GCN Circular 2255

We have noticed a minor numerical error near the end of GCN 2254
Not found
 
 
.  Here
is a corrected (and slightly expanded) version:

H. Cheng, M. Bayliss, D. Reichart, J. Moran, M. Nysewander, M. Schwartz,
and P. Holvorcem report on behalf of the UNC GRB team of the FUN GRB
collaboration:

We observed the afterglow (Peterson & Price, GCN 1985
Not found
 
 
) of GRB 030329
(Vanderspek et al., GCN 1997
Not found
 
 
) with the 32-inch Tenagra II telescope in
IcRcVIc on April 2nd and 3rd, in IcIc on April 4th and 5th, and in Ic on
April 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th.  Between April 2nd and 10th, we find
that the afterglow faded from Ic = 16.9 mag to Ic = 18.9 mag.  Our error
bars are typically less than 0.02 mag (1 sigma).

Fitting a four-parameter model to the data, where the parameters are the
temporal index alpha, the spectral index beta, a normalization parameter,
and a parameter that measures the level of systematic (i.e.,
non-statistical) fluctuations in the light curve, we find that alpha =
-1.70(+0.13)(-0.14), beta = -1.38(+0.20)(-0.20), and that the fading
afterglow is fluctuating at the 17.5(+3.8)(-3.5)% level at these times.

Furthermore, these fluctuations appear to be chromatic in nature.

We note that the measured spectral index is too steep given the measured
temporal index and the post-jet break time relations of Sari, Piran, &
Halpern (1999, ApJ, 519, L17).  Possible explanations include:

1. The light curve had not yet reached its asymptotic temporal index, which
if the afterglow is unextinguished would be alpha = -2.76 +- 0.40 if the
cooling break is redward of the observed bands or alpha = -3.76 +- 0.40 if
the cooling break is blueward of the observed bands; or

2. The light curve is extinguished.  Although this does not appear to be
the case at earlier times, this could be the case at later times if dust
was destroyed within the initial opening angle of the jet, but then the jet
expanded laterally behind undisturbed dust.