1:
2: %Version that Arnon sends me (25/4/02) as last one used
3: % aa.dem
4: % AA vers. 4.01, LaTeX class for Astronomy & Astrophysics
5: % demonstration file
6: % (c) Springer-Verlag HD
7: %------------------------------------------------------
8: %
9: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}
10: % for a referee version
11: %
12: \documentclass[article]{aa}
13: \usepackage{epsfig,deluxe}
14: %
15: \begin{document}
16:
17:
18: \newcommand{\gsim}{\hbox{\rlap{$^>$}$_\sim$}}
19: \thesaurus{06; 19.63.1}
20: % A&A Section 6: Form. struct. and evolut. of stars}
21: % \thesaurus{06 % A&A Section 6: Form. struct. and evolut. of stars
22: % (03.11.1; % Cosmogony,
23: % 16.06.1; % Planets and satellites: general,
24: % 19.37.1; % Stars: formation of,
25: % 19.53.1; % Stars: oscillations of,
26: % 19.63.1)} % Stars: structure of.
27: %
28: \authorrunning{S. Dado, A. Dar \& A. De R\'ujula}
29: \titlerunning{Afterglows of GRBs}
30: \title{On the Optical and X-ray Afterglows of Gamma Ray Bursts}
31:
32: \author{Shlomo Dado$^{^1}$, Arnon Dar$^{^1}$ and
33: A. De R\'ujula$^{^2}$}
34: \institute{1. Physics Department and Space Research Institute, Technion\\
35: Haifa 32000, Israel\\
36: 2. Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
37:
38:
39: \maketitle
40:
41: \begin{abstract}
42: We severely criticize the consuetudinary analysis of the
43: afterglows of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) in the conical-ejection
44: fireball scenarios. We argue that, instead, recent
45: observations imply that the long-duration GRBs
46: and their afterglows are produced by highly relativistic jets of
47: cannonballs (CBs) emitted in supernova explosions.
48: The CBs are heated by their collision with the supernova shell.
49: The GRB is the boosted surface radiation the CBs emit as they reach
50: the transparent outskirts of the shell.
51: The exiting CBs further decelerate by sweeping up
52: interstellar matter (ISM). The early X-ray afterglow is dominated by thermal
53: bremsstrahlung from the cooling CBs, the optical afterglow by synchrotron
54: radiation from the ISM electrons swept up by the CBs.
55: We show that this model fits simply and remarkably
56: well all the measured optical afterglows of the 15 GRBs with known
57: redshift, including that of GRB 990123, for which unusually prompt
58: data are available. We demonstrate that GRB 980425 was a normal
59: GRB produced by SN1998bw, with standard X-ray and optical afterglows.
60: We find that the very peculiar afterglow of GRB 970508
61: can be explained if its CBs encountered a significant
62: jump in density as they moved through the ISM.
63: The afterglows of the nearest 8 of the known-redshift GRBs
64: show various degrees of evidence for an association
65: with a supernova akin to SN1998bw. In all other cases such an
66: association, even if present, would have been undetectable
67: with the best current photometric sensitivities.
68: This gives strong support to the proposition that most, maybe all,
69: of the long-duration GRBs are associated with supernovae.
70: Though our emphasis is on optical afterglows, we also
71: provide an excellent description of X-ray afterglows.
72:
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75: \keywords{gamma rays bursts, supernovae, optical afterglow, X-ray afterglow}
76:
77:
78: \section{Introduction}
79:
80: Our information about the once totally mysterious gamma-ray bursts (GRBs)
81: has increased spectacularly in the past few years.
82: The rapid directional localization of gamma-ray bursts by the
83: satellites BeppoSAX (e.g. Costa et al.~1997), Rossi (e.g. Levine et al.~1996)
84: and by the Inter-Planetary Network (IPN) of the spacecrafts Ulysses,
85: Konus-Wind and NEAR (e.g. Cline et al.~1999) led to
86: a flurry of progress: the discovery of
87: long-duration GRB afterglows (Costa et al.~1997; Van Paradijs et al.~1998);
88: the discovery of the GRBs' host galaxies (Sahu et al.~1997a);
89: the measurement of their redshifts (Metzger et al.~1997b) that verified their
90: cosmological origin (e.g. Paczynski 1986; Meegan et al.~1992); the
91: identification of their birthplaces ---mainly star formation regions in
92: normal galaxies (e.g. Paczynski 1998; Holland and Hjorth 1999)---
93: and the first evidence for a possible association between GRBs and supernova
94: explosions (Galama et al.~1998a).
95:
96: The enormous isotropic energies inferred from the redshifts and fluences of GRBs
97: and their short-time variability have indicated that
98: the GRBs must be produced by gravitational stellar collapse (Goodman et
99: al. 1987, Dar et al.~1992). The prevalent belief is that they are
100: generated by synchrotron emission from relativistic fireballs produced by
101: mergers of compact stars (Paczynski 1986; Goodman 1986; Goodman et al.~1987),
102: by hypernova explosions (Paczynski 1998), or by relativistic
103: ``firecones'' (e.g. Rhoads 1997, 1999) from collapsars or failed supernovae
104: (Woosley 1993; Woosley \& MacFadyen 1999; MacFadyen
105: \& Woosley 1999; MacFadyen et al.~2001). But various observations,
106: including in particular the ones
107: we shall extensively discuss here, strongly suggest that most of the
108: long-duration GRBs are produced in supernova events (Dar \& De R\'ujula
109: 2000a and references therein) by highly collimated
110: superluminal jets (e.g. Shaviv \& Dar 1995; Dar 1997; Dar \& Plaga 1999).
111:
112: Various authors (e.g. Rhoads 1997, 1999; MacFadyen and Woosley 1999;
113: Sari et al.~1999) have merged the notion that GRBs are produced by
114: highly relativistic jets (e.g. Brainerd 1992; Woosley 1993;
115: Shaviv \& Dar 1995; Dar 1997; Dar 1998a;
116: Dar \& Plaga 1999) with the popular fireball
117: models of GRBs (see, e.g. Piran 1999 and references therein)
118: to morphe the concept of ``firecones'' or similar denominations.
119: Firecone considerations are used to analyze ``breaks'' in GRB
120: afterglows (Rhoads 1997, 1999; Sari et al.~1999; Frail et al.~2001) and to
121: extract properties of the GRB engine and ejecta (Frail et al.~2001, and
122: references therein).
123: The fireball idea that all radiation from GRBs originates from
124: colliding shocks is certainly interesting and worth studying.
125: But, concerning the evolution of AGs,
126: the idea remains essentially untested, given the cavalier
127: treatment it has received in much of the recent literature. In
128: Section 2 we explain this harsh opinion.
129:
130: In recent papers the idea of jetted, supernova-associated
131: GRBs was made entirely explicit with the introduction of a
132: relativistic cannonball (CB) model of GRB production in supernova
133: explosions (Dar \& De R\'ujula 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2001b, hereafter
134: DD2000a, etc.). The CB model is completely different from the firecone scenarios,
135: as we explain in Section 2. The CB model, we contend, explains the
136: main observed features of long-duration GRBs and of their afterglows. In
137: particular, in DD2000b, we have demonstrated that the CB model predicts
138: the temporal and spectral properties of the bursts of
139: $\gamma$-rays correctly.
140:
141: In this paper we derive the detailed predictions of the CB model for the GRB
142: optical afterglows (AGs), which we only sketched in DD2000a.
143: We compare the predictions, which are analytic in fair
144: approximations, with the observed optical
145: AG of all the GRBs with known redshift. We show that the CB model
146: describes remarkably well these optical AGs, as well as the measured
147: X-ray AGs of these GRBs.
148:
149: Our detailed analysis of the AGs allows us to show how the
150: nearest eight GRBs with measured redshift show varying degrees of
151: evidence of an association
152: with a supernova (SN) akin to SN1998bw: superimposed on the smooth
153: AG of these GRBs one can discern the light curve of SN1998bw,
154: adequately translated and red-shifted in luminosity distance, time-dependence
155: and spectrum (e.g. Dar 1998b; DD2000a). In all other
156: cases, either there are no late-time measurements of the optical
157: AG, or the SN contribution is too dim to be resolved from the late
158: GRB afterglow or the host galaxy light, even by the HST or the most powerful
159: ground-based telescopes.
160:
161:
162:
163: In spite of the fact that we use similar vocabulary in what concerns
164: the GRB engine (which is quite irrelevant to the AG properties
165: discussed here) the CB model is completely different from the collapsar
166: model of GRBs (Woosley 1993; Woosley \& MacFadyen 1999; MacFadyen and
167: Woosley 1999; MacFadyen et al.~2001). The crucial differences are
168: explained in DD2000a and DD2000b. One of them is that
169: we use empirical facts as our guiding line, rather than the results of
170: simulations that fail to explode SNe and lack a proper treatment
171: of features that are no doubt relevant (relativistic dynamics,
172: angular momentum and its transport, magnetic fields).
173: Concerning AGs, the CB model does have a predecessor,
174: the ``plasmoid model'',
175: of Chiang \& Dermer (1997). The CB model, however, differs in many
176: crucial details; it is more complete and, unlike the plasmoid model, it
177: is very successful in describing the observations.
178:
179:
180: We devote sections 3 to 6, to make the paper self-contained,
181: to a brief review of the CB model. The novel theoretical core of
182: the paper is in sections 7 to 10. We propose there, in particular,
183: a simple mechanism governing the pace of radial expansion
184: of a CB. The mechanism naturally explains the fact, observed in
185: quasar and microquasar ejections, that {\it cannonballs}, faithful
186: to their name, essentially stop expanding at some point of their
187: voyage. We also derive predictions, which turn out to be in
188: disagreement with observations, for the case of CBs that would
189: continuously expand in an inertial manner.
190: The remaining sections are devoted to the description of
191: the AG data in the CB model, to a detailed comparison
192: with observations, which turns out to be extremely successful,
193: and to the extraction of conclusions.
194:
195: Three GRBs deserve special mention in their CB model interpretation.
196: GRB 980425 turns out to be entirely ``normal'', it is uncommonly
197: near ($\rm z=0.0085$) but its emitted CBs are observed at an unusually large
198: angle, giving it a normal $\gamma$-ray fluence. This interpretation (DD2000a)
199: is strengthened by the fact that we successfully predict its
200: optical AG (dominated up to 20 months by SN1998bw) from its
201: X-ray AG, which is entirely due to the CBs, and normal.
202: GRB 970508 has an extremely peculiar AG light curve, which
203: can be easily explained, but only if its CBs encountered a significant jump
204: in density as they moved through the ISM.
205: There are uncommonly early
206: data on the optical AG of GRB 990123, which
207: fit the expectations for CBs that are moving through the wind
208: of the parent star, in its Wolf-Rayet phase.
209:
210:
211: \section{Uses and abuses of fireballs}
212:
213: In this section we place the CB model of GRB afterglows in the perspective of
214: the generally accepted views on the subject, which are based on the ``fireball''
215: model and on modifications thereof. This serves a double purpose:
216: it clarifies how completely different the CB model is from the fireball
217: ones, and it shows how unconvincing a fraction of the fireball literature is.
218:
219: In the fireball model, reviewed in Piran (1999, 2000) and Meszaros (2001),
220: both the $\gamma$-rays and the AG of a GRB are made by
221: synchrotron radiation in inward- and outward-moving shocks, which
222: are produced as relativistically expanding shells collide with each other
223: and with interstellar material. The attitude is often espoused
224: that the actual engine producing these colliding
225: ejecta need not always be explicitly discussed. The possibility
226: that the ejecta may not be spherically distributed has been repeatedly
227: studied in the literature, but, in the fireball model, this was not done
228: in detail prior to the influential papers of Rhoads (1997, 1999), who predicted
229: abrupt breaks in the power law of the AG light curves.
230: With the advent of GRB 990123, with its record equivalent spherical
231: energy (see Table I) and an AG light curve through which it is
232: possible to draw a broken power law (e.g. Figs. 1--4 of Holland et al.~2000a)
233: the fireball advocates (see, e.g. Frail et al.~2001) adopted the
234: arguments in favour of collimated GRBs (e.g. in the case of
235: GRBs from quasars, Brainerd 1992; in the case of a funnel in
236: an explosion, Meszaros \&
237: Rees 1992; and in the case of jets in gravitational collapses,
238: Shaviv \& Dar 1995, Dar 1997, Dar 1998a; Dar \& Plaga 1999, DD2000a and
239: references therein). So have fireballs evolved into ``collimated fireballs'',
240: ``firecones'' or ``conical fireball jets'', while maintaining the ``fire''
241: lineage.
242:
243: Consider first a proper (i.e. spherical) fireball expanding in a homogeneous
244: (or spherically symmetric) medium. A conical section
245: of this fireball would expand as a fixed-angle cone: a {\it firecone}.
246: Consider next material that is ejected with a conical distribution.
247: If the cone expands laterally
248: at a transverse velocity $\rm v_T$, its opening angle, as viewed
249: from the origin of the ejecta, increases with time.
250: As illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{figtrumpet}a) the edges of the material
251: describe a trumpet-shaped curve, not a fixed-aperture {\it cone},
252: as some of the names given to it may induce one to think.
253: We call these ``firecones'' or ``conical fireball jets''
254: {\it firetrumpets}, since, for $\rm v_t\neq 0$, that is what they are.
255:
256: Let $\rm\gamma(t)$
257: be the Lorentz factor of the ejecta, that diminishes with time
258: as they collide with ambient material. The light emitted by an
259: element of a firetrumpet's surface is collimated by its motion
260: into an angle of aperture $1/\gamma$.
261: If $\rm v_T/\gamma$ were constant, the firetrumpet's opening angle
262: would vary as:
263: \begin{equation}
264: \rm \theta_j(t)=\theta_j(0)+{v_T\over c\,\gamma}\, .
265: \label{jetangle}
266: \end{equation}
267: At the time $\rm t=t_b$ at which $\rm \theta_j(t)=1/\gamma(t)$, the angle of
268: emission of light becomes broader than the angle of the cone (Rhoads 1997, 1999). Thereafter the forward light-collimation
269: is less efficient, an on-axis observer would see up to the
270: edge of the cone, and no longer an increasing fraction of the ejecta
271: (Meszaros et al. 1999).
272: At early times $\rm t<t_{exp}$, the lateral expansion of the firetrumpet
273: may not be important and the ejecta's deceleration as it plunges
274: through constant-density material results
275: ---as it would for a fixed-angle cone--- in
276: $\rm\gamma(r)\propto r^{-3/2}$, with $\rm r(t)$ the travelled distance,
277: while at later times
278: $\rm\gamma(r)\propto exp[-r/r_{exp}]$. Rhoads assumes that these
279: two transitions occur at the same time ($\rm t_b=t_{exp}$) and
280: that they are abrupt, leading to a {\it break}: a sudden increase
281: in the index $\alpha$ of an AGs' power-law evolution, $\rm F\propto t^{-\alpha}$.
282: The break-time is estimated as the time at which a cone which
283: is {\it not} laterally expanding decelerates to $\rm \gamma(t)=1/\theta_0$.
284:
285:
286: Sari et al.~(1999) change some of the parameters used by Rhoads
287: (notably $\rm v_t=c/\sqrt{3}$ to $\rm v_T=c$) and invert
288: $\rm t_b(\theta_j(0))$ to obtain $\rm \theta_j(t_b)$:
289: \begin{equation}
290: \rm \rm \theta_j(t_b) \simeq \theta_j(0)
291: =0.1\,\left[{t_b\over 6.2\;h}\,{n_1\over E_{52}}\right]^{3\over 8}\,
292: \label{Sari}
293: \end{equation}
294: where $\rm n_1$ is the local density in cm$^{-3}$ and $\rm E_{52}$
295: is the ejecta's energy in $10^{52}$ erg units.
296:
297: While these theoretical developments were taking place, more than a dozen
298: (mainly R-band) optical AGs were being observed. They
299: did not have abrupt breaks. The observers
300: (GRB 990123: Fruchter et al.~1999a, Castro-Tirado et al.~1999b,
301: Kulkarni et al.~1999; GRB 990510: Stanek et al.~1999,
302: Harrison et al.~1999, Israel et al.~1999; GRB 990705: Masetti et al.~2000;
303: GRB 991208: Castro-Tirado et al.~2001;
304: GRB 991216: Halpern et al.~2000a; GRB 000301c: Sagar et al.~2000b,
305: Jensen et al.~2000; GRB 000418: Berger et al.~2001; GRB 000926: Fynbo
306: et al.~2001, Sagar et al.~2001a; GRB 010222: Masetti et al.~2001,
307: Stanek et al.~2001) fitted the
308: slow steepening of AG fluences to phenomenological formulae such as:
309: \begin{equation}
310: \rm F_\nu = {2\,F_\nu^b \over
311: \left[ (t/t_b)^{\alpha_1\,s}+(t/t_b)^{\alpha_2\,s}\right]^{1\over s}}\, ,
312: \label{pheno}
313: \end{equation}
314: which interpolate
315: between two power laws with a tunable ``abruptness'' $\rm s$,
316: often set at $\rm s=1$.
317: The values of $\rm t_b$ extracted from these fits, and their
318: distributions, have no clear
319: meaning, since different groups use different parametrizations,
320: and none of them is theoretically justified.
321:
322: Moderski et al.~(2000), Huang at al. (2000a,b),
323: Kumar \& Panaitescu ( 2000) and
324: Panaitescu \& Kumar (2001) have modelled the
325: light emitted by a firetrumpet without some of the approximations
326: introduced by Rhoads. The evolution of the ejecta's deceleration
327: is treated continuously. The emission is computed from isochronous
328: points in the firetrumpet, so that light simultaneously received
329: is light that had been simultaneously emitted
330: (lifting the prior ``approximation'' that the speed of light is infinite).
331: Not having an abrupt break put in by hand,
332: no abrupt break is predicted. The fair conclusion is that
333: the light curves are too smooth to allow for a determination
334: of a break time $\rm t_b$ (Moderski et al. 2000).
335:
336: {\it All the firetrumpet advocates place the
337: observer precisely on the jet's axis}, as in Fig.~(\ref{figtrumpet}a),
338: for no stated reason. It is obvious that the viewing
339: angle is a relevant parameter that cannot be unceremoniously dismissed.
340: In particular a non-vanishing viewing angle would contribute
341: to erase even further any trace of a sharp break.
342: Moreover, a distribution of viewing angles would completely erase
343: a possible meaning to the distribution of specific $\rm t_b$ values extracted
344: from expressions such as Eqs.~(\ref{Sari}) and (\ref{pheno}).
345:
346: The hypothetical firetrumpet ejecta behave in a
347: different way from most of the highly relativistic jets observed
348: in quasars (e.g. radio jets:
349: Bridle 2000; optical jets: Cranc et al.~1993; X-ray jets: Wilson et al.~2000)
350: and microquasars (e.g. Mirabel \& Rodriguez
351: 1994, 1999). The ejecta of the real jets, as seen from their emission
352: point up to the point where they eventually stop and expand, generally
353: subtend angles that {\it decrease} with time, exactly the opposite
354: of the assumed firetrumpet behaviour of Eq.~(\ref{jetangle})
355: and Fig.~(\ref{figtrumpet}a).
356: In the analysis of these real objects (e.g. Pearsons \&
357: Zensus 1987; Mirabel \& Rodriguez 1994, 1999; Ghisellini \& Celotti
358: 2001) it is the angle of observation ---and not the angle subtended by
359: the ejecta--- that plays a key role.
360:
361: Frail et al.~(2001)
362: use the published values of $\rm t_b$ ---fit to expressions such as
363: Eq.~(\ref{pheno})--- to extract a set of values of $\rm \theta_j(0)$.
364: In so doing they use a modified Eq.~(\ref{Sari}), in which the dependence
365: on redshift and on the efficiency of light production are not overlooked.
366: In this way they reach a series of conclusions that their analysis
367: does not justify.
368:
369: The firetrumpet model may, to some extent, be correct. We have seen that,
370: alas, the consequences of its basic assumptions have not been properly
371: extracted. In particular, the ``anthropo-axial'' view that the
372: ejecta of the observed AGs always point to the observer has not been shown
373: to be a fair approximation.
374:
375: In Fig.~(\ref{figtrumpet}b) we illustrate the geometry of the CB model.
376: In the AG phase, the CBs are expanding very slowly, or
377: not at all (DD2000a), like the observed ejecta
378: in quasars and microquasars. In contradistinction to
379: the firetrumpet case of Eq.~(\ref{jetangle}),
380: the angle with which the CBs are viewed from the origin
381: {\it decreases} with time. But this angle is irrelevant, and
382: negligible relative to the opening angle $1/\gamma$ of the
383: emitted light. The angle at which the ejected CBs are viewed
384: is obviously relevant and we do not
385: set it to zero by fiat.
386:
387:
388:
389: \section{The cannonball model of GRBs}
390:
391: In the CB model, long-duration GRBs and their AGs are produced in
392: core collapse supernovae by jets of highly relativistic ``cannonballs''
393: that pierce through the supernova shell. The detailed model is based
394: essentially on the following analogies, hypotheses and explicit
395: calculations:
396:
397: \subsection{Relativistic jets in astrophysics}
398:
399: Astrophysical systems, such as quasars and
400: microquasars, in which periods of intense accretion onto a compact
401: massive object occur, emit highly collimated relativistic jets of plasma.
402: The Lorentz factor $\rm
403: \gamma\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ of these jets ranges from mildly
404: relativistic: $\gamma\sim 2.55$ for GRS 1915+105 (Mirabel \& Rodriguez
405: 1994, 1999), to quite
406: relativistic: $\gamma={\cal{O}}\,(10)$ for typical quasars (e.g. Ghisellini
407: et al.~1993), and even to highly relativistic: $\gamma\sim 10^3$ for PKS
408: 0405$-$385 (Kedziora-Chudczer et al.~1997). These jets are not continuous
409: streams of matter, but consist of individual blobs, or ``cannonballs''.
410: (e.g. Kraft et al. 2001). The mechanism producing these
411: surprisingly energetic and collimated emissions is not understood, but it
412: seems to operate pervasively in nature (In Section 7 we propose a
413: mechanism capable of collimating CBs). We assume the CBs to be composed
414: of ordinary ``baryonic'' matter (as opposed to $\rm e^+\, e^-$ pairs), as
415: is the case in the microquasar SS 433, from which Ly$_\alpha$ and metal
416: K$_\alpha$ lines have been detected (e.g. Margon 1984, Kotani et al.~1996).
417:
418: \subsection{The GRB/SN association}
419: There is mounting evidence
420: for an association of supernova
421: explosions of type Ib/Ic and GRBs (DD2000a). The first example was GRB
422: 980425 (Soffitta et al.~1998; Kippen et al. 1998), within whose error circle
423: SN1998bw was soon detected optically (Galama et al.~1998a)
424: and at radio frequencies (Kulkarni et al.~1998a). The chance probability
425: for a spatial and temporal coincidence is less than $10^{-4}$
426: (e.g. Galama et al.~1998a), or much smaller if the revised BeppoSAX position
427: (e.g. Pian et al. 1999) is used in the estimate
428: (we shall show that the observed X-rays originate in the CBs of this
429: GRB, and not on the associated SN). The unusual radio
430: (Kulkarni et al.~1998a; Wieringa et al.~1999) and
431: optical (Galama et al.~1998a; Iwamoto et al.~1998) properties of SN1998bw
432: support this association. The exceptionally small fluence
433: and redshift of GRB 980425 make this event very peculiar, though
434: not in the CB model (DD2000a).
435: The energy supply in a SN event similar to SN 1998bw is too small to
436: accommodate the fluence of cosmological GRBs, unless their $\gamma$-rays
437: are highly beamed. SN 1998bw is a peculiar supernova, perhaps
438: because it is observed close to the axis of its GRB emission.
439:
440: Evidence for a SN1998bw-like contribution to a GRB afterglow (Dar 1999a;
441: Castro-Tirado \& Gorosabel 1999) was first found by Bloom et al.~(1999a) for
442: GRB 980326, but the unknown redshift prevented a quantitative analysis.
443: The AG of GRB 970228 (located at redshift $\rm z=0.695$) appears to
444: be overtaken by a light curve akin to that of SN1998bw (located at $\rm
445: z_{bw}=0.0085$), when properly scaled by their differing redshifts (Dar
446: 1999b; Reichart 1999; Galama et al.~2000). Evidence of similar
447: associations was found for GRB 990712 (Hjorth et al.~2000a; Sahu et
448: al.~2000; Bjornsson et al.~2001), GRB 980703 (Holland et al.~2000b), GRB
449: 000418
450: (DD2000a), GRB 991208 (Castro-Tirado et al.~2001) and GRB 990510 (Sokolov et
451: al. 2001a). For the remaining cases in Table I, corresponding to
452: %the observational data
453: %preclude a conclusion, for one or more reasons: the late AG has not
454: %been measured; $\rm F_{bw}[\nu']$ is not known for large $\rm \nu'\simeq
455: %\nu\,(1+z)$; the GRB's afterglow or the host galaxy are much brighter than
456: %the SN.
457: GRBs with larger redshifts, either no late
458: observations of the AG are available, or the expected
459: SN bump is an unobservably small effect. These conclusions
460: will be strengthened by our detailed analysis of AGs
461: in the CB model. All of the nearest GRBs with
462: measured redshifts show various degrees of evidence for a
463: supernova in their AG, suggesting the possibility of an association of
464: {\it all} the long-duration GRBs with core-collapse SNe.
465:
466: \subsection{The SN/GRB association}
467:
468: By a SN/GRB association ---as opposed to the GRB/SN association
469: we have discussed--- we mean the converse statement to that ending
470: the last subsection: that most SNe of certain relatively
471: frequent types may be associated with GRBs. This
472: appears at first sight to be entirely untenable. The total rate of type
473: II/Ib/Ic SNe has been estimated from their observed rate in the local
474: Universe (e.g. Van den Bergh \& Tammann 1991) and the star formation rate
475: as function of redshift, to be $\rm R_{SN}= 12\pm 5\, s^{-1}$, or $\rm
476: R_{SN}\sim 3.8\times 10^8\, y^{-1}$,
477: in the observable Universe (Madau et
478: al. 1998), while the observed rate of GRBs is a mere
479: $\rm R_{GRB}\simeq 10^3\, y^{-1}$ (see, for example, Lamb 2001).
480:
481:
482: The bolometric energy fluence from a CB
483: moving with a Lorentz factor $\gamma\gg 1$ and
484: seen by a stationary observer at an angle $\theta\ll 1$
485: relative to the CB's direction of motion (e.g. DD 2000a) is:
486: \begin{equation}
487: \rm {dF\over d\Omega} \propto
488: \left[{2\,\gamma \over 1+\gamma^2\,\theta^2}\right]^3\, .
489: \label{fluence}
490: \end{equation}
491: Barring the case of GRB 980425 (whose exceptionality and
492: interpretation we shall discuss) the equivalent spherical
493: energies of the GRBs with measured redshifts, as listed in Table I, range
494: between, approximately, $2 \times 10^{54}$ erg (GRB 990123) and $6.6 \times
495: 10^{51}$ erg (GRB 970508). The $\theta$ dependence is the steepest
496: parameter dependence of the CB model (DD2000b). It is therefore
497: reasonable to attribute the range of observed equivalent spherical energies
498: mainly to the $\theta$ dependence (as if GRBs were otherwise approximately
499: standard candles). The observed spread in
500: equivalent energy then corresponds, according to Eq.~(\ref{fluence}),
501: to a spread of
502: viewing angles between $\theta \approx 0$ and $\theta\approx 2.4/\gamma$.
503: Thus the geometrical fraction of GRBs which are observable (with the
504: current or past sensitivity) is approximately $\rm f(\gamma)=2\pi\, \theta^2 / (4
505: \pi) \approx 2.84 / \gamma^2 $, where we have taken two jets of
506: CBs per event. Compare
507: $\rm R_{SN}$ and $\rm R_{GRB}$
508: to conclude that an approximately one-to-one GRB/SN
509: association would require beaming into a solid angle
510: that is a fraction $\rm \sim\! 2.8\times 10^{-6}$ of $4\pi$.
511: For CBs moving with $\gamma\!\sim\! 10^3$, $\rm f(\gamma)=2.84\times 10^{-6}$:
512: precisely the required beaming factor. That is,
513: for a one-to-one SN/GRB association:
514: \begin{equation}
515: \rm R_{GRB} = f(\gamma)\, R_{SN}= (1082 \pm 450)\,
516: \left[{10^3\over \gamma}\right]^2 \; y^{-1}\,,
517: \label{GRB}
518: \end{equation}
519: in agreement with observation.
520: Moreover, if the recent claims that the $\rm\sim (1+z)^3$ dependence of the
521: star formation rate continues to $\rm z\!>\! 1$ (Fenimore \& Ramirez-Ruiz 2000;
522: Ramirez-Ruiz and Fenimore 2000; Reichart et al.~2001)
523: were correct, SN of types Ib/Ic
524: would by themselves suffice to explain the observed GRB rate. Thus,
525: relativistic beaming solves the energy crisis of GRBs and may allow
526: an approximately one-to-one
527: SNIc/GRB association (Dar 1999b; Dar \& Plaga 1999; DD2000a).
528: The above considerations leading to a GRB/SN association that may
529: be as biunivocal as indicated by Eq.~(\ref{GRB}) are weakened by
530: the fact that we have not taken into account effects such as the efficiency of
531: GRB identification as a function of fluence. It is clear, however,
532: that for the high beaming factors we have advocated, the GRB and SN
533: rates are quite comparable. In the CB model, the ``special'' character of
534: SN 1998bw is due to the fact that it is observed very close to the
535: GRB axis.
536:
537: Previous analyses of GRB/SN associations, except that in DD2000a,
538: were based on a power-law extrapolation to late times
539: of the early-time GRB afterglows. Here we shall use the CB model,
540: instead, to calculate the
541: GRB-afterglow light curves at all times. This procedure leads, as we shall
542: see, to a much better exposition of the GRB/SN association.
543:
544:
545:
546: \subsection{The GRB engine}
547:
548:
549: We assume that in core-collapse SN events
550: a fraction of the parent star's
551: material, external to the newly-born compact object,
552: falls back in a time very roughly of the
553: order of one day (De R\'ujula 1987, DD2000a). Given the considerable
554: specific angular momentum of stars,
555: it settles into an accretion disk and/or torus
556: around the compact object.
557: %\footnote{We choose to base our conjectures on analogies with known
558: %processes, as opposed to computer simulations. The latter do not yet
559: %realistically include rotation, magnetic fields, the transport of angular
560: %momentum... Most noticeably, they do not produce SN explosions.}.
561: The subsequent sudden episodes
562: of accretion ---occurring with a time sequence that we cannot predict---
563: result in the emission of CBs. These emissions last till
564: the reservoir of accreting matter is exhausted.
565: The emitted CBs initially expand in the SN rest system at a speed
566: $\rm\beta\,c/\gamma$, with $\rm\beta\,c$ presumably of the same order as
567: the speed of sound in a relativistic plasma
568: ($\beta=1/\sqrt{3}$), or smaller.
569: The solid angle a CB subtends is so extremely small that presumably
570: successive CBs do not hit the same point of the outgoing SN shell,
571: as they catch up with it. These considerations
572: are illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{model}).
573:
574: \subsection{The GRB}From this point onwards, the CB model is not
575: based on analogies or assumptions, but on processes whose outcome can be
576: approximately worked out in an explicit manner. The violent collision of
577: the CB with the SN shell heats the CB (which is not transparent at this point
578: to $\gamma$'s from $\pi^0$ decays) to a surface temperature that, by the
579: time the CB reaches the transparent outskirts of the SN shell, is
580: $\sim 150$ eV, further
581: decreasing as the CB travels (DD2000b). The resulting CB surface
582: radiation, Doppler-shifted in energy and forward-collimated by the CB's
583: fast motion, gives rise to an individual pulse in a GRB (DD2000b). The GRB
584: light curve is an ensemble of such pulses, often overlapping one another.
585: The energies of the individual GRB $\gamma$-rays, as well as their typical
586: total fluences, indicate CB Lorentz factors of ${\cal{O}}$(10$^3$), as the
587: SN/GRB association does (DD2000a). In the CB model, unlike in
588: the shocked-fireball models, the photons of the GRB proper
589: are not made by synchrotron radiation which, as we shall see,
590: is subdominant at this stage of the evolution of a CB.
591:
592: \section{Afterglow components}
593:
594: In the CB model, the persistent radiation in the direction of an observed GRB
595: has three origins: the ejected CBs, the concomitant SN explosion, and the
596: host galaxy. These components are usually unresolved in the
597: measured ``GRB afterglows'', so that the corresponding light curves and
598: spectra refer to a cumulative energy flux density:
599: \begin{equation}
600: \rm F_{AG}=F_{CBs}+F_{SN}+F_{HG}\, ,
601: \label{sum}
602: \end{equation}
603: with $\rm F\equiv\nu\,dN_\gamma/(dt\,d\nu\,dA)$.
604:
605: The emission of the GRB's host galaxy is usually determined from
606: measurements at times late enough for the CB's afterglow and
607: the SN light to have become comparatively weak (e.g.
608: Sokolov et al.~2001b and references therein). This assumes that the host
609: galaxy's emission is steady on periods of a few months.
610: There is no indication of GRB host-galaxy variability
611: on such time scales.
612:
613: Core-collapse supernovae (SNII/Ib/Ic)
614: are far from being standard candles. But if their explosions
615: are fairly asymmetric ---as they would be if a fair fraction of
616: them emitted jets of CBs--- much of the variability could be a reflection
617: of the varying angles from which we see their
618: non-spherically expanding shells.
619: Exploiting this possibility to its extreme, we shall use
620: SN1998bw as an ansatz standard candle, associated with every
621: GRB of known $\rm z$ (Dar 1999b; DD2000a). The adequacy
622: of this bold hypothesis can be judged from its rather surprising success.
623:
624: Let the energy flux density of SN1998bw be $\rm F_{bw}[\nu,t]$.
625: For a similar SN placed at a redshift $\rm z$:
626: \begin{eqnarray}
627: {\rm F_{SN}[\nu,t] = } &&
628: {\rm{1+z \over 1+z_{bw}}\;
629: {D_L^2(z_{bw})\over D_L^2(z)}}\, \times\nonumber \\
630: &&{\rm F_{bw}\left[\nu\,{1+z \over 1+z_{bw}},t\,
631: {1+z_{bw} \over 1+z}\right]\; A(\nu,z)}\, ,
632: \label{bw}
633: \end{eqnarray}
634: where $\rm D_L(z)$ is the luminosity distance\footnote{The cosmological
635: parameters we use in our calculations are:
636: $\rm H_0=65$ km/(s Mpc), ${\rm \Omega_M}=0.3$ and
637: ${\rm \Omega_\Lambda}=0.7$.}
638: and $\rm A(\nu,z)$ is the extinction along
639: the line of sight. The extinction in our Galaxy
640: is reasonably well measured, but for the GRBs' environments it must be
641: estimated from the spectra of each particular AG and host galaxy.
642:
643: The contribution of CBs to the GRB afterglows requires
644: a much more detailed discussion.
645:
646:
647: \section{Times and frequencies}
648:
649: Four ``clocks'' ticking at different paces and three different scales
650: of frequency need be considered in the cannonball model of
651: GRBs and their afterglows.
652:
653: Let $\rm \gamma=1/\sqrt{1-\beta^2}={E_{CB}/(M_{CB}c^2)}$ be
654: the Lorentz factor
655: of a CB, which diminishes with time as the CB hits the SN shell
656: and as it subsequently ploughs through the interstellar medium.
657: Let $\rm t_{SN}$ be the
658: local time in the SN rest system, $\rm t_{CB}$ the time in the CB's
659: rest system, $\rm t_{Ob}$ the time measured by
660: a nearby observer viewing the CB at an angle $\theta$
661: away from its direction of motion, and $\rm t$ the time
662: measured by an earthly observer viewing the CB at
663: the same angle, but from a ``cosmological'' distance
664: ($\rm z\neq 0$).
665: Let x be the distance travelled by the CB in the SN rest system.
666: The relations between the above quantities are:
667: \begin{eqnarray}
668: &&\rm
669: dt_{SN}=\gamma\,dt_{CB}=\rm{dx\over\beta\, c}\, ;
670: \nonumber \\
671: &&\rm
672: dt_{CB}=\delta\,dt_{Ob}\, ;\nonumber\\
673: &&\rm
674: dt=(1+z)\,dt_{Ob}={1+z\over \gamma\,\delta}\;dt_{SN}\;,
675: \label{times}
676: \end{eqnarray}
677: where the Doppler factor $\delta$ is:
678: \begin{equation}
679: \rm
680: \delta\equiv\rm{1\over\gamma\,(1-\beta\cos\theta)}
681: \simeq\rm {2\,\gamma\over (1+\theta^2\gamma^2)}\; ,
682: \label{doppler}
683: \end{equation}
684: and its approximate expression is valid for $\theta\ll 1$ and $\gamma\gg 1$,
685: the domain of interest here.
686: Notice that for large $\gamma$ and not large $\theta\gamma$,
687: there is an enormous ``relativistic aberration'':
688: $\rm dt\sim dt_{SN}/\gamma^2$, and the observer sees
689: a long CB story as a film in extremely fast motion.
690:
691: The frequency of the photons radiated by a CB
692: in its rest system, $\rm \nu_{CB}$, their frequency
693: in the direction $\theta$
694: in the local SN system, $\rm \nu_{SN}$, and the photon
695: frequency $\nu$ measured by a cosmologically distant observer,
696: are related by:
697: \begin{equation}
698: \rm \nu_{CB}= {\nu_{SN}\over \delta}
699: \, ;\;\;\;\;\;\nu_{SN}=(1+z)\,\nu\; ,
700: \label{energies}
701: \end{equation}
702: with $\delta$ as in Eq.(\ref{doppler}).
703:
704:
705:
706: \section{The cooling of CBs}
707:
708: As a CB pierces through the SN shell, its surface
709: is heated by the collisions with the shell's constituents, and
710: %(in the ``surface heating'' model of DD2000b we successfully describe
711: %the properties of GRBs by assuming a dynamical equilibrium between
712: %the heat deposited and reemitted within one
713: %radiation length of the CB's surface).
714: cools down from an early maximum temperature
715: because of the decreasing density of the shell's material
716: it collides with (a detailed description of the CB--shell
717: collision can be found in DD2001b). At this early point of a CB's avatars,
718: the internal radiation pressure is very large. Thus,
719: in studying the properties of the $\gamma$ rays (DD2000b), we assumed
720: the CBs to expand (in their rest system and at early times) at a speed
721: comparable to that of sound in a relativistic plasma ($\rm c/\sqrt{3}$).
722: This fast expansion implies that it is a good approximation
723: to treat CBs, in their rest system, as spherical objects.
724:
725: Let $\rm N_{jet}$ be the baryon or electron number of
726: the ensemble of CBs in a jet, which we have estimated
727: to be $\rm N_{jet}\sim 6\times 10^{51}$ (e.g Eq.~(5) of
728: DD2001b, for $\rm \gamma_{in}=10^4$), which is close to that of the
729: Earth ($\rm N_\otimes\simeq 3.6\times 10^{51}$).
730: On average, GRBs consist of 5 to 10 significant pulses, so
731: that a single CB may have one order of magnitude fewer constituents.
732: As they exit the shell and enter the interstellar medium (ISM), CBs
733: become transparent to their enclosed radiation
734: when they reach a radius:
735: \begin{equation}
736: \rm R_{trans}\sim \left[{3\over 4\pi}\,N_{CB}\,\sigma_T\right]^{1/2}\!
737: \simeq (10^{13}\;cm)\;\left[{N_{CB}\over 6\times 10^{50}}\right]^{1/2}\!\!\! ,
738: \label{Rtrans}
739: \end{equation}
740: where $\rm\sigma_T=6.65\times 10^{-25}$ cm$^2$ is the Thomson
741: cross section. We can use Eqs.~(\ref{times}) to conclude that, if
742: the CBs are expanding at a fraction $\rm\beta_{trans}$ of the
743: speed of light\footnote{The quantity $\rm\beta_{trans}$ is nearly
744: identical to $\rm\beta_{out}$, the transverse speed as the
745: CB exits the SN shell, introduced in our previous work on the CB model
746: (e.g. DD200a,b).},
747: they reach a size $\rm R_{trans}$ in an observer's time:
748: \begin{equation}
749: \rm t_{trans}={1+z\over \delta}\, t_{trans}^{CB}=
750: {(1+z)\,R_{trans}\over\delta\,\beta_{trans}\,c}.
751: \label{ttrans}
752: \end{equation}
753: For the reference value of $\rm N_{CB}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Rtrans}),
754: $\gamma=1/\theta=10^3$ and $\rm\beta_{trans}=1/(3\sqrt{3})$,
755: CBs become transparent in a mere $\rm t_{trans}\sim 3.5$ s.
756:
757: The GRB is emitted by the CBs from a distance
758: of ${\cal{O}}(1)$ radiation length from the
759: exterior of the SN shell,
760: when their temperature is $\rm T_\gamma\sim 150$ eV
761: and their radius, for our typical parameters, is
762: $\rm R_\gamma\sim 2.5\times 10^{11}$ cm (DD2000b, DD2001b).
763: Soon thereafter, travelling in a thin environment and expanding fast, the CBs
764: should cool in an approximately adiabatic way. Their temperature
765: at $\rm t_{trans}$ is then:
766: \begin{equation}
767: \rm T_{trans} \sim {R_\gamma\over R_{trans}}\, T\simeq 4.0\, eV.
768: \label{TTh}
769: \end{equation}
770: >From about one third of $\rm t_{trans}$ onwards, the CBs would appear
771: to be ``collisionless'' to the ISM hadrons piercing through
772: them\footnote{ISM particles that get entangled in the CB's
773: magnetic field would not be collisionless after such a very short time.},
774: since the high-energy nucleon--nucleon cross section ($\rm\sigma_N\sim
775: 4\times 10^{-26}$ cm$^2$) is about one order
776: of magnitude smaller than $\rm \sigma_T$ and the
777: condition for ``transparency'' to the ISM particles is, up to
778: a numerical factor of ${\cal{O}}(1)$, analogous to Eq.~(\ref{Rtrans}).
779:
780: \section{The expansion of CBs}
781:
782: When a CB, in a matter of (observer's) seconds, becomes transparent to
783: radiation, it loses its internal radiation pressure. If it has been
784: expanding up to that moment at a speed comparable to that of relativistic
785: sound, should it not inertially continue to do so? The fact that it is
786: collisionless makes the conclusion seem unavoidable. But the CBs
787: emitted by many quasars appear, within the resolution of the
788: observations, not to expand laterally for most of their trajectory,
789: before their forward motion nearly stops. What may the reason be?
790:
791: The ISM the CBs traverse has been previously partially
792: ionized by the forward-beamed GRB radiation. The neutral ISM fraction
793: is efficiently ionized by Coulomb interactions as it enters the CB.
794: In analogy to processes occurring in quasar and microquasar
795: ejections, the bulk of the swept-up ionized ISM particles are multiply
796: scattered, in a ``collisionless'' way, by the CBs' turbulent magnetic fields.
797: As illustrated in Fig.~(\ref{CBrest}), in
798: the rest system of the CB these particles are isotropically
799: re-emitted into the ISM. In the rest system of the parent SN
800: they are forward collimated and boosted to an energy
801: $\rm\sim\! m\, c^2\gamma^2$ (Dar 1998b). The isotropic re-emission implies
802: an inwards force on the CB's surface. Assume that the bulk of the
803: ISM particles are {\it not} re-energized by the CB's turbulent fields. Let $\rm R$
804: be the CB's radius and let $\rm n_p$ be the proton ISM number density. The
805: rate at which the ISM protons impinge on the CB is $\rm
806: r=\pi\,R^2\,c\,\gamma\,n_p$, with $\rm \gamma\,n_p$ the ISM proton density
807: seen from the CB's rest system. The momentum (or, for large $\gamma$, the
808: energy)
809: of these protons isotropically leaving the CB is, per unit surface,
810: \begin{equation}
811: \rm P=r\,{E_p\,c\over 4\pi\,R^2}={1\over 4}\,m_p\gamma^2\,n_p\,c^2\, .
812: \label{pressure}
813: \end{equation}
814:
815: During the first hours after the GRB time, the CBs are still fully ionized
816: and cooling rapidly by expansion and
817: bremsstrahlung (DD2001a). Their full constituency of
818: relatively cold ions, electrons, cosmic rays and entangled magnetic fields is
819: electromagnetically coupled, and subject to the very large inwards
820: pressure of Eq.~(\ref{pressure}). This stabilizes the CB's radius to an
821: asymptotic value $\rm R_{max}$. To estimate it, since the initial expansion
822: velocity is not fully relativistic ($\rm \beta_{trans}^2\ll 1$), we may
823: use Newton's equation:
824: \begin{equation}
825: \rm P=-{M_{CB}\over 4\pi\,R^2}\;{d^2 R\over dt^2_{CB}}
826: \label{Newton}
827: \end{equation}
828: with $\rm P$ as in Eq.~(\ref{pressure}), and
829: integrate, to obtain, for a constant\footnote{A density distribution
830: falling with distance to the progenitor
831: star as $\rm x^{-2}$ (in a certain distance-domain) gives
832: similar results, but in terms of more parameters. It suffices for the moment
833: to use a constant value representing an average density close
834: to the progenitor, particularly at the considerable distances from
835: the progenitor at which the value of $\rm R_{max}$ is reached.} $\rm n_p$:
836: \begin{equation}
837: \rm R_{max}^3\sim
838: R_{trans}^3+{3\,N_{CB}\,\beta_{trans}^2\over 2\,\pi\,n_p\,\gamma_0^2}\, ,
839: \label{Rinfinity}
840: \end{equation}
841: where we have approximated $\gamma$ by its initial value
842: because the asymptotic radius, as we shall see, is reached much
843: before the CB has had the time to decelerate significantly.
844: For a value $\rm n_p=1\, cm^{-3}$
845: of the ISM density close to the progenitor, $\rm N_{CB}=6\times 10^{50}$,
846: $\gamma_0=10^3$, Eq.~(\ref{Rinfinity}) gives
847: $\rm R_{max}=2.2\times 10^{14}$ cm [$10^{14}$ cm] for
848: $\rm\beta_{trans}=1/(3\sqrt{3})$ [$1/(10\sqrt{3})$].
849:
850: The interval (in the CB's rest system)
851: between the times when the CB has
852: radius $\rm R_{trans}$ and radius $\rm R$ can be deduced from
853: Eqs.~(\ref{pressure}) and (\ref{Newton}) to be:
854:
855: \begin{equation}
856: \rm
857: t(R)=\int^R_{R_{trans}}\;{dx\over c\,\beta_{trans}}\;
858: \sqrt{{R_{max}^3-R_{trans}^3\over R_{max}^3-x^3}}\; .
859: \label{tofR}
860: \end{equation}
861: The observer's time is shorter by a factor $\rm (1+z)/\delta$.
862: In Fig.~(\ref{RCB}) we invert Eq.~(\ref{tofR}) to
863: show the CB's radius as a function of
864: observer's time (in minutes), for $\rm z=1$, $\delta=10^3$, and the other
865: typical parameters quoted in the previous
866: paragraph, for two choices of $\rm\beta_{trans}$.
867: The CB is seen to expand linearly
868: at a speed close to the initial $\rm \beta_{trans}\,c$, and then
869: to settle fast into an approximately constant radius.
870: To a good approximation the steady radius is reached
871: in an observer's time:
872:
873: \begin{equation}
874: \rm
875: t_\infty\sim {1+z\over \delta}\;{R_{max}\over \beta_{trans}\,c}\, ,
876: \label{tapprox}
877: \end{equation}
878: which yields $\sim 1.2\;[1.9]$ minutes for
879: $\rm \beta_{trans}=1/(3\sqrt{3})$ [$1/(10\sqrt{3})$],
880: the examples in Fig.~(\ref{RCB}).
881: Thus, typically, a few observer's minutes after the GRB, the CBs
882: are expanding very very slowly.
883:
884: To estimate the internal magnetic field of the CB after it stopped
885: expanding, $\rm B_\infty\, , $ we conjecture that the bulk of the kinetic
886: energy of the CB's expansion after it becomes transparent is converted
887: to internal magnetic energy. Since $\rm R_{max}^3 \gg R_{trans}^3$ and
888: (by hypothesis) $\rm\beta_{trans}^2 \ll 1$, this means:
889: \begin{equation}
890: \rm {4\, \pi\over 3}\; R_{max}^3\; {B_{\infty}^2 \over 8\, \pi}
891: \sim {N_{CB}\, m_p\, \beta_{trans}^2\, c^2\over 2} \, ,
892: \label{Bequiv}
893: \end{equation}
894: which, upon substitution of Eq.~(\ref{Rinfinity}), yields:
895: \begin{equation}
896: \rm B_{\infty }
897: \sim 100\,
898: \left[{n_p\over 1\, cm^{-3}}\right]^{1/2}\,
899: \left[{\gamma\over 10^3}\right]\; \, Gauss\; .
900: \label{Binfty}
901: \end{equation}
902: The very large field of Eq.~(\ref{Binfty}) is consistent with the fact
903: that, in order to be able to sustain the inwards pressure of the isotropically
904: re-emitted protons that it ejects,
905: the magnetic field within the CB must have a pressure (or energy
906: density) comparable to the pressure $\rm P$ of Eq.~(\ref{pressure}).
907: The condition $\rm P=B^2/(8\pi)$ exactly reproduces Eq.~(\ref{Binfty}).
908: We could also have added the building-up magnetic pressure
909: to Eq.~(\ref{pressure}), to obtain a result for $\rm R_{max}$ differing from that
910: of Eq.~(\ref{Binfty}) by $2^{1/3}$. This affects our conclusions insignificantly
911: and, in any case, we cannot pretend to have a detailed understanding
912: of the magnetohydrodynamics of turbulent plasmas.
913:
914: We have argued that the re-emission of the ISM
915: protons, isotropic in the CB's rest frame, is what makes
916: CBs stop expanding at a speed that {\it ab-initio} was semirelativistic.
917: This may also explain the surprising quasar and microquasar observations.
918: There may be other reasons ---such as Coulomb-interaction ram pressure
919: from the ambient material--- for CBs to stop expanding significantly at
920: some point of their voyage. The strength of our conclusion that CBs
921: expand slowly ---or not at all--- during the AG phase should be judged
922: from the ability of the CB model to describe the AG observations.
923:
924: \section{The dominant afterglow mechanisms}
925:
926:
927: In the CB model the GRB emission in $\gamma$ rays is mainly of
928: thermal origin (although it does not have a thermal spectrum)
929: and, in a fixed energy interval, it decreases exponentially
930: with time (DD2000b). A few seconds after the last GRB pulse
931: (the last CB), this pseudothermal emission becomes a
932: subdominant effect. For the next few hours, the evolution
933: of a CB is interestingly complicated. In particular, its originally
934: ionized material should recombine into hydrogen and
935: emit Lyman-$\alpha$ lines that are seen Doppler-boosted
936: to keV energies (DD2001a). Later, the
937: CBs settle down to a much simpler phase, which typically lasts
938: for months, till the CBs finally stop moving relativistically.
939:
940: Because of the CBs' large Doppler factors, radio emission in their rest
941: frame is boosted to optical light in the observer's frame while their
942: emitted optical light is boosted to the soft X-ray band. Radio emission
943: from astrophysical plasmas at eV temperatures
944: is mainly due to synchrotron radiation from
945: relativistic electrons, whereas their optical glow is
946: usually due to bremsstrahlung and line emission. For parameters in the
947: general vicinity of the ones we have argued to be ``typical'' of the CB
948: model, the X-ray AG is initially dominated by thermal
949: bremsstrahlung (and line emission) and by synchrotron radiation
950: thereafter, while the optical AG, generally observed later,
951: is dominated by synchrotron
952: radiation. In this section we analyse these two dominant mechanisms,
953: relegating to Appendix 1 the discussion of various subdominant ones.
954:
955: \section{Thermal bremsstrahlung: the early X-ray AG}
956:
957: When it becomes transparent, a CB cools down mainly by thermal-electron
958: bremsstrahlung (TB) in $\rm e\,p$ collisions and by expansion. The comoving
959: TB emission rate (e.g. Peebles 1993) is:
960: \begin{equation}
961: \rm L_{brem}\simeq \eta\, {\overline n_e}^2\, T^{1/2}
962: \, erg\, cm^3\, s^{-1}\, ,
963: \label{Lbrem}
964: \end{equation}
965: where $\rm \eta = 1.435\times 10^{-27}$,
966: $\rm \overline n_e$ is the electron density
967: of the CB and, here and in the rest of this section,
968: $\rm T$ is its temperature in Kelvin and the remaining quantities
969: are in c.g.s. units. Thus, as long as the CB is fully ionized,
970: its total comoving TB energy-loss rate is:
971: \begin{equation}
972: \rm {dE_{CB}\over dt_{CB}} \simeq - \eta \, {3\, N_{CB}^2
973: \, T^{1/2}\over 4\, \pi\, R^3} \, erg\,s^{-1}\, ,
974: \label{CBbrem}
975: \end{equation}
976: while its thermal energy is:
977: \begin{equation}
978: \rm E_{CB} \simeq 3\, N_{CB}\, k\, T\, ,
979: \label{Etotal}
980: \end{equation}
981: with $\rm k=1.38\times 10^{-16}\, erg/deg$ Boltzmann's constant.
982: As long as TB dominates the cooling and for
983: a constant expansion rate
984: $\rm R(t_{CB})\sim \beta_{trans}\, c\, t_{CB}$,
985: Eqs.~(\ref{Rtrans}, \ref{ttrans}, \ref{CBbrem}, \ref{Etotal}) yield
986: $\rm T$ for $\rm t_{CB}\geq t_{trans}^{CB}$:
987: \begin{eqnarray}
988: \rm T^{1/2}(t_{CB})&\simeq&\rm
989: K+{\eta\, N_{CB} \over 16\, \pi\, k\, \beta_{trans}\, c\, R^2}\,
990: \nonumber\\
991: \rm K &=& \rm T_{trans}^{1/2} - {\eta \over 12\, k\, \beta_{trans}\,
992: c\, \sigma_T}\, .
993: \label{Tbrem}
994: \end{eqnarray}
995:
996: A distant observer at an angle
997: $\theta$ relative to the CB's direction of motion receives this radiation
998: in a Doppler-boosted, collimated and time-aberrant form
999: (e.g. DD2000a). At a luminosity distance
1000: $\rm D_L(z)$, the total power (integrated over frequencies)
1001: per unit area is:
1002: \begin{equation}
1003: \rm {dF\over dt\, d\Omega} \simeq {3\, \eta\, N_{CB}^2\, T^{1/2}\,
1004: \delta_0^4 \over 16\, \pi^2\, R^3\, D_L^2}\, erg\, cm^{-2}\, s^{-1}\, ,
1005: \label{fbrem}
1006: \end{equation}
1007: where $\delta_0=\delta[\gamma_0,\theta]$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{doppler})
1008: with the initial $\gamma$ value, which does not change in the
1009: very short time during which TB dominates the X-ray AG. At
1010: the transparency radius and reference baryon number of Eq.~(\ref{Rtrans}),
1011: the temperature is $\sim 4.0$ eV $\simeq 4.6\times 10^4$ K,
1012: as in Eq.~(\ref{TTh}), and for
1013: $\delta=10^3$ and $\rm z=1$, the predicted energy flux, per CB, is
1014: $\rm 1.7\times 10^{-8}\; erg\, cm^{-2}\, s^{-1}$.
1015: This radiation's spectrum is that of bremsstrahlung
1016: (a flat $\rm E\,dn_\gamma/dE$), typically extending
1017: to $\rm E\sim 3\,T \,\delta/(1+z)\sim 12$ keV, in the X-ray domain.
1018:
1019: For our typical CB parameters, synchrotron emission takes over, as we
1020: shall see in the next section,
1021: before the CB reaches its asymptotic radius and before the $\rm K$ term
1022: in Eq.~(\ref{Tbrem}) becomes important. During this early phase
1023: (for $\rm t\!\sim\! t_{trans}$), the TB emission by the CB's electrons
1024: declines with time, if cooling is dominated by bremsstrahlung losses, as
1025: $\rm R^{-3}\,T^{1/2}\!\sim\!R^{-5}\!\sim t^{-5}$.
1026: Should the temperature decrease be dominated by adiabatic cooling
1027: ($\rm 3\,N_{CB}\,k\,dT=-P\, dV$), the substitution
1028: $\rm P=2\,\overline n_e\,k\,T$ results in $\rm T\propto R^{-2}$ and in
1029: a TB emission declining as $\rm R^{-3}\,T^{1/2}\!\sim\!R^{-4}\!\sim t^{-4}$.
1030: A decline as fast as $\rm t^{-4}$ or $\rm t^{-5}$
1031: has been observed in early X-ray afterglow observations,
1032: e.g. GRB 920723: Burenin et al.~1999; GRB 970508: Piro et al. 1998; GRB
1033: 970828: Smith et al.~2001; GRB 990510: Pian et al.~2001; GRB 010222: In 't
1034: Zand et al.~2001. In less than a minute of observer's time, this emission
1035: mechanism is overtaken by synchrotron radiation, whose decline is much
1036: slower, as we proceed to discuss.
1037:
1038: \section{Synchrotron radiation: the optical afterglow}
1039:
1040: In this section we study the various effects resulting from
1041: the interaction of a CB's entangled magnetic field with the
1042: ISM particles that it sweeps as it travels.
1043: The CBs lose momentum by sweeping the nuclei of the ionized ISM, and
1044: re-emitting them isotropically (in the CB's rest system) at an energy
1045: comparable to their incoming one. This allows us to predict the
1046: law of CB deceleration: the behaviour of its decreasing
1047: Lorentz factor $\rm\gamma(t)$. The incoming electrons, suffering
1048: collisions with the magnetic domains, and losing energy effectively
1049: by synchrotron radiation, acquire a predictable power-law energy
1050: spectrum, which implies a given distribution of the emitted photons.
1051: The emitted energy rate is equal to the rate at which the ISM electrons
1052: bring energy into the CB in its rest system; this provides the
1053: absolute normalization of the AG light curve. The dynamical time
1054: for the energy supply by the swept-up ISM electrons is much longer than
1055: the time it takes the electrons to acquire a power-law energy
1056: distribution and to emit synchrotron radiation, justifying a
1057: quasi-steady-state analysis.
1058:
1059: The rate at which the energy of the ISM electrons enters the CB
1060: (in its rest frame) is:
1061: \begin{equation}
1062: \rm {dE_{CB}\over dt_{CB}}\simeq \pi \, R^2\, n_e\, m_e\, c^3\,\gamma^2\, ,
1063: \label{depo}
1064: \end{equation}
1065: where the incident
1066: ISM electron energy is $\rm \gamma \, m_e\, c^2$,
1067: and the extra power of $\gamma$ originates in the Lorentz
1068: contraction of the ISM electron density, $\rm n_e$.
1069: An observer at a luminosity distance $\rm D_L$ and at an angle
1070: $\theta$ relative to the CB's direction of motion receives a total
1071: power per unit area (integrated over frequencies):
1072: \begin{equation}
1073: \rm {dF\over dt\, d\Omega} \simeq {\pi \, R^2\, n_e\, m_e\,c^3\,
1074: \gamma^2\,\delta^4 \over 4\, \pi\, D_L^2}\, .
1075: \label{flux}
1076: \end{equation}
1077: At the very early time of CB transparency, for $\rm R=R_{trans}=10^{13}$
1078: cm, $\rm n_e=1$ cm$^{-3}$,
1079: and for $\rm z=1$, $\gamma=\delta=10^3$, the above expression yields
1080: $1.27\, \times 10^{-9}$ erg/(cm$^2$ s), which
1081: is comparable to the bremsstrahlung emission of
1082: Eq.~(\ref{CBbrem}). But, as we shall see anon, the synchrotron
1083: radiation has a much softer spectrum than that of bremsstrahlung, and
1084: the latter mechanism dominates at early times in the X-ray domain.
1085: We have seen that in a matter of minutes the
1086: asymptotic radius $\rm R_{max}$ of Eq.~(\ref{Rinfinity}) is reached, so
1087: that thermal bremsstrahlung has decreased by more than three orders of
1088: magnitude, while the synchrotron radiation has increased by two or more
1089: orders of magnitude, to become the dominant emission mechanism
1090: at all frequencies.
1091:
1092: To estimate a ``dynamical time'',
1093: $\rm \tau_{dyn}$, for the energy deposited by electrons in the CB,
1094: we forestall that the observed afterglow fluences are the
1095: ones expected in the CB model. We can then use Eqs.~(\ref{depo})
1096: and (\ref{flux}) to deduce a total typical $\rm E_{CB}\sim 3\times 10^{44}$
1097: erg and to conclude:
1098: \begin{equation}
1099: \rm \tau_{dyn}\equiv \left[{1\over E_{CB}}\,{dE_{CB}\over dt_{CB}}\right]^{-1}
1100: \sim (8.2\times 10^7\; s)\;\left[{10^3\over\gamma}\right]^2,
1101: \label{dyn}
1102: \end{equation}
1103: for $\rm R=R_{max}=2.2\times 10^{14}$ cm and $\rm n_e=10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$.
1104:
1105: In the CB's rest frame, the light crossing time for the asymptotic
1106: radius $\rm R_{max}$ is $\rm\tau_{cr}\sim R_{max}/c\sim 10^4$ s.
1107: The time for electrons that enter a CB to redistribute their energy
1108: as they bounce off a few magnetic ``sub-domains'' is a fraction of $\rm\tau_{cr}$; this is much shorter
1109: than $\rm \tau_{dyn}$, so that a cosmic-ray-like ``source''
1110: distribution of electrons (a power law in energy) is steadily generated.
1111: The synchrotron cooling time of electrons in the CB's rest system is :
1112: \begin{equation}
1113: \rm \tau_{syn} \simeq {6\, \pi\, m_e\, c^2 \over \gamma_e\, c\, \sigma_T\,
1114: B^2} \sim (80\; s)\;\left[{10^3\over\gamma_e}\right]\;
1115: \left[{100\;\; Gauss\over B}\right]^2.
1116: \label{tsyn}
1117: \end{equation}
1118: In the above equation, we have distinguished
1119: $\rm\gamma_e$ (the Lorentz factor of an electron in the CB,
1120: in the CB's rest system) from $\gamma$ (the CB's bulk-motion
1121: Lorentz factor). Even for $\rm \gamma_e\to 1$, $\rm \tau_{dyn}\gg\tau_{syn}$.
1122: The Larmor radius of electrons $\rm r_L=p_e/(e\,B)$ in a $\rm B=100$
1123: Gauss magnetic field is $\rm r_L\sim (1.5\times 10^5\; cm)(\gamma_e/10^3)$,
1124: so that even for very high energies,
1125: the residence time of the electrons in the CB
1126: is much longer than $\rm\tau_{syn}$. The above inequalities imply that for
1127: electrons of all energies, a spectrum of
1128: ``Fermi-accelerated'', radiation-loss-modulated electrons is
1129: steadily generated.
1130:
1131: The incoming ISM particles are Fermi-accelerated
1132: by the turbulent magnetic fields inside the CBs to
1133: a comoving ``cosmic-ray'' spectral distribution $\rm dn/dE\sim
1134: E^{-\beta_p}$, with $\rm \beta_p\simeq 2.2$, as indicated
1135: by simulations (Bendarz \& Ostrowski 1998), analytical estimates
1136: and the interpretation of the
1137: observations of cosmic rays (e.g. Dar \& Plaga 1999).
1138: The acceleration being due to deflections by magnetic
1139: fields, the spectral shape of the ``source'' distributions of protons
1140: and electrons ought to be the same: $\rm \beta_e\simeq\beta_p$.
1141: The index of the equilibrium electron spectrum, modulated by radiation
1142: losses, is one unit higher:
1143: $\rm \beta_e\simeq\beta_p+1\approx 3.2$ (Dar \& De R\'ujula 2001).
1144: The emitted synchrotron radiation has a
1145: power spectrum with index $\rm\alpha=(\beta_e-1)/2$, so that:
1146: \begin{eqnarray}
1147: \rm {dF \over d\nu_{_{CB}}}&\equiv&\rm
1148: \nu_{_{CB}}\,{dn_\gamma \over d\nu_{_{CB}}}\propto
1149: \nu_{_{CB}}^{-\alpha}\nonumber\\
1150: \rm \alpha & \approx & \rm 1.1\; .
1151: \label{spectrum}
1152: \end{eqnarray}
1153: The spectrum of Eq.~(\ref{spectrum}) should roughly
1154: extend between two cutoff frequencies, $\rm \nu_{min}$
1155: and $\rm \nu_{max}$, that reflect the energy of the incoming electrons
1156: and of the maximally accelerated ones.
1157: The integrated spectrum of Eq.~(\ref{flux})
1158: is proportional to $\rm \nu_{min}^{1-\alpha}$
1159: and $\rm \nu_{min}\propto \gamma_c^2$ where $\rm \gamma_c$ is the electrons'
1160: Lorentz factor above which they are in radiative equilibrium.
1161: Since the individual frequencies $\nu$ and the limiting frequency
1162: $\rm\nu_{min}$ all refer to the CB's rest frame, and
1163: are Doppler-shifted by its motion ($\rm \nu\propto \delta\; \nu_{CB}$)
1164: as in Eqs.~(\ref{energies}), the non-frequency-integrated version
1165: of Eq.~(\ref{flux}) ---that is, the
1166: predicted spectral energy density for a GRB with
1167: a number $\rm n_{_{CB}}$ of CBs--- is:
1168: \begin{eqnarray}
1169: \rm
1170: F_\nu&\equiv& \rm{dF[\nu,t,\theta]\over dt\,d\nu\,d\Omega} \simeq
1171: \rm n_{_{CB}}\,(\alpha-1)\,\pi\,
1172: [1+z]^{(1-\alpha)}\,m_e\,c^3\nonumber\\
1173: &\times&\rm {n_e(x[t])\;[R(t)]^2\,[\gamma(t)]^{2\,\alpha}
1174: \over 4\,\pi\,[D_L(z)]^2\,\nu_c}\,
1175: \left[{2\gamma(t)\over 1+[\theta\,\gamma(t)]^2}\right]^{n}
1176: \,\left[{\nu\over \nu_c}\right]^{-\alpha};\nonumber\\
1177: \rm n&\equiv& 3+\alpha\simeq 4.1\nonumber\\
1178: \rm\nu_c&\sim&\rm {3 \,e\, B_\infty \over 4 \pi \, m_e\, c}
1179: \simeq 0.42\,{B_\infty\over 100\:Gauss} \;GHz,
1180: \label{fluxdensity}
1181: \end{eqnarray}
1182: where we used the explicit form of $\delta$, Eq.~(\ref{doppler}),
1183: $\rm n_e(x[t])$ is the density along the CB's trajectory
1184: $\rm x = \int \gamma \delta c \, dt/(1+z)$,
1185: and the overall normalization is obtained by assuming
1186: that relativistic electrons are in radiative equilibrium.
1187: The predicted normalization for a GRB
1188: is just an estimate, for part of the energy
1189: deposited in the CB by ISM protons, as well as a fraction
1190: of its magnetic energy, may also be emitted as synchrotron
1191: radiation\footnote{At very low frequencies, such as those
1192: corresponding to radio waves in the observer's frame,
1193: Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) is expected to break down for a variety
1194: of reasons: a deviation of the low-energy electron spectrum
1195: from a universal power-law, inverse synchrotron and inverse
1196: bremsstrhalung self-absorption, plasma frequency cutoff
1197: and the effect of competing mechanisms other
1198: than synchrotron radiation which all depend on the exact density profile
1199: and ionization state of the CB.}.
1200:
1201: When a ``typical'' CB, within a minute or two after the end of its GRB,
1202: reaches its final radius $\rm R_{max}\sim 2\times 10^{14}$ cm, and for
1203: $\rm n_e=1$ cm$^{-3}$, $\rm z=1$, and $\gamma=\delta=10^3$,
1204: Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) yields $1.6\, \times 10^{-8}$ erg/(cm$^2$ s),
1205: of which $6.4\, \times 10^{-10}$ erg/(cm$^2$ s) ($\sim\! 3.7\%$) is in
1206: the 2--10 keV X-ray range and $5.6\, \times 10^{-9}$
1207: erg/(cm$^2$ s) ($\sim\! 3.2\%$)
1208: is in the visible range ($\rm 3900$ \AA $\leq \lambda\leq 7600$
1209: \AA) corresponding to a spectral flux density of 2 Jansky (8
1210: magnitude!) in the R band.
1211: For the next few hours $\rm\gamma(t)$
1212: does not change significantly and the X-ray and optical
1213: AGs vary as $\rm n_e(x[t])$. This variation should
1214: in general be a decline, since the CBs are departing from a dense region.
1215: Such a decline may
1216: have been observed both in the optical band in the
1217: case of GRB 990123 (Akerlof et al.~1999), which rose above $\sim 9$th
1218: magnitude tens of seconds after the GRB's onset, not far
1219: from our estimate with ``typical parameters'' (this GRB, whose early
1220: optical AG we shall discuss in detail, is at
1221: $\rm z=1.6$, but its initial $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are very large,
1222: see Table III).
1223:
1224: There may be an energy below which the synchrotron cooling time
1225: of the electrons in the CB is longer than their acceleration time.
1226: If so, the electron spectrum has an index $\rm \beta_e\simeq
1227: \beta_p$ and the synchrotron radiation below a certain frequency
1228: would have an index $\alpha\simeq 0.6$. We have implicitey assumed
1229: that this frequency is below the smallest optically observed ones,
1230: an assumption that the data generally support.
1231:
1232: The flux of Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) depends on $\rm \nu_c$
1233: as $\rm \nu_c^{\alpha-1}$, roughly the 10-th root of it.
1234: The actual value of $\rm \nu_c$ is therefore quite irrelevant
1235: to the optical and X-ray AGs discussed here. In our study of
1236: radio AGs (Dado et al. 2002) we find that, in the CB model,
1237: $\rm\nu_c$ is actually the characteristic synchrotron frequency
1238: emitted by the electrons that enter the CB with a Lorentz
1239: factor (in the CB's rest frame) $\rm \gamma_e=\gamma(t)$,
1240: that is $\rm \nu_c\sim 0.22\, \gamma_e^2\,\nu_L$, with
1241: $\rm \nu_L\propto B\propto \gamma$ the Larmor radius in the
1242: CB's magnetic field. The spectral index gradually changes from
1243: $\alpha\approx 0.5$ to $\alpha\approx 1.1$ at this frequency.
1244: For a spectrum with this transition in its
1245: power law, Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) are to be modified as follows:
1246: \begin{eqnarray}
1247: \rm [\gamma(t)]^{2\alpha} &\rightarrow&\rm [\gamma(t)]^2\nonumber\\
1248: \rm (\alpha-1) &\rightarrow&\rm {(\beta_p-2)(3-\beta_p)\over 2}\nonumber\\
1249: \rm \alpha & \approx & \rm 0.5~~if~~(1+z) \nu\leq \delta \,\nu_c \; ,\nonumber\\
1250: \rm \alpha & \approx & \rm 1.1~~if~~ (1+z)\nu\geq \delta \,\nu_c.
1251: \label{modif}
1252: \end{eqnarray}
1253: The difference between Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and (\ref{modif})
1254: is only relevant to the spectral shape of some very early optical AGs,
1255: and to the ensemble of the radio AGs (Dado et al. 2002).
1256:
1257:
1258:
1259: \subsection{The density of the Inter-Stellar Medium}
1260:
1261: The density of ISM protons very close to a GRB progenitor
1262: plays a role in determining the asymptotic radius, $\rm R_{max}$,
1263: of a CB, see Eq.~(\ref{Rinfinity}). The density of ISM protons
1264: along a CB's trajectory controls, as we shall see, the evolution
1265: in time of the CB's Lorentz factor $\rm \gamma(t)$.
1266: This function, and the density of interstellar electrons along
1267: the CB's trajectory, determine, via Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), the
1268: AG properties. Clearly, we must discuss these densities in some detail.
1269:
1270: An analysis of historical SNe in the Galaxy (e.g. Higdon and
1271: Lingenfelter,
1272: 1980), of SNe in the LMC (e.g., Dune et al. 2001) and of SNe in
1273: late-type
1274: galaxies (Kennicut et al. 1989; van Dyke et al. 1996;
1275: Higdon et al. 1998) indicates that $85\pm 10$\% of SNe occur in
1276: {\it superbubbles} (e.g., Lingenfelter et al. 2001).
1277: These are spaces
1278: of typical size 0.1 to 0.5 kpc, surrounding star-formation regions,
1279: that extend all the way into the galactic halo, and
1280: from which the ISM has been swept away by massive-star winds and
1281: previous SNe, resulting in an ISM with a low density ($\rm n\sim 10^{-2}$
1282: to $10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$) comparable to that in a galactic halo.
1283:
1284: At their Wolf-Rayet phase,
1285: massive stars that finally produce SNeII/Ib/Ic
1286: emit strong winds with typical velocities,
1287: $\rm v$, close to $\rm 10^{3}\, km\, s^{-1}$, at a typical mass-loss rate
1288: $\rm \dot{M}=$ a few $\rm 10^{-4}\, M_\odot\, yr^{-1}$, over the last
1289: $\!\sim\! 10^5$ yr before the SN event. The density close to an
1290: imminent SN is governed by the recent Wolf-Rayet wind and ejections,
1291: and declines roughly quadratically with distance as:
1292: \begin{eqnarray}
1293: \rm n&\!\sim\!& \rm {\dot M \over 4\, \pi\, v\, x^2} \\
1294: & \!\approx\! &\rm(0.18\,cm^{-3})\left[{\dot{M}\over 10^{-4}\,M_\odot\, yr^{-1}}
1295: \right]
1296: \left[{10^3\, km\, s^{-1}\over v}\right] \left[{1\,pc\over x}\right]^2\! ,
1297: \nonumber
1298: \label{WRwind}
1299: \end{eqnarray}
1300: till $\rm x\!\sim\! 10$ pc, where the density becomes that of the surrounding
1301: superbubble (e.g., Ramirez-Ruiz et al. 2000
1302: and references therein).
1303:
1304: \subsection{Complications simplified}
1305: To predict the explicit
1306: time-dependence of the AG from a CB, one needs to know $\rm R(t)$,
1307: $\rm \gamma(t)$ and the ISM density profile, $\rm n_e(x)$, along
1308: the CB's trajectory.
1309: Moreover, the various CBs that produce the different pulses in a
1310: single GRB have slightly different physical parameters (baryon
1311: number, Lorentz boost) that lead to the differences
1312: between the individual $\gamma$-ray pulses of a given GRB.
1313: The large powers of the Lorentz and Doppler factors
1314: in Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) favour the contribution of CBs with the
1315: largest $\gamma$. Given the extremely small fraction of solid angle that
1316: a CB spans as viewed from the SN centre, we do not expect consecutive CBs to
1317: hit the SN shell on the same spot (DD2000a). But it is in principle
1318: possible that the initial expansion and slowing down of the CBs by the SN shell
1319: and the ISM merges several of them into a single leading CB in the AG phase.
1320: One seems to be faced with a plethora of parameters and possibilities.
1321:
1322: We shall find it sufficient to characterize the
1323: various ISM densities that the CB encounters
1324: by two constant densities. One of them is the average proton density very close
1325: to the parent star, that determines the fast-reached
1326: asymptotic radius of the CB. For its reference value
1327: we adopt $\rm n_p^{SN}=1$ cm$^{-3}$. The other is the proton or electron
1328: density in the superbubble and in the galactic halo, for which we
1329: adopt as reference $\rm n=10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$.
1330:
1331: All other putative complications previously quoted are
1332: eased by the fact that the times over which AGs extend are
1333: much longer than the typical intervals between GRB pulses,
1334: so that the AG light curve is the sum of temporally unresolved
1335: individual CB afterglows. We can therefore characterize,
1336: as in Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), the
1337: AG with the parameters of a single CB, whose actual values
1338: would represent a weighted average.
1339:
1340: \subsection{The slow down of a CB}
1341:
1342:
1343: A CB ionizing and ploughing through
1344: an ionized ISM of roughly constant density, would
1345: lose momentum at a roughly constant rate, independent of whether the ISM
1346: constituents are rescattered isotropically in the CB's rest frame, or
1347: their mass is added to that of the CB.
1348: Energy-momentum conservation for a highly
1349: relativistic CB of initial mass $\rm M_{CB}\simeq N_{CB}\,m_p$
1350: results in the deceleration law (DD2000a):
1351: \begin{equation}
1352: \rm d\gamma=-{\pi\,R^2\,n_p\,\gamma^2\over N_{CB}}\, dx \, .
1353: \label{dgamma}
1354: \end{equation}
1355: The element $\rm dx$ of travelled distance (for $\gamma\gg 1$) is,
1356: according to Eqs.~(\ref{times}), related to the observer's
1357: time interval $\rm dt$ as:
1358: \begin{equation}
1359: \rm dx={c\,\gamma\,\delta\,dt\over(1+z)}\, .
1360: \label{dxsn}
1361: \end{equation}
1362: The law governing the CB's expansion rate is the differential
1363: version of Eq.~(\ref{tofR}), to wit:
1364: \begin{equation}
1365: \rm dR=c\,\beta_{trans}\,
1366: \sqrt{{R_{max}^3-R^3\over R_{max}^3-R_{trans}^3}}\;dt.
1367: \label{Roft}
1368: \end{equation}
1369: The above set of three equations can be integrated
1370: numerically for any given $\rm \gamma_0=\gamma(t=0)$,
1371: $\rm R(t=0)=R_{trans}$ and ISM density along the CB's path
1372: $\rm n_p(x)$.
1373:
1374: We limit our discussion to the case of CBs that, having reached
1375: their asymptotic radius, are moving
1376: through a constant-density medium, a case for which there are useful
1377: analytical expressions for the solution $\rm \gamma(t)$
1378: of Eqs.~(\ref{dgamma}), (\ref{dxsn}) and (\ref{Roft}).
1379: A constant density is a fair approximation,
1380: for, in a very short observer's time, the CB reaches the distance
1381: from the SN at which the density is that of the surrounding
1382: superbubble. To estimate this brief time, we may use the initial
1383: Lorentz and Doppler factors to obtain:
1384: \begin{equation}
1385: \rm t\sim{(1+z)\over c\,\gamma_0\,\delta_0}\, x\sim (34\, min)\,
1386: \left[{x\over 10\;pc}\right]\, ,
1387: \label{tsn}
1388: \end{equation}
1389: where we used the typical parameters $\rm z=1$, $\gamma_0=10^3$ and
1390: $\theta=1/\gamma_0$.
1391: This constant density approximation is also justified
1392: a posteriori by the agreement between our predicted AG
1393: light curves and the observed ones.
1394:
1395: We have argued that CBs reach a steady radius $\rm R_{max}$
1396: in a few observer's minutes. To ascertain the
1397: CB's slow-down law for constant radius and constant ISM density, we
1398: may substitute Eqs.~(\ref{doppler}) and (\ref{dxsn}) into
1399: Eq.~(\ref{dgamma}) and integrate, to obtain:
1400: \begin{eqnarray}
1401: \rm
1402: &&{1\over\gamma^3}-\rm{1\over\gamma_0^3}
1403: +3\,\theta^2\,\left[{1\over\gamma}-{1\over\gamma_0}\right]=
1404: {6\,c\, t\over (1+z)\, x_\infty}\nonumber\\
1405: &&\rm x_\infty\equiv{N_{CB}\over\pi\, R_{max}^2\, n_p}\simeq (1.3\;Mpc)\times
1406: \label{gamoft}\\
1407: &&\rm
1408: \left[{N_{CB}\over 6\!\times\! 10^{50}}\right]^{1\over 3}
1409: \left[{10^{-3}cm^{-3}\over n_p}\right]\,
1410: \left[{n_p^{SN}\over 1\,cm^{-3}}\right]^{2\over 3}
1411: \left[{\gamma_0\over 10^3}{1/(3\sqrt{3})\over\beta_{trans}}\right]^{4\over 3}\!\! ,
1412: \nonumber
1413: %\label{gamoft}
1414: \end{eqnarray}
1415: where we have distinguished the average density $\rm n_p^{SN}$, close to
1416: the parent SN (that determines $\rm R_{max}$) from the density $\rm n_p$
1417: in the superbubble or the outer galaxy.
1418: The function of interest, $\rm\gamma(t)$, is the real root
1419: of the above cubic equation, that is:
1420: \begin{eqnarray}
1421: \rm \gamma&=&\rm\gamma(\gamma_0,\theta,x_\infty;t)
1422: =\rm {1\over B} \,\left[\theta^2+C\,\theta^4+{1\over C}\right]\nonumber\\
1423: \rm C&\equiv&\rm
1424: \left[{2\over B^2+2\,\theta^6+B\,\sqrt{B^2+4\,\theta^6}}\right]^{1/3}
1425: \nonumber\\
1426: \rm B&\equiv&\rm
1427: {1\over \gamma_0^3}+{3\,\theta^2\over\gamma_0}+
1428: {6\,c\, t\over (1+z)\, x_\infty}
1429: \label{cubic}
1430: \end{eqnarray}
1431:
1432: The distance travelled by the CB
1433: is given by directly integrating Eq.~(\ref{dgamma}):
1434: \begin{equation}
1435: \rm x(\gamma)= x_\infty\,
1436: \left[{1\over\gamma}-{1\over\gamma_0}\right]\, .
1437: \label{range}
1438: \end{equation}
1439: The characteristic distance over which the Lorentz factor evolves
1440: from $\gamma_0$ to $\gamma_0/2$ is $\rm x_\infty/\gamma_0$:
1441: roughly 1.3 kpc for $\gamma_0=10^3$ and the reference value of
1442: $\rm x_\infty$ in Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}).
1443:
1444:
1445: In Fig.~(\ref{figflux}) we show,
1446: for $\gamma_0=10^3$ and various viewing angles $\theta$,
1447: the AG flux predicted by Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), with $\rm n=4.1$ and
1448: $\rm\gamma(t)$ as in Eq.~(\ref{cubic})
1449: with the reference value of $\rm x_\infty$ in Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}).
1450: For $\theta\neq 0$, and particularly for sufficiently large $\gamma\,\theta_0$,
1451: the AG curve described by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}, \ref{cubic})
1452: shows a very interesting behaviour.
1453: Since $\rm \gamma(t)$ is a decreasing function of time, the Doppler
1454: factor first increases with time, reaches a maximum value
1455: at $\rm\gamma(t)\,\theta\sim 1$ and then declines. An observer
1456: initially outside the beaming cone ($\gamma_0\,\theta >1$),
1457: sees an AG that initially rises with time. As
1458: $\gamma$ decreases the cone broadens, and around $\gamma\theta\!\sim\! 1$
1459: beaming becomes less efficient, the AG declines.
1460:
1461: In Fig.~(\ref{figfluxother}) we show
1462: the AG flux predicted by Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), with $\rm n=4.1$ and
1463: $\rm\gamma(t)$ as in Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft}, \ref{cubic}),
1464: for $\gamma_0=1/\theta=10^3$, $\rm n_p=10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$,
1465: and for various values of the density $\rm n_p^{SN}$ close
1466: to the progenitor SN. For the smaller $\rm n_p^{SN}$, the
1467: limiting CB's radius $\rm R_{max}$ of Eq.~(\ref{Rinfinity}) is
1468: larger. Consequently the CB, subsequently ploughing through the ISM,
1469: loses momentum at a faster pace. The figure shows that this may
1470: extinguish the AG very soon after the GRB, which would make it
1471: much harder to observe. This effect can also be produced by
1472: an increase in the ISM density $\rm n_p$, relative to
1473: the reference choice in Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}), so that the AGs of events not
1474: occurring in low-density superbubbles would also be hard to observe.
1475: These may be (along with extinction) the reasons why, in some 50\%
1476: of cases, GRBs appear not to have afterglows.
1477:
1478: For late times, when $\gamma\theta\ll 1$, Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}) implies that
1479: $\rm\gamma\propto t^{-1/3}$.
1480: According to Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), then,
1481: the AG light curve approaches:
1482: \begin{eqnarray}
1483: \rm F_\nu (t) &\propto& \rm t^{-\tau};\nonumber\\
1484: \tau&=&\rm 1+\alpha\simeq 2.1\, ,
1485: \label{lateAG}
1486: \end{eqnarray}
1487: while the $\nu$ dependence stays put at $\nu^{-\alpha}$. This is compatible
1488: with what is seen in various late-time AG observations (see e.g.
1489: GRB 980326: Bloom et al.~1999a;
1490: GRB 980519: Halpern et al.~1999;
1491: GRB 990123: Holland et al.~2000a;
1492: GRB 990510: Stanek et al.~1999, Harrison et al.~1999, Holland et al.~2000a;
1493: GRB 991208: Castro-Tirado et al.~2001);
1494: GRB 000301c: Masetti et al.~2000, Jensen et al.~2000;
1495: GRB 000926: Fynbo et al.~2001, Harrison et al.~2001, Price et al.~2001;
1496: GRB 010222: Masetti et al~2001, Stanek et al.~2001, Cowsik et al.~2001a).
1497:
1498:
1499:
1500:
1501: \section{Comparison with optical observations}
1502:
1503: We compare our predictions with raw AG observations, i.e. observations
1504: not corrected for extinction. The first step in our procedure
1505: is to work out what a raw ansatz-standard-candle supernova, SN1998bw,
1506: would look like at the location of each GRB. For that, we use the
1507: bare (unextinct) SN1998bw deduced by Galama et al.~(1998a), we
1508: transport it to the GRB location by way of Eq.~(\ref{bw}) and correct it
1509: for extinction in the host galaxy and in ours.
1510: For the extinction in our galaxy
1511: we use the estimates of Schlegel et al. (1998).
1512: For the correction at the host (at the emitted
1513: frequency $\rm (1+z)\,\nu$) we use the wavelength-dependent extinction
1514: estimated by the observers from the AG spectrum and the colours of the
1515: host galaxy. The total extinction of the SN contribution for each
1516: GRB's optical AG is given in Table II.
1517:
1518: The next step in our procedure is to fit the raw data minus the
1519: SN contribution to a fixed host galaxy luminosity plus the CB's afterglow.
1520: We do not correct the latter for extinction, which only affects
1521: its fitted normalization. In the fits,
1522: the afterglow's spectral energy density is given by Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity})
1523: with $\rm R=R_{max}$ and a constant ISM density, that is:
1524: \begin{equation}
1525: \rm
1526: F_\nu=F \; [\gamma(t)]^{2\alpha}\;[\delta(t)]^{3+\alpha}\, ,
1527: \label{fluxdensity2}
1528: \end{equation}
1529: with a normalization factor $\rm F$ which is one of the fitted parameters,
1530: and with $\rm \gamma(t)$
1531: as in Eqs.~(\ref{gamoft})\footnote{Admittedly, our expression for
1532: the AG light curve is not as simple as Eq.~(\ref{pheno}),
1533: but it is also analytical. And it is justified.}. The contribution of the
1534: host galaxy is fixed inside the $\pm 1\sigma$ error range of the photometry
1535: measurements at the late times when the CB and the SN have
1536: become sufficiently dim.
1537:
1538: The parameters to be fit are $\rm F$ and $\alpha$ in Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity2}),
1539: as well as $\rm x_\infty$, $\rm \gamma_0$ and $\theta$ entering the
1540: expressions for $\delta$ and $\gamma$ as functions of time, Eq.~(\ref{cubic}).
1541: The fit is done with the program MINUIT, checked over and
1542: over (in the hunt of false local minima) with different input parameters.
1543: The values of
1544: $\gamma_0$, $\rm \alpha$, $\theta$ and $\rm x_\infty$
1545: for the different GRB afterglows
1546: are listed in Table II, the overall normalization $\rm F$ will be
1547: discussed separately. The results of these fits, which are very good,
1548: are shown in Figs.~(\ref{fig228}) to (\ref{jump508}). Most of them refer to
1549: R-band observations, which are the most extensive and accurate ones in the
1550: optical band, and extend to very late times. In order to test that our
1551: best fitted parameters are independent of frequency we have also fitted
1552: other bands, when sufficiently accurate data are available, and obtained
1553: very similar best fitted parameters. This can be seen in Table II
1554: for GRBs 990510
1555: and 990712, for which we also present V-band fits.
1556: Before discussing the results in much more detail in section 13,
1557: we pay attention to two very peculiar afterglows, and one
1558: particularly well measured one.
1559:
1560: \subsection{GRB 970508, CBs exiting a superbubble?}
1561:
1562: The optical AG of GRB 970508 is the only
1563: one so far that has been seen to rise and fall very significantly.
1564: In Fig.~(\ref{1CB508}) we show how
1565: miserably a fit to this GRB fails, if it is made in the same way
1566: as all of our other fits.
1567:
1568: We have argued in Section 10.1 that GRB progenitors are presumably
1569: located in super-bubbles of 0.1 to 0.5 kpc size. There may be instances
1570: in which the jet of CBs, after travelling for such a distance, does not
1571: continue onwards to a similarly low-density halo region, but encounters
1572: a higher-density domain. To test whether this may explain the very
1573: peculiar shape of this AG, we have made a fit with two
1574: values of the ISM particle-number density, instead of one,
1575: and a time (or distance from the progenitor) at which the
1576: transition occurs. The result is shown in Fig.~(\ref{jump508})
1577: and it is fairly satisfactory.
1578:
1579: The fit parameters correspond to a density increasing by a factor
1580: of $\sim 2.2$ at $\rm t\sim 1.1$ day after burst,
1581: at which point the CBs have travelled some $\sim 0.24$ kpc,
1582: a very reasonable radius for a superbubble. The remaining
1583: parameters are in the usual range, but for $\theta$, which,
1584: at $\sim 3.5$ mrad, is on the large side. Given this large value
1585: and $\gamma_0\sim 1123$, the time at which
1586: $\rm\gamma(t)\,\theta=1$ is reached exceptionally late; this
1587: explains the rise and fall of the theoretical curve; see Dar
1588: and De R\'ujula (2000a) for an earlier version of this result.
1589: The relatively large $\theta$ is also in accordance with the
1590: fact that, in spite of a relatively large
1591: $\gamma$, the equivalent spherical energy of this GRB is
1592: particularly low, see Tables I and II.
1593:
1594: In an earlier version of this paper, we attributed the shape
1595: of the AG of GRB 970508 to the effects of gravitational lensing
1596: by an intervening star or binary, of mass $\rm\sim 2\,M_\odot$.
1597: That was an error. The required mass for an object placed mid-way
1598: to the GRB location is almost three orders of magnitude bigger.
1599: An effect of the observed size and shape
1600: could also be due to an even heavier object
1601: (such as a globular cluster) kiloparsecs away from the source,
1602: but the chance probability for that is negligible. The possibility
1603: of lensing by stars ---which has a few percent probability and
1604: would produce amplification effects typically lasting $\sim 1$ hour---
1605: is still interesting. We discuss it in Appendix III.
1606:
1607:
1608:
1609: \subsection{GRB 980425, a very special case?}
1610:
1611: As reported in Table I, this GRB is by far the closest and yet, its measured
1612: $\gamma$-ray fluence is not large. We have argued (DD2000a) that
1613: in the CB model this is simply due to the fact that it is observed at a very
1614: large $\theta$: the GRB fluence has the same angular dependence
1615: as Eq.~(\ref{fluence}). The association of this GRB with SN1998bw is clear.
1616: In fact, the ``afterglow'' is dominated by the SN. Only the very last
1617: measured AG point is significantly above the $\rm ^{56}Co$ decay
1618: trend of the SN ejecta and would be due to the proper afterglow: that
1619: of the CBs (see Fig. 4 of D2000a). With only one point above the SN
1620: ``background'' we cannot make, in the case of GRB 980425,
1621: a detailed fit of the sort we have made for the other GRB afterglows.
1622: But, as we shall see after we gain confidence on the success of the
1623: CB model in describing X-ray afterglows, we can use the X-ray
1624: measurements for this GRB to determine its parameters and to show
1625: that, after all, it is not at all a very special case.
1626:
1627: \subsection{GRB 990123, the early optical data}
1628:
1629: In the case of this GRB, there are good optical data starting
1630: exceptionally early: during the $\gamma$-ray activity at $\rm t=22.18$ s after
1631: its detected beginning (Akerlof et al. 1999).
1632: The AG rises abruptly to a second point at $\rm t=47.38$ s,
1633: and decreases thereafter.
1634: At the earlier stage, the CB is still hot and fully ionized, its
1635: thermal bremsstrahlung (free-free) self absorption
1636: %($\rm a_{\nu}\approx 0.018\, T^{-3/2}\, n_{CB}^2\,
1637: %\nu^{-2}\, g_{ff}\, cm^{-1}$ where $\rm g_{ff}$ is the quantum mechanical
1638: %gaunt factor, e.g. Rybicki and Lightman 1979)
1639: is very large and fast decreasing, resulting in a fast rising AG
1640: that turns into a declining light curve
1641: when the CBs become transparent to short radio waves (corresponding to
1642: optical light in the observer frame). It is possible to explain the
1643: initial rise in detail, but the scarcity of the data and the surplus
1644: of parameters make the exercise moot.
1645: We choose to describe this AG from $\rm t=47.38$ s $\sim 5.5\times 10^{-4}$
1646: d onwards,
1647: the first point shown of the measured decline and of Fig.~(\ref{early123}).
1648: We can use the relation between local distance and observer's
1649: time, Eq.~(\ref{dxsn}),
1650: and the specific values of $\rm z$, $\gamma_0$ and $\delta_0$
1651: reported in the Tables for this GRB, to conclude that at the start of the
1652: optical AG data the CBs are a mere 0.46 pc away from the progenitor star.
1653: This is precisely in the domain where the density profile ought
1654: to be that of Eq.~(\ref{WRwind}), $\rm n\propto r^{-2}$, induced
1655: by the parent-star's wind and ejecta. Since
1656: at these early times the CB's deceleration is negligible, an
1657: $\rm r^{-2}$ density profile translates directly into an
1658: optical AG that declines as $\rm t^{-2}$, see Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}).
1659:
1660: In Fig.~(\ref{early123}) we report the result of a fit to the AG
1661: that includes a term proportional to $\rm t^{-2}$. The parameters
1662: of the late ($\rm t\!>\! 1$ d) AG remain essentially unchanged
1663: relative to the ones used before in constructing Fig.~(\ref{fig123}).
1664: The normalization of the fitted $\rm t^{-2}$ term is very close to
1665: that implied by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and (\ref{WRwind}):
1666: the first point of the data is exactly reproduced for a density
1667: $\rm n=0.54 \,cm^{-3}$ at that point, at which $\rm x\simeq 0.46$ pc.
1668: Thus, the CB model also succeeds in describing this very early
1669: AG in magnitude and shape\footnote{Even the most adamant defenders
1670: of fireballs admit that, in their scenarios, the absence of ``windy'' AGs is
1671: a problem, see, e.g. Piran (2001).}.
1672:
1673: \section{Comparison with X-ray observations}
1674:
1675:
1676: The CBs enter their AG phase when they become transparent to radiation.
1677: As we have seen, their X-ray AG is dominated by thermal bremsstrahlung
1678: and first declines with time as $\rm \sim t^{-5}$, as described by
1679: Eqs.~(\ref{Tbrem}, \ref{fbrem}). In a matter of observer's minutes, for typical
1680: parameters, the CB's radius reaches its limiting value and
1681: the synchrotron radiation of Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}),
1682: which is proportional to $\rm n_p\, R^2$, becomes the dominant AG
1683: source in both the X-ray and optical domains: the corresponding lightcurves
1684: are approximately proportional. Once again for typical parameters, a CB
1685: reaches the galactic halo in just a few hours. The light curves before that
1686: time would be hard to model in minute detail,
1687: since the ISM density is no doubt changing rapidly.
1688: Coincidentally, there are not enough continuous X-ray measurements during
1689: the first few hours after the GRBs to reliably extract a density
1690: profile.
1691:
1692: The previous considerations justify a very simple
1693: description of the X-ray light curves. Let $\rm W$
1694: be the (constant) ratio of X-ray to R-band optical AGs. We expect:
1695: \begin{equation}
1696: \rm F_X(t) \simeq F_X(t_{trans})\, \left[{t_{trans}\over t}\right]^5
1697: + W\, F_R(t) \, .
1698: \label{Xdensity}
1699: \end{equation}
1700: where $\rm t$ is the observer's time since the ejection of the (last) CB, and
1701: $\rm F_R(t)$ is the spectral energy density in the R-band,
1702: i.e., Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), that we have fitted to the R-band AG
1703: observations. The two parameters we fit to X-ray light curves
1704: are $\rm F_X(t_{trans})\times [t_{trans}]^5$ and
1705: $\rm W$, resulting in a very good description
1706: of the measured X-ray afterglows of the GRBs
1707: of known redshift: 970228, 970828, 971214, 980613, 990123,
1708: 990510, 000926 and 010222. The cases of GRBs 970508
1709: and 991216 require a non-constant density profile.
1710: The fits to the X-ray AGs are shown in
1711: Figs.~(\ref{X228}-\ref{X222}).
1712: GRB 980425 is discussed separately below.
1713:
1714: During a GRB the X-ray luminosity fluctuates as the $\gamma$-ray
1715: luminosity does, changing abruptly at the end of the GRB into
1716: a very fast decline. This is expected in the CB model, in which the two
1717: behaviours have slightly different origins: thermal bremsstrahlung from
1718: the various CBs' surfaces during the GRB, thermal bremsstrahlung from the
1719: rapidly cooling CBs' volumes as they become transparent to the radiation
1720: they enclose, in a short time $\rm t_{trans}$ ---of the order of
1721: seconds--- at the end of each individual CB. In
1722: Figs.~(\ref{X228}-\ref{X222}) we have therefore
1723: shown our fits to data beginning
1724: at the start of the sharp X-ray decline.
1725:
1726:
1727: The use in Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) of a more careful treatment of the
1728: bremsstrahlung contribution (evolving from $\rm t^{-5}$ to $\rm t^{-3}$)
1729: is unwarranted: the assumption of a constant ISM density
1730: should be inappropriate between
1731: $ \rm \sim\! 2\times 10^{-3}$ and $\sim\! 0.2$ days, and there are no
1732: data in that domain except for GRB 991216 and perhaps 970508 that, like the
1733: early optical AG of GRB 990123, suggest an initial density variation
1734: $\rm\propto 1/r^2$, resulting in an observed $\rm\sim t^{-2}$ decline.
1735: In these cases, we have fitted the data with
1736: Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a $\rm \sim 1/r^2$ plus constant density along the
1737: CB trajectory. For the particularly interesting case of GRB 970508,
1738: shown in Fig.~(\ref{X508}), we have also subtracted from the data
1739: the contribution of the X-ray line observed before 0.8 d.
1740: This reduces the two points observed between
1741: 0.2 and 1 day by a factor $\sim 0.39$.
1742: The overall result is compatible with an effect that, at late times,
1743: is achromatic, since both the late optical and X-ray AGs are
1744: proportional to $\rm n_e$; see Fig.~(\ref{jump508})
1745: for the optical counterpart.
1746:
1747: In what follows we refer to the initially rapidly-falling part of
1748: an X-ray AG, as ``early'' and to the subsequent much flatter
1749: AG as ``late''.
1750:
1751: We have chosen to write the prediction for X-rays
1752: as in Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) to better expose the expected achromaticity
1753: of the late AG. Moreover, the data for late X-ray AGs is generally more
1754: sparse than for optical light; it is therefore advisable to exploit
1755: the fact that the CB's parameters are better fit from the R-band data,
1756: and to write the late X-ray AG as a rescaling of that data.
1757: But the effects of absorption are much less severe
1758: for X rays and there is one parameter,
1759: the overall normalization, for which it is preferable to use the
1760: X-ray fluence in testing the model. The values of
1761: $\alpha$, $\theta$, $\gamma_0$, and $\rm x_\infty$,
1762: fit for each GRB to the R-band AG, are sufficient to deduce,
1763: via Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), the shape ---but not the normalization--- of the
1764: expected {\it late} X-ray flux in the 2-10 keV domain.
1765: This flux depends, via $\rm n_e\,R_{max}^2$ at fixed $\rm x_\infty$,
1766: on the number of CBs and their individual baryon number, as
1767: $\rm F\propto n_{_{CB}}\,N_{CB}=N_{jet}$ (the dependence on
1768: $\rm B_\perp$, via $\nu_0^{\alpha-1}$, is extremely weak).
1769: Let $\rm q$, for a given GRB, be the ratio of the observed flux to the one
1770: expected for our canonical $\rm N_{CB}=6\times 10^{50}$, and
1771: for one dominant (largest $\gamma$) cannonball: $\rm n_{_{CB}}=1$.
1772: The values of $\rm q$ are reported in Table III. They range from $\sim 1/3$ to
1773: $\sim 3$, indicating that the CB model satisfactorily explains the
1774: {\it late} X-ray AG normalizations
1775: and that the total baryon number of the
1776: ensemble of CBs that dominate the AG appears to be quite constant.
1777:
1778:
1779: One can see in Figs.~(\ref{X228}) to (\ref{X222}), that the
1780: X-ray fluences at the start of the X-ray decline are
1781: $\rm \sim 10^{-8}-10^{-7}\; erg\, cm^{-2}\, s^{-1}$. These figures
1782: for the beginning of the early X-ray AG compare
1783: quite favourably with the typical prediction quoted after Eq.~(\ref{fbrem}):
1784: $\rm 4.35\times 10^{-9}\; erg\, cm^{-2}\, s^{-1}$ for a single CB.
1785: Once again, the parameters extracted from fitting the optical AGs
1786: are not sufficient to fix case by case the overall {\it early} X-ray normalization in
1787: Eq.~(\ref{fbrem}), which also depends directly on other parameters
1788: (notably $\rm N_{CB}$, $\rm n_{CB}$ and the radii of the still-growing CBs).
1789: Using these degrees of freedom we could fit not only the late, but also the
1790: early absolute X-ray fluences. Suffice it to say that the magnitude of the
1791: {\it early} X-ray afterglow is also the one expected in the CB model.
1792:
1793:
1794: The fitted values of $\rm W$ in Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity})
1795: are in fair agreement with the absorption-dependent expectation
1796: $\rm [A(\nu_X)/A(\nu_O)]\,(\nu_X/ \nu_O)^{-\alpha_{_{\!OX}}}$
1797: from the spectrum of Eq.~(\ref{spectrum}).
1798: Some examples of values of $\rm\alpha_{_{\!OX}}$
1799: extracted this way are
1800: $1.06\pm 0.12$ for GRB 970228 (Frontera et al., 1998),
1801: $1.12 \pm 0.07$ for GRB 970508 (Galama et al. 1998b),
1802: $0.95\pm 0.1$ for GRB 971214 (Dal Fiume et al. 2000),
1803: $>1$ for GRB 980703 (Vreeswijk et al. 1999)
1804: $0.96 \pm 0.26$ for GRB 990510 (Pian et al. 2001),
1805: 0.9 to 1.1 for GRB 000926 (Piro et al. 2001) and
1806: $0.97 \pm 0.05$ for GRB 010222 (In `t Zand et al. 2001).
1807: However, the inferred values of $\rm \alpha_{OX}$ are affected by large
1808: and very uncertain extinctions in the CB and host galaxies. Evidence for
1809: large extinction of optical AGs of GRBs in their host galaxies is provided
1810: by the large column densities ($\rm N_H > 10^{22}\, cm^{-1}$) extracted
1811: from the X-ray observations of some GRBs (e.g., GRBs 970228, 970508,
1812: 970828, 971214, 980329, 980519: Owens et al. 1998; GRB 980703: Vreeswijk
1813: et al. 1999) and from the absorbed spectra of the optical AG of other GRBs
1814: (e.g. GRB 990712: Vreeswijk et al. 2000; GRB 991216: Halpern et al. 2000a;
1815: GRB 000131: Andersen et al. 2000). In fact, the failure to detect the
1816: optical AG of many long duration GRBs with well localized X-ray AG ---like
1817: GRB 970111, GRB 970616, GRB 970815, and 970828--- may be due to strong
1818: extinction of their optical AG in the host galaxy (Djorgovski et al. 2001
1819: and references therein).
1820:
1821:
1822:
1823: \subsection{GRB 980425 is not exceptional}
1824:
1825: The $\gamma$-ray fluence of this GRB is not atypical but
1826: its redshift, $\rm z=0.0085$, is extremely small.
1827: If it is not intrinsically exceptional, its CBs must be viewed from
1828: an atypically large angle (DD2000a).
1829: For large $\theta$ the CBs' afterglow is strongly
1830: reduced, as can be seen from Fig.~(\ref{figflux}), allowing for the possibility
1831: that the AG is dominated by the SN.
1832: Consequently, the CB parameters cannot be derived
1833: from the optical light curve of the blended SN 1998bw/GRB 980425 system.
1834: But they can be deduced from the X-ray emission of the system if we
1835: assume, unlike the observers do (e.g., Pian et al. 1999; Pian et al. 2001)
1836: that it was produced by the CBs and {\it not} by the conventional
1837: quasi-spherical SN ejecta\footnote{We are indebted to E. Pian for
1838: discussions on this point.}. Indeed,
1839: significant X-ray emission from SNe has been detected only
1840: at much later times after the event. Moreover, the exceptionally slow
1841: decline of the X-ray AG in this GRB is what is expected from the
1842: large viewing angle interpretation, see Fig.~(\ref{figflux}).
1843:
1844: Given all of the above, for this GRB
1845: we have ``reversed'' our procedure by first fitting the X-ray AG of the
1846: SN 1998bw/GRB 980425 system. The fit is shown in
1847: the upper part of Fig.~(\ref{425}) and the
1848: fitted parameters are listed in Table II. The data are not very
1849: precise and the fit (for which we assumed $\alpha=1.1$,
1850: as fitted for all other GRBs) is not one of our best,
1851: but it inescapably requires a very large viewing angle $\theta$.
1852: The best fitted angle is $\theta\sim 8.3$ mrad,
1853: corresponding, for the fitted $\gamma\sim 750$,
1854: to an initial Doppler factor $\delta\sim 37$.
1855: If the CBs of GRB 980425 had been viewed from a typical viewing
1856: angle, $\theta\!\leq\! 1/\gamma_0 $, the equivalent isotropic energy
1857: would have been in the range $ 7.3\times 10^{51}$
1858: to $5.8 \times 10^{52}$ erg, like that of all other GRBs.
1859:
1860: If we assume that for GRB 980425
1861: the extinction, ISM density, and CB
1862: radius were the same as for other GRBs well measured in X-rays,
1863: such as GRB 990510 or GRB 010222, we can use Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity})
1864: to derive the expected intensity of the X-ray AG plateau of GRB 980425,
1865: see Fig.~(\ref{425}), and its caption.
1866: The results are $\rm F_X[425] = 0.32\, F_X[510]$, and $\rm F_X[425] = 0.15\,
1867: F_X[222] $, both yielding $\rm F_X[425]
1868: \!\sim\! 4\times 10^{-13}\, erg\, cm^{-2}\, s^{-1}$, in
1869: agreement with the BeppoSAX observations (Pian, 1999; Pian et al. 2000).
1870: The double success in deducing a ``normal'' GRB equivalent
1871: isotropic energy, and the
1872: intensity of the X-ray AG, constitutes a very strong support for
1873: the alleged association of SN1998bw with (a not exceptional) GRB 980425.
1874:
1875: The fitted parameters of the X-ray AG can be used to predict the
1876: magnitude and shape of the
1877: optical AG of the blended SN 1998bw/GRB 980425 system,
1878: if we assume the same V/X extinction ratio as in GRBs 990510, 000926 and
1879: 010222. This we do in the lower part of Fig.~(\ref{425}). The
1880: CBs' contribution dominates at very late time and,
1881: remarkably, it is in perfect agreement with the HST
1882: observation (Fynbo et al. 2000) on day 778 after the GRB.
1883:
1884: \section{Discussion of the results on optical AGs}
1885:
1886: With the exception of the AG of GRB 970508, which has the sharp ``break up''
1887: that we have explained via a sudden change in density,
1888: a look at Figs.~(\ref{fig228}) to (\ref{jump508}) clearly reveals that the
1889: observed AGs have absolutely no ``breaks''.
1890: In the CB model, the gradual evolution of the proper
1891: afterglow (that of the CBs) is simply a consequence of
1892: the gradual decrease of the Lorentz factor $\rm \gamma(t)$.
1893: We give in Table II the list of the parameters resulting from
1894: our fits ($\alpha$, $\gamma_0$, $\theta$ and $\rm x_\infty$)
1895: to optical R-band afterglows (and in two cases, to
1896: the V-band afterglow as well).
1897:
1898: The fits to the CB model are satisfactory, particularly since the best-fit
1899: parameters turn out to be precisely in the expected ranges.
1900: On close inspection one notices that our curves occasionally
1901: undershoot or overshoot some points by a small factor, as in
1902: GRBs 990123 and 000301c\footnote{The feature at $\rm t\!\sim\! 4$ days in
1903: GRB 000301c has been interpreted by Garnavich et al. (2000b)
1904: as due to gravitational lensing.}.
1905: This is not a surprise: the AG fluences
1906: are proportional to the ISM number density, which we do not
1907: expect to be exactly constant for kpc distances, even
1908: in the halo of galaxies. If such ``defects'' were not present
1909: in our fits, we would have concluded
1910: that the data had been over-parametrized. For the same reasons,
1911: and because of the systematic errors in the data,
1912: the values of the parameters we extract from our fits should not
1913: be taken entirely at face value, even though the minimization procedure
1914: ---which attributes to the errors a counterfactual purely statistical origin---
1915: results in tiny 1 $\sigma$ spreads for the fitted parameters, and in
1916: $\chi^2 $ values that are in most cases extremely satisfactory.
1917:
1918: All the figures (\ref{fig228}) to (\ref{jump508}) refer to optical data
1919: for $\rm t\!\geq\! 0.1$ days, for which it is reasonable
1920: to approximate the ISM density by a constant value,
1921: describing the density of the superbubble and/or the galactic halo.
1922: We have already discussed the early observations of
1923: GRB 990123, for which this approximation breaks down.
1924:
1925: \subsection{The distribution of fitted parameters}
1926:
1927: In the CB model, the parameter $\alpha$ of
1928: Eqs.~(\ref{spectrum}, \ref{fluxdensity}) is
1929: the only one for which we have no reason to expect
1930: a range of different values. It is therefore extremely
1931: satisfactory that the fitted values of $\alpha$ are, within errors,
1932: compatible with {\it all} of the GRBs having a universal
1933: behaviour with the theoretically predicted value: $\alpha\approx 1.1$,
1934: Eq.~(\ref{spectrum}). The narrow distribution of best fitted $\alpha$
1935: values is shown in Fig.~(\ref{alphadist}).
1936: In the CB model, we have extracted the
1937: values of $\alpha$ from
1938: the temporal shape of the AG and ---adding consistency
1939: to the picture--- they agree well with the values
1940: obtained from spectral observations, either in X-rays (with spectra
1941: modified by a best-fit hydrogen column density) or in the
1942: optical domain (with a galactic colour-dependent extinction).
1943: Some examples are:\\
1944: GRB 970228: $\rm\alpha_X=1.06\pm 0.12$ (Costa et al.~1997).\\
1945: GRB 970508: $\rm\alpha_{O}=1.12\pm 0.07$ (Galama et al.~1998c);\\
1946: $\rm\alpha_X=1.11\pm 0.06$ (Galama et al.~1998c).\\
1947: GRB 990123: $\rm\alpha_{O}=1.29\pm 0.23$ (Holland et al. 1999a).\\
1948: GRB 990510: $\rm\alpha_X=0.96 \pm 0.26 $ (Pian et al.~2001);\\
1949: $\rm\alpha_{O}=1.26\pm 0.15$ (Stanek et al.~1999).\\
1950: GRB 991208: $\rm\alpha_{O}=1.05\pm 0.09$ (Castro-Tirado et al. 2000).\\
1951: GRB 991208: $\rm\alpha_{O}\approx 1.1$ (Takeshima et al. 1999).\\
1952: GRB 000301c: $\rm\alpha_{O}=1.15\pm 0.26$ (Jensen et al.~2000).\\
1953: GRB 000926: $\rm\alpha_X=1.2\pm 0.3$ (Piro et al.~2001);\\
1954: $\rm\alpha_{O}=1.02\pm 0.02$ (Sagar et al.~2001a).\\
1955: GRB 010222: $\rm\alpha_X=0.97 \pm 0.15$ (In `t Zand et al.~2001);\\
1956: $\rm\alpha_{O}=1.07\pm 0.09$ (Stanek et al.~2001).
1957:
1958: There are also cases for which the reported value of $\alpha$
1959: differs significantly from 1.1. One notable instance is GRB 990510,
1960: for which Beuerman et al. (1999) report $\alpha\sim 0.55$ and
1961: Stanek et al. (1999) find $\alpha=0.61\pm 0.12$. To extract this value
1962: the authors extrapolate the measured extinction: $\rm E(B-V)=0.20$
1963: (Schlegel et al. 1998).
1964: If this measured extinction is used to correct {\it only} the measured
1965: $\rm B-V$
1966: values for GRB 990510: $0.57\pm 0.02$ (Beuerman et al. 1999),
1967: and $0.56\pm 0.03$ (Stanek et al. 1999),
1968: one obtains $\rm \alpha_O=1.08\pm 0.12$.
1969: The uncertainties entailed by absorption corrections are the
1970: reason why we have chosen to de-emphasize results that are sensitive
1971: to them, whether they do, or do not, agree with our expectations.
1972:
1973: The distribution in initial Lorentz factors, $\gamma_0$, shown in
1974: Fig.~(\ref{gammadist}), agrees snugly with our expectation,
1975: $\gamma_0\sim 10^3$, extracted from independent
1976: information: the fluence and the individual-photon energies of GRBs
1977: (DD2000a,b) and the energies of X-ray lines in their afterglow
1978: (DD2001a). Notice how surprisingly narrow this distribution is.
1979:
1980: The distribution of viewing angles $\theta$ is shown
1981: in Fig.~(\ref{thetadist}).
1982: The AG data for GRB 000131 consist in only three points,
1983: while for GRBs 991208 and 000301c the measurements start rather late.
1984: The sensitivity to $\theta$ in our fit to these GRBs is not good. We reflect
1985: this fact in Fig.~(\ref{thetadist}) by having the corresponding
1986: entries unshaded. The distribution is compatible with the
1987: expectation that the limited experimental sensitivity to GRBs introduces
1988: a sharp cutoff as $\theta$ increases; see the steep fluence function, Eq.~(\ref{fluence}).
1989:
1990: The parameter $\rm x_\infty$ of Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}) is the only
1991: one for which we expect a rather broad distribution.
1992: Indeed, it depends on the densities close to the GRB
1993: progenitor, which ought to be
1994: quite variable, and in the region where
1995: the CB light is emitted; see Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}).
1996: The values of $\rm x_\infty$ reported in Table II show
1997: a spread of a bit over one order of magnitude,
1998: supporting the expectation.
1999: In Fig.~(\ref{xdist}) we show the distribution of
2000: $\rm Log_{10}[x_\infty(Mpc)]$, which peaks at
2001: the reference value of Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}) and extends
2002: to smaller values, as expected if the average density close
2003: to the progenitor is sometimes much smaller than our rather large
2004: reference value: $\rm n_p^{SN}=1\;cm^{-3}$; and/or the density
2005: of the ISM is bigger than our rather low reference value:
2006: $\rm n_p=10^{-3}\;cm^{-3}$.
2007:
2008: The values of $\alpha$, $\theta$, $\gamma_0$ and $\rm x_\infty$
2009: are not sufficient to predict the overall normalization
2010: of an AG: $\rm F$ in Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity2}), whose approximate
2011: value is given by the absolutely normalized
2012: Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}). Indeed,
2013: $\rm F$ is proportional to the product of the number of CBs
2014: and their baryon number. To skirt absorption
2015: corrections we have discussed in section 12 the values of $\rm F$
2016: in connection with late X-ray AGs. There, we compared
2017: the data and the naive expectation for a single (highest-$\gamma$)
2018: dominant CB ($\rm n_{_{CB}}=1$) and
2019: our canonical $\rm N_{CB}$, to work out the ratio $\rm q$
2020: of fitted to predicted values of $\rm F$ in the X-ray band.
2021: The same exercise can be carried along for the R-band AGs,
2022: with the result that the optical values of $\rm q$ are not
2023: within a factor of three, but within an order of magnitude
2024: of $\rm q=1$. It is tempting to conclude that this may
2025: be due to poorly-understood absorption. It is in any case clear that
2026: the AG magnitude, in the CB model, is not a problem\footnote{In the
2027: fireball model and its descendants, the
2028: efficiency of conversion of kinetic energy to photons is claimed to be
2029: high, and both the GRBs and their AGs are due to the same
2030: mechanism: synchrotron radiation. It is therefore difficult to explain why,
2031: at the end of the GRB, the radiation rate suddenly drops by two orders of
2032: magnitude or more, and why there is more energy in the GRB than in the
2033: afterglow (see, e.g. Burenin et al.~1999; Pian et al.~2001, In `t Zand et
2034: al.~2001).}.
2035:
2036: The GRB consists of the photons emitted by the hot CBs as they
2037: exit the SN shell. In the rest system of a CB, the individual energies, as in
2038: Eq.~(\ref{energies}), are a fraction $\rm (1+z)/\delta_0$ of
2039: the observed energies, with $\delta_0=\delta[\gamma_0,\theta]$.
2040: The total energy emitted by a GRB, in the rest system of its CBs, is
2041: in the form of isotropically distributed photons that appear to us as the collimated $\gamma$-ray burst. This comoving total energy
2042: is related to the observed fluence
2043: $\rm F_\gamma$ by:
2044: \begin{equation}
2045: \rm E^{CB}_\gamma = {4\,\pi\,D^2_L\,F_\gamma\over(1+z)\,\delta_0^3}\, .
2046: \label{ECBrest}
2047: \end{equation}
2048: For the GRBs all of whose parameters are well determined,
2049: we list in Table III the values of $\rm E^{CB}_\gamma$.
2050: Interestingly, their distribution ---shown in
2051: Fig~(\ref{Edist})--- is also quite narrow.
2052:
2053: We have not discussed in this subsection the parameters of
2054: GRB 980425, listed in Table II.
2055: They are obtained from a fit to the X-ray ---as opposed to optical--- AG,
2056: and they are imprecise. The deduced value of $\rm E_\gamma^{CB}$
2057: is $0.16 \times 10^{44}$ erg, a bit lower than those listed
2058: in Table II. This is to be expected, the small $\delta$ of this GRB
2059: makes its GRB softer, and less prominent within the BATSE energy window.
2060:
2061: To summarize, the distributions of parameters are in extremely good
2062: agreement with the expectations of the CB model and, if anything,
2063: they are astonishingly close to what they would be
2064: for ``standard candle'' GRBs.
2065:
2066: \subsection{The GRB/SN association in view of our results}
2067:
2068: It is useful to discuss the evidence for a SN component in
2069: the GRB optical AGs in order of decreasing redshift.
2070: The fact that we have a consistent and successful description
2071: of optical afterglows strengthens the interpretation of this
2072: putative evidence.
2073:
2074:
2075:
2076: Examining Figs.~(\ref{fig228}) to (\ref{jump508}), we draw the
2077: following conclusions.
2078: In the six more distant GRBs, ranging from GRB 000131
2079: at $\rm z=4.5$ to GRB 010222 at $\rm z\!>\!1.474$, there is
2080: no evidence for {\it or against} a SN 1998bw-like component.
2081: In GRB 000418, at $\rm z=1.119$, there is an indication of an excess, compatible
2082: with the SN. In GRB 980613, at $\rm z=1.096$, the evidence, though based
2083: mainly on just one point, is very strong. In GRB 991216, at $\rm z=1.02$,
2084: there is a clear indication of a late excess over the CB's afterglow, though a
2085: SN1998bw-like contribution does not describe it very well
2086: (a slightly earlier bump would do a very good job, indicating
2087: that the standard-candle hypothesis for the SN is good, but not perfect).
2088: In GRB 980703, at $\rm z=0.966$, the SN excess is visible and well fitted,
2089: but the errors are large. For GRB 970828, at $\rm z=0.957$, there
2090: are no AG observations at optical wavelengths. In the peculiar
2091: case of GRB 970508, at $\rm z=0.835$,
2092: there is in the data a clear excess at late times that is very
2093: well fitted by our SN ansatz. For the next three closer GRBs
2094: (991208, 970228, 990712), at $\rm z=0.706$ to 0.434, the evidence
2095: is completely convincing that a SN1998bw-like contribution
2096: is required to fit the data. In the case of GRB 990712, once again,
2097: a SN peak occurring slightly earlier than that of a redshift-corrected
2098: SN1998bw would provide a better description of the AG.
2099: Finally, GRB 980425, at $\rm z=0.0085$ is indeed associated to a SN:
2100: our fairly satisfactory standard-candle choice.
2101:
2102: A clear trend is apparent in the last paragraph. The closer a GRB
2103: is, the better the evidence for its association with a SN. The trend
2104: is entirely consistent with the fact that, for the more distant GRBs,
2105: a SN contribution to the AG could not be seen, even if it was there.
2106: In all cases where the SN could be seen, it was seen, with the evidence
2107: gaining in significance as the distance diminishes.
2108: The temptation to conclude that all long-duration GRBs are
2109: associated with SNe appears to us to be irresistible, even if an
2110: irrefutable proof will never be possible.
2111:
2112: \subsection{Do cannonballs deserve their name?}
2113:
2114: We have argued that CBs should reach an asymptotic radius in
2115: a very short time and travel thereafter as literal, i.e. non-expanding,
2116: ``cannonballs''. Can this statement be contrasted with the data?
2117: To answer this question we have analyzed the AGs produced by
2118: CBs whose radius inertially increases at a fixed speed,
2119: $\rm \beta_{exp}\, c$, in their rest system. The details are
2120: given in Appendix II. The result is that the late AGs behave in this
2121: case as $\rm F_\nu\propto t^{-\tau}$, with $\tau=9\,(1+\alpha)/5$.
2122: For $\alpha\simeq 1.1$, as we have argued, $\tau\simeq 3.8$,
2123: which completely disagrees with the AG light curves. For $\tau=2.1$,
2124: in agreement with the latter, $\alpha\simeq 0.17$, which completely
2125: disagrees with the measured spectra. Thus, the cannonballs
2126: of the CB model do deserve their name.
2127:
2128:
2129: \section{Summary and conclusions}
2130:
2131: We have previously argued that the cannonball
2132: model offers a successful and simple explanation
2133: of the fluence, energy spectrum, and temporal behaviour of
2134: the prompt $\gamma$-rays of a GRB (DD2000b).
2135: >From these considerations we extracted a CB's
2136: typical Lorentz factor, $\gamma_0\sim 10^3$, and typical
2137: baryon number $\rm N_{CB}$: in the
2138: vicinity of $6\times 10^{50}$, or ${\cal{O}}(10)$ times
2139: as much for a jet of CBs in a multipulse GRB
2140: (DD2000b, DD2001b). Using only these CB-related input parameters
2141: and a reasonable initial CB expansion velocity, we have explicitly
2142: worked out all of the properties of X-ray and optical afterglows.
2143:
2144: As an intermediate result, we
2145: derived the temporal behaviour of the radius of
2146: a CB and showed that, faithful to their name, CB radii tend to a constant
2147: $\rm R_{max}$ in mere minutes of observer's time. The
2148: value of $\rm R_{max}$ depends
2149: on the ISM density close to the GRB progenitor.
2150: GRBs whose CBs have large radii have afterglows whose temporal
2151: decline is very fast. This is also the case for GRBs whose CBs travel through a
2152: relatively dense ISM.
2153: These may be the reasons, along with strong extinction in the host galaxy,
2154: why the search for AGs is not always successful.
2155:
2156: We have shown how well the CB model describes
2157: all the properties of the X-ray and optical afterglows of GRBs.
2158: Our results do not ---and could not--- take into account possible variations
2159: of the ISM density along a CB's path; they are in this sense
2160: ``descriptions'' rather than fits. In spite of this, the descriptions
2161: are excellent and the consistency of the results is impressive.
2162:
2163: The observed behaviour of both X-ray and optical AGs is the
2164: predicted one. All the parameters extracted from the fits have
2165: values or distributions close to the expected ones.
2166: This is the case for the integrated fluences in
2167: the early and late X-ray and optical
2168: bands, for the values of the Lorentz factor
2169: $\gamma$, for the distribution of observation angles $\theta$,
2170: for the spectral index $\alpha$ (that we determine,
2171: not from the spectra themselves, but
2172: from the time-dependence of the late afterglow),
2173: and for the parameter $\rm x_\infty$ of Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}),
2174: that governs the pace
2175: of the CB's slowdown, and is a combination
2176: of the ISM densities, and the CB's baryon number and radius.
2177: Throughout, we have chosen to de-emphasize the results that are most
2178: sensitive to systematic errors, such as absorption corrections. Thus,
2179: we have not systematically extracted parameters from
2180: flux normalizations, nor reported any $\chi^2$ tests of the quality of the fits
2181: (which would be misleadingly good) or statistical-error estimates on the fitted
2182: parameters (which would be misleadingly small).
2183:
2184:
2185: The distribution of the derived
2186: quantity $\rm E_\gamma^{CB}$ (the energy
2187: of the GRB photons in the CBs' rest system)
2188: has a range of less than a factor of four,
2189: making long-duration GRBs not far from standard candles.
2190: We have demonstrated that GRB afterglows can be
2191: understood in detail. Perhaps this will pave the way to the
2192: use of GRBs as cosmological beacons.
2193:
2194: GRB 980425 is at first sight a special case: its $\gamma$-rays
2195: are rather soft, it is extremely near by cosmological standards,
2196: and very clearly associated with a SN. In the CB model it is not
2197: exceptional, only seen at a relatively large angle.
2198: Its X-ray afterglow is normal and emitted
2199: by its CBs, not by the isotropic ejecta of SN1998bw.
2200: Its optical AG is dominated by the SN for almost two years,
2201: but its last measured point is due to the CBs, and agrees with
2202: the expectation.
2203:
2204: Very early optical AG data are only available for GRB 990123.
2205: The CB model is also capable of describing them naturally:
2206: their magnitude and time-dependence are those expected
2207: for CBs moving through the density profile produced by winds in
2208: the Wolf-Rayet phase of the progenitor. Future early observations
2209: should test this feature of the CB model: a linear dependence
2210: of the AG fluence on the varying local-density profile.
2211:
2212: For GRB 970508 we can provide a good fit
2213: to its peculiar AG only if we assume that its CBs
2214: encountered a sudden change in ISM density,
2215: as they would if they are exiting a superbubble into
2216: a higher-density region.
2217:
2218: The very early X-ray and optical AGs are not achromatic:
2219: they are dominated by two mechanisms with different
2220: time-dependence: thermal bremsstrahlung
2221: and synchrotron radiation.
2222: But in a matter of a few hours all of the AG is dominated by
2223: synchrotron radiation, and the light curves
2224: should be achromatic, as observed.
2225:
2226: Our descriptions of the optical AGs indicate or require
2227: the contribution to the light curve of a supernova akin
2228: to SN1998bw, in all eight out of sixteen cases for which
2229: the event occurred close enough for such a contribution
2230: to be observable. The conclusion that there is a roughly one-to-one
2231: association between core-collapse SNe (or perhaps just type Ib and Ic SNe)
2232: and long-duration GRBs is very tempting. The enormous beaming
2233: factor of the CB model makes this conclusion tenable and consistent.
2234:
2235: We are currently completing the study of the predictions
2236: of the CB model for radio afterglows, for which self-absorption in the CBs
2237: is relevant, and requires a careful analysis. The results, soon to
2238: be announced (Dado et al. 2002),
2239: are excellent. We also plan to discuss elsewhere
2240: the interesting implications of the CB model
2241: for cosmic-ray physics, and for other
2242: accreting compact objects that eject relativistic jets, such as
2243: radiogalaxies, AGNs, quasars, microquasars, blazars and microblazars.
2244:
2245: It would be interesting to compare our results
2246: to those of conically ejected shocked fireballs.
2247: We have argued that, for this, it would be
2248: more convincing not to have the observed firetrumpets
2249: pointing precisely to planet Earth. For the time being,
2250: we have proved that the CB model ---based on simple
2251: and definite hypothesis--- makes predictions that
2252: are univocal (as opposed to multiple-choice), explicit,
2253: analytical in fair approximations, quite simple,
2254: very complete, and very successful.
2255:
2256: \vskip .5cm
2257: \noindent
2258: {\bf Acknowledgements:}
2259: We are very indebted to Rainer Plaga for numerous fruitful discussions.
2260: We thank Elena Pian and Jean In `t Zand
2261: for kindly providing us with the detailed data on the
2262: BeppoSAX X-ray observations of GRBs 990510 and 010222;
2263: Donald Smith and Atsunama Yoshida for the data on GRB 970828;
2264: and Luigi Piro for the data on GRB 970508.
2265: We are indebted to an anonymous referee for many
2266: sensible suggestions and questions.
2267: This research was supported in part
2268: by the Helen Asher Fund for Space Reseach and by the
2269: V.P.R. Fund - Steiner Research Fund at the Technion.
2270:
2271: \vskip .5cm
2272: \noindent
2273: \section*{Appendix I: Subdominant AG mechanisms}
2274:
2275: Three mechanisms declining less fast than thermal bremsstrahlung
2276: ---but typically subdominant relative to synchrotron radiation---
2277: contribute to GRB afterglows:
2278: relativistic bremsstrahlung from Coulomb collisions
2279: of CB electrons with the ISM constituents,
2280: atomic transitions of CB atoms excited or ionized by these
2281: same collisions, and inverse Compton scattering of
2282: the CBs' electrons on the cosmic background radiation.
2283: We discuss them here to substantiate our assertion that
2284: thermal bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation
2285: dominate the AGs.
2286:
2287: \subsection*{Relativistic bremsstrahlung}
2288:
2289: The electrons of the CB, in their highly relativistic collisions
2290: with the ISM nuclei, emit non-thermal bremsstrahlung
2291: radiation.
2292: The total power per unit area received by the observer
2293: from this source is:
2294: \begin{equation}
2295: \rm {dF_{RB}\over dt\, d\Omega} \approx { 45.7\, \alpha\, r_e^2\, N_{CB}\,
2296: n_p\,
2297: m_e\, c^3\, \gamma^2\,\delta^4 \over 4\, \pi\, D_L^2}\, ,
2298: \label{RBflux}
2299: \end{equation}
2300: where $\rm r_e=2.18\, fm$ is the classical radius of the electron
2301: and $\alpha\approx 1/137$ is the fine structure constant.
2302: For $\rm N_{CB}= 6\times 10^{50}$, $\gamma=\delta=10^3$,
2303: $\rm z=1$ and $\rm n_p=1\, cm^{-3}$, the above expression yields
2304: $3.8\times 10^{-11}$ erg/(cm$^2$ s).
2305: This radiation has the same dependence on $\gamma$ and $\delta$
2306: as the synchrotron radiation of Eq.~(\ref{flux}), but it is some two orders
2307: of magnitude smaller.
2308: This spectrum extends to $\rm\!\sim\! m_e\,\delta/(1+z)\sim 250$
2309: MeV; it may be a contribution to the very high energy
2310: $\gamma$-rays observed by EGRET and COMPTEL in some GRBs.
2311:
2312: \subsection*{Atomic transitions}
2313:
2314: The recombination and de-excitation of the CB atoms
2315: excited and dissociated by Coulomb collisions with
2316: the ISM particles contributes to the AG with a power:
2317: \begin{equation} \rm
2318: {dF_C\over dt\, d\Omega} \approx {8\, \pi \, r_e^2\, n_p\, m_e\, c^3\,
2319: N_{CB}\, ln[\Lambda] \, \gamma\,\delta^4 \over 4\, \pi\, D_L^2}\, ,
2320: \label{Cflux}
2321: \end{equation}
2322: where $\rm ln[\Lambda]$ is the Coulomb logarithm,
2323: \begin{equation} \rm
2324: ln[\Lambda]= ln \left[ {\sqrt{2\, m_e\, c^2\, \gamma^2\, T_{max}} \over I}
2325: \right ]\, ,
2326: \label{Lambda}
2327: \end{equation}
2328: $\rm I=13.6$ eV is the
2329: ionization energy of hydrogen, and $\rm T_{max}$ is the maximum kinetic
2330: energy that can be imparted to a stationary electron in a single collision
2331: with a relativistic particle of mass $\rm M$:
2332: \begin{equation}
2333: \rm T_{max}= {2\, m_e\, c^2\, \gamma^2 \over 1+2\, \gamma^2\, m_e/M +
2334: (m_e/M)^2}\, .
2335: \label{Tmax}
2336: \end{equation}
2337: For $\rm N_{CB}= 6\times 10^{50}$, $\gamma=\delta=10^3$,
2338: $\rm n_p=1$ cm$^{-3}$ and
2339: $\rm z=1$, Eq.~(\ref{Cflux}) yields $7.15\times 10^{-11}$ erg/(cm$^2$ s),
2340: which
2341: is negligible with respect to the synchrotron radiation of Eq.~(\ref{flux}).
2342: This power is radiated mostly as synchrotron emission from the
2343: knocked-on electrons and by line emission from hydrogen recombination
2344: (boosted to X-ray energies).
2345:
2346:
2347: \subsection*{Inverse Compton scattering}
2348:
2349: The scattering of the CBs' electrons
2350: on ambient starlight and the cosmic
2351: background radiation (CBR) produces a radiated power:
2352: \begin{equation}
2353: \rm {dF_{CBR} \over dt\, d\Omega} \approx {32\, \pi \, r_e^2\,
2354: \rho_\gamma\,
2355: c\, N_{CB}\, \gamma^2\,\delta^4 \over 36\, \pi\, D_L^2}\, ,
2356: \label{ICSflux}
2357: \end{equation}
2358: where $\rho_\gamma$ is the energy density of the radiation field
2359: ($\rm \rho_\gamma= 0.24\,(1+z)^4\, eV\, cm^{-3}$ for
2360: the CBR). For $\rm N_{CB}= 6\times 10^{50}$, $\gamma=\delta=10^3$
2361: and $\rm z=1$, the above expression
2362: yields $1.5\times 10^{-14}$ erg/(cm$^2$ s) for the CBR contribution,
2363: which is negligible relative to synchrotron radiation
2364: up to a very late afterglow phase,
2365: when $\rm n_e$ may be very small. The contribution of
2366: Compton scattering to a polarization of the signals,
2367: on the other hand, may not be negligible (Shaviv and Dar, 1995).
2368:
2369: Inverse Compton scattering of the CBs' high energy electrons, with
2370: a proper spectrum $\rm dn_e/dE \sim E_e^{-3.2}$, on their self-produced
2371: synchrotron and thermal bremsstrahlung radiation produces very
2372: high energy photons with a spectrum $\rm dn_\gamma/dE\sim E^{-2.1}$.
2373: For distant GRBs, this
2374: spectrum is cutoff at sub TeV energies by pair
2375: production on the infrared background radiation. But, for very nearby
2376: GRBs, it may be observable up to extremely high energies, larger than those
2377: observed from blazars.
2378:
2379: \section*{Appendix II: Ever expanding ``cannonballs''}
2380:
2381: It is very instructive to study the possibility that CBs,
2382: instead of reaching an asymptotic radius, would
2383: continue to expand significantly.
2384: To find $\rm\gamma(t)$ in this case, Eq.~(\ref{Roft})
2385: is to be substituted by:
2386: \begin{equation}
2387: \rm dR=\beta_{exp}\;{dx\over\gamma},
2388: \label{Rofx}
2389: \end{equation}
2390: while Eqs.~(\ref{dgamma}, \ref{dxsn}) remain unchanged.
2391: Insert Eq.~(\ref{Rofx}) into Eq.~(\ref{dgamma}) and integrate, to
2392: obtain, for constant $\rm n_p$:
2393: \begin{eqnarray}
2394: \rm R^3(\gamma)&=&\rm R^3_{trans}+\widehat R^3_{max},
2395: \left[{1\over\gamma^2}-{1\over\gamma_0^2}\right]\nonumber\\
2396: \rm \widehat R^3_{max}&\equiv&\rm {3\,N_{CB}\,\beta_{exp}\over
2397: 2\,\pi\,n_p}\, . \label{Rhat}
2398: \end{eqnarray}
2399: The CBs reach an asymptotic radius as $\gamma\to 1$, which bears
2400: some resemblance to that of Eq.~(\ref{Rinfinity}), but it is reached much later
2401: and it is much larger (e.g. $\rm \widehat R\sim 3.8\times 10^{17}$ cm for
2402: $\rm n_p=10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$, $\rm\beta_{trans}=1/(3\sqrt{3})$, and
2403: $\rm N_{CB}=6\times 10^{50}$).
2404:
2405: Upon insertion of Eq.~(\ref{Rhat}) into Eq.~(\ref{dgamma}), we obtain
2406: the analogue of Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}):
2407: \begin{eqnarray}
2408: -\rm\int_\gamma^{\gamma_0} &\rm d\gamma&\rm
2409: {1+\theta^2\gamma^2\over \gamma^{8/3}}
2410: \left[1-{\gamma^2\over\gamma_0^2}\right]^{-2/3}
2411: ={2\,c\, t\over 3\, (1+z)\, \widehat x_\infty}
2412: \nonumber\\
2413: \rm\widehat x_\infty&\equiv&
2414: \rm{N_{CB}\over\pi\,\widehat R_{max}^2\, n_p}
2415: \label{gamoftbis}
2416: \end{eqnarray}
2417: where we have neglected $\rm R^3_{trans}/\widehat R^3_{max}$.
2418: The integral can be done analytically, but is not compact.
2419:
2420: For late times, when $\gamma\theta\ll 1$, Eq.~(\ref{gamoftbis}) implies that
2421: $\rm\gamma\propto t^{-3/5}$. According to Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), then,
2422: the AG light curve approaches:
2423: \begin{eqnarray}
2424: \rm F_\nu (t) &\propto& \rm t^{-\hat\tau};\nonumber\\
2425: \widehat\tau&=&\rm{9\over 5}\;(1+\alpha)\simeq 3.8.
2426: \label{lateAGbis}
2427: \end{eqnarray}
2428: This behaviour cannot be reconciled with the data,
2429: as explained in the text.
2430:
2431: \section*{Appendix III: gravitational lensing of moving CBs}
2432:
2433: The phenomenon of gravitational lensing is well known.
2434: A lensing object of mass $\rm M$ has a Schwarzschild radius
2435: $\rm R_S=2\,G_N\,M/c^2$. If $\rm D_A(z)$ is the angular distance
2436: from source to observer and $\rm x$ is the fractional distance to the
2437: lens, the Einstein radius of the system is $\rm R_E=[2\,R_S\,D_A\,x(1-x)]^{1/2}$.
2438: As the lensing object crosses close to the line of sight (or, in our case, as
2439: the line of sight to the fast-moving CB passes close to the lensing object)
2440: the amplification $\rm A$ is:
2441: \begin{eqnarray}
2442: \rm A &=& \rm {2+u^2\over u\,\sqrt{u+u^2}}\, ,\nonumber\\
2443: \rm u(t)&\equiv&\rm \left[u_{min}^2+
2444: {[t-t_{max}]^2\over \tau^2}\right]^{1/2}\, ,\nonumber\\
2445: \rm \tau(t)&\equiv&\rm {R_E\over v_\perp(t)}\, ,\nonumber\\
2446: \rm v_\perp(t)&\simeq& \rm
2447: c\,{\theta\,\gamma(t)\,\delta(t)\over 1+z}\, ,
2448: \label{Gravamp}
2449: \end{eqnarray}
2450: where $\rm u_{min}$ is the minimum distance to the lens, in Einstein radii,
2451: of the line of sight to the CB during its motion.
2452:
2453: Gravitational lensing of a moving CB is peculiar in two ways:
2454: the apparent velocity is superluminal, and
2455: the time ``width'' of the effect, $\rm \tau(t)$, is itself
2456: time dependent, since the CB is decelerating as the lensing occurs:
2457: \begin{equation}
2458: \rm \tau(t)=\tau(0)\;{v_\perp(0)\over v_\perp(t)}=\tau(0)\;
2459: \left[{\gamma_0\over\gamma(t)}\right]^2\;
2460: {1+[\theta\,\gamma(t)]^2\over 1+[\theta\,\gamma_0]^2}\, .
2461: \label{tauoft}
2462: \end{equation}
2463:
2464: For a solar-mass star placed halfway to a GRB at $\rm z=1$, the
2465: typical duration of a lensing event is $\tau(0)\sim 1$ hour.
2466: The average Einstein radius of a solar-mass star placed somewhere
2467: on the way to such a location is
2468: $\rm R_E[\odot]\!=\!R_E\,(M_\odot/M)^{1/2}$
2469: $\rm 2\, \langle [x(1-x)]^{1/2}\rangle
2470: \!\sim\! 1860$ AU. What is the optical depth (or apriori probability), $\epsilon$,
2471: for an observable lensing by such an object?
2472: Consider lensing during the first 10 days of an AG, when its fluence
2473: is relatively high and during which, for typical parameters,
2474: the CBs travelled a (local) distance $\rm x\!\simeq\! 2$ kpc.
2475: The apparent transverse distance is
2476: $\rm x_\perp\!=\! x\,\theta/(1+z)\!\simeq\! 1$ pc.
2477: The average luminosity density of the local Universe is
2478: $\rm \rho\sim (1.8\pm 0.2)\,h\times10^8\,L_\odot/Mpc^3$ and the mass to luminosity
2479: ratio of star populations is $\rm M/L\sim 5$ to 10 in solar units,
2480: so that the number density of ``typical'' solar-mass stars is
2481: $\rm n_\odot\!\sim\! \rho\,M/L\!\sim\! 8.8\times 10^8/Mpc^3$ for
2482: $\rm h\!\sim\! 0.65$.
2483: The optical depth is:
2484: \begin{equation}
2485: \rm \epsilon=x_\perp\, R_\odot\,D_A\,n_\odot\,\langle (1+z)^3 \rangle\, .
2486: \label{epsilon}
2487: \end{equation}
2488: In the interval extending to $\rm z=1$, and for
2489: our adopted cosmological parameters, the volume average
2490: $\langle (1+z)^3 \rangle$ is $\sim 5$.
2491: Thus we obtain $\epsilon\sim (4\pm 2)$\%, which makes
2492: the lensing effects hopefully visible.
2493:
2494: A rough estimate of $\epsilon$ taking into account that stars gather in
2495: galaxies gives a similar result. Let the surface-number density of stars in
2496: a galaxy, as a function of distance to the centre, be approximated
2497: by $\rm \Sigma_*(r)\!=\!\Sigma_*(0)\, e^{-r/h}$, with $\rm h\!\sim\! 5$ kpc.
2498: For a reference galaxy with $\rm N_*\!=\!10^{11}$ stars $\Sigma(0)\!\simeq\! 640$
2499: pc$^{-2}$. Define a galaxy's effective lensing radius so that
2500: $\rm \Sigma_*(r_{eff})\,x_\perp\,R_E\!\sim\! 1$. For the quoted values of
2501: $\rm x_\perp$ and $\rm R_E$ this means $\rm r_{eff}\!\sim\! 9$ kpc.
2502: Approximate the surface density of galaxies at $\rm z\!<\! 1$ by
2503: the observed value for galaxies with $\rm R$-magnitude below 25:
2504: $\rm\Sigma_G\!\sim\! 4.6\times 10^8$ rad$^{-2}$ (Casertano et al. 2000).
2505: The lensing probability at an angular distance $\rm D_A$ is then
2506: $\rm \epsilon\!\sim\!\pi\,r_{eff}^2\,\Sigma_G/D_A^2\!\sim\! 4$\%.
2507:
2508:
2509: \newpage
2510: %\pagebreak
2511: \vspace{.5 cm}
2512:
2513: {\bf
2514: \noindent
2515: Table I - Gamma-ray bursts of known redshift}
2516: %\vskip 0.2 true cm
2517: \begin{table}[h]
2518: %\vskip 0.1 true cm
2519: \hspace{0.3cm} %if you want to center your table act on this argument
2520: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
2521: \hline
2522:
2523: % \multicolumn{8}{GRB with redshifts}\\
2524: \hline
2525: \hline
2526: GRB &z & D$_{\rm L}$ & ${\rm F_\gamma}$
2527: &${\rm E_\gamma}$ & ${\rm R[HG]}$\\
2528: \hline
2529: 970228$^1$ &0.695 &4.55 &1.1 & 0.22 & 25.2$^{18}$ \\
2530: 970508$^2$ &0.835 &5.70 &0.49 & 0.10 & 25.0$^{19}$ \\
2531: 970828$^3$ &0.957 &6.74 &9.6 & 2.06 & 24.5$^{20}$ \\
2532: 971214$^4$ &3.418 &32.0 &0.94 & 2.11 & 25.6$^{21}$ \\
2533: 980425$^5$ &.0085 &.039 &0.44 &8.1E-6 & 14.3$^{22}$ \\
2534: 980613$^6$ &1.096 &7.98 &0.17 & 0.61 & 24.0$^{23}$ \\
2535: 980703$^7$ &0.966 &6.82 &2.26 & 1.05 & 22.6$^{24}$ \\
2536: 990123$^8$ &1.600 &12.7 &26.8 &19.80 & 23.9$^{25}$ \\
2537: 990510$^9$ &1.619 &12.9 &6.55 & 5.00 & 27.0$^{26}$ \\
2538: 990712$^{10}$ &0.434 &2.55 &6.5 & 0.53 & 21.8$^{27}$ \\
2539: 991208$^{11}$ &0.70 &4.64 &10.0 & 1.51 & 24.4$^{28}$ \\
2540: 991216$^{12}$ &1.020 &7.30 &19.4 & 5.35 & 24.8$^{29}$ \\
2541: 000131$^{13}$ &4.500 &44.4 & 4.2 &11.60 & 27.8$^{30}$ \\
2542: 000301c$^{14}$ &2.040 &17.2 &0.41 & 0.46 & 28.0$^{31}$ \\
2543: 000418$^{15}$ &1.119 &8.18 &2.0 & 0.82 & 23.9$^{32}$ \\
2544: 000926$^{16}$ &2.066 &17.4 &2.20 & 2.60 & 25.6$^{33}$ \\
2545: 010222$^{17}$ &1.474 &11.5 &12.0 & 7.80 & 25.9$^{34}$ \\
2546:
2547: \hline
2548: \hline
2549: \end{tabular}
2550: \end{table}
2551: \vskip -0.3 true cm
2552: \noindent
2553: {\bf Comments:} $\rm z$: Redshift. $\rm D_L$: Luminosity distance in Gpc,
2554: for $\rm \Omega_m=0.3,
2555: \; \Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ and ${\rm H_0=65\, km\, s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$.
2556: $\rm F_\gamma$: BATSE $\gamma$-ray fluences in units of
2557: $10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$. $\rm E_\gamma$: (Equivalent spherical) energy in
2558: units of $10^{53}$ ergs.
2559: $\rm R[HG]$: R-magnitude of the host galaxy, except for GRB 990510, for
2560: which the V-magnitude is given, corrected for galactic extinction\\
2561: \noindent
2562: {\bf References}:
2563: 1: Djorgovski et al.~1999a;
2564: 2: Metzger et al.~1997;
2565: 3: Djorgovski et al.~2000;
2566: 4: Kulkarni et al.~1998b;
2567: 5: Tinney et al.~1998;
2568: 6: Djorgovski et al.~1998a;
2569: 7: Djorgovski et al.~1998b;
2570: 8: Kelson et al.~1999;
2571: 9: Vreeswijk et al.~1999a;
2572: 10: Hjorth et al.~1999;
2573: 12: Vreeswijk et al.~1999b;
2574: 13: Andersen et al.~2000;
2575: 14: Feng et al.~2000;
2576: 15: Bloom et al.~2001;
2577: 16: Fynbo et al.~2001;
2578: 17: Jha et al.~2001; Fruchter et al.~2001;
2579: 18: Fruchter et al.~1999b;
2580: 19: Pian 2001;
2581: 20: Djorgovskyet al.~2001
2582: 21: Odewahn et al.~1998;
2583: 22: Galama et al.~1998a;
2584: 23: Djorgovski et al.~2000;
2585: 24: Bloom et al.~1998b;
2586: 25: Bloom et al.~1999b;
2587: 26: Pian 2001;
2588: 27: Hjorth et al.~1999;
2589: 28: Diercks et al.~2000;
2590: 29: Djorgovski et al.~1999b;
2591: 30: Andersen et al.~2000;
2592: 31: Smette et al.~2000;
2593: 32: Bloom et al.~2000;
2594: 33: Fynbo et al.~2001;
2595: 34: Fruchter et al.~2001.
2596: \newpage
2597:
2598:
2599:
2600: {\bf
2601: \noindent
2602: Table II - The CB, host-galaxy, and extinction parameters}
2603: %\vskip 0.2 true cm
2604: \begin{table}[h]
2605: %\vskip 0.1 true cm
2606: \hspace{+.1cm} %if you want to center your table act on this argument
2607: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|l|}
2608: \hline
2609: % \multicolumn{8}{GRB with redshifts}\\
2610: \hline
2611: GRB &$\gamma_0 $ &$\alpha$& $\theta\, $ &$\rm x_\infty\, $
2612: & R[HG] & $\rm A_{SN}$ \\
2613: \hline
2614: 970228 & 540 &1.10 &1.686 & 0.155 & 25.55 &0.50 \\
2615: 971214 & 999 &1.20 &0.708 & 0.373 & 25.69 &0.94 \\
2616: 980613 & 509 &1.09 &1.619 & 0.241 & 24.07 &0.82 \\
2617: 980703 & 779 &1.08 &0.953 & 0.344 & 22.54 &0.88 \\
2618: 990123 &1325 &1.09 &0.420 & 0.954 & 23.90 &0.96 \\
2619: 990510 & 991 &1.10 &0.261 & 0.777 & 27.80 &0.50 \\
2620: 990510$^a$ & 907 &1.08 &0.318 & 0.504 & 27.80 &0.40 \\
2621: 990712 & 948 &1.09 &0.750 & 1.191 & 21.93 &0.50 \\
2622: 990712$^a$ & 957 &1.08 &0.863 & 1.319 & 22.57 &0.40 \\
2623: 991208 &1034 &1.26 &0.100 & 1.357 & 24.81 &0.80 \\
2624: 991216 & 972 &1.09 &0.375 & 0.953 & 24.64 &0.80 \\
2625: 000131 &1200 &1.26 &0.100 & 0.793 & 27.80 &0.93 \\
2626: 000301c &1040 &1.19 &2.223 & 0.141 & 28.00 &0.90 \\
2627: 000418 &1017 &1.17 &0.970 & 1.961 & 23.74 &0.92 \\
2628: 000926 & 760 &1.20 &0.740 & 0.133 & 25.63 &0.96 \\
2629: 010222 & 1178 &1.10 &0.465 & 1.026 & 25.76 &0.94 \\
2630: & & & & & & \\
2631: 970508$^b$ & 1123 &1.10 & 3.51 & 0.293 & 24.69 &0.94 \\
2632: 980425$^b$ & 769 &1.10 & 8.30 & 0.252 & 14.30 &0.93 \\
2633: \hline
2634: \hline
2635:
2636: \end{tabular}
2637: \end{table}
2638: \vskip -0.3 true cm
2639: \noindent
2640: {\bf Comments:} $\gamma_0$: Initial Lorentz factor.
2641: $\theta$: Viewing angle relative to the CB line of motion,
2642: in milliradians.
2643: $\rm x_\infty$: CB slow-down parameter, in Mpc
2644: ($\gamma=\gamma_0/2$ at $\rm x= x_\infty/\gamma_0$).
2645: $\rm R[HG]$: Fitted value of the
2646: R-magnitude of the host galaxy (except for GRB 990712, for
2647: which also the V-magnitude is given) not
2648: corrected for galactic extinction.
2649: $\rm A_{SN}$: Attenuation of the SN1998bw-like contribution due to
2650: galactic extinction.
2651: $a$: V-band afterglow parameters.
2652: $b$: Two GRBs are special: GRB 970508 is fit with two constant
2653: ISM densities, the $\rm x_\infty$ quoted value corresponds to the
2654: initial one; in GRB 980425
2655: the SN outshines the CBs in the optical, the fit is to the X-ray AG,
2656: $\alpha=1.1$ was assumed, and the parameter determinations
2657: are very imprecise.
2658:
2659:
2660: \noindent
2661: {\bf References}:\\
2662: {\bf GRB 970228}:
2663: Castander, et al.~1999a;
2664: Castander, et al.~1999b;
2665: Djorgovski et al.~1999a;
2666: Fruchter et al.~1997a;
2667: Galama et al.~1997;
2668: Galama et al.~2000;
2669: Garcia et al.~1998;
2670: Guarnieri, et al.~1997;
2671: Metzger et al.~1997a;
2672: Pedichini et al.~1997;
2673: Sahu et al.~1997a;
2674: Sahu et al.~1997b;
2675: van Paradijs et al.~1998. \\
2676: {\bf GRB 970508}:
2677: Bloom et al.~1998b;
2678: Castro-Tirado et al.~1998b;
2679: Chevalier \& Ilovaisky~1997;
2680: Djorgovski et al.~1997;
2681: Fruchter et al.~1997b;
2682: Fruchter et al.~2000;
2683: Galama et al.~1998b;
2684: Metzger et al.~1997b;
2685: Pedersen et al.~1998a;
2686: Schaefer et al.~1997;
2687: Sokolov et al.~1997;
2688: Sokolov et al.~1998;
2689: Zharikov et al.~1998. \\
2690: {\bf GRB 971214}:
2691: Diercks et al.~1998;
2692: Halpern et al.~1998b;
2693: Kulkarni et al.~1998b.\\
2694: {\bf GRB 980613}:
2695: Djorgovski et al.~1998a;
2696: Djorgovski et al.~2000;
2697: Halpern et al.~1998a;
2698: Hjorth et al.~1998.\\
2699: {\bf GRB 980703}:
2700: Bloom et al.~1998b;
2701: Castro-Tirado et al.~1999a;
2702: Holland et al.~2000b;
2703: Holland et al.~2001;
2704: Pedersen et al.~1998b;
2705: Sokolov et al.~1998;
2706: Vreeswijk et al.~1999c;
2707: Zapatero Osorio et al.~1998.\\
2708: {\bf GRB 990123}:
2709: Castro-Tirado et al.~1999b;
2710: Fruchter et al.~1999a;
2711: Galama et al.~1999a;
2712: Holland et al.~2000a;
2713: Kulkarni et al.~1999. \\
2714: {\bf GRB 990510}:
2715: Beuermann et al.~1999;
2716: Covino et al.~1999;
2717: Fruchter et al.~1999c;
2718: Galama et al.~1999b;
2719: Harrison et al.~1999;
2720: Holland et al.~2000a;
2721: Marconi et al.~1999a,b;
2722: Pietrzy{\'n}ski \& Udalski~1999a,b,c;
2723: Stanek et al.~1999. \\
2724: {\bf GRB 990712}:
2725: Hjorth et al.~2000a;
2726: Sahu, et al.~2000\\
2727: {\bf GRB 991208}:
2728: Castro-Tirado et al.~2001;
2729: Sagar et al.~2000a.\\
2730: {\bf GRB 991216}:
2731: Djorgovski et al.~1999b;
2732: Garnavich et al.~2000a;
2733: Halpern et al.~2000a;
2734: Sagar et al.~2000a.\\
2735: {\bf GRB 000131}:
2736: Andersen et al.~2000.\\
2737: {\bf GRB 000301c}:
2738: Jensen et al.~2001;
2739: Halpern et al.~2000b;
2740: Garnavich et al.~2000b;
2741: Masetti et al.~2000;
2742: Rhoads \& Fruchter~2001;
2743: Sagar et al.~2000b;
2744: Veillet 2000a.\\
2745: {\bf GRB 000418}:
2746: Berger et al.~2000;
2747: Henden et al.~2000;
2748: Klose et al.~2000;
2749: Metzger \& Fruchter~2000.\\
2750: {\bf GRB 000926}:
2751: Fynbo et al.~2001;
2752: Halpern et al.~2000C
2753: Harrison et al.~2001;
2754: Hjorth et al.~2000b;
2755: Price et al.~2001;
2756: Sagar et al.~2001a;
2757: Veillet~2000b. \\
2758: {\bf GRB 010222}:
2759: Cowsik et al.~2001;
2760: Jha et al.~2001;
2761: Fruchter et al.~2001;
2762: Garnavich et al.~2001;
2763: Masetti et al.~2001;
2764: Oksanen et al.~2001;
2765: Orosz et al.~2001;
2766: Price et al.~2001;
2767: Sagar et al.~2001b;
2768: Stanek et al.~2001;
2769: Valentini et al.~2001;
2770: Watanabe et al.~2001;
2771: Veillet~2001.\\
2772:
2773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2774:
2775:
2776: \vskip 0.3 true cm
2777:
2778: {\bf
2779: \noindent
2780: Table III - The rest frame GRB energy and X-ray AG of GRBs with
2781: measured redshift and X-ray AG
2782: from their observed $\gamma$-ray fluence and the optical AG parameters}
2783: %\vskip 0.2 true cm
2784: \begin{table}[h]
2785: %\vskip 0.1 true cm
2786: \hspace{-.1cm} %if you want to center your table act on this argument
2787: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
2788:
2789: \hline
2790: % \multicolumn{8}{GRB with redshifts}\\
2791: \hline
2792: GRB &z &$\rm D_L$ &${\rm F_\gamma}$
2793: &$\gamma_0$&$\delta_0$&$\rm q $&$\rm E_\gamma^{CB}\,$ \\
2794: \hline
2795: 970228 &0.695 &4.55 &1.10 & 540 & 591 & 0.86 &0.78 \\
2796: 970508 &0.835 &5.70 &1.10 & 1123 & 137 & 1.26 &1.47 \\
2797: 970828 &0.957 &6.74 &1.10 &1153 &1160 & 0.77 &1.34 \\
2798: 971214 &3.418 &32.0 &0.94 & 999 &1331 & 1.28 &1.11 \\
2799: 980613 &1.096 &7.98 &0.17 & 509 & 606 & 1.34 &1.74 \\
2800: 990123 &1.600 &12.7 &26.8 &1325 &2023 & 1.45 &1.84 \\
2801: 990510 &1.619 &12.9 &6.55 & 991 &1858 & 2.60 &0.78 \\
2802: 991216 &1.020 &7.30 &19.4 & 972 &1716 & 0.38 &1.54 \\
2803: 000926 &2.066 &17.4 &2.20 & 761 &1115 & 2.12 &0.60 \\
2804: 010222 &1.474 &11.5 &12.0 &1109 &1812 & 1.43 &1.31 \\
2805:
2806: \hline
2807: \hline
2808: \end{tabular}
2809: \end{table}
2810: \vskip -0.3 true cm
2811: \noindent
2812: {\bf Comments:} $\rm D_L$: Luminosity distance, for $\rm \Omega_m=0.3,
2813: \; \Omega_\Lambda=0.7$ and ${\rm H_0=65\, km\, s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, in Gpc.\\
2814: $\rm F_\gamma$: BATSE/BeppoSAX $\gamma$-ray fluences in units of
2815: $10^{-5}$ erg cm$^{-2}$. $\rm \delta_0$: Initial Doppler factor.
2816: $\rm q$: The ratio between observed and predicted late-time X-ray fluxes in
2817: the 2-10 keV band, for a single unextinct standard CB with
2818: $\rm N_{CB}=6\times 10^{50}\, .$
2819: $\rm E_\gamma^{CB}$: Energy radiated by the ensemble of CBs
2820: in its rest frame, in units of $\rm 10^{44}\,erg\,.$ \\
2821:
2822: \newpage
2823:
2824: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2825:
2826:
2827: \bibitem{}
2828: Akerlof C., et al., 1999, Nature 398, 400
2829: \bibitem{}
2830: Andersen M.I., et al., 2000, A\&A 364, 54L
2831: \bibitem{}
2832: Bendarz J., Ostrowski M., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3911
2833: \bibitem {}
2834: Berger E., et al., 2000, ApJ 545, 56
2835: \bibitem {}
2836: Berger E., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0102278
2837: \bibitem {}
2838: Beuermann K., et al., 1999, A\&A 352, L26
2839: \bibitem{}
2840: Bhargavi S.G., Cowsik R., 2000, ApJ 545, L77
2841: \bibitem {}
2842: Bjornsson G., et al., 2001, ApJ, 552, 121L
2843: \bibitem{}
2844: Bloom J.S., et al., 1998a, ApJ 507, L25
2845: \bibitem{}
2846: Bloom J.S., et al., 1998b, ApJ 508, L21
2847: \bibitem{}
2848: Bloom J.S., et al., 1999a, Nature 401, 452
2849: \bibitem{}
2850: Bloom J.S., et al., 1999b, ApJ 518, L1
2851: \bibitem{}
2852: Bloom J.S., et al., 2000, GCN Circ. 661
2853: \bibitem{}
2854: Bloom J.S., Djorgovski S.G., Kulkarni S.R., 2001, ApJ 554, 678
2855: \bibitem{}
2856: Brainerd J.J., 1992, ApJ 394, 33L
2857: \bibitem{}
2858: Bridle A., 2000, http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~abridle/images.htm
2859: \bibitem{}
2860: Burenin R.A., et al., 1999, A\&A 344, L53
2861: \bibitem{}
2862: Casertano S., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0010245
2863: \bibitem{}
2864: Castander F., et al., 1999a, ApJ 523, 593
2865: \bibitem{}
2866: Castander F., et al., 1999b, ApJ 523, 602
2867: \bibitem{}
2868: Castro-Tirado A.J., et al., 1998a, Science 279, 1011
2869: \bibitem{}
2870: Castro-Tirado A.J., et al., 1998b, IAU Circ. 6848
2871: \bibitem{}
2872: Castro-Tirado A.J., Gorosabel J., 1999, A\&AS 138(3), 449
2873: \bibitem{}
2874: Castro-Tirado A.J., et al., 1999a, ApJ, 511, L85
2875: \bibitem{}
2876: Castro-Tirado A.J., et al., 1999b, Science 283, 2069
2877: \bibitem{}
2878: Castro-Tirado A.J., et al., 2001, A\&A 370, 398
2879: \bibitem{}
2880: Chiang J., Dermer C.F., 1997, astro-ph/9708035
2881: \bibitem{}
2882: Chevalier C., Ilovaisky S.A., 1997, IAU Circ. 6663
2883: \bibitem{}
2884: Cline T.L., et al., 1999, A\&A 138(3), 557
2885: \bibitem{}
2886: Corbet R., Smith D., 1999 GCN Circ. 506
2887: \bibitem{}
2888: Costa E., et al., 1997, Nature 387, 783
2889: \bibitem{}
2890: Covino S., et al., 1999, GCN Circ. 330
2891: \bibitem{}
2892: Cowsik R., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0104363
2893: \bibitem{}
2894: Cranc P., et al., 1993, ApJ 402, L37
2895: \bibitem{}
2896: Dado S., Dar A., and De R\'ujula 2002, {\it in preparation}
2897: \bibitem{}
2898: Dal Fiume D., et al., 2000, A\&A 355, 454
2899: \bibitem{}
2900: Dar A., et al., 1992, ApJ 388, 164
2901: \bibitem{}
2902: Dar A., 1997, astro-ph/9704187
2903: \bibitem{}
2904: Dar A., 1998a, ApJ 500, L93
2905: \bibitem{}
2906: Dar A., 1998b, Proc. Les Rencontres de Physique de la Vall\'ee d'Aoste,
2907: (ed. M. Greco) p. 23
2908: \bibitem{}
2909: Dar A. 1999a, A\&AS 138(3), 505
2910: \bibitem{}
2911: Dar A., 1999b, GCN Circ. 346
2912: \bibitem{}
2913: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2000a, astro-ph/0008474,\\ submitted to A\&A
2914: \bibitem{}
2915: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2000b, astro-ph/0012227,\\ submitted to A\&A
2916: \bibitem{}
2917: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2001 MNRAS 323, 391
2918: \bibitem{}
2919: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2001a, astro-ph/0102115,\\ submitted to A\&A
2920: \bibitem{}
2921: Dar A., De R\'ujula, A., 2001b, astro-ph/0105094,\\ submitted to Phys. Rev.
2922: \bibitem{}
2923: Dar A., Plaga R., 1999, A\&A 349, 259
2924: \bibitem{}
2925: De R\'ujula A., 1987, Phys. Lett. 193, 514
2926: \bibitem{}
2927: Diercks A.H., 1998, ApJ 503, L105
2928: \bibitem{}
2929: Diercks A., et al., 2000, GCN Circ. 764
2930: \bibitem{}
2931: Djorgovski S.G., et al., 1997, Nature, 387, 876
2932: \bibitem{}
2933: Djorgovski S.G., et al., 1998a, GCN Circ. 117, 189
2934: \bibitem{}
2935: Djorgovski S.G., et al., 1998b, ApJ 508, L17
2936: \bibitem{}
2937: Djorgovski S.G., et al., 1999a, GCN Circ. 289
2938: \bibitem{}
2939: Djorgovski S.G., et al., 1999b, GCN Circ. 510
2940: \bibitem{}
2941: Djorgovski S.G. et al., 2000, astro-ph/0008029
2942: \bibitem{}
2943: Djorgovsky, S.G., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0107539
2944: \bibitem{}
2945: Djorgovsky, S.G., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0107539
2946: \bibitem{}
2947: Dodonov S.N., et al., 1999, GCN Circ. 475
2948: \bibitem{}
2949: Dunne B.C., Points, S.D., Chu, Y., 2001, astro-ph/0104212
2950: \bibitem{}
2951: Feng M.L., Wang L., Wheeler J., 2000, GCN Circ. 607
2952: \bibitem{}
2953: Fenimore E., Ramirez-Ruiz E., 2000, astro-ph/0004176
2954: \bibitem{}
2955: Frail D.A., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0102282
2956: \bibitem{}
2957: Frontera F., et al., 1998, ApJ 493, 67L
2958: \bibitem{}
2959: Fruchter A.S., et al., 1997a, IAU Circ. 6747
2960: \bibitem{}
2961: Fruchter A.S., et al., 1997b, IAU Circ. 6647
2962: \bibitem{}
2963: Fruchter A.S., et al., 1999a, ApJ 519, L13
2964: \bibitem{}
2965: Fruchter A.S., et al., 1999b, ApJ 516, 683
2966: \bibitem{}
2967: Fruchter A.S., et al., 2000, ApJ 545, 664
2968: \bibitem{}
2969: Fruchter A.S., et al,, GCN Circ. 1087
2970: \bibitem{}
2971: Fynbo J.U., et al., 2000, ApJ 542, 89L
2972: \bibitem{}
2973: Fynbo J.U., et al., 2001, A\&A 373, 796
2974: \bibitem{}
2975: Gabudza D.D., et al., 1993, ApJ 410, 39
2976: \bibitem{}
2977: Galama T.J., et al., 1997, Nature 387, 479
2978: \bibitem{}
2979: Galama T.J., et al., 1998a, Nature 395, 670
2980: \bibitem{}
2981: Galama T.J., et al., 1998b, ApJ, 497, L13
2982: \bibitem{}
2983: Galama T.J., et al., 1998c, ApJ 500, L97
2984: \bibitem{}
2985: Galama T.J., et al., 1999a, GCN Circ. 313
2986: \bibitem{}
2987: Galama T.J., et al., 1999b, GCN Circ. 388
2988: \bibitem{}
2989: Galama T.J., et al., 2000, ApJ 536 185
2990: \bibitem{}
2991: Garcia M.R., et al., 1998, ApJ 500, L105
2992: \bibitem{}
2993: Garnavich P.M., et al., 2000a, ApJ 543, 61
2994: \bibitem{}
2995: Garnavich P.M., et al., 2000b, ApJ 544, L11
2996: \bibitem{}
2997: Garnavich P.M., Loeb A., Stanek K.Z., 2000c, ApJ 544, L1
2998: \bibitem{}
2999: Garnavich P., Quinn, J., Stanek, K.Z., 2001, GCN Circ. 1009
3000: \bibitem{}
3001: Ghisellini G., et al. 1999, ApJ 517, 168
3002: \bibitem{}
3003: Ghisellini G., Celotti A., 2001, astro-ph/0103007
3004: \bibitem{}
3005: Kraft R.P., et al., astro-ph/0111340
3006: \bibitem{}
3007: Goodman J., 1986, ApJ 308, 47L
3008: \bibitem{}
3009: Goodman J., Dar A., Nussinov S., 1987, ApJ 314, L7
3010: \bibitem{}
3011: Guarnieri A., et al., 1997, A\&A, 328, L13
3012: \bibitem{}
3013: Halpern J.P., et al., 1998a, GCN Circ. 134
3014: \bibitem{}
3015: Halpern J.P., et al., 1998b, AAS, 192.3311
3016: \bibitem{}
3017: Halpern J.P., et al., 1999, ApJ, 517, 105L
3018: \bibitem{}
3019: Halpern J.P., et al., 2000a, ApJ 543, 697
3020: \bibitem{}
3021: Halpern J.P., et al., 2000b, GCN Circ. 578, 582, 585, 604
3022: \bibitem{}
3023: Halpern J.P., et al., 2000c, GCN Circ. 824, 829
3024: \bibitem{}
3025: Harrison F.A., et al., 1999, ApJ 523, L121
3026: \bibitem{}
3027: Harrison F.A., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0103377
3028: \bibitem{}
3029: Heger A., Langer N., Woosley S.E., 2000, ApJ 528, 368
3030: \bibitem{}
3031: Henden A., et al., 2000, GCN Circ. 652
3032: \bibitem{}
3033: Higdon J.C., Lingenfelter R.E., 1980, ApJ 239, 867
3034: \bibitem{}
3035: Higdon J.C., Lingenfelter R.E., Ramaty R., 1998, ApJ 509, L33
3036: \bibitem{}
3037: Hjorth J., et al., 1998, GCN Circ. 109
3038: \bibitem{}
3039: Hjorth J., et al., 1999, GCN Circ. 403
3040: \bibitem{}
3041: Hjorth J., et al., 2000a, ApJ 534, 147L
3042: \bibitem{}
3043: Hjorth J., et al., 2000b, GCN Circ. 809, 814
3044: \bibitem{}
3045: Hjorth J., et al., 2001, ApJ 552, 121L
3046: \bibitem{}
3047: Holland S., Hjorth J., 1999, A\&A 344, 67L
3048: \bibitem{}
3049: Holland S., et al., 2000a, A\&A 364, 467
3050: \bibitem{}
3051: Holland S., et al., 2000b, AAS 197.6303H
3052: % \bibitem{}
3053: % Holland S., et al., 2000c, A\&A 364, 54L
3054: \bibitem{}
3055: Holland S., et al., 2001a, A\&A 371, 52
3056: \bibitem{}
3057: Holland S., et al., 2001b, GCN Circ. 1002
3058: \bibitem{}
3059: Huang Y.F., et al., 2000a, ApJ 543, 90
3060: \bibitem{}
3061: Huang Y.F., et al., 2000b, MNRAS, 316, 943
3062: \bibitem{}
3063: In `t Zand J., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0104362
3064: \bibitem{}
3065: Israel G.L., et al. 1999, A\&A 348, 5L
3066: \bibitem{}
3067: Iwamoto K., et al., 1998, Nature 395, 672
3068: \bibitem{}
3069: Jensen B.L., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0005609
3070: \bibitem{}
3071: Jensen B.L., et al., 2001, A\&A 370, 909
3072: \bibitem{}
3073: Jha S., et al., 2001a, ApJ, 554, 15L
3074: \bibitem{}
3075: Jha S., et al., 2001b, Astro-ph/0103081
3076: \bibitem{}
3077: Kedziora-Chudczer L., et al., 1997, ApJ 490, 9L
3078: \bibitem{}
3079: Kelson D.D., et al., 1999, IAU Circ. 7096
3080: \bibitem{}
3081: Kennicut, R.C., Edgar, B.K., Hodge, P.W., 1989, ApJ 337, 761
3082: \bibitem{}
3083: Kippen R.M., et al., 1998, GCN Circ. 67
3084: \bibitem{}
3085: Klose S., et al., 2000, ApJ 545, 271
3086: \bibitem{}
3087: Kotani T., et al., 1996, PASJ 48, 619
3088: \bibitem{}
3089: Kulkarni S.R., et al., 1998a, Nature 395, 663
3090: \bibitem{}
3091: Kulkarni S.R., et al., 1998b, Nature 393, 35
3092: \bibitem{}
3093: Kulkarni S.R., et al., 1999 Nature 398, 389
3094: \bibitem{}
3095: Kumar P., Panaitescu A., 2000, ApJ 541,9L
3096: \bibitem{}
3097: Lamb D.Q., 2001, AAS 198.3511L
3098: \bibitem{}
3099: Lingenfelter R.E., Higdon J.C., Ramaty R., 2000, astro-ph/0004166
3100: \bibitem{}
3101: Loeb A., Perna R., 1998, ApJ, 495, 597
3102: \bibitem{}
3103: Levine A.M., et al., 1996, ApJ 469, L33
3104: \bibitem{}
3105: MacFadyen A.I., Woosley S.E., 1999, ApJ 524, 262
3106: \bibitem{}
3107: MacFadyen A.I., Woosley S.E., Heger A., 2001, ApJ 550, 410
3108: \bibitem{}
3109: Madau P., 1998, astro-ph/9801005
3110: \bibitem{}
3111: Madau P., Della Valle, M., Panagia, 1998, N., astro-ph/9803284)
3112: \bibitem{}
3113: Marconi G., et al., 1999a, GCN Circ. 329
3114: \bibitem{}
3115: Marconi G., et al., 1999b, GCN Circ. 332
3116: \bibitem{}
3117: Margon B.A., 1984, ARA\&A 22, 507
3118: \bibitem{}
3119: Masetti N., et al., 2000, A\&A 359, 23L
3120: \bibitem{}
3121: Masetti N., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0103296
3122: \bibitem{}
3123: Meegan C.A., et al., 1992, Nature 355, 143
3124: \bibitem{}
3125: Meszaros P., 2001, Science, 291, 79
3126: \bibitem{}
3127: Meszaros P., Rees M.J., 1992, MNRAS 257, 29P
3128: \bibitem{}
3129: Meszaros P., Rees M.J., Wijers R.A.M.J., 1999, New Astron. 4, 303
3130: \bibitem{}
3131: Metzger M.R., et al., 1997a IAU Circ. 6631
3132: \bibitem{}
3133: Metzger M.R., et al., 1997a, Nature 387, 878
3134: \bibitem{}
3135: Metzger M.R., Fruchter, A., 2000, GCN Circ. 669
3136: \bibitem{}
3137: Metzger M.R., et al., 2000, GCN Circ. 733
3138: \bibitem{}
3139: Mirabel I.F., Rodriguez L.F., 1994, Nature 371, 46
3140: \bibitem{}
3141: Mirabel I.F., Rodriguez L.F., 1999, ARA\&A 37, 409
3142: \bibitem{}
3143: Moderski R., Sikora M., Bulik T., 2000, ApJ, 529, 151
3144: \bibitem{}
3145: Odewahn S.C., et al., 1998, ApJ 509, L5
3146: \bibitem{}
3147: Orosz J.A., 2001, GCN Circ. 976
3148: \bibitem{}
3149: Oksanen A., et al., 2001, GCN Circ. 990
3150: \bibitem{}
3151: Owens A., et al., 1998, A\&A 339, L37
3152: \bibitem{}
3153: Paczynski B., 1986, ApJ 308, L43
3154: \bibitem{}
3155: Paczynski B., 1998, ApJ 494, L45
3156: \bibitem{}
3157: Panaitescu A., Kumar, P., 2000, astro-ph/0010257
3158: \bibitem{}
3159: Pearsons T.J., Zensus J.A., 1987, Superluminal
3160: \newline
3161: Radio Sources, p. 1 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1987)
3162: \bibitem{}
3163: Pedersen H., et al., 1998a, ApJ, 496, 311
3164: \bibitem{}
3165: Pedersen H., et al., 1998b, GCN Circ. 142
3166: \bibitem{}
3167: Pedichini F., et al. 1997 A\&A 327, 36L
3168: \bibitem{}
3169: Peebles P.J.E., 1993, {\it Principles of Physical Cosmology}
3170: (Princeton University Press)
3171: \bibitem{}
3172: Pian E., 1999, astro-ph/9910236
3173: \bibitem{}
3174: Pian E., et al., 1999, A\&AS 138(3), 463
3175: \bibitem{}
3176: Pian E., et al., 2001, A\&A 372, 456
3177: \bibitem{}
3178: Pian E., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0110051
3179: \bibitem{}
3180: Pietrzy{\'n}ski G., Udalski A., 1999a, GCN Circ. 316
3181: \bibitem{}
3182: Pietrzy{\'n}ski G., Udalski A., 1999b, GCN Circ. 319
3183: \bibitem{}
3184: Pietrzy{\'n}ski G., Udalski A., 1999c, GCN Circ. 328
3185: \bibitem{}
3186: Piran T., 1999, Phys. Rep. 314, 575
3187: \bibitem{}
3188: Piran T., 2000, Phys. Rep. 333, 529
3189: \bibitem{}
3190: Piran, T., 2001, astro-ph/0104134
3191: \bibitem{}
3192: Piro L., et al., 1998, A\&A 331, L41
3193: \bibitem{}
3194: Piro L., 2000, astro-ph/0001436
3195: \bibitem{}
3196: Piro L., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0103306
3197: \bibitem{}
3198: Price P.A., et al., 2000, GCN Circ. 811
3199: \bibitem{}
3200: Price P.A., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0012303
3201: \bibitem{}
3202: Price P.A., et al., 2001, ApJ 549, 7L
3203: \bibitem{}
3204: Price P.A., et al., 2001, GCN Circ. 973
3205: \bibitem{}
3206: Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Fenimore E., 2000, astro-ph/0010588
3207: \bibitem{}
3208: Ramirez-Ruiz E., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0012396
3209: \bibitem{}
3210: Rees M.J., 1966, Nature 211, 468
3211: \bibitem{}
3212: Reichart D.E., 1999, ApJ 521, L111
3213: \bibitem{}
3214: Reichart D.E., et al., 2001, ApJ 552, 57
3215: \bibitem{}
3216: Rhoads J.E., 1997, ApJ 488, 579
3217: \bibitem{}
3218: Rhoads J.E., et al., 1998, GCN Circ. 144
3219: \bibitem{}
3220: Rhoads J.E., 1999, ApJ 525, 737
3221: \bibitem{}
3222: Rhoads J.E., Fruchter A.S., 2001, ApJ, 546, 117
3223: \bibitem{}
3224: Rodriguez L.F., Mirabel I.F., 1999, ApJ 511, 398
3225: \bibitem{}
3226: Sagar R., et al., 2000a, BASI 28, 15
3227: \bibitem{}
3228: Sagar R., et al., 2000b, BASI 28, 499
3229: \bibitem{}
3230: Sagar, R. et al., 2001a, BASI 29, 1
3231: \bibitem{}
3232: Sagar, R. et al., 2001b, astro-ph/0104249
3233: \bibitem{}
3234: Sahu K.C., et al., 1997a, Nature 387, 476
3235: \bibitem{}
3236: Sahu K.C., 1997b, ApJ 489, L127
3237: \bibitem{}
3238: Sahu K.C., et al., 2000, ApJ 540, 74
3239: \bibitem{}
3240: Sari R., Piran P., Halpern J.P., et al., 1999, ApJ 524, L43
3241: \bibitem{}
3242: Schaefer B., et al., 1997, IAU Circ. 6658
3243: \bibitem{}
3244: Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
3245: \bibitem{}
3246: Shaviv N.J., Dar A., 1995, ApJ 447, 863
3247: \bibitem{}
3248: Smette A., et al., 2000, GCN Circ. 603
3249: \bibitem{}
3250: Smith D.A., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0103357
3251: \bibitem{}
3252: Sokolov V.V., et al., 1997, astro-ph/9709093
3253: \bibitem{}
3254: Sokolov V.V., et al., 1998, A\&A 334, 117
3255: \bibitem{}
3256: Sokolov V.V., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0001357
3257: \bibitem{}
3258: Sokolov V.V., et al., 2001a, astro-ph/0102492
3259: \bibitem{}
3260: Sokolov V.V., et al., 2001b, A\&A 372, 438
3261: \bibitem{}
3262: Sollerman J., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0006406
3263: \bibitem{}
3264: Soffitta P., et al., 1998, IAU Circ. 6884
3265: \bibitem{}
3266: Spruit H.C., Phinney, E.S., 1998, Nature 393, 189
3267: \bibitem{}
3268: Stanek K.Z., et al., 1999, ApJ 522, L39
3269: \bibitem{}
3270: Stanek K.Z. et al., 2001, astro-ph/0104329
3271: \bibitem{}
3272: Takeshima T. et al., 1999, GCN Circ. 478
3273: \bibitem{}
3274: Tingay S.J., et al., 1995, Nature 374, 141
3275: \bibitem{}
3276: Tinney C., et al., 1998, IAU Circ. 6896
3277: \bibitem{}
3278: Valentini G. et al., 2001, GCN Circ. 992
3279: \bibitem{}
3280: van den Bergh S. Tammann G.A., 1991, ARA\&A 29, 363
3281: \bibitem{}
3282: van Dyk, S.D., Hamuy, M., Filippenko, A.V., 1996, AJ 111, 2017
3283: \bibitem{}
3284: van Paradijs J., et al., 1998, A\&A 192, L147
3285: \bibitem{}
3286: Veillet C., 2000a, GCN Circ. 588, 598, 610, 611, 623
3287: \bibitem{}
3288: Veillet C., 2000b, GCN Circ. 831
3289: \bibitem{}
3290: Veillet C., 2001, GCN Circ. 998, 1000, 1003
3291: \bibitem{}
3292: Vrba, F., Canzian, B., 2000, GCN Circ. 819
3293: \bibitem{}
3294: Vreeswijk P.M., et al., 1999a, GCN Circ. 310, 324
3295: \bibitem{}
3296: Vreeswijk P.M., et al., 1999b, GCN Circ. 496
3297: \bibitem{}
3298: Vreeswijk P.M., et al., 1999c, ApJ 523, 171
3299: \bibitem{}
3300: Vreeswijk P.M., et al., 2000, ApJ 546, 672
3301: \bibitem{}
3302: Watanabe K., et al., 2001, GCN Circ. 993
3303: \bibitem{}
3304: Wieringa M.H., et al., 1999, A\&AS 138, 467
3305: \bibitem{}
3306: Wijers R.A.M.J., et al., 1997, MNRAS 288, L5
3307: \bibitem{}
3308: Wilson A.S., et al., 2000, astro-ph/0008467
3309: \bibitem{}
3310: Woosley S.E., 1993, ApJ 405, 273
3311: \bibitem{}
3312: Woosley S.E., MacFadyen, A.I., 1999, A\&AS 138, 499
3313: \bibitem{}
3314: Yoshida A., et al., 2001, astro-ph/0107331
3315: \bibitem{}
3316: Zapatero Osorio M.R., et al., 1998, IAU Circ. 6967
3317: \bibitem{}
3318: Zharikov S.V., et al. 1999, A\&AS 138(3), 485
3319:
3320:
3321: \end{thebibliography}{}
3322:
3323:
3324: \newpage
3325:
3326:
3327: \clearpage
3328:
3329:
3330: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3331: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3332: \begin{figure}
3333: \begin{center}
3334: \vspace*{.003cm}
3335: \hspace*{-0cm}
3336: \epsfig{file=coneCB.ps,width=8.7cm}
3337: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
3338: \caption{(a) A firecone or, more properly, a {\it firetrumpet}.
3339: In the scenario discussed in the text (initiated by Rhoads 1997),
3340: the cone expands
3341: conically for a distance, after which the jet angle
3342: $\rm\theta_j$ widens as its front travels.
3343: (b) Cannonballs (shown here, somewhat pedantically,
3344: a bit Lorentz-contracted) subtend decreasing angles as they travel.
3345: The only relevant angle in the CB model is the observer's
3346: viewing angle $\theta$.}
3347: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
3348: \label{figtrumpet}
3349: \end{center}
3350: \end{figure}
3351:
3352:
3353:
3354: \begin{figure}
3355: \begin{center}
3356: \vspace*{.003cm}
3357: \hspace*{-0cm}
3358: \epsfig{file=model3.ps,width=8.7cm}
3359: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
3360: \caption{An ``artist's view'' (not to scale) of the CB model
3361: of GRBs and their AGs. A core-collapse SN results in
3362: a compact object and a fast-rotating torus of non-ejected
3363: fallen-back material. Matter (not shown) catastrophically accreting
3364: into the central object produces
3365: a narrowly collimated beam of CBs, of which only some of
3366: the ``northern'' ones are depicted. As these CBs pierce the SN shell,
3367: not precisely on the same spot,
3368: they heat and re-emit photons, that are
3369: Lorentz-boosted and collimated by the CBs' relativistic motion.}
3370: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
3371: \label{model}
3372: \end{center}
3373: \end{figure}
3374:
3375: \clearpage
3376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3377: \begin{figure}
3378: \begin{center}
3379: \vspace*{.003cm}
3380: \hspace*{-0cm}
3381: \epsfig{file=CBrest.ps,width=8.7cm}
3382: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
3383: \caption{A CB, in its rest system, sees the constituents of the ionized
3384: ISM impinge in one direction. The CB's chaotic magnetic field
3385: disperses these particles so that they come out isotropically.
3386: Electrons, but not protons, lose their energy by synchrotron radiation.}
3387: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
3388: \label{CBrest}
3389: \end{center}
3390: \end{figure}
3391:
3392:
3393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3394: \begin{figure}
3395: \begin{center}
3396: \vspace*{.003cm}
3397: \hspace*{-0cm}
3398: \epsfig{file=RCB.ps,width=8.7cm}
3399: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
3400: \caption{The radius of a CB as a function of observer's time,
3401: after the CB becomes transparent to radiation, for two choices
3402: of the initial transverse expansion velocity $\rm\beta_{trans}\,c$.}
3403: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
3404: \label{RCB}
3405: \end{center}
3406: \end{figure}
3407:
3408:
3409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3410: \begin{figure}
3411: \begin{center}
3412: \vspace*{.003cm}
3413: \hspace*{-0cm}
3414: \epsfig{file=fluxnovel2.ps,width=7.5cm}
3415: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
3416: \caption{Afterglow flux, in arbitrary units, as a function of observer's
3417: time, for $\gamma_0=10^3$ and various viewing angles $\theta$,
3418: as given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) with $\rm n=4.1$ and
3419: $\rm\gamma(t)$ as in Eq.~(\ref{cubic})
3420: with the reference value of $\rm x_\infty$ in Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}).}
3421: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
3422: \label{figflux}
3423: \end{center}
3424: \end{figure}
3425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3426:
3427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3428: \begin{figure}
3429: \begin{center}
3430: \vspace*{.003cm}
3431: \hspace*{-0cm}
3432: \epsfig{file=fluxofnpnovel.ps,width=7.5cm}
3433: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
3434: \caption{
3435: Afterglow flux, in arbitrary units, as a function of observer's
3436: time, for $\gamma_0=1/\theta=10^3$ and various values
3437: of the (constant) ISM density, $\rm n^{SN}$, close to the GRB progenitor,
3438: as given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}), with $\rm n=4.1$ and
3439: $\rm\gamma(t)$ as in Eq.~(\ref{cubic}).}
3440: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
3441: \label{figfluxother}
3442: \end{center}
3443: \end{figure}
3444: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3445:
3446:
3447: \clearpage
3448:
3449: \begin{figure}[t]
3450: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3451: \hskip 2truecm
3452: \vspace*{2cm}
3453: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3454: \epsfig{file=ag1n0228.eps, width=8cm} \\
3455: %\hskip 1truecm
3456: \hspace*{.5cm}
3457: \epsfig{file=ag2n0228.eps, width=8cm}
3458: \end{tabular}
3459: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3460: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3461: not corrected for extinction,
3462: for GRB 970228, at $\rm z=0.695$.
3463: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3464: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3465: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3466: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3467: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3468: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3469: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3470: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3471: The SN bump is clearly discernible.}
3472: \label{fig228}
3473: \end{figure}
3474:
3475: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3476:
3477: \begin{figure}[t]
3478: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3479: \hskip 2truecm
3480: \vspace*{2cm}
3481: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3482: \epsfig{file=ag1n1214.eps, width=8cm} \\
3483: %\hskip 1truecm
3484: \hspace*{.5cm}
3485: \epsfig{file=ag2n1214.eps, width=8cm}
3486: \end{tabular}
3487: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3488: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3489: not corrected for extinction,
3490: for GRB 971214, at $\rm z=3.418$.
3491: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3492: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3493: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3494: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3495: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3496: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3497: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3498: is indicated by a line of crosses. The expected supernova
3499: contribution is too weak to be observed.}
3500: \label{fig214}
3501: \end{figure}
3502:
3503: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3504:
3505: \begin{figure}[t]
3506: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3507: \hskip 2truecm
3508: \vspace*{2cm}
3509: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3510: \epsfig{file=ag1n0613.eps, width=8cm} \\
3511: %\hskip 1truecm
3512: \hspace*{.5cm}
3513: \epsfig{file=ag2n0613.eps, width=8cm}
3514: \end{tabular}
3515: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3516: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3517: not corrected for extinction,
3518: for GRB 980613, at $\rm z=1.096$.
3519: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3520: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3521: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3522: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3523: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3524: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3525: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3526: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3527: A SN 1998bw-like contribution, though based on
3528: only one significant point, appears to be required.}
3529: \label{fig613}
3530: \end{figure}
3531:
3532:
3533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3534:
3535: \begin{figure}[t]
3536: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3537: \hskip 2truecm
3538: \vspace*{2cm}
3539: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3540: \epsfig{file=ag1n0703.eps, width=8cm} \\
3541: %\hskip 1truecm
3542: \hspace*{.5cm}
3543: \epsfig{file=ag2n0703.eps, width=8cm}
3544: \end{tabular}
3545: \caption{ Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3546: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3547: not corrected for extinction,
3548: for GRB 980703, at $\rm z=0.966$.
3549: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3550: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3551: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3552: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3553: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3554: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3555: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3556: is indicated by a line of crosses.
3557: A SN 1998bw-like contribution, though the errors
3558: are large, appears to be required.}
3559: \label{fig703}
3560: \end{figure}
3561:
3562:
3563: \clearpage
3564: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3565:
3566: \begin{figure}[t]
3567: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3568: \hskip 2truecm
3569: \vspace*{2cm}
3570: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3571: \epsfig{file=ag1n0123.eps, width=8cm} \\
3572: %\hskip 1truecm
3573: \hspace*{.5cm}
3574: \epsfig{file=ag2n0123.eps, width=8cm}
3575: \end{tabular}
3576: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3577: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3578: not corrected for extinction,
3579: for GRB 990123, at $\rm z=1.6$.
3580: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3581: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3582: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3583: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3584: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3585: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3586: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3587: is indicated by a line of crosses. The fit is not very good.
3588: There are no observations at the time when a SN1998bw-like
3589: contribution may have been seen.}
3590: \label{fig123}
3591: \end{figure}
3592:
3593: %
3594:
3595: %\clearpage
3596: %\goodbreak
3597: %\filbreak
3598: %\vfill\eject
3599:
3600: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3601:
3602: \begin{figure}[t]
3603: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3604: \hskip 2truecm
3605: \vspace*{2cm}
3606: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3607: \epsfig{file=ag1n0510.eps, width=8cm} \\
3608: %\hskip 1truecm
3609: \hspace*{.5cm}
3610: \epsfig{file=ag2n0510.eps, width=8cm}
3611: \end{tabular}
3612: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3613: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3614: not corrected for extinction,
3615: for GRB 990510, at $\rm z=1.619$.
3616: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3617: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3618: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3619: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3620: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3621: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3622: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3623: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3624: The expected supernova contribution is too weak to be observed.}
3625: \label{fig510}
3626: \end{figure}
3627: \clearpage
3628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3629:
3630: \begin{figure}[t]
3631: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3632: \hskip 2truecm
3633: \vspace*{2cm}
3634: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3635: \epsfig{file=ag1nv0510.eps, width=8cm} \\
3636: %\hskip 1truecm
3637: \hspace*{.5cm}
3638: \epsfig{file=ag2nv0510.eps, width=8cm}
3639: \end{tabular}
3640: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted V-band afterglow
3641: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3642: not corrected for extinction,
3643: for GRB 990510, at $\rm z=1.619$.
3644: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3645: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3646: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3647: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3648: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3649: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3650: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3651: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3652: The expected supernova contribution is too weak to be observed.}
3653: \label{fig510V}
3654: \end{figure}
3655:
3656: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3657:
3658: %\clearpage
3659:
3660: \begin{figure}[t]
3661: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3662: \hskip 2truecm
3663: \vspace*{2cm}
3664: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3665: \epsfig{file=ag1n0712.eps, width=8cm} \\
3666: %\hskip 1truecm
3667: \hspace*{.5cm}
3668: \epsfig{file=ag2n0712.eps, width=8cm}
3669: \end{tabular}
3670: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3671: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3672: not corrected for extinction,
3673: for GRB 990712, at $\rm z=0.434$.
3674: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3675: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3676: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3677: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3678: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3679: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3680: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3681: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3682: The SN contribution is clearly discernible, but a bump at slightly
3683: earlier times than that of our standard-candle
3684: SN1998bw would provide a better description.}
3685: \label{fig712}
3686: \end{figure}
3687:
3688: \clearpage
3689: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3690:
3691: \begin{figure}[t]
3692: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3693: \hskip 2truecm
3694: \vspace*{2cm}
3695: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3696: \epsfig{file=ag1nv0712.eps, width=8cm} \\
3697: %\hskip 1truecm
3698: \hspace*{.5cm}
3699: \epsfig{file=ag2nv0712.eps, width=8cm}
3700: \end{tabular}
3701: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted V-band afterglow
3702: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3703: not corrected for extinction,
3704: for GRB 990712, at $\rm z=0.434$.
3705: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3706: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3707: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3708: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3709: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3710: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3711: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3712: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3713: The SN is clearly discernible, but a bump at slightly
3714: earlier times than that of our standard-candle
3715: SN1998bw would provide a better description.}
3716: \label{fig712V}
3717: \end{figure}
3718: %\clearpage
3719:
3720: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3721:
3722: \begin{figure}[t]
3723: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3724: \hskip 2truecm
3725: \vspace*{2cm}
3726: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3727: \epsfig{file=ag1n1208.eps, width=8cm} \\
3728: %\hskip 1truecm
3729: \hspace*{.5cm}
3730: \epsfig{file=ag2n1208.eps, width=8cm}
3731: \end{tabular}
3732: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3733: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3734: not corrected for extinction,
3735: for GRB 991208, at $\rm z=0.706$.
3736: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3737: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3738: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3739: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3740: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3741: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3742: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3743: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3744: The SN contribution is clearly discernible.}
3745: \label{fig208}
3746: \end{figure}
3747: \clearpage
3748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3749:
3750: \begin{figure}[t]
3751: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3752: \hskip 2truecm
3753: \vspace*{2cm}
3754: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3755: \epsfig{file=ag1n1216.eps, width=8cm} \\
3756: %\hskip 1truecm
3757: \hspace*{.5cm}
3758: \epsfig{file=ag2n1216.eps, width=8cm}
3759: \end{tabular}
3760: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3761: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3762: not corrected for extinction,
3763: for GRB 991216, at $\rm z=1.020$.
3764: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3765: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3766: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3767: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3768: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3769: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3770: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3771: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3772: The data show possible evidence for a SN bump.}
3773: \label{fig216}
3774: \end{figure}
3775:
3776:
3777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3778:
3779: \begin{figure}[t]
3780: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3781: \hskip 2truecm
3782: \vspace*{2cm}
3783: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3784: \epsfig{file=ag1n0131.eps, width=8cm} \\
3785: %\hskip 1truecm
3786: \hspace*{.5cm}
3787: \epsfig{file=ag2n0131.eps, width=8cm}
3788: \end{tabular}
3789: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3790: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3791: not corrected for extinction,
3792: for GRB 000131, at $\rm z=4.5$.
3793: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3794: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3795: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3796: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3797: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3798: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3799: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3800: is indicated by a line of crosses.
3801: The data are too scarce for conclusions to be drawn.}
3802: \end{figure}
3803: \clearpage
3804: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3805:
3806: \begin{figure}[t]
3807: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3808: \hskip 2truecm
3809: \vspace*{2cm}
3810: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3811: \epsfig{file=ag1n0301.eps, width=8cm} \\
3812: %\hskip 1truecm
3813: \hspace*{.5cm}
3814: \epsfig{file=ag2n0301.eps, width=8cm}
3815: \end{tabular}
3816: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3817: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3818: not corrected for extinction,
3819: for GRB 000301c, at $\rm z=2.040$.
3820: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3821: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3822: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3823: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3824: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3825: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3826: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3827: is indicated by a line of crosses.
3828: The expected SN contribution is too weak to be
3829: observable.}
3830: \label{fig301}
3831: \end{figure}
3832:
3833: %\clearpage
3834:
3835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3836:
3837: \begin{figure}[t]
3838: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3839: \hskip 2truecm
3840: \vspace*{2cm}
3841: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3842: \epsfig{file=ag1n0418.eps, width=8cm} \\
3843: %\hskip 1truecm
3844: \hspace*{.5cm}
3845: \epsfig{file=ag2n0418.eps, width=8cm}
3846: \end{tabular}
3847: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3848: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3849: not corrected for extinction,
3850: for GRB 000418, at $\rm z=1.119$.
3851: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3852: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3853: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3854: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3855: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3856: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3857: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3858: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3859: There is some indication of a SN1998bw-like
3860: contribution.}
3861: \label{fig418}
3862: \end{figure}
3863: \clearpage
3864: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3865: \begin{figure}[t]
3866: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3867: \hskip 2truecm
3868: \vspace*{2cm}
3869: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3870: \epsfig{file=ag1n0926.eps, width=8cm} \\
3871: %\hskip 1truecm
3872: \hspace*{.5cm}
3873: \epsfig{file=ag2n0926.eps, width=8cm}
3874: \end{tabular}
3875: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3876: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3877: not corrected for extinction,
3878: for GRB 000926, at $\rm z=2.066$.
3879: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3880: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3881: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3882: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3883: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3884: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3885: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3886: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3887: A SN1998bw-like contribution could not have been seen.}
3888: \label{fig926}
3889: \end{figure}
3890: %\clearpage
3891: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3892:
3893:
3894: \begin{figure}[t]
3895: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3896: \hskip 2truecm
3897: \vspace*{2cm}
3898: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3899: \epsfig{file=ag1nt0222.eps, width=8cm} \\
3900: %\hskip 1truecm
3901: \hspace*{.5cm}
3902: \epsfig{file=ag2nt0222.eps, width=8cm}
3903: \end{tabular}
3904: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3905: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3906: not corrected for extinction,
3907: for GRB 010222, at $\rm z>1.474$.
3908: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3909: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3910: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3911: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3912: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3913: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3914: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3915: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3916: There are no observations at the time a 1998bw-like
3917: supernova would have significantly contributed.}
3918: \label{fig222}
3919: \end{figure}
3920:
3921: \clearpage
3922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3923:
3924: \begin{figure}[t]
3925: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3926: \hskip 2truecm
3927: \vspace*{2cm}
3928: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3929: \epsfig{file=ag1n1cb0508.eps, width=8cm} \\
3930: %\hskip 1truecm
3931: \hspace*{.5cm}
3932: \epsfig{file=ag2n1cb0508.eps, width=8cm}
3933: \end{tabular}
3934: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3935: (upper curves) and the observations listed in Table II,
3936: not corrected for extinction,
3937: for GRB 970508, at $\rm z=0.835$.
3938: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3939: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3940: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3941: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3942: (\ref{cubic}). The contribution
3943: from a 1998bw-like supernova placed at the GRB's
3944: redshift, Eq.~(\ref{bw}), corrected for extinction,
3945: is indicated in both panels by a line of crosses.
3946: This is the best fit not including the possibility of lensing;
3947: and it is terrible. }
3948: \label{1CB508}
3949: \end{figure}
3950: %\clearpage
3951: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3952:
3953: \begin{figure}[t]
3954: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3955: \hskip 2truecm
3956: \vspace*{2cm}
3957: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3958: \epsfig{file=ag1varn0508.eps, width=8cm} \\
3959: %\hskip 1truecm
3960: \hspace*{.5cm}
3961: \epsfig{file=ag2varn0508.eps, width=8cm}
3962: \end{tabular}
3963: \caption{The same as in Fig.~(\ref{1CB508}), but with a density profile
3964: that jumps from one constant value to another, at a distance $\sim 0.24$ kpc
3965: from the progenitor.
3966: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3967: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3968: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted, and the
3969: CB's AG (the line of squares) given by Eqs.~(\ref{fluxdensity}) and
3970: (\ref{cubic}).
3971: This time the fit, unlike that of Fig.~(\ref{1CB508}), is quite satisfactory.
3972: A SN1998bw-like contribution is necessary.}
3973: \label{jump508}
3974: \end{figure}
3975: \clearpage
3976: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3977:
3978:
3979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3980:
3981: \begin{figure}[t]
3982: \begin{tabular}{cc}
3983: \hskip 2truecm
3984: \vspace*{2cm}
3985: \hspace*{-1.7cm}
3986: \epsfig{file=ag1nt0123.eps, width=8cm} \\
3987: %\hskip 1truecm
3988: \hspace*{.5cm}
3989: \epsfig{file=ag2nt0123.eps, width=8cm}
3990: \end{tabular}
3991: \caption{Comparisons between our fitted R-band afterglow
3992: (upper curves) and the observations,
3993: not corrected for extinction, for GRB 990123.
3994: Upper panel: Without subtraction of the host
3995: galaxy's contribution (the straight line).
3996: Lower panel: With the host galaxy subtracted.
3997: Unlike in the previous ensemble of figures, these AG data
3998: start from a short time after the GRB. The starting $\rm t^{-2}$
3999: behaviour is that expected if the CBs are moving trough a
4000: density profile, $\rm n\propto r^{-2}$,
4001: induced by the parent-star's pre-SN wind and
4002: ejections.}
4003: \label{early123}
4004: \end{figure}
4005:
4006: %\clearpage
4007: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4008:
4009: \begin{figure}
4010: \begin{center}
4011: \vspace*{.003cm}
4012: \hspace*{-0cm}
4013: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0228.eps,width=8.5cm}
4014: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4015: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 970228 in the 2--10
4016: keV range
4017: as measured by Costa et al. (1997), fitted with
4018: Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4019: CB trajectory. This assumption
4020: should be vastly inappropriate between
4021: $ \rm \sim 2\times 10^{-3}$ and $\sim 0.2$ days,
4022: during which $\rm n_e$ and the X-ray AG are
4023: expected to diminish by two or three orders of magnitude.
4024: Coincidentally, there are no data there.}
4025: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4026: \label{X228}
4027: \end{center}
4028: \end{figure}
4029:
4030: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4031:
4032: \begin{figure}
4033: \begin{center}
4034: \vspace*{.003cm}
4035: \hspace*{-0cm}
4036: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0828.eps,width=8.5cm}
4037: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4038: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 970828 in the 2--10
4039: keV range as measured by Smith et al. (2001) and Yoshida et al. (2001),
4040: fitted with Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4041: CB trajectory. The same comments as in Fig~(\ref{X228}) apply here.}
4042: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4043: \label{X828}
4044: \end{center}
4045: \end{figure}
4046: \clearpage
4047: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4048:
4049: \begin{figure}
4050: \begin{center}
4051: \vspace*{.003cm}
4052: \hspace*{-0cm}
4053: \epsfig{file=ag0nx1214.eps,width=8.5cm}
4054: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4055: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 971214 in the 2--10
4056: keV range as measured by Dal Fiume et al. (2000)
4057: fitted with Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4058: CB trajectory. The same comments as in Fig~(\ref{X228}) apply here.}
4059: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4060: \label{X1214}
4061: \end{center}
4062: \end{figure}
4063:
4064: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4065:
4066: \begin{figure}
4067: \begin{center}
4068: \vspace*{.003cm}
4069: \hspace*{-0cm}
4070: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0613.eps,width=8.5cm}
4071: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4072: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 980613 in the 2--10
4073: keV range (Piro 2000)
4074: fitted with Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4075: CB trajectory. The same comments as in Fig~(\ref{X228}) apply here.}
4076: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4077: \label{X613}
4078: \end{center}
4079: \end{figure}
4080:
4081:
4082: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4083:
4084: \begin{figure}
4085: \begin{center}
4086: \vspace*{.003cm}
4087: \hspace*{-0cm}
4088: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0123.eps,width=8.5cm}
4089: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4090: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 990123 in the 2--10
4091: keV range (Piro 2000)
4092: fitted with Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4093: CB trajectory. The same comments as in Fig~(\ref{X228}) apply here.}
4094: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4095: \label{X123}
4096: \end{center}
4097: \end{figure}
4098:
4099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4100: \begin{figure}
4101: \begin{center}
4102: \vspace*{.003cm}
4103: \hspace*{-0cm}
4104: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0510.eps,width=8.5cm}
4105: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4106: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 990510 in the 2--10
4107: keV range as measured by Pian et al. (2001)
4108: fitted with Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4109: CB trajectory. The same comments as in Fig~(\ref{X228}) apply here.}
4110: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4111: \label{X510}
4112: \end{center}
4113: \end{figure}
4114:
4115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4116:
4117: \begin{figure}
4118: \begin{center}
4119: \vspace*{.003cm}
4120: \hspace*{-0cm}
4121: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0926.eps,width=8.5cm}
4122: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4123: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 000926 in the 2--10
4124: keV range as measured by Piro et al. (2001), fitted with
4125: Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4126: CB trajectory. The same comments as in Fig~(\ref{X228}) apply here.}
4127: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4128: \label{X926}
4129: \end{center}
4130: \end{figure}
4131:
4132:
4133:
4134:
4135: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4136:
4137:
4138:
4139: \begin{figure}
4140: \begin{center}
4141: \vspace*{.003cm}
4142: \hspace*{-0cm}
4143: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0222.eps,width=8.5cm}
4144: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4145: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 010222 in the 2--10
4146: keV range as measured by In `t Zand et al. (2001), fitted with
4147: Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a constant density along the
4148: CB trajectory. The same comments as in Fig~(\ref{X228}) apply here.}
4149: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4150: \label{X222}
4151: \end{center}
4152: \end{figure}
4153:
4154: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4155:
4156: \begin{figure}
4157: \begin{center}
4158: \vspace*{.2cm}
4159: \hspace*{-0cm}
4160: \epsfig{file=ag0varnx0508.eps,width=7.5cm}
4161: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4162: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 970508 in the 2--10
4163: keV range as measured by Piro et al. (1998), fitted with
4164: Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a $\rm \sim 1/r^2$ plus constant density along the
4165: CB trajectory. The contribution of the X-ray line observed before 0.8 d was
4166: subtracted from the data. This reduces the two observed points between
4167: 0.2 and 1 day by a factor $\sim 0.39$.
4168: The overall result is compatible with an effect that, at late times,
4169: is achromatic, since the late optical and X-ray AGs are both
4170: proportional to $\rm n_e$; see Fig.~(\ref{jump508})
4171: for the optical counterpart.}
4172: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4173: \label{X508}
4174: \end{center}
4175: \end{figure}
4176:
4177: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4178: \begin{figure}
4179: \begin{center}
4180: \vspace*{.003cm}
4181: \hspace*{-0cm}
4182: \epsfig{file=ag0nx1216.eps,width=8.5cm}
4183: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4184: \caption{The early-time and late-time X-ray AG of GRB 991216 in the 2--10
4185: keV range as measured by Corbet and Smith (1999) and Takeshima et al.
4186: (1999) fitted with Eq.~(\ref{Xdensity}) for a density declining like
4187: $\rm r^{-2}$ plus a constant density along the CB trajectory.}
4188: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4189: \label{X1216}
4190: \end{center}
4191: \end{figure}
4192:
4193:
4194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4195:
4196: \begin{figure}[t]
4197: \begin{tabular}{cc}
4198: \hskip 2truecm
4199: \vspace*{2cm}
4200: \hspace*{-2.1cm}
4201: \epsfig{file=ag0nx0425.eps, width=8cm} \\
4202: %\hskip 1truecm
4203: \hspace*{-0.4cm}
4204: \epsfig{file=425.ps,width=9cm}
4205: \end{tabular}
4206: \caption{Upper panel: A fit to the X-ray afterglow of the SN1998bw/GRB 980425
4207: pair. We call ``plateau'' the slowly-declining late measurements.
4208: Lower panel: The V-band light curve of
4209: the same pair, with
4210: the blue ``SN'' curve a fit to the SN by Sollerman et al.~(2000),
4211: dominated after day $\sim\!40$ by $^{56}$Co decay.
4212: The red ``AG'' curve is our prediction for the CB-induced
4213: AG component, as given by Eq.~(\ref{fluxdensity}),
4214: with the parameters determined from the X-ray AG fit in the
4215: upper panel. The SN contribution
4216: dominates up to day $\sim\! 600$. The last point is an
4217: HST measurement at day 778, that precisely agrees with the (dashed)
4218: SN plus CB prediction for the total AG. For an earlier version of these
4219: results, see DD2000a.}
4220: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4221: \label{425}
4222: \end{figure}
4223:
4224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4225:
4226: \begin{figure}
4227: \begin{center}
4228: \vspace*{.003cm}
4229: \hspace*{-0cm}
4230: \epsfig{file=alpha.eps,width=8.7cm}
4231: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4232: \caption{Distribution of $\alpha$ values, from the fits to the optical AGs.
4233: The prediction is $\alpha \approx 1.1$.
4234: Binning from $\alpha=1.06$ to 1.26 would have made this
4235: distribution look even more impressively narrow.
4236: The GRBs are labelled by the last three digits of their date.}
4237: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4238: \label{alphadist}
4239: \end{center}
4240: \end{figure}
4241:
4242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4243:
4244: \begin{figure}
4245: \begin{center}
4246: \vspace*{.003cm}
4247: \hspace*{-0cm}
4248: \epsfig{file=gamma2.eps,width=8.7cm}
4249: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4250: \caption{Distribution of $\gamma_0$ values from the fits to the optical AGs.
4251: The expectation is $\gamma_0\sim 10^3$.
4252: The GRBs are labelled by their last three digits.}
4253: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4254: \label{gammadist}
4255: \end{center}
4256: \end{figure}
4257:
4258:
4259: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4260: \begin{figure}
4261: \begin{center}
4262: \vspace*{.003cm}
4263: \hspace*{-0cm}
4264: \epsfig{file=theta2.eps,width=8.7cm}
4265: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4266: \caption{Distribution of $\theta$ values, in milliradians, from the fits to the
4267: optical AGs.
4268: The GRBs are labelled by their last three digits.}
4269: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4270: \label{thetadist}
4271: \end{center}
4272: \end{figure}
4273:
4274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4275: \begin{figure}
4276: \begin{center}
4277: \vspace*{.003cm}
4278: \hspace*{-0cm}
4279: \epsfig{file=xinf2.eps,width=8.7cm}
4280: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4281: \caption{Distribution of $\rm
4282: Log_{10}[x_\infty(Mpc)]$ values, from the fits to the
4283: optical AGs. The expectation
4284: from Eq.~(\ref{gamoft}) is 0.114.
4285: The GRBs are labelled by their last three digits.}
4286: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4287: \label{xdist}
4288: \end{center}
4289: \end{figure}
4290:
4291: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4292: \begin{figure}
4293: \begin{center}
4294: \vspace*{.003cm}
4295: \hspace*{-0cm}
4296: \epsfig{file=ECB2.eps,width=8.7cm}
4297: %\vspace*{-14.6cm}
4298: \caption{Distribution on $\rm E_\gamma^{CB}$ values,
4299: as given by Eq.~(\ref{ECBrest}), in units of $10^{44}$ erg.
4300: The GRBs are labelled by their last three digits.}
4301: \vspace*{-0.5cm}
4302: \label{Edist}
4303: \end{center}
4304: \end{figure}
4305:
4306: \end{document}
4307:
4308:
4309:
4310:
4311:
4312:
4313:
4314:
4315:
4316:
4317:
4318:
4319:
4320:
4321:
4322:
4323:
4324:
4325:
4326:
4327:
4328:
4329:
4330:
4331:
4332:
4333:
4334:
4335:
4336:
4337:
4338:
4339:
4340:
4341:
4342:
4343:
4344:
4345:
4346:
4347:
4348:
4349:
4350:
4351:
4352:
4353:
4354:
4355:
4356:
4357:
4358:
4359:
4360:
4361:
4362:
4363:
4364:
4365:
4366:
4367:
4368:
4369:
4370:
4371:
4372:
4373:
4374:
4375:
4376:
4377:
4378:
4379:
4380:
4381:
4382:
4383:
4384:
4385:
4386:
4387:
4388:
4389: