Free Access
Erratum
This article is an erratum for: [this article] [this article] [this article]

Issue
A&A
Volume 532, August 2011
Article Number C3
Number of page(s) 1
Section Extragalactic astronomy
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/20066780e
Published online 03 August 2011

We have recently realized that, in Eq. (1) in Vreeswijk et al. (2007), the flux Fν(τ0) should be divided by 4   π. The relation should therefore read as follows:

(1)Using this relation, our excitation program is now fully consistent with the PopRatio code (Silva & Viegas 2002, see also Sect. 5.2) when neglecting collisional excitation, and in the optically thin regime as PopRatio assumes all transitions are optically thin. The consequence is that excitation is a factor of 4   π less effective than we had previously assumed, resulting in a decreased distance estimate by a factor of . Therefore, the distance of GRB 060418 to the neutral absorbing material – previously d = 1.7 ± 0.2 kpc – needs to be revised to d = 0.48 ± 0.06 kpc, under the same model assumptions. The main conclusion of the paper, that the neutral absorbing gas is not in the immediate environment of GRB 060418, remains the same.

Since we applied the same excitation analysis in Sect. 4.1.3 of Fox et al. (2008) and in Sect. 2.3 of Ledoux et al. (2009), the distance estimates therein should also be scaled down by a factor of . The main conclusions of these two papers are not affected by this change either.

References


© ESO, 2011

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.