1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
5:
6: \documentclass[10pt]{emulateapj}
7: \usepackage{apjfonts}
8:
9:
10:
11: \newcommand{\pfrac}[2]{\left(\frac{#1}{#2}\right)}
12: \newcommand{\gmr}{$\gamma$-ray~}
13: \newcommand{\gmrs}{$\gamma$-rays~}
14: \def\eps{\epsilon}
15: \def\d{{\rm d}}
16:
17:
18: %\slugcomment{}
19:
20: \shorttitle{Prompt GeV emission from GRBs} \shortauthors{Li}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \title{Prompt GeV Emission from Residual Collisions in Gamma-Ray Burst Outflows: Evidence from Fermi Observations of GRB 080916c}
25:
26: \author{Zhuo Li\altaffilmark{1,2}}
27:
28: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China}
29: \altaffiltext{2}{Kavli Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Peking University,
30: Beijing 100871, China}
31:
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: The \gmrs from \gmr bursts (GRBs) are believed to be produced by
35: internal shocks driven by small timescale, $\sim1$~ms, variation
36: in the GRB outflows, and a pair-production spectral cutoff is
37: generally expected around the GeV range. However, the observed
38: optical flashes accompanying GRBs suggest that the delayed
39: residual collisions due to large timescale variation continue to
40: accelerate electrons. We show here that the inverse-Compton (IC)
41: scattering of the prompt \gmrs by these residual internal shock
42: electrons leads to a high energy emission beyond the previously
43: thought spectral cutoff, in agreement with the previous detections
44: of GeV photons by EGRET in several GRBs in conjunction with MeV
45: emission. We expect a spectral break due to the transition from
46: the primary to residual internal shock emission at the previously
47: thought spectral cutoff, and expect systematic time delays of high
48: energy photons relative to MeV emission, the discovery of which
49: would provide stringent constraint on the outflow properties, but
50: requires large enough collection of high energy photons by, e.g.,
51: Fermi and AGILE satellites.
52:
53: The recent Fermi-detected bright GRB 080916c unambiguously shows
54: the shifting of the prompt emission toward later times as the
55: photon energy increases. The second-scale shifting at >100 MeV is
56: much longer than the MeV variability time, as predicted in the
57: residual collision model. The observations imply that there should
58: be emission above 70 GeV in the source frame, which may not be
59: produced by primary internal shocks but by IC emission in residual
60: collisions. With the method involving time delays of high energy
61: emission, the bulk Lorentz factor of GRB 080916c is determined to
62: be $\Gamma\sim300$.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \keywords{acceleration of particles --- magnetic fields --- shock waves ---
66: gamma-rays: bursts}
67:
68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
69: \section{Introduction}
70: The prompt MeV \gmrs from a GRB are well believed to be produced
71: by a unsteady outflow which causes internal collisions between
72: different parts with various velocities, leading to kinetic energy
73: dissipation \citep{PX94,RM94}\citep[see, however,][]{LB03,NK08}.
74: The internal shock model can naturally explain both the
75: non-thermal spectra and the complicated light curves of GRBs. The
76: observed temporal variabilities of \gmr emission are believed to
77: be reflecting the activities of the central engine
78: \citep{SP97,Kobayashi97}. The internal shocks are expected to
79: generate/amplify magnetic field and accelerate electrons, leading
80: to MeV \gmrs by synchrotron emission \cite[see, e.g.][for a
81: review]{Waxman rev}.
82:
83: GRBs are mainly observed in MeV range, the properties of high
84: energy, say, $>100$MeV, emission are not well understood, which,
85: however, might be very helpful in constraining the physics of the
86: GRB emission region. For example, the observed $>100$~MeV photons
87: in conjunction with MeV emission by EGRET in several GRBs,
88: suggesting that they can avoid the $\gamma\gamma$ absorption, have
89: leaded to the conclusion that the GRB outflow must be
90: relativistically expanding with a Lorentz factor of $\Gamma\ga100$
91: \citep[e.g.][]{Baring97}\citep[see also][]{Waxman rev}. As the
92: development in high energy \gmr observations, e.g. AGILE and Fermi
93: are being well operated, there are great interests on detecting
94: the high energy pair-production spectral cutoff in order to
95: constrain the size and Lorentz factor of GRB emission region (e.g.
96: \citet{Baring00,{Lithwick01}}; and recent detailed consideration
97: by \cite{Gupta07,Gupta08,Granot08,Murase08}).
98:
99: However, a simple spectral cutoff may not exist.
100: \citet[][hereafter LW08]{LW08} had noticed that the frequently
101: observed prompt optical emission
102: \citep{Akerlof99,Blake05,Vestrand05,Vestrand06,Yost07} is above
103: the expected synchrotron-self absorption limit, and suggests a
104: relatively large size of optical emission region, compared to that
105: of MeV emission. Actually in the context of internal shock models
106: one would expect delayed collisions in the outflow following the
107: small radius collisions driven by smallest timescale variation of
108: the outflow properties, and these delayed collisions can naturally
109: account for the relatively bright optical emission (LW08). The
110: recently detected optical flash from the naked-eye GRB 080319b
111: \citep{Bloom08,DElia08,Racusin08,319bapj} appears to vary rapidly
112: in times and its temporal profile is correlated to the MeV
113: emission in second scales \citep{080319b_delay}, supporting that
114: the prompt optical emission in GRBs is produced by internal shocks
115: within the outflow, i.e. synchrotron emission from residual
116: collisions (Li \& Waxman, in preparation). The electrons in
117: residual collisions mainly cool by IC scattering off the MeV
118: photons, which produces high energy emission at large radii where
119: the optical depth due to pair production is reduced (LW08). We
120: consider here this high energy emission and show that it may
121: "smear" the previously thought pair-production spectral cutoff.
122: But a spectral turnover is still expected, which may be observed
123: by Fermi and AGILE although more difficult to detect than a simple
124: cutoff. The high energy emission from residual collisions is also
125: expected to be delayed relative to MeV \gmrs. It should be noticed
126: that we only focus on the {\em prompt} high energy emission which
127: appears simultaneously with the MeV \gmr emission.
128:
129: We show first in \S 2 the strong $\gamma\gamma$ absorption during
130: the MeV \gmr emitting phase, next discuss in \S 3 the high energy
131: emission from residual collisions, then the model is applied to
132: the recent Fermi detection of GRB 080916c \citep{Fermi916c} in
133: \S4, which might have provided evidences of the model, finally a
134: general discussion on observations is given in \S 5.
135:
136: \section{$\gamma\gamma$ absorption at small radii}
137: Consider a highly relativistic outflow with a bulk Lorentz factor
138: $\Gamma=10^{2.5}\Gamma_{2.5}$. The small timescale variation will
139: lead to strong internal shocks, which produce \gmr emission. Let
140: us denote the radius where \gmrs arise by $R_\gamma$. Due to
141: geometry effect, the observed fastest variability timescale
142: $t_{\rm var}\la10^{-2}$s \citep[e.g.][]{Woods95} in \gmr light
143: curves suggests that the size of \gmr emission region is limited
144: to $R_\gamma\la2\Gamma^2ct_{\rm var}$. If the \gmr emitting
145: electrons are fast cooling (with cooling time shorter than the
146: dynamical time of the outflow), we should take the equality, thus,
147: $R_\gamma\approx6\times10^{13}\Gamma_{2.5}^2t_{\rm var,-2}$cm,
148: where $t_{\rm var}=10^{-2}t_{\rm var,-2}$s. Actually, in the
149: context of internal shock models, we do not expect the magnetic
150: field is generated with energy density much higher than that of
151: accelerated electrons. In order to have synchrotron emission
152: peaking at $\eps_b\sim1$~MeV, as observed in GRBs, the radius of
153: the \gmr emitting region should be small (LW08),
154: $R_\gamma\la10^{13}L_{\rm bol,52}^{1/2}(\eps_b/1~\rm MeV)^{-1}$cm,
155: where $L_{\rm bol}=10^{52}L_{\rm bol,52}\rm erg~s^{-1}$ is the
156: bolometric \gmr luminosity.
157:
158: Let us consider the $\gamma\gamma$ absorption due to pair production inside the GRB
159: source. For a photon of high energy $\varepsilon$ the optical depth to pair-production
160: within the GRB source is given by the product of the pair-production rate,
161: $1/t'_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon)$, and the dynamical time, the time required for
162: significant expansion of the plasma, $t'_d\simeq R_\gamma/\Gamma c$ (primes denote
163: quantities measured in the outflow rest frame),
164: $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon)\simeq R_\gamma/\Gamma
165: ct'_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon)$. $t'_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon)$ depends on the
166: energy density and on the spectrum of the radiation. The (outflow rest frame)
167: radiation energy density is approximately given by $U'_\gamma=L/4\pi
168: R_\gamma^2c\Gamma^2$. The GRB spectrum can typically be described as a broken power
169: law, $dn/d\eps\propto\eps^{-\beta}$, with $\beta\approx-1$ at low energy,
170: $\eps<\eps_b\sim1$~MeV, and $\beta\approx-2$ at $\eps>\eps_b$ \citep{Band93}. High
171: energy photons with energy $\varepsilon'$ exceeding
172: $\varepsilon'_b\equiv2(m_ec^2)^2/\eps'_b$, may produce pairs in interactions with
173: photons of energy exceeding $\eps'=2(m_ec^2)^2/\varepsilon'<\eps'_b$ (the rest frame
174: photon energy $\varepsilon'$ is related to the observed energy by
175: $\varepsilon=\Gamma\varepsilon'$). For $\eps'<\eps'_b$ we have
176: $dn/d\eps'\propto\eps^{\prime-1}$, which implies that the number density of photons
177: with energy exceeding $\eps'$ depends only weakly on energy. Thus, $t_{\gamma\gamma}$
178: is nearly independent of energy for $\varepsilon'>\varepsilon'_b$,
179: $t_{\gamma\gamma}^{\prime -1}\approx(\sigma_T/16)cU'_\gamma/\eps'_b$, which gives
180: \begin{equation}\label{eq:tau}
181: \tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon>\varepsilon_b)\simeq
182: 1.1\times10^2\frac{L_{52}}{t_{\rm var,-2}\Gamma_{2.5}^4} \pfrac{\epsilon_b}{\rm 1~MeV}^{-1}.
183: \end{equation}
184: Note, we have approximated the $\gamma\gamma$ cross section above
185: the pair-production threshold as $3\sigma_T/16$ \citep{Waxman
186: rev}. Also note that as the energy density $U_\gamma'$ (and hence
187: the related luminosity $L$) depends on the energy band considered,
188: the one used in calculating $t_{\gamma\gamma}^{\prime}$ is the
189: energy density below $2\times\eps_b'$. Hereafter, without special
190: emphasis the luminosity $L=10^{52}L_{52}\rm erg\,s^{-1}$ is the
191: so-called MeV luminosity, only corresponding to emission at
192: $<2\times\eps_b$, i.e., $L\equiv\int_0^{2\eps_b}L_{\eps}d\eps$.
193:
194: Photons of lower energy, $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_b$, interact to produce pairs only
195: with photons of energy $\eps'>2(m_ec^2)^2/\varepsilon'>\eps'_b$. Since the number
196: density of these photons drops like $1/\eps'$, we have
197: $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon<\varepsilon_b)\approx
198: (\varepsilon/\varepsilon_b)\tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon>\varepsilon_b)$, i.e.
199: \begin{equation}
200: \tau_{\gamma\gamma}(\varepsilon<\varepsilon_b)\simeq
201: 2.2\times10^{-3}\frac{L_{52}}{t_{\rm var,-2}\Gamma_{2.5}^6}\frac{\varepsilon}{1~\rm MeV}.
202: \end{equation}
203: The optical depth increases as photon energy increases. Photons with high enough
204: energy are absorbed in the emission region. A spectral cutoff is defined by
205: $\tau_{\gamma\gamma}=1$,\footnote{Because a low energy turnover at $\eps_a\sim1$~keV
206: is expected in GRB spectra due to synchrotron self absorption, very high energy
207: photons with $\varepsilon\ga10^{16}L_{52}t_{\rm
208: var,-2}^{-1}\Gamma_{2.5}^{-2}(\eps_a/1\rm ~keV)^{-1}$eV still can escape from the GRB
209: source (e.g. \cite{LW07}; see also \cite{razza04}).}
210: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cut1}
211: \varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(1)}\simeq0.46\frac{t_{\rm
212: var,-2}\Gamma_{2.5}^6}{L_{52}} \rm ~GeV.
213: \end{equation}
214: A comment on the approximation of the $\gamma\gamma$ cross section
215: should be made here. Since both the cross section and the GRB
216: photon spectrum decrease rapidly with photon energy, the
217: approximation is excellent- for a GRB spectrum with
218: $\beta\approx-2$, it precisely produces the optical depth within
219: 2\%, compared to a calculation with full cross section.
220:
221: There is another restriction for the cutoff besides eq.
222: (\ref{eq:cut1}). In deriving the cutoff, eq. (\ref{eq:cut1}), the
223: optical depth is not self-consistently calculated since a GRB
224: spectrum extending to infinity without a high energy cutoff is
225: assumed. Given the two factors that GRB spectrum usually appears
226: to be a steep slope, with the photon number dominated by low
227: energy photons, and that the high ($\varepsilon'>2^{1/2}m_ec^2$)
228: and low ($\varepsilon'<2^{1/2}m_ec^2$) energy photons annihilate
229: each other one by one, we only expect high energy photons might be
230: totally attenuated by low energy ones, other than the other way
231: around. So the cutoff should be $\varepsilon_{\rm
232: cut}'>2^{1/2}m_ec^2$, which is not assured by $\varepsilon_{\rm
233: cut}^{(1)}$ in eq. (\ref{eq:cut1}) ($\varepsilon_{\rm
234: cut}^{(1)}/\Gamma<2^{1/2}m_ec^2$ might happen). We need to define,
235: in the GRB source frame,
236: \begin{equation}
237: \varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(2)}=2^{1/2}\Gamma m_ec^2\simeq0.23\Gamma_{2.5} \rm
238: ~GeV.
239: \end{equation}
240: Note, this condition is also forgotten by many other authors who
241: calculate the cutoff energy assuming a no-cutoff GRB spectrum. The
242: GRB spectral cutoff is, therefore, expected at the maximum between
243: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(1)}$ and $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(2)}$
244: \citep{LS04},
245: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cut}
246: \varepsilon_0\equiv\varepsilon_{\rm cut}(R_\gamma)
247: \simeq\max\left[0.46\frac{t_{\rm var,-2}\Gamma_{2.5}^6}{L_{52}},~0.23\Gamma_{2.5}\right]\rm
248: GeV.
249: \end{equation}
250: A critical Lorentz factor where $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(1)}=\varepsilon_{\rm
251: cut}^{(2)}$ is function of $R_\gamma$ (hence $t_{\rm var}$),
252: \begin{equation}
253: \Gamma_c\simeq280(L_{52}/t_{\rm var,-2})^{1/5}.
254: \end{equation}
255: $\varepsilon_0$ sensitively depends on $\Gamma$ thus detection of
256: the spectral cutoff may be very useful in constraining $\Gamma$,
257: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma_cut}
258: \Gamma=\min\left[360\left(\frac{L_{52}}{t_{\rm var,-2}^{\rm ob}}\frac{\varepsilon_0^{\rm ob}}{\rm
259: 1~GeV}\right)^{1/6}(1+z)^{1/3},~
260: 1390\frac{\varepsilon_0^{\rm ob}}{\rm 1~GeV}(1+z)\right].
261: \end{equation}
262: Here the redshift factor has been included, i.e. $t^{\rm
263: ob}=t(1+z)$ and $\varepsilon^{\rm ob}=\varepsilon/(1+z)$.
264:
265: The extension of GRB spectra to $\ga100$~MeV and the
266: characteristic variability time, $t_{\rm var,-2}\la1$, have
267: implied $\Gamma_{2.5}\gtrsim1$, assuming the $\ga100$~MeV photons
268: are produced in the same time and place as the MeV photons. Since
269: thermal pressure acceleration in the initial fireball can not lead
270: to much larger Lorentz factors, and in internal shock model much
271: larger Lorentz factors would lead to synchrotron emission peaking
272: below MeV band (see discussion in the first paragraph of \S2),
273: $\Gamma_{2.5}\approx1$ is typically adopted \cite[e.g][]{Waxman
274: rev}. The exact values of $\Gamma$ would be determined by the
275: detection of the high energy cutoffs in GRB spectra by, e.g.
276: Fermi. We show below that the situation may be complicated by the
277: delayed large-radius emission from the outflow.
278:
279: \section{Large-radius emission from residual collisions}
280: After the initial strong collisions at small radii driven by the
281: small timescale, $\sim1$~ms, variation in the outflow, there are
282: residual collisions continue to occur when the outflow is
283: expanding to large radii. As the velocity fluctuation in the flow
284: is being smoothed out by the on-going collisions, the delayed
285: collisions become weaker, and the postshock electron energy and
286: magnetic field are smaller, which give rise to synchrotron
287: emission at longer wavelengths. LW08 has well discussed the
288: dynamics of the residual collisions and naturally explained the
289: optical flashes from GRBs by this delayed residual emission. As
290: mentioned in LW08, the energy density in the delayed collisions is
291: dominated by the primary \gmr emission, so that the residual
292: emission is dominated by IC scattering of the prompt \gmr photons.
293: In what follows consider the IC emission.
294:
295: \subsection{Dynamics}
296: Let us approximate the outflow by a sequence of $N\gg1$ individual shells. LW08 has
297: considered the simplified case: the shell masses are equal; the shells are initially
298: separated by a fixed distance $ct_{\rm var}$; the extent of the shells is much smaller
299: than the radius of the outflow; and the Lorentz factors of individual shells are drawn
300: from a random distribution with an average $\Gamma$ and initial variance
301: $\sigma_{\Gamma,0}^2<\Gamma^2$. The model may be more complicated, by adding more
302: degrees of freedom, however LW08 has shown that this simple case naturally accounts
303: for the observed properties of GRB optical flashes. Here we will consider this
304: simplified case. Moreover, we adopt the assumption that two shells merge into a bigger
305: shell after a collision, i.e. the full inelastic collision where the internal energy
306: generated is fully radiated. If the postshock electrons carry an energy close to
307: equipartition and the electrons cool fast, the internal energy is always radiated
308: significantly. In the case of a significant fraction of the internal energy being
309: dissipated in each collision, the dynamical evolution of the outflow has been proven
310: to be similar to the full inelastic case (LW08).
311:
312: In the simple case under consideration, the variance of the velocities of individual
313: shells (in the outflow rest frame) evolves with the outflow radius $R$ as
314: $\sigma_v\propto R^{-1/3}$. The outflow energy that is associated with the fluctuation
315: of shell velocities (in the outflow rest frame) and hence may be dissipated decreases
316: as
317: \begin{equation}
318: E_{\rm fluc}\propto\Gamma\sigma_v^2\propto R^{-2/3}.
319: \end{equation}
320:
321: In general, it is naturally expected that there might be a wide
322: range of variability timescale, $\rm \sim1~ms-10~s$, in the flow
323: properties. Large timescale variabilities might lead to more
324: energy dissipated at large radii. Thus, the slope should be
325: flatter than $-2/3$. If a power-law description, $E_{\rm
326: fluc}\propto R^{-q}$, is still available, one may have $0<q<2/3$.
327: We carry a monte carlo simulation to demonstrate this point in the
328: appendix.
329:
330:
331: \subsection{High energy emission}
332: Based on the dynamical evolution, the emission from the residual collisions can be
333: further predicted. Taking the common assumptions that in internal shocks the postshock
334: electrons and magnetic fields carry fixed fractions, $\eps_e$ and $\eps_B$,
335: respectively, of the postshock internal energy, the characteristic Lorentz factor of
336: postshock electrons (in the outflow comoving frame) scales as
337: $\gamma_i\propto\eps_e\sigma_v^2\propto R^{-2/3}$, and the postshock magnetic field
338: scales as $B^2\propto\eps_B\sigma_v^2n_e\propto R^{-8/3}$ (the particle number density
339: scales as $n_e\propto R^{-2}$).
340:
341: We demonstrate that the electrons in residual collisions lose most
342: of their energy by IC cooling. If the prompt \gmrs last a duration
343: $T$ (observer frame), the plasma is overlapped with these \gmrs
344: until the outflow expands to $R\ga2\Gamma^2cT\simeq(T/t_{\rm
345: var})R_\gamma$. LW08 showed that when the synchrotron emission
346: lies in the optical band, the radius is $R_{\rm
347: opt}\simeq10^2R_\gamma$. For typical observed values $t_{\rm
348: var}\la10^{-2}$s and $T\sim10$s, the optical radius is still
349: relatively small, $R_{\rm opt}<2\Gamma^2cT$. Therefore during the
350: phase of late residual collisions that we concern, the plasma is
351: immersed in the radiation bath of the prompt \gmrs. Both the
352: photon energy density $U_\gamma$ and the particle number density
353: $n_e$ drop as $\propto R^{-2}$ hence the ratio
354: $y=U_\gamma/(B^2/8\pi)\propto\sigma_v^{-2}\propto R^{2/3}$
355: increases with $R$. Because $y\sim1$ in the \gmr producing phase,
356: we have $y>1$ in residual collision phase, so the radiation energy
357: density dominates that of the magnetic field. Let us consider the
358: properties of IC emission.
359:
360: \subsubsection{Spectrum}
361: Consider first the energy band into which energy is radiated. At
362: radius $R$, the prompt \gmr photons with typical energy $\eps_b$
363: are up-scattered by electrons with characteristic Lorentz factor
364: $\gamma_i$ to energy $\varepsilon_{\rm IC}\simeq
365: \lambda\gamma_i^2\eps_b\simeq
366: \lambda\epsilon_e^2(m_p/m_e)^2(R/R_\gamma)^{-4/3}\eps_b$. Here we
367: assume $\gamma_{i,0}\sim \epsilon_e(m_p/m_e)$ as the electron
368: Lorentz factor emitting MeV \gmrs, and $\lambda$ accounts for the
369: correction due to uncertain geometry effect. It will be shown in
370: appendix that the correction factor $\lambda$ is order unity even
371: in the case that the prompt MeV photons are strongly beamed in the
372: rest frame of the outflow at $R$. The characteristic scattered
373: photon energy is
374: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ICph_energy}
375: \varepsilon_{\rm IC}^{\rm ob}\simeq9\lambda\epsilon_e^2\frac{\epsilon_b}{\rm 1~MeV}\pfrac{R}{10^2R_\gamma}^{-4/3}(1+z)^{-1}\rm GeV.
376: \end{equation}
377: The scattering might take place within slight Klein-Nishina
378: regime, $\gamma_i\epsilon_b'/m_ec^2\sim$ a few $>1$, at small
379: radii $R\sim R_\gamma$, where the energy of scattered photons is
380: instead $\varepsilon_{\rm
381: IC}=\Gamma\gamma_im_ec^2=\epsilon_e\Gamma(R/R_\gamma)^{-2/3}m_pc^2\simeq3\times10^2\epsilon_e(R/R_\gamma)^{-2/3}$GeV.
382:
383: Next consider the $\gamma\gamma$ absorption effect on the late
384: residual emission. For GRB outflow with $\Gamma>\Gamma_c$, the
385: initial cutoff energy for the primary emission is determined by
386: the first term in the bracket of eq. (\ref{eq:cut}),
387: $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(1)}$ . Eq. (\ref{eq:cut1})
388: implies that the spectral cutoff energy scales as
389: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\propto R\Gamma^4L^{-1}$, so the cutoff
390: energy increases with $R$ for fixed $L$. We have, for late
391: residual collisions, $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\simeq\varepsilon_0
392: R/R_\gamma$. In the case of GRB outflow with lower Lorentz factor
393: $\Gamma<\Gamma_c$, the cutoff energy is initially a constant,
394: $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(2)}$ (eq. \ref{eq:cut}),
395: until the outflow expands to a radius,
396: \begin{equation}
397: R_m=3\times10^{13}L_{52}\Gamma_{2.5}^{-3}\rm cm
398: \end{equation}
399: (note $R_m>R_\gamma$). At $R>R_m$, the cutoff energy turns to increase with $R$,
400: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\simeq\varepsilon_0 R/R_m$. In both cases of $\Gamma>\Gamma_c$
401: and $\Gamma<\Gamma_c$ the cutoff energy at $R>\max[R_\gamma,\,R_m]$ (i.e,
402: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}>\varepsilon_0$) follows the same expression,
403: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cut evolution}
404: \varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{\rm ob}\simeq50\frac{t_{\rm var,-2}^{\rm ob}\Gamma_{2.5}^6}{L_{52}}\pfrac
405: R{10^2R_\gamma}(1+z)^{-2}\rm GeV.
406: \end{equation}
407: The evolution of $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$ versus $R$ for fixed $L$ is plotted in fig
408: \ref{fig:cutvsR}.
409:
410: \begin{figure}
411: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig1.EPS}
412: \caption{Schematic plot of the attenuated energy evolving with
413: radius. There are two regimes. If the primary collisions that
414: produce MeV emission occur in the regime of $R_\gamma>R_m$ (i.e.
415: $\Gamma>\Gamma_c$), $\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(1)}$
416: and $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\propto R$ later. If $R_\gamma<R_m$
417: ($\Gamma<\Gamma_c$), in the beginning the attenuated energy is a
418: constant, $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}=\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(2)}$ at
419: $R<R_m$, and turns to be $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\propto R$ at
420: $R>R_m$.} \label{fig:cutvsR}
421: \end{figure}
422:
423: Comparing $\varepsilon_{\rm IC}$ and $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$ it
424: can be found that typically $\varepsilon_{\rm IC}>\varepsilon_{\rm
425: cut}$ at small radii, $R\la30R_\gamma$. In this case the bulk IC
426: radiation is absorbed in the source, leading to electromagnetic
427: cascades, and the photons escape until their energies decay to
428: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$. Therefore the bulk high energy radiation
429: is just re-emitted at $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$. On the other hand,
430: $\varepsilon_{\rm IC}<\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$ at large radii
431: $R\ga30R_\gamma$, where only the high energy emission below
432: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$ appears. The emission above
433: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$ is truncated, and undergoes
434: electromagnetic cascades, but does not affect much the apparent
435: spectrum since the photon spectrum decreases rapidly with energy.
436:
437: Finally consider the emission flux. It is straightforward to show
438: that the cooling time of the electrons is short compared to the
439: dynamical time during the late residual collision phase, up to
440: radii $R\sim10^3R_\gamma$. We therefore assume that electrons
441: radiate away all their energy. When $\varepsilon_{\rm
442: IC}>\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$ at small radii, the total electron
443: energy appears at $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\simeq\varepsilon_0$ if
444: $R_\gamma<R<R_m$ or $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\propto R$ if
445: $R>\max[R_\gamma,R_m]$. The observed (time-integrated) IC spectrum
446: at energy $\varepsilon>\varepsilon_0$ would be $\nu F_\nu\propto
447: E_{\rm fluc}|_{\nu_{\rm cut}=\nu}\propto R^{-2/3}|_{\nu_{\rm
448: cut}=\nu}\propto\nu^{-2/3}$ (Here $\nu=\varepsilon/h$).
449:
450: When the outflow expands to large radii where $\varepsilon_{\rm
451: IC}<\varepsilon_{\rm cut}$, we need to consider the electrons
452: accelerated to Lorentz factors larger than the characteristic
453: Lorentz factor $\gamma_i$. Shock acceleration is expected to
454: generate a power-law energy distribution of electrons
455: $dn_e/d\gamma_e\propto\gamma_e^{-p}$ at $\gamma_e>\gamma_i$ with
456: $p\simeq2$ \citep{BE87}. This flat-electron energy distribution,
457: $\gamma_e^2dn_e/d\gamma_e\propto\gamma_e^0$, generates equal
458: amounts of IC energy in logarithmic photon energy intervals, $\nu
459: F_\nu\propto \nu^0$ for $\nu>\nu_{\rm IC}$. So $\nu F_\nu(\nu_{\rm
460: cut})\simeq\nu F_\nu(\nu_{\rm IC})\propto E_{\rm fluc}$. The
461: emission at low energy would be covered by earlier emission, while
462: only the emission at high energy end, i.e. around the cutoff,
463: shows up and interests us. The observed (time-integrated) spectrum
464: would be similar to the $\varepsilon_{\rm IC}>\varepsilon_{\rm
465: cut}$ case, i.e., $\nu F_\nu\propto \nu^{-2/3}$.
466:
467: Thus we expect the observed (time-integrated) prompt spectrum, above the spectral
468: cutoff energy in the prompt \gmr emitting phase, $\varepsilon_0$ (eq. \ref{eq:cut}),
469: to be
470: \begin{equation}\label{eq:spec}
471: \nu F_\nu\propto\nu^{-2/3}, ~~h\nu>\varepsilon_0~~~(\rm simplified ~~case).
472: \end{equation}
473: This fluence spectrum is resulted from summing up all emission
474: components from different radii and times. A schematic plot of the
475: prompt GRB spectrum is shown in fig. \ref{fig:spectrum}. Note, the
476: spectral slope $\nu^{-2/3}$ here is derived from the simple case,
477: which has been confirmed by recent numerical calculation by
478: \cite{Aoi09}. If in general $E_{\rm fluc}\propto R^{-q}$ we would
479: expect the slope to be $\nu F_\nu\propto \nu^{-q}$.
480:
481: Below $\varepsilon_0$ is the observed prompt MeV \gmr spectrum,
482: i.e., typically $\nu F_\nu\propto\nu$ below $\eps_b$ and $\nu
483: F_\nu\propto\nu^0$ between $\eps_b$ and $\varepsilon_0$. Note, the
484: transition of the emission from primary to residual collisions at
485: $\varepsilon_0$ is smooth if $R_\gamma>R_m$, as shown by the
486: dashed dot line. The transition for the case of $R_\gamma<R_m$ is
487: discontinuous as shown by the thick solid line. The power law
488: described by eq. (\ref{eq:spec}) starts with a flux lower than the
489: primary emission at $\varepsilon_0$ by a factor of
490: $(R_m/R_\gamma)^{2/3}$.
491:
492: Some comments should be made here. The spectral form described in
493: eq. (\ref{eq:spec}) holds only on average, especially for the high
494: energy range. In individual GRB events the flux may differ
495: significantly, because, for a small number of shells (and
496: collisions) at large radii, large variations in the late residual
497: collisions should be expected.
498:
499: It should also be noticed that we have assumed the initial
500: variance $\sigma_{\Gamma,0}<\Gamma$, whereas initial condition
501: with $\sigma_{\Gamma,0}>\Gamma$ may lead to more efficient \gmr
502: production \citep[e.g.][]{Blbrdv00} around $R_\gamma$, in which
503: case the ratio between fluxes of primary and residual emission at
504: $\varepsilon_0$ should be larger by a factor of a few\footnote{It
505: is not expected that the initial variance of Lorentz factors is
506: far exceeding the mean, $\sigma_{\Gamma,0}\gg\Gamma$.}, leading to
507: more abrupt transition between the primary and residual emission.
508:
509: One may worry about that the IC emission may be reduced as the
510: seed photons are not isotropic in the shock frame of residual
511: collisions. However, this kind of geometry effects do not play an
512: important role even if the photons are completely collinear
513: \citep{Wang06}. As usually assumed by many authors, suppose that
514: the electrons accelerated in residual collision shocks are
515: isotropic in the rest frame of the outflow, since the tangled
516: magnetic fields in the shock might sufficiently isotropize
517: electrons. Thus an electron is changing its angle $\theta'$ with
518: respect to the photon beam and cooling fast. The IC power of an
519: electron averaged over its cooling time is not different from
520: interacting with isotropic photons. As long as the jet effect is
521: not important to prompt GRB emission ($\theta_{\rm
522: jet}\gg1/\Gamma$), we can furthermore regard the GRB explosion as
523: isotropic, and hence the observer at different angles will observe
524: the same IC emission due to spherical symmetry. Consider both
525: cases of isotropic and anisotropic scatterings, the radiated
526: energy can be assumed to be the same because it is determined by
527: the total electron energy if electrons radiate all their energy
528: rapidly. The outside observers would observe the same fluence in
529: both cases, otherwise one can simply ask where the electron energy
530: have gone, given the same total electron energy. Thus, the IC
531: fluence is not reduced by this geometry effect if electrons are
532: isotropic distributed in the rest frame and radiate all their
533: energy within a dynamic time. Nevertheless, this effect changes
534: the angular distribution of IC emission. In the rest frame the IC
535: power becomes $P_{\rm IC}'\propto(1-\cos\theta')$, although not
536: much different from isotropic distribution. Correspondingly, in
537: the lab frame the ``image'' of the IC emission is different from
538: the isotropic case, i.e. the anglular dependence of the brightness
539: is different, but the angular-integrated fluence is the same.
540:
541:
542: \subsubsection{Time delay}
543: At energy $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$, the emission is mainly
544: contributed by primary collisions at small radius, and arrives at
545: detectors simultaneously with MeV emission. However, for higher
546: energy $\varepsilon>\varepsilon_0$, the emission is produced at
547: relatively large radii, and should have a time delay relative to
548: the primary MeV emission. Since the spectral cutoff energy, where
549: the high energy photons emerge, increases as the outflow expands,
550: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\propto R$ for $\varepsilon_{\rm
551: cut}>\varepsilon_0$ (eq. \ref{eq:cut evolution}), the time delay
552: increases with observed photon energy. For energy
553: $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_{\rm cut}(R)>\varepsilon_0$, the typical
554: radius where photons emerge is
555: $R\simeq[\varepsilon/\varepsilon_0]\max[R_\gamma,\,R_m]=[\varepsilon/\varepsilon_{\rm
556: cut}^{(1)}]R_\gamma$, therefore the related time delay relative to
557: MeV \gmr emission, $\tau_{\rm delay}\simeq
558: (R-R_\gamma)/2\Gamma^2c$, is
559: \begin{equation}\label{eq:delay}
560: \tau_{\rm delay}^{\rm ob}\simeq\frac{\varepsilon}{\varepsilon_{\rm
561: cut}^{(1)}}t_{\rm
562: var}=2.2L_{52}\Gamma_{2.5}^{-6}\frac{\varepsilon^{\rm ob}}{\rm
563: 10^2~GeV}(1+z)^2\rm
564: s~~(for ~\varepsilon^{\rm ob}>\varepsilon_0^{\rm ob}).
565: \end{equation}
566: Thus the emission at $\varepsilon>\varepsilon_0$ is delayed later
567: as $\varepsilon$ increases. A comment is made here that the target
568: photons for scattering may be beamed with respect to electrons,
569: which changes the angular distribution of IC emission, i.e. the
570: maximum IC power may come from a certain angle other than
571: $\theta=0$. This leads to an additional time delay. However, as
572: implied by eq. (\ref{eq:max_angle}), the angle where the maximum
573: power is emitted is smaller than $\pi/2$ in the comoving frame and
574: hence $\theta<1/\Gamma$. The produced time delay is smaller than
575: $\tau_{\rm delay}$, $R\theta^2/2c<R/2\Gamma^2c\sim \tau_{\rm
576: delay}$. Thus we neglect this additional time delay.
577:
578: Eq.\,(\ref{eq:delay}) implies that the detection of time delay
579: $\tau_{\rm delay}$ at $\varepsilon$ helps to determine the Lorentz
580: factor,
581: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma_delay}
582: \Gamma=167L_{52}^{1/6}\pfrac{\varepsilon^{\rm ob}}{1\rm\,GeV}^{1/6}\pfrac{\tau_{\rm delay}^{\rm ob}|_{\varepsilon^{\rm ob}}}{1\,\rm
583: s}^{-1/6}(1+z)^{1/3}.
584: \end{equation}
585: This determination by time delay should be consistent with that by
586: detection of the spectral transition $\varepsilon_0$ between
587: primary and residual emission, eq.\,(\ref{eq:Gamma_cut}).
588:
589: \begin{figure}
590: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig2.EPS}
591: \caption{Schematic plot of the predicted $\nu F_\nu$ spectrum of
592: prompt high energy emission from a GRB. The {\em thin solid} line
593: shows the observed MeV \gmr emission, a broken power law with a
594: break energy at $\eps_b\sim$~MeV, above which the spectrum goes as
595: $\nu F_\nu\propto\nu^0$. The {\em dot} lines mark the break energy
596: $\eps_b$ and the previously thought pair-production spectral
597: cutoff, $\varepsilon_0\sim$~GeV (eq. [\ref{eq:cut}]). The residual
598: collisions at large radii contribute beyond $\varepsilon_0$.
599: Summing up all emission components (the {\em dashed} lines) from
600: different radii and times lead to a spectral slope $\nu
601: F_\nu\propto\nu^{-q}$ ($q$ is the index of the random energy
602: evolution, $E_{\rm fluc}\propto R^{-q}$, and $0<q\leq2/3$). In the
603: simplified case, $q=2/3$ (see the text). Here the {\em thick
604: solid} line corresponds to the outflow satisfying $R_\gamma<R_m$
605: (or $\varepsilon_0\simeq\Gamma m_ec^2$), while the {\em thick
606: dashed dot} line corresponds to $R_\gamma>R_m$
607: ($\varepsilon_0\ga\Gamma m_ec^2$). The $\nu F_\nu$ values in these
608: two are different by a factor of $(R_m/R_\gamma)^{2/3}$. The
609: spectral slope holds up to TeV range, but not higher (see the
610: discussion section). } \label{fig:spectrum}
611: \end{figure}
612:
613:
614: \section{Application: Fermi-LAT GRB 080916c}
615: As the Fermi observational data showed up after the first version
616: of this paper was posted on the
617: archive,\footnote{http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.2932} we now apply the
618: model to the observations.
619:
620: \cite{Fermi916c} reports the measurements of the bright GRB
621: 080916c by Fermi GBM and LAT. The redshift of this burst is
622: $z=4.35$ \citep{afterglow916c}, which implies, with flucence (10
623: keV$-$10 GeV) $\approx2.4\times10^{-4}\rm ~erg\,cm^{-2}$, the
624: largest reported isotropic \gmr energy release, $E_{\rm
625: iso}\simeq9\times10^{54}$erg. The observed GRB duration is
626: $T\approx50$~s, so the bolometric isotropic-equivalent luminosity
627: is $L_{\rm bol}=E_{\rm iso}(1+z)/T\approx10^{54}\rm erg\,s^{-1}$.
628: As the observed peak energy is $\eps_b/(1+z)\sim1$~MeV and the
629: high energy slope is $\beta\approx-2$, the MeV luminosity, defined
630: as the luminosity at $\la2\eps_b$, is $L\approx L_{\rm
631: bol}/\ln(10\,\rm GeV/1\,MeV)=10^{53}\rm erg\,s^{-1}$. The LAT
632: detected 145 photons at $>100$~MeV, within which 14 are beyond 1
633: GeV, during the first 100 s after the trigger. The brightness may
634: have enough statistics for spectral and temporal analysis of the
635: high energy properties.
636:
637: There are several interesting properties in the high energy
638: emission of this GRB.
639:
640: \paragraph{Time delay}
641: {\em The multi-band light curves unambiguously show that the bulk
642: of the emission of the second light-curve peak is moving toward
643: later times as the energy increases \citep[see time bin b in Fig 1
644: and its inset panels in ][]{Fermi916c}, and the time delay of
645: $100$-MeV emission is about 1 s relative to MeV emission, much
646: larger than the MeV variability timescale, $\la100$~ms
647: \citep{afterglow916c}.}\footnote{Note, the time-delay issue here
648: is different from what is called "delayed onset" by other authors.
649: We concern indeed the delayed peaking time of high-energy
650: emission, related to the delayed arrival of the bulk of
651: high-energy emission.} First of all, these are qualitatively
652: consistent with our prediction that the higher energy photons can
653: only arise when the plasma expands to larger size in later time
654: where the $\gamma\gamma$ optical depth reduces to below unity, and
655: that the size of high energy emission can be much larger than MeV
656: emission.
657:
658: Let us consider the data quantitatively, and constrain the model parameters. The LAT
659: >100 MeV detection consists of 145 photons which mainly come up in a single light-curve peak,
660: therefore we have enough statistics for the time analysis of >100
661: MeV emission. It is obviously seen that the >100 MeV light curve
662: peak has a time delay $\tau_{\rm delay}^{\rm ob}=\tau_{\rm
663: delay}(1+z)\sim1$~s relative to that of 250~keV-5~MeV (The script
664: "ob" denotes quantities measured in the observer frame, with
665: redshift effect taken into account). This implies
666: $\varepsilon_0^{\rm ob}=\varepsilon_0/(1+z)<100$~MeV. Substituting
667: the observed values of $L=10^{53}\rm erg\,s^{-1}$, $\tau_{\rm
668: delay}\simeq1/5.35$~s and $\varepsilon=100\times5.35=535$~MeV,
669: with redshift $z=4.35$ taken, into eq.\,(\ref{eq:delay}), we
670: obtain the bulk Lorentz factor of GRB 080916c outflow,
671: \begin{equation}\label{eq:916c_LF}
672: \Gamma\simeq290\pfrac{L}{10^{53}\rm erg\,s^{-1}}^{1/6}\pfrac{\tau_{\rm delay}^{\rm
673: ob}|_{\rm 100\,MeV}}{1~\rm s}^{-1/6}.
674: \end{equation}
675: This result is similar to those determined in other GRBs,
676: $\Gamma\approx100-400$, through observations of the rising of
677: optical afterglows \citep{LFopt1,LFopt2,LFopt4,LFopt3}, and the
678: thermal components in the prompt emission \citep{peer07}.
679:
680: The determination of $\Gamma$ can be double checked by the
681: location of $\varepsilon_0$. Using the result of
682: eq.\,(\ref{eq:916c_LF}), we obtain $$\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(1)\rm
683: obs}\simeq10(t_{\rm var}^{\rm ob}/10^2\rm ms)(\tau_{\rm
684: delay}^{\rm ob}|_{\rm 100\,MeV}/1\,\rm s)^{-1}\rm MeV$$ and
685: $$\varepsilon_{\rm cut}^{(2)\rm ob}\simeq40(L/10^{53}\rm
686: erg\,s^{-1})^{1/6}(\tau_{\rm delay}^{\rm ob}|_{\rm
687: 100\,MeV}/1\,\rm s)^{-1/6}\rm MeV.$$ The observed MeV variability
688: timescale is $t_{\rm var}^{\rm ob}\la$100 ms based on the INTEGRAL
689: observation \citep{afterglow916c}. Thus $\varepsilon_0^{\rm
690: ob}\sim40$~MeV, consistent with requirement $\varepsilon_0^{\rm
691: ob}<100$~MeV. In addition, the broad light curve peak in the
692: no-energy-selection band of LAT is consistent with, or a little
693: delayed from, that of the GBM (260 keV-5 MeV) light curve, and is
694: ahead of the >100 MeV peak. Thus $\varepsilon_0^{\rm ob}$ should
695: be located in the LAT energy window (no selection) and below 100
696: MeV, consistent with the result $\varepsilon_0^{\rm
697: ob}\sim40$~MeV.
698:
699: By our model the >1~GeV emission should be even 10 times longer delayed than the >100
700: MeV one, i.e., $\tau_{\rm delay}^{\rm ob}|_{1\,\rm GeV}\sim10$~s. The much fewer
701: photons above 1 GeV prevent us from analyzing the temporal properties with high
702: confidence. However the LAT >1 GeV light curve does agree with a longer delay by
703: $\sim10$~s.
704:
705: It should be noticed that other authors also constrain the bulk
706: Lorentz factor of this GRB and obtain much larger lower limit
707: \citep{afterglow916c,Fermi916c}. Essentially, the difference is
708: due to different models considered; they consider the GeV emission
709: produced in the same time and place as the MeV emission, whereas
710: in our model the GeV emission comes from delayed residual
711: collisions at large radii, therefore our model looses the
712: constraint on $\Gamma$. In addition, we consider that the cutoff
713: energy should not locate below $2^{1/2}\Gamma m_ec^2$, which is
714: ignored in \cite{afterglow916c} and \cite{Fermi916c}.
715:
716: \paragraph{Lack of the first LAT light-curve peak}
717: The low energy GBM light curve shows two peaks, however the LAT
718: observations only show one peak related to the second GBM peak and
719: there is a paucity of emission in the first $\sim4$~s after the
720: trigger. Note, some people call this as a "delayed onset" of high
721: energy emission. In principle, one of the explanations could be
722: that there is a spectral cutoff at $\sim10$~MeV for the prompt
723: emission from primary collisions in the first 4 s, and the
724: residual-collision emission at >10 MeV is $\ga4$~s delayed, longer
725: than the second peak. If so, the properties of the ejecta emitting
726: the first GBM peak are different from the later ejecta, which also
727: suggests that there might be long-timescale, a-few-second ($\gg
728: t_{\rm var}\sim1$~ms), variabilities in the outflow of this GRB.
729:
730: \paragraph{Time-integrated spectrum}
731: The joint GBM-LAT spectrum of GRB 080916c can be fit by Band
732: function \citep{Band93}, with peak energy around 1~MeV,
733: $\alpha\approx-1.0$ and $\beta\approx-2.2$, except for the first 4
734: s \citep{Fermi916c}. Because the time intervals used to construct
735: the spectra are much longer than the MeV variability time, the
736: resulted spectra are all time-integrated ones. Since the
737: synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) model for GRBs, where the MeV peak
738: is from the IC scattering by soft photon emitting electrons,
739: predicts a bright GeV-TeV component due to the second order
740: up-scattering \citep{Piran08}, no evidence for high energy bump up
741: to 10 GeV in observations does not favor SSC but synchrotron model
742: \citep{Wang09}. In addition, the narrow $\nu F_\nu$ spectral peak
743: of GRB spectra favor more synchrotron emission mechanism over SSC,
744: since SSC usually has a much broader spectral bump
745: \citep{Baring04}.
746:
747: In the framework of synchrotron internal shocks, our residual
748: collision model predicts a slight spectral softening at high
749: energies. However, due to the small detected GeV-photon number the
750: Poisson scatter of low statistic still allows a slight softening
751: at tens MeV to fit the data. Furthermore, if there are large
752: timescale, $\gg1$~ms, variabilities in the outflow so that the
753: residual emission spectral slope $q$ is larger than $2/3$ (see
754: \S\ref{section:simulation}), the high-energy spectrum is less
755: steepened and is closer to a single power law. Finally, the slope
756: of eq.(\ref{eq:spec}) holds on average, while the later residual
757: collisions occur between smaller number of shells, thus there
758: might be fluctuation from this average slope.
759:
760: \paragraph{Highest energy emission}
761: The highest energy photon is detected with 13.2 GeV only 17 s
762: after the GRB trigger. With the redshift $z=4.35$ this suggests
763: GRB 080916c produces radiation up to 71 GeV in the source frame.
764: Moreover, LAT detects 145 photons with $>100$~MeV, within which 14
765: with $>1$~GeV and especially only one with $>10$~GeV, consistent
766: with a power law spectrum with photon index $\beta\approx-2$ up to
767: $\sim10$~GeV scale. There might be emission extending to higher
768: energy, say, beyond tens of GeV, from GRB 080916c following the
769: same slope, but the detection rate is less than one, i.e., no
770: photon would be detected at this energy. Thus the observations
771: actually suggest that the high energy spectral cutoff (or steep
772: drop), if there exists, is more likely to be far above the energy
773: of the only observed highest energy photon,
774: $\varepsilon_{\max}^{\rm ob}=13.2\times g$~GeV with $g\gg1$. If
775: the high energy emission beyond 13.2 GeV is produced by internal
776: shocks, we argue here that it may not be produced by primary
777: internal collisions that emit MeV \gmrs but produced in other
778: regions, e.g., by residual collisions.
779:
780: As said above no high energy spectral component in GRB 080916c
781: does not favor SSC model but synchrotron model. Now calculate the
782: maximum synchrotron photon energy. If $B$ is the magnetic field
783: strength in the internal shock, the Larmor time of an electron
784: with Lorentz factor $\gamma$ is $t_L'=\gamma m_ec/eB$. The typical
785: particle acceleration time can be scaled by Larmor time as
786: $t_a'=ft_L'$ \citep[e.g.][]{Hillas84} where $f$ is a correction
787: factor accounting for the uncertainty of shock acceleration. It
788: might be that $f\ga$ a few \citep[e.g.][]{Lemoine06}. In the same
789: time the electron suffers synchrotron cooling in a typical
790: timescale $t_c'=3m_ec/4\sigma_T\gamma(B^2/8\pi)$ (We neglect the
791: IC cooling as the IC scattering usually occurs in deep
792: Klein-Nishina regime for the most energetic electrons). The
793: competition between acceleration and cooling results in a maximum
794: Lorentz factor of accelerated electrons, $\gamma_{\max} =(6\pi
795: e/f\sigma_TB)^{1/2}$. The relevant synchrotron photon frequency is
796: a constant,\footnote{This upper bound for synchrotron energy is
797: robust for any acceleration mechanisms involving electromagnetic
798: processes, because the acceleration limit with $f=1$ is robust not
799: only to Fermi shock accelerations but also to any particle
800: accelerations through electromagnetic processes. Therefore this
801: bound might be valid not only to internal shock models but also to
802: electromagnetic-dominated models.}
803: $$\nu_{\max}'=0.3\gamma_{\max}^2eB/2\pi
804: m_ec=0.9e^2/f\sigma_Tm_ec.$$ The coefficient accounts for the fact
805: that the synchrotron power per unit frequency of an electron peaks
806: at the frequency a fraction 0.3 of the common characteristic
807: frequency. The maximum synchrotron photon energy
808: $\varepsilon_{\max}^{\rm ob}=h\nu_{\max}'\Gamma/(1+z)$ is,
809: therefore,
810: \begin{equation}
811: \varepsilon_{\max}^{\rm ob}=15\Gamma_{2.5}f^{-1}(1+z)^{-1}\rm
812: ~GeV.
813: \end{equation}
814:
815: Comparing the predicted maximum synchrotron energy with that
816: implied by the observation, $\varepsilon_{\max}^{\rm
817: ob}=13.2g$~GeV, we have a lower bound,
818: \begin{equation}
819: \Gamma=1.5\times10^4f_{0.5}g_{0.5},
820: \end{equation}
821: where the conservative values, $f=10^{0.5}f_{0.5}$ and
822: $g=10^{0.5}g_{0.5}$, have been taken. This bulk Lorentz factor is
823: too large for fireball-shock model, because it faces several
824: problems. First, the large $\Gamma$ leads to (primary) internal
825: shock radius larger than the deceleration radius of GRB outflow
826: \citep[e.g.][]{Lazzati99}. The deceleration radius is
827: $R_d\approx(E_k/4nm_pc^2\Gamma^2)^{1/3}$. If $R_\gamma<R_d$, an
828: upper limit is obtained,
829: \begin{equation}
830: \Gamma<7\times10^3(E_{k,55}/n_0)^{1/8}t_{\rm var,-2}^{-3/8},
831: \end{equation}
832: where $E_k=10^{55}E_{k,55}$erg and $n=1n_0\rm cm^{-3}$ are the outflow kinetic energy
833: and medium density, respectively. Second, the large $\Gamma$ raises problem of low
834: energy conversion efficiency due to slow cooling of accelerated electrons
835: \citep[e.g.,][]{Derishev01}. If the synchrotron cooling time of electrons with typical
836: postshock Lorentz factor $\gamma_m\sim m_p/m_e\sim10^3\gamma_3$, is required to be
837: smaller than the dynamical time of the outflow, $t_c'(\gamma_m)<t_d'\simeq
838: R_\gamma/\Gamma c$, we have
839: \begin{equation}
840: \Gamma<5\times10^3\gamma_3^{1/5}(L_{\rm bol}/10^{54}{\rm erg\,s^{-1}})^{1/5}t_{\rm
841: var,-2}^{-1/5}.
842: \end{equation}
843: In this calculation we have assumed that the postshock magnetic
844: field is limited by observed emission, $B^2/8\pi\leq
845: U_\gamma=L_{\rm bol}/4\pi R_\gamma^2\Gamma^2c$. Third, in
846: synchrotron internal shock models the large $\Gamma$ leads to
847: large collision radius $R_\gamma\approx2\Gamma^2ct_{\rm var}$,
848: where the magnetic field $B$ is too small to give rise high energy
849: synchrotron photon energy. Using
850: $\eps_b\approx\Gamma\hbar\gamma_m^2eB/m_ec$ and the limit
851: $B^2/8\pi< U_\gamma$, the restriction to obtain synchrotron
852: emission peaking at MeV range is
853: \begin{equation}
854: \Gamma<0.4\times10^3\gamma_3(L_{\rm bol}/10^{54}{\rm erg\,s^{-1}})^{1/4}t_{\rm
855: var,-2}^{-1/2}(\eps_b/\rm 1\,MeV)^{-1/2}.
856: \end{equation}
857: Finally, the thermal pressure of the initial fireball is not
858: expected to accelerate the loaded baryons to very large Lorentz
859: factor with most energy kept as the kinetic energy of baryons. The
860: final Lorentz factor is limited to be
861: \begin{equation}
862: \Gamma<3\times10^3(L_0/10^{54}{\rm erg\,s^{-1}})^{1/4}r_{0,7}^{-1/4},
863: \end{equation}
864: where $L_0$ is the rate at which the central source emits energy,
865: and $r_0=10^7r_{0,7}$~cm is the source size \citep[see,
866: e.g][]{Waxman rev}.
867:
868: The above upper limits to $\Gamma$ imply that it may be impossible
869: that $\Gamma\gg10^3$. This appear not to match the value suggested
870: by the highest energy band observation,
871: $\Gamma=1.5\times10^4f_{0.5}g_{0.5}$, unless $f\approx1$ and
872: $g\approx1$ are satisfied at the same time: the shock acceleration
873: must operate at the Bohm limit; furthermore the observed highest
874: energy photon happens to be at the maximum synchrotron energy.
875: Thus the observations imply there is emission much higher than
876: 13.2 GeV, which cannot be originated from synchrotron emission in
877: the primary internal shocks. Actually, this high energy emission
878: can be produced by IC emission in residual collision shocks, as
879: discussed in present study. So the observation of highest energy
880: emission supports the residual collision model.
881:
882: In conclusions: (1) the time delay of high energy emission and the
883: spectral feature of highest energy emission in GRB 080916c might
884: have provide evidences for the residual collision model; (2) its
885: spectrum is not inconsistent with the residual emission; (3) the
886: time delay of $>100$ MeV emission constrains the bulk Lorentz
887: factor to be $\Gamma\sim300$, a typical value usually taken. It
888: appears to be an applicable method to determine $\Gamma$ of GRB
889: outflows by measuring the time delays of LAT light curves. If
890: internal shocks also work in short GRBs, we expect similar
891: delayed, prompt high energy emission in short GRBs. We also
892: caution more careful spectral analysis to find the transition
893: between primary and residual emission.
894:
895:
896: \section{Discussion}
897: We have considered the high energy emission in the prompt GRB
898: spectrum, which is dominated by the IC emission from the residual
899: collisions. Instead of a exponential spectral cutoff, a steeper,
900: compared to the prompt MeV emission, power-law slope $\nu
901: F_\nu\propto \nu^{-q}$ is expected beyond the previously thought
902: cutoff, $\varepsilon_0$ (eq. [\ref{eq:cut}]). Here $q$ is
903: corresponding to the dynamical evolution of the random energy in
904: the outflow, $E_{\rm fluc}\propto R^{-q}$. In the simplified case
905: (see \S 3.1), which is consistent with optical flash observations
906: (LW08), we take $q=2/3$, while $0< q\leq 2/3$ in general. The
907: extended emission makes it complicated to detect the "cutoff
908: energy" in the goal to constrain the GRB emission region.
909:
910: Indeed, EGRET had detected prompt high energy photons past GeV in
911: several brightest BATSE GRBs occurring in its field of view (e.g.,
912: GRB 930131, \cite{930131}; GRB 940217, \cite{Hurley94}), which
913: suggest that the other faint GRBs may produce prompt GeV photons
914: as well \citep{Dingus95}. There is also no sign of cutoff in the
915: spectra \citep{Dingus95}, which, if there is, should be far
916: exceeding $\sim1$~GeV. These EGRET results are consistent with the
917: predicted extension of prompt emission beyond GeV. However, the
918: cutoff is not ruled out. Given the sensitive dependence of the
919: cutoff on $\Gamma$ (eq.\ref{eq:cut}), a slight variation of
920: $\Gamma$ in individual GRB events may lead to much higher cutoff
921: energy, $\gg1$~GeV, explaining the prompt GeV emission in
922: EGRET-detected GRBs. Two properties may help to discriminate our
923: residual-collision emission model from a very high energy cutoff
924: model. The first is the steepening turnover in the spectrum. For
925: typical Lorentz factors, $\Gamma\approx10^2-10^3$, the expected
926: spectral turnover is $\rm \sim100~MeV-1~TeV$, well located in the
927: windows of Fermi and AGILE. The second is the time delay of high
928: energy emission. One may expect systematic time delay of the high
929: energy photons in the residual emission model, while no delay is
930: expected in the very high energy cutoff model. However, the task
931: is not easy given that for a typical event with fluence
932: $\sim10^{-6}\rm erg~cm^{-2}$ the observed GeV photon number is
933: only a few. In order to have enough statistics for the spectral
934: and temporal analyses, very bright events are needed, or one may
935: integrate many events to obtain an average burst.
936:
937: We have discussed that the recent Fermi detected bright GRB
938: 080916c might have presented a good sample. Observations do not
939: show a simple spectral cutoff, but a spectral tail up to 70 GeV in
940: GRB frame. More than one hundred of photons detected above 100 MeV
941: makes it obviously showing a time delay about 1 sec, which can be
942: explained by the residual IC emission and results in the
943: determination of a typical Lorentz factor value, $\Gamma\sim300$.
944: The features of GRB 080916c support the residual-collision
945: emission model as opposed to the very-high-energy-cutoff model.
946:
947: The high energy emission would not extend to very high energy.
948: There are several effects that lead to a drop in TeV range. First,
949: when the plasma expands to very large radius,
950: $R\ga2\Gamma^2cT\sim10^{17}\Gamma_{2.5}^2(T/10{\rm~s})$~cm ($T$ is
951: the MeV \gmr duration), there would be no overlapping between the
952: plasma and the MeV \gmrs, and hence no scattering is expected. At
953: $R\simeq2\Gamma^2cT$ the cutoff energy increases to
954: $\varepsilon_{\rm cut}\simeq1(T/10{\rm~s})t_{\rm var,-2}^{-1}$~TeV
955: (from eq.\ref{eq:cut evolution}). A lack of $\ga1$~TeV photons
956: would be expected for GRBs with duration $T\la10t_{\rm var,-2}$~s,
957: although it should not be an exponential cutoff. Second, in
958: interaction with $\sim1$~MeV photons, the Klein-Nishina limit
959: becomes important for electrons with $\gamma_e\ga\Gamma$, giving
960: rise to IC photons up to $\varepsilon_{\rm
961: IC}\simeq0.1\Gamma_{2.5}^2$TeV, beyond which the spectrum
962: gradually turns below the low energy slope. Finally the cosmic
963: infrared background would absorb the $>0.1$~TeV photons that
964: arrive from GRBs at redshift $z\ga0.5$. Except for low redshift
965: events, the observed prompt GRB emission may not extend far beyond
966: TeV range.
967:
968: It should be commented here that in the framework of the
969: synchrotron internal shock model \citep{Waxman rev} we do not
970: expect a bright high energy component, say $\ga 1$~GeV, in the
971: prompt emission, other than the synchrotron self-Compton model
972: \citep[e.g.][]{Piran08}, therefore the residual high energy
973: emission will be dominant. A detection of high energy component in
974: the prompt emission will be an evidence against the synchrotron
975: model for GRBs, and vice verse. The recent Fermi observations of
976: several GRBs do not support a high energy component in GRB
977: spectrum, since the $>100$~MeV fluences are all less than those in
978: MeV range \citep{Fermi916c}.
979:
980: Our residual collision model is not expected to produce much
981: longer delayed high energy emission which is not apparently
982: overlapped with the primary MeV \gmrs in times. There are more and
983: more observations showing that GRBs produce delayed $>100$~MeV
984: emission even after the prompt \gmrs end, lasting tens or even
985: $\sim10^4$ seconds \citep{Hurley94,dermer03,Giuliani08}. This may
986: require some long-lasting central engine activities or external
987: productions \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{Wang06}.
988:
989:
990:
991:
992: \acknowledgments
993: This work was partly supported by the National
994: Natural Science Foundation of China through grants 10473010 and
995: 10843007.
996:
997:
998: \appendix
999: \section{Dynamics with multi-timescale
1000: variabilities}\label{section:simulation}
1001:
1002: In order to show the effect of multi-timescale variabilities on
1003: the dynamics of the outflow, we carry simulations for both cases
1004: of single- and multi-timescale variabilities for comparison. We
1005: consider a series of individual material shells $i=1,2...,N$, with
1006: total shell number $N=3000$, released in a duration of $T=3$s, so
1007: that the interval between two nearby shells is $1$~ms. The shells
1008: have equal masses but different energies, with the bulk Lorentz
1009: factor of each shell following
1010: \begin{equation}
1011: \log\Gamma_i=2+\xi_i\log9+\phi_i,
1012: \end{equation}
1013: where $\xi_i$ is a random number between zero and unity and
1014: $\phi_i$ can be taken as the following forms,
1015: \begin{equation}
1016: \phi_i=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1017: 0 & \rm (Single);\\
1018: \sum_k \sin(\frac{2\pi Ti}{P_kN})\log A_k & \rm
1019: (Multi).
1020: \end{array}
1021: \right.\label{eq:multi-scale}
1022: \end{equation}
1023: For single-timescale case, we should take $\phi_i=0$ (case S),
1024: then the outflow has only one variability timescale of $10^{-3}$s.
1025: The Lorentz factors randomly and uniformly distributed in
1026: logarithmical scale between 100 and 900. For multi-timescale
1027: effect we consider 3 extra timescales besides the smallest
1028: timescale: $P_k=10^{-2},10^{-1},1$~s for $k=1,2,3$, with relevant
1029: $A_k$ values being $A_k=2,1.5,1.2$ (case M1) or $A_k=1.2,1.5,2$
1030: (case M2) for $k=1,2,3$. $A_k$ decreases with $P_k$ in case M1 but
1031: increase in case M2, which means case M2 has larger fluctuations
1032: at larger timescales. Larger timescale fluctuations tend to
1033: produce strong collisions at larger radii so that larger fraction
1034: of energy is dissipated at larger radii. We further consider that
1035: in each two-shell collision, $1/3$ of the generated internal
1036: energy is emitted by radiation, because only the energy of shocked
1037: electrons is assumed to be emitted rapidly and the electron
1038: equipartition parameter is $\epsilon_e=1/3$. The two shells are
1039: considered to separate again after collision and share equally the
1040: remained internal energy (in the center-of-momentum frame of the
1041: two shells).
1042: \begin{figure}[h]
1043: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig3.EPS}
1044: \caption{The fraction of emission energy as function of radius in
1045: three simulations. The line marked with {\em squares}: case S,
1046: with only the 1-ms variability; {\em circles}. The other two are
1047: multi-timescale cases (M1 and M2), with three more scales of
1048: $P_k=10^{-2}, 10^{-1}$ and 1 s, for $k=1, 2,$ and 3, respectively.
1049: The line marked with {\em circles}: case M1, with $A_k=2, 1.5,$
1050: and 1.2 for $k=1,2,$ and 3 (eq.[\ref{eq:multi-scale}]); {\em
1051: triangles}: case M2, with $A_k=1.2, 1.5,$ and 2 for $k=1, 2,$ and
1052: 3 (eq.[\ref{eq:multi-scale}]). The straight line show the $-2/3$
1053: slop to guide eyes. See the relevant text for more
1054: details.}\label{fig:simulation}
1055: \end{figure}
1056:
1057: In Fig \ref{fig:simulation} we show the fraction of emission
1058: energy $E_{\rm em}(>R)/E_{\rm em,tot}$, that is emitted beyond
1059: radius $R$. We see that case S show a slope close to the
1060: analytical resolution $\propto R^{-2/3}$ for single-timescale case
1061: by LW08. However, the multi timescales lead to flatter slopes,
1062: implying more fraction of emission energy tends to be emitted at
1063: larger radii. Case M2 has even flatter slope than case M1, since
1064: case M2 has relatively larger fraction of energy that is
1065: dissipated at larger radii. The steep drop at the end in both
1066: cases M1 and M2 means no more strong collisions later on. This is
1067: because there is a largest timescale of 1~s in our simulations. If
1068: there is still variabilities with timescale larger than 1 s then
1069: the slope will continue to even larger radii and show even later
1070: drop at the end. In summary, the simulations demonstrate that
1071: multi-timescale variabilities lead to a flatter slope $q<2/3$, and
1072: the $q=2/3$ slope is only for single-timescale case.
1073:
1074:
1075: \section{Anisotropic IC emission}
1076: Let us discuss at which energy the IC emission is emitted in the
1077: observer frame, taking into account the fact that the seed photons
1078: are beamed. Consider the extremely anisotropic case, where the
1079: photons are collinear in the comoving frame of the outflow. In
1080: this frame the electrons, as argued, is reasonably assumed to be
1081: isotropically distributed. For simplicity, we consider
1082: mono-energetic photons, since the photon number rapidly decreases
1083: with energy. Thus the IC power per unity solid angle in the
1084: comoving frame is angular dependent,
1085: \begin{equation}
1086: \frac{\d P'}{\d \Omega'}\propto(1-\mu')^2,
1087: \end{equation}
1088: where $\mu'=\cos\theta'$
1089: with $\theta'$ the direction with respect to photon beam, and we
1090: have taken the velocity of the electron to be $\beta_e'\approx1$.
1091: Hereinafter prime denotes quantities in the comoving frame of the
1092: outflow, while non-prime denotes observer frame. Using the Lorentz
1093: transformation, $\mu'=(\mu-\beta_\Gamma)/(1-\beta_\Gamma\mu)$,
1094: where $\beta_\Gamma=(1-1/\Gamma^2)^{1/2}$, we have
1095: \begin{equation}
1096: 1-\mu'=(1+\beta_\Gamma)\frac{1-\mu}{1-\beta_\Gamma\mu},
1097: \end{equation}
1098: then the angular distribution of IC power in observer frame is
1099: \begin{equation}
1100: \frac{\d P}{\d \Omega}=\frac 1{\Gamma^4(1-\beta_\Gamma\mu)^3}\frac{\d P'}{\d \Omega'}
1101: \propto\frac{(1-\mu)^2}{(1-\beta_\Gamma\mu)^5}.
1102: \end{equation}
1103: This is not like the simple cone-like distribution of the
1104: isotropic-photon case. The maximum power per solid angle is
1105: emitted at angle with
1106: \begin{equation}
1107: \mu_{\max}=\frac{5\beta_\Gamma-2}{3\beta_\Gamma}.
1108: \end{equation}
1109: The corresponding angle in the comoving frame is given by
1110: \begin{equation}\label{eq:max_angle}
1111: 1-\mu_{\max}'=\frac{2(1+\beta_\Gamma)}{5\beta_\Gamma}\approx\frac45.
1112: \end{equation}
1113: The scattered photon energy in the comoving frame is given by
1114: $\varepsilon_{\rm IC}'\approx\gamma_e^2\eps'(1-\mu')$, with
1115: $\gamma_e$ the electron Lorentz factor and $\eps'$ the photon
1116: energy both in the comoving frame. The photon energy (in observer
1117: frame) emitted at angel $\mu_{\max}$, where the IC power is
1118: maximum, is then
1119: \begin{equation}
1120: \varepsilon_{\rm IC}(\mu_{\max})=\frac{\varepsilon_{\rm
1121: IC}'(\mu_{\max})}{\Gamma(1-\beta_\Gamma\mu_{\max})}=\frac{3\gamma_e^2\eps'}{5\Gamma(1-\beta_\Gamma)}
1122: \approx\frac35\gamma_e^2\Gamma\eps'(1+\beta_\Gamma)\approx\frac35\gamma_e^2\eps,
1123: \end{equation}
1124: where in the last equality $\eps=(1+\beta_\Gamma)\Gamma\eps'$ is
1125: taken for collinear photons. This is the observer-frame photon
1126: energy around which the IC emission is mainly emitted. We see that
1127: the anisotropic correction factor $\lambda$ in eq.
1128: (\ref{eq:ICph_energy}) is only order unity, implying that taking
1129: $\lambda\sim1$ is a good approximation even for highly beamed seed
1130: photons.
1131:
1132: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1133: \bibitem[Abdo et al.(2009)]{Fermi916c} Abdo, A.A., et al.\ 2009,
1134: Science, in press
1135:
1136: \bibitem[Akerlof et al.(1999)]{Akerlof99} Akerlof, C., et al.\
1137: 1999, \nat, 398, 400
1138:
1139: \bibitem[Aoi et al.(2009)]{Aoi09} Aoi, J., Murase, K.,
1140: Takahashi, K., Ioka, K., \& Nagataki, S.\ 2009, arXiv:0904.4878
1141:
1142: \bibitem[Band et al.(1993)]{Band93} Band, D., et al.\ 1993,
1143: \apj, 413, 281
1144:
1145: \bibitem[Baring(2000)]{Baring00} Baring, M.~G.\ 2000, American
1146: Institute of Physics Conference Series, 515, 238
1147:
1148: \bibitem[Baring
1149: \& Braby(2004)]{Baring04} Baring, M.~G., \& Braby, M.~L.\ 2004,
1150: \apj, 613, 460
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Baring
1153: \& Harding(1997)]{Baring97} Baring, M.~G., \& Harding, A.~K.\ 1997, \apj, 491, 663
1154:
1155: \bibitem[Beloborodov(2000)]{Blbrdv00} Beloborodov, A.~M.\ 2000,
1156: \apjl, 539, L25
1157:
1158: \bibitem[Beskin et al.(2009)]{080319b_delay} Beskin, G., Karpov, S.,
1159: Bondar, S., Guarnieri, A., Bartolini, C., Greco, G., \& Piccioni,
1160: A.\ 2009, arXiv:0905.4431
1161:
1162:
1163: \bibitem[Blake et al.(2005)]{Blake05} Blake, C.~H., et al.\
1164: 2005, \nat, 435, 181
1165:
1166: \bibitem[Blandford
1167: \& Eichler(1987)]{BE87} Blandford, R., \& Eichler, D.\ 1987, \physrep, 154, 1
1168:
1169: \bibitem[Bloom et al.(2008)]{Bloom08} Bloom, J.~S., et al.\
1170: 2008, arXiv:0803.3215
1171:
1172: \bibitem[D'Elia et al.(2008)]{DElia08} D'Elia, V., et al.\
1173: 2008, arXiv:0804.2141
1174:
1175: \bibitem[Derishev et
1176: al.(2001)]{Derishev01} Derishev, E.~V., Kocharovsky, V.~V., \&
1177: Kocharovsky, V.~V.\ 2001, \aap, 372, 1071
1178:
1179: \bibitem[Dingus(1995)]{Dingus95} Dingus, B.~L.\ 1995, \apss, 231, 187
1180:
1181: \bibitem[Giuliani et al.(2008)]{Giuliani08} Giuliani, A., et al.\
1182: 2008, arXiv:0809.1230
1183:
1184: \bibitem[Gonz{\'a}lez et al.(2003)]{dermer03} Gonz{\'a}lez,
1185: M.~M., Dingus, B.~L., Kaneko, Y., Preece, R.~D., Dermer, C.~D., \& Briggs, M.~S.\
1186: 2003, \nat, 424, 749
1187:
1188: \bibitem[Granot et al.(2008)]{Granot08} Granot, J.,
1189: Cohen-Tanugi, J., \& do Couto e Silva, E.\ 2008, \apj, 677, 92
1190:
1191: \bibitem[Greiner et al.(2008)]{LFopt3} Greiner, J., et al.\
1192: 2008, arXiv:0811.4291
1193:
1194: \bibitem[Greiner et al.(2009)]{afterglow916c} Greiner, J., et al.\
1195: 2009, arXiv:0902.0761
1196:
1197: \bibitem[Gupta \& Zhang(2007)]{Gupta07} Gupta, N., \& Zhang, B.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 78
1198:
1199: \bibitem[Gupta
1200: \& Zhang(2008)]{Gupta08} Gupta, N., \& Zhang, B.\ 2008, \mnras, 384, L11
1201:
1202: \bibitem[Hillas(1984)]{Hillas84} Hillas, A.~M.\ 1984, \araa, 22, 425
1203:
1204: \bibitem[Hurley et al.(1994)]{Hurley94} Hurley, K., et al.\
1205: 1994, \nat, 372, 652
1206:
1207: \bibitem[Kobayashi et al.(1997)]{Kobayashi97} Kobayashi, S., Piran,
1208: T., \& Sari, R.\ 1997, \apj, 490, 92
1209:
1210: \bibitem[Kr{\"u}hler et al.(2008)]{LFopt2} Kr{\"u}hler, T., et
1211: al.\ 2008, \apj, 685, 376
1212:
1213: \bibitem[Kr{\"u}hler et al.(2009)]{LFopt4} Kr{\"u}hler, T., et
1214: al.\ 2009, \apj, submitted
1215:
1216: \bibitem[Lazzati et al.(1999)]{Lazzati99} Lazzati, D.,
1217: Ghisellini, G., \& Celotti, A.\ 1999, \mnras, 309, L13
1218:
1219: \bibitem[Lemoine
1220: \& Revenu(2006)]{Lemoine06} Lemoine, M., \& Revenu, B.\ 2006,
1221: \mnras, 366, 635
1222:
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Li \& Song(2004)]{LS04} Li, Z., \& Song, L.~M.\ 2004, \apjl, 608, L17
1225:
1226: \bibitem[Li \& Waxman(2007)]{LW07} Li, Z., \& Waxman, E.\ 2007, arXiv:0711.4969
1227:
1228: \bibitem[Li \& Waxman(2008)]{LW08} Li, Z., \& Waxman, E.\ 2008, \apjl, 674, L65 (LW08)
1229:
1230: \bibitem[Lithwick \& Sari(2001)]{Lithwick01} Lithwick, Y., \&
1231: Sari, R.\ 2001, \apj, 555, 540
1232:
1233: \bibitem[Lyutikov
1234: \& Blandford(2003)]{LB03} Lyutikov, M., \& Blandford, R.\ 2003,
1235: arXiv:astro-ph/0312347
1236:
1237: \bibitem[Molinari et
1238: al.(2007)]{LFopt1} Molinari, E., et al.\ 2007, \aap, 469, L13
1239:
1240: \bibitem[Murase
1241: \& Ioka(2008)]{Murase08} Murase, K., \& Ioka, K.\ 2008, \apj, 676, 1123
1242:
1243: \bibitem[Narayan
1244: \& Kumar(2008)]{NK08} Narayan, R., \& Kumar, P.\ 2008,
1245: arXiv:0812.0018
1246:
1247:
1248: \bibitem[Paczynski \& Xu(1994)]{PX94} Paczynski, B., \& Xu, G.\ 1994, \apj, 427, 708
1249:
1250: \bibitem[Pe'er et al.(2007)]{peer07} Pe'er, A., Ryde, F.,
1251: Wijers, R.~A.~M.~J., M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., \& Rees, M.~J.\ 2007,
1252: \apjl, 664, L1
1253:
1254: \bibitem[Piran et al.(2008)]{Piran08} Piran, T., Sari, R., \& Zou, Y.-C.\ 2008, arXiv:0807.3954
1255:
1256: \bibitem[Racusin et al.(2008)]{Racusin08} Racusin, J.~L., et al.\
1257: 2008, \nat, 455, 183
1258:
1259: \bibitem[Razzaque et al.(2004)]{razza04} Razzaque, S.,
1260: M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P., \& Zhang, B.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 1072
1261:
1262: \bibitem[Rees \& Meszaros(1994)]{RM94} Rees, M.~J., \& Meszaros, P.\ 1994, \apjl, 430, L93
1263:
1264: \bibitem[Sari
1265: \& Piran(1997)]{SP97} Sari, R., \& Piran, T.\ 1997, \apj, 485, 270
1266:
1267: \bibitem[Sommer et al. (1994)]{930131} Sommer, M., et al.\ 1994, \apjl, 422, L63
1268:
1269: \bibitem[Vestrand et al.(2005)]{Vestrand05} Vestrand, W.~T., et
1270: al.\ 2005, \nat, 435, 178
1271:
1272: \bibitem[Vestrand et al.(2006)]{Vestrand06} Vestrand, W.~T., et
1273: al.\ 2006, \nat, 442, 172
1274:
1275: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2006)]{Wang06} Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z.,
1276: \& M{\'e}sz{\'a}ros, P.\ 2006, \apjl, 641, L89
1277:
1278: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2009)]{Wang09} Wang, X.-Y., Li, Z., Dai,
1279: Z.-G., \& Meszaros, P.\ 2009, arXiv:0903.2086
1280:
1281: \bibitem[Waxman(2003)]{Waxman rev} Waxman, E.\ 2003, Supernovae
1282: and Gamma-Ray Bursters, 598, 393
1283:
1284:
1285: \bibitem[Woods \& Loeb(1995)]{Woods95} Woods, E., \& Loeb, A.\
1286: 1995, \apj, 453, 583
1287:
1288: \bibitem[Wozniak et al.(2008)]{319bapj} Wozniak, P.~R.,
1289: Vestrand, W.~T., Panaitescu, A.~D., Wren, J.~A., Davis, H.~R., \& White, R.~R.\ 2008,
1290: arXiv:0810.2481
1291:
1292: \bibitem[Yost et al.(2007)]{Yost07} Yost, S.~A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 669, 1107
1293:
1294:
1295: \end{thebibliography}
1296:
1297:
1298:
1299:
1300: \end{document}
1301: