1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4: \newcommand{\lens}{PKS~1830--211}
5: \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu
6: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
7:
8: \title{PKS~1830--211: A Face-On Spiral Galaxy Lens}
9:
10: \author{
11: Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{1},
12: Christopher S.\ Kochanek\altaffilmark{1},
13: Brian A.\ McLeod\altaffilmark{1},
14: Emilio E.\ Falco\altaffilmark{2},
15: Christopher D.\ Impey\altaffilmark{3},
16: Hans-Walter Rix\altaffilmark{4}
17: }
18:
19: \altaffiltext{1}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
20: Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138; {\tt jwinn, kochanek,
21: bmcleod@cfa.harvard.edu}}
22:
23: \altaffiltext{2}{Smithsonian Institution, Whipple Observatory, 670 Mt
24: Hopkins Road, P.O.\ Box 97, Amado, AZ 85645; {\tt
25: falco@cfa.harvard.edu}}
26:
27: \altaffiltext{3}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson,
28: AZ 85721; {\tt cimpey@as.arizona.edu}}
29:
30: \altaffiltext{4}{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Astronomie,
31: K\"{o}nigsstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany; {\tt
32: rix@mpia-hd.mpg.de}}
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35:
36: We present new Hubble Space Telescope images of the gravitational lens
37: \lens, which allow us to characterize the lens galaxy and update the
38: determination of the Hubble constant ($H_0$) from this system. The
39: $I$-band image shows that the lens galaxy is a face-on spiral galaxy
40: with clearly delineated spiral arms. The southwestern image of the
41: background quasar passes through one of the spiral arms, explaining
42: the previous detections of large quantities of molecular gas and dust
43: in front of this image. The lens galaxy photometry is consistent with
44: the Tully-Fisher relation, suggesting the lens galaxy is a typical
45: spiral galaxy for its redshift. The lens galaxy position, which was
46: the main source of uncertainty in previous attempts to determine
47: $H_0$, is now known precisely. Given the current time delay
48: measurement and assuming the lens galaxy has an isothermal mass
49: distribution, we compute $H_0=44\pm 9$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ for an
50: $\Omega_m =0.3$ flat cosmological model. We describe some possible
51: systematic errors and how to reduce them. We also discuss the
52: possibility raised by Courbin et al.\ (2002), that what we have
53: identified as a single lens galaxy is actually a foreground star and
54: two separate galaxies.
55:
56: \end{abstract}
57:
58: \keywords{quasars: individual (\lens)---gravitational
59: lensing---cosmology: distance scale}
60:
61: \section{Introduction}
62:
63: Although the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Key Project to Measure the
64: Hubble Constant has been successfully completed \citep{freedman01}, it
65: is important to pursue completely different methods of determining the
66: Hubble constant ($H_0$). Independent methods provide a consistency
67: check, and may eventually surpass the 10\% accuracy of the local
68: distance-scale methods employed by the Key Project. It is also
69: important to measure the expansion rate directly at cosmological
70: redshifts, in case the Galaxy is in a locally underdense or overdense
71: region \cite[see, e.g.,][]{wu95}. These goals will grow in importance
72: in the coming years due to the degeneracies in analyses of cosmic
73: microwave background anisotropies between many cosmological parameters
74: and $H_0$ \cite[e.g.,][]{bond94,eisenstein98}.
75:
76: A promising approach to determining $H_0$ that is independent of the
77: local distance scale uses gravitational lens time delays
78: (\citealt{refsdal64}; for recent summaries see, e.g.,
79: \citealt{schechter00}, \citealt{koopmans99}). This method is
80: ultimately limited by systematic uncertainties in the mass models of
81: the lens galaxies, but a necessary first step is to obtain the basic
82: observational constraints---astrometry, photometry, and redshifts of
83: the lens and source---for the systems with measured time delays.
84:
85: For the gravitational lens \lens, this has been especially challenging
86: because the system is near the Galactic plane ($b=-5\fdg 7$). As a
87: result, most of the information has come from radio and infrared
88: observations. \citet{rao88} suggested it was a lens due to its radio
89: morphology. \citet{subrahmanyan90} and \citet{jauncey91} provided more
90: conclusive evidence; the system has two bright point sources (NE and
91: SW) embedded in a fainter Einstein ring. Strong molecular absorption
92: features were detected at $z_l=0.886$ \citep{wiklind96,gerin97},
93: largely in front of SW \citep{frye97,swift01}, and presumably due to
94: the lens galaxy. \citet{lovell96} found $z_a=0.19$ \ion{H}{1}
95: absorption in front of NE, of unknown provenance. \citet{lovell98}
96: measured a time delay of $26^{+4}_{-5}$~days between NE and SW at
97: 8.6~GHz. By deconvolving ground-based infrared images,
98: \citet{courbin98} detected the quasar images and found hints of the
99: lens galaxy. \citet{lidman99} determined the quasar redshift of
100: $z_s=2.507$ by infrared spectroscopy. From the presence and structure
101: of the molecular absorption system, \citet{wiklind98} argued that the
102: lens galaxy is probably a spiral galaxy seen nearly face-on, which is
103: consistent with the large differential extinction between NE and SW
104: ($\Delta E_{B-V} \approx 3$) observed by \citet{falco99}. However,
105: although \citet{lehar00} detected the lens galaxy in $H$-band and
106: shallow $I$-band HST images, they could not determine its position or
107: structure accurately. These authors found that the uncertainty in the
108: lens galaxy position dominated the uncertainty in the value of $H_0$
109: inferred from the time delay.
110:
111: In this paper we present new HST optical images that confirm the lens
112: galaxy is a face-on spiral galaxy, and allow its position and optical
113: magnitudes to be measured accurately. These data are discussed in
114: \S~\ref{sec:lensgalaxy}. In \S~\ref{sec:tullyfisher}, we place the
115: lens galaxy on the Tully-Fisher relation using the HST photometry and
116: two different estimators of the galaxy mass---one from the lens
117: geometry, and one from the velocity shift measured by
118: \citet{wiklind98}. In \S~\ref{sec:models}, we incorporate our
119: measurement of the position of the lens galaxy into a simple lens
120: model to arrive at an updated estimate of $H_0$. We also discuss
121: systematic errors and compare our model with previous models.
122:
123: After this work was completed, we learned that \citet{courbin02}
124: independently analyzed the same HST data, along with new and archival
125: near-IR data. They argue that what we have identified as the bulge of
126: the lens galaxy is actually a foreground star, and that there is a
127: second lens galaxy. In the final section of this paper, we describe
128: the strengths, weaknesses, and future tests of these competing
129: hypotheses, and discuss future prospects for reducing systematic
130: errors in $H_0$ from this particular gravitational lens.
131:
132: \section{Observations and data reduction}
133: \label{sec:lensgalaxy}
134:
135: \lens~was observed with HST/WFPC2\footnote{ Data from the NASA/ESA
136: Hubble Space Telescope (HST) were obtained from the Space Telescope
137: Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA
138: contract NAS~5-26555.} on 2000~September~25 with the F814W filter,
139: using 4 dithered exposures, for a total integration time of 4800~s.
140: On 2001~July~11 it was observed with the F555W filter, using 3
141: dithered exposures, for a total integration time of 2000~s. In both
142: cases \lens~was centered on the PC chip. We cross-registered and
143: combined the exposures, and rejected cosmic rays, using the Drizzle
144: algorithm implemented in IRAF \citep{fruchter02}.
145:
146: Figure~\ref{fig:iband} shows the F814W (hereafter ``$I$-band'') image.
147: The lens galaxy, labeled G, is a nearly face-on spiral galaxy
148: (probably an Sb or Sc). The bulge of the galaxy is detected with high
149: significance and is compact. The position of quasar SW (as determined
150: from radio images) is covered by one of the spiral arms. Object S1 is
151: an M star identified by \citet{djorgovski92}, and G2 is a galaxy
152: identified by \citet{lehar00}. Inset in the upper right corner of the
153: image is a contour map of G, based on the same data, that shows the
154: western spiral arm more clearly than the grayscale image.
155: Figure~\ref{fig:vband} shows the F555W (hereafter ``$V$-band'') image.
156: In this image the bulge of G is only marginally detected.
157:
158: \begin{figure}
159: \figurenum{1}
160: \plotone{f1.eps}
161: \caption{ HST/WFPC2 image, filter F814W~$\approx I$. North is up and
162: east is left. Note that $1\arcsec$ corresponds to $5.4 h^{-1}$~kpc at
163: the lens redshift (in a flat $\Omega_m = 0.3$ cosmology). Inset in
164: the upper right of the image is a contour representation of the region
165: surrounding G, based on the same data. The position of SW, as
166: determined from radio images, is marked. }
167: \label{fig:iband}
168: \end{figure}
169:
170: \begin{figure}
171: \figurenum{2}
172: \plotone{f2.eps}
173: \caption{ HST/WFPC2 image, filter F555W~$\approx V$. North is up and
174: east is left. Note that $1\arcsec$ corresponds to $5.4 h^{-1}$~kpc at
175: the lens redshift (in a flat $\Omega_m = 0.3$ cosmology). }
176: \label{fig:vband}
177: \end{figure}
178:
179: To measure the position of G relative to NE, which is the crucial
180: quantity for modeling purposes, we used software written for the
181: Center for Astrophysics--Arizona Space Telescope Lens Survey (CASTLES;
182: see, e.g., \citealt{lehar00}) to fit a parameterized model to the
183: $I$-band image. A well-exposed star $3\farcs43$ west and $3\farcs94$
184: south of NE was used as an empirical PSF. (Although this star might
185: appear overexposed in Figures~\ref{fig:iband} and \ref{fig:vband},
186: this is due only to the chosen scaling of gray levels.)
187:
188: Our model consisted of point sources representing: S1, NE, the central
189: bulge of G, and all stars within $5\arcsec$ of NE. We estimate the
190: uncertainty in each coordinate of the G--NE separation to be
191: 4~milliarcseconds, which is the variance of the separations obtained
192: by individually fitting the four $I$-band exposures. The result did
193: not change significantly when the empirical PSF was replaced by a
194: theoretical ``Tiny Tim'' PSF \citep{krist97}, nor when G was
195: represented as a Gaussian or de Vaucouleurs profile instead of a point
196: source. The results are given in Table~\ref{tbl:data}, which also
197: summarizes the basic data for \lens~drawn from this work and the
198: literature.
199:
200: We applied the same model to the $V$-band image, but fixed the
201: relative positions at the $I$-band values and allowed only the fluxes
202: to vary. The fluxes of the point sources were converted to magnitudes
203: using the zero points and CTE correction formulae of
204: \citet{dolphin00}\footnote{As updated on the web site of A.\ Dolphin,
205: ${\tt http://www.noao.edu/staff/dolphin/wfpc2\_calib/}$, referenced
206: 2001 November 15.}. The results are given in Table~\ref{tbl:mags}.
207: The quoted error is the quadrature sum of the variance obtained by
208: fitting the separate exposures, and 0.04 due to PSF subtraction. They
209: do not include an overall uncertainty of $\sim 0.05$ due to zero
210: points and CTE correction.
211:
212: Because neither G nor G2 is well described by an analytic profile, we
213: measured the magnitude of each galaxy within a synthetic circular
214: aperture, using an image with all the point sources subtracted (except
215: the point source representing the bulge of G). In particular, two
216: point sources were subtracted on the northeast edge of G2, to
217: represent what appears to be a pair of blended stars. For G, the
218: aperture radius was $0\farcs7$; for G2, it was $1\arcsec$. No CTE
219: correction was made because the correction procedure for extended
220: sources is unknown and the correction is probably small
221: \citep{riess00}. The errors quoted in Table~\ref{tbl:mags} are due to
222: uncertainty in the sky level and contributions from the residuals of
223: the neighboring point sources.
224:
225: \section{The lens galaxy luminosity and the Tully-Fisher relation}
226: \label{sec:tullyfisher}
227:
228: The Tully-Fisher relation is an empirical correlation between the
229: luminosity and mass of disk galaxies that has been observed for both
230: nearby galaxies \cite[see, e.g.,][]{tully77,sakai00} and for galaxies
231: at significant redshifts \cite[e.g.,][]{vogt96,vogt97,ziegler01}.
232: Typically, the measure of luminosity is rest-frame $M_B$ and the
233: measure of mass is the circular rotation velocity. For most galaxies
234: at $z\sim 1$ the latter measurement is a challenging spectroscopic
235: project, especially for a nearly face-on spiral galaxy. Lens galaxies
236: are special because an accurate mass measurement is available from the
237: geometry of the background images. Given the HST photometry and image
238: configuration of \lens, we can attempt to place the lens galaxy on the
239: Tully-Fisher relation.
240:
241: We corrected the $I$-band magnitude of the lens galaxy for Galactic
242: extinction using the $E_{B-V}$ value of \citet{schlegel98} and
243: assuming a $R_V=3.1$ extinction law, obtaining $A_I=0.81$. For the
244: lens redshift $z_l=0.886$, the $I$-band is nearly centered on the
245: rest-frame $B$-band, so there is little uncertainty in the
246: $k$-correction: $B_{\hbox{rest}}$--$I \approx 1.05\pm0.05$~mag. For a
247: flat $\Omega_m=0.3$ cosmology with $H_0=65$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$,
248: the implied rest-frame absolute magnitude of the lens galaxy is
249: $M_B=-21.7 \pm 0.3$~mag, with the quoted uncertainty entirely due to
250: the measurement error. We attempt no extrapolation from our aperture
251: magnitude to a total magnitude, nor do we correct for internal
252: extinction, so the resulting luminosity should be an understimate.
253:
254: The galaxy's circular velocity can be estimated from the image
255: separation of $0\farcs971$. For an intrinsically spherical dark
256: matter halo with a flat rotation curve (a singular isothermal sphere,
257: or SIS), the image separation is given by $\Delta\theta= 4\pi
258: (v_c/c)^2 D_{ls}/D_{os}$, where $v_c$ is the circular velocity, and
259: $D_{ls}$ and $D_{os}$ are (respectively) the lens--source and
260: observer--source angular diameter distances. For the SIS model, the
261: measured image separation corresponds to $v_c=264$~km~s$^{-1}$. For a
262: thin Mestel disk, which also has a flat rotation curve, $\Delta\theta=
263: 8 (v_c/c)^2 D_{ls}/D_{os}$ \citep{keeton_kochanek98}, giving
264: $v_c=331$~km~s$^{-1}$. The truth is probably between these two
265: extremes.
266:
267: With these figures, we find that the lens galaxy is compatible with
268: the local Tully-Fisher relation as determined by \citet{sakai00}. For
269: the SIS model the lens galaxy is $0.1\pm0.3$~mag brighter than
270: predicted by the T-F relation, and for the Mestel model it is
271: $0.7\pm0.3$ mag fainter. The dispersion in the \citet{sakai00} T-F
272: relation is 0.43~mag. These results indicate the lens galaxy appears
273: to be a fairly normal spiral galaxy for its redshift.
274:
275: An independent estimate of the lens galaxy's circular velocity is
276: available from the molecular absorption system detected by
277: \citet{wiklind98}. They found absorption lines at $z_l=0.886$ in
278: front of SW, and also a weaker absorption line in front of NE shifted
279: in rest-frame velocity by $\Delta v = -147$~km~s$^{-1}$. As they
280: explained, the observed $\Delta v$ can be used to estimate the
281: circular velocity $v_c$, using the kinematic relation
282: \begin{equation}
283: \Delta v = v_c (\cos\theta_1 - \cos\theta_2) \sin i,
284: \end{equation}
285: where $i$ is the inclination, and $\theta_k$ is the angle between the
286: line of sight $k$ (either NE or SW) and the line of nodes (as measured
287: in the plane of the galaxy). The angles $\theta_k$ are related to the
288: corresponding sky-plane angles $\phi_k$ by
289: \begin{equation}
290: \tan(\phi_k) = \tan(\theta_k) \sec i.
291: \end{equation}
292:
293: Using these relations, \citet{wiklind98} used the data and models
294: existing at the time to postulate that the lens galaxy is seen at low
295: inclination ($i<20\arcdeg$) and is quite massive, and the quasar is at
296: high redshift ($z>3$). These postulates have been proven broadly
297: correct by our data and by the measured quasar redshift ($z=2.507$).
298:
299: We can now update their determination of $v_c$ using the new data. We
300: must borrow a few results from the lens models that will be described
301: later in \S~\ref{subsec:update}, namely, the inclination of the lens
302: galaxy ($i=25\arcdeg$) and the orientation of the line of nodes
303: ($86\arcdeg \pm 3\arcdeg$). From these values and the measured galaxy
304: position, we derive $\phi_{\mathrm{NE}} = 52\arcdeg$ and
305: $\phi_{\mathrm{SW}} = 146\arcdeg$. The resulting circular velocity is
306: $v_c=255$~km~s$^{-1}$. The corresponding Tully-Fisher magnitude is
307: $M_B=-21.5$, which agrees well with the value inferred from the HST
308: photometry ($-21.7\pm 0.3$).
309:
310: \section{The lens galaxy position and the Hubble constant}
311: \label{sec:models}
312:
313: \subsection{Updated lens models}
314: \label{subsec:update}
315:
316: In the most recent modeling effort for this system, \citet{lehar00}
317: demonstrated a strong correlation between the position of the lens
318: galaxy, which was poorly known, and the inferred value of $H_0$. Our
319: measurement of the position of G allows us to determine $H_0$ with
320: much higher precision. At this stage we consider simple models
321: constrained only by the positions of NE, SW, and G, and the
322: magnification ratio (and not by the faint Einstein ring, which we
323: leave for a future undertaking).
324:
325: We modeled the lens galaxy as a singular isothermal ellipsoid using
326: software written by \citet{keeton01a}. With as many parameters as
327: constraints, the fits were exact. We estimated the error in each
328: parameter to be the spread in the results obtained by allowing the
329: position of G to vary through the full range of its quoted
330: uncertainty. The results are given in Table~\ref{tbl:model}.
331:
332: Using this model and the time delay measured by \citet{lovell98}, we
333: obtain $h=0.44\pm 0.09$ (where $H_0=100h$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$),
334: with most of the quoted uncertainty due to the 20\% fractional
335: uncertainty in the time delay. This value was computed assuming
336: $\Omega_m=0.3$ and $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, but the dependence on the
337: cosmological model is weak; for $\Omega_\Lambda=0$ the result is
338: $h=0.46$. Either value is significantly lower than the Key Project
339: value of $0.72\pm 0.08$ \citep{freedman01}, and also lower than
340: several previous estimates of $H_0$ from this system. In the rest of
341: this section we discuss possible systematic modeling errors; in the
342: next section we compare our model with previous work.
343:
344: Our simple model might misrepresent the true mass distribution, in
345: several ways. First, if there is an unmodeled source of convergence
346: $\kappa$ (due to, say, a nearby group of galaxies), then the inferred
347: $h$ is systematically low by the factor $1-\kappa$ \citep[see,
348: e.g.,][]{gorenstein88}. \citet{lehar00} identified 4 galaxies besides
349: the lens galaxy within $20\arcsec$ of \lens, which would contribute a
350: convergence as high as $\kappa=0.16$ if they all lie at the lens
351: redshift $z_l=0.886$---although, in the following section, we argue
352: that the nearest of these galaxies is probably at $z_a=0.19$ where it
353: has a much smaller effect ($\kappa\sim 0.03$).
354:
355: Second, if the radial mass distribution is not isothermal, the
356: inferred $h$ is biased. If the lens potential $\phi \propto
357: r^{\beta}$ then the true $h$ is $(2-\beta)$ times the isothermal
358: estimate of $h$ \citep{witt00}. A similar bias results if the
359: isothermal profile is truncated outside a radius comparable to, or
360: smaller than, the Einstein ring radius. As a demonstration we modeled
361: the lens galaxy as a pseudo-Jaffe ellipsoid ($\rho \propto
362: r^{-2}(r^2+a^2)^{-2}$; see, e.g., Keeton 2001a) with a break radius
363: $a$. For $r\ll a$, the pseudo-Jaffe profile has a flat rotation
364: curve, but for $r\gg a$ it has a Keplerian fall-off. We fixed $a$ and
365: allowed all other parameters to vary; the resulting $h$ rises
366: significantly for $a<b$, where $b$ is the Einstein ring radius.
367: Figure~\ref{fig:h_vs_a} shows the dependence of the inferred Hubble
368: constant on the break radius.
369:
370: \begin{figure}
371: \figurenum{3}
372: \plotone{f3.eps}
373: \caption{ Variation of the inferred $H_0$ with the break radius $a$ in
374: the pseudo-Jaffe model. The visible extent of the spiral arms is also
375: marked. The horizontal scale has been set by the conversion factor
376: $5.4 h^{-1}$~kpc per arcsecond, based on a flat $\Omega_m = 0.3$
377: cosmology.}
378: \label{fig:h_vs_a}
379: \end{figure}
380:
381: However, in order to match the Key Project value of $H_0$, both of the
382: preceding possibilities require unnatural parameters for the lens
383: galaxy, which we have established is an apparently normal, massive,
384: spiral galaxy. To obtain $h=0.72$ would require $\beta=0.36$; or,
385: using the pseudo-Jaffe model, $a/b=0.38$, corresponding to $a =
386: 0\farcs42 = 2.3h^{-1}$~kiloparsecs, at the lens redshift (assuming a
387: flat $\Omega_m = 0.3$ cosmology). Nearby massive spiral galaxies have
388: flat rotation curves out to well beyond the visible extent of the
389: spiral arms \cite[see, e.g.,][]{rubin78,sofue01}. In the $I$-band
390: image, the spiral arms of the lens galaxy are detected out to a radius
391: of at least $0\farcs6 = 3.3h^{-1}$~kpc.
392:
393: Third, our simple models may misrepresent the angular structure of the
394: mass distribution, in addition to the radial structure. To
395: investigate this possibility we computed a 2-d grid of models
396: consisting of an SIE embedded in an external shear field. The
397: ellipticity of the SIE was stepped from 0.0 to 0.2 (a plausible
398: maximum value, given the nearly face-on morphology), and its position
399: angle was stepped from $0\arcdeg$ to $180\arcdeg$, and in each case
400: the corresponding parameters of the external shear field were
401: determined. The resulting range in $h$ was 0.33--0.55. The range in
402: $h$ widens, but the inferred $h$ is not systematically large or small.
403:
404: Fourth, a number of authors have recently argued that some lens
405: galaxies have small-scale mass substructure (on scales $<10^9 M_\sun$)
406: that smooth parameterized lens models fail to describe \cite[see,
407: e.g.,][]{dalal01,keeton01b,bradac01,metcalf01}. The evidence lies in
408: the discrepancy between measured and model-predicted flux ratios,
409: which depend on the local curvature of the lens potential and are
410: therefore sensitive to perturbations on small angular scales. This
411: raises the possibility that the magnification ratio assumed for
412: \lens~may be grossly in error. However, the time delay does not
413: depend strongly on the assumed magnification ratio. In fact, for
414: isothermal models, \citet{witt00} showed the time delay can be written
415: purely as a function of the image positions.
416:
417: Finally, there is the possibility raised by \citet{courbin02} that
418: there is a second lens galaxy within the Einstein ring, which would
419: obviously invalidate our single-galaxy model. We discuss this
420: possibility further in \S~\ref{sec:summary}.
421:
422: \subsection{Comparison to previous models}
423: \label{subsec:previous}
424:
425: There have been several previous attempts to model \lens, most of
426: which differ substantially in the placement of the lens galaxy.
427: Figure~\ref{fig:positions} is a chart of the lens positions assumed by
428: various authors, overlayed upon a gray-scale representation of the
429: same region from the HST $I$-band image. The filled square shows the
430: position measured in this work. The variation in $H_0$ with lens
431: position (as implied by the SIE model) is shown with contours. This
432: figure is an updated version of Figure 5b by \citet{lehar00}.
433:
434: \begin{figure}
435: \figurenum{4}
436: \plotone{f4.v2.eps}
437: \caption{ Variation of inferred $H_0$ with lens galaxy position in the
438: SIE model. This is an updated version of Figure 5b by
439: \citet{lehar00}. Plotted are the lens galaxy positions measured in
440: this work (filled square) and by Lehar et al.\ (2000, labeled L00);
441: and the model positions of Nair, Narasimha, \& Rao (1993, NRR93) and
442: Kochanek \& Narayan (1992, KN92). The point P was identified by L00
443: (in an image with a lower signal-to-noise ratio) as either a
444: foreground star or the bulge of G, and is here seen to be consistent
445: with the bulge of G. }
446: \label{fig:positions}
447: \end{figure}
448:
449: \citet{kochanek92} invented an inversion algorithm, LensClean, that
450: determines both the mass model and source structure of lenses with
451: extended emission, and applied it to radio maps of \lens, with no
452: constraints on the lens galaxy position. The resulting lens galaxy
453: position has a large uncertainty but agrees with the position we have
454: derived from the HST $I$-band image.
455:
456: \citet{nair93} used an oblate spheroidal density distribution and a
457: complex set of constraints inspired by features of VLA maps at 8~GHz
458: and 15~GHz. Following \citet{subrahmanyan90}, they required the lens
459: galaxy to be located near a faint radio component (``E'') that they
460: argued is an additional image of the background source or emission
461: from the center of the lens galaxy. However, although the existence
462: of E has been verified in other radio images, it is over $0\farcs2$
463: away from the center of the lens galaxy as revealed by our HST image.
464: In particular, the center of the lens galaxy and component E are on
465: opposite sides of the line between A and B, corresponding to a
466: qualitative difference in the lens models (see below).
467:
468: All previous authors who have used \lens~to determine the Hubble
469: constant chose a lens galaxy position close to the incorrect position
470: of \citet{nair93}. After measuring the time delay, \citet{lovell98}
471: applied the model of \citet{nair93} to determine $h=0.65^{+16}_{-9}$.
472: \citet{koopmans99} obtained $h=0.75^{+18}_{-10}$ using an isothermal
473: mass model in which the center of the lens galaxy was fixed at the
474: value of \citet{nair93}.
475:
476: \citet{lehar00}, who were the first to measure the lens galaxy
477: position, obtained $h=0.73\pm 0.35$ using an SIE model. The large
478: uncertainty was due to the lens galaxy position, which was poorly
479: constrained, but in agreement with the position of \citet{nair93}.
480: The difference between their result and ours can be attributed
481: entirely to the updated position. In particular, we have assumed the
482: pointlike object labeled ``P'' by \citet{lehar00} is actually the
483: bulge of the lens galaxy. \citet{lehar00} noted this possibility, but
484: for their analysis they assumed that P was a foreground star. In an
485: independent analysis, \citet{courbin02} argue that there is indeed a
486: spiral lens galaxy but that P is a foreground star superimposed nearly
487: on the bulge of the galaxy; this possibility is discussed further in
488: \S~\ref{sec:summary}.
489:
490: \citet{lehar00} favored a scenario in which the nearby galaxy G2 is an
491: $L_*$ galaxy located at the lens redshift $z_l=0.886$. They noted
492: that the major axis in their SIE model pointed towards G2, suggesting
493: G2 could naturally explain the ellipticity of the mass model. By
494: representing G and G2 as singular isothermal spheres, they achieved a
495: satisfactory fit, and the resulting ratio of Einstein ring radii
496: ($b_{G2}/b_{G1} = 0.7\pm 0.4$) was consistent with the nearly equal
497: $H$-band magnitudes and scale lengths of the galaxies.
498:
499: The new data provide two reasons to reject this interpretation.
500: First, after moving the lens galaxy to the correct position, the major
501: axis in the updated SIE model points $91\arcdeg$ away from
502: G2---exactly the wrong direction for G2 to explain the ellipticity.
503: Consequently, when we recalculated the SIS+SIS model, $b_{G2}$
504: converged to zero.
505:
506: Second, the $VI$ images show that G2 is a spiral galaxy that is larger
507: in angular size, higher in surface brightness, and bluer than G, all
508: of which suggest that G2 is at lower redshift. By summing within the
509: apertures described in \S~\ref{sec:lensgalaxy} we find that the mean
510: surface brightness of G2 is $1.7\pm 0.4$ times higher than that of G.
511: After correcting for Galactic extinction\footnote{The corrections were
512: computed using the $E_{B-V}$ value of \citet{schlegel98} and assuming
513: a $R_V=3.1$ extinction law; the results are $A_V=1.4$, $A_I=0.81$, and
514: $A_H=0.27$.}, we find for G2 that $V-I=0.94\pm 0.28$, as compared to
515: $V-I>2$ for G. The blue $V-I$ color of G2 is typical of spiral
516: galaxies at either $z<0.3$ or $z>1.7$, according to the
517: spectrophotometric models computed by \citet{lehar00}. For further
518: comparison with those models, we computed the $H$-band magnitude of
519: G2, by by applying the aperture-photometry procedure described in
520: \S~\ref{sec:lensgalaxy} to the image of \citet{lehar00}. The result
521: was $H=19.18\pm 0.07$, giving an extinction-corrected magnitude of
522: $18.9$. This places G2 in the $z<0.5$ section of the $V-I$/$I-H$ plane
523: \citep[see Fig.\ 3 of][]{lehar00}.
524:
525: Finally, we note that G2 is the only known candidate for the source of
526: the $z_a=0.19$ \ion{H}{1} absorption seen by \citet{lovell96}.
527: Together these facts lead us to favor a scenario in which G2 is
528: located at $z_a=0.19$. The extinction-corrected $I$-band magnitude of
529: G2 is $19.9\pm 0.1$, corresponding to $\sim 0.07L_*$ for a spiral
530: galaxy at $z_a=0.19$. Such a small and relatively nearby galaxy would
531: be irrelevant to lens models with the present degree of accuracy,
532: contributing a tidal shear and convergence $\gamma \sim \kappa \sim
533: 0.03$.
534:
535: One argument against this scenario is that the absorption feature
536: detected by \citet{lovell96} was seen primarily in front of NE, even
537: though SW is closer in projection to G2 ($2\farcs 5$ vs.\ $2\farcs0$).
538: However, given the peculiar and patchy distribution of \ion{H}{1} on
539: kiloparsec scales seen in some nearby galaxies \citep[see,
540: e.g.,][]{hibbard01}, we do not view this as a serious complication.
541:
542: \section{Summary and future prospects}
543: \label{sec:summary}
544:
545: The new HST $I$-band image confirms that the lens galaxy of \lens~is a
546: nearly face-on spiral galaxy. Assuming that the compact component
547: near the center of this galaxy is the galaxy bulge, we have accurately
548: measured the galaxy position relative to the quasar images, thereby
549: completing the basic data for this system.
550:
551: Furthermore, we have computed $H_0$ given the current best measurement
552: of the time delay, assuming that there is only one lens galaxy, and
553: further assuming that the lens galaxy has a flat rotation curve and a
554: massive dark halo, as appears to be the case for nearby massive spiral
555: galaxies. The resulting $H_0$ is lower than the widely accepted value
556: obtained by the Key Project. We have described some possible sources
557: of bias, but to force agreement with the Key Project seems to require
558: an unnatural mass model for the lens galaxy.
559:
560: After this work was done, we learned that \citet{courbin02}
561: independently analyzed the same HST data as presented in
562: \S~\ref{sec:lensgalaxy} (along with the $IHK$ data of \cite{lehar00}
563: and a new Gemini $K$-band image). The main difference between their
564: treatment of the $VI$ data and ours is that they deconvolved the
565: images before interpreting them. Their interpretation differs from
566: ours in two important respects:
567:
568: \begin{enumerate}
569:
570: \item \citet{courbin02} conclude object P is a foreground star rather
571: than the bulge of the face-on spiral galaxy. In support of this
572: claim, P is unresolved and its position in a color-magnitude diagram
573: is consistent with other bulge dwarf stars for this field. Based on
574: the mean density of field stars that were detected in the $I$-band
575: image ($\sim 0.8$~arcsec$^{-2}$), there is a 10\% chance for a
576: randomly placed star to lie within $0\farcs2$ of the center of the
577: galaxy. The photometry is also consistent with a spiral galaxy with P
578: as its bulge (see \S~\ref{sec:tullyfisher}), so both interpretations
579: are reasonable.
580:
581: \item \citet{courbin02} conclude there is a second lens galaxy, based
582: on faint and extended flux between P and the SW quasar that is
583: detected only in the $H$-band image of \citet{lehar00}. Its position
584: is rather uncertain (with a quoted error of 80~mas) but is consistent
585: with the position of radio component E. In this scenario, the
586: $H$-band flux and component E are due to a second deflector that is
587: radio-loud. In our scenario, these features (if they are real, and
588: not associated with the quasar) could be due to star formation in the
589: western spiral arm of lens galaxy.
590:
591: \end{enumerate}
592:
593: In short, our interpretation has the virtue of simplicity. The
594: interpretation of \citet{courbin02} is complicated but has the merit
595: of explaining a few puzzling features of the data: a possible offset
596: between P and the center of the spiral arms, the diffuse $H$-band
597: flux, and radio component E. It is not clear to us, from the present
598: data, how seriously these features should be taken.
599:
600: If P is indeed a star, the lens galaxy position we report in this
601: paper is wrong. Adopting the position of \citet{courbin02} and the
602: SIE model described in \S~\ref{subsec:update}, the inferred Hubble
603: constant would rise to $H_0= 107\pm 30$~km~s$^{-1}$. If, however,
604: there is a second galaxy between the quasar images, then it may be
605: impossible to determine $H_0$ from this system because the galaxies
606: would be difficult to characterize with current telescopes, and the
607: mass model would be complex. In particular it is not possible to
608: state generally (without detailed modeling) whether a two-deflector
609: model would alleviate or exacerbate the incompatibility of the Key
610: Project value of $H_0$ and the time delay measured for this system.
611:
612: Therefore, for the purpose of determining $H_0$ with this system, the
613: highest priority should be establishing which of these competing
614: hypotheses are correct. It would be difficult to establish the
615: identity of P via spectroscopy, because P is faint and the field is
616: crowded. But, as \citet{courbin02} pointed out, it would be possible
617: to prove P is a star by measuring its proper motion, which should be
618: $\sim 4$~mas~yr$^{-1}$ for a bulge star (for which the solar reflex
619: motion of $\sim 200$~km~s$^{-1}$ is dominant). A negative result
620: would not be conclusive. The reality of the second deflector might be
621: tested by seeking to detect both deflectors in a single
622: image---perhaps a considerably deeper $I$-band image with the HST's
623: new Advanced Camera for Surveys.
624:
625: Assuming for the moment that our interpretation of the HST images is
626: correct, we suggest the following steps to reduce the systematic
627: errors and sharpen the determination of $H_0$ from this system.
628:
629: First, the uncertainty in the time delay should be reduced from 20\%
630: to 3\% or lower, so that it makes no significant contribution to the
631: overall uncertainty. \citet{lovell98} noted that their full light
632: curves were consistent with a broad range of time delays, ranging from
633: 12 to 30 days. Only when the data were restricted to a subset
634: containing a single ``bump'' did the distribution of possible time
635: delays become approximately Gaussian. A time delay based on multiple
636: features in a full set of light curves would be more secure.
637:
638: Second, the redshift of galaxy G2 ($I=20.7$) needs to be measured
639: spectroscopically to test whether it is the source of the $z_a=0.19$
640: \ion{H}{1} absorption. The plausibility of the association with G2
641: could also be checked by mapping the \ion{H}{1} absorption with a
642: higher signal-to-noise ratio than the map of \citet{lovell96}, in
643: order to search for absorption in front of SW, and to measure any
644: velocity shift.
645:
646: Third, and most important, the degeneracies of lens models must be
647: broken by making use of more observational constraints than the basic
648: data presented in Table~\ref{tbl:data}. For example, we did not
649: investigate realistic models for spiral galaxies that include
650: contributions from the bulge, disk, and halo \cite[see,
651: e.g.,][]{keeton98,koopmans98}. More generally, many authors have
652: argued that unless a wide class of parameterized models are considered
653: \cite[e.g.,][]{kochanek91,bernstein99}, or even a non-parametric model
654: \cite[e.g.,][]{williams00}, the uncertainty in $H_0$ will be
655: underestimated. To investigate a broader range of models, more
656: constraints are obviously required. For the simple models described
657: in \S~\ref{sec:models}, we have ignored two possible sources of such
658: constraints: the milliarcsecond-scale radio morphologies of the quasar
659: cores, and the Einstein ring.
660:
661: The quasar cores have been mapped with very long baseline
662: interferometry (VLBI) at radio frequencies ranging from 843~MHz to
663: 43~GHz. Maps with angular resolution $\gtorder 10$~mas show the
664: expected parity-reversed substructure in NE and SW \cite[see, e.g.,][]
665: {jauncey91,patnaik96}, but maps with higher angular resolution are
666: difficult to interpret. Component SW, at least, appears to be
667: scatter-broadened by plasma in the lens galaxy
668: \citep{jones96,guirado99}. It has been claimed that both NE and SW
669: exhibit intrinsic variability in source structure \citep{jin99}.
670: Furthermore, NE has a $\sim 10$~mas linear jet with no obvious
671: counterpart in SW \citep{garrett96,guirado99}, which may indicate the
672: presence of small-scale substructure in the lens. It is hard to see
673: how the existing observations can be dramatically improved with
674: current telescopes, but a modeling effort may help to determine
675: whether mass subtructure is required, and if so, whether the mass
676: scale of the perturbation is large enough to affect the time delay.
677:
678: The geometry of the Einstein ring is probably the best hope for
679: breaking the remaining degeneracies of lens models. The situation is
680: analogous to the case at optical wavelengths, where the stretched
681: images of quasar host galaxies have been used to break some
682: degeneracies in mass models of the time delay lens PG~1115+080
683: (Kochanek, Keeton, \& McLeod 2001; although see Saha \& Williams
684: 2001). We have made some preliminary attempts to use the existing VLA
685: maps for this purpose, by employing the curve-fitting algorithm of
686: \citet{keeton01a}, but with the angular resolution of the present data
687: it is difficult to measure the ring with the needed accuracy.
688:
689: There is room for improvement upon existing radio maps of the ring,
690: which tend to be short snapshots because the radio cores are so bright
691: ($\sim 3$ Jy). (In most of the VLBI observations, the ring is
692: resolved out.) These snapshots are limited in dynamic range by poor
693: sampling in Fourier space rather than thermal noise. Major
694: improvements would follow from deep radio observations with high
695: angular resolution ($<0\farcs1$) and high dynamic range ($>10^5$).
696: Methods for the precise interpretation of high-dynamic-range
697: interferometric observations of lensed sources are well developed and
698: have been shown to discriminate between different mass models
699: \cite[see, e.g.,][]{kochanek92,kochanek95,chen95,ellithorpe96}.
700:
701: \acknowledgments We thank Aaron Cohen and Jim Lovell for help with
702: this research. We are grateful to Steven Beckwith for providing
703: Director's Discretionary time for this project. This work was
704: partially supported by NASA through grants DD-8804, GO-7495, and
705: GO-9133 from the Space Telescope Science Institute. J.N.W.\ is
706: supported by an NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral
707: Fellowship.
708:
709: \begin{thebibliography}{}
710:
711: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Fischer(1999)]{bernstein99} Bernstein, G.\ \&
712: Fischer, P.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 48
713:
714: \bibitem[Bond et al.(1994)]{bond94} Bond, J.R., et al.\ 1994, \prl,
715: 72, 13
716:
717: \bibitem[Bradac et al.(2001)]{bradac01} Bradac, M., et al.\ 2001,
718: preprint, astro--ph/0112038
719:
720: \bibitem[Chen, Kochanek, \& Hewitt(1995)]{chen95} Chen, G., Kochanek,
721: C.S., \& Hewitt, J.N.\ 1995, \apj, 447, 62
722:
723: \bibitem[Courbin et al.(1998)]{courbin98} Courbin, F., et al.\ 1998,
724: \apjl, 499, 119
725:
726: \bibitem[Courbin et al.(2002)]{courbin02} Courbin, F., et al.\ 2002,
727: submitted (astro--ph/0202026)
728:
729: \bibitem[Dalal \& Kochanek(2001)]{dalal01} Dalal, N.\ \& Kochanek,
730: C.S.\ 2001, preprint (astro--ph/0111456)
731:
732: \bibitem[Djorgovski et al.(1992)]{djorgovski92} Djorgovski, S., et
733: al.\ 1992, \mnras, 257, 240
734:
735: \bibitem[Dolphin(2000)]{dolphin00} Dolphin, A.\ 2000, \pasp, 112, 1397
736:
737: \bibitem[Eisenstein, Tegmark, \& Hu(1998)]{eisenstein98} Eisenstein,
738: D.J., Tegmark, M., \& Hu, W.\ 1998, \apjl, 504, 57
739:
740: \bibitem[Ellithorpe, Kochanek, \& Hewitt(1996)]{ellithorpe96}
741: Ellithorpe, J.D., Kochanek, C.S., \& Hewitt, J.N.\ 1996, \apj, 464,
742: 556
743:
744: \bibitem[Falco et al.(1999)]{falco99} Falco, E.E., et al.\ 1999, \apj,
745: 523, 617
746:
747: \bibitem[Freedman et al.(2001)]{freedman01} Freedman, W., et al.\
748: 2001, \apj, 553, 47
749:
750: \bibitem[Fruchter \& Hook(2002)]{fruchter02} Fruchter, A.\ \& Hook,
751: R.N.\ 2002, \pasp, in press (astro--ph/9808087)
752:
753: \bibitem[Frye, Welch, \& Broadhurst(1997)]{frye97} Frye, B., Welch,
754: W.J., \& Broadhurst, T.\ 1997, \apj, 478, 25
755:
756: \bibitem[Garrett et al.(1996)]{garrett96} Garrett, M.A., et al.\ 1996,
757: in Proc.\ IAU Symp.\ 173, Astrophysical Applications of Gravitational
758: Lensing, ed.\ C.S.\ Kochanek \& J.N.\ Hewitt (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p.\
759: 189
760:
761: \bibitem[Gerin et al.(1997)]{gerin97} Gerin, M., et al.\ 1997, \apj,
762: 488, 31
763:
764: \bibitem[Gorenstein, Shapiro, \& Falco(1988)]{gorenstein88}
765: Gorenstein, M.V., Shapiro, I.I., \& Falco, E.E.\ 1988, 327, 693
766:
767: \bibitem[Guirado et al.(1999)]{guirado99} Guirado, J.C., et al.\ 1999,
768: \aap, 346, 392
769:
770: \bibitem[Hibbard et al.(2001)]{hibbard01} Hibbard, J.E., et al.\ 2001,
771: to appear in ASP Conf.\ Series Vol.\ 240, Gas and Galaxy Evolution,
772: eds.\ J.E.\ Hibbard, M.P.\ Rupen, \& J.H.\ van Gorkom (San Francisco:
773: ASP), 659 (astro-ph/0110667)
774:
775: \bibitem[Jauncey et al.(1991)]{jauncey91} Jauncey, D.L., et al.\ 1991,
776: Nature, 352, 132
777:
778: \bibitem[Jin et al.(1999)]{jin99} Jin, C., et al.\ 1999, New Astronomy
779: Reviews, 43, 767
780:
781: \bibitem[Jones et al.(1996)]{jones96} Jones, D.L., et al.\ 1996,
782: \apjl, 470, 23
783:
784: \bibitem[Keeton \& Kochanek(1998)]{keeton98} Keeton, C.R.\ \&
785: Kochanek, C.S.\ 1998, \apj, 495, 157
786:
787: \bibitem[Keeton, Kochanek, \& Falco(1998)]{keeton_kochanek98} Keeton,
788: C.R., Kochanek, C.S., \& Falco, E.E.\ 1998, \apj, 509, 561
789:
790: \bibitem[Keeton(2001a)]{keeton01a} Keeton, C.R.\ 2001a, preprint,
791: astro--ph/0102340
792:
793: \bibitem[Keeton(2001b)]{keeton01b} Keeton, C.R.\ 2001b, preprint,
794: astro--ph/0111595
795:
796: \bibitem[Kochanek(1991)]{kochanek91} Kochanek, C.S.\ 1991, \apj, 373,
797: 354
798:
799: \bibitem[Kochanek(1995)]{kochanek95} Kochanek, C.S.\ 1995, \apj, 445,
800: 559
801:
802: \bibitem[Kochanek, Keeton, \& McLeod(2001)]{kochanek01} Kochanek,
803: C.S., Keeton, C.R., \& McLeod, B.A.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 50
804:
805: \bibitem[Kochanek \& Narayan(1992)]{kochanek92} Kochanek, C.S.\ \&
806: Narayan, R.\ 1992, \apj, 401, 461
807:
808: \bibitem[Koopmans et al.(1998)]{koopmans98} Koopmans, L.V.E., et al.\
809: 1998, \mnras, 295, 534
810:
811: \bibitem[Koopmans \& Fassnacht(1999)]{koopmans99} Koopmans, L.V.E.\ \&
812: Fassnacht, C.D.\ 1999, \apj, 527, 513
813:
814: \bibitem[Krist \& Hook(1997)]{krist97} Krist, J.E.\ \& Hook,
815: R.N. 1997, The Tiny Tim User's Guide, version 4.4 (Baltimore: STScI)
816:
817: \bibitem[Leh\'{a}r et al.(2000)]{lehar00} Leh\'{a}r, J., et al.\ 2000,
818: \apj, 536, 584
819:
820: \bibitem[Lidman et al.(1999)]{lidman99} Lidman, C., et al.\ 1999,
821: \apjl, 514, 57
822:
823: \bibitem[Lovell et al.(1996)]{lovell96} Lovell, J.E.J., et al.\ 1996,
824: \apjl, 472, 5
825:
826: \bibitem[Lovell et al.(1998)]{lovell98} Lovell, J.E.J., et al.\ 1998,
827: \apjl, 508, 51
828:
829: \bibitem[Metcalf \& Zhao(2001)]{metcalf01} Metcalf, R.\ \& Zhao, H.\
830: 2001, preprint, astro--ph/0111427
831:
832: \bibitem[Nair, Narasimha, \& Rao(1993)]{nair93} Nair, S., Narasimha,
833: D., \& Rao, A.P.\ 1999, \apj, 407, 46
834:
835: \bibitem[Patnaik \& Porcas(1996)]{patnaik96} Patnaik, A.R.\ \& Porcas,
836: R.W.\ 1996, in Proc.\ IAU Symp.\ 173, Astrophysical Applications of
837: Gravitational Lensing, ed.\ C.S.\ Kochanek \& J.N.\ Hewitt (Dordrecht:
838: Kluwer), p.\ 305
839:
840: \bibitem[Rao \& Subrahmanyan(1988)]{rao88} Rao, A.\ \& Subrahmanyan,
841: R.\ 1988, \mnras, 231, 229
842:
843: \bibitem[Refsdal(1964)]{refsdal64} Refsdal, S.\ 1964, \mnras, 128, 307
844:
845: \bibitem[Riess(2000)]{riess00} Riess, A.\ 2000, Instrument Science
846: Report WFPC2 00--04 (Baltimore: STScI)
847:
848: \bibitem[Rubin, Thonnard, \& Ford(1978)]{rubin78} Rubin, V.C.,
849: Thonnard, N., \& Ford, W.K.\ Jr.\ 1978, \apjl, 225, 107
850:
851: \bibitem[Sakai et al.(2000)]{sakai00} Sakai, S., et al.\ 2000, \apj,
852: 529, 698
853:
854: \bibitem[Saha \& Williams(2001)]{saha01} Saha, P.\ \& Williams, L.\
855: 2001, \aj, 122, 585
856:
857: \bibitem[Schechter(2000)]{schechter00} Schechter, P.L.\ 2000, to be in
858: Proc.\ IAU Symp.\ 201, New Cosmological Data and the Values of the
859: Fundamental Parameters, ed.\ A.N.\ Lasenby \& A.\ Wilkinson (San
860: Francisco: ASP)
861:
862: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis(1998)]{schlegel98} Schlegel,
863: D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
864:
865: \bibitem[Sofue \& Rubin(2001)]{sofue01} Sofue, Y.\ \& Rubin, V.\ 2001,
866: \araa, 39, 137
867:
868: \bibitem[Subrahmanyan et al.(1990)]{subrahmanyan90} Subrahmanyan, R.,
869: et al.\ 1990, \mnras, 246, 263
870:
871: \bibitem[Swift, Welch, \& Frye(2001)]{swift01} Swift, J.J., Welch,
872: W.J., \& Frye, B.L.\ 2001, \apjl, 549, 29
873:
874: \bibitem[Tully \& Fisher(1977)]{tully77} Tully, R.B.\ \& Fisher, J.R.\
875: 1977, \aap, 54, 661
876:
877: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1996)]{vogt96} Vogt, N., et al.\ 1996, \apjl,
878: 465, 15
879:
880: \bibitem[Vogt et al.(1997)]{vogt97} Vogt, N., et al.\ 1997, \apjl,
881: 479, 121
882:
883: \bibitem[Wiklind \& Combes(1996)]{wiklind96} Wiklind, T.\ \& Combes,
884: F.\ 1996, Nature, 379, 139
885:
886: \bibitem[Wiklind \& Combes(1998)]{wiklind98} Wiklind, T.\ \& Combes,
887: F.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 129
888:
889: \bibitem[Williams \& Saha(2000)]{williams00} Williams, L.\ \& Saha,
890: P.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 439
891:
892: \bibitem[Witt, Mao, \& Keeton(2000)]{witt00} Witt, H.J., Mao, S., \&
893: Keeton, C.R.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 98
894:
895: \bibitem[Wu et al.(1995)]{wu95} Wu, X.-P., et al.\ 1995, \apjl, 448,
896: 65
897:
898: \bibitem[Ziegler et al.(2001)]{ziegler01} Ziegler, B.L., et al.\ 2001,
899: preprint (astro-ph/0111146)
900:
901: \end{thebibliography}
902:
903: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
904: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
905: \tablecaption{Basic data for \lens\label{tbl:data}}
906: \tablewidth{0pt}
907:
908: \tablehead{
909: \colhead{Datum} &
910: \colhead{Value} &
911: \colhead{Reference}
912: }
913:
914: \startdata
915: R.A.(NE) (J2000) & $18\fh 33\fm 39\fs 931$ & \citet{subrahmanyan90} \\
916: Decl.(NE) (J2000) & $-21\fdg 03\farcm 39\farcs75$ & \citet{subrahmanyan90} \\
917: R.A.(SW) -- R.A.(NE) & $-642\pm 1$~mas & \citet{jin99} \\
918: Decl.(SW) -- Decl.(NE) & $-728\pm 1$~mas & \citet{jin99} \\
919: R.A.(G) -- R.A.(NE) & $-328\pm 4$~mas & this work \\
920: Decl.(G) -- Decl.(NE) & $-486\pm 4$~mas & this work \\
921: NE/SW magnification ratio & $1.52\pm 0.05$ & \citet{lovell98} \\
922: Lens redshift ($z_l$) & $0.886\pm 0.001$& \citet{wiklind98} \\
923: Source redshift ($z_s$) & $2.507\pm 0.002$ & \citet{lidman99} \\
924: Time delay ($t_{\mathrm{SW}}-t_{\mathrm{NE}}$) & $26^{+4}_{-5}$ days & \citet{lovell98}
925: \enddata
926:
927: \tablenotetext{a}{\citet{wiklind98} measured molecular absorption
928: lines at redshifts 0.88582 in front of SW, and also an absorption line
929: in front of NE with a rest-frame velocity shift of
930: $-147$~km~s$^{-1}$.}
931:
932: \end{deluxetable}
933:
934: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
935: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
936: \tablecaption{HST/WFPC2 photometry\label{tbl:mags}}
937: \tablewidth{0pt}
938:
939: \tablehead{
940: \colhead{Component} &
941: \colhead{F814W $\approx I$} &
942: \colhead{F555W $\approx V$}
943: }
944:
945: \startdata
946: S1 & $19.33\pm 0.04$ & $21.90\pm 0.18$ \\
947: NE & $21.97\pm 0.05$ & $25.8\pm 0.2$ \\
948: SW & $>24.9$ & $>26.3$ \\
949: G & $22.04\pm 0.25$ & $\geq 24.7$ \\
950: G2 & $20.69\pm 0.13$ & $22.24\pm 0.25$
951: \enddata
952:
953: \end{deluxetable}
954:
955: \begin{deluxetable}{cc}
956: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
957: \tablecaption{SIE model parameters\label{tbl:model}}
958: \tablewidth{0pt}
959:
960: \tablehead{
961: \colhead{Parameter} &
962: \colhead{Value}
963: }
964:
965: \startdata
966: Einstein ring radius ($b$) & $0\farcs491\pm 0.001$\\
967: Ellipticity ($\epsilon$) & $0.091\pm 0.009$ \\
968: P.A.\ of major axis (E of N) & $86\fdg1\pm 3\fdg1$ \\
969: $x_{\hbox{source}} - x_{\mathrm{NE}}$ & $-0\farcs264\pm 0\farcs005$ \\
970: $y_{\hbox{source}} - y_{\mathrm{SW}}$ & $-0\farcs418\pm 0\farcs005$ \\
971: Magnification of NE & $5.9\pm 0.6$
972: \enddata
973:
974: \end{deluxetable}
975:
976: \end{document}
977: