Julia Krum/HIGHLANDER
Julia Krum/HIGHLANDER

On July 22, 2015, Jean-Luc Margot, a professor and planetary scientist at UCLA, submitted a revised definition of what he believes should qualify a celestial body in space as a “planet.” According to his interview in the Los Angeles Times, his proposal states that a planet would refer to any object in space that “(a) is in orbit around one or more stars or stellar remnants, (b) has sufficient mass to clear the neighborhood around its orbit and (c) has a mass below 13 Jupiter masses.” Numerous websites —  such as the New Scientist and the Newser, have spread rumors that this definition would technically redefine the Earth’s moon as a “planet” by definition. This easily stirred controversy online, but the colleagues of Margot at the American Astronomical Society meeting agreed with the scientist that the current definition “although it was the best that was possible in 2006, is lacking and somewhat vague.”

Upon hearing this news initially, I was among the many that were perplexed by the idea that our moon would be considered a planet. It was a moon, not a planet. Our current interpretation of the moon that we look up at each night, would be shifted and confusing. After delving into Margot’s interview, he reveals that there is a reason for this new definition of planet. This definition is meant to clarify the currently ambiguous and vague one that exists in the textbooks of our generation, which is “a) is in orbit around the Sun,

b) has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and c)

has “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit.” I began to realize how self-centered and ignorant I was being.

The reason this idea seems so wrong and perplexing is because it is different from the definition I was taught and have been used to since my own elementary education.  Continuing on my quest to understand the controversial matter of the redefinition, I found that Professor Margot mentions on his UCLA page that his “proposal makes no reference to the Earth’s moon.” Despite this, the controversy continues. People believe his three stipulations would not exclude the moon, and thus would redefine it as a planet.

Whether or not the moon remains a moon or the moon becomes a planet, humans will still be able to gaze up at the same white sphere that changes in its appearance depending on the time of year. It will still be in the sky amongst the stars. With that said, it is time to become more open minded of these proposals from intelligent astronomers, such as Professor Margot.

In light of how much our knowledge of the universe has changed, more and more is being revealed about the bodies that exist beyond our own solar system.  In the past two decades, seemingly countless new so-called “exoplanets” are being found outside our solar system with the advanced technology —  such as the Kepler space telescope.

With these concepts being added to the bank of astronomical facts that are being taught to students, it is necessary to redefine planets with the more concrete requirements that Professor Margot is suggesting. Even in the case that his proposal is accepted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), Pluto will remain outside of the range of matters that are considered a planet.  But, perhaps this battle has already been fought and lost.

Just as it is necessary to welcome new innovations and break free of the confinements of our past education that was limited to the astronomical science of our youth, we may have to let Pluto stand as a mere dwarf planet. Definitions such as “planet” or “dwarf planet” should not foster offense, as it is just a means of categorizing celestial bodies, so we are not limited to referring to all objects as one name.

Labels allow us to segregate and better understand the differences between these bodies to better study them and educate people. Without these labels, the categorization of what it means to be a planet would be too broad. The differences between planets would be hard to account for. For example, Pluto is simply not large enough to clear objects out of its path. This difference would not be accounted for unless it was not relabeled. Resisting reclassification would prevent scientific groupings such as “planets” and “dwarf planets” from being as useful. With more information and more discoveries, grouping and sometimes relabeling is a necessary part of advancing science.

Opening our eyes to new concepts might sometimes entail revising facts we once knew as fixed, but the consequences of being acceptant of new findings can lead us to discoveries that are out of this world.