1: % revised version, 3/22/05

2: % copy-edited 1st version

3: 

4: %V11, 12/30/04

5: 

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

7: %\documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}

8: 

9: \usepackage{epsfig}

10: %\usepackage{psfig}

11: 

12: \received{2004 December 30}

13: \begin{document}

14: 

15: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

16: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

17: %\documentstyle[11pt,apjpt4,psfig]{article}

18: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4,psfig]{article}

19: 

20: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

21: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

22: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

23: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

24: \newcommand{\siml}{\lower4pt \hbox{$\buildrel < \over \sim$}}

25: \newcommand{\simg}{\lower4pt \hbox{$\buildrel > \over \sim$}}

26: \newcommand{\Mesz}{M\'esz\'aros}

27: \newcommand{\epsd}{\epsilon_d}

28: \newcommand{\cm}{{\rm cm}}

29: \newcommand{\erg}{{\rm erg}}

30: \newcommand{\si}{{\rm s}^{-1}}

31: 

32: %\slugcomment{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal}

33: 

34: %\shorttitle{}

35: %\shortauthors{}

36: 

37: 

38: 

39: \title{Dissipative Photosphere Models of \\ Gamma-ray Bursts and X-ray 

40: Flashes}

41: 

42: \author{M.J.~Rees\altaffilmark{1} and  P. \Mesz\altaffilmark{2,3}}

43: 

44: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute of Astronomy, Univ. of Cambridge, Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB30HA, U.K}

45: 

46: \altaffiltext{2}{Dpt.Astron.\&Astrophys., Dpt. Physics,

47: Pennsylvania State U., University Park, PA 16803}

48: 

49: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540}

50: 

51: 

52: %\centerline {\date{Dec. 30, 2004} }

53: %\centerline {\date{\today} }

54: 

55: 

56: %\centerline {\bf Abstract}

57: 

58: \begin{abstract}

59: 

60: We consider dissipative effects occurring in the optically thick inner 

61: parts of the relativistic outflows producing gamma-ray bursts and X-ray 

62: flashes, emphasizing specially the Comptonization of the thermal radiation 

63: flux that is advected from the base of the outflow. Such dissipative 

64: effects --e.g. from magnetic reconnection, neutron decay or shocks -- 

65: would boost the energy density of the thermal radiation. The dissipation 

66: can lead to pair production, in which case the pairs create an effective 

67: photosphere further out than the usual baryonic one. In a slow dissipation

68: scenario, pair creation can be suppressed, and the effects are most

69: important when dissipation occurs below the baryonic photosphere.

70: In both cases an increased photospheric luminosity is obtained. 

71: We suggest that the spectral peak in gamma ray bursts is essentially 

72: due to the Comptonized thermal component from the photosphere, 

73: where the comoving optical depth in the outflow falls to unity. 

74: Typical peak photon energies range between those of classical bursts 

75: and X-ray flashes. The relationship between the observed photon peak 

76: energy and the luminosity depends on the details of the dissipation, 

77: but under plausible assumptions can resemble the observed correlations. 

78: 

79: \end{abstract}

80: 

81: \section{Introduction}

82: \label{sec:intro}

83: 

84: Most GRB models invoke a relativistic outflow, probably channeled into a 

85: jet, that is energized by a central compact object. The gamma-ray and hard 

86: X-ray emission is attributed to dissipative processes in the jet. The 

87: outflow is inferred to be unsteady, on timescales down to a millisecond -- 

88: indeed internal shocks are the most widely-discussed dissipative process, 

89: because of their ability to convert bulk kinetic energy into relativistic 

90: electrons which then radiate (e.g. via synchrotron emission) on very short 

91: timescales . The outflow would carry baryons, and also magnetic fields 

92: (which may carry as much power in Poynting flux as does the baryon kinetic 

93: energy). However, there is another inevitable ingredient of the outflow: 

94: thermal radiation. This radiation would originate near the base of the 

95: outflow, where densities are high enough to guarantee (at least 

96: approximate) thermal equilibration. This thermal radiation would be 

97: advected outward so long as the jet material remained opaque, and would 

98: emerge highly collimated, from a `photosphere' where the jet became 

99: optically thin. 

100: 

101: A laminar and steady jet, viewed head-on, would give rise 

102: to emission with a thermal spectrum peaking in the hard X-ray or gamma-ray 

103: band. Moreover, the comoving energy density of this black-body radiation 

104: could be at least comparable with that of the magnetic field. So, if 

105: dissipation generates relativistic electrons and supra-thermal pairs, their 

106: energy losses due to Compton scattering of the thermal radiation would be 

107: competitive with those from synchrotron emission -- perhaps even dominant. 

108: Consequently, when dissipation occurs (e.g. via internal shocks) the outcome 

109: may be a `hardened' (grey body) thermal component, along with a power-law 

110: component extending to higher photon energies. We suggest that the photon 

111: energy $E_{pk}$ at which GRB spectra reach a peak may be the (probably 

112: Comptonized) thermal peak. We discuss how, on this hypothesis, $E_{pk}$ 

113: would depend on the parameters characterizing the GRB. 

114: 

115: A key parameter in the outflow is plainly the photospheric radius -- 

116: the radius at which the comoving optical depth along the jet falls to 

117: unity. In calculating this radius, we must allow for the possibility 

118: that the electrons associated with the baryons are outnumbered by 

119: electron-positron pairs (e.g. Eichler \& Levinson, 2000). Moreover,

120: the number of pairs may be greatly increased by dissipative processes . 

121: The details depend on whether the photosphere  lies inside 

122: or outside the saturation radius at which the bulk 

123: Lorentz factor $\Gamma$ asymptotes to the dimensionless entropy $\eta 

124: =L_0/({\dot M} c^2)$, where $L_0$ and ${\dot M}$ are the total energy and 

125: mass outflow rates. For a spherical flow where the free energy emanates 

126: from a central region $r_0 \sim \alpha r_g =\alpha 2GM/c^2$ comparable to 

127: the Schwarzschild radius $r_g$ of a central object of mass $M$ (where 

128: $\alpha\geq 1$), the bulk Lorentz factor grows as $\Gamma(r)\sim r/r_0$ 

129: outside of $r_0$ up to a saturation radius $r_s\sim r_0\eta$, where it 

130: saturates at a value $\Gamma\sim\eta$. This simple behavior applies 

131: for a spherical outflow (or a conical one with jet opening half-angle 

132: $\theta_j <\Gamma^{-1}$) where there are no internal shocks. We focus 

133: on this as an illustrative case (bearing in mind that the effective value 

134: of $r_0$ may be increased by dissipation in the inner jet). Moreover, 

135: extensions to the cases of convergent or divergent jets are straightforward. 

136: Inside the saturation radius, the observer-frame photospheric luminosity 

137: $L_\gamma$ is approximately the total luminosity of the outflow $L_0$, 

138: since the increasing Doppler boost just cancels the adiabatic decay of the 

139: comoving characteristic photon energy. On the other hand, if the 

140: photosphere of an adiabatic flow occurs outside the saturation radius, 

141: $r>r_s$, the Lorentz factor no longer grows, and $L_\gamma 

142: (r)=L_0(r/r_s)^{-2/3} < L_0$, the greater part of the energy being in 

143: kinetic form, $L_k\sim L_0$ (e.g. \Mesz \& Rees, 2000). If this 

144: photospheric luminosity were the bulk of the observed radiation, the 

145: radiative efficiency would be low in the latter case.

146: 

147: However, the above scenario can change substantially due to dissipative 

148: effects such as magnetic reconnection (e.g. Thompson, 1994, Giannos \& 

149: Spruit, 2004), neutron decay (e.g. Beloborodov, 2003), or internal shocks. 

150: If the dissipation occurs below the photosphere, the adiabatic decrease of 

151: the radiative luminosity beyond the saturation radius can be compensated by 

152: reconversion of some fraction $\epsd \leq 1$ of the kinetic energy into 

153: radiation, which would re-energize the photospheric component. Moreover, 

154: dissipation outside the nominal photosphere may lead to sufficient pair 

155: formation to create a second photosphere, lying outside the original 

156: nominal photosphere which would have obtained in the absence of 

157: dissipation.

158: 

159: Thus, if there were sub-photospheric dissipation , the observable 

160: photospheric luminosity would be boosted by the energy recovered from the 

161: kinetic energy, which becomes available for converting into radiation or 

162: pairs. Moreover the dissipated energy would go mainly into Comptonized 

163: of the thermal radiation advected out from the central engine. Above $r_s$, 

164: the photospheric luminosity can be boosted to a value $L_\gamma=\epsd L_0 > 

165: L_0(r/r_s)^{-2/3}$, depending on the dissipation efficiency. We suggest 

166: that the peak energy of the photon spectrum of gamma ray bursts should be 

167: identified with the peak of this Comptonized spectrum.

168: 

169: \section{Photospheres, dissipation and pairs} \label{sec:phot}

170: 

171: In the dissipation regions of the flow, all suprathermal or relativistic 

172: electrons and pairs will lose energy by Compton scattering of the thermal 

173: radiation (which will be roughly isotropic in the comoving frame). 

174: Synchrotron losses might dominate for high $\gamma$ electrons, but for 

175: those with modest $\gamma$ , synchrotron emission will be inhibited by 

176: self-absorption; these will lose their energy primarily by Compton 

177: scattering even if the magnetic energy density exceeds that of the thermal 

178: radiation. They will cool down and thermalize in a time short compared to 

179: the dynamic time.

180: 

181: Relativistic electrons moving through black-body radiation Compton-boost

182: each scattered photon by $\gamma^2$, producing a power law rather than

183: just boosting each photon by a small amount. However, if the slope of

184: the injected power law is steeper than $-2$, most of the energy will be

185: at the low energy end, and all the energy of electrons with, say,

186: $\gamma \lesssim 3$ would go into what would look like a broad thermal

187: peak. They would emit no synchrotron radiation (because of

188: self-absorption) and they would not boost any of the thermal

189: photons by more than a factor $\epsilon_c \sim 10$.

190: 

191:  If the primary dissipation were mainly by strong shocks most of the energy 

192: might be channeled initially into very high-gamma electrons, which would 

193: produce photons with a power law spectrum extending to very high energies: 

194: production of photons above 1 Mev in the comoving frame would only require 

195: $\gamma\sim 10 -30$ for Compton scattering, and little more than $10^3$ for 

196: synchrotron emission. However pair production can change this situation, 

197: leading again to a situation where energy is ultimately dissipated via 

198: thermal Comptonization. If the compactness parameter is more than unity 

199: (which, as shown below, is often the case for the usual parameters 

200: considered) most of the energy in photons with $>$ MeV energies in the 

201: comoving frame will be converted into pairs with very modest $\gamma$. 

202: These pairs will then lose their energy (as described above) by Compton 

203: cooling, resulting in a quasi-thermal spectrum, whose characteristic peak 

204: is a factor $\epsilon_c \siml 10$ above the original thermal peak, i.e. in 

205: the tens to hundreds of keV. These pairs establish effectively a new 

206: photosphere, outside the one that would have been present in their 

207: absence, and the dissipation (or shocks) responsible for these pairs will 

208: effectively be a sub-photospheric dissipation, which has different 

209: characteristics from the more familiar shocks that occur well outside the 

210: photosphere (e.g. Ghisellini \& Celotti, 1999; Kobayashi, Ryde \& 

211: MacFadyen, 2002; Pe'er \& Waxman, 2004).

212: 

213: For a GRB outflow of radiative luminosity $L$ and bulk Lorentz factor 

214: $\Gamma$ in the observer frame, at a radius $r$ the comoving scattering 

215: opacity due to $e^\pm$ pairs in the high comoving compactness regime is 

216: \be 

217: \tau'_\pm \sim \ell'^{1/2} \sim (L \sigma_T/4\pi m_e c^3 \Gamma^3 r)^{1/2}, 

218: \label{eq:pairopacity} 

219: \ee 

220: where $\ell'$ is the comoving frame compactness 

221: parameter (e.g. Pe'er \& Waxman, 2004). Here we have approximated $L(>1{\rm 

222: MeV})\sim \epsd L_0$, where $L_0$ is the total luminosity in the observer 

223: frame, and we have taken other efficiency factors to be of order unity. The 

224: functional dependence of equation (\ref{eq:pairopacity}) can be obtained 

225: by considering in the comoving frame (primed quantities, as opposed to 

226: unprimed quantities in the observer frame) the balance between the rate at 

227: which pairs annihilate and the rate at which pairs are formed. The latter is 

228: the rate at which photons capable of pair-producing are introduced into the 

229: flow, i.e. the photon density above $m_e c^2$ divided by the comoving dynamic 

230: time, ${n'}_{\pm}^2 \sigma_T c \sim (L/4\pi r^2 m_e c^3 

231: \Gamma^2)(c\Gamma/r)$, from which follows the pair optical depth $\tau'_\pm 

232: \sim n'_\pm \sigma_T (r/\Gamma )$. The pair photosphere $r_{ph,\pm}$ is the 

233: radius where $\tau'_\pm \sim 1$, or 

234: \be 

235: r_{ph,\pm} \sim (\epsd /2 \alpha) (m_p/m_e)(L_0 /L_E)\Gamma^{-3} r_0

236:    \sim 2 \times 10^{14} L_{51}\epsilon_{d,-1}\alpha^{-1}\Gamma_2^{-3}~\cm

237: \label{eq:pairphot}

238: \ee

239: where $L_E=4\pi GM m_p c/\sigma_T\simeq 1.25\times 10^{39} m_1 \erg\si$

240: is the Eddington luminosity, $r_0=\alpha r_g$ where $\alpha \geq 1$ and

241: $r_g=2GM/c^2 \simeq 3\times 10^6 m_1~\cm$ is the Schwarzschild radius for

242: a central object (e.g. black hole) of mass $M\sim 10 m_1$ solar masses,

243: and $\eta=L/({\dot M}c^2$ is the dimensionless entropy of the relativistic

244: outflow.

245: 

246: On the other hand, the scattering opacity due to the ordinary electrons 

247: associated with baryons in the flow would give rise to a 'baryonic 

248: photosphere' at \be r_{ph,b}\sim (1/2\alpha)(L_0/L_E) \eta^{-1} \Gamma^{-2} 

249: r_0

250:         \sim 1.2 \times 

251: 10^{12}L_{51}\alpha^{-1}\eta_2^{-1}\Gamma_2^{-2}~\cm~, 

252: \label{eq:baryonphot} \ee with the same notation as above.

253: 

254: For an outflow which starts at $r_0 = \alpha r_g =

255: 3\times 10^6 \alpha m_1$ cm, where $\alpha \geq 1$ and the initial

256: Lorentz factor $\Gamma_0 \sim 1$, under adiabatic conditions

257: energy-momentum conservation leads  to a Lorentz factor which grows

258: linearly as $\Gamma(r) \propto r/r_0$ until it reaches a saturation

259: radius $r_s \simeq r_0\eta \simeq 3\times 10^8 \alpha m_1 \eta_2~\cm$,

260: beyond which the Lorentz factor saturates to $\Gamma\simeq \eta =$

261: constant. One can then define two critical limiting Lorentz factors

262: \ba

263: \eta_b= &\bigl( \frac{1}{2\alpha}\frac{L}{L_E}\bigr)^{1/4}=

264:        7.9\times 10^2(L_{51}/\alpha m_1)^{1/4} \cr

265: \eta_\pm=& \bigl(\epsd \frac{m_p}{m_e}\bigr)^{1/4} ~\eta_b=

266:        2.9\times 10^3 (L_{51}\epsilon_{d,-1}/\alpha m_1)^{1/4}

267: \label{eq:etacrit}

268: \ea

269: which characterize the behavior of the baryon and pair photospheres below

270: and above the saturation radius. The pair photosphere behaves as

271: \be

272: r_{ph,\pm}/r_0=\cases{

273:   \eta_\pm    & for $r<r_s$ \cr

274:   \eta_\pm (\eta/\eta_\pm)^{-3} & for $r>r_s$}

275: \label{eq:pairphot_eta}

276: \ee

277: and the pair photosphere occurs at $r<r_s$ for

278: $\eta > \eta_\pm$. The baryon photosphere behaves as

279: \be

280: r_{ph,b}/r_0 = \cases{

281:  \eta_b (\eta /\eta_b)^{-1/3} & for $r<r_s$ \cr

282:  \eta_b (\eta/\eta_b)^{-3}    & for $r>r_s$ }

283: \label{eq:barphot_eta}

284: \ee

285: and the baryon photosphere occurs at $r< r_s$ for

286: $\eta > \eta_b$. This is shown schematically in Figure 1,

287: %Fig. \ref{fig:photeta},

288: for values of $\alpha =1,~10^4$, i.e.  initial radii

289: $r_0=3\times 10^6 \alpha_0 m_1 \cm$ and

290: $r_0= 3\times 10^{10}\alpha_4 m_1 \cm$.

291: 

292: The pair photosphere (equation [\ref{eq:pairphot}]) will be above

293: the baryon photosphere provided that

294: \be

295: \epsd > (m_e/m_p)

296: \label{eq:etapairabovebar}

297: \ee

298: where $\epsd$ characterizes the dissipation efficiency producing

299: photons above energies $m_e c^2$ in the comoving frame.

300: 

301: \section{Characteristic Photon Luminosities and Temperatures}

302: \label{sec:lum}

303: 

304: When the conditions of equation (\ref{eq:etapairabovebar}) are satisfied, 

305: the real (outermost) photosphere is not the baryon photosphere but the pair 

306: photosphere. The pair photosphere will have a luminosity 

307: $L_{\gamma\pm}=\epsd L_0\leq L_0$. At $r<r_s$, the observed radiation is 

308: insensitive to the actual details of the photosphere: the decrease with $r$ 

309: in the comoving-frame luminosity is compensated by the observer-frame boost 

310: given by the increasing Lorentz factor $\Gamma$; moreover, there is less 

311: scope for dissipation (except in the case when Poynting flux far exceeds 

312: the radiative flux in the jet).

313: 

314: On the other hand, for a photosphere at $r>r_s$ the luminosity 

315: decays as $L_{\gamma } = L_0(r/r_s)^{-2/3}$ in the adiabatic regime. 

316: However, if dissipation  occurs  above $r_s$, this leads to an

317: effective luminosity

318: \be L_{\gamma} \sim \epsd L_0~. 

319: \label{eq:Lpm} \ee 

320: This luminosity is achieved at the baryon photosphere if dissipation 

321: occurs below this radius, even in the absence of significant pair formation, 

322: or above the baryon photosphere if dissipation above the baryon photosphere

323: leads to a pair photosphere radius $r_\pm$ such that $\epsd (r_\pm /r_s)^{2/3}

324: \geq 1$ (see Fig. 2). In such cases the effective photosphere luminosity 

325: exceeds what would have emerged from a non-dissipative outflow by 

326: $\epsd (r/r_s)^{2/3}$. 

327: 

328: The characteristic initial temperature of the fireball outflow is

329: \be

330: T_0=(L_0/4\pi r_0^2 c a)^{1/4}

331:    = 1.2 L_{51}^{1/4}(\alpha m_1)^{-1/2}~{\rm MeV}~,

332: \label{eq:T0}

333: \ee

334: which for a larger $\alpha=10^4$ (i.e. for a larger initial radius

335: $r_0=3\times 10^{10}\alpha_4 m_1$ cm) would be

336: $T_0=12.1~L_{51}^{1/4}(\alpha_4 m_1)^{-1/2}~{\rm keV}$.

337: 

338: For $r<r_s$ the observer-frame effective photospheric temperature (even in 

339: the presence of dissipation) remains as $T_\gamma =T_0$, being boosted by 

340: the growing Lorentz factor back to its initial value. For $r>r_s$, 

341: adiabatic effects (in the absence of dissipation) would cause the 

342: temperature to fall off as $T_\gamma=T_0(r_s/r)^{-2/3}$. 

343: Since, however, dissipation leads to a luminosity $\epsd L_0$ 

344: which can exceed the adiabatic value, this results in a temperature 

345: $T_{\gamma}$ which drops $\propto r^{-1/2}$.  If dissipation is 

346: maintained all the way to the (baryonic or pair-dominated) 

347: photosphere, the temperature is 

348: \be 

349: T_{\gamma,d}=\epsilon_c \epsilon_d^{1/4}(r/r_s)^{-1/2} T_0~, 

350: \label{eq:Tpm} 

351: \ee 

352: where a factor $\epsilon_c \simg 1$ accounts for possible departures 

353: from a black-body. This temperature is larger by a factor 

354: $\epsilon_c\epsilon_d^{1/4}(r/r_s)^{1/6}$ than the adiabatic 

355: photosphere temperature $T_\gamma$ (Fig. 2).

356: 

357: Thus, one consequence of dissipation is that, even for $\alpha=1$,

358: e.g. with $\epsd=10^{-1}$ and $r_d/r_s=10^2$, the  characteristic

359: temperatures can be  $kT_\gamma \sim 60$ keV, i.e. peak photon energies 

360: in the X-ray flash range, while for $\alpha=10^4$ this energy can 

361: easily be as low as a few keV.

362: 

363: If dissipation is important only for some range of radii,

364: starting at $r_s \epsd^{3/2}$ but ceasing, say, at some radius

365: $r_c$ below the photosphere $r_{ph}$, then the adiabatic decay

366: $L_\gamma \propto T_\gamma \propto r^{-2/3}$ resumes above $r_c$ until

367: $r_{ph}$ so the photospheric luminosity would be

368: lower than implied by eqs. (\ref{eq:Lpm},\ref{eq:Tpm}).

369: 

370: We should note that, in the present context, $r_0$ is essentially the 

371: radius beyond which the Lorentz factor starts to grow as $\Gamma \propto 

372: r/r_0$. Thus any dissipation in the inner ``cauldron" or along the inner 

373: jet in effect pushes out $r_0$. This could come about because of 

374: entrainment, or because of the oblique shocks that occur when the jet is 

375: initially poorly collimated (as exemplified in numerical calculations of 

376: collapsar models such as Zhang \& Woosley 2004, where in effect $r_0\simg 

377: 10^8$ cm). The initial reference temperature $T_0$ is correspondingly 

378: lower. (Another effect which could change the reference temperature is if 

379: the inner jet is Poynting-dominated, so that only a small fraction of the 

380: flux is in the radiation. In this case, pairs can be even more dominant 

381: inside $r_s$ . There could be modifications to the outflow dynamics if the 

382: field were tangled and did not obey the straightforward Bernouilli equation 

383: for a relativistic gas (cf Heinz and Begelman, 2000)).

384: 

385: Dissipation need not necessarily lead to pair formation.

386: For example, in a ``slow heating" scenario (such as that of Ghisellini 

387: and Celotti, 1999), the accelerated particles, and the photons associated 

388: with them, could all have energies substantially below $\sim 0.5$ MeV. 

389: Dissipation would then not enhance the photospheric radius, but, even so, 

390: as indicated above, the characteristic photon energies and photospheric 

391: luminosity could be substantially boosted over what their adiabatic value 

392: would have been.

393: 

394: An important feature of the model is that millisecond variations 

395: -- either at the photosphere or due to internal shocks further out -- may 

396: still be traced back to irregularities in the jet boundary at $r_0$, since 

397: the characteristic timescale for a nozzle of opening half-angle $\theta_j$ 

398: is $t_{var}\sim r_0 \theta_j /c$, rather than $r_0/c$ itself, which can be 

399: less than a millisecond even if $r_o$ is of order $10^8$ cm . 

400: If internal shocks are to develop, they must be induced by unsteady 

401: conditions near the base of the jet (resulting in changes in $\eta$ and 

402: the saturation Lorentz factor). 

403: While for the usual minimum variability timescale $t_{var}\sim r_0/c$

404: shocks would develop above the line marked $r_{sh}$ in Fig. 1, for 

405: $t_{var}\sim r_0 \theta/c$ the shocks can form at radii $r_{sh,j}$ a factor 

406: $\theta_j$ smaller then for the spherical case, see Fig. 1. Dissipation at 

407: such or smaller radii is also possible, e.g., in the case of oblique shocks  

408: induced by irregularities in the walls of the jet, or during the collimation 

409: of an initially poorly collimated jet, or in the case of dissipation due 

410: to magnetic reconnection.

411: 

412: Note also that any variability at $r_0$ would alter the conditions 

413: at the photosphere (and the value of the photospheric radius). Moreover, 

414: the photospheric changes can be rapid. Obviously this is true if the 

415: photosphere lies below the saturation radius; however, this condition is 

416: not necessary, and provided that the photospheric radius is within $\eta^2 

417: r_0$, there is no smearing of variability on any timescale down to $r_0/c$. 

418: We would therefore, generically, expect an internal shock to be slightly 

419: preceded by a change in the luminosity of the thermal component (and in 

420: $E_{pk}$). Indeed, one is led to conjecture that rapid variations in the 

421: photosphere could be at least as important as the associated internal 

422: shocks in causing rapid variability in GRBs. In contrast to shocks, 

423: variations in the photospheric emission could as readily account for a 

424: short dip as for a short peak.  Detailed evidence of spectral softening 

425: during both the rise and fall of individual sub-pulses (c.f. Ryde 2004), 

426: could clarify the relative contributions of these effects.

427: 

428: \section{Spectrum Formation}

429: \label{sec:spec}

430: 

431: When dissipation occurs, one expects the photospheric spectrum to be 

432: "grey" rather than an accurate blackbody, because there would not 

433: (except near the base of the jet) be processes capable of producing the 

434: new photons appropriate to a black body with the enhanced energy density. 

435: All photons emerging from the photosphere will, however, have undergone 

436: multiple scatterings. 

437: %

438: In the case of shock dissipation, a power law relativistic electron 

439: energy distribution can be formed, which would upscatter the thermal 

440: photons into a  power law photon distribution whose index is similar 

441: to that of synchrotron radiation, pair formation being possible at 

442: comoving energies $\simg m_e c^2$. At the pair photosphere the comoving 

443: inverse Compton cooling time is $t'_{IC}\sim 4\times 10^{-3} L_{51}

444: \epsilon_{d,-1}^2 \alpha^{-2}\gamma_{e,3}^{-1}$ s, while the dynamic time 

445: is $t'_{dyn}\sim 3\times 10^1 L_{51}\epsilon_{d,-1}\alpha^{-1} \eta_2^{-4}$ s.

446: The interplay between the electron and photon distributions requires a 

447: detailed analysis, and is discussed in Pe'er, et al, 2005b.  

448: %

449: For a slow heating scenario, such as that of Ghisellini and Celotti 

450: (1999) but with the added feature of dissipation (e.g. from magnetic 

451: reconnection, or from multiple shocks and/or MHD turbulence behind them), 

452: one expects the electrons to be heated to more modest values, say 

453: $\gamma_e \siml$ few, but the electrons could keep being reheated 

454: every Compton cooling time. In this case pair formation is at best 

455: modest (Pe'er, et al, 2005b), so the effects outside the baryonic 

456: photosphere are not significant. If slow dissipation occurs at or 

457: below the baryonic photosphere, where pair formation is suppressed, 

458: the IC cooling time is $t'_{IC}\sim 10^{-4} L_{51}\alpha^{-1}

459: \gamma_{e,0.5}^{-1}\eta_2^{-4}$ s while the dynamic time is 

460: $t'_{dyn}\sim 2\times 10^{-1} L_{51}\alpha^{-1} \eta_2^{-4}$ s. 

461: The dissipative baryonic photosphere thermal peak is at $3kT_{\gamma,b}

462: \sim 20 L_{51}^{-1/2}\epsilon_{d,-1}^{1/4}\alpha^{1/2}\eta_2^2$ keV, 

463: which (depending on $\gamma_e$) may get upscattered by factors $\sim 1-10$.

464: %

465: The schematic shape of the spectrum is shown in Fig. 3 (c.f. Pe'er et al, 

466: 2005a, 2005b), showing the original quasi-thermal Wien component, 

467: the up-scattered photospheric component resulting from sub-photospheric 

468: dissipation and Comptonization, and a possible additional synchrotron 

469: component from shocks outside the photosphere. The peak frequency scales 

470: with the amount of dissipation according to a power law which depends

471: on how many new photons are produced. (The photon production depends on the 

472: radial dependence of the dissipation and on the detailed dissipation mechanism.)

473: 

474: The dependence of the spectral peak energy on the burst parameters,

475: as observed in a given energy range by a given instrument,  depends on

476: the specific mechanism responsible for the spectrum in that energy range.

477: In the BATSE and Beppo-SAX energy range (roughly 20 keV to 0.5 MeV),

478: there is a quantitative relationship observed between the spectral

479: peak energy $E_{pk}$ and the isotropic-equivalent luminosity of the

480: burst in tat energy range, $L_{iso}$ (which requires a knowledge of

481: the redshift of the burst). This relationship (Amati et al, 2001) is

482: $E_{pk}\propto L_{iso}^{1/2}$, for a score of bursts with redshifts.

483: Our generic assumptions naturally yields a peak in the relevant range, 

484: but cannot predict any correlation with $L$ without a more specific model

485: which relates $L$ to the other significant parameters, in particular 

486: $r_0$ and $\eta$. Without going into details, we may consider several

487: possibilities.

488: 

489: If one seeks to explain this relationship by interpreting the peak

490: energy as the synchrotron peak in a simple standard internal shock

491: scenario, one expects the dependence (e.g.  Zhang \& \Mesz, 2001)

492: \be

493: E_{pk} \propto \Gamma^{-2} t_{var}^{-1}L^{1/2} ~,

494: \label{eq:Epkintsh}

495: \ee

496: where $L_{\gamma, iso} \sim L$. Here $\Gamma$ and $t_{var}$ are

497: the Lorentz factor of the outflow and its typical variability

498: timescale. If the  latter two quantities are approximately the same

499: for all bursts, this would reproduce the Amati et al (2001) relation.

500: However, it is not obvious why there should be a constancy of $\Gamma$

501: and $t_{var}$ across bursts, even if approximate.

502: 

503: If the spectral peak is of a quasi-thermal origin

504: determined by the photosphere (possibly shifted up by Comptonization,

505: e.g. from pair dissipative effects such as discussed above), and if

506: there are enough photons to guarantee an approximate black body

507: distribution, the peak photon energy in the observer frame is,

508: using equation (\ref{eq:pairphot}),

509: \be

510: E_{pk}\propto \Gamma kT'_{pk} \propto \Gamma (L/\Gamma r^2)^{1/4}

511:        \propto \Gamma^2 L^{-1/4} \propto L^{(8\beta -1)/4},

512: \label{eq:EpkBB}

513: \ee

514: which depends mainly on the Lorentz factor $\Gamma$. If the latter

515: in turn depends on $L$, e.g. as $\Gamma\propto L^{\beta }$, one obtains

516: the last part of equation (\ref{eq:EpkBB}).

517: For instance, taking the observed Frail et al (2001) relation

518: $L_{\gamma, iso}\propto \theta^{-2}$ between the jet opening half-angle

519: $\theta$ inferred from the light-curve break, and using the causality

520: relation $\theta \sim \Gamma^{-1}$, equation (\ref{eq:EpkBB}) becomes

521: $E_{pk}\propto L^{3/4}$.

522: %\label{eq:Epkbbfrail}

523: 

524: If dissipation occurs mainly very close to the central engine, this

525: could result in a larger radius $r_0$, where $r_0$ is defined as the

526: radius beyond which $\Gamma\propto r/r_0$. Assuming that the ``drag"

527: or dissipation at the base increases $r_0$ according to, e.g.,

528: $r_0\propto L^{-\beta'}$, for a photosphere occurring inside the

529: saturation radius, $r_0 < r_{ph,\pm} <r_s$, the growth of the

530: Lorentz factor $\Gamma \propto r/r_0$ cancels out the adiabatic

531: drop $T'\propto r^{-1}$ of the comoving temperature, and one has

532: \be

533: E_{pk}\propto r_0^{-1/2} L^{1/4} \propto L^{((2\beta' +1)/4}~.

534: \label{eq:Epksat}

535: \ee

536: Hence, for $\beta'=(0.5,~1)$ one has $E_{pk}\propto (L^{1/2},~L^{3/4})$.

537: 

538: In the extreme 'photon starved' case (likely to apply if the dissipation 

539: is concentrated not far inside the photosphere) where the photon number 

540: $N_\gamma$ is constant), one would have $E_{pk} \propto L/ N_\gamma \propto 

541: L$. 

542: 

543: Thus, a variety of $E_{pk}$ vs. $L$ dependences might in principle be 

544: expected, depending on the uncertain physical conditions just below the 

545: photosphere, some of which approximate the reported $L^{1/2}$ behavior. 

546: Ghirlanda et al (2004) have recently claimed an empirical correlation 

547: between $E_{pk}$ and a different quantity, the angle-corrected total energy 

548: $E_{tot}= E_{iso}(1-\cos\theta_j)\sim E_{iso}(\theta_j^2/2)$, where 

549: $E_{iso} \simeq L_{iso} t_{\gamma}$ and $t_\gamma$ is the burst duration. 

550: They find a tighter correlation between $E_{pk}$ and $E_{tot}$ than between 

551: $E_{pk}$ and $E_{iso}$, for bursts with observed redshifts and breaks. 

552: Furthermore, in contrast to the Amati et al (2001) $E_{pk}\propto 

553: E_{iso}^{1/2}$ dependence, they deduce from the data a steeper slope, 

554: $E_{pk}\propto E_{tot}^{0.7}$. Taking a standard burst duration and jet 

555: opening angle, this is of the form discussed in equation (\ref{eq:EpkBB}) 

556: or (\ref{eq:Epksat}). A critique of the methods for obtaining both types of 

557: correlations from the data is given by Friedman and Bloom (2004). We should 

558: note that such correlations are generally derived assuming that the 

559: efficiency of gamma-ray production is the same for all bursts, 

560: independently of the luminosity or the total energy. If, however, the 

561: efficiency were lower for the weaker (and therefore softer) bursts, then 

562: the correlation would have a flatter $E_{pk}$ vs. $E_{tot}$ slope than 

563: currently derived from the data. This is because, for a given gamma-ray 

564: isotropic luminosity, the momentum outflow per unit solid angle would be 

565: higher than they assume. This means that the standard jet-break argument 

566: would imply a narrower beam than inferred under the constant efficiency 

567: assumption, and therefore a lower $L_{tot}$ (for a given $E_{pk}$) than the 

568: values currently derived.

569: 

570: \section{Discussion}

571: \label{sec:disc}

572: 

573: We have considered dissipative effects below the photosphere of GRB

574: or XRF outflows, such as, e.g., due to magnetic reconnection or shocks.

575: Such dissipation can lead to copious pair formation, dominating the

576: photospheric opacity.  Alternatively, if dissipation occurs not too far

577: above an initial photosphere, it can result in a second effective

578: photosphere, situated outside the initial one.

579: 

580: Sub-photospheric dissipation can increase the radiative efficiency of the 

581: outflow, significantly boosting the quasi-thermal photospheric component, 

582: so that it may well dominate the much-discussed synchrotron component from 

583: nonthermal shocks outside the photosphere. The hypothesis that GRB emission 

584: is dominated by a Comptonized thermal component offers a natural 

585: explanation for the thermal GRB spectra discussed most recently, e.g., by 

586: Ryde (2004). It can also naturally explain the steeper than synchrotron 

587: lower energy spectral indices (Preece, et al, 2000; Lloyd, Petrosian \& 

588: Mallozi, 2000) noticed in some bursts.

589: 

590: The quasi-thermal peak of the photospheric spectrum is controlled by

591: the total luminosity $L_0$ and by the reference injection radius $r_0$

592: above which the Lorentz factor starts to grow linearly. Dissipation

593: near the central object or along the inner jet can result in an

594: increase $r_0$, thus lowering the reference temperature of the outflow

595: which characterizes the quasi-thermal photospheric component. The

596: characteristic variability timescales $r_0\sin\theta/c$ for jets

597: with the observationally inferred opening half-angles $\theta$ are

598: in the millisecond range. The spectral peak of the dissipation-enhanced

599: photospheric component, upscattered in energy by factors of $\sim 10$

600: due to electrons accelerated in the dissipation process, results in typical

601: photon energies ranging between those of classical bursts and X-ray flashes.

602: 

603: The relationship between the observed photon peak energy and the luminosity 

604: can have a variety of functional forms, which depends on a number of so-far 

605: poorly determined parameters. However, plausible assumptions can lead to 

606: relationships of the type $E_{pk}\propto L_{iso}^{1/2}$ (Amati, et al, 

607: 2000), or $E_{pk}\propto E_{tot}^{0.7}$ (Ghirlanda et al, 2004). Even 

608: though more physics and a more specific model will be needed before we can 

609: explain the correlations, the idea that $E_{pk}$ is essentially a thermal 

610: peak seems more readily able to account for a `standardized' value in a 

611: given class of objects, because there is not a steep $\Gamma$-dependence 

612: (and indeed to first order the $\Gamma$ factor cancels out, because 

613: adiabatic cooling in the comoving frame is compensated by the Doppler 

614: boosting).

615: 

616: In summary, our main result is that  a spectral  peak at photon  energies 

617: in the range of tens to hundreds of keV, typical of XRFs and GRBs, can 

618: naturally arise from an outflowing jet, in which dissipation below a 

619: baryonic or pair-dominated photosphere enhances the radiative efficiency 

620: and gives rise to a Comptonized thermal spectrum. On this hypothesis, 

621: the recently-discovered correlations between $L$ and $E_{pk}$ would be 

622: an important diagnostic of how the key jet parameters --  physics near 

623: the 'sonic point', baryon contamination, etc -- depend on $L$.

624: 

625: 

626: \acknowledgements

627: Research supported in part by NASA NAG5-13286, the Royal Society and the

628: Monell Foundation. We are grateful to S. Kobayashi, D. Lazzati, A. Pe'er

629: and the referee for useful comments.

630: 

631: \begin{references}

632: \def\refe{\reference{}}

633: 

634: \refe Amati, L. et al, 2002, A. \& A., 390, 81.

635: \refe Beloborodov, A, 2003, ApJ 585, L19

636: \refe Eichler, D. \& Levinson, A., 2000, ApJ 529, 146

637: \refe Friedman, A.S. and Bloom, J.S., ApJ subm, astro-ph/0408413

638: \refe Giannios, D \& Spruit, H, 2005, A\&A in press (astro-ph/0401109)

639: \refe Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G. \& Lazzati, D, 2004, ApJ 616, 331

640: \refe Ghisellini, G. \& Celotti, A. 1999, ApJ 511, L93

641: \refe Heinz, S. \& Begelman, M., 2000, ApJ 535, 104

642: \refe Kobayashi, S, Ryde, F. \& MacFadyen, A, 2002, ApJ 577, 302

643: \refe Lloyd, N.M., Petrosian, V. \& Mallozzi, R.S., 2000, ApJ, 534, L227.

644: \refe \Mesz, P. \& Rees, M.J., 2000, ApJ 530, 292

645: \refe Pe'er, A \& Waxman, E., 2004, ApJ 613, 448

646: \refe Pe'er, A, et al, 2005a, 2005b, in preparation

647: \refe Preece, R.D.; Briggs, M.S.; Mallozzi, R. S.; Pendleton, G. N.;

648:   Paciesas, W. S.; Band, D. L., 2000, ApJS 126, 19.

649: \refe Ryde, F, 2004, ApJ 614, 827

650: \refe Thompson, C., 1994, MNRAS 270, 480

651: \refe Zhang B. \& \Mesz, P., 2002, ApJ, 581, 1236

652: \refe Zhang W. \& Woosley, S.E., 2004, ApJ 608, 365

653: \end{references}

654: 

655: \clearpage

656: %

657: \begin{figure}[htb]

658: \centering

659: %\epsfig{figure=f1.eps,width=5.in, height=4.in}

660: \epsfig{figure=par_phot_eta2.ps,width=5.in, height=4.in}

661: \figcaption{

662: Radii of the pair (full) and baryon (dashed) photospheres as a

663: function of $\eta$ for $\epsd=10^{-1}$, $L_0=10^{51}$ erg/s,

664: $\alpha=1$ ($r_0=3\times 10^6 m_1\cm$) and $\alpha=10^4$ ($r_0=

665: 3\times 10^{10}m_1\cm$).  Also shown are the saturation radius

666: $r_s=r_0\eta$, and the spherical minimum shock radius $r_{sh}=

667: r_0\eta^2$. Instabilities at the nozzle $\theta$ of a jet could

668: lead to shocks at a lower mininum radius $r_{sh,j}$, while magnetic 

669: dissipation could in principle occur both above and below $r_s$.

670: }

671: \label{fig:photeta}

672: \end{figure}

673: %

674: 

675: 

676: %

677: \begin{figure}[htb]

678: \centering

679: %\epsfig{figure=f2.eps,width=5.in,height=4.in}

680: \epsfig{figure=par_lum_rad.ps,width=5.in,height=4.in}

681: \figcaption{

682: Kinetic luminosity and photospheric radiation luminosity as a function

683: of radius. Beyond the saturation radius the luminosity decays as

684: $L_\gamma\propto r^{-2/3}$, but beyond $\epsilon_d^{3/2}r_s$ the

685: fraction $\epsilon_d$ of the kinetic energy reconverted into

686: radiative (pair) form becomes significant. Also shown is the value

687: of the observer temperature. Comptonization at the pair photosphere

688: (see text) could boost this by an additional factor $\siml 10$.

689: }

690: \label{fig:lumrad}

691: \end{figure}

692: %

693: 

694: %

695: \begin{figure}[htb]

696: \centering

697: %\epsfig{figure=f3.eps,width=5.in,height=4.in}

698: \epsfig{figure=parspect2.ps,width=5.in,height=4.in}

699: \figcaption{Schematic comoving frame spectrum, showing the photospheric

700: (thermal) spectrum and its Comptonized  component, as well as a shock

701: synchrotron component (assumed to arise further out). This is the

702: generic spectrum characterizing a slow dissipation model (see text).

703: Shocks with pair formation could lead to an additional component

704: at higher energies.

705: }

706: \label{fig:spectrum}

707: \end{figure}

708: %

709: 

710: 

711: 

712: 

713: \end{document}

714: 

715: