1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
3: \def\lta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}} \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
4: \def\gta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}} \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
5: \makeatletter
6: \newenvironment{tablehere}
7: {\def\@captype{table}}
8: {}
9: \newenvironment{figurehere}
10: {\def\@captype{figure}}
11: {}
12: \makeatother
13:
14: \lefthead{Ramirez-Ruiz \& Madau}
15: \righthead{Unveiling misaligned GRB jets}
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \title{Compton Echoes from Gamma-Ray Bursts: Unveiling Misaligned Jets in
19: Nearby Type Ib/c Supernovae}
20:
21: \author{Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz\footnote{Chandra Fellow.}}
22: \affil{School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein
23: Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540; enrico@ias.edu}
24: \and
25: \author{Piero Madau}
26: \affil{Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, University of California,
27: Santa Cruz, CA 95064; pmadau@ucolick.org}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: There is now compelling evidence of a link between long-duration
31: gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and Type Ib/c supernovae (SNe). These
32: core-collapse explosions are conjectured to radiate an anisotropic,
33: beamed component associated with a decelerating, relativistic outflow
34: and an unbeamed, isotropic component associated with the slowly
35: expanding stellar debris. The anisotropic emission remains at a very
36: low level until the Doppler cone of the beam intersects the observer's
37: line of sight, making off-axis GRB jets directly detectable only at
38: long wavelengths and late times ($\gta 1$ yr). Circumstellar material,
39: however, will Compton scatter the prompt gamma-ray and afterglow
40: radiation flux and give rise to a reflection echo. We show that the
41: Compton echo of a misaligned GRB carries an X-ray luminosity that may
42: exceed by many orders of magnitude that produced by the underlying
43: subrelativistic SN during the first few weeks. Bright scattering
44: echoes may therefore provide a means for detecting a population of
45: misaligned GRBs associated with nearby Type Ib/c SNe and yield crucial
46: information on the environment surrounding a massive star at the time
47: of its death. The question of whether the interpretation of GRB980425
48: as an ordinary GRB observed off-axis is consistent with the lack of an
49: X-ray echo is addressed, along with the constraints derived on the
50: possible existence of misaligned GRB jets in SN1993J, SN1994I,
51: SN1999em, and SN2002ap.
52: \end{abstract}
53: \keywords{gamma rays: bursts -- gamma rays:theory -- supernovae:
54: general -- X-rays:general-- stars: Wolf-Rayet}
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57:
58: The first hint of a connection between core-collapse supernovae (SNe)
59: and gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) came in April of 1998, when SN1998bw was
60: detected in the {\it BeppoSAX} error box of GRB980425 (Galama et
61: al. 1998). While unremarkable in its apparent properties (peak flux,
62: duration, burst profile), GRB980425 (isotropic) energy release of only
63: $8\times 10^{47}$ erg was some four orders of magnitude smaller than
64: that of {\it typical} GRBs (e.g., Bloom et al. 1998). The observational
65: basis for a connection between GRBs and Type Ib/c SNe has been greatly
66: strengthened by the recent discovery (Hjorth et al. 2003; Stanek et
67: al. 2003) of a SN1998bw-like spectrum lurking beneath the optical
68: afterglow of GRB030329. This SN has been designated SN2003dh. Due to
69: its extreme brightness and slow decay, spectroscopic observations of
70: GRB030329 have been extensive. The early spectra consisted of a
71: power-law decay continuum ($F_\nu \propto \nu^{-0.9}$) typical of GRB
72: afterglows with narrow emission features identifiable as H$\alpha$,
73: [OIII], H$\beta$ and [OII] at $z=0.1687$ (Greiner et al. 2003), making
74: GRB030329 the second nearest burst overall (GRB980425 being possibly
75: the nearest at $z=0.0085$) and the {\it classical} burst with the
76: lowest known redshift. At this distance, GRB030329 is typical in its
77: gamma-ray budget -- its total isotropic energy release is $9 \times
78: 10^{51}$ erg (Hjorth et al. 2003).
79:
80: Independent of their connection with a GRB, SN1998bw and SN2003dh
81: belong to the unusual class of Type Ic SNe. The lack of hydrogen lines
82: in both spectra is consistent with model expectations that the stellar
83: progenitor lost its hydrogen envelope to become a Wolf-Rayet (WR) star
84: before exploding (Woosley 1993). The broad lines
85: are also suggestive of an asymmetric explosion viewed along the axis
86: of most rapid expansion (e.g., MacFadyen \& Woosley 1999). The
87: radiated energy may therefore be considerably smaller than the total
88: explosive energy -- in the range $1-2 \times 10^{52}$ erg -- inferred
89: assuming spherical symmetry (Woosley et al. 1999). Moreover, the
90: larger ratio of afterglow luminosity to SN luminosity in GRB030329 is
91: consistent with a burst that has been observed nearly on axis, whereas
92: the low luminosity of GRB980425 and its afterglow hint to a
93: substantially off-axis view (Nakamura 1999; Eichler \& Levinson 1999;
94: Woosley et al. 1999; Granot et al. 2002). In these models, together
95: with the afterglow radiation restricted to a narrow relativistic beam,
96: there is also quasi-spherical emission from slower moving SN ejecta
97: running into the circumburst medium (Ramirez-Ruiz et al. 2002; Zhang
98: et al. 2004). The flux associated with the beamed component declines
99: rapidly with observer direction, thus making the task of detecting
100: misaligned GRB jets particularly challenging (Granot et al. 2002).
101:
102: Even if GRBs were caused by a standard set of objects, their
103: appearance would depend drastically on orientation relative to the
104: line of sight. The gamma-rays we receive come from material the motion
105: of which is directed preferentially along the rotation axis of the
106: stellar progenitor, and therefore provide no information about the
107: ejecta in other directions. The propagation of gamma-rays through an
108: external medium would, however, randomize the initial photon pulse
109: energy and, because of light-travel time effects, produce a luminous
110: reflection echo (Dermer et al 1991; Madau et al. 2000; Ramirez-Ruiz et
111: al. 2001; Sazonov \& Sunyaev 2003). We show below that the X-ray
112: luminosity of such an echo exceeds during the first few weeks that
113: produced by the underlying subrelativistic SN. The detection of
114: energetic scattered light, with luminosities high enough to be
115: detected by {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton} observations (and the
116: {\it Swift} experiment now under construction), may therefore provide
117: a means for uncovering a population of misaligned GRB jets associated
118: with nearby Type Ib/c SNe. Conversely, one may use the lack of
119: evidence for a Compton echo to set constraints on the the density
120: profile of the circumburst material that surrounds a massive star at
121: the time of its death.
122:
123: \section{X-ray Emission from Misaligned GRB Jets}
124:
125: \subsection{Off-axis Afterglow Emission}
126:
127: The deceleration of a relativistic jet propagating through a stellar
128: wind starts when about half the initial energy has been transferred to
129: the shocked matter, i.e. when an amount $\Gamma_0^{-1}$ of its own
130: rest mass has been swept up. The relativistic expansion is then
131: gradually slowed down, and the blast wave evolves in a self-similar
132: manner with a power-law lightcurve (Blandford \& McKee 1976). This
133: phase ends when a total mass $E_\Omega/c^2$ (we denote with $E_\Omega$
134: the burst energy per unit solid angle) shares the energy and the
135: Lorentz factor drops to 1. As, in the unshocked
136: stellar wind, the mass within radius $r$ is $\dot{M}r/v_w$, the blast
137: wave deceleration radius is $r_{\rm dec}=E_\Omega v_w /(
138: \dot{M}c^2\Gamma_0^2) \approx ( 2 \times 10^{15}\, {\rm cm})\,
139: E_{\Omega,53}v_{w,3} \dot{M}_{-5}^{-1} \Gamma_{0,2}^{-2}$, where
140: $\dot{M}_{-5}=(\dot{M}/10^{-5}\,{\rm M_\odot\,yr^{-1}})$ and
141: $v_{w,3}=(v_w/ 10^{3}\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}})$. At observer times of more
142: than a day, the blast wave would be decelerated to a moderate Lorentz
143: factor, irrespective of the initial value (Rhoads 1999). The beaming
144: and aberration effects are thereafter less extreme, so we observe
145: afterglow emission not just from material moving almost directly
146: towards us, but from a wider range of angles. A temporal break occurs
147: when the angle $\theta \sim \Gamma^{-1}$ of the Doppler beaming cone
148: equals the jet opening angle $\theta_0$. For a blast-wave decelerating
149: according to the approximation $\Gamma(r) = \Gamma_0$ for $r < r_{\rm
150: dec}$, and $\Gamma(r) = \Gamma_0 (r/r_{\rm dec})^{-s}$ for $r > r_{\rm
151: dec}$, the time $t_b$ at which the temporal break is observed after
152: the explosion is given by $t_b \approx (1+z)[- r\cos \theta_0 +
153: \int_0^r dr^\prime \beta^{-1}(r)]/c$. Here $c\beta(r)=
154: c[1-\Gamma(r)^{-2}]^{1/2}$ is the speed of the blast wave. This gives
155: %
156: \begin{equation}
157: t_b= r_{\rm dec}\;[(\Gamma_0\theta_0)^{1/s} (1-\cos\theta_0) + {2s +
158: (\Gamma_0\theta_0)^{2+1/s}\over 2 (2s+1)\Gamma_0^2} ] {(1+z) \over
159: c}\; \;.
160: \label{ttime}
161: \end{equation}
162: %
163: The lightcurve seen by an observer located within the initial jet
164: aperture $\theta < \theta_0$ is very similar to that for an on-axis
165: observer (e.g., Dermer et al. 2000) but differs markedly in intensity
166: once the observer is outside the beaming cone. The emission remains at
167: a very low level until the Doppler cone of the beam intersects the
168: observer's line of sight. This can be seen by comparing the
169: $\theta_0$ and $2\theta_0$ curves in Figure 1. Following the arguments
170: given to derive equation (\ref{ttime}), we find that an off-axis
171: observer ($\theta >\theta_0$) starts to detect emission at a level
172: comparable to an on-axis observer at times given by equation
173: (\ref{ttime}), but with $\theta_0$ replaced by $\theta-\theta_0$. As
174: shown in Figure 1, it appears that the X-ray emission from highly
175: misaligned GRB jets (i.e. $\theta >3\theta_0$) is not significantly
176: larger than that emitted by the SN remnant itself. Since the jet
177: opening angle of a GRB is typically assumed to be of the order of
178: $\theta_0 \le 10^\circ$ (Frail et al. 2001; which represents 0.76\% of
179: the full sky) it is fair to conclude that detection of short
180: wavelength transients associated with core-collapse SNe will not
181: unambiguously demonstrate the presence of a GRB jet. The ratios of the
182: on-axis to off-axis fluxes are however much smaller at radio
183: frequencies where the emission persists at comparable levels for about
184: the same length of time (Paczy\'nski 2001).
185:
186: \subsection{Reflection Echoes}
187: The beaming angle for the gamma-ray emission could be far smaller than
188: that of the late-time afterglow, and is much harder to constrain
189: directly. If the gamma rays were much more narrowly beamed than the
190: optical afterglow there should be many {\it orphan} afterglows. The
191: sudden brilliance of a GRB propagating in a preburst stellar wind will
192: be reflected by the circumstellar gas. If $E = \int E_{\epsilon
193: \Omega} d\epsilon d\Omega$ is the total energy emitted by the burst,
194: where $E_{\epsilon \Omega}$ is the energy emitted per unit energy
195: $\epsilon$ and unit solid angle $\Omega$, then the equivalent
196: isotropic luminosity of the Compton echo inferred by a distant
197: observer is
198: %
199: \begin{equation} L_{\epsilon'}=4\pi\int n_w(r)
200: E_{\epsilon\Omega} {d\sigma\over d\Omega} {dr \over dt}d\Omega,
201: \label{lumecho} \end{equation}
202: %
203: where $r$ is the distance from the site of the burst, $d\sigma /
204: d\Omega$ is the differential Klein-Nishina cross section for
205: unpolarized incident radiation, $\epsilon'=\epsilon[1+\epsilon
206: \,(1-\cos \varphi)/m_ec^2]^{-1}$ is the energy of the scattered
207: photon, and $n_w$ is the local electron density (Madau et al. 2000).
208: The equal-arrival time scattering material lies on the paraboloid
209: determined by $r=ct (1-\cos \varphi)^{-1}/(1+z)$, where $\varphi$ is
210: the angle between the line of sight and the direction of the
211: reflecting gas as seen by the burst (e.g., Blandford \& Rees 1972),
212: $t$ is measured since the burst is first detected, and $(1+z)$ is the
213: cosmological time dilation factor for a source at redshift $z$. At
214: energies below 100 keV, where the echo mirrors the spectral energy
215: distribution of the prompt pulse, echoes will typically be harder than
216: the X-ray afterglows observed at around 1 day. Above 200 keV, and
217: independently of the incident gamma-ray spectrum, reflection echoes
218: will show a high-energy cutoff because of Compton downscattering
219: (Madau et al. 2000). One distinctive feature of the echo signal is
220: that the scattered radiation is likely to be polarized. Even when the
221: incident beam is unpolarized, the expected fractional polarization is
222: $\Pi=(1-\cos^2\varphi)/(1+\cos^2\varphi)$. Therefore, in the case of
223: observing the jet precisely at $\varphi=90^{\circ}$, the scattered
224: radiation is 100\% polarized. On the other hand, if the prompt
225: radiation is 100\% polarized (e.g., Coburn \& Boggs 2003), no net
226: intensity will be seen at $\varphi=90^{\circ}$, since the electron's
227: motion is confined to a plane normal to the observer\footnote{The
228: differential cross sections for 100\% polarized and unpolarized
229: radiation, are in the ratio $2\cos^2\varphi\;:\;1+\cos^2\varphi$
230: (e.g., Rybicki \& Lightman 1979)}.
231:
232: The reflected flash luminosity of a collimated GRB propagating through
233: a constant velocity wind with $n_w(r)=Ar^{-2}$ is dominated by
234: the receding jet as, at a given observer time, it originates closer to
235: the GRB where the density is higher. In this case,
236: %
237: \begin{equation}
238: \epsilon L_\epsilon={3 A \epsilon E_\epsilon \sigma_T\over
239: 4ct^2}\,\psi(\varphi)= (3\times 10^{41} {\rm erg\;s^{-1}})~
240: \psi(\varphi) \dot{M}_{-5} v_{w,3}^{-1} E_{51}\, (1+z)^2\, t_{\rm days}^{-2},
241: \label{lumecho2}
242: \end{equation}
243: %
244: (Madau et al. 2000), where $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson cross section
245: $E_{51}=E/ 10^{51} {\rm erg}$ is total energy of the collimated GRB
246: pulse, and $\psi(\varphi)\equiv (1+\cos^2 \varphi)$. The echo
247: declines with time faster than most afterglows observed on-axis but
248: exceeds them in intensity once the observer is outside the beaming
249: cone (Fig. 1). For this reason, backscattered radiation could provide
250: a means for detecting a population of misaligned GRBs in nearby
251: core-collapse SNe and provide important information about the
252: circumburst environment.
253:
254: Equations (\ref{lumecho}) and (\ref{lumecho2}) assume that photons
255: scatter only once and that absorption is negligible. As the reflecting
256: zone propagates along the receding beam, the backscattered radiation
257: on the way to the observer will pass with impact parameter $b=r\sin
258: \varphi$ through regions of even higher density than the scattering
259: layer. For a jet inclined at angle $\varphi$ to the line of sight,
260: the electron column density traversed by the backscattered radiation
261: in the steady, spherically symmetric wind of a WR star is
262: $N_w=A(\pi-\varphi)/b \approx (6\times 10^{19}\,{\rm
263: cm}^{-2})\,\Psi(\varphi) \,\dot M_{-5}\,v_{w,3}^{-1}
264: \,(1+z)\,t^{-1}_{\rm days}$, where $\Psi(\varphi)\equiv
265: (1+\cos\varphi)(\pi-\varphi)/\sin\varphi$. This amounts to an optical
266: depth for Thomson scattering of $\tau_T \sim [10^{-2},2\times
267: 10^{-4}]\,t_{\rm days}^{-1}(1+z)$ for $\varphi=[1^\circ,45^\circ]$.
268: Photoabsorption at 1 keV takes place with a cross section of $\sim
269: 2\times 10^{-22}\,$ cm$^2$ (for solar abundances). Multiple
270: scattering and photoabsorption can therefore be neglected all
271: times\footnote{The optical depth to electron scattering could in
272: principle be much higher if some lines of sight to the observer
273: traversed the SN ejecta. This is unlikely, however, as it requires
274: $v_{\rm SN}/c > \sin\varphi/(1+\cos\varphi)$, corresponding to $v_{\rm
275: SN}/c>0.2$ for jets with $\varphi >20^\circ$, where $v_{\rm SN}$ is
276: the velocity of the SN ejecta.} but in the very early light curve.
277:
278: \section{A GRB Behind the Veil?}
279:
280: Collimated GRB outflows directed away from an observer will produce
281: extended X-ray transients at a flux level orders of magnitude lower
282: than transients observed along the jet axis. The off-axis jet
283: interpretation of GRB980425 requires the viewing angle to have been
284: $\ge 3\theta_0$ with $\theta_0$ the half angle of the most energetic
285: part of the jet, otherwise the X-ray afterglow would have contaminated
286: the SN light curve unacceptably (Fig. 1; similar requirements have
287: been derived for the optical light curve by Granot et al. 2002). The
288: off-axis jet interpretation of GRB980425 typically assumes that our
289: line of sight is a few degrees from the sharp-edge conical jet (see
290: dashed lines in Fig. 1). This interpretation would be inconsistent
291: with radio observations since in this case the jet deceleration would
292: bring our line of sight into the jet's radiation beaming cone, leading
293: to strong emission on timescales $<1$ year (Waxman 2004a). Our line of
294: sight must make a large angle with the jet axis ($\ge 4\theta$) in
295: order to avoid observing strong radio emission. The observed gamma-ray
296: flux of GRB980425 can be explained in this case by assuming that the
297: jet is not sharp-edged, but rather has wings of lower Lorentz factors
298: that extend to large $\theta$ (Woosley et al. 1999) and produce the
299: observed faint burst. Interestingly, this material would also increase
300: the afterglow luminosity at early times when almost nothing is seen of
301: the inner jet. At early times, the X-ray emission of the underlying
302: subrelativistic SN is probably small (Waxman 2004b). The X-ray
303: emission during the first few weeks should be therefore dominated by
304: the rapidly fading echo (Fig. 1). The fact that the echo decay is both
305: so steep and presents little spectral evolution will unambiguously
306: distinguish it from any relativistic blast wave in which the electrons
307: emit a constant fraction of the energy gained in the shock (Cohen et
308: al. 1998). The lack of a detectable Compton echo therefore places
309: severe constraints on the brightness of a possible GRB jet associated
310: with SN1998bw, and it is to this problem that we now turn our
311: attention.
312:
313: During the first day after the explosion no significant flux was
314: observed by {\it BeppoSax} in the direction of GRB980425 to a limit of
315: about $10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$. An off-axis jet with standard $10^{51}$
316: erg energy expanding into a wind with $\dot{M} \approx 10^{-5}{\rm
317: M_\odot\,yr^{-1}}$ and $v_w\approx 1000\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ can
318: therefore be ruled out. A misaligned jet interpretation for GRB980425
319: may still be consistent with the observations if it is assumed that
320: the wind of the progenitor was atypically-low density, with $\dot
321: M_{-5}/v_{w,3} < 0.1$ (Fig. 2). The lower value of
322: $\dot{M}_{-5}/v_{w,3}$ is consistent with the observed radio emission
323: from the shock driven into the progenitor wind by the SN ejecta
324: (Waxman \& Loeb 1999; Li \& Chevalier 1999), although, as usually in
325: the case of radio SNe, the data are unable to brake the degeneracy
326: between $\dot{M}/v_{w}$ and $\epsilon_B$ (i.e. the fraction of the SN
327: post-shock thermal energy carried by magnetic field). A model with
328: $\epsilon_B \ll 1$ and $\dot{M}_{-5}/v_{w,3} > 0.1$ would need
329: $\epsilon_B \le 10^{-4}$ in order to reconcile radio observations with
330: the prediction of an off-axis jet (Waxman 2004a; Soderberg et
331: al. 2004). If, on the other hand, one adopts a model with $\epsilon_B$
332: near equipartition, then $\dot{M}_{-5}/v_{w,3} < 0.1$ is required. Our
333: analysis demonstrates that the lack of detection of a GRB echo places
334: robust constraints -- i.e. independent of $\epsilon_B$ and
335: complementary to those derived via radio observations -- on the
336: assumed density profile. By the same token, similar constraints on
337: the intrinsic energy of a misaligned GRB, compatible with the
338: circumstellar density profile inferred from radio observations, can be
339: placed for SN1993J, SN1999em, SN2002ap and SN1994I (Fig. 2).
340:
341: \section{Summary}
342:
343: GRB explosions are conjectured to radiate an anisotropic, beamed
344: component from the decelerating, ultrarelativistic outflow and an
345: unbeamed, isotropic component from the slowly expanding stellar
346: debris. The flux associated with the former depends upon the observer
347: direction and declines rapidly with observer time (Fig. 1). Hence the
348: X-ray flux detected by an on-axis observer is much larger than the
349: flux that would be detected from an identical source viewed off-axis.
350: The relative flux levels of on-axis and misaligned jet sources are,
351: however, much smaller in the radio/infrared than at optical and X-ray
352: frequencies. Transients from misaligned GRB outflows could then be
353: detected at late times with radio follow-up observations (e.g., Granot
354: \& Loeb 2003). Here we have considered an alternative possibility: the
355: detection of scattered radiation from a narrowly collimated but
356: misaligned pulse of gamma-rays propagating through a WR-type
357: wind. While emission from the SN shock would dominate over the
358: scattered radiation at late times because of the steeper lightcurve of
359: a reflection echo, this will not be true at early times when the echo
360: may be 3 orders of magnitude brighter. Compton echoes in nearby SNe
361: could be studied with {\it Chandra} and {\it XMM-Newton} observatories
362: out to a distance of 0.1 Gpc. The planned {\it Swift} experiment may
363: also soon provide some constraints for individual bursts at higher
364: threshold energies.
365:
366: We have argued that the lack of a detectable echo in GRB980425 may be
367: consistent with an off-axis jet interpretation only if the density of
368: the circumburst wind is $\dot{M}_{-5}/v_{w,3}<0.1$, lower than
369: expected for a WR star. The mass-loss history of a WR star during its
370: last few centuries could be quite complicated as the star enters
371: advanced burning stages unlike those in any WR star observed so
372: far. The lightcurve of the resulting echo will depend fairly strongly
373: on the properties of the progenitor system, especially the mass-loss
374: rate of the star. The deceleration of a presupernova wind by the
375: pressure of the surrounding medium could create circumstellar shells,
376: as would the interaction of fast and slow winds from massive
377: stars. The complex density structure seen in SN1987A may be a hint of
378: the immediate neighborhood of a GRB. Further data on X-ray emission
379: from nearby core-collapse SNe will therefore offer important clues to
380: the nature of the precursor star.
381:
382: \begin{acknowledgements}
383: We have benefited from many useful discussions with J. Granot,
384: C. Kouveliotou, B. Paczy\'nski, M. Rees, and E. Waxman. We are
385: particularly grateful to S. Woosley and the anonymous referee for
386: helpful insights regarding the calculations. This work is supported by
387: NSF grant AST-0205738 (PM), and NASA through grant NAG5-11513 (PM) and
388: a Chandra Postdoctoral Fellowship award PF3-40028 (ERR). Part of this
389: work was done while ERR was visiting the UCSC.
390: \end{acknowledgements}
391:
392: \begin{references}
393:
394: \reference{} Blandford, R., \& McKee C.~F. 1976, Phys. Fluids, 19,
395: 1130
396:
397: \reference{} Blandford, R., \& Rees, M.~J. 1972, ApJ, 10, L77
398:
399: \reference{} Bloom, J.~S. et al. 1998, ApJ, 506, L105
400:
401: \reference{} Chevalier, R.~A., \& Li, Z.\ 1999, ApJ, 521, L11
402:
403: \reference{} Coburn, W., \& Boggs, S. E. 2003, Nature, 423, 415
404:
405: \reference{} Cohen, E., Piran, T., \& Sari, R. 1998, ApJ, 509, 717
406:
407: \reference{} Dermer, C. et al. 1991, ApJ, 370, 341
408:
409: \reference{} Dermer, C., Chiang, J., \& Mitman K.~E. 2000, ApJ, 537,
410: 785
411:
412: \reference{} Eichler, D., \& Levinson, A. 1999, ApJ, 521, L11
413:
414: \reference{} Frail, D.~A., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, L55
415:
416: \reference{} Galama, T. J. et al. 1998, Nature, 395, 670
417:
418: \reference{} Garcia-Segura G., Mac Low M.~M., Langer N. 1996, A\&A,
419: 305, 229
420:
421: \reference{} Granot, J., Panaitescu, A., Kumar, P., \& Woosley, S.~E.\
422: 2002, ApJ, 570, L61
423:
424: \reference{} Granot, J., \& Loeb, A. 2003, ApJ, 593, L81
425:
426: \reference{} Greiner, J. et al. 2003, GCN Circ. 2020
427:
428: \reference{} Hjorth, J. et al. 2003, Nature, 423, 847
429:
430: \reference{} Kouveliotou, C. et al. 2004, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0401184)
431:
432: \reference{} MacFadyen, A., Woosley, S. 1999, ApJ, 524, 262
433:
434: \reference{} Madau, P., Blandford, R., \& Rees, M.~J. 2000, ApJ, 541,
435: 712
436:
437: \reference{} Nakamura, T.\ 1999, ApJ, 522, L101
438:
439: \reference{} Paczy\'nski, B. 2001, Acta Astron., 51, 1
440:
441: \reference{} Panaitescu A., Kumar P., 2001, ApJ, 560, L49
442:
443: \reference{} Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Celotti, A., Rees, M.~J. 2002, MNRAS,
444: 337, 1349
445:
446: \reference{} Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Dray, L., Madau, P., \& Tout,
447: C.~A. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 829
448:
449: \reference{} Rhoads J.~E., 1999, ApJ, 525, 737
450:
451: \reference{} Rybicki, G. B., \& Lightman, A. P. 1979, Radiative
452: Processes in Astrophysics (New York: Wiley)
453:
454: \reference{} Sazonov, S. Y., \& Sunyaev, R. A. 2003, A\&A, 399, 505
455:
456: \reference{} Soderberg, A.~M., Frail, D.~A., \& Wieringa, M.~H. 2004,
457: ApJ, 607, L13
458:
459: \reference{} Stanek, K.~Z. et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, L17
460:
461: \reference{} Waxman, E., \& Loeb, A. 1999, ApJ, 515, 721
462:
463: \reference{} Waxman, E. 2004a, ApJ, 602, 886
464:
465: \reference{} Waxman, E. 2004b, ApJ, 605, L97
466:
467: \reference{} Woosley, S. E. 1993, ApJ, 405, 273
468:
469: \reference{} Woosley, S., Eastman, R., \& Schmidt, B. 1999, ApJ, 516,
470: 788
471:
472: \reference{} Zhang, W., Woosley, S. E., \& Heger, A. 2004, ApJ, in
473: press (astro-ph/0308389)
474:
475: \end{references}
476:
477: \begin{figure}
478: \caption{\footnotesize X-ray emission from misaligned GRB
479: jets. Compilation of observed X-ray lightcurves for GRBs and
480: core-collapse SNe (Kouveliotou et al. 2004) presented in the source
481: frame using a cosmology with $\Omega_m=0.27$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$,
482: and $H_0=72\;{\rm km\;s^{-1}\;Mpc^{-1}}$. {\it Dashed lines:}
483: Lightcurves calculated at various inclination angles $\theta$ for a
484: GRB with standard parameters: $E_{\Omega,54}=1$, $\Gamma_0=100$,
485: $p=2.5$, $\epsilon_e=0.5$, $\epsilon_B=10^{-3}$ and $\theta_0=5^\circ$
486: (where $\epsilon_B$ and $\epsilon_e$ are the fraction of the internal
487: energy in the magnetic field and electrons, respectively, and $p$ is
488: the power-law index of the electron energy distribution). {\it Solid
489: lines:} Compton echo of a GRB. Lower two curves assume $L = L_0\;
490: t_{\rm days}^{-2}$ with $L_0 =10^{40}$ and $10^{42}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (see
491: eq. [\ref{lumecho2}]). The primary burst is assumed to be a two-sided
492: collimated pulse propagating at an angle $\varphi \sim 1$ rad and
493: invisible to the off-axis observer. The upper curve (highest
494: luminosity echo) is calculated for the dense environment expected at
495: the end of the evolution of a 29 ${M}_\odot$ WR star with solar
496: metallicity (Garcia-Segura et al. 1996). The collimated GRB, whose
497: total energy is $10^{52}$ erg, is assumed to have a broken power-law
498: spectrum, $\epsilon E_\epsilon \propto \epsilon$ if $\epsilon \le
499: \;250\;{\rm\;keV}$ and $\epsilon^{-0.25}$ otherwise. It is instructive
500: to look at the contribution of the red-supergiant shell (of radius
501: $r_{\rm sh}$) to the luminosity of the scattered echo. The time
502: interval, 2$r_{\rm sh} \cos \varphi /c$, between the two reflection
503: spikes at times $\sim 1000-2000$ days can be used to determine
504: $\varphi$.}
505: \label{fig1}
506: \end{figure}
507:
508: \begin{figure}
509: \caption{\footnotesize Constraints on the density of circumstellar
510: material and burst energetics. The lack of an X-ray echo at about 1
511: day from the explosion poses severe constraints on the existence of a
512: misaligned GRB jet in SN1998bw (shaded region). An off-axis jet
513: interpretation may be consistent if the density of the stellar medium
514: is lower than expected for the assumed WR progenitor. Constraints on
515: the total kinetic energy derived from modeling of the radio emission
516: of SN1998bw are shown as open circles (Waxman 2004a; Li \& Chevalier
517: 1999). Similar constraints on the possible existence of a misaligned
518: GRB jet compatible with the circumstellar density profile inferred
519: from radio observations (Weiler et al. 2002; black symbols) for
520: various core-collapse supernovae are shown. Constraints derived by
521: Panaitescu \& Kumar (2001) from the modeling the GRB afterglow are
522: also illustrated.}
523: \label{fig2}
524: \end{figure}
525:
526: \plotone{f1.ps}
527: \plotone{f2.ps}
528:
529: \end{document}
530: