1: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4,psfig]{article}
2: \documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig]{article}
3: %\documentstyle[11pt,apjpt4,psfig]{article}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Afterglow Emission from Highly Collimated Jets with Flat Electron Spectra:
8: Application to the GRB 010222 Case?}
9: \author{Z. G. Dai$^1$ and K. S. Cheng$^2$}
10: \affil{$^1$Department of Astronomy, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China \\
11: $^2$Department of Physics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China \\
12: E-mail: daizigao@public1.ptt.js.cn; hrspksc@hkucc.hku.hk}
13:
14: \begin{abstract}
15: We derive light curves of the afterglow emission
16: from highly collimated jets if the power-law index
17: ($p$) of the electron energy distribution is above 1 but below 2.
18: We find (1) below the characteristic synchrotron frequency,
19: the light curve index depends generally on $p$. (2) As long as the jet
20: expansion is spherical, the light curve index above the characteristic
21: frequency increases slowly as the spectral index of
22: the emission increases. (3) Once the jet enters the spreading phase,
23: the high-frequency emission flux decays as $\propto t^{-(p+6)/4}$
24: rather than $\propto t^{-p}$. All these results differ from those
25: in the case of $p>2$. We compare our analytical results with the
26: observations on the GRB 010222 afterglow, and conclude that
27: the jet model may be unable to explain the observed data.
28: Thus, a more promising explanation for this afterglow seems to be
29: the expansion of a relativistic fireball or a mildly collimated jet
30: in a dense medium.
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \keywords{gamma-rays: bursts --- relativity --- shock waves}
34:
35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
36: \section {Introduction}
37:
38: Gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows are believed to be emitted from
39: a relativistic shock wave expanding in its surrounding medium via
40: synchrotron radiation or inverse Compton scattering (ICS) of accelerated
41: electrons in the shocked matter (Piran 1999; van Paradijs, Kouveliotou
42: \& Wijers 2000; Cheng \& Lu 2001). To interpret the abundant
43: data of afterglows, the effects of environments such as pre-burst
44: stellar winds (Dai \& Lu 1998; M\'esz\'aros, Rees \& Wijers 1998;
45: Chevalier \& Li 1999, 2000) and dense media (Dai \& Lu 1999, 2000;
46: Wang, Dai \& Lu 2000) have been discussed. On the other hand,
47: jets are of particular interest because they have important implications
48: on almost all aspects of the GRB phenomenon, e.g., the total energy that
49: is released in an explosion, the event rate, the physical ejection mechanism
50: and the afterglow decay rate. The most exciting implication is that
51: the transition of a relativistic jet to the spreading phase can result in steepening
52: of the afterglow light curve to the flux $\propto t^{-p}$, as analyzed by Rhoads
53: (1999) and Sari, Piran \& Halpern (1999). Following the analytical work,
54: many numerical calculations have been performed and they are essentially
55: consistent with the analytical results (e.g., Panaitescu \& M\'esz\'aros
56: 1999; Moderski, Sikora \& Bulik 2000; Kumar \& Panaitescu 2000; Panaitescu
57: \& Kumar 2001; Huang et al. 2000a, b, c; Wei \& Lu 2000). The jet model
58: seems to account well for a few well-observed
59: afterglows with light curve breaks, e.g., GRB 990123 (Kulkarni et al. 1999;
60: Castro-Tirado et al. 1999; Fruchter et al. 1999), GRB 990510
61: (Harrison et al. 1999; Stanek et al. 1999), GRB 991216
62: (Halpern et al. 2000), GRB 000301C (Rhoads \& Fruchter 2001;
63: Masetti et al. 2000; Jensen et al. 2000; Berger et al. 2000; Sagar et al. 2000),
64: GRB 000418 (Berger et al. 2001), and GRB 000926 (Price et al. 2001;
65: Harrison et al. 2001; Sagar et al. 2001a; Piro et al. 2001).
66:
67: GRB 010222 is the latest well-observed burst, whose optical-afterglow
68: light curve has an earliest sharp break (Masetti et al. 2001;
69: Stanek et al. 2001; Sagar et al. 2001b; Cowsik et al. 2001). A popular
70: explanation is that this afterglow might have come from
71: a highly collimated jet with a flat-spectrum electron distribution
72: ($1<p<2$). In this Letter we derive light curves of the emission
73: when such jets expand in an interstellar medium (ISM) or in a stellar wind,
74: and find that the jet model may be inconsistent with the afterglow
75: data of GRB 010222.
76:
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: \section{Light Curves}
79:
80: Let's assume an {\em adiabatic} relativistic jet with an initial half opening angle
81: of $\theta_0$, a laterally-spreading velocity of $c_s$ and a bulk Lorentz
82: factor of $\gamma$. This assumption is valid if the energy
83: density of the electrons accelerated by a shock, produced by the interaction
84: of the jet with its surrounding medium, is a small fraction $\epsilon_e$ of the
85: total energy density of the shocked medium or if most of the electrons are
86: adiabatic, i.e., their radiative cooling timescale is larger than that of the jet
87: expansion (Sari, Piran \& Narayan 1998). The energy density carried by
88: magnetic fields is assumed to be another fraction $\epsilon_B$ of the total
89: energy density of the shocked medium, and thus the magnetic strength
90: $B=[32\pi \epsilon_B\gamma^2 n(r)m_pc^2]^{1/2}$, where $m_p$ is the proton
91: mass and $n(r)$ is the proton number density of the surrounding medium
92: at shock radius $r$. We adopt a power-law density profile:
93: $n(r)=Ar^{-s}$, where $A=n_*\times 1\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ for the ISM ($s=0$),
94: and $A=3\times 10^{35}A_*\,{\rm cm}^{-1}$ for the wind ($s=2$)
95: (Chevalier \& Li 1999).
96:
97: We consider synchrotron radiation of
98: the electrons accelerated by the shock. To calculate the spectrum and
99: light curve, one needs to determine three break frequencies: the
100: self-absorption frequency ($\nu_a$), the characteristic frequency
101: ($\nu_m$) and the cooling frequency ($\nu_c$). The latter two frequencies
102: can be directly derived from the minimum Lorentz factor $\gamma_m$ and
103: the cooling Lorentz factor $\gamma_c$, which appear in the energy
104: distribution of cooled electrons. As usual, we adopt a power-law
105: injection of electrons with the energy distribution (just behind the shock front)
106: given by $dn_e/d\gamma_e\propto \gamma_e^{-p}$ for
107: $\gamma_m\le\gamma_e\le\gamma_M$, where $\gamma_M
108: =[3 e/(\xi\sigma_T B)]^{1/2}$ is the maximum electron Lorentz factor,
109: which is calculated by assuming that the acceleration time equals the
110: synchrotron cooling time. Here $\xi\sim 1$ is the ratio of the acceleration
111: time to the gyration time, $e$ is the electron charge, and $\sigma_T$ is the
112: Thomson cross section. According to this electron energy distribution and
113: the jump conditions for a relativistic shock, the electron number density and
114: energy density of the shocked medium can be written as two integrals:
115: $\int^{\gamma_M}_{\gamma_m}(dn_e/d\gamma_e)d\gamma_e=4\gamma n$ and
116: $\int^{\gamma_M}_{\gamma_m}(\gamma_em_ec^2)(dn_e/d\gamma_e)d\gamma_e
117: =4\gamma^2nm_pc^2\epsilon_e$, where $m_e$ is the electron mass. Such integrals
118: combined with the assumption of a flat electron spectrum ($1<p<2$) lead to
119: \begin{equation}
120: \gamma_m=\left[\left(\frac{2-p}{p-1}\right)\left(\frac{m_p}{m_e}\right)\epsilon_e
121: \gamma\gamma_M^{p-2}\right]^{1/(p-1)}.
122: \end{equation}
123: Equation (1) is different from the frequently-used minimum Lorentz factor
124: $\gamma_m = [(p-2)/(p-1)](m_p/m_e)\epsilon_e\gamma$,
125: which is also derived from these integrals for $p>2$.
126: Consequently, we will obtain expressions for afterglow light curves
127: that differ from derived by Sari et al. (1998, 1999). In addition, the age of
128: the jet could also provide a limit on $\gamma_m$ through constraining
129: $\gamma_M$ in equation (1). However, we have found that the value of
130: $\gamma_M$ inferred from the age limit is usually much larger than the one
131: from the limit that the acceleration time equals the synchrotron cooling time,
132: and thus the age limit on $\gamma_m$ can be ignored. The $\gamma_c$,
133: the Lorentz factor of electrons that cool on the expansion time, is given by
134: $\gamma_c=6\pi m_ec/(\sigma_T\gamma B^2t)$, where $t$ is the observer's
135: time (neglecting the redshift correction) (Sari et al. 1998). After having
136: $\gamma_m$ and $\gamma_c$, we can easily obtain the evolution of $\nu_m$
137: and $\nu_c$ with time based on $\nu_m\propto \gamma\gamma_m^2B$
138: and $\nu_c\propto \gamma\gamma_c^2B$ (see below). The remaining
139: break frequency is the self-absorption one, which is given by
140: $\nu_a=\{5enr/[(3-s)B\gamma_m^5]\}^{3/5}\nu_m$
141: for $\nu_a\ll \nu_m<\nu_c$ (expected at late times of
142: the afterglow, cf. Panaitescu \& Kumar 2000).
143:
144: The next crucial question is how the Lorentz factor $\gamma$ decays
145: with the observer's time because the break frequencies and the peak
146: flux, which are needed in calculating the observed flux, are functions
147: of $\gamma$ and of the shock radius and medium density. Even if
148: the shock is beamed, as long as $\gamma>\theta_0^{-1}(c_s/c)$,
149: the jet evolution is a sphere-like expansion based on the
150: Blandford-McKee (1976) self-similar solution, and thus the Lorentz
151: factor decreases as $\gamma=8.2(E_{53}/n_*)^{1/8}t^{-3/8}$ for $s=0$,
152: or $\gamma=8.8(E_{53}/A_*)^{1/4}t^{-1/4}$ for $s=2$,
153: where $E_{53}$ is the isotropic-equivalent energy of the jet in units of
154: $10^{53}$ ergs, and $t$ is in units of 1 day. However, the transition of
155: the jet evolution takes place at $\gamma\sim \theta_0^{-1}(c_s/c)$,
156: which in fact defines the break time $t_b$.
157: After this time, the jet will enter the spreading phase with
158: $c_s=c/\sqrt{3}$ in Rhoads (1999) or with $c_s=c$ in Sari et al. (1999).
159: As a result, the Lorentz factor decays as $\gamma\propto t^{-1/2}$.
160:
161: After knowing the evolution of $\gamma$, we can find scaling
162: relations of the break frequencies with time. First,
163: we derive the characteristic frequency
164: \begin{equation}
165: \nu_m \propto \left \{
166: \begin{array}{lll}
167: t^{-[3(p+2)]/[8(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,ISM},\\
168: t^{-(p+4)/[4(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,wind},\\
169: t^{-(p+2)/[2(p-1)]}, & {\rm jet}.
170: \end{array}
171: \right.
172: \end{equation}
173: Second, the self-absorption frequency
174: is found to evolve as
175: \begin{equation}
176: \nu_a \propto \left \{
177: \begin{array}{lll}
178: t^{[9(2-p)]/[16(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\,in\,\,ISM},\\
179: t^{(74-49p)/[40(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\,in\,\,wind},\\
180: t^{(34-19p)/[20(p-1)]}, & {\rm jet}.
181: \end{array}
182: \right.
183: \end{equation}
184: Finally, the cooling frequency evolves as $\nu_c \propto t^{-1/2}$ for
185: a spherical shock in the ISM, $\nu_c \propto t^{1/2}$ for a spherical shock
186: in the wind, and $\nu_c \propto t^{0}$ for a jet.
187:
188: In addition, the observed peak flux, $F_{\nu_m}$, has been derived
189: by many authors (e.g., Waxman 1997; Dai \& Lu 1998; Wijers \&
190: Galama 1999; Rhoads 1999; Sari et al. 1998, 1999; Chevalier \& Li 2000).
191: In this Letter we neglect the effect of dust extinction
192: on the peak flux because this effect has been discussed to be significant
193: only for a highly collimated jet expanding in a dense circumstellar cloud
194: by Dai, Huang \& Lu (2001).
195:
196: Therefore, we can calculate the light curves for four frequency ranges.
197: The flux at frequencies lower than $\nu_a$: $F_{\nu<\nu_a}
198: = F_{\nu_m}(\nu_a/\nu_m)^{1/3}(\nu/\nu_a)^2$, and thus evolves as
199: \begin{equation}
200: F_{\nu<\nu_a}\propto \left \{
201: \begin{array}{lll}
202: t^{(17p-26)/[16(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\,in\,\,ISM},\\
203: t^{(13p-18)/[8(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,wind},\\
204: t^{[3(p-2)]/[4(p-1)]}, & {\rm jet}.
205: \end{array}
206: \right.
207: \end{equation}
208: The flux above the self-absorption frequency but below
209: the characteristic frequency is given by $F_{\nu_a<\nu<\nu_m}=
210: F_{\nu_m}(\nu/\nu_m)^{1/3}$, which evolves as
211: \begin{equation}
212: F_{\nu_a<\nu<\nu_m}\propto \left \{
213: \begin{array}{lll}
214: t^{(p+2)/[8(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\,in\,\,ISM},\\
215: t^{[5(2-p)]/[12(p-1)]}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,wind},\\
216: t^{(8-5p)/[6(p-1)]}, & {\rm jet}.
217: \end{array}
218: \right.
219: \end{equation}
220: It is seen from equations (4) and (5) that, below $\nu_m$,
221: the light curve index is still determined by $p$. As a comparison,
222: the index is independent of $p$ in the case of $p>2$ (Sari et al. 1999).
223: For $p=1.5$ (similar to the index obtained by Malkov 1999 for Fermi
224: acceleration in the limit when particles acquire a significant fraction
225: of the shock energy), the flux at $\nu<\nu_a$ is approximately
226: constant, and the flux at $\nu_a<\nu<\nu_m$ increases as
227: $\propto t^{7/8}$ for the ISM case and $\propto t^{5/12}$ for
228: the wind case, respectively, as long as the expansion is spherical. Then, once
229: the jet enters the spreading phase, the flux below the self-absorption
230: frequency begins to decline as $\propto t^{-0.75}$, and the flux at higher
231: frequency begins to increase slowly as $\propto t^{1/6}$.
232:
233: If the observed high-frequency emission comes from the
234: radiating electrons that are slow cooling, we have its flux
235: $F_{\nu_m<\nu<\nu_c}=F_{\nu_m}(\nu/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2}$, which decays as
236: \begin{equation}
237: F_{\nu_m<\nu<\nu_c} \propto \left \{
238: \begin{array}{lll}
239: t^{-3(p+2)/16}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,ISM},\\
240: t^{-(p+8)/8}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,wind},\\
241: t^{-(p+6)/4}, & {\rm jet}.
242: \end{array}
243: \right.
244: \end{equation}
245: Above the cooling frequency, we obtain $F_{\nu>\nu_c} =
246: F_{\nu_m}(\nu_c/\nu_m)^{-(p-1)/2}(\nu/\nu_c)^{-p/2}$, which declines as
247: \begin{equation}
248: F_{\nu>\nu_c} \propto \left \{
249: \begin{array}{lll}
250: t^{-(3p+10)/16}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,ISM},\\
251: t^{-(p+6)/8}, & {\rm spherical\,\, in\,\,wind},\\
252: t^{-(p+6/4}, & {\rm jet}.
253: \end{array}
254: \right.
255: \end{equation}
256: Bhattacharya (2001) derived light curves of the emission from a jet expanding
257: in the ISM by assuming a general case of $\gamma_M\propto \gamma^q$ in
258: equation (1). Our light curves in equations (6) and (7) are consistent with his
259: $q=-1/2$ result. Define the light curve index $\alpha$ and the spectral index
260: $\beta$ through $F_\nu (t)\propto t^{-\alpha}\nu^{-\beta}$. Table 1 summarizes
261: the relations between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ above $\nu_m$ for different cases.
262: Figures 1 and 2 further present the $\alpha-\beta$ relations
263: for $1<p<2$ as well as those for $p>2$, in the ISM and wind cases,
264: respectively. We see that, for each line in these figures,
265: the $p<2$ segment is not an extrapolation of the $p>2$ segment.
266:
267: \begin{center}
268: \begin{table*}[ht!]
269: \begin{center}
270: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c|c|c|}
271: \hline
272: & spectral index $\beta$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{light curve index $\alpha$
273: ($F_{\nu}\propto t^{-\alpha}$)} \\
274: frequency & ($F_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\beta}$) & sphere in ISM &
275: sphere in wind & jet \\ \hline\hline
276: & & $\alpha=3(p+2)/16$ & $\alpha=(p+8)/8$ & $(p+6)/4$ \\
277: \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\nu<\nu_c$} & \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\beta=(p-1)/2$}
278: & $\alpha=3(2\beta+3)/16$ & $\alpha=(2\beta+9)/8$ &
279: $(2\beta+7)/4$ \\ \hline
280: & & $\alpha=(3p+10)/16$ & $\alpha=(p+6)/8$ & $(p+6)/4$ \\
281: \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\nu>\nu_c$} & \raisebox{1.5ex}[0pt]{$\beta=p/2$}
282: & $\alpha=(3\beta+5)/8$ & $\alpha=(\beta+3)/4$ &
283: $(\beta+3)/2$ \\ \hline
284: \end{tabular}
285: \end{center}
286: \par
287: \label{t:afterglow}
288: \caption{The spectral index $\beta$ and the light curve index $\alpha$ as
289: function of $p$ in the case of $1<p<2$. The parameter-free
290: relation between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is given for each case
291: by eliminating $p$.}
292: \end{table*}
293: \end{center}
294:
295:
296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
297: \section{Comparison with the Afterglow of GRB 010222}
298:
299: The $UBVRI$ light curve of the GRB 010222 afterglow has been fitted
300: by one broken power law: $F_\nu\propto t^{-\alpha_1}$ before the break
301: time $t_b$ and $F_\nu\propto t^{-\alpha_2}$ after $t_b$. Here we summarize
302: the light curve indices, the break time, and the spectral index given in the literature:
303: ($\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, $t_b$, $\beta$) are
304: ($0.60\pm 0.03$, $1.31\pm 0.03$, $0.48\pm 0.02$ days, $1.1\pm 0.1$)
305: (Masetti et al. 2001),
306: ($0.80\pm 0.05$, $1.30\pm 0.05$, $0.72\pm 0.10$ days, $0.88\pm 0.10$)
307: (Stanek et al. 2001), and
308: ($0.74\pm 0.05$, $1.35\pm 0.04$, $0.7\pm 0.07$ days, $0.75\pm 0.02$)
309: (Sagar et al. 2001b).
310: In addition, the X-ray decay index
311: after the break measured by BeppoSAX is $\alpha_2=1.33\pm 0.04$
312: and the spectral index $\beta=0.97\pm 0.05$ (in 't Zand et al. 2001).
313: A common result of the optical and X-ray observations is that
314: the light curve indeed began to steepen to $\propto t^{-1.3}$
315: about 0.5 days after the GRB. This is the earliest observed
316: break of all the studied afterglows.
317:
318: The temporal property of the afterglow from GRB 010222
319: is naturally reminiscent of the jet model. Indeed, some authors
320: (e.g., Stanek et al. 2001; Sagar et al. 2001b; Cowsik et al. 2001) attributed
321: this afterglow to a highly collimated jet. Stanek et al. gave
322: a spectral fit of their $BVRI$ data, and obtained an index of $\beta=0.88
323: \pm 0.10$, in excellent agreement with the $g'r'i'z'$ fit of Lee et al. (2001),
324: $\beta=0.90\pm 0.03$, and with the spectral index given by Jha et al. (2001),
325: $\beta=0.89\pm 0.03$. This implies a spectral index of the electron distribution,
326: $p=2.8$ in the slow-cooling electron regime or $p=1.8$ in the fast-cooling electron
327: regime. The former value of $p$ leads to $F_\nu\propto t^{-2.8}$ at late times
328: (Rhoads 1999; Sari et al. 1999) while the latter value gives $F_\nu\propto t^{-1.95}$
329: (see section 2). These results are inconsistent
330: with the observed late-time light curve ($\propto t^{-1.3}$).
331: Stanek et al. have noted this inconsistency. To save the jet model, they
332: suggested that the spectral index could be intrinsically in the range of
333: $0.5<\beta < 0.7$ due to the SMC-like extinction. Such a range of the spectral
334: index requires $2<p<2.4$ (slow cooling) or $1<p<1.4$ (fast cooling). Even if
335: the value of $p$ becomes smaller for the theoretical spectral index
336: to be compatible with the observed extinction-corrected spectral
337: index, according to Rhoads (1999), Sari et al. (1999) and our analysis
338: in section 2, we still conclude that the spreading jet model cannot provide
339: an explanation for the late-time light curve index. We note that
340: Sagar et al. (2001b) suggested the afterglow of GRB 010222 as evidence
341: for a highly collimated jet with a fast-cooling, flat-spectrum electron
342: distribution. Their argument is that the emission flux from a spreading jet
343: decays as $\propto t^{-p}$ for $1<p<2$, which means
344: $F_\nu\propto t^{-1.3}$ when $p=1.3$, inferred by their fitting spectrum.
345: However, from our analysis in section 2,
346: we see that their argument is incorrect.
347:
348: An alternative explanation for the afterglow of GRB 010222 is the expansion
349: of a relativistic fireball or a mildly collimated jet in a medium with density of
350: $10^5-10^6\,\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ (Masetti et al. 2001; in 't Zand et al. 2001). In such
351: a dense medium, the fireball decelerated to the non-relativistic regime
352: within a few days after the burst, resulting in a steepening of the light curve
353: (Dai \& Lu 1999, 2000). in 't Zand et al. argued that the non-relativistic
354: interpretation {\em with a universal $p\approx 2.2$ value} is consistent
355: with the observations. They also noted that the dense-medium assumption
356: is compatible with the observed redshift-corrected column density of
357: $\sim 2.5\times 10^{22}\,\,{\rm cm}^{-2}$.
358:
359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
360: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
361:
362: We have derived light curves of the emission when
363: a highly collimated jet with a flat-spectrum electron distribution
364: ($1<p<2$) expands in the ISM or in the pre-burst wind. The most
365: important finding of ours is that once the jet begins to spread, the light curve
366: index becomes $(p+6)/4$ rather than $p$. Therefore, the jet model
367: appears to be inconsistent with the afterglow data of GRB 010222.
368: ICS in the shocked medium doesn't influence the light curves derived
369: in section 2. This is because for $p<2$ most of the electron energy behind
370: the shock front should be radiated away via both synchrotron radiation and ICS
371: and thus the Compton parameter $Y\approx (-1+\sqrt{1+4\epsilon_e/\epsilon_B})/2$
372: is approximately constant (Panaitescu \& Kumar 2000; Sari \& Esin 2001).
373:
374: Two important quantities that future observations led by {\em HETE-2}
375: and {\em Swift} will provide are the light curve index and the spectral index,
376: which, once known, will show a point in Figures 1 and 2. According to
377: the position of this point in these figures, one could not only obtain information
378: on the dynamical evolution of a post-burst shock wave and the radiation
379: regime of the accelerated electrons (slow cooling or fast cooling),
380: but also infer the value of $p$.
381:
382: It should be emphasized that our derivations in section 2
383: are based on the assumption that the electron energy density behind a shock
384: is a constant fraction ($\epsilon_e$) of the total energy density of the shocked
385: medium, as used in the standard afterglow shock model. If this assumption
386: is invalid, the minimum Lorentz factor of the electrons, without any
387: acceleration, could become $\gamma$ instead of equation (1). In such a case,
388: the previous jet model could explain the afterglow of GRB 010222
389: if the electron energy distribution is required to be a power law with $p<2$.
390: However, it is unclear whether this requirement is satisfied in
391: the absence of any acceleration.
392:
393: \acknowledgments
394: We are very grateful to the referee and D. M. Wei for valuable comments
395: that significantly improved the manuscript, and to N. Masetti and B. Zhang
396: for discussions. This work was supported by a RGC grant of Hong Kong
397: government, the National Natural Science Foundation of China
398: (grant 19825109), and the National 973 Project (NKBRSF G19990754).
399:
400:
401: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
402: \bibitem{} Berger, E. et al. 2000, ApJ, 545, 56
403: \bibitem{} Berger, E. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0102278)
404: \bibitem{} Bhattacharya, D. 2001, astro-ph/0104250
405: \bibitem{} Blandford, R. D., \& McKee, C. F. 1976, Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130
406: \bibitem{} Castro-Tirado, A. J. et al. 1999, Science, 283, 2069
407: \bibitem{} Cheng, K. S., \& Lu, T. 2001, Chinese J. Astron. Astrophys., 1, 1
408: \bibitem{} Chevalier, R. A., \& Li, Z. Y. 1999, ApJ, 520, L29
409: \bibitem{} Chevalier, R. A., \& Li, Z. Y. 2000, ApJ, 536, 195
410: \bibitem{} Cowsik, R. et al. 2001, astro-ph/0104363
411: \bibitem{} Dai, Z. G., Huang, Y. F., \& Lu, T. 2001, MNRAS, 324, L11
412: \bibitem{} Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 87
413: \bibitem{} Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 1999, ApJ, 519, L155
414: \bibitem{} Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 2000, ApJ, 537, 803
415: \bibitem{} Fruchter, A. S. et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, L13
416: \bibitem{} Halpern, J. P. et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 697
417: \bibitem{} Harrison, F. A. et al. 1999, ApJ, 523, L121
418: \bibitem{} Harrison, F. A. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0103377)
419: \bibitem{} Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 2000a, MNRAS, 316, 943
420: \bibitem{} Huang, Y. F., Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 2000b, A\&A, 355, L43
421: \bibitem{} Huang, Y. F., Gou, L. J., Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 2000c, ApJ, 543, 90
422: \bibitem{} in 't Zand, J. J. M. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0104362)
423: \bibitem{} Jensen, B. L. et al. 2001, A\&A, in press (astro-ph/0005609)
424: \bibitem{} Jha, S. et al. 2001, ApJ, 554, L155
425: \bibitem{} Kulkarni, S. R. et al. 1999, Nature, 398, 389
426: \bibitem{} Kumar, P., \& Panaitescu, A. 2000, ApJ, 541, L9
427: \bibitem{} Lee, B. C. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0104201)
428: \bibitem{} Malkov, M. 1999, ApJ, 511, L53
429: \bibitem{} Masetti, N. et al. 2000, A\&A, 359, L23
430: \bibitem{} Masetti, N. et al. 2001, A\&A, in press (astro-ph/0103296)
431: \bibitem{} M\'esz\'aros, P., Rees, M. J., \& Wijers, R. A. M. J. 1998, ApJ, 499, 301
432: \bibitem{} Moderski, R., Sikora, M., \& Bulik, T. 2000, ApJ, 529, 151
433: \bibitem{} Panaitescu, A., \& Kumar, P. 2000, ApJ, 543, 66
434: \bibitem{} Panaitescu, A., \& Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 667
435: \bibitem{} Panaitescu, A., \& M\'esz\'aros, P. 1999, ApJ, 526, 707
436: \bibitem{} Piran, T. 1999, Phys. Rep., 314, 575
437: \bibitem{} Piro, L. et al. 2001, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0103306)
438: \bibitem{} Price, P. A. et al. 2001, ApJ, 549, L7
439: \bibitem{} Rhoads, J. 1999, ApJ, 525, 737
440: \bibitem{} Rhoads, J., \& Fruchter, A. S. 2001, ApJ, 546, 117
441: \bibitem{} Sagar, R. et al. 2000, BASI, 28, 499
442: \bibitem{} Sagar, R. et al. 2001a, BASI, 29, 1
443: \bibitem{} Sagar, R. et al. 2001b, astro-ph/0104249
444: \bibitem{} Sari, R., \& Esin, A. A. 2001, ApJ, 548, 787
445: \bibitem{} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Halpern, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 519, L17
446: \bibitem{} Sari, R., Piran, T., \& Narayan, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
447: \bibitem{} Stanek, K. Z. et al. 1999, ApJ, 522, L39
448: \bibitem{} Stanek, K. Z. et al. 2001, ApJL, submitted (astro-ph/0104329)
449: \bibitem{} van Paradijs, J., Kouveliotou, C., \& Wijers, R. A. M. J. 2000,
450: ARA\&A, 38, 379
451: \bibitem{} Wang, X. Y., Dai, Z. G., \& Lu, T. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 170
452: \bibitem{} Waxman, E. 1997, ApJ, 485, L5
453: \bibitem{} Wei, D. M., \& Lu, T. 2000, ApJ, 541, 203
454: \bibitem{} Wijers, R. A. M. J., \& Galama, T. J. 1999, ApJ, 523, 177
455: \end{thebibliography}
456:
457: \clearpage
458: \begin{figure}
459: \begin{picture}(100,250)
460: \put(0,0){\special{psfile=fig1.ps angle=-90
461: hoffset=-70 voffset=400 hscale=70 vscale=70 }}
462: \end{picture}
463: \caption
464: {A plot of the light curve index ($\alpha$) versus the spectral index
465: ($\beta$) in the ISM case. Lines A and B correspond to a highly
466: collimated but spreading jet whose (observed) high-frequency emission
467: comes from the radiating electrons that are slow cooling ($\nu<\nu_c$)
468: and fast cooling ($\nu>\nu_c$), respectively, and lines C and D to
469: a spherical shock. }
470: \end{figure}
471:
472: \clearpage
473: \begin{figure}
474: \begin{picture}(100,250)
475: \put(0,0){\special{psfile=fig2.ps angle=-90
476: hoffset=-70 voffset=400 hscale=70 vscale=70 }}
477: \end{picture}
478: \caption
479: {Same as Fig. 1 but in the wind case.}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482:
483: \end{document}
484:
485:
486:
487:
488: