4.7 Article

Small-scale structures of dark matter and flux anomalies in quasar gravitational lenses

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 419, Issue 4, Pages 3414-3425

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19982.x

Keywords

gravitational lensing: strong; dark matter

Funding

  1. Seventh Framework Programme, Ideas [259349]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigate the statistics of flux anomalies in gravitationally lensed quasi-stellar objects as a function of dark matter halo properties such as substructure content and halo ellipticity. We do this by creating a very large number of simulated lenses with finite source sizes to compare with the data. After analysing these simulations, we conclude the following. (1) The finite size of the source is important. The point source approximation commonly used can cause biased results. (2) The widely used Rcusp statistic is sensitive to halo ellipticity as well as the lens substructure content. (3) For compact substructure, we find new upper bounds on the amount of substructure from the fact that no simple single-galaxy lenses have been observed with a single source having more than four well separated images. (4) The frequency of image flux anomalies is largely dependent on the total surface mass density in substructures and the sizemass relation for the substructures, and not on the range of substructure masses. (5) Substructure models with the same sizemass relation produce similar numbers of flux anomalies even when their internal mass profiles are different. (6) The lack of high image multiplicity lenses puts a limit on a combination of the substructures sizemass relation, surface density and mass. (7) Substructures with shallower mass profiles and/or larger sizes produce less extra images. (8) The constraints that we are able to measure here with current data are roughly consistent with ? cold dark matter (?CDM) N-body simulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available