1: %\documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
2: \documentclass{iopart}
3: %\newcommand{\gguide}{{\it Preparing graphics for IOP journals}}
4: %Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
5: \usepackage{iopams}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Strong lensing probability in TeVeS theory}
9: \author{Da-Ming Chen}
10: \address{National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of
11: Sciences, Beijing 100012, China} \ead{cdm@bao.ac.cn}
12: \begin{abstract}
13: We recalculate the strong lensing probability as a function of the
14: image separation in TeVeS (tensor-vector-scalar) cosmology, which is
15: a relativistic version of MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). The
16: lens is modeled by the Hernquist profile. We assume an open
17: cosmology with $\Omega_b=0.04$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.5$ and three
18: different kinds of interpolating functions. Two different galaxy
19: stellar mass functions (GSMF) are adopted: PHJ
20: (Panter-Heavens-Jimenez, 2004) determined from SDSS data release one
21: and Fontana (Fontana et al., 2006) from GOODS-MUSIC catalog. We
22: compare our results with both the predicted probabilities for lenses
23: by Singular Isothermal Sphere (SIS) galaxy halos in LCDM (lambda
24: cold dark matter) with Schechter-fit velocity function, and the
25: observational results of the well defined combined sample of Cosmic
26: Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) and Jodrell Bank/Very Large Array
27: Astrometric Survey (JVAS). It turns out that the interpolating
28: function $\mu(x)=x/(1+x)$ combined with Fontana GSMF matches the
29: results from CLASS/JVAS quite well.
30: \end{abstract}
31: \pacs{98.80.-k, 98.62.Sb, 98.62.Ve, 95.35.+d} \submitto{JCAP}
32: \maketitle
33: \section{Introduction}
34: The standard LCDM cosmology is very successful in explaining the
35: cosmic microwave background (CMB, see, e.g., \cite{spergel07}),
36: baryonic acoustic oscillation (BAO, see, e.g., \cite{eisenstein05}),
37: gravitational lensing (see, e.g., \cite{kochanek04}) and large scale
38: structure (LSS) formation. However, LCDM faces some fundamental
39: difficulties. From the observational point of view, the challenges
40: to LCDM arise from smaller scales. For example, the theory cannot
41: explain Tully-Fisher law and the Freeman law
42: \cite{dalcanton97,vandb2000}. The most difficult ones are the
43: satellites problem and cusps problem. The most key problems are, of
44: course, the unknown nature of Dark Matter (DM) and Dark Energy (DE).
45: Before CDM particles are detected in the lab, science should remain
46: open to the prospect that DM (and for the similar reasons, DE)
47: phenomena may have some deep underlying reason in new physics.
48:
49: There are several proposals for resolving DM and DE problems by
50: modifying Newtonian gravity or general relativity (GR) rather than
51: resorting to some kinds of exotic matter or energy. MOND
52: \cite{milgrom83} was originally proposed to explain the observed
53: asymptotically flat rotation curves of galaxies without DM, however,
54: it was noticed that MOND can also explain Tully-Fisher law and
55: Freeman law \cite{mcgaugh98,mcgaugh2000}. It is believed that MOND
56: is successful at galactic scales \cite{wxf07,zhao07} (but see
57: \cite{klypin07} for satellites problem). The challenges to MOND
58: arise from clusters of galaxies \cite{sanders02}, in which, some
59: kind of dark matter, possibly some massive neutrinos with the mass
60: of $\sim 2$ev, is also needed to explain the dynamics of
61: galaxies\cite{angus07b}. MOND and its relativistic version, TeVeS
62: \cite{bekenstein04}, are only concerned with DM, remain DE as it is.
63: By adding a $f(R)$ term in Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian, where $R$ is
64: the Ricci scalar, the so called $f(R)$ gravity theory can account
65: for DE
66: \cite{abfo05,cct03,cdtt04,no03,no07,sotiriou06a,sotiriou06b,vollick03}.
67: Another interesting theory is Modified Gravity (MOG)
68: \cite{moffat06}, it is a fully relativistic theory of gravitation
69: that is derived from a relativistic action principle involving
70: scalar, tensor and vector fields. MOG has been used successfully to
71: account for galaxy cluster masses \cite{bm06a}, the rotation curves
72: of galaxies (similar to MOND) \cite{bm06b}, velocity dispersions of
73: satellite galaxies \cite{mt07a}, globular clusters \cite{mt07b} and
74: Bullet Cluster \cite{bm07}, all without resorting to DM. Most
75: recently, MOG is used to investigate some cosmological observations
76: (CMB, galaxy mass power spectrum and supernova), and it is found
77: that MOG provides good fits to data without DM and DE \cite{mt07c}.
78:
79: Any modifications to traditional gravity theory must be tested with
80: observational experiments. Gravitational lensing provides a powerful
81: probe to test gravity theory \cite{schneider92,wu96}. It is well
82: known that, in standard cosmology (LCDM), when galaxies are modeled
83: by a SIS and galaxy clusters are modeled by a Navarro-Frenk-White
84: (NFW) profile, the predicted strong lensing probabilities can match
85: the results of CLASS/JVAS quite well
86: \cite{chae03,chena,chenb,chenc,chend,inada03,keeton01,kochanek01,
87: koopmans06,li02, lgl07,lopes, mitchell05,
88: oguri02,oguri03a,oguri03b,oguri04a,oguri04,oguri06,peng06,rusin05,sarbu01,
89: wj04,zhang2004,zhang05}.
90:
91: This paper is devoted to explore the strong lensing statistics in
92: TeVeS theory. As an alternative to LCDM cosmology, TeVeS cosmology
93: has received much attention in the recent literature, in particular
94: in the aspect of gravitational lensing \cite{angus06,chiu,zhao06a},
95: for reviews see \cite{bekenstein06,sanders06}. Before TeVeS, strong
96: gravitational lensing in the MOND regime could only be manipulated
97: by extrapolating non-relativistic dynamics \cite{qin,mortlock}, in
98: which the deflection angle is only half the value in TeVeS
99: \cite{zhaoqin06}. In TeVeS theory, it is now established that, for
100: galaxy clusters, both weak and strong lensing need extra DM to
101: explain observations \cite{angus07a,feix07,famaey07,takahashi07},
102: possibly neutrinos with the mass of $\sim 2$ev, like the dynamics of
103: galaxies. The situation is better for galaxies, as will be shown in
104: this paper. In our previous paper \cite{chen06}, as a first try to
105: calculate the strong lensing probability as a function of the
106: image-separation $\Delta\theta$ in TeVeS cosmology, we assumed a
107: flat cosmology with $\Omega_b=1-\Omega_\Lambda=0.04$ and the
108: simplest interpolating function $\mu(x)={\rm min}(1,x)$. In this
109: paper, we assume an open cosmology with $\Omega_b=0.04$ and
110: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.5$ and three different kinds of interpolating
111: functions. As for mass function, in addition to the PHJ GSMF
112: \cite{panters} used in our previous paper, we also adopt a
113: redshift-dependent Fontana GSMF \cite{fontana06}. Further more, the
114: amplification bias is calculated based on the total magnification of
115: the outer two brighter images rather than the magnification of the
116: second bright image of the three images as did in our previous work
117: \cite{chen06}.
118:
119: \section{TeVeS cosmology and deflection angle}
120: Gravitational lensing can be used to test TeVeS in two aspects.
121: First, in the non-relativistic and spherical limit, TeVeS reduces to
122: MOND. The deflection angle of the light ray passing through the
123: lensing object can be calculated in MONDian regime (this will be
124: discussed later). Second, the distances between the source, the lens
125: and the observer are cosmological and thus depend on the geometry
126: and evolution properties of the background universe. As argued by
127: Bekenstein \cite{bekenstein04,zhao06a}, the scalar field $\phi$,
128: which is used to produce a MONDian gravitational acceleration in
129: non-relativistic limit, contributes negligibly to Hubble expansion.
130: According to the cosmological principle, the physical metric takes
131: the usual Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) form in TeVeS
132: \cite{bartelmann01},
133: \begin{equation}
134: d\tau^2=-c^2\rmd
135: t^2+a(t)^2[\rmd\chi^2+f^2_{K}(\chi)(\rmd\theta^2+\sin^2\theta
136: \rmd\psi^2)],
137: \end{equation}
138: where $c$ is the speed of light, $a(t)$ is the scale factor and
139: \begin{equation}
140: f_{K}(\chi)=\cases{K^{-1/2}\sin(K^{1/2}\chi) & $(K>0)$ \cr \chi
141: &$(K=0)$. \cr (-K)^{-1/2}\sinh[(-K)^{1/2}\chi] & $(K<0)$}
142: \end{equation}
143: As in general relativity (GR), we define the cosmological
144: parameters:
145: \begin{equation}
146: \Omega_{\rm b}\equiv\frac{\rho_{\rm b}}{\rho_{\rm crit}(0)}, \ \ \ \
147: \Omega_{\Lambda}\equiv\frac{\Lambda}{3H_0^2}, \ \ \ \ \Omega_{\rm
148: K}\equiv\frac{-Kc^2}{H_0^2}
149: \end{equation}
150: where $\rho_{\rm b}$ is the mean baryonic matter density in the
151: universe at present time $t_0$ (redshift $z=0$), $\rho_{\rm
152: crit}(0)=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)=2.78\times 10^{11}h^2M_{\odot}$Mpc$^{-3}$
153: is the present critical mass density, and
154: $H_0=100h$kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$ is the Hubble constant. We choose
155: $a(t_0)=1$. Since $\rmd\chi=c\rmd z/H(z)$, the proper distance from
156: the observer to an object at redshift $z$ is
157: $D^p(z)=c\int_0^z[(1+z)H(z)]^{-1}\rmd z$, where the Hubble parameter
158: at redshift $z$ is (known as Friedmann's equation)
159: \begin{equation}
160: H(z) \equiv \frac{\dot{a}}{a}=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_b(1+z)^3
161: +\Omega_K(1+z)^2+\Omega_\Lambda}.
162: \end{equation}
163: The comoving distance from an
164: object at redshift $z_1$ to an object at redshift $z_2$ is
165: \begin{equation}
166: \chi(z_1,z_2)=\int_{z_1}^{z_2}\frac{c\rmd z}{H(z)},
167: \end{equation}
168: the corresponding angular diameter distance therefore is
169: \begin{equation}
170: D(z_1,z_2)=\frac{1}{1+z_2}f_K[\chi(z_1,z_2)].
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: In TeVeS, the lensing equation has the same form as in general
174: relativity (GR),
175: and for a spherically symmetric density profile \cite{zhao06a}
176: \begin{equation}
177: \beta=\theta-\frac{D_{LS}}{D_{S}}\alpha, \, \, \, \,
178: \alpha(b)=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{4b}{c^2r} \frac{\rmd\Phi(r)}{\rmd
179: r}\rmd l, \label{lens}
180: \end{equation}
181: where $\beta$, $\theta=b/D_{L}$ and $\alpha(\theta)$ are the source
182: position angle, image position angle and deflection angle,
183: respectively; $b$ is the impact parameter; $D_L$, $D_S$ and $D_{LS}$
184: are the angular diameter distances from the observer to the lens, to
185: the source and from the lens to the source, respectively;
186: $g(r)=\rmd\Phi(r)/\rmd r$ is the actual gravitational acceleration
187: [here $\Phi(r)$ is the spherical gravitational potential of the
188: lensing galaxy and $l$ is the light path]. It is well known that the
189: stellar component of an elliptical galaxy can be well modeled by a
190: Hernquist profile
191: \begin{equation}
192: \rho(r)=\frac{M_0r_h}{2\pi r(r+r_h)^3},
193: \end{equation}
194: with the mass interior to $r$ as
195: \begin{equation}
196: M(r)=\frac{r^2M_0}{(r+r_h)^2},
197: \end{equation}
198: where $M_0=\int_0^{\infty}4\pi r^2\rho(r)\rmd r$ is the total mass
199: and $r_h$ is the scale length. The corresponding Newtonian
200: acceleration is $g_N(r)=GM(r)/r^2=GM_0/(r+r_h)^2$. According to MOND
201: \cite{milgrom83,sanders02,sanders06}, the actual acceleration $g(r)$
202: is related to Newtonian acceleration by
203: \begin{equation}
204: g(r)\mu(g(r)/a_0)=g_N(r), \label{ac}
205: \end{equation}
206: where $\mu(x)$ is the interpolating function and has the properties
207: \begin{equation}
208: \mu(x)=\cases{x, & for $x\ll 1$ \cr 1, & for $x\gg 1$}
209: \end{equation}
210: and $a_0=1.2\times 10^{-8}$cms$^{-2}$ is the critical acceleration below
211: which gravitational law transits from Newtonian regime to MONDian regime.
212: The concrete form of a $\mu(x)$ function should be determined by
213: observational data (e.g., the rotation curves of spiral galaxies)
214: and expected by a reasonable scalar field theory (e.g., TeVeS). The
215: ``standard" function one usually takes is $\mu(x)=x/\sqrt{1+x^2}$,
216: which fits well to the rotation curves of most galaxies.
217: Unfortunately, if the MOND effect is produced by a scalar field
218: (such as TeVeS), the ``standard" $\mu(x)$ function turns out to be
219: multivalued \cite{zhao06b}. On the other hand, a ``simple" function
220: $\mu(x)=x/(1+x)$ suggested by Famaey \& Binney \cite{famaey05} fits
221: observational data better than the ``standard" function and is
222: consistent with a scalar field relativistic extension of MOND
223: \cite{zhao06b,sanders07}.
224:
225: In order to explore a broad class of modified gravity models, Zhao
226: and Tian \cite{zhaotian06} proposed a parametrized modification
227: function
228: \begin{equation}
229: \frac{1}{\mu(g/a_0)}\equiv\frac{g}{g_N}=
230: \left[1+\left(\frac{a_0}{g_N}\right)^{kn}\right]^{\frac{1}{n}},
231: \label{gmu}
232: \end{equation}
233: in which, MOND gravity corresponds to $k=1/2$. Substituting equation
234: (\ref{ac}) into equation (\ref{gmu}) with $k=1/2$, we have
235: \begin{equation}
236: \mu(g/a_0)=\left[1+\left(\frac{a_0}{g\mu(g/a_0)}
237: \right)^{\frac{n}{2}}\right]^{-\frac{1}{n}}, \label{mond_gmu}
238: \end{equation}
239: which can be easily solved to obtain the usual form of the $\mu$
240: function for MOND \cite{zhaotian06}
241: \begin{equation}
242: \mu(x)=x\left[\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}+x^n}\right]^{-2/n}, \ \
243: \ \ x=\frac{g}{a_0}. \label{ap}
244: \end{equation}
245: It is easy to verify that the ``simple" and ``standard" $\mu$
246: function are approximated with high accuracy by equation (\ref{ap})
247: with $n=3/2$ and $n=3$, respectively \cite{zhaotian06}. The
248: requirement for a physical and monotonic $\mu$ function limits the
249: parameter $n$ to the range of $1.5\leq n\leq 2.0$. In this paper, we
250: consider three cases: $n=1.5$, 2.0 and 3.0.
251:
252: Since the MONDian gravitational acceleration $g$ is explicitly
253: expressed in terms of the Newtonian acceleration $g_N$, it is very
254: convenient to use equation (\ref{gmu}) to calculate the deflection
255: angle
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: \alpha(b)&=&\frac{4}{c^2}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{g(r)b}{r}\rmd l \nonumber \\
258: &=&\int_0^{\infty}\frac{4GM_0}{c^2}\frac{b}{r}\frac{1}{(r+r_{\rm
259: h})^2}[1+(\frac{a_0}{g_{\rm N}})^{n/2}]^{1/n}\rmd l
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: By using $r=b\sqrt{1+(l/b)^2}$ and $\theta=b/D_{\rm L}$, we have
262: \begin{equation}
263: \fl \alpha(\theta)=0^{''}.207h^{-1}\left(\frac{c/H_0}{D_{\rm
264: L}}\right)\frac{M}{\theta}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{[1+(a_0/g_{\rm
265: N})^{n/2}]^{1/n}}{\sqrt{1+x^2}[0.05r_{\rm h}(c/H_0)/(D_{\rm
266: L}\theta)+\sqrt{1+x^2}]}\rmd x, \label{alpha}
267: \end{equation}
268: where $M=M_0/M_{\star}$ and $M_\star=7.64\times
269: 10^{10}h^{-2}M_{\odot}$ is the characteristic mass of galaxies
270: \cite{panters}, and
271: \begin{equation}
272: \frac{a_0}{g_{\rm N}}=2.38\left(\frac{D_{\rm
273: L}}{c/H_0}\right)^2\frac{\theta^2}{M}\left(\sqrt{1+x^2}+0.05\frac{c/H_0}{D_{\rm
274: L}}\frac{r_{\rm h}}{\theta}\right)^2. \label{ag}
275: \end{equation}
276: In equations (\ref{alpha}) and (\ref{ag}), the image position angle
277: $\theta$ and the scale length $r_{\rm h}$ are in units of arcsecond
278: ( $^{''}$ ) and Kpc, respectively.
279:
280: We need a relationship between the scale length $r_h$ and the mass
281: $M$, which could be determined by observational data. First, the
282: scale length is related to the effective (or half-light) radius
283: $R_e$ of a luminous galaxy by $r_h=R_e/1.8$ \cite{hernquist}. It
284: has long been recognized that there exists a correlation between
285: $R_e$ and the mean surface brightness $\langle I_e\rangle$ interior
286: to $R_e$ \cite{djorgovski}: $R_e\propto\langle I\rangle_e^{-0.83\pm
287: 0.08}$ . Since the luminosity interior to $R_e$ (half-light) is
288: $L_e=L/2=\pi\langle I\rangle_e R_e^2$, one immediately finds
289: $R_e\propto L^{1.26}$. Second, we need to know the mass-to-light
290: ratio $\Upsilon=M/L\propto L^{p}$ for elliptical galaxies. The
291: observed data gives $p=0.35$ \cite{van}; according to MOND, however,
292: we should find $p\approx 0$ \cite{sanders06}. In any case we have
293: \begin{equation}
294: L\propto M^{1/(1+p)}. \label{lm}
295: \end{equation}
296: Therefore, the scale length should be related to the stellar mass of
297: a galaxy by $r_h=AM^{1.26/(1+p)}$, and the coefficient $A$ should be
298: further determined by observational data. Without a well defined
299: sample at our disposal, we use the galaxy lenses which have an
300: observed effective radius $R_e$ (and thus $r_h$) in the CASTLES
301: survey \cite{munoz}, which are listed in table 2 of \cite{zhao06a}.
302: The fitted formulae for $r_{\rm h}$ are
303: \begin{equation}
304: r_{\rm h}=\cases{0.72\left(\frac{M}{M_{\star}}\right)^{1.26} \ \
305: {\rm Kpc}, & for p=0.0, \cr
306: 1.24\left(\frac{M}{M_{\star}}\right)^{1.26/1.35} \ \ {\rm Kpc}, &
307: for p=0.35}. \label{rh}
308: \end{equation}
309: In later calculations, except indicated, we use the fitted formula
310: of $r_{\rm h}$ for $p=0$ as required by MOND.
311:
312: \section{Galaxy stellar mass function}
313: In LCDM cosmology, mass function of virialized CDM halos can be
314: obtained in two independent ways. One is via the generalized
315: Press-Schechter (PS) theory, the other is via Schechter luminosity
316: function. In TeVeS, however, the PS-like theory does not exist.
317: Fortunately, the stellar mass function of galaxies is available in
318: the literature, including the one constrained by the most recent
319: data \cite{fontana06,panters}.
320:
321: Before giving the galaxy stellar mass functions (GSMF) appeared in
322: the most recent literature, it is helpful to derive a GSMF directly
323: from the Schechter luminosity function and mass-to-light ratio. The
324: Schechter luminosity function is
325: \begin{equation}
326: \phi(L)=\phi^{\star}\left(\frac{L}{L_{\star}}
327: \right)^{\alpha}\exp\left(-\frac{L}{L_{\star}}\right)\frac{\rmd
328: L}{L_{\star}}. \label{schechter}
329: \end{equation}
330: For $L/L_{\star}=(M/M_{\star})^{1/(1+p)}$ implied by equation
331: (\ref{lm}), we have a GSMF
332: \begin{equation}
333: \phi(M)=\frac{\phi^{\star}}{1+p}\left(\frac{M}{M_{\star}}\right)^{\frac{\alpha+1}{1+p}-1}
334: \exp\left[-\left(\frac{M}{M_{\star}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+p}}\right]\frac{\rmd
335: M}{M_{\star}}. \label{gsmf}
336: \end{equation}
337: While the average number density of galaxies $\phi_{\star}$, the
338: slope at low-mass end $\alpha$ and the slope of mass-to-light ratio
339: $p$ may be easily found from the published observational data or
340: assumptions, the characteristic stellar mass of galaxies $M_{\star}$
341: can be derived from
342: \begin{equation}
343: \rho_{\rm lum}=\Omega_{\rm lum}\rho_{\rm
344: crit}(0)=\int^{\infty}_0M\phi(M)\rmd M,
345: \end{equation}
346: where $\rho_{\rm lum}$ is the luminous baryonic matter density (note
347: that $\rho_{\rm lum}\ll\rho_{\rm b}$). The characteristic mass
348: $M_{\star}$ is
349: \begin{equation}
350: M_{\star}=\frac{\Omega_{\rm lum}\rho_{\rm
351: crit(0)}}{\phi_{\star}\Gamma(\alpha+p+2)}.
352: \end{equation}
353: For example, for $(\phi_{\star}, \alpha, \Omega_{\rm lum},
354: p)=(0.014h^3{\rm Mpc}^{-3}, -1.1, 0.003, 0.35)$ from \cite{lang},
355: $M_{\star}=6.56\times 10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$; for the same
356: parameters except that $p=0.0$ (MOND), $M_{\star}=5.56\times
357: 10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$.
358:
359: \begin{figure}[b]\center
360: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f1.eps}
361: \caption{Comoving number density for PHJ (solid), Fontana (dotted)
362: and SIS halos (dash). Since Fontana mass function depends on
363: redshift, four cases with redshift $z=0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0$ are
364: displayed. For comparison, we normalize the three mass functions to
365: the same value of characteristic mass $M_\star=7.64\times
366: 10^{10}h^{-2}M_{\odot}$.} \label{mf}
367: \end{figure}
368:
369: Fortunately, the parameters in equation (\ref{gsmf}) have been
370: determined by recent observational data. By determining
371: non-parametrically the stellar mass functions of 96545 galaxies from
372: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data (SDSS) release one, Panter,
373: Heavens and Jimenez \cite{panters} (PHJ, hereafter) give the GSMF
374: \cite{chen06}
375: \begin{equation}
376: \phi(M)\rmd
377: M=\phi_\star\left(\frac{M}{M_\star}\right)^{\tilde{\alpha}}
378: \exp\left(-\frac{M}{M_\star}\right)\frac{dM}{M_\star}, \label{phj}
379: \end{equation}
380: where, we use $\phi(M)$ to denote the comoving number density
381: of galaxies with mass between $M$ and $M+\rmd M$, and
382: \begin{equation}
383: \eqalign{\phi_\star=(7.8\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-3}h^3\mbox{Mpc}^{-3},
384: \cr \tilde{\alpha}=-1.159\pm 0.008, \cr M_\star=(7.64\pm 0.09)\times
385: 10^{10}h^{-2}M_{\odot} .}
386: \end{equation}
387: Most recently, in order to study the assembly of massive galaxies in
388: the high redshift Universe, Fontana et al. \cite{fontana06}(Fontana,
389: hereafter) used the GOODS-MUSIC catalog to measure the evolution of
390: the GSMF and of the resulting stellar mass density up to redshift
391: $z=4$. The GSMF they obtained is
392: \begin{equation}
393: \phi(M,z)\rmd
394: M=\phi_{\star}(z)\left[\frac{M}{M_{\star}(z)}\right]^{\tilde{\alpha}(z)}
395: \exp\left[-\frac{M}{M_{\star}(z)}\right]\frac{\rmd M}{M_{\star}(z)},
396: \label{fontana}
397: \end{equation}
398: where
399: \begin{equation}
400: \eqalign{ \phi_{\star}(z)=n_0^{\star}(1+z)^{n_1^{\star}}, \
401: n_0^{\star}=0.0035, \ n_1^{\star}=-2.20\pm 0.18, \cr
402: \tilde{\alpha}(z)=\tilde{\alpha_0}+\tilde{\alpha_1}z, \
403: \tilde{\alpha_0}=-1.18, \tilde{\alpha_1}=-0.082\pm 0.033, \cr
404: M_{\star}(z)=10^{M_0^{\star}+M_1^{\star}z+M_2^{\star}z^2}h^{-2}M_{\odot},
405: \cr M_0^{\star}=11.16, M_1^{\star}=0.17\pm 0.05,
406: M_0^{\star}=-0.07\pm 0.01}
407: \end{equation}
408:
409: It would be interesting to compare PHJ and Fontana GSMFs to the mass
410: function of galaxies in LCDM cosmology when the galactic halos are
411: modeled by SIS. The comoving number density of galactic halos with
412: velocity dispersion between $v$ and $v+\rmd v$
413: \cite{mitchell05,chen06} is
414: \begin{equation}
415: \phi(v)dv=\phi_{\star}\left(\frac{v}{v_{\star}}\right)^{\tilde{\alpha}}
416: \exp\left[-\left(\frac{v}{v_{\star}}\right)^{\tilde{\beta}}\right]
417: \tilde{\beta}\frac{v}{v_{\star}}, \label{sis}
418: \end{equation}
419: For comparison, we need to transform equation (\ref{sis}) from
420: velocity dispersion to halo mass $M$
421: \begin{equation}
422: M=4\pi\int_{0}^{r_{200}}\rho_{\rm
423: SIS}(r)r^2dr=\frac{800\pi}{3}r_{200}^3\rho_{\rm crit}(z),
424: \label{msis}
425: \end{equation}
426: where $r_{200}$ is the virial radius of a galactic halo within which
427: the average mass density is 200 times the critical density of the
428: Universe $\rho_{\rm crit}(z)$. Substituting the well known
429: expression $\rho_{\rm SIS}(r)=v^2/(2\pi Gr^2)$ into equation
430: (\ref{msis}), it is easy to find
431: \begin{equation}
432: \fl M(z)=6.58\times 10^5\left(\frac{v}{{\rm km}{\rm
433: s}^{-1}}\right)^3[\Omega_{\rm m}(1+z)^3+\Omega_{\rm
434: K}(1+z)^2+\Omega_{\Lambda}]^{-1/2}h^{-1}M_{\odot}, \label{mv}
435: \end{equation}
436: where $\Omega_{\rm m}$ is the matter density parameter (including
437: dark and baryonic components) \cite{li02}. Equation (\ref{mv}) means
438: that at any redshift $z$ we should have $M\propto v^3$, or for our
439: purpose, another form
440: \begin{equation}
441: \frac{M}{M_{\star}}=\left(\frac{v}{v_{\star}}\right)^3, \label{mv2}
442: \end{equation}
443: we thus have the galaxy mass function for SIS halos
444: \begin{equation}
445: \phi(M)=\frac{\phi_{\star}\tilde{\beta}}{3}
446: \left(\frac{M}{M_{\star}}\right)^{(\tilde{\alpha}-2)/3}
447: \exp\left[-\left(\frac{M}{M_{\star}}\right)^{\tilde{\beta}/3}\right]\frac{\rmd
448: M}{M_{\star}}. \label{sisms}
449: \end{equation}
450: We plot PHJ and Fontana GSMFs in figure 1 together with the galaxy
451: mass function for SIS halos (comoving number density). For SIS
452: halos, we use $(\phi_\star, \tilde{\alpha},
453: \tilde{\beta})=(0.0064h^3\mbox{Mpc}^{-3}, -1.0, 4.0)$ \cite{chae02}.
454: For comparison, we normalize the three mass functions to the same
455: value of characteristic mass $M_\star=7.64\times
456: 10^{10}h^{-2}M_{\odot}$. Note that, for Fontana GSMF, the comoving
457: number density of galaxies decreases with increasing redshift, as
458: expected \cite{fontana06}.
459:
460: \section{lensing probability}
461: Usually, lensing cross section defined in the lens plane with image
462: separations larger than $\Delta\theta$ is $\sigma(>\Delta\theta)=\pi
463: D_L^2\beta_{\rm cr}^2\Theta[\Delta\theta(M)-\Delta\theta]$, where
464: $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function and $\beta_{\rm cr}$ is
465: the caustic radius within which sources are multiply imaged. This is
466: true only when $\Delta\theta(M)$ is approximately constant within
467: $\beta_{\rm cr}$, and the effect of the flux density ratio $q_{\rm
468: r}$ between the outer two brighter and fainter images can be
469: ignored. Generally this is not true, readers are referred to
470: \cite{chen06} for details. We introduce a source position quantity
471: $\beta_{q_{\rm r}}$ determined by
472: \begin{equation}
473: \left(\frac{\theta(\beta)}{\beta}
474: \frac{d\theta(\beta)}{d\beta}\right)_{\theta>0}=q_{\rm r}
475: \left|\frac{\theta(\beta)}{\beta}
476: \frac{d\theta(\beta)}{d\beta}\right|_{\theta_0<\theta<\theta_{\rm
477: cr}}, \label{qr}
478: \end{equation}
479: where $\theta_0=\theta(0)<0$, the absolute value of which is the
480: Einstein radius, and $\theta_{\rm cr}$ is determined by
481: $d\beta/d\theta=0$ for $\theta<0$. Equation (\ref{qr}) means that
482: when $\beta_{q_{\rm r}}<\beta<\beta_{\rm cr}$, the flux density
483: ratio would be larger than $q_{\rm r}$, which is the upper limit of
484: a well defined sample. Therefore, the source position should be
485: within $\beta_{q_{\rm r}}$ according to the sample selection
486: criterion. For example, in the CLASS/JVAS sample, $q_{\rm r}\leq
487: 10$.
488:
489: The amplification bias should be considered in lensing probability
490: calculations. For the source QSOs having a power-law flux
491: distribution with slope $\tilde{\gamma}$ ($=2.1$ in the CLASS/JVAS
492: survey), the amplification bias is
493: $B(\beta)=\tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}-1}$ \cite{oguri02}, where, in
494: this paper,
495: \begin{equation}
496: \tilde{\mu}(\beta)=\left|\frac{\theta}{\beta}\frac{d\theta}{d\beta}
497: \right|_{\theta_0<\theta<\theta_{\rm
498: cr}}+\left(\frac{\theta(\beta)}{\beta}
499: \frac{d\theta(\beta)}{d\beta}\right)_{\theta>0}\label{mag}
500: \end{equation}
501: is the total magnification of the outer two brighter images. In our
502: previous work \cite{chen06}, however, the amplification bias is
503: calculated based on the magnification of the second bright image of
504: the three images.
505:
506: Therefore, the lensing cross section with image-separation larger
507: than $\Delta\theta$ and flux density ratio less than $q_{\rm r}$ and
508: combined with the amplification bias $B(\beta)$ is
509: \cite{schneider92,chenc,chen06}
510: \begin{eqnarray}
511: \fl \sigma(>\Delta\theta,<q_{\rm r})=&2\pi D_L^2\times \nonumber \\
512: &\cases{\int_0^{\beta_{q_{\rm r}}}\beta
513: \tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}-1}(\beta)d\beta, & for
514: $\Delta\theta\leq\Delta\theta_0$, \cr \left(\int_0^{\beta_{q_{\rm
515: r}}}-\int_0^{\beta_{\Delta\theta}}\right)\beta
516: \tilde{\mu}^{\tilde{\gamma}-1}(\beta)d\beta, & for
517: $\Delta\theta_0<\Delta\theta\leq\Delta\theta_{q_{\rm r}}$, \cr 0, &
518: for $\Delta\theta>\Delta\theta_{q_{\rm r}}$,} \label{cross}
519: \end{eqnarray}
520: where $\beta_{\Delta\theta}$ is the source position at which a lens
521: produces the image separation $\Delta\theta$,
522: $\Delta\theta_0=\Delta\theta(0)$ is the separation of the two images
523: which are just on the Einstein ring, and
524: $\Delta\theta_{q_r}=\Delta\theta(\beta_{q_r})$ is the upper-limit of
525: the separation above which the flux ratio of the two images will be
526: greater than $q_{r}$.
527:
528: The lensing probability with image separation larger than
529: $\Delta\theta$ and flux density ratio less than $q_{\rm r}$, in
530: TeVeS cosmology, for the source QSOs at mean redshift $z_s=1.27$
531: lensed by foreground elliptical stellar galaxies is
532: \cite{chenc,chend,chene,chen06}
533: \begin{equation}
534: \fl P(>\Delta\theta,<q_{\rm r})=
535: \int_0^{z_s}\frac{dD^{p}(z)}{dz}dz\int_0^{\infty}\phi(M, z)(1+z)^3
536: \sigma(>\Delta\theta, <q_{\rm r})dM, \label{prob}
537: \end{equation}
538: %
539: \begin{figure}[t]\center
540: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f2.eps}
541: \caption{Predicted lens probability with an image separation angle
542: $>\Delta\theta$ and the flux ratio $\le q_r=10$. For TeVeS (solid
543: line) and GR (no CDM and without modification of gravity, dotted
544: line), we assume an open cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.04$ and
545: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.5$, model the lens as the Hernquist profile and
546: adopt PHJ GSMF (\ref{phj}); for standard LCDM (dashed line), we
547: assume a flat cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$ and
548: $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, model the lens as the SIS and adopt the mass
549: function (\ref{sis}). For GR, we consider two different
550: mass-to-light ratio types and thus the expressions of $r_{\rm h}$,
551: see equation (\ref{rh}). For comparison, the survey results of
552: CLASS/JVAS (thick histogram) are also shown.} \label{prob_phj}
553: \end{figure}
554:
555:
556: \begin{figure}[t]\center
557: \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f3.eps}
558: \caption{same as Figure 2, except that GSMF=Fontana for TeVeS and
559: GR.} \label{prob_fontana}
560: \end{figure}
561:
562: We plot in Figure \ref{prob_phj} and Figure \ref{prob_fontana} the
563: numerical results of the lensing probability according to equation
564: (\ref{prob}). In TeVeS (solid lines), we assume an open cosmology
565: with $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.04$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.5$, as implied
566: by fitting to a high-z Type Ia supernova luminosity modulus
567: \cite{zhao06a}. The lensing galaxy is modeled by Hernquist profile
568: with length scale $r_{\rm h}=0.72(M/M_{\star})^{1.26}{\rm Kpc}$ for
569: constant mass-to-light ratio as required by MOND [see equation
570: (\ref{rh})]. The interpolating functions with three cases $n=1.5,
571: 2.0$ and 3.0 are considered (top-down) according to equation
572: (\ref{mond_gmu}). In order to investigate the effects of MOND on
573: strong lensing, we also calculated the probabilities (dotted lines)
574: with no modification to gravitation theory (i.e., in GR) and without
575: dark matter (i.e., lensing galaxy is modeled by Hernquist profile).
576: In this case, two types of the fitted formulae for the length scale
577: $r_{\rm h}$ with $p=0$ and 0.35 (top-down) are adopted. In TeVeS and
578: GR (with no dark matter), we adopt the GSMF as the mass function
579: (mf), with mf=PHJ in Figure \ref{prob_phj} and mf=Fontana in Figure
580: \ref{prob_fontana}. As did in our previous work \cite{chen06}, We
581: recalculate the lensing probability with image separation larger
582: than $\Delta\theta$ and flux density ratio less than $q_r$, in flat
583: LCDM cosmology ($\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$), for the
584: source QSOs at mean redshift $z_s=1.27$ lensed by foreground SIS
585: modeled galaxy halos \cite{chae02,ma03,mitchell05}:
586: \begin{equation}
587: P_{\rm SIS}(>\Delta\theta,<q_{\rm
588: r})=\int_0^{z_s}dz\frac{dD^p(z)}{dz}\int_
589: {v_{\Delta\theta}}^{\infty}dv\bar{n}(v,z)\sigma_{\rm SIS}(v,z)B,
590: \end{equation}
591: where $\bar{n}(v,z)=\phi(v)(1+z)^3$, which is related to the
592: comoving number density $\phi(v)$ given by equation (\ref{sis}), is
593: the physical number density of galaxy halos at redshift $z$ with
594: velocity dispersion between $v$ and $v+dv$ \cite{mitchell05},
595: \begin{equation}
596: \sigma_{\rm
597: SIS}(v,z)=16\pi^3\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^4\left(\frac{D_{\rm
598: LS}D_{\rm L}}{D_{\rm S}}\right)^2
599: \end{equation}
600: is the lensing cross section,
601: \begin{equation}
602: v_{\Delta\theta}=4.4\times
603: 10^{-4}\left(\frac{c}{v_\star}\right)\sqrt{\frac{D_{\rm
604: S}\Delta\theta^{''}}{D_{\rm LS}}}
605: \end{equation}
606: is the minimum velocity for lenses to produce image separation
607: $\ge\Delta\theta^{''}$ and $B$ is the amplification bias. We adopt
608: $(\phi_\star,v_\star,\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\beta})=(0.0064h^3\mbox{Mpc}^{-3},
609: 198\mbox{kms}^{-1},-1.0,4.0)$ for early-type galaxies from
610: \cite{chae02}. A subset of 8958 sources from
611: the combined JVAS/CLASS survey form a well-defined statistical
612: sample containing 13 multiply imaged sources (lens systems)
613: suitable for analysis of the lens statistics
614: \cite{myers,browne03,patnaik92,king99}. The observed lensing
615: probabilities can be easily calculated \cite{chenb,chenc,chene} by
616: $P_{\mathrm{obs}}(>\Delta\theta)=N(>\Delta\theta)/8958$, where
617: $N(>\Delta\theta)$ is the number of lenses with separation greater
618: than $\Delta\theta$ in 13 lenses. For comparison, the observational probability
619: $P_{\mathrm{obs}}(>\Delta\theta)$ for the
620: survey results of CLASS/JVAS is also shown (thick histogram). It would be
621: helpful for us to figure out differences among models to summarize the
622: values of the probabilities $P(>\Delta\theta=0.3'')$ in the Table 1.
623: \section{ Discussion and conclusions}
624:
625: We have calculated the lensing probability with image separation
626: larger than a given value $\Delta\theta$ in an open, TeVeS
627: cosmology. The results are sensitive to the interpolating function
628: $\mu(x)$ and mass function $\phi(M,z)$. For a given GSMF (PHJ in
629: Figure \ref{prob_phj} and Fontana in Figure \ref{prob_fontana}), the
630: lensing probability decreases with increasing value of $n$ [given in
631: equation (\ref{ap})]. Obviously, for PHJ GSMF (Figure
632: \ref{prob_phj}), the lensing probabilities calculated in TeVeS
633: (solid lines for three cases of interpolating functions) are too
634: large at small lensing image separations compared with the results
635: of CLASS/JVAS. This unreasonable result is further confirmed, when
636: we note that, even the lensing probabilities in GR cosmology (with
637: no DM, dotted lines) are much larger than that in LCDM cosmology
638: (dashed line) at small image separations. Actually, however, this
639: result can be easly explained: at small mass-end (corresponding to
640: small image separation), the comoving number density for PHJ mf is
641: much larger than that for SIS halos (Figure \ref{mf}), which results
642: in the corresponding lensing probabilities according to equation
643: (\ref{prob}). This is why in our previous work \cite{chen06}, we
644: calculated the amplification bias based on the magnification of the
645: second bright image rather than the total magnification of the two
646: images considered. According to the resolution of CLASS/JVAS,
647: however, it is difficult to resolve the two images for small image
648: separations. Therefore, in this paper, we calculate the
649: amplification bias based on the total magnification of the outer two
650: brighter images, as usually done in the literature.
651:
652: On the other hand, if we adopt another most recent mass function,
653: Fontana GSMF (Figure \ref{prob_fontana}), we find that the predicted
654: lensing probabilities in an open TeVeS cosmology with the ``simple''
655: interpolating function $\mu(x)=x/(1+x)$ [i.e., $n=3/2$ in equation
656: (\ref{ap})] match the observational data of CLASS/JVAS quite well.
657: Similarly, this is reasonable when we note that the comoving number
658: density of galaxies for PHJ GSMF is much higher than that for
659: Fontana GSMF at small mass-end (Figure 1). Clearly, the ``standard''
660: interpolating function $\mu(x)=x/\sqrt{1+x^2}$ [i.e., $n=3$ in
661: equation (\ref{ap})] is ruled out due to its too low lensing rates
662: at small image separations. Interestingly, this conclusion is in
663: agreement with the most recent result of Sanders and Noordermeer
664: \cite{sanders07}, who constrained the interpolating function with
665: the rotation curves of early-type disc galaxies.
666:
667: \begin{table}[t]
668: \caption{The predicted values of the lensing probabilities $P(>\Delta\theta=0.3'')$ for all models and $P_{\rm obs}(>\Delta\theta=0.3'')$ for CLASS/JVAS.}
669: %\begin{indented}
670: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
671: \br
672: &\multicolumn{3}{c|}{TeVeS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{GR} & LCDM & CLASS/JVAS \\
673: \mr
674: &n=1.5&n=2.0&n=3.0&p=0.0&p=0.35& & \\
675: PHJ & -2.460& -2.513& -2.552& -2.601& -2.691&-2.848&-2.838 \\
676: Fontana&-2.873&-2.926& -2.965&-3.021&-3.112 & & \\
677: \br
678: \end{tabular}
679: %\end{indented}
680: \end{table}
681:
682: In our calculations for deflection angle in TeVeS cosmology, we have
683: fixed the value of the critical acceleration $a_0$ and modeled the
684: lensing galaxies with the Hernquist profile, and the only free
685: choice is the interpolating function $\mu(x)$. We note that the PHJ
686: GSMF includes all types of galaxies,
687: whereas the mf for SIS halos includes only early-type galaxies, this can
688: partly explain the relativey low abundance of SIS halos compared with PHJ GSMF in figure 1.
689: On the other hand, Fontana GSMF, like PHJ GSMF, also includes all types of galaxies,
690: but its value is close to (when $z=0$) or lower (for high $z$) than the mf for SIS halos.
691: Therefore, the major uncertainty
692: for lensing probability arises from the GSMF, which is
693: independent of any gravitational theory and should be determined by
694: observational data. Can we conclude from Figure 2 and Figure 3 that
695: Fontana GSMF is preferred and PHJ GSMF is ruled out? Recall that, in
696: LCDM cosmology, there are also uncertainties for the mass function
697: derived from the luminosity function, the equation (\ref{sis})
698: \cite{chae07,mitchell05,oguri07}. Actually, the parameters we adopted in equation
699: (\ref{sis}),
700: $(\phi_\star,v_\star,\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\beta})=(0.0064h^3\mbox{Mpc}^{-3},
701: 198\mbox{kms}^{-1},-1.0,4.0)$ \cite{chae02}, are selected so that
702: the predicted lensing probabilities $P_{\rm SIS}(>0.3'')$ can
703: exactly match the observed value $P_{\mathrm{obs}}(>0.3'')$, i.e.,
704: $P_{\rm
705: SIS}(>\Delta\theta=0.3'')=P_{\mathrm{obs}}(>\Delta\theta=0.3'')$, see Table 1.
706: The most recent parameters derived from SDSS DR3 \cite{choi07} is
707: $(\phi_\star,v_\star,\tilde{\alpha},\tilde{\beta})=(0.008h^3\mbox{Mpc}^{-3},
708: 161\mbox{kms}^{-1},2.32,2.67)$, however, this will not affect our results.
709: One can see clearly from Figure 2 that, at larger image separations,
710: the predicted lensing probabilities (dashed line) are well bellow
711: the observed values, i.e., $P_{\rm
712: SIS}(>\Delta\theta>0.3'')<P_{\mathrm{obs}}(>\Delta\theta>0.3'')$. As
713: a matter of fact, in strong lensing statistics, one usually compares
714: the predicted cumulate lensing probability at the image separation
715: of $\Delta\theta=0.3''$, and regards the under-estimates at larger
716: image-separations to be unimportant. We note, however, that there is
717: an inflexion at $\Delta\theta=1.16''$ for
718: $P_{\mathrm{obs}}(>\Delta\theta)$ calculated from the well-defined
719: sample of CLASS/JVAS (thick histogram), and there are no physical
720: interpretations for the flat part of the line when
721: $\Delta\theta<1.16''$. Although the sample of CLASS/JVAS is
722: ``well-defined", this should not include each detail such as the
723: inflexion, and other observations, like \cite{inada07}, would
724: provide more information at $\Delta\theta<1.16''$. So we can
725: reasonably guess that the correct observational data should avoid
726: the inflexion, and the trend of the rising probabilities with
727: smaller and smaller image-separations should continue inward at
728: $\Delta\theta<1.16''$. In this sense, the predicted lensing
729: probabilities in TeVeS cosmology, with a PHJ GSMF and the
730: ``standard" interpolating function, match the observational data
731: quite well as shown in Figure 2.
732:
733: We also note that, in Figure 3, the lensing probabilities in GR
734: cosmology (with no DM, dotted lines) are much lower than the
735: observational data. This imply that, as an alternative to CDM, MOND
736: can sufficiently account for the strong lensing observations.
737:
738: \ack{I am grateful to the anonymous referee for good suggestions to improve the presentation of this paper. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant 10673012 and CAS under grant KJCX3-SYW-N2.}
739:
740: \section*{References}
741: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
742: \bibitem{abfo05}
743: Allemandi G, Borowiec A, Francaviglia M and Odintsov S D 2005 {\it
744: Phys.~Rev.~D} {\bf 72} 063505
745: \bibitem{angus06}
746: Angus G W, Famaey B, and Zhao H S 2006 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
747: Soc.} {\bf 371}, 138
748: \bibitem{angus07a}
749: Angus G W, Shan H Y, Zhao H S and Famaey, B 2007 {\it Astrophys. J.}
750: {\bf 654}, L13
751: \bibitem{angus07b}
752: Angus G W \& McGaugh S S 2007 {\it Preprint} astro-ph/0704.0381
753: \bibitem{bartelmann01} Bartelmann M and Schneider P 2001 {\it Phys.
754: Rep.}
755: {\bf 340}, 291
756: \bibitem{bekenstein04}
757: Bekenstein J D 2004 \PR D, {\bf 70}, 083509
758: \bibitem{bekenstein06}
759: Bekenstein J D 2006 Contemporary Physics {\bf 47}, 387
760: %\bibitem[Bennett et al.(2003)]{bennett03}
761: %Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003, {\it Astrophys. J.}s, 148, 1
762: \bibitem{browne03}
763: Browne I W A et al. 2003 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}, {\bf
764: 341}, 13
765: \bibitem{bm06a}
766: Brownstein J R and Moffat J W 2006 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}
767: {\bf 367}, 527
768: \bibitem{bm06b}
769: Brownstein J R and Moffat J W 2006 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 636},
770: 721
771: \bibitem{bm07}
772: Brownstein J R and Moffat J W 2007 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}
773: {\bf 382}, 29
774: %\bibitem[Caldwell, Dave, \& Steinhardt(1998)]{caldwell}
775: %Caldwell, R. R., Dave, R., \& Steinhardt, P. J. 1998, \PRL, 80,
776: %1582
777: \bibitem{cct03} Capozziello S, Carloni S and Troisi A 2003
778: Quintessence without scalar fields {\it Preprint} astro-ph/0303041
779: \bibitem{cdtt04}
780: Carroll S M, Duvvuri V, Trodden M and Turner M S 2004 \PR D {\bf
781: 70}, 043528
782: \bibitem{chae02}
783: Chae K -H et al. 2002 \PRL {\bf 89}, 151301
784: \bibitem{chae03}
785: Chae K -H 2003 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}, {\bf 346}, 746
786: \bibitem{chae07} Chae K -H 2007 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 658}, L71
787: \bibitem{chena}
788: Chen D -M 2003 {\it Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 397}, 415
789: \bibitem{chenb}
790: Chen D -M 2003 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 587}, L55
791: \bibitem{chenc}
792: Chen D -M 2004 {\it Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 418}, 387
793: \bibitem{chend}
794: Chen D -M 2004 {\it Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 4}, 118
795: \bibitem{chene}
796: Chen D -M 2005 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 629}, 23
797: \bibitem{chen06}Chen D -M and Zhao H S 2006 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf
798: 650}, L9
799: \bibitem{chiu}
800: Chiu M -C, Ko C -M, and Tian Y 2006 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 636},
801: 565
802: \bibitem{choi07}
803: Choi Y -Y, Park C and Vogeley M S 2007 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 658}, 884
804: \bibitem{dalcanton97}
805: Dalcanton J J, Spergel D N and Summers F J 1997 {\it Astrophys. J.}
806: {\bf 482}, 659
807: %\bibitem{delucia04} de Lucia G et al 2004
808: \bibitem{djorgovski}
809: Djorgovski S and Davis M 1987 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 313}, 59
810: \bibitem{eisenstein05}
811: Eisenstein D J 2005 {\it New Astron. Rev.} {\bf 49}, 360
812: \bibitem{famaey05} Famaey B and Binney J 2005 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
813: Soc.} {\bf 363}, 603
814: \bibitem{famaey07}
815: Famaey B, Angus G W, Gentile G and Zhao H S 2007 {\it Preprint}
816: astro-ph/0706.1279
817: \bibitem{feix07}
818: Feix M, Fedeli C and Bartelmann M 2007 {\it Preprint}
819: astro-ph/0707.0790
820: \bibitem{fontana06} Fontana A et al 2006 {\it Astron. Astrophys.}
821: {\bf 459}, 745
822: \bibitem{hernquist}
823: Hernquist L 1991 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 356}, 359
824: \bibitem{inada07}
825: Inada N, Oguri M, Becker R H et al 2007 The Sloan digital sky survey
826: quasar lens search. II. Statistical lens sample from the third data
827: release {\it Preprint} astro-ph/0708.0828v1
828: \bibitem{inada03}
829: Inada N, Oguri M, Pindor B et al. 2003 {\it Nature} {\bf 426}, 810
830: %\bibitem{kaplinghat}
831: %Kaplinghat M and Turner M. 2002, {\it Astrophys. J.}, 569, L19
832: \bibitem{keeton01}
833: Keeton C R 2001 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 561}, 46
834: \bibitem{king99}
835: King L J, Browne I W A, Marlow D R, Patnaik A R and Wilkinson P N
836: 1999 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 307}, 255
837: \bibitem{klypin07}
838: Klypin A and Prada F 2007 Testing gravity with motion of satellites
839: around galaxies: Newtonian gravity against Modified Newtonian
840: Dynamics {\it Preprint} astro-ph/0706.3554v2
841: \bibitem{kochanek04}
842: Kochanek C S, Schneider P and Wambsganss J 2004 {\it Gravitational
843: Lensing: Strong, Weak \& Micro, Proceedings of the $33^{rd}$
844: Saas-Fee Advanced Course, Meylan G, Jetzer P \& North P, eds.
845: (Springer-Verlag: Berlin)}
846: \bibitem{kochanek01}
847: Kochanek C S and White M 2001 {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 559}, 531
848: \bibitem{koopmans06}
849: Koopmans L V E, Treu T, Bolton A S, Burles S and Moustakas L A 2006 {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 649}, 599
850: \bibitem{lang} Lang K R 1999 {\it Astrophysical Formulae} Vol~2 (Berlin:
851: Springer-Verlag) p~57
852: \bibitem{li02}
853: Li L -X and Ostriker J P 2002 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 566}, 652
854: \bibitem{lgl07}
855: Li G L, Mao S, Jing Y P, Lin W P and Oguri M 2007 {\it Mon. Not.
856: Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 378},469
857: %\bibitem[Li \& Ostriker(2003)]{li03}
858: %Li, L. -X., \& Ostriker, J. P. 2003, {\it Astrophys. J.}, 595, 603
859: %\bibitem[Ma et al.(1999)]{ma}
860: %Ma, C. -P., Caldwell, R. R., Bode, P., \& Wang, L. 1999, {\it Astrophys. J.},
861: %521, L1
862: \bibitem{lopes}
863: Lopes A M and Miller L 2004 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf
864: 348}, 519
865: \bibitem{ma03}
866: Ma C -P 2003 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 584}, L1
867: \bibitem{mcgaugh98}
868: McGaugh S S and de Blok W J G 1998 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 499}, 66
869: \bibitem{mcgaugh2000}
870: McGaugh S S, Schombert J M, Bothun G D and de Blok W J G 2000 {\it
871: Astrophys. J.} {\bf 533}, L99
872: \bibitem{milgrom83}
873: Milgrom M 1983 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 270}, 365
874: \bibitem{mitchell05}
875: Mitchell J L, Keeton C R, Frieman J A, and Sheth R K 2005 {\it
876: Astrophys. J.} {\bf 622}, 81
877: %\bibitem[Moffat(2005)]{moffat05}
878: %Moffat, J. w. 2005, \jcap, 0505, 003
879: \bibitem{moffat06}
880: Moffat J w 2006 {\it JCAP} {\bf 0603}, 004
881: \bibitem{mt07a}
882: Moffat J W and Toth V T 2007 Testing modified gravity with motion of
883: satellites around galaxies {\it Preprint} astro-ph/0708.1264
884: \bibitem{mt07b}
885: Moffat J W and Toth V T 2007 Testing modified gravity with globular
886: cluster velocity dispersions {\it Preprint} astro-ph/0708.1935
887: \bibitem{mt07c}
888: Moffat J W and Toth V T 2007 Modified Gravity: Cosmology without
889: dark matter or a cosmological constant {\it Preprint}
890: astro-ph/0710.0364
891: \bibitem{mortlock}
892: Mortlock D and Turner E L 2001 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}
893: {\bf 327}, 557
894: \bibitem{munoz}
895: Munoz J A, Kochanek C, and Falco E E 1999 {\it Astrophys. Space
896: Sci.} {\bf 263}, 51
897: \bibitem{myers}
898: Myers S T et al. 2003 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 341}, 1
899: \bibitem{no03}
900: Nojiri S and Odintsov S D 2003 {\it Phys.~Rev.~D} {\bf 68} 123512
901: \bibitem{no07}
902: Nojiri S and Odintsov S D 2007 {\it
903: Int.~J.~Geom.~Meth.~Mod.~Phys.~}{\bf 4} 115
904: \bibitem{oguri06}
905: Oguri M 2006 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 367}, 1241
906: \bibitem{oguri04a}
907: Oguri M, Inada N, Keeton C R et al. 2004 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf
908: 605}, 78
909: \bibitem{oguri07}
910: Oguri M, Inada N, Strauss M A et al. 2007 {\it Astron. J.}, accepted, {\it Preprint} astro-ph/0708.0825
911: \bibitem{oguri03a} Oguri M 2003 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 339}, L23
912: \bibitem{oguri04}
913: Oguri M and Keeton C R 2004 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 610}, 663
914: \bibitem{oguri03b}
915: Oguri M, Suto Y and Turner E L 2003 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 583},
916: 584
917: \bibitem{oguri02}
918: Oguri M, Taruya A, Suto Y, and Turner E L 2002 {\it Astrophys. J.}
919: {\bf 568}, 488
920: %\bibitem[Ostriker \& Souradeep(2004)]{ostriker04}
921: %Ostriker, J. P., \& Souradeep, T. 2004, Pramana, 63, 817
922: %\bibitem[Padmanabhan \& Choudhury(2002)]{pad}
923: %Padmanabhan, T., \& Choudhury, T. R. 2002, \PR D, 66, 081301
924: \bibitem{panters}
925: Panter B, Heavens A F and Jimenez R 2004 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
926: Soc.} {\bf 355}, 764
927: \bibitem{patnaik92}
928: Patnaik A R, Browne I W A, Wilkinson P N, and Wrobel J M 1992 {\it
929: Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 254}, 655
930: %\bibitem[Peebles(2002)]{peebles02}
931: %Peebles, P. J. E. 2002, in Proc. XXXVII Moriond Conf., The Cosmological Model,
932: %ed. C. Magneville (Villeurbanne: Centre de Calcul),
933: %http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J02/Talks2002/J.Peebles/peebles.ps
934: %\bibitem[Peebles \& Ratra(2003)]{peebles03}
935: %Peebles, P. J. E., \& Ratra, B. 2003, Rev.Mod.Phys., 75, 559
936: \bibitem{peng06}
937: Peng C Y, Impey C D, Rix H -W et al. 2006 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf
938: 649}, 616
939: \bibitem{qin}
940: Qin B, Wu X -P, and Zou Z -L 1995 {\it Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf
941: 296}, 264
942: \bibitem{rusin05}
943: Rusin D and Kochanek C S 2005 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 623}, 666
944: \bibitem{sanders02}
945: Sanders R H and McGaugh S S 2002 {\it Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.}
946: {\bf 40}, 263
947: \bibitem{sanders06}
948: Sanders R H 2006 Modified gravity without dark matter {\it Preprint}
949: astro-ph/0601431
950: \bibitem{sanders07} Sanders R H and Noordermeer E 2007 Confrontation
951: of MOND with the rotation curves of early-type disc galaxies {it
952: Preprint} astro-ph/0703352
953: \bibitem{sarbu01}
954: Sarbu N, Rusin D and Ma C -P 2001 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 561},
955: L147
956: %\bibitem[Sereno(2005)]{sereno05} Sereno, M. 2005, {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.}, 356, 937
957: %\bibitem[Spergel et al.(2006)]{spergel}
958: %Spergel, D. N., et al. 2006, {\it Astrophys. J.}, submitted (astro-ph/0603449)
959: %\bibitem[Springel, Frenk \& White(2006)]{springel}
960: %Springel, V., Frenk, C. S., \& White, S. D. M. 2006, Nature, 440,
961: %1137
962: %\bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004a)]{tegmark04a} Tegmark, M., et al.
963: %2004a, {\it Astrophys. J.}, 606, 702
964: %\bibitem[Tegmark et al.(2004b)]{tegmark04b}
965: %Tegmark, M., et al. 2004b, \PR D, 69, 103501
966: %\bibitem{scarpa} Scarpa R 2006, {\it Preprint}(astro-ph/0601478)
967: \bibitem{schneider92}
968: Schneider P, Ehlers J and Falco E E 1992 Gravitational lenes
969: (Berlin: Springer)
970: \bibitem{sotiriou06a}
971: Sotiriou T P 2006 {\it Phys.~Rev.~D} {\bf 73} 063515
972: \bibitem{sotiriou06b}
973: Sotiriou T P 2006 {\it Class.~Quantum Grav.~}{\bf 23} 1253
974: \bibitem{spergel07}
975: Spergel D N et al 2007 {\it Astrophys. J. Supp.} {\bf 170}, 377
976: \bibitem{takahashi07}
977: Takahashi R and Chiba T 2007 {\it Astrophys. J.}, {\bf 671 45}
978: \bibitem{vandb2000}
979: van den Bosch F C and Dalcanton J J 2000 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf
980: 534}, 146
981: \bibitem{van}
982: van der Marel R P 1991 {\it Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 253},
983: 710
984: \bibitem{vollick03}
985: Vollick D N 2003 {\it Phys.~Rev.~D} {\bf 68} 063510
986: \bibitem{wj04}
987: Wang J 2004 {\it Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 4}, 10
988: \bibitem{wxf07}
989: Wu X, Zhao H S, Famaey B, Gentile G, Tiret O, Combes F,Angus G W ,
990: and Robin A C 2007 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 665}, L101
991: \bibitem{wu96}
992: Wu X -P 1996 {\it Fundam. Comic Phys.} {\bf 17}, 1
993: \bibitem{zhang2004}
994: Zhang T -J 2004 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 602}, L5
995: \bibitem{zhang05}
996: Zhang T -J, Yang Z -L and He X -T 2005 {\it Modern Physics Letters
997: A} {\bf 20}, 851
998: \bibitem{zhao07}
999: Zhao H, 2007 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 671}, L1
1000: \bibitem{zhao06a}
1001: Zhao H, Bacon D J, Taylor A N and Horne K 2006 {\it Mon. Not. Roy.
1002: Astron. Soc.} {\bf 368}, 171
1003: \bibitem{zhao06b}
1004: Zhao H and Famaey B 2006 {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 638}, L9
1005: \bibitem{zhaoqin06} Zhao H and Qin B 2006 {\it Chinese J.
1006: Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 6}, 141
1007: \bibitem{zhaotian06}
1008: Zhao H and Tian L 2006 {\it Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 450}, 1005
1009: %\bibitem[Zhu(2004)]{zhu04}
1010: %Zhu, Z. -H. 2004, {it Astron. Astrophys.}, 423, 421
1011: \end{thebibliography}
1012: \end{document}
1013: