text:
# The Jet-Disk Connection and Blazar Unification

## 1 Introduction

The formation of highly relativistic jets in Active Galactic Nuclei is one of the most fundamental open problems in astrophysics. It is currently assumed that jets are produced close to the central black hole, involving power extraction from the black hole spin (Blandford & Znajek 1977) and/or from the accretion disk (Blandford & Payne 1982). In both scenarios the magnetic field must play a major role in channelling power from the BH or from the disk into the jet; in both cases it should be sustained by matter accreting onto the BH, leading to expect a relation between the accretion power and the jet power.

Estimates of the power of jets and of the associated accretion flows can therefore be crucial to shed light on the jet-disk connection . In a pioneering work Rawling & Saunders (1991) addressed this question studying a large sample of radio galaxies. They used the narrow line luminosity as indicative of the accretion power and estimated the power transported by the jet from the energy content and lifetime of the radio lobes, finding a good correlation between the two. This result has been confirmed with larger and deeper samples and with different power “estimators” (e.g. Willot et al. 1999; Xu, Livio & Baum 1999). However, due to the indirect nature of the estimators used, the “calibration” of the relation in terms of jet power and accretion power remains uncertain. Celotti, Padovani & Ghisellini (1997, hereafter CPG) first investigated the relation between jet and disk using the direct radio emission of the jet close to the nucleus, as resolved by VLBI, for the jet power estimation. They considered a large sample of objects (55), mostly blazars (including 12 BL Lac objects) and derived the accretion luminosity from the broad emission lines when available. They found a suggestive hint of correlation between these two quantities, although the statistical significance was too low to draw a firm conclusion.

Blazars are in fact the best laboratories to study the physics of relativistic jets. Their emission (from radio to gamma-rays) is dominated by the beamed non-thermal continuum produced in the jet (Urry & Padovani 1995). Their SEDs are in general well understood as synchrotron plus IC emission. When observations of both components are available, the basic physical quantities of the emission region can be derived in a robust way, allowing to estimate the jet power in the region closest to its origin (e.g. Tavecchio et al. 2000, hereafter Paper I). Particularly interesting for the study of the jet-disk connection are those blazars showing thermal features directly related to the central accretion flow, such as the so-called blue bump and/or the bright emission lines produced in the Broad Line Region.

In the present work we consider a relatively small group of bright blazars (11 FSRQs and 5 BL Lacs) with good wavelength coverage, basing jet power estimates on physical parameters derived from uniformly modelling the observed SEDs (Tavecchio et al. 2002, hereafter Paper II). All these objects have broad band X-ray spectra (0.1 - 100 keV) from BeppoSAX observations. As discussed below (section 2) the information on the X-ray continuum is crucial in order to have reliable estimates.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we describe the objects and the adopted method for estimating the power of the jet. We then compare the jet powers with their luminosities (integrated over angles), deriving the jet radiative efficiencies, and the jet luminosities with the accretion luminosities estimated from the blue bump or line strengths (Section 3). The derived relation between jet luminosity and accretion luminosity is discussed in Section 4 taking into account the radiative efficiencies and compared with the expectation of current models. Implications for a scenario of blazar unification are considered. The conclusions are presented in Section 5. Throughout the paper we assume $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0`$.

Preliminary results were presented in Maraschi & Tavecchio (2001a) Maraschi & Tavecchio (2001b) and Maraschi (2001).

## 2  Sample and General Model

In view of a reliable estimate of the power carried by the relativistic jet we require uniform ”good quality” data on their SEDs. These are commonly modelled with synchrotron and IC radiation from a uniform emission region. Both components must be observationally constrained in order to derive the physical parameters of the emitting region (Tavecchio et al. (1998); see further discussion below).

In practice the broad band coverage (0.1-100 keV) allowed by the BeppoSAX satellite is essential. In fact, in the case of FSRQs the X-ray emission derives from the Inverse Compton mechanism (with seed photons external to the jet (EC) and in some cases an additional contribution from the synchrotron photons (SSC)). The X-ray data then fall on the low energy branch of the IC component, constraining the electron spectrum at low energies, which is particularly important in the power estimate (see below). In the case of BL Lacs, whose SEDs peak at higher frequencies, the X-ray data constrain the position of the synchrotron peak, while information on the IC peak is provided by observations in the $`\gamma `$-ray (GeV range) or in the TeV domain.

Specifically the selection criteria for the sources considered are the following. The FSRQs belong to a subsample of the 2-Jy catalogue by Padovani & Urry (1992; 50 sources) with a threshold of $`F_{1\mathrm{keV}}>0.5\mu `$Jy (19 objects) chosen in order to obtain good BeppoSAX spectra up to 100 keV. 12 objects have been observed until now. In Paper I we discussed three of them, namely 0836+710, 1510-089 and 2230+114; another 6 sources are analyzed in Paper II (0208-512, 0521-365, 1641+399, 2223-052, 2243-123, 2251+158) and 2 sources (3C279, PKS 0537-441) are discussed elsewhere (Maraschi et al. 1998; Ballo et al. 2002; Pian et al., submitted). For 0528+134, for which good data on the SED are available (Ghisellini et al. 1999) we were unable to find the line luminosity in the literature and for this reason it was excluded from our sample.

The 5 BL Lac objects were chosen so as to have a well measured SED near the synchrotron peak complemented by information on the IC peak. They are the two TeV sources Mkn 421 and Mkn 501 (for which simultaneous observations are used; Maraschi et al. 1999, Tavecchio et al. 2001), PKS 2155-304 (Chiappetti et al. 1999), ON231 (Tagliaferri et al 2000) and BL Lac itself (Ravasio et al. 2002). Other BL Lacs with $`Beppo`$SAX data and $`\gamma `$-ray information (from EGRET) are 0716+714 and 0235+164, but for 0716+714 the redshift is unknown, while 0235+164 shows a peculiar phenomenology, possibly due to gravitational lensing (e.g. Webb et al. 2000). Both were therefore excluded from the present analysis.

The observational information on the SEDs is given in the above papers. The physical parameters of the jets were rederived uniformly reproducing all the SEDs with a synchrotron + inverse Compton model including both the synchrotron and external photons as seed photons (SSC+EC).

We adopt a one-zone model, in which the radiation is produced in a homogeneous emitting region by a single electron population. One-zone models are supported by a number of observational evidences, at least for the spectral range from the gamma-ray band down to the optical-IR band. In particular, the observations of correlated variability at different frequencies suggest co-spatial production of low and high energy photons via the two mechanisms (synchrotron + IC) by the high energy branch of the electron population (e.g. Ulrich, Maraschi & Urry 1997; Urry 1999; Giommi et al. 1999, Maraschi et al. 1999; Sambruna 2000; Sikora & Madejski 2001). In general the one-zone model predicts synchrotron self absorption in the FIR /submm range. Thus it cannot account for the radio emission, which is thought to be due to the superposition of self-absorbed synchrotron components produced further out ($`d>0.1`$ pc) along the jet (e.g. Blandford & Konigl 1979). The one zone model considered here naturally appears as the innermost component of the inhomogeneous jet model.

As shown in Tavecchio et al. (1998) for the case of a one zone synchrotron+SSC model, the knowledge of the frequency and luminosity of both the synchrotron and IC peaks, together with the upper limit on the size of the emission region derived from variability, allows to univocally determine the model parameters. In the case, particularly relevant for the present work, in which the IC component is dominated by scattering of external radiation, the model involves an additional parameter, that is the energy density of the external radiation field. However (see e.g. Paper I and the discussion below) the latter quantity can be estimated with reasonable confidence from the available luminosities of the emission lines and/or the UV bump. Therefore, given sufficient observational information on both peaks, in both the SSC and EC models reliable estimates of the basic physical quantities of the jet can be derived.

For a complete description of the model we refer to the Appendix. We just recall that a phenomenological description of the electron spectrum was adopted (analogous to a broken power-law):

$$N(\gamma )=K\gamma ^{n_1}\left(1+\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}\right)^{n_1n_2}\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}<\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}$$
(1)
where $`K`$ is the normalization factor, $`\gamma _b`$ is the Lorentz factor of electrons at the spectral break, $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are the spectral indices below and above the break, respectively and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}`$ are the minimum and the maximum energies of the relativistic electrons. For Mkn 501 we used a slighly modified electron energy distribution (see Tavecchio et al. 2001), with the addition of an exponential high energy cut-off.

The viewing angle is assumed to be $`\theta 1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the emitting plasma; in these conditions the Doppler factor $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This choice, which eliminates the angle to the line of sight as an independent parameter, may appear arbitrary for individual objects; however, it can be justified for a group of objects. In fact, for fixed $`\delta `$ (derived from the spectral modeling), the probability of observing a source at an angle $`\theta `$ is maximal around $`\theta 1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, since this is the maximum angle allowed for a given $`\delta `$: thus, for a group of sources, as in the case discussed here, we expect that the average viewing angle is close to $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A known exception is the case of 0521-365, for which various indicators suggest that the jet forms a relatively large angle with the line of sight (Pian et al. 1996). Assuming that the bulk Lorentz factor of the emitting plasma is similar to that of the other blazars, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{b}10`$, this implies that the emission from 0521-365 is weakly boosted. Here we assumed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10`$ and $`\theta =15^\mathrm{o}`$, implying $`\delta =3`$.

The external radiation field is described as a black-body with temperature $`T10^4`$ K and energy density $`U_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. Uncertainties in the temperature (to within factors of a few) do not strongly affect the determination of other physical parameters. The most important parameter is the energy density $`U_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. The latter can be derived from the luminosity of the broad line region (BLR) and/or of the accretion disk by $`U_{\mathrm{ext}}=L_{\mathrm{BLR}}/4\pi R_{\mathrm{BLR}}^2c`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{BLR}}=\tau L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ (where $`\tau `$, usually assumed to be $`0.1`$ represents the fraction of the central emission reprocessed by the BLR and $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ its radius ). For sources showing a clear UV bump we used $`L_{\mathrm{disk}}=L_{\mathrm{UV}}`$, while for the other cases $`L_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ was derived from the luminosity of the observed broad emission lines, applying correction factors as used by CPG. $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ was adjusted in the fits but the derived values were found to agree within a factor of 2 with those predicted by the correlation of Kaspi et al. (2000) between $`R_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{BLR}}`$.

In the case of BL Lac, ON231, 0836+710, 1510-089 and 2230+114 the models for the SEDs presented in the original papers (Ravasio et al. 2002, Tagliaferri et al 2000, Paper I) were computed with different hypothesis on the electron energy distribution (Ghisellini et al. 1998). Electrons were assumed to be continuously injected in the emitting region, with a power-law distribution with index $`n_{\mathrm{inj}}`$, extending from $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ to $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}`$. The equilibrium distribution reached as a result of cooling has then a double-power law shape, with energy indices $`n_1=2`$ for $`\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`n_2=n_{\mathrm{inj}}+1`$ for $`\gamma >\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$. Therefore, in this model the spectral index of the low-energy portion of the emitted spectrum is fixed to be $`\alpha _1=0.5`$ and the peak of the SED corresponds to electrons with $`\gamma =\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$, which plays the same role as $`\gamma _b`$ in the model adopted in the present paper. Notably, although some of the parameters obtained with the two versions of the model are different, important derived quantities such as powers and luminosities (see next sections) appear to be rather stable (within a factor of 2-3) against the details of the model adopted, supporting the consistency of our results. Table 1 reports the list of sources, their redshifts and the values of the parameters derived from modeling the SEDs.

## 3 Radiative Jet Luminosity and Power

The kinetic power of the jet, i.e. the energy flux of the relativistic flow through a section $`\pi R^2`$ of the jet, is given by: $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}=\pi R^2\beta cU\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ (e.g, CPG) where $`U=U_B+U_e+U_p`$ is the total energy density in the jet frame, due to magnetic field, relativistic electrons and, if present, protons ($`L_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ = $`L_\mathrm{B}+L_\mathrm{e}+L_\mathrm{p}`$). The energy density in particles is given by $`U_e+U_p=n_em_ec^2[<\gamma >+(n_p/n_e)(m_p/m_e)]`$ where $`n_e=_{\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}}^{\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}}N(\gamma )𝑑\gamma `$ is the electron density and $`<\gamma >`$ is the average Lorentz factor of electrons.

The critical parameter determining $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is the total number of particles, which in turn depends on the energy spectrum of the electrons below $`\gamma _b`$ and on the value of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$. For FSRQ both quantities can be inferred from the shape of the X-ray spectrum. In particular values of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}>>1`$ would produce an unobserved break in the X-ray continuum (e.g. Paper I). Moreover in several cases our data exclude an important contribution from cold pairs, whose presence should produce a “bump” in the soft X-ray spectrum (Sikora et al. 1997).

We will assume that the jet is composed by a normal plasma with 1 (cold) proton per relativistic particle. This hypothesis is justified below. For uniformity we evaluate $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ with $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}=1`$ for all the objects: the power should then be considered as an upper limit to the actual power of the jet. An increase of a factor 10 in $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ (which cannot be excluded in all cases) would lower the estimated powers by a factor 5-10, depending on the value of $`n_1`$.

For BL Lac objects X-rays can derive from the synchrotron component or from IC emission produced through SSC. In both cases the emission is produced by high-energy electrons, $`\gamma >1000`$ in the case of synchrotron and $`\gamma 100`$ for SSC. Thus the SEDs contain less stringent information on the amount of low energy particles in the jet, in particular on the value of $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ and on the index $`n_1`$. Since we work in the perspective of a unified model we will assume also for BL Lacs an equal number of protons and electrons and $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}1`$.

The derived jet powers are reported in Table 2. Table 2 shows that the magnetic field tends to be close to equipartition with the relativistic particles in FSRQs but largely below equipartition in BL Lacs, especially in TeV sources ($`U_e/U_B10100`$). The latter result has been recently independently found by other authors and appears to be rather robust (see in particular the discussion of Kino et al. 2001). Clearly in all cases the total jet power is dominated by protons, while the magnetic field and relativistic electrons give minor contributions.

An important quantity is the total radiative luminosity ($`Ł_{\mathrm{jet}}`$) of the jet, integrated over the whole solid angle in the observer frame. This is derived from the observed apparent luminosity correcting for beaming (e.g., Sikora et al. 1997): $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}=\frac{L_{\mathrm{obs}}}{\delta ^4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\frac{L_{\mathrm{obs}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}`$. $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ represents the minimum power that must be associated with the jet in order to produce the observed luminosity, i.e. a lower limit to $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}`$.

In Fig 1 we compare the radiative luminosities of jets with the powers provided by the electron component only. The dotted line indicates the relation $`L_\mathrm{e}=L_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. In most cases the power associated with the electron component alone is is insufficient or at best marginally sufficient to sustain the jet beyond the inner emission region. Analogously, the Poynting flux associated with the transport of magnetic field is too small, unless other components or complex geometries for the magnetic field are invoked. Thus a proton contribution seems the most natural to explain the transport of energy to large distances.

In Fig. 2 $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is compared with the total power estimated including protons $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. There is a well defined correlation between the two quantities (probability$`>`$99.9%, slope=$`1.12\pm 0.17`$), extending over a range of about 4 orders of magnitude. Notably, BL Lac objects appear to lie on the same (linear) correlation with powerful quasars, supporting the view that these two classes of Blazars have similar jets.

The radiative efficiency, $`\eta =L_{\mathrm{jet}}/P_{\mathrm{jet}}`$, turns out to be in the range 10 – 1 %. It is interesting to note that similar values are naturally predicted by the internal shock scenario, recently proposed for Blazars by Spada et al. (2001).

## 4 The Jet-Disk Connection

The disk luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ was estimated either directly from the optical-UV luminosity of the blue bump attributed to an optically thick accretion disk (e.g. Sun & Malkan 1989) or from the luminosity of the broad emission lines (assuming $`\tau =0.1`$), using the relations proposed by CPG. For 3C279 we used the luminosity of the blue bump identified in the IUE data by Pian et al (1999) we checked that this luminosity is close to 10 times the luminosity estimated from the emission lines. For BL Lacs, except for BL Lac itself, for which a broad emission line has been observed (Corbett et al. 2000) one can only derive upper limits to the luminosity of the (putative) accretion disk (CPG).

Fig. 3 shows the radiative luminosity of the jet, $`Ł_{\mathrm{jet}}`$, against the disk luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$. A dotted line represents the equality of the two. It is apparent that for high luminosity blazars (FSRQ) $`Ł_{\mathrm{jet}}`$, which represents the minimal power transported by the jet, is of the same order as the luminosity released in the accretion disk. The situation is different for low luminosity blazars (BL Lac objects). For the latter objects the jet luminosity is higher  than the estimate/upper limits on their disk luminosity. Since $`Ł_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ is obtained from the observed SED with only a beaming correction the results above are largely independent of the theoretical model adopted and in particular of the assumptions concerning the proton component which enter in the estimate of $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}`$.

In view of a more quantitative discussion it is however essential to convert the derived luminosities into powers taking into account radiative efficiencies for both the jet and the disk. Let us define $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}=\eta P_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and $`L_{\mathrm{disk}}=ϵP_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. As discussed in Sect. 3, $`\eta 0.10.01`$, where the higher value holds for high luminosity jets. On the other hand, for high luminosity blazars where the blue bump and/or broad lines are observed, the accretion disk is also extremely luminous (see Fig. 3). It is then natural to assume that the disk should have efficiency close to standard, that is $`ϵ0.1`$, otherwise implausibly high accretion rates, as large as 10 solar masses per year would be required. The radiative efficiencies for the jet and disk are then of the same order so that comparable luminosities $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ imply comparable powers : $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}P_{\mathrm{acc}}`$. This near equality, though difficult to achieve according to presently available models (see below), represents the main result of our analysis.

For low luminosity blazars $`\eta 0.01`$ and $`Ł_{\mathrm{jet}}>L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$. Assuming that the relation $`P_{\mathrm{jet}}P_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ is verified for all blazars, in order to account for a jet luminosity larger than the disk luminosity a very low radiative efficiency for the disk is implied. This can be naturally explained if the accretion flow in these systems has the structure of an ”ion torus” (Rees et al. 1982) or ADAF (Narayan et al. 1998) whereby the inefficient cooling keeps the flow geometrically thick, supported by the pressure of hot ions. Such configurations are possible if the accretion rate is largely sub-Eddington.

This scenario then suggests that the range of powers observed in blazars is due essentially to a range in accretion rate onto black holes of equally large masses.

### 4.1 Discussion

Two main classes of models for the formation of jets consider either extraction of rotational energy from a rapidly spinning black hole, the Blandford & Znajek (1977, BZ) process, or magnetohydrodynamic winds arising from the inner regions of accretion disks (MHD) (Blandford & Payne 1982). In the latter scenario jets would be powered solely from the accretion process through the action of the magnetic field. Livio et al. (1999) show that the power extracted through the latter mechanism can be important. For reasons of global consistency it would seem however difficult that in this type of model a large fraction (of order 1) of the accretion power could be channeled into a highly relativistic outflow.

The complex analysis of BZ can be summarized in the well known expression:

$$P_{BZ}\frac{1}{128}B_0^2r_g^2a^2c$$
(2)
where $`r_g`$ is the gravitational radius and $`a=j/j_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the adimensional angular momentum of the BH, $`a=1`$ for a maximally rotating black hole (e.g. Thorne et al. 1986). The critical problem is the estimate of the intensity reached by the magnetic field threading the event horizon, which must be provided by the surrounding matter.

Let us take as reference an extreme approximation i.e. a spherical free fall accretion flow. Assuming equipartition of magnetic and kinetic energy density ($`B_0^2/8\pi \rho c^2`$) as a 0 order approximation to the physical picture envisaged for the ”plunging” region (Krolik 1999), it is easy to find that

$$P_{BZ}=ga^2P_{acc}=ga^2\dot{m}10^{47}M_9a^2\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}$$
(3)
where $`P_{acc}=\dot{M}c^2`$ is the accretion power and $`g`$ is $`1/64`$. $`\dot{m}=\dot{M}c^2/L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ is the accretion rate in Eddington units and $`M_9`$ is the black hole mass in units of $`10^9`$ $`M_{}`$. This simple formula shows clearly that even when the jet is produced at the expense of the black hole rotational energy the generated power is closely linked to the accretion rate. Eq. (3) is shown as a dashed line in Fig.3 (assuming $`\eta ϵ10^1`$) and is clearly insufficient to account for our results.

In the case of disk accretion one expects higher densities and plausibly higher fields. Ghosh & Abramovicz (1997; GA) discussed the possible field strengths threading the black hole horizon on the basis of the disk model of Shakura and Sunyaev (1973). Their results are shown in Fig.3 as continuous lines (efficiencies as above). It is interesting to note that when the disk is in the gas pressure dominated regime ($`\dot{m}<10^3`$) ratios $`L_{\mathrm{jet}}/L_{\mathrm{disk}}`$ not far from unity are indeed obtained ($`g1`$). However, due to the pressure saturation introduced by the formation in the disk of a radiation pressure dominated region (horizontal branches in Fig.3), the model fails to explain the large powers observed in the jets of bright quasars, even for maximal rotation and large BH masses ($`g<<1`$ for $`\dot{m}>10^3`$).

Our results, pointing to a high yield for the jet production mechanism, underline the need of further investigations of the BZ process in more general conditions, both for the disk model (e.g. $`\beta `$-disk models Sakimoto & Coroniti 1981) and for its interaction with a fast spinning black hole. In fact it has been suggested that dynamical effects and frame dragging by the rotating hole may restore $`g`$ to values of order 1 or even larger (Krolik 1999, Meier 1999, 2001).

The scenario indicated by our results involves a substantial equality of the jet and accretion powers which could hold for all blazars. High luminosity blazars including highly polarised, optically violently variable quasars (HPQ, OVV) or more generically quasars with flat spectrum radio cores (FSRQ) owe their properties to a high, near critical accretion rate, which accounts at the same time for the presence of bright accretion disks and of powerful jets. Low luminosity blazars (otherwise called BL Lacs) where clear signatures of an accretion disk are not found, can be explained by largely subcritical accretion rates, giving rise to radiatively inefficient accretion flows and low power jets. Thus there is no ”genetic” difference between FSRQs and BL Lac objects and the blazar population can be ”unified” and described in terms of a single parameter ($`\dot{m}`$).

The idea that the power scale of blazars corresponds to a scale of accretion rates in objects with essentially similar (large) masses and high angular momentum ($`a1`$) also provides a physical basis to understand the ”spectral sequence” of blazars proposed by Fossati et al. (1998). The latter paper showed that the spectral energy distributions (SED) of blazars change systematically with luminosity in the sense of a shift of the emission peaks towards higher frequencies with decreasing luminosity. The modelling (Ghisellini et al. 1998) showed that the particles radiating at the peaks have lower energies in higher luminosity objects, which was interpreted as due to a larger density of ambient photons resulting in a larger cooling rate. The scaling proposed here supports this view, in the sense that, due to the ADAF like accretion flow, less powerful jets find a much cleaner ambient in the transition region from the black hole to the parsec scale.

The evolutionary aspects of this scenario have been explored by Cavaliere & D’Elia (2002) and found to be in agreement with present data on the number counts. Moreover Cavaliere & D’Elia (2002) also discuss reasons for the correlation between luminosity and the average shapes of the SEDs. Within a closely similar scenario Böttcher & Dermer (2002) developed a specific model of the expected SEDs introducing a number of hypotheses and parameters.

In particular Cavaliere & D’Elia (2002) and Böttcher & Dermer (2002) proposed that the blazar spectral sequence also traces an evolutionary sequence, from young FSRQs to the older BL Lac objects. FSRQs are rich of gas and therefore are characterized by large accretion rates while BL Lac objects represent evolved sources depleted of gas, with faint nuclear emission and low power jets. Our results provide a solid basis to these speculations.

This scenario can be observationally tested taking advantage of the correlations between the mass of the central black hole and the host galaxy properties (e.g. Merritt & Ferrarese 2002) for estimating the black hole masses in blazars of different types. Treves et al. (2001) measured the host galaxies around a large number of BL Lacs. Their results (see also Urry et al. 2000; Scarpa et al. 2000) show that the magnitudes of the host galaxies have relatively little scatter and are independent of the luminosity of the BL Lac. Assuming (e.g. Ferrarese & Merritt 2000) that the central black hole mass correlates with the mass of the bulge and therefore with the magnitude of the galaxy one can derive (to zero order) that the BH mass is similar in all these objects. More accurate estimates are possible measuring the stellar velocity dispersions of the host galaxies for which the intrinsic correlation with black hole mass is thought to be much tighter. Using the latter method Barth, Ho & Sargent (2002) derived a black hole mass of $`10^9`$ $`M_{}`$ for Mkn 501 yielding for this object a highly subcritical accretion rate, in complete agreement with our expectations.

## 5 Conclusions

Estimates of the powers transported by the jets of a small group of FSRQs and BL Lac objects, for which broad band spectra have been obtained with BeppoSAX, were derived by modelling their overall SEDs with the widely accepted Synchrotron/Inverse Compton emission model. Comparing jet powers and luminosities with estimates of the accretion luminosity derived from the optical-UV spectra, we find that for the most powerful blazars the power carried by the jet is of the same order as the accretion power. Moreover comparing the respective jet and accretion luminosities of FSRQ with those of BL Lacs with data of comparable quality on their SEDs, we find that for the latter the jet luminosity is higher than the upper limits on the accretion luminosity.

Taking into account the radiative efficiencies of both the jet and the accretion disk, we infer that the mechanism of jet production must have high efficiency (in terms of $`\dot{M}c^2`$) favoring energy extraction from a Kerr Hole rather than a hydromagnetic wind generated by an accretion disk.

In view of the various approximations used the conclusions above can only be regarded as tentative. Nevertheless the available evidence suggests that the main parameter governing the total power and the ratio between jet and accretion luminosity is the accretion rate. In FSRQs the accretion rate must be high, near Eddington. This can explain the large powers and the contemporaneous presence of thermal signatures associated with efficient disk accretion. The absence of thermal signatures in BL Lac objects (and in low power radio galaxies) can be ascribed to a highly subcritical accretion disk with low radiative efficiency.

The unification of the two classes of sources into a single blazar population, previously proposed on the basis of a spectral sequence governed by luminosity (Fossati et al.,1998; Ghisellini et al.,1998) and recently revisited by Cavaliere & D’Elia (2002) and Böttcher & Dermer (2002) finds therefore a physical basis.

The scenario is testable through measurements of the properties of the host galaxies of blazars of different types, leading to estimates of the central black hole mass.

This work was partly supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Research (MURST) under grant Cofin98-02-32 and by the Italian Space Agency (I/R/037/01).

## Appendix A The homogeneous synchrotron-Inverse Compton model

We give here the full description of the model used to reproduce the SED of blazars adopted in our work.

The emission region is assumed to be a sphere (“blob”) with radius $`R`$, uniformly filled by a tangled magnetic field with intensity $`B`$ and isotropic relativistic electrons with energy distribution $`N(\gamma )`$. The region is in motion with velocity $`\beta c`$ and bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at an angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the line of sight. Relativistic effects in the emitted radiation are then taken into account by the relativistic Doppler factor $`\delta `$, defined by:

$$\delta =\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )}$$
(A1)
The electron distribution is described (for $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}<\gamma <\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}`$) by the law (in the following physical quantities are expressed in the comoving frame):

$$N(\gamma )=K\gamma ^{n_1}\left(1+\frac{\gamma }{\gamma _b}\right)^{n_1n_2}$$
(A2)
where $`K`$ \[cm-3\] is a normalization factor (it represents the density of electrons with $`\gamma =1`$), $`\gamma _b`$ is the break Lorentz factor, $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are the spectral indices below and above the break, respectively. This law represents a double power-law distribution with a smooth connection. This particular form for the distribution function has been assumed on a purely phenomenological basis, in order to describe the curved shape of the SED.

Once the parameters are specified, the outcoming spectrum is calculated using the standard single-electron synchrotron emissivity (e.g. Rybicki & Lightman 1977) and the IC emissivity including the full Klein-Nishina cross section given by Jones (1968). Specifically:

\- In the case of the synchrotron emission the emissivity at a given frequency $`\nu _s`$ is calculated using the relation:

$$j_s(\nu _s)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_{\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}}^{\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}}N(\gamma )P(\nu _s,\gamma )𝑑\gamma $$
(A3)
where $`P(\nu _s,\gamma )`$ is the standard specific power emitted by a single electron with Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$. The spectrum is calculated between the two limit frequencies $`\nu _{s,1}`$ and $`\nu _{s,2}`$, where $`\nu _{s,1}`$ is the self absorption frequency (calculated using the approximation (obtained for the slab geometry) given in Ghisellini et al. 1985) and $`\nu _{s,2}`$ is the maximum frequency, evaluated as the typical synchrotron frequency of electrons with energy $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}.`$, $`\nu _{s,2}2.8\times 10^6B\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}^2`$.

\- For the calculation of the IC spectrum we adopt the single-electron emissivity $`j_C(\nu _C;\gamma ,\nu _\mathrm{t})`$ (function of the electron energy $`\gamma mc^2`$ and of the soft photon frequency $`\nu _\mathrm{t}`$) calculated by Jones (1968) (see also Blumenthal & Gould 1970). The total emissivity $`j_C(\nu _C)`$ is calculated by integrating the single-electron emissivity over the soft photon spectrum and the electron energy distribution (from $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}`$ to $`\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}`$):

$$j_C(\nu _C)=_{\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}}^{\gamma _{\mathrm{max}}}N(\gamma )_{\nu _{\mathrm{t},\mathrm{min}}}^{\nu _{\mathrm{t},\mathrm{max}}}n_t(\nu _\mathrm{t})j_C(\nu _C;\gamma ,\nu _\mathrm{t})𝑑\nu _\mathrm{t}𝑑\gamma $$
(A4)
where $`n_t(\nu _\mathrm{t})`$ is the numerical density of target photons, $`n_t(\nu _\mathrm{t})=U(\nu _\mathrm{t})/h\nu _\mathrm{t}`$. The energy density $`U(\nu _\mathrm{t})`$ of the soft target photons is calculated as follows:

$``$ In the case of SSC emission the energy density of the synchrotron target photons is calculated with (e.g. Ghisellini et al. 1998):

$$U(\nu )=\frac{4\pi R}{3c}j_s(\nu )$$
(A5)
where $`\nu _{\mathrm{t},\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`\nu _{\mathrm{t},\mathrm{max}}`$ are fixed to $`\nu _{s,1}`$ and $`\nu _{s,2}`$, respectively.

$``$ For the calculation of the EC spectrum we need a prescription to model the external radiation field. We assume that the spectrum of the external radiation is characterized by a blackbody-like spectrum with temperature $`T`$ and total luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, diluted in a spherical region with radius $`R_{BLR}`$ (typically of the order of the radius of the Broad Line Region). The external radiation energy density (in the observer frame) is:

$$U_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{ext}}(\nu _{\mathrm{obs}})=\frac{L_{\mathrm{ext}}(\nu _{\mathrm{obs}})}{4\pi R_{BLR}^2c}$$
(A6)
Due to relativistic amplification effects the (angle averaged) energy density seen in the blob’s reference frame will be:

$$U^{\mathrm{ext}}(\nu )=\mathrm{\Gamma }U_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{ext}}(\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}=\nu /\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(A7)
Comoving emissivities are used to calculate the observed fluxes as follows:

-Synchrotron and SSC emissions are transformed according to the standard relations (e.g. Lind & Blandford 1985):

$$F_{\mathrm{obs}}(\nu _{\mathrm{obs}})=\frac{\delta ^3}{D^2}j(\nu =\nu _{\mathrm{obs}}/\delta )V$$
(A8)
where $`D`$ is the luminosity distance and $`V`$ the comoving emitting volume.

-As pointed out by Dermer (1995) the beaming of the external radiation field in the source frame introduces a supplementary $`\delta `$ term in the calculation of the final flux. Dermer’s calculation assumed a number of approximations, namely a single power-law electron distribution, the Thomson cross-section, a monochromatic external radiation field and extreme beaming (assuming that photons enter the source only head-on): thus we can not directly apply his results (expressed by the supplementary term $`\delta ^{1+\alpha }`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the power-law index of the IC spectrum) to our more complex model. However, in the case $`\delta =\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (as assumed in the present work), the effect of the anisotropy is taken into account simply assuming Eq.(A8) and using Eq.(A7) for the energy density.

Figure Captions


format: text

text:
# What Do Gravitational Lens Time Delays Measure?

## 1 Introduction

Gravitational lens time delay measurements can determine the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ given a model for the gravitational potential of the lens galaxy (Refsdal Refsdal64 (1964)). With 9 well-measured time delays (see Schechter Schechter00 (2000)), gravitational lenses have become a serious alternative to the local distance scale. Kochanek (2002a ) modeled the 5 simple, well-observed time delay lenses to find that $`H_0=48_4^{+7}`$ km/s Mpc if the lenses have isothermal mass distributions (flat rotation curves) and that $`H_0=71\pm 6`$ km/s Mpc if they have constant mass-to-light ($`M/L`$) ratios. Intermediate values can be found by adjusting the dark matter halo between these two extreme models, but the results agree with the local estimate of $`H_0=72\pm 8`$ km/s Mpc by the HST Key Project (Freedman et al. Freedman01 (2001)) only if the lenses contain little or no dark matter. Models of other lenses (e.g. Munoz, Kochanek & Keeton Munoz01 (2001)), local stellar dynamical measurements (e.g. Rix et al. Rix97 (1997), Romanowsky & Kochanek Romanowsky99 (1999), Gerhard et al. Gerhard01 (2001), Treu & Koopmans Treu02 (2002)), weak lensing (e.g. Guzik & Seljak Guzik02 (2002)) and X-ray (e.g. Fabbiano Fabbiano89 (1989), Lowenstein & White Lowenstein99 (1999)) measurements all require mass distributions close to the dark matter limit.

The dependence of the estimate of $`H_0`$ from a gravitational lens time delay on the mass distribution of the lens is well known, both from models of particular time delay lenses (e.g. Keeton & Kochanek Keeton97 (1997), Impey et al. Impey98 (1998), Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999), Lehar et al. Lehar00 (2000), Keeton et al. Keeton00 (2000), Williams & Saha Williams00 (2000), Winn et al. Winn02 (2002)) and from general analytic principles (Falco et al. Falco85 (1985), Gorenstein et al. Gorenstein88 (1988), Refsdal & Surdej Refsdal94 (1994), Witt, Mao & Schechter Witt95 (1995), Witt, Mao & Keeton Witt00 (2000), Schechter Schechter00 (2000), Rusin Rusin00 (2000), Saha Saha00 (2000), Zhao & Pronk Zhao01 (2001), Wucknitz Wucknitz02 (2002), Oguri et al. Oguri02 (2002)). The most important trend is that the predicted time delays, or the inferred $`H_0`$, increase as the mass distribution becomes more centrally concentrated. In particular, Falco et al. (Falco85 (1985)) showed that adding a constant surface density sheet to the mass distribution has no observable effect other than to rescale the time delay (the mass sheet degeneracy), and Witt et al. (Witt00 (2000)) showed that the Hubble constants estimated from lens potentials of the form $`\varphi R^{3\eta }`$ ($`\rho r^\eta `$) roughly scale as $`H_0(\eta 1)/\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, almost independent of the angular structure of the potential.

Our objective in this paper is to clarify the physical properties of the lenses which control the expected time delays after making full use of the astrometric constraints available for a typical lens. We will show that time delays are controlled by a local property of the lens, the average surface density in the annulus between the lensed images. Reducing the model-dependence of the time delay estimates to such a simple physical property of the lens leads to simple, accurate scaling laws for $`H_0`$, provides model-independent tests for the homogeneity of the time delay lenses, demonstrates that standard parametric models have the necessary degrees of freedom to study degeneracies in estimates of $`H_0`$ from time delay measurements, and makes it easy to theoretically predict time delays for standard halo models. In §2 we develop analytic results for lenses in arbitrary spherical density distributions. We first consider circular lens potentials (§2.1) and then examine the effects of adding an external shear (§2.2), the quadrupole of a singular isothermal ellipsoid (§2.3) or a general quadrupole (§2.4). These analytic results show that the time delays are largely determined by the mean surface density $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ in the annulus between the images. In §3 we show that the $`H_0`$ estimates for most lenses can be reduced to a linear function of $`\kappa `$, and that these simple scaling solutions reproduce the full numerical models by Kochanek (2002a ). In §4 we discuss the consequences of these results for the homogeneity of the lens population.

## 2 Analytic Models

We start from the dimensionless time delay (see Schneider, Ehlers & Falco Schneider92 (1992)),

$$\tau =\frac{1}{2}\left(xu\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(yv\right)^2\varphi (x,y)$$
(1)
where $`x`$ and $`y`$ are the angular coordinates on the lens plane, $`u`$ and $`v`$ are angular coordinates on the source plane, and $`\varphi (x,y)`$ is the lens potential. The center of the lens galaxy is used as the coordinate origin. The true delay is

$$t=\frac{1+z_l}{H_0}\frac{D_{OL}D_{OS}}{r_HD_{LS}}\tau \widehat{D}_{eff}H_0^1\tau $$
(2)
where the $`D_{ij}`$ are angular diameter distances between the observer, lens and source, $`z_l`$ is the lens redshift, and $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant.111We note in passing that the distance factor scaling of the time delays is simpler if comoving distances are used rather than angular diameter distances. The extra factor of $`1+z_l`$ is absorbed into the distances. Comoving distances, not angular diameter distances, are the natural cosmological distances for gravitational lensing calculations as they almost always lead to simpler analytic expressions.  The factor containing the distances and the Hubble radius, $`r_H=c/H_0`$, depends on the cosmological model, the source redshift $`z_s`$ and the lens redshift $`z_l`$, but not the Hubble constant. We assume a $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ flat universe, but the cosmological dependence of the results is very weak. The lens potential satisfies the Poisson equation $`^2\varphi =2\kappa `$ where $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ is the surface density of the lens in units of the critical surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c=c^2D_{OS}/4\pi GD_{OL}D_{LS}`$. The first two terms of the time delay (Eqn. 1) form the geometric delay from the bending of the rays, and the remaining term is the Shapiro delay from passing through the gravitational potential of the lens. We observe images at the solutions of $`\tau =0`$.

We derive the time delay differences for a pair of images in a series of analytic models based on multipole expansions for the lens potential (see Kochanek Kochanek91 (1991) and Trotter, Winn & Hewitt Trotter00 (2000) for other applications of multipole methods to gravitational lenses). Our objective is to achieve expressions for the delays which are accurate to $`<5\%`$ when estimating the Hubble constant. Two images at radius $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ have an average radius of $`R=(R_1+R_2)/2`$ and bracket an annulus of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=R_1R_2`$. For the monopole of the lens, our accuracy goal will require expansions of order $`(\mathrm{\Delta }R/R)^3`$. The ellipticity of the lens potential generally satisfies $`ϵ<\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$ for two-image lenses and $`ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$ for four-image lenses. Assuming a standard multipole sequence for a roughly ellipsoidal mass distribution, the quadrupole ($`\mathrm{exp}(2i\theta )`$) is of order $`ϵ`$ and can be treated to one lower order of expansion than the monopole, and higher order poles ($`\mathrm{exp}(2mi\theta )`$) can be neglected since they are of order $`ϵ^m`$. We start in §2.1 by estimating the time delays for an arbitrary spherical lens. Next we add a quadrupole potential to the lens: in §2.2 we consider an external (tidal) shear, in §2.3 we consider the quadrupole produced by a singular isothermal ellipsoid, and in §2.4 we consider a quadrupole with an arbitrary ratio between the internal and external contributions to the quadrupole near the images.

### 2.1 Spherical Models

We start with a lens having two images on opposite sides of a spherical lens, $`\varphi (x,y)=\varphi _0(R)`$, defined by a monopole potential $`\varphi _0(R)`$. The outer image, at radius $`R_1`$, is at a minimum of the time delay surface and the inner image, at radius $`R_2`$, is at a saddle point, and the two images and the lens lie on a line. Starting from Eqn. (1), the geometric delay between the two images can be written

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{12,geom}=\frac{1}{2}\left(R_1^2R_2^2\right)\left(12\kappa \right)$$
(3)
where

$$\kappa =\frac{2_{R_1}^{R_2}\kappa (u)u𝑑u}{R_2^2R_1^2}$$
(4)
is the average surface density in the annulus bounded by the images in units of the critical surface density. Only the derivative of the potential is needed to determine the geometric delay, and the mean surface density enters because the radial derivatives $`\varphi _0^{}`$ of the monopole at the positions of the two images are related by

$$R_2\varphi _0^{}(R_2)=R_1\varphi _0^{}(R_1)+\kappa (R_2^2R_1^2)$$
(5)
independent of the density distribution in the annulus. For an isothermal lens $`\kappa =1/2`$ and the geometric contribution to the delay is identically zero for all images. The Shapiro delay difference is more complicated,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{12,Shap}=\frac{1}{2}\kappa \left(R_2^2R_1^2\right)+R_1R_2\left(1\kappa \right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_2}{R_1}2_{R_1}^{R_2}u𝑑u\left(\kappa (u)\kappa \right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{u}{R_2},$$
(6)
because the Shapiro delay depends on the surface density distribution in the annulus as well as the mean surface density. The first term, which depends only on $`\kappa `$, is the most important, as the contribution from the integral is smaller by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }R/R)^2`$. Combining the terms, the time delay between the images,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{12}=\tau _1\tau _2=\left(1\kappa \right)\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(R_1^2R_2^2\right)+R_1R_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{R_2}{R_1}\right]2_{R_1}^{R_2}u𝑑u\left(\kappa (u)\kappa \right)\mathrm{ln}\frac{u}{R_2},$$
(7)
depends only on the image positions and the surface density of the lens in the annulus between them (Gorenstein et al. Gorenstein88 (1988)). The first term is the same as the time delay of a point mass lens combined with a uniform sheet of density $`\kappa `$.

We can capture the essential elements of Eqn. (7) without the complexity by assuming that the surface density in the annulus between the images is a power law $`\kappa =\kappa _1(R/R_1)^{1\eta }`$ and then expanding the time delay as a series in the ratio of the thickness of the annulus $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=R_2R_1`$ to its average radius $`R=(R_1+R_2)/2`$ to find that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{12}=\left(R_1^2R_2^2\right)\left[\left(1\kappa \right)\frac{1\eta \kappa }{12}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}\right)^2+O\left(\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}\right)^4\right)\right].$$
(8)
The first term is the exact delay for a singular isothermal sphere (SIS, $`\eta =2`$, $`\kappa =1/2`$), and the series converges rapidly even for large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$. For example, the first term approximates the time delay of a point mass lens with only a 9% error even as $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R1`$. The second order correction adjusts for the small changes in the critical radius (inside which the average surface density is unity) with the shape of the density profile. It comes only from the Shapiro delay (Eqn. 7) and can be decomposed ($`1\eta \kappa =(1\kappa )+\kappa (\eta 1)`$) into a contribution depending only on the average surface density and a contribution which depends on its distribution. The dependence on the logarithmic slope $`\eta `$ arises only from the integral term of the Shapiro delay. The scaling observed by Witt et al. (Witt00 (2000)) for potentials of the form $`\varphi R^{3\eta }`$ arises because $`1\kappa =(\eta 1)/2`$ near the critical line of the lens.

### 2.2 A Spherical Lens in an External Shear

Real lenses are not spherical, so we next consider a range of models with a quadrupole as well as a monopole. The monopole depends only on the total mass inside the Einstein ring and the surface density in the annulus. The quadrupole depends on the total internal quadrupole (due to the quadrupole moment of the mass inside the Einstein ring), the total external quadrupole (due to the quadrupole moment of the mass outside the ring) and the quadrupole component from the surface density inside the annulus. Because the ellipticity of the potential is small ($`<\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$) we can treat the quadrupole to a lower order of expansion than the monopole and ignore the quadrupole component of the surface density in the annulus. For our analytic results, but not for the numerical results in §3, we assume that the internal and external quadrupoles are aligned. Thus, we need three numbers, two amplitudes and an orientation, to define the quadrupole. Higher order angular structures (octopole etc.) will be smaller than the quadrupole by one or more powers of the ellipticity of the potential, and can be neglected.

We start with two familiar examples of quadrupoles. We first consider an external (tidal) shear, where the quadrupole is generated entirely by material outside the region with the images. In §2.3 we discuss the quadrupole produced by a singular isothermal ellipsoid. Then in §2.4 we discuss the general aligned quadrupole. Ideally, we would present simple results to the same order ($`(\mathrm{\Delta }R/R)^3`$) as we did for the monopole. However, our objective is to illustrate the effects of quadrupole structures on time delays, so we will not reproduce terms which are grotesquely complicated simply to reach an arbitrary order of expansion.

The quadrupole potential associated with an external shear is $`\varphi _2=(\gamma _{ext}/2)R^2\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \theta _{ext})`$, where $`\gamma _{ext}`$ is the amplitude of the external shear and $`\theta _{ext}`$ is its orientation. As in §2.1, the monopole is defined by the mass inside the Einstein ring, the average surface density $`\kappa `$ in the annulus and the logarithmic derivative of the surface density $`\eta `$. We model two images located at ($`R_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$,$`R_1\mathrm{sin}\theta _1`$) and ($`R_2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2`$,$`R_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _2`$) from the lens center. Using the positions of two images we solve for the mass inside the Einstein ring and the amplitude of the external shear. This results in expressions which depend on the surface density in the annulus ($`\kappa `$, $`\eta `$) and the orientation of the shear ($`\theta _{ext}`$). The shear axis seems the best choice for an independent variable in our analytic models because its value is little affected by changes in the monopole or quadrupole structure of the lens (see Kochanek Kochanek91 (1991)). If we again expand the delay as a series in $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{12}=\left(R_1^2R_2^2\right)\left[T_0+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}T_1+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}\right)^2T_2\mathrm{}\right]$$
(9)
then the leading term,

$$T_0=\left(1\kappa \right)\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}}{2}\right)\left(1\kappa \right)\text{as}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\pi ,$$
(10)
changes from the result for a spherical system only in adding a dependence on the angle between the images $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}=\theta _1\theta _2`$. The limit as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\pi `$ shows that we recover the result for a circular lens and images collinear with the lens (Eqn. 8). The first order correction,

$$T_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\kappa \right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\right)\mathrm{cot}(\theta _1+\theta _22\theta _{ext})0\text{as}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\pi ,$$
(11)
depends on the shear axis $`\theta _{ext}`$, but the second order correction,

$$T_2=\frac{1}{12}\left[\left(1\kappa \right)\left(4+3\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\right)+\kappa \left(\eta 1\right)\right]\frac{1\eta \kappa }{12}\text{as}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\pi ,$$
(12)
depends only on the surface density in the annulus. Note that the higher order terms return to the spherical case for images collinear with the lens. The amplitude of the shear is

$$\gamma _{ext}=\frac{\left(1\kappa \right)\left(R_1^2R_2^2\right)}{\left(R_1^2+R_2^22R_1R_2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\right)}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\theta _1+\theta _22\theta _{ext}\right)}0\text{as}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\pi ,$$
(13)
so the singularity in $`T_1`$ when $`\theta _1+\theta _22\theta _{ext}0`$ is due to a singularity in the shear that will not arise in practice since $`\theta _{ext}`$ must be set using the parameters of a reasonable macro model. Also note that the amplitude of the shear scales as $`1\kappa `$, so that lenses with lower surface densities require larger shears.

The dependence of the delay on the structure of the surface density in the annulus is identical to that for the spherical lens, with the integral in the Shapiro delay (Eqn. 6) adding a term $`(\eta 1)\kappa /12`$ to the $`T_2`$ coefficient. All other terms in the time delay depend only on the derivatives of the monopole and are functions only of $`\kappa `$ even for an arbitrary monopole surface density. The term vanishes for $`\eta =1`$ when $`\kappa =\kappa _1(R/R_1)^{1\eta }`$ becomes a constant surface density.

### 2.3 A Spherical Lens in an SIE Quadrupole

Unlike our result for an external shear, where the time delay depends on the angle between the images even at the lowest order of the expansion, Witt et al. (Witt00 (2000)) found that the time delays for potentials of the form $`\varphi R(\theta )`$ (which includes the standard singular isotherma ellipsoid or SIE potential) depend only on the image radii. These models have a quadrupole potential of the form $`\varphi _2=ϵRR\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \theta _ϵ)`$. The leading term in the time delay,

$$T_0=1\kappa $$
(14)
is independent of the angle, just as for the Witt et al. (Witt00 (2000)) potential. The second term is a correction for the effects of the ellipticity,

$$T_1=\frac{1}{8}\left(1\kappa \right)\left[5\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}/2\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(3\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}/2\right)\right]\mathrm{cot}\left(\theta _1+\theta _22\theta _{ext}\right)\mathrm{csc}^3\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}/2\right)$$
(15)
The next term is too complicated to present in full, but it has the structure

$$T_2=\left(1\kappa \right)g(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _ϵ)+\frac{1}{12}(\eta 1)\kappa .$$
(16)
The first factor depends on a very complicated angular function, and the second factor is the correction to the Shapiro delay from the logarithmic slope $`\eta `$ of the monopole surface density. To lowest order, the ellipticity of the potential is

$$ϵ\frac{1\kappa }{4}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}\mathrm{csc}^4(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}/2)\mathrm{csc}(\theta _1+\theta _22\theta _ϵ).$$
(17)
We again find that the ellipticity scales as $`1\kappa `$ and that the singularities in $`T_1`$ correspond to singularities in $`ϵ`$.

### 2.4 A Spherical Lens in a General Quadrupole

The quadrupoles of an external shear and an SIE differ in the balance between internal and external quadrupoles. Since they also produce different angular dependences for the leading term in the time delay, it suggests that the angular dependence of the time delay is determined by the relative strength of the two shear components. We can test this by determining the leading term in the time delay for a quadrupole which is an arbitrary sum of an internal quadrupole of amplitude $`\gamma _{int}`$ and external quadrupole of amplitude $`\gamma _{ext}`$,

$$\varphi _2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\gamma _{ext}R^2+\gamma _{int}\frac{R^4}{R^2}\right)\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \theta _\gamma ).$$
(18)
If we use the image positions to determine the total shear, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma _{int}+\gamma _{ext}`$, as a function of the shear angle $`\theta _\gamma `$ and the ratio $`f_{int}=\gamma _{int}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we find that the leading term,

$$T_0=\left(1\kappa \right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}/2\right)}{14f_{int}\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}/2\right)},$$
(19)
has the standard scaling with $`1\kappa `$ and an angular dependence determined by the balance between the internal and external quadrupoles. For an external shear ($`f_{int}=0`$) the denominator is unity, and for the quadupole of an SIE ($`f_{int}=1/4`$ for $`\kappa _2R^1`$) the numerator and denominator cancel to make $`T_0`$ independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{12}`$ just as in the Witt et al. (Witt00 (2000)) results. For $`f_{int}>1/4`$, where the internal shear begins to dominate, there are angles where the expansion fails. The higher order terms are too complex to be worth presenting for general configurations. However, for two-image lenses where the images lie on opposite sides of the lens, $`\theta _2=\theta _1+\pi +\delta \theta `$, with a small angular offset defined by $`\xi =\delta \theta R/\mathrm{\Delta }R<1`$, the delay depends little on the structure of the quadrupole. The expansion terms,

$$T_0=1\kappa ,T_1=0\text{and}T_2=\frac{1}{12}(1\eta )\kappa +\frac{1}{4}\xi \left(1\kappa \right)\left[2\mathrm{cos}2\theta _\gamma +\xi (4f_{int}1)\right]$$
(20)
are nearly identical to those for a spherical lens (Eqn. 8) because the quadrupole structure enters only at second order.

## 3 A Simple Semi-Analytic Model

These analytic results suggest a simple semi-analytic model for understanding the time delays observed in gravitational lenses. It cannot be a completely analytic model because we require a numerical solution using all the lensed images to determine the quadrupole structure of the four-image lenses. We continue to model the monopole by the mass inside the average image radius and a power law, $`\kappa (R)R^{1\eta }`$, for the surface density between the inner and outer images parameterized by the mean surface density $`\kappa `$ and the logarithmic slope $`\eta `$. The resulting expression for the monopole deflection,

$$\varphi _0^{}(R)=b_0\frac{R}{R}+\frac{2}{R}_R^R\kappa (R)R𝑑R,$$
(21)
where $`b_0R`$ determines the mass inside $`R`$ is very similar to an early model of Q0957+561 by Borgeest & Refsdal (Borgeest84 (1984)) which combined a point mass and an isothermal sphere ($`\eta =2`$). Since many of the lenses have $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R0.5`$ we expanded the monopole to first order in the deviation of the density exponent from isothermal, $`\delta \eta =\eta 2`$, rather than $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$. This leads to results that are exact for $`\eta =2`$ independent of the width of the annulus, and are reasonably accurate for $`1<\eta <3`$. We combined the monopole with a general quadrupole

$$\varphi _2(R,\theta )=\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ext}R^2\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \theta _{ext})+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{int}\frac{R^4}{R^2}\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \theta _{int})$$
(22)
where the internal and external components have amplitudes and orientations of ($`\gamma _{int}`$,$`\theta _{int}`$) and ($`\gamma _{ext}`$,$`\theta _{ext}`$) respectively. For each lens we determined the values of $`b_0`$ and the shear components which minimized the differences in the projected source positions, leaving expressions depending only on the monopole structure in the annulus ($`\kappa `$ and $`\eta `$). For the current time delay lenses, we cannot determine $`\kappa `$ or $`\eta `$ from the available constraints. By doing the fits on the source plane, the solutions can be found rapidly using mathematica programs. We did not fit the image flux ratios. For the two-image lenses, where there are too few constraints to determine all 5 variables, we stabilized the solutions by finding the minimum shear solutions.222For two-image lenses we added on weak prior on the shear amplitudes to the $`\chi ^2`$ for the mapping of the images back to a common source. The prior was defined by $`𝚪𝚪\gamma _0^2`$ where $`𝚪=(\gamma _{int}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{int},\gamma _{int}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{int},\gamma _{ext}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{ext},\gamma _{ext}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{ext})`$ is the vector of Cartesian shear components and we set $`\gamma _0=0.05`$.  We experimented with the structure of the shear terms (and the shear prior for the two-image lenses) to ensure that the results reported for $`H_0`$ are not affected by the assumed quadrupole structure. For the two-image lenses the results had no significant dependence on the quadrupole structure (as expected from §2.4), and for the four-image lenses the quadrupole structure was well-determined by the image positions. Errors were estimated by Monte Carlo simulations and for $`H_0`$ they are dominated by the errors in the time delay measurements.

Once we have solved for the model parameters required to match the image positions, we derive the time delays between images as a function of the remaining parameters $`\kappa `$ and $`\eta `$. Based on the analytic and numerical results, we can express the results as simple scaling relations for the Hubble constant of the form

$$H_0A(1\kappa )+B\kappa (\eta 1)+C$$
(23)
where the three coefficients ($`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$) have the units of km/s Mpc and scale inversely with the measured time delays. We have isolated the terms more physically here than in the expansions of §2, isolating the dependence of the logarithmic slope $`\eta `$ in the $`B`$ coefficient, but the relationship between the coefficients and the expansion can be worked out for each model. For example, the $`T_0`$ term defined in Eqn. (9) contributes $`(R_1^2R_2^2)T_0\widehat{D}_{eff}/\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}`$ to the $`A`$ coefficient, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{12}`$ is the measured delay and $`\widehat{D}_{eff}`$ is the effective distance defined in Eqn. (2). In the analytic models $`C0`$. For simple lenses the Hubble constant $`H_0A`$ for very centrally concentrated lenses ($`\kappa 0`$), and $`H_0(A+B)/2`$ for an isothermal model ($`\kappa =1/2`$, $`\eta =2`$). We order the images so that the time delay is positive and $`A>0`$. The effects of an additional mass sheet of density $`\kappa _{ext}`$ can be easily added to the models. The adjustments depend on whether we regard $`\kappa `$ as a fixed number or a fit parameter whose value is also changed by the addition of the extra convergence. If $`\kappa `$ is a fixed number, then the estimate of the Hubble constant changes to

$$H_0\left(1\kappa _{ext}\right)\left[A\left(1\kappa \right)+C\right]+B\kappa (\eta 1).$$
(24)
In most cases, however, we start with a lens whose mass and surface density are scaled to fully explain the image splitting. With the addition of an external convergence, the annular surface density $`\kappa _0`$ of this reference model is reduced to $`\kappa =(1\kappa _{ext})\kappa _0`$ because the extra convergence reduces the mass of the primary lens. Thus, if we specify $`\kappa _0`$, the estimate of the Hubble constant with the addition of an external convergence is

$$H_0(1\kappa _{ext})\left[A\left(1\kappa _0(1\kappa _{ext})\right)+B\kappa _0(\eta 1)+C\right]$$
(25)
and it has the familiar $`H_0(1\kappa _{ext})`$ scaling of the mass-sheet degeneracy (Falco et al. Falco85 (1985)).

We computed these simple models for 7 of the 9 time delay lenses, excluding only B0218+357 (where the lens position is poorly known, Lehar et al. Lehar00 (2000)) and B1608+656 (where the lens consists of two interacting galaxies, Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999)). We consider RXJ0911+0551 (Hjorth et al. Hjorth02 (2002)), Q0957+561 (Schild & Thomson Schild97 (1997), Kundic et al. Kundic97 (1997), Bernstein et al. Bernstein97 (1997), Keeton et al. Keeton00 (2000)), PG1115+080 (Schechter et al. Schechter97 (1997), Barkana Barkana97 (1997), Impey et al. Impey98 (1998)), SBS1520+530 (Burud 2002b , Faure et al. Faure02 (2002)), B1600+434 (Burud et al. Burud00 (2000), Koopmans et al. Koopmans00 (2000)), PKS1830–211 (Lovell et al. Lovell98 (1998), Winn et al. Winn02 (2002), Courbin et al. (Courbin02 (2002))) and HE2149–2745 (Burud et al. Burud02 (2002)). The system parameters are generally derived from the CfA/Arizona Space Telescope Lens Survey (CASTLES, Falco et al. Falco01 (2001)) images of the systems.

Of these 7 systems, we expect our simple models to have difficulty with Q0957+561 and RXJ0911+0551. Q0957+561 is near the center of a cluster (Keeton et al. Keeton00 (2000), Chartas et al. Chartas02 (2002)) where an external shear will poorly describe the effect of the cluster on the image positions. RXJ0911+0551 is on the outskirts of a cluster (see Morgan et al. Morgan01 (2001)) and the primary lens also has a small satellite. The external shear approximation is a poor one for the perturbations from the RXJ0911+0551 cluster. It is at best a marginal approximation for $`\kappa 1/2`$ and it fails completely for $`\kappa 0`$ (recall that $`\gamma (1\kappa )`$, see Eqns. 13 and 17). We included an SIS satellite in our model of RXJ0911+0551, so it will match the Kochanek (2002a ) dark matter models, but it is difficult to treat the two potentials self-consistently within our approximation. We also note that our estimates for PKS1830–211 are invalid if we adopt the Courbin et al. (Courbin02 (2002)) multiple-lens interpretation of the system rather than the Winn et al. (Winn02 (2002)) single-lens interpretation.

We now check our approximations against full numerical models for RXJ0911+0551, PG1115+080, SBS1520+530, B1600+434 and HE2149–2745 by Kochanek (2002a ). We first checked the dependence of the results on the assumed quadrupole structure by fitting models with either a pure external shear, an SIE quadrupole or a pure internal shear. For the two-image lenses, the $`H_0`$ estimates are essentially independent of the quadrupole structure, as expected from the analysis in §2.4. The largest fractional changes in $`H_0`$ are approximately 3%. This is fortunate because the observational constraints on the two-image lenses cannot distinguish between the quadrupole structures. When we allow a general quadrupole, which matches realistic models where there are contributions to the angular structure from both tidal shears and the ellipticity of the lens galaxy (Keeton, Kochanek & Seljak Keeton97b (1997)), all the doubles can be fit perfectly and have $`H_0`$ estimates consistent with the three constrained shear models.

For the two four-image lenses, RXJ0911+0551 and PG1115+080, the quadrupole structure is enormously important because the functional dependence of the delay on the angle between the images is so strong once the images do not lie on opposite sides of the lens. For example, for an SIS monopole ($`\kappa =1/2`$, $`\eta =2`$), the $`H_0`$ estimates from the BC image pair in PG1115+080 are $`47`$ and $`67`$ km/s Mpc for an external shear and an SIE quadrupole respectively. The ratio of the values matches that expected from Eqn. (19). Because they are four-image lenses, however, they also strongly distinguish between quadrupole structures, with both lenses being far more consistent with an external shear than either a SIE quadrupole or an internal shear. Time delay ratios are also controlled by the quadrupole structure, and the measured delay ratios in PG1115+080 are also more consistent with an external shear than either an SIE quadrupole or an internal shear. The delay ratio seemed to be model independent in our studies of PG1115+080 (Keeton & Kochanek Keeton97 (1997), Impey et al. Impey98 (1998)) because the models focused on changes in the monopole while always optimizing the quadrupole structure. Since the best fit quadrupole was close to an external shear no matter what we used for the monopole structure, the time delay ratios showed almost no model dependence. For models with a general quadrupole, we find that $`f_{int}0.02`$ and $`0.01`$ for RXJ0911+0551 and PG1115+080 respectively. While very close to a pure external shear ($`f_{int}=0`$), the general quadrupole significantly improves the fit to the image positions.

We adopt the general quadrupole models as our standard. For the two-image lenses the choice has negligible effect on the estimates of $`H_0`$, and for the four-image systems it is required to provide an acceptable fit to the image positions. Table 1 presents the coefficients $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ (Eqn. 23) as well as the coefficient $`A_0`$, with $`H_0=A_0(1\kappa )`$, we would obtain using the lowest order term for an external shear model ($`T_0`$ from Eqn. 10). The uncertainties in the coefficients are almost entirely due to the time delay estimates, although they do include the astrometric uncertainties in the image and lens positions. These become important only for B1600+434 where the lens position is relatively uncertain due to the dust lane in the galaxy (Koopmans, de Bruyn & Jackson Koopmans98 (1998), Maller et al. Maller00 (2000)). The dominant role of the time delay uncertainties means that the uncertainties in the coefficients are almost perfectly correlated. With the exception of the two lenses in clusters, RXJ0911+0551 and Q0957+561, the lowest order coefficient $`A_0`$ matches the higher order estimate $`A`$ to approximately 10%, the $`B`$ coefficient is needed to achieve 10% accuracy, and the $`C`$ coefficient is negligible compared to other sources of uncertainty. The amplitude of $`B`$ is largest for the lenses with thicker annuli (larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R`$). In fact, the coefficients clearly divide the sample into a set of five very similar, relatively isolated lenses (PG1115+080, SBS1520+530, B1600+434, PKS1830–211, and HE2149–2745) and the two lenses in clusters (RXJ0911+0551 and Q0957+561).

The real question, however, is whether these simple semi-analytic representations can reproduce the results of full numerical models. Table 2 compares the semi-analytic estimates to the full numerical lens models from Kochanek (2002a ) for either a dark matter dominated, SIE lens model ($`\kappa _0=1/2`$, $`\eta =2`$) or a constant $`M/L`$ model where $`\kappa _00.1`$$`0.2`$ for most lenses. We defined $`\kappa _0`$ for the constant $`M/L`$ models by the average density in the annulus for a spherical model using the intermediate axis effective radius (the geometric mean of the major and minor axes) for the scale length in a de Vaucouleurs profile. For a lens with surface density profile $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)`$, the critical surface density profile is simply

$$\kappa (R)=\frac{R_c^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)}{2_0^{R_c}R\mathrm{\Sigma }(R)𝑑R}$$
(26)
where $`R_c`$ is the average critical radius of the lens. It depends only on the shape of the profile because for a spherical lens the mean density inside the critical radius is equal to the critical density so the image geometry determines the mass scale. We also include the effects of the external convergences $`\kappa _{ext}`$ from the numerical models. We do not include the constant $`M/L`$ semi-analytic estimates for RXJ0911+0551 where the treatment of the nearby cluster as an external shear becomes untenable.

First, note that the estimates for each image pair in the four-image lenses RXJ0911+0551 and PG1115+080 are mutually consistent. This holds for the A2B and A2C pairs of PG1115+080 as well. Second, for the simple lenses, the lowest order and standard approximations are nearly identical for the dark matter (high $`\kappa `$) models, but the lowest order approximation tends to give higher estimates for $`H_0`$ for the constant $`M/L`$ (low $`\kappa `$) models. For the more complicated lens RXJ0911+0551, the differences are enormous. Finally, the approximate solutions are an excellent match to the full numerical models using ellipsoidal lenses in external shear fields. Using the AD image pair from RXJ0911+0551 and the BC image pair from PG1115+080, the average difference between the approximate and numerical dark matter models is $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0=2\pm 4`$ km/s Mpc with almost all the differences due to the most complex system, RXJ0911+0551. The approximate model for RXJ0911+0551 completely fails in the constant $`M/L`$ limit (see above), but if we compare the remaining four lenses the difference is $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0=2\pm 1`$ km/s Mpc. For comparison, the average differences for the lowest order approximation are $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0=0\pm 2`$ km/s Mpc and $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0=2\pm 6`$ km/s Mpc respectively, but we have to drop RXJ0911+0551 for the dark matter models as well as the constant $`M/L`$ models. Some of these residuals may be due to the ambiguities in defining $`\kappa `$ for ellipsoidal lens galaxies. We conclude that our approximate solutions generally provide estimates for $`H_0`$ to better than 10% individually and to better than 5% as an ensemble.

## 4 Discussion

Gravitational lens time delays are determined by the Hubble constant, the positions of the lensed images, and the surface density in the annulus bounded by the images. The average surface density $`\kappa `$ in the annulus is more important than its distribution. The relationship between time delays and the local surface density is exact for circular lenses (Gorenstein et al. Gorenstein88 (1988)). While it is not exactly true for non-circular lenses, it is true in practice. In two-image lenses, where the images lie on opposite sides of the lens galaxy, the delays are insensitive to the angular structure of the lens. In four-image lenses the delays are very sensitive to the quadrupole structure of the potential, but the image positions tightly constrain the quadrupole and leave the surface density as the only important variable. Our local interpretation of time delays agrees with earlier understandings based on global models and degeneracies, but better isolates the relevant physical properties of lens models. It also allows us to find simple scaling solutions for the Hubble constant which accurately reproduce the results of full numerical models. These scaling solutions can be used to classify time delay lenses, since their structure differs for simple lenses and lenses strongly perturbed by clusters, and to quickly estimate the Hubble constant predicted for any assumed radial mass distribution.

We can also use the scaling solutions to study the homogeneity of the lens population. Because $`H_0`$ must be a universal constant, we can use the requirement that the lens all produce the same Hubble constant to estimate the surface density differences between the lenses. If we assume a universal density slope $`\eta `$, then the five simple lenses (PG1115+080, SBS1520+530, B1600+434, PKS1830–211 and HE2149–2745) are consistent with a common value for the average surface density of

$$\kappa 11.07h+0.14(\eta 1)(1h)\pm 0.04,$$
(27)
where $`H=100h`$ km/s Mpc. Formally, only limited ranges for the Hubble constant are consistent with a universal surface density, with $`h<0.7`$, $`h=0.5\pm 0.6`$ and $`h=0.9\pm 0.3`$ for $`\eta =1`$ (constant surface density), $`2`$ (isothermal) and $`3`$ respectively. An alternative way to characterize the similarities is use one lens as a reference and then estimate the surface density differences between the reference lens and the other systems. For example, if we assume $`\eta =2`$ and use PG1115+080 as the reference system, we find that $`\kappa =1.051.13h\pm 0.04`$ for PG1115+080. The surface density differences are $`\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa =0.070.09h\pm 0.06`$, $`0.190.07h\pm 0.11`$, $`0.000.00h\pm 0.19`$ and $`0.140.28h\pm 0.15`$ for SBS1520+530, B1600+434, PKS1830–211 and HE2149–2745 respectively. The images in PG1115+080, SBS1520+530 and HE2149–2745 all lie at approximately the same radius relative to the lens galaxy ($`R_e/R0.5`$) while the images in B1600+434 are close to the half-light radius ($`R_e/R1`$). Reasonable slope differences between the lenses can change the surface density differences by $`0.00`$$`0.27(1h)\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ depending on the lens. At least for constant $`\eta `$, the upper bound on the existence of any scatter in the surface density beyond that implied by the measurement errors is $`\sigma _\kappa <0.07`$, so these five simple lenses have very homogeneous intrinsic properties.

Our analysis is not well suited to the two cluster lenses, RXJ0911+0551 and Q0957+561, because our use of an external shear to represent perturbations is breaking down. If, however, we assume that the true surface density of the primary lens is the same as for the other lenses, we can estimate the external convergence $`\kappa _{ext}`$ required to make the time delay estimates for the cluster lenses agree with the other 5 systems. We find that $`\kappa _{ext,0911}1.111.43h\pm 0.10`$ and $`\kappa _{ext,0957}0.990.45h\pm 0.01`$. While these results should not be taken at face value because of the problems with our approximation for lenses which are too close to the central regions of clusters, the pattern of the solutions seems reasonable. The RXJ0911+0551 lens lies $`200h^1`$ kpc from the cluster center, while the Q0957+561 lens lies only $`30h^1`$ kpc from the cluster center so we would expect larger surface densities in Q0957+561 than in RXJ0911+0551. Presumably similar analyses with more realistic models for the cluster would improve matters.

Our semi-analytic models for the four simple lenses with good photometry, PG1115+080, SBS1520+530, B1600+434 and HE2149–2745, almost exactly reproduce the $`H_0`$ estimates based on full numerical models by Kochanek (2002a ). We find $`H_051\pm 5`$ km/s Mpc if $`\kappa =1/2`$ and $`\eta =2`$ as expected in dark matter dominated lenses and $`H_073\pm 8`$ km/s Mpc if they have constant mass-to-light ratios. The dependence of the time delays on the radial and angular structure of the lens shows that standard parametric models, which can adjust both the radial mass distribution and the quadrupole structure of the lens, encompass the physical properties needed to study the dependence of Hubble constant estimates on the mass distribution of the lens. Most degrees of freedom in non-parametric models (e.g. Williams & Saha Williams00 (2000)) are not important for time delay estimates in simple lenses. Since the parametric models have the advantage of corresponding to physical models of galaxies, while most realizations of the non-parametric models do not (see Munoz et al. Munoz01 (2001)), the use of non-parametric approaches is probably better suited to very complicated systems like B1608+656 where the lens consists of two interacting galaxies (Koopmans & Fassnacht Koopmans99 (1999)) and it is unclear how to properly parameterize the system. It is also easy to make theoretical estimates for the time delays expected for standard cold dark matter (CDM) halo models, since we need only estimate the surface density $`\kappa `$ of the halo. We examine this problem in Kochanek (2002b ).

Acknowledgments. CSK thanks D. Rusin, P. Schechter, J. Winn and S. Wyithe for discussions and comments. CSK is supported by the Smithsonian Institution and NASA ATP grant NAG5-9265.