1: %====================================================================%

2: %                  MORIOND.TEX     2000                              %

3: % This latex file rewritten from various sources for use in the      %

4: % preparation of the standard proceedings Volume, latest version     %

5: % for the Neutrino'96 Helsinki conference proceedings                %

6: % by Susan Hezlet with acknowledgments to Lukas Nellen.              %

7: % Some changes are due to David Cassel.                              %

8: %====================================================================%

9: 

10: %\documentstyle[11pt,moriond,epsfig]{article}

11: \documentclass[11pt]{article}

12: \usepackage{moriond2000,epsfig}

13: 

14: 

15: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}    

16: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of

17: % first citation.

18: 

19: % A useful Journal macro

20: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}

21: 

22: % Some useful journal names

23: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}

24: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}

25: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}

26: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}

27: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.}  B}

28: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}

29: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}

30: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}

31: 

32: % Some other macros used in the sample text

33: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

34: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}

35: \def\mco{\multicolumn}

36: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}

37: \def\vep{\varepsilon}

38: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

39: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}

40: \def\vp{{\bf p}}

41: \def\ko{K^0}

42: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}

43: \def\al{\alpha}

44: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}

45: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

46: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

47: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

48: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

49: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}

50: %temp replacement due to no font

51: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

52: %                                                %

53: %    BEGINNING OF TEXT                           %

54: %                                                %

55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

56: \begin{document}

57: \vspace*{4cm}

58: \title{THE LENS-REDSHIFT TEST REVISITED}

59: 

60: \author{ P. HELBIG }

61: 

62: \address{Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Kapteyn Instituut, Postbus 800,\\

63: NL-9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands}

64: 

65: \maketitle\abstracts{

66: Kochanek\cite{K92} suggested that the redshifts of gravitational lens

67: galaxies rule out a large cosmological constant.  This result was

68: questioned by Helbig \& Kayser\cite{HK}, who pointed out that selection

69: effects related to the brightness of the lens can bias the results of

70: this test against a high $\lambda_{0}$ value; however, we did not claim

71: that the observations \emph{favoured} a high $\lambda_{0}$ value, merely

72: that current observational data were not sufficient to say either way,

73: using the test as proposed by Kochanek\cite{K92} but corrected for

74: selection effects.  Kochanek\cite{K96a} pointed out that an additional

75: observable, namely, the fraction of measured lens redshifts, provides

76: additional information which restores the sensitivity of the test to the

77: cosmological model, at least somewhat.  Here, I consider three aspects. 

78: First, I discuss the appropriateness of the correction to the test

79: proposed by Kochanek (1996a). Second, I briefly mention the slightly

80: different statistical methods which have been used in connection with

81: this test.  Third, I discuss what results can be obtained today now that

82: more and better-defined observations are available. 

83: }

84: 

85: \section{Introduction}

86: 

87: The optical depth for gravitational lensing depends on the cosmological

88: model, the Faber-Jackson and Tully-Fisher relations, lens-galaxy type

89: (or the morphological mix), the luminosity function of lens galaxies and

90: the $S$-$z$ relation of the source population (e.g.\

91: Kochanek\cite{K92}, Helbig \& Kayser\cite{HK}).  There is an

92: obvious problem with simply measuring the integrated optical depth,

93: i.e.\ the number of lens systems (according to some useful definition): 

94: There is a degeneracy between various parameters such that quite

95: different combinations can result in the same number of lenses.  While

96: it is possible to break this degeneracy somewhat, this requires a

97: careful survey and cannot be done with a sample of lenses `from the

98: literature'.  Kochanek\cite{K92} pointed out that one could use the 

99: \emph{shape} of the optical-depth function $\mathrm{d}\tau/\mathrm{d}z$ 

100: as a probe of the cosmological model.  The advantage of this approach is 

101: that it does not depend on the overall normalisation, as counting the 

102: number of lenses obviously does.  Also, it is quite sensitive to the 

103: cosmological model, with the dependence on the cosmological model of a) 

104: the combination of angular size distances and b) the volume element, 

105: both of which appear in $\mathrm{d}\tau/\mathrm{d}z$, reinforcing one 

106: another.  In other words, the redshifts of lens galaxies can be used as 

107: a probe of the cosmological model which is relatively little affected by 

108: our ignorance of other factors which determine the total optical depth.

109: 

110: \section{History}

111: 

112: Kochanek\cite{K92} used a sample of 4 gravitational lens systems from

113: the literature (estimating the lens redshift from absorption lines if

114: unknown) and found that the Einstein-de~Sitter model was 5--10 times

115: more likely than a flat model dominated by a cosmological constant.

116: Helbig \& Kayser\cite{HK} pointed out that this is potentially

117: subject to a strong bias:  It could be that most known lens redshifts are

118: low not because we live in a universe in which this is more probable,

119: but since we could not have measured them if they were higher.  To

120: correct for this effect, we suggested comparing the shape of

121: $\mathrm{d}\tau/\mathrm{d}z$ not over the whole range

122: [0,$z_{\mathrm{s}}$] (in practice, the value of this function is

123: negligible before $z_{\mathrm{s}}$ is reached), but rather only out to

124: that redshift where a lens redshift could have been measured, assuming

125: some realistic limiting magnitude (at this redshift,

126: $\mathrm{d}\tau/\mathrm{d}z$ usually still has a non-negligible value) and

127: found that no interesting constraints could be obtained from

128: then-current data (using 6 systems, all with measured, not estimated,

129: lens redshifts), even if many more such systems were found, and that 

130: this conclusion did not depend on the precise value assumed for the 

131: limiting magnitude.

132: 

133: Kochanek\cite{K96a} then pointed out that one can use an additional

134: observable to restore cosmological sensitivity to the lens-redshift

135: test: the fraction of lens systems with measured redshifts.  If a strong 

136: bias were present such that only low lens redshifts could be measured, 

137: then there should be many lens systems with unmeasured redshifts.  While 

138: true, this misses the point of Helbig \& Kayser\cite{HK}:  Our claim 

139: was not that the observations supported a large value of the 

140: cosmological constant (nor the opposite), but rather that the conclusion 

141: of Kochanek\cite{K92} did not follow from the sample used (or our 

142: sample) since the lens-brightness bias had not been taken into account.

143: Also, the correction proposed in Kochanek\cite{K92} assumes that 

144: unknown lens redshifts are unknown only because they are faint; in

145: practice, there can be many other reasons why some lens redshifts have

146: not yet been measured (e.g. the maximum declination accessible from 

147: UKIRT). 

148: 

149: Various different statistical measures have been used to compare the

150: observed and predicted lens-redshift distributions.  Here, I only

151: consider the maximum-likelihood method (e.g.\ Kochanek\cite{K96a}),

152: which I consider to be most appropriate.  However, results from using

153: the binning method of Helbig \& Kayser\cite{HK} or a Kolmogorov-Smirnov

154: test (Helbig, unpublished) give qualitatively similar results. 

155: 

156: \section{Using CLASS}

157: 

158: The whole issue of unknown lens redshifts and their possible causes can 

159: be avoided if one has a sample which is complete with respect to lens 

160: redshifts.  CLASS (e.g. Helbig\cite{CLASS}) is close to this goal, and 

161: the JVAS subset of CLASS (more exactly, the JVAS lens systems in CLASS 

162: which are also part of the statistically complete lens-survey sample; 

163: see Helbig\cite{CLASS} for more details) is actually complete.  While 

164: only consisting of four systems, this is the same number used in 

165: Kochanek\cite{K92}, so the time is ripe to revisit this topic.  (The 

166: last JVAS lens redshift was obtained by Kochanek \& Tonry\cite{TK}.)

167: 

168: Figure~\ref{fig:kochanek} shows the likelihood as a function of 

169: $\lambda_{0}$ and

170: $\Omega_{0}$ for the sample from Kochanek\cite{K92} 

171: \begin{figure}

172: \psfig{figure=kochanek.ps,height=4in} 

173: \caption{Likelihood as a function of $\lambda_{0}$ and $\Omega_{0}$ 

174: using the Kochanek sample; darker means higher likelihood.

175: \label{fig:kochanek}}

176: \end{figure}

177: while Fig.~\ref{fig:JVAS} shows

178: the same for the JVAS lens systems B0218+357, MG0414+054, B1030+074 and

179: B1422+231.  

180: \begin{figure}

181: \psfig{figure=jvas.ps,height=4in} 

182: \caption{Likelihood as a function of $\lambda_{0}$ and $\Omega_{0}$ 

183: using the JVAS sample; darker means higher likelihood.

184: \label{fig:JVAS}}

185: \end{figure}

186: It is obvious that the Kochanek\cite{K92} sample indicates

187: that the Einstein-de~Sitter model is more likely than a

188: flat model dominated by a cosmological constant.  The JVAS sample tells 

189: a different story.  Probably, part of the difference, in particular, the 

190: low probability of models near the white area to the lower right

191: (which corresponds to no-big-bang models and is excluded \textit{a 

192: priori}) can be explained by the bias noted in 

193: Helbig \& Kayser\cite{HK}, while part can be explained by small-number 

194: statistics.  This will be explored in more detail in Helbig \& 

195: Rusin\cite{HR}.  (It should be noted that the results for the 

196: Kochanek\cite{K92} sample presented here do not correspond exactly to 

197: those in Kochanek\cite{K92} since there (as in Helbig \&

198: Kayser\cite{HK}), the now-known-to-be-erroneous $(3/2)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ 

199: factor for elliptical galaxies was used.  Including this factor increases the 

200: relative likelihood of the Einstein-de~Sitter model for the Kochanek\cite{K92} 

201: sample while its effect on the JVAS sample is less pronounced.)

202: 

203: 

204: \section{Conclusions and Future Prospects} 

205: 

206: It is obvious that the conclusion of Kochanek\cite{K92} was premature:

207: using a better-defined and in particular bias-free (since complete)

208: sample, the lens-redshift test does not disfavour cosmological-constant

209: dominated models, although the significance of this is not yet clear.

210: Since the publication of Kochanek\cite{K92}, of course, the

211: cosmological constant has become popular again and, although more

212: detailed lens-statistics analyses are not incompatible with this (e.g.\

213: Helbig\cite{Helbig}), it is not yet clear whether systematic effects,

214: such as our lack of sufficient information about the $S$-$z$ plane of

215: the source population (e.g. Kochanek\cite{K96b}), make current estimates

216: of $\lambda_{0}$ from the analysis of lens surveys unreliable.  It is at

217: least interesting that the lens-redshift test does not seem to favour an

218: Einstein-de~Sitter universe over a model (flat or not) dominated by a

219: cosmological constant.  When the much larger CLASS sample is complete

220: with respect to lens redshifts, the time will be ripe to revisit this

221: topic once again. 

222: 

223: \section*{Acknowledgments}

224: 

225: It is a pleasure to thank David Rusin for useful discussions and the 

226: CLASS team for providing the numbers to work with.

227: 

228: \section*{References}

229: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

230: 

231: \bibitem{K92}C.S.~Kochanek, \Journal{ApJ}{384}{1}{1992}

232: 

233: \bibitem{HK}P.~Helbig \& R.~Kayser, \Journal{A\&A}{308}{359}{1996}

234: 

235: \bibitem{K96a}C.S.~Kochanek, \Journal{ApJ}{466}{638}{1996}

236: 

237: \bibitem{CLASS}P.~Helbig, these proceedings

238: 

239: \bibitem{TK}J.L.~Tonry \& C.S.~Kochanek, \Journal{AJ}{117}{2034}{1999}

240: 

241: \bibitem{HR}P.~Helbig \& D.~Rusin, in preparation

242: 

243: \bibitem{Helbig}P.~Helbig \Journal{A\&A}{350}{1}{1999}

244: 

245: \bibitem{K96b}C.S.~Kochanek, \Journal{ApJ}{473}{595}{1996}

246: 

247: \end{thebibliography}

248: 

249: \end{document}

250: 

251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

252: % End of moriond.tex  %

253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

254: 

255: