← Recent

AG-2024.05-593·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qc

Gravitational Lensing in More Realistic Dark Matter Halo Models

Authors

  • Ali Tizfahm
  • Saeed Fakhry
  • Javad T. Firouzjaee
  • Antonino Del Popolo

Abstract

In this study, we explore gravitational lensing using more realistic dark matter halo models, moving beyond the limitations of spherical-collapse approximations. Through analytical calculations employing various mass functions, we address critical factors often neglected in the standard Press-Schechter formalism, such as ellipsoidal collapse conditions, angular momentum dynamics, dynamical friction, and the cosmological constant. Our analysis incorporates two widely recognized halo density profiles, the Navarro-Frenk-White and Einasto profiles considering both spherical and ellipsoidal-collapse scenarios. We provide detailed calculations of key gravitational lensing observables, including Einstein radii, lensing optical depths, and time delays, across a broad range of redshifts and masses using two different lensing models: the point mass and singular isothermal sphere (SIS) models. Our results show that using more realistic dark matter halo models enhances lensing effects compared to their spherical-collapse counterparts. Additionally, our analyses of lensing optical depths and time delays reveal distinct differences between the point mass and SIS lens models. These findings underscore the importance of using realistic halo descriptions instead of simplified approximations when modeling gravitational lensing, as this approach can more accurately capture the complex structures of dark matter.

Submitted

30 May 20241 year ago

Version

v1

License

CC-BY-4.0

DOI

10.48550/arXiv.2405.20256

Cite this preprint

Imports into BibLaTeX, Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote.

PDF

Open PDF

Opens in a new tab · v1.

Chat with this PDF

Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.

Community

Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.