1: \documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{graphicx, amsmath, amssymb, amsthm}
3: \usepackage{natbib}
4: \usepackage{apjfonts}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Mildly relativistic X-ray transient 080109 and SN\,2008D:\\ Towards a continuum from energetic GRB/XRF to ordinary Ibc SN}
9:
10: \author{D. Xu\altaffilmark{1}, Y. C. Zou\altaffilmark{2,3}, and Y. Z. Fan \altaffilmark{4,5}}
11: \altaffiltext{1}{Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen,
12: Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark} \altaffiltext{2}{The Racah Inst. of Physics,
13: Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel} \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics, Huazhong
14: University of Science and Technology, 430074 Wuhan, China} \altaffiltext{4}{Neils Bohr
15: International Academy, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100
16: Copenhagen, Denmark}\altaffiltext{5}{Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
17: Nanjing 210008, China} \email{yizhong@nbi.dk (YZF)}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: We analyze the hitherto available space-based X-ray data as well as ground-based optical data
21: of the X-ray transient 080109/SN\,2008D. From the data we suggest that ({\it i}) The initial
22: transient ($\lesssim 800$ sec) is attributed to the reverse shock emission of a mildly
23: relativistic ($\Gamma \sim$ a few) outflow stalled by the dense stellar wind. ({\it ii}) The
24: subsequent X-ray afterglow ($\lesssim 2\times 10^4$ sec) can be ascribed to the forward shock
25: emission of the outflow, with a kinetic energy $\sim 10^{46}$ erg, when sweeping up the
26: stellar wind medium. ({\it iii}) The late X-ray flattening ($\gtrsim 2\times 10^4$ sec) is
27: powered by the fastest non-decelerated
28: component of SN\,2008D's ejecta. %while the superposed flare implies
29: %the re-activity of the central engine.
30: ({\it iv}) The local event rate of X-ray transient has a lower limit of $\sim 1.6\times
31: 10^4~{\rm yr^{-1}~Gpc^{-3}}$, indicating a vast majority of X-ray transients have a wide
32: opening angle of $\gtrsim 100^\circ$. ({\it v}) Transient 080109/SN\,2008D indicates a
33: continuum from GRB-SN to under-luminous GRB-/XRF-SN to X-ray transient-SN and to ordinary Ibc
34: SN (if not every Ibc SN has a relativistic jet), as shown in Figure 2 of this {\it Letter}.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts $-$ supernovae: individual: SN\,2008D
38: $-$ radiation mechanisms: non-thermal}
39:
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:Into}
42: During the past decade, long-duration ($\gtrsim 2$sec) $\gamma-$ray bursts (GRBs), including
43: the subclass of X-ray flashes (XRFs), have been found (1) to be driven by the core-collapse of
44: massive stars \cite{Woosley93}; thus (2) to be associated with a rare variety ($\sim1\%$) of
45: type Ibc supernovae (SNe), the so-called hypernovae (HN)
46: \cite{Galama98,Hjorth03,Stanek03,Male04,Sollerman06,Camp06} (but also see Fynbo et al. 2006);
47: and (3) in general to be hosted by the star-forming dwarf galaxies with low metallicity
48: \cite{Fyn03,Fru06,Stanek06}. Though the association of GRB/XRF and Ibc SN has been pinned
49: down, what channels make a dying star to produce a GRB or an XRF, and not just a Ibc SN, is
50: still unclear. The progenitor's mass, metallicity, angular momentum, and the configuration and
51: strength of its internal magnetic field play important roles for the generation of GRBs/XRFs
52: and ordinary Ibc SNe.
53:
54: The serendipitous discovery of the X-ray transient 080109/SN\,2008D may shed light on filling
55: in this gap between energetic GRBs/XRFs and ordinary Ibc SNe. We will analyze space- and
56: ground-based data of this transient and SN, focusing on X-ray/radio data because
57: observationally they trace the fastest component of the transient/SN outflow while optical
58: data trace the slower SN ejecta (e.g., Soderberg et al. 2006).
59:
60:
61: \section{Swift Observations and Data Analysis}
62: During {\it Swift}/XRT follow-up observations of Ib SN 2007uy beginning at 13:32:49 UT on Jan
63: 9, 2008, an X-ray transient (Transient hereafter) was identified and reported on Jan 10.58
64: \cite{BerSod08a}. X-ray emission was already underway at time of trigger. Both Transient
65: 080109 and SN 2007uy are in the same host galaxy, NGC2770, at $z=0.0065$. The object was
66: within the {\it Swift}/BAT field of view for approximately 30 minutes prior to the XRT
67: observation but never triggered BAT \cite{Burrows08}.
68:
69: Since trigger, the Transient was observed to rise to a maximum flux about 65 seconds, and then
70: subsequently decay until the end of the first orbit, roughly 500 seconds afterwards. We
71: reduced the XRT data in a standard way using the Swift analysis software (HEAsoft 6.4) and
72: calibration data. The contamination by a source close to the Transient and pile-up have been
73: corrected.
74:
75: A general spectral softening was seen during the first orbit. Taking a mean spectrum, the data
76: can be well fitted by either an absorbed power-law $\Gamma=2.3\pm0.2$ and a column density
77: $N_H=7.6^{+1.4}_{-1.2}\times10^{21}\,{\rm cm^{-2}}$ ($\chi _{dof}^2 =15.1/20$) with respect to
78: the Galactic number $1.7\times10^{20}\,{\rm cm^2}$ or by an absorbed blackbody spectrum with
79: $kT = 0.73\pm0.05~ {\rm keV}$ in the restframe ($\chi _{dof}^2 =24.2/20$). For the late X-ray
80: data, the spectral index cannot be well fitted due to the limited photon numbers but $\Gamma
81: \sim 2.1$ is acceptable.
82:
83: UVOT marginally detected an optical counterpart to the X-ray transient on Jan 9 in the B
84: (3.4$\sigma$) and U (3.0$\sigma$) filters. After a data gap of 2 days, the source brightened
85: and showed up in both optical and UV. The source then faded until day $\sim3.5$ and
86: subsequently brightened again, confirming the onset of SN\,2008D (Page et al. 2008).
87:
88: \begin{figure}
89: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=9cm, height=10cm, angle=0]{f1.EPS}} \caption{Comparison of
90: X-ray transient\,080109/SN\,2008D (squares) and XRF 060218/SN 2006aj (stars). Data of
91: XRF\,060218/SN\,2006aj are taken from Campana et al. (2006). {\it Upper}: Temporal evolution
92: of the X-ray luminosity in 0.3-10 keV. {\it Lower}: The U (grey), B (blue), and V (red)
93: lightcurves for two events. Data of Transient 080109 have not been corrected for extinction.
94: \label{afterglow}}
95: \end{figure}
96:
97: \section{Early spectroscopy and its evolution}
98: Two spectra were obtained at the ESO VLT equipped with FORS2 starting 07:17 UT on Jan 11. As
99: pointed in Malesani et al. (2008), the overall spectral shape rules out a significant
100: non-thermal afterglow component, but a SN one instead. The presence of broad features reveal
101: SN\,2008D's emergence, but the features are not as broad as in the earliest spectra of
102: GRB/XRF-associated SNe such as SN\,1998bw and SN\,2006aj.
103:
104: SN\,2008D is distinguished for its apparent Ic$\rightarrow$Ib spectroscopic evolution. It was
105: classified as peculiar type-Ic on Jan 11, and then as a type-Ic with possibly some He as seen
106: in NIR spectra on Jan 13-15, and later to a type-Ib on Jan 21 (Modjaz et al. 2008 and
107: reference therein). This evolution is reminiscent of SN\,2005bf (Folatelli et al. 2006).
108:
109: \section{Interpretation of the follow-ups}
110: \subsection{Real onset time and Spectrum for the first orbit}
111: Though it's impossible to know the exact onset time of the Transient, we may get a rough
112: estimate about this time-back shift. First, non-trigger of BAT approximately 30 minutes prior
113: to the XRT trigger and association with SN\,2008D give us confidence that Transient 080109 is
114: a dwarf outburst compared with previous bursts featuring low $\nu F_\nu$ peak energy such as
115: XRF\,060218. Second, the existence of a main outburst 30 minutes earlier would make the first
116: orbit lightcurve look like a very sharp flare with a decay index $\sim 20$ covering thee order
117: of magnitudes in luminosity. Its profile is not similar to the Fast-Rise-Exponential-Decay one
118: typical for GRB/XRF. Considering the above two factors, a back shift of tens to $\sim 200$ sec
119: is generally acceptable and doesn't affect the temporal decay laws after 1000 sec. In this
120: work, we adopt a back shift of $\sim$100 sec.
121:
122: Should a shock break-out be responsible for the first orbit observation, according to the
123: equation $L = \Omega (\gamma ^2 ct)^2 \sigma T_{rest}^4$, where $L\sim10^{43} {\rm
124: erg\,s^{-1}}$ is the isotropic luminosity, $\Omega$ is the solid angle for the outburst,
125: $\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor for the outburst with respect to the observer, $\sigma$ is the
126: Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $T_{rest}$ is the temperature in the restframe, we then have
127: \[
128: T_{obs} \sim \frac{{1.6}}{{\Omega ^{1/4} t^{1/2} \gamma ^2 }} {\rm keV},
129: \]
130: where $T_{obs}$ is the measured temperature. To match the measured $T=0.73$ keV, a jet-like
131: outflow with $\Omega<10^{-6}$ is needed, which renders the shock break-out model unacceptable
132: in this event.
