Talk:Quasar/Archive for 2019

revision 884056298

[User:Aldebarium] Undid revision 884056298 by Jeff Relf (me), saying:

 Brightness and luminosity don't mean the same thing: 
 brightness refers to apparent brightness

J043947.08+163415.7 shines like 600 trillion Suns, more than supernovae.

Certainly, "the most luminous object known to man" is worth noting. Jeff Relf (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it's relevant for the quasar article to note the most luminous known quasar. Aldebarium (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if you could provide a citation to back up the statement that this is the most luminous known quasar. I would recommend more precise wording for what you wrote, e,g., "the luminosity of this quasar is x L_☉" rather than "shines like x trillion Suns". And I'm not sure what you mean with the statement that the peak luminosity of a supernova is "mere seconds". The comparison to Type Ia supernovae seems a bit out of context in any case. I recommend against using terminology like "shine no brighter than" when you are referring to an object's luminosity, because again, brightness in astronomy should not be confused with luminosity or power. Instead, it would be better to give a clear statement of luminosity or power in units of L_☉. Aldebarium (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to mention "the most luminous known quasar", I now think; still, I like comparing it to supernovae, as others have done before.

L_☉ is more appropriate for a University textbook, not Wikipedia. At the source, J043947.08+163415.7 shines like 600 trillion Suns. "At the source..." is something most anyone can understand. Jeff Relf (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

J043947.08+163415.7 "shines with light equivalent to 600 trillion suns, across a distance of 12.8 billion light-years." -- https://earthsky.org/space/astronomers-find-the-brightest-quasar-yet Jeff Relf (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Oops, J2157-3602 is more powerful, more Watts. Jeff Relf (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to cite the reliable source you are working from, so readers can verify the article content. Unsourced content is likely to be removed. You need reliable sources for all the claims in the edit, including the comparison with supernovae. TwoTwoHello (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I can provide the references; it's not reason enough to delete it. Jeff Relf (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

OK. But, the statement you added needs a bit more background and context to make it useful in this part of the article. At the start of the "properties" section, you just have a statement about one particular quasar, without any general explanation to provide context, so it's not clear why this particular quasar is being mentioned. A better way to start that section would be something like "Quasars are the most luminous persistent objects in the universe. For example..." Also: the unit of power is "solar luminosities", not "suns": it's best to use precise and scientifically correct terminology, providing links for further information where appropriate. Aldebarium (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

That alternate abbreviation...

If we can use QSO instead of QSR ... and we pronounce it in a similarly elided fashion, thus, "queso"... would that make a very large example a "big cheese"? 146.199.0.164 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:FORUM - the TP is not for idle chatter or speculation, but for improving the article by discussion of the use of Reliable Sources.