Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Selection effect — where it appears

A pattern in a sample produced by how the sample was gathered rather than by the population. Every survey has one, and the difference between an occurrence rate and a raw count is entirely the work of undoing it.

Named by 23 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two radial-velocity curves, and one mass ratio. The line-of-sight velocity of each star through one orbit of AI Phoenicis. Both curves are computed from the two masses and the period; what a spectrograph delivers is the reverse. The ratio of the amplitudes is the inverse ratio of the masses — 48.2 to 50.3 kilometres a second, so the heavier star moves more slowly — and the sum of the amplitudes with the period gives the mass sum, 2.437 solar masses, once the inclination is known from the eclipses.

The only stars whose masses are known

A star's mass cannot be measured by looking at it. It can be measured by watching two stars pull on each other, and if the pair also eclipses, the same observations give both radii as well — with no stellar model anywhere in the chain. A few hundred such systems calibrate everything else.

stars · Binary stars What each method can see. Planet mass against orbital distance, both logarithmic, with the detection threshold of each method drawn as the boundary it actually is. Radial velocity at 1 m/s needs mass rising as √a; astrometry at 20 µas needs it falling as 1/a, which is the only method that gets easier further out; a 100 ppm transit is a threshold on radius and so a horizontal line at about 1.4 Earth masses, cut off at 1.21 AU by the need for three transits in 4 years; direct imaging begins outside the diffraction limit, 0.6 AU at 10 parsecs for a 39 m aperture at 10 µm. The solar system is drawn on top: for two decades every one of its planets except Jupiter lay outside every region, which is the whole of what the early census was measuring.

Every survey draws a different sky

The first exoplanets found were enormous and impossibly close to their stars. That was not a discovery about planets. It was a measurement of what a 10 m/s spectrograph watching for three years is able to see.

exoplanets · Detection bias What distance does, and does not, do to a galaxy. Three quantities against distance, each relative to its value at 5 Mpc, on logarithmic axes so that a power law is a straight line and its exponent is the slope. Flux falls with slope −2 and angular size with slope −1, both of which are ordinary. Their ratio has slope zero: a galaxy of surface brightness 23.5 magnitudes per square arcsecond has that surface brightness at every distance, and a sky of 22 is brighter than it at every distance too. The contrast against the sky — the quantity that decides whether the thing is detectable at all — is -1.5 magnitudes wherever it is put.

The brightness distance cannot touch

Flux falls as the inverse square of distance and so does solid angle, so their ratio does not fall at all. A galaxy's surface brightness is the same number wherever it is put, which means whole populations can be undetectable at any distance whatever.

galaxies · Surface brightness The same orbit, realigned by one star and not by the other. The time an equilibrium tide takes to bring a planet's orbit into the plane of its star's equator, against orbital separation in stellar radii, for a planet of 1e-3 stellar masses. Both axes are logarithmic. The two curves differ only in how efficiently the star dissipates the tide, by a factor of 10⁴ — the contrast between a star with a convective envelope, where turbulence turns the tidal flow into heat, and one hotter than about 6,250 K, which has almost none. The lower curve is calibrated so that a Jupiter at 8 stellar radii realigns a cool star's orbit in 1 billion years, which is what the aligned systems require; the tidal quality factor of a star is not known from first principles and this is the honest way to say so. Everything else follows from the sixth power of the separation, which is measured off the drawn curve as 6.000. The two curves cross a Hubble time at 12.4 and 2.7 stellar radii, and their ratio is the sixth root of the dissipation contrast. Hot Jupiters sit between those two numbers. So the same arrival distribution of orbital tilts is erased around cool stars and preserved around hot ones, and a survey that finds cool hosts aligned and hot hosts scattered has measured the filter rather than the arrivals.

A misalignment only cool stars forget

A third of hot Jupiters orbit at a large angle to their star's equator, and some go round backwards. Sort the same planets by the temperature of their host and the picture changes — below about 6,250 kelvin almost all are aligned, and above it almost none are. The boundary is not about the planets.

exoplanets · Spin–orbit alignment Residuals of 112 per cent nearby and 2.2 far out. Deviations from a pure Hubble flow, in per cent, against distance. Each galaxy carries a peculiar velocity of a few hundred kilometres a second — part a coherent bulk flow shared with its neighbours and part a random dispersion — and that velocity is added to its recession. Since the recession grows with distance and the peculiar velocity does not, the fractional error falls as one over the distance: it is 112 per cent at 5 megaparsecs and 2.2 at 250. The practical consequence is a lower cut-off on any Hubble-constant measurement: below about 40 megaparsecs the motions dominate, and the coherent part does not average away over a sample because neighbouring galaxies share it. Choosing that cut-off is one of the analysis decisions a local expansion rate depends on.

A residual that is somebody else's velocity

A redshift is not a distance until the galaxy's own motion has been removed, and galaxies move at a few hundred kilometres a second. Nearby that is comparable to the expansion itself, so the local Hubble diagram's scatter is motions rather than measurement — and the motions are shared between neighbours, so they do not average away.

cosmology · Dark energy What comes back is a ramp, not a threshold. Detection efficiency against signal-to-noise: the fraction of synthetic transits injected into real photometry that the pipeline afterwards finds. The measured curve is a gamma cumulative distribution of shape 4.65 and scale 0.98 beginning at 4.1, which is the form a survey's own injection tests are fitted with; the dashed line is the step at 7.1 that a threshold calculation assumes instead. Half the injections are recovered at 8.33, 1.2 units above the nominal threshold — the ramp is a property of the search and the cut is a separate decision, so the two need not meet anywhere in particular. The rest of the disagreement is the area between the curves. The pipeline does not reach 99 per cent efficiency until 14.9, four units above the threshold, and it recovers 45 per cent one unit above it. Over a population whose signal-to-noise falls as s^-2 — which is what a planet population looks like, because there are far more small planets than large ones — the step function counts 1.21 times as many detections as the ramp does. That factor is not an error bar. It multiplies every occurrence rate computed without it, and it is larger for the small planets than for the large ones, because the small ones live where the ramp is.

The threshold that is not a threshold

A survey's detection limit is quoted as a number — seven point one — and a pipeline does not behave that way. Half the injected signals come back at the threshold, and full efficiency arrives four units above it.

exoplanets · Detection bias Three biases against eccentricity, and they do not agree. Four quantities against orbital eccentricity, each relative to a circular orbit of the same semi-major axis, averaged over the argument of periastron. The transit probability rises as (1 − e²)⁻¹, because an eccentric planet spends part of its orbit inside its own semi-major axis: at e = 0.5 a transit is 1.33 times as likely. The transit duration falls as √(1 − e²), so the event carries less signal-to-noise, and the two together — probability times the square root of the time in transit — come to 1.24 at the same eccentricity. They very nearly cancel, and that is the surprise: a transit survey has almost no eccentricity bias at all. The radial-velocity curve is the one that does. A Keplerian of eccentricity e puts less of its variance in the fundamental and more into harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at — 68 per cent remains at e = 0.6 and 47 per cent at e = 0.8 — so a velocity survey loses amplitude exactly where a transit survey does not. What no figure here can show is which of these the measured eccentricity distribution is made of, because the correction depends on a detection pipeline rather than on geometry, and the two surveys have to be corrected separately before their answers can be compared.

Every method prefers a circle, and not for the same reason

A transit is more likely on an eccentric orbit and shorter when it happens, and the two very nearly cancel. A velocity curve loses amplitude to harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at, and that one does not cancel at all.

exoplanets · Detection bias How many planets a star has is the hardest thing a catalogue measures. The multiplicity distribution a transit catalogue would contain, for systems that all truly hold 5 planets, at four mutual inclination dispersions. 40,000 systems are drawn per dispersion with an isotropic viewing direction and Rayleigh-distributed inclinations about a common plane, at semi-major axes of 12, 16, 21, 27, 34 stellar radii; the bars are conditioned on at least one planet transiting, which is what makes a system appear in a catalogue at all. At 0.5° of dispersion 33 per cent of the detected systems show all 5 planets and the mean apparent multiplicity is 3.13; at 10° it is 1.39, with 68 per cent of them showing exactly one. Every one of those systems has 5 planets. The entire difference between a catalogue of singles and a catalogue of compact multiples is one number that nothing in the light curve measures. And the two effects run in opposite directions: the fraction of stars showing any planet RISES with the dispersion — 8%, 9%, 12%, 19% across the four — because scattering the orbits gives more of them a chance to cross the line of sight, while the number seen per detected star falls by a factor of 2.2. A survey that scatters its systems finds more stars with planets and fewer planets per star, and neither number on its own says which has happened. What no figure here can show is the true dispersion, because the observable is the ratio of those two and a system with fewer planets and a tighter plane reproduces it exactly.

How many planets a star has is not a measurement

Draw five thousand identical five-planet systems, scatter their orbital planes by half a degree, and a third of the detections show all five. Scatter them by ten degrees and two thirds show exactly one. Every system has five.

exoplanets · Detection bias Two assembly histories, and the sign that separates them. The distribution of effective spin produced by two ways of making a black-hole binary, from 40,000 draws each. A pair that evolved together as two stars keeps its spins near the orbital axis — drawn here aligned to within 25 degrees — and cannot produce a negative projection at all: 0.0 per cent of its mergers fall below zero, and its mean is 0.45. A pair assembled by chance encounters in a dense cluster has no memory of any plane, so its tilts are isotropic, its distribution is symmetric, and exactly half of its mergers have an effective spin below zero. The sign of one number distinguishes two histories — and it does so without any of the individual spins being measured, which is the only reason the question is answerable at all from a catalogue in which every event's spins are individually uncertain. The third curve is a mixture with 50 per cent of its mergers drawn isotropically: its mean is 0.22 and 25 per cent of it lies below zero, which is the shape an observed distribution with a small positive mean and a real negative tail requires. Neither channel alone produces it.

A spin that is measured as an angular momentum

Every other method of measuring a black hole's spin reads it from what the hole does to matter. A merging pair's waveform reads it from the orbit instead — and what it recovers is one mass-weighted projection onto the orbital axis, which is a number that two non-rotating holes and two extremal ones can share.

gravitation · Black hole spin The ratio that is √2 only for a point. Escape speed divided by circular speed, against distance in units of the Sun's, for a point mass and for flat-rotation-curve haloes truncated at four different radii. The point-mass value is √2 at every distance and it is a floor rather than a rule. Mass outside an orbit contributes nothing to the circular speed — a spherical shell exerts no force inside itself — and everything to the depth of the well, so any extended distribution has a ratio above √2, by an amount that measures how much lies beyond. For a flat rotation curve the escape speed is not even defined without an outer edge: the potential grows as the logarithm of radius and diverges, so the ratio is √(2 ln(R/r)) with R the truncation radius, and the answer depends on a boundary nobody can see. The measured value near the Sun is about 2.27, which on this curve puts the edge at 13 times the Sun's distance — and the strength of that inference is exactly the weakness of the method, because a ratio of 2.50 would put it at 23.

The ratio that is not √2

Escape speed is exactly √2 times circular speed at every distance from a point mass, and the Sun's own escape speed from the Galaxy is 2.3 times its orbital speed. The excess is not an error in either number. It is a measurement of the mass that lies outside the Sun's orbit, which pulls on nothing and holds everything.

spaceflight · Escape The same disc measured smaller at every redshift. The isophotal radius, at a limit of 26.5 magnitudes per square arcsecond, of three exponential discs that do not change at all — central surface brightnesses 20.5, 21.65, 23, the same scale length throughout — against the redshift they are placed at. Surface brightness falls as (1+z)⁴, three magnitudes at z = 1 and six at z = 3, before anything about the galaxy evolves or any band shift is accounted for, so every isophote moves inward. The discs vanish from an isophotal catalogue entirely at z = 2.98, 2.05, 1.24. The dashed line is the half-light radius, 1.68 scale lengths, which is defined by the galaxy's own light and does not move. Galaxies at high redshift are genuinely smaller than their present-day counterparts; how much smaller depends on which of these two kinds of radius is quoted, and the isophotal kind would report a shrinkage for galaxies that have none.

A radius that is a measurement of the threshold

A galaxy has no edge. Its light fades exponentially for as far as anyone can measure, so every size ever quoted for one is the radius at which the fading crossed some line that somebody drew. Drawn at a fixed surface brightness, the line measures how bright the galaxy's centre is as much as how big the galaxy is — and at high redshift it measures the expansion of the universe as well.

galaxies · Surface brightness A doubling rule, and the planet that broke it. Each planet's real semi-major axis against the value the Titius–Bode rule 0.4 + 0.3 × 2ⁿ gives it, both in astronomical units on logarithmic axes; points on the diagonal are fitted exactly. The rule gives the Earth 1.0 by construction and fits Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn within a few per cent. It needed the value n = 3 left empty until Ceres was found in its slot in 1801, and it predicted Uranus, discovered in 1781, within 2%. Neptune, discovered in 1846 by a calculation that assumed the rule, sits 22% inside its predicted place, and Pluto occupies the place Neptune should have had. Mercury is given n = −∞, which is a free choice made to fit it. The labels give each body's departure from the rule.

A spacing law that random orbits obey

The planets' distances roughly double from one to the next, and a rule written down in 1766 predicted the asteroid belt and Uranus before either was found. It failed on Neptune, and the reason it worked at all turns out to be that almost any set of orbits forbidden to crowd each other looks geometric on a logarithmic scale — as a test against thousands of random systems shows.

orbits · Harmonic law How planet occurrence rises with the host star's iron, by kind of planet. Planet occurrence relative to its value at solar metallicity, on a logarithmic axis, against the host star's iron abundance [Fe/H] (zero is the Sun; one unit is a factor of ten). Each class is a power law, occurrence ∝ 10^(β[Fe/H]). Giant planets within a few astronomical units follow β = 2, the relation found in the first large radial-velocity survey to measure it: 12 per cent of stars at [Fe/H] = +0.3 have one, against 3 per cent at solar and under 0.3 per cent at −0.5 — a factor of 158 across the range drawn. The small planets found by transits rise far more gently; the slopes drawn, β = 0.5 for sub-Neptunes and 0.2 for super-Earths, are representative of published fits, which range from nearly flat to about a doubling across this interval depending on orbital period.

A threshold that makes iron matter only to giants

A star with twice the Sun's iron is four times as likely to have a giant planet, and barely more likely to have a small one. The steep law and the flat one look like two mechanisms. A core racing its disc, run over a spread of discs, produces both — steep where winning is rare, flat where it is common.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates Small planets and giant planets per star, against the mass of the star. Planets per star against the host star's mass, both on logarithmic axes, for small planets (one to four Earth radii, orbital periods under 200 days) and giant planets (above a third of Jupiter's mass, within 2.5 astronomical units). The small-planet rate is drawn as 1.1 per star at one solar mass rising as M^−0.6; the giant rate as 7 per cent at one solar mass falling towards small stars as M^1. Both are representative of published fits, not fits of their own. At 0.3 solar masses a star has 2.3 small planets and a 2.1 per cent chance of a giant; at one solar mass 1.1 and 7 per cent. The ratio of small planets to giants changes by a factor of 7 between the two, so a statement about how common planets are depends on which star it is about as much as on which planet.

More small planets round smaller stars

A red dwarf has about twice as many small planets as the Sun's kind of star and a third as many giants. The two populations move in opposite directions along the same axis, and the small planets were built from discs several times poorer.

exoplanets · Occurrence rates Amplitudes measured near the noise, against the amplitudes that were there. A simulated survey of 6000 stars, each with one planet whose true radial-velocity semi-amplitude K is drawn from a population rising towards small amplitudes (dN/d ln K ∝ K^−0.6, from 0.2 to 20 m/s), each measured with an amplitude uncertainty of 0.6 m/s; 1500 are drawn. Across: the true amplitude; up: the amplitude fitted at the planet's period; both logarithmic. The dashed diagonal is a perfect measurement; the horizontal line is the detection threshold, 4 times the uncertainty. Points above it are the detections (filled). Well above the threshold they sit on the diagonal; near it they sit above it — the detections within one unit of the threshold have measured amplitudes 1.33 times their true ones on average — and below it the measured amplitudes stop falling at all, because an amplitude is a length and noise alone gives it about 0.75 m/s.

A prior the survey measures through its own noise

Whether a weak periodic signal is a planet depends on how large planets are expected to be, and the best source for that expectation is the population the surveys themselves have measured. But the population's small end is built from the marginal detections whose reality depends on the prior. Breaking the circle means measuring the population and the planets together, with the noise and the threshold written into the model — and doing it that way changes the answers by factors of two where they matter most.

starlight · Periodograms How much too small a planet looks when a second star shares its light. The factor by which a planet's true radius exceeds the radius inferred from its transit, against the mass of an unresolved companion star in units of the Sun's, for a planet transiting a Sun-like primary and for one transiting the companion, with the radius computed in both cases from the diluted depth and the primary's radius. Logarithmic vertical axis. A planet on the primary is diluted by the companion's light alone, and the factor is √(1 + F₂/F₁), never more than √2 = 1.41, reached for an equal twin; for a companion of half a solar mass, whose 3943 K surface gives 4.5 per cent of the primary's light in a Kepler-like band, it is 1.022. A planet on the companion is diluted by the primary's much larger light and measured against the wrong star's radius, and the factor is (R₂/R₁)√(1 + F₁/F₂): 2.6 for the half-solar-mass companion and 4.3 for one of 0.3 solar masses. The two curves meet at √2 for twins. The stars are a main-sequence sketch — power-law radii, a smoothed luminosity law and blackbody spectra — good to tens of per cent in flux ratio.

The Earth-sized bin is where diluted planets land

A star with an unresolved companion shares its aperture with that companion's light, and every planet found around either star is measured too small. The error runs one way only, so the smallest radius bin receives planets from every larger one and returns none. With a companion beside three stars in ten, more than a quarter of the planets called Earth-sized are something larger.

exoplanets · Detection bias The cadence that finds a planet and the cadence that weighs it. The fraction of caustic crossings — seven tracks across the planetary caustic at offsets spanning it, each sampled at 160 phases — in which a survey of a given cadence detects the anomaly (three points deviating from the single-lens curve by more than five times a 1 per cent photometric error, solid) and in which it also measures the source size (at least two of those points where the source's finite size changes the magnification by more than five per cent, which happens only during a fold crossing; dashed), for a Jupiter and an Earth around a third-of-a-solar-mass star. For the Jupiter, detection stays at 100 per cent at a four-hour cadence and 48 per cent at one day, while the source size is measured in 43 per cent of crossings at fifteen minutes, 15 at four hours and 0 at a day. For the Earth what limits the measurement is the track rather than the cadence: the source size is measured in 43 per cent of crossings at fifteen minutes and still 43 hourly — the tracks that cross a fold — while detection falls from 100 to 54 per cent, and at four hours both are 0. A cadence that finds giant planets reliably measures few of them; for small planets the cadence that finds them is already the one that measures them.

A cadence that finds a planet is not one that weighs it

A planetary anomaly on a microlensing event is found by a handful of points that deviate, and it is turned into a mass only by points taken while the source crosses the caustic — a few hours for a Jupiter whose anomaly lasts days. Sampled every four hours, every Jupiter crossing in a simulated survey is found and fewer than one in six is weighed; the field layout that finds the most planets is not the one that weighs the most.

exoplanets · Microlensing How far a sample of lenses can take the Hubble constant. The fractional uncertainty in H₀ from a sample of N lenses, both axes logarithmic: the independent errors of each lens — 2 per cent from its delay, 3 from the rest of its lens model, 2.5 from its line of sight and its own mass sheet as well as its kinematics fix it — fall as 1/√N; the shared errors — 1 per cent from the calibration of the line of sight, and the orbital bias of the previous figure — do not. With one aperture dispersion per lens the independent error is 10.1 per cent per lens and the floor 1.6 per cent, reached at about 42 lenses; with six resolved rings per lens, 5.9 and 1.1 per cent, reached at about 29. Dotted: the two floors. A sample that adds lenses without changing how each is measured stops improving at its floor; the resolved kinematics lower both the slope's starting point and the floor.

A hundred lenses and one assumption

A time-delay lens gives the Hubble constant to five or ten per cent, and the hope is that a hundred give it to one. The errors that differ from lens to lens — its delay, its own line of sight, its own internal sheet — do average away. The errors every lens shares because every lens was analysed the same way do not, and they set a floor that a sample reaches after a few dozen lenses and never goes beneath.

galaxies · Strong lensing Dark companions' masses with and without a gap, as an astrometric survey would see them. The distribution of the masses of dark companions in a sample found by their stars' astrometric orbits, per unit of the logarithm of mass, for two hypotheses: neutron stars near 1.35 solar masses and black holes near 8 in equal numbers with nothing between 2 and 5 (solid), or the same with the gap filled at the density the black holes have at 5 (dashed; 16 per cent of the sample in it). Each is drawn as measured with mass errors of 10 per cent (blue) and 30 per cent (orange). With 10 per cent errors the empty gap stays empty: 0.2 per cent of the sample lands between 2.5 and 4.5 solar masses, against 10 per cent if it is filled. With 30 per cent errors the edges spill in — 4.3 per cent against 12 per cent — and the gap becomes a shallow dip that a modest sample cannot distinguish from a filled one.

A gap that counting can test and impostors can fill

The black holes in X-ray binaries leave a gap between the heaviest neutron stars and about five solar masses, and nobody knows whether it is real or an artefact of how those masses are measured. Astrometric orbits give masses that need no light curve, and with errors of ten per cent a few dozen of them would settle it. The difficulty is not the counting. It is that pairs of white dwarfs and neutron stars, dark and close, can weigh exactly what a gap object would.

gravitation · The two-body problem More pairs on the target list than in the sky. The fraction of a magnitude-limited survey's targets that are unresolved binaries, against the fraction of stars in the volume that are, for companions with mass ratios spread evenly between a tenth and one. For solar-type stars, of which about 45 per cent have a companion, the target list holds 53 per cent binaries if the stars fill space uniformly, 50 if the survey reaches beyond the disc. The excess is modest on average because most companions are faint; it is concentrated in the near-equal pairs, which a magnitude limit over-represents by up to a factor of 2.8.

A target list that counts pairs twice

A planet survey chooses its stars by how bright they look, and an unresolved pair of stars looks brighter than either alone. A twin pair is seen from 2√2 times the volume a single star is, so a magnitude-limited target list holds more binaries than the Galaxy does, weighted towards exactly the near-equal pairs that dilute a transit most. The survey then counts its planets per target, and a target is not a star.

exoplanets · Detection bias Three reasons the flicker slows with redshift, only one of them cosmology. The observed flicker timescale of the faintest quasars a flux-limited survey can see, relative to its value at redshift 0.2, logarithmic, separated into its causes: time dilation alone (a factor 5.0 by redshift 4); the bluer rest-frame wavelength a fixed band samples at higher redshift, which shortens the timescale (×0.78); and the heavier black holes the flux limit selects (×15.3). Together, ×49.9. Read as a power of (1+z) the total has exponent 2.74 where dilation alone has 1.00: a test that does not hold mass and wavelength fixed measures the selection, not the expansion.

A clock that flickers without a tick

If the universe expands, every process seen at redshift z runs (1+z) times slow. A supernova carries a calibrated clock and shows it. A quasar's light wanders with no period at all, and its characteristic timescale grows with the mass of its black hole and shrinks with the colour it is seen in, both of which change with redshift in any real survey. Reading the dilation from quasars means holding those fixed first, and on a short enough baseline the measurement hides the effect it is looking for.

cosmology · Expansion The bands of sky from which each planet would be seen to transit. Ecliptic latitude against ecliptic longitude, with the vertical scale stretched 11 times: the band from which each of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter would be seen to cross the Sun's disc. The Earth's band lies along the ecliptic, ±0.266° wide. Mercury's is the widest, ±0.69°, and tilted by its 7° inclination; the giants' are narrow, ±0.051° for Jupiter. Each crosses the Earth's at the two nodes of its orbit, and only near those crossings can an observer see two planets transit. From nowhere on the sky can more than 3 be seen.

The stars that could catch the Earth in transit

The geometry that lets one Earth twin in two hundred be seen crossing its star works in reverse: the Earth crosses the Sun for observers in a band of sky half a degree wide, under half a per cent of the sky. About two thousand stars within a hundred parsecs sit in it. The band is fixed to the Earth's orbit and the stars are not, so the list changes on the timescale of recorded history — and from no direction can more than three of the eight planets be seen transiting at once.

exoplanets · Detection bias Where the quasar counts turn over, the signal changes sign. The local slope s of quasar number counts against limiting magnitude (solid), for counts that steepen to 0.90 at the bright end and flatten to 0.29 at the faint end with a turnover near magnitude 19, and the factor 2.5s − 1 that multiplies twice the convergence in the change of counts (dashed). The factor crosses zero at magnitude 20.1: brighter quasars are found in excess round foreground galaxies, fainter ones in deficit, and quasars near the crossing show no correlation at all. The predicted reversal, observed, is what identifies the correlation as lensing rather than as dust or as quasars and galaxies sitting in the same structures.

A lens counted instead of measured

A foreground mass makes the sources behind it brighter and spreads them over a larger patch of sky. Whether the patch then holds more of them or fewer depends only on how steeply their numbers rise towards faint fluxes, and at one slope the two effects cancel exactly. So a lens can be weighed without measuring a single shape — by counting — and the signal changes sign from bright quasars to faint ones in a way that nothing but lensing can imitate.

galaxies · Weak lensing

Named alongside it

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

Occurrence rateDetection thresholdRadial-velocityDetection limitMalmquist biasSurvey completenessTransit probabilityMass ratioSignal-to-noiseTransit depthBinary starsConvective envelope

All concepts