1: \documentstyle[aaspp4]{article}
2: \def \sun {$_{\scriptscriptstyle \odot}$}
3: \lefthead{B\"ottcher \& Fryer}
4: \righthead{GRB Iron Lines}
5: \begin{document}
6: \begin{center} Submitted to {\em The Astrophysical Journal} on May 24, 2000
7: \par (revised: Sept. 14, 2000)
8: \end{center}
9: \vspace{1.cm}
10: \title{X-ray spectral features from GRBs:\\
11: Predictions of progenitor models}
12: \author{Markus B\"ottcher$^*$\footnote{Chandra Fellow} and
13: Chris L. Fryer$^{\dagger}$\footnote{Feynman Fellow}}
14: \affil{$^*$Space Physics and Astronomy Department; Rice University, MS 108 \\
15: 6100 S. Main Street; Houston, TX 77005 - 1892; USA \\
16: $^{\dagger}$Theoretical Astrophysics, Los Alamos National Laboratory;
17: Los Alamos, NM 87545; USA}
18: \authoremail{mboett@spacsun.rice.edu, clf@t6-serv.lanl.gov}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We investigate the potentially observable prompt or delayed
22: X-ray spectral features from the currently popular gamma-ray
23: burst (GRB) models. During the evolution of many GRB progenitors,
24: a disk around the central GRB source is produced. Shock heating
25: as the GRB ejecta collide with the disk may produce observable
26: X-ray features. We first summarize predictions deduced from
27: previous calculations which invoke photoionization and relativistic
28: blast waves. We then calculate the quasi-thermal X-ray line features
29: produced assuming the ejecta are nonrelativistic (which is
30: more likely for the disk interactions of many GRB models).
31: In the framework of the Hypernova/Collapsar model, delayed
32: (a few days -- several months after the GRB) bursts of
33: line-dominated, thermal X-ray emission may be expected.
34: The He-merger scenario predicts similar X-ray emission
35: line bursts $\lesssim$~a few days after the GRB. These X-ray
36: signatures should be observable with {\it Chandra} and
37: {\it XMM-Newton} out to at least $z \sim 1$. Weak emission
38: line features $\lesssim$~a few days after the GRB may also
39: result from the supranova GRB scenario. In all three cases,
40: significant X-ray absorption features, in particular during
41: the prompt GRB phase, are expected. No significant X-ray
42: spectral features should result from compact-object binary
43: mergers.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \keywords{supernovae: general --- gamma-rays: bursts --- X-rays: bursts}
47:
48: \section{Introduction}
49:
50: With the advent of the new generation of X-ray telescopes,
51: such as {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton}, the detection
52: of X-ray spectral signatures from the environments of
53: cosmological gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) has become a realistic
54: prospect. The marginal detection of a redshifted Fe~K$\alpha$
55: emission line in the afterglow of GRB~970508 (\cite{piro99})
56: with the {\it BeppoSAX} NFI has stimulated a vital discussion
57: about the possible origin of this line feature (\cite{ghi99};
58: \cite{lcg99}; \cite{boe99a}; B\"ottcher, Dermer, \& Liang
59: \markcite{boe99b}1999b; \cite{vietri99}; \cite{weth00}; \cite{paerels00};
60: \cite{boe00}). So far, this discussion has concentrated on
61: determining the required / inferred physical conditions in
62: the vicinity of GRB~970508 needed to explain the iron-line
63: feature in the afterglow (assuming this feature is real).
64:
65: An essential assumption in these papers was that the material
66: responsible for potential emission line features is illuminated
67: (and partially or completely ionized) by burst emission which
68: is qualitatively similar to the observed GRB and afterglow radiation.
69: Also, these papers assume that the blast wave which interacts
70: with the line-emitting material is relativistic, and qualitatively
71: similar to the one which is associated with the GRB and its afterglow.
72: The conditions inferred under these assumptions are rather extreme,
73: requiring large amounts ($\sim 10^{-4} \, M_{\odot}$) of iron to be
74: concentrated anisotropically in a small ($R \lesssim 10^{-3}$~pc) region
75: around the central engine of the GRB (e.g., \cite{lcg99}, \cite{weth00},
76: \cite{boe00}). Paerels et al. (\markcite{paerels00}2000) have
77: recently suggested that high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy may
78: help to distinguish between different line production mechanisms
79: as a way to unveal the underlying physical scenario. They
80: argue that, in particular, photoionization can be distinguished
81: from collisional excitation of the line by virtue of the lower
82: plasma temperature resulting in photoionization scenarios. In their
83: detailed analysis of the BeppoSAX MECS spectrum of GRB~970508
84: during the time segment in which the $\sim 3.6$~keV emission
85: line was marginally detected, they found that the line width
86: and apparent strength of the radiative recombination continuum
87: blueward of the emission line, in combination with the measured
88: redshift of the GRB at $z = 0.835$, are inconsistent with a
89: photoionization scenario in which the source of the line emission
90: is in photoionization equilibrium with the afterglow radiation.
91:
92: In addition to this evidence, most of the currently popular
93: gamma-ray burst models may be hard-pressed to produce the
94: conditions inferred from photoionization-based scenarios to explain
95: the observed iron-line feature in GRB~970508. These models are
96: not ruled out, both because the iron line feature in GRB~970508
97: is marginal, and even if it is real, it may appear only in one
98: small subclass of GRBs. However, Vietri et al. (\markcite{vietri99}1999)
99: have used this line to argue for their alternative supranova model
100: (\cite{sv98}) which invokes the collapse of a neutron star as it spins
101: down. Unfortunately for this model, realistic calculations of collapsing
102: neutron stars (Ruffert, Janka, \& Sch\"afer \markcite{ruf96}1996; Fryer
103: \& Woosley \markcite{fry98}1998) find that these collapses eject too
104: much baryonic material and have too little energy to produce GRBs.
105: Because these models do not include magnetic fields, this does
106: not rule out the supranova model. Even so, the supranova model
107: would most likely produce a short burst, and hence
108: can not explain the line feature seen in GRB~970508, since that
109: burst was a long-duration burst with $t_{\gamma} \sim 25$~s.
110:
111: Instead of trying to explain GRB~970508, in this paper we look at
112: the more viable ``black-hole accretion disk'' class of GRB engines
113: (see Fryer, Woosley, \& Hartmann \markcite{fry99}1999 for a review) and
114: estimate potential X-ray spectral features in GRB afterglows that
115: these models produce. We make the initial assumption that these
116: features are produced by the collision of the GRB ejecta with the
117: environment produced during the formation process of the GRB engine.
118: In the Collapsar and he-merger engines, the GRB is surrounded by a
119: disk of material which is produced during their progenitor evolution.
120: MacFadyen \& Woosley (\markcite{mac99}1999) found that collapsar
121: (and probably he-merger) GRBs are beamed, forming a jet along the
122: angular momentum axis of the accreting disk. They also found that
123: the explosion along the equator is likely to be very baryon loaded
124: ($>$1\,M\sun) moving at velocities much less than the speed of light
125: (less than $\sim 10^9$\,cm\,s$^{-1}$). In \S 2, we discuss the
126: formation of these nonrelativistic disks around black-hole accretion
127: disk GRBs, estimating the structure of each disk. We then
128: use these structures in \S\S 3 and 4 to predict the X-ray afterglow
129: signature of these GRBs. We conclude with a discussion of
130: the implications these results have on current and future
131: X-ray missions in \S 5.
132:
133: We note that the predictions concerning potentially time-variable
134: absorption features as derived by Ghisellini et al. (\markcite{ghi99}1999)
135: and B\"ottcher et al. (\markcite{boe99a}1999a) are valid, independent
136: of the detailed GRB mechanism. Obviously, material responsible for
137: such X-ray absorption features is located along the line of sight to
138: the burst, so that the observed GRB and afterglow radiation and the
139: assumption of a relativistic blast wave may be used.
140:
141: \section{Disk formation}
142:
143: Nearly all of the formation scenarios of black hole accretion
144: disk GRBs invoke a ``common-envelope'' phase. Binaries are
145: said to be in a common-envelope phase when the hydrogen envelope
146: of one star engulfs its companion (this usually occurs
147: when the star expands into a giant or supergiant). Friction and/or
148: tidal forces cause the companion to spiral in towards the
149: giant's helium core, ejecting the hydrogen envelope. The
150: evolution of two stars that enter a common envelope phase
151: is one of the major uncertainties in binary population synthesis
152: and, despite years of effort, still remains an open question
153: (see Sandquist et al. \markcite{san98}1998 and references therein).
154: This limits our ability to make any strong quantitative predictions
155: of this phase, but we can use the latest simulations to guide our
156: estimates. Current simulations (e.g. Sandquist et al. \markcite{san98}1998)
157: suggest that the companion inspiral occurs on a timescale of 1 -- 10
158: orbital periods ($t_{\rm orbit}$). The outcome of this inspiral is
159: either: a) a close binary system if the companion is able to eject
160: the hydrogen envelope before it merges with the star's helium
161: core or b) a merged object if the stars merge before the
162: ejection of the hydrogen envelope.
163:
164: The hydrogen envelope carries away much of the orbital angular
165: momentum and is preferentially ejected in the orbital plane
166: (\cite{san98}). It is this material which forms the disks
167: around GRB engines. Double NS, BH-NS, and BH-WD mergers go
168: through a common envelope phase long before they actually
169: merge, and the progenitors of these GRBs travel far from their
170: formation sites (and their common-envelope disks) before producing
171: GRBs (e.g. \cite{fry99}, \cite{bb99} and references therein).
172: Collapsar and he-merger GRBs, on the other hand, occur shortly
173: after their common-envelope phase. In this paper, we study the
174: interaction of the ejecta from the GRB explosion with the
175: common-envelope disks produced by collapsar and he-merger
176: progenitors and determine the spectral features of this
177: interaction. But first we must estimate the structure and
178: size of these disks.
179:
180: \subsection{He-merger disks}
181:
182: To understand the characteristics of the disks produced in he-mergers,
183: we must first understand the formation process of he-mergers (for more
184: details, see \cite{fry99}). The progenitor of a he-merger GRB is a
185: binary system with two massive stars (both stars have masses in excess
186: of $\sim 8$~M\sun). The more-massive star (primary) evolves through
187: its life, collapsing to form a compact remnant (either a neutron star
188: or black hole). During the initial expansion, the primary may transfer
189: mass to its companion (secondary star), and this mass transfer (or even
190: a common-envelope phase) may tighten the orbital separation of these
191: binaries. For some binaries, asymmetries in the primary's
192: supernova explosion also lead to a tighter binary system as the
193: compact remnant is ``kicked'' into a closer orbit with its companion.
194: In addition, the ejecta from the supernova explosion may enrich the
195: envelope of the secondary (see \cite{isr99}) with r-process elements.
196:
197: When the secondary evolves off the main sequence, it envelops the
198: primary's compact remnant, and the binary goes into a common-envelope
199: phase. The compact remnant ejects the hydrogen envelope in a
200: disk-like structure, but not before merging with the secondary's
201: helium core. A he-merger occurs after the compact remnant
202: has settled into the helium core. The inspiral process spins
203: up the helium core, producing a disk around the compact remnant.
204: In addition, the compact remnant accretes $\sim 1$ -- 3~M\sun during
205: the inspiral and disk formation process (\cite{zha00}), causing it
206: to collapse to a black hole if it is not one already. This
207: black-hole accretion disk system is surrounded by a disk
208: formed from the enriched hydrogen envelope of the secondary.
209:
210: There are no simulations of the common-envelope evolution of a
211: compact remnant into a massive star which reliably predict the
212: ejecta from the inspiral process. However, we may extrapolate
213: from simulations such as Sandquist et al. (\markcite{san98}1998)
214: to obtain a rough estimate of the characteristics of the hydrogen
215: disk. The ejection velocity ($v_{\rm ejection}$) is roughly the
216: escape velocity at any given radius in the star:
217: \begin{equation}
218: \label{eq:vej}
219: v_{\rm ejection}=\sqrt{\frac{2 G M(r)_{\rm secondary}}{r}}.
220: \end{equation}
221: The time between GRB outburst and the ejection of matter is equal
222: to the inspiral time (since the outburst occurs as soon as the
223: neutron star spirals into the center of the secondary):
224: \begin{equation}
225: \label{eq:tgrb}
226: t_{\rm GRB} \approx 10 t_{\rm orbit} =
227: \frac{20 \pi r^{1.5}}{G^{0.5} M(r)_{\rm secondary}^{0.5}}.
228: \end{equation}
229: At the time of the GRB outburst, the location of any layer of star with
230: radius $r$ is simply:
231: \begin{equation}
232: \label{eq:Dej}
233: D_{\rm ejecta} \approx v_{\rm ejection} \times t_{\rm GRB} =
234: 20\sqrt{2} \pi r.
235: \end{equation}
236:
237: Clearly, the density structure of any he-merger disk depends upon
238: the density structure of the secondary at the start of the
239: common envelope phase. This structure is a function of both
240: the size of the star (and hence, the orbital separation of the
241: binary) at the beginning of the common-envelope phase and the
242: mass distribution of the companion star. Using the binary population
243: synthesis code developed in Fryer et al. (\markcite{fry99}1999),
244: we can calculate the distribution of orbital separations and
245: companion masses for he-merger progenitors (Figs.~\ref{fig:radii}
246: and \ref{fig:mass}). Fig.~\ref{fig:hedisks} shows the range of
247: hydrogen disk structures formed by he-mergers with a 15~M\sun companion
248: star for a series of orbital separations. Note that the outer
249: disk radius is most sensitive to the orbital separation prior to
250: the common envelope evolution. Fig.~\ref{fig:he_masses} shows the
251: range of disk structures formed by 15, 25, and 40~M\sun stars
252: assuming the orbital separation is set to the maximum radius of the
253: companion. Although our rough estimates of the disk formation and
254: the uncertainties in binary population synthesis and stellar evolution
255: (see \cite{fry99} for a discussion) make it difficult to predict the
256: density profile of these disks accurately, these figures give a
257: flavor of the range of possible disk structures.
258:
259: \subsection{Collapsar disks}
260:
261: The ring around Supernova 1987A proves that at least some massive
262: stars have disks. The progenitor of Supernova 1987A was probably
263: a binary system in which the more massive primary engulfed its
264: companion, causing the companion to spiral into the primary
265: during a common-envelope phase (\cite{pod92}). The companion was
266: unable to eject the entire hydrogen envelope and it merged with the
267: primary's helium core. This process could lead to the formation
268: of an outward moving disk which, in the case of supernova 1987A,
269: was lit up 10,000 -- 100,000 years later by the supernova to reveal
270: a ``ring'' (see for example, \cite{col99}).
271:
272: The majority of Collapsar progenitors also follow an evolutionary
273: path where a binary system goes through a common envelope phase
274: although the companion often does not merge with the primary
275: (\cite{fry99}). The ``classical'' Collapsar model requires a
276: massive helium star (without a hydrogen envelope) to avoid baryon
277: contamination (\cite{mac99}), and a common-envelope phase is required
278: to eject most of the hydrogen envelope (\cite{fry99}). Unlike
279: the he-merger disks, the common envelope phase can occur
280: more than 100,000 years before the eventual GRB outburst. Although
281: the Collapsar progenitor is still likely to be surrounded by this
282: ejecta, disks formed in Collapsar progenitors will be much
283: further away at outburst than those disks formed in he-mergers.
284: Assuming an ejection velocity equal to the escape velocity
285: (eq. \ref{eq:vej}) and setting the time from disk ejection to GRB
286: outburst ($t_{\rm GRB}$) to 100,000~y, we find that the inner edge
287: of most Collapsar disks exceeds $10^{17}$~cm.
288:
289: However, if the binary does not go into a common-envelope until just
290: before the collapse of the primary, a much more compact disk may
291: be formed. Recall that a common-envelope phase occurs when the
292: radius of a star expands enough to engulf its companion. Most
293: stellar models reveal that a star actually contracts during the
294: last 10,000 -- 100,000~y of its life (\cite{sch93}, \cite{ww95}).
295: If the binary does not enter a common-envelope phase before
296: this contraction, it is unlikely that it ever will. So with
297: the current stellar models, $t_{\rm GRB}$ must be greater than
298: 10,000 -- 100,000~y. However, stellar models do not accurately
299: predict the radii of massive stars, and there is a growing concern
300: that these radii may be drastically incorrect (\cite{fry99},
301: \cite{wel99}, \cite{fry00}). It is possible that massive stars
302: reach their maximum size just before collapse. If the common-envelope
303: phase occurs 10 -- 100 years before collapse, the inner edge of the
304: disk could be less than $10^{15}$~cm. Until accurate stellar models
305: are produced, we can not refine our estimates further. However, even
306: with these rough estimates of the disk structure, we can now estimate
307: the expected X-ray afterglow spectral features from both of these
308: objects.
309:
310: X-rays may also be produced when the GRB ejecta strikes the
311: Collapsar's companion star. Recall that the companion generally
312: does not merge with the collapsar during the common envelope
313: phase. The ejecta will hit this companion star, causing it
314: to heat and expand, producing an X-ray emitting nebula
315: (P. Pinto - private communication). The magnitude and spectra
316: of X-rays under this mechanism is difficult to predict
317: quantitatively, and we will delay further discussion of this
318: emission for a later paper.
319:
320: \section{Predicted X-ray spectral features}
321:
322: \subsection{Analytic estimate of the maximum iron line luminosity}
323:
324: In this section, we present a simple analytic estimate for an upper
325: limit to the total, isotropic luminosity in the two major constituents
326: of the iron K$\alpha$ line blend from a hot, highly ionized plasma,
327: namely the Fe~XXV He$\alpha$ (2p1s $\to$ 1s$^2$ resonance) and the
328: Fe~XXVI H$\alpha$ (2p $\to$ 1s) transitions. Apart from energy
329: conservation constraints, the luminosity in the resonant emission
330: lines considered here is restricted by several line destruction
331: mechanisms, such as Compton scattering, photoelectric absorption
332: by lighter elements, and collisional de-excitation. Considering
333: Compton scattering and photoelectric absorption --- both of which
334: processes would remove a line photon from the line --- one can
335: define an effectively emitting volume given by the fraction
336: of the total disk volume through which the optical depth
337: $\tau_{\rm L} \equiv \tau_{\rm T} + \tau_{\rm pa} \equiv
338: \tau_{\rm T} \, (1 + f_{\rm pa})$ due to electron scattering
339: and photoelectric absorption is $\sim 1$. In a neutral plasma of
340: cosmic element abundance, we have $f_{\rm pa} \sim 4$ at the energies
341: of the $n = 2 \to 1$ transitions of Fe~XXV and Fe XXVI. In an ionized
342: plasma, this number obviously becomes smaller, and for our simple
343: estimate we assume $f_{\rm pa} \sim 2$. The effect of collisional
344: de-excitation becomes relevant if the density of the line-emitting
345: material becomes comparable to or greater than the critical density
346: $n_{\rm crit}$ at which the collisional de-excitation rate equals
347: the spontaneous decay rate. Using van Regemorter's (\cite{vanrege62})
348: $\overline g$ approximation, the critical density can be roughly
349: approximated as
350:
351: \begin{equation}
352: n_{\rm crit}^{\rm c.d.} \approx 2.4 \times 10^{11} {\sqrt{T_e / {\rm K}}
353: \over \lambda_{\rm nm}^{3}} \; {\rm cm}^{-3} \approx 3.8 \times 10^{17}
354: T_8^{1/2} \; {\rm cm}^{-3},
355: \label{ncrit}
356: \end{equation}
357: where $T_8 = T / (10^8 \, {\rm K})$.
358:
359: For the ease of computation, we assume that the emitting region
360: can be geometrically represented by a torus, located at a distance
361: $r = 10^{13} \, r_{13}$~cm from the center of the burst source,
362: with a cross-sectional radius of $a = 10^{12} \, a_{12}$~cm,
363: containing a total mass of $M_{\rm T} = m_{\rm T} \, M_{\odot}$,
364: the volume of the torus will be given by $V_{\rm T} = 2 \times 10^{38}
365: \, a_{12}^2 \, r_{13}$~cm$^3$. The average density of the torus
366: material is then $n_{\rm T} = 6 \times 10^{18} \, [ m_{\rm T} /
367: (a_{12}^2 \, r_{13})] \; {\rm cm}^{-3}$. If the observer is looking
368: along a line of sight close to the symmetry axis of the torus, then
369: the Thomson depth through the torus is reasonably well approximated
370: by
371:
372: \begin{equation}
373: \tau_{\rm T} = a \, n_{\rm T} \, \sigma_{\rm T} = 4 \times 10^6
374: \left( {m_{\rm T} \over a_{12} \, r_{13}} \right).
375: \label{tau_T}
376: \end{equation}
377:
378: We define a critical density for Thomson scattering,
379: $n_{\rm crit}^{\rm T}$ as the density at which the Thomson
380: depth equals 1, so that for densities $n > n_{\rm crit}^{\rm T}$
381: line photons are likely to be scattered out of the line before
382: leaving the emitting volume. This critical density is given
383: by $n_{\rm crit}^{\rm T} \approx 1.5 \cdot 10^{12} \,
384: a_{12}^{-1}$~cm$^{-3}$. In the situations of interest here,
385: we always find $n_{\rm crit}^{\rm T} \ll n_{\rm crit}^{\rm c.d.}$,
386: indicating that line destruction by Compton scattering and
387: photoelectric absorption is dominant over collisional de-excitation.
388:
389: The luminosity in the emission lines may thus be estimated as
390: $L_{\rm line} = j_{\rm L} \, V_{\rm T} / \max\left\lbrace
391: \tau_{\rm L}, \, 1 \right\rbrace$, where $j_L$ is the emissivity
392: in the line. In order to parametrize the line emissivities by an
393: emissivity parameter $x$, we use the notation of Raymond \& Smith
394: (\markcite{rs77}1977), where $j_{\rm L} = n_{\rm H} \, n_e \cdot
395: 10^{- 23 - x}$~erg~cm$^{-3}$~s$^{-1}$. The emissivity parameters
396: are inferred from runs of the XSTAR code (\cite{kmc82}) with a
397: negligibly small ionization parameter of
398: $\xi = 10^{-8}$~ergs~cm~s$^{-1}$ and constant, pre-specified
399: plasma temperature. This yields
400:
401: \begin{equation}
402: L_{\rm line} \approx 6 \cdot 10^{45 - x} \, {m_{\rm T} \over a_{12}}
403: \; {\rm ergs \; s}^{-1}.
404: \label{est_lum}
405: \end{equation}
406:
407: Some representative values of the emissivity parameters $x$ and the
408: upper limits on the line luminosities are listed in Table
409: \ref{upper_limits}, and the estimated luminosity upper limits
410: are plotted as a function of plasma temperature in
411: Fig.~\ref{ul_graph}. Although these are very crude estimates,
412: they indicate that Fe~K$\alpha$ luminosities in excess of $\sim
413: 10^{44}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$ are very well possible in a shock-heated-disk
414: scenario.
415:
416: \subsection{Simulations of the shockwave / disk interaction}
417:
418: In order to get a realistic prediction of the expected X-ray line
419: and continuum emission from the shock-heated disk, we simulate the
420: shock-wave evolution and thermal history of the shocked material
421: as the supernova ejecta, associated with the GRB explosion,
422: interact with the pre-ejected disk. We assume that in the course
423: of the supernova/GRB a total mass of $M_0 \sim 1 \, M_{\odot}$
424: is ejected quasi-isotropically at a speed of $v_s = 10^9 \,
425: v_9$~cm~s$^{-1}$, initiating a shock-wave when interacting with
426: the disk of pre-ejected material.
427:
428: For the case of an intermediate-mass (secondary) progenitor
429: (15, 25~$M_{\odot}$), we parametrize the density
430: profile of the disk by $\rho_{\rm d} (r) = \rho_{\rm 0} \, (r
431: / r_{\rm in})^{-2.5}$ for $r_{\rm in} \le r \le r_{\rm out}$
432: and its geometry by a constant $h/r \sim 0.1$. For more massive
433: stars ($40 \, M_{\odot}$) the density profile may be approximated
434: by a broken power-law with $\rho_{\rm d} (r) = \rho_{\rm 0} \,
435: (r / r_{\rm in})^{-4}$ for $r_{\rm in} \le r \le r_{\rm br}$, and
436: $\rho_{\rm d} (r) = \rho_{\rm 0} \, (r_{\rm br} / r_{\rm in})^{-4}
437: \, (r / r_{\rm br})^{-1}$ for $r_{\rm br} \le r \le r_{\rm out}$
438: (see Fig. \ref{fig:he_masses}). Writing $r_{\rm in} = 10^x \,
439: r_{i, x}$~cm and $n_0 = \rho_0 / (\overline A \, m_p) = 10^{17}
440: \, n_{17}$~cm$^{-3}$, where $\overline A$ is the average atomic
441: weight of the disk material, the total mass in the pre-ejected
442: disk is
443:
444: \begin{equation}
445: M_{\rm d} = 0.1 \, \left( {h/r \over 0.1} \right) \, n_{17} \,
446: r_{i, 13}^3 \, \left(\sqrt{r_{\rm out} \over r_{\rm in}} - 1
447: \right) \; M_{\odot}
448: \label{Md25}
449: \end{equation}
450: for intermediate-mass progenitors, and
451: \begin{equation}
452: M_{\rm d} = 0.5 \, \left( {h/r \over 0.1} \right) \, n_{21} \,
453: r_{i, 12}^3 \left( 1 + {r_{\rm in} \, r_{\rm out}^2 \over
454: 2 \, r_{\rm br}^3} \right) \; M_{\odot}
455: \label{Md40}
456: \end{equation}
457: for high-mass progenitors.
458:
459: The deceleration of the non-relativistic shock wave and the
460: heating of the ejecta and and the swept-up material, are calculated
461: by numerically solving simultaneously for the energy and momentum
462: equations,
463:
464: \begin{equation}
465: {d \over dt} \left( M \, v_{\rm s} \right) = 4 \pi \, R_{\rm s}^2 \,
466: \overline P_{\rm s},
467: \label{momentum}
468: \end{equation}
469: \begin{equation}
470: {dM \over dt} = 4 \pi R_{\rm s}^2 \, \rho_{\rm d} (R_s) \, v_{\rm s},
471: \label{mass}
472: \end{equation}
473: \begin{equation}
474: {dE \over dt} = - \overline P_{\rm s} \, {dV \over dt} + \dot E_{\rm rad},
475: \label{dEdt}
476: \end{equation}
477: where
478: \begin{equation}
479: E = {1 \over 2} \overline \rho_{\rm s} \, v_{\rm s}^2 \, V +
480: {\overline P_{\rm s} \, V \over \gamma - 1},
481: \label{total_energy}
482: \end{equation}
483: $R_{\rm S}$ is the shock radius, $\overline P_{\rm s}$
484: and $\overline\rho_{\rm s}$ are the volume-averaged pressure
485: and density of the shocked material, $V$ is the volume occupied
486: by the shocked material, $\gamma$ is its adiabatic index, and
487: $\dot E_{\rm rad}$ is the radiative cooling term. Throughout
488: this paper, we assume $\gamma = 5/3$. In Eq. \ref{momentum},
489: we have neglected the pressure of the disk material.
490:
491: Due to the high densities involved and to the fact that the shock wave
492: is non-relativistic, we may assume that at any point in time the shocked
493: material is in approximate thermal and collisional ionization equilibrium.
494: Photoionization precursors are not expected to play an important role since
495: the Compton scattering depth $\lambda_C = (n \, \sigma_{\rm T})^{-1}
496: \approx 1.5 \times 10^9 \, n_{15}^{-1}$~cm is much smaller than any
497: characteristic size scale of the system, so that most of the fluorescence
498: photons produced in the photoionization precursor will be absorbed within
499: the disk and thus be unobservable. The emission from the shocked region
500: can therefore be represented by pure thermal plasma emission from an
501: optically thick plasma at the temperature of the shocked material. At
502: any given time, we calculate the emission from the shocked material
503: using XSTAR (Kallman \& McCray \markcite{kmc82}1982) in a
504: constant-temperature, purely thermal ionization mode (i. e.
505: with very small photoionization parameter).
506:
507: \section{Results}
508:
509: We have done a series of simulations for a variety of parameters
510: representative of both he-merger and collapsar/hypernova disks.
511: In Fig. \ref{r13_graph} we show the temporal evolution of the
512: temperature of material behind the shock, resulting sample
513: X-ray spectra at different times after the onset of the shock
514: wave / disk interaction, and the light curve of the Fe~K$\alpha$
515: line luminosity, for a disk with inner radius at $r_{\rm in} =
516: 10^{13}$~cm, representative for the he-merger case. In those
517: simulations, we have assumed a disk density profile appropriate
518: for a $25\, M_{\odot}$ progenitor, and a mass of $1 \, M_{\odot}$
519: for the ejected material. The ejecta are assumed to have an initial
520: velocity of $10^9$~cm~s$^{-1}$, corresponding to a kinetic energy of
521: $10^{51}$~ergs in the ejecta. The figure shows that, especially in
522: the later, decaying phase, $\gtrsim 2 \, (1 + z) \times 10^4$~s
523: after the onset of the shock wave / disk interaction, the thermal
524: X-ray spectrum from the shocked disk material is strongly line
525: dominated and might yield excellent prospects of detection by
526: X-ray telescopes sensitive at $\lesssim 1$~keV.
527:
528: Tab. \ref{table_r13} illustrates how the maximum Fe~K$\alpha$
529: line luminosity and the decay time constant of the line emission
530: depend on the mass and velocity of the ejecta shock-heating the
531: pre-ejected disk from the $25 \, M_{\odot}$ progenitor. The time
532: constant $t_{\rm d}$ is determined by fitting an
533: $\exp[-(t/t_{\rm d})^2]$ law to the decaying portion of the
534: iron line light curves. We find that the shock wave / disk
535: interaction expected for the he-merger scenario can very
536: plausibly produce an Fe~K$\alpha$ line of apparent quasi-isotropic
537: luminosity $L_{{\rm Fe \, K}\alpha} \sim 10^{44}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$
538: maintained over $t_{\rm d} \lesssim (1 + z) \times 10^4$~s after
539: the ejecta begin to interact with the disk.
540:
541: Fig. \ref{r15_graph} shows the temperature evolution, X-ray spectra,
542: and Fe~K$\alpha$ light curve for a case representative of a collapsar
543: / hypernova disk, if the system entered the common-envelope phase
544: $\sim 100$~y before the GRB. The progenitor is assumed to be a
545: $25 M_{\odot}$ star. In this case, the disk inner edge is expected
546: to be located at $r_{\rm in} \sim 10^{15}$~cm. Results of simulations
547: with different ejecta mass and velocity are summarized in Tab.
548: \ref{table_r15}. In this case, maximum iron line luminosities
549: in excess of $\sim 10^{42}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$ are still possible,
550: while the typical time delay between the GRB and the onset of
551: the GRB is now $\sim (1 + z) \times 10^6$~s.
552:
553: Comparing simulations with identical disk mass and ejecta
554: mass and velocity, but different inner disk radii, we find
555: an approximate scaling law for the maximum Fe~K$\alpha$ line
556: luminosity, $L_{{\rm Fe \, K}\alpha} \propto r_{\rm in}^{-1}$.
557:
558: \section{Observational prospects}
559:
560: In the previous section, we found that in both the
561: helium-merger and in the collapsar/hypernova scenarios,
562: a quasi-thermal X-ray flash from the shock-heated disk may
563: result. A critical and yet very uncertain parameter (especially
564: for the collapsar/hypernova scenario) in the model simulations
565: is the inner disk radius, which is primarily determined by the
566: duration of the common-envelope phase prior to the GRB event.
567: In the he-merger scenario, we expect typically $r_{\rm in} \sim
568: 10^{13}$~cm, while in the collapsar/hypernova scenario, this
569: parameter could have values $10^{14}$~cm~$\lesssim r_{\rm in}
570: \lesssim 10^{17}$~cm. The onset and decay time scale of the
571: resulting secondary X-ray flash scale as $\Delta t_X \propto
572: r_{\rm in}$, while the peak X-ray luminosity is approximately
573: $L_{{\rm Fe \, K}\alpha} \propto r_{\rm in}^{-1}$. Since the
574: continuum X-ray afterglows from the (probably beamed) relativistic
575: ejecta typically decay with temporal indices $\chi \gtrsim 1.2$,
576: (if $F_X (t) \propto t^{-\chi}$), detection of the secondary,
577: thermal X-ray outbursts predicted by the he-merger and
578: collapsar/hypernova scenarios might be favored by larger
579: disk radii, as long as the resulting X-ray flux remains
580: above the detection threshold of currently operating X-ray
581: telescopes.
582:
583: Fig. \ref{F_z} shows the absorbed 0.1 -- 10~keV peak fluxes
584: resulting from two of our simulations, as a function of redshift
585: of the GRB source. Shown are representative cases for $r_{\rm in}
586: = 10^{13}$~cm and $r_{\rm in} = 10^{15}$~cm (see also Figs.
587: \ref{r13_graph} and \ref{r15_graph}), corresponding to onset
588: delays of $\sim (1 + z) \times 10^4$~s and $\sim (1 + z) \times 10^6$~s,
589: respectively. Two plausible values of the Galactic neutral
590: hydrogen column density, $N_H$, are used. Given that the nominal
591: point source sensitivity for a 10~ksec exposure on {\it Chandra}'s
592: ACIS detectors is $\sim 4 \times 10^{-15}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$,
593: while for the EPIC detectors on board {\it XMM-Newton} this limit
594: is $\sim 10^{-14}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$, the predicted X-ray
595: flashes from the shock wave / disk interaction may be detectable
596: out to redshifts of at least $z \sim 1$ for an inner disk radius
597: of $r_{\rm in} \sim 10^{15}$~cm. For a source at $z = 1$ with
598: $r_{\rm in} = 10^{15}$~cm, we would expect the onset of the
599: secondary X-ray burst $\sim 3$~weeks after the GRB.
600:
601: \section{Summary}
602:
603: During the progenitor evolution of collapsar/hypernova and he-merger
604: GRBs, a hydrogen disk is formed around the central engine. These GRB
605: engines produce a jet along the disk axis, and the relativistic outburst
606: which produces the gamma-rays does not interact with this disk.
607: However, both of these engines are likely to expel $\gtrsim 1$~M\sun
608: along the equator at lower velocities ($\sim 10^9$~cm~s$^{-1}$).
609: The interaction of the explosion ejecta with the expelled disk
610: may produce X-ray luminosities in excess of $\sim 10^{44} \,
611: (r_{\rm in} / 10^{13} \, {\rm cm})^{-1}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$ with a
612: delay of $\sim (r_{\rm in} / 10^{13} \, {\rm cm}) \, (1 + z)
613: \times 10^4$~s after the GRB. For gamma-ray bursts with a redshift
614: $z \lesssim 1$, this emission is well within the capabilities of the
615: latest X-ray satellites (e.g. {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton}).
616: Thus, long-term monitoring of X-ray afterglows over several weeks
617: after the GRB (most notably, even after the direct afterglow
618: radiation has faded to undetectable levels) may lead to the
619: detection of these secondary X-ray flashes which would yield
620: valuable information about the nature and pre-burst evolution
621: of the GRB progenitor.
622:
623: \acknowledgements{The work of M.B. is supported by NASA through
624: Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Number PF~9-10007, issued
625: by the Chandra X-ray Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian
626: Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of NASA under contract
627: NAS~8-39073. C.L.F was supported by a Feynman Fellowship at LANL,
628: NSF (AST-97-31569), and the US DOE ASCI Program (W-7405-ENG-48).
629: It is a pleasure to thank P. Pinto for helpful advice and
630: discussions.}
631:
632: \begin{thebibliography}{}
633:
634: \bibitem[Arnaud \& Raymond 1992]{ar92}Arnaud, M., \& Raymond, J. C.,
635: 1992, ApJ, 398, 394
636:
637: \bibitem[B\"ottcher et al. 1999a]{boe99a}B\"ottcher, M., Dermer, C.D.,
638: Crider, A.W., \& Liang, E.P. 1999, A\&A, 343, 111
639:
640: \bibitem[B\"ottcher et al. 1999b]{boe99b}B\"ottcher, M.,
641: Dermer, C.D., \& Liang, E.P. 1999, A\&AS, 138, 543
642:
643: \bibitem[B\"ottcher 2000]{boe00} B\"ottcher, M. 2000, ApJ, 539, 102
644:
645: \bibitem[Bulik \& Belczy\'nski 1999]{bb99} Bulik, T., \& Belczy\'nski, K.,
646: in Proc. of the 5$^{\rm th}$ Huntsville Symposium on Gamma-Ray Bursts,
647: ed. R. M. Kippen, R. S. Mallozzi, \& G. J. Fishman, AIP Conf. Proc. 526,
648: 648
649:
650: \bibitem[Collins et al. 1999]{col99} Collins, T.J.B., Frank, A.,
651: Bjorkman, J.E., Livio, M. 1999, ApJ, 512, 322
652:
653: \bibitem[Fryer \& Woosley 1998]{fry98} Fryer, C. L., \& Woosley, S. E.
654: 1998, ApJ, 501, 780
655:
656: \bibitem[Fryer \& Kalogera 2000]{fry00} Fryer, C.L.,
657: Kalogera, V., submitted to ApJ, astro-ph/9911312
658:
659: \bibitem[Fryer et al. 1999]{fry99} Fryer, C.L.,
660: Woosley, S.E., \& Hartmann, D.H., 1999, ApJ, 526, 152
661:
662: \bibitem[Ghisellini et al. 1999]{ghi99}Ghisellini, G., Haardt, F.,
663: Campana, S., Lazzati, D., Covnino, S., 1999, ApJ, 517, 168
664:
665: \bibitem[Israelian et al. 1999]{isr99} Israelian, G., Rebolo, R.,
666: Basri, G., Casares, J., Martin, E.L. 1999, Nature, 401, 142
667:
668: \bibitem[Kallman \& McCray 1982]{kmc82}Kallman, T. R., \& McCray, R.,
669: 1982, ApJS, 50, 263
670:
671: \bibitem[Lazzati at al. 1999]{lcg99}
672: Lazzati,, D., Campana, S., Ghisellini, G. 1999, MNRAS, 304, L31
673:
674: \bibitem[MacFadyen \& Woosley 1999]{mac99} MacFadyen, A.I., \& Woosley,
675: S.E. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262
676:
677: \bibitem[Paerels et al. 2000]{paerels00}Paerels, F., Kuulkers, E.,
678: Heise, J., \& Liedahl, D. A., 2000, ApJ, 535, L25
679:
680: \bibitem[Piro et al. 1999]{piro99} Piro, L., et al., 1999, ApJ, 514, L73
681:
682: \bibitem[Podsiadlowski 1992]{pod92} Podsiadlowski, P. 1992, 104, 717
683:
684: \bibitem[Raymond \& Smith 1977]{rs77}Raymond, J., C., \& Smith, B. W.,
685: 1977, ApJS, 35, 419
686:
687: \bibitem[Ruffert et al. 1996]{ruf96} Ruffert, M.,
688: Janka, H.-T., \& Schaefer, G. 1996, A\&A, 311, 532
689:
690: \bibitem[Rybicki \& Lightman 1979]{rl79}Rybicki, G. B., \& Lightman,
691: A. P., 1979, ``Radiative Processes in Astrophysics'', John Wiley \& Sons
692:
693: \bibitem[Sandquist et al. 1998]{san98} Sandquist, E., Taam, R.E.,
694: Chen, X., Bodenheimer, P., \& Burkert, A. 1998, ApJ, 500, 909
695:
696: \bibitem[Schaerer et al. 1993]{sch93} Schaerer, D., Charbonnel, C.,
697: Meynet, G., Maeder, A., Schaller, G. 1993, A\&AS, 102, 339
698:
699: \bibitem[Stella \& Vietri 1998]{sv98} Stella, L., \& Vietri, M. 1998,
700: ApJ, 507, L45
701:
702: \bibitem[van Regemorter 1962]{vanrege62} van Regemorter, H., 1962, ApJ,
703: 136, 906
704:
705: \bibitem[Vietri et al. 1999]{vietri99} Vietri, M., Perola, C.,
706: Piro, L., \& Stella, L. 1999, MNRAS, 308, L29
707:
708: \bibitem[Wellstein \& Langer 1999]{wel99} Wellstein, S., \&
709: Langer, N. 1999, A\&A, 350, 148
710:
711: \bibitem[Weth et al. 2000]{weth00} Weth, C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 534, 581
712:
713: \bibitem[Woosley \& Weaver 1995]{ww95} Woosley, S.E., Weaver, T.A. 1995,
714: ApJS, 101, 181
715:
716: \bibitem[Zhang \& Fryer 2000]{zha00} Zhang, W., \& Fryer, C.L., 2000,
717: in preparation
718:
719: \end{thebibliography}
720:
721:
722: \begin{figure}
723: \plotfiddle{fig1.ps}{7in}{0}{100}{100}{-170}{-50}
724: \caption{Distribution of orbital separations for he-mergers
725: just prior to the common envelope phase, plotted as the
726: fraction per bin (orbital separation is logarithmically spaced).
727: There are two peaks, one at 0.2 astronomical units, and the
728: other at roughly 1.5 astronomical units.}
729: \label{fig:radii}
730: \end{figure}
731: \clearpage
732:
733:
734: \begin{figure}
735: \plotfiddle{fig2.ps}{7in}{0}{100}{100}{-170}{-50}
736: \caption{Distribution of companion masses for helium
737: mergers. Although the peak is at 9\,M\sun, it is likely
738: that the more massive companions will produce more luminous
739: bursts (their larger helium cores provide more fuel for
740: the GRB).}
741: \label{fig:mass}
742: \end{figure}
743: \clearpage
744:
745: \begin{figure}
746: \plotfiddle{fig3.ps}{7in}{0}{100}{100}{-170}{0}
747: \caption{Density vs. radius of the hydrogen disk formed during
748: inspiral of a neutron star into a 15\,M\sun star (Heger 1999) as
749: it expands off the main sequence for a range of binary separations:
750: 0.1, 0.33, 1, 2.5\,A.U. We assume the star engulfs its compact
751: companion when its radius exceeds the orbital separation.}
752: \label{fig:hedisks}
753: \end{figure}
754: \clearpage
755:
756: \begin{figure}
757: \plotfiddle{fig4.ps}{7in}{0}{100}{100}{-170}{0}
758: \caption{Density vs. radius of the hydrogen disk formed during
759: inspiral of a neutron star into 15, 25, and 40\,M\sun pre-collapse
760: stars (Woosley \& Weaver 1995). The density profiles of these
761: pre-collapse models give a good estimate of the structure of
762: these stars after helium ignition (Case C mass transfer).}
763: \label{fig:he_masses}
764: \end{figure}
765: \clearpage
766:
767: \begin{figure}
768: \plotfiddle{fig5.ps}{7in}{-90}{70}{70}{-280}{500}
769: \caption{Estimated upper limits on the luminosity in the Fe~XXV~He$\alpha$
770: ($1s2s \, \to \, 1s^2$) and Fe~XXVI~H$\alpha$ ($2p \, \to \, 1s$) lines at
771: $\sim 6.7$~keV from a hot, thermal torus at $r = 10^{13} \, r_{13}$~cm, as
772: a function of temperature of the torus material.}
773: \label{ul_graph}
774: \end{figure}
775:
776: \begin{figure}
777: \plotfiddle{fig6.ps}{7in}{-90}{70}{70}{-280}{500}
778: \caption{Temporal evolution of the temperature (top panel),
779: X-ray spectra (middle panel), and light curve of the emission
780: in the Fe~K$\alpha$ line (bottom panel) for $1 \,
781: M_{\odot}$ ejected at $10^9$~cm~s$^{-1}$ and interacting
782: with the disk of pre-ejected material from a $25 \, M_{\odot}$
783: progenitor with disk inner radius $r_{\rm in} = 10^{13}$~cm.
784: $t = 0$ corresponds to the time of the onset of the
785: blast-wave/disk interaction, i. e. $(1 + z) \, r_{\rm in} /
786: v_{\rm s} \sim (1 + z) \times 10^4$~s after the GRB/supernova
787: explosion. All times and photon energies quoted in the figure
788: refer to the cosmological rest frame of the GRB source.}
789: \label{r13_graph}
790: \end{figure}
791:
792:
793: \begin{figure}
794: \plotfiddle{fig7.ps}{7in}{-90}{70}{70}{-280}{500}
795: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{r13_graph}, except for disk
796: inner radius, $r_{\rm in} = 10^{15}$~cm. Thus, here
797: $t = 0$ corresponds to $\sim (1 + z) \times 10^6$~s after
798: the GRB/supernova explosion.}
799: \label{r15_graph}
800: \end{figure}
801:
802: \begin{figure}
803: \plotfiddle{fig8.ps}{7in}{-90}{70}{70}{-280}{500}
804: \caption{Peak 0.1 -- 10~keV X-ray fluxes, accounting for
805: Galactic absorption, as a function of redshift, for the
806: blast wave simulations illustrated in Fig. \ref{r13_graph}
807: (thick lines) and Fig. \ref{r15_graph} (thin lines).
808: Horizontal lines show the nominal, estimated sensitivity
809: limits of the {\it Chandra} ACIS and {\it XMM-Newton} EPIC
810: detectors, respectively, for a 10~ksec exposure. }
811: \label{F_z}
812: \end{figure}
813:
814:
815: %Tables:
816:
817: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
818: \tablewidth{14cm}
819: \tablecaption{Emissivity parameters $x$, and upper limits on the
820: resulting luminosity in the $\sim 6.7$~keV iron lines of Fe~XXV
821: and Fe~XXVI from a hot thermal torus.}
822: \tablehead{
823: \colhead{T [K]} & \colhead{$x_{{\rm He} \, \alpha}$} &
824: \colhead{${{\rm UL} (L_{{\rm He} \, \alpha}) \, a_{12} \over m_{\rm T}}$ [ergs~s$^{-1}$]} &
825: \colhead{$x_{{\rm H} \, \alpha}$} &
826: \colhead{${{\rm UL} (L_{{\rm H} \, \alpha}) \, a_{12} \over m_{\rm T}}$ [ergs~s$^{-1}$]}
827: }
828: \startdata
829: $2 \times 10^7$ & 2.2 & $3.8 \times 10^{43}$ &
830: 7.0 & $6.0 \times 10^{38}$ \nl
831: $3 \times 10^7$ & 1.6 & $1.5 \times 10^{44}$ &
832: 3.4 & $2.4 \times 10^{42}$ \nl
833: $5 \times 10^7$ & 1.3 & $3.0 \times 10^{44}$ &
834: 2.3 & $3.0 \times 10^{43}$ \nl
835: $7 \times 10^7$ & 1.3 & $3.0 \times 10^{44}$ &
836: 1.8 & $9.5 \times 10^{43}$ \nl
837: $1 \times 10^8$ & 1.5 & $1.9 \times 10^{44}$ &
838: 1.6 & $1.5 \times 10^{44}$ \nl
839: $2 \times 10^8$ & 2.0 & $6.0 \times 10^{43}$ &
840: 1.7 & $1.2 \times 10^{44}$ \nl
841: $3 \times 10^8$ & 2.5 & $1.9 \times 10^{43}$ &
842: 1.8 & $9.5 \times 10^{43}$ \nl
843: $5 \times 10^8$ & 3.0 & $6.0 \times 10^{42}$ &
844: 2.1 & $4.8 \times 10^{43}$ \nl
845: \enddata
846: \label{upper_limits}
847: \end{deluxetable}
848:
849:
850: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
851: \tablewidth{10cm}
852: \tablecaption{Simulated maximum quasi-isotropic Fe~K$\alpha$ line
853: luminosities and decay time scales $t_{\rm d}$ for ejecta of different
854: mass and velocities shock-heating the pre-ejected disk from a $25 \,
855: M_{\odot}$ progenitor, $r_{\rm in} = 10^{13}$~cm.}
856: \tablehead{
857: \colhead{$v_{\rm ej}$} &
858: \colhead{$M_{\rm ej}$} &
859: \colhead{$E_{\rm ej}$} &
860: \colhead{$L_{{\rm K}\alpha} (t_{\rm max})$} &
861: \colhead{$t_{\rm d}$} \nl
862: \colhead{[$10^9$~cm~s$^{-1}$]} &
863: \colhead{[$M_{\odot}$]} &
864: \colhead{[$10^{51}$~ergs]} &
865: \colhead{[$10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$]} &
866: \colhead{[$10^3$~s]}
867: }
868: \startdata
869: 1 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 14 & 11 \nl %Run no. 11
870: 1 & 1 & 1 & 18 & 12 \nl %Run no. 12
871: 1 & 2 & 2 & 29 & 13 \nl %Run no. 13
872: 0.707 & 1 & 0.5 & 16 & 9.5 \nl %Run no. 14
873: 1.414 & 1 & 2 & 20 & 16 \nl %Run no. 15
874: 0.707 & 0.5 & 0.25 & 11 & 8.5 \nl %Run no. 16
875: 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.125 & 9.1 & 7.0 \nl %Run no. 17
876: \enddata
877: \label{table_r13}
878: \end{deluxetable}
879:
880:
881: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
882: \tablewidth{10cm}
883: \tablecaption{Simulated maximum quasi-isotropic Fe~K$\alpha$ line
884: luminosities and decay time scales $t_{\rm d}$ for ejecta of different
885: mass and velocities shock-heating the pre-ejected disk from a $25 \,
886: M_{\odot}$ progenitor, $r_{\rm in} = 10^{15}$~cm.}
887: \tablehead{
888: \colhead{$v_{\rm ej}$} &
889: \colhead{$M_{\rm ej}$} &
890: \colhead{$E_{\rm ej}$} &
891: \colhead{$L_{{\rm K}\alpha} (t_{\rm max})$} &
892: \colhead{$t_{\rm d}$} \nl
893: \colhead{[$10^9$~cm~s$^{-1}$]} &
894: \colhead{[$M_{\odot}$]} &
895: \colhead{[$10^{51}$~ergs]} &
896: \colhead{[$10^{41}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$]} &
897: \colhead{[$10^5$~s]}
898: }
899: \startdata
900: 1 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 8.7 & 8.0 \nl %Run no. 22
901: 1 & 1 & 1 & 14 & 9.0 \nl %Run no. 23
902: 1 & 2 & 2 & 27 & 9.0 \nl %Run no. 24
903: 0.707 & 1 & 0.5 & 13 & 6.5 \nl %Run no. 25
904: 1.414 & 1 & 2 & 13 & 12 \nl %Run no. 26
905: 0.707 & 0.5 & 0.25 & 8.0 & 6.5 \nl %Run no. 27
906: \enddata
907: \label{table_r15}
908: \end{deluxetable}
909:
910: \end{document}
911:
912:
913:
914:
915:
916: