×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Star Within a Star: Thorne-Zytkow Object Discovered

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the russian-nesting-stars dept.

Space 89

astroengine writes: "A weird type of 'hybrid' star has been discovered nearly 40 years since it was first theorized — but until now has been curiously difficult to find. In 1975, renowned astrophysicists Kip Thorne, of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, Calif., and Anna Zytkow, of the University of Cambridge, UK, assembled a theory on how a large dying star could swallow its neutron star binary partner, thus becoming a very rare type of stellar hybrid, nicknamed a Thorne-Zytkow object (or TZO). The neutron star — a dense husk of degenerate matter that was once a massive star long since gone supernova — would spiral into the red supergiant's core, interrupting normal fusion processes. According to the Thorne-Zytkow theory, after the two objects have merged, an excess of the elements rubidium, lithium and molybdenum will be generated by the hybrid. So astronomers have been on the lookout for stars in our galaxy, which is thought to contain only a few dozen of these objects at any one time, with this specific chemical signature in their atmospheres. Now, according to Emily Levesque of the University of Colorado Boulder and her team, a bona fide TZO has been discovered and their findings have been accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fucking ads (0, Offtopic)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#47167111)

Can't read anything because can't turn off ads anymore.

Re:Fucking ads (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167209)

Some shit flash ad locked my browser up until it showed a pop-up.

Blocking everything now. Fuck you guys if you are going to embed shit flash ads like that.

Re:Fucking ads (4, Insightful)

Ken_g6 (775014) | about 6 months ago | (#47167245)

Ads? What ads?

-- Happy AdBlock Plus user.

Did they try putting an ad within an ad on this article about a star within a star?

Re:Fucking ads (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167631)

Does this work? I haven't bothered with AdBlock before, but this Slashdot site is getting pretty unreadable. There's the click close at the bottom of every screen to prevent the ad from covering 2/3 of the screen. The auto-play video that ties up limited bandwidth and prevents screen-scrolling. Now this shunt to ad-video page and wait for Slashdot to load bullshit. I was thinking of quitting... I've read Slashdot for a long time, but this is getting unusable.

Re:Fucking ads (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168715)

I use ABP regularly - I didn't even realise that ads were used on slashdot

Re:Fucking ads (2)

Kuroji (990107) | about 6 months ago | (#47169047)

...yo dawg, I heard you like ads...

Re:Fucking ads (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#47169573)

I think they're experimenting with adblock countermeasures.

I mean, the other day for one story I got bullshit ads. this is despite me using the "classic" mode(that goes to a different page for making a reply etc) - and despite using abp - and despite having "ads disabled" checkbox checked.

Re:Fucking ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47171583)

Write your own filter: https://adblockplus.org/en/filters#elemhide

Re:Fucking ads (1)

ocean_soul (1019086) | about 6 months ago | (#47171815)

Did they try putting an ad within an ad on this article about a star within a star?

If they did, they would earn an exception filter in AdBlock from me.

Re:Fucking ads (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#47167365)

I used to think adblock was unnecessary back when google was doing the whole "unobtrusive text ad" thing, and I saw a future with hope for ads being reasonable things. But it's been years since that was worth worrying about.

Marketers haven't learned that their obnoxiousness is a tragedy of the commons thing, and upping that factor to compete just quietly hurts the marketplace as a whole.

Re:Fucking ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167635)

If they understood what "tragedy of the commons" meant, then they'd probably have better career opportunities than Marketing. . .

Re:Fucking ads (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 6 months ago | (#47169649)

Not only that, but if you look carefully, the 'powers-that-be' , i.e., those nerds that choose to take it up the ass from corporate america, i.e., current slashdot ed's, seem to be downmodding anything that goes against the new slashdot.

Rob malda would be spinning in his grave but the existence of beta and the new slashdot would never afford him the posibility of resting in peace.

I stuck around after most of the intelligent people left, I even stuck around after the stories dropped about 30-40 iq points to understand, but ffs showing me ads all over the place at the same time as prominently/displaying an ads disabled-for-contributions... well, fuck it.

Re:Fucking ads (0)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 6 months ago | (#47167415)

Can't read anything because can't turn off ads anymore.

Just a basic HOSTS file works unless your just out to complain.

Re:Fucking ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167579)

My just is what?

English, please.

HOSTS file is a bad suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167807)

Careful posting that word in caps, you may attract the attention of /. fruitcake and malware author APK.

Re:HOSTS file is a bad suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168771)

Shut up Kyosucky! APK FTW!

Re:Fucking ads (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 6 months ago | (#47173917)

No, the ads aren't off topic if you have the ad box checked and suddenly an ad is above it.

Yo Dawg (4, Funny)

jovius (974690) | about 6 months ago | (#47167129)

Nuff' said.

Re:Yo Dawg (4, Funny)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 6 months ago | (#47167219)

I'm eagerly awaiting the day when all communication on the internet can be done either via cat pictures or quoting memes

we're getting closer and closer.

Re:Yo Dawg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167275)

As requested (2)

Powercntrl (458442) | about 6 months ago | (#47167445)

I'm eagerly awaiting the day when all communication on the internet can be done either via cat pictures or quoting memes

we're getting closer and closer.

You're welcome. [imgur.com]

Re:As requested (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 6 months ago | (#47167591)

Isn't actually making the meme-image pretty superfluous in this case?

Re:As requested (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 6 months ago | (#47168583)

Isn't actually making the meme-image pretty superfluous in this case?

Unfortunately, given that the original "Yo Dawg" was marked as "offtopic" by twice as many people as thought it was funny, it probably *is* necessary.

Shame, as the minimalism of the original poster's joke worked- for me- because it assumed that most of us were familiar with a long-established meme to be able to dispense with the full text (i.e. playing off its clichedness rather than it being a boring rehash of a now-tired cliche) and also that we were smart enough to figure out its relevance to the headline story.

Not sure if the moderators didn't get the reference, or just couldn't figure out how it applied. This is why we can't have nice, minimalist jokes on Slashdot without it being necessary for someone else to overegg the pudding and explain them. :-(

Re:Yo Dawg (4, Interesting)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 6 months ago | (#47167621)

Hate to turn something funny into a serious note, but I'm pretty sure a lot (if not most) of the comments on the internet can already be predicted just by looking at the headline.

I suggest calculating an originality score for all comments based on their similarity to all previous comments. If it could be based on all the comments you've personally encountered before, it would drastically cut down on the 'Oh god, not this bullshit again'-feeling we all have when perusing comment sections.

On the other hand, sometimes you predict that a certain comment will have been made and feel satisfaction upon reading it.
Maybe that's a bad thing, too.

Re:Yo Dawg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169483)

I suggest calculating an originality score for all comments based on their similarity to all previous comments. If it could be based on all the comments you've personally encountered before, it would drastically cut down on the 'Oh god, not this bullshit again'-feeling we all have when perusing comment sections.

O'DOYLE RULES! [youtube.com]

Re: Yo Dawg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169889)

I'm pretty sure that could be done without much difficulty with the kind of Bayesian filters now commonly used to fight spam.

Is some Slashdotter up to the task to take the challenge?

Re:Yo Dawg (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 6 months ago | (#47172737)

Hate to turn something funny into a serious note, but I'm pretty sure a lot (if not most) of the comments on the internet can already be predicted just by looking at the headline.

So I guess "I, for one, welcome our star-eating star overlords" is right out?

Re:Yo Dawg (1)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 6 months ago | (#47174515)

Although, yes, this one can be easily predicted, it does seem fairly unique: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

Which brings up the point where the implementation gets tricky. When it comes to structure and the words used it is very unoriginal, but as a whole it is very original. Perhaps naive approaches to detecting the originality of a piece of text would do more harm then good. I guess it all comes down to waiting for AI that can sufficiently understand text to determine a useful originality score.

Re:Yo Dawg (1)

tech.kyle (2800087) | about 6 months ago | (#47174445)

Seeing the headline in my RSS feed, I checked the article's comments expecting the appropriate meme (or even just an obvious response). I find there is satisfaction, like you mentioned, in seeing not only that the reference has been made, but how well the execution of the reference was done and if any originality was put in to it. In this case, I was hoping for something along the lines "..so you can fusion while you fusion."

Ideally for me, a reference will be made as merely a humorous hook to a serious discussion. Even the expectation of a meme-based reply often hooks me in to reading an article I normally would skip over.

Strong Acronym Force (SAF) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167909)

SAF predicts a Linguistic Collapse Event (LCE). SAFLCE will merge all communication into a lone acronym. Fear.

Re:Yo Dawg (1)

flopsquad (3518045) | about 6 months ago | (#47174235)

I'm eagerly the day when all communication on the internet can be done either via cat pictures or quoting memes

we're getting closer and closer.

FTFY. Such meta.

Re:Yo Dawg (1)

stonecypher (118140) | about 6 months ago | (#47174795)

what you're looking for is called "reddit"

Re:Yo Dawg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47170353)

Fuck off to reddit.

On the bright side (0)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 6 months ago | (#47167159)

Looks like these will be well lubricated and happy about it.

within? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167249)

Star Within a Star

How is "within" defined actually?
Physically, a star, like anything else, is a big swarm of atoms. So how do you define "inside", and what is the significance?

Re:within? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167479)

The star in question is a ball gravitationally bound of gas that has a reasonably well defined perimeter, with a neutron star (a ball of also gravitationally bound degenerate matter) orbiting it at some distance.

The neutron star which was orbiting the other star, is now (due to the first star expanding as it transitions to the red giant stage) within the perimeter of the first star.

So in other words: the same damn definition of "inside" you use for things in every day life, what's to not understand?

Re:within? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167551)

Don't worry, you'll be able to understand simple concepts again when the LSD wears off. Until then there must be more interesting things than posting on slashdot for you to do!

Re:within? (2)

Nyder (754090) | about 6 months ago | (#47167797)

Don't worry, you'll be able to understand simple concepts again when the LSD wears off. Until then there must be more interesting things than posting on slashdot for you to do!

Spoken like someone who has never taken LSD.

Re:within? (4, Insightful)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 6 months ago | (#47167625)

My body is a big swarm of atoms but somehow I'm able to tell when a piece of food is within my mouth. Go figure.

Re:within? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47171383)

But when you eat liver it doesn't start acting like a liver. For a star adding mass is adding to the star

Re: within? (3, Informative)

Dishwasha (125561) | about 6 months ago | (#47168115)

Imagine you are just standing there and then WHAM! a very large soap bubble slams in to you and all of a sudden you are inside the bubble and the bubble happened to close in around you without popping. You are now inside the bubble and you are still a distinguishable unit of matter detectable from the bubble you're now inside.

Re: within? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169987)

Imagine you are just standing there and then WHAM! a very large soap bubble slams in to you and all of a sudden you are inside the bubble and the bubble happened to close in around you without popping. You are now inside the bubble and you are still a distinguishable unit of matter detectable from the bubble you're now inside.

Nope, happened to me once and I actually BECAME the bubble.

Re:within? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168449)

I'll answer you without sarcasm.

Stars have pretty well defined life cycles. They go from A to B to C etc.

Their life cycle is determined by how heavy they are (among a few other facts).

This star within a star, is a star with a core that has a composition that doesn't exist, unless you grab one star; and put it into another.

In other words; if the other star didn't fall into and get fully absorbed by the larger star; it would never exist. Therefore, it is a Star in a Star.

But; you knew that already and were just being a fucking pedant.

Re:within? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168743)

How do you define "inside" for the Earth? Because the change in density when crossing the photosphere of a star like the Sun is several orders of magnitude more change than the change in density you get going from low Earth orbit to within the rocks within the crust. That, and the thickness of the photosphere of the Sun relative to the total Sun's size is thinner than the relative thickness of the Earth's atmosphere. So defining the edge of something like the Sun is at least as easy as for the Earth considering it has a substantially larger change in smaller space...

Neutron star, or? (4, Funny)

werepants (1912634) | about 6 months ago | (#47167251)

"a dense husk of degenerate matter"

Sounds like the average slashdotter. *rimshot*

Re:Neutron star, or? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167267)

I was gonna say that sounds like a Redditor.

Re:Neutron star, or? (2, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#47167375)

Nerds are supposed to be self-loathing.

But reddit is a gigantic blight on the internet and and I'm pro-shitting all over them, anytime.

Re:Neutron star, or? (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about 6 months ago | (#47167407)

no we are not.. Self loathing is a pop culture bullshit.,
and reddit is one of the more sane places on the internet. I have had far more sane and rational discussion on science topics there then on slashdot by a long shot.

Re:Neutron star, or? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47172373)

Slashdot isn't setting the bar very high, but at least they didn't knowingly support and defend child porn for years until they finally got too much negative media attention.

Re:Neutron star, or? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168985)

Self-loathing would actually be kind of refreshing. Spealing as a nerd myself, I can still be rather fed up with the "nerds are awesome" drivel some people see fit to spout.

Checklist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167259)

Mkay, where is the checklist of theorized star types yet to be discovered?

Re:Checklist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167385)

Mkay, where is the checklist of theorized star types yet to be discovered?

I dunno, but if these things can form by having an envelope expand to capture a neutron star without the neutron star gathering enough mass and making it to the core without collapsing into a black hole... now I'm wondering how long it takes a black hole to devour a red giant from the inside out. Might be longer than the star's expected to remain in the red giant state, for the same reason the neutron star stays mostly undisturbed at the core: it's only a few miles wide, and anything getting anywhere near the surface of the neutron star gets blown off or pushed outward by a shell of hellaciously-fusing nuclei. (I suppose only about half of anything getting near the event horizon gets pushed outward, but that could still limit the inflow of matter into the black hole to a comparative trickle.)

Re:Checklist (1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about 6 months ago | (#47167487)

Mkay, where is the checklist of theorized star types yet to be discovered?

... now I'm wondering how long it takes a black hole to devour a red giant from the inside out.

Don't think Wikipedia is going to get their citation... does seem odd a black hole first then a supernova.

If their combined mass exceeds the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit then the two will collapse into a black hole, resulting in a supernova that disperses the outer layers of the star. Otherwise, the two will coalesce into a single neutron star.[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org] –ytkow_object

yo dawg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167329)

I heard you like stars, so we put a star inside a star.

Re:yo dawg... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168045)

Damn, now we have a turducken star. Why are they calling it some stupid name when it is clearly the turducken?

Lithium (3, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#47167341)

" an excess of the elements rubidium, lithium and molybdenum will be generated by the hybrid."

Just what we need, a hybrid that makes Lithium

Nothing New (3, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 6 months ago | (#47167465)

This "Star within a star" thing has been a phenomenon commonly known in Hollywood since the days Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.

Re:Nothing New (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 6 months ago | (#47167505)

This "Star within a star" thing has been a phenomenon commonly known in Hollywood since the days Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.

Sweet little Mary Pickford would NEVER do such a thing!

Our Universe is Awesome (5, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | about 6 months ago | (#47167473)

A place so big and fantastic where anything that is theoretically possible has probably happened hundreds or thousands, if not millions, of times.

Re:Our Universe is Awesome (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167543)

I guess that means an honest politician is not even theoretically possible.

Re:Our Universe is Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47170149)

What about an honest cynic?

Re:Our Universe is Awesome (1)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | about 6 months ago | (#47172997)

Actually I think honest politicians are probably fairly common. But as in everything, they start small, and locally, and as such things go, we, the voters, eliminated them from the race early on in favor of the politicians that tell us what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear. The result is that the longer lived politicians, are electorally selected to favour those who tell the electorate things that have little relation to reality as opposed to the electorate's fantasy. We really shouldn't complain about our politicians. We get what we want, not what we need.

Re:Our Universe is Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167559)

Don't remind me that there is more than just one /. Beta...

rubidium, lithium and molybdenum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167573)

So much mineral wealth! Now that we have a private space industry, we can mine the star for its vast mineral wealth!

Next step (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 6 months ago | (#47167611)

Mine it for batteries!

Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (4, Interesting)

Prune (557140) | about 6 months ago | (#47167697)

It's not a good idea to use words one doesn't understand just because they might sound cool. A husk is a left over outer shell or covering. A neutron star derives from the inner layers and core of the original star--the summary writers could hardly have chosen a more ill-fitting word. That the degenerate matter in a neutron star is a superfluid, juxtaposed with the more specific meaning of husk as the _dried_ outer portion of a fruit or nut, takes this misuse of the word into the realm of the ludicrous.

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167825)

Would you take Pit as an acceptable replacement?

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 6 months ago | (#47168197)

No. Pit doesn't really work, the entire star is still there, it's just been crushed unimaginably small.

I believe the saying goes, one teaspoon of matter from a neutron star would be more mass than the entire earth. One teaspoon.

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (2)

lazarith (2649605) | about 6 months ago | (#47168897)

Technically, much of the star's mass is lost when it goes supernova, so part of the original star is lost and is therefore not part of the neutron star. So, pit would be a somewhat better descriptor than husk.

Also, I've heard that a teaspoon of matter would be more mass than Manhattan Island. Wikipedia's "Neutron Star" article says, "a neutron star is so dense that one teaspoon (5 milliliters) of its material would have a mass over 5.5Ã--1012 kg (that is 1100 tonnes per 1 nanolitre), about 900 times the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza."

I doubt that the earth is 900 times the mass of that pyramid, but yes, one teaspoon of Neutron Star is very massive.

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (1)

deroby (568773) | about 6 months ago | (#47170307)

Reminds me of that err documentary I saw once where they explain about Dark Matter : A pound of it weighs over ten thousand pounds !

one teaspoon (5 milliliters) (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#47171511)

I am glad you converted that to metric because obviously a teaspoon can't hold any visible amount of neutronium, its not strong enough.

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168941)

1 teaspoon is about 5 ml (0.00000493 m^3), while the mass of the Earth is about 6e+24 kg (5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg). If you compressed the Earth down to the volume of a teaspoon it would have a mass of 1.2e+30 kg/m^3, while a neutron star is at most only 6e+17 kg/m^3.

So one Earth mass is actually 2 trillion teaspoons of neutron star, which is 1e+7 m^3, or a 200m cube of neutron star. Still, a teaspoon of neutron star has a mass of 3 trillion kg, which is about the mass of a mountain. That's still not too shabby.

I think I once heard Carl Sagan say that a teaspoon of neutron star would be so dense that gravity would pull it down into the center of the Earth, and its momentum would propel it through the other side. The rotation of the Earth would ensure that when it fell back down it would make a new hole, eventually turning the Earth into Swiss cheese before coming to rest within the Earth's core.

dom

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#47171543)

"when it fell back down it would make a new hole, eventually turning the Earth into Swiss cheese"

I think the molten rock would fill in the holes pretty quick

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47173995)

1 teaspoon is about 5 ml (0.00000493 m^3), while the mass of the Earth is about 6e+24 kg (5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg). If you compressed the Earth down to the volume of a teaspoon it would have a mass of 1.2e+30 kg/m^3, while a neutron star is at most only 6e+17 kg/m^3.

So one Earth mass is actually 2 trillion teaspoons of neutron star, which is 1e+7 m^3, or a 200m cube of neutron star. Still, a teaspoon of neutron star has a mass of 3 trillion kg, which is about the mass of a mountain. That's still not too shabby.

I think I once heard Carl Sagan say that a teaspoon of neutron star would be so dense that gravity would pull it down into the center of the Earth, and its momentum would propel it through the other side. The rotation of the Earth would ensure that when it fell back down it would make a new hole, eventually turning the Earth into Swiss cheese before coming to rest within the Earth's core.

dom

So its a weapon of mass destruction? Don't let the Iranians get ahold of it.

Re:Husk? Neutron star is the opposite (1)

thunderclap (972782) | about 6 months ago | (#47173983)

but what would the teaspoon be made of?

Jury is still out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47167789)

It's important to keep in mind that this is the identification of a Thorne-Zytkow *candidate*. Further study will be needed to confirm whether this is a genuine T-Z object or not - as it is actually quite difficult to tell. In terms of luminosity and temperature, such an object would appear quite similar to a normal red supergiant. The key observational clue is a peculiar abundance of Li, along with some other elements such as Rb. The authors see some of these elements in spectra they have taken, but others do not seem to match the predictions of the T-Z model. However, it is hard to measure abundances with very high precison - both in terms of the observational data required, and the theoretical models which are needed to infer an abundance from an observed spectrum. Furthermore, there are some other features they observe, such as strong narrow emission lines from hydrogen which were not previously expected for a T-Z object.

It's a very intersting paper, and a tantalising result, but it's still early days...

Yo dawg (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 6 months ago | (#47168059)

I herd you like stars, so I put a star in your star so you can fusion while you fusion.

Re:Yo dawg (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 6 months ago | (#47173027)

Starception

It had to be said. Now it's out of the way at least.

Apologies to Tom Lehrer (3, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 6 months ago | (#47168177)

rubidium, lithium and molybdenum

And strontium and silicon and silver and samarium and bismuth, bromine, helium, beryllium and barium. These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard--there may be many many but they haven't been discovered.

Neutron star? Degenerate matter? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 6 months ago | (#47168729)

Um.. I thought a neutron star was mainly neutronium, with a layer of degenerate matter on top of that, and maybe a layer of normal matter on top of that?

Re:Neutron star? Degenerate matter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47168805)

Neutronium isn't real.

Re:Neutron star? Degenerate matter? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#47168821)

Um.. I thought a neutron star was mainly neutronium, with a layer of degenerate matter on top of that, and maybe a layer of normal matter on top of that?

Neutronium is just one type of degenerate matter.

Re:Neutron star? Degenerate matter? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 6 months ago | (#47171325)

Then why do we have a word to differentiate them?

Re:Neutron star? Degenerate matter? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about 6 months ago | (#47184773)

Then why do we have a word to differentiate them?

Differentiate what from what?

The matter white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes composed of are fairly different from the matter we normally encounter day-to-day, and yet they're not identical to each other. In the last case we can't really be sure what it is like, lacking a well-supported theory of quantum gravity.

LMC (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 6 months ago | (#47169063)

Happens to be outside our galaxy.
Just saying.

We found a TZO at long last... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47169091)

So how do we mine TZO crystals out of this TZO?

oh my! (1)

WizADSL (839896) | about 6 months ago | (#47169355)

"a dense husk of degenerate matter that was once a massive star long" - Lindsey Lohan?

Just like Brangelina! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47170775)

During sex, Brad Pitt is inside Angelina Jolie!

Re:Just like Brangelina! (1)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 6 months ago | (#47173049)

..or the other way 'round if she uses a strap on.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?