1: % Time delay measurement of B1600+434
2: %
3:
4: %\documentclass{aastex}
5: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
6: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
7: %\documentclass[12pt]{aastex}
8:
9: %\usepackage{times}
10: \usepackage{epsfig}
11:
12: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
13: \newcommand{\myemail}{burud@astro.ulg.ac.be}
14:
15: \shorttitle{Burud et al.}
16: \shortauthors{Optical time delay measurement of B1600+434}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: %
21: \title{An optical time-delay estimate for the double gravitational lens system B1600+434
22: \thanks{Based on observations made with the Nordic Optical
23: Telescope,
24: operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland,
25: Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del
26: Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de
27: Canarias.}}
28:
29:
30: \author{I. Burud}
31: \affil{Institut d'Astrophysique et de G{\'e}ophysique de Li{\`e}ge,
32: Avenue de Cointe 5, B-4000 Li{\`e}ge, Belgium}
33: \author{J. Hjorth}
34: \affil{Astronomical Observatory, University of Copenhagen,
35: Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK--2100~Copenhagen {\O}, Denmark}
36: \author{A. O. Jaunsen}
37: \affil{Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo,
38: Pb.~1029 Blindern, N0315~Oslo, Norway}
39: \author{M. I. Andersen, H. Korhonen}
40: \affil{Division of Astronomy, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, FIN--90014 Oulun Yliopisto, Finland}
41: \author{J. W. Clasen}
42: \affil{Nordic Optical Telescope, Apartado 474, E--38700 St.~Cruz de La Palma,
43: Canary Islands, Spain}
44: \author{J. Pelt}
45: \affil{Tartu Astrophysical Observatory, T\~{o}ravere, 61602, Estonia}
46: \author{F. P. Pijpers}
47: \affil{Theoretical Astrophysics Center, University of Aarhus, DK--8000~\AA rhus C, Denmark}
48: \author{P. Magain}
49: \affil{Institut d'Astrophysique et de G{\'e}ophysique de Li{\`e}ge,
50: Avenue de Cointe 5, B-4000~Li{\`e}ge, Belgium}
51: \and
52: \author{R. {\O}stensen}
53: \affil{Department of Physics, University of Troms{\o}, Troms{\o}, Norway}
54:
55:
56:
57:
58: % \date{Received ; accepted }
59:
60:
61: % \maketitle
62:
63: \begin{abstract}
64: We present optical $I$-band light curves of the gravitationally lensed
65: double QSO B1600+434 from observations obtained at the Nordic Optical
66: Telescope (NOT) between April 1998 and November 1999. The photometry
67: has been performed by simultaneous deconvolution of all the data
68: frames, involving a numerical lens galaxy model. Four methods have
69: been applied to determine the time delay between the two QSO
70: components, giving a mean estimate of $\Delta t = 51\pm4$ days ($95
71: \%$ confidence level). This is the fourth optical time delay ever
72: measured. Adopting a $\Omega=0.3$, $\Lambda=0$ Universe and using the
73: mass model of \citet{Maller}, this time-delay estimate yields a Hubble
74: parameter of $H_{0}=52^{+14}_{-8}~{\rm km}~{\rm s^{-1}}~{\rm
75: Mpc^{-1}}$ ($95 \%$ confidence level) where the errors include
76: time-delay as well as model uncertainties. There are time-dependent
77: offsets between the two (appropriately shifted) light curves that
78: indicate the presence of external variations due to microlensing.
79:
80:
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- gravitational lensing: individual
84: (B1600+434) --- distance scale --- galaxies: spiral}
85:
86: %
87: %________________________________________________________________
88:
89: \section{Introduction}
90:
91: Intensive observational studies of gravitationally lensed QSOs have
92: been conducted in the last few years with the aim of determining
93: cosmological parameters, e.g., the Hubble constant, $H_{0}$, and to
94: study the dark-matter distribution in lens galaxies. In particular,
95: there has been a significant effort to measure time delays between
96: lensed QSO components to derive $H_{0}$ with the method described by
97: \citet{Refsdal64}. Following a more than decade-long monitoring of the
98: double QSO 0957+561 by Schild and coworkers \citep{Schild90,
99: Schild95}, \citet{Schild97} and \citet{Kundic} succeeded in pinning
100: down its time delay in 1997. The same year saw an even more
101: impressive accomplishment of \citet{Schechter} to determine multiple
102: time delays in the `triple QSO' PG1115+080 from a peak-to-peak
103: variation of barely 0.15 mag. Following this demonstration of the
104: feasibility of measuring time delays of multiply imaged QSOs an
105: ongoing photometric monitoring was initiated at the Nordic Optical
106: Telescope (NOT) in April 1998. The program involves measuring time
107: delays between lensed QSO components in as many systems as possible.
108: Our main target during the first year of monitoring was the doubly
109: imaged radio source QSO B1600+434 \citep{Jackson} at redshift $z=1.59$
110: \citep{Fassnacht}, which is gravitationally lensed by an edge-on
111: late-type galaxy at $z=0.41$ \citep{Jaunsen,Fassnacht}. The
112: 1.39\arcsec\ angular separation between the two QSO images (labeled A
113: and B in Fig.~\ref{decima}), together with the observed large flux
114: variations in the system \citep{Jaunsen}, makes it well suited for
115: time-delay measurements. Given the poor knowledge of the mass
116: distribution in dark-matter halos of spiral galaxies, a time-delay
117: measurement in B1600+434 may not provide a firm determination of
118: $H_{0}$. However, once $H_{0}$ has been determined from other lensed
119: systems or using other methods, the time delay of B1600+434 can
120: provide new constraints on the distribution of mass in the various
121: components of spiral galaxies in general \citep{Maller}.
122:
123: B1600+434 is very faint, with $I\sim22$ for the faintest QSO component
124: and $I=20.3$ for the lensing galaxy. Furthermore, the B-component is
125: substantially obscured by the lens (see Fig.~\ref{decima}) and
126: photometry of the image is non-trivial.
127: The data have therefore been
128: analyzed with advanced deconvolution techniques both in order to model
129: the light distribution of the lensing galaxy and to achieve accurate
130: photometry of the QSO component blended with the lens nucleus. The
131: time delay we present using the deconvolution technique is the fourth
132: one measured at optical wavelengths, and it is the first of our monitoring
133: program. A preliminary report was presented in
134: \citet{Hjorth99}. The results presented here include more data points
135: and supercede this report. Independently, a time delay has been
136: measured at radio wavelengths with the VLA during the same observing
137: season \citep{Koopmans}.
138:
139: %__________________________________________________________________
140:
141: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
142:
143: Weekly observations of B1600+434 were carried out at the NOT from
144: April 1998 to November 1999, except for a short period (i.e., from
145: December 1998 to February 1999) where the object was below the horizon
146: at the NOT. Three different instruments were used: ALFOSC
147: (Andaluc\'\i a Faint Object Spectrograph), HiRAC (High Resolution
148: Adaptive Camera) and the stand-by camera StanCam, equipped with
149: detectors yielding pixel scales of 0\farcs188, 0\farcs107 and
150: 0\farcs176 respectively. The $I$ band was chosen to minimize the
151: effect of the extinction of the B component by the lensing galaxy.
152: The total exposure times for each data point were adjusted according
153: to the moon phase and typically ranged from 20 to 40 min, divided into
154: three dithered exposures. The seeing usually varied from 0\farcs7 to
155: 1\farcs4, with 0\farcs9 being the most frequent value. A typical
156: signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of 100 was reached for the A component and
157: 50 for the B component. Color terms were determined for the three
158: detectors in order to match the light curves obtained with the three
159: instruments.
160:
161: An automated pipeline employing routines in the IRAF/NOAO/CCDRED package has
162: been developed in order to pre-process the CCD frames in an efficient and
163: homogeneous way. Fringe-correction and cosmic-ray removal were
164: performed on the individual frames before combination.
165:
166:
167: \section{Photometry}
168: \label{sect:phot}
169:
170: The photometric data consist of one stacked frame per epoch.
171: All light curves are calculated relative to 3 stars in the
172: field that have calibrated $I$ band magnitudes \citep{Jaunsen}. Two
173: of these stars, angularly close to the QSO, labeled S1 and S2 by
174: \citet{Jaunsen}, are used to construct the Point Spread Function (PSF).
175:
176: All the combined frames, one per epoch, are deconvolved with the MCS
177: deconvolution algorithm \citep{Magain}. With this technique, many
178: frames of a single object can be simultaneously deconvolved. This
179: procedure combines the total S/N of all the frames obtained at
180: different periods to determine the light distribution of the extended
181: sources (galaxies) as well as the positions of the point sources
182: (QSOs), since these parameters do not vary with time. The intensities
183: of the point sources, however, are allowed to vary from one image to
184: the other, hence producing the light curves. This technique is
185: particularly well suited for the analysis of B1600+434 because of the
186: light contamination of the faint B component by the spiral lensing
187: galaxy. Simultaneous deconvolution of all the frames allows us to
188: derive a high signal-to-noise numerical galaxy model (see
189: Fig.~\ref{decima}). The derived galaxy is in good agreement with
190: the images of B1600+434 obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
191: \citep{Maller}.
192:
193: Maps of the residuals for each frame are used to check deconvolution
194: results. These maps represent the $\chi^2$ fit in each pixel; i.e.,
195: the match between the deconvolved model image (reconvolved with the PSF)
196: and the data. By inspecting these residuals we conclude that the
197: photometry of both components was mainly limited by photon noise.
198:
199: In order to check for errors introduced by the PSF we deconvolve two
200: fainter stars in the field that are not used in the construction of
201: the PSF. Light curves for two of these stars, labeled S3 and S4, are
202: displayed in Fig.~\ref{lightcurve}. Assuming that these stars are not
203: variable, we use the standard deviation around the mean value as a
204: measure of the photometric accuracy, giving 1$\sigma$ errors of 0.026
205: mag and 0.039 mag for S3 and S4 respectively. For each point we
206: subtract the photon noise in quadrature and attribute the residual
207: error to the PSF. For the QSO images these estimated PSF errors are
208: added in quadrature to the photon noise in order to model the total
209: errors in the photometry.
210:
211:
212: \section{Light curves}
213: \label{sect:lcurve}
214:
215: The $I$-band light curves (Fig.~\ref{lightcurve}) contain 41 data
216: points for each component. As predicted by lens theories, these
217: light curves show that A is the leading component. A feature in A
218: observed at JD~2451050 (September~1998) is repeated in B about 50~days
219: later. In June~1999 ($\sim$~JD~2451300) there is an increase in the
220: flux from both components. This increase is particularly strong in the
221: B component and represents more than one magnitude in less than 100
222: days. After the intensity increase both A and B display several
223: sharp short-term variations. Unfortunately our light curves are not
224: sufficiently well-sampled during this period to recover the exact
225: variations. This suggests that there are variations on time scales
226: faster than the sampling frequency.
227:
228: The features in the light curves are sufficiently distinct that a
229: rough eye-ball estimate directly yields an approximate time delay of
230: about 50 days. Although 41 brightness measurements are a fairly small
231: amount of data, application of standard techniques to measure time
232: delays yield fairly robust results. We analyzed the light curves with
233: the four methods described below.
234:
235:
236: \section{Time delay measurements}
237:
238: \subsection{The SOLA method}
239: \label{sect:pijpers}
240:
241: The method of subtractive, optimally-localized averages (SOLA) was
242: originally developed for solving inverse problems in helioseismology
243: \citep{PT94}. The basic idea of this method is to construct an
244: optimal solution, taking into account measurement errors, of any
245: linear inverse problem by taking linear combinations of the measured
246: data. After having been applied successfully in helioseismology the
247: SOLA method has found application in image reconstruction
248: \citep{Pij99}, in the reverberation mapping of active galactic nuclei
249: \citep{PW94}, and in the determination of time delays between
250: lensed QSOs \citep{Pij97}.
251:
252: In the case of lensed quasar images, a transfer
253: function which is a Dirac delta function is positioned at the time
254: delay. With this method both the delay and the relative magnification
255: of a pair of images are determined. Applied to B1600+434 a time delay
256: of $55$ days and a flux ratio of $0.79$ is found. Also determined is
257: a relative offset, for instance due to a contribution of the lensing
258: galaxy or a foreground object which has not been subtracted, and a
259: (linear) drift between the images which could occur due to
260: microlensing events with long time scales. Problems can occur if
261: there are higher order relative drifts such as short time-scale
262: microlensing events which cannot easily be accounted for within this
263: method which just uses determinations of low order moments of the
264: transfer function.
265:
266: The errors are obtained by assuming that the photometric errors are
267: uncorrelated and follow a Gaussian distribution. These propagated
268: errors give a conservative error estimate of $\pm10$ days on the time
269: delay value, i.e., $\Delta t = 55\pm10$ days.
270:
271:
272: \subsection{The minimum dispersion method}
273: \label{sect:pelt}
274:
275: For the combined data set generated from the A light curve and
276: the shifted B light curve, we estimate the
277: dispersion of the scatter around the unknown mean curve. The true
278: time delay between the images should be manifested as a minimum in
279: the dispersion spectrum (see \citet{Pelt96} for definitions and notation).
280: Both the simplest string length type statistic $D_2^2$ and the smoothed
281: dispersion spectrum $D_3^2$ (smoothing parameter $\delta = 10$ days)
282: give a clear global minimum at $\Delta t \approx 48$ days.
283:
284: The precision of this time delay value is estimated using a bootstrap
285: procedure. We first construct the combined light curve from A and
286: the time-delay shifted B curve ($\Delta t = 48$). This yields a
287: reference curve by median smoothing. From the reference curve we build
288: bootstrap samples by adding randomized errors. For each sample
289: (altogether $1000$) we compute $D_3^2$ dispersion spectra and find
290: corresponding dispersion minima. The scatter of the dispersion minima
291: for the different bootstrap runs is significant (see
292: Fig.~\ref{pelt2}), with a formal $1 \sigma$ error estimate of $ \pm 16$
293: days.
294:
295:
296: \subsection{Model fit method}
297: \label{sect:chifit}
298:
299:
300: We model the data with an arbitrary continuous light curve with a
301: fixed and constant sampling. For a given time delay value $\Delta t$,
302: we use $\chi^2$ minimization to compare the model curve to the A curve
303: and the appropriately time delay shifted and magnitude offset B curve.
304: Additionally, a linear term in one of the curves can be included to
305: model long term microlensing effects such as observed in QSO~0957+561
306: \citep{Schild91}. The minimization procedure is repeated for a range
307: of time delay values (0 to 100) and the $\chi^2$ minimum is obtained
308: with $\Delta t = 49$ days and $\Delta m = 0.66$ magnitudes (i.e., a
309: flux ratio of 0.54). An additional small positive linear term for
310: the A component further improves the $\chi^2$ value.
311:
312: A bootstrap method is used to estimate the errors. Two sets of 1000
313: curves are constructed with the same number of data points as in the
314: data. One set is constructed with the same time sampling as that of
315: our measured data, and the other with a random time sampling. Running
316: the program on these simulated curves results in a $1 \sigma$
317: standard deviation of 2 days on the set of curves with the same
318: sampling as our measured data, and of 7 days on the curves with random
319: sampling. We could interpret this as an error of 2 days internal to
320: the method since the sampling stayed the same for each simulated data
321: set, and an error of 7 days on the measured time delay independently
322: of the sampling of the data, but this needs to be investigated
323: further.
324:
325:
326: \subsection{Iterative modeling}
327: \label{sect:iter}
328: Assuming that the additional time dependent offsets between the
329: time-delay shifted curves are caused by microlensing, a fourth method
330: based on iterative correction of the flux ratios is applied to the
331: data. We split the light curves into several parts (bins). In one
332: case we chose three bins with lengths determined according to the
333: apparent lengths of the offsets in a certain directions (positive or
334: negative compared to the other curve). In three other cases we
335: separate the curves into 2,3 and 4 bins with an equal number of data
336: points. For a range of time-delay values (40 -- 65 days) we first fit
337: a model (using the $\chi^2$ model fit method described above)
338: independently to the separate bins. For each bin and time delay
339: value, an additional constant or linear offset is determined to
340: improve the fit. Finally, new time delay values are determined on
341: these modified curves. The time delays determined in this way turn
342: out to show very little sensitivity to the input values used, and to
343: the different splitting of the curves. The results converge towards a
344: mean value of $51$ days with a standard deviation ($1 \sigma$) of 2
345: days and magnitude offsets varying from 0.6 -- 0.87 mag in the
346: different bins.
347:
348:
349: \subsection{Results}
350:
351: The four time-delay estimates obtained from the different methods are
352: consistent with one another (see Table~\ref{timed}). An average of
353: the results gives a time delay estimate of $51$ days and a flux ratio
354: $A/B=1.50$. The flux ratio at radio wavelengths has been measured to
355: be $1.21$ \citep{Koopmans}. If we assume that the radio flux is not
356: affected by reddening, the B-component is reddened by 0.22 magnitudes,
357: corresponding to a factor of 1.23. At a redshift of 0.41, this
358: corresponds to $A_V\sim0.25$ mag, essentially independent of the
359: assumed reddening law.
360:
361: Except from the iterative modeling, the methods described above yield
362: substantial errors in the time delay. However, the good agreement
363: between the results in addition to the observed time dependent
364: magnitude offsets in the time-delay shifted curves (Fig.~\ref{shift})
365: suggest that the large errors are mostly due to the presence of
366: external variations, e.g., microlensing effects, rather than to the
367: method used to determine the time delay. SOLA and the model fit
368: method correct for slow, linear variations, but not higher order
369: effects. Let us consider a case in which the brighter of the two
370: lensed images undergoes many microlensing events during the time of
371: monitoring. Such short term variations would be indistinguishable from
372: measurement noise for these methods. They may fail to converge or
373: produce a result that is biased at a level of the order of the errors.
374: With the iterative method however, we also correct for higher order
375: effects. The small errors from the iterative method compared to the
376: other three methods indicate the presence of such higher order
377: external variations in the light curves.
378:
379: If no assumptions are made on the short term offsets between the time
380: delay shifted curves we must use the conservative error estimate
381: of $\pm 10$ days ($1 \sigma$) on the time delay value.
382: However, if we assume that these external variations are higher order
383: effects we can use the $1 \sigma$ error estimate of
384: $\pm 2$ days as found from the iterative method.
385:
386:
387:
388: \section{$H_{0}$ estimate}
389:
390: Assuming that microlensing effects affect our $I$ band light
391: curves, a time delay of $51\pm4$ ($95 \%$ confidence level) days
392: has been estimated. Applying the galaxy models from \citet{Maller},
393: and assuming a $\Omega=0.3$ and $\Lambda=0$ Universe, our measured
394: time delay is consistent with a Hubble parameter
395: of $H_{0}=52^{+14}_{-8}~{\rm km}~{\rm s^{-1}}~{\rm Mpc^{-1}}$ ($95 \%$
396: confidence level) where both errors on the model and the time delay
397: are included.
398:
399: In the model of B1600+434, \citet{Maller} assume a constant M/L for
400: the disk and the bulge, and a dark halo that has the same center and
401: the same orientation as the disk. In addition they include the mass
402: associated with the companion galaxy (see Fig~\ref{decima}) modeled as
403: an isothermal sphere. The dark matter is modeled as a standard
404: Pseudo Isothermal Elliptical Mass Distribution
405: \citep[PIEMD]{Kassiola}, and the exponential profiles of the disk and
406: the bulge are modeled by a two-point PIEMD, also called the chameleon
407: profile \citep{Keeton, Hjorth}. Two types of solutions are found
408: with these models, one with a large dark-matter halo core radius,
409: and the other with a nearly singular dark halo. Applying only the
410: solutions with a large dark halo core radius give
411: $H_{0}=54^{+6}_{-5}~{\rm km}~{\rm s^{-1}}~{\rm Mpc^{-1}}$.
412:
413:
414: For comparison we also estimate $H_{0}$ using a simple analytical
415: generalized isothermal galaxy model as described by \citet{Witt}.
416: This method depends only on the time delay and the observed images
417: positions. Using our measured time delay and the image positions from
418: \citet{Maller} measured on the HST image we obtain
419: $H_{0}=45^{+6}_{-5}~{\rm km}~{\rm s^{-1}}~{\rm Mpc^{-1}}$
420: ($\Omega=0.3$ and $\Lambda=0$) where errors come only from the time delay
421: and the image positions. This is only an indicative estimate of $H_{0}$
422: using a very simplified model. Possible shear from ellipticity in the
423: lens galaxy or mass contribution from the companion galaxy is not
424: taken into account.
425:
426: Finally, as pointed out by \citet{Romanowsky} and \citet{Witt},
427: the time delay depends on the density profile of the lens galaxy.
428: Hence if the real density profile of the spiral galaxy is different
429: from our models the errors in $H_{0}$ will increase.
430:
431:
432: \section{Discussion}
433:
434: The main goal of our optical monitoring program at the NOT is to
435: measure time delays for as many lensed QSOs as possible in order to
436: better constrain the mass distribution in lens galaxies. A robust time
437: delay value of $\Delta t = 51 \pm10$ (1 $\sigma$) days and a flux
438: ratio of 0.69 have been measured from $I$ band light curves of our
439: first target B1600+434. Assuming that our lightcurves are affected by
440: external variations the time delay value is constrained to $51\pm4$
441: days ($95 \%$ confidence level). This value is consistent with a
442: Hubble parameter $H_{0}=52^{+14}_{-8}~{\rm km}~{\rm s^{-1}}~{\rm
443: Mpc^{-1}}$ ($\Omega=0.3$, $\Lambda=0$) using the models of
444: \citet{Maller}. We recall that possible systematic errors due to
445: uncertainties in the density profiles and the degeneracy between the
446: relative contribution of disk, bulge and halo to the mass in the
447: spiral galaxy may increase the uncertainties in the estimated $H_{0}$.
448:
449: As is evident from Fig.~\ref{shift}, and as measured by the various
450: methods to determine the time delay, there are slow additional time
451: dependent magnitude offsets between the curves. These variations are
452: $\sim$0.2 mag on time scales of a few months. Since the QSO images of
453: B1600+434 pass through the lens galaxy with high optical depths for
454: microlensing, the offsets between the two time-delay shifted curves
455: (Fig.~\ref{shift}) are likely to be due to microlensing of one of the
456: components. This interpretation is supported by the detection of
457: microlensing in light curves obtained at radio wavelengths
458: \citep{Koopmans}, and implies that a significant fraction of the
459: mass in the dark halo consists of massive compact objects. Simulations
460: of microlensing light curves must be carried out in order to determine
461: the lens masses and source sizes that could reproduce the observed
462: variations in our optical light curves (see \citet{WP91} and
463: \citet{SW98}). Such a microlensing analysis will be published in a
464: separate paper.
465:
466: Microlensing could also be partly responsible for the sharp event at
467: $\sim$JD2451350 in the light curve of the B component. Such high
468: magnification and short duration events may occur in cases of
469: microlensing by stars in random motion whereas the slow variations are
470: typical for microlensing events by the stars with velocities following
471: the bulk motion of the galaxy (e.g., Wambsganss \& Kundi\'c 1995). We
472: note however that much of this event must be due to intrinsic
473: variations in the QSO since a significant peak is
474: detected for both components.
475:
476: Although the temporal sampling of our curves does not allow to fully
477: disentangle high frequency microlensing and intrinsic variations, it
478: is sufficient to follow lower order variations, yielding robust time
479: delay estimates fairly independently of the statistical method used.
480: The time delay estimates measured with the four different methods are
481: in agreement with each other. Furthermore, the time delay value of
482: $47^{+12}_{-9}$ days recently estimated from radio measurements
483: \citet{Koopmans} is consistent with our optical measurement. There
484: are thus two independent data sets, one at optical wavelengths ($I$
485: band) and one at radio wavelengths, hence affected in very different
486: ways by microlensing, yielding the same time delay value within the
487: measurement errors.
488:
489: The remarkably strong variations in this system makes it interesting
490: to study in more detail. The observed microlensing effects
491: may provide important constraints on the MACHO masses in the lens
492: galaxy. Moreover, once $H_{0}$ is known
493: independently from other lenses, or other methods, an accurate time
494: delay can be used to constrain the mass distribution between the halo
495: and the bulge of the spiral lens galaxy. In particular, a well
496: determined time delay and flux ratio can contribute to determine the
497: maximum allowed disk mass in the lens galaxy.
498:
499:
500:
501: \acknowledgements
502:
503: We thank the NOT Director Vilppu Piirola for granting us observing
504: time for this project on a flexible basis. We are especially grateful
505: to the dozens of visiting observers at NOT who have contributed to
506: this project by performing the scheduled observations. This project
507: was conceived in 1997 while JH, AOJ, and JP were visiting scientists
508: at the Center for Advanced Study in Oslo. We thank Rolf Stabell and
509: Sjur Refsdal for inviting us there and for their kind hospitality. We
510: also acknowledge stimulating conversations with Frederic Courbin and
511: the useful comments from the referee. The project was supported in
512: part by the Danish Natural Science Research Council (SNF). IB was
513: supported in part by contract ARC94/99-178 ``Action de Recherche
514: Concert\'ee de la Communaut\'e Fran\c{c}aise (Belgium)'' and P\^ole
515: d'Attraction Interuniversitaire, P4/05 \protect{(SSTC, Belgium)}.
516:
517: \begin{thebibliography}{}
518:
519: \bibitem[Fassnacht \& Cohen(1998)]{Fassnacht} Fassnacht, C. D. \& Cohen, J. G. 1998, \aj, 115, 377
520: \bibitem[Hjorth et al.(1999)]{Hjorth99} Hjorth, J., Burud, I., Jaunsen, A. O.,
521: Andersen, M. I., Korhonen, H., Clasen, J. W., {\O}stensen, R. 1999, proceedings of the conference held in Boston 25-30 July, 1999:
522: Gravitational Lensing: Recent progress and future goals.
523: \bibitem[Hjorth \& Kneib(1999)]{Hjorth} Hjorth, J., \& Kneib, J.-P. 1999, \apj, submitted
524: \bibitem[Jackson et al.(1995)]{Jackson} Jackson, N. et al., 1995, \mnras, 274, L25
525: \bibitem[Jaunsen \& Hjorth(1997)]{Jaunsen} Jaunsen, A. O. \& Hjorth, J. 1997, \aap, 317, L39
526: \bibitem[Kassiola \& Kovner(1993)]{Kassiola} Kassiola, A., \& Kovner, I. 1993, \apj, 417, 450
527: \bibitem[Keeton \& Kochanek(1998)]{Keeton} Keeton, C. R., \& Kochanek, C. S. 1998, \apj, 495, 157
528: \bibitem[Koopmans et al.(2000)]{Koopmans} Koopmans, L. V. E, de Bruyn, A. G, Xanthopoulos, E., \& Fassnacht, C. D. 2000, \aap, 356, 391
529: \bibitem[Kundi{\'c} et al.(1997)]{Kundic} Kundi{\'c}, T. et al., 1997, \apj, 482, 75
530: \bibitem[Magain, Courbin \& Sohy(1998)]{Magain} Magain P., Courbin F., \& Sohy S. 1998, \apj, 494, 472
531: \bibitem[Maller et al.(2000)]{Maller} Maller A. H., Simard, L., Guhathakurta, P., Hjorth, J., Jaunsen, A. O., Flores, R. A. \& Primack, J. R. 2000, \apj, 533, 194
532: \bibitem[Pelt et al.(1994)]{Pelt94} Pelt J., Hoff, W., Kayser, R., Refsdal, S. \& Schramm, T. 1994, \aap, 286, 775
533: \bibitem[Pelt et al.(1996)]{Pelt96} Pelt J., Kayser R., Refsdal S. \& Schramm, T. 1996, \aap, 305, 97
534: \bibitem[Pijpers(1997)]{Pij97} Pijpers F. P. 1997, \mnras, 289, 933
535: \bibitem[Pijpers(1999)]{Pij99} Pijpers F. P. 1999, \mnras, 307, 659
536: \bibitem[Pijpers \& Thompson(1994)]{PT94} Pijpers F. P. \& Thompson M. J. 1994,\aap, 281, 231
537: \bibitem[Pijpers \& Wanders(1994)]{PW94} Pijpers F. P. \& Wanders I. 1994, \mnras, 271, 183
538: \bibitem[Refsdal(1964)]{Refsdal64} Refsdal S. 1964, \mnras, 128, 295
539: \bibitem[Romanowsky \& Kochanek(1999)]{Romanowsky} Romanowsky, A. J. \& Kochanek, C. S. 1999, \apj, 516, 18
540: \bibitem[Schechter et al.(1997)]{Schechter} Schechter, P. L. et al., 1997, \apj, 475, 85
541: \bibitem[Schild \& Thomson(1997)]{Schild97} Schild, R. E. \& Thomson, D. J.
542: 1997, \aj, 113, 130
543: \bibitem[Schild \& Thomson(1995)]{Schild95} Schild, R. E. \& Thomson, D. J.
544: 1995, \aj, 109, 1970
545: \bibitem[Schild \& Smith(1991)]{Schild91} Schild, R. E. \& Smith, R. C.
546: 1991, \aj, 101, 813
547: \bibitem[Schild(1990)]{Schild90} Schild, R. E 1990 \aj, 100, 1771
548: \bibitem[Schmidt \& Wambsganss(1998)]{SW98} Schmidt, R. \& Wambsganss, J. 1998 \aap, 335, 379
549: \bibitem[Wambsganss \& Paczy{\`n}ski(1991)]{WP91} Wambsganss, J. \& Paczy{\`n}ski, B. 1991, \aj, 102, 864
550: \bibitem[Witt et al.(2000)]{Witt} Witt, H. J., Mao, S. \& Keeton, C. R. 2000, submitted, preprint astro-ph/0004069
551: \end{thebibliography}
552:
553: \clearpage
554:
555: %****************************************************************************
556:
557: \figcaption[f1.eps]{{\it Top}: Stacked $I$-band images of $12\times12$ arcsec
558: around B1600+434 with a total of $\sim 3.5$ hours of exposure and a seeing
559: FWHM = 1\farcs13.
560: {\it Middle}: The image (FWHM = 0\farcs38)
561: as obtained from the simultaneous deconvolution of 33 frames.
562: The main lensing spiral galaxy can be
563: seen between the two QSO components A and B. A neighbor galaxy
564: is seen to the south east of the system. North is up and East is
565: to the left. {\it Bottom}: The HST $H$ band image.
566: \label{decima}}
567:
568: \figcaption[f2.eps]{
569: $I$-band light curves for B1600+434 (A and B component) and two
570: reference stars in the field. The plotted value for B is $I$(mag)$+$1.5,
571: and for S4 $I$(mag)$+$0.4. The magnitudes are calculated relative to
572: calibrated stars in the field. The error bars represent photon noise and
573: PSF errors measured as described in the text (\S~\ref{sect:phot}).
574: \label{lightcurve}}
575:
576: \figcaption[f3.eps]{
577: Combined lightcurve from both components of B1600+434.
578: The curve from the B component is shifted forward in time by 51 days and scaled
579: with $-0.69$ mag. The magnitudes are calculated relative to
580: calibrated stars in the field. The error bars represent photon noise and
581: PSF errors measured as described in the text (\S~\ref{sect:phot}).
582: \label{shift}}
583:
584:
585: \figcaption[f4.eps]{Distribution of the time delays for $1000$ bootstrap
586: runs with the minimum dispersion method (see \S~\ref{sect:pelt}).
587: \label{pelt2}}
588:
589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
590:
591:
592: \begin{deluxetable}{crr}
593: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
594: \tablecaption{Estimated time delays and $I$-band magnitude differences
595: for B1600+434 calculated with the four methods described in the
596: text (\S~\ref{sect:lcurve}).\label{timed}}
597: \tablewidth{0pt}
598: \tablehead{
599: \colhead{} & \colhead{$\Delta$t (days)} & \colhead{$\Delta m$ (mag)}
600: }
601: \startdata
602: SOLA & 55$\pm$10 & 0.72$\pm$0.007 \\
603: Minimum dispersion & 48$\pm$16 & \nodata \\
604: $\chi^2$ fit& 49$\pm$7 & 0.66$\pm$0.01\\
605: Iterative fit & 51$\pm$4 & 0.6--0.87 \\
606: \hline
607:
608: \enddata
609: \end{deluxetable}
610:
611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
612:
613: \begin{figure}
614: \epsscale{0.4}
615: \plotone{f1.eps}
616: \end{figure}
617:
618:
619: \begin{figure}
620: \epsscale{1.}
621: \plotone{f2.eps}
622: \end{figure}
623:
624: \begin{figure}
625: \epsscale{1.}
626: \plotone{f3col.eps}
627: \end{figure}
628:
629: \begin{figure}
630: \epsscale{1.}
631: \plotone{f4.eps}
632: \end{figure}
633:
634:
635: \end{document}
636:
637:
638:
639:
640:
641:
642:
643:
644: