Äîêóìåíò âçÿò èç êýøà ïîèñêîâîé ìàøèíû. Àäðåñ îðèãèíàëüíîãî äîêóìåíòà : http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~kim/pap/BinaryQ_2002.pdf Äàòà èçìåíåíèÿ: Mon Dec 6 20:20:30 2010 Äàòà èíäåêñèðîâàíèÿ: Tue Oct 2 00:35:30 2012 Êîäèðîâêà: Ïîèñêîâûå ñëîâà: extreme ultraviolet

The Astrophysical Journal, 571: 721­732, 2002 June 1
# 2002. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.

CHANDRA OBSERVATIONS OF THE QSO PAIR Q2345+007: BINARY OR MASSIVE DARK LENS? Paul J. Green,1 Chris Kochanek, Aneta Siemiginowska, Dong-Woo Kim, Maxim Markevitch, John Silverman,1 and Anil Dosaj1
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; pgreen@cfa.harvard.edu

Buell T. Jannuzi and Chris Smith

1

National Optical Astronomy Observatory, P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726-6732
1

Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile Received 2001 October 29; accepted 2002 February 4

ABSTRACT The components of the wide (7 > 3) separation quasar pair Q2345+007A,B (z ¼ 2:15) have the most strikingly similar optical spectra seen to date (Steidel & Sargent) yet no detected lensing mass, making this system the best candidate known for a massive ($1014 M) dark matter lens system. Here we present results from a 65 ks Chandra observation designed to investigate whether it is a binary quasar or a gravitational lens. We find no X-ray evidence for a lensing cluster to a (0.5­2 keV) flux limit of 2 á 10þ15 ergs cmþ2 sþ1, which is consistent with lensing only for a reduced baryon fraction. Using the Chandra X-ray observations of the quasars themselves, together with new and published optical measurements, we use the observed emission properties of the quasars for further tests between the lens and binary hypotheses. Assuming similar line-of-sight absorption to the images, we find that their X-ray continuum slopes are inconsistent (þA ¼ 2:30×0::36 and þ0 30 þB ¼ 0:83×0::49 ) as are their X-ray­to­optical flux ratios. The probability that B suffers intrinsic absorption þ0 44 sufficient to account for these spectral differences is negligible. We present new optical evidence that the flux ratio of the pair is variable, so the time delay in a lens scenario could cause some of the discrepancies. However, adequately large variations in overall spectral energy distribution are rare in individual QSOs. All new evidence here weighs strongly toward the binary interpretation. Q2345+007 thus may represent the highest redshift example known of an interaction-triggered but as-yet unmerged luminous active galactic nucleus. Subject headings: gravitational lensing -- quasars: absorption lines -- quasars: individual (Q2345+007) -- X-rays: general -- X-rays: individual (Q2345+007)

1. INTRODUCTION

The density and evolution of massive halos (M > 10 M) is a powerful probe of the cosmological model. The number of massive clusters depends exponentially on the amplitude of the power spectrum when normalized by 8, the amplitude on a scale of 8 hþ1 Mpc. These halos can be detected through an overdensity of galaxies (e.g., Postman et al. 1996 for a modern example), from X-ray emission (e.g., Ebeling et al. 2000), or with the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect (e.g., Holder et al. 2000). All these methods depend on emission or absorption from the baryons in the halo. Alternatively, we can detect such massive halos using gravitational lensing. This can be done either with weak lensing surveys (Wittman et al. 2001) or with surveys for multiplyimaged background sources with wide image separations (usually defined by D > 300 ; Kochanek, Falco, & Munoz 1999, hereafter KFM99). Unlike the other methods of finding clusters, gravitational lensing can also find `` dark '' clusters where there is mass but no detectable baryons. Some candidates have been

14

1 Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak National Observatory and/or Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatory, operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA), under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation; pgreen@cfa.harvard.edu.

found in weak lensing (shear-selected) surveys (Umetsu & Futamase 2000; Erben et al. 2000), but only one such cluster has been spectroscopically confirmed to date (Wittman et al. 2001). Most of the debate about dark halos has focused on the population of wide-separation quasar pairs (WSQPs). All the lens candidates with separations D < 300 have identifiable primary lens galaxies in deep NICMOS observations (see synopses in KFM99 or Mortlock & Webster 2000). Above 300 there are 17 objects. Four are bona fide gravitational lenses, with similar optical/radio flux ratios and negligible spectroscopic differences, as well as a plausible lensing galaxy. Eight more pairs, with discrepant radio/ optical flux ratios for a lens, or greater than 3 velocity differences, are very probably binary quasars. The remaining five objects are WSQPs with similar spectra, essentially identical redshifts, and no visible lens galaxy or cluster. Were four pairs found to be dark clusters, they would imply that the dark clusters were just as numerous as normal clusters. The problem with simply interpreting the WSQPs as dark clusters is that we expect to find WSQPs even in the absence of dark lensing as examples of binary quasars in which the central engines of two nearby galaxies are simultaneously active. We know that many of the pairs are binary quasars because they have discrepant flux ratios as a function of wavelength or greater than 3 velocity differences. We can prove from statistical analyses of the relative numbers of 721


722

GREEN ET AL.

Vol. 571

radio-quiet/radio-quiet, radio-quiet/radio-loud, and radioloud/radio-loud pairs that most of the remaining WSQPs are binary quasars (KFM99). Since the number of WSQPs is 100 times higher than expected from simple extrapolations of the quasar-quasar correlation function, galaxy interactions are crucial to creating binary quasars (see KFM99; Mortlock & Webster 2000) and can be used as a tool to study the triggering of nuclear activity in galaxies (e.g., Osterbrock 1993). Nonetheless, we still have puzzling examples of WSQPs whose members have startlingly similar optical spectroscopic properties but no evidence for a lens. One example is the optical quasar pair Q2345+007A,B (Tyson et al. 1986). With a separation of 7 > 3, Q2345+007 is the most prominent `` dark matter '' gravitational lens candidate. Optical spectra of the two image components show exceptional intrinsic similarity in both line profile and velocity (e.g., z ¼ 2:15, DvBþA ¼ 15 ô 20 km sþ1; Steidel & Sargent 1991, hereafter SS91). Slight differences may be explainable as the combined effect of time variability in the source and time delays produced by the lens (Small, Sargent, & Steidel 1997). After nearly 20 yr of study including deep optical and infrared imaging (Nieto et al. 1988; Weir & Djorgovski 1991; Bonnet et al. 1993; Gopal-Krishna et al. 1993; McLeod, Rieke, & Weedman 1994; Fischer et al. 1994; Pello et al. 1996) and VLA radio imaging (Patnaik, Schneider, Narayan 1996), this pair remains the most obstinate mystery. Either massive, concentrated dark matter near the line of sight is acting as a gravitational lens or two neighboring quasars have virtually identical spectral characteristics yet significantly different luminosities. In this paper we present a deep X-ray image of Q2345+007 obtained with the Chandra X-Ray Observatory (Chandra). Using the superb sensitivity and resolution of Chandra we address two questions. First, we search the field for extended X-ray emission from hot baryons in the lens, which allows us to detect an optically dark halo. We cannot detect a baryon-free halo, since the X-ray emission depends on the hot baryons in the halo, but we can detect halos with reduced baryon fractions. Second, we test whether the Xray flux ratios and spectra of the images are consistent with the lens hypothesis. We describe the Chandra observations next in x 2 and supporting Kitt Peak optical imaging in x 3. We discuss the search for extended emission from a lensing cluster in x 4, and contrast the properties of the two quasars in x 5, summarizing in x 6.
2. Chandra OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

We have used data reprocessed (2001 in April) at CXC.2 We then ran XPIPE (Kim et al. 2000), which was specifically designed for the Chandra Multiwavelength Project (ChaMP; Green, Forster, & Kuraszkewiecz 2000). Data screening applied in the CXC level 2 processing excludes events with bad grades (mostly cosmic-ray events) and events with status bits set such as bad pixels and columns. Additional bad pixels and columns were excluded by examining events in the chip coordinates in each chip. To remove time intervals of high background rates, we make a light curve and exclude those time intervals with 3 or greater fluctuation above the mean background count rate. Given different characteristics between BI and FI chips, this is done separately for each ACIS chip. The remaining exposure time for the back-illuminated S3 chip is 64,998 s. For source detection, we have applied the wavdetect algorithm (Freeman et al. 2002), available in the Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO) software package.3 Wavdetect is more reliable than the traditional celldetect algorithm for finding individual sources in crowded fields and for identifying extended sources, but the algorithm tends to detect spurious sources near the detector edge. To avoid such false detections, we generate an exposure map for each chip (assuming a monoenergetic distribution of source photons at 1.5 keV) and apply an exposure threshold to be 10%. After performing various tests to find the most efficient parameters (see Kim et al. 2000), we select a significance threshold parameter to be 10þ6, corresponding to one spurious source per CCD chip. We use scale parameters of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 pixels to cover a wide range of source scales, thus accommodating the point-spread function variation as a function of off-axis angle. For other parameters, we have used default values given in CIAO2.1. As shown in Figure 1, Q2345+007A,B are well-resolved and strongly detected in the image. The Chandra astrometry for the pair corresponds closely ($0 > 3) to the optical counterpart positions, as expected from Chandra's absolute aspect quality (Aldcroft et al. 2000). We perform our own aperture photometry at the wavdetect positions of the 46 detected sources on this chip, which yields sources between 7 and 608 net counts (0.5­8 keV), and signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) from 1.6 to 24.
3. MOSAIC OPTICAL IMAGING OBSERVATIONS

Q2345+007 was first observed by Chandra on 2000 May 26 for 25.2 ks using the back-illuminated S3 chip of the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) in faint, timed-event mode. We offset the pointing by 10 in spacecraft Y-coordinate from the Chandra aim point to allow for imaging of any extended emission all within one ACIS node. It was observed again on 2000 June 27 in the same configuration for 52.6 ks. However, because of an incorrectly configured bias-only run in the previous ACIS segment, event rates were about 20 times as high as expected from the chips (I1 and I3) processed by Front End Processors (FEP) 0 and 3. The resultant telemetary situation created up to 50% dead time in these chips. Telemetry dropouts are fully accounted for in the final exposure times, but the aim-point chip S3 was in any case not affected.

Several lensing cluster candidates have been suggested from analysis of deep optical images. As part of ChaMP for follow-up of Chandra serendipitous sources (Green et al. 2000), on UT 2000 September 29 and 2001 August 22 we obtained images in Sloan g0 , r0 ,and i0 filters at the CTIO 4 m Blanco Telescope using the wide-field MOSAIC camera, which has eight 2048 á 4096 chips in a 4 á 2 array comprising a 360 á 360 field of view. We reduced the images using the MSCRED (v4.1) package (Valdes & Tody 1998; Valdes 1998) in the IRAF environment (Tody et al. 1986). This proceeds via the usual initial calibration, subtracting mediancombined bias frames and dividing by similarly prepared dome flats. Additionally, we correct for electronic cross talk

2 CXCDS versions R4CU5UPD14.1, along with ACIS calibration data from the Chandra CALDB 2.0b. 3 CIAO may be downloaded from http://asc.harvard.edu/ciao.


No. 2, 2002

QSO PAIR Q2345+007

723

A B

Fig. 1.--Left: This 90 á 90 ACIS-S3 (0.3­8 keV) image of Q2345+007 (north up, east to the left) was smoothed with a 3 pixel (1 > 5) Gaussian for clarity and shows the QSO pair on chip S3, about 10 north and 3000 west of the chip center. While numerous point sources are detected, no extended cluster emission is distinguishable around the quasar pair on the image. Right: A10 á 10 close-up of Q2345+007A,B shows that the pair is well resolved, with no detectable emission from nearby point sources.

between pairs of CCDs sharing readout electronics. We then make a single image in each filter by median-combining multiple object frames, effectively rejecting all of the celestial objects in the final frame. From this we create a fringe-correction frame in each filter with the large-scale variation removed and interactively subtract scaled versions from every exposure in each given filter. We then generate the sky flat for large scale corrections, again via median filtering, this time of fringe-corrected object frames. This sky flat is divided into every object frame. From our MOSAIC images, we determined the (previously unpublished) positions of optically identified lens candidates discussed below, listed for convenience in Table 1. These optical positions are based on an astrometric solution of rms $0 > 1 obtained by matching detected objects to the GSC2.2.4 On each observing run, we obtained for this field three dithered images per filter. After we flag bad pixels and charge bleeds from severely saturated stars in each image, we project them onto the tangent plane. Removal of remaining large-scale gradients and scale differences between dithered images allows for combination into a final single stacked image in each filter. These nights were probably photometric, since the scaling values were close to 1. We used the MOSAIC images to determine the optical flux ratios of the quasar pair in our three filters. These are tabulated as magnitude differences in Table 2, along with

previously published values, for convenience. We discuss the evident variability in x 5.3.
4. THE SEARCH FOR THE LENS

We now search for X-rays from any extended halo centered on the WSQP, and also measure X-rays from published optical cluster candidates. In x 4.1 we describe our search for X-ray emission from any lensing halo, and in x 4.2 we compare the extended X-ray emission to the optically identified cluster candidates inferred from the distribution of galaxies in the field (Bonnet et al. 1993; Pello et al. 1996). In x 4.3 we discuss the implications of our measurements for the lens hypothesis. 4.1. Search for Extended X-Ray Emission No significant extended emission sources are evident to the eye on the ACIS-S3 image. When searching for faint extended sources, however, it is important to minimize background contamination. The ACIS particle background increases significantly below 0.5 keV and again at high energies. To optimize detection of a weak cluster signal, we first filtered the cleaned, combined image to include only photons between 0.5 and 2 keV. We then masked out pixels within a radius encompassing 95% of the encircled energy around all point sources detected by wavdetect. This image is divided by the appropriate ACIS-S3 exposure map, which takes account instrumental features (effective area, quantum efficiency, telescope vignetting) as well as relative exposure due to the dither pattern. Further division by the exposure time yields a normalized image with pixel values in photons cmþ2 sþ1. To facilitate the search for nearby

4 The Guide Star Catalogue-II is a joint project of the Space Telescope Science Institute and the Osservatorio Astronomico di Torino. Space Telescope Science Institute is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under contract NAS 5-26555.


724

GREEN ET AL.
TABLE 1 Measured Positions of QSOs and Possible Cluster Centers R.A. (2000.0) Decl.a (2000.0)

Vol. 571

Center

Separationb

Reference

Optical QSO A,O ........................... QSO B,O ............................ Center ................................ C1 ...................................... G1...................................... G2...................................... Z075 .................................. Z120 .................................. 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 19.6 19.2 19.4 17.2 16.5 17.2 16.6 19.3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 57 57 57 57 58 57 57 57 21.6 17.7 19.2 22 08.3 31.1 31 57 .. . .. . .. . 33 66 36 44 38 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3

X-Ray QSO QSO CXO CXO CXO A ............................... B................................ J234817.6+005717 ... J234816.9+005811 ... J234812.7+005813 ... 23 23 23 23 23 48 48 48 48 48 19.6 19.2 17.6 16.9 12.7 00 00 00 00 00 57 57 57 58 58 21.4 17.5 17 11 13 0.3 0.2 27 64 114 1 1 1 1 1

Note.--Units of right ascension are hours, minutes, and seconds, and units of declination are degrees, arcminutes, and arcseconds. a Coordinates with subarcsecond precision are listed for objects with well-defined centroids from our optical imaging. b For QSOs, separation of X-ray centroids from optical centroids. For putative optical clusters, separations are in arcseconds from the center of the QSO pair center. References.--(1) This paper; (2) Bonnet et al. 1993; and (3) Pello et al. 1996.

extended sources, we smoothed the point-source­subtracted image using a 1000 FWHM Gaussian. Figure 2 shows several marginal excesses at $20% above the background level of 2 á 10þ10 photons cmþ2 sþ1 arcsecþ2 (corresponding to 0.16 counts sþ1 across the entire chip). Several low-level ($10%) features in the normalized image in Figure 2 partially coincide with features in the exposure map. This may be because the telescope effective area varies in the 0.5­2 keV bandpass and the assumed spectrum used to compute the exposure map (monoenergetic 1.5 keV) may not represent the inci-

dent spectra very well across the image. More detailed simulations for detecting extended structures in ACIS images are called for, but this is beyond the scope of this paper. None of the features were detected by our wavelet detection analysis, so we do not consider any of the apparent fluctuations to be significant unless they appear clearly in radial profiles. In Table 1 we tabulate the X-ray positions (based on the peak flux in the smoothed image) of apparent extended excesses near Q2345+007. We summed the X-ray counts in 1000 annuli centered on a point midway between the two

TABLE 2 Magnitude Differences for Q2345+007A,B Epoch 1981.92 ....... 1981.98 1982.57 1982.90 1989.65 ....... ....... ....... ....... Band B V r r r B g r i r g r i K BJ R I mB þ mA 1.43 1.43 1.54 1.44 1.41 1.30 1.31 1.24 1.08 1.28 1.32 1.27 1.19 1.11 1.24 1.19 1.14 ô ô ô ô ô ô ô ô ô ô ô ô ô ô 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.17 Reference 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 3 3 3 Epoch 1991.96 1992.73 1992.88 1992.93 1993.76 1993.76 1998.73 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... Band R V B K J K0 u* g* r* i* z* g* r* i* g* r* i* mB þ mA 1.25 ô 0.09 1.13 ô 0.12 1.30 ô 0.06 1.3 ô 0.1 1.55 1.51 1.62 ô 0.12 1.63 ô 0.03 1.60 ô 0.05 1.62 ô 0.07 1.37 ô 0.16 1.88 ô 0.01 1.85 ô 0.01 1.81 ô 0.01 1.64 ô 0.01 1.65 ô 0.01 1.60 ô 0.01 Reference 4 4 4 7 3 3 8 8 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1

1989.67 ....... 1989.69 .......

2000.75 .......

1989.96 1990.79 1990.79 1990.79

....... ....... ....... .......

2001.63 .......

Note.--We include only ratios published with accurate dates in B band or redder. References.--(1) This paper; (2) Bonnet et al. 1993; (3) Pello et al. 1996; (4) Gopal-Krishna et al. 1993; (5) Sol et al. 1984; (6) Weir & Djorgovski 1991; (7) McLeod et al. 1994; (8) SDSS Early Data Release.


No. 2, 2002

QSO PAIR Q2345+007

725

Fig. 2.--Chandra ACIS-S3 Image of the 9<7 field surrounding Q2345+007, with north up, east to the left. We removed counts within these apertures and then divided by an exposure map before smoothing with a 1000 Gaussian. The resulting gray scale shows a mean flux of $2 á 10þ10 photons cmþ2 sþ1 pixelþ1, with values across the image ranging from about 0.7 to 5.3 in those units. Circles with sizes representing the point-spread function (95% encircled energy) mark the positions of point sources detected by CIAO wavdetect. The positions of the twin QSOs are evident just northeast of center. The large contours show linear levels (from 500 to 900 cm2, in steps of 100) in the exposure map. Positions of putative optically identified galaxy clusters are marked in bold type.

QSO images and extending to a 20 radius, and we detect no excess over the background. To derive an upper limit on the extended source flux, we denote source counts S and background counts B (where B has been estimated from an area AB but normalized to the source area AS).5 The random 1 deviation in counts is ¼ ÏS × kB÷12 , where k ¼ ½1 × ÏAS =AB ÷. If we define a source count upper limit at N standard deviations, then our source count upper limit becomes pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi N N × N 2 × 4kB : S ¼ N ¼ 2 We estimate the background from an area AB 4AS and thereby derive a 95% upper limit of fewer than 44 counts from any cluster within a circle of 10 radius centered on the WSQP, corresponding to a count rate of 7 á 10þ4 sþ1. Con-

sidering a Raymond-Smith model with a reasonable range6 of parameters and Galactic absorption, the corresponding upper limit on the 0.5­2 keV flux is around 2 á 10þ15 ergs cmþ2 sþ1. This illustrates Chandra's excellent sensitivity to faint sources, even when extended.7 4.2. Observed Cluster Constraints Our 0.5­2 keV flux upper limit of 2 á 10þ15 ergs cmþ2 sþ1 within 10 of the WSQP clearly yields a stringent limit on the existence of any lensing cluster. Assuming a T ¼ 2 3 keV spectrum, this upper limit corresponds at z $ 1 to a 0.5­2 keV (rest-frame) luminosity of 1:2 á 1043 ergs sþ1 (1:6 á 1043 for ¼ 0:3). An r ¼ 10 aperture at z ¼ 1 corre6 The unabsorbed flux is derived, i.e., from outside the Galaxy. Changes in the assumed spectral models from 2 to 8 keV result in changes of $15% in the value of the derived flux. 7 If there is any residual flux from the WSQP scattered beyond the radius containing 95% of the total energy, our estimated cluster flux upper limit is conservative.

5 Source counts are derived from total counts T in area A S ¼ T þ B.

S

via


726

GREEN ET AL.

Vol. 571

sponds to 0.5 Mpc (0.6 Mpc for ¼ 0:3) and encloses about half of the total luminosity for a typical cluster with the surface brightness described by a -model with a core radius of 0.25 Mpc and  ¼ 0:6 (Jones & Forman 1984). With this correction, our upper limit corresponds to a typical luminosity of a galaxy group with T $ 2 3 keV (e.g., Hwang et al. 1999 and references therein), so our estimate is self-consistent. All luminosities, sizes, and distances are calculated assuming H0 ¼ 50 km sþ1 Mpcþ1, 0 ¼ 1:0, and ö ¼ 0:0 unless otherwise noted (we also give 0 ¼ 0:3 values). This represents by far the strongest constraint on the X-ray luminosity of any dark lens candidate to date (see Chartas et al. 2001). It is certainly possible that a massive cluster that is not centered on the WSQP could also produce the observed image splitting. Therefore, we also investigate apparent flux excesses in the vicinity (<1 > 5) of the quasar pair. However, the required mass of the lensing cluster would rise with angular distance from the WSQP, so that our flux limits constrain the existence of such a cluster even more strongly at larger angles. The closest significant excess of extended X-ray emission to the WSQP is CXO J234817.6+005717. Centered about 2700 from the center of the WSQP, it has a peak flux of about 0.0544 counts cmþ2 sþ1 arcsecþ2. The radial profile of this excess, determined with possible nearby extended sources removed, is shown in Figure 3 (see also Fig. 4). The excess contributes just 11 ô 5 counts above background. At just 2.2 , we find this source to be of questionable certitude. A

more credible 2 upper limit to the flux yields 9 á 10þ16 ergs cmþ2 sþ1 from 0.5­2 keV. Bonnet et al. (1993) identified a cluster center they label C1 from a weak gravitational shear field pattern suggesting a lens velocity dispersion v $ 1200 km sþ1. The peak X-ray flux of the above extended source corresponds to a position just 800 from C1. Pello et al. (1996) claimed an excess of galaxies with photometric redshifts z $ 0:75, which is 1300 from C1 and 2100 from CXO J234817.6+005717. However, centroids may naturally have somewhat different positions because optical galaxies may not follow the overall mass distribution, and the cluster also may not be virialized. Assuming that all three objects (C1, the Pello et al. z ¼ 0:75 optical galaxy excess, and CXO J234817.6+005717) can be identified as the same object, the 0.5­2 keV luminosity upper limit is 2:8 á 1042 ergs sþ1 (3:6 á 1042 ergs sþ1 for ¼ 0:3), more similar to an isolated elliptical galaxy or a small group than to a rich v $ 1200 km sþ1 cluster, suggesting that the large velocity dispersion estimate is the result of a line-of-sight projection. In any case, at a transverse distance of $220 h50 kpc, such a mass is too small to produce the observed pair separation by lensing. Bonnet et al. also identified the galaxy G28 as having a position consistent with C1 within the errors ($900 from the best centroid of C1). At 1500 from G2, CXO J234817.6+005717 is clearly not consistent with emission from that galaxy. Another apparent X-ray excess CXO J234816.9+005811 is an arcminute from the WSQP centroid, but 700 from the galaxy G1 identified by Bonnet et al. (1993). However, our radial profile centered either on CXO J234816.9+005811 or on the position of G1 reveals no significant excess above background, even when the other nearby extended sources are excised. 4.3. Comparison to Required Lens We start by assuming that the WSQP is a lens produced by a simple, singular isothermal sphere (SIS; see Schneider, Ehlers, & Falco 1992). The image separation D ¼ 8Ïv =c÷2 DLS =DOS depends only on the velocity dispersion of the potential v and the ratio of the comoving distances between the lens and the source, DLS , and the observer and the source, DOS . Since we failed to detect a lens cluster, we will get the most conservative limits if we assume that the lens lies at the `` minimum flux redshift,'' the redshift that would minimize the observed X-ray flux. If we neglect K-corrections, the flux from the lens is 2 L DOS rH / ; Ï 1÷ F¼ DOL DLS Ï1 × zl ÷ 4 D 2 Ï 1 × z l ÷ 2 OL where rH is the Hubble radius c=H0 . This flux diverges at low redshift because of the proximity of the cluster and at high redshift because of the mass of the cluster. For 0 ¼ 1 the flux is minimized at zl ¼ 0:92, which we will round to zl ¼ 1 for simplicity. Now using a SIS model for the lensing mass, the large image separation of 7 > 3 implies a cluster velocity dispersion of v ¼ 860 km s þ1 or a cluster mass of 1:3 á 1014 M. We emphasize that this is the minimum enclosed mass or disper8 G1 is the brighter galaxy. Labels in Bonnet et al. (1993) for G1 and G2 are incorrectly swapped in all but their Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.--Radial profile is centered at the position of CXO J234817.6+005717, the excess nearest the QSOs in Fig. 4. We used successive 1000 annuli in a cleaned 0.5­2 keV image, excluding both detected point sources and regions with apparent source excesses in Fig. 2. Vertical error bars are 1 , and horizontal bars represent the range of each annulus. The background level ($0.01 counts per 0 > 5 pixel) has not been subtracted. The profile displays a possible flux excess in the first bin, significant at 2.5­3 above background.


No. 2, 2002

QSO PAIR Q2345+007

727

G1 z120

z075 A C1 B

23:48:12

27

24

21

18

Fig. 4.--An r0 image from the CTIO 4 m telescope from UT 2000 September 29 of a 4<25 field surrounding Q2345+007. North is up, east is to the left, and a J2000.0 coordinate grid is displayed. The large contours show the same X-ray flux levels as in Fig. 2. Positions of the QSO images A and B and of putative optically identified galaxy clusters are marked in bold type.

sion required at this redshift to induce the observed pair separation. Combining the LX -v relation from, e.g., Mulchaey & Zabludoff (1998) and the LX -T relation from, e.g., Markevitch (1998), and neglecting any possible cosmological evolution of these relations for a qualitative estimate, we obtain LX Ï0:5 2 keV÷ % 2 á 1044 ergs sþ1 and T % 5 keV for such a cluster. At z ¼ 1, this corresponds to fX Ï0:5 2 keV÷ % 4 á 10þ14 ergs cmþ2 sþ1 (3 á 10þ14 for ¼ 0:3). Again assuming a typical cluster brightness distribution and dividing by 2 to convert to the r ¼ 10 aperture, we can see that our 95% flux limit is an order of magnitude below this minimum required flux estimate. If the lens were a dark cluster lacking not only galaxies but also gas, the gas fraction would have to be $3 times lower than that in known clusters. At low redshift, all well-studied clusters (at least in the relevant range of radii and masses) have similar values of the gas fraction (e.g., Mohr, Mathiesen, & Evrard 1999; Vikhlinin, Forman, & Jones 1999) so such a deviation appears to be extremely unlikely. We conclude that a single cluster acting as a lens is not a plausible scenario for Q2345+007. In other lenses clearly due to a combination of a cluster and a galaxy (particularly Q0957+561; Keeton et al. 2000),

a massive, luminous lens galaxy dominates the image splitting. Here we see no such candidate galaxy, even in the infrared, to a limit of approximately Lö =10 near redshift unity. Such a galaxy, unless completely different from all other known lens galaxies (e.g., Kochanek et al. 2000, Xanthopoulos et al. 1998), must make a negligible contribution to the overall image separation and modifies our estimate of the critical radius of the putative dark halo only by a factor of 1 þ 2bgal =D with bgal 5 1 > 0.
5. ARE THEY IMAGES OF THE SAME QUASAR?

We have failed to find a lens. While a dark matter lens is not ruled out, the pair could also be shown to be a binary quasar by evidence that the components' spectral energy distributions are different. We explore this by first determining the X-ray properties of the two quasars in x 5.1, followed by a discussion of the possible effects of absorption and extinction on the flux ratios in x 5.2. In x 5.3 we compare the flux ratios from the near-infrared to the X-ray bands to conclude that they are probably different quasars. We discuss the remaining puzzle of the strikingly similar optical/UV spectra of the components in x 5.4.

15

55:30

56:15

0:57:00

45

58:30

59:15


728 5.1. The X-Ray Properties of the Quasars

GREEN ET AL.
TABLE 3 Spectral Fit Parameters NH (1020 cmþ2) 3.8 .. . 5.3 ô 3.1 .. . ×3 5 3:4þ2::9 43:9×29 þ18 4:3 ô 3:1 23:6×28::1 þ19 2

Vol. 571

The total broadband (0.3­8 keV) counts from the QSOs are 358:5 ô 20 and 54:8