Paper detail

Plasma lensing in comparison to gravitational lensing -- Formalism and degeneracies

Gravitational and plasma lensing share the same mathematical formalism in the limit of geometrical optics. Both phenomena can be effectively described by a projected, two-dimensional deflection potential whose gradient causes an instantaneous light deflection in a single, thin lens plane. We highlight the differences in the time-delay and lensing equations that occur because plasma lensing is caused by a potential directly proportional to the deflecting electron number density and gravitational lensing is caused by a potential related to the deflecting mass density by a Poisson equation. Since we treat plasma and gravitational lensing as thin-screen effective theories, their degeneracies are both caused by the unknown distribution of deflecting objects. Deriving the formalism-intrinsic degeneracies for plasma lensing, we find that they are analogous to those occurring in gravitational lensing. To break the degeneracies, galaxies and galaxy-cluster scale strong gravitational lenses must rely on additional assumptions or complementary observations. Physically realistic assumptions to arrive at self-consistent lens and source reconstructions can be provided by simulations and analytical effective theories. In plasma lensing, a deeper understanding of the deflecting electron density distributions is still under development, so that a model-based comprehensive lens reconstruction is not yet possible. However, we show that transient lenses and multi-wavelength observations help to break the arising degeneracies. We conclude that the development of an observation-based inference of local lens properties seems currently the best way to further probe the morphologies of plasma electron densities. Due to the simpler evidence-based breaking of the lensing degeneracies, we expect to obtain tighter constraints on the local plasma electron densities than on the gravitationally deflecting masses.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.