1: \documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: %%% PREAMBLE MATTER

4: 

5: \usepackage{asp2006}

6: \usepackage{epsf}

7: \usepackage{psfig}

8: \usepackage{lscape}

9: 

10: \markboth{Andrew Gould}{Gravitational Microlensing}   

11: %%% Fill in authors' names and short running title

12: 

13: \pagestyle{myheadings}

14: \setcounter{equation}{0}

15: \setcounter{figure}{0}

16: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

17: \setcounter{section}{0}

18: \setcounter{table}{0}

19: \newcommand{\bdv}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

20: %%% MAIN PART OF DOCUMENT

21: 

22: \begin{document}

23: \title{Recent Developments in Gravitational Microlensing}   %%% Fill in title

24: \author{Andrew Gould}   %%% Fill in author names

25: \affil{Ohio State University}    %%% Fill in author affiliations

26: 

27: \begin{abstract} %%% Abstract to run on from here.

28: Twenty-one years after Bohdan's seminal paper

29: launched the field of gravitational microlensing, it

30: has radically diversified from a method narrowly

31: focused on finding dark matter to a very general

32: astronomical tool.  Microlensing has now

33: detected 12 planets, including several that

34: are inaccessible by other search methods.  It

35: has resolved the surfaces of distant stars,

36: served as a magnifying glass to take spectra of

37: extremely faint objects, and revealed a number

38: of surprising phenomena.  I take a sweeping

39: look at this remarkable technique, giving equal

40: weight to its successes and to the tensions that

41: are continuing to propel it forward.

42: \end{abstract}

43: 

44: %%% MAIN BODY OF TEXT GOES HERE. CONSULT "INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS USING

45: %%% LATEX2E MARKUP", SECTIONS 2.3-2.6 FOR HELP WITH EQUATIONS, FIGURES,

46: %%% AND TABLES.

47: 

48: \section{Introduction}   

49: 

50: While the idea of microlensing goes back to the famous \citet{einstein36}

51: paper in {\it Science}, and is worked out in even greater detail in Einstein's

52: notebooks from 1912 \citep{renn97}, Bohdan \citet{pac86} was the first

53: to recognize that with the arrival of modern CCDs and the high-speed

54: computing required to analyze them, microlensing's time had come.

55: 

56: The focus of Bohdan's original paper on this subject was dark matter,

57: and it prompted two major surveys toward the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC),

58: which are reviewed by Charles Alcock in this volume.  But Bohdan

59: was always looking to push microlensing in new directions, 

60: most notably in his two

61: seminal papers that launched microlensing studies of Galactic

62: structure \citep{pac91} and microlensing planet searches \citep{mao91}.

63: Over the past 15 years, microlensing has developed as an important

64: tool in both these areas, and a third area as well: stellar atmospheres.

65: 

66: Parallel to this broad invasion of several areas of astrophysics,

67: microlensing activists pushed the field in a number of narrow,

68: rather arcane, directions, exploring weird higher-order effects such as

69: those due to finite source size, orbital parallax, terrestrial parallax,

70: xallarap, lens rotation, as well as degenerate solutions, and microlensed

71: variables.  One of the most exciting and unexpected developments

72: in microlensing has been that these weird effects, originally of interest

73: only to microlensing nerds, have started to interpenetrate with

74: the more mainstream investigations outlined in the previous paragraph.

75: This is because they provide additional information that is

76: of interest to a more general astronomical audience and make microlensing

77: applications more powerful.

78: 

79: In this contribution, I review some of these developments, pointing

80: to these interconnections whenever possible.

81: 

82: \section{Microlensing Basics}

83: 

84: \begin{figure}

85: \plottwo{lensdiag3.ps}{nat0pp.ps}

86: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

87: \caption{\label{fig:lensdiags}

88: Left: Point-lens microlensing.  Mass (M) deflects light from source (S) 

89: by Einstein bending angle $\alpha= 4 GM/(c^2 D_{\rm L}\theta_{\rm I})$

90: to observer (O).  

91: Right: Relation of higher-order observables, the angular ($\theta_{\rm E}$) and

92: projected ($\tilde r_{\rm E}$) Einstein radii, to physical characteristics

93: of the lensing system.  Adapted from \citet{gould00}.

94: }

95: \end{figure}

96: 

97: It is a mark of the simplicity of point-lens microlensing that the 

98: basic results, including the main higher-order effects, 

99: can be encapsulated in two simple diagrams (Fig.~\ref{fig:lensdiags})

100: and a few simple equations.

101: 

102: Equating (from Fig.~\ref{fig:lensdiags}a)

103: $\overline{IS}=\alpha D_{\rm LS} = (\theta_{\rm I}-\theta_{\rm S})D_{\rm S}$,

104: where $D_{\rm S} = D_{\rm L} + D_{\rm LS}$, yields the quadratic equation,

105: $\theta_{\rm I}(\theta_{\rm I}-\theta_{\rm S})=\theta_{\rm E}^2$, which

106: sets the fundamental Einstein angular scale $\theta_{\rm E}^2\equiv

107: (4 GM/c^2)(D_{\rm L}^{-1}-D_{\rm S}^{-1})$.  The two solutions

108: are $u_\pm = (u\pm\sqrt{u^2+4})/2$, where 

109: $u\equiv \theta_{\rm S}/\theta_{\rm E}$ and

110: $u_\pm\equiv \theta_{\rm I\pm}/\theta_{\rm E}$ are scaled to $\theta_{\rm E}$.

111: Because surface brightness is conserved, the magnification $A$ is

112: given by the ratio of the combined area of the images to the area of the

113: source: 

114: \begin{equation}

115: A_\pm = \biggl|{u_\pm\over u}\,{du_\pm\over du}\biggr|,

116: \quad

117: A= A_+ + A_- = {u^2+2\over u\sqrt{u^2+4}}.

118: \label{eqn:lensmag}

119: \end{equation}

120: 

121: The two higher-order observables shown in Figure \ref{fig:lensdiags}b,

122: the angular ($\theta_{\rm E}$) and projected ($\tilde r_{\rm E}$) 

123: Einstein radii, can be measured if

124: the event can be compared to standard rulers on the sky and observer

125: planes, respectively. See \S~\ref{sec:masses}

126: These are then easily related to the

127: mass $M$ and the source-lens relative parallax 

128: $\pi_{\rm rel} = {\rm AU}(D_L^{-1}- D_S^{-1})$.  First,

129: $\alpha/\tilde r_{\rm E} = \theta_{\rm E}/r_{\rm E}$, so

130: $\theta_{\rm E}\tilde r_{\rm E} = \alpha r_{\rm E} = 4GM/c^2$.

131: Next, by the exterior angle theorem, 

132: $\theta_{\rm E} = 

133: \tilde r_{\rm E}/D_{\rm L} - \tilde r_{\rm E}/D_{\rm S}=

134: (\tilde r_{\rm E}/{\rm AU})\pi_{\rm rel}$.  In summary,

135: \begin{equation}

136: M={\theta_{\rm E}\over \kappa\pi_{\rm E}},\quad

137: \pi_{\rm rel}=\theta_{\rm E}\pi_{\rm E},\quad

138: \theta_{\rm E} = \sqrt{\kappa M\pi_{\rm rel}},\quad

139: \pi_{\rm E} = \sqrt{\pi_{\rm rel}\over\kappa M},

140: \label{eqn:mpirel}

141: \end{equation}

142: where $\kappa\equiv 4GM/(c^2{\rm AU})\sim 8.14\,{\rm mas}\,M_\odot^{-1}$

143: and $\pi_{\rm E}\equiv {\rm AU}/\tilde r_{\rm E}$.

144: 

145: \section{{Microlensing Planet Searches}

146: \label{sec:planets}}

147: 

148: \citet{mao91} showed that if a lens had a companion, it would distort

149: the primary lens's magnification field, inducing an ``astigmatism'' or 

150: ``caustic structure'' near the peak.  These caustics are closed

151: contours of formally infinite magnification 

152: (see, e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:ob05071}a, below): the magnification diverges

153: according to

154: a square-root singularity as the source approaches the caustic from the

155: inside.  The bigger the companion,

156: the bigger the caustic, and so the greater the chance that the

157: source would pass close enough to the lens

158: to be affected.  But their main

159: point was: even a planet could in principle be detected.

160: 

161: Of course, just as the planet perturbs the magnification pattern of

162: its host, the host also perturbs the planet field.  Since the host

163: is much bigger than the planet, this perturbation is also much bigger, so

164: a random source is much more likely to pass over the resulting

165: ``planetary caustic'' than the ``central caustic'' highlighted by

166: \citet{mao91}.  This fact led \citet{gouldloeb92} to focus on

167: planetary caustics the next year when we advocated a search+followup

168: strategy for finding planets.  Microlensing events are extremely

169: rare (optical depth $\tau\sim 10^{-6}$), so huge areas must be

170: surveyed each night, which limits the number of observations of

171: each field.  But since the planetary perturbations are extremely

172: short $t_p\sim (M_{\rm planet}/M_{\rm Jupiter})^{1/2}\,$day,

173: the events that are found must be intensively monitored by other,

174: ``followup'' telescopes scattered around the globe, in order to trace out

175: the planetary signature.

176: 

177: Although hardly noticed at the time, this subtle difference in

178: emphasis between these two papers grew into a major divergence, which

179: has since 

180: dominated all issues connected with microlensing planet searches.

181: 

182: \subsection{1st Microlensing Planet -- Pure-Survey Jupiter}

183: 

184: In 1995, Penny Sackett formed the PLANET collaboration \citep{albrow98}

185: to carry out this survey+followup strategy, but it was not until 2003 that the

186: first planet was discovered, OGLE-2003-BLG-235/MOA-2003-BLG-53Lb,

187: and this was by the survey teams themselves, not the followup groups

188: \citep{ob03235}.  Why?  The event had a 7-day 

189: planetary deviation, so the nightly survey data were basically adequate

190: to characterize it, which would not have been the case had it lasted

191: just 1 day (or less), as expected.  The perturbation was long because

192: the planet was sitting right next to the Einstein ring, and so induced a 

193: big caustic.  Such alignments are rare, but the survey groups are well

194: poised to find them because they monitor of order 600 events per year.

195: The followup groups, by contrast, monitor only the few dozen ``most

196: promising'' events.  The survey-group discovery of

197: the first microlensing planet was the first piece of evidence that

198: the survey+followup strategy originally advocated by \citet{gouldloeb92}

199: would require radical rethinking if it were to be successful.

200: 

201: \subsection{{High-Magnification Events}

202: \label{sec:highmag_events}}

203: 

204: In the meantime, \citet{jaro02} found a planet-candidate based on a single

205: deviant point, which consequently could not be confirmed.  This prompted

206: Andrzej Udalski (see these proceedings) to develop the OGLE 

207: ``Early Early Warning System (EEWS)'', which would alert the OGLE observer

208: when an already-identified event was behaving ``unusually'', thereby

209: enabling OGLE both to alert the community and to carry 

210: out ``auto-followup'' observations itself.  This system actually went

211: off on OGLE-2004-BLG-343, a spectacular magnification $A=3000$ event,

212: but unfortunately the alarm was ignored by the observer.  However,

213: \citet{ob04343} showed that if this event had been properly monitored,

214: it would have had excellent sensitivity to Earth-mass planets, and

215: even some sensitivity to Mars-mass planets.  That is, the

216: ``central caustic'' (i.e. high-magnification) events originally

217: highlighted by \citet{mao91} were actually much better targets

218: than the larger-caustic events singled out by \citet{gouldloeb92}.

219: Even though the caustics (and so the number of caustic-crossing

220: events) are smaller, the events in which this happens can be identified

221: {\it in advance}, enabling intensive followup right in the period

222: of greatest sensitivity.  Actually, this same point had previously been made

223: by several theorists \citep{griestsafi,rattenbury02}, but

224: as often happens, it was the practical demonstration that had the

225: biggest impact.

226: 

227: Another, completely unrelated development, pushed the Microlensing Follow Up

228: Network ($\mu$FUN) in the direction of high-mag events.

229: Jennie McCormick, a New Zealand amateur, sent me an email one day saying 

230: ``I have data on your event, what do you want me to do with it?''

231: Of course, it seemed preposterous that a $12''$ telescope in one

232: of the wettest places in world could make a material contribution,

233: but I started sending her our microlensing alerts.  She contacted

234: Grant Christie, another NZ amateur, who ultimately made contact with

235: almost a dozen other amateurs around the southern hemisphere.

236: As these amateurs had to work during the day, we had to limit

237: requests to only the most sensitive events, generally high-mag

238: events.  Eventually, we realized that even at our professional-class

239: telescopes, we were wasting our time following non-high-mag events.

240: By 2005, our conversion was complete.

241: 

242: \subsection{2nd Microlensing Planet -- High-Mag Jupiter}

243: 

244: \begin{figure}

245: \plottwo{ob05071.ps}{ob05169.ps}

246: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

247: \caption{\label{fig:ob05071}

248: Left: Jupiter-mass planet in high-mag event OGLE-2005-BLG-071.

249: Two major peaks and small peak in middle (upper inset) imply

250: source passes by two major cusps and a weak cusp in between

251: (lower inset).  This caustic geometry can only be produced by

252: planetary companions, in this case with mass ratio $q=7\times 10^{-3}$.

253:  From \citet{ob05071}.

254: Right: Neptune-mass planet in high-mag event OGLE-2005-BLG-169.

255: Upper panel shows ``basically normal'' event, but residuals

256: to point-lens fit reveal 2\% deviations.  Detailed modeling

257: is required to uncover the caustic structure (inset) due to

258: planet with $q=8\times 10^{-5}$, i.e. almost 100 times smaller

259: than OGLE-2005-BLG-071.  From \citet{ob05169}.

260: }

261: \end{figure}

262: 

263: 

264: 

265: The first fruit of this new strategy came early the next year when

266: OGLE-2005-BLG-071 started approaching high magnification.  Both

267: OGLE and $\mu$FUN Chile intensively observed the event as it approached

268: its peak until observations were cut off by dawn.

269: Shortly thereafter,

270: however, Jennie and Grant began observing on their $12''$ and $14''$

271: scopes (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ob05071}a).  

272: Over four nights, OGLE and $\mu$FUN telescopes traced out a triple-peak event:

273: two big peaks flanking a small peak in the middle, implying that the

274: source passed by a caustic with three cusps: strong, weak, strong

275: (see lower inset to Fig.~\ref{fig:ob05071}a).

276: It can be proved mathematically that such a geometry can only be

277: produced by a planet.  Jennie's comment: ``It just shows that you 

278: can be a mother, you can work full time, and you can still go out

279: there and find planets.''

280: 

281: \subsection{{3rd Microlensing Planet -- Survey+Followup Super-Earth}

282: \label{sec:ob05390}}

283: 

284: The PLANET collaboration has dedicated access to 4 1m-class telescopes

285: for May--August.  This caused them to

286: miss OGLE-2005-BLG-071, which peaked in April, but enables them

287: to follow many more events during the 4-month ``high season'',

288: i.e., not just the rich but rare high-mag events, but the run-of-the-mill

289: events originally advocated by Avi and me.  One of these,

290: OGLE-2005-BLG-390 showed a second bump well after peak.

291: The rounded shape of this bump implies that its full duration,

292: $2t_p\sim 0.6\,$days is dominated by the size of the source

293: rather than the caustic.  This is expected because the source

294: was very bright and red, hence very big.  Under these conditions,

295: it is straightforward to show that the planet/star mass ratio is approximately,

296: $q = (A_p/2)(t_p/t_{\rm E})^2$, where $A_p$ is the amplitude of the

297: second bump and $t_{\rm E}=10\,$days is the Einstein timescale.  That is,

298: one can simply read off the lightcurve, without any analysis, 

299: $q=9\times 10^{-5}$.  In fact, detailed analysis \citep{ob05390}

300: yields $q=8\times 10^{-5}$, corresponding to 5.5 Earth masses at the

301: estimated $M\sim 0.2\,M_\odot$ mass of the host.  This is also

302: the first event for which both survey and followup were absolutely required.

303: Both of the previous planets had perturbations lasting several days,

304: which allowed them to be basically characterized from survey data alone,

305: even though the followup data did substantially improve the characterization

306: in the case of OGLE-2005-BLG-071Lb.

307: 

308: \subsection{{4th Microlensing Planet -- High-Mag Neptune}

309: \label{sec:ob05169}}

310: 

311: Just a week after OGLE-2005-BLG-071 subsided, another event was

312: approaching peak, OGLE-2005-BLG-169.  In this case, OGLE did not observe

313: the event at all for 6 days before peak, the first 4 because of

314: weather and the last 2 because the telescope was dedicated to Chilean

315: observations.  Based on ``general suspicion'' that it might become 

316: high-mag, $\mu$FUN obtained some observations, but the night before peak,

317: the case was still not convincing:  $\mu$FUN (i.e., AG) failed to pursue

318: the event aggressively, but did ask Andrzej (who was at the OGLE telescope,

319: service observing for the Chileans) to sneak in an observation

320: of this event.  An email came back at 3 a.m.: the event was extremely

321: high-mag and there were no observations being taken!  I was asleep, but

322: heard the ``ping'' of my email and went upstairs to have a look.

323: I was quite dazed but eventually realized that the event could be

324: observed over peak from MDM, despite its northern location.  I called

325: up the observer who happened to be an OSU grad student, Deokkeun An.

326: I implored him to take time out of his own observing to obtain 9 images

327: of this event over the next 3 hours.  Recognizing that my request was much

328: too timid, Deokkeun actually took over 1000 observations, which traced

329: out a 2\% deviation from a magnification $A=800$ event 

330: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ob05071}b).  As in a number of other microlensing events, 

331: the initiative of the observer proved crucial!

332: Exhaustive

333: analysis eventually demonstrated that this was a ``cold Neptune''

334: with $q=8\times 10^{-5}$.

335: 

336: \subsection{5th+6th Microlensing Planets -- Jupiter/Saturn System}

337: 

338: On 28 March 2006, the OGLE EEWS noted a tiny 0.1 mag deviation in

339: the previously unremarkable lightcurve of OGLE-2006-BLG-109, but

340: Andrzej was confident enough to issue a public announcement:

341: ``Because short-lived, low amplitude anomalies can be a signature of a

342: planetary companion to the lensing star (cf. OGLE-2005-BLG-390)

343: follow-up observations of OGLE-2006-BLG-109 are strongly encouraged!!!''

344: This triggered observations from MDM only a few hours later, which

345: ultimately were important, but the event quickly returned to normal.

346: A few days later, however, it was clearly becoming high-mag, and so drew

347: many observations.  Grant Christie caught what seemed like a caustic

348: exit at magnification roughly $A=500$, 8 days after the first deviation,

349: which definitely raised the excitement level.  Within hours, Scott Gaudi

350: had a tentative model.  He drew a 6-sided (or 6-cusp)

351: caustic due to a Saturn-mass-ratio

352: planet.  The first small bump occurred when the source passed by a cusp.

353: Somehow the source had entered the caustic without being noticed and

354: had just exited.  Scott's trajectory would take the source by another cusp

355: 3 days later, so he predicted another bump at that time.  However, reports

356: soon came in from the Wise observatory that the event was rising again,

357: and hours later

358: OGLE observations showed that it was again falling.  This new bump,

359: just 12 hours after Grant's ``caustic exit'', seemed to contradict

360: Scott's 3-day prediction.  Nevertheless, after 3 days, Scott's predicted bump

361: did occur: the Israel/Chile bump had been due to another planet, this one

362: of Jupiter mass-ratio.

363: 

364: \begin{figure}

365: \plotone{ob06109.eps}

366: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

367: \caption{\label{fig:ob06109}

368: First Jupiter/Saturn analog.  This spectacular lightcurve of OGLE-2006-BLG-109

369: has 5 distinct lightcurve features, which together reveal two planets.

370: Features 1, 2, 3, and 5 come from the black portion of the caustic

371: ({\it inset A}) due to a Saturn mass-ratio planet very close to the

372: Einstein ring.  Feature 4, a sharp ``bump'' seen from Israel and Chile,

373: cannot be explained by this planet, but it

374: occurs very near the center of the lens geometry, just where perturbations

375: would be expected from other planets that are not near the Einstein ring

376: ({\it inset B}).  This proves to have a Jupiter mass ratio. 

377: Because the Saturn is near the Einstein ring, its very small motion

378: leads to dramatic changes in the caustic between the time of Feature 1

379: ({\it gray caustic}) and the time of Feature 3 ({\it black caustic}).

380: Twelve observatories contributed data, notably OGLE

381: (who announced Feature 1 in real time) and New Zealand

382: amateurs Grant Christie and Jennie McCormick, who caught the peak

383: at Feature 3. From \citet{gaudi08a}.}

384: \end{figure}

385: 

386: 

387: It took quite a while to fully decipher this event.  The Saturn

388: mass planet was very close to the Einstein ring.  In such cases,

389: the size of the caustic scales as $|b-1|^{-1}$, where $b$ is the

390: planet-star separation in units of the Einstein ring.  If $b\sim 1$,

391: then very small changes in $b$ can lead to large changes in the caustic.

392: Thus, the tiny planetary motion during the 8-day interval from the first

393: cusp approach to the caustic exit can lead to big changes in the caustic.

394: On the plus side, this means that if all these features can be 

395: properly modeled, one can measure some of 

396: the planet-orbit parameters, something no one thought would

397: be possible when microlensing planet searches were initiated.

398: On the minus side, analysis of the lightcurve requires very smart

399: algorithms applied to a supercomputer.

400: Dave Bennett took the lead in this analysis, eventually deriving

401: more comprehensive parameters for this system than any other.

402: It is a true Jupiter/Saturn analog, with similar mass ratios

403: and separation ratios as the solar-system gas giants.  The equilibrium

404: temperatures of these planets are also similar to Jupiter/Saturn, but

405: a bit cooler \citep{gaudi08a}.

406: 

407: It appears that in 2007, microlensers have discovered about 6 more planets,

408: but I have neither the space nor the permission to write about these

409: in detail.

410: 

411: \subsection{What Have We Learned About Planets?}

412: 

413: Given that microlensing has discovered only a handful of planets, 

414: compared to 250+ by other techniques, the

415: scientific payoff has been remarkably high.  The difference between

416: community expectations (which were rather dim) and what has actually

417: been achieved is due to two factors.  

418: 

419: \begin{figure}

420: \plottwo{mt.ps}{cmd.ps}

421: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

422: \caption{\label{fig:cmd}

423: Left: Planet mass vs.\ equilibrium temperature of planets

424: detected by the Doppler ({\it red circles}), 

425: transit ({\it blue squares}), and microlensing ({\it green stars}) techniques,

426: as of June 2007.  Microlensing detects planets in the cold, outer regions

427: of their solar systems, where planet formation is expected to be most

428: robust.

429: Right: CMD of the host stars of microlensing planets.

430: Microlensing detects planets without serious

431: selection bias due to host properties.  It demonstrates that planet 

432: frequency in the outer regions is not strongly dependent on stellar type.}

433: \end{figure}

434: 

435: First, microlensing detections have yielded far

436: more information about the individual star-planet systems than had been 

437: thought possible.  Originally, it was believed that microlensing

438: detections would return exactly two pieces of information about

439: the system, the planet/star mass ratio $q$ and the planet-star projected

440: separation (in units of the Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$) $b$.

441: Only the first quantity was regarded as truly interesting, since the

442: second could not be translated into a physical distance without knowing

443: both $\theta_{\rm E}$ and the distance to the lens $D_{\rm L}$.

444: In practice, we have generally been able to make pretty good estimates

445: of the host mass $M$ (and hence the planet mass $m=q M$), as 

446: well as $\theta_{\rm E}$ and $D_{\rm L}$ (and so the projected

447: separation $r_\perp=b D_{\rm L} \theta_{\rm E}$).  I will discuss

448: exactly how we do this in \S~\ref{sec:multiple}

449: 

450: Second, microlensing probes

451: a region of parameter space to which other methods are at present largely

452: insensitive, namely the cold regions out past the snow line,

453: where (at least according standard core-accretion theory) planet

454: formation should be most robust.  See Figure \ref{fig:cmd}a.

455: Microlensing is also essentially

456: unbiased by host mass, in sharp contrast to other methods.

457: Hence, as shown by the CMD of planet hosts (Fig.\ \ref{fig:cmd}b),

458: microlensing detects planets of the most common potential hosts, i.e.

459: late-type stars.

460: 

461: The fact that there are two microlensing detections of cold 

462: Neptunes/super-Earths

463: means that these planets are probably extremely common.  \citet{ob05169}

464: estimated that if all stars had planets in this mass range, and in

465: a 0.4 dex annulus bracketing the Einstein ring

466: of the host, then there would have been about 6 detections.  In fact

467: there were 2, indicating a rate of roughly 1/3 in this fairly narrow

468: range of radii.

469: 

470: Microlensing sensitivity scales roughly as planet mass.  There

471: are 4 Jovian-mass detections and two Neptune-mass detections,

472: and the two classes of planets differ in mass by about 1.5 dex

473: (see Fig.\ \ref{fig:cmd}a).  This indicates that gas giants are

474: of order 7 times less common than ice giants.

475: 

476: Of the 5 planetary hosts, one has two detected planets.  As discussed

477: above, these are close analogs of the Jupiter/Saturn pair that

478: dominate the mass in our own solar system.  Before planets were discovered,

479: it was generally believed that most solar systems would be like our own.

480: Then with the discovery of the pulsar planets and 51 Peg, weird planets

481: became more fashionable.  But the fact is, only microlensing actually

482: has sensitivity to Jupiter/Saturn analogs, so this is the only information

483: we have on how common they are.  Microlensing has detected Jovian-mass

484: planets around 3 stars (OGLE-2003-BLG-235/MOA-2003-BLG-53,

485: OGLE-2005-BLG-071, and OGLE-2006-BLG-109).  In the first of these,

486: there was a very low probability of detecting a second, Saturn-mass companion

487: had it been there.  In the second, there was a modest (roughly 30\%)

488: %%ask Subo???

489: chance.  In the third there was an excellent chance (and it was actually

490: detected).  This  suggests that for systems where there is a Jupiter,

491: it may be highly likely that there is also a Saturn.

492: 

493: \section*{Higher-Order Microlensing Effects}   

494: 

495: Bohdan was fond of pointing out that microlensing is fundamentally

496: such a simple phenomenon that one could predict effects from first

497: principles and then go out and observe these effects in actual

498: events.  His favorite example of this was parallax.

499: 

500: \section{Microlens Parallaxes}

501: 

502: \begin{figure}

503: \plottwo{lc_lmc5.ps}{traj_lmc5.ps}

504: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

505: \caption{\label{fig:lmc5}

506: Microlens parallaxes and degeneracies.

507: Left: Lightcurve of MACHO-LMC-5 shows clear asymmetry due to accelerated

508: motion of Earth, falling more rapidly than its rise.

509: Right: 4 possible trajectories of source-lens separation, all 

510: curved due to accelerated motion of Earth projected onto the

511: plane of the sky (lower inset). Deviations (from straight lines)

512: are proportional to $\Delta S$ (the accelerated displacement of the

513: Earth) and $\pi_{\rm E}$ (=AU/$\tilde r_{\rm E}$, the size of the

514: Earth's orbit relative to the projected Einstein radius).  The

515: fact that there are two sets of trajectories with radically different

516: directions and Einstein radii was totally unexpected, but is now

517: understood analytically.  From \citet{gould04}.}

518: \end{figure}

519: 

520: \citet{alcock95} made the first microlensing parallax detection

521: but parallax was actually observed in the very first microlensing event

522: observed toward the LMC, MACHO-LMC-5, although no one realized it

523: at the time \citep{alcock97}.  

524: Indeed no one realized it was the first event at the

525: time: hence its enumeration.  MACHO-LMC-5 was weird for other reasons:

526: the CMD position of the apparent source star does not coincide with

527: any LMC population.  \citet{gould97} had already suggested that this

528: ``source'' was a foreground M dwarf and that it actually was the lens.  After

529: 6 years, MACHO observed this and many other events with {\it HST}

530: and resolved two stars separated by about $0.1''$, a blue LMC star

531: that was clearly the source and a red foreground star, the putative

532: lens \citep{alcock00}.  But how could one be sure that the red star

533: was not just an unrelated foreground star?  

534: 

535: Dave Bennett went back to original

536: lightcurve and noticed the slight asymmetry (Fig.~\ref{fig:lmc5}a),

537: which led him to fit it for microlens parallax.  In analogy to

538: trigonometric parallax, the amplitude of the deviation from rectilinear

539: motion of the

540: source-lens trajectory in microlensing parallax is inversely proportional

541: to the size of what one is trying to measure, i.e., 

542: the projected Einstein radius $\tilde r_{\rm E}$.

543: So just

544: as one writes $\pi= {\rm AU}/D$ for trig parallax, it is convenient

545: to define the microlens parallax $\pi_{\rm E} = {\rm AU}/\tilde r_{\rm E}$.

546: However, in contrast to trig parallaxes, the microlens parallax simultaneously

547: measures the {\it direction} of lens-source relative motion.  So the

548: microlens parallax is actually a vector, $\bdv{\pi}_{\rm E}$.  Dave

549: found that the direction of $\bdv{\pi}_{\rm E}$ was the same as the

550: vector linking the red and blue stars \citep{alcock01}.  So the

551: red star {\it was} the lens, not just a chance interloper!  

552: 

553: This result had two important consequences.  First, it

554: showed that at least in this case, the lens was not part of a

555: putative dark-matter halo (``MACHO'') population, but was an ordinary

556: disk star.  Second, it led to the first mass measurement of an isolated

557: star, which I describe in the next section.

558: 

559: Microlens parallax measurements are relatively rare.  

560: \citet{poindexter05}

561: found only 22 events (out of about 3000 to that date) for which 

562: including parallax effects decreased $\chi^2$ by more than 100.

563: Nevertheless, microlens parallaxes have proved incredibly important,

564: as I discuss in \S~\ref{sec:planet_masses}

565: 

566: \section{{Microlens Masses}

567: \label{sec:masses}}

568: 

569:  From equation (\ref{eqn:mpirel}), one can determine the microlens

570: mass (as well as the lens-source relative parallax), if one can

571: just measure $\theta_{\rm E}$ and $\tilde r_{\rm E}$ (or $\pi_{\rm E}$).

572: As just mentioned, there are very few events for which $\pi_{\rm E}$

573: can be measured.  It also turns out that there are very few events for

574: which some ``angular ruler'' on the plane of the sky permits measurement

575: of $\theta_{\rm E}$.  The number for which the two measurements overlap is

576: minuscule.  Nevertheless, microlensing nerds have pursued microlens 

577: mass measurements like a holy grail, ultimately with major payoffs.  

578: The first microlens mass measurement was

579: EROS-2000-BLG-5 \citep{an02}, which I discuss in \S~\ref{sec:multiple}.

580: 

581: \subsection{{First Mass Measurement of an Isolated Star}

582: \label{sec:firstmass}}

583: 

584: The second was MACHO-LMC-5.  At one level this was trivial:

585: since \citet{alcock01} had measured the lens-source separation 

586: $\Delta\theta = 0.134''$ after $\Delta t=6.3\,$yrs, they could immediately

587: determine the lens-source relative proper motion 

588: $\mu_{\rm rel} = 21\,\rm mas\,yr^{-1}$.  Then from the measured Einstein

589: timescale $t_{\rm E} =21\,$ days, they could infer 

590: $\theta_{\rm E} = \mu_{\rm rel} t_{\rm E} =1.2\,$mas.  

591: Unfortunately, when combined with

592: their measurement $\pi_{\rm E}=4.2$ (and eq.~[\ref{eqn:mpirel}]), this gave

593: them a mass $M=0.036\,M_\odot$ and distance $D_{\rm L}= 200\,$pc, which

594: of course would be inconsistent with it being visible in the {\it HST}

595: image.

596: 

597: Bohdan played a significant role in the resolution of this puzzle.

598: \citet{smith03} developed an abstract formalism for analyzing

599: parallaxes, which (as referee) I found unexpectedly powerful.  They

600: Taylor-expanded the square of the source-lens separation to fourth

601: order in the approximation of uniform acceleration by the

602: Earth.  This led them to 

603: discover a degeneracy, which changed the trajectory from one side

604: of the Earth to the other (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lmc5}b, upper inset).  Because

605: this degeneracy basically left the magnitude of $\pi_{\rm E}$ unchanged,

606: it could not explain the ``wrong'' mass obtained by \citet{alcock01}.

607: However, by including jerk in the Taylor expansion, I discovered

608: a second, so-called ``jerk-parallax'' degeneracy, which did yield

609: a different $\pi_{\rm E}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:lmc5}b, main panel).

610: The distance implied by this solution $D_{\rm L}\sim 550\,$pc

611: was later confirmed by \citet{drake04} using trig parallax, and

612: the mass estimate $M=0.097\pm 0.016\,M_\odot$ is consistent with photometric

613: estimates \citep{gould04b}.

614: 

615: \subsection{{Multiple Paths to Microlens Mass Measurements}

616: \label{sec:multiple}}

617: 

618: There are basically 4 paths to the microlens parallax $\pi_{\rm E}$: 

619: Earth-orbital parallax, trigonometric parallax, Earth-satellite parallax,

620: and terrestrial parallax.  All four have been successfully employed.

621: There are also basically 4 angular rulers for measuring $\theta_{\rm E}$:

622: lens-source proper motion, finite-source effects, image resolution,

623: and centroid displacement.  The first of these is measured after the

624: event and the last three during the event.  Only the first two have

625: been successfully carried out.  As mentioned, microlens mass measurements 

626: require one from column A ($\pi_{\rm E}$) and one from 

627: column B ($\theta_{\rm E}$).

628: 

629: For MACHO-LMC-5, $\theta_{\rm E}$ was measured by lens-source proper motion,

630: but this is quite unusual: its proper motion was about 6 times larger

631: than typical lenses toward the bulge, there was a 6-year delay for the 

632: second epoch, and {\it HST} observations were still required to 

633: separately resolve the lens and source.

634: By far the most frequent measurement of $\theta_{\rm E}$ comes from

635: finite-source effects. If the source passes over a caustic, then

636: the lightcurve analysis automatically gives 

637: $\rho\equiv \theta_*/\theta_{\rm E}$, where $\theta_*$ is the angular

638: source radius.  The dereddened source color gives its surface brightness,

639: and the dereddened magnitude gives its flux, which together yield $\theta_*$.

640: Even in heavily reddened bulge fields, one can deredden the source

641: magnitudes by comparing the position of the source

642: to the clump on an instrumental

643: CMD (e.g., \citealt{ob03262}).  This was the method used in the

644: first microlens mass measurement, EROS-2000-BLG-5 \citep{an02},

645: which was a binary lens with an extremely well-covered caustic crossing.

646: Such caustic crossings are relatively rare, 

647: but what made EROS-2000-BLG-5 really unusual

648: was that it was also an extremely long event, which is what rendered 

649: it susceptible to Earth-orbital parallax.

650: 

651: The very largest $\theta_{\rm E}$ could in principle be resolved

652: using interferometry.  This would be a good way to confirm black-hole

653: candidates.  These have large Einstein rings, so are typically long

654: and so susceptible to Earth-orbital microlens parallaxes.  There is

655: an active program to do this at the VLT, but so far it has not been successful.

656: The fourth method will be described in \S~\ref{sec:sim}

657: 

658:  From equation (\ref{eqn:mpirel}), it is clear that if $\theta_{\rm E}$

659: is known, then the trig parallax directly yields 

660: $\pi_{\rm E} = \theta_{\rm E}/\pi_{\rm rel}$.  Hence, \citet{refsdal64}

661: already pointed out that microlens masses could be obtained from

662: trig parallaxes and proper motions.  More than 40 years later,

663: MACHO-LMC-5 is the only event to which this has been applied in practice

664: \citep{drake04,gould04b}.  Almost all remaining microlens parallaxes

665: come from lightcurve distortions (e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:lmc5}a), but

666: there are two exceptions.

667: 

668: \begin{figure}

669: \plottwo{spitzer.eps}{lambda.eps}

670: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

671: \caption{\label{fig:oddpar}

672: First space-based parallax measurement.

673: Left: OGLE-2005-SMC-001 was observed by the {\it Spitzer} satellite

674: ({\it lower curve, purple points}) when it was $\sim 0.25\,$AU from Earth.

675: Offsets in peak time (0.45 days) and peak flux (15\%) imply a

676: projected Einstein radius $\tilde r_{\rm E}\sim 30\,$AU.  

677:  Right: Inverse projected velocity 

678: $\bdv{\Lambda} \equiv \bdv{\pi}_{\rm E} t_{\rm E}/{\rm AU}$

679: of OGLE-2005-SMC-001 ({\it black, green, red} = 1, 2, $3\,\sigma$)

680: is near peak of likelihood contours ({\it red, green, cyan, blue} with

681: factor 5 steps) expected for halo lenses.  That is, the observed

682: $\tilde v \equiv \Lambda^{-1}\sim 230\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$ is close to typical

683: halo values ($\sim 450\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$), but an order of magnitude smaller

684: than typical SMC values (not shown). Adapted from \citet{dong07}.

685: }

686: \end{figure}

687: 

688: The very first idea for microlens parallax was to compare

689: lightcurves obtained from a satellite in solar orbit and the ground

690: \citep{refsdal66}.  Both the impact parameter and the time of maximum

691: would differ, enabling one to infer both components of $\bdv{{\pi}}_{\rm E}$.

692: \citet{dong07} made such a measurement using the {\it Spitzer} satellite

693: (see Fig.~\ref{fig:oddpar}), leading

694: them to conclude that the projected Einstein radius was very large,

695: $\tilde r_{\rm E}\sim 30\,$AU.  This could be either because the

696: lens was in the SMC or because it was a very massive ($10\,M_\odot$)

697: black-hole binary in the Galactic halo.  The latter was judged more

698: likely, since the projected velocity 

699: $\tilde v \equiv \tilde r_{\rm E}/t_{\rm E}\sim 230\,\rm km\,s^{-1}$

700: is typical for a halo lens but about an order of magnitude smaller

701: than expected for SMC lenses.  Still, since there was no measurement 

702: $\theta_{\rm E}$, this conclusion was not absolutely secure.

703: 

704: 

705: The reason ``solar orbit'' is usually required is that typically 

706: $\tilde r_{\rm E} \ga 1\,$AU, i.e., at least 20,000 times bigger than

707: the Earth.  This did not prevent two theorists,

708: \citet{holz96}, from pointing out that at least from the standpoint

709: of photon statistics, it would be possible to measure microlens parallaxes

710: from the lightcurve differences from two terrestrial observatories.

711: Amazingly, this has now actually been done as will be discussed elsewhere.

712: 

713: \subsection{{Future Routine Microlens Mass-Measurements with {\it SIM}}

714: \label{sec:sim}}

715: 

716: Given that it has proven so difficult to measure either $\pi_{\rm E}$ or

717: $\theta_{\rm E}$ separately, is it possible to {\it routinely} measure them

718: both together?  In fact, this would be possible with the 

719: {\it Space Interferometry Mission (SIM)} \citep{unwin07}.  

720: {\it SIM} would be in an Earth-trailing orbit, essentially the same

721: as {\it Spitzer}, and so could obtain Earth-satellite parallaxes in

722: exactly the same way.  But unlike {\it Spitzer}, it is capable of

723: routinely measuring $\theta_{\rm E}$ as well.   Although {\it SIM}

724: cannot generally resolve the separate images, it can measure the

725: astrometric displacement of the {\it centroid} of the images

726: relative to the source, 

727: \begin{equation}

728: \Delta\theta = 

729: {A_+ \theta_{\rm I+} + A_-\theta_{\rm I-}\over A_+ + A_-}

730: - \theta_{\rm S}

731: = {u\over u^2 + 2}\theta_{\rm E}.

732: \label{eqn:deltatheta}

733: \end{equation}

734: This reaches a maximum of $\theta_{\rm E}/\sqrt{8}$ at $u=\sqrt{2}$.

735: For typical bulge lenses, $\theta_{\rm E}\sim 300\,\mu$as,

736: so $\Delta\theta_{\rm max}\sim 100\,\mu$as, a very tiny angle.

737: But {\it SIM} precision is of order a few $\mu$as, meaning that

738: $\theta_{\rm E}$ (and so masses) could be measured to better than

739: 10\%.  Thus, it would be possible to take a representive census of

740: all objects along the line of sight to the Galactic bulge, whether

741: dark (like black holes) or luminous (like stars).

742: 

743: \subsection{{Masses for Microlens Planets}

744: \label{sec:planet_masses}}

745: 

746: As should be clear from the last few sections, an enormous amount

747: of work has gone into developing and applying methods to find

748: $\theta_{\rm E}$ and $\pi_{\rm E}$, yet the few resulting mass measurements

749: have had little direct scientific payoff beyond proving to microlensing

750: nerds that we could do it.  In fact, however, there has been a big

751: practical payoff:  all 5 planetary hosts described in \S~\ref{sec:planets}

752: have masses and distances that are either measured or strongly constrained.

753: Hence, the 6 planet masses and projected separations are also measured

754: or well-constrained.

755: And it appears that this will also be true for the 6 microlensing planets

756: discovered in 2007. 

757: This seems initially implausible, since in general mass measurements

758: are so rare.  But first, planetary events are ``special'' in ways that

759: facilitate mass measurements.  And second, considerably more effort

760: (both observational and theoretical)

761: is expended by microlensers, once we know the event contains a planet.

762: 

763: \begin{figure}

764: \plottwo{ell.ps}{ob03235.eps}

765: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

766: \caption{\label{fig:ob03235}

767: Left: 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ contours for $\bdv{\pi}_{\rm E}$ ({\it black})

768: of OGLE-2005-BLG-071 (Fig.~\ref{fig:ob05071}a). Amplitude is

769: microlens parallax $\pi_{\rm E}$ and direction is that of lens-source

770: relative motion.  Only 1-D is well constrained.

771: Right: Relative source-lens centroids in 

772: $B$ ({\it blue}), $V$ ({\it green}), $I$ ({\it red})

773: of OGLE-2003-BLG-235/MOA-2003-BLG-53 from {\it HST} images

774: 1.78 years after peak.  These yield direction of proper motion

775: ($20^\circ$ north through east).  [In a perfect world (without errors) 

776: the $V$ point would be exactly aligned with the

777: axis connecting the $B$ and $I$ points, lying slightly closer to the

778: former.]

779: Left (again): A direction measurement from similar

780: observations of OGLE-2005-BLG-071 would resolve its 1-D parallax degeneracy 

781: (1-$\sigma$ [{\it green}] and 2-$\sigma$ [{\it red}] lines in left panel).

782: }

783: \end{figure}

784: 

785: 

786: The first point is that in sharp contrast to ``regular'' microlensing

787: events, $\theta_{\rm E}$ is almost routinely measured in planetary

788: events.  In ordinary events, the probability that the lens will

789: transit the source (thereby giving rise to measurable finite-source

790: effects) is $\rho=\theta_*/\theta_{\rm E}$, which is about $\rho\sim 1/500$

791: for main-sequence sources and typical lenses.  But in planetary events,

792: there is hardly any perturbation at all unless the source passes

793: very close to, or right over a caustic, so finite-source effects are

794: almost automatic.  To date, all planetary events have them, and they

795: are pronounced in all but OGLE-2005-BLG-071.

796: 

797: Second, due to another selection effect that could hardly have been

798: anticipated, a remarkably high fraction of planetary events have

799: detectable microlens parallax: 2 out of 5.  Four of the 5 events

800: were high-mag (due to selection effects described in 

801: \S~\ref{sec:highmag_events}).

802: These 4 have systematically longer timescales than typical OGLE events.

803: Specifically, they are longer than 79\%, 90\%, 95\%, and 97\% of them,

804: respectively.  And long

805: events display measurable parallaxes much more often, simply because

806: the Earth's motion deviates from a straight line during the event

807: as the square of the Einstein timescale.  Why are planets found

808: preferentially in long events?  One definite reason is that,

809: by definition, long events unfold more slowly, which increases the

810: chance that their high-mag character will be recognized in time

811: to initiate the dense monitoring required to find planets.

812: A second possible reason is that the planets we are finding seem to

813: be orbiting foreground disk stars, rather than bulge stars, and disk-lens

814: events tend to be longer than bulge-lens events.  At this point, we

815: cannot tell which way this selection pressure is working 

816: (i.e., if most planets are in the disk, which would bias us toward the

817: intrinsically longer disk events, or if the long events being better observed

818: is biasing us toward monitoring events caused by disk stars) or even if

819: the effect is real, but it is a possibility to keep in mind.

820: 

821: Whatever the exact cause, two events (OGLE-2006-BLG-109 and OGLE-2005-BLG-071)

822: have measurable parallaxes.  The first of these is quite good,

823: but the second is rather crude: its $\bdv{\pi}_{\rm E}$ 1-$\sigma$

824: error-ellipse axes are $(0.6\times 0.06)$.  See Figure \ref{fig:ob03235}a.

825: Under normal circumstances, 

826: we would not call this a ``measurement'' at all, or rather, we would

827: call it a ``one-dimensional parallax'' and move on.  The origin

828: of such 1-D parallaxes is easily seen from Figure \ref{fig:ob05071}a:

829: the lightcurve is asymmetric, being above the model on the rise and

830: below it on the fall.  This effect is caused by the uniform component 

831: of the Earth's acceleration toward the projected position of the Sun 

832: at the peak of the event,

833: and so very well constrains $\pi_{\rm E,\parallel}$, the component of

834: $\bdv{\pi}_{\rm E}$ in this direction.  Only longer, or much more precisely

835: photometered, events reveal the much subtler effects from motion

836: in the direction perpendicular to the Sun.

837: 

838: While the OGLE-2005-BLG-071 parallax ``information'' is rather

839: ambiguous on its own, it could be transformed in into

840: a genuine microlens parallax if, somehow, the direction of lens-source

841: motion (and so of $\bdv{\pi}_{\rm E}$) could be independently

842: determined.  And

843: this brings us to yet another type of information that is not usually

844: available for normal events: high-resolution post-event imaging.

845: We already saw that the source and lens were separately resolved

846: 6 years after peak for MACHO-LMC-5 (\S~\ref{sec:firstmass}).  That

847: was only possible because the relative proper motion was exceptionally

848: fast and the observers were ready to wait an exceptionally long time.

849: But much smaller source-lens relative displacements can be detected

850: by taking advantage of the fact that the source and lens generally have

851: different colors.  This means that the {\it centroids} of $B$  and $I$

852: light will be displaced from one another as the source and lens separate, long

853: before the two stars are separately resolved.  The amplitude of the centroid

854: displacement is the product of the lens-source displacement and a

855: function of the $B$ and $I$ mags of the two stars.

856: Figure \ref{fig:ob03235}b

857: shows an example of this using post-event {\it HST} images of

858: OGLE-2003-BLG-235/MOA-2003-BLG-53.  In this case, the source-lens

859: displacement was known (from finite-source effects), so the

860: centroid offset yielded the color-function, which was used

861: (together with stellar color-mag relations and the source

862: flux as determined from the microlensing fit) to estimate the

863: lens mass.  However, similar measurements made several years

864: after the peak of OGLE-2005-BLG-071 could be applied to

865: reverse effect.  That is, to the extent that the color-function is

866: known (which it approximately is in this case from {\it HST} images

867: during the event), the centroid displacement would

868: give the lens-source displacement (and so $\mu_{\rm rel}$ and

869: hence $\theta_{\rm E} = \mu_{\rm rel} t_{\rm E}$).  And, more

870: importantly in the present context, {\it whether or not the color function

871: is known}, the centroid color displacement gives the {\it direction}

872: of $\bdv{\mu}_{\rm rel}$, which is the same as the direction of

873: $\bdv{\pi}_{\rm E}$.  Figure \ref{fig:ob03235}a shows the result

874: of a hypothetical future centroid-offset measurement for

875: OGLE-2005-BLG-071.  This offset ``picks out'' a narrow subset

876: of the parallax solutions, transforming the 1-D parallax derived

877: from the lightcurve into a 2-D parallax.

878: 

879: While no such late-time astrometry of OGLE-2005-BLG-071 has yet been 

880: obtained, Subo Dong (in preparation)

881: has made an incredibly detailed investigation of a variety of higher-order

882: effects, including the 1-D parallax just described, constraints on the 

883: proper motion from finite-source effects and from event and post-event 

884: {\it HST} imaging, limits on the presence of third bodies from the

885: lack of lightcurve distortions, and others.  Together these imply

886: that the lens star is probably a high-velocity, low-metallicity

887: (i.e., thick disk) M dwarf, which would be rather unexpected for

888: a planetary host.  Late-time astrometry would confirm (or contradict)

889: these tentative conclusions.

890: 

891: 

892: In brief, by taking advantage of intensive observations during the

893: event, taking carefully chosen high-resolution images during and

894: after the event, combining all available data, and performing

895: systematic cross-checks among them, it is often possible to

896: measure masses and distances accurate to 20\% or better.

897: Even when the only pieces of information are $\theta_{\rm E}$

898: and $t_{\rm E}$, it is still possible to combine these with 

899: priors for the lens and source distances and velocities to

900: derive a statistical estimate of the lens mass.  This was

901: the approach taken for the cold super-Earth

902: OGLE-2005-BLG-390 (\S~\ref{sec:ob05390}) and the cold Neptune

903: and OGLE-2005-BLG-169 (\S~\ref{sec:ob05169}).

904: 

905: \section{Binary Lens Revolution}

906: 

907: MACHO-97-41 was a curious event.  It showed a short, 3-day bump and

908: then seemed to return to normal.  A week later it began rising

909: sharply, briefly spiking to magnification $A=40$  before returning

910: to baseline. See Figure \ref{fig:mb9741}a.  The second bump is

911: easily fit as the central caustic of a close-binary lens (i.e.,

912: with both components inside the Einstein ring).  Such close binaries

913: always have two small outlying caustics in addition to the central

914: caustic, which would seem to explain the first bump.  The trouble

915: was, the predicted position of this small caustic had the wrong

916: distance from the central caustic to account for the timing

917: of the first bump and the wrong angular position to be

918: intersected by the source trajectory 

919: ({\it red} caustic in Fig.~\ref{fig:mb9741}b)  

920: However, both effects are easily explained by ``binary revolution''.

921: To the extent that components move farther apart, the outlying caustic

922: will move closer to the central caustic.  And to the extent that they

923: rotate on the sky, the angular position of the caustic will change

924: ({\it cyan} caustic in Fig.~\ref{fig:mb9741}b).  Hence, the very

925: peculiar geometry of this event permits measurement of the two 

926: instantaneous components of the binary internal motion on the plane

927: of the sky.

928: 

929: \begin{figure}

930: \plottwo{mb9741.lc.eps}{mb9741.caustics.eps}

931: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

932: \caption{\label{fig:mb9741}

933: Binary revolution in MACHO-97-41.

934: Left:  PLANET lightcurve and model \citep{albrow00}.  Two bumps

935: are due to outlying and central caustics of close binary, respectively.

936: ``Wild'' features of model without data points are confirmed by

937: independent data set \citep{bennett99} [not shown].

938: Right:  In static model ({\it red caustics}) trajectory determined

939: from central caustic does not pass through outlying caustic.

940: Rotating model ({\it cyan caustics}) rotates and moves inward

941: the position of the outlying caustic so that it matches data.

942: }

943: \end{figure}

944: 

945: This example immediately raises two important questions.

946: First, how do we know that this very complicated model, which

947: predicts the incredibly elaborate (and largely unobserved)

948: lightcurve seen in Figure \ref{fig:mb9741}a, is actually correct?

949: And second, who (besides microlensing nerds) cares?

950: 

951: As it happens, in this case, two completely independent groups observed

952: this event and the model shown (based only on the data shown)

953: predicts the second data set almost perfectly.  This is a pretty

954: important test of the robustness of microlens models of complex

955: lightcurves with higher order effects.

956: 

957: As to the second question, at least for 10 years the answer was ``no one''.

958: 

959: \subsection{Planetary Lens Revolution}

960: 

961: Despite early predictions that a Jupiter-mass planet would generate

962: 1-day deviations, 3 of the 5 planetary events have had 3--12 day 

963: perturbations.  The fundamental reason for this is that

964: the probability of detecting a planet is proportional to the size of

965: the caustic, so the relatively rare planets that are close to the

966: Einstein ring (and so have large caustics $\propto 1/|b-1|$) have

967: enhanced probability of detection and also proportionately longer

968: planetary perturbations.

969: 

970: The durations of these perturbations are still very short compared to

971: the typical orbital periods (several years), so one would not

972: at first sight expect any noticeable change in the caustic during

973: the perturbation.  But the very fact that the caustic size is

974: $\propto 1/|b-1|$, means that for $b\sim 1$,

975: small changes in $b$ lead to large

976: changes in caustic size.  Similar leverage applies to angular motions.

977: In the case of OGLE-2006-BLG-109, $b=1.04$.  Hence, a change

978: in $b$ of less than 0.5\% during the 8-day interval between the first

979: cusp crossing and the peak, would lead to a 10\% change in the

980: caustic size.  Far from being almost too subtle to measure, this

981: effect was so pronounced that it was initially impossible to fit

982: the first cusp crossing at all, until eventually revolution was

983: included in the fit.

984: 

985: While the two-planet system OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lb,c enabled 

986: the most dramatic measurement of internal planetary motions,

987: OGLE-2005-BLG-071 also shows evidence of revolution, despite

988: its very short, 3-day perturbation.  And, for the reasons

989: just given, we can expect revolution to be measurable in a significant

990: fraction of central-caustic events in the future.

991: 

992: \section{Stellar Atmospheres}

993: 

994: Microlensing has proven to be a powerful tool to study stellar

995: atmospheres in two distinct ways.  First, microlens caustics can

996: resolve the surfaces of stars better than any other technique,

997: with the possible exception of transiting planets.  Second,

998: microlenses can act as a huge magnifying glass to obtain

999: spectra of stars that would be prohibitively expensive to observe under

1000: ordinary circumstances.

1001: 

1002: \subsection{Limb Darkening}

1003: 

1004: \begin{figure}

1005: \plottwo{eb2k05.eps}{ob02069.ps}

1006: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

1007: \caption{\label{fig:ob02069}

1008: Left: Magnification profiles of different stages of a caustic exit.

1009: For example, when the source center

1010: is $\eta=0.75$ source radii outside the caustic,

1011: caustic magnifies the outer 25\% of the source about equally, and

1012: leaves the rest of the source essentially unmagnified.  From \citet{castro01}.

1013: Right: H$\alpha$ profiles of OGLE-2002-BUL-069 when it was just starting

1014: and just finishing its exit (see inset).  The latter shows an

1015: emission bump, probably due to the chromosphere \citep{cassan04}.

1016: }

1017: \end{figure}

1018: 

1019: Figure \ref{fig:ob02069}a shows the magnification due to a caustic

1020: as a source exits a so-called ``fold caustic'' 

1021: (i.e. a square-root singularity). The surface is assumed to be

1022: radially symmetric (no spots).  Consider first 

1023: the ``$\eta=0.75$'' curve, which describes the magnification profile

1024: when the center of the star is 3/4 of the way past the caustic.

1025: Of course, only the outer 25\% of the star is magnified by the

1026: caustic at all.  Figure \ref{fig:ob02069}a shows that all radii are

1027: magnified about equally.  A photometric series from $\eta=0$ to $\eta=1$

1028: would give a set of box-car convolutions with the radial profile,

1029: permitting straightforward deconvolution of the intrinsic profile.

1030: The $\eta<0$ profiles are more complicated, but do add some additional

1031: information.  (Of course, in addition to the caustic magnification,

1032: there is the underlying non-caustic magnification, which must be

1033: taken into account in the process.  But this is smooth and also

1034: straightforward to model.)\ \ The most spectacular application

1035: of this technique was carried out by \citet{fields03} using PLANET

1036: data on EROS-2005-BLG-5, which had a K-giant source.  

1037: This provided by far the most detailed profile of any star except the

1038: Sun and was also the first (non-solar) confrontation of limb-darkening

1039: models with data.  How did the models do?  They look broadly

1040: similar to the data but do not agree in detail.  In particular,

1041: when K-giant profiles are plotted for a range of temperatures

1042: near that of EROS-2005-BLG-5, they share a ``fixed point'' with

1043: each other and also with the observed profile of the Sun.  But

1044: the deconvolved microlensing profile does not share this ``fixed point''.

1045: Hence, the K-giant models appear to extrapolate from some physics

1046: in the Sun that is not actually shared by K giants.

1047: 

1048: So far, no atmosphere modelers have risen to this challenge.

1049: 

1050: \subsection{Chromospheric Spectra}

1051: 

1052: Two groups obtained spectra of EROS-2000-BLG-5 in an effort to

1053: resolve the source surface simultaneously in spatial and spectral

1054: dimensions \citep{castro01,albrow01}.  In particular, \citet{albrow01}

1055: found about 20\% less H$\alpha$ absorption when, based on the

1056: photometric lightcurve, the source had nearly exited the caustic.

1057: \citet{afonso01} argued that too little of the source was under the

1058: caustic to have such a large effect, and the only plausible explanation 

1059: was that the chromosphere (which was strongly magnified during this

1060: observation) has very strong H$\alpha$ {\it emission}.  Unfortunately,

1061: this conjecture could not be tested in this event because the

1062: \citet{albrow01} spectra were low-resolution, rendering impossible

1063: any identification of separate components to the line.

1064: 

1065: However, \citet{cassan04} did obtain a high-resolution spectrum of another 

1066: K giant, OGLE-2002-BUL-069,

1067: just as it was ending its exit from a caustic, as well as a comparison spectrum

1068: when it was just beginning its exit.  See Figure~\ref{fig:ob02069}b.

1069: The second spectrum shows a distinct ``bump'' in the H$\alpha$ trough,

1070: confirming strong chromospheric emission.

1071: 

1072: \subsection{Microlenses as Magnifying Glasses}

1073: 

1074: \citet{minniti98} published spectroscopic observations of 

1075: microlensed bulge source under the provocative title

1076: ``Using Keck I as a 15m Diameter Telescope''.  The idea was that

1077: the source was already magnified by a factor of 2.25, so

1078: these observations were equivalent to using a 15m telescope

1079: at the same exposure time.  Now, events remain magnified by

1080: a factor 2 for a week or two, so with some modest planning one

1081: could arrange to cut down on long exposures considerably this way.

1082: But when planetary microlensers began concentrating on high-mag

1083: events,  much more dramatic improvements became possible.

1084: 

1085: \begin{figure}

1086: \plottwo{ob06265_spect.ps}{ob06265_dist.ps}

1087: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

1088: \caption{\label{fig:ob06265}

1089: Using Keck as a 115m telescope.

1090: Left: 15 minute Keck spectrum of OGLE-2006-BLG-265 when it was

1091: magnified by $A=130$.

1092: Right: Abundance measurements derived by \citet{johnson07}.

1093: The first bulge dwarf with a very high quality spectrum proves

1094: to be one of the most metal-rich bulge stars.  

1095: }

1096: \end{figure}

1097: 

1098: The first example of this occurred in a quite unplanned way.

1099: Avishay Gal-Yam was at Keck when (as a member of $\mu$FUN)

1100: he received a flurry of emails urgently requesting {\it photometric}

1101: observations of OGLE-2006-BLG-265, which eventually reached

1102: magnification $A=230$.  He decided to get a 15 minute spectrum

1103: (at $A=130$, it turned out), thus using Keck as a 115m telescope

1104: on this $I=19.4$ star!

1105: This was by far the best spectrum

1106: of a bulge dwarf to that time.  See Figure \ref{fig:ob06265}a.  

1107: Once again, the initiative of the observer proved crucial.

1108: \citet{johnson07} analyzed this spectrum and found a G-dwarf

1109: with [Fe/H]$=0.55$, one of the most metal rich stars yet observed.

1110: See Figure \ref{fig:ob06265}b.  

1111: 

1112: \begin{figure}

1113: \plottwo{mb06099.eps}{ob07349.ps}

1114: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

1115: \caption{\label{fig:ob07349}

1116: Left: Iron abundances of first two highly-magnified bulge dwarfs ({\it black}),

1117: OGLE-2006-BLG-265 (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ob06265}) and MOA-2006-BLG-099

1118: \citep{johnson08} compared to those of bulge giants (histograms).

1119: A third dwarf, OGLE-2007-BLG-349 \citep{cohen08}, also has [Fe/H]=+0.5,

1120: making the dwarf and giant distributions inconsistent at $4\times 10^{-5}$.

1121: Right: [Mg/Fe] and [Al/Fe] ratios of the three highly magnified dwarfs 

1122: ({\it large symbols}) compared to those of bugle giants \citep{cohen08}.

1123: }

1124: \end{figure}

1125: 

1126: These results inspired a somewhat more systematic effort to

1127: obtain such spectra as part of the ``normal'' frenetic activity

1128: that surrounds high-mag events.  Scott Gaudi obtained another

1129: spectrum a few weeks later of MOA-2006-BLG-099 \citep{johnson08}, and another

1130: substantially higher S/N spectrum of OGLE-2007-BLG-349 was obtained by 

1131: Judy Cohen the next year \citep{cohen08}.  These two dwarfs are also

1132: iron rich, and a KS test (probability $4\times 10^{-5}$)

1133: shows that these metallicities are not drawn from the same distribution

1134: found for giants.  See Figure~\ref{fig:ob07349}.

1135: The most likely explanation is that metal-rich dwarfs

1136: blow off their envelopes before they can become evolved giants, so

1137: giant stars are not representative of the underlying population.

1138: 

1139: 

1140: \section{Coming Full Circle: Domestic Microlensing Event}

1141: 

1142: \citet{einstein36} famously dismissed microlensing in the very paper

1143: he introduced it:  ``Some time ago R.W.\ Mandl paid me a visit

1144: and asked me to publish the results of a little calculation, which

1145: I had made at his request $\ldots$ there is no great chance of

1146: observing this phenomenon.''  In fact, Rudi Mandl, a Czech electrical engineer, 

1147: after perhaps failing to gain Einstein's attention by mail, obtained

1148: ``a small sum of money'' from the Science Service

1149: to come to Princeton to pester Einstein in person.

1150: Einstein already knew, or thought he knew, that microlensing was 

1151: unobservable because he had already worked out the magnification

1152: and cross section in 1912 \citep{renn97}.  Hence, as his private

1153: remarks to the editor of {\it Science} reveal, he was actually

1154: far more dismissive of this idea than even his article indicated:

1155: ``Let me also thank you for your cooperation with the little publication,

1156: which Mister Mandl squeezed out of me.  It is of little value, but

1157: it makes the poor guy happy.''

1158: 

1159: Why was Einstein so down on microlensing?  One reason appears sound.

1160: In 1936, photographic catalogs went to about $V=12$, about the limit

1161: of the Tycho-II catalog.  So there would have been of order

1162: 2 million stars, the giants among which would typically be at about

1163: 2 kpc.  It is straightforward to work out that the optical depth for these

1164: stars is $\tau \sim 10^{-8}$ and that they have an event rate 

1165: $\Gamma\sim 10^{-7}\,\rm yr^{-1}$.  Hence, even if all these stars

1166: were monitored continually with a precision much better than 0.3

1167: mag (a complete impossibility in Einstein's day), there would be

1168: only 1 event every 10 years.

1169: 

1170: In fact,  it is unlikely that Einstein ever did this calculation.

1171: For one thing, he evaluates what we would call the Einstein radius

1172: as ``a few light seconds'', whereas it is more like a few hundred

1173: light seconds, meaning that he was discouraged from doing a detailed

1174: calculation before he got to this stage.  But for another, one

1175: gains the definite impression from his article that he was 

1176: thinking of microlensing as a static, not dynamic phenomenon.  

1177: He says (in our notation) that $u$ ``must be small compared to [unity],

1178: [to produce] an appreciable increase of the apparent brightness'' 

1179: of the source.  This implies that he considered the phenomenon to

1180: be unobservable unless the magnification were very high, much greater

1181: than unity.  Since low amplitude variables were known in Einstein's

1182: day, this must mean that he was not thinking about

1183: {\it microlensing events}, but rather thought that for

1184: a microlensed star to be noticed, it would have to be anomalously

1185: bright (e.g., for its color).  

1186: And recognizing microlensing events by this path would 

1187: indeed be extraordinarily difficult, even today.

1188: It appears that it was \citet{russell37} who thought of the idea

1189: of microlensing {\it events}, albeit in a context rather different

1190: from the ones we observe today.  So, while the term ``Einstein ring''

1191: does reflect the real history of this subject, perhaps it

1192: would have been more appropriate to refer to the ``Russell timescale''.

1193: 

1194: \begin{figure}

1195: %\plottwo{domestic_lc.eps}{domestic_planet.eps}

1196: \plottwo{domestic_lc.eps}{f5p.eps}

1197: %\includegraphics[angle=0,width=3.25in]{cmd.ps}

1198: \caption{\label{fig:domestic}

1199: Domestic Microlensing Event.

1200: Left: Light curve of microlensing event of a nearby $V=11$ A star,

1201: discovered by amateur Akihiko Tago  and monitored on its fall by Joe Patterson's

1202: Center for Backyard Astrophysics.  Grzegorz Pojma\'nski's ASAS all-sky

1203: monitoring, recovered after the event, proved crucial in 

1204: demonstrating that the lightcurve is symmetric, and so is almost certainly

1205: microlensing.

1206: Right: Planet sensitivity of this event assuming that ASAS observations

1207: had been analyzed in time to issue a microlensing alert, thus allowing

1208: the event to be monitored intensively over peak.  Contours vary from

1209: $q=10^{-5}$ ({\it black}) to $q=10^{-3}$ ({\it cyan}).  Planet-star

1210: separation is in units of the Einstein radius.

1211: From \citet{gaudi08b}

1212: }

1213: \end{figure}

1214: 

1215: A recent observation of a ``domestic microlensing event'' calls into question

1216: Einstein's dismissal, even judged on its own terms. And here again,

1217: Bohdan played a role, albeit indirect.

1218: Akihiko Tago, a Japanese

1219: amateur who has been scanning the sky for 40 years for novae and comets,

1220: noticed that a $V=11$ A star had suddenly brightened by 4 magnitudes.

1221: He issued an alert which was picked up by Joe Patterson's 

1222: Center for Backyard Astrophysics (CBA), a network of amateurs and

1223: professionals dedicated to variable phenomena.  After Joe had ruled

1224: out all other explanations, he concluded that  the lightcurve could

1225: only be microlensing and sent the data to Scott Gaudi and me.

1226: I promptly told him it

1227: could not be microlensing for two reasons.  First, by the argument that

1228: Einstein either made, or might have made, such events are too rare.

1229: Indeed the above calculation was for the rate of events with 

1230: impact parameters $u_0<1$, i.e., all source trajectories that cross

1231: any part of the Einstein ring.  However, this event, if it indeed were

1232: microlensing, would have been magnified 40 times and so would have

1233: been 40 times rarer.  But second, even combining the discovery data and

1234: the CBA data, only the falling part of the lightcurve was available.

1235: It is well known that the falling lightcurves of novae and other 

1236: eruptive variables can look like microlensing, but are easily

1237: discriminated by the asymmetry between their rise and fall.

1238: Even if this A star was not some known type of variable, without

1239: a rising lightcurve, it was more likely to be an unknown variable

1240: than microlensing, although lack of Xray emission and 

1241: emission features in the optical spectrum did tend to weigh against

1242: an eruptive variable.

1243: 

1244: Enter Grzegorz Pojma\'nski and his ASAS project, which as he relates

1245: in this volume, was nurtured and encouraged by Bohdan.  ASAS was

1246: already functioning in the south, but had only begun test observations

1247: in the north. When contacted, Pojma\'nski found that ASAS observations

1248: covered both the rise and fall of the event, and indeed one

1249: observation right at peak.  See Figure \ref{fig:domestic}a.

1250: 

1251: These proved two things.  First the event is symmetric and so almost

1252: certainly is microlensing \citep{fukui07,gaudi08b}.  

1253: Second, it could not have been recognized

1254: as microlensing just based on observations (by amateurs or professionals)

1255: that could have been made in Einstein's day.  Automated observations

1256: of large parts of the sky are required.

