format: text

text:
# An algebraic method for solving the SU(3) Gauss law

## 1 Introduction

Gaining knowledge about the solutions of Gauss’s law is important in view of the central role that the law plays in quantising Yang–Mills theory. Usually the Gauss law is ignored in the classical Hamiltonian formalism and then reintroduced at the quantum level as a condition on the physical states. Yet in order to remove the redundant degrees of freedom from the Hamiltonian we need a different approach. One way of addressing this problem is to search for a method to parametrise the dynamical variables of the theory so that Gauss’s law is satisfied identically. The unconstrained variables thus obtained will then describe the physical degrees of freedom of Yang–Mills theory. In refs.  a number of methods for working out parametrisations of this kind are presented, but yet another approach was proposed some years ago by Majumdar and Sharatchandra in ref. . They parametrised the solutions of the SU(2) Gauss law

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}_k(A)E_k=0,`$ (1)
$`_k(A)=_k+ig[A_k(x),]`$
by expressing $`E_k`$ as a sum of a covariant curl and a gradient thus obtaining an SU(2) generalisation of the Poincaré lemma. In order to make use of this decomposition in QCD we need to generalise the results of ref.  to SU(3), and it is the purpose of this paper to provide such an extension. Hopefully, the parametrisation could then serve as a starting point for developing Hamiltonian formalism according to the lines sketched above. Besides Gauss’s law, the decomposition might also be useful in parametrising the non-Abelian generalisation of the Coulomb gauge

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}_k(A)\dot{A}_k=0$$

proposed by Cronström .

## 2 SU(3) algebra

I write every element of the SU(3) algebra in the form

$$A=\frac{1}{2}A^a\lambda _a,$$

where the $`\lambda _a`$’s stand for the Gell-Mann matrices

$$\lambda _a\lambda _b=\frac{2}{3}\delta _{ab}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{3\times 3}+\left(d_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+if_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\right)\lambda _c.$$

Summation over repeated indices is implied. An inner product between two algebra elements is given by the Killing form

$`(A,B)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{ab}A^aB^b=6\mathrm{Tr}(AB),`$
$`h_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ac}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}f_{bd}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\delta _{ab}.`$
I have chosen the convention where the inner product is positive definite. This inner product defines a norm, which will be denoted by $`||`$. The $`d`$ tensor can be used to define a matrix-valued product

$`AB`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}A^aB^b\lambda _c`$
$`=`$ $`\{A,B\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(A,B)\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{3\times 3}.`$
In addition to the Jacobi identity there exist several other identities involving the structure constants of the algebra. They were worked out in ref. :

$`f_{ea}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}d_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}+f_{eb}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}d_{ca}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}+f_{ec}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}d_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}=0`$ (2a)
$`f_{ea}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}f_{cd}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(\delta _{ac}\delta _{}^{b}{}_{d}{}^{}\delta _{ad}\delta _{}^{b}{}_{c}{}^{}\right)+d_{ac}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}d_{ed}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}d_{ec}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}d_{ad}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}`$ (2b)
$`d_{ad}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}d_{eb}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+d_{bd}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}d_{ea}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}+d_{ed}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}d_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(\delta _{ab}\delta _{}^{c}{}_{d}{}^{}+\delta _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\delta _{ad}+\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\delta _{bd}\right)`$ (2c)
$`3d_{ea}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}d_{cd}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}=\delta _{ac}\delta _{}^{b}{}_{d}{}^{}+\delta _{ad}\delta _{}^{b}{}_{c}{}^{}\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\delta _{cd}+f_{ac}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}f_{de}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}+f_{ad}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}f_{ce}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}.`$ (2d)
These relations correspond to the matrix identities

$`[AB,C]+[BC,A]+[CA,B]=0`$ (3a)
$`A[B,C]+B[A,C]+[C,AB]=0`$ (3b)
$`[A,[B,C]]={\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(A,B)C{\displaystyle \frac{2}{9}}(A,C)B+C(AB)B(AC)`$ (3c)
$`A(BC)+B(CA)+C(AB)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(A,B)C+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(B,C)A`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}(A,C)B`$ (3d)
$`3A(BC)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(A,C)B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(A,B)C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(B,C)A+[[A,C],B]`$
$`+[[A,B],C],`$ (3e)
equation (2a) giving rise to both of the relations (3a) – (3b). Modifying the conventions of ref.  by some numerical factors I define two invariants of the algebra

$`I_2(A)`$ $`=`$ $`|A|^2`$ (4a)
$`I_3(A)`$ $`=`$ $`(A,AA)=36detA.`$ (4b)
They remain unchanged under the adjoint action of the group

$$A\mathrm{\Omega }^{}A\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{SU}(3).$$
(5)
Given a matrix $`A`$ one can define, following ref. , another matrix $`\widehat{A}`$

$$\widehat{A}=I_3(A)AI_2(A)AA$$
(6)
with the properties

$$[A,\widehat{A}]=0,(A,\widehat{A})=0.$$

This suggests that we should define a third invariant by

$$I_8(A)=|\widehat{A}|^2=I_2(A)\left(\frac{1}{9}I_2(A)^3I_3(A)^2\right).$$
(7)
Diagonalising $`A`$ with a transformation of the form (5) one can see that $`I_8`$ vanishes if and only if $`A`$ has two coinciding eigenvalues. In the generic case $`I_8`$ is strictly positive, though.

## 3 Outline of solution

In order to solve the Gauss law with sources

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}_k(A)E_k=J_0$$
(8)
I take an ansatz of the form

$$E_k=\underset{l,m=1}{\overset{3}{}}\epsilon _{klm}_l(A)C_m+_k(A)\varphi $$
(9)
with the covariant derivative $`_k(A)`$ defined in equation (1). Analogously with the ordinary Hodge decomposition I define $`\varphi `$ as a solution to the covariant Poisson equation

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}_k^2(A)\varphi =J_0.$$
(10)
This equation has been analysed in detail in ref.  and it proves to be solvable for $`\varphi `$ under certain fairly general conditions. Moreover, if $`\varphi `$ is assumed to vanish sufficiently rapidly at infinity, the solution is also unique. Incidentally, Majumdar and Sharatchandra also included a covariant gradient term in their ansatz for the source-free Gauss law , but their subsequent calculations  indicate that the gradient degrees of freedom are generically redundant. In the Appendix I will discuss the question whether the ansatz (9) contains enough degrees of freedom to cover the space of colour-electric fields, but for the moment I take the ansatz (9) for granted. Combining now Gauss’s law with the covariant divergence of equation (9) yields

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}ig[B_k,C_k]=0,$$
(11)
where $`B_k`$ is the colour-magnetic field

$$B_k=\underset{l,m=1}{\overset{3}{}}\epsilon _{klm}\left(_lA_m+\frac{1}{2}ig[A_l,A_m]\right).$$

Equation (11) could be solved by converting it into a system of real-valued equations and applying standard tools of linear algebra such as the Gauss elimination method. However, the elimination procedure would give very little insight into the algebraic nature of equation (11) and the solution obtained in this way would be complicated and formal. For this reason I prefer a less straightforward method, which gives simpler solutions and makes algebraic features more transparent. To begin with, let us parametrise the images of the commutators appearing in equation (11). More precisely, each commutator takes a matrix value

$$ig[B_k,C_k]=F_k,$$
(12)
where $`F_k`$ must satisfy certain consistency conditions so that equation (12) can be solved for $`C_k`$. Making use of the following property of the inner product

$$(X,i[B_k,C_k])=(i[B_k,X],C_k)$$

we see that $`F_k`$ must be orthogonal to all matrices that commute with $`B_k`$. I will solve equation (12) properly in the next chapter, and it will turn out that in the generic case the solvability conditions read

$$(F_k,B_k)=0,(F_k,\widehat{B}_k)=0,$$
(13)
where $`\widehat{B}_k`$ is defined according to equation (6). The geometric content of equations (11) – (13) becomes clearer if we start regarding each matrix of the SU(3) algebra as an octet vector. The problem of parametrising the solutions of equation (11) is then reduced to parametrising all possible sets of three vectors $`F_k`$ which satisfy the equation

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}F_k=0$$
(14)
and the orthogonality conditions (13). This task is simplified by a suitable choice of a basis for the SU(3) algebra. Generically, the following set of vectors will serve as a basis:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}i[B_k,B_l],\hfill & k<l\hfill \\ i[B_k,\widehat{B}_l]+i[\widehat{B}_k,B_l],\hfill & k<l\hfill \\ \chi _1,\chi _2.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(15)
Here $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are some vectors which are orthogonal to all of the six vectors $`B_k`$ and $`\widehat{B}_k`$. We can define them as determinants

$$\chi _j=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{a_1\mathrm{}a_6b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}B_1^{a_1}\widehat{B}_1^{a_2}B_2^{a_3}\widehat{B}_2^{a_4}B_3^{a_5}\widehat{B}_3^{a_6}\eta _j^b\lambda _c,j=1,2$$

where the $`\eta _j`$’s are some constant octet vectors. Taking $`\eta _j`$ parallel to some Gell-Mann matrix $`\lambda _a`$ would reduce $`\chi _j`$ to a $`7\times 7`$ determinant. To see the linear independence of the set (15) let us consider the equation

$$i\underset{k<l}{}a_{kl}[B_k,B_l]+i\underset{k<l}{}\widehat{a}_{kl}([B_k,\widehat{B}_l]+[\widehat{B}_k,B_l])+b_1\chi _1+b_2\chi _2=0.$$
(16)
Taking the inner product with respect to $`B_m`$ and $`\widehat{B}_m`$ leads to the following pair of equations

$$\{\begin{array}{c}a_{kl}(B_m,i[B_k,B_l])+\widehat{a}_{kl}(B_m,i[B_k,\widehat{B}_l]+i[\widehat{B}_k,B_l])=0\hfill \\ a_{kl}(\widehat{B}_m,i[B_k,B_l])+\widehat{a}_{kl}(\widehat{B}_m,i[B_k,\widehat{B}_l]+i[\widehat{B}_k,B_l])=0\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`mkl.`$ These equations have no nontrivial solutions if

$`((B_m,i[B_k,B_l])(\widehat{B}_m,i[B_k,\widehat{B}_l]+i[\widehat{B}_k,B_l])`$ (17)
$`(\widehat{B}_m,i[B_k,B_l])(B_m,i[B_k,\widehat{B}_l]+i[\widehat{B}_k,B_l]))0.`$
Generically this condition is satisfied, since none of the identities (3) implies that the expression inside the parentheses should vanish. It is also possible to verify numerically, that is by assigning some test values to the vectors $`B_k`$, that this expression does not vanish identically. In the same way we see that the remaining coefficients $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ in equation (16) vanish if

$$(\chi _1,\chi _1)(\chi _2,\chi _2)\left[(\chi _1,\chi _2)\right]^20.$$
(18)
As before, this is generically satisfied because the l.h.s. does not vanish identically. The linear independence of the set (15) thus proven in the generic case, we use it as a basis for the vectors $`F_k`$,

$$F_k=i\underset{\begin{array}{c}l=1\\ lk\end{array}}{\overset{3}{}}\left(\alpha _{kl}[B_k,B_l]+\widehat{\alpha }_{kl}([B_k,\widehat{B}_l]+[\widehat{B}_k,B_l])\right)+\beta _{1,k}\chi _1+\beta _{2,k}\chi _2.$$
(19)
It should be noted that only six basis vectors are needed due to the orthogonality conditions (13). Substituting now these expansions into equation (14) gives the following relations:

$`\alpha _{kl}\alpha _{lk}=0,\widehat{\alpha }_{kl}\widehat{\alpha }_{lk}=0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\beta _{1,k}=0,{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\beta _{2,k}=0.`$ (20)
Let us finally count the number of degrees of freedom. Equation (3) states that the matrices $`\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ are symmetric. Since four of the six coefficients $`\beta _{i,k}`$ are independent, the total number of free variables is $`2\times 3+2\times 2=10`$. This is the number of coordinates needed to parametrise three 6-dimensional vectors $`F_k`$ satisfying the 8-component equation (14). We have thus found all solutions to equations (13) – (14) in the generic case, expressed in the form of expansion (19) satisfying the relations (3). Naturally there are nongeneric cases when either of the conditions (17) – (18) fails and the set (15) becomes linearly dependent. In those cases we must choose a different basis for the SU(3) algebra or at least replace the ill-behaved vectors of the set (15) with linearly independent ones. The method of solving equation (14) remains the same even if the basis is modified.

## 4 Inverse of the commutator

The vectors $`F_k`$ now known, it remains to solve equation (12) for the $`C_k`$’s. Since the indices $`k`$ are fixed at this stage, I will omit them for a moment and consider the equation

$$ig[B,C]=F.$$
(21)
To obtain the solvability conditions for $`F`$ we must determine the zero modes of the commutator. For that purpose, let us express the l.h.s. of equation (21) using octet vector notation

$$[B,C]^a=iM_{}^{a}{}_{c}{}^{}C^c,$$

where

$$M_{}^{a}{}_{c}{}^{}=f_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}B^b.$$

The characteristic polynomial of $`M`$ becomes simpler to evaluate if we diagonalise $`B`$ by a suitable unitary transformation of the form (5),

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}B\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}b^3\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}b^8\lambda _8,\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{SU}(3).$$
(22)
On the other hand, this transformation can equivalently be implemented by an orthogonal $`8\times 8`$ matrix $`O`$

$$\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}B\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^a=O_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}B^b.$$

Since the structure constants $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$ transform as a tensor, we have

$`M_{}^{a}{}_{c}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`O_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}O_{}^{d}{}_{c}{}^{}O_{}^{e}{}_{f}{}^{}f_{ed}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\left(O_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}b^3+O_{8}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}b^8\right)`$
$`=`$ $`O_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\stackrel{~}{M}_{}^{b}{}_{d}{}^{}O_{}^{d}{}_{c}{}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{M}_{}^{b}{}_{d}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`b^3f_{3d}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}+b^8f_{8d}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}.`$
A straightforward calculation now gives

$`det\left(Mx\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{8\times 8}\right)=det\left(\stackrel{~}{M}x\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{8\times 8}\right)`$
$`=x^2\{x^6+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}[(b^3)^2+(b^8)^2]x^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}[(b^3)^2+(b^8)^2]^2x^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}(b^3)^2[(b^3)^23(b^8)^2]^2\}.`$
With the help of the invariants (4a) and (7),

$`I_2(B)`$ $`=`$ $`3\left[(b^3)^2+(b^8)^2\right]`$
$`I_8(B)`$ $`=`$ $`9(b^3)^2\left[(b^3)^2+(b^8)^2\right]\left[(b^3)^23(b^8)^2\right]^2,`$
the characteristic polynomial can be written as

$$det\left(Mx\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{8\times 8}\right)=x^2\left[x^2\left(x^2+\frac{1}{4}I_2\right)^2+\frac{1}{48}\frac{I_8}{I_2}\right].$$

The commutators thus fall into three classes according to the number of zero modes:

1. $`I_2>0`$, $`I_8>0`$ This is the generic case, when all eigenvalues of $`B`$ are distinct. The zero modes are given by $`B`$ itself and the matrix $`\widehat{B}`$ defined in equation (6).
2. $`I_2>0`$, $`I_8=0`$ In this case $`B`$ is nonvanishing but has two coinciding eigenvalues. One can conjugate $`B`$ into the direction of $`\lambda _8`$:

$$B=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{1}{2}b^8\lambda _8\right)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.$$
(23)
There are four zero modes, which are obtained by conjugating all the Gell-Mann matrices that commute with $`\lambda _8`$, i.e. they have the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{1}{2}\lambda _a\right)\mathrm{\Omega }^{},a=1,2,3,8.$$
3. $`I_2=0`$, $`I_8=0`$ This case is trivial, because $`B`$ vanishes.

Let us now solve equation (21) in the generic case. There are solutions only if $`F`$ is orthogonal to the zero modes of the commutator, i.e.

$$(F,B)=0,(F,\widehat{B})=0.$$

Introducing a projection operator

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(F)=F\frac{1}{I_2(B)}(B,F)B\frac{1}{I_8(B)}(\widehat{B},F)\widehat{B},$$
(24)
the conditions on $`F`$ can also be expressed as a single equation

$$F=\mathrm{\Pi }(F).$$

Equation (21) can thus be replaced by

$$ig[B,C]=\mathrm{\Pi }(F).$$
(25)
The general form of the solution $`C`$ is

$$C^a=t_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{}F^b,$$
(26)
where the tensor $`t`$ depends only on $`B`$, because $`C`$ must be linear in $`F`$. The basis for all such tensors was given in ref. , and substituting it into equation (26) yields the following ansatz

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`a_1F+a_2BF+a_3\widehat{B}F+a_4[B,F]+a_5[\widehat{B},F]+a_6B[\widehat{B},F]`$
$`+a_7B+a_8\widehat{B}.`$
Using identities (3) the commutator of this expression becomes

$`[B,C]`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{I_2}{6}}a_4{\displaystyle \frac{I_8}{12I_2}}a_6\right)F+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3I_3}{2I_2}}a_4{\displaystyle \frac{3I_8}{2I_2^2}}a_5\right)BF`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2I_2}}a_4+{\displaystyle \frac{3I_3}{2I_2}}a_5+{\displaystyle \frac{I_2}{12}}a_6\right)\widehat{B}F`$
$`+\left(a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{I_3}{2I_2}}a_2{\displaystyle \frac{I_8}{I_2^2}}a_3\right)[B,F]`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2I_2}}a_2+{\displaystyle \frac{I_3}{I_2}}a_3\right)[\widehat{B},F]a_3B[\widehat{B},F]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}a_4(B,F)B+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6I_2}}a_6(\widehat{B},F)\widehat{B}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}a_5+{\displaystyle \frac{I_3}{12I_2}}a_6\right)\left((\widehat{B},F)B+(B,F)\widehat{B}\right).`$
Inserting expansions (4) and (24) into equation (25) and equating terms of the same form determines six of the coefficients $`a_i`$,

$`a_1=0,a_2=0,a_3=0,`$
$`a_4={\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{I_2}},a_5={\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{3I_3}{I_8}},a_6={\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}{\displaystyle \frac{6I_2}{I_8}}.`$
Hence, the solution to equation (25) is

$$C=\frac{3i}{g}\left(\frac{1}{I_2}[B,F]+\frac{I_3}{I_8}[\widehat{B},F]\frac{2I_2}{I_8}B[\widehat{B},F]\right)+a_7B+a_8\widehat{B}.$$
(28)
This formula becomes singular when $`I_8`$ tends to zero. In this limit $`B`$ can be written in the form (23). The orthogonality conditions on $`F`$ are

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{1}{2}\lambda _a\right)\mathrm{\Omega }^{},F)=0,a=1,2,3,8.$$
(29)
When these requirements are fullfilled, it is straightforward to see that the following expression satisfies equation (21):

$$C=\frac{4i}{g}\frac{1}{I_2}[B,F]+\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{1}{2}a^1\lambda _1+\frac{1}{2}a^2\lambda _2+\frac{1}{2}a^3\lambda _3+\frac{1}{2}a^8\lambda _8\right)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.$$
(30)
Formulas (28) and (30) thus solve the commutator equation (21) in the two nontrivial cases.

## 5 Results

We are now ready to write down the general solution to equation (11). In the generic case the expansions (19) parametrise all possible values for the commutators (12). Substituting these expansions into equation (28) and simplifying the result with the identities (3) yields the solution

$`C_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}l=1\\ lk\end{array}}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[(\alpha _{kl}+I_3^{(k)}\widehat{\alpha }_{kl})B_l+\widehat{\alpha }_{kl}\left(\widehat{B}_l2I_2^{(k)}B_kB_l\right)\right]`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\beta _{j,k}\psi _{j,k}+\gamma _kB_k+\widehat{\gamma }_k\widehat{B}_k,`$
where

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_k(\psi _{j,k})`$ $`=`$ $`3i\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_2^{(k)}}}[B_k,\chi _j]+{\displaystyle \frac{I_3^{(k)}}{I_8^{(k)}}}[\widehat{B}_k,\chi _j]{\displaystyle \frac{2I_2^{(k)}}{I_8^{(k)}}}B_k[\widehat{B}_k,\chi _j]\right),`$
$`I_i^{(k)}`$ $``$ $`I_i(B_k)`$ (32)
and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ stands for the projection operator of equation (24). The symmetry relations (3) must hold, while the zero mode coefficients $`\gamma _k`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }_k`$ are arbitrary. I have left unsimplified those parts of the solution which correspond to the two vectors $`\chi _j`$. Of course, simplifications can be performed using the results of ref. . In particular, it is shown there how the eighth rank permutation symbol can be expressed in a form involving only the structure constants $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$ and $`d_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}`$. Constructing all possible sixth rank tensors that are antisymmetric in five indices and contracting them with the vectors $`B_l`$, $`\widehat{B}_l`$ ($`lk`$) and $`\eta _j`$ would give us the vectors needed to reduce the expression (5). Unfortunately there is such a large number of these tensors that the resulting formula would be unduly long. The unsimplified formula (5) is the shortest expression I have been able to obtain. Still there is a relatively simple formula at hand if we diagonalise $`B_k`$ with a transformation of the form (22). Making use of the fact that the eighth rank permutation symbol transforms as a tensor under the adjoint action (5) leads to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_k(\psi _{j,k})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}I_2^{(k)}c_k^{ab}\mathrm{\Delta }_{38b}^{(j,k)}\mathrm{\Omega }_k(\frac{1}{2}\lambda _a)\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{},$$
(33)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{abc}^{(j,k)}`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{abd_1\mathrm{}d_5c}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}B_l\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)^{d_1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}\widehat{B}_l\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)^{d_2}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}B_m\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)^{d_3}`$
$`\times \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}\widehat{B}_m\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)^{d_4}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}\eta _j\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)^{d_5},lmk,`$
$`c_k^{12}`$ $`=`$ $`c_k^{21}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[(b_k^3)^23(b_k^8)^2]`$
$`c_k^{45}`$ $`=`$ $`c_k^{54}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b_k^3(b_k^3\sqrt{3}b_k^8)`$
$`c_k^{67}`$ $`=`$ $`c_k^{76}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b_k^3(b_k^3+\sqrt{3}b_k^8)`$
and all the other components of the matrix $`c_k`$ vanish.

In order to avoid singularities in the limit when two eigenvalues of $`B_k`$ coincide we must find a way to regularise the vectors $`\psi _{j,k}`$. This singularity is present in equation (28), but it does not mean that the solution (31) would have to be singular. Actually, even the first six vectors of the basis (15), when inserted into equation (28), produced singular terms, but these terms were proportional to the zero modes $`B_k`$ and $`\widehat{B}_k`$. The singularities could then be removed by redefining the zero mode coefficients $`\gamma _k`$ and $`\widehat{\gamma }_k`$, and the same procedure can also be applied to the vectors $`\psi _{j,k}`$. Specifically, let us define

$$\psi _{j,k}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}I_2^{(k)}\stackrel{~}{c}_{j,k}^a\mathrm{\Omega }_k(\frac{1}{2}\lambda _a)\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{},$$
(34)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{c}_{j,k}^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[(b_k^3)^23(b_k^8)^2]\epsilon _{123}^{abc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b8c}^{(j,k)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b_k^3(b_k^3\sqrt{3}b_k^8)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{453}^{abc}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\epsilon _{458}^{abc}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b3c}^{(j,k)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b8c}^{(j,k)}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b_k^3(b_k^3+\sqrt{3}b_k^8)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon _{673}^{abc}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\epsilon _{678}^{abc}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b3c}^{(j,k)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b8c}^{(j,k)}\right),`$
where $`\epsilon _{ijk}^{abc}`$ stands for the three-dimensional permutation symbol with indices taking the values $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$. Equations (34) and (33) are equivalent apart from terms which are proportional to the zero modes. We can now pass to the limit when two eigenvalues of $`B_k`$ coincide. Let us assume that the eigenvalues are ordered so that

$$b_k^3+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}b_k^8b_k^3+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}b_k^8\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}b_k^8,$$

which means that the largest eigenvalues coincide in the limit $`b_k^30`$. In this limit the vectors $`\psi _{j,k}`$ are reduced to

$$\psi _{j,k}\frac{1}{6\sqrt{3}}\left(I_2^{(k)}\right)^2\epsilon _{123}^{abc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b8c}^{(j,k)}\mathrm{\Omega }_k(\frac{1}{2}\lambda _a)\mathrm{\Omega }_k^{}.$$
(35)
In order to show that this expression is single-valued we must verify that it is invariant under transformations which also leave $`B_k`$ invariant. As $`B_k`$ now takes the form (23), the transformations in question are the SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) reparametrisations of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ defined by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_k\mathrm{\Omega }_k\omega ,`$
$`\omega =\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\theta ^1\lambda _1+\theta ^2\lambda _2+\theta ^3\lambda _3+\theta ^8\lambda _8)\right].`$
These transformations take

$`\lambda _aP_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{a^{}}\lambda _a^{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{b8c}^{(j,k)}P_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{b^{}}P_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{c^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{b^{}8c^{}}^{(j,k)},`$
$`P_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{a^{}}=\left[\omega \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _a\right)\omega ^{}\right]^a^{},`$
and as a result

$`\psi _{j,k}\left(\underset{3\times 3}{det}P\right)\psi _{j,k},`$
$`\underset{3\times 3}{det}P=\epsilon _{123}^{abc}P_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}P_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}P_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}.`$
Since $`det_{3\times 3}P=1`$ for transformations of the form (5), the solution (35) is invariant. Although this result was derived in the case when the largest eigenvalues of $`B_k`$ coincide, the form of the solution (34) makes it evident that $`\psi _{j,k}`$ is really single-valued regardless of which SU(2) subgroup survives in the limit of coinciding eigenvalues. So there will be no singularities in the fields $`C_k`$ in equation (31).

So far we have found out that equation (11) possesses solutions which are regular everywhere in space. Yet it is possible that there might be some physically relevant degrees of freedom residing at points where two eigenvalues of $`B_k`$ coincide and that we should search for singular solutions to equation (11) in order to detect these degrees of freedom. In fact, it is widely believed that there are singularities with local monopole-like behaviour in the vicinity of points where two eigenvalues coincide. Usually these singularities arise as a result of gauge fixing , but here they could emerge in connection with special solutions to equation (11). To determine such solutions we need to modify the basis (15) slightly. I will consider the case when one component of the colour-magnetic field, say $`B_3`$, has coinciding eigenvalues. $`B_3`$ takes the form (23) and in particular $`\widehat{B}_3=0`$. (I am not assuming that the eigenvalues should be ordered this time.) Yet the first six vectors of the set (15) remain generically indepent while $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ vanish. Since $`F_3`$ in equation (12) now has to satisfy four orthogonality conditions according to equation (29), we see that the vectors $`\chi _j`$ should be replaced by two vectors $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j`$ which are orthogonal to the space spanned by the set $`\{B_1,\widehat{B}_1,B_2,\widehat{B}_2\}`$. We can take

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1=i[\widehat{B}_1,\widehat{B}_2]\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\chi }_2=[B_1,B_2][\widehat{B}_1,\widehat{B}_2][B_1,\widehat{B}_2][\widehat{B}_1,B_2].\hfill \end{array}$$

The expansion for $`F_k`$ now takes the form of equation (19) satisfying the relations (3) with the obvious substitutions

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\chi _j\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j\hfill & \\ \beta _{j,k}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{j,k},\hfill & k=1,2\hfill \\ \beta _{j,3}0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Inserting these expansions into equations (28) and (30) leads to the solution

$`C_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}l=1\\ lk\end{array}}{\overset{3}{}}}\left[(\alpha _{kl}+I_3^{(k)}\widehat{\alpha }_{kl})B_l+\widehat{\alpha }_{kl}\left(\widehat{B}_l2I_2^{(k)}B_kB_l\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{j,k}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{j,k}+\gamma _kB_k+\widehat{\gamma }_k\widehat{B}_k,k=1,2`$
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(\alpha _{3l}B_l+\widehat{\alpha }_{3l}\widehat{B}_l\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Omega }_3\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3^1\lambda _1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3^2\lambda _2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3^3\lambda _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3^8\lambda _8\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_3^{}.`$
Here the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3^a`$ are arbitrary and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ is a matrix which diagonalises $`B_3`$. The vectors $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{j,k}`$ are defined as in equation (5), replacing only $`\chi _j\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j`$. Let us now compare the two solutions (31) and (5) at points where two eigenvalues of $`B_3`$ coincide. As ’t Hooft mentioned in ref. , this takes place at isolated points in three-dimensional space for generic magnetic fields. At such points the vectors $`\psi _{j,1}`$ and $`\psi _{j,2}`$ vanish, which corresponds to setting $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{j,k}=0`$ in equation (5). Equating the $`C_3`$-components of formulas (31) and (5) with the help of equation (35) determines the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3^a`$ as functions of $`\beta _{j,3}`$, $`\gamma _3`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }_{3l}`$. However, since $`\widehat{\alpha }_{3l}`$ already appears in the first term of equation (5), there are effectively only three arbitrary parameters determining four unknown coefficients and accordingly, there is one more degree of freedom in the solution (5) which is not present in the formula (31). In all, there are thus three degrees of freedom in the exceptional solution (5) which cannot be obtained by taking the limit of equation (31). This leaves the door open for accepting singular solutions to equation (11). In that case, though, equation (10) should be replaced by

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}_k^2(A)\varphi =J_0\underset{k,l,m=1}{\overset{3}{}}\epsilon _{klm}_k_lC_m$$

to compensate for the possibility that the second weak derivatives of $`C_m`$ do not commute.

## 6 Conclusions

I have presented here a method by which the Gauss law (8) can be solved in the case of the SU(3) algebra using the ansatz (9). The fact that the l.h.s. of the consistency equation (11) depends on the commutator properties of the colour-magnetic field divides the solutions into different classes. I have written down the source-free part of the solution explicitly in the generic case when the set (15) is linearly independent and in the case when one component of the colour-magnetic field has coinciding eigenvalues. Although the SU(2) solution of ref.  was simple, its SU(3) generalisation (31) is much more complicated. The vectors $`\chi _j`$ of the basis (15) are mostly responsible for the complexity, and unfortunately I see no way out of this problem. I could replace the $`\chi _j`$’s by vectors which would be easier to invert with the formula (28), e.g. by

$$i[\widehat{B}_1,\widehat{B}_2],i[\widehat{B}_1,\widehat{B}_3],$$

but then the orthogonality conditions (13) for $`F_2`$ and $`F_3`$ would lead to complicated relations between the expansion coefficients. So there seems to be some kind of ”conservation of trouble” inherent in this problem. Anyway, it is interesting that the fields $`C_k`$ may have singularities at points where one component of the colour-magnetic field possesses two coinciding eigenvalues. No explicit gauge fixing is needed to detect this singularity as it becomes apparent whenever one tries to solve equation (11). The method of solving this equation could also be generalised to higher dimensional SU(N) algebras in a straightforward manner, but the results would undoubtedly be even more complicated.

## Appendix: Motivation for the generalised <br>Hodge decomposition

In order to prove that the space of colour-electric fields can be parametrised with the ansatz (9) it is sufficient to show that the equation

$`E_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(_l^2(A)\mathrm{\Phi }_kig[G_{kl},\mathrm{\Phi }_l]\right),`$ (A.1)
$`G_{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`_lA_k_kA_lig[A_k,A_l]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\epsilon _{klm}B_m`$
can be solved for the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$. Making use of the identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(_l^2(A)\mathrm{\Phi }_kig[G_{kl},\mathrm{\Phi }_l]\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,m=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\epsilon _{klm}_l(A){\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\epsilon _{mpq}_p(A)\mathrm{\Phi }_q`$
$`+_k(A){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}_l(A)\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$
we see that equation (A.1) then takes the form of equation (9) with

$`C_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,q=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\epsilon _{mpq}_p(A)\mathrm{\Phi }_q,`$ (A.2a)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}_l(A)\mathrm{\Phi }_l.`$ (A.2b)
I am not trying to solve equation (A.1) here, but it seems fairly obvious that a solution exists. In a finite volume this equation can be converted into an integral equation after choosing suitable boundary conditions so that the ordinary Laplacian

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{l=1}{\overset{3}{}}_l^2$$

has a unique inverse. The resulting integral equation can then be set into the form of a Fredholm equation and solved, at least formally, using the well-known Fredholm formulas. In infinite space this procedure would require that the fields $`E_k`$ and the gauge potentials $`A_k`$ decay sufficiently rapidly at infinity.

Equation (A.1) shows that the ansatz (9) contains one redundant SU(3) algebra -valued field, because in general there are no relations like equations (A.2) among $`C_k`$ and $`\varphi `$. This gives rise to a heuristic argument in favour of the choice (10) for the field $`\varphi `$, since we seem to be free to fix one field component at will. In order to be more exact we should investigate whether the space of colour-electric fields with vanishing covariant divergences can be parametrised with the covariant curl ansatz

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_k=\underset{l,m=1}{\overset{3}{}}\epsilon _{klm}_l(A)C_m,$$
(A.3)
where

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}_k(A)\stackrel{~}{E}_k=0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_k=E_k_k(A)\varphi .`$
In ref.  Majumdar and Sharatchandra considered an SU(2) equation of the form (A.3) with $`\stackrel{~}{E}_k=0`$ and presented a method for obtaining a formal solution. Using the consistency condition (11) they eliminated $`C_3`$ and converted the remaining equations into the form of a Cauchy problem with initial data given on the plane $`x_3=0`$. They showed that a formal solution to the Cauchy problem can be constructed in a certain generic case as a power series near the initial plane $`x_3=0`$. Unfortunately there is an error in their reasoning concerning the convergence of the power series. Namely, they try to apply the Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem to equations of the form

$$_3C_j=G[C_1,C_2,\{A_k\}],j=1,2$$

where the functional $`G`$ depends on second order derivatives of $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ with respect to $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. In this case the Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem is not valid and the formal solution does not necessarily converge. The method of ref.  would be easy to generalise to the case of equation (A.3), but the formal solution might be mathematically meaningless. Anyway, this method hints that equation (A.3) can generically be solved for the $`C_k`$’s and accordingly, that the space of sufficiently regular colour-electric fields with vanishing covariant divergences can be parametrised with the ansatz (A.3). From the mathematical point of view this problem is still open.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank professor C. Cronström for his guidance during the preparation of this paper. This research was supported by the Academy of Finland.


text:
# Dissecting a galaxy: mass distribution of 2237+0305

## 1 Introduction

There have been countless papers in recent years discussing the matter distribution in galaxies and, in particular, the contributions of both the stellar disc and the dark matter halo. Any attempt to model the structure of a galaxy with multiple components is limited by the information provided by the light we receive. This introduces degeneracies in the mass distribution when we compare the few constrained parameters with the large number of unknowns.

One technique that has been used to side-step this problem is to assume a maximal disc (quantified in Sackett 1997), whereby the disc contributes the majority of the rotation (75-95%) at the radius of its maximum circular speed. This definition takes into account the contribution to the inner rotation curve of a bulge component. Various studies have challenged and supported this view and they will be discussed in Section 5.3.

Observations of rotation curves of galaxies gave the first hints of the existence of dark matter. In the 1960s and 70s, extensive studies of the circular rotation of spiral galaxies suggested the need for dark matter to account for the missing dynamical mass (e.g. see Rubin et al. 1962; Rubin, Ford & Thonnard 1978; Faber & Gallagher 1979). The flatness of rotation curves beyond the optical edge of these spirals contradicted the expected Keplerian fall-off. In the 1980s and 90s, many groups used large scale structure to deduce the expected properties of dark matter particles and applied these to N-body simulations (Peebles 1984; Navarro, Frenk & White 1996). The subsequent calculated profiles can be compared with the results of observations for consistency.

The firm determination of a general trend in the features of rotation curves, as distinct from a few abnormal systems, requires the accumulation of data from many galaxies with varying morphological types. Salucci & Burkert (2000) constructed ‘universal rotation curves’ (URCs) with luminosity as the only free parameter, from observations of $``$1100 rotation curves. From these URCs, they were able to subtract constant mass-to-light ratio discs from the surface brightness distributions of observed galaxies, and derive the expected contribution from dark matter. Salucci (2001) found the dark matter haloes were required to have large core regions in order to fit the universal curves. Core radii of 3-4 disc scale lengths were found to be consistent with observations for large spiral galaxies.

The use of gravitational lensing to disassemble a galaxy has been used recently by Maller et al. (2000). Their analysis of the doubly imaged system B1600+434 did not have a unique solution due to the necessity of invoking the Tully Fisher relation for rotational information, the large errors on the position angle of the major components and the perturbing effect of a nearby galaxy. In addition, the constraint of only two images limits the number of known parameters. Their work, however, illustrated the utilisation of lensing to break the disc/halo degeneracy. They found a high probability for a sub-maximal disc, and the need for some degree of a constant density core in the centre of the dark matter halo. These results pave the way for our work and demonstrate the ability to solve for the mass distribution given a reasonable number of known parameters.

Galaxy 2237+0305 is improbably close with the source almost exactly aligned with the macrolensing galaxy. Its four, almost symmetric images of the background quasar nicely straddle the central nucleus, placing constraints on the structure of the inner-most regions of the galaxy. Traditionally, it has been difficult to obtain information in these regions due to the degeneracy introduced by multiple mass components and smearing of spectroscopic data from non-circular stellar and gas motions. Lying at low redshift, it displays a visibly extended spiral disc, allowing a detailed investigation of its mass distribution beyond the lensing regions. In addition, two points on the rotation curve have been obtained from neutral hydrogen observations (Barnes et al. 1999). The combination of its proximity and its improbable alignment with the background quasar makes this system the ideal laboratory for studying galactic structure.

Section 2 of this paper discusses the basics of lensing. Section 3 introduces the galaxy 2237+0305 and Section 4 the mass models, our method and the constraints used. Section 5 presents our results and their implications for the structure of the galaxy.

## 2 Lensing

Gravitational lensing can be treated as a purely geometric consequence of General Relativity. If a background source is sufficiently close to the optic axis linking the lens and the observer (approximately within one Einstein radius), the paths of the light rays received from it will have been altered by the mass of the lensing object. If the simplest case of point masses for both lens and source is assumed, the positions of the images observed in the lens plane can be obtained analytically using simple geometry. This geometry is directly generalisable for more complex mass distributions, where extended lenses comprise multiple components. The lens equation linking these can be written easily,

$$𝜶(𝜽)=𝜽𝜷,$$
(1)
where

$$𝜶=\frac{D_{ds}}{D_s}\widehat{𝜶},$$
(2)
is the reduced bending angle, $`𝜽`$ is the image position, $`𝜷`$ is the source position, and all distances are angular diameter distances (Narayan & Bartelmann 1999). Throughout, we have assumed an Einstein-de Sitter universe with a Hubble constant of $`H_0`$ = 70 kms-1Mpc-1, although cosmology makes little difference to physical scales of the galaxy due to its proximity to the observer.

The angle of deflection of a light ray travelling from source to observer is dependent upon the projected surface mass distribution in the lens plane of the lensing object. This incorporates both the convergence (the greater the surface mass density, the greater the deflection) and shear (the greater the anisotropy of the lens, the greater the deviation of the images from a uniform, circular configuration) of the lens. The bending angle, $`\widehat{𝜶}`$ is given by,

$$\widehat{𝜶}(𝝃)=\frac{4G}{c^2}\frac{(𝝃𝝃^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝝃^{})}{|𝝃𝝃^{}|^2}d^2\xi ^{},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the surface mass density and the integral extends over the surface of the distribution (primed co-ordinates). The addition of multiple mass components is trivial with this formalism and allows a complicated system to be applied to lensing.

## 3 2237+0305

2237+0305, a barred spiral Sab type galaxy at a redshift of $`z`$=0.0394 was first discovered by Huchra et al. (1985), but the images were first seen by Yee (1988). Almost collinear with the centre of the galaxy (the optic axis) is a background quasar at $`z`$=1.695. The geometric conditions of this system are favourable to macrolensing of the quasar through the bulge of the galaxy.

Huchra’s lens, as it is often termed, has been extensively studied over the past fifteen years, mainly due to its proximity to us, and the ability to image the galaxy with ground-based telescopes. For this reason, it is the ideal laboratory in which to study lensing, and more importantly for this work, the structure of the lensing galaxy. The lens has a visible central bulge, a stellar disc and a perturbing bar. The four images straddle the nucleus in an Einstein Cross configuration and their positions have been measured accurately (Crane et al. 1991). The major axis of the disc and bulge have been measured by Yee at a position angle of 77, and the images at an angle of 67. The rotation of the images away from the major axis of the galaxy is due to the torqueing effect of the bar at a position angle of 39. Schmidt et al. (1998) extensively modelled the mass distribution in the bar and its effect on the positions of the images. The angular positions of the major components of the galaxy are displayed in Figure 1.

The scale lengths of the luminous parts of the galaxy have been measured from HST light profiles by Schmidt (1996), and their ellipticities by Racine (1991) and Irwin et al. (1989), and thus many of the galactic parameters have been previously measured.

Qualitatively, the majority of the convergence will be provided by the central bulge (in the absence of a cuspy dark matter halo) as it dominates in the region in which the lensing is most affected. The disc will contribute both globally and add significant convergence to the inner regions. The bar will add little convergence for the lensing, but will provide shear through its rotated position angle. In addition, the inclination of the disc and flattening of the bulge will also contribute to the twisting of the image positions. The presence of a dark matter component to the galaxy will add convergence and, if non-spherical, shear. Given the highly elliptical nature of the visible components already discussed, we will assume a spherical halo.

## 4 Models

### 4.1 Mass Models

We will construct models for the mass distributions of the bulge, disc, bar and dark matter halo using parameters from previous studies, and map light rays from the measured image positions to the source plane. Varying the contribution of each component will vary the convergence and shear within the images and shift their back-mapped positions in the source plane. A potential solution is obtained when a particular addition of the four components produces a common source position. Clearly, the four images originate from the same point in the source plane. The actual position of the source quasar cannot be constrained. The centre of the galaxy will be considered fixed given the relatively few degrees of freedom.

Rotation curves for potential solutions will be produced and compared with neutral hydrogen rotation measurements and the measured mass lying within the images. The combination of both lensing and dynamical constraints increases the number of constrained parameters and consequently reduces the number of unknowns.

The models used for the mass distributions of the four principal galactic components are standard profiles from the literature, tailored to suit this galaxy.

The bulge is modelled as both a modified de Vaucouleurs surface mass distribution (de Vaucouleurs 1948, 1959), where it is assumed the mass follows the light (constant mass-to-light ratio) and an exponential surface mass profile, as in the models of Schmidt (1996). The modification to both allows the introduction of an ellipticity, $`e`$, such that for the de Vaucouleurs profile,

$$\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Sigma }_03.33\left[\left(\frac{x^2+\frac{y^2}{(1e)^2}}{r_b}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}1\right],$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the value of the surface mass density at that position, $`r_b`$ is the characteristic scale length of the bulge, and $`e`$ is defined by,

$$e=1\frac{b}{a},$$
(5)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are the semi-major and minor axes respectively. The central surface density ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\times `$103.33) is denoted ‘bg’. The exponential profile is modelled simply by introducing the ellipticity (assumed to be a projection effect),

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)=\mathrm{bg}e^{f(x,y)/r_b},`$ (6)
$`f(x,y)=\sqrt{x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{(1e)^2}}}`$ (7)
and again ‘bg’ is the central surface mass density.

The disc is modelled as an exponential surface density. Unlike the bulge which is treated with the ellipticity as measured, the disc is rotated to its measured inclination of $`i`$=60. This involves projecting the volume to a surface mass density by rotating the $`z`$-axis and redefining co-ordinates. If we assume the disc is uniformly distributed in the $`z`$ direction, then we can simply write,

$$\rho (x,y,z)e^{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}/r_d},$$
(8)
where the proportionality includes a factor reflecting the thickness of the disc, assumed to be constant, and $`r_d`$ is the characteristic disc scale length. Upon rotation about the $`x`$-axis (such that it becomes the major axis of the ellipse) by the inclination angle, $`i`$=60, the surface mass density is the integral through the rotated axis, $`z^{}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x^{},y^{})=\mathrm{dc}\underset{z_{min}^{}}{\overset{z_{max}^{}}{}}e^{\sqrt{x^2+((z^{}z_{min}^{})\mathrm{sin}i+\frac{y^{}}{\mathrm{cos}i})^2}/r_d}𝑑z^{},$$
(9)
where the limits of integration bound the original constant disc thickness at the inclination angle (taken as $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$=500pc), the primed co-ordinates represent the new, observed Cartesian system and ‘dc’ denotes the central surface mass density.

The bar has been extensively modelled by Schmidt (1996) and we will use his surface mass distribution and position angle. Schmidt uses a Ferrers model with an ellipticity, $`e`$,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,y)=\mathrm{br}\left(1\frac{x^2}{a^2}\frac{y^2}{b^2}\right)^\lambda ,$$
(10)
where ‘br’ is the central surface density, $`\lambda `$ is the Ferrers exponent, and the $`(x,y)`$ co-ordinates lie in the rotated frame of the bar. Schmidt finds different exponents, ellipticities and scale lengths depending on the profiles used to fit to the light distribution. For an exponential bulge and disc, he finds $`\lambda `$=2, $`e`$=0.64 and b=1.0$`\pm `$0.3 arcsec fit the observations best. For a de Vaucouleurs bulge and exponential disc, he finds $`\lambda `$=0.5, $`e`$=0.89 and b=3.1$`\pm `$0.9 arcsec. In our analysis, the central surface density (essentially the M/L) will remain a free parameter. Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}`$ is the critical surface density defined by the geometry,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_s}{D_dD_{ds}},$$
(11)
The profile of the dark matter halo is controversial. Conventional theories where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM is the preferred cosmology have been very successful in explaining the observed large scale structure of the universe (eg Peebles 1984). Navarro, Frenk and White (1996; hereafter NFW) used N-body simulations to derive a density profile for such a cosmology. One feature of the NFW profile is a cuspy central region with $`\alpha `$ -1 where $`\rho r^\alpha `$. This steepens to $`\alpha `$ -3 for $`rr_h`$, where $`r_h`$ is the characteristic scale length of the halo. Recently, more accurate simulations have pushed the cuspiness at $`r`$ 0 to $`\alpha `$ -1.5 (eg Moore et al. 1999a). Recent observational work by de Blok et al. (2001) on low surface brightness galaxies has shown the need for a core in the dark matter haloes, using optical rotation curves and fitting minimal discs. CDM has been challenged further by the missing satellite (Moore et al. 1999b) and angular momentum problems (see recent discussion by Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov 2001). The former considers the few satellite galaxies observed in orbit around our Galaxy compared with that predicted by the theory, and the latter refers to the predictions of CDM of too much angular momentum loss to support observed disc galaxies.

Since there is no general agreement we have chosen to model the dark matter halo as a softened isothermal sphere (Kormann, Schneider & Bartelmann, 1994),

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)=\frac{\sigma _v^2}{2G}\frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2+r_c^2}},$$
(12)
where $`\sigma _v`$ is the velocity dispersion and $`r_c`$ is the core or break radius. There are several reasons for this choice of profile. Firstly, it has one less parameter than an NFW+core profile (no scale length as distinct from the core length). Given the small number of degrees of freedom we have, an extra one is useful. Secondly, the profile naturally asymptotes to a flat rotation curve for $`rr_c`$, and finally, recent results find that the two models are indistinguishable when the remaining mass components are taken into account (Weiner, Sellwood & Williams, 2001, modelled NGC 4123 with both profiles and found their shape had a minor effect on the results). In addition to this, the choice of a spherical halo is a simplification in that it precludes the need to introduce another parameter. This choice is partially justified by the ellipticities in the other components. They are adequate to produce the required ellipticity. Furthermore, recent results from Ibata et al. (2001) suggest dark matter haloes are spherical. They used evidence of the tidal stream from the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy to show that the halo potential cannot be flatter than $`q<0.7`$ and probably has $`q>0.9`$, where $`q`$ is the axis ratio.

### 4.2 Constraints and Previous Work

High resolution imaging and detailed modelling of Huchra’s Lens has provided us with many of the model parameters required for fitting a mass distribution. Schmidt (1996) used I-band HST imaging to measure the disc and bulge scale lengths, as well as to determine their ellipticities. These results were updated values from previous studies by Yee (1988) and Huchra et al. (1985). These data leave the disc and bulge mass-to-light ratios as the only fitting parameters for these components. The bar has a measured ellipticity, position angle and major axis, and within mass-to-light ratio uncertainties is completely determined by Schmidt.

Schmidt deconvolved the HST light distribution using two different bulge models, an exponential and a de Vaucouleurs surface mass profile. Results from the literature show that one of these profiles commonly fits a bulge well. Carollo et al. (2001) show from HST observations that the bulge mass profile is mildly morphologically dependent. For Sa-Sb galaxies, such as 2237+0305, both types are observed and thus an exploration of both models is prudent.

One further constraint and one check will be applied to the final rotation curve. Neutral hydrogen observations by Barnes et al. (1999) at the VLA provide two rotation points in the outer regions of the galaxy. In these regions, the visible matter has fallen below observational levels and the HI is acting as a tracer of the dark matter distribution. Unfortunately, the data are not of high enough angular resolution to probe the rotation in the inner regions of the galaxy. An additional piece of information is provided by gravitational lensing, where the position of the images in combination with the geometry of the source-lens-observer system gives the projected mass enclosed within the images (Rix, Schneider & Bahcall, 1992; Wambsganss & Paczynski, 1994). The consistency of this value with the mass distribution found will act as a check on the result. We define the image radius as the average of the radii of the four images from the centre of the galaxy. This corresponds to $`r_{im}`$ = 0.9 arcsec $``$ 670h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{70}{}^{}`$ parsecs. The halo is completely unconstrained observationally. We will fit to both the scale length and the halo normalisation.

We therefore have seven parameters for which a fit is required - four mass-to-light ratios, one core radius and two co-ordinates of the source position. We have as constraints, eight co-ordinates of image positions, two rotation points and one mass enclosed within the images. These observational constraints are given in Table 1. Thus, we have four degrees of freedom.

The galaxy has been previously modelled by many groups. Huchra et al. (1985) undertook the initial work on the system, measuring ellipticities and scale lengths and providing a rudimentary lensing analysis. They assumed a circular lens model and showed that the inferred mass-to-light ratio is within current values for nearby galaxies. Kent & Falco (1988) approximated the galaxy as an oblate spheroid, citing the bulge and the bar as the two primary lensing components. Their analysis attempted to fit the observed quasar fluxes to their model and was reasonably successful. Contemporaneously, Schneider et al. (1988) used a single, elliptical de Vaucouleurs bulge to model the galaxy mass distribution. They fitted two free parameters, the mass-to-light ratio (assumed to be constant) and the source position, given the image positions, by minimising the deviation of predicted positions to those observed. Unfortunately, they were limited by imaging taken with large PSFs and by the simplicity of their modelling. Both Kent & Falco, and Schneider’s group find different positions for the background source, as does Schmidt (1996) in his bar-centric analysis. Schmidt combines the disc and bulge into a single component with the ellipticity Racine (1991) measured for the bulge alone. The bar was then studied in detail using high resolution HST (WF/PC-1) I-band imaging and the source position again back-mapped from the measured image positions. This is the first study to include the dark matter halo in the modelling.

In order to have a reasonable chance of understanding the complex structure of this lens, and hence its lensing characteristics, one needs to model each component of the lens carefully. With the accumulation of data on this galaxy over the past fifteen years, this is possible.

## 5 Results

### 5.1 Source Position and Rotation Curve

The lensing galaxy was constructed as a two-dimensional array of surface mass elements, with an exponential spatial scale. This feature allowed the important central regions to be highly resolved, while keeping the array dimensions computationally tractable. The galaxy was rotated from its position angle to make the $`x`$-axis coincident with the galactic major axis, and the image positions rotated to a right-handed co-ordinate system. The four mass components were constructed and overlayed on the mass array, forming a surface mass distribution for the galaxy. Alterations were made to this array when varying the halo core radius, $`r_c`$ or the scale lengths of the bulge and disc. The bending angles for the particular distribution were then calculated.

We have calculated bending angles for particular values of bulge and disc scale length, for a given bulge profile. These values for the four components then were added in linear combination varying the mass-to-light ratios of each component. Since the bending angles scale linearly with mass-to-light ratio, variations in the overall scaling parameters can be considered after the angles have been calculated.

Rotation curves were carefully constructed to incorporate the lack of spherical symmetry in the disc and bulge. The functional form for the disc rotation was obtained for an exponential disc from Binney & Tremaine (1987). The de Vaucouleurs bulge was de-projected into an elliptical volume mass density using the profile of Fillmore (1986) and the rotation calculated using mass enclosed within a radius and equating the centripetal and gravitational accelerations.

The mass measured by Wambsganss & Paczynski (1994) within the images uses the relations of lensing and determines the projected mass in a cylinder bounded by the images and integrated along the line-of-sight. A suitable distribution of mass profiles must satisfy this constraint. The consistency between this mass and a solution that reproduces the correct image positions does not provide a completely independent constraint as it has been derived from lensing. It only demonstrates the true convergence and shear that has already been accounted for in the source finding program. As such, the consistency of these points provides a check that the source finding program is reconstructing the correct shear and convergence.

The process of deciding which distributions adequately fit all of the constraints reduces to the minimisation of the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic. For a particular set of profiles for the luminous mass components (as given in Table 1), a search through five dimensional parameter space (four mass-to-light ratios and one core radius) was performed. For each model providing a suitable mass enclosed within the images, the eight image positions and the two points at the pertinent positions on the rotation curve, were calculated. These were used to calculate the $`\chi ^2`$ statistic and the minimum found. In addition to the variation of the mass profiles (de Vaucouleurs (dV) versus exponential (Exp) bulge, and subsequent changes in disc and bar profiles), the scale lengths of the disc and bulge were varied to their 1$`\sigma `$ observational limits in order to obtain a more complete representation of the parameter space.

The incomplete Gamma Function provides the goodness of fit for a system with $`n`$ degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) and a $`\chi ^2`$ statistic. For a system with four d.o.f., a solution with the probability to 1$`\sigma `$ (68%) of being real (that is, not by chance) is given by solving,

$$1F(n/2;\chi ^2/2)=0.68$$
(13)
where $`F(\alpha ;\beta )`$ is the incomplete gamma function (Numerical Recipes). The solution for $`n`$=4 is $`\chi _{\mathrm{max}}^2`$=2.3. This is a strict value from the formal theory and requires a high degree of accuracy to be attained. Considering the idealistic mass models we are using and the small number of d.o.f., we would not expect to reach this low value for the $`\chi ^2`$. Instead, the minimum value found will be taken as an adequate fit, provided it does not exceed this value excessively. The error analysis for the best fit result will provide information on the sensitivity of the solution on the different parameters. We will take the errors on a parameter to be where the $`\chi ^2`$ increases by one while holding all other parameters constant.

The results for the model with a de Vaucouleurs bulge is shown in Table 2, and an exponential bulge in Table 3.

These tables clearly demonstrate the superiority of the former over the latter. The $`\chi ^2`$ parameter for the exponential bulge results is evenly distributed between error in the rotation curve points and the image positions. It seems the rotation curve cannot be sufficiently produced to satisfy the mass enclosed within the images constraint as well as the two points measured in the curve. Similarly, the combination of bulge, disc and bar cannot produce the required ellipticity as well as an acceptable rotation curve.

Conversely, the results for the de Vaucouleurs bulge and exponential disc are quite promising. None of the combination of scale lengths produced an acceptable $`\chi ^2`$ ($``$2.3), however, the values are of the right order of magnitude. The best result is produced at the 1$`\sigma `$ upper limit of the disc scale length as measured by Schmidt. Without a continuity of solutions between these scale lengths, it is difficult to predict if an acceptable solution occurs within the measured limits. Without the added accuracy of further rotation points, we will take this solution to be acceptable and base our analysis upon it. The $`\chi ^2`$ for this result is distributed evenly between error in the rotation points and the image positions.

Figure 2 shows the rotation curve produced from this solution and the components used to construct it.

The total rotation curve is still rising at the edge of the plot due to the influence of the halo. Here, the three luminous components are falling away, particularly the bulge and bar which are essentially contributing no mass. This rise could pose a problem in that rotation curves are observed to be reasonably flat or slowly falling. Simply scaling down the halo core size would alleviate this problem, however it would also affect the convergence at the image positions. Although the halo does not contribute significant mass within the images, losing this would require a scaling up of another component. As all of the other modelled components contribute shear, this would effect the overall image positions and increase the $`\chi ^2`$. Another halo profile may provide a better fit.

As mentioned above it is pertinent to calculate the projected mass of each of the components within the images. This involves the integration of mass within a cylinder out to the image radius and through the line-of-sight. Table 4 displays the results.

The bulge clearly dominates the convergence within the image region. A percentage variation in the overall scalings of the halo, disc and bar components will make less difference to the lensing than a change in the bulge value. These results demonstrate the nature of stacking these mass components. An increase in the halo mass (for example, due to a small core region) would necessitate a decrease in the bulge. For this to be an adequate solution, however, the halo cannot be too large, otherwise it contributes too much rotation at the HI points, and the loss in shear from the bulge must be compensated for in another elliptical component. Thus, the combination of requiring correct convergence and shear is able to break the disc/halo degeneracy, removing the need to consider both maximal and minimal discs (Maller et al. 2000).

In addition to finding the best-fitting bulge and disc contributions to the rotation curve, one can perform a similar analysis on the source position for each potential solution. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5, compared with those from previous groups. The source position for a given configuration was found by averaging the backmapped positions of the four images.

Our results fit well with those of Schmidt et al. (1998) and Kent & Falco (1988), but not with Schneider et al. (1988). The consistency of three of the results is encouraging.

The image positions reproduced with this model are not adequate to definitively conclude this as a solution, however they are still extremely close to the observed positions. Figure 3 displays the model and real image positions, as well as the location of the source.

The final piece of relevant information that can be derived from these results is the total mass of each of the galactic components. The optical disc extends out to $`r`$ 25-30 kpc (Yee 1988) and the dark matter halo will presumably continue far beyond this radius. As such, the masses calculated will be those enclosed within a sphere with radius $`r`$ = 30 kpc, centred on the galactic nucleus. The results are displayed in Table 6.

These values are consistent in their order of magnitude with nominal masses for galactic components. The dark matter halo contributes $``$60 per cent of the dynamical mass of the galaxy within the optically visible region. If the halo was allowed to extend further, as it clearly does from its rotation curve, it would contribute much more to the overall galactic mass.

### 5.2 Mass-to-Light Ratio

In order to facilitate his analysis of the bar in 2237+0305, Robert Schmidt decomposed light profiles by taking cuts along the major and minor galactic axes. These profiles can be used to investigate the mass-to-light ratio of the bulge and disc in the I-band (Schmidt, private communication). A deviation from a constant mass-to-light ratio across an individual component could either indicate the non-applicability of the mass profiles to this galaxy, or an intrinsic colour variation. Such a failure of the light to trace the mass would have implications for analyses of galactic discs where the assumption of constant mass-to-light ratio is often made.

The major axis light profile, once calibrated to units of solar luminosity, clearly displays the addition of two distinct components. The central region is dominated by a steeply falling bulge region, which flattens to a more gradually decreasing disc. The luminosity was calculated assuming a solar absolute magnitude in the V-band and correcting it to the I-band using the Vilnius spectral shifts of Bessell (1990).

We calculate the mass-to-light ratio for the disc, initially, by simply dividing the best fit mass profile by the luminosity profile (see Figure 4).

The location of a probable spiral arm is visible as a dip at a radius of $``$13 kpc. The plot is not flat, as one would expect if the disc light followed a perfect exponential with the scale length used. Instead, there is a noticeable gradient to the ratio. This is possibly an indication of further structure beyond the simple models used. An additional minor difference between our models and those of Schmidt is our use of a thick disc. Finally, the presence of the bar affects the underlying mass distribution. Interestingly, if the disc scale length is increased to $`r_d`$12kpc, the gradient virtually disappears. This does, however, neglect the bar influence. As a crude estimate of the value of the ratio, however, one can average the result from the curve to find,

$$(M/L)_{I,d}=1.1\pm 0.2h_{70},$$
(14)
where $`I`$ indicates the wavelength band and $`d`$ denotes the disc.

This value is consistent with those from the literature. Syer, Mao & Mo (1998) used disc stability arguments to place an upper bound on the I-band mass-to-light ratio, (M/L)I $``$ 1.9h100 $``$ 1.3h70. An independent study using population synthesis models (Boissier & Prantzos, 2000) gives (M/L)I = 1.0-1.3h100 $``$ 0.7-0.9h70. Finally, Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov (2001) use the I-band Tully Fisher relation of Giovanelli et al. (1997) and their warm dark matter simulations to limit the mass-to-light ratio in this band to (M/L)I = 0.6-0.7h60±10. These independent results fit well with the value we find.

By fitting an exponential curve to the light profile, outside of the bulge region of influence, the light contribution of the disc can be removed and the bulge mass-to-light ratio calculated. This technique assumes that the disc light follows the exponential decay to the centre of the galaxy and is not disrupted by the other mass components in that region. We ignore the light emitted within the image region, as this is contaminated by quasar light. The final profile for the best-fitting bulge model (bg = 9.53 $`\times `$ 105 Mpc-2) is displayed in Figure 5.

This profile is reasonably flat over a large range of radii, but increases sharply for $`r>`$ 3 kpc. This is the beginning of the region where both the disc and bulge are influential. Here, the disc exponential profile is a poor fit to the light profile and the disc subtraction removes too much light. This indicates the inadequacy of the two profiles to accurately account for the mass. It is possible the inclusion of the bar would add mass to the inner regions of the bulge area (its effectiveness is negligible beyond $`r`$3 kpc) and increase the mass-to-light ratio. This could account for the slope at $`r>`$ 3 kpc. Unfortunately, as the bulge and bar occupy the same radial regions, they cannot be deconvolved as the disc could. Taking the data from radii, $`r`$ = 0.7-3.3 kpc, the average mass-to-light ratio is,

$$(M/L)_{I,b}=2.9\pm 0.5h_{70},$$
(15)
where $`b`$ denotes the bulge component. Fukugita, Hogan & Peebles (1998) find a value of (M/L)B,b = 6.5$`\pm _{2.0}^{+1.8}`$ corresponding to (M/L)I,b = 5.0$`\pm _{1.5}^{+1.4}`$ in the I-band using synthesis models and data from other groups. This determination just fits with our results. It is encouraging to note the higher mass-to-light ratio in the older population bulge stars than for the younger disc stars.

### 5.3 Maximality

Maximal discs have been used in many studies to investigate the dynamics and structure of galaxies, as a means of deconvolving the disc from the dark matter halo. Physically, maximal discs have been found to be inconsistent with observations of gas motions in spiral galaxies combined with theoretical models (for example, Kranz, Slyz & Rix 2001). Observations of spiral galaxies have challenged the suggestion that discs are maximal owing to the need for a significant dark matter halo (e.g. Bottema 1997). Weiner, Sellwood & Williams (2001) used observed velocity dispersions and gas dynamical simulations to reproduce the observed bar and spiral arms of a large spiral galaxy. They found the disc was maximal (80-100%) to high confidence. Conversely, Courteau & Rix (1999) find that their sample HSB galaxies are sub-maximal to high confidence using residuals from the Tully-Fisher relation and adiabatic infall of luminous material into dark matter potentials. Bottema (1993) used stellar velocity dispersions to infer the contribution from stars to the rotation curves in twelve discs. He finds $`v_{stars}/v_{total}`$ 63$`\pm `$10 per cent, below maximal according to the definition of Sackett (1997).

The small variation in disc contribution to the 2237+0305 rotation curve, as demonstrated in Figure 2, provides a good determination of the degree of maximality in this galaxy. The overall rotation curve, although not constrained observationally in the region where this calculation is made (the disc maximum at $`r`$ $``$ 2.2$`r_d`$), is also reasonably tight given the HI constraints and the profiles we have used.

The contribution of the disc to the rotation has already been determined by its mean central surface mass density (dc = 506$`\pm `$30 Mpc-2). This corresponds to a maximum rotation of $`v_{disc}(2.2r_d)`$ = 163$`\pm `$5 kms-1. The maximum rotation is calculated to be $`v_{total}(2.2r_d)`$ = 288$`\pm `$5 kms-1. The percentage contribution of the disc to the rotation, the degree, is therefore,

$$\frac{v_{disc}(2.2r_d)}{v_{total}(2.2r_d)}=57\pm 3\%$$
(16)
This value fits well with that found by Bottema (1993), and is well defined for the potential solutions presented in this work. The disc is clearly sub-maximal.

### 5.4 Flux Ratios

The flux observed from each image in a gravitationally lensed system, is a direct measure of the magnification in that region of the lens plane. A comparison between the flux ratios of the images observed in 2237+0305 and those predicted by the solutions can further act as a check on the results.

Observed fluxes in individual images are a combination of magnification due to microlensing, macrolensing and intrinsic variability coupled with time delays. Agol, Jones & Blaes (2000), however, have measured IR fluxes (8.9 & 11.7$`\mu `$m) for the four components and from these the ratio of fluxes can be calculated. In this region of the spectrum, microlensing events are not observed and it is therefore postulated that these observations sample an extended region of the source. In addition, the infrared fluxes are not sensitive to the dust reddening effects of optical light travelling through the galaxy. Thus the IR fluxes should measure the macro-magnification. These fluxes, relative to the B image, are displayed in Table 7.

The flux ratios were calculated from our results by taking the ratio of the magnification for each of the images relative to the B image. The magnification is calculated by taking the ratio of areas of triangles around the images mapped from the image to the source plane. They were calculated from the best-fit solution of Table 2 and are displayed in Table 7.

Our results are consistent with the observations.

### 5.5 Implications for the Dark Matter Halo

The halo model used is a generic profile that is analytically simple but has little physical motivation. It does, however provide a mass profile with varying slope, and this is a useful attribute if one wishes to study the gradient of the mass distribution.

The best-fit solution for the mass distribution of this galaxy is not an adequate fit. The rotation curve is rising at the outer regions studied instead of falling, and the images are not close enough to their measured points. A halo with a smaller core would alleviate the former problem but require a change of the other mass distributions to address the latter. The mass-to-light profile of the disc suggests an increase in the disc scale length. Such a move would change the shear introduced by the disc. In any case, the core radii found as the best solutions in this study have large core radii, $`r_c`$ 13-16kpc. These values are not consistent with the cuspy central regions of the CDM profiles. In order to reduce the $`\chi ^2`$ and find an adequate solution, we firstly require further rotation data. The more points we have with good accuracy, the more likely we are to be able to eliminate profiles and find the best solution. Until more data is obtained, it is not worth trying to twist the halo profile to fit the parameters better. If the error bars on the HI rotation points were doubled, the fit would become quite consistent with the observations. The Barnes et al. (1999) observations were undertaken with the VLA C array, a compact configuration with low angular resolution. More informative data is attainable with higher resolution observations.

The surface mass distribution of the four components combined can be represented on a log-log plot to study the slope as a function of radius. This information is displayed in Figure 6.

The dashed lines are normalised fits to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }r^{0.3}`$ (short-dashed) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }r^1`$ (long-dashed). The central slope overall is reasonably steep given the large influence of the bulge. The dark matter halo has zero slope in the inner regions given its large core radius. The transition to isothermal is expected given the dominance of the halo in the outer regions.

## 6 Conclusions

We have undertaken a study of the structure of galaxy 2237+0305 using dynamical and gravitational lensing constraints. The combination of these techniques allows the problems related to the disc/halo degeneracy and maximality of the disc to be overcome.

We find the galaxy is adequately modelled with four mass components, a central bar, stellar disc, bulge and dark matter halo. The bulge contributes $``$85 per cent of the convergence of the lensing, within the image radius, and is thus the principal component to which the lensing is sensitive. The disc, bulge and bar all contribute shear, while the assumption of sphericity for the dark matter halo seems adequate for this analysis with the observational information available.

Within the visible radius of the galaxy ($`r<`$ 30h$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{70}{}^{}`$ kpc), the dark matter halo contributes $``$60 per cent of the total mass. The potential existence of a core region in the softened isothermal sphere halo is suggested to high confidence by the results. The best reconstruction of the source position occurs for a halo with a non-cuspy central region (within the image radius), and a core radius of 13.4$`\pm `$0.4kpc, which is equivalent to 1.4$`r_d`$ for this model.

The disc is found to be sub-maximal to 5$`\sigma `$ with an average contribution of 57$`\pm `$3 per cent to the rotation at the maximum of its circular speed. This is a low result, but clearly demonstrates the dominance of the dark matter halo in the galactic mass. The disc and bulge I-band mass-to-light ratios were calculated using the mean and standard deviation of the potential solutions. They were found to be (M/L)I,d = 1.1$`\pm `$0.2h70 and (M/L)I,b = 2.9$`\pm `$0.5h70, respectively. The flux ratios between the quasar images calculated from their magnifications was found to be consistent with infrared data.

With the addition of rotation curve information, the dark matter profile can potentially be found uniquely, and comparisons with the theories of dark matter particle candidates undertaken. With a full rotation curve, the dark matter profile can be found uniquely. The emission lines H$`\alpha `$, \[OIII\]$`\lambda `$5007 and \[NII\]$`\lambda `$6583 are all present in the galaxy spectrum (unpublished spectrum from ANU 2.3m, A. Oshlack, private communication) and would be suitable for this study.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Robert Schmidt for kindly providing his light profiles and for the use of his thesis. CMT acknowledges the funding provided by an Australian Postgraduate Award that has made this work possible, and we thank the anonymous referee for useful comments on the manuscript.