No evidence for dust extinction in GRB 050904 at z ~ 6.3
Tayyaba Zafar (1), Darach J. Watson (1), Daniele Malesani (1), Paul M., Vreeswijk (1), Johan P.U. Fynbo (1), Jens Hjorth (1), Andrew J. Levan (2),, Micha{\l} J. Micha{\l}owski (1,3) ((1) DARK, (2) Univ. Warwick., (3) Univ., Edinburgh)

TL;DR
This study reanalyzed the afterglow of GRB 050904 at z ~ 6.3 and found no evidence of dust extinction, challenging previous claims of unusual dust in its host galaxy based on spectral data.
Contribution
The paper provides a comprehensive reanalysis of multi-epoch data, demonstrating that earlier evidence for dust extinction in the high-redshift GRB host was not statistically significant.
Findings
No significant dust extinction detected in the afterglow SED.
The Z-band suppression previously reported is statistically insignificant.
The data do not support the presence of SN-origin dust in the host galaxy.
Abstract
Context: GRB afterglows are excellent probes of gas and dust in star-forming galaxies at all epochs. It has been posited that dust in the early Universe must be different from dust at lower z. To date two reports directly support this contention, one of which is based on the spectral shape of GRB 050904 at z = 6.295. Aims: We reinvestigate the afterglow to understand dust at high z. We address the claimed evidence for unusual (SN-origin) dust in its host galaxy by simultaneously examining the X-ray and optical/NIR spectrophotometric data. Methods: We derive the intrinsic SED of the afterglow at 0.47, 1.25 and 3.4 days, by re-reducing the Swift X-ray data, the 1.25 days FORS2 z-Gunn photometric data, the spectroscopic and z'-band photometric data at ~3 days from the Subaru telescope, as well as the critical UKIRT Z-band photometry at 0.47 days, upon which the claim of dust detection…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
