Paper detail

Energies of GRB blast waves and prompt efficiencies as implied by modeling of X-ray and GeV afterglows

We consider a sample of ten GRBs with long lasting ($\gtrsim10^2\rm\,sec$) emission detected by Fermi/LAT and for which X-ray data around $1\,$day are also available. We assume that both the X-rays and the GeV emission are produced by electrons accelerated at the external forward shock, and show that the X-ray and the GeV fluxes lead to very different estimates of the initial kinetic energy of the blast wave. The energy estimated from GeV is on average $\sim50$ times larger than the one estimated from X-rays. We model the data (accounting also for optical detections around $1\,$day, if available) to unveil the reason for this discrepancy and find that good modelling within the forward shock model is always possible and leads to two possibilities: either the X-ray emitting electrons (unlike the GeV emitting electrons) are in the slow cooling regime or ii) the X-ray synchrotron flux is strongly suppressed by Compton cooling, whereas, due to the Klein-Nishina suppression, this effect is much smaller at GeV energies. In both cases the X-ray flux is no longer a robust proxy for the blast wave kinetic energy. On average, both cases require weak magnetic fields ($10^{-6}\lesssim ε_B \lesssim 10^{-3}$) and relatively large isotropic kinetic blast wave energies $10^{53}\rm\,erg<E_{0,kin}<10^{55}\rm\,erg$ corresponding to large lower limits on the collimated energies, in the range $10^{52}\rm\,erg<E_{θ,kin}<5\times10^{52}\rm\,erg$ for an ISM environment with $n\sim 1\mbox{cm}^{-3}$ and $10^{52}\rm\,erg<E_{θ,kin}<10^{53}\rm\,erg$ for a wind environment with $A_* \sim 1$. These energies are larger than those estimated from the X-ray flux alone, and imply smaller inferred values of the prompt efficiency mechanism, reducing the efficiency requirements on the still uncertain mechanism responsible for prompt emission.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.