Talk:Twin Quasar

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not duplicate MECO article here!

This article seems to contain not so much information on the Twin Quasar but on MECO. I am going to delete large part of the article, just having a link to MECO article ought to be enough. To be honest, to me it looks like an attempt to "enhance the image" of MECO theory. I respect your interest in whatever theories you are interested, but it's not a good reason to copy-paste MECO description in unrelated articles. 89.103.91.47 (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicated material and inlined a couple of links. Tim Shuba (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could just have restored the original explaination on _why_ the MECO claim was made for the Twin Quasar. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Quasar v Twin QSO

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See this discussion at WT:ASTRO#Twin Quasar about the recent renaming and revision to the notation format used in this article. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_12#Twin_Quasar. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Distance

Hello, There are 2 figures for the distance of this: 7.8 Gy and 8.7 Gy. Which one is the good one? Yann (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the right table you state that the QSO is at 7.8 billion l.y, but in the text it is close to 14 billion l.y (what confirm HST and NASA). So the text must be adapted. The comment released on HST or NASA website is clear: the QSO is located close to 14 billion l.y while the galaxy G1 is some 4 billion l.y away.

"These cosmic doppelgangers make up a double quasar known as QSO 0957+561, also known as the "Twin Quasar," which lies just under 14 billion light-years from Earth. Quasars are the intensely powerful centers of distant galaxies. So, why are we seeing this quasar twice? Some 4 billion light-years from Earth — and directly in our line of sight — is the huge galaxy YGKOW G1."

Mass of lensing galaxy YGKOW G1

It is highly frustrating how difficult it is to find the mass of the lensing galaxy in this foundational system. (For example, searching Google for "YGKOW G1" "lensing mass" etc. etc. etc. is a very very very long exercise in frustration.) Finally finding https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9608117 = AJ 113, 521 (1997), it appears from that paper that the lensing mass here is in the vicinity of (3.8 +- 1.2) x 10^14 M_solar (combining numbers from that paper which has a central value of 3.9 x 10^14 M_solar, and a previous paper which that paper cites which has a central value of 3.7 x 10^14 M_solar). Assuming that I am not confused and that number is reasonably correct, and there are no very different and more recent estimates, having that estimate of (3.8 +- 1.2) x 10^14 M_solar for the lensing mass of the system, along with a reference for it to https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9608117 and/or AJ 113, 521 (1997) I feel would be a very welcome addition to the page (although I don't feel I am expert enough in this lensing system to make the addition to the page myself).

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twin Quasar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518133759/http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/U1/Q0957+561.htm to http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/U1/Q0957+561.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]