1:
2:
3: % aa.dem
4: % AA vers. 4.01, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
5: % demonstration file
6: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
7: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8: %
9: %\documentclass[referee]{aa} % for a referee version
10: %
11: \documentclass[epsfig]{aa}
12: \usepackage{epsfig,deluxe}
13: %
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \newcommand{\gsim}{\hbox{\rlap{$^>$}$_\sim$}}
17: \thesaurus{06; 19.63.1}
18: % A&A Section 6: Form. struct. and evolut. of stars}
19: % \thesaurus{06 % A&A Section 6: Form. struct. and evolut. of stars
20: % (03.11.1; % Cosmogony,
21: % 16.06.1; % Planets and satellites: general,
22: % 19.37.1; % Stars: formation of,
23: % 19.53.1; % Stars: oscillations of,
24: % 19.63.1)} % Stars: structure of.
25: %
26:
27:
28: \titlerunning{Supernova, Hypernova and Gamma Ray Bursts}
29: \title{Supernova, Hypernova and Gamma Ray Bursts\footnote{An expanded
30: version of an invited talk presented at ``Young Supernova
31: Remnants'', October 16-18, 2000
32: College Park, Maryland, USA, and based on work in collaboration
33: with A. De R\'ujula.}}
34:
35: \author{Arnon Dar}
36: \institute{Physics Department and Space Research Institute, Technion,
37: Haifa 32000, Israel}
38:
39: \maketitle
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42:
43:
44: Recent observations suggest that gamma ray bursts (GRBs) and their
45: afterglows are produced by highly relativistic jets emitted in core
46: collapse supernova explosions (SNe). The result of the event, probably, is
47: not just a compact object plus a spherical ejecta: within days, a fraction
48: of the parent star falls back to produce a thick accretion disk around the
49: compact object. Instabilities in the disk induce sudden collapses with
50: ejection of highly relativistic ``cannonballs'' of plasma, similar to
51: those ejected by microquasars. The jet of cannonballs exit the supernova
52: shell/ejecta reheated by their collision with it, emitting highly
53: forward-collimated radiation which is Doppler shifted to $\gamma$-ray
54: energy. Each cannonball corresponds to an individual pulse in a GRB. They
55: decelerate by sweeping up the ionised interstellar matter in front of
56: them, part of which is accelerated to cosmic-ray energies and emits
57: synchrotron radiation: the afterglow. The Cannonball Model cannot predict
58: the timing sequence of these pulses, but it fares very well in describing
59: the total energy, energy spectrum, and time-dependence of the individual
60: $\gamma$-ray pulses and afterglows. It also predicts that GRB pulses
61: are accompanied by detectable short pulses of TeV neutrinos and sub TeV
62: $\gamma$-rays, that are much more energetic and begin and peak a little
63: earlier.
64:
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \keywords{hypernova, supernovae, gamma ray bursts}
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70:
71: Once upon a time, Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) constituted a sheer mystery,
72: whose unassailability was reflected in the scores of extremely different
73: ideas proposed to explain them. In spite of giant strides in the recent
74: observations ---the discovery of GRB afterglows (Costa et al. 1997; van
75: Paradijs et al. 1998), the discovery of the association of GRBs with
76: supernovae (Galama et al. 1998), and the measurements of the redshifts of
77: their host galaxies (Metzger et al. 1997)--- the origin of GRBs is still
78: an enigma. In the recent past, the generally accepted view has been that
79: GRBs are generated by synchrotron emission from fireballs, or firecones,
80: produced by collapse or merger of compact stars (Paczynski 1986; Goodman
81: et al. 1987; Meszaros and Rees 1992) by failed supernovae or collapsars
82: (Woosley 1993; Woosley and MacFadyen 1999; MacFadyen and Woosley 1999;
83: MacFadyen et al. 1999) or by hypernova explosions (Paczynski 1998).
84:
85: I have been asked to discuss hypernovae - hypothetical spherical fireballs
86: that are generated by gravitational, collapse of very massive stars and
87: generate GRBs. But ``I come to bury Caesar not to praise him'' (Shakespeare,
88: ``Julius Caesar'' Act. III Sc.II): Various observations suggest that {\bf
89: most} GRBs are produced by highly collimated ultrarelativistic jets from
90: stellar collapse (Shaviv and Dar 1995; Dar 1998; Dar and Plaga 1999),
91: probably, from supernova explosions (Dar and Plaga 1999; Cen 1999;
92: Woosley et al. 1999; Woosley and MacFadyen 1999; MacFadyen and Woosley
93: 1999; Dar and De R\'ujula 2000a; Dar and De R\'ujula 2000b), and not in
94: spherical explosions that convert kinetic energy to GRBs with total
95: $\gamma$-ray energy in excess of $\rm 10^{54}~erg$.
96:
97: In my talk I will review briefly the evidence that GRBs are associated
98: with SNe. Then I will review the Cannonball (CB) Model of GRBs that was
99: recently proposed by Dar and De R\'ujula (2000a, 2000b) and explains how
100: GRBs are produced in SNe. Its success in describing the total energy,
101: energy spectrum, the time-dependence of the individual $\gamma$-ray pulses
102: in GRBs and the GRB afterglows will be demonstrated.
103:
104:
105: \section{The GRB--SNe association}
106:
107:
108: There is mounting evidence for an association of supernova (SN) explosions
109: and GRBs. The first example was GRB 980425 (Soffitta et al. 1998; Kippen
110: 1998), within whose error circle SN1998bw was soon detected optically
111: (Galama et al. 1998) and at radio frequencies (Kulkarni et al. 1998a). The
112: chance probability for a spatial and temporal coincidence is less than
113: $10^{-4}$ (e.g. Galama et al. 1998), or much smaller if the revised
114: BeppoSAX position (e.g., Pian, 1999) is used in the estimate. The unusual
115: radio (Kulkarni et al. 1998a; Wieringa et al. 1999) and optical (Galama et
116: al. 1998; Iwamoto et al. 1998) properties of SN1998bw, which may have been
117: blended with the afterglow of GRB 980425, support this association. The
118: exceptionally small fluence and redshift of GRB 980425 make this event
119: very peculiar, a fact that we discuss in detail in section 7.
120:
121:
122: Evidence for a SN1998bw-like contribution to a GRB afterglow
123: (Dar 1999a) was first found by Bloom et al. (1999) for GRB 980326,
124: but the unknown redshift prevented a quantitative analysis.
125: The afterglow of GRB 970228 (located at redshift $\rm z=0.695$)
126: appears to be overtaken
127: by a light curve akin to that of SN1998bw (located at $\rm z_{bw}=0.0085$),
128: when properly scaled by their differing redshifts (Dar 1999b).
129: Let the energy flux density of SN1998bw be $\rm F_{bw}[\nu,t]$.
130: For a similar supernova located at z:
131: \begin{eqnarray}
132: {\rm F[\nu,t] = }&&{\rm{1+z \over 1+z_{bw}}\;
133: {D_L^2(z_{bw})\over D_L^2(z)}}\, \times\nonumber \\
134: &&{\rm F_{bw}\left[\nu\,{1+z \over 1+z_{bw}},t\,
135: {1+z_{bw} \over 1+z}\right]\; A(\nu,z)}\, ,
136: \label{bw}
137: \end{eqnarray}
138: where $\rm A(\nu,z)$ is the extinction along the line of sight.
139: The SN--GRB association in the case of GRB 970228 was
140: reconfirmed by Reichart (1999) and by
141: Galama et al. (2000). Evidence of similar associations is found
142: for GRB 990712 (Hjorth et al. 1999; Sahu et al. 2000), GRB 980703 (Holland
143: 2000) and GRB 000418: an example that we show
144: in Fig.~5. In the case of GRB 990510 the observational evidence
145: (Sokolov et al. 2000)
146: is marginal. For the remaining cases in Table I the observational data
147: preclude a conclusion, for one or more reasons: the late afterglow is not
148: measured; $\rm F_{bw}[\nu']$ is not known for large
149: $\rm \nu'\simeq \nu\,(1+z)$; the GRB's afterglow or the host galaxy are
150: much brighter than the SN. The case of GRB 970508, for
151: which the afterglow in the R band is brighter than a SN contribution
152: given by Eq.~(\ref{bw}), is shown in Fig.~6.
153:
154: All in all, it is quite possible that a good fraction of GRBs are
155: associated with SNe, perhaps even {\it all} of the most frequent,
156: long-duration GRBs.
157: The converse statement ---that most SNe of certain
158: types are associated with GRBs--- appears at first sight to be untenable.
159: The rate of Type Ib/Ic/II SNe has been estimated from their observed
160: rate in the local Universe (e.g. Van den Bergh \& Tammann 1991)
161: and the star formation rate as function of redshift, to be 10 s$^{-1}$
162: in the observable Universe (Madau 1998).
163: The observed rate of GRBs is a mere 1000 y$^{-1}$.
164: Thus, very few of these SNe produce {\it visible} GRBs. But, if
165: the SN-associated GRBs were beamed within an angle $ \theta\sim
166: 3.6\times 10^{-3}$,
167: only a fraction $\pi\,\theta^2/4\pi \sim 3\times 10^{-6}$ would be
168: visible, making the observed rates compatible and making possible a
169: rough one-to-one SN--GRB association
170: (or a ten-to-one association for $\theta\!\sim\! 1 \times 10^{-2}$).
171:
172: \section{The Cannonball Model of GRBs}
173:
174:
175: \subsection{The engine}
176:
177:
178:
179: The ejection of matter in a supernova (SN) explosion is not fully
180: understood. The known mechanisms for imparting the required kinetic energy
181: to the ejecta are inefficient: the theoretical understanding of
182: core-collapse SN events is still unsatisfying. It has been proposed (De
183: R\'ujula 1987; Dar and Plaga 1999; Cen 1999; Woosley and MacFadyen 1999;
184: Dar and De R\'ujula 2000a and references
185: therein) that the result of a SN event is not just a compact object plus
186: a spherical ejecta: a fraction of the parent star may be ejected, but another
187: fraction of its mass may fall back onto the newly born compact object.
188: For vanishing angular momentum,
189: the free-fall time of a test-particle from a parent
190: stellar radius ${\rm R_\star}$ onto an object of mass ${\rm M_c}$ is:
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: {\rm t_{fall}}&&{\rm ={\pi\,\left[{R_\star^3\over
193: 8\,G\,M_c}\right]^{1/2} }}
194: \nonumber \\
195: &&{\rm \sim 1\; day\; \left[{R_\star\over 10^{12}\;cm}\right]^{3/2}\;
196: \left[{1.4\;M_\odot\over M_c}\right]^{1/2}}\, .
197: \label{tfall}
198: \end{eqnarray}
199: The free-fall time may be shorter if the mass of the falling material is
200: not small relative to that of the compact object and if the specific
201: angular momentum is small, or much longer if the specific angular momentum
202: is considerably large, as it is in most stars. In both cases
203: it is quite natural to assume
204: that infalling material with non-vanishing
205: angular momentum settles
206: into an orbiting disk, or a thick torus if its mass is comparable
207: to ${\rm M_c}$ and that, as observed
208: in other cases of significant accretion
209: onto a compact object (microquasars and active galactic nuclei)
210: in which the infalling material is processed in a series of
211: ``catastrophic'' accretions, jets of
212: relativistic CBs of plasma are ejected (e.g., Belloni et al. 1997; Mirabel
213: and Rodriguez 1999a,b). Their
214: composition is assumed to be ``baryonic'', as it is in the jets of
215: SS 433, from which Doppler shifted Ly$_\alpha$ and K$_\alpha$ lines of
216: various elements, such as Fe, Ni, Mg, Si, S and Ar, have been detected
217: (Margon 1984; Kotani et al 1996),
218: although the violence of the relativistic
219: jetting-process
220: should in our case break most nuclei into their constituents.
221:
222:
223: The cannonball model of GRBs (Dar and De R\,ujula 2000a,b) is illustrated in
224: Fig. 1. In brief, the CB model is the following. A sequence
225: of highly relativistic cannonballs is emitted during
226: a core-collapse SN. These cannonballs may be emitted right after the
227: initial collapse (Dar and Plaga 1999; Cen 1999; Woosley and
228: MacFadyen 1999; MacFadyen and Woosley 1999; MacFadyen et al.
229: 1999) and hit a massive shell at a typical
230: radius of $\rm R_S\sim 3\times 10^{15}\, cm\, $
231: formed by strong wind emission in
232: the Red Supergiant or variable Blue Giant presupernova phase
233: (for evidence see e.g.,
234: Salamanca et al. 1998; Fassia et al. 2000). They may be emitted
235: in a second collapse (De R\'ujula 1987)
236: at a time $\rm t_{fall}$ of ${\cal{O}}(1)$ day after
237: a SN core-collapse. By this time the SN outer shell, traveling at
238: a velocity $\rm v_S \sim c/10$ (see, e.g., Nakamura et al. 2000)
239: has moved to a distance:
240: \begin{equation}
241: \rm R_S=2.6 \times 10^{14} \;cm\;\left({t_{fall}\over 1\;d}\right)\;
242: \left({10\,v_S\over c}\right) .
243: \label{Rs}
244: \end{equation}
245: As it hits a massive shell, the CB slows down and heats up. Its radiation
246: is obscured by the shell up to a distance of order one radiation length
247: from the shell's outer surface. As this point is reached the emitted
248: radiation from the CB which continues to travel, expand and cool down,
249: becomes visible. This radiation, which is boosted and collimated by the
250: ultrarelativistic motion of the CB, and time contracted due to time
251: aberration in the observer frame, appears as a single GRB pulse. The
252: observed
253: duration of a GRB pulse is its radiative cooling time after it becomes
254: visible. The total duration of a GRB with many pulses is the total
255: emission time of CBs with large Doppler factors by the central engine. As
256: the mechanism producing relativistic jets in accretion is not well
257: understood, the CB model is unable to predict the timing sequence of the
258: successive GRB pulses but, the CB model is quite successful in describing
259: the total energy, energy spectrum and time-dependence {\it within single
260: GRB pulses} (Dar and De R\'ujula 2000b).
261:
262:
263:
264:
265:
266: \subsection{Relativistic aberration, boosting and collimation}
267:
268: Let $\rm \gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}={E_{CB}/(M_{CB}c^2)}$ be
269: the Lorentz factor
270: of a CB, that diminishes with time as the CB hits the SN shell
271: and as it subsequently plows through the interstellar medium.
272: Let $\rm t_{SN}$ be the
273: local time in the SN rest system, $\rm t_{CB}$ the time in the CB's
274: rest system and t the time of a stationary observer
275: viewing the CB at redshift z from an angle $\theta$
276: away from its direction of motion.
277: Let x be the distance traveled by the CB in the SN rest system.
278: The relations between the above timings are:
279: \begin{equation}
280: \rm dt= {(1+z)\, dt_{CB}\over \delta}={(1+z)\, dt_{SN}\over \delta\,\gamma}
281: ={(1+z)\, dx \over \beta\,\, \gamma\, \delta\, c}\,
282: \label{times}
283: \end{equation}
284: where the Doppler factor $\delta$ is:
285: \begin{equation}
286: \rm
287: \delta\equiv\rm{1\over\gamma\,(1-\beta\cos\theta)}
288: \simeq\rm {2\,\gamma\over (1+\theta^2\gamma^2)}\; ,
289: \label{doppler}
290: \end{equation}
291: and its approximate expression is valid for $\theta\ll 1$ and $\gamma\gg 1$,
292: the domain of interest here. In what follows we will set t=0 at the
293: moment when the CB hits the shell.
294: Notice that for large $\gamma$ and $\theta\gamma\sim 1\, ,$
295: there is an enormous ``relativistic aberration'':
296: $\rm dt\sim dt_{SN}/\gamma\delta$ and the observer sees
297: a long CB story as a film in extremely fast motion.
298:
299: The energy of the photons radiated by a CB
300: in its rest system, $\rm E^\gamma_{CB}$ and the photon
301: energy, E, measured by a cosmologically distant observer
302: are related by:
303: \begin{equation}
304: \rm E={\delta\, E^\gamma_{CB}\over 1+z}\, ,
305: \label{energies}
306: \end{equation}
307: with $\delta$ as in Eq.(\ref{doppler}).
308: If $\rm E_{pulse}^{rest}$ is the CB total emitted
309: radiation in its rest frame,
310: an observer at a luminosity distance $\rm D_L(z)$ from the CB that is
311: viewing it at an angle $\theta<<1$ from its direction of motion would measure
312: a ``total'' (time- and energy-integrated) fluence per unit area:
313: \begin{equation}
314: \rm {dF\over d\Omega}\simeq {(1+z)\, E_{pulse}^{rest}
315: \over 4\,\pi\,D_L^2}\;\delta^3\; .
316: \label{dfdomega}
317: \end{equation}
318: Only if traveling with a large Lorentz factor $\gamma > 10^2$ at a small
319: angle $\theta\sim 1/\gamma $ relative to the line of sight, will a CB
320: at a cosmological distance be visible.
321:
322:
323: \subsection{Jet energy and CB mass}
324:
325: Let ``jet'' stand for the ensemble of CBs emitted in one direction in a SN
326: event. If a momentum imbalance between the opposite-direction jets is
327: responsible for the large peculiar velocities ${\rm v_{NS}\approx 450\pm
328: 90~ km~s^{-1}}$ (Lyne and Lorimer 1994) of neutron stars born in SNe, the
329: jet kinetic energy $\rm E_{jet}$ must be, as assumed in the CB model for
330: the GRB
331: engine, larger than $\sim 10^{52}$ erg (e.g. Dar and Plaga 1999). The
332: jet-emitting process may be ``up-down'' symmetric to a very good
333: approximation, in which case the jet energies may be much bigger. There is
334: evidence that in the accretion of matter by black holes in quasars
335: (Celotti at al. 1997; Ghisellini 2000) and microquasars (Mirabel and
336: Rodriguez 1999a,b) the
337: efficiency for the conversion of gravitational binding energy into jet
338: energy is surprisingly large.
339: If in the production of CBs the central compact object
340: in a SN ingurgitates several solar masses, it is not
341: out of the question that $\rm E_{jet}$ be as large as
342: $\rm M_\odot c^2\sim 1.8\times 10^{54}$ erg.
343: A compromise value, $10^{53}$ ergs, as the reference
344: jet energy was adopted in the CB model of GRBs.
345:
346: Average GRBs have some five to ten significant pulses, so that the
347: fraction f of the jet energy carried by a single CB
348: may typically be 1/5 or 1/10. A value $\rm E_{CB}=10^{52}$ erg
349: was adopted as a reference value. For this value, the CB's mass is
350: comparable to an Earth mass:
351: ${\rm M_{CB}\sim 1.8\, M_\otimes (10^3/\gamma)}$, for a Lorentz factor
352: of $\rm\gamma={\cal{O}}(10^3)$, that was found by fitting the GRB
353: properties (see later).
354:
355:
356: \subsection{The making of the GRB}
357:
358: The general properties of GRB pulses in the CB model are not sensitive to the
359: complex details of the CB's collision with the shell. They can be
360: estimated from the overall energetics and approximate treatment of the
361: cooling of the CB by radiation and expansion as it reaches the
362: transparent outskirts of the shell.
363:
364: The density profile of the outer layers of an SN shell as a function
365: of the distance x to the SN center can be inferred from the photometry,
366: spectroscopy and evolution of the SN emissions (see e.g. Nakamura et al. 2000
367: and references
368: therein). The observations can be fit by a power law,
369: $\rm x^{-n}$, with $\rm n \sim 4\; to\, 8$.
370: The results are sensitive to
371: this density profile only in the outer region where the SN shell
372: becomes transparent (and the measurements are made), so that one
373: can adopt the same profile at all $\rm x>R_S$:
374: \begin{equation}
375: \rm \rho(x)=\rm\rho(R_S)\,\Theta(x-R_S)\,\left[{R_S\over x}\right]^n\, .
376: \label{profile}
377: \end{equation}
378: The SN-shell grammage still in front of a CB located at x is:
379: \begin{equation}
380: \rm X_S(x)=\int_x^\infty \, \rho(y)\,dy=
381: {M_S\over 4\,\pi\, R_S^2}\; \left[{R_S\over x}\right]^{n-1}\, ,
382: \label{SNgram}
383: \end{equation}
384: where $\rm M_S$ and $\rm R_S$ are the total mass and radius,
385: respectively, of the shell.
386: For photons in the MeV domain the attenuation length is similar, within
387: a factor 2, in all elements from H to Fe (Groom et al., 2000), and can be
388: roughly approximated by:
389: \begin{equation}
390: \rm X_\gamma(E)\sim 1.0\,(E/keV)^{0.33}\; g\, cm^{-2}\; .
391: \label{Xgamma}
392: \end{equation}
393: The value of $\rm X_\gamma(E)$ in the $\rm E=10$ keV to 1 MeV domain
394: (2.1 to 9.8 gr/cm$^2$) is close to the attenuation length in a hydrogenic
395: plasma ($\rm X_\gamma^{ion}\simeq m_p/\sigma_{_T}\simeq 2.6$ gr/cm$^2$,
396: with $\rm m_p$ the proton's mass and
397: $\rm \sigma_{_T}\simeq 0.65\times 10^{-24}$ cm$^2$ the Thomson
398: cross-section). Therefore, it makes little difference in practice whether
399: or not we take into account that the SN-shell material reached
400: by the CB may be ionized by its previously emitted radiation.
401: The position $\rm X-{tp}$ at which the SN shell becomes
402: (one-radiation-length) transparent is then given by :
403: \begin{equation}
404: \rm x_{tp}(E) = R_S\;\left[{M_S\over 4\,\pi\, R_S^2}\;
405: {1\over X_\gamma(E)}\right]^{1\over n-1}\propto E^{-0.33/(n-1)}\; ,
406: \label{SNtransparent}
407: \end{equation}
408: whose energy dependence is extremely weak.
409: Blue-shifted to the SN rest-system, as in Eq.(\ref{energies}),
410: GRB photons have energies
411: in the MeV range.
412:
413: In its rest frame, the front surface of the CB is bombarded by the nuclei
414: of the shell, which have an
415: energy $\rm m_p \,c^2\,\gamma\sim$ 1 TeV per nucleon,
416: roughly 1/3 of which (from $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ decays)
417: is converted into these
418: $\gamma$-rays within $\rm X_p\approx m_p/\sigma_{in}(pp)\approx 50\, g\,
419: cm^{-2}$, where $\rm \sigma_{in}(pp)$ is the nucleon-nucleon
420: inelastic cross section.
421: These high energy photons initiate electromagnetic cascades that
422: eventually convert their energy to thermal energy within the CB.
423: The radiation length of high energy $\gamma$'s in hydrogenic plasma,
424: dominated by $\rm e^+\,e^-$ pair production, is $\rm X_{\gamma e}
425: \simeq 63$ g cm$^{-2}$,
426: comparable to $\rm X_p$. The radiation length of thermalized
427: photons in a hydrogenic plasma is
428: $\rm X_\gamma^{ion}\approx m_p/\sigma_{_T}\approx 2.6$ g cm$^{-2}$.
429:
430: Assume that the quasi-thermal emission rate from
431: the CB, within $\rm X_\gamma^{ion}$ from its
432: surface, is in dynamical equilibrium with the fraction of energy deposited
433: by the CB's collision with the shell in that outer layer.
434: The temperature of the CB's front is then
435: roughly given by:
436: \begin{equation}
437: \rm T(x)\simeq \left[{(n\! -\! 1)\,X_\gamma\, m_p\, c^3\, \gamma^2\,
438: \sigma_{in}(pp) \over
439: 6\,\sigma\, x_{tp}\,X_{\gamma e}
440: \, \sigma_{_T}^2}\right ]^{1\over 4}
441: \left[ {x\over x_{tp}}\right]^{-{n\over 4}}\!\!\! ,
442: \label{temperature}
443: \end{equation}
444: Remarkably, only the Lorentz factor of the CBs when they exit the shell,
445: but neither their mass
446: nor their energy, appear in the above expression,
447: except for the fact that, for the result to be correct, they must be
448: large enough for the CB to pierce the shell and remain relativistic.
449:
450:
451: The CB temperature at $\rm t_{tp}$ is not sensitive to the exact
452: value of n, unlike its time dependence.
453: For $\rm n=8$ and $\rm M_s=10\, M_\cdot$
454: the value of
455: $\rm x_{tp}$ is $\rm \approx 3 \,R_S$, and for t close
456: to $\rm t_{tp}$ or later:
457: \begin{equation}
458: \rm T(t)\simeq 0.16\, keV\,
459: \left[ {t_{tp}\over t}\right]^{2}\,\left[ {\gamma(t)\over
460: 10^3}\right]^{1\over 2}\; .
461: \label{newtemp}
462: \end{equation}
463: This estimate is valid as long as the surface temperature
464: of the optically thick CB is higher than the internal temperature of the
465: CB that under the assumption of isentropic expansion decreases with time
466: only like $\rm T_{CB}\sim 1/R_{CB}\sim 1/t)$.
467:
468:
469: The observed energy and time dependence of the photon intensity
470: (photon number per unit area, N)
471: of a single pulse in a GRB at an angle $\theta$ relative to the CB's
472: motion is predicted to be:
473: \begin{eqnarray}
474: &&\rm {dN\over dE\,dt}\equiv {1+z\over 4\,\pi\,D_L^2}\;
475: \delta^2\, {dn_\gamma\over dE\,dt}\, ,\\
476: &&
477: \rm {dn_\gamma\over dE\,dt}\simeq {2\,\pi\,\sigma\over \zeta(3)}\;
478: {\left[R_{CB}[t]\;E\,(1+z)/\delta\right]^2\; Abs(E,t)\over
479: Exp\left\{E\,(1+z)/(\delta\, T[t])\right\}-1}\; ,
480: \label{boostthermal}
481: \end{eqnarray}
482: with $\rm R_{CB}[t]\simeq c\,t/\sqrt{3}\gamma $ and $\rm T[t]$ as in
483: Eq.(\ref{temperature}), and where
484: \begin{equation}
485: \rm Abs(E,t)=
486: Exp\left[-{X_S(x[t])\over X_\gamma(E\,(1+z))}\right]
487: \label{attenuation}
488: \end{equation}
489: is the attenuation of the flux in the shell.
490:
491:
492:
493: The mean photon energy of a black body radiation
494: is approximately 2.7 T. Thus, around
495: peak energy flux, the mean energy of the observed photons is
496: \begin{equation}
497: \rm <E_\gamma> \simeq {0.45 \over 1+z}\,\left[{\delta\over 10^3} \right]
498: \, MeV\; .
499: \label{meane}
500: \end{equation}
501: It yields $\rm <E_\gamma>\simeq 0.23\, MeV$ for $\delta\simeq 10^3$ and z=1
502: --the mean redshift of the GRBs listed in Table I--, in good agreement with
503: that measured in GRBs (Preece 2000).
504:
505: For $\rm n=4$
506: the temperature decrease approximately
507: as 1/t. For n $>4$ it diminishes faster than 1/t and for $\rm n=8$
508: it decreases faster than
509: $\rm 1/t^2$, the ``faster'' being due, in both cases, to the effect
510: of a decreasing $\rm \gamma(t)$. For $\rm T\sim 1/t^2$ behaviour,
511: the pulse width narrows with time like $\rm \sim E^{-0.5}$
512: in agreement with the analysis of
513: Fenimore et al.~(1995) who
514: found, from a large sample of GRB pulses, that it narrows like
515: $t \propto E^{-0.46}$.
516:
517: The total radiated energy, in the CB rest frame, is roughly the thermal
518: energy deposition within one radiation length from its
519: front surface. After attenuation in the SN shell, it reduces to:
520: \begin{equation}
521: \rm E_{pulse}^{rest}\approx {\sigma_{in}(pp)\, \pi\,
522: [R_{CB}^{tp}]^2\,\bar X_\gamma\, m_p\,c^2\, \gamma(t)
523: \over 3\,X_{\gamma e}\, \sigma_{_T}^2}\,,
524: \label{newenergy}
525: \end{equation}
526: where $\rm \bar X_\gamma$ is the radiation length
527: in the obscuring shell averaged over the black body spectrum.
528: For a typical $\gamma$-ray
529: peak energy of $\rm E_p\sim 1\, MeV$ in the SN rest frame,
530: $\rm \bar X_\gamma\simeq 10\ g\, cm^{-2}\,. $ Consequently,
531: the CB's radius at transparency is
532: $\rm R_{CB}^{tp}=4\times 10^{11}$ cm and
533: $\rm E_{pulse}^{rest}\sim 3\times 10^{45}\, erg$,
534: for $\rm\gamma(t)\sim 10^3$.
535:
536: This is consistent with the estimated GRB energies in Table I provided
537: that the typical Doppler factors of GRBs are in the range
538: $300\leq \delta\leq 1000$.
539:
540:
541:
542: \section{Some simplifications and approximate predictions}
543:
544:
545: A CB, in
546: its rest system, is subject to a flux of high energy nuclei and electrons.
547: While the electrons are being thermalized, they contribute a
548: nonthermal high-energy tail of photons emitted via the ``free-free''
549: process. Such a power-law tail in an otherwise
550: approximately-thermal emission is observed from
551: young supernova remnants (see, e.g., Dyer et al. 2000) and clusters of
552: galaxies (e.g., Fusco-Femiano et al. 1999; Rephaeli et al., 1999;
553: Fusco-Femiano et al., 2000), both of which are systems
554: wherein a dilute plasma at a temperature of
555: $\cal{O}$(1 keV) is exposed to a flux of high energy cosmic rays.
556: Thus, the CB emission can be modeled as a black body spectrum
557: with a nonthermal power-law tail.
558: If, for the sake simplicity,
559: the energy spectrum of the surface radiation
560: from a CB is approximated by a thermal black body radiation then,
561: Eqs. (\ref{boostthermal}--\ref{attenuation}) yield ,
562: \begin{equation}
563: \rm {dN\over dE\,dt}\propto
564: {(E\,t)^2\over Exp\{E\,t/H\}-1}\,
565: Exp \left\{-\left[ {t_{tp}/ t}\right]^{n-1}\right\}
566: \;\Theta[t]\; .
567: \label{simple}
568: \end{equation}
569: The total photon intensity and energy flux are, in this
570: approximation:
571: \begin{equation}
572: \rm {dN\over\,dt}\propto
573: %{dI_\gamma\over dt}(t_{tp}) \,
574: \Theta[t]\; {t_{tp}\over t}\, Exp
575: \left\{-\left[ {t_{tp}/ t}\right]^{n-1}\right\}\,,
576: \label{simple2}
577: \end{equation}
578: %%
579: %%
580: \begin{equation}
581: \rm {F_E(t)}\propto
582: \Theta[t]\; \left[{t_{tp}\over t}\right]^2\,
583: Exp \left\{-\left[ {t_{tp}/ t}\right]^{n-1}\right\}\,.
584: \label{simple3}
585: \end{equation}
586: Let the peak $\gamma$-ray
587: energy at a fixed time during a GRB pulse be defined as
588: $\rm E^\gamma_p(t) \equiv max\,[ E^2\,dI_\gamma/dE\, dt]$.
589: Its value is $\rm E^\gamma_p(t)\simeq 3.92\,\delta\,T[t]/(1+z) $, so that,
590: for t near or after $\rm t_{tp}$:
591: \begin{equation}
592: \rm E^\gamma_p(t) \simeq E^\gamma_p(t_{tp})
593: \;\Theta[t]\; {t_{tp}\over t}\,.
594: \label{simple4}
595: \end{equation}
596:
597: The total ``isotropic'' energy of a GRB pulse
598: -- inferred from its observed
599: fluence assuming an isotropic emission-- can be deduced from
600: Eq.~(\ref{dfdomega}), to be:
601: \begin{equation}
602: \rm E_{iso}=
603: {4\,\pi\,D_L^2\, F \over 1+z}\simeq E_{pulse}^{rest}\, \delta^3\,.
604: \label{eisotropic}
605: \end{equation}
606:
607: If CBs were ``standard candles'' with fixed mass, energy
608: and velocity of expansion,
609: and if all SN shells had the same
610: mass, radius and density distribution, all differences between
611: GRB pulses would result from their different distances and angles
612: of observation. For such standard candles
613: it follows from Eqs.(\ref{times}-\ref{energies},\ref{simple2},
614: \ref{simple3}) that the observed
615: durations (half widths at half maximum) of the photon intensity and
616: of the energy flux density ($\rm \Delta t_I$ and
617: $\rm \Delta t_F$),
618: their peak values ($\rm N_p$ and $\rm F_p)$, and the peak energy
619: ($\rm E^\gamma_p$) in a single GRB pulse are
620: roughly correlated to the total ``observed'' isotropic energy
621: ($\rm E_{iso}$) as follows:
622: \begin{equation}
623: \rm \Delta t_I\propto (1+z)\, [E_{iso}]^{-1/3}\,,
624: \label{twidthi}
625: \end{equation}
626: \begin{equation}
627: \rm \Delta t_F\propto (1+z)\, [E_{iso}]^{-1/3},
628: \label{twidthf}
629: \end{equation}
630: \begin{equation}
631: \rm N_p\propto E_{iso},
632: \label{Ipeak}
633: \end{equation}
634: \begin{equation}
635: \rm F_p\propto[ E_{iso}]^{4/3}\, (1+z)^{-1}\, ,
636: \label{Lpeak}
637: \end{equation}
638: \begin{equation}
639: \rm E^\gamma_p\propto [E_{iso}]^{1/3}\,(1+z)^{-1}\, .
640: \label{Epeak}
641: \end{equation}
642: These approximate correlations can be tested using the sample of 15 GRBs with
643: known redshifts.
644: Because of the strong dependence of the CB pulses
645: on the Doppler factor and their much weaker dependence on the
646: other parameters, they may be approximately satisfied
647: (see, e.g. Plaga 2000) in spite of the fact
648: that CBs and SN shells are likely to be sufficiently varied
649: not to result in standard candles.
650:
651:
652:
653: \section{Predictions of the Cannonball Model}
654:
655: Some common properties of GRB pulses
656: (for detailed light curves see Kippen 2000; Mallozzi 2000) are observed
657: to be:
658: \begin{itemize}
659: \item{(a)} The GRB fluences, integrated in energy and time,
660: lie within one or two orders of magnitude above or below
661: 10$^{-5}$ erg/cm$^2$ (see, e.g., Paciesas et al. 1999).
662: \item{(b)} Individual pulses are narrower in time, the higher the
663: energy interval of their individual photons
664: (see, e.g., Fenimore et al. 1995).
665: \item{(c)} Individual pulses rise and peak at earlier time, the higher the
666: energy interval of their individual photons
667: (see, e.g., Norris et al. 1999; Wu and Fenimore 2000)
668: \item{(d)} Individual pulses have smaller photon energies, the
669: later the time-interval of observation (see, e.g., Preece et al. 1998) .
670: \item{(e)} The energy spectrum of GRBs, or of their individual
671: pulses, if plotted as $\rm E^2\,dN/dE$, rises with energy as $\rm E^\alpha$,
672: with $\alpha \sim 1$, has a broad peak at $\rm E\sim 0.1$ to 1 MeV, and
673: decreases thereafter (see, e.g., Preece et al. 2000).
674: \item{(f)} Most GRBs consist of pulses whose time-behaviour is
675: a fast rise followed
676: by an approximately exponential decay: a ``FRED'' shape. Some
677: GRBs have non-FRED, roughly time-symmetric pulses
678: (see e.g., Fenimore et al. 1995 and references therein)
679: The overwhelming majority of GRBs are either made of FRED or non-FRED
680: pulses: there are no GRBs with mixed pulse-shapes.
681: \end{itemize}
682:
683: All of the above items are properties of the CB model, as was shown in Dar
684: and De R\'ujula 2000b. Figs. 2-4, taken from this reference, demonstrate
685: the success of the CB model in explaining the temporal structure of GRBs,
686: the spectrum of individual pulses and their temporal evolution.
687:
688: \section{GRB afterglows}
689:
690: Far from their parent SNe, the CBs are slowed down by the interstellar
691: medium (ISM) they sweep, which has been previously ionized by the
692: forward-beamed CB radiation (traveling essentially at $\rm v=c$, the CB
693: is ``catching up'' with this radiation, so that the ISM has no time to
694: recombine). As in the jets and lobes of quasars, a fraction of the
695: swept-up ionized particles are ``Fermi accelerated'' to cosmic-ray
696: energies and confined to the CB by its turbulent magnetic field,
697: maintained by the same confined cosmic rays (Dar and Plaga
698: 1999). The bremsstrahlung and synchrotron emissions from the high energy
699: electrons in the CB, boosted by its
700: relativistic bulk motion, produce afterglows in all bands
701: between radio and X-rays, collimated within an angle $\sim 1/\gamma(t)$,
702: that widens as the ISM decelerates the CB.
703:
704: A CB of roughly constant cross section, moving in a
705: previously ionised ISM of roughly constant density,
706: slows down according to
707: ${\rm d\gamma/dx=-\gamma^2/x_{0}}$, with ${\rm x_{0}=M_{CB}/
708: (\pi\, R_{CB}^2\, n\, m_p})$ and n the number density along
709: the CB trajectory.
710: For $\gamma^2\gg 1$,
711: the relation between the length of
712: travel dx and the (red-shifted, relativistically aberrant) time of
713: an observer at a small angle $\theta$ is
714: ${\rm dx=[2\, c\, \gamma^2/(1+\theta^2\,\gamma^2)]\,[dt/(1+z)]}$.
715: Inserting this into $\rm d\gamma/dx$ and integrating, one obtains:
716: \begin{equation}
717: {\rm {1+3\,\theta^2\gamma^2\over 3\,\gamma^3}=
718: {1+3\,\theta^2\gamma_0^2\over 3\,\gamma_0^3}+
719: {2\,c\, t\over (1+z)\, x_{0}}}\; ,
720: \label{gamoft}
721: \end{equation}
722: where $\gamma_0$ is the Lorentz factor of the CB as it exits
723: the SN shell.
724: The real root $\rm \gamma=\gamma(t)$ of the cubic Eq.~(\ref{gamoft})
725: describes the CB slowdown with observer's time.
726:
727: The radiation emitted by a CB in its rest system
728: (bremsstrahlung, synchrotron, Compton-boosted
729: self-synchrotron),
730: is boosted and collimated
731: by the CB's motion, and its time-dependence is
732: modified by the observer's
733: time flowing $(1+z)/\delta$ times
734: faster than in the CB's rest system.
735: For $\gamma \gg 1$,
736: an observer at small $\theta$ sees an energy flux density:
737: \begin{equation}
738: \rm F[\nu] \sim \delta^3\, F_0(\nu\,[1+z]/\delta)\, A(\nu,z)\, ,
739: \label{sync}
740: \end{equation}
741: where $\rm F_0(\nu_0)$ is the CB emission in its rest frame,
742: $\rm \delta(t)$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{doppler}) with
743: $\rm\gamma=\gamma(t)$ as in Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft}), and $\rm A(\nu,z)$
744: an eventual absorption dimming.
745:
746: Neglecting energy deposition through collision of the CB with the ISM
747: during the afterglow regime
748: and energy losses due to expansion and radiation, the CB's afterglow is
749: dominated by a steady
750: electron synchrotron radiation from the
751: magnetic field in the CB
752: (valid only for slowly expanding/cooling CBs in
753: a low density ISM and
754: for frequencies where the attenuation length due to electron free--free
755: transitions exceeds its radius). The spectral shape of synchrotron
756: emission in the CB rest frame is ${\rm F_0\sim \nu_0^{-\alpha}}$, with
757: ${\rm \alpha=(p-1)/2}$ and p the spectral index of the electrons. For
758: equilibrium between Fermi acceleration and synchrotron and Compton
759: cooling, $\rm p \approx 3.2$ and $\alpha\approx 1.1$, while for small
760: cooling rates, $\rm p \approx 2.2$ and $\alpha \approx 0.6$ (Dar and De
761: R\'ujula 2000c), or $\rm p\simeq1.2$ and $\alpha\simeq 0.1$ if Coulomb
762: losses dominate. At very low radio frequencies self-absorption becomes
763: important and $\alpha \approx -1/3~(2.1)$ for optically thin (thick) CBs.
764:
765:
766: Since $\rm \gamma(t)$, as in Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}), is a decreasing
767: function of time, the
768: afterglow described by Eq.~(\ref{sync})
769: may have a very interesting behaviour.
770: An observer may initially be outside the beaming cone:
771: $\theta^2\gamma^2\! >\! 1$, as we shall argue to be the case for
772: GRB 980425, for which we estimate $\gamma_0^2\,\theta^2\!\sim\! 200$
773: (other relatively dim GRBs in Table I, such as 970228 and 970508,
774: may also be of this type).
775: The observed afterglow would then initially rise with time.
776: As $\gamma$ decreases, the cone
777: broadens, and around $\rm t=t_p$ when $\gamma\theta\!\sim\! 1$ (when
778: the observer enters the `beaming cone' of the CB)
779: the afterglow peaks and then begins to decline.
780: Beyond the peak, when $\gamma^2\theta^2\gg 1$ and where
781: $\rm \gamma\sim t^{-1/3}$, the afterglow declines like
782: \begin{equation}
783: \rm F[\nu] \sim F[\nu,\,t_p]\,
784: \left [{(t_p/t)^{1/3}
785: \over 1+(t_p/t)^{2/3}}\right]^{3+\alpha+\beta}
786: \, A(\nu,z)\, ,
787: \label{synclate}
788: \end{equation}
789: where $\rm F_0 \sim \nu^{-\alpha}\, t^{-\beta} $ in the CB rest frame.
790: For steady emission, i.e., for small emission and energy deposition rates,
791: $\beta=0$. For an emission rate which is in equilibrium with
792: the energy deposition rate in the CB rest
793: frame by the incident ISM particles (that is proportional to
794: $\gamma^2$), $\beta=2/3$. Eq.~(\ref{synclate}) describes well the late
795: afterglows of most GRBs, including their radio afterglows (if one
796: correct it for absorption in the CB and along the line of sight).
797:
798:
799: This is demonstrated in Fig. 5 for GRB 000418 where
800: its late afterglow in the R band as predicted by
801: Eqs.(\ref{gamoft},\ref{synclate}) is compared with the observations
802: that were compiled in Klose et al. 2000.
803: The normalization and $\rm t_p$ were adjusted to
804: fit the data. A contribution from a SN1998bw-like SN placed at the GRB
805: redshift, z=1.11854, as in Eq.(\ref{bw}) with Galactic extinction ${\rm
806: A_R=0.09}$ magnitudes was added to the CB light curve.
807:
808:
809: Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft},\ref{sync})
810: may explain the puzzling initial rise
811: of the optical afterglow of GRBs 970228 and 970508,
812: as well as the second peak around $\rm t_p\sim 3$--$\rm 4\times 10^6\, s$
813: in the unresolved radio emission
814: from SN1998bw/GRB 980425 (Kulkarni et al. 1998a; Frail et al. 1999),
815: if it corresponds to the GRBs afterglow. This is demonstrated in
816: Fig. 6. where the afterglow of GRB 970508 in the R band is compared
817: with Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft},\ref{sync}), for the measured index
818: $\alpha=1.1$. The adjusted parameters are
819: the height, the time of the afterglow's peak and the product
820: $\theta\gamma_0$.
821: The figure is for a single CB; with a few of them at chosen times
822: and relative fluxes,
823: it would be easy to explain the early ``warning shots'' at $\rm t<1$ day
824: and the abrupt rise at $\rm t=1$ to 2 days. At $\rm t\gg t_p$, however,
825: they would add up to a single curve like the one shown in the figure.
826:
827:
828:
829:
830: When the CB enters the Sedov--Taylor phase
831: its radius increases as ${\rm t^{2/5}}.$
832: The Lorentz factor of electrons decreases like ${\rm t^{-6/5}}$.
833: In equipartition, the magnetic field decreases like ${\rm t^{-3/5}}$.
834: Wijers et al. (1997) have shown that these facts lead to an afterglow
835: decline ${\rm F_\nu\sim t^{-(15\alpha-3)/5}\sim t^{-2.7}}$
836: for $\alpha\sim 1.1$ CB at rest,
837: as was observed for the late-time afterglows of
838: some GRBs. Note, however, that if the CB enters the
839: Sedov-Taylor phase in flight, Eq.~(\ref{sync})
840: predicts $\rm F_\nu \sim t^{-{(50\alpha+6) / 15}}$, i.e.,
841: $\rm F_\nu\sim t^{-2.4}$ for $\alpha\sim 0.6$ which changes to
842: $\rm F_\nu\sim t^{-4}$ for $\alpha \sim 1.1$.
843:
844:
845: \section{GRB 980425: a special case}
846:
847: In the list of Table I, GRB 980425 stands out in two ---apparently
848: contradictory---
849: ways: it is, by far, the closest ($\rm z=0.0085$, $\rm D_L=39$ Mpc)
850: and it has, by far, the smallest implied spherical energy: ${\rm
851: 8.1\times 10^{47}}$ erg, 4 to 6 orders of magnitude smaller than that
852: of other GRBs.
853: However,if GRB 980425 was not abnormal, Eq.~(\ref{eisotropic})
854: tells us that the peculiarities of of GRB 980425 can be understood
855: if its source was ``fired'' from SN1998bw with a bulk-motion Lorentz factor
856: $\gamma \sim 1000$, at an angle $\theta\approx 15/\gamma$ relative to our
857: line of sight. Then, for $\theta\ll 1$ and $\gamma\gg 1$,
858: its projected sky velocity
859: \begin{equation}
860: {\rm v_T^+\approx {2\,\gamma^2\,\theta\over (1+\gamma^2\theta^2)}\;c}\, ,
861: \label{superlum}
862: \end{equation}
863: yields superluminal velocities (Rees 1966)
864: ${\rm v_T\approx 2\,c/\theta}$
865: for $\gamma^2\theta^2\gg 1$,
866: and ${\rm v_T\approx 2\,c\,\gamma^2\,\theta}$,
867: for $\gamma^2\theta^2\ll 1$,
868: provided ${\rm 2\,\gamma^2\,\theta\! >\! 1}$.
869: Its transverse superluminal
870: displacement, $\rm D_T$, from the SN position can be obtained by
871: time-integrating
872: $\rm v_T$, as in Eq.~(\ref{superlum}), using $\rm \gamma(t)$ as in
873: Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}). The result can be reproduced, to better than 10\%
874: accuracy, by using the approximation $\rm v_T\sim 2 \gamma^2\,\theta\,c$,
875: valid for $\gamma\! <\! 1/\theta$ (or $\rm t\! >\! t_p$, the afterglow's
876: peaktime):
877: %$\rm D=2\,c\, t_p \theta^{-1}\,(t/ t_p)^{1/3}$.
878: \begin{equation}
879: {\rm D_T\simeq{2\,c\, t_p\over \theta} \left[{t\over t_p}\right]^{1/3}}.
880: \end{equation}
881: At present ($\rm t\!\sim\! 850\, d$),
882: the displacement of the GRB from the initial SN/GRB position is $\rm
883: D_T\!\sim\! 20\,(\gamma_0/10^3)$ pc, corresponding to an angular
884: displacement $\Delta\alpha\!\sim\!100\,(\gamma_0/10^3)$ mas, for $\rm
885: z=0.0085$, $\rm t_p\!\sim\! 3.5\times 10^6$ s.
886:
887: The two sources, now a few tens of mas away, may still be resolved by HST.
888: In Fig.~7 we show our prediction for the late-time V-band light curve of
889: SN1998bw/GRB 980425. The SN curve is a fit by Sollerman
890: et al. (2000) for energy deposition by $\rm ^{56}Co$ decay
891: in an optically thin SN shell. The GRB light curve is our predicted
892: afterglow for GRB 9980425, as given by Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft},\ref{sync}),
893: and constrained to peak at the position of the second peak in
894: the radio observations (Kulkarni et al. 1998a; Frail et al. 1999).
895: The fitted normalization
896: is approximately that of the mean afterglow of the GRBs in Table I,
897: suppressed by the same factor as its $\gamma$-ray fluence relative to
898: the mean $\gamma$-ray fluence in Table I.
899: The joint system has at present (day $\sim\! 850$) an extrapolated
900: magnitude $\rm V\sim 26$ (Fynbo et al. 2000).
901: It can still be resolved from its
902: host galaxy ESO-184-G82 by HST and, perhaps, by VLT in good seeing
903: conditions. An extrapolation of the V-band late time
904: curve of SNR1998bw (Sollerman et al. 2000) suggests
905: that the present magnitude of the SN is $\rm V\sim 28$ , which is near
906: the detection limit of HST and is dimming
907: much faster than $\rm ^{56}Co$-decay would imply.
908:
909: In the GHz radio band, the system has been last observed in February 1999
910: by ATCA (Australia's Telescope Compact Array) to have an
911: ${\cal{O}}(1)$ mJy
912: flux density (Frail et al. 2000) and to have approached a power-law time decline
913: with a power-law index $-1.47$. If a Sedov-Taylor break in the radio afterglow
914: of GRB 980425 has not occurred yet, its
915: spectral density may still be strong enough to determine its position with
916: ATCA and VLBI to better than mas precision. If the second peak is the GRB's
917: afterglow, the two radio centroids should now be separated by
918: $\sim\!\gamma_0/10$ mas (or by $\sim\!\gamma_0/20$ mas, if the first peak
919: is the afterglow). A refined location from a reanalysis of the early ATCA
920: observations (Kulkarni et al 1998a; Frail et al. 1999) of the initial SN
921: and of the late afterglow may also reveal a superluminal displacement.
922:
923: If the GRB afterglow has entered the late
924: fast-decline phase seen in some GRB afterglows and in quasar and
925: microquasar ``afterglows'' from jetted ejections (observed power-law index
926: $-2.7 \pm 0.3$), a further delay in follow-up observations can make it
927: very difficult or impossible to detect and resolve the GRB/SNR radio image
928: into its two predicted images.
929:
930: A GRB as close as GRB 980425 (z = 0.0085) should occur only once every
931: $\sim\!10$ years and its associated supernova may be only occasionally
932: observed. For typical GRBs ($\rm z\!\sim\! 1$) there is no hope of
933: resolving them with HST into two separate SN and GRB images. Resolving
934: them with VLBI would also be arduous. For these reasons, we
935: exhort interested observers to consider immediate high-resolution optical
936: (STIS) and radio (ATCA and VLBI) follow-up observations of SN1998bw and
937: the afterglow of GRB980425.
938:
939: \section{X-ray lines in GRB afterglows}
940:
941:
942: Lines in the X-ray afterglow
943: of GRBs have been detected in four GRBs (GRB 970508, Piro et al. 1999;
944: GRB 970828, Yoshida et al 1999; GRB 991216, Piro et al. 2000;
945: GRB 000214, Antonelli et al. 2000). Their energies are listed
946: in Table II. They were interpreted as iron lines emitted from
947: a large mass of iron that was photoionized by the GRB. However,
948: this interpretation raises many questions (see, e.g., Vietri 2000).
949:
950: \subsection{Origin of the X-ray lines}
951:
952: The CB model offers an alternative interpretation for the origin of
953: the X-ray lines in the ``early'' GRB afterglow - hydrogen recombination
954: lines which are Doppler shifted to X-ray energies by the CB
955: relativistic motion:
956:
957: As long as the CB is opaque to its internal radiation, it
958: expands with the relativistic
959: speed of sound, $\rm c\sqrt{3}$ in its rest frame,
960: and cools with ${\rm
961: T_{CB}\sim 1/R_{CB}\sim 1/t}$.
962: When
963: ${\rm R_{CB}\simeq [3\,M_{CB}\,\sigma_T/(4\, \pi\,
964: m_p)]^{1/2}}$, where $\rm \sigma_T\simeq 0.65\times 10^{-24}$ cm$^2$ is
965: the Thomson cross section, it becomes
966: optically thin and its internal radiation escapes.
967: This end to the CB's $\gamma$-ray pulse
968: takes place at $\rm t\simeq R_{CB}/\sqrt{3}\,c\,\delta\simeq 2\times
969: (10^3/\delta)\,s$ in the observer frame.
970: Due to the escape of its internal radiation,
971: its internal pressure drops and its expansion rate
972: is slowed down by sweeping up the ISM.
973: During this phase it cools mainly
974: by emission of bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation.
975: Its ionization state is described by the Saha
976: equation
977: \begin{equation}
978: {\rm {x^2 \over 1-x} = {(2\, \pi\, m_e\, c^2\, k\,T)^{3/2}\over
979: n\, h^3\, c^3}\, e^{-\chi/k\,T}}\,
980: \end{equation}
981: with ${\rm x=n_e/n}\,,$ n being the the baryon density in the shell,
982: $\chi=13.6$ eV is the hydrogen binding energy
983: T is the plasma temperature in K and
984: $\rm n_e$ is the density of free electrons
985: in $\rm cm^{-3}\,.$
986: When the electron temperature
987: in the CB approaches 5000 K, electrons begin to recombine with protons
988: into hydrogen. The exponential term in the Saha equation
989: confines this recombination phase of the CB to a temperature around 4500K
990: (for CBs with $\rm 10^5\, cm^{-3} <n_e<10^6\, cm^{-3}\,,$ as we shall
991: estimate later). The recombination produces strong emission
992: of $\rm Ly_{\alpha}$ line (and, perhaps, a recombination edge
993: above the $\rm Ly_{\infty}$ line) which is Doppler shifted
994: by the CB motion to X-ray energy in the observer frame:
995: \begin{equation}
996: \rm E_\alpha\simeq {10.2\over(1+z)}\,\left[ {10^3\over \delta}\right]\
997: keV\, ,
998: \end{equation}
999: \begin{equation}
1000: \rm E_{edge}\simeq {13.6\over(1+z)}\,\left[{10^3\over \delta}\right]\,
1001: keV\,.
1002: \end{equation}
1003: The total number of these recombination photons is approximately
1004: equal to the baryonic number of the CB,
1005: $\rm N_b\simeq E_{CB}/m_p\,c^2\,\gamma(0)\simeq 6.7\times 10^{51}\,
1006: (E_{CB}/10^{52}\, erg)\, (10^3/\gamma(0))\,.$
1007: Thus, the photon fluence of these
1008: lines (line-fluence) at a luminosity distance $\rm D_L$ is
1009: \begin{equation}
1010: \rm N_{lines}\simeq N_b\,
1011: {(1+z)^2\, \delta^2\over 4\,\pi\,D_L^2}\, .
1012: \label{linefluence}
1013: \end{equation}
1014: The measured energies of the observed X-ray lines in the above 4 GRBs and
1015: the Doppler factors implied by their interpretation as hydrogen
1016: recombination features are listed in Table II. The inferred Doppler
1017: factors are consistent with those needed in the CB model $(\delta\sim
1018: 10^3)$ to explain the intensity and duration of the GRB pulses.
1019:
1020: Note that the 4.4 keV line in the afterglow of GRB 991216 may be either
1021: a hydrogen recombination edge from the same CB that produces the 3.49 keV
1022: line, or a $\rm Ly-\alpha$ line from another CB.
1023:
1024:
1025:
1026: \subsection{Observational Tests}
1027:
1028: There are various independent tests
1029: of the interpretation of the X-ray lines as hydrogen recombination
1030: features that are Doppler shifted to X-ray energies by the CB motion:
1031:
1032:
1033: \noindent
1034: {\bf a. Time and duration of line emission}:
1035: The mean time for radiative recombination in hydrogenic plasma is
1036: $\rm r_{rec}\approx 3\times 10^{10}\, T^{-1/2}\,n_e \, s^{-1}\,.$
1037: In the observer frame this recombination time is
1038: \begin{equation}
1039: \rm \Delta t_L\approx {3\times 10^{10}\, (1+z)\, T^{1/2}\over
1040: n_e\,\delta}\, s\,. \label{tline} \end{equation} The
1041: emission rate of bremsstrahlung by an hydrogenic plasma is $\rm L\simeq
1042: 1.43\times 10^{-27}\, n_e^2\, T^{1/2}\, erg\, cm^{-3}\, s^{-1}\, ,$ and
1043: the cooling time of the CB to temperature T in the observer frame is
1044: \begin{equation} \rm t_{brem}\simeq {2.9\times 10^{11}\,(1+z)\,
1045: T^{1/2}\over n_e\,\delta}\,s\,. \label{tbrem} \end{equation} Thus, the
1046: ratio $\rm\Delta t_L/t_{brem}\simeq 0.10$, where the dependence on Doppler
1047: factor, electron density, temperature and redshift of the CB has been
1048: canceled out, is a universal ratio for CB afterglows, independent of
1049: their detailed properties. This prediction is consistent with the
1050: observations of the X-ray line in GRB 980828 where $\rm\Delta
1051: t_L/t_{brem}\simeq 0.05$ with a large ($\sim$ factor 2) uncertainty
1052: (Yoshida et al. 1999).
1053:
1054: However, the above estimate is valid only for a single CB (originally
1055: ejected, or one that was formed by overtaking and merger of separately
1056: ejected CBs). Generally, the afterglows of different CBs cannot be
1057: resolved either spatially or temporally. Their individual afterglows are
1058: blended into a single afterglow. Because of their different Lorentz and
1059: Doppler factors, X-ray line emission may extend over a much longer time,
1060: $\rm\Delta t_L\simeq t_{brem}$. This may be the case in the observations
1061: of X-ray line emission during the afterglow of GRB 970508 and GRB 000214
1062: by BeppoSAX and of GRB 991216 by Chandra which were too short both in time
1063: and of statistics to measure accurately enough the duration of the line
1064: emission.
1065:
1066:
1067:
1068: \noindent
1069: {\bf b. Photon fluences :}
1070: Table II also reports the total photon fluence in X-ray lines
1071: during the observation time and the total baryon number required
1072: to produce the lines as predicted by Eq.~(\ref{linefluence}).
1073: These baryon numbers are within the range
1074: expected for SNe CBs/jets ($\rm N_b\simeq 6.5\times 10^{51\pm 1}$).
1075: However, because the observation times may not have extended over the full
1076: time of line emission, these baryon numbers may underestimate
1077: the baryon number of the CB/jet.
1078:
1079: \noindent
1080: {\bf c. Line width :} Thermal broadening of both the
1081: recombination lines and the recombination edge are rather small. However,
1082: the Doppler factors of the CBs decrease with time during the line emission
1083: because of the decrease of
1084: their Lorentz factors due to their
1085: deceleration by the ISM.
1086: At late time, $\rm \gamma \sim t^{-1/3}\, ,$ for a
1087: single CB and as a result the line energy shifts by $\rm \Delta E_L \simeq
1088: (\Delta t_L/3\,t_{berm})\, E_L \simeq 0.04\, E_L\,$ during the line
1089: emission. The decrease in the line energy with time during the line
1090: emission is a clear fingerprint of the origin of the lines. When
1091: integrated over time (in order to increase statistics) the line shift
1092: will appear as a line broadering. The above estimate of this line
1093: broadening is consistent with the reported widths of the X-ray lines.
1094:
1095:
1096:
1097: \noindent
1098: {\bf d. The CB radius during line emission:} The electron density
1099: in the CB during the line emission can be inferred from the observed time
1100: and duration of the line emission, using Eqs.~(\ref{tline}),(\ref{tbrem}).
1101: Then, the CB radius can be estimated from the total baryon number which is
1102: inferred from the measured line-fluence. This radius estimate is not
1103: sensitive to the accuracy of the observations since it depends on the
1104: third root of $\rm N_b/n_e$. The three GRBs with measured redshifts yield
1105: $\rm R_{CB}\sim (1-2)\times 10^{15}\, cm $ for $\rm t\sim 1-2\, days$ in
1106: the observer frame. If a CB continues to expand within the first few weeks
1107: with the same mean speed of expansion as in the first day or two, its
1108: radius after a month reaches $\rm \simeq (3-6)\times 10^{16}\, cm$ (only
1109: then the swept up ISM mass begins to be comparable to the CB mass).
1110: Indeed, from VLA observations of scintillations (Goodman 1997) in the
1111: radio afterglow of GRB 970508 and their disappearance after a month it was
1112: inferred (Taylor et al. 1997) that the linear size of its source a month
1113: after burst was $\rm \approx 10^{17}\, cm\, ,$ i.e., corresponding to $\rm
1114: R_{CB}\sim 5\times 10^{16}\, cm\,. $
1115:
1116:
1117:
1118:
1119: \section{Conclusions}
1120:
1121: GRBs and their afterglows may be produced
1122: by jets of extremely relativistic cannonballs in SN
1123: explosions. The cannonballs which exit the supernova
1124: shell/ejecta reheated by their collision with it, emit highly
1125: forward-collimated radiation which is Doppler shifted to $\gamma$-ray
1126: energy. Each cannonball corresponds to an individual pulse in a GRB. They
1127: decelerate by sweeping up the ionised interstellar matter in front of
1128: them, part of which is accelerated to cosmic-ray energies and emits
1129: synchrotron radiation: the afterglow. When the cannonballs cool below
1130: 4500K, electron-proton recombination to hydrogen produces Ly-$\alpha$
1131: emission which is Doppler shifted to X-ray energy.
1132:
1133: The Cannonball Model cannot predict
1134: the timing sequence of the GRB pulses, it fares very well in describing
1135: the total energy, energy spectrum, and time-dependence of the individual
1136: $\gamma$-ray pulses and their afterglow and explains the X-ray lines
1137: observed in some GRB afterglows.
1138:
1139:
1140: For the GRB to be observable, the CBs must be close to
1141: the line of sight, implying that their afterglows would appear to
1142: move superluminally. Only one of the located GRBs (980425)
1143: is close enough to us for this superluminal displacement to be observable
1144: with the currently available resolution. Its afterglow may by now
1145: be too dim to be seen. Or it may not.
1146: If observed, the superluminal displacement of this GRB's afterglow would
1147: be a decisive card in favour of cannonballs, as opposed to stationary
1148: fireballs.
1149:
1150: The Cannonball model predicts that GRB pulses are accompanied by short
1151: pulses of TeV neutrinos and sub TeV $\gamma$-rays, which begin and peaka
1152: little earlier and are much more energetic than the GRB pulses. These high
1153: energy emission should be visible in ground based (sub TeV photon) and
1154: underground (neutrino) telescopes.
1155:
1156:
1157: There are other events in which a variety of GRBs could be produced by
1158: the CB mechanism: large mass accretion
1159: episodes in binaries including a compact object, mergers of neutron stars
1160: with neutron stars or black holes (Paczynski 1986, Goodman et al. 1987),
1161: transitions of neutron stars to hyperon- or quark-stars (Dar 1999; Dar and
1162: De R\'ujula, 2000d), etc. In each case, the ejected cannonballs would make
1163: GRBs by hitting stellar winds or envelopes, circumstellar mass or light.
1164: I discussed only core-collapse SN explosions, as the GRBs they would
1165: produce, although relatively ``standard'', satisfactorily
1166: reproduce the general properties of the heterogeneous ensemble of GRBs,
1167: their afterglows and even their X-ray line emission.
1168:
1169: {\bf Acknowledgements:} The material presented in this talk is basesd
1170: on work done in collaboration with Alvaro De R\'ujula. The research was
1171: supported in part by the Fund for Promotion of Research at the Technion
1172: and by the Hellen Asher Fund for Space Research.
1173:
1174: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1175:
1176: \bibitem{}
1177: Antonelli, L.A., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0010221to be published
1178: \bibitem{}
1179: Belloni T., et al., 1997, ApJ 479, 145
1180: \bibitem{}
1181: Bloom J.S., et al., 1999, Nature 401, 452
1182: \bibitem{}
1183: Cen R., 1999, ApJ 524, 51
1184: \bibitem{}
1185: Celotti A., et al. 1997 MNRAS 286, 415
1186: \bibitem{}
1187: Costa E., et al., 1997, Nature 387, 783
1188: \bibitem{}
1189: Dar A., 1998, ApJ 500, L93
1190: \bibitem {}
1191: Dar A., 1999a, A\&AS 138, 505
1192: \bibitem{}
1193: Dar A., 1999b, GCN Report No. 346
1194: \bibitem{}
1195: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2000a, astro-ph/0008474 (A\&A)
1196: \bibitem{}
1197: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2000b, astro-ph/0012227 (A\&A)
1198: \bibitem{}
1199: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2000c, astro-ph/0005080 (MNRAS)
1200: \bibitem{}
1201: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2000d, astro-ph/0002014 (MNRAS)
1202: \bibitem{}
1203: Dar A., Plaga R., 1999, A\&A 349, 259
1204: \bibitem{} De
1205: R\'ujula A., 1987, Phys. Lett. 193, 514
1206: \bibitem{}
1207: Dyer K.K., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0011578
1208: \bibitem{}
1209: Fassia A., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0011340
1210: \bibitem{}
1211: Fenimore E.E., et al., 1995, ApJ 448, L101
1212: \bibitem{}
1213: Frail D.A., et al., 1999, http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/public/grb980425/
1214: \bibitem{}
1215: Fruchter A.S., et al., 1999, astro-ph/9903236
1216: \bibitem{}
1217: Fruchter A.S., et al., 2000, GCN 627
1218: \bibitem{}
1219: Fusco-Femiano R., et al., 1999, ApJ, 513, L21
1220: \bibitem{}
1221: Fusco-Femiano R., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0003141
1222: \bibitem{}
1223: Fynbo J.U., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0009014
1224: \bibitem{}
1225: Galama T.J., et al., 1998, Nature 395, 670
1226: \bibitem{}
1227: Galama T.J., et al., 2000, ApJ 536 185
1228: \bibitem{}
1229: Ghisellini G., 2000, astro-ph/0012125
1230: \bibitem{}
1231: Goodman J., Dar, A., Nussinov, S., 1987, ApJ 314, L7
1232: \bibitem{}
1233: Goodman J., 1997, NA 2, 449
1234: \bibitem{}
1235: Groom D.E., et al., 2000, {\it Review of Particle Physics}, Eur. Phys.
1236: J. C15, 1
1237: \bibitem{}
1238: Hjorth J., et al., 1999, GCN 403
1239: \bibitem{}
1240: Hjorth J., et al., 2000, ApJ 534, 147L
1241: \bibitem{}
1242: Holland S., et al., 2000, submitted
1243: \bibitem{}
1244: Iwamoto K., et al., 1998, Nature 395, 672
1245: \bibitem{}
1246: Kippen R.M., et al., 1998, GCN 67
1247: \bibitem{}
1248: Kippen R.M., 2000, http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/
1249: \newline
1250: $\sim$kippen/batserbr/brbr$_{-}$obs.html
1251: \bibitem{}
1252: Klose S., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0007201
1253: \bibitem{}
1254: Kotani T., et al., 1996, PASPJ 48, 619
1255: \bibitem{}
1256: Kulkarni S.R., et al., 1998a, Nature 395, 663
1257: \bibitem{}
1258: Kulkarni S.R., et al., 1998b, Nature 393, 35
1259: \bibitem{}
1260: Kulkarni S. et al., 1999a, Nature, 398, 389
1261: \bibitem{}
1262: Lazatti D, et al. MNRAS, 304, L31
1263: \bibitem{}
1264: Lyne A.G., Lorimer, D.R., 1994, Nature 369, 127
1265: \bibitem{}
1266: MacFadyen A.I., Woosley S.E., 1999, ApJ 524, 168
1267: \bibitem{}
1268: MacFadyen, A.I., Woosley S.E., Heger A., 1999, astro-ph/9910034
1269: \bibitem{}
1270: Madau P., 1998, astro-ph/9801005
1271: \bibitem{}
1272: Mallozzi, R.S., 2000, http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/
1273: \bibitem{}
1274: Margon B.A., 1984, ARA\&A 22, 507
1275: \bibitem{}
1276: Meszaros P., Rees M.J., 1992, MNRAS 257, 29
1277: \bibitem{}
1278: Metzger M.R., et al., 1997, Nature 387, 878
1279: \bibitem{}
1280: Mirabel I.F., Rodriguez, L.F., 1994, Nature 371, 46
1281: \bibitem{}
1282: Mirabel, I.F., Rodriguez, L.F., 1999a, ARA\&A 37, 409
1283: \bibitem{}
1284: Mirabel, I.F., Rodriguez, L.F. 1999b, astro-ph/9902062
1285: \bibitem{}
1286: Norris J.P., et al., 1999, astro-ph/9903233
1287: \bibitem{}
1288: Nakamura T. et al., 2000, astro-ph/0007010
1289: \bibitem{}
1290: Paciesas W.S., et al., 1999, ApJS 122, 465
1291: \bibitem{}
1292: Paczynski B., 1986, ApJ 308, L43
1293: \bibitem{}
1294: Paczynski B., 1998, ApJ 494, L45
1295: \bibitem{}
1296: Pian E., et al., 1999, A\&A 138(3), 463
1297: \bibitem{}
1298: Piro L., et al., 1999, ApJ, 514, L73
1299: \bibitem{}
1300: Piro L., et al., 2000, Science, 290, 955
1301: \bibitem{}
1302: Plaga R., 2000, astro-ph/001206
1303: \bibitem{}
1304: Preece R.D., et al., 1998, ApJ 496, 849
1305: \bibitem{}
1306: Preece R.D., et al., 2000, ApJS 126, 19
1307: \bibitem{}
1308: Rees M.J., 1966, Nature 211, 468
1309: \bibitem{}
1310: Reichart D.E., 1999, ApJ 521, L111
1311: \bibitem{}
1312: Rephaeli Y., et al., 1999, ApJ 511 L21
1313: \bibitem{}
1314: Rodriguez L.F., Mirabel, I.F., 1999, ApJ 511, 398
1315: \bibitem{}
1316: Salamanca, I., et al., 1998, MNRAS 300L, 17
1317: \bibitem{}
1318: Sahu K.C., et al., 2000, ApJ 540, 74
1319: \bibitem{}
1320: Shaviv N.J., Dar A., 1995, ApJ 447, 863
1321: \bibitem{}
1322: Soffitta P., et al., 1998 IAU Circ. No. 6884
1323: \bibitem{}
1324: Sollerman J., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0006406
1325: \bibitem{}
1326: Sokolov V.V., et al., 2000, to be published
1327: \bibitem{}
1328: Taylor G.J., et al., 1997, Nature 389, 263
1329: \bibitem{}
1330: van den Bergh S. Tammann G.A., 1991, ARA\&A 29, 363
1331: \bibitem{}
1332: van Paradijs J., et al., 1988, A\&A 192, L147
1333: \bibitem{}
1334: Vietri M., et al., 1999, MNRAS, 308, L29
1335: \bibitem{}
1336: Vietri M., 2000, astro-ph/0011580
1337: \bibitem{}
1338: Wieringa M.H., et al., 1999, A\&AS 138, 467
1339: \bibitem{}
1340: Wijers R.A.M.J., Rees M.J., Meszaros P., 1997, MNRAS 288, L5
1341: \bibitem{}
1342: Wilson A.S., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0008467
1343: \bibitem{}
1344: Woosley, S.E. 1993, ApJ 405, 273
1345: \bibitem{}
1346: Woosley, S.E., MacFadyen, A.I., 1999, A\&AS 138, 499
1347: \bibitem{}
1348: Woosley S.E., MacFadyen, A.I., 1999, A\&AS 138, 499
1349: \bibitem{}
1350: Wu B., Fenimore E., 2000, ApJ 535L, 29
1351: \bibitem{}
1352: Yoshida A. et al., 1999, A\&A, 138S, 433
1353:
1354: \end{thebibliography}{}
1355:
1356:
1357: \newpage
1358: \vskip 0.3 true cm
1359: %\begin{center}
1360: {\bf
1361: \noindent
1362: Table I - Gamma ray bursts of known redshift z}
1363: %\vskip 0.2 true cm
1364: \begin{table}[h]
1365: %\vskip 0.1 true cm
1366: \hspace{-.5cm}
1367: %if you want to center your table act on this argument
1368: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|l|}
1369: \hline
1370: % \multicolumn{8}{GRB with redshifts}\\
1371: \hline
1372: GRB &z &D$_{\rm L}$$^a$ &${\rm F_\gamma}$$^b$
1373: &${\rm E_\gamma}^c$ & M$\; ^d$\\
1374: \hline
1375: 970228 &0.695 &4.55 &0.17 & 0.025 & 25.2 \\
1376: 970508 &0.835 &5.70 &0.31 & 0.066 & 25.7 \\
1377: 970828 &0.957 &6.74 &7.4 & 2.06 & --- \\
1378: 971214 &3.418 &32.0 &1.1 & 3.06 & 25.6 \\
1379: 980425 &0.0085 &0.039 &0.44 & 8.14 E-6 & 14.3 \\
1380: 980613 &1.096 &7.98 &0.17 & 0.061 & 24.5 \\
1381: 980703 &0.966 &6.82 &3.7 & 1.05 & 22.8 \\
1382: 990123 &1.600 &12.7 &26.5 & 19.8 & 24.4 \\
1383: 990510 &1.619 &12.9 &2.3 & 1.75 & 28.5 \\
1384: 990712 &0.430 &2.55 & --- & --- & 21.8 \\
1385: 991208 &0.706 &4.64 &10.0 & 1.51 &$>$25 \\
1386: 991216 &1.020 &7.30 &25.6 & 8.07 & 24.5 \\
1387: 000131 &4.51 & &3.51 & 11.0 & \\
1388: 000301c &2.040 &17.2 &2.0 & 2.32 & 27.8 \\
1389: 000418 &1.119 &8.18 &1.3 & 0.49 & 23.9 \\
1390: 000926 &2.066 &17.5 &2.5 & 2.98 & 24 \\
1391: \hline
1392: \end{tabular}
1393: \end{table}
1394: %\end{center}
1395: \vskip -0.3 true cm
1396: \noindent
1397: {\bf Comments:} $a$: Luminosity distance in Gpc (for $\rm \Omega_m=0.3,
1398: \; \Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ and ${\rm H_0=65\, km\, s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$.
1399: $b$: BATSE $\gamma$--ray fluences in units of
1400: $10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$. $c$: (Spherical) energy in units of $10^{53}$ ergs.
1401: $d$: R-magnitude of the host galaxy, except for GRB 990510, for
1402: which the V-magnitude is given.
1403:
1404:
1405: \vskip 0.3 true cm
1406: %\begin{center}
1407: {\bf
1408: \noindent
1409: Table II - GRB afterglows with X-ray lines}
1410: %\vskip 0.2 true cm
1411: \begin{table}[h]
1412: %\vskip 0.1 true cm
1413: \hspace{-.5cm}
1414: %if you want to center your table act on this argument
1415: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l|}
1416: \hline
1417: % \multicolumn{8}{GRB with redshifts}\\
1418: \hline
1419: GRB & z & $\rm E_{line}$& $\rm F_{line}$& $\rm \Delta t_{obs}$ &
1420: $\rm \delta_{line}$ & $\rm N_b$ \\
1421: \hline
1422: 970508 &0.835 & 3.4 & 1.5 & 30 & 612 & $3\times 10^{51}$ \\
1423: 970828 &0.957 & 5.04 & 0.45 & 24 & 967 & $>7\times 10^{50}$ \\
1424: 991216 &1.020 & 3.49 & 0.39 & 12 & 691 & $>1.3\times 10^{51}$ \\
1425: 991216 &1.020 & 4.4 & 0.47 & 12 & 800 & $>1.3\times 10^{51}$ \\
1426: 000214 & & 4.7 & 1.0 & 104 & $\geq$ 460 & \\
1427: \hline
1428: \end{tabular}
1429: \end{table}
1430: %\end{center}
1431: \vskip -0.3 true cm
1432: {\bf Comments:} Line energies in keV. Observation times in ks.
1433: All lines were assumed to be a Doppler shifted $Ly-\alpha$ lines.
1434: The line fluences (in $\rm cm^{-2}$) and the baryon numbers
1435: are lower limits because of partial observation times.
1436:
1437:
1438: \newpage
1439: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1440:
1441:
1442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1443: \begin{figure}
1444: \begin{center}
1445: \vspace*{.003cm}
1446: \hspace*{-0cm}
1447: \epsfig{file=model3.ps,width=8.7cm}
1448: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1449: \caption{An ``artist's view'' (not to scale) of the CB model
1450: of GRBs and their afterglows. A core-collapse SN results in
1451: a compact object and a fast-rotating torus of non-ejected
1452: fallen-back material. Matter accreting (and not shown)
1453: into the central object produces
1454: a narrowly collimated beam of CBs, of which only some of
1455: the ``northern'' ones are depicted. As these CBs pierce the SN shell,
1456: they heat and reemit photons. They also scatter light from the shell.
1457: Both emissions are Lorentz-boosted and collimated by the CBs'
1458: relativistic motion.}
1459: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1460: \end{center}
1461: \end{figure}
1462:
1463: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1464: \begin{figure}
1465: \begin{center}
1466: \vspace*{1.0cm}
1467: \hspace*{-1cm}
1468: \epsfig{file=dndt6CBall.ps,width=9cm}
1469: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1470: \caption{ ``Synthetic'' GRB light curves, generated by shooting
1471: six CBs at random in a 1.5 s time-interval, and with random values
1472: of $\rm E_{CB}$ within a factor 2,
1473: taken from Dar and De R\'ujula 2000b.
1474: The only difference between (a) and (b) is that $\rm n = 8$ in (a),
1475: while $\rm n = 4$ in (b). All other parameters in this figure have their
1476: reference values. The figure
1477: illustrates how a CB produces a GRB pulse, but a
1478: GRB-pulse may not correspond to a single CB.}
1479: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1480: \label{6CB}
1481: \end{center}
1482: \end{figure}
1483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1486: \begin{figure}
1487: %\begin{center}
1488: \vspace*{1.5cm}
1489: \hspace*{-1cm}
1490: \epsfig{file=990123Efit.ps,width=9cm}
1491: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1492: \caption{Comparison of theory and observation
1493: (taken from Dar and De R\'ujula 2000b)
1494: for the time-integrated energy distributions $\rm dN/dE$
1495: and $\rm E^2\,dN/dE$, in the case of GRB 990123.
1496: Notice that many experimental points at the
1497: higher energies are only upper limits.}
1498: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1499: \label{123}
1500: %\end{center}
1501: \end{figure}
1502: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1504: \begin{figure}
1505: %\begin{center}
1506: \vspace*{1.0cm}
1507: \hspace*{-1cm}
1508: \epsfig{file=grb980425lcfit.ps,width=8cm}
1509: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1510: \caption{Comparison of theory and observation for the
1511: light curve of GRB 980425, in the 50-300 keV energy interval
1512: taken from Dar and De R\'ujula 2000b.}
1513: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1514: \label{425}
1515: %\end{center}
1516: \end{figure}
1517: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1518:
1519: \begin{figure}[t]
1520: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1521: \hskip 2truecm
1522: \vspace*{2cm}
1523: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
1524: \epsfig{file=grb418aAL.ps,width=7.5cm} \\
1525: %\hskip 1truecm
1526: \hspace*{.5cm}
1527: \epsfig{file=grb418bAL.ps,width=7.5cm}
1528: \end{tabular}
1529: \caption{Comparisons between the R-band light curve
1530: for GRB 000418 (dotted lines) as calculated
1531: from the Cannonball model (Dar and De R\'ujula (2000a)
1532: and the observations as
1533: compiled by Klose et al. (2000). a) Without subtraction of the host
1534: galaxy's contribution: the straight line with $\rm R=23.9$ (Fruchter et al.
1535: 2000). b) With the host galaxy subtracted.
1536: The CB's afterglow is given by Eq.(\ref{gamoft},\ref{sync})
1537: with spectral index $\alpha=1.9$ (Klose et al. 2000) and
1538: is indicated by crosses. The contribution
1539: from a SN1998bw-like SN placed at z=1.11854, as in
1540: Eq.(\ref{bw}) with
1541: Galactic extinction ${\rm A_R=0.09}$ magnitudes,
1542: is indicated by open squares.
1543: The dotted line is the sum of contributions. The SN bump is
1544: clearly discernible.}
1545: \end{figure}
1546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1547:
1548: \begin{figure}
1549: %\begin{center}
1550: \vspace*{1cm}
1551: \hspace*{-.7cm}
1552: \epsfig{file=grb508sept.ps,width=8cm}
1553: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1554: \caption{The R-band light curve of the afterglow of GRB 970508 as
1555: compiled by
1556: Fruchter et al. (1999)
1557: with a constant (R = 25.2 magnitude) host galaxy
1558: subtracted from all the measurements. The blue ``AG'' curve is
1559: given by Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft},\ref{sync}) (Dar and De R\'ujula 2000a).
1560: The contribution from a SN1998bw-like SN,
1561: placed at the GRB redshift $\rm z=0.835$, given by Eq.(\ref{bw}),
1562: is indicated
1563: (in red) and makes very little difference when added to the afterglow.}
1564: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1565: %\end{center}
1566: \end{figure}
1567:
1568:
1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1570: \begin{figure}
1571: %\begin{center}
1572: \vspace*{1cm}
1573: \hspace*{-.7cm}
1574: \epsfig{file=425visSollerman3.ps,width=9cm}
1575: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1576: \caption{The V-band light curve of
1577: SN1998bw/GRB 980425, with
1578: the blue ``SN'' curve a fit to the SN by Sollerman et al.~(2000).
1579: The red ``AG'' curve is the CB model prediction for
1580: the afterglow as given by
1581: Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft},\ref{sync}), fit
1582: to peak at the position of the observed second radio peak, and
1583: to reproduce the most recent observation at $\rm d=778$.
1584: (Dar and De R\'ujula 2000a). The dashed curve is the total.}
1585: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1586: %\end{center}
1587: \end{figure}
1588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1589:
1590:
1591:
1592: \end{document}
1593:
1594: