1: \documentclass[emulateapj]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{epstopdf}
3: %\usepackage{graphics}
4: \usepackage{lscape}
5: \newcommand{\NH}{\mbox{${\rm N}_{\rm H}$}} % Defines NH
6:
7: \newcommand{\fix}{\mbox{\bf ???}}
8: \newcommand{\xray}{\mbox{X-ray}}
9: \def\simlt{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
10: \def\simgt{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
11:
12: \def\CIVdblt{{\rm C~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}~$\lambda\lambda 1548, 1550$}
13: \def\MgIIdblt{{\rm Mg~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}~$\lambda\lambda 2796, 2803$}
14: \def\NVdblt{{\rm N}\kern 0.1em{\sc v}~$\lambda\lambda 1238, 1242$}
15: \def\OVIdblt{{\rm O}\kern 0.1em{\sc vi}~$\lambda\lambda 1031, 1037$}
16: \def\SiIVdblt{{\rm Si~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}~$\lambda\lambda1394, 1403$}
17: \def\AlIIIdblt{{\rm Al~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}~$\lambda\lambda1855,1863$}
18: \def\FeIIdblt{{\rm Fe~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}~$\lambda\lambda 2383, 2600$}
19:
20: \def\AlII{\hbox{{\rm Al~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
21: \def\AlIII{\hbox{{\rm Al~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
22: \def\CaI{\hbox{{\rm Ca}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
23: \def\CaII{\hbox{{\rm Ca}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
24: \def\CrII{\hbox{{\rm Cr}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
25: \def\CII{\hbox{{\rm C~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
26: \def\CIII{\hbox{{\rm C~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
27: \def\CIV{\hbox{{\rm C~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
28: \def\CV{\hbox{{\rm C}\kern 0.1em{\sc v}}}
29: \def\H{\hbox{{\rm H}}}
30: \def\HI{\hbox{{\rm H~}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
31: \def\HII{\hbox{{\rm H~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
32: \def\Lya{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$\alpha$}}
33: \def\Lyb{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$\beta$}}
34: \def\Lyg{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$\gamma$}}
35: \def\Lyfive{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$5$}}
36: \def\Lysix{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$6$}}
37: \def\Lyseven{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$7$}}
38: \def\Lyeight{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$8$}}
39: \def\Lynine{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$9$}}
40: \def\Lyten{\hbox{{\rm Ly}\kern 0.1em$10$}}
41: \def\HeI{\hbox{{\rm He}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
42: \def\HeII{\hbox{{\rm He}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
43: \def\FeI{\hbox{{\rm Fe~}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
44: \def\FeII{\hbox{{\rm Fe~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
45: \def\FeIII{\hbox{{\rm Fe~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
46: \def\MnII{\hbox{{\rm Mn}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
47: \def\MgI{\hbox{{\rm Mg~}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
48: \def\MgII{\hbox{{\rm Mg~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
49: \def\MgIII{\hbox{{\rm Mg~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
50: \def\MgIV{\hbox{{\rm Mg~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
51: \def\NaI{\hbox{{\rm Na}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
52: \def\NV{\hbox{{\rm N}\kern 0.1em{\sc v}}}
53: \def\NII{\hbox{{\rm N}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
54: \def\NIII{\hbox{{\rm N}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
55: \def\NiII{\hbox{{\rm Ni~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
56: \def\OVI{\hbox{{\rm O}\kern 0.1em{\sc vi}}}
57: \def\OI{\hbox{{\rm O}\kern 0.1em{\sc i}}}
58: \def\OII{\hbox{[{\rm O}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}]}}
59: \def\SiII{\hbox{{\rm Si~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
60: \def\SiIII{\hbox{{\rm Si~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
61: \def\SiIV{\hbox{{\rm Si~}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
62: \def\SII{\hbox{{\rm S}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
63: \def\SIII{\hbox{{\rm S}\kern 0.1em{\sc iii}}}
64: \def\SIV{\hbox{{\rm S}\kern 0.1em{\sc iv}}}
65: \def\TiII{\hbox{{\rm Ti}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
66: \def\ZnII{\hbox{{\rm Zn~}\kern 0.1em{\sc ii}}}
67: \newcommand{\kms}{\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}}
68: \newcommand{\cmsq}{\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}
69: \newcommand{\cc}{\hbox{cm$^{-3}$}}
70: \def\kms{\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}}
71: \def\cmsq{\hbox{cm$^{-2}$}}
72:
73: \newcommand{\comm}{\marginpar}
74:
75: % FIGSET-MACROS-BEGIN
76: \newcommand{\noprint}[1]{}
77: \newcommand{\figsetstart}{{\bf Fig. Set} }
78: \newcommand{\figsetend}{}
79: \newcommand{\figsetgrpstart}{}
80: \newcommand{\figsetgrpend}{}
81: \newcommand{\figsetnum}[1]{{\bf #1.}}
82: \newcommand{\figsettitle}[1]{ {\bf #1} }
83: \newcommand{\figsetgrpnum}[1]{\noprint{#1}}
84: \newcommand{\figsetgrptitle}[1]{\noprint{#1}}
85: \newcommand{\figsetplot}[1]{\noprint{#1}}
86: \newcommand{\figsetgrpnote}[1]{\noprint{#1}}
87: % FIGSET-MACROS-END
88:
89:
90:
91: % THIS IS THE re-submitted version, February 10th 2009
92:
93:
94: \begin{document}
95:
96:
97: \title{Testing the Possible Intrinsic Origin of the Excess Very Strong MgII Absorbers Along GRB Lines-of-Sight
98: }
99:
100: \shorttitle{Possible Origin of MgII Absorbers}
101: \author{A. Cucchiara\altaffilmark{1}, T. Jones\altaffilmark{1}, J.~C. Charlton\altaffilmark{1}, D. B. Fox\altaffilmark{1}, D. Einsig\altaffilmark{1} and A. Narayanan\altaffilmark{2}}
102:
103: \email{cucchiara@astro.psu.edu, tjones@astro.psu.edu, dfox@astro.psu.edu, charlton@astro.psu.edu, deinsig@astro.psu.edu, anand@astro.wisc.edu}
104:
105: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, 525 Davey Lab., Pennsylvania State
106: University, University Park, PA 16802, USA}
107: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 475 North Charter Street, Madison, WI 53706}
108:
109: \begin{abstract}
110: %
111: The startling discovery of \cite{ppc06} that the
112: frequency of very strong ($W_r(2796)>1$\,\AA) {\MgII} absorbers along
113: gamma-ray burst (GRB) lines of sight ($[dN/dz]_{\rm{GRB}} = 0.90$) is
114: more than three times the frequency along quasar lines of sight
115: ($[dN/dz]_{\rm{QSO}} = 0.24$), over similar redshift ranges, has yet to
116: be understood. In particular, explanations appealing to dust
117: anti-bias in quasar samples, partial covering of the quasar sources,
118: and gravitational-lensing amplification of the GRBs have all been
119: carefully examined and found wanting. We therefore reconsider the
120: possibility that the excess of very strong {\MgII} absorbers toward
121: GRBs is intrinsic either to the GRBs themselves or to their immediate
122: environment, and associated with bulk outflows with velocities as
123: large as $v_{\rm max}\sim 0.3c$. In order to examine this
124: hypothesis, we accumulate a sample of 27 $W_r(2796) >
125: 1$\,\AA\ absorption systems found toward 81 quasars, and compare their
126: properties to those of 8 $W_r(2796)>1$\,\AA\ absorption systems found
127: toward 6 GRBs; all systems have been observed at high spectral
128: resolution ($R = 45,000$) using the Ultraviolet and Visual Echelle
129: Spectrograph on the Very Large Telescope. We make multiple
130: comparisons of the absorber properties across the two populations,
131: testing for differences in metallicity, ionization state, abundance
132: patterns, dust abundance, kinematics, and phase structure. We find no
133: significant differences between the two absorber populations using any
134: of these metrics, implying that, if the excess of absorbers along GRB
135: lines of sight are indeed intrinsic, they must be produced by a
136: process which has strong similarities to the processes yielding strong
137: {\MgII} systems associated with intervening galaxies. Although
138: this may seem a priori unlikely, given the high outflow velocities
139: required for any intrinsic model, we note that the same conclusion was
140: reached, recently, with respect to the narrow absorption line
141: systems seen in some quasars.
142: %
143:
144: \end{abstract}
145:
146: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts - quasar: absorption lines - spectroscopy}
147:
148:
149: \section{Introduction and Motivation for This Study}
150: \label{sec:intro}
151: Intervening metal absorption line systems have been routinely observed
152: along the lines of sight to cosmological gamma-ray bursts (GRB) since
153: the first optical/UV spectrum of a GRB afterglow was obtained in 1997
154: \citep{mdk+97}. In particular, {\MgIIdblt} resonance doublet
155: absorption, observable from the ground over redshifts $0.4 \lesssim z
156: \lesssim 2.2 $, has been detected in many GRB afterglow spectra, at
157: redshifts well separated from that of the highest-redshift absorber in
158: the system, which is typically associated with the GRB host galaxy.
159:
160: Strong intervening {\MgII} absorbers are a familiar subject of quasar
161: absorption-line studies, and have been used for decades in studies of
162: intermediate-redshift galaxies and their environments. Indeed, it is
163: now known that the presence of absorption with {\MgII} $\lambda$2796
164: rest frame equivalent width $W_r(2796) > 0.3$~{\AA} (so called ``strong" absorption systems)
165: is commonly ($\sim 75$\%
166: of all cases) associated with the presence of a nearby (within 60~kpc
167: projected distance) $\sim$ 0.1--5 \,$L_\star$ galaxy along the
168: line-of-sight \citep{kcs08}.
169:
170: The detailed physical picture of the strong \MgII\ absorbers continues
171: to be elaborated.
172:
173: Among the strongest ($W_r(2796)>1$~{\AA}) {\MgII} absorbers at
174: $z<1.65$, approximately 80\% are also damped Lyman-alpha systems
175: (DLAs; \citealt{rtn06}).
176: %
177: Imaging of the quasar fields for a subset of even-stronger
178: ($W_r(2796)>2.7$~{\AA}) {\MgII} absorbers at low redshift ($0.42 < z <
179: 0.84$) indicates that interactions, pairs, and starburst related
180: phenomena are likely to be responsible \citep{bmp207}.
181: %
182: In roughly the same redshift range, \citet{bmp206} find an anti-correlation
183: between {\MgII} equivalent width for each system and the mass of its
184: associated dark matter halo based on halo masses predicted from clustering analysis. Since the {\MgII} equivalent
185: width of strong absorbers is determined primarily by the velocity
186: dispersion of its constituent absorbing clouds, this relationship is
187: consistent with a starburst picture for the strongest {\MgII} systems,
188: but not with structure within individual virialized haloes.
189: %
190: Finally, \citet{ppc06} concluded, over a larger redshift range ($0.35
191: < z < 2.7$), based on the kinematics of $W_r(2796)>1$~{\AA} absorbers,
192: that these structures are related to superwinds, rather than to
193: large-scale gas infalls in galaxy halos.
194: %
195: Indeed, \citet{ntr05} find a rapid decline in the incidence of
196: $W_r(2796)>2$~{\AA} systems with decreasing redshift, consistent with
197: the expectations from superwinds since these are thought to
198: increase in concert with the global star formation rate.
199:
200: GRBs and their afterglows are promising probes of the high-redshift
201: Universe due to their brightness and observed redshift distribution,
202: now extending beyond $z=6.7$. High-resolution spectroscopy of the
203: brightest afterglows has been used to study GRB host galaxies, and the
204: subgalactic environs of GRBs, up to $z=6$. With
205: respect to intervening absorption systems, one would naively expect
206: GRB lines of sight to be equivalent to quasar lines of sight, including strong {\MgII}
207: absorbers. However, for very strong ($W_r(2796) > 1$~\AA) {\MgII}
208: absorbers, a puzzling difference in the redshift path density,
209: \emph{dN/dz}, between GRB and QSO sightlines has been discovered. The
210: frequency of these absorbers along GRB lines of sight is more than
211: three times larger ($[dN/dz]_{\rm{GRB}} = 0.90$) than the frequency
212: along quasar sightlines ($[dN/dz]_{\rm{QSO}} = 0.24$) covering a similar
213: range of redshifts \citep{ppc06}.
214:
215: Since the discovery of this factor of $\approx$ 3 discrepancy, several
216: hypotheses have been advanced to explain it:
217: %
218: (1) The number of {\MgII} systems along quasar lines of sight has been
219: suppressed, due to a bias within quasar samples towards brighter
220: objects lacking, e.g., dusty foreground systems along the line of
221: sight;
222: %
223: (2) The relative beam sizes of quasar and GRB afterglow emitting
224: regions lead to partial covering in quasar spectra, and increased
225: numbers of strong absorption systems in GRB spectra;
226: %
227: (3) Gravitational lensing by the mass concentrations associated with
228: strong absorption systems magnifies the GRB and its afterglow,
229: increasing the probability of detection and spectroscopic observation;
230: %
231: (4) A dominant number of the strong absorption systems in GRB spectra
232: are physically associated with the GRB environment, the GRB itself, or
233: both.
234:
235: We will now briefly review the status of each of these hypotheses as a
236: way of motivating the present study, which focuses on the fourth
237: hypothesis, that the excess of very strong {\MgII} absorption
238: systems in GRB afterglow spectra is intrinsic to the GRB or its
239: environment. For any of the other hypotheses to provide an
240: explanation of the full effect, the resulting biases would have to be
241: quite large. The intrinsic hypothesis, by contrast, is required to
242: produce on average roughly one intrinsic, high-velocity absorption system per
243: GRB.
244:
245:
246: \subsection{Bias Due to Dust}
247: \label{sec:introdust}
248:
249: If the very strongest intervening {\MgII} absorbers tended to arise in the
250: dustiest environments they would diminish the observed magnitude of
251: a background quasar. In such a way, optical magnitude-limited
252: quasar absorption-line surveys might be biased toward the brighter
253: quasars that do not have the strongest {\MgII} systems in the
254: foreground. Although gamma ray bursts would suffer the same dust bias
255: effect, this effect is less important in determining whether a high
256: signal-to-noise, high-resolution spectrum can be obtained than is the
257: speed at which follow-up observations are possible. Thus we
258: would expect that gamma ray bursts that have very strong, dusty
259: {\MgII} absorbers in the foreground would still be present in
260: a sample of high-resolution GRB optical spectra. GRB spectra
261: should therefore have more very strong {\MgII} absorbers on average
262: than do quasar spectra.
263:
264: The main problem with this explanation for the excess of
265: $W_r(2796)>1$ {\AA} absorbers in GRB spectra is that the magnitude of
266: the effect is not nearly large enough to explain a factor of more than
267: three excess. \citet{mnt08} found that $\lesssim 2$~\% of quasars are
268: absent from optical surveys due to reddening and extinction from
269: strong {\MgII} systems ($1 < W_r(2796) < 3$~{\AA}). Even for
270: $W_r(2796) > 5$~{\AA} systems, which are too rare to affect enough
271: quasars to explain the observed excess, slightly less than
272: half of the quasars with such foreground absorbers would be missed
273: in a magnitude-limited sample.
274: More directly, \citet{evl06} estimated the extinction due to a
275: $W_r(2796)=1.87$ ~{\AA}
276: intervening system along the line of sight of GRB\,060418 at redshift $z = 1.106$. The amount
277: of extinction derived is $E({\rm B}-{\rm V}) = 0.08$~mag, which is not
278: sufficient to obscure sufficient quasars to explain the observed discrepancy
279: in $dN/dz$.
280:
281: \subsection{Partial Beam Coverage Explanations}
282:
283: An interesting explanation has been proposed by \citet{fbs07},
284: assuming that GRB emitting regions are generally smaller than those
285: of quasars. In order to avoid obvious signatures of partial
286: covering in the case of quasar strong {\MgII} absorbers, \citet{fbs07}
287: derived a cloud density profile with a constant density core
288: surrounded by a power-law density profile. The density profile
289: sampled by the beam depends on the size of the beam
290: relative to the core size of the absorber and on the impact
291: parameter. Small beams that pass through only the center of the cloud
292: sample much higher column densities than beams larger than the core
293: for which high optical depth absorption is diluted. Because the GRB beam size changes in time,
294: one prediction
295: of this scenario is variability
296: in the strength and the structure of their absorption lines.
297: Such variability has not yet been seen \citep{twl07}, although it was
298: once suggested \citep{hsd07} in the case of GRB 060206.
299: More importantly, \citet{phc07} point out that signatures of partial
300: covering should still be seen in high-resolution spectra unless the
301: cloud density profiles are fine-tuned to an unreasonable degree.
302: They also show that it is unlikely that an excess of the needed
303: magnitude could arise from this effect.
304: Finally, there is no way to set up the clouds producing the numerous
305: distinct absorption components seen in strong {\MgII} absorbers such that
306: the line of sight passes through the inner high-density
307: core of {\it all} of the clouds \citep{pvs07}.
308:
309: \subsection{Lensing Amplification of GRB Beam-size}
310:
311: Following an analogy with BL~Lac objects as studied by \citet{sr97},
312: the idea that a GRB line of sight intersects more absorbers because
313: the emitting region is microlensed by a gravitational potential has
314: also been considered (e.g. \cite{lp298, gls00, bh05, huY06}). In
315: particular, considering binary lensing and \emph{double} magnification
316: bias, \citet{bh05} estimate that there is a 60\% chance that a given
317: GRB is microlensed. On the other hand, using a sample from Sloan
318: Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasars, the magnification factor has been
319: calculated to be $\mu \lesssim 1.10$ \citep{mnt08}. This value is not
320: sufficient to lead to the observed excess of very strong {\MgII}
321: absorbers towards GRBs. Furthermore, if the lensing effect is
322: significant for GRBs, we would expect strong lensing in some cases,
323: along with associated multiple images, ``repeating'' GRBs, and
324: ``bumps'' in GRB optical light curves \citep{lp298}, none of which are
325: commonly seen.
326:
327:
328: At the same time, it is important to consider whether a significant
329: magnification bias could result from an underlying source luminosity
330: distribution (i.e.\ $\log N$--$\log L$) that is steep at its faint
331: end. \citet{ngg06,ngg08} have argued that this is the case, with
332: power-law index $\alpha \gtrsim -3$;
333: however, a statistical sample will be needed to test this
334: hypothesis which is based on energetic arguments. \citet{zd08} found
335: that using an internal shock model the faint end slope of the GRB
336: optical luminosity function can be fitted by a power law index with
337: $\alpha \approx -0.6$ , as also noticed by \cite{pvs07}, which would
338: be too flat to explain the discrepancy.
339:
340: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
341:
342: \subsection{An Origin Intrinsic to GRBs or Their Environments}
343: \label{sec:introintrin}
344:
345:
346: In view of the dramatic excess of $W_r(2796)>1$~{\AA} absorbers toward
347: GRBs and the problems with the explanations discussed above, we
348: should consider further the idea that the GRBs themselves or their
349: immediate environments are responsible for material observed
350: as {\MgII} absorption. Since the observed excess is apparent
351: over a substantial redshift range, the material would have to be
352: accelerated to at least $0.2$--$0.3c$ relative to the GRB host
353: galaxy. At first glance it might seem implausible that such
354: high velocity ejection could be consistent with such narrow
355: lines as are observed as components in the strong {\MgII}
356: absorbers \citep{ppc06}. However, it is important to note that
357: similar high velocity narrow absorption lines are known to
358: be ejected in the accretion disk winds of quasars \citep{mce07,gb+08,rhn07,nhb04, nmc07}.
359: This phenomenon also has yet to be explained by
360: accretion disk wind models. Clearly it is possible for dense, coherent
361: clouds of gas to hold together, even in mildly-relativistic
362: outflows, at least in this case. So it seems possible
363: that the same could be the case for GRBs.
364:
365: We know that the GRB forward shock reaches distances of $d\gtrsim
366: 10^{14}$\,cm from the central engine, after which it is decelerated
367: by the ambient medium. Over this distance it interacts
368: with the circumstellar (and interstellar) medium, generating a
369: relativistic shock that produces the afterglow emission via
370: synchrotron radiation of accelerated electrons. The
371: highly-relativistic motion of this shock, expected to have a Lorentz
372: factor of $\Gamma\gtrsim 300$ at early times and evolving according to
373: the Blandford-McKee solution (\citealt{bmc76}), sets severe constraints on
374: the properties of any burst-related gas that might be responsible for
375: absorption features in the afterglow spectrum.
376:
377:
378:
379: Beyond the region affected by the physical shock, GRB high-energy
380: photons are able to ionize gas within $d\simlt 10$\,pc from the
381: central engine, as demonstrated by \xray\ spectroscopy of GRB\,050904,
382: which exhibited a time-variable absorbing column \citep{clr07,whf07}.
383:
384: At distances greater than $100$~pc, there are signatures of absorption
385: by neutral hydrogen, dust, and metal enriched and molecular gas
386: \citep{psp09}. UV pumping of atomic states by the burst prompt and
387: early afterglow emission is estimated to occur at distances of $d\sim
388: 50$\,pc (for {\MgI} absorption in GRB\,050111; \citealt{pcb+06}) to
389: 1.7~kpc (for \NiII\ and \FeII\ absorption in GRB\,060418;
390: \citealt{vls07}).
391:
392: If the GRBs emission photoionizes {\MgII} clouds out to $d\gtrsim
393: 100$\,pc, this should lead to an increase in temperature to $T \gg
394: 10^4$\,K. It would thus be necessary to rely on the existence of a
395: dense, metal-rich cloud which is not penetrated by the relativistic
396: shock and which cools faster than the surrounding material. As
397: proposed by \citet{vlg07}, the progenitor's Wolf-Rayet wind is capable
398: of providing dense material at the required distance. Unfortunately,
399: the likely velocities are an order of magnitude less than is needed to
400: explain the velocities of the GRB excess absorbers considered here.
401:
402: The need to supply the near vicinity of GRBs with a copious amount of
403: iron-enriched, fast-moving gas provided one of the initial motivations
404: for the ``supranova'' model \citep{wdl02,kg02,vgl01}, which proposed
405: that a supernova mere weeks to months prior to the GRB was responsible
406: for dispersing this gas, and that the collapse of the metastable,
407: fast-spinning neutron star born in the supernova later generated the
408: burst itself. The original observational stimulus to these models was
409: provided by claims of detection of high equivalent-width iron emission
410: lines in afterglow \xray\ spectra \citep[][e.g.,]{pgg00}; these claims
411: are no longer favored \citep{shr05}. However, given that the model
412: produces fast-moving gas with speeds of $v\simlt 0.3c$ it may be worth
413: mentioning again in the present context.
414:
415: Even if it is necessary for a supernova to explode prior to the GRB,
416: to produce fast-moving gas along the line of sight, it may not be
417: necessary for the two to be directly related. \cite{wbh03} suggest
418: that GRB\,021004 was located in a region where the ISM was metal-rich
419: due to high velocity ejecta from a hydrogen-rich ``supernova'' that
420: exploded a few months before the GRB. In this particular case, the
421: detected Lyman-$\alpha$ components also indicate absorption by a
422: clumpy medium. This material has been accelerated then by the GRB
423: blast wave (see \cite{wdl02} for a detailed analysis). In the
424: limiting case where the absorbing gas must be relativistic, $v\sim
425: 0.3c$, it may be necessary to invoke a ``hypernova'' (SN\,1998bw-like
426: SN) rather than a more ordinary type of SN \citep{mdm02,mvd08,sbp08}.
427:
428:
429: Ultimately, the required apparent velocities needed to explain the
430: excess GRB absorbers are not unusual for quasar outflows. Intrinsic
431: narrow absorption lines, {\CIV} and {\SiIV}, have been observed in
432: quasar spectra \citep{mce07,gb+08,rhn07, nhb04, nmc07} showing
433: blueshifts consistent with an ejection velocity in the range
434: 5,000--70,000 $\rm{km} ~\rm{s}^{-1}$. A comprehensive model to
435: understand these intrinsic feature has still to be developed, but the
436: similarities with the GRB case are intriguing.
437:
438: Whether or not these ideas for fast-moving absorption systems are
439: reasonable, it is necessary in addition to understand how they fit
440: into the larger context of the GRB immediate environs and host galaxy,
441: and their associated absorption features. The bulk of the host galaxy
442: absorption is apparently coming from $>1$~kpc, that is, from the host
443: galaxy at large rather than the immediate GRB environment; yet it is
444: clearly affected by the GRB radiation field, at least in those cases
445: where metastable lines are observed. These systems are not counted in
446: the excess of very strong {\MgII} absorbers found by \cite{ppc06}, but
447: it is important to consider how the absorption signature from
448: high-velocity material more local to the GRB might compare to that of
449: the host galaxy.
450:
451:
452:
453: \subsection{Motivation for This Study}
454: \label{sec:motivation}
455:
456: We aim to consider the similarities and differences between the
457: absorption profiles of: (1) very strong {\MgII} absorbers found in
458: quasar spectra; (2) very strong {\MgII} absorbers found in GRB
459: spectra, which are a combination of the same objects found in quasar
460: spectra and a separate population yet to be understood; and (3) the
461: GRB host galaxy absorption. Naively we might expect that the
462: absorbers responsible for the factor of three excess of very strong
463: {\MgII} absorbers along GRB sightlines should differ in some way from
464: the usual quasar absorption line systems. We thus compare quasar
465: absorption line systems taken from the VLT/UVES archive with systems
466: seen in absorption in GRB spectra obtained with the same instrument
467: and configuration. We consider the kinematics of the {\MgII}
468: profiles; the ratios of {\MgII} equivalent widths to those of other
469: transitions, including dust tracers; the relationship between high and
470: low ionization transitions; and the possible presence of metastable
471: lines.
472:
473: In the next section, we describe the VLT/UVES datasets and our
474: analysis methods. In \S\ref{sec:results} we present the results of
475: our comparisons between the very strong {\MgII} absorbers seen toward
476: quasars and GRBs. In \S\ref{sec:discussion} we discuss the
477: implications of our result that there are no apparent differences
478: between these populations, in particular, considering the implications
479: for the hypothesis of an intrinsic origin for a majority of the GRB
480: absorbers. \S\ref{sec:summary} summarizes our conclusions.
481:
482:
483:
484: \section{Dataset and analysis}
485: \label{sec:data}
486:
487: Our GRB dataset consists of 6 GRBs observed with the Ultraviolet and
488: Visible Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) mounted on VLT. These include all
489: high resolution UVES spectra that were accessible to the public before
490: August 2008. The details of the observations, including the time that the
491: observations were obtained, the wavelength coverage, and the
492: exposure time, are listed in Table~1. In the last column of the table
493: we report previous works on the GRBs host galaxy.
494:
495: The quasar dataset included 81 QSOs, also obtained with UVES/VLT. These
496: quasars, listed in Table~1 of \cite{nmc07}, are those for which
497: data were available before June 2006. All observations of a given
498: quasar were combined with $S/N$ weighting, after scaling by the ratio of
499: the median ratio of the number of counts in the best exposure to the counts
500: in the given exposure.
501:
502: The GRB and quasars spectra were reduced using
503: standard UVES/VLT tools under the \emph{MIDAS} environment.
504: Because of possible variability, the different exposures of the
505: same GRB were not combined. A conversion to a heliocentric
506: vacuum scale was applied to the final spectra. Continuum
507: fitting and normalization was performed using the IRAF
508: SFIT procedure\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National
509: Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by AURA,
510: Inc., under cooperative agreement with NSF}, by dividing the
511: spectrum into 3000 pixels segments and fitting each segment
512: separately. The spectra were normalized by the resulting
513: continuum fit.
514:
515: The signal-to-noise ratio ratio (S/N) of the QSO spectra ranges from
516: $\sim20-100$ per pixel over most of the wavelength coverage. The GRB
517: spectra are somewhat noisier due to the limitations caused by the need
518: for rapid followup before the GRB fades. We searched both the QSO and
519: GRB spectra for {\MgII} doublets in regions redward of the {\Lya}
520: forest. Formally, we applied a $5\sigma$ detection limit to
521: absorption
522: features. We first assumed that every detection represents the \MgII ~$\lambda$2796
523: component of the {\MgII} doublet. A candidate {\MgII} system was considered if there was at least a 2.5 $\sigma$
524: detection of the corresponding $\lambda2803$ line for the same redshift.
525: We also compared the two line profiles, which should show similar subcomponents, and
526: then we calculated the equivalent width of the blue component via Voigt-profile fitting.
527:
528: Since our
529: focus is on very strong {\MgII} absorbers, with equivalent width
530: $W(\lambda2796)>1$ \AA, we are easily detecting all systems of
531: interest. For detected systems we then searched the expected
532: locations of other ions, including {\Lya}, {\Lyb},
533: {\MgI} $\lambda 2853$, {\FeII} $\lambda$2374, 2383, 2587,
534: and 2600, {\SiII} $\lambda$1260, {\CII} $\lambda$1335,
535: {\SiIVdblt}, {\CIVdblt} (the complete list can be found in Tables 3,
536: 4, and 5).
537:
538: Several of these transitions
539: are only covered for the very highest redshifts in our sample, and
540: thus could not be used for a statistical comparison.
541: We also considered dust tracers such as {\ZnII} $\lambda$2026,2063,
542: {\CrII} $\lambda$2056,2062,2066, {\NiII} $\lambda$1710,1752, and
543: {\MnII} $\lambda$2577,2594,2606. Whenever these transitions
544: are covered we measured the equivalent widths or $3\sigma$ equivalent-width
545: upper limits. When blends with transitions from systems at other
546: redshifts were identified we considered the measured equivalent width
547: as an upper limit.
548:
549:
550: \section{Results}
551: \label{sec:results}
552:
553: In our search of the 6 GRB spectra listed in Table 1, we found 8 $W_r(2796) > 1$~{\AA}
554: {\MgII} doublets. The redshift path length for our GRB search was 9.9, giving a
555: $dN/dz = 0.8\pm 0.3$, consistent with the value from \citet{ppc06}, obtained from 14 GRBs spectra. Similarly,
556: we identified $27$ $W_r(2796) > 1$~{\AA} {\MgII} doublets over a redshift
557: pathlength of 77.3 towards 81 QSOs. We derive $dN/dz = 0.35\pm 0.07$ for very strong
558: {\MgII} absorbers observed toward quasars, which is also consistent with the
559: much larger Sloan sample of \citet{ntr05}.
560: Some GRBs of our sample were already present in \citep{ppc06}, so this consistency is not
561: completely surprising.
562: System plots for the GRB absorbers, including
563: various transitions that provide useful constraints, are shown in velocity space in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1a}-h. Similar plots for the quasar absorbers are given in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig2a}-aa.
564: Basic information about the absorbers, for both GRBs and quasars, is given in Table~2.
565: Rest frame equivalent widths of selected transitions that were detected in one or more systems
566: are given in Tables~3, 4, and 5, along with equivalent width limits in cases where the transition
567: was covered but not detected.
568:
569:
570: The excess of strong {\MgII} absorbers along GRB lines of sight, as compared
571: to quasars, applies only for $W_r(2796) > 1$~{\AA}, though there appears to
572: be no greater an effect for even stronger systems \citep{ppc06}. For our
573: VLT/UVES samples we plot $W_r(2796)$ as a function of redshift in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}d.
574: The equivalent width distributions of the GRB and quasar {\MgII} absorbers
575: were compared (including only those with $W_r(2796) > 1$~{\AA}) using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov
576: test (K-S test) and it was found that they are consistent with being drawn from the same distribution ($p=12\%$).
577:
578: It is also important to consider whether the redshift
579: distributions of the two samples are the same, since $W_r(2796)>2$~{\AA}
580: {\MgII} absorbers are known to evolve in the sense that they are less common
581: at low redshift. A redshift difference could therefore lead to a difference
582: in the equivalent width distributions. We find, however, that a K-S test
583: shows that the redshifts of the GRB and quasar {\MgII} absorber
584: samples are consistent of being drawn from the same distribution ($p=30\%$).
585:
586: A difference in the redshift distributions between the two samples
587: could also be indicative of a concentration of GRB {\MgII} absorbers
588: at lesser ejection velocities. We therefore also show in
589: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig3}b the cumulative distributions of relative
590: velocities for the two samples, normalized to 1. We convert the
591: quasar {\MgII} absorber redshifts to relative velocities merely to
592: facilitate the comparison. There is no significant difference between
593: these distributions, though we note that only one of the GRB absorbers
594: has an apparent ejection velocity greater than $0.4c$.
595:
596: In this section we describe various comparisons of the kinematics and
597: the absorption in numerous chemical transitions for the 8 very strong
598: {\MgII} absorbers seen towards GRBs and the 27 seen towards quasars.
599: These detailed comparisons are facilitated by the high resolution of
600: the UVES/VLT spectra. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig4} shows the absorption profiles of the
601: {\MgII} $\lambda$2796 line for the 8 GRB {\MgII} systems in the left panel and
602: a selected sample of 8 quasar systems at similar redshift in the right panel. At face value, the
603: profiles are similar in terms of their equivalent widths and kinematic
604: structures. We will now examine this quantitatively, considering also
605: other elements and ions and their relation to the {\MgII} absorption properties.
606: We also note that there is no evidence for partial covering for the {\MgII} absorbers,
607: neither for the quasar or GRB cases. Most lines/components are saturated
608: over a finite extent in wavelength.
609:
610:
611: \subsection{{\MgII} Kinematics}
612: \label{sec:kinematics}
613:
614: We make quantitative comparisons of the {\MgII} $\lambda$2796 profiles
615: of the quasar and GRB absorbers using some of the same statistics that
616: \citet{mcl07} used to consider evolution of strong {\MgII} absorbers.
617: In addition to the equivalent widths, we describe the {\MgII}
618: $\lambda$2796 absorption profiles by several kinematic indicators,
619: namely, the full velocity range, $\Delta V$, kinematic spread,
620: $\omega_v$, and $D$-index, $D$. The full velocity range of a system
621: $\Delta V$ is the difference between the minimum and maximum
622: velocities at which absorption is detected while the kinematic spread,
623: as defined in detail in Appendix A of \citet{cv01}, is the optical depth weighted second moment of the
624: velocity. This kinematic indicator is particularly sensitive to weak
625: components at high velocities from the central absorption. Finally,
626: we estimated the $D$-index \citep{ell06,ell09}, defined as $D = 1000
627: \times (W_r(2796)[$\AA$])/ \Delta V [{\kms}]$, in order to indicate a
628: distinction between DLAs and lower column-density absorbers. $D$
629: gives an indication of the fraction of the profile that has saturated
630: absorption in {\MgII} $\lambda$2796.
631:
632: Figure~\ref{fig:fig5} presents the three kinematic indicators, $D$, $\omega_v$,
633: and $\Delta V$, for quasar and GRB {\MgII} $\lambda$2796 profiles as a function
634: of redshift. There is no evolution apparent in $\omega_v$ or $\Delta V$ for
635: the quasar population. There is a suggestion of an increase in $D$ with
636: decreasing $z$, but it is only significant at the 4\% level according to the Kendall
637: $\tau$ rank order test \citep{fgh}. If this trend is real it would
638: indicate that low-redshift, very-strong {\MgII} absorbers are more likely to have black
639: absorption across their profiles.
640: Figure~\ref{fig:fig5} also shows the dependence of $D$ on $W_r(2796)$.
641: There is no significant correlation between these two quantities.
642:
643: The main purpose of Figure~\ref{fig:fig5}, for the purpose of this study, is to compare the
644: quasar and GRB {\MgII} $\lambda$2796 profiles. We found no significant
645: differences between the distributions of $D$, $\omega_v$, or $\Delta V$
646: between the two populations as evaluated using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test.
647: In particular, a K-S test comparing the \emph{D}-values between GRBs and QSOs
648: are consistent of being drawn from the same distribution ($p=13.5\%$).
649:
650:
651: \subsection{Equivalent Width Comparisons}
652:
653: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig6} plots the rest-frame equivalent widths of selected transitions
654: versus those of {\MgII} $\lambda$2796. These particular transitions were selected for display because
655: they were accessible to analysis in our spectra and/or because they represent
656: important tracers of the physical conditions in the gas. Rest frame equivalent widths
657: and equivalent width limits for other transitions are given in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
658: The basic result from Fig.~\ref{fig:fig6} is that there are no significant differences
659: between the GRB and quasar samples. The {\MgI} $\lambda$2853, {\FeII} $\lambda$2600,
660: and {\FeII} $\lambda$2374 transitions are almost always covered and detected, but
661: the values for GRB absorbers span the range of values for quasar absorbers of similar $W_r(2796)$. The detection of {\MgI} absorption implies that the absorbing
662: gas cannot be located within 50~pc of the GRB afterglow \citep{pcb+06}.
663: We therefore note that several of the GRB absorbers are among the lowest {\MgI}
664: equivalent widths for our sample, though there is no statistically significant
665: difference in the overall distributions.
666:
667: The dust tracer {\MnII} $\lambda$2577 is covered in many cases, though
668: often not detected. Again, the GRB and quasar absorbers have a similar
669: distribution in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig6}. Dust will be discussed further in \S~\ref{sec:dust}.
670: The higher-ionization line {\AlIII} $\lambda$1855 is only
671: covered for the highest-redshift quasars and GRBs but it can be noted that the
672: few GRB absorbers do not deviate significantly from the quasar absorbers in their
673: high-ionization content. Details of the high-ionization kinematics, as traced by CIV, will be
674: discussed in \S~\ref{sec:highion}.
675:
676:
677:
678:
679: \subsection{{\FeII} to {\MgII} Ratio}
680: The ratio of {\FeII} to {\MgII} provides a good measure of the ionization parameters for
681: $\log U$ values greater than -4.0, where $U$ is the ionization potential for the particular transition. Also, if the Fe/Mg ratio is small it could suggest
682: that the gas is $\alpha$-enhanced, while if it is large it is clear that Type Ia supernovae
683: have played a role in enriching the gas. Alternatively, a lower {\FeII} to {\MgII}
684: ratio can arise in lower density gas, with a higher ionization parameter.
685: From Fig.~\ref{fig:fig7} we see, for the QSOs in particular, an evolution in the equivalent width ratio of
686: {\FeII} to {\MgII}, with an absence of small values at $z<1.2$ \citep{wcc09}.
687: We interpret this as an absence of $\alpha$-enhanced very-strong {\MgII} absorbers
688: at low redshifts due, presumably, to a diminishment of contributions of superwinds
689: to this class of absorber at $z<1.2$.
690:
691: There are not enough very strong {\MgII} absorbers found toward GRBs
692: to confirm whether the same trend in evolution of the {\FeII} to
693: {\MgII} ratio holds for the GRB absorbers. However, there are two
694: GRBs with among the lowest {\FeII} to {\MgII} equivalent width ratios
695: for low redshift absorbers (the GRB\,060418 system at $z=0.655$ and
696: the GRB\,050820 system at $z= 0.691$). If this tendency were
697: supported by a larger dataset, it would suggest that the low-redshift
698: GRB absorbers do indeed differ from the quasar population supporting
699: an origin at high redshift in the GRB environment. However, we do not
700: have sufficient GRB data at this time to support this conclusion.
701:
702: \subsection{Dust}
703: \label{sec:dust}
704:
705: To estimate the dust depletion we used the ratio Fe/Zn. This
706: quantity is a good tracer of depletion due to the diference in these
707: elements' refractory properties. As shown in \citet{sav06}, dust
708: depletion tends to be higher for a higher {\ZnII} column density.
709: Specifically, we used the equivalent width ratio of
710: {\FeII}~$\lambda$2374 to {\ZnII}~$\lambda$2026 as a dust indicator,
711: since we could directly measure this from our data. Although a column
712: density ratio would be more physically meaningful, our goal is only to
713: make a comparison between the GRB and quasar absorbers, so we have
714: chosen to use the direct observable.
715:
716:
717: Based on the derived values of, for exampple, $W_r(2374)/W_r(2026)$,
718: as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig8}, we find again that the quasar and GRB populations
719: are similar. However, the lowest data point, arising from the $z=1.106$ system
720: toward GRB 060418, deserves further comment. We confirm the finding of \cite{evl06}
721: that this absorber is particularly dusty. However, as mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:introdust},
722: this amount of dust in quasar {\MgII} absorbers would not be sufficient to prevent a typical quasar from
723: being observed in large-area surveys. It might be an indication of a particularly
724: unusual environment in that GRB absorber.
725:
726: \subsection{{\CIV} Kinematics and Phase Structure}
727: \label{sec:highion}
728:
729: Photoionization modeling of {\MgII} absorbers has shown that {\CIV} and {\MgII}
730: absorption does not usually arise in the same phase (gas with the same density
731: and temperature). The {\CIV} arises in a lower-density phase that produces
732: generally broader lines that are often aligned in velocity with components
733: arising in higher-density gas that gives rise to low-ionization absorption
734: \citep{dcb03,dcc03,mcd05}. {\CIV} components without associated {\MgII}
735: are also often detected at other velocities.
736: There also exists a subset of strong {\MgII} systems, so-called {\CIV}-deficient
737: absorption, with only weak or even non-detected {\CIV} \citep{cmc00}.
738:
739: The very strong quasar {\MgII} absorbers in our sample, with {\CIV} covered, share
740: those general features. \cite{cmc00}
741: found two different categories of very strong {\MgII} absorbers: one in which
742: the {\CIV} absorption was also very strong (called double), interpreted as consistent
743: with galaxy pairs and one in which the {\CIV} was typical of that found in
744: $W_r(2796) < 1$~{\AA} strong {\MgII} absorbers (called DLA/{\HI}-rich), consistent
745: with a particularly dense region producing {\MgII} within a normal galaxy and
746: its halo. Unfortunately, in only three GRB absorbers from our sample does
747: the {\CIV} coverage provide information. In the $z=1.7976$ absorber toward
748: GRB 060607 the {\CIV} traces the {\MgII} in velocity, but two phases are
749: required to explain the relative strengths. There is also a separate {\CIV}
750: component in this absorber without associated detected {\MgII}. The $z=1.6015$ system
751: toward GRB 021004 has quite a noisy spectrum, but it appears that {\CIV}
752: is only detected in the bluer components of the system. The same phenomenon is observed for the {\AlIII} associated with that system.
753: Finally, with the $z=1.38$ system toward GRB 021004, again the spectrum
754: is noisy, but it appears that the {\CIV} roughly traces the
755: {\MgII}.
756: We conclude that the GRB {\CIV} absorber profiles appear to have similar kinematic properties to
757: the quasar absorber {\CIV} profiles.
758: It is interesting to note that the \emph{dN/dz} for such highly ionized transition does not
759: show significant difference between GRB and Quasars samples, as shown by \cite{tlp07}.
760:
761: \subsection{Fine Structure and Metastable Transitions}
762: \label{sec:fine}
763:
764: It is common to detect fine structure transitions in the highest-redshift -- presumed host galaxy -- absorbers of GRBs. These
765: host galaxy absorbers are often DLAs, and are characterized by strong
766: low-ionization absorption with accompanying high-ionization absorption.
767: Among the six GRBs that we have studied here, GRB\,050730 \citep{sve05}, GRB\,060418 \citep{vls07} and
768: GRB\,050820 \citep{pro06, bpf05, vls07} have this
769: type of absorber at the GRB redshift. On the other
770: hand, for GRB\,060607, \cite{pdr08} have reported host galaxy absorbers
771: with only high ionization absorption features. It is possible
772: the host galaxy absorption for GRB\,060607 might actually be at a lower redshift, $z=1.799$
773: and the detected {\CIV} absorption at $z=3.08$ might be due to material moving with positive
774: relative velocity along the line of sight towards the GRB at the host redshift.
775:
776: In the case of our six GRBs, fine structure transitions have been reported
777: in GRB\,060418, GRB\,021004, and GRB\,050730.
778: Ordinary intervening DLAs often have detected {\CII}$^*$, but do not have
779: the {\SiII}$^*$ and {\FeII}$^*$ transitions that are evident in some of these GRB
780: hosts. Two major mechanisms have been discussed for producing these
781: fine structure lines: UV pumping or collisional excitation. The UV
782: pumping mechanism, generally thought to be more likely \citep{pcb+06},
783: requires the host absorber to be located within the same galaxy as the
784: GRB..
785:
786: If the excess of strong {\MgII} absorbers in GRBs are proximate to the GRB
787: radiation field, we might
788: expect to observe fine structure transitions from them as well.
789: We find that these fine structure transitions are not detected in any of
790: the cases here. Fig.~\ref{fig:fig9} shows an example of the regions where we
791: would expect to detect {\FeII}* and {\NiII}* for the $z=1.106$ system toward GRB\,060418,
792: and they are not detected. We conclude that if the excess absorption arises
793: in material intrinsic to the GRB, it must have properties distinct from the
794: ``host galaxy absorbers'', for example, it might be at a closer location
795: but have a much higher density, as we discuss further in \S~\ref{sec:discussion}.
796:
797: Absorption in the meta-stable levels of {\FeII}$^*$ and {\NiII}$^*$ was detected in the
798: host galaxy absorption associated with GRB\,060418, providing further evidence
799: that a UV pumping mechanism is favored over collisional excitation \citep{vls07}.
800: A distance of at least 1.7~kpc was derived for the absorber in this case, using
801: the variability of the fine structure and metastable transitions.
802: We have examined the metastable transitions for all of the very strong {\MgII}
803: absorbers in our GRB sample and do not detect any of these
804: transitions.
805:
806:
807:
808:
809: \section{Discussion of Intrinsic Origin of Excess GRB Very Strong {\MgII} Absorbers}
810: \label{sec:discussion}
811:
812: Our conclusion is that there is no significant evidence in support of
813: a difference between the populations of very strong {\MgII} absorbers found
814: toward GRBs as compared to quasars. Any such difference
815: could have been used to argue for a difference in the nature of
816: the GRB absorbers. Given the outstanding issues with explanations involving
817: dust bias, gravitational lensing, and partial beam covering, as discussed in
818: \S~\ref{sec:intro}, we would expect such a difference to arise from an
819: origin close to the GRB. The question now is
820: how we should interpret the negative result, that is, an absence of any
821: difference in the observed properties of GRB and quasar absorbers.
822:
823:
824: The most straightfoward explanation would be to say that material
825: ejected from the GRB environment either does not exist or does not
826: produce very strong {\MgII} absorption. Indeed, the required velocities
827: up to $0.3$ or $0.4c$ are a challenge to models of the regions surrounding
828: GRBs.
829:
830:
831: We could also say that, in view of the small sample size of GRB absorbers
832: and the great diversity in the population of very strong {\MgII} absorbers
833: toward quasars, a difference would be hard to recognize.
834: Another option is to embrace the
835: similarity in physical conditions of the two population of {\MgII}
836: absorbers, quasars and GRB, and consider whether there could be
837: similarities between their environments even in a model where
838: GRB absorbers have an intrinsic origin.
839:
840: As described in \S~\ref{sec:intro}, very strong {\MgII} absorbers toward quasars
841: are thought to arise from a mix of processes, with significant contributions from
842: dense star-forming regions and from condensations in superwinds
843: \citep{rtn06,ntr05,bmp06}. Some GRBs also are thought to arise
844: within star forming regions. It is intriguing to note that in the nearby
845: universe, the Carina nebula, an indication of the structure of the
846: interstellar medium near O stars, has absorption profiles very similar
847: to those of some of the very strong {\MgII} absorbers we are studying
848: \citep{wfc02}.
849: Perhaps similarities in the quasar intervening and GRB absorbers
850: are the result of similar processes being involved.
851:
852:
853:
854: On the other hand, it is worth noting that \citet{hfs06} have recently
855: identified observational evidence for GRBs being associated with
856: ``runaway'' type massive stars, rather than those that remain near
857: their stellar nursery until death. At the same time, the host
858: galaxies of these GRBs are Wolf-Rayet galaxies with luminous super
859: star clusters and galaxy-scale outflows.
860:
861:
862: Of course, perhaps the most important difference between the
863: intervening quasar absorbers and the immediate vicinity of the GRB is
864: supplied by the intense radiation of the GRB itself. We have noted
865: that there is an expectation that the GRB radiation field should
866: destroy {\MgI} within tens of parsecs. \cite{flv08} proposed that
867: high velocity components ($500$--$5000$~{\kms} relative to the GRB)
868: detected in {\CIV} absorption could be the result of Wolf-Rayet winds
869: on such small scales. They suggest that only the cases without
870: detected low-ionization absorption would be consistent with an origin
871: in the immediate GRB environment. The GRB radiation field should also
872: lead to populating the fine structure levels of various transitions at
873: distances up to the kiloparsec scale, thus producing absorbers
874: consistent with the claimed host galaxy absorption of many GRBs.
875: These host galaxy absorbers are close to the redshift of the GRB and
876: distinct from the absorbers that would produce the excess of very
877: strong {\MgII} absorption toward GRBs. There may seem to be little
878: parameter space left for absorbers near to the GRB to have the
879: physical conditions required.
880:
881:
882: However, one important analogy, already mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:introintrin}, makes us pause
883: before dismissing an origin for the excess GRB absorbers close to the GRB. There is a
884: population of intrinsic narrow absorption line systems observed in quasar spectra which
885: appear to have their origin in the accretion disk wind of the quasar. In many cases these absorbers
886: have relativistic ejection velocities, and they have ionization parameters and kinematic
887: structures that are virtually indistinguishable from intervening absorbers, particularly
888: {\CIV} absorbers. In some cases, related low-ionization gas is detected. The obvious
889: similarity in properties between these intrinsic quasar absorbers and some intervening quasar
890: absorption line systems is despite the location of the intrinsic absorbers in the immediate
891: vicinity of the quasar radiation flux. In order that they have the same ionization
892: level they have to have gas densities many orders of magnitude higher than those in
893: intervening absorbers. Despite their different acceleration mechanism and environment,
894: their kinematic properties are somehow similar to those of the intervening absorbers. The only way to distinguish intrinsic from intervening narrow absorption line systems is through partial
895: covering analysis, which is observed in only a subset of the intrinsic population \citep{mec07}.
896: The other members of that intrinsic population remain hidden in intervening
897: quasar absorption line samples.
898:
899:
900: We conclude by considering
901: the requirements in order that excess very strong {\MgII} absorbers seen
902: toward GRBs arise in the GRB environment/host galaxy. The general similarity
903: between the kinematics of the {\MgII} profiles of GRB and quasar absorbers
904: indicates that there are similar physical processes involved which are
905: likely to be related to star formation. There is a requirement that the
906: kinematic spread is large and, specifically, that the apparent ejection velocity is
907: relativistic. Superwinds are not adequate for the latter, but
908: interaction of the GRB shock wave with pre-existing
909: material around it due to ``hypernova'' explosion could
910: produce material with the required apparent ejection velocity.
911:
912:
913: To achieve relativistic velocities, it seems the absorbing material must
914: be relatively close to the GRB radiation field, yet it must still be
915: possible for {\MgI} to exist. For this, it seems that high densities
916: and shielding would be necessary, in analogy with the situation for
917: intrinsic narrow absorption lines in quasars. Also, we need to understand why
918: absorption is not observed in fine structure transitions in view of
919: the proximity to the GRB. Clearly, these requirements are restrictive
920: and lead to some skepticism about an intrinsic origin. On the other
921: hand, there is currently no more obvious explanation for the puzzling
922: excess of very strong {\MgII} absorbers toward GRBs.
923:
924: In the small sample of GRB absorbers that we examined, we saw no clear
925: difference with the quasar absorber population, but given the wide range
926: of quasar absorber properties, a larger sample of GRB absorbers might
927: be needed to see any such trend, if it is present. For example, perhaps some of the GRB absorbers that we have examined have particularly small
928: {\MgI} equivalent widths. Given the small number of high-quality datasets in the present sample, detailed studies of the high resolution profiles
929: of GRB absorbers are quite worthwhile to pursue for future GRBs. As here, future studies should take
930: into account all of the observed chemical transitions and their kinematics.
931: Through such an expanded sample, it may be finally possible to tell if
932: the excess GRB {\MgII} absorbers are telling us something about intervening
933: absorbers or if they are telling us about some component of the
934: environment of the GRB.
935:
936:
937:
938: \section{Summary of Results}
939: \label{sec:summary}
940:
941: We compared the properties of 8 very strong {\MgII} absorbers ($W_r(2796)>1$~{\AA})
942: observed along 6 GRB line of sights to the properties of absorbers at similar redshifts along 81 quasar line of sights. Our aim was to investigate if the
943: reported excess of $[dN/dz]_{\rm{GRB}} \approx 3 \times [dN/dz]_{\rm{QSO}}$ found by
944: \cite{ppc06} is caused by excess material in the immediate proximity of the
945: GRB. More specifically, \cite{ppc06} found 14 absorbers toward 14 GRBs,
946: where 3.8 would be expected from quasar statistics. Similarly, we would expect
947: $\sim 2$ very strong {\MgII} absorbers toward the GRBs in our sample and we
948: find $8$. This is not an independent datapoint from \cite{ppc06}
949: since there is overlap between our samples, moreover the probability of
950: us finding $3$ or $4$ very strong {\MgII} absorbers in our GRB sample is
951: not negligible. So, among the $8$ absorbers in our GRB sample, we might
952: expect about half should have an origin in the GRB environment if an intrinsic
953: hypothesis is valid. From Table.~\ref{table:tab2}, we see that such an interpretation of the excess
954: would require relativistic velocities, to at least $v \approx 0.3c$.
955:
956: Our challenge, then, was to find differences between
957: an unknown subset of $4$ or $5$ of the $8$ GRB absorbers and the $27$ quasar
958: absorbers which themselves constitute a varied sample of intervening
959: environments and processes. Nonetheless, in the intense radiation field of
960: a GRB, and in regions that are directly associated with active star formation, we might
961: expect some differences. If the material is directly
962: related to the GRB, and ejected relativistically from its immediate environment,
963: we might expect strong kinematic and ionization differences compared to ordinary
964: intervening absorbers.
965:
966: In our analysis of $8$ GRB and $27$ quasar {\MgII} absorption systems we have
967: found no statistically significant differences:
968:
969: \begin{enumerate}
970: \item{The kinematics of the {\MgII} $\lambda$2796 profiles do not differ between
971: the two samples. This is apparent by visual comparison in Figure~\ref{fig:fig4},
972: and confirmed by comparison of the kinematic spread, full velocity range, and $D$-index
973: quantitative measures of kinematics, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fig5};}
974:
975: \item{The equivalent widths of low-ionization transitions ({\MgI} and {\FeII}),
976: dust tracers ({\CrII} and {\MnII}), and intermediate/high-ionization transitions
977: ({\AlIII} and {\CIV}) cover the same range of values for GRB absorbers as for
978: quasar absorbers. The equivalent width distributions of {\MgII} $\lambda$2796
979: were not different between the two samples (among the $W_r(2796)>1$~{\AA} absorbers),
980: so it is meaningful to compare the absolute values of the equivalent widths of
981: other transitions, rather than ratios.
982: Many of the other transitions were only covered for the higher-redshift GRBs in our sample, and so the statistics for this comparison were
983: more limited. We do note that several GRBs have particularly weak {\MgI}
984: compared to quasar absorbers. If this is found to be common in a larger
985: sample it would be of great interest, since it is expected that {\MgI}
986: should not survive within 50~pc of a GRB \citep{pcb+06};}
987:
988: \item{The distributions of the ratios of {\FeII} to {\MgII} equivalent widths
989: did not differ significantly between the two samples. This statement applies to saturated
990: {\FeII} transitions as well as to {\FeII} $\lambda$2374, which was rarely saturated
991: for these systems. There is a possible evolutionary trend found in this ratio for
992: quasar very strong {\MgII} absorber, with few large ratios of {\FeII} to
993: {\MgII} at $z<1.2$; the GRB sample is not large enough to
994: determine wether a similar trend holds;}
995:
996: \item{We used the ratio of the equivalent widths of various {\FeII} transitions
997: to that of {\ZnII} $\lambda$2026 as an indication of the Fe/Zn
998: ratio, which indicates dust depletion since zinc depletes more readily than
999: iron. There is no statistical difference in the distributions, although one
1000: GRB absorber according to this metric ($z=1.106$ toward GRB\,060418) is confirmed to be particularly dusty
1001: \citep{evl06};}
1002:
1003: \item{The {\CIV} doublet is covered for three of the GRB absorbers in our sample,
1004: and that region of the spectrum is noisy for two of the three. In these cases we find that kinematics and strength of the {\CIV} absorption is not exceptional, compared to the range of these properties among the quasar absorbers;}
1005:
1006: \item{Fine structure and metastable transitions were not detected for any
1007: of the GRB absorbers in our sample. The fine structure lines
1008: are typically detected in association with the absorption systems that are believed to represent
1009: the GRB host galaxies. Such host galaxy absorption systems are observed and interpreted as occurring in regions tens of parsecs to several kiloparsecs
1010: from the GRB, where gas has been excited by UV pumping from the burst prompt emission or the early
1011: afterglow emission \citep{pcb+06, twl07,
1012: vls07}. The absence of
1013: such fine structure lines in our sample suggests that a different region, or
1014: gas with a different density, must be responsible for the intervening very strong {\MgII}
1015: absorption seen in many GRB afterglow spectra.}
1016: \end{enumerate}
1017:
1018:
1019: \acknowledgments{
1020: This work was supported by the Swift Guest Investigator Program under NASA Grant NNX08AN86G. Work of authors Charlton and Narayanan has been funded by NASA grant NAG5-6399 and National Science Foundation grant AST-04-07138. The work was enabled by observations made with the ESO Telescopes at Paranal Observatories, and relied heavily on the public VLT data archive provided by ESO, and on the MIDAS UVES pipeline software.}
1021:
1022:
1023: %%%%%%%% %%% tabella STARTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1024:
1025:
1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% GRB log %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1027: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
1028: \tablecolumns{5}
1029: \tablewidth{0pc}
1030: \tablecaption{Observation log}
1031: \tablehead{
1032: %\cline{2-4} \\
1033: \colhead{GRB} & \colhead{UT start} & \colhead{Exposure (min)} & \colhead{coverage(nm)} & \colhead{References}}
1034: \startdata
1035: 021004& 2002, April 5.22 & 30 &376-498;670-852; 866-1043 & (1)(2)\\
1036: 021004& 2002, April 5.23 & 30 &302-392;473-580;576-680 & (1)(2)\\
1037: 021004& 2002, April 5.23 & 10 &565-660 & (1)(2)\\
1038: 021004& 2002, April 5.24 & 60 &452-560;568-665 & (1)(2)\\
1039: 021004& 2002, April 5.25 & 60 & 302-392;473-580;576-680 & (1)(2)\\
1040: 021004& 2002, April 5.28 & 60 &376-498;670-852;866-1043 &(1)(2)\\
1041: \cline{1-5}
1042: 050730& 2005, July 31.01 & 3 &302-392;473-580;576-680 &(2)(3)\\
1043: 050730& 2005, July 31.04 & 5 &373-505;665-854;864-1008 &(2)(3)\\
1044: \cline{1-5}
1045: 050820& 2005, August 20.29 & 30 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (2)(4)\\
1046: 050820& 2005, August 20.32 & 30 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (2)(4)\\
1047: 050820& 2005, August 20.35 & 40 &373-505;665-854;864-1008 &(2)(4) \\
1048: \cline{1-5}
1049: 050922C& 2005, September 22.98 & 50 &302-392;473-580;576-680 & (2)(4)(5) \\
1050: 050922C& 2005, September 23.02 & 50 &373-505;665-854;864-1008 & (2)(4)(5)\\
1051: \cline{1-5}
1052: 060418& 2006, April 14.13 & 3 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (6)\\
1053: 060418& 2006, April 14.14 & 5 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (6)\\
1054: 060418& 2006, April 14.15 & 10 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (6)\\
1055: 060418& 2006, April 14.15 & 20 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (6)\\
1056: 060418& 2006, April 14.17 & 40 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (6)\\
1057: 060418& 2006, April 14.20 & 80 &376-498;670-852;866-1043& (6) \\
1058: \cline{1-5}
1059: 060607& 2006, June 7.22 & 3 &328-452;452-560;568-665 & (2)(4)\\
1060: 060607& 2002, June 7.23 & 5 &328-452;452-560;568-665 &(2)(4) \\
1061: 060607& 2002, June 7.23 & 10 &328-452;452-560;568-665 &(2)(4)\\
1062: 060607& 2002, June 7.24 & 20 &328-452;452-560;568-665 &(2)(4)\\
1063: 060607& 2002, June 7.25 & 40 & 328-452;452-560;568-6650 &(2)(4)\\
1064: 060607& 2002, June 7.28 & 80 & 376-498;670-852;866-1043 &(2)(4)\\
1065: 060607& 2002, June 7.28 & 42 &376-498;670-852;866-1043 &(2)(4)\\
1066:
1067: \enddata
1068: \tablecomments{References are numbered as follows: (1) \cite{fdl05}, (2) \cite{flv08}; (3) \cite{dfm07}; (4) \cite{ssv07}; (5) \cite{pwf08}; (6) \cite{vls07}}
1069: \end{deluxetable}
1070:
1071:
1072: %%%%%%%%%%%%% GRB intervening systems
1073: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1074: \tablecolumns{4}
1075: \tablewidth{0pc}
1076: \tablecaption{Systems}
1077: \tablehead{
1078: %\cline{2-4} \\
1079: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{$z_{\rm{obj}}$ } & \colhead{$z_{\rm{sys}}$ } & \colhead{$\Delta v/c$ }}
1080:
1081: \startdata
1082: GRB060418 (1)& 1.49& 0.6021& 0.41\\
1083: GRB060418 (2)& 1.49& 0.6554& 0.38\\
1084: GRB060418 (3)& 1.49& 1.1066& 0.16\\
1085: GRB021004 (1)& 2.328& 1.3800 & 0.32 \\
1086: GRB021004 (2)& 2.328& 1.6015& 0.24\\
1087: GRB050820 (1)& 2.612& 0.6910& 0.64\\
1088: GRB050820 (2)& 2.612& 1.4280& 0.37\\
1089: GRB060607& 3.08& 1.7996& 0.36\\
1090: %GRB050730& 3.967& 2.2527& 0.40\\
1091: \cline{1-4}
1092: 3C336 (1) & 0.9273 & 0.6561 &0.1505\\
1093: 3C336 (2) & 0.9273 & 0.8913 &0.0188\\
1094: Q1229-021 & 1.038 & 0.3951 & 0.3618 \\
1095: Q1127-145 & 1.18 & 0.3127 & 0.4677\\
1096: %Q0952+179 & 1.472 & 0.2378 & 0.599&\\
1097: Q1629+120 &1.795 & 0.9002 &0.3677\\
1098: Q0328-272 &1.816 &1.1228 &0.2753\\
1099: Q1331+170 &2.084 &1.7766 &0.1046\\
1100: HE1341-1020 &2.134 &1.2767 &0.3091\\
1101: PKS0237-23 (1) &2.224 &1.3651 &0.3003\\
1102: PKS0237-23 (2) &2.224 &1.6723 &0.1855\\
1103: Q0551-3637 &2.318 &1.9609 &0.1134\\
1104: Q0109-3518 &2.35 &1.3496 &0.3405\\
1105: HE1122-1648 & 2.4 & 0.6822 &0.6066\\
1106: HE2217 &2.406 &1.6922 &0.2309\\
1107: Q0453-423 (1) &2.66 & 0.7261 &0.6361\\
1108: Q0453-423 (2) &2.66 & 1.1498 &0.3642\\
1109: Q0100+130 (1) & 2.681 & 0.2779 & 0.7848\\
1110: Q0100+130 (2) & 2.681 & 1.7969 & 0.2679\\
1111: Q0002 (1) &2.76 &0.8366 &0.6147\\
1112: Q0002 (2) &2.76 &2.3019 &0.1292\\
1113: Q1151+068 &2.762 &1.8191 &0.2808\\
1114: Q0112+300 &2.81 & 1.2452 & 0.4800\\
1115: Q0130-4021 &3.03 &0.9315 &0.6264\\
1116: HE0940 &3.083 &1.7891 &0.3636\\
1117: CTQ0298 &3.37 &1.0387 &0.6427\\
1118: %Q0300+0048 &0.8919 &0.8919 &&\\
1119: Q1418-064 &3.689 &1.4578 &0.5689\\
1120: Q1621-0042 &3.7 &1.1335 &0.6583\\
1121: \enddata
1122: \label{table:tab2}
1123: \tablecomments{\footnotesize {List of GRB and QSO systems identified, in increasing object redshift order, with rest frame EW($\lambda2796>1$ \AA). The redshift of the object ($z_{\rm obj}$) is the quasar or GRB redshift, estimated by emission lines (in the QSO case) or multiple absorption features associated with the host galaxy redshift (for the GRB). The system redshifts are estimated combining information from different features aligned with the strong \MgII systems. The last column reports the apparent ``ejection'' velocity, estimated assuming that the absorbing system is actually moving at a positive velocity respect the quasar or the GRB host galaxy.} }
1124: \end{deluxetable}
1125:
1126:
1127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Equivalent widths
1128:
1129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Equivalent widths part 1 From MgII2796 to Zn2063
1130:
1131: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccccccccc}
1132: %\topmargin 3.0in
1133: %\oddsidemargin -1.0in
1134:
1135: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1136: \rotate
1137:
1138: \tablecolumns{12}
1139: \tablewidth{-9in}
1140: \tablecaption{Equivalent widths of the transitions}
1141: \tablehead{
1142: %\cline{2-4} \\
1143: \colhead{System} & \colhead{$z_{\rm{sys}}$ } & \colhead{MgII2796 } & \colhead{MgII2803} & \colhead{MgII2853} & \colhead{FeII2383} & \colhead{FeII2374 } & \colhead{FeII2587 } & \colhead{FeII2600} & \colhead{MnII2577} & \colhead{MnII2594} & \colhead{MnII2606 } }
1144: \startdata
1145: GRB060418 (1) & 0.6021 & $1.366(26)$ & $1.242(24)$ &...&$0.932(25)$& ... & $0.648(12)$ & $0.831(09)$ & $0.159 (14) $ & $0.099(114) $ & $ 0.055(07)$\\
1146: GRB060418 (2) & 0.6554 & $ 1.052(18)$ & $0.836(21)$ &$0.053 (10)$& $0.687(26)$&$0.117(13)$& $0.295(17)$ & $0.436 (19)$ & $<0.014$ & $<0.027 $ & $<0.023 $ \\
1147: GRB050820 (1) & 0.6910 & $2.950(03)$ & $2.350 (05)$ &$1.435(45)$& $0.991(23)$& $0.449(18)$ & $0.743 (37)$ & ... & $1.329 (23) $ & $<0.065 $ & $< 0.085 $\\
1148: GRB060418 (3) & 1.1066 & $ 1.855(13)$ & $1.447(14)$ &$0.503 (12)$&$...$&$1.115(14)$& $0.486(15)$ & $0.699 (10)$ & $1.112 (12) $ & $0.106 (10) $ & $ 0.090 (09)$ \\
1149: GRB021004 (1) & 1.3800 & $1.759(23)$ & $1.475(23)$ &$0.120(15)$& $0.859(22)$&$0.559(18)$ & $0.617(19)$ & $0.806(20)$ & $<0.023 $ & $0.294(24) $ & $ <0.090$ \\
1150: GRB050820 (2) & 1.4280 & $1.170(03)$ & $1.070(03)$ &$0.231(01)$& $0.485(10)$&$0.208(08)$ & $0.365(08)$ & $0.501(09)$ & $<0.008 $ & $<0.017 $ & $ <0.006$ \\
1151: GRB021004 (2) & 1.6015 & $1.507(47)$ & $1.207(26)$ &$<0.159 $& $0.786(23)$&$0.071(13)$ & $0.306(12)$ & $0.677(17)$ & $<0.029 $ & $<0.018$ & $ <0.018$ \\
1152: GRB060607 & 1.7996 & $1.898(10)$ & $1.603(14)$ &$<0.011$& ...& ... & $0.109(06)$ & $0.859(09)$ & $<0.005 $ & $<0.011 $ & $ 0.016(10)$ \\
1153: %GRB050730 & 2.2527 & $1.331(18)$ & $0.724(12)$ &$0.689(25)$&$0.513(20)$& $0.218(07)$ & $0.367(09)$ & $0.424(08)$ & $<0.006 $ & $0.090(09) $ & $ 0.031(06)$ \\
1154:
1155: \cline{1-12}
1156: %Q0952+179 & 0.23788 & $1.107 \pm 0.005$ & $1.037 \pm 0.006$ &$0.361 \pm 0.007$& ...& ... & $0.648 \pm 0.012$ & $0.838 \pm 0.009$ & $0.159 \pm 0.014 $ & $0.099 \pm 0.114 $ & $0.055\pm 0.007$&... & ... \\
1157: Q0100+130 (1) & 0.27795 & $2.316 (13)$ & $ 2.246 (17)$ &$0.988 (11)$&...&... & ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\
1158: Q1127-145 & 0.3127 & $1.706 (04)$ & $1.651 (05)$ & $1.027 (05) $ &$ 1.105(16)$ & $0.843 (19) $& $1.191(05)$ & $1.321(06)$ & $0.264 (07)$ & $0.199 (08)$ & $0.159 (09)$ \\
1159: Q1229-021 & 0.3951 & $2.064(06)$ & $ 1.792 (05)$ &$0.619 (05)$& ...& ... & $0.867(08)$ & $1.242 (09)$&$0.282(09)$ & $0.224(08)$ &$0.192 (08)$ \\
1160: 3C336 (1) & 0.6561 & $1.428 (09)$ & $ 1.290 (09)$ &$0.213(09)$ & $1.055 (09)$&$0.480 (10)$ &$0.797(10)$ & $1.112(10)$ & $0.061(09)$ &$0.037(08)$ &$<0.009$ \\
1161: HE1122 & 0.6822 & $1.712(02)$ & $1.569 (02)$ &$1.431 (03)$&...&$0.397(01)$ &$0.816 (01)$ & $1.277(01)$ & $0.052(01)$& $0.029(01)$ &$0.020(01)$ \\
1162: Q0453 (1) & 0.7261 & $1.366(02)$ & $ 1.268 (02)$ &$0.455 (02)$&...&... & $0.710(01)$ &$1.052(01)$ & $0.309(02)$&$0.078(02)$ &$0.055(02)$ \\
1163: Q0002 (1) & 0.8366 & $4.431(02)$ & $ 3.954 (02)$ &$1.586(02)$&$3.093(03)$&... & $1.833(03)$ &$ 2.994(02)$ & $0.052(02)$ & $0.028(01)$ &$0.021(01)$ \\
1164: 3C336 (2) & 0.8913 & $1.519(06)$ & $ 1.392 (06)$ &... &...&$0.397(09)$ & $0.744 (07)$ & $1.114(07)$& $0.031 (05)$ & $0.026 (04) $ &$<0.003$ \\
1165: %Q0300+0048 & 0.8919 & $1.171 \pm 0.018$ & $ 0.874 \pm 0.012$ &$0.334 \pm 0.010$&...&... & ...& $0.349\pm 0.008$ & ... & $<0.024$ &$<0.004$ &$<0.010$ & $<0.008$\\
1166: Q1629+120 & 0.90025 & $1.022 (07)$ & $ 0.772 (05)$ &$0.184 (06)$& ...&... &$0.383(07)$ & $0.702(09) $ & $0.014(03)$ & $0.018(04)$ &$<0.003$ \\
1167: Q0130-4021 & 0.9315 & $1.230(06)$ & $ 0.890(01)$ &...&...&... & $0.152(05)$ & $0.289(04)$ & $<0.002$ & ... &$<0.002$ \\
1168: CTQ0298 & 1.0387 & $1.555 (06)$ & $ 1.279(06)$ &$0.118 (05)$&$1.685(09)$&... & $1.213(08)$ &$0.744(04)$ & ... & ... &$<0.004$ \\
1169: Q0328-272 & 1.1228 & $1.219(11)$ & $ 1.186 (10)$ &$0.081(06)$&$0.912(08)$&$0.394(08)$ & $0.599(07)$ & $0.906(07)$ & $<0.007$ &$<0.005$ &$<0.004$ \\
1170: Q1621-0042 & 1.1335 & $3.168 (04)$ & $ 2.711 (04)$ &$0.397(04)$&...&... & ... & ... & $<0.002$ & ... &... \\
1171: Q0453 (2) & 1.1498 & $4.445(02)$ & $ 3.987 (02)$ &$1.521(02)$&$3.573(02)$&$1.778(02)$ & $2.685(02)$ & $3.653(01)$ & $0.412(02)$ & $0.309(01)$ &$0.222(02)$ \\
1172: Q0112+0300 & 1.2452 & $3.099(19)$ & $ 2.755(14)$ &$0.953 (22)$&$2.187(15)$ &$0.960(18)$ & ... & $0.886(44)$ & ... & ... &$<0.012$ \\
1173: HE1341 & 1.2767 & $1.450 (01)$ & $ 1.330 (02)$ &$0.300(01)$& $0.802(07)$&$0.300(01)$ & $0.540(01)$ & $0.814(07)$ & $<0.002$ &$<0.003$ &$<0.002$ \\
1174: Q0109 & 1.3496 & $1.980 (02)$ & $ 1.582(02)$ &$0.286(02)$&$0.839(02)$&$0.124(02)$ & $0.352(02)$ & $0.798(02)$ & $<0.001$ & $<0.002$ &$<0.002$ \\
1175: PKS0237 (1) & 1.3651 & $1.856 (01)$ & $ 1.646(01)$ &$0.268(02)$&$0.885(01)$&$0.206(01)$ & $0.409(01)$ & $0.870(01)$& $0.008(01)$ & $0.007(01)$&$0.003(01)$ \\
1176: Q1418-064 & 1.458 & $2.155 (09)$ & $ 1.843 (11)$ &$0.159 (07)$&...&... & ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\
1177: PKS0237 (2) & 1.672334 & $1.283 (01)$ & $ 1.071(02)$ &...&$0.519(01)$&$0.256(01)$ & $0.425(01)$ & $0.529(01)$& $0.030(01)$ & $0.031(01)$ &$0.025(01)$ \\
1178: HE2217 & 1.6922 & $1.681 (01)$ & $ 1.235 (01)$ &$0.051(01)$&$0.332(01)$&$0.045(01)$ & $0.085(01)$ &$0.361(01)$ & $<0.004$ & $<0.002$ &$<0.002$ \\
1179: Q1331+170 & 1.777 & $1.207 (02)$ & $ 1.102 (03)$ &$0.334(03) $&...& ... & $0.701(02)$ & $0.837(02)$ & $0.054(03)$ & $0.519(04)$ &... \\
1180: HE0940 & 1.789 & $1.129 (02)$ & $ 0.808 (02)$ &$0.125(01)$&$0.271(01)$&$0.036(01)$ & $0.109 (01)$& $0.259(01)$ & ... & ... &$<0.001$ \\
1181: Q0100+130 (2) & 1.79698 & $1.014(06)$ & $0.745(05)$ & $0.100(04)$ & ... &... & $0.140(05)$ &$0.197 (04)$ &$ 0.0245(01)$& $<0.010$ & $ <0.007 $\\
1182: Q1151+068 & 1.8191 & $1.069 (16)$ & $ 0.726 (14)$ &$0.100(07)$&$0.242(05)$&... & $0.169(08)$ & $0.226(11)$& $<0.006$ & ...&$<0.002$ \\
1183: Q0551-3637 & 1.9609 & $4.747(09)$ & $ 4.365(01)$ &$0.979 (11)$&$3.243(07)$&$1.632(07)$ & $1.632(07)$ &$2.818(08)$ & ... & ... &... \\
1184: Q0002 (2) & 2.302 & $1.738 (02)$ & $ 1.459 (02)$ &$0.242 (02)$&$0.657(01)$&$0.187(01)$ & ... & ... & $0.026(01)$ & ... &... \\
1185:
1186:
1187: \enddata
1188: \label{table:tab3}
1189: \tablecomments{This table reports all the species searched in this study. Equivalent widths are reported at $5\sigma$ confidence level. Error values, in m\AA, are quoted in parenthesis. Upper limits are also
1190: reported. }
1191: \end{deluxetable}
1192:
1193: \clearpage
1194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Equivalent widths part 2 From CrII2056 to NV
1195: \topmargin 0.0in
1196:
1197: %\oddsidemargin -1.2in
1198: %\scriptsize
1199: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccccccccccc}
1200: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1201: \tablecolumns{17}
1202: \tablewidth{0pt}
1203: \rotate
1204: \label{table:tab4}
1205: \tablecaption{Equivalent widths of the transitions}
1206:
1207:
1208:
1209: \tablehead{
1210:
1211: %\cline{2-4} \\
1212: \colhead{System} & \colhead{$z_{\rm{sys}}$ } & \colhead{CrII2056} & \colhead{CrII2062} & \colhead{CrII2066 } & \colhead{AlIII1855 } & \colhead{AlIII1863} & \colhead{NiII1710} & \colhead{NiII1752} & \colhead{CII} & \colhead{CIV} & \colhead{CIV} }
1213: \startdata
1214: GRB060418 (1) & 0.6021 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1215: GRB060418 (2) & 0.6554 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1216: GRB050820 (1) & 0.6910 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1217: GRB060418 (3) & 1.1066 & $<0.013$& $<0.020$&$0.122(15)$& 0.$299(17)$& $0.164(14)$ &$0.092(18)$ &$0.088(15)$ & ... & ... & ...\\
1218: GRB021004 (1) & 1.3800 & $<0.0334$& $<0.019$ &...& $<0.034$& $<0.018$ & $<0.048$ &$<0.027$ & ... & ... & ... \\
1219: GRB050820 (2) & 1.4280 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1220: GRB021004 (2) & 1.6015 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1221: GRB060607 & 1.7996 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1222: %GRB050730 & 2.2527 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1223:
1224:
1225: \cline{1-12}
1226: %Q0952+179 & 0.23788 & ... & ... &...& ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1227: Q0100+130 (1) & 0.27795 & ... & ...&...&...&... & ... & ... \\
1228: Q1127-145 & 0.3127 & ... & ...& ... &... & ...& ... & ... & ... & ... & ... \\
1229: Q1229-021 & 0.3951 & ... & ... & ... & ...& ... & ... & ...&... & ... &... \\
1230: 3C336 (1) & 0.6561 & ... & ... &... & ...&... &... & ... & ... &... &... \\
1231: HE1122 & 0.6822 & ... & ... &...& ...&... &... & ... & ...& ... &... \\
1232: Q0453 (1) & 0.7261 & ... & ... &...&...&... & ...&... & ...&... &... \\
1233: Q0002 (1) & 0.8366 & ... & ... &... &$2.146(08)$ &$1.929(07)$ & $<0.037$ &$ <0.002$ & ... & ... &... \\
1234: 3C336 (2) & 0.8913 & $<0.006$ & $<0.005$ &$<0.007$&...&$0.066(08)$ & ... & ...& ... \\
1235: %Q0300+0048 & 0.8919 & $<0.015$ & $ <0.014$ &$<0.011$&...&... & ... & ... & ... & ... &... &... & ... & ...& ...&...\\
1236: Q1629+120 & 0.90025 & ... &... &...& ...&$<0.006$ &... & $<0.004 $ & ... &...&...\\
1237: Q0130-4021 & 0.9315 & ... & $ <0.004$ &$<0.003$&...&... & ...& ... & ... & ... &... \\
1238: CTQ0298 & 1.0387 & $<0.011$ & ... &$<0.006$&...&... & ... &... & ... & ... &... \\
1239: Q0328-272 & 1.1228 & ... & $ <0.002$&$<0.002$&$0.100(07)$&$0.081(07)$ & $<0.005$ & $<0.005$ &... &... &... \\
1240: Q1621-0042 & 1.1335 & ... & ... &$<0.004$& ...&... & $<0.011$ &$<0.023$ & ... & ... & ... \\
1241: Q0453 (2) & 1.1498 & ... & ... &...&...&... & $<0.002$ & ... & ...& ... &...\\
1242: Q0112+0300 & 1.2452 & ... & ... &...&... &... & ... & $<0.009$ & ... & ... &... \\
1243: HE1341 & 1.2767 & $<0.002$ & $ <0.003$ &$<0.003$& $0.265(08)$&$0.147(08)$ & $<0.003$ & $<0.005$ & ... &... &... \\
1244: Q0109 & 1.3496 & $<0.002$ & $ <0.002$ &$<0.001$&$0.141(01)$&$0.069(02)$ & ... & ... &... &... &$<0.609$ \\
1245: PKS0237 (1) & 1.3651 & $<0.001$ & $ <0.001$ &$<0.002$&$0.396(02)$&$0.367(02)$ & $<0.002$ & ... & ... & $1.604(03)$&$1.409(02)$ \\
1246: Q1418-064 & 1.458 & ... & ... &... & ...&... & ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\
1247: PKS0237 (2) & 1.672334 & $0.021 (01)$ & $ 0.016 (01)$ &$0.008(01)$&$0.185(01)$&$0.109(01)$ & $0.026(01)$ & $0.022(01)$& ... & ... &... \\
1248: HE2217 & 1.6922 & $0.003(01) $ & $ <0.001$ &$<0.001$&$0.084(01)$&$0.056(01)$ & $<0.001$ &$<0.001$ & ... & $1.067(01)$ &$0.837(01)$ \\
1249: Q1331+170 & 1.777 & ... & ... &... &...& ... & ... & ... &... &... & ... \\
1250: HE0940 & 1.789 & ... &... &... &$0.086(01)$&$0.041(01)$ & ... & $<0.001$ & ... & ... &... \\
1251: Q0100+130 (2) & 1.79698 & ... & ... & ... & ... &...&...&... & $0.887(07)$&$<0.687$ &$<0.505$\\
1252: Q1151+068 & 1.8191 & ... & ... &... &$0.038(03)$&$0.021(03)$ & $<0.004$ & $<0.001$& ... & ...&...\\
1253: Q0551-3637 & 1.9609 & ... & ... &... &$1.267(05)$&$0.799(06)$ & $0.145(05)$ &$0.113(04)$ &$2.777(08)$ & $1.825(09)$ &$1.557(11)$ \\
1254: Q0002 (2) & 2.302 & $0.006(01)$ & $ <0.001$ &$0.387(01)$&$0.388(06)$&$0.023(01)$ & ... & ... & $1.098(01)$ & $1.099(01)$ &$0.928(01)$ \\
1255:
1256:
1257: \enddata
1258: \tablecomments{This table reports all the species searched in this study. Equivalent widths are reported at $5\sigma$ confidence level. Error values, in m\AA, are quoted in parenthesis. Upper limits are also
1259: reported. }
1260: \end{deluxetable}
1261: %\clearpage
1262: %\end{landscape}
1263: \clearpage
1264:
1265:
1266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Equivalent widths part 3
1267: \topmargin 0.0in
1268:
1269: %\oddsidemargin -1.2in
1270: %\scriptsize
1271: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
1272: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1273: \tablecolumns{9}
1274: \tablewidth{0pt}
1275: \rotate
1276: \label{table:tab5}
1277: \tablecaption{Equivalent widths of the transitions}
1278:
1279:
1280:
1281: \tablehead{
1282:
1283: %\cline{2-4} \\
1284: \colhead{System} & \colhead{$z_{\rm{sys}}$ } & \colhead{ZnII2026} & \colhead{ZnII2063} & \colhead{SiIV} &\colhead{SiIV} & \colhead{OI } & \colhead{NV } & \colhead{NV} }
1285: \startdata
1286: GRB060418(1) & 0.6021 & ... &...& ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1287: GRB060418 (2) & 0.6554 & ... &...& ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1288: GRB050820 (1) & 0.6910 & ... &... & ... &... & ...&...& ...\\
1289: GRB060418 (3) & 1.1066 &$0.369(21)$&$0.102(13)$ & ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1290: GRB021004 (1) & 1.3800 &$<0.019$ &$<0.024$ & ... &... & ...&...&...\\
1291: GRB050820 (2) & 1.4280 &$<0.006$ &$<0.003$ & ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1292: GRB021004 (2) & 1.6015 & $<0.016$&$<0.031$& ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1293: GRB060607 & 1.7996 & ... &...& ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1294: %GRB050730 & 2.2527 &... &$<0.005$& ... &... & ...&...& ... \\
1295: \cline{1-9}
1296: Q0100+130 (1) & 0.27795 &... & ...& ... & ... &... &... & ...\\
1297: Q1127-145 & 0.3127 &... & ... & ... & ... & ...& ...&...\\
1298: Q1229-021 & 0.3951 &... & ... &... & ... & ... & ... &...\\
1299: 3C336 (1) & 0.6561 &... & ...&... & ... & ... &...& ...\\
1300: HE1122 & 0.6822 & ... & ... &... & ... &...&...&...\\
1301: Q0453 (1) & 0.7261 &$<0.173$& ...&...& ...&...&... &...\\
1302: Q0002 (1) & 0.8366 & ... & ...&... & ...& ... & ...& ...\\
1303: 3C336 (2) & 0.8913 &$<0.009$ & $<0.007$&... &... &...& ...&...\\
1304: Q1629+120 & 0.90025 & $0.026(04)$ & ...&...& ... &...&...&...\\
1305: Q0130-4021 & 0.9315 &... & $<0.004$ &... & ...& ...& ...& ...\\
1306: CTQ0298 & 1.0387 &... & ...&... & ... & ...&... &...\\
1307: Q0328-272 & 1.1228 & $0.020(03)$ & $<0.002$ &... &... & ...& ...&...\\
1308: Q1621-0042 & 1.1335 & ... & ... &... & ... & ...& ...&...\\
1309: Q0453 (2) & 1.1498 & ... & ... &... & ... &... & ...& ...\\
1310: Q0112+0300 & 1.2452 & ... & ...&... & ... & ...&... &...\\
1311: HE1341 & 1.2767 &$<0.004$ &$<0.004$ &... &...&...&...&...\\
1312: Q0109 & 1.3496 &$<0.001$ & $<0.003$&$<0.763$ & ...&...& ...& ...\\
1313: PKS0237 (1) & 1.3651 &$<0.002$ & $<0.002$ &... & ... &...&... &...\\
1314: Q1418-064 & 1.458 &... & ...&... & ... &...&...&...\\
1315: PKS0237 (2) & 1.672334 &$0.013(01)$ & $0.006(01)$ &... &... & ... & ...&...\\
1316: HE2217 & 1.6922 & $<0.001$ & $<0.001$ &... & $0.599\pm0.001$&...&...&...\\
1317: Q1331+170 & 1.777 & ... & ...&... & ...&$0.491\pm 0.002$ & $0.153\pm 0.006$ & $0.049\pm 0.004$ \\
1318: HE0940 & 1.789 &$<0.002$ & ... &... & ...& ... & ... & ...\\
1319: Q0100+130 (2) & 1.79698 &... & ...& $1.028\pm 0.008$ & $0.503\pm0.005$& ... & ... &...\\
1320: Q1151+068 & 1.8191 &$<0.001$ & ... &... & ... & ...&... & ...\\
1321: Q0551-3637 & 1.9609 &$0.311(04)$ & $0.238(04)$ &$1.312\pm 0.009$ & $0.991\pm 0.010$ & $2.189\pm0.006$ & ... &...\\
1322: Q0002 (2) & 2.302 & $0.005(01)$ &$<0.001$ &$0.806\pm0.001$ &$1.128\pm 0.001$ & ... & ... &...\\
1323: \enddata
1324: \tablecomments{This table reports all the species searched in this study. Equivalent widths are reported at $5\sigma$ confidence level. Error values, in m\AA, are quoted in parenthesis. Upper limits are also
1325: reported. }
1326: \end{deluxetable}
1327: %\clearpage
1328: %\end{landscape}
1329: \clearpage
1330:
1331:
1332: \topmargin 0.0in
1333: \oddsidemargin 0.0in
1334:
1335:
1336:
1337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1338:
1339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES STARTS %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1340:
1341: %%%%%%%%%%% System plots %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1342: %GRBS
1343: \figsetstart
1344: \figsetnum{1}
1345: \figsettitle{GRB sample}
1346:
1347: \figsetgrpstart
1348: \figsetgrpnum{1.1}
1349: \figsetgrptitle{Absorber at $z = 0.6021$ along GRB 060418 ($z = 1.49$) line of sight. Transitions are aligned in velocity space, with the {\MgII} $\lambda2706$ transition centered at the median optical depth. Figures 1.1 -- 1.8 are available in the online version of the Journal.}
1350: \figsetplot{f1_1.eps}
1351: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1352: \figsetgrpend
1353:
1354: \figsetgrpstart
1355: \figsetgrpnum{1.2}
1356: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 1.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.6554$ along the GRB 060418 ($z = 1.49$) line of sight.}
1357: \figsetplot{f1_2.eps}
1358: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1359: \figsetgrpend
1360:
1361: \figsetgrpstart
1362: \figsetgrpnum{1.3}
1363: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 1.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.6910$ alongthe GRB 050820 ($z = 2.612$) line of sight.}
1364: \figsetplot{f1_3.eps}
1365: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1366: \figsetgrpend
1367:
1368: \figsetgrpstart
1369: \figsetgrpnum{1.4}
1370: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 1.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.1066$ alongthe GRB 060418 ($z = 1.49$) line of sight.}
1371: \figsetplot{f1_4.eps}
1372: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1373: \figsetgrpend
1374:
1375: \figsetgrpstart
1376: \figsetgrpnum{1.5}
1377: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 1.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.38$ along GRB 021004 ($z = 2.328$) line of sight.}
1378: \figsetplot{f1_5.eps}
1379: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1380: \figsetgrpend
1381:
1382: \figsetgrpstart
1383: \figsetgrpnum{1.6}
1384: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 1.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.428$ along GRB 050820 ($z = 2.612$) line of sight.}
1385: \figsetplot{f1_6.eps}
1386: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1387: \figsetgrpend
1388:
1389: \figsetgrpstart
1390: \figsetgrpnum{1.7}
1391: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 1.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.6015$ along GRB 021004 ($z = 2.328$) line of sight.}
1392: \figsetplot{f1_7.eps}
1393: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1394: \figsetgrpend
1395:
1396: \figsetgrpstart
1397: \figsetgrpnum{1.8}
1398: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 1.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.7996$ along GRB 060607 ($z = 3.08$) line of sight. }
1399: \figsetplot{f1_8.eps}
1400: \figsetgrpnote{GRB systems sample}
1401: \figsetgrpend
1402:
1403: \figsetend
1404:
1405: \begin{figure}
1406: \figurenum{1}
1407: \plotone{f1_1.eps}
1408: \caption{GRB systems sample}
1409: \end{figure}
1410:
1411:
1412: %% %%% QSO
1413:
1414: \figsetstart
1415: \figsetnum{2}
1416: \figsettitle{GRB sample}
1417:
1418: \figsetgrpstart
1419: \figsetgrpnum{2.1}
1420: \figsetgrptitle{Absorber at $z = 0.2779$ along QSO0100+0130 ($z = 2.681$) line of sight.Transitions are aligned in velocity space, with the {\MgII} $\lambda2706$ transition centered at the median optical depth.Figures 2.1 -- 2.27 are available in the online version of the Journal.}
1421: \figsetplot{f2_1.eps}
1422: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1423: \figsetgrpend
1424:
1425: \figsetgrpstart
1426: \figsetgrpnum{2.2}
1427: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.3127$ along Q1127-145 ($z = 1.18$) line of sight.}
1428: \figsetplot{f2_2.eps}
1429: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1430: \figsetgrpend
1431:
1432: \figsetgrpstart
1433: \figsetgrpnum{2.3}
1434: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.3951$ along Q1229-021 ($z = 1.038$) line of sight. }
1435: \figsetplot{f2_3.eps}
1436: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1437: \figsetgrpend
1438:
1439: \figsetgrpstart
1440: \figsetgrpnum{2.4}
1441: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.6560$ along 3C336 ($z = 0.9273$) line of sight.}
1442: \figsetplot{f2_4.eps}
1443: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1444: \figsetgrpend
1445:
1446: \figsetgrpstart
1447: \figsetgrpnum{2.5}
1448: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.6822$ along HE1122-1648 ($z = 2.40$) line of sight.}
1449: \figsetplot{f2_5.eps}
1450: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1451: \figsetgrpend
1452:
1453: \figsetgrpstart
1454: \figsetgrpnum{2.6}
1455: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.7261$ along Q0453-423 ($z = 2.66$) line of sight.}
1456: \figsetplot{f2_6.eps}
1457: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1458: \figsetgrpend
1459:
1460: \figsetgrpstart
1461: \figsetgrpnum{2.7}
1462: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.8366$ along Q0002-422 ($z = 2.76$) line of sight.}
1463: \figsetplot{f2_7.eps}
1464: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1465: \figsetgrpend
1466:
1467: \figsetgrpstart
1468: \figsetgrpnum{2.8}
1469: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.8912$ along 3C336 ($z = 0.9273$) line of sight. }
1470: \figsetplot{f2_8.eps}
1471: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1472: \figsetgrpend
1473:
1474: \figsetgrpstart
1475: \figsetgrpnum{2.9}
1476: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z=0.9002$ along Q1629+120 ($z = 1.795$) line of sight.}
1477: \figsetplot{f2_9.eps}
1478: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1479: \figsetgrpend
1480:
1481: \figsetgrpstart
1482: \figsetgrpnum{2.10}
1483: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 0.9315$ along Q0130-4021 ($z = 3.03$) line of sight.}
1484: \figsetplot{f2_10.eps}
1485: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1486: \figsetgrpend
1487:
1488: \figsetgrpstart
1489: \figsetgrpnum{2.11}
1490: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.0387$ along CTQ0298 ($z = 3.370$) line of sight. }
1491: \figsetplot{f2_11.eps}
1492: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1493: \figsetgrpend
1494:
1495: \figsetgrpstart
1496: \figsetgrpnum{2.12}
1497: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.1228$ along Q0328-272 ($z = 1.816$) line of sight. }
1498: \figsetplot{f2_12.eps}
1499: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1500: \figsetgrpend
1501:
1502: \figsetgrpstart
1503: \figsetgrpnum{2.13}
1504: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.1334$ along Q1621-0042 ($z = 3.7$) line of sight.}
1505: \figsetplot{f2_13.eps}
1506: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1507: \figsetgrpend
1508:
1509: \figsetgrpstart
1510: \figsetgrpnum{2.14}
1511: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.1498$ along Q0453-423 ($z = 2.66$) line of sight.}
1512: \figsetplot{f2_14.eps}
1513: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1514: \figsetgrpend
1515:
1516: \figsetgrpstart
1517: \figsetgrpnum{2.15}
1518: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.2452$ along Q0112+0300 ($z = 2.81$) line of sight.}
1519: \figsetplot{f2_15.eps}
1520: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1521: \figsetgrpend
1522:
1523: \figsetgrpstart
1524: \figsetgrpnum{2.16}
1525: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.2767$ along HE1341-1020 ($z = 2.134$) line of sight.}
1526: \figsetplot{f2_16.eps}
1527: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1528: \figsetgrpend
1529:
1530: \figsetgrpstart
1531: \figsetgrpnum{2.17}
1532: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.3495$ along Q0109-3518 ($z = 2.35$) line of sight.}
1533: \figsetplot{f2_17.eps}
1534: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1535: \figsetgrpend
1536:
1537: \figsetgrpstart
1538: \figsetgrpnum{2.18}
1539: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.3650$ along PKS0237-23 ($z = 2.224$) line of sight. }
1540: \figsetplot{f2_18.eps}
1541: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1542: \figsetgrpend
1543:
1544: \figsetgrpstart
1545: \figsetgrpnum{2.19}
1546: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.4578$ along Q1418-064 ($z = 3.689$) line of sight.}
1547: \figsetplot{f2_19.eps}
1548: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1549: \figsetgrpend
1550:
1551: \figsetgrpstart
1552: \figsetgrpnum{2.20}
1553: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.6723$ along PKS0237-23 ($z = 2.224$) line of sight.}
1554: \figsetplot{f2_20.eps}
1555: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1556: \figsetgrpend
1557:
1558: \figsetgrpstart
1559: \figsetgrpnum{2.21}
1560: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.6921$ along HE2217-2818 ($z = 2.406$) line of sight. }
1561: \figsetplot{f2_21.eps}
1562: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1563: \figsetgrpend
1564:
1565: \figsetgrpstart
1566: \figsetgrpnum{2.22}
1567: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.7766$ along Q1331+170 ($z = 2.084$) line of sight.}
1568: \figsetplot{f2_22.eps}
1569: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1570: \figsetgrpend
1571:
1572: \figsetgrpstart
1573: \figsetgrpnum{2.23}
1574: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.7891$ along HE0940-1050 ($z = 3.083$) line of sight.}
1575: \figsetplot{f2_23.eps}
1576: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1577: \figsetgrpend
1578:
1579: \figsetgrpstart
1580: \figsetgrpnum{2.24}
1581: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.7969$ along Q0100+130 ($z = 2.681$) line of sight.}
1582: \figsetplot{f2_24.eps}
1583: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1584: \figsetgrpend
1585:
1586: \figsetgrpstart
1587: \figsetgrpnum{2.25}
1588: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.8191$ along Q1151+068 ($z = 2.762$) line of sight. }
1589: \figsetplot{f2_25.eps}
1590: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1591: \figsetgrpend
1592:
1593: \figsetgrpstart
1594: \figsetgrpnum{2.26}
1595: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 1.9609$ along Q0551-3637 ($z = 2.318$) line of sight.}
1596: \figsetplot{f2_26.eps}
1597: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1598: \figsetgrpend
1599:
1600: \figsetgrpstart
1601: \figsetgrpnum{2.27}
1602: \figsetgrptitle{The same as Figure 2.1, but for the absorber at $z = 2.3019$ along Q0002-422 ($z = 2.76$) line of sight.}
1603: \figsetplot{f2_27.eps}
1604: \figsetgrpnote{QSO systems sample}
1605: \figsetgrpend
1606:
1607: \figsetend
1608:
1609: \begin{figure}
1610: \figurenum{2}
1611: \plotone{f2_1.eps}
1612: \caption{QSO systems sample}
1613: \end{figure}
1614:
1615:
1616:
1617:
1618:
1619: %%%%%% cumulative plots
1620:
1621: \begin{figure*}
1622: \figurenum{3}
1623:
1624: %scale for the preprint
1625: \epsscale{0.9}
1626: %\epsscale{2.0}
1627: \plotone{f3.ps}
1628: \label{fig:fig3}
1629: \caption{\footnotesize{Observed properties of the GRB (solid black histogram) and
1630: quasar (dashed red histogram) strong {\MgII} absorption systems: (a)
1631: Distribution in {\MgII}(2796) equivalent width; (b) Distribution in
1632: redshift; (c) Cumulative distribution in $\Delta v/c$, the relative or
1633: ``ejection'' velocity of the absorber relative to the target object normalized
1634: to one; (d) Two-dimensional distribution in {\MgII}(2796) rest frame equivalent width
1635: and redshift for GRB (black square) and quasar (red diamond)
1636: absorption systems. All fundamental properties of the two samples
1637: exhibit a similar distribution over a similar range. }}
1638: \end{figure*}
1639: \clearpage
1640:
1641:
1642:
1643: %%%%% Line profiles
1644:
1645: \begin{figure*}
1646: \figurenum{4}
1647: %scale for the preprint
1648: \epsscale{0.9}
1649: %\epsscale{2.0}
1650: \plotone{f4.ps}
1651:
1652: \label{fig:fig4}
1653: \caption{\footnotesize{{\MgII} $\lambda 2976$ line profiles for all GRB (left) and
1654: for eight selected quasar (right) intervening systems. Each panel provides the
1655: name of the target object and the redshift of the intervening
1656: absorption system. No obvious systematic difference has been found
1657: in the absorption profiles of the two samples; in particular, both
1658: samples show saturated absorption features and multiple components
1659: with similar ranges in velocity. Quantitative metrics derived from
1660: these kinematic profiles are compared in \S\ref{sec:kinematics}.
1661: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig5} confirms the absence of systematic differences
1662: between the two populations.}}
1663: \end{figure*}
1664:
1665:
1666: \clearpage
1667:
1668:
1669: %%%%%%%%%% Kinematic spread vs. z and more
1670:
1671: \begin{figure*}
1672: \figurenum{5}
1673: %scale for the preprint
1674: \epsscale{0.85}
1675: %\epsscale{2.0}
1676: \plotone{f5.eps}
1677: \label{fig:fig5}
1678: \caption{\footnotesize{Kinematic quantities describing the GRB (open symbols) and quasar
1679: (filled symbols) strong {\MgII} absorbers in our study: (a)
1680: D-index \citep{evl06} versus redshift; (b) D-index versus
1681: {\MgII}(2796) rest frame equivalent width; (c) Velocity spread $\omega_v$
1682: versus redshift; and (d) Total velocity coverage $\Delta_v$ versus
1683: redshift. There is no significant difference in either the range of
1684: the properties, or the distribution of properties of individual
1685: systems within the overall range, between the two samples, as
1686: confirmed in each case by a K-S test. }}
1687: \end{figure*}
1688: \clearpage
1689:
1690:
1691:
1692:
1693: %%%%%% multispecies
1694: %\begin{landscape}
1695: \begin{figure*}
1696: \figurenum{6}
1697:
1698: %scale for the preprint
1699: \epsscale{1.0}
1700: %\epsscale{2.0}
1701: \plotone{f6.eps}
1702: \caption{Rest-frame equivalent widths for different species compared
1703: to associated {\MgII} $\lambda2706$ rest-frame equivalent width for
1704: GRB (open symbol) and quasar (filled symbol) absorption systems in
1705: our study. Triangles represent upper limits. No particular contrast
1706: between the GRB and quasar samples is evident. The
1707: detection of \MgI\ in some GRB absorbers suggests that the absorbing
1708: gas cannot be located within 50~pc of the GRB afterglow
1709: \citep{pcb+06}. }
1710: \label{fig:fig6}
1711: \end{figure*}
1712: %\end{landscape}
1713: \clearpage
1714:
1715:
1716:
1717: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fe/Mg
1718:
1719: \begin{figure*}
1720: \figurenum{7}
1721: %scale for the preprint
1722: \epsscale{1.0}
1723: \rotate
1724: %\epsscale{2.0}
1725:
1726: \plotone{f7.eps}
1727:
1728: \label{fig:fig7}
1729: \caption{\FeII/\MgII~equivalent width ratios for different
1730: transitions, as observed in GRB (open symbol) and quasar (filled
1731: symbol) absorption systems from our study. Errors are typically
1732: smaller than the symbol size. The quasar absorbers exhibit a possible evolution in
1733: \FeII/\MgII ~equivalent width ratio with redshift, which cannot be
1734: confirmed for the GRB sample because of limited statistics. If
1735: present, such an evolution in \FeII/\MgII ~might suggest that
1736: $\alpha$-enhancement plays a dominant role at high redshift while
1737: type~Ia supernovae are responsible for a greater fraction of metals
1738: at $z< 1.2$. }
1739: \end{figure*}
1740: \clearpage
1741:
1742:
1743: %%%%%% Dust Fe2374/Zn2026
1744:
1745: \begin{figure*}
1746: \figurenum{8}
1747: %scale for the preprint
1748: \epsscale{1.0}
1749: \rotate
1750: \plotone{f8.eps}
1751: \caption{\FeII/\ZnII ~equivalent width ratios for different
1752: transitions, as observed in GRB (open symbol) and quasar (filled
1753: symbol) absorption systems from our study. Error bars are typically
1754: smaller than the symbol size; lower limits are shown as triangles.
1755: Low values of the various \FeII/\ZnII ~ratios indicate high
1756: depletion of gas onto dust grains. Comparison of the two
1757: samples does not suggest any particular enrichment of dusty
1758: absorbers among the GRB absorber population, however, the most
1759: extreme (low-ratio) detection at $z \sim 1.1$ is for one of the
1760: systems found toward GRB\,060418 \citep{evl06}. The distribution
1761: of ratio values, including lower limits, demonstrate that there is
1762: not an excess of dusty absorbers sufficient to bias
1763: magnitude-limited quasar surveys and thereby explain the $dN/dz$
1764: discrepancy between GRB and quasar lines of sight. }
1765: \label{fig:fig8}
1766: \end{figure*}
1767: \clearpage
1768:
1769:
1770:
1771: %% fine structure plot
1772:
1773: \begin{figure*}
1774: \figurenum{9}
1775: %scale for the preprint
1776: \epsscale{0.9}
1777: %\epsscale{2.0}
1778: \plotone{f9.ps}
1779: \caption{\footnotesize{Comparison between GRB060418 {\FeII}* and {\NiII}*
1780: transitions at the host galaxy redshift ($z = 1.489$) and at the
1781: redhsifts of two intervening absorbers (1.106, 0.655). The continuum
1782: level is shown; detected features are identified near velocity zero,
1783: as derived from several other transitions. These absorption features
1784: are present in the host galaxy absorber but not in the intervening
1785: systems, consistent with a non-intrinsic (intervening galaxy) origin
1786: for these systems. The variability of these fine structure
1787: transitions, due to UV pumping from the GRB radiation field, places
1788: constraints on the location of the host galaxy absorber relative to
1789: the GRB \citep{vls07}. No other example of such fine-structure
1790: transitions has been seen in this or other GRB absorbers of our
1791: sample.}}
1792: \label{fig:fig9}
1793: \end{figure*}
1794: \clearpage
1795:
1796:
1797:
1798:
1799:
1800: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1801:
1802:
1803: \bibliographystyle{apj}
1804: \bibliography{journals_apj,grboldbi,grbqso}
1805:
1806: \end{document}