1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
3: \newcommand{\myemail}{urata@crab.riken.go.jp}
4: \slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
5: \shorttitle{Early optical afterglow of GRB030329}
6: \shortauthors{Urata et al.}
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Early ($<$0.3 day) R-band light curve of the optical afterglow of GRB030329}
9:
10: \author{
11: Yuji \textsc{Urata}\altaffilmark{1,2},
12: Takashi \textsc{Miyata}\altaffilmark{3},
13: Shingo \textsc{Nishiura}\altaffilmark{3},
14: Toru \textsc{Tamagawa}\altaffilmark{1},
15: R.A. \textsc{Burenin}\altaffilmark{4}
16: Tomohiko \textsc{Sekiguchi}\altaffilmark{5},
17: Seidai \textsc{Miyasaka}\altaffilmark{6},
18: Chiaki \textsc{Yoshizumi}\altaffilmark{7},
19: Junzi \textsc{Suzuki}\altaffilmark{8}\\
20: Hiroyuki \textsc{Mito}\altaffilmark{3},
21: Yoshikazu \textsc{Nakada}\altaffilmark{3},
22: Tsutomu \textsc{Aoki}\altaffilmark{3},
23: Takao \textsc{Soyano}\altaffilmark{3},
24: Kenichi \textsc{Tarusawa}\altaffilmark{3},
25: Shigetomo \textsc{Shiki}\altaffilmark{1},
26: and
27: Kazuo \textsc{Makishima}\altaffilmark{1,9}
28: }
29: \altaffiltext{1}{RIKEN (Institute of Physical and Chemical Research), 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan}
30: \email{urata@crab.riken.go.jp}
31: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Oookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan}
32: \altaffiltext{3}{Kiso Observatory, Institute of Astronomy, The University of Tokyo, Mitake-mura, Kiso-gun, Nagano 397-0101, Japan}
33: \altaffiltext{4}{Space Research Institute, Moscow, Russia}
34: \altaffiltext{5}{National Astronomical Observatory, Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
35: \altaffiltext{6}{Tokyo Metropolitan Governments, Nishi-Shinjyuku 2-8-1, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8001 Japan}
36: \altaffiltext{7}{Tokushima Science Museum, 45-22 Kibigatani,Nato,Itano-cho,Itano-gun,Tokushima 779-0111,Japan}
37: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics, The Tokyo University of Science, 1-3 Kagurazaka, Shinjyuku, Tokyo 162-8601, Japan}
38: \altaffiltext{9}{Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan}
39:
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: We observed the optical afterglow of
43: %The optical afterglow of
44: the bright gamma-ray burst GRB030329
45: %was observed
46: on the nights of 2003 March 29, using the Kiso observatory
47: (the University of Tokyo) 1.05 m Schmidt telescope. Data were taken
48: from March 29 13:21:26 UT to 17:43:16 (0.072 to 0.253 days after the
49: burst), using an $Rc$-band filter. The obtained $Rc$-band light curve
50: has been fitted successfully by a single power law function with decay
51: index of $0.891\pm0.004$. These results remain unchanged when
52: incorporating two early photometric data points at 0.065 and 0.073
53: days, reported by Price et al.(2003) using the SSO 40 inch telescope,
54: and further including RTT150 data (Burenin et al. 2003) covering at
55: about 0.3 days. Over the period of 0.065-0.285 days after the burst,
56: any deviation from the power-law decay is smaller than $\pm$0.007 mag.
57: The temporal structure reported by Uemura et al. (2003) does not show
58: up in our $R$-band light curve.
59:
60: \end{abstract}
61:
62: \keywords{Gamma-ray Bursts: afterglow}
63:
64: \section{Introduction}
65: The bright and long gamma-ray burst (GRB), GRB030329, was detected on
66: 2003 March 29 11:37:14.67 UT, with the {\it HETE-2} spacecraft (Ricker
67: et al. 2003). The burst lasted for more than 25 s in the 30-400 keV
68: band. The fluence of the burst was ~1 x 10$^{-4}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ and
69: the peak flux over 1.2 s was $>$ 7 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$
70: s$^{-1}$ (i.e., $>$ 100 $\times$ Crab flux) in the same energy band.
