Talk:3C 48

What's missing?

What else should we add to this article? 3c48, like most quasars, isn't particularly photogenic, but maybe a radio map would suffice. I've added links to some of the more important papers regarding it: are there more? Also, I think many of the related links are unnecessary. How many links to Aladdin do we need? - Parejkoj (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an image and removed the image needed tag. Mhardcastle (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call for the 48/273 contest

The article 3C 273 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]

A close reading of 3C 273 answers this question. 3c48 was the first quasar discovered, and others followed, but it was not until 3c 273 that quasars were understood, defined, and named quasars. Harshael (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redshifts of 3C273 and 3C48 were published in the SAME Issue of Nature, March 16, 1963. However, when you read both articles you see that Greenstein and Matthews had failed to properly identify the lines in their spectrum. Only after Maarten Schmidt had successfully identified the Balmer lines in 3C273 assuming high redshift they managed to identify their strongest line with MgII assuming an even higher redshift. They obviously knew about Schmidt's result before it was published and give proper credit to him. So 3C273 is the correct winner despite results for both quasars were published in the same Nature issue. --169.231.131.97 (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]