Stochastic Gravitational Lensing and the Nature of Dark Matter - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 47
About This Presentation
Title:

Stochastic Gravitational Lensing and the Nature of Dark Matter

Description:

Stochastic Gravitational Lensing and the Nature of Dark Matter Chuck Keeton Rutgers University with: Arthur Congdon (Rutgers), Greg Dobler (Penn), Scott Gaudi ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:158
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 48
Provided by: ChuckK3
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Stochastic Gravitational Lensing and the Nature of Dark Matter


1
Stochastic Gravitational Lensingand the Nature
of Dark Matter
  • Chuck Keeton
  • Rutgers University

with Arthur Congdon (Rutgers), Greg Dobler
(Penn), Scott Gaudi (Harvard), Arlie Petters
(Duke), Paul Schechter (MIT)
Gravitational lens database -- http//cfa-www.harv
ard.edu/castles
2
Outline
  • Cold Dark Matter 101
  • Gravitational Lensing 101/201
  • Evidence for dark matter substructure
  • catastrophe theory
  • Stochastic gravitational lensing
  • random critical point theory
  • marked spatial point processes
  • Some statistical issues
  • Bayesian inference
  • small datasets
  • testing relations, not just parameters

3
The Preposterous Universe
4 baryons stars and gas(all we can ever see)
23 dark matter non-baryonic exotic
73 dark energy cosmic repulsion perhaps vaccuum energy or quintessence
Can we go beyond merely quantifying dark matter
and dark energy, to learn about fundamental
physics?
4
The Cold Dark Matter (CDM) Paradigm
  • Dark matter is assumed to be
  • cold non-relativistic
  • collisionless only feels gravity
  • axions, neutralinos, lightest supersymmetric
    particle,
  • Successful in explaining large-scale properties
    of the universe.
  • global geometry, distribution of galaxies, cosmic
    microwave background,
  • Successful in describing many features of
    galaxies and clusters.
  • the missing mass
  • But several challenges (crises?) related to the
    distribution of dark matter on small scales.

5
CDM halos are lumpy
cluster of galaxies,1015 Msun
  • Predictions
  • Hierarchical structure formationsmall objects
    form first, then aggregate into larger objects.
  • Small objects are dense, so they can maintain
    their integrity during mergers.
  • Large halos contain the remnants of their many
    progenitors - substructure.
  • Clump-hunting How to find them?

single galaxy,1012 Msun
(Moore et al. 1999 also Klypin et al. 1999)
6
CDM halos are lumpy
cluster of galaxies,1015 Msun
vs.
  • Clusters look like this - good!

single galaxy,1012 Msun
(Moore et al. 1999 also Klypin et al. 1999)
7
CDM halos are lumpy
cluster of galaxies,1015 Msun
vs.
  • Galaxies dont -?bad?

single galaxy,1012 Msun
(Moore et al. 1999 also Klypin et al. 1999)
8
A Substructure Crisis?
  • CDM seems to overpredict substructure. What does
    it mean?
  • Particle physics
  • Maybe dark matter isnt cold and collisionless.
    (CDM is wrong!)
  • Maybe it is warm, self-interacting, fuzzy,
    sticky,
  • Astrophysics
  • We only see clumps if they contain stars and/or
    gas.
  • Maybe astrophysical processes suppress star
    formation in small objects, so most clumps are
    invisible.

9
A Substructure Crisis?
  • CDM seems to overpredict substructure. What does
    it mean?
  • Particle physics
  • Maybe dark matter isnt cold and collisionless.
    (CDM is wrong!)
  • Maybe it is warm, self-interacting, fuzzy,
    sticky,
  • Astrophysics
  • We only see clumps if they contain stars and/or
    gas.
  • Maybe astrophysical processes suppress star
    formation in small objects, so most clumps are
    invisible.

Need to search for a large population of
invisible objects!
10
Strong Gravitational Lensing
S
?
?
L
O
Lens equation
The bending is sensitive to all mass, be
itluminous or dark, smooth or lumpy.
11
Point Mass Lens
  • Bending angle
  • Lens equation
  • Two images for every source position.
  • Source directly behind lens ?Einstein ring with
    radius qE.

sources
lens
2 images of each source
Einstein ring radius
Of course, there is not much hope of observing
this phenomenon directly. (Einstein, 1936
Science 84506)
12
Microlensing!
Data mining Need to distinguish microlensing
from variable stars.
(MACHO project)
13
Lensing by GalaxiesHubble Space Telescope Images
Double
Quad
Ring
(Zwicky, 1937 Phys Rev 51290)
14
Radio Lenses
Quad
10 442
Double
15
What is lensing good for?
  • Strong lensing
  • Multiple imaging of some distant source.
  • Used to study the dark matter halos of galaxies
    and clusters of galaxies.
  • Microlensing
  • Temporary brightening of a star in our galaxy.
  • Used to probe for dark stellar-mass objects in
    our own galaxy.
  • Weak lensing
  • Small, correlated distortions in the shapes of
    distant galaxies.
  • Used to study the large-scale distribution of
    matter in the universe.

16
Extended Mass Distributions 2-d Gravity
  • Work with 2-d angle vectors on the sky.
  • Interpret bending angle as 2-d gravity force ?
    gradient of 2-d gravitational potential.
  • Extended mass distribution
  • General lens equation

17
Fermats Principle
  • Time delay surface
  • Lens equation
  • Lensed images are critical points of ?.
  • minimum
  • saddle
  • maximum

18
Lensing and Catastrophe Theory
  • Reinterpet lens equation as a mapping
  • Jacobian
  • The critical points of the mapping ? are
    important
  • Observability image brightness given by

19
Catastrophes in Lensing
1
3/2
5/4
Critical curves det J 0 (Two curves.)
Caustics Image number changes by ?2 Fold and
cusp catastrophes.
20
Substructure ? complicated catastrophes!
(Bradac et al. 2002)
21
(Schechter Wambsganss 2002)
22
Parametric Mass Modeling
  • Data
  • Positions and brightnesses of the images. 3?Nimg
  • (Maybe a few other observables.)
  • Parameters
  • Mass and shape of lens galaxy. 3
  • Tidal shear field. 2
  • Position and brightness of source. 3
  • Substructure. ?

Public software -- http//www.physics.rutgers.edu/
keeton/gravlens
23
Lensing and Substructure
  • Fact
  • In 4-image lenses, the image positions can be fit
    by smooth lens models.
  • The flux ratios cannot.
  • Interpretation
  • Flux ratios are perturbed by substructure in the
    lens potential. (Mao Schneider
    1998 Metcalf Madau 2001 Dalal Kochanek
    2002)
  • Recall
  • positions determined by ?i fitrue ? fismooth
  • brightnesses determined by fij fijtrue
    fijsmooth fijsub

24
Substructure Statistics
  • Can always(?) add one or two clumps and get a
    good model.
  • More interesting are clump population statistics.
    Are they
  • Consistent with known populations of
    substructure?
  • (globular clusters, dwarf galaxies, )
  • Consistent with CDM predictions?
  • None of the above?

25
From Lensing to Dark Matter Physics
  • Find lenses with flux ratio anomalies.
  • catastrophe theory
  • How do the statistics of anomalies depend on
    properties of the substructure population?
  • random critical point theory
  • marked spatial point processes
  • Measure properties of substructure population.
  • Bayesian inference
  • small datasets
  • Compare with CDM predictions.
  • testing relations, not just parameters
  • How do substructure population statistics depend
    on physical properties of dark matter?

26
Link 1 Finding flux ratio anomalies(CRK,
Gaudi Petters 2003 ApJ 598138 2005 ApJ 63535)
  • Do the anomalies really indicate
    substructure?Or just a failure of imagination in
    our (parametric) lens models?
  • Complaints about model dependenceReal problem
    is use of global failures to probe local
    features.
  • Fortunately, catastrophe theory enables a local
    lensing analysis that leads to some generic
    statements

Use mathematical theory to develop a statistical
analysis to apply to astronomical data.
27
folds A1-A2 ? 0
PG 1115080
28
cusps A-BC ? 0
B2045265 (Fassnacht et al. 1999)
29
Theory of fold catastrophes in lensing
  • Jacobian
  • Fold critical point (in appropriate coordinates)
  • General perturbation theory analysis near fold
    point
  • At lowest order, the two images mirror one
    another.

30
  • Connect to observables
  • Rfold vanishes with the distance between the
    images.
  • But with an unknown coefficient!

31
(No Transcript)
32
Derive p(Rfold d1,d2)
  • Afold depends on
  • ?f derivatives
  • Physical parameters galaxy shapes -- from
    observed galaxy samples tidal shear -- from
    theoretical models
  • Monte Carlos
  • Generate 106 mock quads.
  • Extract conditional probability density.
  • What is the range of Rfold in realistic smooth
    lenses?
  • If real lenses lie outside this range, they must
    not be smooth.
  • ??????????????????? substructure.
  • Analysis relies on generic properties of fold
    catastrophes.

33
Archetypal lenses
34
Real lenses
35
Real lenses
36
The Fold and Cusp Relations
  • Violations of the generic relations
  • 5 anomalies among 12 fold lenses
  • 3 anomalies among 4 cusp lenses
  • (No firm conclusions about 6 cross lenses)
  • Catastrophe theory reveals generic features
    which guide data analysis
  • and provide a rigorous foundation for
    substructure studies.

Substructure exists, and is relatively common.
37
Link 2 Theory of Stochastic Lensing
  • Now must understand what happens when we add
    substructure.
  • Formally, system is described by
  • where qi and pi are random variables.
  • Images are critical points of ??? random critical
    point theory.
  • Positions qi are independent and identically
    distributed and pi are independent of qi (we
    hope) ? marked spatial point process.

38
What I want
  • Given distributions for qi and pi, I want to
    compute distributions for the image properties --
    especially P(m).
  • Analytically, if possible.
  • Explore large parameter spaces.
  • Gain general insights, not just specific results.
  • Clumps are independent and identically
    distributed ? could use characteristic function
    method.
  • But I cant do the (inverse) Fourier transforms.

39
Physical Insight
  • Newton gravity outside a spherical object is
    insensitive to the objects internal structure.
  • ??????????????????????????????????????????????????
    ???

40
Some analytic results
Implication To lowest order, all that matters is
the average density in substructure.
41
Open questions
minimum
saddle
  • For certain kinds of substructure, minima and
    saddles respond in opposite directions.
  • But which direction?
  • Why?
  • How generic is that result?
  • Signal seems to be present in data what does it
    tell us about substructure?

(Schechter Wambsganss 2002)
42
Some statistical issues
  • Given p(msub), use Bayesian inference to
    constrain substructure parameters.
  • Current data 22 quad lenses
  • 8 anomalies in 16 fold/cusp lenses
  • ? anomalies in 6 cross lenses
  • Future samples 100s or 1000s, each with its own
    probability density.
  • To test dark matter physics, will want to examine
    relations.

43
Conclusions
  • Gravitational lensing is a unique probe of dark
    matter.
  • Flux ratio anomalies ??substructure ? dark matter
    physics.
  • Can do brute force analysis. But
    interdisciplinary approach yields much deeper
    results.
  • We can reliably identify anomalies.
  • We can understand what aspects of substructure we
    can measure.
  • We will eventually understand how substructure
    probes dark matter physics.
  • We pose interesting math/stats questions then
    use the answers to do exciting physics/astronomy!

44
OLD SLIDES
45
Optics
converging lens
diverging lens
46
Gravitational Optics
47
Gravitational Deflection of Light
r
M
Predicted by Einstein, observed by SirArthur
Eddington in the solar eclipse of 1919.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com