Model predictions for the time delays (in hours) ΔtAB, ΔtAC and ΔtAD for Q2237+0305.
| Reference . | Lens model . | ΔtAB/h . | ΔtAC/h . | ΔtAD/h . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schneider et al. | Constant | 2.4 | 29.5 | 26.6 |
| (1988) | mass-to-light ratio | |||
| Best fit | 0.54 | −6.48 | −6.12 | |
| Model 1 | −2.1 | −11 | −7.1 | |
| Rix et al. (1992) | Model 2 | −1.5 | −10.1 | −6.1 |
| Model 2a | 1.7 | −9.8 | −3.7 | |
| Best fit | 1.3 | −7.4 | −2.8 | |
| Wambsganss | Point lens | 2.97 | −17.41 | −4.87 |
| & Paczyński | SIS | 1.51 | −8.91 | −2.46 |
| (1994) | Best fit | 0.44 | −2.54 | −0.7 |
| Schmidt et al. | Bar accounted | 2.0 | −16.2 | −4.9 |
| (1998) | ||||
| Chae et al. | Triaxial model | [0.13,3.4] | [−16.6,−0.77] | [−5.5,−0.22] |
| (1998) |
| Reference . | Lens model . | ΔtAB/h . | ΔtAC/h . | ΔtAD/h . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schneider et al. | Constant | 2.4 | 29.5 | 26.6 |
| (1988) | mass-to-light ratio | |||
| Best fit | 0.54 | −6.48 | −6.12 | |
| Model 1 | −2.1 | −11 | −7.1 | |
| Rix et al. (1992) | Model 2 | −1.5 | −10.1 | −6.1 |
| Model 2a | 1.7 | −9.8 | −3.7 | |
| Best fit | 1.3 | −7.4 | −2.8 | |
| Wambsganss | Point lens | 2.97 | −17.41 | −4.87 |
| & Paczyński | SIS | 1.51 | −8.91 | −2.46 |
| (1994) | Best fit | 0.44 | −2.54 | −0.7 |
| Schmidt et al. | Bar accounted | 2.0 | −16.2 | −4.9 |
| (1998) | ||||
| Chae et al. | Triaxial model | [0.13,3.4] | [−16.6,−0.77] | [−5.5,−0.22] |
| (1998) |
Notes. The model 1 by Rix et al. (1992) refers to an R1/4 profile, model 2, R1/4 with unresolved nucleus and model 2a is identical to model 2 with only image positions fitted. The model in Schmidt et al. (1998) takes into account the central galaxy bar.
Model predictions for the time delays (in hours) ΔtAB, ΔtAC and ΔtAD for Q2237+0305.
| Reference . | Lens model . | ΔtAB/h . | ΔtAC/h . | ΔtAD/h . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schneider et al. | Constant | 2.4 | 29.5 | 26.6 |
| (1988) | mass-to-light ratio | |||
| Best fit | 0.54 | −6.48 | −6.12 | |
| Model 1 | −2.1 | −11 | −7.1 | |
| Rix et al. (1992) | Model 2 | −1.5 | −10.1 | −6.1 |
| Model 2a | 1.7 | −9.8 | −3.7 | |
| Best fit | 1.3 | −7.4 | −2.8 | |
| Wambsganss | Point lens | 2.97 | −17.41 | −4.87 |
| & Paczyński | SIS | 1.51 | −8.91 | −2.46 |
| (1994) | Best fit | 0.44 | −2.54 | −0.7 |
| Schmidt et al. | Bar accounted | 2.0 | −16.2 | −4.9 |
| (1998) | ||||
| Chae et al. | Triaxial model | [0.13,3.4] | [−16.6,−0.77] | [−5.5,−0.22] |
| (1998) |
| Reference . | Lens model . | ΔtAB/h . | ΔtAC/h . | ΔtAD/h . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schneider et al. | Constant | 2.4 | 29.5 | 26.6 |
| (1988) | mass-to-light ratio | |||
| Best fit | 0.54 | −6.48 | −6.12 | |
| Model 1 | −2.1 | −11 | −7.1 | |
| Rix et al. (1992) | Model 2 | −1.5 | −10.1 | −6.1 |
| Model 2a | 1.7 | −9.8 | −3.7 | |
| Best fit | 1.3 | −7.4 | −2.8 | |
| Wambsganss | Point lens | 2.97 | −17.41 | −4.87 |
| & Paczyński | SIS | 1.51 | −8.91 | −2.46 |
| (1994) | Best fit | 0.44 | −2.54 | −0.7 |
| Schmidt et al. | Bar accounted | 2.0 | −16.2 | −4.9 |
| (1998) | ||||
| Chae et al. | Triaxial model | [0.13,3.4] | [−16.6,−0.77] | [−5.5,−0.22] |
| (1998) |
Notes. The model 1 by Rix et al. (1992) refers to an R1/4 profile, model 2, R1/4 with unresolved nucleus and model 2a is identical to model 2 with only image positions fitted. The model in Schmidt et al. (1998) takes into account the central galaxy bar.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
