1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5:
6: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
7:
8: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
9:
10: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
11:
12:
13:
14: %\slugcomment{version of 04-05-07; last modified by jpo; printed on \today}
15:
16:
17: \shorttitle{Lensing in LCDM universe: Secondary matter}
18:
19: \shortauthors{Wambsganss, Bode, \& Ostriker }
20:
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24:
25: \title{Gravitational lensing in a concordance LCDM universe:
26: The importance of secondary matter along
27: the line of sight
28: }
29: %%%%in a concordance $\Lambda$CDM universe}
30:
31:
32: \author{Joachim Wambsganss$^1$, Paul Bode$^2$, and
33: Jeremiah P.~Ostriker$^{3,2}$}
34:
35:
36:
37: \affil{$^1$ Institut f\"ur Physik, Universit\"at Potsdam,
38: 14467 Potsdam, Germany}
39: \affil{$^2$ Dept. of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University,
40: Princeton, NJ 08544}
41: \affil{$^3$ Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University,
42: Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK}
43: \email{jkw@astro.physik.uni-potsdam.de,bode@astro.princeton.edu,
44: jpo@ast.cam.ac.uk}
45:
46:
47:
48:
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51:
52: To date, in almost all strong gravitational lensing analyses
53: for modeling giant arc systems and multiple quasar images,
54: it has been assumed that all the deflecting matter is concentrated
55: in one lens plane at a certain distance---
56: the thin lens approximation. However,
57: in a few observed cases, lenses at more than
58: one redshift have been identified as contributing
59: to the image splitting.
60: % (EXAMPLES: Kundic, Koopmans ...).
61:
62: Here we report on a quantitative investigation of the
63: importance and frequency of significant multiple
64: lensing agents.
65: We use multi-lens plane simulations to evaluate
66: how frequently two or more lens planes combined
67: are essential for multiple imaging, as compared
68: with the cases where a single lens plane alone
69: provides enough focusing to be supercritical.
70:
71: We find that
72: the fraction of cases for which more than one lens plane
73: contributes significantly to a multi-image lensing situation
74: is a strong function of source redshift.
75: For sources at redshift unity, 95\% of lenses involve
76: only a single mass concentration, but
77: for a more typical scenario with, e.g., a source at a redshift of
78: $z_s = 3.8$, as many as 38\% of the strongly lensed quasars/arcs
79: occur because of a significant matter contribution from one or more
80: {\em additional} lens planes.
81: In the 30\% to 40\% of cases when additional planes make a significant
82: contribution, the surface mass density of the
83: primary lens will be overestimated by about 15\% to 20\%,
84: if the additional contributions are not recognized.
85:
86:
87: \end{abstract}
88:
89:
90: \keywords{cosmology: gravitational lensing, arcs, quasars, galaxy clusters }
91:
92:
93: \section{Introduction}
94:
95:
96:
97: By now of order 100 multiple quasar systems
98: are known (cf. Kochanek et al. 2004), as well as
99: more than
100: 100 galaxy clusters which produce giant luminous arcs
101: (for a selection, see Table 2 of Wambsganss, Bode \& Ostriker, 2004).
102: %(REFERENCE).
103: Usually it is assumed that modeling the matter
104: distribution as a thin lens, i.e. putting all the
105: matter responsible for the light deflection into
106: one lens plane of zero thickness,
107: is a good enough approximation
108: (Schneider, Ehlers \& Falco 1992).
109: And indeed,
110: most systems can be modeled well
111: using this simplification. However,
112: for some multiply imaged quasars no good models can be found
113: within this framework (e.g. for the quadruple
114: system B1422+231, see Kormann et al. 1994),
115: and
116: on the observational side there are instances where
117: galaxies at two different redshifts have been
118: identified as contributing to the lensing
119: (e.g. B1422+231, see Tonry 1998, or
120: for B2114+022, see Augusto et al. 2001 and Chae, Mao \& Augusto 2001).
121:
122:
123: There is one {\it a priori}
124: reason to expect that the contribution of
125: multiple lens planes may be important. If we consider a representative
126: shell of the universe centered around redshift $z = 1$ with comoving
127: thickness $\Delta l = 160 h^{-1}$Mpc, and
128: examine the distribution of surface mass densities, we find that
129: the fraction of ray bundles encountering more
130: than the critical surface mass density\footnote{
131: $\Sigma_{\rm crit}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}
132: \frac{D_{\rm s}}{D_{\rm d}D_{\rm ds}}$, where
133: $G$ and $c$ are the gravitational constant and
134: the velocity of light,
135: $D_{\rm s}$, $D_{\rm d}$, and $D_{\rm ds}$,
136: are the angular diameter distances observer-source,
137: observer-lens, and lens-source,respectively.}
138: $\Sigma > \Sigma_{crit}$
139: (here evaluated for a source redshift of $z_s \approx 3.8$)
140: is
141: only $f_{\Sigma > \Sigma_{crit}} \approx 7 \times 10^{-6}$
142: (and of course proportional to $\Delta l$).
143: %
144: %
145: %
146: % 040422: these numbers evaluated from distribution of
147: % pixel densities in files like: density_distribution_2_015.ps
148: %
149: %
150: %
151: %
152: But, more to the
153: point, this fraction steeply declines with increasing $\Sigma$:
154: $\delta \ln f / \delta \ln \Sigma_{\Sigma}
155: \approx -4.5$ at $\Sigma \approx \Sigma_{crit}$
156: (for more details see in Wambsganss, Bode \& Ostriker 2004b).
157: Thus, there are many rays along which
158: the surface mass density is just subcritical for each one that
159: is supercritical. And for each slightly subcritical ray, a small
160: additional mass concentration along the line-of-sight can make a
161: significant difference in its behavior.
162:
163:
164:
165:
166:
167: So far no quantitative estimate exists on how
168: frequently a second matter clump along
169: the line of sight contributes significantly
170: to the light deflection caused by a
171: near critical primary matter concentration,
172: hence affecting
173: the image geometry as well as the intensity
174: ratios.
175: %
176: % inserted 031218, after fax with jpo's comments
177: %
178: %The primary reason for expecting a significant contribution
179: %from non-dominant lens planes is simply stated:
180: %The probability that a line of sight through a
181: %single lens plane has s supercritical
182: %surface mass density is very small ($\approx 10^{-4}$) and
183: %the probability distribution of the surface mass density
184: %is very steeply declining for values near critical.
185: %Thus for every case of a supercritical line of sight,
186: %there are many cases where it is sub critical by
187: %a small amount.
188: In these instances,
189: a relatively small ``boost"' from an overdense region
190: elsewhere along the line of sight will make this
191: line-of-sight supercritical.
192: In fact, we find that for a source redshift of $z_S = 2.5$ approximately
193: 30\% of the cases of strong lensing are produced by multiple disparate
194: matter planes, and averaged over all cases, the secondary
195: matter contribution is 13.2\% $\pm$ 13.4\% of the critical density.
196:
197: Here we present results based on multiple lens plane
198: rayshooting simulations, using very high resolution
199: LCDM N-body simulations for the
200: pseudo-3D matter distribution.
201: By following light rays through many lens planes up to
202: high source redshift, we model the behavior
203: of realistic light bundles.
204: In Section 2 we
205: briefly describe the underlying simulations and the method
206: we use to evaluate the importance of more than one lens plane.
207: In Section 3 we present our results on how important two, three
208: or more lens planes are for strong lensing of sources at different
209: redshifts. Summary and conclusion can be found in
210: Section 4.
211:
212:
213:
214: \section{Method}
215:
216: We performed ray shooting simulations in order to quantitatively
217: determine strong and weak lensing properties of a concordance
218: LCDM model,
219: as described in detail in Wambsganss, Bode \& Ostriker (2004b).
220: %
221: %
222: This cosmological model has
223: the following parameters:
224: matter content
225: $\Omega_{\mathrm M}=0.3$,
226: cosmological constant
227: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$,
228: Hubble constant
229: $H_0=70$ km/sec/Mpc,
230: linear amplitude of mass fluctuations
231: $\sigma_8$=0.95,
232: and
233: primordial power spectral index
234: $n_s$=1 (consistent with the 1$\sigma$ WMAP derived
235: cosmological parameters, see Spergel et al. 2003, Table 2).
236: The simulation, carried out with the TPM code (Bode \& Ostriker 2003),
237: has a comoving side length of
238: $L=320 h^{-1}$Mpc;
239: the cubic spline softening length was set to $\epsilon=3.2 h^{-1}$ kpc,
240: producing a ratio of
241: box size to softening length of $L/\epsilon =10^5$.
242: We used $N=1024^3$
243: particles,
244: with the individual particle mass being
245: $m_{\rm p}=2.54\times 10^9 h^{-1}$ M$_\odot$,
246: %
247: %
248: % inserted 031218, after fax with jpo's comments
249: %
250: so that a large halo, similar to those which produce the
251: observed giant arcs, would be represented by of order $10^6$ particles
252: which is enough to allow a fair representation of
253: both the inner cusp and of significant substructure.
254:
255:
256:
257:
258:
259:
260:
261:
262:
263:
264:
265: We produced lens screens
266: %The output was stored at 19 redshift values
267: out to
268: $z_L \approx 6.4$, the centers of the lens screens
269: correspond to comoving distances of
270: $(80 + k \times 160) h^{-1}$Mpc, where $k=0,...,35$.
271: The comoving average surface mass density of the lens planes
272: is $<\Sigma>
273: \approx 1.34 \times 10^7 h^2 M_\odot$kpc$^{-2}
274: \approx 0.00265 h^2$ g cm$^{-2}.$
275: %
276: %The physical surface mass density
277: %(in grams/cm$^2$) decreases with lower redshift because
278: %we consider the expansion of the universe properly
279: %and hence cannot treat the lens planes in comoving units.
280: %The values of the average surface mass densities hence
281: %monotonically decrease from XXX
282: %grams/cm$^2$ at redshift XXX to
283: %Each screen has a mass per unit area of XXX
284: %XXX grams/cm$^2$ a the lowest redshift lens plane at z = XXX.
285: %(!!!TO BE DONE!!!)
286: %
287: %
288: %
289: %
290: More details on the numerical scheme can be found in Wambsganss
291: et al. (2004b). A first result on the statistics of giant
292: luminous arcs was published as
293: Wambsganss, Bode \& Ostriker (2004a).
294:
295: The following analysis was carried out
296: in order to evaluate the importance of secondary, tertiary etc.
297: lens planes.
298: In each ray shooting run, we use a grid of 800$^2$ rays
299: to cover an area of about 20 arcmin on a side. Each
300: ray with starting position $(i,j)$ is followed backward to
301: a given source redshift (we used 7 different values: $z_s =$ 0.5, 1.0,
302: 1.5, 2.5, 3.7, 4.8, and 7.5). At each of the lens screens
303: $k = 0,\dots,35$ we determined the surface mass density
304: of the matter pixels
305: in units of the critical surface mass density at that redshift:
306: $\kappa (i,j,k) = \Sigma(i,j,k) / \Sigma_{crit}(z_s,k).$
307: %
308: %
309: %$\Sigma_{\rm crit}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}
310: %\frac{D_{\rm s}}{D_{\rm d}D_{\rm ds}}$
311: %($G,c$ are the gravitational constant and the velocity of light,
312: %$D_{\rm s}$, $D_{\rm d}$, and $D_{\rm ds}$, respectively,
313: %are the angular diameter distances observer-source,
314: %observer-lens, and lens-source).
315: Then we identified the highest value of $\kappa (i,j,k)$ for
316: fixed angular position $(i,j)$.
317: If this value was above unity (``supercritical''),
318: that particular lens plane alone would be enough to produce strong
319: lensing/multiple imaging at this particular position.
320: If this condition was not fulfilled
321: ($\kappa (i,j,k) < 1$ for all $k$ out to the source),
322: we checked whether the sum of the two
323: highest values of $\kappa$ along this line combined
324: would exceed the critical value. If so,
325: this would imply that the combination of
326: two planes could produce multiple imaging, whereas each individual
327: plane still is sub-critical.
328: If this was not the case either, we
329: did the same exercise for the combination of the three,
330: four, and five highest surface mass density values along
331: this particular ray position $(i,j)$.
332: We did this for all $800^2$ angular positions in
333: 100 different realizations, and for all the seven
334: source redshifts.
335:
336:
337:
338:
339:
340:
341: \section{Results}
342: %\section{Results and Discussion: How important are secondary lens planes?}
343:
344:
345: In Figure \ref{fig_crit_kappa} the fraction of lines-of-sight
346: for which a second (third, fourth, fifth) lens plane
347: contributes to reaching
348: the critical value of the surface mass density is
349: displayed.
350: The top panel indicates the contribution of secondary, tertiary etc.
351: planes, expressed as a fraction of the frequency for which a single plane is
352: supercritical; the bottom panel shows this
353: contribution as the fraction of {\em all} multiple
354: image cases, including the `single plane' cases
355: (thus the symbols in the bottom panel add upp to unity).
356:
357: The star symbol in Figure \ref{fig_crit_kappa}
358: indicates the situation in which two planes combined exceed
359: the critical surface mass density. This fraction is slowly increasing for
360: increasing source redshift:
361: for $z_s = 1.0$, lines-of-sight in which two planes combined are super-critical
362: are about 8\% compared to the single-lens plane cases. This fraction, however,
363: monotonically increases to over 20\% for $z_s \ge 2.5$ and reaches
364: more than 40\% for $z_s = 7.5$.
365: %
366: The other symbols indicate cases in which three (triangle), four (cross) and
367: five (pentagon) lines-of-sight combined exceed
368: the critical value of the
369: surface mass density.
370: %%%%The total number of cases declines with ``higher order":
371: The overall importance of additional planes goes down, the
372: larger the number of significantly contributing lens planes is;
373: but in all cases the contribution is monotonically
374: increasing with source redshift.
375: %
376: In the bottom panel of Figure \ref{fig_crit_kappa}, the thick circles
377: indicate the fraction of all supercritical lines-of-sight which are
378: produced by a single lens plane: it starts as high as 95\% for
379: a source redshift of $z_s = 1.0$, and then it drops monotonically to
380: a value of 50\% for the highest source redshift of $z_s = 7.5$.
381:
382:
383:
384:
385: \begin{figure}[htb]
386: \plotone{crit_kappa.ps}
387: \caption{Fraction of lines-of-sight for which a second (star),
388: a third (triangle), a fourth (square) and a fifth (pentagon)
389: lens plane contributes significantly
390: to the strong lensing in the sense that only
391: the value of the
392: combined surface mass density (sum of highest
393: two, three, four and five lens planes, respectively)
394: is above critical and can produce
395: strong lensing/multiple images.
396: The quantitative importance is
397: expressed as the ratio of the frequency of such cases
398: to the frequency of single plane lensing cases (top panel),
399: or of all strong lens cases (bottom panel).
400: %The quantitative importance of these cases is
401: %expressed as ``fraction'' of such cases compared
402: %to the cases of single-lens plane lensing (top panel),
403: %or compared to all strong lens cases (bottom panel).
404: These fractions are shown for the
405: seven values of the source redshifts that we had considered:
406: $z_s =$ 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.7, 4.8, 7.5.
407: The thick circles in the bottom panel indicate the occurrence
408: of single-lens plane lensing as a fraction of the total
409: strong lensing cases.
410: }
411: \label{fig_crit_kappa}
412: \end{figure}
413:
414:
415: In cases where two lens planes combined
416: to reach the critical surface mass density level, what is the relative
417: contribution of the two?
418: In Figure \ref{fig_over_2} this question is answered
419: for a source redshift of $z = 3.7$.
420: The histogram in the top panel shows the relative distribution of the
421: {\em primary} lens plane. It is very low and flat for values of $\kappa \le 0.9$
422: (by definition, the ``primary'' plane in this case
423: has to have $\kappa_1 \ge 0.5$).
424: Then the histogram steepens with the peak at $\kappa_1$-values
425: just below
426: unity.
427: This means even in a situation in which two lens planes are necessary
428: for critical lensing,
429: the large majority of cases are dominated by one lens plane.
430: The mean of the highest surface mass density
431: value for cases in which two planes contribute is:
432: $<\kappa_1> \approx 0.90$.
433: The bottom panel shows the integrated fraction of these
434: cases in which the primary plane have
435: $\kappa_1 \le \kappa_{\mathrm{crit}}$,
436: but
437: $\kappa_1 + \kappa_2 \ge \kappa_{\mathrm{crit}}$.
438: It is easy to read off the median:
439: in 50\% of the cases in which two planes contribute, the primary plane
440: has $\kappa_1 \ge 0.95$.
441:
442:
443: \begin{figure}[htb]
444: \plotone{over_2_z=3.7.ps}
445: \caption{Histogram of the distribution of
446: the highest surface mass density value $\kappa_1$ along
447: the line of sight for cases in which
448: only the combination of {\em two lens planes}
449: produces super-critical surface mass density values
450: ($\kappa_1 + \kappa_2 \ge \kappa_{\mathrm{crit}}$),
451: for a source redshift of $z_s = 3.7$.
452: Top: differential distribution, the long-dashed vertical
453: line indicates
454: the {\em average} value $<\kappa_1> = 0.897$.
455: Bottom: integrated distribution, the short-dashed vertical
456: line shows
457: the median value of the $\kappa_1$-distribution: 0.947.
458: }
459: \label{fig_over_2}
460: \end{figure}
461:
462:
463: The same question can be asked about
464: cases in which {\em three} planes combined reached the
465: critical value of the surface mass density. In
466: Figure \ref{fig_over_3},
467: each point represents one pair ($\kappa_1$,$\kappa_2$), i.e. the highest
468: and the second highest value of the surface mass density along the line
469: of sight.
470: %The line marks the value %$\kappa_{\mathrm tot} = 1.0$,
471: All points fulfill the criterion
472: $\kappa_1 + \kappa_2 < 1.0$, and hence
473: have to be left of the solid line. One can
474: read off the (minimum) value of the third contribution $\kappa_3$
475: by the vertical distance of each point to this line.
476: Most points are concentrated close to the solid line, which
477: means in most cases the third plane contribution is small.
478: The distribution of points
479: is limited towards the top left by the relation
480: $\kappa_1 \ge \kappa_2$ (short-dashed line).
481: Points close to this line represent cases for which
482: the two highest matter concentrations along the
483: line of sight are comparable.
484: The long-dashed line limiting the distribution
485: towards the bottom is given by the
486: relation $\kappa_1 + 2 \times \kappa_2$ = 1: the secondary
487: and tertiary contributions are nearly equal for points near
488: this line.
489: The overall distribution of the
490: points clearly have the highest density towards the
491: lower right, which
492: means that in most of the ``three-planes-contribute'' cases, one plane
493: clearly dominates as well.
494:
495:
496: \begin{figure}[htb]
497: \plotone{over_3_z=3.7.ps}
498: \caption{
499: Each point in this diagram (for source redshift $z_s = 3.7$)
500: reflects one case for which the combination of
501: {\em three lens
502: planes} made this particular line of sight super-critical.
503: The location of the point indicates the values $\kappa_1$ and
504: $\kappa_2$, the highest and second highest surface mass density
505: value along the line of sight, respectively.
506: The vertical distance of each point to the
507: solid line $\kappa_1 + \kappa_2 = 1$ indicates the minimum value
508: of the third contribution, $\kappa_3 \ge 1 - (\kappa_1 + \kappa_2)$.
509: The dashed lines mark the additional
510: boundaries for the location of the points:
511: All points have to lie below the short-dashed
512: line $\kappa_2 = \kappa_1$ (because $\kappa_1 \ge \kappa_2$
513: by definition), and
514: above the long dashed line
515: $\kappa_1 = 1 - 2 \times \kappa_2$ (because
516: $\kappa_3 \le \kappa_2$ by definition,
517: and $\kappa_2 + \kappa_3 \ge 1 - \kappa_1$ by requirement).
518: }
519: \label{fig_over_3}
520: \end{figure}
521:
522:
523:
524:
525: %%Another way to look at the contribution and importance
526: %%of auxiliary lens planes is the following.
527: Given an observed strong lensing situation,
528: the probability that a single lens plane alone has a
529: super-critical surface mass density
530: can be read off from the bottom part of Figure
531: \ref{fig_crit_kappa} as a function of source redshift.
532: An interesting question concerns a variant of this:
533: what is the average contribution of the secondary
534: lens planes to the surface mass density
535: $\kappa$ in those cases in which two, three or more lens planes
536: contribute significantly?
537: This question can be answered by looking at
538: Figure \ref{fig_over_n}.
539: Here only the cases in which two or more lens planes
540: combined reach the critical surface mass density are shown.
541: The two sets of lines show
542: the average surface mass density
543: of the dominant lens plane including its dispersion as
544: a function of source redshift (top, between
545: $0.8 \le \ \ <\kappa_1> \ \ \le 1.0$), and
546: the combined average surface
547: mass density of the secondary, tertiary or higher order lens
548: planes which
549: combined with the dominant one make this line of sight
550: supercritical (bottom, between
551: $0.05 \le \ \ <\kappa_{\mathrm{aux}}> \ \ \le 0.2$).
552: A single mass concentration is clearly dominating.
553: %
554: %
555: %
556: Thus, in the typical case, if a cluster of galaxies is known to be
557: acting as a lens, its surface mass density will be overestimated
558: by 15\% to 20\% in the 30\% to 40\% of the cases when two or
559: more lens planes contribute significantly.
560:
561:
562: \begin{figure}[htb]
563: \plotone{over_n.ps}
564: \caption{Average surface mass density
565: $<\kappa_1>$
566: in the dominant lens plane
567: (top points/line),
568: and in the
569: significantly contributing additional lens planes
570: ($<\kappa_{\mathrm{aux}}>$, bottom points/line)
571: for cases in which two or more lens planes are
572: required to reach the critical surface mass density
573: for strong lensing
574: (error bars indicate the rms-fluctuations).
575: }
576: \label{fig_over_n}
577: \end{figure}
578:
579:
580:
581:
582:
583:
584:
585: \section{Discussion }
586: %{\tt
587: %(the following typed in by jkw on March 3, after handwritten
588: %comments from jpo on Jan. 24 or so)
589: %}
590: A small fraction of the sky is covered by regions that have a
591: surface mass density equal to the cosmic value
592: $\Sigma_{\mathrm{crit}}$
593: %
594: %hxh \approx ??? (H_0 c /G)$
595: %
596: capable of producing multiple images,
597: and this fraction declines rapidly with increasing
598: surface mass density $\Sigma$, for $\Sigma \approx \Sigma_{crit}$.
599: Thus many regions that
600: are subcritical will be boosted over the threshold by additional
601: chance accumulations of mass at unrelated distances,
602: which intersect the line of sight defined by:
603: observer $\rightarrow$ main lens $\rightarrow$ source.
604: For source redshifts above $z = 2.5$ this occurs in
605: 30\% to 40\% of the cases, and in these cases on average
606: 15\% to 20\% of the lensing mass is in the chance alignments.
607:
608:
609: This phenomenon has severe consequences which must be considered
610: when using strong lenses as a tool in cosmological investigations.
611: Primary among them are the following:
612: \begin{enumerate}
613: \item the probability of strong lensing increasing with source
614: redshift more steeply than would be computed by the single
615: sheet approximation;
616: \item masses of individual clusters will be overestimated by
617: gravitational lensing techniques as compared to
618: %(for example)
619: those using internal cluster velocity dispersions and/or
620: X-ray temperatures;
621: \item substructure may be incorrectly inferred to exist within
622: lensing systems and time delays incorrectly computed.
623: \end{enumerate}
624: While the effects are not large, they are systematic and lensing
625: systems should be analyzed with consideration of these
626: gravitational contaminations.
627:
628:
629: %\section{Summary}
630: %INS3
631: As a consequence,
632: these effects will lead to a systematic error in the
633: analyses of lensing clusters such that the ``best fit'' single
634: lens plane gravitational lens models may overestimate the cluster mass
635: by up to 10\% (depending in detail on lens and source
636: redshifts).
637: Correspondingly this effect may introduce a systematic
638: bias in the
639: determination of
640: the Hubble constant
641: of quasar lens systems which is usually
642: based on the ``thin lens approximation''
643: (cf. Kochanek 2003, and Kochanek \& Schechter 2004).
644: %
645: %on an ensemble of
646: %it may lead to a
647: %typical underestimate
648: %%in the derived Hubble constant (RED) by the same order of
649: %magnitude.
650: %{\tt original sentence from jpo:
651: %We will not further
652: %analyze the implications unrecognized secondary mass contributions in
653: %this paper.}
654: %
655: Further and more quantitative investigations of the implications of
656: unrecognized secondary mass contributions
657: are beyond the scope of this letter and
658: will be done in subsequent analyses.
659:
660:
661:
662: \acknowledgments
663:
664:
665: This research was supported by the National Computational Science
666: Alliance under NSF Cooperative Agreement ASC97-40300, PACI Subaward 766;
667: also by NASA/GSFC (NAG5-9284). Computer time was provided by NCSA
668: and the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center.
669:
670:
671:
672:
673:
674:
675:
676:
677:
678:
679:
680: \begin{thebibliography}{}
681:
682:
683: \bibitem[ABW]{ABW} Augusto, P., Browne, I.W.A., Wilkinson, P.N.,
684: Jackson, N.J., Fassnacht, C.D. et al.: 2001, MNRAS 326, 1007
685: %
686: %``B2114+022: a distant radio source gravitationally lensed
687: % by a starburst galaxy''
688:
689:
690:
691: \bibitem[Bode \& Ostriker(2002)]{BO02} Bode, P. \& Ostriker, J.P.
692: 2003, \apjs, 145, 1
693:
694: \bibitem[CMA]{CMA} Chae, K.-H., Mao, S., Augusto, P.: 2001,
695: MNRAS 326, 1015
696: % ``Modelling the first probable two plane lens system B2114+022:
697: % reproducing two compact radio cores A, D''
698:
699: \bibitem[KSB]{BSB} Kormann, R., Schneider, P., Bartelmann, M.
700: 1994, A\&A 286, 357
701:
702: \bibitem[CASTLES]{CASTLES} Kochanek, C.S., Falco, E.E., Impey, C.,
703: Lehar, J., McLeod, B., Rix, H.-W., 2004,
704: {\tt http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/glensdata/}
705:
706:
707: \bibitem[K03]{K03} Kochanek, C.S., 2003, ApJ 583, 49-57
708: % ``Gravitational Lens Time Delays in Cold Dark Matter''
709: %
710: \bibitem[KS04]{KS04} Kochanek, C. S., Schechter, P. L., 2004,
711: in: ``Measuring and Modeling the Universe'',
712: (Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposia)
713: p.117, ed. W. L. Freedman
714: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)
715: % The Hubble Constant from Gravitational Lens Time Delays
716:
717: % \bibitem[Li \& Ostriker(2002)]{LiOs02} Li, L-X. \& Ostriker, J.P.
718: % 2002, \apj, 566, 652
719:
720: % \bibitem[Ostriker \& Steinhardt (1995)]{OstStein95} Ostriker,
721: % J.P. \& Steinhardt, P.J. 1995, Nature, 377, 600
722:
723:
724: \bibitem[SEF]{SEF} Schneider, P., Ehlers, J., Falco, E.E. 1992,
725: ``Gravitational Lenses'' (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992)
726:
727: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{SpergWMAP03} Spergel, D.N., Verde, L.,
728: Peiris H.V., Komatsu E., Nolta M.R., et al.
729: %%Bennett, C. L., Halpern, M., Hinshaw, G., Jarosik, N., Kogut, A.,
730: %%Limon, M., Meyer, S.S., Page, L., Tucker, G.S., Weiland, J.L.,
731: %%Wollack, E., \& Wright, E.L.
732: 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 %submitted (astro-ph/0302209)
733:
734:
735:
736: \bibitem[Tonry]{Ton} Tonry, J. L. 1998, AJ 115, 1
737: %B1422+231 evidence for two lens redshifts
738:
739: % \bibitem[Wambsganss et al. (1995)]{WCOT95} Wambsganss, J.,
740: % Cen, R., Ostriker, J.P., \& Turner, E.L. 1995, Science, 268, 274
741:
742: %\bibitem[Wambsganss et al. (1997)]{WCXO97} Wambsganss, J.,
743: % Cen, R., Xu, G., \& Ostriker, J. P. 1997, \apj, 475, L81
744:
745: % \bibitem[Wambsganss et al. (1998)]{WCO98} Wambsganss, J.,
746: % Cen, R., \& Ostriker, J.P. 1998, \apj, 494, 29
747:
748: \bibitem[Wambsganss et al. (2004a)]{WBO} Wambsganss, J.,
749: Bode, P., \& Ostriker, J.P. 2004a, \apjl, 606, L93
750:
751: \bibitem[Wambsganss et al. (2004b)]{WBO2} Wambsganss, J.,
752: Bode, P., \& Ostriker, J.P. 2004b ApJ (to be submitted)
753:
754:
755:
756: \end{thebibliography}
757:
758:
759:
760:
761:
762:
763: \end{document}
764: