Paper detail

Rotating BHs as Central Engines of Long GRBs: Faster is Better

We performed simulations of collapsars with different Kerr parameters a=0, 0.5, 0.9, 0.95. It is shown that a more rapidly rotating black hole is driving a more energetic jet. No jet is seen for the case of Schwartzschild black hole case, while the total energy of the jet is as large as 10^50 erg for a rapidly rotating Kerr black hole case (a=0.95). In order to explain the high luminosity of a GRB, it is concluded that a rapidly rotating black hole is favored ('faster is better'). We also find in the case of a=0.95 that (i) the stagnation region is clearly found in the jet region, (ii) the ordered poloidal field lines are seen in the jet, (iii) the jet region is surrounded by a 'Wall-like' structure that has a higher pressure than the jet region and contains strong vertical magnetic fields, and (iv) the jet is initiated by outgoing Poynting flux from the outer horizon of the black hole (Blandford-Znajek effect). The bulk Lorentz factor of the jet is still of the order of unity. However, energy density of electro-magnetic fields dominates the one of rest-mass in the jet. It can be expected that a relativistic jet will be seen if we perform a simulation for a longer time scale (of the order of 10-100 sec).

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.