1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3:
4: \begin{document}
5:
6:
7: \title{ECHO EMISSION FROM DUST SCATTERING AND X-RAY AFTERGLOWS OF GAMMA-RAY BURSTS}
8:
9: \author{\sc L. Shao\altaffilmark{1,2}, Z. G. Dai\altaffilmark{1}, N. Mirabal\altaffilmark{3}}
10: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Nanjing University,
11: Nanjing 210093, China; lang@nju.edu.cn,
12: dzg@nju.edu.cn}\altaffiltext{2}{JILA, University of Colorado,
13: Boulder, CO 80309, USA;
14: shaol@jilau1.colorado.edu}\altaffiltext{3}{Columbia Astrophysics
15: Laboratory, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: We investigate the effect of X-ray echo emission in gamma-ray bursts
19: (GRBs). We find that the echo emission can provide an alternative
20: way of understanding X-ray shallow decays and jet breaks. In
21: particular, a shallow decay followed by a ``normal" decay and a
22: further rapid decay of X-ray afterglows can be together explained as
23: being due to the echo from prompt X-ray emission scattered by dust
24: grains in a massive wind bubble around a GRB progenitor. We also
25: introduce an extra temporal break in the X-ray echo emission. By
26: fitting the afterglow light curves, we can measure the locations of
27: the massive wind bubbles, which will bring us closer to finding the
28: mass loss rate, wind velocity, and the age of the progenitors prior
29: to the GRB explosions.
30: \end{abstract}
31: \keywords{dust, extinction --- gamma rays: bursts --- ISM: bubbles
32: --- scattering --- stars: mass loss --- X-rays: general}
33:
34: \section{INTRODUCTION}
35: \label{sec:intro}
36:
37: Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the most luminous and intriguing
38: explosions in the universe. A number of physical interpretations for
39: GRBs have been proposed since they were discovered about four
40: decades ago. The most successful model for GRBs and their afterglows
41: is the fireball shock model \citep[and references therein]{m06}.
42: Although the interpretation for the prompt gamma-ray emission is
43: still controversial even in this standard scenario, the
44: long-wavelength afterglows have been widely accepted to be the
45: emission from relativistic shocks sweeping up an external medium
46: \citep[and references therein]{m06,z07}.
47:
48: In spite of the success of the standard external shock model for
49: interpreting most features of afterglows, there are still a few
50: issues recently raised by the \textit{Swift} X-ray Telescope (XRT)
51: \citep{g04}. The first issue is the ubiquitously detected shallow
52: decay of early X-ray afterglows \citep{n06,z06}. In general, to
53: account for the shallow decay, a ``refreshed shock" scenario is
54: assumed, either by a continuous activity of the GRB progenitor
55: \citep{dl98,zm01,d04}, or by a power-law distribution of the Lorentz
56: factors in the ejecta \citep{rm98,sm00}. However, although the
57: ``refreshed shock" model is generally able to explain the flatter
58: temporal X-ray slopes from current analysis, it may not be able to
59: explain self-consistently both the X-ray and the optical afterglows
60: of some well-monitored GRBs, such as GRB 050319 and GRB 050401
61: \citep{fp06}.
62:
63: The second issue is the lack of jet breaks that are supposed to be
64: detected simultaneously in X-ray and optical light curves
65: \citep{p06,s07,br07}. This raises a serious concern about our
66: understanding of the afterglow emission. Currently, possible
67: solutions to this problem are additional mechanisms taking place in
68: the early X-ray emission \citep{fp06}, X-ray emission arising from
69: different outflows with the optical emission \citep{p06}, or
70: alternatively, the temporal break in X-rays is masked by some
71: additional source of X-ray emission \citep{s07}, so that a jet break
72: at the expected time could still be seen in the optical band. The
73: last interpretation may bring renaissance to the physical meaning of
74: a jet break \citep{r99} and $E_{\rm jet}$ \citep{f01}, and therefore
75: revive the relation between $E_{\rm jet}$ and $E_{\rm peak}$
76: \citep{g04a}.
77:
78: Recently \cite{sd07} realized that the impulsive prompt X-ray
79: emission scattering off the surrounding medium could give rise to a
80: long-term X-ray flux, which is comparable to that of most observed
81: afterglows. The scattered X-ray emission (which is called echo
82: emission herein) could be an additional contributor to the early
83: X-ray afterglow, which was originally put forward by \cite{k98} and
84: then further discussed by \cite{mg00} and \cite{ss03}. \cite{sd07}
85: also worked out detailed light curves of the echo emission that
86: could nicely reproduce most of the temporal features of observed
87: X-ray afterglows, i.e., a shallow decay followed by a ``normal"
88: decay and a further rapid decay \citep{z06,n06}. This scenario
89: provides a self-consistent solution to both the shallow decay and
90: the jet break problem. By fitting the X-ray light curves of GRB
91: 060813 and GRB 060814, \cite{sd07} concluded that the scattering
92: medium, i.e., a dusty shell should be at a distance of about tens of
93: parsecs from the GRB source.
94:
95: Coincidentally, this conjectured dusty shell by \cite{sd07} is
96: consistent with the massive wind bubble around a Wolf-Rayet (WR)
97: star, which has been proposed as the progenitor of a GRB. The study
98: of stellar structure and evolution has provided a mass-loss history
99: of a massive star, starting with the Main Sequence (MS) stage as an
100: O star, which will evolve into a WR star and then produce a final
101: supernova and/or a GRB. By the computation of stellar wind and
102: atmosphere models for a O-type star of 60 ${\rm M_\sun}$ mass,
103: \cite{l94} concluded that the stellar mass lost to the wind bubble
104: is about 32 ${\rm M_\sun}$ in the MS stage, 8 ${\rm M_\sun}$ in the
105: Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) stage, and 16 ${\rm M_\sun}$ in the WR
106: stage. Such a massive wind bubble will produce a significant shell
107: mainly swept up by the MS wind at the time of the supernova or GRB
108: (see Fig.\ref{fig:bubble}), with a distance from the progenitor of
109: about $R\sim$ tens of parsecs \citep{g96a,m03,d07}. If the clumps
110: formed during the LBV and WR stages survive long enough, they will
111: be hitting the MS shell roughly at the time of the supernova or GRB
112: \citep{g96a}.
113:
114: In this paper, we apply the echo emission model to a sample of 36
115: GRBs with well-monitored X-ray light curves by the XRT onboard
116: \textit{Swift}. We find that most of the light curves without
117: significant flares can be reproduced by our model. In this sample,
118: 14 bursts have available redshifts by observations. By fitting their
119: X-ray light curves, we find the distance $R$ of the wind bubbles
120: from GRB progenitors. A measurement of $R $ might bring us closer to
121: finding the mass loss rate, density and wind velocity of the
122: progenitor prior to the explosion.
123:
124: Our paper is structured as follows: In $\S$\ref{sec:bubble}, we
125: first discuss the existence of massive stellar wind bubbles around
126: GRBs when they explodes and the subsequent X-ray echo emission. We
127: formulate the theoretical light curves of X-ray echo emission in
128: $\S$\ref{sec:theory}, and we introduce the temporal break in echo
129: emission and fit the observational light curves of 36 GRBs in
130: $\S$\ref{sec:break}. Discussion and conclusions follow in
131: $\S$\ref{sec:discuss}.
132:
133:
134: \section{THE ECHO ON THE BUBBLE}
135: \label{sec:bubble}
136:
137: It has been shown by \cite{sd07} with a detailed calculation
138: following \cite{m99} that, the fiducial flux of the echo emission
139: could be comparable to an already observed X-ray afterglow at some
140: certain time, given that the prompt X-rays from a GRB are
141: significantly scattered by the circumstellar dust. Here, we provide
142: a more concise approach by order-of-magnitude estimation.
143:
144: Evidence accumulated in the last few years has verified the
145: long-hypothesized origin of soft GRBs in the deaths of WR stars
146: \citep[and references therein]{wb06}. It is generally believed that
147: the progenitor WR star will blow out a hot bubble in the
148: interstellar medium (ISM) by massive stellar wind \citep{g96a,d07}.
149: The typical radius of the dense shell of swept-up surrounding ISM is
150: of order tens of parsecs, as given by a self-similar solution
151: \citep{cmw75,r01a,m03}
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: R&=&\left({25\dot{M}v^2}\over{14\pi n m_{\rm
154: p}}\right)^{1/5}t^{3/5}\nonumber \\ &=&100\left({\dot{M}_{-6.2}
155: v_{3.5}^2\over n_0}\right)^{1/5}t_{6.6}^{3/5} \,{\rm pc},
156: \end{eqnarray}
157: where the mass-loss rate during the MS stage $\dot{M}=10^{-6.2}\,
158: {\rm M_\odot/yr}$, the typical wind velocity $v=10^{3.5}$ km/s, and
159: the lifetime of the MS stage $t=10^{6.6}$ yr are adopted for a 35
160: ${\rm M_\odot}$ star \citep{g96b,d07}, and the number density of
161: interstellar medium $n=1 \,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ is assumed.
162:
163: Correspondingly, the geometry and density profile of a massive wind
164: bubble around a WR star are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:bubble}. WR stars
165: -- characterized by high mass-loss rate -- are believed to form
166: massive dust in their winds \citep[e.g., ][]{w87,c03,c07a}.
167: Interestingly, all dust shells that were observed were essentially
168: associated with carbon-rich WR stars of the latest subtypes of the
169: WC sequence only \citep[which are called WC stars herein, e.g.,
170: ][]{a72,gh74}. WC stars are the final evolutionary phase of the most
171: massive ($\geq 40 {\rm M_\sun}$) stars, which, in some sense seem to
172: be favored here as the progenitors of some GRBs, since there is
173: where echo emission would be most efficient.
174:
175: Assuming that an X-ray burst (i.e., the X-ray counterpart of a
176: prompt GRB produced at the final stage of a WC star) with a fluence
177: $S_{\rm X}$ is scattered by the dusty shell at a distance $R$ with a
178: scattering optical depth $\tau_{\rm sca}$, the echo emission is
179: spread within a characteristic time scale $t_{\rm d}$, due to the
180: scattering delay of X-rays with different scattering angles $\alpha$
181: (see Fig.\ref{fig:bubble} for the geometry of scattering). Since the
182: characteristic scattering angle $\alpha$ is physically small
183: \citep{ah78}, the time scale $t_{\rm d}$ is consequently much
184: smaller than $R/c$, where $c$ is the speed of light. Therefore, we
185: have a fiducial flux of the X-ray echo emission over a time $T_{\rm
186: d}$
187: \begin{eqnarray}
188: F^{\rm echo}&=&{S_{\rm X} \times \tau_{\rm sca}\over t_{\rm d}} \nonumber \\
189: &=&2.5\times10^{-11}\,\left({S_{\rm X}\over2.5\times10^{-7}\,{\rm
190: ergs\,cm^{-2}}}\right)\left({\tau_{\rm sca}\over
191: 0.1}\right)\left({t_{\rm d}\over 10^3\,{\rm s}}\right)^{-1} \,{\rm
192: ergs\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}}, \label{eq:flux}
193: \end{eqnarray}
194: where $S_{\rm X}$ is the total fluence of the burst observed in
195: X-ray band (say, 0.3-10 keV), the echo flux and the source flux are
196: assumed to suffer the same interstellar absorption on their way to
197: the observer, and the cosmological $k$-correction is ignored.
198: $S_{[0.3-10]}=2.5\times 10^{-7}\,{\rm ergs\,cm^{-2}}$ is
199: approximated here, assuming $S_{[0.3-10]}/S_{[15-150]}= 1/4$ and
200: $S_{[15-150]}=10^{-6}\,{\rm ergs\,cm^{-2}}$, given that
201: $S_{[50-100]}/S_{[25-50]}\sim 1$ \citep{s07a} and most GRBs have a
202: flat spectrum in soft X-ray band \citep{p00,s07a}. Note that, a
203: realistic $S_{[0.3-10]}$ should be essentially larger than the value
204: we adopt here, because the X-rays between [0.3-10] keV before and
205: after the BAT trigger interval \citep[$T_{100; }$][]{s07a},
206: especially those from the soft tail emission in most GRBs, are not
207: included in this approximation. Since the scattering angle $\alpha$
208: is very small, we have
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: t_{\rm d}&=&{(1+z)R \alpha^2\over 2c} \nonumber \\
211: &=&10^3\,\left(1+z\over 2\right)\left(R\over 100\,{\rm
212: pc}\right)\left({\alpha\over
213: 1\arcmin}\right)^2\,{\rm s},
214: \label{eq:timescale}
215: \end{eqnarray}
216: where $z$ is the redshift of the GRB, and $\alpha$ is the typical
217: scattering angle of X-ray echo emission \citep{ah78,k98}.
218:
219: Hence, we have three interesting coincidences:
220: \begin{enumerate}
221: \item
222: The dusty shell at a distance $R$ of about tens of parsecs assumed
223: by \cite{sd07} is consistent with the massive wind bubble around a
224: WR star at its final stage \citep{g96a,m03,d07};
225: \item
226: The timescale of the X-ray echo emission on such a wind bubble is
227: about $t_{\rm d} \sim 10^3$ s, which is the typical timescale when
228: the shallow decay phase dominates in X-ray afterglow
229: \citep{z06,n06};
230: \item
231: The X-ray echo flux $F^{\rm echo}$ from such a wind bubble is
232: consistent with most of both pre-\textit{Swift} and \textit{Swift}
233: X-ray afterglows around $10^3$ s \citep[e.g.,][]{c99,n06}.
234: \end{enumerate}
235:
236: These three coincidences motivate the study of echo emission as an
237: additional contributor to the X-ray emission. In what follows, we
238: work out the light curve of the echo emission, and show the fourth
239: and the most spectacular coincidence that the theoretical light
240: curves of X-ray afterglows are consistent with the observed ones.
241:
242:
243: \section{THEORETICAL LIGHT CURVE}
244: \label{sec:theory}
245:
246: \cite{sd07} have derived the temporal profile of the echo emission.
247: They showed that the feature in the X-ray light curve of a shallow
248: decay followed by a ``normal" decay and a further steepening could
249: be reproduced, given that the grains in the dusty shell have a
250: distribution over size and that the scattering is dependent on the
251: wavelength of X-rays through the Rayleigh-Gans approximation.
252: According to \cite{sd07}, this theoretical light curve can be
253: formulated as
254: \begin{eqnarray}
255: F^{\rm echo}(t)=A \int_{E_-}^{E_+}\int_{a_-}^{a_+}
256: S(E)\tau(E,a)j_1^2\{x[\alpha(t)]\}{1\over t} {\rm d}a{\rm d}E,
257: \label{eq:lightcurve}
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: where $A$ is a constant, $E$ is the energy of an X-ray photon, $a$
260: is the size of a grain in the dusty shell, and we define the
261: following functions
262: \begin{equation}
263: S(E)=\left({E\over{100\,{\rm keV}}}\right)^\delta {\rm
264: exp}\left[-{(\delta+1)E\over E_{\rm p}}\right], \label{eq:s}
265: \end{equation}
266:
267: \begin{equation}
268: \tau(E,a)=\left[{(1+z)E\over{1\,{\rm
269: keV}}}\right]^{-s}\left({a\over0.1\,\micron}\right)^{4-q},
270: \end{equation}
271:
272: \begin{equation}
273: j_1(x)={\sin x\over x^2}- {\cos x\over x},
274: \end{equation}
275:
276: \begin{equation}
277: x(\alpha)= {2\pi (1+z)E a \alpha\over hc},
278: \end{equation}
279:
280: \begin{equation}
281: \alpha(t)=\sqrt{2ct\over(1+z)R}, \label{eq:alpha}
282: \end{equation}
283: where $\delta$ and $E_{\rm p}$ are the spectral index and the
284: observed peak energy of the source \citep{p00}, $s$ and $q$ are the
285: power-law indices in the formula of scattering optical depth
286: \citep{mg86,m77,sd07}, $a_-$ and $a_+$ are the cutoff sizes of dust
287: grains \citep{m77}, $[E_-,E_+]$ is the energy band of the detector,
288: and $h$ is the Planck constant (see the Appendix for a detailed
289: derivation).
290:
291: \section{TEMPORAL BREAK IN X-RAY ECHO EMISSION}
292: \label{sec:break}
293:
294: Thanks to the \textit{Swift} satellite \citep{g04}, our
295: interpretation of GRBs has become more complex. The feature of a
296: shallow decay followed by a ``normal" decay and a further rapid
297: decay of X-ray afterglows appears to be canonical \citep{z06,n06}.
298: Coincidentally, we find that this feature can be naturally
299: reproduced by the echo emission.
300:
301: Well-monitored X-ray light curves of 36 GRBs (see Fig.
302: \ref{fig:lightcurve}) were fitted by our theoretical model above
303: (see Eq. \ref{eq:lightcurve}), using the online data by \cite{e07}.
304: A total of 14 events have known redshifts\footnote{ The redshift
305: data come from \url{http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\sim$jcg/grbgen.html}}
306: (see Tab. \ref{tab:redshift}) while 22 without known redshifts are
307: fixed to be at $z=1$ (see Tab. \ref{tab:noredshift}). We assume
308: $E_-=0.3$ keV and $E_+=10$ keV for \textit{Swift} XRT
309: \citep{g04,e07}, $a_-=0.005\, \micron$ \citep{m77}, $\delta=0$, and
310: $E_{\rm p}=200$ keV \citep{p00}. The other parameters, $s$, $q$,
311: $a_+$, and $R$ are given in Tab. \ref{tab:redshift} and Tab.
312: \ref{tab:noredshift}. Apparently, $a_+$ is almost a constant here
313: (i.e., $a_+=0.25\, \micron$, except $a_+=0.5\, \micron$ for GRB
314: 050505) and consistent with most results from optical observations
315: \citep{m77,ps95}.
316:
317: Here $A$ is a numerical coefficient, which is equal to 2$A_1 A_2$ as
318: shown in the Appendix. $A_1$ is the coefficient in the integrated
319: GRB spectrum between 0.3 and 10 keV, which is not available based on
320: current working frequency of BAT onboard \textit{Swift}. Similarly,
321: $A_2$ is hardly determined by current observations about the X-ray
322: optical depth. A further analysis of the parameter $A_1$ and $A_2$
323: is required once the relevant observational data are sufficient.
324:
325: In Fig. \ref{fig:lightcurve}, all the light curves approach to a
326: steep decay ($\propto t^{-2}$), which is already predicted by Eq.
327: (\ref{eq:lightcurve}). Since this is a double integral about $E$ and
328: $a$, $t$ is an independent parameter. Approximately, when
329: $x[\alpha(t)]\gg1$, we have
330: \begin{eqnarray}
331: F^{\rm echo}(t) &\propto& F_{E,a}^{\rm echo}(t) \nonumber \\
332: &\propto& \left\{ {\sin x[\alpha(t)]\over x^2[\alpha(t)]}- {\cos
333: x[\alpha(t)]\over x[\alpha(t)]}\right\}^2{1\over t} \nonumber \\
334: &\propto& {\cos^2 x[\alpha(t)]\over x^2[\alpha(t)] t} \nonumber \\
335: &\propto& t^{-2},
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: where $\cos^2 x[\alpha(t)]$ is a high-frequency periodic function of
338: $t$ when $x[\alpha(t)]\gg1$, and will be independent on $t$ after
339: the integration over $E$ and $a$. Therefore, letting
340: $x[\alpha(t)]=1$, we have a critical time
341: \begin{eqnarray}
342: t_{\rm c}&=&{h^2 c R \over 8 \pi^2 (1+z) a^2 E^2} \nonumber \\
343: &=& 10^4s \left({2\over1+z}\right)\left(a \over 0.1 \micron
344: \right)^{-2} \left({E} \over 1{\rm keV}\right)^{-2}\left({R \over
345: 100 {\rm pc}}\right), \label{eq:td}
346: \end{eqnarray}
347: after which, the light curves will be approaching the steep decay
348: ($\propto t^{-2}$).
349:
350: By fitting the light curves, we can indirectly derive the distant
351: $R$ for a given event at redshift $z$ (see Table
352: \ref{tab:redshift}). These values of $R$ appear to be consistent
353: with the observed radii of wind bubbles around WC stars
354: \citep{m97,c99a}. For bursts without known redshifts we only list a
355: pesudo value of the bubble radius $R_{\rm pseudo}$ assuming a fixed
356: redshift $z=1$ (see Table \ref{tab:noredshift}). The larger scatter
357: in $R_{\rm pseudo}$ values for the latter group appears to be a
358: direct consequence of the arbitrary $z=1$ prescription.
359:
360: \section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}
361: \label{sec:discuss}
362:
363: Recently, \cite{l07a} provided a comprehensive analysis of shallow
364: decays and ``normal'' decay segments in GRBs. They concluded in
365: their sample that most GRBs in these two segments have a spectral
366: index $\beta$ around $-1.1$ (as the flux density $F_{E}\propto
367: E^{\beta}$). Here we can also get a knowledge of the spectrum of
368: echo emission based on our analysis (see Eq. \ref{eq:fluxdensity}).
369: Approximately, when $x[\alpha(t)]\simeq \pi$ at a given time
370: $t_{\pi}$, we have
371:
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: F_{E}^{\rm echo}(t_{\pi}) &\propto& F_{E,a}^{\rm echo}(t_{\pi})
374: \nonumber \\ &\propto& S(E)\tau(E,a) \nonumber \\
375: &\propto& E^{\delta-s} \,,
376: \end{eqnarray}
377: where $t_{\pi}$ is about an order of magnitude larger than $t_{\rm
378: d}$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:td}), and roughly equals most of the $t_2$'s
379: defined in \cite{l07a}. Therefore, we should have the spectral index
380: $\beta \gtrsim \delta-s$ before $t_{\pi}$, since the spectrum of
381: echo emission is softening in the long run. As shown in Fig.
382: \ref{fig:hr}, the hardness ratio of echo emission is monotonously
383: decreasing. Interestingly, it reaches a platform \citep[instead of
384: an extremum proposed by ][]{k98} almost around $t_{\pi}$ and then
385: keeps decreasing very slowly. If we assume $\delta \simeq 0$
386: \citep{p00} and $s \sim 2$ \citep{mg86,mg00}, we should have $\beta
387: \gtrsim -2$. This seems to be inconsistent with the observational
388: result by \cite{l07a}, since they ended up with $\beta \sim -1.1$.
389:
390: However, we have two reasons that lead us to be content with our
391: result based on current analysis. First, since we are dealing with
392: the prompt X-ray emission and the $\delta \simeq 0$ here is the
393: result from hard X-rays by BATSE \citep{p00}, we can imagine that
394: the real average $\delta$ should be larger than 0. Specifically,
395: based on the standard synchrotron emission, $\delta$ should equal
396: $1/3$, and the synchrotron self-absorption leads to $\delta \sim 2$.
397: Second, the Rayleigh-Gans approximation is adopted here to calculate
398: the differential cross section of scattering. This approximation
399: overestimates the echo emission at softer X-ray band (say, in
400: 0.3-1.5 keV), where absorption is important, which will change the
401: spectral shape in soft X-ray band and alleviate the dilemma of a
402: dramatically small hardness ratio in Fig. \ref{fig:hr}. Based on the
403: current analysis, it is safe to say that -2 is only a lower limit
404: for $\beta$. Therefore, our result here is generally consistent with
405: the observations. Thus, the echo emission cannot be completely ruled
406: out for the reason as discussed by \cite{l07a}.
407:
408: Originally, the optical echo emission was used to explain the red
409: bumps observed in some optical afterglows \citep{eb00}. However,
410: since the typical optical/infrared scattering angle would be about
411: $\alpha \sim 60 \degr$ \citep{w79}, the timescale in
412: Eq.(\ref{eq:timescale}) would be longer, and the optical/infrared
413: echo emission would be much weaker, and hard to be detected
414: \citep{r01,h07}. Nevertheless, if the WR wind within a much shorter
415: distance ($R \sim 10^{14}-10^{15}$ cm) is also taken into account,
416: there might be detectable variations in the optical afterglows due
417: to echo emission \citep{mr05}. However, the average LBV or WR wind
418: bubble around a massive star at its death would be much larger
419: \citep{gm95a,gm95b}. Therefore, the features of echo emission in the
420: optical band would be not significant enough, which is possibly the
421: reason that the standard external shock model was more successful in
422: the pre-\textit{Swift} era, when the optical observations dominated.
423:
424: Furthermore, the dramatic variations in the LBV or/and WR winds
425: would drive instabilities that produce radial filaments in the LBV
426: or WR shells \citep{g96a,g96b,d07}, which could be the origin of
427: some flares in the X-rays afterglows \citep{b06}. Therefore, there
428: might be another timescale due to the angular variation of these
429: filaments, which could be given by
430: \begin{eqnarray}
431: t_{\rm f}&=&{(1+z)R_{\rm f} \alpha_{\rm f}^2\over 2c},
432: \end{eqnarray}
433: where $R_{\rm f}$ is the distance of the filaments from the
434: progenitor and $\alpha_{\rm f}$ is the typical angular size of the
435: clumps and ripples in the filaments. To account for the mean ratio
436: of the width and peak time of the X-ray flares \citep{b07,c07},
437: i.e., $t_{\rm f}/t_{\rm d} \sim <\Delta t / t> \sim 0.1$, we may
438: have $\alpha_{\rm f} \sim 0.1 \,\alpha \sim 0.1 \arcmin$.
439:
440: \cite{ss03} claimed on a different scattering circumstance
441: (molecular and atomic matter instead of dust grains) that the
442: opening angle of jets might be an important factor to the echo light
443: curve, based on the popular assumption that the GRB prompt emission
444: is beamed. Since only small-angle scattering ($\alpha \sim
445: 1\arcmin$) for dust grains is considered here, the typical jet
446: properly pointing at us with a much larger opening angle of about
447: few degrees will not affect out results. However, the GRB jet might
448: be pointing at us with its edge in some case, where our result here
449: would not be valid. Instead, a rapid drop that is much steeper than
450: $t^{-2}$ will emerge at a late time \citep{ss03}. This is probably
451: the case for some GRBs, e.g., GRB 060526 \citep{dx07}.
452:
453: In this paper, we have presented the X-ray echo emission in GRB
454: phenomenon and we can draw the following conclusions:
455: \begin{enumerate}
456: \item
457: The shallow decay phase can still be understood without additional
458: contributions from the central engine \citep{z06,l07a}.
459: Interestingly, the feature of a shallow decay followed by a
460: ``normal" decay and a further rapid decay can be reproduced by the
461: echo from the prompt X-ray emission scattered by the massive wind
462: bubble around the progenitor \citep{g96a,m03,d07}. In general, dust
463: formation seems to be prevailing in carbon-rich WR stars of the WC
464: subtype and there is where echo emission would be most efficient.
465:
466: \item
467: Echo emission can be an additional X-ray source that masked the
468: X-ray jet breaks \citep{s07}. Therefore, the lack of jet breaks
469: \citep{p06,br07,p07,l07b} might also be understood via competing
470: echo emission. In addition, some results in the pre-\textit{Swift}
471: era, say, some correlations relevant for optical breaks might still
472: be valid \citep{f01,g04a,lz05} .
473:
474: \item
475: There is an extra temporal break in X-ray echo emission introduced
476: by $t_{\rm c}$ above. By fitting the light curves, we can indirectly
477: measure the locations of the massive wind bubbles, which will bring
478: us closer to finding the mass loss rate, wind velocity, and the age
479: of the progenitors prior to the GRB explosions \citep{g96a,d07}.
480:
481: \item
482: Even though some features in X-ray afterglows would be better
483: understood if the echo emission is taken into account, the external
484: shock model is still the dominant scenario for optical/infrared
485: afterglows, since echo emission is negligible in the later. In
486: addition, the echo emission model does not completely rule out other
487: interpretations (energy injection, etc.) in the framework of the
488: fireball-shock model. Technically, echo emission takes place at a
489: distance of $\sim$ tens of parsecs, while the internal or/and
490: external shocks are believed to take place within a distance of
491: $\sim 10^{17}$ cm. It is more likely that both of them are taking
492: place in the X-ray afterglow, which potentially complicates the
493: light curves. However, this may raise the problem about GRB
494: radiative efficiencies again. Even by assuming that the X-ray
495: emission is the forward shock emission, the GRB efficiency is
496: already too high to be accommodated by the leading internal shock
497: models \citep[and references therein]{z07a}. Assuming an
498: echo-dominated X-ray emission would exacerbate the situation.
499: \end{enumerate}
500:
501:
502:
503: \acknowledgments We are grateful to the referee for constructive
504: comments and suggestions. This work made use of data supplied by the
505: UK \textit{Swift} Science Data Centre at the University of
506: Leicester. We would like to thank Bing Zhang for helpful discussions
507: and comments. L.S. would also like to thank Rosalba Perna for kindly
508: hosting during his study in University of Colorado at Boulder. This
509: work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
510: China (grants 10221001 and 10640420144) and the National Basic
511: Research Program of China (973 program) No. 2007CB815404. L.S. was
512: also supported by the Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate
513: School of Nanjing University and the State Scholarship Fund by China
514: Scholarship Council.
515:
516:
517: \appendix
518: \section{APPENDIX: DERIVATION OF THE THEORETICAL LIGHT CURVE}
519: The single-scattering approximation is adopted, which is valid up to
520: a scattering optical depth, $\tau_{\rm sca}$, of $\sim$0.5 at 1 keV
521: \citep{pk96,k98}. Therefore, the echo intensity at the Earth per
522: unit photon energy per unit size of the grains is \citep[see Fig. 1
523: of ][ for the geometry and quantities defined in this
524: Appendix]{sd07}
525: \begin{eqnarray}
526: I_{E,a}^{\rm echo}(\theta,\phi;t)&=&F_{E}[t-t_{\rm d}(\theta)]\tau_a
527: (E){{\rm d}\sigma\over \sigma_{\rm sca} {\rm d}\Omega},
528: \label{eq:intensity}
529: \end{eqnarray}
530: where $F_{E}[t-t_{\rm d}(\theta)]$ is the flux density of the
531: initial GRB before a time delay $t_{\rm d}(\theta)$, which is also
532: dependent on the viewing angle $\theta$, $\tau_a(E)$ is the
533: frequency-dependent scattering optical depth per unit size of the
534: grains, and the last term is the fraction of the scattered photons,
535: which go into the line of sight in a unit solid angle. The zero time
536: point is set as the trigger of a GRB on the Earth. $\phi$ is the
537: azimuthal angle along the line of sight.
538:
539: Since the initial GRB is usually much shorter than the long-term
540: afterglow, we can approximate the initial GRB light curve as a
541: pulse. We also assume that the initial GRB spectrum is given by a
542: Band spectrum in the X-ray band \citep{b93}, so we have
543: \begin{eqnarray}
544: F_{E}[t-t_{\rm d}(\theta)]&=&A_1\left({E\over{100\,{\rm keV}}}
545: \right)^\delta {\rm exp}\left[-{(\delta+1)E\over E_{\rm
546: p}}\right]\times \delta[t-t_{\rm d}(\theta)],
547: \end{eqnarray}
548: where we only need the segment of the Band spectrum in the lower
549: energy band. $A_1$ is a constant, and the time delay from a certain
550: viewing angle $\theta$ is given by \citep{m99}
551: \begin{eqnarray}
552: t_{\rm d}(\theta)={(1+z)D_{\rm d} D_{\rm s} \theta^2 \over{2 c
553: D_{\rm ds}}}\,.
554: \end{eqnarray}
555: Here the Dirac delta function of $t$ can be translated into a
556: function of $\theta$, using the special properties of its own,
557: \begin{eqnarray}
558: \delta[t-t_{\rm d}(\theta)] = {c D_{\rm ds}\over (1+z)D_{\rm d}
559: D_{\rm s} \theta}\delta[\theta-\hat{\theta}(t)],
560: \end{eqnarray}
561: where the function $\hat{\theta}(t)$ is defined as
562: $\hat{\theta}(t)\equiv[2ctD_{\rm ds}/(1+z)D_{\rm d}D_{\rm s}]^{1/2}$
563: \citep[see the Appendix of ][]{sd07}.
564:
565: We also assume the frequency-dependent scattering optical depth per
566: unit size of the grains is
567: \begin{eqnarray}
568: \tau_a(E)&=&A_2\left[{(1+z)E\over{1\,{\rm keV}}}\right]^
569: {-s}\left({a\over0.1\,\micron}\right)^{4-q} ,
570: \end{eqnarray}
571: where $A_2$ is a constant with a dimension of $[a^{-1}]$. This is
572: valid only in a range of the size of the grains, say,
573: $a\in[a_-,a_+]$ \citep[and the references therein]{sd07}.
574:
575: For the last term in Eq. (\ref{eq:intensity}), we have $d
576: \Omega=\theta {\rm d}\theta {\rm d}\phi$, since $\theta$ is very
577: small. We can do some rearrangement
578: \begin{eqnarray}
579: {{\rm d}\sigma\over \sigma_{\rm sca} {\rm d}\Omega}&=&{{\rm
580: d}\sigma\over \sigma_{\rm sca} {\rm d}\Omega_{\rm SC}}{{\rm
581: d}\Omega_{\rm SC}\over {\rm d }\Omega},
582: \end{eqnarray}
583: where $\sigma_{\rm sca}$ is the total scattering cross-section,
584: ${\rm d}\Omega_{\rm SC}=\alpha {\rm d}\alpha {\rm d} \phi$ is
585: defined since $\alpha$ is also very small, and we have
586: $\alpha=(D_{\rm s}/D_{\rm ds})\theta$ in geometry. Neglecting the
587: chemical composition or shape of the grains, the Rayleigh-Gans
588: approximation is valid for the differential cross-section
589: \citep{o65,ah78}
590: \begin{eqnarray}
591: {{\rm d}\sigma\over \sigma_{\rm sca}{\rm d}\Omega_{\rm
592: SC}}&=&{2\over \pi\ }{j_1^2(x)\over \alpha^2},
593: \end{eqnarray}
594: where $x\equiv2\pi(1+z)aE\alpha/hc$, and $j_1(x)=({\rm sin}\,
595: x)/x^2-({\rm cos}\, x)/x$ is the first-order spherical Bessel
596: function.
597:
598: Since the wind bubble is very close to the GRB, we have $D_{\rm
599: s}\simeq D_{\rm d}$ and $D_{\rm ds}\equiv R$. Therefore, the echo
600: flux density at the Earth per unit size of the grains is
601: \begin{eqnarray}
602: F_{E,a}^{\rm echo}(t)&=&\int I_{E,a}^{\rm echo}(\theta,\phi;t) {\rm cos}\,\theta{\rm d}\Omega\nonumber\\
603: &=&A S(E)\tau(E,a)j_1^2\{x[\alpha(t)]\}{1\over t},
604: \end{eqnarray}
605: where A is a numerical constant, and $S(E)$, $\tau(E,a)$, $j_1(x)$,
606: $x(\alpha)$, and $\alpha(t)$ are given by Eqs.
607: (\ref{eq:s})-(\ref{eq:alpha}). So, the flux density and the flux of
608: echo emission at Earth will be
609: \begin{eqnarray}
610: F_{E}^{\rm echo}(t)&=&\int_{a_-}^{a_+} F_{E,a}^{\rm echo}(t) {\rm
611: d}a \label{eq:fluxdensity}
612: \end{eqnarray}
613: and
614: \begin{eqnarray}
615: F^{\rm echo}(t)&=&\int_{E_-}^{E_+}F_{E}^{\rm echo}(t){\rm d}E \,,
616: \end{eqnarray}
617: respectively.
618:
619:
620:
621: \begin{thebibliography}{}
622: \bibitem[Alcock \& Hatchett(1978)]{ah78} Alcock, C., \& Hatchett, s. 1978, \apj, 222, 456
623: \bibitem[Allen et al.(1972)]{a72} Allen, D. A., Harvey, P. M., \& Swings, J. P. 1972, \aap, 20, 333
624: \bibitem[Band et al.(1993)]{b93} Band, D. L. et al. 1993, \apj, 413, 281
625: \bibitem[Burrows \& Racusin(2007)]{br07} Burrows, D. N., \& Racusin, J. 2007, Procs. of the ``Swfit and GRBs: Unveiling the Relativistic Universe" Conf., Venice (astro-ph/0702633)
626: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2007)]{b07} Burrows, D. N., et al. 2007, Philosophical Transactions A, in press (astro-ph/0701046)
627: \bibitem[Burrows et al.(2006)]{b06} Burrows, D. N., et al. 2006, Proceedings of the X-Ray Universe Conference, (ESA SP-604; Noordwijk: ESA), 877
628: \bibitem[Castor et al.(1975)]{cmw75} Castor, J., McCray, R., \& Weaver R. 1975, \apj, 200, L107
629: \bibitem[Chincarini et al.(2007)]{c07} Chincarini, G., et al. 2007, \apj, in press (astro-ph/0702371)
630: \bibitem[Chu et al.(1999)]{c99a} Chu, Y.-H., Weis, K., \& Garnett, D. R. 1999, \aj, 117, 1433
631: \bibitem[Costa(1999)]{c99} Costa, E. 1999, A\&AS, 138, 425
632: \bibitem[Crowther (2007)]{c07a} Crowther, P. A. 2003, \araa, 45, 177
633: \bibitem[Crowther (2003)]{c03} Crowther, P. A. 2003, \apss, 285, 677
634: \bibitem[Dai et al.(2007)]{dx07} Dai, X., et al. 2007, \apj, 658, 509
635: \bibitem[Dai(2004)]{d04} Dai, Z. G. 2004, \apj, 606, 1000
636: \bibitem[Dai \& Lu(1998)]{dl98} Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 1998, \aap, 333, L87
637: \bibitem[Dwarkadas(2007)]{d07} Dwarkadas, V. V. 2007, \apj, 667, 226
638: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2007)]{e07} Evans, P. A., et al. 2007, \aap,469, 379
639: \bibitem[Esin \& Blandford(2000)]{eb00} Esin, A. A., \& Blandford, R. D. 2000, \apj, 534, L151
640: \bibitem[Fan \& Piran(2006)]{fp06} Fan, Y. Z., \& Piran T. 2006, \mnras, 369, 197
641: \bibitem[Frail et al.(2001)]{f01} Frail, D. A., et al. 2001, \apj, 562, L55
642: \bibitem[Garc\'{i}a-Segura \& Mac Low(1995a)]{gm95a} Garc\'{i}a-Segura, G., \& Mac Low, M. M. 1995a, \apj, 455, 145
643: \bibitem[Garc\'{i}a-Segura \& Mac Low(1995b)]{gm95b} Garc\'{i}a-Segura, G., \& Mac Low, M. M. 1995b, \apj, 455, 160
644: \bibitem[Garc\'{i}a-Segura et al.(1996a)]{g96a} Garc\'{i}a-Segura, G., et al. 1996a, \aap, 305, 229
645: \bibitem[Garc\'{i}a-Segura et al.(1996b)]{g96b} Garc\'{i}a-Segura, G., et al. 1996b, \aap, 316, 133
646: \bibitem[Gehrels et al.(2004)]{g04} Gehrels, N., et al. 2004, \apj, 611, 1005
647: \bibitem[Gehrz \& Hackwell(1974)]{gh74} Gehrz, R. D., \& Hackwell, J. A. 1974, \apj, 194, 619
648: \bibitem[Ghirlanda et al.(2004)]{g04a} Ghirlanda, G., et al. 2004, \apj, 616, 331
649: \bibitem[Heng et al.(2007)]{h07} Heng, K., Lazzati, D., \& Perna, R. 2007, \apj, 662, 1119
650: \bibitem[Klose (1998)]{k98} Klose, S. 1998, \apj, 507, 300
651: \bibitem[Langer et al.(1994)]{l94} Langer, N., et al. 1994, \aap, 290, 819
652: \bibitem[Liang et al.(2007a)]{l07a} Liang, E. W., Zhang, B. B., \& Zhang, B. 2007a, \apj, in press (arXiv: 0704.1373)
653: \bibitem[Liang et al.(2007b)]{l07b} Liang, E. W., et al. 2007b, \apj, submitted (arXiv: 0708.2942)
654: \bibitem[Liang \& Zhang(2005)]{lz05} Liang, E. W., \& Zhang, B. 2005, \apj, 633, 611
655: \bibitem[Marston (1997)]{m97} Marston, A. P. 1997, \apj, 475, 188
656: \bibitem[Mathis et al.(1977)]{m77} Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., \& Nordsieck, K. H. 1977, \apj, 217, 425
657: \bibitem[Mauche \& Gorenstein(1986)]{mg86} Mauche, C. W., \& Gorenstein, P. 1986, \apj, 302, 371
658: \bibitem[M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros \& Gruzinov (2000)]{mg00} M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P., \& Gruzinov, A. 2000, \apj, 543, L35
659: \bibitem[M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros(2006)]{m06} M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. 2006, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 2259
660: \bibitem[Mirabal et al.(2003)]{m03} Mirabal, N., et al. 2003, \apj, 595, 935
661: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud\'e(1999)]{m99} Miralda-Escud\'e, J. 1999, \apj, 512, 21
662: \bibitem[Moran \& Reichart(2005)]{mr05} Moran, J. A., \& Reichart, D. E. 2005, \apj, 632, 438
663: \bibitem[Nousek et al.(2006)]{n06} Nousek, J. A., et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 389
664: \bibitem[Overbeck(1965)]{o65} Overbeck, J. W. 1965, \apj, 141, 864
665: \bibitem[Panaitescu et al.(2006)]{p06} Panaitescu, A., et al. 2006, \mnras, 369, 2059
666: \bibitem[Panaitescu(2007)]{p07} Panaitescu, A. 2007, \mnras, 380, 374
667: \bibitem[Predehl \& Klose(1996)]{pk96} Predehl, P., \& Klose, S. 1996, \aap, 306, 283
668: \bibitem[Predehl \& Schmitt(1995)]{ps95} Predehl, P., \& Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, \aap, 293, 889
669: \bibitem[Preece et al.(2000)]{p00} Preece, R. D., et al. 2000, \apjs, 126, 19
670: \bibitem[Ramirez-Ruiz et al.(2001)]{r01a} Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2001, \mnras, 327, 829
671: \bibitem[Rees \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros(1998)]{rm98} Rees, M., \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. 1998, \apj, 496, L1
672: \bibitem[Reichart(2001)]{r01} Reichart, D. E. 2001, \apj, 554, 643
673: \bibitem[Rhoads(1999)]{r99} Rhoads, J. E. 1999, \apj, 525, 737
674: \bibitem[Sari \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros(2000)]{sm00} Sari, R., \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. 2000, \apj, 535, L33
675: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2007)]{s07a} Sakamoto, T., et al. 2007, \apjs, in press (arXiv: 0707.4626)
676: \bibitem[Sato et al.(2007)]{s07} Sato, G., et al. 2007, \apj, 657, 359
677: \bibitem[Sazonov \& Sunyaev (2003)]{ss03} Sazonov, S. Y., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 2003, \aap, 399, 505
678: \bibitem[Shao and Dai(2007)]{sd07} Shao, L., \& Dai, Z. G. 2007, \apj, 660, 1319
679: \bibitem[White(1979)]{w79} White, R. L. 1979, \apj, 229, 954
680: \bibitem[Williams et al.(1987)]{w87} Williams, P. M., van der Hucht, K. A., \& Th\'{e}, P. S. 1987, \aap, 182, 91
681: \bibitem[Woosley \& Bloom(2006)]{wb06} Woosley, S. E., \& Bloom, J. S. 2006, \araa, 44, 507
682: \bibitem[Zhang(2007)]{z07} Zhang, B. 2007, ChJAA, 7, 1
683: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2007)]{z07a} Zhang, B., et al. 2007, \apj, 655, 989
684: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2006)]{z06} Zhang, B., et al. 2006, \apj, 642, 354
685: \bibitem[Zhang, \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros(2001)]{zm01} Zhang, B., \& M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P. 2001, \apj, 552, L35
686: \end{thebibliography}
687:
688:
689: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
690: \tablecolumns{9} \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{Model parameters of
691: 14 GRBs with known redshifts.} \tablehead{ \colhead{GRB} &
692: \colhead{z\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Begin (s)\tablenotemark{b}}
693: & \colhead{End (s)\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{s} & \colhead{q} &
694: \colhead{$a_+ (\micron)$} & \colhead{$R $(pc)} &
695: \colhead{$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$}} \startdata
696: GRB 050319 & 3.240 & $4\times10^2$ & $2\times10^6$& 2.5 & 4.4 & 0.25 &75 & 1.72 \\
697: GRB 050505 & 4.27 & $3\times10^3$ & $2\times10^6$& 2.0 & 4.0 & 0.5 &50 & 1.42 \\
698: GRB 050814 & 5.3 & $1\times10^3$ & $1\times10^6$& 3.0 & 4.5 & 0.25 &55 & 3.53 \\
699: GRB 051022 & 0.8 & $1\times10^4$ & $1\times10^6$& 2.0 & 3.1 & 0.25 &30 & 2.85 \\
700: GRB 060210 & 3.91 & $3\times10^3$ & $8\times10^5$& 2.0 & 3.0 &0.25 &200& 1.78 \\
701: GRB 060218 & 0.033 & $1\times10^4$ & $1\times10^6$& 3.0 & 3.1 & 0.25&50 & 1.92 \\
702: GRB 060502A & 1.51 & $4\times10^3$ & $2\times10^6$& 3.0 & 4.3 & 0.25&65 & 1.26 \\
703: GRB 060512 & 0.4428& $3\times10^3$ & $3\times10^5$& 2.0 & 3.0 & 0.25&45 & 2.63 \\
704: GRB 060707 & 3.425 & $1\times10^3$ & $2\times10^6$& 3.0 & 4.5 & 0.25&170& 2.53 \\
705: GRB 060714 & 2.711 & $3\times10^2$ & $1\times10^6$& 2.0 & 4.0 & 0.25&95 & 2.61 \\
706: GRB 060814 & 0.84 & $8\times10^2$ & $1\times10^6$& 2.0 & 4.0 &0.25 & 34 & 2.33 \\
707: GRB 060729 & 0.54 & $5\times10^2$ & $1\times10^7$& 3.0 & 5.5 & 0.25&45 & 2.93 \\
708: GRB 061110A & 0.758 & $6\times10^3$ & $7\times10^5$& 3.0 & 4.5 &0.25 & 76 & 2.61 \\
709: GRB 061121 & 1.314 & $2\times10^2$ & $2\times10^6$& 2.0 & 4.0 & 0.25&40 & 2.30 \\
710: \enddata
711: \label{tab:redshift} \
712: \tablenotetext{a}{\url{http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\sim$jcg/grbgen.html}}
713: \tablenotetext{b}{Beginning time of the data for fitting}
714: \tablenotetext{c}{Ending time of the data for fitting}
715: \end{deluxetable}
716:
717:
718: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
719: \tablecolumns{8} \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{Model parameters of
720: 22 GRBs without known redshifts\tablenotemark{a}} \tablehead{
721: \colhead{GRB} & \colhead{Begin (s)\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{End
722: (s)\tablenotemark{c}} & \colhead{s} & \colhead{q} & \colhead{$a_+
723: (\micron)$} & \colhead{$R_{\rm pseudo}$ (pc)} &
724: \colhead{$\chi^2/{\rm dof}$}} \startdata
725: GRB 050712 & $4\times10^3$ & $2\times10^6$& 2.3 & 4.3 &0.25 & 55 & 2.75 \\
726: GRB 050713A & $4\times10^3$ & $2\times10^6$& 2.0 & 4.0&0.25 & 45 & 2.67 \\
727: GRB 050713B & $5\times10^2$ & $1\times10^6$& 3.0 & 4.5 &0.25 & 70 & 2.21 \\
728: GRB 050802 & $3\times10^2$ & $1\times10^6$& 2.0 & 3.1 &0.25 & 30 & 4.64 \\
729: GRB 050822 & $1\times10^3$ & $5\times10^6$& 3.0 & 4.5 &0.25 & 80 & 2.19 \\
730: GRB 050915B & $1\times10^3$ & $5\times10^5$& 3.0 & 4.8 &0.25 & 70 & 1.60 \\
731: GRB 051008 & $3\times10^3$ & $4\times10^5$& 2.5 & 3.5 &0.25 & 10 & 1.93 \\
732: GRB 051016A & $4\times10^3$ & $6\times10^5$& 2.3 & 4.0 &0.25& 80 & 6.44 \\
733: GRB 060204B & $4\times10^2$ & $4\times10^5$& 2.0 & 3.1 &0.25 & 25 & 1.64 \\
734: GRB 060219 & $2\times10^2$ & $4\times10^5$& 2.5 & 3.5 &0.25 & 45 & 1.04 \\
735: GRB 060306 & $3\times10^2$ & $3\times10^5$& 2.0 & 4.0 &0.25 & 50 & 1.41 \\
736: GRB 060428A & $3\times10^2$ & $3\times10^6$& 2.7 & 4.2 &0.25 & 95 & 2.26 \\
737: GRB 060510A & $1\times10^2$ & $5\times10^5$& 3.0 & 4.5 &0.25 & 10 & 2.28 \\
738: GRB 060604 & $3\times10^3$ & $1\times10^6$& 2.0 & 4.0 &0.25 & 80 & 1.86 \\
739: GRB 060708 & $2\times10^2$ & $1\times10^6$& 2.0 & 4.0 &0.25 & 50 & 2.03 \\
740: GRB 060813 & $9\times10^1$ & $2\times10^5$& 2.0 & 3.1 &0.25 & 10 & 2.68 \\
741: GRB 061004 & $3\times10^2$ & $1\times10^5$& 2.0 & 4.0 &0.25 & 15 & 2.61 \\
742: GRB 061222A & $2\times10^2$ & $2\times10^6$& 2.1 & 4.2 &0.25 & 30 & 1.90 \\
743: GRB 070129 & $1\times10^3$ & $2\times10^6$& 3.0 & 4.5 &0.25 & 90 & 1.63 \\
744: GRB 070328 & $1\times10^2$ & $6\times10^5$& 1.9 & 4.0 &0.25 & 5 & 4.75 \\
745: GRB 070419B & $4\times10^3$ & $4\times10^5$& 2.0 & 3.1&0.25 & 20 & 2.74 \\
746: GRB 070420 & $3\times10^2$ & $4\times10^5$& 3.0 & 3.1 &0.25 & 15 & 3.07 \\
747: \enddata
748: \label{tab:noredshift}
749: \tablenotetext{a}{We assume z=1 to carry out the fitting}
750: \tablenotetext{b}{Beginning time of the data for fitting}
751: \tablenotetext{c}{Ending time of the data for fitting}
752: \end{deluxetable}
753:
754: \begin{figure}
755: \plotone{f1.eps} \caption{Geometry and density profile of a massive
756: wind bubble around a WR star. The major scattering takes place at
757: the massive and dense shell (marked with brick-wall pattern), which
758: is a main dusty shell around the WR star (or more probably a WC
759: star). Inside the shell, the interior structure of the bubble
760: (filled with light gray) is ignored, which is mainly determined by
761: the LBV and WR winds and not important for scattering, since the
762: density is much lower there and essentially no dust survives close
763: to the WR star. Outside the shell, the interstellar medium (ISM)
764: dominates (filled with heavy gray). Meanwhile, the gas density
765: $\rho$ is also plotted with logarithmic scale in dot-dashed line
766: \citep[not in scale, see][]{g96a,d07}.} \label{fig:bubble}
767: \end{figure}
768:
769: \begin{figure}
770: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
771: \plottwo{f2c.eps}{f2d.eps}
772: \plottwo{f2e.eps}{f2f.eps}
773: \end{figure}
774: \begin{figure}
775: \plottwo{f2g.eps}{f2h.eps}
776: \plottwo{f2i.eps}{f2j.eps}
777: \plottwo{f2k.eps}{f2l.eps}
778: \end{figure}
779: \begin{figure}
780: \plottwo{f2m.eps}{f2n.eps}
781: \plottwo{f2o.eps}{f2p.eps}
782: \plottwo{f2q.eps}{f2r.eps}
783: \end{figure}
784: \begin{figure}
785: \plottwo{f2s.eps}{f2t.eps}
786: \plottwo{f2u.eps}{f2v.eps}
787: \plottwo{f2w.eps}{f2x.eps}
788: \end{figure}
789: \begin{figure}
790: \plottwo{f2y.eps}{f2z.eps}
791: \plottwo{f2aa.eps}{f2ab.eps}
792: \plottwo{f2ac.eps}{f2ad.eps}
793: \end{figure}
794: \begin{figure}
795: \plottwo{f2ae.eps}{f2af.eps} \plottwo{f2ag.eps}{f2ah.eps}
796: \plottwo{f2ai.eps}{f2aj.eps} \caption{The X-ray light curves of 36
797: GRBs observed by \textit{Swift} XRT. WT mode is in gray, PC mode is
798: in black. The solid lines are the theoretical light curves given by
799: our model (Eq. \ref{eq:lightcurve}). We have $E_-=0.3$ keV and
800: $E_+=10$ keV for \textit{Swift} XRT, and we assume $a_-=0.005\,
801: \micron $, $\delta=0$, $E_{\rm p}=200$ keV. The other parameters,
802: $s$, $q$, $a_+$, and $R$ are given in Tab. \ref{tab:redshift} and
803: Tab. \ref{tab:noredshift}.} \label{fig:lightcurve}
804: \end{figure}
805:
806:
807: \begin{figure}
808: \plotone{f3.eps} \caption{Evolution of the hardness ratio of echo
809: emission with different shell distance $R$. We assume $z=1$, $q=3.5$
810: and $a_+=0.025\, \micron$. Other parameters are the same with Fig.
811: \ref{fig:lightcurve}. The dramatically small ratio could be
812: alleviated only if the absorption in 0.3-1.5 keV is considered.}
813: \label{fig:hr}
814: \end{figure}
815:
816: \end{document}
817: