1:  

2: \documentclass [12pt,preprint]{aastex}

3: % for a referee version

4: %\documentclass [manuscript]{aastex}

5: 	%documentclass [article]{aa}

6: \usepackage{epsfig}

7: %

8: \begin{document}

9: \voffset-.5cm

10: \newcommand{\gsim}{\hbox{\rlap{$^>$}$_\sim$}}

11: \newcommand{\lsim}{\hbox{\rlap{$^<$}$_\sim$}}

12: 

13: 

14: \title{`Jet breaks' and `missing breaks' in the X-Ray afterglow\\ 

15:                   of Gamma Ray Bursts }

16:         

17: 

18: 

19: \author{Shlomo Dado\altaffilmark{1}, Arnon Dar\altaffilmark{2}

20: and A. De  R\'ujula\altaffilmark{3}}

21: 

22: \altaffiltext{1}{dado@phep3.technion.ac.il\\ 

23: Physics Department and Space Research Institute, 

24: Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel}

25: \altaffiltext{2}{arnon@physics.technion.ac.il; arnon.dar@cern.ch \\ 

26: Physics Department and Space Research Institute,

27: Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel\\

28: Theory Unit, CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland }

29: \altaffiltext{3}{alvaro.derujula@cern.ch\\

30:  Theory Unit, CERN,1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland and\\

31: Physics Department, Boston University, USA}

32: 

33: \begin{abstract} 

34: 

35: 

36: The X-ray afterglows (AGs) of Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) and X-Ray Flashes

37: (XRFs) have, after the fast decline phase of their prompt emission,

38: a temporal behaviour varying between two extremes. A large fraction of these AGs

39: has a `canonical' light curve which, after an initial shallow-decay

40: `plateau' phase,  `breaks smoothly' into a fast power-law decline.

41: Very energetic GRBs, contrariwise, appear not to have a

42: `break', their AG declines like a power law from the start of the observations.

43: Breaks and `missing breaks' are  intimately related to the

44: geometry and deceleration of the jets responsible for GRBs.

45: In the frame of the `cannonball' (CB) model of GRBs and XRFs,

46: we analyze the cited extreme behaviours (canonical and pure power law)

47: and  intermediate cases spanning the observed range of

48: X-ray AG shapes. We show that the entire panoply of X-ray light-curve

49: shapes --measured with Swift and other satellites-- are as anticipated

50: in the CB model. We test the expected correlations

51: between the AG's shape  and the peak- and isotropic energies

52: of the prompt radiation, strengthening a  simple conclusion

53: of the  analysis of AG shapes: in energetic GRBs the break is

54: not truly `missing', it is hidden under the tail of the prompt emission,

55: or it occurs too early to be recorded.

56: We also verify that the spectral index of the unabsorbed AGs

57: and the temporal index of their late power-law decline

58: differ by half a unit, as predicted.

59: 

60: \end{abstract}

61: 

62: \section{Introduction and r\'esum\'e}

63: 

64: 

65: The isotropic distribution of gamma ray bursts (GRBs) in the sky and their 

66: number distribution as function of intensity, measured with the 

67: BATSE instrument aboard the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, 

68: provided the first observational evidence that gamma ray 

69: bursts (GRBs) originate at large cosmological distances (Meegan et al.~1992).  

70: Moreover, the rapid variation of their light curves (Bahat et al.~1992) 

71: indicated that their huge energy is emitted from a very small volume. 

72: In the original fireball (FB) model of GRBs

73: (e.g. Paczynski~1986;  Goodman~1986; Rees \& 

74: M\'esz\'aros~1992) the emission was spherically symmetric. 

75: The implied isotropic energy release of GRBs in $\gamma$-rays often

76: exceeded $M_\odot\, c^2$, creating an `energy crisis'. Indeed, such a

77: mighty, abrupt, compact, and $\gamma$-ray-efficient source was 

78: unforeseen.

79: 

80: A simple solution to this puzzle was suggested by Shaviv and Dar 

81: (1995): the $\gamma$-ray emission is narrowly 

82: collimated by the relativistic motion of their {\it jetted} source, which is seen

83: when it points closely enough to the observer. In this view, GRBs are not 

84: produced by fireballs, but by inverse Compton scattering of light by highly 

85: relativistic jets of ordinary matter, ejected in violent stellar processes 

86: such as supernova explosions, mergers of neutron stars 

87: (Paczynski~1986; Goodman, Dar \& Nussinov~1987; Dar et al.~1992), or the

88: direct collapse of massive stars to black holes without a supernova 

89: (Woosley 1993). 

90: 

91: The sky localization of GRBs by BeppoSAX (Costa et al.~1997) led to the

92: discovery (Groot et al.~1997; van Paradijs et al.~1997) of their optical

93: afterglows (AGs) and their host galaxies (Sahu et al.~1997)  which were

94: used to extract their cosmological redshifts (Metzger et al.~1997). The

95: AGs seemed to follow an achromatic power-law decline, as expected from a

96: highly relativistic expanding fireball that drives a blast wave into the

97: circumburst environment (e.g., M\'esz\'aros \& Rees~1997). 

98: % or, if the AGs

99: % are not power-behaved and achromatic, by any other energetic process not

100: % occurring in a very empty domain.  

101: This prediction of the spherical

102: fireball model (see e.g., Piran~1999) being independent of the assumption 

103: of spherical symmetry,

104: it was also argued that the AGs, like the GRBs themselves, are produced by

105: narrowly collimated jets (Dar~1997, 1998).

106: 

107: The concept of jets was incorporated into the FB model by

108: the substitution of its spherical shells by conical sections thereof, the

109: mechanism for the $\gamma$-ray emission still being synchrotron radiation

110: from shock-accelerated $e^+\,e^-$ pairs in a baryon-poor material (see,

111: e.g.~Piran~1999,~2000; M\'esz\'aros~2002 and references therein), in

112: spite of the difficulties that such a radiation mechanism encounters

113: (Ghisellini et al.~2000).

114: 

115: An elegant and simple way to distinguish between a conical jet and a spherical fireball 

116: was suggested by Rhoads (1997):  the AG of a decelerating conical jet will show

117: an achromatic steepening --a {\it jet break}-- in its power-law decline when

118: the relativistic beaming angle of its radiation becomes larger than the

119: opening angle of the jet. Soon afterwards, better sampled data on

120: the optical afterglow of GRBs showed the existence of what appeared to be

121: such achromatic jet breaks (Harrison et al.~1999; Stanek et al.~1999), 

122: and the spherical FB model was

123: modified into a {\it collimated fireball} model (e.g.~Piran, Sari

124:  \& Halpern~1999). In this model GRB pulses are produced by synchrotron

125: radiation from the collision between conical sections of shells. The

126: collision of the ensemble of shells with the interstellar matter (ISM)

127: generates the AG by synchrotron radiation from the forward shock

128: propagating in the ISM, and/or from the backwards shock within the merged

129: shells.  Rhoads (1999) and Sari, Piran and Halpern (1999) derived a

130: relation between the opening angle of the conical jet and the time of the

131: jet break. This relation has been applied extensively to the pre-Swift

132: data to infer the opening angle of the conical jet and to determine the

133: `true' energy of GRBs, posited to be an approximate standard candle (Frail

134: et al.~2001).

135:   

136: Since the launch of Swift the above generally-accepted `standard' paradigm 

137: has been challenged, due to the absence of breaks in the AGs of many GRBs 

138: (Panaitescu et al.~2006;  Burrows and Racusin 2006), to the chromatic 

139: behaviour of the AG of other GRBs having the alleged `jet break' (Stanek 

140: et al.~1999, Harrison et al.~1999), and to the failure of the Frail 

141: relation (Frail et al.~2001) in many Swift GRBs (Kocevski \& Butler~2007). 

142:  In the fireball model, the jet breaks need not be sharp; they are 

143: often parametrized with a varying smoothness (Stanek et al.~1999).

144: Allowing for such breaks, Covino et al. (2006) could not identify a 

145: Swift GRB with a fully achromatic break. Liang et al.~(2007) have 

146: extended this study, and analyzed the Swift X-ray data for the 

147: 179 GRBs detected between January 2005 and January 2007 

148: and the optical AGs of 57 pre- and post-Swift GRBs. They found 

149: that not a single burst satisfies all the criteria of a jet break.  

150: This brings us fully into the question of the nature and properties of the 

151: jets responsible for GRBs and their AGs and, more specifically in this 

152: paper, to the understanding of `breaks' and `missing breaks'.

153: 

154: An alternative to the fireball scenario is offered by the `cannonball' 

155: (CB) model of GRBs [Dar \& De R\'ujula~2000a, 2004, hereafter DD2000a, 

156: 2004; Dado, Dar \& De R\'ujula (hereafter DDD)~2002; for a recent review 

157: see De R\'ujula~2007]. In this model {\it long-duration} GRBs and their 

158: AGs are produced by bipolar jets of CBs (Shaviv \& Dar~1995; Dar \& 

159: Plaga~1999), ejected in~{\it ordinary core-collapse} supernova (SN) 

160: explosions as matter is accreted onto the newly-formed compact object (De 

161: R\'ujula 1987). The `cannon-balls' are made of {\it ordinary-matter 

162: plasma}. The $\gamma$-rays of a single pulse of a GRB are produced as a CB 

163: coasts through the SN {\it glory} --the initial SN light, scattered away 

164: from the radial direction by the `wind': the ejecta puffed by the 

165: progenitor star in a succession of pre-SN flares. The electrons enclosed 

166: in the CB raise the glory's photons to GRB energies by {\it inverse 

167: Compton scattering (ICS)}. As a CB coasts through the glory, the 

168: distribution of the glory's light becomes increasingly radial and its 

169: density decreases rapidly. Consequently, the energy of the up-scattered 

170: photons is continuously shifted to lower energies and their number 

171: decreases swiftly, resulting in a fast softening and decline of the prompt 

172: emission (DD2004, 2007a,b). In the CB model, the AG of a GRB is due to 

173: {\it synchrotron radiation (SR)} from swept-in ISM electrons spiraling in 

174: the CB's enclosed turbulent magnetic field, generated by the intercepted 

175: ISM nuclei and electrons (DDD2002). At X-ray energies, the SR afterglow 

176: begins to dominate the ICS prompt emission only during the fast-decline 

177: phase of the latter (DDD2006).

178: 

179: 

180: In the CB model, the {\it beau r\^ole} in the understanding of GRBs 

181: is played by the Doppler factor, $\delta(t)$, relating times,

182: energies and fluxes in a CB's rest system to those in the observer's system. 

183: Its  form

184: in terms of the observer's angle $\theta$ (relative to the CB's direction

185: of motion) and the time-dependent Lorentz factor, $\gamma(t)$, of a CB, is:

186: \begin{equation}

187: \delta(t)={1\over \gamma(t)\,

188: [1-\beta(t)\, \cos\theta]}\approx {2\, \gamma(t)\over

189: 1+[\gamma(t)\, \theta]^2}\; ,

190: \label{delta}

191: \end{equation}

192: where the approximation is excellent for $\gamma\!\gg\! 1$ and 

193: $\theta\!\ll\! 1$.

194: The decrease of $\gamma(t)$ with time, as a CB encounters the particles

195: of the ISM, is calculable on grounds of energy-momentum conservation

196: (DDD2002, Dar \& De R\'ujula 2006, thereafter DD2006). The 

197: energy-integrated energy flux 

198: of the AG of a GRB,

199: is $\propto\!\delta^3$. Let $\gamma_0\!\equiv\!\gamma(0)$.

200: Consider a CB that is observed almost on axis,

201: so that $\theta\,\gamma_0\!<\! 1$: the observer is

202: {\it ab initio} within the opening cone of the relativistically beamed radiation.

203: As $\gamma(t)$ decreases, $\delta(t)$ monotonically decreases and so does

204: the observed AG. Consider the same CB, viewed by an observer at a

205: much larger angle, so that $\theta\,\gamma_0$ is `a few'.

206:  As $\gamma(t)$ decreases, $\delta(t)$ in Eq.~(\ref{delta}) {\it increases},

207:  reflecting the fact that the characteristic opening angle

208:  of the radiation, $1/\gamma(t)$,

209:  is reaching the observer's direction. Past the point $\gamma\,\theta\!\sim\!1$,

210: the decrease of $\delta(t)$ is monotonic,

211: as in the first case we considered. The AG radiation parallels again the behaviour

212: of $\delta(t)$. For observers of the same GRB from different angles, as

213:  $\theta$ increases at fixed $\gamma(t)$, the AG's flux decreases.

214: All these simple facts, supported by the corresponding explicit derivations,

215: are reflected in Fig.~\ref{f1}a, which we have copied from DDD2002, as it

216: foretells the progressive variety of AG shapes to be studied here. 

217: 

218: There is more to Fig.~\ref{f1}a than what we said. The

219: Lorentz factor $\gamma(t)$ of a CB only begins to change significantly, in a

220: calculable manner, when the

221: increase in its mass --induced by the energy influx of the swept-in ISM particles--

222: becomes comparable to the CB's initial mass. This happens, as we shall review,

223: at a time $t_b\!\propto\![1+2\,\theta^2\,\gamma_0^2]/\gamma_0^3$.

224:  At fixed $\gamma(t)$, as reflected in 

225: Fig.~\ref{f1}a, a larger $\theta$ entails a larger $t_b$.

226: This achromatic `deceleration bend' at $t\!=\!t_b$, we believe,

227: was often interpreted in FB models as a putative 

228: jet break.

229: 

230: 

231: Naturally, the values of $\gamma_0$ and $\delta_0$ of a given CB also affect 

232: the properties of its prompt ICS-dominated radiation (we are presenting this

233: introductory discussion as if there was a single CB generating the prompt

234: and AG radiations, a simplification to be undone when needed). 

235: In the CB model the ICS-dictated $(\theta,\,\gamma_0)$

236: dependences of a CB's isotropic energy, peak energy

237: and peak luminosity are $E_{\rm iso}\!\propto\!\delta_0^3$,

238: $E_p\!\propto\!\gamma_0\,\delta_0$ and $L_p\!\propto\!\delta_0^4$ (DD2000b).

239: The conditions for these quantities to be relatively large (a relatively

240: small $\theta$ or a large $\gamma_0$) are the ones leading to a luminous AG

241: with a small $t_b$. The basis for one of these expected correlations, studied before 

242: in detail in DDD2007c, is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{f1}b.

243: 

244: If the deceleration bend at time $t_b$ takes place {\it after} the fast-decline phase

245: of the prompt emission, it is observable, and the unabsorbed X-ray light

246: curve is canonical (DDD2002).

247: In these cases, there is a `break'.

248: If $t_b$ takes place earlier, it is hidden under the prompt

249: emission, and only the tail of the canonical behaviour, namely the `late'

250: power-law decline of the unabsorbed synchrotron afterglow, is observable.

251: In these cases, the break is missing. The transition from long-plateau,

252: clearly `broken' AGs, to power-law like `unbroken' AGs should be

253: anticorrelated with the trend from under-`energetic' to over-energetic GRBs.

254: 

255: In the CB model the late-time spectral energy density $F_\nu$ of 

256: the X-ray and optical AG tends to

257: a time and energy-dependence 

258: $\propto\!t^{-(p+1)/2}\,\nu^{-p/2}$, with $p$ the spectral index of the

259: electrons accelerated within a CB and cooled by the emission of the

260: very SR seen as the AG.

261: A  prediction that we have not emphasized before is

262: that the temporal power decline should be, GRB by GRB, half a unit steeper

263: than the spectral decline. 

264: 

265: In DDD2006, 2007a we have demonstrated that the most common light curves 

266: of the X-ray AG of GRBs are well described by the CB model. We have also 

267: explained there the various origins of the chromatic behaviours of AGs.  

268: In DDD2007b we have focused on the fast decline phase of the prompt 

269: emission and we have demonstrated that the rapid spectral evolution 

270: observed during this phase is also as expected in the CB model. In 

271: DDD2007c we have shown, for large ensembles of GRBs, how the observed 

272: correlations between $E_{\rm iso}$, $E_p$ [Dar \& De R\'ujula 2000b 

273: (DD2000b), Amati et al.~2002], $L_p$, and other prompt observables (pulse 

274: rise-time, lag-time and variability) follow mainly from the same simple 

275: geometrical considerations --that we have reviewed above-- on the 

276: case-by-case variability of the Doppler factor. In the CB model, XRFs are 

277: simply GRBs seen at relatively large $\theta$ (DDD2004a), even the 

278: particularly interesting XRF 060218 is in no way exceptional (DDD2007a).

279: 

280: In this paper we

281: focus on the shape of the light curves of the X-ray afterglow of GRBs,

282: with and without breaks, measured with the X-ray telescope (XRT) aboard

283: Swift. We show that the shapes of the X-ray light curves of GRBs and XRFs

284: predicted in Fig.~\ref{f1}a, and the

285: correlation between  $t_b$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ illustrated Fig.~\ref{f1}b

286: (and the consequent apparent presence or absence of breaks in

287: the AG) agree with the CB-model's expectations. We also analize the

288: $(t_b,\,E_p)$ correlation on the same light. Finally, we investigate

289: the relation between the temporal power-law index of the post-break

290: decline and the photon spectral index, reaching satisfactory results.

291: To do all this, we investigate 16 GRBs chosen to reflect the

292: full span of the question of the presence or absence of breaks.

293: The selected GRBs range from the faintest known GRB (980425, of

294: supernova-association fame), which also has the most pronounced plateau

295: and the latest break time, to the brightest Swift GRB (061007), with the 

296: most

297: luminous and longest-observed unbroken power-law X-ray AG.

298: 

299: \section{The afterglow of a decelerating CB}

300: 

301: In the CB model, the mechanism for the emission of the prompt radiation

302: of GRBs and XRFs is inverse Compton scattering. 

303: The temporal and spectral properties of the prompt phase,

304: including its fast decline, are summarized in a `master formula' 

305: (DD2004) that we have already contrasted with Swift data (DDD2006, 2007a,b,c,d). We 

306: shall not  repeat it here ---as our emphasis in the current study is 

307: on breaks in the X-ray light curves of GRB afterglows--- though we shall 

308: use it to describe the fading of the prompt emission until the take-over by 

309: the synchrotron-AG emission, and the occasional late X-ray

310: flares. Neither do we discuss here the 

311: optical AGs (DDD2007a). 

312: The extinction in the optical- and, more so, in the radio- domain

313: (within the CBs, in the circumburst environment, in the ISM of the 

314: host galaxy and ours, and in the intergalactic medium) are 

315:  difficult to model as reliably as the X-ray extinction.

316:  We shall see once again that the X-ray light 

317: curves (corrected for extinction) carry clear and direct information on the radiation 

318: mechanisms that dominate the prompt emission and the AG phase (ICS and SR,

319: respectively, in the CB model).

320: 

321: During the initial phase of $\gamma$-ray emission in a GRB,

322: the Lorentz factor $\gamma$ of a CB stays put at its initial value

323: $\gamma_0\!=\!{\cal{O}}(10^3)$, for the deceleration induced by

324: the interactions with the ISM has not yet had a significant effect.

325: The Doppler factor by which the light emitted by a CB is boosted 

326: in energy is given by Eq.~(\ref{delta}).

327: Since the emitted light is forward-collimated into a cone of

328: characteristic opening angle $1/\gamma$,

329: the boosted energetic radiation is easiest to detect for

330: $\theta\!=\!{\cal{O}}(1/\gamma_0)$. Thus, typically, 

331: $\delta_0\!=\!{\cal{O}}(10^3)$.

332: 

333: As a CB ploughs through the ISM, fully ionized by the

334: preceding $\gamma$ radiation, it gathers and scatters 

335: the

336: ISM ions, mainly protons. These encounters are `collisionless'

337: since, at about the time it becomes transparent to radiation, a CB also

338: becomes `transparent' to hadronic interactions. As a consequence

339: of momentum conservation, the scattered and 

340: re-emitted protons inevitably exert an inwards `pressure' on the CB.

341: We have assumed that the main effect of this pressure

342: is to slow the CB's expansion, posited to be relativistic at the emission time.

343: In the approximation of isotropic re-emission in the CB's rest

344: frame and a constant ISM density $n$, one then finds that, typically

345: within minutes of observer's time $t$, a CB reaches a roughly

346: `coasting' radius, $R\!=\!{\cal{O}}(10^{14}\,\rm cm)$, which increases

347: slowly until the CB finally stops and blows up  (DD2006).

348: Up to the end of the coasting phase,

349: and in a constant density ISM, $\gamma(t)$

350: obeys (DDD2002):

351: \begin{eqnarray}

352: &&({\gamma_0/ \gamma})^{3+\kappa}+

353: (3-\kappa)\,\theta^2\,\gamma_0^2\,(\gamma_0/\gamma)^{1+\kappa}

354: = 1+(3-\kappa)\,\theta^2\,\gamma_0^2+t/t_0\,,

355: \nonumber\\

356: &&t_0 = {(1+z)\, N_{_{\rm B}}\over

357: (6+2\kappa)\,c\, n\,\pi\, R^2\,\gamma_0^3}\,,

358: \label{deceleration}

359: \end{eqnarray}

360: where $\kappa\!=\!1$ if the ISM particles re-emitted fast by the CB are a

361: small fraction of the flux of the intercepted ones. In the opposite limit,

362: $\kappa\!=\!0$. In the CB model of cosmic rays (DD2006),

363: the observed spectrum strongly favours $\kappa\!=\!1$, used here in our

364: fits. We have also concluded  from previous analysis of Swift

365: X-ray data that $\kappa\!\approx\!1$ is the right 

366: choice. 

367: 

368: 

369: As indicated by first-principle calculations of the relativistic merger of two

370: plasmas (Frederiksen et al.~2004), the ISM ions continuously impinging on 

371: a CB generate 

372: within it turbulent magnetic fields, which we assume to be

373: in approximate energy equipartition with the energy of the

374: intercepted ISM, $B\approx \sqrt{2\, \pi\, n\, m_p\, c^2}\, \gamma$.

375: In this field, the intercepted

376: electrons emit synchrotron radiation. The SR, isotropic in the CB's

377: rest frame, has a characteristic frequency, $\nu_b(t)$,

378: the typical frequency radiated by the

379: electrons that enter a CB at time $t$ with a relative Lorentz

380: factor $\gamma(t)$. In the observer's frame:

381: \begin{equation}

382: \nu_b(t)\simeq  {\nu_0 \over 1+z}\,

383: {[\gamma(t)]^3\, \delta(t)\over 10^{12}}\,

384: \left[{n\over 10^{-1}\;\rm cm^3}\right]^{1/2}

385: {\rm Hz}.

386: \label{nub}

387: \end{equation}

388: where $\nu_0\!\sim\! 8.5\times 10^{16}\, \rm Hz \simeq 354\, eV$. 

389: The spectral energy density of the SR

390: from a single CB at a luminosity distance $D_L$  is given by (DDD2003a):

391: \begin{equation}

392: F_\nu \simeq {\eta\,  \pi\, R^2\,n\, m_e\, c^3\,

393: \gamma(t)^2\, \delta(t)^4\, A(\nu,t)\,

394: \over 4\,\pi\, D_L^2\,\nu_b(t)}\;{p-2\over p-1}\;

395: \left[{\nu\over\nu_b(t)}\right]^{-1/2}\,

396: \left[1 + {\nu\over\nu_b(t)}\right]^{-(p-1)/2}\,,

397: \label{Fnu}

398: \end{equation}

399: where $p\sim 2.2$ is the typical spectral 

400: index\footnote{The normalization in Eq.~(\ref{nub}) is only correct for $p\!>\!2$,

401: for otherwise the norm diverges. The cutoffs for the $\nu$ distribution are

402: time-dependent,

403: dictated by the acceleration and SR times of electrons  and their `Larmor'

404: limit. The discussion of these processes being complex (DDD2003a, DD2006),

405: we shall satisfy ourselves here with the statement that for

406: $p\!\leq \!2$ the AG's normalization is not predicted.}

407: of the Fermi accelerated

408: electrons, $\eta\!\approx\!1$ is the fraction of the impinging ISM 

409: electron

410: energy that is synchrotron re-radiated by the CB, and $A(\nu, t)$ is

411: the  attenuation of photons of observed frequency $\nu$ along the

412: line of sight through the CB, the host galaxy (HG), the intergalactic medium        

413: (IGM)

414: and the Milky Way (MW):

415: \begin{equation}

416: A(\nu, t) = {\rm 

417: exp[-\,\tau_\nu(CB)-\tau_\nu(HG)-\tau_\nu(IGM)-\tau_\nu(MW)].}

418: \label{attenuation}

419: \end{equation}

420: The opacity

421: $\tau_\nu\rm (CB)$ at very early times, during the fast-expansion phase of the CB, may

422:  strongly depend  on time and frequency. The opacity of the circumburst medium

423:  [$\tau_\nu\rm (HG)$ at early times] is affected by the GRB and could also be $t$-

424: and $\nu$-dependent.  The opacities $\tau_\nu\rm (HG)$

425: and $\tau_\nu\rm (IGM)$ should be 

426: functions of $t$ and $\nu$, for the line of sight to the CBs varies

427:  during the AG observations, due to the hyperluminal motion

428: of CBs. These facts, the different $(t,\,\nu)$ dependences

429: of the ICS and SR emissions, and the dependence of the

430: synchrotron AG on $\nu_b(t)$, are responsible for the complex observed

431: chromatic behaviour of the AGs. To a fair approximation, though, the

432: deceleration bend, if occurring late enough, is achromatic from X-ray

433: energies to the optical domain (DDD2002) but not as far as radio (DDD2003a).

434: 

435: The Swift X-ray bands are above the characteristic frequency $\nu_b$ in Eq.~(\ref{nub})

436: at all times.

437: It then follows from Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}) that

438:  the {\it unabsorbed} X-ray spectral energy density has the form:

439: \begin{equation}

440: F_\nu \propto R^2\, n^{(p+2)/4}\,

441: \gamma^{(3p-2)/2}\, \delta^{(p+6)/2}\,  \nu^{-p/2}=

442: R^2\, n^{\Gamma/2}\,

443: \gamma^{3\,\Gamma-4}\, \delta^{\Gamma+2}\, \nu^{-\Gamma+1}\, ,

444: \label{Fnux}

445: \end{equation}

446: where we have used the customary notation $dN_{\gamma}/dE\!\approx\!E^{-\Gamma}$.

447: %Relatively large values of 

448: %$R$, $n$, $\gamma$ and/or $\delta$ favour bright AGs.   

449:  

450: \section{Breaks, missing breaks, and the AG's asymptotic power decline}

451: 

452: The functions $\delta(t)/\delta_0$ and $\gamma(t)/\gamma_0$

453: of Eqs.~(\ref{delta},\ref{deceleration}) evolve slowly, up

454: until a time:

455: \begin{eqnarray}

456: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&t_b=[1+2\, \theta^2\,\gamma_0^2]\;t_0\nonumber\\

457: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\approx

458: (130\,{\rm s})\, [1+2\,\gamma_0^2\, \theta^2]\,(1+z)

459: \left[{\gamma_0\over 10^3}\right]^{-3}\,

460: \left[{n\over 10^{-1}\, {\rm cm}^{-3}}\right]^{-1}

461: \left[{R\over 10^{14}\,{\rm cm}}\right]^{-2}

462: \left[{N_{_{\rm B}}\over 10^{50}}\right] \!,

463: \label{tbreaks}

464: \end{eqnarray}

465: where we scaled the result to typical CB-model values of $R$ and 

466: a CB's baryon number, $N_{_{\rm B}}$. The

467: combination of the parameters $n$, $R$ and $N_{_{\rm B}}$ appearing in

468: Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}) is best constrained by the excellent

469: X-ray observations discussed here.

470: Our previous results on optical and radio AGs (for fixed $R$ and $N_{_{\rm B}}$)

471: favoured 10 times a smaller $n$ at the much larger sampled times, 

472: not an inconsistency, since a CB  travels for $\sim\!\gamma\,\delta$ light-days

473: in one day of GRB data. We have chosen

474: to normalize $n$ as in Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}), rather than to reproduce long discussions

475: on the distributions of CB-model parameters (e.g.~De R\'ujula~2007).

476: 

477: 

478: The quantity $t_b$ in Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}) characterizes the {\it deceleration bend-time}

479: of the CB model; Eq.~(\ref{deceleration}) for $\gamma(t,t_0,\theta,\gamma_0)$

480: describes the gradual character of this `break'.

481: At later times  Eq.~(\ref{deceleration})

482: implies that $\gamma\to\gamma_0\,(t/t_0)^{-1/4}$, and Eq.~(\ref{delta})

483: that $\delta\to 2\,\gamma$. Thus, at $t\! \gg \!t_b$,

484: Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}) yields:  

485: \begin{eqnarray}

486: F_\nu(t)&\propto& t^{-1/2-p/2}\,\nu^{-p/2}= t^{-\Gamma+1/2}\, \nu^{-\Gamma+1},

487: \nonumber\\

488: p&=&2\,(\Gamma -1)

489: \label{Asymptotic}

490: \end{eqnarray}

491: with, as announced, a power decay in time half a unit steeper than in

492: frequency.

493: 

494: \section{The prompt observables} 

495: 

496: In the CB model, the peak energy of GRBs satisfies:

497: \begin{equation}

498:  E_p\simeq {1\over 2}\;{\gamma_0\, \delta_0 \over 1+z}\; \epsilon_g\,,  

499: \label{ep} 

500: \end{equation} 

501: where $\epsilon_g\!\sim\! 1$ eV is the typical

502: energy of the glory's photons, that of the

503: associated-supernova early light just 

504: prior to the ejection of  CBs. 

505: The isotropic  (or spherical equivalent)

506: energy  of a GRB is  (DD2004): 

507: \begin{eqnarray} 

508: E_{\rm iso} &\simeq& 

509: {\delta_0^3\, L_{_{\rm SN}}\,N_{_{\rm CB}}\,\beta_s\over 6\, c}\,

510:                       \sqrt{\sigma_{_{\rm T}}\, N_{_{\rm CB}}\over 4\, \pi}\sim

511:                       (1.2\! \times\! 10^{53}\;{\rm erg})\,V_E,

512:                      \nonumber\\

513:                       V_E&\equiv&{\delta_0^3\over 10^9}\,

514: {L_{_{\rm SN}}\over L_{_{\rm SN}}^{\rm bw}}\,{N_{_{\rm CB}}\over 2}\;

515: \beta_s\;\sqrt{ N_{_{\rm CB}}\over 10^{50}}\, ,

516: \label{eiso} 

517: \end{eqnarray} 

518: where $L_{_{\rm SN}}$ is the mean supernova early optical luminosity, 

519:  $N_{_{\rm CB}}$ is the number of CBs in 

520: the jet, $\beta_s$ is the comoving early

521: expansion velocity of a CB (in units of $c/\sqrt{3}$), 

522: and $\sigma_{_{\rm T}}$ is the Thomson cross section. 

523: For $\langle N_{_{\rm CB}}\rangle\!=\! 6$  (Schaefer~2007), the early 

524: SN luminosity required to 

525: produce the mean isotropic energy, $E_{\rm iso}\!\sim\! 4\!\times\! 10^{53}$ 

526: erg, of ordinary long GRBs, is 

527: $L_{_{\rm SN}}^{\rm bw}\!\simeq\! 5\!\times\! 10^{42}\, {\rm erg\, 

528: s^{-1}}$, the estimated early luminosity of SN1998bw. All quantities in

529: Eq.~(\ref{eiso}) are normalized to their typical CB-model values.

530: We have normalized to $N_{_{\rm CB}}\!=\! 2$, an adequate mean number

531: of prominent X-ray pulses in the subset of GRBs analized here.

532: 

533: The results in Eqs.~(\ref{ep},\ref{eiso}) are based on the assumption that

534: ICS is the mechanism generating the prompt radiation. They depend

535: on $\gamma_0$ and $\delta_0$, two parameters also appearing in the

536: description of the SR afterglow. That is why we shall be able to test the

537: implied correlations, GRB by GRB, between the shape of the AG and the

538: energetics of the prompt radiation, the very strong dependence of the

539: $\delta$ on $\theta$ playing once more the major role.

540: 

541: 

542: According to Eqs.~(\ref{delta},\ref{ep},\ref{eiso}), CBs with large $\gamma_0$,

543: and, more so, small $\theta$, produce the largest values of 

544: $E_p$ and $E_{\rm iso}$: they generate the brightest GRBs. According to

545: Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}), such $(\gamma_0,\theta)$ values entail a small

546: $t_b$, an expectation that our analysis will validate.

547: In such cases the deceleration bend or `break' of the synchrotron

548: AG may take place before the beginning of the XRT observations and/or be

549: hidden under the prompt Compton emission. According to Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}),

550: these AGs must be very luminous at early times, and according to

551: Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}), they must be well approximated from starters by

552: the asymptotic power law behaviour given by Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}).  Our

553: analysis will verify all these  predictions.

554: 

555: \section{Comparison with observations}

556:  

557: To date, Swift has detected and localized nearly 300 long GRBs, and for 

558: most of them it followed their X-ray emission until it faded into the 

559: background.  Incapable of discussing all of them, we analyze the light 

560: curves of the X-ray afterglow of a set of GRBs with and `without' jet 

561: breaks, which represent fairly well the entire spectrum of canonical and 

562: non-canonical X-ray afterglows of GRBs. They include the most extreme 

563: cases of canonical and non canonical behaviour (GRB 0980425 and GRB 

564: 061126, respectively), the longest-measured canonical and non canonical 

565: X-ray light curves (GRB 060729 and GRB 061007) and a variety of light 

566: curves with and without breaks, with and without superimposed X-ray 

567: flares. Since many CB-model fits to canonical light curves 

568: of X-ray afterglows  with  `breaks' 

569: were included in previous publications (DDD2002, 2006, 2007a,b,d) 

570: we shall discuss in this paper more cases of GRBs with an approximate power-law 

571: AG than of GRBs with a canonical AG.   

572: 

573: 

574: We start the fits to the X-ray light curves

575: during the transition between the rapid decline phase of the 

576: ICS-dominated prompt emission to the SR-dominated AG

577: phase. It suffices to include the ICS contribution of the last

578: prompt-emission pulse (or the last two), because of an exponential 

579: factor in the pulse shape that suppresses very fast the relative 

580: contribution of the earlier pulses by the time the data sample

581: the later ones (DDD2007a,b). 

582: For the synchrotron contribution, it usually suffices to 

583: consider a common emission angle $\theta$ and an average initial Lorentz 

584: factor $\gamma_0$ for the ensemble of CBs. The ISM density along the CBs' 

585: trajectories is approximated by a constant. We then fit the entire observations 

586: of the X-ray AG of the selected GRBs by using the `master formula'

587: [DD2004, Eq.~(11) of DDD2007a],

588: for the tail of the ICS prompt emission contribution, and Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}) for 

589: the SR. Many GRBs have late X-ray flares, which we interpret 

590: as dying pangs of the engine, that is, the emission of CBs in late episodes of accretion into

591: the recently collapsed central compact object.

592: These CBs, whose ICS-generated flares can only be seen on the weak background of a

593: decaying SR `after'-glow (quote-unquote, since the `AG' is observable {\it before} the late `prompt'

594: flares), are also modeled with the same master formula.

595: 

596: The calculated shape of the energy-integrated X-ray AG, Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}), 

597: depends only on three fit parameters. Two of them are the product 

598: $\gamma_0\, \theta$ and the deceleration-bend time, $t_b$, for an on-axis 

599: observer, as given in the first line of Eq.~(\ref{deceleration}). They 

600: determine the deceleration-bend time, $t_b$, observed at a viewing angle 

601: $\theta$, see Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}). The third fit parameter is the index 

602: $p$ in the $\gamma$ and $\delta$ time-dependent factors of 

603: Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}). Unlike in previous analysis, we let $p$ be a free 

604: parameter, unrelated to the spectral index $\Gamma$, independently 

605: extracted by the observers from the shape of the X-ray spectrum. This way 

606: we shall be able to test explicitly the CB-model prediction implied by 

607: Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}), $p\!=\! 2\,(\Gamma-1)$, or by its more readable 

608: asymptotic form, Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}). In all the cases we study, but 

609: two (GRBs 071020 and 050416A), a single CB or an `average' CB suffice to 

610: describe the AG. The occasional need for two CBs in the AG light-curve 

611: description is not a novelty. The most notable instance is that of GRB 

612: 030329 (DDD2003b).

613: 

614: A comparison between the observed and predicted light curves of the 16

615: selected GRBs is shown in Figs.~\ref{f2} to \ref{f5}. When well-measured,

616: the `break' time, $t_b$, is indicated in the figure by an arrow. 

617: The best fit values, of $p$, $\gamma_0\, \theta$, and  $t_b$ are listed 

618: in Table \ref{t1}, along with additional observational information on 

619: these GRBs (redshift,  peak energy, equivalent isotropic energy,  

620: the start-time of the Swift XRT observations, the  spectral index 

621: of the unabsorbed AG, and the $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom of the fits). 

622: 

623: Afterglows which exhibit nearly a pure power-law decline, have a $t_b$ 

624: smaller than $t_s$, the time after trigger when the XRT started its 

625: observations of the AG, or a $t_b$ smaller than the time when the 

626: afterglow became brighter than the tail of the prompt emission. Such AGs 

627: have a nearly power-law shape, $F_\nu\sim t^{-p/2}$. Their fits, however, 

628: return upper limits for $\gamma_0\,\theta$ and $t_b$, above which the 

629: shape of the AG deviates from the data. These limiting values are also 

630: reported in Table \ref{t1}, but the corresponding limit-$t_b$ location 

631: will not be shown in the figures in the case-by-case analysis, as it 

632: generally falls off-limits.

633: 

634: In most cases (including many Swift AGs studied in DDD2006, 2007a,b, but 

635: not shown here), the CB model produces good fits with reduced $\chi^2$ 

636: values close to unity. Even if the $\chi^2$ figures are good, we generally 

637: have refrained in the past from reporting them. One reason is that it is 

638: easy to obtain an excellent $\chi^2$ for a fit that has many data points, 

639: but misses some that clearly reflect a significant structure (such as a 

640: supernova, see DDD2002), or is, even within errors, systematically above 

641: the data in one region and below it in another. For that reason, and the 

642: occasional local scatter of the data, we consider the eye to be a better 

643: judge than any statistical measure. We comment on the $\chi^2$

644: values when they are `bad'.

645: 

646: The values of $\theta\,\gamma_0$, $t_b$ (or $t_0$), and $p$ returned by 

647: our fits and reported in Table \ref{t1} have formal errors of a few 

648: percent. The error-correlation matrix has relatively small off-diagonal 

649: elements. The reduced-$\chi^2$ values are very close to unity, once the 

650: occasional flares are taken into account, to reveal the presence of a 

651: smoother SR background. One reason for all this is that $t_0$ sets the 

652: overall time scale, $\theta\,\gamma_0$ determines the shape of the bend, 

653: and $p$ is sensitive to the whole SR light curve, playing a major role in 

654: its power-law tail. This means that when a light curve is well sampled 

655: (over orders of magnitude in flux and time), the fit is very sensitive to 

656: its parameters. Naturally, the results depend also on the deceleration 

657: law, Eq.~(\ref{deceleration}), meant to be an approximation. Therefore the 

658: extracted parameters have `systematic' errors reflecting the approximate 

659: nature of Eq.~(\ref{deceleration}). We can argue explicitly why the 

660: approximation should be better than it looks at first sight, even case by 

661: case (on average, and independently, it leads to the correct spectrum of 

662: cosmic rays from non-relativistic energies up to the `knee' at some 

663: $2\times 10^6$ GeV, DD2006). The continuation of this rather formal 

664: argument on errors would take us well beyond the scope of this paper.

665:  

666: 

667: 

668: 

669: \subsection*{Case studies}

670: 

671: In this section we comment one by one on the 16 GRBs or XRFs whose X-ray

672: light curves we discuss. The results of the CB-model fits

673: are shown in Figs.~\ref{f2} to \ref{f5}, and the parameters relevant to

674: our discussion are listed in Table \ref{t1}. The first eight GRBs are shown

675: in the order of decreasing $t_b$. For the next four, only an upper limit

676: on $t_b$ can be extracted from the fits. The last four have very complex AGs.

677: 

678: The presence or absence of visible breaks in X-ray light curves and their

679: different `look' --the panoply of possibilities that we illustrate with our

680: GRB choices-- depend not only on $t_b$ , but on its value relative to

681: $t_s$ (the start-time of XRT observations) and relative to the duration

682: of the initial period of prompt-radiation dominance over the synchrotron

683: AG. For this reason, it is easier to compare the plethora of looks of our GRBs 

684: in an order slightly different from that of a decreasing $t_b$.

685: This we do (only) in the next paragraph.

686: 

687: 

688: GRBs  980425 and 060729  have light curves with a complete

689: and simple canonical shape: one or two very clear prompt X-ray flares, a pronounced

690: fast decay, a long plateau, a very visible `break' smoothly bending at $t_b$ to

691: become a power-law decay. In GRBs 050401, 060105, 060418, 061007

692: and 050717, the plateau is becoming less and less pronounced, so that the AG's $t_b$

693: is hiding better and better under the prompt signal, to the point that the

694: last two are close to a pure power-law tail.  In GRBs 060813, 070508

695: and 050505, the prompt radiation ended early enough not to be caught by

696: Swift's XRT (in the last case the follow-up started very late), but this trio

697: displays very canonical AGs, with their neat plateaus softly bending into a late power law.

698: GRBs 071025, 061126 and 070125 are again approximate power-law tails,

699: in which neither the early X-ray flares nor the putative bend are seen.

700:  GRBs 071020, 050416A and certainly  060607A,

701: are very complex. The first two require contributions to the AG

702: from two distinct CBs, 050416A having also a late flare. The 

703: unsightly X-ray light

704: curve of GRB 060607A can be described by the CB model without any new 

705: ingredients, but not much is learned from fitting it.

706: 

707:  

708: 

709: \noindent 

710: {\bf GRB 980425.} The light curve of this 

711: memorable single-peak GRB, as observed by BeppoSAX (Pian et al.~2000),

712: is shown in Fig.~\ref{f2}a. The dotted line is the fit in DDD2002, 

713: showing what we called a pronounced `plateau'. 

714: We have added to it the last (predicted) data point, 

715: measured with Chandra by Kouveliotou et al.~(2004), some 1285 days after 

716: burst! To be consistent with the analysis here, we have re-fit the ensemble of 

717: data in the same manner as for all the other GRBs to be discussed.

718: The result is the continuous curve in the figure.

719: This GRB has, so far, the record large values

720: $\gamma_0\, \theta\!\approx\! 9.2$ and $t_b\!\approx\! 1.4\times 10^5$ s,

721: resulting in a light curve that rises before it falls, as explained in the

722: introduction and illustrated in Fig.~\ref{f1}a. This is the behaviour expected

723: for far-off-axis GRBs (DD2000a).

724: This one barely missed the official classification

725: as an XRF: it's $E_p$ is $\sim\!56$ keV, as opposed to $E_p\!<\! 50$ keV

726: (see Dado \& Dar~2005 for further comment on this point).

727: 

728: \noindent 

729: {\bf GRB 060729} and its X-ray light curve were studied in 

730: detail by Grupe et al.~(2007). It has a canonical shape, the longest 

731: follow-up observations with Swift XRT, and the record-high $t_b\!\sim\! 

732: 8300$s, among the Swift GRBs. In Fig.~\ref{f2}b we show its CB-model 

733: description with, superimposed on its prompt decline phase, four ICS X-ray 

734: flares included in the fit, as discussed in detail in DDD2007a. This GRB 

735: being `canonical' and having a very clear `break' --as several others also 

736: discussed in DDD2007a-- is included here to illustrate the 

737: start of the transition from `breaks' to `missing breaks'.

738: Although the best fit to the X-ray AG appears to be excellent, it yields 

739: a large $\chi^2/dof\!=\!635/140\!=\!4.5$, mostly due to many

740:  far-flung isolated data points in the Swift data. More accurate data from XMM 

741:  Newton (Grupe et al.~2007) do not show such outliers. Eliminating their 

742:  contribution yields the $\chi^2$ value reported in Table 1.

743: 

744: 

745: \noindent

746: {\bf GRB 050505,} whose X-ray light curve was studied in

747: detail by Hurkett et al.~(2006). At $z\!=\!4.27$, this GRB is amongst the

748: most distant with a known redshift. Due to an Earth-limb

749: constraint, Swift was unable to slew to it until 47 minutes after the GRB's

750: trigger, and started measuring its X-ray light curve only 2883s after

751: burst, during the transition of the AG from its shallow-decline 

752: phase to a power-law decline.  As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{f2}c, 

753: the CB model describes very well 

754: %($\chi^2/dof=1.19$) 

755: the XRT light curve,

756: except when the counting rate becomes

757: comparable to the background. 

758: 

759: 

760: \noindent 

761: {\bf GRB 050401,} whose X-ray light curve, studied in detail by De 

762: Pasquale et al.~(2006), evolves smoothly from the tail of the prompt 

763: emission at around 200s to a short decaying plateau, which suavely 

764: breaks into a power-law decline at $t\!\sim\!2000$s. Its CB-model description is

765: shown in Fig.~\ref{f2}d.

766: This GRB had a very bright X-ray AG,

767: even though it originated at a fairly large redshift, 

768: $z\!=\!2.9$, and had a very large 

769: extragalactic absorbing column density along its sight-line, inferred from 

770: its X-ray spectrum to be $N\!=\!1.7\times 10^{22}\, \rm cm^{-2}$ (De Pasquale 

771: et al.~2006), or $N\!=\! 4\times 10^{22}\,\rm cm^{-2}$ (Watson et 

772: al.~2006). Such a column density implies a very strong extinction of the

773: optical AG and, consequently, an extreme chromaticity:  more than 

774: 10-magnitude extinction in the V band (Zombeck 1990) and more than 30 

775: magnitudes at 1800 $\rm \AA$. Indeed, the optical AG was very dim (a fitted 

776: spectral index, $- 0.33$, between the X-band and the optical band, 

777: compared to $ -0.8$ to $-1.1$ in `normal' GRBs.  In fact, according to 

778: Jakobson et al.~(2004), GRB 050401 qualified as a `dark burst'. It would not be 

779: a good case to discuss (unattenuated) chromaticity, or the lack 

780: thereof.

781: 

782: 

783: \noindent

784: {\bf GRB 070508.} Swift's XRT started to measure the X-ray light

785: curve of this GRB 82s after the GRB trigger. Even at this early time,

786: it  already displays the shallow-decay plateau phase of a canonical AG,

787: which later bends into a power-law decline, as shown in Fig.~\ref{f3}a.

788: 

789: 

790: \noindent 

791: {\bf GRB 060813}, shown in Fig.~\ref{f3}b, is a case in which the prompt 

792: radiation is not seen by the XRT, and the AG has no obvious flares. 

793: In spite of some evidence for local variability, the 

794: smoothly bending AG is well described  by the CB model

795:  ($\chi^2/${\it dof} $=\!1.07 $ for 254 {\it dof}). Had the break 

796: happened a bit earlier, as in other cases, the X-ray AG would look like a 

797: power-law.  The last data point lies below the fit, 

798: it could be due to an overestimated background.

799: 

800: \noindent

801: {\bf GRB 060418,} whose achromatic AG was studied in detail by Molinari et 

802: al.~(2007). Its X-ray AG evolves fast into a power-law decline, see 

803: Fig.~\ref{f3}c. The CB-model fit returns  

804: an early break at $t_b\!=\!123$s, well hidden under the flaring 

805: activity during the fast-decline phase of the prompt emission. 

806: The transition from an ICS-dominated 

807: regime to one in which SR is prevalent is corroborated by the fast 

808: spectral softening of the tail of the flare from around $t\!\sim\!130$s 

809: (Evans et al.~2007), which suddenly turns, at $t\!\sim\!165$s, into the 

810: much harder time-independent power-law spectrum characteristic of the 

811: synchrotron AG (DDD2007b). We have checked that the reasonable 

812: $\chi^2/${\it dof} $=\!1.21$ for 295 {\it dof} of the fit shown in the figure can be 

813: reduced to $\chi^2/${\it dof} $\sim\! 1$ by including X-ray flares between 5 

814: to 10 ks, or by replacing the fluctuating data points by average values.

815: 

816: 

817: \noindent 

818: {\bf GRB 050717,} studied in detail by Krimm et al.~(2006).

819: It had the largest inferred peak energy

820: of all Swift GRBs, $E_p\!=\!2401(- 568/+781)$ keV, despite its estimated large

821: redshift, $z\!>\!2.7\, .$ At this $z$-limit, 

822: $E_{\rm iso}\!\sim\! 1.1\times 10^{54}$ erg, and  the

823: local peak energy is $(1+z)\,E_p\!\sim\! 8840$ keV.

824: It also had 

825: an initially very bright X-ray AG, after the fast declining prompt

826: emission, with a power-law decline from $t\!\sim\! 200$s onwards.

827: The fit in Fig.~\ref{f3}d returns an early break-time limit,

828: $t_b\!<\!55$s, well hidden under the prompt-emission tail. 

829: The  CB-model interpretation of the transition from a prompt ICS

830: radiation to a synchrotron AG is supported by

831: the observed rapid spectral softening of

832: the tail of the prompt emission and its sudden change at $t\!\sim\! 200$s

833: into the harder time-independent power-law spectrum of the

834: synchrotron AG (DDD2007b). In the case of this GRB 

835: the best-fit value, $p=1.67$, does not

836: satisfy Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}), with $\Gamma=1.61\pm 0.10$,

837: as inferred from the 

838: X-ray spectrum with a fixed column density limited to the Galactic one

839: (Krimm et al.~2006).  However, $p=1.67$ is consistent with

840: $\Gamma=1.88\pm 0.15$ of the AG for $t>200$s, the spectral index 

841: reported by Zhang et al.~(2007),

842: after inclusion of host-galaxy and IGM absorption. 

843: 

844: 

845: \noindent

846: {\bf GRB 061126,}   

847: studied in detail by Perley et al.~(2008) had two major prompt pulses. 

848: Due to an Earth-limb constraint, Swift 

849: slewed to the burst's direction only  23 minutes after its

850: localization by its Burst Alert Telescope (BAT). Its light curve,

851: measured by the XRT between 1.6 ks and 1.88 Ms, is shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}a.

852: The X-ray light curve was reported to be  well fit  by a  power-law in 

853: time with index  $1.29\pm 0.08$ (Sbarufatti et al.~2006).

854: A CB-model fit, with  $p\!=\!1.89$ and $t_b<104$s, is shown in 

855: Fig.~\ref{f4}a. There is a possible indication in the data 

856: of a steeper decay between 1.6~ks and 3.6~ks, which might

857: belong to the tail of another CB with a smaller $t_b$.

858: Cases of AGs clearly requiring two CBs will be discussed anon.

859: 

860: 

861: \noindent

862: {\bf GRB 071025.} Swift's XRT  started observations 

863: of the X-ray light curve 146s after the BAT trigger. The initial 

864: relatively hard spectrum ($\Gamma\!=\!1.4$) softened beyond 300s 

865: and the light curve declined like a single power-law, consistent with 

866: the CB-model's asymptotic power-law decline with a power-law index 

867: $\simeq\!1.6$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}b. The data suggest a flaring 

868: activity 

869: between 4 ks and 40 ks. The effect of such flares on the CB-model 

870: X-ray light curve is illustrated in the figure by adding an ICS flare 

871: around 40 ks with parameters (peak time, width and normalization)

872: chosen, as in all other cases with clear flares, to best fit the data.

873: 

874: \noindent 

875: {\bf GRB 070125,}   studied in detail by Bellm et al.~(2007).

876: It was detected by Mars Odyssey, Suzaku, INTEGRAL, and RHESSI.

877: It is one of the Swift-era GRBs with the largest

878: measured values of $E_{\rm iso}\!\sim\! 1\times 10^{54}$ erg, 

879: $L_p\,\sim\, 3\times 10^{53}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$, and

880: source-frame $(1+z)\, E_p\, \sim\, 1100$ keV.

881: The initial detection of this GRB occurred while it was not in the BAT 

882: field of view during the beginning of the prompt emission,

883: and its XRT light curve starts at 46 ks after the burst.

884:  As shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}c

885: its power-law decline is well described by the CB model.

886: The feature at $\sim \! 110$~ks can be interpreted as an X-ray flare,

887: as in the figure.

888: 

889: 

890: \noindent

891: {\bf GRB 061007,} 

892: whose AG was studied in detail by Schady et al.~(2006) and Mundell et al.~(2007), 

893: was  the brightest GRB detected by Swift  and was 

894: accompanied by an exceptionally luminous X-ray and UV/optical

895: afterglow, which decayed as a power law with an index $1.65\pm 0.02$.

896: It had the largest values of 

897:  $E_{\rm iso}\!\sim\! 1\times 10^{54}$ erg, 

898:  $L_p\!\sim\! 2\times 10^{53}\, {\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$

899:  and an emission-point

900: peak energy, $(1+z)\, E_p \!\sim\! 1000$ keV

901: (Golenetskii et al.~2006).

902: This GRB is the best example to date of a bright

903: X-ray AG,  well-sampled from the start of the XRT observations

904: (86s after the BAT trigger) to $10^6$ s.

905: The AG, shown in Fig.~\ref{f4}d, is power-law behaved right after the 

906: tail of the prompt emission. The CB-model fit returns $t_b\!<\!89$s, below 

907: which the $\chi^2/${\it dof} (a reasonable 1.13 for 1030 {\it dof)} stays put.

908: 

909:  

910: 

911: 

912: \noindent

913: {\bf GRB 071020,}  measured by Swift's XRT

914: between 68s and 1.7 Ms after trigger, and shown in Fig.~\ref{f5}b.

915: Holland et al.~(2007) fitted the data with a broken power-law with 

916: an initial decay index of $\approx \! 0.5$, a break at

917: $t_b\,=\,160$s, and a late-time decay index of

918: $1.14 \pm 0.02$. 

919: The fit is poor between 1.5 ks and 1.5 Ms. 

920: A CB-model fit with a single CB is also unsatisfactory.  

921: The addition of a second CB to the AG's description, as in the fit

922: shown in Fig.~\ref{f5}a, greatly improves the fit to

923: $\chi^2/${\it dof} $=\!1.52$ for 174 {\it dof}, acceptable in view of

924: what appears to be evidence for  

925: flaring activity, from 1.5 to 15 ks, which we have not

926: endeavoured to describe, given the scarcity of data.

927: 

928: 

929: \noindent

930: {\bf XRF 050416A.}

931: The complex X-ray light curve of this XRF was monitored up to 74 days after 

932: the burst (Mangano et al.~2007).

933:   The late decline rate of the light curve is

934: significantly slower than expected in the CB model from the observed

935: photon spectral index $\Gamma$, namely $t^{-\Gamma-1/2}\!\sim\!

936: t^{-1.5\pm 0.10}$.  The prompt signal of XRF 050416A had  two clear

937:  pulses which, in the CB model, correspond to two separate CBs.

938: The X-ray light curve, modeled with two CBs and shown

939: in Fig.~\ref{f5}b, has a SR-component late-power decay that

940: --although it is not readable `by eye' due to the late-occurring

941: ICS flare-- is compatible with the

942: predicted one.

943: 

944: \noindent 

945: {\bf GRB 060105,} whose X-ray light curve was studied in detail 

946: by Tashiro et al.~(2007). Following the prompt emission, which ended with 

947: a very steep decay, the light curve is canonical, it has a shallow decay 

948: after 180s and steepens at around 500s to a fast power-law decline, with a 

949: weak flaring activity superposed on it. 

950: %The fit in Fig.~\ref{f5}c returns 

951: %a temporal power-law index $p\!=\!1.67$  which satisfies

952: %Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}), with $\Gamma-1/2\!=\!1.75\pm0.15$, 

953: %inferred from the Swift and Suzaku observations (Tashiro et al.~2007). 

954: The deviations from a smooth X-ray light curve may be caused by the flaring 

955: activity, not included in this particular fit, whose 

956: $\chi^2/${\it dof} $=\! 1.36$ for 854 {\it dof,} is not inadequate.

957: 

958: \noindent

959: {\bf GRB 060607A,} was studied by  Molinari et 

960: al.~(2007). Its complex X-ray light curve, like that of quite a few other

961: GRBs, is dominated by strong flaring activity, as can be seen

962: in Fig.~\ref{f5}d,

963: with its many flares superimposed on the AG of a fitted, single, dominant CB.

964: This fit, which can be improved by splitting the

965: last flare into two, is a very rough description

966: ($\chi^2/${\it dof} $=\! 4.9$ for 440 {\it dof}),

967: not a proof of the quality of a prediction.

968: Moreover, in cases with such a prominent flaring activity,

969: the photon spectral index of the AG data  

970: is an average between the typical index of flares,

971: $\Gamma=1$, and that of synchrotron AG, $\Gamma=2$,

972: i.e., an average significantly smaller than that of the synchrotron AG. 

973: Thus, we do not expect such a labyrinthine AG to satisfy 

974: the CB-model spectral-index relations, Eqs.~(\ref{Fnux},\ref{Asymptotic}).

975: 

976: 

977: \subsection*{The afterglow as a function of time and frequency}

978: 

979: We have summarized in Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}) the predicted form of the spectral

980: energy density of the AG of a GRB, in which the

981: time-dependence and the energy-dependence are explicitly concatenated. In

982: the large-frequency limit of the X-ray domain, the expression simplifies

983: to that of Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}), implying a predicted relation between the temporal 

984: index $p$ (which we fit to the XRT light curve of the X-ray AG)  and the

985: spectral index $\Gamma$, independently fitted by the Swift team to the X-ray 

986: AG spectrum after correcting for attenuation, 

987: and reported by Zhang et al.~(2007). 

988: The prediction is particularly simple, and

989: is most transparently readable in the late-$t$ limit for the AGs'

990: dependence on $t$ and $\nu$, Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}), in which both the

991: time and the frequency functional forms are separate power laws.

992: 

993: The values of $p$ and $\Gamma$ are listed in Table \ref{t1}.  Notice that

994: $\Gamma$ varies over a significant range of central values, 1.61 to 2.25,

995: and that the measurements are  not compatible within errors with

996: a common value. To illustrate the prediction in Eqs.~(\ref{Fnux},\ref{Asymptotic}), we

997: have plotted in Fig.~\ref{f6} the ratio $r\!=\!p/(2\, \Gamma -2)$

998: (predicted to be unity) for the various GRBs analized in this paper,

999: and added a few other analized in the same fashion.

1000: The results are quite

1001: satisfactory. The mean value of $r$, for instance, is $0.999\pm 0.025$

1002: for the GRBs analized here, $1.000\pm 0.019$ for the ensemble

1003: plotted in Fig.~\ref{f6}.

1004: 

1005: \subsection*{The $(t_b,\,E_{\rm iso})$ and $(t_b,\,E_p)$ correlations}

1006: 

1007: In the CB model, the functional dependence on $\theta$ and $\gamma_0$ of 

1008: the deceleration-bend time  of the synchrotron AG, $t_b$, 

1009: as well as its normalization, are specified by Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}). 

1010: This is also the case for the  parameters, $E_p$ and $E_{\rm iso}$

1011: of Eqs.~(\ref{ep}) and (\ref{eiso}), of the prompt ICS signal.

1012: As we saw in the introduction, this implies explicit correlations 

1013: between $t_b$ and the prompt observables. The $(t_b,\,E_{\rm iso})$

1014: correlation

1015: is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{f1}b for various choices of $\theta$ and $\gamma_0$,

1016: with the rest of the parameters in $t_b$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ fixed to

1017:  reference values in Eqs.~(\ref{tbreaks},\ref{eiso}).

1018: 

1019: In Fig.~\ref{f7} we  plot, in the $[t_b/(1+z),\,E_{\rm iso}]$ plane,

1020: the values returned by our analysis of

1021: the GRBs we have discussed, see Table \ref{t1}.

1022: The GRBs represented by arrows reflect the fact that some

1023: data are just upper limits.

1024: The large shaded contour plot in the figure is the boundary of the

1025: domain covered by letting $\gamma_0$ vary from 500 to 1500,

1026: $\theta$ from 0 to 8 mrad, typical ranges encountered

1027: in the CB-model analysis of GRBs. Moreover, the normalization 

1028: of $t_b$ in Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}) was varied from its central value 

1029: in Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}) to 1/2 order of magnitude above it, and

1030: the normalization of $E_{\rm iso}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eiso})

1031: from its central value to 1/2 order of magnitude below and above

1032: it. The variability in these normalizations is best

1033: ascertained by the current analysis, it has been chosen to make

1034: Fig.~\ref{f7} `look good'. We have added to the figure the

1035: results for a few GRBs which we have previously analyzed

1036: along the same lines in DDD2007a,b.

1037: 

1038: There is no reason to expect the data to populate uniformly

1039: the region bounded by the contour in Fig.~\ref{f7}. On the

1040: contrary. The relativistically beamed radiation from a 

1041: point in a CB initially subtends an angle $1/\gamma_0$.

1042: Observers at an angle $\theta$ from the axial direction have 

1043: a chance $\propto\! \theta\,d\theta$ of being illuminated. 

1044: At $\theta\! > \! 1/\gamma_0$ this chance decreases abruptly,

1045: given the fast fall of the Doppler factor. All in all, 

1046: $\theta\!\sim\!1/\gamma_0$ is the optimal observation angle,

1047: for {\it any} $\gamma_0$. Most GRBs, then, should be seen

1048: at $\theta\,\gamma_0\!=\! {\cal{O}}(1)$. The thick straight line

1049: in Fig.~\ref{f7} is $t_b(E_{\rm iso})$ at fixed $\theta\,\gamma_0$,

1050: for which $t_b/(1+z)\!\propto\!\gamma_0^{-3}$ and  

1051: $E_{\rm iso}\!\propto\! \delta_0^3\!\propto\!\gamma_0^{3}$. Thus:

1052: \begin{equation}

1053: t_b/(1+z) \propto E_{\rm iso}^{-1}.

1054: \label{naivetbEiso}

1055: \end{equation}

1056: The data follow this trend well, but at the

1057: high-$E_{\rm iso}$ end, at which they bend as in Fig.~\ref{f1}b.

1058: 

1059: 

1060: In Fig.~\ref{f8} we plot, in the $[t_b/(1+z),\,(1+z)\,E_{\rm p}]$ plane,

1061: the corresponding results of our analysis. The shaded domain is obtained

1062: with the same ranges in $\gamma_0$, $\theta$ --and in the normalization

1063: of $t_b$-- as in the previous paragraph. The normalization of $E_p$ has

1064: been allowed to vary from 1/3 to 1/6 of its value in

1065: Eq.~(\ref{ep})\footnote{The $E_p$ of Eq.~(\ref{ep})

1066: is the peak energy at the start of a  pulse; set it to $t\!=\!0$. The energy of

1067: the radiation is predicted to decrease during the pulse's duration:

1068: $E_p(t)\!\approx\!E_p(0)\,[1-t/(\Delta^2+t^2)^{1/2}]$, with  $\Delta$ the width 

1069: parameter (the full width at 

1070: half-maximum, FWHM, is $\sim\!1.8\,\Delta$). Observers usually report 

1071: $E_p$ at the peak's maximum,

1072: expected to be $E_p(t_{\rm max})\!\approx\! 0.23\,  E_p(0)$, or

1073: its pulse-averaged value: $\langle E_p\rangle\!\approx\! 0.18\,  E_p(0)$

1074: over the FWHM. We have not 

1075: corrected for these facts, which may explain the choice of the `best' domain.}.

1076: The points plotted as ellipses have an

1077: unknown $z$, which we have let vary from 0 to 2.75, the average

1078: for Swift-era GBRs (Greiner, $http://www.mpe.mpg.de/~jcg/grbgen.html$).  

1079: At fixed $\theta\,\gamma_0$, 

1080: $(1+z)E_p\!\propto\!\gamma_0\,\delta_0\!\propto\!\gamma_0^2$, so that:

1081: \begin{equation}

1082: t_b/(1+z) \propto [(1+z)\,E_p]^{-3/2}.

1083: \label{naivetbEp}

1084: \end{equation}

1085: The rest of the comments are

1086: as in the  discussion of the $(t_b,\,E_{\rm iso})$ correlation.

1087: 

1088: Another direct way to ascertain the variability of the parameters

1089: governing the normalizations of $E_p$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ is to study their

1090: scatter plot (DD2000b, Amati et al.~2002, DD2004, 

1091: DDD2007c, Amati 2006)  for a large collection of GRBs and XRFs.

1092: This is done in Fig.~\ref{f9}, where the varying-power correlation

1093: predicted by the CB model (DDD2007c) is shown, and to which the GRBs with

1094: known $z$, $E_p$ and $E_{\rm iso}$, among those studied here, are

1095: added. The figure shows that a total uncertainty of a factor of 2 in the norm

1096: of $E_p$ and of one an order of magnitude in the norm of $E_{\rm iso}$ (as

1097: we have adopted) is adequate to bracket the data.

1098: 

1099: We have also tested elsewhere (DDD2007d) the correlation, apparent

1100: in Fig.~\ref{f1}a, between $t_b$ and the normalization of the AG.

1101: Willingale et al.~(2007) and Nava et al.~(2006) had collected and analyzed 

1102: a large set

1103: of GRBs, and made a scatter plot of $t_b$ versus the total AG energy in

1104: the 15-150 keV X-ray band up to time $t_b$. To use this available information,

1105: we studied this correlation in its Willingale-Nava form. Like the ones

1106: in Figs.~\ref{f7} and \ref{f8}, it turns out to follow the pattern expected in the CB model.

1107: 

1108: 

1109: The correlations between $t_b$ and $E_{\rm iso}$ or $E_p$ demonstrate that

1110: `sub-energetic' GRBs (or XRFs) have large `break' times and, consequently,

1111: easily observable `breaks'. As GRBs become more `energetic', $t_b$

1112: decreases and the chances increase to `miss the break', which may be

1113: hidden under the prompt radiation, or may precede the Swift slew-time

1114: minimum, or the start of the observations.

1115: 

1116: \section{Conclusions and outlook}

1117: 

1118: A virtue of astrophysical X-ray data is that, in many instances and

1119: relative to lower-frequency bands, the corrections for attenuation are

1120: simpler and more reliable. The strength of Swift in dealing with transient

1121: phenomena is, as the satellite's name reflects, the prompt start of its

1122: data-taking after an alert. This has made the Swift results an excellent

1123: testing ground for theories of GRBs and XRFs. In particular, the ability

1124: to monitor the X-ray flux over a very wide range of times has provided

1125: decisive tests of the theoretical predictions.

1126: 

1127: Filling the pre-Swift gap in the data --between `prompt' and `afterglow' radiations--

1128: has led to a better understanding of the mechanisms responsible for

1129: them. In the CB model they are different: inverse Compton scattering

1130:  and synchrotron radiation, 

1131: respectively. We have previously argued that the strong case for an ICS origin of the 

1132: `prompt' radiation (DD2004) has been reconfirmed by the analysis of the Swift X-ray flares, 

1133: and the fast decay of the prompt signals (DDD2007b).  In this respect 

1134: the study of X-ray and optical data is also particularly meaningful 

1135: (DDD2007a). 

1136: The observed correlations between 

1137: prompt observables ---$E_{\rm iso}$, $E_p$, $L_p$ and

1138: pulse rise-time, lag-time and variability--- also agree with the CB-model

1139: (see DDD2007c and references therein). These correlations follow

1140: from the same simple considerations, that we have emphasized in this paper,

1141: on the dependence of the cited prompt observables

1142: on the Lorentz and Doppler factors of the radiation emitted by a quasi-point-like 

1143: relativistically moving source.

1144: 

1145:  

1146: The CB-model's expectations for the interplay between ICS and SR were

1147: confirmed by the analysis 

1148: of the `canonical' shape of many Swift X-ray light curves (DDD2007a). The 

1149: extreme canonical case is still GRB 980425, shown in Fig.~(\ref{f2}a).

1150: The trend of the `hardness ratios' reflecting the spectral behaviour, and 

1151: the spectral index itself, also corroborate

1152: the expected transitional behaviour (DDD2007b),

1153: as the dominant mechanism evolves from ICS to SR.

1154: 

1155: In this paper we have shown in detail how the variety of X-ray AG shapes, 

1156: with and without `breaks', is also to be expected from a decelerating jet 

1157: of effectively pointlike cannonballs, as in Fig.~(\ref{f1}a). That the AG 

1158: emission mechanism is SR from CBs slowing down in the way 

1159: approximated by Eq.~(\ref{deceleration})  is confirmed by 

1160: the detailed frequency and time-dependences of Eq.~(\ref{Fnu}) for the 

1161: spectral energy density. We have presented  a study of the 

1162: correlation between the synchrotron AGs' $t$- and $\nu$- dependences, 

1163: specified in the X-ray domain by Eq.~(\ref{Fnux}). This results in a 

1164: relation between the AGs' spectral index $\Gamma$, and the index $p$ 

1165: appearing in their time dependence, a very simple relation at the late times at which 

1166: the time dependence is also a power-law, see Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}). The 

1167: prediction is tested in Fig.~\ref{f6}.

1168: 

1169: In the CB model, the understanding of AGs with breaks or no breaks turns

1170: out to be clear: the `missing' SR breaks are hiding under the prompt ICS

1171: radiation, or occur too early to be seen.  This sounds like a trivial and

1172: model-independent excuse. It is not. It is supported by 

1173: our case-by-case analysis of AG shapes. Moreover, a

1174: crucial ingredient ---the angle of observation of the jet,

1175: compared to the beaming angle of its Doppler-boosted radiation--- is

1176: validated by the correlations, e.g.~the luminous AGs are the ones with

1177: early or even undetectable breaks, as in Fig.~\ref{f1}a, and as in many of the

1178: examples we discussed here (the correlation between $t_b$ and the energy

1179: in the X-ray AG was studied in DDD2007d).

1180: Our conclusions are also supported by

1181: the correlations between  the CBs' deceleration-bend  `break-times', $t_b$ 

1182: (in the synchrotron AGs), and the values of $E_{\rm iso}$ 

1183: and $E_p$ (in the prompt Compton signal). 

1184: These correlations, shown in Figs.~\ref{f7} and \ref{f8}, 

1185: reconfirm the consistency of the overall picture.

1186: 

1187: We have given no comment in the conclusions to our fits to the GRBs and 

1188: XRFs that we have studied. This is because the point we would like 

1189: to make is {\it not} that the CB model can be used to fit the data very 

1190: well. The main issue, in our view, is {\it how} a model, preferably in a 

1191: predictive manner and in terms of very few concrete concepts 

1192: --like its radiation mechanisms, the aperture of its jets and the angle 

1193: from which they are viewed-- can be used to understand the ensemble of long-duration GRBs, 

1194: and XRFs\footnote{XRFs, we allege,  are long-duration GRBs viewed at large angles, 

1195:  but what is a short-duration GRB? We are currently writing a 

1196: paper on how the CB model may shed light on this question.}. After all, 

1197: phenomena that require ever-increasingly complex explanations are of 

1198: limited scientific interest.

1199: 

1200: %\end{document}

1201: 

1202: \begin{thebibliography}

1203: 

1204: \bibitem[2002]{Amatietal2002}

1205: Amati, L., Frontera, F., Tavani, M., et al.~2002, A\&A, 390, 81

1206: 

1207: \bibitem[2006]{Amati2006}

1208: Amati, L., 2006,~MNRAS, 372, 233 

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[1997]{Bellm2007}

1211: Bellm, E., et al.~2007, arXiv0710.4590

1212: 

1213: \bibitem[1992]{Bhat1992}

1214: Bhat, P. N, et al.~1992, Nature, 359, 217

1215: 

1216: \bibitem[2007]{Burrows}

1217: Burrows, D. N. \& Racusin, J.~2007, arXiv: astro-ph/0702633

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[1997]{Costa}

1220: Costa, E., et al. 1997, Nature, 387, 783

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[2006]{Covino}

1223: Covino, S., et al.~2006, Nuovo Cim. B 121, 1171 

1224: 

1225: \bibitem[2005]{DD}

1226: Dado, S. \& Dar, A.~2005, Ap.J. 627, L109

1227: 

1228: \bibitem[2002]{DDD2002OXAG}

1229: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2002, A\&A, 388, 1079 (DDD2002)

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[2003]{DDD2003RADIOAG}

1232: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2003a, A\&A, 401, 243 (DDD2003a)

1233: 

1234: %\bibitem[2003]{DDD2003SNin329}

1235: %Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2003b, ApJ, 594, L89  (DDD2003b) 

1236: 

1237: \bibitem[2004]{DDD2004XRF}

1238: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2004a, A\&A, 422, 381 (DDD2004a)

1239: 

1240: %\bibitem[2004b]{DDD2004CBsuperluminal1}

1241: %Dado S., Dar, A., \& De R\'ujula, A.~2004b, arXiv: astro-ph/0402374 

1242: %(DDD2004b) 

1243: 

1244: %\bibitem[2004b]{DDD2004CBsuperluminal2}

1245: %Dado S., Dar, A., \& De R\'ujula, A.~ 2004c, arXiv: astro-ph/0406325 

1246: %(DDD2004c)

1247: 

1248: \bibitem[2006]{DDDCanonical}

1249: Dado S., Dar, A., \& De R\'ujula, A.,~2006, ApJ, 646, L21

1250: (DDD2006)

1251: 

1252: \bibitem[2007a]{DDD2007XrayAG}

1253: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2007a, arXiv0706.0880

1254: (DDD2007a)

1255: 

1256: \bibitem[2007b]{DDD2007RadidDecline}

1257: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2007b, arXiv0709.4307

1258: (DDD2007b)

1259: 

1260: \bibitem[2007c]{DDD2007GRBCorrelations}

1261: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2007c, ApJ, 663, 400

1262: (DDD2007c)

1263: 

1264: \bibitem[2007d]{DDD2007MNRAS}

1265: Dado, S., Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2007d, astro-ph/0703700

1266: (DDD2007d)

1267: 

1268: \bibitem[1997]{Dar1997}

1269: Dar, A.~1997, {\it Very High Energy Phenomena in the Universe}

1270: (Editions Frontieres,  

1271: Eds. Y. Giraud-Heraud and J. Tran Thanh Van,) p.69 

1272: (arXiv:astro-ph/9704187)

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[1998]{Dar1998}

1275: Dar, A.~1998, ApJ, 500, L93

1276: 

1277: \bibitem[2000]{DD2000a}

1278: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2000a, arXiv: astro-ph/0008474 (DD2000a)

1279: 

1280: \bibitem[2001]{DD2001}

1281: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2000b, arXiv: astro-ph/0012227 (DD2000b)

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[2004]{DD2004}

1284: Dar, A. \& De R\'ujula, A.~2004, Physics Reports, 405, 203 (DD2004)

1285: 

1286: \bibitem{DD2006}

1287: Dar, A. \& De Rujula, A. 2006, eprint arXiv: hep-ph/0606199

1288: Submitted to Phys. Reps. (DD2006)

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[1999]{DP1999}

1291: Dar, A. \& Plaga, R.~1999, A\&A, 349, 259

1292: 

1293: \bibitem[1992]{DKNR}

1294: Dar, A., Kozlovsky, B., Nussinov, S., Ramaty, R. 1992, ApJ, 388, 164

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[2006]{DP2006}

1297: De Pasquale, M., et al.~2006, MNRAS 365, 1031	

1298: \bibitem[1987]{DR1987}

1299: De R\'ujula, A.~1987, Phys. Lett. 193, 514

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[2007]{DeRu20007}

1302: De R\'ujula, A.~2007, arXiv0711.0970

1303: 

1304: \bibitem[2007]{Evans}

1305: Evans, P. A., et al.~2007, arXiv: astro-ph/0704.0128

1306: 

1307: \bibitem[2004]{Freder2004}

1308: Frederiksen, J. K., et al.~2004, ApJ, 608, L13  

1309: 

1310: \bibitem[2001]{Frai2001}

1311: Frail, D. A., et al.~2001, ApJ, 562, L55

1312: 

1313: \bibitem[2000]{GCL}

1314: Ghisellini, G., Celotti, A., Lazzati, D. 2000, MNRAS, 313, L1

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[2006]{Gol2006}

1317: Golenetskii, S., et al.~2006, GCN 5722

1318: 

1319: \bibitem[1986]{Goodman1986}

1320: Goodman, J.~1986, ApJ, 308, L47 

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[1987]{Goodman1987}

1323: Goodman, J.,  Dar, A. \&  Nussinov, S.~1987, ApJ, 314, L7 

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[1997]{Groot1997}

1326: Groot, P. J., et al.~1998, 493, L27 

1327: 

1328: \bibitem[2007]{Grupe2007}

1329: Grupe, D., et al.~2007, ApJ, 662, 443

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[1999]{Har1999}

1332: Harrison, F. A., et al.~1999, ApJ, 523L, 121

1333: 

1334: \bibitem[2007]{Holland}

1335: Holland, S., et al. 2007, GCN Report 94, 1 

1336: 

1337: \bibitem[2006]{Hur}

1338: Hurkett, C. P. et al.~2006, MNRAS, 368, 1101

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[2004]{Jak2004}

1341: Jakobsson, P., et al.~2004, ApJ, 617, L21

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[2007]{Kocev2007}

1344: Kocevski, D. \& Butler, N.~2007, arXiv0707.4478

1345: 

1346: \bibitem[2004]{Kouveliotou2004}

1347: Kouveliotou, C., et al.~2004, ApJ, 608, 872  

1348: 

1349: \bibitem[2006]{Krimm}

1350: Krimm, H. A., et al.~2006, ApJ. 648, 1117

1351: 

1352: %\bibitem[2003]{Li2003}

1353: %Li, W., et al.~2003, ApJ, 586, L9

1354: 

1355: \bibitem[2007]{Liang}

1356: Liang, E. W., et al.~2007, ApJ, 653, L81

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[2007]{Mangano}

1359: Mangano, V., et al. 2007, ApJ, 654, 403

1360: 

1361: \bibitem[1992]{Meegan1992}

1362: Meegan, C. A. et al.~1992, Nature, 355, 143

1363: 

1364: \bibitem[1997]{MR1997}

1365: M\'esz\'aros, P. \& Rees, M. J.~1997,  ApJ, 476, 232

1366: 

1367: \bibitem[2002]{Mesz2002}

1368: M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, P.~2002, ARA\&A, 40, 137

1369: 

1370: %\bibitem[2006]{Meszaros2006}

1371: %M\'{e}sz\'aros, P.~2006, Rept. Prog. Phys.   69,  2259

1372: 

1373: \bibitem[1997]{Met1997}

1374: Metzger, M. R., et al.~1997, Nature, 387, 878 

1375: 

1376: \bibitem[2007]{Molinari}

1377: Molinari, E., et al.  2007, A\&A, 13, 469L

1378: 

1379: \bibitem[2007]{Mundell2007}

1380: Mundell, C. G., et al.~2007, ApJ, 660, 489

1381: 

1382: \bibitem[2006]{Nava}

1383: Nava, L., et al.~2006, A\&A, 450, 471

1384: 

1385: %\bibitem[2006]{Nous2006}

1386: %Nousek, J., et al.~2006, ApJ, 642, 389

1387: 

1388: \bibitem[1986]{Paczynski1986}

1389: Paczynski, B.~1986, ApJ, 308, L43

1390: 

1391: \bibitem[2006]{Panaitescu}

1392: Panaitescu, A., et al.~2006, MNRAS, 369, 2059

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[2008]{Perley}

1395: Perley, D. A., et al.  2008, ApJ, 672, 449

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[2000]{Pian2000}

1398: Pian, E., et al.~2000, ApJ, 536, 778

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[1999]{Pira1999}

1401: Piran, T.~1999, Physics Reports, 314, 575

1402: 

1403: \bibitem[2000]{Pira2000}

1404: Piran, T.~2000, Physics Reports, 333, 529

1405: 

1406: %\bibitem[2007]{Ra1cusin2007}

1407: %Racusin, J. L., et al.~2007, GCN Report 28,3 

1408: 

1409: \bibitem[2002]{RM1992}

1410: Rees, M. J., \& Meszaros, P.~1992, MNRAS, 258, 41P

1411: 

1412: \bibitem[1997a]{Rhoa1997}

1413: Rhoads, J. E.~1997,~ApJ, 487, L1

1414: 

1415: \bibitem[1999]{Rhoa1999}

1416: Rhoads, J. E.~1999, ApJ, 525, 737

1417: 

1418: \bibitem[1997]{Shau1997}

1419: Sahu, K. C., et al.~1997, Nature, 387, 476

1420: 

1421: \bibitem[1999]{SPH1999}

1422: Sari, R., Piran, T. \& Halpern, J. P.~1999, ApJ, 519, L17

1423: 

1424: \bibitem[2006]{Sbufa}

1425: Sbarufatti, B., et al. 2006, GCN Circ. 5862

1426: 

1427: \bibitem[2006]{Schady2006}

1428: Shady, P., et al.~2006, astro-ph/0611081

1429: 

1430: \bibitem[2006]{WB2006}

1431: Schaefer, B. E.~2007, ApJ, 660, 16

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[1995]{SD1995}

1434: Shaviv, N. J. \& Dar, A.~1995, ApJ, 447, 863

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[1999]{Stan1999}

1437: Stanek, K. Z., et al.~1999, ApJ, 522L, 39 

1438: 

1439: \bibitem[2006]{Tash2006}

1440: Tashiro, M. S., et al.~2006, PASJ, 59, 361

1441: 

1442: \bibitem[1997]{van1997}

1443: van Paradijs, J., et al.~1997, Nature, 386, 686 

1444: 

1445: \bibitem[2006]{Watson2006}

1446: Watson, D., et al.~2006, ApJ, 652, 1011	

1447: \bibitem[2007]{Willingale}

1448: Willingale, R., O'Brien, P. T., Osborne, J. P., Godet, et al.

1449: astro-ph/0612031 

1450: 

1451: \bibitem[1993]{Woos1993}

1452: Woosley, S. E.~1993, ApJ, 405, 273

1453: 

1454: \bibitem[2007]{ZLZ}

1455: Zhang, B. B., Liang, E. W. \& Zhang, B. 2007 ,  ApJ, 666,1002

1456: 

1457: \bibitem[1990]{Zombeck1990}

1458: Zombeck, M.~1990, Handbook of Astrophys. Ed. Cambridge Univ. Press

1459: 

1460: \end{thebibliography}

1461: 

1462: %\end{document}

1463: 

1464: \newpage

1465: \begin{deluxetable}{lllllllllc}

1466: \tablewidth{0pt}

1467: \tablecaption{GRB observables and CB-model best-fit afterglow 

1468: parameters.

1469: }

1470: \tablehead{

1471: \colhead{GRB} & \colhead{z}&\colhead{$E_p$}&

1472: \colhead{$E_{\rm iso}$}&

1473: \colhead{$\Gamma$}&

1474: \colhead{p}&  \colhead{$\!\!\!\!\!\!\gamma_0\,\theta$}& \colhead{$t_b[{\rm s}]$}

1475: & \colhead{$t_s[{\rm s}]$} & \colhead{${\chi^2/dof}$} 

1476: }

1477: \startdata

1478: 

1479: 980425 & 0.0085 &  56   & 6.9 E47&

1480: 2.1 $\pm$ ?   &  2.20  & 9.17 & 145000 & 36000 & 31/0    \\

1481: 

1482: 060729 & 0.54  &  ---  & $<\!$ 7 E51&

1483: $2.10 \pm 0.15$& 2.20 & 2.51 &    8300 & 130  &  1966/207  \\

1484: 

1485: 050505 & 4.27 &  214 &--- & $1.90\pm 0.20$  &  2.22 & 1.57 &1980 & 

1486: 2833 & 114/95   \\

1487: 

1488: 050401 & 2.90  &  132  &3.5 E53 &

1489: $2.18 \pm 0.10$ &2.20   & 0.80   & 1660 & 133  & 353/299  \\

1490: 

1491: 

1492: 070508 & 0.82 ?   &  188 &7.0 E52 & $2.05\pm 0.04$  &  2.12& 1.22 & 

1493: 260 & 82 & 610/469   \\

1494: 

1495: 060813 & ---   &  214 &--- & $1.98\pm 0.18$  &  1.70 & 1.13 &   190 & 

1496: 85 & 256/239 \\

1497: 

1498: 060418 & 1.49   & 230   & 9 E52 & $2.03\pm 0.04$    & 2.20 & 1.73  

1499: &  123 & 84  & 339/280  \\

1500: 

1501: 050717 & $>\!$ 2.7 ?   & 2401 & $>\!$ 1 E54 & $1.61\pm 0.10$  & 1.67 & 

1502: (0.08)&  $<\!$ 55 & 91 & 114/78 \\

1503: 

1504: 061126 & 1.159 & 620   & 1.1 E53 &

1505: $1.93 \pm 0.12$ & 1.89  & (1.87)& $<\!$ 104 &1604  & 506/261  \\

1506: 

1507: 071025 & ---   & --- &--- & ---       & 2.20 & (0.90)&  $<\!$ 68& 150& 

1508: 330/243 \\

1509: 

1510: 070125 & 1.547 & 440   &9.4 E53& 

1511: $2.10 \pm 0.28$& 2.38& (1.19) & $<\!$ 8060 & 47000 & 28/28 \\

1512: 

1513: 061007 & 1.261 & 498   &1.0 E54&

1514: $2.10 \pm 0.20$ &2.26 & (0.05) & $<\!$ 89 & 86 &  1147/1015  \\

1515: 

1516: 

1517: 071020 & 2.145 &  322  & 8.0 E52& 

1518:          $1.86\pm 0.06$  & 1.86&    0.67  & 90 & 68 & 234/154  \\

1519: $\;\;\;$ "      &  &      &          &

1520:            & 1.86&  1.43  & 15100 & 68 &  \\

1521: 

1522: 

1523: 

1524: 050416A & 0.6535  & 15 &1.2 E51 & $2.04\pm 0.11$  &2.00  & 1.05 &

1525: 944 & 85 & 101/92 \\

1526: $\;\;\;$  "    &  &    & &   &  & 2.00  & 

1527: 14800 & 85 &    \\

1528: 

1529: 060105 & ---   &  424 &--- & $2.25\pm 0.10$  & 2.33    &0.53   &510& 

1530: 96  & 1879/839   \\

1531: 

1532: 060607A & 3.082&---&---&---& 2.20 & 0.97& 164 &   73   & 1119/404  \\

1533: 

1534: \enddata\\

1535: \vspace{.4cm}

1536: \noindent

1537: {The values of the peak energy, $E_p$ (in keV) 

1538: and $E_{\rm iso}$ (in erg) of the GRBs are from GCN 

1539: reports of

1540: data of Konus-Wind, RHESSI and Suzaku. The GRB redshifts 

1541: are from GCN reports from ground-based optical 

1542: telescopes. The start times $t_s$, of the XRT data after the BAT trigger,

1543: are from the  Swift repository  (Evans et al.~2007).

1544: The unabsorbed spectral indices $\Gamma$ 

1545:  are from Swift GCN reports and Zhang,  Liang \& Zhang (2007). 

1546:  The CB-model fits return $p$, $\gamma_0\,\theta$

1547:  and $t_b$. The parenthesized 

1548: $\gamma_0\,\theta$ 

1549:  are for $t_b$ at its upper limit.}

1550: 

1551: 

1552:  \label{t1} 

1553: \end{deluxetable}

1554: 

1555: 

1556: \newpage

1557: \begin{figure}[]

1558: \centering

1559: %\vspace{-1cm}

1560: \vbox{

1561: %\hskip 2.cm

1562: \epsfig{file=f1a.eps,width=8.cm}\\

1563: \epsfig{file=f1b.eps,width=7.5cm}

1564: % \hskip -.3cm

1565: }

1566: %\vspace{1cm}

1567: \caption{

1568: {\bf Top: (a)} 

1569: Dependence of the synchrotron AG on 

1570: $\theta$, for $\gamma_0\!=\!10^3$ (DDD2002), with $n\,R^2/N_{\rm B}$ as

1571: in Eq.~(\ref{tbreaks}), and a shaded domain for a typical time-zone of

1572: prompt-radiation dominance.

1573: {\bf Bottom: (b)} 

1574: Correlation 

1575: between the  `break-time', $t_b/(1+z)$, of the AG

1576: and the isotropic energy, $E_{\rm iso}$, of the prompt radiation,

1577: for typical parameters and various values of $\gamma_0$.

1578: The dots along the $\gamma_0\!=\! 10^3$ line are labeled with

1579: values of $\theta$ in mrad.

1580: The predicted fast drop of the curves at $\theta\!<\! 1$ mrad is due to the

1581:  CBs not being precisely point-like

1582: (DDD2007d). The thick line is the correlation at $\theta\,\sim\!1/\gamma_0$, the most

1583: probable observer's angle.

1584: }

1585: \label{f1}

1586: \end{figure}

1587: 

1588: 

1589: 

1590: 

1591: \newpage

1592: \begin{figure}[]

1593: \centering

1594: \vspace{-1cm}

1595: \vbox{

1596: \hbox{

1597: %\hskip 2.cm

1598: \epsfig{file=f2a.eps,width=8.0cm}

1599: \epsfig{file=f2b.eps,width=8.0cm} 

1600: % \hskip -.3cm

1601: }}

1602: %\vspace{2cm}

1603: \vbox{

1604: \hbox{

1605: %\hskip -.3cm

1606: \epsfig{file=f2c.eps,width=8cm} % 050505

1607:  \epsfig{file=f2d.eps,width=8cm} % 050401

1608: }}

1609: %\vspace{1cm}

1610: \caption{

1611: Comparison between the observed X-ray light curves 

1612: of selected GRBs and their CB model fit: 

1613: {\bf Top left (a):} GRB 980425. The  

1614: last point was measured  1285 days after burst 

1615: (Kouveliotou, et al.~2004). Dotted line: DDD2002.

1616: Continuous line: fit here as all other light curves.

1617: {\bf Top right (b):} GRB 060729.

1618: {\bf Bottom left (c):}  GRB 050505.

1619: {\bf Bottom right (d):} GRB 050401.

1620: All light-curve data, but for GRB 980425,

1621: are from the Swift/XRT light curve repository

1622: (Evans et al.~2007). 

1623: }

1624: \label{f2}

1625: \end{figure}

1626: 

1627: \newpage

1628: \begin{figure}[]

1629: \centering

1630: \vspace{-1cm}

1631: \vbox{

1632: \hbox{

1633: %\hskip 2.cm

1634: \epsfig{file=f3a.eps,width=8.0cm} % 070508

1635: \epsfig{file=f3b.eps,width=8.0cm}% 060813

1636: % \hskip -.3cm

1637: }}

1638: %\vspace{2cm}

1639: \vbox{

1640: \hbox{

1641: %\hskip -.3cm

1642: \epsfig{file=f3c.eps,width=8cm} % 060418

1643:  \epsfig{file=f3d.eps,width=8cm} % 050717

1644: }}

1645: %\vspace{1cm}

1646: \caption{

1647: Comparison between the observed X-ray light curves 

1648: of selected GRBs and their CB model fit: 

1649: {\bf Top left (a):} GRB 070508.

1650: {\bf Top right (b):} GRB 060813.

1651: {\bf Bottom left (c):}  GRB 060418.

1652: {\bf Bottom right (d):} GRB 050717.

1653: The light-curve data

1654: are  from the Swift/XRT light curve repository

1655: (Evans et al.~2007). 

1656: }

1657: \label{f3}

1658: \end{figure}

1659: 

1660: \newpage

1661: \begin{figure}[]

1662: \centering

1663: \vspace{-1cm}

1664: \vbox{

1665: \hbox{

1666: %\hskip 2.cm

1667: \epsfig{file=f4a.eps,width=8.0cm} % 061126

1668: \epsfig{file=f4b.eps,width=8.0cm} % 071025

1669: % \hskip -.3cm

1670: }}

1671: %\vspace{2cm}

1672: \vbox{

1673: \hbox{

1674: %\hskip -.3cm

1675: \epsfig{file=f4c.eps,width=8cm} % 070125

1676:  \epsfig{file=f4d.eps,width=8cm} % 061007

1677: }}

1678: %\vspace{1cm}

1679: \caption{

1680: Comparison between the observed X-ray light curves 

1681: of selected GRBs and their CB model fit: 

1682: {\bf Top left (a):} GRB 061126.

1683: {\bf Top right (b):} GRB 071025.

1684: {\bf Bottom left (c):}  GRB 070125.

1685: {\bf Bottom right (d):} GRB 061007.

1686: The light-curve data

1687: are  from the Swift/XRT light curve repository

1688: (Evans et al.~2007). 

1689: }

1690: \label{f4}

1691: \end{figure}

1692: 

1693: \newpage

1694: \begin{figure}[]

1695: \centering

1696: \vspace{-1cm}

1697: \vbox{

1698: \hbox{

1699: %\hskip 2.cm

1700: \epsfig{file=f5a.eps,width=8.0cm} % 071020

1701: \epsfig{file=f5b.eps,width=8.0cm} % 050416A

1702: % \hskip -.3cm

1703: }}

1704: %\vspace{2cm}

1705: \vbox{

1706: \hbox{

1707: %\hskip -.3cm

1708: \epsfig{file=f5c.eps,width=8cm} % 060105

1709:  \epsfig{file=f5d.eps,width=8cm}% 060607A

1710: }}

1711: %\vspace{1cm}

1712: \caption{

1713: Comparison between the observed X-ray light curves 

1714: of selected GRBs and their CB model fit: 

1715: {\bf Top left (a):} GRB 071020.

1716: {\bf Top right (b):} GRB 050416A.

1717: {\bf Bottom left (c):}  GRB 060105.

1718: {\bf Bottom right (d):} GRB 060607A.

1719: The light-curve data

1720: are  from the Swift/XRT light curve repository

1721: (Evans et al.~2007). 

1722: }

1723: \label{f5}

1724: \end{figure}

1725: 

1726: \begin{figure}[]

1727: \centering

1728: \vspace{-1cm}

1729: %\vbox{

1730: %\hbox{

1731: %\hskip 2.cm

1732:  \epsfig{file=f6.eps,width=18cm}

1733: % \hskip -.3cm

1734: %}}

1735: %\vspace{2cm}

1736: \caption{

1737: Test of the prediction, $r\!\equiv\! p/(2\Gamma -2)\!=\!1$, of Eq.~(\ref{Asymptotic}),

1738: relating the temporal index, $p$, to the spectral one, $\Gamma$, 

1739: of the afterglows of GRBs. The GRBs discussed in this paper are the outlined ones.

1740: We have extended this test to other GRBs analized in the same fashion.

1741: }

1742: \label{f6}

1743: \end{figure}

1744: 

1745: \begin{figure}[]

1746: \centering

1747: \vspace{-1cm}

1748: %\vbox{

1749: %\hbox{

1750: %\hskip 2.cm

1751:  \epsfig{file=f7.eps,width=16cm}

1752: % \hskip -.3cm

1753: %}}

1754: %\vspace{2cm}

1755: \caption{

1756: The $[t_b/(1+z),\,E_{\rm iso}]$ correlation. The (red) circles are the GRBs of known 

1757: $E_{\rm iso}$ analized in

1758: this paper, most of which have comparatively small $t_b$. 

1759: The arrows reflect results for which only an upper limit is available.

1760: The (blue) stars are GRBs, mainly with `canonical' X-ray light curves, analized in 

1761: DDD2007a. The large shaded domain is the contour of a region obtained

1762: by letting the parameters vary as specified in the text. The shaded straight line

1763: is the expectation for GRBs viewed close to the most probable angle of observation,

1764: $\theta\,\gamma_0=1$. }

1765: \label{f7}

1766: \end{figure}

1767: 

1768: 

1769: \begin{figure}[]

1770: \centering

1771: \vspace{-1cm}

1772: %\vbox{

1773: %\hbox{

1774: %\hskip 2.cm

1775:  \epsfig{file=f8.eps,width=16cm}

1776: % \hskip -.3cm

1777: %}}

1778: %\vspace{2cm}

1779: \caption{

1780: The $[t_b/(1+z),\,E_p]$ correlation. The (red) circles are the GRBs of known $E_p$

1781: analized in this paper, most of which have comparatively small $t_b$. 

1782: The arrows reflect results for which only an upper limit is available.

1783: The ellipses are for GRBs of unknown $z$. The results that are not (red)

1784: circles or vertical arrows

1785: are GRBs, mainly with `canonical' X-ray light curves, analized in 

1786: DDD2007a. The large shaded domain is the contour of a region obtained

1787: by letting the parameters vary as specified in the text. The shaded straight line

1788: is the expectation for GRBs viewed close to the most probable angle of observation,

1789: $\theta\,\gamma_0=1$. The `true' $E_p$ of GRB 980425 could be smaller

1790: than reflected in this plot (Dado \& Dar 2005).

1791: }

1792: \label{f8}

1793: \end{figure}

1794: 

1795: 

1796: \begin{figure}[]

1797: \centering

1798: \vspace{-1cm}

1799: %\vbox{

1800: %\hbox{

1801: %\hskip 2.cm

1802:  \epsfig{file=f9.eps,width=16cm}

1803: % \hskip -.3cm

1804: %}}

1805: %\vspace{2cm}

1806: \caption{

1807: The $[(1+z)\,E_p,\,E_{\rm iso}]$ correlation (DD2000b,

1808: Amati et al.~2002) for an ensemble of GRBs of known $z$, analized by Schaefer (2007).

1809: The central line is the CB-model's expectation (DDD2007c), the dotted lines

1810: bracket the observed case-by-case variability. The large (red) circles are the

1811: GRBs discussed in this paper which have known $z$, $E_p$ and $E_{\rm iso}$.

1812: }

1813: \label{f9}

1814: \end{figure}

1815: 

1816: 

1817: \end{document}

1818: