Concept

The mass-sheet degeneracy — where it appears

The transformation that adds a uniform sheet of surface density to a lens and rescales the sources, changing no observed image position or shape. It means lensing fixes a mass profile only up to a constant, and breaking it needs a magnification measurement or something dynamical.

Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 coherent one-per-cent distortion, invisible on every galaxy in the picture. 150 background galaxies behind a lens of Einstein radius 14″, each drawn at its own ellipticity: an intrinsic shape with a dispersion of 0.3 per component, plus the reduced shear the lens adds. The strongest shear on any galaxy here is 0.035, one part in 8 of the intrinsic scatter, so no object in this field is measurably distorted and the tangential alignment cannot be seen by eye at all. Averaged over these 150, the mean tangential ellipticity is 0.0088 ± 0.0245 against the 0.0130 the lens model predicts — consistent with the lens and equally consistent with nothing, because 150 galaxies buy a precision of 0.024 and the signal is 0.013. Detecting it at five sigma takes about 13,275 of them, which is not a picture anybody can draw. The cross component — every shape rotated by 45°, which gravitational lensing cannot produce — averages −0.0016 ± 0.0245, consistent with nothing, and that null is what separates a mass from a badly figured optic. The signal is not in any galaxy. It is in the sum, and the whole design of a lensing survey follows from that.

A one-per-cent distortion, and a million galaxies to see it

A galaxy's own shape is unknown and scatters with a dispersion of about 0.3, so a coherent one-per-cent shear is thirty times smaller than the noise on any single measurement. Nothing is ever measured about one object; the estimator is an average, and the whole design of a survey follows from 0.3 over the square root of N.

galaxies · Weak lensing

A delay of 81 days, and a sheet nobody can see that moves H₀ to 82.4. Above: the arrival-time surface of a lensed source, along the line through the lens. The curve is the Fermat potential in days — the geometric cost of taking a longer path, minus the gravitational cost of climbing out of the potential — and the images sit at its stationary points, at -1.20″ and 2.04″, which for an isothermal sphere is β ± θ_E. Fermat's principle is doing all of the work here: light does not take the shortest path or the quickest one, it takes every stationary one, and the number of images is the number of stationary points. The vertical distance between the two is 81 days, and it is measurable — the source is a quasar, quasars vary, and the same wiggle appears in one image and then the other. That single number carries an absolute distance: the delay is D_Δt/c times a dimensionless function of the lens model, and D_Δt goes as 1/H₀, so a monitoring campaign gives the Hubble constant with no rung of any ladder beneath it. Below: the two light curves, shifted by exactly that delay. The dashed curve is the second image with the delay removed, and the agreement is the measurement. What the picture also shows is the reason the answer keeps moving. The second arrival-time curve is the same lens with a uniform sheet of convergence added and the source moved to compensate: every image sits at the same place, every flux ratio is the same, every image shape is the same, and the delay is λ = 0.85 times as long. A lens model fitted to positions alone cannot see the sheet, and inferring H₀ from the same delay under it gives 82.4 instead of 70 — a 15 per cent shift with no observable attached. Breaking it needs a mass measured some other way: the velocity dispersion of the deflector, or a count of everything else along the line of sight.

A distance measured with a stopwatch

The images of a lensed quasar sit at the stationary points of an arrival-time surface, and the height between two of them is a delay in days. That delay is proportional to a distance, and the distance is proportional to one over the Hubble constant — so a flickering quasar gives H₀ with no ladder under it.

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

Named alongside it

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

Convergence Time-delay Critical surface density Einstein radius Hubble constant Lens model Line of sight structure Cosmic shear The cross component Dark matter Deflection angle Exact degeneracy

All concepts