4.8 Article

Broadband observations of the naked-eye γ-ray burst GRB 080319B

期刊

NATURE
卷 455, 期 7210, 页码 183-188

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature07270

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA
  2. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  3. Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, the Ministero dell'Universita` e della Ricerca ( MUR)
  4. Ministero degli Affari Esteri, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  5. National Science Foundation of China
  6. Russian Space Agency
  7. Science and Technology and Facilities Council ( STFC)
  8. Slovenian Research Agency
  9. Ministry for Higher Education, Science, and Technology, Slovenia
  10. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education
  11. STFC [ST/F006489/1, ST/F002599/1, PP/E001173/1, PP/E002064/1, PP/E003303/1, PP/D000920/1, PP/E001149/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  12. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F006489/1, PP/E001149/1, PP/E001173/1, ST/F002599/1, PP/E003303/1, PP/D000920/1, PP/E002064/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long- duration gamma-ray bursts ( GRBs) release copious amounts of energy across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and so provide a window into the process of black hole formation from the collapse of massive stars. Previous early optical observations of even the most exceptional GRBs ( 990123 and 030329) lacked both the temporal resolution to probe the optical flash in detail and the accuracy needed to trace the transition from the prompt emission within the outflow to external shocks caused by interaction with the progenitor environment. Here we report observations of the extraordinarily bright prompt optical and gamma-ray emission of GRB 080319B that provide diagnostics within seconds of its formation, followed by broadband observations of the afterglow decay that continued for weeks. We show that the prompt emission stems from a single physical region, implying an extremely relativistic outflow that propagates within the narrow inner core of a two- component jet.

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

4.8
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