4.7 Article

Strong-lensing analysis of A1689 from deep Advanced Camera images

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 621, 期 1, 页码 53-88

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/426494

关键词

cosmological parameters; galaxies : clusters : individual (A1683); gravitational lensing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyze deep multicolor Advanced Camera images of the largest known gravitational lens, A1689. Radial and tangential arcs delineate the critical curves in unprecedented detail, and many small counterimages are found near the center of mass. We construct a flexible light deflection field to predict the appearance and positions of counterimages. The model is refined as new counterimages are identified and incorporated to improve the model, yielding a total of 106 images of 30 multiply lensed background galaxies, spanning a wide redshift range, 1.0 < z < 5.5. The resulting mass map is more circular in projection than the clumpy distribution of cluster galaxies, and the light is more concentrated than the mass within r < 50 kpc h(-1). The projected mass profile flattens steadily toward the center with a shallow mean slope of dlog Sigma/dlog r similar or equal to -0.55 +/- 0.1, over the observed range r < 250 kpc h(-1), matching well an NFW profile, but with a relatively high concentration, C-vir = 8.2(1.8)(+2.1). A softened isothermal profile (r(core) = 20 +/- 2) is not conclusively excluded, illustrating that lensing constrains only projected quantities. Regarding cosmology, we clearly detect the purely geometric increase of bend angles with redshift. The dependence on the cosmological parameters is weak owing to the proximity of A1689, z = 0.18, constraining the locus, Omega(M) + Omega(Lambda) less than or equal to 1.2. This consistency with standard cosmology provides independent support for our model, because the redshift information is not required to derive an accurate mass map. Similarly, the relative fluxes of the multiple images are reproduced well by our best-fitting lens model.

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