133:
134:
135: \subsection{The X-ray transient powered by the reverse shock of the mildly relativistic outflow }
136: The Transient lightcurve is smooth and decays as $t^{-3.7}$. The smoothness largely disfavors
137: that these X-ray photons are powered by internal shocks, and the steep decline rules out that
138: the transient is from the forward shock of an outflow.
139:
140: We consider a mild-relativistic ($\Gamma_{\rm i} \sim$ 3) outflow
141: with a luminosity $L_{\rm m} \sim 10^{44}~\Omega_o^{-1}~{\rm
142: erg~s^{-1}}$ decelerated by the stellar wind medium, where
143: $\Omega_o$ is the solid angle of the initial transient outflow. The
144: density profile of the stellar wind is $n=3\times 10^{35}A_*
145: R^{-2}$, where the free wind parameter
146: $A_*=[\dot{M}/10^{-5}M_\odot~{\rm yr^{-1}}][v_w/(10^8~{\rm cm}~{\rm
147: s^{-1}})]$, $\dot{M}$ is the mass loss rate of the progenitor, and
148: $v_w$ is the velocity of the stellar wind \cite{LC99}. Because of
149: the low luminosity of the outflow while the high density of the
150: stellar wind, the forward-shocked material would move
151: sub-relativistically (i.e., $\Gamma_{\rm fr}\sim 1$) while the
152: reverse shock is mild-relativistic. The reverse shock region is thus
153: very hot and has a very large sideways expansion velocity of $\sim
154: c$, the speed of light. As a result, after the reverse shock crosses
155: the outflow, the shocked outflow will have a large solid angle
156: $\Omega\gg \Omega_o$ if $\Omega_o$ is small. So for simplicity we
157: treat the outflow as isotropic.
158:
159: Now we estimate the synchrotron radiation of the reverse shock at a
160: distance $R_{\rm r}\sim cT_{90} \sim 10^{13}$ cm. As usual, we
161: assume $\epsilon_{\rm e}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm B}$ fractions of the
162: shock energy given to the electrons and magnetic field, respectively
163: \cite{spn98}. The minimum Lorentz factor of the reverse shock
164: accelerated electrons is $\gamma_{\rm m,r} \sim (\Gamma_{\rm
165: i}-1)\epsilon_{\rm e} (p-2)m_{\rm p}/[(p-1)m_{\rm e}]\sim 100$,
166: where $p\sim 2.2$ is the power-law index of the electrons, and the
167: magnetic filed generated in the reverse shock region is\footnote{The
168: convention $Q_x=Q/10^x$ has been adopted in cgs.} $B_{\rm r} \sim
169: [2(\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e})L_{\rm m}/(R_{\rm r}^2
170: c)]^{1/2} \sim 3\times 10^5~{\rm Gauss}~ (\epsilon_{\rm
171: B}/\epsilon_{\rm e})^{1/2} L_{\rm m,44}^{1/2} R_{\rm r,13}^{-1}$.
172: The typical synchrotron radiation frequency $\nu_{\rm m,r} \sim
173: 2.8\times 10^6~{\rm Hz}~\gamma_{\rm m,r}^2 B_{\rm r} \sim 3\times
174: 10^{16}$ Hz, which is in the soft X-ray band and matches the
175: observation. The cooling Lorentz factor is $\gamma_{\rm c,r} \sim
176: 7.7\times 10^8/(B_{\rm r}^2 t)\ll \gamma_{\rm m,r}$, so the reverse
177: shock is in the fast cooling phase. At a first glimpse, one might
178: interpret the $\sim t^{-3.7}$ decline as the high latitude emission
179: of the reverse shock. But this requires either a sub-relativistic
180: outflow with a very sharp energy distribution from the outflow
181: center to the outflow side or a $\Gamma_{\rm fr}\geq$ a few. The
182: validity of the former option is hard to estimate. The latter is
183: also difficult to function because $\Gamma_{\rm fr} \approx 1.1
184: L_{\rm m,44}^{1/4}A_{*,-1}^{-1/4}$. A $\Gamma_{\rm fr}\sim 3$
185: requires $L_{\rm m} \sim 10^{47}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}~ A_*$, which is
186: too high to match the observation.
187:
188: In this work we interpret the steep X-ray decline as the dimmer and dimmer reverse shock
189: emission powered by the weaker and weaker outflow. Within this scenario, the outflow is very
190: likely to be mildly relativistic. If $\Gamma_{\rm i} \sim $ tens$-$hundreds, $\gamma_{\rm
191: m,r}\sim 10^3-10^4$ and $\nu_{\rm m,r}$ would be $\sim 5-500$ keV. As a result, the XRT
192: spectrum should be $\propto \nu^{-0.6}$, which is inconsistent with the observed value. A
193: marginally relativistic ($\Gamma_{\rm i} \sim 1.2$) outflow model is also disfavored because
194: the reverse shock would be very weak. With typical shock parameters, the emission of such a
195: weak reverse shock can not peak at soft X-ray band and is likely to be outshone by the forward
196: shock X-ray emission.
197:
198:
199: \subsection{The early X-ray afterglow ($\lesssim2\times 10^4$ sec) powered by the forward shock of the Transient outflow}
200: We calculate the synchrotron radiation of the sub-relativistic
201: forward shock when it sweeps up the surrounding stellar wind medium.
202: The minimum Lorentz factor of the shocked electrons, the magnetic
203: field and the cooling Lorentz factor are $\gamma_{\rm m}\approx
204: 16~C_{\rm p}\beta^2 \epsilon_{\rm e,-1}$, $B\approx 15~{\rm
205: Gauss}~\beta R_{15}^{-1}\epsilon_{\rm B,-1}^{1/2}A_{*,-1}^{1/2}$,
206: and $\gamma_{\rm c}\approx 34~\beta^{-2}R_{15}^2 \epsilon_{\rm
207: B,-1}^{-1}A_{*,-1}^{-1}t_5^{-1}$, respectively, where $C_{\rm
208: p}\equiv 6(p-2)/(p-1)$. The maximum specific flux, the typical
209: synchrotron radiation frequency and the cooling frequency
210: \cite{spn98} are respectively given by
211: \begin{equation}
212: F_{\nu, \rm max}
213: %\approx {N_{\rm e} e^3 B \over 4\pi m_e c^2 D_{\rm L}^2},
214: \approx 1~{\rm Jy}~\beta \epsilon_{\rm B,-1}^{1/2}A_{*,-1}^{3/2}
215: D_{\rm L,25.9}^{-2}, \label{eq:F_numax}
216: \end{equation}
217: \begin{equation}
218: \nu_{\rm m} \approx 1.1\times 10^{10}~{\rm Hz}~\beta^5 C_{\rm p}^2
219: R_{15}^{-1} \epsilon_{\rm e,-1}^2 \epsilon_{\rm
220: B,-1}^{1/2}A_{*,-1}^{1/2}, \label{eq:nu_m}
221: \end{equation}
222: \begin{equation}
223: \nu_{\rm c} \approx 4.8\times 10^{10}~{\rm Hz}~\beta^{-3} R_{15}^{3}
224: \epsilon_{\rm B,-1}^{-3/2} A_{*,-1}^{-3/2}t_5^{-2}, \label{eq:nu_c}
225: \end{equation}
226: where $D_{\rm L}$ is the luminosity distance of the source. So the X-ray flux can be estimated
227: as
228: \begin{equation}
229: \begin{array}{l}
230: F_{\nu_{\rm X}}=F_{\nu,\rm max} \nu_{\rm c}^{1/2}\nu_{\rm
231: m}^{(p-1)/2}\nu_{\rm
232: X}^{-p/2}\\
233: =4.6\times 10^{-2}~{\rm \mu Jy}~ \nu_{\rm
234: X,17}^{-p/2}~\beta^{(5p-6)/2}\epsilon_{\rm e,-1}^{p-1} \epsilon_{\rm
235: B,-1}^{(p-2)/4}\\A_{*,-1}^{(p+2)/4}D_{\rm L,25.9}^{-2}C_{\rm
236: p}^{p-1}R_{15}^{(4-p)/2}t_5^{-1}. \label{eq:F_x}
237: \end{array}
238: \end{equation}
239: If $\beta \sim $const., i.e., the outflow hasn't been decelerated
240: significantly, we have $R \approx \beta c t$ and $F_{\nu_{\rm X}}
241: \propto t^{(2-p)/2}$. The decline is thus too shallow to be
242: consistent with the detected $\propto t^{-1.1}$ for the early X-ray
243: afterglow. We then consider an alternative in which the outflow with
244: a energy distribution $E(\geq \beta \Gamma) \propto (\beta
245: \Gamma)^{-k}$ has entered the Sedov regime, thus we have $\beta
246: \propto t^{-{1\over 3+k}}$ and $R={3+k \over 2+k}\beta c t\propto
247: t^{2+k \over 3+k}$. Accordingly, Eqs.
248: (\ref{eq:F_numax}-\ref{eq:nu_c}) read $F_{\nu, \rm max}\propto
249: t^{-{1\over 3+k}}$,$\nu_{\rm m} \propto t^{-{7+k\over 3+k}}$, and
250: $\nu_{\rm c}\propto t$, respectively. The light curves are of
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: F_\nu \propto ~\left\{%
253: \begin{array}{ll}
254: t^{4+k\over 3(3+k)} & {\rm for~~ \nu<\nu_m<\nu_c}, \\
255: t^{-{1\over 3+k}[1+{(p-1)(7+k) \over 2}]} & {\rm for~~ \nu_m<\nu<\nu_c}, \\
256: t^{-{1\over 3+k}[1+{(p-1)(7+k) \over 2}]+{1\over 2}} & {\rm for~~ \nu>\max\{\nu_c,\nu_m\}}.\\
257: \end{array}%
258: \right. \label{eq:LC}
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: So the early X-ray afterglow decline $F_{\nu_{\rm X}}\propto
261: t^{-1.1}$ suggests a very small $k\sim 0.4$ for $p\sim 2.2$,
262: implying that the outflow almost has a very flat energy distribution
263: (i.e., the Transient ejecta is likely expanding with a single bulk
264: Lorentz factor). So we assume $E_{\rm _{tran}} \approx 4\pi \beta^2
265: R^3 n m_{\rm p}c^2$, which yields
266: \begin{equation}
267: \beta \sim 0.23 ~E_{_{\rm tran},46.5}^{1/3} A_*^{-1/3}t_4^{-1/3}.
268: \label{eq:beta_limit}
269: \end{equation}
270: Eq.(\ref{eq:F_x}) thus reduces to
271: \begin{equation}
272: F_{\nu_{\rm X}} \sim 0.04~{\rm \mu Jy}~\epsilon_{\rm e,-1}^{1.2}
273: E_{_{\rm tran},46.5}^{1.1} t_4^{-1.2},
274: \end{equation}
275: which is consistent with the XRT flux $\sim 0.03~{\rm \mu Jy}$ at
276: $10^{17}$ Hz at $t \sim 10^{4}$ sec (see Fig.1). The outflow energy
277: inferred above is $E_{_{\rm tran}} \sim 3\times 10^{46}$ erg, which
278: is larger than the isotropic energy of the X-ray transient by a
279: factor of 10 and is reasonable.
280:
281: Till here we have shown that a mild-relativistic outflow with an
282: energy $\sim 3\times 10^{46}$ erg can account for the Transient and
283: the early X-ray afterglow self-consistently, which implies that
284: there was no energetic outburst before the X-ray transient. Should
285: it happen, there would be a bright X-ray afterglow component, which
286: actually could outshine the current data. On the other hand, an
287: earlier outburst would sweep up the stellar wind medium and leave a
288: very low density bubble. The Transient outflow thus cannot get
289: decelerated effectively and cannot account for the following X-ray
290: afterglow data.
291:
292: \subsection{The late X-ray afterglow ($\gtrsim2\times10^4$ sec) powered by the supernova shock}
293: After $\gtrsim2\times10^4$ sec, the X-ray lightcurve gets
294: flattening. We interpret this flattening as the shock emission of
295: the fastest component of the SN ejecta, which moves with a velocity
296: $\sim 0.2$ c (see Eq. (\ref{eq:beta_limit}) for the limit).
297:
298: As shown in Eq. (\ref{eq:F_x}), if the SN fastest component is
299: energetic enough that hasn't got decelerated significantly in a
300: timescale $\sim 10^6$ sec or even longer, we have
301: \[F_{\nu_{\rm X}} \propto t^{(2-p)/2}\sim t^{-0.1},\] which is consistent with the observed
302: flattening (see Fig.1).
303:
304: The observed X-ray flux at $\sim 10^{17}$ Hz at $t\sim 10^6$ s is
305: $\sim 0.02~{\rm \mu Jy}$, which requires $\beta \approx
306: 0.1^{1/(2p-1)}\epsilon_{\rm
307: e,-1}^{(1-p)/(2p-1)}A_{*,-1}^{-(p+2)/[4(2p-1)]}$. A reasonable
308: choice of $A_{*} \sim 1$, $\epsilon_{\rm e,-1} \sim 1$, and $\beta
309: \sim 0.2$ leads to that the total energy of the SN fastest component
310: is no less than
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: E_{\rm _{SN}}(\beta\geq 0.2) &\sim & 4\pi n R^3 \beta^2 m_p c^2
313: \nonumber\\
314: &\sim & 3\times 10^{48}~{\rm erg}~A_*^{{5(p-2) \over
315: 4(2p-1)}}\epsilon_{\rm e,-1}^{3(1-p)\over 2p-1} t_{6}.
316: \end{eqnarray}
317:
318: For comparison, we plot in Figure 2 the identified energy
319: distribution of the outflows associated with XRTr 080109/SN 2008D,
320: together with those of ordinary Ic SNe and the hypernovae associated
321: with energetic GRBs/XRFs. At first glimpse, the main difference
322: between the ordinary Ic SNe and the GRB/XRF-associated ones is the
323: energy of the (mild-)relativistic outflow.
324:
325: %There seems to be an X-ray flare at day $\sim 12$. Its temporal
326: %behavior (very rapid rise and sharp decline) strongly indicates the
327: %re-activity of the central engine, same as in energetic GRB/XRF
328: %afterglows (see Zhang 2007 for a review). The energy source might be
329: %a pulsar with a dipole magnetic field $B_\perp \sim 10^{12}$ G and a
330: %period $P\sim 5~B_{\perp,12}^{1/2}$ ms or a solar mass black hole
331: %suffering from accretion.
332: \begin{figure}
333: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=11cm, height=12cm, angle=0]{f2.EPS}} \caption{Energy
334: distribution for Transient 080109-SN\,2008D as well as for GRB-HN, under-luminous GRB-/XRF-HN,
335: and ordinary Ibc SNe. RL and NA represent ``relativistic'' and ``not available'',
336: respectively. Part of data from Soderberg et al. (2006) and Kaneko et al. (2006). Sudden drop
337: of the energy distribution in GRB 031203 and XRF 060218 after the prompt emission might be due
338: to the geometry correction and/or a high GRB/XRF efficiency. Transient 080109/SN\,2008D marks
339: a transition between populations of ordinary Ibc SNe and under-luminous GRB-/XRF-HN. We
340: caution that X-ray transients may account for a majority of Ibc SN events. \label{continuum}}
341: \end{figure}
342:
343: \subsection{The radio afterglow: the supernova shock model}
344: Radio emission below the self-absorption frequency, $\nu_{\rm a}$,
345: would be suppressed significantly. Through the standard treatment
346: \cite{RL79}, for $\nu_{\rm a}<\nu_{\rm m}<\nu_{\rm c}$, we have $
347: \nu_{\rm a} \approx 3.9\times 10^{12}~{\rm Hz}~
348: \beta^{-13/5}t_5^{-1}\epsilon_{\rm e,-1}^{-1}\epsilon_{\rm
349: B,-1}^{1/5}A_{*,-1}^{4/5}$. While for $\nu_{\rm m}<\nu_{\rm
350: a}<\nu_{\rm c}$, we have
351: \begin{equation}
352: \nu_{\rm a} \approx 2.6\times 10^{11}~{\rm Hz}~ \beta^{4p-6 \over
353: p+4}t_5^{-1}\epsilon_{\rm e,-1}^{2-p \over p+4}\epsilon_{\rm
354: B,-1}^{p+2 \over 2(p+4)}A_{*,-1}^{p+6 \over 2(p+4)}.
355: \end{equation}
356: The latter seems to be more realistic and considered here. The radio
357: afterglow thus will peak when the observation frequency, $\nu_{\rm
358: obs}$, crosses $\nu_{\rm a}$ at
359: \begin{equation}
360: t_{\rm peak} \sim 3\times 10^{6} ~{\rm s}~ ({\nu_{\rm a} \over
361: 8.64~{\rm GHz}})^{-1} \beta^{4p-6 \over p+4} \epsilon_{\rm
362: e,-1}^{2-p \over p+4}\epsilon_{\rm B,-1}^{p+2 \over
363: 2(p+4)}A_{*,-1}^{p+6 \over 2(p+4)}.
364: \end{equation}
365: For typical parameters $\epsilon_{\rm e,-1}\sim 1$, $\epsilon_{\rm
366: B,-1}\sim 1$, $\beta \sim 0.1$ and $A_* \sim 1$, {\it we expect the
367: SN radio afterglow will peak at $\sim 100$ days}.
368:
369: Using Eq. (\ref{eq:F_numax}) the peak flux can be estimated as
370: \begin{equation}
371: F_{\rm \nu_{\rm radio}, peak} \sim 1~{\rm Jy}.
372: \end{equation}
373: For $\nu_{\rm m}<\nu_{\rm radio}<\nu_{\rm a}<\nu_c$, $F_{\nu_{\rm
374: radio}} \propto \beta^2 t^{5/2}$. For $\beta \sim $ const., we have
375: $F_{\nu_{\rm radio}} \propto t^{5/2}$, increasing with time rapidly.
376: The current two data reported in GCN \cite{Sod08,van08} do suggest a
377: quick rise of the radio flux and support our assumption $\beta \sim$
378: const. For $\beta \propto t^{-1/(3+k)}$, we have $F_{\nu_{\rm
379: radio}} \propto t^{5/2-2/(3+k)}$. As long as the observation
380: frequency is above $\nu_{\rm a}$, the light curve is described by
381: Eq.(\ref{eq:LC}).
382:
383: \section{Conclusion and Discussion}
384: Transient 080109/SN\,2008D presents the first evidence for a mild-relativistic outburst, $\sim
385: 10^{46}\,{\rm erg}$, preceding the main SN component, thus confirming previous speculation in
386: SN\,2005bf (Folatelli et al. 2006).
387:
388: It sets a lower limit of the local event rate of its kind as $1/3{\rm{yr}}/({\rm{0}}{\rm{.0276
389: Gpc}})^3 \sim 1.6 \times 10^4 {\rm{yr}}^{{\rm{ - 1}}} {\rm{Gpc}}^{{\rm{ - 3}}}$, comparable
390: with the local rate of Ibc SNe, $\sim 4.8 \times 10^4 {\rm{yr}}^{{\rm{ - 1}}}
391: {\rm{Gpc}}^{{\rm{ - 3}}}$, and thus indicates a vast majority of X-ray transients have a wide
392: opening angle of $\gtrsim 100^\circ$. The collimation-corrected energy is of $\sim 5\times
393: 10^{45}$ erg. The wide angle budget, together with the self-consistent interpretation of the
394: transient and its early afterglow with the on-beam model, largely rules out the off-axis
395: viewing model for this transient.
396:
397: The host NGC2770, a spiral galaxy with copious ${\rm H\alpha}$ sign, stands out from the
398: star-forming dwarf galaxies typically hosting GRBs/XRFs. Transient 080109 puts itself on the
399: upper border of the nearby GRB/XRF collection in terms of the host metallicity (Berger \&
400: Soderberg 2008b; Sollerman et al. 2005).
401:
402: As a result, this event may unveil a continuum from energetic GRB (top-right of Figure 2) to
403: ordinary Ibc SN (bottom-left of Figure 2).
404:
405: (1) Whether or not every Ibc SN has a quasi-jet outburst proceeding the main SN component is
406: still uncertain even the discovery of Transient 080109. For this reason we mark the ordinary
407: Ibc SN and X-ray transient/SN populations with a dash ellipse in Figure 2.
408:
409: (2) Soderberg et al. (2006) showed that producing GRBs/XRFs needs a relativistic ejecta
410: carrying at least $10^{48}$ erg. We show in this {\it Letter} that X-ray transient population
411: couples $\sim 10^{46}$ erg to relativistic material regarding this found one marks the
412: transition between GRB/XRF and ordinary Ibc.
413:
414: (3) While under-luminous GRBs/XRFs are likely powered by moderate-relativistic material, X-ray
415: transients are likely powered by mild-relativistic material.
416:
417: (4) GRBs have an average opening angle of $\sim \ 10^\circ$ while a vast majority (if not all)
418: of X-ray transients have a much wider one of $\sim 100^\circ$. There is a negative correlation
419: between radiated energy and opening angle from GRB to XRF to X-ray transient.
420:
421: (5) Materials with higher bulk Lorentz factor tend to have a shallower energy-velocity
422: distribution leading to spikeful behavior as shown in GRB/XRF prompt lightcurves and
423: hypernova's broad-lined spectra. Materials with lower bulk Lorentz factor tend to have a
424: steeper energy-velocity distribution and thus largely couple with each other leading to
425: spikeless/little-spiked behavior as shown in various optical afterglows. The decay laws in
426: terms of velocity for each event in Figure 2 (from left to right) matches this principle.
427:
428:
429: \acknowledgements It's a pleasure to thank D. Watson for providing the X-ray data, D.
430: Malesani, J. P. U. Fynbo, J. Hjorth, J. Sollerman, G. Leloudas, J. S. Deng for discussion, and
431: J. Gorosabel, W. D. Li, K. Page, and D. M. Wei for discussion/communication. The Dark
432: Cosmology Centre is funded by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF). YZF is supported
433: by a postdoctoral grant from DNRF, the National Science Foundation (grant 10673034) of China
434: and a special grant of Chinese Academy of Sciences. YCZ is supported by National Science
435: Foundation of China (grant 10703002).
436:
437: \begin{thebibliography}{}
438: \bibitem[Berger \& Soderberg 2008a]{BerSod08a} Berger, E. \& Soderberg, A. M., 2008a, GCN Circ. 7159
439:
440: \bibitem[Berger \& Soderberg 2008b]{BerSod08b} Berger, E. \& Soderberg, A. M., 2008b, GCN Circ. 7192
441:
442: \bibitem[Burrows et al. 2008]{Burrows08} Burrows, D. N. et al., 2008, GCN Circ. 7179
443:
444: \bibitem[Campana et al. 2006]{Camp06} Campana, S., Mangano, V., Blustin, A. J. et al., Nature,
445: 442, 1008
446:
447: \bibitem[Folatelli et al. 2006]{Fola06} Folatelli, G., Contreras, C., Phillips, M. M. et al.,
448: 2006, ApJ, 641, 1039
449:
450: \bibitem[Fruchter et al. 2006]{Fru06} Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strolger, L. et al.,
451: 2006, Nature, 441, 463
452:
453: \bibitem[Fynbo et al. 2000]{Fyn00} Fynbo, J. P. U., Holland, S., Andersen, M. I. et al., 2000, ApJ, 542, L89
454:
455: \bibitem[Fynbo et al. 2003]{Fyn03} Fynbo, J. P. U., Jakobsson, P., M$\o$ller, P. et al.,
456: 2003, A\&A, 406, L63
457:
458: \bibitem[Fynbo et al. 2006]{Fyn06} Fynbo, J. P. U., Watson, D., Th\"{o}ne, C. et al., 2006,
459: Nature, 444, 1047
460:
461: \bibitem[Galama et al. 1998]{Galama98} Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J. et al., 1998, Nature, 395, 670
462:
463: \bibitem[Hjorth et al. 2003]{Hjorth03} Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., M$\o$ller, P. et al., 2003, Nature, 423, 847
464:
465: \bibitem[Kaneko et al. 2006]{Kane06} Kaneko, Y., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Granot, J. et al., 2006,
466: ApJ, 654, 385
467:
468: \bibitem[Kong \& Maccarone 2008]{KM08} Kong, A. K. H. \& Maccarone T. J., 2008, ATel 1355
469:
470: \bibitem[Li \& Chevalier 1999]{LC99} Li, Z. Y., \& Chevalier, R. A.,
471: 1999, ApJ, 526, 716
472:
473: \bibitem[Malesani et al. 2004]{Male04} Malesani, D., Tagliaferri, G., Chincarini, G. et al., 2004,
474: ApJ, 609, L5
475:
476: \bibitem[Malesani et al. 2008]{Male08} Malesani, D., Hjorth, J. Jakobsson, P. et al., GCN
477: Circ. 7169
478:
479: \bibitem[Modjaz et al. 2008]{Mod08} Modjaz, M., Chornock, R., Foley, R. J. et al., 2008, GCN
480: Circ. 7212
481:
482: \bibitem[Page et al. 2008]{Page08} Page K. L. et al., 2008, GCN Report 110.1
483:
484: \bibitem[Rybicki \& Lightman 1979]{RL79} Rybicki G. B., Lightman A. P., 1979, Radiative Processes in Astrophysics (New York: Wiley)
485:
486: \bibitem[Sari et al. 1998]{spn98} Sari, R., Piran, T. \& Narayan, R., 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
487:
488: \bibitem[Soderberg et al. 2006]{Sod06} Soderberg, A. M., Kulkarni, S. R., Nakar, E. et al., 2006, Nature, 442, 1014
489:
490: \bibitem[Soderberg et al. 2008]{Sod08} Soderberg, A. M., 2008, GCN Circ. 7178
491:
492: \bibitem[Sollerman et al. 2005]{Sollerman05} Sollerman, J., \"{O}stlin, G., Fynbo, J. P. U. et al,
493: 2005, NewA, 11, 103
494:
495: \bibitem[Sollerman et al. 2006]{Sollerman06} Sollerman, J., Jaunesen, A. O., Fynbo, J. P. U. et al., 2006, A\&A, 454, 503
496:
497: \bibitem[Stanek et al. 2003]{Stanek03} Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M. et al., 2003, ApJ, 591, L17
498:
499: \bibitem[Stanek et al. 2006]{Stanek06} Stanek, K. Z., Gnedin, O. Y., Beacom, J. F. et al., 2006, AcA, 56, 333
500:
501: \bibitem[van der Horst et al. 2008]{van08} van der Horst, A. J. et al., 2008, GCN Circ. 7190
502:
503: \bibitem[Wooseley et al. 19993]{Woosley93} Woosley, S. E., 1993, ApJ, 405, 273
504:
505: \end{thebibliography}
506:
507: \end{document}
508: