Talk:3C 273

Renamed page

This page probably didn't need to be renamed as it's name is a catalogue entry, and not a coordinate set. 132.205.45.148

Just like many messier objects renamed from M61 to Spiral Galaxy M61, I though it was appropriate. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 05:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per request below and no objections. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

3C273 → 3C 273 — Name used by the scientific literature has a space WilliamKF 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support It is the name found in all the Astro Journals. WilliamKF 23:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early secondary source

Time Pulsing Quasar Friday, May. 08, 1964

70.51.11.136 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call for the 48/273 contest

The article 3C 48 and this article both claims their quasar is the first discovered. Were they discovered exactly simultaneously, and the results published exactly simultaneously. Then both might be true, otherwise not. Said: Rursus (☻) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems 3C 273 won. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement in Distance

This article places the distance at 2.44 giga light years, but if you follow the link to the explanation of distance, 3c 273 is used as an example distance for 1.9 giga light years. Which of these is correct? I would suspect that this page is correct, but if someone could verify this I will correct whichever one needs it. InfiniteThinking (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section moved from main to here

I have moved this section:

Martin Smith at Caltech noticed that 2 of the wiggles had the same spacing between the colors as hydrogen does, but both of the lines were shifted way over towards redder parts of the spectrum. Now if he believed that the identification was correct, then the conclusion was the shift was a full 16%. Now a shift of 16% meant it was moving away from us really fast.

from the main, it is poorly written and lacks adequate encyclopedic nature and clarity.PB666 ^yap 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Info

Would be great if someone could add some more information about the luminosity (in ergs.s^(-1)) and perhaps a few words about its spectrum... Jahibadkaret (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidence of magnitudes to 3 decimal places???

It seems odd that the absolute magnitude of this quasar is stated to be -26.7, when that is exactly the apparent magnitude of the Sun, according to an outside source: Sky View Cafe. What am I missing? (It wouldn't be the first time a science article here confused me.)

I realize one is "apparent" and one is "absolute," but still, that seems like a heck of a coincidence. My underlying thought: is it an error? Br77rino (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion is understandable, because the figure, whilst correct, is indeed difficult to believe. According to our best current observations and theory, if the complex surrounding the black hole at the centre of this quasar were viewed from a distance of 10 light years, it would indeed be about -26.7 magnitude, and that therefore, that is indeed its absolute magnitude ! Which is brighter than the sun at -23.5 magnitude. This figure alone gives an insight into the astonishing amount of energy that quasars emit. True but even more difficult to believe, some quasars are a LOT brighter again. It is mind boggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:e422:3c01:c042:eec2:132d:c713 (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3C 273. 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/20090123191313/http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/spring05.shtml to http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/spring05.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]