1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \usepackage{apjfonts}
4: \usepackage{wrapfig}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6:
7: \newcommand{\etal}{\hbox{ et~al.}}
8: \newcommand{\eg}{\hbox{e.g.}}
9:
10: %\input psfig2
11:
12: %\slugcomment{Accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal}
13:
14: \shorttitle{DETECTION OF CHROMATIC MICROLENSING IN Q~2237+0305 A}
15: \shortauthors{MOSQUERA, MU\~{N}OZ $\&$ MEDIAVILLA}
16:
17:
18:
19: \begin{document}
20: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal}
21: %%%%%%%% Title %%%%%%%
22:
23: \title{DETECTION OF CHROMATIC MICROLENSING IN Q~2237+0305 A}
24:
25: %%%%%% Author list %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26:
27: \author{A.M. Mosquera\altaffilmark{1}, J.A. Mu\~noz\altaffilmark{1}, and E. Mediavilla\altaffilmark{2}}
28:
29: %\bigskip
30: \altaffiltext{1}{Departamento de Astronom\'{\i}a y Astrof\'{\i}sica, Universidad
31: de Valencia, E-46100 Burjassot, Valencia, Spain}
32: \altaffiltext{2}{Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna,
33: Tenerife, Spain}
34:
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Abstract %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We present narrowband images of the gravitational lens system Q~2237+0305
39: made with the Nordic Optical Telescope in eight different filters
40: covering the wavelength interval 3510-8130 \AA. Using point-spread function
41: photometry fitting we have derived the difference in magnitude versus wavelength
42: between the four images of Q~2237+0305. At $\lambda=4110$ \AA, the wavelength range
43: covered by the Str\"omgren-v filter coincides with the position and width of the CIV
44: emission line. This allows us to determine the existence of microlensing in the
45: continuum and
46: not in the emission lines for two images of the quasar. Moreover, the brightness of
47: image A shows a significant variation with wavelength which can only be
48: explained as consequence of chromatic microlensing. To perform a
49: complete analysis of this chromatic event our observations were used together
50: with Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment light curves. Both data sets
51: cannot be reproduced by the simple phenomenology
52: described under the caustic crossing approximation; using more realistic
53: representations of microlensing at high optical
54: depth, we found solutions consistent with simple thin disk models
55: ($r_{s}\varpropto \lambda^{4/3}$); however, other accretion disk
56: size-wavelength relationships also lead to good solutions.
57: New chromatic events from the ongoing narrow band photometric monitoring
58: of Q~2237+0305 are needed to accurately constrain the physical properties
59: of the accretion disk for this system.
60:
61:
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{gravitational lensing --- accretion, accretion disks --- quasars: individual (Q~2237+0305)}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68:
69: Gravitational lensing is independent of wavelength (Schneider, Ehlers \& Falco 1992). However, in many
70: gravitationally lensed quasars, differences in color between the images are observed.
71: These chromatic variations could be produced by two effects:
72: differential extinction in the lens galaxy and chromatic microlensing.
73: When each image's light crosses the interstellar medium of the lens galaxy it may be affected in different amounts by patchily
74: distributed dust. This results in differential extinction between pairs of images, and makes
75: possible the determination of the extinction law of the lens galaxy (Nadeau et al. 1991; Falco et al. 1999;
76: Motta et al. 2002; Mu\~noz et al. 2004; Mediavilla et al. 2005;
77: El\'{i}asd\'{o}ttir et al. 2006). The other chromatic phenomenon arises when stars or compact objects in the lens galaxy
78: are nearly aligned with the line of sight between the quasar image and the observer. Due to the relative motion between the
79: quasar, the lens and the observer, the quasar image undergoes a magnification or
80: demagnification known as microlensing (Schneider, Kochanek $\&$ Wambsganss 2006 and references therein).
81: Therefore, fluctuations in the brightness of a quasar image will be a combination of
82: the intrinsic quasar variability and the microlensing
83: from the stars or compact objects in the lens galaxy.
84: The intrinsic variability of the lensed quasar will appear in all images
85: with certain time delay due to the different light travel times. Once this delay is determined, the light curves of the
86: different images can be shifted, and then subtracted. The remaining fluctuations can be assumed to be
87: caused only by microlensing. The microlensing
88: magnification depends on the angular size of the source, in this case on the accretion disk of the quasar. Because the accretion disk is
89: hotter closer to the black hole, and because the emission of the accretion disk depends on temperature, different magnifications
90: may be observed at different wavelengths.
91: This effect is known as chromatic microlensing, and it offers unprecedented perspectives into the
92: physical properties of accretion disks (Wambsganss $\&$ Paczynski 1991). Its detection in a lens system will lead to accurate constraints
93: in the size-wavelength scaling.
94:
95: Different authors have made some attempts to detect chromatic microlensing and use it with different scopes.
96: However, in many cases the detection of chromatic microlensing was rather ambiguous, since
97: in general it is not easy
98: to disentangle this effect from others with similar observational signatures
99: (Wisotzki et al. 1993; Nadeau et
100: al. 1999; Wucknitz et al. 2003; Nakos et al. 2005). The first significant applications
101: of chromatic microlensing
102: appeared in a very recent work of Poindexter et al. (2008). They have used chromatic microlensing in
103: order to determine the size of the accretion disk of HE 1104-1805 as
104: well as its size-wavelength scaling. More recently, Anguita et al. (2008) have
105: also made these kinds of studies
106: in Q~2237+0305. In both cases they found solutions consistent with the simple
107: thin disk model (Shakura $\&$ Sunyaev 1973),
108: but stronger constraints would be needed to accurately determine the size of the accretion disk.
109:
110: In this work, we present a chromatic microlensing detection in one of the
111: images of Q~2237+0305 (Huchra et al. 1985).
112: This lens system has very good properties to study microlensing events.
113: The light coming from a distant quasar
114: at $z_S=1.695$ is deflected by a nearby spiral galaxy
115: ($z_L=0.039$) forming four quasar images nearly symmetrically
116: distributed around the lens center. Since the light passes through
117: the central part of the galaxy, where the microlensing optical depth is very large,
118: high magnification events (HMEs) occur very
119: frequently. Moreover, since the galaxy has a very low redshift, and
120: due to the symmetry in the positions of the images,
121: time delays are expected to be very small ($< 1$ day; Vakulik et al. 2006; Koptelova et al. 2006).
122: Therefore, time delay corrections are not needed to study microlensing in this
123: lens system, and the flux ratio between
124: the images will remove the contribution of the intrinsic quasar variability in the light curves.
125:
126: Specifically, we analyze a particular chromatic microlensing event, and study the physical
127: scenarios in which this effect can
128: be produced. The results obtained in this work are the first step toward obtaining precise
129: constraints in the physical properties of the quasar accretion disk.
130: In \S 2 the observations and the data analysis are presented. The data fitting techniques and different
131: models to describe the observed chromatic microlensing are discussed in \S 3. A summary of
132: the main conclusions
133: appears in \S 4.
134:
135:
136:
137: \section{Observations and Data analysis}
138:
139: On the nights of August 26 and 28 2003, we observed Q~2237+0305 with the 2.56 m Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) located at
140: the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, La Palma (Spain), using the 2048$\times$2048 ALSFOC detector. Its spatial scale is
141: 0.188 arsec/pixel. Seven narrow filters plus the wide I-Bessel were used. The whole set covered the wavelength interval
142: 3510-8130 \AA. Table 1 shows a log of our observations.
143:
144: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
145: \input{tab1.tex}
146: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
147:
148: Among the filters that we used only two were affected by the emission lines of the quasar.
149: The Str\"omgren-u filter
150: was affected by almost 40\% by the Ly$\alpha$ emission line, where the emission lines of the
151: quasar and its nearby continuum were modeled according to the SDSS quasar composite spectrum
152: (Vanden Berk et al. 2001)
153: to perform this estimation. At $\lambda=4110$\AA \ the wavelength range covered by
154: the Str\"omgren-v filter coincides with
155: the position and width of the CIV emission line.
156:
157: The data were reduced using standard procedures with IRAF packages, and PSF
158: photometry fitting was used to derive the difference in magnitude versus wavelength
159: between the four images of Q~2237+0305. The galaxy bulge was
160: modeled with a de Vaucouleurs profile, and the quasar images as point sources.
161: This model was convolved with different PSFs observed simultaneously with the lens
162: system in each of the frames, and compared to the
163: image through $\chi^2$ statistics ( McLeod et al. 1998; Leh\'{a}r et al. 2000).
164: Due to the good seeing conditions (0''.6 in I band), the results of the photometry
165: were excellent even in the bluest filters.
166:
167: Table 2 presents the measurements of the differences in magnitude in each filter.
168: In Figure \ref{fig:curvas2}, we have plotted six magnitude differences versus
169: wavelength (three of which are independent)
170: between the four images of the quasar.
171:
172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
173: \begin{figure}
174: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f1.ps}}
175: \caption{\label{fig:curvas2} Magnitude differences as a function of the observed wavelength
176: for Q~2237+0305 (NOT data). Images A and C show a clear signature of
177: microlensing in the continuum but not in the emission lines. Moreover,
178: the chromatic variation observed in image A could only be explained
179: as a consequence of chromatic microlensing. The wavelength widths covered by the
180: emission lines that affect two of our filters (CIV and Ly$\alpha$) are indicated.}
181: \end{figure}
182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
183:
184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
185: \input{tab2.tex}
186: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
187:
188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
189: \begin{figure*}
190: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=5.0in]{f2.ps}}
191: \caption{\label{fig:ogle_Bdiffs} Magnitude differences between Q~2237+0305 images obtained from OGLE V-band light curves.
192: The dashed line indicates our observation date, and the solid lines limit the selected time interval in which the study was performed.}
193: \end{figure*}
194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
195:
196: The difference in magnitude between B and D does not show any chromatic variation, and it is reasonable to
197: suppose that neither B nor D is undergoing flux variations with wavelength. The differences
198: $m_B-m_C$, and $m_D-m_C$, show that both curves have the same trend, and this implies that the magnitude
199: of image C varies with wavelength (consistent with our hypothesis that neither
200: image B nor D suffers of chromaticity). In these curves it is also observed that there is no
201: magnitude variation
202: with the wavelength in the region between 4670 \AA \ and 8130 \AA, but at the wavelengths
203: corresponding to
204: the Str\"omgren-v and Str\"omgren-u filters, which are the only ones affected by emission lines,
205: we observed a deviation
206: from the trend. As we stated above the Str\"omgren-u filter was affected by almost 40\% by
207: the Ly$\alpha$ emission line,
208: and at $\lambda=4110$ \AA, the wavelength range covered by the Str\"omgren-v filter coincides
209: with the position
210: and width of the CIV emission line. Then, the dependence of $m_B-m_C$ or $m_D-m_C$ with
211: wavelength observed under
212: our filter set configuration is the observational signature expected for image C being
213: affected by microlensing in the
214: continuum but not in the emission lines. The fact that microlensing is absent in the
215: emission lines confirms the
216: relatively large size of the broad-line region (BLR) in Q~2237+0305 according to the
217: existing relation between the size of the
218: BLR and the intrinsic luminosity of the quasar (Kaspi et al. 2000, Abajas et al. 2002).
219:
220: Finally, we analyzed the differences between image A and the other ones. Again, as the trend of
221: the curves is the same
222: for each difference, we conclude that A is the image which undergoes flux variations.
223: As the points corresponding to
224: Str\"omgren-v and Str\"omgren-u filters deviate from the respective trend, we can
225: conclude again that image A is undergoing
226: microlensing in the continuum but not in the emission lines. An even more interesting
227: result appears from analyzing
228: the points corresponding to the continuum, where image A shows a significant variation
229: with wavelength. In principle, this
230: effect could be produced by extinction and/or chromatic microlensing. But as image
231: A is the one undergoing the flux
232: variation, if it were due to extinction the slope of the curve should be negative,
233: and not positive as it is observed in the plot.
234: Therefore, we have strong evidence of chromatic microlensing in image A.
235:
236: Since we have observations
237: of only two consecutive nights in that period, to know what was the
238: signature of the microlensing in the system, we used
239: the public Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment(OGLE)
240: \footnote{\label{oglelink} http://bulge.princeton.edu/$\sim$ogle/} data
241: (Wo\'zniak et al. 2000). Since 1999 January
242: OGLE has been monitoring Q~2237+0305 in the V-band. In Figure \ref{fig:ogle_Bdiffs},
243: three independent magnitude differences
244: between the quasar images obtained from their data are plotted. In the time
245: interval between HJD 2452764 and HJD 2453145 (indicated
246: in Figure \ref{fig:ogle_Bdiffs} between solid lines) the differences ($m_B-m_C$)
247: and ($m_B-m_D$) are almost constant.
248: This would imply that the flux variations of the images B, C, and D are caused mainly by intrinsic
249: variability of the quasar, which agrees with our previous hypothesis that neither B, C nor
250: D is undergoing chromaticity originated by an HME. The fact that in our observations
251: we have detected (nonchromatic)
252: microlensing in image C is also in agreement with OGLE data, since a constant
253: micro-magnification value during this
254: period justifies both observations. Therefore, the brightness fluctuations
255: ($\sim 0.3$ mag) observed in the difference ($m_B-m_A$)
256: can be assumed to be due only to microlensing-induced variability in image A.
257: In other words, from Figure \ref{fig:ogle_Bdiffs} we
258: can say that image A was in fact undergoing an HME on the dates of our observations which
259: correspond to HJD 2452878.5 and 2452880.5.
260:
261: Summarizing we can say that, based on the 2003 NOT observations, images C and A are undergoing
262: microlensing in the continuum but not in the emission lines, and that
263: image A is also affected by chromatic microlensing. In the next section this unambiguous detection of
264: chromatic microlensing is used, along with the OGLE data from HJD 2452764 to
265: HJD 2453145, to explore the phenomenology
266: of the detected microlensing event and to study the physical properties of the accretion disk.
267:
268:
269: \section {Data fitting}
270:
271: \subsection{Chromatic microlensing and caustic crossing approximation}
272:
273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
274: \begin{figure}
275: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f3.ps}}
276: \caption{\label{fig:mic_chrom} Typical observable effects of chromatic microlensing. The amplitude
277: of the microlensing is different at different wavelengths due to the expected dependence of the
278: accretion disk size with wavelength. In addition, the maximum magnification is reached at a different
279: instant with a time delay $\Delta t_{max}$ (see the text).}
280: \end{figure}
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282:
283:
284: To review some basic aspects of chromatic microlensing we will start recalling the
285: simplest model for microlensing, the caustic crossing approximation. Taking a Cartesian coordinate
286: frame in which the caustic lies along the $y$-axis, the magnification
287: at a distance $x$ is proportional to the well-known expression $ 1+\beta\ H(x)/\sqrt{x}$ \
288: (Schneider $\&$ Weiss 1987).
289: Here $H$ represents the Heaviside step function, and $\beta$ measures the caustic strength.
290: Assume a brightness
291: profile for the quasar accretion disk given by
292: %
293: \begin{equation}\label{gauss_I}
294: I(r)=\frac {I_{0}}{2 \pi r_s^2} \Psi(r/r_s),
295: \end{equation}
296: %
297: where $r_{s}$ represents a typical size scale of the quasar accretion disk;
298: provided a global factor (or a global constant in magnitudes) containing the magnification
299: background, the magnification of the
300: quasar accretion disk is
301: %
302: \begin{equation}\label{amplification}
303: \mu \sim 1+\frac{\beta} {\sqrt{r_{s}}} \ \phi(\xi),
304: \end{equation}
305: %
306: where $\xi \equiv \frac{x_{0}}{r_{s}}$ is the distance between the center of the disk and
307: the caustic, $x_{0}$, in units of
308: the scale radius $r_s$, and it can take negative or positive values to distinguish both
309: sides of the caustic.
310: Analytical expressions
311: can be straightforwardly obtained for several accretion disk models, {\it e.g.},
312: Gaussian
313: \footnote{$\Psi(r/r_s)=e^{-\frac{r^2}{2r^2_s}}\rightarrow \phi(\xi)= 2^{-3/2} \,
314: \pi ^{1/2} \, e^{-\xi^2/4} \,|\xi|^{1/2}
315: \left[I_{-\frac{1}{4}}(\frac{\xi^2}{4}) \, +\, \frac{\xi}{|\xi|} \,
316: I_{\frac{1}{4}}(\frac{\xi^2}{4} )\right]$ where $I$
317: is the modified Bessel function of the first kind.}
318: (Schneider $\&$ Weiss 1987) or power
319: laws (Shalyapin 2001). If a constant
320: relative source plane velocity is considered between the disk and the caustic,
321: then $x_{0}=v \ (t-t_{0})$,
322: where $t_{0}$ is the instant of time at which the center of the disk is located at the caustic
323: position. Therefore we can see that an HME due to a single caustic
324: crossing is, in addition to the crossing time $t_{0}$, a function of only two parameters:
325: $\beta'\equiv \beta/\sqrt{r_{s}}$ and $r'_s \equiv r_{s}/v$. Due to
326: this degeneracy, the disk size $r_{s}$ and the velocity $v$ cannot be determined independently but
327: only the ratio $r_{s}/v$.
328:
329: Figure \ref{fig:mic_chrom} shows the typical observable effects of chromatic microlensing.
330: Because the size of the accretion disk is expected to change with wavelength, the amplitudes of the
331: HME events observed at different wavelengths are different. The maximum magnification, in magnitudes, relative to the
332: local average microlensing magnification background (see Figure \ref{fig:mic_chrom}) will be
333: %
334: \begin{equation}\label{deltam0}
335: \Delta m_{max}=-2.5\ \mathrm{Log} \left[1+\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{r_{s}}}\ \phi(\xi_{max})\right].
336: \end{equation}
337: %
338: The value of $ \phi(\xi_{max})$ depends on the brightness profile model. For instance,
339: for a Gaussian model $ \phi(\xi_{max}\simeq 0.765)\simeq 1.021$. Hence, given a brightness profile model, the observable
340: $\Delta m_{max}$ provides a direct estimation of the dimensionless parameter $\beta/\sqrt{r_s}$.
341:
342: If an HME is monitored at two different wavelengths, then using equation (\ref{deltam0}) the ratio
343: between the different corresponding sizes is
344: %
345: \begin{equation}\label{sratio}
346: \frac{r^1_{s}}{r^2_{s}}= \left[\frac{10 ^{-\Delta m^2_{max}/2.5}-1}{10 ^{-\Delta m^1_{max}/2.5}-1}\right]^{2}
347: \end{equation}
348: %
349: and it is very remarkable that, provided that equation (\ref{amplification}) is satisfied, this expression
350: is independent of the brightness profile of the accretion disk. As an example we can use the
351: recent results obtained by Anguita et al. (2008), where they analyzed another HME observed in the
352: 1999 OGLE campaign. From Figure 2 in their
353: paper it is possible to estimate that $\Delta m^g_{max} \sim -0.8$ (see also OGLE $^{\ref{oglelink}}$
354: data for a better sampling)
355: and $\Delta m^r_{max} \sim -0.57$. Therefore, applying equation (\ref{sratio})
356: {\bf $r^r_s/r^g_s \sim2.5$}. This value is slightly different from the ratio obtained in their paper where they use
357: a magnification pattern instead of a caustic crossing.
358:
359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
360: \begin{figure}
361: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f4.ps}}
362: \caption{\label{fig:ogle} OGLE V-band ($m_B-m_A$) data. The best fit using
363: a simple double-caustic crossing approximation and a Gaussian brightness profile is shown. The dashed line
364: indicates our observation date.}
365: \end{figure}
366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
367:
368: Another interesting property is obtained with the observable $\Delta t_{max}$, {\it i.e.},
369: the difference in time to
370: reach the maximum magnification for each source size (see Figure \ref{fig:mic_chrom}).
371: It is straightforward to obtain
372: %
373: \begin{equation}
374: \Delta t_{max}=\xi_{max} \ r'^{1}_{s} \left[1-\frac{r^2_{s}}{r^1_{s}}\right].
375: \end{equation}
376: %
377: Although it depends on the quasar disk model, it allows us to determine directly the
378: size-velocity ratio. Unfortunately the light curve shown in Figure 2 of Anguita et al. (2008) has not
379: the temporal sampling to accurately estimate $\Delta t_{max}$, but assuming a value $\sim 10$ days we would find
380: the order of magnitude for $r'^g_s \equiv r^g_{s}/v \sim 20$ day$^{-1}$.
381:
382: \subsection{Double-caustic crossing approximation}
383:
384: We start using the simple model of the caustic crossing approximation with the aim of
385: finding a simultaneous fit of
386: the difference $(m_B-m_A)$ obtained from the OGLE V-band light curves
387: (over the temporal range from HJD 2452764 to HJD 2453145) (Figure \ref{fig:ogle}) and our
388: chromatic observation. As explained before, in this case, the fluctuations in
389: $(m_B-m_A)$ correspond only to microlensing-induced variability in image A. Because of the
390: shape of the data we assumed that the image A of the quasar is undergoing a double-caustic crossing event,
391: and we considered a Gaussian brightness profile\footnote{ Other
392: brightness profiles were also used,
393: as the thin accretion-disk approximation ({\it e.g.} Kochanek 2004), or power laws ({\it e.g.}
394: Shalyapin et al. 2002), but the differences in the results produced by these other
395: profiles are not significant.}
396: for
397: the accretion disk $I(r)=\frac{I_{0}}{2\pi r_{s}^{2}} \exp \left[-r^{2}/2r^{2}_{s}\right]$.
398: The main parameters involved in our fitting are:
399: the ratio between $r_{s}$ and the relative caustic-disk
400: source plane velocity, $r_{s}'=r_{s} / v$,
401: the dimensionless caustic stretch divided by $\sqrt{r_{s}}$, $\beta_{i=1,2}'$, the time
402: corresponding to each caustic crossing, $t_{i=1,2}$,
403: and the relative microlensing magnification background between each side of the caustics,
404: where the subindex $i=1,2$ refers to
405: each of the caustics.
406:
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: \begin{figure}
409: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f5.ps}}
410: \caption{\label{fig:idl} Image A ``chromatic map''. $\Delta M_{V}$
411: represents the microlensing magnification in the V-band,
412: and $\Delta M_{V-I}$ is the difference in magnitude $m_{V}-m_{I}$
413: due to chromatic microlensing. The open square corresponds to
414: the observed values. The different grayscales in the map
415: correspond to different values of the probability of occurrence.}
416: \end{figure}
417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
418:
419: The estimation of the model parameters was carried out with a $\chi^2$ minimization
420: fitting method. Due to the scatter of the OGLE data, the points were binned to have only
421: one point per day, which value corresponds to the averaged binned points, and which associated error corresponds
422: to the dispersion calculated in each day. Because the first caustic crossing event is not completely sampled, the
423: parameters associated with it cannot be determined; however the ones associated with the second caustic can be bounded
424: ($\beta_2=0.3\pm0.1 $, $t_2=3008\pm12$). Figure \ref{fig:ogle} shows the best fit that corresponds to $\chi^2/N_{f}=0.22$,
425: where $N_{f}$ is the number of degrees of freedom.
426:
427: Although this simple model produces a good light curve fitting for the OGLE data, it cannot
428: reproduce the observed chromatic effect. Taking as reference the filters
429: Str\"{o}mgren-y\footnote{The central wavelengths of the Str-y and V-band filters almost
430: coincide. Therefore hereafter we will
431: consider Str-y and V-band filters as equivalents to simplify the comparisons between our data set
432: and that obtained by OGLE.} and I-band,
433: we observe a chromaticity
434: $(m^V_{A}-m^I_{A})= -0.24\pm 0.05$ mag . However, assuming a radius-wavelength scaling that goes as $r_{s}\varpropto \lambda^{4/3}$ (thin-disk
435: model), the chromaticity that can be produced by this double-caustic approximation model on
436: the day of our observation (HJD 2452879.5)
437: is $\sim -0.01$ mag, and a maximum chromaticity of $\sim -0.25$ mag is only achieved for an
438: unrealistic ratio $r^I_{s}/r^V_{s} \gtrsim 10^2$.
439: The limitation of the caustic crossing approximation in reproducing
440: the observed chromatic microlensing magnification is due to the fact that the induced chromaticity is
441: only a function of the caustic stretch $\beta/\sqrt{r_s}$, and it is
442: independent of the microamplification background. However, as we will see in the next subsection,
443: this is not the case in a more realistic scenario.
444:
445: This is a good example which confirms, as stated by Kochanek (2004), that
446: due to the high microlensing optical
447: depth of Q~2237+0305 it is unlikely that the system undergoes a ``clean''
448: caustic crossing. In this sense the model
449: that we used here is too simple to approach the real behavior of the system.
450: The appropriate way to find a solution is to
451: consider a more realistic physical scenario, {\it i.e.}, a magnification pattern is
452: needed to describe the observational signatures in this case.
453:
454:
455: \subsection {Modeling microlensing from magnification maps}
456:
457:
458: Magnification maps for images A and B would be needed to find trajectories that reproduce
459: ($m_B-m_A$) V-band OGLE difference during the period of interest. As stated before, in the time interval
460: between HJD 2452764 and HJD 2453145, the brightness fluctuations observed in $(m_B-m_A)$ are due only
461: to microlensing in image A, since image B is mainly affected by intrinsic variability of the quasar.
462: Therefore, the behavior of image B can be represented with a constant magnification value,
463: and magnification patterns for this image are not needed. Its contribution to the $(m_B-m_A)$ magnitude
464: difference, as well as any extinction correction or uncertainties in the macromodels will be included in
465: a constant parameter, $m_0$, that will shift image A microlensing fluctuations.
466:
467: We have built magnification patterns for image A using the inverse ray shooting technique
468: (Wambsganss 1990, 1999) and the inverse polygon mapping (Mediavilla et al. 2006). It
469: was assumed that all the mass
470: responsible for microlensing is in compact objects of 1 $M_{\odot}$, and the values for the
471: convergence of $\kappa=0.36$ and for the
472: shear of $\gamma=0.4$ (Schmidt et al. 1998) were
473: considered. The map dimensions are of $4096 \times 4096$ pixels which correspond to physical dimensions
474: of $20 \ r_{E} \times 20 \ r_{E}$. Therefore the magnification pattern has a resolution of $0.005$ $r_{E}/$pixel.
475:
476: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
477: \begin{figure}
478: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f6.ps}}
479: \caption{\label{fig:bimodal} Histogram of the number of tracks, $N_T$, that
480: reproduce OGLE V-band data as
481: well as the chromatic data set, as a function of the magnification
482: ratio between images A and B, $m_0$.}
483: \end{figure}
484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
485:
486: With the aim of evaluating the likelihood of reproducing the microlensing and chromatic microlensing magnifications we
487: observed, a ``chromatic map'' for image A was built (Figure \ref{fig:idl}). To each point in the map with
488: coordinates ($\Delta M_{V}$, $\Delta M_{V-I}$), corresponds a value of the probability of occurrence. Here
489: $\Delta M_{V}\equiv -2.5 \log \mu_V$ represents the microlensing magnification in V-band, and $\Delta M_{V-I}$ is the difference in magnitude $m_{V}-m_{I}$
490: due to the disk size-wavelength dependence (i.e. chromatic microlensing). To compute those magnitude differences, since
491: we are considering an extended object, the pattern was convolved with the brightness distribution
492: of the source and, as before, we assumed a Gaussian profile. At $\lambda = 5430$ \AA
493: \ (V-band) a Gaussian width of $r_{s}=0.03 \ r_{E}$ ($\sim 1.5$ light days) was adopted which corresponds to
494: the average value found by Kochanek (2004). At $\lambda = 8130$ \AA \ (I-band), assuming that the accretion disk
495: has a size-wavelength dependence that goes as $r_{s}\varpropto \lambda^{4/3}$ (thin-disk model), the pattern was convolved
496: with a Gaussian width of $r_{s}=0.05 \ r_{E}$ ($\sim 3$ light days).
497:
498: Once the quantities $\Delta M_{V}$ and $\Delta M_{V-I}$ were evaluated at each pixel
499: in the V-band convolved pattern
500: and in the V-I difference pattern respectively, the probability of occurrence was calculated, and its distribution is
501: represented in Figure \ref{fig:idl}.
502:
503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
504: \begin{figure*}
505: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5in]{f7.ps}}
506: \caption{\label{fig:chrom} In the top panel, the best OGLE light curve fitting
507: (dashed line; $\chi^2=10$) is shown together with the fitting that also reproduces
508: the chromaticity ($\chi^2=13$; solid line). In the lower panel the
509: chromatic effects produced along each trajectory are compared, where the
510: filled square represents the observed chromaticity.}
511: \end{figure*}
512: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
513:
514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
515: \begin{figure*}
516: \begin{minipage}{8.cm}
517: %\vspace{0.5 cm}
518: %\begin{center}
519: \hfill
520: \includegraphics[width=5.cm]{f8a.ps}
521: %\end{center}
522: \end {minipage}
523: %\hfill
524: \begin{minipage}{5.cm}
525: %\begin{center}
526: \includegraphics[width=5.cm]{f8b.ps}
527: %\end{center}
528: \end{minipage}
529: \hfill
530: \caption{\label{fig:pattern} {\it Left}: Trajectory that best fits the OGLE data, but which does not reproduce the
531: observed chromaticity. {\it Right}: Trajectory that best reproduces both data sets. Both sections of the magnification pattern
532: have a physical size of $2.9 \ r_E \times 2.9 \ r_E$.}
533: \end{figure*}
534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
535:
536: As far as the baseline for no microlensing ({\it i.e.}, the magnification ratio
537: between the images in the absence of microlensing) is unknown; the true value of $\Delta M_{V}$
538: is unknown. However, our observations in the filters Str-u and Str-v which are affected by the
539: emission lines
540: would allow us, in principle, to estimate separately the true magnification ratio
541: between the images, and the microlensing. This is because the observed flux
542: for the image $i$ is given by $F_{i}= \mu^{macro}_i(\mu^{micro}_{i}F_{c} + F_{l})$, where the
543: subindex $c$ refers to the
544: continuum and $l$ to the emission lines, {\it i.e.}, the microlensing is affecting the continuum but not
545: the emission lines. In practice this calculation is complicated to
546: do because a model for the continuum and the emission lines have to be assumed, and also because
547: small variations in the measured magnitudes introduce large
548: uncertainties in both factors ($\mu^{macro}_i$ and $\mu^{micro}_i$). For instance,
549: these large uncertainties
550: do not allow the determination of the microlensing in image C. For image A,
551: using our measurement in the Str-u filter and modeling the Ly${\alpha}$ emission
552: line and its nearby continuum according to
553: the SDSS quasar composite spectrum (Vanden Berk et al. 2001),
554: we estimate a flux ratio $F_B/F_A\sim F_D/F_A\sim 0.6\pm 0.2$ and a microlensing
555: magnification of $\mu_V \sim -1.2\pm 0.4$ mag.
556: These flux ratios are in agreement with those found by Wayth et al. (2005).
557: Moreover a similar macroamplification for the four images
558: would be a reasonable scenario for a macrolens model describing the large symmetry
559: observed in the four image positions,
560: but it would imply that the anomalous brightness of the image A is produced
561: by a large microamplification background.
562:
563:
564: We found that given a microlensing magnification of $\mu_V = -1.2 \pm 0.4 $ mag for image A,
565: the probability of observing a chromatic microlensing magnification $m^V_A - m^I_A = -0.24 \pm 0.05$ mag is of $\sim 4 \%$.
566: Even though this value is not very high, the probability of finding a solution is now different from zero.
567: That is, the modeling of microlensing
568: chromaticity from microlensing magnification maps leads to a
569: phenomenology (richer than that associated with the caustic crossing
570: approximation) that includes the observed data.
571: The square in the ``chromatic map''(Figure \ref{fig:idl}) corresponds to these values. The probability increases if, instead of using the $r_s \varpropto \lambda^{4/3}$
572: law, greater values of $r^I_s/r^V_s$ are considered, reaching a maximum
573: value of $\simeq 27 \%$ for $r^I_s/r^V_s\simeq 3.9$.
574:
575: The microamplification estimation of $\mu_V = -1.2 \pm 0.4$ mag could be affected by large uncertainties;
576: for instance a real source
577: spectrum with deviations from the Gaussian approximation of the emission line
578: profile (Vanden Berk al. 2001), or dust in the lens galaxy,
579: would lead to different flux ratios between the images and microamplification values, and therefore it must be only considered as a tentative estimation.
580: A spectroscopic monitoring of the system would be needed to clarify the true magnification ratios and microlensing for the images.
581:
582: To complete our study we explore the possibilities of jointly reproducing the $m_B-m_A$ V-band OGLE data
583: and our observations. In the first place, we fit the OGLE data using the
584: V-band convolved pattern, where $2\times 10^{6}$
585: random trajectories were traced, and compared with the OGLE difference $m_B-m_A$
586: through a $\chi^{2}$ statistics. The source plane velocity,
587: and the macromagnified image difference were varied in the ranges 0.0015$ \ r_E$ HJD$^{-1} < v< 0.0065 \ r_E$ HJD$^{-1}$,
588: and -1.08 mag $< m_0< $ 2.59 mag respectively. The wide range of the covered source plane
589: velocities includes already
590: existing limits (Kochanek 2004), and the bounds set for the macromagnified image
591: difference were chosen according
592: to covering a large range of microlensing magnifications (from $-2.48$ mag to $1.19$ mag ).
593: From a total of $7.16\times 10^{10}$
594: simulated trajectories we have found $2711,493$ tracks with $\chi^{2}/N_{f}< 1$
595: (where $N_f =57$) which satisfactorily fit the OGLE data.
596:
597: The next step is to determine in how many of those tracks the observed chromaticity
598: ($m^V_{A}-m^I_{A}=-0.245\pm 0.05$)
599: is reproduced. We found that 6443 of the tracks which reproduce OGLE data also reproduce,
600: at the $1 - \sigma$ level, our
601: chromatic observation. The probability distribution of $m_0$ considering those trajectories
602: is bimodal (Figure \ref{fig:bimodal}), with
603: peaks located at $m_0 \sim 0.1$ and $m_0 \sim 0.9$, which corresponds to microlensing
604: magnification values of
605: $\mu_V \sim -1.4$ and $\mu_V \sim -0.6$ respectively. Solutions are found in all the velocity
606: range selected above with the
607: number of tracks increasing when the velocity decreases. The best fit is obtained with
608: $v_0=0.003\ r_E$ HJD$^{-1}$ and $m_0=0.87$ mag
609: which implies $\mu_V=-0.62$ mag. In Figure \ref{fig:chrom} (top panel) the OGLE
610: fit using these parameters is shown (solid line; $\chi^2=13$), and compared with the best
611: OGLE data fitting which does not reproduce
612: the chromaticity (dashed line; $\chi^2=10$).
613: The chromatic behavior along each of these tracks is compared in Figure \ref{fig:chrom}
614: (bottom panel). As shown in Figure \ref{fig:pattern},
615: both trajectories are located in a complex caustic configuration.
616:
617: Therefore we have found models that describe both data sets under a thin disk model
618: profile. Finally to compensate for our lack
619: of a temporal sampling we use the good resolution in wavelength of our observations
620: to check the reliability of the
621: thin-disk model. Considering that the size-wavelength scaling goes as
622: $r_{s}\varpropto \lambda^{4/3}$, we have convolved
623: the image A magnification pattern with Gaussian profiles of different
624: $r_s$ corresponding to each of our filters.
625: For the track that best fits the data sets, the chromatic microlensing magnification was computed
626: for the day of our observation in each filter. The values predicted by
627: this model are in perfect agreement with the
628: observed ones that correspond to filters not affected by emission lines
629: (see Figure \ref{fig:convolved}, solid line). This does not prove that
630: the $r_{s}\varpropto \lambda^{4/3}$ law is the best model fitting the
631: data however, it is remarkable, that such a model is fully consistent
632: with our observations.
633:
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
635: \begin{figure}
636: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.5in]{f9.ps}}
637: \caption{\label{fig:convolved} Magnitude difference between the images A and B of Q~2237+030 as a function of wavelength.
638: The filled squares represent the observed values that are not affected by emission lines, while the
639: empty squares are associated with the two filters contaminated by emission lines. The solid line connects the
640: values obtained for the date of our observation considering the track that best fits both
641: data sets. These values were calculated by convolving image A pattern with different
642: source sizes corresponding to each of the filters we used, and we assumed an
643: accretion disk size-wavelength scaling that goes as
644: $r_{s}\sim \lambda^{4/3}$. For comparison, we plot (dashed line) a local fit to the data modeling the chromatic
645: microamplification as a power law ($\mu(\lambda)\sim \lambda^{-0.44}$).}
646: \end{figure}
647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
648:
649: Needless to say, other accretion disk size-wavelength relationships will also lead to good solutions of both data
650: sets. In fact, bigger $r^I_s/r^V_s$ ratios produce a larger number of tracks that describe the
651: observed chromaticity and microlensing magnifications correctly. Therefore we show that our observations are
652: compatible with a thin-disk model, although laws with larger $r^I_s/r^V_s$ ratios would have higher
653: probability because they require small microlensing backgrounds. In any case a single chromatic event does not
654: allow us to constrain enough the variation
655: of the source size with wavelength, what can only be done with several chromatic microlensing detections at different epochs,
656: and performing a global fit to the data. For this reason we are developing an ongoing project where Q~2237+0305 is monitored with the same filter set
657: used in this work.
658:
659:
660:
661: \section{Conclusions}
662:
663: Using excellent quality ground-based data (narrowband photometry
664: taken with the NOT at a single epoch) we have detected microlensing in
665: the continuum but not in the emission lines in two images of
666: Q~2237+0305 (A and C). This detection confirms that in luminous
667: quasars such as Q~2237+0305 the BLR is large enough to escape global
668: microlensing magnification. The data unambiguously indicate that the
669: microlensing undergoing by image A is chromatic. This is an
670: interesting detection, since this phenomenology is a fundamental tool to
671: understand the structure of quasar accretion disks.
672:
673: Using our data set together with the OGLE data, we have
674: explored different physical scenarios in which both data sets can be
675: fitted. The observations cannot be reproduced by the simple
676: phenomenology described under the caustic crossing approximation.
677: Modeling microlensing from magnification patterns and considering a
678: Gaussian brightness profile for the accretion disk we found solutions
679: compatible with a simple thin-disk model. The best solution matches
680: remarkably well the variation of microlensing magnification with
681: wavelength according to the $r_{s}\varpropto \lambda^{4/3}$ law.
682:
683: However, the low probability of the solutions leads us to think that the
684: considered microlensing/quasar models could not be enough complete or
685: realistic to describe the phenomenology of chromaticity. In fact we
686: have seen that the probability of the solutions increases for laws
687: with larger $r^I_s/r^V_s$ ratios than the $4/3$ law.
688: The single chromatic event detected in Q~2237+0305 looks insufficient to
689: explore more complex microlensing scenarios. Additional chromatic
690: detections (expected from our ongoing narrowband monitoring of
691: Q~2237+0305) are needed to obtain an accurate constraint in the size-wavelength
692: relation of the accretion disk for this lens system.
693:
694:
695: %\bigskip
696:
697: \acknowledgments
698: We thank E. E. Falco and R. Gil-Merino for discussions on microlensing magnification models and quasar structure.
699: We also would like to thank the anonymous referee for very valuable comments on the manuscript.
700: This research was supported by the European Community's Sixth Framework Marie Curie
701: Research Training Network Programme, Contract No. MRTN-CT-2004-505183 ``ANGLES'', and by the Spanish Ministerio
702: de Educaci\'{o}n y Ciencias (grants AYA2004-08243-C03-01/03 and AYA2007-67342-C03-01/03).
703:
704:
705: %%% REFERENCES %%%%%
706:
707: \begin{thebibliography}{}
708:
709: \bibitem[Abajas et al.(2002)]{abajas02}
710: Abajas, C., Mediavilla, E., Mu\~noz, J. A., Popovi\'c, L. C., $\&$ Oscoz, A. 2002, \apj, 576, 640
711:
712: \bibitem[Anguita et al.(2008)]{timo2008}
713: Anguita, T., Schmidt, R. W., Turner, E. L., Wambsganss, J., Webster, R. L., Loomis, K. A., Long, D., $\&$ McMillan, R.
714: 2008, \aap, 480, 327
715:
716: \bibitem[Elíasdóttir et al. (2006)]{Ardis06}
717: El\'{i}asd\'{o}ttir, \'{A}., Hjorth, J., Toft, S., Burud, I., $\&$ Paraficz, D. 2006, \apjs, 166, 443
718:
719: \bibitem[Falco et al.(1999)]{falco99}
720: Falco, E. E., et al. 1999, \apj, 523, 617
721:
722: \bibitem[Huchra et al. 1985]{Huchra85}
723: Huchra, J., Gorenstein, M., Kent, S., Shapiro, I., Smith, G.; Horine, E., $\&$ Perley, R. 1985, \aj, 90, 691
724:
725: \bibitem[Kaspi et al. 2000]{Kaspi00}
726: Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T.,$\&$ Giveon, U. 2000, \apj, 533, 631
727:
728: \bibitem[Kochanek 2004]{Koch20004}
729: Kochanek, C. S. 2004, \apj, 605, 58
730:
731: \bibitem[Koptelova et al. 2006]{koptelova06}
732: Koptelova, E. A., Oknyanskij, V. L., $\&$ Shimanovskaya, E. V. 2006, \aap, 452, 37
733:
734: \bibitem[Leh\'ar et al. 2000]{lehar2000}
735: Leh\'ar, J., et al. 2000, \apj, 536, 584
736:
737: \bibitem[McLeod et al. 1998]{mcleod98}
738: McLeod, B. A., Bernstein, G. M., Rieke, M. J., $\&$ Weedman, D. W. 1998, \aj , 115, 1377
739:
740: \bibitem[Mediavilla et al. 2005]{evencio2005}
741: Mediavilla, E., Mu\~noz, J. A., Kochanek, C. S., Falco, E. E., Arribas, S.,$\&$ Motta, V. 2005, \apj, 619, 749
742:
743: \bibitem[Mediavilla et al. 2006]{evencio2006}
744: Mediavilla, E., Mu\~noz, J. A., Lopez, P., Mediavilla, T., Abajas, C., Gonzalez-Morcillo, C., $\&$ Gil-Merino, R. 2006, \apj, 653, 942
745:
746: \bibitem[Motta et al.(2002)]{motta2002}
747: Motta, V., et al. 2002, \apj, 574, 719
748:
749: \bibitem[Mu\~noz et al.(2004)]{pp2004}
750: Mu\~noz, J. A., Falco, E. E., Kochanek, C. S., McLeod, B. A., $\&$ Mediavilla, E. 2004, \apj, 605, 614
751:
752: \bibitem[Nadeau et al. 1999]{nadeu1999}
753: Nadeau, D., Racine, R., Doyon, R., $\&$ Arboit, G. 1999, \apj, 527, 46
754:
755: \bibitem[Nadeau et al. 1991]{nadeu1991}
756: Nadeau, D., Yee, H. K. C., Forrest, W. J., Garnett, J. D., Ninkov, Z., $\&$ Pipher, J. L. 1991, \apj 376, 430
757:
758: \bibitem [Nakos et al. 2005]{nakos}
759: Nakos, Th., et al. 2005, \aap, 441, 443
760:
761: \bibitem[Poindexter et al. 2008]{poindexter08}
762: Poindexter, S., Morgan, N., $\&$ Kochanek, C. S. 2008, \apj, 673, 34
763:
764: \bibitem [Schmidt et al. 1998]{schmidt98}
765: Schmidt, R., Webster, R. L., $\&$ Lewis, G. F. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 488
766:
767: \bibitem[Schneider, Ehlers and Falco 1992]{libroEmilio}
768: Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., $\&$ Falco, E. E. 1992, Gravitational Lenses (Berlin:Springer)
769:
770: \bibitem[Schneider, Kochanek and Wambsganss 2006]{saas06}
771: Schneider, P., Kochanek, C. S., $\&$ Wambsganss, J. 2006, Gravitational Lensing:
772: Strong, Weak and Micro: Saas-Fee Advanced Course 33 (Berlin: Springer)
773:
774: \bibitem [Schneider and Weiss 1987]{schneider87_02}
775: Schneider, P., $\&$ Weiss, A. 1987, \aap, 171, 49
776:
777: \bibitem[Shakura and Sunyaev 1973]{shakura_sunyaev}
778: Shakura, N. I., $\&$ Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, \aap, 24, 337
779:
780: \bibitem[Shalyapin 2001]{shalyapin01}
781: Shalyapin, V. N. 2001, Astron. Lett., 27, 150
782:
783: \bibitem[Shalyapin et al. 2002]{shalyapin02}
784: Shalyapin, V. N., Goicoechea, L. J., Alcalde, D., Mediavilla, E., Mu\~noz, J. A.,
785: $\&$ Gil-Merino, R. 2002, \apj, 579, 127
786:
787: \bibitem[Vakulik et al. 2006]{vakulik2006}
788: Vakulik, V., Schild, R., Dudinov, V., Nuritdinov, S., Tsvetkova, V., Burkhonov, O., $\&$ Akhunov, T. 2006, \aap, 447, 905
789:
790: \bibitem[Vanden Berk et al. 2001]{sdss_espectro2001}
791: Vanden Berk, D. E. et al. 2001, \aj, 122, 549
792:
793: \bibitem[Wambsganss 1990]{joachimthesis}
794: Wambsganss, J. 1990, PhD thesis, Munich University (also available as report MPA 550)
795:
796: \bibitem[Wambsganss 1999]{joachim99}
797: Wambsganss, J. 1999, J. Comp. Appl. Math., 109, 353
798:
799: \bibitem[Wambsganss $\&$ Paczynski 1991]{joachim91}
800: Wambsganss, J. $\&$ Paczynski, B. 1991, \aj, 102, 864
801:
802: \bibitem[Wayth 2005]{wayth05}
803: Wayth, R. B., O'Dowd, M., $\&$ Webster, R. L. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 561
804:
805: \bibitem[Wisotzki et al. 1993]{wisotzki93}
806: Wisotzki, L., K\"ohler, T., Kayser, R., $\&$ Reimers, D. 1993, \aap, 278, L15
807:
808: \bibitem[Wo\'zniak et al. (2000)]{ogle}
809: Wo\'{z}niak, P. R., Alard, C., Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski, G., $\&$ Zebrun, K. 2000 \apj, 529, 88
810:
811: \bibitem[Wucknitz et al. 2003]{wuk03}
812: Wucknitz, O., Wisotzki, L., Lopez, S., $\&$ Gregg, M. D. 2003, \aap, 405, 445
813:
814:
815: \end{thebibliography}
816:
817:
818: %\input {tab2.tex}
819: %\input {Tab3.tex}
820:
821: %%% FIGURES %%%
822:
823:
824: \end{document}
825: