4.6 Article

Quasar pairs with arcminute angular separations

Journal

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
Volume 372, Issue 1, Pages 1-7

Publisher

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010283

Keywords

quasars; clusters; gravitational lenses; observations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We use the Veron-Cetty & Veron (2000) catalog (VV) of 13 213 quasars to investigate their possible physical grouping over angular scales 10 less than or equal to Delta theta less than or equal to 1000. We first estimate the number of quasar pairs that would be expected in VV assuming a random distribution for the quasar positions and taking into account observational selection effects affecting heterogeneous catalogs. We find in VV a statistically significant (>3 sigma) excess of pairs of quasars with similar redshifts (Deltaz less than or equal to 0.01) and angular separations in the 50-100 range, corresponding to projected linear separations (0.2-0.5) Mpc/h(75)(Omega (M) = 1,Omega (A) = 0) or (0.4-0.7) Mpc/h(75)(Omega (M) = 0.3, Omega (A) = 0.7). There is also some excess in the 100-600 range corresponding to (1-5) Mpc in projected linear separations. If most of these quasar pairs do indeed belong to large physical entities, these separations must represent the inner scales of huge mass concentrations (cf. galaxy clusters or superclusters) at high redshifts; but it is not excluded that some of the pairs may actually consist of multiple quasar images produced by gravitational lensing. Of course, a fraction of these pairs could also arise due to random projections of quasars on the sky. The list of 11 pairs of quasars with redshift differences Deltaz less than or equal to 0.02 and angular separations 50 less than or equal to Delta theta less than or equal to 100 is presented in order to stimulate further observational studies and to better understand the astrophysical and cosmological significance of these interesting objects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available