arxiv: v3 [astro-ph] 18 Jul 2008

Transcription

1 A Rigorous Approach to the Gravitational Lensing Minjoon Park Departent of Physics, University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA Dated: Deceber 18, 017 We revisit a weak gravitational lensing proble by constructing a setup which describes the actual syste as accurately as possible and solving the null geodesic equations. Details are given for the case of a universe driven only by a cosological constant, Λ, which confir the conventional results: The conventional lensing analysis is correct as it is, without any need for correction of OΛ. We also treat the cases of the lensing in generic Friedann-Robertson-Walker backgrounds. PACS nubers: Sf, Es, 98.6.Sb arxiv: v3 [astro-ph] 18 Jul 008 I. INTRODUCTION In the conventional analysis on the weak gravitational lensing, the bending of light fro a source by a assive deflector, or a lens, is calculated in the cooving frae with the Schwarzschild etric, whereas the effect of the propagation of light in an expanding universe is taken care of by using angular diaeter distances as the distance easure. The underlying idea for this separative treatent is that on ost of its trajectory a photon does not know the existence of the lens, and it feels the gravitational pull only near a sall region of the closest approach to the lens where the spacetie can be locally approxiated by Schwarzschild. Although this sounds like a reasonable approxiation, it is soewhat qualitative, and hard to produce quantitative errors to justify itself. Then a better, or at least ore precise, description of the situation can be given by 1. putting our lens in a Friedann-Robertson-WalkerFRW spacetie to get the Schwarzschild-FRW spacetie and. solving for the null geodesics connecting a source to an observer in this background. Step 1 was done about 80 years ago by McVittie[1], who got the exact solutions for the Einstein equation sourced by a localized spherical ass and cosological ediu. The McVittie solution is given by 1 µ dt ds = +1+µ 4 at dx 1+µ, 1 where X is the usual cooving coordinate, µ = 4at X X 0, with X 0 the location of a ass whose Schwarzschild radius is, and the scale factor at is a solution of the Friedann equation without the ass. It can be iediately seen that for a vanishing ass 1 is reduced to the FRW etric, whereas when there is no cosological source, i.e., at = 1, we recover the Schwarzschild etric in isotropic coordinates. Describing an FRW spacetie with a assive source located at fixed cooving coordinates X 0, 1 fits well for the analysis of gravitational lensing where we, an observer at the coordinate origin, watch the deflection of light by a ass, i.e., a lens, oving away fro us according to Hubble s law. Then depending on the integrability of the geodesic equations we can perfor step either analytically or nuerically. As a clearcut deonstration of our point, we will consider an exactly solvable case of a cosological constantλ driven universe, so that the scale factor is at = e Ht with H = Λ/3. As one can guess naturally, a spacetie with a ass and Λ ay be able to be described by the Schwarzschild-de SitterSdS etric. Indeed, we can transfor 1 into SdS by first transforing to get r = 1+µ at X, ds = 1 r H r dt + d r 1 / r H r dtd r + r dω, 3 1 / r and then redefining t by t = t+f r with df d r = H r 1 / r H r 1 / r, 4 to reach a failiar for ds = 1 r H r d t d r + 1 r H r + r dω. 5 But in the real world, the lensl, the sources and the observero are all oving according to Hubble s law, and with 5 it ay not be clear how to ipose such a requireent, causing interpretational confusion. Therefore to facilitate the intuitive description of the syste we go back to 1 and define physical spatial coordinates by x = e Ht X, 6 because the actual distance is scale factor cooving distance. Also, in weak gravitational lensing situations, is uch saller than any other length scale under consideration, and we will work only up to O. Then, the background of our interest is

2 β θ FIG. 1: Lensing scheatics. ds = 1 dt + 1+ x+e Ht q +y +z x+e Ht q +y +z d x H xdt, 7 where we align the coordinates to put the lens on the x-axis. Note that the cosic expansion is ipleented in the coordinates theselves. Especially, the Hubble otion of L relative to O can be seen directly fro the etric: It is oving along x = e Ht q,0,0, where q is a constant related to the location of the lens at a certain oent of tie. Gravitational lensing in SdS spacetie is not a new subject, and it was shown that Λ does not show up explicitly in observable quantities[]: For a thin lens, the bending of the photon trajectory occurs for a period uch shorter than H 1 Λ 1/, so that the spatial expansion due to Λ cannot have any effect practically. It does affect the propagation of the photon between S and L, and L and O, but the angular diaeter distance properly absorbs it. But recently [3]-[4] took a fresh look at this old subject, claiing the appearance of OΛ correction, and there have been pros[5] and cons[6] to their clai. Now we will revisit this proble with the etric of 7. II. LENSING IN A COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT DRIVEN UNIVERSE We consider the otion of a photon in the spacetie of 7 FIG. 1. Corresponding Christoffel sybols can be calculated straightforwardly. Because of the syetry of the syste, we can confine the photon on the x-y plane and set z = 0. Also, the null condition 0 = x Hx +y Hy }, 8 R R with a prie denoting a t-derivative and R = x+qe Ht +y, can be used to siplify geodesic equations. To reduce the nuber of equations to solve, we paraetrize the geodesics by t. Since t is not an affine paraeter, our geodesic equations have the following for: With the help of 8, the t-geodesic equation deterines k to be x µ +Γ µ νρ xν x ρ = kx µ. 9 k = H + R 3 Hx +y +xx +yy +e Ht qx Hx}, 10 and then x- and y-equations becoe 0 = x Hx + } Hx R 3 x +y xx +yy x +xy x yy +e Ht qhx x He Ht q +x +e Ht q, 0 = y Hy + } Hy R 3 x +y xx +yy y xy x yx +e Ht qhy y He Ht q +x. 11 Next, we split the photon trajectory into the zeroth order piecewithout L and the first order onewith L, of O: x = x 0 + r x 1, y = y 0 + r y 1, 1

3 3 where r is the typical length scale of the lens syste and r. The zeroth order solution is trivial: x 0 = a 1 +a e Ht, y 0 = b 1 +b e Ht. 13 In the absence of the lens, the boundary conditions are such that at t = t S the photon was at the location of S, x S,y S, and at t = t O it arrives at O at the origin, 0,0. Then, a 1, a, b 1, b are fixed to be x a 1 = ehto S e HtO e, a x S HtS = e HtO e, b y HtS 1 = ehto S e HtO e, b y S HtS =. 14 e HtO HtS e Plugging 1 and 13 into 11, we get the first order geodesic equations: whose solutions are 0 = x 1 Hx 1 + a 1 +b 1 a +q+a 1 e Ht a +q +b } b 1 +b e Ht +a 1 +e Ht a +q } 3/ eht H r, 0 = y 1 Hy 1 + a 1 +b 1b +b 1 e Ht a +q +b } b 1 +b e Ht +a 1 +e Ht a +q } 3/eHt H r, 15 x 1 = c +c 1 e Ht + rb qb 1 a 1 +e Ht a +q +b 1 +e Ht b + reht a +q a 1 +b 1 log e Ht H a 1 a 1 +e Ht a +q+b 1 b 1 +e Ht b + y 1 = d +d 1 e Ht ra +q qb 1 + reht b log a 1 +b 1 a 1 +b 1 a 1 +e Ht a +q +b 1 +e Ht b, a 1 +e Ht a +q +b 1 +e Ht b 16 e Ht H a 1 a 1 +e Ht a +q+b 1 b 1 +e Ht b + a 1 +b 1 a 1 +e Ht a +q +b 1 +e Ht b. When L is present, in order for a photon eitted at the source location to hit O at the origin, it should follow a bent trajectory, and the travel tie is longer than t O t S by an aount of O. Let us say it reaches the origin at t = t O + r t 1. Then, we need to fix six unknowns, c 1, c, d 1, d, q and t 1, to copletely deterine the photon trajectory. To be a trajectory of a photon 1 ust satisfy the null condition: Plugging the solutions 13 and 16 into 8 gives 0 = H a 1 +b 1 1+ r A 1ta 1 b a b 1 +A th a 1 +b 1 1+A 3ta 1 c +b 1 d }, 17 where A i s are soe coplicated functions of t. Then, at O 0, we get H a 1 +b 1 = 1 e HtO ts = 1 Hr S, 18 which relates the source-observer tie difference, t O t S, to the source-observer distance, r S = x S +y S, in the absence of the lens. Next at O we have a 1 c +b 1 d = 0, 19 and this is our first constraint on the unknowns. Note that 18 can be generalized by considering 8 at O 0 : 1+Hx = dx dt Ht O t = log1+hx O log1+hx = log1+hx, 0 where x is the locationof the photon at t = t. The boundaryconditions in the presenceofthe lens give 4 constraints: xt S = x S = x S + r x 1t S, xt O + r t 1 = 0 = x 0 t O r t 1 + r x 1t O, yt S = y S = y S + r y 1t S, yt O + r t 1 = 0 = y 0 t O r t 1 + r y 1t O. 1

4 The last piece of inforation necessary for connecting our algebra to the observation is the location of L: it was located at r L at tie t = t L. In order for us to detect it at t = t O, r L and t L ust satisfy 0, i.e., Then q can be deterined by e HtO tl = 1 Hr L. qe HtL = r L q = e HtO r L 1 Hr L e HtO x L. 3 With 14, 18 and 3, solving 19 and 1 gives the rest of the unknowns: } c 1 = [r re HtS HrS 3x S H r S x L x S + Hr S x Lx S r S x L + x S 1 Hr S x L +ys L H1 Hr S x L rshr H1 Hr S x L +x S log e HtS S r S x S x L c = r S + rshr S x L +x S x L ys log r S x Lx S 1 Hr S +r S xs 1 Hr S x L +ys }], 1 Hr S r S x S x L r [ } HrS 3x r S r S +Hx S x L x L 1 Hr S + x S 1 Hr S x L +ys L H1 Hr S x L y S log r S x Lx S 1 Hr S +r S xs 1 Hr S x L +ys ], 4 1 Hr S r S x S x L [ d 1 = re HtS HrS 3x r S H r S x L Ly y S Hr + S x S x L x S r Sx S +H rs 3 x L S and d = a 1 b 1 c, +H1 Hr S x L y S r Slog e HtS H1 Hr S r S x S x L r S +rs +x L x S log r S x Lx S 1 Hr S +r S xs 1 Hr S x L +ys }], 1 Hr S r S x S x L t 1 = r H 1 Hr S x L + x S 1 Hr S x L 1 Hr +ys S +1 Hr S 1+Hx L x S r S } x L + x S 1 Hr S x L +ys log r S x Lx S 1 Hr S +r S xs 1 Hr S x L +ys }. 5 1 Hr S r S x S x L With 4 and 5, we can see that x 1, y 1 and t 1 have an overall factor of r, so that the arbitrary paraeter r does not appear in the full solution. t 1 has a special iplication: r t 1 is related to the tie delay due to the lens. Now that the photon trajectory is deterined, we can calculate the angular location of the iage of S observed by us: 1 y to+ θ = tan x r t1 = β + x L y S x S +Hr S x L + x S 1+Hx L 1 Hr S x L + x S 1 Hr S x L r +ys S y S rs Hx L1 Hr S log r S x Lx S 1 Hr S +r S xs 1 Hr S x L +ys } +O, 6 1 Hr S r S x S x L 1 ys where β = tan x S is the undeflected iage location, and x L = r L /1 Hr L. This is the exact result up to O. On the other hand the conventional lensing analysisfig., e.g., IV of [7], gives θ c β c + d SL β c d L d S +O, 7 4

5 5 β θ FIG. : Lensing scheatics in conventional analysis where d s are angular diaeter distances defined by d = at ρ with ρ being the corresponding coovingdistance. Obviously β c d b d S, θ c d d L. 8 To copare 7 to our result 6, we first note that our x S, y S and r S are distances at t = t S and r L at t = t L. Then fro 6, we iediately see that these are the sae as the angular diaeter distances, i.e., r S = d S, r L = d L, and therefore β c = β, θ c = θ. Now for sall H, 6 becoes Using θ = β + } x S d L +Hd L x S d L +H d L βd S d x S d L +OH 3 +Oβ +O. 9 L xs d SL = at S at S d L ys + = x S 1 Hd s d L +y at L at S 1 Hd S L = x S d L +Hd L x S d L +H d Lx S d L +OH 3 +Oβ, 30 we can rewrite 9 as θ = β + d SL 1+OH 3 +Oβ +O, 31 βd S d L where Oβ = β x S 4x Sd L +d L 4x S d L +. 3 Therefore, our result is in contradiction to the recent clais by [3] which assert that there should be a OΛ OH correction to the conventional lensing analysis. III. DISCUSSION Through rigorous, close-to-the-reality but laborious derivations, we confir that the conventional gravitational lensing analysis, although it ay look loosely constructed, is actually accurate, at least for thin, weak lenses in a Λ driven universe. [6], which incorporated the reality in their analysis by eploying FRW coordinates, has the sae conclusion as ours. The differences between our work and [3]-[4]and [5] can originate fro the following: In [3], 1. the setup is not describing the actual observation: In the SdS universe, L and O ust be oving relative to each other due to Hubble expansion, whereas they got an angle easured by an observer with fixed coordinates,

6 6. their result is not written in ters of angular diaeter distances, which are necessary to copare with the conventional results. In their follow-up paper [4], soe effort was ade to take these into consideration. But their ethod to resolve proble, i.e., eploying the Einstein-Strauss schee or the lens equation, does not see to be used properly: They are necessary in the Schwarzschild lensing because the Hubble expansion, which is not considered in the calculation of the bending angle, has to be ipleented. On the other hand, the SdS spacetie is a coplete playground for gravitational lensing because the etric is equivalent to the McVittie solution which already knows about both the lens and FRW. Then appropriate specifications of O, L and S should be enough for the full description of phenoena. Obviously, using Einstein-Strauss schee or the lens equation together with SdS background is redundant. the proble 1 was not addressed: Their angle ψin the first paper or αin the second paper is easured by a static observero. The instantaneous speed v of a geodesically oving observero can be calculated to be v = r L +H r L, 33 where r L is the radial coordinate of OO at the oent of the observation. Then, by relativistic aberration, the angle observed by O is ψ = 1+v ψ, 34 1 v assuing ψψ is sall. To get the final result, we should convert quantities appearing in 34 into angular diaeter distances. This last step could be tricky, which akes the intuitive setup presented in the previous section favorable. The sae rigorous procedure can be applied to generic FRW systes. For exaple, in the case of atter doination with at t /3, once finishing treendously ore coplicated interediate steps, we can write the final result as θ = β + x S d L + dl d L x S d L + x S d L 3x S +7d L 3 } +O +Oβ +O. 35 βd S d L 3t O 3t O 4 3t O After relating d SL to other variables in a siilar way as 30, we get θ = β + d SL 1+OH 3 βd S d O+Oβ +O, 36 L with H O = /3t O, which still ascertains the accuracy of the conventional analysis. In addition to confiring the conventional results, our work can provide the exact forulae for errors coing fro dropping higher order ters of OH 3 O and Oβ, which ight have iportance in testing theories of longrange odification of gravity: Since our results are obtained under the assuption that the general relativitygr is valid up to any scale, if precise easureents of high redshift lensing systes differ fro our prediction, it ay indicate that GR needs soe odifications at large distances. At present, these theoretical errors are well buried beneath the easureent ones, but as our observational tools develop they ay becoe significant in the future. Acknowledgeent We thank C. Fassnacht, A. Iglesias, C. Keeton and especially N. Kaloper for discussions. [1] G. C. McVittie, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc [] J. N. Isla, Phys.Lett. A 97, ; W. H. C. Freire, V. B. Bezerra and J. A. S. Lia, Gen. Rel. Grav. 33, , arxiv:gr-qc/001036; K. Lake, Phys. Rev. D 65, ; A. W. Kerr, J. C. Hauck and B. Mashhoon, Class. Quant. Grav. 0, , arxiv:gr-qc/ ; F. Finelli, M. Galaverni and A. Gruppuso, Phys. Rev. D 75, , arxiv:astro-ph/ ; V. Kagraanova, J. Kunz and C. Laerzahl, Phys. Lett. B 634, , arxiv:gr-qc/ [3] W. Rindler andm. Ishak, Phys. Rev. D76, , arxiv: [astro-ph]; [4] M. Ishak, W. Rindler, J. Dossett, J. Moldenhauer and C. Allison, arxiv: [astro-ph]. [5] K. Lake, arxiv: [gr-qc];

7 7 M. Sereno, Phys. Rev. D 77, , arxiv: [astro-ph]; T. Schucker, arxiv: [astro-ph]; M. Ishak, arxiv: [astro-ph]; T. Schucker and N. Zaien, arxiv: [astro-ph]. [6] I. B. Khriplovich and A. A. Poeransky, arxiv: [gr-qc]. [7] C. R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, Phys. Rev. D 7, , arxiv:gr-qc/