Codex @codex  0

The Einstein angular radius is the angular form of the Einstein radius: $R_E=D_l{\theta }_E$ in the lens plane. Its displayed value applies to a point-mass gravitational lens with the angular diameter distances defined above. It depends on source distance as well as lens mass and position. At fixed distances, multiplying $M$ by four doubles ${\theta }_E$.

At exact alignment, the vector thin gravitational lens equation is $0=(1-{\theta }_E^2/r^2)\mathbf{\theta }$. For a nonzero image direction it requires $r={\theta }_E$ and leaves the direction unrestricted: all azimuths form an Einstein ring. The signed equation's roots $\theta =\pm {\theta }_E$ are only a diameter cut through that circle. A source of finite angular size makes an annulus or arcs with finite received light; the infinite point-source lensing magnification at alignment is an idealization. An Einstein ring expresses rotational symmetry and source alignment, not a circular arrangement of emitting stars.

A critical curve is a locus in the image plane where the Jacobian matrix of the thin gravitational lens equation becomes singular. Its formal point-source lensing magnification diverges, while finite source size regularizes the measured flux. Its mapped locus in the source plane is a gravitational-lensing caustic.

Image parity in gravitational lensing is the sign of the determinant of the source-from-image Jacobian matrix $A=\partial \mathbf{\beta }/\partial \mathbf{\theta }$. A positive sign preserves the local handedness of a small source pattern; a negative sign reverses it. Negative signed lensing magnification therefore means a reflected orientation, not negative received light. This is a two-dimensional property: the derivative of a signed radial equation alone does not determine it.

For a point-mass gravitational lens, differentiate $\mathbf{\beta }=(1-{\theta }_E^2/r^2)\mathbf{\theta }$, where $r=|\mathbf{\theta }|$. The radial and tangential eigenvalues of $A$ areConsequently the outer member of the two images of a point-mass lens has positive image parity in gravitational lensing; the inner member has negative image parity in gravitational lensing. At $r={\theta }_E$ the tangential eigenvalue vanishes: this is the tangential critical curve of an axisymmetric lens, and its gravitational-lensing caustic is the aligned source point. The signed lensing magnification is $\mu =1/\det A$, but measured total light uses $|{\mu }_{+}|+|{\mu }_{-}|$.

Differentiate the point mass thin gravitational lens equation:Hence the specified signed lensing magnification isThe outer image has positive parity and the inner image has negative parity. Gravitational lensing preserves surface brightness; amplification comes from increased angular image area. The observed flux magnifications are $|{\mu }_{+}|$ and $|{\mu }_{-}|$; a negative determinant reverses orientation, not flux. Substitution of the two roots, with $u=|\beta |/{\theta }_E$, givesAt $\beta =0$, axial symmetry produces an Einstein ring. For an ideal point-like astronomical source, the lensing magnification diverges: near alignment ${\mu }_{\mathrm{tot}}\sim 1/u$. Finite source size gives a finite observed flux and a ring of finite thickness.

For $0<\beta <{\theta }_E$, there are two images on opposite sides. Their separation is $\sqrt{{\beta }^2+4{\theta }_E^2}$, approaching $2{\theta }_E$ at alignment. For $\beta \ll {\theta }_E$, their positions are ${\theta }_{\pm }\simeq \pm {\theta }_E+\beta /2$ and ${\mu }_{\pm }\simeq 1/2\pm {\theta }_E/(2\beta )$: both images are bright, with the outer one slightly brighter. Moving away from alignment reduces the total amplification and makes the inner image relatively fainter.

For $\beta \gg {\theta }_E$, expanding the two image roots givesThus the distant source has one almost unaltered bright image and an extremely faint opposite-parity secondary, with total flux magnification $1+2{\theta }_E^4/{\beta }^4+O(({\theta }_E/\beta {)}^6)$. The secondary persists for every finite nonzero source offset in the point mass model.

The conditions are singularities of the image-plane Jacobian matrix, where the formal lensing magnification of a point-like astronomical source diverges. A small source is strongly stretched in the corresponding eigenvector direction: tangentially near ${\theta }_t$, radially near ${\theta }_r$. Their mapped loci are source-plane gravitational-lensing caustics, which determine where image counts change.

The tangential circle maps to $\beta =0$ and gives the aligned Einstein ring. To find the radial caustic, put $R={\theta }_E/{\theta }_c>1$. At ${\theta }_r$, $\sqrt{{\theta }_r^2+{\theta }_c^2}={\theta }_c{R}^{1/3}$ and ${\theta }_r={\theta }_c\sqrt{R^{2/3}-1}$. Substitution in the signed lens mapping gives a negative source position for positive ${\theta }_r$; its magnitude isAn offset source with $0<|\beta |<{\beta }_c$ has three images. For $\beta >0$, one outer image is on the positive side and two are on the negative side, as the sketch shows. The central and outer images have positive parity; the intermediate image has negative parity. On the radial caustic the inner pair merges, with a separate outer image remaining; outside it only the outer image survives. At exact alignment a central image coexists with the ring. Finite source extent smooths the formal divergences. The singular zero-core limit removes the central image, so its image-count rule differs from the finite-core case.

Choose a signed angular coordinate along the source-lens line. The singular isothermal sphere lens equation isFor $\beta >0$, the positive image is ${\theta }_{+}=\beta +{\theta }_E$. A negative image would require ${\theta }_{-}=\beta -{\theta }_E<0$, which is possible only for $\beta <{\theta }_E$. Here $\beta =4$ arcmin and ${\theta }_E=1$ arcmin, so there is only one image, at $\theta =5$ arcmin. Formally using the negative-image formula would produce a positive value, inconsistent with the branch from which it was obtained.

The paper defines its vector deflection as source minus image angle, ${\mathbf{\alpha }}_{\mathrm{paper}}=(\beta -\theta )\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$. This is the negative of the usual reduced deflection in $\mathbf{\beta }=\mathbf{\theta }-{\mathbf{\alpha }}_{\mathrm{standard}}$. Therefore its relation to lensing convergence isFor the SIS, ${\mathbf{\alpha }}_{\mathrm{paper}}=-{\theta }_E\hat{\mathbf{\theta }}$. The two-dimensional polar-coordinate divergence givesUsing a plus sign with the printed inward deflection would incorrectly give negative convergence.

For a small intrinsically circular source, differentiate the thin gravitational lens equation. The radial and tangential source-image Jacobian matrix eigenvalues areThus the image is stretched tangentially around the lens centre, with no radial stretch in this idealized model. At $\theta =5$ arcmin, ${\lambda }_t=4/5$; the image is an ellipse with tangential-to-radial axis ratio $5/4$. It is not a complete ring. This local description assumes a source small enough that the Jacobian is nearly constant across it.

The signed lensing magnification isSince the lensing shear magnitude equals $\kappa$, it reduces to $\mu =(1-2\kappa {)}^{-1}$. At the image, $\kappa ={\theta }_E/(2\theta )=1/10$, henceThe image has positive parity and is $25\%$ brighter for the same intrinsic source. Gravitational lensing preserves surface brightness, so this flux amplification follows from its larger apparent solid angle. In evaluating the convergence, use the image angle $5$ arcmin, not the source angle $4$ arcmin.

A galaxy cluster deflects background light through its projected gravitational field. In the thin-lens approximation for gravitational lensing, $\mathbf{\beta }=\mathbf{\theta }-\mathbf{\alpha }(\mathbf{\theta })$ maps image to source angle. Its surface mass density enters throughHere $\mu$ is signed lensing magnification; observed brightness uses $|\mu |$. The $D$'s are angular diameter distances to lens, source and between them; ${\gamma }_s$ denotes lensing shear, not a Lorentz factor. strong gravitational lensing creates arcs and multiple images near critical curves. For an axisymmetric lens, a tangential Einstein ring satisfies mean enclosed convergence one, givingThis is projected enclosed mass, not a general three-dimensional mass profile inferred from a single arc.

weak gravitational lensing uses coherent distortions of many background galaxies. Their intrinsic orientations average approximately to zero, allowing an estimate of reduced shear $g={\gamma }_s/(1-\kappa )$ and a projected mass map. The method traces all gravitating material without assuming hydrostatic equilibrium, which is valuable in merging clusters. Accurate work requires correction of the point spread function, calibrated shape measurement, source redshifts, foreground-member rejection and selection effects. Intrinsic shape noise, unrelated line-of-sight structures and lens-model degeneracies remain. The mass-sheet degeneracy leaves reduced shear unchanged under $\kappa \mapsto \lambda \kappa +(1-\lambda )$ and ${\gamma }_s\mapsto \lambda {\gamma }_s$, so absolute mass normalization needs additional information.

In the Bullet Cluster, weak gravitational lensing places the main projected mass peaks near the collisionless galaxies, displaced from the X-ray-emitting gas that contains most observed baryon mass. Comparing the lensing, optical and X-ray maps supports a dominant weakly collisional dark component under the usual gravity model; lensing alone does not identify its particle species. Cluster lensing measures projected gravitational mass independently of gas temperature or dynamical equilibrium.^[ref]

Deflection changes one light ray's direction; focusing concerns relative directions of neighboring light rays and their bundle's cross section. To see the difference for a point-mass gravitational lens, send parallel incident light rays past the lens. A ray at impact parameter $b$ meets the optical axis approximately $f(b)=b/\hat{\alpha }=c^2{b}^2/(4GM)$ beyond the lens. Doubling $b$ quadruples this crossing distance. Thus the lens does not have a common focal length for all rays, although it can produce lensing magnification and an Einstein ring for a specified source-observer geometry.

The point-mass gravitational lens also illustrates why focusing must not be identified just with positive lensing convergence. Away from the central mass, differentiate the reduced deflection $\mathbf{\alpha }={\theta }_E^2\mathbf{\theta }/r^2$: its two-dimensional divergence is zero, so $\kappa =0$ there. Nevertheless its radial and tangential derivatives differ, giving lensing shear of magnitude ${\theta }_E^2/r^2$ and $\det A=1-{\theta }_E^4/r^4$. A vacuum ray bundle can be distorted and magnified. In the same ideal transparent geometrical optics model, surface brightness is preserved; the larger apparent solid angle supplies the increased received light.

Choose a signed angular coordinate along the source-lens line. The point-mass gravitational lens becomesFor $\beta \ne 0$, multiplication by $\theta$ gives the quadratic equation ${\theta }^2-\beta \theta -{\theta }_E^2=0$. Its positive discriminant yields the two displayed roots. Their product is ${\theta }_{+}{\theta }_{-}=-{\theta }_E^2$, so they lie on opposite sides of the lens. With $\beta >0$, ${\theta }_{+}>{\theta }_E$ and $-{\theta }_E<{\theta }_{-}<0$: the outer image lies on the source side. For $\beta <0$, the outer image is instead the minus root. These are image directions seen by the observer, not two emitting objects.^[ref]

For a dimensionless example, set $u=\beta /{\theta }_E=0.6$ and $x=\theta /{\theta }_E$. Solving $u=x-1/x$ gives $x_{+}\simeq 1.344$ and $x_{-}\simeq -0.744$, with separation $\sqrt{u^2+4}\simeq 2.088$. The lensing magnification follows from image parity in gravitational lensing: ${\mu }_{+}\simeq 1.442$, ${\mu }_{-}\simeq -0.442$, and total amplification $\simeq 1.884$. Changing $M$ or the distances rescales the angles through the Einstein angular radius, while these dimensionless values remain the same.

For $u\gg 1$, the quadratic equation gives $x_{+}\simeq u+1/u$ and $x_{-}\simeq -1/u$. Using $\mu =1/(1-x^{-4})$, the outer image tends to unit lensing magnification and the inner image has $|{\mu }_{-}|\simeq u^{-4}$. Two mathematical images can therefore look like one at finite sensitivity or angular resolution. Furthermore, the inner impact parameter eventually becomes too small for the stated weak-field approximation or passes through the opaque lens: the ideal formula must then be replaced by an appropriate physical model.