Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The lens-geometry generator

Why an Einstein radius is a mass
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.

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.

6 essays call lens-geometry. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

A fold 0.06 Einstein times wide, and two configurations that make the same one. A binary lens of mass ratio 0.003 at a projected separation of 1.5 Einstein radii. Top left: the source plane, with the caustic — the set of source positions at which the magnification is formally infinite — and the track of a background star across it. A single lens has no such curve; it magnifies smoothly and diverges only at one point. A second mass makes the lens mapping fold, and the fold has edges: crossing one, the number of images changes from 3 to 5, because a pair is created out of nothing on the critical curve. The small closed curve near the origin is the central caustic, always there; the larger one at 0.83 Einstein radii is the planetary caustic, and its distance from the origin is s − 1/s, which is where the planet's own image lies. Top right: the central caustic drawn twice, once for s = 1.5 and once for s = 0.667. They are 0.0184 and 0.0169 Einstein radii across and they lie on top of each other. That is not a coincidence of these numbers: to the order that a central-caustic anomaly is measured, a close binary and a wide one with the reciprocal separation produce the same perturbation, so an event with only a central anomaly returns two separations and no way to choose. Below: the light curve along the track. The smooth part is what a single lens of the same total mass would do; the spikes are the two crossings, 0.06 Einstein times apart, so a few hours inside an event lasting a month. The two curves differ in one thing only — the size of the source. A point source diverges at each fold and reaches 27; a source of angular radius 0.006 Einstein radii averages over its own disc and reaches 9 — an eighth of a source radius inside the fold the two are 8 and 4, with the divergence replaced by a rounded shoulder whose width is the source's own diameter. Everywhere else in this collection the finite size of a star is a nuisance that degrades a measurement. Here it is the ruler: the fold is a straight edge of known sharpness sweeping across a disc, so the shape of that shoulder gives the source's angular radius, and dividing it by the crossing time gives the angular Einstein radius — which is the one quantity a light curve otherwise cannot supply. Exoplanets

A light curve with a fold in it

A single lens magnifies smoothly. A second mass makes the lens mapping fold, and a fold has an edge — a curve across which two images appear out of nothing and the magnification formally diverges. Crossing it turns the finite size of the source star from a nuisance into a ruler.

 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. Galaxies

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.

 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 calibrated distance 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. Galaxies

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 calibrated distance under it.

 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. Galaxies

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.

 Where one dispersion and a resolved profile leave the mass and the orbits. The plane of the mass-sheet parameter λ and the orbital anisotropy β. Light shading: the region within Δχ² = 2.3 of a mock lens with λ = 1 and β = 0.1, given one aperture dispersion measured to five per cent — a long diagonal valley, because a larger λ and more tangential orbits trade against each other. Dark shading: the same, given the dispersion in six rings between a quarter and two Einstein radii, each to three per cent. Marginalised over β with a flat prior, and with λ allowed between 0.8 and 1.15, the aperture measurement gives λ = 0.990 ± 0.091 and the resolved profile λ = 1.000 ± 0.040 — the Hubble constant from this lens to 9 and 4 per cent. Galaxies

A dispersion that weighs the sheet only if the orbits are known

A lens's images cannot tell how much of its mass is in the galaxy and how much is spread through a sheet around it, and the time delay — and so the Hubble constant — scales with the answer. The stars' velocity dispersion can tell, because orbits feel mass in three dimensions where light only integrates along a line. One dispersion through one aperture weighs the sheet only to sixteen per cent, because the shape of the orbits moves it as much; the same dispersion measured in rings weighs it to four.

 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. Galaxies

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.

The whole library · All essays