1: %\documentstyle[aasms4,flushrt]{article}
2: \documentclass[10pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %
7: % TITLE PAGE AND ABSTRACT
8:
9: \title{Light Propagation in Inhomogeneous Universes.\\
10: V. Gravitational Lensing of Distant Supernovae.}
11:
12: \author{Hugo Martel\altaffilmark{1} and Premana Premadi\altaffilmark{2}}
13:
14: \altaffiltext{1}{D\'epartement de physique, de g\'enie physique et d'optique,
15: Universit\'e Laval, Qu\'ebec, Canada, G1K 7P4}
16:
17: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy and Bosscha Observatory,
18: Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We use a series of ray-tracing experiments to determine the
22: magnification distribution of high-redshift sources by gravitational
23: lensing. We determine empirically the relation between magnification
24: and redshift, for various cosmological models. We then use this
25: relation to estimate the effect of lensing on the determination of the
26: cosmological parameters from observations of high-$z$ supernovae. We
27: found that, for supernovae at redshifts $z<1.8$, the effect of lensing
28: is negligible compared to the intrinsic uncertainty in the
29: measurements. Using mock data in the range $1.8<z<8$, we show that the
30: effect of lensing can become significant. Hence, if a population of
31: very-high-$z$ supernovae was ever discovered, it would be crucial to fully
32: understand the effect of lensing, before these SNe could be used to
33: constrain cosmological models.
34: We show that the distance moduli
35: $m-M$ for an open CDM universe and a $\Lambda$CDM universe are comparable
36: at $z>2$. Therefore if supernovae up to these redshifts were ever discovered,
37: it is still the ones in the range $0.3<z<1$ that would
38: distinguish these two models.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{cosmology: theory --- gravitational lensing ---
42: large-scale structure of universe --- supernovae}
43:
44: \newpage
45:
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: %
48: % TEXT
49:
50: \section{INTRODUCTION}
51:
52: High-redshift supernovae have become a major tool in modern
53: cosmology. By measuring their apparent magnitudes, we can
54: estimate their luminosity distances $d_L$
55: (see \citealt{tonryetal03,barrisetal04,riessetal04}, and references therein).
56: Since the relationship
57: between $d_L$ and the redshift $z$ depends on the cosmological parameters,
58: observations of distant SNe can constrain the cosmological model. Prior
59: to the announcement of the {\sl WMAP} results \citep{bennettetal03},
60: observations of high-$z$ SNe provided the most compelling evidence of the
61: existence of a nonzero cosmological constant. Since then, they have been
62: used in combination with the {\sl WMAP} data to refine the determination
63: of the cosmological parameters.
64:
65: The luminosity distances $d_L$ are determined by combining the observed
66: fluxes $F$ with estimates of the SNe luminosities $L$. Uncertainties
67: in $d_L$ are caused by uncertainties in $L$, because
68: SNe are not perfect standard candles. The flux $F$ is much easier to measure,
69: but for distant sources the value of $F$ might be altered by gravitational
70: lensing caused by the intervening distribution of matter. For instance,
71: a magnification $\mu>1$ would result in a increase in $F$, and an
72: underestimation of $d_L$.
73:
74: Estimating the effect of lensing on the statistics of high-$z$ supernovae
75: is a complex problem. Using either an analytical model or ray-tracing
76: simulations, we can estimate the effect of lensing of a large
77: number of sources in a statistical sense. We would then need to redo
78: the error analysis on the SNe data to include in a consistent way the
79: effect of lensing. This would be a very complex task, and
80: in this paper we have chosen a much simpler approach.
81: {\it Our goal is not to obtain a precise estimate
82: of the error introduced by lensing, but rather to assess the importance
83: of this effect: is it dominant, important, or negligible, and for what
84: range of redshift? and how does it affect the discrimination between
85: different cosmological models?\/} To answer these questions, we take at
86: face value the published results of Type~Ia SNe, including their error bars
87: which account for every source of uncertainty but gravitational lensing.
88: Then, we include {\it a posteriori\/} the effect of lensing, to estimate
89: the change in the errors. This approach is not rigorous at all, and does
90: not constitute a substitute for a rigorous treatment of the errors.
91: But it has the great advantage of simplicity. We do not have to redo
92: the detailed error analysis performed by the high-redshift SNe groups,
93: and, more importantly, our conclusions will not be tied to any particular
94: sample or particular data reduction and error analysis technique
95: used by any particular group. We are seeking to make generic statements about
96: the importance of lensing (or lack of) that are relevant to any
97: current or future sample of high-$z$ SNe.
98:
99: The lensing of distant supernovae has been the focus of several recent
100: studies. In an early study, \citet{wambsganssetal97} used ray-tracing
101: experiments to estimate the effect of weak lensing on the determination
102: of the deceleration parameter $q_0$.
103: \citet{md05}, \citet{dv05}, and \citet{mv06} focused on SNe as a mean
104: to study the nature of weak lensing.
105: The issue of determining the cosmological parameters for distant SNe,
106: and how this determination is affected by lensing,
107: was addressed by \citet{wang05} who used
108: semi-analytical models to determine the magnification
109: distribution function, \citet{hl05} who used Monte Carlo
110: ray-tracing simulations to study the effect of weak and strong lensing,
111: and \citet{gunnarssonetal06} and \citet{jonssonetal06}, who
112: estimated the effect on lensing along individual lines of sight by considering
113: the properties of foreground galaxies in the same direction.
114: These various studies
115: concluded that the effect of lensing on current determinations of
116: the cosmological parameters is small. \citet{alderingetal06} discussed
117: the effect of gravitational lensing on a population of SNe at $z>1.7$.
118:
119: What distinguishes our approach is mostly its
120: simplicity. Our calculations depend on very few assumptions, and this
121: implies a certain amount of robustness to our results. Even though we
122: rely on numerical simulations, this work should be regarded as a
123: back-of-the-envelope calculation, whose purpose is to obtain a qualitative
124: estimate of the effect of lensing on the determination of cosmological
125: parameters by distant SNe. Using ray-tracing experiments, rather than
126: a semi-analytical approach, enables us to extend our study to redshifts
127: much higher than the ones considered by \citet{wang05} and \citet{hl05}.
128:
129: This paper is organized as follow: In \S2, we describe our calculation
130: of the magnification distribution $P(\mu)$, and how to estimate that
131: distribution at any redshift $z$. In \S3, we describe the real and mock
132: samples of supernovae we use for our calculations. Results are presented
133: in \S4. In \S5, we address various observational issues. Summary and
134: conclusion are presented in \S6.
135:
136: \section{THE MAGNIFICATION DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION}
137:
138: \subsection{Simulations}
139:
140: We have developed a {\it multiple lens-plane algorithm} to study
141: light propagation in inhomogeneous universes
142: \citep{pmm98,mpm00,premadietal01a,premadietal01b}. In this algorithm,
143: the space between
144: the observer and the sources is divided into a series of cubic boxes of
145: comoving size $128\,\rm Mpc$, and the
146: matter content of each box is projected onto
147: a plane normal to the line of sight. The trajectories of light rays
148: are then computed by adding successively the deflections caused by each plane.
149:
150: To use this algorithm, we need to provide a description of the matter
151: distribution along the line of sight. Matter is divided into two
152: components: background matter and galaxies. We use a $\rm P^3M$ algorithm
153: \citep{he81}
154: to simulate the distribution of background matter. The simulations used $64^3$
155: equal-mass particles and a $128^3$ PM grid, inside a comoving volume of
156: size $128\,\rm Mpc$. The matter distribution
157: in the different cubes along the line of sight
158: then corresponds to the state of the simulation at different
159: redshifts.\footnote{In practice, we combine cubes from different
160: simulations in order to avoid periodicities along the line of sight.
161: See also the interesting alternative suggested by \citet{vw03}.}
162: We then use a Monte Carlo method for locating galaxies
163: into the computational volume \citep{mpm98,pmm98}. Galaxies are located
164: according to the underlying distribution of background matter. Morphological
165: types are ascribed according to the morphology-density relation
166: \citep{dressler80}. Galaxies are modeled as nonsingular isothermal spheres,
167: with rotation velocities and core radii that vary with luminosity
168: and morphological types.
169:
170: We consider three Cold Dark Matter (CDM)
171: cosmological models: (1) a flat, cosmological constant model ($\Lambda$CDM)
172: with $\Omega_0=0.27$, $\lambda_0=0.73$, and $H_0=71\,\rm km\,s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$.
173: This model is in agreement with the results of the {\sl WMAP} satellite
174: \citep{bennettetal03}. (2) a low-density model with
175: $\Omega_0=0.3$, $\lambda_0=0$, and $H_0=75\,\rm km\,s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$.
176: (3) a matter-dominated model with
177: $\Omega_0=1$, $\lambda_0=0$, and $H_0=75\,\rm km\,s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$.
178: For each model, we consider sources at 8 different redshifts:
179: $z_s\simeq1$, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.\footnote{The exact values of
180: the source redshifts depend on the locations of the lens planes, which
181: vary among models.}
182: For each combination model-redshift, we performed
183: 10--20 ray tracing experiments. Each experiment consists of propagating a
184: square beam of $101\times101=10,201$ rays back in time from the present to
185: redshift $z_s$, through the matter distribution. The rays in the beam were
186: widely separated, by 6 arc minutes,
187: and therefore sampled different regions of space.
188: We computed the magnification matrix ${\bf A}$ along each ray.
189: The magnification $\mu$ is then given by
190: \begin{equation}
191: \mu={1\over{\rm det}\,{\bf A}}\,.
192: \end{equation}
193:
194: \begin{figure}
195: \vskip-0.3truein
196: \begin{center}
197: \includegraphics[width=4.6in]{fig1.eps}
198: \vskip-0.2truein
199: \caption{Distribution of magnifications for the
200: $\Lambda$CDM model. The various curves
201: correspond to different source redshifts: $z_s=1$ (narrowest curve),
202: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (widest curve).
203: }
204: \label{mu_lambda}
205: \end{center}
206: \end{figure}
207:
208: \noindent
209: Figure~\ref{mu_lambda}
210: shows the distribution of magnifications for the $\Lambda$-model.
211: The distribution peaks at $\mu<1$, and is strongly skewed. The width of
212: the distribution increases with the source redshift. The distributions
213: for the other two models are qualitatively similar.
214:
215: \subsection{Standard Deviation and Magnification Distribution}
216:
217: \begin{figure}
218: \vskip-0.2truein
219: \begin{center}
220: \includegraphics[width=4.4in]{fig2.eps}
221: \vskip-0.3truein
222: \caption{Standard deviation $\sigma_\mu$ versus redshift, for all
223: three models considered. The solid lines show empirical fits of the
224: form $\sigma_\mu=bz/(1+cz)$. The dotted line shows the relation
225: derived by \citet{hl05}.
226: }
227: \label{sigma}
228: \end{center}
229: \end{figure}
230:
231: We have determined the distributions $P(\mu)$ at some particular
232: redshifts $z_s$. Since SNe do not cooperate by going off only at
233: these redshifts, we now want to interpolate
234: between these distributions, to obtain $P(\mu)$ at any redshift.
235: First, for each model and each source redshift $z_s$ we considered, we
236: compute the standard deviation $\sigma_\mu$ of the magnification distribution
237: $P(\mu)$. The values are shown in Figure~\ref{sigma}.
238: We use an empirical fit of the form
239: \begin{equation}
240: \label{sigmafit}
241: \sigma_\mu={bz\over1+cz}\,,
242: \end{equation}
243:
244: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
245: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
246: \tablecaption{Coefficients of Approximation for $\sigma_\mu$}
247: \tablewidth{0pt}
248: \tablehead{\colhead{Model} & \colhead{$\Omega_0$} & \colhead{$\lambda_0$}
249: & \colhead{$H_0[{\rm km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}]$} & \colhead{$b$} & \colhead{$c$}
250: }
251: \startdata
252: $\Lambda$CDM & 0.27 & 0.73 & 71 & 0.120 & 0.16 \\
253: Open & 0.30 & 0.00 & 75 & 0.085 & 0.17 \\
254: EdS & 1.00 & 0.00 & 75 & 0.117 & 0.26 \\
255: \enddata
256: \end{deluxetable}
257:
258: \noindent where the values of $b$ and $c$ are given in Table~1.
259: This enables us to estimate the values of
260: $\sigma_\mu$ at any redshift. Using the stochastic
261: universe method (SUM) of \citet{hw98},
262: \citet{hl05} derived a linear relation between $\sigma_{\rm eff}$ and $z$ in
263: the range $0\leq z\leq2$, for a $\Lambda$CDM model, where $\sigma_{\rm eff}$
264: is the effective standard deviation of a single measurement, which is not
265: the same thing as our standard deviation $\sigma_\mu$.
266: We plotted their result in Figure~\ref{sigma}
267: for comparison. There is a fairly good agreement between the two methods
268: at redshifts $z\leq2$. The linear relation has a slope of $0.088$.
269: Our empirical fit for the $\Lambda$CDM model\footnote{We use $\Omega_0=0.27$;
270: \citet{hl05} used $\Omega_0=0.28$.} has a slope that varies from 0.120 to
271: 0.069 in the range $z=0-2$.
272:
273: To determine $P(\mu)$ at any redshift $z$, we interpolate between the
274: distributions we have already determined. Consider two known distributions
275: $P_1(\mu)$ and $P_2(\mu)$ at redshifts $z_1$ and $z_2$ that bracket
276: $z$. These distributions satisfy the properties
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: \label{norm}
279: &&\int_0^\infty P_i(\mu)d\mu=1\,,\\
280: &&\int_0^\infty\mu P_i(\mu)d\mu=1\,,\\
281: \label{sigmadef}
282: &&\int_0^\infty(\mu-1)^2P_i(\mu)d\mu=(\sigma_\mu^2)_i\,,
283: \end{eqnarray}
284:
285: \noindent where $i=1,2$. We define a new distribution,
286: \begin{equation}
287: \label{newpmu}
288: P(\mu)={[(\sigma_\mu^2)^{\phantom2}_2-\sigma_\mu^2]P_1(\mu)
289: +[\sigma_\mu^2-(\sigma_\mu^2)^{\phantom2}_1]P_2(\mu)\over
290: (\sigma_\mu^2)^{\phantom2}_2-(\sigma_\mu^2)^{\phantom2}_1}\,.
291: \end{equation}
292:
293: \noindent We can easily check that this distribution also satisfies
294: the relations~(\ref{norm})--(\ref{sigmadef}). This enables us to
295: estimate the magnification distribution $P(\mu)$ at any
296: redshift $z$. We first determine
297: $\sigma_\mu(z)$ from equation~(\ref{sigmafit}), and then substitute
298: it in equation~(\ref{newpmu}) to get $P(\mu)$ at that redshift.
299:
300: \noindent
301:
302: \section{THE SUPERNOVAE CATALOGS}
303:
304: \subsection{The Tonry et al. Sample}
305:
306: Observations of high-redshift supernovae provide an estimate of the
307: luminosity distance $d_L$. These results are reported in various form
308: in the literature. Some authors express their measurements in terms
309: of effective magnitudes of
310: distance moduli. The High-z Supernova Search Team
311: \citep{tonryetal03,barrisetal04,riessetal04} express their measurements
312: in the following form,
313: \begin{equation}
314: \label{apmda}
315: \log(d_LH_0)=a\pm\delta_a\,,
316: \end{equation}
317:
318: \noindent where $H_0$ is the Hubble constant, $a$ is the ``measurement,''
319: and $\delta_a$ is the ``intrinsic uncertainty,'' which includes every
320: possible source of error, {\it except}\/ gravitational lensing. In this
321: expression, $d_LH_0$ is expressed in units of kilometers per second.
322: These authors actually use the notation $\langle\log(dH_0)\rangle$ for
323: $a$ and $\pm$ for $\delta_a$.
324:
325: In this paper, we work with the sample of \citet{tonryetal03}. This is not
326: the most up-to-date sample, but it is sufficient for our purpose. This
327: sample is comprised of 230 Type Ia SNe in the redshift range
328: $0<z<1.8$, with 79 of them being located at redshifts $z>0.3$ (including 5
329: at redshifts $z>0.9$). The values of $a$ and $\delta_a$ can be read directly
330: in the $8^{\rm th}$ and $9^{\rm th}$ columns of their Table~8, respectively.
331:
332: \subsection{A Mock Catalog of Very-high $z$ Supernovae}
333:
334: We generated a mock catalog of 43 SNe in the range $1.8<z<8.1$.
335: For each ``supernova,'' we need to choose a redshift $z$,
336: a measured value $a$, and an uncertainty $\delta_a$. There
337: is of course no rigorous method for doing that, since these SNe do not
338: exist. To provide a good coverage of the
339: redshift range of interest, we used 43 equally-spaced values of $z$ between
340: $z=1.8$ and $8.1$. To determine $\delta_a$, we first plotted $\delta_a$
341: versus $z$, for the \citet{tonryetal03} sample, to look for trends.
342: There is a large number of SNe with $z<0.1$, $\delta_a<0.05$.
343: If we focus on the 79 SNe at redshift $z>0,3$,
344: we do not see any obvious trend, and in particular $\delta_a$ does not
345: appear to increase with redshift. So we chose, somewhat arbitrarily, the
346: 9 SNe\footnote{We deliberately avoided sn97G and sn76cl, whose
347: uncertainties are much larger than those of any SNe at
348: comparable redshift.} at $z>0.828$.
349: For these SNe, the mean and standard deviation of
350: the uncertainties are
351: $\bar{\delta}_a=0.0631$ and $\sigma_\delta=0.0113$, respectively.
352: We then chose
353: the values of $\delta_a$ for our mock SNe randomly, by drawing them from
354: a normal distribution with mean $\bar{\delta}_a$ and
355: standard deviation $\sigma_\delta$. This ensures a smooth transition between
356: the real and mock samples.
357:
358: To determine $a$, we assume that the underlying cosmology
359: corresponds to a $\Lambda$CDM universe (as supported by the real sample).
360: We then use
361: \begin{equation}
362: a=a_\Lambda+\Delta a\,,
363: \end{equation}
364:
365: \noindent where $a_\Lambda\equiv\log(d_\Lambda H_0)$ is the actual value of
366: $\log(d_LH_0)$ in a $\Lambda$CDM universe, and $\Delta a$ is a random number
367: drawn from a normal distribution with mean 0 and standard
368: deviation given by the value of $\delta_a$ we just calculated.
369:
370: \section{THE EFFECT OF LENSING ON STATISTICS OF HIGH-Z SUPERNOVAE}
371:
372: \subsection{Compounding the Errors}
373:
374: As we explained in \S1, our goal is not to perform a rigorous error
375: analysis of the uncertainties resulting from the possibility of
376: lensing, but rather to estimate {\it a posteriori} the effect of
377: lensing on the uncertainties already present in the analysis.
378:
379: We estimate the effect of lensing as follows: the distances of high-$z$
380: supernovae are reported in the literature in the format given by
381: equation~(\ref{apmda}), where $\delta_a$ is the intrinsic uncertainty
382: (i.e. not caused by lensing). The distance $d_L$ is related to the
383: luminosity $L$ and flux $F$ by
384: \begin{equation}
385: F={L\over4\pi d_L^2}\,.
386: \label{flux}
387: \end{equation}
388:
389: \noindent We use equations~(\ref{apmda}) and~(\ref{flux})
390: to eliminate $d_L$, and get
391: \begin{equation}
392: L^{1/2}H_0=10^a10^{\pm\delta_a}(4\pi F)^{1/2}\,.
393: \label{lsqh0}
394: \end{equation}
395:
396: \noindent The effect of lensing will be to modify the flux $F$. To
397: account for it, we replace $F$ by $F\pm\Delta F$ in equation~(\ref{lsqh0}),
398: and perform a Taylor expansion
399: to first order in $\Delta F$,
400: \begin{equation}
401: L^{1/2}H_0=10^a10^{\pm\delta_a}(4\pi F)^{1/2}
402: \biggl(1\pm{\Delta F\over2F}\biggr)\,.
403: \end{equation}
404:
405: \noindent
406: This expression reduces to
407: \begin{equation}
408: \log(d_LH_0)=a\pm\delta_a\pm{\Delta F\over2F\ln10}\,.
409: \label{errors1}
410: \end{equation}
411:
412: \noindent The last term represents the uncertainty due to lensing.
413: For a given supernova with magnification $\mu$,
414: $\Delta F/F=\mu-1$. Of course, we will never
415: know the value of $\mu$ for a single source. But for a large number
416: of sources, we can use statistics. First, the simplest, lowest-order
417: approximation for a ``typical'' value of $\mu$ is
418: $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle\pm\sigma_\mu=1\pm\sigma_\mu$, or equivalently
419: $\Delta F/F\approx\sigma_\mu$. Equation~(\ref{errors1}) reduces to
420: \begin{equation}
421: \log(d_LH_0)=a\pm\delta_a\pm\delta_\mu\,,
422: \label{errors2}
423: \end{equation}
424:
425: \begin{figure}
426: \begin{center}
427: \includegraphics[width=5in]{fig3.eps}
428: \caption{Ratio $\delta_\mu/\delta_a$ versus redshift. The dotted
429: lines separate the real data of Tonry et al. (left side) from the
430: mock, high-redshift data (right side).
431: }
432: \label{ratio}
433: \end{center}
434: \end{figure}
435:
436: \noindent where $\delta_\mu(z)=\sigma_\mu(z)/2\ln10$ can be computed
437: using the empirical relations plotted in Figure~\ref{sigma}. We
438: use the values of $a$ and $\delta_a$ reported by
439: \cite{tonryetal03} (their Table~8). In Figure~\ref{ratio},
440: we plot the ratio $\delta_\mu/\delta_a$ versus $z$ (left of the dotted lines).
441: This quantity increases with redshift, but never gets higher than 0.5 for
442: the Tonry et al. sample. Furthermore, we shall assume that $\delta_a$ and
443: $\delta_\mu$ are statistically independent, and combine them in quadrature,
444: using
445: \begin{equation}
446: \delta=(\delta_a^2+\delta_\mu^2)^{1/2}\,,
447: \end{equation}
448:
449: \noindent where $\delta$ is the total error.
450: The contribution of lensing to this error is then of order 25\% at most.
451:
452: For each supernova, we compute the quantity $\Delta(m-M)$
453: (deviation of the difference between
454: apparent and absolute magnitude, relative to an empty universe),
455: using
456: \begin{equation}
457: \Delta(m-M)=5\log(d_LH_0)-5\log(d_LH_0)_{\rm empty}
458: =5\log(d_LH_0)-5\log\Biggl[cz\biggl(1+{z\over2}\biggr)\Biggr]\,.
459: \end{equation}
460:
461: \noindent We then average the quantities $\Delta(m-M)$ and $\delta$
462: in redshift bins, using
463:
464: \begin{eqnarray}
465: \label{dmbin}
466: \left[\Delta(m-M)\right]_j&=&\Sigma_iw_i\Delta(m-M)/\Sigma_iw_i\,,\\
467: \label{deltabin}
468: \delta_j&=&(1/\Sigma_iw_i)^{1/2}\,,
469: \end{eqnarray}
470:
471: \noindent where
472:
473: \begin{equation}
474: \label{weights}
475: w_i=1/\delta_i^2\,,
476: \end{equation}
477:
478: \noindent and the sums are over all data points $i$ in bin $j$
479: (note: eq.~[\ref{deltabin}] comes from $1/\delta_j^2=\sum_i[1/\delta_i^2]$).
480: Notice that this method of averaging is much fancier than what appears
481: to be done in the supernovae papers. For instance, Figure~9 of
482: \citet{tonryetal03} shows an averaging over redshift bins which is
483: based on the median of the data and apparently does not take into account
484: the uncertainties $\delta_a$ on the individual supernovae.
485:
486: Figure~\ref{hubble} shows a {\it Hubble diagram}
487: [deviation $\Delta(m-M)$ versus redshift].
488: The data points and error bars on the left hand side of the dotted lines
489: correspond to the values given by
490: equations~(\ref{dmbin}) and (\ref{deltabin}), respectively.
491: The three curves, from top to bottom, show the exact results for the
492: $\Lambda$CDM, low-density, and matter-dominated models, respectively.
493: The results support the flat $\Lambda$CDM model
494: and exclude the other models considered.
495: The other panels of Figure~\ref{hubble} show the effect of lensing (the
496: three models have to be plotted separately, because the correction due to
497: lensing, which uses the relations plotted in Fig.~\ref{sigma},
498: is model-dependent).
499: This effect is totally negligible. The largest
500: correction to the error bars is about 10\% for the highest redshift bin,
501: for the $\Lambda$CDM model.
502:
503: \begin{figure}
504: \begin{center}
505: \includegraphics[width=4.6in]{fig4.eps}
506: \caption{Hubble diagram showing the magnitude deviation
507: $\Delta(m-M)$ relative
508: to an empty universe, for the three models considered.
509: The dotted lines separate the \citet{tonryetal03} data (on the left)
510: from the mock data (on the right).
511: In the top panel, the
512: three curves, from top to bottom, show the analytical result for the
513: cosmological models ($\Omega_0$,$\lambda_0$)=(0.27,0.73), (0.3,0.0),
514: and (1.0,0.0), respectively. The error bars show 90\% confidence level.
515: The last three panels reproduce the data of the
516: top panel, but have been corrected to account for lensing. Since this
517: correction is model-dependent, the three models are plotted on separate
518: panels.
519: }
520: \label{hubble}
521: \end{center}
522: \end{figure}
523:
524: Clearly, the potential error introduced by lensing is negligible in
525: comparison to the intrinsic error in the measurement, at least for SNe at
526: redshifts $z<1.8$. \citet{gunnarssonetal06} and \citet{jonssonetal06}
527: reach the same conclusion,
528: We now estimate the effect of lensing on a
529: yet-undiscovered population of very-high-$z$ SNe, using our mock catalog.
530: The ratios $\delta_\mu/\delta_a$ are plotted in Figure~\ref{ratio},
531: on the right hand side of the dotted lines.
532: The effect of lensing rapidly becomes important at redshift $z>2$,
533: especially for the $\Lambda$CDM models. We find many
534: SNe with $|\delta_\mu|>\delta_a$, that is, the correction due to lensing is
535: larger than the intrinsic uncertainty.
536:
537: The points located on the right hand side of the dotted lines in
538: Figure~\ref{hubble} shows the results for the mock data.
539: The error bars get significantly bigger when lensing is
540: included. Furthermore, at redshift $z\approx3$, it becomes very difficult
541: to distinguish the open, low density model from the
542: cosmological constant model, because the theoretical curves intersect.
543: Keeping in mind the caveat that the mock catalog was built under the
544: assumption
545: that the underlying cosmology was $\Lambda$CDM, we see that the
546: Einstein-de~Sitter model is totally ruled out by SNe at $z>2$, but
547: the open model is not. Indeed, it is clear that SNe at $z>2$ would be
548: rather useless in distinguishing an open CDM and a $\Lambda$CDM model:
549: the theoretical curves get closer, whereas
550: the error bars become larger.
551: It is, interestingly, the SNe in the redshift range $0.3<z<1$ that would
552: still provide the best discriminant between these two models, and data in
553: that redshift range are already available.
554:
555: \subsection{Monte Carlo Approach}
556:
557: The calculation presented in the previous section relies entirely
558: in the standard deviation $\sigma_\mu$ for estimating the uncertainties
559: caused by lensing. This approach would probably be sufficient if the
560: distributions of magnifications $P(\mu)$ were gaussian. However,
561: for sources at large redshifts, $P(\mu)$ is strongly skewed, as Figure~1
562: shows. The large
563: majority of sources are demagnified, as the light reaching the observer
564: travels mostly through underdense regions of the universe, while a
565: few sources are strongly magnified, especially those which happen to
566: be aligned with a massive galaxy at intermediate redshift.
567:
568: \begin{figure}
569: \begin{center}
570: \includegraphics[width=5in]{fig5.eps}
571: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{ratio}, but with $\delta_\mu$
572: computed using the Monte Carlo approach for all SNe (real or mocked)
573: at redshift $z>0.9$.
574: }
575: \label{ratio2}
576: \end{center}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579: To account for the distribution of magnifications, we consider all SNe
580: at redshifts $z>0.9$ (5 from the Tonry sample, 43 from the mock catalog).
581: For each one, we determine the distribution $P(\mu)$ at its redshift $z$, using
582: equation~(\ref{newpmu}), and then choose a
583: magnification $\mu$ by drawing it randomly from the distribution $P(\mu)$.
584: We then compute $\delta_\mu=\Delta F/2F\,\ln10=(\mu-1)/2\ln10$.
585: The resulting ratios $|\delta_\mu|/\delta_a$ are plotted in
586: Figure~\ref{ratio2}.
587: Comparing with Figure~\ref{ratio}, we find only a few SNe for which
588: this ratio exceeds unity. For all redshifts and all models, we find that
589: the distributions $P(\mu)$
590: peak at a value $\mu_{\rm peak}<1$ such that
591: $|\mu_{\rm peak}-1|<\sigma_\mu$. Hence, setting $\Delta F/F=\sigma_\mu$
592: (instead of $\Delta F/F=\mu-1$), as we did in \S4.1, overestimates the
593: effect of lensing for most SNe. However, the distributions are very skewed,
594: and as a result a few SNe are highly magnified, as Figure~\ref{ratio2}
595: shows.
596:
597: \begin{figure}
598: \begin{center}
599: \includegraphics[width=4.6in]{fig6.eps}
600: \caption{Same as Figure \ref{hubble}, with errors bars computed
601: using the Monte Carlo approach.
602: }
603: \label{hubble_hz2}
604: \end{center}
605: \end{figure}
606:
607: Figure~\ref{hubble_hz2} shows the resulting Hubble diagram. Comparing with
608: Figure~\ref{hubble}, we find that the error bars are significantly smaller.
609: The effect of lensing is less important when we use the actual distribution
610: of magnifications $P(\mu)$, and not only its standard deviation. However,
611: the results at $z>1.8$, which assume an underlying $\Lambda$CDM cosmology,
612: still cannot rule out the open CDM model; the error bars are still too large.
613:
614: \section{DETECTION LIMIT AND BIASING}
615:
616: So far, we have assumed that any supernova, with any value of $z$ and $\mu$,
617: can be observed. This assumption is probably valid over the range $0<z<2$,
618: which includes all the current observations. But as the redshift gets higher,
619: it becomes increasingly difficult to observe supernovae with current
620: and even future telescopes, because of the combined effect of the flux
621: reduction and the light being shifted to the near infrared. It might
622: just be impossible to detect a supernova at redshift $z>2$ unless, of
623: course, it is magnified by lensing. \citet{mf98} argue that, with
624: magnification taken into account, it might be possible to observe
625: Type~II SNe at redshifts up to $z=10$. Of course, if only the highly-magnified
626: SNe are observable, this introduces biasing, an effect that we must take
627: into account.
628:
629: Here, we do not want to perform a detailed analysis similar to the one
630: of \citet{mf98}, but just to get a rough estimate of the importance
631: of biasing. The key results of the analysis of \citet{mf98} are
632: shown in their Figure~7, which shows, as a function of redshift,
633: the AB apparent magnitude in the J, K, L, and M bands, with and without
634: lensing. They also plot the expected flux limit of {\sl JWST\/}\footnote{They
635: called it {\sl NGST} back then.}.
636: From this figure, we see that without lensing, the
637: apparent magnitudes are below the detection limit at high redshift. When
638: lensing is included, the magnitudes in the J and K bands are above the
639: detection limit. Their analysis was for Type~II SNe. Type~Ia SNe are
640: typically 1.5 magnitudes brighter, and therefore much easier to detect.
641: Neglecting the details of the spectra, we can simply take Figure~7
642: of \citet{mf98} and shift all the curves upward by 1.5 magnitudes.
643: We find that, without lensing, Type~Ia SNe would be visible in the
644: J and K band, and almost visible in the L band, at redshifts up to
645: $z\sim8$. With lensing, most SNe would be demagnified, but the reduction
646: in flux is typically of the order $10-20\%$, that is, a correction of
647: $0.103-0.198$ magnitudes. Hence, all high-$z$ Type~Ia SNe should be detectable,
648: using the proper telescope, and therefore we were justified to ignore any
649: biasing effect.
650: This being said, the identification of Type Ia SNe requires
651: that we obtain a spectrum, and this could be quite challenging
652: at these extreme redshifts.
653:
654: We have assumed that the typical intrinsic uncertainties $\delta_a$
655: do not grow with redshift for $z>1.8$, based on the absence of
656: obvious trend at $z\lesssim1.8$. If the uncertainties do grow
657: with redshift, our conclusion that understanding the effect of
658: lensing at high redshift would be weakened, in the sense that
659: these data would be rather useless no matter how well lensing is
660: understood. Furthermore, it would reinforce our conclusion that
661: SNe at intermediate redshifts are more useful to discriminate between
662: different cosmological models.
663:
664: We should also ask whether Type~Ia SNe at redshift $z=8$ can
665: actually exist. For a $\Lambda$CDM model with a Hubble constant of
666: $\rm 71\,km\,s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$, this redshift corresponds to an age
667: of the universe
668: of $650\,\rm Myr$. Subtracting the formation and evolutionary time of
669: the progenitor, we are getting embarrassingly close to the big bang. Type~II
670: SNe would be a far better candidate for high-$z$ SNe, since the
671: evolutionary time of their progenitors are much shorter. But then only
672: the few that are magnified would be detectable, and their number might be
673: too small to perform any meaningful statistics on them.
674:
675: \section{SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION}
676:
677: We have performed a series of ray-tracing experiments using a
678: multiple lens-plane algorithm. We have determined the distributions
679: of magnifications $P(\mu)$ for sources in the redshift range
680: $0<z<8$, for three different cosmological models.
681: We have used these distributions to estimate
682: the effect of gravitational lensing on the determination of the
683: cosmological parameters with high-redshift Type~Ia
684: supernovae. We used a generic, {\it a posteriori} approach which is
685: not tied to any particular sample.
686:
687: We found that errors introduced by lensing are unimportant for SNe
688: with redshift $z<1.8$. These errors are negligible compared to the
689: intrinsic errors already present in the supernovae data. Since those
690: intrinsic errors do not prevent us from determining the cosmological
691: parameters, the additional errors introduced by lensing have no consequences.
692: A similar conclusion was reached by \citet{alderingetal06}.
693:
694: Using a mock catalog of high-$z$ SNe, extending to $z=8.1$, we showed that
695: the effect of lensing on a hypothetical
696: population of SNe at redshifts $z>2$ could be quite significant, and
697: must be understood before such SNe could be used to constrain cosmological
698: models. Furthermore, the open CDM and $\Lambda$CDM are difficult to distinguish
699: at that redshift. We showed that, even if SNe at redshift $z\sim8$ were
700: ever discovered, it is the SNe in the range $z=0.3-1$ that would still
701: provide the best discriminant between these two models. The data at that
702: redshift already exist, and they support the $\Lambda$CDM model.
703:
704: \acknowledgments
705: This work benefited from stimulating discussions with Gilbert Holder,
706: Daniel Holz, Eric Linder, Massimo Meneghetti, and Christopher Vale.
707: The calculations were performed at the Texas
708: Advanced Computing Center, University of Texas, and the
709: Laboratoire d'Astrophysique Num\'erique, Universit\'e Laval.
710: HM thanks the Canada Research Chair program and NSERC for
711: support. PP thanks Uro\v s Seljak for various advice and hospitality during
712: the fruitful visit at the Abdus Salam ICTP in Trieste.
713:
714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
715: %
716: % REFERENCES
717:
718: \clearpage
719: \begin{thebibliography}{}
720:
721: \bibitem[Aldering et al.(2006)]{alderingetal06}
722: Aldering, G., Kim, A. G., Kowalski, M., Linder, E. V., \&
723: Perlmutter, S. 2006, Astropart. Phys., 27, 213
724:
725: \bibitem[Barris et al.(2004)]{barrisetal04}
726: Barris, B. J. et al. 2004, ApJ, 602, 571
727:
728: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2003)]{bennettetal03}
729: Bennett, C. L. et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 1
730:
731: \bibitem[Dodelson \& Vallinotto(2006)]{dv05}
732: Dodelson, S., \& Vallinotto, A. 2006, PRD, 74, 063515
733:
734: \bibitem[Dressler(1980)]{dressler80}
735: Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351
736:
737: \bibitem[Gunnarsson et al.(2006)]{gunnarssonetal06}
738: Gunnarsson, C., Dahl\'en, T., Goobar, C., J\"onsson, J, \& M\"ortsell, E.
739: 2006, \apj, 640, 417
740:
741: \bibitem[Hockney \& Eastwood(1981)]{he81}
742: Hockney, R. W., \& Eastwood, J. W. 1981, {\it Computer
743: Simulation using Particles} (New York: McGraw Hill).
744:
745: \bibitem[Holz \& Linder(2005)]{hl05}
746: Holz, D. E., \& Linder, E. V. 2005, ApJ, 631, 678
747:
748: \bibitem[Holz \& Wald(1998)]{hw98}
749: Holz, D. E., \& Wald, R. M. 1998, Phy. Rev. D., 58, 063501
750:
751: \bibitem[J\"onsson et al.(2006)]{jonssonetal06}
752: J\"onsson, J., Dahl\'en, T., Goobar, A., Gunnarsson, C., M\"ortsell, E.,
753: \& Lee, K. 2006, \apj, 639, 991
754:
755: \bibitem[Marri \& Ferrara(1998)]{mf98}
756: Marri, S., \& Ferrara, A. 1998; ApJ, 509, 43
757:
758: \bibitem[Martel, Premadi, \& Matzner(1998)]{mpm98}
759: Martel, H., Premadi, P., \& Matzner, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, 512
760:
761: \bibitem[Martel, Premadi, \& Matzner(2000)]{mpm00}
762: Martel, H., Premadi, P., \& Matzner, R. 2000, ApJ, 537, 28
763:
764: \bibitem[M\'enard \& Dalal(2005)]{md05}
765: M\'enard, B., \& Dalal, N. 2005, \mnras, 358, 101
766:
767: \bibitem[Munshi \& Valageas(2006)]{mv06}
768: Munshi, D., \& Valageas, P. 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0601683)
769:
770: \bibitem[Premadi, Martel, \& Matzner(1998)]{pmm98}
771: Premadi, P., Martel, H., \& Matzner, R. 1998, ApJ, 493, 10
772:
773: \bibitem[Premadi et al.(2001a)]{premadietal01a}
774: Premadi, P., Martel, H., Matzner, R., \& Futamase, T. 2001a, ApJS, 135, 7
775:
776: \bibitem[Premadi et al.(2001b)]{premadietal01b}
777: Premadi, P., Martel, H., Matzner, R., \& Futamase, T. 2001b,
778: Pub.A.S.Aus., 18, 201
779:
780: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2004)]{riessetal04}
781: Riess, A. G. et al. 2004, ApJ, 607, 665
782:
783: \bibitem[Tonry et al.(2003)]{tonryetal03}
784: Tonry, J. L. et al. 2003, ApJ, 594, 1
785:
786: \bibitem[Vale \& White(2003)]{vw03}
787: Vale, C., \& White, M. 2003, ApJ, 592, 699
788:
789: \bibitem[Wambsganss et al.(1997)]{wambsganssetal97}
790: Wambsganss, J., Cen, R., Xu, G., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 475, L81
791:
792: \bibitem[Wang(2005)]{wang05}
793: Wang, Y. 2005, JCAP, 503, 5
794:
795: \end{thebibliography}
796:
797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
798:
799: \end{document}
800: