❌

Normal view

A Massive Hidden Planet May Be Lurking Beyond Neptune—This Caltech Scientist Thinks “Planet Nine” Could Be Confirmed This Year

5 June 2026 at 17:00


The search for a ninth planet in our solar system could reach a turning point as soon as this year, according to a planetary scientist involved in the hunt for a mysterious object believed to be lurking in the outer reaches of the Solar System.

For the past decade, astronomers around the world have been searching for evidence of another resident in our planetary neighborhood. As far back as 2016, there were already hints that something might be out there, given the odd orbits of distant objects like Sedna, discovered in 2003. 

Now, two astronomers—California Institute of Technology (Caltech) researchers Konstantin Batygin, a professor of planetary science, and his colleague, Dr. Michael E. Brown—believe there is a high probability that the confirmation of a ninth planet in our solar system could be on the horizon. 

Batygin and Brown’s findings suggest Planet Nine may have a mass roughly 5 to 10 times that of Earth and orbit, on average, about 20 times farther from the Sun than Neptune, which circles the Sun at an average distance of 2.8 billion miles. If it exists, the distant world would take between 10,000 and 20,000 years to complete a single orbit around the Sun.

“This would be a real ninth planet,” says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy, in a 2016 statement. “There have only been two true planets discovered since ancient times, and this would be a third. It’s a pretty substantial chunk of our solar system that’s still out there to be found, which is pretty exciting.”

Evidence for Planet Nine comes from a small group of distant Kuiper Belt objects whose highly elongated orbits appear clustered in the same direction and share similar orbital tilts relative to the plane of the known planets.

Researchers argue that this type of alignment is unlikely to occur by chance. Alternative explanations involving the Kuiper Belt itself have also been explored, but models suggest the belt would require far more mass than has been observed to produce the effect.

Brown’s excitement shines through: “It’s almost like having six hands on a clock all moving at different rates, and when you happen to look up, they’re all in exactly the same place,” he says, adding that the odds of having that happen are something close to one in 100.

Computer simulations suggest that a large, unseen planet in the outer Solar System could maintain these orbital alignments through its gravitational influence. The models also demonstrate how mean-motion resonances could keep the distant objects in stable orbits while preventing collisions with the proposed planet.

The hypothesis may also explain the unusual trajectories of objects such as Sedna and 2012 VP113, whose highly elongated orbits do not bring them close to Neptune.

Konstantin Batygin, astronomer and Professor of Planetary Sciences at Caltech.

Japanese Scientists Find More Evidence 

In July, additional data relevant to the Planet Nine debate emerged with the discovery of a newly identified object nicknamed “Ammonite,” found by Japanese astronomers using the Subaru Telescope on Maunakea, Hawaii. The object is only the fourth known sednoid, joining a rare class of distant celestial bodies with unusual orbits beyond Pluto.

“The fact that Ammonite’s current orbit does not align with those of the other three sednoids lowers the likelihood of the Planet Nine hypothesis,” said Dr. Yukun Huang of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, who conducted simulations of Ammonite’s orbit in a July interview with The Debrief.

“It is possible that a planet once existed in the Solar System but was later ejected, causing the unusual orbits we see today,” says Huang.

How Planet Nine Could be Found This Year

Astronomy is often a science of probabilities and competing hypotheses, but Planet Nine presents a relatively rare case where new observations may soon provide a clear answer. The Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile recently began scientific operations and could provide the data needed to confirm—or rule out—the existence of Planet Nine.

Perched atop a mountain in Chile, the NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory observes the night sky in extraordinary detail. Equipped with the largest digital camera ever built for astronomy, it will repeatedly survey the sky over ten years, producing an unprecedented time-lapse record of the Universe.

In a recent podcast interview, Batygin told The Debrief how his and Brown’s theory could soon be tested.

“The Planet Nine hypothesis is kind of readily refutable, right? I find that to be quite important,” says Batygin. “There’s a new telescope that came online called the Vera Rubin Observatory, and as it collects data this year, we will, I think, know one way or another whether Planet Nine is really out there or not.”

Batygin says Rubin’s greatest strengths are its survey efficiency and extensive sky coverage. By repeatedly imaging vast portions of the sky, Rubin is uniquely suited to detecting a faint, distant, and slowly moving object like Planet Nine.

 

“If Rubin detects an object at hundreds of astronomical units from the Sun, and its orbit is consistent with the predicted Planet Nine parameter space, that would essentially be it,” Batygin explained, in terms of what kind of observation would provide a definitive answer regarding Planet Nine’s existence.

“At that distance, anything visible to Rubin would have to be very large, so a direct detection would be the decisive confirmation,” he added, although suggesting that “whenever you find some interesting pattern in the data, the first thing you have to ask is, ‘will it hold up to additional scrutiny from [some] fresh kind of unbiased data?”

He points to this summer being a turning point in his research: “We will get that new batch of discoveries basically starting this summer, starting summer twenty twenty-six.  It will be a direct test of all lines of evidence that we have for the existence of Planet Nine.”

“ You can imagine Vera Rubin comes online, looks at the sky for a few months, finds an object that it can see that is far away, that is hundreds of astronomical units away, meaning hundreds of times the distance between the Earth and the Sun, as far away from the Sun as the Earth,” adds Batygin. “That’s Planet Nine. Like, that’s direct confirmation, right? Then you close the book and move on to the more interesting question of like characterization.”

Batygin suggests it would solidify many of the lines of evidence for Planet Nine, even if his team does not discover the object itself. “Nevertheless, that would lend support to its existence because, if the solar system is structured in this way, then something must be sculpting that structure.”

Although he has devoted years to the Planet Nine hypothesis, Batygin says he remains open to the possibility that the planet does not exist and believes the data must ultimately determine the outcome.

“It would definitely suck,” Batygin told The Debrief of this possibility, though noting that scientists have to “go where the data takes you, right?”

Planet Nine and Nibiru, “The Destroyer” Sumerian Folklore 

Over the decades, the Planet Nine hypothesis has inevitably drawn comparisons to “Nibiru,” a supposed hidden world popularized in modern pseudoscientific interpretations of ancient Mesopotamian texts.

The idea gained widespread attention through the writings of Zecharia Sitchin, who argued that ancient Sumerian records described a rogue planet that periodically enters the inner Solar System and causes catastrophic events on Earth. However, mainstream historians and archaeologists reject these interpretations, noting that ancient Mesopotamian flood traditions, including the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh, do not identify Nibiru as the cause of a global catastrophe.

When asked on the podcast whether Planet Nine could pose any threat to Earth, Batygin dismissed the idea.

“The important thing to understand about Planet Nine is that if you’re worried about Planet Nine’s gravity destroying things, I would encourage you to revisit the inverse square law of gravity, right?

He explains that gravity increases with mass and falls off as the distance between objects squared, and that Planet Nine is estimated to be five Earth masses, and at a distance of 500-600 astronomical units away. By comparison, Jupiter is 300 Earth masses and only around four astronomical units away.

“So if you’re worried about Planet Nine, you should really, really worry about Jupiter,” Batygin says. “I mean, this is one of the intriguing, frankly humbling things about learning celestial mechanics and understanding how the solar system works at a large scale,” Batygin added.

How Planet Nine Could Change Astronomy and CULTURE 

The confirmation of Planet Nine would be one of the most significant astronomical discoveries of the century, reshaping our understanding of the Solar System and its formation. Textbooks, educational materials, and scientific models would need updating to account for a previously unknown major planet residing far beyond Pluto. More importantly, its discovery could reveal new insights into how planetary systems form and evolve.

Batygin also thinks the influence of such a discovery also might impact science in ways we haven’t yet considered.

“Until we really take a look, we don’t know what kind of awesome and exciting information we’ll discover. This has been true along the way in all planetary exploration. We have been surprised time and time again,” says Batygin.

Batygin also surmises that astronomers “will discover interesting constraints about the birth environment of the Sun itself by studying Planet Nine.”

An exciting future may indeed lie ahead if Planet Nine is soon discovered. Astronomers could eventually determine whether it is a gas giant, an icy world, or something entirely unexpected. Future observations may even reveal details about its atmosphere and composition.

When Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 returned the first close-up images of the outer planets, it marked one of humanity’s greatest scientific achievements. For the first time, people saw distant worlds in remarkable detail rather than as tiny points of light in the night sky.

Now, in 2026, humanity may once again stand on the brink of a major planetary discovery, thanks to the Vera C. Rubin Observatory.

Fundamentally, confirmation of a ninth planet would not only be a cosmic discovery: it would also offer a reflection of humanity, and a reminder of how much remains unknown, even within our own cosmic backyard.

Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and the founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com. To contact Chrissy with a story, please email chrissy @ thedebrief.org.

Urban Light Pollution Might Be Worsening Allergies

4 June 2026 at 21:12
Light pollution prompts plants to shed pollen longer and stronger, according to new research.

© Amir Hamja for The New York Times

A study found that trees in cities with brighter lights start producing pollen earlier in the spring and finish later in the fall, adding up to 130 days per year to the allergy season.

2025 Wildfires Were the Costliest Ever, Researchers Say

Severe, hard-to-control blazes in densely populated areas like Los Angeles drove the year’s record losses.

© Loren Elliott for The New York Times

Pacific Palisades, Calif., on Jan. 7, 2025. Fires in the Los Angeles area last year burned at least 90 square miles, killing at least 31 people and displacing more than 150,000.

Why AI can’t match human creative work

29 May 2026 at 08:00

It’s hard for people to tell the difference between AI-generated advertising and writing. So why do they respond better to the human-made stuff?

AI vs. Mad Men

Ipsos, along with faculty members from Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, just published a unique advertising study. They took 20 real ads from major brands, including Cheerios, Chewy, Febreze, Fiat, H&M, Old Navy, Herbal Essences, Ray-Ban Meta, TurboTax and Visa. They fed the same creative briefs used by the human ad creatives into Google Gemini, then used OpenAI’s Sora to generate fully AI-produced counterparts with no human intervention. 

They showed the ads to 3,000 consumers. Only 25% of AI ad viewers were at least somewhat confident the spot was AI-made, and 40% of all viewers were uncertain either way — suggesting the public isn’t great at spotting ads that are AI generated. 

But here’s the interesting part: While most people didn’t register that ads were AI-generated, they also didn’t respond to them like they did with human-generated ads. They consistently rated human-made work as more eye-catching and more imaginative. 

In other words, people assumed AI ads were made by people, but didn’t particularly like them compared to human-generated ads. And that means human-generated ads performed much better. 

Ads made by people without AI were 14% stronger on short-term sales impact and 17% stronger on long-term brand health.

To me, the data here suggests that while people can’t easily discern the difference between AI- and human-generated content, the AI stuff hits wrong on a subconscious level. And I think that’s happening with AI social posts, AI blog posts and AI slop in general. 

In fact, I’ve noticed it strongly in my own response to AI-generated content. It often looks perfect but bothers me for reasons that aren’t immediately obvious. 

The researchers explained AI’s inability to match human ad creativity by pointing out that AI draws from what already exists, while great advertising breaks new ground. AI can replicate the conventions of advertising, but it can’t transcend them, make a creative leap or engender emotion like people can. 

A broad range of research beyond the Ipsos study suggests that skillful people working with AI tools will always outperform AI alone, and often outperform people not using AI tools. Ipsos’ advice? Ad agencies should keep people at the center of brand storytelling and emotive assets. 

Can AI write right?

Another recent study looked at written web content and compared how human-written articles “performed” on search engines compared to AI-generated content. Semrush analyzed 42,000 blog pages across 20,000 keywords, ran every single one through GPTZero’s AI detector, and cross-referenced the results with actual Google Search results. It also surveyed 224 search-engine optimization (SEO) professionals about their AI habits and beliefs.

They found a disconcerting disconnect between what SEO people believe and what is actually true. Some 72% of SEO professionals who use AI content say it performs just as well or better than human-written content in search rankings. But it turns out that human-generated posts strongly outperform AI-generated. 

Content classified as purely AI-generated appeared in the top spot in search result just 9% of the time. Content classified as human-written was there 80% of the time.” That’s a roughly 8-to-1 advantage. (Note that the coveted top link in search results typically gets around one-third of the clicks.)

For lower page-one positions — from the fifth position down (which get relatively few clicks) — AI- and human-generated posts perform more similarly. (The researchers also found that when people write posts with a little help from AI, their posts rank better much than AI-only content.)

Those Semrush results are consistent with previous research. 

  • NP Digital conducted an oft-cited study two years ago that found that human-written content ranked higher 94.12% of the time on Google than AI content. 
  • A Graphite/Common Crawl analysis found that 86% of articles ranking high on Google Search are human-written (only 14% AI-generated), and ChatGPT and Perplexity cite human-written articles 82% of the time (only 18% AI). 
  • On LinkedIn, more than half of site’s long-form content in 2025 was classified as “Likely AI” by Originality.ai. Engagement on verified human content was 61% higher than the AI-marked posts. 

Note that engagement performance varied by industry; that 61% result is an aggregate average across all industries. Ironically, in the category of “Leadership & Inspiration,” AI posts outperformed human posts by 75%. 

The absurd lesson here: If you want to be a thought leader on LinkedIn, don’t lead with your own thoughts. 

Quantity vs. quality

What all this research boils down to is that human-generated content (with or without help from AI) attracts far more traffic and higher engagement than AI-generated content. AI content is essentially invisible in high-value channels and while it might be high in quantity, it’s low in quality where it really matters — with reach and influence. 

As with the ad creative study by Ipsos, the conclusion of all this research is the same: People (and search engines) respond much better to creative content produced by people compared with AI-generated content. 

In short, AI is great at “flooding the zone” at high speed and low cost — and there’s a ton of AI-generated content out there. A quick check reveals that: 

  • More than half of all written content on websites is now AI-written.
  • Almost half of all music uploaded is now AI-generated.
  • Nearly one-quarter of all videos uploaded are AI-generated or manipulated.
  • Around 40% of all podcast episode uploads are AI-generated.
  • More than 70% of all images uploaded to social media may be AI-generated or manipulated.
  • And wll over half of all social posts are AI-generated

The specific numbers are my best estimates, and they’re changing fast each month. The takeaway is that AI-generated content is exploding in volume. 

But it isn’t reaching people the way human-generated content does. Take podcasts, for example. While roughly 40% of new podcast episode uploads are AI-generated, that 40% captures less than 1% of the listening hours. Of the top 100 podcasts, zero are AI-generated.

A clear picture is emerging about the use of AI for content generation. AI is great for churning out a lot of content at low cost. It can be good for some kinds of content — if a skillful person directs it. And AI can be a helpful tool for content creators. 

But when it comes to direct comparisons between people and AI, it’s clear that the winning content — the stuff with the best “performance” on search, best reception by people and the most engaging — is always human-generated. 

Fish Sleep a Lot Like Us. (They Even Nap.)

27 May 2026 at 16:00
By tracking eye movements in zebrafish, researchers identified four different types of sleep, analogous to the complex sleep patterns of humans and other animals.
❌