1: \documentclass[
2: ,final % use final for the camera ready runs
3: %% ,draft % use draft while you are working on the paper
4: %% ,numberedheadings % uncomment this option for numbered sections
5: %% , % add further options here if necessary
6: ]
7: {aipproc}
8:
9: \def\etal{et al.~}
10: \layoutstyle{6x9}
11: \usepackage{amsmath}
12:
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %% FRONTMATTER
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19:
20: \title{Central engine afterglow of Gamma-ray Bursts}
21:
22: \classification{ 98.70.Rz} \keywords {Gamma-ray:
23: bursts--radiation mechanisms: nonthermal}
24:
25: \author{Yi-Zhong Fan$^{1,2,3}$, Tsvi Piran$^3$ and Da-Ming Wei$^{1,2}$} {
26: address={$^1$ Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of
27: Science, Nanjing 210008, China.\\
28: $^2$ National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of
29: Sciences, Beijing 100012, China.\\
30: $^3$ The Racah Inst. of Physics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904,
31: Israel.} }
32:
33:
34: \begin{abstract}
35: Before 2004, nearly all GRB afterglow data could be understood in
36: the context of the external shocks model. This situation has changed
37: in the past two years, when it became clear that some afterglow
38: components should be attributed to the activity of the central
39: engine; i.e., the {\it central engine afterglow}. We review here the
40: afterglow emission that is directly related to the GRB central
41: engine. Such an interpretation proposed by Katz, Piran \& Sari,
42: peculiar in pre-{\it Swift} era, has become generally accepted now.
43:
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \maketitle
47:
48:
49: \noindent%
50: \section{Two kinds of GRB afterglows}
51: In the context of standard fireball model of Gamma-ray Bursts
52: (GRBs), the prompt $\gamma-$ray emission is powered by internal
53: shocks and the afterglow emission arises due to external shocks (see
54: \cite{Piran04} for a review). In the pre-{\it Swift} era, most of
55: the afterglow data was collected hours after the prompt $\gamma-$ray
56: emission. These data was found to be consistent with the external
57: forward shock model, though at times energy injection, a wind medium
58: profile, or a structured/patchy jet were needed. We call the
59: emission relevant to the external shocks generated by the GRB
60: remnant as the ``{\it fireball afterglow}" or ``afterglow". An
61: alternative possibility for the production of the afterglow is a
62: continued activity of the central engine (i.e., the {\it central
63: engine afterglow}) via either the ``internal shocks" or ``magnetic
64: dissipation". This idea has been put forward by Katz, Piran \& Sari
65: already in 1998, shortly after the discovery of the afterglow of GRB
66: 970228. However, the agreement of the predictions of the external
67: shock afterglow model \cite{Sari98} with most subsequent
68: multi-wavelength afterglows observation strongly disfavors the {\it
69: central engine afterglow} interpretation.
70:
71: One disadvantage of the central engine afterglow model is its lack
72: of predictive power. The fireball afterglow model, instead, has
73: predicted smooth light curves and in particular the intrinsic
74: relation between the flux in different bands (e.g., \cite{Sari98})
75: as well as between the spectral slops and the temporal decay. In
76: 2003, it was already clear that in the case of a fireball afterglow,
77: the variability timescale of the emission $\delta t$ divided by the
78: occurrence time $t$ has to be in order of $1$ or larger \cite{NP03}.
79: A highly relevant constraint is that the decline of the fireball
80: afterglow emission can not be steeper than $t^{-(2+\beta)}$, (where
81: $\beta$ is the spectral index) unless the edge of the GRB ejecta is
82: visible. This is because the GRB outflow is curving and emission
83: from high latitude (relative to the observer) will reach us at later
84: times and give rise to a decline shallower than $t^{-(2+\beta)}$
85: \cite{Fenimore96,KP00}. These limitations do not apply, of course to
86: a central engine afterglow (see Fig.\ref{fig:Illustration}).
87: %
88: \begin{figure}[h]
89: \includegraphics*[width=.9\textwidth]{f1.eps}
90: \caption{Two constraints that help us to distinguish between the
91: {\it central engine afterglow} and the {\it fireball afterglow}.}
92: \label{fig:Illustration}
93: \end{figure}
94: %
95:
96: \section{Possible candidates of central engine afterglow}
97: {\bf Very early rapid X-ray decline.} If the central engine does not
98: turn off abruptly, its weaker and weaker activity will give rise to
99: rapidly decaying emission \cite{FW05}. This model can account for
100: some very early rapid X-ray declines identified by the {\it Swift}
101: satellite \cite{Bart05}, in particular those decay with time more
102: slowly than $t^{-(2+\beta)}$, for which the high latitude emission
103: interpretation \cite{Zhang06} is invalid.
104:
105: {\bf X-ray/optical flares.} In 1998, Piro et al. reported a
106: late-time outburst of the X-ray afterglow of GRB 970508 from
107: BeppoSAX. The authors attributed such an outburst to the re-activity
108: of the central engine. However, refreshed shocks (produced by slowly
109: moving matter that was ejected more or less simultaneously with the
110: faster moving one during the onset of the prompt emission) can
111: reproduce the multi-wavelength outburst as well \cite{PMR98}. So it
112: is not a good {\it central engine afterglow} candidate. In 2005,
113: Piro et al. \cite{Piro05} published an analysis of the X-ray data of
114: GRB 011121, in which two X-ray flares after the prompt $\gamma-$ray
115: emission are evident. They have interpreted the X-ray flares, in
116: particular the first one, as the onset of the forward shock
117: emission. Fan \& Wei \cite{FW05} applied the {\it decline argument}
118: to these flares and suggested a central engine origin. Many other
119: possibilities like a reverse shock, a density jump, a patchy jet,
120: energy injection and a refreshed shock have been convincingly ruled
121: out \cite{Zhang06}.
122:
123: The XRT onboard {\it Swift} confirmed Piro et al.'s discovery
124: \cite{Burrows05}. By now X-ray flares have been well detected in
125: $\sim 40\%$ Swift GRBs. Most of these flares violate the two
126: constraints of the fireball afterglow (e.g., \cite{CG07}). Though
127: the physical processes powering these delayed X-ray bursts are not
128: clear yet, it is most likley that they are related to a re-activity
129: of the central engine, i.e., they are {\it central engine
130: afterglow}.
131:
132: In a few bursts, optical flares have been detected (e.g.,
133: \cite{Boer06}) and those may also have a central engine origin
134: \cite{Wei06}. But in most bursts, the very early X-ray and optical
135: emission are not correlated (e.g., \cite{Molinari07}). This is a
136: natural result if the X-ray emission is dominated by the central
137: engine emission component while the central engine optical emission
138: has been suppressed by the synchrotron self-absorption, as suggested
139: by Fan \& Wei \cite{FW05}.
140:
141: {\bf Power-law decaying X-rays.} The temporal behavior of the
142: flaring X-rays are quite similar to that of the prompt
143: $\gamma-$rays. It is thus reasonable that the flares and the prompt
144: GRB have a common origin. However, it is somewhat surprising to note
145: that even some power-law decaying X-ray light curve might be a {\it
146: central engine afterglow}. A good example is the afterglow of GRB
147: 060218. The inconsistence of the X-ray afterglow flux with the radio
148: afterglow flux and the very steep XRT spectra support here the
149: central engine afterglow hypothesis \cite{FPX06,Sode06}. So far,
150: there are two more candidates GRB 060607A \cite{Molinari07} and GRB
151: 070110 \cite{Troja07}. Both events are distinguished by a very sharp
152: X-ray drop in the afterglow phase, which is inconsistent with the
153: fireball afterglow interpretation \cite{JF07,Troja07}. This is in
154: particular the case for GRB 070110 because the optical data
155: simultaneous with the X-ray drop does not steepen at all. For GRB
156: 060607A, the constraint is less tight because the late-time optical
157: light curve is unavailable.
158:
159: The long lasting X-ray afterglow flat segment before the sharp X-ray
160: drop (both its luminosity and timescale) is well consistent with the
161: emission powered by the magnetic dissipation of a millisecond
162: magnetar wind, as suggested by Gao \& Fan \cite{GF06}. Of course,
163: additional independent signature, like a high linear polarization,
164: is needed before the magnetar wind dissipation model can be
165: accepted.
166:
167: \section{Discussion}
168: In contrast to what was believed in the pre-{\it Swift} era, it is
169: evident now that the role of the central engine has to be taken into
170: account when interpreting many {\it Swift} GRB afterglows. The ``ad
171: hoc" hypothesis made in Katz et al. \cite{Katz98} has been well
172: confirmed. The chromatic behavior of the afterglow suggests that the
173: afterglow in X-ray and in lower energy bands may have a different
174: origin \cite{FW05}. This can be easily understood if the synchrotron
175: self-absorption is strong enough to suppress the central engine
176: optical emission but not the X-rays \cite{FW05}. Recently,
177: Ghisellini et al. \cite{GG07} adopted this idea to interpret the
178: chromatic break of the early optical and X-ray data of some {\it
179: Swift} GRBs \cite{FP06} and argued these shallowly decaying X-ray
180: emission are {\it central engine afterglow}.
181:
182: The fruitful {\it Swift} early afterglow observations open a new
183: window to reveal the behavior of the central engine. The continued
184: activity of the GRB central engine is now a well-established fact.
185: But the underlying physical processes are less clear. Among the
186: various models put forward (see \cite{Z06} for a review) fallback
187: accretion onto the nascent black hole may be the most natural one.
188: Other models involve the magnetic activity of the central engine
189: \cite{FZP05,Dai06,GF06}. Such models might be tested by a
190: polarimetry as in magnetic energy dissipation scenarios one can
191: expect the emission to be highly polarized. Alternatively if the
192: shocks powering the X-ray {\it central engine afterglow} (the flares
193: or some power-law decaying light curves) are not significantly
194: magnetized the synchrotron-self Compton (SSC) emission will peak in
195: the GeV energy band and it may be strong enough to be detected by
196: the upcoming GLAST satellite (e.g., \cite{Fan07}). Such emission
197: might have been already observed in the long-lasting shallowly
198: decaying GeV afterglow emission of GRB 940217 \cite{Hurley94}. This
199: might have been be the SSC component of the central engine X-ray
200: flat segment as that detected in GRB 070110. If it is the case, a
201: rapid GeV emission drop simultaneous with that in X-ray band, will
202: be present. Our interpretation thus can be tested in the near future
203: directly by the cooperation of {\it Swift} and GLAST.\\
204:
205: %
206: This work is supported by US-Israel BSF. TP acknowledges the support
207: of Schwartzmann University Chair. YZF and DMW are also supported by
208: the National Science Foundation (grant 10673034) of China and by a
209: special grant of Chinese Academy of Sciences.
210:
211:
212:
213: \begin{thebibliography}{}
214: \bibitem{Bart05} Barthelmy, S. D., et al., 2005,
215: Nature, 438, 994
216: \bibitem{Boer06} Bo\"er, M., Atteia, J. L., Damerdji, Y., Gendre, B., Klotz,
217: A., \& Stratta, G. 2006, ApJ, 638, L71
218: \bibitem{Burrows05} Burrows D. N., et al., 2005, Science, 309, 1833
219: \bibitem{CG07} Chincarini G., et al., 2007
220: (astro-ph/0702371)
221: \bibitem{Dai06} {Dai, Z. G., Wang, X. Y., Wu, X. F., Zhang,
222: B.}, 2006, {Science}, {311}, {1127}
223: \bibitem{FP06} Fan Y. Z., Piran T., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 197
224: \bibitem{Fan07} Fan Y. Z., Piran T., Rarayan R., Wei D. M., 2007, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:
225: astro-ph/0704.2063)
226: \bibitem{FPX06} Fan Y. Z., Piran T., Xu D., 2006, JCAP, 0609, 013
227: \bibitem{FW05} Fan Y. Z., Wei D. M., 2005, MNRAS, 364, L42
228: \bibitem{FZP05} Fan Y. Z., Zhang B., Proga D., 2005, ApJ, 635, L129
229: \bibitem{Fenimore96} Fenimore E. E., Madras C. D., Nayakshin S., 1996,
230: ApJ, 473, 998
231: \bibitem{GF06} Gao W. H., Fan Y. Z., 2006, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys,
232: 6, 513
233: \bibitem{GG07} Ghisellini G., Ghirlanda G., Nava L., Firmani C.,
234: 2007, ApJ, 658, L75
235: \bibitem{Hurley94} Hurley K., et al., 1994, Nature, 372, 652
236: \bibitem{JF07} Jin Z. P., Fan Y. Z., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 1043
237: \bibitem{Katz98} Katz J. I., Piran T., Sari R., 1998, Phys. Rev.
238: Lett., 80, 1580
239: \bibitem{KP00} Kumar P., Panaitescu A., 2000, ApJ, 541, L51
240: \bibitem{Molinari07} Molinari E. \etal, 2007, A\&A, 469, L13
241: \bibitem{NP03} Nakar E., Piran T., 2003, ApJ, 598, 400
242: \bibitem{PMR98} {Panaitescu, A., Meszaros, P., Rees, M. J.}, 1998,
243: {ApJ}, 503, 314
244: \bibitem{Piran04} Piran T., 2004, Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 1143
245: \bibitem{Piro98} Piro L., et al., 1998, A\&A, 331, L41
246: \bibitem{Piro05} Piro L., et al., 2005, ApJ, 623, 314
247: \bibitem{Sari98} Sari R., Piran T., Narayan R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
248: \bibitem{Sode06} Soderberg A. et al., 2006, Nature, 442, 1014
249: \bibitem{Troja07} Troja E. \etal, 2007,
250: ApJ, 665, 599
251: \bibitem{Wei06} Wei D. M., Yan T., Fan Y. Z., 2006, ApJ, 636, L69
252: \bibitem{Z06} Zhang B., 2006, AIPC, 838, 392
253: \bibitem{Zhang06} Zhang B., Fan Y. Z., Dyks J., Kobayashi S., M\'esz\'aros P.,
254: Burrows D. N., Nousek J. A., Gehrels N. 2006, ApJ, 642, 354
255: \end{thebibliography}
256: \end{document}
257: