1: \documentclass[preprint]{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
4: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
5: %%\received{}
6: %%\accepted{}
7: %%\journalid{}{}
8: %%\articleid{}{}
9:
10: \slugcomment{To appear in {\it{The Astrophysical Journal}}}
11: \shortauthors{Gonzalez et al.}
12: \shorttitle{A Multiply Imaged LIRG Behind the Bullet Cluster}
13:
14: \newcommand \sbu {mag arcsec$^{-2}$}
15: \newcommand{\kms}{~km~s$^{-1}$}
16: \newcommand{\spitzer}{{\it Spitzer}}
17: \newcommand{\hst}{{\it HST}}
18: \newcommand{\chandra}{{\it Chandra}}
19: \newcommand{\irac}{IRAC}
20: \newcommand{\mips}{MIPS}
21: \newcommand{\acs}{ACS}
22: \newcommand\kcorrect{\texttt{kcorrect}}
23: \newcommand\multidrizzle{\texttt{MultiDrizzle}}
24: \newcommand\hyperz{\texttt{HyperZ}}
25:
26:
27: \begin{document}
28: \title{A Multiply Imaged Luminous Infrared Galaxy Behind the Bullet Cluster
29: (1E0657-56)\footnotemark[1]} \footnotetext[1]{This paper includes data
30: gathered with the 6.5 meter Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas
31: Observatory, Chile, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the Spitzer Space
32: Telescope.}
33:
34: \author{Anthony H. Gonzalez}
35: \affil{ Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2055}
36: \email{anthony@astro.ufl.edu}
37:
38: \author{Douglas Clowe}
39: \affil{ Department of Physics \& Astronomy, Ohio University, Clippinger Labs 251B, Athens, OH 45701}
40:
41: \author{Maru\v{s}a Brada\v{c}}
42: \affil{Department of Physics, University of California at Santa
43: Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106}
44:
45: \author{Dennis Zaritsky}
46: \affil{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, 933 North Cherry
47: Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721}
48:
49: \author{Christine Jones and Maxim Markevitch}
50: \affil{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St.,
51: Cambridge, MA 02138}
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54:
55: We present evidence for a \spitzer-selected luminous infrared galaxy (LIRG)
56: behind the Bullet Cluster (1E0657-56). The galaxy, originally identified as a
57: multiply imaged source using \irac~photometry, has a spectral energy
58: distribution consistent with a highly extincted ($A_V\sim3.3$), strongly
59: star-forming galaxy at $z=2.7$. Using our strong gravitational lensing model
60: presented in \citet{bradac2006}, we find that the magnifications are
61: $|\mu|\approx10-50$ for the three images of the galaxy. The brightest and
62: faintest images differ by a factor of 3.2 in magnification. The implied
63: infrared luminosity is consistent with the galaxy being a LIRG, with a stellar
64: mass of $M_*\sim2\times10^{10}$ M$_\odot$ and a star formation rate of
65: $\sim90$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. With lensed fluxes at 24$\mu$m of 0.58 mJy and
66: 0.39 mJy in the two brightest images, this galaxy presents a unique
67: opportunity for detailed study of an obscured starburst with a star formation
68: rate comparable to that of $L^*$ galaxies at $z>2$.
69:
70: \end{abstract}
71:
72: \keywords{galaxies: evolution, starburst --- gravitational lensing --
73: galaxies: clusters: general}
74:
75:
76: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllllllll}
77: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
78: \tablecaption{Observed Fluxes and Magnitudes for Lensed Images}
79: %\tablewidth{0pt}
80: \tablehead{
81: \colhead{} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Image A}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{Image B} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Image C} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Flux Ratios} \\
82: \colhead{Passband} &\colhead{Flux ($\mu$Jy)} &\colhead{Mag (AB)} &\colhead{Flux($\mu$Jy)} & \colhead{Mag (AB)} &\colhead{Flux($\mu$Jy)} & \colhead{Mag (AB)} & $B/A$ & $B/C$
83: }
84: \startdata
85: F606W\tablenotemark{a} & $<$0.29 & $>$25.26 & $<$0.29 & $>$25.26&$<$0.29 & $>$25.26&\nodata&\nodata\\
86: F775W & $<$0.24 & $>$24.67 & $<$0.24 & $>$24.67&$<$0.24 & $>$24.67 &\nodata&\nodata\\
87: F850LP & $<$0.41 & $>$24.11 & $<$0.41 & $>$24.11&$<$0.41 & $>$24.11 &\nodata&\nodata\\
88: J$_c$ & $<$1.30 & $>$23.62 & $<$1.30 & $>$23.62&$<$1.30 & $>$23.62 &\nodata&\nodata\\
89: K$_s$ & $<$5.35 & $>$22.08 & $<$5.35 & $>$22.08&$<$5.35 & $>$22.08 &\nodata&\nodata\\
90: 3.6$\mu$m\tablenotemark{b} & $13.6\pm0.6$ & $21.06\pm0.05$& $21.0\pm1.5$& $20.59\pm0.08$ & $7.4\pm1.7$ & $21.73\pm0.25$ & $1.54\pm0.13$ & $2.84\pm0.68$\\
91: 4.5$\mu$m & $23.4\pm0.9$ & $20.47\pm0.04$ & $32.7\pm1.5$& $20.11\pm0.05$ & $10.6\pm1.7$ & $21.34\pm0.18$ & $1.40\pm0.08$ & $3.08\pm0.52$\\
92: 5.8$\mu$m & $38.4\pm1.7$ & $19.94\pm0.05$ & $57.9\pm1.9$& $19.49\pm0.03$ & $16.8\pm1.7$ & $20.84\pm0.11$ & $1.51\pm0.08$ & $3.45\pm0.37$ \\
93: 8$\mu$m & $46.4\pm2.5$ & $19.73\pm0.06$ & $67.1\pm2.5$ & $19.33\pm0.04$ & $20.6\pm2.5$ & $20.62\pm0.13$ & $1.45\pm0.09$ & $3.25\pm0.41$\\
94: 24$\mu$m & $390\pm20$ & $17.42\pm0.05$ &$575\pm20$ & $17.00\pm.04$ & $175\pm20$ & $18.29\pm0.12$ &$1.47\pm0.09$ &$3.29\pm0.39$\\
95: \enddata
96: \tablenotetext{a}{All quoted upper limits are 5-$\sigma$ confidence.}
97: \tablenotetext{b}{All \irac~photometry is calculated within 2.4$\arcsec$
98: apertures and corrected to total magnitudes using the published point source aperture corrections. No additional correction has been applied to account for the extended nature of the source.}
99: \label{tab:photometry}
100: \end{deluxetable*}
101:
102: \section{Introduction}
103: \label{sec:intro}
104:
105: Measurements of both the star formation history of the universe and corollary
106: build-up of stellar mass have established that the star formation rate peaks
107: at $1\la z\la 3$
108: \citep[e.g.][]{madau1996,lilly1996,dickinson2003,rudnick2003,reddy2008,wilkins2008}.
109: \spitzer~24$\mu$m observations further indicate that star formation at this
110: epoch is dominated by luminous and ultraluminous infrared galaxies
111: \citep[LIRGs and ULIRGs;][]{perez2005,lefloch2005}. ULIRGs are sufficiently
112: bright to facilitate spectroscopy and detailed analyses
113: \citep{daddi2005,yan2005,valiante2007,pope2008}; however, these galaxies
114: represent only the most massive tail of the galaxy population
115: \citep{dey2008,dye2008}.
116:
117: In contrast, LIRGs have properties more similar to the overall galaxy
118: population, with stellar masses and star formation rates comparable to those
119: seen for UV-selected star-forming galaxies at $z\sim2$
120: \citep{reddy2004,reddy2006}. The intrinsic faintness of LIRGS however
121: precludes both high-fidelity multiwavelength photometry and spectroscopic
122: programs at optical and infrared wavelengths at $z\ga2$.
123:
124:
125: Strong gravitational lensing enables observations of intrinsically fainter
126: galaxies than is otherwise possible, and several recent programs have begun to
127: exploit lensing by galaxy clusters to probe the properties of infrared and
128: submillimeter luminous galaxies \citep[e.g.][ and references
129: therein]{Knudsen2008, rigby2008}. The main limitation of this approach is
130: simply the small number of known lensed galaxies that are luminous at these
131: wavelengths.
132:
133:
134: In this paper we present evidence for a strongly lensed, luminous infrared
135: galaxy that is triply imaged by the Bullet Cluster. This galaxy is the only
136: strongly lensed source for which the initial detection was made with
137: \spitzer~at mid-infrared wavelengths, and due to its large magnification
138: provides a window onto the properties of lower luminosity infrared galaxies
139: than have previously been studied in this redshift regime. In previous papers
140: our team has explored the physical properties of the Bullet Cluster,
141: 1E0657-56, measuring its matter distribution and the properties of the X-ray
142: gas \citep{markevitch2002,markevitch2004,clowe2004,clowe2006,bradac2006}, and
143: constraining the dark matter self-interaction cross-section
144: \citep{markevitch2004,randall2007}. The object that is the subject of this
145: paper was first identified as a doubly lensed source in one of these papers
146: \citep[][\S 6 and Fig. 8]{bradac2006}, and is independently detected as a
147: millimeter source \citep{wilson2008a}. Here we incorporate new \hst,
148: \spitzer, and Magellan data, in a detailed analysis of this object. The data
149: are presented in \S \ref{sec:data}, and are used in \S \ref{sec:analysis} to
150: estimate the redshift, magnification, stellar mass, and star formation rate.
151: In this section we also present evidence for a newly discovered, third image
152: of this galaxy. We summarize our results in \S \ref{sec:conclusions}.
153:
154: \begin{figure*}
155: \begin{center}
156: \epsscale{0.99} \plotone{f1a.eps}
157: \epsscale{0.49} \plotone{f1b.eps}\plotone{f1c.eps}
158: \epsscale{1.00} % \plottwo{f1b.eps}{f1c.eps}
159: \end{center}
160: \caption{{\it Top--} An 8$\mu$m image showing the location of image C relative
161: to images A and B. In this image the galaxy between images A and B has been
162: subtracted for clarity. The field of view is $65\arcsec\times50\arcsec$. {\it
163: Bottom --} F850LP cutouts of the regions surrounding lensed images A and B
164: (left) and image C (right). The crosses denote the locations of each image;
165: the solid curve in the left panel is the critical curve from the $z=2.7$
166: magnification map. The objects detected in the F850LP image that lie closest
167: to the \irac~coordinates for images A and B are numbered 1-4. Object 1 is a
168: cluster elliptical galaxy and object 2 is a star. The two fainter galaxies (3
169: and 4) are offset from the \irac~detections by 0.8$\arcsec$ and 1.5$\arcsec$,
170: whereas the relative astrometry is good to 0.25$\arcsec$, and can thus be
171: excluded as optical counterparts to the lenses. The field of view is
172: $17\arcsec\times12\arcsec$ in both panels. For all images north is up and east
173: is to the left.\label{fig:bigimg}}
174: \end{figure*}
175:
176:
177:
178: \section{Photometric Data and Measurements}
179: \label{sec:data}
180:
181: We use the combination of \spitzer~\irac~\citep{Fazio2004} and
182: \mips~\citep{Rieke2004}, \hst~\acs~\citep{Ford2003}, and ground-based
183: near-infrared (NIR) observations to constrain the spectral energy distribution
184: of the multiply imaged source. The subsections below describe the data and
185: photometric analysis associated with each facility.
186:
187: \subsection{\spitzer~\irac}
188:
189: We originally detected this source as a doubly imaged object in
190: \spitzer~\irac~data obtained on December 17-18, 2004. The data from this
191: program include imaging in all four \irac~bands (3.6$\mu$m, 4.5$\mu$m,
192: 5.8$\mu$m, and 8$\mu$m). These data were taken with a cycling dither pattern
193: with medium scale factor and 100s frame time during an 8720s duration
194: Astronomical Observation Request (AOR). The effective exposure times are 4 ks
195: in each filter.
196:
197: We process the data using MOPEX \citep{Makovoz2006}, with a final pixel scale
198: of $0\farcs 86$. Before measuring aperture fluxes, we first use GALFIT
199: \citep{peng2002} to model and subtract a cluster elliptical that lies directly
200: between the two lensed images (object \#1 in Figure \ref{fig:bigimg}), using a
201: nearby, isolated star as the input PSF for GALFIT. The structural parameters
202: for the galaxy are held fixed to values derived using the \acs~data (see
203: below), with only the position and magnitude permitted to vary.\footnote{The
204: position is permitted to vary at the subpixel level to minimize errors in the
205: subtraction due to residual mis-registratioin between the images. Fixing the
206: position does not qualitatively alter our results.} There is also a star
207: between the two lensed images (object \#2 in Fig. \ref{fig:bigimg}) that is
208: detected at 3.6$\mu$m and 4.5$\mu$m, but is fainter at these wavelengths than
209: the lensed images. Due to its faintness, we mask this star rather than model
210: it with GALFIT. We also mask two other nearby sources that lie within the
211: background apertures (\#3 and \#4 in Fig. \ref{fig:bigimg}).
212:
213:
214: We then perform aperture photometry using an aperture of radius 2.4$\arcsec$,
215: with a background annulus extending from $2.4-7.2\arcsec$, applying the point
216: source aperture corrections given in the \irac~Data Handbook.\footnote{See
217: \url{http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/irac/dh/}. A 2.4$\arcsec$ aperture is the
218: smallest for which corrections are given.} We note that the total magnitude
219: may be underestimated by $\sim10$\% due to the modest spatial extension of the
220: source in the \irac~data, but apply no additional correction for this factor.
221: We measure the flux in an ensemble of off-source apertures to compute the
222: photometric uncertainties. The resultant photometry is given in Table
223: \ref{tab:photometry} for these two images, which we denote as A and B
224: (Fig. \ref{fig:bigimg} and \ref{fig:images}). Image B is brighter than A by a
225: factor of 1.5, with consistent flux ratios in all bands
226: (Fig. \ref{fig:fluxratio}), as required for a multiply imaged source. The
227: coordinates are $(\alpha_{2000},\delta_{2000})=$(06:58:38.0,-55:57:02) for
228: image A and $(\alpha_{2000},\delta_{2000})$=(06:58:37.1,-55:57:06) for image
229: B.
230:
231: \begin{figure*}
232: \epsscale{0.24}
233: \plotone{f2a.eps}\plotone{f2b.eps}\plotone{f2c.eps}\plotone{f2d.eps}\\
234: \plotone{f2e.eps}\plotone{f2f.eps}\plotone{f2g.eps}\plotone{f2h.eps}\\
235: \vskip 0.3cm
236: \plotone{f2i.eps}\plotone{f2j.eps}\plotone{f2k.eps}\plotone{f2l.eps}\\
237: \caption{Cutout images of the region around the lensed galaxy, in order of
238: increasing wavelength starting with the ACS F850LP data. In the first two rows
239: we show the images used for the photometry after subtraction of contaminant
240: sources using GALFIT. In the last row we show images prior to GALFIT
241: subtraction for a representative sample of wavelengths
242: (F850LP,$J$,4.5$\mu$m, and 8$\mu$m). In all panels the field of view is
243: $34\arcsec\times26\arcsec$. North is up and east is to the
244: left. \label{fig:images}}
245: \end{figure*}
246:
247: In Table \ref{tab:photometry} we also present photometry for a newly
248: discovered third image of the galaxy, hereafter denoted as image C (see Fig
249: \ref{fig:bigimg}), which is discussed in greater detail in \S
250: \ref{sec:magnification}. The \irac~photometry for image C is obtained in the
251: same fashion as for images A and B, in this case modelling and subtracting two
252: nearby stars and one nearby galaxy (objects \#5-7 in Fig. 1).
253:
254: \subsection{\spitzer~\mips}
255: \label{sec:mipsdata}
256:
257: The \mips~24$\mu$m data were acquired on November 30, 2007. Observations were
258: taken in small scale photometry mode using a 3$\times$3 raster map with each
259: position offset by half the array. The frame time for individual exposures is
260: 30s.
261:
262: We process the data using MOPEX, with a final pixel scale of $1\farcs 22$. At
263: this wavelength images A, B, and C are all clearly detected. We use APEX
264: \citep[Astronomical Point source EXtractor;][]{Makovoz2002,Makovoz2005} to
265: perform point source photometry, deblending images A and B. The fluxes of all
266: three lensed images, which are derived via PSF fitting, are reported in Table
267: \ref{tab:photometry}. The quoted uncertainties include uncertainty associated
268: with background subtraction, which dominate over the statistical uncertainties
269: reported by APEX. The \mips~point-source photometry does not suffer from
270: contamination by foreground sources. The spectral energy distributions of
271: cluster ellipticals fall rapidly between 8$\mu$m and 24$\mu$m and the nearby
272: sources modelled at shorter wavelengths are not detected at 24$\mu$m.
273:
274:
275: \subsection{\hst~\acs}
276:
277: We observed the Bullet Cluster with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)
278: through the F606W, F775W, and F850LP filters. The F606W data were taken on
279: October 21, 2004, with a total exposure time of 4.7ks. The F775W and F850LP
280: data were taken on October 12-13, 2006, with total exposure times of 10.1ks
281: and 12.7ks, respectively. All observations were reprocessed and drizzled to a
282: common coordinate system using custom software (Haggles; Marshall et al. 2008,
283: in prep) based upon \multidrizzle~\citep{koekemoer2002}.
284:
285: For the \hst~data we perform aperture photometry within 1.5$\arcsec$ aperture
286: radii. This aperture size is selected as a tradeoff between two competing
287: factors. Specifically, while smaller apertures yield more stringent lower
288: limits on the magnitude, the aperture size must be sufficiently large to
289: encompass the total flux from each lensed image. Given that \irac~provides the
290: highest resolution data in which the source is detected, our information about
291: the true physical extent of the lensed images is limited. The galaxy shows
292: only limited spatial extent at 3.6$\mu$m, indicating that a 1.5$\arcsec$
293: aperture is sufficiently large to enclose the total flux in the
294: \acs~imaging. Any future higher resolution detection of this object will
295: enable use of smaller apertures and yield improved magnitude limits. As with
296: the \irac~data, we determine the photometric uncertainty using an ensemble of
297: background apertures.
298:
299: Before measuring aperture fluxes, we again use GALFIT to model and subtract
300: contaminant sources near images A and B. In the \hst~imaging this includes
301: objects \#1 and \#2. Near image C there are no objects that require
302: subtraction for the \hst~data. We again use a nearby, isolated star as the
303: input PSF for GALFIT, which has the advantage over
304: TinyTim{\footnote{\url{http://www.stsci.edu/software/tinytim/tinytim.html}}}
305: of correctly reproducing the red halo in F850LP \citep{Gilliland2002}, and we
306: recover consistent structural parameters for the cluster galaxy in all filters
307: (effective radius $r_e=0.9\arcsec$ and Sersic index $n=4.6$). We also mask out
308: galaxy \#3 in the aperture of image B (Fig. \ref{fig:bigimg}). This galaxy
309: cannot be the optical counterpart to the \irac~ detection since it offset from
310: the \irac~detection by 0.8$\arcsec$, whereas the relative astrometry is good
311: to 0.25$\arcsec$. Moreover, both the consistent flux ratios in all \irac~bands
312: for images A and B (see Table \ref{tab:photometry} and \S \ref{sec:analysis})
313: and the location of the critical curve in the lensing model support the
314: interpretation that these are multiple images of the same source. In this
315: case, the relative flux ratio of the two images should also be preserved in
316: the \hst~data, and we would detect the counterimage in the other aperture at
317: high confidence if it were the optical counterpart. For completeness, in Table \ref{tab:nearbyphotometry} we provide the \hst~photometry for the objects that are labelled in Figure \ref{fig:bigimg}, computed using Source Extractor.
318:
319:
320:
321: \subsection{Magellan PANIC}
322:
323: We imaged the central region of the Bullet Cluster with the PANIC instrument
324: \citep{martini2004} on Magellan on March 06, 2006. Data were obtained in the
325: $J_c$ and $K_s$ filters and photometrically calibrated to the 2MASS point
326: source catalog \citep{skrutskie2006}, with seeing of $0.55-0.6\arcsec$ in both
327: bands. Similar to the approach taken with the other data sets, we use GALFIT
328: to fit and subtract off the bright galaxy and star that lie between the
329: locations of images A and B in the \irac~data. We then measure the flux within
330: the same $1.5\arcsec$ apertures employed for the \acs~analysis, recovering
331: only upper limits at the positions of all three images.
332:
333:
334:
335: \section{Analysis}
336: \label{sec:analysis}
337: \subsection{Spectral Energy Distribution and Photometric Redshift}
338: \label{sec:sed}
339:
340: In Figure \ref{fig:sed} we plot the spectral energy distribution (SED) for
341: each image of the lensed galaxy. Qualitatively the combination of strong upper
342: limits at optical and near-infrared wavelengths coupled with \irac~detections
343: and a strong \mips~ detection argue for the galaxy being a dusty starburst at
344: $z\sim2$, with the \mips~24$\mu$m emission being due to the redshifted PAH
345: features. The 24$\mu$m emission is difficult to explain if $z\ga3$, while the
346: galaxy should be detected at NIR or optical wavelengths if either the internal
347: extinction is low or the redshift is much below 2.
348:
349: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
350: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
351: \tablecaption{\hst~Photometry for Objects Near Lensed Images}
352: \tablewidth{0pt}
353: \tablehead{
354: \colhead{Fig. 1} & \colhead{F606W} & \colhead{F775W} & \colhead{F850LP} & \colhead{Object}\\
355: \colhead{ ID} & \colhead{(AB)} & \colhead{(AB) } & \colhead{(AB)} &\colhead{Type}
356: }
357: \startdata
358: 1& $19.89\pm.02$ & $19.05\pm.03$ & $18.69\pm.03$ & Galaxy\\
359: 2 & $19.79\pm.01$ & $18.95\pm.01$ & $19.17\pm.01$ & Star \\
360: 3 & $24.27\pm.07$ & $23.43\pm.07$ & $23.39\pm.06$ & Galaxy \\
361: 4 & $24.42\pm.07$ & $23.58\pm.08$ & $24.06\pm.08$ & Galaxy \\
362: 5 & $20.34\pm.01$ & $19.50\pm.01$ & $18.75\pm.01$ & Star \\
363: 6 & $19.81\pm.01$ & $18.97\pm.01$ & $18.60\pm.01$ & Star \\
364: 7 & $21.27\pm.03$ & $20.43\pm.03$ & $20.18\pm.03$ & Galaxy\\
365: \enddata
366: \tablecomments{In this Table we quote Source Extractor AUTO magnitudes. The
367: uncertainties are calculated using artificial stars and galaxies.}
368: \label{tab:nearbyphotometry}
369: \end{deluxetable}
370:
371:
372:
373:
374:
375: For a more quantitative answer, we use the photometric redshift code \hyperz~
376: \citep{bolzonella2000}. The input spectral templates are obtained using the
377: Charlot \& Bruzual 2007 models \citep{Bruzual2007} with the Padova 1994
378: evolutionary tracks \citep{bertelli1994} and a \citet{chabrier2003} mass
379: function. The templates are defined to have star formation histories identical
380: to the default synthetic templates provided with \hyperz,\footnote{These
381: templates have exponentially declining star formation rates with $\tau=1, 2,
382: 3, 5, 15, 30$ Gyr for E, S0, Sa, Sb, Sc, and Sd galaxies, respectively. There
383: is also a starburst template that corresponds to a single, instantaneous burst
384: model. For all templates the metallicity is solar; however,
385: \citet{bolzonella2000} demonstrated that the redshift determination is not
386: strongly dependent upon metallicity. } and a \citet{calzetti2000} extinction
387: law is employed.
388:
389:
390: Since these stellar templates do not include PAH emission, for the
391: photometric redshifts we fit only the data shortward of 10$\mu$m. \hyperz~
392: yields a best fit redshift $z=2.72^{+0.19}_{-0.32}$ for image A (90\%
393: confidence; $\chi_\nu^2=0.5$). A small secondary peak in the redshift
394: probability distribution is observed at $z=5$ (Fig. \ref{fig:photzerrors});
395: however, this redshift is implausible because of the high observed flux at
396: 24$\mu$m. An analysis of image B yields a similar redshift
397: $z=2.62^{+0.14}_{-0.22}$ ($\chi^2_\nu=0.97$) with no secondary peak. In
398: \citet{bradac2006} we speculated that the source might be at $z>6$, but this
399: possiblity is now excluded at high confidence ($\Delta\chi^2>8$). The best
400: fit spectral template (Fig. \ref{fig:sed}) corresponds to a dusty starburst
401: galaxy with $A_V=3.3^{+2.2}_{-0.8}$ (90\%) and an age of $<30$ Myr. As can be
402: seen in the figure, the robustness of the photometric redshift is largely due
403: to the fact that the \irac~data span the 1.6$\mu$m bump at this redshift.
404:
405: At the best-fit redshift the $7.7\mu$m and 8.6$\mu$m PAH features (blended in
406: this spectrum) are redshifted beyond the 24$\mu$m window, in which case the
407: observed 24$\mu$m emission is dominated by the 6.24$\mu$m PAH feature. In a
408: concurrent program \citep{wilson2008a} have also identified this galaxy as a
409: bright millimeter source, and obtain a consistent redshift ($z=2.7$) via an
410: empirical relation for SMGs between redshift and \irac~colors.
411:
412: \begin{figure}
413: \epsscale{1}
414: \plotone{f3.eps}
415: \caption{Flux ratios for the three images as a function of wavelength. The
416: solid lines correspond to the weighted mean flux ratios, including data at all
417: wavelengths. The observed flux ratios at different wavelengths are consistent
418: to within the photometric uncertainties For B/A (triangles) and B/C (circles)
419: these mean values are $1.47\pm0.06$ and $3.18\pm0.23$ respectively. The flux
420: ratio for A/C, which is not plotted, is $2.16\pm0.18$.
421: \label{fig:fluxratio}}
422: \end{figure}
423:
424: \begin{figure*}
425: \epsscale{0.8}
426: \plotone{f4color.eps}
427: \caption{Spectral energy distribution for the galaxy. The solid points
428: correspond to the observed fluxes for images A (circles), B (squares), and C
429: (triangles), while the open arrows correspond to the 5$\sigma$ upper limits at
430: optical and NIR wavelengths. The solid circles at 1.1 mm are the AzTEC data
431: from Wilson et al. (2008), where we have split their observed flux using the
432: flux ratio derived for images A and B (see Fig. \ref{fig:fluxratio}).
433: Horizontal error bars on the 24$\mu$m data points denote the width of the
434: filter, and for the AzTEC data correspond approximately to the system bandpass
435: \citep{wilson2008b}. The solid curve at $\lambda<10\mu\mathrm{m}$ is the
436: best-fit spectrum returned by \hyperz~ for image B, which corresponds to a
437: starburst galaxy. The solid curve redward of 10$\mu$m is the template from
438: \citet{chary2001} that best fits the 24$\mu$m flux for image A assuming
439: $\mu_A=25$. This template is redshifted to $z=2.7$ and rescaled to image B
440: using the observe flux ratio of the two images
441: (Fig. \ref{fig:fluxratio}). Note that the AzTEC data, while not included in
442: the fit, is fully consistent with this model. The inset zooms in on the
443: wavelength regime covered by \spitzer, showing only the photometry for image B
444: for clarity.
445: \label{fig:sed}}
446: \end{figure*}
447:
448: \begin{figure}
449: \epsscale{1}
450: \plotone{f5.eps}
451: \caption{The 68\% confidence intervals from \hyperz~ in the
452: redshift-extinction and redshift-age planes. The solid curves denote the
453: confidence intervals for image A; the dashed curves are for image B. The
454: crosses (plus signs) denote the values corresponding to the minimum $\chi^2$
455: for image A (B). There is a small secondary peak in the solutions for image A
456: at $z=5$.\label{fig:photzerrors}}
457: \end{figure}
458:
459: \subsection{Magnification and Additional Images}
460: \label{sec:magnification}
461: The magnification map was obtained from the strong (information from multiply
462: imaged systems) and weak (measuring distortion of background galaxies)
463: gravitational lensing data. It is the same reconstruction as in
464: \citet{bradac2006}. It is performed on a pixelized grid and does {\it not}
465: assume a specific form of the underlying gravitational potential. At the
466: location of image A we compute a magnification $|\mu| \sim 25$ and at image B
467: we obtain $|\mu| \sim 50$ for a galaxy at $z=2.7$. The critical curve (points
468: of infinite magnification) passes between images A and B (see
469: Fig.\ref{fig:bigimg}) -- their parity is reversed -- supporting the hypothesis
470: that A and B are indeed multiple images of the same source. These
471: magnifications change by $<$20\% within the range of allowed photometric
472: redshifts (90\% confidence interval, see \S\ref{sec:sed}). The measured flux
473: ratio of the two images is $1.47\pm0.05$ which is simlar to the flux ratio of
474: $\sim 2$ given by our lens model. In the subsequent discussion we will quote
475: the stellar mass and star formation rate in terms of $(\mu_A/25)^{-1}$ to
476: reflect the inherent magnification uncertainty.
477:
478: Given both lensing model and positions of images A and B, we can search for
479: additional images of this source. We identified image C (Figure
480: \ref{fig:bigimg}) at $(\alpha_{2000},\delta_{2000})=$(06:58:33.4,-55:57:29)
481: using the same initial lens model, which does not include information from
482: images A and B of this object. The photometry for image C, described in \S
483: \ref{sec:data}, indicates that this image is a factor of $2.2$ fainter than
484: image A, while our lens model predicts a factor of four. Given the
485: uncertainties these images are still consistent with being multiple images.
486: The best-fit photometric redshift derived for this source is
487: $z=2.82^{+0.18}_{-0.20}$.
488:
489: \subsection{Stellar Mass}
490:
491: To estimate the stellar mass we use the code \kcorrect~\citep{blanton2007},
492: which fits a linear combination of \citet{bc03} templates based upon Padova
493: 1994 isochrones and spanning a range in metallicity ($0.005-2.5$ times solar)
494: and age (1 Myr to 13.75 Gyr). The required inputs are the photometric redshift
495: from \hyperz~ and the \irac~photometry, reddening corrected using the $A_V$
496: from \hyperz~ and the \citet{calzetti2000} reddening law. In this analysis and
497: \S\ref{sec:sfr} we focus upon image A, but note that equivalent results hold
498: for image B. For $z=2.72$ and $A_V=3.3$ we obtain a stellar mass
499: $M_*=1.5\times10^{10}(\mu_A/25)^{-1}$ M$_\odot$.\footnote{As noted by
500: \citet{maraston2006}, templates that include the contribution of TP-AGB stars
501: to the spectrum can yield stellar masses roughly a factor of two lower. These
502: templates are not currently implemented in \kcorrect.} Thus, we find that
503: this lensed galaxy is massive -- similar in mass to LIRGs at lower redshift
504: \citep{caputi2006b}.
505:
506: \subsection{Presence of an AGN}
507: \label{subsec:agn}
508:
509: In the sections above we have determined the redshift and stellar mass
510: assuming that the observed SED is dominated by stars. It is true however that
511: dusty starbursts and active galactic nuclei are difficult to discriminate at
512: the source redshift \citep[e.g., see][]{barmby2006}.
513:
514: The simplest discriminator between the two contributors is spatial extent --
515: any spatially extended emission must be stellar rather than due to an AGN. A
516: visual inspection of Figure \ref{fig:images} demonstrates that the
517: \irac~images do exhibit a modest extension perpendicular to the critical
518: curve, arguing that the flux is not purely from an AGN. Next, we consider the
519: \chandra~observations to search for evidence of AGN activity. We find that the
520: lensed source is a non-detection in our 500 ks exposure ($f<3.6\times10^{-16}$
521: erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ unabsorbed, $3\sigma$, for 0.5-2 keV). Comparing with
522: the local X-ray to mid-IR relations of \citet{krabbe2001}, we find that a
523: local Seyfert galaxy of comparable mid-IR luminosity should be more than a
524: factor of 10 brighter than this limit, whereas non-detection is consistent
525: with the expected relation for a starburst galaxy. While neither of the above
526: arguments exclude an additional contribution from a central AGN, they do argue
527: that we are not looking at a purely AGN spectrum.
528:
529: Given the 24$\mu$m data, we can also consider whether this source, which is
530: also a millimeter galaxy \citep{wilson2008a}, has mid-IR colors consistent
531: with a starburst or AGN. Comparing with the distribution of 24$\mu$m-8$\mu$m
532: vs. $8\mu$m-4.5$\mu$m colors for SMGs in \citet{pope2008}, we find that the
533: designation is ambiguous. The source lies close to, but outside the regime
534: defined in \citet{pope2008} for starburst galaxies, arguing that the observed
535: SED may be a composite with AGN and starburst contributions.
536:
537: \subsection{Star Formation Rate}
538: \label{sec:sfr}
539:
540: The only means of estimating the star formation rate with the existing data is
541: via the strength of the PAH emission. There are two main caveats to this
542: approach. First, any AGN contribution will bias our estimate of the star
543: formation rate. Second, there exists large scatter in the relation between
544: 8$\mu$m emission and star formation as traced by other methods
545: \citep{calzetti2008}.
546:
547: Keeping the above caveats in mind, we cautiously proceed with deriving a rough
548: estimate of the star formation rate. To do so, we first convert the observed
549: 24$\mu$m luminosity to $L_{IR}$ and then use the local \citet{kennicutt1998}
550: relation to convert $L_{IR}$ to star formation rate. Using the templates and
551: code from \citet{chary2001} to fit the 24$\mu$m flux, assuming $z=2.7$, we
552: derive a best-fit $L_{IR}=5\times10^{11} (\mu_A/25)^{-1}$ L$_\odot$. The
553: corresponding implied star formation rate is $\mathrm{SFR}\sim 90
554: (\mu_A/25)^{-1} \mathrm{M}_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. As a consistency check, we also
555: derive the rest-frame 8$\mu$m luminosity and convert to $L_{IR}$ using
556: $L_{8\mu\mathrm{m}}/L_{\mathrm{IR}}=10$, consistent with recent results from
557: \citet{rigby2008} based upon a combination of local and $z\sim2$ galaxies. To
558: derive the rest-frame 8$\mu$m we use the same spectral index correction
559: ($\alpha=2.296$) as in \citet{dey2008}. This approach yields a qualitatively
560: consistent total luminosity, $L_{IR}\sim 3\times10^{11}(\mu_A/25)^{-1}$
561: L$_\odot$.
562:
563:
564:
565: In Figure \ref{fig:sed} we overlay the best-fit \citet{chary2001} template for
566: image B, redshifted to $z=2.7$, at wavelengths redward of 10$\mu$m. If the
567: magnification is a factor of two lower than our canonical value, which
568: bootstrap simulations indicate is the maximum by which we may be
569: overestimating $\mu_A$, this galaxy would lie at the borderline betwen LIRG
570: and ULIRG luminosity. From their AzTEC millimeter data, \citet{wilson2008a}
571: also estimate $L_{IR}=10^{11}-10^{12}$ L$_\odot$ for this source. The
572: estimated specific star formation rate for this galaxy, $SFR\approx 5$
573: Gyr$^{-1}$, is comparable to that of similar mass BM/BX galaxies at
574: $z=1.5-2.6$ \citep{reddy2006}.
575:
576:
577:
578: \section{Discussion}
579:
580: We have presented confirmation observations for a multiply imaged source
581: behind the Bullet Cluster, and identified a third, previously unknown image.
582: From our multiwavelength imaging we argue that the source is most consistent
583: with being a dusty ($A_V\sim3.3$), strongly star-forming galaxy at
584: $z\sim2.7$. At this redshift our mass model for the cluster core indicates
585: that the galaxy is highly magnified ($\mu_A\sim25$), implying a large
586: intrinsic stellar mass of $M_*\sim 2\times10^{10}$ M$_\odot$. We estimate a
587: star formation rate of $\sim90$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ based upon the observed
588: flux in the 24$\mu$ band, which we assume to be dominated by emission from
589: redshifted PAH features.
590:
591: The estimated intrinsic infrared luminosity of this galaxy ($5\times10^{11}$
592: L$_\odot$) qualifies it as a luminous infrared galaxy (LIRG), fainter than the
593: ULIRGs typically studied at this epoch. The galaxy is also known to be an
594: exceptionally bright SMG \citep[13.5 mJy at 1.1 mm,][]{wilson2008a}, and thus
595: may be an ideal system for studying the connection between different classes
596: of infrared sources at lower intrinsic luminosity than has previously been
597: possible for this epoch. We anticipate that the galaxy will be detected in
598: scheduled deep \hst~NICMOS observations, providing information on the spatial
599: extent of the lensed images.
600:
601: The Bullet Cluster, due to its large lensing cross-section, provides an
602: optimal environment in which to identify lensed galaxies such as the one
603: presented here. However, even in this rare, massive cluster merger, we
604: detected only one lensed LIRG. This result highlights that the prospects are
605: not good for finding large samples of $z\sim2$, gravitationally-lensed
606: LIRGS. It is for this reason that each case must be highlighted and exploited.
607:
608:
609:
610: \label{sec:conclusions}
611:
612:
613: \acknowledgements
614: AHG thanks Ranga-Ram Chary, Arjun Dey, Jean-Paul Kneib, and Alexandra Pope,
615: and Grant Wilson for constructive discussions related to this work,
616: St\'{e}phane Charlot and Gustavo Bruzual for providing access to the Charlot
617: \& Bruzual 2007 models, and the anonymous referee for comments that significantly improved
618: the manuscript. The authors acknowledge support for this work from NASA/HST
619: grants HST-GO-10200, HST-GO-10863, and HST-GO-11099, as well as NASA/Spitzer
620: grant 1319141. MB also acknowledges support from NASA through Hubble
621: Fellowship grant \# HST-HF-01206.01 awarded by the Space Telescope Science
622: Institute.
623:
624:
625: %{\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (ACS)}, \facility{Spitzer (IRAC,MIPS)}, \facility{CXO (ACIS)}, \facility{Magellan:Baade (PANIC)}
626: {\it Facilities:} HST (ACS), Spitzer (IRAC,MIPS), CXO (ACIS), Magellan:Baade (PANIC)
627: \bibliographystyle{apj}
628: \bibliography{ms}
629:
630:
631:
632:
633:
634:
635: \end{document}
636: