1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
4:
5:
6: \title[Microlensing of the X-ray, UV and optical emission regions of
7: quasars]{Microlensing of the X-ray, UV and optical emission regions
8: of quasars: Simulations of the time-scales and amplitude variations
9: of microlensing events}
10: \author[P. Jovanovi\'c, A.F. Zakharov,
11: L.\v C. Popovi\'c, T. Petrovi\' c]{P. Jovanovi\'c$^1$, A. F. Zakharov$^{2,3,4}$, L. \v C. Popovi\'c$^1$, T. Petrovi\' c$^1$ \\
12: $^1$Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11160 Belgrade, Serbia \\
13: $^2$Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics,
14: 25, B.Cheremushkinskaya, 25, Moscow, 117259, Russia \\
15: $^3$Bogoliubov Laboratory for Theoretical Physics, JINR, 141980 Dubna,
16: Russia \\
17: $^4$Center of Advanced Mathematics and Physics, National University of Science and Technology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan}
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \date{Accepted 2007 Received 2007 ; in original form 2007}
21:
22:
23: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
24:
25: \maketitle
26:
27: \label{firstpage}
28:
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We consider the influence of microlensing on different spectral
32: bands of lensed QSOs. We assumed that the emitting X-ray, UV and
33: optical regions are different in size, but that the continuum
34: emission in these spectral bands is originating from an accretion
35: disc. Estimations of the time scales for microlensing and flux
36: amplification in different bands are given. We found that the
37: microlensing duration should be shorter in the X-ray (several
38: months) than in UV/optical emitting region (several years). This
39: result indicates that monitoring of the X-ray variations in lensed
40: QSOs that show a 'flux anomaly' can clarify the source of this anomaly.
41: \end{abstract}
42:
43: \begin{keywords}
44: accretion, accretion discs -- gravitational lensing -- galaxies: active -- ultraviolet: galaxies -- X-rays: galaxies
45: \end{keywords}
46:
47: \maketitle
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50:
51: Recent observational and theoretical studies suggest that
52: gravitational microlensing can induce variability not only in
53: optical light, but also in the X-ray emission of lensed QSOs
54: \citep{Chart02a,Chart04,Dai03,Dai04,pj06,Pop01,Pop03a,Pop03b,Pop06a,Pop06b}.
55: Variability studies of QSOs indicate that the size of the X-ray
56: emitting region is significantly smaller ($\sim$ several light
57: hours), than the optical and UV emitting regions ($\sim$ several
58: light days).
59:
60: Gravitational lensing is achromatic (the deflection angle of a light
61: ray does not depend on its wavelength), but it is clear that if the
62: geometries of the emitting regions at different wavelengths are
63: different then chromatic effects could occur. For example, if the
64: microlens is a binary star or if the microlensed source is extended
65: \citep{Griest_Hu92,Griest_Hu93,Bog_Cher95a,Bog_Cher95b,Zakh97,Zakh_Sazh98,Pc04}
66: different amplifications in different spectral bands can be present.
67: Studies aiming to determine the influence of microlensing on the
68: spectra of lensed QSOs need to take into account the complex
69: structure of the QSO central emitting region \citep{Pc04}. Since the
70: sizes of the emitting regions are wavelength dependent, microlensing
71: by stars in the lens galaxy may lead to a wavelength dependent
72: magnification. For example, Blackburne et al. (2006) reported such a
73: 'flux anomaly' in quadruply imaged quasar 1RXS J1131-1231. In
74: particular, they found discrepancies between the X-ray and optical
75: flux ratio anomalies. Such anomalies in the different spectral band
76: flux ratios can be attributed to micro- or milli-lensing in the
77: massive lensing halo. In the case of milli-lensing one can infer the
78: nature of substructure in the lensing galaxy, which can be connected
79: to Cold Dark Matter (CDM) structures (see e.g. Dobler \& Keeton
80: 2006). Besides microlensing, there are several mechanisms which can
81: produce flux anomalies, such as extinction and intrinsic
82: variability. These anomalies were discussed in \citet{Pc04} where
83: the authors gave a method that can aid in distinguishing between
84: variations produced by microlensing from ones resulting from other
85: effects. In this paper we discuss consequences of variations due to
86: gravitational microlensing, in which the different geometries and
87: dimensions of emitting regions of different spectral bands are
88: considered.
89:
90: The influence of microlensing on QSO spectra emitted from their
91: accretion discs in the range from the X-ray to the optical
92: spectral band is analyzed. Moreover, assuming different sizes
93: of the emitting regions, we investigate the microlensing time
94: scales for those regions, as well as a time dependent response
95: in amplification of different spectral bands due to
96: microlensing. Also, we give the estimates of microlensing time
97: scales for a sample of lensed QSOs.
98:
99: In Section 2, we describe our model of the quasar emitting regions
100: and a model of the micro-lens. In Section 3 we discuss the time
101: scales of microlensing and in Section 4 we present our results.
102: Finally, in Section 5, we draw our conclusions.
103:
104: \section{A model of QSO emitting regions and microlens}
105:
106: \subsection{A model of the QSO emitting regions}
107:
108: In our models we adopt a disc geometry for the emitting regions of
109: Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) since the most widely accepted
110: paradigm for AGN includes a supermassive black hole fed by an
111: accretion disc. \citet{Fabian89} calculated spectral line profiles
112: for radiation emitted from the inner parts of accretion discs and
113: later on such features of Fe $K\alpha$ lines were discovered by
114: \citet{Tanaka95} in Japanese ASCA satellite data for Seyfert galaxy
115: MGC-6-30-15. Moreover, the assumption of a disc geometry for the
116: distribution of the emitters in the central part is supported by the
117: spectral shape of the Fe K$\alpha$ line in AGN (e.g.
118: \citet{Nandra_1997}, see also results of simulations
119: \citep{Zak_Rep99,Zak_Rep02,ZKLR02,Zak_Rep03a,Zak_Rep03b,ZR_Nuovo_Cim03,Zak_Rep03c,ZR_5SCSLSA,ZR_NA_05,Zak_SPIG04,ZR_NANP_05}).
120: On the other hand, very often a bump in the UV band is present in
121: the spectra of AGN, that indicates that the UV and optical continuum
122: originates in an accretion disk.
123:
124: We should note here that probably most of the X-ray emission in the
125: 1--10 keV energy range originates from inverse Compton scattering of
126: photons from the disc by electrons in a tenuous hot corona. Proposed
127: geometries of the hot corona of AGN include a spherical corona
128: sandwiching the disc and a patchy corona made of a few compact
129: regions covering a small fraction of the disc (see e.g.
130: \citet{mz07}). On the other hand, it is known that part of the
131: accretion disc that emits in the 1--10~keV rest-frame band (e.g. the
132: region that emits the continuum Compton reflection component and the
133: fluorescent emission lines) is very compact and may contribute to
134: X-ray variability in this energy range. In order to study the
135: microlensing time scales, one should consider the dimensions of the
136: X-ray emitting region which are very important for the integral flux
137: variations due to microlensing. The geometry of the emitting regions
138: adopted in microlensing models will affect the simulated spectra of
139: the continuum and spectral line emission \citep{Pc04,pj06}. In this
140: paper we assume that the AGN emission from the optical to the X-ray
141: band originates from different parts of the accretion disc.
142:
143: Also we assume that we have a stratification in the disc, where the
144: innermost part emits the X-ray radiation and outer parts the UV and
145: optical continuum emission. To study the effects of microlensing on
146: a compact accretion disc we use the ray-tracing method, considering
147: only those photon trajectories that reach the sky plane at a given
148: observer angle (see, e.g. Popovi\'c et al. 2003a,b and references
149: therein). The amplified brightness with amplification $A(X,Y)$ for
150: the continuum is given by
151:
152: \begin{equation}
153: I_{C} (X,Y;E_{obs}) = { {I_{P}}} (E_{obs},T(X,Y)) \cdot A(X,Y),
154: \end{equation}
155: where $T(X,Y)$ is the temperature, $X$ and $Y$ are the impact
156: parameters which describe the apparent position of each point of the
157: accretion disc image on the celestial sphere as seen by an observer
158: at infinity, $E_{\rm obs}$ is the observed energy, $I_P$ is an
159: emissivity function.
160:
161: In the standard Shakura-Sunyaev disc model \citeyearpar{Shakura73},
162: accretion occurs via an optically thick and geometrically thin disc.
163: The effective optical depth in the disc is very high and photons are
164: close to the thermal equilibrium with electrons. The surface
165: temperature is a function of disc parameters and results in the
166: multicolor black body spectrum. This component is thought to explain
167: the 'blue bump' in AGN and the soft X-ray emission in galactic black
168: holes. Although the standard Shakura-Sunyaev disc model does not
169: predict the power-law X-ray emission observed in all sub-Eddington
170: accreting black holes, the power law for the X-ray emissivity in AGN
171: is usually adopted (see e.g. \cite{Nandra_1999}). But one can not
172: exclude other approximations for emissivity laws, such as black-body
173: or modified black-body emissivity laws. Moreover, we will assume
174: that the emissivity law is the same through the whole disc.
175: Therefore we used the black-body radiation law. The disc emissivity
176: is given as (e.g. \cite{Jarosz_1992}):
177:
178: $$I_P(X,Y;E)=B[E,T_s(X,Y)],$$
179: where
180: \begin{equation}
181: B\left( {E,T_s(X,Y)} \right) = {\frac{{2E
182: ^{3}}}{{h^2c^{2}}}}{\frac{{1}}{{e^{{{E
183: }
184: \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{h\nu} {kT}}} \right.
185: \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {kT_s(X,Y)}}} - 1}}},
186: \end{equation}
187: where $c$ is the speed of light, $h$ is the Planck constant,
188: $k$ is the Boltzmann constant and $T_s(X, Y)$ is the surface
189: temperature. Concerning the standard accretion disc
190: \citep{Shakura73}, here we assumed that (see \citet{Pop06a}):
191: \begin{equation}
192: T_s(X, Y) \sim r^{-3/2}(X,Y)(1-r^{-1/2}(X,Y))^{4/5} \,{\rm K},
193: \end{equation}
194: taking that an effective temperature in the innermost part (where X-ray is
195: originated) is in an interval from 10$^7$ K to
196: 10$^8$ K.
197:
198: \begin{figure*}
199: \centering
200: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig1a.eps}\hfill
201: \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig1b.eps}
202: \caption{Magnification map of the QSO 2237+0305A image (left) and of
203: a "typical" lens system (right). The white solid lines represent
204: three analyzed paths of an accretion disc center: horizontal
205: ($y=0$), diagonal ($y = -x$) and vertical ($x=0$).}
206: \end{figure*}
207:
208: \subsection{A model for microlensing}
209:
210: To explain the observed microlensing events in quasars, one can use
211: different microlensing models. The simplest approximation is a
212: point-like microlens, where microlensing is caused by some compact
213: isolated object (e.g. by a star). Such a microlens is characterized
214: by its Einstein Ring Radius in the lens plane:
215: $ERR=\sqrt{\dfrac{4Gm}{c^2}\dfrac{D_lD_{ls}}{D_s}}$ or by the
216: corresponding projection in the source plane:
217: $R_E=\dfrac{D_s}{D_l}ERR=\sqrt{\dfrac{4Gm}{c^2}\dfrac{D_sD_{ls}}{D_l}}$,
218: where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $c$ is the speed of light,
219: $m$ is the microlens mass and $D_l$, $D_s$ and $D_{ls}$ are the
220: cosmological angular distances between observer-lens,
221: observer-source and lens-source, respectively. In most cases we can
222: not simply consider that microlensing is caused by an isolated
223: compact object but we must take into account that the
224: micro-deflector is located in an extended object (typically, the
225: lens galaxy). Therefore, when the size of the Einstein ring radius
226: projection $R_E$ of the microlens is larger than the size of the
227: accretion disc and when a number of microlenses form a caustic net,
228: one can describe the microlensing in terms of the crossing of the
229: disc by a straight fold caustic (Schneider et al. 1992). The
230: amplification at a point of an extended source (accretion disc)
231: close to the caustic is given by \citet{Chang84} (a more general
232: expression for a magnification near a cusp type singularity is given
233: by \citet{Schneider92,Zakharov95}):
234: \begin{equation}
235: A(X,Y)=A_0+K\sqrt{\frac{r_{\rm caustic}}{\kappa(\xi-\xi_c)}}\cdot
236: H(\kappa(\xi-\xi_c)),
237: \label{eq04}
238: \end{equation}
239: where $A_0$ is the amplification outside the caustic and
240: $K=A_0\beta$ is the caustic amplification factor, where $\beta$ is
241: constant of order of unity (e.g. Witt et al. 1993). The "caustic
242: size" $r_{\rm caustic}$ is the distance in a direction
243: perpendicular to the caustic for which the caustic amplification is
244: 1, and therefore this parameter defines a typical linear scale for
245: the caustic in the direction perpendicular to the caustic. $\xi$ is
246: the distance perpendicular to the caustic in gravitational radii
247: units and $\xi_c$ is the minimum distance from the disc center to
248: the caustic. Thus,
249: \begin{equation}
250: \xi_c={\sqrt{X_c^2+Y_c^2}},
251: \end{equation}
252:
253: \begin{equation}
254: {\rm tg}\alpha=\frac{Y_c}{X_c},
255: \end{equation}
256: and
257: \begin{equation}
258: \xi=\xi_c+\frac{(X-X_c){\rm tg}\phi+Y_c-Y}{\sqrt{{\rm tg}^2\phi+1}},
259: \end{equation}
260: where
261: $\phi=\alpha+{\pi/2}$. $ H(\kappa(\xi-\xi_c))$ is the Heaviside
262: function, $H(\kappa(\xi-\xi_c))=1$, for $\kappa(\xi-\xi_c)>0$,
263: otherwise it is 0. $\kappa$ is $\pm 1$, it depends on the direction
264: of caustic motion; if the direction of the caustic motion is from
265: approaching side of the disc $\kappa=-1$, otherwise it is +1. Also,
266: in the special case of caustic crossing perpendicular to the
267: rotating axis $\kappa=+1$ for direction of caustic motion from $-Y$
268: to $+Y$, otherwise it is $-1$. A microlensing event where a caustic
269: crosses over an emission region can be described in the following
270: way: before the caustic reaches the emission region, the
271: amplification is equal to $A_0$ because the Heavisied function of
272: equation (4) is zero. Just as the caustic begins to cross the
273: emitting region the amplification rises rapidly and then decays
274: gradually towards $A_0$ as the source moves away from the
275: caustic-fold.
276:
277: Moreover, for the specific event one can model the caustic shape to
278: obtain different parameters (see e.g. Abajas et al. 2005, Kochanek
279: 2004 for the case of Q2237+0305). In order to apply an appropriate
280: microlens model, additionally we will consider a standard
281: microlensing magnification pattern for the Q2237+0305A image (Fig. 1
282: left). For generating this map we used the ray-shooting method
283: \citep{Kay86,sch1,sch2,WP90,WSP90}. In this method the input
284: parameters are the average surface mass density $\sigma$, shear
285: $\gamma$ and width of the microlensing magnification map expressed
286: in units of the Einstein ring radius (defined for one solar mass in
287: the lens plane).
288:
289: First, we generate a random star field in the lens plane with use of
290: the parameter $\sigma$. After that, we solve the Poisson equation
291: $\nabla^2\psi=2\sigma$ in the lens plane numerically, so we can
292: determine the lens potential $\psi$ in every point of the grid in
293: the lens plane. To solve the Poisson equation numerically one has to
294: write its finite difference form:
295: \begin{equation}
296: \psi_{i+1,j}+\psi_{i-1,j}+\psi_{i,j+1}+\psi_{i,j-1}-4\psi_{i,j}=2\sigma_{i,j}.
297: \label{psi}
298: \end{equation}
299: Here we used the standard 5-point formula for the two-dimensional
300: Laplacian. Next step is inversion of the equation (\ref{psi}) using
301: Fourier transform. After some transformations we obtain:
302: \begin{equation}
303: \hat{\psi}=\frac{\hat{\sigma}_{mn}}{2(\cos{\frac{m\pi}{N_{1}}}+\cos{\frac{n\pi}{N_{2}}}-2)},
304: \label{hatpsi}
305: \end{equation}
306: where $N_1$ and $N_2$ are dimensions of the grid in the lens plane.
307: Now, using the finite difference technique, we can compute the
308: deflection angle $ \vec{\alpha}=\nabla\psi $ in each point of the
309: grid in the lens plane. After computing deflection angle, we can map
310: the regular grid of points in the lens plane, via lens equation,
311: onto the source plane. These light rays are then collected in pixels
312: in the source plane, and the number of rays in one pixel is
313: proportional to the magnification due to microlensing at this point
314: in the source plane.
315:
316: Typically, for calculations of microlensing in
317: gravitationally lensed systems one can consider cases where
318: dimensionless surface mass density $\sigma$ is some fraction of
319: 1 e.g. 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 \citep{Treyer03}, cases without
320: external shear ($\gamma=0$) and cases with $\gamma=\sigma$ for
321: isothermal sphere model for the lensing galaxy. In this article
322: we assume the values of these parameters within the range
323: generally adopted by other authors, in particular by
324: \citet{Treyer03}.
325:
326: Microlensing magnification pattern for the Q2237+0305A image (Fig. 1
327: left) with 16~$R_E$ on a side (where $R_E\approx 5867\ R_g$) is
328: calculated using the following parameters: $\sigma=0.36$ and
329: $\gamma=0.4$ (see \cite{Pop06a}, Fig. 2), the mass of microlens is
330: taken to be 0.3$M_\odot$ and we assume a flat cosmological model
331: with $\Omega =0.3$ and $H_{0}= 75\ \rm km\ s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}$.
332:
333: We also calculated microlensing magnification pattern for a
334: "typical" lens system (Fig. 1 right), where the redshifts of
335: microlens and source are: $z_l=0.5$ and $z_s=2$. In this case, the
336: microlens parameters are taken arbitrary: $\sigma=0.45$ and
337: $\gamma=0.3$ and the size of obtained microlensing pattern is also
338: $16\ R_E \times 16\ R_E$, where $R_E\approx 3107\ R_g$.
339:
340: \section{Typical time scales for microlensing}
341:
342: Typical scales for microlensing are discussed not only in books on
343: gravitational lensing \citep{Schneider92a,Zakh97,Petters01}, but in
344: recent papers also (see, for example, \cite{Treyer03}). In this
345: paper we discuss microlenses located in gravitational macrolenses
346: (stars in lensing galaxies), since optical depth for microlensing is
347: then the highest \citep{Wyithe02,Wyithe02b,Zakharov04,Zakharov05} in
348: comparison with other possible locations of gravitational
349: microlenses, as for example stars situated in galactic clusters and
350: extragalactic dark halos \citep{Tadros98,Totani03,Inoue03}.
351:
352:
353: Assuming the concordance cosmological model with $\Omega_{\rm tot}=1$,
354: $\Omega_{\rm matter}=0.3$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ we
355: recall that typical length scale for microlensing is \citep{Treyer03}:
356: \begin{equation}
357: R_E = \sqrt{2 r_s \cdot \frac{D_s D_{ls}}{D_{l}}}
358: \approx 3.2 \cdot 10^{16} \sqrt{\frac{m}{M_\odot}} h_{75}^{-0.5} \mathrm{~cm},
359: \label{eq_suppl1}
360: \end{equation}
361: where "typical" microlens and sources redshifts are assumed to be
362: $z_l=0.5, z_s=2.$ (similar to \cite{Treyer03}),
363: $r_s=\dfrac{2Gm}{c^2}$ is the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to
364: microlens mass $m$, $h_{75}=H_0/((75 {\rm~km/sec})/{\rm Mpc})$ is
365: dimensionless Hubble constant.
366:
367: The corresponding angular scale is \citep{Treyer03}
368: \begin{equation}
369: \theta_0=\frac{R_E}{D_s}
370: \approx 2.2 \cdot 10^{-6} \sqrt{\frac{m}{M_\odot}} h_{75}^{-0.5}{\rm ~arcsec},
371: \label{eq_suppl2}
372: \end{equation}
373:
374: Using the length scale (\ref{eq_suppl1}) and velocity scale
375: (say $v_\bot \sim$~600~km/sec as \cite{Treyer03} did), one
376: could calculate the standard time scale corresponding to the
377: scale to cross the projected Einstein radius
378: \begin{equation}
379: t_E=(1+z_l)\frac{R_E}{v_\bot}
380: \approx 25 \sqrt{\frac{m}{M_\odot}}v_{600}^{-1} h_{75}^{-0.5}{\rm ~years},
381: \label{eq_suppl3}
382: \end{equation}
383: where a relative transverse velocity $v_{600}=v_\bot/(600$~km/sec).
384: The time scale $t_E$, corresponding to a point-mass lens and to a
385: small source (compared to the projected Einstein radius of the
386: lens), could be used if microlenses are distributed freely at
387: cosmological distances and if each Einstein angle is located far
388: enough from another one. However, the estimation (\ref{eq_suppl3})
389: gives long and most likely overestimated time scales especially for
390: gravitationally lensed systems. Thus we must apply another microlens
391: model to estimate time scales.
392:
393: For a simple caustic model, such as one that considers a straight
394: fold caustic\footnote{We use the following approximation for the
395: extra magnification near the caustic: $\mu=\sqrt{\dfrac{r_{\rm
396: caustic}}{\xi-\xi_c}}$, $\xi>\xi_c$ where $\xi$ is the perpendicular
397: direction to the caustic fold (it is obtained from Eq. (\ref{eq04})
398: assuming that factor $K$ is about unity).}, there are two time
399: scales depending either on the "caustic size" ($r_{\rm caustic}$) or
400: the source radius ($R_{\rm source}$). In the case when source radius
401: is larger or at least close to the "caustic size" ($R_{\rm source}
402: \gtrsim r_{\rm caustic}$), the relevant time scale is the "crossing
403: time" \citep{Treyer03}:
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: \label{eq_suppl4}
406: t_{\rm cross} & = & (1+z_l)\frac{R_{\rm source}}{v_\bot (D_s/D_l)} \nonumber \\
407: & \approx & 0.69\ R_{15}\ v_{600}^{-1} \left(\frac{D_s}{D_l}\right)^{-1} h_{75}^{-0.5}{\rm ~years} \\
408: & \approx & 251\ R_{15}\ v_{600}^{-1}\ h_{75}^{-0.5}{\rm ~days},\nonumber
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: where $D_l$ and $D_s$ correspond to $z_l=0.5$ and $z_s=2$,
411: respectively and $R_{15}=R_{\rm source}/10^{15}$~cm. As a matter of
412: fact, the velocity perpendicular to the straight fold caustic
413: characterizes the time scale and it is equal to $v_\bot \sin \beta$
414: where $\beta$ is the angle between the caustic and the velocity
415: $v_\bot$ in the lens plane, but in our rough estimates we can omit
416: factor $\sin \beta$ which is about unity. However, if the source
417: radius $R_{\rm source}$ is much smaller than the "caustic size"
418: $r_{\rm caustic}$ ($R_{\rm source} \ll r_{\rm caustic}$), one could
419: use the "caustic time", i.e. the time when the source is located in
420: the area near the caustic:
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: \label{eq_suppl5}
423: t_{\rm caustic} & = & (1+z_l)\frac{r_{\rm caustic}}{v_\bot (D_s/D_l)} \nonumber \\
424: & \approx & 0.69\ r_{15}\ v_{600}^{-1} \left(\frac{D_s}{D_l}\right)^{-1} h_{75}^{-0.5}{\rm ~years} \\
425: & \approx & 251\ r_{15}\ v_{600}^{-1}\ h_{75}^{-0.5}{\rm ~days}, \nonumber
426: \end{eqnarray}
427: where $r_{15}=r_{\rm caustic}/10^{15}$~cm.
428:
429: Therefore, $t_{\rm cross}$ could be used as a lower limit for
430: typical time scales in the case of a simple caustic microlens model.
431: From equations (\ref{eq_suppl4}) and (\ref{eq_suppl5}) it is clear
432: that one cannot unambiguously infer the source size $R_{\rm source}$
433: from variability measurements alone, without making some further
434: assumptions. In general, however, we expect that $t_{\rm cross}$
435: corresponds to smaller amplitude variations than $t_{\rm caustic}$,
436: since in the first case only a fraction of a source is significantly
437: amplified by a caustic (due to assumption that $R_{\rm source}
438: \gtrsim r_{\rm caustic}$), while in the second case it is likely
439: that the entire source could be strongly affected by caustic
440: amplification (due to assumption that $R_{\rm source} \ll r_{\rm
441: caustic}$).
442:
443: \begin{figure}
444: \centering
445: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig2.eps}
446: \caption{The variations of normalized total continuum flux in
447: optical (3500--7000 \AA), UV (1000--3500 \AA) and X (1.24--12.4 \AA
448: \ i.e. 1--10 KeV) band due to microlensing by a caustic crossing
449: along $y=-x$ direction in the case of Schwarzschild metric. Time
450: scale corresponds to "typical" redshifts of microlens and source:
451: $z_l=0.5$ and $z_s=2$. The parameters of the caustic are: $A_0$=1,
452: $\beta$=1, $\kappa=+1$ and its "size" is 9000 $R_g$. Negative
453: distances and times correspond to the approaching side, and positive
454: to the receding side of accretion disc. In this case, due to
455: $\kappa=+1$, caustic motion is from the receding towards the
456: approaching side (i.e. from the right to the left). The source mass
457: is $10^8\ M_\odot$. The radii of optical emitting region are:
458: $R_{in}= 100\ R_g$, $R_{out}=2000\ R_g$, for UV emitting region:
459: $R_{in}= 100\ R_g$, $R_{out}=1000\ R_g$ and for X emitting region:
460: $R_{in}= R_{ms}$, $R_{out}=80\ R_g$.}
461: \end{figure}
462:
463: \begin{figure}
464: \centering
465: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3.eps}
466: \caption{The same as in Fig. 2. but for $r_{\rm caustic}=2000\ R_g$.}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469: \begin{figure}
470: \centering
471: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig4.eps}
472: \caption{The same as in Fig. 2. in the case when time scale
473: corresponds to $z_l=0.04$, $z_s=1.69$ (i.e. to Q2237+0305 lens
474: system).}
475: \end{figure}
476:
477: In this paper, we estimated the microlensing time scales for the
478: X-ray, UV and optical emitting regions of the accretion disc using
479: the following three methods:
480: \begin{enumerate}
481: \item by converting the distance scales of microlensing events
482: to the corresponding time scales according to the formula
483: (13) in which $R_{\rm source}$ is replaced by the distance
484: from the center of accretion disc. Caustic rise times
485: ($t_{HME}$) are then derived from the simulated variations
486: of the normalized total flux in the X-ray, UV and optical
487: spectral bands (see Figs. 2-4) by measuring the time from
488: the beginning to the peak of the magnification event
489: \item by calculating the caustic times ($t_{\rm caustic}$)
490: according to equation (14)
491: \item using light curves (see Figs. 5 and 6) produced when the
492: source crosses over a magnification pattern. Rise times of
493: high magnification events ($t_{HME}$) are then measured as
494: the time intervals between the beginning and the maximum of
495: the corresponding microlensing events (for more details, see
496: the next section).
497: \end{enumerate}
498:
499:
500: \section{Results and discussion}
501:
502: In order to explore different cases of microlensing and evaluate
503: time scales for different spectral bands, first we numerically
504: simulate the crossing of a straight-fold caustic with parameters
505: $A_0=1,\ \beta=1$, $\kappa=+1$ and $r_{\rm caustic}=9000$ $R_g$ over
506: an accretion disc with an inclination angle 35$^\circ$, that is
507: stratified into three parts:
508:
509: (i) The innermost part that emits X-ray continuum (1.24 \AA\ -- 12.4
510: \AA \ or 1--10 keV). The inner radius is taken to be
511: $R_{inn}=R_{ms}$ (where $R_{ms}$ is the radius of the marginally
512: stable orbit: $R_{ms}=6\ R_g$ in the Schwarzschild metric) and outer
513: radius is $R_{out}=80$ $R_g$ (where $R_g=GM/c^2$ is the
514: gravitational radius for a black hole with mass $M$).
515:
516: (ii) An UV emitting part of the disc (contribute to the emission
517: from 1000 \AA\ -- 3500\AA ), with $R_{inn}=100$ $R_g$ and
518: $R_{out}=1000$ $R_g$.
519:
520: (iii) An outer optical part of the disc with $R_{inn}=100$ $R_g$ and
521: $R_{out}=2000$ $R_g$ that emits in the wavelength band from 3500
522: \AA\ until 7000 \AA.
523:
524: \begin{table*}
525: \centering \caption{The estimated time scales (in years) for
526: microlensing of the X-ray, UV and optical emission region for lensed
527: QSOs observed by Chandra X-ray Observatory \citep{Dai04}. The
528: calculated caustic times $t_{\rm caustic}$ are obtained according to
529: formula (14) for the following values of the cosmological constants:
530: $H_0=75\rm \ km\ s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}$ and $\Omega_0=0.3$. The caustic
531: rise times $t_{HME}$ are derived from caustic crossing simulations
532: (see Figs 2 -- 4). The black hole mass is assumed to be 10$^8\rm
533: M_\odot$.}
534: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
535: \hline
536: Object & $z_s$ & $z_l$ & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{X-ray} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{UV} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{optical} \\
537: \cline{4-9}
538: & & & $t_{\rm caustic}$ & $t_{HME}$ & $t_{\rm caustic}$ & $t_{HME}$ & $t_{\rm caustic}$ & $t_{HME}$ \\
539: \hline
540: \hline
541: HS 0818+1227 & 3.115 & 0.39 & 0.572 & 0.660 & 7.147 & 7.070 & 14.293 & 15.160 \\
542: RXJ 0911.4+0551 & 2.800 & 0.77 & 0.976 & 1.120 & 12.200 & 12.080 & 24.399 & 25.880 \\
543: LBQS 1009-0252 & 2.740 & 0.88 & 1.077 & 1.240 & 13.468 & 13.330 & 26.935 & 28.570 \\
544: HE 1104-1805 & 2.303 & 0.73 & 0.918 & 1.050 & 11.479 & 11.370 & 22.957 & 24.350 \\
545: PG 1115+080 & 1.720 & 0.31 & 0.451 & 0.520 & 5.634 & 5.570 & 11.269 & 11.950 \\
546: HE 2149-2745 & 2.033 & 0.50 & 0.675 & 0.780 & 8.436 & 8.350 & 16.871 & 17.890 \\
547: Q 2237+0305 & 1.695 & 0.04 & 0.066 & 0.080 & 0.828 & 0.820 & 1.655 & 1.760 \\
548: \hline
549: \end{tabular}
550: \end{table*}
551:
552: \begin{table*}
553: \centering \caption{Average rise times ($<t_{HME}>$) of high
554: magnification events, their average number ($<N_{\rm caustic}>_0$)
555: per unit length ($R_E$) and their average number ($<N_{\rm
556: caustic}>_y$) per year in the light curves of Q2237+0305A (Fig. 5)
557: and "typical" lens system (Fig. 6).}
558: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
559: \hline
560: & & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Q2237+0305} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{"Typical" lens} \\
561: \hline
562: Disc path & Sp. band & $<t_{HME}>$ & $<N_{\rm caustic}>_0$ & $<N_{\rm caustic}>_y$ & $<t_{HME}>$ & $<N_{\rm caustic}>_0$ & $<N_{\rm caustic}>_y$ \\
563: \hline
564: \hline
565: & X & 0.37 & 0.95 & 0.20 & 3.94 & 1.63 & 0.06 \\
566: $y=0$ & UV & 1.29 & 0.59 & 0.12 &10.96 & 0.78 & 0.03 \\
567: & Optical & 2.96 & 0.51 & 0.10 &15.81 & 0.62 & 0.02 \\
568: \hline
569: & X & 0.57 & 0.52 & 0.11 & 2.77 & 1.65 & 0.06 \\
570: $y=-x$ & UV & 1.92 & 0.36 & 0.07 & 6.62 & 0.49 & 0.02 \\
571: & Optical & 3.98 & 0.26 & 0.05 &17.04 & 0.38 & 0.01 \\
572: \hline
573: & X & 0.68 & 1.61 & 0.33 & 4.52 & 1.40 & 0.05 \\
574: $x=0$ & UV & 1.38 & 0.88 & 0.18 &13.25 & 0.54 & 0.02 \\
575: & Optical & 2.96 & 0.44 & 0.09 &31.62 & 0.31 & 0.01 \\
576: \hline
577: \end{tabular}
578: \end{table*}
579:
580: Having in mind that the aims of this investigation are to study the
581: microlensing time scales for different emitting regions and time
582: dependent response of amplification in different spectral bands, we
583: considered microlensing magnification patterns only for image A of
584: Q2237+0305 and for a "typical" lens system. Our intention was not to
585: create a complete microlensing model for a specific lens system, and
586: therefore we did not analyze the differences between images (as for
587: instance the time delay between them). The variations in the total
588: flux in the different spectral bands are given in Figs. 2--6. In
589: Figs. 2 and 3 the simulations for a typical lens system with
590: $z_l=0.5$ and $z_s=2$ and for two different "caustic sizes" are
591: given. As one can see from Figs. 2 and 3, the microlensing time
592: scales are different for different regions, and the durations of
593: variations in the X-ray are on order of several months to a few
594: years, but in the UV/optical emission regions they are on order of
595: several years. Also, as one can see in Figs. 2 and 3, the time
596: scales do not depend on "caustic size" which, on the other hand,
597: affects only the maximal amplifications in all three spectral bands.
598: The results corresponding to the lens system of QSO 2237+0305
599: ($z_l=0.04$, $z_s=1.69$) are given in Figs. 4 and 5. We considered
600: the straight-fold caustic (Fig. 4) and a microlensing pattern for
601: the image A of QSO 2237+0305 (Fig. 5). As one can see from Figs. 4
602: and 5, a higher amplification in the X-ray continuum than in the
603: UV/optical is expected. In this case, the corresponding time scales
604: are much shorter and they are from a few days up to a few months for
605: X-ray and a few years for UV/optical spectral bands. The similar
606: conclusion arises when we compare the latter results with those for
607: a "typical" lens system in the case of microlensing pattern (Fig.
608: 6).
609:
610: \begin{figure*}
611: \centering
612: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5a.eps}
613: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5b.eps} \\
614: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig5c.eps}
615: \caption{Variations in the X-ray (solid), UV (dashed) and optical
616: (dotted) spectral bands corresponding to the horizontal (top left),
617: diagonal (top right) and vertical (bottom) path in the magnification
618: map of the QSO 2237+0305A (Fig. 1 left).}
619: \end{figure*}
620:
621: %\clearpage
622:
623: \begin{figure*}
624: \centering
625: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6a.eps}
626: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6b.eps} \\
627: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig6c.eps}
628: \caption{The same as in Fig. 5 but for the magnification map of a
629: "typical" lens system (Fig. 1 right).}
630: \end{figure*}
631:
632: We also estimated time scales for seven lensed QSOs which have been
633: observed in the X-ray band \citep{Dai04}. For each spectral band two
634: estimates are made: caustic time ($t_{\rm caustic}$) - obtained from
635: equation (14) and caustic rise time ($t_{HME}$) - obtained from
636: caustic crossing simulations (see Figs. 2 -- 4). In the second case,
637: we measured the time from the beginning of the microlensing event
638: until it reaches its maximum (i.e. in the direction from the right
639: to the left in Figs. 2 -- 4). The duration of the magnification
640: event beyond the maximum of the amplification could not be
641: accurately determined because of the asymptotic decrease of the
642: magnification curve beyond the peak. Estimated time scales for
643: different spectral bands are given in Table 1. As one can see from
644: Table 1, the microlensing time scales are significantly smaller for
645: the X-ray than for the UV/optical bands.
646:
647: Unamplified and amplified brightness profiles of the X-ray emitting
648: region, corresponding to the highest peak in Fig. 5 (top right) are
649: presented in Fig. 7. As one can see in Fig. 7, the assumed
650: brightness profile of the source is very complex due to applied ray
651: tracing method, which allows us to obtain an image of the entire
652: disc, not only its one dimensional profile. Therefore, we could not
653: use a simple source profile for the calculation of microlensing time
654: scales (as it was done by \citet{Witt95}). Instead, we estimated the
655: frequency of high amplification events (HMEs), i.e. the number of
656: such events per unit length, directly from the light curves
657: presented in Figs 5 and 6. For models with non-zero shear, this
658: frequency depends on the direction of motion and for both calculated
659: maps (Q2237+0305A and "typical" lens) we counted the number of high
660: magnification events along the following paths (see Fig. 1): i)
661: horizontal ($y=0$) in the direction from $-x$ to $x$, ii) diagonal
662: ($y = -x$) in direction from $-x$ to $x$ and iii) vertical ($x=0$)
663: in direction from $y$ to $-y$. For each map the lengths of the
664: horizontal and vertical paths in the source plane are the same
665: (13.636 $R_E$ for Q2237+0305A and 12.875 $R_E$ for "typical" lens),
666: as well as are the corresponding crossing times (66.22 years for
667: Q2237+0305A and 337.32 years for "typical" lens). For Q2237+0305A
668: the length of the diagonal path in source plane is 19.284 $R_E$ and
669: the crossing time is 93.62 years, while the corresponding length in
670: the "typical" case is 18.208 $R_E$ and the crossing time is 477.04
671: years.
672:
673: \begin{figure*}
674: \centering
675: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig7a.eps}
676: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig7b.eps}
677: \caption{Unamplified (left) and amplified (right) brightness profile
678: of the X-ray emitting region, corresponding to the highest peak in
679: Fig. 5 (top right). The profiles are obtained using the ray tracing
680: method (see, e.g., Popovi\'c et al. 2003a,b and references
681: therein).}
682: \end{figure*}
683:
684: HMEs are asymmetric peaks in the light curves which depend not only
685: on microlens parameters but also on the sizes of emitting regions in
686: the following sense: the larger emitting regions are expected to
687: produce smoother light curves and more symmetric peaks
688: \citep{Witt95}. Consequently, it can be expected that the majority
689: of HMEs should be detected in X-ray light curves, less of them in UV
690: and the smallest number in optical light curves. Therefore, we
691: isolated only clearly asymmetric peaks in all light curves and
692: measured their rise times $t_{HME}$ as the intervals between the
693: beginning and the maximum of the corresponding microlensing events.
694: In the case of Q2237+0305A we found the following number of HMEs: i)
695: horizontal path: 13 in X-ray, 8 in UV and 7 in optical band, ii)
696: diagonal path: 10 in X-ray, 7 in UV and 5 in optical band and iii)
697: vertical path: 22 in X-ray, 12 in UV and 6 in optical band. In case
698: of "typical" lens these numbers are: i) horizontal path: 21 in
699: X-ray, 10 in UV and 8 in optical band, ii) diagonal path: 30 in
700: X-ray, 9 in UV and 7 in optical band and iii) vertical path: 18 in
701: X-ray, 7 in UV and 4 in optical band.
702:
703: \begin{figure*}
704: \centering
705: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig8a.eps}\hfill
706: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig8b.eps} \\
707: \vspace*{0.3cm}
708: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig8c.eps}
709: \caption{Rise times ($t_{HME}$) of high magnification
710: events for all three spectral bands in the light curves of
711: Q2237+0305A (Fig. 5). Top left panel corresponds to the
712: horizontal, top right to the diagonal and bottom to the
713: vertical path of accretion disc.}
714: \end{figure*}
715:
716: \begin{figure*}
717: \centering
718: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig9a.eps}\hfill
719: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig9b.eps} \\
720: \vspace*{0.3cm}
721: \includegraphics[width=0.495\textwidth]{fig9c.eps}
722: \caption{The same as in Fig 8. but for the light
723: curves of "typical" lens system (Fig. 6)}
724: \end{figure*}
725:
726: The average number of caustic crossings per unit length ($<N_{\rm
727: caustic}>_0$) and per year ($<N_{\rm caustic}>_y$) are given in
728: Table 2. This table also contains the average rise times
729: ($<t_{HME}>$) in all three spectral bands, derived from the rise
730: times ($t_{HME}$) of individual HMEs which are presented in Figs. 8
731: and 9 in the form of histograms. These results, as expected, show
732: that the rise times are the shortest and the frequency of caustic
733: crossings is the highest in the X-ray spectral band in comparison to
734: the other two spectral bands. One can also see from Tables 1 and 2
735: that in the case of Q2237+0305A, the average rise times of HMEs for
736: all three spectral bands (obtained from microlens magnification
737: pattern simulations) are longer than both, caustic rise times
738: (obtained from caustic simulations) and caustic times (calculated
739: from equation (14)).
740:
741: Microlensing can result in flux anomalies in the sense that
742: different image flux ratios are observed in different spectral bands
743: \citep{Pc04,Pop06b}. As shown in Figs 2--6. the amplification in the
744: X-ray band is larger and lasts shorter than it does in the UV and
745: optical bands. Consequently, monitoring of lensed QSOs in the X-ray
746: and UV/optical bands can clarify whether the flux anomaly is
747: produced by CDM clouds, massive black holes or globular clusters
748: (millilensing) or stars in foreground galaxy (microlensing).
749:
750: %\clearpage
751:
752: \section{Conclusion}
753:
754: In this paper we calculated microlensing time scales of different
755: emitting regions. Using a model of an accretion disc (in the center
756: of lensed QSOs) that emits in the X-ray and UV/optical spectral
757: bands, we calculated the variations in the continuum flux caused by
758: a straight-fold caustic crossing an accretion disc. We also
759: simulated crossings of accretion discs over microlensing
760: magnification patterns for the case of image A of Q2237+0305 and for
761: a "typical" lens system. From these simulations we concluded the
762: following:
763:
764: (i) one can expect that the X-ray radiation is more amplified than
765: UV/optical radiation due to microlensing which can induce the so
766: called 'flux anomaly' of lensed QSOs.
767:
768: (ii) the typical microlensing time scales for the X-ray band
769: are on order of several months, while for the UV/optical they
770: are on order of several years (although the time scales
771: obtained from microlensing magnification pattern simulations
772: are longer in comparison to those obtained from caustic
773: simulations).
774:
775: (iii) monitoring of the X-ray emission of lensed QSOs can
776: reveal the nature of 'flux anomaly' observed in some lensed
777: QSOs.
778:
779: All results obtained in this work indicate that monitoring the X-ray
780: emission of lensed QSOs is useful not only to discuss the nature of
781: the 'flux anomaly', but also can be used for constraining the size
782: of the emitting region.
783:
784: \section*{Acknowledgments}
785:
786: This work is a part of the project (146002) "Astrophysical
787: Spectroscopy of Extragalactic Objects" supported by the Ministry of
788: Science of Serbia. The authors would like to thank the anonymous
789: referee for very useful comments.
790:
791: %\clearpage
792:
793: \begin{thebibliography}{}
794:
795: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bogdanov and
796: Cherepashchuk}{1995a}]{Bog_Cher95a} Bogdanov, M.B. and
797: Cherepashchuk, A.M. 1995a, Astron. Lett., 21, 505
798:
799: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bogdanov and
800: Cherepashchuk}{1995b}]{Bog_Cher95b} Bogdanov, M.B. and
801: Cherepashchuk, A.M. 1995b, Astron. Rep., 39, 779
802:
803: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chang \& Refsdal}{1984}]{Chang84}
804: Chang, K., Refsdal, S. 1984, A{\&}A, 132, 168
805:
806: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chartas et al.}{2002}]{Chart02a}
807: Chartas, G., Agol, E., Eracleous, M., Garmire, G., Bautz, M. W.,
808: Morgan, N. D. 2002, ApJ, 568, 509
809:
810: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chartas et al.}{2004}]{Chart04}
811: Chartas, G., Eracleous, M., Agol, E., Gallagher, S. C. 2004, ApJ,
812: 606, 78
813:
814: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dai et al. }{2003}]{Dai03} Dai, X.,
815: Chartas, G., Agol, E., Bautz, M. W. \& Garmire, G.P. 2003, ApJ, 589, 100
816:
817: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dai et al. }{2004}]{Dai04} Dai, X.,
818: Chartas, G., Eracleous, M., Garmire, G. P. 2004, ApJ, 605, 45
819:
820: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dobler \&
821: Keeton}{2006}]{Dob06} Dobler, G. and Keeton, C.R. 2006, MNRAS,
822: 365, 1243
823:
824: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fabian et al.}{1989}]{Fabian89}
825: Fabian, A. C., Rees, M. J., Stella, L. \& White, N. E. 1989,
826: MNRAS, 238, 729
827:
828: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Griest \& Hu}{1992}]{Griest_Hu92}
829: Griest, K. \& Hu, W. 1992, ApJ, 397, 362
830:
831: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Griest \& Hu}{1993}]{Griest_Hu93}
832: Griest, K. \& Hu, W. 1993, ApJ, 407, 440
833:
834: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Inoue \& Chiba}{2003}]{Inoue03}
835: Inoue K.T. \& Chiba M. 2003, ApJ, 591, L83
836:
837: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jovanovi\' c}{2006}]{pj06}
838: Jovanovi\' c, P. 2006, PASP, 118, 656
839:
840: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jaroszynski}{1992}]{Jarosz_1992}
841: Jaroszy\'{n}ski, M., Wambsganss, J.W., Paczy\'{n}ski, B. 1992, ApJ,
842: 396, L65.
843:
844: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kayser et al.}{1986}]{Kay86}
845: Kayser, R., Refsdal, S. \& Stabell, R. 1986, A{\&}A, 166, 36
846:
847:
848: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Malzac}{2007}]{mz07} Malzac,
849: J. 2007, Mem. S.A.It. 78, 382
850:
851: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nandra et al.}{1997}]{Nandra_1997}
852: Nandra, K., George, I.M., Mushotzky, R.F., Turner, T.J. \&
853: Yaqoob, T. 1997, ApJ, 477, 602.
854:
855: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nandra et al.}{1999}]{Nandra_1999}
856: Nandra, K., George, I. M., Mushotzky, R. F., Turner, T. J.,
857: Yaqoob, T. 1999, ApJ 523, 17
858:
859: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oshima et al.}{2001}]{Osh01}
860: Oshima, T., Mitsuda, K., Fujimoto R., Iyomoto N., Futamoto K.,
861: et al. 2001, ApJ, 563, L103
862:
863: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Petters, Levine \&
864: Wambsganss}{2001}]{Petters01} Petters, A.O. Levine, H. \&
865: Wambsganss, J. 2001, Singular Theory and Gravitational Lensing,
866: (Boston, Birkh\"auser)
867:
868: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popovi{\'c} \&
869: Chartas}{2005}]{Pc04} Popovi\'c, L. \v C., Chartas, G. 2005,
870: MNRAS, 357, 135
871:
872: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popovi{\'c} et al.}{2006a}]{Pop06a}
873: Popovi\'c, L.\v C., Jovanovi\'c, P., Mediavilla, E.G., Zakharov,
874: A.F., Abajas, C., Mu\~noz, J.A. \& Chartas, G. 2006a, ApJ, 637,
875: 620
876:
877: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popovi{\'c} et al.}{2006b}]{Pop06b}
878: Popovi\'c, L.\v C., Jovanovi\'c, P., Petrovi\'c, T., Shalyapin,
879: V. N. 2006b, AN, 10, 981
880:
881: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popovi{\'c} et al.}{2003a}]{Pop03a}
882: Popovi\'c, L.\v C., Mediavilla, E.G., Jovanovi\'c, P. \&
883: Mu\~noz, J.A. 2003, A{\&}A, 398, 975
884:
885: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popovi{\'c} et al.}{2003b}]{Pop03b}
886: Popovi\'c, L.\v C., Jovanovi\'c, P.,
887: Mediavilla, E.G. \& Mu\~noz, J.A. 2003b, Astron. Astrophys.
888: Transactions, 22, 719
889:
890: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Popovi{\'c} et al.}{2001}]{Pop01}
891: Popovi{\'c}, L., \v C., Mediavilla, E.G., Mu\~noz J.,
892: Dimitrijevi\'c, M.S. \& Jovanovi\'c, P. 2001, SerAJ, 164, 73
893:
894: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shakura \&
895: Sunayev}{1973}]{Shakura73} Shakura, N.I. \& Sunayev, R.A. 1973,
896: A\&A, 24, 337
897:
898: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider, Ehlers \&
899: Falco}{1992}]{Schneider92a} Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., Falco,
900: E.E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses, (Springer, Berlin)
901:
902: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider \& Weiss}{1986}]{sch1}
903: Schneider, P. \& Weiss, A. 1986, A\&A, 164, 237
904:
905: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider \& Weiss}{1987}]{sch2}
906: Schneider, P. \& Weiss, A. 1987, A\&A, 171, 49
907:
908: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider \&
909: Weiss}{1992}]{Schneider92} Schneider, P. \& Weiss, A. 1992, A\&A,
910: 260, 1
911:
912: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Totani}{2003}]{Totani03} Totani,
913: T. 2003, ApJ, 586, 735
914:
915: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tadros, Warren \&
916: Hewett}{1998}]{Tadros98} Tadros, H., Warren S. \& Hewett, P.
917: 1998, New Rev., 42, 115
918:
919: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tanaka et al.}{1995}]{Tanaka95}
920: Tanaka, Y., Nandra, K., Fabian, A. C., Inoue, H., Otani, C.,
921: Dotani, T., Hayashida, K., Iwasawa, K., Kii, T., Kunieda, H.,
922: Makino, F., Matsuoka, M. 1995, Nat, 375, 659
923:
924: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Treyer \&
925: Wambsganss}{2004}]{Treyer03} Treyer, M. \& Wambsganss, J. 2004,
926: A\&A, 416, 19
927: %astro-ph/0311519
928:
929: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wambsganss et al.}{1990a}]{WP90}
930: Wambsganss, J., Paczy\'{n}ski, B. \& Katz, N. 1990a, ApJ, 352, 407
931:
932: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wambsganss et al.}{1990b}]{WSP90}
933: Wambsganss, J., Schneider, P. \& Paczy\'{n}ski, B. 1990b, ApJ,
934: 358, L33
935:
936: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Witt et al.}{1993}]{Witt93} Witt,
937: H.J., Kayser, R., Refsdal, S. 1993, A{\&}A 268, 501
938:
939: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Witt et al.}{1995}]{Witt95} Witt,
940: H.J., Mao, S., Schechter, P. 1995, ApJ, 443, 18
941:
942: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wyithe \& Turner}{2002a}]{Wyithe02}
943: Wyithe, J.S.B. \& Turner, E.L. 2002a, ApJ, 567, 18
944:
945: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wyithe \&
946: Turner}{2002b}]{Wyithe02b} Wyithe, J.S.B. \& Turner, E.L. 2002b,
947: ApJ, 575, 650
948:
949: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov}{1994}]{Zakharov94}
950: Zakharov, A.F. 1994, MNRAS, 269, 283
951:
952: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov}{1995}]{Zakharov95}
953: Zakharov, A.F. 1995, A\&A, 293, 1
954:
955: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov}{1997}]{Zakh97} Zakharov,
956: A.F. 1997, Gravitational lenses and microlensing, (Janus-K,
957: Moscow)
958:
959: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov}{2004}]{Zak_SPIG04}
960: Zakharov, A.F. 2004, % The iron $K_\alpha$ line as a tool for analysis of black hole parameters,
961: in Proc. of the 22nd Summer School and International Symposium on
962: "The Physics of Ionized Gases" ed. by L. Hadzievski, T. Gvozdanov,
963: N. Bibic, AIP Conference Proceedings, 740, p.~398; %Bajina Basta, Serbia, 23- 27 August 2004,
964: astro-ph/0411611
965:
966: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov}{2007}]
967: {ZR_NANP_05} Zakharov, A.F. 2007, %Shapes of Fe $K_\alpha$ lines from annuli near black holes,
968: Physics of Atomic Nuclei and Part., 70, 159
969:
970: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov et al.}{2003}]{ZKLR02}
971: Zakharov, A.F., Kardashev, N.S., Lukash, V.N. \& Repin,
972: S.V. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1325
973:
974: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov, Popovi\' c \& Jovanovi\'
975: c}{2004}]{Zakharov04} Zakharov, A.F., Popovi\' c L. \v C. \&
976: Jovanovi\' c, P. 2004, A\&A, 420, 881
977:
978: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov, Popovi\' c \& Jovanovi\'
979: c}{2005}]{Zakharov05} Zakharov, A.F., Popovi\' c L. \v C. \&
980: Jovanovi\' c, P. 2005, in Proc. of the IAU Symposium, eds.
981: Y.~Mellier and G.~Meylan, 225, (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
982: University Press) p.~363
983:
984: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \&
985: Repin}{1999}]{Zak_Rep99} Zakharov, A.F. \& Repin, S.V. 1999,
986: Astronomy Reports, 43, 705
987:
988: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \&
989: Repin}{2002}]{Zak_Rep02} Zakharov, A.F. \& Repin, S.V. 2002,
990: Astronomy Reports, 46, 360
991:
992: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \&
993: Repin}{2003a}]{Zak_Rep03a} Zakharov, A.F. \& Repin, S.V. 2003a,
994: A \& A, 406, 7
995:
996: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \&
997: Repin}{2003b}]{Zak_Rep03b} Zakharov, A.F. \& Repin, S.V. 2003b,
998: Astronomy Reports, 47, 733
999:
1000: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \&
1001: Repin}{2003c}]{ZR_Nuovo_Cim03} Zakharov, A.F. \& Repin, S.V.
1002: 2003c, Nuovo Cimento, 118B, 1193
1003:
1004: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \&
1005: Repin}{2004}]{Zak_Rep03c} Zakharov, A.F. \& Repin, S.V. 2004,
1006: Advances in Space Res., 34, 2544
1007:
1008: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \& Repin}{2005}]
1009: {ZR_5SCSLSA} Zakharov, A.F., Repin, S.V. 2005, Mem. S. A. It.
1010: della Supplementi, 7, 60
1011:
1012: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \& Repin}{2006}]{ZR_NA_05}
1013: Zakharov A.F \& Repin, S.V. 2006, New Astronomy, 11, 405
1014:
1015: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zakharov \&
1016: Sazhin}{1998}]{Zakh_Sazh98} Zakharov, A.F. \& Sazhin, M.V. 1998,
1017: Physics-Uspekhi, 41, 941
1018:
1019: \end{thebibliography}
1020:
1021: \label{lastpage}
1022:
1023: \end{document}
1024: