4.7 Article

Evidence for a canonical gamma-ray burst afterglow light curve in the Swift XRT data

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 642, 期 1, 页码 389-400

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/500724

关键词

gamma rays : bursts; radiation mechanisms : nonthermal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present new observations of the early X-ray afterglows of the first 27 gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) well observed by the Swift X-Ray Telescope (XRT). The early X-ray afterglows show a canonical behavior, where the light curve broadly consists of three distinct power-law segments: (1) an initial very steep decay (alpha(t-alpha) with 3 less than or similar to alpha(1) less than or similar to 5), followed by (2) a very shallow decay (0:5P less than or similar to alpha(2) less than or similar to 1.0), and finally ( 3) a somewhat steeper decay (1 less than or similar to alpha(3) less than or similar to 1.5). These power-law segments are separated by two corresponding break times, t(break,1) less than or similar to 500 s and 10(3) s less than or similar to t(break,2) less than or similar to 10(4) s. On top of this canonical behavior, many events have superimposed X-ray flares, which are most likely caused by internal shocks due to long-lasting sporadic activity of the central engine, up to several hours after the GRB. We find that the initial steep decay is consistent with it being the tail of the prompt emission, from photons that are radiated at large angles relative to our line of sight. The first break in the light curve (t(break,1)) takes place when the forward shock emission becomes dominant, with the intermediate shallow flux decay (alpha 2) likely caused by the continuous energy injection into the external shock. When this energy injection stops, a second break is then observed in the light curve (t(break,2)). This energy injection increases the energy of the afterglow shock by at least a factor of f greater than or similar to 4 and augments the already severe requirements for the efficiency of the prompt gamma-ray emission.

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