71: The subsequent ground analysis of the {\it HETE-2} data produced an
72: accurate location for the burst, which was reported in a GCN Position
73: Notice at 12:50:24 UT, 73 minutes after the burst. The location is
74: centered at $\alpha^{2000} = 10^{\rm h}44^{\rm m}49^{\rm s},
75: \delta^{2000} = +21^{\circ} 28' 44''$, with the 90\%-confidence error
76: radius of $2'$ (Vanderspek et al. 2003).
77:
78: The optical afterglow was found within the $2'$-radius error circle at
79: 0.077 days after the burst, at the coordinates of $\alpha^{2000}=
80: 10^{\rm h}44^{\rm m}49.^{\rm s}5, \delta^{2000}=+21^{\circ}31'23''.1$
81: (Peterson and Price 2003; Torii 2003). The redshift of GRB030329 was
82: determined as 0.168 $\pm$ 0.001 by numerous absorption and emission
83: lines in the optical spectra of the afterglow (Greiner et al. 2003;
84: Price et al. 2003). In the afterglow spectrum, a bright Type Ic
85: supernova feature appeared at $\sim$7.6 days; the associated supernova
86: has been named SN2003dh (e.g., Stanek et al. 2003; Hjorth et
87: al. 2003; Chornock et al. 2003; Zaritsky et al. 2003). This detection
88: strongly suggests a physical link between GRBs and supernovae
89: explosion. Uemura et al. (2003) claim that the optical light curve of
90: the afterglow, produced by their unfiltered observation, deviates from
91: a single power-law decay, exhibiting temporal breaks at
92: 0.085$\pm$0.028, 0.163$\pm$0.060, and 0.227$\pm$0.043 days.
93:
94: We have established a GRB follow-up observation system at Kiso
95: observatory (Urata et al. 2003). Because the Japan area had been blank
96: for the GRB follow-up observational network, this observational system
97: is very important in studying the temporal and spectral evolution of
98: early ($<$1 day) afterglows. Another merit of the system is its
99: multi-color capability, using two instruments (2k$\times$2k CCD and
100: KONIC) and $B$-, $V$-, $Rc$-, $Ic$-, $J$-, $H$-, and $K$-bandpass
101: filters (Urata et al. 2003). We have already performed early optical
102: color measurements of a number of GRB afterglows. In the present
103: burst, we have also performed an early $Rc$-band follow-up observation
104: of the afterglow, from 0.072 to 0.253 days.
105: Here we study the temporal evolution of the optical afterglow over a
106: very early phase (0.065 to 0.286 days), by combining our Kiso
107: measurements with the published photometric points from the Siding
108: Spring Observatory (SSO0 40-inch telescope (Price et al.2003), and the
109: 1.5 m Russian-Turkish Telescope (RTT150) by Burenin et al. (2003).
110:
111: \section{Observations}
112:
113: We carried out $Rc$-band follow-up observations of the optical
114: afterglow of GRB030329, using the system described in section
115: 1. Specifically, we used the 1.05 m Schmidt telescope and a
116: 2k$\times$2k CCD Camera at Kiso observatory, the University of
117: Tokyo. The field of view was $51.'2\times51.'2$ and the pixel size was
118: $1''.5$ square. The observation started at 2003 March 13:21:26 UT
119: (0.075 days), and ended at 17:43:16 (0.253 days). Meanwhile, we
120: acquired 36 $Rc$-band images in total, mostly with 60-s exposure. An
121: example of the $Rc$-band image we obtained is shown in figure 1, where
122: the afterglow is extremely bright.
123:
124: \section{Analysis}
125: % Reduction
126: The data reduction was carried out by a standard method using the NOAO
127: IRAF. We performed the dark-subtraction and flat-fielding correction
128: using appropriate calibration data. The photometric calibrations were
129: done for all frames using APPHOT package in IRAF, with 7 standard
130: stars around the afterglow suggested by Henden (2003). We indicate
131: these standard stars in figure 1. For each data, we set the
132: one-dimensional aperture size to 4 times as large as the full-width at
133: half maximum of the objects. The magnitude error in each optical
134: images is estimated as $\sigma_{\rm e}^{2}=\sigma_{\rm ph}^{2} +
135: \sigma_{\rm sys}^{2}$, where $\sigma_{\rm ph}$ is the photometric
136: errors of GRB030329 afterglow, estimated from the output of IRAF PHOT,
137: and $\sigma_{\rm sys}$ is the photometric calibration error estimated
138: by comparing our instrumental magnitude of the 7 standard stars over
139: the 36 frames. The typical errors are $0.001\sim0.003$
140: mag. for photometric, and $\sim0.007$ mag. for systematic.
141:
142: %% RTT 150
143: %To reduce a systematic errors, we have performed re-analysis RTT150
144: %data taken by Russian group (Burenin et al. 2003) with same way for
145: %Kiso data.
146:
147: \section{Result}
148: In figure 2, we plot the $Rc$-band light curve of the afterglow of
149: GRB030329 based on our photometry. The light curve is well fitted with
150: a single power law function of the form $\propto t^{-\alpha}$, where t
151: is the time after the burst and $\alpha$ is the decay index; we have
152: obtained $\alpha=0.891\pm0.004$ with reduced chi-squared
153: $(\chi^2/\nu)$ of 0.819 for $\nu=$ 34. In order to better constrain
154: the early-time ($<$ 0.25 day) behavior of the light curve, we combined
155: our data with the two $Rc$-band photometric points reported by Price
156: et al. (2003) using the SSO 40-inch telescope; $R$=12.6$\pm$0.015 mag.
157: at 0.065 day, and $R$=12.786$\pm$0.017 mag. at 0.073 day. These are
158: among the earliest filtered observations of this afterglow. We have
159: successfully fitted the combined $Rc$-band light curve again with a
160: single power law, of which the decay index is 0.891$\pm$0.003 with
161: $\chi^{2}/\nu$=0.817 for $\nu=36$. We have further included 13
162: $Rc$-band photometric data points obtained at about 0.3 days after the
163: burst by Burenin et al. (2003) using the Russian-Turkish telescope
164: (RTT150), but the results did not change either; the decay index is
165: $0.890 \pm 0.03$, with $\chi^2/\nu=1.03$ for $\nu=49$.
166:
167: %Thus, we have successfully fitted the very early (0.065 - 0.285 days)
168: %$Rc$-band light curve with a single power law.
169:
170: \section{Discussion}
171:
172: We observed the optical afterglow associated with GRB030329 from 0.072
173: to 0.253 days after the burst. The light curve based on our
174: photometry is well fitted by a single power law function with a decay
175: index of $0.891 \pm 0.004$. The result remains essentially unchanged
176: when we include the published two SSO data points (Price et al. 2003)
177: covering an even earlier phase (up to 0.065 days), and the published
178: 13 RTT150 data points (Burenin et al. 2003) taken at about 0.3 days.
179: Thus, our single power-law representation of the $Rc$-band decay light
180: curve is valid altogether over a period of 0.065--0.285 days after the
181: burst.
182:
183:
184: %%%%%% 0.3 日後までの光度曲線
185: % 0.072 - 0.253 phase
186:
187: Uemura et al. (2003) reported that their unfiltered light curve has
188: three temporal breaks, at $0.085 \pm 0.028$, $0.163 \pm 0.060$, and
189: $0.227 \pm 0.043$ days, across which the power-law decay index changes
190: by 0.2--0.5. In figure 2, we have plotted their best-fit model
191: function, together with the $\pm 0.04$ magnitude constant error
192: suggested by them. Because the model normalization is not specified
193: by Uemura et al (2003), we estimated it using 0.2 day data points of
194: their figure 1. Although their measurements are thus consistent with
195: ours within their measurement errors, the reality of the suggested
196: breaks remain an important issue to be clarified.
197:
198: For a more quantitative examination of the issue,
199: we split our data into three phases, namely
200: $0.065 < t < 0.163$,
201: $0.085 < t < 0.227$, and
202: $0.163 < t < 0.285$,
203: each covering one of the three reported breaks. We then fitted each
204: of these light curve segments with a single power-law, and obtained
205: the results as summarized in Table 1. Thus, the three segments are
206: all expressed adequately with a single power-law, and the derived
207: decay indices do not differ by more than 0.13.
208:
209: We also tried to fit our light curve with the smoothly broken
210: power-law model used by Uemura et al. (2003), which is expressed as
211: $f(t)=\{ f_{1}(t)^{-n}+f_{2}(t)^{-n} \}^{-1/n}$ with
212: $f_{i}=k_{i}t^{-\alpha_ i}$ ($i=1,2$), where $t$ is the time after the
213: burst onset, $f(t)$ is the $R_c$-band flux, $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$
214: are the decay indices at early and late times respectively, $k_i$ is
215: a normalization constant, and $n$ indicates a smoothness parameter.
216: The break times were fixed to the values reported by Uemura et
217: al. (2003). Furthermore, we fixed $n$ at unity after Uemura et al
218: (2003) when fitting the $0.085 < t <0.227$ phase. The results from
219: this analysis are again summarized in Table 1. In the first and the
220: third time segments, the slope change is thus insignificant (at most
221: 0.1) and the decay indices before and after the assumed break are all
222: consistent with the global value of 0.89. Although a break is
223: apparently suggested by the second segment, an F-test indicates that
224: the improvement of the broken power-law model over the single
225: power-law is not significant at the 90\% confidence level. Thus, our
226: high-quality $Rc$-band light curve does not show any evidence for the
227: wriggle structure reported by Uemura et al. (2003).
228:
229:
230: We further tried to fit the present light curve (Kiso, SSO, and
231: RTT150) with the best-fit model function reported by Uemura et
232: al. (2003), in which the over all normalization alone is allowed to
233: vary. The fitting has yielded with $\chi^2/\nu=6.91$ for $\nu=50$.
234: Based on this large value of $\chi^2/\nu$, we can rule out the model
235: of Uemura et al. (2003) at more than 99.99\% confidence level.
236: %
237: %Next, we tried to fit all phase data with the model fixed with the
238: %parametrisation of the light curve reported by Uemura et al. It has
239: %one free parameter for normalisation constant. The fitting provides
240: %the constant at $(5.29\pm0.01)\times10^{-7}$
241: %Because we have very huge chi-square($\chi^2=345.5$),
242: %we can not accept the model reported by Uemura et al at more than
243: %
244: A discrepancy between the filtered and unfiltered light curves could
245: arise if there were significant color changes during the decay. In
246: this case, a similar deviation from a single power-law decay should be
247: observed in unfiltered light curves by other observers. However,
248: there is no such structures in the unfiltered light curve obtained by
249: Torii et al. (2003); it is fitted successfully by a single power law
250: with a decay index of $0.891 \pm 0.016$, in a good agreement with the
251: present result.
252: %
253: Furthermore Uemura et al. (2003) report that their unfiltered CCD has
254: response close to that of the $Rc$- system. Therefore, the origin of
255: the discrepancy must be found somewhere else.
256: %
257: %These results encourages a critical re-examination of
258: %the claim by Uemura et al. (2003), via, e.g., more accurate
259: %cross-calibration.
260: %air-mass correction.
261:
262: \acknowledgments
263: We thank many high school students who participated in the education
264: program at Kiso observatory in the night to collaborate with us. We
265: also thank RTT150 collaboration for their observations as well as for
266: making their data publicly available. Y. Urata acknowledges support
267: from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) through
268: JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.
269:
270:
271: \begin{thebibliography}{}
272: \bibitem[Burenin et al. (2003)]{rtt150} Burenin, R., et al. 2003, Astronomy Letters, 29, 573
273: \bibitem[Chornock et al.(2003)]{cho03} Chornock, R., Foley, R. J., Filippenko, A. V., Papenkova, M., \& Weisz, D. 2003, \iaucirc, 8114
274: \bibitem[Greiner et al.(2003)]{gre03} Greiner, J., et al., 2003,
275: GCN Circ., 2020
276: \bibitem[Henden 2003]{standard} Henden, A., 2003, GCN Circ., 2023
277: \bibitem[Hjorth et al. 2003]{Hjorth} Hjorth, J., et al., 2003, Nature, 423, 847
278: \bibitem[Matheson et al. 2003]{grb021004} Matheson, T., et al., 2003, \apj, 582, L5
279: \bibitem[Matheson et al. 2003]{grb030329lc} Matheson, T., et al.,
280: \bibitem[Peterson and Price, 2003]{ot} Peterson and Price, 2003, GCN Circ., 1985
281: \bibitem[Price et al. 2003]{price} Price, P., A., et al., 2003, Nature, 423, 844
282: \bibitem[Ricker et al. 2003]{hete} Ricker, G.,R., et al., 2003, AIP conf. proce., 662, 3
283: \bibitem[Stanek et al. 2003]{sta03} Stanek, K., Z., et al., 2003, \apj, 591, L17
284: \bibitem[Torii 2003]{toriiot} Torii, K., 2003, GCN Circ., 1986
285: \bibitem[Torii et al. 2003]{torii} Torii, K., et al., 2003, \apj, 597, L101
286: \bibitem[Uemura et al. 2003]{Uemura} Uemura, M., Kato, T., Ishioka, R., Yamaoka, H., Monard, B., Nogami, D., Maehara, H., Sugle, A., \& Takahashi, S., 2003, Nature, 423, 843
287: \bibitem[Urata et al. 2003]{system} Urata Y., 2003, Rome2002 procceings
288: \bibitem[Vanderspek et al.2003]{grb} Vanderspek, R., et al., 2003, GCN Circ., 1997
289: \bibitem[Zaritsky et al.(2003)]{zar03} Zaritsky, D., Bolte, M.,
290: Garnavich, P. M., Bonanos, A. Z., \& Stanek, K. Z. 2003, GCN Circ., 2169
291: \end{thebibliography}
292: %\bibitem[]{}
293:
294:
295: \begin{table}
296: \begin{center}
297: \caption{Results of fitting the present $Rc$-band light curve.}
298: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
299: \hline%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
300: Interval & $\alpha ^a$ &break$ ^b$&$\alpha_1~^b$ &$\alpha_2~^b$ & $\chi^2/\nu$ & $\nu$ \\
301: \hline%-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302: $0.065<t<0.163$&$0.900 \pm0.011$ & --- & --- & --- & 0.58 & 12 \\
303: & --- &0.085d& $0.906 \pm 0.001$ & $0.895 \pm 0.001$ & 0.69$^c$ & 11 \\
304: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
305: $0.085<t<0.227$&$0.897 \pm0.005$ & --- & --- & --- & 0.80 & 27 \\
306: & --- &0.163d& $0.949 \pm 0.050$ & $0.844 \pm 0.053$ & 0.49 & 25 \\
307: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
308: $0.163<t<0.285$&$0.877 \pm0.007$ & --- & --- & --- & 1.10 & 35 \\
309: & --- &0.227d& $0.881 \pm 0.001$ & $0.873 \pm 0.001$ & 1.20 & 33 \\
310: \hline%--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
311: \end{tabular}
312: \end{center}
313: $^a$ A single power-law fit, with $\alpha$ being the decay index.\\
314: $^b$ A fit with the smoothly broken power-law model described in the text.\\
315: $^c$ The smoothness parameter is fixed at $n=1$.
316: \end{table}
317:
318: \begin{figure}
319: \plotone{f1.eps}
320: \caption{An $Rc$-band image of the GRB030329 field obtained at the
321: Kiso observatory, with a 60-s exposure starting at 2003 March 29
322: 14:23:50 UT (0.116 days after the burst). The afterglow is indicated
323: by an arrow near the image center. Circles indicate the standard
324: stars used in the photometric calibration.
325: \label{fig1}}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: \begin{figure}
329: \plotone{f2.eps}
330: \caption{The $Rc$-band light curve based on the photometry at Kiso,
331: shown together with the SSO (Price et al. 2003) and the RTT150
332: (Burenin et al. 2003) data points. The solid line indicates the best
333: fit power-law to the Kiso and SSO points. Dashed lines indicate
334: $\pm$0.04 mag error band around the unfiltered light curve reported by
335: Uemura et al (2003).}
336: \end{figure}
337:
338: \end{document}
339:
340:
341: