Paper detail

On the thermal and double episode emissions in GRB 970828

Following the recent theoretical interpretation of GRB 090618 and GRB 101023, we here interpret GRB 970828 in terms of a double episode emission: the first episode, observed in the first 40 s of the emission, is interpreted as the proto-black-hole emission; the second episode, observed after t$_0$+50 s, as a canonical gamma ray burst. The transition between the two episodes marks the black hole formation. The characteristics of the real GRB, in the second episode, are an energy of $E_{tot}^{e^+e^-} = 1.60 \times 10^{53}$ erg, a baryon load of $B = 7 \times 10^{-3}$ and a bulk Lorentz factor at transparency of $Γ= 142.5$. The clear analogy with GRB 090618 would require also in GRB 970828 the presence of a possible supernova. We also infer that the GRB exploded in an environment with a large average particle density $<n> \, \approx 10^3$ part/cm$^3$ and dense clouds characterized by typical dimensions of $(4 - 8) \times 10^{14}$ cm and $δn/n \propto 10$. Such an environment is in line with the observed large column density absorption, which might have darkened both the supernova emission and the GRB optical afterglow.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors2 topics

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.