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!?"

Scrotal

[minginqunt]

A peanut? SPACEBALLS, more like.

Waitaminute...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no peanut

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:Two?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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?

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)

one thing leads to another

[doti]

Now, imagine the size of the squirrel!

Re:uh...

[ozbird]

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

Re:The DARE....

[maroberts]

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

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

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 [...]"