format: text

text:
# A Precision Measurement of the 7Be(p,𝛾)8B Cross section with an Implanted 7Be Target

## Abstract

The 7Be(p,$`\gamma )^8`$B reaction plays a central role in the evaluation of solar neutrino fluxes. We report on a new precision measurement of the cross section of this reaction, following our previous experiment with an implanted 7Be target, a raster-scanned beam and the elimination of the backscattering loss. The new measurement incorporates a more abundant 7Be target and a number of improvements in design and procedure. The point at Elab = 991 keV was measured several times under varying experimental conditions, yielding a value of S17(Ec.m. = 850 keV) = 24.0 $`\pm `$ 0.5 eV b. Measurements were carried out at lower energies as well. Due to the precise knowledge of the implanted 7Be density profile it was possible to reconstitute both the off- and on- resonance parts of the cross section and to obtain from the entire set of measurements an extrapolated value of S17(0) = 21.2 $`\pm `$ 0.7 eV b.

The study of fusion reactions in the sun, relevant to the observed solar neutrino shortfall, has been the subject of intensive research Adel ; Bahc1 . Recently, this subject has acquired additional significance with the new results of the Super-Kamiokande SK  and SNO sno  experiments. The 7Be(p,$`\gamma `$)8B reaction and the accurate determination of the astrophysical S17(0) factor is of great importance to these and other astrophysical studies Fiorentini ; Barger ; Lopez  since 8B is the major source of the high-energy solar neutrinos. In previous publications Weiss ; Hass  we have demonstrated a new method for measuring the cross section of the 7Be(p,$`\gamma `$)8B reaction by overcoming several of the recognized potential systematic errors in earlier measurements (see, e.g., Adel ). Our method involved a small diameter implanted 7Be target from ISOLDE(CERN), incorporating the elimination of back-scattering loss of 8B through the use of an implanted target, and a raster scanned beam over an area larger than the target spot, avoiding the difficulties encountered with targets of poorly known areal distribution. Several experiments Hammach ; Jung ; Stried  have recently published S17(0) values of (3-10)% accuracy, two of those Jung ; Stried  using similar methods to Hass . However, there still exist large, up to 20% discrepancies among experimental results as well as the extracted S17(0) values of these measurements. The present work has been undertaken in order to address these discrepancies and to provide a new, firm input for the determination of this cross section by exploiting fully the advantages of the implanted target: full knowledge of the target composition and the 7Be profile, target robustness and the ability to produce a secondary target of reduced activity to improve the conditions for the $`\gamma `$ calibration of the target. Another feature of the present work is a thin $`\alpha `$ detector and a relatively large solid angle, providing clean $`\alpha `$ spectra.

The general scheme of the experiment follows that of our previous publications Weiss ; Hass . For the case of a homogeneous beam impinging on a target smaller than the beam, the reaction yield Y, in terms of the cross section $`\sigma `$, is given by:

$$\mathrm{Y}=\sigma \frac{\mathrm{dn}_\mathrm{b}}{\mathrm{dS}}\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{t}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{dn}_\mathrm{b}/\mathrm{dS}`$ is the beam density and nt is the total number of 7Be atoms in the target spot. The target was switched periodically between a position in the proton beam and a position in front of the $`\beta `$ delayed-$`\alpha `$ detector. The counting efficiency for the entire cycle is $`\eta _{\mathrm{cycle}}`$ = 0.390 $`\pm `$ 0.001. In terms of the experimental parameters, this can be written as:

$$\sigma (\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.})=\frac{\mathrm{N}_\alpha }{\mathrm{n}_\mathrm{t}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{A}}{\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{p}}\right)\frac{1}{\eta _{\mathrm{Be}}\eta _{\mathrm{cycle}}}$$
(2)
where Nα is the number of measured $`\alpha `$ particles, $`N_\mathrm{p}/\mathrm{A}`$ is the integrated current density through a collimator hole of area A and $`\eta _{\mathrm{Be}}`$ is the geometrical detection efficiency of 8Be, which is twice the detection efficiency of $`\alpha `$’s: $`\eta _{Be}`$ = $`\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha }{4\pi }`$.

The proton beam from the Weizmann Institute 3 MV Van de Graaff accelerator was scanned by an electronically controlled electrostatic raster scanner over a rectangular area in order to get a beam of uniform areal density Weiss1  passing through a 3 mm collimator placed in front of the target. A vacuum of $``$ 6$``$10-7 mbar was maintained in the chamber. A liquid nitrogen cooled cryo-finger was used to reduce carbon build-up. The 2 mm diameter target spot was aligned with a set of interchangeable collimators downstream from the target, used to measure the beam density and homogeneity. A 150 mm2, 25 $`\mu `$m silicon surface barrier detector recorded the $`\beta `$ delayed $`\alpha `$-particles from the decay of 8B. The target was mounted on an arm which was periodically rotated by a micro-step motor out of the beam to face the detector at distances of 7-10 mm. The time sequence of the cycle was similar to the one used in Hass . The scanned beam density $`\mathrm{dn}_\mathrm{b}/\mathrm{dS}`$, typically of about 1-1.5 $`\mu `$A through a 2 mm aperture, was measured by integrating the beam in an electron suppressed Faraday cup. The current was digitized and recorded in a gated scaler. Beam integration with and without suppression yielded results similar to a fraction of a percent. The beam homogeneity was checked by measuring the $`\alpha `$ yield from the 7Li(d,p)8Li reaction versus integrated beam current for various downstream collimators. This procedure was repeated at various energies to obtain the corresponding scan voltage. The 7Li(d,p)8Li reaction was also used to determine the solid angle of the Si detector by comparing the $`\alpha `$ yield of the 7Li(d,p)8Li measurement (‘close’ geometry) with the yield in a ‘far’ geometry where the detector was collimated and far removed from the target for the solid angle to be established directly. The proton energy from the Van de Graaff accelerator was calibrated with the help of the known resonances of the 27Al(p,$`\gamma `$)28Si reaction at energies 991.2, 773.7, 632.6 and 504.9 keV.

A high activity 7Be target was prepared at ISOLDE (CERN) in a manner similar to that described in Hass  by direct implantation of 7Be at 60 keV in a copper substrate. The main new component in the present implantation was the primary source of 7Be for ISOLDE: a graphite target from the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) PSI , used routinely at PSI for the production of $`\pi `$-mesons. Large number of spallation products are accumulated in the target, including 7Be. The graphite target was placed inside an ISOLDE ion-source canister and brought to ISOLDE for an off-beam implantation. The number of 7Be atoms at production was 1.17$``$1016 on an implantation spot of 2 mm in diameter. The major characteristics of such a target- the deposition depth of 1220 nm, the stability of the Cu-Be matrix and the negligible back-scattering loss are described in Hass . In order to test the simulated profile of the Be implants, we measured the resonance curve in the 7Be(p,$`\gamma )^8`$B reaction. The position of the resonance peak indicated a proton energy of Elab = 741 keV, consistent with the energy loss in 1220 $`\AA `$ of Cu, the mean deposition depth obtained from simulation. The results, summarized in Fig. 3, yield $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ = 35 $`\pm `$ 3 keV for the resonance width, in agreement with the value 37 $`\pm `$ 5 keV of Ref. Filip . The full width at half maximum of the 7Be simulated profile is 1200 $`\AA `$ and the second moment is 2.5$``$105 $`\AA ^2`$.

The $`\gamma `$ activity of the 7Be target was too intense to be assayed in a standard $`\gamma `$ calibration set-up due to the problems associated with large dead times in the $`\gamma `$ counting. We therefore prepared a target identical to that used in the experiment but $``$300 times weaker. An accurate measurement of the relative intensities of the 478 keV $`\gamma `$-rays from the decay of 7Be for the two targets was carried out at the low background $`\gamma `$ counting laboratory of NRC-Soreq by placing both at the same distance from the Ge counter, yielding a ratio of 317.8 $`\pm `$ 0.8. This ratio was determined several times with consistent results. The absolute intensity of the weak target was measured at NRC-Soreq and also at Texas A$`\&`$M University. Both measurements followed calibration procedures involving up to thirteen high-precision standard sources of ten radio-nuclides. The Texas A$`\&`$M procedure is discussed in detail in Ref. hardy . These two determinations yield a (weak) target 7Be atom number of (2.667 $`\pm `$ 0.018)$``$1013 and (2.650 $`\pm `$ 0.018)$``$1013, respectively. We determine the number of 7Be nuclei in the target at a date corresponding to the end of implantation at ISOLDE to be $`n_t`$ = (1.168 $`\pm `$ 0.008)$``$1016. The branching ratio for $`\gamma `$ emission in the decay of 7Be was taken to be (10.52 $`\pm `$ 0.06)% ndata  and the half-life 53.29 $`\pm `$ 0.07 days tuli . The activity of the Be target was monitored throughout the experiment and revealed that there was no significant loss of 7Be over the entire measurement (Fig.1). A conservative limit on the loss is: $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(7Be)$`<`$ 1%/C of integrated beam flux, except for a specific event in the last phase of the experiment (see below). The 7Li content of the target also exhibited a similar long term stability.

The 25 $`\mu `$m thick Si detector provided a sufficient depletion layer to stop the $`\alpha `$ particles from the reaction but minimized the interaction with $`\gamma `$ rays from the 7Be activity. Fig. 2 shows an $`\alpha `$ spectrum at Elab = 991 keV. The $`\alpha `$ counts, Nα were obtained by integrating the spectrum of Fig. 2 in the region of interest. The number of $`\alpha `$ counts in the region of the fast rising noise peak is very small. For the data at Elab = 991 keV (table 1) this contribution has been determined as (0.3 $`\pm `$ 0.3)$`\%`$ to (0.8 $`\pm `$ 0.8)% of the total.

Background spectra were collected throughout the experiment with the target in the counting position, both with beam-on and beam-off and also with the target in the beam-through (current integration) position. The background consists of four parts, the electronic noise, pile up events from $`\gamma `$-activity, multiple scattering of the beam and general background (no beam, no target). The electronic noise was appreciably reduced by water cooling the detector and it yielded no contribution to the recorded spectra. The contribution to the background from multiple scattering was minimized by tight shielding of both the detector and the proton beam path. It was determined to be negligibly small in a number of measurements, e.g., one in which the target was replaced by a blank target. The general background was measured frequently; and the individual rates range from 0.4 to 0.6 $`\pm `$ 0.06/h. The $`\alpha `$ counts from the reaction ranged from 100/h to 6/h.

The cross section measurements were carried out at the energies of Ec.m. = 1078, 850, 415, 356 and 302 keV and also around the 633 keV resonance. The carbon buildup on the target and the subsequent (small) energy degradation was monitored throughout the course of the experiment by repeating the resonance measurement at regular intervals. The energy point at Ec.m. = 850 keV, corresponding to the 27Al(p,$`\gamma )^{28}`$Si resonance at Ep = 991.2 keV, was measured several times in the course of this experiment under varying conditions of solid angle and target strength in order to serve as a benchmark (see Table 1).

In the last phase of the measurements the target was subjected to a thermal episode and was heated to a high temperature. Following this event the 7Be content of the target dropped to 0.918 $`\pm `$ 0.003 of the pre-event value. Before and after the event the values were constant (taking into account the 7Be decay). A 7Be(p,$`\gamma `$)8B resonance curve measurement revealed that the second moment of the 7Be distribution was broadened by the ‘event’ by a factor of 9. For most of our measurements the target is sufficiently thin so that the integration of the cross section over the density distribution can be inferred to the requisite accuracy by correlating each measurements with the proton energy at the centroid of the 7Be distribution. This energy was derived from the measurement of the peak of the 633 keV resonance. Only at the 302 keV energy, there is an additional increase in the cross section of 0.8% because of the broadening.

The measured S17(E) values are shown in Fig. 3 and in table 1. The four measurements at Elab = 991 keV, with the corresponding $`\eta _{\mathrm{Be}}`$ values of 0.1783, 0.2879, 0.2324, 0.1752, yield an average value of S17 = 24.0 $`\pm `$ 0.5 eV b at the nominal energy of Ec.m. = 850 keV. This value provides a reference, regardless of possible extrapolation uncertainties, for comparison to other measurements.

The standard procedure at present is to employ theoretical models for the extrapolation of S17(E) to solar (“zero”) energy. This procedure is reasonable, as the nuclear physics processes involved are rather simple and well understood. The practice of employing a generally adopted extrapolation model is supported by the observation that the disagreements among experiments are mostly in factors of proportionality in the cross section while the measured energy dependence is largely consistent. The present experiment utilizes a thin target with a quite accurately known density profile. We have therefore adopted the procedure of including all measurements, off and on the resonance, in a fit with the values of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the resonance and the overall normalization of the generally used Descouvemont-Baye (DB) DB  theory as free parameters (Fig. 3). We arrive in this way at a value of S17(0) = 21.2 $`\pm `$ 0.7 eV b. We quote for completeness also the value derived from the low energy points (below the resonance) only as: S17(0) = 20.8 $`\pm `$ 1.3 eV b. The quoted S17(0) values of all recent direct capture measurements using a 7Be target are : 20.3 $`\pm `$ 1.2 eV$``$barn, 18.8 $`\pm `$ 1.7 eV$``$barn, 22.3 $`\pm `$ 0.7 eV$``$barn and 18.4 $`\pm `$ 1.6 eV$``$barn (Refs. Hass ; Hammach ; Jung ; Stried , respectively). The mean of these values is: S17(0) = 21.1 $`\pm `$ 0.4 eV b with $`\chi ^2`$/$`\nu `$ = 2.0, suggesting a discrepancy. If we omit the value of ref. Jung  (which is being revised) from the list we get a mean value: S17(0) = 20.5 $`\pm `$ 0.5 eV b with $`\chi ^2`$/$`\nu `$ = 1.2. If we add to this in quadrature an ‘error in theory’ of ($`\pm 0.5`$), as suggested in ref. Jung , we get a consistent common value: S17(0) = 20.5 $`\pm `$ 0.7 eV b.

A full account of this work will be published elsewhere.

We wish to thank the technical staff of ISOLDE(CERN), PSI, and Y. Shachar and the technical staff of the Accelerator Laboratory of the Weizmann Institute. We acknowledge with gratitude the help of J.C. Hardy and V.E. Iacob with the intensity calibration of the 7Be target. We thank Prof. K.A. Snover for a fruitful exchange of information regarding the results of Jung  and work in progress. This work was supported in part by the Israel-Germany MINERVA Foundation.


text:
# 1 Black holes and varying constants

## 1 Black holes and varying constants

The claim  that the fine-structure constant, $`\alpha `$-the measure of the strength of the electromagnetic interaction between photons and electrons-is slowly increasing over cosmological time scales has refuelled an old debate about varying fundamental constants of nature. In our opinion , however, this debate has been marred by a failure to distinguish between dimensionless constants such as $`\alpha `$, which may indeed be fundamental, and dimensional constants such as the speed of light $`c`$, the charge on the electron $`e`$, Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$, Newton’s constant $`G`$, Boltzmann’s constant $`k`$ etc, which are merely human constructs whose number and values differ from one choice of units to the next and which have no intrinsic physical significance. An example of this confusion is provided by a recent paper , where it is claimed that “As $`\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c`$, this would call into question which of these fundamental quantities are truly constant”. By consideration of black hole thermodynamics, the authors conclude that theories with decreasing $`c`$ are different from (and may be favored over) those with increasing $`e`$. Here we argue that this claim is operationally meaningless, in the sense that no experiment could tell the difference, and we replace it by a meaningful one involving just dimensionless parameters.

Any theory of gravitation and elementary particles is characterized by a set of dimensionless parameters such as coupling constants $`\alpha _i`$ (of which the fine-structure constant is an example), mixing angles $`\theta _i`$ and mass ratios $`\mu _i`$. To be concrete, we may take $`m_i{}_{}{}^{2}=\mu _i{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{}c/G`$ where $`m_i`$ is the mass of the i’th particle. The Standard Model has 19 such parameters, but it is hoped that some future unified theory might reduce this number. By contrast, the number and values of dimensional constants, such as $`\mathrm{}`$, $`c`$, $`G`$, $`e`$, $`k`$ etc, are quite arbitrary human conventions. Their job is merely to convert from one system of units to another. Moreover, the more units you introduce, the more such conversion factors you need .

The authors of  point out that the entropy $`S`$ of a non-rotating black hole with charge $`Q`$ and mass $`M`$ is given by

$$S=\frac{k\pi G}{\mathrm{}c}[M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2/G}]^2$$
(1)
They note that decreasing $`c`$ increases $`S`$ but increasing $`e`$, and hence $`Q`$, decreases $`S`$. It is then claimed, erroneously in our view, that black holes can discriminate between two contending theories of varying $`\alpha `$, one with varying $`c`$ and the other with varying $`e`$.

Let us define the dimensionless parameters $`s`$, $`\mu `$ and $`q`$ by $`S=sk\pi `$, $`M^2=\mu ^2\mathrm{}c/G`$ and $`Q^2=q^2\mathrm{}c`$. The mass ratio $`\mu `$ will depend on the fundamental dimensionless parameters of the theory $`\alpha _i`$, $`\theta _i`$ and $`\mu _i`$, but the details need not concern us here. In the Appendix we shall give a thought-experimental definition of $`s`$, $`\mu `$ and $`q`$ that avoids all mention of the unit-dependent quantities $`G`$, $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`e`$ and which is valid whether or not they are changing in time. Shorn of all its irrelevant unit dependence, therefore, the entropy is given by

$$s=[\mu +\sqrt{\mu ^2q^2}]^2$$
(2)
If we use the fact that the charge is quantized in units of $`e`$, namely $`Q=ne`$ with $`n`$ an integer, then $`q^2=n^2\alpha `$, but we prefer not to mix up macroscopic and microscopic quantities in (1). So the correct conclusion is that such black holes might222Since the purpose of this paper is to critique the whole school of thought, of which Ref.  is but an example, that believes time-dependent dimensional parameters have operational significance, we will not divert attention by getting into the question of whether black hole thermodynamics provides a good laboratory for testing time variation of dimensionless constants. Suffice it to say that that, in our view, the only sensible context in which to discuss time varying constants of nature is in theories where they are given by moduli (i.e. vacuum-expectation-values of scalar fields). The black hole entropy would then be expressed in terms of these moduli  whose time-dependence would have to be determined consistently by the field equations. Moreover, one would have to take into account both the entropy of the black hole and its environment. discriminate between contending theories with different variations of $`\mu `$ and $`q`$.

The unit dependence of the claim in  that black holes can discriminate between varying $`c`$ and varying $`e`$ is now evident. In Planck units

$$\mathrm{}=c=G=1e^2=\alpha M^2=\mu ^2$$
(3)
In Stoney units

$$c=e=G=1\mathrm{}=1/\alpha M^2=\mu ^2/\alpha $$
(4)
In Schrodinger units (see Appendix)

$$\mathrm{}=e=G=1c=1/\alpha M^2=\mu ^2/\alpha $$
(5)
In all three units (and indeed in any333Units in which $`G`$ varies are discussed in the Appendix. units), the dimensionless entropy ratio $`s`$ is the same as given by (1). To reiterate: assigning a change in $`\alpha `$ to a change in $`e`$ (Planck) or a change in $`\mathrm{}`$ (Stoney) or a change in $`c`$ (Schrodinger) is entirely a matter of units, not physics. Just as no experiment can determine that MKS units are superior to CGS units, or that degrees Fahrenheit are superior to degrees Centigrade, so no experiment can determine that changing $`c`$ is superior to changing $`e`$, contrary to the main claim of Davies et al .

In summary, it is operationally meaningless  and confusing to talk about time variation of arbitrary unit-dependent constants whose only role is to act as conversion factors. For example, aside from saying that $`c`$ is finite, the statement that $`c=3\times 10^8m/s`$, has no more content than saying how we convert from one human construct (the meter) to another (the second). Asking whether $`c`$ has varied over cosmic history (a question unfortunately appearing on the front page of the New York Times , in Physics World 444To its credit, Physics World published the opposing view ., in New Scientist , in Nature  and on CNN ) is like asking whether the number of liters to the gallon has varied.

## 2 Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Thomas Dent for drawing my attention to Ref.  and for valuable discussions, to Samir Mathur and Parthasarathi Mitra for suggesting improvements and to Joao Magueijo for correspondence. This research supported in part by DOE Grant DE-FG02-95ER40899.

## Appendix A Response to criticisms

Since, after receiving a comment from Davies and two referee reports, Nature rejected (a shorter version of) this paper without the opportunity to rebut the criticisms, we do so in this Appendix. In the opinion of the present author, these three commentaries contain many of the most common misconceptions regarding fundamental constants. For example:

Referee 1: It is true that if the fundamental “constants” $`h`$, $`c`$, $`G`$, $`k`$…are truly constant, then they do indeed only act as conversion factors and can e.g. be set equal to unity. However, when they are postulated (or discovered experimentally to vary) in time, then we have to take into account that varying one or the other of these constants can have significant consequences for physics555Similar objections were raised by Moffat .. Thus, varying the charge $`e`$ will have different experimentally testable consequences than varying either $`h`$ or $`c`$.

Response: To elaborate more on our refutation of this common fallacy, let us define Planck  length, mass, time and charge by

$$L_P{}_{}{}^{2}=G\mathrm{}/c^3$$

$$M_P^2=\mathrm{}c/G$$

$$T_P{}_{}{}^{2}=G\mathrm{}/c^5$$

$$Q_P{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{}c$$
(6)
Note that these are independent of $`e`$, since Planck was not immediately concerned with electrodynamics in this context. Now define Stoney  length, mass, time and charge by

$$L_S{}_{}{}^{2}=Ge^2/c^4=\alpha L_P^2$$

$$M_S^2=e^2/G=\alpha M_P^2$$

$$T_S{}_{}{}^{2}=Ge^2/c^6=\alpha T_P^2$$

$$Q_S{}_{}{}^{2}=e^2=\alpha Q_P^2$$
(7)
Note that these are independent of $`\mathrm{}`$ since Stoney knew nothing of quantum mechanics. They are obtained from Planck units by the replacement $`\mathrm{}\alpha \mathrm{}`$. To complete the trio we need units that take $`e`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ into account but are independent of $`c`$. It seems appropriate, therefore, to call these Schrodinger length, mass, time and charge, defined by

$$L_\psi {}_{}{}^{2}=G\mathrm{}^4/e^6=L_P{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^3$$

$$M_\psi ^2=e^2/G=\alpha M_P^2$$

$$T_\psi {}_{}{}^{2}=G\mathrm{}^6/e^{10}=T_P{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha ^5$$

$$Q_\psi {}_{}{}^{2}=e^2=\alpha Q_P^2$$
(8)
They are obtained from Planck units by making the replacement $`c\alpha c`$.

We now ask the question: can we give a thought-experimental (as opposed to purely mathematical) meaning to the above length, mass, time and charge units that is valid whether or not quantities are changing in time? Interestingly, the ERNBH (extreme Reissner-Nordstrom black hole) solution provides the answer. A non-rotating black hole with charge $`Q`$ and mass $`M`$ has Schwarzschild radius

$$R_S=\frac{GM}{c^2}+\sqrt{\frac{G^2M^2}{c^4}\frac{GQ^2}{c^4}}$$
(9)
and Compton wavelength

$$R_C=\frac{h}{Mc}.$$
(10)
In the extreme case, moreover, we have

$$R_S=\frac{GM}{c^2}Q^2=GM^2$$
(11)
$`L_P`$, $`M_P`$, $`T_P`$ and $`Q_P`$ may now be thought-experimentally defined without reference to any fundamental constants as the Schwarzschild radius, mass, characteristic time and charge of an ERNBH whose Schwarzschild radius equals its Compton wavelength divided by $`2\pi `$. Thus $`s`$, $`\mu `$ and $`q`$ count the number of times $`S`$, $`M`$ and $`Q`$ exceed the entropy, mass and charge of such an black hole. Similarly, $`L_S`$, $`M_S`$, $`T_S`$ and $`Q_S`$ are the corresponding quantities for an ERNBH whose charge is the charge on the electron. $`L_\psi `$, $`M_\psi `$, $`T_\psi `$ and $`Q_\psi `$ also admit a thought-experimental definition which we defer until the introduction of Bohr units below.

So even if dimensionless constants are changing in time, nothing stops us from using Planck units with $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ and time varying $`e`$, Stoney units with $`c=e=1`$ and time varying $`\mathrm{}`$ or Schrodinger units with $`\mathrm{}=e=1`$ and time varying $`c`$.

Referee 1: It is conceivable that varying the charge $`e`$ could lead to a theory that somehow could be re-written as a theory in which $`e`$ is kept fixed and c is varied, but this would lead to a strange and very complicated revision of all of physics.

Response: On the contrary, it is nothing more than switching from Planck units to Schrodinger units.

Referee 1: He has already published his views on this issue in: M. J. Duff, L. B. Okun and G. Veneziano, JHEP 0203, 023 (2002). It is to be noted that the other two authors of this article do not appear to agree with Duff that it is “operationally meaningless” to vary dimensional constants.

Response: According to this logic, the present paper would have to be rejected whichever of the three mutually contradictory views in  were being put forward. I think it should be judged on its own merits.

Referee 1: Perhaps, Duff would wish to clarify his position on the issue of how the rest of physics is affected by a possible variation of dimensional constants. The issue of how physics would be affected by the experimental discovery that “constants”, such as c, h, G… vary in time is clearly of fundamental importance.

Response: I believe my position is clear: physics is about dimensionless constants and is completely unaffected by the choice of units, which has no fundamental importance.

Referee 2: Physics without reference to dimensional quantities is unfortunately not a possibility. Curiously this fact only shocks the author with reference to a changing $`c`$.

Response: I beg to differ. Dimensional quantities may sometimes be useful, but from an empirical point of view, experiments measure only dimensionless quantities. From a theoretical point of view, moreover, any theory may be cast into a form in which no dimensional quantities ever appear either in the equations themselves or in their solutions (such as vacuum expectation values of scalar fields). So the issue of whether dimensional parameters vary in time need never arise. Moreover, it should be clear from the text that my objections apply to all dimensional constants, not just $`c`$.

Referee 2: When one says that the speed of light is color dependent (as in the case for deformed dispersion relations), or that the speed of light and gravity vary with respect to each other (as for some bimetric theories of gravity), one makes dimensionless statements.

Response: Although all fundamental constants are dimensionless, the converse is not true. For example, the ratio of the Earth’s radius and the Sun’s radius is an accident of nature with no fundamental significance. Moreover, not all dimensionless quantities are unit independent. For example $`\delta c/c`$ is zero in Planck and Stoney units but non-zero in Schrodinger units.

Referee 2: Also Lorentz invariance has an operational sense and some aspects of the constancy of $`c`$ are directly related to it.

Response: Let us suppose that we have a generally covariant and locally Lorentz invariant theory of gravity with scalar fields, and that time varying $`\alpha `$ is implemented by a time-dependent scalar field solution. This background will not exhibit global Lorentz invariance, but this is no different than a time-dependent Friedman-Robertson-Walker cosmology which is not Lorentz-invariant either. Alternatively, we might imagine a phase transition from one Lorentz-invariant vacuum to another in which the dimensionless constants, such as $`\alpha `$, change abruptly. Whatever the symmetries, they will be the same whether we use varying $`c`$ units or some other units. Moreover, none of this conflicts with Einstein’s general covariance, contrary to certain claims in the literature and in the media.

Referee 2: The last phrase of the paper is wrong (the same argument could be applied to variations in e or entropy, after all).

Response: The last sentence could indeed be applied to any other conversion factor but is nevertheless correct.

Davies: Where we differ substantially from Duff, and where it seems clear he is wrong, is in his claim that theories in which dimensional constants vary with time “is operationally meaningless.” Such theories have existed in the literature, and specific observational tests been suggested and carried out, at least since Dirac’s theory of varying $`G`$.

Response: I agree that Davies et al are the latest in a long line of authors making such claims, but Dirac was not one of them. In his seminal paper  he says: “The fundamental constants of physics, such as $`c`$ the velocity of light, $`h`$ the Planck constant, $`e`$ the charge and $`m_e`$ the mass of the electron, and so on, provide for us a set of absolute units for measurement of distance, time, mass, etc. There are, however, more of these constants than are necessary for this purpose, with the result that certain dimensionless numbers can be constructed from them.” The phrase “more of these constants than are necessary” is crucial. Those who insist on counting the dimensional constants in a theory as well as the dimensionless ones will always have more unknowns than equations. This redundancy is nothing but the freedom to change units without changing the physics. In Einstein-Maxwell-Dirac theory, for example, one could imagine units in which (at least) five dimensional constants, are changing in time: $`G`$, $`e`$, $`m_e`$, $`c`$, $`\mathrm{}`$…, but only two dimensionless combinations are necessary: $`\mu _e{}_{}{}^{2}=Gm_e{}_{}{}^{2}/\mathrm{}c`$ and $`\alpha =e^2/\mathrm{}c`$.

Dirac then notes that the dimensionless ratio of electromagnetic and gravitational forces $`e^2/Gm_e^2`$ is roughly the same order of magnitude as the dimensionless ratio of the present age of the universe $`t`$ and the atomic unit of time $`e^2/m_ec^3`$. He makes it clear that equating these two numbers leads to a time-varying $`Gt^1`$ only in these “atomic units”. To be explicit, let us define Dirac  length, mass, time and charge by

$$L_D{}_{}{}^{2}=e^4/m_e{}_{}{}^{2}c_{}^{4}=L_S^2\alpha /\mu _e^2$$

$$M_D^2=m_e{}_{}{}^{2}=M_S^2\mu _e{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha $$

$$T_D{}_{}{}^{2}=e^4/m_e{}_{}{}^{2}c_{}^{6}=T_S{}_{}{}^{2}\alpha /\mu _e^2$$

$$Q_D{}_{}{}^{2}=e^2=Q_S^2$$
(12)
Note that these units are independent of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. They are obtained from Stoney units by the replacement $`GG\alpha /\mu _e^2`$. In Dirac units

$$c=e=m_e=1\mathrm{}=1/\alpha G=\mu _e{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha M^2=\mu ^2/\mu _e^2$$
(13)
Once again, the entropy is the same as given by (1). So there is no such thing as a varying $`G`$ theory, only varying $`G`$ units. This is familiar from string theory  where the string tension $`T`$ is related to $`G`$ via dilaton and moduli fields which may possibly vary in space and time. In Einstein units, $`G`$ is fixed while $`T`$ may vary, whereas in string units $`T`$ is fixed while $`G`$ may vary.

Davies: Some theories of fundamental physics, e.g. the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravitation, were explicitly designed to incorporate an additional gauge freedom (in that case, conformal invariance) to enable one to transform at will between different systems of units, without changing the physics, whilst including cosmological time variations of constants.

Response: The freedom to choose MKS units, say, over CGS units requires no symmetry of the fundamental theory but is merely one of human convention. The same is true of choosing changing $`c`$ units over changing $`e`$ units.

Davies: Several varying speed of light and varying electric charge theories have been published, and explicit observational predictions made. See, for example, J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D. 62, 103521 (2000), and “Is it e or is it c? Experimental tests of varying alpha” by J. Magueijo, J.D. Barrow and H.B. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. D, in the press (available online at arXiv: astro-ph/0202374v1, 20 February 2002).

Response: This seems a curious choice of authors to back up Davies’ argument. In his paper with Albrecht , Magueijo says “ Our conclusion that physical experiments are only sensitive to dimensionless combinations of dimensional constants is hardly a new one. This idea has been often stressed by Dicke (eg. ), and we believe this is not controversial.” Majueijo, Barrow and Sandvik  say “Undoubtedly, in the sense of , one has to make an operationally ‘meaningless’ choice of which dimensional constant is to become a dynamical variable.” These papers thus fall into a category whose authors are well aware that there is no experimental way of distinguishing varying $`e`$ from varying $`c`$, but nevertheless choose to label genuinely physically inequivalent theories by the names “varying $`c`$” and “varying $`e`$” merely because they find one set of units more convenient than the other. I might criticize these papers for being confusing666While recognizing that time variation of dimensional quantities lacks operational definition, Carlip and Vaidya  nevertheless try to salvage from subjectivity the notion of changing $`e`$, for example, by saying “suitable variation of all dimensionless parameters that depend on $`e`$”. But this is equally subjective: nature provides us with dimensionless parameters and humans decide where to put the $`c`$’s etc. For example, which of the 19 parameters of the Standard Model depend on $`c`$? It is entirely up to you!, but not wrong. They provide cold comfort for Davies et al who claim that varying $`c`$ and varying $`e`$ are experimentally distinguishable.

Davies: The speed of light is more than an electrodynamic parameter: it describes the causal structure of spacetime, and as such is relevant to all of physics (for example, the weak and strong interactions), not just electrodynamics.

Response: What is relevant for the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions is the special theory of relativity, i.e invariance under the Poincare group of spacetime transformations. The mathematics of the Poincare group ($`x^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu {}_{\nu }{}^{}x_{}^{\nu }+a^\mu `$) can get along just fine without $`c`$.

Davies: A variation of $`c`$ cannot be mimicked in all such respects by a change in $`e`$. More obviously, one can imagine measuring the speed of light in the laboratory tomorrow and obtaining a different value from today. That is clearly operationally meaningful.

Response: This common fallacy can be eliminated by thinking carefully about how one would attempt to measure $`c`$ in a world in which dimensionless constants such as $`\alpha `$ and $`\mu `$ are changing in time. First take a ruler with notches one Planck length apart and a clock with ticks one Planck time apart. Next measure the speed of light in vacuum777If the experiment is performed in a medium, or a time-dependent gravitational field, one would have to factor out the effects of the refractive index, or $`\sqrt{g_{xx}/g_{tt}}`$. After all, light slows down when passing through a piece of glass, but no-one is suggesting that this produces an increase in $`\alpha `$. by counting how many notches light travels in between ticks. You will find the answer $`c=1`$. You may repeat the experiment till the cows come home and you will always find $`c=1`$! Repeat the experiment using Stoney length and Stoney time, and again you will find $`c=1`$. But if the notches on your ruler are one Schrodinger length apart and the ticks on your clock one Schrodinger time apart, you will find $`c=1/\alpha `$ and $`c`$ will now have the same time dependence as $`1/\alpha `$. Once again we see that the time dependence of $`c`$ is entirely unit-dependent. Similar remarks apply to the measurement of any other dimensional quantity.

For the sake of completeness, let us also define Bohr length, mass, time and charge, which have an obvious atomic definition as the Bohr radius etc:

$$L_B{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{}^4/m_e{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{4}=L_\psi ^2\alpha /\mu _e^2$$

$$M_B^2=m_e{}_{}{}^{2}=M_\psi ^2\mu _e^2/\alpha $$

$$T_B{}_{}{}^{2}=\mathrm{}^6/m_e{}_{}{}^{2}e_{}^{8}=T_\psi {}_{}{}^{2}\alpha /\mu _e^2$$

$$Q_B{}_{}{}^{2}=e^2=Q_\psi ^2$$
(14)
Note that these units are independent of $`G`$ and $`c`$. They are obtained from Schrodinger units by the replacement $`GG\alpha /\mu _e^2`$. In Bohr units

$$\mathrm{}=e=m_e=1c=1/\alpha G=\mu _e{}_{}{}^{2}/\alpha M^2=\mu ^2/\mu _e^2$$
(15)
So a thought experimental definition of Schrodinger $`L_\psi ^2`$ is the Bohr $`L_B^2`$ scaled down by Dirac’s large number (the ratio of electromagnetic to gravitational forces $`e^2/Gm_e^2`$) with similar definitions for $`M_\psi ^2`$ and $`T_\psi ^2`$.

Measuring the speed of light with a ruler whose notches are one Bohr length apart and a clock whose ticks are one Bohr time apart will again result in $`c=1/\alpha `$. As discussed in , Bohr units are used when measuring $`c`$ using an atomic clock, which is most sensitive to a variation of $`\alpha `$. A pendulum clock, on the other hand, is more sensitive to the variation of $`\mu _i`$. So when you think you are measuring a dimensional quantity, you are really measuring dimensionless ones.

Davies: So this is an issue of semantics and mathematical elegance, not science.

Response: The failure to tell the difference between changing units and changing physics is more than just semantics. It brings to mind the old lady who, when asked by the TV interviewer whether she believed in global warming, responded: “If you ask me, it’s all this changing from Fahrenheit to Centigrade that’s causing it”.

## Appendix B Response to remarks on the present paper

### B.1 Remarks by Magueijo

In the abstract of a recent review article , Magueijo writes: “We start by discussing the physical meaning of a varying $`c`$, dispelling the myth that the constancy of $`c`$ is a matter of logical consistency”. The following statements appear in the text.

Magueijo: In discussing the physical meaning of a varying speed of light, I’m afraid that Eddington’s religious fervor is still with us . “To vary the speed of light is self-contradictory” has now been transmuted into “asking whether $`c`$ has varied over cosmic history is like asking whether the number of liters to the gallon has varied” . The implication is that the constancy of the speed of light is a logical necessity, a definition that could not have been otherwise. This has to be naive. For centuries the constancy of the speed of light played no role in physics, and presumably physics did not start being logically consistent in 1905. Furthermore, the postulate of the constancy of $`c`$ in special relativity was prompted by experiments (including those leading to Maxwell’s theory) rather than issues of consistency. History alone suggests that the constancy (or otherwise) of the speed of light has to be more than a self-evident necessity.

Response: In fact my remark implies no such logical necessity. It merely means that the variation or not of dimensional numbers like c (as opposed to dimensionless numbers like the fine-structure constant) is a matter human convention, just as the variation or not in the number of liters to a gallon is a matter of human convention. In neither case is it something to be determined by experiment but rather by one’s choice of units. So there is no such thing as a varying $`c`$ ‘theory’ only varying $`c`$ ‘units’. For example, in units where time is measured in years and distance in light-years, $`c=1`$ for ever and ever, whatever your theory!

As a matter of fact, the number of liters per gallon varies as one crosses the Atlantic. Similarly, as discussed in , in 1983 the Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures changed the number of meters per second, i.e the value of c. Relativity survived intact!

### B.2 Remarks by T. Davis

In a recent paper , one of the authors of the black hole thermodynamics paper, T. Davis, responds to our criticisms. With reference to our equation (2), the following appears in the text:

T. Davis: Arguments from quantum theory suggest that it is more natural to expect that $`\mu `$ would remain constant than $`M`$. Under this assumption Eq. (2) suggests that any increase in $`\alpha `$ would violate the second law of thermodynamics, independent of which of $`e`$, $`c`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ varies. This seems to be in contradiction to our previous result in which an increase in $`e`$ decreased $`s`$ but a decrease in $`c`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ increased $`s`$. However, in our initial formulation we had assumed that $`M`$ remained constant whereas here we are assuming $`\mu `$ remains constant. If we allow $`\mu `$ to vary such that $`M`$ remains constant the result for black hole entropy is unchanged from the previous version.

Response: The variation or not of the dimensionless quantity $`\mu `$ is operationally meaningful, but once again, the question of whether or not the dimensional quantity M varies is a matter of human convention, not quantum theory. In Planck units (3), for example, variation of $`\mu `$ implies variation of $`M`$ while in Stoney units (4) or Schrodinger units (5), it does not. The black hole entropy (2) and the second law of thermodynamics do not give a fig which units are chosen.

## Appendix C Comments on claims to have placed constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G`$

A recent paper by Copi, A. Davis and Krauss  claims to use astrophysical data to place constraints on the time variation of Newton’s constant, $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G`$. Here we reiterate the point made in Appendix A that dimensionless ratios such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }e/e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c/c`$ are every bit as unit-dependent as their dimensional counterparts $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c`$. An obvious example is again provided by units in which time is measured in years and distance in light-years. Here $`c=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c/c`$=0, whatever your theory. Similar remarks apply to $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G`$. As discussed in Appendix A, it is guaranteed to vanish in Planck units (3), for example, but might vary in Dirac units (13). By contrast, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha `$ is unit-independent.

The idea of varying $`G`$ is frequently attributed to the papers of Dirac  and  Dicke, but as discussed in Appendix A, a reading of these papers reveals that both authors were aware that it is only dimensionless numbers such as $`\mu _e`$ and $`\alpha `$ that are operationally meaningful. The Standard Model coupled to gravity with a cosmological constant has 20 such parameters. It is the variation of these quantities that may be contrained by the astrophysical data presented in , not $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ nor even $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G`$.

## Appendix D Extracts from a recently discovered Dirac lecture

It was not until 2016 that I became aware of two lectures by Paul Dirac on Dimensionless Physical Constants and his “Large Number Hypothesis”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8mUyq\_Wwg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P174LmmQYy4

Here are some extracts:

Dirac: I would like to think about the constants of nature. Most of these have dimensions and their numerical value depends on what system of units you are using. Such numerical values of course are not of any general interest. However, one can construct some constants of nature which are dimensionless and these will have the same numerical value whatever units one uses. They have a numerical value which is thus provided by nature quite independent of man-made units.

One of these numbers is the reciprocal of the fine structure constant

$$\mathrm{}c/e^2137.$$

There is another one of these dimensionless numbers I would like to call to your attention. The most natural one is the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron

$$m_p/m_e1840.$$

Another provided by nature is the ratio of the electric force and the gravitational force between a proton and an electron

$$e^2/Gm_pm_e10^{39},$$

a very large number.

The age of the universe measured in atomic units of time $`e^2/m_ec^3`$ is another large dimensionless number rather close to the one we had before, namely $`10^{39}`$. I believe this is not a coincidence. Let us accept that there is a connection between these two numbers. Then at least one of the quantities $`e,G,m_e,m_p,c`$, which are usually considered as constants, should be varying in time.

Which one varies in time? That is rather a meaningless question.

Talking about whether a thing is constant or not does not have any absolute meaning unless that quantity is dimensionless.

For example, it doesn’t have any absolute meaning to talk about G varying because G has dimensions.

Response

I invite the Editor of Nature to comment.


text:
# The Mean Number of Extra Micro-Image Pairs for Macro-Lensed Quasars

## 1. Introduction

Gravitational microlensing by the stars of a lensing galaxy can have a large effect on the magnification of lensed sources (Chang & Refsdal 1979; Young 1981; Paczyński 1986). As the macro-images of multiply imaged sources are typically located in relatively dense star fields of the lensing galaxy, microlensing is quite common in such systems. The typical angular separation between the micro-images of a cosmological source due to a stellar mass micro-lens is of order $`1`$ micro-arc-second, which is far too small to be resolved. For the time being, the only observable manifestation of microlensing is to change the magnification of the macro-image relative to the average magnification that is predicted for the smoothed out surface mass density profile of the galaxy.

The first observational evidence for quasar microlensing was found by Irwin et al. (1989) in the quadruple system Q2237+0305, which subsequently has been monitored by many groups (Corrigan et al. 1991; Burud et al. 1998; Lewis et al. 1998, Woźniak et al. 2000a,b). In particular the latest results show that all four quasar images vary dramatically, going up and down by more than one magnitude on timescales of less than a year. The fact that individual (caustic-crossing) events can be clearly distinguished allows to put upper limits on the source size (Wambsganss, Paczyński & Schneider 1990; Yonehara 1999, 2001; Wyithe et al. 2000).

In the double quasar Q0957+561, originally there was an almost linear change detected in the (time-shifted) brightness ratio between the two images ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{AB}}0.25\mathrm{mag}`$ over 5 years), which was interpreted as microlensing by solar type stars. But since about 1991, this ratio stayed more or less “constant” within about 0.05 mag, so not much microlensing was going on in this system recently (Schild 1996; Pelt et al. 1998). However, even the “lack of microlensing” in this system can be used to put limits on compact dark matter in the halo of the lensing galaxy (Wambsganss et al. 2000).

A number of other multiple quasar systems are being monitored more or less regularly, with some showing indications of microlensing, e.g. H1413+117 (Østensen et al. 1997), B0218+357 (Jackson et al. 2000), or HE1104-1805 (Gil-Merino et al. 2002, Schechter et al. 2002). For a recent review on quasar microlensing see Wambsganss (2001).

Microlensing has recently been suggested as the source of short time scale low-level variability in the time delayed light curves of multiple images of quasars (Wyithe & Loeb 2002), and might help study the properties of broad-line clouds in quasars. A better understanding of the microlensing by stars in galaxies would provide a better handle on the probability distribution for microlensing of cosmological sources (Wyithe & Turner 2002) that is relevant for Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs), especially in light of a possible microlensing event that was observed in the optical and near IR light curve of the afterglow of GRB 000301C (Garnavich, Loeb & Stanek 2000; Gaudi, Granot & Loeb 2001; Koopmans & Wambsganss 2001)

Another example where microlensing may play an important role is in explaining the flux ratio anomalies observed in close pairs of images of quadruply lensed quasars (Schechter & Wambsganss 2002). Such systems are usually modeled using a simple smooth surface mass density profile for the galaxy, possibly with the addition of an external shear. While these models successfully reproduce the observed locations of the macro-images, the flux ratios they predict are quite often in poor agreement with observations. Specifically, the theoretical flux ratio for a close pair of highly magnified macro-images is 1:1, while observations show a difference of up to one magnitude. For example, MG0414+0534 has an observed flux ratio of 2:1 in the optical (Hewitt et al. 1992; Schechter & Moore 1993), while in the radio the flux ratio is 1:1 (Trotter et al. 2000). There are also alternative explanations for these flux ratio anomalies, such as intervening dust (Lawrence et al. 1995) or milli-lensing by galactic sub-structure (Mao & Schneider 1998; Metcalf & Madau 2001; Dalal & Kochanek 2002; Chiba 2002). The study of microlensing can help distinguish between these alternative explanations, and may be useful in constraining the sub-structure of galaxies.

In many cases the study of microlensing cannot be done analytically, and much of the work is done using numerical simulations. The magnification distributions of the macro-image (MDMs) are particularly important for understanding the observed properties of lensed systems. The latter have been calculated for a wide range of parameters using numerical simulations (Wambsganss 1992; Rauch et al. 1992; Lewis & Irwin 1995, 1996; Schechter & Wambsganss 2002). While simulations are applicable to a wide range of problems, and are in many cases the only available technique, they are usually time consuming and do not always provide a qualitative understanding of the results. Specifically, they do not seem to provide an explanation for the detailed structure that is present in the MDMs that they produce.

In a recent paper, Schechter and Wambsganss (2002) explained the flux ratio anomalies as resulting from a different qualitative behavior of the MDMs for macro-minima and macro-saddlepoints in the arrival time surface, that results in a larger probability for de-magnification (relative to the average magnification) of saddlepoints, compared to minima. This is in agreement with the observations of MG0414+0534 and four other recently discovered quadruple systems (Reimers et al. 2002; Inada et al. 2002; Burles et al, in preparation; Schechter et al., in preparation) in all of which the fainter image in a pair corresponds to a saddlepoint, while the brighter image corresponds to a minimum.

The structure of the MDMs seems to be tightly related to the probability distribution for the number of extra micro-image pairs (EIPs) corresponding to a given macro-image (Rauch et al. 1992). This may be expected since the magnification of the macro-image is simply the sum of the magnifications of all the micro-images that it is composed of. An analytic expression for the mean number of EIPs was derived by Wambsganss, Witt & Schneider (1992, hereafter WWS) for the case of zero external shear. In §2 we generalize this result for arbitrary values of the external shear, and obtain a semi-analytic expression. More detailed expressions are provided in Appendix A, along with an analytic result for the case of equal shear and convergence in stars. In §3 we compare our analytic results to numerical simulations, and find good agreement. We also show that the probability distribution for the number of extra micro-image pairs is reasonably described by a Poisson distribution. The possible implications of our results are discussed in §4.

## 2. Analytic Results

In this section we calculate the mean number of positive parity micro-images $`N`$, and the mean number of extra micro-image pairs (EIPs) $`n`$, that are induced by the random star field of the lensing galaxy near the location of a macro-image. The macro images are located at stationary points (i.e. minima, saddlepoints or maxima) of the time delay (Fermat) surface of the smoothed out surface mass density distribution of the lensing galaxy. The source size is assumed to be small compared to the Einstein radius of the stars in the galaxy and compared to the typical distance between caustics, so that we may assume a point source. In this limit the probability distribution of the random shear caused by the star field and the resulting distributions of the number of micro-images and total magnification of the macro-image are independent of the mass spectrum of the stars (Schneider & Weiss 1988). The remaining parameters on which the microlensing characteristics in this case might still depend are the normalized surface mass density in stars $`\kappa _{}`$ and in a smooth component (dark matter) $`\kappa _c`$, as well as the large scale shear of the galaxy $`\gamma `$. However, Paczyński (1986) has shown that such a model is always equivalent to a model with effective convergence and shear given by

$$\kappa _{}^{eff}=\frac{\kappa _{}}{(1\kappa _c)},\gamma ^{eff}=\frac{\gamma }{(1\kappa _c)},$$
(1)
and with no smooth component ($`\kappa _c^{eff}0`$). The effective magnification in this model is related to the true magnification by $`\mu ^{eff}=\mu (1\kappa _c)^2`$. Therefore, without loss of generality, we restrict ourselves to $`\kappa _c=0`$, while letting $`\kappa _{}`$ and $`\gamma `$ vary.

Each pair of micro-images (EIP) consists of a saddlepoint and a minimum, and thereby includes one positive parity image. For a macro-minimum there is also an additional positive parity micro-image corresponding to the global minimum. Therefore, $`n=N1`$ for a macro-minimum and $`n=N`$ otherwise, where $`n`$ is the number of EIPs, and $`N`$ is the number of positive parity micro-images. This also carries through to the average values of these quantities:

$$n=\{\begin{array}{cc}N1& \kappa _{}+\gamma <1\\ & \\ N& \kappa _{}+\gamma >1\end{array}.$$
(2)
It is therefore sufficient to calculate one of these quantities in order to determine the other. The values of $`N`$ and $`n`$ for the case of zero external shear ($`\gamma =0`$) were calculated by WWS. In this work we follow their analysis and generalize their result to the case of a non-zero shear $`\gamma `$. The average total magnification of the macro-image is given by

$$\mu =\frac{1}{|(1\kappa _{})^2\gamma ^2|}.$$
(3)
As the magnification is solely due to area distortion, flux conservation implies that a sufficiently large area $`𝒜_d`$ in the deflector plane will be (backward) mapped onto an area $`𝒜_s=𝒜_d/\mu `$ in the source plane (when projected onto the deflector plane, so that it extends the same solid angle from the observer). The mean number of positive parity micro-images $`N`$ is equal to the multiplicity $`q`$ by which regions of positive parity within $`𝒜_d`$, when mapped onto $`𝒜_s`$, cover $`𝒜_s`$.

The probability distribution of the random shear produced by the stars is given by

$$p(\kappa _{},S_1,S_2)=\frac{\kappa _{}}{2\pi (\kappa _{}^2+S_1^2+S_2^2)^{3/2}}.$$
(4)
(Nityananda & Ostriker 1984; Schneider, Ehlers & Falco 1992) where $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are the two components of the internal shear. As we assume that $`\kappa _c=0`$ and that the stars are point masses, the convergence vanishes everywhere (except at the locations of the stars, where it is infinite, but these form a set of measure zero for any finite area on the deflector plane) and the local magnification at a given location in the star field is just due to the shear at that point

$$\mu (\gamma ,S_1,S_2)=\frac{1}{1(\gamma +S_1)^2S_2^2},$$
(5)
where for convenience we have chosen $`S_1`$ to lie in the direction of the external shear $`\gamma `$. The area $`da_d=𝒜_dp(\kappa _{},S_1,S_2)dS_1dS_2`$ within $`𝒜_d`$ where the shear lies between $`(\gamma +S_1,S_2)`$ and $`(\gamma +S_1+dS_1,S_2+dS_2)`$, is mapped onto the area $`da_s=da_d/\mu (\gamma ,S_1,S_2)`$. Therefore

$$N=q=\frac{1}{𝒜_s}_{\mu >0}\frac{da_d}{\mu }=\mu _{\mu >0}\frac{p(\kappa _{},S_1,S_2)dS_1dS_2}{\mu (\gamma ,S_1,S_2)}=$$
(6)
$$\frac{\kappa _{}}{2\pi |(1\kappa _{})^2\gamma ^2|}_{1\gamma }^{1\gamma }𝑑S_1_{\sqrt{1(\gamma +S_1)^2}}^{\sqrt{1(\gamma +S_1)^2}}𝑑S_2\frac{1(\gamma +S_1)^2S_2^2}{(\kappa _{}^2+S_1^2+S_2^2)^{3/2}}.$$

This integral may be evaluated analytically. However, the resulting expression is long and cumbersome so that we prefer not to write it down explicitly. Instead, we show contour plots of $`n`$ and $`n/\mu `$ in Figure 1, and provide the values of $`N/\mu `$ at representative points of $`(\kappa _{},\gamma )`$ in Table 1. In Appendix A we reduce the expression in equation (6) to a one dimensional integral in two different ways (so that $`N`$ may be easily evaluated numerically) and provide an analytic expression for the case where $`\gamma =\kappa _{}`$. For $`\gamma =0`$, equation (6) reduces to a simple analytic expression (WWS):

$$\frac{N}{\mu }=N(1\kappa _{})^2=1+2\kappa _{}^22\kappa _{}\sqrt{1+\kappa _{}^2}.$$
(7)
For $`\kappa _{}=0`$, there are no extra images due to stars, and we have either one positive parity image for a macro-minimum ($`N=N=1`$ for $`\gamma <1`$) or none for a macro-saddlepoint ($`N=N=0`$ for $`\gamma >1`$). Hence, for $`\kappa _{}=0`$ we have:

$$\frac{N}{\mu }=N(1\gamma ^2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\gamma ^2& \gamma <1\\ & \\ 0& \gamma 1\end{array}.$$
(8)
As can be seen from equation (6), the ratio $`N/\mu `$ remains finite and varies smoothly with $`\gamma `$ and $`\kappa _{}`$ near the lines of infinite average total magnification $`\mu `$ in the $`\gamma \kappa _{}`$ plane (i.e. $`\gamma =|1\kappa _{}|`$). Together with equation (2) this implies the same for the ratio $`n/\mu `$ along the line $`\gamma =\kappa _{}1`$, while along the line $`\gamma =1\kappa _{}`$ it is continuous but its derivative is discontinuous in any direction that is not along this line (as can be seen in the lower panel of figure 1).

Furthermore, $`n/\mu `$ decreases on either side of the line $`\gamma =1\kappa _{}`$, and therefore attains its maximal value along this line, $`(n/\mu )_{\mathrm{max}}=0.306136`$ at $`(\kappa _{},\gamma )=(0.37895,0.62105)`$. For $`\mu 1`$ ($`\gamma |1\kappa _{}|`$), small changes in $`\gamma `$ or $`\kappa _{}`$ can cause large changes in $`\mu `$ and $`n`$, while the ratios $`n/\mu `$ or $`N/\mu `$ remain approximately constant. In this region, when crossing the line of infinite magnification $`\gamma =1\kappa _{}`$, from a macro-minimum ($`\gamma <1\kappa _{}`$) to a macro- saddlepoint ($`\gamma >1\kappa _{}`$), $`N`$ decreases by $`1`$ (corresponding to the macro-minimum that disappears), but since $`N`$ is infinite at this line, this amounts to a zero fractional change in $`N`$.

## 3. Comparison to Numerical Simulations

In this section we compare the analytic results of §2 to the results of numerical simulations. Combining a ray shooting code (Wambsganss 1990, 1999) with a program that detects the location of the caustics (Witt 1993) as in WWS, we extract additional information on image multiplicity and magnification. Whenever the source crosses a caustic, a pair of images consisting of a micro-saddlepoint and a micro-minimum are created or destroyed. Each simulation is based on a particular realization of the random star field, that determines a caustic network in the source plane, and in principle determines the number of such extra image pairs (EIPs) at any point in the source plane. In order to calculate the average number of EIPs, $`n`$, from the results of a simulation, we identify the regions with different number of EIPs, $`n`$, on the source plane, and calculate the fraction $`f_n`$ of the source plane that they cover, which is equal to the probability $`p_n`$ of having $`n`$ EIPs at a random location on the source plane. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Pixels in the source plane that are crossed by caustics (which are colored in yellow in Figure 2) are attributed to the corresponding higher image number. There are also parts of the source plane for which it is very difficult to uniquely identify $`n`$ (corresponding to the black regions in Figure 2) due to the occasionally complex caustic structure, combined with the finite pixel size of the simulation. These regions are left out when calculating $`f_n`$. The “unidentified” regions correspond to $`1\%`$ of the source plane, and a large fraction of these regions probably corresponds to relatively high values of $`n`$. However, as we do not know exactly what distribution of multiplicity $`n`$ we should assign to these regions, and lacking a better option, we simply assign to them the same distribution of the identified regions:

$$p_n=\frac{f_n}{_n^{}f_n^{}}.$$
(9)
This is equivalent to leaving out the unidentified regions entirely, and normalizing the probability distribution of $`p_n`$. The average number of pairs for the simulation is then given by

$$n_{\mathrm{sim}}=\underset{n}{}np_n.$$
(10)
Since we have simple analytic expressions for $`n`$ for $`\gamma =0`$ (WWS, see equation 7) and for $`\kappa _{}=0`$ (equation 8) we chose values of $`(\kappa _{},\gamma )`$ along the line $`\kappa _{}=\gamma `$ for the simulations, so that they would serve as a good check for our analytic results. An additional advantage of this choice is that it corresponds to the interesting case of a singular isothermal sphere (for $`\kappa _c=0`$). We performed three simulations, two for macro-minima ($`\kappa _{}=\gamma =0.333,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.400}`$ with $`\mu 3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$) and one for a macro-saddlepoint ($`\kappa _{}=\gamma =0.666`$ with $`\mu 3`$). The results of the simulations are shown in Tables 2 and 3. For $`\kappa _{}=\gamma =0.333,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.400}`$ and $`0.666`$, $`n_{\mathrm{sim}}`$ is $`3.7\%`$, $`3.3\%`$ and $`7.7\%`$, respectively, lower than the analytic result $`n`$ from §2 (denoted by $`n_{\mathrm{th}}`$ in Table 2). The values of $`n_{\mathrm{sim}}`$ in Table 2 were calculated according to equation (10) which assigns the $`p_n`$ distribution of the regions with identified image multiplicity $`n`$ in the source plane to the unidentified regions. However, as mentioned above, the unidentified regions are typically related to complicated caustic structures, and are hence more likely to contribute to larger values of $`n`$ compared to the identified regions. If the average $`n`$ of the unidentified regions is say, 5, this would make $`n_{\mathrm{sim}}`$ $`1.1\%`$ higher, $`2.6\%`$ higher and $`1.1\%`$ lower than $`n`$, for $`\kappa _{}=\gamma =0.333,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.400}`$ and $`0.666`$, respectively. The latter should assume values of 3.96, 3.19 and 5.70, for $`\kappa _{}=\gamma =0.333,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.400}`$ and $`0.666`$, respectively, in order for $`n_{\mathrm{sim}}`$ to be exactly equal to $`n`$. One should also keep in mind the “cosmic” variance, i.e. the fluctuations between the results of different simulations for the same $`\kappa _{}`$ and $`\gamma `$, due to different statistical realizations of the star field over a finite region in the deflector plane. We therefore conclude that there is good agreement between the results of the numerical simulations and our analytic results for the average number of EIPs $`n`$.

The average total magnifications from the simulations, $`\mu _{\mathrm{sim}}`$, are $`3.1\%`$, $`0.16\%`$ and $`3.5\%`$ lower than their theoretical values for $`\kappa _{}=\gamma =0.333,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.400}`$ and $`0.666`$, respectively. The scatter in $`\mu _{\mathrm{sim}}`$ can be attributed to the “cosmic” variance. The fact that $`\mu _{\mathrm{sim}}`$ is on average slightly lower than its theoretical value arises since we consider finite regions in the deflector plane and in the source plane. Rays that fall very close to a star in our deflector field suffer very large deflection angles which may take them outside of our source field; these are not compensated for by rays with large deflection angles from stars outside of our deflector field, that should have been deflected into our source field (see Katz, Balbus, Paczyński 1986; Schneider & Weiss 1987). We conclude that the numerical simulations are in good agreement with the theory on the value of $`\mu `$, as well.

The magnification distribution of the macro-image (MDM), $`p(\mu )`$, where $`p(\mu )d\mu `$ is the probability that the total magnification of the macro-image is between $`\mu `$ and $`\mu +d\mu `$, can be expressed as a sum over the contributions from regions with different numbers of EIPs $`n`$,

$$p(\mu )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n(\mu ),$$
(11)
where $`p_n(\mu )d\mu =(dp_n/d\mu )d\mu `$ is the probability of having $`n`$ EIPs and a total magnification between $`\mu `$ and $`\mu +d\mu `$, with the normalization

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}p_n(\mu )d\mu =p_n,_0^{\mathrm{}}p(\mu )d\mu =1.$$
(12)
In Figure 3 we show the results for $`p_n`$ from our simulations (that are given in Table 2), along with a Poisson distribution:

$$p_n=\frac{e^aa^n}{n!},$$
(13)
where the solid line is for $`a=n`$ and the dashed line is for $`a=n_{\mathrm{sim}}`$, calculated according to equation (10). A Poisson distribution provides a reasonable fit to the results of all our simulations. For large values of $`n`$ there is a relatively larger deviation from a Poisson distribution. This results, in part, from the difficulty in identifying regions with large $`n`$ in the source plane. One should also keep in mind that the “cosmic” variance in $`p_n`$ becomes larger with increasing $`n`$. There still seem to be some systematic deviations from a Poisson distribution, however they appear to be small for relatively low values of $`n`$, which cover most of the source plane. We therefore consider a Poisson distribution for $`p_n`$ to be a reasonable approximation.

Figure 4 shows plots of $`\mu p(\mu )`$ and $`\mu p_n(\mu )`$ from our simulations. The shape of $`p_n(\mu )`$ for different $`n`$ seems quite similar, while the average magnification,

$$\mu _n=\frac{1}{p_n}_0^{\mathrm{}}p_n(\mu )\mu 𝑑\mu ,$$
(14)
and the normalization, $`p_n`$, are different.

## 4. Discussion

We have calculated the mean number of extra micro-image pairs $`n`$ of a point source, as a function of $`\kappa _{}`$ and $`\gamma `$. The results are shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. One dimensional integrals for general values of $`(\kappa _{},\gamma )`$ and an analytic result for the case $`\gamma =\kappa _{}`$ are presented in Appendix A. Near the lines of infinite magnification in the $`\gamma \kappa _{}`$ plane ($`\gamma =|1\kappa _{}|`$), $`n`$ diverges, and is proportional to the mean macro-magnification $`\mu `$. The ratio $`n/\mu `$ is continuous along these lines and varies smoothly along the line $`\gamma =\kappa _{}1`$, while its derivative is discontinuous along the line $`\gamma =1\kappa _{}`$ in directions that are not along this line. This creates a “ridge” in $`n/\mu `$ along the line $`\gamma =1\kappa _{}`$, where it also peaks at $`(\kappa _{},\gamma )=(0.379,0.621)`$ with $`(n/\mu )_{\mathrm{max}}=0.306`$. The analytic results for $`n`$ are in good agreement with the results of numerical simulations we performed for $`\kappa _{}=\gamma =0.333,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.400}`$ and $`0.666`$ (as can be seen in Table 2).

We find that the probability distribution $`p_n`$ for the number of extra image pairs (EIPs) $`n`$, that is calculated from numerical simulations, may be reasonably described by a Poisson distribution. This result holds both for the numerical simulations performed in this paper (e.g. Table 3 and Figures 2 and 3), and for numerical simulations from previous works (Rauch et al. 1992). Furthermore, the shape of the magnification distribution $`p_n(\mu )`$ of regions with a given $`n`$ appears to be similar for different values of $`n`$, where only the overall normalization $`p_n`$ and mean magnification $`\mu _n`$ depend on $`n`$ (see Figure 4).

The mean number of EIPs $`n`$ can serve as a rough measure for the width of $`p(\mu )`$, the magnification distributions of the macro-image (MDM). For $`n1`$ there is little contribution to the MDM from regions in the source plane with $`n>0`$, since these regions cover only a small fraction of the source plane. For $`n1`$ the Poisson distribution $`p_n`$, for $`n`$, approaches a Gaussian distribution with a mean value of $`n`$ and a standard deviation of $`\sigma =n^{1/2}`$, so that only $`n^{1/2}`$ different values of $`n`$, around $`nn`$ will have a noticeable contribution to the MDM. We also note that the average magnification from regions with $`n`$ EIPs, $`\mu _n`$, is approximately linear in $`n`$ (see Table 3), so that we expect $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /\mu n^{1/2}1`$. Therefore, the width of the MDM is expected to be largest for $`n1`$. This seems to be in rough agreement with the results of numerical simulations (Wambsganss 1992; Irwin & Lewis 1995; Schechter & Wambsganss 2002).

This research was supported by grants NSF PHY 00-70928 (JG) and NSF AST 02-06010 (PLS). PLS is grateful to the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for the award of a fellowship. We thank Hans Witt for providing his code for the determination of the location of the caustics, and Scott Gaudi for his careful reading of the manuscript and useful comments.

## 5. Appendix A

The inner integral in equation (6) may be solved analytically, reducing it to a single integral

$$\frac{N}{\mu }=\frac{\kappa _{}}{2\pi }_{1\gamma }^{1\gamma }𝑑S_1\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{AB}{A+B}\right)+\frac{2AB}{(\kappa _{}^2+S_1^2)}\right],$$
(15)
where $`\mu =|(1\kappa _{})^2\gamma ^2|^1`$ \[see equation (3)\] and

$$A\sqrt{1+\kappa _{}^2\gamma (2S_1+\gamma )},B\sqrt{1(S_1+\gamma )^2}.$$
(16)
This integral may be easily evaluated numerically. Alternatively, changing variables in equation (6) to $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ where $`x=\gamma +S_1`$, $`y=S_2`$, $`r^2=x^2+y^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}(\varphi )=y/x`$, gives

$$\frac{N}{\mu }=\frac{\kappa _{}}{2\pi }_0^1𝑑r_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi \frac{r(1r^2)}{(\kappa _{}^2+\gamma ^2+r^22\gamma r\mathrm{cos}\varphi )^{3/2}}$$
(17)
$$=\frac{2\kappa _{}}{\pi }_0^1𝑑r\frac{r(1r^2)\mathrm{EllipticE}(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{4\gamma r}{\kappa _{}^2+(r\gamma )^2})}{\left[\kappa _{}^2+(r+\gamma )^2\right]\sqrt{\kappa _{}^2+(r\gamma )^2}},$$

where

$`\mathrm{EllipticE}(\varphi ,x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\varphi }𝑑\theta (1x\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{1/2}.`$ (18)
For the case of $`\gamma =\kappa _{}`$, corresponding to a singular isothermal sphere, we obtain an analytic result:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\mu }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma }\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}6\gamma ^2\mathrm{EllipticE}[\mathrm{arcsin}(C),C^2]`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(1\gamma )\gamma ^2\mathrm{EllipticF}[\mathrm{arcsin}(C),C^2]`$
$`+C[\gamma (2\gamma ^21)\mathrm{EllipticK}(C^2)`$
$`+D\mathrm{EllipticPi}(E,C^2)+D^{}\mathrm{EllipticPi}(E^{},C^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\},`$ (19)
where

$`C\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4\gamma }{1+2\gamma +2\gamma ^2}}},D{\displaystyle \frac{i+(1i)\gamma +(2i)\gamma ^2(1+3i)\gamma ^3}{4}},`$
$`E{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+(1+i)\gamma }},`$ (20)
$`D^{}`$ ($`E^{}`$) is the complex conjugate of $`D`$ ($`E`$), and

$`\mathrm{EllipticF}(\varphi ,x){\displaystyle _0^\varphi }𝑑\theta (1x\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{1/2},`$
$`\mathrm{EllipticK}(x)\mathrm{EllipticF}(\pi /2,x),`$
$`\mathrm{EllipticPi}(x,y){\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta (1x\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^1(1y\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{1/2}.`$ (21)