1: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,amssymb,prl]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[showpacs,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass{revtex4}
5: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
6: \documentclass[11pt]{emulateapj}
7: \usepackage{epsfig,apjfonts}
8: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
9: %\usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
10: %\usepackage{bm}% bold math
11:
12: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def\enq{\end{equation}}
14: \def\ba{\begin{eqnarray}}
15: \def\ea{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \def\Meszaros{M\'esz\'aros~}
17: \def\<{<\!\!}
18: \def\>{\!\!>}
19: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
20: \def\eps{\epsilon}
21: \def\vareps{\varepsilon}
22:
23: %\voffset 0.75in
24:
25: \begin{document}
26: %\input{epsf}
27:
28: \title{Prompt TeV neutrinos from dissipative photospheres of $\gamma$-ray bursts}
29:
30: \author{Xiang-Yu Wang and Zi-Gao Dai }
31:
32: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Nanjing University, Nanjing
33: 210093, China }
34:
35: \begin{abstract}
36: Recently, it was suggested that a photospheric component that
37: results from the internal dissipation occurring in the optically
38: thick inner parts of relativistic outflows may be present in the
39: prompt $\gamma$/X-ray emission of gamma-ray bursts or X-ray flashes.
40: We explore high-energy neutrino emission in this dissipative
41: photosphere model, assuming that the composition of the outflow is
42: baryon-dominated. We find that neutrino emission from proton-proton
43: collision process forms an interesting signature in the neutrino
44: spectra. Under favorable conditions for the shock dissipation site,
45: these low-energy neutrinos could be detected by ${\rm km^3}$
46: detectors, such as Icecube. Higher energies ($\ga10$ TeV) neutrino
47: emission from proton-proton collision and photo-pion production
48: processes could be significantly suppressed for dissipation at
49: relatively small radii, due to efficient Bethe-Heitler cooling of
50: protons and/or radiative cooling of the secondary mesons in the
51: photosphere radiation. As the dissipation shocks continue further
52: out, high energy neutrinos from photo-pion production process
53: becomes dominant.
54:
55:
56:
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts; elementary particles}
60: %\maketitle
61:
62: \section {Introduction}
63: Although it has been generally accepted that the prompt gamma-ray
64: emission of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) results from internal
65: dissipation, likely internal shocks, of a relativistic outflow
66: (e.g. Paczy{\'n}ski \& Xu 1994; Rees \& \Meszaros 1994), the
67: dissipation site and the radiation mechanism for the gamma-ray
68: emission are still largely unknown. Synchrotron and/or
69: inverse-Compton scattering emission by shock-accelerated electrons
70: in the optically-thin region has been proposed as an efficient
71: mechanism for the gamma-ray emission. However, this model does not
72: satisfactorily account for a few observational facts, such as the
73: low-energy spectral slops that are steeper than synchrotron lower
74: energy spectral indices (Preece et al. 2000; Lloyd et al. 2000),
75: the clustering of peak energies, the correlation between the
76: burst's peak energy and luminosity (Amati et al. 2000). It becomes
77: recognized that an additional thermal component may play a key
78: role and could solve these problems (e.g. Pe'er et al. 2006; Ryde
79: et al. 2006). It has also been pointed out that a hybrid model
80: with both a thermal and non-thermal component can describe the
81: spectrum equally well as the Band function model (Band 1993), but
82: the former has a more physical meaning (Ryde 2005). Recently, it
83: was suggested that a strong quasi-thermal component could result
84: from the internal dissipation occurring in the optically thick
85: inner parts of relativistic outflows (Rees \& \Meszaros 2005;
86: Pe'er, \Meszaros \& Rees 2006; Thompson et al. 2007).
87: Sub-photospheric shock dissipation can increase the radiative
88: efficiency of the outflow, significantly boosting the original
89: thermal photospheric component so that it may well dominate the
90: nonthermal component from optically-thin shocks occurring outside
91: the photosphere.
92:
93: Neutrino emission from gamma-ray bursts has been predicted at
94: different stages of the relativistic outflow, such as the
95: precursor phase (e.g. Bahcall \& \Meszaros 2000; \Meszaros \&
96: Waxman 2001; Razzaque et al. 2003a,b; Razzaque et al. 2004; Ando
97: \& Beacom 2005; Horiuchi \& Ando 2008; Koers \& Wijers 2008), the
98: prompt emission phase (e.g. Waxman \& Bahcall 1997; Dermer \&
99: Atoyan 2003; Guetta et al. 2004; Murase \& Nagataki 2006; Gupta \&
100: Zhang 2007; Murase et al. 2006) and afterglow phase (e.g. Waxman
101: \& Bahcall 2001; Dai \& Lu 2001; Dermer 2002; Li et al. 2002;
102: Murase \& Nagataki 2006; Murase 2007; Dermer 2007). Based on the
103: broken power-law approximation for the spectrum of the prompt
104: emission, presumably from optically-thin internal shocks, a burst
105: of PeV neutrinos, produced by photomeson production, was predicted
106: to accompany the prompt gamma-ray emission if protons are present
107: and also accelerated in the shocks (Waxman \& Bahcall 1997). The
108: neutrino emission from proton-proton ($pp$) collisions was
109: generally thought to be negligible due to lower collision opacity
110: for optically-thin internal shocks. However, as we show below, if
111: some part of the prompt emission arises from internal shocks
112: occurring in the optically-thick inner part of the outflow, as
113: indicated by the thermal emission, a lower energy ($\la10 {\rm
114: TeV}$) neutrino component may appear as a result of $pp$
115: collisions.
116:
117:
118: \section{The dissipative photosphere model}
119: The photosphere models have been widely discussed in relation to the
120: prompt emission of GRBs (e.g. Thompson 1994; Ghisellini \& Celotti
121: 1999; Rees \& \Meszaros 2005; Thompson et al. 2007; Ioka et al.
122: 2007). The potential advantage of photosphere models is that the
123: peak energy can be stabilized, which is identified as the thermal or
124: Comptonization thermal peak (see Ioka et al. 2007 and references
125: therein). The photosphere radiation may also produce a large number
126: of electron-positron pairs, which may lead to a pair photosphere
127: beyond the baryon-related photosphere (e.g. Rees \& \Meszaros 2005),
128: and may also enhance the radiative efficiency (Ioka et al. 2007). On
129: the other hand, it is also suggested that the number of pairs
130: produced does not exceed the baryon related electrons by a factor
131: larger than a few (Pe'er et al. 2006). For simplicity, we here only
132: consider the dissipation below the baryon-related photosphere, which
133: is more favorable for $pp$ neutrino production.
134:
135: Following Rees \& \Meszaros (2005) and Pe'er et al. (2006), we
136: assume that during the early stage of the prompt emission,
137: internal shocks of the outflow occur at radii below the baryonic
138: photosphere. Initially, the internal energy is released at the
139: base of the outflow, $r_0\sim\alpha r_g=2\alpha GM/c^2$, where
140: $\alpha\ga1$ and $r_g$ is the Schwarzschild radius of a central
141: object of mass $M$. The internal energy is then converted to the
142: kinetic energy of the flow, whose bulk Lorentz factor grows as
143: $\gamma\sim r$ up to a saturation radius at $r_s\sim r_0\eta$,
144: where $\eta=L_0/(\dot{M}c^2)$ is the initial dimensionless
145: entropy, $L_0$ and $\dot{M}$ are the total energy and mass outflow
146: rates. Above the saturation radius, the observer-frame
147: photospherical luminosity decreases as
148: $L_\gamma(r)=L_0(r/r_s)^{-2/3}$ and the greater part of energy is
149: in kinetic form, $L_k\sim L_0$. If the dissipation is maintained
150: all the way to the photosphere, it will lead to an effective
151: luminosity $L_\gamma\sim\epsilon_d L_0$ and a temperature (Rees \&
152: \Meszaros 2005)
153: \begin{equation}
154: T_\gamma=\epsilon_d^{1/4}(r/r_s)^{-1/2}T_0=200 \epsilon_d^{1/4}
155: r_{11}^{-1/2} \Gamma_2^{1/2} L_{0,52}^{1/4}{\rm keV},
156: \end{equation}
157: where $\epsilon_d$ is the dissipation efficiency, $T_0$ is the
158: initial temperature of the fireball outflow and $\Gamma$ is the
159: bulk Lorentz factor of the outflow. The internal shock occurs at
160: $R\simeq 2\Gamma r_s =6\times10^{10} \alpha\Gamma_2^2 (M/10
161: M_\odot) {\rm cm} $, for which the optical depth to Thomson
162: scattering by the baryon-related electrons is $\tau_{\rm
163: T}=\sigma_{\rm T} {L_k}/({4\pi R \Gamma^3 m_p c^3})=120 L_{k, 52}
164: R_{11}^{-1} \Gamma_2^{-3}$, where $\sigma_{\rm T}$ is the Thomson
165: scattering cross section and $L_k$ is the kinetic energy
166: luminosity. The photosphere is further out, at radius
167: $R_{ph}=1.2\times10^{13} L_{k,52}\Gamma_2^{-3} {\rm cm}$. A
168: detailed calculation taking into account of the electron/positron
169: cooling and the Comptonization effect leads to a quasi-thermal
170: emission which peaks at energy $\sim300-500{\rm keV}$ for
171: dissipation at Thomson optical depth of $\tau_{\rm T}\sim10-100$
172: (Pe'er et al. 2006). This temperature is consistent with the
173: observed peak energies of prompt gamma-ray emission of a majority
174: of GRBs.
175:
176: Assuming that a fraction of $\epsilon_B\simeq 0.1$ of the shock
177: internal energy is converted into magnetic fields, we have a
178: magnetic field $B'=2.5\times10^7
179: \epsilon_{B,-1}^{1/2}L_{k,52}^{1/2} R_{11}^{-1} \Gamma_2^{-1} {\rm
180: G}$. Protons accelerated by internal shocks are assumed to have a
181: spectrum $dn/d\varepsilon_p\sim \varepsilon_p^{-p}$ with
182: $p\simeq2$, as often assumed for non-relativistic or
183: mildly-relativistic shock acceleration. The maximum proton energy
184: is set by comparing the acceleration time scale $t'_{acc}=\alpha
185: \varepsilon'_p/(e B' c)=4.4\times10^{-12} \alpha
186: (\frac{\varepsilon'_p}{1 {\rm GeV}})
187: \epsilon_{B,-1}^{-1/2}L_{k,52}^{-1/2} R_{11}\Gamma_2 \,{\rm s}$
188: with the energy-loss time scales. The synchrotron loss time is
189: $t'_{syn}=6\pi m_p^4 c^3/(\sigma_{\rm T}m_e^2 {\varepsilon'_p}
190: B'^2)=10^{-4} \epsilon_{B,-1}^{-1}L_{k,52}^{-1} R_{11}^2\Gamma_2^2
191: (\frac{\varepsilon'_p}{10^{8} {\rm GeV}})^{-1} \,{\rm s}$.
192: Assuming that the sub-photosphere emission at the dissipation site
193: peaks at $\varepsilon_\gamma=300{\rm keV}$ with a thermal-like
194: spectrum, the number density of photons in the comoving frame is $
195: n'_{\gamma}={L_\gamma}/({4\pi R^2 \Gamma^2 c
196: \varepsilon'_{\gamma}})=5\times10^{21} L_{\gamma,51} R_{11}^{-2}
197: \Gamma_2^{-1} ({\varepsilon_\gamma}/{300 {\rm keV}})^{-1} {\rm
198: cm^{-3}}$. The $p\gamma$ cooling time is approximately
199: $t'_{p\gamma}={1}/({\sigma_{p\gamma} n'_{\gamma} c
200: K_{p\gamma}})=10^{-4}L_{\gamma,51}^{-1} R_{11}^2
201: \Gamma_2(\frac{\varepsilon_\gamma}{300 {\rm keV}})\, {\rm s}$,
202: where $K_{p\gamma}\simeq 0.2$ is the inelasticity and
203: $\sigma_{p\gamma}=5\times10^{-28} {\rm cm^{2}}$ is the peak cross
204: section at the $\Delta$ resonance. By comparison with the
205: synchrotron loss time, it is found that the most effective cooling
206: mechanism for protons is the $p\gamma$ process for protons with
207: energies above the $p\gamma$ threshold, but below $\sim10^8 {\rm
208: GeV}$. Equating $t'_{acc}=t'_{p\gamma}$, we obtain the maximum
209: proton energy in the shock comoving frame
210: \begin{equation}
211: \varepsilon'_{p, max}=10^7 \alpha_1^{-1}
212: \epsilon_{B,-1}^{1/2}L_{k,52}^{1/2}L_{\gamma,51}^{-1}R_{11}(\frac{\varepsilon_\gamma}{300
213: {\rm keV}}) \, {\rm GeV} .
214: \end{equation}
215:
216: \section{Proton and meson cooling}
217: The shock-accelerated protons produce mesons via $pp$ and
218: $p\gamma$ interactions. Since the meson multiplicity in $pp$
219: interactions is about 1 for pions while 0.1 for kaons, neutrinos
220: contributed by pion decay are dominant when the cooling effect of
221: pions is not important, which is applicable to the low energy pp
222: neutrinos. Therefore we here consider only pion production in $pp$
223: interactions. The pion production by $pp$ interaction in the
224: sub-photosphere dissipation is efficient since the cooling time in
225: the shock comoving frame,
226: \begin{equation}
227: t'_{pp}=1/(\sigma_{pp} n'_p c K_{pp})=0.008
228: L_{k,52}^{-1}R_{11}^2\Gamma_2^2 \, {\rm s},
229: \end{equation}
230: can be shorter than the shock dynamic time, $t'_{dyn}=R/\Gamma
231: c=0.03 R_{11}\Gamma_2^{-1} {\rm sec}$, where
232: $\sigma_{pp}=4\times10^{-26} {\rm cm^2}$ is the cross section for
233: $pp$ interactions, $n'_p={L_k}/({4\pi R^2 \Gamma^2 m_p
234: c^3})=2\times10^{17} L_{k,52}R_{11}^{-2}\Gamma_2^{-2} {\rm
235: cm^{-3}}$ is the proton number density, and $K_{pp}\simeq0.5$ is
236: the inelasticity. Protons also cool through Bethe-Heitler
237: interactions ($p\gamma\rightarrow p e^+ e^-$) and $p\gamma$
238: interactions when the target photon energy seen by the protons is
239: above the threshold energy for each interaction. Denoting by
240: $n(\epsilon_\gamma)d\epsilon_\gamma$ the number density of photons
241: in the energy range $\epsilon_\gamma$ to
242: $\epsilon_\gamma+d\epsilon_\gamma$, the cooling time in the shock
243: comoving frame for $p\gamma$ and Bethe-Heitler cooling processes
244: are given by
245: \begin{equation}
246: t'_{\{p\gamma, BH\}}=\frac{c}{2\Gamma_p^2}
247: \int_{\epsilon_{th}}^\infty d\epsilon \sigma (\epsilon)
248: K(\epsilon)\epsilon\int_{\epsilon/2\Gamma_p}^{\infty} dx x^{-2}
249: n(x),
250: \end{equation}
251: where $\Gamma_p=\varepsilon'_p/m_p c^2$, $\sigma$ and $K$ are
252: respectively the cross section and the inelasticity for $p\gamma$
253: (or Bethe-Heitler) process. As a rough estimate, the Bethe-Heitler
254: cooling time is
255: \begin{equation}
256: \frac{t'_{BH}}{t'_{pp}}=0.5 (\frac{(28/9) {\rm
257: ln}40-218/27}{(28/9) {\rm ln}2k-218/27
258: })(\frac{L_{k,52}}{L_{\gamma, 51}})(\frac{\varepsilon'_\gamma}{3
259: {\rm keV}})
260: \end{equation}
261: when $k\equiv\varepsilon'_p \varepsilon'_\gamma/(m_p m_e c^4)$ is a
262: large value (a good approximation when $k\ga10$, Chodorowski et al.
263: 1992), where $\varepsilon'_\gamma$ is the thermal peak energy of
264: photons in the comoving frame. So when the proton energy is larger
265: than $\varepsilon'^{(1)}_{p,b}=1500 (\frac{\varepsilon'_\gamma}{3
266: {\rm keV}})^{-1}{\rm GeV}$, the Bethe-Heitler cooling dominates over
267: the $pp$ cooling. At even higher energies near the threshold for
268: $p\gamma$ interactions at $\varepsilon'^{(2)}_{p,b}=6\times10^4
269: (\frac{\varepsilon'_\gamma}{3 {\rm keV}})^{-1}{\rm GeV}$, $p\gamma$
270: cooling becomes increasingly dominant.
271:
272: \begin{figure}
273: \centering \epsfig{figure=f1.eps,width=9cm} \caption{Inverse of
274: proton cooling time scales in the comoving frame of the internal
275: shock as functions of proton energy. The straight solid line,
276: dotted line and dashed line are for proton-proton collision,
277: Bethe-Heitler cooling and $p\gamma$ processes respectively. Also
278: shown is the cooling time scale due to adiabatic expansion (which
279: is equal to the dynamic timescale $t'_{dyn}$ given in the text).
280: The parameters used in the plot are $L_k=10^{52} {\rm erg
281: s^{-1}}$, $\Gamma=100$, $R=10^{11}{\rm cm}$ and
282: $\varepsilon_\gamma=300{\rm keV}$.}
283: \end{figure}
284:
285: We compare these three cooling time scales for protons in Fig.1 for
286: representative parameters, using more accurate cross sections for
287: $p\gamma$ and Bethe-Heitler processes in Eq.(4). For photopion
288: production cross section, we take the Lorentzian form for the
289: resonance peak (M\"ucke et al. 2000) plus a component contributed by
290: multi-pion production at higher energies, while for Bethe-Heitler
291: process we use the cross section given by Chodorowski et al. (1992).
292: The number density of photons used in the calculation has been
293: assumed to have a blackbody distribution. The numerical result
294: confirms that that $pp$ cooling and $p\gamma$ cooling are dominant,
295: respectively, at lowest and highest energies, while at the
296: intermediate energies, the Bethe-Heitler cooling is the dominant
297: one.
298:
299: Defining the total cooling time for protons as
300: $t'_p=1/({t'}^{-1}_{pp}+{t'}^{-1}_{BH}+{t'}^{-1}_{p\gamma})$, the
301: total energy loss fraction of protons is $\eta_p={\rm
302: Min}\{t'_{dyn}/t'_p, 1\}$. The fractions of energy loss by $pp$
303: and $p\gamma$ processes are respectively,
304: \begin{equation}
305: \left \{
306: \begin{array}{ll}
307: \zeta_{pp}={t'}^{-1}_{pp}/({t'}^{-1}_{pp}+{t'}^{-1}_{BH}+{t'}^{-1}_{p\gamma})\\
308: \zeta_{p\gamma}={t'}^{-1}_{p\gamma}/({t'}^{-1}_{pp}+{t'}^{-1}_{BH}+{t'}^{-1}_{p\gamma}).
309: \end{array} \right.
310: \end{equation}
311:
312: The cooling of secondary pions may also affect the neutrino
313: production efficiency if they suffer from cooling before decaying
314: to secondary products. The pions suffer from radiative cooling due
315: to both synchrotron emission and inverse-Compton emission. The
316: total radiative cooling time is $t'_{\pi, rad}={3 m_\pi^4
317: c^3}/[{4\sigma_T m_e^2 \epsilon'_{\pi} U'_B(1+f_{\rm
318: IC})}]\simeq0.002 ({\epsilon'_{\pi}}/{1 {\rm TeV}})^{-1}
319: \epsilon_{B,-1}^{-1}L_{k,52}^{-1} R_{11}^2 \Gamma_2^2 \,{\rm s}$,
320: where $U'_B$ is the energy density of the magnetic filed in the
321: shock region and $f_{\rm IC}\la1$ is the correction factor
322: accounting for the inverse-Compton loss. The pions also cool due
323: to collisions with protons (Ando \& Beacom 2005). The cooling for
324: this hadronic process is $t'_{\pi,
325: had}={\epsilon'_{\pi}}/({c\sigma_{\pi p} n'_p \Delta
326: \epsilon'_{\pi}})=0.006 L_{k,52}^{-1} R_{11}^2 \Gamma_2^2 \, {\rm
327: s}$, where $\sigma_{\pi p}=5\times10^{-26}{\rm cm^2}$ is the cross
328: section for meson-proton collisions and $\Delta
329: \epsilon'_{\pi}=0.5\epsilon'_{\pi}$ is the energy lost by the
330: meson per collision. The suppression of neutrino emission due to
331: cooling of pions can be obtained by comparing the cooling time
332: $t'_{\pi, rad}$ or $t'_{\pi, had}$ with the lifetime of pions
333: $\tau'_{\pi}=\gamma_{\pi} \tau=1.9\times10^{-4} (\epsilon'_{\pi}/1
334: {\rm TeV}) \,{\rm s}$ in the shock comoving frame, where
335: $\gamma_{\pi}$ and $\tau$ are the pion Lorentz factor and proper
336: lifetime. This defines two critical energies for pions, above
337: which the effect of radiative cooling or hadronic cooling starts
338: to suppress the neutrino flux, i.e. $\epsilon'_{\pi, rad}=3
339: \epsilon_B^{-1/2}L_{k,52}^{-1/2}R_{11}\Gamma_2 {\rm TeV}$ and
340: $\epsilon'_{\pi, had}=30 L_{k,52}^{-1}R_{11}^2\Gamma_2^2 {\rm
341: TeV}$. The total cooling time of pions is $t'_{\pi,
342: c}=1/({t'^{-1}_{\pi, rad}}+{t'^{-1}_{\pi, had}})$ and the total
343: suppression factor on the neutrino flux due to pion cooling is
344: (Razzaque et al. 2004)
345: \begin{equation}
346: \zeta_{\pi}={\rm Min}\{t'_{\pi, c}/\tau'_{\pi}, 1\}.
347: \end{equation}
348:
349:
350:
351: \begin{figure}
352: \centering \epsfig{figure=f2.eps,width=10cm} \caption{Diffuse muon
353: neutrino flux on Earth contributed by $pp$ and $p\gamma$
354: interactions from the dissipative photosphere of GRBs, assuming
355: that energy in accelerated protons in one burst is
356: $E_p=1.5\times10^{53}$ erg during the dissipative photosphere
357: phase, the bulk Lorentz factor $\Gamma=100$, the GRB rate $R_{\rm
358: GRB}(0)=1 {\rm Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ and $f_z=3$. The solid (red) and
359: dashed (blue) lines are for shock dissipation at $R=10^{11} {\rm
360: cm}$ and $10^{12} {\rm cm}$ respectively. The dotted (green) line
361: is for shock at photosphere radius $10^{13} {\rm cm}$ with a
362: broken power-law photon spectrum assumed (see the text for
363: details). The solid lines denote the $pp$ neutrino component,
364: while the dashed lines denote the $p\gamma$ neutrino component.
365: Also shown is the Waxman-Bahcall (WB) bound (Waxman \& Bahcall
366: 1999).}
367: \end{figure}
368: \section{Neutrino flux from GRBs}
369: The total energy emitted in
370: neutrinos from $pp$ or $p\gamma$ processes per GRB is,
371: respectively,
372: \begin{equation}
373: {\varepsilon_\nu^2}J_{\{pp,p\gamma\}}(\varepsilon_\nu)=\frac{1}{8}
374: \frac{E_p \eta_{p}(\varepsilon_\nu)
375: {\zeta_{\{pp,p\gamma\}}(\varepsilon_\nu)\zeta_{\pi}(\varepsilon_\nu)}}{{\rm
376: ln}(\varepsilon'_{p,max}/\varepsilon'_{p,min})},
377: \end{equation}
378: where $E_p$ is the energy in accelerated protons in one burst
379: during the dissipative photosphere phase, $\varepsilon'_{p,max}$
380: and $\varepsilon'_{p,min}$ are the maximum and minimum energies of
381: acceleration protons. In the absence of pion cooling loss, the
382: neutrinos produced by pion decay carry $1/8$ of the energy lost by
383: protons to pion production, since charged and neutral pions are
384: produced with roughly equal probability and muon neutrinos carry
385: roughly $1/4$ of the pion energy in pion decay \footnote{As an
386: approximate estimate, we have neglected the effect of multi-pion
387: production, the muon contribution decay to the neutrino flux and
388: the neutrino oscillation effect, which may affect the estimate of
389: the $pp$ neutrino flux within a factor of 2 (the factor, however,
390: could be larger for $p\gamma$ neutrino flux).}. The mean pion
391: energy is about $20\%$ of the energy of the proton producing the
392: pion, so the mean energy of neutrinos is $\varepsilon_\nu\simeq
393: 0.05 \varepsilon_p$. Assuming that protons are efficiently
394: accelerated in shocks with an energy density of $U'_p=10
395: U'_\gamma$, the number of TeV neutrinos from one GRB is about
396: $N_\nu=0.1 (\Phi_\gamma/10^{-4} {\rm erg cm^{-2}})$ for
397: $\eta_p\simeq1$, according to Eq.(8). So only from very strong
398: bursts with gamma-ray fluence $\Phi_\gamma\ga 10^{-3} {\rm erg
399: cm^{-2}}$, which are very rare events, can neutrinos from single
400: GRB be detected.
401:
402:
403:
404:
405: The aggregated muon neutrino flux from all GRBs is approximately
406: given by
407: \begin{equation}
408: \begin{array}{ll}
409: {\varepsilon_\nu^2}\Phi_{\{pp,p\gamma\}}(\varepsilon_\nu)\simeq(\frac{c}{4\pi
410: H_0}) {\varepsilon_\nu^2}J_{\{pp,p\gamma\}}(\varepsilon_\nu)
411: R_{\rm
412: GRB}(0) f_z \\
413: =1.5\times10^{-9} E_{p, 53} (\frac{R_{\rm GRB}(0)}{1 {\rm Gpc^{-3}
414: yr^{-1}}})(\frac{f_z}{3}) \eta_{p}
415: {\zeta_{\{pp,p\gamma\}}}\zeta_{\pi} {\rm GeV cm^{-2} s^{-1}
416: sr^{-1}},
417: \end{array}
418: \end{equation}
419: where $f_z$ is the correction factor for the contribution from
420: high redshift sources and $R_{\rm GRB}(0)$ is the overall GRB rate
421: at redshift $z=0$. Assuming that GRB rate traces the
422: star-formation rate in the Universe, the calculation gives
423: $f_z\simeq3$ (Waxman \& Bahcall 1999). It is not clear how
424: efficiently the protons are accelerated in GRB shocks. Assuming an
425: optimistic case that protons are efficiently accelerated in shocks
426: and that half of the kinetic energy dissipation occurs below the
427: photosphere\footnote{This is based on the analysis by Ryde (2006)
428: and also in a very recent paper by Ryde \& Pe'er (2008,
429: arXiv:0811.4135v1), who find that the thermal photons carry a
430: fraction of ~30\% to more than 50\% of the prompt emission
431: energy.}, we take a mean value $E_p = 1.5\times10^{53} {\rm ergs}$
432: for the isotropic equivalent energy in accelerated protons in one
433: GRB during the dissipative photosphere phase, based on a typically
434: used value $L_k=10^{52} {\rm erg s^{-1}}$ for the isotropic
435: kinetic energy luminosity and a typical long GRB duration of
436: $\Delta T=30$ s. The GRB rate\footnote{There is large uncertainty
437: in the estimate of the local GRB rate. Some people suggest a lower
438: GRB rate based on the analysis of {\it Swift} bursts with $R_{\rm
439: GRB}(0)=0.05-0.27 {\rm Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ (e.g. Guetta \& Piran
440: 2007; Le \& Dermer 2007) , while others get a higher rate
441: comparable to earlier estimate before {\it Swift} (e.g. Liang et
442: al. 2007).} at redshift $z=0$ is taken to $R_{\rm GRB}(0)=1 {\rm
443: Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ (Guetta et al. 2005; Liang et al. 2007). The
444: isotropic luminosity is taken to be $L_\gamma=10^{51}{\rm erg}$
445: \footnote{Some observations have indicated rather high radiative
446: efficiency, and the importance of $pp$ neutrinos may be reduced if
447: $L_k$ is smaller than $10L_\gamma$.}. The energy-dependent
448: neutrino flux contributed by $pp$ and $p\gamma$ interactions are
449: plotted in Fig.2 for a set of representative parameters of the
450: dissipative photosphere model and three different dissipation
451: radii. If the kinetic energy is dissipated at radius of
452: $R=10^{11}{\rm cm}$, the calculation (the red solid curves) shows
453: that at energies below tens of TeV, the neutrino flux is dominated
454: by a $pp$ component. Taking the detection probability of
455: $P_{\nu\mu}=10^{-6}(\varepsilon_\nu/1 {\rm TeV})$ for TeV
456: neutrinos (Gaisser et al. 1995), the expected flux of upward
457: moving muons contributed by this $pp$ component is about 8-10
458: events each year for a ${\rm km^3}$ neutrino detector, such as
459: Icecube. {We can also estimate the atmospheric neutrino background
460: expectation in coincidence with these GRB sources, noting that the
461: search for neutrinos accompanying GRBs requires that the neutrinos
462: are coincident in both direction and time with gamma-rays. Taking
463: an average GRB duration of $\simeq 30 $ s, an angular resolution
464: of Icecube of $\simeq1^\circ$ and the atmospheric neutrino
465: background flux of $\simeq 10^{-4} {\rm GeV cm^{-2} s^{-1}
466: sr^{-1}}$ at 1 TeV (Ahrens et al. 2004), the atmospheric neutrino
467: background expectation is $\simeq5\times10^{-3}$ events from 500
468: GRBs (in one year). Such a low background in coincident with GRBs
469: allows the claim of detection of TeV neutrinos from GRB sources.}
470: At energies from a few TeV to tens of TeV, the Bethe-Heilter
471: cooling suppresses the $pp$ cooling, resulting in a steepening at
472: several TeV in the neutrino spectrum. At energies above the
473: threshold for $p\gamma$ interactions, the neutrino from $p\gamma$
474: process is heavily suppressed due to the strong radiative cooling
475: of secondary pions. For a larger dissipation radius at $R=10^{12}
476: {\rm cm}$ (the blue dashed curves), the neutrino emission flux
477: from $p\gamma$ process is no longer suppressed and in this case
478: both $pp$ and $p\gamma$ neutrino components could be detected by
479: ${\rm km^3}$ detectors. { We also calculated the neutrino flux,
480: shown by the green dotted lines in Fig. 2, for shock at
481: photosphere radius $R_{ph}$, assuming that the radiation spectrum
482: is a broken power-law (due to Comptonization) peaking at
483: $\varepsilon_\gamma=100{\rm keV}$, with lower energy and higher
484: energy photon indexes given by $-1$ and $-2$ respectively. In
485: this case, the $pp$ neutrino flux becomes small (may be marginally
486: detectable), while the $p\gamma$ neutrino flux spectrum is similar
487: to the analytic result obtained by Waxman \& Bahcall (1997), as
488: expected for a broken power-law photon spectrum. Note that in one
489: burst the shock dissipation could be continuous from small to
490: large radii, as indicated by the larger variability timescales
491: seen in GRBs. By comparing the three cases of different
492: dissipation radii in Fig.2, one can see that as the shock radius
493: increases, the neutrino emission from $pp$ component decreases,
494: while the $p\gamma$ component increases until it reaches the
495: saturation level. The total $pp$ neutrino flux from such
496: continuous dissipation is thus contributed predominantly by the
497: deepest internal shocks below the photosphere. In the whole
498: neutrino spectrum, a ``valley" is seen between the $pp$ and
499: $p\gamma$ components of the spectrum, which may be a potential
500: distinguish feature of the sub-photosphere dissipation effect.}
501:
502:
503:
504: \section{Discussions and Conclusions}
505: Waxman \& Bahcall (1997) as well as later works have studied the
506: neutrino emission from the photomeson process during the prompt
507: internal shocks of GRBs, assuming that the radiation in the shock
508: region has a broken power-law nonthermal spectrum. It was found
509: that the neutrino emission peaks at energies above $100$ TeV.
510: Towards lower energies, the neutrino emission intensity decreases
511: as $\varepsilon_{\nu}^2 \Phi_{\nu}\sim \varepsilon_\nu$ (Waxman \&
512: Bahcall 1997). However, if internal shocks, especially at the
513: early stage of the prompt emission, occur below the photosphere, a
514: quasi-thermal spectrum will arise. In this {\it Letter}, we have
515: discussed the neutrino emission associated with the dissipative
516: photosphere that produces such prompt thermal emission. We find
517: that $pp$ interaction process becomes important for
518: shock-accelerated protons and provides a new neutrino component,
519: which dominates at energies below tens of TeV. The neutrino
520: emission from photopion process of protons interacting with the
521: sub-photosphere radiation could be significantly suppressed due to
522: radiative cooling of secondary pions, when the dissipation radius
523: is relatively small. Nevertheless, the total contribution by
524: photopion process will not be suppressed since the shock
525: dissipation could be continuous and occur at large radii as well.
526: Although TeV neutrinos may also be produced during the early
527: precursor stage of GRB, i.e. before the jet breaking out the
528: progenitor star (e.g. Razzaque et al. 2004; Ando \& Beacom 2005),
529: we want to point out that the TeV neutrino component discussed
530: here can be distinguished from them, because in our case the
531: neutrino emission is associated in time with the prompt emission.
532:
533:
534: {\acknowledgments After this work has been completed and later
535: put onto the arXiv website (arXiv:0807.0290), we became aware
536: that K. Murase was also working on the sub-photosphere neutrino
537: independently (K. Murase, 2008, arXiv:0807.0919). XYW would like
538: to thank P. \Meszaros, S. Razzaque, K. Murase, E. Waxman, Z. Li
539: and K. Ioka for useful comments or discussions. This work is
540: supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
541: under grants 10221001, 10403002 and 10873009, the National Basic
542: Research Program of China (973 program) under grants No.
543: 2007CB815404 and 2009CB824800.}
544:
545: \begin{thebibliography}{srt}
546:
547: \def\bitm{\bibitem}
548: \bitm{} Ahrens, J. et al., 2004, Astroparticle Physics, { 20},
549: 507
550:
551: \bitm{} Amati, L. et al. 2002, Astron. Astrophys., {390}, 81
552:
553: \bitm{} Ando, S. and Beacom, J. F., 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., {95},
554: 061103
555:
556: \bitm{}Band, D. et al. 1993, Astrophys. J., { 413}, 281
557:
558: \bitm{}Bahcall, J. and \Meszaros, P. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., {85},
559: 1362
560:
561:
562: \bitm{} Chodorowski, M. J., Zdziarski, A. A. and Sikora, M. 1992,
563: Astrophys. J., {400}, 181
564:
565: \bitm{}Horiuchi, S. and Ando,S. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, { 77}, 063007
566:
567: \bitm{} Dai, Z. G. and Lu, T., 2001, Astrophys. J., { 551}, 249
568:
569: \bitm{}Dermer, C. D., 2002, Astrophys.J. {574}, 65
570:
571: \bitm{}Dermer, C. D., 2007, ApJ, 664, 384
572:
573: \bitm{neutrino-IS} Dermer C. D. and Atoyan,A., 2003, Phys. Rev.
574: Lett. { 91}, 071102
575:
576: \bitm{Gaisser} Gaisser, T. K., Halzen, F. and Stanev, T., 1995,
577: Phys. Rep., {258}, 173
578:
579: \bitm{}Guetta, D. et al., 2004, Astroparticle Physics, {20}, 429
580:
581: \bitm{} Guetta, D. Piran,T. and Waxman,E. 2005, ApJ, {619}, 412
582:
583: \bitm{} Guetta, D. \& Piran,T., 2007, JCAP, 07, 003
584:
585: \bitm{} Gupta N. and Zhang, B. 2007, Astroparticle Physics, {
586: 27}, 386
587:
588: \bitm{}Koers H. and Wijers, R. 2008, arXiv:0711.4791
589:
590: \bitm{} Le, T. \& Dermer, C. D., 2007, ApJ, 661, 394
591:
592: \bitm{}Li, Z. et al., Astron. Astrophys. {396}, 303 (2002)
593:
594: \bitm{} Liang, E., Zhang B., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1111
595:
596: \bitm{} Lloyd, N. M. et al., 2000, Astrophys. J., {534}, 227
597:
598: \bitm{}\Meszaros, P. and Waxman, E., 2001, Rhys. Rev. Lett. {
599: 87}, 171102
600:
601: \bitm{} M\"ucke,A. Engel, R. Rachen, J. P. et al., 2000,
602: Computer Physics Communications, {124}, 290
603:
604: \bitm{}Murase K. and Nagataki, S., 2006, Phys. Rev. D, {73},
605: 063002
606:
607: \bitm{}Murase K. et al., 2006, Astrophys. J., { 651}, L5
608:
609: \bitm{}Murase K. and Nagataki, S., 2006, Rhys. Rev. Lett., 97,
610: 051101
611:
612: \bitm{} Murase K., 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 123001
613:
614: \bitm{} Murase K., 2008, arXiv:0807.0919
615:
616: \bitm{}Paczy{\'n}ski, B. and Xu, G., 1994, Astrophys. J., { 427},
617: 708
618:
619: \bitm{} Pe'er, A., \Meszaros, P. and Rees, M. J., 2006,
620: Astrophys. J., { 995}, 1003
621:
622: \bitm{} Preece, R. et al., 2000, Astrophys. J. Supplement, { 126},
623: 19
624:
625: \bitm{}Razzaque, S. et al. 2003a, Phys. Rev. Lett., {90}, 241103
626:
627: \bitm{}Razzaque, S., et al., 2003b Phys. Rev. D, {68}, 083001
628:
629: \bitm{}Razzaque, S., et al., 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., { 93},
630: 181101
631:
632: \bitm{} Rees, M. J. and \Meszaros, P., 1994, Astrophys. J., {
633: 430}, 93
634:
635: \bitm{} Rees, M. J. and\Meszaros, P., 2005, Astrophys. J.,
636: {628}, 847
637:
638: \bitm{}Ryde, F., 2005, Astrophys. J., {625}, L95
639:
640: \bitm{}Ryde, F. et al., 2006, Astrophys. J., { 652}, 1400
641:
642: \bitm{}Ryde, F. \& Pe'er, A., 2008, arXiv:0811.4135v1, submitted
643: to ApJ
644:
645: \bitm{} Thompson, C., \Meszaros, P. \& Rees, M. J., 2007, ApJ,
646: 666, 1012
647:
648: \bitm{} Waxman E. and Bahcall, J. 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett. { 78},
649: 2292
650:
651: \bitm{} Waxman, E. and Bahcall, J., 1999, Phys. Rev. D {59},
652: 023002
653:
654: \bitm{} Waxman, E. and Bahcall, J. 2001, Astrophys. J., {541}, 707
655:
656: \end{thebibliography}
657:
658:
659: \end{document}
660: