1: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
2: \begin{document}
3: %\input title.tex
4: \title{Microlensing of Relativistic Knots in the Quasar HE1104$-$1805}
5:
6: \shorttitle{Microlensing of HE1104$-$1805}
7: \shortauthors{OGLE Collaboration}
8: \author{Paul L. Schechter\altaffilmark{1,2},
9: A.~Udalski\altaffilmark{3},
10: M.~Szyma{\'n}ski\altaffilmark{3},
11: M.~Kubiak\altaffilmark{3},
12: G.~Pietrzy{\'n}ski\altaffilmark{3,4},
13: I.~Soszy{\'n}ski\altaffilmark{3},
14: P.~Wo{\'z}niak\altaffilmark{5},
15: K.~{\.Z}ebru{\'n}\altaffilmark{3},
16: O.~Szewczyk\altaffilmark{3},
17: and {\L}. Wyrzykowski\altaffilmark{3}}
18: \altaffiltext{1}{Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA~02139-4307, USA
19: %\email
20: {\tt schech@achernar.mit.edu}
21: }
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ~08540-0631, USA
23: }
24: \altaffiltext{3}{Warsaw University Observatory, Al.~Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478 Warszawa, Poland
25: %\email
26: {\tt (udalski,msz,mk,pietrzyn,
27: soszynsk,zebrun,szewczyk,wyrzykow)@astrouw.edu.pl}
28: }
29: \altaffiltext{4}{Universidad de Concepci\'on, Departamento de Fisica
30: Casilla, 160-C, Concepci\'on, Chile
31: %\email
32: {\tt pietrzyn@hubble.cfm.udec.cl}
33: }
34: \altaffiltext{5}{Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS-D436, Los Alamos,
35: NM~87545, USA
36: %\email
37: {\tt wozniak@lanl.gov}
38: }
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We present 3 years of photometry of the ``Double Hamburger'' lensed
42: quasar, HE1104$-$1805, obtained on 102 separate nights using the OGLE
43: 1.3-m telescope. Both the A and B images show variations, but with
44: substantial differences in the lightcurves at all time delays. At the
45: $310^{\rm d}$ delay reported by Wisotzki and collaborators the difference
46: lightcurve has an rms amplitude of 0.060 mag. The structure functions
47: for the A and B images are quite different, with image A more than
48: twice as variable as image B (a factor of 4 in structure function) on
49: timescales of less than a month. Adopting microlensing as a working
50: hypothesis for the uncorrelated variability, the short timescale
51: argues for the relativistic motion of one or more components of the
52: source. We argue that the small amplitude of the fluctuations is due
53: to the finite size of the source with respect to the microlenses.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \keywords{gravitational lenses; microlensing}
57: %\input sec1.tex
58: \section{INTRODUCTION}
59:
60: Two very different physical processes contribute to the observed
61: photometric variability of gravitationally lensed quasars: the
62: intrinsic variabilty of the quasar itself and propagation effects
63: along the line of sight. Chief among the latter is microlensing by
64: the stellar mass objects in the intervening lens (Chang and Refsdal
65: 1979; Paczy{\'n}ski 1986). The combination of intrinsic and microlensing
66: variations represents an embarassment of riches. For the purpose of
67: measuring lens time delays (using the correlated intrinsic variabilty
68: of the quasar images) uncorrelated microlensing variations are an
69: additional source of noise. Conversely, the intrinsic variation of
70: the quasar produces correlated noise in the uncorrelated microlensing
71: signals.
72:
73: Time delays have been measured for nearly a dozen systems, and in most
74: cases microlensing appears not to have presented a serious problem
75: (e.g. Kundi{\'c} et al. 1997; Schechter et al. 1997). Dramatic
76: microlensing variations have been observed in the system 2237+0305
77: (Corrigan et al. 1991; Wo{\'z}niak et al. 2000) but on a timescale
78: (months) which is very much longer than the predicted delays (hours).
79:
80: There have, however, been instances in which microlensing and time
81: delay measurements have interfered with each other. In the case of
82: 0957+561, the two images have long timescale (1000$^{\rm d}$) variations
83: (Refsdal et al. 2000), which bias the inferred time delay. Burud et
84: al. (2000) report uncorrelated variations over timescales of several
85: months in their study of B1600+434. Examination of their Figure 3
86: shows apparent uncorrelated variations on timescales of days.
87: Uncorrelated variations are also reported by Hjorth et al.\ (2002) in
88: their study of RXJ0911+0551.
89:
90: We report here the results of an unsuccessful program to measure the
91: time delay of the doubly imaged quasar HE1104$-$1805 (Wisotzki et
92: al. 1993). In three years' monitoring with the Optical Gravitational
93: Lensing Experiment (OGLE) 1.3m telescope at Las Campanas we see
94: uncorrelated variations in the A and B images, which we interpret as
95: the result of microlensing.
96:
97: In \S 2 we describe the observations and initial reductions. In
98: \S 3 we compare light curves for the two quasar images, A and B,
99: using the time tested chi-by-eye technique and a less subjective
100: method. Our data fail to produce a satisfactory time delay. In
101: \S 4 we derive structure functions separately for the A and B
102: images. Adopting the time delay measured by Gil-Merino et al.\ (2002),
103: we determine a structure function for the microlensing from the
104: difference between the A and B images. In \S 5 we explore several
105: alternative interpretations of the structure functions for the two
106: quasar images.
107: %\input sec2.tex
108: \section{OBSERVATIONS}
109:
110: Observations of HE1104$-$1805 were carried over a three year period as a
111: sub-project of the second phase of the OGLE microlensing search
112: (Udalski, Kubiak and Szyma{\'n}ski 1997). The 1.3-m Warsaw telescope
113: at the Las Campanas Observatory, Chile (operated by the Carnegie
114: Institution of Washington) was equipped with the ``first generation"
115: camera, incorporating a SITe ${2048\times2048}$ CCD detector working
116: in still-frame mode. The pixel size was 24~$\mu$m, giving a scale of
117: 0\farcs417/pixel. Observations were performed in the ``medium''
118: readout mode of the CCD detector, with a gain 7.1~e$^-$/ADU and
119: read noise of about 6.3~e$^-$. Details of the instrumentation setup
120: can be found in Udalski, Kubiak and Szyma{\'n}ski (1997).
121:
122: Our plan was to obtain data three times per month, at moon phase
123: $-11$, $-1$ and $+8$ days, weather permitting. If not, data was
124: obtained on the first good night following the planned observation.
125: Typically two 10 minute exposures were taken with a standard $V$-band
126: filter. The data were reduced automatically at the telescope using the
127: OGLE software pipeline. Photometry of the two quasar components, A
128: and B, and for three reference stars, CA, CB and CC was derived with
129: the {\sc DoPhot} photometry program (Schechter, Mateo and Saha 1993).
130: The third of these reference stars proved to be variable. Stars CA
131: and CB are --3\farcs2 and 31\farcs9 to the East and 15\farcs1 and
132: 5\farcs3 to the South, respectively from the brighter quasar
133: component, A. All magnitudes are referred to the average of these two
134: stars. No attempt was made to correct either for color terms or for
135: an airmass/color crossterm. Figure~1 presents a $120''\times 120''$
136: subraster of a $V$-band frame of HE1104$-$1805 showing both quasar
137: images, A and B, and both reference stars, CA and CB.
138:
139: The complete record of observations is given in Table 1. Three
140: exposures which gave very different magnitudes from the exposure
141: immediately preceeding or following and from magnitudes obtained
142: earlier or later in the month are flagged and are not used in the
143: discussion that follows. Data taken on the same night was averaged
144: and was assigned the average time of observation. Nightly averaged
145: photometry for quasar images A and B and for comparison star CA is
146: shown in Figure~2. Note that there is no additional information in
147: star CB, as its variations mirror those of CA, but with the opposite
148: sign. We do not plot formal error bars, as night-to-night variations
149: are always larger than these.
150: %\input sec3.tex
151: \section{TIME DELAY}
152:
153: Wisotzki and collaborators (Wisotzki et al. 1998; Gil-Merino et
154: al. 2002) have measured a time delay of $310 \pm 19^{\rm d}$ for
155: HE1104$-$1805, with the B image leading the A image. In Figure~3 we
156: plot our photometry (averged over each night, typically two exposures)
157: for image B at the corresponding time for image A, $310^{\rm d}$ later than
158: actually observed. The photometry for image A is shown as actually
159: observed.
160:
161: \subsection{Difference Lightcurve}
162:
163: As we are looking at a single quasar along lines of sight that differ
164: by only a few arcseconds, the instrinsic component of the A and B
165: variability ought to be the same after compensation for the time
166: delay. A lagged difference lightcurve should show only the effects
167: of extrinsic processes, e.g. microlensing. The price we pay in so
168: doing is that the difference lightcurve includes extrinsinc variations
169: (and noise) from both images.
170:
171: In computing a lagged difference, we chose to interpolate on the B
172: lightcurve, which is considerably smoother. Our approach was to use
173: all data taken within 20 days of the desired time. We fit a straight
174: line (quadratic) if the desired time was straddled by two (three or
175: more) observations; if not we took a straight average.
176:
177: Figure 3 shows a difference lightcurve, obtained by interpolating on
178: image B as described above. While there are modest similarities in
179: the two lightcurves, the differences are substantial.
180:
181: It should be noted that our single inital observation of image B in
182: August 1997 (HJD 2450666) yields 5 points at the extreme left of the
183: difference curve. We choose to keep these points because of the extra
184: baseline they gain us. The advisability of this rests heavily on the
185: assumption that B varies slowly.
186:
187: \subsection{Time Delay}
188:
189: Over the course of the three years spent observing HE1104$-$1805, with
190: the acquisition of every new data point, we attempted to determine a
191: time delay using the time honored ``chi-by-eye'' approach. At no
192: point were we able to persuade ourselves that we had a robust
193: determination of the time delay. In particular there are many
194: significant features in the A lightcurve for which the B lightcurve
195: has no counterpart. A variety of sophisticated techniques have been
196: developed to extract time delays (see Gil-Merino et al. 2002 and
197: references cited therein), but should one believe a time delay that
198: fails the chi-by-eye technique?
199:
200: We subscribe to Lord Rutherford's dictum (Bailey 1967) -- ``If your
201: experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better
202: experiment.'' But since the community standard would seem to be that
203: one must carry out an ``objective'' test, we have done so. As the B
204: image seems to vary less than the A image, we interpolate over the B
205: values as described above to obtain a prediction for A at a trial
206: value of the time delay. We then compute the rms deviation between
207: the observed magnitude for a wide range of time delays, plotted in
208: Figure 4. The rms scatter at the published time delay is 0.060 mag,
209: with 51 overlapping points. There is a minimum of 0.054 at $145^{\rm d}$
210: with 56 overlapping points. Without knowing the statistics of the
211: uncorrelated features we cannot argue whether either of these is to be
212: preferred over yet some other value.
213:
214: We admit defeat. We cannot measure the time delay using our data and,
215: for the purpose of the ensuing discussion, we use the value of
216: Gil-Merino et al. If the variations intrinsic to HE1104$-$1805 were
217: large, the error in our adopted delay would would introduce a spurious
218: microlensing signal. But had the intrinsic variations been large, we
219: would have been able to measure the delay.
220: %\input sec4.tex
221: \section{VARIABILITY IN THE A AND B IMAGES}
222:
223: \subsection{Structure Functions for A and B}
224:
225: It is our subjective impression that the A lightcurve in Figure 2 is
226: much more variable than the B lightcurve. This can be made
227: quantitative by computing structure functions for images A and B,
228: \begin{equation}
229: s(\tau) = \Big<[(m(t+\tau) - m(t)]^2\Big>
230: \quad ,
231: \end{equation}
232: where angle brackets denote an average over time. Figure 5 shows
233: these functions computed for images A and B, in 9 day bins. As in the
234: previous section we use the nightly averages to compute individual
235: values of $m(t)$. The first bin includes lags $0 < \tau < 4\fd5$, the
236: second lags $4.5 < \tau < 13\fd5$, and so forth. The structure
237: function for image A shows considerably more variability than that for
238: image B. For lags shorter than 40 days it is a factor of four
239: larger, corresponding to a factor of two more variability. We compute
240: structure functions for the difference between comparison stars A and
241: B, and find a roughly constant amplitude of 0.0002, corresponding to
242: photometric errors of 0.014 mag. If measurement errors make a similar
243: contribution to image B, the structure function for image A at 9 days
244: is a factor of eight larger than for B.
245:
246: \subsection{Working Hypotheses}
247:
248: The A image is brighter than the B image, but not so bright that the
249: images are anywhere near saturation. We can think of no reason why
250: the measurement errors for A should be larger than for B. As we
251: have made no attempt to account for the difference in color between
252: the comparison stars and the quasar images, one might expect
253: photometric errors to show a seasonal correlation (and hence an
254: increasing structure function) depending upon whether the object was
255: observed at low or high airmass. But the variations seen in both the A
256: and B images are so large that we take them to be the result of
257: physical processes beyond the Earth's atmosphere.
258:
259: We take the difference in the amplitudes of the two structure
260: functions to be significant, indicating that whatever physical
261: processes are at work, they affect the images differently. Were we
262: working at radio wavelengths, scintillation arising in the intervening
263: galaxy would need to be considered, as it was by Koopmans and de
264: Bruyn (2000) in the case of B1600+434. For lack of a better
265: explanation (and perhaps a lack of imagination), we adopt, as our
266: working hypothesis, that the fluctuations in image A are due largely
267: to microlensing by stars in the lensing galaxy.
268:
269: Some variation is expected due to the intrinsic variability of the
270: quasar. The structure functions for quasars typically have amplitudes
271: of (0.1 mag)$^2$, with time constants of order one year (Cristiani et
272: al. 1996). There are, of course, very substantial variations among
273: quasars, with some showing almost no variability and others showing
274: intraday variability. The lightcurves and structure functions for A
275: and B look so different that we take the variations in image B to be
276: largely instrinsic, consistent with our expectations for typical
277: quasars. A smaller microlensing amplitude might naively be expected
278: because the surface brightness of the lensing galaxy is much lower at
279: the position of image B and because we expect a continuous dark matter
280: component to be a larger fraction of the mass. While the effects of
281: dark matter are not quite so simple (Schechter and Wambsganss 2002;
282: see below), it is nonetheless the case that microlensing should indeed
283: affect A more than B.
284:
285: \subsection{Difference Structure Function}
286:
287: Figure 6 shows the structure function obtained for the difference
288: lightcurve presented in Figure~3. We take its large fluctuations to be
289: the accidental beating of features in lightcurve A against features in
290: lightcurve B. For the purpose of comparison with microlensing
291: simultations, we will want a charactistic timescale for the difference
292: lightcurve. While the curve is exceedingly noisy, we estimate the
293: time for our structure function to rise to one quarter of its
294: asymptotic value, $T_{1/4}$, to be $\sim 20^{\rm d}$.
295: %\footnote {At long lags
296: %of 100$^d$ and long the number of independent samples of the structure
297: %function becomes small. We take the dip in the structure function at
298: %200$^d$ to be a manifestation of small number statistics.}
299: %\input sec5.tex
300: \section{INTERPRETATION}
301:
302: \subsection{Microlensing at High Optical Depth}
303: High optical depth microlensing differs qualitatively from its low
304: optical depth counterpart. A great many microimages contribute to the
305: observed flux of macroimages like A and B in HE1104-1805
306: (Pacy\'nski 1986). Their combined flux may be efficiently simulated
307: by tracing rays back from the observer to the source plane (Kayser et
308: al. 1986; Wambsganss 1992; Lewis and Irwin 1995), producing a
309: magnification map. As a source moves with respect to the lensing
310: galaxy, it cuts across this magnification map, producing a simulated
311: lightcurve.
312:
313: At low optical depth such lightcurves have long, relatively constant
314: intervals, punctuated by occasional large fluctuations. At high
315: optical depth the lightcurves are more uniform in time, but there are
316: still large amplitude ``events'' caused by the creation and
317: annihilation of pairs of microimages as the source crosses
318: ``caustics,'' and by close encounters with
319: ``cusps'' in the magnification map. To first order the structure
320: functions for such simulated lightcurves have a rise time whose scale
321: is governed by the size the Einstein rings of the microlenses and
322: whose amplitude depends upon the surface density of microlenses and
323: the local shear (Lewis and Irwin 1995; 1996).
324:
325: A minimum of three parameters is needed to characterize the
326: microlensing of a macroimage: a dimensionless surface density of
327: microlenses, $\kappa_*$, a dimensionless surface density of a smooth
328: ``dark'' component, $\kappa_c$, and a dimensionless tidal stretching or
329: shear, $\gamma$. For a mulitply imaged quasar, the image positions
330: (and sometimes magnifications) give a model that constrains $\gamma$
331: and $\kappa_{tot} \equiv \kappa_c + \kappa_*$ at the position of each
332: image. Paczy\'nski (1986) shows that the relevant model space
333: collapses to an equivalent two dimensional space spanned by an
334: effective dimensionless surface density, $\kappa^{eff}_* =
335: \kappa_*/(1-\kappa_c)$ and an effective shear, $\gamma^{eff} =
336: \gamma/(1-\kappa_c)$, but with the magnifications larger by
337: $1/(1-\kappa_c)^2$ than those computed from the effective values.
338:
339: The amplitudes of the microlensing fluctuations go to zero in the
340: limits both of unit magnification (no microlenses) and in the case
341: very high magnification (when fluctuations in the number
342: of microimages become negligible). Taking the effective
343: magnification to be given by $\mu^{eff} = 1/[(1-\kappa_*^{eff})^2 -
344: (\gamma^{eff})^2]$, the largest microlensing fluctuations occur when
345: $\mu^{eff} \sim 3$ (Granot et al. 2002). Macroimages that are
346: saddlepoints of the arrival time surface (those with $1 - \kappa -
347: \gamma < 0$) show larger fluctuations than those that are minima.
348: The fluctuation amplitudes for minima appear to peak at roughly one
349: magnitude, but those for saddlepoints can be somewhat larger
350: (Schechter and Wambsganss 2002). The magnification histograms for
351: both minima and maxima are bimodal in the vicinity of $\mu^{eff} \sim
352: 3$. A histogram computed from the observed difference lightcurve for
353: HE1104-1805 is shown in Figure 7.
354:
355: \subsection{Macromodel for HE1104$-$1805}
356:
357: We have used the Leh\'ar et al. (2000) HST positions for the components
358: of HE1104$-$1805 and the lensing galaxy, and an emission line flux ratio $A/B
359: = 2.8$ (Wisotzki 1993) to model the lensing potential as a singular
360: isothermal sphere in the presence of external shear. The
361: dimensionless surface density, shear and magnification for the A and B
362: images are given in Table 2, with negative magnification indicating a
363: saddlepoint. The shear is sufficiently large in this system that it
364: seems unlikely to be the result of flattening of the lensing
365: potential. Fitting models which had steeper (shallower) potentials
366: would give lower (higher) surface densities and lower (higher)
367: magnifications, but for reasonable ranges the conclusions of the
368: subsequent sections are essentially unchanged.
369:
370: \subsection{Fluctuation Amplitude: Image A}
371:
372: The structure function computed from a lightcurve (or its two
373: dimensional counterpart, computed from a magnification map) will be
374: characterized by a dimensionless amplitude and a time scale (or length
375: scale). At large temporal (or spatial) separations, we expect
376: the amplitude to saturate at some asymptotic value. The amplitude is
377: governed by two dimensionless parameters: the ratio of the size of the
378: source to the size of a microlens (its Einstein ring radius), and the
379: fraction of the total surface density in microlenses, as opposed to a
380: smoothly distributed component. The time scale is set by dividing
381: the size of the Einstein ring by the velocity of the source relative
382: to the microlenses.
383:
384: The size of the Einstein ring clearly affects both the fluctuation
385: amplitude and the timescale. Here we adopt an idealized model which
386: makes it particularly easy to separate the effects of source size from
387: those of dilution by smoothly distributed matter. We take the source
388: to have two components, one very much smaller than the microlenses and
389: one very much bigger. In such a scenario, the amplitude of the
390: fluctuations is smaller by the ratio of the flux in the smaller
391: component to the total flux. We draw tentative conclusions using
392: this model and then consider how relaxing our assumptions might
393: affect them.
394:
395: \subsubsection{Dark Matter Dilution}
396:
397: The observed distribution for the shifted magnitude differences
398: between the A and B images of HE1104$-$1805 has an rms scatter of 0.060
399: magnitudes. Our working hypothesis is that these result from
400: microlensing fluctuations in image A. Lewis and Irwin (1995, 1996) present
401: microlensing results for a point source with $(\kappa_*,\gamma) =
402: (0.65,0.50)$ -- approximately correct for image A if
403: $\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot} = 1$. They predict fluctutations of order 1
404: magnitude. An extended source would give smaller fluctuations.
405: Alternatively, one might suppose that increasing the smooth component,
406: $\kappa_c$, at the expense of the microlensing component, $\kappa_*$,
407: would likewise produce smaller fluctuations.
408:
409: We therefore prevailed upon J. Wambsganss to carry out a series of
410: microlensing simulations for $(\kappa_{tot},\gamma) = (0.60,0.50)$,
411: decreasing $\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot}$ from 1 to 0. We were flabbergasted
412: to discover that the fluctuations increased rather than decreased, at
413: least at first (Schechter and Wambsganss 2002). Eventually the
414: fluctuations get small, but only when $\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot} << 1$.
415: At such levels of dilution, the magnification histogram is exceedingly
416: asymmetric, with a relatively narrow spike at the expected
417: magnfication and a tail roughly 2 magnitudes long toward large
418: demagnifications. This is not the character of the fluctuations
419: observed in Figure 7. Moreover this would require an extraordinarily
420: low mass-to-light ratio for the stellar component of the lensing
421: galaxy. We conclude that a model in which the small observed
422: fluctuations are due to dilution by dark matter is not viable.
423:
424: But we {\it do} expect some dark matter dilution.
425: In their study of the lensing galaxy in the system 0047$-$281, Koopmans and
426: Treu (2002) find the stellar mass fraction interior to the Einstein
427: ring to be $0.58 \pm 0.04$. It seems reasonable to take it to be a
428: factor of $\sim 2$ smaller {\it at} the Einstein ring. If HE1104$-$1805 were
429: similar, it would imply $(\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot})_A = 0.35$.
430:
431: \subsubsection{A Source with a Big and a Small Component}
432:
433: For our idealized model, the fluctuations are diluted by the ratio of
434: the flux in the compact component to the total flux. In Wambsganss'
435: simulations the rms fluctuations vary from 0.69 mag for
436: $\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot} = 1$ through 1.21 mag for
437: $\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot} = 0.16$, beyond which the fluctuations begin to
438: decrease. At $\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot} = 0.35$ the rms fluctuations are
439: about 1 magnitude. A microlensed hot spot would therefore need $\sim$
440: 7\% of the total flux to produce the observed lensing histogram.
441:
442: Interestingly, the magnification histograms for $0.15
443: <\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot} < 0.50$ bifurcate into two peaks, separated by
444: roughly 1.6 magnitudes (cf. Figure 3 of Schechter and Wambsganss 2002).
445: A hotspot with 7\% of the total flux would produce two fluctuation
446: peaks separated by 0.10 mag. Aided by theory, one can imagine such a
447: bifurcation in the observed histogram for HE1104$-$1805, Figure 7.
448:
449: \subsection{Fluctuation Amplitude: Image B}
450:
451: Figure 5 shows considerably less fluctuation in image B than in image
452: A. This might be expected both because the stellar surface density is
453: lower at B than at A, and because the dark matter fraction is higher
454: at B. Substituting dark matter for microlenses might increase the
455: microlensing fluctuation for high magnification images, especially
456: saddlepoints, but it does not for lower magnification minima.
457:
458: Our isothermal model gives us the total surface density at A and B,
459: with $\kappa_{tot,B}/\kappa_{tot,A} = 0.52$. Leh\'ar et al. (2000)
460: measure the effective radius for the lensing galaxy, $r_e =
461: 0\farcs73$. Images A and B are 1\farcs10 and 2\farcs12, respectively,
462: from the lensing galaxy. For constant M/L we then have
463: $\kappa_{*,B}/\kappa_{*,A} = 0.22$. We therefore expect
464: $(\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot})_B = 0.42 (\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot})_A $.
465:
466: If we take $(\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot})_A = 1$, we get $\kappa_{*,B} =
467: 0.140$ and $\kappa_{c,B} = 0.204$. These give $\kappa^{eff}_* = 0.176
468: $ and $\gamma^{eff} = 0.263 $. Under these circumstances, we would
469: expect, according to Lewis and Irwin (1996), microlensing fluctuations
470: in image B to be roughly half as large as in image A, which is
471: marginally consistent with the structure functions of Figure 5, though
472: perhaps not at the shortest lags.
473:
474: If we take $(\kappa_*/\kappa_{tot})_A = 0.35$, the fluctuations for
475: image A increase and the fluctuations for image B decrease. In this
476: case most of the fluctuation in image B would be due to intrinsic
477: variations in the quasar.
478:
479: In any event, the character of the microlensing light curve predicted
480: for B is quite different than that predicted for A. At the lower
481: surface density of image B we expect infrequent but high magnification
482: events (and pairs of events), with the spacing between events large
483: compared to their rise times and durations. Substituting dark matter
484: for microlenses makes such events yet more infrequent. We may not have
485: sampled image B long enough to see any of its occasional fluctuations.
486:
487: \subsection{Tentative Conclusions}
488:
489: While the small amplitude of the fluctuations is primarily due to
490: finite source size effects, the above arguments would seem to favor
491: some dilution of the stellar component with dark matter at both A and
492: B for the following reasons: a) it minimizes the flux of the hotspot
493: b) it reduces the predicted amplitude of microlensing fluctuations in
494: image B and c) it produces a bimodal magnification histogram for image
495: A.
496:
497: \subsection{Timescale}
498:
499: To first approximation, simulated microlensing structure functions
500: look like the voltage across the capacitor in an RC circuit, rising
501: and then asymptotically approaching a constant value. Lewis and Irwin
502: (1996) add an additional parameter that allows for more protracted
503: rises, but for the present discussion it suffices to think in terms of
504: their $T_{1/2}$, the time it takes for their structure function
505: to reach half its asymptotic value. Lewis and Irwin use a variant of
506: the structure function which computes the sum of absolute values of
507: differences rather than the sum of squares in equation (1), so their
508: $T_{1/2}$ corresponds roughly to our $T_{1/4}$. For a
509: range of cases with $\kappa_* = \gamma$ and no smooth component (as
510: would be appropriate for a singular isothermal sphere), they find
511: $T_{1/2} \sim 0.33$, (measured in Einstein ring radii per unit
512: time) for source trajectories that cross the shear direction at a
513: $45\degr$ angle to the shear.
514:
515: The radius of the Einstein ring, projected back onto the source plane,
516: is given by
517: \begin{equation}
518: R_E = {\left[{4 G M \over c^2} {D_{LS} D_S \over D_L}
519: \right]}^{\onehalf}
520: \end{equation}
521: where $D_L$, $D_S$, $D_{LS}$ and are angular diameter distances to the
522: lens, the source and from the lens to the source, respectively. The
523: redshifts for the lens and quasar are 0.729 and 2.319, respectively
524: (Lidman et al. 2000),
525: giving $D_L H_0/c = 0.350$, $D_S H_0 / c = 0.395 $ and $D_{LS} H_0/c =
526: 0.212$ for $(\Omega_m, \Omega_\Lambda) = (0.3,0.7)$.
527: We therefore have
528: \begin{equation}
529: R_E = 4.31 \times 10^{16} {\rm cm}
530: {\left({M \over M_\sun}\right)}^{\onehalf}
531: {\left({70 {\rm km/s/Mpc} \over H_0}\right)}^{\onehalf} \quad {\rm and}
532: \end{equation}
533: \begin{equation}
534: T_{1/2} \sim 5\fd55
535: {\left({c \over v}\right)}
536: {\left({M \over M_\sun}\right)}^{\onehalf}
537: {\left({70 {\rm km/s/Mpc} \over H_0}\right)}^{\onehalf} \quad,
538: \end{equation}
539: where our decision to normalize the source velocity by the speed of
540: light reflects the remarkably short timescale for the observed
541: fluctuations. Our observed $T_{1/4} \sim 20^{\rm d}$ timescale
542: implies a source velocity of $\sim 0.25 c$ for solar mass microlenses.
543:
544: \subsection{Alternative Models and Interpretations}
545:
546: \subsubsection{Intermediate Sized Optical Continuum}
547:
548: Our working model takes the source to have two components, one very
549: much smaller than the microlenses and one very much bigger. The range
550: of possible alternative models for the surface brightness distribution
551: of the source is limited only by imagination. Source models favored
552: in the microlensing literature include Gaussians and uniform disks as
553: well as more physically motivated models (Agol and Krolik 1999). In
554: the case of HE1104$-$1805, source velocities approaching the speed of
555: light are indicated. It seems unlikely that the entire optical
556: continuum region would be move, as a unit, with such a velocity.
557:
558: There is evidence, however, that the continuum source cannot be too
559: much larger than the microlenses. In their discovery paper, Wisotzki
560: et al.\ (1993) note that while the emission line flux ratio is
561: constant at a factor of 2.8, the continuum flux ratio increases to the
562: blue, rising to a factor $\sim 6$ in the B filter. They argue that
563: the continuum source is likely to be more compact than the broad line
564: region, and that the continuum is microlensed. In this case we would
565: be underestimating, by roughly a factor of 2, the fractional
566: contribution of the fast moving region to the unlensed flux.
567:
568: \subsubsection{Nanolensing by $10^{-5} M_\sun$ Planets}
569:
570: An alternative explanation that would obviate the need for
571: relativistic velocities invokes microlenses with planetary masses, of
572: order $10^{-5} M_\sun$ (Schild 1996 and references cited therein).
573: The velocity of the source relative to the lensing system would then
574: be of order $10^{-3}c$. Such ``nanolenses'' impose correspondingly
575: tighter constraints on the size of the compact part of the source.
576: Wyithe and Loeb (2002) therefore argue that hotspots are still
577: needed in such a model: the accretion disk would be larger than the
578: nanolenses but the hotspots might be smaller.
579:
580: An additional difficulty associated with this hypothesis is that
581: microlensing by stars might interfere with nanolensing. The
582: anomalously large fluctuations found by Schechter and Wambsganss
583: (2002) depend critically on the lensing potential being
584: smooth on larger scales. If the macro-image is broken up into
585: micro-images, nanolenses will operate separately on each of these
586: to smaller effect.
587:
588: \subsubsection{Coldspots}
589:
590: Wyithe and Loeb (2002) argue that short timescale fluctuations
591: observed by Hjorth et al. (2002) and Burud et al. (2002) might be due
592: the the microlensing of broad absorption line clouds shadowing a
593: quasar accretion disk. None of the figures they present for these
594: models look much like our data: either the amplitudes are too small or
595: the timescales are too long.
596:
597: \subsubsection{Multiple Hotspots}
598:
599: Interestingly, Wyithe and Loeb also simulate hotspots that arise
600: within the quasar's accretion disk, as proposed by Gould and
601: Miralda-Escud{\'e} (1997). These have orbital velocities $\sim 0.2 c$.
602: Their model with only a single hotspot shows a strong periodicity and
603: the classic M-shaped profile associated with the creation and
604: annihilation of a single pair of micro-images. While we see no such a
605: periodic signal in our data, it would be premature to rule out a
606: single, accretion disk hotspot on the basis of a single set of model
607: parameters. A relativistic hotspot in a jet would likewise not be
608: excluded by their model.
609:
610: Interestingly, the lightcurve for their model with 100 hotspots shows
611: considerably more resemblance to the difference lightcurve for
612: HE1104$-$1805, both in amplitude and scale. Moreover their parameters,
613: $\kappa_{tot} = \gamma = 0.54$ and $\kappa_* = 0.08$, are quite
614: similar to those we adopt for the B image of HE1104$-$1805. They
615: produce a saddlepoint with a magnification $\mu = -12.5$ and microlens
616: fraction of 15\%, almost ideal for the purpose of maximizing
617: microlensing fluctuations.
618: %\input sec6.tex
619: \section{SUMMARY}
620: Three years of observations of the two lensed quasar images of
621: HE1104$-$1805 show variations in the A and B images that are
622: uncorrelated, with V amplitudes of $\sim 0.060$ mag. The A image
623: exhibits considerably more variability, on a timescale $\lesssim$ 1
624: month, while the fluctuations in the B image are consistent with our
625: expectations for variations intrinsic to the quasar.
626:
627: On the hypothesis that the fluctuations are due to microlensing by
628: solar mass stars, the implied source velocity is $\sim 0.25 c$. For
629: reasonable assumptions regarding the ratio of dark to microlensing
630: matter and on the assumption that only a single hotspot is
631: contributing to the fluctuations, the hotspot contributes $\sim 7$\%
632: of the continuum flux. A multiple hotspot model presented (and
633: rejected) by Wyithe and Loeb (2002) also seems viable, perhaps even
634: preferable, in the present case.
635: %\input acknowledgements.tex
636: \acknowledgements We thank Professor B.\ Paczy{\'n}ski for his
637: support and Professor J.\ Wambsganss for his counsel. We gratefully
638: acknowledge the support of the US NSF through grants AST96-16866,
639: AST98-20314 and AST02-06010. PLS thanks the John Simon Guggenheim
640: Memorial Foundation its support and the Institute for Advanced Study for its
641: hopsitality.
642: %\input bibliography.tex
643: \begin{thebibliography}{<dummy>}
644:
645: \bibitem[Agol \& Krolik(1999)]{1999ApJ...524...49A} Agol, E.~\& Krolik, J.\
646: 1999, \apj, 524, 49
647:
648: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Bailey, N.~J.~T.\ 1967, The Mathematical
649: Approach to Biology and Medicine (New York: Wiley)
650:
651: \bibitem[Burud et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...544..117B} Burud, I.~et al.\ 2000,
652: \apj, 544, 117
653:
654: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Burud, I.~et al.\ 2002, \aap, 391, 481
655:
656: %\bibitem[Chang \& Refsdal(1979)]{1979Natur.282..561C} Chang, K.~\& Refsdal,
657: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Chang, K.~\& Refsdal, S.\ 1979, Nature, 282, 561.
658:
659: \bibitem[Corrigan et al.(1991)]{1991AJ....102...34C} Corrigan, R.~T.~et
660: al.\ 1991, \aj, 102, 34
661:
662: \bibitem[Cristiani et al.(1996)]{1996A&A...306..395C} Cristiani, S.,
663: Trentini, S., La Franca, F., Aretxaga, I., Andreani, P., Vio, R., \& Gemmo,
664: A.\ 1996, \aap, 306, 395
665:
666: \bibitem[Gil-Merino, Wisotzki, \& Wambsganss(2002)]{2002A&A...381..428G}
667: Gil-Merino, R., Wisotzki, L., \& Wambsganss, J.\ 2002, \aap, 381, 428
668:
669: \bibitem[Gould \& Miralda-Escud{\'e}(1997)]{1997ApJ...483L..13G} Gould, A.~\&
670: Miralda-Escude, J.\ 1997, \apjl, 483, L13
671:
672: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Hjorth, J., et al. 2002, \apjl, 572, L11
673:
674: \bibitem[Kayser, Refsdal, \& Stabell(1986)]{1986A&A...166...36K} Kayser,
675: R., Refsdal, S., \& Stabell, R.\ 1986, \aap, 166, 36
676:
677: \bibitem[Koopmans \& de Bruyn(2000)]{2000A&A...358..793K} Koopmans,
678: L.~V.~E.~\& de Bruyn, A.~G.\ 2000, \aap, 358, 793
679:
680: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Koopmans, L.~V.~E.~\& Treu, T.\ 2002, preprint
681: (astro-ph/0205281)
682:
683: \bibitem[Kundi{'c} et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...482...75K} Kundic, T.~et al.\ 1997,
684: \apj, 482, 75
685:
686: \bibitem[Leh{\' a}r et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...536..584L} Leh{\' a}r, J.~et
687: al.\ 2000, \apj, 536, 584
688:
689: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
690: Lewis, G.~F., Irwin, M.~J. 1995, MNRAS 276, 103
691: %``The statistics of microlensing light curves -
692: % I. Amplification probability distributions''
693:
694: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
695: Lewis, G.~F., Irwin, M.~J. 1996, MNRAS 283, 225
696: % ``The statistics of microlensing light curves -
697: % II. Temporal analysis''
698:
699: \bibitem[Lidman et al.(2000)]{2000A&A...364L..62L} Lidman, C., Courbin, F.,
700: Kneib, J.-P., Golse, G., Castander, F., \& Soucail, G.\ 2000, \aap, 364, L62
701:
702: %\bibitem[Nityananda \& Ostriker(1984)]{1984JApA....5..235N} Nityananda,
703: %R.~\& Ostriker, J.~P.\ 1984, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 5, 235
704:
705: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
706: Paczy{\'n}ski, B. 1986, ApJ 301, 503
707: % ``Gravitational microlensing at large optical depth''
708:
709: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
710: Rauch, K.~P., Mao, S., Wambsganss, J., Paczy{\'n}ski, B. 1992,
711: ApJ 386, 30
712: %``Caustic-induced features in microlensing
713: %amplification probability distributions''
714:
715: \bibitem[Refsdal, Stabell, Pelt, \& Schild(2000)]{2000A&A...360...10R}
716: Refsdal, S., Stabell, R., Pelt, J., \& Schild, R.\ 2000, \aap, 360, 10
717:
718: \bibitem[Schechter, Mateo, \& Saha(1993)]{1993PASP..105.1342S} Schechter,
719: P.~L., Mateo, M., \& Saha, A.\ 1993, \pasp, 105, 1342
720:
721: \bibitem[Schechter et al.(1997)]{1997ApJ...475L..85S} Schechter, P.~L.~et
722: al.\ 1997, \apjl, 475, L85
723:
724: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Schechter, P.~L.~ \& Wambsganss, J. 2002 preprint
725: (astro-ph/0204425)
726:
727: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., \& Szyma\'nski, M. 1997,
728: AcA, 47, 319
729:
730: %\bibitem[Vietri \& Ostriker(1983)]{1983ApJ...267..488V} Vietri, M.~\&
731: %Ostriker, J.~P.\ 1983, \apj, 267, 488
732:
733: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
734: Wambsganss, J. 1992, ApJ 386, 19
735: % ``Probability distributions for the magnification of
736: % quasars due to microlensing''
737:
738:
739: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
740: Wambsganss, J., Witt, H.\ J., Schneider, P. 1992, A\&A 258, 591
741: %``Gravitational microlensing: powerful combination of
742: % ray-shooting and parametric representation of caustics''
743:
744:
745: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
746: Wisotzki, L., K{\"o}hler, T., Kayser, R., Reimers, D. 1993, A\&A 278, L15
747: %, ``The new double QSO HE 1104$-$1805: Gravitational lens
748: % with microlensing or binary quasar?''
749:
750: \bibitem[Wisotzki, Wucknitz, Lopez, \& Sorensen(1998)]{1998A&A...339L..73W}
751: Wisotzki, L., Wucknitz, O., Lopez, S., \& Sorensen, A.~N.\ 1998, \aap, 339,
752: L73
753:
754:
755: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb}
756: Witt, H.~J.\ 1993, ApJ 403, 530
757: %``An efficient method to compute microlensed light curves
758: % for point sources''
759:
760:
761: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Wo{\'z}niak, P., Udalski, A., Szyma\'nski,
762: M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzy\'nski, G., Soszy\'nski, I., \& \.Zebru\'n,
763: K. 2000, ApJ, 540, L65
764:
765: \bibitem[aaa]{bbb} Wyithe, J.~S.~B. \& Loeb, A. 2002, preprint
766: (astro-ph/0204529)
767:
768: %\bibitem[Young(1981)]{1981ApJ...244..756Y} Young, P.\ 1981, \apj, 244, 756
769: \end{thebibliography}
770: %\input captions.tex
771: %\input figures.tex
772: \clearpage
773: \begin{figure}[h]
774: \vspace{8.0 truein}
775: %\special{psfile=he_fchart.ps hscale=90 vscale=90 hoffset=-02 voffset=-108}
776: \special{psfile=f1.eps hscale=90 vscale=90 hoffset=108 voffset=0}
777: \caption
778: {A $120'' \times 120''$ $V$ filter direct image of HE1104$-$1805 showing
779: QSO components A and B and comparison stars CA ($V = 17.65 \pm 0.02$)
780: and CB ($V = 18.43 \pm 0.03$). North is up and East to the left.
781: }
782: \end{figure}
783:
784: \clearpage
785: \begin{figure}[h]
786: \vspace{8.0 truein}
787: %\special{psfile=three_1.0.ps hscale=80 vscale=80 hoffset=-02 voffset=-18}
788: \special{psfile=f2.eps angle=-90 hscale=70 vscale=70 hoffset=-36
789: voffset=432}
790: \caption
791: {Lightcurves for QSO components $A$ (top) and $B$ (middle)
792: and for comparison star $CA$ (bottom).
793: }
794: \end{figure}
795:
796: \clearpage
797:
798: \begin{figure}[h]
799: \vspace{8.0 truein}
800: %\special{psfile=abab_minus.ps hscale=80 vscale=80 hoffset=-02 voffset=-18}
801: \special{psfile=f3.eps angle=-90 hscale=70 vscale=70 hoffset=-36
802: voffset=432}
803: \caption
804: {filled squares $\blacksquare$ -- lightcurve for QSO component $A$;
805: open squares $\square$ -- $B$ lightcurve shifted horizontally 310 days
806: to a later date and brighter by 1.4 mag; filled circles $\bullet$ --
807: the difference between the $A$ lightcurve and interpolation on upon
808: the shifted $B$ lightcurve, shifted fainter by 0.9 mag.
809: }
810: \end{figure}
811: \clearpage
812:
813: \begin{figure}[h]
814: \vspace{8.0 truein}
815: %\special{psfile=lagger.ps hscale=80 vscale=80 hoffset=-02 voffset=-18}
816: \special{psfile=f4.eps angle=-90 hscale=70 vscale=70 hoffset=-36
817: voffset=432}
818: \caption
819: {RMS difference between the observed lightcurve for QSO component $A$
820: and interpolation on $B$ lightcurve shifted to a later date.
821: }
822: \end{figure}
823:
824: \clearpage
825:
826: \begin{figure}[h]
827: \vspace{8.0 truein}
828: %\special{psfile=sfun_9dayav.ps hscale=80 vscale=80 hoffset=-02 voffset=-18}
829: \special{psfile=f5.eps angle=-90 hscale=70 vscale=70 hoffset=-36
830: voffset=432}
831: \caption
832: {Structure functions for the $A$ ($\bullet$) and $B$ ($\circ$)
833: lightcurves binned in 9 day intervals.
834: }
835: \end{figure}
836: \clearpage
837:
838: \begin{figure}[h]
839: \vspace{8.0 truein}
840: %\special{psfile=sfun_diff9.ps hscale=80 vscale=80 hoffset=-02 voffset=-18}
841: \special{psfile=f6.eps angle=-90 hscale=70 vscale=70 hoffset=-36
842: voffset=432}
843: \caption
844: {Structure function for the $A-B$ difference lightcurve. }
845: \end{figure}
846: \clearpage
847:
848: \begin{figure}[h]
849: \vspace{8.0 truein}
850: %\special{psfile=histog.ps hscale=80 vscale=80 hoffset=-02 voffset=-18}
851: \special{psfile=f7.eps angle=-90 hscale=70 vscale=70 hoffset=-36
852: voffset=432}
853: \caption
854: {Histogram of $A-B$ magnitude differences}
855: \end{figure}
856: \input table1.tex
857: \input table2.tex
858: \end{document}
859: