
1.4 Nature of the Lens
stationary in the sky, then there would be a fixed bending angle, as explained in BHS2. However, in the present
case, both the star and the lens are moving in the sky. Moreover, over the period of the observations lasting six
years, the Earth keeps moving around the Sun, thus affecting the position from which the event is viewed. This
leads to changes in the measured positions in the sky, known as stellar parallax. The parallax also has to be
considered in the determination of the light curve of the event.
Using the light curve and position data, and spectroscopic observations with the HST, which were also
available, and applying various complex corrections, Sahu et al. were able to determine several important
parameters: the mass of the lensing object 7.1 ± 1.3 Solar masses, the distance to the lens 1.58 ± 0.18 kpc,
Einstein radius 5.18 ± 0.51 mas, and a space velocity of the lens of about 45 km/sec relative to the Sun. From
the spectroscopic data, it was determined that the distance to the lensed star was 5.9 ± 1.3 kpc.
1.4 Nature of the Lens
Sahu et al. provide several arguments to show that the lensing object is a black hole. Given the mass of 7.1
Solar masses for the lensing object, it cannot be either a white dwarf or a neutron star since these objects have
a maximum mass of 1.4 and about 3 Solar masses, respectively. The lens cannot even be a binary system made
up of these objects. So, it could only be a massive star, a black hole, or a binary made up of these objects. It
can be estimated that a star with a mass of about 7 Solar masses, would at the lens distance of 1.58 kpc have the
brightness to be detected in the observations. Observed limits on the brightness are about 100 times less than
the expected brightness for such a star, so the lens could not be a massive star. It can further be argued that to
be consistent with the brightness constraint, the mass of the star cannot be more than 0.2 Solar masses. That
only leaves a black hole as a possibility.
But then, is the lensing object a single massive back hole, or a binary of two black holes, or a combination
of a sufficiently massive black hole and another lower mass object with a combined mass of the lensing object?
It can be argued that in such a binary system, the two components have either to be very close together or quite
far apart. For a close binary of the kind needed, the emission of gravitational radiation would be so high that the
two components would merge in less than 10
7
years. The lens system would therefore have to be rather young,
so there should be ongoing star formation in the surrounding region, for which there is no evidence. On the
other hand, if the binary were to be very wide, then the lensing would be due to just the more massive object,
which would need to be a massive black hole with the measured mass of 7.1 Solar masses. So one cannot really
say that a wide binary could be present in preference to a single 7.1 Solar mass black hole. The black hole has
high space velocity compared to nearby stars, which shows that it probably received a kick when it was formed,
possibly in the supernova explosion of a massive star.
The work of Sahu et al. seems to have led to the detection of the first lone black hole. In the future
observations with the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope and the Rubin Observatory LSST are expected to
provide accurate data on thousands of microlensing events, leading to the discovery of many lone black holes.
1.5 A Different Result
Casey Lam, Jessica Lu and their collaborators have used HST and ground-based data to analyse the same
gravitational wave event MOA-2011-BLG-191/OLG-2011-BLG-0462 (Lam, Casey et al. 2022, Astrophysical
Journal Volume 933, page L28; arXiv:2202.01903). They follow techniques similar to those used by Sahu et
al. but arrive at a different result. They find that the mass of the lensing object is in the range of 1.6-4.4 Solar
masses, and that it is at a distance of 0.72-1.92 kpc. The lower mass obtained allows the lensing object to be a
23