1:
2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
3: \parskip 5pt plus 1pt
4: \textheight 22cm
5: \textwidth 15cm
6: \oddsidemargin 0.0cm \evensidemargin 0.0cm
7: \topmargin -0.5cm
8: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
9: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
10: %\usepackage{epsfig,deluxe}
11: \begin{document}
12: \parskip 7pt plus 2pt
13:
14: \thispagestyle{empty}
15: \begin{flushright}
16: {CERN-TH/01-121}
17: \end{flushright}
18: \vspace*{1cm}
19: \begin{center}
20: {\large{\bf The Cannonball Model of Gamma Ray Bursts:\\
21: high-energy neutrinos and $\gamma$-rays}}\\
22: \vspace{1cm}
23: Arnon Dar$^{\rm a}$ and
24: A. De R\'ujula$^{\rm b}$
25:
26:
27:
28: \vspace*{.5cm}
29: $^{\rm a)}$ Physics Department and Space Research Institute,
30: Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel\\
31: $^{\rm b)}$ Theory Division, CERN,
32: 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
33: \end{center}
34: \vspace{.3cm}
35: \begin{abstract}
36: \noindent
37: Recent observations suggest that $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs) and their
38: afterglows are produced by jets of highly relativistic cannonballs (CBs),
39: emitted in supernova (SN) explosions. The CBs,
40: reheated by their collision with the shell, emit radiation that is
41: collimated along their direction of motion and Doppler-boosted to the typical
42: few-hundred keV energy of the GRB. Accompanying the GRB, there should be
43: an intense burst of neutrinos of a few hundreds of GeV energy, made by
44: the decay of charged pions produced in the collisions of the CBs
45: with the SN shell . The neutrino beam carries almost all of the emitted
46: energy, but is much narrower than the GRB beam and should only be detected
47: in coincidence with the small fraction of GRBs whose CBs are moving very
48: close to the line of sight. The neutral pions made in the transparent
49: outskirts of the SN shell decay into energetic $\gamma$-rays (EGRs) of
50: energy of ${\cal{O}}$(100) GeV. The EGR beam, whose energy fluence is
51: comparable to that of the companion GRB, is as wide as the GRB beam and
52: should be observable, in coincidence with GRBs, with existing or planned
53: detectors. We derive in detail these predictions of the CB model.
54:
55: \end{abstract}
56:
57:
58:
59: \vspace{2.2cm}
60: \begin{flushleft}
61: {CERN-TH/01-121}\\
62: May 2001
63: \end{flushleft}
64: \newpage
65: %\end{titlepage}
66:
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: For a third of a century, gamma ray bursts (GRBs) have constituted a great
71: astrophysical mystery. Their origin is still an unresolved enigma, in
72: spite of recent remarkable observations in the field: the discovery of GRB
73: afterglows \cite{Costa, vP}, the discovery \cite{Galama} of the
74: association of GRBs with supernovae (SNe), and the measurements of the
75: redshifts \cite{Metz} of their host galaxies. The current generally
76: accepted view is that GRBs are generated by synchrotron emission from
77: relativistically expanding fireballs, or firecones, produced by collapses
78: or mergers of compact stars \cite{PG}, by failed supernovae or collapsars
79: \cite{WM}, or by hypernova explosions \cite{Pacz}. It was further
80: suggested that these highly relativistic fireballs produce large fluxes of
81: very high energy neutrinos in coincidence with the GRBs \cite{AHH}. But
82: various observations suggest that most GRBs are produced by highly
83: collimated superluminal jets and not by relativistically expanding
84: fireballs \cite{SD, Dar98, DP, DD2000a}.
85:
86:
87:
88: In a recent series of papers \cite{DD2000a, DD2000b, DD2001}
89: we have outlined a cannonball (CB)
90: model of GRBs which, we contend, is capable of describing the GRB
91: phenomenology, and results in interesting predictions.
92: %We briefly review in this Introduction the basis of the CB model.
93: %In Sections 3-5 we review those of its
94: % ingredients that are needed for our current purposes.
95: The CB model is based on the following analogies,
96: hypothesis and explicit calculations:
97:
98: {\it Jets in astrophysics.}
99: Astrophysical systems, such as quasars and microquasars,
100: in which periods of intense accretion into a massive object occur, emit
101: highly collimated jets of plasma. The Lorentz factor
102: $\rm \gamma\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ of these jets ranges from
103: mildly relativistic: $\gamma\sim 2.55$ for PSR 1915+13 \cite{MR}, to
104: quite relativistic: $\gamma={\cal{O}}\,(10)$ for typical quasars \cite{Ghis},
105: and even to highly relativistic: $\gamma\sim 10^3$
106: for PKS 0405$-$385 \cite{Ked}.
107: These jets are not continuous streams of matter, but consist
108: of individual blobs, or ``cannonballs''. The mechanism producing
109: these surprisingly energetic and collimated emissions is not
110: understood, but it seems to operate pervasively in nature.
111: We assume the CBs to be composed of ordinary ``baryonic''
112: matter (as opposed to $\rm e^+\, e^-$ pairs), as is the case in the microaquasar
113: SS 433, from which Ly$_\alpha$ and metal K$_\alpha$ lines have been detected
114: \cite{Marg, Kot}.
115: %although the violence of the relativistic jetting-process
116: %may in our case break most nuclei into their constituents.
117:
118:
119: {\it The GRB/SN association.}
120: The original observation of a spatial and a temporal coincidence between GRB
121: 980425 and the relatively close-by supernova SN 1998bw (redshift $\rm
122: z=0.0085$), that suggested a physical association \cite{Galama},
123: has developed into a much more convincing case for the claim
124: \cite{DD2000a} that many, perhaps {\it all,} of the long-duration GRBs are
125: associated with SNe. Indeed, of the dozen and a half GRBs whose redshift
126: is known, the nearest six that have redshifts $\rm z<1$ show in their
127: afterglow an additive ``bump'', with the time dependence and spectrum of a
128: SN akin to 1998bw properly corrected \cite{DD2000a}, \cite{DDD}
129: for the different redshift values and galactic extinction
130: \cite{DDD}: GRB 990228 \cite{Darz}, \cite{Reic}, \cite{Galamab}; GRB
131: 970508 \cite{Sok}; GRB 980703 \cite{Holl}; GRB 990712 \cite{Hj},
132: \cite{Sahu}; GRB 991208 \cite{CT}; GRB 000418 \cite{DD2000a}.
133:
134: In all the other cases with larger redshifts there is one or
135: more good reasons for such a bump not to have been seen: no
136: observations of the afterglow at late time are available, the expected bump
137: is below the sensitivity of the late time observations,
138: the spectrum of SN 1998bw is not known at the frequencies
139: required to extrapolate its light curve to a much higher $\rm z$. Thus,
140: observationally, seven out of sixteen ---and
141: perhaps all--- of the GRBs of known redshift have a SN associated with
142: them. The energy supply in a SN event similar to SN 1998bw is too small to
143: accommodate the fluence of cosmological GRBs, unless their $\gamma$-rays
144: are highly beamed. SN 1998bw is a peculiar supernova, but that may be due
145: to its being observed close to the axis of its GRB emission. It is not out
146: of the question that a good fraction --perhaps {\it all}-- of the
147: core-collapse SNe be associated with GRBs. To make the total cosmic rate
148: of GRBs and SN compatible, this nearly one-to-one GRB/SN association would
149: require beaming into a solid angle that is a fraction $\rm f\sim 2\times
150: 10^{-6}$ of $4\pi$ \cite{DD2000a}. The CB model, for the emission from CBs
151: moving with $\gamma\sim 10^3$, implies precisely that beaming factor (the
152: numerical details are reproduced in Section 9).
153:
154: {\it The GRB engine.}
155: We assume a core-collapse SN event not to result only in the
156: formation of a central compact object and the expulsion of
157: a supernova shell (SNS). A fraction of the parent star's
158: material, external to the newly-born compact object,
159: should fall back in a time very roughly of the
160: order of one day \cite{DD2000a} and, given the considerable
161: specific angular momentum of stars,
162: it should settle into an accretion disk and/or torus
163: around the compact object\footnote{We choose to base
164: our conjectures on analogies with known processes, as opposed
165: to computer simulations. The latter do not yet realistically include rotation,
166: magnetic fields, the transport of angular momentum... Most
167: noticeably, they do not produce SN explosions.}.
168: The subsequent sudden episodes
169: of accretion ---occurring with a time sequence that we cannot predict---
170: result in the emission of CBs. These emissions last till
171: the reservoir of accreting matter is exhausted.
172: The emitted CBs initially expand in the SN rest-system at a speed
173: $\rm\beta\,c/\gamma$, with $\rm\beta\,c$ presumably of the same order or
174: smaller than the speed of sound in a relativistic plasma ($\beta=1/\sqrt{3}$).
175: The solid angle a CB subtends is so small that presumably
176: successive CBs do not hit the same point of the outgoing SNS,
177: as they catch up with it. These considerations
178: are illustrated in Fig.(\ref{model}).
179:
180: {\it The GRB.}
181: From this point onwards, the CB model is not based on analogies or
182: assumptions, but on processes whose outcome can be approximately
183: worked out in an explicit manner. The violent collision of the CB
184: with the SNS heats the CB (which is not transparent at this point
185: to $\gamma$'s from $\pi^0$ decays) to a temperature that, by
186: the time the CB reaches the transparent
187: outskirts of the SNS, is $\sim 150$ eV,
188: further decreasing as the CB travels \cite{DD2000b}.
189: The resulting CB surface radiation, Doppler-shifted in energy
190: and forward-collimated by the CB's fast motion, gives rise to an individual
191: pulse in a GRB, as illustrated in Fig.(\ref{model}).
192: The GRB light curve is an ensemble of such pulses,
193: often overlapping one another.
194: The energies of the individual GRB $\gamma$-rays, as well as
195: their typical total fluences, indicate CB Lorentz factors of
196: ${\cal{O}}$(10$^3$), as the SN/GRB association does \cite{DD2000b}.
197: The GRB properties most relevant to the current investigation are
198: reviewed in Section 5.
199:
200: {\it The GRB's afterglow.} The CBs, after they exit the SNS,
201: cool down by bremsstrahlung and radiate by this process,
202: by inverse Compton scattering, and by
203: synchrotron radiation of their electrons on their enclosed magnetic field,
204: much as the plasmoids emitted by quasars and microquasars do
205: \cite{DD2000a}. The CB model provides an excellent detailed
206: description of optical afterglows \cite{DDD}.
207: The early afterglow spectrum and light curve are complicated
208: by the fact that, about a day after the GRB emission, CBs cool down to
209: a temperature at which $\rm e$--$\rm p$ recombination into $\rm H$
210: takes place. This gives rise to Ly-$\alpha$ lines that the CB's motion
211: Doppler-shifts to (cosmologically redshifted) energies of order
212: a few keV, an energy domain that, interestingly,
213: coincides with that of the $\rm Fe$ lines that an object at rest would emit.
214: Recombination also gives rise to a multiband-flare in the afterglow.
215: These CB-model's expectations are in good agreement with incipient
216: data on X-ray lines and flares \cite{DD2001}.
217:
218: In all of the above considerations we have
219: exploited the GRB/SN association to conclude that GRBs,
220: at least the long duration ones, are associated with core-collapse
221: SNe. This allows us to be very specific in our predictions
222: \cite{DD2000a, DD2000b, DD2001} concerning the collision
223: of the CBs with the SNS, and the consequent properties of the GRB
224: pulses (the density profile of SNSs is known from observations;
225: the typical energy of CBs we can infer from the assumption
226: that the large peculiar velocities of neutron stars are
227: due to an imbalance between the momenta of the jets of CBs they
228: emit as they are born \cite{DP}). But the sites of GRB emission
229: may not be only SNe. Any process of violent accretion,
230: such as a merger between neutron stars or other compact objects,
231: may result in the emission of CBs. If the latter encounter matter on
232: their way, such as circumstellar gas or a molecular cloud,
233: the processes leading to $\gamma$-ray emission would be similar
234: to the ones pertaining to a SN engine.
235:
236: In this paper we address two other concrete predictions of
237: the Cannonball Model: the emission of neutrinos and of
238: energetic $\gamma$-rays (EGRs). Once again, to be specific,
239: we exploit our explicit model of GRBs emitted in core-collapse
240: SN events. The neutrinos are made by the chain decays of
241: charged pions, produced in the collisions of the CBs'
242: baryons with those of the SNS, as in Fig.(\ref{model}).
243: The $\nu$ beam carries almost all of the emitted energy, but
244: is much narrower than the GRB beam and should only be
245: detected in coincidence with the small fraction of GRBs whose
246: CBs are moving extremely close to the line of sight.
247: The EGRs are made by the decay of neutral pions, but only from $\pi^0$
248: production close enough to the outskirts of the SNS for the $\gamma$-rays
249: not to be subsequently absorbed, see Fig.(\ref{model}).
250: The EGR beam, whose fluence is comparable to that of the GRB, is
251: as wide as the GRB beam and should be observable, in coincidence
252: with GRBs, with existing or planned detectors.
253: The EGR beam peaks at energies of tens of GeVs, while the
254: $\nu$ beam is about one order of magnitude more energetic.
255:
256: \section{Times and energies}
257:
258: Let $\rm \gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}={E_{CB}/(M_{CB}c^2)}$ be
259: the Lorentz factor
260: of a CB, which diminishes with time as the CB hits the SNS
261: and as it subsequently plows through the interstellar medium. Four
262: clocks ticking at different paces are relevant to a CB's history.
263: Let $\rm t_{SN}$ be the
264: local time in the SN rest system, $\rm t_{CB}$ the time in the CB's
265: rest system, $\rm t_{Ob}$ the time measured by
266: a nearby observer viewing the CB at an angle $\theta$
267: away from its direction of motion, and $\rm t$ the time
268: measured by an earthly observer viewing the CB at
269: the same angle, but from a ``cosmological'' distance
270: (redshift $\rm z\neq 0$).
271: Let x be the distance traveled by the CB in the SN rest system.
272: The relations between the above quantities are:
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: &&\rm
275: dt_{SN}=\gamma\,dt_{CB}=\rm{dx\over\beta\, c}\, ;
276: \nonumber \\
277: &&\rm
278: dt_{CB}\equiv \delta\,dt_{Ob}\, ;\nonumber\\
279: &&\rm
280: dt=(1+z)\,dt_{Ob}={1+z\over \gamma\,\delta}\;dt_{SN}\;,
281: \label{times}
282: \end{eqnarray}
283: where the Doppler factor $\delta$ is:
284: \begin{equation}
285: \rm
286: \delta\equiv\rm{1\over\gamma\,(1-\beta\cos\theta)}
287: \simeq\rm {2\,\gamma\over (1+\theta^2\gamma^2)}\; ,
288: \label{doppler}
289: \end{equation}
290: and its approximate expression is valid for $\theta\ll 1$ and $\gamma\gg 1$,
291: the domain of interest here.
292: Notice that for large $\gamma$ and not large $\theta\gamma$,
293: there is an enormous ``relativistic aberration'':
294: $\rm dt\sim dt_{SN}/\gamma^2$, and the observer sees
295: a long CB story as a film in extremely fast motion.
296:
297: The energy of the photons radiated by a CB
298: in its rest system, $\rm E^\gamma_{CB}$, their energy
299: in the direction $\theta$
300: in the local SN system, $\rm E^\gamma_{SN}$, and the photon
301: energy $\rm E$ measured by a cosmologically distant observer,
302: are related by:
303: \begin{equation}
304: \rm E^\gamma_{CB}= {E^\gamma_{SN}\over \delta}
305: \, ;\;\;\;\;\;E^\gamma_{SN}=(1+z)\,E\; ,
306: \label{energies}
307: \end{equation}
308: with $\delta$ as in Eq.(\ref{doppler}).
309:
310: \section{Reference values of various parameters}
311:
312: To be explicit we must scale our results to given values of the
313: parameters of the CB model. In this section we introduce the
314: reference values that we adopt, which serve as benchmarks
315: but imply no strong commitment to their particular choices.
316: These values are listed in Table I, for quick reference.
317:
318: %\newpage
319: %\vskip 0.2 true cm
320: \begin{table}[h]
321: %\vskip 0.1 true cm
322: %\hspace{-.5cm} %if you want to center your table act on this argument
323: \hspace{2.5 cm}
324: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
325: \hline
326: \hline
327: $\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$Parameter &Symbol &Value \\
328: \hline
329: SN-shell's mass & $\rm M_S$ & $\rm 10\; M_\odot$ \\
330: SN-shell's radius & $\rm R_S$ & $2.6\times 10^{14}$ cm \\
331: % SN-shell's density index &n &8 \\
332: Outgoing Lorentz factor & $\rm\gamma_{out}$ & $10^3$ \\
333: CB's energy & $\rm E_{CB}$ & $10^{52}$ erg \\
334: Initial $\rm v_{_T}/c$ of expansion & $\rm\beta_{in}$ & $1/(3\,\sqrt{3})$ \\
335: Final $\rm v_{_T}/c$ of expansion & $\rm\beta_{out}$ & $1/\sqrt{3}$ \\
336: \hline
337: Redshift &z &1 \\
338: CB's viewing angle & $\theta$ & $\rm 10^{-3}$ \\
339: \hline
340: \hline
341: \end{tabular}
342: %\end{table}
343: %\vskip -0.3 true cm
344: %\noindent
345: %{\bf Table I.}
346: \caption{List of the ``reference'' values of various parameters. In the text a barred
347: parameter means its actual value divided by its reference value, so that,
348: for instance, $\rm \overline M_S=1/2$ means that the actual mass of the
349: SN shell
350: is taken to be $\rm 5\,M_\odot$. Two parameters are not specific to our
351: model ($\rm z$ and $\theta$).}
352: \end{table}
353:
354: Let ``jet'' stand for the ensemble of CBs emitted in one direction in a SN
355: event. If a momentum imbalance between the opposite-direction jets is
356: responsible for the large peculiar velocities of neutron stars,
357: ${\rm v_{NS}\approx 450\pm 90~ km~s^{-1}}$ \cite{LL}, the
358: jet kinetic energy $\rm E_{jet}$ must be, as we shall assume for our GRB
359: engine, larger than $\rm M_{NS}\,v_{NS}\,c\sim 10^{52}$ erg,
360: for $\rm M_{NS}=1.4\,M_\odot$ \cite{DP}.
361: We adopt a value of $10^{53}$ ergs as the reference
362: jet energy\footnote{The
363: jet-emitting process may be ``up--down'' symmetric to a good
364: approximation, implying even bigger jet energies.
365: In the accretion of matter by black holes in quasars
366: \cite{Celo, Ghi} and microquasars \cite{MR} the
367: efficiency for the conversion of gravitational binding energy into jet
368: energy appears to be surprisingly large.
369: If in the production of CBs the central compact object
370: ingurgitates several solar masses, $\rm E_{jet}$ could be as large as
371: $\rm \sim M_\odot c^2\simeq 1.8\times 10^{54}$ erg.}.
372: On average, GRBs have some five to ten significant pulses, so that the
373: energy in a single CB may be 1/5 or 1/10 of $\rm E_{jet}$. We adopt
374: $\rm E_{CB}=10^{52}$ erg as our reference value.
375: We denote with a
376: bar the actual value of a parameter in the units of its reference value
377: so that $\rm \overline{E}_{CB}$, for instance, means a given
378: cannonball energy divided by $10^{52}$ erg.
379:
380:
381: Let $\rm \gamma_{in}$ be the Lorentz factor of a cannonball
382: as it is fired. We shall find $\rm\gamma_{in}={\cal{O}}(3\times 10^3)$
383: to be a ``typical'' value ($\rm\gamma_{in}$ is not an ``input'' parameter).
384: For this value and the reference CB energy, the CB's mass is
385: very small by stellar standards, and comparable to an Earth mass:
386: \begin{equation}
387: \rm M_{CB}\sim 0.6\, M_\otimes \;{3\times 10^3\over \gamma_{in}}\, .
388: \label{CBmass}
389: \end{equation}
390: The baryonic number of the CB is:
391: \begin{equation}
392: \rm N_b\simeq {E_{CB}\over m_p\,c^2\,\gamma_{in}}\simeq 2.2\times 10^{51}\;
393: \overline{E}_{CB}\, \left[{3\times 10^3\over\gamma_{in}}\right].
394: \label{NB}
395: \end{equation}
396: The collision of a CB with a SNS is so violent ---at $\sim 1$ TeV
397: per nucleon--- that there is no doubt that, as it exits the shell,
398: the CBs' baryonic number resides in individual protons and neutrons.
399:
400: We have assumed that, in a SN explosion, some of the material
401: outside the collapsing core is not expelled
402: as a SNS, but falls back onto the compact object. For vanishing angular momentum, the free-fall time of a test-particle from a distance $\rm R$
403: onto an object of mass ${\rm M}$ is
404: $\rm t_{fall} =\pi\,[R^3/(8\,G\,M)]^{1/2}$. For material falling
405: from a typical star radius ($\rm R_\star\sim 10^{12}$ cm) on an
406: object of mass $\rm M=1.4\;M_\odot$, $\rm t_{fall} \simeq 1$ day.
407: The fall-time is longer (except for material falling from the polar directions)
408: if the specific angular momentum is considerably
409: large, as it is in most stars. The fall-time is shorter for material
410: not falling from as far as the star's radius.
411: The estimate $\rm t_{fall} \simeq 1$ day is therefore a very rough one.
412: One day after core-collapse, the expelled SNS, traveling at
413: a velocity $\rm v_S \sim c/10$ \cite{Naka},
414: has moved to a distance:
415: \begin{equation}
416: \rm R_S=2.6 \times 10^{14} \;cm\;\left({t_{fall}\over 1\;d}\right)\;
417: \left({10\,v_S\over c}\right) .
418: \label{Rs}
419: \end{equation}
420: We adopt $\rm R_S=2.6 \times 10^{14}$ cm as our reference value.
421:
422: For the Lorentz factor of the CBs as they exit the SNS,
423: we adopt the value $\rm \gamma_{out}=10^3$,
424: for the reasons discussed in the Introduction.
425: Let $\rm \beta_{in}\, c$ be the expansion velocity of a CB,
426: in its rest system, as it travels from the point of emission to
427: the point at which it reaches the SNS, and let $\rm \beta_{out}\, c$
428: be the corresponding value after the CB exits the SNS,
429: reheated by the collision. We expect these velocities to be comparable
430: to the speed of sound in a relativistic plasma, $\rm c/\sqrt{3}$,
431: as observed in the initial expansion of the CBs
432: emitted by GRS 1915+105 \cite{MR}. As reference values, we
433: adopt those of Table I.
434:
435:
436: \section{The collision of a CB with the SNS}
437:
438:
439: \subsection{The shell's profile and transparency}
440:
441: The density profile of the transparent outer layers of a SNS
442: as a function
443: of the distance $\rm x$ to the SN centre can be inferred from the photometry,
444: spectroscopy and evolution of the SN emissions \cite{Naka}.
445: The observations can be fit by a power law,
446: $\rm x^{-n}$, with $\rm n \sim 4\; to\, 8$. Our results
447: for neutrino fluxes are not sensitive to this density profile
448: and our results for GRB $\gamma$-rays \cite{DD2000b}
449: and for EGRs are only sensitive
450: to the outer region where the SN shell
451: becomes transparent. This implies that, for simplicity, we
452: can adopt at all $\rm x>R_S$ the density profile observed
453: in the shell's outer layers:
454: \begin{equation}
455: \rm \rho(x)=\rm\rho(R_S)\,\Theta(x-R_S)\,\left[{R_S\over x}\right]^n\, .
456: \label{profile}
457: \end{equation}
458: The SNS grammage still in front of a CB located at x is:
459: \begin{eqnarray}
460: &&\rm X_S(x)=\rm \int_x^\infty \, \rho(y)\,dy= X_{SNS}
461: \; \left[{R_S\over x}\right]^{n-1}\nonumber \\
462: &&\rm X_{SNS}\equiv\rm
463: {M_S\over 4\,\pi\, R_S^2}\simeq (2.35\times 10^4)\;
464: {\overline{M}_S\over \overline{R}_S^2}
465: \;g \, cm^{-2}\; .
466: \label{SNgram}
467: \end{eqnarray}
468:
469: For GRB photons in the MeV domain the attenuation length is similar,
470: within a factor 2, in all elements from H to Fe, and it
471: is close to the attenuation length in a hydrogenic plasma.
472: In the CB model, at a fixed time, the energy spectrum in a GRB
473: pulse is roughly thermal \cite{DD2000b}. The radiation length
474: in the obscuring shell, averaged over a black body spectrum
475: of peak energy 1 MeV, is approximately:
476: \begin{equation}
477: \rm X_{GRB}\simeq {m_p\over \sigma_{KN}(1\, MeV)}
478: \simeq 10\; g \, cm^{-2}\; ,
479: \label{XGRB}
480: \end{equation}
481: where $\rm \sigma_{KN}$ is the Klein-Nishina cross section.
482: For EGRs the attenuation length in hydrogen
483: in the 100 MeV to 100 GeV range,
484: dominated by $\rm e^+\,e^-$ pair production, is \cite{Groom}:
485: \begin{equation}
486: \rm X_{EGR}\simeq 70 \; gr \, cm^{-2}\; .
487: \label{XEGR}
488: \end{equation}
489: The attenuation lengths of
490: Eqs.(\ref{XGRB}) and (\ref{XEGR}) are all much smaller that the
491: typical shell grammage of Eq.(\ref{SNgram}).
492:
493: Equating $\rm X_S(x)$ and $\rm X_{GRB}$
494: and solving for x, one obtains the radial distance $\rm x_{GRB}^{tp}$
495: at which the SNS becomes (one radiation length) transparent to
496: GRB photons.
497: For our reference parameters, some representative results are:
498: \begin{equation}
499: \rm
500: x_{GRB}^{tp}/R_S\simeq (3.7,\, 6.2,\, 21)\,\;\;\; for\; n=(8,\,6,\,4).
501: \label{xtp1}
502: \end{equation}
503: The corresponding
504: values for $\rm x_{EGR}^{tp}$, at a given $\rm n$, are shorter:
505: \begin{equation}
506: \rm
507: x_{EGR}^{tp}/R_S\simeq (2.3,\, 3.2,\, 6.9)\,\;\;\; for\; n=(8,\,6,\,4).
508: \label{xtp2}
509: \end{equation}
510: %$\rm x_{GRB}^{tp}\simeq 3.7\,R_S$ for $\rm n=8$,
511: %$\rm \simeq 6.2\,R_S$ for $\rm n=6$ and
512: %$\rm \simeq 21\,R_S$ for $\rm n=4$. The corresponding
513: %values for $\rm x_{EGR}^{tp}$, at a given $\rm n$, are shorter:
514: %$\rm \simeq 2.3\,R_S$ for $\rm n=8$,
515: %$\rm \simeq 3.2\,R_S$ for $\rm n=6$ and
516: %$\rm \simeq 6.9\,R_S$ for $\rm n=4$.
517: The GRB and EGR signals are emitted as the CB reaches
518: the transparent outskirts of the SNS. The neutrino signal
519: is emitted as soon as the CB starts colliding with the shell.
520: We discuss in detail in Section 10 the
521: time profiles and relative timing of these signals.
522:
523:
524:
525: \subsection{Kinematics of a CB's collision with a SN shell}
526:
527: The radius of the expanding CBs, as they reach the SNS, is:
528: \begin{equation}
529: \rm R_{CB}\sim R_S\,{\beta_{in}\over\gamma_{in}}
530: \simeq 1.7\times 10^{10}\;cm\;\overline\beta_{in}\,
531: \left[{3\times 10^3\over \gamma_{in} }\right]\,\overline R_S\, ,
532: \label{RCBatshell}
533: \end{equation}
534: In its collision with the shell, a CB sweeps up a ``target'' mass
535: \begin{equation}
536: \rm M_T\sim\pi\,R_{CB}^2\,X_{SNS}=M_S\,
537: {\beta_{in}^2\over 4\,\gamma_{in}^2}
538: \simeq 3.5\times 10^{-3}\;M_\otimes\;\overline{\beta}_{in}\,
539: \left[{3\times 10^3\over \gamma_{in} }\right]^2\,\overline M_S\, ,
540: \label{MT}
541: \end{equation}
542: where $\rm X_{SNS}$ is the full column density of the shell,
543: as in Eq.(\ref{SNgram}).
544:
545: Seen from the reference system in which the CB is at rest
546: (and its shape, because of expansion, is roughly spherical)
547: the constituents of the SNS impinge onto the CB with
548: a Lorentz factor $\rm\gamma_{in}$. The average density
549: of a CB with the reference radius
550: of Eq.(\ref{RCBatshell}) and the reference mass of Eq.(\ref{CBmass}) is
551: $\rm\rho\sim 1.8\times 10^{-4}$ gr cm$^{-3}$. The nucleon--nucleon
552: interaction length
553: at that density is $\rm \lambda_{CB}=(N_A\,\sigma_{pp}^{TOT}\,\rho)^{-1}$
554: $\sim 2.2\times 10^5$ cm, with $\rm N_A$ Avogadro's number
555: and $\rm \sigma_{pp}^{TOT}\simeq 40$ mb the proton--proton
556: (or nucleon--nucleon) cross section at TeV beam energies.
557: The CB's radius of Eq.(\ref{RCBatshell}) is much
558: bigger than $\rm\lambda_{CB}$, implying that all nuclei in the region
559: of the shell swept up by the CB
560: interact. Approximately 1/3 of the energy in these
561: collisions results in photons from $\pi^0$ decay, which heat the CB
562: to a temperature in the keV domain \cite{DD2000a, DD2000b}.
563:
564:
565: Seen from the reference system in which the SNS is at rest
566: (or moving with a modestly relativistic velocity $\rm \sim c/10$) a
567: high-energy nucleon in the CB ---suffering successive interactions in the
568: dilute gas or plasma constituting the SNS---
569: loses roughly 2/3 of its energy to $\pi^\pm$
570: production. The density of the shell is of order
571: $\rm\rho_S=M_S/(4\,\pi\,R_S^3)$ $\sim 10^{-10}$ gr/cm$^3$, for
572: our typical parameters. At that density, the nucleon-nucleon
573: interaction length is $\rm\lambda_S\sim 5 \times 10^{11}$ cm,
574: much less than the $\cal{O}$($\rm R_S)$ shell's depth,
575: so that the shell's material is, in this sense, ``thick'': it acts as a beam
576: dump. The decay length of a charged pion of energy $\rm E_\pi$ is
577: $\rm 5.6\times 10^5\,E_\pi/(100\, GeV)$ cm, much less
578: than its interaction length, which is comparable to that of nucleons.
579: Consequently, the beam dump is ``thin'' to $\pi$ decay and
580: roughly 2/3 of a CB's nucleon energy is
581: carried away by the neutrinos in $\pi\to \mu\,\nu$ decays
582: and in the subsequent $\mu$ decays.
583:
584:
585: The Lorentz factor of the CB after it has swept the SNS is simply the ratio
586: of the total energy to the invariant mass of the outgoing object:
587: \begin{equation}
588: \rm \gamma_{out}\simeq{E_{CB}/3\over
589: \sqrt{2\,M_T\,c^2\,E_{CB}/3+M^2_{CB}\,c^4}}\; ,
590: \label{gammaout1}
591: \end{equation}
592: where we have used $\rm E_{CB}\gg M_Tc^2$,
593: with $\rm M_T$ the target mass of Eq.(\ref{MT}). Substituting for
594: $\rm M_T$ and $\rm M_{CB}$ as functions of $\rm\gamma_{in}$
595: and $\rm\beta_{in}$, one obtains:
596: \begin{equation}
597: \rm \gamma_{out} \simeq \gamma_{in}
598: \;\sqrt{2\,E_{CB}\over 3\,\beta_{in}^2\,M_S\, c^2+18\,E_{CB}}
599: \label{gammaout}
600: \end{equation}
601: whose limiting values are:
602: \begin{eqnarray}
603: && \rm \gamma_{out}\sim {\gamma_{in}\over 3}\;\;\;\;
604: (for\; 6\,E_{CB}\gg \beta_{in}^2\,M_S\,c^2)\nonumber\\
605: && \rm \gamma_{out}
606: \sim {\gamma_{in}\over 10\,\overline{\beta}_{in}}\,
607: \left[{\overline{E}_{CB}\over \overline{M}_S}\right]^{1\over 2}\;\;\;\;
608: (for\; 6\,E_{CB}\ll \beta_{in}^2\,M_S\,c^2)\; .
609: \label{gammaout2}
610: \end{eqnarray}
611:
612: For our reference parameters,
613: Eq.(\ref{gammaout}) implies that
614: $\rm\gamma_{in}\sim10\,\gamma_{out}$.
615: The very large ``typical'' values
616: of $\rm\gamma_{in}$, $\sim 3 \times 10^3$ or larger,
617: as in Eqs.(\ref{gammaout2}),
618: imply that the fractional solid angle covered by a CB as it hits the
619: SNS is tiny: $\rm \beta_{in}^2/(4\,\gamma_{in}^2)\sim 10^{-9}$ or smaller,
620: for our reference $\rm\beta_{in}$. This presumably makes it unlikely for
621: consecutive CBs to hit precisely the same spot in the SNS:
622: CB--CB collisions and mergers may be the exception, rather than the rule,
623: and the collisional ``histories'' of successive CBs should be similar.
624:
625: Let $\rm \sigma_{_T}\simeq 6.5\times 10^{-25}$ cm$^2$ be the
626: Thomson cross section, describing $\gamma$--$\rm e$
627: collisions at invariant masses
628: comparable or smaller than the electron mass.
629: The CB itself becomes transparent to the radiation it encloses
630: when it reaches a radius $\rm R^{tp}_{CB}\simeq [3\,
631: M_{CB}\,\sigma_{_T}/(4\,\pi\,m_p)]^{1\over 2}$ $\sim 1.9\times 10^{13}$ cm,
632: for $\rm M_{CB}=0.6\,M_\otimes$.
633: If the CB in its rest system, after the collision with the
634: SNS, is expanding at a transverse velocity $\rm \beta_{out}\, c$, the distance
635: away from the SN at which it becomes transparent is
636: $\rm\gamma_{out}\,R^{tp}_{CB}/\beta_{out}$, or
637: $\sim 3.3\times 10^{16}$ cm for our reference parameters.
638: By then, the CB is well out of the SNS
639: and it has emitted from its expanding surface the radiation that constitutes
640: the GRB signal \cite{DD2000b}.
641:
642: \subsection{Microscopic description of the collision}
643:
644:
645: The main point in outlining a microscopic picture of the collision
646: of a CB and a SNS, as we shall see, is to conclude that
647: the details of such a picture are immaterial to the
648: estimate of the properties of GRBs and of their associated EGR-
649: and high-energy $\nu$ fluxes. But the discussion is important
650: in that it sets the basis for {\it how} to make these estimates.
651:
652: Both the SNS and the CB are many $\rm pp$ interaction lengths long.
653: The number of such lengths in the SNS is:
654: \begin{equation}
655: \rm
656: N^{int}_{SNS}={M_S\;N_A\over\pi\,R_S^2}\,\sigma_{pp}^{TOT}
657: \simeq (5.6\times 10^2) \;\overline{M}_S\;[\overline{R}_S]^{-2}\, ,
658: \label{Nintshell}
659: \end{equation}
660: As it enters the shell at a distance $\rm x=R_S$ from the SN centre,
661: the number of $\rm pp$ interaction lengths in the CB is:
662: \begin{equation}
663: \rm
664: N^{int}_{CB}\sim{M_{CB}\;N_A\over\pi\,R_{CB}^2}\,\sigma_{pp}^{TOT}
665: \simeq (1.6\times 10^5)\;\overline{E}_{CB}\;
666: \left[{\gamma_{in}\over 3\times 10^3}\right]^2\;
667: [\overline\beta_{in}\,\overline{R}_S]^{-2}\; .
668: \label{NintCB1}
669: \end{equation}
670: At a later point in the crossing of the SNS, e.g. at $\rm x=2\,R_S$,
671: when the CB is moving at $\rm \gamma\sim \gamma_{out}$
672: and expanding at a speed $\rm\beta_{out}$, its number
673: of interaction lengths is:
674: \begin{equation}
675: \rm
676: \widetilde N^{int}_{CB}\sim (5.1\times 10^2)
677: \;\overline{E}_{CB}\;[\overline\gamma_{in}]^{-1}\;
678: [\overline\gamma_{out}]^2\;
679: [\overline\beta_{out}\,\overline{R}_S]^{-2}\; .
680: \label{NintCB2}
681: \end{equation}
682: Thus, the number of $\rm pp$ interaction lengths in the CB is typically
683: comparable to or bigger than the corresponding number in the SNS.
684:
685:
686: The simplest reference
687: system in which to visualize the collision is the centre-of-mass system (c.m.s.)
688: of two slabs of nuclei, one belonging to the CB, the other to the SNS,
689: both one interaction length long. Consider first the case in which the CB
690: and the SNS are an equal number
691: of nucleon--nucleon interaction lengths long.
692: In the approximation of constant densities, the slab--slab c.m.s.
693: coincides in this case with the overall c.m.s. of the CB and the
694: material that it hits in the SNS\footnote{It is easy to generalize
695: the argument that follows to non-constant densities, by using a
696: variable reference system in which the densities are instantaneously the
697: same, but that requires an unjustified amount of effort, the final
698: results on the observable $\nu$ fluxes being the same. The
699: generalization to unequal numbers of interaction lengths,
700: we shall deal with explicitly.}.
701: In this system both the CB and the shell are spatially contracted
702: (relative to their respective rest systems) by the Lorentz factor
703: $\rm\sqrt{\gamma_{in}}/2$ at which their constituents are moving
704: towards each other. After the nucleons have interacted once,
705: their energy is degraded by an average factor $\rm f\sim 0.7$,
706: (the ``leading particle'' average-energy fraction observed
707: in high-energy nuclear collisions).
708: The nucleons of the leading slab, after the time required to
709: interact a few times with a few ``opposing'' slabs, come to rest
710: and are eventually turned back. Meanwhile fresh slabs are coming
711: in and suffering the same fate as the first. An increasingly
712: hot and dense pancake-shaped
713: region is formed, containing the nucleons that
714: have collided and the radiation initiated by $\gamma$'s from $\pi^0$ decay.
715: Because of its enclosed
716: radiation pressure, this ``pancake''
717: eventually expands in its rest system at a speed
718: of $\cal{O}$($\rm c/\sqrt{3}$). When all the slabs of the CB
719: and of the SNS are consumed, the resulting object is the
720: outgoing CB, at rest in this system.
721:
722: In the case where the number of interaction lengths in the CB
723: and the SNS are different, a similar description applies in the
724: system of reference in which the CB and shell densities
725: are the same, up to the moment in which the object with
726: the smaller number of interaction lengths is consumed.
727: This object is typically the SNS, as Eqs.(\ref{Nintshell})
728: to (\ref{NintCB2}) indicate.
729: At that point, we have a hot and dense pancake-shaped
730: object at rest, plus the fresh slabs from the CB's side of the collision
731: that are impinging on the disk without having interacted yet.
732: As these fresh slabs hit, they set the disk in motion. The final
733: outgoing CB, now viewed from the
734: local rest system of the parent SN, is moving with the Lorentz factor
735: $\rm\gamma_{out}$ of Eq.(\ref{gammaout}).
736:
737: No doubt the previous description is oversimplified, for the violence
738: of the collision of the CB and the SNS presumably results in shocked and
739: turbulent motions. Moreover, the freshly expelled SNS is
740: probably not smooth, but also turbulent and inhomogeneous
741: on small scales. Fortunately, a detailed description is not required
742: for an estimate of the fluxes of $\nu$'s and EGRs.
743:
744: \section{The GRB}
745:
746: In this section we briefly review the properties\footnote{We use
747: the ``surface model'' of \cite{DD2000b}.} of GRBs, in the
748: CB model \cite{DD2000b}, that we need to establish comparisons
749: between the GRB itself, and its accompanying EGR and $\nu$ fluxes.
750:
751: In its rest frame, the front surface of a CB is bombarded by the nuclei
752: of the SNS, which have an
753: energy $\rm m_p \,c^2\,\gamma\sim$ 1 TeV per nucleon,
754: roughly 1/3 of which is converted into $\gamma$-rays
755: (from $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ decays)
756: within a nucleon attenuation length:
757: \begin{equation}
758: \rm X_p={m_p\over \sigma^{TOT}_{pp}} \simeq 42 \; g \, cm^{-2}\; .
759: \label{Xp}
760: \end{equation}
761: These high energy photons initiate electromagnetic cascades that,
762: in turn, convert their energy to thermal energy within the CB.
763: The radiation length of high energy $\gamma$'s in hydrogenic plasma
764: is $\rm X_{EGR}$,
765: given by Eq.(\ref{XEGR}). The energy of the electromagnetic cascade
766: ends up as heat. The thermal photons, of energy $\rm E_\gamma \ll m_e\,c^2$,
767: have a radiation length:
768: \begin{equation}
769: \rm X_{T} \simeq {m_p\over \sigma_{_T}}
770: \simeq 2.6\;g\; cm^{-2}\, .
771: \label{XT}
772: \end{equation}
773:
774: The thermal energy contained in a CB's front-surface layer
775: of ``depth'' $\rm X_T$, continually supplied by the SNS
776: incident nucleons, will be radiated away. It is reasonable to
777: expect that an equilibrium is established whereby, to
778: a fair approximation, the quasi-thermal emission rate from
779: the CB is in equilibrium with the fraction of energy deposited
780: by the CB's collision with the SN shell
781: within this one-radiation deep layer. A
782: fraction $\rm X_T/X_p$ of the incoming protons interact
783: in the radiating layer, and a fraction $\rm X_T/X_{EGR}$ of the
784: energy of the $\gamma$s from $\pi^0$ production and decay is deposited
785: in it. The total energy deposited by a single
786: SNS shell nucleon is $\rm \sim m_p\,c^2\,\gamma/3$.
787: Equating the energy deposition per unit time to that re-emitted
788: from the CB's surface as quasi-thermal
789: radiation, we obtain an instantaneous temperature:
790: \begin{equation}
791: \rm T(x)\simeq \left[{X_T^3\over X_p\, X_{EGR}}\,
792: {(n-1)\,c^3\, [\gamma(x)]^2 \over
793: 6\,\sigma\, x^{tp}_{GRB}}\right ]^{1/4}
794: \left[ {x\over x^{tp}_{GRB}}\right]^{-n/4}\,,
795: \label{Temperature}
796: \end{equation}
797: %
798: %\begin{equation}
799: %\rm T(x)\simeq \left[{(n-1)\,X_{GRB}\, m_p\, c^3\, [\gamma(x)]^2\,
800: % \sigma_{in}(pp) \over
801: % 6\,\sigma\, x^{tp}_{GRB}\,X_{\gamma e}
802: %\, \sigma_{_T}^2}\right ]^{1/4}
803: % \left[ {x\over x^{tp}_{GRB}}\right]^{-n/4}\,,
804: %\label{Temperature}
805: %\end{equation}
806: %
807: where $\sigma$ is the Stefan--Boltzmann constant,
808: $\rm\gamma(x)$ is a function evolving from $\rm \gamma_{in}$
809: to $\rm\gamma_{out}$, $\rm x^{tp}_{GRB}$ is as in Eqs.(\ref{xtp1}),
810: and $\rm n$ is the SNS density index of Eq.(\ref{profile}).
811: The temperature as the CB reaches the transparent region of the SNS,
812: $\rm T_{tp}\equiv T(x^{tp}_{GRB})$, is of order 0.15 keV, and is not very
813: sensitive to the parameters of the model \cite{DD2000b}, scaling roughly as:
814: \begin{equation}
815: \rm
816: T_{tp}\propto \left[{n-1\over R_S}\right]^{1/4}\;[\gamma_{out}]^{1/2}\, ,
817: \label{Ttp}
818: \end{equation}
819: since $\rm x_{tp}\propto R_S$ and, in the outer
820: regions of the SNS, $\rm \gamma(x)\sim \gamma_{out}$.
821:
822: The time-width of a single-CB GRB pulse is roughly
823: characterized by a ``transparency time''
824: $\rm t_{GRB}$: the time elapsed
825: between the moment the CB enters the SNS and the time it
826: reaches its (one radiation length) transparent outer layer.
827: In the observer's frame, this time is:
828: \begin{equation}
829: \rm t_{GRB}\simeq {1+z\over \gamma_{out}\,\delta}\;
830: {x^{tp}_{GRB} - R_S\over c}\; ,
831: \label{ttp}
832: \end{equation}
833: with $\rm x^{tp}_{GRB}$ as in Eq.(\ref{xtp1}). For our standard parameters
834: and a typical $\rm \theta\sim 3/\gamma_{out}$, $\rm t_{GRB}$ is
835: $\sim 0.23,\,0.45,\,1.7$ s, for SNS indices $\rm n=8,\,6,\,4$, respectively.
836:
837: The radius of the CB at the time
838: $\rm t=t_{GRB}$ is:
839: \begin{equation}
840: \rm R^{tp}_{CB}\sim R_{CB}+(x^{tp}_{GRB}-R_S)\,
841: {\beta_{out}\over\gamma_{out}}
842: \label{RCBtp}
843: \end{equation}
844: with $\rm R_{CB}$ as in Eq.(\ref{RCBatshell}). For times of
845: ${\cal{O}}$$\rm (t_{GRB})$, the radius of the CB increases
846: approximately linearly with time.
847: In the CB's rest system, and at a fixed time, the
848: energy spectrum of the radiation emitted by the CB is an approximate
849: black-body spectrum, corrected for absorption in the SNS, and
850: emitted by a sphere whose surface grows as $\rm t^2$
851: and whose surface temperature decreases as $\rm [t_{GRB}/t]^{(n/2)}$,
852: as in Eq.(\ref{Temperature}). We have shown in \cite{DD2000b}
853: that this simple picture describes well the light curves
854: and energy spectra of GRB pulses. The predicted GRB
855: energy spectrum is the sum of thermal spectra with decreasing
856: temperatures. Its high energy tail is exponential, with a characteristic
857: temperature $\rm \sim T_{tp}$. At high energies, this is an underestimate
858: with respect to the observed GRB spectra, which decrease
859: approximately as $\rm E^{-2}$.
860: We attribute this discrepancy to the naivet\'e of our thermal input
861: spectrum: observations demonstrate that astrophysical plasmas
862: subject to a flux of high energy particles ---such as the CB in its rest system---
863: radiate a ``quasi-thermal'' spectrum, corrected at high energies
864: for such a power-law tail (clusters of galaxies are discussed in \cite{FF},
865: galaxy groups in \cite{YF} and SN remnants in \cite{SNR}).
866:
867: To estimate the total energy radiated by a CB's heated surface
868: we must first compute the number $\rm N_p^{GRB}$
869: of SNS nucleons that provide
870: this energy, with the constraint that the radiation they eventually
871: produce be able to escape from the SNS. The naive estimate
872: $\rm N_p^{GRB}\simeq \pi\;[R_{CB}^{tp}]^2\,X_{GRB}/ m_p$
873: turns out to be a very good approximation. Indeed, in
874: terms of $\rm n_p(x)$, the nucleon number density in the shell,
875: and $\rm X_{SNS}=X_S(R_S)$, the shell's total grammage of
876: Eq.(\ref{SNgram}), $\rm N_p^{GRB}$ is:
877: \begin{eqnarray}
878: \rm N_p^{GRB} &=&\rm \int_{R_S}^\infty dx\; \pi\,\left[R_{CB}(x)\right]^2\,n_p(x)\;
879: Exp\left[-{m_p\over X_{GRB}}\,\int _X^\infty n_p(x')\,dx'\right]\nonumber\\
880: &=& \rm \pi\,{X_{GRB}\over m_p}\int_{R_S}^\infty\,dx\; \left[R_{CB}(x)\right]^2\;
881: {d\over dx} \, Exp\left[-{m_p\over X_{GRB}}\,\int_x^\infty n_p(x')\,dx'\right]
882: \nonumber\\ \rm
883: &\approx&\rm \pi\;[R_{CB}^{tp}]^2\,{X_{GRB}\over m_p}
884: \,\left(1-Exp[-X_S/X_{GRB}]\right)
885: \approx \pi\;[R_{CB}^{tp}]^2\,{X_{GRB}\over m_p}\; ,
886: \label{NpGRB}
887: \end{eqnarray}
888: where we have approximated by a constant the radius
889: of the CB as it travels through the outer few GRB absorption
890: lengths. In the CB's rest frame, the total radiated energy is:
891: \begin{equation}
892: \rm E_{pulse}^{rest}\approx
893: {X_{GRB}\,X_T^2\over X_{EGR}\,X_p}\,
894: {\pi\,
895: [R_{CB}^{tp}]^2\,c^2\, \gamma_{out}
896: \over 3}\,.
897: \label{newenergy}
898: \end{equation}
899: As an example, for our standard parameters and $\rm n=8$,
900: $\rm R_{CB}^{tp}\sim 4\times 10^{11}$ cm and
901: $\rm E_{pulse}^{rest}\sim 3\times 10^{45}$ erg.
902: The result scales roughly as $\rm R_S^2\,\beta_{out}^2/\gamma_{out}$
903: and could be one or two orders of magnitude smaller for
904: $\rm R_S$ and $\rm \beta_{out}$ somewhat below our reference values.
905:
906: An observer at rest,
907: located at a known luminosity distance $\rm D_L(z)$ from the CB and
908: viewing it at an angle $\theta$ from its direction of motion, would measure
909: a ``total'' (time- and energy-integrated) fluence per unit area:
910: \begin{equation}
911: \rm {df\over d\Omega}\simeq {1+z\over 4\,\pi\,D_L^2}
912: \,{E_{pulse}^{rest}}\;\left[
913: {2\,\gamma_{out} \over 1+\theta^2\,\gamma_{out}^2}\right]^3\; .
914: \label{dfdomega}
915: \end{equation}
916: In a critical ($\Omega=1$) Friedman universe the luminosity distance
917: is given by:
918: %\begin{equation}
919: %{\rm D_L(z)= {(1+z)\, c\over \Omega_k^{1/2} \,H_0}\,\;
920: %sinh\left[\Omega_k^{1/2}\int_0^z {dz\over \sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda
921: %+\Omega_k\,(1+z)^2+\Omega_M\,(1+z)^3}}\right]},
922: %\end{equation}
923: \begin{equation}
924: \rm D_L(z)= {(1+z)\, c\over \,H_0}\;
925: \int_{1\over 1+z}^1\,{dx\over\sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda\,x^4+\Omega_M\,x}}\, ,
926: \label{lumdim}
927: \end{equation}
928: where $\rm H_0$ is Hubble's parameter,
929: ${\rm \Omega_M}$ and ${\rm \Omega_\Lambda=\Omega-\Omega_M}$,
930: respectively, are the matter and vacuum
931: energy densities divided by the critical density
932: (${\rm \rho_c=3\,H_0^2/8\pi\, G}$) and the radiation energy density has been
933: neglected. In our explicit calculations we use
934: $\rm H_0=65$ km/(s Mpc), ${\rm \Omega_M}=0.3$ and
935: ${\rm \Omega_\Lambda}=0.7$, so that, for example,
936: $\rm D_L(1)\simeq 7.12$ Gpc $\simeq 2.20\times 10^{28}$ cm. In
937: Fig.(\ref{lumdis})
938: we show $\rm D_L(z)$ and $\rm [D_L(1)/D_L(z)]^2$
939: (the quantity to which we shall scale our results) for the quoted
940: cosmology and, for comparison, for the case $\rm\Omega_M=1$,
941: $\rm \Omega_\Lambda=0$, for which
942: $\rm D_L(1)\simeq 5.41$ Gpc $\simeq 1.67\times 10^{28}$ cm.
943:
944:
945:
946: \section{The sources of high energy particles}
947:
948: \subsection{The origin of high energy $\nu$'s}
949:
950: The nuclei or nucleons in the incoming CB are comoving with
951: it with a Lorentz factor $\rm\gamma_{in}$. Nuclei in the outgoing
952: CB have certainly been shattered into their constituent nucleons
953: by the violence of the collision between the CB and the shell.
954: They are comoving with the bulk Lorentz factor $\rm\gamma_{out}$.
955: On average, a high energy nucleon colliding at a large
956: centre-of-mass energy with a nucleon at rest
957: ---or moving along the same direction---
958: exits the collision with a small transverse momentum and
959: a fraction $\rm f\sim 0.7$ of its original energy (for ultrarelativistic
960: particles this statement is independent of longitudinal Lorentz
961: boosts). The nucleons of the incoming CB must have their
962: Lorentz factor degraded from $\rm\gamma_{in}$ to
963: $\rm\gamma_{out}$. On average, this takes a number $\rm i$ of
964: high-energy collisions satisfying $\rm f^i=\gamma_{out}/\gamma_{in}$,
965: that is $\rm i \sim 3$, for $\rm\gamma_{in}\sim 3\,\gamma_{out}$,
966: or $\rm i \sim 6$, for
967: $\rm\gamma_{in}\sim 10\,\gamma_{out}$.
968:
969: Another way to reach a conclusion similar to the above
970: is to view the interactions in the reference system
971: introduced in Section 4.3. There we saw that the bulk
972: of the CB's nucleons impinge, with a Lorentz factor $\rm\sqrt{\gamma_{in}}/2$,
973: on a ``pancake'', which is at rest, or moving towards them at a mildly
974: relativistic velocity $\rm \sim c/\sqrt{3}$. For $\rm\gamma_{in}=3\times 10^3$
975: ($10^4$) the incoming energy of the CB's nucleons is $\rm E\sim 26$
976: GeV ($\sim 47$ GeV). Consider the number of interactions $\rm i$
977: necessary to bring these nucleons down to an energy ($\sim 5$ GeV)
978: below which the multiplicity of pion production on a stationary
979: target is no longer roughly
980: constant (up to logarithmic corrections), but is suppressed by
981: threshold effects. The argument of the previous paragraph now
982: yields $\rm i\sim 4$ (6) for $\rm\gamma_{in}=3\times 10^3$ ($10^4$).
983: One may be concerned with the fact that,
984: if the CB contains more interaction lengths than
985: the SNS's target funnel, the last of the CB's protons to interact with
986: the pancake (which is by then moving in the CB's direction) may
987: only suffer collisions at a centre-of-mass energy insufficient to
988: produce pions. To dissipate this concern, consider the very last
989: nucleon of the CB to suffer a collision with the ensemble of the CB
990: plus the swept-up mass, and go back to the system in which the
991: SN is at rest. In that system, the incoming nucleon and its target
992: have Lorentz factors $\rm\gamma_{in}$ and $\rm\gamma_{out}$,
993: respectively, which brings us back to the argument in the previous
994: paragraph.
995:
996: Another concern is that, if nucleons suffer only a few interactions with
997: a large centre-of-mass energy, the earlier estimate that 2/3
998: of the CB's energy is lost to neutrinos may be grossly incorrect. But after
999: $\rm i$ interactions the fraction of the original energy of the CB's nucleons
1000: that has been invested in pion-production is $\rm \alpha\simeq 1-f^i$,
1001: two thirds of which ends up in neutrinos. For $\rm i=3$ (6),
1002: $\alpha\sim 66\%$ $(\sim 88\%)$, so that Eq.(\ref{gammaout}) is a fair
1003: approximation.
1004:
1005: Given the previous arguments,
1006: we shall estimate the neutrino flux as that produced by
1007: a nucleon beam, containing as many nucleons as the incoming CB,
1008: moving with a Lorentz factor $\rm\gamma_{in}$, and
1009: interacting {\it thrice} on a nucleon or nuclear target.
1010: Because of ``Feynman scaling'', as we shall see, it does not
1011: matter whether the target nucleons are at rest or receding
1012: with a Lorentz factor $\rm\gamma_{out}$. It follows from the above
1013: discussion that this estimate of the neutrino flux is an underestimate.
1014: However, in practice the incurred error is small, because
1015: the charged pions produced in $\rm i \ge 4$ interactions have
1016: a relatively low energy. Since the detection efficiency of their decay
1017: neutrinos is weighted, as we shall see, by two powers of energy,
1018: the low-energy tail of the neutrino spectrum is immaterial.
1019:
1020: \subsection{The origin of EGRs}
1021:
1022: The SNS is only transparent to $\gamma$-rays in its
1023: outer layer, some $\rm X_{EGR}=70$ g cm$^{-2}$ deep, Eq.(\ref{XEGR}).
1024: That figure also corresponds to roughly two high-energy nucleon--nucleon
1025: interaction lengths, see Eq.(\ref{Xp}).
1026: The shell is many interaction lengths thick, so that by
1027: the time the CB reaches the shell's $\gamma$-ray transparent outer layer,
1028: it is already moving with $\rm\gamma\simeq\gamma_{out}$.
1029: At that point the CB has reached a radius:
1030: \begin{equation}
1031: \rm
1032: \widetilde R_{CB}\sim (x_{EGR}^{tp}-R_s)\;{\beta_{out}\over\gamma_{out}}\; .
1033: \label{RCB'}
1034: \end{equation}
1035: For $\rm\beta_{out}=1/\sqrt{3}$, $\rm\gamma_{out}=10^3$
1036: and the largest of the $\rm x_{EGR}^{tp}$ in Eq.(\ref{xtp2}),
1037: $\rm \widetilde R_{CB}\sim 8.8 \times 10^{11}$ cm.
1038: With this radius and the reference mass of Eq.(\ref{CBmass})
1039: the CB's grammage is
1040: $\rm M_{CB}/(\pi\,\widetilde R_{CB}^2)\sim 1500$ g cm$^{-2}$,
1041: which is larger than that of the transparent outskirts of the shell,
1042: $\rm X_{EGR}$.
1043: %proper density is $\sim 1.2 \, 10^{-9}$ gr/cm$3$,
1044: %corresponding to a nucleon-nucleon interaction length of some
1045: %$3.3\;10^{10}$ cm.
1046: We shall therefore compute the EGR flux as that originating
1047: from the $\pi^0$'s made by the front of the CB as it interacts
1048: with {\it all} the nucleons in the shell's transparent outer
1049: layer\footnote{We neglect the reinteractions with the shell's nucleons
1050: that have already been struck one or more times and set
1051: into forward motion, thereby slightly underestimating the
1052: EGR flux.}. This total number, computed in the same way as
1053: $\rm N_p^{GRB}$ in Eq.(\ref{NpGRB}), is:
1054: \begin{equation}
1055: \rm N_p^{EGR} \approx \pi\;\widetilde R_{CB}^2\,{X_{EGR}\over m_p}\; ,
1056: \label{Npfirst}
1057: \end{equation}
1058: whose numerical value is:
1059: \begin{equation}
1060: \rm N_p^{EGR} \simeq (1.4\times 10^{49})\,
1061: \,\left[{x^{tp}_{EGR}-R_S\over 2.2\; R_S}\right]^2\,
1062: \left[{\overline R_S \;
1063: \overline\beta_{out}\over\overline\gamma_{out}}\right]^2\, ,
1064: \label{Np}
1065: \end{equation}
1066: where the values of $\rm x^{tp}_{EGR}$ for various shell density
1067: indices $\rm n$ are those of Eq.(\ref{xtp2}) and
1068: we have not made explicit the weak dependence on
1069: $\rm (R_S^2/M_S)$ to the power $\rm 1/(n-1)$.
1070:
1071: The total energy of the EGR pulse generated by a CB, as seen by
1072: a local observer at rest in the SN system, is:
1073: \begin{equation}
1074: \rm E_{EGR}\approx {1\over 3}\;\pi\;\widetilde R_{CB}^2\,X_{EGR}
1075: \; c^2\, \gamma_{out}\, .
1076: \label{EEGR}
1077: \end{equation}
1078: To study the spectrum and angular collimation of the EGR flux,
1079: as seen by a cosmologically distant observer,
1080: we must recall the details of pion production and decay.
1081:
1082: \subsection{Pion production in nucleon--nucleon collisions}
1083:
1084: The CB's baryon number, as it crosses the SNS, resides in protons or nuclei
1085: that are been broken into their constituents by relativistic collisions.
1086: The same is the case for the funnel in the SNS that is swept up
1087: by the CB. At TeV energies, the nucleon--nucleon, nucleon--nucleus
1088: or nucleus--nucleus
1089: processes have different cross sections, but the properties
1090: of the produced pions, {\it per colliding nucleon--nucleon pair,} are
1091: very similar, and not significantly different for protons or neutrons.
1092: Consequently, we can use for our considerations
1093: the empirical information on pion (and kaon) production in proton--proton
1094: collisions.
1095:
1096: Bailly et al.~\cite{Bailly} reported on a study of inclusive
1097: charged pion production in the collisions of protons of energy
1098: 360 GeV on a hydrogen target (c.m.s. energy $\rm \sqrt{s}\simeq 26$
1099: GeV), as a function of ``Feynman x'':
1100: \begin{equation}
1101: \rm
1102: x\equiv{2\,E_\pi^{cms}\over \sqrt{s}}\, .
1103: \label{Feynman}
1104: \end{equation}
1105: The result, roughly the same within errors for $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$
1106: is:
1107: \begin{equation}
1108: \rm F_\pi(x)\equiv
1109: {1\over\sigma_{pp}^{TOT}}\,
1110: \int dp_{_T}^2\,{d\sigma^\pi\over dp_{_T}^2\, dx}\simeq 0.2\,{\pi\over x}
1111: \,(1-x)^{3.6}\, ,
1112: \label{xdistr}
1113: \end{equation}
1114: where $\rm p_{_T}$ is the pion transverse momentum.
1115: Given the approximate isospin independence of the interactions,
1116: the above result should also apply to the inclusive $\pi^0$
1117: production.
1118: The hypothesis of Feynman scaling, satisfied up to small
1119: logarithmic corrections, is that Eq.(\ref{xdistr}) is independent
1120: of energy.
1121:
1122: The x and $\rm p_{_T}^2$ dependences are observed to
1123: factorize to a good approximation, and the $\rm d\sigma^\pi/dp_{_T}^2$
1124: distribution
1125: is roughly exponential, with average
1126: \begin{equation}
1127: \rm \bar p_{_T}^\pi\sim 320 \;\, MeV.
1128: \label{pt}
1129: \end{equation}
1130: The most precise data on transverse-momentum distributions
1131: at the relevant c.m.s. energies were collected
1132: for $\pi^0$ production in pp interactions at the ISR collider \cite{Neu};
1133: the measured single-photon yield resulted in
1134: $\rm \bar p_{_T}^\gamma\sim 160$ MeV, whence the result we adopt
1135: for neutral or charged pions ($\rm p_{_T}^\pi\simeq 2\, p_{_T}^\gamma$).
1136: The double differential cross section for inclusive $\pi$ production
1137: is therefore of the form:
1138: \begin{eqnarray}
1139: \rm
1140: {1\over\sigma_{pp}^{TOT}}\,
1141: {d\sigma^\pi\over dp_{_T}^2\, dx}\simeq && \rm
1142: F_\pi(x)\;G_\pi(p_{_T})\; , \nonumber \\
1143: \rm
1144: G_\pi(p_{_T})\simeq && \rm
1145: {1\over 2\, \bar{p}_T^2}\,e^{-p_{_T}/\bar p_{_T}}\; ,
1146: \label{pTxdistr}
1147: \end{eqnarray}
1148: with $\rm F_\pi(x)$ as in Eq.(\ref{xdistr}) and $\rm \bar p_{_T}$
1149: as in Eq.(\ref{pt}).
1150: For ultrarelativistic reaction products, Eq.(\ref{pTxdistr})
1151: is invariant under longitudinal Lorentz boosts, so that,
1152: with $\rm x\simeq {E_\pi^{lab}/ E_p^{lab}}$, it can be used
1153: for proton interactions on a stationary target.
1154: We shall use it for incident $\rm E_p$ up
1155: to a few TeV.
1156:
1157:
1158: \section{The flux of EGRs}
1159:
1160: To compute the spectrum of outgoing photons {\it per nucleon--nucleon
1161: collision}, we must convolute Eq.(\ref{pTxdistr}) with the distribution
1162: of $\pi^0\to\gamma\gamma$ decay. For ultrarelativistic pions,
1163: the distribution of fractional photon
1164: energies ($\rm w\equiv E_\gamma/E_\pi$)
1165: is flat and limited by $\rm 0<w<1$.
1166: The $\gamma$ distribution
1167: in $\rm y\equiv E_\gamma/E_p$, produced by the decay of
1168: pions distributed as in Eq.(\ref{xdistr}), is:
1169: \begin{equation}
1170: \rm
1171: F_\gamma(y)=2\;\int_0^1 F_\pi(x)\; {dx\over x}
1172: \int_0^1 dw \;\delta\left(w-{y\over x}\right)\; ,
1173: \label{xpigammas}
1174: \end{equation}
1175: where the prefactor is for the two $\gamma$'s per $\pi^0$ decay.
1176: To a few per cent accuracy, the result of the convolution
1177: can be fitted\footnote{An exponential fit is inadequate close
1178: to the limit $\rm y=1$, but for $\rm y>1/2$ the
1179: flux is negligible.} by:
1180: \begin{eqnarray}
1181: \rm
1182: F_\gamma(y)&\simeq & \rm A_\gamma\,{1\over y}
1183: \,e^{-b_\gamma y}\\ \rm
1184: A_\gamma&\simeq & \rm 1.1\; ,\;\;\; b_\gamma\simeq 8\; .
1185: \label{fgamma}
1186: \end{eqnarray}
1187:
1188: The $\gamma$-production double differential cross-section in $\rm y$ and
1189: $\rm p_{_T}^\gamma$ is of the same form as Eq.(\ref{pTxdistr}),
1190: with a longitudinal factor $\rm F_\gamma(y)$ and a transverse factor
1191: with $\rm \bar p_{_T}^\gamma\sim 160$ MeV.
1192: Let $\rm E_\gamma$ be the energy of a photon as it
1193: reaches the Earth, cosmologically
1194: red-shifted by a factor $\rm 1+z$, and let
1195: $\rm E_p\simeq m_p\,c^2\,\gamma_{out}$ be the energy
1196: of the CB's nucleons,
1197: in the local rest system of their SN progenitor,
1198: as they reach the outer part of the SNS. For the
1199: small angles $\theta$ at which the $\gamma$-rays are forward-collimated
1200: by the relativistic motion of the parent $\pi^0$'s, the photon-number
1201: distribution in $\rm x_\gamma=E_\gamma/E_p$
1202: and $\cos\theta$, per single nucleon--nucleon
1203: collision, is:
1204: \begin{eqnarray}
1205: \rm
1206: {dn_\gamma\over dx_\gamma\;d\cos\theta}&\simeq & \rm
1207: B_\gamma\; (1+z)^2\;x_\gamma\; e^{-c_\gamma\,x_\gamma}\nonumber\\ \rm
1208: B_\gamma&\simeq&\rm A_\gamma\;
1209: \left[{m_p\,\gamma_{out}\over \bar p_{_T}^\gamma}\right]^2
1210: \simeq (3.76\times 10^7)\,\left[{\gamma_{out}\over 10^3}\right]^2\nonumber\\ \rm
1211: c_\gamma&= &\rm c_\gamma (z,\theta,\gamma_{out})\simeq \rm ( 1+z)\,
1212: \left[b_\gamma+{m_p\,\gamma_{out}\,\theta\over\bar p_{_T}^\gamma}\right]\, .
1213: \label{xtheta1}
1214: \end{eqnarray}
1215:
1216: Let $\rm dn_\gamma/d\Omega$ be the total (time-integrated)
1217: number flux of EGR photons
1218: per unit solid angle about the direction $\theta$ (relative to
1219: the CBs' direction of motion) at which they
1220: are viewed from Earth.
1221: The photon number distribution per incident CB is:
1222: \begin{eqnarray}
1223: \rm
1224: {dn_\gamma\over dx_\gamma\, d\Omega}&\sim& \rm
1225: {N_p^{EGR}\,B_\gamma\over 2\,\pi\;D_L^2}\;(1+z)^4\;f_\gamma\nonumber\\
1226: \rm f_\gamma&\equiv&\rm f_\gamma (z,\gamma_{out},\theta,x_\gamma)
1227: \simeq
1228: x_\gamma\; e^{-c_\gamma\,x_\gamma}\; ,
1229: \label{photnum}
1230: \end{eqnarray}
1231: with $\rm N_p^{EGR}$ given by Eq.(\ref{Np}). Since a
1232: typical GRB has an average of $\rm n_{CB}=5$ to 10 significant pulses,
1233: the total flux of EGRs in coincidence with a GRB may be
1234: an order of magnitude above that of Eq.(\ref{photnum}).
1235: In Fig.(\ref{spectrax}a) we show $\rm f_\gamma$ as a function of
1236: $\rm x_\gamma$ at various $\theta$;
1237: for $\rm z=1$ and $\rm\gamma_{out}=10^3$.
1238: The average fractional EGR energy in the spectrum of Eq.(\ref{photnum})
1239: is $\rm\bar x_\gamma=2/c_\gamma$, corresponding, at
1240: $\rm z=1$ and for $\rm\gamma_{out}=10^3$, to average energies
1241: $\rm\bar E_\gamma\sim 120$ GeV
1242: for $\theta=0$, $\rm\bar E_\gamma\sim 70$ GeV for
1243: $\rm \theta=1/\gamma_{out}$,
1244: and $\rm\bar E_\gamma\sim 40$ GeV for $\rm \theta=3/\gamma_{out}$,
1245: a more probable angle of detection \cite{DD2000a}.
1246: Except at the highest of these energies and/or at redshifts
1247: well above unity, the absorption of $\gamma$-rays on the infrared
1248: background ---for which we have not explicitly
1249: corrected Eq.(\ref{photnum})--- is negligible.
1250:
1251: Roughly characterize the efficiency of a $\gamma$-ray detector
1252: as a step function $\rm \Theta(E^\gamma-E^\gamma_{min})$.
1253: The total flux above threshold, per incident CB, is then:
1254: \begin{eqnarray}
1255: \rm {dn^T_\gamma[x^\gamma_{min},\theta]\over d\Omega}&\sim&\rm
1256: {dn^T_\gamma[0,0]\over d\Omega}\;
1257: G_\gamma (z,\gamma_{out},\theta,x^\gamma_{min})\nonumber\\ \rm
1258: G_\gamma&\simeq&\rm \left[{(1+z)\,b_\gamma\over c_\gamma}\right]^2
1259: \,(1+c_\gamma\,x^\gamma_{min})\,
1260: e^{-c_\gamma\,x^\gamma_{min}}\nonumber\\ \rm
1261: x^\gamma_{min}&\equiv&\rm {E^\gamma_{min}\over m_p\,\gamma_{out}}
1262: \nonumber\\ \rm
1263: {dn^T_\gamma[0,0]\over d\Omega}
1264: &\simeq&\rm {1.1\times 10^8\over km^2}\,{N_p^{EGR}\over 1.4\;10^{49}}\,
1265: \overline\gamma_{out}^2
1266: \left[{1+z\over 2}\right]^2\,\left[{D_L(1)\over D_L(z)}\right]^2\, ,
1267: \label{photflux2}
1268: \end{eqnarray}
1269: where the scaling properties of $\rm N_p^{EGR}$ are those of Eq.(\ref{Np}).
1270: In Fig.(\ref{Ggamma}a) and (\ref{Ggamma}b)
1271: we show $\rm G_\gamma$ as a function of
1272: $\rm x^\gamma_{min}$ at various fixed $\theta$, and vice versa;
1273: for $\rm z=1$ and $\rm\gamma_{out}=10^3$. The very large flux
1274: $\rm dn^T_\gamma[0,0]/ d\Omega$ of Eq.(\ref{photflux2}) is seen
1275: to be significantly reduced as soon as $\theta$ and/or $\rm x^\gamma_{min}$
1276: depart from zero: the EGR flux is not as gigantic as it appears to be
1277: at first sight.
1278:
1279: \subsection{EGR versus GRB total energies}
1280:
1281: An observer at a cosmological distance from a GRB source, if equipped
1282: with a detector of sufficient angular coverage, would measure a total
1283: energy per CB, in the MeV-range photons of a GRB pulse, of
1284: $\rm E^z_{GRB}=\gamma_{out}\,E^{rest}_{pulse}/(1+z)$,
1285: with $\rm E^{rest}_{pulse}$ given by Eq.(\ref{newenergy}).
1286: In the multi-GeV range of the EGRs, the measurement would
1287: result in $\rm E^z_{EGR}=E_{EGR}/(1+z)$,
1288: with $\rm E^{EGR}$ given by Eq.(\ref{EEGR}).
1289: The ratio of EGR to GRB total energies is:
1290: \begin{eqnarray}
1291: \rm {E^z_{EGR}\over E^z_{GRB}} &\simeq& \rm r \;
1292: {X_{EGR}^2\, X_p\over X_{GRB}\, X_T^2}\;
1293: {1\over \gamma_{out}} \nonumber \\
1294: \rm r &\equiv & \rm {R_{EGR}^2 \over R_{GRB}^2}
1295: \simeq \left[{x_{EGR}^{tp}-R_S \over x_{GRB}^{tp}-R_S}\right]^2 \, .
1296: \label{ratio}
1297: \end{eqnarray}
1298: The factor $\rm 1/\gamma_{out}$ may look surprising at first:
1299: the total GRB energy is $\propto \gamma^2$, while the EGR
1300: energy is $\propto \gamma$. In both cases, one factor of
1301: $\gamma$ is associated with individual nucleon energies.
1302: But GRB photons ``benefit'' from the energy associated with
1303: the bulk motion of the CB, which acts as a relativistic mirror
1304: (target SNS particles at rest, if elastically and coherently
1305: back-scattered by the much heavier
1306: CB, would recoil with a Lorentz factor $\gamma^2$, while
1307: particles produced in individual $\rm pp$ collisions would
1308: carry an energy scaling as $\gamma$).
1309:
1310: Using the results of Eqs.(\ref{xtp1}) and (\ref{xtp2}) for
1311: the transparency distances, we obtain:
1312: \begin{equation}
1313: \rm {E^z_{EGR}\over E^z_{GRB}} \simeq
1314: (0.71,\,0.54,\,0.26)\;[\overline \gamma_{out}]^{-1}\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
1315: for\; n=(8,\,6,\,4),
1316: \label{ratio2}
1317: \end{equation}
1318: that is, the EGRs carry almost as much energy as the GRB.
1319: Since the individual EGR photons have energies of
1320: ${\cal{O}}(100)$ GeV, as opposed to ${\cal{O}}(1/2)$ MeV
1321: for GRB photons, the number of EGR photons is five or
1322: six orders of magnitude below that in the associated GRB.
1323:
1324:
1325: \section{The flux of high energy neutrinos}
1326:
1327: The calculation of the $\nu_\mu$ flux
1328: produced in the collision of a CB with the
1329: SNS is analogous to the calculation
1330: of the photon flux. The $\bar\nu_\mu$ flux gives rise to a signal
1331: of about 1/3 the size of that of the $\nu_\mu$ flux
1332: (we neglect it, since we find it preferable to establish
1333: a lower limit to the observational prospects).
1334: The $\nu_\mu$'s are made in the chain reactions
1335: $\rm p\,p\to \pi + ...$, $\pi^+ \to \mu^+\,\nu_\mu$; and
1336: $\pi^-\to\mu^-\,\bar{\nu}_\mu$, followed by
1337: $\mu^-\to e^-\,\nu_\mu\,\bar{\nu}_e$.
1338: We have also estimated the contribution of $\rm K$
1339: production and decay, which turns out to be negligible.
1340:
1341:
1342:
1343: \subsection{Pion and muon decay}
1344:
1345: We have shown in section 6.1 that, in order to estimate the
1346: neutrino flux from the CB--SNS collision, it is adequate to consider
1347: an average of $\rm i\sim3$ interactions of the incoming nucleons.
1348: The leading outgoing particle in these
1349: interactions has an average transverse momentum significantly
1350: smaller than that of the produced mesons: it can be
1351: neglected. The simplest way to compute $\nu$ fluxes is to
1352: work out first the pion distributions made in three
1353: successive interactions of the incoming nucleons and then
1354: convolute the result with the pion decay distributions.
1355: The pions made in the first interaction have the distribution of Eq.(\ref{xdistr}).
1356: To compute the distribution of those made in the two successive
1357: interactions, we must make convolutions, analogous to that in
1358: Eq.(\ref{xpigammas}), with the distribution of the
1359: exiting leading-nucleon longitudinal-momentum distribution.
1360: For the latter, we use the measurements of Ref. \cite{BaBre}.
1361: The result, $\rm F_\pi^{[3]}$, of summing the pion longitudinal distributions
1362: as functions of $\rm x=E_\pi/E_p$ (with $\rm E_p$ the original
1363: incoming nucleon's energy) can be simply parametrized,
1364: to $\sim 15$\% accuracy, as:
1365: \begin{equation}
1366: \rm F_\pi^{^{[3]}}(x)\simeq [1+2.2\, (1-x)^4]\;F_\pi(x)\; ,
1367: \label{Fpi3}
1368: \end{equation}
1369: with $\rm F_\pi(x)$ given by Eq.(\ref{xdistr}).
1370:
1371: In the decay in flight
1372: $\pi^-\to\mu^-\,\bar{\nu}_\mu$ of pions with $\rm E_\pi\gg m_\pi$,
1373: the distributions of fractional
1374: neutrino and muon energies ($\rm x_\nu\equiv E_\nu/E_\pi$
1375: and $\rm x_\mu\equiv E_\mu/E_\pi$) are flat and
1376: limited by $\rm 0<x_\nu<x_{max}\equiv 1-m_\mu^2/m_\pi^2$
1377: and $\rm 1-x_{max}<x_\mu <1$. The $\nu_\mu$ distribution
1378: in $\rm y\equiv E_\nu/E_p$, produced by the decay of
1379: pions distributed as in Eq.(\ref{xdistr}), is given by:
1380: \begin{equation}
1381: \rm
1382: F_\nu(y)=\int_0^1 F_\pi^{^{[3]}}(x)\; {dx\over x}
1383: \int_0^{x_{max}} {dx_\nu\over x_{max}} \;\delta\left(x_\nu-{y\over x}\right)\; ;
1384: \label{xpinumu}
1385: \end{equation}
1386: the muon distribution in the decay $\pi^-\to\mu^-\,\bar{\nu}_\mu$
1387: is analogous, with the proper change of integration limits.
1388: The $\nu_\mu$ distribution in $\rm z\equiv E_\nu/E_\mu$
1389: in the decay of left-handed muons is $\rm 3\,z^2$ and, upon
1390: neglect of $\rm m_e^2/ m_\mu^2$, it extends from 0 to 1.
1391: We do not write here explicitly the double convolution, analogous
1392: to Eq.(\ref{xpinumu}), involved in the calculation of the y-distribution
1393: in $\pi\to\mu\to\nu_\mu$ decay.
1394:
1395: The mean $\rm x_\nu= E_\nu/E_\pi$ in $\pi\to\mu\nu$ decay is
1396: $\rm \bar x_\nu=x_{max}/2\simeq 0.19$, while for the
1397: muon $\bar x_\mu\simeq 0.81$.
1398: The mean $\rm z= E_\nu/E_\mu$ in $\pi\to\nu_\mu\, ...$ decay
1399: is $\rm \bar z=3/4$, so that the mean $\rm x_\nu$
1400: in the $\pi\to\mu\to\nu_\mu$ decay chain is
1401: $\bar x'_\mu\simeq \bar x_\mu\,\bar z \simeq 0.6$.
1402: The available rest energy in $\pi\to\mu\nu$ or $\rm \mu\to e\nu\nu$
1403: decay is small relative to the mean transverse momentum
1404: of the parent pion. This implies that the mean $\nu_\mu$
1405: transverse momentum in the $\pi\to\mu\nu$ chain is
1406: $\rm \bar x_\nu\,\bar p_{T}\simeq 60$ MeV, where we have used
1407: Eq.(\ref{pt}). The corresponding result for the $\pi\to\mu\to\nu_\mu$
1408: chain is $\rm \bar x'_\nu\,\bar p_{T}\simeq 190$ MeV.
1409: We shall see that the muon detection sensitivity on Earth
1410: is weighted by two powers of energy (one for the cross section,
1411: one for the muon range), so that the $\pi\to\mu\to\nu_\mu$
1412: process, which produces a harder $\nu_\mu$ beam, is harder.
1413: Rather than giving results for a two-component distribution
1414: ($\pi\to\mu\nu$ and $\rm \mu\to e\nu\nu$)
1415: we shall use a common transverse momentum:
1416: \begin{equation}
1417: \rm \bar p_{_T}^\nu=190\;\;MeV
1418: \label{ptnu}
1419: \end{equation}
1420: for the overall $\nu_\mu$ beam. This results in a
1421: small underestimate of the flux at a fixed angle.
1422:
1423: The relative contribution of kaons to the $\nu_\mu$ flux
1424: is suppressed with respect to that of pions for three reasons.
1425: The $\rm K/\pi$ relative multiplicity is $\sim 1/5$; the
1426: $\rm K\to \mu\nu$ branching ratio is $\sim 63$\%; and
1427: the available energy in the decay is not negligible in comparison with
1428: $\rm \bar p_{_T}^K$. All in all, the $\rm K$-decay contribution
1429: to the $\nu_\mu$ flux at fixed angle is at the few per cent level:
1430: we neglect it altogether.
1431:
1432: The result of all this analysis is a longitudinal distribution
1433: in $\rm y=E_\nu/E_p$ (with $\rm E_p$ the incoming nucleon's
1434: energy) that can, to
1435: a few per cent accuracy, be fitted by:
1436: \begin{eqnarray}
1437: \rm
1438: F_\nu(y)&\simeq & \rm A_\nu\,{1\over y}
1439: \,e^{-b_\nu y}\\ \rm
1440: A_\nu&\simeq & \rm 3\; ,\;\;\; b_\nu\simeq 12\; .
1441: \label{fnu}
1442: \end{eqnarray}
1443: The $\nu_\mu$-production double differential cross-section in $\rm y$ and
1444: $\rm p_{_T}^\nu$ ---describing the neutrino flux
1445: generated in the beam dump per incident proton---
1446: is of the same form as Eq.(\ref{pTxdistr}),
1447: with a longitudinal factor $\rm F_\nu(y)$ and a transverse factor
1448: with $\rm \bar p_{_T}^\nu\sim 190$ MeV.
1449:
1450: Let $\rm E_\nu$ be the cosmologically redshifted energy of a neutrino as it
1451: reaches the Earth, and let
1452: $\rm E_p\simeq m_p\,c^2\,\gamma_{in}$ be the energy
1453: of the CB's nucleons, in the local rest system of their SN progenitor,
1454: as they enter the SNS. In analogy with Eq.(\ref{xtheta1}) the $\nu_\mu$-number
1455: distribution in $\rm x_\nu=E_\nu/E_p$
1456: and $\cos\theta$, per single nucleon--nucleon collision, is:
1457: \begin{eqnarray}
1458: \rm
1459: {dn_\nu\over dx_\nu\;d\cos\theta}&\simeq & \rm
1460: B_\nu\; (1+z)^2\;x_\nu\; e^{-c_\nu\,x_\nu}\nonumber\\ \rm
1461: B_\nu&\simeq&\rm A_\nu\;
1462: \left[{m_p\,\gamma_{in}\over \bar p_{_T}^\nu}\right]^2\simeq
1463: (6.0\times 10^7)\,\left[{\gamma_{in}\over 10^4}\right]^2\nonumber\\ \rm
1464: c_\nu&= & \rm c_\nu (z,\theta,\gamma_{in})
1465: \simeq ( 1+z)\,
1466: \left[b_\nu+{m_p\,\gamma_{in}\,\theta\over\bar p_{_T}^\nu}\right]\, .
1467: \label{xtheta3}
1468: \end{eqnarray}
1469:
1470: Let $\rm dn_\nu/d\Omega$ be the time-integrated number of neutrinos
1471: per unit solid angle about the direction $\theta$ (relative to
1472: the CBs' direction of motion) at which they
1473: are viewed from Earth. In analogy with Eq.(\ref{photnum}),
1474: the neutrino number distribution, per incident CB, is:
1475: \begin{eqnarray}
1476: \rm
1477: {dn_\nu\over dx_\nu\, d\Omega}&=& \rm
1478: {N_b\,B_\nu\over 2\,\pi\;D_L^2}\;(1+z)^4\;f_\nu\nonumber\\ \rm
1479: f_\nu&=&\rm f_\nu(z,\gamma_{in},\theta,x_\nu)\simeq
1480: x_\nu\; e^{-c_\nu\,x_\nu}\; ,
1481: \label{nunum}
1482: \end{eqnarray}
1483: with $\rm N_b$ the total baryon number of the CB,
1484: given by Eq.(\ref{NB}). For a GRB with $\rm n_{CB}$ significant pulses,
1485: the total number of neutrinos is $\rm n_{CB}$ times
1486: larger than that of Eq.(\ref{nunum}).
1487:
1488: In Fig.(\ref{spectrax}b) we show $\rm f_\nu$ as a function of
1489: $\rm x_\nu$ at various $\theta$;
1490: for $\rm z=1$ and $\rm\gamma_{in}=10^4$.
1491: The average fractional $\nu$ energy in the spectrum of Eq.(\ref{nunum})
1492: is $\rm\bar x_\nu=2/c_\nu$, corresponding, for the chosen $\rm z$
1493: and $\rm\gamma_{in}$, to average energies
1494: $\rm\bar E_\nu\sim 712$ GeV
1495: for $\theta=0$, $\rm\bar E_\nu\sim 315$ GeV for
1496: $\rm \theta=1/10^3$,
1497: and $\rm\bar E_\nu\sim 150$ GeV for $\rm \theta=3/10^3$.
1498:
1499: Neutrino oscillations may reduce the flux of $\nu_\mu$s of
1500: Eq.(\ref{nunum}) by as much as a factor of 2 (if they are
1501: maximal) or even 3 (if they are ``bimaximal'').
1502:
1503: \subsection{Muon production on Earth}
1504:
1505: Muon neutrinos produced by a GRB can be detected by large-area
1506: or large-volume detectors, in temporal and directional
1507: coincidence with a GRB $\gamma$-ray signal.
1508: The detection technique typically involves
1509: the ``upward-going'' muons, for which there is no ``atmospheric''
1510: cosmic-ray background.
1511:
1512: A flux of neutrinos traversing rock or ice
1513: interacts with target nuclei N, producing muons
1514: in the process $\rm \nu_\mu + N\to \mu + ...$ In the energy
1515: range of interest here, the inclusive
1516: muon cross-section per target nucleon is:
1517: \begin{equation}
1518: \rm
1519: {d\sigma(E_\nu,E_\mu)\over dE_\mu}\simeq {\sigma_{_{CC}}\over E_\nu}\;
1520: \theta(E_\nu-E_\mu);\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
1521: \sigma_{_{CC}}\simeq 0.8\times 10^{-38}\;cm^2\;{E_\nu\over GeV}\; .
1522: \end{equation}
1523:
1524:
1525: The produced muons lose energy and ``range-out'' in matter
1526: before they decay. At the energies of interest here,
1527: the muon energy loss per unit distance x (in a material
1528: of average atomic number and mass Z and A) can be
1529: approximated by:
1530: \begin{equation}
1531: \rm
1532: -\,{dE\over dx}\equiv R(E)\simeq
1533: {\rho\over\rho_W}\,R_0\,(1+B\,E)\; ,
1534: \label{loss1}
1535: \end{equation}
1536: where $\rho$ is the material's density, $\rm\rho_W$ is 1 g cm$^{-2}$, and
1537: \begin{equation}
1538: \rm R_0\simeq 2.12\;\left[{2\,Z\over A}\right]\;{MeV\over cm};\;\;\;\;\;
1539: B\simeq 0.125\;{Z\over TeV}\; .
1540: \label{loss2}
1541: \end{equation}
1542: In ice or a typical rock material $\rm 2\,Z/A\simeq 1$, and
1543: $\rm Z$ is small enough for the neglect of the B term in Eq.(\ref{loss1}),
1544: at the muon energies we shall encounter ($\rm E_\mu \ll 1$ TeV),
1545: to be a good approximation.
1546:
1547: At a given position x in a target material, an (approximately x-independent)
1548: $\nu_\mu$ flux per unit area $\rm dN_\nu(E_\nu)/dE_\nu\,dA$ gives
1549: rise to a $\mu$ flux $\rm dN_\mu(E_\mu,E_\nu,x)/dE_\nu\,dE_\nu\,dA$
1550: satisfying the equation:
1551: \begin{equation}
1552: \rm
1553: {\partial\over\partial x} \left[{dN_\mu\over dE_\nu\,dE_\nu\,dA}\right]=
1554: \rho\,N_A\;{d\sigma\over dE_\mu}\;
1555: {dN_\nu\over dE_\nu\,dA}
1556: +{dE\over dx}\;{\partial\over\partial E_\mu}
1557: \left[{dN_\mu\over dE_\nu\,dE_\nu\,dA}\right]\; .
1558: \label{muonx}
1559: \end{equation}
1560: For a target thickness much larger than the muon range, an equilibrium
1561: between the produced and slowed-down muons is reached, whereby the muon
1562: flux is independent of position and the l.h.s.~of Eq.(\ref{muonx}) vanishes.
1563: Inserting Eqs.(\ref{loss1}) and (\ref{loss2}) into
1564: Eq.(\ref{muonx}) and integrating, we obtain \cite{DeR}:
1565: \begin{eqnarray}
1566: \rm
1567: {dN_\mu\over dE_\mu\,dA}&=& \rm
1568: \int_{E_\mu} K\;dE_\nu\,{dN_\nu\over dE_\nu\,dA}\,
1569: (E_\nu-E_\mu)\; , \nonumber\\
1570: \rm K &\simeq & \rm
1571: \rho_W\,N_A\,{1\over R_0}
1572: \,{\sigma_{_{CC}}\over E_\nu}\simeq 2.26 \times 10^{-12}\;GeV^{-2}\; .
1573: \label{fluxmu1}
1574: \end{eqnarray}
1575:
1576: Define $\rm x_\mu=E_\mu/E_p$: the ratio of the energy of a muon produced on
1577: Earth to the energy $\rm E_p=m_p\,c^2\,\gamma_{in}$ of the CB's nucleons,
1578: as they enter the SNS.
1579: Substitute the neutrino flux of Eq.(\ref{nunum}) into Eq.(\ref{fluxmu1})
1580: and integrate over neutrino energies to obtain a muon flux
1581: per incident CB:
1582: \begin{eqnarray}
1583: \rm {dn_\mu \over dx_\mu\, d\Omega}&\sim&\rm K\,E_p^2\;
1584: \int_{x_\mu} {dn_\nu \over dx_\nu\, d\Omega}\,(x_\nu-x_\mu)\,dx_\nu\nonumber\\
1585: &=&\rm K\,E_p^2\,{N_b\,B_\nu\over 2\,\pi\, D_L^2}\;(1+z)^4\;
1586: f_\mu(z,\gamma_{in},\theta,x_\nu)\nonumber\\ \rm
1587: f_\mu&=&\rm
1588: \;{2+c_\nu\,x_\mu\over c_\nu^3}\;e^{-c_\nu\,x_\mu}\, ,
1589: \label{muhere}
1590: \end{eqnarray}
1591: with $\rm B_\nu$ and $\rm c_\nu$ as in Eq.(\ref{xtheta3})
1592: and $\rm N_b$ the total baryon number of the CB, Eq.(\ref{NB}).
1593: In Fig.(\ref{spectrax}c) we show $\rm f_\mu$ as a function of
1594: $\rm x_\mu$ at various $\theta$,
1595: for $\rm z=1$ and $\rm\gamma_{in}=10^4$.
1596:
1597:
1598: Very roughly characterize the efficiency of an experiment as
1599: a step function jumping from zero to unity at $\rm E^\mu=E^\mu_{min}$.
1600: The observable number of muons per CB and
1601: per unit area, obtained by integration of Eq.(\ref{muhere}), then is:
1602: \begin{eqnarray}
1603: \rm {dn^T_\mu[x^\mu_{min},\theta]\over d\Omega}&\sim&\rm
1604: {dn^T_\mu[0,0]\over d\Omega}\;G_\mu(z,\gamma_{in},\theta,x^\mu_{min})
1605: \nonumber \\ \rm
1606: G_\mu&=&\rm \left[{(1+z)\,b_\nu\over c_\nu}\right]^4
1607: \;\left(1+{c_\nu\,x^\mu_{min}\over 3}\right)\;e^{-c_\nu\,x^\mu_{min}}\nonumber\\
1608: \rm x^\mu_{min}&\equiv&\rm {E^\mu_{min}\over m_p \,\gamma_{in}}
1609: \nonumber\\ \rm
1610: {dn^T_\mu[0,0]\over d\Omega}
1611: &\simeq&\rm {3.2\times 10^2\over km^2}\,{\overline E_{CB}}\,
1612: \left[{\gamma_{in}\over 10^4}\right]^3\,
1613: \left[{D_L(1)\over D_L(z)}\right]^2\, .
1614: \label{muonseen}
1615: \end{eqnarray}
1616:
1617: In Figs.(\ref{Gmuon}a,b) we show $\rm G_\mu$ as a
1618: function of $\rm x^\mu_{min}$ at various fixed $\theta$, and vice versa;
1619: for $\rm z=1$ and $\rm\gamma_{in}=10^4$. The relatively large flux
1620: $\rm dn^T_\mu[0,0]/ d\Omega$ of Eq.(\ref{muonseen}) is seen
1621: to be very significantly reduced as $\theta$ and/or $\rm x^\mu_{min}$
1622: depart from zero. Once again, for
1623: a GRB with $\rm n_{CB}$ significant pulses,
1624: the total number of muons is $\rm n_{CB}$ times
1625: larger than that of Eq.(\ref{muonseen}), and neutrino oscillations
1626: may reduce the $\nu_\mu$ flux by a factor 2 or 3.
1627:
1628: \section{Angular apertures and observational prospects}
1629:
1630: Barring the case of GRB 980425 ---whose exceptional
1631: properties and their interpretation within the CB model
1632: are discussed in \cite{DD2000b}--- the equivalent spherical energies
1633: of the GRBs with measured redshifts range between
1634: $\sim 2 \times 10^{54}$ erg (GRB 990123) and $\sim 2 \times 10^{51}$ erg
1635: (GRB 970228). The dependence of the GRB flux on the angle $\theta$
1636: subtended by the CB's velocity vector and the line of sight
1637: is given by Eq.(\ref{dfdomega}):
1638: $\rm df/d\Omega\propto (1+\theta^2\,\gamma_{out}^2)^{-3}$.
1639: This $\theta$ dependence is the steepest parameter
1640: dependence of the CB model, see Fig.1 of \cite{DD2000b}.
1641: It is therefore reasonable to attribute the range of observed equivalent
1642: spherical energies to the $\theta$ dependence, as if GRBs were
1643: otherwise approximately standard candles. The observed three orders of
1644: magnitude spread in equivalent energy then corresponds, according
1645: to Eq.(\ref{dfdomega}), to a spread of viewing angles between
1646: $\theta \approx 0$ and $\rm\theta\approx 3/\gamma_{out}$. The cutoff at
1647: the upper angle reflects the sensitivity of past and current observations.
1648:
1649: The energies of the individual GRB $\gamma$-rays and the
1650: GRB fluences indicate CB Lorentz factors $\rm\gamma_{out}\sim 10^3$.
1651: So does an approximately 1:1 SN/GRB association. (The
1652: geometrical fraction of currently observable GRBs, for
1653: $\theta < 3/\gamma$, is $\rm\pi \theta^2 / (4 \pi) \approx 9 / (4 \gamma^2)$.
1654: For $\gamma=10^3$ this fraction precisely reconciles the
1655: SN II, Ib, Ic rate in the observable universe: $12 \pm 5$ s$^{-1}$ \cite{Madau}
1656: with the corresponding GRB rate of $\sim 10^3$ per year.)
1657:
1658: The fluxes of $\nu$-induced muons and of $\gamma$'s
1659: of GRB and EGR energies
1660: have different $\theta$ dependences and the circumstance that GRBs are
1661: currently observed at angles up to
1662: $\rm\theta\sim 3/\gamma_{out}\sim 3\times10^{-3}$ plays an obvious role
1663: in discussing the search for EGR and $\nu$ signals in spatial coincidence
1664: with GRBs. The discussion is summarized
1665: in Figs.(\ref{angdistrrs3}), where we compare the angular apertures of
1666: the three fluxes. The absolute and relative normalizations in these
1667: figures are arbitrary, so that the GRB results, based on
1668: Eq.(\ref{dfdomega}), depend only on $\rm\gamma_{out}$,
1669: chosen to be $10^3$. The EGR results, based on
1670: the second of Eqs.(\ref{photflux2}),
1671: depend also on $\rm z$ (chosen at $\rm z=1$)
1672: and on $\rm E^\gamma_{min}$, taken here to be 50 GeV.
1673: The $\nu$ results, also for $\rm z=1$, are based on the second
1674: of Eqs.(\ref{muonseen}); they are for $\rm \gamma_{in}=10^4$ and
1675: $\rm E^\mu_{min}=50$ GeV.
1676:
1677: According to Figs.(\ref{angdistrrs3}), the EGR
1678: beam, up to very large $\theta$, has a broader tail than the GRB beam.
1679: In practice that means that a detector with the sensitivity to observe
1680: the EGR flux of Eq.(\ref{photflux2}) should find a signal in temporal
1681: and angular coincidence with a large fraction of detected GRBs.
1682: The $\nu_\mu$-induced $\mu$ beam is about an order of magnitude
1683: narrower than the GRB beam in angle, two orders of magnitude
1684: in solid angle. Consequently, a detector with a sensitivity close to
1685: that necessary to observe the $\mu$ flux of Eq.(\ref{muonseen})
1686: would see coincidences with only about one in a hundred intense
1687: GRB events, that is $\sim 1$\% of GRBs in
1688: the upper decade of observable fluences,
1689: for which $\rm \theta\sim 1/\gamma_{out}$.
1690:
1691: To ascertain the observational prospects for EGRs and $\nu$'s,
1692: one would have to convolute our predicted fluxes
1693: with the sensitivities of the many large-area or large-volume
1694: $\nu$ and EGR ``telescopes''
1695: currently planned, deployed or under construction.
1696: We do not have sufficiently detailed information to do so,
1697: but a coarse look at their potential indicates that
1698: testing the CB model will neither be trivial, nor
1699: out of the question. The small area of past detectors with
1700: a capability to see EGRs, such as EGRET, would preclude
1701: the observation of the flux of Eq.(\ref{photflux2}).
1702:
1703: \section{Timing considerations}
1704:
1705: In the cannonball model, each CB crossing the SNS generates
1706: an individual $\gamma$-ray pulse in a GRB light curve. The
1707: complementary statement need not be true: not every
1708: observed pulse necessarily corresponds to a single CB, since
1709: the $\gamma$ rays generated by sufficiently close CBs may
1710: overlap. This can be seen in the two top entries in Fig.(\ref{lightcurves}),
1711: which show the lightcurves of the same ensemble of CBs
1712: crossing two SNSs, which differ only in their density-profile index;
1713: in the case of the more extensive SNS ($\rm n=4$) the various
1714: CBs blend into a single pulse.
1715:
1716:
1717: Each CB should generate three distinct pulses: a GRB pulse,
1718: a $\nu$ pulse and an EGR pulse. The $\nu$ and EGR pulses
1719: are narrower in time than the GRB pulse and they preceed it.
1720: Observed with neutrinos or EGRs, then, a burst has the same
1721: pulse structure as the GRB, but the pulses are shorter and
1722: are precursors of the GRB pulses. We proceed to estimate
1723: the magnitude of these effects, illustrated in Fig.(\ref{lightcurves}).
1724:
1725: For a given density distribution of the SNS, such as that in
1726: Eq.(\ref{profile}), it is possible, though laborious, to explicitly compute the
1727: expected time profile of the neutrino signal. This profile is sensitive
1728: to the shape of $\rm\rho(x)$ at all $\rm x$, including the inner part of the
1729: shell, for which no empirical data are available.
1730: Consequently, we shall only give here approximate results for the
1731: width in time of the $\nu$ signal, and for its timing relative
1732: to the onset of a GRB pulse.
1733:
1734: Let $\rm x_\nu$ be the distance from the SN centre at which the
1735: shell's grammage, as in Eq.(\ref{SNgram}), is half of the total
1736: SNS grammage, that is $\rm x_\nu=R_s\,2^{1/(n-1)}$. The temporal
1737: half-width of the neutrino signal, $\rm t_\nu$, is roughly the time
1738: it takes the CB to reach this point\footnote{The time needed
1739: for the ``last proton'' of the CB to catch up and interact with
1740: the rest of the colliding CB is shorter than $\rm t_\nu$ by a factor $\rm\sim\beta_{in}\,(\gamma_{out}/\gamma_{in})^2\,
1741: R_S/(x_\nu-R_S)$.}. As measured
1742: by the observer, this time is given by the same expression
1743: as Eq.(\ref{ttp}) with the substitution of $\rm x^{tp}_{GRB}$ by
1744: $\rm x_\nu$. The ratio of durations
1745: of a single pulse in neutrinos and in GRB $\gamma$-rays is:
1746: \begin{equation}
1747: \rm
1748: {t_\nu\over t_{GRB}}\sim {x_\nu-R_S\over x^{tp}_{GRB}-R_S}\, .
1749: \label{nufrac}
1750: \end{equation}
1751: For SNS density indices $\rm n=8$, 6 and 4, this ratio is 0.038, 0.029
1752: and 0.013, respectively: the duration of a $\nu$ pulse is a few per cent
1753: of that of an individual GRB pulse.
1754: Neutrinos are emitted from the moment the CB hits the SN shell,
1755: while GRB $\gamma$ rays can only be seen if emitted from the
1756: transparent SNS outer layer. The time difference between the onset
1757: of the corresponding pulses is $\rm \sim t_{GRB}$: a $\nu$ pulse
1758: should precede its corresponding GRB pulse by approximately
1759: the width of the GRB pulse.
1760:
1761: The discussion of the EGR pulse follows analogous lines. The ratio
1762: of EGR and GRB pulse widths is:
1763: \begin{equation}
1764: \rm
1765: {t_{EGR}\over t_{GRB}}\sim {x^{tp}_{EGR}-R_S\over x^{tp}_{GRB}-R_S}\, ,
1766: \label{EGRfrac}
1767: \end{equation}
1768: with $\rm x^{tp}_{EGR}$ given by Eq.(\ref{xtp2}).
1769: For SNS density indices $\rm n=8$, 6 and 4, this ratio is 0.48, 0.42
1770: and 0.29, respectively: the duration of an EGR pulse is shorter than
1771: that of the corresponding GRB pulse by a factor 2 or 3.
1772: The time difference between the onset
1773: of the corresponding pulses is a fraction $\rm 1-{t_{EGR}/ t_{GRB}}$
1774: of the duration of the GRB pulse: an EGR pulse
1775: should preceed its corresponding GRB pulse by 50 to
1776: 70\% of the width of the GRB pulse.
1777:
1778: The light curve of an EGR pulse is proportional to the SNS shell
1779: density, corrected for absorption. For the density profile of Eq.(\ref{profile})
1780: and the corresponding grammage of Eq.(\ref{SNgram}):
1781: \begin{eqnarray}
1782: \rm
1783: {dN_{EGR}\over dt}&\propto& \rm \rho_{_S}(x[t])\;
1784: Exp \left[- \, {X_S (x[t]) \over X_{EGR}} \right]
1785: \nonumber\\ \rm
1786: x[t]&=&\rm {\gamma_{out}\,\delta\over 1+z}\;c\,t\, .
1787: \label{EGRdNdt}
1788: \end{eqnarray}
1789:
1790: The considerations of this section are visualized in Fig.(\ref{lightcurves}),
1791: where we have drawn the light curves of a single GRB in
1792: GRB $\gamma$-rays, in EGRs and in neutrinos. The timing sequence
1793: of the pulses is put in by hand and their normalizations correspond
1794: to (random) values of $\rm\gamma_{out}$ close to $10^3$, see
1795: Eq.(\ref{newenergy}). The two columns of the figure correspond
1796: to $\rm n=8$ and $\rm n=4$. Notice how the EGR pulses precede
1797: the GRB pulses and are narrower: the EGR has a better time
1798: ``resolution''. For neutrinos, this is even more so.
1799:
1800:
1801: \section{Conclusions}
1802:
1803: In the CB model of GRBs, illustrated in Fig.(\ref{model}), cannonballs heated
1804: by a collision with intervening material produce GRBs by
1805: thermal emission, and their electron constituency
1806: generates GRB afterglows by bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation
1807: and inverse Compton up-scattering of these photons
1808: and the cosmic background radiation.
1809: The material CBs hit is an excellent ``beam-dump'',
1810: so that nucleon--nucleon collisions
1811: generate a very intense and collimated flux of neutrinos.
1812: Because of absorption, the emission of energetic
1813: $\gamma$-rays via $\pi^0$ production and decay
1814: is much less efficient, but by no means negligible.
1815:
1816:
1817: The $\nu$ flux has a total energy of the order
1818: of $10^{53}$ erg (roughly 1/3 of the total energy in a jet
1819: of CBs, augmented by the ratio
1820: $\rm \gamma_{out}/\gamma_{in}$, and reduced by the redshift factor).
1821: But individual neutrinos have energies of only a few hundred GeV,
1822: as illustrated in Fig.(\ref{spectrax}),
1823: and their enormous flux will be hard to detect, even though it is
1824: collimated within an angle $\sim 10^{-4}$. The detection in
1825: coincidence with GRBs will be further hampered by the fact
1826: that the GRB angular distribution is broader, as shown in
1827: Fig.(\ref{angdistrrs3}).
1828:
1829: The EGR flux carries roughly as much energy as the
1830: GRB, that is $\rm E^{rest}_{pulse}\,\gamma_{out}\sim 10^{48}$ erg per pulse,
1831: with $\rm E^{rest}_{pulse}$ as in Eq.(\ref{dfdomega}).
1832: The EGR beam, as shown in Fig.(\ref{angdistrrs3}),
1833: is somewhat broader than the GRB beam, so
1834: that the search for coincidences should be fruitful. The typical
1835: energies of EGRs, as illustrated in Fig.(\ref{spectrax}),
1836: are of tens of GeVs, and the relatively high threshold
1837: energies of current large-area detectors should be a limiting issue,
1838: as in the case of neutrinos.
1839:
1840: The pulses of the GRB $\gamma$-rays should be slightly
1841: preceded by narrower pulses of EGRs and by much
1842: narrower pulses of $\nu$'s, as illustrated in Fig.(\ref{lightcurves}).
1843: The CB model, as we have seen, predicts very specific properties and
1844: relations between the GRB, EGR and $\nu$ spectra and light curves.
1845: In this respect, as in many others, the Cannonball
1846: Model is exceptionally falsifiable.
1847:
1848:
1849: \noindent
1850: {\bf Acknowledgement:} This research was supported in part by the
1851: Asher Fund For Space Research and the Fund For Promotion of Research
1852: at the Technion.
1853:
1854:
1855: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1856:
1857: \bibitem{Costa}
1858: E. Costa et al., Nature {\bf 387} (1997) 783.
1859: \bibitem{vP}
1860: J. van Paradijs et al., Nature {\bf 386} (1997) 686.
1861: \bibitem{Galama}
1862: T.J. Galama et al., Nature {\bf 395} (1998) 670.
1863: \bibitem{Metz}
1864: M.R. Metzger et al., Nature {\bf 387} (1997) 878.
1865: \bibitem{PG}
1866: B. Paczynski, Astroph. J. {\bf 308} (1986) L43; J. Goodman,
1867: Astroph. J. {\bf 308} (1986) L47;
1868: J. Goodman, A. Dar and S. Nussinov, Astroph. J. {\bf 314} (1987) L7.
1869: \bibitem{WM}
1870: S.E. Woosley, Astroph. J. {\bf 405} (1993) 273;
1871: S.E. Woosley and A.I. MacFadyen, Astron. and Astroph. {\bf 138} (1999) 499;
1872: A.I. MacFadyen and S.E. Woosley, Astroph. J. {\bf 524} (1999) 168.
1873: \bibitem{Pacz}
1874: B. Paczynski, Astroph. J. {\bf 494} (1998) L45.
1875: \bibitem{AHH}
1876: J. Alvarez-Muniz, F. Halzen and D.W. Hooper,
1877: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62} (2000) 093015, and references therein.
1878: \bibitem{SD}
1879: N.J. Shaviv and A. Dar, Astroph. J. {\bf 447} (1995) 863.
1880: \bibitem{Dar98}
1881: A. Dar, Astroph. J. {\bf 500} (1998) L93.
1882: \bibitem{DP}
1883: A. Dar and R. Plaga, Astron. and Astroph. {\bf 340} (1999) 259.
1884: \bibitem{DD2000a}
1885: A. Dar and A. De R\'ujula, astro-ph/0008474,
1886: and references therein.
1887: \bibitem{DDD}
1888: S. Dado, A. Dar, R. Plaga and A. De R\'ujula, {\it Optical Afterglows of GRBs
1889: in the Cannonball Model}, to be published.
1890: \bibitem{Darz}
1891: A. Dar, Gamma Ray Communication Network report
1892: No. 346 (1999), gcncirc@lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov.
1893: \bibitem{Reic}
1894: D. Reichart, Astroph. J. {\bf 521} (1999) L111.
1895: \bibitem{Galamab}
1896: T.J. Galama et al., Astroph. J. {\bf 536} (2000) 185.
1897: \bibitem{Sok}
1898: V. Sokolov et al., astro-ph/0102492, Astron. and Astroph, in press.
1899: \bibitem{Holl}
1900: S. Holland et al., astro-ph/0103058, Am. Astron. Soc. 197 (2000) 63.03.
1901: \bibitem{Hj}
1902: J. Hjorth et al., Astroph. J. {\bf 534} (2000) L147.
1903: \bibitem {Sahu}
1904: K.C. Sahu et al., Astroph. J. {\bf 540} (2000) 74.
1905: \bibitem{CT}
1906: A.J. Castro-Tirado et al., astro-ph/0102077, submitted to Astron. and Astroph.
1907: \bibitem{DD2000b}
1908: A. Dar and A. De R\'ujula, astro-ph/0012227.
1909: \bibitem{DD2001}
1910: A. Dar and A. De R\'ujula, astro-ph/0102115.
1911: \bibitem{MR}
1912: I.F. Mirabel and L.F. Rodriguez, Nature {\bf 371} (1994) 46, Ann. Rev.
1913: Astron. and Astroph. {\bf 37} (1999) 409, astro-ph/0007010;
1914: L.F. Rodriguez and I.F. Mirabel, Astroph. J. {\bf 511} (1999) 398.
1915: \bibitem{Ghis}
1916: G. Ghisellini et al., Astroph. J. {\bf 407} (1993) 65.
1917: \bibitem{Ked}
1918: L. Kedziora-Chudczer et al., Advances in Space Research {\bf 26} (2000) 727.
1919: \bibitem{Marg}
1920: B. A. Margon, Ann. Rev. Astron. and Astroph. {\bf 22} (1984) 507.
1921: \bibitem{Kot}
1922: T. Kotani et al., Pubs. of the Astron. Soc. of Japan
1923: {\bf 48} (1996) 619.
1924: %\bibitem{GRBSN}
1925: %Other guys who have written later on SN/GRB associations
1926: \bibitem{LL}
1927: A.G. Lyne and D.R. Lorimer, Nature {\bf 369} (1994) 127.
1928: \bibitem{Celo}
1929: A. Celotti at al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astron..
1930: Soc. {\bf 286} (1997) 415.
1931: \bibitem{Ghi}
1932: G. Ghisellini, astro-ph/0012125.
1933: \bibitem{Naka}
1934: see, for instance, T. Nakamura et al., astro-ph/0007010.
1935: \bibitem{Groom}
1936: see, for instance, D.E. Groom et al.,
1937: {\it Review of Particle Physics}, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C15} (2000) 1.
1938: \bibitem{FF}
1939: R. Fusco-Fumiano et al., Astroph. J. {\bf 513} (1999) L21;
1940: J.S. Kaastra et al., Astroph. J. {\bf 519} (1999) L119.
1941: \bibitem{YF}
1942: Y. Fuzukawa et al., astro-ph/00011257
1943: \bibitem{SNR} For Cas A, see, for instance,
1944: G.E. Allen et al., Astroph. J. {\bf 487} (1997) L97;
1945: F. Favata et al., Astron. and Astroph. {\bf 324} (1997) L49;
1946: L.S. The et al., Astron. and Astroph. Supplement {\bf 120} (1996) 357.
1947: For IC 443, see, for instance, J.W. Keohane et al.,
1948: Astroph. J. {\bf 484} (1997) 350.
1949: For RCW 86, see G.E. Allen et al., American Astron. Soc.
1950: {\bf 193} (1998) 51.01.
1951: \bibitem{Bailly}
1952: J.L. Bailly et al., Z. Phys. {\bf C35} (1987) 309.
1953: \bibitem{Neu} For a review, see, for instance,
1954: G. Giacomelli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A5} (1990) 223.
1955: \bibitem{BaBre}
1956: D.S. Barton et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D27} (1983) 2580;
1957: A.E. Brenner et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D26} (1982) 1497.
1958: \bibitem{DeR}
1959: A. De R\'ujula et al., Phys. Rep. {\bf 99} (1983) 341.
1960: \bibitem{Madau}
1961: P. Madau, M. Della Valle and N. Panagia,
1962: Month. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. {\bf 297} (1998) L17.
1963: \end{thebibliography}{}
1964:
1965: \begin{figure}
1966: \begin{center}
1967: \vspace*{1.0cm}
1968: \hspace*{-1cm}
1969: \epsfig{file=model5.ps,width=12cm}
1970: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1971: \caption{The CB model in a SN environment, not shown to scale.
1972: Relativistic CBs are emitted by a compact object
1973: accreting matter from a disk and/or torus.
1974: They hit a SN shell generating $\nu$'s,
1975: quasi-thermal radiation
1976: (the GRB) and $\gamma$-rays from $\pi^0$ decay
1977: (the EGRs). The latter two exit only from the
1978: transparent outer layers of the SN shell.}
1979: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1980: \label{model}
1981: \end{center}
1982: \end{figure}
1983:
1984:
1985: \begin{figure}
1986: \begin{center}
1987: \vspace*{1.0cm}
1988: \hspace*{-1cm}
1989: \epsfig{file=lumdis.ps,width=14cm}
1990: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
1991: \caption{Luminosity distances and ratios thereof, as functions of redshift,
1992: for two $\Omega=1$ Friedman universes, with
1993: two choices of matter and vacuum densities.}
1994: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
1995: \label{lumdis}
1996: \end{center}
1997: \end{figure}
1998:
1999: \begin{figure}
2000: \begin{center}
2001: \vspace*{1.0cm}
2002: \hspace*{-1cm}
2003: \epsfig{file=spectrax.ps,width=11 cm}
2004: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
2005: \caption{EGR, neutrino and muon fluxes, at various fixed observation
2006: angles $\theta$, as functions of the fractional momentum of the
2007: observed particle, at redshift unity. The functions
2008: $\rm f_\gamma(z,\gamma_{out},\theta,x_\gamma)$ of Eq.(\ref{photnum}),
2009: for $\rm\gamma_{out}=10^3$, and
2010: $\rm f_{\nu,\mu}(z,\gamma_{out},\theta,x_{\nu,\mu})$ of
2011: Eqs.(\ref{nunum}, \ref{muhere}), both
2012: for $\rm\gamma_{in}=10^4$, are depicted.}
2013: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
2014: \label{spectrax}
2015: \end{center}
2016: \end{figure}
2017:
2018: \begin{figure}
2019: \begin{center}
2020: \vspace*{1.0cm}
2021: \hspace*{-1cm}
2022: \epsfig{file=Ggamma.ps,width=14cm}
2023: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
2024: \caption{The function $\rm G_\gamma$ of Eq.(\ref{photflux2}), for
2025: $\rm z=1$ and $\rm \gamma_{out}=10^3$. Top: As a function of
2026: $\rm x_{min}$ at various fixed $\theta$. Bottom: vice versa.}
2027: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
2028: \label{Ggamma}
2029: \end{center}
2030: \end{figure}
2031:
2032: \begin{figure}
2033: \begin{center}
2034: \vspace*{1.0cm}
2035: \hspace*{-1cm}
2036: \epsfig{file=Gmuon.ps,width=14cm}
2037: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
2038: \caption{The function $\rm G_\mu$ of Eq.(\ref{muonseen}), for
2039: $\rm z=1$ and $\rm \gamma_{in}=10^4$. Top: As a function of
2040: $\rm x_{min}$ at various fixed $\theta$. Bottom: vice versa.}
2041: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
2042: \label{Gmuon}
2043: \end{center}
2044: \end{figure}
2045:
2046: \begin{figure}
2047: \begin{center}
2048: \vspace*{1.0cm}
2049: \hspace*{-1cm}
2050: \epsfig{file=angdistrs3.ps,width=14cm}
2051: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
2052: \caption{Comparisons of angular distributions of
2053: GRB photons, EGR photons and $\nu$-produced muons
2054: in water or ice. In the upper graph, the normalizations
2055: of the three curves are arbitrary. In the lower one,
2056: they are all normalized to unity at $\theta=0$.}
2057: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
2058: \label{angdistrrs3}
2059: \end{center}
2060: \end{figure}
2061:
2062: \begin{figure}
2063: \begin{center}
2064: \vspace*{1.0cm}
2065: \hspace*{-1cm}
2066: \epsfig{file=lightcurves.ps,width=11.6cm}
2067: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
2068: \caption{A ``synthetic'' $\gamma$-ray burst consisting
2069: of five CBs with $\rm\gamma_{out}$ within a factor
2070: of 2 of $\rm\gamma_{out}=10^3$, with other parameters
2071: at their reference values. The CBs are fired at random times in a
2072: 2.5 s interval. The two columns are for SNS
2073: density indices $\rm n=8$ and 4. Top: the event seen
2074: in the 30 keV to 1 MeV GRB domain. Middle: seen
2075: in EGRs from $\pi^0$ decay. Bottom: the neutrino signal.}
2076: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
2077: \label{lightcurves}
2078: \end{center}
2079: \end{figure}
2080:
2081: \end{document}
2082: