1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: \shorttitle{Synchrotron Self Compton Component}
4: \shortauthors{Sari and Esin}
5:
6: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}
7: \newcommand{\gm}{\gamma_m}
8: \newcommand{\gc}{\gamma_c}
9: \newcommand{\ee}{\epsilon_e}
10: \newcommand{\eB}{\epsilon_B}
11:
12:
13: \eqsecnum
14:
15: %TCIDATA{TCIstyle=article/art4.lat,SEART,SEART}
16:
17: %TCIDATA{Created=Sun Mar 21 17:54:53 1999}
18: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thu Nov 18 10:08:32 1999}
19: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \title{On The Synchrotron Self-Compton Emission from Relativistic Shocks \\
24: and Its Implications for Gamma-Ray Burst Afterglows.}
25: \author{Re'em Sari and Ann A. Esin\altaffilmark{1}}
26: \affil{130-33 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125; sari@tapir.caltech.edu,
27: aidle@tapir.caltech.edu}
28: \altaffiltext{1}{Chandra Fellow}
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We consider the effects of inverse Compton scattering of synchrotron
32: photons from relativistic electrons in GRB afterglows. We compute the
33: spectrum of the inverse Compton emission and find that it can dominate
34: the total cooling rate of the afterglow for several months or even
35: years after the initial explosion. We demonstrate that the presence
36: of strong inverse Compton cooling can be deduced from the effect it
37: has on the time-evolution of the cooling break in the synchrotron
38: spectral component, and therefore on the optical and X-ray afterglow
39: lightcurves. We then show how the physical interpretation of the
40: observed characteristics of the synchrotron spectrum must be modified
41: to take into consideration this extra source of cooling, and give a
42: revised prescription for computing physical parameters characterizing
43: the expanding shock wave from the observed quantities. We find that
44: for a given set of observables (synchrotron break frequencies and
45: fluxes) there is either no consistent physical interpretation or two
46: of them. Finally we discuss the prospects of directly detecting the
47: inverse Compton emission with Chandra. We argue that such a detection
48: is possible for GRBs exploding in a reasonably dense ($n \ga 1\,{\rm
49: cm^{-3}}$) medium.
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: \keywords{Gamma Rays: Bursts -- Radiative Processes: Non-Thermal}
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55: It is widely accepted that the emission from GRB afterglows is
56: produced in relativistic shocks, as the ejecta from an underlying
57: explosion expands into the surrounding medium (e.g. Piran 1999 and
58: references therein). In the standard picture, the ambient electrons
59: are accelerated in the shock front to highly relativistic energies,
60: with their Lorenz factors described by a power law distribution above
61: some minimum value. Besides particle acceleration, the shock is also
62: responsible for the creation of reasonably strong magnetic fields.
63: Under these conditions synchrotron radiation is produced, whose
64: spectrum and light curves was described by \cite*{spn98}.
65:
66: Though GRBs and their afterglow are optically thin to electron
67: scattering for years after the initial explosion, some synchrotron
68: photons will Compton scatter on the shock-accelerated electrons,
69: producing an additional inverse Compton component at higher energies
70: (\citealp{pam98,wel98,tot98,chd99,pak00}; similar calculations
71: in other astrophysical contexts were done by \citealp{blm77} both for
72: a constant density and a wind-like ambient medium). Since only a
73: negligible fraction of the synchrotron photons will be scattered, this
74: will have no direct effect on the shape of the synchrotron spectrum.
75: However, the ratio of inverse Compton to synchrotron luminosities is
76: equal to the square root of the ratio of the electron and magnetic
77: energy densities behind the shock front \citep*{snp96}. Since this
78: number can be significantly above unity, this implies that the
79: electron cooling rate via inverse Compton scattering of synchrotron
80: photons must be considered in order to create a realistic physical
81: description of the GRB afterglow emission.
82:
83: In their paper, \cite{pak00} give a detailed treatment of the inverse
84: Compton emission from GRB afterglows. Here we extend their analysis,
85: concentrating on the implications of this cooling process for the
86: observable properties of these objects. We start by calculating the
87: spectrum of the inverse Compton emission in \S\ref{spectrum}. The
88: gross power-law features of this spectral component are the same as
89: those in \cite{pak00}. However, here we show that the broken
90: power-law is not an adequate approximation above the peak frequency,
91: where the presence of the logarithmic terms may introduce large
92: corrections to the predicted flux levels. These extra terms also
93: serve to smooth out the resulting spectrum and high-energy
94: lightcurves, eliminating sharp power-law breaks in the theoretical
95: predictions.
96: %We also extend the results to take into account the self
97: %absorption in the synchrotron spectrum.
98:
99: In \S\ref{compton} we discuss in detail the effects of inverse Compton
100: cooling on the afterglow evolution. We show that instead of the
101: two standard stages of evolution, corresponding to fast and slow
102: cooling, we now have three stages. This occurs because the slow
103: cooling regime should now be divided into two, the early stage during
104: which inverse Compton scattering dominates the total cooling, and the
105: late stage when it is unimportant compared to energy loss via
106: synchrotron.
107: %\cite{pak00} derived the evolution of the cooling break
108: %frequency under the assumption that this process dominates the total
109: %cooling. We generalize their result and discuss how inverse Compton
110: %and synchrotron spectral components evolve in time in this regime.
111: In \S\ref{infer} we focus on how the physical interpretation of the
112: observed spectral break frequencies and the time evolution of the
113: afterglow emission must be modified to take into account the presence
114: of extra cooling via inverse Compton scattering. In particular, we
115: derive a useful physical limit on a combination of the observable
116: parameters, measurements of which are generally the goal of afterglow
117: observations. This result is then discussed in the context of
118: GRB~970508.
119:
120: Finally, in \S\ref{direct} we discuss the possibility of observing
121: the IC emission directly. We show that the prospects of detecting this
122: spectral component are very good for GRBs which explode in a medium
123: with density of order $1\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$. Our conclusions are
124: summarized in \S\ref{summary}.
125:
126: \section{Spectrum}
127: \label{spectrum}
128: We make the standard assumption of a uniform magnetic field and a
129: power-law injection of electrons, with the energy distribution given
130: by $N(\g) \propto \g^{-p}$, behind the expanding shock front. Then
131: the general shape of the afterglow spectrum is determined by the
132: relationship between the electron cooling time and the system
133: dynamical time. Below we consider two limiting cases: when the
134: majority of the injected electrons can cool on the dynamical time of
135: the system (fast cooling) or when the cooling affects only the
136: electrons in the high energy tail of the distribution (slow
137: cooling).
138:
139: \subsection{Slow Cooling}
140: \label{scspec}
141:
142: In this case the electron energy distribution around the minimum
143: injection energy, $\gm$, is not affected by the cooling. However,
144: electrons with Lorenz factors above some critical value, $\gc$,
145: radiate significant fraction of their energy on the dynamical time.
146: Since the ratio of the cooling time of the electron with Lorenz factor
147: $\g_e$ to the dynamical time is $(\gc/\g_e)$, the electron
148: distribution above $\gc$ become steeper by one power. Therefore, the
149: resulting electron energy distribution is :
150: \begin{equation}
151: \label{ngammasc}
152: N(\g)\propto \left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
153: \g ^{-p}, & \mathrm{if} \quad \gm<\g <\gc \\
154: \g ^{-p-1}, & \mathrm{if} \quad \gc<\g.
155: \end{array} \right.
156: \end{equation}
157:
158: As described by \cite{spn98}, the synchrotron emission from such
159: distribution of electrons can be approximated by a broken power-law
160: spectrum with three characteristic break frequencies. One is the
161: self-absorption frequency, $\nu_a$, below which the system becomes
162: optically thick. The other two are the peak frequencies of the
163: emission from the electrons with the characteristic Lorenz factors
164: $\gm$ and $\gc$, denoted $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$, respectively. Here we
165: assume that $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$ are greater than $\nu_a$. At
166: frequencies $\nu < \nu_a$, self-absorption is important and the specific
167: flux is proportional to $\nu^{2}$, while between $\nu_a$ and $\nu_m$
168: the synchrotron emission grows more slowly with $f \propto \nu^{1/3}$.
169: The specific flux peaks at $\nu_m$ and then decreases as $\nu
170: ^{-(p-1)/2}$ for frequencies $\nu_m < \nu <\nu_c$; above $\nu_c$ it
171: decreases as $\nu^{-p/2}$.
172:
173: Using this synchrotron spectrum as the source of seed photons, we
174: computed the resulting inverse Compton emission, by integrating over
175: the differential scattering cross section and over the electron energy
176: distribution given by Eq. \ref{ngammasc} (this calculation is
177: discussed in detail in appendix~A). We find that, like the original
178: synchrotron spectrum, the upscattered component consists of four
179: segments, with the breaks at three characteristic frequencies:
180: $\nu_a^{IC} \simeq 2 \gm^{2}\nu _{a}$, $\nu_m^{IC} \simeq 2 \gamma
181: _{m}^{2} \nu_m$, and $\nu_c^{IC} \simeq 2 \gc^{2} \nu_c$. At
182: frequencies $\nu < \nu_m^{IC}$, the main contribution to the IC
183: spectral component comes from synchrotron photons scattered by the
184: electrons with Lorenz factor $\gm$. In this region, the spectrum is
185: well approximated by two power-law segments. The specific flux
186: initially increases linearly with frequency up to $\nu_a^{IC}$; this
187: spectral slope is determined by the shape of the scattering cross
188: section (see appendix A). It then continues to rise as $\nu ^{1/3}$
189: up to its peak at $\nu = \nu_m^{IC}$.
190:
191: In the frequency range $\nu_m^{IC} < \nu < \nu_c^{IC}$, electrons with
192: a range of Lorenz factors between $\gm$ and $\gc$ contribute equally
193: to the emission at each frequency. Because of this, the flux drops
194: off roughly as $\nu^{-(p-1)/2}$, but with two major differences from
195: the original synchrotron spectrum. Firstly, the region with this
196: spectral slope extends over double the frequency range (in logarithmic
197: units) of the corresponding synchrotron component,
198: i.e. $\nu_m^{IC}/\nu_c^{IC}=(\nu_m/\nu_c)^2$. Secondly, contributions
199: from different electron energies generate a logarithmic term, which
200: peaks at $\nu=\sqrt{\nu_m^{IC}\nu_c^{IC}}$, increasing the flux there
201: by a factor of order $\ln{(\nu_c/\nu_m)}$ above that of the the underlying
202: power-law (see Eq. [\ref{fc2}]).
203:
204: Similarly, at frequencies above $\nu_c^{IC}$, the emission is composed
205: of equal contributions from electrons with a range of Lorenz factors $\g_e >
206: \gc$. Here specific flux drops off as $\nu ^{-p/2}$, but also with an
207: addition of a logarithmically growing term of order $\ln{(\nu/\nu_c^{IC})}$
208: (see Eq. [\ref{fc2}]).
209:
210: The inverse Compton spectral component, approximated as a broken
211: power-law and normalized using Eq. (\ref{fratio}), below is shown in
212: Fig. \ref{fig1}a together with the more ``exact'' spectrum obtained by
213: computing the integrals in Eq. (\ref{fc}). To emphasize the
214: importance of IC emission as a cooling mechanism, we plotted $\nu
215: f_{\nu}$ vs. $\nu$, which gives a measure of energy emitted per
216: logarithmic frequency interval. The comparison of the two curves
217: shows that the power-law approximation does a very good job at
218: frequencies below $\nu_m^{IC}$, but becomes somewhat inadequate at
219: higher frequencies. In fact, our calculation shows that at
220: frequencies $\nu > \nu_m^{IC}$, the spectrum of the IC emission has
221: a continuously varying slope, without identifiable spectral
222: breaks. Moreover, one must keep in mind the the observed IC spectral
223: component is expected to be even smoother, since in our calculations
224: we assumed a broken power-law distribution of the synchrotron seed
225: photons and used a simplified description of the scattering cross
226: section (see appendix A).
227: % The smoothing seen in our plots is only the ``intrinsic smoothing'' of the
228: % inverse Compton scattering.
229:
230: Another feature of the detailed spectrum, which cannot be deduced from
231: the power-law approximation, is that for small values of $p$ the IC
232: energy output actually peaks well above $\nu_c^{IC}$ (which is the
233: peak emission frequency for the approximate power-law spectrum). It
234: is easy to show that this feature is due to the presence of the
235: logarithmic correction term. It persists for $2 < p \la \sqrt{6}$,
236: which includes the range of values deduced from observations
237: \citep*[e.g.][]{wig99,sph99,frw00}.
238:
239: \subsection{Fast Cooling}
240: \label{fcspec}
241: In this regime all of the injected electrons are able to cool on the
242: dynamical time scale of the afterglow. Therefore, there is a
243: population of electrons with Lorenz factors below the injection
244: minimum $\gm$, and the resulting electron distribution takes the form
245: \begin{equation}
246: \label{ngammafc}
247: N(\g)\propto \left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
248: \g ^{-2}, & \mathrm{if} \quad \gc<\g <\gm; \\
249: \g ^{-p-1}, & \mathrm{if} \quad \gm<\g.
250: \end{array} \right.
251: \end{equation}
252:
253: The synchrotron spectrum has the same three characteristic break
254: frequencies, though now $\nu_c < \nu_m$, and consists of four
255: power-law segments. Below $\nu_a$ the emission is optically thick and
256: the specific flux increases as $\nu^{2}$, and in the range $\nu_a < \nu
257: <\nu_c$ we have $f_{\nu} \propto \nu ^{1/3}$. The flux peaks at $\nu_c$ and
258: declines as $f \propto \nu ^{-1/2}$ for $\nu_c < \nu < \nu_m$ and as
259: $f\propto \nu^{-p/2}$ above $\nu_m$.
260:
261: A spectrum of the inverse Compton emission in this regime is plotted
262: in Fig. \ref{fig1}b. Its general features are very similar to those of the slow
263: cooling case described above. The specific flux is linear in frequency
264: below $\nu_a^{IC}$ and continues as $f \propto \nu^{1/3}$ up to its
265: peak at $\nu_c^{IC}$, in the range $\nu_c^{IC} < \nu < \nu_m^{IC}$ it
266: declines as $f \propto \nu ^{-1/2}$ and drops off with $f \propto \nu
267: ^{-p/2}$ above $\nu_m^{IC}$. Since most of the contribution to the IC
268: emission below $\nu_c^{IC}$ comes from the lowest energy electrons, a
269: broken power-law is a fairly good approximation to the spectrum in
270: that region. At higher frequencies electrons with a range of Lorenz
271: factors contribute to the emission, creating additional logarithmic
272: terms (see Eq. [\ref{fc2fc}]), which smooth out the breaks in the
273: spectral slope.
274:
275: \subsection{Peak Flux and Luminosity Ratios}
276: \label{ratios}
277:
278: The strength of the inverse Compton emission relative to synchrotron
279: can be estimated by considering the ratio of specific fluxes measured at
280: the peak of the respective spectral components (
281: peak of $f_{\nu}$ rather than $\nu f_{\nu}$).
282: We denote these peak fluxes as $f_{max}$ and
283: $f_{max}^{IC}$ for the synchrotron and inverse Compton components,
284: respectively. As described in \S\ref{scspec} and \S\ref{fcspec}
285: above, the former peaks at $\nu_m$ and the latter at $\nu_m^{IC}$ in
286: the slow cooling regime; and at $\nu_c$ and $\nu_c^{IC}$,
287: respectively, in the fast cooling regime. In both cases the number of
288: electrons that contribute to the radiation around the maximum is
289: proportional to the total number of electrons in the system,
290: $N$. Therefore the ratio of the two fluxes is simply
291: \begin{equation}
292: \label{fratio}
293: \frac{f_{max}^{IC}}{f_{max}} \sim \frac{\sigma_T N}{4 \pi R^{2}} \sim
294: \frac 1 3 \sigma_T n R =2 \times 10^{-7} n_1 R_{18},
295: \end{equation}
296: where the last two terms assume that the electrons have been collected
297: from an ambient medium with particle density $n$ over a distance $R$.
298: For a range of values of $n$ and $R$, which are relevant to the
299: observable GRB afterglows, the flux ratio above is always much less
300: than unity.
301:
302: To assess the relative importance of contributions from the inverse
303: Compton and synchrotron emission to the total cooling rate of the
304: electrons, we can compute the ratio of the total energies emitted via
305: these two mechanisms. Instead of integrating over the entire
306: spectrum, we evaluate $\nu f_{\nu}$ at the peaks of the two spectral
307: components and simply compute a ratio of the two values. Note that
308: taking $L_{syn} \sim \nu_c f_{\nu} (\nu_c)$ and $L_{IC} \sim
309: \nu_c^{IC} f_{\nu} (\nu_c^{IC})$ is not in general a good assumption, since
310: direct spectral integration gives luminosities a factor $>$10 greater
311: than this estimate. However, since the shapes of the synchrotron and
312: IC spectral components are similar, the correction factors nearly
313: cancel out.
314:
315: In the slow cooling regime, the energy emitted via synchrotron peaks
316: at $\nu_c$. The inverse Compton emission can reach its maximum energy
317: output at $\nu \gg \nu_c^{IC}$ for small values of $p$ (see
318: \S\ref{scspec}), however, since $\nu f_{\nu}$ is nearly flat in this
319: region of the spectrum, for the purposes of this estimate we use
320: $\nu_c^{IC} f_{\nu} (\nu_c^{IC})$. Then the luminosity ratio during
321: the slow cooling regime is
322: \begin{equation}
323: \label{lratiosc}
324: \frac{L_{IC}}{L_{syn}}\sim \frac 2 3 \sigma_T n R \gc^{2}
325: \left(\frac{\gc}{\gm}\right)^{1-p}
326: \end{equation}
327:
328: In the fast cooling regime the synchrotron and the IC energy emission peak at
329: $\nu_m$ and $\nu_m^{IC}$, respectively, and the luminosity ratio is given by
330: \begin{equation}
331: \label{lratiofc}
332: \frac{L_{IC}}{L_{syn}} \sim \frac 2 3 \sigma_T n R \gc \gm.
333: \end{equation}
334:
335:
336: \section{Afterglow Evolution with Strong Compton Cooling}
337: \label{compton}
338: Throughout most of the early afterglow evolution, inverse Compton
339: emission typically dominates the total cooling rate, and therefore it
340: determines the value of break energy in the electron energy
341: distribution. This has a significant effect on the time evolution of
342: both the synchrotron and the inverse Compton component.
343: %, but more importantly, changes how we
344: %interpret the break frequencies and the time evolution of the observed
345: %synchrotron spectrum.
346:
347: \subsection{Luminosity ratio}
348: \label{lumratio2}
349: The ratio of the inverse Compton to synchrotron luminosity can be
350: computed in a more general way \citep*{snp96}, that does not deal with
351: the details of the spectrum, but depends only on the underlying physical
352: properties of the expanding shock wave . We generalize the derivation
353: given by \cite{snp96} to describe both fast and slow cooling regimes by
354: introducing a parameter $\eta$, equal to the fraction of the electron
355: energy that was radiated away (via both synchrotron and IC emission).
356: Then the ratio of luminosities, in the limit of single scattering, is
357: given by
358: \begin{equation}
359: \label{x}
360: x\equiv \frac{L_{IC}}{L_{syn}} = \frac{U_{rad}}{U_{B}} =
361: \frac{U_{syn}}{U_{B}} = \frac{\eta U_{e}/(1+x)}{U_{B}} =
362: \frac{\eta \ee}{\eB (1+x)},
363: \label{ICtoSYN}
364: \end{equation}
365: where $U_{syn}$, $U_B$ and $U_e$ are the energy density of synchrotron
366: radiation, magnetic field and relativistic electrons, respectively.
367: Note that in general $U_{syn} = \eta \beta U_e/(1+x)$, where $\beta$
368: is the velocity of material behind the shock front (in the frame of
369: the shock); however, for a relativistic shock $\beta$ is of order
370: unity. The parameters $\ee$ and $\eB$ are defined as fractions of the
371: total explosion energy that go into accelerating electrons and amplifying
372: magnetic fields behind the shock front, respectively.
373:
374: Solving Eq. (\ref{x}) for $x$ we obtain
375: \begin{equation}
376: x=\frac {-1+\sqrt{1+4 \frac {\eta\epsilon_e} {\epsilon_B} }} {2}.
377: \label{exactx}
378: \end{equation}
379: This solution has two interesting limits:
380: \begin{equation}
381: \label{x2}
382: x = \left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
383: \frac{\eta \ee}{\eB}, & \mathrm{if \quad}
384: \frac{\eta \ee}{\eB} \ll 1, \\
385: \left(\frac{\eta \ee}{\eB}\right)^{1/2}, & \mathrm{if \quad}
386: \frac{\eta \ee}{\eB} \gg 1.
387: \end{array} \right.
388: \label{approxx}
389: \end{equation}
390: Hereafter, unless specified otherwise, we always use these approximate
391: solutions for $x$.
392:
393: Clearly, if $\eta \ee/\eB \ll 1$, the inverse Compton cooling rate is
394: unimportant compared to synchrotron, and if $\eta \ee/\eB \gg 1$, it
395: dominates the total emission. Using these expressions, the relative
396: importance of IC emission can be evaluated using only the fundamental
397: properties of the expanding shock, and the ability of the electrons to
398: cool. We can reduce this result to that in
399: Eqs. (\ref{lratiosc}, \ref{lratiofc}) above by noting that (i) for
400: slow cooling $\eta=(\gc/\gm)^{2-p}$ and for fast cooling $\eta=1$;
401: (ii) $\gm \sim \ee U /m_e c^2 n$, where $U$ is the total energy
402: density behind the shock; (iii) $\gc \sim m_e c^2 /\sigma_T c \eB U t$
403: if $\eta \ee/\eB \ll 1$, and $\gc \sim m_e c^2 /x \sigma_T c \eB U t$
404: if $\eta \ee/\eB \gg 1$.
405:
406: \subsection{Effects on Synchrotron Spectrum and Lightcurves}
407:
408: Inverse Compton scattering can, in principle, affect the observed
409: spectrum in three different ways (see also discussion in Sari, Narayan
410: and Piran 1996). In the first place, it reduces the number of seed
411: photons, changing the overall normalization of the synchrotron
412: spectral component. This is important only if the Thompson optical
413: depth is larger than unity, and is therefore negligible in GRB
414: afterglows. Secondly, IC scattering produces an additional emission
415: component at higher frequencies, which we described it
416: \S\ref{spectrum}. Finally, when the inverse Compton emission
417: dominates the overall cooling of the electrons, it reduces the energy
418: available for synchrotron radiation. Consequently, the cooling break
419: energy of the electron distribution, $\gc$, is reduced from its
420: standard (synchrotron only) value by a factor $(1+x)$, i.e. in all
421: our calculations we must replace $\gc \rightarrow \gc/(1+x)$. It is the
422: results of this latter effect that we discuss below.
423:
424: From Eq. \ref{x2} it is clear that if $\ee<\eB$, the IC power is
425: never larger than the synchrotron power, since by definition $\eta \le
426: 1$. However, current estimates based on afterglow observations, show
427: that $\eB<\ee$; in fact in several objects the ratio $\ee/\eB$ seems
428: to be close to a hundred \citep{wig99,gps99}. This implies that the
429: magnetic field is relatively weak, and IC emission is important as
430: long as $\eta \ga 0.01$.
431:
432: Assuming that $\ee > \eB$, the evolution of a GRB afterglow must now
433: be divided into three regimes. In the first (fast cooling) stage,
434: most of the electrons energy is lost, so that $\eta=1$ and IC emission
435: dominates over synchrotron by a time-constant factor $\sqrt{\ee/\eB}$.
436: Later, during the slow cooling period, $\eta$ decreases and so is the
437: importance of IC scattering, though it still dominates the total
438: cooling. Finally, $\eta$ becomes so small that only synchrotron
439: emission is important; this is the traditional slow cooling regime.
440: Below we discuss each of these stages in detail. Note that all our
441: numerical results are computed in terms of $\epsilon_{B,-2} =
442: \eB/0.01$ and $\epsilon_{e,.5}= \ee/0.5$.
443:
444: Since temporal evolution of the afterglow emission depends on the
445: external density profile, the results are different in the case of the
446: uniform ambient medium and the wind scenario, in which the density
447: decreases as $\rho \propto r^{-2}$. In this section we will present
448: the results for the constant ambient density, and discuss the
449: wind-like density profile in appendix B.
450:
451: \subsubsection{Fast cooling}
452: \label{fcIC}
453: During the fast cooling stage, IC scattering increases the radiation
454: losses of each electron by a factor $1+x \simeq x \simeq
455: \sqrt{\ee/\eB}$. Therefore, the cooling frequency $\nu_c \propto
456: \gc^2$ is reduced from its synchrotron-only value by a factor $x^2
457: \simeq \ee/\eB$. Moreover, since low energy synchrotron emission is
458: dominated by the electrons near the cooling break, the synchrotron
459: self-absorption frequency increases by a factor $x \simeq
460: \sqrt{\ee/\eB}$. Because both $\ee$ and $\eB$ remain constant in time,
461: these changes do not affect the time evolution of the synchrotron
462: spectrum.
463:
464: Since IC scattering increases the total cooling rate, it prolongs the
465: duration of the fast cooling regime. For a constant ambient density the
466: transition to slow cooling is delayed by a factor $\ee/\eB$, if $\ee >
467: \eB$. The correct transition time then becomes
468: \begin{equation}
469: t_0^{IC}=170\, (1+z) \ee^3 \eB E_{52} n_1\,{\rm days} =
470: 6.3\, (1+z) \epsilon_{e,0.5}^3 \epsilon_{B,-2} E_{52} n_{1}\, {\rm hours},
471: \end{equation}
472: where $E = E_{52} \times 10^{52}\,{\rm erg\, s^{-1}}$ is the total
473: energy of the explosion, and $n = n_1\times 1\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$ is the
474: ambient electron density. By comparison, if $\ee/\eB<1$, IC
475: scattering is never an efficient cooling mechanism and we get the
476: usual (synchrotron only) expression:
477: \begin{equation}
478: t_0=170\, (1+z) \ee^2 \eB^2 E_{52} n_{1}\, {\rm days}.
479: \end{equation}
480:
481: \subsubsection{Slow IC-Dominated Cooling}
482: \label{scIC}
483: During the slow cooling stage only the cooling frequency is affected by
484: IC cooling. The parameter $\eta$ is no longer equal to unity, so
485: during this intermediate regime $\nu_c$ is reduced by a factor
486: $(1+x)^2 \simeq x^2 \simeq \eta \ee/\eB$, as long as $x > 1$. It is
487: important to note that though $\eta$ decreases with time, its
488: instantaneous value can be estimated directly from the observed
489: synchrotron spectrum alone, since in the slow cooling regime
490: $\eta=(\gc/\gm)^{2-p}=(\nu_c/\nu_m)^{-\frac{p-2}2}$. Since the value
491: of $p$ is estimated to be in the range of $2.2-2.4$ the decrease of
492: $\eta$ is very slow and inverse Compton scattering remains a dominant
493: cooling process for a long time.
494:
495: Without inverse Compton cooling, $\nu_c\propto t^{-1/2}$ and $\nu_m \propto
496: t^{-3/2}$ so that their ratio is $\nu_c/\nu_m = t/t_0$. Taking IC emission
497: into account we have $\nu_c/\nu_m \simeq (t/t_0) x^{-2}$, and $x$
498: evolves with time according to the following equation,
499: \begin{equation}
500: x=\sqrt{\frac {\eta \ee}{\eB}}=
501: \left(\frac{\nu_c}{\nu_m}\right)^{-\frac{p-2}4}\sqrt{\frac {\ee}{\eB}}\simeq
502: \left(\frac{t/t_0}{x^2}\right)^{-\frac{p-2}4}\sqrt{\frac {\ee}{\eB}},
503: \end{equation}
504: which gives
505: \begin{equation}
506: \label{xtime}
507: x\simeq\left(\frac{\ee}{\eB}\right)^{\frac{1}{(4-p)}}
508: \left(\frac{t}{t_0}\right)^{-\frac { (p-2)} {2(4-p)}} =
509: \sqrt{\frac{\ee}{\eB}}
510: \left(\frac{t}{t_0^{IC}}\right)^{-\frac{(p-2)}{2(4-p)}}.
511: \end{equation}
512: One should keep in mind however, that in deriving the equation above
513: we used the relativistic time scalings for the frequency ratio
514: $\nu_c/\nu_m$. Once the fireball is no longer relativistic, our basic
515: expression for $x$ (Eq. \ref{x}) is no longer valid. In the non-relativistic
516: case $x$ decreases as $t^{-3/10}$ for $p=2$, and even more rapidly for
517: larger $p$, considerably faster than implied in Eq. (\ref{xtime}).
518: Therefore, IC cooling ceases to be dominant shortly after the
519: relativistic stage is over.
520:
521: \subsubsection{Slow Synchrotron-Dominated Cooling}
522: \label{scnoIC}
523: The third stage of afterglow evolution, when $x < 1$ and the IC
524: cooling rate is weaker than the synchrotron cooling rate and
525: therefore, has no effect on the synchrotron spectrum, begins at time
526: \begin{equation}
527: t^{IC}=t_0^{IC} \left( \frac {\ee} {\eB} \right)^ {\frac {4-p}
528: {(p-2)}}=3\, {\rm years} \left( \frac {\epsilon_{e,.5}} {\epsilon_{B,-2}}
529: \right)^{\frac {4-p} {p-2}} \epsilon_{e,.5}^3 \epsilon_{B,-2} E_{52} n_{1},
530: \label{tIC}
531: \end{equation}
532: with the numerical coefficient computed for $p=2.3$. Note that this
533: expression is very sensitive to the value of $p$, and goes to infinity
534: when $p \rightarrow 2$.
535:
536: Equation \ref{tIC} implies that for $\ee/\eB \ga 10$, the IC
537: scattering dominates total cooling over the whole relativistic stage
538: of afterglow evolution, and therefore, over the time period containing most
539: current observations.
540:
541: \subsection{Inverse Compton Lightcurves}
542: Equations describing light curves of inverse Compton emission in the
543: regimes of fast cooling and slow cooling with negligible IC (as
544: defined in \S\ref{fcIC} and \S\ref{scnoIC}) were given in
545: \cite{pak00}, so we omit them here. One must keep in mind however,
546: that these equations were derived using the broken power-law
547: approximation to the IC spectral component, and so must be used with
548: caution. During the intermediate stage (see \S\ref{scIC}), when
549: $\nu_c > \nu_m$ but the total cooling rate is dominated by IC
550: scattering, the break frequencies of the IC spectral component and its
551: peak flux evolve with time in the following way
552: \begin{eqnarray}
553: \label{nutime}
554: \nu_a^{IC} &=& 2 \gm^2 \nu_a \propto t^{-3/4}, \\ \nonumber
555: \nu_m^{IC} &=& 2 \gm^2 \nu_m \propto t^{-9/4}, \\ \nonumber
556: \nu_c^{IC} &=& 2 \gc^2 \nu_c \propto (1+x)^{-4}t^{-1/4}
557: \propto t^{-1/4+\frac{2(p-2)}{4-p}}, \\ \nonumber
558: f_m^{IC} &\sim& \sigma_T R n f_m \propto t^{1/4}.
559: \end{eqnarray}
560: For a range of values of $p$ consistent with constraints from
561: observations, the break frequency $\nu_c^{IC}$ remains nearly constant
562: or increases with time: $\nu_c^{IC} \propto t^{-0.03}$ for $p=2.2$ and
563: $\nu_c^{IC} \propto t^{0.25}$ for $p=2.4$. It is therefore unlikely
564: that it can ever be observed directly with X-ray instruments (see
565: Fig. \ref{fig1}).
566:
567: Using the expressions above and the detailed spectrum described in the
568: appendix, one can obtain the lightcurve of the IC emission at any
569: frequency. As we have emphasized earlier, taking only the broken
570: power-law approximation to the IC spectrum can miss considerably, and
571: can be used only to get a very rough estimate, given below
572: \begin{equation}
573: f_{\nu}^{IC} \propto \left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
574: t^{9/4}, & \mathrm{if \quad} \nu < \nu_{a}^{IC},\\
575: t^{1}, & \mathrm{if \quad} \nu_a^{IC} < \nu < \nu_{m}^{IC},\\
576: t^{-\frac {9p-11} 8}, & \mathrm{if \quad} \nu_m^{IC} < \nu < \nu_{c}^{IC},\\
577: t^{-\frac {9p-10} 8+\frac{p-2}{4-p}}, & \mathrm{if \quad} \nu_c^{IC} < \nu.
578: \end{array} \right.
579: \label{IClightcurve}
580: \end{equation}
581:
582: The equation above differs from that given by Panaitescu and Kumar
583: above the frequency $\nu_c^{IC}$. Their expression is valid only it
584: late times, when IC cooling is not important, while
585: Eq.~(\ref{IClightcurve}) is valid during the intermediate stage of
586: afterglow evolution (slow cooling dominated by IC). As we stressed
587: earlier, for typical GRB parameters, this intermediate stage lasts
588: throughout the relativistic evolution of the fireball.
589:
590:
591: \section{Inferring Afterglow Parameters from the Synchrotron Spectral
592: Component}
593: \label{infer}
594: Even if the IC emission is not directly observed, its presence affects
595: how we interpret the properties of the observable synchrotron spectral
596: component. The general shape of the synchrotron emission is not
597: affected by the IC scattering. However, when this extra source of
598: cooling is taken into account, it lowers the predicted value of the
599: cooling frequency, $\nu_c$ by a factor $(1+x)^2$. In addition to this,
600: since during the fast cooling stage the self absorption frequency,
601: $\nu_a$, depends on the the cooling frequency, in this regime its
602: value increases by a factor $(1+x)$. The resulting modified
603: expressions for the break frequencies and the peak flux of the
604: synchrotron spectrum are listed below:
605: \begin{eqnarray}
606: \label{nua}
607: \nu _{a}^{slow}&=& 3.6\,{\rm GHz\,} (1+z)^{-1} \epsilon_{e,0.5}^{-1}
608: \epsilon_{B,-2}^{1/5} E_{52}^{1/5} n_1^{3/5}, \\
609: \nu _{a}^{fast} &=& 0.15\,{\rm GHz\,} (1+z)^{-1/2} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{6/5}
610: E_{52}^{7/10} n_1^{11/10} t_{day}^{-1/2} (1+x), \\
611: \nu_m&=&5 \times 10^{12}\, {\rm Hz\,} (1+z)^{1/2} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{1/2}
612: \epsilon_{e,0.5}^2 E_{52}^{1/2} t_{day}^{-3/2}, \\
613: \nu_c&=&2.7 \times 10^{15}\, {\rm Hz\,} (1+z)^{-1/2} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{-3/2}
614: E_{52}^{-1/2}n_1^{-1} t_{day}^{-1/2} (1+x)^{-2}, \\
615: \label{fmax}
616: f_{max}&=&2.6\, {\rm mJy\,} (1+z) \epsilon_{B,-2}^{1/2} E_{52} n_1^{1/2}
617: D_{L,28}^{-2},
618: \end{eqnarray}
619: where $D_{L,28}$ is the luminosity distance in units of $10^{28}\,{\rm cm}$.
620: The coefficients in these equations were taken from the synchrotron
621: spectrum calculation of \cite{gps99} and are slightly dependent on
622: $p$. The numerical values here are quoted for $p=2.2$.
623:
624: Combining Eqs. (\ref{x}), (\ref{nua})--(\ref{fmax}), we can now derive
625: an interesting constraint on the observable afterglow parameters:
626: \begin{equation}
627: C\equiv
628: 0.06 (1+z)^4 t_{day}^4 D_{L,28}^{-2}
629: %\left( \frac {\nu_c}{\nu_m} \right)^{-\frac{p-2}2}
630: \eta
631: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{\frac {10} {3}}
632: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac {13} {6}}
633: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac 3 2}
634: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{-1}
635: % =\frac {\eta \ee} {\eB} \frac 1 {(1+x)^3}
636: =\frac x {(1+x)^2}.
637: \label{combination}
638: \end{equation}
639: The expression on the right hand side has a maximum value of
640: $1/4$. Thus, Eq. (\ref{combination}) above gives us a theoretical
641: constraint on this combination of the observed break frequencies and
642: peak flux for any afterglow spectrum, completely independent of its
643: underlying physical parameters! Note that $\eta$ is also an
644: observable quantity, since it is given by $\eta =
645: \min[(\nu_c/\nu_m)^{(2-p)/2},\ 1]$ The only assumption made in deriving
646: this constraint is that we are seeing the synchrotron emission from a
647: power-law distribution of electrons accelerated by a relativistic
648: shock wave.
649:
650: For fast cooling, we can write a similar combination. It is simpler,
651: however, to use same combination $C$ as above, in which we substitute
652: the ``adjusted'' frequency given by
653: \begin{equation}
654: \nu_a^{slow}=\nu_a^{fast} \left( \frac {\nu_c} {\nu_m} \right) ^{1/2},
655: \label{nuaslow}
656: \end{equation}
657: instead of the observed self absorption frequency $\nu_a^{fast}$.
658:
659:
660: To illustrate how this constraint can be used, let's consider
661: GRB~970508, which has probably the best studied afterglow to
662: date. \cite*{gea98} described the observed broad band spectrum of that burst
663: and have shown it to be in good agreement with the synchrotron
664: spectrum of \cite{spn98}. Their fit shows that at $t=12.1\,$days
665: $\nu_c\cong 1.6 \times 10^{14}\,$Hz $\nu_m \cong 8.6 \times
666: 10^{10}\,$Hz, $\nu_a \cong 3.1\,$GHz and $f_{max}=1.7\,$mJy and
667: $p\cong 2.2$.
668: Using the break frequencies of GRB~970508 as given by \cite{gea98}, we
669: see that Eq. (\ref{combination}) gives $C \cong 4 \gg 1/4$. Though
670: this result seems to suggest that the observed spectrum could not be
671: produced by synchrotron emission, a more likely explanation is that
672: the values of the break frequencies are not accurate. Both $\nu_m$ and
673: $\nu_c$ are rather weakly constrained by the observations, and a factor
674: of a few could easily resolve this disagreement.
675:
676: We recommend the following procedure to determine the afterglow
677: parameters from a snapshot of the spectrum. First, one calculates the
678: combinations of observable as given in Eq. \ref{combination}
679: (with the correction of Eq. \ref{nuaslow}, if $\nu_c<\nu_a$). If this
680: combination of observable $C$ is above $1/4$, then there is no
681: consistent solution. If $C<1/4$ there are two solutions which can be
682: found in the following way. First we solve Eq. (\ref{combination}) to
683: give the two possible values of $x$:
684: \begin{equation}
685: x_1=\frac {1-2C-\sqrt{1-4C}} {2C} \cong C \ll 1
686: \end{equation}
687: and
688: \begin{equation}
689: x_2=\frac {1-2C+\sqrt{1-4C}} {2C} \cong \frac 1 {C} \gg 1.
690: \end{equation}
691: The two solutions for the physical parameters describing the afterglow
692: are then given by:
693: \begin{eqnarray}
694: E_{52}= 0.23
695: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{-\frac {5} {6}}
696: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac {5} {12}}
697: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac 1 4}
698: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{\frac 3 2}
699: t_{day}^{\frac 1 2}
700: (1+z)^{-2}
701: D_{L,28}^3
702: (1+x)^{\frac 1 2} \\
703: \ee= 0.23
704: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{\frac {5} {6}}
705: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac {11} {12}}
706: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac 1 4}
707: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{-\frac 1 2}
708: t_{day}^{-\frac 3 2}
709: (1+z)^1
710: D_{L,28}^{-1}
711: (1+x)^{\frac 1 2} \\
712: \eB= 3.9
713: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{-\frac {5} {2}}
714: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac {5} {4}}
715: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac 5 4}
716: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{\frac 1 2}
717: t_{day}^{\frac 5 2}
718: (1+z)^{-3}
719: D_{L,28}^1
720: (1+x)^{-\frac 5 2} \\
721: n_1= 0.0072
722: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{\frac {25} {6}}
723: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac {25} {12}}
724: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac 3 4}
725: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{-\frac 3 2}
726: t_{day}^{-\frac 7 2}
727: (1+z)^5
728: D_{L,28}^{-3}
729: (1+x)^{\frac 3 2}
730: \label{inversion}
731: \end{eqnarray}
732:
733: Since $1+x_1 \cong 1$ one of these solutions degenerates to that given
734: in \cite{wig99} with the corrected coefficients of
735: \cite{gps99}. However, in the second case we have $x_2 \gg 1$ so that
736: the resulting values of $E_{52},\ \ee,\ \eB$ and $n_1$ are
737: significantly different. Substituting $1+x_2 \sim x_2 \sim 1/C$ in
738: these equations we obtain
739: \begin{eqnarray}
740: E_{52}= 0.95 \eta^{-1/2}
741: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{-\frac {5} {2}}
742: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac {3} {2}}
743: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac 1 2}
744: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{2}
745: t_{day}^{\frac 5 2}
746: (1+z)^{-4}
747: D_{L,28}^4, \\
748: \ee= 0.95 \eta^{-1/2}
749: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{-\frac {5} {6}}
750: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac {1} {6}}
751: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac 1 2}
752: %\left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{-\frac 1 2}
753: t_{day}^{\frac 1 2}
754: (1+z)^{-1}, \\
755: \eB= 0.0032 \eta^{5/2}
756: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{\frac {35} {6}}
757: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac {25} {6}}
758: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac 5 2}
759: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{-2}
760: t_{day}^{-\frac {15} 2}
761: (1+z)^7
762: D_{L,28}^{-4},\\
763: n_1= 0.51 \eta^{-3/2}
764: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{\frac {5} {6}}
765: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac {7} {6}}
766: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac 3 2}
767: %\left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{-\frac 3 2}
768: t_{day}^{\frac 5 2}
769: (1+z)^{-1}.
770: \end{eqnarray}
771: This second solution where IC dominates, was neglected so far. It has
772: a somewhat higher energy, higher density, higher $\ee$ and
773: lower $\eB$, than the low-$x$ solution.
774:
775: How can we determine which of the two solutions is correct at a given
776: moment? This cannot be done by studying a single snapshot of the
777: afterglow spectrum. However, the temporal evolution above the cooling
778: frequency is a little different in the two cases. The decay rate is
779: slower in the second, IC-dominated, solution. If the decay rate below and
780: above the cooling frequency is measured to be $t^{-\alpha_1}$ and
781: $t^{-\alpha_2}$, respectively, then (for constant density of ambient
782: material) the standard model, which ignores IC emission, predicts
783: $\alpha_2-\alpha_1=1/4$. The presence of strong IC cooling will make
784: the difference smaller, giving $\alpha_2-\alpha_1=1/4-(p-2)/2(4-p)
785: \cong 0.2$. For a wind-like ambient density profile (see appendix B),
786: the standard model predicts $\alpha_2-\alpha_1=-1/4$, which changes
787: to $\alpha_2-\alpha_1=-1/4-(p-2)/(4-p) \cong -0.36$ when the IC
788: emission dominates the cooling. This difference is not large (except
789: perhaps in the wind model), and therefore, accurate measurement with
790: long temporal baselines are needed.
791:
792: It was recently argued by \cite{frw00} that the total energy contained
793: in the electrons behind the shock $\ee E$ can be estimated using a
794: single observation above the cooling frequency. They argued that this
795: is insensitive to the value of the magnetic field. Their analysis,
796: which ignores IC, could be explained as follows. Since the electron
797: energy distribution is flat, i.e. $p\sim 2$, each decade in the
798: electron distribution contains an amount of energy of the order of the
799: total energy in all the electrons. Above the cooling frequency all of
800: this energy is radiated and therefore, the observed $\nu F_{\nu}$
801: gives an approximate measure of the total electron energy. However, we
802: have shown that if the ratio $(\ee/\eB)$ is large, most of this energy
803: is radiated as IC emission rather than synchrotron. Therefore, during
804: the fast cooling stage the energy estimate suggested by \cite{frw00}
805: falls short of $\ee E$ by a factor $\sqrt{\ee/\eB}$, while during the
806: intermediate stage it is short by a factor $\sqrt{\eta \ee/\eB}$,
807: which is roughly proportional to $\eB^{-0.45}$; and both of these
808: correction factors depend on the magnetic field. Thus, \cite{frw00} method
809: can provide only a lower limit on $\ee E$.
810:
811: \section{Direct Detection of IC Emission}
812: \label{direct}
813: Clearly, the IC emission component can be detected directly only at
814: frequencies where it dominates over the synchrotron emission. As can
815: be seen from Fig. \ref{fig1}, for typical parameters this occurs in
816: the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray bands. Here we limit our discussion to the
817: intermediate regime (defined in \S\ref{scIC}) of afterglow evolution,
818: during which the crossing point between the synchrotron and IC
819: spectral components, $\nu^{IC}$, generally lies above the synchrotron
820: cooling frequency $\nu_c$ and between IC break frequencies
821: $\nu_a^{IC}$ and $\nu_c^{IC}$. Using the power-law approximation for
822: both spectral components it is then straight-forward to compute
823: $\nu^{IC}$, both at early times, when $\nu^{IC} < \nu_m^{IC}$, and at
824: later times, when $\nu^{IC} > \nu_m^{IC}$. We obtain the following
825: expressions:
826: \begin{equation}
827: \label{nuic}
828: \nu^{IC}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
829: \nu_m^{IC} \left[\frac{\eB}{\ee} \left(\frac{\gc}{\gm}\right)^4
830: (2 \gm \gc)^{2-p}\right]^{\frac{3}{2+ 3 p}} \propto
831: t^{\frac{3}{2} \frac{(3 p^2 - 8 p - 12)}{(2+3 p) (4-p)}}, &
832: \quad {\rm if}\ \nu^{IC} < \nu_m^{IC}; \\
833: \nu_c^{IC} \frac {\eB} {\ee} (2 \gm \gc)^{2-p}
834: \propto t^{\frac {3p^2-23p+36} {4(p-4)}}, &
835: \quad {\rm if}\ \nu^{IC} > \nu_m^{IC}.
836: \end{array} \right.
837: \end{equation}
838: It is easy to show that the transition between these two regimes occurs when
839: $\frac{\gc}{\gm} \simeq \left[\frac{\ee}{\eB} \gm^{2
840: (p-2)}\right]^{\frac{1}{6-p}}$. Note that it is not necessary to know
841: a priori which regime is relevant in a given case. One can simply
842: compute $\nu^{IC}$ using both expressions given above and then take
843: the larger value, which will always be the correct one.
844:
845: To determine whether direct observations of the IC emission is
846: feasible, it is best to write $\nu^{IC}$ in terms of the underlying
847: physical parameters describing GRB afterglow. The general expressions,
848: though readily computable, are too complicated to give here; instead
849: we show the results for two characteristic values of $p$. For $p=2.2$
850: (and uniform-density ambient medium), we obtain
851: \begin{eqnarray}
852: \label{nuic22}
853: \nu^{IC}=\max&&\left[2.3 \times 10^{19} \epsilon_{e,.5}^{1.3}
854: \epsilon_{B,-2}^{0.1} n_1^{-1} t_{day}^{-1.5} (1+z)^{0.5}; \right.\\ \nonumber
855: &&\left.\ 1.4 \times 10^{18} E_{52}^{-1.4} \epsilon_{e,.5}^{-3.7}
856: \epsilon_{B,-2}^{-0.6} n_1^{-2.3} (1+z)^{-1}\right] {\rm Hz},
857: \end{eqnarray}
858: while for $p=2.4$ we get
859: \begin{eqnarray}
860: \label{nuic24}
861: \nu^{IC}=\max&&\left[ 9 \times 10^{18} \epsilon_{e,.5}^{1.2}
862: \epsilon_{B,-2}^{0.1} n_1^{-1} t_{day}^{-1.4} (1+z)^{0.4}; \right. \\ \nonumber
863: && \left.\ 7 \times 10^{16} E_{52}^{-1.6} \epsilon_{e,.5}^{-4.5}
864: \epsilon_{B,-2}^{-0.75} n_1^{-2.4} t_{day}^{0.3} (1+z)^{-1.3}\right] {\rm Hz}.
865: \end{eqnarray}
866: The first and second expressions in parentheses describe early and
867: late time evolution of $\nu^{IC}$, respectively. Note that when the
868: latter expression applies, it may considerably overestimate the value
869: of $\nu^{IC}$, since it is based on an approximate description of the IC
870: spectrum (see Fig. \ref{fig1}).
871:
872: From Eqs. (\ref{nuic22}) and (\ref{nuic24}) it is clear that
873: $\nu^{IC}$ reaches its minimum values at a time when $\nu^{IC} =
874: \nu_m^{IC}$. (Using Eq. (\ref{nuic}) it can easily be shown that this
875: is a general property of the transition frequency, as long as $p \ga
876: 2.2$.) Since both {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM} cannot observe hard
877: X-rays, the IC component can be seen directly only while, say, $\nu^{IC} \la
878: 5\,{\rm keV}$. This condition places a lower limit on the ambient
879: density. For $p=2.2$, we need $n_1 \ga 1.1 E_{52}^{-0.6}
880: \epsilon_{e,.5}^{-1.6} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{-0.26} (1+z)^{-0.4}$, while
881: for $p=2.4$ we should have $n_1 \ga 0.4 E_{52}^{-0.6}
882: \epsilon_{e,.5}^{-1.7} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{-0.27} (1+z)^{-0.5}$, in general
883: agreement with \cite{pak00}.
884:
885: If the ambient density is high enough to satisfy the above conditions
886: then the following sequence of events should be observed in X-rays
887: near $5\,{\rm keV}$. The X-ray flux begins to be dominated by IC
888: emission at time $t \sim 7.5\, {\rm days}\,\epsilon_{e,.5}^{0.9}
889: \epsilon_{B,-2}^{0.08} n_1^{-0.7} (1+z)^{0.3}$ for $p=2.2$ and $t
890: \sim 4.3\, {\rm days}\,\epsilon_{e,.5}^{0.9} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{0.07}
891: n_1^{-0.7} (1+z)^{0.3}$ for $p=2.4$, causing the observed spectral
892: slope to change from $-p/2$ to $1/3$. After the transition, the IC
893: flux increases linearly with time (Eq. \ref{IClightcurve}), producing
894: a bump in the X-ray lightcurve \citep[see also figure 3 of][]{pak00}.
895:
896: The observed flux peaks when $\nu_m^{IC}$ moves into the X-ray band at
897: time $t\sim 7.2\, {\rm days}\,E_{52}^{1/3} \epsilon_{e,.5}^{16/9}
898: \times \epsilon_{B,-2}^{2/9} n_1^{-1/9} (1+z)^{5/9}$ (independent of $p$).
899: At the same time the spectral slope changes gradually from $1/3$ to
900: $-(p-1)/2$, which is still easily distinguishable from the
901: characteristic $-p/2$ slope of the synchrotron high energy tail. From
902: this point on, the observed flux evolves as
903: \begin{equation}
904: f_{\nu}^{IC} \sim 2 \times 10^{-14} \left(\frac{\nu}{5\,{\rm
905: keV}}\right)^{-0.6} E_{52}^{1.7} \epsilon_{e,.5}^{2.4} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{0.8}
906: n_1^{1.1} D_{L,28}^{-2} (1+z)^{1.5} t_{day}^{-1.1}\, {\rm \frac {erg}{s\,cm^{2}\, keV}},
907: \end{equation}
908: for $p=2.2$ and as
909: \begin{equation}
910: f_{\nu}^{IC} \sim 3.2 \times 10^{-14} \left(\frac{\nu}{5\,{\rm
911: keV}}\right)^{-0.7} E_{52}^{1.8} \epsilon_{e,.5}^{2.8} \epsilon_{B,-2}^{0.9}
912: n_1^{1.1} D_{L,28}^{-2} (1+z)^{1.6} t_{day}^{-1.3}\, {\rm \frac{erg}{s\,cm^{2}\, keV}},
913: \end{equation}
914: for $p=2.4$.
915: For comparison, ACIS on {\it Chandra} can detect fluxes down to
916: $4\times 10^{-15}\,{\rm erg\,s^{-1}\,cm^{-2}}$ (in the energy band
917: $0.4-6\,{\rm keV}$) in a $10^4\,{\rm s}$ observation. Thus, for
918: reasonable values of the afterglow parameters, the IC emission should
919: stay visible for several weeks or even months, especially if $E_{52}$
920: is somewhat larger than unity, as is the case for a reasonable fraction
921: of the bursts.
922:
923: \section{Summary}
924: \label{summary}
925: In this paper we calculate the detailed spectrum of the inverse
926: Compton emission from a relativistic shock in the context of GRB
927: afterglows. The general shape of this spectral component is very
928: similar to the primary synchrotron spectrum. Like the latter, the
929: spectrum of the IC emission can be roughly approximated by a broken
930: power-law with break frequencies $\nu_a^{IC}$, $\nu_m^{IC}$, and
931: $\nu_c^{IC}$ (defined in \S\ref{scspec}). However, it differs from
932: the synchrotron spectral component on three major points, summarized
933: below. (I) At the low frequency end of the spectrum, $\nu <
934: \nu_a^{IC}$, the emission increases as $\propto \nu$, rather than as
935: $\propto \nu^2$ characteristic of the synchrotron spectrum below
936: $\nu_a$. This may not have major practical consequences, however,
937: since the low frequency part of the IC spectral component is generally
938: obscured by the synchrotron high energy tail. (II) The part of the IC
939: spectrum which lies between $\nu_c^{IC}$ and $\nu_m^{IC}$ extends over
940: twice as many decades as the corresponding region (between $\nu_m$ and
941: $\nu_c$) in the synchrotron spectrum. (III) The segments of the IC
942: spectral component above the peak frequency ($\nu_m^{IC}$ in the slow
943: cooling regime and above $\nu_c^{IC}$ in the fast cooling regime)
944: cannot be well described by the pure power-law terms. The presence of
945: additional logarithmic terms in this frequency range has the effect of
946: considerably smoothing out the spectral breaks. Thus, no sharp
947: changes in the spectral slope or in the rate of time evolution is
948: expected during the observation of the IC emission above the peak
949: frequency. In contrast, the observed transition between the
950: synchrotron and Compton component can be sharp and produce quite
951: dramatic spectral and temporal changes.
952:
953: In \S\ref{lumratio2} we give a simple prescription for estimating the
954: importance of IC emission for the total cooling rate of the shocked
955: gas. We showed that if the fraction of energy contained in
956: relativistic electrons, $\epsilon_e$, is larger than that in magnetic
957: field, $\epsilon_B$, then during the fast cooling stage, IC emission
958: is greater than the emission due to synchrotron by a factor of
959: $\sqrt{\epsilon_e/\epsilon_B}$. This factor decreases very slowly in
960: the slow cooling regime, since at any given moment electrons located
961: high enough in the power-law distribution are always cooling. Since
962: the electron distribution is close to being flat, these electron can
963: still radiate a significant fraction of the total electron energy.
964: Thus, the afterglow evolution during the early part of the slow
965: cooling regime is also dominated by IC emission. Moreover, we found
966: that for $\epsilon_e/\epsilon_B > 10$, the IC scattering is likely to
967: remain the dominant cooling mechanism throughout the entire
968: relativistic stage.
969:
970: As long as the IC emission dominates the total cooling rate, it sets
971: the energy of the cooling break, $\gc$, in the electron energy
972: distribution, and determines the cooling frequency of the synchrotron
973: spectral component. Therefore, the presence of IC emission changes
974: the values of physical parameters inferred from current afterglow
975: observations. In \S\ref{infer} we give the revised prescription for
976: computing the total explosion energy, $E$, the fractions of energy in
977: electrons and magnetic fields, $\ee$ and $\eB$, and the ambient
978: particle density, $n$, using the observed properties of the
979: synchrotron spectral component. We show that at any instance in time
980: two possible solutions for $E$, $\ee$, $\eB$, and $n$ are allowed, one
981: where IC cooling is unimportant and another where it dominates the
982: total emission from the afterglow. There is no way to distinguish
983: between the two solutions based on an instantaneous synchrotron
984: spectrum alone. They differ only in their time evolution of emission
985: above $\nu_c$ and in the strength of the IC spectral component.
986:
987: We also obtain an important constraint on the instantaneous values of
988: the synchrotron break frequencies, peak flux of the synchrotron
989: component and the redshift of the afterglow in the slow cooling
990: regime. We show that due to the presence of the IC cooling rate, a
991: combination of these parameters must always be smaller than $1/4$.
992:
993: Finally, we discuss the possibility of detecting the IC emission
994: component directly. We show that for reasonable values of the
995: physical parameters, this component can be detected by Chandra a few
996: days after the initial burst, as long as the ambient density is
997: greater than $\sim 1\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$. Whether or not the IC component
998: is detected will be apparent from the change in observed spectral slope,
999: as well as from the bump in the X-ray light curve.
1000:
1001: \acknowledgements
1002: RS gratefully acknowledges support from the Sherman Fairchild foundations.
1003: AE was supported by NASA through
1004: Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship grant \#PF8-10002 awarded by the
1005: Chandra X-Ray Center, which is operated by the SAO for NASA under
1006: contract NAS8-39073.
1007:
1008: \appendix
1009: \section{Details of Compton Scattering}
1010:
1011: The Thomson optical depth through the shocked medium, $\tau \sim
1012: \sigma_T n R$, is generally very small, of order $10^{-6}$.
1013: In this case the Compton $y$-parameter, $y = \g_e^2 \tau$, determines
1014: the average fractional energy change of seed photons in each
1015: scattering by an electron with Lorenz factor $\g_e$. When $y < 1$,
1016: only single scattering needs to be considered in computing inverse
1017: Compton emission. When $y>1$, multiple scattering can be important.
1018: However, in the context of GRB afterglows, a once-scattered
1019: synchrotron photon with initial energy $h \nu$ generally has energy of
1020: order $\g_e^3 h \nu \ga m_e c^2$ in the rest frame of the second
1021: scattering electron. Then Thomson limit no longer applies and the
1022: energy gain in each successive scattering will be reduced due to
1023: electron recoil and to the necessity of using Klein-Nishina scattering
1024: cross section. We conclude therefore, that multiple scattering of
1025: synchrotron photons can be ignored.
1026:
1027: For single scattering, the inverse Compton volume
1028: emissivity for a power-law distribution of scattering electrons is
1029: given by \citep{ryl79}
1030: \begin{equation}
1031: \label{jc}
1032: j^{IC}_{\nu} = 3 \sigma_T \int_{\gm}^{\infty}{d \g N(\g)
1033: \int_0^1{d x\,g(x) \tilde{f}_{\nu_s}(x)}},
1034: \end{equation}
1035: where $x \equiv \nu/4 \g^2 \nu_s$, $\tilde{f}_{\nu_s}$ is the incident
1036: specific flux at the shock front, and $g(x) = 1+x+2 x \ln{x}-2 x^2$
1037: takes care of the angular dependence of the scattering cross section
1038: in the limit $\g \gg 1$ \citep{blg70}. However, the quantities which
1039: are easiest to compare with the observations are the flux in the
1040: inverse Compton component, $f^{IC}_{\nu} = j^{IC}_{\nu} \frac{4}{3}
1041: R^3/(4 \pi D^2)$ and the synchrotron flux $f_{\nu_s} =
1042: \tilde{f}_{\nu_s} 4 \pi R^2/(4 \pi D^2)$, where $R$ is the size of the
1043: shocked region and $D$ is the distance to the observer. Strictly
1044: speaking, both $j$ and $\tilde{f}$ are measured in the rest frame of
1045: the shocked medium, but they transform in the same way to the
1046: observer's frame, so the transformation factors cancel each other out
1047: (as do redshift effects). Substituting these quantities into
1048: Eq. (\ref{jc}) gives us
1049: \begin{equation}
1050: \label{fc}
1051: f^{IC}_{\nu} = R \sigma_T \int_{\gm}^{\infty}{d \g N(\g)
1052: \int_0^{x_0}{d x\, f_{\nu_s}(x)}},
1053: \end{equation}
1054: where we approximated $g(x)= 1$ for $0<x<x_0$ to
1055: simplify the integration. This simplified expression yields correct
1056: behavior for $x\ll 1$. The value of the parameter $x_0 = \sqrt{2}/3$
1057: is set by ensuring energy conservation, i.e. setting $\int_0^1{x\,
1058: g(x) d x} = \int_0^{x_0}{x\, d x}$ (we approximate $x_0\sim 0.5$ in the
1059: main text of the paper). Note that the
1060: scattered flux distribution for monoenergetic photons computed using
1061: this approximation has a maximum at $x=x_0 \approx 0.47$, very close
1062: to that of the exact distribution, which peaks at $x\approx 0.61$.
1063:
1064: \subsection{Slow Cooling}
1065:
1066: The distribution of seed photons is described by the synchrotron
1067: spectrum, which consists of four power-law segments \citep{spn98}.
1068: Then the inner integral in Eq. (\ref{fc}) yields (to a leading order
1069: in $\nu$ and zeroth order in $\nu_a/\nu_m$ and $\nu_m/\nu_c$):
1070: \begin{equation}
1071: \label{int1}
1072: I = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1073: I_1 \simeq \frac{5}{2} f_{max} x_0
1074: \left(\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_m}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}
1075: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0}\right), & \nu < 4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0 \\
1076: I_2 \simeq \frac{3}{2} f_{max} x_0
1077: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_m x_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}, &
1078: 4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0 < \nu < 4 \g^2 \nu_m x_0 \\
1079: I_3 \simeq \frac{2}{(p+1)} f_{max} x_0
1080: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_m x_0}\right)^{\frac{1-p}{2}}, &
1081: 4 \g^2 \nu_m x_0 < \nu < 4 \g^2 \nu_c x_0 \\
1082: I_4 \simeq \frac{2}{(p+2)} f_{max} x_0
1083: \left(\frac{\nu_c}{\nu_m}\right)^{\frac{1-p}{2}}
1084: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_c x_0}\right)^{-\frac{p}{2}}, &
1085: \nu > 4 \g^2 \nu_c x_0.
1086: \end{array} \right.
1087: \end{equation}
1088: The quantity $f_{max} = f_{\nu_s} (\nu_m)$ is the flux value at the
1089: peak of the synchrotron spectral component. Note that the inverse
1090: Compton spectrum for monoenergetic electron scattering has the same
1091: frequency dependence above $4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0$ as the input synchrotron
1092: spectrum above the self absorption frequency, $\nu_a$. In the range
1093: $\nu < 4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0$, the functional form of the differential
1094: cross section dominates and $I_1$ is linear in $\nu$, rather than
1095: quadratic.
1096:
1097: The integration over different electron energies again needs to be divided
1098: into four different regimes:
1099: \begin{equation}
1100: \label{int2}
1101: f_{\nu}^{IC} = R \sigma_T \times \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1102:
1103: \int_{\gm}^{\infty}{d \g N (\g) I_1}, & \nu < \nu_a^{IC}; \\
1104:
1105: \left(\int_{\gm}^{\g_{cr} (\nu_a)}{d \g N (\g) I_2} +
1106: \int_{\g_{cr} (\nu_a)}^{\infty}{d \g N (\g) I_1}\right), &
1107: \nu_a^{IC} < \nu < \nu_m^{IC}; \\
1108:
1109: \left(\int_{\gm}^{\g_{cr} (\nu_m)}{d \g N (\g) I_3} +
1110: \int_{\g_{cr} (\nu_m)}^{\g_{cr} (\nu_a)}{d \g N (\g) I_2} + \right. & \\
1111: \quad \left. \int_{\g_{cr} (\nu_a)}^{\infty}{d \g N (\g) I_1}\right), &
1112: \nu_m^{IC} < \nu < \sqrt{\nu_m^{IC} \nu_c^{IC}}; \\
1113:
1114: \left(\int_{\gm}^{\g_{cr} (\nu_c)}{d \g N (\g) I_4} +
1115: \int_{\g_{cr} (\nu_c)}^{\g_{cr} (\nu_m)}{d \g N (\g) I_3} + \right. & \\
1116: \quad \left. \int_{\g_{cr} (\nu_m)}^{\g_{cr} (\nu_a)}{d \g N (\g) I_2} +
1117: \int_{\g_{cr} (\nu_a)}^{\infty}{d \g N (\g) I_1}\right), &
1118: \nu > \sqrt{\nu_m^{IC} \nu_c^{IC}},
1119: \end{array} \right.
1120: \end{equation}
1121: where $\g_{cr}(\nu) = \sqrt{\nu/4 \nu x_0}$, and the break frequencies
1122: are defined as $\nu_a^{IC}=4 \gm^2 \nu_a x_0$, $\nu_m^{IC}=4 \gm^2
1123: \nu_m x_0$, $\nu_c^{IC}=4 \gc^2 \nu_c x_0$.
1124:
1125:
1126: Evaluating the integrals in Eq. (\ref{int2}) and again keeping only the
1127: dominant terms, we obtain
1128: \begin{eqnarray}
1129: \label{fc2}
1130: f_{\nu}^{IC} &\simeq& R \sigma_T n f_{max} x_0 \\ \nonumber
1131: &\times&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1132:
1133: \frac{5}{2} \frac{(p-1)}{(p+1)} \left(\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_m}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}
1134: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_a^{IC}}\right), &
1135: \nu < \nu_a^{IC}; \\
1136:
1137: \frac{3}{2} \frac{(p-1)}{(p-1/3)}
1138: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_m^{IC}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}, &
1139: \nu_a^{IC} < \nu < \nu_m^{IC}; \\
1140:
1141: \frac{(p-1)}{(p+1)}
1142: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_m^{IC}}\right)^{\frac{1-p}{2}}
1143: \left[\frac{4 (p+1/3)}{(p+1)(p-1/3)} +
1144: \ln{\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_m^{IC}}\right)}\right], &
1145: \nu_m^{IC} < \nu < \sqrt{\nu_m^{IC} \nu_c^{IC}}; \\
1146:
1147: \frac{(p-1)}{(p+1)}
1148: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_m^{IC}}\right)^{\frac{1-p}{2}}
1149: \left[2 \frac{(2 p+3)}{(p+2)} - \frac{2}{(p+1)(p+2)} +
1150: \ln{\left(\frac {\nu_c^{IC}}{\nu}\right)}\right], &
1151: \sqrt{\nu_m^{IC} \nu_c^{IC}} < \nu < \nu_c^{IC}; \\
1152:
1153: \frac{(p-1)}{(p+1)}
1154: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_m^{IC}}\right)^{\frac{-p}{2}}
1155: \left(\frac{\nu_c}{\nu_m}\right)
1156: \left[2 \frac{(2 p+3)}{(p+2)} + \frac{2}{(p+2)^2} + \frac{(p+1)}{(p+2)}
1157: \ln{\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_c^{IC}}\right)}\right], &
1158: \nu > \nu_c^{IC}.
1159: \end{array} \right.
1160: \end{eqnarray}
1161: There is no abrupt spectral slope change at $\nu = \sqrt{\nu_m^{IC}
1162: \nu_c^{IC}}$, so that the region with the slope $(1-p)/2$ extends over
1163: twice as many orders of magnitude as the corresponding region in the
1164: seed synchrotron spectrum.
1165:
1166: It is important to point out that for $\nu > \nu_m^{IC}$, the presence
1167: of logarithmic terms ensures that a broken power-law is no longer a
1168: good approximation to the correct spectrum.
1169:
1170: The value of the flux at the peak of the inverse Compton component is
1171: given by
1172: \begin{equation}
1173: f_{\nu}^{IC} (\nu_m^{IC}) \simeq 4 \sigma_T R n f_{max} x_0
1174: \frac{(p-1)(p+1/3)}{(p-1/3)(p+1)^2},
1175: \end{equation}
1176: assuming that $\nu_a \ll \nu_m \ll \nu_c$.
1177:
1178:
1179: \subsection{Fast Cooling}
1180:
1181: In this regime, the inner integral in Eq. (\ref{fc}) evaluates to:
1182: \begin{equation}
1183: \label{int1fc}
1184: I = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1185: I_1 \simeq \frac{5}{2} f_{max} x_0 \left(\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_c}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}
1186: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0}\right), & \nu < 4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0 \\
1187: I_2 \simeq \frac{3}{2} f_{max} x_0
1188: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_c x_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}, &
1189: 4 \g^2 \nu_a x_0 < \nu < 4 \g^2 \nu_c x_0 \\
1190: I_3 \simeq \frac{2}{3} f_{max} x_0
1191: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_c x_0}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}, &
1192: 4 \g^2 \nu_c x_0 < \nu < 4 \g^2 \nu_m x_0 \\
1193: I_4 \simeq \frac{2}{(p+2)} f_{max} x_0
1194: \left(\frac{\nu_c}{\nu_m}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
1195: \left(\frac{\nu}{4 \g^2 \nu_m x_0}\right)^{-\frac{p}{2}}, &
1196: \nu > 4 \g^2 \nu_m x_0.
1197: \end{array} \right.
1198: \end{equation}
1199: Here $f_{max} = f_{\nu_s} (\nu_c)$.
1200:
1201: Performing the appropriate integration over $\g$ we get the spectrum of the
1202: inverse Compton emission:
1203: \begin{eqnarray}
1204: \label{fc2fc}
1205: f_{\nu}^{IC} &\simeq& R \sigma_T n f_{max} x_0 \\ \nonumber
1206: &\times&\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
1207:
1208: \frac{5}{6} \left(\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_c}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}
1209: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_a^{IC}}\right), &
1210: \nu < \nu_a^{IC}; \\
1211:
1212: \frac{9}{10} \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_c^{IC}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}, &
1213: \nu_a^{IC} < \nu < \nu_c^{IC}; \\
1214:
1215: \frac{1}{3} \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_c^{IC}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
1216: \left[\frac{28}{15} -
1217: \ln{\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_c^{IC}}\right)}\right], &
1218: \nu_c^{IC} < \nu < \sqrt{\nu_c^{IC} \nu_m^{IC}}; \\
1219:
1220: \frac{1}{3}
1221: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_c^{IC}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
1222: \left[2 \frac{(p+5)}{(p+2)(p-1)} - \frac{2 (p-1)}{3 (p+2)} +
1223: \ln{\left(\frac{\nu_m^{IC}}{\nu}\right)}\right], &
1224: \sqrt{\nu_c^{IC} \nu_m^{IC}} < \nu < \nu_m^{IC}; \\
1225:
1226: \frac{1}{(p+2)}
1227: \left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_m^{IC}}\right)^{\frac{-p}{2}}
1228: \left(\frac{\nu_c}{\nu_m}\right)
1229: \left[\frac{2}{3} \frac{(p+5)}{(p-1)} - \frac{2}{3}\frac{(p-1)}{(p+2)} +
1230: \ln{\left(\frac{\nu}{\nu_m^{IC}}\right)}\right], &
1231: \nu > \nu_m^{IC},
1232: \end{array} \right.
1233: \end{eqnarray}
1234: with the break frequencies defined as $\nu_a^{IC}=4 \gc^2 \nu_a x_0$,
1235: $\nu_c^{IC}=4 \gc^2 \nu_c x_0$, $\nu_m^{IC}=4 \gm^2 \nu_m x_0$.
1236:
1237: In this regime, the flux at the peak of the inverse Compton component is
1238: \begin{equation}
1239: f_{\nu}^{IC} (4 \gc^2 \nu_c x_0) \simeq \frac{28}{45} \sigma_T
1240: R n f_{max} x_0,
1241: \end{equation}
1242: assuming that $\nu_a \ll \nu_c \ll \nu_m$.
1243:
1244: \section{The Wind Case: $\rho \propto R^{-2}$}
1245: For the instantaneous spectrum, there is no difference between the
1246: ambient medium with a wind-like or a constant density profile, since
1247: only the density in front of the shock at the time of observation
1248: matters. However, the two models clearly have different predictions
1249: for the time evolution of the observed emission.
1250:
1251: Eq. (\ref{ICtoSYN}) and its exact (Eq. \ref{exactx}) and approximate
1252: (Eq. \ref{approxx}) solutions, as well as the expression for $\eta$,
1253: are valid for any density profile, since they come from the analysis
1254: of a ``snapshot'' spectrum. However, since the time dependence of
1255: $\nu_c/\nu_m$ is different for the wind-like and constant density
1256: profiles, the evolution of $x$ is different in the two cases and so
1257: are the transition times between the three stages. For the wind
1258: density profile, the importance of IC emission decreases somewhat
1259: faster, since $\nu_c/\nu_m \propto t^2$ in the wind case rather
1260: $\propto t$ as in the constant density case. This makes the difference
1261: between the intermediate regime (slow cooling, IC dominates) and the
1262: final regime (slow cooling with negligible IC) more significant.
1263:
1264: For the wind profile, the temporal evolution of $x$ is given by:
1265: \begin{equation}
1266: x = \sqrt{\frac{\ee}{\eB}}
1267: \left(\frac{t}{t_0^{IC}}\right)^{-\frac{(p-2)}{(4-p)}}.
1268: \end{equation}
1269: Assuming $\epsilon_e \gg \epsilon_B$, slow cooling now lasts until
1270: \begin{equation}
1271: t_0^{IC}=3.5 (1+z)
1272: \left( \frac {\ee} {0.5} \right)^{3/2}
1273: \left( \frac {\eB} {0.01} \right)^{1/2}
1274: A_\star \, {\rm days}
1275: \end{equation}
1276: which is typically longer than in the constant density case. The IC
1277: dominated stage lasts until
1278: \begin{equation}
1279: t^{IC}=2.5\, {\rm years} \left( \frac {\ee/0.5} {\eB/0.01} \right)^
1280: {\frac {4-p} {p-2}} \left( \frac {\ee} {0.5} \right)^{3/2} \left( \frac
1281: {\eB} {0.01} \right)^{1/2} A_\star
1282: \end{equation}
1283: This estimate is correct only during the relativistic stage
1284: and the importance of IC cooling declines fast, once the shock speed falls
1285: significantly below $c$.
1286:
1287: When inferring the parameters from a snapshot spectrum, the estimate
1288: of the total energy and the electron and magnetic energy fraction is
1289: not affected by changes in the density profile. Again one has to
1290: estimate the combination $C$ as given by Eq. (\ref{combination}) and,
1291: provided that $C<1/4$ (otherwise there is no consistent solution),
1292: solve for $x_1$ and $x_2$, and substitute the values into
1293: Eq. (\ref{inversion}). The equation for the ambient density also
1294: holds, but now it gives the density in front of the shock at the time
1295: of observation. However, since this density is not constant in time,
1296: the resulting number is not very useful. It is better to
1297: compute the normalization coefficient for the
1298: $n \propto R^{-2}$ law. Using the \cite{chl99} notation,
1299: $\rho=5\times 10^{11}{\rm gr\,cm^{-3}} A_\star R_{\rm cm}^{-2}$, we get
1300: \begin{equation}
1301: A_{\star}=3 \times 10^{-3}
1302: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{\frac {5} {3}}
1303: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac {5} {6}}
1304: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{\frac 1 2}
1305: %\left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)^{-\frac 3 2}
1306: t_{day}^{2}
1307: (1+z)
1308: %D_{L,28}^{-3}
1309: (1+x),
1310: \end{equation}
1311: which is similar to the expression of \cite{chl99} with an extra
1312: factor $(1+x)$.
1313:
1314: For the new IC-dominated solution, given by $x_2\simeq 1/C \gg 1$,
1315: we obtained:
1316: \begin{equation}
1317: A_{\star}=0.05 \eta^{-1}
1318: \left( \frac {\nu_a} {\rm GHz} \right)^{-\frac {5} {3}}
1319: \left( \frac {\nu_m} {10^{13}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-\frac {4} {3}}
1320: \left( \frac {\nu_c} {10^{14}\,{\rm Hz}} \right)^{-1}
1321: \left( \frac {F_{\nu_m}} {\rm mJy} \right)
1322: t_{day}^{-2}
1323: (1+z)^{-3}
1324: D_{L,28}^{2}
1325: \end{equation}
1326: As in the constant density case, this new solution, corresponds to
1327: a higher ambient density than the low-$x$ solution.
1328:
1329: \bibliography{grb}
1330: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1331:
1332: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blandford \& McKee}{Blandford \& McKee}{1977}]
1333: {blm77} Blandford, R. D. \& McKee, C. F. 1977, \mnras, 180, 343
1334:
1335: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blumenthal \& Gould}{Blumenthal \&
1336: Gould} {1970}] {blg70} Blumenthal, G. R., \& Gould, R. J. 1970,
1337: Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 237
1338:
1339: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chevalier \& Lee}{Chevalier \&
1340: Lee} {1999}] {chl99} Chevalier, R. A., \& Lee, Z. Y. 1999,
1341: astro-ph/9908272
1342:
1343: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chiang \& Dermer}{Chiang \&
1344: Dermer} {1999}] {chd99} Chiang, J., \& Dermer, C. D. 1999,
1345: ApJ, 512, 699
1346:
1347: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Freedman \& Waxman}{Freedman \& Waxman}{2000}] {frw00} Freedman, D. L. \& Waxman, E., astro-ph/9912214.
1348:
1349: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Galama et al.}{Galama et al.}{1998}]
1350: {gea98} Galama, T. et al. 1998, \apj, 500, L97
1351:
1352: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Granot, Piran \& Sari}{Granot et al.}{1999}]
1353: {gps99} Granot, J., Piran, T. \& Sari, R. 1999, \apj, 527, 236
1354:
1355: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Panaitescu \& Kumar}{Panaitescu \& Kumar}
1356: {2000}]
1357: {pak00} Panaitescu, A., \& Kumar, P. 2000, \apj, submitted (astro-ph/0003246)
1358:
1359: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Panaitescu \& M\'esz\'aros}
1360: {Panaitescu \& M\'esz\'aros}{1998}]
1361: {pam98} Panaitescu, A., \& M\'esz\'aros, P., 1998, \apj, 501, 772
1362:
1363: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Piran}{Piran}{1999}]{pir99}
1364: Piran, T. 1999, Phys. Rep., 314, 575
1365:
1366: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rybicki \& Lightman}{Rybicki \& Lightman}
1367: {1979}]
1368: {ryl79} Rybicki, G. B., \& Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative Processes in
1369: Astrophysics (New York: John Wiley \& Sons)
1370:
1371: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sari, Narayan \& Piran}{Sari et al.}{1996}]
1372: {snp96} Sari, R., Narayan, R. \& Piran, T. 1996, \apj, 473, 204
1373:
1374: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sari, Piran \& Narayan}{Sari et al.}{1998}]
1375: {spn98} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R. 1998, \apj, 497, L17
1376:
1377: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sari, Piran \& Halpern}{Sari et al.}{1999}]
1378: {sph99} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Halpern, J. P. 1999, \apj, 519, L17
1379:
1380: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Totani}{Totani}{1998}]
1381: {tot98} Totani, T. 1998, \apj, 502, L13
1382:
1383: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wei \& Lu}{Wei \& Lu}{1998}]
1384: {wel98} Wei, D. M. \& Lu, T. 1998, \apj, 505, 252
1385:
1386: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wijers \& Galama}{Wijers \& Galama}{1999}]
1387: {wig99} Wijers, R. A. M. J., \& Galama, T. J. 1999, \apj, 523, 177
1388:
1389: \end{thebibliography}
1390: \vfill\eject
1391:
1392: \special{psfile=fig1.ps hoffset=-20 voffset=-710 hscale=85 vscale=85}
1393: \figcaption{\label{fig1} Total energy spectrum of a GRB afterglow,
1394: calculated using the following parameters: $p=2.4$, $\ee=0.5$,
1395: $\eB=0.01$, $E_{52}=0.5$, $z=0.5$, $n=3$. The synchrotron component is shown
1396: as a thin solid line and the inverse Compton component as a heavy
1397: solid line. A broken power-law approximation to the inverse Compton
1398: spectrum, normalized using Eq. (\ref{fratio}), is plotted as a dashed
1399: line for comparison. Panel (a) shows the spectrum at $t=12\,{\rm
1400: days}$, when the afterglow is in the slow cooling regime. Panel (b) shows
1401: the spectrum in the fast cooling regime, computed for $t=43\,{\rm min}$.}
1402: \end{document}
1403:
1404:
1405:
1406:
1407:
1408:
1409:
1410:
1411:
1412:
1413:
1414:
1415:
1416:
1417:
1418:
1419:
1420:
1421: