Authorea

srodney fixing model predictions figs almost 8 years ago

Commit id: b666421069bfe5fd028d8b0fad91fa219930b1d3

deletions | additions

\tablewidth{\linewidth} \tablecolumns{6} \tablecaption{Lens model predictions for time delays and magnifications\label{tab:LensModelPredictions}} \tablehead{ \colhead{Model} & \colhead{$\Delta t_{11.1}$} t_{\rm NW:SE}$} & \colhead{$\Delta t_{11.3}$} t_{\rm NW:11.3}$} & \colhead{$\mu_1$} & \colhead{$\mu_2$} & \colhead{$\mu_3$}\\ \colhead{} & \colhead{(days)} & \colhead{(years)} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} } \startdata Diego & -48$\pm$10 & 0.8 & 35$\pm$20 & 30$\pm$20 &\\[0.5em] %Jauzac1 & -7$^{+13}_{-16}$ & 2.6$^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ & 36$^{+4}_{-3}$ & 17$\pm$1 & 4.7$\pm$0.1\\[0.5em] Jauzac & -16$\pm$13 -16 $\pm13$ & -2.4$^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ -2.4 $^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ & 37$\pm$3 37 $\pm3$ & 18$\pm$2 18 $\pm2$ & 4.6$\pm$0.1\\[0.5em] 4.6 $\pm0.1$\\[0.5em] Oguri & -4$^{+3}_{-6}$ 4.1 $^{+5.5}_{-3.4}$ & -4.9$^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ -5.0 $^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$ & 29$^{+44}_{-11}$ 29 $^{+43}_{-10}$ & 84$^{+104}_{-38}$ 84 $^{+103}_{-38}$ & \\[0.5em] 3.0 $^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$\\[0.5em] Williams & -22$\pm$10 -10 $^{+1}_{-7}$ & -4.7 -2.5 $^{+1.0}_{-3.1}$ & 28$^{+82}_{-15}$ 13 $^{+11}_{-6}$ & 20$^{+41}_{-13}$ 12 $^{+9}_{-5}$ & \\[0.5em] 3.1 $^{+2.2}_{-0.9}$\\[0.5em] Zitrin & -20$\pm$10 42 $^{+13}_{-9}$ & -3.7 $\pm0.3$ & 10$\pm$4 90 $^{+61}_{-27}$ & 32 $^{+8}_{-10}$ & \\ 3.6 $^{+0.2}_{-0.5}$\\ \enddata \tablecomments{Time delays give the predicted delay relative to an appearance in the NW host image, 11.2.} 11.2. Positive (negative) values indicate the NW image is the leading (trailing) image of the pair.} \end{deluxetable} %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.}

relative to the \spockone\ event, which appeared in January 2014 in host image 11.2. That same transient episode would have appeared at different times in host galaxy images 11.1 and 11.3, due primarily to the \citet{Shapiro:1964} delay. The $\Delta t_{11.1}$ t_{\rm NW:SE}$ column in Table~\ref{tab:LensModelPredictions} gives the model predictions for the number of days between the appearance of the \spockone\ event in the NW host image (11.2) and the date when it should have been observable in the adjacent SE host image 11.1. (11.1). The opposite value would give the time difference between the August 2014 \spocktwo\ event and its expected appearance in host image 11.2. Table~\ref{tab:LensModelPredictions} also reports the predicted time delay (in years) between appearance in the NW host image 11.2 and the more widely separatedhost image 11.3. Although the Figure~\ref{fig:LensModelContours} presents probability distributions derived from these models disagree on the arrival sequence, they are consistent in predicting that the {\it magnitude} of for the three magnifications and two time delay between 11.2 values of interest. These distributions were derived by combining the Monte Carlo chains from the Jauzac, Oguri, Williams and 11.1 is on Zitrin models, with weighting applied to account for the order different number of 10's model iterations in each chain. Four ofdays, while the delay from 11.2 to five models agree that host image 11.3 is the leading image, appearing some 2--6 years before the other two images. The models do not agree on the order arrival sequence of 1-10 years. images 11.1 and 11.2: some have the NW image 11.2 as a leading image, and others have it as a trailing image. However, the models do consistently predict that the separation in time between those two images should be roughly in the range of 1 to 60 days. If the two observed transient events are actually two images of the same physical episode, appearing separately only because of

January and August 2014 appearances. In fact, we find that none of the lensing models predict an 8 month time delay between appearances in image 11.1 and 11.2. This is represented in Figure~\ref{fig:SpockDelayPredictions}, where we have plotted the light curves for the two transient events, along with shaded bars demarcating the time delay predictions of all models. The models are broadly consistent with each other, predicting that the lensing time delay between images 11.1 and 11.2 is on the order of $\pm$50 days, far short of the 238 day lag that we was observed between \spockone\ and \spocktwo. From this we conclude This strongly suggests that the two observed events are not gravitational echoes of a single explosive transient episode, but instead must have originated as two distinct physical events in the source plane.We are left then with two possible scenarios: (a) the two events are not physically associated, in which case they may each be the result of a separate catastrophic explosion like a supernova or kilonova that would leave the progenitor system completely disrupted; or (b) the two events originated from the same astrophysical system, which must therefore be a source of recurrent explosive transient episodes. We evaluate physical systems that could match these two scenarios in the following sections. % We are left then with two possible scenarios: (a) the % two events are not physically associated, in which case they may each % be the result of a separate catastrophic explosion like a supernova or % kilonova that would leave the progenitor system completely disrupted; % or (b) the two events originated from the same astrophysical system, % which must therefore be a source of recurrent explosive transient % episodes. We evaluate physical systems that could match these two % scenarios in the following sections. %

Probability distributions for the five primary magnification and time delay observables, drawn from the composite distributions a combination of results from four lens models.Time delays from the NW position to the SE, $\Delta t_{\rm NW:SE}$, and to the host image 11.3, $\Delta t_{\rm NW:11.3}$, are both reported in units of days. Monte Carlo chains from the Jauzac, Oguri, Williams and Zitrin models were combined, with weighting applied to account for the different number of model iterations in each chain. Contours shown in the ten panels at the lower left mark the 1-$\sigma$ and 2-$\sigma$ confidence regions in each 2D slice of the parameter space. Histograms at the top of each column show the marginalized 1D probability distributions, with dashed

{"width":"1\\textwidth", "figure_env": "figure*", "placement":"tbp" }

event (\spockone, labeled spock1) appeared in January, 2014. Optical measurements from ACS are in blue and green, and infrared observations from WFC3-IR are in red and orange, as in Figure~\ref{fig:LightCurves}. Blue bars Each blue bar in the lower panel show shows one lens model predictions prediction for the dates when that same physical event (\spockone) would have also appeared in the SE location (galaxy image 11.1), due to gravitational lensing time delay. The lower panel plots photometry from the SE position (11.1). On the right side we see the second observed event (\spocktwo, labeled spock2). The red bars above show model predictions for when the NW host image 11.2 would have exhibited the gravitationally delayed image of the \spocktwo\ event. The width of each bar encompasses the 68\% confidence region for a single model, and darker regions indicate an overlap from multiple models.