1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% Trim Size: 9.75in x 6.5in
3: %% Text Area: 8in (include Runningheads) x 5in
4: %% ws-ijmpd.tex : 25-10-04
5: %% Tex file to use with ws-ijmpd.cls written in Latex2E.
6: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the
7: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
8: %% Copyright 1995, 2002 by World Scientific Publishing Co.
9: %% All rights are reserved.
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: %
12:
13: %\documentclass[draft]{ws-ijmpd}
14: \documentclass{ws-ijmpd}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17:
18: \markboth{Z. B. Zhang et al.} {Probing the emission regions for
19: distinct gamma-ray bursts}
20:
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Publisher's Area please ignore %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %
23: \catchline{}{}{}{}{}
24: %
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26:
27: \title{Inferring the emission regions for different kinds of gamma-ray bursts}
28:
29: \author{Zhibin Zhang$^{1, 3, \dag}$, G. Z. Xie$^{1}$, J. G. Deng$^{2}$ and B. T. Wei$^{1, 3}$}
30:
31: \address{$^1$ National Astronomical Observatories/Yunnan Observatory,
32: Chinese Academy of Sciences\\ P. O. Box 110, Kunming, Yunnan,
33: 650011,
34: P. R. China\\
35: $^2$ Physics Science and Technology Institute, Guangxi University\\
36: Nanning, Guangxi 530004, P. R. China\\
37: $^3$ The Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences\\
38: $\dag$ zbzhang@ynao.ac.cn}
39:
40: %\author{Jiagan Deng}
41: %
42: %\address{Physics Department, Guangxi University\\ Nanning, Guangxi 530004, P. R. China\\}
43:
44: \maketitle
45:
46: \begin{history}
47: \received{Day Month Year}
48: \revised{Day Month Year}
49: \comby{Managing Editor}
50: \end{history}
51:
52: \begin{abstract}
53: Using a theoretical model describing pulse shapes, we have clarified
54: the relations between the observed pulses and their corresponding
55: timescales, such as angular spreading time, dynamic time as well as
56: cooling time. We find that the angular spreading timescale caused by
57: curvature effect of fireball surface only contributes to the falling
58: part of the observed pulses, while the dynamic one in the co-moving
59: frame of the shell merely contributes to the rising portion of them
60: provided the radiative time is negligible. In addition, the observed
61: pulses resulted from the pure radiative cooling time of relativistic
62: electrons exhibit the property of fast rise and slow decay (a
63: quasi-FRED profile) together with smooth peaks. Besides, we
64: interpret the phenomena of wider pules tending to be more asymmetric
65: to be a consequence of the difference in emission regions.
66: Meanwhile, we find the intrinsic emission time is decided by the
67: ratios of lorentz factors and radii of the shells between short and
68: long bursts. Based on the analysis of asymmetry, our results suggest
69: that the long GRB pulses may occur in the regions with larger
70: radius, while the short bursts could locate at the smaller distance
71: from central engine.
72: \end{abstract}
73:
74: \keywords{ gamma-rays: bursts -- methods: numerical}
75:
76: \section{Introduction}
77:
78: Owing to possible overlapping between neighboring pulses, time
79: profiles of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) usually exhibit very diverse
80: configurations$^{18}$. Pulses as the fundamental elements of bursts
81: provide us a clue which will help us catch their quiddities.
82: According to the standard fireball shock model$^{19, 33, 15}$, the
83: pulses are generally proposed to either originate from the internal
84: shocks produced by collisions between different shells in the
85: fireball$^{24, 37}$ or come from the action of the external shock on
86: the circum-burst medium$^{14, 26, 4, 6}$. However, problems are
87: still in existence not only for their radiation mechanisms but also
88: at the aspect of the differences between short and long pulses in
89: their profiles.
90:
91: It had been pointed out that GRB light curves especially the pulses
92: in them could reproduce the temporal activity of its inner
93: engine$^{10, 2, 17}$. Dermer \& Mitman$^{5}$ had found that
94: investigations on pulses were preferred for learning whether GRB
95: sources require engines to be long-lasting or short-lived. The
96: long-lasting central engine should produce more relativistic
97: outflows during this phase which naturally lead to long-lasting
98: emissions in the co-moving frame of the shells. The long time
99: together with the delay time caused by the curvature effect of
100: photosphere can inevitably results in longer duration in the
101: observer frame$^{39,}$\footnote{hereafter paper I}. Qin and
102: Lu$^{23}$ thought that for most of observed pulses their
103: corresponding co-moving pulses might contain a long decay time
104: relative to the time-scale of the curvature effect. Moreover,
105: studies with BATSE data for GRB pulses also indicate most sources do
106: not display the curvature effects$^{11, 1}$, which suggests that the
107: physics of such pulse formation is dominated or determined by other
108: effects, perhaps the hydrodynamic or radiative cooling process or
109: both of them. It happens that the relations between these timescales
110: and temporal structure of GRBs had been researched by some
111: authors$^{27, 29}$.
112:
113: For the long and smooth single-peak GRBs, the curvature
114: effects$^{9}$ or external shock$^{4}$ could be the leading action.
115: The result that many short bursts are highly variable demonstrates
116: short GRBs can't be produced by external shocks$^{16}$. So one of
117: the aims in this work is to conjecture the approximate regions where
118: bursts could occur. With this purpose, the structures of observed
119: pulses connecting with different timescales are taken into account
120: in very detail. These results suggest that short and long bursts
121: might take place in different spatial regions from the sources.
122:
123: \section{Theoretical model}
124:
125: In this section we first introduce an analytic model based on the
126: assumption of isotropic radiation in the frame of
127: fireball$^{22,}$\footnote{hereafter paper II}. The model has offered
128: us a fundamental expression of pulses concerning observed counts
129: flux (see paper II, eq. [21])
130: \begin{equation}
131: C(\tau)=C_0\frac{\int\limits_{\widetilde{\tau}_{\theta,min}}^{\widetilde{\tau}_{\theta,max}}\widetilde{I}(\tau_\theta)(1+\beta\tau_\theta)^2(1-\tau+\tau_\theta)d\tau_\theta
132: }{\Gamma^3(1-\beta)^2(1+\frac{\beta}{1-\beta}\tau)^2}
133: \int\limits_{\nu_1}^{\nu_2}\frac{g_{0,
134: \nu}(\nu_{0,\theta})}{\nu}d\nu
135: \end{equation}
136: with
137: \begin{equation}
138: \tau=\frac{T-t_{c}-D/c+R_{c}/c}{R_{c}/c}
139: \end{equation}
140: and
141: \begin{equation}
142: \tau_{\theta}=\frac{t_{\theta}-t_{c}}{R_{c}/c}
143: \end{equation}
144: where $R_{c}$ and $\Gamma$ denote the corresponding initial radius
145: of the fireball at time $t_c$ and the lorentz factor of ejecta when
146: photons start emitting from the shocked shells, and $T$ and
147: $t_{\theta}$ stand for the observation time by observer and the
148: emission time from the photosphere respectively. $D$ is the
149: luminosity distance from observer to the source. $\tau$ and
150: $\tau_{\theta}$ are two dimensionless quantities and related by the
151: following expression
152: \begin{equation}
153: \tau_{\theta}=\frac{\tau-(1-\mu)}{1-\beta\mu}
154: \end{equation}
155: where $\mu=cos\theta$, and more detailed definitions of the relevant
156: variables can be referred to paper I and II. Followed our recent
157: work (paper I) the co-moving pulse form is assumed to be
158: $$
159: \widetilde{I}(\tau_\theta)\equiv I(\tau_\theta)=I_0\left\{
160: \begin{array}{cc}
161: exp[(\tau_{\theta}-\tau_{\theta,0})/\sigma_{r}] \ & \ \ (\tau_{\theta,min}\leq\tau_{\theta}\leq\tau_{\theta,0})\\
162: exp[-(\tau_{\theta}-\tau_{\theta,0})/\sigma_{d}] \ & \ \ (\tau_{\theta,0}<\tau_{\theta}\leq\tau_{\theta,max})\\
163: \end{array}
164: \right.
165: $$
166: and let $\sigma_{r}/\sigma_{d}=\xi$.
167:
168: From eq.(1), the one-to-one relation between $C(\tau)$ and $\tau$
169: can be constructed on condition that the values of the lorentz
170: factor $\Gamma$ and the co-moving width
171: $\Delta\tau_{\theta}=\tau_{\theta, max}-\tau_{\theta, min}$ have
172: been assigned in advance.
173:
174: \section{Time scales}
175:
176: It has been known that the structure of GRB pulse is usually thought
177: to be determined by three time scales. The first is angular
178: spreading timescale, $T_{ang}\approx R_{c}/(2\Gamma^{2}c)$, which is
179: caused by the interval between the arrival times of the photons
180: emitted from different region of the shell$^{28}$. The second is
181: dynamic timescale or shock shell-crossing time, $T_{dyn}\approx
182: t_{dyn}^{'}/2\Gamma$ with $t_{dyn}^{'}=\Delta^{'}/v_{sh}^{'}$ in the
183: rest frame of shell$^{25}$, where $\Delta^{'}$ is the thickness of
184: shell and $v_{sh}^{'}$ is the velocity of shock relative to the
185: pre-shocked flow. The last one is radiative generally synchrotron
186: cooling time, $T_{syn}\simeq t_{\gamma}^{'}/\Gamma$, where
187: $t_{\gamma}^{'}$ is the radiative timescale in co-moving frame of
188: the shell$^{32}$. As the duration the asymmetry of pulses (For
189: convenience, we define the asymmetry in previous manner as the ratio
190: of the rise fraction ($t_r$) of full width at half maximum ($FWHM$)
191: of pulse to the decay fraction ($t_d$).) is likewise thought to be
192: decided by the above three timescales.
193:
194: Now, Let us consider an uniform and spherical shell moving outwards
195: with a radial velocity of $v=c\beta$, which emits photons
196: consecutively at different times as the shock propagates into it.
197: The relation between observation time $T$ and the emitting time $t'$
198: in co-moving frame of the shell has been gotten$^{31}$ and can be
199: written as
200: \begin{equation}
201: T\equiv(1-\beta\mu)t'+(1-\mu)R_{c}/c=T_{int}+T_{ang}
202: \end{equation}
203: where the first part of the right-hand side of the equation
204: resulting from the time $t'$ is defined as intrinsic timescale, and
205: the second part is purely caused by the curvature effects. Assuming
206: the distance of observer from the central engine is $D$, from
207: equations (2), (4) and (5), one can verify the meaning of $T$ in
208: eqs. (2) and (5) is identical if only I let the initial time at
209: radius $R_c$ be constrained with
210: \begin{math}
211: t_{c}=(R_{c}-D)/c.
212: \end{math}
213: In this situation, I can get $t'=\Delta\tau_{\theta}R_{c}/c$, where
214: $\Delta\tau_{\theta}=\sigma_{r}+\sigma_{d}$ denotes the width of
215: co-moving pulse (see paper I). Then I find that
216: \begin{equation}
217: T_{int}=(1-\beta\mu)t'=(1-\beta\mu)\Delta\tau_{\theta}R_{c}/c
218: \end{equation}
219: actually involves the contributions of timescales arising from
220: co-moving frame to the pulse duration. In terms of the current
221: fireball shock model, the intrinsic time $T_{int}$ (or
222: $\Delta\tau_{\theta}$) is often interpreted as a consequence of
223: combination of $T_{dyn}$ and $T_{syn}$.
224:
225: \section{Resulting pulses}
226:
227: We examine the dependence of the structure of pulses on the distinct
228: timescales when parts of them are taken no account of due to some
229: special physical reasons. Suppose the rising part of the co-moving
230: pulse corresponds to the shell crossing time and its decay portion
231: relates to the cooling time, we thus have the opportunity to
232: distinguish their individual effects on the observed temporal
233: profiles in the following extreme instances. In the internal shock
234: model, pulses are caused by the dissipation of a fraction of kinetic
235: energy of ejecta with lorentz factors that could exceed 100$^{8,
236: 19}$. In the following, we take $\Gamma=100$ as the representative
237: value for the most sources.
238:
239: \subsection{Pulses dominated by $T_{ang}$}
240:
241: If the shell thickness $\Delta'$ becomes thin enough due to the
242: collision between the shell and the circum-burst medium at larger
243: distance from the central engine, and/or the velocity of the forward
244: shock is relativistic$^{26}$, the intrinsic time $T_{int}$ would be
245: expected to be very small relative to $T_{ang}$. In this case, the
246: effective timescales in eq. (5) are then reduced to be
247: \begin{equation}
248: T\approx T_{ang}=(1-\mu)R_{c}/c\approx R_{c}/2\Gamma^{2}c
249: \end{equation}
250: in the case of $\Gamma\gg 1$.
251: \begin{figure}
252: \centering
253: %\vspace{5.5cm}
254: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{fig1.EPS}
255: \caption{Plot of counts flux vs. $\tau$ for the normalized curves from angular spreading time, where we take $\Gamma=100$,
256: $\Delta \tau_{\theta}=0.001$ and $R_c=10^{15} cm$. The dashed and dotted lines represent
257: different emitting areas on the fireball surface and have been symbolized in the plot.}
258: \label{fig1}
259: \end{figure}
260:
261: The resulting pulses have been displayed in figure 1. Here we can
262: optionally appoint the value of $\xi$, say, for special $\xi=1$. In
263: fact, our previous work (see, paper II) has concluded that the
264: expected pulses are independent of their co-moving pulse shapes when
265: their local width is narrow enough. We find from figure 1 that the
266: pulses resulted from the angle spreading timescale behave the
267: standard decay form in the shape\footnote{Paper II had proved
268: the resulting pulse shapes tend to follow the so-called standard decay form and be independent of
269: co-moving pulse forms when the co-moving width ($\Delta\tau_{\theta}$) is short
270: enough.}, although they come from distinct surface.
271: Furthermore, the discrepancy in the two durations demonstrates the
272: contributions of photons from photosphere to light curves decrease
273: with the reduction of the emitting area.
274:
275: \subsection{Pulses arising from $T_{dyn}$}
276:
277: Considering an ejecta moving towards us in the line of sight or
278: beaming effect due to large lorentz factors in a small distance, the
279: curvature effect on the observation might become very tiny. In the
280: case of neglecting relativistic curvature effect (i.e. $\mu=1$), the
281: dominant component of the duration $T$ in eq. (5) would remain to be
282: \begin{equation}
283: T\approx T_{int}=T_{dyn}=(1-\beta\mu)t'\approx
284: \Delta\tau_{\theta}R_{c}/2\Gamma^{2}c
285: \end{equation}
286: where the $\Delta\tau_{\theta}$, $R_c$ and $\Gamma$ are taken some
287: typical values as 10, $10^{13} cm$ and 100 respectively. To contrast
288: the effects of diverse ratios between $\sigma_r$ and $\sigma_d$ on
289: observed pulse shapes, we assign $\xi=3.0, 5.7$ and $9.0$
290: correspondingly. Here the angle is taken as $\theta=1/(10^5\Gamma)$
291: so that it is ensured to be small enough. The current cases
292: represent fast cooling physical process in co-moving frame of the
293: shell.
294:
295: In the following, for each pulses, the magnitude of count fluxes is
296: normalized to a unit, and the relative time $\tau$ was re-scaled so
297: that their right end of $FWHM$ is located at the same point. These
298: normalized and re-scaled curves have been displayed in figure 2,
299: from which we can find that the co-moving pulses with dominant
300: dynamic timescales would lead to spiky analytic pulses. At the same
301: time, the asymmetry of analytic pulses is proportional to the
302: co-moving pulses' ratio. In other words, with the increasing of
303: dynamic timescale the observed pulses would become more asymmetric
304: and show like exponential rise and fast decay (ERFD). Under extreme
305: physical conditions, we shall draw the conclusion that the unmixed
306: dynamic times should result in highly spiky pulses without decay
307: portion.
308: \begin{figure}
309: \centering
310: %\vspace{5.5cm}
311: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{fig2.EPS}
312: \caption{Plot of counts flux vs. $\tau$ for the normalized and re-scaled curves from dynamic timescale, where we take $\Gamma=100$,
313: $\Delta \tau_{\theta}=10$, $R_c=10^{13} cm$ and $\theta=1/(10^5\Gamma)$. Different symbols have been shown in this plot.}
314: \label{fig2}
315: \end{figure}
316:
317: \subsection{Pulses originated from $T_{syn}$}
318:
319: As pointed by previous authors$^{32, 30}$, the cooling time-scale is
320: probably much larger than the above two time-scales, for instance,
321: the accelerated particles radiate quite slowly, especially for very
322: large radii due to the low densities of the shell$^{17}$. It is thus
323: necessary to reveal how the observed curves are influenced by the
324: radiation of electrons. The cooling timescale can be expressed as
325: follows
326: \begin{equation}
327: T\approx T_{int}=T_{syn}=(1-\beta\mu)t'\approx
328: \Delta\tau_{\theta}R_{c}/2\Gamma^{2}c
329: \end{equation}
330: where the co-moving pulses must be mostly formed by its decay
331: potion.
332:
333: Resembling figure 2, the normalized and re-scaled curves from eq.
334: (1) for different co-moving pulses' ratios, say $\xi=1.0, 0.3, 0.1$,
335: are similarly plotted in figure 3. On the occasions of $\xi \ll 1$,
336: the analytic pulses are almost governed by radiative cooling time,
337: namely considerably slow cooling process comparable to dynamical
338: timescale of shocks crossing the shocked flows. From figure 3 we
339: find the shapes of all these resulting curves in this case follow a
340: form of fast rise and slow decay (quasi-FRED), and a profile of
341: smooth instead of spiky peak. Additionally, with the increasing of
342: cooling timescale the observed pulses would become more symmetric
343: and smooth. Taking into account of an ultimate situation, $\xi =0$,
344: we calculate the asymmetry of the resulting pulse and find it has an
345: upper limit, here 0.37, when the parameters are assigned to be
346: certain values such as $\Gamma=100$, $\Delta \tau_{\theta}=10$ and
347: $R_c=10^{13} cm$. The theorem certainly holds for other curves from
348: any of sets of parameters, provided the curves are completely
349: contributed by the cooling time.
350: \begin{figure}
351: \centering
352: %\vspace{5.5cm}
353: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{fig3.EPS}
354: \caption{Plot of counts flux vs. $\tau$ for the normalized and re-scaled curves from radiative cooling time, where we take $\Gamma=100$,
355: $\Delta \tau_{\theta}=10$, $R_c=10^{13} cm$ and $\theta=1/(10^5\Gamma)$. Different symbols have been shown in this plot.}
356: \label{fig3}
357: \end{figure}
358:
359: \section{Comparison between $T_{ang}$ and $T_{dyn}$}
360:
361: In fact, for most reasonable parameters the cooling time is much
362: shorter than other physical timescales$^{27, 10, 19, 34}$,
363: especially in the scenario of internal shocks. In this case,
364: $T_{ang}$ and $T_{dyn}$ could be the key factors acting on the
365: properties of observed pulses. To discern which one is more
366: significant than the other, I contrast the two timescales from eqs.
367: (7) and (8) in figure 4. The reason for taking $\theta\sim1/\Gamma$
368: in $T_{ang}$ is that the outflows crossed by internal shocks are
369: generally assumed to be highly collimated.
370: \begin{figure}
371: \centering
372: %\vspace{5.5cm}
373: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{fig4.EPS}
374: \caption{Contrasts between normalized and translated horizontally temporal profiles on timescales
375: associated with the curvature effect, $T_{ang}$ with $\Gamma=100$, $R_c=10^{13} cm$,
376: $\theta=1/\Gamma$ and $\Delta\tau_{\theta}=0.001$ and the shell-crossing time, $T_{dyn}$
377: with $\Gamma=100$, $R_c=10^{13} cm$, $\theta=1/(10^5\Gamma)$ and $\Delta\tau_{\theta}=1$.
378: Symbols are denoted by solid line for angular spreading time and dashed line for dynamic time in this plot.}
379: \label{fig4}
380: \end{figure}
381:
382: As is shown in figure 4, when the width of the rising co-moving
383: pulse, $\Delta\tau_{\theta}$, becomes larger than 1 or the thickness
384: of the shell is wide enough, the dynamic timescale would go beyond
385: the the angular one. The opposite is the angular timescale could be
386: the leading contribution to observations. If only the two timescales
387: are comparable in this situation the observed pulses will be
388: expected to be more symmetric. Or else, the pulses will show the
389: characteristics of either FRED or ERFD shapes.
390:
391: \section{Independence of pulse shape on parameters}
392:
393: The above-mentioned timescales had been proved to be dependent on
394: the radius, $R$, of the shell$^{32}$. However, what we want to know
395: now is how the pulses' shape vary with the radius once the lorentz
396: factors, the width as well as the ratio of co-moving pulses are
397: definite for distinct radii. These analytic pulses are displayed in
398: figure 5,
399: \begin{figure}
400: \centering
401: %\vspace{5.5cm}
402: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{fig5.EPS}
403: \caption{Profiles of the normalized analytic pulses in the observer frame, where I take
404: $\Gamma=100$, $\theta=\pi/2$, $\Delta \tau_{\theta}=0.1$ and $\xi=1$.
405: Curves for distinct radii are distinguished by triangles, circles and squares respectively.
406: Symbols are marked in this plot.}
407: \label{fig5}
408: \end{figure}
409: in which we surprisingly see the pulses coming from different radii
410: are undistinguishable in shape or asymmetry. The consistency
411: manifests the curves are independent of radii on this occasion,
412: which in turn shows the parameters, $\Gamma$, $\Delta \tau_{\theta}$
413: and $\xi$, or part of them, should evolve with radius rather than
414: keep constant.
415:
416: It had been known that the bulk Lorentz factor increases linearly
417: with radius so long as the fireball is not baryon loaded and not
418: complicated by non-spherical expansion$^{7}$ until $\Gamma\sim1000$
419: $^{35, 40}$, and then follows a $\Gamma\propto t^{-3/8}$ law
420: $^{21}$. Unfortunately, the initial value of the shell width
421: $\Delta^{'}$ (or $t_{dyn}^{'}$) together with its evolution with
422: radius hasn't been understood yet. I assume the co-moving width
423: decreases with the increasing of radius, namely,
424: $\Delta\tau_{\theta}\propto1/R$, because of the violent interaction
425: of the shells with circum-burst medium. For example, the lorentz
426: factors are taken as $\Gamma=100, 1000, 10$ whose corresponding
427: values of other parameters are $\Delta\tau_\theta=10, 1, 0.01$ and
428: $R_c=10^{12} cm, 10^{13} cm, 10^{15} cm$ respectively. The expected
429: pulses in observer frame are presented in figure 6, where they are
430: identified by different symbols. Figure 6 seems to show the observed
431: pulses arising from larger radius regions would be more asymmetric
432: and be more close to the property of FRED. This might happen when
433: the angular spreading time exceeds the dynamic one on condition that
434: the two factors are considered.
435: \begin{figure}
436: \centering
437: %\vspace{5.5cm}
438: \includegraphics[width=5in,angle=0]{fig6.EPS}
439: \caption{Plot of counts flux vs. $\tau$ for the normalized and re-scaled curves with the different sets of parameters
440: of which their symbols have been shown in this plot. Besides, $\theta=\pi/2$ and $\xi=1$ are also designated.}
441: \label{fig6}
442: \end{figure}
443:
444: \section{Constraints on the intrinsic times}
445:
446: Once the cosmological effect is taken into account, the pulse
447: duration should then be determined by
448: \begin{equation}
449: T_{dur}\sim(1+z)T\sim(1+z)(1+\Delta\tau_{\theta})R_c/2\Gamma^2c
450: \end{equation}
451: where $z$ is the cosmological redshift for one given source.
452: Previous investigations$^{3, 42}$ had shown that the spectral lag is
453: a direct consequence of spectral evolution. During the time interval
454: of burst, in principal, the full photons emitted from distinct
455: regions would contribute to the time lag. In the frame of internal
456: shocks, the temporal and spectral features of pulses are probably
457: governed by the hydrodynamics process instead of the curvature
458: effect of the fireball surface$^{3}$. In that case, the lag depends
459: mainly on the dynamic timescale. On the other hand, either cooling
460: time$^{30}$ or angular spreading time$^{31}$ can also separately
461: results in spectral lag. Although Ryde$^{43}$ has suggested the lag
462: is mainly caused by the pulse decay-time, we here consider the whole
463: contribution of the above three timescales to time lag lest
464: additional errors could be produced. From eq.(10), we can easily get
465: \begin{equation}
466: \frac{T_{dur, s}}{T_{dur, l}}
467: \sim\frac{(1+z_s)(1+\Delta\tau_{\theta, s})R_{c,
468: s}\Gamma_{l}^2}{(1+z_l)(1+\Delta\tau_{\theta, l})R_{c,
469: l}\Gamma_{s}^2}
470: \end{equation}
471: where the subscripts $l$ and $s$ respectively denote long and short
472: bursts.
473:
474: Norris \& Bonnell (2006) have shown the median lag is about 48\, ms
475: for long bursts and less than 1\, ms for short ones. Assuming the
476: leading contribution to pulse duration is the angular spreading
477: time, $T_{\mathrm{dur}} \sim(1+z)R_{\mathrm{c}}/2\Gamma^{2}c$, i.e.
478: lag, we can thus rewrite eq. (11) as
479: %
480: \begin{equation}
481: \label{eq-12}
482: \frac{(1+z_{\mathrm{s}})\Gamma_{\mathrm{l}}^{2}}{(1+z_{\mathrm{l}})\Gamma_{\mathrm{s}}^{2}}\frac{(1+\Delta\tau_{\theta,
483: \mathrm{s}})R_{\mathrm{c, s}}}{(1+\Delta\tau_{\theta,
484: \mathrm{l}})R_{\mathrm{c, l}}}\leq\frac{1}{48}
485: \end{equation}
486: %
487: where the median redshifts are respectively appointed to be
488: $z_{\mathrm{s}}\simeq0.5,\,z_{\mathrm{l}}\simeq2.5$ for short and
489: long bursts (Norris \& Bonnell 2006). After submitting the values of
490: redshift to eq.(12), one can derive
491: %
492: \begin{equation}
493: \label{intrinsic-time} \frac{(1+\Delta\tau_{\theta,
494: \mathrm{l}})R_{\mathrm{c, l}}}{(1+\Delta\tau_{\theta,
495: \mathrm{s}})R_{\mathrm{c,
496: s}}}\geq20\frac{\Gamma_{\mathrm{l}}^{2}}{\Gamma_{\mathrm{s}}^{2}}
497: \end{equation}
498: %
499: from which we can estimate the lower limit of lorentz factors for
500: short bursts once the accurate limits of $\Gamma_{\mathrm{l}}$ can
501: be well known. Some authors had determined the relatively exact
502: value of the Lorentz factor for long GRBs, by using the reverse
503: shock information, whose typical values range from 100 to 1000
504: $^{e.g. 51, 52}$. However, the information of the local pulse width,
505: $\Delta\tau_{\theta}$, and the radius, $R_{\mathrm{c}}$, hasn't been
506: achieved until now. Therefore, before this estimation, the width and
507: the radius need to be reasonably assigned or assumed in advance. In
508: particular, eq. (13) shows that the intrinsic time,
509: $t^{\mathrm{'}}=\Delta\tau_{\theta}R_{\mathrm{c}}/c$, is decided by
510: the ratios of lorentz factors and radii of shells between short and
511: long bursts.
512:
513: \section{Conclusion and discussion}
514:
515: By studying the influences of different timescales on the shape of
516: pulses, we conclude that the profiles of observed pulses arising
517: from angular spreading times would be long-tailed and called
518: standard decay form without rising part, and those only resulting
519: from dynamic timescales would follow a rising form. Which one is
520: more dominant than another is determined by the value of
521: $\Delta\tau_{\theta}$, i.e. $\Delta\tau_{\theta}>1$ for dynamic
522: dominant case, and vice versa. The pure radiative cooling times
523: would lead to smooth and FRED-like temporal profiles without too
524: long tails. Additionally, we find the intrinsic emission time,
525: $t^{\mathrm{'}}$, is constrained by the ratios of lorentz factors
526: and radii of the shells between short and long bursts.
527:
528: Spada et al.$^{32}$ found by simulating internal shocks that the
529: angular spreading and the dynamic times are comparable when a shell
530: broadens linearly in some special regions. When it happens, the
531: thickness $\Delta^{'}$ of the shell could be estimated by
532: $\Delta^{'}\sim R_c v'_{sh}/(\Gamma c)$, which offer us a clue to
533: understand that $T_{dyn}$ will go beyond $T_{ang}$ as $\Delta^{'}\gg
534: R_cv'_{sh}/(\Gamma c)$. In this case, this conclusion just meet
535: those previous viewpoints that the effect of not the geometry but
536: the hydrodynamics governs the temporal and spectral characteristics
537: of GRB pulses$^{3}$. On the contrary, the component of duration from
538: $T_{ang}$ would always be larger than from $T_{dyn}$ no matter how
539: large the radii of fireball are.
540:
541: On the other hand, for larger radii the radiative cooling time will
542: be the dominant contribution to the pulse duration$^{32}$, thus the
543: shape of observed pulses should reflect the properties dominated by
544: radiation during the whole duration. Moreover, the lorentz factors,
545: thickness of the merged shell, the frequency of emitted photons and
546: the energy equipartition factor $\varepsilon_{B}$ of the magnetic
547: field will reduce to smaller values with the increasing of radii. On
548: this occasion, there is a more strong contribution from $T_{syn}$ to
549: observed pulses in contrast with either $T_{ang}$ or $T_{syn}$. Even
550: if the outflows ejected from central engine are extremely calibrated
551: in the early phase, the jet will spread sideways quickly$^{20}$ so
552: that its geometry effects on observations are made to be more
553: considerable. Therefore, the observed pulses are caused to exhibit
554: more asymmetric and the trend of FRED are then strengthened.
555:
556: We have known the leading model of central engine for long GRBs,
557: perhaps including short ones, could be the collapsar model$^{36,
558: 38}$. Besides, other merger models of two compact objects have also
559: been proposed$^{44, 45, 46, 47}$. However, the analysis in this work
560: is independent of the detailed progenitor models. The lorentz
561: factors had been estimated as an order of 100-1000 for long
562: bursts$^{51, 52}$, while its lower limit is about 500 for short ones
563: (Norris and Bonnell 2006). Meanwhile, we have reached a conclusion
564: in our recent works$^{48, 49}$ that the lorentz factors is
565: proportional to $\Gamma^{-\omega}$ with $\omega>2$ for short bursts
566: and $\omega<2$ for long bursts. In terms of the properties of tiny
567: spectral lags in short bursts as well as their symmetric pulse
568: characteristic, I thus infer that, although short and long GRB
569: pulses could be interpreted with the same emission mechanism$^{12}$
570: in terms of the possible synchrotron radiation, the long and
571: asymmetric FRED pulses could be produced by external shock in larger
572: radii$^{14}$, while the short and symmetric pulses might be formed
573: by internal shock in smaller emission distance from sources. We
574: expect it to be verified in the future by the SWIFT satellite in
575: view of its capability of precise and prompt localization.
576:
577: %\section*{Acknowledgments}
578:
579:
580: %\begin{thebibliography}{000} %for 3 digits
581: %\begin{thebibliography}{00} %for 2 digits
582: \begin{thebibliography}{0} %for 1 digit
583: %%journal paper
584:
585: \bibitem{jpap}L. Borgonovo and F. Ryde, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 548}, 770
586: (2001).
587: \bibitem{jpap}F. Daigne and R. Mochkovitch, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 296}, 275(1998)
588: \bibitem{jpap}F. Daigne and R. Mochkovitch, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 342}, 587(2003)
589: \bibitem{jpap}C. D. Dermer, M. B\"{o}ttcher and J. Chiang, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 515},
590: L49 (1999).
591: \bibitem{pro}C. D. Dermer and K. E. Mitman, Third
592: Rome Workshop on Gamma Ray Bursts in the Afterglow Era, ed. M.
593: Feroci, F. Frontera, N. Masetti, \& L. Piro (San Francisco: ASP),
594: {\it ASP Conf. Ser.} {\bf 312}, 301 (2004).
595: \bibitem{jpap}C. D. Dermer, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 614}, 284
596: (2004).
597: \bibitem{jpap}D. Eichler and A. Levinson, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 529}, 146
598: (2000).
599: \bibitem{jpap}E. E. Fenimore and R. Epstein, {\it Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. S.} {\bf 97},
600: 59 (1993).
601: \bibitem{jpap}E. E. Fenimore, et al., {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 473},
602: 998 (1996).
603: \bibitem{jpap}S. Kobayashi, T. Piran and R. Sari, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 490},
604: 92 (1997).
605: \bibitem{jpap}D. Kocevski, F. Ryde \& E. Liang, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 596},
606: 389 (2003).
607: \bibitem{pro}S. McBreen, F. Quilligan, B. McBreen, et al., Gamma-Ray Burst and Afterglow Astronomy
608: 2001: A Workshop Celebrating the First Year of the HETE Mission. Am.
609: Inst. Phys., New York, {\it AIP Conf. Proc.} {\bf 662}, 290 (2003).
610: \bibitem{jpap}E. McMahon, P. Kumar \& A. Panaitescu, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 354},
611: 915(2004).
612: \bibitem{jpap}P. M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros and M. J. Rees, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 405},
613: 278 (1993).
614: \bibitem{jpap} P. M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, {\it Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr.} {\bf 40},
615: 137 (2002).
616: \bibitem{jpap} E. Nakar and T. Piran, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 330},
617: 920 (2002a).
618: \bibitem{jpap} E. Nakar and T. Piran,{\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 572},
619: L139 (2002b).
620: \bibitem{jpap}J. P. Norris, et al.,{\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 459},
621: 393 (1996).
622: \bibitem{jpap}T. Piran, {\it Phys. Rep+.} {\bf 314},
623: 575 (1999).
624: \bibitem{jpap}T. Piran, {\it Sci.} {\bf 295},
625: 986 (2002).
626: \bibitem{jpap}T. Piran, 2005, astro-ph/0503060
627: \bibitem{jpap}Y. P. Qin, Z. B. Zhang, F. W. Zhang, et al., {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 617},
628: 439 (2004). (Paper II)
629: \bibitem{jpap}Y. P. Qin and R. J. Lu, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 362},
630: 1085 (2005).
631: \bibitem{jpap}M. J. Rees and P. \& M\'{e}sz \'{a}ros, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 430},
632: L93 (1994).
633: \bibitem{jpap}F. Ryde and V. Petrosian, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 578},
634: 290 (2002).
635: \bibitem{jpap}R. Sari and T. Piran, {\it AIP Conf. Proc. } {\bf 384}, 782
636: (1996).
637: \bibitem{jpap}R. Sari, R. Narayan and T. Piran, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 473},
638: 204 (1996).
639: \bibitem{jpap}R. Sari and T. Piran, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 485},
640: 270 (1997).
641: \bibitem{jpap}R. Sari and T. Piran, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 455},
642: L143 (1995).
643: \bibitem{jpap}B. Schaefer, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 602},
644: 306 (2004).
645: \bibitem{jpap}R. F. Shen, et al., {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 362},
646: 59 (2005).
647: \bibitem{jpap} M. Spada, A. Panaitescu and P. M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 537},
648: 824 (2000).
649: \bibitem{jpap}J. van Paradijs, C. Kouveliotou, \& R. A. M. J.
650: Wijers, {\it Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr.} {\bf 38}, 379 (2000).
651: \bibitem{jpap}B. Wu, and E. E. Fenimore, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 535},
652: L29 (2000).
653: \bibitem{jpap}E. Woods and A. Loeb, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 453},
654: 583 (1995).
655: \bibitem{jpap}S. E. Woosley and A. I. MacFadyen, {\it Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. S.} {\bf 138},
656: 499 (1999).
657: \bibitem{jpap}B. Zhang and P. M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros,{\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. A.} {\bf 19},
658: 2385 (2004).
659: \bibitem{jpap}W. Zhang, S. E. Woosley and A. I. MacFadyen, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 586},
660: 356 (2003).
661: \bibitem{jpap}Z. B. Zhang and Y. P. Qin, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 363},
662: 1290 (2005). (Paper I)
663: \bibitem{jpap}E. Ramirez-Ruiz and E. E. Fenimore, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 539},
664: 712 (2000).
665: \bibitem{jpap}J. P. Norris and J. T. Bonnell, {\it Astrophys. J., accepted}, 2006, astro-ph/0601190
666: \bibitem{jpap}D. Kocevski and E. Liang, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 594},
667: 385 (2003).
668: \bibitem{jpap}F. Ryde {\it Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 429},
669: 869 (2005).
670: \bibitem{jpap}D. Eichler, M. Livio, T. Piran and D. N. Schramm, {\it Nat.} {\bf 340},
671: 126 (1989).
672: \bibitem{jpap}B. Paczy\'{n}ski {\it Acta. Astron.} {\bf 41},
673: 257 (1991).
674: \bibitem{jpap}R. Narayan, B. Paczy\'{n}ski and T. Piran {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 359},
675: L83 (1992).
676: \bibitem{jpap}P. M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros and M. J. Rees, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 397},
677: 570 (1992).
678: \bibitem{jpap}Z. B. Zhang et al., {\it Chinese. J. Astron. Ast.,
679: accepted}, 2006, astro-ph/0603710
680: \bibitem{jpap}Z. B. Zhang et al., {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.},
681: 2006, submitted
682: \bibitem{jpap}B. Zhang et al., {\it Astrophys. J., in press}, 2005,
683: astro-ph/0508321
684: \bibitem{jpap}X. Y. Wang, Z. G., Dai, T., Lu, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 319},
685: 1159 (2000)
686: \bibitem{jpap}B. Zhang, S. Kobayashi, P. M\'{e}sz\'{a}ros, {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 595},
687: 950 (2003)
688: \end{thebibliography}
689:
690: \end{document}
691: