arxiv:astro-ph/ v1 11 Mar 2005

Transcription

1 Evidence for isotropic emission in GRB R. Ruffini a,b M.G. Bernardini a,b C.L. Bianco a,b P. Chardonnet a,c F. Fraschetti a,d S.-S. Xue a,b arxiv:astro-ph/ v1 11 Mar 2005 a ICRA International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics. b Dip. Fisica, Univ. Roma La Sapienza, P.le A. Moro 5, Roma, Italy. c Univ. Savoie, LAPTH - LAPP, BP 110, Annecy-le-Vieux Cedex, France. Abstract d Univ. Trento, Via Sommarive 14, Povo (Trento), Italy. The issue of the possible presence or absence of jets in GRBs is here re-examined for GRB991216, which has a claimed half-opening beaming angle of ϑ = 3. We compare and contrast our theoretically predicted afterglow luminosity in the 2 10 kev band for spherically symmetric versus jetted emission. Jetted emission can be excluded and data analysis confirms spherical symmetry. These theoretical fits are expected to be largely improved by the forthcoming data of the Swift mission. In addition to the source GRB991216, our model has been applied successfully, assuming spherical symmetry, to GRB980519, GRB980425, GRB and to GRB Key words: gamma-ray bursts, radiation mechanisms: thermal, black hole physics The determination of the presence or absence of jets in Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB) afterglows offers a powerful tool for identifying the proper energetics and the physical nature of GRB sources. We here re-examine a source in which a narrow half-opening beaming angle ϑ has been claimed: GRB991216, with ϑ = 3 (Halpern et al., 2000). We show that such source is consistent with a spherically symmetric afterglow. The choice of this source is mainly motivated by the superb set of data existing for GRB in the prompt emission (in the band kev observed by BATSE GRB Rapid Burst Response, 1999) and in the afterglow (in the band 2 10 kev observed by R-XTE and Chandra, see Corbet & Smith, 2000; Halpern et al., 2000; Piro et al., 2000). In recent publications (see Ruffini et al., 2003c, and references therein) we have developed the basic formulas for the GRB model. This development differs somewhat from the usual presentation in the literature. The differences address: ruffini@icra.it (R. Ruffini). Preprint submitted to Elsevier Science 10 May 2008

2 includes: a) the entire spacetime parametrization of the GRB phenomenon starting from the moment of gravitational collapse, to the optically thick accelerated phase, all the way to the afterglow (Ruffini et al., 2001a); b) the identification of the prompt radiation as the early emission in the afterglow era (Ruffini et al., 2001b, 2002b); and c) a marked distinction between the sharp X and γ radiation, which is energetically predominant in the afterglow ( 90%), and the highly variable radiation emitted in the optical and radio bands which is generally much weaker and, in some cases, totally absent (Ruffini et al., 2004b). The usual presentations in the literature consider the afterglow radiation in all wavelength from the γ rays all the way to the radio as originating from a unique physical process mainly related to synchrotron radiation (see e.g. Jaunsen et al., 2001; Frail et al., 2000a,b; Panaitescu & Kumar, 2001, and references therein). In our approach we assume instead that the X and γ radiation originates from the emission in the shock front with a thermal spectrum in the co-moving frame. The optical and radio emission is assumed to be emitted by the matter compressed in the pre-shock region, possibly with contributions from magnetic fields and synchrotron emission (Ruffini et al., 2004b,c). It has been important to identify the truly independent physical variables describing the interaction of the shock front with the InterStellar Medium (ISM). The X and γ radiation does not depend from the detailed structure of the ISM describable by an infinite number of parameters. In fact we find that it can be described by only two variables: the ISM density n ism and the parameter R = A eff /A abm, which gives the ratio between the effective emitting area A eff and the baryonic matter pulse surface area A abm. This factor R, with the density n ism, is sufficient to identify the ISM filamentary structure and the basic physical process originating the X and γ flux in GRB afterglows. Other physical variables related to the ISM, like the intensity and structure of the magnetic field, may become relevant for the description of the optical and radio emission originating from the pre-shock region. For GRB in the decaying part of the afterglow (corresponding to a photon arrival time at the detector t d a > 103 s) n ism and R are constant for all values of the radial coordinate. The large variability of the R factor occurs in the prompt radiation, which is not directly relevant for the issue of the beaming of the source here discussed. This progress has allowed to obtain very specific theoretical predictions for the luminosity of the entire afterglow in fixed X and γ energy bands (Ruffini et al., 2004b,c). We have fitted by a unified theoretical approach the prompt radiation and the decaying part of the afterglow. The prompt radiation has been shown to coincide with the emission of the peak of the afterglow (Ruffini et al., 2001a,b, 2002b). In the following, for the analysis of the possible presence of jets, we shall address uniquely the predictions in the decaying part of the afterglow. The jet structure is in fact not observable in the prompt radiation due to the extremely narrow relativistic beaming in that era (Ruffini et al., 2002b). The determination of the presence or absence of beaming depends crucially as well: a) on the initial conditions at the beginning of the afterglow era, which are functions of only two free 2

3 parameters: the total energy E tot, which coincides with the dyadosphere energy E dya (see Ruffini, 1998; Preparata et al., 1998; Cherubini et al., 2002; Ruffini & Vitagliano, 2002, 2003; Ruffini et al., 2003d,e), and the amount M B of baryonic matter left over from the gravitational collapse of the progenitor star, which is determined by the dimensionless parameter B = M B c 2 /E dya (see Ruffini et al., 2000); b) on the equations of motion of the accelerated baryonic matter pulse which, interacting with the ISM, gives origin to the afterglow (Ruffini et al., 2003c, and references therein); and c) on the afterglow EQuiTemporal Surfaces (EQTS, see Ruffini et al., 2002b; Bianco & Ruffini, 2004, 2005). The two free parameters describing the source (see Ruffini et al., 2003c) are: E dya = erg, B = This leads to the following conditions at the beginning of the afterglow era: t d a = s, r = cm, γ = 340.3, M B = g. Starting from the above initial conditions, we have obtained the equations of motion for the baryonic matter giving rise to the afterglow radiation as well as the precise expressions of the EQTSs shown in Bianco & Ruffini (2004, 2005). The temperature T of the black body in the comoving frame is: T = ( ) 1/4 deint, (1) 4πr 2 dτσr where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and de int is the energy developed during the co-moving time dτ by the collision (see Ruffini et al., 2004b). The source luminosity at a detector arrival time t d a, per unit solid angle dω and in the energy band [ν 1, ν 2 ] is given by (see Ruffini et al., 2003c, 2004b): de [ν 1,ν 2 ] γ dt d adω = 1 [ dε v cosϑ 4π EQTS Λ 4 ] dt W (ν 1, ν 2, T arr ) dσ, (2) where dε = de int /V is the energy density released in the interaction of the ABM pulse with the ISM inhomogeneities measured in the comoving frame, ϑ is the angle between the radial expansion velocity of a point on the pulse surface and the line of sight, Λ = γ(1 (v/c) cosϑ) is the Doppler factor, W (ν 1, ν 2, T arr ) is an effective weight required to evaluate only the contributions in the energy band [ν 1, ν 2 ], dσ is the surface element of the EQTS at detector arrival time t d a on which the integration is performed (see Ruffini et al., 2002b; Bianco & Ruffini, 2004, 2005) and T arr is the observed temperature of the radiation emitted from dσ: dt d a T arr = T 1 γ (1 (v/c)cosϑ) (1 + z). (3) The effective weight W (ν 1, ν 2, T arr ) is given by the ratio of the integral over the given energy band of a Planckian distribution at a temperature T arr to 3

4 Source luminosity (ergs/(s*sterad)) kev 2-10 kev ϑ 0 = kev spherical BATSE noise level GRB Observed afterglow data GRB Observed peak value Observed flux (ergs/(cm 2 *s)) Source luminosity (ergs/(s*sterad)) kev ϑ 0 = kev isotropic GRB Observed afterglow data Observed flux (ergs/(cm 2 *s)) d Detector arrival time (t a ) (s) Detector arrival time (t a d ) (s) Fig. 1. Left panel: Best fit of the afterglow data of GRB The dotted curve is the luminosity in the kev energy band. The solid curve is the luminosity in the 2 10 kev band computed assuming spherical symmetry. The observational data from R-XTE and Chandra (see Halpern et al., 2000) are perfectly consistent with such an assumption. The presence of a ϑ = 3 half-opening beaming angle (dashed curve) is ruled out. Right panel: Enlargement of the plot in the region of the afterglow observational data from R-XTE and Chandra. the total integral at 4 arr : W (ν 1, ν 2, T arr ) = 1 ν2 ρ (T atarr 4 arr, ν) d ν 1 ( ) 3 hν, (4) c where ρ (T arr, ν) is the Planckian distribution at temperature T arr : ρ (T arr, ν) = 2 h 3 hν e hν/(ktarr) 1. (5) The estimate of the theoretically predicted luminosity in a fixed energy band as a function of the initial data is then perfectly well defined both for the prompt radiation and the decaying part of the afterglow. From a numerical point of view the integration over the EQTSs and the associated relativistic transformations is time consuming and raises unprecedented difficulties. Almost 10 8 paths with different temperatures and different Lorentz boosts have to be considered in the integration over the EQTSs. We give in Fig. 1 the results in the two energy bands kev (observed by BATSE) and 2 10 kev (observed by R-XTE and Chandra). It is most remarkable that the best fit of the descending part of the afterglow (for a photon arrival time at the detector t d a > 103 s) is obtained by a constant factor R = and a constant n ism = 3.0 particles/cm 3. We point out the agreement with the data of the prompt radiation obtained by BATSE in the energy range kev (see the dotted line in Fig. 1). We have succeeded as well in the fit of the data obtained by the R-XTE and Chandra satellites (Halpern et al., 2000) in the energy range 2 10 kev (see dashed line in Fig. 1). These data refer to the decaying part of the afterglow. These fits cover a time span of 10 6 s and it is remarkable that they are a sole function of the two variables R and n ism 4

5 which have a constant value in this region. We have also computed, within this global self-consistent approach which fits both the prompt radiation and the decaying part of the afterglow, the flux in the 2 10 kev range which would be expected for a beamed emission with half opening angle ϑ = 3, see Fig. 1. The presence of beaming manifest itself, as expected, in the decaying part of the afterglow and is incompatible with the data. One may think that the issues pertaining to the afterglow may be treated independently from the prompt radiation phase. We here recall that the prompt radiation is the emission occurring at the peak of the afterglow and has a crucial role in identifying the basic GRB parameters in order to determine the luminosity in selected energy bands (see left panel in Fig. 1 and, e.g., Ruffini et al., 2001b, 2002b). One may also think, at a first glance, that our afterglow theory contains an infinite number of parameters: it depends, as it should, on the structure of the ISM which, in principle, is variable from point to point. One of the main conclusions with respect to the issue of the symmetries of the afterglow is that our theory depends only on four parameters: E dya and B, characterizing the source, and n ism and R, characterizing the ISM structure. These last two parameters are indeed strong function of the radial coordinate during the prompt radiation phase: the afterglow there has a very high value of the Lorentz factor (typically γ > 300), then the narrow relativistic beaming angle makes the observed light curve a detailed tomographic image of the ISM structure (see e.g. Dermer & Mitman, 1999; Ruffini et al., 2002b). Instead, in the decaying part of the afterglow, which is the one relevant for assessing the presence or absence of beaming, the Lorentz gamma factor sharply diminishes, the aperture of the relativistic beaming becomes quite large and the effective values of n ism and R, integrated over the EQTSs, converge to an average constant value. One may also notice that our theory sharply differs from the so-called state of the art in this field. Instead of the traditional multiwavelenght approach, we differentiate the mechanisms for the sharp X and γ radiation, originating in the shock front with a thermal spectrum in the co-moving frame, from the ones originating the radio and optical radiation, which we expect to be emitted ahead of the shock front by more traditional synchrotron processes. We give here evidence for the validity of such a theoretical approach. We expect these results to be further supported, with improvements in the accuracy of the fits, by the advent of the data by the Swift satellite. Much more details should soon be available on the prompt emission and on the crucial early afterglow phase of GRBs. We also like to point out that additional and independent evidence for GRB spherical symmetry comes from the fit of the spectral data (Ruffini et al., 2004b). We can then draw the following general conclusions: 1) It is clear that a spherically symmetric expansion of the GRB afterglow is perfectly consistent with the data, rather than a narrow jet as previous authors have concluded. 2) The actual afterglow luminosity in fixed energy bands, in spherical symmetry, does not have a simple power law dependence on arrival time (see Fig. 5

6 1). This circumstance has been erroneously interpreted, in the usual presentation in the literature, as a broken power-law supporting the existence of jet-like structures in GRBs. Moreover, the slope of the beamed emission and the arrival time at which the break occurs have been there computed using the incorrect equations of motion for the afterglow and the incorrect EQTSs (Bianco & Ruffini, 2004, 2005). 3) If one assumes the presence of jets in a consistent afterglow theory, one finds that the break corresponding to the purported beaming appears at an arrival time incompatible with the observations (see right panel in Fig. 1). In addition to the source GRB991216, our model has been applied successfully, assuming spherical symmetry, to GRB (see Ruffini et al., 2004a), GRB (see Ruffini et al., 2002a), GRB (see Ruffini et al., 2003a) and to GRB (see Corsi et al., 2003). The fact that with only four parameters we can describe GRBs with energy ranging over 6 orders of magnitude clearly supports the validity and generality of our model and the absence of beaming is confirmed in all these GRBs. Finally, the GRB spherical symmetry unambiguously points to the electromagnetic energy component of the black hole extractable energy as the GRB energy source (Christodoulou & Ruffini, 1971; Damour & Ruffini, 1975). The role of the extraction of the rotational energy component by a toroidal dyadosphere internal to the black hole ergosphere (Ruffini, 2004) may play an important role in microquasars (see e.g. Mirabel & Rodríguez, 1999, and references therein) and active galactic nuclei (see e.g. Sulentic et al., 2000, and references therein), but not in the case of GRBs. References BATSE GRB Rapid Burst Response, msfc. nasa. gov/~kippen/batserbr/ Bianco, C.L., & Ruffini, R. 2004, ApJ, 605, L1. Bianco, C.L., & Ruffini, R. 2005, ApJ, 620, L23. Cherubini, C., Ruffini, R., & Vitagliano, L. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 545, 226. Christodoulou, D., & Ruffini, R. 1971, Phys. Rev. D, 4, Corbet, R., Smith, D.A. 2000, in Rossi2000: Astrophysics with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, Greenbelt, MD USA, meeting abstract. Corsi, A., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., Ruffini, R., & Xue, S.-S. 2003, in Proceedings of the 2003 GRB Conference, AIP, in press. Damour, T., & Ruffini, R. 1975, Phys. Rev. Lett., 35, 463. Dermer, C.D., & Mitman, K.E. 1999, ApJ, 513, L5. Frail, D.A., et al. 2000a, ApJ, 534, 559. Frail, D.A., et al. 2000b, ApJ, 538, L129. Halpern, J.P., et al. 2000, ApJ, 543, 697. Jaunsen, A.O., et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, 127. Mirabel, I.F., & Rodríguez, L.F. 1999, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astroph., 37,

7 Panaitescu, A., & Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 554, 667. Piro, L., et al. 2000, Science, 290, 955. Preparata, G., Ruffini, R., & Xue, S.-S. 1998, A&A, 338, L87, 2003, J. Korean Phys. Soc., 42, S99. Ruffini, R. 1998, in Black Holes and High Energy Astrophysics, Proceedings of the 49th Yamada Conference, H. Sato, N. Sugiyama (eds.), Univ. Ac. Press, Tokyo. Ruffini, R. 2004, in Kerr Fest Black Holes in Astrophysics, General Relativity & Quantum Gravity, D. Wiltshire (ed.), Cambridge University Press (in press). Ruffini, R., Bernardini, M.G., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., & Xue, S.-S. 2002a, in Proceedings of the 34 th COSPAR scientific assembly, Elsevier, in press. Ruffini, R., Bernardini, M.G., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Corsi, A., Fraschetti, F., & Xue, S.-S. 2003a in Proceedings of the Tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, M. Novello, S.E. Perez-Bergliaffa (eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, in press. Ruffini, R., Bernardini, M.G., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., & Xue, S.-S. 2004a, ApJ, submitted to. Ruffini, R., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., & Xue, S.-S. 2001a, ApJ, 555, L107. Ruffini, R., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., & Xue, S.-S. 2001b, ApJ, 555, L113. Ruffini, R., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., & Xue, S.-S. 2002b, ApJ, 581, L19. Ruffini, R., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., Vitagliano, L., & Xue, S.-S. 2003c, in Cosmology and Gravitation, M. Novello, S.E. Perez Bergliaffa (eds.), AIP Conference proceedings 668, p. 16. Ruffini, R., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., Gurzadyan, V., & Xue, S.-S. 2004b, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 13, 843. Ruffini, R., Bianco, C.L., Chardonnet, P., Fraschetti, F., Gurzadyan, V., & Xue, S.-S. 2004c, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, to appear. Ruffini, R., Salmonson, J.D., Wilson, J.R., & Xue, S.-S. 2000, A&A, 359, 855. Ruffini, R., & Vitagliano, L. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 545, 233. Ruffini, R., & Vitagliano, L. 2003, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 12, 121. Ruffini, R., Vitagliano, L., & Xue, S.-S. 2003d, Phys. Lett. B, 559, 12. Ruffini, R., Vitagliano, L., & Xue, S.-S. 2003e, Phys. Lett. B, 573, 33. Sulentic, J.W., Marziani, P., & Dultzin-Hacyan, D. 2000, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astroph., 38,