1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \slugcomment{ }
5:
6: \shorttitle{MS\,2053.7-0449}
7: \shortauthors{Verdugo, T., de Diego & Limousin}
8:
9: % Y es que en este universo viejo y traidor, no hay verdad ni
10: % mentira: todo es seg\'{u}n el color del lente por el que se mira.
11: % Adapted from Ram\'{o}n De Campoamor
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{MS\,2053.7-0449: Confirmation of a bimodal mass
16: distribution from strong gravitational lensing}
17:
18: \author{T. Verdugo and J.A. de Diego}
19: \affil{Instituto de Astronom\'{\i}a, UNAM, AP 70-264, 04510 Mexico
20: DF} \email{tomasv, jdo@astroscu.unam.mx}
21:
22: \and
23:
24: \author{Marceau Limousin}
25: \affil{Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen,
26: Juliane Marie Vej 30, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark}
27: \email{marceau@dark-cosmology.dk}
28:
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31:
32:
33: We present the first strong lensing study of the mass
34: distribution in the cluster MS\,2053-04 based on HST archive
35: data. This massive, X-ray luminous cluster has a redshift
36: z=0.583, and it is composed of two structures that are
37: gravitationally bound to each other. The cluster has one
38: multiply imaged system constituted by a double gravitational
39: arc.
40:
41: We have performed a parametric strong lensing mass
42: reconstruction using NFW density profiles to model the cluster
43: potential. We also included perturbations from 23 galaxies,
44: modeled like elliptical singular isothermal sphere, that are
45: approximately within $1'\times1'$ around the cluster center.
46: These galaxies were constrained in both the geometric and
47: dynamical parameters with observational data. Our analysis
48: predicts a third image which is slightly demagnified. We found
49: a candidate for this counter-image near the expected position
50: and with the same F702W-F814W colors as the gravitational arcs
51: in the cluster. The results from the strong lensing model shows
52: the complex structure in this cluster, the asymmetry and the
53: elongation in the mass distribution, and are consistent with
54: previous spectrophotometric results that indicate that the
55: cluster has a bimodal mass distribution. Finally, the derived
56: mass profile was used to estimate the mass within the arcs and
57: for comparison with X-ray estimates.
58:
59: \end{abstract}
60:
61:
62: \keywords{Gravitational lensing: strong lensing --- Galaxies:
63: clusters --- Galaxies: clusters: individual(MS\,2053-04) }
64:
65:
66: \section{INTRODUCTION}\label{introd}
67:
68: The possibility that clusters of galaxies might produce
69: gravitational lensing had been considered by several authors
70: \citep {kar76,dyr76, nar84}. Twenty years ago \citep {lyn86}
71: and \citep {sou87} independently announced the detection of an
72: arc-like structure around the center of Abell 370, but it was
73: \citet {pac87} who explained the phenomenon in terms of
74: gravitational lensing. Currently, the strong and weak regimes
75: of the gravitational lensing effect are often used for
76: constraining the density profiles of galaxy clusters.
77:
78: The massive clusters of galaxies have a surface density larger
79: than the critical value for strong lensing, approximately 1.0 g
80: cm$^{-2}$ \citep {tur84}. They can produce multiple, strongly
81: elongated images (giants arcs) of background galaxies lying on
82: top of the caustic lines generated by the cluster potential.
83: Observationally, the first dedicated search for gravitational
84: arcs in X-ray clusters was performed by \citet {lef94} using
85: the \emph {Einstein Observatory} Extended Medium Sensitivity
86: Survey (EMSS). A subsequent search was performed by \citet
87: {lup99}, which allowed to confirm the relationship between
88: X-ray luminosities and cluster masses; these authors found
89: strong lensing in eight of 38 clusters. A subsequent survey
90: based on optically selected clusters in the Las Campanas
91: Distant Cluster Survey confirmed these giant-arc fractions
92: \citep {zar03} and \citet{gla03} reports even larger fractions
93: in the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey, showing that giant arcs are
94: quite common in clusters of galaxies.
95:
96: Since the shapes of these arcs are related to the gravitational
97: potential, the strong lensing offers a method to investigate
98: how the barionic and dark matters are distributed in the inner
99: regions of the cluster. Also it is possible to put significant
100: constraints on the cosmological parameters using a set of
101: strong lensing clusters showing multiple images with
102: spectroscopic redshifts \citep{sou04}. Mass distributions have
103: been modeled for many clusters with giants arcs. In a few
104: cases, accurate models for the mass distribution have led to
105: the identification of additional counter-image candidates
106: \citep {kne96}. In other cases, the detection of the predicted
107: images is uncertain, since they are lost in the cD light
108: distribution \citep[see][]{gav03,san04}. Recently, the
109: gravitational lens cluster A\,1689 has been modeled in
110: unprecedented detail by \citet{bro05,lim06}. These authors
111: combined HST Deep Advanced Camera images and extensive ground
112: based spectroscopy, identifying 32 multiply lensed systems.
113:
114: The aim of this work is to describe the density profile and the
115: mass distribution of MS\,2053, using strong lensing. This
116: cluster has a redshift of z=0.583, is not very optically
117: rich in comparison with other z $>$ 0.5 EMSS clusters
118: \citep{lup99}, and among these
119: high-redshift clusters it has the lowest X-ray luminosity.
120: BeppoSAX observations yield a X-ray luminosity $L_X$(2-10 keV)
121: = (3.9$\pm$1.0)$\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$\citep{del00}, and
122: Chandra $L_X$(0.5-2 keV) = 3.5 $\times10^{44}$ erg s$^{-1}$
123: \citep{vik02}. \citet{lup92} discovered a gravitationally
124: lensed blue arc in deep images of MS\,2053, located $\sim 16
125: \arcsec$ in the North direction from the Brightest Cluster
126: Galaxy (BCG). The arc is $\sim 11 \arcsec$ long and breaks into
127: two clumps, labeled A and B. Recently, \citet{tra05} were able
128: to measure the redshift of image A using Keck spectroscopy data
129: and determining the source redshift to be z = 3.146.
130:
131: \citet{hoe02} detected the weak lensing (WL) signal induced by
132: this cluster of galaxies from a two-colour mosaic of six Hubble
133: Space Telescope (HST) Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2)
134: images. They fitted a singular isothermal sphere model to the
135: observed azimuthally averaged tangential distorsion and
136: estimated the cluster velocity dispersion $\sigma = 886$ km
137: s$^{-1}$. \citet{hoe02} also fitted the predicted profile from
138: the NFW halo to the observed tangential distorsion of MS\,2053,
139: and found a concentration parameter (see section 3.1) in good
140: agreement with the predicted value for a cold dark matter model
141: without cosmological constant. \citet{tra05} combined images
142: from the wide-field HST WFPC2 and extensive spectral data from
143: the Keck Low Resolution Imager Spectrograph (LRIS) to make a
144: detailed study of the galaxy populations in MS\,2053. They
145: found that the cluster is composed of a main cluster (MS
146: 2053-A) and an infalling structure (MS\,2053-B) that are
147: gravitationally bound to each other; their study also shows
148: that the extended spatial distribution and lack of spectral
149: segregation in MS\,2053-B is consistent with a scenario in
150: which it is in the initial stages of being accreted by the main
151: cluster. Of the 149 spectroscopically confirmed cluster
152: members, 113 belong to MS\,2053-A and 36 to MS\,2053-B. From
153: these previous researches we present in Table~\ref{tbl-1} a
154: compilation of physical quantities relevant to our work .
155:
156: Despite all the research cited above, only \citet{hoe02} have
157: made an attempt to describe the strong lensing effect for this
158: cluster and it was done when the arc redshift had not been
159: measured yet. Assuming a redshift of z=2 for the arc and
160: adopting a singular isothermal sphere, these authors found a
161: velocity dispersion of about 1030 km s$^{-1}$, consistent with
162: their WL estimate. They argue that the mass distribution is
163: elongated in the direction of the arc, which can be very well
164: appreciated in the light distribution, and this elongation is
165: the cause of the high value of their strong lensing mass
166: estimate. Such elongation in the distribution of the cluster
167: members was also reported by \citet{tra05}. To assess with
168: precision this mass distribution, we present a detailed strong
169: lensing model of the bimodal cluster MS\,2053.
170:
171: In $\S$\,\ref{observ}, we describe the observational data and
172: present our sample of field galaxies. In $\S$\,\ref{model}, we
173: define the model of the lensing cluster, and depict the
174: profiles for both the cluster and the Galaxy-scale mass
175: components. In $\S$\,\ref{results}, we present the main
176: results. In $\S$\,\ref{discuss}, we summarize and discuss our
177: results. Finally, in $\S$\,\ref{conclus}, we present the
178: conclusions. Throughout this paper, we adopt a spatially-flat
179: cosmological model dominated by cold dark matter and a
180: cosmological constant. We use $\Omega_{m}=0.3$,
181: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ and H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
182: With these cosmological parameters and at the redshift of
183: MS\,2053, $1 \arcsec$ corresponds to 4.62 $h^{-1}$ kpc.
184:
185:
186: \section{THE OBSERVATIONAL DATA}\label{observ}
187:
188: The HST data have been obtained from the Multimission Archive
189: at Space Telescope (MAST). They consist of two WFPC2
190: images\footnote{Proposal ID 5991} obtained in both the F814W
191: and the F702W filters; the total integration time for each
192: filter was 2600 and 2400~s, respectively. The image reduction
193: was performed using the IRAF/STSDASS package. First, a
194: warm-pixel rejection was applied to the images using the IRAF
195: task \emph{warmpix}. The cleaned images were then combined with
196: the task \emph{crrej} to remove cosmic-rays hits. Finally, the
197: background was subtracted and the WFPC2 chips were combined
198: using the task \emph{wmosaic}. In Figure~\ref{fig1} we show a
199: $60''\times60''$ field obtained from the final four-chip mosaic
200: frame for the F814W filter; this is the region used in our
201: analysis of strong lensing.
202:
203: The magnitudes and geometric parameters of the galaxies were
204: measured using SExtractor \citep{ber96}. For the arc photometry
205: we used a different procedure because SExtractor often
206: overestimate the sky background \citep[see][]{smi05}, and the
207: arcs are highly distorted. These two circumstances reduce the
208: precision of automatic photometric measurements. Therefore, we
209: employed polygonal apertures to obtain more accurate
210: measurements. The vertices of the polygons for each arc were
211: determined using the IRAF task \emph{polymark}, and the
212: magnitudes inside this apertures were calculated using the IRAF
213: task \emph{polyphot}. Hence, we found F814W magnitudes of
214: m$_{F814W}=21.64\pm0.02$ and m$_{F814W}=22.01\pm0.04$ for arcs
215: A and B respectively, and therefore the total magnitude for the
216: system is $21.06\pm0.11$. Similarly, the F702W magnitudes are
217: m$_{F702W}=22.05\pm0.02$ for arc A and m$_{F702W}=22.38\pm0.04$
218: for arc B, contributing to a total magnitude of $21.45\pm0.11$.
219: Our measurements of the total brightness in these two bands are
220: slightly lower than the values reported by \citet{san05}
221: (m$_{F814W}=20.90$ and m$_{F702W}=21.27$). The small
222: discrepancies probably arise from the different methodologies
223: used to calculate the total magnitudes. For example,
224: \citet{san05} used a single aperture to measure the magnitude
225: for the system of arcs as a whole (arc AB), while we used two
226: apertures to measure each arc independently.
227:
228: We also calculated the F702W-F814W color for the AB arc system.
229: The color for arcs A ($0.41 \pm 0.03$) and B ($0.37 \pm 0.06$),
230: are similar within the errors, and the color for the whole AB
231: system, $0.39 \pm 0.15$, is similar to the value of 0.37
232: reported by \citet{san05}.
233:
234: The general properties of the cluster members are presented in
235: Table~\ref{tbl-2}. We used the relative positions for the
236: individual galaxies provided by \citet{tra02} to calculate the
237: coordinates of each member of the cluster. Column (1) lists the
238: identification for each MS\,2053 galaxy. Columns (2) and (3)
239: list the right ascension and declination. Column (4), the F814W
240: magnitudes. Columns (5) and (6) show the geometric parameters
241: derived from SExtractor: ellipticity $\epsilon$ and the
242: position angle $\theta_0$, which gives the orientation of the
243: semi-major-axis from the horizontal line in the image, measured
244: counter-clockwise. Column (7) lists the redshifts. Finally,
245: columns (8) and (9) list the values and the references for the
246: central velocity dispersions. The upper limits were taken from
247: \citet{tra05} (see their Figure 11), who consider only galaxies
248: brighter than M$_{Be}$ $\leq -20 + 5\log h$.
249:
250:
251: \section{THE MODEL OF THE LENS}\label{model}
252:
253: \subsection{Dark matter component}
254:
255: For studying the mass distribution in MS\,2053, we use standard
256: lens modeling techniques implemented in the LENSTOOL\footnote{
257: This software is publicly available at:
258: http://www.oamp.fr/cosmology/ lenstool/} ray-tracing code
259: \citep{kne93}.
260:
261: We model the cluster with a NFW profile that has been predicted in
262: cosmological N-body simulations \citep{nav97}:
263:
264: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}
265: \rho(r) = \frac{\rho_{crit}(z)\delta_{c}(z)}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^{2}}
266: \end{equation}
267:
268: \noindent where $\delta_c$ is a characteristic density
269: contrast, $\rho_{crit}(z)$ is the critical density of the
270: universe as a function of the redshift $z$, and $r_s$ is a
271: scale radius that corresponds to the region where the
272: logarithmic slope of the density equals the isothermal value.
273: However, higher-resolution simulations have suggested that the
274: inner cusp of the NFW profiles is too shallow
275: \citep[e.g.][]{moo98, ghi00}, giving origin to the generalized
276: NFW-type profile. It is worth noting that \citet{gav05} studied
277: MS 2137 - 2353, obtaining similar results by using both
278: profiles for the strong lensing regime. Therefore, for
279: simplicity we adopt a profile similar to the original NFW.
280: However, we consider an elliptical profile since in
281: modeling the gravitational lens it is important to
282: take into account the asphericity in the cluster potential.
283:
284: To generalize the spherical model to an ellipsoidal one, we
285: used the "pseudo-elliptical" NFW proposed by \citet{gol02}.
286: This potential is characterized by six parameters: the position
287: $X,Y$; the ellipticity $\epsilon$; the position angle
288: $\theta$; $r_s$ and the velocity dispersion $\sigma_s$. We
289: define $\sigma_s$ as:
290:
291: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sigma}
292: \sigma_s^{2} = 4\left(1+\ln{\frac{1}{2}}\right)G r_s^{2} \rho_{crit}\delta_{c}
293: \end{equation}
294:
295: \noindent This is approximately half of the value proposed by
296: \citet{gol02} and it is defined in such a way that it
297: represents a realistic velocity dispersion at radius $r_s$ and
298: not only a scaling parameter (see the appendix).
299:
300: We can relate this $\sigma_s$ to the virial mass $M_{\Delta}$
301: and the virial radius $r_{\Delta}$ of the cluster. If we define
302: $r_{\Delta}$ as the radius of a spherical volume within which
303: the mean density is $\Delta$ times the critical density at the
304: given redshift $z$ ($M_{\Delta} = \frac{4}{3} \pi
305: r_{\Delta}^{3} \rho_{crit}\Delta$), then the virial radius can
306: be expressed by:
307:
308: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rdelta}
309: r_{\Delta} =\left[ 2M_{\Delta}G/\Delta H(z)^{2} \right]^{1/3}
310: \end{equation}
311:
312: \noindent The value of the characteristic overdensity $\Delta$
313: is taken from the solution to the collapse of a spherical
314: top-hat model. Its value depends on $\Omega$ and can be
315: approximated by $ \Delta = 178\Omega_{m}^{0.45}$ when
316: $\Omega_{m} + \Omega_{\Lambda} = 1$ \citep{lac93,eke96,eke98}.
317: Integrating equation \ref{eq:rho} and using the above
318: definition, it is straightforward to show that the ratio
319: between virial and scale radii, which is commonly called the
320: concentration, $c = r_{\Delta}/r_s$, is related to $\delta_c$
321: by
322:
323: \begin{equation}\label{eq:delta}
324: \delta_{c} = \frac{\Delta}{3}
325: \frac{c^3}{ \left[ \ln(1+c)-\frac{c}{1+c} \right] }
326: \end{equation}
327:
328: \noindent Solving equation \ref{eq:delta}, we can determine the
329: concentration value given the $z$, $\sigma_s$ and $r_s$.
330:
331:
332: \subsection{Galaxy-scale mass components}
333:
334: For simplicity, we modeled the 23 galaxies using elliptical
335: singular isothermal spheres (ESISs) for the individual galaxies
336: \citep{bla87}. This galaxy-scale mass components were included
337: as perturbation into the cluster potential. The
338: potential for ESISs is given by\\
339:
340: \begin{equation}\label{eq:varphi}
341: \varphi(r,\theta) = 4\pi \frac{ \sigma_0^{2} }{c ^{2} }\frac{ D_{ LS
342: } }{ D_{ OS } } r \sqrt{ 1+ \epsilon\cos(2(\theta - \theta_{0})) }
343: \end{equation}
344:
345: \noindent where $\sigma_0^{2}$ corresponds exactly to the true
346: 3D velocity dispersion and $\theta_{0}$ is the position angle.
347: Note that equation \ref{eq:varphi} is defined completely if we
348: can obtain the values for $\sigma_0^{2}$, the ellipticity
349: $\epsilon$, and $\theta_{0}$ from observational data. The
350: luminosity distribution of a given galaxy does not trace the
351: dark mass distribution in its halo, however there is evidence
352: that the projected mass and light distributions tend to be
353: aligned \citep{kee98}. \citet{koo06} report this alignment
354: between light and mass for a sample of early-type lens
355: galaxies, for which the isophotal and isodensity countour trace
356: each other. These authors also report an alignment between the
357: stellar component and the singular isothermal ellipsoids used
358: in their lens models. Following these authors, we infer the
359: parameters of the galaxy-scale mass components from the
360: position, the ellipticity and the position angle of the
361: luminous component.
362:
363: \citet{wuy04} have measured the velocity dispersions of several
364: elliptical and lenticular galaxies in the cluster, and
365: \citet{tra05} have estimated the internal velocity dispersion
366: for the whole cluster sample with M$_{Be}$ $\leq -18 + 5\log h$.
367: Nevertheless, the individual data for each galaxy has not been
368: published for all the objects. To minimize the number of model
369: free parameters, the galaxies for which the velocity dispersion
370: is not available (see Table~\ref{tbl-2}) are scaled as a
371: function of luminosity following the Faber-Jackson relation
372: \citep{fab76}:
373:
374: \begin{equation}\label{eq:k}
375: \sigma_0 = \sigma_0^{*}(\frac{L}{L^{*}})^{1/4}
376: \end{equation}
377:
378: \noindent which transformed to magnitudes is expressed by
379: $\log\sigma_0=-0.1m + K$, where $\emph{K}$ is a scaling factor.
380: In this way the cluster members are incorporated into the model
381: as a galaxy scale perturbation with all their individual
382: parameters fixed.
383:
384:
385: \subsection{The model optimization}
386:
387: In principle, the optimizations in the source plane and in the
388: image plane are mathematically equivalent. However, we chose
389: using the source plane because the solutions are numerically
390: simpler and faster to compute. The fit of the model is
391: optimized by mapping the positions of the multiple images back
392: to the source plane and requiring them to have a minimal
393: scatter. To achieve this goal we use a
394: figure-of-merit-function, $\chi^{2}$, to quantify the goodness
395: of the fit for each trial of the lens model i.e., a function
396: that measures the agreement between our data and the fitting
397: model for a particular choice of the parameters:
398:
399: \begin{equation}\label{eq:chi2}
400: \chi^{2} = \chi_{pos}^{2}+\chi_{shape}^{2}
401: \end{equation}
402:
403: \noindent The first term is constructed as follows: given a
404: model, we compute the position in the source plane $\vec
405: u_i^{S}=(x_i^{S},y_i^{S})$ for each observed image ($1 \leq i
406: \leq N$), using the lens equation, $ \vec u_i^{S} = \vec
407: u_i^{I} - \nabla\varphi( \vec u_i^{I})$, where $\varphi$ is the
408: lens potential. Therefore, the barycenter $\vec u^{B} =
409: (x^B,y^B)$ is constructed from the N sources, and the
410: $\chi^{2}$ for the position is defined by:
411:
412: \begin{equation}
413: \chi_{pos}^{2} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}
414: \frac{\left(x^B-x_{i}^S\right)^{2}+\left(y^B-y_{i}^S\right)^{2}}{\sigma_{pos}^{2}}
415: \end{equation}
416:
417: \noindent were $\sigma_{pos}$ is the error in determining the
418: position of the source.
419:
420: The second term, $\chi_{shape}^{2}$, measures how well the
421: shape of the arcs is reproduced by the model. Given a model,
422: we compute the complex deformation, $\bar{\tau}_i$, for
423: each observed image ($1 \leq i \leq N$),using \emph{the lens
424: equation for complex deformation} \citep[see the discussion in]
425: [and their detailed derivation]{kne96}. The complex deformation
426: of the image represents how much the intrinsic source shape
427: changes due to the induced deformation caused by the potential.
428: This complex deformation is function of the ellipticity, the
429: position angle and the lens potential, $\bar{\tau}_i^{I} =
430: \bar{\tau}_i^{I}( \epsilon_i^{S},\theta_i^{S},\varphi)$.
431: It has an equivalent form in the source plane,
432: $\bar{\tau}_i^{S} =
433: \bar{\tau}_i^{S}( \epsilon_i^{I},\theta_i^{I},\varphi)$. If we
434: define $\tau_{x,i}^{S}$ and $\tau_{y,i}^{S}$ as the components
435: of the complex deformation in the source plane, and
436: $\sigma_{shape}$ as the error in determining the shape of the
437: source, we get:
438:
439: \begin{equation}
440: \chi_{shape}^{2} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}
441: \frac{\left(\tau_{x,i}^{S}-\tau_{x,i-1}^{S}\right)^{2}+\left(\tau_{y,i}^{S}-\tau_{y,i-1}^{S}\right)^{2}}{\sigma_{shape}^{2}}
442: \end{equation}
443:
444: \noindent The errors, $\sigma_{pos}$ and $\sigma_{shape}$,
445: have to be measured in the source plane, but these are not
446: directly observable quantities. To avoid this problem,we
447: assumed that the errors in the source plane arise from the
448: measurements performed in the image plane. Thus, we arbitrarily
449: set $\sigma_{pos}$ and $\sigma_{shape}$ to $0.2 \arcsec$ and
450: $0.8 \arcsec$ respectively, because these are the accuracies
451: achieved in the position and shape measurements from the HST
452: images. This is qualitatively correct in the sense that for
453: poor models, the merit function (equation \ref{eq:chi2}) gives
454: large values and thus indicates a poor fit.
455:
456: In the 6.2 version of LENSTOOL the Bayesian Markov Chain Monte
457: Carlo (MCMC) package BAYESIS\footnote{J. Skilling,
458: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/bayesys/} has been
459: implemented. The Bayesian MCMC method will be described in a
460: dedicated forthcoming publication (Jullo et al. 2007, in prep.)
461: This package allows to obtain the errors and to avoid local
462: $\chi^{2}$ minima. According to a user defined model parameter
463: space, the MCMC sampler draws random models and compute their
464: $\chi^{2}$. Progressively, it converges to the most likely
465: parameter space and outputs the best solution. We used these
466: random models to perform the statistics to compute error bars
467: on the estimation of the parameters, and to constrain the
468: positions of the bimodal cluster (see next section).
469:
470:
471: \section{RESULTS}\label{results}
472:
473: \subsection{A simple model for arc A}
474:
475: The only arc for which the redshift has been measured is arc A
476: \citep{tra05}. The first step was to demonstrate that arcs A
477: and B belong to the same source. But a model that includes only
478: arc A and not arc B is unconstrained, and the data available is
479: not adequate to break the degeneracy. Given the general
480: characteristics of the cluster, and a gravitational lensed
481: source with the properties inferred from arc A (i.e., redshift
482: and arc position), we investigate if this source would produce
483: multiple images or not. To achieve this task, we constructed a
484: simple spherical model with a NFW profile and its central 23
485: galaxies modeled like elliptical isothermal spheres.
486:
487: Using equation \ref{eq:delta} we calculated the virial radius
488: of the cluster. For a virial mass of $3.7
489: \times10^{15}$M$_\sun$ and a cluster redshift of z=0.583 (see
490: Table~\ref{tbl-1}), $r_{\Delta}$ $\sim 2.9 $ Mpc. Therefore,
491: $r_s$ $\sim 1.0 $ Mpc with a concentration parameter $c$=2.9
492: \citep[according to the prescription described in section 3.3
493: of ][]{eke01}. The characteristic velocity, $\sigma_s$ = 1600
494: km s$^{-1}$, is obtained from equation \ref{eq:sigma}. With
495: these values ($r_s$ and $\sigma_s$), the NFW profile is fully
496: characterized. At this stage, the ellipticity and the position
497: angle are set to zero.
498:
499: The velocity dispersion in the galaxy-scale mass components was
500: fixed using the scaling relation given by equation \ref{eq:k}.
501: We found that the early-type cluster galaxies in the sample of
502: \citet{wuy04} satisfy the Faber-Jackson relation with
503: $\log\sigma_0=-(0.1\pm 0.05)m + (4.4\pm1.1)$. For the remaining
504: subset of galaxies not included in the \citet{wuy04} sample,
505: only galaxy $n$ has a measured $\sigma_0$ value. We supposed
506: that these galaxies also satisfy the relation but with a
507: different scaling factor $K$. In order to construct the new
508: correlation, we considered the luminosity $L^*$ corresponding
509: to the faintest galaxy in Table~\ref{tbl-2} (galaxy $w$,
510: m$_{F814W}=22.57$). We set $\sigma_0^* = 64.7$ km s$^{-1}$ such
511: that the galaxy $n$ satisfies this correlation. With these
512: values, the velocity dispersion in the subset of galaxies not
513: included in the \citet{wuy04} sample is expressed by
514: $\log\sigma_0=-0.1m + 4.19$. Figure~\ref{fig2} show both, the
515: previous $\log\sigma_0$ and the Faber-Jackson relations for the
516: early-type galaxies of \citet{wuy04}.
517:
518: With all these parameters we calculate the counter-images of
519: arc A. The model obtained with these fixed parameters predicts
520: two more images, one very demagnified and the other only one
521: magnitude bellow the arc A; the position does not agree with B,
522: but this shows that for this cluster characteristics and with
523: this redshift of the source, A would have multiple
524: counter-images. Therefore, is entirely plausible that images A
525: and B arise from the same source.
526:
527:
528: \subsection{Bimodality evidence}
529:
530: Two kinds of models are possible depending on whether we assume
531: that MS\,2053 is composed of one or two clusters, as reported
532: by \citet{tra05}. We performed the fits setting up the position
533: (two parameters), the velocity, scale radius, ellipticity, and
534: the position angle of the cluster as free parameters. These 6
535: parameters define the lens potential and they comprise all the
536: allowed free parameters for this single cluster case. With
537: just 2 images and 4 constrains (if there is a total of
538: $\sum_{i=1}^{n}n_i=N$ images, then there are
539: $\sum_{i=1}^{n}4(n_i-1)=N_c$ constrains on the models assuming
540: that the position, ellipticity, and position angle of the
541: images are fitted) the model is underconstrained. And it gets
542: worse in the second model where we have 12 parameters defining
543: the lens potential. Therefore, we expect that there may be a
544: family of models that can fit the data, even with unrealistic
545: parameters. Trying to avoid this problem, we have limited one
546: parameter in the NFW, the scale radius $r_s$.
547:
548: The $r_s$ cut-off was made in the following way: Given the
549: cluster redshift and using equation \ref{eq:rdelta}, we can
550: write the scale radius as $r_s \propto M^{1/3}$ , being $M$ the
551: mass found from lensing. Since lensing is sensitive to the
552: integrated mass along the line of sight, we expect
553: discrepancies between the true 3D mass, $M_{true}$, and the
554: lensing mass estimates of our models, $M_{lens}$. Following
555: \citet{gav05}, we consider an axisymmetric NFW density profile
556: with either the major or the minor axis aligned toward the line
557: of sight. Therefore, the net effect of the projection is given
558: by $M_{lens} = qM_{true}$; where $q$ is the ratio between the
559: semiaxis aligned and the semiaxis perpendicular to the line of
560: sight. Thus, we can write:
561:
562: \begin{equation}
563: r_s \propto q^{1/3}M_{true}^{1/3}
564: \end{equation}
565:
566: \noindent Using the concentrations shown in Table~\ref{tbl-1}
567: and the axis values from \citet{gav05} we can constrain the
568: scale radius for each model. For the one component model, 0.60
569: Mpc $< r_s <$ 1.74 Mpc. Similarly for the two component model
570: 0.30 Mpc $< r_s <$ 0.87 Mpc and 0.10 Mpc $< r_s <$ 0.28 Mpc for
571: component one and two respectively.\\
572:
573: We constructed three models for the gravitational lens system.
574: The first model, which is unconstrained, consists of a
575: \textit{single }cluster and data from arcs A and B to make the
576: fit. Our best fit for the single component model predicts a
577: third image which is slightly demagnified (m$_{F814W}\approx
578: 23$) in a position where no object is detected in the HST
579: exposures. We explored the field near its predicted position and
580: identified an object around $6\arcsec$ to the north
581: ($\rm{R.A.}\,20\degr\,56\arcmin\,22 \farcs 5 \ \rm{and} \
582: \rm{DEC.}\,-04^h\,37^m\,37^s$) which seems to be a deformed
583: image of a galaxy. Fig.~\ref{fig3} shows the isocontour map
584: superimposed onto the optical image of this blurry object. We
585: measured the magnitude of this counter-image candidate
586: (m$_{F814W}=23.37\pm0.05$), and we found that it is similar to
587: the magnitude predicted by our model. Moreover, its F702W-F814W
588: color turns out to be analogous to arc A, $0.46 \pm 0.07$, (see
589: discussion below).
590:
591: In the second model, we repeated the previous fit but including
592: the third image candidate. With this third image the model is
593: well constrained because we have 8 constrictions and only 6
594: parameters. The fit was very accurate for the position but the
595: total $\chi^{2}$ is affected by the shape. It is interesting to
596: notice that in this well constrained model, there are two
597: different solutions in the XY-space. In Figure~\ref{fig4} we
598: show the XY parameter space for this lens model constructed
599: from all the trials coming out from the MCMC optimization
600: procedure. We think that this result is due to the fact that
601: the lens is a double cluster; we used the regions defined by
602: these clumps to construct a third model, the \textit{double}
603: component model, that accounts for a bimodal distribution of
604: mass.
605:
606: The results of these fits are summarized in Table~\ref{tbl-3}.
607: Column 1 identifies the model: \textsc{single} for models with
608: one component and \textsc{double }for the model with two
609: components; AB and ABC indicate that the model consists of arcs
610: A and B, or these two arcs plus the third image C. Columns 2 and
611: 3 show the position in arcseconds relative to the BCG. Columns
612: 4-8 list the parameters associated to NFW profile, ellipticity,
613: position angle, concentration, scale radius and $\sigma_s$,
614: respectively. Column 9 and Column 10 show the
615: $\chi^{2}$ for the image positions only and for the whole fit,
616: respectively.
617:
618:
619: \subsection{Mass profile}
620:
621: For the purpose of quantifying the mass distribution, we traced
622: a projected mass map from the best-fit model, Double ABC
623: (Figure~\ref{fig5}). Figure~\ref{fig6} shows the corresponding
624: isocontour map superimposed onto the F814W image of MS\,2053.
625: By integrating this two dimensional map, we can get the total
626: mass of the cluster. In other words, we can determine the mass,
627: making an azimuthal average of its mass in circles around the
628: BCG.
629:
630: In the figure~\ref{fig7} we compare the projected mass as a
631: function of radius for the three components of the cluster: The
632: two clusters (\emph{Component 1} and \emph{Component 2}) and
633: the individual galaxies. To calculate the contribution of the
634: individual galaxies, we extrapolate the masses of the
635: individual cluster components to their virial radii and add
636: them. We can appreciate that within the central 0.8\,Mpc, the
637: dominant component corresponds to the mass of the galaxies.
638: However, at the arc radius (r $\sim 0.1$\,Mpc) the
639: \emph{Component 1} has the main contribution to the lens mass.
640: Figure ~\ref{fig7} also show the total mass of the cluster as
641: the sum of these three components.
642:
643: Figure~\ref{fig8} shows the sum of the projected mass of
644: \emph{Component 1} and \emph{Component 2} (without including
645: the galaxies) as a function of radius. We have extrapolated the
646: NFW profiles up to 1 Mpc in order to compare with the virial
647: mass estimate by \citet{tra05}, and with a $\beta$ model
648: derived by \citet{vik02}. The vertical line shows the distance
649: of arc A with respect to the BCG, and it indicates the limit
650: below which the mass estimate from strong lensing is reliable.
651: The mass determined using X-ray data depends on assumptions
652: involving spherical symmetry and hydrostatic equilibrium.
653: However, MS\,2053 shows evidence of being two clusters enduring
654: a merger process \citep{tra05}, and therefore it is not
655: expected to find a good agreement between the $\beta$ model and
656: the strong lensing mass profile (see \S\,\ref{discuss}).
657:
658:
659:
660: \section{DISCUSSION}\label{discuss}
661:
662: We found that the colors for the ABC arc system turned out to
663: be virtually the same, with arc B slightly bluer but still
664: coinciding with the color of arc A and image C within the
665: errors. This result supports the assumption that images A, B
666: and C belong to the same source. Despite this fact a serious
667: concern, is the lack of specularity; arcs A and B should be
668: mirror images of each other, for which there is no evidence in
669: the HST image. However, this would not be the first case of
670: lack of specularity. For example, the cluster A\,383 shows a
671: giant tangential arc with substructures and with no evidence of
672: being formed by two mirror images; these substructures have
673: different colors \citep{smi01} and lie at the same redshift, $z
674: = 1.01$ \citep{san04}. \citet{smi05} have shown that these arc
675: features can be understood in terms of just one galaxy
676: positioned over the tangential and radial caustic lines
677: simultaneously, with three different portions of the same
678: galaxy producing the arc substructure. We think that something
679: similar may be occurring in MS\,2053, that is the proximity of
680: the source to the caustic line (see Figure~\ref{fig9}). The
681: color distribution in galaxies often changes at different
682: optical radii (e.g., bulge, disk and halo populations). In the
683: case of a spiral galaxy for which the disk (but not the bulge)
684: is located over a caustic line, part of the disk is mapped onto
685: a stretched arc such as arc B. This effect may explain the
686: slight difference, if any, for the arc B color, the difference
687: in shape between arcs A and B, and the lack of specularity
688: between the arcs.
689:
690: For the rest of this section we will assume that the three
691: images A, B, and C correspond to the same source. This
692: assumption, along with the evidence presented in the following
693: lines, in the sense that the quality of the fits is better for
694: the model with two cluster components, justifies that our
695: discussion shall be focused on our model 3. The $\chi^{2}$ for
696: the whole fit is $< 2.0$ for the \textsc{double\,abc} model and
697: $> 3.0$ for the other two, favoring the bimodal model (cf.
698: $\chi_{tot}^{2}$ values in Table~\ref{tbl-3}). In addition the
699: $\sigma_s$ values, $746 \pm 114$, and $392 \pm 133$ for
700: \emph{Component\,1} and \emph{Component\,2} respectively, agree
701: within the errors with the values reported by \citet{tra05};
702: but the other models yield larger velocities (\textit{c.f.}
703: Tables~\ref{tbl-1} and \ref{tbl-3}).
704:
705: \citet{hoe02} suggested that the mass distribution in MS\,2053
706: is elongated in the direction of the giant arc; this projected
707: spatial distribution of the cluster was confirmed by
708: \citet{tra05} and it was attributed to a real elongation in the
709: spreading of cluster members. The critical lines for our model,
710: shown in Figure~\ref{fig9}, reveal that the main component of
711: the double cluster has a position angle of $\approx
712: 80^{\circ}$, and supports the existence of a mass
713: elongation. In addition, the mass map as well as the isocontour
714: map of the projected mass distribution (see Figure~\ref{fig5}
715: and Figure~\ref{fig6}) reflect MS\,2053's elongated
716: distribution. The offset in the position of the cluster
717: components with respect to the BCG (see Table~\ref{tbl-3}) also
718: confirms the cluster asymmetry. Similar offsets have been found
719: by other authors for different clusters
720: \citep[e.g.][]{ogu04,cov05}, and the effects can reach values
721: up to 120 kpc in unrelaxed clusters \citep{smi05}.
722:
723: Several researches have reported large concentration values by
724: fitting NFW profiles to clusters of galaxies
725: \citep[e.g.][]{gav03, kne03,bro05}. However, these results were
726: obtained assuming spherically symmetric mass distributions,
727: although the CDM model predicts triaxial halos as consequence
728: of the collisionless dark matter \citep{jin02}. Using N-body
729: simulations, \citet{clo04} argue that the halo triaxiality
730: affects the concentration parameter measurements obtained
731: through gravitational lensing. \citet{gav05} concludes that a
732: prolate halo aligned toward the line of sight is a natural
733: explanation for the high concentration found in MS 2137-2353;
734: but he also leaves open the possibility that the lensing mass
735: estimates can be subestimated. \citet{ogu05} also investigated
736: the importance of the halo triaxiality and demonstrated that
737: this could cause a significant bias in estimating the virial
738: mass and concentration parameter from the lensing information.
739:
740: In contrast, the concentration parameters obtained either for
741: the single or for the double component clusters may be slightly
742: lower (\textit{c.f.}Tables~\ref{tbl-1} and \ref{tbl-3}),
743: although they agree, within the errors, with the expected
744: values . Following \citet{gav05}, a halo with axis ratio
745: $\geqslant$ 1 could explain the possible small discrepancies
746: between our model and those inferred by \citet{bul01} and
747: \citet{eke01} ($c \sim 4$ and $c \sim 5$) for a cluster with
748: $1.1\times10^{15}$ M$_{\sun}$ and $1.1\times10^{14}$ M$_{\sun}$
749: in a $\Omega_{\Lambda}$-dominated universe.
750:
751: A lower concentration changes the mass estimate. At large
752: radii, the effect tends to vanish and the weak lensing and
753: true masses are the same (see Figure~\ref{fig8} ), but inside
754: the arcs (r $\lesssim 0.1$\,Mpc) the effect is not negligible
755: producing an overestimate with respect to its actual X-ray
756: mass. But the differences in the masses can also be explained
757: as a result of the merging process. \citet{ras06} studied a set
758: of five galaxy clusters resolved at high resolution in a
759: hydrodynamic simulation, examining the systematics affecting
760: the X-ray mass estimates. They showed that for a cluster
761: undergoing a merger, the assumption of hydro-dynamical
762: equilibrium led to the underestimation of mass by 20$\%$, and
763: that a $\beta$ model gave even more discrepant results with
764: typical deviations of about 40$\%$. In Figure~\ref{fig8} we
765: compare the strong lensing mass profile to the X-ray mass
766: profile corrected for the 40$\%$ underestimation; we can see
767: that with this correction, the X-ray mass estimate agrees with
768: the mass obtained from the NFW components at the positions of
769: the arcs, but for smaller radii the X-ray mass is significantly
770: lower. It is important to notice that we did not have included
771: the masses of the individual cluster components, and thus we
772: are not considering in Figure~\ref{fig8} the total mass within
773: the arcs. In addition, the extrapolation of the NFW mass
774: inferred from gravitational lensing up to 1\,Mpc from the BCG,
775: well beyond the distance of the arcs, is a factor $\sim 2$
776: lower than the mass shown in Table~\ref{tbl-1} obtained by
777: \citet {tra05}.
778:
779: NFW ellipsoids have been successfully used for strong lensing
780: modelling in galaxy clusters \citep[e.g.][]{com06}. However,
781: the non-linearity of the gravitational lensing effect, as well
782: as its high dependence on the core densities, the asymmetries
783: of the mass distribution, and the cluster neighborhoods, put
784: limits to the use of analytical solutions in the case of non
785: relaxed systems, such as MS~2053. In this sense, the work of
786: \citet{tor04}, who have computed the strong lensing effect in a
787: merging cluster with complex and irregular mass distribution,
788: have shown that the lensing cross-sections can grow by one
789: order of magnitude and that during the merger, the shape of the
790: critical and caustics lines changes substantially. These topics
791: have been discussed in a recent paper by \citet{fed06}, who
792: propose a fast method to calculate cross sections for complex
793: and asymmetric mass distributions.
794:
795:
796:
797: \section{CONCLUSION}\label{conclus}
798:
799: We have modeled the mass distribution of the cluster MS\,2053
800: using the LENSTOOL ray-tracing code developed by \citet{kne93}.
801: The fits were performed considering both a single and a double
802: NFW profiles, and 23 Galaxy-scale mass components as
803: perturbations to the cluster potential. We used ESISs for the
804: individual galaxies and set constraints to their parameters
805: using observational data. We measured the arc positions and
806: shapes, and the galaxies positions using the HST archive image,
807: and calculated the NFW parameters for the single and double
808: galaxy cluster models. Our main results can be summarized as
809: follows:
810: \begin{enumerate}
811: \item The XY parameter space of the \textsc{single ABC}
812: model has a bimodal distribution that strongly
813: suggests a double cluster undergoing a merger
814: process. The quality of the fits also favor a model
815: with a bimodal mass distribution
816: \item The models consistently predict a third slightly
817: demagnified counter-image for the AB arc system.
818: \item We found a candidate for this counter-image near
819: the predicted position. This candidate shows a
820: fuzzy object that can be the image of a distorted
821: galaxy due to the effect of gravitational lensing. Besides,
822: it has the same F702W-F814W colors as arcs A and B.
823: \item Using the strong lensing effect we confirm the
824: asymmetry and the elongation in the mass
825: distribution of MS\,2053 reported by other authors
826: \citep{hoe02,tra05}, and we estimate the total lensing mass
827: within the arcs to be $4.7\times10^{13}$ M$_\odot$.
828: We find a significant discrepancy between the mass
829: estimates from lensing and X-ray measurements, that
830: we attribute to the fact that the cluster is not in
831: hydro-dynamical equilibrium.
832: \item The concentration parameters obtained either for
833: the single or for the double component clusters may
834: be slightly lower than the expected values. These
835: possible small discrepancies can be explained by
836: asymmetries in the mass distribution and the
837: projection effects.
838:
839: \end{enumerate}
840:
841: Much more work is necessary in order to understand MS\,2053
842: mass distribution. Future spectroscopic follow-up of arcs B
843: and C will provide a test of our model. Also, an extensive
844: study of the internal velocity dispersion of the cluster
845: members can be used to further improve the accuracy of the mass
846: reconstruction.
847:
848:
849:
850: \acknowledgments
851:
852: This work was partially supported by the DGAPA-UNAM grant
853: IN113002. T. Verdugo also acknowledges the scholarship support
854: by CONACyT (Register Number 176538), and CONACyT grant 54799.
855:
856: Some of the data presented in this paper were obtained from the
857: Multimission Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute
858: (MAST). STScI is operated by the Association of Universities
859: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract
860: NAS5-26555. Support for MAST for non-HST data is provided by
861: the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NAG5-7584 and by
862: other grants and contracts". The Dark Cosmology Centre is
863: funded by the Danish National Research Foundation.
864:
865: The author thank Vladimir Avila for useful comments, and the
866: anonymous referee for invaluable remarks and suggestions. We
867: also thank J. Benda for helping with proofreading.
868:
869:
870: \appendix
871:
872: \section{The Einstein angle for a NFW profile}
873:
874:
875: Consider a spherical NFW density profile acting like a lens.
876: The analytical solutions for this lens were given by
877: \citet{bar96} and have been studied by different authors
878: \citep{wri00,gol02,men03}. The positions of the source and the
879: image are related through the equation:
880:
881: \begin{equation}\label{eq:u}
882: \vec u^{S} = \vec u^{I} - \nabla\varphi( \vec u^{I}) = \vec u^{I} - \vec \alpha( \vec u^{I})
883: \end{equation}
884:
885: \noindent where $\vec u^{I}$ and $\vec u^{S}$ are the angular
886: position in the image and in the source planes, respectively.
887: $\vec \alpha$ is the deflection angle between the image and the
888: source and $\varphi$ is the two-dimensional lens potential. We
889: introduce the dimensionless radial coordinate $\vec x=\vec
890: u^{I}/u_s^{I}$, where $u_s^{I}=r_s/D_{OL}$, and $D_{OL}$ the
891: angular diameter distance between the observer and the lens. In
892: the case of an axially symmetric lens, the relations become
893: simpler, as the position vector can be replaced by its norm.
894:
895: The deflection angle then becomes \citep{gol02}:
896:
897: \begin{equation}\label{eq:alpha}
898: \vec \alpha(x) = 4k_s\frac{u^{I}}{x^{2}}g(x)\hat{e_x}
899: \end{equation}
900:
901: \noindent Where $g(x)$ is a function related with the surface
902: density inside the dimensionless radius $x$, and is given by
903: \citep{bar96}:
904:
905:
906: \begin{equation}
907: g(x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
908: \ln\frac{x}{2} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-x^{2}}} \, \rm{arccosh}\frac{1}{x} & \textrm{if $x<1$}\\
909:
910: 1+\ln\frac{1}{2} & \textrm{if $x = 1$}\\
911:
912: \ln\frac{x}{2} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{x^{2}-1}}\arccos\frac{1}{x} & \textrm{if $x>1$}\\
913: \end{array} \right.
914: \end{equation}
915:
916:
917: \noindent Where
918: $k_s=r_s\rho_{crit}\delta_{c}\Sigma_{crit}^{-1}$, the lensing
919: strength, is an estimate of the convergence parameter
920: \citep[see the discussion in][]{ogu04}. The quantity
921: $\Sigma_{crit}=(c^{2}/4\pi G)(D_{OS}/D_{OL}D_{LS})$ is the
922: critical surface mass density for lensing, and $D_{ LS }$ and
923: $D_{ OS }$ are the angular diameter distances between the lens
924: and the source, and the observer and the source, respectively.
925:
926: If we calculate the deflection angle at radius $r_s$, we obtain
927: $x=1$, and equation \ref{eq:alpha} can be expressed as:
928:
929: \begin{equation}
930: \vec \alpha(x) = \frac{16\pi G\rho_{crit}\delta_{c}r_s^{2}D_{LS}}{c^{2}D_{OS}}\left(1+\ln{\frac{1}{2}}\right) \hat{e_x}
931: \end{equation}
932:
933:
934: \noindent Hence, the lens equation \ref{eq:u} can be written
935: as:
936:
937: \begin{equation}
938: \vec u^{S} = \vec u^{I} \left(1+{\frac{u_{E,r_s}^{I}}{u^{I} }}\right)
939: \end{equation}
940:
941:
942: \noindent Where $u_{E,r_s}^{I}$ is the Einstein angle that for
943: the case $x=1$ is expressed by:
944:
945: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ue}
946: u_{E,r_s}^{I} = \frac{16\pi G\rho_{crit}\delta_{c}r_s^{2}D_{LS}}{c^{2}D_{OS}}\left(1+\ln{\frac{1}{2}}\right)
947: \end{equation}
948:
949:
950: \noindent For a circularly symmetric lens the Einstein radius
951: is given by $u_{E}^{I} =4\pi\sigma^{2}D_{LS}/c^{2}D_{OS}$.
952: Therefore, equation \ref{eq:ue} takes the form:
953:
954:
955: \begin{equation}
956: u_{E,r_s}^{I} = \frac{4\pi\sigma_s^{2} D_{LS}}{c^{2}D_{OS}}
957: \end{equation}
958:
959:
960: \noindent Where $\sigma_s^{2} = 4 \left (1+\ln{\frac{1}{2}}
961: \right)G r_s^{2} \rho_{crit}\delta_{c}$. Therefore, $\sigma_s$
962: represents the velocity at radius $r_s$. We adopt this
963: characteristic velocity in order to compare the velocity
964: predicted by our models with the velocity dispersion measured
965: in dynamical studies.
966:
967:
968:
969:
970:
971:
972:
973: \begin{thebibliography}{}
974:
975:
976: \bibitem[Bartelmann(1996)]{bar96} Bartelmann, M. 1996, \aap, 313, 697
977: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{ber96} Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S. 1996, \aap, 117, 393
978: \bibitem[Blandford \& Kochanek(1987)]{bla87} Blandford, R.D., \& Kochanek, C.S. 1987, \apj, 321, 658
979: \bibitem[Broadhurst et al.(2005)]{bro05} Broadhurst, T., Ben\'itez, N., Coe, D., et al. 2005, \apj, 621, 53
980: \bibitem[Bullock et al.(2001)]{bul01} Bullock, J.S., Kolatt, T.S., Sigad, Y. et al. 2001, \mnras, 321, 559
981: \bibitem[Clowe et al.(2004)]{clo04} Clowe, D., De Lucia, G., \& King, L. 2004, \mnras, 350, 1038
982: \bibitem[Comerford et al.(2006)]{com06} Comerford, J.M., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., \& Schirmer, M. 2006, \aap, 642, 39
983: \bibitem[Covone et al.(2005)]{cov05} Covone, G., Kneib, J.-P., Soucail, G. et al. 2005, \aap, submitted [astro-ph/0511332]
984: \bibitem[Della Ceca et al.(2000)]{del00} Della Ceca, R., Scaramella, R., Gioia, I.M., Rosati, P., Fiore, F., \& Squires, G. 2000, \aap, 353,498
985: \bibitem[Dyer \& Roeder(1976)]{dyr76} Dyer, C.C., \& Roeder, R. C. 1976, \nat, 260, 764
986: \bibitem[Eke et al.(1996)]{eke96} Eke, V.R., Cole, S. \& Frenk, C.S. 1996, \mnras, 282, 263
987: \bibitem[Eke et al.(1998)]{eke98} Eke, V.R., Navarro, J.F., \& Frenk, C.S. 1998, \apj, 503, 569
988: \bibitem[Eke et al.(2001)]{eke01} Eke, V.R., Navarro, J.F., \& Steinmetz, M. 2001, \apj, 554, 14
989: \bibitem[Faber \& Jackson(1976)]{fab76} Faber, S.M., \& Jackson, R.E. 1976, \apj, 204, 668
990: \bibitem[Fedeli et al.(2006)]{fed06} Fedeli, C., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., Kolag, K., \& Moscardini, L. 2006, \aap, 447, 419
991: \bibitem[Gavazzi(2005)]{gav05} Gavazzi, R. 2005, \aap, 443, 793
992: \bibitem[Gavazzi et al.(2003)]{gav03} Gavazzi, R., Fort, B., Mellier, Y., Pell\'o, R., \& Dantel-Fort, M. 2003, \aap, 403, 11
993: \bibitem[Ghigna et al.(2000)]{ghi00} Ghigna,S., Moore, B., Governato, F., et al. 2000, \apj, 544, 616
994: \bibitem[Gladders et al.(2003)]{gla03} Gladders, M.D., Hoekstra, H., Yee, H.K.C., Hall, P.B. \& Barrientos, L.F. 2003, \apj , 593, 48
995: \bibitem[Golse \& Kneib(2002)]{gol02} Golse, G., \& Kneib, J.-P. 2002, \aap, 390, 821
996: \bibitem[Hoekstra et al.(2002)]{hoe02} Hoekstra, H., Franx, M., Kuijken, K., \& van Dokkum, P.G. 2002, \mnras, 333, 911
997: \bibitem[Jing \& Suto(2002)]{jin02} Jing, Y.P., \& Suto, Y. 2002, \apj, 574, 538
998: \bibitem[Karoji \& Nottale(1976)]{kar76} Karoji, H., \& Nottale, L. 1976, \nat, 259, 31
999: \bibitem[Keeton et al.(1998)]{kee98} Keeton, C.R., Kochanek, C.S., \& Falco, E.E. 1998, \apj, 509, 561
1000: \bibitem[Kneib(1993)]{kne93} Kneib, J.-P. 1993, Ph.D. thesis, Universit\'e Paul Sabatier, Toulouse
1001: \bibitem[Kneib et al.(1996)]{kne96} Kneib, J.-P., Ellis, R.S., Smail, I., Couch, W.J., \& Sharples, R.M. 1996, \apj, 471, 643
1002: \bibitem[Kneib et al.(2003)]{kne03} Kneib, J.-P., Hudelot, P., Ellis, R.S. et al. 2003, \apj, 598, 804
1003: \bibitem[Koopmans et al.(2006)]{koo06} Koopmans, L.V.E., Bolton, A.S., Burles, S., \& Moustakas, L.A. 2006, \apj, 649, 599
1004: \bibitem[Lacey \& Cole(1993)]{lac93} Lacey, C., \& Cole, S. 1993, \mnras, 262, 627
1005: \bibitem[Le F\'evre et al.(1994)]{lef94} Le F\'evre, O., Hammer, F., Angonin, M., Gioia, I.M., \& Luppino, G.A. 1994, \apj, 422, L5
1006: \bibitem[Limousin et al.(2006)]{lim06} Limousin, M., Richard, J., Kneib, J.-P,et al. 2006, \aap, submitted [astro-ph/0612165]
1007: \bibitem[Luppino \& Gioia(1992)]{lup92} Luppino, G.A., \& Gioia, I.M. 1992, \aap, 265, L9
1008: \bibitem[Luppino et al.(1999)]{lup99} Luppino, G.A., Gioia, I.M., Hammer, F., Le F\'evre, O., \& Annis, J.A. 1999, \aap, 136, 117
1009: \bibitem[Lynds \& Petrosian(1986)]{lyn86} Lynds, R., \& Petrosian, V. 1986, \baas, 18, 1014
1010: %\bibitem[Mollerach \& Roulet(2002)]{mol02} Mollerach, S., \& Roulet, E. 2002, Gravitational Lensing and Microlensing (Singapore:World Scientific)
1011: \bibitem[Meneghetti et al.(2003)]{men03} Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., \& Moscardini, L. 2003, \mnras, 340, 105
1012: \bibitem[Moore et al.(1998)]{moo98} Moore, B., Governato, F., Quinn, T. et al. 1998, \apj, 499, L5
1013: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1984)]{nar84} Narayan, R., Blandford, R., \& Nityananda, R. 1984, \nat, 310, 112
1014: \bibitem[Navarro et al.(1997)]{nav97} Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., \& White, S.D.M. 1997, \apj, 490, 493
1015: \bibitem[Oguri et al.(2004)]{ogu04} Oguri, M., Inada, N., Keeton, C.R., et al. 2004, \apj, 605, 78
1016: \bibitem[Oguri et al.(2005)]{ogu05} Oguri, M., Takada, M., Umetsu, K., \& Broadhurst, T. 2005, \apj, 632, 841
1017: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1987)]{pac87} Paczy\'nski, B. 1987, \nat, 325, 572
1018: \bibitem[Rasia et al.(2006)]{ras06} Rasia, E., Ettori, S., Moscardini, L., Mazzotta, P., et al. 2006, \mnras, 369, 2013
1019: \bibitem[Sand et al.(2005)]{san05} Sand, D.J., Treu, T., Ellis, R.S., \& Smith, G.P. 2005, \apj, 627, 32
1020: \bibitem[Sand et al.(2004)]{san04} Sand, D.J., Treu, T., Smith, G.P., \& Ellis, R.S. 2004, \apj, 604, 88
1021: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2001)]{smi01} Smith, G.P., Kneib, J.-P., Ebeling, H.,, Czoske, O., \& Smail, I. 2001, \apj, 552, 493
1022: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2005)]{smi05} Smith, G.P., Kneib, J.-P., Smail, I., \& Mazzotta, P. 2005, \apj, 359, 417
1023: \bibitem[Soucail et al.(2004)]{sou04} Soucail, G., Kneib, J.-P., \& Golse, G. 2004, \aap, 417, L33
1024: \bibitem[Soucail et al.(1987)]{sou87} Soucail, G., Fort, B., Mellier, Y., \& Picat, J.P., \aap, 172, L14
1025: \bibitem[Torri et al.(2004)]{tor04} Torri, E., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., et al. 2004, \mnras, 349, 476
1026: \bibitem[Tran (2002)]{tra02} Tran, K.V. 2002, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. California, Santa Cruz
1027: \bibitem[Tran et al.(2003)]{tra03} Tran, K.V., Franx, M., Illingworth, G., Kelson, D.D., \& van Dokkum, P. 2003, \apj, 599, 865
1028: \bibitem[Tran et al.(2005)]{tra05} Tran, K.V., van Dokkum, P.G., Illingworth, G.D., Kelson, D., Gonzalez, A., \& Franx, M. 2005, \apj, 619, 134
1029: \bibitem[Turner et al.(1984)]{tur84} Turner, E.L., Ostriker, J.P., \& Gott, J.R., III 1984, \apj, 284, 1
1030: \bibitem[Vikhlinin et al.(2002)]{vik02} Vikhlinin, A., VanSpeybroeck, L., Markevitch, M., Formarn, W.R., \& Grego, L. 2002, \apj, 578, L107
1031: \bibitem[Wright \& Brainerd(2000)]{wri00} Wright, C.O., \& Brainerd, T.G. 2000, \apj, 534, 34
1032: \bibitem[Wuyts et al.(2004)]{wuy04} Wuyts, S., van Dokkum, P.G., Kelson, D.D., Franx, M., \& Illingworth G.D. 2004, \apj, 605, 677
1033: \bibitem[Zaritsky \& Gonzalez(2003)]{zar03} Zaritsky, D., \& Gonzalez, A.H. 2003, \apj, 584, 691
1034:
1035: \end{thebibliography}
1036:
1037:
1038: \clearpage
1039:
1040:
1041: \begin{figure}
1042: \epsscale{.80}
1043: \plotone{f1.eps}
1044: \caption{HST WFPC2 F814W image of the central region ($60\arcsec
1045: \times60\arcsec$) of the MS2053 cluster, North is up, East is left.
1046: The arcs A and B are identified, as well as the 23 galaxies
1047: considered in our models (lower-case letters). The square
1048: shows the region enlarged in Fig. \ref{fig3}. \label{fig1}}
1049: \end{figure}
1050:
1051:
1052: \begin{figure}
1053: \epsscale{.80}
1054: \plotone{f2.eps}
1055: \caption{The cluster galaxies and the Faber-Jackson relation.
1056: The solid line shows the correlation for the early-type galaxies
1057: of \citet{wuy04} for which the velocity dispersion is available.
1058: Dashed line is a similar correlation but for galaxies
1059: not included in the \citet{wuy04} sample. The triangle
1060: represents galaxy \emph{n}, whose velocity dispersion has
1061: been measured by \citet{tra03}. \label{fig2}}
1062: \end{figure}
1063:
1064:
1065: \begin{figure}
1066: \epsscale{.80}
1067: \plotone{f3.eps}
1068: \caption{A detail of the HST observation in the F814W filter of
1069: the region shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}, centered on the
1070: counter-image candidate (North is up, East is left).
1071: Superimposed on the image, the isophot map in arbitrary units
1072: shows the shape of a deformed galaxy.
1073: \label{fig3}}
1074: \end{figure}
1075:
1076:
1077: \begin{figure}
1078: \epsscale{.80}
1079: \plotone{f4.eps}
1080: \caption{Two-dimensional distribution of the position of the
1081: cluster center for the SINGLE ABC model. Two clumps are easily
1082: distinguished. We used these clumps to construct the DOUBLE
1083: ABC model. The points show the results from the different trials
1084: of the MCMC optimization.\label{fig4}
1085: }
1086: \end{figure}
1087:
1088:
1089:
1090: \begin{figure}
1091: \epsscale{.80}
1092: \plotone{f5.eps}
1093: \caption{Projected mass distribution derived from the double
1094: component lens model. Note the elongation in the cluster
1095: mass which traces the distribution of the galaxies.
1096: \label{fig5}
1097: }
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100:
1101:
1102:
1103:
1104: \begin{figure}
1105: \epsscale{.80}
1106: \plotone{f6.eps}
1107: \caption{
1108: HST WFPC2 F814W image of MS2053. The contours correspond to
1109: the projected surface densities of $ 2.3, 4.8, 7.3 \times10^{10}$
1110: M$_\odot$ arcsec$^{-2}$. As well as in Figure~\ref{fig5} we can
1111: appreciate that the shape of the main component is elongated.
1112: \label{fig6} }
1113: \end{figure}
1114:
1115:
1116:
1117:
1118:
1119: \begin{figure}
1120: \epsscale{.80}
1121: \plotone{f7.eps}
1122: \caption{The projected mass as a function of the aperture radius
1123: measured from the BCG for the three components of the
1124: cluster. The red-doted line and the green-dashed line
1125: illustrates the mass profile for
1126: \emph{Component 1} and \emph{Component 2},
1127: respectively. The blue-dot-dashed line shows the
1128: masses of the individual cluster components.
1129: The black-solid line is the total mass of the cluster.
1130: \label{fig7}
1131: }
1132: \end{figure}
1133:
1134:
1135:
1136:
1137:
1138: \begin{figure}
1139: \epsscale{.80}
1140: \plotone{f8.eps}
1141: \caption{The projected mass for the NFW profile
1142: as a function of the aperture radius
1143: measured from the BCG.
1144: The black-solid line shows the mass profile derived from the
1145: sum of \emph{Component 1} and \emph{Component 2}
1146: in the double component model. The vertical blue line indicates the
1147: radius of the AB arc system. The mass estimate inside this radius
1148: is reliable. The mass outside the AB arc system has been
1149: extrapolated from the NFW model. The dashed line illustrates a
1150: $\beta$ model derived from data of \citet{vik02}. The
1151: dot-dashed line shows the same $\beta$ model corrected for the
1152: lack of hydrodynamical equilibrium in a merging cluster
1153: \citep{ras06}.\label{fig8}
1154: }
1155: \end{figure}
1156:
1157:
1158:
1159: \begin{figure}
1160: \epsscale{.80}
1161: \plotone{f9.eps}
1162: \caption{The external critic (continuous) and caustic (dashed)
1163: lines for the DOUBLE ABC model and the position of the lensed
1164: galaxy (shown as a small circle) in the source plane.
1165: The ellipses are the images predicted by our best
1166: model.\label{fig9}}
1167: \end{figure}
1168:
1169:
1170: \clearpage
1171:
1172:
1173: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccc}
1174: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1175:
1176: \tablecaption{Cluster parameters\label{tbl-1}}
1177: \tablewidth{0pt}
1178:
1179: \tablehead{ \colhead{Group} & \colhead{$z$} &
1180: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$M_{vir}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma$}
1181: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma\tablenotemark{a}$} &
1182: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$c\tablenotemark{b}$} & \colhead{Reference}\\
1183:
1184: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$(M_{\odot})$} &
1185: \colhead{(km s$^{-1}$)} & \colhead{(km s$^{-1})$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}}
1186:
1187: \startdata
1188:
1189: $MS\,2053$ & $0.5866 \pm 0.0011$ & $3.7\times10^{15} $ & $1523 \pm 95$ & $886_{-139}^{+121}$ & $2.9$ & $1,2$ \\
1190: $MS\,2053-A$ & $0.5840 \pm 0.0005$ & $1.1\times10^{15} $ & $\phantom{0}865 \pm 71$ & $$ & $3.8$ & $1$ \\
1191: $MS\,2053-B$ & $0.5982 \pm 0.0003$ & $1.1\times10^{14} $ & $\phantom{0}282 \pm 51$ & $$ & $5.4$ & $1$\\
1192:
1193: \enddata
1194: %\tablecomments{Table \ref{tbl-1} bla,bla,bla.}
1195: \tablenotetext{a}{ Weak lensing data}
1196: \tablenotetext{b}{Calculated from \citet{eke01} }
1197: \tablerefs{
1198: (1) \citet{tra05}; (2) \citet{hoe02}}
1199: \end{deluxetable}
1200:
1201:
1202: \clearpage
1203:
1204:
1205: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccrccc}
1206: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1207:
1208: \tablecaption{Data of the galaxies\label{tbl-2}}
1209: \tablewidth{0pt}
1210:
1211: \tablehead{ \colhead{ID Name} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$}
1212: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\delta$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$F814W$} & \colhead{$\epsilon$\tablenotemark{b}}
1213: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\theta_0$}
1214: & \colhead{z} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0$} & \colhead{Reference} \\
1215:
1216: \colhead{} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(J2000)} & \colhead{(mag)} &
1217: \colhead{ } & \colhead{$(^{\circ})$} & \colhead{} &
1218: \colhead{(km s$^{-1})$} & \colhead{}
1219: }
1220:
1221: \startdata
1222:
1223: $a$ & $20:56:21.4$ & $-04:37:50$ & $19.13\pm0.01 $ & $0.259$ & $\phantom{0}63.9$ & $0.583$ & $292.0\pm10.0 $ & $1$\\
1224: $b$ & $20:56:21.5$ & $-04:37:54$ & $20.24\pm0.01 $& $0.122$ & $\phantom{0}81.8$ & $0.5894$ & $234.0\pm23.0 $ & $1$\\
1225: $c$ & $20:56:21.5$ & $-04:38:00$ & $20.93\pm0.02 $& $0.577$ & $-41.1$ & $0.5724$ & $151.0\pm17.0 $& $1$\\
1226: $d$ & $20:56:20.1$ & $-04:37:35$ & $20.29\pm0.01 $& $0.368$ & $-\phantom{0}7.5$ & $0.5846$ & $169.0\pm14.0$ & $1$\\
1227: $e$ & $20:56:20.5$ & $-04:38:02$ & $20.84\pm0.01 $& $0.473$ & $\phantom{0}32.9$ & $0.5737$ & $129.0\pm15.0 $ & $1$\\
1228: $f$ & $20:56:22.0$ & $-04:38:13$ & $21.47\pm0.02 $& $0.278$ & $\phantom{0}80.2$ & $0.5800$ & $138.0\pm13.0 $ & $1$\\
1229: $g$ & $20:56:23.0$ & $-04:38:08$ & $20.19\pm0.01 $& $0.136$ & $-74.2$ & $0.5854$ & $124.0\pm13.0 $ & $1$\\
1230: $h$ & $20:56:22.1$ & $-04:38:18$ & $21.12\pm0.02 $& $0.374$ & $-\phantom{0}9.8$ & $0.5835$ & $181.0\pm13.0 $ & $1$\\
1231: $i$ & $20:56:21.3$ & $-04:37:57$ & $21.09\pm0.02 $ & $0.299$ & $\phantom{00}7.1$ & $0.5854$ & $<200.0$ & $2$\\
1232: $k$ & $20:56:19.6$ & $-04:38:05$& $19.98\pm0.01 $ & $0.867$ & $-66.5$ & $0.5912$ & $<200.0$ & $2$\\
1233: $l$ & $20:56:19.6$ & $-04:37:54$& $21.38\pm0.02 $ & $0.270$ & $-68.3$ & $0.5824$ & $<200.0$& $2$\\
1234: $m$ & $20:56:20.0$ & $-04:37:49$& $20.88\pm0.01 $ & $0.361$ & $-10.1$ & $0.5813$ & $<100.0$ & $2$\\
1235: $n$ & $20:56:21.1$ & $-04:37:22$& $21.34\pm0.02 $ & $0.240$ & $\phantom{0}76.1$ & $0.5764$ & $\phantom{<1}86.0$ & $3$\\
1236: $o$ & $20:56:21.9$ & $-04:37:25$& $21.67\pm0.03 $ & $0.063$ & $\phantom{0}26.3$ & $0.5799$ & $<200.0$ & $2$\\
1237: $p\tablenotemark{a}$ & $20:56:23.2$ & $-04:37:50$& $20.83\pm0.01 $ & $0.203$ & $\phantom{0}11.7$ & $0.5990$ & $<100.0$ & $2$\\
1238: $q\tablenotemark{a}$ & $20:56:20.9$ & $-04:37:47$& $21.74\pm0.03 $ & $0.335$ & $-\phantom{0}9.0$ & $0.5978$ & $<100.0$ & $2$\\
1239: $r\tablenotemark{a}$ & $20:56:20.3$ & $-04:37:50$& $20.04\pm0.01 $ & $0.116$ & $\phantom{0}65.5$ & $0.5990$ & $<100.0$ & $2$\\
1240: $s\tablenotemark{a}$ & $20:56:20.7$ & $-04:37:32$& $21.41\pm0.02 $ & $0.855$ & $\phantom{0}84.8$ & $0.5993$ & $<100.0$ & $2$\\
1241: $t$ & $20:56:20.9$ & $-04:38:06$& $21.90\pm0.03 $ & $0.093$ & $-\phantom{0}4.4$ & $0.5827$ & \nodata & $$\\
1242: $u$ & $20:56:21.7$ & $-04:37:45$& $21.04\pm0.02 $ & $0.546$ & $-47.6$ & $0.5876$ & \nodata & $$\\
1243: $v$ & $20:56:22.2$ & $-04:37:31$& $21.99\pm0.04 $ & $0.217$ & $\phantom{0}22.3$ & $0.5892$ & \nodata & $$\\
1244: $w$ & $20:56:20.8$ & $-04:37:28$& $22.57\pm0.06 $ & $0.910$ & $\phantom{0}68.7$ & $0.5939$ & \nodata & $$\\
1245: $x$ & $20:56:20.5$ & $-04:37:26$ & $21.90\pm0.04 $ & $0.798$ & $-48.9$ & $0.5782$ & \nodata & $$\\
1246:
1247: \enddata
1248:
1249: \tablenotetext{a}{ Galaxies that belong to the second cluster
1250: component, according to \citet{tra05} } \tablenotetext{b}{ The
1251: ellipticities are defined as $\epsilon = \frac{ a^{2}-b^{2} }{
1252: a^{2}+b^{2} } $, where $a$ and $b$ are respectively
1253: the semi-major and semi-minor axis of the
1254: elliptical shape. }
1255:
1256: \tablerefs{ (1) Wuyts et
1257: al. 2004; (2) Tran et al. 2005; (3) Tran et al. 2003 .}
1258:
1259: \end{deluxetable}
1260:
1261:
1262: \clearpage
1263:
1264:
1265: \begin{deluxetable}{lrrrrrrrrr}
1266: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1267: \rotate
1268: \tablecaption{Best-fitting parameters\label{tbl-3}}
1269: \tablewidth{0pt}
1270:
1271: \tablehead{ \colhead{Model} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{X} &
1272: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Y} & \colhead{$\epsilon$} &
1273: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\theta$} & \colhead{c} &
1274: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$r_s$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_s$}
1275: & \colhead{$\chi_{pos}^{2}$} & \colhead{$\chi_{tot}^{2}$}\\
1276:
1277: \colhead{} & \colhead{$('')$} & \colhead{$('')$} & \colhead{ }
1278: & \colhead{$(^{\circ})$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{(kpc)} &
1279: \colhead{(km s$^{-1})$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{}}
1280:
1281: \startdata
1282:
1283: % MODEL X Y Eps Theta c rs Sigma Chi-pos Chi-total
1284:
1285: SINGLE AB & $-4.1 \pm 3.3$ & $\phantom{1}6.6 \pm 4.8$ & $0.24 \pm 0.15$ & $104 \pm 37$ & $2.6 \pm 0.7$ & $1259 \pm 312$ & $ 1251 \pm 165$ & $1.3\phantom{0}$ & $4.6$\phantom{0}\\
1286: SINGLE ABC & $-2.5 \pm 0.9$ & $\phantom{1}9.7 \pm 3.0$ & $0.25 \pm 0.11$ & $\phantom{1}83 \pm \phantom{1}4$ & $2.4 \pm 0.6$ & $1265 \pm 290$ & $1136 \pm 100$ & $0.2\phantom{0}$ & $3.4$\phantom{0}\\
1287: DOUBLE ABC & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $1.2\phantom{0}$ & $1.7$\phantom{0}\\
1288: ~~Component 1 & $-1.7 \pm 1.4$ & $\phantom{1}7.2 \pm 2.5$ & $0.34 \pm 0.16$ & $\phantom{1}81 \pm 18$ & $3.1 \pm 0.9$ & $\phantom{1}634 \pm 159$ & $\phantom{1}746 \pm 114$ & $$ & $$\\
1289: ~~Component 2 & $-2.3 \pm 1.9$ & $15.1 \pm 1.1$ & $0.27 \pm 0.19$ & $\phantom{1}89 \pm 41$ & $4.9 \pm 2.1$ & $\phantom{1}202 \pm \phantom{1}50$ & $\phantom{1}392 \pm 133$ & $$ & $$\\
1290: \enddata
1291: %\tablecomments{Table \ref{tbl-3} Bla,bla,bla...}
1292:
1293: \end{deluxetable}
1294:
1295: % Dum fortuna favet, parit et taurus vitulum.
1296: % If fortune is favorable, calfs are born from the bulls.
1297:
1298: \end{document}
1299: