1: % EDITOR: COMMENT OUT THESE Three LINES TO PRINT OUT THE MANUSCRIPT

2: %\documentclass{article}

3: %\usepackage{emulateapj}

4: %\usepackage{times}

5: % EDITOR: UNCOMMENT  THIS LINE TO PRINT OUT THE MANUSCRIPT IN AAS FORM

6: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

7: 

8: %\usepackage{aaspp4}

9: \usepackage{psfig}

10: %\setlength{\topmargin}{1.5cm}

11: 

12: \def\lc{l_{\rm c}}

13: \def\lbb{l_{\rm bb}}

14: \def\tautr{\tau_{\rm tr}}

15: \def\tauc{\tau_{\rm c}}

16: \def\taue{\tau_{\rm e}}

17: \def\gta{\ga}

18: \def\lta{\la}

19: \def\Tbb{T_{\rm bb}}

20: \def\ledd{L_{\rm Edd}}

21: \def\taut{\tau_{\rm T}}

22: \def\tauff{\tau_{\rm ff}}

23: \def\msun{{\,M_\odot}}

24: \def\lsun{{\,L_\odot}}

25: \def\sw{Schwarzschild~}

26: \newcommand\fe{Fe K$\aFlpha$~}

27: \newcommand\rozanska{R\'o$\dot{\rm z}$a\'nska }

28: \newcommand\zycki{$\dot{\rm Z}$ycki }

29: \newcommand\tl{t_{\rm l}}

30: \newcommand\tff{\tau_{\rm ff}}

31: \newcommand\fx{F_{\rm x}}

32: \newcommand\tx{\tau_{\rm x}}

33: \newcommand\thydro{t_{\rm h}}

34: \newcommand\dm{\dot{m}}

35: \newcommand\fdisk{F_{\rm d}}

36: \newcommand\tcomp{T_{\rm comp}}

37: \newcommand\pram{P_{\rm ram}}

38: \newcommand\prad{P_{\rm rad}}

39: \newcommand\ptot{P_{\rm tot}}

40: \newcommand\pg{P_{\rm gas}}

41: \newcommand\lnet{\Lambda_{\rm net}}

42: \newcommand\taueff{\tau_{\rm eff}}

43: \newcommand\teff{T_{\rm eff}}

44: \newcommand\pmin{P_{\rm min}}

45: \newcommand\pstar{P_*}

46: \newcommand\tstar{T_*}

47: \newcommand\thot{\tau_{\rm h}}

48: \newcommand\tskin{\tau_{\rm s}}

49: \newcommand\fbb{F_{\rm BB}}

50: \newcommand\ibb{I_{\rm BB}}

51: \def\mean#1{\langle #1 \rangle}

52: %

53: % Reference macros

54: %

55: % To generate reference to a paper in Ap.J. volume 300, p.123 

56: % write \apj{Claus, S. 1990}{300}{123}

57: %

58: %\def\refindent{\par\noindent\hangindent=3pc\hangafter=1 }

59: %\def\aa#1#2#3{\refindent#1, A\&A, #2, #3}

60: %\def\aasup#1#2#3{\refindent#1, A\&AS, #2, #3}

61: %\def\aj#1#2#3{\refindent#1, AJ, #2, #3}

62: %\def\apj#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it ApJ}, {#2}, #3.}

63: %\def\apjlett#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it ApJL}, {#2}, #3.}

64: %\def\apjsup#1#2#3{\refindent#1, ApJS, #2, #3}

65: %\def\araa#1#2#3{\refindent#1, ARA\&A, #2, #3}

66: %\def\baas#1#2#3{\refindent#1, BAAS, #2, #3}

67: %\def\icarus#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Icarus, #2, #3}

68: %\def\mnras#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it MNRAS}, {#2}, #3.}

69: %\def\nature#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it Nature}, {#2}, #3.}

70: %\def\pasj#1#2#3{\refindent#1, PASJ, #2, #3}

71: %\def\pasp#1#2#3{\refindent#1, PASP, #2, #3}

72: %\def\qjras#1#2#3{\refindent#1, QJRAS, #2, #3}

73: %\def\science#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Science, #2, #3}

74: %\def\sov#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Soviet Astr., #2, #3}

75: %\def\sovlett#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Soviet Astr.\ Lett., #2, #3}

76: %\def\refpaper#1#2#3#4{\refindent#1, #2, #3, #4}

77: %\def\refbook#1{\refindent#1}

78: \def\degs{$^\circ$}

79: \def\biggldb{\biggl[\!\!\biggl[}

80: \def\biggrdb{\biggr]\!\!\biggr]}

81: \def\um{{\,\mu\rm m}}

82: \def\cm{{\rm\,cm}}

83: \def\km{{\rm\,km}}

84: \def\au{{\rm\,AU}}

85: \def\pc{{\rm\,pc}}

86: \def\kpc{{\rm\,kpc}}

87: \def\mpc{{\rm\,Mpc}}

88: \def\sec{{\rm\,s}}

89: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}

90: \def\gm{{\rm\,g}}

91: \def\kms{{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}}

92: \def\kelvin{{\rm\,K}}

93: \def\erg{{\rm\,erg}}

94: \def\ev{{\rm\,eV}}

95: \def\hz{{\rm\,Hz}}

96: \def\>{$>$}

97: \def\<{$<$}

98: \def\bsl{$\backslash$}

99: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

100: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

101: \def\sqr#1#2{{\vcenter{\hrule height.#2pt

102:       \hbox{\vrule width.#2pt height#1pt \kern#1pt

103:          \vrule width.#2pt}

104:       \hrule height.#2pt}}}

105: \def\square{\mathchoice\sqr34\sqr34\sqr{2.1}3\sqr{1.5}3}

106: 

107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% my definitions follow %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

108: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

109: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

110: 

111: \def\ni{\noindent}

112: \def\ce{\centerline}

113: \def\t{\ifmmode {\tau} \else $\tau$ \fi}

114: \def\ce{\centerline}

115: \def\ni{\noindent}

116: \def\ref{\noindent \hangafter=1 \hangindent=0.7 truecm}

117: \def\sw{Schwarzschild~}

118: \def\cm{\ifmmode {\rm cm}^{-1} \else cm$^{-1}$ \fi}

119: \def\s{\ifmmode {\rm s}^{-1} \else s$^{-1}$ \fi}

120: \def\cc{\ifmmode {\rm cm}^{-3} \else cm$^{-3}$ \fi}

121: \def\cs{\ifmmode {\rm cm}^{-2} \else cm$^{-2}$ \fi}

122: \def\g{\ifmmode \gamma \else $\gamma$\fi}

123: \def\G{\ifmmode \Gamma \else $\Gamma$\fi}

124: \def\ggs{$\gamma-\gamma$~}

125: \def\grs{$\gamma$-ray~}

126: \def\gr{$\gamma$-ray}

127: \def\kms{\ifmmode {\rm km\ s}^{-1} \else km s$^{-1}$\fi}

128: \def\ee{e$^+$e$^-$~}

129: \def\eg{{\sl EGRET}}

130: \def\egs{{\sl EGRET~}}

131: \def\gro{{\sl CGRO}}

132: \def\gros{{\sl CGRO~}}

133: \def\ea{{\it et al.}~}

134: \def\lgn{log\,N -- log\,S}

135: \def\lgns{log\,N -- log\,S~}

136: 

137: 

138: 

139: %def\ledd{1}

140: 

141: 

142: \begin{document}

143: 

144: \title{The ``Supercritical Pile" Model for GRB: Getting the 

145: $\nu F_{\nu}$ peak at 1 MeV}

146: 

147: \author{Demosthenes Kazanas, Markos Georganopoulos\altaffilmark{1}} 

148: %\& Apostolos Mastichiadis}

149: 

150: \affil{NASA/GSFC, LHEA, Code 661, Greenbelt, MD, 20771}

151: \altaffiltext{1}{Also NAS/NRC Research Associate}

152: 

153: %\author{And}

154: 

155: \author{Apostolos Mastichiadis}

156: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis,

157: Athens, Greece}

158: 

159:  

160: \begin{abstract}

161: We propose that the internal energy of the GRB blast waves, thought to be

162: stored in the form of relativistic protons co-moving with the blast wave, 

163: is converted explosively (i.e. on light crossing time scales) into relativistic 

164: electrons of the same Lorentz factor, which are responsible for the 

165: production of observed prompt \g-ray 

166: emission of the burst. This conversion is the result of the combined effects 

167: of the reflection of photons produced within the flow  by upstream 

168: located matter, their re-interception by the blast wave and their eventual

169: conversion into $e^+e^--$pairs in interactions with the relativistic protons 

170: of the blast wave (via the $p \gamma \rightarrow e^+e^-$ reaction). This 

171: entire procedure is contingent on two conditions on the relativistic

172: protons: a kinematic one imposed by the threshold of the $p \gamma \rightarrow 

173: e^+e^-$ reaction and a dynamic one related to the column density of the 

174: post shock matter to the same process. 

175: This latter condition is in essence identical to that of the criticality 

176: of a nuclear pile, hence the terminology. It is argued that the properties of 

177: relativistic blast waves operating under these conditions are consistent with 

178: GRB phenomenology, including the recently found correlation between 

179: quiescence periods and subsequent flare fluence. Furthermore, it is shown 

180: that, when operating near threshold, the resulting GRB spectrum produces its 

181: peak luminosity at 

182: an energy (in the lab frame) $E \simeq m_ec^2$, thereby providing an answer to 

183: this outstanding question of GRBs.

184: \end{abstract}

185: 

186: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks ---radiative transfer ---

187: line: formation --- X-rays: general}

188: %--- radiation mechanisms: non-thermal}

189: 

190: 

191: \section{Introduction}\label{sect:intro}

192: 

193: The longstanding issue of the distance and absolute luminosity of GRBs

194: has been settled in the past decade through the observational evidence

195: collected  by $BATSE$ (Meegan et al. 1992) and $BeppoSAX$ (Costa et al.

196: 1997), while the theoretical work of 

197: M\'esz\'aros \& Rees (1992) and Rees \& M\'esz\'aros (1992) provided the 

198: broader physical framework into which these events seem to generally fit. This 

199: framework associates GRBs with radiation emitted by relativistic blast

200: waves (hereafter RBWs), produced by an unspecified todate agent, presumably 

201: associated with the formation of a neutron star or black hole. While the 

202: source of the energy associated with GRBs has remained uncertain, there 

203: remains little doubt about the presence of the RBWs, which power also 

204: the later time emissions at X-ray, optical and radio frequencies, 

205: known collectively as GRB afterglows (see review of Piran 1999). 

206: 

207: With the discovery of GRB afterglows, much of the theoretical activity has 

208: since shifted to the study of the physics of these later time emissions.

209: Nonetheless, a number of issues associated with the prompt \g-ray 

210: emission, besides the nature of their energy source, still remain open.

211: Chief among them are the conversion of the RBW kinetic energy into 

212: radiation and the fact that the frequency at which the GRB luminosity 

213: peaks, $E_{\rm p}$, is narrowly distributed around a value intriguingly 

214: close to the electron rest mass energy. The purpose of the present 

215: note is to describe a process that  provides a ``natural" account of 

216: these generic, puzzling GRB features.

217: 

218: Following the work of Shemi \& Piran (1990) it has been 

219: generally accepted that a certain amount of baryons must 

220: be carried off with the blast waves responsible for the GRBs. This 

221: baryon contamination has even been deemed necessary, else the entire 

222: blast wave internal energy would be converted into radiation on very 

223: short time scales, leading to events of very different temporal and

224: spectral appearance (e.g. Paczy\'nski 1986) than observed in  GRBs . 

225: While the low radiative efficiency of baryons is essential for the

226: GRB energy transport to the requisite distances ($\gsim 10^{16}$ cm),

227: it becomes problematic when demanded that their

228: %In this respect, the baryons are quite 

229: %useful in protecting the RBW's internal energy from radiative

230: %losses, providing a means for  its  efficient transport to the distances 

231: %associated with the prompt \g-ray emission ($\sim 10^{16}$ cm). 

232: %However, the very property that makes baryons a desirable staple of 

233: %the GRB fireball becomes problematic when demanded that their 

234: internal energy be radiated away on the short time scales associated 

235: with the GRB prompt \g-ray emission. Generally, this issue is 

236: sidestepped by appealing to an unknown process which transfers the 

237: proton energy into electrons (Dermer, B\"ottcher \& Chiang 1999), 

238: whose radiative evolution could then be accurately

239: computed.

240: % or by assuming that a substantial fraction of the 

241: %proton energy has been converted (through shock acceleration) into 

242: %protons of sufficiently high energy ($\sim 10^{20}$ eV), that have 

243: %radiative life times in accordance with the observed GRB durations.

244: 

245: The narrow range of the GRB $\nu F_{\nu}$ spectral peak energy, 

246: $E_{\rm p}$, is another well documented systematic feature of these 

247: events, a result of the extensive data base accumulated by $BATSE$. 

248: The compilation of Malozzi et al. (1995) shows clearly 

249: a preference for an energy $E_{\rm p} \simeq 200$ keV at 

250: which the $\nu F_{\nu}$ GRB spectra exhibit a maximum. In fact, 

251: it is precisely this maximum in the spectral energy 

252: distribution that  qualifies GRBs as such. 

253: Furthermore, when corrected for the redshift ($z_{\rm GRB} \sim 1$), 

254: $E_{\rm p}$ shifts close to the electron 

255: rest mass. While a compelling explanation of this fact is presently

256: lacking, several accounts have occasionally been proposed. For example, 

257: Brainerd (1994) argues that this is the result of down-Comptonization 

258: of a power law photon distribution that extends to $E \gg 1$ MeV by  

259: cold matter with Thompson depth $\tau_T \sim 10$, an explanation

260: possibly in conflict with the timing properties of GRBs (see 

261: e.g. Kazanas, Titarchuk and Hua 1997). The association of

262: the GRB emission with relativistically boosted synchrotron radiation from 

263: RBWs has made this particular issue far more acute, as the energy of

264: the latter should scale like $E_{\rm p} \propto \G^4$.

265: %GRBs with emission from RBWs has made this particular issue far more 

266: %acute: Given that in most models it is assumed that the prompt \g-ray 

267: %emission is due to relavistically boosted synchrotron radiation produced 

268: %by the post shock electrons, $E_{\rm p}$ should scale like $E_{\rm p} 

269: %\propto \G^4$. 

270: Therefore, even very small variations in the values 

271: of \G~ would lead to a very broad range in the values of $E_{\rm p}$.

272: Dermer et al. (1999) proposed that the observed distribution is the 

273: result of the time evolution of a blast wave with a specific baryon

274: loading, which when convolved with the triggering criteria of existing

275: detectors favors the detection of fireballs with $E_{\rm p}$ in the

276: observed range.

277: %energy range at which the detector response is highest. 

278: On the other hand, 

279: on the basis of analysis of SMM data,  Harris \& Share (1999) have 

280: argued that there is no apparent excess of GRBs with $E_{\rm p} 

281: \gg 1$ MeV, thus leaving this issue open. 

282: %It is not apparent to the authors 

283: %whether the available range in \G~ is consistent with observations, in view of the 

284: %sensitive dependence of $E_p$ on \G~ and the absence of GRBs with 

285: %$E_p\simeq 100$ MeV (Harris \& Share 1999). 

286: 

287: The present paper is structured as follows: In \S 2 we outline the 

288: fundamental notion behind our proposal for converting the RBW proton

289: energy into radiation, we derive the associated necessary conditions 

290: and discuss its relation to GRB phenomenology. 

291: In \S 3 we produce model spectra based on this 

292: proposal and indicate their relation to the particular value of 

293: $E_{\rm p}$ observed. Finally,

294: in \S 4 the results are discussed and certain conclusions are 

295: drawn.

296: 

297: \section{The ``Supercritical Pile"}\label{sect:pile}

298: 

299: The process described herein has been discussed in the 

300: past by Kazanas \& Mastichiadis (1999; hereafter KM99) in the 

301: context of AGN, where 

302: arguments have been put forward in favor of a hadronic origin of the 

303: relativistic electrons in blazars. This process is effectively the 

304: relativistic plasma instability proposed by Kirk \& Mastichiadis 

305: (1992; hereafter KM92) coupled to the increase in the photon energy 

306: associated with relativistically moving ``mirrors" (Ghisellini \& 

307: Madau 1997). While the mathematical formulation of the instability is 

308: given in detail in the above references, we provide below 

309: %for the benefit of the reader 

310: a qualitative re-derivation which focuses on and elucidates 

311: the underlying physics.

312: %nonetheless, we provide herein 

313: %a re-derivation of the instability criteria using qualitative arguments;

314: %it is our hope that this will further elucidate the underlying physics, 

315: %possibly lost to the casual reader amidst the mathematical formalism 

316: %of the original references. 

317: 

318: \subsection{A Static Plasma}\label{ssect:static}

319: 

320: 

321: Consider a spherical volume of size $R$, containing a relativistic proton 

322: plasma of differential spectrum $n_p(\g) = n_0 \g^{-\beta}$ (\g~ being 

323: the proton Lorentz factor), along with an (infinitesimal)

324: number of photons of energy $\epsilon$ (in units of $m_ec^2$); 

325: these photons can produce pairs via the $p\g \rightarrow e^-e^+$ 

326: reaction, provided that the proton population

327: extends to Lorentz factors 

328: %larger than a critical one value 

329: $\g >\g_{\rm c}$ 

330: such that $\g_{\rm c} \, \epsilon \simeq2$. In the presence of a magnetic 

331: field $B$, the pairs (of Lorentz factor also equal to $\g_{\rm c}$)

332: produce synchrotron photons of energy $\epsilon_s = b \g_{\rm c}^2$

333: where $b = B/B_{\rm cr}$ is the magnetic field in units of the 

334: critical one $B_{\rm cr} = m_e^2 c^3/(e \hbar) \simeq 4.4 \, 10^{13}$ G.

335: 

336: For the reaction network to be {\sl self-contained} the energies of the seed

337: and synchrotron photons should be equal, yielding the kinematic

338: threshold of the process i.e. $\g_{\rm c} \epsilon_s =\g_{\rm c}^3 

339: \, b \simeq2$.

340: %i.e. the kinematic condition for this process to take place at all. 

341: %

342: For the process to be also {\sl self-sustained}, at least one of the 

343: synchrotron photons must produce a pair before exiting the 

344: volume of the source. Hence, the optical depth of the source

345: to the $p\g \rightarrow e^-e^+$ reaction should be greater 

346: than $1/{\cal N}$, where ${\cal N} \simeq \g_{\rm c}/b \g_{\rm c}^2

347: = 1/b \g_{\rm c}$ is the total number of synchrotron photons produced by

348: an electron of energy $\g_{\rm c}$. This condition then reads

349: $\tau_{p\g} \simeq \sigma_{p\g} \, R \, n_p(\g)\g = \sigma_{p\g} 

350: \, R \, n_0 \g_{\rm c}^{-\beta+1} \gsim b \g_{\rm c}$. Eliminating

351: $\g_{\rm c}$ using the kinematic threshold condition $\g_{\rm c}^3 \, 

352: b \simeq2$, the critical column density expression reduces to 

353: %

354: \begin{equation}

355:  \sigma_{p\g} \, R \,  n_0 \gsim b^{1 - \beta/3}~,

356: \end{equation}

357: %

358: which (within factors of order unity) is the condition  

359: derived in KM92. This condition is 

360: similar to that of the criticality of a nuclear pile,

361: except that there one deals with neutrons rather than 

362: photons (this similarity carries also over in the case in the 

363: Comptonization of photons by hot electrons (Katz 1976)). 

364: It becomes apparent, hence, that the critical quantity

365: here (as also in a nuclear pile) is the column density (rather than 

366: the mass, the term ``critical mass" being simply a figure of speech). 

367: The pair - synchrotron photon - proton - pair network will be 

368: self-sustained if the column density is equal 

369: to the critical one. For larger values the number of pairs 

370: increases exponentially, eventually leading to a depletion of the

371: available energy source on time scales $\simeq R/c$ (a bomb!).

372: 

373: 

374: \subsection{Plasma in Relativistic Motion}\label{ssect:relativ}

375: 

376: 

377: KM99 extended the above analysis

378: to the case that the relativistic proton containing plasma moves

379: itself relativistically with Lorentz factor \G. 

380: The criticality conditions change quantitatively if

381: the radiation emitted by the plasma can be

382: ``reflected" by matter located along its direction of motion. 

383: Due to relativistic beaming, essentially all the photons  produced

384: internally in the plasma will be focused in the forward direction, 

385: reflected and boosted in energy, upon their re-interception by 

386: the moving plasma, by a factor $\G^2$. If $b$ is 

387: the (normalized) value of the comoving magnetic field, the synchrotron

388: photons of energy $\epsilon_s = b \g^2$ will, upon their re-interception,

389: have energy $\epsilon_s = b \g^2 \G^2$, modifying the kinematic 

390: threshold condition to $b \g_{\rm c}^3 \G^2 \gsim 2$. 

391: 

392: The change in the kinematic threshold affects also the dynamic one: 

393: The photons necessary for the production of pairs in the comoving frame 

394: are now emitted by electrons of Lorentz factor only $\g_{\rm c}/\G$.  

395: The number of such photons is now ${\cal N} \simeq (\g/\G)/b (\g/\G)^2

396: =1/ b (\g/\G)$. Demanding again that the column of the plasma be 

397: greater than $1/{\cal N}$, along with the new threshold relation, 

398: leads to the condition

399: %

400: \begin{equation}

401:  \sigma_{p\g} \, \Delta_{\rm com} \,  n_{0 {\rm com}} \gsim b^{1 - \beta/3} \G^{-(1+2\beta/3)}

402: \end{equation}

403: %

404: namely the condition derived in KM99 ($\Delta_{\rm com}, \,  n_{0 {\rm com}}$

405: are the co-moving source size and density). Relativistic motion therefore, 

406: eases significantly the ``criticality"

407: condition in the case of a relativistically moving plasma.

408: 

409: The situation in the RBW of a GRB is somewhat different than that 

410: discussed just above. Though diffusive acceleration is very likely 

411: present in their associated shocks, the mere postshock isotropization 

412: of the flow creates, in the RBW frame, a relativistic population of protons

413: with mean energy $\langle E \rangle \simeq \G \, m_pc^2$. Therefore,

414: to be most conservative, one could dispense with the requirement of an 

415: accelerated proton population and demand that {\sl only} the protons of 

416: energy  $\G \, m_pc^2$ be present (these are certainly the most numerous). 

417: Therefore, upon setting $\g_{\rm c} 

418: \simeq \G$, the kinematic threshold condition reduces to $\G^5 \, b 

419: \gsim 2$. The number of photons emitted by electrons at threshold

420: then becomes ${\cal N} \simeq 1/b$ and the ``criticality" threshold

421: reads 

422: %

423: \begin{equation}

424:  \sigma_{p\g} \,\Delta_{\rm com} \,  n_{\rm com} = 

425: \sigma_{p\g} \, R \,  n \gsim b ~~~{\rm or} ~~~ \sigma_{p\g} 

426: \, R \, n \, \G^5 \gsim 2

427: \end{equation}

428: %

429: with the last relation incorporating both the kinematic and dynamic 

430: threshold ($\Delta_{\rm com} \,  n_ {\rm com}

431: = R \, n$ due to the Lorentz invariance of the column density. 

432: In this case, the quantity $n \, R$ simply denotes the 

433: amount of ambient matter per unit area swept by the RBW). 

434: %

435: For the typical values of $n$ and $R$ used in association with 

436: GRBs, i.e. $n = 1 \; n_0$ \cc and $R = 10^{16}\; R_{16}$ cm and considering

437: that $\sigma_{p\g} \simeq 5 \, 10^{-27}$ cm$^2$, the criticality 

438: condition yields $\G \gsim 180 \, (n_0 \, R_{16})^{-1/5}$, values well

439: within the accepted parameter range. 

440: 

441: Following the above analysis, the correlation between quiescence and

442: activity periods in GRBs found by Ramirez-Ruiz \& Merloni (2000),

443: finds a direct, qualitative interpretation: A RBW sweeps and `piles-up'

444: the ambient medium behind its forward shock, whose column density 

445: increases from below to above its critical value. Provided that 

446: the proper ``mirror" is located upstream, the internal energy, or part

447: of it depending on conditions, will be explosively converted into 

448: radiation. The energy released then would be proportional to the 

449: amount of matter accumulated during quiescence, with the process 

450: repeating as the blast wave progresses and more matter is accumulated.

451: 

452: \section{The Spectra}\label{sect:spectra}

453: 

454: 

455: Generally, the light curves as well as the GRB spectra are highly

456: variable. In the present model, the issue of variability becomes 

457: even more complex than in more conventional models, given that the 

458: injection rate of relativistic pairs depends on proton 

459: collisions with photons emitted at prior times, following their 

460: reflection by the ``mirror". 

461: 

462: While the computation of the spectra within this model is an inherently

463: time dependent problem, we present herein a simplified, steady-state 

464: treatment whose salient features, we believe, will be preserved 

465: in a more detailed calculation. 

466: 

467: We consider a RBW of energy $E = 10^{51} \, E_{51}$ erg 

468: in a uniform medium of density $n = 1 \, n_0$ \cc and of a (normalized)

469: opening half angle $\Theta = (\theta/ \pi)$. 

470: Because of the relativistic focusing of 

471: radiation,  we need only consider a section of the blast wave of 

472: opening half angle $\theta = 1/\G$. 

473: The shocked electrons of the ambient medium (and pairs from the 

474: $p \, \g \rightarrow e^+e^-$ process) produce synchrotron 

475: photons of energy $\epsilon_s \simeq b \, \G^2$. These,

476: upon their scattering by the ``mirror" and re-interception by the RBW,

477: are boosted to energy $\epsilon = \epsilon_s \, \G^2 = b \,

478: \G^4$ (in the RBW frame). These photons will then be scattered 

479: by (a) electrons of $\g \simeq 1$, originally contained 

480: in the RBW and/or cooled since the explosion, and (b) by the 

481: hot ($\g \simeq \G$), recently shocked ones to produce inverse Compton (IC)

482: radiation at energies correspondingly $\epsilon_1 \simeq b \, \G^4$ and 

483: $\epsilon_2 \simeq b \, \G^6$ at the RBW frame. 

484: %(the SSC process will also yield

485: %photons at $\epsilon_{ssc} \simeq b \, \G^4$, however it turns out

486: %that this is not as important and it is ignored in this note). 

487: At the lab frame, the energies of these three components, i.e. 

488: $\epsilon_s, \, \epsilon_1, \, \epsilon_2$ will be higher

489: by roughly a factor \G, i.e. they will be respectively at energies 

490: $b \, \G^3,~b \, \G^5$ and $b \, \G^7$. Assuming that the process operates 

491: near its kinematic threshold, $b\, \G^5 \simeq 2$, at the 

492: lab frame these components will be at energies $\epsilon_s \simeq \G^{-2}$,

493: $\epsilon_1 \simeq 2 \simeq 1$ MeV and $\epsilon_2 \simeq \G^2 \simeq$ 

494: 10 GeV $(\G/100)^2$. This model therefore, produces 

495: ``naturally" a component in the $\nu F_{\nu}$ spectral distribution

496: which peaks in the correct energy range. It also predicts the 

497: existence of another component at an energy $\G^2$ higher; such high

498: energy emission has been observed from several GRBs (Dingus 1995). 

499: 

500: 

501: \begin{figure*}[t]

502: \centerline{\psfig{file=f1.eps,width=.4\textwidth,angle=0}}

503: \caption{The inferred isotropic luminosity of the three components 

504: discussed in the text for a burst with $\Delta \Omega /4 \pi = 0.005$,

505: \G = 240 and kinetic luminosity $L_{\rm k} \simeq 2 \times 10^{49}$ 

506: erg/s. The dot-dashed line is the synchrotron component, while the

507: solid and dashed lines are respectively the Compton scattered synchrotron 

508: by the cold and hot electrons. The dotted horizontal line denotes 

509: the equivalent isotropic kinetic luminosity. For a duration 

510: of $\simeq 20$ s. this will result in a fluence of $10^{52}$ ergs. }

511: \label{fig:temp}

512: \end{figure*}

513: 

514: 

515: 

516: The relative importance of these components depends on the specifics of

517: a given source. For the two IC components this depends on the 

518: ratio of the scattering depths of the cool $\tau_T(\g \simeq 1)$ and hot 

519: $\tau_T(\g \simeq \G)$ electrons. At a minimum, this ratio is equal 

520: to the ratio of their escape to cooling rates ${\cal R}_{\rm cool}/

521: {\cal R}_{\rm esc}\simeq t_{\rm esc}/t_{\rm cool}$. 

522: If $U_B = f_B (E/4\pi \, R^3 \, 

523: \Theta^2$) is the magnetic energy density ($f_B$  denotes 

524: departures from equipartition; $f_B \simeq 1$ in GRBs),  then

525: $ t_{\rm esc} \simeq \Delta_{\rm com}/c \simeq R/\G\, c$ and 

526: $t_{\rm cool} \simeq m_ec^2/(U_B \, \sigma_T \, c \, \G)$ so that

527: %

528: \begin{equation}

529: \frac{\tau_T(\g \simeq 1)}{\tau_T(\g \simeq \G)} =

530: \frac{f_B \, f_c}{\Theta^2 } \frac{E_{51}}{R_{16}^2} 

531: %= \frac{R}{\G \, c} ~~~~~

532: %t_{\rm cool} = \frac{m_ec^2}{U_B \, \sigma_T \, c \, \G}

533: \end{equation}

534: %

535: where $f_c (>1)$ is a 

536: multiplicative factor indicating the contribution 

537: of cold electrons inherent in the RBW to the scattering depth. 

538: %(in addition to those produced by pair-production during the burst). 

539: %

540: For $\Theta \sim 1/\G$ one obtains for the rate of photon scattering 

541: into the two IC components

542: %

543: \begin{equation}

544: \dot {\cal N}(E_\g\simeq \G^2) \simeq \frac{1}{f_B \, f_c \, \G^2} 

545: \frac{R_{16}^2}{E_{51}} \; \dot {\cal N}(E_\g \simeq 1)~,

546: \end{equation}

547: %

548: indicating that their luminosities would be roughly equal for the 

549: fiducial values of the parameters involved.

550: %for the relative rate of photon production in these two components.

551: %This would be similar to the ratio of observed luminosities, provided

552: %their beaming patterns are identical (this issue will be examined

553: %in greater depth in future work).

554: 

555: The relative luminosity between the direct synchrotron and the

556: cold-electron scattered synchrotron photons can be estimated

557: as follows: 

558: The number of electrons swept-up to radius $R$ by a section

559: of transverse dimension $d_t \simeq R/\G$ of the RBW is ${\cal N}_e \simeq 

560: n \, R^3 \, f_m/\G^2$, where $f_m (< m_p/m_e)$ is a multiplicative 

561: factor denoting the number of pairs produced in the RBW.  Given that 

562: each electron of energy \G~ produces $\simeq 1/b \G$ photons, 

563: the total number of photons produced to radius $R$ is

564: %

565: \begin{equation}

566: {\cal N}_\g \simeq \frac{n \, f_m}{b} \frac{R^3}{ \G^3} 

567: \end{equation}

568: %

569: These photons will be received in the lab frame at energy $\epsilon_s 

570: \simeq b \G^3$ over a time interval $\simeq R/ \G^2 c$ to yield 

571: a photon flux 

572: %

573: \begin{equation}

574: \dot {\cal N}_\g \simeq \frac{n \, f_m}{b} \frac{R^2 \, c}{ \G} 

575: \simeq n \, R \, \sigma_{\rm T} \, \G^4 \left( \frac{R \, c}{

576: \sigma_{\rm T}}\right) f_m

577: \label{synch}

578: \end{equation}

579: %

580: It is assumed that a fraction $\alpha$ of these photons will scatter 

581: at the ``mirror" and randomize producing 

582: a ``layer" of photons of width $\Delta \simeq R/\G^2$ (in the lab 

583: frame; it is assumed that the ``mirror" is thinner than $R/\G^2$), 

584: density $n_\g \simeq {\cal N}_\g \, \alpha /V = {\cal N}_\g 

585: \, \alpha /(R/\G)^2 \, \Delta$ and Thompson depth $\tau_{T,\g} \simeq

586: (n \, \sigma_{\rm T} R/b \, \G)\alpha \, f_m$ ($ \tau_{T,\g} \simeq n 

587: \, \sigma_{\rm T} \, R \, \G^4 \, \alpha \, f_m$ if near threshold 

588: i.e. for $b \, \G \simeq 1/\G^4$).

589: 

590: The number of electrons to radius $R$ swept by the section of the 

591: RBW considered here is then

592: %

593: ${\cal N}_e \simeq (n R^3 \,/\G^2) (f_c+f_m)$;

594: %

595: hence the total number of photons scattered by the electrons

596: upon traversing the ``photon layer" of width $\Delta$ will be

597: ${\cal N}_{sc,\g} \simeq {\cal N}_e \, \t_{T,\g}$. These will be 

598: received at the lab frame over a time $\simeq \Delta /c \G^2 

599: \simeq R /c \G^4$ to yield a photon flux (at energy $b \G^5 \simeq

600: 2$)

601: %

602: \begin{equation}

603: \dot {\cal N}_{sc,\g} \simeq (n \, R \, \sigma_{\rm T})^2 \, \G^6 

604: \left( \frac{R \, c}{\sigma_{\rm T}}\right) \, \alpha \, f_m(f_c + f_m)

605: \label{ic1}

606: \end{equation}

607: %

608: suggesting that the ratio of the photon fluxes given by Eqs. (7), 

609: (8) will be proportional to $ n \, R \, \sigma_{\rm T} \, \G^2 

610: \alpha (f_c+f_m)$. For reasonable values of the source 

611: parameters one does obtain similar photon fluxes at these two energy 

612: bands ($b\G^3, b\G^5$) indicating that the luminosity at 

613: $\sim 1$ MeV is roughly $\G^2$ times that at the optical 

614: band. 

615: 

616: In figure 1 we present a sample of a spectrum obtained using

617: the arguments discussed above. Assuming the process to operate 

618: near threshold (with no accelerated proton component), leads to 

619: $\delta-$ function like injection of pairs; this results in the 

620: $\nu F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{1/2}$ spectrum of figure  1 (which

621: at low energies reverts to the $\nu F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{4/3}$

622: spectrum of thin synchrotron). 

623: %It is worth pointing out that the spectra

624: %presented in this figure were obtained assuming no acceleration

625: %of particles other than that obtained through the particle 

626: %randomization at the shock. 

627: Clearly more involved spectra will

628: result if particle acceleration is also incorporated in these

629: models; however, this will be the subject of future work.

630: 

631: \section{Discussion}

632: 

633: We have presented above a novel model for the prompt emission

634: of GRBs. We believe that this model provides some of the missing 

635: physics between the RBW proposal, which 

636: describes successfully the GRB energetics and time scales 

637: and the prompt emission of radiation (\g-ray as well as 

638: optical-UV), by a well defined mechanism for tapping the 

639: kinetic energy stored in the RBW baryonic component. 

640: Furthermore, the same physics employed in effecting the

641: conversion of baryon kinetic energy into radiation is

642: instrumental in producing a peak in the spectral energy

643: distribution at $E_{\rm p} \simeq 1$ MeV, thus providing a 

644: ``natural" account of this GRB feature, an issue that 

645: has actually gotten even more puzzling with the advent of the 

646: RBW model for GRB. In addition

647: to this emission, the model implies the presence of \g-ray 

648: emission at higher energies, namely $E \simeq \G^2 m_ec^2$,

649: a fact supported by some observations already, but 

650: which will be explored in greater depth by SWIFT and GLAST, 

651: missions which will be able to test and put meaningful 

652: constraints on this specific model.

653: 

654: One of the fundamental features of this model is the presence

655: of the combination of kinematic and dynamic thresholds; this 

656: combination, along with the presence or absence of the 

657: necessary  ``mirror", make the model inherently time dependent.

658: At the same time, the kinematic threshold provides (for the 

659: first time to our knowledge) a regulating mechanism that puts

660: one of the peaks in the $\nu F_{\nu}$ distribution very close

661: to the observed value, despite the motion of the emitting plasma

662: with Lorentz factors of several hundreds.

663: %The time dependence alluded so far can be implemented within

664: %the context of ``external shock" model for GRBs, however,

665: %this does not exclude the presence of emission through internal

666: %shocks too (ref), given the variety of GRB light curves. 

667: %At the same time, the existence of thresholds for the emission

668: %of radiation provides a straightforward explanation of the 

669: %correlation between quiescence and activity times in GRBs 

670: %(Ramirez-Ruiz \& Merloni 2000). 

671: Concerning the nature of the ``mirror" we are willing to speculate 

672: here that, because the main ``reflected" component consists of the 

673: prompt synchrotron photons which are emitted at optical frequencies,

674: %since they are the prompt synchrotron photons (emitted at 

675: %optical frequencies) that constitute the main ``reflected" component, 

676: one could use atomic cross-sections ($\simeq 10^{-16}~ {\rm cm}^2$) 

677: to estimate their reflected fraction $\alpha$; values of $n$, $R$

678: typical to those associated with GRBs yield $\alpha \simeq 0.01 - 1$.

679: This is a very rough estimate, because it ignores the ionization of 

680: the reflecting medium. A more detailed treatment 

681: including these effects is beyond the scope of the present work.

682: %We understand however, that this is a very rough estimate and that the ionization

683: %of the medium by the burst ionizing radiation has to be taken 

684: %into consideration in a more detailed calculation. These issues

685: %will be treated in more detail in a future publication; however

686: %they indicate that the GRB light curves can  be rather complicated,

687: %a well known fact. 

688: 

689: We would like to thank Jay Norris, Rob Preece and Brad Shaffer for stimulating

690: discussions and much information on GRB phenomenology.

691: 

692: 

693: \begin{thebibliography}{}

694: 

695: %\bibitem[]{} Blandford, R.D., \& McKee, C.F., 1982, \apj, 255, 419

696: 

697: %\bibitem[]{} Blandford, R.D., \& Begelman, M.C. 1999, \mnras, F3, L1

698: 

699: \bibitem[]{} Brainerd, J. J. 1994, ApJ, 428, 21

700: 

701: \bibitem[]{} Costa, E. et al. 1997, Nature, 387, 783

702: 

703: \bibitem[]{} Dermer, C. D. B\"ottcher, M. \& Chiang, J., 1999, ApJ, 515, L49 

704: 

705: \bibitem[]{} Dingus, B. L., 1995, Ap\&SpSci, 231, 187

706: 

707: \bibitem[]{} Ghisellini, G. \& Madau, P. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 67

708: 

709: \bibitem[]{} Harris M. J \& Share, G. H., 1998, ApJ, 494, 724

710: 

711: \bibitem[]{} Katz, J. I. 1976, ApJ, 206, 910

712: 

713: \bibitem[]{} Kazanas, D. \& Mastichiadis, A., 1999, ApJ, 518, L17

714: 

715: \bibitem[]{} Kazanas, D, Titarchuk, L. G. \& Hua, X. 1998, ApJ, 493, 708

716: 

717: \bibitem[]{} Kirk, J. G. \& Mastichiadis, A., 1992, Nature, 360, 135

718: 

719: \bibitem[]{} Mallozzi, R. S. et al. 1995, \apj, 454, 597 

720: 

721: \bibitem[]{} Meegan, C. A. et al. 1992, Nature, 355, 143

722: 

723: \bibitem[]{} M\'esz\'aros, P. \& Rees, M. J. 1992, MNRAS, 257, L29

724: 

725: \bibitem[]{} Paczy\'nski, B., 1986, ApJ, 308, L43

726: 

727: \bibitem[]{} Piran, T. 1999, Physics Reports 314, 575

728: 

729: \bibitem[]{} Ramirez-Ruiz, E. \& Merloni, A., 2001, MNRAS, 320, L25

730: 

731: \bibitem[]{} Rees, M. J. \& M\'esz\'aros, P., 1992, MNRAS, 258, L41

732: 

733: \bibitem[]{} Shemi \& Piran, 1990,

734: 

735: \end{thebibliography}{}

736: 

737: 

738: 

739: \end{document}

740: 

741: 

742: ***** this will go in the introduction ********

743: Nonetheless, one of the most

744: significant and consistent results of GRB phenomenology is the

745: fact that their spectral energy (i.e. $\nu F_{\nu}$) is maximum at

746: an energy $E_{\rm p} \sim 200$ keV (Malozzi et al. 1995

747: 

748: 

749: In figure 1 we present a sample of such model spectra, assuming

750: \G = 300, $f_B, \; f_c \simeq 1$, $R_{16} \simeq 0.3$ and $L_{51} 

751: \simeq 1$ and reflectivity of the ``mirror" $\alpha \simeq 1$.

752: 

753: 

754: % or $\Delta_{\rm com} \simeq R/ \G$ in the comoving frame, or

755: %$\Delta \simeq R/\G^2$ in the lab frame. 

756: The density $n_\g$ and column density of these photons will then be 

757: 

758: %

759: \begin{eqnarray}

760: n_\g &=& \frac{{\cal N}_\g \; \alpha}{V_{\rm com}} = \frac{{\cal N 

761: }_\g \; \alpha}{(R/\G)^2 \Delta_{\rm com}} \simeq \frac{n}{b}\; \alpha \\

762: N_\g &=&n_\g \, \Delta_{\rm com} = \frac{n \, R}{b \, \G} \, \alpha

763: \simeq n \, R \, \G^4 \, \alpha ~,

764: \end{eqnarray}

765: %