4.6 Article

GRB 211211A: A Neutron Star-White Dwarf Merger?

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS
卷 947, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/acca83

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gamma-ray burst GRB 211211A and its associated kilonova-like emission were recently reported. The main burst of GRB 211211A could be produced by magnetic bubble eruptions from toroidal magnetic field amplification within a neutron star-white dwarf merger. The observed energetics and duration of GRB 211211A can be explained by a hydrodynamical thermonuclear simulation as long as the white dwarf has a mass greater than or similar to 1 solar mass.
The gamma-ray burst GRB 211211A and its associated kilonova-like emission were reported recently. A significant difference between this association event and GRB 170817A/AT 2017gfo is that GRB 211211A has a very long duration. In this Letter, we show that this association event may arise from a neutron star-white dwarf (NS-WD) merger if the central engine leaves a magnetar behind. Within the NS-WD merger, the main burst of GRB 211211A could be produced by magnetic bubble eruptions from toroidal magnetic field amplification of the premerger NS. This toroidal field amplification can be induced by the runaway accretion from the WD debris disk if the disk is in low initial entropy and efficient wind, while the extended emission of GRB 211211A is likely involved with magnetic propelling. The observed energetics and duration of the prompt emission of GRB 211211A can be fulfilled in comparison with those of accretion in a hydrodynamical thermonuclear simulation, as long as the WD has a mass greater than or similar to 1M (circle dot). Moreover, if the X-ray plateau in GRB afterglows is due to the magnetar spin-down radiation, GRB optical afterglows and kilonova-like emission can be jointly well modeled combining the standard forward shock with the radioactive decay power of Ni-56 adding a rotational power input from the postmerger magnetar.

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

4.6
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