1257: 

1258: While microlensing events of stars at 1 kpc probably really are quite

1259: rare, relatively nearby events at 4 kpc occur several times per year.

1260: At the end of his life, Bohdan was thinking about next generation

1261: wide-field surveys that could detect these.  If detected and

1262: publicized before peak, such events could open a new avenue of planet

1263: detection.  Figure \ref{fig:domestic}b shows the sensitivity

1264: to planets (including Earth-mass planets {\it black}) of hypothetical 

1265: observations of the event at left, assuming that it had been alerted in time

1266: to densely monitor the peak.

1267: 

1268: \section{Conclusions}

1269: 

1270: The microlensing surveys that began in the 1990s are directly traceable

1271: to Bohdan's influence, inspiring the Magellanic Cloud surveys with

1272: his 1986 article and directly helping to initiate and guide OGLE.

1273: As advocated by \citet{pac86}, these searches began by looking for

1274: dark matter, but Bohdan began immediately to push microlensing in

1275: new directions, particularly planets and Galactic structure.

1276: Two decades later, microlensing has become an incredibly powerful

1277: tool and an incredibly rich subject.

1278: 

1279: 

1280: 

1281: %\subsubsection{}   %%% Lowest level section head (remove "%" symbol)

1282: %\section*{}    %%% Unnumbered top level section head (remove "%" symbol)

1283: %\subsection*{}   %%% Unnumbered second level section head (remove "%" symbol)

1284: 

1285: 

1286: 

1287: \acknowledgements %%% Text of acknowledgements runs on after this command.

1288: I thank Rich Gott for valuable insights into the early history of microlensing,

1289: and Scott Gaudi for a careful review of the manuscript.

1290: This work was supported in part by grant AST-042758 from the NSF.

1291: 

1292: %%% THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

1293: %%%

1294: %%% CONSULT SECTION 3 OF "INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS" FOR HOW TO USE NATBIB.

1295: %%% AUTHORS ARE ENCOURAGED TO USE EITHER THE "THEBIBLIOGRAPY" ENVIRONMENT

1296: %%% BY UNCOMMENTING (DELETING THE "%" SYMBOL) THE COMMANDS BELOW, OR BY

1297: %%% USING THE BIBTEX ENVIRONMENT. TO FIND OUT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO YOUR

1298: %%% CONTRIBUTION, CONSULT THE VOLUME EDITORS FOR YOUR PROCEEDINGS.

1299: %%%

1300: 

1301: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[Afonso et al.(2001)]{afonso01} Afonso, C. et al. 2001, \aap, 378, 1014

1304: 

1305: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(1998)]{albrow98} Albrow,, M. et al. 1998, \apj, 509, 687 

1306: 

1307: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(2000)]{albrow00} Albrow, M. et al. 2000, \apj, 534, 894

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(2001)]{albrow01} Albrow, M. et al. 2001, \apj, 550, L173

1310: 

1311: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1995)]{alcock95} Alcock, C. et al. 1995, \apj, 454, L125

1312: 

1313: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1997)]{alcock97} Alcock, C. et al. 1997, \apj, 491, 436

1314: 

1315: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2000)]{alcock00} Alcock, C. et al. 2000, 

1316: \apj, 552, 582

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2001)]{alcock01}

1319: Alcock, C., et al. 2001, Nature, 414, 617 

1320: 

1321: \bibitem[An et al.(2002)]{an02} An, J.H., et al. 2002, \apj, 572, 521

1322: 

1323: \bibitem[Beaulieu et al.(2006)]{ob05390} Beaulieu, J.-P. et al. 2005,

1324: Nature, 439, 437

1325: 

1326: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(1999)]{bennett99} Bennett, D.P., et al. 1999, 

1327: Nature, 402, 57

1328: 

1329: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(2006)]{bennett06} Bennett, D.P., Anderson, J., 

1330: Bond, I.A., Udalski, A., \& Gould, A. 2006, \apj, 647, L171

1331: 

1332: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2004)]{ob03235} Bond, I.A., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 606, L155

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[Drake et al.(2004)]{drake04} Drake, A.J., Cook, K.H., \& Keller, S.C.

1335: 2004, \apj, 607, L29

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[Cassan et al.(2004)]{cassan04} Cassan, A. et al. 2004, \aap, 419, L1

1338: 

1339: \bibitem[Castro et al.(2001)]{castro01} 

1340: Castro, S.M., Pogge, R.W,. Rich, R.M., DePoy, D.L, \& Gould, A. 2001

1341: \apj, 548 L197

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[Cohen et al.(2008)]{cohen08}Cohen, J.G., Huang, W., Udalski, A.,

1344: Gould, A., Johnson, J. 2008, \apj, submitted arXiv:0801.3264

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[Dong et al.(2006)]{ob04343} Dong, S., et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 842

1347: 

1348: \bibitem[Dong et al.(2007)]{dong07} Dong, S., et al. 2007, \apj, 664, 862

1349: 

1350: \bibitem[Einstein(1936)]{einstein36} Einstein, A. 1936, Science, 84, 506

1351: 

1352: \bibitem[Fields et al.(2003)]{fields03} Fields, D. et al. 2003, \apj, 596, 1305

1353: 

1354: \bibitem[Fukui et al.(2007)]{fukui07} Fukui, A. et al. 2007, \apj, 670,423

1355: 

1356: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2008a)]{gaudi08a} Gaudi, B.S. 2008a, Science, in press

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2008b)]{gaudi08b} Gaudi, B.S. 2008b, \apj, in press,

1359: astroph/0703125

1360: 

1361: \bibitem[Gould(2000)]{gould00} Gould, A.  2000, \apj, 542, 785

1362: 

1363: \bibitem[Gould(2004)]{gould04} Gould, A.  2004, \apj, 606, 319

1364: 

1365: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2004)]{gould04b} Gould, A., Bennett, D.P., \& Alves, D.R. 

1366: 2004, \apj, 614, 404

1367: 

1368: \bibitem[Gould \& Loeb(1992)]{gouldloeb92} 

1369: Gould, A., \& Loeb, A.\ 1992, \apj, 396, 104

1370: 

1371: \bibitem[Gould et al.(1997)]{gould97}Gould, A. Bahcall, J.N., Flynn, C. 1997,

1372: \apj, 482, 913

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[Gould et al.(2006)]{ob05169} Gould, A., et al. 2006, \apj, 644, L37

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[Griest \& Safizadeh(1998)]{griestsafi}

1377: Griest, K.\ \& Safizadeh, N.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 37

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[Holz \& Wald(1996)]{holz96} Holz, D.E. \& Wald, R.M. 1996, 

1380: \apj, 471, 64

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[Jaroszy\'nski \& Paczy\'nski(2002)]{jaro02}

1383: Jaroszy\'nski, M. \& Paczy\'nski, B. 2002, Acta Astron. 2002, 52, 361

1384: 

1385: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2007)]{johnson07} Johnson, J.A., Gal-Yam, A., 

1386: Leonard, D.C., Simon, J.D., Udalski, A., \& Gould, A. 2007, \apj, 655, L33

1387: 

1388: \bibitem[Johnson et al.(2008)]{johnson08} Johnson, J.A., Gaudi, B.S., Sumi, T.,

1389: Bond, I.A. \& Gould, A. 2008, \apj, submitted, arXiv:0801.2159

1390: 

1391: \bibitem[Mao \& Paczy\'nski(1991)]{mao91}Mao, S. \& Paczy\'nski, B.\ 

1392: 1991, \apj, 374, L37

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[Minniti et al.(1998)]{minniti98}Minniti, D., Vandehei, T., Cook, K.H., 

1395: Griest, K., \& Alcock, C. 1998, \apj, 499, L175

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1986)]{pac86}Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1986, \apj, 304, 1

1398: 

1399: \bibitem[Paczy\'nski(1991)]{pac91}Paczy\'nski, B.\ 1991, \apj, 371, L63

1400: 

1401: \bibitem[Poindexter et al.(2005)]{poindexter05} Poindexter, S., et al. 2005,

1402: \apj, 633, 914

1403: 

1404: \bibitem[Rattenbury et al.(2002)]{rattenbury02}

1405: Rattenbury, N. J., Bond, I. A., Skuljan, J., \& Yock, P. C. M. 2002, \mnras,

1406: 

1407: \bibitem[Refsdal(1964)]{refsdal64} Refsdal, S.\ 1964, \mnras, 

1408: 128, 295 

1409: 

1410: \bibitem[Refsdal(1966)]{refsdal66}Refsdal, S. 1966, \mnras, 134, 315

1411: 

1412: \bibitem[Renn et al.(1997)]{renn97}Renn, J., Sauer, T., \& Stachel, J. 

1413: 1997, Science, 275, 184

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[Russell(1937)]{russell37} Russell, H.N. 1937, Scientific American,

1416: 156, 76

1417: %``A Relativistic Eclipse, February''

1418: 

1419: \bibitem[Smith, Mao, \& Paczy\'nski(2003)]{smith03}

1420: Smith, M.C., Mao, S., \& Paczy\'nski, B.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 925

1421: 

1422: \bibitem[Udalski et al.(2005)]{ob05071}

1423: Udalski, A., et al. 2005, \apj, 628, L109

1424: 

1425: \bibitem[Unwin et al.(2007)]{unwin07} Unwin, S.C. et al. 2007, \pasp, in press,

1426: (astroph/0708.3953)

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[Yoo et al.(2004)]{ob03262} Yoo, J., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 603, 139

1429: 

1430: \end{thebibliography}

1431: 

1432: \end{document}

1433: 

1434: %\bibitem[]{}

1435: %\bibitem[]{}

1436: %\bibitem[]{}

1437: %\bibitem[]{}

1438: %\bibitem[]{}

1439: %\bibitem[]{}

1440: %\bibitem[]{}

1441: %\bibitem[]{}

1442: %\bibitem[]{}

1443: %\bibitem[]{}

1444: %\bibitem[]{}

1445: