1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2004 January 9
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19: \usepackage{times}
20:
21: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
22:
23: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
24:
25: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
26:
27: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
28:
29: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
30: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
31: %% use the longabstract style option.
32:
33: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
34:
35: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
36: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
37: %% the \begin{document} command.
38: %%
39: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
40: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
41: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
42: %% for information.
43:
44: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
45: \newcommand{\myemail}{iab\@roe.ac.uk}
46:
47: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
48:
49: \slugcomment{}
50:
51: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
52: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
53: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
54: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
55: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
56: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
57:
58: \shorttitle{OGLE~2003--BLG--235/MOA~2003--BLG--53}
59: \shortauthors{Bond et al.}
60:
61: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
62: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
63:
64: \begin{document}
65:
66: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
67: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
68: %% you desire.
69:
70: \title{OGLE~2003--BLG--235/MOA~2003--BLG--53: A planetary microlensing event.}
71:
72: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
73: %% author and affiliation information.
74: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
75: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
76: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
77: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
78:
79: \author{
80: I.A. Bond\altaffilmark{1},
81: A. Udalski\altaffilmark{2},
82: M. Jaroszy\'nski\altaffilmark{2,4},
83: N.J. Rattenbury\altaffilmark{3},
84: B. Paczy\'nski\altaffilmark{4},
85: I. Soszy\'nski\altaffilmark{2},
86: L. Wyrzykowski\altaffilmark{2},
87: M.K. Szyma\'nski\altaffilmark{2},
88: M. Kubiak\altaffilmark{2},
89: O. Szewczyk\altaffilmark{2,4},
90: %%AU
91: %K. Zebrun\altaffilmark{2},
92: K. \.Zebru\'n\altaffilmark{2},
93: G. Pietrzy\'nski\altaffilmark{2,5},
94: F. Abe\altaffilmark{6},
95: D.P. Bennett\altaffilmark{7},
96: S. Eguchi\altaffilmark{6},
97: Y. Furuta\altaffilmark{6},
98: J.B. Hearnshaw\altaffilmark{8},
99: K. Kamiya\altaffilmark{6},
100: P.M. Kilmartin\altaffilmark{8},
101: Y. Kurata\altaffilmark{6},
102: K. Masuda\altaffilmark{6},
103: Y. Matsubara\altaffilmark{6},
104: Y. Muraki\altaffilmark{6},
105: S. Noda\altaffilmark{9},
106: K. Okajima\altaffilmark{6},
107: T. Sako\altaffilmark{6},
108: T. Sekiguchi\altaffilmark{6},
109: D.J. Sullivan\altaffilmark{10},
110: T. Sumi\altaffilmark{4},
111: P.J. Tristram\altaffilmark{3},
112: T. Yanagisawa\altaffilmark{11}, and P.C.M. Yock\altaffilmark{3}
113: \\(The MOA and OGLE Collaborations)
114: }
115: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
116: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
117: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
118: %% affiliation.
119:
120: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK;
121: iab@roe.ac.uk}
122: \altaffiltext{2}{Warsaw University Observatory, Al. Ujazdowskie 4, 00-478 Warszawa, Poland;
123: \{udalski, mj, soszynsk, wyrzykow, msz, mk, szewczyk, zebrun, pietrzyn\}@astrouw.edu.pl}
124: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand;
125: nrat001@phy.auckland.ac.nz, p.yock@auckland.ac.nz, paulonieka@hotmail.com}
126: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton NJ 08544, USA;
127: \{bp, sumi\}@astro.princeton.edu}
128: \altaffiltext{5}{Universidad de Concepcion, Departmento de Fisica, Casilla 160-C, Concepcion, Chile}
129: \altaffiltext{6}{Solar-Terrestrial Environment Laboratory, Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8601, Japan;
130: \{abe, sada, furuta, kkamiya, kurata, kmasuda, ymatsu, muraki, sako, sekiguchi\}@stelab.nagoya-u.ac.jp}
131: \altaffiltext{7}{Department of Physics, Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA;
132: bennett@emu.phys.nd.edu}
133: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
134: Christchurch, New Zealand; \{john.hearnshaw, pam.kilmartin\}@canterbury.ac.nz}
135: \altaffiltext{9}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Tokyo, Japan; sachi.t.noda@nao.ac.jp}
136: \altaffiltext{10}{School of Chemical and Physical Sciences, Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington,
137: New Zealand; denis.sullivan@vuw.ac.nz}
138: \altaffiltext{11}{National Aerospace Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan; tyanagi@nal.go.jp}
139:
140: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
141: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
142: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
143: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
144: %% editorial office after submission.
145:
146: \begin{abstract}
147: We present observations of the unusual microlensing event
148: OGLE~2003--BLG--235/MOA~2003--BLG--53. In this event a short
149: duration ($\sim$7 days) low amplitude deviation in the light
150: curve due a single lens profile was observed in both the MOA
151: and OGLE survey observations. We find that the observed features of the
152: light curve can only be reproduced using a binary microlensing model
153: with an extreme (planetary) mass ratio of $0.0039^{+11}_{-07}$ for the
154: lensing system. If the lens system comprises a main sequence
155: primary, we infer that the secondary is a planet of
156: about 1.5 Jupiter masses with an orbital radius of $\sim3$ AU.
157: \end{abstract}
158:
159: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
160: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
161: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
162: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
163:
164: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
165: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
166: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
167: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
168: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
169: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
170: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
171: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
172: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
173: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
174: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
175: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
176:
177: \keywords{
178: Gravitational lensing -- (stars:) planetary systems -- Stars:individual (OGLE
179: 2003--BLG--235, MOA 2003--BLG--53)}
180:
181: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
182: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
183: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
184: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
185: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
186: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
187: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
188: %% each reference.
189:
190: \section{Introduction}
191:
192: Gravitational microlensing occurs when a foreground object passes
193: through or very near the line of sight of a background source star
194: generating a well known symmetric light curve profile.
195: If the foreground lens object is a star with an orbiting
196: planet, then the presence of the planet may be detectable via a brief
197: disturbance in the single lens light curve \citep{mp, gl}. This effect
198: can potentially be utilized to detect planets with masses ranging from
199: those of gas giants right down to terrestrial planets \citep{br}.
200:
201: The short timescales of these deviations, ranging from a few days for
202: giant planets to hours for terrestrial planets, and their
203: unpredictability, present considerable challenges in any observational
204: program. While some encouraging results have been obtained
205: \citep{benn99, alb00, rhie, bond02, jp}, no
206: firm detections of planets by microlensing have previously been
207: obtained.
208:
209: In this Letter we report observations, obtained by OGLE and
210: MOA, of the event OGLE~2003--BLG--235/MOA~2003--BLG--53 (hereafter O235/M53)
211: that was independently detected in both survey programs. We observed a 7 day
212: deviation that was strongly detected in both surveys. We show that an
213: extreme mass ratio binary microlensing model best reproduces the
214: observed features in the light curve.
215:
216: \section{Observations}
217:
218: Presently, Galactic bulge microlensing events are discovered and then
219: alerted by the two independently operating survey groups OGLE
220: \citep{udal03} and MOA \citep{bond01}. The microlensing event
221: OGLE~2003--BLG--235 ($\alpha$=18:05:16.35, $\delta$=$-$28:53:42.0, J2000.0)
222: was first identified and alerted by the OGLE EWS system \citep{udal03}
223: on 2003 June 22. It was independently detected by MOA on 2003 July 21
224: and alerted as MOA~2003--BLG--53.
225:
226: OGLE observations were carried out with the 1.3 m Warsaw telescope at Las
227: Campanas Observatory, Chile, which is operated by the Carnegie Institute
228: of Washington, equipped with a mosaic CCD camera with 8192$\times$8192
229: pixels. The images were obtained in the I band with an exposure time of
230: 120 seconds each. The observations presented here come from the OGLE-III
231: phase of the OGLE survey and started in August 2001. Additional photometry
232: of the
233: star was also collected during OGLE-II phase (1997--2000). This dataset
234: indicates, however, no variability of the object during that period and
235: was not used in further analysis.
236:
237: MOA observations were carried out from the Mt John Observatory in New
238: Zealand with a 0.6 m telescope equipped with a mosaic CCD camera with
239: 4096$\times$6144 pixels. The MOA images were obtained using 180 second
240: exposures with a broad band red filter with its throughput centered on
241: the standard I band.
242:
243: The photometry was derived using difference imaging analysis carried
244: out independently by the OGLE and MOA teams on their respective
245: datasets. This method is the current state-of-the-art for photometric
246: accuracy in crowded fields \citep{alard, alcock99}. Our analysis
247: resulted in two sets of time-series photometry
248: in the I band corresponding to 183 OGLE measurements and 1092 MOA
249: measurements during 2000--2003.
250:
251: In Fig.~\ref{fig:lc} we show the light curve for this event on various
252: timescales from March 2000 to the present. The long term behavior is
253: typical for single point mass microlensing events, and it is similar
254: to the almost 2000 other events discovered in the Galactic
255: Bulge since 1993. The unique feature of O235/M53 is, however,
256: a short duration deviation from the profile expected for a single
257: lens, seen clearly in both datasets during 2003 July 14--21. Moreover,
258: a spike, characteristic of those binary microlensing events where the
259: source enters or exits a bounded ``caustic'' region in the magnification
260: map projected on the sky, was observed and well covered by MOA on
261: 2003 July 21. This caustic region was crossed in 12\% of the overall
262: lens Einstein radius crossing time. This short duration, combined with
263: the small ($\sim$25\%) amplitude of the photometric deviation in the
264: caustic region interior, suggests an extreme mass ratio binary system.
265:
266: As well as regular monitoring in the I band, several V band
267: observations were obtained by OGLE at various magnifications of the
268: event. These were not used in the microlensing
269: modeling, but they were used to constrain the source and lens star
270: properties. By plotting the linearized fluxes in the I and V bands
271: against each other, a
272: model independent measurement of the color index of the source star was
273: determined. We obtained $\mathrm{V-I}=1.58\pm0.02$. Using
274: $\mathrm{E(V-I)}=0.82$ mag for the interstellar reddening towards the source
275: \citep{sumi}, the corrected color index of $(\mathrm{V-I})_0=0.76\pm0.02$
276: indicates a G type source star.
277:
278: \section{Light curve modeling}
279:
280: The modeling of the observed light curve of O235/M53 was
281: performed independently by three groups using different methods to
282: generate numerical binary microlensing light curves \citep{br, ml,
283: ratt}, and all three found the solution that is
284: presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. The observable quantities for all
285: microlensing events are the Einstein radius crossing time,
286: $t_\mathrm{E}$, the impact parameter $u_0$ (in Einstein radius units)
287: of the source
288: star trajectory with respect to the lens center-of-mass (c.o.m.), and the time,
289: $t_0$, of the closest approach to the c.o.m. For binary microlensing
290: events, one also measures the mass ratio, $q \equiv M_1/M_2$, the
291: transverse separation, $a$, of the lens components, and the position
292: angle, $\phi$, of the binary with respect to the source--lens
293: transverse velocity. For
294: caustic crossing events, one also measures the ratio,
295: $\rho \equiv \theta_*/\theta_\mathrm{E}$, of the apparent angular
296: radius of the source star to that of the Einstein ring.
297: In addition to these 7 physical parameters, there are two linear
298: scaling parameters between the
299: magnification and the flux units for each passband, giving a total of
300: 11 parameters for the modeling. In our modeling procedure, we
301: searched for local $\chi^2$ minima
302: using minimization procedures that allowed all 11 parameters to vary
303: simultaneously. Our light curve modeling also employed a surface limb
304: darkening profile appropriate for a G type star assuming a
305: metalicity that is approximately solar.
306:
307: In Table~\ref{tab:param}, we list the physical microlensing parameters for the
308: best fitting model shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. This model has
309: $\chi^2=1390.49$ for 1267 degrees of freedom and an extreme mass ratio
310: of $q=0.0039$, which is a strong indication that the secondary may be
311: a planet. Since microlensing light curves generally allow a much more
312: accurate determination of the secondary:primary mass ratio, than the
313: absolute mass of either body, the most sensible way to distinguish
314: planetary microlensing events from those due to binary systems is
315: through a criterion based on the mass ratio parameter $q$.
316: There is a well known minimum in the distribution of mass ratios for
317: binary stars and planetary systems, which is known as the ``brown dwarf
318: desert\rlap." There are few systems known with $0.01 \lesssim q \lesssim 0.1$
319: \citep{hamuq,chab,mz}. Thus it
320: is sensible to define the boundary between stellar binary and
321: planetary binary microlensing events in between these $q$ values to
322: minimize any possible ambiguity. This leads to a criterion of $q<0.03$
323: for a planetary microlensing event, and so O235/M53 is clearly in the
324: planetary event category.
325:
326: We have carried out a systematic search in parameter space to try to
327: find sets of model parameters that might explain the observed light
328: curve with a larger mass ratio. Binary microlensing models with
329: $q\ge 0.1$ that traverse a caustic curve in $\sim7$ days
330: have much larger magnifications inside the caustic curve than
331: is observed for O235/M53. These binary lens events also have much
332: larger deviations from a single lens light curve before and after the
333: caustic crossings. As the mass ratio is decreased, the best fit light
334: curves approach the observed light curves, with much weaker caustic
335: crossing deviations. In Fig.~\ref{fig:caustic},
336: we show a close-up of the 7 day deviation with the best fit planetary
337: model, compared with the best non-planetary model with $q\ge 0.03$ and
338: best fit single lens model. The non-planetary binary models and single
339: lens models are strongly disfavored with fit $\chi^2$ values that are
340: larger by $\Delta\chi^2=210.96$ and $\Delta\chi^2=650.96$
341: respectively. In both cases, the $\chi^2$ improvement for the best fit
342: model is quite significant in both the MOA and OGLE data sets (see
343: Table~\ref{tab:param}). The failure of the non-planetary binary model
344: can be seen in the Fig.~\ref{fig:caustic} inserts.
345: This model predicts both stronger caustic signals and significant deviations
346: 13--20 days after the second caustic crossing that are not consistent with
347: the observations. This model also shows some discrepancies at magnifications
348: $< 2$, but these are not as strongly excluded due to the higher photometric
349: uncertainties at lower magnification.
350:
351: Also shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:caustic} is a
352: planetary model with an earlier caustic crossing and a larger planet
353: mass ratio: $q=0.0070$. This fit represents a distinct local minimum of
354: the $\chi^2$ surface, and is disfavored by only $\Delta\chi^2=7.37$
355: or $\sim2.7\sigma$. This is not accounted for by our 1--$\sigma$
356: uncertainty on $q=0.0039$. Therefore, we have increased the upper error
357: estimate on the planetary mass ratio to 0.0011, so that the actual
358: uncertainty in $q$ will be bounded by our error estimates at the
359: 3--$\sigma$ level. In Table~\ref{tab:param} we also list the
360: parameters for these alternative models.
361:
362: Finally, the first OGLE observation after the second caustic crossing
363: indicates a magnification below all of the binary models shown by about
364: $3.6\sigma$. Such an outlier is not unusual because the real photometric
365: error distributions for crowded field photometry generally have
366: larger wings than a Gaussian distribution. Three of the 183 OGLE measurements
367: are outliers from the best fit by $> 3\sigma$, and 16 are outliers by
368: $> 2\sigma$. These outlier
369: points do not appear to cluster in the vicinity of the planetary deviation.
370: If this single data point did indicate a real light curve deviation, it
371: could be explained by a small variation to the planetary microlensing model,
372: such as a moon orbiting the planet, but there is no non-planetary model
373: that could help to explain it.
374:
375: \section{Further constraints on the source and lens}
376:
377: Most microlensing events have only a single measureable parameter,
378: $t_\mathrm{E}$, that constrains the lens mass, distance, and
379: tranverse velocity with respect to the line-of-sight to the source.
380: However, time resolved observations of binary event caustic crossings
381: resolve finite source star effects and partly remove these
382: degeneracies \citep{alcock00, witt, nemiroff, gould94}, by allowing a
383: measurement of the Einstein angular radius given by
384: $ \theta_\mathrm{E}^2 = ( 4GM_\mathrm{lens}/{c^2} )
385: (D_\mathrm{source}-D_\mathrm{lens})/(D_\mathrm{source}D_\mathrm{lens})$.
386:
387: Using the flux parameters of the microlensing fit, we obtained
388: $\mathrm{I}=19.70\pm0.15$ for the source star and $\mathrm{I}=20.7\pm0.4$
389: for the blended component.
390: This source star magnitude, plus the V--I color from Section 2, can be
391: compared to the bulge color magnitude diagram of \citet{holtz}, and this
392: indicates that the source is probably a bulge star near the main sequence
393: turn-off.
394: To determine the angular radius of the source star
395: we used the color-color relations of \citet{bb} together with empirical
396: relations between $\mathrm{V-K}$ and surface brightness derived from
397: interferometry observations of nearby main sequence stars \citep{vanb, dib}.
398:
399: We find $\theta_*=0.50\pm0.05$ $\mu$as, which combined with our measurement
400: of $\rho$, yields $\theta_\mathrm{E}=520\pm80$ $\mu$as. This yields
401: the following relation between the lens mass and distance
402: \begin{equation}
403: \frac{M_\mathrm{lens}}{M_\sun} = 0.123 \left( \frac{\theta_\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{mas}} \right)^2
404: \left ( \frac{D_\mathrm{source}}{\mathrm{kpc}} \right) \frac{x}{1-x}
405: \label{eqn:md}
406: \end{equation}
407: where $x=D_\mathrm{lens}/D_\mathrm{source}$. If we combine this relation
408: with the mass luminosity relations of \citet{kt} for main sequence stars,
409: and require that the lens luminosity at a given distance does not exceed
410: the blend flux, we obtain an upper limit (90\% confidence) of
411: $D_\mathrm{lens}<5.4$ kpc. Thus,
412: if the lens is a main sequence star, it must be in the Galactic disk.
413:
414: In Fig.~\ref{fig:like}, we show Eqn.~\ref{eqn:md} together with the
415: results of a maximum likelihood analysis based on our measurements
416: of the Einstein ring and its characteristic crossing time. The likelihood
417: function was calculated using the Galactic disk models of \citet{hg}. We
418: then obtain with 90\% confidence: $D_\mathrm{lens}=5.2^{+0.2}_{-2.9}$ kpc from
419: which we infer the lensing system to comprise an M2--M7 dwarf star of
420: mass $0.36^{+0.03}_{-0.28}$ M$_\sun$ with a giant planetary companion of
421: $1.5^{+0.1}_{-1.2}$ M$_\mathrm{J}$ (Jupiter masses).
422: The planet is in a wide orbit with a transverse separation of
423: $3.0^{+0.1}_{-1.7}$ AU.
424:
425: Another possibility for the lens is that it could be a remnant object
426: such as a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole. If the lens is a
427: white dwarf with mass 0.6 M$_\sun$, Eqn.~\ref{eqn:md} would place it a
428: distance of 5.5 kpc. In this case, the microlensing parameters would
429: imply a 2.5 M$_\mathrm{J}$ planet orbiting the white dwarf with a
430: transverse separation of 2.8 AU.
431:
432: \section{Discussion}
433:
434: In Section~3 we concluded that the observed light curve of
435: O235/M53 is best described by a binary
436: lensing model with an planetary mass ratio of $q=0.0039$.
437: Our definition of the planetary nature of the secondary lens
438: by means of the mass ratio is optimal when the mass
439: ratio can be measured, but it is useful to consider other possible definitions.
440: Another potential dividing line between planets and brown dwarfs is
441: the Solar metalicity threshold for sustained Deuterium burning at
442: 13.6 M$_\mathrm{J}$, although
443: Deuterium burning itself has little relevance for planet formation.
444:
445: The situation in the case of O235/M53 was helped
446: by the measurement of finite source effects. If the lens is a
447: main sequence star, then as shown in the previous section, it must
448: be an M dwarf with a $\sim 1.5\,$M$_\mathrm{J}$ planetary
449: companion\footnote{The only
450: other M dwarf star known to have planetary
451: companions is Gliese 876 \citep{marcy}.}.
452: There is a non-negligible chance that the lens is a
453: white dwarf and a much smaller chance that it is a neutron star, but
454: in both cases, a planetary companion below the nominal 13.6 M$_\mathrm{J}$
455: threshold is required. Only in the unlikely case of a massive black hole
456: primary, could the secondary be outside the range traditionally
457: associated with a planet.
458:
459: There are some prospects for follow-up observations of this event. Our
460: measurements of the finite source effects imply a proper motion of
461: the lens with respect to the source of
462: $\mu = \theta_\mathrm{E}/t_\mathrm{E} = 3.1 \pm 0.4~\mathrm{mas/yr}$.
463: High resolution imaging carried out $\sim 10\,$years from now with JWST or
464: adaptive optics systems should be able to resolve the lens and source stars
465: providing direct measurements \citep{han,alcock01} of the color and
466: brightness of the lens, as well as confirmation of the proper motion
467: measurement.
468:
469: We present these observations as a demonstration of the planetary microlensing
470: phenomenon. The power of microlensing is in its
471: ability to acquire statistics on many systems \citep{gest}.
472: These include planets in wide orbits, very low mass planets, and even
473: planets in other galaxies \citep{covone, bond02}.
474: The challenge now to the microlensing
475: community is to develop effective strategies to find more planetary
476: microlensing
477: events.
478:
479: Numerical photometry of OGLE~2003--BLG--235/MOA~2003--BLG--53 is
480: available from the websites for OGLE \url{http://ogle.astrouw.edu.pl}
481: and MOA \url{http://www.physics.auckland.ac.nz/moa}.
482:
483: \acknowledgments
484: The MOA project is supported by the Marsden Fund of New Zealand, the
485: Ministry of
486: Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan, and the
487: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). Partial support to the
488: OGLE project was provided by the following grants: the Polish State Committee
489: for Scientific Research grant 2P03D02124 to A. Udalski and 2P03D01624 to
490: %%AU
491: %M. Jaroszynski,
492: M. Jaroszy\'nski, the NSF grant AST-0204908 and NASA grant NAG5-12212 to
493: %%AU
494: %B. Paczynski.
495: B. Paczy\'nski. A.U., I.S., and K.Z. also acknowledge support from the
496: grant "Subsydium Profesorskie" of the Foundation for Polish Science.
497: Support was also provided by grants NSF AST-0206187 and NASA NAG5-13042
498: to D. Bennett.
499:
500: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
501: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
502: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
503: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
504: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
505: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
506: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
507: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
508:
509: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
510: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
511: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
512: %% copy editing. Individual instruments can be provided in parentheses,
513: %% after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
514:
515: %Facilities: \facility{Nickel}, \facility{HST(STIS)}, \facility{CXO(ASIS)}.
516:
517: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
518: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
519: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
520:
521: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
522: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
523: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
524: %\appendix
525:
526: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
527: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
528: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
529: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
530: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
531: %%
532: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
533: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
534: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
535: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
536: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
537: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
538: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
539: %% place of the \cite commands.
540:
541: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
542: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
543: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
544:
545: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
546: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
547: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
548: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
549: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
550:
551: \begin{thebibliography}{}
552: \bibitem[Alard (1999)]{alard} Alard, C., 1999, \aap, 343, 10
553: %\bibitem[Albrow et al.(1998)]{alb98} Albrow, M.D., et al., 1998, \apj, 509, 687
554: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(2000)]{alb00} Albrow, M.D., et al., 2000, \apj, 533, 378
555: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(1999)]{alcock99} Alcock, C. et al., 1999, \apj, 521, 602
556: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2000)]{alcock00} Alcock, C. et al., 2000, \apj, 541, 270
557: \bibitem[Alcock et al.(2001)]{alcock01} Alcock, C. et al., 2001, \nat, 414, 617
558: \bibitem[Bennett \& Rhie(1996)]{br} Bennett, D.P. \& Rhie, S.H. 1996,
559: \apj, 472, 660
560: \bibitem[Bennett \& Rhie(2002)]{gest} Bennett, D.P. \& Rhie, S.H. 2002,
561: \apj, 574, 985
562: \bibitem[Bennett et al.(1999)]{benn99} Bennett, D.P. et al., 1999, Nature, 402, 57
563:
564: %%AU
565: %\bibitem[Bennett et al.(2002)]{benn02} Bennett, D.P. et al., \apj, 579, 639
566:
567: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2001)]{bond01} Bond, I.A., Abe, F., Dodd, R.J. et al., 2001, \mnras, 327, 868
568: \bibitem[Bond et al.(2002)]{bond02} Bond, I.A., Rattenbury, N.J., Skuljan, J. et al., 2002, \mnras, 333, 71
569: \bibitem[Bessell \& Brett(1988)]{bb} Bessell, M.S. \& Brett, J.M. 1988, \pasp, 100, 1134
570: \bibitem[Chabrier (2003)]{chab} Chabrier, G. 2003, \apjl, 586, L133
571: \bibitem[Covone et al.(2000)]{covone} Covone, G. et al. (2000), \apj, 357, 816
572: \bibitem[di Benedetto(1998)]{dib} di Benedetto, G.P. 1998, \aap, 339, 858
573:
574: %%AU
575: %\bibitem[Gaudi et al.(2002)]{gaudi} Gaudi, B.S., et al., 2002, \apj, 566, 463
576:
577: \bibitem[Gould(1994)]{gould94} Gould, A., 1994, \apj, 421, L71
578: \bibitem[Gould \& Loeb(1992)]{gl} Gould, A. \& Loeb, A. 1992, \apj, 396, 104
579:
580: %%AU
581: \bibitem[Halbwachs et al.(2000)]{hamuq} Halbwachs, J.L., Arenou, F., Mayor, M. Udry, S. \& Queloz, D., 2000, A\&A, 355, 581
582:
583: \bibitem[Han \& Chang(2003)]{han} Han, C. \& Chang, H.Y., 2003, \mnras, 338, 637
584: \bibitem[Han \& Gould(1996)]{hg} Han, C. \& Gould, A. 1996, \apj, 467, 54
585: \bibitem[Holtzman et al.(1998)]{holtz} Holtzman, J.A. et al., 1998, \aj, 115, 1946
586: \bibitem[Jaroszy\'{n}ski \& Paczy\'{n}ski(2002)]{jp} Jaroszy\'{n}ski, M. \& Paczy\'{n}ski, B. 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 361
587:
588: %%AU
589: %\bibitem[Konacki et al(2003)]{konacki} Konacki, M. et al. (2003), Nature, 421, 507
590:
591: \bibitem[Kroupa \& Tout(1997)]{kt} Kroupa, P. \& Tout, C.A. 1997, \mnras, 287, 402
592: \bibitem[Marcy et al(2001)]{marcy} Marcy, G.W. et al., 2001, \apj, 556, 296
593: \bibitem[Mao \& Loeb(2001)]{ml} Mao, S. \& Loeb, A. 2001, \apj, 547, L97
594: \bibitem[Mao \& Paczy\'{n}ski (1991)]{mp} Mao, S. \& Paczy\'{n}ski, B. 1991, \apj, 374, L37
595: \bibitem[Mazeh \& Zucker(2002)]{mz} Mazeh, T. \& Zucker, S. 2002, Rev. Mod. Astron., 15, 133
596: %\bibitem[Ng \& Bertelli(1996)]{nb} Ng, Y.K. \& Bertelli, G. 1996, \aap, 315, 116
597: \bibitem[Nemiroff \& Wickramasinghe(1994)]{nemiroff} Nemiroff, R.J. \& Wickramasinghe, W.A.D.T.
598: 1994, \apj, 424, 21
599: \bibitem[Rattenbury et al (2002)]{ratt} Rattenbury, N.J., Bond, I.A., Skuljan, J. \& Yock, P.C.M. 2002,
600: \mnras, 335, 159
601: \bibitem[Rhie et al.(2000)]{rhie} Rhie, S.H. et al., 2000, \apj, 533, 378
602: \bibitem[Sumi (2003)]{sumi} Sumi, T. 2003, \mnras, in press (astro-ph/0309206)
603:
604: %%AU
605: %\bibitem[Udalski et al.(1994)]{udal94} Udalski, A. et al. 2002, Acta Astron., 44, 227
606: \bibitem[Udalski (2003)]{udal03} Udalski, A. 2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291
607:
608: \bibitem[van Belle(1999)]{vanb} van Belle, G.T. 1999, \pasp, 111, 1515
609: \bibitem[Witt \& Mao(1994)]{witt} Witt, H. \& Mao, S., 1994, \apj, 430, 505
610: %\bibitem[Yoo et al.(2004)]{yoo} Yoo, J. et al. 2004, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0309302)
611: \end{thebibliography}
612:
613: \clearpage
614:
615: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include
616: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.
617: %% To embed the sample graphics in
618: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and
619: %% \includegraphics commands
620: %%
621: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or
622: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the
623: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,
624: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the
625: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,
626: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.
627: %%
628: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of
629: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check
630: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to
631: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from
632: %% journal to journal.
633:
634:
635: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to
636: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption
637: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be
638: %% available in the electronic journal.
639:
640: \begin{figure}
641: \epsscale{1.0}
642: \plotone{figure1.ps}
643: \caption{Light curve with best fitting and single lens models of
644: O235/M53. The OGLE and MOA measurements are shown as red filled circles
645: and open blue circles, respectively. The top panel presents the complete
646: dataset during 2003 (main panel) and 2001--2003 OGLE data (inset). For
647: clarity, the error bars were not plotted, but the median errors in the
648: OGLE and MOA points legend are indicated. The lower panel is as the top
649: panel but with the MOA data grouped in 1 day bins except for the
650: caustic crossing nights, and with the inset showing MOA photometry
651: during 2000--2003. The binary and single lens fits are plotted in flux units normalized to
652: the unlensed source star brightness of the best planetary fit, and they
653: are indicated by the solid black and cyan dashed curves, respectively.
654: \label{fig:lc}}
655: \end{figure}
656:
657: \begin{figure}
658: \epsscale{1.0}
659: \plotone{figure2.ps}
660: \caption{Light curve and modeling of O235/M53
661: during the caustic traverse. The models shown are the best fits for
662: various regimes of the lens system parameter space, normalized as in
663: Fig.~\ref{fig:lc}. These models are:
664: single lens case (cyan, long dash curve), binary lens with $q\ge 0.03$
665: (magenta, short dash line), planetary lens with caustic entry before day
666: 2835 (green, dotted line), and the best overall fit with $q = 0.0039$
667: (dark, solid line). The insets show the second caustic crossing and
668: a region of the declining part of the light curve where the best fit
669: non-planetary binary lens model fails to fit the data. MOA data on days other
670: than the caustic entry and exit (days $2835\pm0.5$ and $2842\pm0.5$) are
671: placed in one day bins.
672: \label{fig:caustic}}
673: \end{figure}
674:
675: \begin{figure}
676: \epsscale{.80}
677: \plotone{figure3.ps}
678: \caption{
679: Constraints on the distance to O235/M53 and its mass.
680: Our measurement of the
681: angular size of the Einstein ring constrains the lens mass and distance
682: to lie on the solid curve. The curve is bounded above and below by the dark
683: dashed curves, due to the uncertainty in this measurement. The likelihood
684: function (shown by the magenta curve) is for a main sequence disk star prior
685: for the lens star with the sharp cut-off being due to the constraints
686: imposed by the measured lens flux.
687: \label{fig:like}}
688: \end{figure}
689:
690: \clearpage
691: \begin{deluxetable}{llllllllllll}
692: \rotate
693: \tablecaption{Microlens Model Parameters\label{tab:param}}
694: \tablewidth{0pt}
695: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
696: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
697: \tablehead{
698: \colhead{Model} &
699: \colhead{$M_\mathrm{p}/M_\star$} &
700: \colhead{$\theta_*/\theta_\mathrm{E}$} &
701: \colhead{$a_\mathrm{proj}/R_\mathrm{E}$} &
702: \colhead{$\phi$} &
703: \colhead{$u_0$} &
704: \colhead{$t_0$} &
705: \colhead{$t_{\rm E}$} &
706: \colhead{$I_{\rm source}$} &
707: \colhead{$\chi^2$} &
708: \colhead{$\chi^2_{\rm MOA}$} &
709: \colhead{$\chi^2_{\rm OGLE}$} \\
710: \colhead{} &
711: \colhead{} &
712: \colhead{} &
713: \colhead{} &
714: \colhead{} &
715: \colhead{} &
716: \colhead{} &
717: \colhead{(days)} &
718: \colhead{mag} &
719: \colhead{(1267 dof)} &
720: \colhead{(1089 dof)} &
721: \colhead{(178 dof)}
722: %% \colhead{(1267 d.o.f.)} &
723: %% \colhead{(1089 d.o.f.)} &
724: %% \colhead{(178 d.o.f.)}
725: }
726: \startdata
727: %% Best Fit & $0.0039{+0.0011\atop -0.0007}$ & $0.00096(11)$ &
728: Best Fit & $0.0039({+11\atop -07})$ & $0.00096(11)$ &
729: $1.120(7)$ & $223\fdg8(1\fdg4)$ & $0.133(3)$ &
730: $2848.06(13)$ & $61.5(1.8)$ & 19.70(15)& $1390.49$ & $1151.00$ & $239.50$ \\
731: Early Caustic & $0.0070$ & $0.00104$ & $1.121$ & $218\fdg9$ & $0.140$ &
732: $2847.90$ & $58.5$ & 19.62 & $1397.87$ & $1149.37$ & $248.49$ \\
733: Best Non-planet & $0.0300$ & $0.00088$ & $1.090$ & $187\fdg9$ & $0.144$ &
734: $2846.20$ & $57.5$ & 19.68 & $1601.44$ & $1229.47$ & $371.98$ \\
735: Single Lens & -- & -- & -- & -- & $0.222$ &
736: $2847.77$ & $45.2$ & 19.10 & $2041.45$ & $1624.17$ & $417.28$ \cr
737: \enddata
738: \tablecomments {
739: The units for $t_0$ are ${\rm HJD} - 2450000$.
740: }
741: \end{deluxetable}
742:
743: \end{document}
744:
745: %%
746: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
747: