4.7 Article

Unveiling the origin of X-ray flares in gamma-ray bursts

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17037.x

关键词

radiation mechanisms: non-thermal; gamma-ray burst: general; X-rays: bursts

资金

  1. ASI [SWIFT I/011/07/0]
  2. Ministry of University and Research of Italy
  3. MAE
  4. University of Milano Bicocca (Italy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present an updated catalogue of 113 X-ray flares detected by Swift in the similar to 33 per cent of the X-ray afterglows of gamma-ray burst (GRB). 43 flares have a measured redshift. For the first time the analysis is performed in four different X-ray energy bands, allowing us to constrain the evolution of the flare temporal properties with energy. We find that flares are narrower at higher energies: their width follows a power-law relation w proportional to E-0.5 reminiscent of the prompt emission. Flares are asymmetric structures, with a decay time which is twice the rise time on average. Both time-scales linearly evolve with time, giving rise to a constant rise-to-decay ratio: this implies that both time-scales are stretched by the same factor. As a consequence, the flare width linearly evolves with time to larger values: this is a key point that clearly distinguishes the flare from the GRB prompt emission. The flare 0.3-10 keV peak luminosity decreases with time, following a power-law behaviour with large scatter: L-pk proportional to t-2.7 +/- 0.5(pk). When multiple flares are present, a global softening trend is established: each flare is on average softer than the previous one. The 0.3-10 keV isotropic energy distribution is a lognormal peaked at 1051 erg, with a possible excess at low energies. The flare average spectral energy distribution is found to be a power law with spectral energy index beta similar to 1.1. These results confirmed that the flares are tightly linked to the prompt emission. However, after considering various models we conclude that no model is currently able to account for the entire set of observations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据