1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}

2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[10pt,preprint2]{aastex}

4: % ---------------------------------------------------

5: \def\simg{\hspace{1ex} ^{>} \hspace{-2.5mm}_{\sim} \hspace{1ex}}

6: \def\siml{\hspace{1ex} ^{<} \hspace{-2.5mm}_{\sim} \hspace{1ex}}

7: \def\reference{\par\noindent\hangindent=1cm\hangafter=1}

8: \newcommand{\ins}[2]{\makebox [#1]{#2}}

9: \newcommand{\inc}[1]{\ {\mbox{#1}}\ }

10: \newcommand{\mt}{{{m_1}\over {m_1 + m_2}}}

11: \newcommand{\mb}{{m_2}\over {m_1 + m_2}}

12: \newcommand{\mtb}{{m_1 m_2}\over {m_1 + m_2}}

13: \newcommand{\eq}{\begin{equation}}

14: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

15: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left( #1 \right)}

16: \newcommand{\brasq}[1]{\left[ #1 \right]}

17: \newcommand{\pdrv}[2]{{{\partial #1}\over {\partial #2}}}

18: \newcommand{\pddrv}[2]{{{\partial^2 #1}\over {\partial #2^2}}}

19: \newcommand{\pderiv}[1]{{{\partial}\over {\partial #1}}}

20: \newcommand{\pdderiv}[1]{{{\partial^2}\over {\partial #1 ^2}}}

21: \newcommand{\drv}[2]{{{d #1}\over {d #2}}}

22: \newcommand{\deriv}[1]{{d\over {d #1}}}

23: \newcommand{\half}{{1\over 2}}

24: \newcommand{\thalf}{{3\over 2}}

25: \newcommand{\bxi}{\mbox{\boldmath$ \xi $}}

26: \newcommand{\bgk}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$ #1 $}}

27: \def\t0{\theta_{\circ}}

28: \def\muo{\mu_{\circ}}

29: \def\sd{\partial}

30: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

31: \def\en{\end{equation}}

32: \def\bv{\bf v}

33: \def\bvo{\bf v_{\circ}}

34: \def\ro{r_{\circ}}

35: \def\rhoo{\rho_{\circ}}

36: \def\etal{et al.\ }

37: \def\msun{M_{\sun}}

38: \def\rsun{R_{\sun}}

39: \def\lsun{L_{\sun}}

40: \def\msunyr{M_{\sun} yr^{-1}}

41: \def\kms{\rm \, km \, s^{-1}}

42: \def\md{\dot{M}}

43: \def\Md{\dot{M}}

44: \def\tper{\tau_{\rm per}}

45: \def\tcore{\tau_{\rm core}}

46: \def\tgrow{\tau_{\rm grow}}

47: \def\tnu{\tau_{\rm \nu}}

48: \def\tmig{\tau_{\rm ma}}

49: \def\ttmig{\tau_{\Delta}}

50: \def\texc{\tau_{\rm exc}}

51: \def\x{b_{\rm R}}

52: \def\Delres{\Delta_{\rm res}}

53: \def\gapp{\ \lower 3pt\hbox{${\buildrel > \over \sim}$}\ }

54: \def\lapp{\ \lower 3pt\hbox{${\buildrel < \over \sim}$}\ }

55: %-------------------------------------------

56: 

57: \shorttitle{Optical Afterglow Observations of GRB 040924}

58: \shortauthors{Huang et al.}

59: 

60: \begin{document}

61: 

62: \title{Optical Afterglow Observations of the Unusual

63: Short-Duration Gamma-Ray Burst 040924}

64: 

65: \author{

66: K. Y. \textsc{Huang}\altaffilmark{1},

67: Y. \textsc{Urata}\altaffilmark{2,3},

68: A. V. \textsc{Filippenko}\altaffilmark{4},

69: J. H. \textsc{Hu}\altaffilmark{1},

70: W. H. \textsc{Ip}\altaffilmark{1},

71: P. H. \textsc{Kuo}\altaffilmark{1},

72: W. \textsc{Li}\altaffilmark{4},

73: H. C. \textsc{Lin}\altaffilmark{1},

74: Z. Y. \textsc{Lin}\altaffilmark{1},

75: K. \textsc{Makishima}\altaffilmark{2,5},

76: K. \textsc{Onda}\altaffilmark{2,6},

77: Y. \textsc{Qiu}\altaffilmark{7},

78: and T. \textsc{Tamagawa}\altaffilmark{2}

79: }

80: 

81: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute of Astronomy, National Central University,

82: Chung-Li 32054, Taiwan, Republic of China (Huang email: d919003@astro.ncu.edu.tw).}  

83: \altaffiltext{2}{RIKEN (Institute of

84: Physical and Chemical Research), 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 351-0198,

85: Japan.}  

86: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of

87: Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan.}

88: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,

89: Berkeley, CA 94720-3411.}

90: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Physics,

91: University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.}

92: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics, Tokyo University of Science,

93: 1-3 Kagurazaka, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.}

94: \altaffiltext{7}{National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy

95: of Sciences, Beijing 100012, China, PR.}  

96: 

97: %\authoremail

98: 

99: \begin{abstract}

100: 

101: The 1-m telescope at Lulin Observatory and the 0.76-m Katzman

102: Automatic Imaging Telescope at Lick Observatory were used to observe

103: the optical afterglow of the short-duration (1.2--1.5~s) gamma-ray

104: burst (GRB) 040924. This object has a soft high-energy spectrum, thus

105: making it an exceptional case, perhaps actually belonging to the

106: short-duration tail of the long-duration GRBs. Our data, combined with

107: other reported measurements, show that the early $R$-band light curve

108: can be described by two power laws with index $\alpha = -0.7$ (at $t =

109: 16$--50 min) and $\alpha = -1.06$ (at later times). The rather small

110: difference in the spectral indices can be more easily explained by an

111: afterglow model invoking a cooling break rather than a jet break.

112: 

113: \end{abstract}

114: 

115: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts}

116: 

117: \section{Introduction}

118: 

119: Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are among the most powerful explosions in

120: the Universe. It is generally believed that the impulsively injected

121: fireball results from core collapse in a massive star (Woosley 1993;

122: MacFadyen \& Woosley 1999), or from the merging of either two neutron

123: stars or a neutron star and a black hole (e.g., Ruffert et al. 1997;

124: Popham et al. 1999; Narayan et al. 1992, 2001; Rosswog \& Davies

125: 2002; Lee \& Ramirez-Ruiz 2002). After the explosion, the relativistic

126: ejecta collide with the ambient interstellar medium causing

127: X-ray, optical, and radio emission. These so-called ``afterglows'' thus

128: carry important information on the injection mechanism, the

129: configuration of the (possibly collimated) fireball, and the

130: surrounding environment (e.g., M\'esz\'aros 2002).

131: 

132: Two kinds of GRBs have been defined according to whether their

133: gamma-ray emission has duration longer or shorter than 2~s. Although

134: their frequency distributions overlap, that of the short-duration GRBs

135: peaks at 0.3~s, while that of the long-duration GRBs peaks at 30--40~s

136: (Kouveliotou et al.  1993). In addition, the duration is weakly

137: correlated with the spectral hardness ratio at high energies: short

138: GRBs tend to be harder and long GRBs tend to be softer (Kouveliotou et

139: al.  1993).

140: 

141: The optical afterglows of short GRBs were elusive until the

142: detection (Fenimore et al. 2004) of GRB 040924 by the High Energy

143: Transient Explorer 2 ({\it HETE--2}) on 2004 Sep. 24, at 11:52:11 (UT

144: dates are used throughout this paper). This event lasted about 1.2~s

145: and was X-ray rich according to the {\it HETE--2} flux in the

146: 7--30~keV and 30--400~keV bands. The Konus-Wind satellite also

147: detected this event with 1.5~s duration in the 20--300~keV band

148: (Golenetskii et al. 2004). Since the high-energy spectrum of GRB

149: 040924 is soft (Fenimore et al. 2004), the object might actually be

150: near the short-duration end of the long GRBs. A detailed study of the

151: associated optical afterglow could provide further information on

152: whether this is indeed the case, thus probing the nature of GRBs in

153: the boundary region.

154: 

155: About $t = 16$~min after the burst, Fox (2004) detected the

156: corresponding optical afterglow with an $R$-band magnitude of

157: $\sim$18. This was shortly followed by Li et al. (2004), who reported

158: $R \approx 18.3$ mag at 26~min after the burst. From then on, a number

159: of observatories joined in the follow-up observations (Fynbo et

160: al. 2004; Hu et al. 2004; Khamitov et al. 2004a; Terada, Akiyama, \&

161: Kawai 2004). Radio observations failed to detect the afterglow at $t =

162: 12.54$~hr and $t = 5.79$~d (Frail \& Soderberg 2004; van de Horst,

163: Rol, \& Wijers 2004a,b). Spectral measurements by the Very Large

164: Telescope (VLT) of a galaxy located at the position of the optical

165: afterglow indicated a redshift $z = 0.859$ for this event (Wiersema et

166: al. 2004).

167: 

168: \section{Observations and Data Analysis}

169: 

170: Upon receiving the burst alert message from {\it HETE--2} and the

171: optical position reported by Fox \& Moon (2004), multi-band (Johnson

172: $B$ and $V$; Bessell $R$ and $I$) follow-up observations of GRB 040924

173: with the Lulin One-meter Telescope (LOT, in Taiwan) were initiated according

174: to the previously approved Target-of-Opportunity procedure. Photometric

175: images were obtained with the PI1300B CCD camera ($1300 \times 1340$

176: pixels, $\sim 11' \times 11'$ field of view; Kinoshita et al. 2005)

177: during the interval 14.31--20.89 on Sep. 24 (i.e., 2.4--9.0~hr after

178: the burst). Unfortunately, the earliest observations ($t < 3.1$ hr)

179: were not successful because of poor weather and short exposure

180: times. These problems also affected all of the $B$ and $I$ data, and

181: many of the $V$ and $R$ images as well. Nevertheless, our observations

182: reveal unusual early-time evolution of the afterglow brightness, as

183: discussed below.

184: 

185: A standard routine including bias subtraction and flat-fielding

186: corrections with appropriate calibration data was employed to process

187: the data using IRAF.\footnote[8]{IRAF is distributed by the National

188: Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under

189: cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}  The

190: afterglow was clearly seen in the $V$-band and $R$-band images (Figure

191: 1). The position of the afterglow is $\alpha$(J2000) $= 02^{\rm h}

192: 06^{\rm m} 22^{\rm s}.52$, $\delta$(J2000) $= +16^{\circ}06'48''.82$

193: ($\pm 0''.23$ in each coordinate).  Next, the DAOPHOT package (Stetson

194: 1989) was used to perform aperture photometry of the GRB field by

195: choosing ten field stars for differential photometry. The LOT data

196: were combined with median filtering to improve the signal-to-noise

197: ratio. For the photometry, the aperture diameter was set to 4 times

198: the FWHM of the objects. The magnitude error was estimated as

199: $\sigma_{\rm e}^{2}= \sigma_{\rm ph}^{2} + \sigma_{\rm sys}^{2}$,

200: where $\sigma_{\rm ph}$ is the photometric error of the afterglow

201: estimated from the DAOPHOT output, and $\sigma_{\rm sys}$ is the

202: systematic calibration error estimated by comparing the instrumental

203: magnitudes of the ten field stars. Besides the calibration data

204: obtained by the USNOFS 1.0-m telescope (Henden 2004), we used the

205: measurements of four Landolt (1992) standard-star fields (SA92,

206: PG2331+055, SA95, and PG2317+046) taken by LOT on a photometric

207: night. The difference between the two flux calibrations is within 0.04

208: mag. The magnitudes derived for the $R$ and $V$ observations are

209: summarized in Table 1.

210: 

211: In addition to the LOT data, we have also included two early

212: measurements from the 0.76-m Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope

213: (KAIT; Li et al. 2003b) at Lick Observatory at $t = 0.43$ and

214: 1.06~hr. The KAIT data were taken without filters, but the

215: transformation of the unfiltered magnitude to $R$ can be determined

216: from the $V-R$ colors of the GRB field stars and of the optical

217: afterglow (Li et al. 2003a,b). The calibration of the GRB 040924 field

218: is adopted from Henden (2004), and the value $V-R = 0.57$ mag of the

219: afterglow is taken from LOT data at 0.292~d after the burst. KAIT

220: observed the GRB at low airmass (1.26--1.4), and the local standard

221: stars have $V-R$ colors (0.39--0.85 mag) similar to that of the

222: GRB. Moreover, from three photometric nights we found that the

223: coefficient for the second-order extinction is only 0.04; thus, the

224: errors caused by second-order extinction of GRB 040924 are small, and

225: are included in the overall uncertainties of the KAIT data.

226: 

227: \section{Results}

228: 

229: The light curve of GRB 040924 in Figure 2 is a combination of the

230: early observations reported by Fox (2004) at 0.012~d and 0.033~d after

231: the burst, the work reported here, and the measurements by Khamitov et

232: al. (2004b,c) at $t = 0.37$~d, 0.62~d, and 1.56~d, Fynbo et al. (2004) at

233: $t = 0.73$~d, and Silvey et al. (2004) around $t = 0.9$~d. To put all of

234: the data onto a consistent magnitude scale, we recalibrated the

235: above-mentioned published data by using the Henden (2004) standard

236: stars for the GRB 040924 field. The data of Fox (2004) were calibrated

237: by GSC~2.2 stars\footnote[9]{The GSC~2.2 is a magnitude-selected

238: subset of GSC~II, an all-sky catalog based on $1''$ resolution scans

239: of the photographic Sky Survey plates, at two epochs and three

240: bandpasses, from the Palomar and UK Schmidt telescopes

241: (http://www-gsss.stsci.edu/gsc/gsc2/GSC2home.htm).}  with F-emulsion

242: magnitude which corresponds closely to the $R$-band magnitude; the GSC

243: stars are 0.11 mag brighter than the Henden standard stars in the

244: average of our images. Since two reference stars are provided by

245: Khamitov et al. (2004b,c) and Fynbo et al. (2004), we measured these

246: stars from LOT $R$-band combined images and obtained the average magnitudes

247: and root-mean-square errors; the results were then used to recalibrate

248: the reported afterglow magnitudes.

249: 

250: The time evolution of the light curve can be expressed in terms of a

251: power law with $F(t) \propto t^{\alpha}$, where $t$ is the time after

252: the burst and $\alpha$ is the index. We find $\alpha = -0.87 \pm 0.02$

253: ($\chi^{2}/\nu$= 0.06 for $\nu=2$) for the very sparse $V$-band data (only

254: three closely spaced LOT observations and one later observation from Silvey

255: et al. 2004). Similarly, we derive $\alpha = -0.99 \pm 0.02$ ($\chi^{2}/\nu$

256: = 2.08 for $\nu=12$) from all 14 available $R$-band observations.

257: These two values of $\alpha$ fall within the range of long GRBs

258: ($\alpha = -0.62$ to $-2.3$), so the afterglow of GRB 040924 is

259: consistent with the standard model of cosmic-ray electrons accelerated

260: by the internal and external shocks of the expanding fireball

261: \citep{meszaros}, as in the case of typical long-duration GRBs.

262: 

263: Upon closer scrutiny, the first three $R$-band observations (at $t = 16$--50

264: min) indicate $\alpha = -0.7$, consistent with the conclusion of Fox (2004),

265: while the subsequent data (starting from the third $R$-band observation)

266: give a somewhat steeper value of $\alpha = -1.06 \pm 0.03$ (with $\chi^{2}/\nu = 1.09$ for

267: $\nu = 10$). [Essentially the same late-time result, $\alpha = -1.06 \pm 0.02$, is found

268: when we use only our own LOT and KAIT data, together with the Sibley et al.

269: (2004) observation at $t = 0.91$~d.] The data thus suggest

270: the presence of a mild break, the significance of which is discussed

271: below.

272: 

273: Finally, our LOT observations of GRB 040924 at $t = 7.10$~hr indicate

274: a color index of $V-R = 0.57 \pm 0.18$ mag, corrected for foreground

275: reddening of $E(B-V) = 0.058$ mag (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis

276: 1998).  We have also calculated the color of observations by Silvey et

277: al. (2004) at $t = 0.91$~d (22.1~hr) to be $V-R = 0.35 \pm 0.10$ mag,

278: corrected for foreground reddening. While these two values are consistent

279: with the color of typical long GRBs ($V-R = 0.40 \pm 0.13$ mag; Simon et

280: al. 2001), they also may suggest the interesting possibility of a color

281: change during the time evolution of this afterglow. However, the color

282: change is only marginally significant, given the uncertainties. Future GRB

283: afterglow measurements should shed new light on this tantalizing behavior.

284: 

285: \section{Discussion}

286: 

287: The brightness variations of the optical afterglows of GRBs potentially

288: yield important information on the expansion of the ejecta. For example,

289: breaks in the light-curve power laws at several hours to several days after

290: the bursts have been observed in a number of GRBs. This effect is generally

291: believed to be associated with the evolution as a collimated jet (Rhoads 1999).

292: In the case of GRB 040924, because of the small variation from $\alpha =

293: -0.7$ to $\alpha = -1.06$ around $t = 50$~min, the break is not well

294: constrained. On the other hand, this small break could be indicative of some

295: interesting physical process. Note that the amplitude of the break

296: ($\Delta\alpha = \alpha_2 - \alpha_1$; here $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are

297: the power-law indices before and after the break, respectively) is independent

298: of extinction under the assumption of no color change. In the case of GRB

299: 040924, from $\alpha_1 = -0.7$ and $\alpha_2 = -1.06$ we find $\Delta\alpha

300: \approx -0.36$. According to theoretical work (Rhoads 1999), $\Delta\alpha

301: = -3/4$ for a collimated jet with a fixed angle, and $\Delta\alpha = \alpha_1

302: /3 -1 \approx -1.23$ for a sideways-expanding jet in the framework of a constant

303: ambient density model. It is clear that the amplitude of the break in GRB

304: 040924 is much smaller than values expected of jet expansion with power-law

305: indices much steeper after the break. The interpretation of a jet break for

306: GRB 040924 is thus uncertain. Next we will explore an alternative possible

307: explanation.

308: 

309: Panaitescu \& Kumar (2000) pointed out that a light-curve break could

310: also be caused by the spectral cooling frequency moving through the

311: optical band. This property might be used as a diagnostic tool to

312: differentiate among different possible scenarios of GRB afterglow

313: formation. In the standard GRB afterglow model, it is usually assumed

314: that the synchrotron emission observed in optical bands originates

315: from the expansion of a blast wave of constant energy into an

316: interstellar medium (ISM) of constant density. However, there is also

317: increasing evidence that some GRBs have massive-star progenitors.

318: Consequently, the corresponding relativistic blast waves should actually

319: be expanding into the stellar wind of the progenitor stars with a density

320: variation of $\rho \propto r^{-2}$ (Dai \& Lu 1998; M\'esz\'aros et

321: al. 1998; Panaitescu et al. 1998).  Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros (2004)

322: listed the broad-band optical spectra of the synchrotron radiation from

323: a power-law distribution of energetic electrons with a spectral index

324: ($p$) accelerated by the blast wave; accordingly, we can obtain the

325: values of $p$ before and after the cooling break.

326: 

327: As shown in Table 2, the ISM model provides the only possible fit (for

328: $p > 2$) to the GRB 040924 observations which satisfies the

329: requirement that $p$ should remain nearly the same ($p \approx 1.93$

330: to 2.08) as the spectrum evolves from $\nu_{\rm opt} < \nu_{\rm c}$ to

331: $\nu_{\rm opt} > \nu_{\rm c}$. Note that within the framework of the

332: ISM model, $p = 2.33$ for $\nu_{\rm opt} < \nu_{\rm c}$ and $p = 2.00$

333: for $\nu_{\rm opt} > \nu_{\rm c}$ if the corresponding light curve can

334: be characterized by a single power-law index ($\alpha = -0.99 \pm

335: 0.02$).

336: 

337: Another interesting estimate can be made concerning the relation

338: between the cooling-break frequency $\nu_{\rm c}$, the break time

339: $t_{\rm day}$ (in units of days), the redshift $z$, the magnetic

340: energy $\varepsilon_{\rm B}$, the kinetic energy $E_{52}$ (in units of

341: $10^{52}$ erg), and the density $n_0$ of the ISM. According to Granot

342: \& Sari (2004),

343: \begin{equation}

344: \nu_{\rm c} =

345: 6.37(p-0.46)10^{13}e^{-1.16p}(1+z)^{-1/2}\varepsilon_{\rm B}^{-3/2}n_0^{-1}E_{52}^{-1/2}t_{\rm day}^{-1/2} .

346: \end{equation}

347: 

348: \noindent

349: Now, with $t_{\rm day} = 0.035$, $\nu_{\rm c} = 4.7 \times 10^{14}$~Hz

350: in the $R$ band, $z = 0.859$, $p \approx 2.08$, and the assumptions

351: that $E_{52} = 1.48$ and $n_0 = 1$ cm$^{-3}$, we find

352: $\varepsilon_{\rm B} \approx 0.16$. This value is consistent with the

353: normal assumption for the magnetic-energy fraction of

354: $\varepsilon_{\rm B} \approx 0.1$, though slightly larger. For the

355: case of a single power-law index ($\alpha = -0.99 \pm 0.02$),

356: $\varepsilon_{\rm B} < 0.01$, which is much smaller than the normal

357: value. Our analysis thus suggests that the observed light curve of GRB

358: 040924 could be the result of the spectral cooling frequency moving

359: through the optical band. In other words, the apparent break in GRB

360: 040924 might not be a jet break but rather a cooling break.

361: 

362: \section{Conclusion}

363: 

364: The 1.2--1.5~s duration of GRB 040924, though formally in the domain

365: of short GRBs, overlaps the short end of long-duration GRBs. Moreover,

366: it has a soft high-energy spectrum, characteristic of long GRBs. Our

367: optical afterglow observations show that the temporal evolution,

368: power-law index, and $V-R$ color of GRB 040924 are also consistent

369: with those of well-observed long GRBs. The signature of a

370: low-amplitude break in the light curve, as suggested by our present

371: data, can be explained by the afterglow model invoking a cooling break

372: at early times. However, note that the jet break usually

373: occurs 1--2~d after the burst, and there are few observations of

374: GRB 040924 at $t > 1$~d. Thus, we cannot exclude the possibility

375: that the true jet break occurred outside the range of our

376: observations.

377: 

378: Due to the general lack of information on the optical afterglows of

379: short GRBs, we cannot compare our observations of GRB 040924 to this

380: class of objects. The $\it{Swift}$ satellite, with higher gamma-ray

381: sensitivity and more accurate localization than previous missions,

382: will provide more opportunities to understand the properties of

383: typical short GRBs and of GRBs near the boundary between short and

384: long GRBs.

385: 

386: %\section*{Acknowledgment}

387: \bigskip

388: 

389: We thank the staff and observers at the Lulin telescope for various

390: arrangements that made possible the observations reported herein. This

391: work is supported by grants NSC 93-2752-M-008-001-PAE and NSC 93-2112-M-008-006.

392: Y.U. acknowledges support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of

393: Science (JSPS) through a JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists.

394: A.V.F. is grateful for NSF grant AST-0307894, and for a Miller Research

395: Professorship at UC Berkeley during which part of this work was completed.

396: KAIT was made possible by generous donations from Sun Microsystems, Inc.,

397: the Hewlett-Packard Company, AutoScope Corporation, Lick Observatory, the

398: NSF, the University of California, and the Sylvia and Jim Katzman Foundation.

399: 

400: \begin{thebibliography}{}

401: \bibitem[Dai \& Lu (1998)]{dai} Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 1998, \mnras, 298, 87

402: \bibitem[Fenimore et al.(2004)]{fenimore} Fenimore, E. E., et al. 2004, GCN Circ. 2735

403: \bibitem[Fox (2004)]{fox} Fox, D. B. 2004, GCN Circ. 2741

404: \bibitem[Fox \& Moon(2004)]{foxmoon} Fox, D. B., \& Moon, D. S. 2004, GCN Circ. 2734

405: \bibitem[Frail \& Soderberg(2004)]{frail} Frail, D. A., \& Soderberg, A. 2004, GCN Circ. 2758  

406: \bibitem[Fynbo et al.(2004)]{fynbo} Fynbo, J. P. U., Hornstrup, A., Hjorth, J.,

407: Jensen, B. L., \& Anderson, M. I. 2004, GCN Circ. 2747

408: \bibitem[Henden (2004)]{Henden}Henden, A. 2004, GCN Circ. 2811

409: \bibitem[Hu et al.(2004)]{Hu}Hu, J. H., Lin, H. C., Huang, K. Y., Urata, Y., Ip, W. H.,

410: \& Tamagawa, T. 2004, GCN Circ. 2744

411: \bibitem[Golenetskii et al.(2004)]{Golenetskii} Golenetskii, S., Aptekar, R., Mazets, E.,

412: Pal'shin, V., Frederiks, D., \& Cline, T. 2004, GCN Circ. 2754

413: %\bibitem[Granot \& Sari (2002)]{granot} Granot, J., \& Sari, R. 2002, \apj, 568, 820

414: \bibitem[Khamitov et al.(2004a)]{khamitov} Khamitov, I., et al. 2004a, GCN Circ. 2740

415: \bibitem[Khamitov et al.(2004b)]{khamitov} Khamitov, I., et al. 2004b, GCN Circ. 2749

416: \bibitem[Khamitov et al.(2004c)]{khamitov} Khamitov, I., et al. 2004c, GCN Circ. 2752

417: \bibitem[Kinoshita et al.(2005)]{kinoshita} Kinoshita, D., et al. 2005, ChJAA, 5, 315

418: \bibitem[Kouveliotou et al.(1993)]{kouveliotou} Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1993, \apj, 463, 570

419: \bibitem[Lee \& Ramirez-Ruiz (2002)]{lee} Lee, W. H., \& Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2002, \apj,

420: 577, 893

421: \bibitem[Li et al.(2003a)]{Li03a} Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., \&

422: Jha, S. 2003a, ApJ,  586, L9

423: \bibitem[Li et al.(2003b)]{Li03b} Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., \&

424: Jha, S. 2003b, PASP, 115, 844

425: \bibitem[Li et al.(2004)]{Li04} Li, W., Filippenko, A. V., Chornock, R., \&

426: Jha, S. 2004, GCN Circ. 2748

427: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{landolt} Landolt, A. U.  1992, \aj, 104, 340

428: \bibitem[MacFadyen \& Woosley (1999)]{macfadyen} MacFadyen, A. I., \& Woosley, S. E. 1999,

429: \apj, 524, 262

430: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros, Rees \& Wijers (1998)]{meszaros98} M\'esz\'aros, P., Rees, M. J.,

431: \& Wijers, R. A. M. J. 1998, \apj, 499, 301

432: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros 2002]{meszaros} M\'esz\'aros, P. 2002, \araa, 40, 137

433: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(1992)]{narayan} Narayan, R., et al. 1992, \apj, 395, 83

434: \bibitem[Narayan et al.(2001)]{narayan2} Narayan, R., et al. 2001, \apj, 557, 494

435: \bibitem[Panaitescu \& Kumar (2000)]{panaitescu2} Panaitescu, A., \& Kumar, P. 2000,

436: \apj, 543, 66

437: \bibitem[Panaitescu, M\'esz\'aros, \& Rees (1998)]{panaitescu1} Panaitescu, A.,

438: M\'esz\'aros, P., \& Rees, M. J. 1998, \apj, 503, 314

439: \bibitem[Popham (1999)]{Popham} Popham, R. 1999, \apj, 518, 356

440: %\bibitem[Prochaska (2004)]{prochaska} Prochaska, J. X. 2004, \apj, 104, 372

441: \bibitem[Rhoads (1999)]{rhoads} Rhoads, J. E. 1999, \apj, 525, 737

442: \bibitem[Rosswog \& Davies (2002)]{rosswog} Rosswog, S., \& Davies, M. B. 2002,

443: \mnras, 334, 481

444: \bibitem[Ruffert et al. (1997)]{ruffert} Ruffert, M., et al. 1997, A\&A, 319, 122

445: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis (1998)]{schlegel} Schlegel, D. J.,

446: Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525

447: \bibitem[Silvey et al.(2004)]{silvey} Silvey, J., et al. 2004, GCN Circ. 2833

448: \bibitem[Simon (2001)]{simon} Simon, V. 2001, A\&A, 377, 450

449: %\bibitem[Stanek et al.(2003)]{stanek} Stanek, K. Z.  2003, \apj, 611, 200

450: % stanek ref wasn't used, and isn't correct anyway -- article doesn't exist.

451: \bibitem[Stetson(1987)]{Stetson87} Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191

452: %\bibitem[Terada \& Akiyama (2004)]{teradaandak} Terada, H., \& Akiyama, M. 2004, GCN Circ. 2742

453: \bibitem[Terada, Akiyama, \& Kawai(2004)]{terada} Terada, H., Akiyama, M., \& Kawai, N.

454: 2004, GCN Circ. 2745

455: \bibitem[van de Horst, Rol, \& Wijers(2004a)]{horst1} van der Horst, A. J., Rol, E., \& Wijers,

456: R. A. M. J. 2004a, GCN Circ. 2746

457: \bibitem[van de Horst, Rol, \& Wijers(2004b)]{horst2} van der Horst, A. J., Rol, E., \& Wijers,

458: R. A. M. J. 2004b, GCN Circ. 2759

459: \bibitem[Wiersema et al.(2004)]{wiersema} Wiersema, K., et al. 2004, GCN Circ. 2800

460: \bibitem[Woosley (1993)]{woosley} Woosley, S. E. 1993, \apj, 405, 273

461: \bibitem[Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros (2004) ]{zhang1} Zhang, B., \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 2004, Int. J.

462: Mod. Phys. A., 19, 2385

463: 

464: \end{thebibliography}

465: 

466: \clearpage

467: 

468: \begin{figure}

469: \plotone{f1.ps}

470: \plotone{f2.ps}

471: \caption{The $R$-band and $V$-band images of GRB 040924 taken with LOT.

472: The location of the afterglow is indicated by a circle in each image.}

473: \label{grb040924image}

474: \end{figure}

475: 

476: \clearpage

477: 

478: \begin{figure}

479: \plotone{f3.ps}

480: \caption{The $V$-band and $R$-band light curves based on our (LOT

481: and KAIT) observations and the recalibrated data points of Fox (2004),

482: Fynbo et al. (2004), Khamitov et al. (2004b,c), and Silvey et

483: al. (2004). The straight lines represent the power-law models [$F(t)

484: \propto t^{\alpha}$] fitted to the data points: {\it solid} is for the

485: $R$-band $\alpha = -0.7$ at early times (based on the first three

486: observations), {\it dashed} is the

487: late-time $R$-band best fit of $\alpha = -1.06 \pm 0.03$ starting from

488: the third observation, and {\it dotted} is the $V$-band best fit of

489: $\alpha = -0.87 \pm 0.02$ from LOT and Silvey et al. (2004).}

490: \label{grb040924lc}

491: \end{figure}

492: 

493: \clearpage

494: 

495: \begin{table}[htb]

496: \begin{center}

497: \caption{Log of GRB 040924 Optical Afterglow Observations}

498: %\label{grb040924obs1}

499: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}

500: \tableline\tableline

501: UT Date & Start Time & Mean Delay (days) & Filter  & Exposure (s) & mag & Site\\

502: \tableline

503: 2004-09-24 & 18:52:37 &  0.296 & $V$  & 300 s $\times$ 3 & 22.01$\pm$0.13 & LOT \\  

504: 2004-09-24 & 19:46:02 &  0.333 & $V$  & 300 s $\times$ 3 & 22.05$\pm$0.16 & LOT \\  

505: 2004-09-24 & 20:24:54 &  0.360 & $V$  & 300 s $\times$ 3 & 22.18$\pm$0.13 & LOT \\ \hline

506: 2004-09-24 & 12:18:21 &  0.018 & $R$ & 120 s $\times$ 1 & 18.44$\pm$0.05 & KAIT\tablenotemark{a} \\

507: 2004-09-24 & 12:55:21 &  0.044 & $R$ & 120 s $\times$ 1 & 19.31$\pm$0.15 & KAIT\tablenotemark{a} \\

508: 2004-09-24 & 15:00:55 &  0.140 & $R$ & 600 s $\times$ 2 & 20.71$\pm$0.13 & LOT \\

509: 2004-09-24 & 18:34:37 &  0.284 & $R$ & 300 s $\times$ 3 & 21.39$\pm$0.15 & LOT \\

510: 2004-09-24 & 19:28:57 &  0.321 & $R$ & 300 s $\times$ 3 & 21.47$\pm$0.15 & LOT \\  

511: 2004-09-24 & 20:07:48 &  0.348 & $R$ & 300 s $\times$ 3 & 21.47$\pm$0.14 & LOT \\  

512: 2004-09-24 & 20:42:17 &  0.372 & $R$ & 300 s $\times$ 3 & 21.59$\pm$0.17 & LOT \\

513: 2004-09-25 & 08:35:00 &  0.873 & $R$  & 300 s $\times$ 3 & $>$22.47    & KAIT\tablenotemark{a} \\  

514: %\tableline                                          

515: \tablenotetext{a}{KAIT measurements were unfiltered, but transformed to $R$ (Li et al. 2003a,b).}

516: \end{tabular}

517: \end{center}

518: \end{table}

519: 

520: \clearpage

521: 

522: \begin{table}[htb]

523: \begin{center}

524: \caption{Electron Spectral Index ($p$) Calculated from the

525: Measured Spectral Index ($\alpha$)}

526: \vspace{0.3cm}

527: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}

528: \tableline\tableline & & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$p > 2$}& & &

529: &&\multicolumn{1}{r}{$1 < p < 2$} &\\ \cline{3-5} \cline{7-9}

530: \multicolumn{1}{c}{\raisebox{1.5ex}{Frequency\tablenotemark{a}}}&

531: \multicolumn{1}{c}{\raisebox{1.5ex}{model}}&

532: \multicolumn{1}{c}{relation\tablenotemark{b}}&

533: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$p_{1}$\tablenotemark{c}}&

534: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$p_{2}$\tablenotemark{c}}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{}&

535: \multicolumn{1}{c}{relation\tablenotemark{b}}&

536: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$p_{1}$\tablenotemark{c}}&

537: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$p_{2}$\tablenotemark{c}}\\ \tableline $\nu_{\rm opt}<

538: \nu_{\rm c}$ & ISM &$p=1-4\alpha/3$

539: & 1.93 & 2.41 & & $p=-2\alpha-10/3$ & $-1.93$ & $-1.21$ \\ $\nu_{\rm opt}> \nu_{\rm c}$ &

540: ISM & $p=2/3-4\alpha/3$ & 1.60 & 2.08 & & $p=-2-16\alpha/3$ & ~1.73 & ~3.65\\

541: \tableline $\nu_{\rm opt}< \nu_{\rm c}$ & Wind & $p=1/3-4\alpha/3$

542: & 1.26 & 1.74 & & $p=-6-8\alpha$ & $-0.4$ & ~2.48\\ $\nu_{\rm opt}> \nu_{\rm c}$ &

543: Wind & $p=2/3-4\alpha/3$ & 1.6 & 2.08& &$p=-8-8\alpha$ & $-2.4$ & ~0.48 \\

544: \tableline $\nu_{\rm opt}< \nu_{\rm c}$ & Jet & $p=-\alpha$

545: & 0.7 & 1.06& & $p=-6-4\alpha$ & $-3.2$ & $-1.76$ \\ $\nu_{\rm opt}> \nu_{\rm c}$ &

546: Jet & $p=-\alpha$ & 0.7 & 1.06 & & $p=-6-4\alpha$ & $-3.2$ & $-1.76$ \\

547: %\tableline

548: \tablenotetext{a}{The frequency at which the spectrum breaks due to

549: synchrotron cooling is $\nu_{\rm c}$, whereas the typical visible-light

550: frequency is $\nu_{\rm opt}$.}  \tablenotetext{b}{The GRB afterglow model

551: relation of Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros (2004).}  \tablenotetext{c}{The

552: electron spectral index calculated from $\alpha_1 = -0.70$ and

553: $\alpha_2 = -1.06$.}

554: \end{tabular}

555: \end{center}

556: \end{table}

557: 

558: \end{document} 

559: