4.6 Article

The signature of primordial black holes in the dark matter halos of galaxies

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 633, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936462

关键词

dark matter; gravitational lensing: micro; galaxies: halos

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. The aim of this paper is to investigate the claim that stars in the lensing galaxy of a gravitationally lensed quasar system can always account for the observed microlensing of the individual quasar images. Methods. A small sample of gravitationally lensed quasar systems was chosen where the quasar images appear to lie on the fringe of the stellar distribution of the lensing galaxy. As with most quasar systems, all the individual quasar images were observed to be microlensed. The surface brightness of the lensing galaxy at the positions of the quasar images was measured from Hubble Space Telescope frames, and converted to stellar surface mass density. The surface density of smoothly distributed dark matter at the image positions was obtained from lensing models of the quasar systems and applied to the stellar surface mass density to give the optical depth to microlensing. This was then used to assess the probability that the stars in the lensing galaxy could be responsible for the observed microlensing. The results were supported by microlensing simulations of the star fields around the quasar images combined with values of convergence and shear from the lensing models. Results. Taken together, the probability that all the observed microlensing is due to stars was found to be similar to 3x10(-4). Errors resulting from the surface brightness measurement, the mass-to-light ratio, and the contribution of the dark matter halo do not significantly affect this result. Conclusions. It is argued that the most plausible candidates for the microlenses are primordial black holes, either in the dark matter halos of the lensing galaxies, or more generally distributed along the lines of sight to the quasars.

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

4.6
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