4.6 Article

Extremely hard GRB spectra prune down the forest of emission models

期刊

ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS
卷 406, 期 3, 页码 879-892

出版社

EDP SCIENCES S A
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030803

关键词

gamma rays : bursts; methods : data analysis; radiation mechanisms : non-thermal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider the evidence for very hard low energy spectra during the prompt phase of Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRB). In particular we examine the spectral evolution of GRB 980306 together with the detailed analysis of some other bursts already presented in the literature (GRB 911118, GRB 910807, GRB 910927 and GRB 970111), and check for the significance of their hardness (i.e. extremely steep spectral slopes below the EFE peak) by applying different tests. These bursts, detected by the Burst And Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) in the similar to30 keV-2 MeV energy range, are sufficiently bright to allow time resolved spectral studies on time intervals of the order of tenths of a second. We discuss the hard spectra of these bursts and their evolution in the context of several non-thermal emission models, which all appear inadequate to account for these cases. The extremely hard spectra, which are detected in the early part of the BATSE light curve, are also compared with a black body spectral model: the resulting fits are remarkably good, except for an excess at high energies (in several cases) which could be simply accounted for by the presence of a supra-thermal component. The findings on the possible thermal character of the evolving spectrum and the implications on the GRB physical scenario are considered in the frameworks of photospheric models for a fireball which is becoming optically thin, and of Compton drag models, in which the fireball boosts ambient seed photons by its own bulk motion. Both models, according to simple estimates, appear to be qualitatively and quantitatively consistent with the found spectral characteristics, although their possible caveats are discussed.

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