# GRB990123: Evidence that the Gamma Rays Come from a Central Engine

## 1 INTRODUCTION

On January 23, 1999, the Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment (ROTSE) discovered strong optical emission (9th mag) during a gamma-ray burst (Akerlof et al. 1999a ; Akerlof et al. 1999b ). Remarkably, such extraordinary behavior was predicted a few weeks before (Sari & Piran 1999a ). This event, GRB990123, had a location from the BeppboSAX satellite (Piro (1999); Heise (1999)) and a measured redshift of the optical transient of $`z=1.6`$ (Kelson et al. (1999); Hjorth et al. (1999)). The Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) observed the burst (Kippen (1999)), as did the Comptel experiment (Conners et al. (1999)).

The detection in Comptel implies that the burst had a typical hard gamma-ray burst (GRB) spectrum. GRB spectra often extend to very high energies with no indication of attenuation by photon-photon interactions. This implies substantial relativistic bulk motion of the radiating material with Lorentz factors in the range of $`10^2`$ to $`10^3`$. Two classes of models have arisen that explain various aspects of the observations. In the “external” shock models (Mészáros & Rees (1993)), the release of energy is very quick, and a relativistic shell forms that expands outward for a long period of time ($`10^5`$ to $`10^7`$ s). At some point, interactions with the external medium (hence the name) cause the energy of the bulk motion to be converted to gamma-rays. Although the shell might produce gamma-rays for a long period of time, the shell keeps up with the photons such that they arrive at a detector over a relatively short period of time. If the shell has a velocity, $`v=\beta c`$, with a corresponding bulk Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}`$, then photons emitted over a period $`t`$ arrive at a detector over a much shorter period, $`T=(1\beta )t=t/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)`$. Although this model is consistent with the short energy release time expected for a compact object merger and the observed long time scale of GRBs, we have argued that it cannot explain gamma-ray emission with gaps. It can only explain the rapid time variability if the shell is very narrow, has angular structure much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, and cannot be decelerating (Fenimore, Madras, & Nayakshin (1996); Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore (1999)).

The alternative theory is that a central site releases energy in the form of a wind or multiple shells over a period of time commensurate with the observed duration of the GRB (Rees & Mészáros (1994)). The gamma-rays are produced by the internal interactions within the wind; hence these scenarios are often referred to as internal shock models although they might actually involve the Blandford-Znajek effect (Mészáros & Rees (1997); Pacyznski (1997)). The discovery of x-ray afterglows lasting hours (Costa et al. (1997)), optical afterglows lasting weeks to months (Metzger et al. (1997)), and radio afterglows lasting many months (Frail et al. (1997)) strongly indicated external shocks were involved in some aspects of GRB emission. The observed power law decay of the afterglows is expected from many external shock models (Wijers, Rees, & Mészáros (1997); Rechart (1997); Tavani (1997); Waxman, Kulkarni, & Frail (1998); Mészáros, Rees, & Wijers (1998); Rees & Mészáros (1998); Sari, Piran, & Narayan (1998)).

Piran & Sari (1997) suggested that the initial gamma-ray phase is due to internal shocks from a relativistic wind (or multiple shells) that merge into a single relativistic shell which then produces the afterglows in a manner similar to the external shock models. More recently, Sari & Piran (1999a) have predicted bright early optical afterglows resulting from a reverse shock in the shell. Their detailed calculations showed behavior much like that observed in GRB990123: a rapid rise in the optical soon after the burst starts to very bright levels and a power law decay as the shell decelerates.

Using kinematic arguments, the rapid time variability of many GRBs indicates that only a small fraction (typically 0.005) of the shell surface can be involved in the gamma-ray emission (Fenimore, Madras, & Nayakshin (1996); Sari & Piran (1997); Fenimore et al. (1999)). There might be ways to obtain filling factors as large as 0.1 (Dermer & Mitman (1999)). However, the average pulse width is remarkably constant (to within a few percent) and, thus, shows no sign of any deceleration (Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore (1999)). As a result, the only kinematically allowed external shock models for the gamma-ray phase have been forced to involve very narrow shells and no deceleration.

The early optical emission of GRB990123 was discovered by ROTSE (Akerlof et al. 1999a ; Akerlof et al. 1999b ) which consists of four 11.1 cm aperture telephoto lenses with unfiltered CCD cameras on a single rapidly slewing mount. It is capable of responding rapidly to alerts from the Gamma-ray Coordinates Network (GCN). In the case of GRB990123, the initial trigger was sent out on GCN well before the explosive rise in the gamma rays. Optical exposures were actually taken while the gamma-ray emission was still increasing. The ROTSE experiment detected extremely strong optical emission that increased rapidly from 12th to 9th magnitude, then faded with a power law decay during the burst (Akerlof et al. 1999b ). Other optical observations many hours later saw a continued power law decline beyond the initial ROTSE data (Bloom et al. (1999)).

Figure 1 shows the ROTSE optical observations overlaid on the BATSE time history of the gamma-ray emission. Both are plotted as Log-Log, an unusual way to present gamma-ray time histories. This presentation shows the power law decay of the optical data, and it allows one to see how the gamma-ray data tracks the optical emission. The gamma-ray envelope would also show a power law decay if, it too, were due to a relativistic shell. Interestingly, the gamma-ray emission does have an envelope that is similar to the optical envelope. However, one must be careful because the ROTSE observations were short compared to their separation, so only a few points within the time history are sampled. In fact, the optical emission could have closely mirrored the three main gamma-ray releases of energy (at 25, 37, 80 s) and ROTSE would not have resolved them. The potential similarity of the optical and gamma-ray envelopes means one cannot necessarily argue from the envelopes alone for a different origin.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the BATSE data to show that the fine time structure of the gamma-ray emission does not change during the burst as it should if the gamma rays originate on the decelerating shell as indicated by the optical emission. We find there is effectively no apparent deceleration in the gamma-ray source. Thus, we eliminate the only remaining external shock model for the gamma-rays and conclude that the gamma-rays in this source come from a central engine while the optical emission arises from decelerating external shocks.

## 2 VARIATION IN PULSE WIDTH IN GRB990123

In the early phase of the shell’s expansion, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is effectively constant ($`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$). Eventually, the shell begins to decelerate as it sweeps up the interstellar medium (ISM). Without detailed knowledge of the physical process that generates the gamma rays, it is not clear if the expansion is adiabatic or dominated by radiation losses. However, both solutions lead to a power law decay of the Lorentz factor (Sari, Piran, & Narayan (1998); Mészáros, Rees, & Wijers (1998); Rees & Mészáros (1998)). For typical parameters, the decay is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)T^{3/8}`$ although other indexes are possible (see Sari, Piran, & Narayan (1998); Mészáros, Rees, & Wijers (1998); Rees & Mészáros (1998)). Sari & Piran (1999a) predicted that the very early deceleration could be somewhat slower: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)T^{1/4}`$ in a long plateau before the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{3/8}`$ phase, although this depends on the initial conditions and was not observed in this burst.

The proper time for a gamma-ray pulse in our rest frame, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, should be measured by clocks placed in our rest frame at all emitting sites, clearly, an impossible task. Rather, we have one clock (i.e, the BATSE detector) that measures when the photons arrive at a single location in our rest frame. We denote the arrival time as $`T`$. Rather than a Lorentz transformation, these two “times” are related by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle between our line of sight and the region on the shell which is emitting. The relationship between time measured by a clock moving with the shell ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}`$) and our rest frame time is a Lorentz transformation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Thus, BATSE time is related to time measured in the rest frame of the shell as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}.$$
$`(1)`$   
Here, we have ignored cosmological terms because they do not introduce any differential effects.

The average profile of GRBs displays a fast rise and a slower decay. This profile is often abbreviated as a “FRED” (fast rise, exponential decay) although the actual average decay is linear (Fenimore (1999)). The fast rise indicates that the shell emits only over a small range of radii and one is observing emission from near the line of sight early in the burst. The slow decay is due to the late arrival of emission from regions off the line of sight. Using Equation (1) evaluated at $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, the later emission from a shell ought to have pulses that are about twice as long as the pulses at the beginning of the burst. If, in addition, the shell is slowing down, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ dependency would cause a commensurate increase in the pulse width. An analysis of 53 bright BATSE bursts showed that the pulse width is remarkably constant (a few percent) throughout the gamma-ray emitting phase of a GRB. That constancy strongly indicates that the only kinematically acceptable external shock model for the gamma-ray burst phase is one that has no deceleration and comes from a range of angles that is much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ (Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore (1999)).

The GRB990123 observations eliminate that last remaining external shock model. In this burst, we see an optical signal that peaks and decays during the gamma-ray emitting phase. Either would be a clear indication that the shell has started to deacelerate. In our previous work, we showed the lack of time variability two ways. First, we showed that the average aligned peaks of many bursts is virtually identical throughout the $`T_{90}`$ period. (Here, $`T_{90}`$ is the duration containing 90% of the gamma-ray photons.) Second, we used the fits to pulses by Norris et al. (1996) to show that there is no trend in individual bursts to have peaks wider late in the gamma-ray phase. Since GRB990123 is an individual burst, it would be best if the individual peaks were fit until all variations have been accounted for and then determine if a trend is present. However, the complexity of the overlap between peaks in GRB990123 would probably prevent fitting every peak (see Norris et al. (1996)).

To determine the variability of the time scale in GRB990123, we have analyzed four regions labeled A - D in Figure 1. In each region, we first removed the envelope of emission by subtracting the time history smoothed by a boxcar function (width = 2 sec). An autocorrelation of the residuals (see Fig. 2) has a width that is related to the average time structure in each region. If the pulses were, on average, wider later in the burst, one would observe autocorrelation functions for A - D that progressively get wider. Rather, sometimes A is wider, sometimes D is wider. The maximum spread of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{A}`$ when the autocorrelation is greater than 0.5, is only 1.15. However, when the autocorrelation function is 0.25, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{D}`$ is actually narrower than $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{A}`$, by a factor of $`1/1.15`$ (and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_B`$ are even narrower than $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{A}`$). On average, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{A}`$ is about unity and we are confident that its value is less than the maximum observed value of 1.15.

There are two sources of pulse width from an external shell: angular effects and deceleration. The pulse width at two times A and D are related as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{D}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{A}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{D}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{D})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{A}(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{A})}$$
$`(2)`$   
where $`\theta _\mathrm{D}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{A}`$ are the angles responsible for the emission. If the emission is from a relativistic shell that turns on for a short period after expanding away from the central site, then (from Eq.  of Fenimore, Madras, & Nayakshin (1996)):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{D})=\frac{T_\mathrm{D}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }T_0}$$
$`(3)`$   
where $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ must be measured from when the shell left the central site and $`T_0`$ is the time of the peak of the emission. During the afterglow, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)T^{3/8}`$ so

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{D}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{A}}=\left[\frac{T_\mathrm{D}}{T_\mathrm{A}}\right]^{11/8}.$$
$`(4)`$   
It is likely that the shell started to leave the central site at about the time when the first gamma rays were emitted. BATSE detected emission quite early in this burst, so we will use the BATSE time for $`T`$. Time period A is at $`45`$ s after the start and period D is at $`82`$ s. Based on this, we expect the pulse widths to increase by about a factor of 2.3, much larger than observed, and very easy to detect if it was present. Dermer & Mitman (1999) did detailed simulations of GRB pulses produced by external shocks on a decelerating shell. These simulations (e.g., Fig. 2 in Dermer & Mitman (1999)) show pulses that are, indeed, more than a factor of 2 wider late in the burst. This is not observed in most GRBs and not in GRB990123.

## 3 SURFACE FILLING FACTOR FOR GRB990123

Another argument against a shell model is given by an analysis of the “surface filling factor”. We define the surface filling factor as the fraction of the shell’s surface that becomes active. Let $`A_N`$ be the area of an emitting entity and $`N_N`$ be the number of entities that (randomly) become active during an observation period, $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. If $`A_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is the area of the shell that can contribute during $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, then the surface filling factor is

$$f=N_N\frac{A_N}{A_{\mathrm{obs}}}=N_N\frac{A_N}{\eta A_S}$$
$`(5)`$   
where $`\eta `$ is the fraction of the visible area of the shell ($`A_S`$) that contributes during the interval $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ (approximately 1). The rapid variations in GRB time histories imply emitting entities the size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{}c\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }T_p`$. Assuming a single expanding shell, these entities must form on a much larger surface, $`c\mathrm{\Gamma }T`$.

There are three cases. Case a is the constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ phase, case b is the initial deceleration when the size of the shell ($`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }`$) exceeds the radiation beaming angle, and case c is when the deceleration reduces the beaming such that the shell’s angular size is no longer larger than the beaming angle. For these cases, the filling factor is related to the observations by

$$f=\{\begin{array}{cc}N_N\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_p}{T}\right]^2\frac{1}{k\eta }\hfill & \text{case a: }\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\text{,}\hfill \\ N_N\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }^110^6\left[\frac{4\pi E_{54}}{\rho _0\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]^{1/4}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_p^2}{k\eta T^{5/4}}\hfill & \text{case b: }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }>2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)\text{,}\hfill \\ N_N\frac{0.07}{k\eta }\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T_p}{T}\right]^2\hfill & \text{case c: }\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }<2\pi (1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1)\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6)`$   
where $`k`$ is 16 if the pulses are the result of the shell interacting with ambient objects (e.g., clouds) and 13 for entities that undergo causally connected growth (e.g. shocks, see Fenimore et al. (1999) for details). Here, the term $`\frac{4\pi E_{54}}{\rho _0\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ relates the characteristics of the shell to how fast it slows down. $`E_{54}`$ is the kinetic energy of the shell in units of $`10^{54}`$ erg and $`\rho _0`$ is the density of the material the shell runs into.

Basically, $`N_N`$ is the number of individual peaks in the time history but, because peaks often overlap, one cannot just count the number of peaks. Rather, the number of entities can be estimated from the fluctuations in the time history under the assumption that the (non-counting statistics) fluctuations are due to a randomly varying number of underlying entities. In any random process, the square of the mean divided by the root-mean-square is approximately the rate of occurrence, $`\mu _N`$. We remove the envelope of emission (by either fitting a function or smoothing the time history), and determine $`\mu _N`$ from the fluctuations in the residuals. Then, $`N_N`$ is $`\mu _N\mathrm{\Delta }T_p/T`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_p`$ is the typical pulse width for which we use 0.3 s (from Fig. 2).

In Figure 3 we show the distribution of surface filling factors as a function of burst duration $`T_{50}`$ based on BATSE bursts. The solid squares are FRED-like bursts, and the open squares are long complex bursts. Although some of the smooth FRED-like bursts can have surface filling factors near unity, most bursts have values on the order of $`5\times 10^3`$.

The solid circle is the filling factor for GRB990123. We have used equation (6a) even though the optical emission indicates that the shell is decelerating. Equations (6b and c) are for decelerating shells and would give even smaller values. GRB990123 has a very typical value for the filling factor (0.008) implying that there are many fewer emitting entities than the minimum number of possible emitting sites. This forces one to conclude that the gamma-ray emitting shell must have angular structure much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ and that only a portion of the shell becomes gamma-ray active. It does not, however, necessarily indicate that more energy is needed in the reservoir (Fenimore et al. (1999)).

## 4 DISCUSSION

Although 9th magnitude optical emission seems incredible from an object at $`z1.6`$, it was predicted a few weeks before the event (Sari & Piran 1999a ). The low time resolution of the ROTSE data prevents detailed comparisons to the theory, but the agreement is remarkable. Sari & Piran (1999a) predicted early optical emission of up to 7th magnitude, and ROTSE saw at least 8.95 in this burst. They also predicted a fast rise with a power law slope of up to 3.7, and the first two ROTSE points can be connected by a power law with a 3.5 index. The ROTSE optical peak is at 45 s from the start of the event and Sari & Piran (1999a) predicted 30 to 50 seconds, depending on the initial Lorentz factor. The agreement is not perfect, however. They predict peak times of 30 - 50 s for short bursts whereas this is a long burst. Much better agremment is achievable with the proper selection of parameters (Sari & Piran 1999b ). Nevertheless, we feel that the points of agreement that exist with the theory are additional evidence that there is a decelerating external shock during the gamma-ray phase.

If the gamma rays are produced with an external shock, the resulting pulse width should increase. Analyses of previous bursts showed no such trend forcing one to conclude that the only viable external shock model had to involve very narrow shells and no deceleration (Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore (1999)). GRB990123 appears to be a normal GRB, with normal time variations as witnessed by a normal filling factor (see Fig. 3). From the optical and gamma-ray data, we estimate that the pulse width should increase by about a factor of 2.3 from a combination of angular and deceleration effects. Averages from many bursts show an increase of only a few percent (Ramirez-Ruiz & Fenimore (1999)). From this single burst, we find changes less than 15% (see Fig. 2). We conclude that the gamma-rays are not coming from the decelerating shell but from the central site.

We have shown that the source region for the gamma rays must be small to explain the variability. Since our limitation is based on kinematics, we cannot comment on the physical process that generates that gamma-ray phase. In particular, we cannot say that internal shocks are the origin of the gamma rays. However, internal shocks from a wind seem to require large variations in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the shells that collide ($``$ a factor of 2). It is surprising that such a large variation produces no effects on the resulting pulse widths. Thus, we conclude that the source is small (a “central engine”) but not that it is necessarily powered by internal shocks.

We thank Galen Gisler and Hui Li for useful comments on this manuscript. Gerry Fishman and the BATSE team provided the GRB990123 time history. This work was done under the auspices of the US Department of Energy.       

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3