Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Einstein radius — where it appears

The angular radius of the ring a background source forms when it lies exactly behind a lens. It sets the scale of every lensing observation, and it depends on the lens mass and on the three distances involved rather than on anything about the source.

Named by 6 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A magnification, and a spike inside it. The brightness of a background star as a foreground one passes in front of it. The smooth curve is exact: a point mass magnifies a point source by (u² + 2)/(u√(u² + 4)), which peaks at 6.7 for this track. The spike is the planet, of mass ratio 0.001, lensing one of the two images. Its duration is the Einstein time scaled by √q — about 23 hours against 30 days — so the whole planetary signal is a few hours in an event lasting a month, and it never repeats. The deviation is drawn in the approximation that the planet lenses the image in isolation; a real caustic crossing has structure this smooths over, and its true height is set by the source's size rather than by the geometry.

A star magnified by a planet nobody will see again

Microlensing weighs a planet by the way its gravity bends light around it. The measurement lasts a few hours, cannot be repeated, and is the only one that does not require the planet's star to be visible at all.

exoplanets · Microlensing Why an Einstein radius is a mass. The geometry, drawn at an angle some ten thousand times larger than the real one so that anything is visible at all. Light from a source directly behind a lens reaches the observer along every path that passes the lens at the same distance, so the image is a ring rather than a point. The ring's angular radius is θ_E = √(4GM/c² · D_ls/D_l D_s), which for a lens of 1.0×10¹² M☉ at these distances is 2.52 arcseconds and encloses 10 kpc at the lens. Rearranged, it is a mass in terms of an angle and three distances — and the mass so obtained is inside a cylinder rather than a sphere, and assumes nothing whatever about the lens being in equilibrium, which is the assumption every other weighing in this collection makes.

Weighed by the light that bends past it

Every other mass in this collection is measured from something orbiting, which requires the system to have settled down. A gravitational lens weighs whatever is in the way with no such assumption — the light does not care whether the mass is in equilibrium.

galaxies · Strong lensing A sheet of mass that changes 32 km/s/Mpc and no image. The mass-sheet degeneracy, drawn as what it does and does not change. Adding a uniform sheet of convergence and rescaling the unobservable source position leaves every image position relative to the lens, every image shape and every flux ratio exactly as it was — the transformation is an exact symmetry of the lens equation, not an approximation. What it does change is the time delay between images, in proportion, so a Hubble constant inferred from a measured delay is multiplied by the inverse of the rescaling. Across the range of sheets that a plausible line of sight can supply, the inferred Hubble constant moves by 32 kilometres a second per megaparsec — which is larger than the disagreement between the early and late measurements the technique is meant to arbitrate. Nothing in the lensing data can fix it; the constraint has to come from the lens galaxy's stellar kinematics or from the environment along the line of sight.

A sheet of mass that changes nothing but the answer

A gravitational lens's images are unchanged by adding a uniform sheet of matter and rescaling the source. Every position, every shape and every flux ratio stays exactly as it was; only the time delays change, in proportion. So a Hubble constant measured from a delay is multiplied by a number the lensing itself cannot determine.

galaxies · Strong lensing A light curve pulled out of shape by the Earth's own orbit. Magnification against time for a 90-day event at impact parameter 0.3, computed with the observer's orbital motion included at three values of the microlens parallax. The dashed curve is π_E = 0 and is exactly symmetric in time, because a straight-line track past a point lens has to be. The others are not. The Earth's displacement over the months the event lasts adds a term π_E times its projected orbital motion to the lens–source trajectory, so one wing is pushed closer to the lens and the other further away, and the curve acquires an asymmetry of 16 per cent at π_E = 0.15 and 34 per cent at π_E = 0.35. That asymmetry is the whole measurement. An ordinary event gives one dimensioned number, t_E, which mixes the lens mass with two distances and a proper motion and therefore weighs nothing; the parallax gives a second, and two constraints on the same lens are what a mass requires. It is only available on long events — the Earth has to move appreciably while the magnification is changing — which is why parallaxes are measured for the timescales above about fifty days and not for the short ones that a low-mass lens produces.

An asymmetry that the Earth's own orbit puts in

A microlensing event delivers one number with dimensions, and one is not enough to weigh anything. The Earth's motion over a long event distorts the light curve, and the distortion is the second constraint — after which the mass follows with no distance in it at all.

exoplanets · Microlensing How long an event lasts, against the mass that causes it. Einstein crossing time against lens mass, on logarithmic axes, for a lens at 6.5 kpc in front of a source at 8 moving at 6 milliarcseconds a year — a typical bulge geometry. The slope is a half, exactly, because θ_E goes as the square root of the mass and t_E is θ_E divided by a proper motion: an M dwarf gives 21 days, a Jupiter gives 22 hours, a Neptune gives 4 hours, an Earth gives 1 hours. Nothing else about the event changes with the mass. The peak magnification is set by the impact parameter alone, so a free-floating Earth passing close enough produces exactly the light curve a star would, at exactly the same height, and lasts 1.2 hours instead of a month. That is the entire difficulty of detecting them: the events are ordinary and brief, so what decides whether they are found is the survey's cadence rather than its sensitivity. The dashed line is where the source becomes larger than the Einstein ring — 1.5e-4 solar masses for a 6-microarcsecond source — and below it every event is finite-source-dominated, which flattens the peak and, in the same stroke, measures θ_E.

An event of a few hours and no host

The Einstein crossing time is the square root of the lens mass and nothing else changes, so a free-floating Earth produces exactly the light curve a star does, at exactly the same height, and is over in ninety minutes. What decides whether it is found is cadence rather than sensitivity.

exoplanets · Microlensing Two separations that draw the same caustic. The width of the central caustic against the separation, computed from the lens equation for a mass ratio of 0.003, for each separation s and for its reciprocal 1/s. The two curves lie nearly on top of each other. That is the close–wide degeneracy, and it is a theorem rather than a coincidence: expanding the binary lens equation near the primary shows that the central caustic depends on the separation only through s + 1/s to first order in the mass ratio, and that combination is invariant under s → 1/s. It is first order and not exact, which the figure shows rather than hides — the two agree to 0.7 per cent at s = 2.8 and only to 13.1 at s = 1.4, because a smaller separation is closer to the resonant regime where the central and planetary caustics have not yet separated. Reducing the mass ratio to 1.0e-3 brings the worst case to 4.8 per cent, which is the first-order statement being checked rather than quoted. What that means for a measurement is uncomfortable. An event whose planetary signal comes from the source passing near the central caustic — which is most of them, because the central caustic sits where the magnification is already high and the event is already being watched — cannot distinguish a companion at 2.8 Einstein radii from one at 0.357. For a typical lens that is the difference between a planet at four astronomical units and one at less than one. And the disagreement the figure measures is not the way out: at 2.8 Einstein radii the caustics differ in width by 0.7 per cent, which is far below what a light curve sampled through a night's seeing can separate, so the ambiguity is real in the data even where it is not exact in the mathematics.

Two systems that draw the same curve

A binary lens with separation s and one with separation 1/s have central caustics that agree to first order in the mass ratio. The same event is therefore a planet at four astronomical units or one at less than one, and no amount of photometric precision decides between them.

exoplanets · Microlensing

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

DegeneracyLight curveMicrolensingAngular einstein radiusCausticConvergenceFinite-source effectFree-floating planetGravitational lensingLens equationMagnificationMass ratio

All concepts