arXiv:1412.5650v2 [astro-ph.HE] 12 Feb 2015 rae oal by been notably have In treated world-lines) Kosti´c ( functions. given elliptic using null only 2011; 2012) particular, Vyska was & 2003; Scharf (or Gibbons angle 2012; Whitehouse radius 2008; of & L¨ammerzahl for Kraniotis & function invert Hackmann solution 1987; a (Rodr´ıguez to The as later needs reciprocal) one parameter). its impact if for the uncomfortable and result quite 1983) the 1959; be Chandrasekhar Darwin may 1931; 1962; Pleba´nski (Hagihara & Mielnik integrals elliptic a volves as pressed oremr eiae A vnhge ee ol also would level higher even to (An proper like incorporate would delicate. we more 2011, Instead, e.g. course Pacheco Freitas constant, approximate 2012). fo- de Kasai reasonably cosmological & mainly & Biressa the Arakida been 2010, and of al. effect has et Bozza Bhadra the discussion or on the (2009), cused connection Virbhadra (recently (2008), (2010) in Ellis (2007), Frolov & al. treated & Virbhadra et Connell M¨ah¨onen Amore e.g. is & es- see (2002), Mutka — exercise (2000), asymptotics), lensing radial gravitational the with by been when just has pecially or bending locations, the yet observer usually Although seems places, gle many trajectories at photon suggested. treated relativistic be the to of tion (2014). inbigcmltl nerbeadpaa (usually planar mo- and The integrable at completely relativity. laid being general in tion exercises introductory adtnst pi hi ekfil ii.Low-order limit. weak-field their by spoil this “improving” to contrary, tends the strong-field hand the on well while, reproduce not behaviour, Actually, do parameter linearization some by trajectories.) obtained in formulas spatial that to quickly learns study one this restrict we oldrich.semerak@mff.cuni.cz rpittpstuigL using 2018 typeset 23, Preprint January version Draft oee,a However, edscmto naShazcidfil soeof one is field Schwarzschild a in motion steam(ie ydrcin ttesuc and source the at directions by (given aim the is rjcoisa nt ai,ytaypoi eaiu sas discuss also exercise. headings: ray-deflection Subject is the approximat behaviour solving suggested newly practically concer asymptotic the for that main yet indicating Our attached radii, hy is example finite adjusted Beloborodov. suitably at by s approximation a trajectories com for employed with We formulas often potentials, exact and pseudo-Newtonian literature. from following the on those from based with prescriptions namely simple competitors”, other than better θ nttt fTertclPyis aut fMteaisa Mathematics of Faculty , Theoretical of Institute hr oml ssgetdwihapoiae htntrajecto photon approximates which suggested is formula short A = ipeadesl invertible easily and simple π/ φ r ( 1. ( r ) t xc ouini otyex- mostly is solution exact its 2), φ eedne oee,ti in- this However, dependence. ) rfrsm aaee (usually parameter some for or ) timing INTRODUCTION aez&Ksic(05 n Mu˜noz and Kosti´c (2005) Cadeˇz & ˇ A T PRXMTN IH ASI H CWRSHL FIELD SCHWARZSCHILD THE IN RAYS LIGHT APPROXIMATING E tl mltajv 5/2/11 v. emulateapj style X hl trajectories whole hc sas motn,but important, also is which , lc oepyis eaiitcpoess rvttoa lensing gravitational processes, relativistic physics, hole black oa edn an- bending total hc sof is which , approxima- rf eso aur 3 2018 23, January version Draft ABSTRACT .Semer O. dPyis hre nvriyi rge zc Republic Czech Prague, in University Charles Physics, nd h htnfu-oetmhsnnzr components non-zero has four-momentum photon the where ymti edbigpaa,ltu hoeteorbital the ( choose one equatorial us the let be planar, to plane being field symmetric with o’ nry nua oetmadipc parameter, impact and momentum angular , ton’s ecnie erci h tnadform standard the in metric consider we rma xc ramn.Osrain aeaethen are remarks. made concluding Observations in summarized numerically) treatment. briefly formula (purely exact obtained our an results those of from with to usage again identical exercise, practical almost ray-deflection the angle the solving illustrate asymptotic sec- for In we an infinity. 6 for radial what approach give tion shows them 5 the which of section along hole, best black the finite central at answers approximations the the from of behaviour radii the on focus ily fteeatpolm sn cwrshl coordinates Schwarzschild Using problem. ( exact the of atri eyacrt,ee nldn rjcoiswith trajectories including below even slightly accurate, pericentres our very the of that is showing illus- that latter 4), is with (section presented numerically radii suggestion compared simple different and at then performance trated properties Their basic their and reviewed. quite listed from are resulting several approaches, rays, 3, different light section of In approximations 2). simple (section problem the of terization satisfac- from far often asymptotic adjusted is as be well shape tory. may as overall radius they their pericentre if directions, correct even a so have straighten- distances, to quick larger sufficiently at and ing vicinity bending centre’s sufficient provide the in not do typically prescriptions ,r ,φ θ, r, t, ak ´ 2. anyt xntto,ltu ealbscequations basic recall us let notation, fix to Mainly eo,w rtrcl ai qain n xparame- fix and equations basic recall first we Below, p t ULGOEISI H SCHWARZSCHILD THE IN GEODESICS NULL N = d E 2 s N n emtie nt i which (in units geometrized and ) E 2 =1 := := 2 = p , − − − o sual—n eyaccurate— very usable—and is ion N p 2 t mall r M/r aei ihvros“low-order various with it pare ebl,adwt h effective the with and perbola, d motn o esn.An lensing. for important ed, , 2 isi h cwrshl field Schwarzschild the in ries d = L stesaeo h photon the of shape the is n t 2 ǫ := edscmto ntespherically the in motion Geodesic . r M + SPACE-TIME E r ihoeo h results the of one with , d p N φ r p r 2 2 and r 4 = + 2 − r M θ 2 b (d N = := lhuhw primar- we Although . 2 θ π/ b 2 2 | sin + L ) nsc case, a such In 2). p , | /E c 2 φ r h pho- the are 1, = θ = d φ r L 2 2 G ) , 1), = (1) 2 O. Semer´ak respectively, all remaining conserved along the ray; the correctly yields φ(r =r0) = 0. The second expression (6) sign ǫr 1 fixes the orientation of radial motion (while contains a different amplitude χ′ which is related to χ by ≡± that of azimuthal motion is determined by the sign of L). 2 ′ 1 sin χ Let us focus on photons with b > 3√3 M which have sin2 χ = − a (one) turning point of radial motion, either pericentre 1 k2 sin2 χ − (which is always above r = 3M) or apocentre (which is 4Mk−2 1 r0 1 = − r always below r = 3M). Let us then adjust, without r0 loss of generality, the coordinates so that a given photon (r0 2M)(r0 +6M)+ r0  2M 4M r − − − (9) reaches this turning point at φ = 0. The ray thus gets p symmetric with respect to the meridional plane φ = { (while k remains unprimed in both expressions). We add 0, π and it is sufficient to only consider its half starting that the complementary modulus k′, which is related to from} that plane. The vanishing of radial momentum at ′ k by k 2 =1 k2, is given by the same expression (8) as φ = 0 constrains the constants of motion by the condition k, just with plus− after 1; their product is therefore quite 2 2 2 r0 short, r0 N0 b =0 = b = , (2) − ⇒ 2M 2 ′2 4M (r0 3M) 1 r0 k k = − . (10) − (r0 2M)(r0 +6M) q − where r0 := r(φ = 0) indicates the radius at the turning With our parametrization, the azimuth φ of a photon point of radial motion and N0 := N(r = r0). increases monotonically from zero. For a photon starting φ r Equations for p and p give (from φ = 0) from r0 3M the azimuth can finally reach very large values; with≃ r growing from 3M to infinity dφ ǫr 1 0 = (3) the asymptotic azimuth decreases from infinity to π/2, 2 dr r r 2 while with r shrinking from r = 3M toward 2M the 2 N 0 b − photon falls through the horizon at φ quickly decreasing q which can further be expressed in terms of the extremal from infinity toward zero. radius r , 0 3. APPROXIMATING THE LIGHT RAYS dφ ǫr r0 = r The exact Darwin’s formula (5) is quite simple, yet dr N 2r2 N 2r2 it is not easy to invert it for r(φ) and mainly for r0 0 − 0 3/2 (which would in turn yield constants of the motion as p ǫr r = 0 . (4) functions of r and φ). Such a problem is typically en- 2 r(r r0) r(r + r0)(r0 2M) 2Mr countered when asking “What are the parameters of the − − − 0 light/photons that arrive at a given location from some This secondp form isp more complicated, but it turns out (which?) points of a given source?” (in the Schwarzschild to be much more suitable for integration. Assuming, field). Namely, the source generally emits photons of var- without loss of generality, that we focus on the half of ious different parameters (from different starting points, the trajectory which starts toward positive φ from φ =0 with different , in different directions, etc.), of (briefly, we assume L > 0), the integration gives (see which each follows a different world-line. When study- Darwin (1959) or Chandrasekhar (1983), formula (260) ing some radiation-influenced process at a given location in Chapter 3) outside the source, it is first necessary to find which of the photons get to that location (which means to find 2 √r0 from where in the source they started) and then to infer φ(r)= 1/4 [K(k) F (χ, k)] (5) [(r0 2M)(r0 +6M)] − what are their properties (in order to be able to say what − will be their effect). 2 √r ′ = 0 F (χ , k) , (6) An important system that raises such questions is an [(r 2M)(r +6M)]1/4 0 − 0 accretion disc around a , because i) its inner χ part is a powerful source of radiation which strongly af- where F (χ, k) := dα is the 0 √1−k2 sin2 α fects matter around (on the other hand, the disc can be of the 1st kind, withR amplitude χ and modulus k given significantly irradiated by a hot “corona”, and possibly by even self-irradiated), and ii) the inner part of the disc lies in a very strong gravitational field where the propagation 1 2M 1 r0 of light is not trivial (linear). To give a specific example, sin2 χ := 1 − r , (7) 2 we came across the demand to invert Darwin’s formula − k (r0 2M )(r0 +6 M) − for r0 when studying, in Schwarzschild space-time, the r 6M 2k2 := 1 p 0 − , (8) motion of test particles influenced by a radiation field − (r0 2M)(r0 +6M) emitted from the equatorial plane in a perpendicular di- − rection (such a pattern was considered to approximate and K(k) := F (π/2, kp) is its complete version. One can the radiation generated by an equatorial thin disc) — see check immediately that F (χ, k) only reduces to K(k) at Bini et al. (2015). In such an arrangement, one needs to the turning point, where r = r0 and so χ = π/2, which find the impact parameters of the (two) “vertical” pho- tons interacting with the particle at a given location, 1 Photons with b < 3√3 M move from infinity to the centre or which precisely requires one to find the r0’s from where vice versa without any radial turning. those photons started. Approximations of rays in Schwarzschild field 3

Therefore, it is worthwhile to look for an approxima- proved quite practical. Let us compare the above pos- tion of photon trajectories which would be simple, in- sibilities, including mainly several successful suggestions vertible for r0, yet reasonably accurate. In particular, it from literature. should work well for as small a radius (r0) as possible, be- cause in real astrophysical situations there is often much 3.1. Linearization of Darwin’s formula in M radiation just quite close to the horizon. This is natural Darwin’s formula (5) can be linearized in M to obtain since matter inflows into these regions with extremely high speeds, so collisions of its streams dissipate huge r0 M (r r0)(2r + r0) 2 cos φ = − 2 + O(M ) . (11) amounts of energy which intensively outflow as radia- r − r0 r tion. In particular, real accretion discs are supposed to radiate most from their innermost regions which prob- Clearly φ = 0 corresponds to r = r0 correctly, while for ably reach to the innermost stable circular geodesic at r one has asymptotics cos φ∞ = 2M/r0 which is→ always ∞ > 1 (so φ∞ < π which means− that the ray’s r =6M or even below. − ◦ A natural starting attempt for how to simplify the in- half-bending is less than 90 ). The linear part can easily version problem is to linearize the exact formula in some be inverted for r0. small parameter. We have either 2M < r r < 3M 0 3.2. First M-orders from the Binet formula or r r > 3M, with b > r anyway.≤ Clearly the ≥ 0 0 r0 > 3M case is more astrophysically interesting. Then Although the treatments on lensing mostly aim at the the relation between r and b changes in time: the photon total deflection angle, some of them also provide prescrip- starts from r r0 < b, but quickly gets to r>b (and tion for the photon trajectory. Both are usually obtained then even to r≡ b). Surely M is the least of all parame- by perturbative solution of the well-known Binet formula ters and hence≫ the usual linearization in it. However, the which in the null case reads weak-field approximations — like the one obtained by lin- 2 d u 2 1 earization in M — generally yield trajectories “less bent 2 + u =3Mu , where u := . (12) about” the central gravitating body, since the centre’s dφ r field is weakened effectively. If such an approximation Let us mention three of them. is employed for the inversion of the φ(r; r0) formula for Biressa & de Freitas Pacheco (2011) solved the equation r0, it may lead to errors when applied to strongly bent up to linear order by2 rays. Actually: adopt our parametrization, i.e., adjust r M the plane φ = 0 so that the ray crosses it (“starts from 0 = cos φ + (1 + sin2 φ cos φ) it”) in a perpendicular direction (it is purely azimuthal r r0 − there). Now, imagine a photon approaching φ = π (from M φ < π) while having a small radius: it must have started = cos φ + (2 + cos2 φ)(1 cos φ) (13) r (purely tangentially) from φ = 0froma very small radius 0 − r0 in order for it to have been bent about the centre suf- in their equation (14). Clearly r(φ =0)= r0 as it should ficiently. For such photons, weak-field approximations be and solving for cos φ yields (11) in linear order. may easily yield a starting radius r0 even lying below A slightly different linear-order solution was given by horizon (note that there is actually no horizon in most Bhadra et al. (2010) (their equation (5)), such approximations), which may then bring errors if R M substituted into the Schwarzschild-metric lapse function = cos φ + (1 + sin2 φ), (14) N 1 2M/r. r R One≡ could− surely improve the approximation by tak- where R is a length whose meaning follows by setting p ing into account higher order(s) of the small-parameter φ = 0 (and r = r0): expansion, but higher-order formulas mostly cannot be R M inverted easily. Restricting oneself to low-order formulas, =1+ . (15) one can resort to some more “pragmatic” construct in- r0 R stead. First, “pseudo-Newtonian” descriptions are often Solving this for R, substituting above and linearizing in employed in the astrophysical literature, based on the M, one has Newtonian potential suitably modified to mimic certain features of the actual relativistic field. Second, our par- r0 + M M = cos φ + (1 + sin2 φ). (16) ticular problem of scattering-type light trajectories can r r0 be approximated by a adjusted to the desired asymptotic directions. And third, one can try to design Although this differs from (13), its solution for cos φ a suitable formula “by hand”, simply observing the main again agrees with (11) in linear order. properties it should reproduce. However, all such ad hoc Finally, let us turn to Arakida & Kasai (2012) who pre- formulas, not relying on any clearly justified procedure, sented a second-order solution in their equation (7), must be handled with care; in particular, even if they b M were successful close to the black hole (or rather more = cos φ + (1 + sin2 φ) if they were successful there), their weak-field (large- r b M 2 radius) behaviour may not be satisfactory. They can also + (7 cos φ + 15 φ sin φ +3cos3 φ) . (17) hardly yield trustful replies for tiny, -dependent 4b2 (dragging), non-stationary, radiation etc. effects, but in 2 the simple case of static space-times, they have mostly Papers on lensing usually adjust the azimuth so that the peri- centre lies at φ = π/2, so we must shift their formulas by π/2. 4 O. Semer´ak

β β ψ =0 φ= φ∞ ψ φ

ψ =ψ0 φ=0

ψ0 φ∞ ψ =2 φ=−

photon trajectory photon trajectory

Figure 1. Azimuthal description of a photon trajectory used by Beloborodov (Beloborodov 2002) (ψ, left) and by us in this note (φ, right); β is the total deflection angle. Axes r cos φ, r sin φ are also shown (with values in units of M), the black hole is gray.

The corresponding equation expressed in terms of r0 fol- The ratio of the gives an equivalent of the rel- lows by substituting (2) for b and expanding in M ac- ativistic equation (3), cordingly, − dφ ǫr 2mr2 1/2 r + M 3M 2 M = (E mV ) 1 , (22) 0 + = cos φ + (1 + sin2 φ) dr r L2 − − r 2r0r r0   r 2 where ǫ = +1 will again be chosen below. Should the M 3 2 + 2 (7 cos φ + 15 φ sin φ +3cos φ 4 4 sin φ) . trajectory be strictly tangential (azimuthal) at φ = 0 4r0 − − (r ˙ =0 at r = r0), it has to satisfy the condition (18) 2 2 2mr0(E mV0)= L , where V0 := V (r = r0). (23) In linear order this reduces to (16) and its φ = 0 form − Besides the overall caution in following the pseudo- r + M 3M 2 M 3M 2 Newtonian approach, it is also necessary to distinguish 0 + =1+ + r 2r r r 2r2 between various potentials proposed in the literature, be- 0 0 0 cause different ones are suitable for different purposes properly yields r = r0. Inversion for b or r0 is of course (see e.g. Crispino et al. 2011). The Paczy´nski-Wiita po- more uncomfortable if keeping the second order in M. tential V = M/(r 2M) is a most simple and efficient mimicker of− the Schwarzschild− field, whose main advan- 3.3. Using a suitable pseudo-Newtonian potential tages are correct values of important circular geodesics, so it is mainly suitable for modeling accretion discs. How- In Newton’s theory, the motion of test particles in the ever, if plugged into the above, the resulting equation velocity-independent spherical potential V (r) is also con- for dφ/dr is not easier to integrate than its relativis- fined to a plane (which we again identify with θ = π/2) tic counter-part. The same also applies to the Nowak- and described by Wagoner quadratic-expansion potential r¨ = V + rφ˙2, rφ¨ = 2φ˙ r˙ . (19) M 3M 12M 2 − ,r − V = 1 + − r − r r2 These equations have usual integrals of energy and an-   gular momentum which has often proved the best of the “simple” sugges- 3 m tions. It is clear from equation (22) that for its integra- E = (r ˙2 + r2φ˙2)+ mV, L = mr2φ˙ , (20) tion to be simpler than that of the relativistic case (3), 2 3 which invert for velocities as A more advanced yet elegant possibility, namely a po- tential suitably dependent on velocity, was suggested by L 2mr2(E mV ) L2 Tejeda & Rosswog (2013). It would be worth checking whether rφ˙ = , r˙2 = − − . (21) it is also useful for null geodesics. mr m2r2 Approximations of rays in Schwarzschild field 5 the resulting polynomial under the square root has to be However, this root is only relevant in a narrow interval exactly quadratic in r. This is the case if the potential r0 (2.8922, 3.6458)M (it grows from 2M to infinity is of the form very∈ fast within this range). There is one case of particular interest within the above M αM V = 1+ , (24) range of r : using L mr2φ˙ = mr back in the first of − r r 0 ≡ 0   equations (19), we have where α is some constant. Such a form has been advo- r3r¨ = r3V + r2 = r2 Mr 2αM 2 , (29) cated by Wegg (2012), specifically with α = 3. Equation − ,r 0 0 − − (22) supplied with the initial condition φ0 := φ(r ˙ =0)= which specifically for α = 3 reads 0 is then (with the above form of the potential) solved 3 2 2 by r r¨ = r0 Mr0 6M + M(r0 r) 2 m Mr − − − 1 k 2 = (r0 3M)(r0 +2M)+ M(r0 r) φ(r)= arccot − kL , (25) − − k 2mr2 2 (E mV ) 1 and thus implies thatr ¨ =0 at r = r0 =3M. Therefore, L − − the potential (24) with α = 3 correctly reproduces the q where we introduced the dimensionless constant Schwarzschild circular photon geodesic (which indicates that it may be successful in simulating photon motion in 2m2αM 2 k2 := 1 . the innermost region). − L2 The pseudo-Newtonian picture is doubly problematic 3.4. Approximation by a hyperbola when describing photons, in particular, their speed can- Another possibility is to approximate the photon tra- not be considered constant. However, choosing their ini- jectory by a suitable hyperbola. Placing its focus at r =0 tial linear speed to be equal to one, which means r0φ˙0 =1 and its vertex at (φ = 0, r = r0), and prescribing some in our case when photons start in a pure azimuthal di- asymptotic azimuth φ∞, it is given by the equation rection, one has r cos φ = r0 + (r r0) cos φ∞ . (30) m 2αM 2 − 2 Now φ∞ can be prescribed somehow, for example cho- E = + mV0,L = mr0, k =1 2 , 2 − r0 sen according to the exact formula. However, since the latter makes the above expression uncomfortably long, so4 the equatorial trajectory can be rewritten as let us instead illustrate it with φ∞ provided by the r0 Beloborodov formula (see next subsection), i.e. with φ(r)= 2M 2 2 ∞ r 2αM × cos φ = r0−2M (which proved quite accurate): 0 − − r2 2αM 2 Mr r r parccot 0 − − . 0 2 2 2 2 2 r cos φ = r0 2M − . (31) × r0 2αM r r0 +2r (V0 V ) − r0 2M − − − (26) − p p The limit possibility is to choose φ∞ = π which yields the Clearly φ(r = r0) = 0 correctly and the asymptotic value at radial infinity amounts to r cos φ =2r0 r. − r0 φ∞ = 3.5. Beloborodov’s approximation r2 2αM 2 × 0 − A simple approximation of photon trajectories has p M been provided by Beloborodov (2002) in his formula (3), π arccot . (27) 2 2 × − r0 2αM √1+2V0 ! 2 2 − 2 (1 cos ψ) b 1 cos ψ r(ψ)= M − + 2 M − When speaking aboutp asymptotics, it should be s (1 + cos ψ)2 sin ψ − 1+cos ψ stressed that photons exist which remain bound on “elliptic-type” orbits. Actually, recalling equations (21), ψ b2 ψ = M 2 tan2 + M tan , (32) we see thatr ˙ = 0 if 2mr2(E mV ) = L2, which after 2 sin2 ψ − 2 − s substitution of our E = m/2+ mV0, L = mr0 implies 2 2 2 r r0 =2r (V V0), i.e., with α = 3 and expanded, where the position angle ψ is measured (from the centre) − − so that ψ = 0 fixes the asymptotic escape direction (with 2 2 (r r0) (r0 6M )(r + r0) 2Mrr0 =0. (28) all the orbit having ψ > 0, so the photon is considered − − − to move against the ψ orientation). The value of ψ at Besides the automatic zero at r = r0, this also has a pericentre (ψ ) is determined by second root at 0 2 2 dr 2M r0 6M =0 = cos ψ = =: cos ψ0 (33) r = r0 2 − 2 . dψ ⇒ −r0 2M − r0 2Mr0 6M − 4 − − Note that the photon has enough energy to escape to infinity, and lies between π/2 and π. The angle β = 2ψ0 π E > 0, if V0 > 1/2, which holds for r0 > (1+√1 + 2α)M; for represents the total bending angle; 2ψ is the asymptotic− − 0 α=3 this means r0 > 3.65M, which is not so bad. ingoing direction if the trajectory is extended to infinity 6 O. Semer´ak in both directions (see figure 1). Beloborodov derived where the above result from the elegant equation (r ωM)2(r cos φ + αM) Mr2 , 2 R≡ − − 1 cos α = (1 cos ψ) N (34) (r ωM)2 + Mr, − − A≡ − which pretty accurately approximates the relation be- 2r2 (r ωM)2α cos φ . tween the photon’s momentary radius r, position angle B≡ − − ψ and the local direction of flight measured by the an- The formula works reasonably within a certain range of gular deflection from the radial direction in a local static parameters α and ω and it is hard to say which particular frame, α. (How to understand the success of this “cosine combination is the best, because accuracy at small radii relation” is explained in section 2 of Beloborodov 2002.) favours somewhat different values than accuracy farther The local direction α is given by the photon momentum, away. We will specifically show that very good results are obtained with α =1.77 and ω =1.45, for example. φ √gφφ p bN | | As in the case of Wegg’s pseudo-Newtonian potential, tan α = r = √grr p √r2 b2N 2 “elliptic-type” bound orbits do exist. Since | | − 2 2 dr sin φ bN b N = , sin α = , cos α = 1 2 , (35) dφ −d(cos φ)/dr ⇒ r r − r so one has, by solving equation (34) for cos ψ and then this would require either sin φ = 0, or d(cos φ)/dr . → ∞ substituting for cos α, The latter would only hold for r0 = αM or r = ωM, of which none applies with our choice of α and ω (namely, r cos α 2M √r2 b2N 2 2M we always have r > αM and r > ωM). Hence, purely cos ψ = − = − − . (36) 0 r 2M r 2M tangential motion can only happen at sin φ = 0. This − − holds automatically at r = r0 (where cos φ = +1), and it This increases monotonically from 2M cos ψ at − r0−2M ≡ 0 can also hold on the other side of the equatorial plane, pericentre through zero to positive values and approaches cos φ = 1. Solving this equation for r, one finds that unity at r . for our constants− α = 1.77, ω = 1.45 the solution grows → ∞ In our parametrization the photon has pericentre at very quickly from 2.025M to infinity with r0 increased φ = 0 and moves in a positive φ direction (to some from 2M to (2 + α)M (this last value is valid generally asymptotic φ∞ ψ0), and hence the angles are related and does not depend on ω). In other words, all photons ≡ by ψ = ψ0 φ = φ∞ φ (see figure 1), which means launched from r > (2+α)M escape to infinity and have − − 0 φ∞ < π there, consistent with the asymptotic formula cos ψ = cos(ψ φ) = cos ψ cos φ + sin ψ sin φ 0 − 0 0 (40). 2M r0(r0 4M) = cos φ + − sin φ . (37) 3.7. Comparison on expansions in M −r0 2M r0 2M − p − Before embarking on a numerical comparison of the ap- Hence, equating (37)=(36) gives the implicit relation proximations with the exact formula, let us further check their algebraic properties by expanding them in powers N 2 b2N 2 2M 4M 2M 0 1 = 1 sin φ cos φ of M. To be more specific, let us thus expand cos φ(r). N 2 r2 r r r r − − ! r − 0 − 0 First, the cosine of the exact formula (5) expands as (38) r0 M (r r0)(2r + r0) for the (r, φ) trajectory. cos φ = − 2 r − r0 r The Beloborodov’s formula is only applicable at r0 > 2 4M (it yields φ∞ = π for r =4M), but it really provides M r r0 0 − D + O(M 3) , (42) a very good approximation almost all the way down to 2 2 − r0 r 4r there. It is less suitable for finding r0 as a function of r and θ, because the above relation yields for it an equation where abbreviation has been used of the 16th (or at least the 8th) degree. r + r r + r := 30r2 0 arccos 0 8r2 +9rr +5r2 . D r r 2r − 0 0 3.6. New suggestion r − 0 r The main purpose of this note is to suggest and test Now to the approximations. Of the prescrip- another ray-approximating formula, tions obtained from perturbative solution of the Binet formula, we choose the result (13) by r M (r r )(2r + r ) cos φ = 0 − 0 0 , (39) Biressa & de Freitas Pacheco (2011). When expressed r − r αM (r ωM)2 in terms of cos φ, it expands as 0 − − where α and ω are real constants. It correctly gives r0 M (r r0)(2r + r0) cos φ =1 at r = r , its radial asymptotics reads cos φ = − 2 0 r − r0 r 2 2M M (r r0)(2r + r0)(r +2r0) cos φ∞ = (40) 3 2 − + O(M ) . −r0 αM − r r3 − 0 (43) and it can be inverted for r0 as + √ 2 +4Mr Performing the same expansion with the pseudo- r = R R AB , (41) Newtonian result (26) involving Wegg’s potential V = 0 2 A Approximations of rays in Schwarzschild field 7

(M/r)(1 + 3M/r), one obtains very inaccurate, or rather yields complete nonsense that − has to be discarded. r M r r cos φ = 0 − 0 Numerical results are presented in four figures: figure 2 r − r0 r compares the approximations at small radii (down to the 2 2 2 r0 very horizon), figure 3 illustrates the radius-dependence M r r0 +3 r r0 arccos r 3 2 − − + O(M ) . of all of them, figure 4 shows the behaviour at larger radii − r0 p r and 5 accompanies the remark 5 on asymptotics (hence (44) total deflection angle) added below. The figures demonstrate that the approximations ob- The hyperbola (30), if “endowed with” the exact asymp- tained by low-order expansions of the exact formulas totic angle (given by Darwin’s formula), expands to (namely by linearization or quadratic expansion in M) r0 2M r r0 are only usable for rays whose pericentres are above cos φ = − 6M 8M, say. Below this radius, all the “ad hoc” r − r0 r prescriptions÷ provide much better results, including the 2 M (15π 16)(r r0) 3 pseudo-Newtonian one using the potential suggested by − − + O(M ) . (45) 2 the best − r0 8r Wegg. Actually, the latter even provides results in a narrow region around the circular photon geodesic Next approximation is the one owing to Beloborodov’s at r = 3M since it reproduces its location exactly; on relation (38). Solving the latter for cos φ and expanding the other hand, for pericentres at larger radii it is not as as above, we get precise as other approximations, though it also falls off to zero deflection correctly. When the pericentre shifts be- r M (r r )(2r + r ) 0 0 0 low 4M, even good approximations become rather prob- cos φ = − 2 r − r0 r lematic. The one by Beloborodov is only usable above M 2 r r this radius, being not very accurate up to some r =5M. − 0 B + O(M 3) , (46) − r2 r 2r3 Our newly suggested formula is very accurate almost ev- 0 0 erywhere, including the rays with pericentres slightly be- where low 4M, but at r0 = 3.77M it also deviates from the correct behaviour, switching to “elliptic” behaviour (not 3 2 2 3 2 2 := 8r +4r r0 +5rr0 +3r0 4r(2r r0) r r0 . at all present in the relativistic treatment, besides the B − − − circular photon orbit at r =3M) which can only mimic q Finally, our formula (39) expands as the relativistic trajectories locally. Note that the deci- sive value r0 = 3.77M comes from r0 = (2+ α)M, so r0 M (r r0)(2r + r0) it might be improved (shifted down) by choosing for our cos φ = − 2 r − r0 r constant α a value lower than 1.77, but this would almost 2 certainly spoil the behaviour farther away. M (r r0)(2r + r0)(αr +2ωr0) 3 2 − 3 + O(M ) . Ad approximation by a hyperbola: rough as this idea − r0 r may have seemed, the figures show that it reproduces (47) the large-scale features of the rays very well when tied to a correct asymptotics. However, its bending about the As expected, the absolute term (corresponding to a black hole is not sharp enough and, also, just when en- straight line) is the same for all of the formulas. The dowed with correct asymptotics, it gets quite complicated linear terms are also common (and corresponding to the and not invertible for r0. expansion of the exact formula), except for the pseudo- Finally, it is important that the two approximations Newtonian formula and the hyperbola. The quadratic which are satisfactory in general and can be used also terms are somewhat longer, only in cases (43), (45) and below r0 = 4M, namely our newly suggested formula (47) they remain rather simple. In particular, notice that (39) and the pseudo-Newtonian result using Wegg’s po- the expansion of our suggestion (47) is a generalization tential, serve acceptably even there (at 4M > r > 2M), of the expansion (43) obtained from the approximate so- 0 mainly they nowhere return error. Above r0 5M, lution by Biressa & de Freitas Pacheco (2011). It is also the approximation by Beloborodov remains a benchmark≃ seen that if our constants α and ω are larger than 1 (re- whose main advantage is the extraordinarily simple rela- call that we are actually suggesting the values α =1.77, tion (34) between the angular position on the trajectory ω =1.45), then our quadratic term is bigger (more nega- and the latter’s local direction. tive) and thus results in a trajectory more bent than the one provided by (13). 5. ASYMPTOTIC ANGLE

4. Asymptotic behaviour of the approximations studied COMPARISON ON RAY EXAMPLES here is clearly visible in figure 4, but let us add a spe- Let us compare the above approximations of light rays cial remark (and figure) comparing the φ∞ values. It passing at different distances from the centre; we are even is of course useless to include the approximation by the including those approaching the horizon very closely. hyperbola here, because, where applicable, its asymp- Since the approximate formulas are primarily required totic angle has been prescribed by the correct (exact) to excel at weak-field regions, they cannot be expected value. Therefore, we are left with the results follow- to perform well down there. However, it is good to know ing from the expansion of the exact formula or approx- where and how much they fail. In particular, when using imate solution of the Binet formula, with the pseudo- such a formula in a code, it matters whether it is just Newtonian result (27) using Wegg’s potential, with the 8 O. Semer´ak

r0 =2M r0 =2.3M r0 =3M

r0 =3.22M r0 =3.4M r0 =3.6M

r0 =4M r0 =5M r0 =8M

Figure 2. Comparison of the light-ray approximations in the strong field near the black hole. Arrangement and parametrization of the photon trajectories in the equatorial (r cos φ,r sin φ) plane corresponds to the right plot of figure 1. The curves show the exact trajectory is in solid red, the linearization of Darwin’s formula (11) yields the dot-dashed black line, the linearized solution of the Binet formula by Bhadra et al. (2010) (our equation 16) is dotted cyan, the one by Biressa & de Freitas Pacheco (2011) (our equation 13) is the dashed cyan line, the quadratic-order solution following from Arakida & Kasai (2012) (our equation 18) yields the solid cyan line, the approximation due to Beloborodov Beloborodov (2002) (our equation 38) is the dotted black line, a hyperbola (30) adjusted to the given pericentre and to correct asymptotics is the dashed brown line, the approximation using the pseudo-Newtonian potential recommended by Wegg (2012) (our equation 26) is the dashed (dark) blue line and our newly suggested approximation (39) is the solid light green line. From top left to bottom right, the plots show trajectories of photons starting tangentially (from φ0 = 0) from radii r0 = 2M, r0 = 2.3M, r0 = 3M, r0 = 3.22M, r0 = 3.4M, r0 = 3.6M, r0 = 4M, r0 = 5M and r0 = 8M. Beloborodov’s prescription (dotted black) can only be employed for r0 4M and the hyperbola-approximation (dashed brown line) for φ∞ <π. See the main text for further commentary. ≥ asymptotics cos φ∞ = 2M/(r 2M) of Beloborodov (13): − 0 − and with cos φ∞ = 2M/(r0 αM) following from our formula suggested above.− These− asymptotic forms can r (2 + cos φ∞)(1 cos φ∞) 0 = − Biressa (48) naturally be inverted for r0 easier than the general for- M − cos φ∞ mulas describing the whole trajectory. Inversion is espe- 2 2cos φ∞ cially simple for Beloborodov’s and our approximations, = − Beloborodov (49) and also for the linearized solution of Binet’s formula − cos φ∞ by Biressa & de Freitas Pacheco (2011) given in equation 2 α cos φ∞ = − our formula . (50) − cos φ∞

The cos φ∞ plots given in figure 5 confirm that the Approximations of rays in Schwarzschild field 9

exact our Wegg

Beloborodov hyperbola Biressa

Arakida linearized Darwin Bhadra

Figure 3. Same curves as those in figure 2, i.e. again showing rays with pericentres at r0 = 2M, r0 = 2.3M, r0 = 3M, r0 = 3.22M, r0 = 3.4M, r0 = 3.6M, r0 = 4M, r0 = 5M and r0 = 8M, but now grouped into plots by approximations (rather than by pericentre radii), so that it is better seen how these depend on radius in comparison with the exact ideal: from top left to bottom right and with the same colouring as in previous figure, one can see exact rays (solid red line), our approximation (solid light green line), pseudo- Newtonian result with Wegg’s potential (dashed dark blue line), Beloborodov’s approximation (dotted black line; only applicable to the last three trajectories), suitably adjusted (dashed brown line; only applicable to the last four trajectories), the linear approximation by Biressa & de Freitas Pacheco (2011) (dashed light blue line), linearized Darwin’s formula (dot-dashed black line), the quadratic approximation by Arakida & Kasai (2012) (solid light blue line) and the linear approximation by Bhadra et al. (2010) (dotted light blue line). The figure reveals that mainly the first-row prescriptions behave satisfactorily down to the very horizon; they are not very accurate down there, but follow the actual rays qualitatively. Also their overall dependence on radius proves to be very close to that visible in the exact pattern. exact behaviour (solid red curve) is best reproduced by in section 3.7, to obtain, up to second order in M, our formula (green curve), followed by the formula of 2M M 2 15π Beloborodov (dotted black). Note that we only include ∞ cos φ = 2 2 exact (51) there results given by the best of the approximations. In − r0 − r 8 − 0   particular, we omit those provided by linearizations in M 2M 2M 2 as well as by the quadratic formula. We can supplement = 2 Biressa (52) the figure by the r limits of the expansions given − r0 − r0 → ∞ M M 2 3π = +1 Wegg (53) − r − r2 2 0 0   2M 4M 2 = 2 Beloborodov (54) − r0 − r0 2M 2αM 2 = 2 our formula . (55) − r0 − r0 10 O. Semer´ak

r0 =3.5M r0 =3.75M r0 =4M

r0 =4.3M r0 =5.5M r0 =8M r0 =30M

Figure 4. Counterpart of figure 2 with equatorial (r cos φ,r sin φ) plots extended to larger radial region, in order to also compare the light-ray approximations in weaker fields farther from the black hole. Again, the exact trajectory is the solid red line, the linearization of Darwin’s formula yields the dot-dashed black line, the linearized solution of the Binet formula by Bhadra et al. (2010) is the dotted cyan line, the one by Biressa & de Freitas Pacheco (2011) is the dashed cyan line, the quadratic-order solution following from Arakida & Kasai (2012) yields the solid cyan line, the approximation due to Beloborodov (2002) is the dotted black line, a hyperbola adjusted to the given pericentre and to correct asymptotics is the dashed brown line, the approximation using the pseudo-Newtonian potential by Wegg (2012) is the dashed (dark) blue line and our newly suggested approximation is the solid light green line. From top left to bottom right, the plots show trajectories of photons starting tangentially (from φ0 = 0) from radii r0 = 3.5M, r0 = 3.75M, r0 = 4M, r0 = 4.3M, r0 = 5.5M, r0 = 8M and r0 = 30M. See the main text for interpretation.

The linear terms are equal, except that of the Wegg’s We have assumed that the azimuthal angle φ is ad- pseudo-Newtonian formula; and the quadratic-term. co- justed so that r(φ = 0) = r0, but in a real lensing sit- efficient of the exact value, (15π/8 2) = 3.89, is most uation one can only suppose to know positions of the closely reproduced by Beloborodov− − ( 4) and− by our for- source, of the lensing body and of the observer. Placing mula ( 3.54 if choosing α =1.77 as− in the figures). the coordinate origin at the lensing body and choosing Let us− add that it is not difficult to bring yet a bet- the azimuthal (“equatorial”) plane as that defined by ter proposal solely for the asymptotic angle: in figure 5, the connecting ray, this means knowing the radii of the look at the dotted gold curve that follows with a slight source and of the observer, plus the angular difference be- modification of our asymptotics, tween the source and the observer, ∆φ say. One a priori does not know the angular position of the ray pericentre, 2M M 6 ∞ so cannot fix the azimuth φ absolutely prior to solving cos φ = 1 6 . (56) −r0 αM − (r0 2.1M) our inversion exercise (r, φ) r . Consider now whether   0 − − the exercise is still solvable,→ i.e. whether it is possible to It mirrors the correct curve very accurately down to some 5 find r0 from this accessible information. r0 = 3.02M where it reaches cos φ∞ = +1, namely the photon makes a 360◦ angular revolution when starting In order for the pericentre r0 to have proper sense, from there. We stress that this has been just an ad hoc let us assume that it lies between the source and the ob- eventually example; without doubt, still more accurate asymptotic server. As we wish to (in solving the problem) formulas can be found. adjust the azimuth φ so that r(φ = 0)= r0, we can as- sume (for example) that the source is at φ < 0 and the 6. FINDING THE RAY PARAMETERS FOR GENERIC BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 5 I thank the referee for drawing my attention to this point. Approximations of rays in Schwarzschild field 11

cos φ cos φ ∞ solid red: exact result ∞ dashed blue: Wegg’s pseudo-N dotted black: Beloborodov solid light green: our formula r0 dotted gold: good-fit example

r0

Figure 5. Cosine of the azimuth φ along which the ray approaches radial infinity, cos φ∞, as given by the exact formula (solid red), pseudo-Newtonian treatment using Wegg’s potential (dashed blue), by Beloborodov’s approximation (dotted black) and by formula we suggest here (solid green). The right plot provides a more detailed view of the small-pericentre behaviour (the pseudo-Newtonian result is not shown there). Just for the sake of interest, we add a curve (dotted gold) given by the expression (56) in order to illustrate that it is not difficult to suggest a very good formula solely for the asymptotic angle.

pericentre radius r0 in dependence on ∆φ

for robs = 30M rsrc =6M, 8M,..., 30M

red: exact result green: our formula

r0/M ✻

✲ ∆φ

Figure 6. Finding the connecting ray for a given configuration of source (r = rsrc) and observer (r = robs), when only their angular separation ∆φ is known (not their absolute angular positions). The solution is given in terms of the pericentre radius r0 as a function of ∆φ, for robs = 30M; each curve corresponds to one particular value of rsrc, specifically, (from bottom to top) rsrc = 6M, 8M, 10M,..., 30M. Green curves have been obtained using our approximation (41), while red curves (drawn “under” the green ones) follow by numerical solution from the exact formula. The green approximation is clearly very accurate, it only fails at ∆φ 2π ( bending by π) where our formula switches to bound-orbit mode (this happens for r0 < (2 + α)M = 3.77M, specifically). → ⇔ ∼ 12 O. Semer´ak observer is at φ > 0. Let us thus denote their positions approximation (green curves), the figure also shows anal- by (r >r , π < φ <0) and (r >r ,π>φ >0), ogous results obtained, purely numerically, from the ex- src 0 − src obs 0 obs respectively. Imagine solving the inversion for r0 “from act formula (red curves, drawn “under” the green ones). both sides”, i.e. looking for (rsrc, cos φsrc) r0 and Clearly the two series of curves almost coincide, even (r , cos φ ) r (regarding that φ < →0 whereas at quite small r ; our approximation is only not usable obs obs → 0 src 0 φobs >0, it is better to write the angular data in terms of for very large ∆φ (approaching 2π), because this corre- the cosine which is independent of the sign; the exercise sponds to very large bending (by π) where our formula can then be treated using the same formulas “from both goes over to the elliptic-type bound-orbit∼ regime. sides” of the φ = 0 plane). Both must lead to the same pericentre r0, and we also know that φobs φsrc gives 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS the total angular distance travelled, ∆φ (supposed− to be We have suggested a new formula approximating light < 2π), so we have two constraints rays in the Schwarzschild space, compared it with other r0(rsrc, φsrc)= r0(robs, φobs), φobs φsrc = ∆φ. (57) formulas from the literature and showed that it performs − very well, though being quite simple and easily invert- Since rsrc, robs and ∆φ are known, we have two equations ible for the pericentre radius r0. Besides analytical esti- for two unknowns, φsrc and φobs. mates, the main focus has been in numerical testing of Let us check whether one can really solve the exercise in various plausible approximations against exact results in such a way. Suppose that we employ our approximation a very strong as well as a weaker-field regime. We have according to which r0 is given in terms of r and cos φ by shown that our formula also yields very good results for equation (41). The constraints thus yield the asymptotic angle of photons, as well as in searching + √ 2 +4Mr + √ 2 +4Mr for a connecting ray in a given source–gravitating body– R R AB src = R R AB obs , observer configuration. 2 2 Asrc  Aobs  On a more general level, we can conclude that in spite (58) of the legitimate vigilance toward ad hoc prescriptions, where not following from an exact result by any sound proce- dure, in our comparison such formulas proved consider- src := (r =rsrc, φ=φsrc), R R ably better than low-order expansions of the exact for- := (r =r , φ=φ +∆φ), Robs R obs src mula, some of them providing acceptable results even in := (r =r ), close vicinity to the horizon. Asrc,obs A src,obs := (r =r , φ=φ ), Bsrc B src src obs := (r =robs, φ=φsrc +∆φ), I am thankful for support from Czech grant GACR-14- B B 10625S. with , , introduced below equation (41). The above R A B equation is to be solved for φsrc which in turn implies REFERENCES φobs(=φsrc+∆φ) and r0, all as functions of rsrc, robs and ∆φ. Amore P., Cervantes M., De Pace A., & Fern´andez F. M., 2007, As an illustration (figure 6), let us choose robs rsrc Gravitational lensing from compact bodies: Analytical results (without loss of generality) and monitor how the solution≥ for strong and weak deflection limits, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 083005 of the exercise changes with ∆φ increasing from zero to Arakida H. & Kasai M., 2012, Effect of the cosmological constant on the bending of light and the cosmological lens equation, 2π for a series of source radii rsrc increasing from some Phys. Rev. D, 85, 023006 small value to robs. A simple chart with the source lying Beloborodov A. M., 2002, Gravitational bending of light near somewhere on the r = r , π<φ< 0 half-circle, the compact objects, ApJ, 566, L85 src − Bhadra A., Biswas S., & Sarkar K., 2010, Gravitational deflection observer lying on the r = robs rsrc, π>φ> 0 half- of light in the Schwarzschildde Sitter space-time, Phys. Rev. D, circle, and their angular separation≥ ∆φ gradually grow- 82, 063003 Bini D., Geralico A., Jantzen R. T., & Semer´ak O., 2015, Particles ing, reveals that i) when rsrc and robs are sufficiently under radiation thrust in Schwarzschild space-time from a flux different, the solution does not exist for too-small ∆φ perpendicular to the equatorial plane, MNRAS, 446, 2317 (the connecting ray is nowhere purely tangential to the Biressa T. & de Freitas Pacheco J. A., 2011, The cosmological constant and the gravitational light bending, Gen. Rel. Grav., centre then); ii) the solution only starts to exist when 43, 2649 ∆φ is large enough for rsrc to just coincide with r0; iii) Bozza V., 2010, Gravitational lensing by black holes, Gen. Rel. within the interval of ∆φ where the solution does exist, Grav., 42, 2269 CadeˇzA.ˇ & Kosti´cU., 2005, Optics in the Schwarzschild the pericentre r0 typically decreases from rsrc with in- , Phys. Rev. D, 72, 104024 creasing ∆φ, because increasing the angular separation Chandrasekhar S., 1983, The Mathematical Theory of Black corresponds to a connecting ray increasingly bent around Holes, Oxford Univ. Press, New York (sections 3.19 and 3.20) Connell P. & Frolov V. P., 2008, Ray-tracing in four and higher the centre; iv) for ∆φ 2π the pericentre radius falls dimensional black hole : An analytical almost to 3M and the approximations→ more or less cease approximation, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 024032 to provide reasonable answers; specifically, we learned Crispino L. C. B., da Cruz Filho J. L. C., & Letelier P. S., 2011, Pseudo-Newtonian potentials and the radiation emitted by a at the end of section 3.6 that according to our approx- source swirling around a stellar object, Phys. Lett. B, 697, 506 imation the minimal possible pericentre of an unbound Darwin C., 1959, The gravity field of a particle, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, 249, 180 trajectory lies at (2 + α)M =3.77M. Gibbons G. W. & Vyska M., 2012, The application of Weierstrass The above estimates are confirmed by figure 6 where elliptic functions to Schwarzschild null geodesics, Class. the pericentre radii are plotted, in dependence on ∆φ, Quantum Grav., 29, 065016 Hackmann E. & L¨ammerzahl C., 2008, Geodesic equation in for robs = 30M and rsrc = 6M, 8M, 10M, ..., 30M. Schwarzschild-(anti-)de Sitter space-times: Analytical solutions Besides the curves r0(robs, rsrc; ∆φ) obtained from our and applications, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 024035 Approximations of rays in Schwarzschild field 13

Hagihara Y., 1931, Theory of the relativistic trajectories in a Mutka P. T. & M¨ah¨onen P. H., 2002, Approximation of light-ray gravitational field of Schwarzschild, Jpn. J. Astron. Geophys., deflection angle and gravitational lenses in the Schwarzschild 8, 67 metric. I. Derivation and quasar lens, ApJ, 576, 107 Kosti´cU., 2012, Analytical time-like geodesics in Schwarzschild Rodr´ıguez C. M., 1987, Orbits in : The Jacobian space-time, Gen. Rel. Grav., 44, 1057 elliptic functions, Nuovo Cim. B, 98, 87 Kraniotis G. V. & Whitehouse S. B., 2003, Compact calculation Scharf G., 2011, Schwarzschild geodesics in terms of elliptic of the perihelion precession of in general relativity, the functions and the related red shift, J. Mod. Phys., 2, 274 cosmological constant and Jacobi’s inversion problem, Class. Tejeda E. & Rosswog S., 2013, An accurate Newtonian Quantum Grav., 20, 4817 description of particle motion around a Schwarzschild black Mielnik B. & Pleba´nski J., 1962, A study of geodesic motion in hole, MNRAS, 433, 1930 the field of Schwarzschild’s solution, Acta Phys. Polon., 21, 239 Virbhadra K. S., 2009, Relativistic images of Schwarzschild black Mu˜noz G., 2014, Orbits of massless particles in the Schwarzschild hole lensing, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 083004 metric: Exact solutions, Am. J. Phys., 82, 564 Virbhadra K. S. & Ellis G. F. R., 2000, Schwarzschild black hole lensing, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 084003 Wegg C., 2012, Pseudo-Newtonian potentials for nearly parabolic orbits, ApJ, 749, 183