X ray flashes
Download
1 / 59

X-Ray Flashes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

X-Ray Flashes. D. Q. Lamb (U. Chicago). HETE-2. Swift. “Astrophysical Sources of High-Energy Particles and Radiation” Torun, Poland, 21 June 2005. X-Ray Flashes. X-Ray Flashes discovered by Heise et al. (2000) using WFC on Beppo SAX

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' X-Ray Flashes' - briar-harvey


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
X ray flashes
X-Ray Flashes

D. Q. Lamb (U. Chicago)

HETE-2

Swift

“Astrophysical Sources of High-Energy Particles and Radiation”

Torun, Poland, 21 June 2005


X ray flashes1
X-Ray Flashes

  • X-Ray Flashes discovered by Heise et al. (2000) using WFC on BeppoSAX

  • Defining X-ray flashes as bursts for which log (Sx/Sγ) > 0 (i.e., > 30 times that for “normal” GRBs)

    • ~ 1/3 of bursts localized by HETE-2 are XRFs

    • ~ 1/3 are “X-ray-rich” GRBs (“XRRs”)

  • Nature of XRFs is still largely unknown


Hete 2 x ray flashes vs grbs
HETE-2 X-Ray Flashes vs. GRBs

Sakamoto et al. (2004)

GRB Spectrum

Peaks in Gamma-Rays

XRF Spectrum

Peaks in X-Rays


Density of hete 2 bursts in s e peak plane
Density of HETE-2 Bursts in (S, Epeak)-Plane

Sakamoto et al. (2005)


Dependence of burst spectral peak energy e peak on isotropic equivalent energy e iso

BeppoSAX

HETE

Region of

Few Bursts

Region of

No Bursts

Slope = 0.5

5 orders of magnitude

Dependence of Burst Spectral Peak Energy (Epeak) on Isotropic-Equivalent Energy (Eiso)

HETE-2 results confirm & extend the Amati et al. (2002) relation:

Epeak ~ {Eiso} 0.5


Implications of hete 2 observations of xrfs and x ray rich grbs
Implications of HETE-2 Observations of XRFs and X-Ray-Rich GRBs

HETE-2 results, when combined with earlier BeppoSax and optical follow-up results:

  • Provide strong evidence that properties of XRFs, X-ray-rich GRBs (“XRRs”), and GRBs form a continuum

  • Suggest that these three kinds of bursts are closely related phenomena

  • Key result: approximatelyequal numbers of bursts per logrithmic interval in most observed properties (SE, Eobspeak, Eiso,Epeak, etc.)


Scientific importance of xrfs
Scientific Importance of XRFs

As most extreme burst population, XRFs provide severe constraints on burst models and unique insights into

  • Structure of GRB jets

  • GRB rate

  • Nature of Type Ic supernovae


Physical models of xrfs
Physical Models of XRFs

  • X-ray photons may be produced by the hot cocoon surrounding the GRB jet as it breaks out and could produce XRF-like events if viewed well off axis of jet (Meszaros et al. 2002, Woosley et al. 2003).

  • “Dirty fireball” model of XRFs posits that baryonic material is entrained in the GRB jet, resulting in a bulk Lorentz factor Γ << 300 (Dermer et al. 1999, Huang et al. 2002, Dermer and Mitman 2003).

  • At the opposite extreme, GRB jets in which the bulk Lorentz factor Γ >> 300 and the contrast between the bulk Lorentz factors of the colliding relativistic shells are small can also produce XRF-like events (Mochkovitch et al. 2003).

  • A highly collimated GRB jet viewed well off the axis of the jet will have low values of Eiso and Epeak because of the effects of relativistic beaming (Yamazaki et al. 2002, 2003, 2004).


Relation between e iso and e inf
Relation Between Eiso and Einfγ

θjet

Einfγ = (1-cos θjet) Eiso

= ΩjetEiso

Eiso = isotropic-equivalent

radiated energy

Einfγ = inferred radiated

energy

Uniform Jet


Distributions of e iso and e
Distributions of Eiso and Eγ

  • Eiso distribution is broad

  • Einfγ distribution is

    considerably narrower

Ghirlanda, Ghisselini, and Lazzati (2004);

see also Frail et al. (2001), Bloom et al. (2003)


Universal vs variable opening angle jets
Universal vs Variable Opening Angle Jets

θview = 0o

Relativistic Beaming

10o

20o

θjet = 20o

40o

60o

40o

Universal Jet: Variable Opening Angle (VOA) Jet:

Differences due to Differences due to different jet

different viewing opening anglesθjet

anglesθview


Jet profiles
Jet Profiles

Uniform Jet Gaussian/Fisher Jet Power-Law Jet

Rossi, Lazzati, Salmonson, and Ghisellini (2004)



Graziani s universal jet theorem
Graziani’s Universal Jet Theorem

  • Universal jet model that produces narrow distribution in one physical quantity (e.g., Einfγ) produces narrow distributions in all other physical quantities (e.g., Epeak, Eiso, etc.)

  • And vice versa: Universal jet model that produces broad distribution in one physical quantity (e.g., Eiso) produces broad distributions in all other physical quantities (e.g., Epeak, Einfγ, etc.)

  • But this is not what we observe – what we observe is are broad distributions in Epeak and Eiso, but a relatively narrow distribution in Einfγ

  • Variable opening angle (VOA) jets can do this because they have an additional degree of freedom: the distribution of jet opening angles θjet


Determining if bursts are detected
Determining If Bursts are Detected

DQL, Donaghy, and Graziani (2004)

BeppoSAX bursts

HETE-2 bursts


Uniform variable opening angle jet vs power law universal jet
Uniform Variable Opening-Angle Jet vs. Power-Law Universal Jet

DQL, Donaghy, and Graziani (2005)

Power-law universal jet Uniform variable opening-angle

(VOA) jet


Uniform variable opening angle jet vs power law universal jet1
Uniform Variable Opening-Angle Jet vs. Power-Law Universal Jet

DQL, Donaghy, and Graziani (2005)

  • VOA uniform jet can account for both XRFs and GRBs

  • Universal power-law jet can account for GRBs, but not

    both XRFs and GRBs – because distributions in Eiso

    and Eobspeak are too narrow


Gaussian fisher universal jet
Gaussian/Fisher Universal Jet vs. Power-Law Universal Jet

DQL, Donaghy, and Graziani (2005)


Phenomenological burst jets1
Phenomenological Burst Jets vs. Power-Law Universal Jet

Favored

Disfavored


Special relativistic beaming
Special Relativistic Beaming vs. Power-Law Universal Jet

  • Relativistic beaming produces low Eiso and Epeak

    values when uniform jet is viewed outside θjet

    (see Yamazaki et al. 2002, 2003, 2004)

  • Relativistic beaming must occur

  • Therefore very faint bursts w. Epeakobs in UV

    and optical must exist

  • However, key question is whether relativistic

    beaming dominates


Uniform voa jet relativistic beaming
Uniform VOA Jet + Relativistic Beaming vs. Power-Law Universal Jet

Epeak ~ Eiso1/2

Epeak ~ Eiso1/3

Yamazaki, Ioka, and Nakamura (2004)


Uniform voa jet relativistic beaming1
Uniform VOA Jet + Relativistic Beaming

Donaghy (2005)

Γ = 100

Γ = 300


Expected behavior of afterglow in relativistic beaming model
Expected Behavior of Afterglow in Relativistic Beaming Model


Observed behavior of afterglow
Observed Behavior of Afterglow in Relativistic Beaming Model

  • Swift/XRT observations

  • of XRF 050215b show

  • that the X-ray afterglow:

  • Does not show

    increase followed by

    rapid decrease

  • Rather, it joins

    smoothly onto

    end of burst

  • It then fades slowly

  • Safter/Sburst~ 1

  • Jet break time > 5d (> 20d)

    θjet > 25o (35o) at z = 0.5

Swift: XRF 050215b

BeppoSAX: XRF 020427


Phenomenological burst jets2
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model

Favored

Disfavored

Strongly Disfavored


X ray flashes vs grbs hete 2 and swift bat

HETE Passband in Relativistic Beaming Model

Swift Passband

X-Ray Flashes vs. GRBs: HETE-2 and Swift (BAT)

Even with the BAT’s huge effective area (~2600 cm2), only HETE-2 can determine the spectral properties of the most XRFs.

GRB Spectrum

Peaks in Gamma - Rays

XRF Spectrum

Peaks in X-Rays


Conclusions
Conclusions in Relativistic Beaming Model

  • As most extreme burst population, XRFs provide unique information about structure of GRB jets

    • Variable opening angle jet models favored; universal jet models disfavored; relativistic beaming models strongly disfavored

    • Absence of relativistic beaming Γ > 300

  • Confirming these conclusions will require

    • prompt localization of many more XRFs

    • determination of Epeak

    • determination of tjet from observations of X-ray afterglows

    • determination of redshifts z

  • HETE-2 is ideally suited to do thefirst two, whereas Swift (with Emin ~ 15 keV and 15 keV < E < 150 keV) is not; Swift is ideally suited to do thesecond two, whereas HETE-2 cannot

  • Prompt Swift XRT and UVOT observationsof HETE-2 XRFscan therefore greatlyadvance our understanding of XRFs – and therefore all bursts


Back up slides
Back Up Slides in Relativistic Beaming Model


Scientific importance of xrfs1
Scientific Importance of XRFs in Relativistic Beaming Model

  • As most extreme burst population, XRFs provide severe constraints on burst models and unique insights into

    • Structure of GRB jets

    • GRB rate

    • Nature of Type Ic supernovae

  • Some key questions regarding XRFs:

    • Are Einfγ (XRFs) << Einfγ (GRBs)?

    • Is the XRF population a direct extension of the GRB and X-Ray-Rich GRB populations (e.g., θjet)?

    • Are XRFs a separate component of GRBs (e.g., core/halo)?

    • Are XRFs due to different physics than GRBs and X-Ray Rich GRBs (e.g., relativistic beaming)?

    • Does burst population extend down to UV (and optical)?


Physical models of xrfs1
Physical Models of XRFs in Relativistic Beaming Model

  • X-ray photons may be produced by the hot cocoon surrounding the GRB jet as it breaks out and could produce XRF-like events if viewed well off axis of jet (Meszaros et al. 2002, Woosley et al. 2003).

  • “Dirty fireball” model of XRFs posits that baryonic material is entrained in the GRB jet, resulting in a bulk Lorentz factor Γ << 300 (Dermer et al. 1999, Huang et al. 2002, Dermer and Mitman 2003).

  • At the opposite extreme, GRB jets in which the bulk Lorentz factor Γ >> 300 and the contrast between the bulk Lorentz factors of the colliding relativistic shells are small can also produce XRF-like events (Mochkovitch et al. 2003).

  • A highly collimated GRB jet viewed well off the axis of the jet will have low values of Eiso and Epeak because of the effects of relativistic beaming (Yamazaki et al. 2002, 2003, 2004).

  • XRFs might be produced by a two-component jet in which GRBs and XRRs are produced by a high-Γ “core” and XRFs are produced by a low-Γ “halo” (Berger et al. 2004, Huang et al. 2004).


Grbs have standard energies
GRBs Have “Standard” Energies in Relativistic Beaming Model

Frail et al. (2001); Kumar and Panaitescu (2001)

Bloom et al.(2003)


Phenomenological jet models
Phenomenological Jet Models in Relativistic Beaming Model

(Diagram fromLloyd-Ronning and Ramirez-Ruiz 2002)

Universal

  • Power-Law Jet

  • Fisher Jet

  • Variable Opening-Angle (VOA)

  • Uniform Jet

  • Fisher Jet

  • VOA Uniform Jet + Relativistic Beaming

  • Core + Halo Jet


Phenomenological jet models1
Phenomenological Jet Models in Relativistic Beaming Model

(Diagram fromLloyd-Ronning and Ramirez-Ruiz 2002)

Universal

  • Power-Law Jet

  • Fisher Jet

  • Variable Opening-Angle (VOA)

  • Uniform Jet

  • Fisher Jet

  • VOA Uniform Jet + Relativistic Beaming

  • Core + Halo Jet


Universal Jet Variable Opening in Relativistic Beaming Model

Angle (VOA) Jet

Rossi, Lazzati, Salmonson, and Ghisellini (2004)


Phenomenological burst jets3
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model


Phenomenological burst jets4
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model


Phenomenological burst jets5
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model


Phenomenological burst jets6
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model


Phenomenological burst jets7
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model


Phenomenological burst jets8
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model


Phenomenological burst jets9
Phenomenological Burst Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model

Favored


Universal versus voa fisher jets
Universal Versus VOA Fisher Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model

Donaghy, Graziani and DQL (2004) – see Poster P-26

Universal Fisher jet w.

minimum thetajet = 2o

VOA Fisher jet w.

minimum thetajet = 2o


Universal versus voa fisher jets1
Universal Versus VOA Fisher Jets in Relativistic Beaming Model

Donaghy, Graziani and DQL (2004) – see Poster P-26

Universal Fisher jet

VOA Fisher jet

  • Peak of Egammainf ~ 5 times smaller than actual value

  • Egammainf distribution has low-energy tail (of XRFs)


Observed distribution of e gamma inf
Observed Distribution of E in Relativistic Beaming Modelgammainf

Berger et al. (2003)


Universal gaussian jet
Universal Gaussian Jet in Relativistic Beaming Model

Zhang et al. (2004)

  • In response to conclusion of DQL, Donaghy, and Graziani

    (2004), Zhang et al. (2004) proposed universal Gaussian jet

  • Universal Gaussian jet

    • can produce ~ equal numbers of bursts per logarithmic interval

    • requires minimum thetajet ~ 2o as does VOA uniform jet


Fisher jet models
Fisher Jet Models in Relativistic Beaming Model

  • We have shown mathematically that universal jet with emissivity given by Fisher distribution (which is natural extension of Gaussian distribution to sphere) have unique property of producing equal numbers of bursts per logarithmic interval in Eiso and therefore in most burst properties (Donaghy, Graziani, and DQL 2004 – Poster P-26)

  • We have also shown that Fisher jet produces a broad distribution in inferred radiated gamma-ray energy Egammainf, in contrast with VOA uniform jet

  • We have simulated universal and VOA Fisher jets

  • We find – as expected – that both models can reproduce most burst properties

  • However, both models require minimum thetajet ~ 2o, similar to VOA uniform jet


Universal versus voa fisher jet models
Universal Versus VOA Fisher Jet Models in Relativistic Beaming Model

Donaghy, Graziani and DQL (2004) – see Poster P-26

Universal Fisher jet

VOA Fisher jet


Voa uniform jet relativistic beaming
VOA Uniform Jet + Relativistic Beaming in Relativistic Beaming Model

  • Relativistic beaming produces low Eiso and Epeak

    values when uniform jet is viewed outside thetajet

    (see Yamazaki et al. 2002, 2003, 2004)

  • Relativistic beaming must be present

  • Therefore very faint bursts w. Epeakobs in UV

    and optical must exist

  • However, key question is whether this effect dominates

  • Yamazaki et al. (2004) use VOA uniform jet for

    XRRs and GRBs, relativistic beaming for XRFs

  • If Gamma ~ 100, some XRFs produced by

    relativistic beaming are detectable; but if Gamma

    ~ 300, very few are detectable => difficult to produce

    ~ equal numbers of XRFs, XRRs, and GRBs


Uniform jet relativistic beaming
Uniform Jet + Relativistic Beaming in Relativistic Beaming Model

Donaghy (2004) – Poster P-27

Maximum thetajet = 2o

Maximum thetajet = 20o


Uniform variable opening angle jet relativistic beaming
Uniform Variable Opening Angle Jet + Relativistic Beaming

Donaghy (2005)


Uniform variable opening angle jet relativistic beaming1
Uniform Variable Opening Angle Jet + Relativistic Beaming

Donaghy (2005)


Uniform universal jet relativistic beaming
Uniform Universal Jet + Relativistic Beaming

Maximum θjet = 2o

Maximum θjet = 20o

Donaghy (2005)


Uniform universal jet relativistic beaming1
Uniform Universal Jet + Relativistic Beaming

Maximum θjet = 2o

Maximum θjet = 20o

Donaghy (2005)


Implications of variable opening angle uniform jet
Implications of Variable Opening-Angle Uniform Jet Relativistic Beaming

  • Model implies most bursts have small Ωjet (these bursts are the hardest and most luminous) but we see very few of them

  • Range in Eiso of five decades => minimum range for Ωjet is ~ 6 x 10-5 < Ωjet < 6

  • Model therefore implies that there are ~ 105 more bursts with small Ωjet’s for every such burst we see => if so, RGRB might be comparable to RSN

  • However, efficiency in conversion of Eγ (Ejet) to Eiso may be less for XRFs, in which case:

    • Minimum opening angle of jet could be larger

    • GRB rate could be smaller


ad