![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
* Michael Richmond:
It does however not explain multiple images. Instead, it just asserts that they can occur "if [the background source and the lens] line up well enough that the true position of the background source falls within the Einstein ring radius of the lens". I don't understand that. There is no way around the math; you'll have to read the technical literature on gravitational lensing if you want to understand. One early paper you might read is by Bourassa and Kantowski. The ADS entry for it http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...f6510b0d827235 includes a scanned version of the entire paper. Somewhat more complicated models are included in another early paper in the field, by Padmanabhan and Subramanian: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...f6510b0d829377 Good luck. Yes, thanks, it seems luck is the key word in dechiphering that first mentioned paper, even the presumably clarifying figures... ;-) Here is then my limited understanding, disregarding for now (until last paragraph) the impenetrable paper. Consider three points in space: source, point lens, receiver, not in a straight line. These three points define a plane P. Now the source can emit a photon that goes somewhat to the side of the lens, wrt. to the direction from receiver to lens, and we can vary the distance out from the lens, and for at most one distance for a particular side (assuming the photon doesn't go around the lens one or more times, which I in my naivete think is impossible) it can strike the receiver. Since there are only two sides of the lens in plane P, photons in P can at most define two images of the source. That's what I meant when I wrote that it's easy to visualize _two_ images. But not identical. If the source emits a photon that is not in plane P then the photon path plus lens defines a new plane Q, and the receiver is not in that new plane Q unless the source, lens and receiver are in a straight line. So assuming first they're not in a straight line. In order for that photon to strike the receiver the lens will then have to deflect the photon in a direction normal to the plane Q defined by the original path + lens. I haven't heard of gravity having any sideways effect before. Assuming next that source, lens and receiver are in a straight line. Then the photon can strike the receiver among any of an infinite number of paths, namely those that pass through a cirle or oval around the lens. Which gives the "Einstein ring" effect. Now the only simplifying assumption I see in that is the one about point source, point lens and point receiver. But as far as I can decipher the paper you linked to it claims that -- possibly with spatial extension in the picture -- five or even seven distinct images can appear. I can see that spatial extension can give an "Einstein ring" even when the line-up isn't perfect, but I fail to see how photons can arrive at the receiver when passing through five or seven points around the lens (or in the case of "Einstein's cross", four points), and _not others_. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hubble images being colorized to enhance their appeal for public - LA Times | Rusty B | Policy | 4 | September 15th 03 10:38 AM |
Whats in the sky today | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | July 14th 03 04:24 AM |