Two Totally Unique Star Systems Discovered

esocid writes "Astronomers have spied a faraway star system that is so unusual, it was one of a kind — until its discovery helped them pinpoint a second one that was much closer to home. In a paper published in a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal Letters, Ohio State University astronomers and their colleagues suggest that these star systems are the progenitors of a rare type of supernova. In research funded by the National Science Foundation, they found a star system that is unusual, because it's what the astronomers have called a 'yellow supergiant eclipsing binary' — it contains two very bright, massive yellow stars that are very closely orbiting each other. In fact, the stars are so close together that a large amount of stellar material is shared between them, so that the shape of the system resembles a peanut."

Comments

Interstellar Directions

[EdIII]

"Dude, I can't find you."
"What do you mean you can't find me? Did you follow my directions?"
"I already flew by there five fucking times, I can't find you!"
"Jeezus Christ! It's the one that looks like a peanut you pendejo! How many of them look like a peanut? How could you miss that!?"

Re:Interstellar Directions

[JJJK]

It's an Internet thing ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickroll

Re:Interstellar Directions

[RuBLed]

You had been hit hard man.. Don't try to stand up yet..

Re:Interstellar Directions

[skoaldipper]

Here is the time-lapse video mentioned in TFA.

Ahh, sweet memories. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go find my yellow Members Only jacket and relax to some Lionel Richie tunes. Hell, I might just dance with my shadow while I'm at it.

Re:Interstellar Directions

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the comments on this Rickroll are skyrocketing. Sheep, I tell you, sheep!

Re:Interstellar Directions

[Anonymous Coward]

This website explains the whole rickrolling phenomenon really well:
http://internetisseriousbusiness.com/

Totally!

[vga_init]

Good to hear... I got tired of looking at partially unique ones.

Re:Totally!

[allcar]

Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel. The trouble is, I can't decide if it was deliberate irony on behalf of the author, or just plain ignorance.

Re:Totally!

[siride]

It's not misuse. The only misuse is from the grammar NAZIs who refuse to understand nuance and complexity in language.

In common usage, "unique" can refer to all attributes, or only a single attribute or subset of them. Thus, you can have degrees of uniqueness based on the number of attributes that are unique. And in a more metaphorical way, uniqueness can also refer to the degree to which the differences that make the item unique set it apart. If the differences are large, then we would say "xyz is very unique". This is really just the same thing as what I said at the beginning of the paragraph, but from a more holistic point of view.

Now, if the grammar NAZIs would pull their heads from their asses and take some time to think about what things actually mean, we wouldn't have this problem. By telling people they cannot use "unique" in this fashion, they are denying expressivity, which is not supposed to be the point of good grammar.

Re:Totally!

[Jesus_666]

Here's a quote from the astronomer who found the systems, Dr. Val Egirl: "Like, oh my God, those systems are, like, totally unique fer shur. Those other astrophysicists are all like, 'they aren't unique if there's two of them', but, like, whatever!"

Re:Totally!

[gstoddart]

Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel.

Astronomers tend to err on the side of caution in their terms. You find a solar system and go "wow, that is so far removed from our models it's gotta be a unique system". Then, seemingly invariably, we find a second one. I think you need to cut them some slack on "unique".

It would normally be bad science to say "we found one, so we infer there are many" ... however, over the last bunch of years in Astronomy has consistently re-affirmed exactly that.

The problem is, it was considered completely "unique" until they found a second one. Me, given the sheer scale of what we're talking about, I'm sort of inclined to believe everything you can and can't imagine has been done before -- including life elsewhere, even if it is just worms wiggling in the muck. I just don't think scientists are encouraged to infer the existence of other things based on a single data point -- it's just bad form.

Who knows, within a few years, what we thought was unique last year will be so damned commonplace as to be not even worthy of notice. Space is very big after all. :-P

I just don't think they're abusing the word as badly as you think.

Cheers

Re:Totally!

[david.given]

Now, if the grammar NAZIs would pull their heads from their asses...

You do realise that Nazi is a proper noun, not an acronym, and therefore should not be capitalised?

HTH. HAND.

Re:Totally!

[tepples]

You do realise that Nazi is a proper noun, not an acronym It's almost an acronym: "NAtionalsoZIalistische".

Re:Totally!

[Minwee]

Abuse of words like "unique" is commonplace in these days of grammar ignorance, but this article really does excel. The trouble is, I can't decide if it was deliberate irony on behalf of the author, or just plain ignorance.

Is that the same kind of ignorance that comes from not knowing what a word means, or were you trying to win some kind of award for creative use of the term irony?

Re:Totally!

[BrettJB]

Nothing "almost" about it-- it's an acronym: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym

However, it's generally not capitalized, much like radar, laser, scuba, etc...

And now we return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

Re:Totally!

[hey!]

If people were really ignorant of grammar, then they wouldn't be able to do more than the verbal equivalent of pointing at things and grunting.

What people are ignorant of is standard usage. These rules exist to provide writers with guidelines by means of which they can make their meaning clear the greatest number of readers.

Still, it is a silly charade to pretend that you do not understand phrases like "somewhat unique" and "totally unique", just because you want to prove somebody is ignorant. Because the word "unique" tends to provoke pointless argument, I prefer the the word "distinctive" in my formal writing. In general "distinctive" is a much better word in most circumstances, because it carries a lower semantic burden. That something is distinctive means it can be picked out from other objects in some broader class.

I prefer to reserve the the word "unique" for situation where it is misleading to equate something to other members of its class for some purpose that I have identified. For example, Proxima Centauri is unique for purposes of discussing human interstellar travel, because it it the closest star to our own. It is not unique for purposes of discussing star variability. Even so we can't escape fuzzy set membership entirely; the Alpha Centauri system and Barnard's Star are very nearly as close.

The problem here is not adherence -- or lack of it -- to the rules of usage. The problem is the habit of imprecision leads to the habit of thoughtlessly using superlatives and vice versa. For example, the title does not make it clear whether two new classes of star systems, each with a single member, have been discovered, or whether two star systems of a heretofore unknown class have been discovered. It is actually the latter, which is not hard to figure out, so in the end no harm is done. But the habit of precision is a good one to cultivate.

The rules of usage are like grammar checkers. Grammar checkers can't tell you how to write what you mean, but when a grammar checker goes bananas on a sentence it's usually a sign that there is something sloppy in the construction of the sentence. Here the stacking of a superlative adverb on top of a superlative adjective is a tip off that the title could be written better.

Re:Totally!

[BraksDad]

What are the Masses of each of the "Unique" star systems?
As measured in KG?

Are they the same?

I didn't think so.

Re:Totally!

[mollymoo]

It's not misuse. The only misuse is from the grammar NAZIs who refuse to understand nuance and complexity in language.

ITYM "semantics nazi".

Re:Totally!

[mollymoo]

You do realise that Nazi is a proper noun, not an acronym, and therefore should not be capitalised?

In this usage, isn't it about time we dropped the capitalisation entirely? Save Nazi (big N) for memebers of the Nazi Party. Use nazi (little n) for someone who is uptight, particular and pushes their views on others, but doesn't typically have the desire to commit genocide.

Re:Totally!

[allcar]

You are completely wrong. "Unique" has one meaning and one meaning alone. This is not grammar, it is semantics. There can be no degrees of uniqueness. It is a boolean term. Either something is unique or it is not. If you argue otherwise, you are wrong.
Why misuse a word when there are plenty of excellent alternatives in this rich language of ours? How about "rare", "uncommon", "exceptional", "unusual", "extraordinary"?
You can apply modifiers to any of these terms if they are not strong enough for you. You could try "very rare" or "extremely unusual". But you cannot have degrees of uniqueness, however much you pule about common usage.

Re:Totally!

[siride]

No word has just one meaning. That's what makes language great. There are nuances, metaphors, intentional misuse, irony, litotes, etc. These all add to the richness of expression. Yes, from a purely logical standpoint, you could have a word mean one and only one thing and require a set of strict rules in which those words could be used. But that would make the language only capable of expressing a subset of what it can express now? The alternatives you have given, for example, do not suffice in this case, especially "uncommon" and "unusual". In fact, let's take a look at how these words would simply not work in many of the cases in which people use degrees of "unique":

"rare" -- denotation: the referent belongs to a small subset of U, which is either the set of all things, or the set of things of interest to the conversation. This would not work as a replacement for "very unique" because the connotation of "rare" focuses on the frequency of occurrence, rather than the nature of the item's rarity.
"uncommon" and "unusual" are less strong forms of "rare" and suffer from the same problems.
"extraordinary" -- denotation: some subset S of U is considered "normal" and the referent belongs to a different subset T which is smaller than S and has attributes that are held to be of greater value than the attributes of items in S. While this word hits closer to the mark because it talks about attributes rather than just frequency, it misses because it talks about attributes in the wrong way. Namely, it is rating the referent based on the value of its attributes, which, again, is not the focus of "unique". Same is true for "exceptional", a stronger form of "unique".

You see, you really can't express that something has one or more attributes that set it apart from any other item in the set of items with a given attribute. I suppose we could make up a word, but we already have a perfectly good one: "unique". If I say something is more unique than something else, I am merely saying that it has more unique attributes than the second item. No other word cuts it. It implies other things, such as the value of those attributes, or it simply talks about the frequency of the object in question, with no reference, really, to its attributes.

There are plenty of examples of people misusing good English words out of confusion or just lack of thought. Usage of "unique", however, is not one of them.

Re:Totally!

[Hucko]

And you have trouble with nuances for 'no' too don't you....

Re:Totally!

[aliquis]

So what are the correct word to use in the case of Bush? AFAIK he's not a member of the Nazi party, he's probably ok with genocide thought,

Re:Totally!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a grammar issue. "Unique" is an adjective, which modifies a noun, and in turn may be modified by an adverb.

It's a vocabulary issue. "Unique" is not an appropriate adjective to use.

Scrotal

[minginqunt]

A peanut? SPACEBALLS, more like.

Re:Scrotal

[minginqunt]

Nonsense. Whipping my astronomically-proportioned yellow-glowing rotating gonads is the only way I can get people to speak to me at parties.

Re:Scrotal

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. To me it looks more like "boob mitosis".

Unique or two

[Anonymous Coward]

pick one(!)

Re:Unique or two

[Moonpie Madness]

hahaha. I was looking forward to seeing someone get animated over that pun.

But the fact is, it's actually semantically proper to modify the work "unique." The basic meaning "one of a kind" obviously can't be modified, but in today's world, Unique has other meanings, including "very unusual," which obviously can be modified.

so it's possible to say "very unique," and, in fact, saying it is a great way to provoke nutty folk.

Not to mention that "two unique" could also mean "two things that aren't similar to eachother".

Re:Unique or two

[jimmux]

Damnit, now you got me thinking.

If I have a peanut in the shell, I refer to it in the singular, even though there are two kernels inside. And yet, when I have those two kernels removed from the shell, I refer to them as two shelled peanuts.

So should a peanut in the shell be called a "double-nut"? Or should peanuts outside the shell be called "half-nuts"?

I'm going to stop now before my brain implodes.

Re:Unique or two

[jimmux]

Wait, there's more. Why do we say that a peanut has been shelled when the shell has been removed? Is it not now unshelled?

Oops, Let me try that again.

Why do we say that a pair of half-nuts have been shelled when the shell has been removed? Is the double-half-nut not now unshelled?

Re:Unique or two

[robably]

but in today's world, Unique has other meanings, including "very unusual,"

You need to read this post.

You can decide any word means anything but the purpose of language is to communicate ideas clearly, and the only reasons for muddying a definition seem to be ignorance, attention-seeking, or malice ("it is a great way to provoke nutty folk"). We already have other words that mean "very unusual", use them. And of course you can have two unique things if they are different, but the title is referring to two things which are the same.

Colour me provoked.

Re:Unique or two

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, but it gets even more fun than that. Take the use of the word 'committee,' for example. It is perfectly acceptable grammatically to say "The committee are..." and "The committee is..." depending on whether you are referring to the members that comprise the committee (use 'are') or the committee as a whole (use 'is'). However, it would be incorrect to use 'are' when referring to the committee as a single entity. Got it?

Re:Unique or two

[Jesus_666]

First you have one peanuts, then you have two peanuts. Of course this ignores the fact that some peanuts only seem to contain one kernel.

Re:Unique or two

[AGMW]

And of course you can have two unique things if they are different, but the title is referring to two things which are the same.

Of course, if you are hacking on about scientific meanings of words then perhaps you meant to say similar.

Re:Unique or two

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you are hacking on about scientific meanings of words then perhaps you meant to say similar.

Yes, but are the similarities unique?

Re:Unique or two

[kesuki]

Wait why do we call is a 'pea' 'nut' when it's neither a pea, nor a nut. (it's a legume, specifically a indehiscent legume) while normal peas are indeed normal legumes they're not even closely related to peanuts...

Pea:
Subfamily: Faboideae Tribe: Vicieae Genus: Pisum Species: P. sativum

Peanut:
Subfamily: Faboideae Tribe: Aeschynomeneae Genus: Arachis Species: A. hypogaea

so now they're half-not-pea-not-nuts-not-shelled-but-deshelled

oh my... Everything is wrong about peanuts.

Re:Unique or two

[Moonpie Madness]

You're right of course. Language is a muddy thing, and gets muddier. That's why you can't say "unique" and expect people to realize you mean "one of a kind" and not "very unusual".

That's not my fault. I'm just the messenger. My dictionaries tell the same story, too. English is a language built on absorbing new words and repeatedly changing. That's why it's both the best and worst language in human history.

Fact is, words change. I would barely be able to communicate with an English speaker from 300 years ago. There are dead languages, such as latin, that are kept dead specifically do they don't change like this. But with English, you are speaking the language of Paris Hilton, Keanu Reeves, and the US president. It isn't a pretty picture, and if people going with English's constant fluid change as I do provokes you, you're just not "getting it." I certainly don't mean that as an insult, but it is in your interest to expect words to lose meaning, to expect grammatical rules to be revoked, etc etc etc. Fighting it is like fighting a river with a spoon, my friend.

Two?

[jgoemat]

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...

Re:Two?

[eebra82]

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique... It is in fact unique divided by half now.

Re:Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I've had hundreds of Uniques in Diablo!

Re:Two?

[Thanshin]

I've always wondered about the English expression "quite unique".

It seems for English speakers, uniqueness is not binary.

I suppose two instances of double rotating stars make them "somewhat unique in a certain way". Uniqueish, even.

Re:Two?

[jd]

Ah, but by being the semantical exception to the rule, it thereby becomes unique. Apart from the other one, and vice versa.

Re:Two?

[minginqunt]

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...

Indeed. It becomes 'duique'.

Re:Two?

[Dutchmaan]

So if I find, lets say, a neon blue apple and an apple with a cube shape.. Did I not find two unique apples?

I suppose you could take that a few steps further saying that all apples are unique since none are 100% identical. So I suppose it's all about relativity of perception.

Ironic how you can have multiple unique objects but if you use "unique" as a catergory they all become the same.

Re:Two?

[Caesar Tjalbo]

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...

It would've been uniquer if there was only one, that would've been the uniquest.

Re:Two?

[Thanshin]

So if I find, lets say, a neon blue apple and an apple with a cube shape.. Did I not find two unique apples? But not totally unique. They aren't unique in appleness, only in shape or color.

Those are a clear example of partially unique, or quite unique, apples.

Re:Two?

[Epistax]

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique... It is in fact unique divided by half now. Oh no! We lost 1½ of them?!

Re:Two?

[ArsenneLupin]

Indeed. It becomes 'duique'. ... and soon it will become Slashdot...

Re:Two?

[eebra82]

I suppose you could take that a few steps further saying that all apples are unique since none are 100% identical. So I suppose it's all about relativity of perception. Ironic how you can have multiple unique objects but if you use "unique" as a catergory they all become the same. Why is it ironic? Of course stars will always be unique because of differences in its mass (etc). But unique by category is not illogical at all. For example, if you have a 10 inches long tail, its length may be unique but the condition is not, since it is shared by others. However, if you were the only one to have a tail, your condition would be unique.

In other words, the world unique must not have anything to do with the mass, position or temperature of an object.

Re:Two?

[Nevermine]

Quit raping the English language. Is 'totally unique' more unique than just 'unique'?

Re:Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

./ No you are wrong because unique is a reversing adjective this meana that in fact when you qualify it, as in "very unique" you are in fact saying uniqueness is reduced. Therefore "totally unique" which would seem at first glance wrong if not at least redundant, is in fact saying in "this is not unique". Where is your problem with that? The real problems arise with "uniquely unique" /.

Re:Two?

[BotnetZombie]

In fact, the proper term is twonique, or tonic as it's more commonly known.

Re:Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's doubly unique then?

Re:Two?

[jollyreaper]

If you have two of something, by definition it is no longer unique...

Indeed. It becomes 'duique'. And if something becomes even more unique than before, it becomes monique.

Re:Two?

[CFTM]

Diablo II certainly disagreed with you on this one!

Re:Two?

[float_on]

That would be (2*unique)/(1/2)=4*unique? Oh nos! The uniqueness is increasing!!

Re:Two?

[belthize]

Sigh, can't anybody even use google anymore. It's tunique ... it's where
we get the word tunic. In the 13th century a French clothier invented a new
shirt style for himself which one of his friends borrowed.

      It was originally called a tunique but was anglicized to tunic.

Belthize

Re:Two?

[Kingrames]

This might be a unique exception to that rule.

Re:Two?

[saider]

Aha! My sig is relevant to this discussion!

Re:Two?

[esocid]

As submitter I will take full responsibility for the mista...haha just kidding. I'm just the middle man, so suck on those peanuts.

Re:Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally, man!

Re:Two?

[Minwee]

It seems for English speakers, uniqueness is not binary.

I'm puzzled by the thought that it should be.

Let's see what my old friends George and Charles Merriam and Noah Webster have to say on the subject:

"Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary. [...] In modern use both comparison and modification are widespread and standard [...]"

Re:Two?

[jeffporcaro]

The problem isn't saying that two stars (or any two people) are each unique - the problem is saying that something is "totally unique." You can't modify an absolute - less perfect, somewhat unique, more omniscient, very infinite, etc. Either it fits the category ("totally, dude") or it doesn't.

Re:Two?

[StuckInSyrup]

I think it's difficult to find anything really "unique" in something as big and diverse as the universe. By definition.

Re:Two?

[rubycodez]

is your buttocks unique, or just one cheek of it?

Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no peanut

Re:Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

FULL REVERSE!!

Re:OMG PONIES

[A beautiful mind]

To be honest it's a welcome change. 1st of April deteriorated to a very bad level after everyone felt compelled to create a joke for the day. I'll feel happy to know if slashdot is not doing anything today.

Why does this video look familiar?

[GodfatherofSoul]

Oh yeah! Next, we'll discover that these two stars are engorged with milk.

Re:Why does this video look familiar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or silicone.

Aren't those configurations expected?

[Thanshin]

I mean, it's not so hard to imagine two stars circling one another. Don't they study how would that work without waiting to find an instance?

Actually, I supposed astrophysicist first studied the effects of an unobserved configuration and from the results they described what data to expect from such a configuration. Actually finding it was the last step, in my supposition created world.

The article, however, seems to describe the discovery as quite a surprise.

Re:Aren't those configurations expected?

[jd]

The stars are very very close and very very large. You'd need some very precise conditions to arise, or:

• They'd merge
• The gravitational fields would screw up the star formation
• The gravitational waves in the oscillating system would necessarily damp it and cause the stars to collide
• The original seeding material would have collapsed to the common center of gravity
• The original seeding material would have flown apart
• The gasses the stars formed from would not have been uniform enough for two equal-sized stars to form
• The stellar nursary would have had another star close enough to disrupt/destroy the system
• One or both would have exploded early on, from the massive, continuous surface disruption

So, yes, they'll occur. Obviously, since they have. However, they are probably some of the rarest of stellar phenomena. Unique, no. Staggeringly rare, definitely.

Re:Aren't those configurations expected?

[MrKaos]

I was wondering if it is possible to have galaxies in this configuration?

Re:Aren't those configurations expected?

[Briden]

I find it entirely possible that two interstellar bodies can find equilibrium between each other. not just possible, but in fact, normal I bet we will find more of them now that we are looking.

like two parts of any system of any size, they can exist in harmony, if there is balance. this balance is all part of the natural world, and it's ludicrous to think that us puny humans can even comprehend most of these things yet. there are entangled photons, entangled souls, and now we have entangled solar systems, what more connections will we find?

i've always thought it rather encouraging that solar systems look like atoms.

Re:Aren't those configurations expected?

[badboy_tw2002]

Woah...where's that sitar music coming from?

Re:Aren't those configurations expected?

[Briden]

eh? couldn't hear you, i was tuned into the universe maaaaan.

Re:Aren't those configurations expected?

[jd]

The Universe plays rock. Haven't you read Pratchett's "Soul Music"?

peanut shaped universe

[timmarhy]

Sorry i have already patented this idea, and it's a $10,000 license fee to use the term.

Oh, for cryin' out loud...

[Jello B.]

Come on, guys, pick up your game. There's a peanut on the lens.

Lonely Rolling Star

[Soulshift]

Na na na na, na na na na na...
Na na na na, na na na na na...


Katamari Damacy...

Re:Lonely Rolling Star

[b1t r0t]

Actually, I was thinking that I had seen this in Mario Galaxy.

uh...

[transiit]

This year's April 1st jokes are just a bit too esoteric, I think. Celestial peanut? What?

Re:uh...

[ozbird]

This is Slashdot; April Fool's Day submissions will probably starting appearing around 3 April.

Re:uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then we'll get a dupe a week later.

Re:uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot; April Fool's Day submissions will probably starting appearing around 3 April.
And then be dupe'd in mid-May.

Re:uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

as well as 5 April, 7 April and then again on 9 April. This *is* Slashdot, you know.

Re:uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

And again, a week after that.

Re:uh...

[Shadowlore]

...and reappearing on April 5th.

Space is big

[b100dian]

You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big space is. ..but that's just peanuts to space

Are these the Type IIP supernovae?

[Shag]

The article unfortunately doesn't say what rare type of supernovae these rare stars become. After a quick google I'm guessing they may be the type IIP ones, but I'm only familiar with type IA ones personally (and for relatively low values of "familiar" at that). We get our own not-quite-unique things over in type-IA land, too, like the super-Chandrasekhar-mass ones. SN2007if, discovered last year, was only the second one of those to be found.

Re:Are these the Type IIP supernovae?

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm, you familiar with IA type supernovas... that should burn a bit...

Re:Are these the Type IIP supernovae?

[Shag]

Well, when you have something equal to around a 20 billion yottaton nuclear explosion... you tend to sit back and watch from a safe distance. The heat really doesn't bother me much from a few hundred million light years away. At that distance, you can't roast marshmallows, even on the double-degenerate (super-Chandrasekhar-mass) ones like SN2007if.

Bad headline?

[amirulbahr]

Should it actually read "Totally Unique Two-star System Discovered"?

Re:Bad headline?

[splutty]

Two thought to be unique two-star systems discovered that are uniquely tying together two stars previously thought to be unique for certain value of uniqueness.

Although I guess that's somewhat overkill for a headline :) However. The article does explain it. They found a unique set of stars in a (at that moment) unique configuration. Then in their search they found another one that had been documented way earlier but wrongly classified. Thus the (admittedly rather borked) headline.

Re:Bad headline?

[rholland356]

The fact that there are two such systems rather diminishes the uniqueness of the original find, no?

So, yes, the headline is not optimal. Serviceable, yes.

Stability

[Frans Faase]

I wonder about the stability of the peanut shape. Why would the two stars not simply merge into a single star with a greater rotational speed? I guess if stars get this close together they must rotate (around themselves) at the same speed due to the tidal forces.

Re:Stability

[Shag]

Why would the two stars not simply merge into a single star with a greater rotational speed Presumably they're at a distance, and orbiting each other at a speed, that prevents that from happening (at least in the short term).

Some types of supernovae (like the IA's I mentioned earlier) do involve a small white dwarf accreting material from another larger star until it passes a critical mass, then blowing itself to bits. (Or, in so far rarely seen cases, the possibility of two white dwarves colliding.)

Re:Stability

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I when I read the article I was hoping to see what their period of rotation was (didn't see it). Those things must be rotating at incredible speed not to be pulled together by the massive gravity of each other.

Re:Stability

[saider]

The angular velocity probably keeps the masses separated (centripetal acceleration and all that).

1st April :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

$SUBJ

I think that this news is joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not possible to photograph star sufrace that is so far from Earth.
Only Betelguse maybe.

In my country we think that this is joke for 1 april.

peanut shaped star system

[OrangeTide]

found a peanut, found a peanut,
found a peeeeeanut just now,
just now I found a peanut,
Found a peanut just now.
(feel free to share the rest of the lyrics with the class)

Re:peanut shaped star system

[Minwee]

(feel free to share the rest of the lyrics with the class)

Okay...

My nuts stand tall they never fall
Ripe and yes always on the ball
FDA fresh and they are the best
A winner of every damn taste test
Eat em for pleasure or at your leisure
a taste that all the girls do treasure
Never illin but chillin
Never stealin but dealin
my peanuts are what you're feelin
I take em to the beach, I take em to the park
I takem to your mothers house after dark
They ain't like no nuts from Jimmy Carter
I know my nuts rock you harder
My peanuts!

one thing leads to another

[doti]

Now, imagine the size of the squirrel!

The DARE....

[Notquitecajun]

I DARE someone to fly in between them. I DOUBLE-DOG dare ya.

Re:The DARE....

[maroberts]

I can do this in less than 12 parsecs....

Re:OMG PONIES

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's an unwelcome change. Slashdot is not just about tech news but also about humor and tradition. Yes, the humor is mostly lame, and the traditions just a few years old. But still....

Re:OMG PONIES

[siride]

That would be the ultimate April Fool's joke: good stories, grammatically correct summaries, no dupes, etc. And at the end they'd say "April Fools! Just kidding!"

Article Correction

[siglercm]

Ahem. That's THE Ohio State University. I have relatives who've graduated from there. Thank you.

Twin Suns

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, could this actually be the Tatoo system? We're all aware of the planet Tatooine having twin suns. I think we're one step closer to actually proving that Star Wars is a documentary.

Name them

[maroberts]

Charlie Brown and Snoopy

I'm disappointed

[morethanapapercert]

Despite the obvious importance of his work to a celestial arrangement of this kind, the article doesn't refer to Edourad Roche or the Roche Lobethat forms in the region between these two stars. When Roche Lobes overlap, it is a Contact Binary

"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions

[FreeUser]

You can decide any word means anything but the purpose of language is to communicate ideas clearly, and the only reasons for muddying a definition seem to be ignorance, attention-seeking, or malice

Or evolution in the language, in which unique has come to mean "very unusual".

1. existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics: a unique copy of an ancient manuscript.
2. having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable: Bach was unique in his handling of counterpoint.
3. limited in occurrence to a given class, situation, or area: a species unique to Australia.
4. limited to a single outcome or result; without alternative possibilities: Certain types of problems have unique solutions.
5. not typical; unusual: She has a very unique smile.

Now granted, it's the 5th definition of 5, but nevertheless, it is a legitimate definition of the word that exceeds the parameters you have laid down, and does allow for (a) a multiplicity of "unique" ("very unusual") items, as well as modifiers such as "very unique", etc.

The language has evolved beyond your notion of what it should be. Get over it.

Re:"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions

[robably]

The language has evolved beyond your notion of what it should be. Get over it.

"Get over it" implies that something has changed irrevocably, but if the language is evolving then the muddying of definitions can be resisted. Which is it?

Language is understood by consensus - meanings are implicitly agreed upon by whatever group is using it at any one time. It constantly changes, and equally that means changes can be redirected and resisted. There is nothing to get over, I understand what language is. In my original post I was defending the GPs definition of the word "unique" - there are valid reasons for its meaning not to be diluted (ie clarity), and the GP was not wrong, as the parent suggested, to exclude the meaning of just "unusual".

It looks to me like you're fighting for a new definition of the word "unique" while I'm comfortable with the old definitions. I just don't see what you gain by diluting the definition to make it less clear.

Re:"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions

[Anonymous Coward]

Language is understood by consensus - meanings are implicitly agreed upon by whatever group is using it at any one time. It constantly changes, and equally that means changes can be redirected and resisted.

Agreed, but you've already lost the battle for "unique" in the same way many people here are still fighting the battle "hacker" vs "cracker" battle. The battle is over, there is consensus. Get over it.

Language evolution isn't done by committee. It's not a case of people agreeing or disagreeing with a new usage of a word. The moment people are using it, and you understood what they meant by it, the battle is over. You can't undo a definition by correcting people. Words lose a particular definition only one said definition is forgotten for lack of use. And if anything, I think it's more likely that the word "unique" will lose the "only one in existence" definition before it loses the "unusual" definition. So if you want to be clear that something is unique in the sense that there is only one of whatever it is, say that there's only one of it, and don't use the word unique.

Re:"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions

[smoker2]

And for an encore you can go on to describe black as white and get killed on the next zebra crossing !
This habit of changing the established definition of words leads to confusion and ignorance. How can a word that means one of a kind be twisted to mean unusual but not one of a kind ? What word do we now use to fulfill the original purpose of the word "unique" ? By twisting the meaning we now have to use qualifiers which negate the whole meaning of the term.
I for one will continue to mock those who use the word "unique" incorrectly.
Maybe we should redefine the term "wanker" to mean "someone who accepts the use of confusing definitions", in which case, you're a wanker !

Re:"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions

[Hucko]

so hackers are now crackers and crackers hackers?

Re:"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions

[Rhondohslade]

Language is understood by consensus - meanings are implicitly agreed upon by whatever group is using it at any one time. It constantly changes, and equally that means changes can be redirected and resisted.

Agreed, but you've already lost the battle for "unique" in the same way many people here are still fighting the battle "hacker" vs "cracker" battle. The battle is over, there is consensus. Get over it.

Language evolution isn't done by committee. It's not a case of people agreeing or disagreeing with a new usage of a word. The moment people are using it, and you understood what they meant by it, the battle is over. You can't undo a definition by correcting people. Words lose a particular definition only one said definition is forgotten for lack of use. And if anything, I think it's more likely that the word "unique" will lose the "only one in existence" definition before it loses the "unusual" definition. So if you want to be clear that something is unique in the sense that there is only one of whatever it is, say that there's only one of it, and don't use the word unique.

Sooooo...by the above, would it be incorrect to state that a person's fingerprints or DNA (except in the case of identical sibling(s), and even that is subject to debate on the DNA) are unique?

Re:"Unique" has evolved beyond your notions

[FreeUser]

Sooooo...by the above, would it be incorrect to state that a person's fingerprints or DNA (except in the case of identical sibling(s), and even that is subject to debate on the DNA) are unique?

No, because while the consensus is that unique can mean "very unusual", it is the 5th of 5 definitions, the other four of which still retain the original meaning of unique as "one of a kind". Both definitions are valid, and the language is enriched (in the opinion of some) or muddied (in the opinion of others). Either way, you're free to use both meanings, and thus it remains correct to state that a person's fingerprints or DNA are unique (and the phrase remains correct, though misleading, for identical siblings, since you can apply the 5th definition :-))

Obligatory Asimov Quote

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

It would normally be bad science to say "we found one, so we infer there are many" ... however, over the last bunch of years in Astronomy has consistently re-affirmed exactly that.

The problem is, it was considered completely "unique" until they found a second one.

"The number 'two' is impossible." Isaac Asimov in The Gods Themselves. The point being that in cosmology there may be zero of something or one of something, but once you know there is more than one of something, you should assume that the number is infinite.

Perhaps they need to cover their left eye

[my_left_nut]

Like this. Then all will be right with the universe again.

Ob (almost) Simpsons quote

[Salsaman]

Steven Hawking: Your idea of a peanut shaped star intrigues me, Homer. I may have to steal it.

Two?

[Pyrrhic Diarrhea]

If it's unique, why are there two?

Even...

[jd]

...in Buddhism, conflict is deemed the natural state of matter. In mathematics, all is chaos. Even order is chaos, and only appears as order because of the nature of chaos itself. Harmony is not a state of nature. Where Lovelock's Gaia produces "balance", it does so not through harmony or entanglement but through stable conflict, through all things being at war with each other and themselves. (Daisyworld scenarios only work if white daisies - which reflect heat and thus produce cold - require the very thing they oppose, heat. Any other arrangement will destroy itself.)

The oxygen in the air, without which you would die, is poisoning your cells and attacking your DNA. That which gives life is also a leading cause of death.

The rest of the cosmos is no different. All things are their own opposites and are self-destructive. A star, to remain a star, must undergo nuclear fusion. In large stars, this creates elements that, when fused, require more heat than is released, thus ultimately destroying the star. That which allows it to exist will - literally - rip the guts out and blast the remainder in a supernova across great swathes of space.

If solar systems did, indeed, look like atoms, planets would regularly smash through the sun and the rest of the time exist so far out that they would freeze. 99.9% of an atom is nothing. Totally Bohring. (Ok, quantum foam, but statistically that's nothing.) The electrons, far from following circular orbits, are probability waves whose position is not only indeterminate, it doesn't even exist. It's not even clear the nucleus can be said to "exist" in the centre, as that would violate the uncertainty principle.

The only "balance" that will ever exist will be at the heat-death of the final particle of matter, when nothing remains and nothing will ever happen again. That is the Universe as it really is.

Even more interesting

[afaik_ianal]

What's even more interesting, is what they think happens if systems like these collide. The results of the simulation can be found here.

OMG! It's full of

[Rockin'Robert]

peanuts?
Astronomy and cosmoogy lose colective mind and consult /.

All star systems are unique

[AP31R0N]

[OffTopicPendantry]

Given that everything is unique, it's pretty pointless to point out that something is unique. Unique is not a synonym for special or interesting (contrary to dating website profiles). Furthermore there are no degrees of unique, it's binary and absolute. Something is either unique, or it is not. There is no such thing as kind of unique or very unique. In the case of physical objects, whatever it is... it's unique.

Suuuure...

[sixtyeight]

Repackage hydrogen into different shapes, and suddenly it's "totally unique". Just like primetime television shows.