Excellent lens candidate here

https://www.legacysurvey.org//viewer/?ra=330.9437&dec=4.4465&layer=hsc-dr2&zoom=15&hsc-dr2-cosmos

3 Likes

Pretty significant radio activity too- nice find
Screen Shot 2021-05-19 at 8.38.55 AM

Radio probably just indicates its an AGN

Yes, but how common is it to find an AGN in such a mature galaxy as this one, AND to find lensing around it?

AGNs are very common. I’m not sure how commonly they experience lensing as I havent read enough of the literature, but I suspect not wildly rare?

AGNs are not that common in the VLASS data, compared with how many galaxies there are in the survey. Some of them are so distant they don’t even show up in the optical image.

Perhaps someone who has studied AGNs would care to elaborate on this observation?

Any radio-loud type of AGN (radio galaxies, blazars & some quasars) can exhibit strong radio emissions, but a some AGNs (LINER/Seyfert/Quasars) are radio-quiet, so unsurprising that they don’t have strong detections in VLASS.

Yes, but although it is possible for a mature elliptical to have an AGN, it is quite rare and only found with the largest ones. So finding one that is also acting as a gravitational lens is, I would say, pretty rare. Perhaps not as rare as hen’s teeth, but well worthy of note. This is an interesting paper on the subject:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997ASPC..116..411S

Radio Galaxies are almost exclusively elliptical. So wouldn’t surprise me if thats what this is. There do appear to be what resemble (albeit very small) lobes either side of its nucleus in VLASS.

OK, it’s ordinary. Are you satisfied now?

Your sarcasm aside, it looks to have a nice strong lens, so I wouldn’t call it ordinary. Not sure what you mean by satisfied.

OK, this is my final comment on this one.

Ever since your first comment you seemed to be downplaying the interest in the coincidence of a lens and an AGN expressed by Jim. In my responses to you, you have also expressed your view that this is “not wildly rare” and that AGNs are “very common”. Everything you have said makes it sound as if you are yawning while writing it. If it’s not that interesting to you, why not just ignore it and let those of us who are mildly excited by finding a lens coincident with an AGN enjoy the moment? Eh?

My first comment was simply a likely explanation for the radio emissions from the galaxy. Nothing to do with “downplaying the interest in the lens”.

My second comment was answering a question that you asked, stipulated that I hadnt read much literature on the subject, so I was drawing from experience. Sure you might consider “I suspect not wildly rare” as “downplaying the interest” in the object, but if there’s only one answer to a question that you’ll accept or else i’m spoiling the fun, what’s the point in asking it?

My third comment was about radio emissions from AGNs and how they relate to VLASS detectability, so not sure how thats “downplaying the interest in the lens”, as it ultimately had nothing to do with the lens.

My fourth comment was merely a more descriptive explanation of what I said in my first comment.

None of my comments, aside from the answer to your question, were even about lensing. They were more focused on the radio source and suggesting what might have caused it. I think you’ve misinterpreted my words, perhaps.

I like that tactic of “this will be my final comment on this one”, as though you can just make a random accusation and then leg it. Its sneaky. I approve. That said, I will end with this: Given its content, it’s probably best that it was your final comment. There’s certainly no reason for more of that kind of stuff in here.