Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences

The Korean Space Science Society (한국우주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Spectral Sharpness Angle of Gamma-ray Bursts

  • Yu, Hoi-Fung (Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics) ;
  • van Eerten, Hendrik J. (Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics) ;
  • Greiner, Jochen (Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics) ;
  • Sari, Re'em (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) ;
  • Bhat, P. Narayana (Center for Space Plasma and Aeronomic Research, University of Alabama in Huntsville) ;
  • Kienlin, Andreas von (Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics) ;
  • Paciesas, William S. (Universities Space Research Association) ;
  • Preece, Robert D. (Space Science Department, University of Alabama in Huntsville)
  • Received : 2016.05.10
  • Accepted : 2016.06.02
  • Published : 2016.06.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We explain the results of Yu et al. (2015b) of the novel sharpness angle measurement to a large number of spectra obtained from the Fermi gamma-ray burst monitor. The sharpness angle is compared to the values obtained from various representative emission models: blackbody, single-electron synchrotron, synchrotron emission from a Maxwellian or power-law electron distribution. It is found that more than 91% of the high temporally and spectrally resolved spectra are inconsistent with any kind of optically thin synchrotron emission model alone. It is also found that the limiting case, a single temperature Maxwellian synchrotron function, can only contribute up to 58+23−18% of the peak flux. These results show that even the sharpest but non-realistic case, the single-electron synchrotron function, cannot explain a large fraction of the observed spectra. Since any combination of physically possible synchrotron spectra added together will always further broaden the spectrum, emission mechanisms other than optically thin synchrotron radiation are likely required in a full explanation of the spectral peaks or breaks of the GRB prompt emission phase.

Keywords

1. INTRODUCTION

Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are the most luminous gamma-ray transients ever observed by humankind. There are two different observed phases of electromagnetic emissions, namely the prompt and afterglow phases. The fireball model (Goodman 1986; Rees & Meszaros 1992; Meszaros et al. 1993; Meszaros & Rees 1993; Rees & Meszaros 1994; Tavani 1996; Piran 1999) states that the ejected materials with various Lorentz factors (~ 100 – 1,000) from the central engine form a bipolar jet structure. When the shells of matter of the jet collide, shock waves will be formed and prompt gamma-rays are emitted from the shock-accelerated materials. When the matter shells continue to travel outward, they will eventually interact with the circumburst medium, where similar processes take place and afterglow (from gamma-ray to radio) is emitted.

The emission mechanisms of the prompt and afterglow phases provide information for the physical processes at work. For decades, astrophysicists believe that the prompt emission is generated by synchrotron radiation from electron populations as the afterglow emission. However, observations of the prompt phase are not as conclusive as the afterglow phase since the prompt phase is only observed in gamma-rays for most GRBs, whereas the synchrotron origin of afterglow is validated by multi-wavelength observations of many bursts.

Gamma-ray spectroscopy is the key to investigate the emission mechanism of the prompt phase. Thanks to the gamma-ray burst monitor (GBM, Meegan et al. 2009) onboard the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, high spectral and temporal resolution spectra are obtained for > 2,000 GRBs since its launch in July 2008. The GBM covers a very wide spectral range from 8 keV – 40 MeV by two kinds of detectors, the thallium activated sodium iodide (NaI(Tl)) detectors responsible for lower energy (8 – 900 keV) and the bismuth germanate (BGO) detectors responsible for higher energy (250 keV – 40 MeV).

The study of the sharpness of the synchrotron emission spectrum in comparison to time-resolved spectra of GRBs is a question recently raised by Beloborodov (2013) and Vurm & Beloborodov (2015). In this proceeding we discuss the results presented in Yu et al. (2015b), in which a total of 1,491 time bins with constrained spectral parameters are obtained (see the official time-resolved spectral catalog, Yu et al. 2016). For 1,113 of them, a spectral peak or break is present within the GBM spectral window. Using a novel quantity called the sharpness angle, we are able to quantify the spectral curvature of these 1,113 spectra and comparing to theoretical emission models.

In Section 2, we describe how this novel quantity is constructed. The key results are presented in Section 3. Some of the theoretical implications are discussed in Section 4. The conclusions are given in Section 5. Unless otherwise stated, all errors reported in this paper are given at the 1σ confidence level.

2. SHARPNESS ANGLE DEFINITION

The spectra are re-fit as described in Yu et al. (2015b). We normalize the re-fit model curves in logarithmic space for those 1,113 spectra by setting the peak energy Ep or break energy Eb and the corresponding energy flux νFν at (x, y) = (1, 1). Then, we can construct a triangle {(1, 1), (0.1 Ep, νFν(0.1Ep)), (3.0 Ep, νFν(3.0Ep))} below the model curve. The sharpness angle θ is defined as the angle below (1, 1) in this triangle (Fig. 1). By such definition, θ is an indication of the spectral sharpness and is independent of the actual position of Ep, which means they are also independent of redshift.

Fig. 1.Illustration of how the triangle is constructed and the sharpness angle θ is defined. The vertical and horizontal axis are plotted in logarithmic scale in units of normalized νFν flux and photon energy, respectively.

3. RESULTS

Fig. 2 shows the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the sharpness angles θ and the distributions of the errors σθ. The dotted, solid, and dashed black vertical lines indicate the values of θ for the normalized blackbody, single-electron synchrotron emission function, and synchrotron emission function from a Maxwellian electron distribution, from left to right. It is found that over 35% of the spectra are inconsistent with single-electron synchrotron emission and 91% are inconsistent with synchrotron emission from a Maxwellian electron distribution. The blackbody spectrum is found to be much sharper than any of the observed spectra. Note that the synchrotron emission function from a Maxwellian electron distribution produces one of the sharpest (i.e., narrowest) spectra (see Section 2.2 of Yu et al. 2015b).

Fig. 2.Cumulative distribution functions of θ and distributions of σθ. The limits of the normalized blackbody (dotted line), single-electron synchrotron (solid line), and synchrotron with a Maxwellian distribution function (dashed line) are overlaid.

Instead of directly propagate the errors on the observed photon counts to the sharpness angles, Monte-Carlo simulations are performed using the 1σ errors from the best-fit spectral parameters. This is because the spectral peak can only be found and the flux can only be normalized when the counts are convolved with a model and the response matrices, through the official GBM spectral analysis software RMFIT. The errors on the spectral parameters are not necessarily Gaussian distributed, therefore new values are randomly drawn from a uniform probability distribution function which has the largest standard deviation. In this way, our estimation of σθ is most conservative. As shown in Fig. 2, the resulting distribution of σθ has a median around 5 degrees, too small to affect our conclusions.

It is found that 35% of the 1,113 spectra violate the synchrotron line-of-death (Katz 1994; Tavani 1995; Preece et al. 1998; Crider et al. 1999; Preece et al. 2002), higher than the 20% observed by Gruber et al. (2014) in their peak-flux “P” spectra sample. This implies that a large number of spectra are still consistent with the line-of-death. However, we find that in the 65% of spectra that do not violate the line-of-death, 92% of them violate the Maxwellian limit. This shows that the sharpness angle method can identify many more spectra that are consistent with the line-of-death but are still sharper than what the synchrotron theory predicts. By contrast, of the 35% of spectra that violate the line-of-death, only 10% of them do not violate the Maxwellian limit.

In Fig. 3, we show the distribution of the maximum peak flux allowed by the best-fit model curves to be contributed by the Maxwellian synchrotron function. For the spectra that do not have a peak, we compute this value at the spectral break. A sample spectrum from GRB 101014.175 is plotted in Fig. 4. The normalized Maxwellian synchrotron function was shifted vertically and horizontally until the distance between its value at x = 1 and the peak of the fit model is minimized. The advantage of evaluating this value at the peak of the fit model is that it is energy domain independent. It is found that the Maxwellian can only contribute up to 58+23−18% of the peak flux (solid histogram). Even if the minimum sharpness angles (i.e., the broadest spectra) allowed by the uncertainties in the best-fit parameters are considered, this percentage only slightly increases to 68+23−23% (dashed histogram).

Fig. 3.Distribution of the maximum fraction contributed from the Maxwellian synchrotron function at x = 1. The solid histograms represent the distributions using the best-fit model parameters, while the dashed histogram shows the minimum allowed sharpness by the uncertainties from the best-fit parameters. Spectra with 100% at x = 1 are accumulated in the last bin.

Fig. 4.Example spectrum taken from GRB 101014.175 (2.560 − 3.584 sec), showing the maximum contribution to the best-fit model by the Maxwellian synchrotron function, at x = 1. The normalized Maxwellian synchrotron (green curve) and the best-fit model (black curve) overlaid. The black dashed lines show the peak position of the best fit model and the relative normalized flux levels. In this particular spectrum, the Maxwellian fraction is about 65% at x = 1. Deep green data points are from the BGO detector and the others are from the NaI detectors. Triangles represent upper limits. For display purpose, the bin size has been increased by a factor of 5 − 10 relative to the standard bin size.

We select and plot in Fig. 5 the evolution of θ for 6 example bursts, with the Maxwellian synchrotron limit and the observed light curves overlaid. It can be seen that θ exhibits various evolutionary trends. These bursts are chosen to show the variety of evolutionary trends in θ: gradual increase, gradual decrease, fluctuation between the single-electron and Maxwellian limits, small θ during low emission level and large θ during high emission level, large θ during low emission level and small θ during high emission level, and decrease from above the Maxwellian limit followed by an increase again to above the Maxwellian limit. No general evolutionary trend is found from our burst sample.

Fig. 5.Six examples of evolutionary trends of θ. Red, blue, or green color indicates that the best-fit model is exponential cutoff power law (COMP), Band function (BAND), or smoothly broken power law (SBPL), respectively. The light curves are overlaid in arbitrary units. The limits of the normalized blackbody (dotted line), single-electron synchrotron (solid line), and synchrotron emission from a Maxwellian electron distribution (dashed line) are overlaid.

4. DISCUSSIONS

Our results show that for most GRB prompt emission spectra, an explanation in terms of synchrotron radiation can be problematic. In the internal shocks of GRBs, a single-electron emission function is obviously non-realistic (as there must be multiple electrons in the outflow) and a Maxwellian population drawn from a single temperature is the limiting case. Even this limiting case is already too wide to fit most GRB time-resolved spectra.

For the past two decades, the so-called Band function (Band et al. 1993) has been assumed to be the appropriate mathematical function in fitting most GRB prompt spectra. The fact that most spectra are best fit by the exponential cutoff power-law model (see Yu et al. 2016) shows that the high-energy tail of the prompt spectrum is actually sharper than a Band function would predict. Recently, Ackermann et al. (2012) showed that the Band function’s high-energy power laws obtained from GBM spectral fits are too hard for a subsample of GBM bursts with upper limits from the Fermi large area telescope (LAT, Atwood et al. 2009). All these results are indicating that the Band function can lead to incorrect interpretation of the data.

Constructing another empirical function to improve upon the Band function fits is very difficult, because the Band function is already very simple mathematically and statistically. Yu et al. (2015a) have shown that a triple power law with sharp breaks constrained according to the synchrotron models could only perform as good as the Band function. In many cases, an extra blackbody is needed to adequately describe the spectral curvature. Recently, for instance, Burgess et al. (2011, 2014) performed physical model fits, and Uhm & Zhang (2014) have done simulations under more realistic physical condition, e.g., a decaying magnetic field. However, without knowledge of the true emission process, it is difficult to formulate a sufficiently well-constrained physical fit function. There may also be multiple emission mechanisms at work, the sum of which forms the observed prompt spectra. The sharpness angle distribution implies that any model based on standard synchrotron theory without additional radiative and/or absorption mechanisms will systematically struggle to capture the prompt spectral curvature.

Recently, Axelsson & Borgonovo (2015) have shown that using the full-width-half-maximum measurement of GRB prompt emission spectra taken from the BATSE 5B GRB spectral catalog (Goldstein et al. 2013) and 4-years Fermi GBM GRB time-integrated spectral catalog (Gruber et al. 2014), a significant fraction of bursts (78% for long and 85% for short GRBs) could not be explained by a Maxwellian population-based slow-cooling synchrotron function. Our results show that using the time-resolved spectra this violation is actually more severe, with over 91% of spectra obtained from long bursts violating the Maxwellian synchrotron function drawn from a single temperature, which is already a limiting case.

Besides non-thermal models, one may construct a thermal emission dominated model to explain the observed sharpness angles. However, fitting multiple blackbodies is statistically meaningless, as one may construct any function from a polynomial fit. Simple photospheric models face difficulties in explaining the observed data. For example, early theoretical studies of a pure thermal origin of GRB prompt emission, such as from freely expanding photospheric outflows with no baryonic matter or magnetic field (Goodman 1986; Paczynski 1986), struggled to explain the shape of the prompt phase and the two modes of observed Ep evolutionary trends (i.e., hard-to-soft evolution and intensity tracking, see, e.g., Ford et al. 1995). Recent studies (e.g., Pe’er et al. 2006; Giannios 2008; Pe’er & Ryde 2011; Vurm et al. 2011; Ryde et al. 2011; Lazzati et al. 2013) suggested that the Band function can be reconstructed from a thermal model. However, Deng & Zhang (2014) claim that the hard-to-soft evolution of Ep is difficult to reproduce under natural photospheric conditions.

A frequently discussed alternative to the baryonic composition of the jets in GRBs is a magnetically, or Poynting flux, dominated jet (Thompson 1994; Drenkhahn & Spruit 2002; Lyutikov & Blandford 2003). In this scenario, the magnetic field dominates the energy density in the emitting region. Thus, the dominant emission mechanism will be synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons, since no cooling mechanism is known which is faster (see, e.g., Beniamini & Piran 2014). Our observational results therefore posed a challenge to Poynting flux dominated models, although Compton up-scattering from seed photons in the environment of an emerging Baryon-free jet offer a potential means of combining strongly magnetic outflows with a thermalized component or sharp spectrum (see, Gill & Thompson 2014, for a recent example). Moreover, Beloborodov (2013) argues that other optically thin emission models share the same problems of the synchrotron emission models, e.g., pitch-angle synchrotron radiation (Lloyd & Petrosian 2000) when the scatter angle in the comoving frame is not isotropic, and jitter radiation in turbulent magnetic fields (Medvedev 2000).

The minimum variability timescale (MVT, e.g., Bhat 2013; Golkhou & Butler 2014) of the light curves provides dynamical timescale of the emission process. In Fig. 6, we plot θ against temporal bin widths per MVT (for the computational method of the MVT, see Bhat 2013). It is observed that, in 1,064 spectra (49 spectra were excluded because they belong to bursts with no MVT due to bad or not enough GBM data), only 4.4% of the spectra have bin width less than the MVT for the respective burst. This means that the problem for the synchrotron theory may be even more severe, since our spectra are smoothened already by integrating over multiple emitting shells.

Fig. 6.Sharpness angles plotted against the temporal bin widths per MVT. Red data points show spectra best fit by the exponential cutoff power law (COMP), blue by the Band function (BAND), and green by the smoothly broken power law (SBPL). The vertical dash-dotted line shows where the bin width equals the MVT, only 4.4% of data points are located to the left of the line. The horizontal lines show the limits of the normalized blackbody (dotted), single-electron synchrotron (solid), and synchrotron emission from a Maxwellian electron distribution (dashed).

To investigate the effect of integrating multiple spectra, we compute the average time-resolved sharpness angle <θ> by weighing each spectrum equally. In Fig. 7, we compare <θ> to the sharpness angle computed using the time-integrated catalog (Gruber et al. 2014), θint, for every burst in our sample. Green color indicates the 7 bursts (10%) whose average sharpness angles are consistent with the Maxwellian synchrotron limit (note that individual θ values can still be inconsistent), orange color indicates the 55 bursts (79%) that are inconsistent with the Maxwellian synchrotron limit but consistent on average with the single-electron synchrotron limit, and red color indicates the 8 bursts (11%) that are inconsistent with the single-electron synchrotron limit. We note that the error bars of <θ> represent the standard deviations, which indicate the spread of the angle distributions within each burst. The error bars of θint are computed using the same procedure as described in Section 3, and are relatively small because the parameters are better constrained by higher photon counts.

Fig. 7.Comparison between the average sharpness angles, <θ>, to the sharpness angles computed using the time-integrated catalog, θint. The dash-dotted line shows x = y. The solid and dashed lines show the single-electron synchrotron and Maxwellian synchrotron limit, respectively. We note that the error bars of <θ> represent the spread in θ. See main text for the color-coding and details about the plots.

Fig. 7 shows that the time-integrated angles are systematically larger than the average time-resolved angles for individual bursts. We emphasize that different light curve binning methods are used in the time-resolved and time-integrated spectral catalog. In our time-resolved analysis, as mention in Yu et al. (2015b), the light curves are binned with S/N = 30, and then those spectra without a peak or break are excluded. In the time-integrated catalog (see, e.g., Gruber et al. 2014), all time intervals with S/N ≥ 3.5 are included. The fact that fewer bursts in the time-integrated spectral analysis are inconsistent with the Maxwellian limit underlines the importance of time-resolved analysis.

5. CONCLUSIONS

We reported the results given by Yu et al. (2015b) of the novel quantity, the sharpness angles θ, obtained from the observed time-resolved spectra of Fermi GRBs. The values are compared to the sharpest cases of the synchrotron radiation theory, namely the single-electron synchrotron and the Maxwellian distributed synchrotron emission function. More than 91% of the observed spectra are found to be sharper than the Maxwellian synchrotron function, indicating that a simple synchrotron radiation mechanism cannot be responsible for the peaks or breaks of GRB prompt emission spectra. No general evolutionary trend is observed for θ within bursts. Moreover, the Maxwellian synchrotron function can only contribute up to 58+23−18% of the peak flux. We conclude that the underlying prompt emission mechanism in GRBs must produce spectra sharper than a Maxwellian synchrotron function but broader than a blackbody.

It is still possible for synchrotron emission to dominate the spectrum away from the peak or break observed in the GBM energy range (e.g., at the LAT energy range). Also, a sub-dominant synchrotron component can allow for a continuous connection to the afterglow phase, where synchrotron emission is typically dominant (see, e.g., van Eerten 2015, for a recent review). The transition between prompt and afterglow is then marked by the disappearance of the non-synchrotron (likely thermal) component. There are other theoretical possibilities to explain GRB prompt emission, such as the collisional model of electron-positron pairs (e.g., Beloborodov 2010). For recent reviews on GRB prompt emission mechanisms, see, e.g., Zhang (2014) and Pe’er (2015).

A possibly similar inference can be made on the related phenomena of prompt optical emission showing a similar temporal profile as the gamma-ray emission (Elliott et al. 2014; Greiner et al. 2014) or very early X-ray flares (e.g., Pe’er et al. 2006; see also Hu et al. 2014 for a recent large Swift sample study): if the prompt emission is not dominated by synchrotron emission, this is likely the case for this longer wavelength emission as well (see, e.g., Starling et al. 2012; Peng et al. 2014).

Yu et al. (2015b) demonstrated a new method to quantify the shape of the observed GRB spectra, providing a tool for distinguishing between various standard emission functions. Ultimately, the question as to the viability of any particular emission model can only be fully resolved if complete spectral predictions for that model are tested directly against photon counts (see, e.g., Burgess et al. 2014).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

HFY and JG acknowledge support by the DFG cluster of excellence ‘Origin and Structure of the Universe’ (www. universe-cluster.de). HJvE acknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation. RS is partially supported by ISF, ISA and iCore grants. The GBM project is supported by the German Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi) via the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft und Raumfahrt (DLR) under the contract numbers 50 QV 0301 and 50 OG 0502.

References

  1. Ackermann M, Ajello M, Baldini L, Barbiellini G, Baring MG, et al., Constraining the high-energy emission from gamma-ray bursts with Fermi, Astrophys. J. 754, 121-140 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/754/2/121
  2. Atwood WB, Abdo AA, Ackermann M, Althouse W, Anderson B, et al., The large area telescope on the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope Mission, Astrophys. J. 697, 1071-1102 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071
  3. Axelsson M, Borgonovo L, The width of gamma-ray burst spectra, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 447, 3105-3154 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2675
  4. Band D, Matteson J, Ford L, Schaefer B, Palmer D, et al., BATSE observations of gamma-ray burst spectra. I. Spectral diversity, Astrophys. J. 413, 281-292 (1993). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/172995
  5. Beloborodov AM, Collisional mechanism for gamma-ray burst emission, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 407, 1033-1047 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16770.x
  6. Beloborodov AM, Regulation of the spectral peak in gammaray bursts, Astrophys. J. 764, 157-168 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/157
  7. Beniamini P, Piran T, The emission mechanism in magnetically dominated gamma-ray burst outflows, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 445, 3892-3907 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2032
  8. Bhat PN, Variability time scales of long, short GRBs, eprint arXiv:1307.7618 (2013).
  9. Burgess JM, Preece RD, Baring MG, Briggs MS, Connaughton V, et al., Constraints on the synchrotron shock model for the Fermi GRB 090820A observed by Gamma-ray Burst Monitor, Astrophys. J. 741, 24-29 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/741/1/24
  10. Burgess JM, Preece RD, Connaughton V, Briggs MS, Goldstein A, et al., Time-resolved analysis of Fermi gamma-ray bursts with fast- and slow-cooled synchrotron photon models, Astrophys. J. 784, 17-34 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/17
  11. Crider A, Liang EP, Preece RD, Briggs MS, Pendleton GN, et al., The spectral evolution of gamma-ray bursts, in 193rd AAS Meeting, Austin, TX, 6-9 Jan 1999.
  12. Deng W, Zhang B, Low energy spectral index, Ep evolution of quasi-thermal photosphere emission of gamma-ray bursts, Astrophys. J. 785, 112-126 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/785/2/112
  13. Drenkhahn G, Spruit HC, Efficient acceleration and radiation in Poynting flux powered GRB outflows, Astron. Astrophys. 391, 1141-1153 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020839
  14. Elliott J, Yu HF, Schmidl S, Greiner J, Gruber D, et al., Prompt emission of GRB 121217A from gamma-rays to the nearinfrared, Astron. Astrophys. 562, A100 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201322600
  15. Ford LA, Band DL, Matteson JL, Briggs MS, Pendleton GN, et al., BATSE observations of gamma-ray burst spectra. II. Peak energy evolution in bright, long bursts, Astrophys. J. 439, 307-321 (1995). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/175174
  16. Giannios D, Prompt GRB emission from gradual energy dissipation, Astron. Astrophys. 480, 305-312 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20079085
  17. Gill R, Thompson C, Non-thermal gamma-ray emission from delayed pair breakdown in a magnetized and photon-rich outflow, Astrophys. J. 796, 81-105 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/796/2/81
  18. Goldstein A, Preece RD, Mallozzi RS, Briggs MS, Fishman GJ, et al., The BATSE 5B gamma-ray burst spectral catalog, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 208, 21-50 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/21
  19. Golkhou VZ, Butler NR, Uncovering the intrinsic variability of gamma-ray bursts, Astrophys. J. 787, 90-98 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/90
  20. Goodman J, Are gamma-ray bursts optically thick?, Astrophys. J. Lett. 308, L47 (1986). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/184741
  21. Greiner J, Yu HF, Krühler T, Frederiks DD, Beloborodov A, et al., GROND coverage of the main peak of gamma-ray burst 130925A, Astron. Astrophys. 568, A75 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424250
  22. Gruber D, Goldstein A, von Ahlefeld VW, Bhat PN, Bissaldi E, et al., The Fermi GBM gamma-ray burst spectral catalog: four years of data, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 211, 12-38 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/211/1/12
  23. Hu YD, Liang EW, Xi SQ, Peng FK, Lu RJ, et al., Internal energy dissipation of gamma-ray bursts observed with Swift: precursors, prompt gamma-rays, extended emission, and late X-ray flares, Astrophys. J. 789, 145-157 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/789/2/145
  24. Katz JI, Low-frequency spectra of gamma-ray bursts, Astrophys. J. Lett. 432, L107-L109 (1994). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/187523
  25. Lazzati D, Morsony BJ, Margutti R, Begelman MC, Photospheric emission as the dominant radiation mechanism in long-duration gamma-ray bursts, Astrophys. J. 765, 103-109 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/765/2/103
  26. Lloyd NM, Petrosian V, Synchrotron radiation as the source of gamma-ray burst spectra, Astrophys. J. 543, 722-732 (2000). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/317125
  27. Lyutikov M, Blandford R, Gamma Ray Bursts as Electromagnetic Outflows, eprint arXiv:0312347 (2003).
  28. Medvedev MV, Theory of “Jitter” radiation from small-scale random magnetic fields and prompt emission from gamma-ray burst shocks, Astrophys. J. 540, 704-714 (2000). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/309374
  29. Meegan C, Lichti G, Bhat PN, Bissaldi E, Briggs MS, et al., The Fermi Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor, Astrophys. J. 702, 971-804 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/702/1/791
  30. Meszaros P, Rees MJ, Gamma-ray bursts: multiwaveband spectral predictions for blast wave models, Astrophys. J. Lett. 418, L59-L62 (1993). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/187116
  31. Meszaros P, Laguna P, Rees MJ, Gasdynamics of relativistically expanding gamma-ray burst sources - Kinematics, energetics, magnetic fields, and efficiency, Astrophys. J. 415, 181-190 (1993). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/173154
  32. Paczynski B, Gamma-ray bursters at cosmological distances, Astrophys. J. Lett. 308, L43-L46 (1986). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/184740
  33. Pe’er A, Physics of gamma-ray bursts prompt emission, Adv. Astron. 2015, 907321 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/907321
  34. Pe’er A, Ryde F, A theory of multicolor blackbody emission from relativistically expanding plasmas, Astrophys. J. 732, 49-56 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/732/1/49
  35. Pe’er A, Meszaros P, Rees MJ, The observable effects of a photospheric component on GRB and XRF prompt emission spectrum, Astrophys. J. 642, 995-1003 (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/501424
  36. Peng FK, Liang EW, Wang XY, Hou SJ, Xi SQ, et al., Photosphere emission in the X-ray flares of Swift gamma-ray bursts, implications for the fireball properties, Astrophys. J. 795, 155-169 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/795/2/155
  37. Piran T, Gamma-ray bursts and the fireball model, Phys. Rep. 314, 575-667 (1999). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6
  38. Preece RD, Briggs MS, Mallozzi RS, Pendleton GN, Paciesas WS, et al., The synchrotron shock model confronts a “Line of Death” in the BATSE Gamma-Ray Burst Data, Astrophys. J. Lett. 506, L23-L26 (1998). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/311644
  39. Preece RD, Briggs MS, Giblin TW, Mallozzi RS, Pendleton GN, et al., On the consistency of gamma-ray burst spectral indices with the synchrotron shock model, Astrophys. J. 581, 1248-1255 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/344252
  40. Rees MJ, Meszaros P, Relativistic fireballs: energy conversion and time-scales, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 258, 41P-43P (1992). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/258.1.41P
  41. Rees MJ, Meszaros P, Unsteady outflow models for cosmological gamma-ray bursts, Astrophys. J. 430, L93-L96 (1994). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/187446
  42. Ryde F, Pe’er A, Nymark T, Axelsson M, Moretti E, et al., Observational evidence of dissipative photospheres in gamma-ray bursts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 415, 3693-3705 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18985.x
  43. Starling RLC, Page KL, Pe’er A, Beardmore AP, Osborne JP, A search for thermal X-ray signatures in gamma-ray bursts – I. Swift bursts with optical supernovae, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 427, 2950-2964 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22116.x
  44. Tavani M, Shock high-energy emission mechanisms applied to SGRs and GRBs, Astrophys. Space Sci. 231, 181-186 (1995). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00658612
  45. Tavani M, A shock emission model for gamma-ray bursts. II. Spectral properties, Astrophys. J. 466, 768-778 (1996). http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/177551
  46. Thompson C, A model of gamma-ray bursts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 270, 480-498 (1994). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/270.3.480
  47. Uhm ZL, Zhang B, Fast-cooling synchrotron radiation in a decaying magnetic field and γ-ray burst emission mechanism, Nature Phys. 10, 351-356 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2932
  48. van Eerten HJ, Simulation and physical model based gamma-ray burst afterglow analysis, J. High Energy Astrophys. 7, 23-24 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.004
  49. Vurm I, Beloborodov AM, Radiative transfer models for gamma-ray bursts, eprint arXiv:1506.01107 (2015).
  50. Vurm I, Beloborodov AM, Poutanen J, Gamma-ray bursts from magnetized collisionally heated jets, Astrophys. J. 738, 77-89 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/77
  51. Yu HF, Greiner J, van Eerten H, Burgess JM, Bhat PN, et al., Synchrotron cooling in energetic gamma-ray bursts observed by the Fermi Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor, Astron. Astrophys. 573, A81 (2015a) http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424858
  52. Yu HF, van Eerten HJ, Greiner J, Sari R, Bhat PN, et al., The sharpness of gamma-ray burst prompt emission spectra, Astron. Astrophys. 583, A129 (2015b). http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527015
  53. Yu HF, Preece RD, Greiner J, Bhat PN, Bissaldi E, et al., The Fermi GBM gamma-ray burst time-resolved spectral catalog: brightest bursts in the first four years, Astron. Astrophys. 588, A135 (2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201527509
  54. Zhang B, Gamma-ray burst prompt emission, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23, 1430002 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S021827181430002X

Cited by

  1. Prompt gamma-ray burst emission from gradual magnetic dissipation vol.468, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx717