1: \documentstyle[psfig,mnras_cite,times]{mn}
2: \begin{document}
3: \author[Elspeth M. Minty, Alan F. Heavens, Michael R.S. Hawkins]
4: {Elspeth M. Minty, Alan F. Heavens, Michael R.S. Hawkins\\
5: Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal
6: Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ , United Kingdom}
7: \date{\today}
8: \title{Testing dark matter with high-redshift supernovae}
9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
12: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \def\gs{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$>$}\kern-7.0pt % >
14: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}} % ~
15: \def\ls{\mathrel{\raise1.16pt\hbox{$<$}\kern-7.0pt % <
16: \lower3.06pt\hbox{{$\scriptstyle \sim$}}}} % ~
17:
18: \maketitle
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: Dark matter in the Universe consisting of macroscopic objects such as
22: primordial black holes may cause gravitational lensing of distant
23: objects. The magnification associated with lensing will lead to
24: additional scatter in the received flux from standard candles, and too
25: small an observed scatter could rule out compact dark matter entirely.
26: In this letter, we show how the scatter in fluxes of distant Type 1a
27: supernovae could be used to distinguish between models with and
28: without lensing by macroscopic dark matter. The proposed SNAP
29: project, with $\sim 2400$ supernovae in the range $0.1\ls
30: z\ls 1.7$, should be able to identify models at $99.9$\% confidence,
31: if systematic errors are controlled. Note that this test is
32: independent of any evolution of the mean supernova luminosity with
33: redshift. The variances of the current Supernova Cosmology Project
34: sample do not rule out compact lenses as dark matter: formally they
35: favour such a population, but the significance is low, and removal of
36: a single faint supernova from the sample reverses the conclusion.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40:
41: In recent years one of the classic tests of the geometry of the
42: Universe has undergone a resurgence of interest. Type 1a
43: supernovae are thought to act as standard candles, and therefore
44: their Hubble diagram may be used to constrain cosmological
45: models. Dedicated discovery and follow-up programmes
46: (\pcite{Perl97}, \pcite{Perl98}, \pcite{Schmidt98}) have
47: established the Hubble diagram to $z \simeq 1$, leading to
48: constraints on $H_0$, $\Omega_m$ and $\Omega_\Lambda$, most
49: notably the requirement of a positive cosmological constant
50: \cite{Riess98}. It has long been recognised that the supernova Hubble
51: diagram would be affected by gravitational lensing, if significant
52: quantities of dark matter resided in the form of macroscopic compact
53: objects (herafter MACHOs) such as black holes (\pcite{LSW88},
54: \pcite{Rauch91}, \pcite{Holz98},
55: \pcite{MS99}, \pcite{Perl99}, \pcite{SH99}, \pcite{WA2000},
56: \pcite{HT2000}).
57: Such a population has been proposed to account for the long-term
58: variability of quasars \cite{Hawkins93}.
59:
60: These studies have shown that lensing can have a significant effect on
61: the estimation of cosmological parameters, and that the distribution
62: of supernova fluxes could be used to determine whether the dark matter
63: was in MACHO form or not. \scite{MS99} showed that, provided the
64: cosmology was known, microscopic dark matter could be distinguished
65: from MACHOs with relatively small numbers of supernovae. The reason
66: for this sensitivity is that in a MACHO-dominated universe of
67: reasonable density, most bunches of light rays do not undergo large
68: magnifications, and the most probable flux received is close to that
69: expected in empty-beam models \cite{DyerRoeder74}. This shifts the
70: most probable Hubble diagram systematically, changing the estimates of
71: the cosmological parameters \cite{Holz98}. Given that one does not
72: know the underlying cosmology, one should estimate simultaneously the
73: background cosmology as well as the contribution to the matter density
74: by MACHOs. This is ambitious, and will surely be attempted once
75: larger supernova searches such as those proposed by the
76: Supernova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP: see http://snap.lbl.gov) and by
77: the Visible and Infrared Telescope for Astronomy (VISTA;
78: http://www.vista.ac.uk) are underway. In this paper, the study is
79: more limited; we focus on how the extra scatter in supernova fluxes,
80: from lensing, can be used to constrain the quantity of MACHO dark
81: matter. The variance will have contributions from intrinsic variations
82: in supernova properties, instrumental error, and lensing. The first
83: two of these should be virtually independent of the cosmological
84: model; the presence or absence of significant additional scatter
85: allows a test of whether the dark matter is in the form of MACHOs.
86:
87: The detectability of dark matter candidates in this test rests on how
88: accurately the variance can be estimated from sets of supernovae. For
89: gaussian distributions, this is readily done, but, although it may be
90: a reasonable approximation to model the intrinsic and instrumental
91: effects as gaussian, the lensing effect is highly skewed towards rare
92: high-magnification events. We must therefore take care in modelling
93: this effect accurately. We use numerical ray-tracing simulations
94: (described in section 2) and analyse the results using a Bayesian
95: method (section 2.1). Lensing induces an extra scatter which rises
96: with redshift, contributing as much as $0.5$ magnitudes at a redshift
97: 1.5 for an Einstein-de Sitter model with all the matter in MACHOs.
98: This is readily distinguishable from a no-lensing model, provided
99: sufficient supernovae are available. We find, in general, that with
100: $\sim 2400$ supernovae selected from $0.1 \ls z
101: \ls 1.7$, as proposed by SNAP, the scatter alone can select
102: between several cosmological models at $99.9$\% confidence level, if
103: systematic errors are controlled. Note that this test has the
104: advantage that it is insensitive to any evolution in the mean
105: luminosity of supernova (although it is dependent on any evolution in
106: the scatter of intrinsic properties). Similar conclusions to ours
107: have recently been reached via a slightly different analysis by
108: \cite{MGB01}.
109:
110: \section{Method}
111:
112: The microlensing effect on the brightness of supernovae at redshifts
113: $\sim 1$ is not necessarily accurately modelled by a single-scattering
114: event. We therefore simulate the lensing of distant supernovae with a
115: ray-tracing program. We assume the Universe is populated with compact
116: dark matter candidates of a single mass. The results are independent
117: of the mass, provided the source is small compared to the Einstein
118: radius (for canonical expansion speeds, at maximum light this is $\sim
119: 10^{13} m$, which requires $M\gs 10^{-2} M_\odot$). The masses are
120: confined to a discrete set of lens planes, and rays are passed from
121: the observer to the source plane, being bent at each stage by the
122: lenses in each plane. The bend angle is the vector sum of the bends
123: from individual lenses, and is computed using the Barnes-Hut tree code
124: \cite{Barnes86}. The bend angle for each lens is directed towards each lens,
125: with magnitude $\alpha = {4GM\over r c^2}$ where $r$ is the impact
126: parameter. The rays are traced to the source redshift, and the solid
127: angle subtended by each of the distorted pixels is computed. Since
128: surface brightness is conserved by the lensing process, the ratio of
129: the solid angles of the image plane pixel and distorted source plane
130: pixel gives the magnification. Full details of the simulations will
131: appear elsewhere (Minty et al, in preparation), but in summary we use
132: $400-5000$ lenses in total, randomly placed on $5$ planes located to
133: give equal numbers of lenses per plane. The random hypothesis is
134: justified in \scite{HW98} and \scite{Met99}. Backwards rays are sent
135: out on a $1024 \times 1024$ grid (see Fig. \ref{raytracing}), with
136: rays separated by a small fraction of the Einstein radius of lenses on
137: the nearest plane, ensuring the pattern is fully sampled. In
138: computing the bend angle, the lens pattern is assumed to be periodic.
139: \begin{figure}
140: \centerline{
141: \psfig{figure=raytracing.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}}
142: \caption[]{\label{raytracing} The ray-tracing simulation geometry. In
143: practice we use 5 planes, but test with more.}
144: \end{figure}
145: We perform tests varying the number of sources, size of lens planes,
146: number of planes, tree-code parameters, grid size, to ensure
147: robustness of the results. The need for numerical simulations is
148: illustrated in fig. \ref{lightcurve}, which shows a typical lightcurve
149: for lensing in an Einstein-de Sitter Universe, where the dark matter
150: is all in lenses. The optical depth to lensing is high, and the
151: magnification is not well described by a single-scattering event.
152: \begin{figure}
153: \centerline{
154: \psfig{figure=lightcurve.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=270}}
155: \caption[]{\label{lightcurve} A sample simulated lightcurve of a
156: supernova at $z=1.7$ in an Einstein-de Sitter universe dominated by
157: MACHOs. The timescale is set by the mass of lenses and their velocity
158: dispersion; for the purposes of this figure, these are
159: $10^{-4}M_\odot$ and $300$ km s$^{-1}$.}
160: \end{figure}
161: We consider four separate models, one with no lensing, one an
162: Einstein-de Sitter model with all matter in lenses, and two flat
163: models with matter $\Omega_m=0.3$, and cosmological constant
164: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$. These two models differ in the proportion of
165: the matter in lenses. The models are detailed in table 1. We perform
166: two analyses here, a preliminary study of the 42 high-redshift
167: supernovae in the Supernova Cosmology Project \cite{Perl99}, and a
168: second study investigating whether SNAP should be capable of detecting
169: MACHOs unambiguously. In the former case, we take the errors from the
170: obsevations. For the SNAP study, we assume that there is an intrinsic
171: variation in supernovae properties of 0.157 mag
172: \cite{Perl99}, and a measurement error of 0.08 mag \cite{MS99}.
173: These errors (in magnitude) are assumed to be gaussian, and
174: independent of redshift and cosmology, although these assumptions
175: could be relaxed if desired. Model 1 contains only these components
176: of variance.
177: \begin{table}
178: \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
179: \hline
180: Model & Matter density & Cosmological constant & Density in lenses \\
181: & $\Omega_m$ & $\Omega_\Lambda$ & $\Omega_{Lens}$ \\
182: \hline
183: 1 & & & 0 \\
184: 2 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.1 \\
185: 3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.3 \\
186: 4 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 \\
187: \hline
188: \end{tabular}
189: \caption[]{\label{models} Models considered. Model 1 includes scatter
190: only from measurement error and intrinsic variations.}
191: \end{table}
192: \begin{figure}
193: \centerline{
194: \psfig{figure=scatter.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}}
195: \caption[]{\label{scatter} Mean and r.m.s. deviation of supernova
196: brightness vs. redshift, due to lensing alone. Note that the scatter
197: has been symmetrised. The models have, from the top,
198: ($\Omega_0,\Omega_\Lambda,\Omega_{Lens}$)=(0.3,0.7,0.1), (0.3,0.7,0.3)
199: and (1.0,0.0,1.0).}
200: \end{figure}
201: Fig. \ref{scatter} shows the scatter in the magnitudes induced by
202: lensing for models 2--4, as a function of redshift. Given that the
203: intrinsic plus instrumental scatter is $\sim 0.2$ mag, we see that the additional
204: variance from lensing becomes very significant at redshifts $\gs 1$.
205:
206: \subsection{Statistics}
207:
208: SNAP proposes to obtain $N \sim 100-300$ supernovae per redshift
209: interval of $\Delta z=0.1$ between $z=0.4$ and $z=1.2$, with small
210: numbers at lower and higher redshift (up to $z \sim 1.7$; see the
211: Science Case in http://snap.lbl.gov for full details). For
212: statistical analysis, we use the r.m.s. in supernova magnitude in
213: each redshift bin. The discriminatory power is thus determined by how
214: accurately the r.m.s. can be estimated from $N$ supernovae. This can
215: be calculated analytically for gaussian distributions, but the
216: distribution of magnifications induced by lensing is far from gaussian
217: (see fig. \ref{magdist}).
218: \begin{figure}
219: \psfig{figure=magdist.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=270}
220: \caption[]{\label{magdist} The distribution of magnifications arising
221: from lensing in the three lensing models at redshift $z=1.7$. Models
222: 2-4, with increasing $\Omega_{Lens}$, from the left.}
223: \end{figure}
224: We therefore draw $N$ magnifications at random from the lensing
225: simulations, noting that the probability of a supernova lying in a
226: distorted pixel in the source plane is proportional to the solid angle
227: of the pixel. These magnifications are applied to magnitudes drawn
228: from gaussian distributions of variance $\sigma^2 =
229: \sigma^2_{intrinsic} + \sigma^2_{observational}$. For the
230: proposed SNAP survey we take $\sigma_{intrinsic}=0.157$ mag
231: \cite{Perl99} and $\sigma_{observational}=0.08$ mag \cite{MS99}. For the current
232: data, we take $\sigma$ to be the individual estimated
233: r.m.s. \cite{Perl99}. We do this repeatedly, and compute the
234: distribution of the sample variance as a function of redshift. Some
235: representative distributions are shown in fig. \ref{rmsdistribution}.
236: \begin{figure}
237: \psfig{figure=rms-distrbn.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=270}
238: \caption[]{\label{rmsdistribution} The distribution of the
239: r.m.s. scatter of $N=150$ supernovae at redshift $z=1.7$, for the four
240: models (1--4, from the left).}
241: \end{figure}
242: We compute the probability distribution of the variance
243: estimator $D_i = \sum_j (m_{j,i}-\bar m_i)^2/(N-1)$, where the
244: sum extends over $j=1\ldots N$ supernovae in a redshift bin $i$.
245: $\bar m_i$ is the mean magnitude in bin $i$. We do this by
246: Monte-Carlo simulation of $N$ supernovae drawn from ray-tracing
247: simulations. This gives us, for a given model $M_k$, the
248: probability of obtaining a set of variances $\{D_i\}$,
249: \be
250: p(\{D_i\}|M_k,N) = \prod_i p(D_i|M_k,N)
251: \ee
252: since the bins are independent. From now on, we suppress the $N$ in
253: these probabilities.
254:
255: A complication arising for our analysis of future surveys is the
256: inevitable absence of data. We seek the probability of deducing the
257: correct model $M_{cor}$. Marginalising over the (unknown at this
258: stage) true model, this is
259: \ba
260: p(M_{cor}) &=& \sum_k p(M_{cor}, M_k) = \sum_k p(
261: M_{cor}|M_k) p(M_k)\\
262: &= &{1\over N_k}\sum_k p(M_{cor}|M_k)
263: \ea
264: where the last step follows if we assume equal prior
265: probabilities for the true model. $N_k$ is the number of models
266: considered.
267:
268: To compute the conditional probability in the last equation, we
269: use the distribution of sets of variances $\{D_i\}$, given that
270: the true model is $M_t$:
271: \be
272: p(M_{cor}|M_t) = \int d\{D_i\} p(M_{cor}|\{D_i\}))
273: p(\{D_i\}|M_t)
274: \label{pp}
275: \ee
276: Using Bayes' theorem,
277: \be
278: p(M_k|\{D_i\}) = {p(\{D_i\}|M_k)p(M_k)\over p(\{D_i\})}
279: \ee
280: we see that the probability of getting the correct model,
281: given a set of data is
282: \be
283: p(M_{cor}|\{D_i\}) = {p(\{D_i\}|M_t)p(M_t)\over \sum_k
284: p(\{D_i\}|M_k) p(M_k)}
285: \ee
286: where the evidence $p(\{D_i\})$ cancels out top and bottom.
287: If we assume uniform priors for the models, the probability
288: simplifies, and substitution into $(\ref{pp})$ gives
289: \be
290: p(M_{cor}|M_t) = \int {p(\{D_i\}|M_t)^2\over \sum_k
291: p(\{D_i\}|M_k) p(M_k)} d\{D_i\}
292: \ee
293: In practice we approximate the integral over sets of data by a set of
294: $N_{r}$ random drawings (labelled by $\alpha$):
295: \be
296: p(M_{cor}) = {1\over N_k}\sum_{M_t} {1\over N_{r}}
297: \sum_{\alpha} \left[{p(\{D_i\}_\alpha|M_t)\over \sum_k
298: p(\{D_i\}_\alpha|M_k) p(M_k)}\right].
299: \ee
300: We compute this probability for varying numbers of supernovae per unit
301: redshift interval.
302:
303: \section{Results}
304:
305: For the existing 42 high-redshift supernovae published from the
306: Supernova Cosmology Project \cite{Perl99}, we can compute the relative
307: likelihood of the four models considered. For the data, we use the
308: stretch luminosity-corrected effective B-band magnitude. We subtract
309: from it the expected magnitude for model 2 (or 3), and compute the
310: variance (using the standard estimator) for 4 bins between $z=0.45$
311: and $z=0.85$. The reason for the subtraction is that the redshift bins
312: for which we have microlensing amplification distributions are quite
313: broad, and the mean apparent magnitude is expected to vary
314: substantially over the bin. For the Einstein-de Sitter model, the
315: additional variance from subtracting the wrong evolution is
316: negligible.
317: \begin{table}
318: \begin{tabular}{l|c|c}
319: \hline
320: Redshift & Number of supernovae & Variance \\
321: \hline
322: 0.45-0.55 & 11 & 0.064 \\
323: 0.55-0.65 & 8 & 0.170 \\
324: 0.65-0.75 & 3 & 0.076 \\
325: 0.75-0.85 & 3 & 0.043 \\
326: \hline
327: \end{tabular}
328: \caption[]{\label{results} Estimated variances in supernova apparent
329: magnitudes for four redshift bins. Data from the Supernova Cosmology
330: Project \cite{Perl99}.}
331: \end{table}
332: The variances in the four bins are shown in table
333: \ref{results}. Various effects conspire to make the $0.55 < z < 0.65$
334: bin the crucial one: first, at lower redshift, the lensing makes
335: little difference to the variance; second, at higher redshift, there
336: are very few supernovae in the bins; finally, the observed variance is
337: high in the second bin. Thus the second redshift bin favours models
338: with more microlensing, since the expected no-lensing variance is only
339: 0.04. Combining the results gives the relative likelihoods shown in
340: table
341: \ref{Likelihoods}, where the likelihood of the favoured model is set
342: to unity. We see that the variances in the data have a slight
343: preference for a population of MACHOs, but the significance is low.
344: In fact removing a single supernova (SN1997K) from the dataset reduces
345: the variance to 0.053, reversing the conclusions and making the
346: no-lensing model the preferred choice (see table
347: \ref{Likelihoods}). There is little a priori justification for
348: removing this point. In fact it is anomalously faint, so it is not a good
349: candidate lensing event. Thus, unsurprisingly, we are unable to learn
350: much from this test on current data.
351:
352: \begin{table}
353: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
354: \hline
355: Model & $\Omega_m$ & $\Omega_\Lambda$ & $\Omega_{Lens}$ &
356: Relative & SN1997K\\
357: & & & & likelihood & removed \\
358: \hline
359: 1 & & & 0 & 0.58 & 1.0\\
360: 2 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.1 & 0.92 & 0.88\\
361: 3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.3 & 0.96 & 0.66 \\
362: 4 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.32\\
363: \hline
364: \end{tabular}
365: \caption[]{\label{Likelihoods} Relative likelihood for the four models,
366: from the high-redshift supernovae observed as part of the supernova
367: cosmology project.}
368: \end{table}
369: Future experiments should be able to do this task well. In table
370: \ref{Probabilities}, we show the conditional probabilities of
371: selecting models, given a correct model, for experiments
372: with a flat redshift distribution of supernovae in the range $0.1 - 1.7$.
373: Probabilities less than 0.0005 are set to zero in the table.
374: \begin{table}
375: \begin{center}
376: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
377: \hline
378: & \multicolumn{7}{c}{Number of supernovae per $\Delta z = 0.1$} \\
379: & 25 & 50 & 75 & 100 & 125 & 150 & 175 \\
380: \hline
381: \multicolumn{7}{l}{True Model: 1 ($\Omega_{Lens}=0$)}\\
382: 1 & 0.998 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
383: 2 & 0.002 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
384: 3 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
385: 4 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
386: \hline
387: \multicolumn{7}{l}{True Model: 2 ($\Omega_m=0.3,\ \Omega_\Lambda=0.7,\
388: \Omega_{Lens}=0.1$)}\\
389: 1 & 0.004 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
390: 2 & 0.927 & 0.986 & 0.996 & 0.998 & 0.999 & 1.000 & 1.000 \\
391: 3 & 0.069 & 0.014 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
392: 4 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
393: \hline
394: \multicolumn{7}{l}{True Model: 3 ($\Omega_m=0.3,\ \Omega_\Lambda=0.7,\
395: \Omega_{Lens}=0.3$)}\\
396: 1 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
397: 2 & 0.065 & 0.014 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
398: 3 & 0.838 & 0.949 & 0.977 & 0.990 & 0.996 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
399: 4 & 0.097 & 0.037 & 0.019 & 0.008 & 0.002 & 0.001 & 0.000 \\
400: \hline
401: \multicolumn{7}{l}{True Model: 4 ($\Omega_m=1.0,\ \Omega_\Lambda=0,\
402: \Omega_{Lens}=1.0$)}\\
403: 1 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
404: 2 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
405: 3 & 0.088 & 0.032 & 0.016 & 0.006 & 0.003 & 0.001 & 0.000 \\
406: 4 & 0.902 & 0.968 & 0.984 & 0.994 & 0.997 & 0.999 & 1.000 \\
407: \hline
408: \end{tabular}
409: \end{center}
410: \caption[]{\label{Probabilities} Probability of deducing, from the
411: four considered, correct and incorrect models given the true model.
412: Probabilities $<5 \times 10^{-4}$ are set to zero for this table. The
413: redshift distribution is assumed to be uniform across $0.1 < z < 1.7$.}
414: \end{table}
415: In fig. \ref{Pz} we show how the probability of obtaining the correct
416: model changes as we increase the number of sources per $\Delta z =
417: 0.1$ bin. We assume here a uniform prior: i.e. all models are equally
418: likely {\em a priori}. SNAP's expected redshift distribution is not
419: uniform, but rises towards $z=1.2$ with a small number of supernovae
420: extending to $z=1.7$. Using the expected redshift distribution from a
421: one-year SNAP experiment (see Science Case in http://snap.lbl.gov),
422: the conditional probabilities of selecting correct and incorrect
423: models are given in table \ref{SNAP}. Basically SNAP should be able
424: to do this test very well; there is only a very small possibility of
425: confusing the $\Omega_{Lens}=0.3$ model with higher and lower lens
426: densities. Combined with a uniform prior for the models, the
427: probability of selecting the correct model is 99.9\%. In this paper,
428: we have only considered a discrete number of lensing models. A full
429: Fisher matrix analysis of the error expected on the MACHO contribution
430: is possible if many lensing simulations are run, or a good fitting
431: formula is used for the magnification probability, but it is clear
432: from this study that SNAP should be able to constrain the dark matter
433: nature extremely well.
434: \begin{figure}
435: \psfig{figure=probability.eps,width=8.5cm,angle=270}
436: \caption[]{\label{Pz} The probability of obtaining the correct
437: model, plotted against the number of supernovae per redshift interval
438: $\Delta z =0.1$. In all cases it is assumed that supernovae are
439: observed up to $z=1.7$.}
440: \end{figure}
441:
442: \begin{table}
443: \begin{center}
444: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
445: \hline
446: True Model & Trial Model & p(Trial Model$|$True Model) \\
447: \hline
448: 1 & 1 & 1.0\\
449: & 2 & $2 \times 10^{-11}$\\
450: & 3 & 0.0\\
451: & 4 & 0.0\\
452: \hline
453: 2 & 1 & 0.0\\
454: & 2 & 0.9999 \\
455: & 3 & $6 \times 10^{-5}$\\
456: & 4 & 0.0\\
457: \hline
458: 3 & 1 & 0.0\\
459: & 2 & 0.002\\
460: & 3 & 0.994\\
461: & 4 & 0.003\\
462: \hline
463: 4 & 1 & 0.0\\
464: & 2 & 0.0\\
465: & 3 & 0.0004 \\
466: & 4 & 0.9996 \\
467: \hline
468: \end{tabular}
469: \end{center}
470: \caption[]{\label{SNAP}Probabilities of proposed 1-year SNAP mission
471: distinguishing between lensing and no-lensing models. Model
472: parameters are given in table \ref{models}.}
473: \end{table}
474:
475: \section{Conclusions}
476:
477: We have demonstrated how the scatter in the supernova fluxes can be
478: used to support or rule out models with MACHO dark matter. Lensing by
479: MACHOs increases the variance in the fluxes, and for models with a
480: high density in MACHO dark matter, the variance can be increased by a
481: factor greater than 3 at redshifts accessible by supernova searches.
482: Simply put, if the observed variance in supernova magnitudes is too
483: small, it can eliminate MACHOs as the dominant dark matter candidate.
484: The existing data from the Supernova Cosmology Project data do not
485: rule out MACHOs, and conclusions about whether MACHOs are preferred or
486: not are sensitive to inclusion or exclusion of individual supernovae.
487: Future planned surveys, such as the proposed SNAP survey should be able
488: to distinguish models readily, and in principle provide an accurate
489: measurement of the quantity of MACHO dark matter.
490:
491: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}
492:
493: We are grateful to Isobel Hook and Andy Taylor for useful discussions, and to
494: the High Performance Computer Group, Hitachi Europe Ltd, on whose
495: machines some of the simulations were run.
496:
497: \bibliographystyle{mnras}
498: %\bibliography{/home/afh/TeX/PAPERS/general}
499:
500: \begin{thebibliography}{Mortsell, Goobar \& Bergstrom<2001>}
501: \bibitem[{Barnes} \& {Hut}<1986>]{Barnes86}{Barnes} J., {Hut} P.,
502: 1986.\newblock {\rm Nat}, {\rm 324}, 446.
503: \bibitem[Dyer \& Roeder<1974>]{DyerRoeder74}Dyer C.~C., Roeder R.~C.,
504: 1974.\newblock {\rm ApJ}, {\rm 189}, 167.
505: \bibitem[Hawkins<1993>]{Hawkins93}Hawkins M. R.~S., 1993.\newblock {\rm Nat},
506: {\rm 366}, 242.
507: \bibitem[Holz \& Wald<1998>]{HW98}Holz D., Wald R., 1998.\newblock {\rm Phys.
508: Rev. D}, {\rm 58}, 063501.
509: \bibitem[Holz<1998>]{Holz98}Holz D., 1998.\newblock {\rm ApJ(Lett)}, {\rm 506},
510: L1.
511: \bibitem[Huterer \& Turner<2000>]{HT2000}Huterer D., Turner M.~S.,
512: 2000.\newblock {\rm astro-ph}, {\rm 0012510}.
513: \bibitem[Linder, Schneider \& Wagoner<1988>]{LSW88}Linder E., Schneider P.,
514: Wagoner R., 1988.\newblock {\rm ApJ}, {\rm 324}, 786.
515: \bibitem[Metcalf \& Silk<1999>]{MS99}Metcalf R.~B., Silk J., 1999.\newblock
516: {\rm ApJ(Lett)}, {\rm 519}, L1.
517: \bibitem[Metcalf<1999>]{Met99}Metcalf R.~B., 1999.\newblock {\rm MNRAS}, {\rm
518: 305}, 746.
519: \bibitem[Mortsell, Goobar \& Bergstrom<2001>]{MGB01}Mortsell E., Goobar A.,
520: Bergstrom L., 2001.\newblock {\rm astro-ph}, {\rm 0103489}.
521: \bibitem[{Perlmutter et al.}<1997>]{Perl97}{Perlmutter et al.} S.,
522: 1997.\newblock {\rm ApJ}, {\rm 483}, 565.
523: \bibitem[{Perlmutter et al.}<1998>]{Perl98}{Perlmutter et al.} S.,
524: 1998.\newblock {\rm Nat}, {\rm 391}, 51.
525: \bibitem[{Perlmutter et al.}<1999>]{Perl99}{Perlmutter et al.} S.,
526: 1999.\newblock {\rm ApJ}, {\rm 517}, 565.
527: \bibitem[Rauch<1991>]{Rauch91}Rauch K.~P., 1991.\newblock {\rm ApJ}, {\rm 374},
528: 83.
529: \bibitem[{Riess et al.}<1999>]{Riess98}{Riess et al.} A.~G., 1999.\newblock
530: {\rm AJ}, {\rm 116}, 1009.
531: \bibitem[{Schmidt et al.}<1998>]{Schmidt98}{Schmidt et al.} B.~P.,
532: 1998.\newblock {\rm ApJ}, {\rm 507}, 46.
533: \bibitem[Seljak \& Holz<1999>]{SH99}Seljak U., Holz D., 1999.\newblock {\rm A\&
534: A}, {\rm 351}, L10.
535: \bibitem[Weller \& Albrecht<2000>]{WA2000}Weller J., Albrecht A.,
536: 2000.\newblock {\rm astro-ph}, {\rm 0008314}.
537:
538: \end{thebibliography}
539:
540: \end{document}
541: