1 / 59

GRB physics and cosmology with the E p,i – E iso correlation

GRB physics and cosmology with the E p,i – E iso correlation. Lorenzo Amati INAF – IASF Bologna (Italy). Third Stueckelberg Workshop (July 8th to 19th, 2008 - Pescara, Italy). Outline Observations Implications for GRB physics and origin Tests and debates Cosmology

starr
Download Presentation

GRB physics and cosmology with the E p,i – E iso correlation

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. GRB physics and cosmology with the Ep,i – Eiso correlation Lorenzo Amati INAF – IASF Bologna (Italy) Third Stueckelberg Workshop (July 8th to 19th, 2008 - Pescara, Italy)

  2. Outline • Observations • Implications for GRB physics and origin • Tests and debates • Cosmology • Conclusions and future perspectives

  3. Observations

  4. The Ep,i – Eiso correlation • GRB spectra typically described by the empirical Band function with parameters a= low-energy index, b= high-energy index, E0=break energy • Ep = E0 x (2 + a) = observed peak energy of the nFn spectrum

  5. since 1997 GRB redshift estimates through optical spectroscopy of afterglow emission and/or host galaxies • all GRBs with measured redshift (~100) lie at cosmological distances (z = 0.033 – 6.4) (except for the peculiar GRB980425, z=0.0085) • the pre-Swift GRB z distribution and the Swift GRB z distribution differ

  6. from redshift, fluence and spectrum, it is possible to estimate the cosmological-rest frame peak energy, Ep,i, and the radiated energy assuming isotropic emission, Eiso • isotropic luminosities and radiated energy are huge; both Ep,i and Eiso and span several orders of magnitude Ep,i = Epx (1 + z) log(Eiso)= 1.0 , s = 0.9 log(Ep,i )= 2.52 , s = 0.43 Ep,i and Eiso distributions for a sample of 41 long GRBs (Amati 2006)

  7. Amati et al. (2002) analyzed a sample of 12 BeppoSAX events with known redshift • we found evidence of a strong correlation between Ep,i and Eiso, highly significant (r = 0.949, chance prob. 0.005%) despite the low number of GRBs included in the sample Ep,i= kEiso (0.52+/-0.06) Amati et al. , A&A, 2002

  8. by adding data from BATSE and HETE-2 of 10 more GRBs thecorrelation was confirmed and its significance increased Amati, ChJAA, 2003 • HETE-2 data confirm the Ep,i – Eiso correlation and show that it extends to XRFs, thus spanning 5 orders of magnitude in Eiso and 3 orders of magnitude in Ep,i • 90% c.l. Ep of XRF020903 fromrefined analysis ofHETE-2 WXM + FREGATE spectrum (Sakamoto et al. 2004)fully consistent with the Ep,i – Eiso correlation Lamb et al., ApJ, 2004

  9. analysis of an updated sample of longGRBs/XRFs with firm estimates of z and Ep,i (41 events) gives a chance probability for the Ep,i-Eiso correlation of ~10-15 and a slope of 0.57+/-0.02 • the scatter of the data around the best fit power-law can be fitted with a Gaussian with s(logEp,i) ~ 0.2 (~0.17 extra-poissonian) • confirmed by the most recent analysis (more than 70 events, Ghirlanda et al. 2008, Amati et al. 2008) • only firm outlier the local peculiar GRB 980425 (GRB 031203 debated) Amati et al. 2008

  10. the “extra-statistical scatter” of the data was quantified by performing a fit with a method (D’Agostini 2005) which accounts for sample variance • the “intrinsic” dispersion results to be sint(logEp,i) = 0.17 (-0.02,+0.03) • with this method, the power-law index and normalization turn out to be ~0.5 and ~100, respectively (the commonly assumed values!) Amati (2006)

  11. 3-parameters spectrum-energy correlations • the Ep,i-Eiso correlation becomes tighter when adding a third observable: jet opening angle (qjet -> Eg = [1cos(qjet)]*Eiso(Ghirlanda et al. 2004), break time in optical afterglow decay (Liang & Zhang 2005) or “high signal time” T0.45 (Firmani et al. 2006) • jet angle inferred from break time in optical afterglow decay, while Ep,i-Eiso-T0.45 correlation based on prompt emission properties only

  12. Ep,i – Eiso correlation vs. 3-param correlations • 3-parameters spectral energy correlation less dispersed than Ep,i-Eiso correlation • but based on lower number of events (~20 against more than 60) -> need more events to be confirmed • addition of a third observable introduces further uncertainties • Ep-Eg correlation requires modeling; both Ep-Eg and Ep-Eiso-tb correlations requires afterglow detection and fine sampling • Ep-Lp-T0.45 based only on prompt emission properties and requires no modelization

  13. Recent debate on Swift outliers to the Ep-Eg correlation (including both GRB with no break and a few GRB with achromatic break) • different conclusions based on light curve modeling and considering early or late break Campana et al. 2007 Ghirlanda et al. 2007

  14. Recent evidence, based on BeppoSAX and Swift GRBs that the dispersion of the Lp-Ep-T0.45 correlation is significantly higher than thought before Rossi et al. 2008

  15. Eiso<->Liso Ep,i – Eiso “Amati” 02 Eiso<->Lp,iso Ep,i – Liso 04 Ep,i – Lp,iso “Yonetoku”04 tb,opt + jet model tb,opt T0.45 = Ep,i – Eg “Ghirlanda” 04 Ep,i – Eiso-tb “Liang-Zhang” 05 Ep,i – Lp,iso-T0.45 “Firmani” 06 The genealogy and nomenclature of spectrum-energy correlations

  16. Implications for GRB physics and origin

  17. Origin of the Ep.i - Eiso correlation • Ep is a fundamental parameter in prompt emission mdels, e.g., syncrotron shock emission models (SSM) • it may correspond to a characteristic frequency (possibly nm in fast cooling regime) or to the temperature of the Maxwellian distribution of the e- Sari et al., ApJ, 1998 Tavani, ApJ, 1995

  18. physics of prompt emission still not settled, various scenarios: SSM internal shocks, IC-dominated internal shocks, external shocks, photospheric emission dominated models, kinetic energy dominated fireball , poynting flux dominated fireball) • e.g., Ep,i  G-2 L1/2 tn-1 for syncrotron emission from a power-law distribution of electrons generated in an internal shock (Zhang & Meszaros 2002, Ryde 2005) • e.g., Ep,i  G Tpk  G2 L-1/4 in scenarios in whch for comptonized thermal emission from the photosphere dominates (e.g. Rees & Meszaros 2005, Thomson et al. 2006)

  19. jet geometry and structure • XRF-GRB unification models • viewing angle effects Uniform/variable jet PL-structured /universal jet Uniform/variable jet PL-structured /universal jet Lamb et al., ApJ, 2004 , Yonetoku et al.,ApJ, 2004

  20. The Ep,i – Eiso correlation and sub-energetic GRB • GRB980425 not only prototype event of GRB/SN connection but closest GRB (z = 0.0085) and sub-energetic event (Eiso ~ 1048 erg, Ek,aft ~ 1050 erg) • GRB031203: the most similar case to GRB980425/SN1998bw: very close (z = 0.105), SN2003lw, sub-energetic Soderberg et al., Nature, 2003 Ghirlanda et al., 2007

  21. the most common explanations for the (apparent ?) sub-energetic nature of GRB980425 and GRB031203 and their violation of the Ep,i – Eiso correlation assume that they are NORMAL events seen very off-axis (e.g. Yamazaki et al. 2003, Ramirez-Ruiz et al. 2005) • d=[g(1 - bcos(qv - Dq))]-1 , DEp  d , DEiso  d(1+a) a=1÷2.3 -> DEiso  d(2 ÷3.3) Yamazaki et al., ApJ, 2003 Ramirez-Ruiz et al., ApJ, 2004

  22. GRB 060218, a very close (z = 0.033, second only to GRB9809425), with a prominent association with SN2006aj, and very low Eiso (6 x 1049 erg) and Ek,aft -> very similar to GRB980425 and GRB031203 • but, contrary to GRB980425 and (possibly) GRB031203, GRB060218 is consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation -> evidence that it is a truly sub-energetic GRB • also XRF 020903 is very weak and soft (sub-energetic GRB prompt emission) and is consistent with the Ep-Eiso correlation Amati et al., A&A, 2007

  23. GRB060218 was a very long event (~3000 s) and without XRT mesurement (0.3-10 keV) Ep,i would have been over-estimated and found to be inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation • Ghisellini et al. (2006) found that a spectral evolution model based on GRB060218 can be applied to GRB980425 and GRB031203, showing that these two events may be also consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation • sub-energetic GRB consistent with the correlation; apparent outliers(s) GRB 980425 (GRB 031203) could be due to viewing angle or instrumental effect

  24. Ep,i – Eiso correlation and short GRBs • only very recently, redshift estimates for short GRBs • all SHORT Swift GRBs with known redshift and lower limits to Ep.i are inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation • intriguingly, the soft tail of GRB050724 is consistent with the correlation Amati, NCimB, 2006

  25. confirmation of expectations based on the fact that short GRBs are harder and have a lower fluence • spectra of short GRBs consistent with those of long GRBs in the first 1-2 s • evidences that long GRBs are produced by the superposition of 2 different emissions ? • e.g., in short GRBs only first ~thermal part of the emission and lack or weakness (e.g. due to very high G for internal shocks or low density medium for external shock) of long part • long weak soft emission is indeed observed for some short GRBs Ghirlanda et al. (2004)

  26. GRB-SN connection and the Ep,i-Eiso correlation • GRBs with firmest evidence of association with a SN are consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation (except for peculiar 980425) • GRB 060614: the long GRB with a very deep lower limit to the magnitude of an associated SN is consistent with the correlation too • GRB 060505: stringent lower limit to SN magnitude, inconsistent with correlation, but it is likely short • Evidence that GRB properties are independent on those of the SN ? Amati et al. A&A, 2007

  27. Recent Swift detection of an X-ray transient associated with SN 2008D at z = 0.0064, showing a light curve and duration similar to GRB 060218 • Peak energy limits and energetics consistent with a very-low energy extension of the Ep,i-Eiso correlation • Evidence that this transient may be a very soft and weak GRB (XRF 080109), thus confirming the existence of a population of sub-energetic GRB ? • XRF 080109 / SN2008D: are soft X-ray flashes due to SN shock break-out ? How they connect to “normal” GRBs ? Modjaz et al., ApJ, 2008 Li, MNRAS, 2008

  28. Ep,i-Eiso correlation in the fireshell model (Ruffini et al.) • By assuming CBM profile from a real GRB and varying Etot, the correlation is obtained, with a slope of 0.45+/+0.01 (consistent with obs.) • no correlation when assuming constant CBM profile (Guida et al. 2008) CBM profile as GRB 050315 CBM constant (n=1cm-3)

  29. Natural explanation of the deviation of short GRB from the correlation • extrinsic scatter of the correlation mostly due to the inclusion of P-GRB, the computation of Ep based only on the “prompt” spectrum, cosmology Piranomonte et al. (2008) Ruffini et al. (2008)

  30. Tests and debates

  31. Debate based on BATSE GRBs without known redshift • Nakar & Piran and Band & Preece 2005: a substantial fraction (50-90%) of BATSE GRBs without known redshift are potentially inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation for any redshift value • they suggest that the correlation is an artifact of selection effects introduced by the steps leading to z estimates: we are measuring the redshift only of those GRBs which follow the correlation • they predicted that Swift will detect several GRBs with Ep,i and Eiso inconsistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation • Ghirlanda et al. (2005), Bosnjak et al. (2005), Pizzichini et al. (2005): most BATSE GRB with unknown redshift are consistent with the Ep,i-Eiso correlation • different conclusions mostly due to the accounting or not for the dispersion of the correlation

  32. Swift GRBs and selection effects • Swift / BAT sensitivity better than BATSE for Ep < ~100 keV, slightly worse than BATSE for Ep > ~100 keV but better than BeppoSAX/GRBM and HETE-2/FREGATE -> more complete coverage of the Ep-Fluence plane CGRO/BATSE Swift/BAT Ghirlanda et al., MNRAS, (2008) Band, ApJ, (2003, 2006)

  33. fast (~1 min) and accurate localization (few arcesc) of GRBs -> prompt optical follow-up with large telescopes -> substantial increase of redshift estimates and reduction of selection effects in the sample of GRBs with known redshift • fast slew -> observation of a part (or most, for very long GRBs) of prompt emission down to 0.2 keV with unprecedented sensitivity –> following complete spectra evolution, detection and modelization of low-energy absorption/emission features -> better estimate of Ep for soft GRBs • drawback: BAT “narrow” energy band allow to estimate Ep only for ~15-20% of GRBs (but for some of them Ep from HETE-2 and/or Konus GRB060124, Romano et al., A&A, 2006

  34. all long Swift GRBs with known z and published estimates or limits to Ep,i are consistent with the correlation • the parameters (index, normalization,dispersion) obatined with Swift GRBs only are fully consistent with what found before • Swift allows reduction of selection effects in the sample of GRB with known z -> the Ep,i-Eiso correlation is passing the more reliable test: observations ! Amati 2006, Amati et al. 2008

  35. very recent claim by Butler et al.: 50% of Swift GRB are inconsistent with the pre-Swift Ep,i-Eiso correlation • but Swift/BAT has a narrow energy band: 15-150 keV, nealy unesuseful for Ep estimates, possible only when Ep is in (or close to the bounds of ) the passband (15-20%) and with low accuracy • comparison of Ep derived by them from BAT spectra using Bayesian method and those MEASURED by Konus/Wind show they are unreliable • as shown by the case of GRB 060218, missing the soft part of GRB emission leads to overestimate of Ep

  36. Cosmology with spectrum-energy correlations

  37. GRB have huge luminosity, a redshift distribution extending far beyond SN Ia • high energy emission -> no extinction problems • but need to investigate their properties to find ways to standardize them (if possible)

  38. a first step: using Ep,i – Eiso correlation for z estimates • redshift estimates available only for a small fraction of GRB occurred in the last 10 years based on optical spectroscopy • pseudo-redshift estimates for the large amount of GRB without measured redshift -> GRB luminosity function, star formation rate evolution up to z > 6, etc. • use of the Ep,i – Eiso correlation for pseudo-redshift: most simple method is to study the track in the Ep,i - Eiso plane ad a function of z • not precise z estimates and possible degeneracy for z > 1.4 • anyway useful for low –z GRB and in general when combined with optical

  39. a step forward: standardizing GRB with 3-parameters spectrum-energy correlations • the Ep,i-Eiso correlation becomes tighter when adding a third observable: jet opening angle (qjet -> Eg = [1-cos(qjet)]*Eiso (Ghirlanda et al. 2004) or “high signal time” T0.45 (Firmani et al. 2006) • the logarithmic dispersion of these correlations is very low: they can be used to standardize GRB ? • jet angle inferred from break time in optical afterglow decay, while Ep,i-Eiso-T0.45 correlation based on prompt emission properties only

  40. Methods(e.g., Ghirlanda et al, Firmani et al., Dai et al., Zhang et al.): Ep,i = Ep,obsx (1 + z) Dl = Dl (z, H0, WM, WL, …) • general purpouse: estimate c.l. contours in 2-param surface (e.g. WM-WL) • general method: construct a chi-square statistics for a given correlation as a function of a couple cosmological parameters • method 1 – luminosity distance: fit the correlation and construct an Hubble diagram for each couple of cosmological parameters -> derive c.l. contours based on chi-square

  41. method 2 – minimum correlation scatter: for each couple of cosm.parameters compute Ep,i and Eiso (or Eg), fit the points with a pl and compute the chi-square -> derive c.l. contours based on chi-square surface • method 3: bayesian method assuming that the correlation exists and is unique Ghirlanda et al., 2004 Firmani et al. 2007

  42. What can be obtained with 150 GRB with known z and Ep and complementarity with other probes (SN Ia, CMB) • complementary to SN Ia: extension to much higher z even when considering the future sample of SNAP (z < 1.7), cross check of results with different probes Ghirlanda, Ghisellini et al. 2005, 2006,2007

  43. Drawbacks: lack of solid physical explanation • physics of prompt emission still not settled, various scenarios: SSM internal shocks, IC-dominated internal shocks, external shocks, photospheric emission dominated models, kinetic energy dominated fireball , poynting flux dominated fireball) • e.g., Ep,i  G-2 L1/2 tn-1 for syncrotron emission from a power-law distribution of electrons generated in an internal shock (Zhang & Meszaros 2002, Ryde 2005); for Comptonized thermal emission • geometry of the jet (if assuming collimated emission) and viewing angle effects also may play a relevant role

  44. Lack of calibration • differently to SN Ia, there are no low-redshift GRB (only 1 at z < 0.1) -> correlations cannot be calibrated in a “cosmology independent” way • would need calibration with a good number of events at z < 0.01 or within a small range of redshift -> neeed to substantial increase the number of GRB with estimates of redshift and Ep • Very recently (Kodama et al., 2008; Liang et al., 2008) calibrated GRB spectrum—energy correlation at z < 1.7 by using the cosmology independent luminosity distance – redshift relation derived for SN Ia

  45. “Crisis” of 3-parameters spectrum-energy correlations • Recent debate on Swift outliers to the Ep-Eg correlation (including both GRB with no break and a few GRB with chromatic break) • Recent evidence that the dispersion of the Lp-Ep-T0.45 correlation is significantly higher than thought before and comparable to the Ep,i-Eiso corr. Campana et al. 2007 Rossi et al. 2008

  46. Using the simple Ep,i-Eiso correlation for cosmology • Based on only2 observables: a) much higher number of GRB that can be used b) reduction of systematics • Evidence that a fraction of the extrinsic scatter of the Ep,i-Eiso correlation is due to choice of cosmological parameters used to compute Eiso 70 GRB Simple PL fit Amati et al. 2008

  47. By using a maximum likelihood method the extrinsic scatter can be parametrized and quantified (e.g., D’Agostini 2005) • WM can be constrained to 0.04-0.40 (68%) and 0.02-0.68 (90%) for a flat LCDM universe (WM = 1 excluded at 99.9% c.l.) Amati et al. 2008

  48. releasing assumption of flat universe still provides evidence of low WM, with a low sensitivity to WL • significant constraints on both WM and WL expected from sample enrichment and z extension by present and next GRB experiments (e.g., Swift, Konus_WIND, GLAST, SVOM) • completely independent on other cosmological probes (e.g., CMB, type Ia SN, BAO; clusters…) and free of circularity problems 70 REAL 70 REAL + 150 SIMUL Amati et al. 2008

  49. possible further improvements on cosmological parameter estimates by exploiting self-calibration with GRB at similar redshift or solid phyisical model for the correlation 70 REAL + 150 SIMUL 70 REAL 70 REAL 70 REAL + 150 SIMUL Amati et al. 2008

  50. given their redshift distribution (0.033 - 6.3 up to now) , GRB are potentially the best-suited probes to study properties and evolution of “dark energy” (e.g.,Chevalier & Polarski, Linder & Utherer) 70 REAL + 150 SIMUL (flat) 70 REAL (flat, Wm=0.27) Amati et al. 2008

More Related