Paper detail

Dusty MgII Absorbers: Implications for the GRB/Quasar Incidence Discrepancy

There is nearly a factor of four difference in the number density of intervening MgII absorbers as determined from gamma-ray burst (GRB) and quasar lines of sight. We use a Monte-Carlo simulation to test if a dust extinction bias can account for this discrepancy. We apply an empirically determined relationship between dust column density and MgII rest equivalent width to simulated quasar sight-lines and model the underlying number of quasars that must be present to explain the published magnitude distribution of SDSS quasars. We find that an input MgII number density dn/dz of 0.273 +- 0.002 over the range 0.4 <= z <= 2.0 and with MgII equivalent width W_0 >= 1.0 angstroms accurately reproduces observed distributions. From this value, we conclude that a dust obstruction bias cannot be the sole cause of the observed discrepancy between GRB and quasar sight-lines: this bias is likely to reduce the discrepancy only by ~10%.

preprint2009arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.