other orbital simulations ppl have uploaded. It would be a nice addition to the Haumea article. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: A small correction: The precession time is 4.6 million years (half of which is 2.3 million), not 4.4 million.[3] I also have a video of Haumea's libration now, here, which shows the slow periodic changes to Haumea's orbit on million-year timescales. I could upload that video to Commons, but the video is 2 minutes in length, too long to be useful for a Wikipedia article. It can be added as an external link though. I will upload the other images to Commons, including an extended version of the image I linked to before, available here. Renerpho (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks, Renerpho. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The images I have uploaded:

The resonant angle for Haumea's weak 7:12 resonance with Neptune, over a period of 5 million years

The ascending node of dwarf planet Haumea, over a period of 3.5 million years

Renerpho (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! Not sure what to do with the 2nd img, but I put the 1st in the article. Thanks for all your help. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Haumea is likely in equilibrium according to a new study

Dunham et al. revised Haumea's dimensions and density and show that Haumea's shape is consistent with hydrostatic equilibrium. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...877...41D/abstract Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 22:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That means now there should not be any doubt about Haumea's dwarf planets status. Ayush pushpkar (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that means its shape is consistent with being in HE. There are lots of objects whose shapes are consistent with being in HE that aren't in HE. We'll need at least a flyby to answer the question of whether it's a DP. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know

Why is haumea a dwaf planet 182.239.119.220 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Haumea black background.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)