4.7 Article

THE BULK LORENTZ FACTORS OF FERMI-LAT GAMMA RAY BURSTS

Journal

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
Volume 726, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/89

Keywords

gamma-ray burst: general

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [10973034, 10843007]
  2. 973 Program [2009CB824800]
  3. Foundation for the Authors of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertations of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Lorentz factor (LF) of gamma-ray burst (GRB) ejecta may be constrained by observations of high-energy (HE) spectral attenuation. The recent Fermi-LAT observations of prompt GeV emission from several bright GRBs have led to conclusions of unexpectedly large LFs, Gamma > 10(3). Here we revisit this problem with two main concerns. (1) With a one-zone assumption where all photons are assumed to be generated in the same region (radius) and time, we self-consistently calculate the gamma gamma optical depth by adopting a target photon spectrum with an HE cutoff. We find that this might be important when the GRB LF is below a few hundreds. (2) Recent Fermi-LAT observations suggest that the bulkMeV-range and HE (greater than or similar to 100 MeV) emission may arise from different regions. We then consider a two-zone case where HE emission is generated in much larger radii than that of the MeV-range emission. We find that the HE emission may mainly be attenuated by the MeV-range emission and that the attenuated HE spectrum does not show an exponential spectral cutoff but a slight steepening. This suggests that there may be no abrupt cutoff due to gamma gamma attenuation if relaxing the one-zone assumption. By studying the spectra of three bright Fermi-LAT GRBs, 080916C, 090510, and 090902B, we show that bulk LFs of Gamma similar to 600 can be consistent with observations in the two-zone case. Even lower LFs can be obtained in the multi-zone case.

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