1: %%
2: %\documentclass[12pt,referee]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{/home/fiore/testi/macros/aastex}
4: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
7:
8: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
9:
10: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
11:
12: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
13: %\documentclass{/home/delia/ChandraPC/macros/emulateapj}
14: %\documentclass{/home/delia/macros/emulateapj}
15: \documentclass{emulateapj}
16:
17:
18: %\newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
19: %\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
20:
21: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
22:
23: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
24:
25: \shorttitle{GRB080319B}
26: \shortauthors{D'Elia et al.}
27:
28: \def\ls{{_<\atop^{\sim}}}
29: \def\gs{{_>\atop^{\sim}}}
30: \def\cgs{ ${\rm erg~cm}^{-2}~{\rm s}^{-1}$ }
31:
32:
33: \begin{document}
34: %\title{The High Resolution View of the Brightest GRB Optical Afterglow
35: %Ever Recorded: GRB080319B
36: \title{The prompt, high resolution spectroscopic view of the
37: ``naked-eye'' GRB080319B
38: \footnote{Based on observations collected at
39: the European Southern Observatory (ESO) with the VLT/Kueyen telescope,
40: Paranal, Chile, in the framework of program 080.A-0398.}}
41: \author{V. D'Elia\altaffilmark{1},
42: F. Fiore\altaffilmark{1}, R. Perna\altaffilmark{2}, Y. Krongold\altaffilmark{3},
43: S. Covino\altaffilmark{4}, D. Fugazza\altaffilmark{4}, D. Lazzati\altaffilmark{2},
44: F. Nicastro\altaffilmark{1}, L.A. Antonelli\altaffilmark{1}, S. Campana\altaffilmark{4},
45: G. Chincarini\altaffilmark{4,5}, P. D'Avanzo\altaffilmark{4}, M. Della Valle\altaffilmark{6},
46: P. Goldoni\altaffilmark{7}, D. Guetta\altaffilmark{1}, C. Guidorzi\altaffilmark{4},
47: E.J.A. Meurs\altaffilmark{8,9}, F. Mirabel\altaffilmark{10}, E. Molinari\altaffilmark{4},
48: L. Norci\altaffilmark{9}, S. Piranomonte\altaffilmark{1}, L. Stella\altaffilmark{1},
49: G. Stratta\altaffilmark{11}, G. Tagliaferri\altaffilmark{4}, P. Ward\altaffilmark{8,12}.
50: }
51:
52:
53: \altaffiltext{1}{INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma,
54: via Frascati 33, Monteporzio (Rm), I00040, Italy;}
55: \altaffiltext{2}{JILA and Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Science,
56: CU Boulder, Boulder, 80309, USA;}
57: \altaffiltext{3}{Instituto de Astronomia, Universidad Nacional Autonomica de
58: Mexico, Apartado Postal 70-264, 04510 Mexico DF;}
59: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, via E. Bianchi 46, 23807
60: Merate (LC), Italy;}
61: \altaffiltext{5}{Universita' di Milano Bicocca, piazza della Scienza 3,
62: 20126 Milano, Italy}
63: \altaffiltext{6}{INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, salita Moiarello 16, Napoli, Italy;}
64: \altaffiltext{7}{APC/UMR 7164, Service dÕAstrophysique, CEA Centre de Saclay;}
65: \altaffiltext{8}{School of Cosmic Physics, DIAS, 31 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 4, Ireland;}
66: \altaffiltext{9}{School of Physical Sciences and NCPST, DCU, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland;}
67: \altaffiltext{10}{European Southern Observatory, Casilla 19001, Santiago, Chile;}
68: \altaffiltext{11}{ASI Science Data Center, via Galileo Galilei,
69: 00044 Frascati, Italy}
70: \altaffiltext{12}{Mullard Space Science Laboratory, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, UK.}
71:
72:
73: \email{delia@oa-roma.inaf.it}
74:
75: \begin{abstract}
76:
77: GRB080319B reached 5th optical magnitude during the burst prompt
78: emission. Thanks to the VLT/UVES rapid response mode, we observed its
79: afterglow just 8m:30s after the GRB onset when the magnitude was
80: R $\sim 12$. This allowed us to obtain the best signal-to-noise, high
81: resolution spectrum of a GRB afterglow ever (S/N per resolution
82: element $\sim50$). The spectrum is rich of absorption features
83: belonging to the main system at z=0.937, divided in at least six
84: components spanning a total velocity range of 100 km s$^{-1}$. The
85: VLT/UVES observations caught the absorbing gas in a highly excited
86: state, producing the strongest \ion{Fe}{2} fine structure lines ever
87: observed in a GRB. A few hours later the optical depth of these lines
88: was reduced by a factor of 4-20, and the optical/UV flux by a factor
89: of $\sim60$. This proves that the excitation of the observed fine
90: structure lines is due to ``pumping'' by the GRB UV photons. A
91: comparison of the observed ratio between the number of photons
92: absorbed by the excited state and those in the \ion{Fe}{2} ground
93: state suggests that the six absorbers are $\sim 2-6$ kpc from the GRB
94: site, with component I $\sim3$ times closer to the GRB site than
95: components III to VI. Component I is characterized also by the lack of
96: \ion{Mg}{1} absorption, unlike all other components. This may be due
97: both to a closer distance and a lower density, suggesting a structured
98: ISM in this galaxy complex.
99:
100: \end{abstract}
101: \keywords{Gamma Ray Bursts}
102:
103: \section{Introduction}
104:
105: For a few hours after their onset, Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) afterglows
106: are the brightest beacons in the far Universe. In a small fraction of
107: the cases, extremely bright optical transient emission is associated with
108: the GRB event, offering a superb opportunity to investigate high--z
109: galaxies through high resolution spectroscopy of the optical
110: transient. The study of the rich absorption spectra can yield unique
111: information on the gas in the GRB environment and the physical,
112: chemical and dynamical state and geometry of the inter--stellar matter
113: (ISM) of intervening galaxies, including the GRB host galaxy.
114:
115: GRB080319B was discovered by the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT)
116: instrument on board Swift on 2008, March 19, at 06:12:49 UT. Swift
117: slewed to the target in less than 1 minute and a bright afterglow was
118: found by both the X-Ray Telescope (XRT) and UV-Optical Telescope
119: (UVOT) at RA = 14h 31m 40.7s, Dec = +36$^o$ $18'$ $14.7"$ (Racusin et
120: al. 2008a) with observations starting 60.5 and 175 s after the
121: trigger, respectively. The field of GRB080319B was imaged by the "Pi
122: of the Sky" apparatus located at Las Campanas Observatory before,
123: during and after the GRB event (Cwiok et al. 2008). The field was also
124: targetted by the robotic telescope REM just 43 s after the BAT trigger
125: (Covino et al. 2008a, b). The TORTORA wide-field optical camera (12 cm
126: diameter, 20$\times$25 deg FOV, TV-CCD, unfiltered) mounted on REM also
127: imaged the field before, during and after the GRB event with good
128: temporal resolution (Karpov et al. 2008). These observations show
129: that the GRB reached the magnitudes $V = 5.3 $ about $20$ s and $H =
130: 4.2$ about $50$ s after the trigger. This makes GRB080319B the
131: brightest GRB ever recorded at optical wavelengths (Bloom et al. 2008,
132: Racusin et al. 2008b).
133:
134: \begin{table*}[ht]
135: \caption{\bf GRB080319B journal of observations}
136: {\footnotesize
137: \smallskip
138: \label{obs_log}
139: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
140: \hline
141: \hline
142: Obs & UT observation & T. from burst (s) & Exp. (s) & S/N range & Dichroics & Arms & R mag \\
143: \hline
144: RRM 1 & 2008 Mar 19, 06:21:26 & 517 & 600 & $30 \div 50$ & 2 & Blue + Red & $12 \div 13$\\
145: RRM 2 & 2008 Mar 19, 08:06:42 & 6833 & 1800 & $7 \div 12$ & 1 + 2 & Blue + Red & $16 \div 17$\\
146: ToO & 2008 Mar 19, 09:07:22 & 10482 & 1200 & $5 \div 8 $ & 1 + 2 & Blue + Red & $16 \div 17$\\
147:
148: \hline
149: \end{tabular}
150: }
151: \end{table*}
152:
153:
154:
155: The optical afterglow of GRB080319B was observed at high resolution
156: with VLT/UVES starting just 8m:30s after the BAT trigger, thanks to
157: the VLT rapid response mode (RRM), when its magnitude was R$\sim12
158: \div 13$. This allowed us to obtain the best signal-to-noise, high
159: resolution spectrum of a GRB afterglow ever (S/N per resolution
160: element $\sim50$). Two further RRM and target of opportunity (ToO)
161: observations were obtained $ 2 - 3 $ hours after the event. Several
162: absorption systems are present in these spectra. Vreeswijk et
163: al. (2008) identify the highest redshift system at 0.937 as the GRB
164: host galaxy.
165:
166: This paper concentrates on the analysis of the \ion{Fe}{2} excited
167: lines associated with the main system at z=0.937 and on their
168: variability. Section 2 describes the datasets and data analysis;
169: Section 3 presents the UVES spectroscopy and discusses the absorption
170: features and their variability; Section 4 concerns the evaluation of
171: the distance of the absorbers from the GRB explosion site; our
172: conclusions are given in Section 5. A $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,
173: $\Omega_M$=0.3, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$ cosmology is adopted
174: throughout.
175:
176:
177: \begin{figure*}[ht]
178: \centering
179: \begin{tabular}{cc}
180: \includegraphics[width=6cm, angle=-90]{f1.eps}
181: \includegraphics[width=6cm, angle=-90]{f2.eps}
182: \end{tabular}
183: \caption{ The UVES spectra of GRB080319B around the
184: \ion{Fe}{2}$\lambda$2374 (left panel) and \ion{Fe}{2}$\lambda$2396*
185: (right panel) transitions. Solid lines refer to the first epoch
186: spectrum (8m30s after the Swift trigger), dashed lines to the second
187: epoch spectrum (1.9 hours after the GRB event), and dotted lines to
188: the the third epoch spectrum (2.9 hours after the GRB event).}
189: \label{spettri1}
190: \end{figure*}
191:
192:
193:
194: \section{Observations and data analysis}
195:
196: We observed the bright afterglow of GRB080319B in the framework of the
197: ESO program 080.A-0398 with the VLT/UVES (Dekker et al. 2000).
198: The Observation Log is reported in Table \ref{obs_log}. Both UVES
199: dichroics, as well as the red and the blue arms, were used.
200:
201: The first, 10min observation, was performed in RRM and started just
202: 8m:30s after the GRB event, when the afterglow was extremely
203: bright (R=12-13). This afforded a S/N=$30\div 50$ per resolution
204: element. Two more UVES observations followed, the first one again in
205: RRM mode, activated in the framework of program 080.D-0526 and
206: starting 1.9 hours after the GRB event, and the second a ToO, starting
207: 2.9 hours after the GRB, see Table \ref{obs_log}.
208:
209:
210:
211: Data reduction was carried out by using the UVES pipeline
212: (Ballester et al. 2000). The final useful spectra extend from
213: $\sim 3800$~\AA{} to $\sim 9500$~\AA.
214: %The total spectrum was rebinned to 0.1~\AA~ to increase the
215: %signal-to-noise ratio.
216: The resolution element, set to two pixels, ranges then from 4
217: km\,s$^{-1}$ at 4500~\AA{} to 1.9 km\,s$^{-1}$ at 9000~\AA. The noise
218: spectrum, used to determine the errors on the best fit line
219: parameters, was calculated from the real-background-subtracted spectra
220: using line-free regions. This takes into account both statistical
221: and systematic errors in the pipeline processing and background
222: subtraction.
223:
224: \section{UVES spectroscopy of excited lines}
225:
226: The three UVES observations were analyzed in the MIDAS environment
227: using the {\sc fitlyman} procedure (Fontana \& Ballester 1995). The
228: highest z system present in these spectra is at z=0.937, as also
229: reported by Vreeswijk et al. (2008). This system presents absorption
230: features from the ground states of MgI, MgII, FeII and several FeII
231: fine structure lines (FeII* hereafter). The most striking feature in
232: the UVES spectra is the variation of the opacity of the fine structure
233: lines between the first and the second UVES
234: observation. Fig. 1 shows the \ion{Fe}{2}$\lambda$2374
235: and \ion{Fe}{2}$^*\lambda$2396 absorption features in the three
236: epochs. We see strong variations of both lines. While the strength of
237: the \ion{Fe}{2}$\lambda$2374 absorption increases from the first to
238: the third epoch, strong \ion{Fe}{2}$^*\lambda$2396 absorption is
239: present only in the first spectrum and nearly disappears in the second
240: and third spectra. The huge variations of \ion{Fe}{2} fine structure
241: lines imply that ``pumping'' by the GRB UV photons is the main
242: mechanism for populating the excited states (Silva \& Viegas 2002;
243: Prochaska et al. 2006; Vreeswijk et al. 2007).
244:
245: UVES spectra of bright GRB afterglows have always revealed a complex
246: structure of the absorption system associated with the GRB host
247: galaxy, reflecting the clumpy nature of the ISM (see e.g. D'Elia et
248: al. 2007). This is confirmed by the UVES spectra of GRB080319B. A
249: detailed line fitting was performed using a Voigt profile with three
250: parameters: the line wavelength, column density and Doppler parameter
251: $b$. Several absorption features were fitted simultaneously by
252: keeping the redshift and $b$ value of each component fixed at their
253: common values (best fit $b$ values in the $3 \div 10$ range). The
254: \ion{Fe}{2}$^*\lambda$2396 absorption lines are not saturated, and can
255: be used to guide the identification of different components.
256: Statistically acceptable fits to the first epoch UVES spectrum are
257: obtained by using six components. These span a range of $\sim 100$
258: km s$^{-1}$ in velocity space. Fig. \ref{spettri2} shows the best fitting
259: model to the \ion{Mg}{1}$\lambda$2026, \ion{Fe}{2}$\lambda$2382 and
260: \ion{Fe}{2}$^*\lambda$2396 lines. The lower S/N spectra from the
261: second and third epochs were then fitted by fixing the z and $b$
262: parameters of each component at their respective best fit values found
263: for the first epoch, highest S/N spectrum.
264:
265: Table 2 gives the \ion{Mg}{1} and \ion{Fe}{2} and column densities of
266: each of the six components in the three epochs. Components are labeled
267: from I to VI for decreasing wavelengths (and decreasing redshift, or
268: positive velocity shift with respect to a zero point, placed at
269: z=0.9371). \ion{Fe}{2} is represented by the ground, first excited
270: ($4F$) and second excited ($^4D$) levels. Fine structures of each
271: level are marked with asterisks; the ground state shows four fine
272: structure levels, the excited ones just the first level. The second
273: column indicates which transitions have been used to evaluate the
274: column density of each ionic specie. Strong \ion{Mg}{2} absorption is
275: present for all components, but reliable column densities cannot be
276: derived for this ion because the lines are strongly saturated. The
277: column density uncertainties are given at the $1\sigma$ confidence
278: level, while upper limits are at a 90\% confidence level
279: (i.e. 1.6$\sigma$). The column densities derived from the second
280: epoch spectrum are always consistent with those derived from the third
281: epoch spectrum, to within their relatively large errors. Thus, in
282: order to improve the $S/N$, we also added together the second and
283: third epoch spectra and repeated the fits.
284:
285: \ion{Mg}{1} is detected for all components but I. The \ion{Mg}{1}
286: column density of the five detected components is consistent with a
287: constant value (within each component) at all epochs. Conversely, we
288: see strong variations in time of both \ion{Fe}{2} excited and ground
289: state lines for all six components. The \ion{Fe}{2} fine
290: structures line of the lower redshift components underwent the
291: strongest variations, as most of these lines are not detected in the
292: second and third epoch spectra. The \ion{Fe}{2} first fine structure line
293: of the highest redshift component I varies less, and it is still
294: detected in the second and third epoch spectra. Fig. 3 compares the
295: column density of the \ion{Fe}{2}$^*\lambda$2396 line of the six
296: components in the first epoch spectrum to that measured 2-3 hr
297: later. The column density of component I dropped by a factor of
298: $\sim4$, while that of component III dropped by a factor of $\sim20$
299: (Table 3). On the other hand, the column density of ground state
300: \ion{Fe}{2} increased by a factor of 1.3-2 for all six components
301: (Table 3). The de-excitation of the excited levels into ground state
302: levels, as time passes and the UV radiation field diminishes, is
303: certainly contributing to this increase. For all components, the
304: increase in the column density of the \ion{Fe}{2} resonant line is
305: consistent with the decrease of the excited lines within $1
306: \sigma$. This is a first indication that the absorbing medium must be
307: relatively distant, since photoionization of the medium by the burst
308: photons, predicted to be important in the vicinity of the source
309: (Perna \& Loeb 1998; Perna \& Lazzati 2002) appears to be negligible
310: here.
311:
312:
313: \begin{figure}[h]
314: \centering
315: \begin{tabular}{cc}
316: \includegraphics[width=9cm,height=8.5cm,angle=-90]{f3.eps}
317: \end{tabular}
318: \caption{ The first UVES spectrum of GRB080319B around the
319: MgI$\lambda$2026, FeII$\lambda$2396$^*$ and FeII$\lambda$2382
320: transitions. The solid line shows the six component fit (I to VI from
321: higher to lower redshift). The velocity position of the components is
322: marked with vertical lines, as well as the zero point at $z=0.9371$.}
323: \label{spettri2}
324: \end{figure}
325:
326: \begin{figure}[h]
327: \centering
328: \begin{tabular}{cc}
329: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm, angle=0]{f4.eps}
330: \end{tabular}
331: \caption{ The column density of the FeII$\lambda$2396$^*$ line for the
332: six components as a function of time. For clarity reasons, components
333: have been slightly shifted with each other. Late time points represent
334: the observations 2 and 3 added together. Note that the highest
335: redshift component I varies less than the lower redshift components
336: III and IV (the dashed and dotted lines are for components I and III,
337: respectively).\ }
338: \label{var}
339: \end{figure}
340:
341:
342: \begin{table*}[ht]
343: \caption{\bf MgI, FeII and FeII* column densities for the six components
344: at three epochs.}
345: {\footnotesize
346: \smallskip
347: \begin{tabular}{lc|ccccccc}
348: \hline
349: \hline
350: Specie & Trans. & Obs. & I (64 km/s) & II (47 km/s) & III (20 km/s) & IV (0 km/s) & V (-20 km/s)& VI (-32 km/s)\\
351: \hline
352: Mg I & $\lambda$2026 & 1& $ < 11.80 $ & $12.14 \pm 0.10$ & $13.00 \pm 0.02 $ & $13.18 \pm 0.01 $ & $11.83 \pm 0.17 $ & $12.38 \pm 0.05 $ \\
353: & $\lambda$2852 & 2& $ < 11.2 $ & $12.09 \pm 0.03$ & $13.06 \pm 0.08 $ & $12.94 \pm 0.12 $ & $11.77 \pm 0.06 $ & $12.02 \pm 0.05 $ \\
354: & & 3& $ < 11.6 $ & $12.05 \pm 0.04$ & $13.39 \pm 0.11 $ & $12.87 \pm 0.10 $ & $11.81 \pm 0.07 $ & $12.05 \pm 0.07 $ \\
355: & &2+3&$ < 11.0 $ & $12.08 \pm 0.02$ & $13.18 \pm 0.06 $ & $12.95 \pm 0.07 $ & $11.80 \pm 0.05 $ & $12.07 \pm 0.05 $ \\
356: \hline
357: FeII & $\lambda$2374 & 1& $13.52 \pm 0.01$ & $13.11 \pm 0.02$ & $13.84 \pm 0.02 $ & $13.79 \pm 0.02 $ & $12.76 \pm 0.02 $ & $12.77 \pm 0.02 $ \\
358: & $\lambda$2382 & 2& $13.78 \pm 0.05$ & $13.26 \pm 0.09$ & $14.13 \pm 0.05 $ & $14.01 \pm 0.06 $ & $13.11 \pm 0.06 $ & $12.86 \pm 0.22 $ \\
359: & & 3& $13.99 \pm 0.07$ & $13.19 \pm 0.17$ & $14.32 \pm 0.10 $ & $13.99 \pm 0.11 $ & $12.77 \pm 0.85 $ & $12.81 \pm 0.34 $ \\
360: & &2+3&$13.87 \pm 0.04$ & $13.24 \pm 0.10$ & $14.19 \pm 0.08 $ & $14.00 \pm 0.10 $ & $13.00 \pm 0.12 $ & $12.84 \pm 0.17 $ \\
361: \hline
362: FeII$^{*}$ & $\lambda$2333 & 1& $13.29 \pm 0.02$ & $12.90 \pm 0.02$ & $13.37 \pm 0.02 $ & $13.36 \pm 0.02 $ & $12.40 \pm 0.06 $ & $12.30 \pm 0.05 $ \\
363: & $\lambda$2365 & 2& $12.66 \pm 0.05$ & $12.33 \pm 0.04$ & $ < 12.2 $ & $ < 12.2 $ & $ < 12.2 $ & $ < 12.2 $ \\
364: & $\lambda$2389 & 3& $12.66 \pm 0.11$ & $ < 12.6 $ & $ < 12.6 $ & $ < 12.6 $ & $ < 12.6 $ & $ < 12.6 $ \\
365: & $\lambda$2396 &2+3&$12.67 \pm 0.11$ & $12.15 \pm 0.12$ & $12.13 \pm 0.12 $ & $ < 12.0 $ & $ < 12.0 $ & $ < 12.0 $ \\
366: \hline
367: FeII$^{**}$ & $\lambda$2328 & 1& $13.03 \pm 0.01$ & $12.53 \pm 0.01$ & $13.20 \pm 0.01 $ & $13.16 \pm 0.01 $ & $12.45 \pm 0.01 $ & $11.78 \pm 0.27 $ \\
368: & & 2& $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ \\
369: & & 3& $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ \\
370: & &2+3&$ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ \\
371: \hline
372: FeII$^{***}$ & $\lambda$2338 & 1& $12.86 \pm 0.02$ & $12.48 \pm 0.04$ & $13.02 \pm 0.02 $ & $13.02 \pm 0.02 $ & $11.89 \pm 0.13 $ & $11.82 \pm 0.13 $ \\
373: & $\lambda$2359 & 2& $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ & $ < 13.0 $ \\
374: & & 3& $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ & $ < 13.4 $ \\
375: & &2+3&$ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ & $ < 12.8 $ \\
376: \hline
377: FeII$^{****}$ & $\lambda$2345 & 1& $12.54 \pm 0.02$ & $12.24 \pm 0.04$ & $12.79 \pm 0.02 $ & $12.76 \pm 0.02 $ & $11.78 \pm 0.37 $ & $11.70 \pm 0.10 $ \\
378: & $\lambda$2414 & 2& $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ \\
379: & & 3& $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ \\
380: & &2+3&$ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ \\
381: \hline
382: FeII $^4$F & $\lambda$2332 & 1& $13.25 \pm 0.02$ & $12.18 \pm 0.24$ & $13.62 \pm 0.01 $ & $13.42 \pm 0.02 $ & $12.37 \pm 0.12 $ & $12.12 \pm 0.23 $ \\
383: & $\lambda$2360 & 2& $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ \\
384: & & 3& $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ \\
385: & &2+3&$13.21 \pm 0.09$ & $12.6 \pm 0.36 $ & $13.59 \pm 0.07 $ & $13.35 \pm 0.09 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $12.37 \pm 0.52 $ \\
386: \hline
387: FeII$^4F^{*}$ & $\lambda$2361 & 1& $12.73 \pm 0.04$ & $ < 11.5 $ & $12.95 \pm 0.04 $ & $12.74 \pm 0.05 $ & $12.69 \pm 0.09 $ & $12.25 \pm 0.16 $ \\
388: & & 2& $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ \\
389: & & 3& $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ \\
390: & &2+3&$ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ \\
391: \hline
392: FeII$^4D$ & $\lambda$2563 & 1& $12.60 \pm 0.02$ & $11.72 \pm 0.16$ & $11.99 \pm 0.10 $ & $11.80 \pm 0.15 $ & $ < 11.5 $ & $ < 11.5 $ \\
393: & & 2& $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ \\
394: & & 3& $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ \\
395: & &2+3&$ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ \\
396: \hline
397: FeII$^4D^{*}$ & $\lambda$2564 & 1& $12.37 \pm 0.05$ & $ < 11.5 $ & $11.97 \pm 0.13 $ & $11.53 \pm 0.36 $ & $ < 11.5 $ & $ < 11.5 $ \\
398: & & 2& $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ & $ < 12.7 $ \\
399: & & 3& $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ & $ < 13.1 $ \\
400: & &2+3&$ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ & $ < 12.5 $ \\
401:
402:
403:
404:
405:
406:
407:
408:
409:
410: \hline
411: \end{tabular}
412:
413: All values are logarithmic cm$^{-2}$
414: }
415: \end{table*}
416:
417: \begin{table*}[ht]
418: \caption{\bf The \ion{Fe}{2} and \ion{Fe}{2}$^*$ column density ratios between
419: observation 1 and 2+3.}
420: \label{ratios}
421: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
422: \hline
423: \hline
424: & I & II & III & IV & V & VI \\
425: \hline
426: \ion{Fe}{2} & $-0.35 \pm 0.05$ & $-0.13 \pm 0.12$ & $-0.35 \pm 0.10$ & $-0.21 \pm 0.12$ & $-0.24 \pm 0.14$& $-0.07 \pm 0.19 $ \\
427: \ion{Fe}{2}$^*$ & $0.62 \pm 0.13$ & $0.75 \pm 0.14$ & $1.24 \pm 0.14 $ & $ > 1.36 $ & $ > 0.40 $ & $ > 0.30 $ \\
428:
429: \hline
430: \end{tabular}
431:
432: Ratios are expressed in logarithmic cm$^{-2}$
433: \end{table*}
434:
435: \section{Distance of the absorbers from the GRB}
436:
437: A constraint on the distance of the absorbing gas to the GRB can be
438: obtained using the ratio between the number of photons absorbed by the
439: first fine structure level of \ion{Fe}{2} and its corresponding ground
440: state. This ratio in the prompt spectrum of GRB080319B is 0.6 for
441: component I and II, between 0.3 and 0.4 for components III, IV, V and
442: VI. Note that the value for component I and II is close to the
443: maximum theoretical value of 0.8. As a comparison, the same ratio in
444: the prompt spectrum of GRB060418 was 0.09 (Vreeswijk et al. 2007).
445: Calculations of population ratios (Silva \& Viegas 2002; see also
446: Prochaska, Chen \& Bloom 2006) show that the observed ratios are
447: obtained for a UV flux of $\sim 3\times 10^6 - 10^7\;G_0$ for the six
448: components, where $G_0=1.6\times 10^{-3}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
449: This implies distances from the GRB to the six absorbers
450: $R=\left[L_{UV}/(4\pi G_0\times (3\times
451: 10^6-10^7))\right]^{1/2}\approx 18-34$ kpc (having assumed
452: $L_{UV}=6.7\times 10^{50}$ erg s$^{-1}$, obtained integrating the
453: light curve by Racusin et al. 2008b).
454:
455: However, these population ratios are calculated assuming a
456: steady-state ionizing flux, an approximation which is not an
457: appropriate description for a GRB afterglow. To obtain a more reliable
458: result, we built up a time dependent photoexcitation code to compute
459: the column densities of the excited states as a function of the
460: absorbing gas distance from the GRB, in a similar way to that of
461: Vreeswijk et al. (2007). The basic equation to be
462: solved is the balance equation:
463:
464: $$ {dN_u\over dt} = N_l B_{lu} F_{\nu}(\tau_0) - N_u[A_{ul} + B_{ul}F_{\nu}(\tau_0)], \eqno (1)$$
465:
466: which describes the transition between two atomic levels. It gives the
467: increment in the upper level population $N_u$ as a function of the
468: lower level $N_l$, the flux $F_{\nu}(\tau_0)$ experienced by the
469: absorber, and the Einstein coefficients $A$ and $B$. In more detail,
470: $A_{ul}$ represents the spontaneous decay from the upper to the lower
471: state, $B_{ul}=A_{ul}\lambda^3/2hc $ the stimulated emission, and
472: $B_{lu}= B_{ul}g_u/g_l$ the absorption. Here $\lambda$ is the
473: transition wavelength and $g$ the degeneracy of the levels.
474: $F_{\nu}(\tau_0)$ is the monochromatic flux at the transition
475: frequency:
476:
477: $$F_{\nu}(\tau_0) = F_{\nu}(0)e^{-\tau} + S_{\nu}(1-e^{-\tau}), \eqno (2)$$
478:
479: corrected by the optical depth at the line center $\tau_0=
480: 1.497\;10^{-2}N_l\lambda f / b$ (cgs units); $b$ is the Doppler factor
481: of the transition and $f$ its oscillator strength, which is related to the
482: Einstein coefficient $A$ by:
483:
484: $$ f={m_e c A_{ul} g_u \lambda^2 \over 8 \pi^2 q_e^2 g_l}. \eqno (3) $$
485:
486: The source function of the radiative transfer equation (2) is defined as:
487:
488: $$ S_{\nu} ={ N_u(\nu)A_{ul}\over N_l(\nu)B_{lu} - N_u(\nu)B_{ul}} \eqno (4)$$
489:
490: (Lequeux 2005). Finally, the uncorrected flux experienced by the absorber is:
491:
492: $$F_{\nu}(0) = { F_{br} \; (t/t_{br})^{-\alpha_{br}} (\lambda/5439{\rm \AA})^{-\beta_{br}} (d_{L,GRB}/d)^2 \over 1+z}, \eqno (5)$$
493:
494: (in cgs units) with z the GRB redshift used to compute its luminosity
495: distance $d_{L,GRB}$ and $d$ the distance of the absorber from the
496: GRB. The normalization constant $ F_{br}$ and the temporal and
497: spectral indices, $\alpha_{br}$ and $\beta_{br}$, have been taken from
498: the paper by Racusin et al. (2008b). The optical light curve of
499: GRB080319B in the V band (5439 \AA) is not monotonic, but can be
500: described by a broken power law with at least four different slopes in
501: the time interval between $20$ and $10^4$ s from the GRB. For each
502: break time $t_{br}$, we took the corresponding normalization constant
503: $ F_{br}$ and the temporal and spectral indices, $\alpha_{br}$ and
504: $\beta_{br}$, given in Racusin et al. (2008b).
505:
506: Eq.1 must be simultaneously solved for many transitions, connecting in
507: principle all the levels of a given atom or ion (\ion{Fe}{2} in our
508: case). We included in our computation a total of 38 levels, the 16
509: lowest levels plus 22 higher excited states. The atomic data for the
510: transitions among these levels have been taken from Quinet et
511: al. (1996) (for transitions between the low energy states) and the
512: NIST database for other transitions (at the website
513: http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/index.html). In order to
514: verify that the number of included transitions was large enough, we
515: ran our code with the input parameters used by Vreeswijk et al. (2007)
516: for GRB060418, and we found column densities fully consistent with
517: their results.
518:
519: We stress that collisional processes and/or direct infrared pumping
520: (IR) alone can not be responsible for the variability we observe. If
521: the first mechanism is at work, i.e. if the variability is produced by
522: a decreasing temperature, we should observe a reduction of all the
523: column densities of the excited states. Table 2 shows that fine
524: structure levels dramatically decrease, but the first excited level
525: (\ion{Fe}{2}$^4$F) stays almost constant in all components. On the
526: other hand, in case of pure IR pumping (assuming that the dominant UV
527: pumping process is for some reason inhibited), the fine structure
528: levels of the ground state should be more populated than those for
529: higher excited levels, which again is not observed. For more details
530: on the competition between such mechanisms, see again Vreeswijk et
531: al. (2007).
532:
533: We ran our code using the total \ion{Fe}{2} column densities and
534: Doppler factors observed for components I and III ($N=1.16\;10^{14}$
535: and $ 1.88 \; 10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$, $b=5$ and $10$ km s$^{-1}$,
536: respectively). The distance from the absorber was set as a free
537: parameter in order to obtain the best agreement between the data and
538: the photoexcitation code. In Fig.4 we show the results from our
539: code. Dotted, solid and dashed lines represent the predictions for
540: ground, fine structure and other excited levels, respectively. Short
541: (long) dashed lines are for \ion{Fe}{2} $^4$F and $^4$F* ($^4$D and
542: $^4$D*) levels. The data are reported as follows. Open circles
543: represent the ground state levels, closed circle the fine structures
544: of the ground state of \ion{Fe}{2}, open squares \ion{Fe}{2} $^4$F and
545: $^4$F* and open triangles \ion{Fe}{2} $^4$D and $^4$D*. The data
546: represent the first and second+third observation, and have been
547: slightly shifted to each other for clarity reasons. Fig. 4 shows that
548: the time evolution of the \ion{Fe}{2} column densities of component I
549: is best reproduced by a model with an absorber located at 2 kpc from
550: the GRB (lefthand plot), while the behaviour of component III is well
551: fitted with an absorber at 6 kpc from the GRB (righthand plot). The
552: closer the gas to the GRB, the longer the excited levels tend to be
553: populated with respect to the ground state. The ``anomalous''
554: behaviour of the \ion{Fe}{2} $^4$F level is due to its high
555: spontaneous decay rate toward the ground state, which is $\sim 3$
556: hours.
557:
558: \begin{figure*}[ht]
559: \centering
560: \begin{tabular}{cc}
561: \includegraphics[width=8cm, height=8cm, angle=-0]{f5.eps}
562: \includegraphics[width=8cm, height=8cm, angle=-0]{f6.eps}
563: \end{tabular}
564: \caption{Time evolution of \ion{Fe}{2} column densities for ground level
565: (open circles), fine structure level (solid circles) and first
566: (square) and second (triangles) excited level transitions for
567: component I (lefthand plot) and III (righthand plot) in the spectrum
568: of GRB080319b. Column density predictions from our time-dependent
569: photo-excitation code are also shown. They refer to the ground level
570: (dotted lines), fine structure levels (solid lines) and excited levels
571: (dashed lines) transitions, in the case of an absorber at 2 kpc
572: (lefthand plot) and at 6 kpc (righthand plot) from the GRB. For
573: clarity reasons, data points have been slightly shifted to each
574: others.}
575: \end{figure*}
576:
577:
578: In order for our results to be self-consistent, we need to make sure
579: that, at the smallest distance of 2 kpc as derived for component I,
580: \ion{Fe}{2} is not photoionized away by the strong UV radiation of the
581: burst. To this purpose, we performed a series of runs of the
582: photoionization code by Perna \& Lazzati (2002), which accounts for
583: the radiative-transfer of the radiation. We first simulated
584: a medium in thermal equilibrium at a temperature of $\sim 10^4$ K, and
585: let the radiation from the burst, modeled as in eq.(5), propagate
586: through it. For a range of densities between $10^{-3}$ and $10^3$
587: cm$^{-3}$, we followed the concentration of \ion{Fe}{2} and
588: \ion{Mg}{1} absorbers at a distance of 2kpc, while the radiation from
589: the burst impinges on them. For densities $\sim 10^3$
590: cm$^{-3}$, the burst appears not to alter the initial concentration of
591: \ion{Fe}{2} and \ion{Mg}{1}. As the density decreases down to about
592: $10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$, the concentration of \ion{Fe}{2} still remains
593: unaltered, but \ion{Mg}{1} begins to be photoionized
594: significantly. This different behaviour is due to the fact that
595: \ion{Fe}{2} is screened by Hydrogen, because its photoionization
596: threshold is just above that of H. For even lower densities, \ion{Fe}{2}
597: begins to get photoionized away. For a density of $10^{-3}$
598: cm$^{-3}$, the concentration of \ion{Fe}{2} decreases by about 15\%
599: during the burst. These calculations show that there is a wide range
600: of medium densities for which an \ion{Fe}{2} absorber at a distance of
601: 2 kpc is not photoionized away by the radiation from the burst,
602: while, on the other hand, \ion{Mg}{1} is substantially
603: destroyed. Interestingly, component I is the only one for which
604: \ion{Mg}{1} is below the detection limit.
605:
606: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
607:
608:
609: Thanks to the VLT RRM, which allowed the observation of GRB080319B in
610: just 5min (rest frame), we were able to catch the absorbing gas in a
611: highly excited state, producing the strongest \ion{Fe}{2} fine
612: structure lines ever observed in a GRB (or QSO) spectrum. The optical
613: depth of these lines was dramatically reduced 2-3 hours later,
614: implying a factor of 4-20 decrease for all six components belonging to
615: the main absorption system. At the same time, the optical/UV flux
616: dropped by a factor of $\sim60$ (Bloom et al. 2008, Racusin et
617: al. 2008b). The variation of the \ion{Fe}{2} fine structure lines is
618: spectacular, when compared to previous GRB observations. Before
619: GRB080319B, the best case was certainly that of GRB060418 at z=1.490,
620: observed with UVES on comparably short timescales. Vreeswijk et
621: al. (2007) report for this burst variations of the \ion{Fe}{2} fine
622: structure lines column densities by a factor of 1.4, in spectra taken
623: 700 s and 7680 s after the GRB onset; in the same time interval the
624: optical/UV flux dropped by a factor of $\sim20$. The variations seen
625: in GRB080319B at similar rest frame timescales are clearly much more
626: prominent. This is probably due to the extremely intense optical/UV
627: radiation field of GRB080319B.
628:
629: The optical GRB magnitude reached V$\sim5.3$ about 40 s after the start
630: of the GRB event. At z=0.937, this magnitude implies a $\sim912$\AA{}
631: ionizing luminosity L$=1.2\times 10^{51}$ erg s$^{-1}$, assuming a
632: power law spectrum with frequency spectral index $-1$ and integrating
633: it up to 1 keV. Since the \ion{Fe}{2} ionization potential is just
634: above the photoionization edge of H, this ion is efficiently screened
635: and it can be photoionized only after H has been photoionized.
636: %An order of magnitude estimate for the maximum H photoionization radius
637: %is given by $R=\sqrt{\frac{N_\gamma \sigma_H}{4\pi}}$ cm, where
638: %$N_\gamma$ is the number of photoionizing photons at 13.6 eV, and
639: %$\sigma_H=8\times 10^{-18}$ cm$^2$ is the H photoionization cross
640: %section.
641: We can compute the number of ionizing photons by integrating
642: the optical/UV light curve (Bloom et al. 2008, Racusin et al. 2008b).
643: We find $N_\gamma= 8.6 \times 10^{62}$ ph at 912\AA; similar numbers
644: are obtained by extrapolating the XRT X-ray spectrum down to 912\AA{}
645: assuming no absorption, in addition to the Galactic value along the
646: line of sight.
647:
648:
649:
650: %This yields an upper limit to the H photoionization
651: %radius $\ls7.5$kpc. At distances larger than this, H must be neutral,
652: %and \ion{Fe}{2} will not be fully photoionized. Note that the maximum
653: %photoionization radius of \ion{Mg}{1} is comparable to that of H. With
654: %a photoionization cross section of $1.7\times 10^{-18}$ cm$^2$ and an
655: %ionization potential of 7.64 eV, the ionization radius of \ion{Mg}{1}
656: %is $\sim4.6$kpc. These estimates are confirmed by time evolving
657: %photoionization calculations using the observed GRB light-curve to
658: %estimate the input photoionization and assuming an optically thin
659: %medium (radiative transfer is neglected in this first approximation
660: %calculation). On the other hand, if radiative transfer in a medium of
661: %density $n_H$ were included, the upper limit to the photoionization
662: %radius would be given by $R={\frac{3\times N_\gamma}{4\pi n_H}}^{1/3}$
663: %cm, which gives $R>190 (n_H/cm^{-3})^{-1/3}$ pc.
664:
665: We can constrain the distance of the absorbing gas to the GRB using
666: these numbers and the ratio between the number of photons absorbed by
667: the first fine structure level and the \ion{Fe}{2} ground state. In a
668: steady state approximation (Silva \& Viegas 2002; see also Prochaska,
669: Chen \& Bloom 2006), this distance turns out to be $\sim 18$ and $\sim
670: 34$ kpc for component I and III, respectively. Since GRBs are highly
671: variable events, to refine these results, we built up a time dependent
672: photoexcitation code, to model the expected column densities of the
673: \ion{Fe}{2} levels as a function of time for an absorber illuminated
674: by a flux such as that of GRB080319B. We obtain smaller values for the
675: distances, namely, $\sim 2$ and $\sim 6$ kpc for component I and III,
676: respectively. This discrepancy can be explained by considering the
677: light curve of GRB080319B. The flux of this GRB drops with a steep
678: power law (decay index $>5$) in the first 100 s (Racusin et
679: al. 2008b). The steady state approximation assumes a constant flux
680: from the GRB, with this constant being the total fluence radiated up
681: to the moment of the absorption line observation, divided by this time
682: range itself. Thus, this constant is $\sim 10^2$ times higher than the
683: real flux experienced by the absorber at the moment of the first UVES
684: observation. In this scenario, the steady state model will then
685: predict a larger distance in order to account for the higher fluxes at
686: later times.
687:
688: To assure self-consistency, we need to make sure that, at the smallest
689: distance of 2 kpc as derived for component I, \ion{Fe}{2} is not
690: photoionized away by the strong UV radiation of the burst. We showed
691: that there is a wide range of medium densities for which an
692: \ion{Fe}{2} absorber at a distance of 2 kpc is not photoionized away
693: by the radiation from the burst ($10^3 \div 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$).On the
694: other hand, at densities below $\sim 1$ cm$^{-3}$, Mg I is
695: substantially destroyed. Interestingly, component I is the only one
696: for which \ion{Mg}{1} is below the detection limit.
697:
698: Taken at face value, these distances are rather large for a typical
699: galaxy at z$\sim1$ (e.g. Sargent et al. 2007) and could imply that the
700: 0.937 system is in the outskirts of the GRB host galaxy or in a nearby
701: clump along the line of sight. Interestingly, HST imaging of the
702: field shows diffuse emission elongated south of the afterglow. In
703: particular, two faint clumps of emissions are located at $1.5''$ and
704: $3''$ from the afterglow (Tanvir et al. 2008). At z=0.937 these
705: correspond to projected distances of 12 and 24kpc, and may suggest the
706: presence of a complex structure of clumps around the GRB host
707: galaxy. If this is the case, the absorbers may well belong to one of
708: these clumps.
709:
710: %Component I has the highest ratio of photons absorbed by \ion{Fe}{2}
711: %excited and ground states, suggesting again that this component is the
712: %closest one to the GRB site. Note that this component shows
713: %\ion{Fe}{2} fine structure line variations significantly smaller than
714: %the other components (viz. III and IV, Fig. \ref{var} and Table
715: %3). The decay time of the first excited state ($\sim 500$ s, Vreeswijk
716: %et al. 2007) is shorter than or comparable to the rest frame time
717: %between the first and second epoch spectra. This implies that it is
718: %easier to maintain a high level of excitation for a longer time for an
719: %absorber closer to the source of UV photons than for farther
720: %absorbers, in agreement with our previous results. Alternatively,
721: %collisional excitation may help in maintaining a sizeable population
722: %of excited levels in this component. Component I does not show strong
723: %\ion{Mg}{1} absorption, unlike all other components. Both analytical
724: %and time evolving photoionization calculations show that \ion{Mg}{1}
725: %should be present at distances $>10$ kpc, where the analysis of the
726: %fine structure lines suggest that also component I is located. The
727: %lack of \ion{Mg}{1} in component I can be explained by a gas
728: %temperature $>5\times10^4$K (Shull \& Van Steenberg 1982), while the
729: %temperature of the gas of the other components should be lower than
730: %this value. This is a further confirmation that the ISM of high-z
731: %galaxies is complex, structured and characterized by numerous distinct
732: %components with different temperature and (most likely) density.
733:
734: \acknowledgments
735: We acknowledge support from ASI/INAF contracts
736: ASI/I/R/039/04 and ASI/I/R/023/05/0. SDV is supported by SFI.
737:
738: \begin{thebibliography}{}
739:
740: \bibitem[]{} Ballester, P., Modigliani, A., Boitquin, O. et al. 2000,
741: ESO Messenger, 101, 31
742:
743: \bibitem[]{} Bloom, J.S., Perley, D.,A., Li, W. et al. 2008, ApJ
744: submintted, astro-ph/0803.3215
745:
746: \bibitem[]{} Covino, S. et al., 2008a, GCN 7431
747:
748: \bibitem[]{} Covino, S. et al., 2008b, GCN 7446
749:
750: \bibitem[]{} Cwiok, M. et al. 2008, GCN 7439
751:
752: \bibitem[]{} Dekker, H., D'Odorico, S., Kaufer, A., Delabre, B., Kotzlowski, H., 2000, SPIE, 4008, 534
753:
754: \bibitem[]{} D'Elia, V., Fiore, F., Meurs, E.J.A. et al., 2007, 467, 629
755:
756: \bibitem[]{dodorico04}
757: D'Odorico, V., Cristiani, S., Romano, D., Granato, G., \& Danese, L. 2004,
758: MNRAS, 424, 23
759:
760: \bibitem[]{} Fontana, A. \& Ballester, P. 1995, The ESO Messenger, 80, 37
761:
762: \bibitem[]{} Karpov et al. 2008, GCN 7452
763:
764: \bibitem[]{} Lequeux, J. 2005, The interstellar medium (Translation
765: from the French language edition of: Le Milieu Interstellaire,
766: ed. J. Lequeux, EDP Sciences, 2003), Astronomy and astrophysics
767: library (Berlin: Springer)
768:
769: %\bibitem[]{} Molinari, E., et al. 2007, A\&A, 496, L13
770:
771: \bibitem[]{} Perna, R. \& Loeb, A. 1998, ApJ, 501, 467
772:
773: \bibitem[]{} Perna, R. \& Lazzati, D. 2002, ApJ, 580, 261
774:
775: \bibitem[]{prochaska06}
776: Prochaska, J.~X., Chen, H.-W., \& Bloom, J.~S. 2006, \apj, 648, 95
777:
778: \bibitem[]{} Quinet, P., Le Dourneuf, M., \& Zeippen, C. J. 1996, A\&AS, 120, 361
779:
780: \bibitem[]{} Racusin, J.L. et al. 2008a GCN 7427
781:
782: \bibitem[]{} Racusin, J.L. et al. 2008b, Nature, 455, 183
783:
784: \bibitem[]{} Sargent, M.T., Carollo, C.M., Lilly, S.J. et al. 2007, ApJS, 172, 434
785:
786: %\bibitem[]{} Savaglio, S., Fall, S.M., Fiore, F. 2003, ApJ, 585, 638
787:
788: %\bibitem[]{} Savaglio, S., Glazebrook, K., Crampton, D. et al. 2004,
789: %ApJ, 602, 51
790:
791: %\bibitem[]{} Savaglio, S., Fall, S.M. 2004, ApJ, 614, 293
792:
793: %\bibitem[]{Savaglio06}
794: %Savaglio, S. 2006, New Journal of Physics, 8, 195
795:
796: %\bibitem[]{} Shull, J.M., van Steenberg, M. 1982, ApJS, 48, 95
797:
798: \bibitem[]{} Silva, A.I., \& Viegas, S.M. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 135
799:
800: %\bibitem[]{} Srianand, R. \& Petitjean, P. 2000, A\&A, 357, 414
801:
802: %\bibitem[]{} Srianand, R. \& Petitjean, P. 2001, A\&A, 373, 816
803:
804: \bibitem[]{} Tanvir, N.R. et al. 2008, GCN 7569
805:
806: \bibitem[]{} Vreeswijk, P.M. et al. 2007, A\&A, 468, 83
807:
808: \bibitem[]{} Vreeswijk, P.M. et al. 2008, GCN 7451
809:
810: \end{thebibliography}
811:
812: \end{document}
813: