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."

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: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.

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: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: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!

[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 [merriam-webster.com], or were you trying to win some kind of award for creative use of the term irony?

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.