1 / 29

Gamma-Ray Bursts from Magnetar Birth

Gamma-Ray Bursts from Magnetar Birth. Brian Metzger NASA Einstein Fellow (Princeton University). In collaboration with. Dimitrios Giannios (Princeton) Todd Thompson (OSU) Niccolo Bucciantini (Nordita) Eliot Quataert (UC Berkeley) Jon Arons (Berkeley).

sovann
Download Presentation

Gamma-Ray Bursts from Magnetar Birth

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gamma-Ray Bursts from Magnetar Birth Brian Metzger NASA Einstein Fellow (Princeton University) In collaboration with Dimitrios Giannios (Princeton) Todd Thompson (OSU) Niccolo Bucciantini (Nordita) Eliot Quataert (UC Berkeley) Jon Arons (Berkeley) Metzger, Giannios, Thompson, Bucciantini & Quataert 2011 Prompt Activity of GRBs (Raleigh, NC 03/05/2011)

  2. Constraints on the Central Engine Canonical GRB Lightcurve • Energies - E~ 1049-52 ergs • Rapid Variability (down to ms) - • Duration - T ~10-100 seconds • Steep Decay Phase after GRB • Ultra-Relativistic, Collimated Outflow with  ~ 100-1000 • Association w Energetic Core Collapse Supernovae • Late-Time Central Engine Activity (Plateau & Flaring) from Nakar 07 NS BH versus

  3. “Delayed” Neutrino-Powered Supernovae (e.g. Bethe & Wilson 1985)

  4. The Fates of Massive Stars (Heger et al. 2003) Assumes supernova energy ~ 1051 ergs!

  5. Collapsar “Failed Supernova” Model (Woosley 93) (e.g. MacFadyen & Woosley 1999; Aloy et al. 2000; MacFadyen et al. 2001; Proga & Begelman 2003; Takiwaki et al. 2008; Barkov & Komissarov 2008; Nagataki et al. 2007; Lindler et al. 2010) MacFadyen & Woosley 1999 Zhang, Woosley & Heger 2004 • Energy -Accretion / Black Hole Spin • Duration -Stellar Envelope In-Fall • Hyper-Energetic SNe -Delayed Black Hole Formation or Accretion Disk Winds • Late-Time Activity -Fall-Back Accretion

  6. Core Collapse with Magnetic Fields & Rotation(e.g. LeBlanc & Wilson 1970; Bisnovatyi-Kogan 1971; Akiyama et al. 2003) • Collapsar Requirements: • Angular Momentum • Strong, Ordered Magnetic Field (e.g. Proga & Begelman 2003; McKinney 2006) Neutron Star Mass Time

  7. Neutron Stars are Born Hot, Cool via -Emission: ~1053 ergs in KH ~ 10-100 s Key Insight :(Thompson, Chang & Quataert 04) • Neutrinos Heat Proto-NS Atmosphere (e.g. e + n  p + e-)  Drives Thermal Wind Behind SN Shock(e.g. Qian & Woosley 96) Before SN Explosion After SN Explosion Neutrino-Heated Wind Burrows, Hayes, & Fryxell 1995

  8. Evolutionary Wind Models(BDM et al. 2010) NS Cooling (Pons+99; Hudepohl+10) 3D Magnetosphere Geometry(e.g. Bucciantini et al. 2006; Spitkovsky 2006) Calculate: In terms of Initial Rotation Period P0 , Dipole Field Strength Bdip & Obliquitydip

  9. Example Solution Max Lorentz Factor (Solid Line) Jet Power (Dotted Line)

  10. Jet Collimation via Stellar Confinement (Bucciantini et al. 2007, 08, 09; cf. Uzdensky & MacFadyen 07; Komissarov & Barkov 08) Zooming Out • Assume Successful Supernova(35 M ZAMS Progenitor; Woosley & Heger 06) • Magnetar with Bdip= 31015G, P0=1 ms Jet vs. Wind Power Average jet power and mass-loading match those injected by central magnetar

  11. Jet Breaks Out of Star Max Lorentz Factor (Solid Line) Jet Power (Dotted Line) Wind becomes relativistic at t ~ 2 seconds;Jet breaks out of star at tbo ~ R/c ~ 10 seconds

  12. GRB Jet Breaks Out of Star Max Lorentz Factor (Solid Line) Jet Power (Dotted Line) High Energy Emission (GRB) from t ~ 10 to ~100 s as Magnetization Increases from 0 ~  ~ 30 to ~ 103

  13. GRB Emission - Still Elusive! Relativistic Outflow ( >> 1) Slide from B. Zhang ~ 107 cm Central Engine GRB / Flaring Afterglow What is jet’s composition? (kinetic or magnetic?) Where is dissipation occurring? (photosphere? deceleration radius?) How is radiation generated? (synchrotron, IC, hadronic?)

  14. GRB Emission - Still Elusive! Relativistic Outflow ( >> 1) Photospheric IC Slide from B. Zhang ~ 107 cm Central Engine GRB / Flaring Afterglow What is jet’s composition? (kinetic or magnetic?) Where is dissipation occurring? (photosphere? deceleration radius?) How is radiation generated? (synchrotron, IC, hadronic?)

  15. Prompt Emission from Magnetic Dissipation(e.g. Spruit et al. 2001; Drenkahn & Spruit 2002; Giannios & Spruit 2006) e.g. Coroniti 1990 Non-Axisymmetries  Small-Scale Field Reversals (e.g. striped wind with RL ~ 107 cm) Reconnection at speed vr ~ c  Bulk Acceleration   r1/3& Electron Heating

  16. Time-Averaged Light Curve Metzger et al. 2010 Jet Break-Out Optically-Thick Optically-Thin

  17. Time-Averaged Light Curve Metzger et al. 2010 Jet Break-Out Optically-Thick Optically-Thin Spectral Snapshots IC Tail Synch t ~ 15 s t ~ 30 s E FE (1050 erg s-1) Hot Electrons  IC Scattering (-rays) and Synchrotron (optical) E (keV)

  18. Parameter Study 3 1014 G < Bdip< 3 1016 G, 1 ms < P0 < 5 ms,  = 0, /2 GRB Energy (ergs) solid = oblique, dotted = aligned

  19. Average Magnetization

  20. avg-L Correlation avg  L1-1.5 Prediction: More Luminous / Energetic GRBs  Higher  Ave Magnetization avg Ave Wind Power (erg s-1)

  21. avg-L Correlation avg  L1-1.5 Prediction: More Luminous / Energetic GRBs  Higher  Ave Magnetization avg Assuming Magnetic Dissipation Model Ave Wind Power (erg s-1) Epeak Liso0.11 00.2 0.33 Agreement withEpeak  Eiso0.4(Amati+02) and Epeak  Liso0.5(Yonetoku+04) Correlations Ave Peak Energy Epeak Epeak Liso0.5 Peak Isotropic Jet Luminosity (erg s-1)

  22. End of the GRB = Neutrino Transparency Ultra High- Outflow  - Full Acceleration to ~  Difficult (e.g. Tchekovskoy et al. 2009) - Reconnection Slow - Internal Shocks Weak (e.g. Kennel & Coroniti 1984) TGRB ~ T thin ~ 10 - 100 s

  23. End of the GRB = Neutrino Transparency Ultra High- Outflow  - Full Acceleration to ~  Difficult (e.g. Tchekovskoy et al. 2009) - Reconnection Slow - Internal Shocks Weak (e.g. Kennel & Coroniti 1984) Steep Decline Phase TGRB ~ T thin ~ 10 - 100 s

  24. GRB Late-Time (Force-Free) Spin-Down SD

  25. GRB X-ray Afterglow Late-Time (Force-Free) Spin-Down `Plateau’ Willingale et al. 2007 SD e.g. Zhang & Meszaros 2001; Troja et al. 2007; Yu et al. 2009; Lyons et al. 2010 Time after trigger (s)

  26. The Diversity of Magnetar Birth Classical GRB E~1050-52 ergs, jet < 1,  ~ 102-103 Low Luminosity GRB Bdip (G) Thermal-Rich GRB (XRF?)E~1050 ergs, jet ~ 1,  < 10 Buried Jet P0 (ms)

  27. Recap - Constraints on the Central Engine • GRB Duration ~ 10 - 100 seconds& Steep Decay Phase -Time until NS is transparent to neutrinos • Energies - EGRB ~ 1050-52 ergs - Rotational energy lost in ~10-100 s (rad. efficiency ~30-50%) • Ultra-Relativistic Outflow with  ~ 100-1000 - Mass loading set by physics of neutrino heating (not fine-tuned). • Jet Collimation - Exploding star confines and redirects magnetar wind into jet • Association with Energetic Core Collapse Supernovae - Erot~ESN~1052 ergs - MHD-powered SN associated w magnetar birth. • Late-Time Central Engine Activity - Residual rotational (plateau) or magnetic energy (flares)?

  28. Predictions and Constraints • Max Energy - EGRB, Max ~ few 1052 ergs - So far consistent with observations (but a few Fermi bursts are pushing this limit.) - Precise measurements of EGRB hindered by uncertainties in application of beaming correction. • Supernova should always accompany GRB - So far consistent with observations. •  increases monotonically during GRB and positively correlate with EGRB - Testing will requires translating jet properties (e.g. power and magnetization) into gamma-ray light curves and spectra.

  29. Summary • Long duration GRBs originate from the deaths of massive stars, but whether the central engine is a BH or NS remains unsettled. • Almost all central engine models require rapid rotation and strong magnetic fields. Assessing BH vs. NS dichotomy must self-consistently address the effects of these ingredients on core collapse. • The power and mass-loading of the jet in the magnetar model can be calculated with some confidence, allowing the construction of a `first principles’ GRB model. • The magnetar model provides quantitative explanations for the energies, Lorentz factors, durations, and collimation of GRBs; the association with hypernova; and, potentially, the steep decay and late-time X-ray activity. • Magnetic dissipation is favored over internal shocks and the emission mechanism because it predicts a roughly constant spectral peak energy and reproduces the Amati-Yonetoku correlations

More Related