With our joint analysis of stellar mass fraction and source size, we find a larger stellar mass fraction than earlier statistical studies. In FigureÂ 2, we compare our determination of the stellar surface density fraction to a simple theoretical model and to the best fit of a sample of lens galaxies by Oguri etÂ al. (2014). The simple theoretical model is the early-type galaxy equivalent of a maximal disk model for spirals. We follow the rotation curve of a de Vaucouleurs component for the stars outward in radius until it reaches its maximum and then simply extend it as a flat rotation curve to become a singular isothermal sphere (SIS) at large radius (see details in the Appendix). The ratio of the surface mass density of the de Vaucouleurs component to the total surface mass density is shown as a dashed curve in FigureÂ 2. We also show as a gray band the best fit for the stellar fraction in the form of stars determined by Oguri et al (2014) in a study of a large sample of lens galaxies using strong lensing and photometry, as well as the best model using a Hernquist component for the stars and an NFW halo for the dark matter with and without adiabatic contraction, also from Oguri etÂ al. (2014). We have used the average and dispersion estimates for the Einstein and effective radii available for 13 of the objects in our sample from Oguri etÂ al. (2014), Sluse etÂ al. (2012), Fadely etÂ al. (2010), and LehÃ¡r etÂ al. (2000; see TableÂ 1) as an estimate of RE/Reff in FigureÂ 2. The average value and dispersion of the sample is RE/Reff = 1.8 Â± 0.8. This also averages over the different radii of the lensed images. The agreement of our estimates with the expectations of the simple theoretical model and with estimates from other studies (Oguri etÂ al. 2014) is quite good. For comparison, the estimate of Pooley etÂ al. (2012; using the Einstein and effective radii estimates for 10 out of 14 of their objects from Schechter etÂ al. 2014) seems somewhat lower than expected at those radii. The range of stellar mass fractions from MED09 for source sizes in the range 0.3â15.6 light days is also shown in FigureÂ 2. In this case, the discrepancy between our estimate and their reported value of Î± = 0.05 is completely due to the effect of the source size. Although accretion disk sizes are known to be smaller in X-rays, recent estimates are in the range of 0.1â1 light-days, depending on the mass of the black hole (see Mosquera etÂ al. 2013), and these finite sizes will increase the stellar surface densities implied by the X-ray data. Another possible origin for this discrepancy is that Pooley etÂ al. (2012) use the macro model as an unmicrolensed baseline for their analysis. It is well known that simple macro models are good at reproducing the positions of images, but have difficulty reproducing the flux ratios of images due to a range of effects beyond microlensing. Recently, Schechter etÂ al. (2014) found that the fundamental plane stellar mass densities have to be scaled up by a factor 1.23 in order to be compatible with microlensing in X-rays in a sample of lenses with a large overlap with that analyzed by Pooley etÂ al. (2012). It is unclear how this need for more mass in stars at the position of the images found by Schechter etÂ al. (2014) can be reconciled with the apparently low estimate of mass in stars at those radii by Pooley etÂ al. (2012). Our estimate of the stellar mass fraction agrees better with the results of microlensing studies of individual lenses (Keeton etÂ al. 2006; Kochanek etÂ al. 2006; Morgan etÂ al. 2008, 2012; Chartas etÂ al. 2009; Pooley etÂ al. 2009; Dai etÂ al. 2010) that reported values in the range 8%â25%, and with the estimates from strong lensing studies (see for example Jiang & Kochanek 2007; Gavazzi etÂ al. 2007; Treu 2010; Auger etÂ al. 2010; Treu etÂ al. 2010; Leier etÂ al. 2011; Oguri etÂ al. 2014) which produced stellar mass fractions in the range 30%â70% integrated inside the Einstein radius of the lenses.
Citation: Oguri etÂ al. (2014)
Citation function: Uses
Citation: Oguri etÂ al. (2014)
Citation function: Uses
Citation: Oguri etÂ al. 2014
Citation function: Similarities; Similarities; Similarities
Citation: Oguri et al (2014)
Citation function: Uses; Uses