1: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig]{article}
2: \documentstyle[12pt,aaspp4]{article}
3: %
4: % define symbols for this paper
5:
6: \def\et{{\rm et al.\ }}
7: \def\eg{{\rm e.g., }}
8: \def\ie{{\rm i.e., }}
9:
10: \def\gs{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle >$}\kern-0.6em
11: \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
12:
13: \def\ls{\mathrel{\raise0.35ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle <$}\kern-0.6em
14: \lower0.40ex\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}}
15: %
16: %\received{---}
17: %\revised{---}
18: %\accepted{---}
19: %\journalid{---}{---}
20: %\articleid{---}{---}
21: \slugcomment{submitted to Publications of the Astronomical Society of
22: the Pacific}
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25:
26: \lefthead{Wright \& Brainerd}
27: \righthead{Anisotropic Galaxy--Galaxy Lensing}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{Anisotropic Galaxy--Galaxy Lensing}
32:
33: \author{Tereasa G. Brainerd \& Candace Oaxaca Wright}
34: \affil{Boston University, Department of Astronomy, Boston, MA 02215}
35:
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We investigate the weak lensing shear due to dark matter galaxy halos whose
39: mass distributions,
40: as projected on the sky, are nearly elliptical. The shear pattern due to
41: these halos is anisotropic about the lens centers
42: and we quantify the level of anisotropy by comparing
43: the mean shear experienced by sources located closest to the major axes of the
44: lenses, $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$,
45: to that experienced by sources located closest to the minor axes,
46: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$.
47: We demonstrate
48: that the degree of anisotropy is independent of angular scale and show
49: that in the case of substantially flattened halos
50: ($\epsilon = 0.7$), the value of $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$ is
51: of order 40\% of the value of
52: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$
53: when all sources within $\pm 45^\circ$ of the axial direction vectors of
54: the lenses are included in the calculation.
55: In the case of halos that are flattened at more realistic
56: level ($\epsilon = 0.3$), the value of $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$
57: is of order 75\% of the value of $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$.
58: We compute the degree to which the anisotropy in the lensing signal
59: is degraded due to a noisy determination of the position angles of the
60: lens galaxies and find that provided the typical 1-$\sigma$
61: error on the orientation
62: of the lenses is less than
63: $15^\circ$, more than 90\% of the true lensing signal
64: will be recovered in the mean.
65: We discuss our results in the context
66: of detecting anisotropic galaxy--galaxy lensing in large, ground--based
67: data sets and conclude that a modest net flattening of
68: dark matter halos should be detectable at a statistically significant
69: level. The forthcoming Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) data will
70: necessarily provide a very useful data set for this analysis, but
71: a detection of
72: anisotropic galaxy--galaxy lensing is not dependent upon
73: the very large sky coverage of the SDSS. Rather, we argue that
74: a significant
75: detection of this effect can also be obtained from an imaging survey
76: that is of order two magnitudes fainter than SDSS
77: and which covers only a relatively small area of sky,
78: of order one square degree.
79:
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82: \keywords{galaxies: halos --- dark matter -- gravitational lensing}
83:
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85:
86: \section{Introduction}
87:
88: The observed flatness of the rotation
89: curves of spiral galaxies provides convincing evidence that galaxies
90: reside within massive dark matter halos (see, e.g., Fich \& Tremaine 1991
91: and references therein); however, there is as yet no strong constraint
92: on either
93: the average radial extent or the typical shapes of these apparently pervasive
94: structures. Since
95: it is generally difficult to
96: find dynamical tracers of the halo potential
97: at very large radius, direct observational constraints
98: on the maximum extent of dark matter halos
99: are relatively scarce. Zaritsky \& White (1994) and
100: Zaritsky et al.\ (1997) have, however, investigated the dynamics of genuine
101: satellites of bright field spirals and find that their halos extend to
102: radii beyond $100h^{-1}$~kpc.
103:
104: If the dark matter halos of bright field galaxies have radial extents that
105: are, indeed, as
106: large as suggested by the above investigations and
107: the characteristic depths of the potential wells of the halos correspond to
108: velocity dispersions of order 150 km/s, then weak but detectable gravitational
109: lensing by the dark halos should occur.
110: That is, systematically throughout the universe, the halos of
111: foreground field galaxies should act as gravitational lenses for background
112: field galaxies, resulting in a slight preference for the images of distant
113: galaxies to be oriented tangentially with respect to the locations on the
114: sky of galaxies which are physically closer to the observer.
115: This effect is known as galaxy-galaxy lensing and
116: its existence has recently been confirmed by a number of independent
117: investigations
118: (e.g., Brainerd, Blandford \& Smail 1996, hereafter BBS;
119: Dell'Antonio \& Tyson 1996;
120: Griffiths et al.\ 1996; Hudson et al.\ 1998; Ebbels 1998; Natarajan et al.\
121: 1998; Fischer et al.\ 2000). None of these studies has provided a
122: strong constraint on the maximum physical extent of the halos of field
123: galaxies, but all have yielded reasonably consistent measurements of
124: the halo velocity dispersion, on the order of 150 km/s for
125: an $L^\ast$ galaxy.
126:
127: Galaxy--galaxy lensing has the potential to be a powerful
128: probe of the gravitational potential of dark halos at very large
129: radii. It has an advantage over dynamical methods in that it can be
130: applied to all galaxies (in particular those without genuine companions) over
131: large physical scales, but has the disadvantage that the signal is so small
132: that it can only be detected in a statistical sense from a large
133: ensemble of lenses and sources. That is, while the signal is too weak
134: to be detected from a single lens galaxy and, hence, cannot be used
135: to place constraints on
136: the potential of any one individual dark matter halo, it can be used to
137: probe the mean potential of the halo population as a whole.
138:
139: Because of the ability of the singular isothermal sphere model to reproduce
140: the observed flatness of the rotation curves of the disks of spiral galaxies,
141: it is often assumed {\it a priori} that dark halos
142: are roughly spherical.
143: However, there now
144: exist a number of direct observations which suggest that dark
145: halos may be substantially flattened. The evidence
146: is diverse, consisting of studies of the kinematics of polar ring
147: galaxies, the geometry of X-ray isophotes, the flaring of HI gas in
148: spirals, and the evolution of gaseous warps, as well as the kinematics
149: of Population II stars in our own Galaxy. In particular, studies of
150: disk systems
151: that probe distances of order 15 kpc from the galactic planes
152: suggest that the shapes of the dark halos are significantly flattened
153: and can be characterized by $c/a = 0.5 \pm 0.2$ (see, e.g., the
154: comprehensive review by Sackett 1999
155: and references therein).
156: Here $c/a$ is the ratio of the shortest to longest axis in a principal
157: moment analysis of the mass density of the halo.
158: More recently, Kochanek et al.\ (2000) have performed a detailed
159: analysis of the shapes of the Einstein rings of three different lensed
160: quasar host galaxies and conclude that the ellipticities of the
161: projected mass distributions
162: of the lens galaxies that give rise to these images
163: are quite large indeed (axis ratios on the order of 0.6 to 0.7).
164:
165: All of the
166: published attempts to use observations of
167: galaxy--galaxy lensing to constrain the
168: characteristic physical parameters of dark matter halos have
169: assumed the halos to be spherically symmetric.
170: The lensing signal has been detected via a circular average of the signal
171: about the lens center and is then interpreted via halo models which are
172: spherically symmetric. However, if the halos are flattened at the
173: level suggested by the above investigations, their projected surface
174: mass densities will deviate from circular symmetry and, as result,
175: the gravitational lensing pattern will not be circularly--symmetric
176: about the lens center. Instead, the signal will be mildly anisotropic,
177: with the shear being strongest along direction vectors that coincide
178: with the major axis of the mass distribution and weakest along direction
179: vectors that coincide with the minor axis of the mass distribution.
180:
181: There are as yet no direct observational constraints on the mean
182: flattening of the population of dark matter galaxy halos as a whole.
183: This is due to the fact that the above studies which suggest substantial
184: halo flattening rely on a handful of specific galaxies for which
185: the particular
186: analysis technique (e.g., dynamics, hydrodynamics, or strong lensing)
187: may be applied. None of these techniques can be applied in general to
188: the entire population of galaxies, but systematic galaxy--galaxy lensing
189: can be applied to all galaxies for which high-quality
190: imaging data is available. Despite the fact that it is only the mean
191: 2-D shape that may be directly recovered with weak lensing (not the
192: full 3-D shape of the halos), a strong constraint on any net flattening
193: of galaxy halos in 2-D will be useful from the standpoint of understanding
194: the details of
195: galaxy formation (i.e., the interaction of baryons with the dark matter
196: and the transfer of angular momentum to the halo as a result)
197: and constraining the nature of the dark matter itself. In
198: particular, dissipationless cold dark matter models routinely lead
199: to the formation of galaxy halos with projected ellipticities of
200: order 0.3 (e.g., Dubinski \& Carlberg 1991; Warren et al.\ 1992), while
201: models of strongly self-interacting cold dark matter give rise to halos
202: that are nearly spherical within the virial radius, resulting in a
203: small projected ellipticity (e.g., Moore et al.\ 2000).
204:
205: Here we investigate weak lensing due to halos with elliptical
206: mass distributions and we compare the shear experienced by sources closest
207: to the major axes of the lenses to that experienced by sources closest
208: to the minor axes.
209: In \S2 we describe the surface mass density profile that we
210: have adopted, we
211: evaluate the shear as function of location on the sky for lenses with
212: mass ellipticities in the range $0.1 \le \epsilon \le 0.7$, and we compute
213: the level of anisotropy in the galaxy--galaxy lensing signal for sources
214: located within $\pm 45^\circ$ and $\pm 20^\circ$ of the axial direction
215: vectors of the lenses. In
216: \S3 we discuss the prospects for detecting flattened dark halos via
217: an anisotropy in the
218: galaxy--galaxy lensing signal, including a consideration of some of
219: the potential sources of noise that will be encountered in a realistic
220: data set. A brief summary of our results is presented in \S4.
221:
222: \section{Anisotropic Weak Shear Due to an Elliptical Lens}
223:
224: We adopt a surface mass density for our lenses of the form
225: \begin{equation}
226: \kappa(\rho) = \frac{\kappa_0}{\left( 1 + \rho^2/x_c^2 \right)^{1/2}}
227: \end{equation}
228: (e.g., Schneider \& Weiss 1991, hereafter SW91),
229: which for circularly--symmetric lenses
230: corresponds to an isothermal sphere with a core radius of $x_c$. Here
231: $\kappa(\rho)$ is the surface mass density of the lens in
232: units of the critical surface mass density ($\Sigma_c$),
233: $\kappa_0$ is the central surface mass density,
234: $\rho$ is a generalized elliptical radius
235: ($\rho^2 = x_1^2 + f^2 x_2^2$, where $f = a/b$), and the ellipticity of the
236: mass is $\epsilon = 1 - b/a$. That is, equation (1) is an expression
237: for the convergence of the lens and all redshift information in
238: the problem is contained within $\Sigma_c$:
239: \begin{equation}
240: \Sigma_c = \frac{c^2}{4\pi G} \frac{D_s}{D_d D_{ds}} .
241: \end{equation}
242: Here $D_s$ is the angular diameter distance between the observer and
243: the source, $D_d$ is the angular diameter distance between the observer
244: and the lens (the ``deflector''), and $D_{ds}$ is the angular diameter
245: distance between the lens and the source.
246:
247: SW91 have shown that the deflection angle,
248: $\vec{\alpha} = (\alpha_1, \alpha_2)$, due to
249: this mass distribution can be computed analytically and they have derived
250: recursion relations for its computation (equations (A13) through
251: (A19) in their paper). We have used these recursion relations
252: to compute the deflection angles due to our elliptical masses where the
253: ellipticities are in the
254: range of $0.1 \le \epsilon \le 0.7$.
255: Also, since the presence of a core radius does not have a significant
256: effect on the weak lensing regime in which
257: systematic galaxy--galaxy lensing occurs, we restrict our analysis below to
258: the case of lenses with
259: negligible core radii ($x_c = 0.005$ arcsec).
260:
261: For each lens ellipticity, we have computed the shear due to the lens,
262: $\vec{\gamma}(\vec{\theta}) = (\gamma_1(\vec{\theta}),\gamma_2(\vec{\theta}))$,
263: on regular grids that were centered on the lens centers. This was done via a
264: straightforward differencing technique in which a regular grid of
265: light rays
266: was traced through each of the lenses and the net deflection of each light
267: ray was computed from the recursion relations for
268: $\vec{\alpha}$ contained in SW91.
269: If $\vec{\beta}$ is
270: the location of a given light ray
271: on the grid prior to lensing, and $\vec{\theta}$ is the location of the light
272: ray after having been deflected, then the components of the shear at the
273: location $\vec{\theta}$ are simply:
274: \begin{equation}
275: \gamma_1(\vec{\theta}) = - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\partial
276: \beta_{\rm x_1}}
277: {\partial \theta_{\rm x_1}} - \frac{\partial \beta_{\rm x_2}}
278: {\partial \theta_{\rm x_2}} \right) ,
279: \end{equation}
280: \begin{equation}
281: \gamma_2(\vec{\theta})= - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\partial \beta_{\rm x_1}}
282: {\partial \theta_{\rm x_2}} + \frac{\partial \beta_{\rm x_2}}
283: {\partial \theta_{\rm x_1}} \right) .
284: \end{equation}
285: For the calculations shown
286: below, the spacing of the light rays on the
287: regular grid was taken to be 0.05 arcsec.
288:
289: Unlike the circular lens, for which the shear is circularly--symmetric
290: as a function of radial distance from the lens center, the shear due
291: to an elliptical lens is a function of both the distance from the lens
292: center and the location of the source relative to the major and minor
293: axes of the mass distribution of the lens (as projected on the sky).
294: This effect is illustrated in Fig.~1, in which we plot the ratio
295: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor} / \left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$
296: as a function of angular scale, $\theta$.
297: Here $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$ is the mean shear experienced
298: by sources closest to the major axis direction vectors of the lens and
299: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$ is the mean shear experienced by
300: sources closest to the minor axis direction vectors. In the case of circularly
301: symmetric lenses this quantity will, of course, be unity
302: on all scales.
303: In Fig.\ 1 we have computed
304: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$ and
305: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$
306: for sources located
307: within a polar angle of
308: $\pm N$ degrees relative to the axial direction vectors of the lens, for
309: the cases of
310: $N = 45^\circ$ (lefthand panel), and $N = 20^\circ$
311: (righthand panel).
312: That is, in the righthand panel of Fig.~1
313: we consider only sources whose locations on the sky
314: are relatively close to the direction vectors defined by the major and
315: minor axes of the mass distribution while in the lefthand panel
316: we compute the mean
317: shear encountered by all sources. Since all distance information
318: is contained within $\kappa_0$, the ratios shown in Fig.~1
319: are explicitly independent of the lens and source redshifts, as
320: well as the cosmology.
321: As expected, the degree of anisotropy in the shear pattern increases
322: with increasing lens ellipticity, and the closer the sources are to the
323: axial direction vectors the larger is the level of the anisotropy.
324:
325: \section{Prospects for Detection}
326:
327: Provided the ellipticity of the light from a given candidate lens
328: galaxy is reasonably well--aligned with any flattening of its dark
329: matter halo, it is conceivable that one could investigate anisotropy
330: in the galaxy--galaxy lensing signal by first aligning the symmetry axes
331: of the lens galaxy images, then stacking the aligned images together
332: in order to
333: create one primary lens center about which the distortion of
334: all the background galaxies
335: could be measured (see, e.g., Natarajan \& Refregier 2000). This will
336: be a reasonable procedure as long as the candidate lenses are in a
337: fairly relaxed state (i.e., one would want to exclude
338: candidate lenses which have undergone a recent collision, for example).
339: The detectability of the anisotropy will, of course, depend not only
340: on the mean halo ellipticity, but also on the size of the data set
341: (i.e., to reduce the ``noise'' due the intrinsic shapes of the
342: background galaxies), the quality of the imaging data (i.e., the
343: accuracy with which image shapes can be determined), and the success with
344: which genuine foreground galaxies can be separated from genuine
345: background galaxies (i.e., the ability to discriminate lenses from sources).
346:
347: The mean shear due to a (spherical)
348: singular isothermal
349: lens within a circular aperture of angular radius $\theta$ is:
350: \begin{equation}
351: \overline{\gamma}(\theta) = \frac{4 \pi}{\theta} \left(
352: \frac{\sigma_v}{c} \right)^2 \left( \frac{D_{ds}}{D_s} \right) .
353: \end{equation}
354: So, for a fiducial lens with $\sigma_v = 155$ km/s, located at a redshift
355: of $z_d = 0.5$ and a fiducial source located at a redshift of
356: $z_s = 1.0$, the mean shear will be
357: $\overline{\gamma}(\theta) \sim 0.30/\theta''$.
358: (This result depends only weakly on the cosmology
359: through the ratio of $D_{ds}/D_s$.)
360: At scale of $\theta = 25''$ this
361: is a small expected shear (of order 1\%), but it is certainly
362: measurable even with a modest--sized data set that has good imaging
363: quality.
364: The most statistically significant detection of galaxy--galaxy lensing to be
365: obtained via a direct average of the observed shapes of distant galaxies
366: is that reported by Fischer et al. (2000) from several nights of
367: Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) commissioning data.
368: They have detected a net shear in the images of $\sim 1.5\times 10^6$
369: ``faint'' galaxies ($r$ magnitudes in the range 18 to 22) due to
370: $\sim 2.8\times 10^4$
371: ``bright'' galaxies ($r$ magnitudes in the range 16 to 18) over an area
372: of nearly 225 sq.\ degrees and find a net
373: shear of $\gamma \sim 0.005$ on an angular scale $\sim 30''$. On
374: this angular scale, their detection is of order 6-$\sigma$.
375:
376: It is interesting to ask how large a data set would be required to
377: obtain a significant detection of an anisotropy in the galaxy--galaxy lensing
378: signal in the manner we have computed here.
379: For a given surface density
380: of lenses and sources, the signal to noise in
381: a measurement of $\left< \gamma \right> $
382: scales as the square root of the area of sky covered by the
383: imaging data (see, e.g., BBS
384: and Natarajan \& Refregier 2000). If we compute
385: the mean shear experienced by sources within $\pm 45^\circ$ of the major axis
386: vectors of flattened halos, $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$,
387: and compare that to the shear experienced by
388: sources within $\pm 45^\circ$ of the minor axis vectors,
389: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$, the signal
390: to noise for each of these two quantities will be of order $1/\sqrt{2}$ times
391: the signal to noise for a measurement of the mean shear experienced by
392: all sources, as computed from a circular average about the lens centers. That
393: is, the area over which
394: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$ or $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$
395: is computed is only half of the area over
396: which the circularly--averaged shear is
397: computed.
398:
399: As a rough attempt to calculate the detectability of an anisotropy in
400: the galaxy--galaxy signal, we will restrict ourselves to halos that
401: have a mean flattening that is consistent with current observational
402: constraints: $\epsilon = 0.3$ (see, e.g., Sackett 1999 or Wright \&
403: Brainerd 2000). In order to detect anisotropic galaxy--galaxy lensing
404: at a 4-$\sigma$ level from all sources within $\pm 45^\circ$ of
405: the axial direction vectors of a halo with $\epsilon = 0.3$,
406: we need a signal to noise in the
407: value of $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor} /
408: \left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$ that is of order
409: $(0.76/0.06) \simeq 12.7$ (see, e.g., Fig.\ 1, lefthand panel).
410: By straightforward error
411: propagation, we would then
412: need a signal to noise in the (separate) measurements of
413: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$
414: and $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$ on the order of 18. Assuming
415: an identical surface density of galaxies and identical noise properties
416: as the Fischer et al.\ data set, this would require an area of sky of order
417: $\left[ 18 \times(\sqrt{2}/6) \right]^2 \simeq 18$
418: times that
419: used by Fischer et al.\ (2000). That is, the amount of data required
420: would be equivalent to about 40\% of
421: the final SDSS data set ($\sim 10^4$ square degrees).
422: A somewhat larger
423: survey area (of order 26 times that of the Fischer et al.\ data
424: set) would be required to detect an anisotropy in
425: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$
426: versus $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$
427: if one were to restrict the analysis to
428: only those sources within $\pm 20^\circ$ of the axial direction vectors
429: of the lenses (e.g., Fig.\ 1, righthand panel).
430:
431: One can, of course, improve the signal to noise by using a smaller area
432: and a data set with a completeness limit that is much greater than the
433: relatively shallow limit of the SDSS. For example, BBS
434: claimed a 4-$\sigma$ detection of galaxy--galaxy lensing on scales
435: $\theta \ls 35''$
436: using a single, small field ($\sim 72$ sq.\ arcmin.) in which their
437: ``bright'' galaxies had $r$ magnitudes in the range of
438: 20 to 23 and their ``faint'' galaxies had $r$ magnitudes in the
439: range 23 to 24 (i.e., roughly 2 magnitudes fainter than the SDSS
440: data). Applying the same
441: signal to noise calculation above to a survey with similar depth and
442: noise properties as the BBS data, an assumption of $\epsilon \sim 0.3$
443: then leads to an estimate of an area of order
444: $\left[ 18 \times (\sqrt{2}/4) \right]^2 = 40.5$ times that of the
445: BBS data set (i.e., only about 0.8 square degrees)
446: being necessary in order to
447: obtain a significant detection of an anisotropy in the galaxy--galaxy lensing
448: signal using sources within $\pm 45^\circ$ of the axial direction
449: vectors of the lenses. A survey of area 1.8 square degrees would be
450: necessary to obtain a 4-$\sigma$ detection of
451: anisotropy in the signal using sources within
452: $\pm 20^\circ$ of the axial direction vectors of the lenses. Such relatively
453: small areas can now be obtained easily with wide-field CCD mosaic cameras
454: and, therefore, such an investigation is well within the reach of
455: current technology.
456:
457: There are, however, some points to note when considering
458: the above estimation of the detectability of anisotropic galaxy--galaxy
459: lensing. The first, and most obvious, is that both
460: Fischer et al.\ (2000) and BBS separated
461: candidate lenses from candidate sources on the basis of apparent
462: magnitude alone.
463: That is, since galaxies have a broad distribution in redshift,
464: lens--source separation performed solely
465: on the basis of apparent magnitude will
466: be inefficient and some of the candidate lenses are, therefore,
467: located at greater distances from the observer
468: than are some of the candidate
469: sources. This will, necessarily, manifest as a source of ``noise''
470: in the analysis and will degrade the lensing signal.
471: If lens--source separation on the basis of photometric or spectroscopic
472: redshifts were to be performed, for example, the size of the data set that
473: would be required to detect anisotropic galaxy--galaxy lensing would
474: be reduced significantly from our calculation above.
475:
476: Another point to note is that our estimation of the detectability of
477: the signal is based upon an assumption of single deflections. That
478: is, in computing the theoretical values of
479: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor} / \left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$
480: we have not accounted for the fact that distant galaxies may be
481: weakly lensed at comparable levels by two or more foreground galaxies.
482: The number of multiple deflections that need to be considered depends
483: upon the selection function used to discriminate between candidate
484: lenses and sources, but in the case of the magnitude--selected samples
485: of BBS it was estimated that 1/3
486: of the faint galaxy sample would have been lensed at a comparable level
487: by 2 foreground galaxies, and that another 1/3 of the faint galaxy
488: sample would have been lensed at a comparable level by 3 or more
489: foreground galaxies. Therefore, a somewhat more reliable estimate of the
490: detectability of anisotropic galaxy--galaxy lensing will depend upon
491: a more detailed analysis of the problem than we have presented here.
492: In particular, simulations of galaxy--galaxy lensing which
493: match observational constraints as closely as possible (i.e., the faint
494: galaxy number counts, the
495: redshift distribution of galaxies as a function of magnitude, the
496: luminosity function of galaxies, the range of reasonable halo shapes, and
497: the noise properties of the data) will ultimately
498: be required. We are in the process of completing such an analysis
499: and will present the results soon (Wright \& Brainerd 2000).
500:
501: Lastly, the proposed
502: ``stacking'' of the foreground galaxy images will, necessarily,
503: be noisy at some level and this will contribute to a degradation of the
504: anisotropic lensing signal. In particular, the
505: effects of seeing, pixellation, and sky noise will
506: all contribute an error to the observed position angle of the image of
507: a foreground galaxy. In addition, galaxy--galaxy
508: lensing of the selected foreground
509: population due to nearby galaxies along the line of sight
510: will contribute a small but
511: non-zero error. That is, even in the limit of ``perfect'' imaging
512: data, galaxy--galaxy lensing of the foreground population itself
513: will cause the observed position angle of the image of a foreground
514: galaxy to differ slightly from the true position angle of the galaxy.
515: However, this effect is expected to be small compared to the error in the
516: position angle that is induced by the imaging process. For example,
517: the Monte Carlo simulations performed by BBS show that for 80\% of
518: galaxies, the position angle of the lensed image differs from that of
519: the unlensed image by less than $5^\circ$.
520:
521: In order to estimate the degree to which noise in the determination
522: of the position angles of the foreground galaxies results in a degradation
523: of the anisotropic lensing signal, we repeat the calculations in \S2 but
524: with the difference that we induce an error in the observed orientation
525: of the axial direction vectors by randomly rotating them
526: away from their ``true'' location. That is, the shear experienced by
527: the source galaxies is correctly computed as being due to flattened lenses
528: with position angles of $0^\circ$. Then, the orientation of the axial direction
529: vectors is randomly rotated by an amount $\phi$
530: and the mean shears, $\left< \gamma
531: \right>_{\rm major}$ and $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor}$, are computed
532: using sources within $\pm N^\circ$ of these rotated direction vectors
533: (i.e., the ``observed'' direction vectors).
534: For simplicity of calculation, the values of $\phi$ were drawn from Gaussian
535: distributions with zero mean and standard deviations of $\sigma$, where
536: $\sigma$ ranged from $5^\circ$ to $45^\circ$. Computing the anisotropy
537: in the lensing signal relative to the rotated axes will necessarily result in
538: a value of
539: $\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor} / \left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}$
540: that is closer to unity than are the values plotted in Fig.\ 1.
541: That is, the anisotropic lensing signal will be ``degraded'' by some amount,
542: which will clearly be dependent upon the typical error in the position angles
543: of the lens galaxies, $\phi$.
544:
545: By symmetry,
546: the ratio of the mean shears is independent
547: of angular scale (e.g., Fig.~1) for any randomly chosen value of
548: $\phi$ and we therefore do not plot the angular dependence of the
549: anisotropic lensing signal as measured relative to the rotated axes.
550: For each value of lens ellipticity, $\epsilon$,
551: and standard deviation in the position angle, $\sigma$, we compute the
552: ratio,
553: \begin{equation}
554: \zeta =
555: \left[1- {\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor} \over
556: \left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}} \right]_{\rm obs}
557: \left[1- {\left< \gamma \right>_{\rm minor} \over
558: \left< \gamma \right>_{\rm major}} \right]_{\rm true}^{-1}
559: \end{equation}
560: where the numerator is the mean value of the anisotropic lensing
561: signal that was obtained from 5000 independent
562: rotations of the axial direction vectors
563: and the denominator is obtained from the
564: values plotted in Fig.\ 1. That is, here we compare the relative deviations
565: of the lensing signals from values of
566: unity (the null case in which all halos are
567: round in projection).
568: The results are
569: shown in Fig.\ 2, where the lefthand panel shows the degradation in the
570: lensing signal for sources within $\pm 45^\circ$ of the rotated axial direction
571: vectors and the righthand panel shows the same, but for sources within
572: $\pm 20^\circ$ of the rotated
573: axial direction vectors. The different point types
574: refer to lenses of different ellipticities and correspond to the
575: point types used in Fig.\ 1.
576: It is clear from Fig.\ 2 that the anisotropic lensing signal is degraded
577: due to the noise associated with
578: stacking the images of the foreground lenses, but provided
579: the typical 1-$\sigma$ error in the position angle of the lenses is less than
580: $15^\circ$, more than 90\% of the true signal is recovered in the
581: mean. The more
582: accurate the alignment of the foreground galaxies, the more signal that
583: will, necessarily, be recovered. Therefore,
584: even with somewhat noisy data, anisotropies in the galaxy--galaxy lensing
585: signal should still be detectable.
586:
587: \section{Summary}
588:
589: We have investigated anisotropies in galaxy--galaxy lensing by comparing
590: the mean shear experienced by sources nearby to the major axis of an
591: elliptical lens to that experienced by sources nearby to the minor axis.
592: We have shown that for realistic halo flattening ($\epsilon \sim 0.3$),
593: the level of anisotropy in the lensing signal is small but should be
594: detectable in large ground-based imaging surveys. Our calculation
595: of the size of the data set required for detection of this effect includes
596: the actual observational
597: error estimates in the detection of circularly-averaged galaxy-galaxy
598: lensing from two previous investigations of galaxy--galaxy
599: lensing: Fischer et al.\ (2000) and BBS. In
600: addition, we have shown that although the level of the detected anisotropy is
601: degraded due to noise in the process of aligning the symmetry axes of the
602: foreground lens galaxies prior
603: to stacking their images, the effect should be small provided the true position
604: angles of the lens galaxies are known to within a typical 1-$\sigma$
605: error of order
606: $15^\circ$.
607:
608: Galaxy--galaxy lensing is the only technique which at present has the
609: potential to constrain the projected shapes of the dark matter galaxy halos
610: on average throughout the universe.
611: While it cannot provide a strong constraint on the shape of
612: any one particular halo,
613: the method is applicable to the entire galaxy population and should
614: yield a strong constraint on the mean projected shape of halos. Given
615: that there are currently very few observational constraints on the
616: shapes of dark matter halos, the wealth of information on both
617: the details of galaxy formation and the nature of the dark matter that
618: such constraints will provide, and the apparent detectability of
619: the lensing signal for moderately flattened halos,
620: observational investigations of
621: anisotropic galaxy--galaxy lensing with high-quality imaging data
622: certainly appear to be justified at this time.
623:
624: \section*{Acknowledgments}
625:
626: Support under NSF contract AST-9616968
627: and a generous allocation of resources at Boston University's
628: Scientific Computing and Visualization Center are gratefully acknowledged.
629:
630: \clearpage
631: \begin{references}
632: \reference{bbs} Brainerd, T.G., Blandford, R. D. \&
633: Smail, I., 1996, \apj, 466, 623 (BBS)
634: \reference{} Dell'Antonio, I. P. \& Tyson, J. A. 1996, \apj, 473, L17
635: \reference{} Dubinski, J. \& Carlberg, R. G. 1991, \apj, 378, 496
636: \reference{} Ebbels, T. 1998, PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge
637: \reference{} Fich, M. \& Tremaine, S. 1991, \araa, 29, 409
638: \reference{} Fischer, P. et al. (the SDSS Collaboration), 2000, \aj, submitted
639: (astro-ph/9912119)
640: \reference{} Griffiths, R. E., Casertano, S., Im, M., \& Ratnatunga, K. U.
641: 1996, \mnras, 282, P1159
642: \reference{} Hudson, M. J., Gwyn, S. D. J., Dahle, H., \& Kaiser, N. 1998,
643: \apj, 503, 531
644: \reference{} Kochanek, C. S., Keeton, C. R., \& McLeod, B. A., 2000,
645: astro-ph/0006166
646: \reference{} Moore, B., Gelato, S., Jenkins, A., Pearce, F. R., \&
647: Quilis, V. 2000, astro-ph/0002308
648: \reference{priya} Natarajan, P., Kneib, J.-P., Smail, I., \& Ellis, R. S,
649: 1998, \apj, 499, 600
650: \reference{} Natarajan, P. \& Refregier, A. 2000, astro-ph/0003344
651: \reference{} Sackett, P. D. 1999, in {\it Galaxy Dynamics}, ASP conference
652: series vol.\ 182, eds.\ D. R. Merritt, M. Valluri, \& J. A. Sellwood, 393
653: \reference{sw91} Schneider, P. \& Weiss, A. 1991, A\&A, 247, 269 (SW91)
654: \reference{} Warren, M. S., Quinn, P. J., Salmon, J. K., \& Zurek, W. H.
655: 1992, \apj, 399, 405
656: \reference{} Wright, C. O. \& Brainerd, T. G. 2000, in preparation
657: \reference{} Zaritsky, D. \& White, S. D. M. 1994, \apj, 435, 599
658: \reference{dennis2} Zaritsky, D., Smith, R., Frenk, C., \& White, S. D. M.,
659: 1997, \apj, 478, 39
660:
661: \end{references}
662:
663: \clearpage
664:
665: \begin{figure}
666: \plotfiddle{fg1.ps}{5.0in}{0}{60.0}{60.0}{-250}{50}
667: \vspace{-1.0in}
668: \caption{
669: Ratio of the mean shear experienced by sources closest to the
670: minor axis of an elliptical lens to that experienced by sources
671: closest to the major axis of the lens. Lefthand panel: all sources that would
672: be found within $\pm 45^\circ$ of the axial direction vectors are included
673: in the calculation.
674: Righthand panel: all sources that would
675: be found within $\pm 20^\circ$ of the axial direction vectors are included
676: in the calculation.
677: }
678: \end{figure}
679:
680: \clearpage
681: \begin{figure}
682: \plotfiddle{fg2.ps}{5.0in}{0}{60.0}{60.0}{-250}{50}
683: \vspace{-1.0in}
684: \caption{Comparison of
685: the anisotropic lensing signal for lenses whose image position
686: angle has been randomly rotated away from the true position angle and
687: the lensing signal obtained without errors in
688: the position angle (e.g., equation 6 above).
689: The different point types indicate lenses with different ellipticities
690: and correspond to the point types used in Fig.\ 1. For each value of
691: $\sigma$, the axial direction vectors of the
692: lens were randomly rotated 5000 times by an amount
693: $\phi$, where $\phi$ was drawn from a Gaussian distribution with zero
694: mean and a standard deviation of $\sigma$. The lefthand panel shows the
695: result for sources within $\pm 45^\circ$ of the rotated axial direction
696: vectors; the righthand panel shows the same, but for sources within
697: $\pm 20^\circ$.
698: }
699: \end{figure}
700:
701:
702: \end{document}
703:
704: