Babinet, Jacques. "Sur la position actuelle de la planete situee au dela de Neptune, et provisioirement nommee Hyperion", in Comptes Rendus, volme 27, 21 August 1848, in the weekly issue of pp (197)-224, with this article occupying pp 202-208. ALSO: Le Verrier, "Remarques de M. Le Verrier a l'Occasion de la communication precedente", pp 208-210, following Babinet's contribution. The weekly issue is extracted from a larger bound volume, and is crisp and fresh. Good copy, if not better. $125
M. Babinet thought he had detected an error in LeVerrier's work that suggested certain motions of Neptune were not due to the influence of Uranus but rather another yet-known planet outside the orbit of Neptune. Babinet made his case for tthe new planet "Hyperion", while LeVerrier argued that Babinet was incorrect in his calculations where he found fault with LeVerrier.
"Following the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846 [by LeVerrier], there was considerable speculation that another planet might exist beyond its orbit. The search began in the mid-19th century and culminated at the start of the 20th with Percival Lowell's quest for Planet X. Lowell proposed the Planet X hypothesis to explain apparent discrepancies in the orbits of the giant planets, particularly Uranus and Neptune, speculating that the gravity of a large unseen ninth planet could have perturbed Uranus enough to account for the irregularities...In 1848, Jacques Babinet raised an objection to Le Verrier's calculations, claiming that Neptune's observed mass was smaller and its orbit larger than Le Verrier had initially predicted. He postulated, based largely on simple subtraction from Le Verrier's calculations, that another planet of roughly 12 Earth masses, which he named "Hyperion", must exist beyond Neptune. Le Verrier denounced Babinet's hypothesis, saying, "[There is] absolutely nothing by which one could determine the position of another planet, barring hypotheses in which imagination played too large a part."--Wiki
The American Journal of Science and Arts (volume 56, 1848, pp 438-9) responded right away to Babinet's claim, publishing a note on it days after the papers was published in the CR. I include a longish quote from the journal, below:
"Speculations on the next Planet beyond Neptune by M BABINET, Aug 23 1848. The fact that the planet Neptune differs so essentially in its orbit and mass from the theoretical planet of Le Verrier and Adams induced M Babinet to undertake an investigation having for its object to ascertain if the perturbations in the motions of Uranus could be made to indicate a second exterior planetary body which with Neptune should explain all the anomalies. Assuming that the effects of the theoretical planet of Le Verrier are the resultant of the combined action of Neptune and another planet more distant M Babinet proposes this problem: Admitting as exact the mass distance period position Jan 1 1847 of the theoretical planet of Le Verrier by what union of two other planets of which Neptune shall be one can this theoretical planet be replaced in order to obtain the same resultant effect and consequently what must be the mass the distance the longitude and the apparent size of a new planet which combined with Neptune will represent the theoretical planet of Le Verrier..."
Comments