---
abstract: |
    0957+561 is the first gravitational lens system to be discovered and first for which a time delay was measured. Because the system is unusually rich in observables such as image positions, fluxes, VLBI structure, and polarization it has been modelled quite extensively. However, since it resides in a cluster providing substantial convergence, the velocity dispersion of the lensing galaxy is an important component to models. We have measured this dispersion to be $288\pm9$ (1-sigma), which implies a Hubble constant of $72\pm7$ (1-sigma) according to the preferred FGS model of Grogin and Narayan, and $70\pm7$ (1-sigma) using the SPLS model. The unknown velocity dispersion anisotropy of the central galaxy produces an additional uncertainty of perhaps 15% or more. We see no variation in dispersion with position to a radius of $\pm3$. In addition to a galaxy from the background cluster at $z=0.5$, our slit serendiptously picked up a galaxy at $z = 0.448$, and two galaxies which may be part of a background cluster at a redshift of $z=0.91$.

    *[Subject headings:]{} cosmology — distance scale — gravitational lensing — quasars: individual (0957+561)*
author:
- 'John L. Tonry'
- Marijn Franx
title: Velocity Dispersion of the Gravitational Lens 0957+561
---

\#1[\#1]{}

=cmr8

Introduction
============

Gravitational lenses bend light from a background source and can cause multiple images of the source to appear. Light has a different time of flight along each path, and if the source should vary there will be a time delay between when each of the images changes brightness. Such a time delay can transform dimensionless redshifts and angles into physical distances, hence provide a Hubble constant (Refsdal 1964). In principle this is an extremely powerful and important method for measuring the cosmological parameters embodied in distances and redshifts, party because of the potential accuracy at high redshift but mainly because they suffer a completely different set of biases from more traditional measures of $H_0$.

A time delay for the lensed system 0957+561 has been known for a decade (Schild and Cholfin 1986), although Press, Rybicki, and Hewitt (1992) disputed their value and only recent measurements by Kundić et al. (1997) have settled the issue beyond doubt. See Haarsma et al. (1997) for a review of the time delay measurement. Models of the system have also undergone improvement; Grogin & Narayan (1996) \[GN\] have carried out a particularly extensive analysis which has been widely used for estimating $H_0$. Romanowsky & Kochanek (1998) have recently examined the question of how velocity anisotropy in the lensing galaxy affects the use of a central velocity dispersion to estimate the lensing potential.

The models of GN can yield a Hubble constant either by using an estimate of the local convergence $\kappa$ due to the cluster potential or by measuring the depth of the lensing galaxy potential from its velocity dispersion $\sigma$. The first measurement of the velocity dispersion was by Rhee (1990) who found $300\pm50$. Recently, observations with LRIS on the Keck telescope by Falco et al. (1997, FSMD) have found a dispersion which drops rapidly with radius, from $316\pm14$ at 0.2 from the center of the lensing galaxy G1, dropping to $266\pm12$ at 0.4. Using the latter value they derive a Hubble constant of $H_0 = 62\pm7$, and they speculated that a massive central object might be causing an anomalously large central dispersion.

The very rapid drop in velocity dispersion with distance is unusual behavior for such a massive galaxy, however, which inspired an attempt to reobserve the lensing galaxy in 0957. One concern about the observations of FSMD centers on their choice to run the slit through the G1 galaxy and the QSO B component simultaneously. While this offers both the galaxy and QSO light in one exposure it suffers from much more scattered light and could potentially corrupt the galaxy spectrum in unforseen ways. Indeed, FWMD suggest redoing their observation with the spectrograph slit rotated by 90 degrees.

We chose to do just that: rotate the slit perpendicular to the line connecting G1 and the QSO B component, excluding as much QSO light as possible. In addition, we attempted to match the QSO contribution leaking into the slit as accurately as possible by taking alternate exposures with the slit rotated by $180^\circ$ and offset to the other side of the QSO B component, thus obtaining a relatively pure QSO spectrum which illuminates the slit in the same way as during the G1 exposure.

Observations and Reductions
===========================

0957+561 was observed on March 30 and March 31, 1997 using the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph (LRIS) (Oke et al. 1995) at the Keck II telescope on Mauna Kea, along with calibration exposures, an observation of the cluster MS1358+62 to act as a velocity dispersion calibrator, and HD132737 and AGK2+14873 as radial velocity templates. The observations are summarized in Table 1. The sky was clear and the seeing was about 0.8 throughout both nights. Long slits of 1.0 and 0.7 were used along with the 600 l/mm grating blazed at 5000Å. The 600 l/mm grating was rotated either to cover 4800–7680Å for the QSO and cluster observations or 3800–6080Å for the template stars. The spectral resolution was 4.65Å  for the 600 l/mm grating with a 1.0 slit, 3.59Å  for the 600 l/mm grating with a 0.7 slit, and the scale along the slit was 0.211/pixel. The template stars were guided smoothly across the slit in many locations in order to have uniform illumination across the slit, to build up signal to noise, and to map out loci of constant slit position across the detector.

Figure 1, derived from a very deep image by Fischer et al. (1997), illustrates where the three slit positions lay. PA108 runs through the lensing galaxy, G1, two neighboring galaxies, t2 and t3, and also catches two other galaxies at the end of the slit, t1 and t4. Since we needed as clean a spectrum of G1 as possible we rotated the slit by $180^\circ$ to PA288 and offset to a point symmetrically located on the other side of QSO image B. This also yielded a spectrum of another galaxy, t5 as well as t1 again. Finally, we offset to center the slit on QSO image A to acquire a pure QSO image, and we also picked up galaxies t6, t7, and t8.

The spectra were reduced using software described in detail by Tonry (1984). The basic steps are to flatten the images, remove cosmic rays, derive a wavelength solution as a function of both row and column using sky lines (wavelengths tabulated by Osterbrock et al. 1996), derive a slit position solution as a function of both row and column using the positions of the template star images in the slit, rebin the entire image to coordinates of log wavelength and slit position, add images, and then sky subtract. A quadratic fit to patches of sky on either side of the object (including a patch between for the MS1358 observations) did a very good job of removing the sky lines from the spectra.

As has been stressed by Franx (1993) and by van Dokkum and Franx (1996), measuring the velocity dispersion of a galaxy at a redshift significantly larger than zero must be done carefully, since the instrumental resolution of a spectrograph tends to a constant number of angstroms, whereas the redshifted spectrum has been stretched. Hence a straightforward cross-correlation or fitting method will underestimate the dispersion of the galaxy. Kelson et al. (1997) measured dispersions in the cluster MS1358+62 using high resolution template spectra and very careful modelling of the spectrograph resolution derived by measuring sky line widths. The observations here use the trick that the ratio between an 0.7 and 1.0 slit is slightly larger than $(1+z)$ for these lenses, hence a [*template*]{} measured with the 0.7 slit will have almost exactly the same instrumental resolution as a [*galaxy*]{} at a redshift of $z\approx0.3$. This is borne out by the ratio of the measured spectral resolutions: 4.65Å $\div$ 3.59Å = 1.30.

As a test that this observing procedure will give correct dispersions, we also observed the cluster MS1358+62 for which Kelson et al. (1997) measure a dispersion of $303\pm6$ for the central galaxy, G1, and $219\pm4$ for the neighboring bright galaxy, G2. We discuss our observations of MS1358 in Tonry (1998), but the salient point is that the velocity dispersions measured for the MS1358 galaxies using the stellar templates reveals no significant offset from Kelson’s values, G1: $299\pm22$; G2: $235\pm23$. We therefore conclude that use of the stellar templates is likely to give us accurate velocity dispersions.

Companion Galaxies
------------------

Extraction of the spectra of the companion galaxies required no correction for QSO light. In each case the spectrum was extracted, and cross-correlated with the template spectrum according to Tonry and Davis (1979) as well as being analyzed by the Fourier quotient method of Sargent et al. (1977). For each spectrum the redshift, error, and velocity dispersion were calculated. The redshift calculation included the entire spectrum, whereas the spectrum blueward of 4000Å (rest frame) was excised for the dispersion calculation, since the calcium H and K lines, intrinsically broad and subject to interstellar absorption, are always problematic for dispersions. Dispersions are not corrected for any aperture effects, hence correspond to an aperture of approximately 1 square.

Three galaxies, t4, t7, and t8, showed unmistakable emission lines at 7126, 7176, and 7105Å respectively, and t7 also had a strong emission line at 5396Å, as well as ones which might be present at 7037Å and 7248Å, although they are confused with night sky lines. We believe that the emission in t4 is \[OII\] 3727Åbecause of the corroboration from absorption lines at the red end of the spectrum which correspond well to the UV lines between \[OII\] and Ca K. Galaxies t7 and t8 only received an integration of 500 sec, so it is more difficult to be certain of their redshift. The four emission lines in t7 correspond well to \[OII\] at 5376Å and $H_\beta$ and the \[OIII\] lines in the red, so we are quite confident about the redshift we assign it. Galaxy t8 is much more problematic, with only one emission line present. We tentatively identify this line with \[OII\], giving it a redshift similar to that of galaxy t4, but a deeper integration will be necessary before we have much confidence in this redshift.

Table 2 lists the redshifts, errors, velocity dispersions, errors, and cross-correlation significance “$r$” values for each spectrum. The spectra are illustrated in Figure 2. Comparison of the redshifts here with those measured by Garrett et al. (1992) and Angonin-Willaime et al. (1994) shows complete agreement within the errors.

Lensing Galaxy
--------------

Anticipating a serious contamination of the spectrum of the lensing galaxy G1 by QSO component B, we had collected light from the other side of B, with the slit arranged so that the light gradient across the slit would match the exposures of G1. However, the seeing was good enough that there was surprisingly little contamination (less than 30 percent, and the QSO light is mostly featureless), and on the night of Mar 31 we dispensed with the matching exposures of B. A simple scaling of the exposure of QSO component A removed the narrow absorption lines of MgII and gave us the “pure” spectrum of G1 illustrated in Figure 3. The spectrum has been averaged over 11 rows, equivalent to 2.3 arcsec. The effective aperture is therefore 1 arcsec by 2.3 arcsec.

We used three different methods for computing the velocity dispersion of the lensing galaxy G1. The first is the standard analysis which uses the template star observations. The second method uses the MS1358 galaxies as velocity dispersion templates. The third method involves fitting the sky lines to determine the instrumental profile and then creating a synthetic template from higher resolution data.

Using a star as a velocity dispersion template requires a narrower slit to make the instrumental resultion commensurate for template and galaxy. As demonstrated by the comparison between the dispersions measured for MS1358-G1 and MS1358-G2 with the higher resolution data of Kelson et al., our trick of using an 0.7 and 1.0slit is likely to be pretty good at the redshift of 0957, but we expect that there may be systematic differences in dispersion according to which wavelengths are compared. We found no difference between the four observations of G1, so report only the average dispersion which we find to be $290\pm20$. Using the blue half of the template gave a dispersion of 317 and the red half gave 285, so we view this result with some caution.

The second method exploits the MS1358 data again, cross-correlating the lensing galaxy against each of MS1358-G1 and MS1358-G2. Then, cross-correlation of MS1358-G1 against MS1358-G2 with varying amounts of extra broadening allows us to calibrate the width of the correlation peak of each as a function of velocity dispersion since we know the dispersions of each of these galaxies. The advantage here is that 0957 is at a small redshift relative to MS1358, so the difference in instrumental resolution is negligible. The disadvantage is that this result uses low signal-to-noise templates and depends on the accuracy of Kelson’s dispersions. Using MS1358-G1 as a template, we find a dispersion of $285\pm20$ for 0957-G1, and using MS1358-G2 as the template, we find a dispersion of $283\pm23$.

Finally, we use the method introduced by van Dokkum and Franx (1996) and measure the width of sky lines, using them to broaden a synthetic, redshifted, high resolution stellar template which we provide to the Fourier fitting method of Franx et al. (1989). Several template stars were fitted to the galaxy spectrum, and only the best fitting template was used to derive the final velocity dispersion, and we fitted over the wavelength region of 5558– 6710Åto avoid the atmospheric B band at 6800Å. This reduction also reproduces Kelson’s dispersions of MS1358 very accurately and gives a velocity dispersion of $289\pm9$ for 0957-G1. The spectrum and the fit are shown in Figure 4. The quality of the data and the fit are clearly excellent. We regard this as the most reliable method, but since the other two methods are consistent, we offer a weighted average of $288\pm9$ as our best estimate for the velocity dispersion of the gravitational lens.

The dispersion as a function of position along the slit is illustrated in Figure 5. Using the stellar templates, we find values of $286\pm30$, $340\pm20$, $294\pm10$, $293\pm10$, $287\pm10$, $308\pm15$, and $291\pm30$ at positions of $-3.2$, $-1.8$, $-0.7$, $0.0$, $+0.7$, $+1.8$, and $+3.2$ along the slit, and using the sky line calibration we find values of $311\pm 28$, $293\pm14$, $286\pm11$, $301\pm14$, and $248\pm24$ at positions of $-1.7$, $-0.6$, $0.0$, $+0.6$, and $+1.7$, i.e. no significant variation of dispersion with radius. The discrepancy between the two reduction methods is reasonably consistent with the formal errors, and the two points at $\pm3$should not be taken very seriously.

Discussion
==========

Our redshift for galaxy t1 agrees well with the measurement by Garrett et al. (1992), confirming the existence of the cluster they found at $z = 0.5$. If the redshift of galaxy t8 is confirmed to be 0.907, it suggests that galaxies t4 and t8 might be part of a background cluster along the line of sight. The spectrograph slit was about 160 long and we would probably detect a galaxy within $\pm1$of the slit, so the total area surveyed by the three slits was about 500 square arcsec. The angular size distance at $z=0.91$ is $1355\,h_{75}^{-1}$ (for $\Omega_0 = 0.25$), hence 2 galaxies at that distance projected within 0.02$^2$, is a remarkably high density. The rest frame velocity dispersion suggested by the two galaxies is about 800.

The velocity dispersion derived here differs somewhat from that reported by FSMD. As shown in Figure 5, they found a dispersion which dropped very rapidly from 316 at 0.2 = $0.86\,h_{75}^{-1}$ (for $\Omega_0 = 0.25$) to 266 at 0.4 = $1.7\,h_{75}^{-1}$. This would be extremely unusual behavior for a large elliptical galaxy, not to mention a spectrum which has been convolved with the seeing and instrumental profile. We do not confirm their rapid drop in $\sigma$, and do not agree with their conclusion that the lensing galaxy harbors a massive, dark object. We believe therefore that their results are subject to substantial systematic error (perhaps because of scattered light), that the error that they assign to their dispersion measurement is much too optimistic, and that our measurement is probably more reliable.

Grogin and Narayan (1996) offer two formulae for calculation of $H_0$ from a time delay and a velocity dispersion. Using the time delay of $1.142\pm0.004$ year (1-sigma) from Kundić et al. (1997), and a velocity dispersion of $288\pm9$, the two models give $72\pm7$ (FGS model) and $70\pm7$ (SPLS model). The velocity dispersion and model give roughly equal contributions to the error. It would be quite possible to improve the accuracy of the velocity dispersion by reobserving the lens at higher dispersion, perhaps with a 1200 line/mm grating, and it is also possible that the models need improvement. For example, Bernstein et al. (1997) use HST WFPC2 images of 0957 to measure the center of the lensing galaxy, and find that its location is inconsistent with the GN model.

The main uncertainty in the modeling is due to anisotropies in the velocity dispersion. Richstone and Tremaine (1984) showed that the measurement of velocity dispersions through a central aperture does not constrain the mass of an elliptical galaxy very well. From their figures, we estimate the uncertainty in the mass at 40% for our aperture of $1\times2.3$ arcsec and an effective radius of 4.5 arcsec (Bernstein, Tyson, & Kochanek, 1993).

A recent analysis by Romanowsky & Kochanek (1998) has confirmed this additional uncertainty. They find that the mass cannot be well measured if only a central velocity dispersion is measured. They show that an accurate measurement of the lineprofiles can constrain the mass much better, but unfortunately, no such measurements are available for Q0957. Our data give uncertainties on the order of 0.04 on the Gauss-Hermite terms used for such an analysis (e.g., van der Marel & Franx 1993). When Romanowsky & Kochanek impose the constraint that the Gauss-Hermite terms do not deviate from mean Gauss-Hermite terms measured for local galaxies, they find that the uncertainty in $H_0$ is on the order of 15 %. Given these uncertainties, it is clear that single lenses will not give a very accurate value for $H_0$, but larger samples may provide a good mean.

Despite these uncertainties, it is heartening to find that we are beginning to converge on a value for the Hubble constant via very different paths. Recent values which depend on the Cepheid calibration include $82\pm8$ (Lauer et al. 1997, SBF of HST images of BCGs), $81\pm6$ (Tonry et al. 1997, SBF of nearby galaxies), $73\pm6\pm8$ (Freedman 1997, reporting on the Cepheid calibration of a variety of secondary distance estimators including supernovae and Tully-Fisher), and $69\pm5$ (Giovanelli et al. 1997, Tully-Fisher relation). Other values which are nominally independent of the Cepheid calibration include $64\pm20$ (Schechter et al. 1997, PG1115 time delay), and $54\pm14$ (Myers et al. 1997, Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect). This is not the forum to discuss the relative merits of various methods, but it is clear measurements of the Hubble constant are finally attaining some degree of maturity, and that measurements from gravitational lens time delays can be an important contributor to the quest for $H_0$.

We are grateful to P. Fischer for providing us with the exceedingly deep image of the 0957 field used in Figure 1. As always, we are deeply appreciative of the capabilities of the Keck telescopes and the LRIS spectrograph.

Angonin-Willaime, M.-C., Soucail, G., & Vanderriest, C. 1994, , 291, 411.

Bernstein, G., Tyson, J.A., & Kochanek, C.S. 1993, , 105, 815.

Bernstein, G., Fischer, P., Tyson, J.A., & Rhee, G. 1997 , 000, 000.

Falco, E.E., Shapiro, I.I., Moustakas, L.A., & Davis, M. 1996, , 000, 00.

Fischer, P., Bernstein, B., Rhee, G., & Tyson, J.A. 1997, , 113, 421.

Freedman, W.L. 1996 18th Texas Symposium, December 1996, to be published by World Scientific, eds. A. Olinto, J. Friemann and D. Schramm.

Grogin, N.A. & Narayan, R 1996 , 464, 92, and 473, 570.

Garrett, M.A., Walsh, D., & Carswell, R.F. 1992, , 254, 27p.

Haarsma, D.B.; Hewitt, J.N., Lehar, J., & Burke, B.F. 1997, , 497, 102.

Franx, M., Illingworth, G.D., & Heckman, T.M. 1989 , 344, 613.

Franx, M. 1993 , 407, 5.

Giovanelli, et al. 1997 , 477, 1.

Kelson, D.D., Illingworth, G.D. Franx, M., & van Dokkum, P.G. 1997, , in preparation.

Kundić, T., Turner, E.L., Colley, W.N., Gott, J.R., Rhoads, J.E., Wang, Y., Bergeron, L.E., Gloria, K.A., Long, D.C., Malhotra, S., & Wambsganss, J. 1997, , 482, 75.

Lauer, T.R., Tonry, J.L., Postman, M., Ajhar, E.A., & Holtzman, J.A. 1997, , 000, 000.

van der Marel, R., & Franx, M. 1993, , 407, 525.

Myers, S.T., Baker, J.E., Readhead, A.C.S., Leitch, E.M., & Herbig T. 1997, , 000, 000.

Oke, J.B., et al. 1995, , 107, 375.

Osterbrock, D.E., Fulbright, J.P., Martel, A.R., Keane, M.J., & Trager, S.C. 1996, , 108, 277

Press, W.H., Rybicki, G.B., & Hewitt, J.N. 1992, , 385, 404.

Refsdal, S. 1964 , 128, 307.

Romanowsky, A. J., & Kochanek, C. S., 1998, preprint, astroph/9805080.

Richstone, D. O., & Tremaine, S. D. 1984, , 286, 27.

Sargent, W.L.W., Schechter, P.L., Boksenberg, A., & Shortridge, K. 1977, , 212, 326.

Schechter, P.L. et al. 1997, , 475, L85.

Schild, R.E., & Cholfin, B. 1986, , 300, 209.

Tonry, J.L. & Davis, M. 1979, , 84, 1511.

Tonry, J.L. 1984, , 279, 13.

Tonry, J.L., Blakeslee, J.P., Ajhar E.A., & Dressler, A. 1997, , 475, 399.

Tonry, J.L. 1998, , 115, 1.

van Dokkum, P.G., & Franx, M. 1996, , 281, 985.

Young, P., Gunn, J.E., Kristian, J., Oke, J.B., & Westphal, J.A. 1980, , 241, 507.

Young, P., Gunn, J.E., Kristian, J., Oke, J.B., & Westphal, J.A. 1981, , 244, 736.

[lrrrrrr]{} AGK2+14783 & 3/30 & 5:39 & 1.01 & 90 & & 1.0 AGK2+14783 & 3/30 & 5:46 & 1.01 & 90 & & 0.7 0957 GL & 3/30 & 6:14 & 1.31 & 108 & 1500 & 1.0 0957 QSO B & 3/30 & 6:54 & 1.26 & 288 & 1500 & 1.0 0957 GL & 3/30 & 7:28 & 1.24 & 108 & 1500 & 1.0 0957 QSO B & 3/30 & 7:59 & 1.24 & 288 & 1500 & 1.0 0957 QSO A & 3/30 & 8:26 & 1.24 & 288 & 500 & 1.0 MS1358 G1+... & 3/30 & 11:12 & 1.37 & 24 & 1500 & 1.0 MS1358 G1+... & 3/30 & 11:39 & 1.36 & 24 & 1500 & 1.0 HD132737 & 3/30 & 15:23 & & 90 & & 0.7 HD132737 & 3/30 & 15:27 & & 90 & & 1.0 AGK2+14783 & 3/31 & 5:14 & 1.00 & 90 & & 1.0 AGK2+14783 & 3/31 & 5:26 & 1.01 & 90 & & 0.7 0957 GL & 3/31 & 6:55 & 1.25 & 108 & 1500 & 1.0 0957 GL & 3/31 & 7:25 & 1.24 & 108 & 1500 & 1.0

[lrrrrrrrrrrl]{} G1 & 88& & & $ -0.3$ & $  1.1$ & 0.3562 & 0.0001 & 294 & 10 & 12.6 & t1 & 40&R33& & $ 60.9$ & $ 20.4$ & 0.5044 & 0.0005 & 193 & 70 & 4.7 & t2 &100& &21& $-11.2$ & $ -2.6$ & 0.3550 & 0.0001 & 105 & 66 & 14.6 & t3 &115& & & $-22.5$ & $ -6.3$ & 0.3583 & 0.0001 & 72 & 100 & 14.6 & t4 &164& & & $-79.0$ & $-24.7$ & 0.9120 & 0.0003 & & & & \[OII\] t5 &116&R19& & $-22.8$ & $ -8.3$ & 0.3532 & 0.0001 & 154 & 63 & 8.3 & t6 & 97&R13&20& $ -7.5$ & $  3.1$ & 0.3547 & 0.0002 & 68 & 143 & 6.9 & t7 & & & & $ 21.6$ & $  8.9$ & 0.4476 & 0.0004 & & & & \[OII\],$H_\beta$,\[OIII\] t8 & & & & $ 27.4$ & $ 13.9$ & 0.9070 & 0.0005 & & & & \[OII\]

**FIGURE CAPTIONS**
