1: % Susumu revised 1/31/08
2: % Susumu revised 7/5/08
3: % Peter revs 7/4/08
4: % Susumu revised 7/4/08
5: % peter revs 5/25/08
6:
7: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
8: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
9: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
10: %\input{colordvi.tex}
11:
12: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
13: \usepackage{color}
14: %\usepackage{amsmath}
15: %\slugcomment{Draft writing}
16: \shorttitle{Prompt GeV-TeV Emission from Proton-Dominated GRBs}
17: \shortauthors{Asano, Inoue \& M\'esz\'aros}
18:
19: \input{colordvi.tex}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \title{
24: Prompt High-Energy Emission from Proton-Dominated Gamma-Ray Bursts}
25: \author{\scshape Katsuaki Asano\altaffilmark{1},
26: %\textcolor{blue}{
27: Susumu Inoue\altaffilmark{2}, and
28: %\textcolor{red}{
29: Peter M\'esz\'aros\altaffilmark{3}}
30: \email{asano@phys.titech.ac.jp, inoue@tap.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp, nnp@astro.psu.edu}
31:
32: \altaffiltext{1}{Interactive Research Center of Science, %Graduate School of Science,
33: Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan}
34: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, %Graduate School of Science,
35: Kyoto University, Oiwake-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan}
36: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics;
37: Department of Physics;
38: Center for Particle Astrophysics;
39: Pennsylvania State University,
40: University Park, PA 16802}
41:
42: \date{Submitted; accepted}
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45: The prompt emission of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs)
46: is widely thought to be radiation from accelerated electrons,
47: but an appreciably larger amount of energy could be carried by accelerated protons,
48: particularly if GRBs are the sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs).
49: We model the expected photon spectra for such ``proton-dominated'' GRBs in the internal
50: shock scenario through Monte Carlo simulations,
51: accounting for various processes related to high-energy electrons and protons.
52: Besides proton and muon synchrotron components, emission from photomeson-induced
53: secondary pair cascades becomes crucial, generally enhancing the
54: GeV-TeV and/or eV-keV photons and offering a signature of UHE protons.
55: In some cases, it can overwhelm the primary electron component
56: and result in GRBs peaking in the 10 MeV - 1 GeV range, which may be relevant
57: to some bursts discussed in a recent re-analysis of EGRET TASC data.
58: The dependence of the spectra on key quantities such as the bulk Lorentz factor,
59: magnetic field and proton-to-electron ratio is nontrivial due to the nonlinear
60: nature of cascading and the interplay of electron- and proton-induced components.
61: Observations by {\it Fermi}, ground-based telescopes and other facilities
62: should test these expectations and provide critical constraints on the proton
63: acceleration efficiency.
64: \end{abstract}
65:
66: \keywords{cosmic rays --- gamma rays: bursts --- gamma rays: theory --- radiation mechanisms: nonthermal}
67:
68: \maketitle
69:
70:
71: \section{Introduction}
72: \label{sec:intro}
73:
74: The prompt emission of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) is believed to arise
75: from ultrarelativistic outflows with bulk Lorentz factors $\Gamma \ga100$
76: \citep[see, e.g., reviews by][]{pir05,mes06}.
77: In the popular internal shock model,
78: collisions among inhomogeneities within the flow lead to formation of shocks
79: that convert a fraction of the bulk kinetic energy into Fermi-accelerated relativistic electrons,
80: whose synchrotron emission powers the observed MeV-band gamma-rays \citep{ree94}.
81: Initially, most of the kinetic energy as well as the internal energy generated via shock dissipation
82: are likely carried by protons,
83: so such models entail the operation of a physical mechanism
84: that transfers energy from protons to electrons on sufficiently short timescales.
85: This presumably occurs via collective electromagnetic processes,
86: as simple Coulomb collisions may be too slow.
87: A general problem in collisionless shock theory and GRB models in particular
88: is that this mechanism is poorly understood,
89: and one must frequently resort to a phenomenological parametrization.
90: In view of the large observed energy in MeV gamma rays,
91: the efficiency of proton-to-electron energy transfer is usually considered to be high.
92: However, this is by no means physically guaranteed.
93: In the case of supernova remnant shocks,
94: the total energy in accelerated electrons is often constrained observationally
95: to be much less than in protons \citep[e.g.][]{aha06}.
96: Since we do not yet understand the nature and total energy budget of the central engine,
97: we cannot readily exclude the possibility
98: that GRBs actually contain a significantly larger amount of energy in protons
99: compared to that radiated by the accelerated electrons.
100:
101: Furthermore, a natural expectation is that the shocked protons are also Fermi-accelerated.
102: The physical conditions in internal shocks
103: may allow maximum energies $\ga 10^{20}$ eV,
104: so GRBs are potential sources of the observed ultra-high-energy cosmic rays
105: \citep[UHECRs;][]{wax95,vie95,mil96}.
106: The total energy in accelerated protons that must be supplied per burst
107: depends on a number of uncertain factors (see also App. B of \citet{mur08}).
108: The required local UHECR emissivity at proton energy $\varepsilon_p \sim 10^{19}$ eV
109: is $\varepsilon_p^2 d\dot{N}_p/d\varepsilon_p \simeq 0.8 \times 10^{44}\ {\rm erg\ Mpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ \citep{wax98,der07}.
110: Post-{\it SWIFT} estimates of the local rate of long GRBs
111: range from $0.2-1\ {\rm Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ if the GRB rate is proportional to the star formation rate,
112: down to $\sim 0.05\ {\rm Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ if the GRB rate evolves more strongly with redshift,
113: which may be observationally favored \citep[e.g.][]{dai06,le07,gue07}.
114: Assuming a power-law proton spectrum with index $p_p=2$,
115: the necessary isotropic-equivalent energy per burst
116: in accelerated protons integrated over $\varepsilon_p \sim 10^9 - 10^{20}$ eV
117: is $E_{\rm p} \sim 2 \times 10^{54} - 3 \times 10^{55}$ erg,
118: which is approximately independent of the actual beaming factor.
119: Steeper spectra and hence even larger $E_{\rm p}$ are called for
120: if GRBs also contribute significantly to CRs below $10^{19}$ eV \citep{wic04}.
121: To be compared is the corresponding energy in accelerated electrons $E_{\rm e}$,
122: which can be roughly equated with the observed, isotropic-equivalent
123: MeV gamma-ray energy $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}$,
124: typically $\sim 10^{53}$ erg and up to $\sim 10^{54}$ erg
125: in the $1-10^4$ keV rest-frame band \citep{koc08}.
126: Thus, in order for GRBs to be viable sources of UHECRs,
127: the latest observations point to a highly proton-dominated energy budget,
128: $E_{\rm p}/E_{\rm e} \ga 10 - 100$.
129: The observed heterogeneity of GRBs also suggests that
130: not all bursts may be equally efficient UHECR accelerators,
131: in which case even higher $E_{\rm p}/E_{\rm e}$ may be warranted
132: for a subset of the bursts.
133:
134: It is therefore of great interest whether such ``proton-dominated'' GRBs
135: can be diagnosed observationally.
136: A promising window is GeV-TeV gamma-rays,
137: where distinctive signatures of UHE proton acceleration may show up,
138: such as synchrotron emission from protons, muons or
139: secondary particles injected via photomeson interactions
140: \citep[e.g.][hereafter AI07]{vie97,boe98,gup07,asa07}.
141:
142: AI07 recently undertook a detailed investigation of such emission processes
143: utilizing a comprehensive Monte Carlo code.
144: However, having assumed that the accelerated protons do not carry excessive extra energy,
145: their study was restricted to $E_{\rm p}/E_{\rm e}=1$.
146: In view of the above possibilities, here we follow and extend the work of AI07 to $E_{\rm p}/E_{\rm e} > 1$.
147: The results, which are often qualitatively and drastically different from AI07,
148: are discussed in relation to existing and upcoming observations.
149: Note that high-energy emission from proton-dominated GRBs
150: has been discussed previously in different contexts \citep[e.g.][]{tot98,asa03}.
151:
152: After a recap of our formulation in \S \ref{sec:model},
153: we discuss the results and their observational implications
154: in \S \ref{sec:results} and \S \ref{sec:obs}, respectively,
155: and conclude in \S \ref{sec:conc}.
156:
157:
158: \section{Model and Methods}
159: \label{sec:model}
160:
161: We briefly summarize the model and methods of AI07,
162: which should be consulted for more details.
163: In accord with the internal shock paradigm,
164: the emitting region corresponding to an individual pulse in the prompt light curve
165: is taken to be a homogeneous shell expanding with $\Gamma$
166: at radii $R$ from the central engine.
167: The comoving width of the shell is $l=R/\Gamma$
168: and the pulse timescale in the observer frame is $\Delta t=R/\Gamma^2 c$,
169: as long as $R$ exceeds the shell spreading radius \citep{mes93},
170: which is always the case here.
171: Shock dynamics and time variability are not explicitly treated,
172: so our results should be interpreted as the time-averaged spectra for each pulse.
173:
174: With given injection of accelerated electrons and protons
175: in magnetic field $B$, we solve self-consistently
176: for the distribution of particles and photons in the shell using Monte Carlo techniques.
177: The time steps are always taken to be sufficiently shorter
178: than the particle cooling timescales \citep{asa05}.
179: In addition to synchrotron and inverse Compton (IC) emission from all particles,
180: our code includes synchrotron self-absorption, cascade processes with
181: photon-photon ($\gamma \gamma$) production of electron-positron pairs ($e^\pm$)
182: and Klein-Nishina regime Compton scattering,
183: as well as proton-induced processes such as photomeson ($p\gamma$) interactions
184: and secondary pion, muon and pair injection.
185: We adopt experimental results for the cross sections of
186: $p \gamma \to n \pi^+$, $p \pi^0$, $n \pi^+ \pi^0$ and $p \pi^+ \pi^-$,
187: while $p \gamma \to p \pi^0 \pi^0$ is neglected in view of its small cross section.
188: In case the primary proton is converted to a neutron,
189: we assume that it continues to interact with photons in the shell
190: during the comoving expansion timescale $t_{\rm exp}=l/c$.
191: We do not acccount for the minor contribution from neutron-decay electrons \citep{raz06}.
192: More details on the treatment of meson production and their decay products
193: can be found in \citet{asa05} and \citet{asa06}.
194:
195: Furthermore, we now account for
196: the Bethe-Heitler (BH) pair production process ($p \gamma \to p e^+ e^-$),
197: whose cross section and inelasticity are taken from \citet{cho92}.
198: In the present context, the proton energy loss is always dominated by photopion production,
199: and the huge compactness of GRBs implies that the resultant electromagnetic cascade emission
200: is not very sensitive to the details of particle injection at high energies.
201: Thus, compared to cases neglecting the BH process,
202: we find that its inclusion here only leads to modest enhancements
203: of the secondary photon emission, by at most a few tens of percent.
204:
205: Primary electrons with total energy density $U_{\rm e}$ are injected
206: with a power-law distribution $n_{\rm e}(\gamma_{\rm e}) \propto \gamma_{\rm e}^{-p_{\rm e}}$
207: in the range of Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\rm e,min} \le \gamma_{\rm e} \le \gamma_{\rm e,max}$.
208: The balance of Fermi acceleration and radiative cooling timescales gives
209: $\gamma_{\rm e,max}$.
210: Likewise, protons with total energy density $U_{\rm p}$ are injected with a distribution
211: $n_{\rm p}(\gamma_{\rm p}) \propto \gamma_{\rm p}^{-p_{\rm p}}$
212: in the range $\gamma_{\rm p,min} \le \gamma_{\rm p} \le \gamma_{\rm p,max}$.
213: We obtain $\gamma_{\rm p, max}$
214: by equating $t_{\rm acc}= \gamma_{\rm p} m_p c^2/e B c$,
215: the Fermi acceleration time in relativistic shocks,
216: to $\min(t_{\rm exp}, t_{\rm loss})$, where
217: $t_{\rm loss}$ is the energy loss time due to synchrotron, IC and $p\gamma$ cooling \citep{asa05}.
218: In mildly relativistic internal shocks,
219: $\gamma_{\rm p, min}$ should be of order unity;
220: here we take $\gamma_{\rm p, min}=10$.
221:
222: The injection index for electrons is fiducially chosen to be $p_{\rm e}=2.5$,
223: implying $\beta \simeq 2.25$ for the spectral index above the synchrotron peak energy.
224: This is consistent with the mean of the $\beta$ values measured by BATSE,
225: albeit with a considerable dispersion,
226: from $\beta \la 1.5$ to $\beta \ga 3.0$ \citep{pre00,kan06}.
227: For protons, our fiducial index is $p_{\rm p}=2.0$,
228: appropriate when GRBs contribute to UHECRs only above $10^{19}$ eV \citep{wax98};
229: steeper spectra would increase still the energy demands.
230: Note that the values of $p_{\rm e}$ and $p_{\rm p}$ relevant to our results
231: each correspond to very different energy ranges;
232: GeV-TeV for electrons and 10-100 PeV for protons in the comoving frame.
233: Although the injection spectra for the two species
234: are expected to be the same at low energies where their gyroradii overlap,
235: $p_{\rm e} > p_{\rm p}$ may be effectively realized
236: if the proton spectrum covering 7-8 decades in energy deviates from a pure power-law
237: and becomes concave.
238: This may plausibly occur due to
239: 1) nontrivial geometry and wavelength distribution of magnetic turbulence at the shock \citep{nie06},
240: 2) nonlinear back-reaction of CR pressure on the shock structure \citep{bar91,mal01},
241: or 3) superposition of pre-existing and newly-injected particles
242: originating from different regions in the outflow \citep{bos08}.
243: Nevertheless,
244: in view of the observed spread in $\beta$
245: and the uncertainties associated with obtaining time-integrated spectra,
246: we also discuss cases with $p_{\rm e}=p_{\rm p}$ in \S \ref{sec:equal}.
247:
248: Some combinations of the remaining parameters are constrained so as to reproduce
249: typically observed properties of the MeV emission.
250: For given $B$ and $\Gamma$,
251: $\gamma_{\rm e,min}$ is chosen
252: such that the observed synchrotron peak energy for nearby bursts is
253: $\varepsilon_{\rm pk} = \Gamma \gamma_{\rm e,min}^2 \hbar e B/m_{\rm e} c \simeq 300$ keV.
254: Since the fast-cooling, primary electrons radiate away most of their energy
255: as MeV photons within $\Delta t$,
256: $E_{\rm e} = (4\pi \Gamma^2 R^2 c \Delta t) U_{\rm e}\simeq (4 \pi R^3) U_{\rm e}$
257: can be identified with $E_{\rm sh}$,
258: the observable, isotropic-equivalent MeV pulse energy.
259:
260: Instead of $U_{\rm e}$, $U_{\rm p}$ and $U_{\rm B}=B^2/8\pi$,
261: hereafter we use $\epsilon_{\rm e}$, $\epsilon_{\rm p}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm B}$,
262: the conventional parametrization of the corresponding energies
263: as fractions of the shock-dissipated internal energy \citep[e.g.][]{mes06}.
264: Thus $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=U_{\rm B}/U_{\rm e}$ and
265: $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=U_{\rm p}/U_{\rm e}=E_{\rm p}/E_{\rm e}$.
266: In place of $R$, we choose the observable $\Delta t$ as a parameter
267: and set $\Delta t = 0.1$ s for simplicity.
268: Below we only show the spectra corresponding to single pulses.
269: For bursts composed of $N$ similar pulses,
270: the duration-integrated energy would be simply $N$ times larger,
271: $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}=N E_{\rm sh}$.
272: The set of parameters are then
273: $\Delta t$, $E_{\rm sh}$, $\Gamma$,
274: $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$.
275: All spectra are plotted as observed fluence versus photon energy,
276: assuming a GRB redshift $z=0.1$.
277: Spectral attenuation by intergalactic $\gamma\gamma$ absorption is neglected.
278:
279:
280: \section{Results}
281: \label{sec:results}
282:
283: \subsection{Fiducial Spectral Indices}
284: \label{sec:fiducial}
285:
286: First we discuss different cases with our fiducial values of $p_{\rm e}=2.5$ and $p_{\rm p}=2.0$.
287: As mentioned above, $\varepsilon_{\rm pk}$ is chosen to have the typically observed value of 300 keV.
288: Prompt emission spectra of single pulses
289: for $E_{\rm sh}=10^{51}$ erg, $\Gamma=300$, $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=1$
290: and varying $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e} =10-100$
291: are shown in Figure \ref{fig:fp-dep}.
292: The sharp spectral cutoffs at low and high energies
293: are due to synchrotron self-absorption
294: and $\gamma \gamma$ absorption, respectively.
295: This applies to all spectra below when such sharp cutoffs are seen.
296: Most remarkable is the prominent $e^\pm$ cascade component,
297: i.e. synchrotron and IC emission from secondary $e^\pm$
298: triggered by $p\gamma$ interactions of UHE protons with low energy photons.
299: For the lower range of $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$,
300: primary synchrotron photons constitute the main $p\gamma$ target.
301: However, as the proton content increases,
302: the target photons become dominated by
303: synchrotron emission from the low energy part of the secondary $e^\pm$ themselves.
304: The dependence of the spectra on $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$
305: is therefore nonlinear and not simply proportional, as apparent in Figure \ref{fig:fp-dep}.
306: The secondary photons also affect the primary synchrotron component
307: (dashed curves in Figure \ref{fig:fp-dep})
308: through enhanced IC cooling,
309: even though the injection distribution is unchanged.
310:
311: \begin{figure}[htb!]
312: \centering
313: \epsscale{1.0}
314: \plotone{f1.eps}
315: \caption{
316: Single pulse, prompt photon spectra for varying
317: $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$ as labeled.
318: Other parameters are marked above the figure.
319: Dashed curves denote the primary contribution only,
320: whose peak flux decreases with $\epsilon_{\rm p}$.
321: Dot-dashed curves denote separately the electron synchrotron (labeled eSY)
322: and inverse Compton (eIC) components
323: without $\gamma\gamma$-absorption effects
324: for $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=100$.
325: \label{fig:fp-dep}}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: In general, cascade emission significantly hardens the high-energy spectra.
329: Since secondary $e^\pm$ with Lorentz factors $< \gamma_{\rm e,min}$ can be
330: injected in the cascade, it can also give rise to excess UV-to-X-ray
331: emission lying above the extrapolation of the sub-MeV spectra, as seen
332: for $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=10-30$ in Figure \ref{fig:fp-dep}.
333: The entire spectra thus tends to become flat in $\varepsilon f(\varepsilon)$.
334:
335: The case of $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=100$ is drastically different.
336: Here the proton-induced secondary emission totally overwhelms any primary
337: electron component, resulting in a hard spectrum peaking at 10-100 MeV.
338: Although approximately a single power-law between 100 eV and 30 MeV,
339: in fact it comprises two emission processes by secondary $e^\pm$,
340: mainly synchrotron $\la$ MeV and IC $\ga$ MeV (dot-dashed curves in Figure \ref{fig:fp-dep}).
341: Despite $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=1$,
342: IC can dominate over synchrotron since the energy density of secondary $e^\pm$
343: exceeds both $U_{\rm B}$ and $U_{\rm e}$.
344:
345: The comoving photon density $n_\gamma$ is decisive for both
346: 1) the $\gamma\gamma$ optical depth $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}$
347: and hence the $\gamma\gamma$ cutoff energy $\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}$, and
348: 2) the efficiency of $p\gamma$ interactions and hence the secondary cascade emission.
349: Figure \ref{fig:Esh-dep} displays single pulse spectra
350: for $\Gamma=300$, $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=1$, $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=10$,
351: and varying pulse energies $E_{\rm sh}=10^{49}-10^{51}$ erg.
352: Higher $E_{\rm sh}$ implies higher $n_\gamma$,
353: and consequently stronger $p\gamma$ components as well as lower $\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}$.
354: Since $n_\gamma \propto \Gamma^{-5}$ with other parameters fixed, varying $\Gamma$ has larger effects.
355: Shown in Figure \ref{fig:Gamma-dep} are single pulse spectra
356: for $E_{\rm sh}=10^{50}$ erg, $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=1$, $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=30$
357: and $\Gamma=100-1000$.
358: $\Gamma=100$ allows a high $\varepsilon_{\rm pk}$, cascade-dominated spectrum,
359: even though $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$ is 3 times less than the analogous case in Figure \ref{fig:fp-dep}.
360: Increasing $\Gamma$ leads to higher maximum energies and less cascade contribution.
361: The spectral hardening $\ga 0.1$ GeV for $\Gamma=300$
362: and $\ga 10$ GeV for $\Gamma=1000$ is due to secondary IC.
363:
364: \begin{figure}[htb!]
365: \centering
366: \epsscale{1.0}
367: \plotone{f2.eps}
368: \caption{
369: Single pulse, prompt photon spectra for
370: varying $E_{\rm sh}$ as labeled.
371: Other parameters are marked above the figure.
372: \label{fig:Esh-dep}}
373: \end{figure}
374:
375: \begin{figure}[htb!]
376: \centering
377: \epsscale{1.0}
378: \plotone{f3.eps}
379: \caption{
380: Single pulse, prompt photon spectra for
381: varying $\Gamma$ as labeled.
382: Other parameters are marked above the figure.
383: \label{fig:Gamma-dep}}
384: \end{figure}
385:
386: Thus high proton-dominance does not always result in conspicuous proton-induced emission
387: if $\Gamma$ is sufficiently high.
388: Conversely, the absence of hard, high-energy components
389: does not necessary rule out proton-dominated GRBs.
390: In fact, the conditions most favorable for contributing to UHECRs
391: is that they escape the source with minimal $p\gamma$ losses,
392: which corresponds roughly to the criterion
393: $\Gamma \ga 300 (\Delta t/0.1{\rm s})^{-0.3} (E_{\rm sh}/10^{51} {\rm erg})^{0.2}$ in our model (AI07).
394: On the other hand, $\Gamma$ can be observationally constrained
395: through its strong influence on $\varepsilon_{\gamma\gamma}$ \citep[e.g.][AI07]{lit01}.
396: Since the pulse energy $E_{\rm sh}$ and timescale $\Delta t$ are also measurable,
397: we may hope to identify bursts where $p\gamma$ losses are likely to be efficient,
398: and then constrain $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$ from the high-energy spectra,
399: although some degeneracy with $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$ will remain.
400:
401: Figure \ref{fig:fB-dep} shows single pulse spectra for
402: $E_{\rm sh}=10^{51}$ erg, $\Gamma=300$, $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=30$
403: and varying $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=0.1-10$.
404: The $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=1$ case is the same as in Figure \ref{fig:fp-dep}.
405: Higher $B$ causes steeper spectra with stronger secondary synchrotron relative to secondary IC,
406: while lower $B$ is vice-versa and produces a 100 MeV peak spectrum.
407: However, the dependence on $B$ can also be nontrivial.
408: In Figure \ref{fig:fB-dep2},
409: we show spectra for $E_{\rm sh}=10^{51}$ erg, $\Gamma=1000$,
410: $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=100$,
411: and varying $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=0.1-100$
412: (note that $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm p} \le 1$).
413: The higher $\Gamma$ allows spectra extending into the TeV regime,
414: but renders $p\gamma$ processes inefficient despite the high proton-dominance.
415: All cases exhibit spectral bumps around 0.1-1 TeV, but their origins are quite different.
416: For $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e} \la 1$, this is due to secondary $e^\pm$ IC,
417: which is weaker for higher $B$.
418: However, when $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e} \ga 10$, the bump is stronger again,
419: owing to the appearance of synchrotron emission from protons and muons,
420: their ratio being roughly 2 to 1 for $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=10$
421: (dot-dashed curves in Figure \ref{fig:fB-dep2}).
422: For $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=100$,
423: we obtain a pronounced proton synchrotron TeV peak,
424: as well as enhanced emission at lower energies
425: from synchrotron radiation by $e^\pm$ produced via $\gamma\gamma$ absorption.
426:
427: \begin{figure}[htb!]
428: \centering
429: \epsscale{1.0}
430: \plotone{f4.eps}
431: \caption{
432: Single pulse, prompt photon spectra for
433: varying $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$ as labeled.
434: Other parameters are marked above the figure.
435: Dashed curves denote the primary components only,
436: whose peak flux decreases with $\epsilon_{\rm B}$.
437: \label{fig:fB-dep}}
438: \end{figure}
439:
440: \begin{figure}[htb!]
441: \centering
442: \epsscale{1.0}
443: \plotone{f5.eps}
444: \caption{
445: Single pulse, prompt photon spectra
446: varying $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$ as labeled.
447: Other parameters are marked above the figure.
448: Dot-dashed curves denote separately the electron synchrotron (eSY),
449: proton synchrotron (pSY) and muon synchrotron ($\mu$SY) components
450: without $\gamma\gamma$-absorption effects
451: for $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=10$ and 100.
452: \label{fig:fB-dep2}}
453: \end{figure}
454:
455:
456: \subsection{Equal Proton and Electron Indices}
457: \label{sec:equal}
458:
459: We now consider situations with $p_{\rm e}=p_{\rm p}$,
460: as would occur if the proton spectrum was a single power-law over its entire energy range.
461: Similar to the above,
462: Figure \ref{fig:index} testifies that
463: the spectrum for $\epsilon_{\rm p}/\epsilon_{\rm e}$=30 and $p_{\rm e}=p_{\rm p}$=2.0
464: can result in a hard GRB with photon index $\sim 2$ up to 10 GeV.
465: It is interesting to note that in such cases,
466: the spectral shape around the MeV peak alone
467: may not always reveal the correct value of $p_{\rm e}$.
468: However, for $p_{\rm e}=p_{\rm p}=2.2$,
469: the fraction of UHE protons and the associated cascade emission
470: is greatly diminished, except for a slight distortion of the spectrum above 100 MeV.
471: The proton contribution becomes totally negligible for $p_{\rm e}=p_{\rm p}=2.5$,
472: for which neither UHECRs nor neutrinos are significantly generated at any rate.
473:
474: \begin{figure}[htb!]
475: \centering
476: \epsscale{1.0}
477: \plotone{f6.eps}
478: \caption{
479: Single pulse, prompt photon spectra for varying values of $p_{\rm e}=p_{\rm p}$ as labeled.
480: Other parameters are marked above the figure.
481: Thick and thin dashed curves denote the primary components only,
482: for $p_{\rm e}=p_{\rm p}$=2.0 and 2.2, respectively.
483: \label{fig:index}}
484: \end{figure}
485:
486:
487: \section{Observational Implications}
488: \label{sec:obs}
489:
490: A unique property of proton-dominated GRBs is that their photon spectra
491: can sometimes manifest very high peak energies in the 10 MeV-1 GeV range
492: due to $p\gamma$ cascade emission
493: (Figures \ref{fig:fp-dep},\ref{fig:Gamma-dep},\ref{fig:fB-dep},\ref{fig:index}).
494: This seems at variance with commonly observed values of
495: $\varepsilon_{\rm pk} \sim$ 0.1-1 MeV \citep{kan06}.
496: However, through a recent re-analysis of EGRET TASC data,
497: \citet{kan08} reported a GRB with apparently very high $\varepsilon_{\rm pk} > 170$ MeV,
498: as well as a few others with significant high-energy excess \citep[see also][]{gon03}.
499: Some studies have also indicated potential observational biases against BATSE detections
500: of high $\varepsilon_{\rm pk}$ \citep{llo99}.
501: At this moment, it is unclear how often such high $\varepsilon_{\rm pk}$ bursts occur,
502: and whether they are relevant to the proton-dominated cases discussed here,
503: or simply reflect a primary synchrotron peak energy that is much higher than average
504: (rather than the values we have assumed here).
505: In any case, the existence and nature of such bursts
506: will be definitively probed through ongoing observations
507: by {\it Fermi} \citep{omo06} and AGILE \citep{lon07}.
508: Note that it is also conceivable that some GRBs possess
509: conservative proton energies, say $E_{\rm p} \sim 10^{53}$ erg,
510: but with $E_{\rm p}/E_{\rm e} \gg 1$ so that the MeV emission is relatively weak.
511: Even if unimportant for UHECRs (\S \ref{sec:intro}),
512: new generation satellites should also probe such MeV-weak bursts.
513:
514: The $p\gamma$ cascade can also induce excess low-energy emission
515: (Figures \ref{fig:fp-dep},\ref{fig:Esh-dep},\ref{fig:fB-dep}),
516: which do not seem typical of known GRBs.
517: However, they may be relevant for some BATSE bursts
518: with soft excess components \citep{pre96},
519: or possibly a fraction of the X-ray rich GRBs \citep{sak05}.
520: {\it Fermi} and AGILE observations of the accompanying high-energy
521: excess will provide a test.
522:
523: TeV detections of GRBs have yet to be achieved \cite[e.g.][]{atk05,alb07,hor07,aha09},
524: but some of the components discussed above may be eventually observed
525: by current ground-based facilities such as
526: MAGIC (II), HESS (II), VERITAS, CANGAROO III,
527: or the future projects CTA, AGIS, HAWC, etc.
528: For example, MAGIC may detect the luminous proton synchrotron emission
529: for $\epsilon_{\rm B}/\epsilon_{\rm e}=100$ in Figure \ref{fig:fB-dep2}
530: at 0.1 TeV beyond $z \sim 1$, assuming $E_{\gamma,{\rm iso}}=10^{53}$ erg
531: and the latest estimates of intergalactic $\gamma\gamma$ absorption \citep{alb08}.
532:
533: Distinguishing between primary electron IC
534: and proton-induced emission components may not be easy from the spectral shape alone.
535: However, since the synchrotron and/or photomeson cooling timescales for UHE protons
536: are considerably longer than the cooling timescales for GeV-TeV emitting primary electrons,
537: we can expect important differences in their variability properties,
538: which should provide further observational clues.
539: Although this work was limited to time-averaged pulse spectra,
540: a desirable next step is to perform explicitly time-dependent calculations.
541:
542:
543: \section{Conclusions and Outlook}
544: \label{sec:conc}
545:
546: Proton-dominated GRBs are motivated by physical considerations of particle acceleration
547: in collisionless shocks, as well as their potential to be the origin of UHECRs.
548: In GRB UHECR scenarios, the spectral index for protons at UHE
549: must generally be harder than the typical indices for electrons emitting
550: in the multi-MeV range,
551: which may be possible depending on the physics of particle acceleration, cooling
552: and/or shock formation, as discussed in \S \ref{sec:model}.
553: Characteristic emission signatures can then result, such as
554: high peak energy bursts and/or excess low-energy emission
555: from photomeson-triggered pair cascades,
556: or luminous spectral bumps from proton synchrotron emission.
557: If the indices for electrons and protons at the respective energies are equal,
558: proton-related components may still be visible as long as the index $\la 2.2$,
559: but not for steeper spectra.
560: Through detailed observations of spectra and variability,
561: we may hope to disentangle the proton-induced components
562: from the competing emission process of inverse Compton from primary electrons.
563:
564: Other observable consequences of proton-dominated GRBs
565: may include contributions to Galactic CRs \cite[e.g.][]{wic04}
566: and the diffuse high-energy neutrino background \citep[e.g.][]{mur07}.
567:
568: We note that if some GRBs actually emit stronger GeV-TeV components
569: than previously expected as discussed here,
570: they could play an increased role
571: in probing high-$z$ intergalactic radiation fields (Inoue et al., in prep.)
572: as well as intergalactic magnetic fields \cite[][and references therein]{ich08}.
573:
574:
575:
576: \begin{acknowledgments}
577: We thank Chuck Dermer for very informative correspondence,
578: and Kohta Murase for valuable comments.
579: Support is acknowledged from
580: NSF PHY 0757155, NASA NNX08AL40G,
581: Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. 19047004 and 19540283,
582: as well as the Global COE Program
583: "The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence"
584: from the Ministry of E.C.S.S.T. (MEXT) of Japan.
585: \end{acknowledgments}
586:
587: %\clearpage
588:
589:
590: \begin{thebibliography}{}
591: \bibitem[Aharonian et al. (2006)]{aha06}
592: Aharonian, F. A. et al. 2006, \aap, 449, 223
593: \bibitem[Aharonian et al. (2009)]{aha09}
594: Aharonian, F. A. et al. 2009, \aap, submitted, arXiv:0901.2187
595: \bibitem[Albert et al. (2007)]{alb07}
596: Albert, J. et al. 2007, \apj, 667, 358
597: \bibitem[Albert et al. (2008)]{alb08}
598: Albert, J. et al. 2008, Science, 320, 1752
599: %\bibitem[Amati (2006)]{ama06}
600: %Amati, L. 2006, \mnras, 372, 233
601: \bibitem[Asano (2005)]{asa05}
602: Asano, K. 2005, \apj, 623, 967
603: \bibitem[Asano \& Inoue (2007)]{asa07}
604: Asano, K., \& Inoue, S. 2007, \apj, 671, 645 (AI07)
605: %\bibitem[Asano \& Kobayashi(2003)]{asa03b}
606: %Asano, K., \& Kobayashi, S. 2003, \pasj, 55, 579
607: \bibitem[Asano \& Nagataki (2006)]{asa06}
608: Asano, K., \& Nagataki, S. 2006, \apjl, 640, L9
609: \bibitem[Asano \& Takahara(2003)]{asa03}
610: Asano, K., \& Takahara, F. 2003, \pasj, 55, 433
611: \bibitem[Atkins et al. (2005)]{atk05}
612: Atkins, R. et al. 2005, \apj, 630, 996
613: %\bibitem[Band et al. (1993)]{ban93}
614: %Band, D. et al. 1993, \apj, 413, 281
615: \bibitem[Baring \& Kirk (1991)]{bar91}
616: Baring, M., \& Kirk, J. 1991, \aap, 241, 329
617: \bibitem[Bosnjak \& Daigne (2008)]{bos08}
618: Bosnjak, Z., \& Daigne, F., \aap, submitted, arXiv:0811.2956
619: \bibitem[B\"ottcher \& Dermer (1998)]{boe98}
620: B\"ottcher, M., \& Dermer, C. D. 1998, \apj, 499, L131
621: \bibitem[Chodorowski et al. (1992)]{cho92}
622: Chodorowski, M. J., Zdziarski, A. A., \& Sikora, M. 1992, \apj, 400, 181
623: \bibitem[Daigne et al. (2006)]{dai06}
624: Daigne, F., Rossi, E., \& Mochkovitch, R., \mnras, 372, 1034
625: \bibitem[Dermer (2007)]{der07}
626: Dermer, C. D. 2007, arXiv:0711.2804
627: \bibitem[Gonz\'alez et al. (2003)]{gon03}
628: Gonz\'alez, M. M. et al. 2003, \nat, 424, 749
629: \bibitem[Guetta \& Piran (2007)]{gue07}
630: Guetta, D., \& Piran, T. S. 2007, JCAP, 07, 003
631: \bibitem[Gupta \& Zhang (2007)]{gup07}
632: Gupta, N., \& Zhang, B., 2007, \mnras, 380, 78
633: \bibitem[Horan et al. (2007)]{hor07}
634: Horan, D. et al. 2007, \apj, 655, 396
635: \bibitem[Ichiki et al. (2008)]{ich08}
636: Ichiki, K., Inoue, S., \& Takahashi, K., \apj, 682, 127 %arXiv:0711.1589
637: \bibitem[Kaneko et al. (2006)]{kan06}
638: Kaneko, Y. et al.
639: 2006, \apjs, 166, 298
640: \bibitem[Kaneko et al. (2008)]{kan08}
641: Kaneko, Y. et al. 2008, \apj, 677, 1168
642: \bibitem[Kocevski \& Butler (2008)]{koc08}
643: Kocevski, D., \& Butler, N. 2008, \apj, 680, 531
644: \bibitem[Le \& Dermer (2007)]{le07}
645: Le, T., \& Dermer, C. D. 2007, \apj, 661, 394
646: \bibitem[Lithwick \& Sari (2001)]{lit01}
647: Lithwick, Y., \& Sari, R. 2001, \apj, 555, 540
648: \bibitem[Lloyd \& Petrosian (1999)]{llo99}
649: Lloyd, N., \& Petrosian, V. 1999, \apj, 511, 550
650: \bibitem[Longo et al. (2007)]{lon07}
651: Longo, F. et al. 2007, AIP Conf. Proc., 906, p.147
652: \bibitem[Malkov \& Drury (2001)]{mal01}
653: Malkov, M. A., \& Drury, L. O'C. 2001, Rep. Prog. Phys., 64, 429
654: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros et al., 1993]{mes93}
655: M\'esz\'aros, P., Laguna, P., \& Rees, M. J., 1993, \apj, 414, 181
656: \bibitem[M\'esz\'aros (2006)]{mes06}
657: M\'esz\'aros, P. 2006, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 2259
658: \bibitem[Milgrom \& Usov (1996)]{mil96}
659: Milgrom, M. \& Usov, V. 1996, Astropart. Phys., 4, 365
660: \bibitem[Murase (2007)]{mur07}
661: Murase, K. 2007, \prd, 76, 123001
662: \bibitem[Murase et al. (2008)]{mur08}
663: Murase, K., Ioka, K., Nagataki, S., \& Nakamura, T.
664: 2008, \prd, 78, 023005 %in press, arXiv:0801.2861
665: \bibitem[Niemiec et al. (2006)]{nie06}
666: Niemiec, J., Ostrowski, M., \& Pohl, M. 2006, \apj, 650, 1020
667: \bibitem[Omodei (2006)]{omo06}
668: Omodei, N. astro-ph/0603762
669: \bibitem[Piran (2005)]{pir05}
670: Piran, T. 2005, Rev. Mod. Phys., 76, 1143
671: \bibitem[Preece et al. (1996)]{pre96}
672: Preece, R. D. et al. 1996, \apj, 473, 310
673: \bibitem[Preece et al. (2000)]{pre00}
674: Preece, R. D. et al. 2000, \apjs, 126, 19
675: \bibitem[Razzaque \& M\'esz\'aros (2006)]{raz06}
676: Razzaque, S. \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 2006, JCAP, 6, 006
677: \bibitem[Rees \& M\'esz\'aros (1994)]{ree94}
678: Rees, M. J., \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 1994, \apj, 430, L93
679: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. (2005)]{sak05}
680: Sakamoto, T. et al. 2005, \apj, 629, 311
681: \bibitem[Totani (1998)]{tot98}
682: Totani, T. 1998, \apj, 509, L81
683: \bibitem[Vietri (1995)]{vie95}
684: Vietri, M. 1995, \apj, 453, 883
685: \bibitem[Vietri (1997)]{vie97}
686: Vietri, M. 1997, \prl, 78, 4328
687: \bibitem[Waxman (1995)]{wax95}
688: Waxman, E. 1995, \prl, 75, 386
689: \bibitem[Waxman \& Bahcall (1998)]{wax98}
690: Waxman, E. \& Bahcall, J. 1998, \prd, 59, 023002
691: \bibitem[Wick et al. (2004)]{wic04}
692: Wick, S. D., Dermer, C. D., \& Atoyan, A. 2004, Astropart. Phys., 21, 125
693: %\bibitem[Zhang \& M\'esz\'aros (2002)]{zha02}
694: %Zhang, B., \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 2002, \apj, 581, 1236
695: \end{thebibliography}
696:
697: \end{document}
698:
699:
700:
701:
702:
703:
704:
705:
706:
707:
708: