4.7 Review

Strong-lensing analysis of MS 1358.4+6245: New multiple images and implications for the well-resolved z=4.92 galaxy

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18252.x

关键词

gravitational lensing: strong; galaxies: clusters: general; galaxies: clusters: individual: MS 1358.4+6245; galaxies: high-redshift; dark matter

资金

  1. Israel Science Foundation
  2. TAU school of physics and astronomy
  3. NASA [NAS 5-26555]
  4. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC97-2112M-001-020-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a strong-lensing analysis of the galaxy cluster MS 1358.4+6245 (z = 0.33), in deep six-band HST/ACS imaging. In addition to the well-studied system at z = 4.92, our modelling method uncovers 19 new multiply lensed images belonging to seven background sources, so that a total of 23 images and their redshifts are used to accurately constrain the inner mass distribution. We derive a relatively shallow inner mass profile, d log Sigma/d log r similar or equal to -0.33 +/- 0.05 (r < 200 kpc), with a much higher magnification than estimated previously by models constrained only by the z = 4.92 system. Using these many new images we can apply a non-parametric adaptive-grid method, which also yields a shallow mass profile without prior assumptions, strengthening our conclusions. The total magnification of the z(s) = 4.92 galaxy is high, about a similar to 100 times over its four images, so that the inferred source size, luminosity and star formation rate are about similar to 5 times smaller than previous estimates, corresponding to a dwarf-sized galaxy of radius similar or equal to 1 kpc. A detailed image of the interior morphology of the source is generated with a high effective resolution of only similar or equal to 50 pc, thanks to the high magnification and to the declining angular diameter distance above z similar to 1.5 for the standard cosmology, so that this image apparently represents the best resolved object known at high redshift.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据