4.7 Article

Gamma-ray burst energetics in the Swift era

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 680, Issue 1, Pages 531-538

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/586693

Keywords

gamma rays : bursts

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examine the rest-frame energetics of 76 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) with known redshift that were detected by the Swift spacecraft and monitored by the satellite's X-Ray Telescope (XRT). Using the bolometric fluence values estimated by Butler and coworkers and the last XRT observation for each event, we set a lower limit to their collimation-corrected energy E-gamma and find that 68% of our sample is at high enough redshift and/or low enough fluence to accommodate a jet break occurring beyond the last XRT observation and still be consistent with the pre-Swift E-gamma distribution for long GRBs. We find that relatively few of the X-ray light curves for the remaining events show evidence for late-time decay slopes that are consistent with that expected from post-jet break emission. The breaks in the X-ray light curves that do exist tend to be shallower and occur earlier than the breaks previously observed in optical light curves, yielding a E-gamma distribution that is far lower than the pre-Swift distribution. If these early X-ray breaks are not due to jet effects, then a small but significant fraction of our sample have lower limits to their collimation-corrected energy that place them well above the pre-Swift E-gamma distribution. Either scenario would necessitate a much wider post-Swift E-gamma distribution for long cosmological GRBs compared to the narrow standard energy deduced from pre-Swift observations. We note that almost all of the pre-Swift E-gamma estimates come from jet breaks detected in the optical whereas our sample is limited entirely to X-ray wavelengths, furthering the suggestion that the assumed achromaticity of jet breaks may not extend to high energies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available